History & Theory Analysis

History and Theory Analysis: Queen’s Park North Aki Erenberg 999709702

Queen’s Park North is a heavily frequented park space, used mainly as a means of transitioning through the east end of the University of Toronto’s campus towards the west end of the campus/city.

Pedestrians typically use the many paved paths to cross through the park, or rest in one of the many ideal spots scattered around the landscape (finding shade under trees or seats at park benches). Cyclists will also be seen constantly transiting through the park, using both the designated bike lane on the west border of the park for north-south commuting and the paved paths within the park for east-west travel.

However, this clash of pedestrian and cyclist traffic presents a risk not only to the efficiency of traffic flow throughout the park, but to the safety of both groups using the paved paths. Through analysis of the park’s history and design, the effectiveness of Queen’s Park North to accommodate both cyclist and pedestrian activity will be evaluated, as well as whether there has been a historic preference to which group the park favours more.

In order for the current orientation of the park’s paths to have any context, it is necessary to review the initial design scheme for the park. Queen’s Park, historically known as University Park or College Park, hosted King’s College (which was later secularized and turned into the University of Toronto) (Emberley, 10). According to Emberley’s retelling of the park’s usage in the 19th century, “the scenery exemplified Andrew Downing’s definition of the picturesque”, with the paths of the park being organized in a manner which would “enhance the function and beauty of the Park and its surroundings” (Emberley, 21). As depicted in the original design of the park (Fig. 1), the paths were curvilinear and organic, emphasizing an “organic completeness, rather than a fragmentary network of distinct pieces” (Emberley, 25). This emphasis on organic design saw the implementation of a botanical garden and a

Fig. 1: Plan of the “University Park”, known today as Queen’s Park

system of pathways that complemented the surrounding infrastructure to “create a variety of views and spaces in the park” (Emberley, 25). As depicted by O’Donnell in her writing, the idea of the picturesque

Page 2

is based on scenic experience rather than an organized plan, which complicates the functionality of the park. Both Emberley and O’Donnell associate the picturesque with the “wild”, removing itself from order for that which is “purely pleasurable for the senses” (O’Donnell, 74-75). Safe to say, Queen’s Park North was designed with a belief in aesthetic pleasure, using strategically placed vegetation and amenities throughout the park to do so (Emberley, 21). However, after the University College fires of 1890 the park had become a “place of government decision-making and political action”, changing the way in which pedestrians flowed through the park (Emberley, 59). This shift in activities occurring within the park influenced the patterns of movement happening in and around the landscape.

Currently, Queen’s Park North hosts an arrangement of set paths which are slightly chaotic, paved with concrete (opposite to the “picturesque” ideal once held dear), and facing the challenge of safely

Fig. 2: Queen’s Park has maintained its “picturesque” nature, but the pathways no longer embody this same principle

transiting both pedestrians and cyclists across the park (Fig. 2). Historical evidence suggests that Queen’s Park North was intended primarily for pedestrian traffic, creating paths for small groups of people to walk across with little consideration for the possibility of cyclists utilizing the paths as well.

Toronto’s Multi-Use Trail Design Guidelines outline that a successful multi-use trail is one which “provides space for two cyclists to pass each other, with no overlapping of their preferred operating space of 1.5 metres each” (Toronto, 15) (Fig. 3). Phillips, on successful park management, also condones the widening of mixed-use paths, stressing that bike lanes be at least 6 feet wide, “although 8 feet is preferable” (Phillips, 45). Transport Canada has also detailed methods for integrating pedestrian and cyclist traffic effectively, offering suggestions such as on-street bike lanes, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and widening sidewalks for pedestrians (Transport Canada, 3-4). While none of these solutions exist within the park currently, there is a designated bike lane on the west border of the park. However, due to either the lack of continuation of this bike lane across the rest of the park or the convenience

Fig. 3: Toronto’s Multi-Use Pathway Guidelines demonstrate the correct method for integrating pedestrian and cyclist traffic

Page 3

of crossing through the park instead of travelling around it, the bike lane does not seem to be as effective as was hoped. The Victoria Transit Policy Institute promotes the same mentality of pedestrian and cyclist coexistence, whose Park and Recreation Department hopes to “ensure that trails and path accommodate an appropriate range of users” and “recognizing that many cyclists prefer to ride on separated paths instead of roads and that the development of pathways will attract [a variety of visitors]” (VTPI, 63). The concern which arises with the pathway orientation at Queen’s Park North is that it combines all forms of traffic with no viable attempt to separate and/or harmonize these flows of people. Thus, by either creating exclusive bike paths separate from the pedestrian pathways or expanding the width of the current pathways to accommodate both cyclists and walkers, Queen’s Park North will be able to merge both forms of traffic safely and efficiently.

What once existed as a romanticized leisure space has become one of the most occupied landscapes in our modern city. By clinging to the impractical prioritization of the picturesque “montage of scenes along a path” (O’Donnell, 74) for pedestrians, the safety of every park occupant is jeopardized. Victoria, Edmonton, and other cities across the country have begun investing in ways to incorporate cyclists into their park designs, and it is time for Toronto to follow suit. Through the implementation of the design strategies outlined in both our own multi-use pathway guidelines, as well as those methods being

Fig. 4: Cyclists want to commute through Queen’s Park along with the rest of the city. Why endanger park inhabitants by not designing with them in mind?

utilized in other Canadian metropolises, Queen’s Park can truly accommodate pedestrian and cyclist flows of traffic in an effective manner while strengthening the beauty and functionality that the park is known for by visitors today.

Page 4

References: 

Emberley, Adrian Marcus Phillip. The Design and Use of Queen's Park (Toronto) in the Nineteenth Century. 1994. Print.



"Integrating Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities into Large-scale Infrastructure Projects." Transport Canada, 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.



Litman, Todd, Robin Blair, Bill Demopoulos, Nils Eddy, Anne Fritzel, Danelle Laidlaw, Heath Maddox, and Katherine Forster. "Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices." Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.



"TORONTO MULTI-USE TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES." Toronto Transportation Services Parks, Forestry & Recreation, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.



Donnell, Caroline, and Catherine Ingraham. "An Ecological Approach to the Picturesque." Niche Tactics: Generative Relationships between Architecture and Site. 73-84. Print.



Phillips, Leonard E. "Trails, Bridges, and Retaining Walls." Parks: Design and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. 43-55. Print.

Images: 

Title: http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9uqg6qfeD1qze8cuo1_r1_1280.jpg (accessed Nov. 19th, 2015)



Fig. 1: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AsvYDc9tP70/Uf20wHBxgmI/AAAAAAAAPn0/QXxHM6y4sgI/s640/1859.UniversityofToronto.QueensPark.jpeg (accessed Nov. 19th, 2015)



Fig. 2: http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Parks%20Forestry%20&%20Recreation/02Parks%20and%20Trails/Park%20Projects%20and%20Improv ements/Files/images/Queen_Park_North_aerial_view_featured_800wide.jpg (accessed Nov. 19th, 2015)



Fig. 3: "TORONTO MULTI-USE TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES." Toronto Transportation Services Parks, Forestry & Recreation, 1 Dec. 2014., Page 15, Web. 17 Nov. 2015.



Fig. 4: http://worldneighborhoods.com/pictures/download.php?id=5182&t=1 (accessed Nov. 20th, 2015)

Page 5