Can't wait for the sidewalk to re-open

1m62m1.jpg
 
UrbanWarrior said:
View attachment 397148
Click to expand...
I don't know what it is, but a rectangle of about 300-500m by 200m makes the perfect urban neighbourhood park. This park, Riley Park, and South Calgary Park are all wonderful urban parks. My favourite parks in Toronto are also similar sizes: Withrow, Trinity-Bellwoods, and Duffrin Grove. I think it's the fact that you can combine a variety of specialized usages with a wide open space, partitioned with linear treed pathways. Libraries, outdoor pools, paved spaces for farmers markets, soccer fields, etc. With clear pathways and sight lines between each. A boundary of mid-rise buildings brings it all together.

The Beltline desperately needs something like this. Imagine the strong sense of place that would be created if Memorial Park occupied four blocks instead of just one.
 
The Calgary inner city has probably the most usable park space of any city in the world. (I don’t consider the wilderness of the Edmonton river valley “usable” park space except for urban hiking and dog walking). The Beltline is fine. We have Central Park, Haultain Park, Lindsey Park (in Mission, but still only 1 block south of the neighbourhood), Bealieu Park, Barb Scott Park, Connaught Park, Thomson Family Park, plus that lil one on 17th and other small green spaces interspersed (like Transalta). Anyways, the point is you can’t walk 2.5 blocks in the Beltline without hitting a greenspace. I’d prefer our current status to having just one larger one.

Agreed on all other things though, Bridgeland Park (or is it called Murdoch Park?) is my favourite in the inner city.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
The Calgary inner city has probably the most usable park space of any city in the world. (I don’t consider the wilderness of the Edmonton river valley “usable” park space except for urban hiking and dog walking). The Beltline is fine. We have Central Park, Haultain Park, Lindsey Park (in Mission, but still only 1 block south of the neighbourhood), Bealieu Park, Barb Scott Park, Connaught Park, Thomson Family Park, plus that lil one on 17th and other small green spaces interspersed (like Transalta). Anyways, the point is you can’t walk 2.5 blocks in the Beltline without hitting a greenspace. I’d prefer our current status to having just one larger one.

Agreed on all other things though, Bridgeland Park (or is it called Murdoch Park?) is my favourite in the inner city.
Click to expand...

Meh. Small parkettes shoehorned into the unused corner of a larger block do not have the makings of a great urban park. Don't get me wrong, it is pleasant to have small green spaces scattered throughout a neighbourhood. The parks built into the riverside are also great, but do not serve the same purpose.

The Beltline desperately lacks what urban planner Kevin Lynch called "legibility". It lacks internal nodes, pathways, boundaries, and landmarks that give you a clear sense of where you are. From 14 St W to Macleod, and the railway to 17 Ave, it's just an endless jumble of similar looking blocks with some hidden gems thrown into the mix but not immediately obvious to someone not already familiar with the neighbourhood.
 
Fair enough. I mean, I would argue that Central Park and Beaulieu Park both have those pathways you mentioned, and most parks I mentioned certainly aren’t shoehorned. But you’re right that the river pathway parks don’t serve the same purpose. I am really comparing mostly to other cities I have lived in which there isn’t a single greenspace in the entire “greater downtown” area (Toronto and Vancouver), not even shoehorned ones. Of course, Vancouver has Stanley Park and the ocean paths but they are similar in use to our riverside parks.

Edit: Vancouver’s inner downtown has Thurlow Park (or whatever it’s called) in the middle of the west end. Forgot about that one.

It would certainly be fantastic to have a two x two block massive urban park in the downtown area but it’s just not our reality. The sheer number and even distribution of our parks serves a very useful purpose.
 
Thurlow/Nelson Park would also be better if it was larger. But that area of Vancouver has well-defined boundaries created by Robson, Davies, Denman and Burrard. It is less than half the area of the Beltline. Memorial Park also has a lot going for it, but the Beltline would feel so different if Memorial Park had originally gone all the way east to 1 St and south to 14 Ave. You would have had so many more sight lines orienting you toward the park. It would have a similar impact on the Beltline that Washington Square Park has in Greenwich Village.

Edit: Sorry for getting off topic. Bottom line, Bridgeland Park is wonderful and it has contributed to making Bridgeland one of the great urban redevelopment success stories in Canada.
 
Last edited:
Silence&Motion said:
I don't know what it is, but a rectangle of about 300-500m by 200m makes the perfect urban neighbourhood park. This park, Riley Park, and South Calgary Park are all wonderful urban parks. My favourite parks in Toronto are also similar sizes: Withrow, Trinity-Bellwoods, and Duffrin Grove. I think it's the fact that you can combine a variety of specialized usages with a wide open space, partitioned with linear treed pathways. Libraries, outdoor pools, paved spaces for farmers markets, soccer fields, etc. With clear pathways and sight lines between each. A boundary of mid-rise buildings brings it all together.

