Evaluations

Inclusiveness

+

social diversity

Downtown is where you can find much of Sudbury’s social life, consisting of culture and arts, sporting events, nightlife, and plenty of shops and cafés. These destinations draw many visitors from the surrounding communities whom contribute to an inclusive and socially diverse environment. Nestled within the downtown core are the locations of both public spaces evaluated by our group in Assignment 1a. As previously mentioned, the neighbouring Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square have a wide assortment of building types and points of interest in their surrounding context. They are also host to a variety of attractive physical features, which contribute to an attractive public space, one that lends itself to an inclusive and socially diverse public space.

Our presumptions of the site based on the apparent attributes was that these spaces had the necessary components to cultivate a socially diverse and inclusive public space. That being said, the sites did in fact serve as inclusive spaces, but with limited social diversity. Initially it was assumed that the adjacent residential, business sector, dining population and adjacent community members would be found using the spaces. However, this was not the reality for both Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square. As we discovered and noted within our initial observational report, both Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square primarily served as longer-term collective areas, for the homeless or lower socio-economic population although, there were exceptions for both sites regarding social diversity. Specifically: Memorial Park was used as a throughway for pedestrians to cut off time or distance from their commute, and similarly Tom Davies Square again was used as a shortcut for employees to venture from their parked car to their places of work within the facility.

The focus of this report will analyse the Social Diversity and Inclusiveness of the observed majority, whom occupied the sites as places of refuge. The primary ethnic group that populated the communal hubs at both Memorial Park and Tom Davis Square were observed to be lower-socio economic Indigenous people (based on visual observation, not interview).

The Public Health Sudbury District catchment area is home to over 24,000 Indigenous Peoples (13% of total population), comprised of First Nations (57%), Métis Peoples (40%), and Inuit or Mixed Indigenous (3%). Within the Sudbury district are five First Nations reservations, one within Greater Sudbury, and seven are located on or near Manitoulin Island.

Sudbury’s downtown serves as a destination point for youth or members of these indigenous communities who wish to leave their communities. Underlying factors that can push these individuals away from their homes may include; poverty, addiction or drug abuse, and or food insecurity. Historically, resources in Indigenous communities have always been in a fragile state. Unfortunately, homelessness and food insecurity has become a norm in social life and is not a top public priority. Food insecurity is a growing issue within vulnerable groups. Specifically, Indigenous groups due to the following factors; many northern communities are comprised of mostly low income households, bought foods are becoming increasingly expensive, and there is less access to traditional methods of food gathering. Sudbury’s downtown has food banks established to distribute foods to people in need on a voluntary basis free of charge. The downtown food banks might play a role in drawing less fortunate indigenous people from the surrounding area if they do not have food security where they are.

Of the observed Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square occupants roughly 20% of the occupants were women. Homeless women make up a large portion of the total homeless population. Homeless women can face many challenges including: mental illness, substance abuse and trauma. There is a higher tendency for women to have more trouble gaining access to shelter, food and health care, and are more likely to be exposed to profound social exclusion. Shelters unable to recognize their unique needs and sets of challenges make it more difficult for women to receive the support they require, and it's reported that the majority have received services which were fragmented and not personalised to their specific set of needs. In addition to this, there is no women specific shelter within the downtown area which otherwise would specialize in these areas, leaving them with no alternatives.

The observed inclusiveness at the sites showed characteristics of a highly collaborative group of individuals. Despite several individuals doing drugs and drinking, and one physical altercation at the Memorial Park site, it seemed as if the occupants were supportive of one another and enjoyed each other's presence. Even though these individuals likely have incomparable sets of challenges and have faced difficulties that most cannot relate with, there was an observed sense of comradery and support for each other equally between both men and women.

Health

+

well being

The built environment is receiving increased research attention in recent years regarding its complex relationship with physical activity and wellbeing. It has long been recognized that individual and social factors affect physical activity levels, but more recent research has shown that a well-designed environment can have a significant impact on physical activity levels, and overall wellbeing. The sprawling public space that includes Memorial Park (North and South) and Tom Davies Square is a valuable resource for our city. Their combined built features are well-designed (mostly), well-developed, and well-maintained. By providing a platform for socialization, improved community engagement, and increased physical activity, the parks are overall very successful, and stands to benefit the health and well-being of all their users, despite their choice of activities.

During our observations, we witnessed a wide variety of behaviours. Memorial Park North and South saw much higher usage than Tom Davies Square, but one commonality of users of all three parks was that they engaged in a wide variety of activities. The large number of built elements provide users with several unique opportunities for engagement, which made observing very fascinating. Some activities observed could be considered healthy, including a lot of walking, some bicycling, and socializing. However, some less than healthy lifestyle choices were also observed, including alcohol and drug use, hostility, and violence.

