Potential Functional Opportunities in Urban Streets - Phd dissertation by Dina K. Shehayeb by ShehayebCONSULT

Potential Functional Opportunities in Urban Streets An integrational approach to the evaluation and design of urban streets by Dina K. Shehayeb

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture To cite this dissertation, please use the following: APA style: Shehayeb, D. (1995). Potential Functional Opportunities in Urban Streets: An Integrational Approach to The Evaluation and Design of Urban Streets. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee December 1995

Potential Functional Opportunities in Urban Streets An integrational approach to the evaluation and design of urban streets by Dina K. Shehayeb The University of Wisconsinâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Milwaukee, 1995 under the supervision of Distinguished Professor Amos Rapoport

Abstract

There is a positive social consequence to knowing about the relationship between the designed environment of the street boundary and use of the street. Design theories describe successful design characteristics but lack an adequate explanation as to why and how these physical forms enhance use. Theories in the Environment and Behavior field explain the effect on human behavior of generalized notions of the environment but lack comprehensive analysis of the designed physical environment. An integrative theoretical approach is needed in order to explore the relationship between the designed characteristics of the street and use of the street. After reviewing the literature in both urban design and EBS, I noticed that attributes and features identified in design theories and empirical EBS studies as having positive implications for use, do so by increasing people's options or opportunities. The notion of defining the physical environment in terms of the potential opportunities for use it offers, lent itself as a useful integrative concept. My research objectives were therefore to: 1. develop an integrative conceptual model of the relationship between design characteristics of the street and its use based on this notion of functional opportunities; 2. examine the extent to which this concept can integrate knowledge about the relationship between street design and street use, and describe the design characteristics of the street in terms of their implications for use; and 3. explore the extent to which the concept of functional opportunities represents how people perceive and use urban streets. These objectives were addressed following a naturalistic inquiry consisting of two parts; part I, the secondary analysis of existing studies, and part II, the case study. Part I includes: (a) the conceptual model which outlines the processes of production, perception and use of those potential opportunities, by now termed Potential Functional Opportunities (Potential FO), and (b) a secondary analysis of data from selective empirical studies relating street use to designed characteristics of the street boundary. This qualitative analysis of observational, interview and archival data about street design and street use integrated studies from different disciplines, and yielded a description of the urban street ii

in terms of its Potential FO for use. Part II, the case study, used qualitative research methods to explore people's perception of the experiential dimension of the street. At this stage my research questions evolved into: Do people perceive the street in terms of Potential FO for use? and if not, what are the attributes people use to describe the characteristics of the street? How do those attributes identified by the people relate to the attributes I elicited from the literature in Part I? The significance of the proposed research project can be summarized in the following four points. 1) The research will present a way to describe the physical environment which is behaviorally meaningful while maintaining a physical rigor, thus providing a common language for researchers and designers to communicate. 2) The research would enhance the understanding of the consequences of design decisions at the different scales as they relate to use. 3) The integration of current knowledge in terms of Potential FO safeguards against the neglect of street functions, street characteristics, and user groups overlooked in the literature and therefore serves to better direct future design. 4) The use of graphic and verbal analysis of a variety of data avoids the risk of losing the connection between abstract attributes and their physical interpretations; it demonstrates a new application of qualitative research. Finally, this work contributes, as a first step, to theory and methodology of studying the physical environment.

Prof. Amos Rapoport Date

iii

Acknowledgments I wish to thank Prof. Amos Rapoport for his continuous guidance. His support and encouragement made this work possible. Special thanks for Prof. Harry Heft for the generous discussions that lead to the development of the theory and Prof. Arza Churchman and Prof. David Saile for their valuable advice on the methodology. I am most thankful to Prof. Linda Krause and Prof. Larry Witzling for the critical evaluation and insightful recommendations. Larryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commments as a practioner were invaluable to this work. I also wish to express my deep appreciation to Prof. Harry Van Oudenalen & Harvey Rabinowitz for encouraging my interests in urban streets and serving as my examining committee. I also wish to thank my parents for their endless moral support. My son Bouffessa for whithstanding all pressure. Finally I thank everyone except my husband who was a nuisance throughout....

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Objectives 1.2. Method 1.3. Synopsis of the Study 2. RESEARCH PROBLEM: The Need For An Integrative Approach 2.1. Problem Statement 2.2. Rational and problem background 2.2.a. The neglect of urban streets and their significance 2.2.b. Inadequate conceptualization of the physical environment 2.2.c. Lack of integration 2.3. Scope, Objectives, and Significance of the Study 3. LITERATURE REVIEW: The Search For Common Grounds 3.1. Attempts to Integrate UD and E-B theory 3.2. In Search for Common Grounds 3.2.a. The notion of adaptability 3.2.b. Theories about the relationship between poeple’s behavior and physical form 3.2.c. The possibilistic role of the environment 3.3. Conclusion: Functional Opportunities, an Integrative Concept 4. STUDY DESIGN & RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4.1. The Evolution of Research Questions And Hypotheses 4.2. Purposive Data Gathering 4.2.a. Purposeful sampling 4.2.b. Data collection methods 4.3. The Interactive Process of Data Analysis 4.4. Planning for Quality in the Study 4.5. Presenting the Findings 4.6. Alternative Methods and the Decision to use Qualitative Methods

