We can turn King Street into downtown’s front porch

One of the first things I noticed about Toronto when I moved here from Vancouver was that it didn’t have much opportunity to stop and just hang out on the street.

Streets were far narrower than they were in Vancouver and there just wasn’t as much room for seating. And yet this is one of the best things to do on a street—just sit and watch people go by. If parks are our shared backyards, then great streets are our shared front porches.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot since the King Street Pilot started in Toronto. At its core, the pilot is about movement—specifically moving the most people the most efficient way along the street, which is by streetcar. The pilot restricts cars from travelling right through intersections to help speed up streetcar travel.

But the King Street Pilot is also a chance to talk about how streets can be places to linger, to stay awhile and experience the city, as well as places of movement. Because the pilot has also opened up 21 new public spaces out of parts of the roadway–spaces the City calls a “relief valve” for pedestrians on crowded sidewalks.

I’d rather think of it as an opportunity to create a bunch of front porches along the street.

king-street-pilot-wysp-2.jpg

This is a chance to rediscover how streets can be a part of our public space system, in a way that we haven’t had the opportunity to do so before on such a scale and in such a visible way as King Street. I also hope this paves the way for this kind of transformation of car space to people space in other parts of the city, particularly areas outside the downtown where streets are wide and intimidating.

Some people call these spaces parklets—the name given to small public spaces constructed in parallel parking spots along streets. These were first seen in San Francisco and soon popped up in cities all over North America. I’d rather we just drop that name, which feels like a tired too cute trend by now, and just call it regular old public space.

55b4962c9a57abbdae4337ef432fb4a0.jpg

These public spaces are not going to be ones that can accommodate a soccer field or a kid’s playground or a dog park, but they can contribute in a big way to the social space in our city.

We’ve done this before along Church and, in a larger way, as part of the John Street Pilot, which saw the sidewalk space extended into the roadway and Muskoka chairs and picnic tables scattered throughout for the summer.

John St pilot sidewalk extension crowded peds_featured_800wide.jpg

These spaces don’t have to be fancy—they just have to be open, flexible, accessible, and comfortable. While some cities use them as spaces to create more outdoor patios for restaurants and cafes, I hope we preserve them as publicly accessible to everyone–whether you’ve purchased something or not.

It would also be interesting to see them each take on a different character. The King Street Pilot, which runs from Jarvis to Bathurst, goes through a few different neighbourhoods with their own flavours. The public space created in front of St. James Park offers a different opportunity than one near Spadina, for example.

They also offer opportunities for experimentation. One of the interesting things about San Francisco’s parklets is that they are all different, and some of them are truly strange.

parklet_eli_wolfe_san_francisco_magazine.jpeg

While I wouldn’t want to see the whole route taken up by weird concept spaces (although I’d love if someone turned one of them into an outdoor library/reading room), it would be great to see some interesting, strange ideas for how they can be used. Indeed, the City seems open to this. During the winter there will be a call to residents, businesses, and organizations on how to use these spaces, including some “creative installations.” Artists, take note.

We likely won’t see the full potential of these new public spaces until spring comes around to us again in Toronto, but when it does I’ll be there often, sitting on the front porch of the city watching everyone go by. Maybe in that reading room?

Photo credits: title image from Paul Krueger (Flickr CC), map and John Street from the City of Toronto, and the two parklets are here and here.

 

Advertisements

Weaving parks into the city through better connections

Have you ever stumbled upon a park you never knew about in a neighbourhood you thought you knew well? It’s happened to me before, usually while I’m searching for something on Google Maps and I notice a little green square a few streets away, tucked away into the corner somewhere.

What if there was a way to draw parks out, especially in dense areas where green space is at a premium, helping to weave parks throughout the neighbourhood, reach more people, and create new public space as a result?

I thought about this again while I watched Adam Nicklin and Marc Ryan from PUBLIC WORK at an event this past weekend where they presented some of the ideas in the forthcoming Parks and Public Realm master plan for Toronto’s downtown. One concept, called park districts, focuses on how to create a network of parks and public spaces in particular neighbourhoods by focusing on the linkages and connections between them.

In my head, I always called this focus on connections “park fingers” or “park tentacles,” but park districts sounds maybe a bit less weird. It’s something I’ve written about before, specifically in a Park People report from 2015 called Making Connections that focused on different ideas to create networks of parks and public spaces in dense areas.

