Masters thesis final report

This page is intentionally left blank

PLAZAS FOR PEOPLE Design Guidelines for Privately-owned Public Plazas in Urban Villages, San JosĂŠ

A Planning Report Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning

San JosĂŠ State University

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Urban Planning

By Bhavani Potharaju May 2015

This page is intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements This report represents the dreams and hopes of many people in my life. Firstly, I would like to thank my family in India, especially my father, who always encouraged my desire to pursue higher education. Special thanks to my sister, who stood by me through all my failures and achievements in my life. And, I would like to acknowledge and thank my parents-in-law for their unconditional love and support.

I would also like to thank my thesis guides, Prof. Asha Agrawal and Prof. Laurel Prevetti for being extremely encouraging. Their guidance has helped me pursue my research in the right direction and explore new avenues. I was able to produce this report only because of their support and guidance.

Lastly, I would like to thank the most important person in my life, my husband Kishore, for his immense support and encouragement through this journey. He is the strength behind my achievements, and I couldn’t have completed my Masters without his love and care.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction to the Research Project......................................................................1 1.1. Project Overview.......................................................................................................................................2 1.2. Relevance and Scope of the Research Project....................................................................................4 1.3. Overview of the Research Methodology...............................................................................................5 1.4. Overview of the Report Contents............................................................................................................7

2. Impact of Public Space on Social Interaction in a Community..............................9 2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................10 2.2. Impact of Public Spaces on Social Interaction....................................................................................10 2.3. Impact of Quality of Public Space on its Usage..................................................................................11 2.4. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................13

3. Study of Design Elements that Enhance the Use of Public Space....................15 3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................16 3.2. Size.............................................................................................................................................................16 3.3. Distance between the Public Space and Buildings............................................................................17 3.4. Seating......................................................................................................................................................18 3.5. Water Features.........................................................................................................................................18 3.6. Shade and Sunlight.................................................................................................................................19 3.7. Elevation...................................................................................................................................................19 3.8. Greenery...................................................................................................................................................19 3.9. Food Vendors and Public Art.................................................................................................................19 3.10. Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José...........................20

4. Review of Existing Plaza Design Guidelines from Other Cities..........................21 4.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................22 4.2. Size and Shape.........................................................................................................................................22 4.3. Location....................................................................................................................................................23 4.4. Accessibility..............................................................................................................................................23 4.5. Visibility......................................................................................................................................................23 4.6. Seating......................................................................................................................................................24 4.7. Sun and Wind...........................................................................................................................................25 4.8. Sidewalk Frontage and Building Frontage............................................................................................25 4.9. Lighting......................................................................................................................................................25 4.10. Materials..................................................................................................................................................26 4.11. Landscape and Trees............................................................................................................................26 4.12. Retail Space, Cafés, and Restaurants.................................................................................................26 4.13. Water Features and Public Art.............................................................................................................26

4.14. Bike Racks...............................................................................................................................................27 4.15. Additional Amenities.............................................................................................................................27 4.16. Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José...........................27

5. Site Study of Existing Plazas in the Bay Area........................................................ 29 5.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................30 5.2. Union Square, San Francisco..................................................................................................................31 5.3. Levi’s Plaza, San Francisco.....................................................................................................................32 5.4. Yerba Buena Gardens, San Francisco..................................................................................................33 5.5. Portsmouth Square Plaza, San Francisco..............................................................................................35 5.6. Mechanics Plaza, San Francisco............................................................................................................36 5.7. UN Plaza, San Francisco..........................................................................................................................36 5.8. 4 Maritime Plaza, San Francisco.............................................................................................................37 5.9. Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland...........................................................................................................37 5.10. Lafayette Square, Oakland..................................................................................................................38 5.11. Oakland City Center, Oakland............................................................................................................38 5.12. Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José...........................40

6. Review of Existing Design Guidelines in San José................................................. 43 6.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................44 6.2. Precedent Study......................................................................................................................................44 6.3. Suggestions from City Planners and Urban Designers.........................................................................50 6.4. Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José.............................50

7. Conclusion and Recommended Guidelines for Plaza Design............................. 53 7.1. Research Findings and Limitations.........................................................................................................54 7.2. Recommended Design Guidelines for Privately-Owned Public Plazas in Urban Villages, San José.....................................................................................................................55

8. Appendix A- Detail Review of Existing Design Guidelines for Six Cities........... 59 9. Appendix B- Site Study of Public Plazas and Observations................................ 64 10. Appendix C- Interview Questions and Responses................................................... 69 11. Appendix D- Summary of Research Findings........................................................... 73 12. Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 78 13. Cover Images Reference...............................................................................................80

List of Figures Figure 1 Map of Union Square, San Francisco...................................................................................................31 Figure 2 View Showing People in the Café........................................................................................................31 Figure 3 Steps in the Plaza Used as Seating.......................................................................................................31 Figure 4 Map of Levi’s Plaza, San Francisco......................................................................................................32 Figure 5 Levi’s Plaza During Weekday................................................................................................................32 Figure 6 Levi’s Plaza During a Weekend............................................................................................................33 Figure 7 Green Landscape Used as Seating.....................................................................................................33 Figure 8 Informal Seating Integrated with Landscape Design........................................................................33 Figure 9 Map of Yerba Buena Gardens, San Francisco...................................................................................34 Figure 10 Kids Playing in the Water.......................................................................................................................34 Figure 11 Map of Portsmouth Plaza, San Francisco............................................................................................35 Figure 12 People Playing Cards in the Plaza........................................................................................................35 Figure 13 Crates Converted as Chairs and Cardboard Boxes as Tables.........................................................35 Figure 14 Residents Performing Cultural Dance in the Plaza.............................................................................35 Figure 15 Mechanics Plaza as Shown in an Online Article.................................................................................36 Figure 16 Mechanics Plaza During the Site Visit..................................................................................................36 Figure 17 UN Plaza on a Weekend........................................................................................................................37 Figure 18 UN Plaza on a Wednesday...................................................................................................................37 Figure 19 Maritime Plaza........................................................................................................................................37 Figure 20 Map of Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland..............................................................................................37 Figure 21 Fixed Seating Arrangement is Disconnected from Each Other........................................................38 Figure 22 The Seating within the Plaza is Confined in Boxes..............................................................................38 Figure 23 Open Air Theatre is used as Additional Seating.................................................................................38 Figure 24 Sheltered Area in the Plaza...................................................................................................................39 Figure 25 Seating Integrated with Activities.........................................................................................................39 Figure 26 Paseo through Oakland City Center...................................................................................................39 Figure 27 Oakland City Center at 1.00 pm..........................................................................................................39 Figure 28 Oakland City Center at 11.00 am........................................................................................................39

This page is intentionally left blank

1

Chapter 1

1.1 Project Overview San José is the largest city in Northern California and the 10th largest city in the United States.1 It is located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. San José was primarily an agricultural community prior to 1950 and it experienced rapid growth in population in the 1960’s and 70’s. With a population of nearly one million in 2011, the population in San José is anticipated to grow up to 1.3 million by 2040.2

oo Overview of Envision San José 2040 General Plan The current General Plan of the City of San José is called Envision San José 2040, which the elected council adopted in 2011. The document is a comprehensive framework to address the needs of the estimated population growth by the year 2040. The General Plan guides the land use, transportation investments, and the overall development of the City. It sets forth a set of policies and goals for the land use, housing, jobs, and transportation facilities required in order to cater to the anticipated increase in population. All the other specific plans, area plans, community plan, zoning, land subdivision, or public works projects must comply with the General Plan.3 In order to cater to the demand of housing and jobs that will accompany the population growth, the City of San José incorporated twelve major strategies in Envision San José 2040.4 o Strategy #1: Community Based Planning o Strategy #2: Form Based Plan

o Strategy #3: Focused Growth

o Strategy #4: Innovation/Regional Employment Center o Strategy #5: Urban Villages

o Strategy #6: Streetscapes for People

o Strategy #7: Measurable Sustainability/Environmental Stewardship o Strategy #8: Fiscally Strong City

o Strategy #9: Destination Downtown

o Strategy #10: Life Amidst Abundant Natural Resources o Strategy #11: Design for a Healthful Community o Strategy #12: Phasing and Periodic Review

This research project focusses on strategy# 5, which is the Urban Villages.

oo Overview of Urban Villages The Urban Villages is one of the twelve strategies that could primarily achieve the required number of housing and jobs in the city. The City of San José has designated 70 locations to build mixed-use environmentally-friendly transit-oriented developments, which will promote walkability, bike-ability, and cater to the housing and job requirements for the predicted population growth in San José by the year 2040.5 As explained in the Envision 2040 General Plan, there are three types of Urban Villages:

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “San José History,” accessed September 22, 2014, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=126.

2 City of San José, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (2011), accessed September 22, 2014, http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474, chapter 1, 59.

3 Ibid., 4.

4 Ibid., 14.

5 Ibid., 19.

1

Chapter 1

2

Transit Urban Village – Transit Urban Villages will be located in communities close to transit facilities like light rail or bus rapid transit or caltrain stations. Transit Urban Villages are intended to be developed as complete communities, which includes being able to live, work, and entertain in a community. The City plans to promote high density development in these locations along with a balanced mix of jobs and housing, which will support the use of local transit system.6 Commercial Center Urban Village – The Urban Village sites which show potential redevelopment of existing commercial corridors are primarily designated as Commercial Center Urban Villages. These sites are intended to be developed as complete destinations, which includes serving a larger population with variety of high density housing, employment and other public services like shopping centers, public spaces, etc.7 Neighborhood-oriented Urban Village – These sites are “a mix of uses, including retail, food markets, offices, public services, housing, places of worship, public parks, and plazas, within or adjacent to existing or emerging neighborhoods. Neighborhood-oriented Urban Villages are distributed throughout the city to ensure that every resident in San José can enjoy a vibrant urban setting at walking distance from their homes.”8 The City has planned to develop the Urban Villages in phases called Horizons. The 70 locations are divided into Horizon I, Horizon II, and Horizon III. The Horizons are determined by “giving priority to planning for new growth in the Downtown, connecting transit corridors (Santa Clara, San Carlos, Alum Rock, Stevens Creek and The Alameda), BART station areas and North San José.”9 Currently, the City has five approved Urban Village plans- three in Horizon I, one each in Horizon II and III.10 Additionally, there are eight draft Urban Villages plans under progress.11

oo General Plan Policies and Social Interaction In order to achieve vibrant urban neighborhoods in San José, the City has proposed community design policies within the General Plan. The community design policies will help “to create great places, to enhance livability, to improve the quality of life in San José, and to make the city more attractive to residents, businesses, and visitors.”12 The policies address various design aspects of a city, for example, “attractiveness; function; connections; compatibility; community health, safety, and wellness; building height; access to scenic resources; attractive gateways; and scenic corridor diagrams.”13 Additionally, the City proposes specific policies for Downtown and Urban Villages due to their unique nature.

The policy that led to this research project is City Design (CD) policy number 2.4, which states that: “CD-2.4 Incorporate public spaces (squares, plazas, etc.) into private developments to en Ibid.

City of San José, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (2011), accessed September 22, 2014, http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474, chapter 1, 19.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., 60.

10 City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Approved Urban Village Plans,” accessed February 20, 2014, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1738.

11 City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Urban Village Plans under Development,” accessed February 20, 2014, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1738.

12 City of San Jose, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan,” 2011, accessed September 22, 2014, http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474, chapter 4, 11.

13 Ibid.

6 7

3

Chapter 1

courage social interaction, particularly where such spaces promote symbiotic relationships between businesses, residents, and visitors.”14 This research project identifies and evaluates the elements of successful public spaces and proposes design guidelines to accomplish the above policy. The specific research question that the author seeks to answer is: What design guidelines should the City of San José adopt for privately-owned public plazas in the proposed Urban Villages in order to achieve the desired social interaction mentioned in Envision San José 2040 General Plan?

Since there are many types of public spaces, the research focuses on public plazas in particular, and proposes design guidelines for public plazas owned by private land owners to encourage social interaction in the community. The proposed design guidelines are intended to help create vibrant gathering spaces for the community, and also to give design direction to private owners in the interest of building successful public plazas for the communities around Urban Villages.

oo Definitions of Some Key Terms Used Design Guidelines: Design guidelines are a set of instructions that can be followed while designing privately-owned public plazas. The guidelines in this project will refer to various features such as setbacks, size, accessibility, design features, and seating specifications.

Privately-Owned Public Plazas: Privately-owned public plazas are open to public use but are owned and managed by private owners or developers of the property. In many cities, the developer is incentivized by allowing higher density in exchange for building public spaces. The City of San José provides density bonus in exchange for affordable housing, however, incentives in exchange of public spaces are not provided. Further research needs to be done regarding this aspect and it is beyond the scope of this project.

Social Interaction: Social interaction can be categorized as two types namely, active and passive social interaction. Active social interaction means communicating and mingling with neighbors, friends, family, and people living or working within the community. Passive social interaction means being an audience to active social interaction. In this project social interaction refers to both active and passive social interaction. It implies that the community uses the privately-owned public plaza as a platform to communicate and mingle with one another, and/or share the public space with no direct interaction with other community members.

Community: A community represents a group of people living in a locality sharing common public amenities like parks, shops, cafés, etc. In this project community refers to people living, working, eating, shopping, and seeking entertainment within the specific Urban Villages, which means that everybody sharing the public space in the Urban Village is part of the community.

1.2 Relevance and Scope of the Research Project The perception of public space has transformed over the years. Historically, public space was considered as a location for “civic participation, and democratic debate.”15 With the rise of the industrial revolution, plazas were considered as design displays as seen in the “City Beautiful Movement,” during which plan Ibid., 16.

Jurgen Habermas, “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society,” (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989), quoted in Carl Grodach, “Art Spaces, Public Space, and the Link to Community Development,” Community Development Journal 45, no. 4 (2010): 474-493.

14 15

Chapter 1

4

ners created order and structure in the public spaces through design.16 This approach was firmly opposed

by Jane Jacobs, the famed author of “Death and Life of Great American Cities,” who advocated that public spaces are about chaos and order in disorder.17 According to Jacobs, public spaces are outdoor spaces like “cafes, retail, bazaar, plazas, streets and, pedestrian paths with free access to public.”18 She believed that public places come to life when used by people and it is “disruptive to bring order to the movement of people.”19 This theory of Jane Jacobs gained acceptance over a period of time, and is a widely acknowledged perception of public spaces today.

This research report primarily focuses on providing design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas in San José Urban Villages. The Urban Villages was specifically chosen because the City has proposed to develop them in 70 locations, which provides an opportunity to build active public spaces in 70 locations spread across San José. The intention of Urban Villages is to build self-sustaining communities with housing, jobs, entertainment, shopping centers, etc. within close proximity to public transportation such that people live at walkable or bikeable distances to their daily needs. Incorporating public plazas to this design will further aid in creating holistic communities in San José which will promote well-being and better quality of life.20 As said by John M. Levy, open spaces serve as “ventilators for cities and allows the city to breathe.”21 Building public plazas in the Urban Villages can help create such breathing spaces in a city that is rapidly growing.

The project is also consistent with the vision of Envision San José 2040 General Plan, which is, creating environmentally sustainable, vibrant, and healthy neighborhoods.22 One of the most crucial steps taken by the City to achieve this vision is by implementation of Urban Villages; and incorporating public plazas in these Urban Villages can be a significant step in fulfilling the vision. Other steps that can be taken to fulfill the General Plan’s vision are by proposing design guidelines for parks, pedestrian walkways, streetscape, and/or the transit stops within the Urban Village.

Furthermore, the City of San José can take action to make policy changes such that developers in Urban Villages are incentivized with density bonus in exchange of providing dynamic public spaces. Such incentives will encourage developers to help translate the vision of General Plan into reality.

Additionally, the scope of plaza design guidelines in Urban Villages can be modified to be implemented throughout the City. The purpose of this project is not limited to this thesis report, and the author hopes that this research paper can contribute to building well integrated and vibrant communities in San José through its implementation in Urban Villages.

1.3 Overview of the Research Methodology The purpose of this study is to understand the design guidelines that the City of San José should adopt for privately-owned public plazas in their Urban Villages in order to enhance social interaction. To achieve this purpose, the study methodology focuses on answering three important questions: Ibid.

Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, (New York: Random House, 1961).

18 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, (New York: Random House, 1961), quoted in Achmad Delianur Nasution, and Wahyuni Zahrah, “Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 0 (2012): 466-475.

19 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, (New York: Random House, 1961).

20 City of San José, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (2011), accessed February 23, 2014, http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474.

21 John M. Levy, Contemporary urban planning, 7th ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2006), 32.

22 City of San José, Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (2011), accessed February 23, 2014, http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474.