The Beltline desperately needs something like this. Imagine the strong sense of place that would be created if Memorial Park occupied four blocks instead of just one.
Click to expand...
Silence&Motion said:
Meh. Small parkettes shoehorned into the unused corner of a larger block do not have the makings of a great urban park. Don't get me wrong, it is pleasant to have small green spaces scattered throughout a neighbourhood. The parks built into the riverside are also great, but do not serve the same purpose.

The Beltline desperately lacks what urban planner Kevin Lynch called "legibility". It lacks internal nodes, pathways, boundaries, and landmarks that give you a clear sense of where you are. From 14 St W to Macleod, and the railway to 17 Ave, it's just an endless jumble of similar looking blocks with some hidden gems thrown into the mix but not immediately obvious to someone not already familiar with the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...
Good comments. I generally agree with the assessment both on what makes a good urban park and Lynch's perspectives on legibility. Murdoch Park in particular is a fantastic example of park-centric density and intentional planning for all the reasons you mention. Rare in Calgary, no edge of the park is abutting a strong barrier or wide, fast anti-pedestrian road.

For the Beltline, I don't think it's the size of park that's missing - it's the park format and the integration of the park into the community. The typical critiques on sidewalk width, inconsistent streetscapes, random parking and driveway impacts etc. all apply but I want to focus on park design. We don't need more parks if the streets were more welcoming and enjoyable to be on.

Central Memorial Park is a perfect example. It's current design is beautiful with a great library but unfortunately weighted "history" more than "function" when it was re-done in the 2000s. Had they updated the design with a stronger diagonal pathway grid and wide, straight pathways to reflect 90% of all daily park users pass through the park, it would be way more functional and free up more space for amenities and activities.

Here's a counter-proposal for a more Lynch-inspired Memorial Park:

1651527599802.png

Yellow dots = entrance points to the park, blue dots = destinations within the park (library, restaurant, main fountains and statues etc.) Red lines = main park travel pathways (not precise).

My proposal for Memorial is boring but functional and far more into the spirit of Lynch's legibility and edges, paths, nodes etc. Every red line should be a wider prominent pedestrian path with benches, with termination vistas on a fountain, statue or landmark. Unlike the current design, this one encourages activity at the most interesting parts - statues, fountains and library.

Ironically, the current historic design pushes people away from the best parts, plus is awkwardly small so can't accommodate more than 2 people walking on a path together.

Further, the proposed design gives the people who are using the park have more direct and obvious paths through it. This would drive more traffic and more eyes into the park. Many of the pathways currently are redundant, narrow or indirect. It's dark, hard to see and unplowed in the winter, further reducing the usage as even a walking route, let alone a park with amenities..

If we simplified the path network with fewer pathways, it would operate way more functional given a high-density urban context of loads of people coming from every direction. Less pathways are we can free up more space for programmed or unprogrammed areas.

Sure, in the proposal lose the original layout, but is that really the valuable historic part? A few narrow crushed-gravel path? The alternative proposal keeps the main "historic references" of statues, fountains etc. and makes the park more functional.
 
Last edited:
CBBarnett said:
Good comments. I generally agree with the assessment both on what makes a good urban park and Lynch's perspectives on legibility. Murdoch Park in particular is a fantastic example of park-centric density and intentional planning for all the reasons you mention. Rare in Calgary, no edge of the park is abutting a strong barrier or wide, fast anti-pedestrian road.

For the Beltline, I don't think it's the size of park that's missing - it's the park format and the integration of the park into the community. The typical critiques on sidewalk width, inconsistent streetscapes, random parking and driveway impacts etc. all apply but I want to focus on park design. We don't need more parks if the streets were more welcoming and enjoyable to be on.

Central Memorial Park is a perfect example. It's current design is beautiful with a great library but unfortunately weighted "history" more than "function" when it was re-done in the 2000s. Had they updated the design with a stronger diagonal pathway grid and wide, straight pathways to reflect 90% of all daily park users pass through the park, it would be way more functional and free up more space for amenities and activities.

Here's a counter-proposal for a more Lynch-inspired Memorial Park:

View attachment 397490
Yellow dots = entrance points to the park, blue dots = destinations within the park (library, restaurant, main fountains and statues etc.) Red lines = main park travel pathways (not precise).

