adHominem
Senior Member
Is it steam, or is it cool mist? Because the latter would be lovely on a hot day. I'd cut through there all the time in the summer.
Is it steam, or is it cool mist? Because the latter would be lovely on a hot day. I'd cut through there all the time in the summer.
It's mist.
They don't make parks to be forbidding, they're meant to be appealing!
42
They don't make parks to be forbidding, they're meant to be appealing!
42
isaidso
Senior Member
So when do they install places to sit in this lovely park?
marsh
Active Member
marsh
Active Member
Between the "mist" and the lack of places to sit. I think this is one of the most disfunctional parks I've ever seen. I don't think it was meant to be reallly used - just looked at.
Oliver Tweed
Active Member
Nice usage of "shrubbery" and "trepidation" in the same post.
I love this mist feature. I hope it's not accidental. I think kids would really like it, too.
Reminds me of last night's Jays game.
It's not accidental!
42
42
Torontovibe
Senior Member
Not to mention a fountain with no water, the most ridiculous part of it all.
Creighton
New Member
This isn't a park, it's an ornamental doo-dad. Why on earth would anybody ever go to this thing? It takes all of 2 minutes to look at the bird bath, walk the paths to nowhere, then tell the doorman "I think there's a problem with the sewer over by that ugly gray wall. Oh and I think your fountain is broken as well".
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Functional park or not, the whole composition (including the cheeky concrete 'carpet') is a masterful piece of landscape architecture.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Maybe they intended it to be like the Gardens of Versailles, of which one resident wrote "one both admired and avoided them".
junctionist
Senior Member
I think that urban design that fails to account for the enjoyment of ordinary people going about their daily lives is a failure. Such spaces end up empty most of the time and become neglected before getting bulldozed after a few decades. Meanwhile, there could have been a space that people would have enjoyed. I'm not condemning this particular space as a failure at this point, but I've seen such spaces from the 1960s-1980s that were sophisticated works of contemporary landscape design. They didn't attract people. Landscape design should be functional and attractive.
The worst part of all is that you may get some people who adapt an anti-design attitude if such spaces are in prominent places. They start to advocate for simple grass-bench-trees parks over landscape design, believing that only the former accommodates urban life and what people actually want to do in public spaces. They go to ward meetings and section 37 project meetings and make themselves heard. But those parks are typically generic and boring. So good landscape design should always create parks attuned to how people can enjoy the spaces. It doesn't always have to be about dogs or benches in every single space, but the functional side is critical. Beautiful and functional should be the ideal in designing every public space. It should look great and accommodate many desirable uses.
Last edited:
alklay
Senior Member
Agreed. There will be nothing "masterful" about this space if its underused (and benches don't soon appear).
Thanos
Active Member
I take it many Torontonians haven't traveled much. The mist wall is a feature in several hotel projects around the world. It's a great addition.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Visually, yes, I would agree. But if it's just a showpiece for rich people to look at (I'm half joking), as opposed to a space that the public can actually feel welcome to engage in and enjoy, I'm not sure if it's all-around "masterful".
Last edited: