EduScapes

EduScapes re-imagining schoolyards as inclusive community pockets

ALLIE TA | ARCH 7100 UVA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Title: EduScapes Theme: Under-utilized public space

Urban design strategies Author: Allie Ta Course: ARCH 7100 Design Research

ARCH 5614 Urban Strategies Instructors: Matthew Jull, Matthew Slaats Mona El Khafif Collaborators: Veena Shah & Deborah Lee Number of pages: 65

University of Virginia Architecture & Design

2

ABSTRACT This design research project explores the definition and opportunites tied to under-utilized spaces in Toronto, Canada. The left-over spaces adjacent to public and community schools have an incredible potential of transforming into cultural hubs and learning environments for the residents including the local immigrant community, minority populations and members of the schools.

The project vision is comprised of two critical parts that make up the framework for a potential Master’s Thesis in Spring 2022. Part I - Chapters 1 and 2 will include research and analysis of case studies and literature review regarding transformations to schoolyards. Part II - Chapters 3-4 will address specific sites in need of intervention and curate a catolog of cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for reimagining schoolyards as inclusive community pockets.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

01

02

INVESTIGATE

ANALYZE

the problem

case studies & precedents

Introduction

ToCore Toronto Urban Proposals

Aldo van Eyck’s Playgrounds

NYC Schoolyards to Playgrounds

Schoolyards and Public Health

Transforming Philadelphia’s Schoolyards

A. Ozdemir & O.Yilmaz’s School Environments Marika Franko’s Schoolyard Parks

4

Pittsburgh’s Urban Acupuncture for Community Forge

03

04

DEFINE

DESIGN

the sites

interventions & strategies

Schoolyard Challenges

Summary of Research

Schoolyard Schedules

Potential Action Plan

Demographics

Seasonality

Site Selection & Criteria

Materiality

Schoolyard Characteristics

Adaptability Cost-efficiency Conclusion

5

01 INVESTIGATE the problem

6

INTRODUCTION

A. Ozdemir & O.Yilmaz’s School Environments Aldo van Eyck’s Playgrounds

BACKGROUND OF SCHOOLYARD DESIGN

Marika Franko’s Schoolyard Parks

Anthamatten and et. al.’s Schoolyard & Public Health

Throughout urban cities, small pockets of space such as alleys, parking lots, church yard, and schoolyard are left abandoned and under-utilized. With the rapid growth of population in cities, these spaces are becoming valued by developers to create exclusive and “market-rated” spaces. However, these spaces have an incredible potential of providing diverse public amenities and creating hybrid spaces for the community. Specifically, the left-over spaces adjacent to public and community schools have the opportunity to transform into inclusive pocket parks and learning environments for students and local community members. These spaces have the power to spark communal exchanges, negotiations, and provide a healthy environment for urban dwellers.

This research further explores the opportunities for recycling land use patterns by addressing the following questions:

What defines an underutilized space?

Why are these spaces not being used and what are the challenges?

What is often the scale of these voids within urban cities?

Why schoolyards?

7

RESULTS

=

COMPONENTS hardscapes vs softscapes sandboxes public seating under shade play structures

playplaces in urban context

Catalog of components suggested by Aldo Van Eyck

PLAY STRUCTURES

8

OTHER/ MISC.

Diagrams modified from case study source. (after Leur, 2015)

HARDSCAPES

+

INFILL SPACES (SCHOOLYARDS) “networked site” access points site geometry existing landscape school boundary/ fencing

Defined by Aldo Van Eyck, the networked site “refers to sites that were abandoned, destroyed, or under-utilized.

Once those parcels were assembled, they form a single coherent networked site, across Amsterdam.

SANDBOXES

HYBRIDIZED

BACKGROUND Aldo van Eyck’s playground at the Buskenblaserstraat in Amsterdam.

(Withagen and Caljouw, 2017)

ALDO VAN EYCK’S PLAYGROUNDS Aesthetics, Affordances, and Creativity Architect: Aldo van Eyck ; Authors: Tristan van Leur, Rob Withagen, and Simone R. Caljouw

In the 1940s to 1970’s, the Dutch architect Aldo van Eyck transformed the design of creative playgrounds in the city of Amsterdam. van Eyck’s playgrounds is known as some of the earliest precedents that explore the potentials of redefining under-utlized spaces in the urban context. He defined the opportunities for social networked sites that strive for place keeping and “collective identity” (Leur, 2015). van Eyck implemented over 800 playgrounds in Amsterdam that emphasize on the aesthetics, affordances, and creativity of these playful spaces (Leur, 2015). He challenged the notion of standardization and top-down systems by designing for each site individually and then connecting them to the larger network (Withagen and Caljouw, 2017). As well, van Eyck designed a framework for urban playgrounds by creating a matrix of components and spatial elements such as play structures, hard- vs. softscapes, and hybridized objects (Leur, 2015). His urban network of playgrounds celebrates the identity of it’s community and introduces elements of play and imagination. van Eyck’s work is a critical precedent understanding the historical generalization of typologies that could be implemented in schoolyards today.

