This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 09:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning OutlookPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep19

Managing Ontario's urban landscapeAllan R. Ruff aa Director of Landscape Management at the Department of Town and CountryPlanning , University of Manchester ,Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Allan R. Ruff (1988) Managing Ontario's urban landscape, Planning Outlook, 31:1, 53-60, DOI:10.1080/00320718808711820

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00320718808711820

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relationto or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Planning Outlook (1988). 31,1.© 1988 Planning Outlook.

Managing Ontario's Urban LandscapeAllan R. Ruff

ABSTRACT:In Canada, increasing costs of maintenance, a shifting perception of what makes a city beautiful,a recognition of the needs and the importance of urban wildlife, and changing recreational demandsare all contributing to a pressure for change in current practice. This study examines the extentto which the ecological approach has influenced the design and management of urban green spacein Canada, focusing on the city of Toronto and its surrounding region as an example.

KEYWORDS: Canada; Ecology; Landscape management; Toronto; Urban wildlife.

INTRODUCTIONFor two decades a new approach to the design and

management of the urban landscape has been emerging inEurope, and in many other countries worldwide. Thisapproach draws its inspiration from nature; both from anunderstanding of the principles that underly the processesof landscape development, and an appreciation of theaesthetic value of the natural or more often, the culturallandscape. Together this growing ecological consciousnesshas influenced landscape architects, parks managers andothers responsible for the urban green space in manycountries, including those in Canada. In that country,increasing costs of maintenance, a shifting perception ofwhat makes a city beautiful, a recognition of the needs,and the importance of urban wildlife, and changingrecreational demands are all contributing to a pressure forchange in current practice.

This study examines the extent to which the ecologicalapproach has influenced the design and management ofurban green space in Canada to date. It is focused on thecity of Toronto and its surrounding region, as this providesa convenient microcosm in which to observe the historyof the urban landscape in Canada, as a background tocurrent changes.

Toronto and its Historical LandscapeToronto is a modern city of two-and-a-half million

people located at the western end of Lake Ontario. It issaid in some guide books that the city has the greatestconcentration of power, privilege, media and money in thecountry, and it is loathed for it by the rest of Canada.Though this is said in. envy rather than disdain, it is truethat Toronto has grown rapidly since the second world war;helped by the fact that nearly a quarter of all immigrantsto Canada in that time have chosen to settle in the city.The many ethnic groups have together produced anexciting, multi-racial society without any of the apparentproblems associated with other large cities. The growth inpopulation has also caused the city to expand rapidly, tomeet the insatiable demand for houses, factories and

roads to service them. Equally important has been theprovision of public open space, though it has beensuggested that some new arrivals perceive a certain amountof wasted space, with acres of unproductive lawns and treesgrown for purely ornamental purposes. Certainly, thereis evidence that many people would welcome moreaccessible natural areas throughout the city, for walking,jogging, nature contemplation, unrestricted play, and soon (Hough, et al, 1987a). This is a generally held viewthroughout Canada and this option is causing some localauthorities to reassess the management of their urban greenspace.

The structure of Toronto, and espeecially its openspaces, owes much to its glacial history which has left astrong physical legacy in the region. It is most clearly seenin the five deep-sided ravines which run down to the lakeat right angles to the shoreline. These effectively divide themetropolitan region into a series of segments (Figure 1).These were formed during the aftermath of the lastglaciation, when the ice finally melted, the level of anearlier lake, the Iroquois, fell dramatically. This left therivers and streams that fed the lake high above the waterso they were forced to cut down through the glacialdeposits and so form the ravines (Gregory, et al, 1986).

The ravines and their tributaries made it difficult forearly travellers and settlers to traverse the region, but asthe modern city expanded, many were filled in and usedfor roads, housing and industry. Their value to the citywas not recognised in those less enlightened times and theopportunity to create one of the finest open-space systemsin North America was missed (Hough, et al, 1971).Altogether, nearly half the 1900 acres of ravine land havebeen lost in this way, though since the early 1970s, theirvalue for recreation has been appreciated and the remnantnatural areas jealously guarded, especially by localcommunities (Figure 2).

Allan R. Ruff is Director of Landscape Management atthe Department of Town and Country Planning, Universityof Manchester.

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Highways

Iroquois Shoreline

1 Leslie Street Spit

2 Toronto Islands

0 k m 35—»-

Figure 1 The Toronto Ravine System

Figure 2 Taylor's Creek, Toronto.

