White Hart Lane Estate, Tottenham UK #2

My original post on White Hart Lane appears here. My colleague Robert Freestone has supplied some photographs he took of the internal spaces in 2002 (though the hand-coloured appearance of the middle picture in particular suggests something more like 1902). It appears that the space actually has locked gates and so is not accessible to the general public, a factor which may disqualify it for true Internal Reserve status. Any confirmation or further information would be welcome.

Taree Street Reserve, Chigwell, Tasmania 2002

Chigwell is a suburb of Hobart that has a bad reputation for no apparent reason (locals are witheringly referred to as 'Chiggers').

I visited this reserve in February 2002 and found it relatively featureless and unused.

See the Google Maps view here. It doesn't seem that much has changed in the last 9 years, aside from the entranceway (image at top) has apparently been cleared of trees and can now be accessed by cars.

Arcade Way Reserve, Avondale Heights 2011

Yesterday I visited two of the many internal reserves designed by Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin at Avondale Heights, in Melbourne's west. In many respects I would suggest that this is an example of best practice approach to internal reserves, and Moonee Valley Council is to be commended on its proactive work here. Firstly, the reserve is labelled, and a path through it is clearly visible. I suspect that the Council or its predecessor at some time in the last 83 years has purchased a house lot-sized block at the two extant entrances (there were originally intended to be, and perhaps were, more) so as to create greater visibility to the Arcade Way Reserve.


Even more impressive, an explanatory notice has been provided to give information on local indigenous plants. Many IRs have contributed to the retention of local plant species (this was often the intention of the Griffins). Pity about the graffiti:

Active recreation is encouraged in the form of a basketball hoop and concreted area, and there is playground equipment with a seat nearby. The purpose of the mound behind the hoop is not immediately apparent but perhaps it was envisaged participants-spectators might use it as seating?

I realise I might give the impression here that I like to go to secluded areas and take photographs of women passing by, which is not the case. In the short time that I was in the reserve (a warm Saturday afternoon) with my two dogs, I observed three other users: a young man whose dog ran into the reserve and then ran out (I later saw them walking the streets); the woman below, who was walking a dog as well: both just walked right through the reserve; and another woman who had, I think, come out of her house when her dog was barking at mine going past, and then decided her dog needed a quick walk. If this is what happened I suppose it's a classic case of the impossibility of 'fly on the wall' research. Incidentally all dogs (except mine!) were 'off lead'.

At sporadic points around the edge of the reserve, residents have sectioned off small areas for agricultural purposes. It would appear many of these people are already doing extensive vegetable growing in their own backyards, and have taken the opportunity to spread out a little way. I believe this is actively encouraged by Moonee Valley council. The state of the planting areas are very varied, ranging from neglected to well-maintained. Ditto the occasional fruit trees.


There are a number of gateways from backyards into the reserve (I didn't do a systematic count, but I would guess about half of the yards have these gates). In some instances gates are well disguised: this one would barely be recognisable as a gate, except that for some strange reason there is a perspex shelter above it:
This is also a gate:

I will post about the second reserve visited (or, rather, revisited) - to the immediate north of this one, shortly. View them both on Google Maps here.

Radburn, New Jersey, USA 2001

One of the major reasons for the popularity of the internal reserve in the 1920s was the recognition of the potential danger posed by the wider adoption of the automobile. Radburn design - so named for its initial template construction at Radburn, NJ - is a further adaptation of the internal reserve concept to accentuate separation of car and pedestrian (particularly the juvenile pedestrian).

One of the notable and interesting elements of attitudes to radburn and internal reserve design manifests in the common assumption that the intention of designers of internal reserves were that houses would face into them. This, generally speaking, is not the case. More commonly the expectation was that houses would have views into reserves from kitchen or other domestic areas so that the occupants of houses (usually, mother) could see into reserves and monitor playing children. From Clarence Perry's Neighbourhood and Community Planning 1929 p. 63

Radburn when I visited it in 2001.

