Sarah E. Cook, Master's Research

Livable Density The influence of urban design on perceptions of livability.

Sarah Ellen Cook Masters Project, June 13th, 2014

Committee: Chair, Deni Ruggeri Ph. D, Professor Roxi Thoren, Chris Enright, Ph.D Submitted in Partial Fufillment for the Master’s of Landscape Architecture Degree

Table of Contents Introduction

6

Chapter 1: Significance and Background 1.1 The Industrial Revolution and Town Planning

8-11

1.2 Rational Planning & the Functional City

12-13

1.3 The Beginnings of Suburbanization

14-15

1.4 Compact City Models

16-19

1.5 The Future

20

Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature 2.1 Livability & Density Research

22-23

2.2 Urban Design

24-33

2.3 Visual Assessment Methods

34-35

2.4 Scope of Research

36

Chapter 3: Research Design 3.1 Overview of Research Design

38-41

3.2 Graduate and Expert Pilots

42-45

3.3 Citizen Survey

46-47

Chapter 4: Findings and Data Interpretation 4.1 Findings and General Trends

50-51

4.2 Most Livable Images

52-57

4.3 Medium Livability Images

58-61

4.4 Least Livable Images

62-65

4.5 Livability and Urban Design Qualities

66-68

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

70-73

Works Cited

74-75

List of Illustrations and Figures

76-78

Appendix A: Citizens’ Data

79-91

Appendix B : Physical Attributes

92-93

Dedications Advisor: Dr. Deni Ruggeri Landscape Architecture Faculty Cohort Citizens of Eugene Mother: Martha Ellen Kline

Chair Approval: Signature

Date

ABSTRACT

Perceptions concerning livability and its relationship to density have been instrumental in forming policies shaping human settlement in the United States. The federal highway act (1956) produced rapid suburbanization by providing increased mobility to low density suburbs, subsidized by low-interest-rate loans offered by the housing act of 1949 (Levy 2009). Responses to the sprawl of the last several decades have spurred new models for compact development. Further compounding the need for compact development is the growth of the urban population in American cities (US Census Bureau, 2012). These forces of urban population growth and compact development policies create numerous challenges in making cities compact yet livable. A review of the literature revealed a gap for the effects of urban design on the perception of livability

visual assessment methods was used to target the effects of five urban designs qualities (Human Scale, Enclosure, Permeability, Complexity, and Imageability) on the perception of livability.

Respondents sorted 12 google streetscape images, of a given density into livable and unlivable categories. In a second method I introduced labels on physical attributes in the images which participants could select to indicate which attributes they perceived as contributing to the livability of the streetscape. For a third method I employed an adjective checklist of 20 words which participants used to describe the images (Craik, 1968). Each word related to one of the five qualities of urban design. Results from the pilot revealed that the more people perceived these five qualities to be present, the more likely they were to consider a streetscape as livable. This could point

within medium sized cities. Further knowledge on livability perception and its relationship to urban design is needed for medium sized cities which are likely to undergo the most significant change in urban form, relative to existing dense cities.

In this research, I designed and administered a pilot study within the medium sized city of Eugene, Oregon which is expected to add 34,000 more residents by the year 2032. A triangulation of

to a possible relationship between urban design at the streetscape level and the perception of livability.

INTRODUCTION

6

Perceptions concerning density, particularly in relationship to the livability and healthfulness of cities, have been instrumental in shaping regional and city planning and thus human settlement patterns in America. Expansion has been the trajectory of human settlement since the industrial revolution. Chapter one traces the roots of American settlement from the influences of socialist reformers of the industrial revolution to current models for compact cities fueled by a need for sustainable development. Presently, trends towards urbanization are significant forces in human settlement.

According to the world health organization (2012) over 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by the year 2050. In the United States, the urban population accounts for 80.7 % of the total US population, which has increased by 12.1% in the decade between

as urban design qualities affecting the perception of livability. While livability has been widely discussed in terms of broad scale city planning and socio-economic indicators it has not been investigated in terms of urban design at the scale of the streetscape, the scale at which an embodied and lived experience of the city is carried out.

Furthermore there is relatively little discussion in the literature related to the relationship of density and livability in medium sized cities where the impacts of population growth and compact development policies may significantly alter urban form. In chapter 3, a visual assessment method is presented for investigating the relationship between urban design qualities and their effects on perceived livability within a medium sized city. The findings of a pilot study for the medium sized city of Eugene Oregon are evaluated and discussed

2000 and 2010 (US Census Bureau, 2010). The need for compact development, combined with an increase in urbanization affords numerous challenges to those professions involved in environmental design. The most efficient use of land, providing housing, sustainable infrastructure and creating cities that are dense yet livable are a few of these challenges (Howely, 2009). Through a review of relevant literature, the relationship between density and livability is more closely examined in chapter 2. Gaps in the literature were identified for medium sized cities undergoing increased urbanization as well

in chapter 4. The results indicated that there is a relationship between urban design qualities and the perception of streetscapes as livable.

According to the study, well designed compact urban environments will be perceived as livable. Results of this pilot are intended to develop questions for possible further research and investigation on this important topic. It is meant to contribute to a broader discussion on livability and to supplement local knowledge.

Chapter 1: Significance and Background: The Trajectory of Human Settlement

1.1 The Industrial Revolution and Town Planning

8-11

1.2 Rational Planning and the Functional City

12-13

1.3 The Beginnings of Suburbanization

14-15

1.4 Compact City Models

16-19

1.5 The Future

20

1.1 The Industrial Revolution and Town Planning

Perceptions concerning density, particularly in relationship to the livability of cities, have been critical in shaping the physical structure of human settlement since the industrial revolution. It was during this era of rapid urbanization that city and town planning emerged. Reformists of the late 18th and early 19th century sought to resolve issues of crowding and unlivable urban environments through the design of new urban forms to support working and living (Benevolo, 1967). They were advocates of access to nature and open spaces which enhanced human well-being and morality. Robert Owen’s working Utopian Village of New Lanark (see figure 1) and the cooperative town model of the French socialist reformer Charles Fourier (see figure 2) are both examples of these types of plans based upon intentional design, regulations, and socialist ideals.

Welsh social reformer Robert Owen was a pioneer of socialist utopian planning, founded on the ideology that everyone, regardless of income and social class, could have access to education, safe working conditions, durable housing, and the fresh air of the countryside.

Owen claimed that the physical environment influenced peoples’ moral character and overall well-being. The Town of New Lanark in Scotland (1825) was the experimental ground for his ideas. It was one of the first utopian villages where one could live, work, and educate ones children in a communal setting. The town featured textile

8

factories, public buildings, and housing framing an arrangement of common gardens, public squares, and parks (Benevolo, 1967). “….and man will no longer live in crowded cities…but other arrangements will be formed to enable all, as soon as they shall be made rational to live in superior habitations surrounded by gardens, pleasure grounds and scenery, far better designed and executed, than any yet possessed by the monarchs of the most powerful, wealthy, and extended empires.”

(Owen Robert, Book of the New Moral World, 1836, p. 25)

A contemporary of Owen, Charles Fourier, conceived of a city composed of three zones, the first being the town center, the second manufacturing and the suburbs, and the third the outskirts. Each zone was to be regulated according to its function (Benevolo, 1967).

Fourier’s Traite´ de L’association Domestique-Agricole (1822) stipulates detailed urban design guidelines strikingly similar to today’s form based codes and contemporary planning regulations.

Fourier delineates architectural details, street widths, building heights, and minimum distances between dwellings:

Each House in the city must possess as much free space, in the form of courtyards or gardens, as

that taken up by the building itself; these spaces will be double in the second zone and triple in the third. ” The distances between dwellings shall be calculated horizontally, even on sloping ground, and must be equal to at least half the height of the façade abutting onto it…

The houses shall have hipped roofs, though they will have lateral pediments, and shall everywhere have gutters and drainpipes carrying the water to the pavements. On the side facing the road, the height up to the eaves shall not be greater than half the width of the street. The view at each end of a road shall be a country landscape, or of a public or private architectural monument…..At least one eighth of the surface area shall be covered with public squares. Half the streets will be planted with trees of various kinds. The minimum width of the streets

Figure 1: New Lanark World Heritage Site. Painting, 1818 Source: New Lanark, 1818. Digital image. Early History and Robert Owen. Undiscovered Scotland, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014.

shall be nine toises…. (Benevolo, 1967, p.58)

Ebenezer Howard synthesized the works of earlier theorists such as Fourier and Owen in his Garden City diagram (1898). The diagram illustrated a polycentric city connected by trains integrated with open spaces. His central tenet was the harmonious combination of town and country whereby cultural and social benefits of the town would complement the respite and peace of the country (Miller, 2010). The text at the top reads, “Group of Slumless Smokeless Cities” (see figure 3). The diagram suggests the total urban population Figure 2: Charles Fourier, Urban Form, 1834.

Source: Fourier, Charles. Urban Form. Digital image. n.d. Web. 11 June 2014.

9

to be limited to 250,000 people. Individual urban centers were to be of no more than 32,000 residents. Each city was to be self-contained and to possess a variety of uses and functions. These included industries, commerce, civic centers, education, work, and residential areas. These cities were to be bounded by reserves incorporating farmlands, forests, and water reservoirs.

Several cities have been modeled after the Garden City. Two of the best known Garden Cities are Letchworth (1903) and Welwyn (1920) in the United Kingdom (figure 4). Each exhibits similarities in approaches to housing types, densities, open spaces, and greenbelts.

Maximum densities were not to exceed twelve dwelling units per acre. A variety of housing types were available including cheaper townhomes for the working class, modest cottages for middle class, and larger houses for the wealthy. The concern was to provide better and healthier housing for the working class with open spaces for ample sunlight and air circulation (Miller, 2010).

Howard, Fourier, and Owen were all responding to the unhealthful, unsanitary and crowded conditions associated with the density of the industrial city. The alternatives they provided often emphasized lower density urban forms contributing to fresh air, water quality, health and human well-being.

10

Figure 3: Ebenezer Howards Garden City Diagram, 1898 Source: Howard, Ebenezer. Garden City Diagram. Digital image. Sustainable Cooperative for Organic Development. Word Press.com, n.d. Web. 11 June 2014.