3 4 5 5 9 9 9 9 10 12 14 18 18 20 21 22 25 29 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 38 39

PART 1: THEORY DEVELOPMENT 5. THEORETICAL MODEL 5.1. Conceptualizing the Physical Environment 5.2. A Functional Taxonomy of the Environment 5.3. A Tentative Model of FO 5.3.a. Distinguishing between “Potential”, “Perceived”, and “Utilized” FO

47 47 49 51

5.3.b. The Production and Re-production of Potential FO

6. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 6.1. Secondary Analysis 6.1.a. The method 6.1.b. Results of the secondary analysis 6.2. Theory Critique 6.2.a. Articulation of space 6.2.b. Enclosure 6.2.c. Discussion 6.3. Concluding Remarks 7. CONCLUSIONS OF PART I: Developing the Working Hypotheses 7.1. Operational Characteristics of the Concept of Potential FO 7.1.a. Interdependence and order of precedence 7.1.b. Cutting across scales 7.1.c. Different levels of abstraction 7.2. Usefulness of the Concept of FO in Application 7.2.a. Resolving conflicts in findings 7.2.b. Clarifying the lesson to be learned 7.2.c. Defining the design problem 7.2.d. Explaining design theories and pointing out what needs to be researched

60 60 60 61 111 112 115 117 118 125 125 125 126 127 127 127 128 128 130

PART 2: CASE STUDY 8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN 137 8.1. Research Questions and Procedures 137 8.2. Sampling of Sites and Respondents 139 8.2.a. Sampling respondents 139 8.2.b. Site selection 140 8.2.c. Sites selected for observations 142 8.3. Data Collection 143 8.3.a. Documenting the physical environment 143 8.3.b. The interview guide 143 8.3.c. Behavior observation 145 8.4. Data Analysis 146 8.4.a. Unitizing text 146 8.4.b. Coding and category generation 149 8.5. Preparing for Quality in the Study 150

vii

9. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 9.1. Perceived and Utilized FO in Urban Streets 9.1.a. Patterns of Utilized FO 9.2. Charateristics of the Street Related to Utilized FO 9.2.a. Behavioral implications of design variables and building regulations 9.2.b. Design variables associated with the largest numbers of Utilized FO 9.3. Do People Think of Streets in Terms of FO?

154 154 180 292 293 220 208

10. CONCLUSIONS OF PART II & LINKS TO PART I 10.1. Theoretical Implications of the Case Study 10.1.a. The meaning component of behavior 10.1.b. The interactive effect 10.1.c. FO cut across the scales of the physical environment

218

10.1.d. FO come in different levels of abstraction 10.2. Links Between the Case Study Findings and the Literature

219 220

11. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 11.1. Methodological Implications 11.2. Theoretical Implications 11.2.a. Does it integrate? 11.2.b. The issue of culture and generalizability 11.2.c. The issue of adaptability 11.3. Practical Implications: Potential FO as a Tool for Design 11.3.a. Compared to guidelines 11.3.b. Compared to typologies 11.3.c. Compared to Kevin Lynchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elements of the city 11.3.d. Compared to Pattern Language 11.4. Limitations and Future Research

214 214 214 216

225 225 226 227 227 227 228 228 228 228 228 229

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C

250 254 256 viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. An example illustrating conceptual levels of behavior based

on Generaux et al.’s model of behavior components of

meaning 23 Table 5.1. Variables of the urban street at different levels as addressed in the literature 54 Table 6.1. Category of Potential FO “to draw/generate pedestrians”

Table 6.2. Category of Potential FO “to walk a street”

Table 6.3. Category of Potential FO “to stop and stay”

Table 6.4. Category of Potential FO “to see, hear and meet people”

Table 6.5. Category of Potential FO “near home recreation”

104

Table 6.6. Concepts from UD literature and their translation in terms of Potential FO 118 Table 6.7. An example of street functions addressed in the literature

translated into underlying Potential FO

119

Table 7.1. An example of defining the design problem in terms of Potential FO 129 Table 8.1. Potential street users’ sample profile

139

Table 8.2. Streets that repondents talked about in the interviews

142

Table 9.1. The list of Utilized FO mentioned by respondents in the case study (N=24) 154 Table 9.2. The list of Utilized FO mentioned by business owners and

service people in the case study (N=10)

