Urban Renewal as Conservative Surgery: The Role of Urban Renewal in the Development of Rideau Heights between 1952-1973
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report examines the changes in the urban renewal plan for the redevelopment of the Rideau Heights neighbourhood in Kingston, Ontario. The analysis begins in 1952, when Rideau Heights was annexed by the City of Kingston and efforts to remedy the “blight” conditions of the community began. The analysis will conclude in 1973, when the legislation for the federal Urban Renewal Program was repealed by the federal government and replaced with the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. This report uses a single case study approach, using archival research and analysis methods with the goal of creating a more in depth understanding of the role urban renewal had in the development of the neighbourhood. The City of Kingston’s archival documents, as well as archival newspaper articles from the Kingston Whig Standard, were used to create a chronology, found in Appendix 1, which informed this report’s analysis of the Rideau Heights Redevelopment Project. The report finds that urban renewal plan went through numerous iterations, originally spanning a much larger area than what is included in the final version of the plan. Unlike most urban renewal projects in Canada, and North America as a whole, The Rideau Heights project constituted an unusual approach to urban renewal compared to other North American cities. Rather than raze the entire area and replace housing entirely with social housing, the final urban renewal project in Rideau Heights aimed to conserve as many homes as possible, even planning to move homes to fit the new plan of subdivision. This was a long-term planning project which went through numerous iterations as the objective of the plan evolved. The urban renewal project in Rideau Heights resulted in the neighbourhood undergoing major changes between 1952 and 1973, becoming almost unrecognisable within the 21-year period analyzed in this report.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".