Effectiveness of density bonusing in securing affordable housing: a study of Toronto downtown and waterfront area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, Downtown and Central Waterfront area (the Area), through density bonusing/Section 37 agreements, has seen many condominium developments. In the situation of limited funding source available to municipalities, Toronto has used density bonusing as an effective incentive tool for securing the most needed community benefits from developers, in exchange for height/density beyond the prevailing by-laws. However, although the priority of density bonusing is to encourage/expand the growth of affordable housing in the City, due to some limitations to the tool, the extraction of affordable housing units from major condominium developments in the Area has been restricted. Based on literature review, a study of the City's data on projects approved for density bonusing in the Area, and a comparative study with Vancouver Downtown, this paper addresses several concerns about density bonusing. Finally, this paper puts forward a list of recommendations for the City to consider while dealing with the growing issues with the existing density bonusing policies for better inclusion of affordable housing in condominium developments in the Area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".