News   Nov 27, 2024
 120     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 334     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
 1.2K     1 

Problematic Park Design - Why Some Parks Don't Work

That may explain it, in part.

The dimensions of the area in the sun, in front of the washroom are far too small for a regulation soccer pitch for teens/adults; but you could, just, squeeze in a junior pitch for those 8 and under.

In general, well maintained grass can with withstand some informal play and picnickers without too much damage. But large, heavy machines, tents, carnival rides etc. would do damage.

You could probably squeeze an 8 and under pitch in to the south of the ball diamond (very tight).

Maybe the area in front of the washroom then gets a small formal plaza (hard surface), the new butterfly garden and then an intentional picnic space with permanent tables and some refreshed grass, with some seat walls around it, or other protection to reduce excessive wear.
Most pitches should be artificial. Unless you have some site specific use with minimal game play, most grass pitches will not stand up. Good artificial surfaces have realistic game play and the ability for endless match play year around. Yes, you may still get the occasional incident of ‘carpet burn’, but better then a face plant into hard packed scraggly dirt after misstepping over uneven sun baked hard pan.

FIFA publishes a hundred plus page handbook on maintaining grass pitches, but that will be nowhere within the reach of the average municipality or specific site. Others would suggest a good grass pitch with a certain amount of maintenance can sustain up to 6 hours per week of game use ( adult ), so more for the Timbits of soccer. But still, compare that with a good turf pitch and there is no comparison.

sites, such as BMO Field, fall outside of these discussions with the resources they command and use with regularity i.e. FIFA Grade.
 
Most pitches should be artificial. Unless you have some site specific use with minimal game play, most grass pitches will not stand up. Good artificial surfaces have realistic game play and the ability for endless match play year around. Yes, you may still get the occasional incident of ‘carpet burn’, but better then a face plant into hard packed scraggly dirt after misstepping over uneven sun baked hard pan.

FIFA publishes a hundred plus page handbook on maintaining grass pitches, but that will be nowhere within the reach of the average municipality or specific site. Others would suggest a good grass pitch with a certain amount of maintenance can sustain up to 6 hours per week of game use ( adult ), so more for the Timbits of soccer. But still, compare that with a good turf pitch and there is no comparison.

sites, such as BMO Field, fall outside of these discussions with the resources they command and use with regularity i.e. FIFA Grade.

Right, though this is not a soccer pitch currently.

At least not officially.

The ability to sustain 'natural' vs 'synthetic' pitches in an interesting conversation, but really not applicable here at this point.

What can be said, is that however this space is being used, it ain't working.
 
I think the one thing he gets right is his appreciation of Cormier; but he gets the reason entirely wrong.

Cormier isn't anti-nature, and when we look at the parks in this thread that don't work, nature is generally not a factor.

What Cormier gets right isn't complicated, and that's the art.

His work is rarely high concept. Instead, it simply asks 'What do People like?

Answer: Water features, Beaches, A mix of sun and shade, Pretty, A sense of discovery, something you might not expect, something quirky that's not just like all the other parks.
Combined with good sightlines, good seating, good lighting, and quality finishes.

When you look one of the other most loved 'designed' parks in the City, from MVVA, its very nature-forward.

That park is immensely popular.

****

I'm not actually sure what he's on about when talks about 'fake swamps'

The only thing I can think of at all like that might be the small wetland feature in Village of Yorkville Park. Again, a very popular park.

****

The correct version of his sentiment is simply that Cormier designs parks for the users of the park, not out of artistic conceit.
Another 'fake swamp' he could be referring too is the Spadina Quay Wetlands? Anyways, I completely agree with all of this; furthermore I find that the more naturalized parks like Brickworks and Corktown Commons are very busy with people in addition to wildlife, and I expect that the Lower Don Lands will be the same. The one thing I have heard is some find Humber Bay Park to be a bit "woolly", but I think that might just be the age and stage of the trees; they aren't tall enough yet to have good ground clearance (maybe this could be achieved through some strategic thinning in certain spots)
 
Another 'fake swamp' he could be referring too is the Spadina Quay Wetlands? Anyways, I completely agree with all of this; furthermore I find that the more naturalized parks like Brickworks and Corktown Commons are very busy with people in addition to wildlife, and I expect that the Lower Don Lands will be the same. The one thing I have heard is some find Humber Bay Park to be a bit "woolly", but I think that might just be the age and stage of the trees; they aren't tall enough yet to have good ground clearance (maybe this could be achieved through some strategic thinning in certain spots)

Humber Bay has some problems, but the concept is not it, for the most part.

The natural area has problematic soils (mostly fill, and very compacted) in which vegetation has under performed. Think of it more like the Spit as opposed intended nature.

Elsewise, there are issues w/path quality and amenities.

Its not bad for wildlife viewing and the skyline view is nice.

But it does under-achieve.

Very fixable though.
 
Humber Bay has some problems, but the concept is not it, for the most part.

The natural area has problematic soils (mostly fill, and very compacted) in which vegetation has under performed. Think of it more like the Spit as opposed intended nature.

Elsewise, there are issues w/path quality and amenities.

Its not bad for wildlife viewing and the skyline view is nice.

But it does under-achieve.

Very fixable though.
I agree the park is okay but has some wasted potential; what improvements do you propose?
 
Another 'fake swamp' he could be referring too is the Spadina Quay Wetlands?
I thought he might be referring to the Corktown Common marsh, but how could anyone argue against this?
cc2015-wide-2048x-q60.jpg

pic via MVVA
 
I agree the park is okay but has some wasted potential; what improvements do you propose?

We had a brief thread on this here. I know we've discussed it more...........


