By Barbara Spyropoulos
Orphaned spaces: those pesky bits of land leftover when an area is divided into lots. Sometimes adjacent to residential lots, other times buffers between roadways or other purposed sites, but almost always eventually neglected. Architectural drawings often show them lush with ornamental plantings but in reality, the vegetation is, in due course, more of the nuisance weed variety. This is most common when solid fencing is erected at the property line of the defined site. The result: an unsightly mess that signals lack of ownership that can lead to the orphaned space being used for nefarious purposes. In short, a sin against the CPTED principle of natural territorial reinforcement.
Neglected plots of land pass through an ecological succession process whereby grasslands develop into meadows that subsequently are invaded by shrubs and trees. Let’s look at an example in which a left-over section of land is well on its way to becoming a mini-forest.
The housing development in Figure 1 replaced the site of a former factory. It is adjacent to an old Canadian Legion, later converted to a church. The Google Map image shows three orphaned spaces outlined in light blue. The unclaimed Site 1 block is bounded by fencing from neighbours on two sides and the church on the third side. The current state of this area is shown in Figure 2. Although there are no signs of habitation by two-legged creatures, it is, at the very least, unsightly.
Site 2 shows boulders separating the church parking area from the cul-de-sac, presumably to prevent vehicles from crossing between the roadway and the parking lot. The downside of such structures is that the area around them is not readily accessible with a lawn mower and is largely ignored when the grass is cut on the church side (Figure 3). Thus, the neglect of Site A now extends to Site B.
The householder adjacent to Site C in Figure 1 is an avid gardener and, for a while, adopted Site C. However, it became too much to maintain and it eventually joined the other orphaned sites where it is kept out of her sight by a tall solid fence at the property line.
Our next example had more serious outcomes.
This case consists of another new development, again on an old factory site. For some reason, the old neighbourhood is kept isolated from the new by a long solid fence that precludes vehicular and pedestrian traffic between the two areas. (See the solid black line on the Google Map in Figure 4.)
For the most part, rear yards border the fence on the old neighbourhood side but on the new side, the orphaned space extends along the entire fence. The city is responsible for the upkeep of this areas but seems to respond only to specific complaints. The situation has resulted in calls for service to police.
Figure 5a shows the fence on the old neighbourhood side while Figure 5B displays the overgrowth on the orphaned side.
While it is possible that the trees on the new side were planted to create a noise buffer, judging from their appearance, they do not seem to have been purposely planted. Nevertheless, it is unclear why there would not be access at the cul-de-sacs between the two areas especially since children in the old neighbourhood attend the school on the other side of the fence.
This situation has led to problems. Trees that have grown along the fence have left gaps that create hiding spots. In one case, a group of young boys set up their ‘fort’ where they practiced smoking cigarettes and other verboten activities attractive to youngsters. The problem was that yard on the opposite side of the fence belonged to a woman who lived on her own. Hearing all the goings-on, she concluded that there was gang activity on the other side. Since she could only get to the other side of the fence by traversing a significant distance, she had little opportunity to find out what was really happening.
We were called to do a CPTED audit of this area. An inspection of the litter at the ‘fort’ revealed that, while annoying, there was no gang or other criminal activity. The worse that seemed to be happening was studious inspection of a girlie magazine and examination of a single condom (otherwise unused).
Our solution was to recommend that city trim the brush along the fence to remove any hiding spots. Once done, complaints ceased but when the undergrowth takes hold again, the issue may resurface.
So, what to do about these unclaimed spaces? For a start, there should be more attention given when dividing parcels of land. In our first case, assigning the extra area of the orphaned space in Site 1 to the adjacent properties in this new build would have eliminated any dead space. The boulders separating the church parking lot from the roadway could be replaced by an elevated curb at roadside, thus facilitating lawn maintenance of Site 2 by removing the delineation between the private and public property.
Site 3 is the biggest obstacle to overcome. Giving a bit more property to the corner home would have been a partial solution. The rest could be addressed with more practical landscaping. However, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as maintenance-free landscaping.
Next time I’ll tell you about a project that turned orphaned spaces into community mobilization projects.