Rethinking suburban power retail: A redevelopment plan for a power centre in Cambridge, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power retail first came to Canada in 1987, and has since come to dominate the suburban retail landscape. With more than 487 power centres nationwide, these large, isolated developments are symptomatic of larger suburban problems: they generate traffic congestion, they are not accessible to those without cars, they have negative consequences on the environment, and they are unattractive. As cities enter the 21st century, many governments have introduced policies to stop suburban sprawl by focussing on the redevelopment of existing areas. [...] Using primary and secondary sources, this paper tracks the history of power retail in Canada and how it interacts with the suburban landscape. Then, a number of retrofitting urban design techniques are examined with respect to how they were used in real projects. This leads to a redevelopment plan for a power centre in Cambridge, Ontario, that is retrofitted to a mixed-use, transit-oriented neighbourhood that can serve as a benchmark for the city to reach its growth targets. The redevelopment plan was fiscally evaluated using pro-forma, which results in a profitable development for the private sector.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.006 |
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".