Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS)

Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces:

A win-win solution for the future of the urban public realm?

A Critical Urban Design Analysis

Current Issues Paper Lauren Haein An haein.an@mail.utoronto.ca April 2017

Instructor: Lindsay Stephens Supervisor: Paul Hess

Abstract This research critically examines Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS) as a tool for open space provision in Toronto’s densifying Downtown. I inquire whether POPS have been successfully used by the City to add open spaces Downtown, where it is increasingly challenging to secure parkland. The focus of this research is on residential POPS as they are becoming the most prominent type of POPS in Toronto due to Downtown Toronto’s condo boom. An empirical analysis of twelve residential POPS in Downtown Toronto was conducted using observational criteria developed from the City of Toronto’s POPS Urban Design Guideline. Twelve stakeholders involved in POPS production were interviewed, including City staff, Councillors, developers, and designers. POPS currently constitute a small part of a larger development process, and therefore, no specific design requirements exist with most elements left up to negotiations. Findings reveal that there is a wide variability in POPS design quality, however, most POPS are deficient in elements that encourage public use, such as chairs and weather protection. Multiple issues with the current POPS process of development, design, use, and management are identified. The findings inform city builders on the current gaps and identify areas for improvement to encourage more comfortable, accessible, and attractive POPS in the future.

Table of Contents 0.

Executive Summary

1

1. Introduction

2

2.

Debates on Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces

4

3.

Toronto’s Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces : A Historical Overview

6

4.

Understanding the Current State of POPS: Method and Analysis

10

5.

An Evaluation of POPS through the Processes of Urban Design: Developing, Designing, Using, and Managing

22

5.1 Shaping POPS through Development 5.2 Shaping POPS through Design 5.3 Shaping POPS through Use and Management 6.

Conclusion and Recommendations

35

7.

Areas for Further Research

40

References Appendix

Executive Summary Privately Owned Publicly- Accessible Spaces (POPS) have become a popular mechanism for public space provision in cities around the world. This research questions whether the City of Toronto’s POPS program has been successful in adding accessible open spaces to Downtown. POPS are open spaces created alongside high-density developments and are owned and maintained privately, but are meant to be accessible to the public. In Toronto, a surge of condominium developments in the last few decades have created numerous residential POPS, with over a million square feet added to Toronto since 2000 (City of Toronto 2013). To date, no research has attempted a design analysis of Toronto’s POPS. The aim of this research is to close the gap by analyzing POPS design and connecting it to the processes of development, design, use, and management that together produce these spaces. An observational matrix for design analysis is developed based on the City’s POPS Urban Design Guideline. Key informant interviews are also conducted to gain insights into the POPS process.

Findings suggest the City of Toronto’s POPS program has not been effective in creating spaces with user-focused design elements. POPS in Downtown have varying design qualities. Based on the design analysis conducted as a part of this research, they score an average of 57% on the observation criteria. The presence of pedestrian infrastructures such as seating and weather protection

set successful POPS apart from their less successful counterparts. Numerous issues can be found in the POPS processes. Inadequate legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that POPS are developed, designed, used, and managed as public places. Public awareness of these spaces are hindered by defensive design strategies such as signage that restrict certain activities and management practices focused on surveillance by third party actors with little knowledge of POPS. Fundamentally, the current funding scheme for POPS is highly problematic. The entire cost of POPS, for both construction and management, are assumed by the future residents of condominiums to which the POPS belong.

Reforms to the POPS process should be considered by the City to ensure that these spaces are designed and maintained for the public rather than private users. Key recommendations are: • Start the POPS conversation early and engage the public in forming a vision for Toronto’s POPS • Create a standard and method of evaluation for POPS design • Explore long-term strategies for POPS management, upgrades, and access

1

1. Introduction Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS) are open spaces such as plazas, squares, and walkways at the base of new developments that are privately owned and maintained but are meant to be accessible to the public.

These spaces are usually secured by the City through negotiations with private developers in the development approval process.

POPS are not unique to Toronto. Since its birth in New York City as an incentive zoning tool in 1961 (Kayden 2000), POPS have been adopted by cities around the world including Tokyo, London, San Francisco, and Toronto.

This trend demonstrates the shift in responsibility for not only the provision, but also the maintenance of public open space from the public to the private sector (Banerjee, 2001; Heurkens, 2012; Kayden, 2000; Schmidt et al. 2011).

Whereas the idea of privatized public spaces has been widely criticized by scholars and journalists for allowing private control over public spaces, proponents argue that it presents a win-win solution: The City benefits from having developers and private owners pay for the construction and the maintenance of POPS, while developers get zoning concessions for the development such as increased height and density.

For the last 50 years, Downtown Toronto has been experiencing an unprecedented growth both in population and in the rate of development. Currently, there are more than 86,000 residential units in the Downtown development pipeline (TOcore 2016). The rapid increase in residential development that Toronto has experienced in the past two decades has introduced a new form of POPS: the residential plaza.

Figure 1: A corporate POPS (Left) and residential POPS (Right) in

Toronto Source: J. Fullton (Left), Google Maps (Right) 2

Unlike corporate or commercial POPS that are concentrated in the Financial District, residential POPS are dispersed around the core and beyond, appearing in tandem to new condominiums. Corporate POPS appear well-utilized during the workweek by office workers and visitors. Same does not apply to residential POPS, which are usually at the foot of condo buildings and remain mostly empty throughout the day. It is unclear whether residential plazas are used as community spaces, or even conceived as publicly accessible spaces (Figure 1).

Unfortunately, not much analysis of residential POPS exists since their proliferation in cities is relatively new.

The City demands that POPS should have a “high quality design that enhances development and fits into the neighbourhood context”, “incorporate appropriate amenities for the communities they serve”, and be “open and welcoming to the public” (City of Toronto 2014).

In answering whether existing POPS comply with the City’s expectation towards POPS, I conduct an empirical analysis of 12 residential POPS in Downtown Toronto using observational criteria developed from the City of Toronto’s POPS Urban Design Guideline. Interviews with stakeholders including City staff, Councillors, developers, and designers offer insights into the process by which POPS are realized. This research takes place while the Downtown Secondary Plan is being shaped, which might affect the future provision of POPS in Downtown Toronto. The ongoing study process for the forthcoming Plan is termed

TOcore and will be discussed in greater detail in a later section. The study boundary for this research is defined by the CP Rail Corridor and Rosedale Valley to the North, Lake Ontario to the South, Bathurst Street to the West, and the Don River to the East (Figure 2). It is consistent with the Downtown boundaries defined by TOcore, which is the area that the forthcoming Downtown Secondary Plan will apply to (TOcore 2016).

Figure 2: Study boundaries are consistent with the

Downtown boundaries defined by TOcore Source: City of Toronto

3

Public space scholar Matthew Carmona argues that public space research seldom reports on the process of urban design; negotiations, relationships, and policies that collectively form the basis on which design is carried out.

He suggests an alternative framework for conceptualizing urban design, which he calls a ‘place-shaping continuum’. This approach involves examining a space in a comprehensive manner through understanding the historical, regulatory, and political context for public space creation (Carmona 2014). This research is informed by Carmona’s framework. I connect the current built realities of POPS with experiences of actors involved in the process; from producers (developers and landscape designers) to regulators (the public sector- Councillors, City staff and urban designers that act for the public sector), and to consumers (the public).

This paper is organized into four parts. In the first part of the paper, I identify scholarly debates on POPS as an emerging public space type. The section that follows outlines the historical context for Toronto’s POPS. Then, the methodology for visual observations and analysis of findings are presented. The next section identifies opportunities and challenges in the production of POPS, which are shaped by the processes of development, design, use, and management. The final section offers recommendations for policymakers and city builders to improve the process by which POPS are realized, and the design of POPS themselves.

4

2.

Debates on Privately Owned Publicly- Accessible Spaces

POPS have undoubtedly increased the quantity of total open spaces in cities. In New York, approximately 148.6 hectares of POPS have been added between 1961 and 2000 (City of New York 2016), and in Toronto’s Financial District 9.3 hectares between 2000 and 2014 with potentially many more hectares of undocumented POPS (City of Toronto 2013). Considering that only 19.2 hectares of public spaces and parks have been added to the Downtown Toronto in the last 11 years (City of Toronto 2016), POPS make up a significant source of open spaces.

The degree to which POPS can create meaningful public places, however, has been questioned by various scholars.

The dominant narrative has been critical, whereby increased private involvement in public space provision is considered to have brought an end of the true public realm (Sennett 1974; Sorkin 1992). In this regard, POPS and other privatized public spaces have been scrutinized as spaces of exclusion and control by those who own6lll and manage the space (Davis 1990; Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee 1998; Kohn 2013; Miller 2007; Németh 2009; Schmidt et al.

2011).

