VREG Blog

Join us on the evening of Wednesday, June 19, 2024 for a discussion on the ways in which people in Vancouver are ‘gardening the streets’ and helping to turn roadways into verdant and vibrant public spaces. The event features two presentations – one longer, one shorter – that touch on the practice of transforming streets into beautiful green spaces. The event will also showcase some of the programs and opportunities that community members can access to take a turn at ‘greening’ our city streets and improving local public space. Joining us for the evening are: SABA FARMAND – a landscape architect and arborist. In 2019 he started documenting the many ways that community members have been stewarding street and boulevard gardens. His @eastvan_blvd_gardens instagram account project has almost 5,000 followers and has led to several successful walking tours and speaking events. ROSINA CUK – a horticulturalist and arborist who has been managing the boulevard garden on Heather and 16th and the traffic circle on Heather and 18th for the past five years. Presentations will be followed by an open conversation with audience members. Bring your questions and ideas and join in the discussion! Gardening the Streets is the first event in the VPSN’s Access Public Space series, which explores the overall accessibility – physical, economic, cultural, etc. – of the city’s open spaces, streets and civic buildings to community members and visitors. The event is FREE, but registration is required . Some light snacks will be available. * * * * * Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House (MPNH) Accessibility MPNH is located one block away from the 99 B-Line, and the #8 and #9 buses. The first and second floors are fully wheelchair accessible. There are single stall, all-gender, wheelchair accessible washrooms on the first and second floors, as well as multi-stall gendered washrooms. MPNH is a scent-reduced space to help support the wellbeing of neighbours with sensitivities. The House offers free WiFi for guests, which may impact those with electromagnetic sensitivities.

You may have heard that Postmedia Network Canada Corporation donated approximately 5.6 million Vancouver Sun and The Province photographic negatives to the Archives in 2017. You may have also heard that around this time last year, 25,000 Vancouver Sun photo assignments (out of 250,000 in the whole donation) became available for searching on our online database. You may even be one of the many researchers who in the past year has accessed and viewed these negatives in person in our Reading Room. But do you know the steps involved in making those negatives available for viewing? Well, if not, you’re in luck! In honour of achieving a milestone 50,000 photo assignments available (that’s over 1.1 million images!), we’d like to give you a glimpse of the work that goes on behind the scenes to make this happen. The “Before” state—a banker’s box full of photo assignment envelopes The journey begins with a banker’s box. A peek inside reveals approximately 1,800 tightly-packed envelopes, each representing a single photo assignment given to a Sun photographer. These envelopes are taken out of the banker’s box in batches, making the processing more manageable. Each envelope is given a unique identifier, which becomes its reference code in our database. Stamping the first part of the identifier, ‘AM1616-S1-F,’ helps speed up the process, as all envelopes in this series will have this same eleven-character ID reflecting the fonds (AM1616) and series (S1) numbers. The six-digit file number portion of the identifier (that comes after the ‘F’) is handwritten in pencil and is unique within the series, with numbers assigned sequentially. The envelope for file AM1616-S1-F077888 After assigning the envelopes their identifiers, we count the number of images contained in each envelope and record that data in a spreadsheet. Each envelope may contain anywhere from fewer than 10 to more than 100 images on strips three frames long, for an average of 22.4 images per envelope. Counting the frames The rest of the information contained on each envelope is transcribed into the spreadsheet, including the assignment title or description of the assignment, the photographer’s name, the date, and if present, the “twincheck” number assigned by the Sun librarians when originally filing the negatives. Other information that is required to make fully standards-compliant file-level descriptions is also added. So much metadata After all of this metadata is captured, the envelopes are transferred to a new, acid-free Hollinger box. Once full, the box is labeled with the AM1616 fonds number, a unique container name and a barcode representing the container name. A full box, labeled and ready to travel The box is now ready for its trip to its new permanent home in one of our frozen storage vaults. To help the contents of the box slowly acclimatize to the -18 Celsius environment of the vault, the box is placed in a cooler bag and the cooler goes into the vault. After 24 hours, the box is removed from the cooler and placed in one of the sealed frozen storage cabinets, where it resides until someone asks to see some of the negatives. Inside a frozen storage vault Meanwhile, envelope metadata continues to be added to the spreadsheet and, when 2,500 envelopes have been entered, the spreadsheet undergoes a quality control check. We look for logical places to split very long descriptions, for glaring typographical errors and for any issues flagged during transcription. We also check for offensive or discriminatory language that is reflective of the time period in which the photographs were taken and of the attitudes of the creator. In these cases, we retain the newspaper staff’s original descriptions in order to keep the historical context of creation, but we will supply updated and/or more accurate terminology. When the quality control work is complete, the spreadsheet data is uploaded to our database and the new file-level descriptions are ready for searching by the public. Search result for “Sonny and Cher” The full file-level description of the images of Sonny and Cher when they played the Coliseum. Reference Code: AM1616-S1-F009500 Here’s a video of what this whole process looks like. As we mention in the video, to view the images, we need 48 hours’ notice, so we can repeat the negatives’ journey in reverse. Once we have a retrieval request in hand, we will pull the relevant envelope from its box and place the envelope in a plastic zip lock bag. The box is placed in the cooler bag and the cooler is brought to our preservation lab to allow the negatives to slowly acclimatize to room temperature. Once thawed, the negatives can be viewed in our reading room on a light table. Viewing the negatives If you need any assistance in finding Sun photographs relating to your research interest, or would like a photo assignment retrieved, please contact us at archives@vancouver.ca or 604-736-8561. The Reference team will be happy to help. 200,000 more envelopes to go!

