Section 1: Health and Wellbeing

​

The terms ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ have been in a state of flux with multiple definitions, so it is important we define these terms in relation to our comparative analysis. ‘Well-being’ has been defined as ‘the state of being healthy happy, or prosperous’ [1] and is also strongly associated with ‘wellness’ and ‘health’. [2] ‘Well-being’ and ‘health’ have both been reconceived by World Health Organization Initiatives to be understood in a holistic way [3] , defined as ‘…a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being.’ [4] With this understanding we compare these three public spaces, and determine if their characteristics are ‘nurturing’ or ‘neglectful’ of this holistic understanding of health and well-being. [5] Focus will be given to the criteria of accessibility, exposure to nature, the variety of activities supported, mindfulness, and connectedness to each other and our surroundings. [6] Further comparisons and contrasts will shed light on how we can use our findings in future design decisions to have a positive impact on social and cultural sustainability.

Accessibility – Physical Health and Well-Being

​

In comparing these spaces, we must first come to an understanding of how they are accessed, and if these ways of moving are nurturing to health and well-being. Physical inactivity and sedentary lifestyles account for 9% of premature mortality [7] and an estimated $67.5 billion in healthcare expenditure and productivity losses. [8] Active transport immediately combats these statistics, and spaces can either nurture this type of transport, by providing safe and pleasant spaces for walking and biking or neglect it by prioritizing automotive transportation. Active transportation is also more accessible, integrates us better with our surroundings and those we share the surroundings with. [9] Active transport is supported in Memorial Park, and Tom Davies Square, where walking and cycling are safe, pleasant, and removed from traffic, (See Figure 1) however accessing these spaces means navigating the immediate surroundings. These busy 4 - 7 lane streets are hostile conditions. Bell park, however, is easily and often accessed by active transport, featuring separate cycling and walking paths (See Figure 2), and being entirely removed from automotive traffic. In this sense Bell Park clearly supports active transport, both in accessing the park and in it’s program as a long lake side path, whereas Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square remain inaccessible to active transport due to surrounding infrastructure and a lack of bike lanes.

​

Exposure to Nature – Connection

​

Exposure to nature similarly informs our health and well-being, with many studies drawing attention to the benefits of the ‘modest’ attention which natures invites us to give, compared to the attention that urban stimuli demands. [10] Studies have also demonstrated associations of visiting forests with beneficial immune response and properties of anti- carcinogens. [11] People who experience this type of immersion in nature also find it easier to cultivate meaningful relationships, and find wait times shorter when immersed in this type of nature. [12] These spaces all offer an exposure to nature, although this exposure ranges in level of quality, and in the kinds of urban stimuli perceived from these spaces (See Figures 3,4,5). Memorial park offers a space which is primarily green, full of a diversity of trees shrubs, and birds, however it is immediately adjacent to Brady, with a high level of fast traffic and other negative urban stimuli. Tom Davies Square is separated from this condition by the mass of the building, but is a space primarily hardscaped, with much of the recent plantings having already died off (See Figure 6). Bell park in contrast is entirely removed from these conditions of negative urban stimuli and offers in addition to trees and grass, a plethora of beaches and lake vistas. Bell Park offers far more opportunities for activities that connect us with nature, supports low consequence opportunities to cultivate meaningful relationships, and provides more of the benefits of immersion in nature than Memorial Park or Tom Davies Square.

