Two of the locations chosen for this study are both located downtown and are in relative proximity to each other. Clearly there is a wide range of differences in terms of the program, the integration of green space and the public’s perception of safety. In terms of green spaces and available activities, memorial park definitely has more to offer than Tom Davies square but not as much as Bell park, making it a good halfway point between the two, for the sake of this evaluation. Yet interestingly enough, out of the three locations chosen, Memorial park has definitely stood out to be perceived by the public as the most unsafe. This next part of the report is going to explore why we have drawn that conclusion and how this is effecting the greater well-being of the community. Throughout this section it is important to keep in mind that the current global pandemic resulting from Covid-19 may have dramatized the resulting findings due to people following social distancing measures and staying inside. 

​

ABOUT THE PARK 

​

When analysing outdoor public spaces, it is crucial to note how the spaces were intended to be used by design in contrast to how they end up being used after they are implemented. Memorial Park is located in the heart of downtown Sudbury along with the Cenotaph seen in figure 1, which commemorates the 575 citizens of Sudbury who paid sacrifice in the First and Second World Wars and the Korean war. The area around the site was redesigned and landscaped as a project of the Sudbury Lions Club and the City of Sudbury in 1957 and Remembrance Day ceremonies were hosted there for the next 28 years [1]. Since 1985, the park has served as an outdoor venue for a variety of small festivals and public demonstrations but otherwise goes heavily unused on a day to day basis by the families it was intended for. This is because there are no residential neighborhoods nearby or families who would use the park. Refer to the yellow shading on the homepage map, which shows that residential neighborhoods are located on the other side of the train tracks. The only time kids are seen using the child-friendly features such as the playground and splash pad are during after school programs or summer camps hosted by the nearby YMCA and even then, this rarely happens and I only saw it be used by a homeless woman who needed to wash her feet. Also present in the park are numerous flower beds and trees, an underappreciated mural, a large empty field of grass nearby a rundown gazebo pictured in figure 2, a ridiculous amount of uncomfortable benches, a drinking water fountain, and a large empty stone courtyard. Littered throughout the park are also signs that warn users of rules and regulations of whose ways of using the space are permitted and whose are not which are seen in figure 6. Throughout the study of this lonesome green space, it was interesting to document how this park was being used today and by who, in terms of necessary and optional activities as observed by Jan Gehl [2]. The results have led to some problematic conclusions regarding homelessness in the downtown area, hostile architecture and the perceived safety of the park.

​

HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE AGAINST THE HOMELESS

Sudbury throughout the years has seen a significant rise in homelessness due to a number of factors. Mainly these amount to a relatively high unemployment, and a lack of affordable housing. Most property in the area has been privatized meaning there is a lack of social housing [3], while the property owners of the available low income housing are known to neglect tenants and property management giving them the reputation of “slum lords” amongst locals. Oftentimes due to gentrification, many of these low income families or individuals are displaced and kicked out of their homes and onto the streets, where they are welcomed by hostile architecture [4] making it very clear that they are unwanted there. This problem was briefly discussed and brought to my attention by a pair of nurses who were volunteering their time doing rounds of the park to ensure that no one was in need of overdose treatment while cleaning up left behind used needles seen in figure 3 that were not disposed of in the provided needle bin in figure 4. Afterwards the lineup of people and families with shopping carts filled with regular household items along Medina lane outside of st. Andrews United Church made sense. The church provides services to those in need along with being a part of the “out of the cold” initiative and plays an important and supportive role for the homeless population [5]. Unfortunately its facilities are small and are only available during certain hours, therefore many opt to spend their time “loitering” at memorial park despite the many signs and the police department next door.

To prevent these harmless “undesirables” from spending their time in the park when they have nowhere else to go, some implementations were put in place [6]. New metal benches seen in figure 5 were installed that were too short to lie down on and are either too cold or too hot due to their materiality and render it uncomfortable for anyone to sit on them for a long period of time. New signage seen in figure 6 that references the By-Law 76-100 outlining specific restrictions on alcohol, dogs, skateboarding and notifying you that you are in a video monitored area, have contributed greatly to the perceived safety of this park. The lack of bike racks and interlock paving also makes the park seem very unfriendly to cyclists, which is how many of the homeless without a car get around. Although the evidence of surveillance measures may prevent unwanted activities, it also sends a message that the place is risky and in need of constant monitoring, which discourages any use of the space for optional or social activities [7]. A much better mode of monitoring would be having surrounding buildings face their windows towards the park to ensure there are public eyes on the space. Since most of the park is surrounded by streets and a parking lot, the limited facades that are present are so far from the park and windows are blocked by vegetation that this tactic here is useless and the buildings are completely disconnected from the park [8].

​

A HOME FOR THE HOMELESS

​

The maps created while observing people’s activity in the park support this statement when referring to people that have the option. Throughout all of the sessions, the distinction could not have been more obvious between middle-class people simply passing through the park as a means of getting to or from work and the homeless who gather here and socialize which is clearly marked in figure 10. For these homeless, this park plays a very important role also providing minimal shelter and drinking water which are necessary for survival. For them, Memorial park is so much more than just a public outdoor space. For the homeless, Memorial park is the closest thing to a home that they have access to 24/7 all year round where they won’t be bothered for “loitering” [9]. It is truly a shame that this group of people have been completely imagined out of the downtown Sudbury context, especially when it comes to urban design. They are the ones that live in these spaces rather than pass by them once or twice a day, yet all of the “hostile architecture” tactics that can be seen throughout the city have been designed to make their lives even more difficult and uncomfortable. The architects and urban planners of the future have a role to play in creating inclusive and welcoming public spaces that invite all users to engage and socialize rather than implicitly discourage a variety of activities. Some architects have already taken this new approach and have even taken it a step further by implementing new design solutions that tackle the problem of homelessness [11].