Wrexham Queen's Park Estate

'The site plan for the second contract' at Wrexham from Stephenson's On a Human Scale, pp. 124-5

Wrexham is the largest town in North Wales. Here, in 1950, Gordon Stephenson produced design for just under 500 dwellings as economically as possible. In his On a Human Scale: A life in City Design (Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Fremantle 1992) Stephenson writes:

[F]ollowing the early example of Port Sunlight, we placed service roads (in the case of Wrexham, cul-de-sacs) on the kitchen side of the houses. But, following the Radburn principle, we had a separate and continuous footpath system leading to the front doors, playgrounds and open spaces. The cul-de-sac roads were nineteen feet (six metres) wide, and the footpaths, as suggested by Clarence Stein, eight feet (two and a half metres) wide (p. 123).

Stephenson writes that topography, and a creek near the site, made it impossible to form actual 'superblocks' for his Wrexham scheme. However the houses do face on to car-free open spaces linked by pedestrian ways. Stephenson recalls in his memoir that Lewis Mumford visited the development in 1953 and discussed the scheme with residents.

The images below are of Wrexham on an unseasonably warm day in September. From another image in Stephenson's book, it appears that originally houses fronted onto open space, but that this has since been divided into individual gardens (whether recently or otherwise is hard to say; many of the fences are new).

Tel Aviv - a series of reserves internal and not so internal pt 4: space within Ester HaMaika, Ruth, Shulamit and Ya'el Streets

In his 1995 article 'The Machine in the City: Patrick Geddes' plan for Tel Aviv', Neal Payton attributes the success of Geddes' use of the internal reserve to a specific feature which, in effect, removes its 'internal' status. Many of the 'greens' inserted by Geddes into his sequence of networked neighbourhoods are, in fact, ringed by small roads. Properties face into the spaces and they take on more of a traditional village green status than a 'shared backyard' feel. Payton writes:

Geddes rejected the cul-de-sac model that Mumford advocated, and instead provided an inner perimeter of streets within the block connecting to the exterior of the block in a pinwheel fashion. thus each block could conceptually be understood as a rectangular doughnut with the centre either left void for neighbourhood gardens or for civic structures. In order to discourage through traffic on these interior streets they are not aligned across superblocks.

This is the space that Payton singles out as particularly successful. It is figure 7 in his article as 'one of the few pin-wheel blocks with centre park to be accomplished.'* The space is indeed a high-use, high value small park. Though somewhat crowded - it includes an air-raid shelter and an electricity substation - it also features seating, tables, landscaping, play equipment and one of the enormously successful kiosks which dot central Tel Aviv's parks and boulevards. Find it on Google Map here.

*Confusingly (given that the picture is an aerial photograph, with no street labelling) the image in Payton's article has erroneously been published with south at the top: a warning for those who would seek to use it to locate the space in question.

Tel Aviv - a series of reserves internal and not so internal pt 3: Unnamed (?) reserve off Biltmore

This reserve lies between Kohnstamm, Lipski, Biltmore and Moshe, in the same general area as the reserve in the first of this series (locate them both here).

It is less formal - or, at least, not comprehensively paved like the aforementioned space, but does feature two children's playgrounds (presumably for slightly differing age groups): one is fenced, and one open.

In my short time in Tel Aviv I have observed that many residents own dogs - often quite large ones - who presumably spend their days in apartments. It is not surprising then that any potential place to walk one's dog - aside from the pavement - is treasured. This reserve includes a dog walking compound: during my short visit there on 7 September 2011 a woman entered the space (the only human I saw use it in that time) and took her dog directly to the fenced area, then sat at a bench with plastic bag in hand. A dog walker advertises his/her services on a nearby bin. In my brief experience of this space however the real users are cats, who loll around in the sand in the part of the reserve that allows them maximum surveillance of the patch.

