Problematic Park Design - Why Some Parks Don't Work

[Northern Light]

This is the brief from the design firm; at least the one easily available publicly at the moment.

Its not particularly revelatory.

 

[Northern Light]

I think everything is simple. Tables and chair sitting are missing because they should be secured to prevent them from disappearing at nighttime. And that would be ridiculous to chain up them, right? So, again - design for the sake of innovation. It might have been that the chairs were even delivered but are now keeping in storage.

I don't have the answer. I will decline to speculate here as there are many possibilities. Toronto has similar tables and chairs in Yorkville Park, so it can certainly be done.
I'm not clear on if they were cut from the design, are there in small numbers and we just can't see them in the available photos............
Or if they were once present and were later removed.

No matter the reason, the visible seating is inadequate.

To the extent there is further seating present, if none of it is easily visible from the edges of the park, it won't entice anyone into the park to enjoy it. This is why sightlines are so important.

May I say something daring?
Most people judge and distinguish a good park design from a problematic one and feel where one wants to be and not.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here. If what you're saying is "People just know whether a space is inviting or works, because they 'feel it' or its intuitive, then I agree, that's how most people would perceive these things.

That's part of why I do this thread so I can show people what design ideas tend to work, both functionally, but also in inducing a positive reaction, and why that is the case. Equally, I share with people what ideas tend not to work; and why. When people understand how design works, they may be able to offer more constructive input in the future.

If your meaning is something else, please clarify.

Now everyone knows that Gh3 promotes quite a strange park design principles.

LOL. Everyone who reads this thread knows that I think that.

I'm not sure everybody in general, knows that.

Gh3 was allowed even to reproduce them.

Gh3 submitted a design for June Callwood which won a competition, approved by a jury.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-18096.pdf

In at least 2 other designs they've been involved in, where I have serious reservations, I don't believe they were the lead Landscape architects (I could stand to be corrected), I think they were hired as the 'local' team to implement an out--of-town firm's design. That appears to be the case in this Mississauga Park design.

It would suggest that at least some of these detestable design ideas were floating around the Landscape Architecture industry for a period of time; though it may be that Gh3's execution of the designs was part of the problem in some of these cases.

I'd have to look at each case to see who made the decision to approve a design to assess whether part of the problem is people on juries (or members of the public or staff) who may not understand what they are reading, or why something isn't really workable. I can't say for sure.

Maybe we are blind and don't see a unique, gorgeous design style, or should we suspect any wrongdoing?

I would not suspect wrongdoing in the sense of corruption; just people who fail to understand the needs of a community; and reasons for certain fundamental design choices. (sometimes there's a reason everyone does 'x' the same way)

Why should that leave scars on the face of the city? Are there other design firms that can be questioned similarly?

Yes, there are other firms who have produced problematic and/or unpopular park designs.

Most only have 1 clear screw-up to their names..........but some firms have had more than one project turn out less than ideal.
Sometimes, this is, at least in part, poor specifications from the City when laying out what is desired in a design.
Sometimes, its a designer who is, in many respects, highly competent, and cares about the quality of their work, but simply lacks an understanding that their aesthetic is not necessarily widely shared;
or may not function well in a public space.

Will the community ever get a chance to hear from them or from the city to explain why things go like this? How to get feedback from the city? Will we have an opportunity to do that, or, overwise, it all turns to blow off some steam?

Feedback matters. June Callwood Park is being redone, because the community complained loudly and often about how the design turned out (as well they should have).

Here is another example. This below is a view of Lawren Harris Square......

Yes there are problems with this park design, which should have been obvious from conception. While that one bench is a bit odd; overall, I would say the seating is a small issue here.

The black pots, as you note, are a problem, particularly the two that are centrally placed; as they really mess up even the intended design aesthetic which is called an 'allee'.
An allee being a path with identical rows of trees off to each side, as if to create a sort of parade route. But the pots, aside from not being overly attractive are simply too tall, they'd be shoulder height on many women.
The gravel also doesn't work, for reasons both functional and aesthetic. I'm really not sure how that idea got popular.....

What is the root of the problem?

That depends on which part of the problem we're talking about.