The three parks share a spatial relationship due to their adjacency/proximity to one another (Memorial North and South are two halves of the same park, and Tom Davies Square is directly across Minto Street). Many park users were observed moving from one part of Memorial Park into the other, and then carrying on out of the park through the alleyway near Kuppajo, or out one of the southern corners of the park. However, no one was observed moving between Memorial Park and Tom Davies by any of the three observers. This could be due perhaps in part to a lack of continuity in design elements to bridge the gap, or perhaps due to the barren nature of Tom Davies hard elements, offering little interest or shelter to its users. A stronger connection and cohesiveness could help draw more people to Tom Davies, expanding on Memorial Park’s network of paths, creating more opportunities for physical activities and social engagement. However, we identified the possibility that Tom Davies is intentionally exercising hostile architecture, meant to deter people from lingering. Though largely speculative, it is possible that its austere design could have been a “NIMBY” tactic of Sudbury’s municipal government employees and decision-makers to keep a buffer between themselves and Sudbury’s most destitute population.

The Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) is a research and evaluation framework for wellbeing that is internationally recognized. It examines, tracks, and reports on how people are doing in respect to the broad determinants of health. Using 64 unique indicators, it compiles quantitative data into eight quality of life “domains”: living standards, healthy populations, community vitality, democratic engagement, leisure and culture, time use, education, and the environment. It is recognized as a powerful tool that allows researchers to define success, measure their impact, and inform the development of services, programs, and policies to improve health and wellbeing. Similarly, the internationally-recognized Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) aims to shape policies that foster prosperity, equality, opportunity and well-being for all using eleven “Key Dimensions”:

Using these models, we might reasonably exclude a few categories due to our methodological limitations as observers (inability to interview citizens). Education, Democratic Engagement, Living Standards, Work-Life Balance, and Knowledge and Skills would be interesting to explore and assess in a further study of the parks and their users. With that being said, several park goers did engage in behaviours that demonstrated positive indicators in other categories, such as Community Vitality, Leisure and Culture, Social Connections, and Environment Quality.

Healthy behaviours observed:

Dog walking
Bicycling
Walking
Socializing
Laughing
Traveling in pairs or groups
Eating together
Storytelling

Unhealthy behaviours observed:

Digging through garbage for food
Drug use
Consuming alcohol
Arguing
Fighting
Being underdressed for the weather

Potentially healthy behaviours and activities not observed at time of study:

Festivals
Concerts/Plays
Playing in the splash pad
Staying in the park for exercise
Yoga
Frisbee
Playing tag
Meeting up with friends to exercise (social and physical health double-whammy!)
Children using the play structures

It has become well-accepted that even in developed nations like the United States and Sweden, the vast majority of adults do not meet the physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes per week. Sedentary lifestyles put most adults at risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes, obesity, some cancers, osteoporosis, and psychological disorders. Exercise can be effective in chronic disease management, from early prevention (prevention of risk factors), through treatment, and rehabilitation. The potential for physical activity to prevent chronic diseases, thereby improving quality of life and dramatically reducing health care costs has become of very special interest.

Using the PPS (Project for Public Spaces) 4 Factors (Sociability, Uses and Activities, Access and Linkages, and Comfort and Image), the three parks scored reasonably well because of how well-developed their features are, which include a splash pad, ample seating, meeting areas, a gazebo, gardens, paths, mature trees, to name a few. Tom Davies scored worse than Memorial in terms of built elements because of its harsh, barren, open landscaping strategies which offer little interest, seating, or shelter to users. The worst category for all three parks would of course be comfort and image, largely because the groups observed staying for longer durations (>5 minutes) engaged in hostile and illegal behaviours, without exception.

After decades of research focusing mainly on individuals and the efficacy of educational and motivational programs, a new research trend has gained momentum which considers influences on behavior that are outside the person, such as the built environment. Much of the new evidence supports the idea that a combination of urban design, land use patterns, and transportation systems that promotes walking and bicycling help create active, healthier, and more livable communities. Memorial and Tom Davies existing paths and infrastructure certainly help encourage these activities, and this was confirmed in our observations.

The Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec states:

“Non-motorized transportation infrastructure makes a significant difference in physical activity levels. The presence of sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and bike paths in residential neighbourhoods is associated with increased rates of physical activity by its citizens, and this is especially true during their travel.”

This supports the notion that although the behaviours observed in Memorial Park and Tom Davies were not entirely healthy, the built environment was encouraging users to walk, bike, and socialize more than they would otherwise be doing. Behaviours may be improved by implementing a more holistic approach to urban design. For example, the integration of more stores, shops, and services in close proximity to the parks, since physical activity rates and wellbeing metrics increase when users are linked to these types of commercial spaces by routes that encourage biking, walking, and public transit.

Another observation, though admittedly hard to track accurately, was the disproportionately higher number of indigenous peoples using the parks. This observation falls in line with recent research by Sallis et al. (2012) which concluded racial-ethnic minority and low-income communities are disadvantaged due to poorer access to recreation facilities, positive aesthetics, and protection from traffic, leading ultimately to reduced rates of physical activity and poor scores for overall wellbeing.

The impact of the built environment on these factors is now beginning to be understood, and deserves a comprehensive examination in a Sudbury context. Further research and pilot programs using a multi-disciplinary, ecological model for wellbeing would be appropriate for accurately measuring, understanding, and improving the health and wellbeing of the people using Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square.