Essentially the idea is to find corridors, usually existing streets with low car traffic, that could be redesigned or revitalized to create stronger, hopefully green, connections between an existing park and its surrounding neighbourhood. This works especially well for parks that are more internal or face onto quieter streets.

If we can’t find land to build new parks in dense neighbourhoods, then maybe we can help draw those parks out farther into the city. These streets become connections to the park, yes, but they also become public spaces and a place to linger themselves.

The example that comes to mind most for me is St. Andrew’s Playground–a small park in the extremely busy and park-starved King-Spadina area where I work. This park is well-used by people with dogs, workers eating lunches balanced on their knees, and kids in the playground (the first in the city). But it’s also one that you wouldn’t know existed unless you meandered over, despite busy Spadina Avenue being right next door.

Camden.png

The way I get to the park is walking down Camden Street. This street is pretty wide with plenty of room for landscaping, trees, and seating–except that it’s used mostly for car parking, which is allowed right on the sidewalk. This drives me crazy. Is this really the best use of our scarce downtown public space?

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 8.21.36 AM.png

Get rid of the car parking and turn the street into a true park connection that re-positions Camden as its own linear public park/plaza, but also helps draw people from Spadina down the street and into St. Andrew’s Playground. This could be part of the massive Waterworks development that is happening right at the end of this street, adjacent to the park, which will include a new food hall, condos, YMCA, and an expanded bit of green space.

Here are two more I often think about, but I know there are dozens of others across the city.

Trinity Square is a beautiful square tucked away next to the Eaton Centre. It has a large uneven expanse of cobblestone and a church stuck in its middle. Here, both James Street and Albert Street–quieter, low car volume streets that are fairly wide–could help draw people in from both City Hall to the west and Queen Street to the south, while creating more usable public space.

St James.png

Another is Cloud Gardens in the Financial District, which is actually the area’s only public park–the rest are what are called privately-owned public spaces created by private owners through agreements with the city and maintained for public use. Many don’t even know that Cloud Gardens, with its strange green house building, is even there. Temperance Street, however, is ripe for re-imagining as a connection that could help more people find and use the park (which is badly in need of a refresh).

Temperance.png

What are examples from your own neighbourhoods?

Six things we can learn from Berczy Park

After years of design meetings and then more of construction, the newly revitalized Berczy Park is now officially open. I profiled the design of this upcoming park as a best practice in a report I wrote at Park People called Making Connections back in 2015, so it was wonderful to attend the opening and see how the design has leapt off the page and into the world with such success.

Now that it’s open, here’s six things we can learn from Berczy Park.

A park must evolve along with the city around it

DDcpxA9XUAAHAEt.jpg-large

Before Berczy Park was a park it was a parking lot. Through community action, a small triangular green space was created in what was then a primarily entertainment and worker environment. But as the city around it continued to develop, it became more of a residential neighbourhood. Suddenly a park that was mainly frequented by office workers eating lunch or visitors taking photos was also being used as the backyard of new residents, along with their children and their many (many) dogs.

This was a big part of the conversation about the new park design—how to accommodate these different user groups in a small space and ensure the new park reflected the way the city had changed since it was first built. The new space has a large plaza for those lunching workers, a fun fountain perfect for tourist photos, a dog area, and new public art that will also act as play structure for children.

IMG_3669

A touch of whimsy helps to create a welcoming place

Good park design helps to create a sense of place, but also a sense of playfulness. And this is exactly what the new Berczy Park does so well. We shouldn’t be surprised, since it was designed by Claude Cormier, the landscape architect who brought Toronto the candy pink umbrellas of Sugar Beach. The new fountain contains many dog statues (and one cat) that shoot water towards a golden bone perched on top of the fountain. If you follow the cat’s gaze you’ll find two birds perched on a nearby light fixture, and if you follow the birds’ gaze you’ll find some worms. It’s silly, whimsical, and an utter delight.

As I’ve written about before, we could use more whimsy in our public spaces. Cities are for living in, but they’re also for having fun and shedding the stress of our daily lives. I dare you to walk by this park without being drawn in with a smile on your face.