16 17

5

Chapter 1

o What design elements enhance social interaction?

o What are the examples of good design guidelines for public plazas? o How to write design guidelines for San José Urban Villages?

oo Step 1: What design elements enhance social interaction?

Methodology 1: Literature review Overview: Literature review of books and peer reviewed articles was conducted to primarily answer two questions: o How public spaces influence social interaction; and o What design elements enhance social interaction?

The information gathered from 19 peer reviewed articles, 10 journal articles, helped establish the importance of public plazas in creating social interaction amongst community members and the information from “City: Rediscovering the center” book by William Whyte helped identify and understand the design elements that enhance social interaction. The results from this method are described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this research report. The conclusions from the literature review helped in proposing design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas in Urban Villages for San José.

oo Step 2: What are the examples of good design guidelines for public plazas?

Methodology 2: Review existing design guidelines Overview: This step included the review and evaluation of design guidelines for public spaces from six cities located in both Unites States and abroad (New York; San Francisco; Vancouver; Santa Ana; Roseville; and Concord). The primary focus was to understand the design standards used by different cities for their plaza design. The information gathered by this method helped to derive a list of design elements that are important to create successful public spaces. The review of these guidelines are described in Chapter 4 of this research report.

Methodology 3: Site Study Overview: A site study of ten plazas located in the San Francisco Bay Area was conducted for this research paper. To understand the usage of plazas by people in the Bay Area, activities in each site were observed and recorded. The duration of site observation was one hour and the behavior of people and patterns of plaza usage were noted. The primary focus of site observations was with respect to seating, most frequently used spaces, effect of sun and shadow, impact of water features or public art, and the most common activities in the plaza. The information gathered is described in Chapter 5 of this thesis report.

oo Step 3: How to write design guidelines for San José Urban Villages?

Methodology 4: Understanding San José city context Overview: This method included the review and analysis of documents for Urban Villages in San José, and other design guidelines published by City of San José to understand the design context and existing design direction of San José. The list of design documents reviewed are: Downtown Design Guidelines, North San José Design Guidelines, Future of Downtown San José by SPUR, Getting to Great Places by SPUR, and South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan. The process also included interviewing San José city planners and

Chapter 1

6

urban designers about needs of community members with regards to public spaces and design elements that are crucial for success of plaza design in San José. The results from this methodology are described in Chapter 6 of this research report.

1.4 Overview of the Report Contents This report totally contains 7 chapters. The remaining chapters are organized as follows.

Chapter 2 discusses the impact of public spaces on social interaction in a community. This chapter helps establish the importance of public spaces in a community and more importantly the influence of well-designed good quality public spaces in a community.

Chapter 3 reviews design elements to that enhance social interaction in public spaces. The findings of the literature review helped identify a list of design elements that help create successful public spaces.

Chapter 4 analyzes design guidelines from six cities located in United States and abroad. The focus of the chapter is to understand design standards in different cities and the conclusion of the chapter provides the most important design elements that ensure successful public spaces.

Chapter 5 summarizes the observations from site visits done in the San Francisco Bay Area. The observations provides an idea of plaza usage pattern in the Bay Area, which in turn helped in proposing the final design guidelines for privately-owned public plaza in San José.

Chapter 6 reviews and evaluates existing design guidelines in San José. The chapter helps in understanding the design direction of the City and also helps in learning about the approach towards public spaces in different parts of the City. This chapter also includes the suggestions of city planner and urban designers for proposing plaza design guidelines in San José Urban Villages.

Chapter 7 includes the conclusion and identifies the limitations of this research project. Further, it summarizes the findings from chapter 3 to 6 and provides a set of design guidelines that will help build vibrant public spaces within the Urban Villages in San José.

7

Chapter 1

This page is intentionally left blank

8

9

Chapter 2

2.1 Introduction A substantial amount of research has been done to establish the relationship between public spaces and social interaction. Cattell et al. found that “a wide range of everyday public spaces were perceived as having a positive influence on both individual well-being and community life.”23 In another research, the relationship of public space with the surrounding buildings largely influenced social interaction between the residents, where social interaction reduced with increase in distance.24 The importance and influence of public spaces in a community has been widely researched and it can be said that their presence has “a positive influence on both well-being and community life.”25 Public spaces can have many positive impacts on communities. The presence of gathering spaces in a community provides a platform for people to interact and be involved in activities apart from their daily routine. These social interactions can enable people in having an active life as well as add vibrancy to the community. In addition to enhancing community life, public spaces are also an important contributor to the fabric of a city. The quality and design of a space adds visual appeal to the neighborhood along with attracting people. This chapter further discusses the impact of public spaces on social interaction and the impact of quality of public spaces on its usage.

2.2 Impact of Public Spaces on Social Interaction Public spaces, in general, largely influence many factors in a community such as well-being, sense of community, physical fitness, and social interaction. For the purpose of this research project, the literature review is specifically aimed at the impact of public plazas on social interaction in a community. Due to the lack of availability of literature specifically on public plazas, articles that address the broader context of public spaces were reviewed. The broader topic of public spaces includes plazas, parks, streets, and outdoor spaces. The intention is to understand how such spaces influences social interaction in a community.

In general, the literature is in agreement that public plazas enhance social interaction. According to a research conducted by Cattell et al., the researchers concluded that public spaces have a positive influence on community and residents use the spaces for either social interaction or as an escape from their mundane routines.26 The two types of uses can be interpreted as active social interaction and passive social interaction, where active social interaction is using the space to meet and interact, and passive social interaction represents being an audience to active social interaction and use of the space as an escape from their daily routines.

Another research by Orum et al. also concluded that public spaces primarily act as a platform for meeting, socializing, and exchanging ideas.27 Similarly, a study conducted by Rasidi et al. found that the presence of neighborhood green spaces provides a platform for social interaction in a community.28 Cattell’s research was conducted with a 60% Black and minority group neighborhood in London. Orum’s research Vicky Cattell, Nick Dines, Wil Gesler, and Sarah Curtis, “Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations,” Health & Place 14, no. 3 (2008): 544-561.

24 Wei Zhang, and Gillian Lawson, “Meeting and Greeting: Activities in Public Outdoor Spaces Outside High-Density Urban Residential Communities,” Urban Design International 14, no. 4 (2009): 207-214.

25 Vicky Cattell, Nick Dines, Wil Gesler, and Sarah Curtis, “Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations,” Health & Place 14, no. 3 (2008): 544-561.

26 Ibid.

27 Anthony M. Orum, Sidney Bata, Li Shumei, Tang Jiewei, Sang Yang, and Nguyen Thanh Trung, “Public Man and Public Space in Shanghai Today,” City & Community 8, no. 4 (2009): 369-389.

28 Mohd. Hisyam Rasidi, Nurzuliza Jamirsah, and Ismail Said, “Urban Green Space Design Affects Urban Residents’ Social Interaction,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68, no. 0 (2012): 464-480.

23

Chapter 2

10

was conducted in Shanghai and Rasidi’s research in Malaysia with residents of a new township. The location and background of all three studies are completely different, yet they yielded similar results. Based on this it can be said that the results are generalizable and that the presence of public spaces does impact social interaction in a community.

2.3 Impact of Quality of Public Space on its Usage The literature study also revealed that the quality of the public space influences the community in many aspects. The biggest impact of high quality public space is that it increases the usage of the public space.

Other impacts observed are with respect to social interaction, increased sense of community, higher quality of life, and high level of satisfaction in their neighborhood. The following sections will analyze each of the factors in detail.

oo High Quality Public Space Results in Higher Usage It is believed that high quality of public spaces influences the use of the space and activities that occur in the space.29 The finding of a study conducted by Zacharias et al. state that visually attractive plazas encouraged more people to visit the plaza.30 This finding is supported by Sugiyama et al. and Giles-Corti et al. The results of research done by Sugiyama et al. in Perth, Australia showed that people walked frequently to neighborhood open spaces that are more attractive when compared to less attractive neighborhood open spaces.31 Giles-Corti and his partner’s study in Perth Australia showed that people visited the attractive public open space more frequently than the less attractive public spaces.32 Additionally, according to a research conducted by Pasaogullari and Doratli, 94% of the residents agreed that physical and functional attractiveness affects utilization of the public space.33 The study also found 100% of the residents agreed that maintenance, cleanliness, and quality of the space affects utilization of the public space.34 Similar results were seen in a study done by Nasution and Zahrah as well, where the users preferred walking in the well-maintained, well-lit plaza when compared to a poorly managed plaza, especially during the night time.35 Both of the studies were conducted by a random sampling of plazas users and questionnaire survey. Nasution and Zahrah’s research included face to face interviews as well. The findings are generalizable because people are attracted to well-maintained and attractive spaces and we can conclude that high quality and good maintenance of public spaces directly impacts its usage.

Achmad Delianur Nasution, and Wahyuni Zahrah, “Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 0 (2012): 466-475.

30 John Zacharias, Ted Stathopoulos, and Hanqing Wu, “Spatial Behavior in San Francisco’s Plazas,” Environment & Behavior 36, no. 5 (2004): 638-658.

31 Takemi Sugiyama, Jacinta Francis, Nicholas J. Middleton, Neville Owen, and Billie Giles-Corti, “Associations between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and Proximity of Neighborhood Open Spaces,” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 9 (2010): 1752-1757.

32 Billie Giles-Corti, Melissa H. Broomhall, Matthew Knuiman, Catherine Collins, Kate Douglas, Kevin Ng, Andrea Lange, and Robert J. Donovan, “Increasing Walking: How Important is Distance to, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?” American journal of preventive medicine 28, no. 2 (2005): 169-176.

33 Nil Pasaogullari, and Naciye Doratli, “Measuring Accessibility and Utilization of Public Spaces in Famagusta,” Cities 21, no. 3 (2004): 225-232.

34 Ibid.

35 Achmad Delianur Nasution, and Wahyuni Zahrah, “Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 0 (2012): 466-475.

29

11

Chapter 2

oo High Quality Public Spaces Results in High Level of Satisfaction in their Neighborhood In general, it is observed that due to the presence of high quality public spaces the residents in that community experienced high level of satisfaction. In a research conducted by Lofti and Koohsari, they studied two neighborhoods in Tehran. The results suggested that neighborhood A has 87% general satisfaction of the neighborhood due to the presence of good quality public spaces, even though 45% of the residents felt the number of public spaces is insufficient.36 However, neighborhood B has 23% general satisfaction of the neighborhood due to the lack of good quality public spaces, even though only 7% of the residents felt the number of public spaces is insufficient.37 These results are supported by research conducted by Ambrey and Fleming, and by Helen Beck. Beck’s study represents a large number of people, as it includes data from 34 national datasets. The findings of the research are that the “quality of public space impacts people’s perception of where they live, their satisfaction with housing and their feeling of attachment to a particular place.”38 Similarly, Ambrey and Fleming found that the percentage of public green space available in the neighborhood showed higher level of life satisfaction.39

oo High Quality of Public Space Results in High Quality of Life Quality of life in a neighborhood is becoming a much discussed topic in recent times. Planners want to enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods along with planning for the residents. It was found during the literature study that high quality of public life can contribute to higher quality of life in a neighborhood. According to a study conducted by Das in Guwahati, India, presence of parks and green spaces significantly affected the quality of life of people.40 Beck’s study states that maintenance and safety of public space directly impacts quality of life.41 The location and context of both studies are contrasting in nature. Beck’s study was conducted in UK and Das’s study in India. This can be interpreted as high quality of public spaces results in high quality of life irrespective of geographical location. However, there is an ambiguity in the definition of quality of life, which needs to be established before making conclusions.

oo High Quality Public Spaces Increases Social Interaction in a Community As seen in section 2.2 of this chapter, the presence of public spaces significantly impacts social interaction in a community. In this section, the literature study focuses on the impact of quality of public space on social interaction in a community. Two research articles in the literature review emphasized on the influence of quality of public space on social interaction. According to a research conducted by Dempsey, good quality built environment encourages socially cohesive behavior.42 In another research conducted

by Farida, the quality of the common space effected social interaction in the neighborhood. It was observed that lack of seating, furniture, shaded place, and things to do discouraged people from using the outdoor spaces and impacted the opportunity for social interaction in the community.43 Sedigheh Lotfi, and M. Koohsari, “Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place,” Social Indicators Research 94, no. 3 (2009): 417-435.

37 Ibid.

38 Helen Beck, “Linking the Quality of Public Spaces to Quality of Life,” Journal of Place Management and Development 2, no. 3 (2009): 240-248.

39 Christopher Ambrey, and Christopher Fleming, “Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia,” Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.) 51, no. 6 (2014): 1290-1321.

40 Daisy Das, “Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati,” Social Indicators Research 88, no. 2 (2008): 297-310.

41 Helen Beck, “Linking the Quality of Public Spaces to Quality of Life,” Journal of Place Management and Development 2, no. 3 (2009): 240-248.

42 Nicola Dempsey, “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?” TPR: Town Planning Review 80, no. 3 (2009).

43 Naceur Farida, “Effects of Outdoor Shared Spaces on Social Interaction in a Housing Estate in Algeria,” Frontiers of Architectural Research 2, no. 4 (2013): 457-467.

36

Chapter 2

12

2.4  Conclusion In conclusion, quality of public space impacts the community in many ways. The biggest influence is that it increase the usage of the public space. People like to visit good quality public spaces more frequently that the poor quality public spaces. The quality of public space also has a significant impact on quality of life and level of satisfaction in the neighborhood. Poor quality spaces also often leads to dead spaces, which eventually become a breeding ground for unsafe activities. Therefore, providing good quality public spaces is as important as providing public spaces in a community.

Moving forward the chapters in this report will identify design elements for a plaza design. Literature review, site study, and interviews conducted help in identifying the design elements that could result in designing good quality public spaces in San JosĂŠ and attract more people to use them.

13

Chapter 2

This page is intentionally left blank

14

15

Chapter 3

3.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2, quality of the public space plays an important role in its usage. This chapter reviews and evaluates articles and books that discuss design elements which help in creating good quality public plazas. Well-designed public spaces can influence its usage and the community. From research conducted by Hajmirsadeghi, the presence of certain design elements like seating, aesthetics, safety, etc. in a public square has behavioral and psychological effects on social interaction in the square.44 Additionally, William Whyte’s findings state that people tend to gather and speak next to objects like seats, sculptures, fountains, etc. This result is supported by a study done by Mehta. He observed during his research that “more than 90% of the 13,000 people observed carried out most of their stationary and social activities on or near some physical artifact, such as furniture on the sidewalk, building walls, show-windows, steps, fences, gates, benches, tables and chairs, planters, advertisement signs on the sidewalk, magazine and newspaper dispensing boxes, bicycle stands, trashcans, light poles, sign posts, tree trunks, railings, fire hydrants, electrical panel boxes, mailboxes, parking meters, vehicles parked near the sidewalk, and so on.”45 In both the studies mentioned above, the researchers conducted site observations and documented the behavior of people.

It has been established by many researchers that the design elements in a plaza can influence the way people use the plaza space. The design elements reviewed in this chapter are primarily guided by William Whyte’s study. He conducted these observations in the plazas and three public parks in New York.46 He used time lapse photographs and site observations to examine peoples’ behavior and the way they use the plazas. The findings from Whyte’s research was eventually adopted by the City of New York as design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas. Following are some of the design elements for public plazas from Whyte’s research:

3.2 Size Whyte’s research revealed that the size and location of the plaza does not influence its usage.47 Similar results were observed in a research done by Zhang and Lawson, which stated that size and location of the outdoor spaces does not impact the usage.48 Whyte’s study was conducted in New York which has different social, and cultural settings, however, the results can be compared to findings from Zhang and Lawson because their research was conducted in high density residential apartments in Brisbane. The findings from these two studies can be generalizable for high density, metropolitan cities.

Contradictory results were found in a research done by Abdulkarim and Nasar, which showed that larger plazas attracted more visitors than smaller plazas.49 Giles-Corti et al. also found similar results, which stated that the size of the public open space encourages more usage when compared to attractiveness.50 Both these studies had respondent sampling that doesn’t represent general public. Abdulkarim and Nasar’s Reihaneh Sadat Hajmirsadeghi, Shuhana Shamsuddin, and Amir Foroughi, “The Relationship between Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of Design Factors and Social Interaction in Public Squares,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 140, no. 0 (2014): 98-102.

45 Vikas Mehta, “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets,” Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 29-64.

46 William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the center (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

47 Ibid.

48 Wei Zhang, and Gillian Lawson, “Meeting and Greeting: Activities in Public Outdoor Spaces Outside High-Density Urban Residential Communities,” Urban Design International 14, no. 4 (2009): 207-214.

49 Dina Abdulkarim, and Jack L. Nasar, “Do Seats, Food Vendors, and Sculptures Improve Plaza Visitability?” Environment & Behavior 46, no. 7 (2014): 805-825.

