Facilitating the integration of planning and development for downtown revitalization: CentreVenture’s involvement in the redevelopment of downtown Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Downtowns contribute significantly to the economy of cities and as a result, decision makers are increasingly recognizing the fundamental value and importance of maintaining viable downtown cores. Following the post-war era of urban decay and suburban expansion, there have been widespread attempts nationwide to reverse trends and to revitalize downtowns. In the Winnipeg context, urban renewal was practiced throughout the 1960s and 1970s; tripartite agreements were utilized during the 1980s; and development corporations were introduced throughout the 1980s and 1990s as a way to encourage private sector investment with targeted public sector investments. This practicum investigates the relationship between planning and development in the downtown revitalization context. In particular, this research aims to discover the extent to which a downtown development agency may have facilitated the better integration of planning and development in a city’s downtown, where revitalization has been very much on the public agenda. Winnipeg’s CentreVenture Development Corporation was used as a case study to explore this relationship. It was established in 1999 and continues to operate today. This paper attempts to determine the extent of its involvement, and the manner by which this arms-length government agency has aided and influenced tangible development in Winnipeg’s downtown. Furthermore, the case study was used to understand the nature, scope and form of related downtown revitalization, and to distill any learning about the general topic that might be applicable in other comparable settings. The practicum concludes by providing potentially transferable best practices to cities with similar characteristics and with recommendations for both CentreVenture Development Corporation and its shareholder, the City of Winnipeg.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".