Ayurvedic drugs are popularly known to offer natural means of healing and maintaining good health. Ayurveda’s Philosophy was founded on the principle that for a healthy living and prevention of diseases, there is a need to balance mind, body and soul. How to achieving good health using Ayurvedic medicine Ayurveda provides immune boosting drugs while decreasing possibilities of getting many diseases. Strong immunity is fundamental to good health according to Ayurveda because it prevents the occurrence of disease causing agents. These herbs are helpful because they serve as immunomodulators or immunostimulants by regulating immunopathology that enhances antigen specific immune response. For instance, these herbs can be given when one is suffering from a common cold or influenza respiratory infection so that their defense system can be provoked. Also, other than helping digestion and protection of immunity levels, other ways exist in ayurvedic medicine for handling chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and arthritis among others besides; its medicinal plants have been used traditionally for this purpose which is meant for lowering blood sugar levels through improved insulin sensitivity thereby reducing chances of having diabetes. Others help lower high pressure thereby improving cardiovascular performance. For example, Stinging nettles might be suggested frequently due to mild diuretic effects making them more useful in enhancing kidney function hence less renal complications arising from hypertensive individuals. Further still; these herbs are believed to contain analgesics as well anti-inflammatory substances, while being beneficial even for patients with arthritis. Psychological balance affects overall physical fitness; therefore stress anxiety and depression are common features in everyday life today. The effect was first observed on medicinal plants exerting neuro protective effects a long time ago. Some plants improve memory capacity, concentration powers and reduce anxiety thus enabling relaxation. For instance women would benefit greatly from taking Ayurvedic Medicines . It helps ladies at times like menstrual cycle problems, menopause and during pregnancy stages in their life. Some common herbs are well known to regulate menstrual cycles hence increase chances of conceiving while reducing pain associated with it. Traditional medicine men ensure the healthy growth of pregnancy thus making a successful labor period inevitable through various plants. Therefore, certain women that might be having hot flashes or vaginal dryness sometimes accompanied by mood swings during menopause may take some herbs. Ayurvedic herbs could be quite potent; hence in some instances they can interact with other drug products or contraindicated patients’ conditions. For example, it is important to have the right doses and rates of administration as well as use appropriate drugs that are genuine so as to achieve safe therapeutic results throughout the process. Additionally these remedies ought not to replace mainstream medical care but rather should be considered supplements for the mainline treatment approaches used. Summarizing Ayurveda medications serve different purposes which include enhancing digestion processes, immunity boosting, treating chronic infections and mental health promotion among females. Nevertheless, research studies, teaching and working together between medical practitioners will help sustain safety and efficiency of these traditional healing techniques as more integrative health services are incorporated into the contemporary healthcare systems.

In March, I was fortunate to attend the annual Association of Architecture School Librarians (AASL) conference held this year in Vancouver. The conference walking tour started at Robson Square and ended at the Woodward’s Redevelopment, taking in Waterfront Station and the surrounding area. Photo by Bronwyn Smyth The conference began on a Wednesday afternoon with a walking tour given by Alasdair Butcher of Vancouver Detours, who eloquently brought to life the many aspects of Vancouver’s historical, architectural and social history of the area. It was refreshing to join a tour in my own city, as I was able to see it through new eyes, as well as make alive some of the records I have helped researchers access at the Archives. As much as I often think about the built environment as I move through the city on a daily basis, the tour gave me new insights into architectural design and urban planning which I had not previously noticed, nor considered. Given the nature of the conference, it seemed fitting that the view from the main conference venue, The WALL Centre, so nicely captured a range of Vancouver architectural styles. Photo by Bronwyn Smyth The following three days were filled with sessions, punctuated by explorations of some architecturally and historically significant buildings and areas in and around Vancouver. The sessions themselves ranged from speaking about instructor-librarian collaborations to architectural archives programs to how architecture and design instructors and information professionals are engaging with artificial intelligence. It was interesting to hear how instructors in the design field are bringing AI into their classrooms and studios. Many of these AI-specific sessions discussed the use of AI in course assignments where the point was to prompt discussion around its biases, limitations and ethical issues, but also its potential in the design arena. Ceiling details in the lobby of the Marine Building. Photo by Bronwyn Smyth Paula Farrar, the UBC Art and Architectural Librarian and one of the conference organisers, acted as an excellent tour guide for the rest of the conference. We visited Granville Island, the Marine Building, the Shipyards District, and UBC. The Marine Building, of course, was a highlight. It is always a delight to spend time in the lobby and mezzanine appreciating the fine Art Deco designs, especially with other information professionals who very much appreciate architecture! The Saturday sessions were held at UBC, with two workshops and tours of both the Music, Art and Architecture Library and the X̱wi7x̱wa Library. Attendees enjoying the visit to the Marine Building. Photo by Bronwyn Smyth Attendees enjoying a tour of the UBC Music, Art and Architecture Library given by Paula Farrar. Photo by Bronwyn Smyth As with most conferences I have attended, I found the sessions provided great information, but the richness in any conference is found in the conversations with fellow attendees, whether it is discussing the challenges and opportunities that one faces at work, how much metadata should be added to record descriptions, or how to meet the needs of researchers. *************************************************************************************************************** Fun side note: The Archives has a copy of the Marine Building blueprints, elevations of which are available to view in our Reading Room. Changes in the final design of the structure can be seen by the different cap that was built compared to that found in the blueprints. The Archives also has a promotional booklet printed to celebrate the opening of the Marine Building. The top of the Marine Building as-built, and as seen in the 1970s. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-13657 Elevation drawing of the Marine Building by McCarter & Nairne, 1929. Reference code: COV-S393-1-AP-0133 Front and back cover of promotional booklet for the Marine Building, 1930. Reference code: AM1519-: PAM 1930-78

