Have spent the last 2 hours reading through your thread on park design.
I feel like it is a lot harder to get a "High-concept" park to an average level of useability vs. a more traditional park with grass. Looking at even very bland ones like Roxton Road Parkett it can serve as a place for those few houses next door to have a lawn or "backyard" for picnics, bocce ball, or read on the grass.
I'm glad you found that thread of interest.
***
I would say you're not wrong. Although, arguably, Claude Cormier makes 'High Concept' look easy; as is so often the case w/people who are skilled at and passionate about what they do.
A basic park can usually hold some degree of function, even if it's a bit under-baked/bland etc. This isn't always true, but it is often the case.
Also on your comment on the use of gravel. My assumption is it is done because it is water permeable vs. concrete. and easier to maintain vs. grass?
Reasons will vary. There certainly could be an ecological ideal at play.
But it's also cheaper than any form of paving so it helps plug holes in a budget.
It can also be a landscape design choice to create a 'garden' feel or a greater sense of intimacy.
But, generally, it is not suitable for pathways with high volume usage; It also helps if you 'edge' it but many designers demur from that as it may be seen to make formal that which was meant to be informal; it's also a budget issue.
Needless to say, it also requires maintenance. In general, a once a year heaping of a fresh wheelbarrow (or several) of new screening. But that's 'operations' which is a different budget and different staff entirely.
