Oriole Park Design Improvements

ORIOLE PARK IMPROVEMENTS Complementng the constructon of Neshama Playground by Michael Black [email protected] 416-487-0808 Revised version: December 07, 2010 I. TIMEFRAME Like many residents of the Davisville community, I was not initially perturbed by the announcement of the Neshama Playground project. I approved of an accessible playground in principle; and, as a long-time user of Oriole Park, I also felt that its land space was not being utilized to its full potential. I did not attend the community consultation workshop in 2009. It was only when hoardings were erected in Oriole Park at the end of the summer, 2010, that it became clear that certain accessibility and safety issues were not being properly addressed. When I took the time to scrutinize the playground design plan, I realized belatedly that I could have made some sub- stantial suggestions during last year’s consultation process. Furthermore, the pos- sibility that the park may expand into adjacent TTC Davisville Yard lands injects issues into the debate that were not on the agenda of the 2009 workshops. Most of my ideas affect areas that actually lie outside the playground, rather than within its bounds. It is therefore not essential that the majority of the remedies be implemented during the Neshama Playground’s construction phase. Just the same, I do apologize for not coming forward with my proposals at an earlier juncture. Oth- ers in Ward 22 also regret that their opinions have not been taken into account prior to the commencement of construction. For example, the TCU22 cycling advocacy group (of which I am a member) has brought up several pressing cyclist issues. If further input is received from all of the park’s varied user groups, I see no reason why the Oriole Park neighbourhood cannot be optimized for handicapped accessibility in ways that will benefit everyone, able and disabled alike. It is my hope that this memo will help in a small way to instigate a further round of grassroots consulta- tions, focusing on the future of Oriole Park as a whole. “It is recognized that accessibility planning is a long-term process and that community consultation is a key com- ponent towards a barrier-free City.” (City ODA Submission, p. 15) II. PRINCIPLES Much of the discussion relating to Oriole Park’s reconstruction has been restricted to the playground’s financing, the tennis courts, handicapped parking and temporary inconveniences during the construction phase, such as the mulch path. My concerns relate to two issues that seem to have attracted relatively little attention: a) the safety of various distinct traffic streams – pedestrians, the handicapped, cyclists, dogs and their walkers – as they flow through Oriole Park and its im- mediate vicinity; and b) the importance of surrounding a playground of visionary inclusiveness with urban infrastructure that is also accessible to those with special needs. 2 In order to avoid subjectiveness, I am basing my recommendations whenever pos- sible on The City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines, 2004 (hereinafter re- ferred to as: “ADG”). These guidelines are non-binding. Yet if the City does not ad- here to the ADG at the park where it is constructing Toronto’s flagship accessible playground facility, it can hardly expect the ADG to be respected elsewhere. III. TRAFFIC PATTERNS One of the reasons that Oriole Park was chosen as the location for the city’s first completely accessible playground is its close proximity to the centrally located Dav- isville subway station (which is equipped with modern, handicapped accessible el- evators and entry gate). By the same token, Oriole Park is situated on the logical route between the subway station and the numerous high-rise apartment buildings at Lawton Blvd., and Brentwood Towers. Many of the high-density neighbourhood’s 4,000 residents traverse the park daily in order to use the TTC, get to work, and shop at stores along Yonge St. It is often commented that optimal cycling routes do not lie on major traffic arteries but run closely parallel to them. In North Toronto, there exist three densely popu- lated high-rise nodes at Yonge Street’s intersections with St. Clair, Davisville and Eglinton Avenues. It is far safer for cyclists travelling in a north/ south direction between these nodes to avoid Yonge Street, and proceed along Lawton Blvd. and Du- plex Ave., which both lie just one block west of Yonge. Oriole Park serves as the con- nector between Lawton and Duplex. (TCU22 has also pointed out that the park func- tions in the same manner for Bikeway 35, located further to the west.) Many conventional parks in Toronto exist as secluded havens. In contrast, Oriole Park is a busy nexus point bordered by high-rises and TTC subway yards. It has few amenities compared to larger parks in Toronto. Not surprisingly, those who come to