Toronto Wellesley on the Park | 194.15m | 60s | Lanterra | KPMB

condovo said:
Any granite coming to this park or just more poured concrete?

Edit. Are those granite slabs I see in the second to last pic above? ^^^
Click to expand...

Hmmm, going back to the meeting panels:

1633098592019.png
 
Park/green space designs these days are so busy and chaotic. I suspect it's a reflection of the video game generation. They were brought up staring at screens with 1000s of pixels so look for hyper stimulation even in nature. I read a study that concluded that they're used to reading off a screen so when shown a book they tend to drift off almost immediately. There aren't enough visual cues on a sheet of paper and writing to keep them engaged.

I feel visually bombarded by most of the new parks/parkettes being built. Whatever happened to designing places that are serene and relaxing? I guess I can go to Queens Park. It's only 2 blocks further.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
I guess I can go to Queens Park. It's only 2 blocks further.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I do almost daily. I keep hoping that at some point I will see something in this new park that will motivate me to throw my hat in the air. Alas, nothing so far.
 
isaidso said:
Park/green space designs these days are so busy and chaotic. I suspect it's a reflection of the video game generation. They were brought up staring at screens with 1000s of pixels so look for hyper stimulation even in nature. I read a study that concluded that they're used to reading off a screen so when shown a book they tend to drift off almost immediately. There aren't enough visual cues on a sheet of paper and writing to keep them engaged.
Click to expand...
Quite the baseless generalization here. As I said in a previous post, everything in this park is intentionally designed to reflect “histories, cultures, themes important to Dr. Lillian McGregor.”

I doubt the “video game generation” is any different than the “TV generation” in terms of what they want in a park.
 
limer said:
Quite the baseless generalization here. As I said in a previous post, everything in this park is intentionally designed to reflect “histories, cultures, themes important to Dr. Lillian McGregor.”

I doubt the “video game generation” is any different than the “TV generation” in terms of what they want in a park.
Click to expand...

How on earth is it baseless? It's based on the observation of green spaces and parkettes built in Canadian cities the last 15-20 years, not this one in isolation. It's also based on studies conducted on the effects of electronic graphics on brain function and biology. Studies timed how long a child, young adult, older adult, and senior could stare at a hard copy book before the eye wondered and the brain disengaged. A lot of these studies conclude the same thing: there has been a generational change. Those born after 1980 become visually bored much faster given the same amount of visual stimulation and there's a correlation between this and visual inputs since birth. An electronic screen has exponentially more information per square centimetre than a chalk board or hard copy book.

These things almost certainly affect a general population's design preferences. Are you saying you disagree with the findings of these studies and the hypothesis or did you not bother looking into any of this before posting? And btw, televisions back in the day were analogue not digital so the amount of visual information per square centimetre changed drastically as the technology shifted.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
How on earth is it baseless? It's based on the observation of green spaces and parkettes built in Canadian cities the last 15-20 years, not this one in isolation. It's also based on studies conducted on the effects of electronic graphics on brain function and biology. Studies timed how long a child, young adult, older adult, and senior could stare at a hard copy book before the eye wondered and the brain disengaged. A lot of these studies conclude the same thing: there has been a generational change. Those born after 1980 become visually bored much faster given the same amount of visual stimulation and there's a correlation between this and visual inputs since birth. An electronic screen has exponentially more information per square centimetre than a chalk board or hard copy book.

These things almost certainly affect a general population's design preferences. Are you saying you disagree with the findings of these studies and the hypothesis or did you not bother looking into any of this before posting? And btw, televisions back in the day were analogue not digital so the amount of visual information per square centimetre changed drastically as the technology shifted.
Click to expand...
Are we designing parks because of it? Doubt it. And if so, so what? Are we designing new parks for last generation?

Not saying that the digital generations are certainly less engaged with less "exciting" spaces (being part of that generation, I often get "why read a book" and 'why go to the green space when you can go to the shop/whatever?") but, I don't think it's categorically negative.
 
isaidso said:
How on earth is it baseless? It's based on the observation of green spaces and parkettes built in Canadian cities the last 15-20 years, not this one in isolation. It's also based on studies conducted on the effects of electronic graphics on brain function and biology. Studies timed how long a child, young adult, older adult, and senior could stare at a hard copy book before the eye wondered and the brain disengaged. A lot of these studies conclude the same thing: there has been a generational change. Those born after 1980 become visually bored much faster given the same amount of visual stimulation and there's a correlation between this and visual inputs since birth. An electronic screen has exponentially more information per square centimetre than a chalk board or hard copy book.

These things almost certainly affect a general population's design preferences. Are you saying you disagree with the findings of these studies and the hypothesis or did you not bother looking into any of this before posting? And btw, televisions back in the day were analogue not digital so the amount of visual information per square centimetre changed drastically as the technology shifted.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to discuss broader preferences here.........just what's actually been built by Parks.

I think you'd find if you look at the aggregate total of all new parks in the City in the last 20 years you would find that there has been no material change in how parks are laid out.

Some are better, some are worse; but most are designed in-house by the City off a very basic template for playgrounds, sports fields, trees, benches, grass and a couple of perennial floral displays. Nothing overly exciting. Many here would argue under-designed, I might argue for more nature over passive grass in some (but not all) of those spaces.

I would even point out that some City parks are less programmed than they once were, Allan Gardens used to have a majestic fountain, and bandstand/gazebo among other things it now lacks.

Now it is true that some, new, small City parks are over-programmed. That frankly has more to do with competing, demands on far too little space.
It often results in a mediocre playground, a mediocre landscape, inadequate seating, and a dog-run than most dogs would turn their noses up at..........
But that has less to do with generational preference than it does the idea that you must squeeze this, and that, and the other thing into 0.1ha/0.25 acres, when it just doesn't fit.

****

I will grant two notable exceptions to the above, in respect of downtown parks.

In the spirit of raising the caliber of design, more parks have been designed by outside firms in recent years.

Some Landscape Architecture firms simply lack the requisite experience or know-how for such spaces; while others may be determined to 'make a statement' with their publicly-accessible showpiece, and that can lead to the sense that less would have been more.

Also the City has a large public art budget, which, as often discussed here, is under-invested in maintenance and in singular, show-stopping pieces that would garner greater public appreciation, and instead invested
in a greater number of smaller works, which often get ignored/neglected. I think that's unfortunate, and the wrong approach. However, I have seen no indication that it has anything to do w/general propensity for more frequent visual stimuli.
 
Not related to the park, but the building has already run into some issues with water damage. Two standpipe leaks occurred last week on some lower floors which took all 6 elevators out of service. Only 3 have been restored. Certainly sucks for those living on high floors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top