Today Monday Tuesday
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 19, 2013
Chance of a Thunderstorm
90°/68°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 20, 2013
Thunderstorm
88°/68°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 21, 2013
Thunderstorm
86°/66°

13 Comments

news

Whose Park Is It?


As the days grow longer and our breath becomes invisible again, Torontonians will be flooding back to our beloved parks all over town. This is the city within a park, after all. And, according to Richard Ubbens, the director of parks at the City of Toronto, we have over 8,000 hectares of green space in more than 1,600 parks.
We also have more than 300 million dollars worth of a state-of-good-repair backlog and a mayor who is looking for ways to shrink the parks budget.
And so we wonder: whose park is it? A timely question, and also the subject of a talk held April 7 at the John H. Daniels School of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto and organized and hosted by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and Ground Magazine, a quarterly publication of the OALA. Panellists included: Ubbens; David Harvey, executive director of the newly formed Park People community group; Anna Hill, from the Friends of Trinity Bellwoods Park; Jim Melvin, principal at PMA Landscape Architects; and Dave Meslin, the ubiquitous community organizer whose official title on the flyer was listed as “instigator.”
What quickly emerged from the discussion is that parks are highly contested spaces.


“What about animal habitats?” one audience member asked. “What about more live music?” asked another. What about community gardens? Basketball courts? Corporate sponsorship? Advertising? Fences? Children’s play equipment? Greenhouses? Festivals? Tool sheds? Bicycle paths? Naturalization? Fruit trees? Ice rinks? Tennis courts?
The list of uses (and, some would say, abuses) of parks is endless. For example, Harvey suggested he’d like a place to have a drink in parks—an activity that might not gel with everyone’s idea of what a park should be. (Although a trek down to Trinity Bellwoods in summer reveals that, in practice, there are many people who side with Harvey on that one.)
As Hill pointed out, it’s a community’s job to find the best solutions for its own park. And there are numerous dedicated community groups in Toronto who volunteer their time by doing just that. Her group, the Friends of Trinity Bellwoods, regularly votes on issues concerning park uses. Recently, 125 park users—75 of them kids—cast a vote on new playground equipment.
However, Melvin noted, neighbourhood park groups can also get caught up in NIMBYism, staunchly advocating for the status quo. This was further highlighted when an audience member who works for a neighbouring municipality explained how they run up against community opposition whenever they suggest park uses such as a basketball court, because neighbours are concerned that youth will be attracted to the area. (Youth in a park? Outrageous! That might actually promote physical activity and health! Quick, get them to an indoor mall!)

20110411parks_02.JPG
An Ultimate Frisbee pickup game in Trinity Bellwoods Park. Photo by ariehsinger from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


And then there are the key issues of which parks attract people who have the time and resources to create a neighourhood “Friends of” group, and whether parks in lower-income neighbourhoods are receiving as much attention as those like Trinity Bellwoods.
Underlying all of this is the matter of tactics. When an audience member asked how to create a new park out of a fenced-off, provincially owned vacant lot in his neighbourhood, Meslin, the official “instigator,” suggested just taking down the fence and using the space, while Ubbens suggested that working with the local councillor was probably the best route to go. Meslin nodded, then added, “Just take down the fence.”
Several parts of the discussion centred on the issue of funding and, specifically, whether there is an acceptable level of advertising and corporate investment in our public parks. Meslin spoke of advertising’s slow but steady creep into public spaces through the Trojan horse of street furniture and Info-To-Go stations, while Harvey touched on the need to explore other forms of funding for parks, suggesting that the City might look at corporate naming rights in exchange for upgraded or new facilities. While he noted he didn’t mean changing the name of a park to Coca-Cola Park, he pointed as an example to Chicago’s Millennium Park, home to the McDonald’s Cycle Center, which provides bike lockers and showers. Are these types of sponsorships inevitable in an era of fiscal austerity, or do we see parks as places that should be free of corporate branding?
City parks are, in a way, the final frontier of advertising. They remain one of the few places in our city where we can go to (mostly) escape the noise of commercialism—even Ubben spoke out against it, saying he doesn’t want to see advertising in city parks. Of course, several marketing companies have found ways to infiltrate our green spaces. Ever encounter bands of dressed-up characters roving through parks getting people to pose for pictures with large cardboard posters of the latest blockbuster film? While this may fly at Yonge-Dundas Square, it can seem jarringly out of place amidst people lounging on blankets, reading, and playing frisbee.
So, after we’ve long ceded our streets and public squares to advertising, what makes the park so special? Why do we bristle so much at the thought of ads in our green spaces, more than we do to ads on our streets?
What came up again and again, in not only the panel discussion but in the question period afterwards, is the idea that parks belong to us, in a way that doesn’t apply to other parts of the city. There is a personal as well as community attachment—the idea that this is my park, my space when I’m there, and it’s yours when you are. It’s this idea that makes parks such contested spaces, but also such vibrant and exciting ones as well.
So, who does own city parks? “We all do,” Ubbens said. The question remains, however, just exactly what that means.
Park People are holding the first ever Park Summit at the Evergreen Brick Works on April 16. Although the summit itself is full, there is a meet-and-greet party afterwards from 4–5:30 p.m. where you can hobnob with your neighbourhood park lovers.