9

10

Tables and analysis compiled directly from source.

(Anthamatten, et. al., 2011)

SCHOOLYARD & PUBLIC HEALTH BACKGROUND

Assessment of Schoolyard Renovation Strategies Authors: Peter Anthamatten, Lois Brink, Sarah Lampe, Emily Greenwood, Beverly Kingston, and Claudio Nigg

“Children in poor and minority neighborhoods often lack adequate environmental support for healthy physical development and community interventions designed to improve physical activity resources serve as an important approach to addressing obesity” (Anthamatten, et. al., 2011).

This article addresses the intersectionalities between schoolyard interventions and public health of the local community.

Under Study Design, the authors also described how the utilization of schoolyards are fairly limited and perceived as under-used. Although children are required to be in the schoolyards during recess and school hours, the students have the opportunity to be in these schoolyard facilities after school and on weekends. However, schoolyards are not the most desirable spaces and have the potential of providing more activities and amenities. “It is hypothesized that by building innovative, culturally-sensitive schoolyard facilities, more children will be attracted to using the schoolyard facilities, particularly during these optional periods” (Anthamatten, et. al., 2011). Perhaps, children would also be more attracted to utilizing these public amenities if the schoolyard interventions encouraged physical activity and healthy behavior.

In addition, the authors recorded their observations and surveys in tables shown in the figures. They analyzed the differences in schoolyard utilization and physical activities before and after interventions. This evidence suggests a major change in schoolyards when Learning Landscapes (LL) were renovated (Anthamatten, et. al., 2011). It was quite interesting as well to see the breakdown based on gender and how time is considered in the analysis.

Based on the proposal of LL, it is greatly apparent that there is more utilization and physical outdoor involvement. And specifically, these spatial solutions for schoolyards improve the qualities of living and learning environments for poor and minority communities (Anthamatten, et. al., 2011). To conclude, schoolyards have the potential of being a catalyst for positively changing public health for its surrounding neighborhoods.

11

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Ozdemir, O. Yilmaz / Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (2008) 287–300

TegmenKalmaz Primary School – Kucukesat District Location: Centrally located Yard size: 975 m2 Number of students: 1060 Outdoor area per student: 0.9 m2 Landscape score: 2

12

Bahcelievler Primary School – Bahcelievler Dist. Location: Centrally located Yard size : 1350 m2 Number of students: 1050 Outdoor area per student: 1.3 m2

Landscape score: 2

29 Ekim Primary School – Abidinpasa District Yard size: 1820 m2 Number of students: 996

Location: Centrally located Outdoor area per student: 1.8 m2

Landscape score: 2

Kurtulus Primary School – Kurtulus District Yard size: 3040 m2 Number of students: 1130

Location: Centrally located Outdoor area per student: 2.7 m2

Landscape score: 2

Orhan Gazi Primary School – Kecioren District Yard size: 3705 m2 Number of students: 853

Location: On the outskirts Outdoor area per student: 4.3 m2

Landscape score: 1

Images and analysis compiled directly from source.

(Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008)

29

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLYARDS BACKGROUND

Assessment of Outdoor School Environments Authors: Aydin Ozdemir and Oguz Yilmaz

This excerpt addresses the physical characteristics of schoolyards through an assessment of outdoor environments and members of the school community.

It discusses concerns regarding health, accessibility, and the physical qualities for schoolyards. The authors argue that design for future schoolyards should prioritize the health of children and bring awareness to the natural environment (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008). As well, they emphasize on how schoolyards in dense urban areas have very limited access and opportunities for children to be active and interact with one another beyond the school hours. Especially in low-income neighborhoods, these spaces are more likely to be defined as under-utilized.

Also, it is critical to reimagine these spaces for the users that are directly impacted by the under-utilized interventions, which may be the students, faculty, and the surrounding residents. Through behavior mapping of activities and physical assessments, this research promotes the need for improvements to schoolyard features such as surfaces and objects. “Hard surfaces...limit young children’s physical activity in school-yards” (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008).

The research also suggests questions for interviews that could spark a helpful discussion if design engagement with the community is implemented.

Questions regarding design issues, maintenance issues, student activities, and student perspectives are at the heart of the discussion and suggest a critical instrument for redesigning the leftover pockets adjacent to schools. To conclude this analysis, they suggest the need for “separation and partitioning” for various activities that would attract the school community and extend to the neighborhood (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008). As well, “niches along the edges of the yards can be created with various site furniture and play equipment” (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008).

Shown on the right is a landscape analysis of the schoolyards in Turkey.

However, there are many site-related differences in comparison to Toronto, the contrast between hard- and soft-scape is extremely applicable. This research and surveying exemplifies a landscape approach towards analyzing a series of schools in order to extract common typologies and challenges.