Figure 4: Welwyn Garden City, (1920), one of the first Garden Cities built by Ebenezer Howard, it includes many public parks and housing surrounding common greens.

Source: Marsom, Chris. Welwyn Garden City. Digital image. Web, 11 June 2014.

11

1.2 Rational Planning and the Functional City

12

By the beginning of the 20th century, the ideologies of the first social reformists and town planners had found expression in the establishment of professional and academic institutions in charge of guiding development. The United Kingdom founded a department for Town Planning and Civic Design at Liverpool University in 1909 and in 1913 the Interdisciplinary Town Planning institute opened its doors in London. Berlin organized its first national conference on the Free German Academy of City Planning in 1922. In the United States, Harvard University offered the first city planning course in 1909, and many other academic institutions followed. The Regional Planning Association of America was formed in 1923 and had significant impacts on the approaching New Deal era in America (Domhardt, 2012).

known as the Athens Charter (Gold, 1998, Domhardt, 2012). The city was categorized into four functional zones for dwelling, work, recreation, and transportation, each corresponding to a particular set of architectural and density recommendations. Dwellings were to use the latest high-rise technology but were to be spaced apart to receive ample sunlight and air circulation, and free up open space for the benefit of residents. Unsanitary slums were to be demolished and replaced by high-rise dwellings and adjacent open spaces (figure 5).

Work places were to be set up in adjacent zones to residential areas but separated by a belt of green. One of the most significant contributions of the Athens Charter was the definition of road hierarchy based on traffic speeds and volumes. These recommendations influence much of contemporary urban form (Gold, 1998). Unfortunately, many

Early regional and city planners believed that planning could ameliorate the harsh and crowded conditions of the industrial city.

Modernist architects like Le Corbusier rejected traditional urban forms, and proposed instead a city of efficient, mono-cultural zones served by automobile. Their ideas culminated in the 1933 Congress Internatiounaux d’Architecture Moderne, which produced a basic framework for international urban planning principles and strategies

functionalists urban developments often failed in America because the mixture of uses contributing to urban vitality was absent and low income communities were isolated by dense housing projects surrounded by vast unsupervised open spaces. The urban fabric was broken up, creating less of an opportunity for residents to survey the public realm (Jacobs, 1961). These failed housing projects reinforced perceptions of density as unlivable.

Figure 5: Pruitt Igoe, Functionalist Housing Scheme, St. Louis Missouri, 1954. The housing project was demolished in 1972 as it was unsafe and unlivable.

Source: Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project. Digital image, 1954. Pruitt-Igoe Latest Interest. N.p., 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 June 2014.

13

1.3 The Beginnings of Suburbanization

14

Paralleling functionalist city trends was a process of suburbanization, which had already begun prior to the beginning of World War I. Early streetcar suburbs, such as Riverside, Illinois designed by Olmsted (1869), were limited in dispersal due to the form of transport that served them and the need for housing to be within walking distance from trolley stops. Lewis Mumford of the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) openly criticized streetcar suburbs for their lack of community identity and economic inequality, as young families with children and the elderly could not afford to live there (Arnold, 1971).

Clarence Stein and Henry Wright (also members of the RPAA) designed the first auto-centric suburb of Radburn, New Jersey (1929), after which later American suburbs were modeled

During the Great Depression, the Resettlement Act for the poor of the urban slums and rural areas relocated people to “Greenbelt� towns derived from the Garden City Model. Greenbelt Maryland, Greenhills, Ohio, and Greendale, Wisconsin were the three towns that were actually built out of several that were planned.

These towns were intended to be more than housing projects but to include the entirety of civic spaces and amenities of a village. To keep them from becoming absorbed into nearby cities Agricultural lands and Forests were preserved around them, thus the name Greenbelt Town.

After World War II, rapid suburbanization and the concurrent decentralization of American cities were subsidized by the federal housing act of 1949, which provided a nominal interest rate on loans

(figure 6). In the plan, single-family detached homes were organized around three village greens, which resulted in superblocks framed by arterial streets for faster moving traffic. To prevent through traffic, residential roads dead-ended into cul-de-sacs. This layout became a pervasive pattern in low-density American suburbs. Wright and Stein intended to build affordable homes for families of modest incomes. However the large parks and open spaces incorporated into the design increased the value.

for low-density, single family detached homes (Levy, 2009) (figure 8). The automobile and highway program also allowed for increased mobility and access to suburbs (figure 7). Land use segregation and low-density housing were further promoted by the adoption of zoning ordinances specifying allowable densities for land use types (Lozano, 1990). These desirable, upper middle class suburbs, added to the perception of low density as livable.

Figure 7 : Santa Monica Freeway, Los Angeles, 1965 created 10 years after the Federal Highway Act of (1956) Highways increased mobility to the suburbs.

Source: California Department of Transportation. Santa Monica Freeway, 1965. Digital image. America on the Move. National Museum of American History, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014.

Figure 6: Radburn New Jersey, 1929 This schematic drawing shows a layout of a village unit with single family detached homes arranged around a greenspace and pedestrian network. Each home is placed within a cul de sac layout to prevent through traffic. The unit is divided by superblocks of faster moving traffic.

Source: Radburn, New Jersey. Digital image. Archiscopio. Word Press, 2014. Web. 28 May 2014.

Figure 8: Levittown New York, 1948 one of the first post World War II American suburbs Source:New York Times. Levittown, 1949. Digital image. New York Times Slide Shows. Levittown through the Years, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014.

1.4 Compact City Models

Despite it’s cultural desirability, the low-density suburban pattern that has come to dominate American settlement has become largely recognized as unsustainable. Current urban design thinking sees compact development and the associated mixing of land uses as a solution to the environmental, social, and economic problems associated with a car oriented culture. Developing at higher densities reduces infrastructure costs, decreases our carbon footprint and encourages a more vibrant civic life. Dense environments also help preserve rural and agricultural land. A human-scaled density of 12 dwelling units per acre uses four times less land area than the typical suburban density of 3 units per acre (Campoli and Maclean, 2007).

Cities where goods, amenities and employment are available within walking distance of residences emit less carbon-dioxide per capita than low-density areas: a density of 12 du/ acre produces 10.6 tons of greenhouse gases annually compared to the 16 tons produced by a density of 3 du/ac (Campoli and and Maclean, 2007). Denser developments can also save in road construction and maintenance costs (Litman, 2013). Current compact city models such as, New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Eco-cities are just a few of the recent movements which link back to the idea of creating more livable cities through higher densities and good urban design.

16

The Charter adopted by the Congress of New Urbanism founded in 1993 was a response to Functionalist City Planning and the sprawl of the last several decades.

We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.

Charter of The New Urbanism, Preamble, 2000, pp. V

To address these broad goals, the CNU delineated 27 principles within their Charter. Several of them deal with goals which can be reached by using denser urban form. Principle fifteen states that appropriate densities and land uses should be walking distance to transit stops so that non-motorized and public transit can become viable options to the automobile. Principle eleven encourages neighborhoods to be compact, pedestrian friendly, and mixed use. Principle nineteen states that the primary goal of urban architecture and landscaping is to clearly define, streets, squares, and public space (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2012).

Figure 9: Glennwood Park, Atlanta Georgia 2001. Designed as a New Urbanist Town with a mixture of uses in walkable distance of, a mixture of housing types, public spaces, and transit options Source:. Digital image. Atlanta Urbanist.

Tumblr.com, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014.

The Eco-city movement was founded by Richard Registered in Berkeley, CA in 1975. The main goal of the Eco-city movement is to allow residents to live and work using minimal resources.

Ten principles arose from their third international conference, held in Senegal in 1996, which are based on the broad concept of ecologically and economically healthy cities. The first principal refers to the creation of compact walkable neighborhoods which are mixed use and serviced by transit nodes (Tang, 2010).

“Smart Growth� has become a prevalent term, particularly in America. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines Smart Growth as a balance between accommodating growth and the conservation of open space and critical habitat (Ye, 2005). The US Department of Housing and Urban Development uses the term to

densities, pedestrian and public transit alternatives, community and economic development, as well as natural resource preservation, (Ye, 2005). Organizations such as these illustrate a shift in thinking over the past two centuries concerning density. While density was synonymous with crowded, noise, pollution, and slums during the industrial revolution it is now connected with vital, livable, and sustainable urbanism in developed countries. Although density is popular with planners and offers clear environmental, economic, and social benefits, there is a need to address commonly held perceptions of density as unlivable.

refer to a variety of housing options a part from the single family residential unit. The US Department of Agriculture is concerned with the preservation of farmland and promotes smart growth as the acquisition of land within existing urban centers and suburbs rather than development in fringe areas. Other non-governmental agencies include Smart Growth America and the Smart Growth Network. The principles they promote are mixed use land planning with increased

Figure 10: Spiral timeline illustrating theories and practices influencing human settlement in the United States related to perceptions of density.

18

Socialist Utopian Reformers

Functionalist City Planning

New Lanrak, Scotland (1818)

Pruit Igoe Housing Project, Missouri (1954)

Industrial Revolution New York City (1888)

Suburbanization

Santa Monica Freeway (1965)

The Future Suburbanization Levittown, NY (1949)

Compact City Models

Glenwood Park, Atlanta (2001)

19

1.5 The Future

Today, half the world’s population lives in cities and there are predictions that over 70 percent of the global population will live in cities by the year 2050 (World Health Organization 2013). This is a significant shift from a largely agrarian culture that dominated the world just a few decades ago. In the United States the urban population accounts for 80.7% of the total US population, which has increased by 12.1% in the decade between 2000 and 2010 (US Census Bureau, 2010). This transition poses numerous challenges for urban designers. A more efficient use of land, the provision of affordable housing, sustainable infrastructure and the creation of dense yet livable cities are just a few of the challenges afforded by such global urbanization trends (Howely, 2009). While there is much research on the economic and environmental benefits of density, there is far less information on how dense environments should be designed to create communities that residents perceive as livable and desirable (Howley, 2009; Mitrany, 2006). Density appears beneficial in theory; however, there is little research on how dense environments can enhance a sense of well-being, and on the urban design elements that help generate a positive human experience.