50 Billie Giles-Corti, Melissa H. Broomhall, Matthew Knuiman, Catherine Collins, Kate Douglas, Kevin Ng, Andrea Lange, and Robert J. Donovan, “Increasing Walking: How Important is Distance to, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?” American journal of preventive medicine 28, no. 2 (2005): 169-176.

44

Chapter 3

16

research sample mostly consisted of students, and majority of the research sample from Giles-Corti et al. consisted of women. The sampling can explain the contradictory results in both the studies. Students might like to visit larger plazas which can accommodate their large group of friends, and on the contrary, the size of the plaza might not matter to general public, which is represented in the findings from research conducted by Whyte and, Zhang and Lawson. Similarly, the sampling for Giles-Corti et al. might be heavily influenced by opinion of women. Hence, these results are not generalizable.

3.3 Distance between the Public Space and Buildings William Whyte’s research did not specifically measure the impact of distance from the public space on usage. He did mention in his book, “City: Rediscovering the Center,” that the respondents in his research would visit the plaza during their lunch time.51 The proximity of the plaza to their office might be the prime factor for people to visit the plaza during their break time. There are many other studies that address the topic of proximity to public plazas. A research conducted by Giles-Corti et al. found that “proximity to public open space encourages higher usage,”52 and Sugiyama’s study found that people walked frequently to neighborhood open space that is located closer to home.53 A study conducted by Krellenberg et al. revealed that Chilean residents from 70% of the households travelled up to 900 meters to visit the green space of their choice and some people travelled farther than 900 meters.54 In addition, a research done by Das found that availability of public open space within 1 kilometer distance from the residence significantly improved quality of life.55 Krellenberg and her partner’s study was conducted in a diverse socio economic neighborhood, whereas, Das study was done in India, which has a completely different cultural context. The context of both the studies are very different from one another hence the exact distance from the public space can not be generalized. The ideal distance of a public space from residences needs to be determined with further research, however, it is clear that proximity to public spaces has a positive influence on usage of the public space.

Additionally, it is observed that social interaction in a community decreases with increase in distance from the public space. In a study conducted by Zhang and Lawson, they concluded that distance between outdoor space and residential building directly affects the social activity in the community. In residential buildings located closer to public spaces, more social interaction was observed.56 In another research conducted by Hipp et al., social interaction in a community reduced with an increase in distance from the park.57 The results, however, are not generalizable. Research by Zhang and Lawson specifically studied a high density residential neighborhood and research by Hipp et al. focused only in suburbs. Theoretically, the influence of distance from public plazas on social interaction is generalizable; nonetheless, further research needs to be done to substantiate this factor in an urban setting.

William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the center (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

Billie Giles-Corti, Melissa H. Broomhall, Matthew Knuiman, Catherine Collins, Kate Douglas, Kevin Ng, Andrea Lange, and Robert J. Donovan, “Increasing Walking: How Important is Distance to, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?” American journal of preventive medicine 28, no. 2 (2005): 169-176.

53 Takemi Sugiyama, Jacinta Francis, Nicholas J. Middleton, Neville Owen, and Billie Giles-Corti, “Associations between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and Proximity of Neighborhood Open Spaces,” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 9 (2010): 1752-1757.

54 Kerstin Krellenberg, Juliane Welz, and Sonia Reyes-Päcke, “Urban Green Areas and their Potential for Social Interaction – A Case Study of a Socio-Economically Mixed Neighborhood in Santiago de Chile,” Habitat International 44, no. 0 (2014): 11-21.

55 Daisy Das, “Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati,” Social Indicators Research 88, no. 2 (2008): 297-310.

56 Wei Zhang, and Gillian Lawson, “Meeting and Greeting: Activities in Public Outdoor Spaces Outside High-Density Urban Residential Communities,” Urban Design International 14, no. 4 (2009): 207-214.

57 John R. Hipp, Jonathan Corcoran, Rebecca Wickes, and Tiebei Li, “Examining the Social Porosity of Environmental Features on Neighborhood Sociability and Attachment,” PLoS ONE 9, no. 1(2014): 1-13.

51 52

17

Chapter 3

3.4 Seating William Whyte studied seating and its patterns of usage in his research. He found that “people tend to sit where there are places to sit.”58 He observed that design features like parapets, ledges, and steps also act as seating along with chairs and benches. Further, people found moveable chairs as the most desirable seating option. It allowed people to personalize their space, move into sun light, move into shade, and move away from a crowd or to join a group of people. Also, his findings showed that benches are not the most desirable spaces to sit.59 Seating was found as an integral part of public space in many studies. According to Abdulkarim and Nasar’s study, plazas with the presence of seats, food or sculpture had higher score for visitability.60 Observations made by Mehta in his research also resulted in similar findings. Mehta studied 19 blocks in Massachusetts, which revealed that seating on a street enhances liveliness. Of the 19 blocks chosen for field observations, “six liveliest block-segments had either fixed benches provided by a public agency, or movable chairs provided by private stores.”61 Interestingly both of these studies were conducted close to major universities. The sampling in both cases might be influenced by students due to their close proximity to the sites of observation. It is debatable whether the results are generalizable or not. However, considering that Whyte’s study observed 16 plazas and that their seating patterns were consistent gives credibility to this finding.

Another research conducted by Farida found that lack of seating, furniture, shaded place, and things to do discouraged people from using the outdoor spaces.62 The pictures in the report showed that the outdoor spaces were not specially designed to attract residents and they were just mere transition paths between buildings. Residents of the housing units recognized that lack of seating discouraged them from frequently visiting the outdoor space, which did imply the importance of seating. Therefore, ample amount of seating added to the public space encourages more people to visit frequently.

3.5 Water Features According to the research done by William Whyte, the presence of “water in the form of waterfalls, waterwalls, rapids, sluiceways, tranquil pools, meandering streams, water tunnels, etc. adds to the attractiveness of the plaza.”63 The only setback that Whyte found during his observations was that the water features were not accessible to people. Almost every time somebody put their hand or leg into the water, a security guard would restrict them from doing so.64 Whyte argues that, it is human tendency to touch water when we see it. Even though the restrictions are for safety reasons, Whyte feels that it will discourage people from coming to the plaza. He suggests that the architects and designers should think of methods to make the water feature safe and accessible, which will attract more public to the plaza.65 This design element if implemented well and maintained properly can potentially increase plaza users.

William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the center (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

Ibid.

60 Dina Abdulkarim, and Jack L. Nasar, “Do Seats, Food Vendors, and Sculptures Improve Plaza Visitability?” Environment & Behavior 46, no. 7 (2014): 805-825.

61 Vikas Mehta, “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets,” Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 29-64.

62 Naceur Farida, “Effects of Outdoor Shared Spaces on Social Interaction in a Housing Estate in Algeria,” Frontiers of Architectural Research 2, no. 4 (2013): 457-467.

63 William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the center (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

58 59

Chapter 3

18

3.6 Shade and Sunlight William Whyte’s study made observations that people like to visit the plaza on hot, sunny days, hence it is important to have some amount of direct sunlight into the plaza.66 It is to be kept in mind that the research was conducted in New York, and people might prefer direct sunlight because of the cold weather. According to a research done by Zacharias et al., less sunlight in the public plazas impacts its usage. Areas in the plaza with sun had “4.5 times as many people per unit area as shaded areas across the entire sample.”67 Contrary to these findings, Mehta’s study revealed that the requirement of shade and sunlight are almost equal and that people use them depending on seasons.68 The results found in this research are not generalizable since the climatic conditions of each location is different. Northern America is colder when compared to Southern America, hence the best solution would be to study and research local climate before implementing the shade and sunlight element in plaza design.

3.7 Elevation According to the research done by Whyte, “plazas that are sunken or elevated tend to attract less number of people.”69 This design element can also be linked to visibility of the plaza. Logically, people will not visit a plaza that they can not see. However, further research needs to be done to determine the factors that should be kept in mind regarding elevation of the plaza and determine the ideal height for sites where the elevation can not be avoided.

3.8 Greenery William Whyte observed in his time lapse photos that the presence of greenery in the plazas adds a soothing effect and people generally tend to use it to relax.70 He observed the green patch of grass acted as another seating area that people would use for picnic lunches, or lying down. Additional literature should be reviewed to substantiate the impact of greenery and its uses in a public plaza.

3.9 Food Vendors and Public Art Providing food vendors, shops and public art are an added attraction for people, and it gives them more things to do while at a plaza. According to Whyte’s research, food vendors and public art attracts more people to the plaza.71 The finding is supported by Abdulkarim and Nasar’s study as well as Mehta’s study.

As per Abdulkarim and Nasar’s research, plazas with the presence of seats, food or sculpture had higher score for visitability.72 Mehta’s study revealed that small businesses made the streets interesting and interactive.73 In both the researches, the study location is close to a university. It is possible that the sampling size contains more number of students. However, the status as a student does not really matter with regards to food and hence the result is generalizable.

Ibid.

John Zacharias, Ted Stathopoulos, and Hanqing Wu, “Spatial Behavior in San Francisco’s Plazas,” Environment & Behavior 36, no. 5 (2004): 638-658.

68 Vikas Mehta, “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets,” Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 29-64.

69 William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the center (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 Dina Abdulkarim, and Jack L. Nasar, “Do Seats, Food Vendors, and Sculptures Improve Plaza Visitability?” Environment & Behavior 46, no. 7 (2014): 805-825.

73 Vikas Mehta, “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets,” Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 29-64.

66 67

19

Chapter 3

3.10  Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San JosÊ The above literature study evaluated 8 design elements and its impact on usage of public spaces. Design elements such as size and location, distance from public space, seating, water features, shade and sunlight, food vendors and public art play an influential role in attracting more people to the plaza. The findings of the chapter are shown in the table below.

Design Element

Findings

Size

Size of the plaza does not influence its usage.

Distance between the public space and buildings

Distance from the public space impacts its usage. Closer the public space to surrounding buildings, especially residential, higher the usage.

Seating

Presence of seating increases usage of public plaza. Provision of different types of seating like fixed benches, moveable chairs, steps, parapet, ledges etc. is advisable to attract more visitors to the plaza.

Water features

Presence of water features increases visitors to the plaza, however, it is important to not have any restrictions about touching the water.

Safety and accessibility of water feature significantly impacts number of visitors in a plaza.

Shade and sunlight

The requirement of shade and sunlight depends on the climate of the location.

Elevation

Plazas should preferable be visible at eye level to increase its usage.

Greenery

Presence of greenery tends to attract more people who want to relax or have a picnic. It also acts a type of seating.

Food vendors and public art

Presence of food vendors and public art increases visitors in a plaza.

Chapter 3

20

21

Chapter 4

4.1 Introduction As concluded in chapter 2 and 3, the quality of space and design elements plays an important role in attracting more users to the plaza. Providing design guidelines will help in setting a standard to the quality of public spaces in cities. This chapter reviews existing design guidelines from six cities. Initial idea was to review existing design guidelines from ten cities, however, there are very few cities which provide detailed design guidelines for plazas, and therefore six cities were finalized for the review. The documents reviewed are for the following cities: o Privately-owned Public Plaza Design Guidelines, City New York.

o Privately-owned Public Open Space Design Guidelines, City of San Francisco. o Plaza Design Guidelines, City of Vancouver.

o Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines, City of Santa Ana. o Community Design Guidelines, City of Roseville.

o Public Park and Plaza Standards, Penacook Village District, City of Concord.

The purpose of this review of existing design guidelines is to learn about the acceptable design standards in other cities. This understanding will help in forming a set of design criteria for San José and the conclusion in this chapter will provide guidance while writing design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas in Urban Villages, San José.

The study of existing design guidelines revealed a set of criteria that was frequently repeated in the cities.

The most common design elements suggested in the existing guidelines are: size and shade; location; accessibility; visibility; seating; sun and wind; sidewalk frontage and building frontage; lighting; materials; landscape and trees; additional amenities; and opportunity for activities. Amongst the above list of design elements, accessibility, seating, lighting, landscape, and additional amenities were frequently repeated than the others. Please refer to Appendix A to view the analysis table.

The following sub sections 4.2 through 4.15 will discuss in detail about the various criteria that has been considered for design guidelines in the six cities reviewed.

4.2 Size and Shape Size of the public plaza was mentioned only in two of the existing design guidelines that were reviewed and shape of the public plaza was emphasized in only one of them.

City of New York specifies that the “size of a public plaza should be a minimum of 2000 square feet.”74 On the contrary, the public open space design guidelines by City of San Francisco specifies that the size of a plaza should be at least 7000 square feet.75 These are the two studies that revealed design specifications for size of plaza. Design guidelines from other cities do not mention standards regarding size or shape of the plaza. The only other mention of size is made by City of Roseville, which states that the size of the plaza should support active use.76 Considering the contrary recommendations in the two existing guidelines, the size of the plaza cannot be concluded at this point. Further research needs to be done.

City of New York, Department of City Planning, “Current Public Plaza Standards,” accessed December 13, 2014, http://www. nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/plaza_standards.shtml.

75 City of San Francisco, Department of Planning, “Table 1- Guidelines for Downtown Open Space,” in Downtown Area Plan (San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Planning), 1985, accessed on September 8, 2014, http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/images/downtown/TABLE1.HTM, Table 1.

76 City of Roseville, Planning and Redevelopment Department, “Community Design Guidelines,” adopted 1995, amended 2008, accessed on December 13, 2014, https://www.roseville.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10720.

74

Chapter 4

22

Similarly, further research needs to be done to determine shape of the plaza. The only document that provided design guidelines for shape of the plaza was by City of New York, which mentioned that “the shape of the plaza should be regular and any irregular projections should not exceed 25% of the plaza size.”77

4.3 Location Similar to size, location was also not mentioned in all documents reviewed for this chapter. Only City of San Francisco and City of New York provide design guidelines for location of the plaza. They both mention that the plaza should not be located close to another plaza. City of New York specifies that a plaza “should not be located within 175 feet from another plaza.”78

4.4 Accessibility As concluded in the literature review, accessibility increases usage of the plaza. The review of existing design guidelines further revealed that there are different types of accessibility in a plaza: accessibility to public, availability to public, and handicap accessibility.

First, making the plaza easy to access for general public. City of New York plaza design guidelines states “the plaza should be at the same level as the sidewalk and minor changes should not exceed more than 2 feet.”79 Similarly, City of San Francisco states that the plaza should be either at the same level of the street or no more than 3 feet above or below the ground, with large steps connecting the plaza to the street.80 Second, availability to public. Design guidelines of San Francisco, Concord, and New York mention that plazas should be available to public at all times.81, 82, 83 This aspect of accessibility will be considered while writing design guidelines for public plazas in San José Urban Villages.

Lastly, providing accessibility to disabled. Design guidelines of City of Vancouver suggests that “a plaza should be accessible for the elderly, disabled and young children. They suggest that the materials, handrails, placement of planters, and non-moveable seating should be built such that it encourages easy wheelchair access and discourages use of skateboard. In addition, the ramp slopes should not be more that 8.3 percent.”84 City of Concord supports a similar view in their design guidelines. It states that “at least one path in the major portion of the plaza, one path to adjacent building lobby, and one path to any use adjacent to the plaza should meet ADA requirements.”85 From the existing design guideline review, it is evident that ADA requirement is essential in a plaza. The American Disability requirement standards should be further reviewed before providing design guidelines for San José.

4.5 Visibility Making the plaza visible along with accessible is emphasized in the existing design guidelines. City of City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 City of San Francisco, Department of Planning, “Table 1- Guidelines for Downtown Open Space.”

81 Ibid.

82 City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards,” in appendix A of Vision Plan and Recommendations: Penacook Village District, 2014, accessed December 13, 2014, http://brownwalkerplanners.com/documents/Park%20and%20Plaza%20Standards. pdf.

83 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

84 City of Vancouver, “Plaza Design Guidelines,” 1992, accessed December 13, 2014, http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/plaza-design-guidelines-1992-november-17.pdf 85 City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

77 78

23

Chapter 4

New York plaza design guidelines states that plazas should have complete visibility from the street and “for odd shaped sites, complete visibility on one side frontage and at least 50% visibility from the other side frontage.”86 Similarly, City of Concord also suggests that “a minimum of 50% of the perimeter of any public spaces should have frontage onto public right-of-way. In addition, the guidelines also specify that the nothing should be built higher than 3 feet towards this frontage to ensure maximum visibility.”87 Further, City of Vancouver suggests that maximum visibility can be achieved by avoiding obstructions in the form of walls or plants that block the plaza from the street.88 All the above studies emphasize on the requirement of visibility for a plaza, however, the percentage of requirement varies.