One other feature of the glaciation which plays animportant part in the recreational life of the city is theToronto Islands. These were formed by material erodedfrom the Scarborough Bluffs a few miles to the west ofthe present city. The sand and gravel was deposited in along spit which was also eroded and finally separated fromthe mainland by violent storms in 1858. The spit helpedto form an excellent natural harbour which later attractedsettlers to the region. After 1875 the Islands wereextensively developed, and much of the marshland andmeadows were destroyed by dredging and landfill whilstresidential areas had taken over most of the woodlands.

Then in the 1950s the City authorities intervened, and theIslands were transformed into what was called a 'peoplespark'. Today they are one of Toronto's most popularplaces for recreation, reached by a short ferry crossingfrom the downtown harbour (Figure 3). The islands still

Figure 3 A view of Downtown Toronto from theToronto Islands.

contain interesting remnant vegetation in six main plantcommunities; wet meadows, lagoon edges, beach strands,dunes, cottonwood woodlands and sand prairies. Thesecontain the region's highest concentration of rare plant

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

species, altogether a total of 338 have been recorded inthese natural areas (Varga, 1987).

Early travellers were also hindered by the dense,deciduous woodland which filled the ravines and thesurrounding land. Its deciduous character indicates therelatively mild, temperate climate of the region, thoughthis may be doubted in the winter months. However, itmeans that many of the principal species have theirecological equivalents in British woodlands; for example,Sugar Maple (Acer saccaharum), Beech (Fagus americana),White Ash (Fraxinus americana) and the Red and WhiteOaks (Quercus rubra and Q. alba). The rather borderlineposition of Toronto is indicated by the presence of suchconiferous species as White Pine (Pinus strobus) andEastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). An importantdifference with their British counterpart is the richness ofthe shrub and field layer. In one small county ofMetropolitan Toronto, over 1300 species have beenrecorded. Although this total has been 'enriched' by alienspecies introduced from Europe and Asia (Gregory, et al,1986) which probably accounts for nearly thirty per centof this total. Today much of this vegetation has beendestroyed, though remnants can be found in less accessibleparts of the ravines.

The origins of the public landscapeThe destruction of the natural vegetation began in

earnest with the settlement of Upper Canada whichfollowed the establishment of Fort York in 1793. Over thenext two centuries, the woodlands and prairies further westwere largely eradicated and with them, an inevitable lossof many species of bird, fish and animal (Hough, 1985).

Set against this destruction of the indigenouslandscape was the emergence of a public landscape set asidefor recreation. By the 1850s public parks were an integralpart of any new settlement in Upper Canada which issurprising as social conditions were very different fromthose in industrial England. There was less industry, thesettlements were small enough to allow easy access to thesurrounding landscape and the country was more politicallystable. It has to be assumed that parks were introducedto Canada as an accepted concept of civic planning andit was not until the passing of the Public Parks Act byOntario government in 1888 that any sort of popularmovement developed (Wright, 1983).

The style of these parks after 1850 was stronglyinfluenced by the form and function of their Englishcounterparts. This was a style known as the Gardenesque,so-called by its originator John Claudius Loudon, the mostinfluential writer and horticulturalist of the day. Loudonregarded the parks as places for horticultural display andaccordingly, they were to be laid out with "a sea of closemown grass set individually with specimen trees and widecirculatory paths that would take the visitor past thevarious horticultural features". To be considered in goodtaste, Loudon believed that only exotic species should beused, or suitably improved native forms. In this Loudonwas greatly assisted by the flood of plants introduced toEurope from all parts of the temperate world in the secondhalf of the century, icluding those sent earlier from Canadaby David Douglas.

The Gardenesque style was introduced to Canada bywealthy immigrants and developed on private estates

before finding its way into the public landscape. Thistransference was greatly helped in this century by the workof Thomas Mawson who later became the first Presidentof the Institute of Landscape Architects in Britain. Thelasting influence of the gardenesque on urban green spacein Canada can be readily appreciated from the sight of themany acres of closely mown grass stretching endlessly alongmotorways, through parks and in residential districts. Onerecent critic, the late Bob Dorney of the University ofWaterloo, described this as a syndrome of "rock, birchtree, grass and petunia" (Figure 4), (Dorney, 1975).