20

Chapter 2: A Review of Relevant Literature

2.1 Livability and Density Research

22-23

2.2 Urban Design

24-33

2.3 Visual Simulation Methods

34-35

2.4 Scope of Research

36

2.2 Livability & Density Research

22

The relationship between perceptions of livability and density are difficult to establish. Previous research indicates that higher density developments in themselves do not account for whether a neighborhood is perceived as livable or unlivable. John Montgomery (1998) argues that density is necessary to vital urban areas and that it should be supported by a mixture of land uses, small scale businesses and a vibrant street life. Carlos Balsas (2004) defines urban livability as “the ability of an urban center to maintain and improve its viability and vitality (p.101).” Vitality emerges when a good mix of stores, businesses, and residential land uses occur within close proximity to one another (Balsas, 2004 Montgomery, 1998). Greater residential densities, in mixed uses areas, mean a larger customer base for local businesses, a more vital public realm,

higher density development but to its association with noise, crowding, pollution, crime and inequitable access to facilities. The same research has found that the quality of housing, access to employment and services, and a sense of perceived safety can positively affect peoples’ sense of satisfaction and their overall attachment to place.

Similarly, researchers in Haifa, Israel have tested the relationship between density perception and the presence of community amenities like public parks, transit, stores, and services. They found that amenities contributed to a more positive associations with density when compared to the satisfaction of residents of neighborhoods without amenities (Mitrany, 2006). A report on density and quality of life in London shows that neighborhood satisfaction increases in the presence of well-designed housing, well maintained public

and a stronger sense of community and ownership (Balsas, 2004).

Despite the fact that we know that a mixture of land uses and higher densities can greatly increase a neighborhood’s vitality, “policies for developing compact cities are often objected to by residents for the reason that they greatly reduce the quality of life” (Howely et al. 2009 p.851). Research on neighborhood satisfaction within the inner city of Dublin revealed that residents do not object to

spaces, easy access to schools and public transit, and open space (Burdett and Ichioka, 2004). These studies point at the importance that design and planning can play in shaping more positive livability perceptions in higher density neighborhoods.

A considerable gap exists in our understanding of the factors considered to enhance neighborhood livability. Most of the attributes studied by researchers fall into broad scale physical planning or socio-

economic categories. Despite its influence on how we experience cities, the impact of streetscape design on the perception of livability has yet to be explored by researchers. The following section explores how urban design may influence the human experience of the built environment.

Haifa, Israel (2006) Israel Institute of Technology Density=40 du/acre Housing Affordability & Quality

Dublin, Ireland (2009) University of Dublin Density= Inner City Dublin

London, England (2004) London School of Economics Density=Top five most dense wards in London

X

X X

Schools Open Spaces

X

Goods & Services

X

Transit

X

X

X X

Maintenance Perception of Safety

X

Figure 11: Comparison of factors influencing neighborhood satisfaction in dense neighborhoods within three separate studies

23

2.2 Urban Design

The following literature review describes the qualities in the built environment that affect the livability of urban streetscapes as pedestrians would experience it. Streetscapes are the domain of the study as they are a significant portion of the public realm. According to Ewing and Handy (2009) The street is “the highest resolution of urban design” and the scale at which residents explore their city (Ewing, 2009; Lynch, 1960). Several urban design qualities have been shown to affect livability; they include human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability (Campoli, 2012; Ewing and Handy, 2009; Appleyard and Jacobs, 1987). The following is a discussion of these qualities as they have been studied and interpreted by urban design researchers. These qualities were extracted from the urban design literature as the basis of a framework to investigate

scaled (Gehl, 1987; Lennard and Lennard, 1987). Building heights and street widths are an important consideration for human-scaled environments (Lennard and Lennard, 1987; Alexander et al., 1977).

Building heights between three to six stories are recommended by some urban design theorist to maintain human scale (Lennard and Lenard, 1987). Other sources propose that buildings over six stories should step back, to allow light and breezes to reach the streetscape (Trancik, 1986).

Human scale determines distances between people and urban design features, and can greatly affect social interaction (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Gehl, 1987). In a fine-grained urban setting, buildings are small, sit close together and afford users with a physical proximity that encourages social interactions (Ewing and Handy,

the influence of urban design on the perception of livability among residents of a medium sized city (See Research Design, Chapter 3).

2009; Gehl, 1987, Montgomery, 1998; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Jacobs, 1993). Research by urban designer Jan Gehl has found that spatial dimensions affect the quality and type of experiences we can have in public space. Distances of 1.5 to 4.5 feet are considered intimate, while distances between 4.5 and 12 feet tend to be those characterizing social or work-related interactions. Distances above 12’ are more typical of social gatherings and events (Gehl, 1987). By limiting building heights, streets widths and the size of urban spaces we can help a city feel more “intimate, warm, and personal” (Gehl, 1987, p.71).

Human Scale

Human Scale refers to the use of materials and urban form that comfortably fit the proportions and sensory abilities of the human body. This quality may influence whether the built environment feels overwhelming or welcoming. It may impact the perception of the streetscape as being inviting, warm, and intimate, or over24

Building Heights

Tall

Medium

Low

Street Widths

Narrow

Medium

Wide

Illustration 1: Human Scale Sketches Building heights and street widths affect a sense of human scale and whether the streetsape feels overwhelming or welcoming.

25

Enclosure

Thy quality of enclosure is fundamental to the creation of successfully inhabitable outdoor spaces. It refers to the framing of public spaces and streets with buildings and other vertical elements that give them a room like quality (Purciel et. al, 2009). Enclosure is affected by the presence of gaps in the physical fabric of the street wall such as those generated by of street parking lots, vacant lots, or larger than needed building setbacks (Ewing and Handy, 2009).

The ratio of building height to street width also impacts a sense of enclosure. In general, a wide street aligned with single story buildings will feel less enclosed to a pedestrian than one framed by taller buildings (Hedman, 1984; Stamps, 2005). Moreover, enclosure may also contribute to making a space more comfortable and conducive to human interaction, especially when its dimensions are directly related to the size, range of sight, and hearing abilities of human beings (Gehl, 1987).

More Enclosed Illustration 2: Enclosure Sketches Useable outdoor spaces are framed by vertical elements such as architecture and street trees. Enclosure can become disrupted by off-street parking, vacant lots, and extensive set-backs.

26

Less Enclosed

Narrow

27

Permeability There are two mutually reinforcing definitions of permeability.

Locomotive permeability, also referred to as connectivity (Saelens, 2003), is a function of the number of intersections per land area and block sizes resulting in a variety of access and mobility options (Montgomery, 1998; Stamps, 2005). A well connected and permeable city provides users with multi-modal transportation options such as bicycle and pedestrian routes linked to public transit (Stamps, 2009).

Visual permeability (or transparency) refers to the treatment of the street wall with windows, entrances, and store fronts, to increase activity and promote perception of greater safety (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Stamps, 2005, 2009; Montgomery, 1998). Enclosure and permeability can give residents of urban areas a sense of refuge, spaces for rest and socialization and greatly increase the accessibility and movement through a city.

28

Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Illustration 3: Permeability Sketches Transit options and pedestrian networks generate well connected and permeable urban environments which increase mobility through a city. Ground floor windows and building entrances enhance visual permeability.

Public Transit Options

Ground Floor Windows

29

Complexity

Visual richness or complexity is closely intertwined with human scale (Ewing and Handy 2009, Gehl, 1987; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Lennard and Lennard, 1986). Human vision is limited in the vertical dimensions, therefore visual elements at eye level are important in creating complexity (Gehl, 1987). Visually detailing an urban environment with physical elements, such as street furniture, planters, paving patterns, building materials and colors, enhances the visual richness (Ewing and Handy, 2009).

Another factor known to contribute to the perceived complexity of an urban environment is the grain of the built fabric. Smaller and more articulated building footprints make the experience of walking more interesting, as these types of buildings require a greater number of entrances, windows, facades, and general architectural diversity (Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987.)

The storefronts, building entrances, and fine-grained walkable street blocks of a complex and permeable urban environment enhance the level of activity by supporting a richer set of experiences (Montgomery, 2008). Complexity is also function of the speed with which pedestrians walk around the city. At three miles per hour

(a typical walking speed), architectural ornamentation, details and streetscape designs can greatly improve the quality of the path, and thus lead to more livable, enjoyable experiences (Gehl, 1987).

Finally, complexity may also refer to the vitality of a place, which is affected by the variety of possible activities, mixture of uses, and types of people it attracts (Balsas, 2004).

More Complex Illustration 4: Complexity Sketches The visual richness of an urban environment generates a more welcoming and engaging streetscape which enhances human activity.

30

Less Complex

31

Imageability An imageable city is one that is well formed so as to leave a visual imprint in one’s memory (Lynch, 1960). Urban designer Kevin Lynch (1960) coined the term imageability to indicate the qualities of a particular environment that make it more memorable and legible. His research uncovered the five fundamental elements of an imageable city: natural or man-made landmarks, distinct districts, paths of intense movement, clear and defined edges, and social or physical nodes. Lynch also suggested that imageability would be an important determinant of place identity. Researchers have found evidence that imageability may indeed be connected to stronger levels of place identity and ultimately leading to intense place attachment (Ruggeri, 2014).

These five qualities of urban design illustrated above are the focus of this research, which investigates the contribution of urban design to perceptions of livability. The following section discusses the use of visual assessment methods, which has been a key methodology used by researchers in testing urban design related questions.

32

Landmarks

Illustration 5: Imageability Sketches Imageability generates a sense of place and identity as well as enhances the legibility and memorability of a city.

Paths

Unique Districts

Edges Social Nodes 33

2.3 Visual Assessment Methods

Environmental psychologists have developed methods to gage how physical environments affect human experience and wellbeing. Kenneth Craik (1968) summarizes visual assessment methods as having four key elements. The first is the environmental display, or the environment being evaluated. The environmental display can be presented in a variety ways, from photographic and cinematographic modes to on site visits, 3-d modeling or static images. The second component is the observer, comprised of citizens, stakeholders, or experts. The third component is the way in which the environmental display is evaluated by the observers. The composition of this third component largely determines the presentation and format of the results. Evaluation may range from free descriptions to a limited checklist of adjectives or numerical ratings of an environment. The benefits of numerical ratings and a limited checklist is that results can easily be compared among individuals and across different observer groups. More descriptive approaches can reveal highly nuanced, detailed, and individualized accounts of an environment.