Review of the existing design guidelines also revealed that accessibility and visibility are closely connected. For example, City of Vancouver suggests that plaza should not be more then 1.0m (3.3 feet) above or below the street level to ensure visibility. Similar guidelines are provided in New York and San Francisco to ensure accessibility.

4.6 Seating As concluded in the literature review, many research projects showed that people frequently visit plaza if there is more seating. This claim is confirmed by the existing design guidelines reviewed for this chapter, which showed that seating is an important element in the plaza as almost all of the cities had mentioned its requirement.

The design guidelines for plazas in New York states that “abundant, well-designed and comfortable seating is one of the most critical elements of plaza design. They suggest six types of seating: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, seat walls, planter ledges, and seating steps.”89 City of Santa Ana in California also supports using “building edges, benches, edges along landscaping as seating in addition to regular seating.”90 The design guidelines for plazas in New York further specifies appropriate dimensions for the seating as 18 inches depth and 16-20 inches height.91 Design guidelines in Concord specifies that the seating depth should be minimum 16 inches, and height should be between 12-36 inches.92 The exact depth and height for seating can not be determined on the basis of design guidelines in two cities. Further research needs to be done to propose a universally accepted dimensions for seating in design guidelines for San José.

Additionally, City of Vancouver supports provision of ample seating and believes that without the availability of good seating fewer people will visit the plaza. “They provide four major points to remember while planning for seating in a plaza: to provide plenty of seating and using walls, steps, planters, pool edges, lawns etc. as opportunities for seating; to provide a view for the seating by orienting towards street or building entrances, or next to attractions and amenities; to provide a variety in seating options like single, group, and couples seating, fixed and moveable seating, and disabled accessible seating.”93 Contrary to Vancouver, City of Concord does not include steps as part of the seating requirement. It does specify that moveable seating should not be more than 50% of the total seating. It might be that they are not City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

88 City of Vancouver, “Plaza Design Guidelines.”

89 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

90 City of Santa Ana, “Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines,” in Citywide Design Guidelines – Chapter 5, accessed December 13, 2014, http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/pba/planning/documents/Chapter_05_-_Downtown_Public_Urban_Design_Guidelines.pdf.

91 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

92 City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

93 City of Vancouver, “Plaza Design Guidelines.”

86 87

Chapter 4

24

including steps as part of that calculation, and it definitely does not mention that steps cannot be used a form of seating.

San Francisco design guidelines for plazas specifies that for “every foot of plaza perimeter, one foot of seating space should be provided and half of the seating should consists of benches,”94 whereas City of Concord suggests a “minimum of one linear square foot of seating for every 30 square feet of plaza area.”95 There is no explanation for the method of arriving at these specific numbers. However, the importance of seating is strongly emphasized in all the existing design guidelines that were reviewed.

4.7 Sun and Wind As observed while reviewing existing design guidelines, the use of sun and wind in a plaza varies in each city due to climatic conditions. For example, design guidelines in Vancouver required more sunlight, and creating sun traps with the surrounding walls,96 whereas, design guidelines in Santa Ana and Roseville required cover from sun and rain along with flexibility to change the shade and shadow as per seasons.97, 98 Therefore, sun and shade in a plaza cannot be determined from review of other city design guidelines.

Design guidelines for wind was mentioned only by city of Vancouver, which specified to “avoid large spaces, avoid wind tunnels, and utilize planting and low walls for wind deflection.”99 Since no other city addressed wind in their design guidelines, it can said that this design element is a result of local climate and each site should be reviewed in its climatic context before writing design guidelines.

4.8 Sidewalk Frontage and Building Frontage City of New York sidewalk frontage standards state that “minimum 50% of the frontage should be free of obstructions and at street intersections, street frontage should be free of obstructions at least 15 feet from the corner.100 Similarly, City of Concord’s building frontage states that, “at least 50% of the total frontage of the building walls fronting on a plaza, exclusive of vertical circulation elements (stairwells, etc.) and building lobbies should be allocated for occupancy by non-residential uses.”101 As observed in some of the previous design elements, obstruction free frontage also helps in good visibility and accessibility. 50% of the obstruction free space can be considered as a standard as it is repeated by most of the cities.

4.9 Lighting The review of existing design guidelines showed that presence of good quality lighting makes the plaza more desirable to visit. All the cities guidelines agree that lighting enhances the plaza, creates a more desirable space, and enhances safety for the users.

City of New York requires all plazas to have “minimum illumination from at least one hour before sunset to one hour after sunrise irrespective of its hours of operation,”102 and City of Santa Ana specifies that “plazas should be fully illuminated from dusk until dawn. Additionally, Santa Ana also requires pedestrian

96

97

98

99

City of San Francisco, Department of Planning, “Table 1- Guidelines for Downtown Open Space.”

City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

Ibid.

City of Santa Ana, “Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines.”

City of Roseville, “Community Design Guidelines.”

City of Vancouver, “Plaza Design Guidelines.”

100 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

101 City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

102 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

94 95

25

Chapter 4

scale heights.”103 The cities are also in general agreement with a minimum illumination of 2 horizontal foot candles.

4.10 Materials The materials specified in the existing design guidelines mostly addressed using interesting colors, textures, durable and easily maintainable materials. In addition, Vancouver design guidelines suggests that building materials in a plaza should be consistent with the architectural language of the surrounding buildings, and should also consider drainage, skid resistant paving, disabled access and easy maintenance.”104 City of Santa Ana suggests that the “decorative paving used in the plaza areas should complement the paving pattern and color of the pavers used in the public right-or-way.”105 Further, City of Roseville emphasizes on using lighting and material to accentuate spaces in the plaza and to use materials that are of “good quality, which will provide long term durability and resistance to vandalism.”106 Overall, all the cities emphasize on using materials to create aesthetically pleasing and good quality plazas.

4.11 Landscape and Trees Design guidelines for plazas in New York state that “for every 1,000 square feet of plaza, four caliper inches of additional trees are required.”107 On the contrary, City of Concord requires “no trees if the plaza size is 0-1,500 square feet; four trees if the plaza size is 1,500-5,000 square feet; and 6 trees plus 1 additional tree for each additional 2,000 square feet of plaza area if the plaza is 5,000+ square feet.”108 The requirement for trees in a plaza vary largely in each of the city reviewed.

Regarding landscape, New York requires 20% of plant coverage, whereas Concord requires 150 square feet of coverage per 1000 square feet of plaza area, which is 15% of the plaza size. Lack of commonality in the design guidelines does not allow in understanding the standards for the ground cover of landscape. However, most of the cities emphasized on incorporating landscape into plaza design hence this criteria will be considered while writing design guidelines for San José.

4.12 Retail Space, Cafés, and Restaurants Presence of cafés, restaurants and retails space adjacent to the plaza are considered as activity generators by most of the cities reviewed for this chapter. The importance of food vendors and retail outlets is also emphasized in chapter 3 of this report.

City of New York specifies that “cafés in a plaza must not occupy more than 1/3rd of the street frontage and at least 50% of the building frontage should be occupied by retail space.”109 City of San Francisco states that no more than 20% of the plaza area should be used for restaurant seating.110 Similarly, City of Concord also recommends no more than 20% of the plaza area designated as open air café. Furthermore, City of Vancouver recommends the presence of cafés and retail space to generate more activity in the plaza space.

105

106

107

108

109

110

103 104

City of Santa Ana, “Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines.”

City of Vancouver, “Plaza Design Guidelines.”

City of Santa Ana, “Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines.”

City of Roseville, “Community Design Guidelines.”

City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

City of San Francisco, Department of Planning, “Table 1- Guidelines for Downtown Open Space.”

Chapter 4

26

4.13 Water Features and Public Art Water features and public art are recommended in the existing design guidelines reviewed for this chapter. City of New York, Santa Ana, Roseville and Concord recommend the presence of water features as well as public art. The documents do not provide design specifics for water features, however, they acknowledge that the presence of water features attracts more visitors to the plaza. In the case of public art, City of Roseville mentions that public art should be placed such that it is visible to the public and compliment the scale and concept of the plaza.111 They also recommend the “use of sculptures, murals, carvings, frescoes, mosaics, and mobiles” for public art.112

4.14 Bike Racks City of New York recommends that “every plaza should provide at least 2 bicycle parking spaces and all plazas more than 10,000 square feet should provide at least 4 bicycle parking spaces.”113 The other two cities that recommended bike racks are Vancouver and Santa Ana, however, detailed design guidelines were not specified for these cities.

4.15 Additional Amenities Some of the additional amenities that were recommended to encourage public usage and create vibrancy are providing game tables, children’s equipment, performance areas, drinking fountains and trash receptacles.

4.16 Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José The review of existing design guidelines showed that there are ten frequently occurring criteria for design guidelines. Three out of the ten criterion was specified by almost all the cities reviewed for this chapter: seating, accessibility, lighting, landscape and trees. It can be concluded that these three design elements are critical in a plaza design. The conclusions of the design guidelines reviewed in this chapter are as shown below: Design Element

Findings

Size and shape

o Size of the plaza should be a minimum 2,000 square feet. Shape of the plaza not conclusive.

Location

o Not conclusive.

Accessibility

o Plaza should at the same level as the sidewalk or no more than 3 feet above or below the sidewalk. o Plaza should be open to public at all times.

o Plaza should be accessible to kids, elders, and people with disabilities.

Visibility

o At least two sides of the plaza should be visible from the sidewalk.

City of Concord, “Public Park and Plaza Standards.”

Ibid.

113 City of New York, “Current Public Plaza Standards.”

111 112

27

Chapter 4

Seating

o Provide combination of different types of seating like: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, low walls, planter ledges, steps and lawn. o Seating should be comfortable with appropriate dimensions.

o Seating combinations should cater to single people or large groups or couples or disabled visitors. o The seating should have a view of the street, building entrances, or next to amenities.

Sun and wind

o Sun and wind patterns for the location should be studied before designing the plaza.

Sidewalk frontage and Building frontage

o At least 50% of the sidewalk frontage should be free of obstruction.

Lighting

o Good quality lighting will make the plaza more desirable to visit and feel safer.

Materials

Landscape and trees Retail space, cafĂŠs and restaurants

o At least 50% of the building frontage facing the plaza should be free of obstruction.

o Plazas should be lit from dusk to dawn.

o Materials for the plaza should be of good quality, interesting colors, and compliment the materials of adjacent buildings. o They should be skid resistant, durable and easy to maintain. o Exact number of trees is not conclusive

o Landscape and trees are an important presence in a plaza.

o Retail space, cafĂŠs and restaurants attract more visitors to the plaza. o These amenities should not occupy more than 20% of the plaza area. o These amenities or the seating associated with them should not block more that 15% of the street frontage.

Water features and public art o The presence of water features and/or public art enhances plaza usage. The design of these elements should complement the plaza design.

Bike racks Additional amenities

o Bike racks should be provided.

o Additional amenities are recommended to encourage public usage and create vibrancy. Some example are providing game tables, children’s equipment, performance areas, drinking fountains and trash receptacles.

Chapter 4

28

29

Chapter 5

5.1  Introduction In this chapter, detailed study of plazas are discussed through site observations. The purpose of this methodology is to observe the usage of plaza spaces and the impact of different design element observed in chapter 3 and 4. The site selection was focused in the San Francisco Bay Area. Seven plazas were observed in San Francisco and three sites in Oakland. The sites were selected based on the level of activity and proximity to variety of land uses.

The process of site study was to observe each site for one hour and note the activities of people using the spaces. I noted the number of people who preferred sitting in shade or sunlight, the number of people who liked to use moveable seats or the fixed seating. Refer Appendix B to view the site observation sheets.

The table below shows the typical observation sheet and the criteria for observations.

Chapter 5

30

5.2 Union Square, San Francisco

Figure 1. Map of Union Square, San Francisco.

Union Square in San Francisco is located in the middle of Downtown area. Its 2.6 acre in size and is publicly owned. A unique feature of this large plaza was that it had sub area that acted as a public space within itself. The site observations were conducted on a Saturday in the month of January at 11.30 am. A total of 212 people were observed and the primary activities in the plaza were eating, drinking coffee, talking, reading books, talking on phone, watching people, walking across the plaza, tourists taking pictures, waiting for friends, and sleeping.

Figure 2. View Showing People in the Café

Of the 212 people using the plaza 81% of them preferred sitting in the sun and 19% of them preferred the shade. Further, 77% preferred sitting, whereas, 23% of them preferred standing. The plaza has many types of seating, 27% preferred moveable seating, 29% preferred fixed seating, 36% preferred using the steps as seating, and 8% used the planter ledges as seating.

It can be concluded that around 80% people preferred sun when compared to shade, and 77% of the users preferred to sit rather than stand.

Figure 3. Steps in the Paza Used as Seating

31

Chapter 5

There are many other factors that influence usage of union square. The plaza has roads on all four sides and hence enhances its visibility and accessibility. Union Square is located in the middle of Downtown San Francisco, and is within close proximity to many offices and commercial buildings. This could be a cause for large number of plaza users. The plaza is surrounded by variety of retail shops and a café within the plaza, which also largely contributes to the number of visitors.

Additionally, Union square is also has designated as historic landmark, the memorial statue in the center, which in turn attracts many tourists to the plaza. Presence of the Café with outdoor seating further brings in more visitors. There were many people at the outdoor seating of the café on the day of observations; please note that the café customers are not included in the data provided above.

5.3 Levi’s Plaza, San Francisco

Figure 4. Map of Levi’s Plaza, San Francisco Levi’s Plaza is located in Northern part of San Francisco, close to the Bay. The land uses in the neighborhood are primarily office buildings and plaza is also close to Embarcadero Station and the Pier 19.

The plaza is privately-owned. The Levi’s headquarters is located along with the plaza and the location is accessible to employees of the offices as well as residents and tourists who visit the pier. However, there is a stark difference in the number of people who visit the plaza on a weekday when compared to a weekend. On a weekend, there were no people using the

Figure 5. Levi’s plaza during weekday

Chapter 5

32

plaza. On the contrary, on a weekday, the plaza had more visitors, who were mostly employees from the surrounding offices. Since there were not many people on a weekend, the final observations were conducted on a Wednesday in the month of February at 12.00pm. The primary activities observed in the plaza were eating, talking, and smoking; the plaza was mostly used as a transition space or to sort their bags before leaving the building. And the main activities in the extended park were eating, walking, jogging, and walking dogs.

Figure 6. Levi’s plaza during a weekend

A total of 187 people were observed, of which, 13% preferred standing and the remaining 87% preferred some sort of seating. It was observed that people who were standing were mainly in the plaza area, they were either passing through the plaza, talking to people who they ran into, or smoking. The remaining people who preferred to sit were eating lunch and were spread across the plaza as well as the extended park.

There were three types of seating in the Levi’s Plaza- fixed benches; informal ledge seating that was integrated with landscape and water features; and the green landscape. Amongst the seating types, 16% of the users preferred the green landscape, 33% preferred fixed benches, and 51% preferred informal ledge seating. Seating design in the extended park is very well integrated with landscape and water features. People were seen sitting in both groups and individually around the nature.

The plaza is largely used by the employees to eat lunch and is empty during other times of the day. This pattern was also observed in other plaza observations. The primary difference between Union Square and Levi’s Plaza is the presence of retails shops and cafés.

Figure 7. Green landscape used as seating

Figure 8. Informal seating integrated with landscape design

5.4 Yerba Buena Gardens, San Francisco Yerba Buena Gardens in San Francisco is located in the center of downtown area. This space is publicly owned. The location of the garden is not visible from the road. However, Yerba Buena gardens is part of Yerba Buena Center of Arts and a mall, which significantly impacts the number of visitors to the public space. One part of the plaza is located next to the mall and an extended plaza is located across the road next to Center of Arts. For the purpose of feasibility, the public plaza near the mall was observed. The site observation were done on a weekend in the month of January at 3.00 pm.

33

Chapter 5

Figure 9. Map of Yerba Buena Gardens, San Francisco A total of 160 people were observed and the primary activities were talking, watching movies, sleeping, playing and eating. The design of this plaza is different from the others because it is largely a landscaped area with very few benches and the space was used in an informal manner with people sitting or lying on the grass.

The observations showed that 51% of the total number of people preferred to be in sun, and 49% preferred the shade. The proportion for sun and shade are almost equal. However, it was observed that as the shade started increasing during the evening, people who were previously in the sun left the plaza. Also, of the total number of people, 6% preferred standing, 34% liked to lay on the grass, and 60% preferred sitting either on benches or the landscaped area.

Figure 10. Kids Playing in the water feature

The plaza also had a large water feature, and people were seen sitting near it. Additionally, there were no restrictions near the water feature and kids were running around the water and also playing in the water.

This feature gathered significant crowd in the plaza.