Németh points out that developers who create these spaces approach POPS with fiscal motivation, which limits the ability to create an inclusive and diverse public realm

(2009). Kohn argues that creating a corporate image and ensuring the ease of maintenance are at the forefront of the owner’s mind when creating POPS (Kohn 2004). Owners and managers can restrict the range of activities that can take place in a POPS and have the legal authority to remove anyone from the space, undermining the concepts of citizenship and representation. What such authority allows is the reconfiguration of the idea of the public to only the desirable and appropriate users for which these “public spaces” are created.

Adding to the exclusionary nature of these spaces, the use of subtle design elements as tools for exclusion is common in POPS (Loukaitou- Sideris & Banerjee 1998; Mitchell 2003; Miller 2007). For example, urban plazas with spikes on planting bed edges, skater-free surfaces, and armrests on benches discourage certain types of behaviours and users. These defensive design strategies are attributed to the property owners’ concerns regarding legal liabilities and management responsibilities. As a consequence, POPS have become spaces that are sterile and marginal in terms of design quality (Carmona 2012). As a byproduct, there is a lack of public awareness of POPS, both in terms of the concept and with respect to their location (Atkinson 2015).

Yet, POPS continue to be increasingly adopted by cities around the world. Parallel to this trend is a growing advocacy among scholars in re-imagining approaches to public spaces. They argue exclusion and multiple

definitions of the word public have always existed (Zukin 1995; Carmona 2012). Most criticisms of POPS, they argue, are based on a false premise that public spaces were democratic and do not take into account the inherent power imbalance and exclusion that always existed in these spaces (Zukin 1995). Instead, an open and evolving definition of public space is presented. What the privatizing trend reflects is the diversifying actors involved in public space provision and the redistribution of roles and responsibilities among these actors (Carmona 2012; Biggar 2015).

Despite an abundance of literature that centres on the privatization of public space, little evidence is present in scholarly literature on how these spaces actually operate. After an in-depth exploration of literature on the privatization of public spaces, Carmona and Wunderlich conclude that everyday experiences seem to conflict with ideas and claims presented in the literature (Carmona and Wunderlich 2012). The same reality is present in municipal governments where planning staff often lack the understanding of how POPS are used day-to-day.

To date, the vast majority of research has been conducted on New York City’s POPS (Kayden 2000, 2005; Kohn, 2013; Miller, 2007; Németh, 2004; 2009; Schmidt et al.

2011; Schmidt, 2004; Smithsimon, 2008). Among them, the most comprehensive study is by Jerold Kayden (2000), which involved an overview of historical context, policy

5

analysis, and a documentation on every POPS in New York City at the time of the study. In the City of Toronto, the understanding of how POPS are operating is limited due to no empirical studies being available. Most critiques have come from journalists and web-based bloggers, who have shone a light on the limited public awareness, subpar design quality, and various infringements by private actors (Atkinson 2015; Coyne, 2014; Garrett 2016; Noble 2015; Pilagro 2014; Wong, 2014).

In addition to the need for an on-the-ground understanding of POPS spaces, a need exists for more empirical studies specifically on the regulatory environment that produces POPS. Schmidt and colleagues (2011) explain that there is limited understanding of the way in which decisions are made, as well as the role of changing policy environment that affects the design, use, and management of POPS. Similarly, Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris (2011) suggest that “not much literature has focused on the process of urban design and its relationship to the final design outcome”.

6

3.

Toronto’s Privately Owned Publicly- Accessible Spaces : A Historical Overview

3.1

Informal negotiations and the introduction of Section 37

In Toronto, POPS have been negotiated and constructed prior to the development of formal policy and have existed for as long as 50 years in the form of squares and plazas at the foot of office towers (Danube 2015). The formal regulatory framework for POPS formed with the introduction of Section 37 in Ontario’s Planning Act in 1990 (Planning Act R.S.O. 1990). As a provincial legislation, Section 37 enabled municipalities to enter into Density for Benefit Agreements with developers, also known as “density bonusing”. As long as the municipal Official Plan contains provisions for density bonusing, City staff could require community benefits from developments when they exceed the height and density permitted by the Zoning Bylaw (Moore 2012).

The types of community benefits are not defined in Section 37. Instead, it is left for municipalities to interpret and define according to their own Official Plan. In doing so, the City of Toronto introduced the Implementation Guideline for Section 37 along with detailed protocols for negotiating community benefits containing an extensive list of potential contributions that can be secured, some of which are libraries, affordable housing, child-care facilities, and POPS. According to a report on Toronto’s Section 37 benefits, parks and open spaces including POPS constitute the most frequently secured benefit type out of 18 categories between 2007 and 2011 (Figure 3).

In addition to Section 37 contributions, some POPS are secured separately through site plan control and easement agreements. Hence, developers are often asked to provide POPS alongside other Section 37 community benefits. In an interview, a developer who requested to remain anonymous remarked that the City often “takes POPS for granted” as a requirement for a building permit regardless of other Section 37 contributions, and that he sees no benefit for the development community to provide the space (Developer A 2016). This statement suggests that POPS do not always have a clear relationship with gaining more height and density as is expected.

3.2

2014 Reform: Protecting and Increasing Access to POPS

The first refinement to the POPS program came in 2014 when City Councillor Josh Matlow realized that the City has been paying little attention to POPS. Compared to New York City, which had been mandating signage for all POPS with a logo for easy identification by the public, Toronto’s POPS did not have signage requirements (Matlow 2016).

Feeling that a more rigorous approach to regulating POPS is needed, he initiated a motion in council to “protect and increase access to POPS” (City of Toronto 2014a).

Subsequently, City Council requested all future POPS have signage in the form of a plaque indicating that the space is open to the public. Providing the plaque alongside POPS was to be a part of the standard condition of Site Plan Approval for development applications (Figure 4).

The first plaque was installed in 2014, and that is the last instance of a POPS plaque installed to date. This can be explained by the signage requirement being mandated after 2014. POPS subjected to the requirement are therefore yet to be constructed. Whereas a staff report states that the managers and owners of existing POPS will be informed about opportunities to install signage, it is unclear whether the outreach has happened.

Figure 3: Type and Frequency (%) of benefits accrued from Section 37

in Toronto, 2007-2011 Source: Moore, A. (2013)

The City also attempted to increase public awareness of POPS. As a part of the aforementioned motion, all existing

7

Figure 4: POPS signage Source: City of Toronto

POPS were to be mapped and be made available online.

Whereas some City documents claim there are over 400 POPS in Toronto (City of Toronto 2013), only 83 were identified and mapped on the City’s website (City Planning Division 2014b).

accessible and beautiful spaces” (City of Toronto 2014b). It also provides a fine-grain guidance on the scale, function, design, and furnishing of these spaces that previously did not exist in a centralized written document. Within it, the City also identifies different types of POPS. Seven typologies are presented: courtyards, plazas, gardens, walkways/ mid-block connections, forecourts, landscaped setbacks/ boulevards, and publicly-accessible interior pedestrian connections. A large proportion of the 83 POPS that have been documented by the city are walkways, and there is no interior POPS in Toronto. Some spaces are described simply as “POPS”, without any specific classification. Unclassified “POPS” make up the secondbiggest group in the POPS database (Figure 5).

An Urban Design Manager at the City explains that it is challenging to identify these spaces in past records since most POPS were secured before the term POPS was coined (Parakh 2015; 2016). These spaces were instead described with terms such as “open space” and “pedestrian plaza” (City Planning Division 2016).

For the City to be able to influence the design of POPS, the Council adopted a POPS-specific Urban Design Guideline.

For the first time in Toronto, the Guideline articulates the City’s expectations for these spaces to be “safe, comfortable,

8

Figure 5: Types of POPS and their proportions in the City of

Toronto. 35% of Toronto’s pedestrian walkways, mak

ing it the most prominent POPS type in the city Source: City of Toronto

The Guideline is intended to facilitate discussions between City staff, local residents and the development community for the location and design of new POPS. It is also written to guide the POPS design in the development process.

It is important to note, however, that guidelines are not statutory documents and therefore have no legal authority.

Regarding the role of POPS, the Guideline state the following: POPS are intended to complement the City’s public parks, open space and natural areas, not replace them. One way by which the City expands and enhances the public park and open space network is through Parkland acquisition strategies, whereby land or cash in lieu of land is provided to the City as part of the development process (City of Toronto 2014b).

Regardless of the City’s position, the high land value found in the Downtown today is nearly prohibitive for the City of Toronto to secure significant amounts of public spaces at a rate they are able to using POPS. 3.3

TOcore: a silver bullet?

Beyond the aforementioned policies and the Guideline, the forthcoming Downtown Secondary Plan Policies will also affect the way that POPS are planned and designed. The initiative towards this Plan is better known as TOcore,

with the City conducting studies and consultations to develop a framework that will guide the rapid growth and development occurring in Toronto’s Downtown. When adopted, the new Secondary Plan will become a part of the Official Plan and may affect POPS in two ways: through new policies that will apply to all new developments in Downtown boundaries, and through a 25-year plan for Downtown parks and public realm. The draft policy directions that apply to POPS are as follows: ● Design parks, open spaces, streets and POPS to be multi-seasonal, multi-functional, flexible spaces (TOcore Draft Policy Direction C14); ● Encourage POPS where appropriate, and design and locate them to promote their use and serve the local population (C22); ● Locate and design POPS to be Seamlessly integrated and connected into the larger parks and open space network (C23); ● Support public life through strategic investments in placemaking within parks, open spaces, POPS, streets and other elements of the public realm network that encourages both mobility and social interaction (C31); and ● Support partnerships with public agencies, boards

9

and commissions, institutions and private property owners to supplement the supply of City-owned parkland by securing public access to other privately owned open spaces (C37) (City of Toronto 2016).