IMG_3660

Rolling hills can make a small space feel larger and more private

Berczy Park is not big. So how do you make a small space feel larger? And how do you make it feel safe and comfortable when it’s surrounded by busy streets? You make rolling hills, of course! Berczy Park’s western side has small grassy hills that help make the space feel both larger and more private by blocking your view of traffic and creating more space for people to lounge. It also creates space for kids to run around, as they were doing at the park opening. Who doesn’t love to roll down a hill?

IMG_3654

Streets should be included within park design

Berczy Park is unique not just for its new dog fountain, but because the revitalization of the park also included the redesign of adjacent Scott Street as an extension of the public space of the park. This is an ingenious solution that allows the park to actually “expand and contract” with different uses. When you need more space for an event—like the opening of a new park, say—then you can close down the street and it instantly adds more space for people. This is why I profiled the park design in Park People’s Making Connections report.

This creative thinking and collaboration between City divisions (in this case, parks and transportation) is something we should be bringing to more parks, especially smaller ones in very dense areas. Our streets are actually the biggest public space resource that we have, making up approximately 25 percent of the space in Toronto (parks are 13 percent). By incorporating them better into the parks they surround, we can create a more people-focused, flexible network of public spaces.

IMG_3670

Diverse and plentiful seating is key

If there’s one thing lacking from many of Toronto’s public spaces—the one thing that I snap pictures of on trips to other cities and tweet about longingly—it’s places to sit. Toronto parks have few benches and the ones we do have are not exactly the most comfortable or attractive. Thankfully, with the new spaces that are being designed we are correcting this mistake. Berczy Park is filled with seating, and specifically the kind of long benches that you find in New York or Boston that invite dozens of people to share a space together. I’m told movable chairs and tables will be coming to the plaza space–another example of seating you find in other cities, but not often in Toronto.

IMG_3674

An engaged community can help push a project forward

Last, but not least, key to the success of the new park is the Friends of Berczy Park and the folks at the St. Lawrence Market BIA. These people helped push forward the design and also help program and bring the space to life. A park like Berczy, which is smack dab in the middle of a thriving business, historic, entertainment, and residential neighbourhood screams for programming, such as lunch time concerts and local art fairs. The Friends of Berczy Park and the BIA will have a critical role in ensuring the park remains lively, contains balanced programming, and still functions as a space of green, quiet respite for people to go in the middle of a bustling neighbourhood.

Pride and the politics of public space

The day after Pride Toronto this year, I scrolled through pictures of people smiling, laughing, and walking hand in hand in the streets. I saw politicians of different political stripes marching down the street and corporations sporting rainbow versions of their logos. And then I scrolled through a different set of pride photos. People screaming, waving posters, being thrown onto the ground by cops. The first set of photos were from Toronto’s pride and the second from Turkey’s pride.

It was an important reminder that our celebrations this past weekend in Toronto were made possible by the protests of yesterday, and that elsewhere in the world, and even in our own community, those struggles continue.

And they continue in public space—in the streets and parks of our cities. Because public space is where we go to celebrate, but it’s also where we go to protest.

This line between celebration and protest can be blurry, because the politics of public space can be at once joyful and painful. A protest doesn’t have to be morose and negative; it can be an affirming expression of taking up space—or stepping back to give space to others. It can be angry and colourful, frustrating and fabulous. It can be a burst of confetti amid shouts.

At the core of Pride is this assertion of the right to the city, a right to public space. To make the often invisible visible, the marginalized centred. My favourite part of Pride is wandering the streets—not just the ones that have been closed for official Pride events, but all over downtown—and seeing people out in full view. As a closeted teen uncertain and often ashamed of himself, this was incredibly powerful.

Straight people who don’t understand Pride, or why it’s needed anymore when we have the right to marry, don’t understand this core. They don’t understand that they take up space every day in this city on its streets and in its parks in a way that LGBTQ people don’t and sometimes can’t.

They don’t understand there is still a risk, even in Toronto, that the word faggot will be hurled out of a moving car or out of the mouth of a man across the street because you chose to hold your partner’s hand in public. That hate crimes towards LGBTQ people have, since 2006 in Toronto, been in the top three of hate crimes reported each year. That there is truth in the fact that many people still don’t want us to be able to express ourselves in a public space, the way they are able to do without even thinking.

But, even still, as an able-bodied white gay man, my experience in public space, in how I’m received and treated, in the spaces that are open to me, is different than others–and this is critical for us to recognize. I have written about this before, but it’s worth saying again: public space is not equally enjoyed.