Another evaluation method mentioned by Craik is a process of Q-sorting static imagery into various predetermined categories. The fourth component delineated by Craik is validation, which may be

34

done through an expert panel or through factual and non-biased information on an environment (Craik, 1968). This approach to organizing visual assessment research was directly applied to the design of this study (See section 3.2).

Visual Assessment methods are common in urban design, as visual cues are a prevalent way by which humans evaluate and process their experiences of a built environment. Ewing and Handy (2009) used a cinematographic method to investigate the relationship of walkability to urban design attributes. They used short video clips to walk a panel of experts through a variety of urban streetscapes and asked them to rate each clip in terms of five urban design qualities: imageability, enclosure, complexity, transparency, and human scale. A recent study employed photography to tap into residents’ subconscious feelings towards their town through a method known as photovoice. The method consisted of giving residents of a master planned community of Southern California disposable cameras to take pictures of places that were meaningful to them. The researchers later analyzed the pictures for evidence of their place identity, and place attachment (Ruggeri, 2014). Photorealistic static imagery (such as perspectives) has been shown to serve as an accurate proxy

for real environments (Wergles and Muhar, 2009). A study on visual simulations compared the equivalence of recall and recorded experiences in 29 static images of an urban plaza versus an on-site visit to the plaza. While on-site visitors were also able to recall non-visual haptic, olfactory, and auditory aspects, the respondents to the visual images focused on physical, structural, and spatial organization of the environment. The physical elements recalled by the two groups of participants were consistent (Wergles and Muhar, 2009).

Visual assessment methods such as the one used in this research have been employed to reveal people’s recognition of environmental features and their desirability. Fewer studies have looked closely at the effects of urban design qualities on livability perception. Of those researchers who have studied perceptual dimensions of livability, no one has yet to focus on medium sized cities. The goal of this research is to assess whether the five urban design qualities discussed earlier can have an effect on perceptions of livability.

35

2.4 Scope of Research

This research focuses on the urban streetscape of a medium sized American city. The city of Eugene, with a population of 179,000, people was selected as the site of this study. The city is expected to add 34,000 more residents by the year 2032. Eugene’s smart growth strategy, consisting of an urban growth boundary, further compounds the need to accommodate for an increased population. An estimated 15,000 new dwellings are needed to house the increased population within the Urban Growth Boundary. Eugene citizens are proud of the fact that they have had to expand the Urban Growth Boundary very little since it was established in 1982. This is due to the adoption of compact development. However, compact development needs to be looked at in relation to livability, and it is important that as it’s population grows, Eugene continues to be livable and vital (Envision Eugene, 2012). “Livability” is defined here in terms of well-being, and it is operationalized as the enjoyment that comes from spending time, visiting or residing in a particular environment (Balsas, 2004; Southworth, 2009).

Figure 12: City of Eugene, zoning map 2014 Source: City of Eugene Planning and Development.

36

Chapter 3: Research Design

3.1 Overview of Research Design

38-41

3.2 Graduate and Expert Pilots

42-45

3.3 Citizen Survey

46-47

3.1 Research Design: an overview

The visual assessment methods used in this research seek to reveal the links between the built environment and the perception of livability. My goal for the research is to assess whether human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity and imageability influence whether a streetscape, of a given density, is perceived as livable within a medium sized town. The design of the research instrument ­was directly influenced by Kenneth Craik’s summary of visual assessment methods and processes (See section 2.3) Observers Observers are those people who will be evaluating a particular environment referred to as the environmental display (Craik, 1968).

Within this research three different observer groups were employed, a graduate student panel, expert panel, and citizen’s of Eugene. The two former groups served to test and refine the research instrument.

Environmental Display 20 Google streetscape images were originally selected from the Pearl district in Portland, Oregon, a fairly new neighborhood developed in the late 1990s with overall densities of 4 Floor to Area Ratio.

This density is considered by the literature as sufficient to provide a more livable and walkable environment, and support the type of

38

urban functions residents expect to find in urban areas (Montgomery, 1998). I selected each of the original images based on the presence or absence of the five urban design qualities: human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability (see section 2.2). Through testing and refining by the graduate student panel, these images were reduced to 12.

Evaluation Methods I employed a triangulation of visual assessment techniques to 12 streetscape images to assess whether human scale, complexity, permeability, enclosure, and imageability impact the perception of a streetscape as livable or unlivable. Triangulation in the context of social-science research refers to the use of multiple methods to assess the validity and reliability of the findings (craick, 1968) see diagram page 41. The three visual assessment techniques were as follows: 1. Q-sorting: Livable Unlivable Images Observers sorted pictures as livable or unlivable. This provided a measurement of the percentage of participants who considered an image livable.

2. Adjective checklists and Likert Scale The adjective checklist and Likert scale assessed the degree to which observers perceived the five urban design qualities as being present in the streetscape images. The adjective checklist used in the the citizen survey was refined by the graduate student and expert panels. Each word included in the checklist represented the presence or absence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability. The graduate student and expert panel evaluated the presence of each quality utilizing a Likert scale. For the graduate student panel the scale consisted of 1-10 where 1=the absence and 10 the presence of a quality. This was refined to a 1-4 scale for the expert panel where 1=the absence and 4=the presence of a quality.

of a streetscape. The physical attributes served as indicators for one or more of the five qualities and provided me with a list of features to look for in images considered the most livable and least livable by participants.

Comparing the q-sorting, adjective checklist, and physical attribute results allowed me to examine whether there was a correspondence between whether an image was considered livable by a majority of participants, how an image was described with the adjective checklist and the physical attributes present.

3. Physical Attributes: Livable and Unlivable Observers were asked to select the top three physical attributes, they perceived as contributing to or diminishing the livability

39

Research Design Process

1

PRELIMINARY WORK REVIEW OF LITERATURE Define Urban Design Qualities affecting Livability.

Identify visual assesment methods Adjective Checklist Q-sorting

2 TEST & DEVELOP METHODS GRADUATE STUDENT PANEL Presence of five UD Qualities in 20 images. Rating system 1-10 contribution of words to Adjective Checklist indicating presence or absence of UD Qualities.

Physical Attributes

Control: Pearl District Density FAR 4 Variables: Five UD qualities

CITIZEN SURVEY PILOT STUDY Q-sorting Livable or Un-livable 12 images

Adjective Checklist 12 images

Q-sorting: Livable or Un-livable images Physical Attribures: Livable/Unlivable

SELECTION OF IMAGES

3

Physical Attribures Livable/Unlivable 6 images

EXPERT PANEL Presence of five UD Qualities in 12 images. Rating system 1-4 Refinement of Adjective Checklist from 60 to 20 words.

Q-sorting: Livable or Un-livable images Physical Attribures: Livable/Unlivable Figure 13: Diagram of the Reserch Design Proccess.

40

Triangulation of Visual Assessment Methods for Citizens’ Survey Analysis Is there consistency between how an image was described by citizens and the percentage of people who consider an image livable?

Analysis

Q-sorting

Research Question

Is there a relationship between the percentage of people who considered an image livable and the physical attributes present in an image?

Does the perception of the presence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability influence whether a streetscape of a given density, is considered livable by residents of a medium sized town?

Adjective Checklist

Physical Attributes

Analysis Is there a relationship between the physical attributes present in an image and how an image is described?

Figure 14: Diagram of Visual Assessment Methods and Analysis

Operational Definition of Livability “Livability” is defined here in terms of well-being, and it is operationalized as the enjoyment that comes from spending time, visiting or residing in a particular environment (Balsas, 2004; Southworth, 2009).

41

3.2 Graduate Student and Expert Panel Pilots

42

Eleven landscape architecture graduate students participated in the pilot test that took place on February 5th, 2014. The pilot involved four activities. The first consisted of rating 20 Google streetscape images for the presence or absence of human scale, enclosure, complexity, permeability, and imageability, using a scale from 1 (absence) to 10 (presence of a quality). A second activity asked students to sort the images into livable and unlivable piles . Thirdly, students were asked to point at particular qualities and features that contributed to livability by placing colored dots onto pictures. Fourth, the students were presented with a checklist of 60 words each corresponding to one of the five urban design qualities and were asked to check all the words which best described the presence or absence of qualities related to livability.

The refined instrument was sent to 22 University of Oregon urban design faculty using Qualtrics, an online survey platform available at the University of Oregon. The faculty was chosen from among an interdisciplinary group of landscape architects, planners, and architects who have published and been actively involved in urban design. Only a small subset of 8 faculty of the 22 invited agreed to participate in the online survey. Experts followed the same order of activities as the graduate student panel. First experts were asked to rate each image on a Likert scale of 1-4 (figure 15), where 1 indicated the absence and 4 the presence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability. In the second activity experts were asked to sort the images as livable or unlivable (figure 16). The third activity consisted of selecting from a pre-labeled

As a result of this pilot the initial 1 to 10 scale was reduced to a 1-4 Likert scale (figure 15) to avoid generating neutral or inconclusive responses and force people to answer questions in a binary form. The pilot contributed to the refinement of an adjective checklist by removing words that were either confusing or redundant, and by expending the list with synonyms and more nuanced adjectives. Finally, the pilot also helped select 12 of the original 20 pictures to be included in the citizens’ survey.

list of physical attributes on six separate images (figure 17 page 44). Definitions of the five design qualities and a checklist list of adjectives describing them were presented in the final activity (figure 18, page 45). The words most commonly selected by the experts were distilled into an adjective checklist of 20 words total, which was later tested through the citizens’ survey.

For the Image Below Please slide the bars to indicate the degree to which each quality is present.

1= least present 4=most present.

For the Image Below Please select whether the image is Livable or Unlivable

For the Image Below Please select whether the image is Livable or Unlivable

Figure 15: Screen shot from online survey of the Likert Scale Rating for Expert Panel Survey.

Figure 16: Screen shot from survey of the Q-sorting, Livable/Un-livable activity.