13

“Public schoolyards in Toronto District School Board (TDSB) are declining both in physical appearance and in numbers.”

“As such, they do not benefit school children physically or psychologically, nor do they benefit the surrounding community and environment in any meaningful capacity.”

“This type of initiative is not only beneficial to students, but is also valuable to school boards, community residents and the City. It is particularly urgent that schoolyard parks be established before underutilized schools are deemed surplus, as once they are disposed of and the land is developed for other purposes, it will be extremely difficult and costly to acquire the land again for open green space purposes.”

- Marika Franko

INTEREST OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

INTEREST OF SCHOOL BOARDS

INTEREST OF CITY OF TORONTO

• Ensure our schools are safe, modern and conducive to a proper learning Environment.

• Ensure all children have access to adequate programs and facilities including, for example, gyms, pools and computer rooms, regardless of their parents’ economic situation.

• Keep good schools open.

• Encourage the efficient development of public infrastructure.

• In addition, the Province has already recognized in a number of different ways that Toronto is unique and often requires unique solutions and approaches.

• Obtain funds to acquire school sites and build schools in growth areas in the City of Toronto, not now provided by the provincial education funding model.

• Replace and refurbish aging active schools that are physically deteriorating.

• Refurbish and retrofit schools with modern energy-efficient systems and designs.

• Expand newer school buildings that are serving a growing student population.

• In recognition of these needs, the school boards have a number of joint ventures under way, which depend on the provincial funding model to provide cash flow.

• The School Boards have some surplus facilities that are not appropriate for use by students, and which may be suitable for disposition or for other public sector uses.

• Preserve existing schools so that the fields can be used as green or recreational space and the buildings used to house community and social services.

• Preserve publicly funded schools operating in existing neighbourhoods as learning institutions for local residents and access points for other community services.

• Prevent re-development of surplus school sites. The City’s Interests as outlined by City Staff in their March 10, 2015 Staff Report (2015b, p1): • Schools as spaces for child care and early learning • School lands as green space • Schools as sites for noneducational services and programming • Schools to serve growth areas

14

Analysis compiled and modified from source.

(Franko, 2012)

SCHOOLYARDS CONNECTION TO PARKS BACKGROUND

Assessment of Outdoor School Environments Author: Marika Franko

Specifically interested in under-utilized spaces in Toronto, Marika Franko’s research and recommendations on schoolyard parks becomes the foundation for the site analysis. Her research highlights the need for a greater connection to green space and public park systems. Through leftover spaces in schoolyards, there is incredible design potential to link these two systems at different architectural scales. Future interventions must develop a strong ecological connection and build stewardship by integrating green spaces in the school vicinity.

This essay provides an abundance of resources for understanding Toronto school yards, and the critical parts to analyze for this research thesis are the advantages and disadvantages of school yards, interest and priorities, maps showing under-utilized neighborhoods/schools, and the two options for interpreting the layers.

The advantages and disadvantages are broken down into the environmental, health, economic, accessibility and quality (Franko, 2012). These will be further elaborated in the urban case study analysis since many of the common themes are addressed. The interests and priorities are discussed through three key players in the redesigning schoolyards in Toronto - the Ministry of Education, the School Boards, and the City of Toronto (Franko, 2012).

Discussed in the diagram are the motives for each player.

As well, this essay successfully represents the analysis through spatially mapping out under-utilized neighborhoods. This analysis identifies areas that are most vulnerable and lack access to public parks and are defined as “underutilized schools”. Based on this background research, Franko also provides two options- the centroid and intersect (Franko, 2012). Both options highlight moments of overlap in under-utilized spaces in relation to the low parkland provision areas. Perhaps, the site selection and criteria for research can build off of Franko’s analysis of Toronto’s schoolyards.

15

02 ANALYZE case studies & precedents

16

CASE STUDIES SCHOOLYARD TRANSFORMATIONS IN EAST COAST CITIES

TORONTO, CA PITTSBURGH PHILADELPHIA

NYC

17

18

Diagrams and analysis compiled directly from sources.

(ASLA, 2019 and City of Toronto, 2017)

TOCORE TORONTO TORONTO, CA

Project Credits: PUBLIC WORK Office for Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

The TOcore Proposal for Toronto, Canada aims to re-imagine smallscale urban spaces defined as “local public places” (ASLA, 2019). These interventions support the surrounding community and link to the larger public system within the 5 proposal transformations. Awarded for Excellence by the ASLA, the designers and planners of the PUBLIC WORK Office for Urban Design & Landscape Architecture strive to redevelop the downtown parks and public realm for the city of Toronto.

