3D real property in vertical mixed-use developments. A comparative analysis of common property and management aspects in selected jurisdictions – The case of British Columbia, Denmark and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jurisdictions around the world are experiencing an increasing demand for formation of three-dimensional (3D) real property units, especially in the presence of vertical mixed-use developments. Since traditional real property formation is only in two dimensions (2D), jurisdictions are on different steps (levels) of transforming 2D real property legislation into 3D real property legislation. The objective of this article is to analyse and compare law and practice in jurisdictions that are on different steps of developing 3D real property legislation, but otherwise comparable in terms of societal development status. The predominant focus in academic literature is on formation of private 3D property rights. This paper has a somewhat different approach, focussing on formation and management of common property. The formation of common property is usually unavoidable in a vertical mixed-use development, e.g. due to a high degree of interdependence between layered and intertwined 3D property units. Legal aspects regarding common property formation and management have not been rigorously compared internationally. This article presents a comparative study including British Columbia (Canada), Denmark and Sweden. Each jurisdiction represents a unique step on the 3D transformation staircase where legal aspects regarding common property and management in each jurisdiction is analysed and presented. The results of the study can be beneficial for researchers and legislators as a tool to analyse 3D real property legislation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".