Community-Park-Systems as Tools of Healing and Reconnection -Addressing the Liminal Condition of Parks in the City & The Marginalization of Special Needs Groups in Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis looks at re-investing the landscape with community and environmental purpose, by bringing ‘infrastructure’ into the realm of ‘public works’, focusing on two community issues, that are demonstrative of a general condition that can be transferred to other sites within Toronto or other cities. \n \nThe first issue discussed is the liminal condition of urban parks in the city. Since Euro-American settlement, there has been a historical devaluation of nature within the city of Toronto. This can be seen through a physical suppression of natural systems and through a psychological separation of nature from the city. The Garrison Creek, a defining element to the landscape of early Toronto, now buried underground, is one example demonstrative of this liminal condition. Proposals, by Brown+Storey Architects, in the 1990s, discussed the re-linkage of remnants of the ravine system, empty lots and urban park spaces, into a cohesive community-park-network and a watershed-system. The design aspect of this thesis builds on Brown+Storey’s neighbourhood park proposals by adding another layer - a supportive housing network. \n \nThe second community issue discussed is the marginalization of special needs groups within society. The background given is a detailed history of their residential situations, from pre-institutional to Community Living trends, for various marginalized groups; with specific focus on persons with developmental disabilities. \n \nThe final design proposal links the two community concerns and involves the re-linkage of disconnected neighbourhood parks in the city that would eventually become: a community park system (complete with a storm water management system), and part of a supportive housing network with neighbourhood allotment gardens. Thematically the two issues are linked, with the park as a tool for healing and reconnection of the city and nature relationship, as well as the marginalized group and community relationship. The approach taken is to look specifically at one community park (Trinity-Bellwoods, within the Garrison Creek Ravine system in Toronto), and one disadvantaged group (persons with developmental disabilities). The result is the design of a group-home complex, with varying degrees of support, for persons with developmental disabilities, sited within Trinity-Bellwoods Park. \n \nA central issue to this thesis is the use of public park space for supportive housing. Although Toronto’s Official Plan is generally prohibitive of such construction (Section 2.3.2 Policy 4 and 5, Section 4.3 Policy 2), it is the contention of this thesis that including supportive housing and gardens within parks would be highly beneficial for both the marginalized group that would be housed there and the community that it is part of. As such, it is argued that sensitive development of public park space for such a use can have positive results and should be allowed. \n \nParks are intended to be centers for community life. Because of their central location and highly public nature, they lend themselves as venues for interaction –they are an environment where through visibility and awareness, there is encouragement towards openness, compassion, and acceptance. \n \nThe final design uses gardening, as a tool for personal healing, and as a method for interaction in the form of neighbourhood allotment gardens. The hope is that such an environment would encourage engagement between the disadvantaged group and the community. This increased communication could then lead to personal identification; reducing fear, and ultimately the lessening of isolation or marginalization. Thus the final design proposal is understood as a possible prototype for the urban park, which is augmented as a place truly reflective of a “community” park, alluding to a higher purpose in the city that promotes the common good.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".