Specifically, the “local places” explore the opportunities for residential lane-ways by linking to mobility networks, connecting to neighborhood assets, creating new destinations, and supporting the green spaces and parks (City of Toronto, 2017). This proposal analyzes the potentials for alley improvements, expansions of green alley programs, and opportunities to activate the lane-ways with public programs. Shown the isometric graphic, the proposal highlights critical elements that could enhance the lane-ways in Downtown Toronto. For example, way-finding strategies, human-scale lighting systems, and permeable surfaces are helpful elements to consider when re-envisioning schoolyards (ASLA, 2019). Since the TOcore proposal is in the same city as the research sites, many of these strategies can be applied to Toronto’s public and community schoolyards.

In addition, the community engagement methods of this proposal provides a great foundation for this research. The public process and summary provides resources for understanding the users and stakeholders of these under-utilized spaces, and specifically, provides insight to the immigrant communities of Toronto. Through the interview and survey notes, it is greatly apparent that the immigrant and low-income communities lack healthy, activated local places and public amenities in their neighborhoods.

19

20

Before and After images compiled directly from source.

(Taimour, 2019)

NYC SCHOOLYARDS TO PLAYGROUNDS NEW YORK CITY

Project Credits: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

Established in 2007, this precedent emphasized on how schoolyards are primarily used only during the school hours. Spaces around schoolyards in New York are defined to be under-utilized as “they were only used a few hours by the school population (Franko, 2012). New York transformations challenged this notion and proposed solutions that converted schoolyards into “community playground from use by the general public beyond the regular school hours” (Franko, 2012).

Specifically, low income neighborhoods and park poor communities had little to no playground facilities or amenities at the schoolyards, so this playground program rethought the revitalization of elementary and middle schools. Stated by the New York City Global Partners in Franko’s essay, “49 neighborhoods had increased access to playgrounds that met the City standard as measured by the number of children under 14 per playground in a given neighbourhood” by 2011 (Franko, 2012).

“Over a three-month participatory design process, we rounded up ideas from students, neighbors, and staff at a nearby community center to imagine a brighter future for the schoolyard at P.S. 7 in the Bronx—one of the more than 200 playgrounds we’ve created in New York City.

The result is a custom play area, plenty of shady benches and tables for families and seniors to hang out, and a running track where anyone in the neighborhood can work out when school isn’t in session.”

- The Trust of Public Land, 2019 Shown in the image is a before and after transformation of a schoolyard in New York. In the images, it is greatly apparent that color, materiality, and program are critical parameters for design intervention in schoolyards. This research will strengthen the argument for the parameters, as well as, the need to design for greater accessibility and usage beyond school hours. Inspired

by New York initatives, the use of a youth-friendly surface such as rubber and objects such as colorful climbing structures and seating can be implemented in this research catalog. Overall, there is great potential in converting schoolyards into community playgrounds.

21

22

Drawings and images compiled directly from sources.

(VMDO, 2020 and Tiny WPA, 2020)

PHILADELPHIA TRANSFORMING PHILADELPHIA’S SCHOOLYARDS Project Credits: Groundscapes by VMDO Architects (Diana Fang, Yimen Teng, and John Trevor Play + Play Spaces by Tiny WPA team

Philadelphia presents many incredible examples for the transformation of schoolyards. With interest in reimagining surfaces, edges, and objects within these under-utilized pockets, the projects by VMDO and TINY WPA will influence the design projection for parking lots.

Shown on the left, the Groundscapes, a realized competition project, re-envisions black tops and hard surfaces. This design solution provides opportunities for creating spaces with shade and productive systems that appear to be fairly cost-effective and benefical for the oudoor learning (VMDO, 2020). As well, it is apparent that the colorful objects in this space are flexible and adapt to the needs of its users. VMDO presents a series of different configuration that could be playful solutions for left-over pockets of black tops.

Another project in Philadelphia is the Community-Generated Public Spaces by TINY WPA (shown on the top right). This built project rethinks opportunities for public seating, communal gardens, and outdoor libraries (Tiny WPA, 2020). These spaces highlight a sense of place-making, learning, and youth creativity. Also, it is evident that the project was created by community members, which is critcal to considering when developing a matrix that is easy to assemble and cost-friendly.

In the images, it is evident that the community was involved in the construction process, and have a voice in the design of these small-scaled public installations.

23

24

Drawings and images compiled directly from source.

(CMU MUD, 2019 - issuu)

URBAN ACUPUNCTURE FOR COMMUNITY FORGE Project Credits: Stefan Gruber and Studio Design Team (11 students)

PITTSBURGH

This project, intiated by the Urban Collaboratory Studio at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, emphasizes a tactical urban solution for the former schoolyard of Johnston Elementary School. The main objective was to transform this under-utilized and abandoned space into a “educational playscape and neighborhood resource” (CMU MUD, 2019). As well, this project highlights the importance of community engagement. It is deeply rooted in giving the residents the agency to restore their neighborhood and develop a sense of placekeeping.