43

For the Image Below Please select the top three attributes contributing to the Livability of the streetscape.

The results of the first and second activity, showed strong agreement on the part of experts vis-Ă -vis the top four most livable and least livable images, and disagreement with regard to the presence or absence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability. This may be due to a lack of clarity in the way these qualities were operationalized or the way they were articulated within the images showing a mixture of qualities. The intention was to evaluate real environments which often display the absence or presence of multiple qualities and physical attributes indicting these qualities. The isolation of specific qualities and their physical attributes is difficult for real environments. However as these qualities are often experienced together, it is important to test them within the complex contexts of actual versus simulated environments.

44

For the Image Below Please select the top three attributes which make the streetscape less Livable.

Figure 17: Screen shot from online survey, Physical Attributes LIvable/Unlivable

Figure 18: Expert Panel, distillation of the adjecive checklist for each of the five urban design qualities.

45

3.3 Citizen Survey

During the expert pilot, the decision was made to administer the survey using a digital platform ( figures 16, 17, 20). A link to the survey and a general explanation of the goals of the study were emailed to the chairpersons of Eugene’s 23 neighborhood associations, which offered a readily available, convenient sample of Eugene residents. Two presentations were made to the Whiteaker Community Council and the Downtown Neighborhood Association.

At the end of the presentations, a total of 40 people signed up to participate in the online survey, bringing the total number of respondents to 63. Of those who signed up, 30 completely filled out the survey, an unusually high response rate. Because 42 people only completed parts of the survey, the n (number of total respondents) for each of the techniques used varied and is indicated on the table provided in figure 19.

The final survey instrument included the Q-sorting activity of images as livable or un-livable (figure 16), a refined adjective checklist of 20 words (figure 20), and the selection of physical attributes either contributing to or diminishing the livability of the streetscape (figure 17).

46

Visual Assesment Technique Number of Respondents Q-sorting Physical Attributes Adjective Checklist

n = 42 n = 38 n = 30

Figure 19: Table of Citizen Responses per Section

Please check all the words which describe the image below.

Figure 20: Finalized Adjective Checklist Citizen Survey. Citizens ‘ used this checklist to describe the 12 Google streetscape images. Each word corresponds to either the presence or absence of one of the five Urban Design Qualities.

47

Chapter 4: Findings and Data Interpretation

4.1 Findings and General Trends

50-51

4.2 Most Livable Images

52-57

4.3 Medium Livability Images

58-61

4.4 Least Livable Images

62-65

4.5 Livability and Urban Design Qualities

66-68

4.1 Findings and General Trends

50

The 12 Google streetscape images were categorized into three groups based on the percentage of people who considered each image livable within the Q-sorting exercise and the percentage of livable words selected from the adjective checklist. The first category included the most livable images, the second medium livability images, and the third, the least livable images. The findings for each group will be discussed independently of each other.

Pie charts illustrate the percentage of participants who considered the images livable, unlivable, and no response. Images were organized from the most livable to the least livable (See Appendix for the complete results of the citizen survey). All images were described by participants utilizing the adjective checklists, indicating the presence or absence of human scale, enclosure,

these tables within the same orange and grey color scheme as the bar graphs. Due to the extensive number of word choices, a threshold of one third (33%) of the respondents or above was chosen to indicate a significant agreement across the sample. This revealed a general trend whereby images with the perceived qualities of human scale, enclosure, permeability, complexity, and imageability were also defined as livable by over 67 % of participants. The opposite was true as well. Images for which citizens had selected a majority of unlivable words also tended to have very low perceived livability.

This may indicate that the presence or lack of urban design qualities can affect perceptions of a streetscape as livable or unlivable. Furthermore the qualities appear to work in concert with one another to create an overall livable environment. There

permeability, complexity and imageability in the built environment.

Checklist findings where illustrated in bar graphs to quickly reveal the distribution of words utilized and the frequency with which they were selected for each image (figure 22). Words indicating the presence of a quality were highlighted in orange and those indicating the absence grey. The adjectives were organized into tables listing the words indicating livability and un-livability chosen by respondents to describe each image (figure 23). Those words selected by over 33 percent of the participants were highlighted in

were a few inconsistencies in this evaluation, which may be due to the presence of other elements independent of the five urban design qualities. Image 10 received the highest score in livability but had lower percentages in words indicating the presence of the urban design qualities than the other three most livable images. Image 8 was among the four least livable but received high percentages in words indicating connectivity. These inconsistencies will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Image 11 24 22 20

63%

18 16 14 12

40%

10

37%

33% 33% 33%

30% 30%

8

27% 17% 17%

6 4

13% 13% 13% 13%

10% 10%

2

7%

7%

3%

0

Figure 21: Google Streetscape Image 11, .

This image was described by participants utilizing the list of words in the bar graph on the right. The percentage of participants who used each word is labeled on the indavidual bars. The number of people is represented by the Y axis.

Figure 22: Bar Graph for Adjective Checklist Image 11, showing the number and percentage of people who selected each word. Words indicating the presence of the urban design qualities are highlighted in orange and their absence in grey.

UD Qualities Present Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

% 30% 33% 63% 30% 33%

Present Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

%

27% 37% 40% 10% 13%

Absent Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

% 33% 10% 13% 17% 13%

Absent Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

Figure 23: Adjective Checklist Table and Corresponding Urban Design Qualities Each word in the adjective list corresponds to either the presence or the absence of 1 of the five urban design qualities that affect livability. Words selected by over 33 percent of particpants were highlighted.

Orange indicates the presence of a quality and grey it’s absence.

51

%

7% 3% 7% 17% 13%

4.2 Most Livable Images Image 10 Image 10

Image Image 3 3

5% 7%

7%

86%

88%

2

3

Figure 24: Most livable streetscape images and the percentage of people who considered an image livable, unlivable, and no response.

52

2

3

7%

LIVABLE

Image Image 66

NO RESPONSE

UNLIVABLE

Image Image 22 26%

21% 7%

7%

67%

72%

2

3

2

3

53

4.2 Most Livable Images The four images ranked as the most livable tended to feature enclosed, human scaled environments with buildings between two and nine stories that defined the street-edge, see previous page. In two of the pictures (Image 10 and 3) there was a dominant presence of green space, while the remaining two showed dense, mixed-use environments with no open space (Image 6 and 2). Image 3 was composed of both open space and a dense mixed used environment.

Of the four images, the two with open spaces received higher scores in livability than the other two with no open space. The words most commonly selected above 33 % of participants, for all four images, corresponded to the presence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, and complexity (figures 25-28). Image 10 generally received lower percentages of livable words than the other three images even though it was rated as the most livable by a majority of participants (figure 25). Image 3 composed of a dense mixed use area and a public parked received both a high score in livability and was described with higher percentages of livable words (figure 26).

These findings may suggest that there were elements independent of the five urban design qualities that influenced the perception of image 10 and 3 as livable. In image 10 the presence

54

of a park with large healthy trees appeared to have influenced the perception of the image as livable even though the percentages for livable words indicating the presence of the urban design qualities were generally lower than the other three images. Image 3, the only image with green space and a dense mixed use area, appeared to be mitigated by the presence of vegetation as it received a considerably higher score than the mixed use areas without visible open spaces.

This is supported by the selection of street trees by citizens as among the top three features contributing to the livability of the streetscape shown (figure 29, page 56-57). The strong preference for vegetation may indicate a shared value known in the academic world as biophilia or the innate bond humans have with living systems (Kelert, 1993). While biophilia was not the focus of this research, it may point to potential further research considerations.

The three mixed-use images (Image 3, 6, and 2) typically indicated strong agreement on the presence of the five urban design qualities (figures 26-28). They also featured physical attributes ranked among the top three livable attributes: store fronts; social spaces; and street trees (figure 29, page 56-57). Among the top

Image 10

Image 10 5%

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

7%

88%

2

7%

7%

86%

2

21% 7% 72%

2

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

33% 33% 53% 33% 23%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

30% 27% 23% 7% 30%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

3% 17% 7% 3% 3%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 7% 10% 0% 10%

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

56% 47% 68% 59% 21%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

53% 32% 29% 68% 6%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

12% 3% 3% 3% 12%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

6% 6% 6% 0% 6%

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

63% 50% 70% 63% 33%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

57% 23% 47% 47% 23%

Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

10% 3% 3% 3% 0%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

10% 3% 0% 0% 7%

Figure 27: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 6 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

26% 7%

67%

2

%

3

Image 2

Image 2

Present

Figure 26 : Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 3 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

3

Image 6

Image 6

%

Figure 25: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 10 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

3

Image 3

Image 3

Present

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

73% 37% 80% 63% 43%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

80% 43% 43% 67% 47%

Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 13% 0% 3% 0%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Figure 28: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 2 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

55

four livable images, image 2 scored the lowest in livability (figure 28), yet it was the only one for which respondents had selected all the words indicating the presence of human scale, enclosure, permeability, and complexity, and imageability. It received higher percentages in human scale, permeability, and imageability than any of the 12 images used in the study, and was considered equal to image 3 (dense mixed-use image with a park) in complexity and only marginally lower in enclosure .

This may have been due to the method used. A quick q-sorting of images into livable and unlivable categories does not allow a participant to critically evaluate the environment beyond a simple initial perception. The adjective checklist requested more detailed evaluation of the environmental display and allowed participants to possibly see items in the image that they hadn’t previously noticed. This may explain some of the discrepancies between a quick intuitive judgment of binary categories (Livable/ Unlivable) and one that requires a participant to describe an environment in depth.

56

Image 6 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

73% 63% 45%

43% 30%

28% 18%

5 0

Figure 29: Livable Physical Attributes, image 6,1,2. These attributes frequently show up in the most livable images.

18%

18% 5%

3%

Image 2

Image 1 40

40 35

35

78%

30

30

25

25

20 15 10 5 0

45%

45%

20

40% 30%

25%

15 23%

18%

10%

10 5%

3%

5

78% 75%

35%

30% 30%

23% 20% 18% 18%

13% 10%

5%

3%

0

57

4.3 Medium Livability Images Image Image 111

Image 1 Image 1

31% 62%

7%

2

3

Figure 30: Medium livability streetscape images and the percentage of people who considered an image livable, unlivable, and no response.