Tel Aviv - a series of reserves internal and not so internal pt 2: Harold and Dorothy Thau Park

Harold and Dorothy Thau Park has a dedication plaque dating it at 1999, which seems hard to believe, given that it contains at least one service building dating back at least half a century; a similar building to that contained within the Ruth-Yael reserve discussed above. It also contains some kind of electricity tower. Though most of the Geddes plan reserves are actually 'open' - surrounded by small roads - this is one which is resolutely internal. Its constant inhabitants seem to be a pack of cats who lounge around on top of the above (flat-roofed) building and on the day I visited – around 5 pm on September the 8 – a cat was resting on each of the many benches in the reserve.
The space also includes some grass, tables and something that looks like (and could function as, either in a formal or an ad-hoc way) a stage. Indicating a genuine community space, it also features a well-used noticeboard. It is used as a thoroughfare – and adjoins a synagogue – which no doubt increases traffic at least to the southern section of the reserve.
For reasons unclear this space is labelled Hahovevim Garden on google map.

Tel Aviv - a series of reserves internal and not so internal pt 1: unnamed (?) reserve between Pinkas, De Haass and Louis Marshall streets

In May 1925 Patrick Geddes, in the midst of planning for what was to become Tel Aviv, wrote to Lewis Mumford: 'I am adjusting all new city blocks to large ones, with interior bit of garden village. If you have such examples handy in U.S. pray send me what you can, to strengthen case.' Mumford responded with a report from Clarence Stein's Community Planning Committee: 'You will note that the Diagrams at the end of the report deal with your very problem; and give statistical proof of the economy of the large block.'*

Geddes' plans for Tel Aviv in the mid-1920s included a large number of commons areas which on first glance appear to fall into the internal reserve mould, but which were actually in most (?) cases small greens with minor roads surrounding them, so that housing would look into the space, cars and other vehicles would have access, and the feeling would be more of a 'village' atmosphere than a 'back yard extension'. One of the few of these spaces to remain will be dealt with in a future post. However, in revisions to the Geddes plan we find many classic examples of the internal reserve within forms reminiscent of the interwar era but not, as I understand it, directly from his pen. These include a group of internal reserves around the circle known as Kikar He-Medina.

The space depicted below is a reasonably sized reserve which, like many similar reserves in Tel Aviv, includes a number of valuable amenities. It is admirably served with seating, foliage and landscaping, a netball hoop (on the days of my visits, broken), and fixed tables and chairs. It is unsignposted, and has one entranceway; the surrounding flats (like most of inner Tel Aviv, four-five storey blocks) look into the space but do not 'face' it - in fact, some do not have windows on the reserve side; those with windows would often only see the greenery of the leafy reserve 'roof', rather than into the space itself.

* Geddes to Mumford 25 May 1925, Mumford to Geddes 20 June 1925, in Frank G. Novak, Jr Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence Routledge, London/NY 1995, p. 226, p. 228

'Sitting out parks', Hong Kong Central

A few very random images of paved, landscaped interior spaces in central Hong Kong. Visiting these on a Sunday afternoon reveals that at least at some times of the week they are very well frequented, and the sectioning off of different areas (this seems natural, as the topography is very uneven) allows different groups to use different sections. On the Sunday some elderly people were exercising, a family (?) group were sitting around a laptop, a group of women were sharing what might have been a picnic. These spaces are full of seating, play equipment (for young and old), tables and so on; they're well-maintained too.

Obviously Hong Kong could not be more different from the lower-density urban areas that have been canvassed generally in this blog. This is a city where most people don't have a backyard (though an interesting phenomenon is revealed from having a 22nd floor hotel room - the prevalence of roof gardens). In any case, space is a premium here and the 'sitting out parks' - the name says it all - clearly provide a valuable service.

Bayview Park and George Park, Fannie Bay

Friend of the Internal Reserves blog Steven Barlow writes:
'Two internal parks I've discovered: Bayview Park and George Park at Fannie Bay in Darwin. The first has two openings to the streets and the second has only one, but they don't align for a continuous pedestrian route, unfortunately. Both are characterised by a lack of solid surrounding fences - mostly wire or railings so there is a very good relationship between the houses and the vegetated parkland (no palings in Darwin in any case). Both seem to be maintained and watered by the local government. The second one has a common picnic area with a table and play equipment. Cameron, Peac and Garden Parks in Jingili and Leanyer also seem to be examples as well as there being many "near internals" in Darwin suburbs along Radburn lines.'





View these spaces on Google Maps here.