Implemented in phases over time, the project is commited to a participatory design process and it was greatly apparent that the community is embedded in the decision-making (Alsanea, 2019). Shown in the timeline below, the design team broke up the components of the schoolyard through objects and surfaces (Alsanea, 2019). The learning island was focusing on activating the asphalt surface of the schoolyard. Similarily, the other islands - seating, play, and fitness were interventions for changing the surface of this space, while incorporating objects and edges that respond to the level changes. As well, the music and play bench truly enhance the playful nature and provide public seating. Lastly, the “red porch” proposal is still in the works due to funding; however, it provides an opportunity for shade and imrpoves the accessibility to the school (CMU MUD, 2019).

25

03 DEFINE site challenges & conditions

26

SITE ANALYSIS WHAT DEFINES AN UNDER-UTILIZED SPACE? The spaces around the schools are underused in two ways: firstly, through its constrained hours of operation, and secondly because of the residual spaces around the buildings themselves. This research looks into opportunities for the left-over spaces adjacent to public schools in order to maximize the potentials of these educational pockets as cultural incubators.

View of Dennis Avenue Community Schoolyard Image from Google Maps.

27

28

(TDSB, 2021) (Ta, et al., 2021)

SCHOOLYARD SCHEDULES SITE ANALYSIS

Currently, the public schools and surrounding spaces in Toronto are primarily occupied by students and teachers on weekdays from 8am-3pm. During school hours, the playground, bus loop, alleys, and open field are only used for short periods of time. As well, there are only a few activities occurring in the surrounding spaces beyond the common school hours. In response, our design interventions seek potential for utilization before and after school, as well as, on the weekends. Also, there are opportunities for these spaces to be flexible and change based on the seasons such as a hardscape transforming into an ice rink during the cooler months and sand box during the warmer months.

Following this page, the diagrams show how design interventions to schoolyards can impact the activities on weekdays and weekends.

29

30

(TDSB, 2021) (Ta, et al., 2021)

31

SITE ANALYSIS

KEY Public School Parcels

Prevalence of LICO-AT ≤ 10% ≤ 14% ≤ 18% ≤ 25% ≤ 36%

PREVALENCE OF LICO-AT (%)

N

0

1

2

3 Miles

KEY Public School Parcels

Percentage of Immigrants ≤ 30% ≤ 40% ≤ 50% ≤ 60% ≤ 85%

PERCENTAGE OF IMMIGRANTS

32

(Ta, et al., 2021)

N

0

1

2

3 Miles

SITE ANALYSIS KEY Public School Parcels Priority Investment Neighborhoods

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT NEIGHBORHOODS

N

0

1

2

3 Miles

DEMOGRAPHICS The proposal focuses on all public and community schools under the Toronto Public School Boards (TDSB). The highlighted neighborhoods sit at the convergence of the selection criteria. The first criteria was to look at the prevalence of low income neighborhoods. The LICO-AT refers to the level at which families or persons spend 20% or more, than the average family on food, shelter and clothing. Toronto also caters to a large immigrant population. Priority areas are designated areas within the City that need additional investment to combat specific problems such as higher-thanaverage crime or a shortage of services. Therefore, adding this selection criteria allows to take advantage of the existing resources. In order to ensure an equitable distribution of public spaces, the site area selection sits at the convergence of the following parameters:

1. High density of immigrant populations 2. Low-income neighborhoods 3. Priority Investment neighborhoods

33

With over there is cu foot of und

Glenfield-Jane Heights

34

(Ta, et al., 2021)

Mount Dennis

Taylor-Massey

Kennedy Park

SITE ANALYSIS

660 public schools, urrently 10 million square derutilized land.

Scarborough Village

Based on this analysis, a potential focus could be the northwest of downtown as multiple neighborhoods in the vicinity are vulnerable and need to be prioritized. There is also a potential to expand the existing green space corridor along the Humber River. By mapping the urban trends, the four critical schools with exciting design opportunities are George Syme Community School & Lambton Park Community School in the Rockcliffe-Smythe neighborhood, and Dennis Avenue Community School, & Bala Avenue Community School in the Mount Dennis neighborhood.

35

36

(Ta, et al., 2021)

THE SITES This map highlights potential sites for design intervention. Specifically interested in community schools, 4 sites have been selected to be the focus groups for analyzing the typologies and conditions of schoolyards.

37

tree planters

38

(Ta, et al., 2021)

paved blacktops

fire hydrants

materials shed

SITE CONDITIONS

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL SOFT GREEN SPACES (Includes open space, recreational fields, & gardens)

HARD PAVEMENT SPACES (Includes parkings, playgrounds, basketball courts, & misc. space)

HUMAN DENSITY (Traffic during non-school hours)

ACCESSIBILITY (Measured by the amount & type of entrances)

PUBLIC SEATING (Includes benches, picnic tables, chairs, & planter ledges)

SPACES WITH SHADE (Includes tree canopies & infrastructure/ shading devices)

39

soccer fields

40

(Ta, et al., 2021)

basketball court

grass at entrance

paved blacktops

SITE CONDITIONS

LAMBTON PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL SOFT GREEN SPACES (Includes open space, recreational fields, & gardens)