58

31% 62%

7%

2

3

LIVABLE

Image Image 125

43%

NO RESPONSE

UNLIVABLE

Image Image 12 5

43% 50% 7%

7% 2

50%

3

2

3

59

Responses to images 5 and 12, both featuring the presence of prominent high rise buildings, showed an almost equal division among citizens as to whether they were livable or unlivable (figures 30). Of these two, only image 12, which also featured a large parking garage in the foreground, was referred to as over-scaled in the adjective checklist by 47 % of the participants (figure 34). Image 5 also showed a tall highrise and was labeled as over-scaled by 29 % of the respondents (figure 33). However, the most frequently selected word for this image was exposed, indicating an absence of enclosure.

This image displayed a single story building and off-street parking lot within the foreground, a physical attribute that the literature finds to be diminishing of a sense of enclosure (see section 2.2).

The citizens’ evaluation of these two images may suggest that foreground elements have a stronger visual impact on those experiencing an urban scene. While a high rise was apparent in image 5, it appeared to be the parking lot in the foreground that people tended to respond to the most. This is also apparent in image 9, where a distinctive bridge structured was ignored by the respondents. This could suggest that further research may be

60

needed on foreground or background physical attributes and their resonance in people’s memories.

One other image among those within this category was described as over-scaled by 33% or 1 out of 3 participants (image 11 figure 31). In this image large white office buildings framed both sides of the streetscape. Five words indicating the presence of enclosure, imageability, and permeability were over 33% and 62% of the participants found it to be livable (figure 31).

The scale of the buildings may have been mitigated by the presence of other qualities of permeability, enclosure, and imageability as well as the presence of large street trees apparent in the image, illustrated as a common value in the physical attribute data ( page 56-57 ).

Image 1

Image 11

31% 62%

7%

2

Image 1 31% 62%

7%

43% 50% 7% 2

3

Image 5

Image 12 43%

50% 7% 2

3

Present

%

Absent

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

30% 33% 63% 30% 33%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

27% 37% 40% 10% 13%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

% 33% 10% 13% 17% 13%

Absent

%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 3% 7% 17% 13%

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

24% 17% 66% 24% 14%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

24% 21% 41% 14% 10%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

% 0% 28% 14% 31% 14%

Absent

%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 10% 10% 21% 28%

Figure 32: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses Percentage of people who considered image 1 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

3

Image 12

Image 5

%

Figure 31: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 11 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

3

Image 1

2

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

11% 11% 36% 14% 4%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

%

21% 4% 14% 25% 23%

Absent Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

% 29% 39% 25% 14% 14%

Absent

%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

11% 14% 4% 25% 21%

Figure 33: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 5 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

17% 7% 17% 7% 17%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

%

3% 10% 17% 7% 7%

Absent Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

% 47% 20% 13% 13% 27%

Absent Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

Figure 34: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 12 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

%

20% 17% 13% 13% 27% 61

4.4 Least Livable Images Image 88 Image

24%

31% 60%

9%

7% 69%

Neutral

Like

Figure 35: Least livable streetscape images and the percentage of people who considered an image livable, unlivable, and no response.

62

Image Image 4 4

2

3

LIVABLE

Image Image 77

NO RESPONSE

UNLIVABLE

Image Image 99 7%

14% 7% 79%

2

3

93%

2

3

63

Words indicating the presence of human scale, enclosure, complexity, permeability, and imageability were all below 18% in the four least livable images except for “pedestrian,� selected by 66 percent of participants in image 8 (figures 36). This word corresponded to the locomotive permeability of the built environment especially to non-motorized walkable networks. Other words used to describe the image were bland, indistinctive, and unmemorable. These words referred to a lack of imageability and complexity in the streetscape, which featured narrow right-of-ways and spacious sidewalks. The image was considered livable by 31 % of participants.

These findings may indicate that the presence of locomotive permeability alone is insufficient for an image to be perceived as livable, and it may need to be associated with other urban design qualities in order to truly influence the perception of a streetscape as livable.

Image 4 (figure 37) features a wide street with single stories on one side and taller buildings on another. The image was described as exposed and undefined by over 45% of participants, which is indicative of a lack of enclosure. Image 7 featured an off street parking lot and blank walls with no vegetation or street trees, and was also considered by a majority of participants to be exposed (figure 38).

64

This supports the literature which cites wider street width to building height ratios will produce the experience of a lack of enclosure or places that feel exposed and undefined. Parking lots are also noted in the literature as breaking up a sense of enclosure.

Other vertical elements such as street trees enhance the experience of enclosure by providing a protective overhead canopy and vertical element giving mass and definition to the street edge (see section 2.2 )

Image 9 was considered as dead by 97% of participants and bland by 76% of participants (figure 39). This indicates a very strong agreement on the lack of complexity. Complexity is described by the literature as the presence of activity and visually richness. The image was also described as lacking permeability or disconnected and cut off, a quality also addressed by the literature as contributing to a vibrant street life and vitality.

This image is an extreme example of the absence of these two qualities. A single façade color and material exhibit a lack of material richness. The absence of ground floor windows and building entrances signify a lack of activity and permeability in the streetscape. People responded as designers predicted indicating that the place felt dead, disconnected, and exposed.

Image 8

Image 8 31% 60%

9%

Neutral

Like

Image 4

Image 4

24% 7% 69%

2

3

Image 7

Image 7

14% 7% 79%

2

Image 9

3

Image 9 7%

93%

2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

13% 20% 66% 3% 3%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 17% 3% 0% 0%

Overs-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 30% 23% 57% 40%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 27% 10% 21% 53%

Figure 36: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 8 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

7% 3% 14% 3% 0%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 3% 3% 0% 0%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 48% 31% 52% 66%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 45% 24% 34% 55%

Figure 37: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 4 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

3% 7% 10% 3% 0%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

%

3% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

20% 67% 47% 63% 23%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 20% 20% 37% 53%

Figure 38: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 7 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

0% 3% 3% 7% 3%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

21% 69% 59% 76% 45%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

28% 48% 69% 97% 45%

Figure 39: Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses. Percentage of people who considered image 9 livable and how it was described via the adjective checklist.

65

4.5 Livability and Urban Design Qualities

On the charts in the following pages livability scores from the q-sorting activity are plotted with the high and low percentages of words used to describe the presence of the five urban design qualities in the adjective checklist. One of these charts was made for each of the five qualities of urban design (figures 40-44). The high and low values are represented by a single vertical bar spanning the range between the lowest percentage and highest percentage of the two words indicating the presence of a single urban design quality.

The 33% threshold is shown as a dashed grey line. All of the images considered livable by 67% or more of participants corresponded to word ranges (excluding image 10) which were either completely or mostly over the the 33 % threshold in all urban design qualities except imageability. These charts show that when words indicating the presence of human scale, enclosure, permeability and complexity, were selected by 33% or more of the citizens for an image, it tended to be considered livable by a majority of participants. Image 10 appeared as an outlier in all qualities except permeability. Imageability was the only quality for which the four most livable images did not have word ranges above the 33% threshold (figure 44).

66

This might mean that imageability may not have been as important as the other five qualities or that highly distinctive environments were simply not present within the images shown according to the perception of the participants.

There is a great deal of variability among the top four livable images and the percentages of words used to describe them. There is less variability in the least four livable images as demonstrated by the charts.

This may indicate that people tend to agree more on unlivable environments rather than livable ones or that a great amount of personal preference filters into the perception of what consists of a livable environment. However there is a distinction between the top four and bottom four which are fairly consistently divided by the 33 % threshold in terms of the words used to describe them.

This might indicate that the perception of the presence of these qualities do have some influence over whether a person considers an environment livable or unlivable.

WORD CHOICES: COMFORTABLE, INVITING

Human Scale

Figure 40: Livability and Adjective Checklist Trends

Enclosure

90% 80% 70% 90% 60% 80% 50% 70% 40% 60% 30% 50% 20% 40% 10% 30% 0% 20% 10%

Image 10

Image 3

Image 6

Enclosure Livable Adjective Ranges and Trendlines WORD CHOICES: DEFINED, PROTECTED Enclosure Livable Adjective Ranges and Trendlines

Image 2

0% Figure 41: Livability and Adjective Checklist Trends

Permeability

Image 1

Image 10

Image 3

Image 6

Image 2

Image 1

Image 10

Image 3

Image 6

Image 2

Image 1

image 11 Image 12

Permeability Adjective Ranges

image 11 Image 12

Image 5

Image 8

Image 4

Image 7

Image 9

Image 5

Image 8

Image 4

Image 7

Image 9

Image 5

Image 8

Image 4

Image 7

Image 9

WORD CHOICES: PEDESTRIAN, CONNECTED

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Image 11 Image 12

Figure 42: Livability Scores and Adjective Checklist Trends WORD RANGES

THRESHOLD

LlIVABILITY SCORE

67

10% 0%

Image 10

Image 3

Image 6

Image 2

Image 1

image 11 Image 12

Image 5

Image 8

Image 4

Image 7

Image 9

WORD CHOICES: VISUALLY INTERESTING, LIVELY

Complexity

Figure 43: Livability Scores and Adjective Checklist Trends

Imageability Adjective Ranges

Imageability

WORD CHOICES: DISTINCTIVE, MEMORABLE

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Image 10

Image 3

Image 6

Image 2

Figure 44: Livability Scores and Adjective Checklist Trends

68

Image 1

image 11 Image 12

Image 5

Image 8

Image 4

Image 7

Image 9

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

Despite the small sample and pilot nature of this study, the analysis of the data allows us to speculate as to the importance of urban design in influencing the perception of livability. Considering that most of the images perceived as livable were described with words indicating the presence of the five urban design qualities it would seem reasonable to conjecture that they do have an effect on the perception of a streetscape as livable. Furthermore these qualities appear to re-enforce one another in creating a livable environment.

For example, while locomotive permeability seems to be a strong quality apart from the others, it also tends to support and is supported by the presence of other urban design qualities which contribute to a rich and vibrant streetscape. Specific qualities and physical attributes also seem to mitigate the absence of others; the scale of buildings were made less overwhelming with the presence of other elements such as street trees, visual richness, and permeable environments.