156

Table 9.3. Generators of visible pedestrian traffic on Brady Street based

on mapping the peak-use hours of different businesses

176

Table 10.1. Utiliized FO associated with the activity play

215

Table 10.2. Ledges: an example of the interactive effect among features

217

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1. The stucture of a condition chain diagram Figure 5.1. A schematic showing the difference between theories that abide by the principle of reciprocal definition of person and environment Figure 5.2. A model of Functional Opportinities in urban streets Figure 6.1. Practiced design solutions to maintain narrow street frontage and high density of entrances along the sidewalk Figure 6.2. An example from studies in Melbourne illustrating the effect of distance on the street from a parked car to a destination on the possibility for someone to walk that street Figure 6.3. Examples illustrating the potential of wide residential streets to be used for more functions than access by car Figure 6.4. An example of the Utilized FO to appropriate articulated space. The ledge above the classroom door in a school building shows how the opportunity to appropriate was utilized from the classroom side and not from the hallway side (source: Hertzberger, 1991: 25). Figure 6.5. The principle of articulation of street layout proposed in urban design theory. A classic example cited in the literature is John Nash’s design of Regent Street, London. The concepts describing the street layout reflects the terminology of UD (source of drawing: Moughtin, 1992: 134) Figure 6.6. Corners suggest the Potential FO to subdivide into domains. (Source: Zeisel, 1981: 134). Figure 6.7. A comparison of closed-plan and open-plan designs in terms of the Potential FO to control. The dialectic between personal occupancy and communal occupancy using Sydney Brower’s terms (Brower, 1989). Figure 7.1. A hypothetical condition chain showing the interdependence between categories of FO Figure 7.2. A condition chain showing the negative effect of skywalk systems on street use Figure 8.1. Map of Milwaukee showing the streets mentioned by respondents Figure 8.2. Boundaries of the newly formed Brady St. BID Figure 8.3. Excerpt from an interview to illustrate the initial process of unitizing and coding interview data in the margin Figure 8.4. Illustration of initial sorting Figure 9.1. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to see diverse people” Figure 9.2. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to see familiar faces” Figure 9.3. Zones of stationary behavior across the sidewalk on Brady Street Figure 9.4. The Utilized FO “to have something to watch” at the Brewed Awakenings Café on Brady Street Figure 9.5. Lunch time at Glorioso’s grocery store on Brady Street x

38 48 55 72 81 96

113

114 116 117 126 126 141 143 148 149 159 161 163 164 165

Figure 9.6. The social spot at the firehouse on Brady Street Figure 9.7. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to interact with passersby from the private domain” Figure 9.8. The laundraumat on Brady Street

167 168 170

Figure 9.9. The sittable stone and the deserted ledge at the Brady Street shopping center Figure 9.10. Sitting places on Downer Avenue

171

Figure 9.11. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to be seen”

173

Figure 9.12. The relationship of Sendik’s grocery store on Downer Ave. to where its customers park, and the implications of that for visible pedestrians on the streets Figure 9.13. The use pattern on Downer Ave. on summer nights

174 175

Figure 9.14. Land use map of area surrounding Downer Avenue

177

Figure 9.15. Movement paths at the Brady Street shopping Center

178

Figure 9.16. View analysis for pedestrians along part of Brady Street

179

Figure 9.17. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to be entertained while you walk” and “to see signs of life” Figure 9.18. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to feel safe walking from one’s car to a business” Figure 9.19. Mimma’s restaurant on Brady Street has to put a sign pointing at the private parking across the street Figure 9.20. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to benefit from nearby businesses” Figure 9.21. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to keep a clean sidewalk and store” Figure 9.22. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “to draw customers” Figure 9.23. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO “for convenience where one lives” Figure 9.24. Plan of Brady St. showing its connection to the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan Figure 9.25. Diversity of people on Brady Street Figure 9.26. The parking lot on Downer Avenue and Park Place Figure 9.27. Design plans for the new development at the edge of Brady Street historical district Figure 9.28. A schematic cross-section of a street showing the effect of building height on the locaion and duration of sun and shade on the sidewalks Figure 10.1. An example of a condition chain showing the interdependence between FO at the same level of abstraction xi

181 183 184 185 186 188 190 194 196 198 199 200 218

xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH PROBLEM CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN CHAPTER FIVE: THEORETICAL MODEL CHAPTER SIX: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS OF PART I: DEVELOPING WORKING HYPOTHESIS CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN CHAPTER NINE: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS OF PART II AND LINKS TO PART I CHAPTER ELEVEN: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION The premise of this study is not a new one. One way to better predict how people would use a new design is to know as much as possible how similar designs, precedents, were actually used. When the design concerns public streets, there are several problems. The user in the public street is unknown because, although we can know about cultural norms, users change with time and so do functions of the street, and the regulations that govern the use of the street environment. However, there are numerous examples of urban forms that survived these changes and are still able to accommodate the myriad uses they have been put to. What is the secret of those places? Maybe their configuration is such that it renders them adaptable. Maybe it is solely due to circumstances beyond the street environment. The only way to find out is to look at many examples, evaluations, and accounts of use in literature, history, and the social sciences, to see how those precedents have been used. But that is not enough, there is no need to reinvent the wheel; many others have been interested, as I am, to know the secret of places that work well; places that many different users have found fulfilling to their needs and wants. There are two main groups interested in this issue: designers who want to create places that serve their users better; and social scientists eager to understand how the physical environment1 affects people’s behavior and well being. This is not the only concern of designers or social scientists, but it is one that has occupied a significant number in both disciplines, and their efforts constitute an extensive body of knowledge not to be ignored. One problem remains, the languages these two disciplines speak are different. Although they are studying the same phenomenon— that of inhabiting an urban form—each camp defines the problem differently. Designers use more of the trial-and-error technique, with each new design equivalent to an experiment; looking back at successes and failures, each design theoretician would proclaim the lessons learned from these precedents according to his, or her, own judgment. From Sitté to Venturi to Plater Zyberk, even Le Corbusier, design theory is based on the person’s judgment as to the characteristics of precedents that rendered them successful or unsuccessful. There are merits as well as difficulties with that body of knowledge. One merit that cannot be overlooked is the large body of evidence in the form of graphically documented precedents from all over the world. Although considered “unscientific” within the current definition of “science,” taken together, this body of evidence is equivalent to a series of experiments which corroborate a certain proposition; every one of those precedents that share the same characteristic and is shown to perform to the advantage of its users is evidence to the appropriateness of this characteristic. The second merit that should not be ignored is the insight of many design theoreticians. Many of those personal assertions have been confirmed over and over again by more “scientific” research findings2. By no means am I undermining the value of the social sciences, particularly the body of knowledge known as EnvironmentBehavior (E-B) studies. Design theories suffer several shortcomings: (1) in their definition of successful places; successful for whom, and 3

