top of page
Port Credit Memorial Park
Memorial park is the heart of Port Credit. It is where the main Library is located and where major pedestrian traffic tends to start for people that travel far in their vehicles to come and visit the area. This area of the park has a number of elements that makes it a successful public space within Mississauga. Its large green spaces, trails, and active river life makes the space very attractive for visitors. Although it serves its purpose as a public space fairly well, there are still parts of the park that can be improved, or do not act as they may have been designed to.
Overall, the design of Port Credit Memorial Park has been constructed to provide a space for a wide range of activities to occur simultaneously. As shown in the site map, the site can be broken into two large fields designed for open activities, a large trail that loops around the site and connects it to the other end of the port, and smaller sections are designed for play which include a play structure, basketball courts, and skate park. The library on site acts as an anchor point for the site and attracts visitors that may take advantage of the additional spaces that the site has to offer.
The park is designed to provide users many spaces to sit. Throughout the site, there are a number of edge conditions comfortable enough for users to sit, many scattered benches inviting users to rest, and huge fields of grass comfortable enough for people to picnic on. As William H. Whyte would say, “people tend to sit where there are places to sit”, [1] and this site demonstrates his theory very well. Most benches that are located at spaces that have a view of other spaces are almost consistently occupied.
Figure 1: Annotated picture of view obstruction.
Figure 2: People enjoy sitting on the benches facing the activity on the water.
Along the path through the center of the park, there are 13 horseshoe benches that are uncomfortable to use. Their view of sight is being blocked by an information pole. The reason why these benches are not used as much as they were intended is due to this minor inconvenience, but also due to the fact that they do not consider the prospect refuge theory, which comforts users and helps them feel slightly protected.[2] The users of these benches are not able to observe what is happening around them and do not get the sense of security that they can get by simply choosing another spot to sit. These hindrances make these benches an undesirable element of the park as they do not serve their purpose to provide comfortable seating on the site. On the other hand, the spaces around the park that do provide the sense of slight protection to its users, are found to be more populated. Specifically, the trees along the perimeter of the fields act as ‘barriers’ that give the illusion of protecting those under and in front of the trees from those that are walking the trail behind them. Given that the users feel as if they could protect themselves from harm in these spaces, they become more populated. Not only does this boundary act as a sense of security, but also provides users with the opportunity to view the action that occurs across the span of the large grass field, further enriching their experience in the public space.
Figure 3: Fishers on the lake attracting more people around them
Figure 4: Large groups of families gathered along the side of the playing structures
​
Further, William H. Whyte’s theory that “people attract people”[3] is also exemplified at this site. The river along the southern side of the park attracts many fishers and people that enjoy water activities. As the users of the water start to occupy the site, more and more people are attracted to the water to observe and analyze what is happening there. The people observing tend to sit on the benches facing the water, or pass the vegetation boundary that restricts access to the water line so that they can sit on the rocks and view the action in direct sight. The vegetation boundary before the water also acts as the soft scape version of a transparent vertical façade.[4] As users are walking along the trail, they can peek through the wall of trees and vegetation, to get the sense that there are activities occurring on the water edge. Being able to see past the vegetation attracts the users to stop walking along the trail, to observe the activities on the water, and even invites users to pause by sitting on the rocks along the water for a bit. This river edge condition fulfils many conditions that make this site a successful public space.
​
“people attract people”
“...The slower movement occurs when a pedestrian enjoys the walk through the site..”
Moreover, the trail through the site is successful for many reasons. The trail engages the user and showcases elements of the park as one goes further along it. Considering Jan Gehl’s research, it is apparent that the texture and details [5] is seen along the path are functioning to hold the attraction of a pedestrian and encourage slower movement throughout the park. The slower movement occurs when a pedestrian enjoys the walk through the site rather than simply using the trail as an access point that connects one space to another. Optional activities are usually performed in favourable exterior conditions that users choose to undergo without the activity being a necessity. [6] This action of walking through the site is considered as an optional activity that the users chose to experience based on their perception of the space. Many of the occupants of the site walk down the trails at a slow and steady pace, generally in pairs, while enjoying and observing the activities or details around them. The path creates opportunities for the users to have interactions with others while weaving together the activities throughout the park and further enriching the experience of the public space.
Figure 5 (left): People sit by the perimeter of the fields instead of the middle of the fields
Figure 6 (right): This image shows people doing various activities such as strolling or moving from point A to point B
Mann, Tavleen. Evaluation Criteria and Breakdown,Brampton, Ontario. October 8, 2020.
[1] Whyte, W. H. (Director). (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces [Motion picture on Online]. New York, NY: The Society.
[2] Emilie Pinard, “Social: A Public Space and Placemaking” (Class Lecture, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, September 25, 2020).
[3] Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
[4] Pinard, “Social: A Public Space and Placemaking.”
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
bottom of page