The literature on urban design accurately predicted the types of affects either the absence or presence of specific qualities would produce. These were apparent in how people described certain images. Images with a consistent fabric of human scaled building heights between 2-9 stories, which defined the street edge were considered to be more livable and were described as comfortable and inviting (figure 45). A sense of enclosure shaped by the presence of

architecture and vegetation gave people a feeling of spatial definition and protection (figure 45). Images in which the fabric was broken up by empty parking lots or wide streets and single story buildings were described as exposed and undefined by participants (figure 46). The top four most livable images also featured textures, colors, richness and intense human activity. These places were considered lively and visually interesting, qualities usually associated with urban design complexity. Streetscapes with spacious sidewalks and public transit options were described as pedestrian-friendly and connected.

These responses suggest a strong connection between wellbeing (livability) and streetscape design, and support the research question. Urban Design can indeed affect people’s willingness to reside or spend time in an environment, which was implied in the working definition of livability adopted by this study (see section 2.4 page 36). This research supports that welcoming, rich, connected and human scaled environments will be seen as more livable. This is particularly relevant to residents of medium sized towns seeking to grow responsibly, but also maintain and enhance their livability. As compact development strategies continue to be applied to address the urbanizing trends the world and American cities are experiencing, understanding what is livable in the eyes of residents is becoming more than ever critical to environmental designers.

70

Section 2.2 Excerpts Complexity

The storefronts, building entrances, and fine-grained walkable street blocks of a complex and permeable urban environment enhance the level of activity by supporting a richer set of experiences (Montgomery, 2008)

Human Scale

This quality may influence whether the built environment feels overwhelming or welcoming. It may impact the perception of the streetscape as being inviting, warm, and intimate or over-scaled (Gehl, 1987; Lennard and Lennard, 1987)

Enclosure

Fundamental to the creation of successfully inhabitable outdoor spaces is the quality of enclosure. It refers to the framing of public spaces and streets with buildings and other vertical elements that give them a room like quality (Purciel et. al, 2009)

Image 6 24 22

number of people

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Figure 45: The Presence of Urban Design Qualities and their Influence Human Wellbeing. Images with the presence of a number of urban design qualities tended to be described in terms of descriptive words indicating livability and human well being.

80%

Human Scale

73%

67%

Complexity

63%

80%

Permeability

43%

43%

47%

Imageability

37%

43%

Enclosure

71

Section 2.2 Excerpts Enclosure

Enclosure is affected by the presence of gaps in the physical fabric of the street wall such as those generated by the presence of parking lots, vacant lots, or larger than needed building setbacks (Ewing and Handy, 2009).

The ratio of building height to street width is also a function of enclosure. In general, a wide street aligned with single story buildings will feel less enclosed to a pedestrian than one framed by taller buildings (Hedman, 1984; Stamps, 2005).

Image 7

24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

67%

20%

37%

Complexity

Enclosure

Image 4

63%

53%

Imageability

24 22 20

number of people

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Figure 46: The Absence of Urban Design Qualities and their Influence Human Wellbeing. Images with the presence of a number of urban design qualities tended to be described in terms of descriptive words indicating livability and human well being.

72

48%

Enclosure

45%

66%

Imageability

55%

34%

Complexity

52%

23%

2.2 Urban Design

Urban Design Qualities Key Key Findings Human-scale

The top four most livable images featured narrow streets and buildings between 2-9 stories that framed the street edge or public right of way; they were considered welcoming and inviting, indicating the presence of human scale. The percentages of words selected for human scale were much higher among the top four livable images than in the other 8 images, indicating a strong connection between the perception of livability and presence of human scale.

Enclosure

Images with a continous street edge, the presence of social spaces, and overhead tree canopies were considered protected and defined indicating the presence of Enclosure. The street wall needed to coincide with ground floor windows, entrances, and human activity to have an impact on whether an image was perceived as livable by a majority of participants. Wider streets with lower buildings were perceived as less enclosed as well as buildings broken up by off-street parking and images with a lack of over-head canopy derived from street trees.

Permeability

Permeability needed to coincide with other urban design qualities genrating a rich and engaging urban environment to have an impact on whether a street-scape was considered livable by a majority of participant

Complexity

The top four most livable all had higher percentages of words selected indicating the presence of complexity (lively and visually interesting). This may be reavealing of a strong connection between human activity and visual richness and whether streetscapes within compact urban environments are perceived as livable.

Imageabilityability

The top four most livable images did not receive higher percentages of words indicating the presence of imageability. However, the four least livable images all had higher percentages indicating the lack of imageability. This may reveal that people more easily recognize the absence of imageability rather than its presence within the methodology used.

Figure 47: Table summarizing the findings for each of the five qualities of urban design.

73

Works Cited Appleyard, Donald. Toward an Urban Design Manifesto. Berkeley: Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, 1982.

Arnold, Joseph L. The New Deal in the Suburbs: A History of the Greenbelt Town Program, 1935-1954. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1971.

Balsas, Carlos J. L. "Measuring the Livability of an Urban Centre: an Exploratory Study of Key Performance Indicators." Planning Practice & Research. 19.1 (2004).

Benevolo, Leonardo. The Origins of Modern Town Planning. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1967 Burdett, Ricky, and Sarah Ichioka. Density and Urban Neighbourhoods in London: Summary Report. [London]: Enterprise LSE Cities, 2004 Ewing, Reid, and Susan Handy. "Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability." Journal of Urban Design. 14.1 (2009): 65-84.

“Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032.” City of Eugene Planning and Development Department. March 14th, 2012. Web April 1st, 2014.

Campoli, Julie, and Alex S. MacLean. Visualizing Density. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Campoli, Julie. Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012.

Craik, Kenneth H. “The Comprehension of the Everyday Physical Environment.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 34.1 (1968): 29-37.

Domhardt, Konstanze S. "The Garden City Idea in the Ciam Discourse on Urbanism: a Path to Comprehensive Planning." Planning Perspectives. 27.2 (2012): 173-197 Gehl, Jan. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987 Gold, J R. "Creating the Charter of Athens: Ciam and the Functional City, 1933-43." Town Planning Review. 69.3 (1998): 225-248.

“Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports.” Newsroom. United States Census Bureau, Monday, March 26th, 2012.

Web. April 29th, 2014. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Howley, Peter, Mark Scott, and Declan Redmond. 2009. "Sustainability Versus Liveability: an Investigation of Neighbourhood Satisfaction".

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 52, no. 6: 847-864 Leccese, Michael, and Kathleen McCormick. Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw Hill, 2000.

Lennard, Suzanne H. C, Henry L. Lennard, and Paul Bert. Livable Cities: People and Places : Social and Design Principles for the Future of the City. Southampton, N.Y: Levy, John M. Contemporary Urban Planning. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 2009.

Litman. Todd. “Quantifying the Benefits of Non-motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives.”

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2013.

Lozano, Eduardo E. Community Design and the Culture of Cities: The Crossroad and the Wall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

74

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1960.

Maloney, Cathy J. The Gardener's Cottage in Riverside, Illinois: Living in a "small Masterpiece" by Frank Lloyd Wright, Jens Jensen, and Frederick Law Olmsted. Chicago, Ill: Center for American Places at Columbia College Chicago, 2009.

Kellert, Stephen R, and Edward O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1993 Mitrany, Michal. "High Density Neighborhoods: Who Enjoys Them?" Geojournal. 64.2 (2005): 131-140 Miller, Mervyn. English Garden Cities: An Introduction. Swindon: English Heritage, 2010.

Montgomery, John. "Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design." Journal of Urban Design. 3.1 (1998): 93-116.

Ruggeri, Deni. "The ???my Mission Viejo??? Project. Investigating the Potential of Photovoice Methods in Place Identity and Attachment Research.

Journal of Urban Design. 19.1 (2014): 119-139.

Saelens, BE, JF Sallis, and LD Frank. "Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures."

Annals of Behavioral Medicine : a Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. 25.2 (2003): 80-91.

Stamps, Arthur. "Effects of Permeability on Perceived Enclosure and Spaciousness." Environment and Behavior. 42.6 (2010): 864-886.

Stamps, Arthur. "Visual Permeability, Locomotive Permeability, Safety, and Enclosure." Environment and Behavior. 37.5 (2005): 587-619 Southworth, Michael. "Measuring the Liveable City." Built Environment. 29.4 (2003): 343-354.

Owen, Robert. A New View of Society: And Other Writings. London: Dent, 1972.

Purciel, M, K.M Neckerman, G.S Lovasi, J.W Quinn, C Weiss, M.D.M Bader, R Ewing, and A Rundle. "Creating and Validating Gis Measures of Urban Design for Health Research." Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29.4 (2009): 457-466 Tang, Zhenghong. Eco-city and Green Community: The Evolution of Planning Theory and Practice. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2010.

Trancik, Roger. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986. “Urban Population Growth.� Global Health Observatory. World Health Organization, 2014. Web. May 1st, 2014 Ye, Lin, Sumedha Mandpe, and Peter Meyer. "What Is Smart Growth-Really?" Journal of Planning Literature. 19.3 (2005): 301-315 Wergles, N, and A Muhar. "The Role of Computer Visualization in the Communication of Urban Design-a Comparison of Viewer Responses to Visualizations Versus On-Site Visits." Landscape and Urban Planning. 91.4 (2009): 171-182.

75

List of Figures and Illustrations Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

New Lanark, 1818. Digital image. Early History and Robert Owen. Undiscovered Scotland, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/lanark/newlanark/history1.html>.

9

Fourier, Charles. Urban Form. Digital image. n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. Http://quadralectics.wordpress.com/4representaion/%204-1-form/4-1-4-cities-in-the-mind/4-1-4-2-the-future-city/. Quadralectic Architecture, n.d. Web. 11 June 2014.

9

Howard, Ebenezer. Garden City Diagram. Digital image. Sustainable Cooperative for Organic Development.

Word Press. com, n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://scodpu wordpress.com/2011/03/01/garden-cities-by-ebene zer-howard/>.