This is part 2 of a two-part series sharing Op-Eds I wrote for my Law 432.D course titled “Accountable Computer Systems.” This blog will likely go up on the course website in the near future but as I am hoping to speak to and reference things I have written for a presentations coming up, I am sharing here, first. This blog discusses the hot topic of ‘humans in the loop’ for automated decision-making systems [ADM]. As you will see from this Op-Ed, I am quite critical of our current Canadian Government self-regulatory regime’s treatment of this concept. As a side note, there’s a fantastic new resource called TAG (Tracking Automated Government) that I would suggest those researching this space add to their bookmarks. I found it on X/Twitter through Professor Jennifer Raso’s post. For those that are also more new to the space or coming from it through immigraiton, Jennifer Raso’s research on automated decision-making, particularly in the context of administrative law and frontline decision-makers is exceptional. We are leaning on her research as we develop our own work in the immigration space. Without further ado, here is the Op-Ed. The DADM’s Noticeable Silence: Clarifying the Human Role in the Canadian Government’s Hybrid Decision-Making Systems [i] Who are the humans involved in hybrid automated decision-making (“ADM”)? Are they placed into the system (or loop) to provide justification for the machine’s decisions? Are they there to assume legal liability? Or are they merely there to ensure humans still have a job to do? Effectively regulating hybrid ADM systems requires an understanding of the various roles played by the humans in the loop and clarity as to the policymaker’s intentions when placing them there. This is the argument made by Rebecca Crootof et al. in their article, “Humans in the Loop” recently published in the Vanderbilt Law Review.[ii] In this Op-Ed, I discuss the nine roles that humans play in hybrid decision-making loops as identified by Crootof et al. I then turn to my central focus, reviewing Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making (“DADM”)[iii] for its discussion of human intervention and humans in the loop to suggest that Canada’s main Government self-regulatory AI governance tool not only falls short, but supports an approach of silence towards the role of humans in Government ADMs.   What is a Hybrid Decision-Making System? What is a Human in the Loop? A hybrid decision-making system is one where machine and human actors interact to render a decision.[iv] The oft-used regulatory definition of humans in the loop is “an individual who is involved in a single, particular decision made in conjunction with an algorithm.[v] Hybrid systems are purportedly differentiable from “human off the loop” systems, where the processes are entirely automated and humans have no ability to intervene in the decision.[vi] Crootof et al. challenges the regulatory definition and understanding, labelling it as misleading as its “focus on individual decision-making obscures the role of humans everywhere in ADMs.”[vii] They suggest instead that machines themselves cannot exist or operate independent from humans and therefore that regulators must take a broader definition and framework for what constitutes a system’s tasks.[viii] Their definition concludes that each human in the loop, embedded in an organization, constitutes a “human in the loop of complex socio-technical systems for regulators to target.”[ix] In discussing the law of the loop, Crootof et al. expresses the numerous ways in which the law requires, encourages, discourages, and even prohibits humans in the loop. [x] Crootof et al. then labels the MABA-MABA (Men Are Better At, Machines Are Better At) trap,[xi] a common policymaker position that erroneously assumes the best of both worlds in the division of roles between humans and machines, without consideration how they can also amplify each other’s weaknesses.[xii] Crootof et al. finds that the myopic MABA-MABA “obscures the larger, more important regulatory question animating calls to retain human involvement in decision-making.” As Crootof et al. summarizes: “Namely, what do we want humans in the loop to do? If we don’t know what the human is intended to do, it’s impossible to assess whether a human is improving a system’s performance or whether regulation has accomplished its goals by adding a human”[xiii]   Crootof et al.’s Nine Roles for Humans in the Loop and Recommendations for Policymakers Crootof sets out nine, non-exhaustive but illustrative roles for humans in the loop. These roles are: (1) corrective; (2) resilience; (3) justificatory; (4) dignitary; (5) accountability; (6) Stand-In; (7) Friction; (8) Warm-Body; and (9) Interface.[xiv] For ease of summary, they have been briefly described in a table attached as an appendix to this Op-Ed. Crootof et al. discusses how these nine roles are not mutually exclusive and indeed humans can play many of them at the same time.[xv] One of Crootof et al.’s three main recommendations is that policymakers should be intentional and clear about what roles the humans in the loop serve.[xvi] In another recommendation they suggest that the context matters with respect to the role’s complexity, the aims of regulators, and the ability to regulate ADMs only when those complex roles are known.[xvii] Applying this to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (as it then was[xviii]) [“EU AI Act”], Crootof et al. is critical of how the Act separates the human roles of providers and users, leaving nobody responsible for the human-machine system as a whole.[xix]  Crootof et al. ultimately highlights a core challenge of the EU AI

As a public service, and transparently because I need to also refer to these in my own work in the area, I am sharing three peer reviews that have not yet been published by Immigration, Refugess and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) nor made available on the published Algorithmic Impact Assessment (“AIA”) pages from the Treasury Board Secretariat (“TBS”). First, a recap. Following the 3rd review of the Directive of Automated Decision-Making (“DADM”), and feedback from stakeholders, it was proposed to amend the peer review section to require the completion of a peer review and publication prior to the system’s production. The previous iteration of the DADM did not require publication nor specify the timeframe for the pper review.  