Ugly City garbage cans in parks happened because that decision was taken away from Parks and given to Waste Management who don't really care about appearance.
Bad design ideas happen in every profession; some are trial and error (look good on paper until you road-test them); others should be obvious early on; and corrected, but often are not, for a variety of reasons.

Does anybody know and can share how urban design issues address countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland?

I am familiar with some designs in other jurisdictions, some of which work, some of which do not. I don't think any area is immune to poor design. That said, it is true that some places are a bit more consistent, or ambitious in their public realm strategies.

But, in many cases here, poor designs are not tightly correlated with under-spending (though that sometimes plays a role). Usually under-spending is more on the maintenance side.

We can waste our lives chasing nothing or making the city better for living in reality by addressing questions directly to someone responsible. Maybe next time they will think twice.

Share your concerns w/your Councillor, with the mayor; or by all means with the General Manager (boss) of Parks: Janie Romoff, Janie.Romoff@toronto.ca
She is in charge of the entire Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department.

Or, you could write to the Director, Parks Development and Capital Projects, who is Ann-Marie Nasr: Ann-Marie.Nasr@toronto.ca
As you might surmise, she is in charge of developing new parks, and major overhauls of existing ones.

****

A word of advice, if you choose to email; be polite, be clear, be as concise as practical (don't write the entire list of concerns you have, pick 1 or 2 to highlight)

 

[Aleksei]

I will decline to speculate here as there are many possibilities.

First of all, thank you, Northern Light, for such a detailed response. I appreciate it.
Secondly, you are right; speculation is not what it worth saying to be taken seriously. I have to apologize.

If your meaning is something else, please clarify.

You do understand it right. The educational part is essential. But what I would want to see or do for myself is to figure out how things work here. I am an immigrant in Canada from a different world, just like many of Toronto's inhabitants. Thus my opinion is not supposed to be a fly in the milk. The case is about what I studied in college, and what turned out to be on practice here seems to be slightly different, if I may say like this. I wish to double-check it for a more sophisticated area of knowledge like urban design and architecture. I can see and understand standards and rules and how they work, how businesses obey them. I want to connect standards, principles, and their application and what we get in real life. So far, I have learned that buildings and parks embodiment are far away from solid "environmentally progressive and sustainable design solutions" quite often. That nudges me to think that there is an error or even multiple errors somewhere in all chains, from the proposal of new development to commencing a ready work.
What do I mean?
I know 146% from my experience that at least one serious business cheats provincial requirements In Ontario. The reason for that is financial. Money is interfering with the way of doing the right things. I see that when a business faces a choice between money and quality, it picks its nature, money, in most cases. Why is it easy for them to neglect? I assume, if a business follows all standards and requirements, it will fail to make a profit. So, where is an error in the system? Maybe a contract price should be the last condition for the city to evaluate the winning contractor.

Gh3 submitted a design for June Callwood which won a competition, approved by a jury.

Maybe the "jury" doesn't pull their weight as a stumbling stone for wrong design solutions?

I don't want to say that the problem is dishonesty. In the case of Gh3, the design presentation might have appeared as super innovative that the jury had lost of their attention that construction couldn't implement it, or to implement that perfect design, there should have been relevant construction methods. For example, to prevent pavement blocks from bulging, there should have been using another type of base.

The city permits to build the places, parks, buildings with a life span of dozens of years and should respect their own solutions. But, figuratively, it seems that the responsible ones are ready to sign on the dotted line. From my perspective, it is hard to explain in a different way how come that "storm benches" appear. Can you imagine that a respectful jury approves that bench and black pots? Black pots are okay, the ultimate design, but the bench?

I would not suspect wrongdoing in the sense of corruption

Me neither, but let's make it clear. When people see such a deficiency, they tend to suspect corruption in the first place as reasoning. While we don't have in mind to blame anybody, professionals who keep silent or accept thoughtless solutions should feel at least uncomfortable.

I am certainly grateful for this.

In at least 2 other designs they've been involved in, where I have serious reservations, I don't believe they were the lead Landscape architects (I could stand to be corrected), I think they were hired as the 'local' team to implement an out--of-town firm's design. That appears to be the case in this Mississauga Park design.