While the Downtown Secondary Plan may improve the design and location of POPS, it is imperative to assess the current conditions and processes of POPS to realize the areas for improvement. While the regulatory process has provided the framework in which POPS are negotiated, there has been relatively little effort expended to understand whether POPS have been built as they were intended and whether the current tools are effective in achieving the intended goals.

4.

Understanding the Current State of POPS: Method and Analysis There are limited methodologies available for assessing design components in POPS. A number of studies offer systematic analyses of the nature and qualities of public spaces, from parks and plazas to sidewalks (Carr et al.

1992; Cooper-Marcus and Francis 1998; Low 2000; Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Whyte 1980). However, studies using direct observation methods have been public life studies, which concerns user behavior in public spaces more than design qualities (Gehl 2013).

10

Furthermore, POPS have specific qualities that distinguish them from other public spaces. They always accompany new developments exceeding the zoned height and density and are therefore always built alongside new tall buildings. Due to the adjacency to tall towers, the design of the buildings themselves and their placement affect the quality of POPS. In addition, the size of POPS tend to be smaller compared to the average size of parks. POPS also share common yet specific design constraints from having to accommodate private utility components such as vents, pipes, and other building servicing elements. These components often exist under or next to POPS. For this reason, most POPS feature hard surfaces such as concrete or marble unlike parks that tend to have more natural scapes.

Observational methods for POPS simply do not exist perhaps due to a relatively recent emergence of POPS as a public space type. Hence, Existing research on POPS commonly use behavioral analysis of users (Kayden 2000; Rahi et al. 2012; Whyte 1980) and surveys (Kayden 2000; Carmona 2012; 2014) to measure the degree of exclusion or sociability in POPS. A well-known example is Whyte’s research on public life in plazas, where he observed people’s uses of these spaces through observations and time-lapse filming (Whyte 1980). Kayden’s (2000) study uses a more comprehensive mix of methods including visual observation of user behaviours and interviews.

Whereas design elements such as size, orientation, and

materials are noted as a part of Kayden’s research, this cannot be regarded as a systematic approach as design elements were only noted for their potentials to encourage social interaction.

Unlike Whyte and Kayden’s research, studies on the degree of exclusion in POPS have attempted to systematically analyze physical elements of POPS (Nader 2015, Németh 2009, Rahi et al. 2012). An observational index developed

by Németh and Schmidt (2007) is commonly used. The index includes 20 items that either encourage or discourage and control use in four dimensions: laws and rules governing the space; surveillance and policing present in the space; design and image-building techniques to both literally and symbolically dictate appropriate behaviour; and access restrictions and territorial separation to control space (Németh and Schmidt 2007).

Whereas the index focuses mostly on design elements or physical conditions, it also includes non-design items such as ‘security personnel’ and ‘constrained hours of operation’.

Furthermore, Németh and Schmidt’s variables are focused solely on space control. Due to the lack of a comprehensive design observation index, a new observational index is developed for this research based on the City of Toronto’s POPS Urban Design Guideline. The index was used in determining the degree of conformance in each POPS to the design elements outlined in the City’s Guideline.

4.1

Method

The observational matrix used for the study drew from thirteen categories of public space design principles outlined in the POPS Urban Design Guideline. Five principles were regarding design strategies that help create safe, welcoming, and comfortable environments, namely: pedestrian comfort, pedestrian access and circulation, public safety, active edges, and building servicing. The remaining nine principles, or elements, help strengthen public accessibility and social roles of POPS, which are: seating, public art, landscaping, paving, lighting, weather protection, other amenities, and signage. Variables for each category were identified from analyzing the content of POPS Urban Design Guideline, which define elements that constitute each category. For example, the ‘pedestrian comfort’ category is defined in the Guideline with the following items: a. Locate POPS within the block to maximize sky-views and sunlight in the space. b. Encourage south-facing POPS, as they maximize the space’s exposure to direct sunlight. c. Design and locate POPS to minimize adverse wind conditions and to ensure their comfort for sitting throughout the year (City of Toronto, 2014).

11

Consequently, these three variables formed the ‘pedestrian comfort’ category in the observational matrix. Some variables, despite being rooted in the City’s Guideline, required a significant amount of interpretation. For example, ‘locate POPS within the block to maximize skyviews and sunlight in the space’ is operationalized by whether there is major shadowing or obstruction of sky views in POPS due to the placement of POPS in relation to the building that they belong to. From translating the variables, it became apparent that some of them concerned the location and the design of the building(s), rather than POPS themselves. These variables include A1 ‘Maximizes sky view and sunlight in the space’ and D1 ‘Building entrances and façades, and active uses found on the edges’. A complete list of variables is found in Appendix A. A total of 53 variables in 13 categories are scored as discrete values, based on the presence or absence of elements or characteristics; -1 for element absent/does not comply with the Guideline, and +1 for element present/ complies with the Guideline. In order to allow for a fair comparison across different locations, the scores were standardized. This was done by assigning the percentage of each POPS based on the number of variables that each POPS are scored on.

Some variables did not apply to all POPS, for example, variable E2 ‘If located next to “back of house” elements, have landscape or architectural treatments to screen it’

12

only apply to POPS that have “back of house” elements next to them. Furthermore, some variables’ applicability depended on the fulfilment of another variable. To explain, variable G2 ‘signage conforms to the City’s POPS signage’ only applies if variable G1 ‘has signage’ has been fulfilled.

Therefore, variables that do not apply to the given POPS are exempt from the overall scoring of each POPS. Hence, the maximum score a space can receive varies.

Categories, rather than variables, are weighted equally to prevent categories with more from having a higher weight.

How all POPS cumulatively scored in each category is also calculated with standardized category averages. The average score from all variables that belong to a category were calculated based on total maximum score, then the scores for all categories were averaged. Doing so allows comparisons across different types of POPS based on their performance in a specific category.

Out of 83 POPS documented on the City of Toronto website, a sample was selected for meeting all of the following criteria: 1. Plazas, courtyards, and “open spaces” with substantial size and presence that can provide spaces to linger as well as public. This excludes pedestrian walkways and mid-block connections, which do not serve as destination

spaces beyond providing a thoroughfare. 35% of POPS are excluded as a result.

2. Residential POPS usually found at the base of condominium towers: Residential POPS make up a large quantity of Toronto’s POPS, and will continue to be the most prominent POPS type in Toronto.

3. Within Downtown Core boundaries: No other part of the City has more POPS than Downtown. It is also where most development activities are taking place.

12 POPS meet all criteria presented above. The observations took place between October 2016 and December 2016. Each site was visited twice, once on weekdays between 12pm and 5pm and once on weekends between 12pm and 5pm (Table 1).

13

POPS

POPS type

Developer

Landscape Architect

300 Front St.

Plaza

2014

Tridel

Claude Cormier + AssociĂŠs

444 Yonge St.

Courtyard

2008

Canderel

Cosburn Nauboris Landscape Architects

832 Bay St.

Forecourt

2014

Lanterra Developments, Dov Capital Corporation

Janet Rosenberg + Studio

76 Davenport St.

Garden

2013

Diamante Development

Ferris + Associates Inc.

1 Bedford St.

Forecourt

2011

Lanterra Developments

Corban and Goode

15 Fort York Blvd.

Courtyard

2007

Concord Adex

Ferris + Quinn Landscape Architects

Mariner Terrace

Courtyard

2005

Concord Adex

Ferris + Quinn Landscape Architects

406 Adelaide St. E

Forecourt

2014

Plaza

Terraplan

295 Adelaide St. W

Forecourt

2014

Pinnacle International

Janet Rosenberg + Studio

Rose Garden

Garden

2012

Lifetime Developments, Menkes, Alcion Ventures

Claude Cormier + AssociĂŠs

Pier 27

Plaza

2013

Cityzen Development Group, Fernbrook Homes

The MBTW Group

33 Bay St.

Plaza

2011

Pinnacle International

NAK Design Strategies

Table 1: 12 POPS selected for design analysis

14

Completed

300 Front St.

444 Yonge St.

832 Bay St.

76 Davenport St.

1 Bedford St.

15 Fort York Blvd.

Marriner Terrace

406 Adelaide St. E

295 Adelaide St. W

Rose Garden

Pier 27

33 Bay St. 15

Figure 4: Comparison for total scores for 12 POPS selected for design analysis

4.2Â Â Analysis of Findings The analysis is organized into three levels: a space-by-space comparison of individual scores for each POPS; a category-based comparison using cumulative scores for all POPS on each of the 13 categories; and a type-based analysis where POPS are grouped by space types and compared based on their collective performance on the evaluation criteria. First, a space-by-space evaluation of 12 POPS reveals varying design qualities with the average score of 57% (Figure 6). The highest scoring POPS is Pier 27 (84%) on east harbourfront at 39 Queens Quay, and the lowest is the POPS at 76 Davenport Street (35%) on the north part of Downtown (Figure 7).