The motivation for this was to increase public trust around Automated Decision-Making Systems (“ADM”). As stated in the proposed amendment summary at page 15: The absence of a mechanism mandating the release of peer reviews (or related information) creates a missed opportunity for bolstering public trust in the use of automated decision systems through an externally sourced expert assessment. Releasing at least a summary of completed peer reviews (given the challenges of exposing sensitive program data, trade secrets, or information about proprietary systems) can strengthen transparency and accountability by enabling stakeholders to validate the information in AIAs. The current requirement is also silent on the timing of peer reviews, creating uncertainty for both departments and reviewers as to whether to complete a review prior to or during system deployment. Unlike audits, reviews are most effective when made available alongside an AIA, prior to the production of a system, so that they can serve their function as an additional layer of assurance. The proposed amendments address these issues by expanding the requirement to mandate publication and specify a timing for reviews. Published peer reviews (or summaries of reviews) would complement documentation on the results of audits or other reviews that the directive requires project leads to disclose as part of the notice requirement (see Appendix C of the directive) (emphasis added) Based on Section 1 of the DADM, with the 25 April 2024 date coming, we should see more posted peer reviews for past Algorithmic Impact Assessment (“AIA”). This directive applies to all automated decision systems developed or procured after April 1, 2020. However, 1.2.1 existing systems developed or procured prior to April 25, 2023 will have until April 25, 2024 to fully transition to the requirements in subsections 6.2.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.4, 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 in this directive; 1.2.2 new systems developed or procured after April 25, 2023 will have until October 25, 2023 to meet the requirements in this directive. (emphasis added) The impetus behind the grace period, was set out in their proposed amendment summary at page 8: TBS recognizes the challenge of adapting to new policy requirements while planning or executing projects that would be subject to them. In response, a 6-month ‘grace period’ is proposed to provide departments with time to plan for compliance with the amended directive. For systems that are already in place on the release date, TBS proposes granting departments a full year to comply with new requirements in the directive. Introducing this period would enable departments to plan for the integration of new measures into existing automation systems. This could involve publishing previously completed peer reviews or implementing new data governance measures for input and output data. During this period, these systems would continue to be subject to the current requirements of the directive. (emphasis added) The new DADM section states: Peer review 6.3.5 Consulting the appropriate qualified experts to review the automated decision system and publishing the complete review or a plain language summary of the findings prior to the system’s production, as prescribed in Appendix C. (emphasis added) Appendix C for Level 2 – Moderate Impact Projects (for which all of IRCC’s Eight AIA projects are self-classified) the requirement is as follows: Consult at least one of the following experts and publish the complete review or a plain language summary of the findings on a Government of Canada website: Qualified expert from a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal government institution Qualified members of faculty of a post-secondary institution Qualified researchers from a relevant non-governmental organization Contracted third-party vendor with a relevant specialization A data and automation advisory board specified by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat OR: Publish specifications of the automated decision system in a peer-reviewed journal. Where access to the published review is restricted, ensure that a plain language summary of the findings is openly available. We should be expecting then movement in the next two weeks. As I wrote about here, IRCC has posted one of their Peer Reviews, this one for the International Experience Canada Work Permit Eligibility Model. I will analyze this (alongside other peer reviews) in a future blog and why I think it is important in the questions it raises about automation bias. In light of the above, I am sharing three Peer Reviews for IRCC AIAs. These may or may not be the final ones that IRCC eventually posts, presumably before 25 April 2024. I have posted the document below the corresponding name of the AIA. Please note that the PDF viewer does not work on mobile devices. As such I have also added a link to a shared Google doc for your viewing/downloading ease. (1) Spouse Or Common-Law in Canada Advanced Analytics [Link] A-2022-00374_ – Stats Can peer review on Spousal AI Model Note: We know that

I wrote this Op-Ed for my Law 432.D course titled ‘Accountable Computer Systems.’ This blog will likely be posted on the course website but as I am presenting on a few topics related, I wanted it to be available to the general public in advance. I do note that after writing this blog, my more in-depth literature review uncovered many more administrative lawyers talking about accountability. However, I still believe we need to properly define accountability and can take lessons from Joshua Kroll’s work to do so.   Introduction Canadian administrative law, through judicial review, examines whether decisions made by Government decision-makers (e.g. government officials, tribunals, and regulators) are reasonable, fair, and lawful.[i] Administrative law governs the Federal Court’s review of whether an Officer has acted in a reasonable[ii] or procedurally fair[iii] way, for example in the context of Canadian immigration and citizenship law, where an Officer has decided to deny a Jamaican mother’s permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds[iv] or strip Canadian citizenship away from a Canadian-born to Russian foreign intelligence operatives charged with espionage in the United States.[v] Through judicial review and subsequent appellate Court processes, the term accountability has yet to be meaningfully engaged with in Canadian administrative case law.[vi] On the contrary, in computer science accountability is quick becoming a central organizing principle and governance mechanism.[vii] Technical and computer science specialists are designing technological tools based on accountability principles that justify its use and perceived sociolegal impacts. Accountability will need to be better interrogated within the Canadian administrative law context, especially as Government bodies increasingly render decisions utilizing computer systems (such as AI-driven decision-making systems) [viii] that are becoming subject to judicial review.[ix] An example of this is the growing litigation around Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) use of decision-making systems utilizing machine-learning and advanced analytics.[x] Legal scholarship is just starting to scratch the surface of exploring administrative and judicial accountability and has done so largely as a reaction to AI systems challenging traditional human decision-making processes. In the Canadian administrative law literature I reviewed, the discussion of accountability has not involved defining the term beyond stating it is a desirable system aim.[xi] So, how will Canadian courts perform judicial review and engage with a principle (accountability) that it hardly knows? There are a few takeaways from Joshua Kroll’s 2020 article, “Accountability in Computer Systems” that might be good starting points for this collaboration and conversation.   