Chapter 5

34

5.5 Portsmouth Square Plaza, San Francisco

Figure 11. Map of Portsmouth plaza, San Francisco Portsmouth Square Plaza in San Francisco is located in China Town. The site observations were conducted on a weekday in the month of February at 1.30 pm.

The plaza is located next to the Chinese Cultural Center of San Francisco and seemed like an extension of the cultural center. The activities in the plaza involved cultural dance, talking, people watching, playing board games and cards was the primary activity.

The plaza had roads on all four sides, which made it visible and accessible. Due to natural terrain the plaza is on two levels and it accommodates parking space in the basements. The plaza was swarmed with local residents, and high level of activity was observed. Apart from the regular seating of benches, people had an interesting way to create more seating. They used crates as seats and cardboard boxes as tables while playing the card games.

During the site visit a total of 317 people were observed in the plaza. The number of people more or less remained the same during the period of observation, mostly because people who were playing cards

35

Chapter 5

Figure 12. People playing cards in the plaza

Figure 13. Crates converted as chairs and cardboard boxes as tables

and board games continued to play for long hours.

Of the total number of people, 72% of them were playing cards and board games, 7% were talking, and 5% were watching others. There was a sheltered area, which acted as a stage for dancing. The cultural activity was a people gatherer and an added attraction to the plaza.

The plaza also has a play area for the kids. The design and use of the plaza responded to the needs of the neighborhood and it reflected in the way the residents used the space. The plaza was vibrant with activity and successfully brought people of the neighborhood together.

Figure 14. Residents performing cultural dance in the plaza

5.6 Mechanics Plaza, San Francisco Mechanics Plaza in San Francisco is located on the Market Street in downtown. The plaza was visited on a weekend in the month of January. Though the streets were filled with people, the plaza was empty because the plaza lacked seating. As per study conducted so far, the presence of seating largely impacts the success of a public plaza. The Mechanics plaza is a good example to view the impact of lack of seating. Below is a picture from an online article and a picture from the site visit. The impact of lack of seating is clearly visible in the pictures. The plaza also has retail in the ground floor, in spite of which there were no people in the plaza.

Figure 15. Mechanics plaza as shown in an online article

Figure 16. Mechanics plaza during the site visit

5.7 UN Plaza, San Francisco UN Plaza is located opposite to the City Hall in San Francisco. The site was visited on a weekend and weekday. The plaza on a weekend was filled with homeless people and did not show any other activity.

On the other hand, the site visit on a Wednesday showed the plaza as a vibrant community space as they had the farmer’s market on that day. This large plaza lacked the presence of ongoing events, which is reflected in the stark difference in number of plaza users. It is important to have numerous activities in a plaza to create a vibrant public space throughout the week.

Chapter 5

36

Figure 17. Figure 15 UN plaza on a weekend

Figure 18. Figure 16 UN plaza on a Wednesday

5.8 4 Maritime Plaza, San Francisco Maritime Plaza in San Francisco is located in the Mission District. The plaza is part of a commercial building and is on the third floor. The commercial building has many shopping locations and office spaces. The site visit was conducted on a weekday in the month of February during lunch hour, however, there were hardly any people in the plaza. Maritime Plaza is a good example that represents the impact of lack of visibility and accessibility. Not many people are aware of such elevated privately-owned public plazas in San Francisco, which impacts the usage of the plaza.

Figure 19. Maritime Plaza

5.9 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland

Figure 20. Map of Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland

37

Chapter 5

Frank H. Ogawa Plaza is located in center of Downtown, Oakland. The plaza is surrounded by government offices, and mixed use buildings. It is also within close proximity to Oakland City Center, and BART station, despite which there weren’t many people in the plaza. This is a large plaza with two levels. The top level has a open air theatre, landscaped area, and fixed seating. The lower level is primarily used as outdoor seating with moveable chairs for the cafés and restaurants, it also has fixed benches. The site observations were conducted on a Thursday in the month of March at 11.30 am. A total of 82 people were observed. The main activities in the plaza was eating lunch, followed by talking, sleeping, smoking, crossing over, strolling with kids, and playing guitar.

The site observations showed that 87% of the people preferred to sit and 13% of the people were standing. Of the number of people sitting in the plaza, 59% preferred to sit in the sun and 41% preferred to sit in the shade. Additionally, 75% of them chose to use the fixed seating and 25% preferred ledges/ steps. It can be concluded that more number of people preferred sun over shade. And, people preferred fixed seating over ledges or steps even though fixed seating arrangement in this plaza is quite disconnected from each other.

A special design feature in this plaza is the open air theatre, which is occasionally used for performances or protests. Otherwise it is again used as seating.

Employees from adjacent offices were observed using the space to eat lunch. Overall, given the close proximity to many retail shops, cafés, restaurants and office buildings, the gathering in this plaza was relatively lesser than other similar plazas observed for this project. It should be noted that retail shops are fewer when compared to Union Square in San Francisco.

Figure 21. Fixed seating arrangement is disconnected from each other

Figure 22. The seating within the plaza is confined in boxes

Figure 23. Open air theatre is used as additional seating

5.10 Lafayette Square, Oakland Lafayette Square is located in Oakland. This plaza also comes under Downtown area, however it is located closer west boundary of Downtown Oakland and old Oakland. The plaza is surrounded mostly by office buildings and a few residences. The site visit was conducted on a Thursday in the month of March at 11.00am.

Chapter 5

38

There were hardly any people in the plaza except for a few homeless people. The plaza had kids play area, ample amount of seating, and a sheltered area that can act as a stage. There were different types of seating as well, like fixed benches, picnic tables, lawn seating and seating integrated with activities.

The design of the plaza and surroundings was quite similar to Portsmouth Plaza in San Francisco, however, there was no gathering of people. The only difference when compared to Portsmouth Plaza is that there were fewer cafés and retail stores. This shows that the surrounding land uses have a large impact on plaza usage, especially the presence of food and retail. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the timing of site visit was not in sync with the peak hour of plaza usage.

Figure 24. Sheltered area in the plaza

Figure 25. Seating integrated with activities

5.11 Oakland City Center, Oakland Oakland City Center is located in the center of Downtown Oakland. The City Center consists of various retail shops, cafés and restaurant. The 12th Street BART Station is located in the basement of this building and hence has a lot of people crossing over. The paseo connects the Oakland City Center to the surrounding office buildings and the rest of Downtown. The paseo is beautified using furniture and plants, however the space is relatively empty except during lunch time.

The below pictures shows the difference in activity level.

Figure 27. Oakland City Center at 1.00 pm

39

Chapter 5

Figure 26. Paseo through Oakland City Center

Figure 28. Oakland City Center at 11.00 am

5.12 Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José The study of plazas in San Francisco and Oakland showed the patterns in which people in the Bay Area use plazas. These observations helped in understanding plaza usage locally and provided guidance in proposing design guidelines for plazas in San José. The table shown below summarizes the findings of site observations.

Site Union Square, San Francisco

Findings o Around 80% of people preferred sitting in sun.

o Almost equal number of people (28%) used moveable chairs and fixed seating, and more number of people (36%) used steps for sitting. o Having road on all four sides increases visibility and accessibility.

o Close proximity to retail shops, restaurants etc. enhances plaza usage. o Presence of cafés or kiosks in a plaza increases number of visitors.

o Presence of unique features like memorial statue with historical value also enhances plaza usage.

Levi’s Plaza, San Francisco

o More number of people (80%) preferred sitting rather than standing.

o People preferred to use seating which is integrated with nature and design elements like water features when compared to fixed benches or green landscape. o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings does not attract plaza usage all day and throughout the week. A mix of land uses around plazas help in attracting more visitors.

Yerba Buena Gardens, San Francisco

o Equal number of people preferred sitting in sun and shade.

Portsmouth Square Plaza, San Francisco

o Having roads on all four sides increases visibility and accessibility.

o Landscape area is a great form of seating.

o Water feature with no restrictions attracts more users to the plaza. o The plaza should be flexible to adapt to users. In this plaza, people used crates and cardboard boxes to create more seating. o Activities like board games enhances plaza usage.

o The plaza should respond to the needs of the community culturally and physically. o Presence of performance stage attracts more people to the plaza.

o Kids play area is another added amenity which attracts more users to the plaza.

Mechanic Plaza, o Presence or absence of seating is a crucial factor that determines plaza usage.

San Francisco UN Plaza, San Francisco

o Hosting Farmer’s market in a plaza attracts more number of users.

o However, regular activities should be planned at other times as well to ensure continuous usage of the plaza.

Chapter 5

40

Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland

o More number of people (87%) preferred to sit rather than stand. o More number of people (57%) preferred sitting in the sun.

o More number of people (75%) preferred fixed seating when compared to ledges or steps. This is contradictory to the findings from Union Square in San Francisco. o Along with cafĂŠs and restaurants, presence of retail shops is equally important.

o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings does not attract plaza usage all day and throughout the week. A mix of land uses around plaza helps in attracting more visitors.

Lafayette o Not conclusive.

Square, Oakland Oakland City o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings does not attract plaza usage all day and throughout the week. A mix of land uses around plaza helps in Centre, Oakland attracting more visitors. o Using paseos to connect plazas between buildings provides a continuous flow to public space.

41

Chapter 5

This page is intentionally left blank

42

43

Chapter 6

6.1 Introduction The purpose of the precedent study is to review various existing design guidelines of City of San José and in the process understand the context of the city. The precedent study focuses on primarily four design guidelines- Downtown Design Guidelines; North San José Design Guidelines; Residential Design Guidelines; and Commercial Design Guidelines. The documents were chosen depending on their relevance to the context of Urban Villages. Residential and Commercial design guidelines are relevant because building housing and jobs is a priority in the Urban Villages development. Downtown and North San José design guidelines sets standards for form, architecture and aesthetics in San José Downtown, and North San José. The design guidelines proposed in these documents helped in understanding the design priorities of San José, which in turn helped in proposing design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas in the Urban Villages.

Additionally, SPUR’s (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research) reports on urban design development in San José were reviewed. SPUR is a San Francisco based organization which helps in promoting place making and urban design. The two reports written by SPUR provides design guidance for future developments in San José. Furthermore, existing Urban Village draft plan for South Bascom was reviewed to understand the design policies proposed by the City in Urban Villages.

6.2 Precedent Study oo Downtown Design Guidelines The City of San José published the Downtown Design Guidelines in July 2004. In this document, the City provides design guidelines for the development of Downtown San José. The primary principles of the design guidelines are: o To enhance the character of the City and ensure that new development sensitively fits the City’s expectations for the context, character and quality that will define San José. o To encourage creativity, achieve design excellence and provide a reasonable degree of certainty for the developer through establishing a common understanding of design criteria and development standards among the developer, neighbors and City early in the design and siting of new development. o To provide flexibility in the application of development standards.114

Some of the design criteria and guidelines that are relevant to this research project are: Public realm:

o “Promote opportunities for pedestrian circulation, and provide shade for them through overhead weather protection elements.”115

Open space: o For new buildings greater than FAR 6.0, 20% of the site area in, on or around the building must be publicly accessible during the daylight hours of the building such as for retail uses, sidewalk cafes, community rooms, galleries, lobbies, atria, gardens and tops of building podium.

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Downtown Design Guidelines,” 2004, accessed March 27, 2015, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/427, 7.

115 Ibid., 41.

114

Chapter 6

44

o Relate the size of open spaces to the scale of the city, to the width and scale of adjacent streets and buildings, to the activities and events, and to the intended users.

For small to medium size plazas a ratio of one to one for the height of buildings to the width of a plaza produces a comfortable scale and definition. o Use buildings, colonnades and landscaping to define edges and create a sense of three-dimensional containment to urban open spaces and plazas. o If the development is adjacent to an open space, the design should accommodate the necessary infrastructure to allow for programmed activities and events, such as electrical supply outlets for temporary equipment and hose bibs for cleaning.116

Retail design: o Ground Floors must have a minimum of 15 feet clear height to finished ceiling. o Provide a vibrant pedestrian zone. Active display windows with merchandise displayed at optimum viewing height, alternating views into the store plus complementary color and lighting schemes all enhance the pedestrian experience. o At all storefront clear glazing areas, at least 50% minimum area should allow for transparency into the building interior. o Retail frontages should be visually interesting and allow visual transparency.117

These specific design guidelines were taken into consideration while proposing design guidelines for privately-owned public plazas in Urban Villages, San José.

oo North San José Design Guidelines The City of San José published the North San José Design Guidelines in September 2010. In this document the City provides framework to “implement North San José Area Development Policy, which proposes 26.7 million square feet of offices/industrial development, 32,000 residential units, and 1.7 million square feet of new commercial development.”118 The principles of the proposed guidelines are to “promote walkability, provide pedestrian-friendly environment, increase connectivity of uses and transportation, develop mixed used buildings, create an identity for the neighborhood, create attractive destinations with public art, and promote sustainable development.”119 The principles are similar to that of Urban Villages, which made a number of design guidelines relevant. Some of the design guidelines that are specifically related to plazas are: Site Layout: Private Plazas in the Core Area: o Plazas should be urban in character, open to the public, and roughly one-half to one and one-half acres in size. Plazas should be designed in proportion to adjacent buildings. o Orient plazas for high visibility to promote usage by non-residents, thus stimulating activity throughout the day and into the evening. o Plazas should be well-integrated into the site or building layout. o Plazas should be connected to public and publicly-accessible pathways within the Core Area to improve walkability. o Plazas should include amenities for daily use by employees and visitors such as lunchtime seating in both sunny and shaded areas.

Ibid., 45.

Ibid., 61.

118 City of San José, Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

119 Ibid., 18.

116 117

45

Chapter 6

o Public art, or places for changing artwork, should be incorporated. Additionally, consider including artists on design teams. o Design plazas to accommodate small- to medium-scale events such as lunchtime concerts, performances, promotional events, and exhibitions. o Encourage pedestrian-friendly and interactive uses, such as retail, cafés and restaurants, for ground-floor uses in buildings surrounding the plaza. o Encourage these surrounding uses to spill out into and engage the plaza through features such as restaurant/café seating and outdoor displays of retail merchandise. o Plazas should include areas for both active and passive use as well as daytime and nighttime use. o Utilize durable, high-quality materials for pavement areas, seating areas, and signage. Use sustainable materials when possible. o Landscape design of the highest quality is encouraged. Include abundant shade trees where needed. o Encourage the placement of smaller-scale plazas along secondary streets that can form a network along with the plazas along the North First Street corridor. o Where feasible, provide connections between the plazas.120

Site Layout: Private pocket parks and plazas: o Pocket parks and plazas can range from a few hundred square feet up to one-quarter or one-half acre in size. o Utilize allowed setbacks to create publicly-accessible widened sidewalks, waiting places at bus stops, or small plazas on corners. o Pocket parks may also be nested within a building cluster, provided that they are connected to the pedestrian network. o Consider the inclusion of pocket parks during initial site planning phases in order to avoid creating “leftover” spaces. o Develop creative spaces by incorporating public art into space design, and by creating amenities and standalone art projects. o Encourage active ground-floor uses along the edges of pocket parks and plazas. o Utilize durable, high-quality materials for pavement areas, seating areas, and signage. Use sustainable materials when possible. o Landscape design of the highest quality is encouraged. Include shade trees as needed, and when recycled water for irrigation is not available, use native and drought-tolerant plants. o Encourage public access; if necessary for security reasons, allow public access only during daytime hours.121

Building Materials- Mixed use buildings: o “At least 60% of the ground-floor façade should be glazed with clear, untinted glass.

If double-paned glazing is used, it should be anti-reflective.”122

Central Urban Park/Plaza: o “The urban park/plaza should be roughly three acres in area and should be placed in a central location in North San José’s Core Area. o Locate the park/plaza along North First Street, and also along at least one but pref Ibid., 40-41.

Ibid., 43.

