The financialization of Transit Oriented Development in York South Weston, Toronto, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a form of planning that has dominated the discourse around sustainable development in cities. Where transit investment is met with higher density housing and commercial land uses, there has been little attention given to the actors who participate in this form of development. This thesis aims to explore the link between TOD and the financialization of housing, commercial land uses, and development in general. The purview of this study is based on the presence of the new Line 5 – Eglinton Crosstown, a new Light Rail Transit line in Toronto, Ontario. The line passes through a ward in the city that has various indicators suggesting various social issues, York South Weston (Ward 5). In this area, there has been material development activity to warrant discussion on who TOD really serves. \n \nThis study is based on quantitative and qualitative information available pertaining to developments and properties in proximity to the new transit line. Using City of Toronto development information, information about the Landlords and property owners who have submitted development applications in and around the transit line is analyzed, with various factors considered. Additionally, information about REITs and other financialized players (Private Equity, Development companies, etc.) is analyzed to determine if there is heightened activity related to TOD in Toronto, and potentially within York South Weston. The findings from this study aim to add to the discourse on TOD and namely if financialized players view this style of development as favourable and profitable. The main research questions are centered around how TOD affects lower income people in these areas, and what can be done to curtail any intended or unintended negative externalities generated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".