Defining Accountability – and the Need to Broaden Judicial Review’s Considerations Kroll defines “accountability” as a “a relationship that involves reporting information to that entity and in exchange receiving praise, disapproval, or consequences when appropriate.”[xii] Kroll’s definition is important as it goes beyond thinking of accountability only as a check-and-balance oversight and review system,[xiii] but also one that requires mutual reporting in a variety of positive and negative situations. His definition embraces, rather than sidesteps, the role of normative standards and moral responsibility.[xiv] This contrasts with administrative judicial review, a process that is usually only engaged when an individual or party is subject to a negative Government decision (often a refusal or denial of a benefit or service, or the finding of wrongdoing against an individual).[xv] As a general principle that is subject to a few exceptions, judicial review limits the Court’s examination to the ‘application’ record that was before the final human officer when rendering their negative decision.[xvi] Therefore, it is a barrier to utilize judicial review to seek clarity from the Government about the underlying data, triaging systems, and biases that may form the context for the record itself. I argue that Kroll’s definition of accountability provides room for this missing context and extends accountability to the reporting the experiences of groups or individuals who receive the positive benefits of Government decisions when others do not. The Government currently holds this information as private institutional knowledge, with fear that broader disclosure could lead to scrutiny that might expose fault-lines such as discrimination and Charter [xvii] breaches/non-compliance.[xviii] Consequentially, I do not see accountability’s language fitting perfectly into our currently existing administrative law context, judicial review processes, and legal tests. Indeed, even the process of engaging with accountability’s definition in law and tools for implementation will challenge the starting point of judicial review’s deference and culture of reasons-based justification[xix] as being sufficient to hold Government to account.   Rethinking Transparency in Canadian Administrative Law Transparency is a cornerstone concept in Canadian administrative law. Like accountability, this term is also not well-defined in operation, beyond the often-repeated phrase of a reasonable decision needing to be “justified, intelligent, and transparent.”[xx] Kroll challenges the equivalency of transparency with accountability. He defines transparency as “the concept that systems and processes should be accessible to those affected either through an understanding of their function, through input into their structure, or both.”[xxi] Kroll argues that transparency is a possible vehicle or instrument for achieving accountability but also one that can be both insufficient and undesirable,[xxii] especially where it can still lead to illegitimate participants or lead actors to alter their behaviour to violate an operative norm.[xxiii] The shortcomings of transparency as a reviewing criterion in Canadian administrative law are becoming apparent in IRCC’s use of automated decision-making (“ADM”) systems. Judicial reviews to the Federal Court are asking judges to consider the reasonableness, and by extension transparency of decisions made by systems that are non-transparent – such as security screening automation[xxiv] and advanced

We’re pleased to announce we’ve completed a major project to reprocess the entirety of the Building Department and Permits and Licensing Department’s architectural drawings collection in our holdings. Birks Building, lobby and staircase elevations, 1912. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0002: LEG2285.00242 The drawings depict the entire range of structures built in the city in the 70 or so years from the institution of the building permit application process to the early 1970s. The series also includes original drawings created by Building Department staff in the fifteen years or so up to 1936, during which time the Department was responsible for design and renovation of buildings for City use. “Old City Hall” (425 Main Street) floor plans for alterations to make the council chamber. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-2038: LEG2285.33315 Pretty much every kind of structure that was built in the City, other than single family homes, is represented in the collection. There are retail buildings of every kind, including a wide variety of buildings related to cars, including dealerships, repair shops and gas stations: Perspective rendering of the Johnston Motors service station, 9-15 Kingsway Avenue, 1944-1945. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1089: LEG2285.23455 There are industrial buildings and complexes, the full spectrum of manufacturing buildings, and transportation infrastructure: Elevations and sections of the New England Fish Company wharf, North foot of Gore Street, 1919. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0258: LEG2285.18979 There are hotels, apartment buildings, and conversion of single-family homes to rooming houses: Elevations of the Huntingdon Apartments, 1155 Gilford Street, 1941. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0606: LEG2285.09820 Du Mont Auto Motel, 3090 Kingsway, 1946? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1132: LEG2285.25644 There are private and public hospitals, including almost the entire history of Vancouver General Hospital buildings up to the early 1970s: McGill Block, 800-block West 10th Avenue, 1914. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1962: LEG2285.01836 Dozens of files depict structures in city parks, including 43 files for structures in Stanley Park and the Zoo alone: Elevations and sections of Malkin Bowl, Stanley Park, 1934? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0163: LEG2285.06444 Elevations of the bear grottos, Stanley Park Zoo, 1960? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1721: LEG2285.20325 There are entertainment venues, such as sports and recreation facilities, theatres and movie houses: English Bay Pier, 1925. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0778: LEG2285.15909 There are schools across the City built for all three School Boards: Hastings Elementary School, 1912? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0087: LEG2285.18365 There are public buildings of many types, including a number built at and for the Pacific National Exhibition, and featuring a number of rides and other Playland attractions: Space Tower, elevations and sections, 1968. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1932: LEG2285.22599 There are churches, assembly halls, legions and social clubs: Our Lady of Perpetual Help, 1925. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0514: LEG2285.02185 These records were transferred to the Archives in the 1970s, as a result of the Permits and Licensing Department microfilming the records and disposing of the originals. Most of the drawings came into the custody of the Building Department and its successor, the Permits and Licensing Department, as supporting documentation for building permit applications. After issuing the permits, the department seems to have separated the drawings from the remainder of the file, issued them a new file number and in many cases, accumulated drawings from multiple permit applications to form a new filing system by property. Files for properties owned or used by the City often include drawings created by the Building Department itself, added to drawings by outside firms. For industrial and other sites with multiple buildings, drawings of the various buildings were often aggregated into one file. In most cases after 1912, the permit number the drawings were originally associated with was written on the back of the outer drawing of the roll, likely to allow tracking from the drawings back to the original permit file. The reason for the separation of the drawings from their original files is unknown, though it is likely that the drawings were set aside for future reference if later permit applications were made for the building. From what we can tell, this collection did not as a rule include drawings of single-family homes, as it seems that that the Building Department either didn’t retain them after the building permit was issued or systematically purged them at some point before microfilming. As Vancouver did, the municipalities of Point Grey and South Vancouver had their own Building By-laws and building permitting and inspection administration. With the amalgamation of the three municipalities in 1929, building permit application records from the southern municipalities were integrated into the files of the Vancouver Building Department. These files were often then labelled as Vancouver Building Department records, and Building Department file numbers added to them. Most of these drawings do not have South Vancouver or Point Grey permit numbers on the back of the drawings, as it appears these municipalities did not repurpose submitted drawings in the way Vancouver did (and still does). Reprocessing the files has allowed us to correct and in the majority of cases, make significant additions to the file level metadata and conduct a comprehensive review of access restrictions. The descriptions have been transcribed from the Reading Room card catalogue, corrected and expanded, and uploaded to the AtoM database where they are now fully-searchable by researchers. One significant addition to the metadata is links to all identified records creators. Over 900 architects, engineers, contractors, signage companies, federal and provincial government departments, departments in all three municipalities, decorators, equipment suppliers, and companies in various industries are linked

With its promise of a cleaner, more sustainable future, renewable energy is quickly changing how we power our planet. The drive for renewable energy sources has intensified as worries about environmental damage and climate change mount. Solar power has become a major player among the many renewable energy sources because of its adaptability and general availability. Still, renewable energy encompasses a wide range of creative ideas intended to use wind, water, and geothermal heat in addition to solar technology. Tomorrow’s energy will be renewable. Innovations in this area are causing waves as we progress toward a more sustainable society, particularly in solar technology and other sources. Innovations in Solar Power The leading renewable energy technology is solar power. Because the cost and efficiency of solar panels have dropped recently, more households and businesses may now use greener energy. Panels that can collect sunlight even on overcast days are one significant development. This implies that solar energy is usable in more locations worldwide than just those with plenty of sunny days. There are other uses for solar technology besides energy. Better methods of heating our houses and water, thanks to solar heating innovations, are lowering our need for fossil fuels. A drive is also on to incorporate solar electricity into windows and building materials, potentially turning buildings into energy-producing machines. Other Renewable Advancements Beyond Solar The renewable landscape includes solar energy in large measure, but other technologies are also developing quickly. Wind Energy: Wind turbines are becoming bigger and more effective all the time. It follows that they can produce more electricity with the same quantity of wind. Certain modern designs create modern opportunities for growth, allowing turbines to operate in locations with little wind. Hydroelectric Power: In isolated or rural locations in particular, small-scale hydroelectric facilities are becoming more and more common. These facilities produce electricity by using rivers and streams instead of huge dams, making them less environmentally damaging. Geothermal Energy: This technique uses the heat of the earth to heat buildings and produce electricity. Since deeper heat sources are now easier to access thanks to recent developments, geothermal energy is more widely accessible. Forward Looking With ongoing breakthroughs advancing us toward a more sustainable and clean energy future, the future of renewable energy seems bright. These technologies will become ever more important in our energy environment as they advance and become more reasonably priced. The emphasis is on producing energy in a manner that benefits the environment and its inhabitants.

As you walk down various current-day commercial districts throughout Vancouver, have you ever noticed houses that appear to pop out the top or the backside of store fronts? These store-house combinations can also be spotted throughout various photographs of streetscapes in the Archives’ holdings, and are often a product of residential streets evolving into commercial use areas. A fitting term for them is ‘buried houses’.[1] A buried house at 1120 Robson Street, 1974. Reference code: COV-S509-: CVA 778-341 It can be interesting to try to speculate what the layout of the original house was based on similar house designs of the period and try to figure out what was changed during the conversion to a commercial space. Some of the house-store combinations in the photos make it look as if little was altered other than the equivalent of a boxed in area sprouting out of the front of the house. However, others have clearly had extensive alterations, and of course generally have had even further alterations throughout the decades. A store front that appears more like a box addition to the exterior of a house on Davie Street between Thurlow and Bute Streets, 1928. Reference code: AM54-S4-: Str N266.1 Store fronts where it appears more extensive alterations were done to the houses to which they were attached. Denman Street, 1928. Reference code: AM54-S4-: Str N267.1 An instructive record on how exactly some of the original alterations were designed is an architectural plan for 1132 Robson Street. This plan is part of the City of Vancouver Series 393: Building Permit Application Architectural Drawings. Records in this series have been recently made more discoverable, thanks to ongoing efforts of Archives staff. The descriptions have been uploaded to our database, as previously the only way to search these records