Public Spaces
+
+
+
Memorial South
Memorial North is bound by a parking lot to the west, Medina Lane to the north and Minto St. to the east. Its total area is approximately 3 acres (125 m on the North - South axis) by (100 m on the East - West) axis. For improved accuracy, and to allow us to focus our attention on a more manageable area, two of our group members observed and recorded Memorial Park.
One observer was stationed at the northwest corner, and the second was positioned in the southeast quadrant. Observer one watched what we call Memorial North, the northern half of the park, above the main east-west pedestrian path. Memorial North is a 1.5 acre grassed area, crossed by two pathways. The primary pathway was designed to lead pedestrians from Brady St. through to Medina Lane, which then allows pedestrian passage between the Church of the Epiphany and the St Andrews Place building, which houses Kuppajo Espresso Bar on Larch St. The secondary pathway connects the main route to the covered gazebo structure which is approximately 48 square meters in size. The gazebo shelters a bare concrete pad which has no permanent seating of any kind. On the day of observation, the gazebo served as one of three main social hubs in the park. A persistent group of 6-8 visitors socialized for the majority of the observations, with a few visitors that came and went. The group seemed to be well acquainted with one another, for the most part they seemed to get along with each other. These occupants sat cross-legged on collapsed cardboard boxes with their clothes, bags, and other belongings strewn across the gazebo floor. One occupant had set up sheets of cardboard against the skinny gazebo structure to create small walls around her corner of the gazebo. Her cardboard walls were tall enough that only her head was visible over the wall.
This was a very interesting case of a user creating their own prospect-refuge scenario, blocking themselves from view to feel protected, but still being able to see out. There was one instance where two of the visitors within the group got into an altercation which became physical. One park visitor pushed another, and actually landed a kick. Luckily, the situation quickly deescalated and one of the visitors left the park. The second gathering point in the northern portion of Memorial Park was a makeshift seating area located just North of Medina Lane between the noted buildings. The group of 6 gathered with their belongings, it was difficult to observe their activities because they were partially blocked by some foliage. It seemed however, they were simply spending time chatting with one another, passing a bottle around, and enjoying the day. One individual explored the entire park, perusing through each waste bin in search for what one could imagine to be their next meal. After an unsuccessful attempt the individual then joined the group beneath the covered gazebo. The majority of the more permanent park members' ages ranged from their early twenties to their late forties, to say for certain is difficult as the affiliates were a bit hostile and unwelcoming to our presence. Upon noticing our presence, one of the occupants in the gazebo shouted out at us in protest to our exploratory nature.
Of the twenty-three permanent benches throughout the park, Memorial North accommodated 10 benches. Two of the ten benches offered a “prospect and refuge” scenario. These benches were situated in a secure environment, the surrounding trees formed a sense of security, and the position of the benches allowed for the seated visitor to observe the park in a comfortable position. The remaining benches were exposed to the elements; three of the benches were positioned with their backs to Medina Lane. Two more benches were fixed along the main pathway with their backsides exposed to the open grass field, which is not comfortable for visitors. The remaining three benches were positioned along the secondary pathway, also with their backs exposed, this time to the busy roadway.
Memorial North
Observer #2 from our team was positioned at a picnic table in the southeast quadrant of the park, facing into the park, with back to Minto Street, which offered clear sightlines all the way to the southwest corner of the park. Combined with the sightlines of the other observer, all corners of the park were visible, and we were able to record a complete picture of all of the goings on between 1:00 and 4:00pm.
Memorial South is exposed to heavy traffic on Brady street at the southeastern corner of the park without any protection from vegetation or manmade structures. Pedestrian paths beginning at the southeast corner lead towards the center of the park, and wrap around a large cenotaph. The cenotaph is a prominent feature in the park, and of course where the park gets its name. It was built in 1957 in memory of the 575 citizens of Sudbury who gave their lives in the First and Second World Wars and Korea, and is one of the largest of its kind in the city. Final construction costs were $16,000 for the cenotaph, which is made of granite, stands 19 feet tall, weighs 50 tons, and rests on a two-foot-thick, 18 foot square base. The memorial is highly visible to traffic traveling on Brady, with the absence of trees presumably a strategy to allow larger gatherings on Remembrance Day, and to allow motorists to see the memorial as they drive by - an example of 60km/h architecture, according to Ghel. Barring the southeast corner of the park, the entire perimeter of the park enjoys shade and protection from mature trees.
Having all been born and raised in Sudbury, our group grew up being acutely aware of the stigma of Memorial Park - and downtown as a whole - as being dirty and unsafe. Although we hoped to discover a changed Memorial Park, sadly, our observations largely reinforced the stigma. Examining movement and overall time spent in the park, we were able to group the park users into two groups: Commuters and Campers. Of the 49 people observed, 25 of them were Commuters, meaning they either moved through the park without stopping, or stopped for less than 5 minutes. Campers were those occupants who stayed for longer than 5 minutes, of whom there were 24. 22 Commuters traveled through the park without stopping, and three sat for a short break. One was an elderly man walking his dog who sat at a bench for a quick rest.