HARD PAVEMENT SPACES (Includes parkings, playgrounds, basketball courts, & misc. space)

HUMAN DENSITY (Traffic during non-school hours)

ACCESSIBILITY (Measured by the amount & type of entrances)

PUBLIC SEATING (Includes benches, picnic tables, chairs, & planter ledges)

SPACES WITH SHADE (Includes tree canopies & infrastructure/ shading devices)

41

parking lots

42

(Ta, et al., 2021)

grass fields

playground

paved blacktops

SITE CONDITIONS

DENNIS AVENUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL SOFT GREEN SPACES (Includes open space, recreational fields, & gardens)

HARD PAVEMENT SPACES (Includes parkings, playgrounds, basketball courts, & misc. space)

HUMAN DENSITY (Traffic during non-school hours)

ACCESSIBILITY (Measured by the amount & type of entrances)

PUBLIC SEATING (Includes benches, picnic tables, chairs, & planter ledges)

SPACES WITH SHADE (Includes tree canopies & infrastructure/ shading devices)

43

dumpster & picnic area

44

(Ta, et al., 2021)

basketball court

paved blacktop

school curbs

SITE CONDITIONS

BALA AVENUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL SOFT GREEN SPACES (Includes open space, recreational fields, & gardens)

HARD PAVEMENT SPACES (Includes parkings, playgrounds, basketball courts, & misc. space)

HUMAN DENSITY (Traffic during non-school hours)

ACCESSIBILITY (Measured by the amount & type of entrances)

PUBLIC SEATING (Includes benches, picnic tables, chairs, & planter ledges)

SPACES WITH SHADE (Includes tree canopies & infrastructure/ shading devices)

45

46

(Ta, et al., 2021)

SITE CONDITIONS SCHOOLYARD CHARACTERISTICS 80% of Toronto’s schoolyards are open space.

More than half of each schoolyard is hard-paved.

This synthesis also highlights on common characteristics from the sites selected. This research categorizes schoolyards down into surfaces, edges, and objects. Some surfaces include asphalt, concrete, and grass. Some edges include fencing, retaining walls, and ecological buffers such as trees and shrubs. Some objects include benches, recreational climbing structures, and shading canopies. With this framework, the research aims to emphasize on co-authorship and how this could give agency to the community to further the list.

47

04 DESIGN interventions & strategies

48

RESEARCH SUMMARY To conclude, this design research project explores the definition and opportunities tied to under-utilized spaces in Toronto, Canada. The left-over spaces adjacent to public schools have an incredible potential of transforming into cultural hubs and learning environments for the residents including the local immigrant community, minority populations and members of the schools.

The four critical areas in need of intervention are the playground, parking lots, open fields/ school courts, and the service spaces. These spaces in schoolyards can be transformed with three components - surfaces, edges, and objects. By rethinking these components and spaces, schoolyards will be catalyst for supporting immigrant communities.

(Ta, et al., 2021)

49

CHARACTERI SITE SELECTION

+ these spaces are primarily concrete pavings

+ Population density and range of low-income neighborhoods + Immigration population in households who landed between 1980 and 2016 and percent of immigrants moving towards Central Toronto + Public/ community schools within the Toronto District School Board, schoolyards/parcels that are public-owned

+ lack of soft surfaces for ch to play during school hours & “For some of these vulnerable kids, school is the safest place they’ll be all day and they often have an incredible sense of community,”

+ metal fencing surrounding with a few entrances

+ not well lit in the evenings street lights and amenities fo

+ Existing immigration services and facilities

+ physically deteriorating wo and public seating

+Demographics of the residents: ethnicity, race, and age groups

+ there are a few play structu any educational installations

What are critical layers for site investigation? Where are the schools and where are the potential pockets of under-utilized educational spaces?

What defines an unde pattern of them? Wh anot bein

MAXIMIZING UNDER-UTILIZ

SCHOOLS AS CULTURAL AND

USERS + local immigrant community members + primary and secondary students

Who is are the potential users and partnerships? Who may be involved in the design process and planning?

+ teachers, faculty members, and staff from public/community schools

DESIGN MO

+ daycare, after-school program teams

PARTNERSHIPS + Model Schools for Inner Cities + CreateTO - Marika Franko + Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Karen Falconer and PTA Team + Community Planning for TDSB - Andrew Chua and student trustees

50

(Franko, 2012) (Ta, et al., 2021)

What are the design p schoolyards based on our

+ re-imagining materiality - gro infrastructure/ installations “This type of initiative is not only beneficial to students, but is also valuable to school boards, community residents and the City. It is particularly urgent that schoolyard parks be established before underutilized schools are deemed surplus, as once they are disposed of and the land is developed for other purposes, it will be extremely difficult and costly to acquire the land again for open green space purposes.”