was via a card catalogue in our Reading Room. Additional metadata filled out previously scant descriptions, while errant metadata has been corrected. Stay tuned for a future blog post that details all the work that went into this. Architectural plan for alterations to 1132 Robson Street, 1927. Reference code: COV-S393-1-AP-0948 The details of the architectural plan for house alterations for 1132 Robson Street are quite interesting to examine. It is almost as if by looking closely at the notations one can visualize the alterations taking place in real-time. A bathtub is removed and the washroom is made smaller on the first floor, walls are repositioned, new window openings and stairs planned. Details of the architectural plan for alterations to 1132 Robson Street. Notations as to the removal of certain features, and the addition or changes of others can be seen. As part of chasing up more information on this particular building, I fortuitously (after conducting some database searches) came across a photograph of the house-store combination, taken by A.L. Yates in April 1957. The house that corresponds to the architectural plans is the one on the right, with Bonita’s dress shop. Bonita’s dress shop at the time, according to the city directories, was run by Becky Beckman. Living in the upstairs flat (listed as 1132 ½ Robson Street), was Roy Powell, a maintenance worker at the Alaska Pine building. Exterior of 1130 and 1132 Robson Street. 1130 Robson Street on the left was altered eleven years after 1132 Robson Street on the right. Note the different architectural facades in keeping with their respective alteration dates. Photo reference: AM54-S4-: Bu P508.63 The house itself was originally constructed in the 1890s. The exact date is somewhat unclear, as the building permit registers for the City do not go back that far. However, the year of the alterations is known from the 1927 building permit record. The permit lists the owner of the building as A.C. Akroyd, though this was likely a clerical error, as the water service applications for expanding water services to the address indicates the applicant as H.C. Akroyd of the real estate firm Richards, Akroyd & Gall. Building permit register entry for house alterations. Reference code: COV-S385– Water service application made by H.C. Akroyd for enlarged water connection. Reference code: COV-S293 The architect, listed both on the architectural drawing and the building permit, was William Frederick Gardiner. He was a local architect, better known for larger buildings, such as the Hutchinson Block at 429 West Pender Street. The value of the alterations to the house, according to the permit, was $4,000. The Hutchinson Block designed by architect W.F. Gardiner is the tall skinny building at the very right of the photo, as seen in 1932. Reference code: AM1535-: CVA 99-4179 From the time of the house alteration, there were a number of businesses that occupied the shop space, beginning with Florence and Lillian Lewis, dressmakers in 1928, followed by The Paris, another dressmaker business in 1929. Advertisement for the opening of The Paris from The Vancouver Sun, March 13, 1929 By 1930, the category of store shifted to that of tea and coffee emporium, owned and operated by Charles H. Knight. By the end of the 1930s, Knight’s business had moved from the premises, and was replaced once again by a women’s clothing shop under a rotating cast of names and proprietors. Bonita’s makes its first appearance as the shop’s name in 1946, with Mary Burgess as proprietor. Bert and Becky Beckman, according to the city directories, took over Bonita’s in 1948. Bert died in March 1950, but Becky continued to run the

Recently I have been reading and learning more about AI Hype Cycles. I first learned this term from Professor Kristen Thomasen when she did a guest lecture for our Legal Methodologies graduate class and discussed it with respect to her own research on drone technology and writing/researching during hype cycles. Since then, in almost AI-related seminar I have attended the term has come up with respect to the current buzz and attention being paid to AI. For example, Timnit Gebru in her talk for the GC Data Conference which I recently attended noted that a lot of what is being repackaged as new AI today was the same work in ‘big data’ that she studied many years back. For my own research, it is important to understand hype cycles to ground my research into more principled and foundational approaches so that I can write and explore the changes in technology while doing slow scholarship notwithstanding changing public discourse and the respective legislative/regulatory changes that might follow. A good starting point for understanding hype cycles, especially in the AI market, is the Gartner Hype Cycle. Who those who have not heard the term yet, I would recommend checking out the following video: Gartner reviews technological hype cycles through five phases: (1) innovation trigger; (2) peak of inflated expectations; (3) trough of disillusionment; (4) slope of enlightenment, and plateau of productivity. It is interesting to see how Gartner has labelled the current cycles: One of the most surprising things to me on first view is how automatic systems and deicsion intelligence is still on the innovation trigger – early phase on the hype cycle. The other is how many different types of AI technology are on the hype cycle and how many the general public actually know/engage with. I would suggest at most 50% of this list is in the vocabulary and use of even the most educated folks. I also find that from a laypersons perspective (which I consider myself on AI), challenges in classifying whether certain AI concepts fit one category or another or are a hybrid. This means AI societal knowledge is low and even for some of the items that are purportedly on the Slope of Enlightment or Plateau of Productivity. It is important to note before I move on that that the AI Hype Cycle also has been used in terms outside of the Gartner definition, more in a more criticial sense of technologies that are in a ‘hype’ phase that will eventually ebb and flow. A great article on this and how it affects AI definitions is the piece by Eric Siegel in the Harvard Business Review how the hype around Supervised Machine Learning has been rebranded into a hype around AI and has been spun into this push for Artificial General Intelligence that may or may not be achievable.   