1 I do not make the distinction between natural and human-made for two reasons: many of the natural landscapes, such as fields and parks, are designed by people (Gans,1968); and furthermore, a line of trees along a boulevard does not make the streets of Paris, Cairo, or Vienna less urban.

Examples of that: Gordon Cullen’s propositions about “refuge;” people want their back protected when they sit in public space, has been corroborated by Nasar’s work and many others (Nasar, 1989). His proposition about “anchors,” people’s stationary behavior concentrated around the edges of a space and around artifacts, has been corroborated by one many research studies (Ciolek, 1978; Gehl, 1986; the literature about plaza use, see Cooper Marcus & Francis, 1989 for a review). Bacon’s assertions about the desirability of “anticipation” is similar to Kaplan’s findings about mystery. And many more examples about perceived order, and variety and the balance between the two, which so far have not been refuted by any “scientific” finding.

There are some urban design theories whose propositions are in terms of processes, such as the proponents of participatory design, advocacy planning, and the subfield of housing for the urban poor which concentrates more on delivery programs and financing issues. However, this emphasis on program usually does not preclude propositions about form which are a result, in my opinion, of the architectural background of many urban designers.

why, is usually left out; (2) the language of the proposition is, for the most part, in terms of form3. This language is so specific that it becomes hard for those applying the theory to see beyond those specifics and to elicit the more generalizable lessons. Even when attempts are made toward generalization—as in the form of types and typologies—the form remains the lesson; it is that form that is repeated to ensure success. E-B theory offers a complement to “form as lesson.” Its propositions are in terms of psychological and social consequences of people’s interactions with these forms (competence, feeling of privacy, feeling of crowding, stress, affect). The lesson here is in terms of people’s responses. This is over-simplifying an entire field that served to advance knowledge regarding how the mind processes environmental information in general. But for the purpose of design—which is the concern of my study—the lessons learned from E-B theory and research answer the question why certain forms have led to certain feelings and behaviors. The answer to this question in design theory depends on the author’s view point, and is not explicitly stated in the proposition. However, E-B theory did not solve the whole problem because form was replaced by abstract constructs. A suggested reason for that is the fear of being accused of environmental determinism, and the eagerness to be recognized as “scientific” which explains the strict adherence to the most generalizable constructs (Frank, 1984). The fields of E-B and urban design seem to me to be different sides of the same coin. Urban design propositions offer typologies of form that have apparently fulfilled the needs of many users, while questions of “who,” “how,” and “for what purpose,” remain unasked. E-B propositions examine users’ characteristics, yet the users’ needs and wants seem to be fulfilled by an all too evasive physical form.

1.1. Objectives The main goal of this study is to reconcile these two bodies of knowledge in order to find an integrative concept that would describe the physical environment with rigor and at the same time, capture its implications for use. This would allow us to reformulate the lessons to be learned from precedents or experiments so that the resulting propositions are clearly operationalized, testable, and usable. The ultimate goal is to bridge the gap between UD and E-B studies. The intent of the research is to extract what is common to theories in UD and E-B studies and to develop an integrative framework, thus making available knowledge more usable by both camps. Consequently, this would lead to a more cumulative development of knowledge. This framework is continuously refined as I test its integrative power by 3 different means: a secondary analysis of previously conducted empirical studies about street use; a theory critique; and an empirical case study.

1.2. Method The study recognizes that the nature of reality lies in its multiplicity. Within this multiple truths world view, total agreement (objective) and total disagreement (subjective) can be regarded as a continuum. The relationship between this view and other current world views, ecological, transactional and interactional is discussed in Chapter Five. Multiple truths are constructed through human processes. There is no single and “right” constructed reality. The judgment of whether a constructed reality is “right” can only be made when we know the context in which “right” is defined, right for what purpose? This paradigm is appropriate to study a setting as complicated as the urban public street and is a valuable reminder when conducting any environmental design research. Theories and guidelines about “good” design should always state good for whom, for what purpose, at what time. That way cultural differences will not be overlooked, but rather regarded as alternative constructions of “reality.” Another tenet of this paradigm is that it does not deny the legitimacy and worth of separate constructed realities. That is because the aim is not to prove other theories right or wrong as long as their assumptions, data, and limitations are acknowledged. My aim is to make use of the existing knowledge and develop concepts compatible with those existing in urban design and E-B research. The framework—with its concepts and working hypotheses—is therefore inductively derived from the existing knowledge and data (a posteriori) rather than preceding them (a priori). The paradigm of naturalistic inquiry lends itself well to this purpose. Besides recognizing “reality” as having “multiple constructions,” this paradigm of inquiry allows data to determine the relevant variables. It is therefore an evolutionary process of inquiry where research questions and working hypotheses are refined over and over with the progress of the research itself. In naturalistic inquiry, the researcher is the main instrument. To diminish this bias, I resort to multiple methods and collect different kinds of data: secondary analysis of existing descriptive data, and a field study using observational, interview, and archival data.