• V "-*'?.:. :•.- irL-Tt 7.* *.. . . : • ' . • • -1

Figure 4 Toronto, the syndrome of 'rock, birch tree,grass and petunias'.

Though the gardenesque has remained the dominantstyle since its introduction, there was another style whichhad its origins, chiefly in the United States. The Englishlandscape movement of the eighteenth century graduallygave way to a new type of writer and artist, people likeWordsworth, Goethe and in the United States, Emmersonand Thoreau. These were part of a Romantic movementwhose advocates believed that only contemplation ofnature and natural forms would bring a renewal of theharmonious relationship which was being eroded by theemergence of the industrial society. This preoccupationwith the aesthetics of nature led eventually to the designof parks inspired by the natural landscape rather than theflower garden. An early advocate of what has beendescribed as a pastoral approach was the American,Frederick Law Olmsted. His interest in parks and especiallytheir social value, had been greatly stimulated by a visitto Paxton's new park at Birkenhead, during a visit toBritain. Later, in 1863, Olmsted and his partner, CalvertVaux; won a competition for the design of Central Parkin New York. Olmsted shared the general belief of theRomantic movement that contact with nature, through thepastoral landscape, would provide an antidote to thespiritual, moral and physical ills of the day.

A few years later new parks, designed in the pastoraltradition, appeared in Canada. One of these was High Parkin Toronto, dedicated to the city in 1873 by John Howard(Figure 5). The idealised natural scenery was modified forpractical purposes to meadows surrounded by woods and

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Figure 5 High Park, Toronto.

meandering paths. The high moral tone was set by the Deedof Conveyance which stated that the "land should be keptselect for wives and children of the mechanics and workingclasses generally". And for this reason no pubs, drinkingbooths, alehouse, saloon or tavern was ever to be builtor intoxicating liquor sold within the park (Hough, 1985).

The pastoral tradition did not survive into twentiethcentury Canada, possibly because it was a somewhatintellectual view of nature, which could not be sustainedin the face of the destruction taking place elsewhere (Hough1985). Sadly, the discovery of the Ontario landscape in the1920s by the painters known as the Group of Seven didnot find its expression in the work of contemporarylandscape architects (Butlin, 1987). After the 1950s thesyndrome Dorney described was extended to the parks andopen spaces of the new towns and suburbs being developedaround Toronto and other urban centres. Even the naturalareas of parks, like High Park, and the ravines, weresubjected to a strict horticultural maintenance regime andthis has changed little in the intervening years. One breakwith tradition came during the development of the TorontoIslands, when the then Commissioner of Parks, TommyThompson, adopted the slogan "Please Walk on theGrass" and this was widely displayed in parks and openspaces (Figure 6). Though this marked a clear departurefrom the presbyterian values and strict moral code that hadpreceded it (Hough, 1985), it led to few other changes inthe approach to urban landscape. Indeed, it is possible themessage has still to be heeded for the slogan continues tobe displayed in parks and on other promotional literature.

Changing attitudes

From the 1960s there was evidence of a growingecological awareness applied to landscape design and moreespecially to landscape planning (Hough, 1986). The workof people like McHarg and Lewis influenced Canadianplanning and conservation but their influence on urbanareas has remained negligible. The apparent discrepancybetween professional attitudes and the public's interest inthe concept of 'nature in the city' has been shown up bytwo recent surveys. Statistics Canada sponsored by the

Figure 6 Tommy Thomson's slogan still displayed inToronto park.

Government, has indicated that some 70% of Canadianswere active participants in what was described as 'non-consumptive residential wildlife related activities'. Thisincludes some 30% of Canadians who encourage wildlifein their gardens by purchasing food or planting appropriatetrees and shrubs (Filion, et al, 1983). By contrast, thereis less evidence of similar interest among those responsiblefor the design and maintenance of the public landscape.A survey of Canadian landscape architects in 1987 byKatherine Dunster set out to test the hypothesis that publicopinion is ahead of the professional response, and thisseemed to be supported by the results. These showed thatonly 13% of respondents included provision for wildlifein a majority of their schemes, whilst 60% showed a lackof understanding about the needs of urban wildlife. Themost common reason given for this apparently negativeresponse was the lack of interest shown by their clients.This was all the more surprising in view of the survey byStatistics Canada, and supports a widely held notion thatmost designers and parks managers still hold on to previoustraditions and perceptions of what parks and the urbanlandscape should be like (Dunster, 1987).