122 Ibid., 72.

120 121

Chapter 6

46

erably two other public streets. o Provide connections from the park/plaza to nearby plazas, paseos, pathways, and trails. o Encourage high-density mixed-use development along the perimeter of the park/ plaza to create an enclosed urban space. o Keep building heights lowest along the southern edge of the park/ plaza to allow for direct sunlight during most daytime hours. o Encourage pedestrian-friendly, interactive uses such as retail, restaurants, and cafés for the ground-floor uses of surrounding buildings. o Encourage such uses to ‘spill out’ into and engage the park/plaza, for example through café seating or outdoor merchandise displays. o Provide spaces that support flexible rather than fixed program elements where possible within the park/plaza. Provide larger-scaled hardscaped and softscaped areas to accommodate events like concerts, performances, parades, farmers’ markets, rallies, and film screenings. o Provide a variety of smaller-scaled seating areas and shade structures for day-today use. o Design for both daytime and evening use. o Incorporate a large-scale public art piece that has iconic qualities and reflects North San José’s spirit of innovation. Also create opportunities for temporary art. o Typical urban park/plaza elements include: o Amphitheater seating with shade o Interactive water feature o Major public art element o Special plaza lighting o Display area and stage o Concession stands and restrooms.123

oo The Future of Downtown San José, SPUR The Future of Downtown San José was written by SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research). In this report SPUR accesses the challenges and opportunities for Downtown San José. They propose six big ideas that will make downtown San José a vibrant and thriving destination. o Welcome all kinds of uses into downtown — but hold out for jobs near regional transit. o Make sure that what gets built adheres to key urban design principles. o Promote a larger area of “Central San José” with downtown as its core. o Make it easier to get to and through downtown without a car. o Retrofit downtown to be more pedestrian-oriented. o Build on downtown’s strengths as the cultural and creative center of the South Bay.124

Some of the design recommendations that helped guide the process of proposing design guidelines for plazas in San José are as follows: o Require the ground-floor ceiling height on new development to be a minimum of 15 to 18 feet when seen from the sidewalk. o Retrofit street crossings to make them more pedestrian-oriented. o Maintain and enhance the downtown street network, and all street design guidelines, to be pedestrian oriented, and expand the existing network of paseos. o Make it easier to hold concerts, festivals and other events that activate downtown. o Support arts and culture.

Ibid., 124-125.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), “The Future of Downtown San José,” 2014, accessed March 27, 2015, http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_TheFutureOfDowntownSanJose.pdf, 4.

123 124

47

Chapter 6

o Use lighting, art installations and interactive displays as a way to better connect places.125

Though the above guidelines are focused towards buildings and streets in Downtown San José, the general idea and vision was used while proposing design guidelines for plazas.

oo Getting to Great Places, SPUR Getting to Great Places was published by SPUR in the year 2013. In this report, SPUR provides recommendations which will enable San José to achieve the goals of Envision San José 2040 General Plan through urban design strategies. “The intention of the report is to help San José to improve the development process, make the city more livable and attractive, and build long-term sustainability.”126 According to SPUR, designing a city that is walkable is key for successful implementation of urban design.

Some of the suggestions that can be used as guidance for proposing plaza design guidelines are as follows: o Buildings should be oriented towards the streets and public spaces.127

o “Active uses should be placed strategically along pedestrian routes to engage the public and should be designed for transparency and interest.”128 o “Sidewalks should be seamlessly integrated with walkways, paseos, building entrances, transit facilities, plazas and parks.”129 The report also emphasizes on the importance of Urban Villages in achieving the vision of Envision San José 2040 and provides recommendations for implementing the plan.

oo South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan The City of San José released the South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan in 2014. The document provides a framework for development in South Bascom Urban Village boundary as specified by Envision San José 2040 General Plan. The planning process involved a series of community workshops to understand the needs of the residents. The workshops resulted in four vision elements that should guide the transformation of the Urban Village. o Vision Element 1: Employment Center. South Bascom will develop around its existing office buildings, City College, and Valley Medical Center to create a transit and pedestrian-oriented employment center. o Vision Element 2: Connected Neighborhood. South Bascom will foster its connections to light rail and the Los Gatos Creek Trail through pedestrian and bicycle improvements to create a safe and accessible neighborhood for all people. o Vision Element 3: Heart of the Community. South Bascom will build upon the Bascom Community Center and future parks and plazas to promote vibrant gathering spaces and community spirit. o Vision Element 4: Great Street. South Bascom Avenue will be a defining feature of the area: a great street that is attractive, memorable, and encourages pride of place.130 Ibid., 60-61.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), “Getting to Great Places,” 2013, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www. spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Getting_to_Great_Places_spreads.pdf, 5.

127 Ibid., 16.

128 Ibid., 18.

129 Ibid., 26.

130 City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan,” 2014, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31627, 12-13.

125 126

Chapter 6

48

Further, based on community members’ feedback and adhering to the vision elements, the City proposed goals and policies for plazas, which will guide future developers to understand the needs of the community and build accordingly. The goals and policies are as follows: o Goal P-1: Create public parks that are attractive, vibrant, and provide places for community activities and interaction that will contribute to the livability of the South Bascom corridor. o Policy P-1.1 Provide a system of parks that serves the needs of both the existing and future South Bascom Urban Village residents and surrounding community. o Policy P-1.2 Neighborhood parks should be designed and configured in a manner that provides secure and usable open space and maximizes accessibility to the surrounding community. o Policy P-1.3 Support development of parks that benefit people of all ages. o Policy P-1.4 Promote the use of native vegetation in new parkland development which gives identity to the Plan Area while also advancing more sustainable water conservation practices. o Policy P-1.5 New development abutting sites considered potential park spaces should be built in such a way that the building(s) interface well with the existing or future park. o Policy P-1.6 Ensure that new development and public right of way construction, especially in the southern portion of the Plan Area, enhances community access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. o Goal P-2 Ensure the creation of publicly accessible but privately-owned urban plazas to provide the area with additional public spaces. o Policy P-2.1 Integrate publicly accessible but privately-owned urban plazas into new development that are attractive, vibrant and provides for community activities and space for community members to casually interact with each other. o Policy P-2.2 Privately-owned, publicly accessible plazas should be a minimum of 2000 square feet in area ensure that enough amenities can be included in them. o Policy P-2.3 Encourage new plazas to be business supportive allowing for flexible expansion of business into private park space on a seasonal basis which would provide additional amenity for businesses wishing to locate in the area. o Goal P-3 Ensure that public art plays a significant role in the creation of public spaces in the South Bascom Urban Village. o Policy P-3.1 Public art should increase the sense of place and identity of the South Bascom Urban Village. o Policy P-3.2 Ensure that public art is considered when developing all types of areas accessible to the public, including sidewalks, streets, parks, plazas, transit stops, wayfinding systems, and stormwater management areas. o Policy P-3.3 Engaged the surrounding community in the development of a public art to increase the local identity of the public art.131

Currently, the City is working on six Urban Village draft plans. The planning process is similar to the South Bascom Urban Village Plan development. First, the city conducts community workshops to understand the needs of the residents and translate it to vision elements for the Urban Village development. The next step is to provide goals and policies to achieve the vision elements and provide an implementation plan.

The goals and policies for plazas in the other existing Urban Village draft plans are similar to South Bascom Urban Village Plan, with slight variation to cater to the respective vision elements.

131

  Ibid.

49

Chapter 6

Chapter 7 in this report further details the design guidelines that plazas in Urban Villages can implement.

The current policies provided by the City only briefly state the requirement of active land uses, amenitites, and activities to increase social interaction, and create a vibrant public gathering space. The recommended design guidelines in Chapter 7 provides a detailed account of design elements that can increase plaza usage and enhance social interaction in a community.

6.3 Suggestions from City Planners and Urban Designers The research so far revealed a number of suggestions for plaza design guidelines. To further enhance the findings, interviews were conducted. The interviewees were chosen based on their connection with Urban Villages or their association with urban design. A total of three interviews were conducted: a San José Planning Department staff, an urban designer who is a consultant for East Santa Clara Urban Village, and the Policy Director of SPUR, who is also an urban designer. Please refer to Appendix C for detailed questions and responses provided by interviewees. Below are some of the responses that are relevant to plaza design guidelines in Urban Villages, San José. o Residents of San José would like Urban Villages to include farmer’s market, gathering spaces for community events, pop up shops, and an area to watch movies outdoors. o The success of plaza usage is largely influenced by surrounding land uses, hence it is important to provide active land uses. The ground floor of buildings surrounding the plazas must have retail shops, cafés, and restaurants to enhance activity in the plaza. Further, plazas should accommodate outdoor seating for the cafés and restaurants. o Plazas could have play area for kids.

o Plazas should have simple and flexible design.

o Plazas should not be visually hidden, they should be easily accessible by the public and to surrounding land uses, and should preferably be accessible from all sides. o Plazas should orient towards the street and surrounding buildings.

o Plazas should have a focal point like a water feature or public art to bind the space together. o Plaza design and activities should respond to the community land uses and needs.

o Optional elements like water features, tables, pergolas, balance of vegetation and hardscape should be included in plaza design. o The plaza should be managed and maintained for cleanliness, and be programmed with regular activities. o The street edge should be connected to the plaza to provide a clear continuous pedestrian access. o The pedestrian circulation through the plaza and the plaza edge should be 100% open to the street. o Tree canopy is important for plaza design in San José.

6.4 Suggestions for Proposing Plaza Design Guidelines in Urban Villages, San José In this chapter, existing design guidelines of San José were reviewed to understand the design aspirations of San José. The review showed that the vision for plazas in San José are simlar to this reserach project and they also reflect the ideas discussed in Chapters 3 to 5. Similarily, the interviewees shared same vision for plazas in San José. The following table summarizes the guidelines that were considered while proposing plaza design guidelines in Urban Villages of San José.

Chapter 6

50

Design Element General Guidelines

Findings o Plazas should have simple and flexible design.

o The plaza should be managed and maintained for cleanliness and programmed with regular activities. o Plazas should encourage pedestrian activities.

o The street edge should be connected to the plaza to provide a clear continuous pedestrian access. o The pedestrian circulation through the plaza and the plaza edge should be 100% open to the street.

Size

o The plaza size can range from a few hundred square feet up to 1¼ - 1½ acres and must be in proportion with adjacent buildings.

Location

o The plaza should be located such that it has at least one adjoining public street or preferably two public streets.

Accessibility

o Plaza should be visible to allow easy accessibility.

Visibility Seating Sun and wind

o Plazas should be oriented such they are visible to pedestrians.

o Plaza should have variety of seating options and shaded structures.

o Building heights on the southern side should be lower to ensure more sunlight into the plaza.

Sidewalk frontage and Building frontage

-Not Addressed (NA)-

Lighting

-NA-

Materials

o The plazas should “utilize durable, high-quality materials for pavement areas, seating areas, and signage. Sustainable materials ahould be used when possible.”1

Landscape and trees

o The plaza should have high quality landscape design and shade providing trees. o Plazas in San José must have tree canopy is important for plaza design in San José.

Retail space, cafés and restaurants

o “Ground floors must have a minimum of 15 feet height. o At least 50% of the storefront must be transparent.

o Interesting materials and colors must be used to create a vibrant storefront.”2 o Plazas should accommodate outdoor seating for the cafés and restaurants.

Water features and public art

o Plazas should have a focal point like water feature or public art to bind the space together. o The Public art feature must enhance the identity of the neighborhood.

o Water features provided in the plaza must be interactive and not have any restrictions for access.

Bike racks

51

Chapter 6

-NA-

Additional amenities

o “Plazas should be able to accommodate small to medium scale events such as lunchtime concerts, performances, promotional events, and exhibitions.” o The plazas could include farmer’s market, gathering spaces for community events, pop up shops or areas for outdoor movie screening to increase plazas activity. o Plazas should include elements like amphitheater seating with shade, special plaza lighting, display area and stage, and concession stands and restrooms.4

Table References City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

1

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Downtown Design Guidelines,” 2004, accessed March 27, 2015, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/427, 7.

2

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement,, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

3

3

Ibid.

52

53

Chapter 7

7.1 Research Findings and Limitations The research conducted showed many elements of design that could enhance plaza usage. The proposed design guidelines is a summary of findings from Chapter 3 through 6 (See Appendix D). It was found that the design of plaza can largely impact the number of visitors in a plaza. A total of 13 design criteria were found to have significant impact in creating successful public spaces, namely, size; location; visibility; accessibility; seating; sun and shade; sidewalk frontage and building frontage; lighting; materials; landscape and trees; retail space, cafés, and restaurants; water features; public art; and other additional amenities like drinking fountains, bike racks, kids play area, open air theatre, etc. The research findings emphasized that the site location, provision of seating, surrounding land uses, and activities in a plaza play the most influential roles in attracting more visitors. For the final proposal of design guidelines for San José these 13 design criteria are further divided into categories as shown below. o Site Layout

o Size

o Location o Visibility

o Accessibility

o Sidewalk frontage and building frontage o Sun and shade

o Principal Design Elements o Seating

o Retail space, cafés, and restaurants o Lighting

o Materials

o Landscape and trees

o Optional Design Elements

o Water features and public art

o Additional amenities such as drinking fountains, bike racks, kids play area, pen air theatre etc.

The key limitations of this research project is the site study methodology. Considering the limited time span of eight weeks to complete the research, a small number of sites were selected for observations. Also, the sites were observed only for an hour. The research would have benefitted if each site was observed for an entire day, which would have provided more detailed information about the patterns of plaza usage. The data could be further enhanced by conducting whole day observations on both weekday and weekend.

The next sub-section provides recommendation for design guidelines for privately owned public plaza within Urban Villages in San José.

Chapter 7

54

7.2 Recommended Design Guidelines for Privately-Owned Public Plazas in Urban Villages, San José oo Site Layout »» Size o Size of the plaza should be at least 2000 sq. ft.

o The size of the plaza can also range from a few hundred square feet up to 1¼ - 1½ acres depending on the surrounding development. o The plaza size must be in proportion with adjacent buildings.

»» Location o Presence of roads on all four sides is advisable, if not the plaza should be located at intersection of roads or at least one side of the plaza should directly face a sidewalk. o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings do not attract plaza usage all day long throughout the week. A mix of land uses around a plaza helps to attract more visitors.

»» Visibility o Plazas should preferably be visible at eye level to increase its usage. o At least two sides of the plaza should be visible from the sidewalk. o Presence of roads on all four sides increases visibility.

o Plazas should be oriented such that they are visible to pedestrians.

»» Accessibility o Plaza should be at the same level as the sidewalk or no more than three feet above or below the sidewalk. o Plaza should be open to public at all times.

o Plaza should be accessible to kids, elders, and people with disabilities.

o Visibility and accessibility are related. Plazas should be visible to be accessible. o Similar to visibility, presence of roads on all four sides increases accessibility.

»» Sidewalk Frontage and Building Frontage o At least 50% of the sidewalk frontage should be free of obstruction.

o At least 50% of the building frontage facing the plaza should be free of obstruction.

»» Sun and shade o The requirement of shade and sunlight depends on the climate of the location. Therefore, sun and shade patterns for the location should be studied before designing the plaza. o Building heights on the southern side should be lower to ensure more sunlight into the plaza.

oo Principal Design Elements »» Seating o Presence of seating increases usage of public plaza. Provision of different types of seating like fixed benches, moveable chairs, steps, parapet, ledges etc. is advisable to attract more visitors to the plaza.

55

Chapter 7

o Provide combination of different types of seating like: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, low walls, planter ledges, steps and lawn. o 50% of the seating should be moveable and 50% should be fixed seating. Steps and ledges should not considered as fixed seating, they should be provided in addition to moveable chairs and fixed benches. o Seating should be comfortable with appropriate dimensions.

o Seating combinations should cater to single people or large groups or couples or disabled visitors. o The seating should have a view of the street, building entrances, or next to amenities.

o Seating must be integrated with landscape and/or water features to attract more visitors.

»» Retail Space, Cafés and Restaurant o Retail space, cafés and restaurants attract more visitors to the plaza.

o These amenities should not occupy more than 20% of the plaza area.

o These amenities or the seating associated with them should not block more that 15% of the street frontage. o “Ground floors with the retail space must have a minimum of 15 feet height. o At least 50% of the storefront must be transparent.

o Interesting materials and colors must be used to create a vibrant storefront.”132 o Plazas should accommodate outdoor seating for the cafés and restaurants.

»» Lighting o Good quality lighting will make the plazas more desirable to visit and feel safer. o Plazas should be lit from dusk to dawn.

»» Materials o Materials for the plaza should be of good quality, interesting colors, and compliment the materials of adjacent buildings. o They should be skid resistant, durable and easy to maintain.

o “Utilize durable, high-quality materials for pavement areas, seating areas, and signage. Use sustainable materials when possible.”133

»» Landscape and Trees o Landscape and trees are an important presence in a plaza. Presence of greenery tends to attract more people who want to relax or have a picnic. It also acts a type of seating. o Include high quality landscape design and shade providing trees. o Providing tree canopy is important for plaza design in San José.

oo Optional Design Elements »» Water Features and Public art o The presence of water features and/or public art enhances plaza usage. The design of these elements should complement the plaza design.

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Downtown Design Guidelines,” 2004, accessed March 27, 2015, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/427, 7.

133 City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

132

Chapter 7

56

o Water feature with no restrictions attracts more users to the plaza. o Include public art into plaza design.

o Public art must enhance the identity of the neighborhood. o Interactive water features must be provided.

o Plazas should have a focal point like water feature or public art to bind the space together.