Oriole for recreational purposes (such as dog-walkers) are usually outnumbered by pedestrians and cyclists who are transiting through the park at a relatively fast pace, intent on reaching destinations near and far and wide. The path on the east side of the Oriole Park that leads from Frobisher Ave. to Chaplin Crescent (and thence to the subway) will run through the Neshama Playground. There is no reason to believe that the steady flow of foot, dog and bicycle traffic that has traditionally passed along this route will be reduced subsequent to the completion of the playground. IV. GATHERING AREAS To these three traffic streams, the new playground will add a fourth: users of mobility devices. All streams will converge at Neshama Playground's northwest end, where the design calls for a couple of gathering areas (marked on Figure 1 by the let- ter “A”). The linear gathering area fronting the Junior Play section is scarcely wider than the footpath itself, and the oval gathering area has a tree rising out of its centre, reducing visibility (see Figure 2). I predict that these two areas will be used 3 Passage leading north to Chaplin Cresc., near Colin Ave. Figure 1 Detail from Neshama Playground Concept Plan (June 2009) Figure 2 - Oval gathering area during construction (Nov. 1, 2010) 4 by parents of challenged children to prepare them for play, or afterwards, to get them ready for their journey home. I can imagine, say, mittens being taking on or off, sun block being applied, wheelchairs and strollers being parked, etc. The pace will be relatively relaxed, and if conversations are struck up between special needs playground users and local residents who are ambling through the park, this would be laudable. I assume that the playground's non-segregated design reflects such an inclusionary goal. Next, imagine a steady stream of pedestrians, cyclists, rollerbladers, dog-walkers, bundle-buggy pushers, etc. hurriedly making their way along a route that they have followed for years. Starting in 2011, however, this self-powered traffic corridor will intersect the two gathering areas being used by disabled children. This is a poten- tially hazardous situation that special needs families driving in from more suburban locales will not be expecting. I am gravely concerned that accidents might occur in the playground because four differently paced traffic streams are being squeezed into bottlenecks. SOLUTIONS: a) A short, paved detour path should be constructed which would skirt the northwest perimeter of the playground, connecting to the passage that lets out onto Chaplin Crescent, near Colin Ave. It would give travellers proceeding along the path the options of either entering the playground and possibly interacting with its users – or they could divert around it along a ‘fast track’. Admittedly, a detour solution would be less inclusionary than the existing design, but I feel that safety concerns are paramount. “All pedestrian routes . to accessible entrances should provide a safe, direct, level and obstacle free path of travel for persons with mobility or visual limitations.” [ADG 1.2.1] b) Parking recesses for wheelchairs and strollers should be established on the south side of both gathering areas, away from pedestrian and cyclist traffic streams. The recesses should be marked with adequate signage. [ADG 1.5.4; 1.6.1] V. COW GATES The TCU22 group has commented on the inconvenience to cyclists caused by the long ‘cow gate’ barriers that exist at the two Lascelles entrances to Oriole Park (Ori- ole Park Reconstruction Accessibility Report – November Update). I must emphas- ize that these devices also pose various dangers to disabled persons entering the park. The cow gate at the park’s north end is particularly problematic. Its constric- ted design (see Figure 3) was meant to prevent the unauthorized ingress of motor vehicles, but it unintentionally acts as a barrier to wheelchair mobility. Park “en- trance gates . should be fully accessible to persons using mobility aids.” [ADG 1.3.9] The 900 mm. opening of the north Lascelles cow gate is far narrower than the recommended minimum for two-way traffic of 1675 mm. [ADG 1.1.8] It is also set at too steep an incline to allow for the safe movement of wheelchairs. From the visual perspective, the gate’s jutting arm deserves failing marks. “All routes should be free 5 of protruding obstacles . in the walking area to aid persons with visual limitations.” [ADG 1.1.8] The cow gate needlessly imposes a bottleneck at a location where, ironically, there is a great deal of unused space. It creates a convoluted access route that definitely does not provide a “a safe, direct, level and obstacle free path of travel”[ADG 1.2.1] This is less of a concern with the cow gate at the south end, since wheelchair users will be able to travel around it on a special loop leading to the accessible parking zone.

Load more