Relevance to the Immigration Law Space The hype cycle is relevant to Canadian immigration law in a variety of ways. First, on the face, Gartner is a contracting partner of IRCC which means they are probably bringing in the hype cycle into their work and their advice to them. Second, it brings into question again how much AI-based automated decision-making systems (ADM) is still in the beginning of the hype cycle. It make sense utilizing this framework to understand why these systems are being so heralded by Government in their policy guides and presentation, but also that there could be a peak of inflated expectations on the horizon that may lead to more hybrid decision-making or perhaps a step back from use. The other question is about whether we are (and I am a primary perpetrator of this) overly-focused on automated-decision making systems without considering the larger AI supply chain that will likely interact. Jennifer Cobbe et al talk about this in their paper “Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains” which was assigned for reading in my Accountable Computer Systems course. Not only are there different AI components, providers, downstream/upstream uses, and actors that may be involved in the AI development and application process. Using immigration as an example, there may be one third-party SAAS that checks photos, another software using black-box AI may engage in facial recognition, and ultimately, internal software that does machine-learning triaging or automation of refusal notes generation. The question of how we hold these systems and their outputs accountable will be important, especially if various components of the system are on different stages of the hype cycle or not disclosed in the final decision to the end user (or immigration applicant). Third, I think that the idea of hype cycles is very relevant to my many brave colleagues who are investing their time and energy into building their own AI tools or implementing sofware solutions for private sector applicants. The hype cycle may give some guidance as to the innovation they are trying to bring and the timeframe they have to make a splash into the market. Furthermore, immigration (as a dynamic and rapidly changing area of law) and immigrants (as perhaps needing different considerations with respect to technological use, access, or norms) may have their own considerations that may alter Gartner’s timelines. It will be very interesting to continue to monitor how AI hype cycles drive both private and public innovation in this emerging space of technologies that will significantly impact migrant lives. The post What is an AI Hype

On Wednesday (February 7), City Council will be considering a proposed Gastown Summer 2024 Water Street Pedestrian Zone Pilot Project . A long title, but the gist of the project involves a six-week transformation of Water Street into a mix of car-free and car-lite spaces, along with changes to permitting to increase the size of patios and allow new types of street vending. The pilot is part of a larger initiative to test out ways to pedestrianize parts of Gastown, and linked to a Gastown Public Spaces Plan that’s currently being developed. Cities across Canada (and around the world) are testing new approaches to people-friendly streets. Last year, Montreal alone rolled out 12 large-scale pedestrian transformations across its boroughs. Here in Vancouver, we’ve seen smaller-scale pilots on Granville Street, along with a roster of single-day events in other neighbourhoods. The Water Street pilot is an overdue step in creating livelier, more people-friendly streets. The VPSN wrote to Council and offered our support for the pilot project, along with five suggestions which we felt would strengthen the pilot. 1. Increase the duration of the pilot project Culture change, particularly when related to transportation and business practices, takes time to ‘filter outward’ to the broader public, tourists, and specific user groups. For those engaged in programming the space, the opportunity for small-scale testing, learning and adjustment also takes time. Good quality “tactical” interventions are iterative in nature. A key challenge in this regard: the current pilot is only six weeks in length, and any construction-related delays will further constrain an already-narrow window of opportunity. Recommendation: We suggest extending the pilot through to the end of September, and ideally to Thanksgiving (mid-October). 2. Undertake public life studies before, during, and after the pilot. Public life studies assess both the volume of people in a space, but more importantly what they’re doing and how they are spending time. More detailed analysis can also explore key demographic considerations, people’s motivations for coming to a public space, their sentiments about the space, and other considerations. Undertaking these studies at key milestones can provide a much clearer picture about the efficacy of a placemaking project. The current pilot only outlines a plan to undertake vehicle and pedestrian counts (p.5). Recommendation: Direct staff to undertake more detailed public life studies at key project milestones. Provide additional funding to support this work. 3. Prepare for uncertainty – particularly with automobile and tour bus routing. We have long stated that the Gastown transportation network is a ‘sticky problem.’ The existing block and alley configuration, and mix of uses (residential, commercial, tourist, etc.) makes the situation complex. We confess an uncertainty about the ‘dumbbell’ approach outlined by staff: two car-free “gateways” (Cordova to Cambie and a portion of Maple Tree Square), and two interior car-light blocks. This limits some of the larger programming opportunities that might otherwise be available, and also poses a challenge about the legibility of the changes to both car drivers and pedestrians alike. We recognize that different ideas will need to be tested to determine the best long-term solution. Recommendation: Ensure that traffic monitoring methodologies test for pedestrian/automobile conflict. We further suggest detailed monitoring at Maple Tree Square and Blood Alley, as the diversions proposed in this area could pose challenges for the use of these public spaces. 4. Create opportunities for community-led interventions. As presently drafted, the Gastown Pilot report focuses mainly on the enabling conditions for late summer activation, and a series of initiatives to test changes to permitting (e.g., for larger patios, sidewalk merchandise, etc.). These are important, but we suggest that you should also be looking to enable opportunities for other types of placemaking – in particular, community-led activations. Having organized several events in Gastown over the years and can speak to the popularity of these events. They don’t cost a lot, can engage the community and volunteers, and will create a more inclusive and interesting public space. Recommendation: As part of the summertime pilot budget, create a small stream for community-led placemaking projects that could be integrated into the overall programming framework. Ensure that these are included in any monitoring and evaluation processes. 5. Don’t lose sight of other opportunities. In our May 9, 2023 letter to Council, we noted that there are a number of opportunities to enhance Gastown public spaces. We recognize that there is only so much you can do in one pilot project, but we would be remiss if we didn’t use this opportunity to say don’t forget about the following opportunities: Using street-end segments of Cambie, Abbott, and Carrall (north of Water) for gathering areas Re-opening the CPR right-of-way that runs diagonally between Columbia and Pender Placemaking in commercial laneways (e.g. Homer-Cambie-Cordova Alley, Harbour Light Alley) Introducing a linkage to connect CRAB Park with Gastown Integrating public space network connections to Granville Street and the Waterfront Hub This is an ambitious project, and we are excited to see where the discussion goes at Council. With any luck, we’ll all be able to enjoy a stroll down the middle of the street come July of this year!