16

Figure 5:The lowest Scoring POPS

76 Davenport St.(top); and

the highest Scoring POPS,

Pier 27 (bottom) Source: Lauren Haein An

Looking closer at the category-based data reveal that POPS are efficient as thoroughfares, but lack elements that encourage people to stay. Among 13 categories, the highest scoring ones are factors that facilitate access and movement in and out of the spaces (Table 2). Building servicing (91%) is one of two highest scoring categories. This means that POPS are generally located away from ‘back of house’ elements and that pedestrian routes do not conflict with servicing or vehicular access routes.

Table 2: Standardized scores for each

category used in POPS observations 17

Pedestrian Access and Circulation (91%) is the other highest scoring category, which is defined by factors such as ‘minimizes grade changes from public street’, ‘vents and large grates are away from pedestrian walkway’, and ‘pedestrian/ vehicular intersection has distinctive pavement treatments, vertical markers, or signage’.

In contrast to successful elements that encourage movement into and through the space, factors that encourage people to stay and use the space are among the lowest scoring categories (Figure 8). One of such factors is seating (44%). According to the public life study conducted by the City of Toronto, places to sit is the most desirable quality in the public realm by Toronto’s residents.

However, most POPS fell short on providing a variety of seating types, configurations, options to sit in sun or

shade, or other elements that can act as seating (Figure 9). According to Whyte (1980) in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, good public spaces provide “sittable places”, as well as choices in where and how to sit, which facilitate opportunities for social interaction and activities.

Public art (32%), which often reinforces the presence and public quality of POPS, is also only present in 4 out of 12 POPS. Weather protection contributes to the degree of user comfort by creating temporary protection from rain, wind, sun, or snow. Notwithstanding, weather protection (22%) in forms of trees and canopies were uncommon. None of the spaces have the POPS signage required by the City of Toronto. As previously stated, this may be due to the signage requirement being introduced only in 2014 after these POPS have been already secured by the City.

Elements in Toronto’s POPS

Figure 8: Comparison of what Torontonians want to see in their public realm (left) and elements in POPS (right) Source: (Left) City of Toronto Public Life Study (2016), (Right) Lauren Haein An 18

POPS included in the sample each fall into one of four types: plaza (3), courtyard (4), forecourt (3), or garden (2).

The following is how the City of Toronto defines each type: ● Plaza: “An animated gathering place flanked by a public street with predominantly hard surfaced landscape features” ● Courtyard: “A landscaped open space, located in the interior of a single block or consolidated block with limited direct street frontage”

Plazas being adjacent to a street frontage contributes to easier visual and physical access, which makes the type more successful than a courtyard that is often located within a block. Comparing scores for each category based on types reveals elements that are present in the highscoring POPS type that other types are lacking (Figure 10). Plazas, which is the highest scoring POPS type, scored significantly higher than others on the presence of ‘elements’ categories, especially seating, amenities, weather protection, and paving.

● Forecourt: “A landscaped open space between the public sidewalk and main entrance of a building, generally enclosed on three sides by building façades” ● Garden: “A landscaped space of intimate scale, open to a public street and located to provide maximum sunlight during the day” (City of Toronto 2014)

A type-by-type analysis of POPS reveals that the difference between the highest and the lowest scoring types are the presence of elements that encourage public use. Out of four types, plazas on average scored the highest (77%) and courtyards the lowest (45.5%). A key factor that distinguishes the two is the visibility and proximity from other public spaces such as sidewalks.

Figure 9: Benches at Mariner Terrace. Many POPS lack attractive seating conditions and options Source: Lauren Haein An

19

Figure 10: A Comparison of design quality by types and category 20

Beyond the aforementioned findings, several observations from the design analysis are worth stating. Although the size of POPS was not one of the variables for observation, it appears to be a relevant factor for public usability. Most POPS display subtle elements that discourage certain activities. The presence of prohibitive signs and closed circuit television (CCTV) are common, with some spaces featuring more subtle defensive designs such as skater-free surfaces and planter edges, as well as benches with armrests otherwise known as “bum-free benches� (Figure 11). Some POPS are difficult to locate or identify from being hidden by fences or buildings, or due to the built design being significantly different from what is documented on the City’s POPS map.

Although all POPS types were scored on the same set of variables, each POPS type is distinct in various aspects such as size, characters, and location relative to tall buildings and/or entrances. Depending on the type, they support different types of design elements and activities. Therefore, each type requires separate design strategies. Among all types, forecourts are the smallest in size and little space for substantial pedestrian elements such as seats. They appear more as generous setbacks or landscaped entrances to condominiums rather than public spaces. Given these conditions, it is questionable whether forecourts can serve as useful public spaces.

Figure 11: An example of a skater-free surface (left), and a sign in POPS prohibiting the use of leisure

mobility devices such as skateboards and rollerblades Source: Lauren Haein An

21

5.

An Evaluation of POPS through the Processes of Urban Design: Developing, Designing, Using, and Managing The following section connects findings from the visual analysis with the forces and processes that influence physical designs of POPS. Adapting Carmona’s model of urban design as a ‘place-shaping continuum’, critiques of the POPS process are organized into the chronological steps of development, design, use, and management, each with their own processes that influence POPS. A regular set of actors that are involved in the process and their roles will also be discussed. Interviews reveal that although the overall regulatory framework for securing POPS has been established, not much initiatives or legal actions ensure that these space are developed, designed, and used as public places. Underlying problems in the current POPS process exist at every step (Figure 12).

22

Figure 12: Framework of Toronto’s POPS

production: Processes, stakeholder

involvement, and issues

5.1 Shaping POPS through Development POPS constitute only a small part of the larger development process. Due to the virtue being embedded in a process with high stakes for both the City and developers, limited attention is currently given to the details of POPS design.

Key stakeholders involved in the initial stage of POPS process are: developers; City staff from Community Planning department that review the development application; and the local ward Councillor, although in varying degrees of involvement depending on the application and the Councillor.

Stakeholder

The exact point in which POPS enters in the development timeline varies from one project to another. The earliest instance is during the pre-consultation, where developers meet with Community Planning staff at the City prior to submitting a development application. During this meeting, informal conversations on the development take place, including the possibility of POPS on the property.

At this point, some developers choose to engage the landscape designer(s) for the project in the conversation, which enables the discussion of POPS very early in the development process (Joyce 2016).

Role

Motivation

• • •

Negotiate with the City Finance POPS Review POPS design

• • •

Design POPS • Communicate with the developer and City staff to • refine design • Design assurance

The City

• •

Negotiate with the developer(s) to secure POPS Comment on POPS design

• • •

Ensure good planning Secure community benefits Establish appropriate relationship between the building and the surrounding context

Community

•

Use POPS

•

Ensure ability to access public space

• • •

Ease of maintenance Upkeep a good image of the condo POPS as an amenity for residents

Developer

Designer (i.e. Landscape Architect)

Condo Board

•

Manage POPS

•

Profit maximization through redevelopment Creative license Profit maximization Uphold professional code of conduct

Table 3: Stakeholder roles and motivations in the POPS process 23

Although ideal, this scenario is uncommon and failure to do this often creates unforeseen design and technical issues later on in the process, such as inadequate soil depth for trees or building servicing elements running underneath the POPS space. These issues are discussed in more detail in section ‘5.3 Shaping POPS through Design’.

POPS have different meanings to different stakeholders Stakeholders approach the development process with different motivations, and therefore, their interpretation of how POPS relates to the development differ. As such, it is challenging to identify a coherent vision for POPS in Toronto. Table 3 identifies and organizes the differing motivations from stakeholders.

For City staff, POPS is a part of the overall built form exemplifying good planning, and not a community benefit to be traded for height and density. To a degree, it is a matter of moral responsibility that developments with high density would provide open space for the new residents and the surrounding community. Therefore, planners commonly ask that POPS be added to the development as a part of site plan agreement negotiations, separately from other Section 37 contributions such as affordable housing units (Planner A 2016).

Section 37 only serves as a legal mechanism to secure POPS on title. Councillor Joe Cressy echoes this approach

24

by emphasizing that POPS is not a transactional item for added height and density: There is no density bonus with POPS. A development has to stand on its own merit, and that means it has to contribute to the liveability of the neighbourhood … POPS are a new tool. We do not have an area in the Planning Act to add it in because the policy hasn’t been updated. So it is put in under the Section 37 bracket but it is not a bonusing.

