Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the construction, renovation, and demolition sectors are increasingly responsible for growing resource demand and structural waste, even given progress in energy efficient technologies, 'green' building design, and local planning regulations. In response, the Circular Economy has become a popular agenda in the construction, renovation, and demolition sector as it offers a new model that not only maximizes materials reuse and recovery but also reframes urban systems and the built environment in a closed-loop (cradle-to-cradle) paradigm. In particular, popular visions of the Circular Economy promote, among other actions, 'optimizing' the end-of-the-life of buildings and their materials. Deconstruction (i.e. piece-by-piece demolition) is one key optimization strategy that has received increasing, yet limited, attention by researchers. This paper traces the development of an incipient deconstruction sector in Vancouver, focusing on the possibilities and challenges of deconstruction and material recovery practices as viable strategies for a transformative Circular Economy. I investigate two related aspects: first, the emerging policy landscape surrounding green demolition, and second, the development of 'unbuilding' practices and more formal 'Deconstruction Hubs'. Overall, the paper finds that while these developments represent fundamental steps towards a more sustainable built environment, there remain a number of significant social, political and economic limitations that must be confronted if we are to meet the growing demands for more radical sustainability and 'circularity' not only in Canadian construction, renovation, and demolition sectors, but across Canadian cities and beyond.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".