Volumetric Subdivision and the Architectures of Property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Henry Smith’s influential architectural or modular theory of property places things, defined by the right to exclude, at its core. Property as “The Law of Things” relies on an exclusionary strategy, augmented with governance strategies that delineate particular rights of use, to define owned things and to enable their uses. This Article considers that claim and Smith’s call for multi-dimensional theorizing that accounts for property in “the real world” and “in real life” through an analysis of the increasingly common practice of volumetric subdivision to produce three-dimensional property. Focussing on the statutory frameworks in the Canadian province of British Columbia, this Article describes the practice of subdividing land into air space parcels and then into condominium lots. The three-dimensional properties that emerge are embedded within condominium and, further, within air space parcel agreements that use easements and covenants to define legal relationships, including rights of access and support, obligations for repair, and provisions for cost-sharing and dispute resolution. This Article argues that the air space parcel and condominium frameworks are becoming the applied architecture of property and that Smith’s modular theory, with its emphasis on the things of property and the right to exclude, does not provide a satisfactory account of the property that they produce. However, in dealing with the emerging and, in some instances, almost unintelligible complexity, the Article turns back to the work of Smith and others in concluding that interests which are produced and represented as property should be placed within structures that conform with principles that animate the law of property.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".