Planning the Future of Toronto’s In-Between City: Is Zoning the Problem or the Solution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I examine mid-century high-rise apartments in Toronto, Canada.I analyze how diverse private and public actors define and plan their impending renewal.And question how effective the new Residential Apartment Commercial Zone will be in creating more complete apartment tower communities.The City of Toronto currently has 1,189 mid-century high-rise residential apartment towers housing over half a million people, representing more than thirty percent of Toronto's total households (Young, 2011).Socially, vertical apartment neighbourhoods are Toronto's most culturally diverse and socially mixed communities (Young, 2011).And compared to the city's housing stock as a whole, high-rise residential towers provide the most spacious, and relatively inexpensive rental units in the city.Toronto's mid-century high rise residential towers were constructed with strict building codes.When appropriately maintained and renewed once every fifty years, most towers are expected to last at least another 200 years (Stewart and Thorne, 2010).This current era marks their first cycle of renewal, with most towers requiring retrofits to reduce energy consumption, modernize shared spaces and improve aesthetics.Some involve larger projects to resolve structural issues that most likely resulted from owners not performing routine maintenance.Mid-century high-rise residential towers are scattered in clusters across the periphery of the City of Toronto; they were planned and built-in hybrid-built environments that form somewhat of an in-between city (Young, 2011).They are mostly located in unique, mixed landscapes with highrise private and public housing surrounded by two-story houses, vast parklands, schools, plazas, malls, highways and post-secondary institutions.The vast majority are owned and managed by private corporations (Stewart, 2007).i support.The paper would not be possible without your guidance, motivation and kind words.To my advisor, Professor Ute Lehrer, thank you so much for guiding me through this program.You saw potential in me from the start and accepted me for who I am.Your advice and wisdom have helped me immensely in and out of school.I can't thank you enough for allowing me into the Spring Institute and inviting me to join a group of intellectuals in Florence and Milan, Italy.I will never forget those great times
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.010 |
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".