Tangible evidence of the public's changing attitude,indicated by Statistics Canada, can be deduced from therecent proliferation of organisations and societies that havean interest in some aspects of urban conservation. Startingin 1984, with the Canadian Wild Flower Society, estab-lished by James A. French, this society providesinformation and assistance for individuals and organisa-tions interested in the use of wild flowers and other nativeplants. In three years the membership had risen to nearly2,500, with members throughout Canada and the UnitedStates. A year later, the Urban Wilderness Gardeners wasstarted with the aim of promoting naturalness in parks andother open spaces. The Society has also undertaken pilotprojects involving children in the making of school gardensand seniors constructing community gardens. In 1986 theSierra Club of Ontario formed an Urban Parks andWilderness Committee to foster the protection of existingnatural areas in cities and to encourage creative conserva-

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

tion through the naturalisation of appropriate open spaces(Hough, et al, 1987). Prior to these events, PollutionProbe, one of Canada's oldest environmental groups, hadlaid out an ecological park adjacent to its Torontohedquarters. The park was inspired by the William Curtisecological park in London sharing similar aims in seekingto provide both an educational facility and demonstratean alternative low-cost method of creating and maintainingurban green space (Savage, 1987).

The Leslie Street SpitOne development which is typical of the changing

attitude is the Leslie Street Spit. This has achieved thehighest profile of any naturalisation project (Kroiter, 1987)and highlights the conflicts and changing attitudes thatsurroud urban landscape today. The Spit is located closeto downtown Toronto and has its origins as a landfill sitein the 1950s (Figure 7). It was intended to provide a

t *

«

^t-j.

Zi*. />• •>« •

Figure 7 Leslie Street Spit — an area to be preservedfor wildlife interests.

breakwater for an enlarged harbour but economic andtechnological changes rendered the project obsolete. TheSpit was subsequently abandoned and fifteen years laterthe deposited rubble has been converted, by the processesof natural colonisation, into a dense woodland ofCottonwood (Populus tremuloides), Blacklocust (Robiniapseudoacacia), Willow (Salix sp.) and Maple (Acer sp.).

Together, the woody vegetation and the rockyshoreline create an ideal habitat for wildlife, which isundisturbed by human activity. A recent survey recordedsome 266 species of nesting, migrant and over-winteringbirds on the Spit. Amonst the rarer birds are the CaspianTerns and the black-crowned Night Herons, which havefew other locations in the region, whilst the Ring-billedGulls have formed colonies with some 70,000 to 80,000breeding pairs recorded in 1982, which threaten theexistence of the other shoreline birds (Kroiter, 1987).

The Ontario government passed responsibility formanagement of the Spit to the Metropolitan Toronto andRegion Conservation Authority (MTRCA) in 1973,although it did not gain access to the site for that purposeuntil 1984. By that time the Spit had become a popular

place for recreation, with some 40,000 people visiting theSpit during its summer opening. The MTRCA recognisedthat some form of management was necessary to protectboth the conservation and recreation interests; and toprovide direction for the continuing landfill operations.This view conflicted with that of the conservationists whoregarded the Spit as a natural occurrence, and somecompensation for the loss of natural areas elsewhere in theregion. The Friends of the Leslie Street Spit were of theopinion that the site and its extension should be left aloneand be allowed to continue its development according tonatural processes of succession.

In the event, the MTRCA adopted a concept plan inJanuary 1987 which sought a compromise between theextreme demands of conservation and recreation (Figure8, p. 58). One of the present disadvantages of the Spit interms of public use, is the considerable distance betweenthe entrance and the more central area. The Concept Planproposes a 2 kilometre road on to the site, terminating ina car park and visitor centre. This will provide informationabout the Spit and its wildlife, and be at the centre of amore intensive zone with circular walks and places forpicnics. The existing wildlife areas will be carefullyprotected, whilst those visitors wishing to go further afieldwill be directed along way-marked paths and board walksto hides and other viewing places. Any new facilities forwater based activities will be confined to areas that are mostclosely related, in visual terms at least, to existing facilities.The tipping, which is planned to continue well into the1990s, will be used to create additional aquatic andterrestrial habitats, so increasing the diversity of the Spit'swildlife even further.