It would suggest that at least some of these detestable design ideas were floating around the Landscape Architecture industry for a period of time; though it may be that Gh3's execution of the designs was part of the problem in some of these cases.

I'd have to look at each case to see who made the decision to approve a design to assess whether part of the problem is people on juries (or members of the public or staff) who may not understand what they are reading, or why something isn't really workable. I can't say for sure.

I would be excited to get to the bottom with that "bench case" to get my foot in the door as a case that seems to be simple.

I would also want to follow new proposals in park design or architecture to see if we can contribute. That one with Market Lane Park is interesting and challenging. It would be great to watch its development.

Bad design ideas happen in every profession; some are trial and error (look good on paper until you road-test them); others should be obvious early on; and corrected, but often are not, for a variety of reasons.

It sounds peaceful. Yes, the beauty of our cities can't be warlike.

Share your concerns w/your Councillor, with the mayor; or by all means with the General Manager (boss) of Parks

Thank you. I think I still need to collect some more information to try to be on the same page with the addressee.

In conclusion, below are two pictures. The one children splash pad design I like, another one I am in doubt about. Please don't be confused by different seasons. I promise to change the picture on actual as soon as I can.

 

[Northern Light]

First of all, thank you, Northern Light, for such a detailed response. I appreciate it.

Your're welcome.

I would want to see or do for myself is to figure out how things work here.

Good.

My suggestion, take note that how things work here is not consistent.

Sometimes its very good; sometimes very bad; often in-between.

Some of that is about which process is followed (for example does the City design in-house, or does it contract out); is a contract design subject to public discussion or a jury or something else?

Some of that is about the fundamentals, that is, do staff or a contract designer understand good design principles; and do they take the time to listen to and understand what a community needs?

Some of that is about execution. You can get a design right in theory; but if you don't understand the details of how to make it work; and enforce those with contractors.......its all for nothing.

For example, if you understand how water drains, and that a path needs to have a very slight grade/slope to it so that water does not puddle or freeze in the winter..............great.........but what if the contractor who makes the path does
not form the path at the correct slope?

Does anyone notice? What is done about it?

Its not consistent.

I am an immigrant in Canada from a different world, just like many of Toronto's inhabitants. Thus my opinion is not supposed to be a fly in the milk. The case is about what I studied in college here, and what turned out to be the reality seems to be slightly different, if I may say like this. I wish to double-check it for a more sophisticated area of knowledge like urban design and architecture. I can see and understand standards and rules and how they work, how people obey them. I want to connect standards, principles, and their application and what we get in real life. So far, I have learned that buildings and parks are far away from solid "environmentally progressive and sustainable design solutions" quite often. That nudges me to think that there is an error or even multiple errors somewhere in all chains, from the proposal of new development to commencing a ready work.

Its not landscape architecture, but find old episodes of Mike Holmes TV shows. (some people will make faces, as the knowledge communicated is not always perfect)...
But....overall, its a good example of how yes, there are some dishonest people, that's one issue; but most contractors are not dishonest..........they're improperly trained.
They don't actually understand how to do somethings properly or why it matters. Landscape architecture is not so different.

Maybe the "jury" doesn't pull their weight as a stumbling stone for wrong design solutions?

I'll stop here.

With this....................long before I began this thread............June Callwood Park had that competition. Many here, perhaps even myself seemed to like the winning entry.
Then we were confronted with how it turned out.
I've already looked at the park's may flaws earlier in this thread, so you can go back and see what I think of the design as executed..............I wasn't nice..............

But what happened? Did the jury lose their mind?

Lets take a quick look back at the renders they saw when they decided this was the right design!

The jury saw this:

Hold it..............wait a minute..........where are the neighbouring buildings? Where are the streets?

Lets count the number of trees running across...............at least 40.......at a minimum of 2M apart for large trees..........wait a minute, that's bigger than the entire park!

Now also in the renders.....was the 'night view'.............

Pffft...........rock/concrete benches that light up?? LMAO.........that never happend............and trees were never planted in either this number, or this pattern.

WTF is this?