As Black Lives Matter Toronto made clear at last year’s parade and again with a powerful reminder this year, there is much more to be done here for Black, Indigenous, racialized, trans people, and people with different abilities. Sometimes the most powerful protest is to show up, as BLMTO has done, to take up and reclaim space. As Rodney Diverlus of BLMTO said at the parade this year: “We’re out here for Pride to take up space and remind you that Black queer and trans people exist.”

This was, after all, the impetus for those first Pride parades in Toronto more than 30 years ago. To take up space and shout that we are queer and here.

It’s good that these conversations play out in full public view. Public space has always been, and continues to be, a process of negotiation, of give and take. That process is not always comfortable, but it is necessary. We gather in the street, in the square, in the park, to shout or to hug—sometimes at the same time—and we push forward.

Photo by Neal Jennings from Wiki Creative Commons

4 things to think about when planning signature parks

Last week, I went to the Urban Land Institute Conference in Toronto to see a panel discussing signature parks, including Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway, New York’s High Line, and Chicago’s Millennium Park. The conversation was in the context of Toronto’s future Rail Deck Park and the lessons learned from these other projects. Here’s four things I came away thinking about.

Signature parks can act as idea incubators

The Executive Director of the Rose Kennedy Greenway—the conservancy that runs this linear park in Boston–made an interesting point when he argued that signature parks, especially ones that are run by or in partnership with non-profits, are able to experiment and test new ideas in a way that cities are not able (or willing) to try in the wider park system. In this way, they can act as incubators for creative programming and policy change. His example was allowing people to have a beer in the park—the Greenway will be opening a beer garden this summer.

Because signature parks are labelled as unique, they are perfect testing grounds for new ways of doing things that may not work in more traditional parks. Perhaps it’s music or visual arts or food (or beer). Toronto’s Bentway seems like a good candidate for seeding new ideas in public space, especially because it’s not exactly a “park” as we normally understand it, but a linear public space underneath an elevated expressway.

Programming is key to creating more inclusive spaces, but it can’t just be about delivering programming

When asked how they were working to create more inclusive spaces out of these downtown parks, all the panellists stressed attracting people to the park by providing meaningful (and free) experiences for a wide diversity of people. Inclusivity, they argued, came from programming that gives creativity across the entire city a platform, both by acting as host to groups doing their own programming and by working to create programming with others where the capacity might not exist yet.

Unfortunately, the panel discussing these ideas was far from inclusive, consisting of men who were, I believe, all white and pretty close in age. The entire discussion, including this question, would have benefited from other voices being centred.

I think that extends into managing and programming parks, as well. Providing free programming is great, but creating a grant or support system to work with community groups and others to create their own programming, support local artists, and share decision-making is a critical part of ensuring a public space remains inclusive and rooted in local community. It’s not just about delivering programming, but engaging people in co-creating that programming—and paying them to do so.

A great example of this (thought not a signature park like the ones being discussed) is Corona Plaza in Queen’s in New York, which was created by the Queen’s Museum as part of the City’s Plaza Program to turn under-used road space into public space. A key goal of the space was to create what they called a “dignified space for immigrants” by ensuring that programming in the space didn’t just reflect the local community, but was actively created by residents. In order to do this, they hired a community organizer from the neighbourhood and also commissioned artists to run programs and performances in the plaza—tapping into local talent, building capacity, and providing funding.

You can read more about this in this excellent report that documents their approach.

Signature parks provide an opportunity to experiment with new funding mechanisms 

Signature parks often come with high price tags—not just for construction, but also for maintenance and operations afterwards. While public tax dollars remain a key base for many of these signature park spaces, rightly so, new revenue tools are often needed to raise funds to pay for the extras, like special design features and heavy programming.

Some signature public spaces use earned revenue from events and third-party programming to fund their own free programming, maintenance, and operations. Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto, for example, leans on this model. Some rely heavily on philanthropy and donations, raising their funding each year, such as the High Line.

Other mechanisms are tax-based. For example, Millennium Park uses Chicago’s hotel tax to fund $9 million of its annual operations and maintenance. This is an interesting model when you think about how much Millennium Park has become a draw for tourists to Chicago—the park is the number one attraction in the Midwest. The more tourists that are drawn to Chicago to visit the park, the more money for the maintenance of the park.