1.3. Synopsis of the study Following this introduction, Chapter Two is about the links between UD and E-B studies and the problems hindering their collaboration in developing a cumulative body of knowledge. The concept of Functional Opportunities (FO) was inductively derived from a critical review where I searched the literature in both fields for common grounds. This constitutes the subject matter of Chapter Three. Chapter Four discusses the method of inquiry and explains the evolutionary nature of the research design. It also includes the research objectives. These objectives are answered in two parts. Part I—comprised of Chapters Five, Six, and Seven—involves the development of working hypotheses from the integration of existing studies and theory. A tentative model of FO was developed based on a critique of E-B models of perception, cognition, and action in Chapter Five, as a guiding framework.

Chapter Six explores the plausibility and usefulness of conceptualizing the physical environment in terms of Potential FO; whether it can integrate theory and disparate empirical findings, and what are the results of this integration. Theories in E-B Studies and urban design are interpreted in terms of Potential FO to explore to what extent this approach can integrate different theories, and a secondary analysis of existing empirical studies of street use examines its explanatory power. The theoretical implications of the results of these analyses are discussed in Chapter Seven, leading to the development of working hypotheses regarding the operational characteristics of the concept of FO. Part II includes Chapters Eight, Nine, and Ten, and involves an empirical case study that examines how people experience the street in terms of FO. Chapter Eight explains the research design of the case study, the methods of data collection and analysis as well as what measures were taken to enhance the quality of the study. Chapter Nine reports the analysis and findings regarding how people perceive, describe and use urban streets. Chapter Ten discusses the theoretical implications of the case study findings which serve to further refine the concept of FO itself. The generalizability of the categories of FO, the street characteristics and the relations between them are also discussed by comparing the findings from the case study with those derived in Part I. Chapter Eleven is a more general conclusion; it discusses conclusions of the whole research study, namely about the FO approach. In it I discuss the usefulness and limitations of the concept with respect to its theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. The idea of adaptability is revisited, and the model of FO developed earlier is discussed in light of the findings. The limitations of the study are then outlined followed by directio

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH PROBLEM

Chapter Two

RESEARCH PROBLEM: The Need for an Integrative Approach This chapter begins with a brief problem statement that will be elaborated upon in a discussion of the rationale behind it. This is followed by a definition of urban streets as considered in this study, and an outline of the general goal of the study. Concluding this chapter is a presentation of the significance of this endeavor for designers, researchers, and communities involved in shaping their street environment.

2.1. Problem statement Design theories describe successful design characteristics but lack an adequate explanation as to why and how these physical forms enhance use. Theories in the Environment and Behavior (E-B) field explain the effect on human behavior of generalized notions of the environment but lack comprehensive analysis of the designed physical environment. Inadequate conceptualization of the physical environment is the main reason behind the slow progress of the dialogue between the two fields. For urban design, and particularly that most public space; the urban street, this dialogue is essential. Social scientists and designers realize the negative social consequence of poor, or inappropriate design. To make use of the current knowledge in both fields an integrative theoretical approach is needed which would clarify the relationship between the designed characteristics of the street and use of the street.

2.2. Rationale and problem background 2.2.a. The neglect of urban streets and their significance Streets represent most of our urban public space. Unlike shopping malls and private plazas, they are also the most public, i.e. accessible to all kinds of people (Arendt, 1987; Brill, 1989; Shields, 1990). E-B research deals more with defined types of urban open spaces such as parks, plazas, and shopping malls (c.f. Francis, 1987 for a review), than with arcades, sidewalks, city streets and space between buildings (Rapoport, 1986). The neglect of the street is partially because it is harder to study streets than it is to study open spaces designated to specific activities. Streets are not designated to one particular activity or one user group; instead, streets play a multitude of roles for diverse user groups (Clay, 1991; Jukes, 1990; Moore, 1991). The street environment gains in importance—that is, becomes more critical—for user groups with restricted mobility due to biological, economic, social or cultural reasons (Rapoport, 1977). The elderly, the poor, children, and often teenagers have limited home ranges or are highly “place specific” (Eisner, 1986; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). The use of the street for recreation and social interaction can also be the result of other factors, such as fear of crime in playgrounds (Brower & Williamson, 1974) or simply a cultural preference (Gehl, 1987; Patton, 1986; Thakurdesai, 1972). The street incorporates economic, social, cultural, and managerial issues that extend beyond its visual form.