The City's project site was here:


I think that headed in the right direction.

***

The short version of my take, fix the most under-performing natural areas, by either dumping additional mulch/fertilizer and/or native plant seed mix along with select plantings, add more seating, better way finding.....
Cut the amount of parking and green the lot (trees/swales), and add some 'stuff'......a picnic area, washrooms, etc.

I think the point of this park should be natural, but it has to have a 'there' there.

It just under achieves. Its not a bad space......its less good than it could/should be space.
 
Last edited:
I thought he might be referring to the Corktown Common marsh, but how could anyone argue against this?
cc2015-wide-2048x-q60.jpg

pic via MVVA

Great pic, great park; and important to note, MVVA also delivered a playground, a waterplay, a playing field, washrooms, and natural lawn for lounging/picnicking and tanning etc.

Its a very well balanced space.
 
Great pic, great park; and important to note, MVVA also delivered a playground, a waterplay, a playing field, washrooms, and natural lawn for lounging/picnicking and tanning etc.

Its a very well balanced space.
And home to the best native plantings in the entire city!
 
And home to the best native plantings in the entire city!

I would not go that far...........there are lots of others........

But you might not notice, because they were in the ravine parks that were already natural/pseudo-natural.

But I do like their work, I think their use of wild geraniums sings.

****

Of intentional-looking nature, I would applaud the Brickworks, and Trillium Park.

****

How about this?


IMG_4081.JPG


Didn't use to look like that..........no open water before it was altered....just overgrown grass and cattails that slushed under foot.
 
A review of Erwin Krickhahn Park for @smably ; photos are mine unless otherwise indicated and taken on July 7th, 2023:

As this is a lesser known park to most, lets start by siting it: (Google Maps)

1688907302833.png


So this is a comparatively small space, rectangular in shape, abutting the GO Barrie Corridor's new guideway on the west, located just north of Bloor between Lansdowne and Dundas W.

The City certainly makes no grand claims about the space, which gets only this description on the City's website:

1688907495599.png



At 1.3 acres this is a small'ish space, far from the City's smallest, but about 2/3 the size of Love Park.

All that said, lets have a closer look. We'll start with an aerial view to get the lay of the land:

1688907727008.png


Here we can see the entire space, with the sand area at the south end being home to the playground and drinking fountain, and the balance, largely, open grass with some trees.

I approached this park from its south-west corner:

DSC01957.jpg


Ok, nice big trees, but not much else to see here. Remember some of the basic park design ideas I've discussed. An entrance should be welcoming, I should see seating somewhere nearby, there should signage/park name, and I should have a view/sightline that invites me in....

Not so much here..........seating zero, signage zero, no real entry way landscaping, and can't see anything of interest beyond either......

Hmmm

A quick glance up the street does reveal the park's sign.........in this case, being a small space, I think I'm ok w/only one park sign, one at each point of entry might be excessive.

DSC01958.jpg


Lets get a bit closer to that entrance:

DSC01959.jpg


So you can sorta see the junior playground equipment as you step up the park, but the sight line is partially obstructed. Its not the end of the world, and the play equipment isn't much to look at, but I don't consider that ideal.

Lets go in:

Here's the junior play equipment:

DSC01960.jpg


Not much there, and what is really needs some colour (paint). This is one of those seemingly obvious things that the City misses too often, a simply coat of bright red or blue paint here would do wonders. Its a one-day job, and minimal cost, but would really boost this little corner with some brightness.

There is seating just out of frame.

Next we'll look at the senior equipment:

DSC01961.jpg


This doesn't look bad, a bit long in the tooth, you can see its already been patched by looking at the different wood tones and grains. The senior swing set is just in behind this.

DSC01965.jpg


Hmm, unpainted again........the people who installed these swings became developers later in life and continue to try to suck all the colour out of our city. LOL

Hold on, lets have a closer look at that swing set:

DSC01977.jpg


Ummm, that downward bend in the middle on the left doesn't look good. Its actually between two swings, I'm not even sure how you cause that, its an odd bit of metal fatigue. Time for new swings.

****

Moving along, lets take one last look at the playground before moving northwards:

DSC01968.jpg


So this is the most northerly 'formal' entrance to the park. (its actually in the middle of the park) There is a sign, you can see seating and the playground.......ya know, sometimes you can technically check the boxes, but miss the spirit of the thing.

A narrow, limestone screened path, no landscaping to speak of, the seats are all turned away from the street......meh.

***

Finally, lets look north from the playground:

DSC01964.jpg


This space occupies just over 1/2 of the land area of the park. There is no path; during my brief spell here, late on a Friday afternoon, the majority of the park's users were dog owners, who were running their dogs here.

I stopped and chatted them up, and asked if they would like a DOLA (Dogs Off Leash Area); the answer was essentially 'no', because they had asked the City about that, and the City wanted to fence off only the northern quarter of the open space, and remove the grass..

I get why the City would remove the grass; I'm not sure why any DOLA would need to be so small, providing the area was fine w/it. If that's whose using the space.

The only amenity here is a picnic table out of picture.

One last picture, and you'll see why in my follow-up post on what I would suggest for this space: (looking southwards along the abutting street)

DSC01972.jpg


To wrap this post up, its not a terrible space, in all it had 7 people in it during my brief stay, two twenty somethings tanning on the rail embankment, two couples out w/their dogs and one elderly woman just sitting on the bench in the shade.

That said, the space underwhelms visually, isn't particularly inviting, despite being small, seems to waste space and some of the features, such as they are, a past their best before date.

In the next post, I'll discuss what could be done here cheaply, or with a bit more money.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top