Governance, financial mechanisms, and design need to thought of up front together

Both the Rose Kennedy Greenway and the High Line are managed by independent non-profit organizations rather than the city government. In Toronto, the Bentway Conservancy is the first of its kind in the city—a non-profit set up to manage and program the space on behalf of the city, including raising funds to support its ongoing operations.

An interesting point was made by Jaime Springer—who worked on the report that recommended the creation of the Bentway Conservancy (full disclosure: so did I at Park People) and consulted for the creation of the High Line.

Jaime argued governance and financial mechanisms need to be thought of up front in the development of a park along with the design. It’s important to do this at the same time because certain design ideas can support (or hinder) different governance and funding models. For example, if you hoping to rely on concessions or events to fund the space then certain designs will make more sense. Developing the governance, financing, and design together means you can ensure they all fit well and complement each other. While there are governance and financing models out there, each space is unique and will require its own variation to make it sustainable.

photo of Millennium Park’s Cloud Gate (aka the bean) by Yamaira Muniz on Flickr CC.

Creating a greener 21st century city

We often wax poetic about urban parks as areas of nature in our cities, but it’s interesting to note that some urban parks are not actually the best representation of the natural landscapes of their city, sometimes burying—literally in the case of urban streams—the features and particularities of the landscape upon which they’re built.

I don’t mean these parks are made of plastic trees and AstroTurf, but the central feature of many parks is lawns of mowed grass, hardly a naturally occurring landscape in many of our environments, and gardens planted with non-native (but pretty flowers) that require a lot of water and care.

Is there a better way for our parks to contribute to more sustainable, resilient cities, especially as stresses on our natural environment increase through growing density, population, and the unpredictable threats of climate change?

Green City, a paper written by University of Calgary landscape architecture professor Bev Sandalack for Park People’s Heart of the City Conference, is a great launching pad for this discussion. Part history of park development, part manifesto, Sandalack proposes a new way of planning and designing our park systems as deep ecological infrastructure.

Creating this higher focus means we need to re-prioritize investments, placing parks and public spaces, as the landscape of our cities, at the very base upon which everything else must be built and organized. We need to reintegrate parks into our natural systems, Bev writes, planning and designing them not as lawns plunked down in the urban fabric, but as part of an interconnected natural system.

Doing so can connect us in a more visible way to our own city’s particular natural landscape, vegetation, climate, and topography. But it also better positions our cities for a future that will be determined by our ability to adapt to climate change by reinforcing and enhancing natural systems that perform functions such as stormwater management, habitat creation, heat reduction, air purification, and more.

This doesn’t mean of course that we should seed every lawn in our parks with wildflowers and native grasses—we need lawns for lounging, social events, and sports after all—but it does mean prioritizing a more intentional, integrated approach to park (and city) planning that takes an ecological systems view and works across our cities departmental silos.

Putting A New Approach into Practice

Bev points to Toronto’s new Ravine Strategy—the first ever for the city—which lays out a framework for how the city’s vast network of ravines can be better protected, enhanced, and enjoyed in the face of all the challenges that come with being sensitive natural environments squeezed from the big city around it. The Ravine Strategy takes a holistic rather than siloed approach to revitalizing ravines involving input from staff from city planning, parks, recreation, economic development, and water.

Similarly, but on a smaller scale, Toronto’s Green Streets pilot program, has transformed several under-used portions of roadway into small green spaces. These spaces offer places for community members to gather, but also contain stormwater management infrastructure. This layering of benefits—safer roads, community green space, stormwater infrastructure—is the key to a smarter, climate resilient city. Plus, it unlocks potential new funding for green spaces through funding from municipal water departments which collect water and sometimes stormwater fees. Zooming out, you could see how this program could be a way to celebrate and make visible the city’s buried streams or targeted for areas that are at risk for flooding.

Understanding and prioritizing investments in parks and park systems as infrastructure is critical, especially in an era of increasing extreme climate events including droughts, flash floods, ice storms, and more. If past eras of park development were based on creating islands of nature in the city or places for people to recreate, this new era must be predicated on integrating natural systems at the foundation of our city building.

Read the Green City report to learn more about how park systems thinking can buffer the impact of climate change on cities.

Public space is unequally enjoyed

When I was a teen growing up in White Rock, BC, the hip place to hang out was the McDonalds. Or, more specifically, the bit of public space in between the McDs and the Subway. Until the building owner installed speakers facing into the space that played classical music all day long. Either this was a misguided attempt to culturally indoctrinate the local teenage population with a love of classical music or, more likely, it was to repel them. It worked.