+ developing flexible programs cold-climate and seasonal chan

+ designing to attract all ages g and extend usages for immigra

+ connecting to the larger eco

+ restoring and preserving exis

+ creating opportunities for sha spaces for rest and observation

ISSUES

ISTICS

+ the schoolyards are primarily only used during school hours and limited for after-school sports

hildren/ students & beyond

g the schoolyard

s, lack of working or after-school

ooden platforms

RESEARCH SUMMARY

+ there is a lack of immigration support for the neighborhoods in Northern Toronto

asphalt and

“Public schoolyards in Toronto District School Board (TDSB) are declining both in physical appearance and in numbers.”

“As such, they do not benefit school children physically or psychologically, nor do they benefit the surrounding community and environment in any meaningful capacity.”

ures and rarely

erutilized space or a hy are these spaces ng used?

+ the schoolyard are inaccessible to local residents and lack community participation + these spaces are not well-maintained and aged over time - some spaces are not safe for children to play + the schoolyards are fairly limited depending on the season and weather + they are not flexible for different programs to take place now used for other purposes than school-related

Why schoolyards? What are the primary issues with the existing conditions of them?

ZED POCKETS OF COMMUNITY

D RECREATIONAL INCUBATORS

potentials for r early mapping?

OTIVES

ound surfaces and

PUBLIC HEALTH + Reduce stress and isolation

What are the overarching benefits of revitalizing schoolyards? How can these spaces promote inclusion and adaptability?

BENEFITS

groups (school-related ant community)

+ Addition of more permeable surfaces for stormwater capture

ade and public seating n

+ Encourage less screen time and opportunities to get outside

ENVIRONMENTAL + Develop ecological connections & building stewardship by integrating green spaces in the school’s vicinity

sting infrastructure

+ Reduced obesity + Provide some low cost exercise and playful structures

s based on Toronto’s nges

ological network & parks

+ Improved air quality

+ Provide opportunities for rain water collection within shading devices + Reduced urban heat island effect + Reduced noise pollution + Revitalize the plant life at schoolyards

SOCIAL + Provide space and infrastructure for immigration services and assistance + Creates inviting public space for community gathering and engagement + Provide a flexible learning environment that extends beyond the indoor classroom (etc. outdoor library) + Enhance interactions amongst local residents and public schools

51

52

(Ta, et al., 2021)

POTENTIAL ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK

The action plan to implement the strategies and design into action would include identifying, connecting, ideating, prototyping, building, and learning. Based on the community engagement presented by TOcore Toronto, we concluded that the specific needs of schoolyard interventions.

After identifying the neighborhood in need, the next process would be to connect with the community through the public outreach programs, followed by participatory research, design charrettes, and collaborations with the community on various phases of the project. As well, the inclusion of students and community members to co-produce and create a coauthorship is the crucial part in this process to supporting the potential users of these spaces.

53

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL

54

(Ta, et al., 2021)

SEASONALITY SEASONALITY Playground are a common typology for an under-utilized space in schoolyards.

They are critical to the school activities that occur during recess and provide interactive objects for the students. However, some of these spaces can be defined out-dated and abandoned over time.

Therefore, the design projection for playgrounds would be to consider the surfaces and objects within these spaces. The seasonality of a schoolyard playground can be rethought to promote year-round play during the school hours and before/after school. For an example, a sandbox can be transformed into a winter curling and skating rink since there will be cooler months in Toronto.

55

DENNIS AVENUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

56

(Ta, et al., 2021)

MATERIALITY MATERIALITY School courts are often hardscapes that are rarely activated or occupied beyond school hours. These spaces primarily concrete or ashpalt surfaces have the potential to promote community gathering and enhance the user experience. Sometimes these spaces are used for recreational programs such as basketball and hopscotch; however, the quality of these spaces adjacent to schools are losing their excitement.

These spaces can be revitalized through objects such as hanging art installations, farmer’s market stalls, and interactive painting strategies. They could also vary on a seasonal schedule, but a common neccesity for these spaces would be public seating.

57

LAMBTON PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL

58

(Ta, et al., 2021)

ADAPTABILITY ADAPTABILITY Another typology that is under-utilized in schoolyards are the parking lots and pockets of space adjacent to streets. These spaces are utilized primarily during the school days and hours; however, they are usually unoccupied on the weekend and before/after hours. They are commonly paved in concrete or asphalt and nearby sidewalks that are fenced off the the school.

In response to these characteristics, these spaces could be reimagined to house temporary installations for public seating and interactive bus stops.

Based on my personal experiences, students usually wait around at the pickup/drop-off spots waiting for someone to come, so it may be interesting to rethink how these spaces can foster playful interactions. Perhaps, considering low-cost installations using recyclable and adaptable materials would be benefical. It is also critical to have shade at these spaces of rest and static activities.