My proposal for Memorial is boring but functional and far more into the spirit of Lynch's legibility and edges, paths, nodes etc. Every red line should be a wider prominent pedestrian path with benches, with termination vistas on a fountain, statue or landmark. Unlike the current design, this one encourages activity at the most interesting parts - statues, fountains and library.

Ironically, the current historic design pushes people away from the best parts, plus is awkwardly small so can't accommodate more than 2 people walking on a path together.

Further, the proposed design gives the people who are using the park have more direct and obvious paths through it. This would drive more traffic and more eyes into the park. Many of the pathways currently are redundant, narrow or indirect. It's dark, hard to see and unplowed in the winter, further reducing the usage as even a walking route, let alone a park with amenities..

If we simplified the path network with fewer pathways, it would operate way more functional given a high-density urban context of loads of people coming from every direction. Less pathways are we can free up more space for programmed or unprogrammed areas.

Sure, in the proposal lose the original layout, but is that really the valuable historic part? A few narrow crushed-gravel path? The alternative proposal keeps the main "historic references" of statues, fountains etc. and makes the park more functional.
Click to expand...
The greenspace actually becomes useable too, not just pretty. Imagine trying to throw a frisbee or football in the current configuration.
 
CBBarnett said:
Good comments. I generally agree with the assessment both on what makes a good urban park and Lynch's perspectives on legibility. Murdoch Park in particular is a fantastic example of park-centric density and intentional planning for all the reasons you mention. Rare in Calgary, no edge of the park is abutting a strong barrier or wide, fast anti-pedestrian road.

For the Beltline, I don't think it's the size of park that's missing - it's the park format and the integration of the park into the community. The typical critiques on sidewalk width, inconsistent streetscapes, random parking and driveway impacts etc. all apply but I want to focus on park design. We don't need more parks if the streets were more welcoming and enjoyable to be on.

Central Memorial Park is a perfect example. It's current design is beautiful with a great library but unfortunately weighted "history" more than "function" when it was re-done in the 2000s. Had they updated the design with a stronger diagonal pathway grid and wide, straight pathways to reflect 90% of all daily park users pass through the park, it would be way more functional and free up more space for amenities and activities.

Here's a counter-proposal for a more Lynch-inspired Memorial Park:

View attachment 397490
Yellow dots = entrance points to the park, blue dots = destinations within the park (library, restaurant, main fountains and statues etc.) Red lines = main park travel pathways (not precise).

My proposal for Memorial is boring but functional and far more into the spirit of Lynch's legibility and edges, paths, nodes etc. Every red line should be a wider prominent pedestrian path with benches, with termination vistas on a fountain, statue or landmark. Unlike the current design, this one encourages activity at the most interesting parts - statues, fountains and library.

Ironically, the current historic design pushes people away from the best parts, plus is awkwardly small so can't accommodate more than 2 people walking on a path together.

Further, the proposed design gives the people who are using the park have more direct and obvious paths through it. This would drive more traffic and more eyes into the park. Many of the pathways currently are redundant, narrow or indirect. It's dark, hard to see and unplowed in the winter, further reducing the usage as even a walking route, let alone a park with amenities..

If we simplified the path network with fewer pathways, it would operate way more functional given a high-density urban context of loads of people coming from every direction. Less pathways are we can free up more space for programmed or unprogrammed areas.

Sure, in the proposal lose the original layout, but is that really the valuable historic part? A few narrow crushed-gravel path? The alternative proposal keeps the main "historic references" of statues, fountains etc. and makes the park more functional.
Click to expand...
I did a project on this park in an urban design class about 15 years ago (my book review for the class was Lynch as it happens). I'll start by challenging your implicit assumption that the 'function' of a park is to enable the most direct travel possible through it, and that this is the criteria for 'making a park more functional'.

The layout is absolutely the most valuable historic part of the park. The formal Edwardian garden layout has been established here continuously for 110 years; the same age as the library and older than any of the monuments in the park. (The oldest monument is the "Horsemen of the Plains" statue in the middle, which is a 1914 Boer War memorial.) It's a unique historical piece of landscape architecture that deserves preservation; the same as a unique piece of structural architecture.

1655169708530.png

Sure, there's not a ton of room for frisbee, but if people need a bigger piece of lawn, there is both the Haultain park across the street to the east and the Beaulieu Gardens one block west.

Would I design a new park like this? No. But there's only one park like this in the city, and it's worth preserving that history, even if it means people on Bird scooters have to make an extra couple of turns while cutting through, and even if it costs people up to 15 valuable extra seconds while walking through a park.

There's a ton more information here, in the 2012 bylaw designating Central Memorial as the first park to be recognized as a Municipal Historic Resource.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top