Public space is not equally enjoyed. We design public spaces to enable and encourage use, but we can also wield design to prevent and discourage use by “undesirables.” Design is not neutral. It can send a clear message: this space is not for you. Move along, please.

This past week someone noticed a speaker installed on the side of a building next to McGill Parkette–a small sliver of green space nestled between buildings east of Yonge Street near to Covenant House, a youth shelter. It was posted on Reddit and confirmed by @Matttomic on Twitter.

The speaker emits a frequency audible to young people under the age of 30 (which, sadly, is not me). In an interview with a Toronto Star reporter, a building representative said the device was not aimed at young people, but then provided a link to the Mosquito Device (a self-described anti-loitering device) that emits an annoying high-pitched frequency heard only by young people.

(And oh, look, if you want you upgrade you can get the Music Mosquito, “a complete music system that will relay Royalty free Classical or Chill-out music that would keep the teenagers away to some extent.” Thanks a lot, Music Mosquito.)

The local councillor, Kristyn Wong-Tam, expressed concern and said her office was looking into it. “I think it’s very disconcerting that there are certain types of people that are viewed as undesirable,” she told the Toronto Star reporter.

A visit to McGill Parkette myself on Friday afternoon revealed the speaker had already been removed. But it also revealed a park that is highly surveilled (I counted at least four cameras). The anti-loitering speaker is only a very egregious and obvious example of the practice of creating defensive spaces that are meant to protect against use by people, not encourage it. While McGill Parkette still has benches (someone was asleep on one), two other nearby parkettes were recently redesigned to contain absolutely no seating whatsoever. The message? Walk through here, but for god’s sake please don’t loiter.

IMG_2665.jpg

Loitering is an interesting word in relation to parks. Don’t we want people to loiter? Isn’t that the exact purpose of a public park? But that word is only aimed at certain park users. I have the privilege of being able to use public spaces without fear of anyone asking me to move along. I can hang out in a park for hours, take a nap on a bench, crack a beer in Trinity Bellwoods without worry. Loitering refers to, you know, undesirables.

The building rep said that the park had become “a high risk area for crime.” To be sure, creating safe spaces is important. The park is narrow, fenced in, and very enclosed, with an entrance only on one side. I can see how it could create an intimidating environment. Good lighting, additional entry points, and clear sight-lines could go a long way towards creating a space that is safer without preventing its use by people.

In fact, the City is hoping to redesign the park, but since it leases the space from the building it needs the building owners approval to do so–approval they have not given because it seems they want to turn the space into a loading area. The plot thickens.

At any rate, the answer to creating safe public spaces is not to design out certain users. And certainly not for a private entity to install something that inhibits the use of a public space by young people. Or to design public spaces with no seating, for that matter.

When we design our public spaces in this way, we all lose. But those who are already at a disadvantage lose even more. People experiencing homelessness or those who are at-risk need public spaces even more than the rest of us. If you don’t have a living room or a place to hang out then the local park becomes one. If you don’t have a bed, then that bench becomes your afternoon nap spot. This isn’t loitering, it’s living.

 

 

 

Catalyzing the power of parks for social connection

Last week, I wrote about parks and mental health, mentioning that some of the results of that research dove-tailed with what we heard researching Park People’s Sparking Change report. We’ve now released that report, which you can download here.

We know that parks are important drivers of improved physical and mental health, but our neighbourhood parks also play an important role in fostering a sense of belonging. They’re not simply green places of respite, but critical pieces of the social infrastructure of our cities.

At a time when increasing attention is being paid to the growing inequality of our cities and neighbourhood-based inequities, it’s critical that we examine how engaging in our parks and public spaces can create more inclusive, equitable places that are shaped by and for the people living there.

Chester Le_Ginny Chen.jpg

Park People’s been involved in animating and improving parks to create strong communities since 2011. But we wanted to better understand the social impacts of this work, particularly in underserved neighbourhoods where people may be living on lower incomes or are newcomers. Residents in these neighbourhoods often experience barriers to engaging in parks related to time, resources, and sometimes language.

