Thanks,
@Northern Light. I always appreciate you keen eye to park design.
Based on the proposals, which one do you think will require the lowest amount of upkeep? Knowing PFR, I'm concerned about broken lightning and overgrown plants. It's a sad day where "ease of maintenance" is a key criteria for grading proposals, but this is Toronto, after all.
Also, I notice there are no ugly and clunky waste bins in the renderings. We can only hope!
It's difficult to say in some respects, because we not only lack the full material palette at this stage, we also lack drawings that show how certain structures are to be built.
That said, it's fairly easy to spot the potential weaknesses.
Let's start w/the hardscape.
1) Any structure is a potential source of maintenance, but if you want washrooms, you'll have at least some structure. The question then, is, how susceptible to vandalism is it, and vulnerable to other issues (roof leaks), and how easy to fix is it?
We lack sufficient detail here to be clear w/each proposal; but washrooms tucked under a landform and structural seating in the PMA proposal do have extra risk factors attached in terms of potential leaks and difficulties with remediation.
The same will be true for the balcony structure in the West 8 proposal. Free standing washrooms buildings will at least be easier to fix.
That said, if the structures are well built, maintenance may be low.
2) Moving parts; The Electric City proposal has in-ground misters. I would be highly suspicious of how well these will be maintained. Very susceptible to damage and clogging; a royal pain to clean-out regularly.
3) Lighting, I can't speak to the vulnerability of any of the designs, and I don't know who the proposed vendors are..........I assume/hope it will all be LED.
But, I would look at two things, the height/location of lighting, stuff closer to the ground is more likely to be routinely impaired by moisture, incidental physical contact, vandalism, or even being buried under leafy debris in planting zones. The other thing I might consider is how critical is the full or substantial operation of the lighting to the design. Obviously if the park is mostly dark at night, that's a problem for any design, I'm thinking more if say 1/2 your electric trees don't light up or don't light up fully that probably has a more adverse effect than does 1 or 2 or 3 fixtures burning out; equally I expect it may be a more specialized fix. When I see all the lighting in the PMA design under the seats, I have thoughts about how it will be circuited (if one light fails, does the entire strip?) .
Again it's tough to draw firm conclusions w/o more detailed information. I would not want to see designs all dumbed down to being idiot-proofed.
***
Softscape:
Other than the issue w/the Birch monocultures....
The lawns are an obvious weak point in a couple of designs. I would prefer these either become paths, with additional landscape around them, or become a clear landscape feature, but be protected from intrusion, if softscaped.
I also think the Electric City design will likely be trampled due to the inconvenience of the row-based layout.
***
Of all the designs, the DTAH is probably the lowest risk; but its landscape design remains an issue both in terms of soil volumes and trample risk. * ( I don't have any soil volumes yet, it's a concern based on the renders)
