How the Community Planning Association of Canada Influenced the Development of Planning in Canada, 1946-1964
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Community Planning Association of Canada (CPAC) was influential in the development of Canadian planning and best practices between 1946 and 1964. The Community Planning Association of Canada was formed by Central (now Canada) Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) from professionals, politicians, and concerned citizens united by a common need to educate and promote community planning in Canada. \nThis report illustrates the CPAC’s role in the immediate post-war period (between approximately 1946 and 1964) on the Canadian landscape through physical planning and on the planning profession itself. Examination of the national offices financial records shows that the CPAC was largely dependent on funding from CMHC and that the largest expense was for publications and employees. As a result, this report focuses on the publications and the staff of the national office. \nAnalysis of the actions, actors and interests of the CPAC reveals that the CPAC was interested in three areas in the post-war period. First, the CPAC educated the public on the benefits of good subdivision and community design principles; the strongest tools used to promote these principles were the CPAC’s regular periodicals and special publications, such as Harold Spence-Sales’ How to Subdivide. Second, the CPAC determined that there was an inadequate supply of qualified planning professionals in Canada in the immediate post-war period, and introduced post-secondary educational opportunities to ameliorate this dearth. Third, the CPAC lobbied for better planning education and enabling legislation across Canada. \nThere are two large scale implications of realizing the CPAC’s role in the development of planning in post-war Canada. First, the CPAC provided tools for the public to advocate for a high standard of community design in the post-war housing boom, generating desire for suburban living. Second, the CPAC and CMHC had an incredibly close relationship during the immediate post-war period with CMHC; as a result, CMHC determined to some extent the planning principles that were encouraged and discouraged in the CPAC’s activities. For better or for worse, the CPAC aided in the proliferation of community planning in Canada in the post-war period.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".