A major problem with the original Regent Park development was that its public spaces – of which the project had an abundance – lacked visibility and circulation from outside the community. Without these qualities, the public spaces between buildings felt private, and ended up being treated as such.

The redevelopment of Regent Park is intended to rectify these problems by putting public streets through the community once more. Unfortunately the drawings of the design chosen for the first new building suggest one of its features repeats some of the old problems.

A tall glass tower, designed by architectsAlliance, will rise beside a lower building. A signature feature of the design is a staircase that rises parallel to the sidewalk at the base of the tower, leading to a green space between the buildings, elevated two storeys above street level.

The staircase creates a tall blank wall that looms up over the sidewalk, and in the drawings extends along the entire length of the block, making the new street (an extension of Sackville) unpleasant and opaque to pedestrians.

Both the visibility and the physical access to the elevated green space between buildings, meanwhile, are greatly reduced by the direction of the staircase, which is at a right angle to the garden area. As a result, this garden area will feel like an isolated private space between buildings, as the old Regent Park public spaces did.

The design of private buildings has a powerful impact on public space, and small details can make an enormous difference. The staircase needs to FACE the sidewalk (rather than being parallel to it). This simple reorientation will get rid of the blank wall, and instead create a pleasing open space along the street, one that is welcoming. It will provide a clear view from the street into the elevated green space, knitting it into the city fabric. Finally, it will encourage the buildings on either side to provide openings – windows and doors – at or near street level, making the street feel open, watched and used.

After going through the trouble of demolishing Regent Park, it is very important that we do not repeat some of the same mistakes in the first building of the new development.

Small-scale drawings can be seen here.

1. Part I

   The original Regent Park development ‘lacked visibility and circulation from outside the community’. Most people, if not all, can agree on this criticism. However the lack of porosity into the Regent Park neighbourhood from adjacent communities did not cause Regent Park to feel too ‘private’, rather it created a sequence of vacuous open spaces that were difficult to occupy by both these adjacent communities and its own tenants. The original vision of open green spaces for public enjoyment quickly evolved into vastly unused and uncompromising expanses simply too ambitious for their own time. The submission by architectsAlliance makes a point of correcting these mistakes by distinguishing what are public spaces and (semi-) private areas in order to nurture positive neighbourhood qualities.
   The proposed scheme tackles many difficult design issues stipulated by competition requirements. Most challenging are the density demands given the rigorous zoning restrictions. In short however, aA’s scheme provides more area for townhouses than required, something that was seen as crucial to creating a successful community. The solution to afford more townhouses while not compromising the rest of the program requirements (an array of smaller mixed unit types and social amenities), is to create an extension of the ground floor plane. With two large staircases flanking the north tower, occupants can have direct access to the raised courtyard / townhouses above. This mews condition of townhouses located at the (raised) base of the two towers embraces and charges this courtyard. This not only creates a semi-private and enjoyable outdoor terrace for the occupants of the townhouses, but also a pleasing green space to look at from above.

   (...see Part II)

   Posted by  on  07/26  at  10:10 AM

2. Part II

   The site, given the program requirements for ground floor retail space, lobbies, municipal servicing, and Learning Centre, allows for a very limited area of housing at street level. This in turn informed the design and location of the stairs rather than vice versa. Ultimately however the starting point of both stairs at the foot of the north residential street is seen as the only appropriate starting point because a majority of the future townhouses in this area address the same street. Also, the stair that ‘extends along the entire length of the block’ is actually 18m long; the length of the competition site (not including sidewalks) measures 63m north-south.
   Lastly the ‘blank’ wall that faces the park is a glazed wall is completely transparent and allows views to and from the Learning centre and 2 residential lobbies which are behind the ‘blank’ wall . This is seen as crucial to the permeability of the building. Above the Ground floor the ‘blank’ glass wall extends to become a transparent guard/handrail for the courtyard above allowing for a clear obstructed view from the courtyard to the park. The re-orientation of the stair would have several repercussive effects to the building. It would create a solid opaque ground floor condition that would function more as an over-scaled stoop and compromise the semi-privacy and security of the courtyard’s townhouse. It would also relocate the entry points for the two lobbies and thereby change the building from a ‘park building’ to a ‘main street building’ addressing Dundas Street. In closing, there is a sense that Spacing sees these stairs (and thereby the building) as an extension of the park similar to to the Spanish Stairs in Rome as an extension of the neighbourhood below. (Is this not the where the existing Regent Park development fails, i.e. the building an an extension of the park?) I believe the Park acts as an extension of and backdrop to the building.

   Posted by  on  07/26  at  10:11 AM

3. I find it interesting how Spacing and ArchitectsAlliance come at this issue with almost different vocabularies – the architects thinking very much in detatched aesthetic design terms, whereas Spacing talks in terms of human behaviour and feelings. It makes for challenging dialogue.

   Most commentary about the problems of Regent’s Park (at least from non-architects) has seen it as a problem of excessive privacy, rather than just design – that it was a self-enclosed area that discouraged non-residents from entering, and thus allowed small groups of aggressive people to dominate these enclosed areas. The whole point of the re-development is to get rid of this sense of isolation – semi-privacy – and make it public again. This has been stated many times.

   It’s good that the wall is partially transparent, although big walls of glass are still not especially pedestrian-friendly. Pedestrians tend to feel most comfortable with articulation and openings.

   Posted by  on  01/11  at  10:19 PM

<< Back to main