“Vancouver’s Favourite Country Music Pub,” Single Room Occupancy Hotels, and the Context of International Frameworks: Mapping Vancouver’s Urban Law and Cultural Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public and private spaces of cities, their design, and the urban law and policy that shapes the lived spaces within cities provides a potent example of overlapping and often contested heritage(s) and heritage spaces that may have built heritage merit, may carry a high intangible value as gathering spaces for art, culture, and performance, or may be both characterized by their tangible and intangible heritage merit. The layers of diverging, contested, or interwoven heritage within the same urban spaces can diverge in what they mean to a group, community, or individual. They may represent significant moments of architectural grandeur, cultural capital, celebration, significant moments of horror that teeter within desires to forget their existence, or they may also represent a space for future cultural flourishing and community growth. Heritage space within a city may be less conventional than existing legal frameworks for assessing cultural heritage, value, or merit permit, and heritage assets can take numerous shapes involving sight, sound, smell, movement, and so on. This expanded and more inclusive manner of understanding the many iterations of what heritage can be in a city and what heritage spaces can signify for the many urban denizens and stakeholders who find meaning and community within the “third places” of a city, creates a complex web within which urban law and policy must navigate.\nIn addition to the mechanics of heritage preservation assessments and processes (and the laws and legislation surrounding cultural heritage protection) cities are increasingly developing neighbourhood plans and strategic cultural plans that engage with and shape how cultural heritage is understood, protected (or not protected), encouraged, or even strategically commodified in a city and neighbourhood. Whether or not these plans ultimately accomplish their purported goals is still unclear. Focusing on the case of Vancouver, Canada, this Article will explore the role of local cultural policy documents and cultural plans in localizing international frameworks and calls to action for the inclusive management, sustainable (re)development, and navigation of dissonant and overlapping cultural heritage spaces at the local city and neighbourhood level.3 After a general description of Vancouver, this Article will first give a brief overview of applicable international frameworks for inclusive heritage management and preservation. It will then describe a number of neighbourhoods within Vancouver’s Eastside and examine Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside Plan. Finally, it will turn to Vancouver’s newly adopted cultural plan for 2020–2029, Culture|Shift: Blanketing the City in Arts & Culture, its associated documents, and how these documents navigate urban cultural heritage matters and some of the “third places” of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. This analysis aims to identify the particular policies that take strides towards localizing the international frameworks for inclusive heritage management and preservation introduced earlier in the Article.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".