New Urbanism in Practice: An Analysis of Five Greater Montreal Area Neighbourhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With every year that passes, New Urbanism continues to build its reputation as a leadingstyle of planning that focuses on sustainable development and alternative modes oftransportation. This research concerns five large‐scale residential projects in Montréal that possess certain qualities that are associated with New Urbanism. Through the analysis ofsite plans, site visits, interviews and a study of secondary literature, these five study sites were compared to each other and evaluated against a set of New Urbanist criteria. The objectives of this research were, on the one hand, to assess which development meets these criteria sufficiently in order to be considered New Urbansit and, on the other hand, to see whether, in light of the analysis, some elements in the list of New Urbanist criteria should be changed, removed or added. The analysis revealed that three of the five projets met the criteria of New Urbanism. Faubourg Boisbriand received the highest score, while Bois‐Franc, a project that is already recognized as New Urbanist, scored the lowest of the three sites; Griffintown’s score fell in between. Angus Park and Nuns’ Island both failed to meet sufficient criteria and thus cannot be seen as New Urbanist developments. Of the eight criteria, those pertaining to alternative transportation modes and quality of architecture and designed were less likely to be met, while those pertaining to sustainable developmentand a mix of housing types were respected in almost all of the projects. The analysis also showed that LEED Certification should be added under the sustainable development principle and that the mixed use and diversity principle should call for the inclusiong of acertain amount of affordable housing.
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 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".