10

Marsom, Chris. Welwyn Garden City. Digital image. Home › News & Blog › Blog Let’s Move to Welwyn Garden City - Feature in The Guardian. Heritage Foundation, Letchworth Garden City, 06 June 2012. Web. 11 June 2014. <Home › News & Blog › Blog Let’s move to Welwyn Garden City - feature in The Guardian>.

11

Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project. Digital image, 1954. Pruitt-Igoe Latest Interest. N.p., 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://tincollage.blogspot.com/2012/09/pruitt-igoelatest-interest.html>

13

Radburn, New Jersey. Digital image. Archiscopio. Word Press, 2014. Web. http://arquiscopio.com/archi vo/2013/04/28/supermanzana-de-radburn/?lang=en

15

California Department of Transportation. Santa Monica Freeway, 1965. Digital image. America on the Move.

National Museum of American HIstory, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collec tion/object_668.html>

15

New York Times. Levittown, 1949. Digital image. New York Times Slide Shows. Levittown through the Years, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/10/12/nyregion/20071013_LEVIT TOWN_SLIDESHOW_8.html>

15

Glenwood Park, Atlanta. Digital image. Atlanta Urbanist. Tumblr.com, n.d. Web. 28 May 2014. <http://atlurban ist. tumblr.com/post/49209461559/atlantas-urban-treasures-may-neighbor-an-asphalt-heavy>.

17

Figure 10 Spiral diagram illustrating theories and practices influencing human settlement in the United States related to perceptions of density

19

Figure 11 Comparison of factors influencing neighborhood satisfaction in dense neighborhoods within three separate studies

23

Figure 12 City of Eugene Zoning Map

36

Figure 13 Diagram of the Reserch Design Proccess

40

Figure 14 Diagram of Visual Assesment Methods and Analysis

41

Figure 15 Screen Shot Likert Scale

43

Figure 16 Screen Shot Q-sort Livable/Unlivable

43

Figure 17 Screen Shot Physical Attributes Livable/Unlivable

44

Figure 18 Distillation of the Adjective Checklist, Expert Panel Screen Shot

45

Figure 19 Table of Citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Survey Responses per Section

46

Figure 20 Adjective Checklist, Citizen Survey

47

Figure 21 Google Streetscape Image 11

51

Figure 22 Adjectuve Checklist Bar Graph

51

Figure 23 Adjective Checklist Table

51

Figure 24 Most Livable Images 10, 3, 6, 2

52-53

Figure 25 Image 10 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

55

Figure 26 Image 3 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

55

Figure 27 Image 6 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

55

Figure 28 Image 2 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

55

Figure 29 Livable Physical Attributes, Image 6, 1, 2

56-57

Figure 30 Medium Livability Streetscape Images 11, 1, 5, 12

58-59

Figure 31 Image 11 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

61

Figure 32 Image 1 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

61

Figure 33 Image 5 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

61

Figure 34 Image 12 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

61

Figure 35 Least Livable Images

62-63

Figure 36 Image 8 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

65

Figure 37 Image 4 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

65

Figure 38 Image 7 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

65

Figure 39 Image 9 Q-sort and Adjective Checklist Responses

65

Figure 40 Human Scale Livability Score and Adejective Checklist Trends

67

Figure 41 Enclosure Livability Score and Adejective Checklist Trends

67

Figure 42 Permeability Livability Score and Adejective Checklist Trends

67

Figure 43 Complexity Livability Score and Adejective Checklist Trends

68

Figure 44 Imageability Livability Score and Adejective Checklist Trends

68

Figure 45 The Presence of Urban Design Qualities and Their Influence on Human Well-being

71

Figure 46 The Absence of Urban Design Qualities and Their Influence on Human Well-being

72

Figure 47 Table Summarizing the Findings for the Five Urban Design Qualities

73

IIlustratuion 1 Human Scale Sketches

25

IIlustratuion 2 Enclosure Sketches

26-27

IIlustratuion 3 Permeability Sketches

28-29

IIlustratuion 2 Complexity Sketches

30-31

IIlustratuion 2 Imageability Sketches

32-33

78

Appendix A: Citizen Survey Results

79

Image 10

Q-sorting: Livable/Unlivable

UD Qualities and Adjective Checklist

Image 10 5%

7% Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

88%

2

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

33% 33% 53% 33% 23%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

30% 27% 23% 7% 30%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

3% 17% 7% 3% 3%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 7% 10% 0% 10%

3

Image 3 Q-sorting: Livable/Unlivable

UD Qualities and Adjective Checklist

Image 3 7%

7% Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

86%

2

3

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

56% 47% 68% 59% 21%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

53% 32% 29% 68% 6%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

12% 3% 3% 3% 12%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

6% 6% 6% 0% 6%

Image

Adjective Checklist Image 10 24 22 20 18 16

53%

14 12 10

33% 33% 33%

30% 30%

8

27%

23%

6

20%

17% 10% 10%

4 2

7%

7%

7%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0

0%

Image

Adjective Checklist Image 3 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

68% 68% 59%

56%

53%

47% 32%

29%

24%

21% 12% 12%

6%

6%

6%

6%

3%

3%

3%

0%

Image 6

Image 6

21% 7% 72%

2

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

63% 50% 70% 63% 33%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

57% 23% 47% 47% 23%

Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

10% 3% 3% 3% 0%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

10% 3% 0% 0% 7%

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

73% 37% 80% 63% 43%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

80% 43% 43% 67% 47%

Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 13% 0% 3% 0%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3

Image 2

Image 2

26% 7%

67%

2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Image 6 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

24 22 20

70% 63% 63% 57% 50%

47% 47% 33% 23% 23% 10% 10%

7%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Image 2

80% 80% 73% 67%

63%

18 16 14 12

47%

43% 43% 43% 37%

10 8 6 4 2 0

13% 7%

3%

Image 1

Image 1

31% 62%

7%

2

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

24% 17% 66% 24% 14%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

24% 21% 41% 14% 10%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

0% 28% 14% 31% 14%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 10% 10% 21% 28%

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

30% 33% 63% 30% 33%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

27% 37% 40% 10% 13%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

33% 10% 13% 17% 13%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 3% 7% 17% 13%

3

Image 11

Image 1

31% 62%

7%

2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Image 1 24 22 66%

20 18 16 14

41%

12

31%

10 8

28% 28%

24% 24% 24%

6

21% 21%

4

17%

14% 14% 14% 14%

10% 10% 10% 3%

2 0

0%

Image 11 24 22 20

63%

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

40%

37%

33% 33% 33%

30% 30%

27% 17% 17%

13% 13% 13% 13%

10% 10%

7%

7%

3%

Image 12

Image 12

43% 50% 7% 2

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

17% 7% 17% 7% 17%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

3% 10% 17% 7% 7%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

47% 20% 13% 13% 27%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

20% 17% 13% 13% 27%

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

11% 11% 36% 14% 4%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

Overscaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

29% 39% 25% 14% 14%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

11% 14% 4% 25% 21%

3

Image 5

Image 5

43% 50% 7% 2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

21% 4% 14% 25% 23%

Image 12 24 22 20 18 16 14

47%

12 10

27% 27%

8

20% 20%

6

17% 17% 17% 17% 17%

4

13% 13% 13% 13%

2

10%

7%

7%

7%

7%

3%

0

Image 5 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

39%

36% 29%

25% 25% 25%

21% 21% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%

11% 11% 11% 4%

4%

4%

0%

Image 8

Image 8

31% 60%

9%

Neutral

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

13% 20% 66% 3% 3%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 17% 3% 0% 0%

Overs-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 30% 23% 57% 40%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

3% 27% 10% 21% 53%

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

7% 3% 14% 3% 0%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 3% 3% 0% 0%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

7% 48% 31% 52% 66%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 45% 24% 34% 55%

Like

Image 4

Image 4

24% 7% 69%

2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Image 8 24 22 20 57%

18 16

53%

14

40%

12

30%

10 8

27% 27%

23%

6

20%

17%

4

13% 13%

10%

2

7%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Image 4 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

66% 55%

52%

48%

45% 34%

31% 24% 14% 7%

7%

7%

3%

0%

Image 7 Image 7

14% 7% 79%

2

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

20% 67% 47% 63% 23%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

7% 20% 20% 37% 53%

Present

%

Present

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

3% 7% 10% 3% 0%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

Present

%

Present

%

Absent

%

Absent

%

Comfortable Protected Pedestrian Interesting Distinctive

0% 3% 3% 7% 3%

Inviting Defined Connected Lively Memorable

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Over-scaled Exposed Disconnected Bland Indistinctive

21% 69% 59% 76% 45%

Overwhelming Undefined Cut-off Dead Unmemorable

28% 48% 69% 97% 45%

3% 0% 0% 0% 3%

3

Image 9 Image 9 7%

93%

2

3

Human Scale Enclosure Permeability Complexity Imageability

Image 7 24 22 20

67%

63%

18

53%

16

47%

14

37%

12 10

23%

8 6

20% 20% 10% 10%

4 2

7%

7%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Image 9 24 22 20 18 16 14

76% 69% 69% 59% 48%

45% 45%

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

28% 21% 7%

3%

3%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Appendix B: Physical Attributes Livable Physical Attributes Image 1

Image 6 40

40 35

35

73%

30

63%

25

45%

20

78%

30 25 43%

15

45%

20 30%

40%

15

28%

10

45%

18%

18%

18%

5

30%

10

5%

3%

25%

23%

18%

5

0

10%

5%

3%

0

Unlivable Physical Attributes Image 7

Image 4

Unlivable Physical Attributes 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

â&#x20AC;&#x2039; 61%

50% 37%

37%

29% 13%

13%

8%

8%

8%

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

61%

53%

50% 26%

24%

18%

13%

8%

5%

3%

3%

Top Six Livable Attributes Image 2

Store Fronts

40 35 30

Third Spaces

78% 75%

25 20

35%

15

Street Trees 30% 30%

10

23% 20% 18% 18%

5

13% 10%

5%

Historic Architecture 3%

0

Transit Stop Bike Lanes

Top Six Unlivable Attributes Image 9

Lack of Social Space

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

61%

55%

53%

50%

47%

Blank Walls 39%

32% 21%

18% 5%

5%

3%

Lack of Vegetation

0

Wide Street No Sidewalks

93