Regulations in Planning Understanding the Relationship of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Housing Affordability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper explores what impacts regional regulation, and the resulting planning process, has on ground-related housing. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) is a significant regulation requiring evaluation. It has been suggested that density targets mandated by the Growth Plan have continuously decreased the supply of ground-related housing in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The combination of regional regulations and the time of processing development applications play an important role in understanding changes in housing supply. A case study of York Region displayed this concept, such that the requirements of the Province, and the resulting changes to the planning system for the Region, has contributed to decreases in supply of ground-related housing. Prices continue to rise due to increasing demand for the housing type. This research suggests four recommendations for the Proposed Growth Plan to increase the inventory of ground-related housing: 1) reducing density targets, 2) realigning the planning process to reduce time lag, 3) observing market demand, and 4) removing a one-size-fits-all policy which currently exists within the Growth Plan.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".