The other two were teenage girls who sat at a picnic table near the centre of the park to chat and look at their phones briefly before continuing on. None of these three users exhibited any bizarre behavior, or were seen drinking or doing drugs of any kind, nor were any of the other 22 Commuters. 20 of the 25 Commuters moved along one of three main routes: the eastern edge of the park along Minto, between the Kuppajo alleyway and the southeast corner, or between Kuppajo alleyway and the southwest corner. The most significant of the observations was that of the Camper group; 100% of whom were observed to be either drinking alcohol, administering intravenous drugs, or displaying bizarre, erratic behaviours indicative of an inebriated state.
Thinking about “Access and Linkages”, Memorial Park scores well in accessibility due to its path network. The pedestrian walkways are well-developed for people (of all abilities) to get across the park in a very direct line. It also offers some opportunities to stop and interact with different elements, such as the splash pad, the gazebo, the large lawn, memorials, and some sheltered seating areas that offer quiet refuge. Where the park scores poorly is its linkages to adjacent elements. The neighbouring elements are: a busy road to the south (Brady), a parking structure to the west, the blank backside of a large mixed-use building to the north, and a police station and a very empty park across the street to the east. There are no commercial spaces bordering the park where people might shop, get lunch, or browse through books. There are a number of cafes and restaurants within easy walking distance, but we did not observe even one person bringing a coffee or meal with them when they entered the park.
According to Project for Public Spaces, there are four key attributes a great public place should have. It should score well in “Sociability”,” Access”, “Comfort”, and “Activities”. As mentioned before, Memorial Park has ample physical features: well-developed pathways, numerous seating options with a variety of refuge-prospect scenarios, a splash pad, a gazebo/concert stage, as well as plenty of beautiful mature trees. For these reasons, the park scores well in “Sociability”, “Access”, and “Activities”, but what was observed on October 3rd could not be described as a “Comfortable” environment. Due to the occupants’ erratic behaviour, yelling at each other and us, drug/alcohol consumption, and fighting, it’s safe to say the park does not have a friendly or safe image.
Tom Davies Square
In 1957 the city of Sudbury appointed the new Urban Planner Klemens Dembek, who during their tenure (1957 - 1985) would largely shape the city as it is known today. Beginning with an urban renewal study in 1958 which was subsequently presented in 1963, Dembek outlined major changes to the city’s core in efforts to remedy a social housing shortage, people living in dilapidated or derelict living conditions, a redesigned downtown park, and a new Civic Square. Ten years later, the construction of the new civic square was underway, designed by the local firm of Townend Stefura and Baleshta who aimed to bring citizens into the heart of the city and mitigate the annual flooding of Junction Creek. The new square featured a large courtyard flanked by the various governmental buildings with plantings from the west to northwest, a large reflecting pool at the centre which was surrounded by octagonal bench seating. At the same time Dembek, who was akin to European city-centres, squares, and pedestrian friendly downtowns was under continual pressure by politicians and businesses to allow the commercialized rezoning of the main arteries of the city thus, decentralizing the downtown as a central business hub. As Janna Best concludes, citing these municipal shifts as the causation of the largely empty civic square. Recently, the square has undergone a redesign “to create an attractive and multi-functional public space, with an environmentally-friendly design” and for the purpose of this study, will be examined as to its effectiveness of a public space.
The redesign of Tom Davis Square is a materialistic microcosm of Sudbury and the surrounding area. With each element in some way representative of the natural landscape of the region or cultural elements found therein, the square attempts to echo quintessential Sudbury to or for the elected officials and those citizens who visit the centre of the city. When approaching the square from the west, the sloped pathway of interlocking grey stones is banked on either side featuring large pink gabbro and feldspar stone slabs. While most rock in Sudbury is seared black, these colourful palettes can be found along the margins of the various highways and roadways which require blasting. Atop these mounds, you may find local flora of Jack Pines and varying understory plantings found throughout the region. Once inside the square, a series of planters become visible, lining the eastern to northeastern portions of the site, set several meters from the building’s edge. These planters feature a central planting of either a coniferous or deciduous tree with juniper and tall grasses and are clad in corten steel - emblematic of the city’s rich mineral deposits. Bridging each planter is Ipe decking, though not native to this country is often used for outdoor applications due to its longevity, which has since oxidized silver grey. This is likely a homage to the Sudbury camp culture, mimicking the ubiquitous decks and docks lining the shorelines of the many lakes. At the centre of the square the paving stones become charcoal and once viewed from above, the outline of Ramsey Lake can be seen.