Not only do these 2 renders show a park vastly larger than the real one ever could be...........wow, kids are playing in a forest..........(rolls eyes).........

But also...........the tree species on the left................is not either of the two species on the right.

I honestly don't know if the render artist misunderstood the design...............

But it certainly is not an accurate representation of either what happened, or frankly what was possible in light of the space.

I'll stop there............and simply note.........what the jury saw; and what we got, was not the same thing.

 

[deerparker]

Maybe I’m missing something, but the gardens in the park in Yorkville appear to be overgrown and filled with weeds. Is this the intended look for this park?

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 332382Maybe I’m missing something, but the gardens in the park in Yorkville appear to be overgrown and filled with weeds. Is this the intended look for this park?

Partially.

That particular section next to the pines is meant to emulate meadow/rock garden type habitat, and a lot of the plants you're seeing are there intentionally.
That said, I can spot a few weeds in there too, and some bald spots. This area isn't meant to be planted, its perennial.

That said, it wouldn't hurt to have horticulture give it once-in a few years clean up, removing weeds, putting a few new plants, adding mulch as required.

There's a few nice flowers in that mix; but they won't be out for another few weeks, for the most part.

Now if the bed beside the subway entrance looks like this, there's a problem!

 

[Aleksei]

Does anyone notice? What is done about it?

In theory, the city as a customer should assign a contract administrator responsible for monitoring that all works must comply with contract specifications and municipal requirements. Contract administration deploys engineering personal on-site regularly to sneak around and measure and check. Also, there is a site coordinator from the general contractor, a foreman, and a layout man from the subcontractor on-site. Lots of instances to watch and prevent any possible setbacks. But all on-site personnel usually follows directions from an architect's office.

Lets take a quick look back at the renders they saw when they decided this was the right design!

Wait a minute. Do you think that a conscientious and experienced jury wasn't puzzled about the missing background buildings, unrecognizable streets, fantastic luminescent benches, invisible park limits...?

I'll stop here.

Sorry, I didn't get what you mean.

And it all looks like an absolutely damned conspiracy and lobbying because, on the other hand, it is really unbelievable that the jury was swindled so easily. Otherwise, they must have been incompetent. Is that what you mean?

 

[Northern Light]

In theory, the city as a customer should assign a contract administrator responsible for monitoring that all works must comply with contract specifications and municipal requirements. Contract administration deploys engineering personal on-site regularly to sneak around and measure and check. Also, there is a site coordinator from the general contractor, a foreman, and a layout man from the subcontractor on-site. Lots of instances to watch and prevent any possible setbacks. But all on-site personnel usually follows directions from an architect's office.

I agree that more thorough oversight of contracts would be desirable. I don't bid on or oversee contracts for the City so I can't say for certain how much is happening, but I strongly suspect that:

a) There is not enough oversight

b) Some of the people doing that oversight don't have the correct skills/knowledge.

Wait a minute. Do you think that a conscientious and experienced jury wasn't puzzled about the missing background buildings, unrecognizable streets, fantastic luminescent benches, invisible park limits...?

I have no idea, I wasn't in on the deliberation, I don't know what questions were asked or comments made. I would certainly hope there were some inquiries.

That said, if my recollection is correct, the buildings adjacent to the park may not yet have been completed at the time of the park competition.

I'm less fussed about the absence of the exact buildings in the renders than I am a drawing that conveys a scale/size that was absolutely never achievable on the that site.

Did the jurors know that? I honestly don't know.

Sorry, I didn't get what you mean.

And it all looks like an absolutely damned conspiracy and lobbying because, on the other hand, it is really unbelievable that the jury was swindled so easily. Otherwise, they must have been incompetent. Is that what you mean?

See above. I really don't know what they did or did not know.

I can only say, I think the information that was provided, certainly, to me, appears misleading.

Did they have the requisite knowledge and skill set to challenge the render? Did they? I don't know. I certainly wonder.

But I won't make accusations without evidence. I will only say I think questions should have been asked; and I have a hard time believing, that if they were, the answers would have been fully satisfying.

But that may be me.