»» Additional Amenities and Design Features o The plaza should be flexible to adapt to users.

o Activities like board games enhances plaza usage.

o The plaza should respond to the needs of the community culturally and physically.

o Presence of performance stage attracts more people to the plaza. “Plazas should be able to accommodate small to medium scale events such as lunchtime concerts, performances, promotional events, and exhibitions.”134 o Presence of unique features like memorial statue with historical value also enhances plaza usage. o Kids play area is another added amenity which attracts more users to the plaza.

o Hosting Farmer’s market in a plaza attracts more number of users. However, regular activities should be planned at other times as well to ensure continuous usage of the plaza. o Elements like amphitheater seating with shade, special plaza lighting, display area and stage, and concession stands and restrooms could be included in the plaza.135 o Additional amenities that are recommended to encourage public usage are provision of drinking fountains, bike racks and trash receptacles.

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

135 Ibid.

134

57

Chapter 7

This page is intentionally left blank

58

Appendix A- Detail Review of Existing Design Guidelines for Six Cities Design Element

New York

San Francisco

Vancouver

Santa Ana

Roseville

Penacook Village District. Concord, New Hampshire

- Not Addressed (NA)-

-NA-

“When provided, orientation and size of plazas and open areas should support active use.”

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

“Southerly side of the building. Should not be near another plaza.”

-NA-

-NA-

“Accessible from a public street at grade or 3’ above or below street level connected to street with generous stairs.”

“A plaza should provide easy and direct access particularly for the elderly, disabled and young children. Ramp slopes should not exceed 8.3 percent and handrails should be incorporated.

Selection of surface materials should result in easy access for the elderly and disabled, and also discourage incompatible plaza activities such as skateboarders.

-NA-

-NA-

• “A plaza should be open to use by the public at all times, with direct access from an adjoining public sidewalk along at least 50 percent of its total length of frontage.

• There should be at least one path meeting ADA requirements to each of the following: • The major portion of the plaza, • Any building lobby accessed from the plaza, and • Any use on, or adjacent to the plaza.”

1

Size

Min 2000sq.ft

Min 7000 sq. ft

2

Shape

Regular in shape, odd extensions should not exceed 25% of the plaza area.

3

Location

Should not be located within 175ft of another plaza

4

Accessibility

5

Visibility

Complete visibility. For odd shaped sites, complete visibility on one side frontage and at least 50% visibility from the other side frontage

-NA-

“Good visibility can be achieved by the following: • arranging any walls and planting to not screen or block off the plaza from the street; • locating the plaza at or as close as possible to street level, preferably no more than 1.0 m above or below street level.”

-NA-

-NA-

“A minimum of 50% of the perimeter of any Public Park or Public Plaza should front onto a public ROW.” • “In order to allow maximum visibility from the street to the plaza, no wall may be constructed higher than 36 inches along the remaining length of frontage.”

6

Seating

Abundant, well-designed and comfortable seating. Six types of seating can be provided: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, seat walls, planter ledges, and seating steps.

All plazas require at least two types of seating and the depth should be at least 18 inches depth and 16-20 inches height.

“One linear foot of seating space per each linear foot of plaza perimeter. One half of seating to consist of benches.”

“Good seating is important to plaza users.

Without it, fewer people will stop to use a space. There are four major points to remember when planning seating: a) Plentiful Seating • maximize opportunities for sitting: walls, steps, planters, pool edges, lawns. b) Choice of Sitting Location • locate seating toward street, oriented to a view, near building entrances, next to attractions/ amenities, in shade, in sun. c) Variety of Seating Types • in groups/ couples/ alone; • fixed and moveable; • disabled accessible. d) Comfortable Seating • provide warmth: generally wood is preferable to stone, concrete.”

“A plaza should have an articulated edge (buildings, benches, landscaping, etc.) where feasible, to provide visual interest and additional seating along the edges of the plaza where people may linger out of the traffic flow.” “Furniture and fixtures used in the plaza areas should complement those in the public right-of-way.”

“Outdoor furniture should be selected not only for its functional and aesthetic qualities but also for the quality of materials and finishes that provide long term durability and resistance to vandalism.”

• “Minimum of 1 linear square foot of seating for every 30 square feet of plaza area.

• Seating should have a minimum depth of 16 inches. Seating with backs at least 12 inches high should have a minimum depth of 14 inches.

• Seating 30 inches or more in depth may be credited as 2 linear square feet of the seating requirement.

• Seating should be between 12 and 36 inches high.

• Tops of walls, such as those which bound planting beds or other features, may be counted as seating if they conform to the dimensional standards above.

• Movable seating or chairs, excluding seating of open air cafes, may be credited as 2 linear square feet of the seating requirement.

• No more than 50 percent of the linear seating requirement may be met by movable seating.

• Steps do not count toward the seating requirement.”

-NA-

Should be located centrally and conveniently located.

-NA-

Appendix A

59

Design Element

New York

San Francisco

Vancouver

Santa Ana

Roseville

Penacook Village District. Concord, New Hampshire

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

7

Orientation

Preferably South facing. If no south face or if south face is less than 40ft, then east or west

8

Availability

-NA-

9

Sunlight

-NA-

-NA-

“Sun paths, sun altitudes and shadow patterns in the plaza should be examined for all seasons, particularly the spring and autumn. Sunlight is particularly valued at lunch time in commercial business areas.

Sunlight can be maximized by: • locating seating in areas of maximum sunlight; • creating sun traps - areas surrounded by walls with an orientation toward the south (walls should not block plaza/street visibility); • utilizing reflective light surfaces (if no direct sunlight is available).”

“Some covered area along the perimeter of the plaza (i.e., vine covered pergola) is strongly encouraged to provide protection from rain and/or sun.”

“Plaza design should provide amenities for varying light and climate conditions, protection from sun and wind, moveable furniture, climate control elements, children’s play areas, and performance areas.”

-NA-

10

Wind

-NA-

-NA-

“Downdrafts from surrounding high-rise buildings can cause user discomfort and should be prevented or reduced through specific design measures. Wherever possible, protection should be offered from strong northwest winds and from harsh easterly winds which can accompany fall and winter rainstorms.

Wind reduction can be achieved by the following measures: • avoid large, open, unprotected areas; • avoid wind funnels: narrow openings between buildings with easterly or northwest alignment; • utilize planting, low walls and canopies for wind deflection.”

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

11

Sidewalk frontage

Minimum 50% of the frontage should be free of obstructions. At street intersections, at least 15 feet from the corner should be free of obstructions.

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

12

Building frontage

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

“At least 50% of the total frontage of the building walls fronting on a plaza, exclusive of vertical circulation elements (stairwells, etc.) and building lobbies should be allocated for occupancy by non-residential uses.

• All such uses should be directly accessible from the plaza.

13

Elevation from road

Plazas should be at the same level as the sidewalk. Minor changes should not exceed 2 ft.

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

14

Steps

Height of the steps should be 4-6 inches and the width should be 15-17 inches

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

15

Circulation Path

Should be at least 8ft wide and extend at least to 80% of the depth of the plaza.

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

“At all times.”

Appendix A

60

Design Element

New York

San Francisco

Vancouver

Santa Ana

Roseville

Penacook Village District. Concord, New Hampshire

-NA-

“Public Plazas should incorporate trees based on the plaza’s square footage as follows: • 0-1,500 square feet - none required • 1,500-5,000 square feet - 4 trees • 5,000+ square feet - 6 trees plus 1 additional tree for each additional 2,000 square feet of plaza area.”

• “Planters – not less than 150 square feet per 1,000 square feet of plaza area • Grass and other ground cover – a total of 150 square feet per 1,000 square, feet of plaza area, or fraction thereof. “

16

Landscape and Trees

-NA-

“Landscaping is generally secondary to architectural elements. Use trees to strengthen spatial definition and to create peripheral areas of more intimate scale.”

“Landscape design today must recognize a new reality in environmental awareness. For example, wherever possible, permeable surfaces should be considered. Use of drought resistant plants may lessen dependency on automatic irrigation. Selection of plant materials should be done with a mind to reduce use of chemical laden maintenance. Perhaps plantings can be more productive by providing a habitat for birds. A revised aesthetic may be in order: seasonal change can be achieved by selecting a variety of flowering or colorful shrubs and perennials instead of largely relying on annuals which are put to waste several times during the year.”

“Soft- as well as hard-surfaced areas should be incorporated into the overall plaza design. Color, form, and texture are an integral part of this.”

17

Materials

-NA-

-NA-

“Plazas which are built of high quality durable materials, which reflect thoughtful detailing consistent or compatible with the development’s architectural language, and which acknowledge the practical considerations of drainage, non-slip paving, disabled access and easy maintenance have a good chance of being successful. Quality detailing implies attention to jointing, building and street edges, and technically correct construction techniques.

Plants used should be of the highest quality and in sufficient quantity and of sufficient scale to make an impact.

Plantings should be selected and located so that their functional and aesthetic qualities can be maximized. Incorporation of irrigation and adequate drainage will help to assure their survival and best possible appearance over time.”

“Paving should be unit pavers or concrete with special texture, color, pattern and/or decorative features.” “Any decorative paving used in the plaza areas should complement the paving pattern and color of the pavers used in the public right-or-way.”

“Plaza design should emphasize the active nature of these spaces and incorporate some combination of accent materials, site furniture, shade structures, accent lighting, interesting colors, textures and forms, and art, graphics or other focal elements.”

-NA-

Appendix A

61

Design Element

New York

San Francisco

Vancouver “Good night time generalized lighting is important to enhance safety of a plaza, particularly if it functions as a short cut or as a through route for pedestrians. Appropriately located and designed lighting may also discourage loitering.”

Santa Ana

Roseville

Penacook Village District. Concord, New Hampshire

“Lighting height should be at a pedestrian scale. Plazas should be fully illuminated from dusk until dawn.

The overall lighting in the plaza should average two foot candles, and incorporate other pedestrian-oriented lights, such as lighted bollards. Uplighting of trees and other architectural features is strongly encouraged.

-NA-

“Plazas should be illuminated throughout with an overall minimum average level of illumination of not less than 2 horizontal foot candles.”

18

Lighting

Abundant and well-designed lighting can transform a plaza from a dim, foreboding space into a desirable, 24-hour amenity. Too often, however, light levels are excessively uneven or are dimmed in an effort to unofficially “close” a plaza. All public plazas are required to maintain two horizontal foot candles of illumination across all walkable and seating areas in the plaza and sidewalks adjacent to the public plaza. The minimum hours of illumination are from at least one hour before sunset to one hour after sunrise.

This requirement applies to all plazas, regardless of whether the plaza has been permitted to close at night. All light sources mounted on or within buildings that illuminate the public plaza must be shielded from direct view. This prevents direct floodlighting of the plaza area, which can impair visibility and compromise the sense of safety. In addition, all lighting within the public plaza must be shielded to avoid impacts on nearby residential units.

-NA-

19

Trash receptacles

“One receptacle is required for every 1,500 square feet of plaza. Additional receptacle for every 1.500 square feet of eating area.”

-NA-

Recommended

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

20

Bicycle parking

“Every plaza should provide at least 2 bicycle parking spaces. All plazas more than 10,000 square feet should provide at least 4 bicycle parking spaces.”

-NA-

Recommended

Recommended

-NA-

-NA-

21

Signage

• All signage should be clear, visible and readable. The text and background should have contrasting colors.

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

“Provide retail space including food services in space around plaza. 20% of space may be used for restaurant seating taking up no more than 20% of the seating provided.”

Recommended

-NA-

-NA-

• All privately-owned public plazas must provide clear signage that the plaza is accessible to public.

• “One entry sign should be provided at every 40 feet along the sidewalk frontage of the plaza.”

22

Cafés and restaurants

•”One 100 square feet kiosk is permitted for every 5000 square feet of plaza.”

•”Cafés must not occupy more than 1/3rd of the street frontage.”

•”At least 50% of the buildings frontage should be occupied by retail space.”

• Open air cafe, or • Food carts or kiosks.

• Total area of amenities not to exceed 60 percent of total plaza area.

• A maximum of 20% of the plaza area may be occupied by open air cafes. No kitchen equipment should be installed within a plaza.”

Appendix A

62

Design Element

New York

San Francisco

Vancouver

Santa Ana

Roseville

Penacook Village District. Concord, New Hampshire

-NA-

Recommended

23

Drinking fountains

-NA-

-NA-

Recommended

Recommended

24

Public art

Recommended

-NA-

“Art work should provide a focal point for the plaza or become an integral component of the overall design of the plaza.”

Recommended

• The use of sculptures, murals, carvings, frescoes, mosaics, and mobiles is highly encouraged.

Recommended

• Artwork should be located as to be visible by the public, and relate to the project in scale and concept.

25

Water features

26

Additional amenities

Recommended “Children’s play areas; game tables and seating.”

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

“A plaza which is furnished with a variety of amenity features encourages general public usage and creates a sense of liveliness and excitement. Some others are: • game tables; • kiosks for information and posters; • open air cafes; • children’s play equipment (where appropriate).”

Recommended “Pedestrian amenities should be provided such as seating, lighting, planters, drinking fountains, distinctive paving, art work, and bicycle racks. They should also incorporate focal points such as sculptures or water features.”

Recommended -NA-

Recommended • Game tables, • Art.

Appendix A

63

Appendix B - Site Observations of Public Plazas

Appendix B

64

Appendix B

65

Appendix B

66

Appendix B

67

Appendix B

68

Appendix C- Interview Questions and Responses Mathew VanOosten – Planner/ Project Manager Urban Villages, City of San José Question

Response

How important do you think it is to have design guidelines

Definitely important. They drive development. Design guidelines are discretionary, but they are

for building a public plaza?

helpful.

Design guidelines being non regulatory, so has having

Since it is not regulatory it is not up to the planning board to enforce the design guidelines, how-

design guidelines in San José had an impact on decision

ever, having design guidelines at least provides a reference to good design quality. In the past

making process in the past?

planning commission has referenced to it.

San José has a few approved Urban Village plans. What

“Generally, farmers markets are popular. People want it to be incorporated in Urban Village de-

were the requirements of community members in a public sign.” They want more gathering spaces for community events can take place, or pop up shops plaza?

or screen movies.

The draft plans mentions the size of the plaza as 2000

Generally taken from other city guidelines primarily from City of New York design guidelines for

square feet Was it specified to accommodate a farmers

pocket parks.

market?

Is the City working on providing incentives to developers

We are working on it. It will be done though. However, San José market does not support higher

who provide public spaces in Urban Villages?

density. Developers are generally not interested in this incentive.

Adding vibrancy and place of community activities and

The plaza should have retail in the ground floor to create more active plazas. The plaza should

social interaction are some of the main themes for urban

be used as spill out seating for cafés and restaurants. Moveable seating is important and shade

plazas in the draft plan. In your opinion what are some

is also crucial in San José.

elements that can achieve this goal?

Some of the main themes that I am considering for design Maybe recreation spaces, physical activity. Physical activity would probably be a park element, guidelines are: size, shape, location, accessibility, visibil-

plazas could have play area for kids.

ity, seating, sun and wind, sidewalk frontage, building frontage, landscape, trees, and addition amenities like cafés, water fountain, public art etc. What other design elements are fitting to San José context?

Appendix C

69

In my report I plan to address the three types of Urban Vil-

This might be more a result of outreach process and what the community members want.

lages, i.e. Transit Urban Village, Commercial Center Urban Village, and Neighborhood Oriented Urban Village, with different sets of guidelines. In your opinion, what would be the three main differences?

To understand the context of San José and how design

The documents are quite well done but really old. Consider looking at Spur’s Getting to Great

guidelines are written in San José, I am studying the

places.

following document: Downtown Design Guidelines, North San José Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines, Commercial Design Guidelines, South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan, West San Carlos Urban Village Draft Plan, and The Future of Downtown San José by SPUR. Do you have any other suggestions?

Terry Bottomley – Urban Designer, Oakland / Consultant for East Santa Clara Urban Village Questions How important do you think it is to have design guidelines

Response Extremely important.

for building a public plaza?

In your experience, have you seen any plaza fail in spite of “Plazas are successful or not successful based on adjacent land uses, which is hard to predict. good design guidelines?

Ideally they should be planned together, but failure of a plaza is not actually related to the plaza itself but is mostly due to failure of adjacent uses which did not get developed as envisioned.

Plazas should be designed to receive the program from the adjacent uses rather than have something within themselves.”

Some of the main themes that I am considering for design o “The most important is active adjacent land uses.” guidelines are: size, shape, location, accessibility, visibility, seating, sun and wind, sidewalk frontage, building frontage, landscape, trees, and addition amenities like cafés, water fountain, public art etc. What are the top 5 design elements that are crucial in plaza design?

o “Should be able to be programmed flexible. The plazas should not be over designed, it should be a simple design that allow for a variety of things to happen like small scale activities and events.” o Pilot projects are a good exercise to understand the impact of the space and how people will use it.

