I am wondering what is the target to make unconventional work?
My purpose in stating that was........
That I have posted that their are understood guidelines/rules/conventions in park design which tend to work well.
Whether that's highly visible entrances, some sort of program; not over programming, proper orientation of paths and designs (follow desire lines, facilitate short cuts etc.) or any other number of things.
Having said that; there are, from time to time people who want to try something different; and it can work.
One example I afford is Village of Yorkville Park; and another is The Music Garden on Queen's Quay.
Both of these Parks are good designs, attractive and enjoyable and popular.
Both don't follow 'convention' in the way they are laid out.
Yet, in both cases you can see how designers 'bent the rules' rather breaking them; how they mitigated their unusual choices.
In the case of the Music Garden, many of the paths are circuitous rather than linear. But not only are they beautifully landscaped and enjoyable to walk; little cross-cuts and exits have been built into the path system so that those wishing to escape the maze may do so. While the choice of plants, use of seats, rocks and other fixtures discourage people from cutting across the planting beds.
In the Village of Yorkville Park, the space is laid out as a series of rooms; almost an art gallery of mini-landscapes.
In general, I would discourage this type of design as most of the time, people don't enjoy parks laid out in this manner.
But here, there was again thought; thought on how to create little paths into and through the various rooms; a use of creative lighting, water features, seating, flowers, and tables on bring people into the space.
The rooms aren't merely passive; but interactive. Put simply, the unconventional was made to work.
June Callwood is one but, atrocious, example of the unconventional going horribly wrong; but also terribly execution of an already execrable concept.
Put simply if you want to 'break the rules' you have to have a good design reason to do so; and you need to understand how people will react to and make use of your design; and then engineer in what mitigation measures may be necessary.
It can be done; it usually is not.
We don't start cooking in a bathroom and sleep underneath a bed.
LOL, I don't think even gh3 went that far. They meant the park to be appreciated surely. They did include conventional benches, they did include lights; there are trees etc.
What they did though was a terrible job on the details from material selection to execution; and they broke good design conventions w/o any obvious, logical reason; and didn't really anticipate (I assume) how this would adversely affect people's opinion of their design.
Why should we follow some unhealthy ideas and replace traditional recreational green nooks with disproportional piling up of concrete, steel, lack of aesthetics, peace, quiet, and additionally without entry gates, full of snags? Also, as people haven't started to walk on four limbs or enter the house through a window, I honestly don't see a faint reason to substitute grass with gravel or, even worse, limestone or overuse cement for park pathways.
I would generally agree w/the above. I clearly disagree w/the use of gravel and limestone screening here; it lacks no obvious purpose, and its both unattractive in appearance and unpleasant to walk on (particularly the gravel)
What definitely strikes the eye is the height of the low branches of most of the trees and inconsistency and whim in seating design. Although, the musculoskeletal system of humans has not changed for a considerably long time. I can't say another way that those mini-parks designed not for humans or trees themself play the role of green color spots for those looking at them from above rather than aside. And this only proves that today's park design has lost its mean or not found a new look
In the case of this park, I agree. But if you read through the thread, you'll see a few examples of great park design from recent years as well. We shouldn't lump all contemporary design together.
Let me introduce myself shortly. I came to Canada in 2017. I studied Civil Engineering when I understood that something is wrong in a typical city design. I was really discouraged by not finding a single park in Toronto build with gravel pathways. Now we know many materials like recycled glass, resin bound gravel different from concrete but for some reason, we don't see new materials in use that much. I discovered my eagerness to contribute to changes in the local urban landscape. That is why I am interested in this topic and more. I hope to bring to the table practical things in the future, but I am still looking for the pathway. In my past, I visited most of the European capitals from Saint-Petersburg, Helsinki, and Stockholm to London, Paris, and Rome. I saw beautiful parks and walkable places. At least I can compare.
Welcome to Urban Toronto
@Aleksei. Don't let a few badly designed Parks discourage you, there are many wonderful parks in Toronto too. Though certainly we all want to see mistakes corrected, and like mistakes avoided in the future as Toronto's parks system is added to; or renewed.
I've done much travelling myself. But have to have the privilege of visiting St. Petersburg. ( I can compare Toronto to Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Venice, Vienna, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, and a long list of other places. Though I don't I've referenced an international comparison in this thread. Perhaps that time may come.
I am not aware of the approval process for the park design of the city of Toronto yet, and I would want to find out and see what I can do to make the city more suitable for life. I really would want to explore the idea of can we, as a society of like-minded or interested people, do a thing practically to change the situation for the better.
The process varies widely.
But in general; new and substantially refurbished parks are the subject of public consultation.
Sometimes these parks projects are managed by outside designers (not City staff); sometimes, smaller projects are handled by the City's own landscape architects.
If you consult this page:
You will see links to 'new facilities', 'facility improvements (renovation, refurbishment, expansion etc.) and Plans.
Follow each of these links to a list of individual projects, and click on those in which you have an interest.
Most will have some type of design idea posted and an opportunity for public input. Assuming the construction tender has not yet been issued, even if the consultation is closed, you can usually submit a comment for consideration via email.
www.theguardian.com