Social Connection – Affordances, Adaptability

​

Public spaces are nurturing to health and well-being when it nurtures social connection by providing ample, low risk opportunities to engage with members of your community. [13] This
characteristic is defined by places to stop and sit, affordances, adaptability, the perceived safety
and sense of home a space can give, and by it’s pleasant and special qualities. (See Figure 7) [14] Meaningful connections and strong relationships are an important part of health, with studies indicating that a lack of strong interpersonal relationships can increased the risk of premature death from all causes by 50% [15] which can be roughly compared to smoking. [16] Tom Davies Square, provides ample formal and informal seating, but it is not used in a meaningful way, and offers no adaptability, with scale making the space feel unhomely, and leftover construction materials making it feel unpleasant. [17] Memorial Park has similar issues with adaptability, pleasantness, and homeliness. Benches are examples of hostile architecture [18] (See Figure 8), the place is often strewn with garbage and needles and traffic makes the park unpleasant. (See figure 9) Bell Park however offers ample places to stop and sit, is a defining aspect of the city as home, offers pleasant paths, views, and beaches, and offers special moments of contemplation and connectedness. This all amounts to ample, low-risk opportunities to connect with others, where activities range from selfies, slacklining, swimming, and tanning, to climbing cycling, walking, and picnics.

Conclusion – Key Findings for Social and Cultural Sustainability

​

It is clear from our comparative analysis that Bell Park achieves much more in the way of

fostering health and well-being than either Memorial Park or Tom Davies Square. This is owed to its accessibility and fostering of active transport, through trails and pleasant connections. The exposure to nature that the park provides, helping to cultivate meaningful connections to people and place. It is also owed to its adaptability, the opportunities it affords [19] , the diverse types of
open spaces and the pleasant, special feeling it gives to users. From our analysis we conclude that public spaces benefit from a meaningful connection to nature, in this case the many lakes that make Sudbury home. That good public spaces need to be adaptable to multiple activities and foster occupation at all hours of the day, and by all sorts of people. We are most interested in applying a knowledge of the importance, that a connection to nature makes in good public space. We infer that you could have to exact copies of parks, on with abundant nature and a large natural feature, like a lake, and one surrounded by infrastructure, and the more successful would be the greener space. The other intrinsic element is how populated is the park? In the case of Tom Davies and Memorial Park, we see the implications of public spaces lacking a meaningful connection to surrounding infrastructure. Public spaces intrinsically need this connection OR a minimum continuous population of users in-order to remain safe, and not be appropriated for sleeping out, or drug use.

​

Section 2 – Safety

​

The feeling of safety is regarded as a basic human need and is perceived when an individual is in a situation where they feel prospect, refuge, and are free of feelings of entrapment. [20] Feeling safe relates to both experienced and perceived safety, which are both vitally important when it comes to good public spaces. [21] In public spaces it is more important to create a good perception of safety, as less fear leads to more use, which is a key factor in both real safety and the perception of safety. [22] To ensure a place is both experienced and perceived as safe, it must be open to people from all socioeconomic backgrounds [23] to ensure that they will be busy and occupied. This methodology of ‘eyes on the street’ has been observed most notably by Jane Jacobs, to be the most effective strategy regarding safety. [24] She posits that residents and visitors making up the public occupation of the space, most effectively monitor and quell unwanted behavior. Her idea implies that when residents and occupants truly care for a successful public space, they will collectively act as its security system. [25] We will focus on comparing and contrasting elements of Bell Park, Memorial Park, and Tom Davies Square, to better understand the effects of both real and perceived safety by elements of public space design. We will then conclude with our results and how we will implement strategies developed from this process to enhance our future design decisions’ impact on social and cultural sustainability.

​

Eyes on the Streets – Surrounding Buildings Connections – Surveillance

​

In the context of Sudbury, a defining element of the perception of safety in public spaces is on drug use, used needles, and sleeping on the streets. These activities were seen to have occurred during our study in Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square but was not observed in Bell Park. To understand why we look to Jane Jacobs for an understanding of her ‘eyes on the street’ form of ‘New Urbanism’ surveillance. [26] Here, Jacobs explains the space user as the surveillance system. (See Figure 10) This functions as an effective means of deterring crime and unwanted activities such as drug use because these actors avoid being surveilled. [27] If we understand these spaces from their adjacencies, we see limited visual and circulatory connections from adjacent infrastructure to Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square. In other words, because there is less ‘life’ in these spaces, and no visual connection to surrounding buildings there is limited surveillance. (See Figure 11) This is highlighted by the incident of crime witnessed by us at Tom Davies Square, where the act may have gone fully unnoticed if we had not been carefully studying the space.