59

BALA AVENUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

60

(Ta, et al., 2021)

COST-EFFICIENCY COST-EFFICIENCY Every schoolyard requires a service space for trash and recycling removal, as well as, spaces to house the school buses that transport student to and from school. Based on the analysis, the dumpster and service space could be reimagined to provide more inviting public picnic seating and become a active hub for activities. These spaces could house recycled old dumpster that have been transformed into plant bed, recreational tables, and/or skate ramps.

Perhaps, the plant beds could be multipied to form community gardens.

This design projection re-defines the bad perception of service spaces. There could also be recyclable art installations that beautify these spaces. Similar to laneways and service corridors found in Downtown Toronto, the TOcore Project is an excellent project for rethinking these crtical and great potential spaces in schoolyards.

61

62

(Ta, et al., 2021)

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION This research book is an essential design framework for reimagining schoolyards in Toronto, Canada. The residual spaces in and around schoolyards have the potential to transform into inclusive pockets and learning environments for the community. They have exciting design opportunities to support the local immigrant community and improve the low-income neighborhoods. Specifically in the sites selected based on the research criterias, they are most vulnerable to the upcoming changes to schoolyards. If this research was explored further through a research thesis, another typology that would be interesting to examine and design is the metal fencing around schoolyards. This typology is found in most sites, so future design solutions can be aggregated throughout the urban context.

Overall, this research helped me define and reflect on under-utilized spaces in schoolyards.

It also inspired me to envision urban strategies that can directly impact the community.

Special thanks to Veena and Deb for making this an incredible learning experience and being the best teammates!

63

WORK CITED (Alsanea, 2019) ‘Ghalya Alsanea - Urban Acupuncture for Community Forge’ <https://ghalya. design/urban-acupuncture-for-community-forge> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Anthamatten, et. al., 2011) Anthamatten, Peter, Lois Brink, Sarah Lampe, Emily Greenwood, Beverly Kingston, and Claudio Nigg, ‘An Assessment of Schoolyard Renovation Strategies to Encourage Children’s Physical Activity’, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8.1 (2011), 27 <https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-27> [accessed 7 May 2021] (ASLA, 2019) ‘TOcore: Downtown Parks and Public Realm Plan | 2019 ASLA Professional Awards’ <https://www.asla.org/2019awards/635140-TOcore_Downtown_Parks_And_Public_Realm_Plan. html> [accessed 7 May 2021] (City of Toronto, 2017) ‘TOcore: Planning Downtown’, City of Toronto (City of Toronto, 2017), Toronto, Ontario, Canada v<https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/ planning-studies-initiatives/tocore-planning-torontos-downtown/> [accessed 7 May 2021] (CMU MUD, 2019) 2033746905, ‘Urban Acupuncture for Community Forge, Wilkinsburg’, Issuu <https://issuu.com/cmu-mud/docs/acunpuncture_for_community_forge_re> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Franko, 2012) Franko, Marika. “SCHOOLYARD PARKS: HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY OF TORONTO TO GREEN SCHOOLYARDS CAN INCREASE ACCESS TO PUBLIC PARK SPACE ACROSS THE CITY.” doi:Master of Planning in Urban Development Ryerson University. [accessed 7 May 2021] (Leur, 2015) Leur, Tristan van, ‘Case Study: Van Eyck’s Playgrounds’, Bridge, 2015 <http:// waterlooarchitecture.com/bridge/blog/2015/09/17/case-study-van-eycks-playgrounds/> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008) Ozdemir, Aydin, and Oguz Yilmaz, ‘Assessment of Outdoor School Environments and Physical Activity in Ankara’s Primary Schools’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28.3 (2008), 287–300 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.004> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Ta, et al., 2021) Ta, Allie, Veena Shah, and Deborah Lee, ARCH 5614 Urban Strategies, Spring 2021, University of Virginia, Group Project.

(Taimour, 2019) ‘Schoolyards: The Park Access Solution That’s Hiding in Plain Sight | The Trust for Public Land’ <https://www.tpl.org/schoolyards> [accessed 7 May 2021]

64

(TDSB, 2021) ‘School Hours’ <https://schoolweb.tdsb.on.ca/brock/About-Us/School-Hours> [accessed 7 May 2021] (The Trust of Public Land, 2019) ‘Schoolyards: The Park Access Solution That’s Hiding in Plain Sight | The Trust for Public Land’ <https://www.tpl.org/schoolyards> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Tiny WPA, 2020) 2‘Play + Play Spaces’, Tiny WPA <http://www.tinywpa.org/stop-by-build-1> [accessed 7 May 2021] (VMDO, 2020) ‘‘100365421799708465-Designaid-Guidebook-112020.Pdf’ <https://cdesignc.org/ uploads/files/100365421799708465-designaid-guidebook-112020.pdf> [accessed 7 May 2021] (Withagen and Caljouw, 2017) ‘Frontiers | Aldo van Eyck’s Playgrounds: Aesthetics, Affordances, and Creativity | Psychology’ <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01130/full> [accessed 7 May 2021]

65