[smably]

The armrests on the benches seem unfortunate. They put so much design effort apparently just so homeless people don't sleep on the benches. Even if you sit down and want an armrest for your arms, there are only armrests in the middle of the bench. Shouldn't there be armrests on both sides of the seat for the user's comfort?

Somebody mentioned (I forget whether it was on here or Twitter) that the high armrests are actually an accessibility feature to allow users to to lift themselves on and off the benches, and were specifically requested during the consultation phase. The armrests are omitted from the ends to allow wheelchair users to pull up to the end of the bench and sit next to people on the bench without having the arm in the way (I think that was the explanation).

 

[Tuscani01]

Somebody mentioned (I forget whether it was on here or Twitter) that the high armrests are actually an accessibility feature to allow users to to lift themselves on and off the benches, and were specifically requested during the consultation phase. The armrests are omitted from the ends to allow wheelchair users to pull up to the end of the bench and sit next to people on the bench without having the arm in the way (I think that was the explanation).

Same page as @junctionist's post:

The benches have the metal arms to allow for people to push themselves to an upright position. There are different configurations to allow for a variety of users. Some of the benches even have no hand rails on the end, and an extended concrete pad to allow for a wheelchair user to sit next to a friend without a metal bar separating the two. These specifications were something that came out of meetings with the community.

 

[JasonParis]

Sort of related, but do we have any indication of when, if ever, OCADU's Sharp Centre is finally going to fix the aging paint job on its legs?

 

[junctionist]

Same page as @junctionist's post:

Thanks for the explanation. While accessibility is a more respectable design goal than preventing homeless people from sleeping on the benches, all of my complaints about the usability of the benches are still valid.

 

[Tuscani01]

Thanks for the explanation. While accessibility is a more respectable design goal than preventing homeless people from sleeping on the benches, all of my complaints about the usability of the benches are still valid.

For an able bodied person in good health, sure. Easy to claim that. But these benches are designed to be used by more people than you and myself.

I'm fine with missing an arm rest so that someone else can have the ability to use the bench without straining or risking injury. Or so that someone in a wheel chair can sit next to their friend without feeling isolated and separated. Makes no real difference to the usability for me, and opens up a new world to others.

Not all of the benches have the same configuration, so just move on to one that suits your needs.

 

[junctionist]

For an able bodied person in good health, sure. Easy to claim that. But these benches are designed to be used by more people than you and myself.

I'm fine with missing an arm rest so that someone else can have the ability to use the bench without straining or risking injury. Or so that someone in a wheel chair can sit next to their friend without feeling isolated and separated. Makes no real difference to the usability for me, and opens up a new world to others.

Not all of the benches have the same configuration, so just move on to one that suits your needs.

I have nothing against accessible benches. In fact, I'd like to see them installed throughout the city's park system. But I don't think there are enough of the benches that suit my needs--ones without arm rests at all and benches with arm rests on both sides. My needs are aligned with a large part of the population without disabilities.

 

[dowlingm]

Speaking of inappropriate use of the fountain - action shot from Gil Meslin:

https://twitter.com/g_meslin/status/891829008370982916

Normally I enjoy kids having a good time with water, but this installation clearly isn't designed for kids to climb into it. Honestly, where are the parents in this (other than being the facilitator of inappropriate behaviour)? Any bets when they will put up a sign?

AoD

The parents are "holy crap it's hot and the City still* haven't fixed the damn splash pad which I told my kid would be there".

* July 30, when I was last in the park.

The other thing about the fountain is that the tree line is quite nearby. There is zero shade for carers at the splashpad installation within reasonable distance/at the seating area.

Also, if we're talking about hazards, the Henry Moore was very hot that day, which might be obvious to adults but not the kids who I saw run up to it.

Here's the one hot buttered fail I took away from Grange Park - why aren't the washrooms (near the OCAD tabletop) signed? I wasn't sure what they were until I saw someone else exit one.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From CBC Toronto:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/grange-park-flooding-1.4269064

AoD

 

[Towered]

One of my kids simply laid down on the grate of one of the fountains and got a deep cut on the leg. Should I notify the city? I don't want to ruin this lovely new park for everyone...

 

[interchange42]

Yes, you absolutely should. Whatever has caused that needs to be fixed. (Could there have been broken glass wedged in it? Or is there a major design flaw?)

42

 

[ponyboy]

We love the park, but you can see the lack of coordination across different departments in the placement of sprinklers, some shooting right at the new garbage bings. The people who put in the concrete slab and/or the sprinkler installer did not see the potential problem, and now it will take a $1000 work order to move the sprinkler 1 meter.

 

[Rascacielo]

Today's shots

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

I wish that these new and beautiful parks had black wrought iron fences installed and only people deemed worthy of giving a sh*t about beautiful new parks, trees, plants, play equipment, and public furniture were given access. And if someone claims that smokers who flick their butts, gum chewers who spit out their gum on the pavement, dog walkers who don't clean up after their pet and/or let their pet urinate over everything, graffiti 'artists' who tag everything with a surface (that's you Forte!), and skateboarders who have to destroy anything nice...are human beings with rights to the new Park...then don't complain about it when things get destroyed. Berczy Park and Sugar Beach are littered with butts from the nearby office workers who should be ashamed...but they aren't.

It's not just a City of Toronto Parks and Recreation problem, it's all of our problem. And there is a large majority of people who do not clean up after themselves and feel it's other people's duty to clean up after them.

I found evidence of another group you didn't mention,.... or maybe they're classified as the ones who don't clean up after themselves,.... images taken from inside "the whale" play-structure of the children playground,....

Look closer,....

Obviously, crack-pipe shouldn't be in children play areas,.... so do inspect the playground area carefully before your kids start jumping around,....

 

[Avenue]

I found evidence of another group you didn't mention,.... or maybe they're classified as the ones who don't clean up after themselves,.... images taken from inside "the whale" play-structure of the children playground,....

Prior to construction EVERYONE in the meetings told them that thing would just become a camp/shelter. They didn't give a shit and built it anyway.

 

[111]