The relationship of historic city form and contemporary greenway implementation: a comparison of Milwaukee,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many cities in North America are attempting to implement connected greenway networks. Some are building on sparse existing open space resources. Other metropolitan areas, like Milwaukee, Wisconsin (US) and Ottawa, Ontario (Canada), have an impressive historic open space framework on which to build. However, neither city is well known for progressive, contemporary greenway planning efforts. This research asks two main questions. First, how have early city planning efforts affected the pattern of connected greenway systems currently in place in these cities? To address this question, the history of open space planning and the physical change in greenway development is assessed over time. Second, what institutional structures are currently used to implement connected greenways, and how do they relate to the historic fabric? Organizational structures, inter-governmental cooperation, leadership and advocacy, and greenway objectives are compared in order to assess the degree to which a regional vision is being pursued. This project is based on comparative case study research. Qualitative techniques are used to develop in-depth cases. Findings show that Milwaukee and Ottawa have remarkable historic corridors to build from, especially in parkways planned along urban rivers in the early 20th century. This analysis shows, however, that contemporary collaboration around regional greenways planning is piecemeal, that greenway objectives have changed over time in important ways, and that coordinated greenway visions are lacking. Finally, both Milwaukee and Ottawa seem poised for integrated greenways programs, accelerated by innovative experimental projects, increasing environmental awareness, and growing institutional capacity. This research has relevance to the growing literature in greenway planning and implementation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".