It’s a site plan approval. When we approve a building, a development has to meet a certain set of conditions that the City Council and the planning staff are happy with. And so just as [the approval process] deals with height, built form and density, it deals with the landscape improvements-- the POPS spaces … Liveability of a neighbourhood requires, for the people that live there, outdoor open space (Cressy 2016).

From the City’s standpoint, POPS is a fair tradeoff for developers since it improves the merit of the development by adding a liveability aspect that increases its likelihood to be approved by the City.

Regardless of the City’s view, using Section 37 to secure POPS yet not accounting it as a part of the density bonusing seems to create some confusions among developers and generates polarizing views on the value of POPS. During

interviews, two developers mentioned that POPS is a “win-win” deal between them and the City and a fair tradeoff for acquiring higher density for the proposed development (Vihant 2016; Rabinowitz 2016). In contrast, a developer who asked to remain anonymous revealed that he feels POPS is an “ad-hoc requirement” since no clear relationship exists between what the developer is providing and what they are gaining in return (Developer A 2016). He sees POPS as a redundant requirement, since developers already fulfill parkland dedication, otherwise known as Section 42, by giving the City a certain amount of land or pay cash in lieu.

At the same time, it can be argued that developers derive an aesthetic value from POPS. For Downtown condominiums, creating an attractive image for urban living is an important marketing tool and therefore rendered images of POPS are often used in marketing materials for sales purposes (Figure 13). One of the developers interviewed mentioned that POPS are treated as “a great front door to [their] development” (Vihant 2016). Although there is no clear consensus on the value of POPS among developers, POPS ultimately benefits developers by better justifying the development for approval and improving its marketability.

For developers, maximizing value through creating a marketable product is of primary concern in the development process. Building and management cost, efficiency, and anticipating needs of future occupiers and investors are important to developers (Carmona et al 2010; Rowly 1998). Therefore, POPS can be seen as an extra cost and a “ticket” to development approval (Developer A 2016).

In addition to the cost of providing the POPS space itself, amenities such as canopies and benches can be seen as added costs to the development. Given this perspective, it is not surprising that many POPS lack adequate pedestrian amenities such as public art (32%), seating (44%), and weather protection (22%).

Figure 13: Condo advertisements featuring POPS Source: Greenpark Holdings Ltd.

25

Interviews with developers further reveal that the entire cost of POPS is deferred to future residents. For the construction cost of POPS, since it is an added cost to the development, it is integrated into the development pro forma to ultimately affect the price of units. A report by Altus Group Consulting (2013) states that “the Building Industry and Land Development association (BILD), which functions as a collective voice for the development industry, has candidly proclaimed that any additional layers of obligation imposed on developers, such as a Section 37 contribution, are paid not by the developer but are passed on to consumers at the sales stage, creating an upward pull on housing affordability”.

When asked about the increased cost of a unit from POPS, all developers agreed that the cost of POPS is passed onto future unit purchasers. A local condominium developer Alan Vihant expressed that “it is hard to say by how much having a POPS would increase condo cost, but if you had the identical condo, one with POPS and one without, the one with POPS would be inevitably more expensive, because it costs more money to build that overall project” (Vihant 2016). Another developer agreed, explaining that “everything that is built onto the property is passed on to the consumers” (Developer A 2016).

Beyond the construction cost, the ongoing maintenance fee is also deferred to the future residents of condominiums to which POPS belong to. Once the building is built,

26

the responsibility for the overall governance of the POPS is transferred to the condominium corporation, and its maintenance is paid with a portion of monthly condominium fees from residents.

Despite the funding source for POPS coming from a portion of the public rather than developers, no public consultation process is in place understand the types of spaces that residents hope to see in POPS, or even a need for one to exist in the first place. Furthermore, the current financing scheme is not transparent as the cost for POPS is integrated into the housing cost regardless of the unit owner’s choice to fund it. With the high demand in Toronto’s current housing market, it is unlikely that the developers would absorb the cost for POPS or any other community benefits with the potential reduction in profit.

Given that most POPS have poor design qualities as revealed by the design analysis in the previous section, it raises questions about whether residents are truly benefitting from these spaces that they invested in, albeit without choosing to do so. When asked to comment on this issue, Councillor Matlow remarked: It’s the developer that is benefitting, because by providing a POPS, it better justifies their development application. [The developers] are making a ton of money and they are being successful at their application process. And it’s

the residents that move in who happen to pay for their commitments (Matlow 2016).

Another negative byproduct of the current funding scheme is that it reinforces the private ownership aspect of POPS with unit owners seeing it as an extension of the private condominium amenities. Since the City and the wider community’s expectation towards these spaces is for them to be open to the public, this creates a tension over which groups should have priority over the use of these spaces. A further discussion on this tension can found in Section 5.3: Shaping POPS through Use and Management.

Opaque process with little public input Despite the fact that the residents carry the financial responsibility for POPS, they and the general public are not directly consulted in the design process. No channel for public input is established for the design or even identifying the need for POPS. The current design process is as follows: upon formal submission of the application, if determined that the development exceeds the height and density set out in the zoning of the area, the City’s Real Estate Service division estimates an approximate cash value for the development’s excess height and density. Then, the negotiations for Section 37 community benefits begin. The ward Councillor is invited to the conversation on the types of benefits to be secured and then approaches developers with a list of desired amenities and benefits. No standards

exist for this process and no community consultation is required for POPS or any other Section 37 benefits in general. Moore (2013) describes this point of the process the “least transparent”. During the mandated public consultation for the development, POPS, if presented at all, is shown as a part of a larger application. No specific discussion on POPS usually take place. Therefore, general members of the public have limited influence on the design, and is limited to providing feedback on what has been presented.

5.2 Shaping POPS through Design A coherent and comprehensive approach to POPS design is yet to be developed. Currently, a better understanding of the technical aspects of POPS design is required alongside a long-term strategy for managing these spaces at the municipal level. Once POPS are secured, landscape architects are commissioned by the developer to design the space. Then begins the process of designing, reviewing, and subsequent refinements to the POPS design. The following actors are involved: landscape architects; the City’s Community Planning, Urban Design, and Urban Forestry departments that provide feedback on the design; and the developer that manages the budget for POPS and also reviews the final design.

In this process, landscape architects have considerable influence over the design and public accessibility of

27

POPS given that they are the ones that physically design the space. According to Joyce (2016), a landscape architect based in Toronto, landscape architects often find themselves in a mediator role, advocating for what they believe is good design in the midst of competing needs between the City and the developers. They identify key issues in the design process to be the lack of communication between City departments, the City’s lack of technical understanding, and the absence of clear design requirements or priorities, which are further explained in the following section.

Vertical Silos Multiple iterations of POPS design are common prior to approval, and for each iteration, the Urban Design, Urban Forestry, and Community Planning departments separately provide feedback. In this process, landscape architects commonly express frustrations with the lack of coordination between City departments. For example, Urban Forestry often requires a certain soil volume for trees, however, the Urban Design department may request a specific design change that does not easily allow the former. Claude Cormier, a landscape architect who has designed several POPS in Toronto, says that the lack of communication between City departments form “abusive vertical silos� that build up frustration and resentment from designers and their clients (Cormier 2016).

28

Landscape architects therefore often find their role to be coordinating between not only the City and developers but also between City departments. Conflicting comments and the resulting need for multiple design corrections and iterations can be costly to landscape architects, whose contract with the developer usually involves a fixed price to design the space and get it approved by the City (Landscape Architect A 2017). This lengthy design approval process can also be costly to developers since the building permit is only issued when the site plan approval is complete.

Design approval on POPS is a part of the site plan approval condition, and therefore an extensive back-and-forth between the City and the design team can hold up the construction for the rest of the site.

Despite POPS being considered a part of the public realm, the Parks, Forestry and Recreation department at the City is not currently involved in the POPS process in any way (Planner B 2016). They do not review designs and are not consulted for any part of the process. This is problematic considering that the forthcoming Downtown Secondary Plan, as well as the 25-year plan for Downtown parks and public realm under the aforementioned TOcore, is being led by the Parks, Forestry and Recreation department.

However, the department currently lacks an understanding of how POPS are secured and designed. Multiple TOcore draft policy directions currently mention POPS, but it is questionable whether they would make a meaningful change in the way POPS are designed.

No foresight, No hindsight Currently, there is little discussion on the technical considerations early on in the development process, despite it potentially dictating large parts of the POPS design outcome. Since POPS are at the base of tall buildings, building servicing components such as gas and water pipes, air vents, and parking garages often run underneath the POPS space. According to landscape architects, these technical considerations are usually discussed late in the process and creates difficulties designing a space that the City requires. For instance, it is sometimes unavoidable that grates and exposed vents are in POPS, which can create noise and wind, as well as a negative visual impact.