The Leslie Street Spit, or the Tommy Thompson Parkas it is officially described, should provide increasingopportunities for wildlife and people who wish to enjoynature and recreation in natural surroundings. The presentcontroversy is due partly to a breakdown in communica-tion; and perhaps even more, to the public's lack ofconfidence in the MTRCA's ability to manage a naturallandscape. Such fears are fully justified in view of pastinadequacies shown by local authorities and will only beovercome by the MTRCA displaying a sensitive, ecologicalapproach to the management of the Spit. As Kroiterobserved, the future will be a "test of our ideals for humanand environmental harmony".

Management of the public landscapeDuring the period of these recent innovations, an

increasing number of Public Authorities in Ontario havecome to recognise the need to re-appraise their approachto the management of the public landscape. This has beenstimulated by the changing concept of urban landscape andthe public's demand for more diverse and naturalsurroundings for recreation. More recently it has beenaccelerated by the rising costs of maintenance and the needto develop more economic alternatives.

Typical of the problems faced by many localauthorities are those faced on a large scale by the NationalCapital Commission in Ottawa. The cost of maintainingvast acreages of turf grass in the capital is substantial whilstcutbacks in the Government's budget has forced the NCCto investigate and implement cost-saving maintenanceprocedures. The landscape consultants, Hough, Stansbury

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

,-EWVIftOUMEUTftLnAW*U1£Mf AAE

AMD t-f ffl (Half td MAO<l.lT¥

APHTTLP 10 EMLVIMtt M£»3

TOMMY THOMPSON

PARK

Figure 8 Le^fe 5/re^ S/7/7 — //*e concept plan for future development.

and Associates were asked to undertake two separatestudies, one of Revegetation Techniques (Hough, et al,1982), and the other of Vegetation Management (Hough,et al, 1987b). The consultants recognised that the problemwas not simply one of costly techniques but a more difficultone of changing the general perception of the urbanlandscape. Much of the high quality landscape, with itswell-tended shrub borders, banks of flowers, cultivatedtrees and parkways were the outcome of social andeconomic conditions in the 1960s, a time when suchintensive horticultural maintenance was consideredappropriate and a proper extension of the NCC's pride inits capital; and its commitment to good design and ongoingcare. Today, it is more generally recognised that one of thegreatest experiences of Ottawa comes from the naturalsetting provided for its monuments, public buildings,canals and water: "Where the landscape has been left,natural rock, water, and native woodland provide dramaticviews of the city and its skyline, making it memorable asa beautiful place". By contrast, much of the designedlandscape contributes little to this sense of place; instead,"the universal turf cover and horticultural speimens as thesole answer to the man-made lanscape of the city createsa sterile and monotonous environmental setting for aninherently dramatic landscape" (Hough, et al, 1987).Clearly, the alternative, in the opinion of the consultants,is to develop a more diverse management approach. Thisis defined in the Report on the Naturalisation Project,

as "one which brings an ecological view to the design andmaintenance of the urban landscape; natural processesrather than horticultural technology forming its underlyingframework".lt involves the introduction of naturallandscape elements into the urban environment, such aswoodlands, meadows, and wetlands that are self-perpetuating and productive communities achieved throughecologically sensitive management rather than totalmaintenance control. It achieves benefits in environmental,social and aesthetic diversity and overall economy inenergy, materials and manpower.

Following the preparation of the Report by Hough,Stansbury and Associates, the National CapitalCommission has recently implemented pilot projects toevaluate the various techniques proposed for grasslandmanagement and urban woodlot establishment. Theproject will also consider the management and financialimplications. Another Authority that has undertaken amajor experimental programme is the City of York, inMetropolitan Toronto. In a report prepared in 1982 theParks and Recreation Department proposed a new conceptof urban landscape management (North York, 1982). Inthe existing situation, it was argued that parks requiredcostly maintenance and were active-use orientated and socatered for only a small perentage of the population.Looking first at the few remaining natural areas within thecity, the report concluded that although these areas wererecognised by residents as desirable environments for

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

passive and self-generating recreation, a lack of propergrounds maintenance had led to serious problems whichthreatened the sustained existence of these sites. The Parksand Recreation Department argued that a change inphilosophy must occur in which, "it is necessary for bothusers and providers to recognise and appreciate thenecessity of a diversified ecological system". This, theDepartment suggested, could be achieved by eliminatinga number of conventional maintenance procedures andapplying various regeneration techniques, supported byand involving local residents. In this way declining woodlotsand natural areas could be restored and expanded andcarefully designed, self-sustaining areas of native tree andshrub vegetation could be established in existing and newlyacquired parks. The benefits of such a concept would benot only "to provide year-round recreational opportunitiesmeeting the aesthetic and psychological needs of thepopulation but would also help to maintain a healthy andbalanced urban environment".