Designing streets is very important because they are the hardest to modify when unsuccessful. Streets are continuous and not discrete in nature; their design involves a multi-level decision-making process—from city scale planning, to community beautification committees—and finally, they have a strong relationship with the private domain (Lozano, 1990). The effect of planning determinants (e.g. segregation of uses, services, and populations) on people’s activities at the city scale have been studied in diverse disciplines (e.g. Carlstein, Parkes & Thrift, 1978; Chapin & Brail, 1969; Lozano, 1990) but the implications for street use of building configurations, street frontage, and fine grain distribution of uses, which themselves result from zoning regulations and building codes, remain buried in city planning reports, and in-house evaluations that precede a design intervention (Eichner & Tobey, 1987). Designers and planners have discussed the implications of suburban densities and layout for energy consumption (Gehl, 1987; Lozano, 1990; Schumacher, 1986). Very few studies addressed the implications for use of planning and design regulations as their direct focus (Gehl, 1987; Jacobs, 1961; Newman, 1973), although variables such as land use mix, grain, and street layout were found to be more important indicators of residents’ social norms and preferences than the house itself (Michelson, 1976; Rapoport, 1983). Those variables are what differentiates the suburbs from traditional neighborhoods. 2.2.b. Inadequate conceptualization of the physical environment One of the shortcomings in both urban design and EBS is the inadequate conceptualization of the physical environment (Groat & Despres,1991). There are three widely held conceptions of the physical environment (Heft, in press). One camp, the physicalists, studies the environment strictly in objective terms using the language of geometry and materials; many urban designers belong to this camp. The second camp, the subjectivists, suffers from poor descriptions of the designed physical environment and relies on people’s perceptions and interpretations to describe the physical environment; this includes the majority of E-B empirical studies. Finally, the third camp, proponents of a holistic approach, refuses the distinction between objective and subjective environments and conceptualizes the environment as a process rather than a product.

1 The researcher, usually a designer or a historian in this case, is himself or herself along with the opinion of his or her peers, the only source of subjective judgement in experiential matters (e.g. Bacon, 1967; Curran, 1983; Lynch, 1981). 2

Some of this literature has addressed experiential aspects such as feelings of security, surprise, anticipation, affect, and territoriality (e.g. Bacon, 1967; Cullen, 1961; Curran, 1983) based on their own personal judgements. Others have presented crosscultural illustrations showing how streets and urban spaces are used differently (e.g. NorbergSchulz, 1980; Rudofsky, 1982) but did not address the reasons behind the diversity.

The first camp encompasses the “urban design as product” literature which emphasizes ‘figural’ space. This body of literature addresses urban space from an architectural perspective (e.g. Hedman & Jaszewski, 1984; Krier, 1979; Sitté, 1889 in Collins & Collins, 1986; Trancik, 1986). Except for occasional casual description of activity exclusively based on the author’s personal assessment (Alexander et al, 1977; Cullen, 1961; Lynch, 1981; Moughtin, 1992; Jacobs, 1993)1, this body of literature focuses on the description of the objective physical environment and has been criticized for being largely independent of how the environment is experienced by the users, and its significance to them (Lawrence, 1989)2. Recent theories, such as the neo-traditional town design, postulate propositions in terms of building codes rather than actual features, but are still guided by the visual aesthetic of the finished product (e.g. Mohney & Easterling, 1991 on Seaside). Stemming from psycho-physical 10

and Gestalt-oriented structural views in psychology, research along these lines in EBS has been seen in environmental aesthetics where physical characteristics of landscapes are considered as stimulus variables (see Daniel & Vining, 1983 for a review). This physicalistic approach to describe the environment is not prevalent in the field of E-B Studies. The second camp is reflected in EBS and conceptualizes the physical environment in terms of people’s perception of, cognition of, feelings towards, or meanings attributed to it. The focus of EBS research is usually the person and the human processes that mediate his or her interrelationship with the environment. The objective environment serves as a backdrop from which to choose certain discrete variables to test for their relevancy to a certain E-B issue. Problems arise mainly when these subjective verbal accounts are not complemented by equally rigorous representation of the physical environment they concern. What measure of physical features constitute “X” degree of complexity is usually undisclosed, or too simplistic (e.g. Nasar, 1983). Besides the lack of rigor in describing and analyzing the physical environment, another weakness lies in the type of variables considered from the physical environment. Increasingly over the years E-B empirical studies tend to consider “semifixed-features” (seating, planting, food carts, ground cover, decorations, objects in yards, landscape upkeep, graffiti) as the physical environment. While important, this focus on “furniture” leaves much to be explored. At the urban scale as well as at the building scale, variables of the designed built form, the longer lasting hardware, are not well represented in E - B research. The analysis of the designed physical environment and the operationalization of its variables, gets little attention from the E-B researchers.3 The third camp, which refuses to distinguish between the objective and the subjective environment, conceptualizes the environment as an inseparable component of a system characterized more by the dynamic processes than the individual components. In EBS, this approach is reflected in ecological psychology (Barker, 1968; Wicker, 1981; Wicker, 1987), in the transactional world view (Altman & Rogoff, 1987) and, to a certain extent, in Gibson’s (1950, 1979) ecological perception (Heft, 1988a). Except for the latter,4 developments in ecological psychology, transactionalism, and phenomenology have converged and adopted a naturalistic mode of inquiry which studies “holistic events,” that is, people and psychological processes as they are embedded in, and inseparable from, their dynamic physical and social contexts (Altman, Brown, Staples & Werner, 1992; Wicker, 1992). The consideration of contextual factors is new to the field of EBS and shows some progressive steps towards meaningful conceptualization of the physical environment5 . However, so far in studies within this view, the description of the physical environment still suffers inadequate rigor; it is often considered solely in terms of its significance to the “event” (e.g. Altman et al, 1992). The reasons why the physical circumstances of the holistic event remain underdeveloped compared to the non-physical circumstances may be the purpose of the research (understanding the dynamics of human behavior, rather than the dynamics of the physical form) and the 11