The Urban Design department at the City, according to interviewed landscape architects, is not very supportive regarding the technical difficulties on the site. “The City divisions have a big vision to make an integrated public realm, however they don’t always understand intricate and very expensive technical details of what might be running under the space” Joyce explains, “Although it’s a public space, there’s a lot of private assets and functions that go on underneath in the same place” (2016). She hopes to see more open dialogue early on regarding how the functional aspects are integrated to POPS design. Since most POPS sit atop an underground parking garage, not only is it difficult for trees to grow, but also the roof membrane under POPS has to be replaced every 20-30 years. No long-term

thinking currently exists in POPS policy as to what happens when POPS have to be temporarily closed or removed for such replacement to happen. In addition, it is unclear who would be financially responsible if POPS have to be revamped in the future. While most Downtown POPS are new, these issues will certainly have to be considered going forward.

Another hindrance in ensuring good POPS design is the absence of design standards. The existing POPS Urban Design Guideline is an interpretive document with no legislative power and therefore does little in ensuring that POPS are designed to a certain standard. The City’s Urban design manager expressed there are no plans for updates or changes to the Guideline given that it has only been adopted recently (Parakh 2016).

Landscape architects Cormier and Joyce feel that the Guideline only holds power when the developer already sees value in creating a great public space. Having pedestrian infrastructure in POPS, such as seating, comes down to setting the budget for these elements. Without mandatory requirements, however, it is difficult to expect all developers to have a high level of commitment to the public realm. Currently, many POPS in Toronto lack critical pedestrian elements, and instead appear as entrances to condo buildings. At the same time, many POPS feature subtle defensive designs that discourage use, including fences, surveillance cameras, private property signs, and

29

planters that are too high or low to sit on. Such strategies have been well documented by Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee (1998) who observed visual cues of exclusion in privatized public plazas in Los Angeles, including direct signs dictating behavioural conduct, and the presence of surveillance including security guards.

The City of New York, where POPS originated from, also faced similar issues in the past: An analysis of past plaza regulations revealed that, while the introduction of residential and urban plaza standards and gradual refinement of these guidelines had improved the quality of plazas, there were still numerous instances of plazas that lack basic amenities or exhibit design features that inhibit public use and enjoyment. It was not unusual to find plazas that provided limited seating options, deliberately inhibited seating with spikes, or had obstructions that blocked visibility within the plaza area. These types of issues were at least partially attributable to lack of specific design guidelines or outdated criteria within the zoning text (City of New York 2016).

After a number of research efforts analyzing qualities and regulations that help create successful (or disappointing) public spaces, New York City adopted mandatory design standards for POPS for aspects such as minimum dimensions, configurations, location, orientation,

30

minimum visibility, and pedestrian amenities. Regarding seating requirements, the City of New York outlines six types of seating that can be used: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, seat walls, planter ledges, and seating steps. A variety of seating types is required depending on the size of the POPS. Standards for dimensions, configurations, and locations are provided as well as prohibitions including spikes, rails, and other seating deterrents.

A similar approach could be considered by the City of Toronto to ensure that POPS are designed as high quality public spaces. In Toronto, the design of public spaces and infrastructure are subjected to the accessible design standards as of January 2013 through the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (O.Reg. 191/11 2005). POPS being a part of the public realm should be mandated to conform to the same accessible design standards.

Even after POPS have been constructed, the City does not have a standard procedure or a designated staff to check whether proposed design for POPS is what was actually built. Currently, a security deposit is the only leverage the City has to ensure that all promised community benefits have been provided. However, they rarely go on site to check prior to returning the deposit. It is often left to the good faith of landscape architects that designed the space to check whether what is constructed match the initial design (Joyce 2016). Also, no clear metric to evaluate the

design of POPS currently exists. The observational criteria developed for this research is the first attempt at a metric for design evaluations. While it is based on the City’s Guideline, some limitations exist and could be improved upon. For example, variables should be operationalized to allow for objective measuring, and the index can be strengthened by adding more relevant variables such as the size of POPS. Furthermore, the criteria should be differentiated based the type of POPS. 1.3 Shaping POPS through Use and Management After POPS have been designed and constructed, the way that the space is governed and managed can limit public to access POPS. The financial responsibility of POPS being carried by the condo residents spurs a notion that they, over other members of the public, should have priority over the use of POPS. Ultimately, the current POPS process has not been successful in raising public awareness of these places. When coupled with the designs that do not promote public use, it can be concluded that POPS are not performing as useful public spaces in Toronto’s urban environment.

The Issue of Changing Hands: lack of awareness for POPS’s publicness Once the development project is complete, the governance and management responsibility for POPS and the

condominium building are transferred from the developer to the condominium corporation (condo board) of the building. In other words, despite the density bonusing deal and all decisions regarding the design and management of POPS having been made by developers, they are not the primary managers of the space post-occupancy.

Consequently, a few possible scenarios arise that may compromise public access to POPS: first, condo boards may be uninformed about POPS being a public space, and frankly might not know that the landscaped open plaza outside of their building is a POPS; second, even if condo boards are aware of POPS, they often hire a management company to care for the space that may not realize what POPS are; and third, management practices for POPS often focus heavily on surveillance by way of monitoring through a CCTV or by having security guards patrol the space.

As previously documented, it is not difficult to find signs of exclusions in POPS on the basis of conduct. Signs that lists activities that are not allowed in the space are common, which include sleeping, loitering, skateboarding, and walking a dog. Discouraging certain behaviour is strongly associated with the fact that the maintenance and the insurance costs for POPS being the responsibility of the condo board, and ultimately the residents (Building Manager A). For instance, skateboarders might hurt themselves in a POPS and the legal liability would fall on the owners and managers. They may also damage seats and plants, which will increase the maintenance cost.

31

Ultimately, condominium units are market products, and therefore, a positive image of the condo is heavily protected. During the design observation, security guards from three POPS requested that no photos be taken of the site, claiming that the space is a private property. In one instance, I was asked to leave the site immediately once determined not to be a resident of the building.

Spaces for whom?: Residents vs. Wider public The perception of POPS as a private property is also held by some residents of condominium buildings, who consider POPS as an extension of their building amenities. This view largely stems from the fact that residents carry the construction and maintenance cost for POPS. The tension between the residents and the general public can form regarding who should have priority access to POPS, as seen in the case of Fly Condo at 352 Front Street West. The landscape architect who designed the POPS revealed that bicycle racks in the space were initially for public use (Joyce 2016). Once completed, however, it became apparent that residents started monopolizing them as a more convenient and economical alternative to purchasing an underground bike parking inside the building. While the space was initially intended for public use, the residents argued that they should be able to use the bicycle racks. Now, there is a sign in the space which says “residents only” (Figure 14).

32

Figure 14: Bicycle racks in the POPS at Fly Condo, which was

intended to be for the public, is now for resident and guest

use only Source: Lauren Haein An

Lack of public awareness Ultimately, an important factor that decides the usability of POPS is people knowing that these spaces exist and that they are for public use. It is unclear whether the 2014 reform to “protect and increase access to POPS” (City of Toronto 2014), has been effective. The online map launched as a part of the initiative is unreliable due to the information not being regularly updated by the City.

During the design observations, using the City’s online POPS map to locate POPS proved to be a difficult task for

several reasons. First, POPS are mapped on an interactive Portable Document Format (PDF) rather than a mapping service. Therefore, one cannot map their route to a POPS (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Online POPS interactive PDF map with POPS locations

marked approximately on the map Source: City of Toronto

Second, the map has not been updated since it has been made in July 2015, and therefore information is missing and outdated. Lastly, the map contains wrong information, for example, some POPS that are still under construction are marked as complete (Figure 16), while some rendered images of POPS on the map are significantly different from what was built in reality (Figure 17). At 406 Adelaide St. East, the rendered image on the map is unlike the POPS today, which has a tall wall that separates the space from the sidewalk, as well as a metal fence around the narrow entrance. The water feature was not realized.

Figure 16: POPS at 16 York St. is marked as complete on the POPS

map (top) however still under construction (bottom) at the

time of visual observation Source: City of Toronto (top), Lauren Haein An (bottom)

33

The crux of the issue is that there is that no dedicated City staff responsible for managing the POPS program.

The Urban Design department has been tasked with responsibilities for POPS since the 2014 reform on top of their day-to-day roles. The department guides the POPS design throughout the development process, is responsible for updating the POPS map with every new development, changing the construction status, and handle infringements to the agreement on public accessibility or design. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the POPS map has not been updated and that acting on infringements is on a complaint-driven basis.

Violations to public access requirements have happened in a few POPS, in the form of open air patios and by POPS being used as a space to display commercial items such as automobiles. More common infringements include the removal of certain members of the public by security guards. However, the City has not been proactive with managing these cases and has relied on residents to report them.

Since it is unlikely for most residents to be aware of these issues and report it to the appropriate channels at the City without knowing the existence of POPS, most of this reporting has been taken on by journalists and a handful of informed citizens (Noble 2015; Jake Tobin Garrett, 2016).

Even so, the most vulnerable users would be the least likely to report such infringements.