The new policy has been implemented through a ten-part programme applied to 20 experimental areasdistributed throughout the city. Some of the sites are inareas of existing natural vegetation whilst others are partof ornamental parks and were selected "because of theirrelatively natural composition". Generally, all the twentyareas selected were frequently visited as was evident fromthe soil compaction, the network of paths throughout theforested areas and the deterioration of the understoreyvegetation. A lack of responsibility by many park userswas also demonstrated clearly by the presence of garbageand the vandalism to trees. Like the NCC in Ottawa, theNorth York authorities recognised that the whole successof the new concept would depend on its perception by thegeneral public. A strategy aimed at creating publicawareness was essential in the first instance. This meantgiving place names to the areas or natural features withinthem, using historical associations wherever possible. Thiswas intended to give the areas a positive sense of identitywhich would hopefully engender an interest and pride inlocal park or ravine. A slide presentation was also preparedfor use in schools and community centres. This showed"the ecological, recreational and inspirational value ofnatural areas", and how these values could be expandedto enhance the community through the use of regenerationmethods. On sites where the regeneration programme wasinitiated, signs were used to explain the reasons and benefitsof a particular action. Interpretative literature explainingthe new concept and the specific regeneration methods tobe undertaken in the neighbourhood, was distributed tolocal residents and community groups to participate inprogrammes that ranged from garbage removal, pathwayconstruction and revegetation planting to 'adoptionschemes' in some of the smaller ravines.

The revegetation techniques have included a reductionin mowing, especially in areas of poor drainage, on thesteeper slopes and adjacent to woodlots. In such places amore natural edge is encouraged but in places adjacent tohuman activity a mown 'buffer' zone is retained foraesthetic and practical reasons. In some of the smallerravines, the vegetation is allowed to revert to a semi-naturalcondition, sometimes with just an annual cut of the grassand herbs (Fig. 9). Reforestation methods depend on thepresence or otherwise of native trees bearing a viable

Figure 9 North York revegetation programme — towardsmore natural ravines.

seed crop. Where these exist, a discontinuation of mowingis followed naturally by regeneration; otherwise a managedsuccession has to be initiated by planting of pioneer,intermediate and climax species of trees and shrubs(Figure 10).

r

Figure 10 North York revegetation programme — amanaged succession.

The experiment in the City of North York is still atan early stage, though early results show that the publicresponse to the concept is favourable; and techniques areproving successful. In terms of cost, considerable savingshave been made; a comparison was made of two one-acreareas, one planted as a formal landscape with turf grass,23 specimen trees and 3000 square feet of shrubs, and theother a reforested landscape with 1000 rooted hardwoodcuttings. The establishment and maintenance costs wererecorded over a period of 3 years. The resuts showedsavings of approximately $2,000/acre/a year inmaintenance costs by replacing the formal landscape withreforested areas (Hough et al, 1987).

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

It is most likely that the regeneration concept will beapplied throughout the city in coming years, though notjust as an alternative approach to vegetation maintenancebut as an expanded philosophy of park management.

"The intent of the City should be to conserve, improve,and promote natural ecosystems in existing woodlots,valley systems and minor water courses; and toincorporate such ecosystems into park design for thepurpose of recreational and environmentalenhancement".

CONCLUSION: An emerging paradigm for LandscapeArchitecture

In a recent article Ann Rosenberg, a landscapearchitect practising in Ontario, has suggested that thecurrent changes in attitude towards the urban landscape,are part of a more fundamental change in Man'srelationship to nature (Rosenberg, 1986). Until the presentday, urban landscape design has been a tussle between theGardenesque and Romantic concept with their horticulturaland pastoral traditions. In spite of the differencesbetween these two, they both stem from an underlyingconcept of stewardship towards nature in which Man isthe dominant partner. Rosenberg argues that events at theturn of the century, in the fields of physics and ecology,have led to this relationship being challenged andredefined. In modern physics, the universe is no longerregarded as a machine functioning according to humanlaws; whilst life on earth is seen to respond to ecologicalprinciples rather than human considerations. Together thesciences of physics and ecology provide a view of the worldas an undivided, dynamic whole, in which the parts arerelated and understood through the patterns of cosmic andterrestrial processes. Within such a concept Rosenbergargues that Man is still unique and important because ofhis intellect but his position of superiority is replaced bya relationship of equals in which both parties have equalrights. In consequence, human dignity and a regard fornature are the same thing; taking care of nature is takingcare of oneself.