One explanation for this shortcoming is offered by Frank (1984) who suggests that E-B researchers and theorists avoid conducting empirical studies or developing theoretical frameworks that clearly and explicitly formulate the physical environment for fear of being labelled “deterministic.” In her view, this has been mainly due to the inarticulate and often mistaken usage of the term “physical determinism.”

4 The application of Gibson’s ecological approach to perception will be discussed in more detail in the forthcoming section on theoretical framework.

5 Recently, Wicker (1992) acknowledges some characteristics of the physical environment such as infrastructure, land use and catchment areas, and decisions made by developers, as contextual factors that affect the behavior setting under study.

skills of the researchers (mostly in the social sciences not design). The third camp does not seek generalization, and therefore research conducted by the second camp is used as evidence to justify researchbased design guidelines. The result is that, very often, sampling of the physical environment, determining its units of analysis, and choosing the variables is decided upon almost arbitrarily; without consideration to contextual factors (Sanoff, 1991). 2.2.c. Lack of Integration. The few E - B studies that have looked at design characteristics of the street (block size, building height, building set backs, street layout), focus on people’s perceptions with regard to a single social issue (preference, fear of crime, social interaction) (e.g. Churchman & Poreh, 1993; Coleman, 1985; Michelson, 1976). Thus, the implications for general street use of those design characteristics remain scattered among numerous empirical studies each focussing on a specific social issue. Mainstream E–B research tends to examine elements of the street environment in relation to one E-B issue for one group of users at a time—such as; preference (Kaplan, Kaplan & Wendt, 1972; Nasar, 1983, 1989), expression of identity through the home (Hummon, 1989; Pratt, 1982; Janz, 1992), wayfinding and spatial cognition (Bonnes et al, 1990; Garling et al, 1990; Pacione, 1984; Stanton, 1986), pedestrian behavior (Hill, 1984; Walmsley & Lewis, 1989), or feeling of safety (Coleman, 1985; Newman, 1973; Perkins, Meeks & Taylor, 1992; Taylor and Brower, 1985). The fact that the same attributes that promote preference (mystery, complexity, natural elements) according to one set of studies are discouraged by another as promoters of fear of crime is not addressed in EBS (Nasar, 1992). The ‘how’ of synthesizing and designing for conflicting users’ needs is not accommodated in E-B substantive theory (Vischer, 1985). User participation in the design process is proposed by Stephen Carr and his colleagues (1992) and Jon Lang (1994) to resolve this dilemma. While there is evidence to support the success of this process in cases of community open spaces and short residential streets, it is harder to apply at the larger urban scale.

6 The literature on traffic calming and pedestrian streets in Europe and the US.

Urban design theory and literature is more integrative in that respect because it targets synthesis and applicability. However, there is a bias found in urban design (also shared by E-B research) and that is the focus on pedestrians as street users. With the exception of a few studies (e.g. Appleyard, Lynch & Myer, 1964; Whyte, 1984; Moudon, 1991) the term ‘users’ was exclusively confined to mean pedestrians. Consequently, pedestrian interests are regarded as users’ needs whereas traffic or parking demands are not thought of as reflecting people’s choices (when they happen to be behind the steering wheel), but more as a nuisance6. Another bias in urban design is the overemphasis on affect in the street experience. As Kevin Lynch (1981) complained, the users’ experience of sequences of space, or the image of the city imagined by the designer are devoid of considerations to the user’s purpose for using the street, or what it means.

