@AlexBozikovic has a good piece that really is a central question about why Toronto gets Parks or Plazas/Public Squares wrong, as often or more often than it gets them right.
We need to create spaces where people want to gather, as William H. Whyte argued, but the central requirements are sadly absent in Canadian public spaces
www.theglobeandmail.com
The question was prompted by Alex's recent visit to U of T's School of Cities, where William H. Whytes' film "The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" was played before an audience.
Whyte a Jane Jacobs compatriot made straight forward observations of why some spaces work..........as example "People will sit, where there are places to sit".
Alex helpfully provides a link to Mr. Whyte's 1980 film, which can be found on You Tube, here:
Alex goes on to praise Claude Cormier's work at Berczy, rightly so , and pointing out how it fits with Whyte's recipe for a successful public space:
The above is a really good, tight description of what may make a plaza/public square or park work. Clearly, we are not speaking of a sports/recreation park here. Nor one devoted to nature. Some elements from the latter may find there way into the former or vice versa, but here we're really talking about spaces that are typically smaller, more urban, and really about creeating opportunities for community and social interaction. If they can also offer a playground or a tennis court that's fine, but not their core mission.
***
Alex asks why we don't have more of this in Toronto.
He partially answers the question in offering a mixed review of St. Andrew's Playground, by the Waterworks foodhall, which he rightly notes as a success overall............but yet, in many ways, it succeeds in spite of itself:
The first line gives away much......ahem DTAH.
Here (St. Andrew's) there was/is a fairly good idea..........but if there were important details that were wrong, and that detract from the park.
I will now direct people to my review of this space from back in 2022, which aligns with what Alex had to say,
We don't go often because it's all the way across the city for us, and I'm sure it could be better, but we sometimes meet friends from the west end there and everybody always likes it. Could use more seating, as always! Though if we're going to that area with kids, we'll probably suggest...
urbantoronto.ca
****
So, one part of this question is about getting the details right; but the other is dealing with bad design from the get-go.
That's what the entire Problematic Park Design thread is about.
Typically, in that thread, while I highlight some common issues, I'm narrowing in on the problems in each space.
Let me try to back out a bit and give a wider perspective.
1) The process around Park development in Toronto is screwed up at every level. The consultation process to engage the public is bloated beyond words and generally directionless, leaving the public to offer endless, sometimes conflicting
suggestions, some good, some not; but invariably resulting in a list of programming objectives that is too long, particularly for smaller spaces.
Change in mindset required: Do fewer things better.
This also means not doing completely open-ended consultations. Parks has to have a basic vision for a space and an understanding that it cannot be all things to all people.
Some Parks frankly require little or no consultation at all; and they would be better for it. There's nothing wrong with seeking public input, but it needs to be focused. This can mean asking a very specific question, where two equally good options exist and you can only find space for one...... "DOLA or playground' ? Tennis or Pickleball? or some such thing. OR, it can be about a larger design idea; but then we should be looking at a design competition, either with outsides, or challenging the in-house L.As to present a complete vision, with quality renders and then let people simply vote for what excites them. Its not about getting the public to sweat every detail; but sometimes just to share what captures their imagination and makes them smile.
2) Whyte's assertions of what work are really solid. Its not a long laundry list, you've seen variations on that from me through the years in the PPD thread. But is not the way Parks thinks and many Toronto design firms struggle with it too.
Many firms are box checkers; but others, fancy themselves artists and have high minded ideas a plenty, but what they often lack is the lens of the average park user. "What do they want?:""; "How do they (or will they) use the space? Then there's that pesky details problem.
There's nothing with a colour theme in a park, or it looking interesting from above, or even having a formal structure in spots. The key is whether those things serve the park user, and getting the details right such that people are drawn in, and want to stay.
Many people may enjoy a burst of Claude Cormier pink in their park, but few ever thought "We really need a pink park' The key there is understanding that pink is an accent, a deft design touch, but it isn't the space. (referencing Sugar Beach), the space is the 'beach', its the trees, its the umbrellas and the seating; and its the vibrancy, which the colour adds. Function, core concepts, overlaid with fun, and flavour.
****
In another thread, I've expressed concern over the direction of Queen's Park's revitalization. There's no shortage of talent leading that process; but you can feel two oddly conflicting impulses from early design efforts; one is box checking, and the other is running with ideas brought up by the leadership group without ever asking if that's what the public wanted, whether its functional, or how it could be achieved.
I'll leave my thoughts on that park, there, for the moment.
