Housing beyond the market municipal tools for promoting non-profit housing in Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The housing crisis in Montréal has been intensifying in recent years, with many households struggling to find affordable places to live.Non-profit housing providers play a crucial role in addressing this problem, but they are limited by a system that favors private-for-profit developments.Although the Ville de Montréal has implemented various policies and strategies to address diverse housing needs in recent decades, further action is required to support the development of non-profit housing.This Supervised Research Project argues that despite their limited financial means, Canadian municipal governments have various policy tools at their disposal to foster a more supportive development environment for non-profit builders.This study provides an overview of housing affordability in the Montréal context, situating the need for non-market housing alternatives as well as offering insight into the history of non-market housing in Québec and the changing roles of municipal government.Barriers now limiting the production of non-profit housing are reviewed and compared with insights arising from two workshops with non-profit housing actors in Montréal.The study examines various policy tools successfully used by local governments across Canada and farther afield to improve the production of nonprofit housing.By way of synthesis, a set of policy recommendations are made for the Ville de Montréal that should help to support the development of more non-profit housing across the city. RésuméLa crise du logement à Montréal s'intensifie depuis ces dernières années, avec de nombreux ménages qui ont des difficultés à trouver un logement abordable.Les promoteurs de logements à but non-lucratif jouent un rôle essentiel dans la résolution de ce problème, mais ils sont limités par un système qui favorise les développements à but lucratif.Bien que la ville de Montréal ait mis en place différentes politiques et stratégies pour répondre aux divers besoins en matière de logement, d'autres mesures sont nécessaires pour soutenir le développement du logement à but non lucratif.Malgré ses moyens financiers limités, ce projet de recherche étudie le principe selon lequel les gouvernements municipaux disposent de divers outils politiques pouvant encourager un environnement de développement plus favorable aux promoteurs de logements sans but lucratif.Pour débuter, cette étude donne un aperçu du contexte d'accessibilité au logement à Montréal, ainsi que de l'importance de trouver des solutions de logement hors marché.Elle donne ensuite un aperçu de l'historique du logement hors marché au Québec et du rôle du gouvernement municipal.En poursuivant, la troisième section de ce projet identifie les barrières qui limitent la production de logements à but non-lucratif et documente les idées issues de deux ateliers en compagnie de quelques promoteurs Montréalais.Entre autres, elle examine divers outils politiques utilisés par d'autres municipalités en Amérique du Nord et à l'étranger qui ont promu efficacement le logement à but nonlucratif.Enfin, ce projet se termine par quatre recommandations politiques pour la ville de Montréal qui ont pour but d'aider à soutenir le développement de logements à but non-lucratif.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".