Our new report, Sparking Change: Catalyzing the Social Impacts of Parks in Underserved Neighbourhoods, tells the story of communities that have taken action in their local parks through spearheading improvements, building partnerships, engaging diverse community members, and organizing events and activities that draw people into the park.

Through speaking with resident volunteers, community organizers, and city staff in seven different North American cities, including Toronto, we identified five social impacts of park engagement and 10 strategies to support better this work.

Flemingdon Park henna.jpg

We heard about work being done to create a new park in a low-income, park deficient neighbourhood in Portland that now includes an inter-tribal garden that is co-managed by local Indigenous people and the City parks department. We heard about community members working with the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust to design, build, and program a new park in an area that didn’t have a public space before.

We heard about groups that use gardening and food to spur social connections, tackle food insecurity, and provide places for people with disabilities to garden. We heard about community groups that create opportunities for local entrepreneurs and newcomers to sell homemade food, clothing, and crafts in parks, like Toronto’s Thorncliffe Park Market. And we heard how employing a translator to work with Chinese-speaking residents in a north Toronto park helped engage residents through activities like movie nights and plantings.

These stories helped us define the strategies that can be used to create thriving social environments in parks. Our hope was that this report would be a useful tool for community members, non-profit staff, and city governments.

Here are a few of the key take-aways from the report:

Programming is key to creating social connections in parks. There is often a lot of focus on capital improvements (new playgrounds and benches) but locally-created programming is a critical component of creating parks where people actually connect with others in their neighbourhood. Investments in upgraded amenities should be paired with investments in programming and engagement.

Parks can be gateways to becoming civically involved. Park engagement can be a first step to becoming more civically engaged—such as volunteering for other organizations and advocacy campaigns—and also building skills around public speaking and community outreach.

Small actions and investments have big impacts. Small wins and milestones keep people excited, encourage others to get involved, and create a visible presence in the park. It might be as simple as organizing a group park clean-up, working to spruce up a garden, hosting a community picnic.

Parks can be important sites of local economic development. By providing start-up space to local entrepreneurs, cooks, and craftspeople, parks can create local economic opportunities and become important places to build skills and professional networks.

Communities where people are visibly engaged keep parks clean and well-maintained. Engaged community members with a visible presence—at events and clean-ups, for example—can help spur a sense of neighbourhood pride in a local park, which helps keep parks clean and amenities well-maintained and encourages others to get involved.

Park groups should be community-led, but partner support is often needed. While it’s important to ensure community members lead projects themselves, strong partnerships are critical. The support of a paid staff member in a partner organization is often helpful with tasks like organizing meetings, applying for permits, and funding applications.

Download a full copy of the report here.

If you’re in Toronto, please join us on Monday, February 13 for a discussion of the report with people working at different levels in their neighbourhood and park to make change. Register here.

Title photo courtesy of Toronto Arts Council. 

 

 

Understanding the intersection of parks, mental health, and equity

When I feel stressed at work, I get outside and walk to the nearest park. I lie on my back and watch the clouds go by or sit against the trunk of a tree and read. Breathe in, breathe out. Sometimes I’m only out there for 10 or 15 minutes, but I always feel better.

This past Wednesday was Bell’s annual Let’s Talk campaign to reduce the stigma around mental health issues, and so it seems an appropriate time to write a little something about the link between parks and mental health in cities. Do parks really make us feel better? If so, how? And, crucially, are those benefits available to all in a city?

There is a lot of research into these questions. In fact, if you printed out all the articles and scientific studies and stacked them on top of each other it would reach to the top of the CN Tower. (I don’t know if that’s true, but I always like when people write things like that).

CityLab compiled a pretty comprehensive list about the influence of parks on health, including mental health, which you can read here. But as a run-down, parks have been shown to reduce stress levels, improve mood and focus, and reduce depression and anxiety. Parks may also help us not to die. These links have been studied both for short-term exposure to green space—going for my 10 minute visit during a work break—and for long-term exposure—moving to a neighbourhood with more trees and parks nearby.

But these benefits are not distributed evenly in our city as they depend on things like access to green space (can you walk to a park?) and access to high-quality green spaces (when you get to that park is it full of garbage and broken benches?). This is where parks, mental health, and equity intersect.

It is a complicated area to tease out, which is why recently published work by Toronto-based researcher Nadha Hassen out of the Wellesley Institute is so important.