Appendix C

70

Can you please suggest a few plazas in East Bay Area

There aren’t many good ones towards this side of the Bay. Even in San Francisco plazas are used

where I can conduct site observations?

mostly during the lunch hour and seem dead the rest of the time. San Francisco Union square is a success mainly because it has roads on all sides. Portsmouth Square is totally a cultural success and not much to do with the plaza itself.

What are some of the dos and don’ts that San José should o They should not be privatized, i.e. they should not be cut off from surrounding uses and easy access to public. learn from plazas in other cities? o They shouldn’t be over designed. o They should definitely have sun.

What design elements should be a priority to create vi- o William Whyte’s “Triangulation method” in a plaza. There should be focus point like water feature or public art in the plaza to bind the space together. brancy and social interaction in the Urban Villages? o Seating

o Plaza should be accessed from all sides and used for everyday activities

Appendix C

71

Benjamin Grant – Urban Designer and Policy Director, SPUR Questions

Response

How important do you think it is to have design guidelines

Design guidelines are for people who do not understand design, in which case it definitely

for the success of a plaza design?

helps. It is also important to understand the difference between design guidelines and codes.

SPUR’s report, “The Future of Downtown San José” lists six o Orientation and accessibility to the street.

big ideas, one of it being future buildings should adhere o Orientation of the plaza with the surrounding buildings. to urban design principles. What would be the three most o Spatial enclosure important design principles in plaza design? o Strong edges o Active Uses like retail

o Design for usability. The plaza should have shade.

o Design keeping in mind what the predominant local use is. For example if the predominant use is residential, then probably the plaza should have a small play area. o Optional elements like water features, tables, pergolas, proportion of vegetation and hardscape.

What are some of the dos and don’ts that San José should San Francisco is very different from San José. Apart from being denser, the weather is quite learn from San Francisco plaza design?

different from San José. In San Francisco sun is very important. On the other hand, tree canopy is extremely important in San José. The plazas should be appropriately elevated from the ground. A lot of plazas are spatially successful, but are not socially successfully.

What is the extra measure we should take to encourage o The plazas should not only be managed for maintenance and cleanliness, but it should also be managed for the ongoing activities. activity and social interaction in a plaza? o We should ensure that the relationship of the plaza with the surrounding buildings is maintained. o Activate the public realm by hiding the garage behind the building.

o Connect the street edge and provide a clear continuous pedestrian access.

o Channelize the pedestrian circulation through the plaza and the plaza edge should be 100% open to the street.

Appendix C

72

Appendix D- Summary of Research Findings Design Element Size

Chapter 3- Study of Design Elements Findings o Size of the plaza does not influence its usage.

Chapter 4- Review of Other Cities’ Design Guidelines Findings

Chapter 5- Site Observations Findings

Chapter 6- Review of San José Design Guidelines Findings

o Size of the plaza should be a minimum 2000 sq.ft.

-Not Addressed (NA)-

o Plaza size can range from a few hundred square feet up to 1¼ - 1½ acres and must be in proportion with adjacent buildings.

Shape

-NA-

o Not conclusive

-NA-

Location

-NA-

o Not conclusive

o Having road on all four sides increases visibility and accessibility.

o Plazas should be located such that it is along at least one public street or preferably two public streets.

o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings do not attract plaza usage all day long and throughout the week. A mix of land uses around plaza helps in attracting more visitors.

Accessibility

-NA-

o Plaza should be at the same level as the sidewalk or no more than three feet above or below the sidewalk.

o Having road on all four sides increases visibility and accessibility.

o Plaza should be visible to allow easy accessibility.

o Having road on all four sides increases visibility and accessibility.

o Plazas should be oriented such they are visible to pedestrians.

o Plaza should be open to public at all times. o Plaza should be accessible to kids, elders, and people with disabilities.

Visibility

o Plazas should preferably be visible at eye level to increase its usage.

o At least two sides of the plaza should be visible from the sidewalk.

Appendix D

73

Design Element Seating

Chapter 3- Study of Design Elements Findings

Chapter 4- Review of Other Cities’ Design Guidelines Findings

Chapter 5- Site Observations Findings

Chapter 6- Review of San JosĂŠ Design Guidelines Findings

o Presence of seating increases usage of public plaza.

Provision of different types of seating like fixed benches, moveable chairs, steps, parapet, ledges etc. is advisable to attract more visitors to the plaza.

o Combination of different types of seating like: moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, low walls, planter ledges, steps and lawn should be provided.

o Presence or absence of seating is a crucial factor that determines plaza usage.

o Variety of seating options and shaded structures should be provided.

o Seating should be comfortable with appropriate dimensions. o Seating combinations should cater to single people or large groups or couples or disabled visitors. o The seating should have a view of the street, building entrances, or next to amenities.

Sun and shade

Sidewalk frontage and Building frontage

o The requirement of shade and sunlight depends on the climate of the location.

-Not Addressed (NA)-

o Sun and wind patterns for the location should be studied before designing the plaza. o At least 50% of the sidewalk frontage should be free of obstruction.

o More number of people (80%) preferred sitting rather than standing. o Almost equal number of people (28%) used moveable chairs and fixed seating, and more number of people (36%) used steps for sitting. o People preferred to ledge seating which is integrated with design element like water features when compared to fixed benches or green landscape. o Landscape area is a great form of seating. o Around 80% of people prefer sitting in sun.

-NA-

o Building heights on the southern side should be lower to ensure more sunlight into the plaza.

-NA-

o At least 50% of the building frontage facing the plaza should be free of obstruction.

Appendix D

74

Design Element Lighting

Chapter 3- Study of Design Elements Findings -Not Addressed (NA)-

Chapter 4- Review of Other Cities’ Design Guidelines Findings o Good quality lighting will make the plaza more desirable to visit and feel safer.

Chapter 5- Site Observations Findings

Chapter 6- Review of San José Design Guidelines Findings

-NA-

-NA-

-NA-

o Plaza should “utilize durable, high-quality materials for pavement areas, seating areas, and signage.

Sustainable materials should be used when possible.” 5

-NA-

o Plazas should include high quality landscape design and shade providing trees.

o Plazas should be lit from dusk to dawn.

Materials

-NA-

o Materials for the plaza should be of good quality, interesting colors, and compliment the materials of adjacent buildings. o They should be skid resistant, durable and easy to maintain.

Landscape and trees

Retail space, cafés and restaurants

o Presence of greenery tends to attract more people who want to relax or have a picnic. It also acts a type of seating.

o Exact number of trees is not conclusive

o Presence of food vendors and public art increases visitors in a plaza.

o Retail space, cafés and restaurants attract more visitors to the plaza.

o Close proximity to retail shops, restaurants etc. enhances plaza usage.

o These amenities should not occupy more than 20% of the plaza area.

o Presence of cafés or kiosks in a plaza increases number of visitors.

o These amenities or the seating associated with them should not block more that 15% of the street frontage.

o Plazas located within close proximity to office buildings do not attract plaza usage all day long and throughout the week. A mix of land uses around plaza helps in attracting more visitors.

o Landscape and trees are an important presence in a plaza.

o Tree canopy is important for plaza design in San José. o “Ground floors must have a minimum of 15 feet height. o At least 50% of the storefront must be transparent. o Interesting materials and colors must be used to create a vibrant storefront.” 6 o Plazas should accommodate outdoor seating for the cafés and restaurants.

Appendix D

75

Design Element Water features and public art

Chapter 3- Study of Design Elements Findings o Presence of water features increases visitors to the plaza, however it is important to not have any restrictions about touching the water. o Safety and accessibility of water feature significantly impacts number of visitors in a plaza.

Bike racks

-Not Addressed (NA)-

Chapter 4- Review of Other Cities’ Design Guidelines Findings o The presence of water features and/or public art enhances plaza usage. The design of these elements should complement the plaza design.

o Recommend providing bike racks.

Chapter 5- Site Observations Findings o Water feature with no restrictions attracts more users to the plaza.

Chapter 6- Review of San JosĂŠ Design Guidelines Findings o Plazas should have a focal point like water feature or public art to bind the space together. o The Public art feature must enhance the identity of the neighborhood. o Water features provided in the plaza must be interactive and not have any restrictions for access.

-NA-

-NA-

Appendix D

76

Design Element Additional amenities

Chapter 3- Study of Design Elements Findings

Chapter 4- Review of Other Cities’ Design Guidelines Findings

Chapter 5- Site Observations Findings

-Not Addressed (NA)-

o Additional amenities such as, game tables, children’s equipment, performance areas, drinking fountains and trash receptacles are recommended to encourage public usage and create vibrancy.

o Presence of unique features like memorial statue with historical value also enhances plaza usage. o The plaza should be flexible to adapt to users. In this case, people used crates and cardboard boxes to create more seating. o Activities like board games enhances plaza usage. o The plaza should respond to the needs of the community culturally and physically. o Presence of performance stage attracts more people to the plaza.

Chapter 6- Review of San José Design Guidelines Findings o “Plazas should be able to accommodate small to medium scale events such as lunchtime concerts, performances, promotional events, and exhibitions.”7 o The plazas could include farmer’s market, gathering spaces for community events, pop up shops or areas for outdoor movie screening to increase plazas activity. o Plazas should include elements like amphitheater seating with shade, special plaza lighting, display area and stage, and concession stands and restrooms.4

o Kids play area is another added amenity which attracts more users to the plaza. o Hosting Farmer’s market in a plaza attract more number of users. However, regular activities should be planned at other time as well to ensure continuous usage of the plaza.

Table References City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/ DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

1

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, “Downtown Design Guidelines,” 2004, accessed March 27, 2015, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/427, 7.

2

City of San José, Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement,, “North San José Design Guidelines,” 2010, accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/ DocumentCenter/Home/View/432, 6.

3

3

Ibid.

Appendix D

77

Bibliography Abdulkarim, Dina, and Jack L. Nasar. “Do Seats, Food Vendors, and Sculptures Improve Plaza Visitability?” Environment & Behavior 46, no. 7 (2014): 805-825.

Ambrey, Christopher, and Christopher Fleming, “Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia,” Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.) 51, no. 6 (2014): 1290-1321.

Beck, Helen. “Linking the Quality of Public Spaces to Quality of Life.” Journal of Place Management and Development 2, no. 3 (2009): 240-248.

Cattell, Vicky, Nick Dines, Wil Gesler, and Sarah Curtis. “Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations.” Health & Place 14, no. 3 (2008): 544-561.

City of Alexandria. Planning and Zoning Department. “Carlyle Plaza Design Guidelines.” 2012. Accessed on May10 2014. https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/planning/info/eisenhowereast-carlyle/Carlyle%20Design%20Guidelines%20Submission%20041112.pdf.

City of Concord. “Public Park and Plaza Standards.” In appendix A of Vision Plan and Recommendations: Penacook Village District. 2014. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://brownwalkerplanners. com/documents/Park%20and%20Plaza%20Standards.pdf.

City of New York. Department of City Planning. “Privately-owned public Space – Current Public Plaza Standards.” 2007. Accessed on September 8, 2014. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/plaza_standards.shtml.

City of Roseville. Planning and Redevelopment Department. “Community Design Guidelines.” Adopted 1995. Amended 2008. Accessed on December 13, 2014. https://www.roseville.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10720.

City of San Francisco. Department of Planning. “Table 1- Guidelines for Downtown Open Space.” In Downtown Area Plan (San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Planning, 1985). Accessed on September 8, 2014. http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/images/downtown/TABLE1.HTM, Table 1.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “Downtown Design Guidelines.” 2004. Accessed March 27, 2015. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/ View/427.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “North San José Design Guidelines.” 2010. Accessed March 27, 2015. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/ Home/View/432.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “San José History.” Accessed September 22, 2014. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=126.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “South Bascom Urban Village Draft Plan.” 2014. Accessed March 27, 2015. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/31627.

City of San José. Envision San José 2040 General Plan. 2011. Accessed September 22, 2014. http://sanjo-

78

Bibliography

seca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “Approved Urban Village Plans.” Accessed February 20, 2014. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1738.

City of San José. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. “Urban Village Plans under Development.” Accessed February 20, 2014. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1738.

City of Santa Ana. “Downtown Public Urban Design Guidelines.” In Citywide Design Guidelines – Chapter 5. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/pba/planning/documents/ Chapter_05_-_Downtown_Public_Urban_Design_Guidelines.pdf City of Vancouver. “Plaza Design Guidelines.” 1992. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://vancouver. ca/docs/planning/plaza-design-guidelines-1992-november-17.pdf Das, Daisy. “Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati.” Social Indicators Research 88, no. 2 (2008): 297-310.

Dempsey, Nicola. “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?” TPR: Town Planning Review 80, no. 3 (2009).

Farida, Naceur. “Effects of Outdoor Shared Spaces on Social Interaction in a Housing Estate in Algeria.”

Frontiers of Architectural Research 2, no. 4 (2013): 457-467.

Giles-Corti, Billie, Melissa H. Broomhall, Matthew Knuiman, Catherine Collins, Kate Douglas, Kevin Ng, Andrea Lange, and Robert J. Donovan. “Increasing Walking: How Important is Distance to, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?” American journal of preventive medicine 28, no. 2 (2005): 169-176.

Habermas, Jurgen. “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.” (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989). Quoted in Carl Grodach. “Art Spaces, Public Space, and the Link to Community Development.” Community Development Journal 45, no. 4 (2010): 474-493.

Hajmirsadeghi, Shuhana Shamsuddin, and Amir Foroughi. “The Relationship between Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of Design Factors and Social Interaction in Public Squares.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 140, no. 0 (2014): 98-102.

Hipp, John R., Jonathan Corcoran, Rebecca Wickes, and Tiebei Li. “Examining the Social Porosity of Environmental Features on Neighborhood Sociability and Attachment.” PLoS ONE 9, no. 1(2014): 1-13.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. (New York: Random House. 1961).

Krellenberg, Kerstin, Juliane Welz, and Sonia Reyes-Päcke. “Urban Green Areas and their Potential for Social Interaction – A Case Study of a Socio-Economically Mixed Neighborhood in Santiago de Chile.” Habitat International 44, no. 0 (2014): 11-21.

Levy, John M. Contemporary urban planning, 7th ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 2006).

Lotfi, Sedigheh and M. Koohsari. “Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place.” Social Indicators Research 94, no. 3 (2009): 417-435.

Bibliography

79

Mehta, Vikas. “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets.” Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 29-64.

Nasution, Achmad Delianur, and Wahyuni Zahrah. “Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 0 (2012): 466-475.

Orum, Anthony M., Sidney Bata, Li Shumei, Tang Jiewei, Sang Yang, and Nguyen Thanh Trung. “Public Man and Public Space in Shanghai Today.” City & Community 8, no. 4 (2009): 369-389.

Pasaogullari, Nil, and Naciye Doratli, “Measuring Accessibility and Utilization of Public Spaces in Famagusta,” Cities 21, no. 3 (2004): 225-232.

Rasidi, Mohd Hisyam, Nurzuliza Jamirsah, and Ismail Said, “Urban Green Space Design Affects Urban Residents’ Social Interaction.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68, no. 0 (2012): 464-480.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR). “Getting to Great Places.” 2013. Accessed March 27, 2015, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Getting_to_Great_Places_spreads.pdf.

Sugiyama, Takemi, Jacinta Francis, Nicholas J. Middleton, Neville Owen, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Associations between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and Proximity of Neighborhood Open Spaces.” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 9 (2010): 1752-1757.

Whyte, William H. City: Rediscovering the center. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2012.

Zacharias, John, Ted Stathopoulos, and Hanqing Wu. “Spatial Behavior in San Francisco’s Plazas.” Environment & Behavior 36, no. 5 (2004): 638-658.

Zhang, Wei and Gillian Lawson. “Meeting and Greeting: Activities in Public Outdoor Spaces outside High-Density Urban Residential Communities.” Urban Design International 14, no. 4 (2009): 207-214.

Cover Images References Report Cover Image: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1413552/images/o-SAN-FRANCISCO-UNION-SQUAREfacebook.jpg Chapter 1 Cover Image: http://www.citystudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1.jpg Chapter 2 Cover Image: http://terrain.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/5-Silver-Springs-Fountain360x240.jpg Chapter 3 Cover Image: http://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/twentyten/images/usdg/interim-public-plazas/carousel/LA_LATimes.jpg Chapter 4 Cover Image: http://people.umass.edu/latour/France/chandler/index_clip_image001.jpg Chapter 5 Cover Image: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09_22/bwayblvd3.jpg Chapter 6 Cover Image: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-BF561_ SPACES_G_20111002165412.jpg Chapter 7 Cover Image: http://qe1pr67o4hj19lx494tvhiwf.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FreemanPlazaWest2.jpg

80

Bibliography

This page is intenetionally left blank

81