Making Home for Vancouverites: An Incremental Approach to Vancouver's Missing Middle and Affordability Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current housing landscape in Vancouver is characterized by exorbitant housing costs and low rental vacancies, posing great challenges to quality of life and urban vitality. This reality is formed by the urban manifestation of the so-called livable city implemented in the post-industrial era to establish Vancouver as a global metropolitan. The strategy was effective in marketing the city to the world, but inadvertently, it also sowed the seed for the manifestation of an entrenched and deeply unaffordable housing climate witnessed today. \nOne of the underlying conditions for the housing challenge in the city is the lack of adequate supply. Current policies have limited housing stock to two dominant typologies - detached single family homes and high-rise condominiums. The existing zoning regulation in Vancouver continues to restrict a sizable portion of underused residential land to the development of low density detached housing schemes. As a result, the city’s housing crisis continues to deepen and in breath and scale. \nThe solution to the persistent challenge of unaffordability calls for a shift towards broad scale up-zoning of low-density residential neighbourhoods in the city. This thesis focuses on a proposal to incrementally densify Vancouver’s yellow belt, to increase housing stock diversity and ultimately address issues of affordability. The design portion of this thesis will consist of a design synthesis followed by three proposals developed upon existing housing typologies to contextualize the potential of small lot interventions. The objective of this thesis is not to present an all encompassing solution to the city’s complex housing problem; but rather to facilitate a broader discussion on how to up-zone Vancouver’s yellow belt and create greater housing affordability for Vancouverites.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".