 

[Aleksei]

The black pots, as you note, are a problem, particularly the two that are centrally placed; as they really mess up even the intended design aesthetic which is called an 'allee'.
An allee being a path with identical rows of trees off to each side, as if to create a sort of parade route. But the pots, aside from not being overly attractive are simply too tall, they'd be shoulder height on many women.
The gravel also doesn't work, for reasons both functional and aesthetic. I'm really not sure how that idea got popular.....

It looks like the place is on its way to change, but the question about benches remains open as they seem to stay out of the area.

Corktown Common Neighbourhood Dogs Off-Leash Area

After investigating four potential sites, the City will be installing a new dogs off-leash area (OLA) in the western portion of Underpass Park which is bounded by St. Lawrence Street, Eastern Avenue and the Eastern Avenue Diversion. Visit the Project Updates section for more information. The...

www.toronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Ok, on to HTO Park.

This is one I've wanted to tackle for awhile.

Its a park I've always felt missed the mark for a number of reasons.

Bias on the table; let me begin by saying it was fairly well patronized when I went there recently, and that should always be an important benchmark for success. But as we will see, there are real design and execution issues w/this park.
Some are impactful now, others would be more acutely felt outside the summer season.

Lets start with an aerial of the site, so we can get an overall feel for the design.

From above, we can see the park is disproportionately hardscape heavy with a labyrinthine maze of paths.

Regulars here will know I tend to prefer paths with intuitive and clear direction. I've made a past exception for the Music Garden which I think demonstrated how an 'exception' to the rule can be handled nicely.
But here, I see no compelling reason for this pathway arrangement. There is a hint of a reason, when we see at-grade pictures.......which we'll get to shortly.

But while we're above the site..........I want to make note of the 'beach' area........unlike Sugar Beach, this version omits even a single tree, which is a shame, because we see how well the inclusion of a tree or two worked there.

Mixing open sun with partial shade is a great way to make a space like this more successful, in a greater range of weather.

Now let's come down to earth to look at the park more closely.

All pics below are mine, unless otherwise stated, and were taken in early July of this year.

From across the street, we see some good things; a fair few healthy trees, and some benches fronting the road.

But also a couple of issues jump out at me immediately.

1) This park's signature feature is the Lake. Where the hell is the Lake? Of course, we all know its just beyond the high 'hills' in the park..........but as a design choice, I tend to disagree with hiding the park's main feature from passersby.

2) While the Park paths to the interior/Lake are certainly visible...............not one stands out as a clear, principle entrance, instead there are a whopping six entrances in only 130M of Queen's Quay frontage. That has the perverse effect of taking up a lot of space, increasing maintenance costs, while also not providing a clear sense of 'event' around the entering the park.

Now let's cross the road and have a closer look:

Here, on a beautiful summer's day.....a couple of things again jump out at me..........:

1) I still can't see the Lake (yes, I am going on about that).

2) Very few people near Queen's Quay hmmmmm

3) Wait......did you not notice that too? Where do you sit? There are, FYI, exactly zero benches in the interior of this park except along the Lakeside/Beach/Promenade area.
It will soon be apparent in photos to follow that people are intended to, and in fact will sit on the grass in certain areas.............But the absence of alternative choices is one problem here.
Sitting on the grass is a great option on a dry, late spring/summer/early fall day.........but what about when the ground is wet or covered with snow? Hmmmm. Remember asipring Parks designers, Toronto has 4 seasons, and varied weather.

The lack of alternative seating can also be a problem for older people or those with less dexterity, who may find the bend and getting back up to be a problem. Its also a problem for those taking a lunch break from work and in formal wear, as grass stains are formal wear are not the best combo.

A bit further in............we find people using the grass, as I noted...........

Why here and not closer to the road, its all a very similar landscape design............
Remember what I said earlier about the importance of a Lake View? Its not just advertising the park's best feature............the vast majority of people I found seated in the park, found a spot where they could see the Lake.
That, in turn, makes areas of the park where you can't see the Lake under-utilized......

Lets keep going..........

Above, we obviously see three severely distressed, dying trees. The species here are in line w/the healthier trees we see elsewhere in the park. So something is certainly different here. The fact there isn't one healthy tree here indicates a problem w/site conditions. It clearly isn't lack of sun, so there is either a lack of moisture or there's something wrong w/the soils.