In these circumstances the management of the urbanlandscape is not about making a token provision forwildlife but rather the achievement of ecological health,for the benefit of all the city's occupants. This newphilosophy would seem to have been understood by thoseinvolved in the experimental approaches to urbanlandscape management. In so doing they are redefining therole of the landscape architect from that of "an elite artistmaking a private statement" to that of "an interpreter,organiser, facilitator — though still an artist" (Rosenberg,1987). The role of the landscape architect, suggestsRosenberg, is shifting from the design of the environmentfor human use, to the design of a system inwich the usercan contribute to the environment as well as beingsupported by it. The design itself fostering an awarenesson the part of the users to their own part in theenvironmental continuum, a sense of connectedness toboth the human and natural elements of their environment."Such a new landscape," writes Rosenberg, "wouldemphasise diversity and complexity" in which "the humancomponent would interact with water resources, wildlifehabitats, edible landscapes and urban woodlots; a rangefrom the fortuitous wild landscapes to the well organised

but still complex landscapes that provide the clarity anddefinition desired in a human landscape" (Hough, 1984).

This brief observation of Ontario's urban landscapehas shown that certain individuals, professionals andvoluntary organisations are working towards theachievement of this goal and in so doing, helping to raisesociety's awareness of the need for an ecological approachto urban land management. It is to be hoped that researchand development will continue so that the new approachwill flourish in the coming years, bringing benefits to Manand nature.

REFERENCES

Butlin, A. (1987). "The Art of Nature. Landmarks, Vol. 5 (2). Spring,pp. 14-19.

Dorney, R. S. (1975). "Recreating the Early Ontario Landscape in a FrontYard", Landscape Architecture, October 1975, p. 423.

Dorney, R. S. (1986). "An Emerging Frontier for Native PlantConservation", Wild/lower, Vol. 2 (1), Winter, pp. 30-35.

Dunster, K. (1987). "The Status of Urban Wildlife Design in Canada,A.S.L.A.-O.C. Newsletter, Vol. 4 (2), April/May, pp. 4-5.

Filion, F. L. et al (1983). The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians,Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.

Gregory, D., and MacKenzie, R. (1986). Toronto's Backyard, Douglasand Mclntyre, Vancouver/Toronto, p. 147.

Hoepfner, E. (1984). "Vernacular Landscaping", Harrowsmith, Vol.9 (1). June/July, pp. 54-67.

Hoepfner, E. (1987). "Wildflower Meadows", Harrowsmith, Vol. 12 (1).Hough, M. (1984). City Form and Natural Processes, van Nostrand

Reinhold, p. 281.Hough, M. (1985). "Changing Roles of Urban Parks", Environments

17 (2). pp. 84-94.Hough, Stansbury and Associates (1971). The Urban Landscape,

Conservation Council of Ontario, p. 128.Hough, Stansbury and Associates (1982). Naturalisation Projecet,

National Capital Commission, Ottawa, p. 170.Hough, M., and Barret, S. (1987a). People and City Landscapes,

Conservation Council of Ontario, p. 119.Hough, Stansbury and Associates (1987b). Urban Vegetation Management

Study, National Capital Commission, Ottawa, p. 77.Kroiter, T. (1987). "Urban Wilderness on the Leslie Island Spit",

A.S.L.A.-O.C. Newsletter, Vol. 4 (2), April/May, pp. 6-9.North York Parks and Recreation Department Report (1982),

Naturalisation Areas in North York (unpublished), p. 26.Rosenberg, A. M. (1986). "An Emerging Paradigm for Landscape

Architecture", Landscape Journal, Canada, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 75-82.Savage, J. (1987). "Greening the City", Probe Post, Vol. 10 (2) Spring.

Toronto, pp. 22-25.Wright, J. R. (1983). UrbanParksin Ontario Part 1, Ministry of Tourism

and Recreation, Province of Ontario.Varga, S. (1987). Toronto Islands. Toronto Field Naturalists, p. 22.

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014