34

Figure 17: Rendered image of POPS at 406 Adelaide St. East from the

City’s POPS map (top) and the actual POPS (second and third row) Source: City of Toronto (top), Lauren Haein An

6. Conclusion and Recommendations This research evaluated the effectiveness of POPS as a tool for adding open public spaces in Toronto’s dense Downtown. Several key findings emerged: In terms of their design, some POPS are better designed than others, with most POPS design focused on the image of the development rather than user needs. Whereas most of them scored the highest on design elements that facilitate easy movement into and through the site, POPS were generally not “sticky” places that encourage people to stay and interact with others. Common challenges remain for elements that relate to public use, such as: ● Limited offerings of pedestrian elements including weather protection, public art, and a variety of seating types, configurations, and environments; ● The small size of some POPS that cannot accommodate a variety of public space infrastructure; and ● The presence of defensive elements such as skaterfree surfaces, security cameras, guards, and signs prohibiting certain activities As long as POPS are provisioned in the current development framework through Section 37 and site plan agreements, a host of challenges remain. These include:

● Different interpretations of POPS requirements and values among stakeholders whereby the City considers it a requirement for good development, and developers see it as providing a Section 37 benefit in exchange for bonusing; ● No legal process in place to ensure a certain standard for POPS design and public involvement in the design process; ● A segment of the public, condominium residents, inherit the financial responsibility for a public amenity, which is decided between the developer and the City; ● Limited communications between City departments during the design process, and a need for more knowledge on technical aspects involved in POPS design; and ● The transfer of responsibility to an uninformed third party, such as a condominium corporation or a management company that has not been previously involved in the POPS discussion.

As a tool, POPS has been successful in securing public open spaces on title that might otherwise become entirely private space. However, research findings suggest that the current process has not been successful at creating the truly accessible, open, and attractive neighbourhood spaces that the City intended them to be.

35

Given the conflicted nature of POPS between private property and a public amenity, complexities regarding its design will persist and will continue to call for a cautious approach. The rapid rate of residential development in Toronto will continue to place pressure on open spaces despite these developments bringing in new POPS. Considering that POPS secured from developments today will have a lasting physical impact to the urban environment, there is a sense of urgency for improvements to their design and usability.

Moving forward, a reconfiguration of the POPS process is recommended. First and foremost, the design and public accessibility of POPS would be enhanced with the continued involvement of City staff throughout the entire process of POPS from the initial stages of negotiations to post-occupancy (Figure 18). Another consideration is to involve community members when setting expectations and visions for POPS through engagement in the policy development process. POPS are ultimately places for the public, hence their needs and aspirations for these spaces should be embodied in the way they are designed and regulated.

Figure 18: Reconfigured POPS

process with extended

City Staff and public

involvement 36

Additionally, the following recommendations offer potential reforms to be considered by the City of Toronto for each step of the POPS process:

● Conduct a City-initiated study of existing POPS across Toronto to evaluate their current design quality and inform POPS-specific policy.

During the Development Process: Start early and engage the public

● Mandate basic design standards for POPS. Each POPS type require different set of design standards and priorities depending on their size, characteristics, and location (Figure 19).

● Establish a well-defined agreement process specifically for POPS and clearly communicate objectives for creating POPS. ● Develop a public engagement strategy during the development review process to ask what people want to see in these spaces. ● Explore securing POPS through site plan agreements rather than Section 37. Doing so would allow City staff to discuss POPS details early on in the development process and direct Section 37 contributions to other community benefits such as affordable housing and child care spaces.

Design Process: Communicate, evaluate, and upgrade ● Discuss technical details early in the process, which will minimize utilities and servicing requirements creating complications and design compromises.

● Establish a system for regular design evaluation for POPS and develop a design evaluation tool, which will provide a metric to assess the design and compare design qualities across the City. The observation matrix developed for this research is the first attempt at a potential municipal level evaluation tool (refer to Appendix A). ● Explore policies or incentives that encourage updating deficient design qualities in existing POPS such as removing fences or adding benches. One possibility is leveraging permits for open-air cafes and patios to be conditional upon 1. upgrading the space with desired pedestrian amenities and 2. ensuring that most of the POPS remain publically accessible even after patios are built.

37

Figure 19: An example of POPS design standard enforcement with a site plan showing conformance to the POPS checklist. The City can consider

requiring applicants to show their conformance to the type-specific design checklist as a part of their submission package

38

During the Use and Management Process: Strategize for the long term and create expectations and provide informative tools to access POPS ● Develop a public engagement strategy during the development review process to ask what people want to see in these spaces. Formalize the process of handling infringements on public access to set firm expectations, and make contact information available and visible in the space for members of the public to report infringements.

● Explore legal mechanisms to finance the replacement or design upgrades of POPS in the long term. A need for such mechanisms exists with aging POPS as well as the utilities and roof membranes of parking garages under POPS requiring replacement in 20-30 years after construction.

● Educate City staff, the public, and building managers about what POPS are, and expectations regarding its openness to the public ● Integrate POPS map with the existing City of Toronto Parks locator map (Figure 20) to create a stronger sense of public identity for POPS and better integrate them with the existing park system. The Parks Locator Map features amenity-related filters for all parks in Toronto, and POPS could be a filter or a separate layer added onto the current map.

Regularly updating the POPS online database and information on the map with correct and complete information is critical for the map’s reliability and usability.

Figure 20: City of Toronto Parks Locator Map Source: City of Toronto

39

40

7. Areas for Further Research

Toronto’s POPS program, enacted in 2014, is still in its early stages. The effect of the reform has not yet been felt. Furthermore, the forthcoming TOcore Downtown Secondary Plan will include policies regarding POPS, which may improve their design. Once the program matures and the Downtown Secondary Plan is in place, their effects on the design outcomes of POPS can be studied. Doing so will help inform future policy directions.

Another area for further investigation is the issue of aging utility infrastructure and their implications on POPS. Since many POPS are built on top of a parking garage, the roof membrane for the garage will have to be replaced in 2030 years from construction. Since the entire POPS space may have to be temporarily removed for the procedure, it presents an opportunity to re-examine POPS with low design qualities. Exploring mechanisms to which the redesign can happen holds potential for improvements to many POPS spaces.

Whereas the new Downtown Secondary Plan policies may improve the quality of POPS and their connectivity to the wider public realm, its jurisdiction is still limited to the Downtown Core. As Toronto grows bigger, areas outside of Downtown are rapidly being re-developed with condominium developments appearing in the far corners of the City. A need for a coherent and focused long-term vision for all POPS is more apparent than ever. However, the question remains on how the quality of POPS may be assured outside of Downtown boundaries. POPS outside of the core may require different design strategies given the different spatial and community contexts. None of the current POPS in Downtown have activity programming or feature unconventional elements such as playground equipment. In comparison, POPS outside of the core tend to have more generous ground floor spaces which present an opportunity for more pedestrian infrastructure.

This research hopes to contribute to the understanding of the process in which the City of Toronto’s POPS are produced, and the design outcomes of this process. In so doing, it hoped to answer whether POPS are designed as meaningful spaces that are open to the public. This information can aid City Planning staff in refining the governance structure and developing new strategies to ensure that POPS are designed and maintained for the public rather than private users.

Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces: A win-win solution for the future of the urban public realm?

A Critical Urban Design Analysis

Lauren Haein An April 2017

This Current Issues Paper has been written for the Masters of Science in Planning Program in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Toronto.

Acknowledgements This work has been made possible with the supervision of the advisory committee who offered their generous and insightful guidance, insight, and support.

Thank you to Dr. Paul Hess, Dr. Linsday Stephens, Jake Tobin Garrett, and Dr. Andre Sorensen.

41

Bibliography Altus Group Economic Consulting. 2013. Government Charges and Fees on New Homes in the Greater Toronto Area.

Prepared for the Building Industry and Land Development Association.

Atkinson, R. (2003) ‘Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces’, Urban Studies 40/9:1211-1245.

Atkinson, C. (2015). Thick Green Line: Extracting a New Public Realm within Existing Hyper Density. Spaces and Flows, 6(3).

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places. American Planning Association.Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9-24.

Biggar J. (2015). Investing in the Public Realm: Challenges, Opportunities, and Lessons from Toronto. ERA Architects.

MITACS Accelerate internship program, University of Toronto.

Carmona, M. (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 2-36.

Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorising contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1-33.

Carmona, M., & Magalhães, C. d. H., Leo. (2008). In Matthew Carmona, Claudio de Magalhães, Leo Hammond. (Ed.), Public space the management dimension. London ;New York : Routledge, 2008.

Carmona, M., & Wunderlich, F. M. (2012). Capital Spaces. London ;New York : Routledge.

Carmona et al. Public places-urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (2010). In Carmona M. (Ed.), (2nd ed. ed.).

Oxford: Architectural Press.

Carr, S., M. Francis, L. G. Rivlin, and A. M. Stone. 1992. Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.

42

City Planning Division (2007). Implementation Guidelines for Section 37 of the Planning Act. City of Toronto, City Planning Division, Toronto.

City of New York (2016). Current Standards, Privately Owned Publc Spaces. Zoning Tools. Retrieved January 20, 2017. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/private-owned-public-spaces.page City of Toronto (2013). Protecting and Increasing Access to Privately Owned Publicly- Accessible Spaces (POPS).