The two papers—a scoping review and a theoretical framework—consist of a review of academic literature related to the association between green space and mental health and a good discussion of how this intersects with neighbourhood-based inequities.

One of the most interesting findings from Nadha’s research was the emphasis on the quality of green space as a factor for positively influencing well-being. Often these studies look at access or quantity of green space, either by measuring distance between homes and parks or using satellite imagery to determine how much green space is in a neighbourhood. But it’s the more subjective, and harder to measure, quality of parks that really have an important influence on our well-being.

Quality measurements that Nadha found were things like: is the area species-rich and biodiverse? Is it aesthetically pleasing, clean, and well-maintained? Is it quiet, peaceful, and well-lit? Are there facilities and amenities that are useful? Are there water features and reflecting pools? Is it safe?

Additionally, social interactions in parks were also found to increase the positive impacts of parks on well-being—something that I also found when researching Sparking Change, a report Park People is releasing in February on the social impacts of parks in underserved neighbourhoods.

The reason Nadha’s research is important and worth emphasizing is that park maintenance is often first on the table in cities that find their operating budgets constrained and look year to year for areas to make cuts. In fact, just this year Toronto’s proposed 2017 operating budget included a reduction in maintenance for parks in high-use times and for gardens—something we spoke out strongly against. Luckily this cut has been reversed, but the final decision still must be made by City Council in February.

Investments in park quality are particularly important in our underserved neighbourhoods—those 31 areas that the City of Toronto has identified as Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. If well-maintained, clean, attractive, safe, and well-programmed parks can positively impact mental health and well-being, then investments in gardens, grass-cutting, park programming, and amenities like playgrounds and pathways should be made through the lens of public health and equity as much as through park operations and maintenance.

As Nadha writes: “To strive towards creating mental health-promoting green spaces, we need to ensure access to good quality green spaces that meet the needs of diverse populations. In urban settings, neighbourhoods with low-income, newcomer, and racialized populations tend to have lower access to available, good quality green spaces compared to other groups that are higher income and white.”

Having data to make these decisions about where to invest would be great. Which is why, as Nadha suggests, we should develop tools to evaluate park quality—using some of the indicators that Nadha uncovered like cleanliness, amenities, programming, natural environment, and safety—as a measure for public health and equity. It would be great to see this data collected with community members themselves—kind of like neighbourhood safety audit walks do currently.

This information would help us prioritize investments to ensure everyone has a beautiful, clean, and welcoming park nearby when they need to sit under a tree and de-stress.

Toronto’s Green Line takes a huge leap towards reality

Big news for the Green Line, a project that I’ve been involved with at my work, Park People, since 2014.

The Green Line is a vision to transform a hydro corridor into a 5km linear park and trail, connecting multiple communities along its length and providing new green spaces for areas that are lacking in parks. We actually just released a video (above) showcasing the potential of the hydro corridor as a linear park and outlined some of the challenges and opportunities for making it a reality.

GL Logo Map WEB.png

The project has received a lot of community and political support over the past few years, but one of the key things we’ve been pushing has been a City-initiated master plan for the Green Line. This master plan would, as we saw it, create a path forward for the project by outlining necessary improvements, connections needed, amenities, and potential new green spaces. The master plan would be a key document for changing what is now dealt with as a series of disconnected parks into a connected linear park with a common threaded identity. You can read more here.

That’s why it’s such big news that the City has hired a team of consultants to engage with communities along the route and create this plan in 2017. Called the Green Line Implementation Plan, it will outline the steps needed to make this a reality. There’s also over $1 million already in the capital budget for the next three years to implement portions of the plan. We’re excited at Park People to be a partner with the City on initiating this study.

With all the coming residential development along Dupont Street, new green spaces are going to be needed. There are already a number of applications for new mid- and high-rise buildings along Dupont and not many opportunities to create new green spaces. The Green Line is going to be an important park space and pedestrian route that serves both these new residents and existing residents along its length.

Linear parks are also very good bang for your buck in terms of park space. Because they are stretched out and thread their way through multiple neighbourhoods, they actually serve more people within a five minute walk than a similar sized park in a more traditional square shape. They also create opportunities for active transportation, providing a safe and pleasant place to walk, ride, and roll. And they’re not just good for people: linear parks provide much-needed corridors for wildlife, like pollinators, which we need more of in our city.

I hope one day in the next few years, I’ll be able to lace up my runners and take a jog along the Green Line.