The new “Bennet Gates” at the south end of Philosopher’s Walk on the University of Toronto campus recently won a “Clean and Beautiful City Appreciation Award” from the City of Toronto. The award citation didn’t say if it included the ugly chainlink fence that was installed at the same time right beside the new gates.
The fence was installed because, as I wrote in an earlier post, the new gates ignore the natural pedestrian paths in the area, and the university wants to discourage pedestrians from taking a direct route across the grass. At first, I hoped it was a temporary measure until the newly laid grass took root, but it has been up for over six months now.
Good design needs to take into account the impact on the surrounding environment — if making a pretty gate means you also put up an ugly chainlink fence, then you have not made the city more beautiful. And even if they replace it with a better fence, the space will still be less attractive overall.
10 comments
I hope they haven’t changed their minds since last year when they gave an award to the Downtown De-fence Project for removing “unsightly” chain-link fences. My guess is that this award refers only to the gate itself.
I’ve long thought chain-link should be banned from the city, or at least banned in the parts not zoned “industrial.”
Even Nathan Phillips Square has some chain link behind the skate rental hut.
I had a professor in University that argued (rightly so in my opinion) that land owners should let people walk on the grass till they wear a trail and then pave that path.
just a stone’s throw away, queen’s park is comically devoid of common-sense paths as well.
i do think this fence will disappear, though; i imagine they’ve just forgotten about it?
yeah, those gates, while nice and shiny, sort of miss the point of how people actually use philosopher’s walk. a ban on chain links in general is probably a little impossible, but a ban on new chain links makes plenty sense to me.
Ever since you wrote about it, I thought about that every time I walked by Philosopher’s Walk. It’s truly an eyesore, and it’s very sad how idiotic that paved path looks, which is too bad considering how lovely the gates are.
One can direct pedestrian and other traffic with far more subtle barriers such as a dense bed of roses or other thorned plants or a berm of stones or … Fences, and particularly ugly chain-link ones, are not necessary in most places where you do not want to totally enclose an area. I hope someone at U of T is reading this and this fence will go!
Perhaps there should be “liberation” night with bolt cutters.
Same thing happened at OCAD. Sod was laid. Soon turned into mush, and now there is a proper pathway which follows pedestrian routes.
It seems to me that a low stone wall would go a long way toward improving the look of the space while gently leading people toward the gates and designated walkways. A low wall would also give people a place to sit and think, um… philosophical thoughts, and might perhaps provide an attractive backdrop / foreground for natural plantings.
As for dealing with desire lines (called ‘cat paths’ by one of my urban planning professors many years ago), I’m not opposed to landscape elements that guide people toward vistas or experiences or even toward certain kinds of pedestrian efficiency. But there’s a big difference between an invitation (such as a low wall might offer) and coercion (the imperative message of the chain-link fence).
“It seems to me that a low stone wall would go a long way toward improving the look of the space while gently leading people toward the gates and designated walkways.”
What is the point of designating walkways that people don’t want to use?? Why not “designate” so that they are efficient?