Status Updates. Retrieved on November 1, 2015. http:// www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/pg/bgrd/ backgroundfile-59381.pdf City of Toronto. (2014a). Protecting and Increasing Access to Privately Owned Publicly- Accessible Spaces (POPS). Item.

Retrieved on November 12, 2015. http://app.toronto.ca/ tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.PG34.14 City of Toronto. (2014b). Urban Design Guidelines for POPS. Toronto: City of Toronto.

City of Toronto (2016). “TOcore Proposals Report”. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/ backgroundfile-98133.pdf City Planning Division. (2014). Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Space: Creating Place Making to Enhance Urban Life.

Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portaLcontentonly>]? vgnextoid=7b0c1 459a55e4410VgnVCM100000 71d60f89RCRD City Planning Division. (2016). Parks and Open Space Community Benefits: Section 37/45 Community Benefits Secured, Section 37 database.

Cooper Marcus, C., and M. Francis. 1998. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. New York: Wiley.

Coyne, T. (2014). Top of the POPS: Toronto mapping privately owned public spaces. The Toronto Star. Retrieved November 5, 2015. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/09/08/top_of_the_pops_toronto_mapping_privately_owned_ public_spaces.html Danube, B. (2015). President, Sherwood Park Residents’ Association. Interview given to Brenton Nader. Toronto.

43

Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.

Dimmer, C. (2013). Public Space by Private Actors? Outlining the Issues. Privately Owned Public Spaces. Centre for Tokyo: The University of Tokyo. Centre for Sustainable Urban Regeneration.

Forsyth, A., and L. Musacchio. 2005. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Garrett, J. T. (2016). Welcome back, tiny urban plaza. This Land is Parkland. Retrieved from https://thislandisparkland. com/2016/08/23/welcome-back-tiny-urban-plaza/ Gehl, J. (2013). In Svarre B., Steenhard K. A. (Eds.), How to study public life. London: Island Press.

Gladki Planning Associates. (2014). Section 37 Review Final Report. Retrieved on November 5, 2015. http://www.toronto. ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-66994.pdf.

Heurkens, E. (2012). Private sector-led urban development projects. management, partnerships and effects in the netherlands and the UK. A+BE | Architecture and the Built Environment, 2(4).

Kayden, J. (2000). Privately Owned Public Space: the New York City Experience. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Kayden, J. (2005). Using and Misusing Law to Design the Public Realm in Eran B. and Szold, T. (Ed), Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America. New York: Routledge, 115-140.

Kohn, M. (2013). Privatization and protest: Occupy wall street, occupy toronto, and the occupation of public space in a democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 99-110.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1998). In Banerjee T. (Ed.), Urban design downtown : Poetics and politics of form. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Low, S. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.

44

Low, S. 2006. “How Private Interests Take over Public Space: Zoning, Taxes, and Incorporation of Gated Communities.” In The Politics of Public Space, edited by S. Low and N. Smith, 81–104. New York: Routledge.

Madanipour, A. (1999) ‘Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities?’ Environment and

Planning B 26/6: 879 – 8.

Miller, K. (2007). Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. University of Minnesota Press.

Moore, A. (2012). Section 37: What ‘Benefits’ and for Whom?. Presentation given to Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. Toronto.

Moore, A. (2013). Trading Density for Benefits: Section 37 Agreements in Toronto. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance.

Németh, J. (2009). Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2463-2490.

Németh, J., and S. Schmidt. (2011). “The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38 (1): 5–23.

Noble, K. (2015). Parks in Crisis. Spacing. Retrived on October 20, 2015.

Ontario Regulation 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards (2005). Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act S.O. 2005, c.11.

Pilgaro, J. (2014). City asked to designate public spaces on private property. The Toronto Star. Retrieved November 5, 2015. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/06/25/ city_asked_to_designate_public_spaces_on_private_ property.html Planning Act R.S.O. 1990.

Rahi G., Martynkiw A., & Hein., E. (2012). Accessing Vancouver’s Privately Owned Public Spaces. Trail 6: An Undergraduate Journal of Geography 6.

45

Rowly A. (1998) Private-property decision makers and the quality of urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 151-14.

Schmidt S, 2004, World wide plaza: the corporation of urban public space, IEEE Technology and Society 23(4) 17–18.

Schmidt, S., Nemeth, J., & Botsford, E. (2011). The evolution of privately owned public spaces in new york city. Urban Design International, 16(4), 270-284.

Sennett, R. (1974) The Fall of Public Man. New York: W. W. Norton.

Sennett, R. (2000) ‘Reflections on the public realm’, in G. Bridge, G and S. Watson (eds.) A Companion to the City. Oxford: Blackwell.

Simonic, T. (2006). Urban Landscape as a Restorative Environment and Design Considerations. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 82(2).

Smithsimon, G. 2008. “Dispersing the Crowd Bonus Plazas and the Creation of Public Space.” Urban Affairs Review 43 (3): 325– 51.

Sorkin, M., ed. 1992. Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and Wang.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Wong, L. (2014). Privately owned public spaces in Toronto. REMI Network. Retrieved October 28, 2015. https://www. reminetwork.com/articles/privately-owned-public-spaces-in-toronto/ Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

46

Interviewees Josh Matlow, Toronto City Councillor, Ward 22 Joe Cressy, Toronto City Councillor, Ward 20 Alan Vihant, Senior Vice President, High Rise, Great Gulf Robyn Rabinowitz, Director, Land Development
Plazacorp Investments Limited Anonymous Developer A James Parakh, Urban Design Manager, City Planning, City of Toronto Anonymous Planner A, Community Planning, City of Toronto Anonymous Planner B, City of Toronto Anonymous Building Manager A (from a condominium whose POPS is included in the observation sample) , Toronto Jana Joyce, Landscape Architect, Associate, The MBTW Group Claude Cormier, Landscape Architect, Principal, Claude Cormier + AssociÊs Inc. Anonymous Landscape Architect A

47

Appendix A

CATEGORY A: PEDESTRIAN COMFORT

B. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS & CIRCULATION

C. PUBLIC SAFETY

D. ACTIVE EDGES E. BUILDING SERVICING

F1. ELEMENTS - Seating

F1. ELEMENTS - Public Art

48

VARIABLES A1: Maximizes sky view and sunlight in the space A2: South facing A3: Minimizes adverse wind conditions B1: Minimize grade changes from public street B2: Vents/ large grates away from pedestrian walkway B3: Pedestrian/Vehicular intersection has distinct pavement treatments, vertical markers, or signage B4: Promotes universal accessibility C1: Adjacent to or visible from public streets C2: Unobstructed view to and from nearby public spaces C3: Adequate pedestrian scale lighting C4: No entrapment spots without sightlines C5: Wayfinding signage C6: Windows and entrances face the open space C7: Maintained to a high standard D1: Building entrances and façades, and active uses found on the edges D2: Multiple entrances to the open space D3: Edges that meet public streets are unobstructed (Excluding weather protection elements) E1: Routes do not conflict with servicing or vehicular access routes E2: If located next to “back of house” elements, have landscape or architectural treatments to screen it F1: Has Seating F1.1: Variety of seating configurations (individual/group) F1.2: Options to sit in sun or shade F1.3: Variety of seating types (fixed/ movable/ seating with backs) F1.4: Multifunctional elements that can accommodate seating F1.5: Planter wall intended to provide seating is appropriately designed with compatible materials F2: Has Public Art F2.1: Public art is strategically located as a focal point F2.2: Public art is integrated into open space elements F2.3: Functional public art such as benches, water features, or light standards

F1. ELEMENTS Landscaping

F1. ELEMENTS - Paving

F1. ELEMENTS - Lighting

F1. ELEMENTS - Weather Protection F1. ELEMENTS - Other Amenities

F1. ELEMENTS - Signage

F3: Has Soft Landscaping F3.1: Retain and incorporate existing trees and other natural features where possible F3.2: Create microclimates using trees or other plantings F3.3: Trees and plantings do not block sightlines F3.4: Trees and plant materials are low maintenance and tolerant of urban environment F3.5: Trees and plant materials vary in colour, texture, and form F4: Has high quality paving F4.1: Emphasizes entrances and edges with paving F4.2: Delineate pedestrian pathways with paving F4.3: Paving compatible with city sidewalk when it meets the edge F4.4: Extends special paving pattern of adjacent parks or open spaces into the space F5: Has pedestrian scale lighting F5.1: Use lighting in creative ways F6: Has Weather Protection Elements (canopies, colonnades, overhangs, or pergolas) F6.1: Has natural weather protection (trees) F6.2: Provides shade F6.3: Weather protection exists for pedestrian routes F6.4: Weather protection exists for seating areas F7: Has other appropriate amenities (bike racks, pet amenities, etc.)

G1: Has signage G2: Signage conforms to City’s POPS signage design G3: No other signage that restricts access or limits activities located in POPS G4: Signage located visibly from sidewalk or other public spaces G5: Signage has lighting for visibility in evenings and night

49