Olympic Park, Olympia, Washington USA 2001

I visited this space in October 2001. Like the Epalock reserve mentioned below, it is only arguably a true internal reserve space. It is a 1920s design that appears to have come together to either retain or avoid (or both) a small tributary, surrounded by land that presumably could not be built on. At a certain point, a small road was built through the reserve, as seen here (the google map rather deceptively overlays a rigidly straight road through the reserve). There is, therefore, vehicular access to the rear of properties, and the space lacks cohesiveness: it is divided instead into a patchwork of smaller rear spaces.
At the time of my visit there was someone living in the reserve. I did not photograph evidence of this out of respect for their privacy. It appeared this was not a child camping out but a homeless adult.





Olympic Park, Olympia WA can be viewed on google map here.

Warrego Crescent Reserve, Linden Park South Australia 2000

View this space today here.

Internal reserves are often contentious, because locals are often of the opinion that they present a danger both to properties (they provide access for burglars, etc to scale fences, etc) and person (children and others using the reserves are endangered in a secluded, unmonitored space). Some of the issues as they were seen in 1999 can be gleaned from the article below, which appeared in the local newspaper the Messenger on the 30 June 1999 (click to enlarge):



Following this, the LGA, the City of Burnside, advertised for locals' opinions on the space. Options offered included 'upgrading existing tennis courts', 'developing as passive recreation area', 'clearing for tree planting', 'offering the land for sale to adjacent residents to extend their backyards' or 'leaving undeveloped' (Messenger 21 July 1999). I have not visited this reserve for a decade, but googlemap satellite suggests the first option was taken.

Epalock Crescent, St Albans Victoria 2011

I agree there might be some controversy over whether this is a true internal reserve as previously defined on this blog, and it occurs to me that perhaps the best way of defining the form is to create a formula based on a ratio of street frontage to residential allotment border - something like 5%? In this case the unnamed reserve at Epalock Crescent, St Albans is an unusual strip of parkland the north end of which features a child care centre and a car park (so, not actually direct street frontage, but near enough) and entry to eight more cul-de-sac streets along its boundary. See the google map here.

If you look closely at the image above you will see that on my visit to this space (on the afternoon of 2 January, 2011) two small boys were playing with a scooter right at the edge of the park, close to the carpark. It was strange enough that they were unwilling to go further into the park space, but particularly so as there was a brand new set of play equipment close by.



The park features a series of pathway arcs between the cul-de-sac entries (these must be very new as neither they, nor the play equipment, are in the satellite photograph on google maps at time of writing). This image is from close to the Cairn Close side of the reserve looking south-east.


This tree is at the southern end of the reserve.

More directly west of the Cairn Close location.

Despite the impression these photographs give, in fact the reserve seems to be quite well-used, and indeed during my brief time there (ten minutes), two people walking babies in prams, a woman walking a dog, a man walking between cul-de-sacs and the two unsupervised small boys above were all present.

Plainly also there had been fireworks let off in the reserve two days previously for New Years' celebrations, as spent fireworks were all over the ground (international readers note: these are actually illegal in Victoria except in rare sanctioned circumstances). There were also a number of empty dog food cans, which is unusual, though it occurred to me that these might have been used to launch fireworks...

Homestead Reserve, Eaglemont, Victoria 2009

Homestead reserve is a long, thin reserve included by Walter and Marion Griffin in their Glenard Estate, Eaglemont, Victoria in 1916. Unusually for internal reserves, these spaces are co-operatively owned by surrounding residents. In 2009, when this photograph was taken, I encountered a local resident who claimed this co-ownership was an insurance burden for surrounding residents - or at least would become so when someone injured themselves in the reserve and sued the multiple owners.

At present, the reserve has some play equipment and benches, but a large part of it is dedicated to vehicle access for surrounding homes. Many of these homes also receive their mail in postboxes within the reserve.
When Robert Freestone and I examined this reserve in 2001, we surveyed surrounding residents and one sent us this photograph of the annual picnic held in the reserve for locals.



The reserves and estate can be seen here as a Google Map. Because they are privately owned, they are not marked green as public space.