Safety
Safety in the Park - Palmer Park, Port Perry. This park creates a safe environment with it’s small town feel and open sightlines.
Well-used parks are a benefit for community well-being; they are used by people to connect with natural elements, socialize, and exercise. When comparing the four Ontarian public spaces, we originally hypothesized that Bell Park and Palmer Park would have similar qualities, while Nathan Phillips and Ann Tindal would be similar. Bell Park and Palmer Park both incorporate a large amount of green space compared to the number of hardscapes. The Toronto parks have a large portion of hardscapes and are situated within a densely populated area. Due to the popularity of Nathan Phillips Square, we were surprised to see several “undesirables” in the area, which makes the park feel less safe. We also hypothesized that Bell Park and Nathan Phillips would have the largest number of users. A high number of users in public spaces makes the space feel safer. Through the observation period, we learned that Bell Park and Ann Tindal were used as a destination for users, making them very successful. Nathan Phillips and Palmer Park were generally used as a shortcut between destinations. A park with a large number of users tends to be safer, as there are more eyes to witness issues. The feeling of safety within a park is integral to making it successful. Safety can be defined as, “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss.” We have learned the perceived safety of the public space is highest with Bell Park, while the least safe public space was Nathan Phillips Square. The ambiguous feeling of safety is an important factor for a successful park. The safety element of the four parks was compared using two separate theories: Jan Gehl’s 12 qualities of public spaces and the Prospect - Refuge Theory.
Protection
​
Jan Gehl uses 12 qualities to determine whether a park is successful, one topic he discusses is protection. Gehl divides this topic into three separate parts: Protection against vehicle traffic, protection against crimes, and protection against unwanted sensory elements.[1] Firstly, people use parks as an escape from the noise and pollution created by traffic. All four of the public spaces had a barrier or trees to provide protection from this element. Bell Park and Palmer Park also had topography that created a vertical barrier between traffic and the park landscape. Ann Tindal Park had a recess which steps the park back from the busy Toronto streets. Secondly, an obvious concern for safety within parks is the amount of crime and violence that occurs within the park. Physical elements, such as well lit areas and visibly open spaces increase the safety within a park. Bell Park, Nathan Phillips Square and Ann Tindal had programming occurring in the evening, which increased the number of users. An increased amount of people in the park creates a safer environment.[2] Bell Park included well-lit areas, good visual permeability, and programs which are accessed throughout the day and evening. Lastly, unpleasant sensory experiences will create a feeling of danger within a space. Unpleasant sensory experiences include noise pollution, bad smells, litter, and harsh weather elements. The implementation of physical elements can protect unwanted sensory elements. For example, trees and roofs provide protection from the weather elements, garbage bins reduce the amount of litter, and sound barriers to block unwanted noise from the traffic are ways to create a desirable environment.[3] Bell Park and Palmer Park had successful elements to aid in blocking unwanted sensory elements. Nathan Phillips Square is the least successful in providing sensory blocking elements within the park. There were few areas for shelter and a shallow pool which was open, causing danger for small children.
Prospect-Refuge Theory
​
The Prospect-Refuge theory states that park users feel safer when they are able “to observe what is happening around them while also being protected.”[4] Bell Park includes several barriers (tree line, topography, retaining walls, etc.) which encloses the spaces within the park. Nathan Phillips Square and Ann Tindal Park included a tree barrier behind seating, allowing users to have an unobstructed view of the public spaces with a feeling of protection behind them. The visual openness of a park is increased when the number of entrances increases. Park users feel more comfortable in a space when they can see where other people are coming from. Palmer Park did not have successful elements to accommodate the Prospect-Refuge Theory. However, this park still felt safe due to the small scale of the city.
Programming
​
As architects, we need to have a thorough understanding of the context in which the public space resides in order to calculate the number of safety elements that are needed. Designing safe public spaces for communities is not a “one-size-fits-all” exercise. While some parks need several protective elements to create a safe environment, others will hardly need any. Palmer Park does not need several protective elements due to its small city scale. A city where “everyone knows everyone” doesn’t need the same protective elements as large city-scale parks like Nathan Phillips Square. Even though this park is busy and has protective elements, it was the least safe feeling space out of the four Ontario public spaces. From this observation and comparison of the four public spaces, three common factors directly affected the perceived safety of the space. These factors include A barrier to block the sight and sound of traffic around the space, features which provide a space for evening programming and unobstructed visual proximity to zones within the parks. Park users use this space to escape from the noise of the daily traffic endured. Space’s which provide a barrier to block this noise create a safer feeling. Bell Park and Ann Tindal Park incorporate stage-type features that allow community members to use for performances or classes at all times of the day. These features encourage people to use the parks at all times of the day, creating unofficial surveillance, and increasing the feeling of protection within the space. Lastly, allowing for well lit visual proximity to programming within the space allows users the ability to detect danger before it arrives.
[1] Gehl Institute, “Twelve Quality Criteria,”3.
[2] National Recreation and Park Association, “Issue Brief: Park Safety,” 2.
[3] Gehl Institute, “Twelve Quality Criteria,”3.
[4] Annemarie Dosen and Michael Ostwald, “Prospect and refuge theory: Constructing a critical definition for architecture and design,” International Journal of Design in Society, 6. 9-23. 10.18848/2325-1328/CGP/v06i01/38559.