These aren't the only dying trees, though they are the most conspicuous clump. All of the distressed trees are on the Lake side of the park. I'd be inclined to wonder about moisture retention in that this is the high point of the park, and water will naturally run down hill. Willows require a very moist environment. That said, the grass certainly looks green, so I wouldn't want say for sure that that is the issue here. Any which way, it needs fixing.

On to the Beach:

This area of the park is indeed a 'hit'.........quite well patronized. But I must say.....I do find it a bit visually barren. The total absence of natural shade, any vegetation at all, and they of adjacent path is all a bit bland.

This view (below) does look kind of nice though:

So......I was on about the lack of benches............but at this point, in the hot sun, next to a beach, I'm became aware of something else I didn't see...............did anyone notice a drinking fountain? There may be one, if so its well hidden.
Seems to be this should be a park with multiple, easy to locate fountains.

Speaking of having a drink...........if you're not sweating out all your excess liquids you may need some other way to get rid of them............has anyone seen a washroom?

Oh, hold on, I found it....

In a signature waterfront park? Really? I mean, its better than nothing........but FFS, the plumbing is already right there.........how do we know? That building peeking out to your left is the fire station....they have water service!

We won't even start on the terrible garbage cans as that isn't the fault of park designers here, but the City really should hang its head in shame....

On my way back to the street..........we're going to have a look at the park lighting I most despise in the City.............

High Mast, 'stadium' lighting in a park, with no sports fields or other reason for this type of fixture................ugh......

Also, if you notice, the lights were on in the middle of a bright sunny day, not the best use of energy or tax dollars.

A more intimately scaled version of the same lights can be seen below, also on in broad daylight, and beaming an obnoxious colour of green that does nothing for the park experience after dark.

One last shot........this one from Streetview shows the park in Winter:

Look at how busy it is! Cough.......seriously, I don't expect the park to be very busy in winter...........but nary a soul to be seen.

The park lacks any visual interest in winter from the Queen's Quay side at least, no green, no colourful bark or dried tall grasses............

Oh and that no seating thing too........

Grumble.

 

[tripwire]

I actually like that the lake is hidden from the road/sidewalk. I very much agree with:

• washroom (but then, Sugar Beach could do with one too)
• lack of benches in the park
• pathing of the park

 

[christiesplits]

Great write yup on HTO. It isn't a particularly bad park (A+ name), but at the footstep of Toronto it deserves to be something better.

 

[officedweller]

Yeah, if the lake is hidden from the road side, that also means the road is hidden from the lake side.
So that may not be a bad thing.

 

[TossYourJacket]

Yeah, if the lake is hidden from the road side, that also means the road is hidden from the lake side.
So that may not be a bad thing.

I feel like you could solve that by having something like a X shape of diagonal paths through the park instead of the current maze. People on the beach (or in most of the park) wont see the road unless they look from a specific point, but people walking along Queen's Quay would have a view to the water at some point, and may be more inclined to walk down those paths to the water. Plus you could put some public art in the intersection of those paths to give something for people in the upper portion of the park to look at.

 

[Northern Light]

Yeah, if the lake is hidden from the road side, that also means the road is hidden from the lake side.
So that may not be a bad thing.

I suspect that may have been the idea, at the point when Queen's Quay had not yet been overhauled.

But as it stands, you have the MGT, then the streetcar ROW, then Queen's Quay (one lane each way) on the north side of that. As roads go....not the most intrusive in terms of noise or pollution.

I'm not sure you gain a lot by creating a screening effect; and one done almost entirely by elevation (artificially created hills).

If you wanted to screen out most of the noise, such as it is..........I'd have been more inclined to make a single entrance, keep the park closer to grade, but on both sides of the entrance do a triple row of trees, one of which would be conifers, to create a year-round screen. But at the same time have a view corridor to the Lake from the main entry way..

But I'm ok w/the alternative strategy.........in so far far as you make that entry way space off Queen's Quay enticing, and provide seating.

Currently that space is under utilized; and rather uninteresting, and lacks seating.