CLARIFICATION: April 12, 2011, 3:25 PM This post, in its original form, did not include the organizers of Whose Park Is It? The event was hosted by the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and Ground Magazine, a quarterly publication of the OALA.

Comments

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Even minimal corporate sponsorship or advertising turns public parks into marketing tools and people into products the city sells to corporations, which I find really unpleasant.

  • isyouhappy

    Marketers: I'll have way more respect for your brand if you give me some space. Trust me, as much as you think any attention is good attention, it's not true, and I will avoid purchasing your product.

    Stay out of our parks.

  • http://twitter.com/CoreySurge Corey Surge

    I agree, I think the obvious answer to the question “Whose park is it anyway?” is that it is ours. As to how we keep our park the way we want it to be – how much can be accomplished through volunteers and neighborhood groups? What do you think is reasonable? I know I would volunteer my time to do some gardening or something along those lines. There are perhaps landscape business owners out there who are passionate about their local parks and could donate their time and mowers. Greater costs like park equipment and such would still have to fall into the city budget, but is there any way that Torontonians could work with the city to share the workload so that we aren't subjected to Progressive Insurance ads in our parks? (To be fair, Flo – the girl from Progressive Ads – adorable!)

    Is this pie in the sky, hippie thinking on my part? I always err on the side of being ambitious rather than realistic so I'd be okay with that, but do let me know if my thinking – while not very specific or fleshed out – is pure crazy talk.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I often find myself thinking everyday citizens should be able to fill in the gaps left by City scheduling and budgets and indifference, but I also think it's a dangerous precedent; the City (or any other level of gov't) shouldn't come to rely on volunteers to perform the tasks they should be doing. Civic engagement and community ownership is one thing, being an unpaid workforce is something else.

  • wklis

    Been reading a book on “Fighting Traffic”. It mentions that before the 1920's, streets were for people. By the 1930's and on, streets became for cars. Before the 1920's, children played on the streets, people walked on the streets, vendors sold their goods on the streets. Once the cars took over, we were forced to look elsewhere, one of them was more parks.

  • torontothegreat

    Prior to the 20's how could the streets have even been for anyone/anything else?

  • http://twitter.com/boomergirl50 Boomergirl

    I think the number one concern for any park should be sustainability. High Park's sustainability is constantly put to the test by people, dogs, cars, and more recently greater air traffic at Toronto Island Airport.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I think the point is that we lost the streets completely. They didn't become a shared space for vehicles and people, they became the exclusive territory of cars, to the point of lethality for anyone who might venture onto the tarmac.

  • http://piorkowski.ca qviri

    Both the Gardiner and the rail mainline are far bigger nuisances at High Park than the island airport is.

  • torontothegreat

    I think my point is, things change. RE: my comment regarding townships and lost of forestry

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I know what your point is. I'm not sure why you're making it, but I know what it is. wklis was offering an historical context for the importance of urban parkland, it didn't need a non sequitur reply.

  • torontothegreat

    I think my point is, things change. RE: my comment regarding townships and lost of forestry

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I know what your point is. I'm not sure why you're making it, but I know what it is. wklis was offering an historical context for the importance of urban parkland, it didn't need a non sequitur reply.

Our weather forecast is from WP Wunderground