Prospect / Refuge – Concealment / Entrapment

Factors that influence real and perceived safety in public spaces amount to opportunities for concealment and entrapment negatively affecting perceptions of safety with elements of prospect, refuge, and escape positively influencing perceptions of safety. (See Figure 12) [28] In the case of Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square there are ample opportunities for concealment by the buildings surrounding these public spaces. The Bell building concourse at Tom Davies Square is a dark, secluded, and cavernous space which offers concealment by day and night, with no visual connection to the inside. The result is public spaces which are frequented by drug users, and people looking for a place to sleep. The Concourse is the only place where crime was witnessed during our analyses. Adjacent Memorial Park, to the North is St. Andrews Place which features a southern façade that similarly offers dark covered opportunities for concealment in areas not frequented by pedestrians. These spaces encourage and facilitate the types of unwanted behaviour which negatively influence the public's perceived safety of these spaces. [29] This influences public perception of the safety of these spaces and negatively influences their use further limiting surveillance and permitting more unwanted activities. [30] We notice that Bell Park does not experience these types of negative occupations, when it similarly offers opportunities for concealment. These opportunities are not taken advantage of, which is owed to a strong public surveillance of the park, as well as due to a noted lack of green space being used as concealment. [31] The park is then safer because of its popularity, an element of safety which is built of the multiple uses of the park, the adaptability of it’s spaces, and a strong connection to nature. [32] Public use of the space is then the most important factor in both the real and perceived safety of these space and not the signage, paid security and hostile architecture implemented by the city.

Reducing Crime – Vegetation OR Hostile Architecture

We understand that public surveillance through use of public spaces, as well as elements of these spaces providing prospect and refuge are positive influences on real and perceived safety. However, the cities answer to unwanted use of these spaces has instead been elements of hostile architecture, signage, policing, and video surveillance. Video surveillance, hostile architecture (See Figures 13 - 14)  and over policing have often been shown to make users feel less safe in these spaces. [33] The effects of these methods are instead to limit the diversity of uses these spaces provide and in turn limit the diversity of users, limiting surveillance. [34] Key strategies to increasing community surveillance are to provide opportunities for necessary and optional activities, 10+ reasons to be there and to offer connection to others. [35] William Whyte believes that the defining influence to perceived safety in public spaces is measures taken to combat ‘undesirables.’ [36] This battle is fought in the form of “hostile architecture” for which the Camden bench, meant to prevent “undesirable activities”, is a perfect example. [37] Vegetation plays a role in safety too, having primarily been seen as an opportunity for concealment. [38] Vegetation has been shown to primarily reduce crime, owing to their role as ‘territorial markers’ defining a place as cared for and signalling that unwanted activity would be noticed. [39] Through this comparative analysis we conclude that the main elements negatively affecting the real and perceived safety are limiting factors to public surveillance, opportunities for entrapment and concealment, and elements of hostile architecture. We understand that public surveillance is limited in Memorial Park and Tom Davies Square as they offer little connection to adjacent buildings and a limited diet of activities. [40] This limitation to public surveillance is in part due to hostile architecture negatively affecting perceived safety which reduces the variety of activities and thus the variety of users, resulting in an overall reduction in use and public surveillance. The key findings we identify are vegetation, planning to avoid opportunities for entrapment and concealment, and fostering public surveillance. Vegetation must maintain site which can be low shrubs, flower beds, and trees with high canopies, which maintain prospect, create refuge, and limit opportunities for entrapment and concealment. [41] Public surveillance can be fostered through strong visual connections of public spaces to surrounding buildings, and through ensuring a diverse menu of activities and users. Through the implementation of these strategies we hope to design spaces which positively affect both the perception of safety, and real safety, to positively impact the social and cultural sustainability of our projects.

​