After establishing a direction of focus, Tom Davies square was observed on two separate occasions, once on the morning of October 2nd from 7:00 am - 9:00 a.m., and once again October 5th, from 7:30 am - 9:30 am. While conducting the site visits, occupants were first observed from the north west corner looking south until the buildings were opened to the public, to which the study was moved indoors looking north. During both site visits occupants were observed primarily traversing the space, entering the municipal or provincial buildings and following their steps back the way from which they came, regardless of time of day. Overall, the space is just that: empty space. By removing the central benches and reflecting pool, the new square creates a 70 m x 50 m area devoid of anything to interact with, pause at, or sit on. With the slightly elevated Ipe stage to the North West, the clearing of benches and the pool stems from the hope to promote enough space for individuals to gather for featured events however, this does not lend to an attractive space in the meantime. As the average walking speed is approximately 1.3 m/s it takes nearly a minute to traverse the central portion of the square, offering no new views or stimuli along the way. Outlined by Jan Gehl, in order to create interesting or dynamic visual experiences for pedestrians we require a new stimuli for every 4 seconds of travel time, the square falls dramatically short of this requirement. If individuals entered from the north, it was more common to follow the perimeter of the square along the eastern edge, passing between the planters and city hall and entering the municipal building at the southernmost point. In fact, of the 29 individuals observed during the first session, only 3 crossed the central section of the square while 13 were seen along its margins. While not stationary, this was considered to be an example of prospect-refuge by maintaining the square in maximum view and to be shielded at least partially along one side. As visual cues present interesting and dynamic experiences as Gehl suggests, they can also double as a protective barrier for individuals to linger along and next to.
With an area of 3,500m2 and a design intent to cater to large community events, there was a noticeable lack of seating within the central square. Along the eastern edge of the planters, three steel picnic tables can be found with total seating capacity totalling 12. On the northern side of one planter, two curious installations were observed who’s purposes still elude our team. They appear to be some form of seat however, as they are mounted on top of the planter, their top face rests approximately 630-645 mm from the ground making them uncomfortably high and difficult to mount. They are also both approximately 250-300 mm wide and deep, making them extremely uncomfortable to sit on. Once you have stabilized yourself atop the steel frames, the corroded portions quickly transfer to your clothing ensuring a lasting memory (both physically and mental) is made. Presumably this is a form of hostile architecture, a tactic employed to “guide or restrict behaviour in urban spaces as a form of crime prevention or protection of property,” with the frames giving the invitation for people to sit in the barren square, but uncomfortable enough as to not linger however, their design is so confusing there is little consensus to their true function.
A small portion of the sample groups however, did in fact linger in the square. Three separate individuals were observed smoking for a short period before entering the buildings and a group of three individuals were seen exchanging what appeared to be narcotics. Of all people studied, the individuals engaging in illicit drug use were the only ones who remained in one area for longer than a 5 minute pause, exchanging any sort of conversation, and the only people found in a group larger than 2 people.
Conclusion
Although well-endowed with a variety of hard and soft elements, the parks proved to be substantially different spaces than we originally assumed. What was interesting was the lack of relationship observed between the parks. In fact, not one occupant was observed traveling from Memorial Park to Tom Davies square, or vice versa. Despite having a large variety of quality elements between the two parks, such as brand new seating, easily accessible walkways, mature trees, memorials, and more, the terrible performance in occupant comfort and overall image make both parks feel empty, hostile, and at times, unsafe. In only about 10 hours of observation, we witnessed numerous occupants using hard drugs, yelling at each other and us, fighting, drinking, and acting generally erratic. One conclusion that can be drawn is that the parks function well for the users who need it. Sudbury isn’t the same town it was in the 1950s and 60s when the economy was booming and town pride was high. Today, we have an opioid crisis in our city, as well as historically high homelessness rates. In order to make it through the day, many of the afflicted population will utilize the resources available downtown for shelter, food, and in some cases, methadone. In fact, proximity to these social services (see map) offers some explanation why occupants tend to use specific entrances to come and go. After acquiring the necessities to get themselves to the next day, meal, or high, it appears that Memorial Park and to a lesser extent, Tom Davies, become the social hub for the destitute. When so many parts of everyday life are challenging, it’s no wonder this demographic gravitates towards a beautiful park which helps them feel sheltered, safe from judgment, and part of a community fabric. Between the desperation and hostility which was on display, there was also conversation, storytelling, and laughter amongst the Campers. With improvement to our current opioid and homelessness crisis, it is likely that these parks could change their image and altogether shed their stereotype. If not perpetually in dire straits, needing to scrounge for basic necessities, it is completely feasible that the very users we observed administering needles into forearms would make a sober choice to use the park based on its beauty, comfort and inclusiveness.