Yet another problem regarding integration concerns the gap in the literature between the macro-scale and the micro-scale environment. That macro-micro gap exists in the design field as well as in the social sciences that inform it (Depres, 1992). Urban design, as a discipline, came about to overcome the gap between planning and architecture. Urban streets and their use are equally impacted by both scales of design intervention. In the social sciences, empirical studies of street use also suffer the macro-micro gap (Frick, 1986; Michelson, 1976). The macro-social perspective focuses on the influence of institutional, ideological, political and economic forces which shape the activity systems of large groups or entire societies in macroscale environments (e.g. Tiwari, 1987). This constitutes the focus of various disciplines such as urban geography, urban economics, and urban sociology (c.f. Franklin & Symes, 1991 for an annotated bibliography). Some planners acknowledge that individuals’ choices regarding the use of the street can only be understood within the dynamic interplay between societal forces (economics, social institutions, planning, and technology) and urban form at the larger scale (Lozano, 1990). However, social studies at the macroscale inform the design discipline at the planning level, but rarely relate to patterns of actual use at the micro-scale. The counterpart view in urban design theory is that the physical environment and its processes constitute the subject of the exploration and are studied in relation to technological, legal, economic, and temporal circumstances of their evolution. Components of the physical environment are regarded as elements of a system involving a multitude of actors and processes. How forces such as growth, cultural evolution, and administrative and technological change transform the form and meaning of the urban environment7 has been discussed in the theoretical arena of designers (Lozano, 1990). The implications of these changes for people’s everyday behavior have only recently been researched (Depres,1995). The closest design implementation to these ideas is participatory design (e.g. Owens Jr. 1987; Ramati, 1981), or entrepreneurial urban design (e.g. Barnett, 1974), but many of these ideas remain hypothetical (e.g. Alexander, 1987). The micro-social perspective lies within the domain of E-B Studies that, as mentioned earlier, focuses on psychological and social processes experienced by individuals or small groups to explain observed behavior within discrete physical boundaries. Except for occasional integrative attempts (e.g. Langdon, Shilbey & Welch, 1990), research on the use of streets and plazas at the micro-scale does not consider the myriad contextual factors impinging on the observed phenomena. For example, providing adequate seating and food stands in a downtown plaza per se, as recommended by William Whyte (1980), will not necessarily ensure public use or reinforce public life (Chidister, 1986). Without underestimating the value of Whyte’s research findings, it is important to put those findings in perspective with regard to the dynamics of the urban form at the larger scale. The impact of studies such as Whyte’s on urban design, is positive. The resulting streetscaping recipe is good as long as one realizes the conceptual prerequisites for its success. Most typical in

7 Growth in urban areas can lead to the differentiation of activities and specialized settings and/or the introduction of new activities at specific size thresholds. A city, for example, cannot sustain an opera house unless it reaches a certain size threshold, a “critical mass” in terms of numbers of users, to make it possible. This critical mass varries crossculturally. Cultural evolution also caused the American downtown with its clusters of highrise office buildings, and not the ego of the architect as many authors have indicated. It is a product of a profit-driven culture that encourages concentrating greater economic power in fewer corporations clustered along with financial institutions in specialized areas; that is following the economics of concentration. At the same time, urban organizations experience waves of technical, administrative, and functional innovation, although technology affects built form only when it concerns uses that are technologically related. For example, the old four- and fivestorey industrial buildings in inner cities became obsolete as soon as the assembly line and truck came into being, to be replaced by the onestorey plant in suburban locations where land values are lower.

the case of downtown streets, urban design projects only involve micro-scale streetscaping, or pedestrianization. What these studies miss is the acknowledgment of the multi-level relationship between the use of public space and the physical and social characteristics of the urban form (Shehayeb, 1992). Understanding contextual forces may totally redefine the research problem at the micro-level (Silverstein & Jackobson, 1985). In general, urban design literature is increasingly becoming more integrative across scales and issues than E-B research (e.g. Bentley et al. 1985; Goodey 1993; Gosling, 1992; Hayward and McGlynn, 1993; Punter 1990). However, it still remains predominantly prescriptive in nature, relying on insightful, yet speculative, interpretations about precedents; existing places in use. This literature provides insight into how the environment operates, but then jumps to conclusions on what should be done, without explaining why it is a “good” principle. This is where E-B theory and findings can provide valuable answers. But for such an integration of knowledge to take place, some differences between the two fields have to be resolved. The dispersed empirical literature about street environments (livability, economic vitality, street life, traffic, children’s play, pedestrian flow, street decoration) available across environmental disciplines needs better integration if one is to make use of it for design purposes. 8

Donald Appleyard, Kevin Lynch and J. Meyer in their book “View from the Road” (Appleyard, Lynch & Meyer, 1974) address the issue of visual scenes experienced during driving on a highway. However, the surrounding environment is treated as a series of still pictures significant only as a source of affect, and a guide to wayfinding to drivers.

2.3. Scope, objectives and significance of the study Since the Modernist period, the role of the urban street has been reduced to that of a road; a conduit through which vehicles and people move8 (Anderson, 1980; Lozano, 1990; Moughtin, 1991). This simplified mono-functional view of the street is changing very slowly among planners and designers compared to the efforts done to illustrate its multi-functional role by some researchers: the street as teacher (Clay, 1991), the street as playground for children (Gehl, 1987; Moore, 1991), the street as workplace for vendors (Habe, 1988; Prakash, 1972), the street as a place for social interaction, recreation and public life (Jacobs, 1961; Sennet, 1977). For the purpose of this study, I define a street as a continuous, three-dimensional space between two rows of adjacent buildings, through which pedestrian as well as vehicular movement occurs, and in which other social activities take place. The edge of the street, “where riders become pedestrians, private and public worlds meet, and myriad of activities occur” (Lozano, 1990:250), plays a major role in the vitality of both the street and the private domain. While the visual and legal definitions of the street usually stop at the building line or the property line, the experiential boundary of the street infiltrates the adjoining private domain. The edge of the street, or street boundary, has been defined differently according to the purpose of each study: “tidal zones”, “interactional zones between discrete and continuous elements”, and “arrivals” were used by Lozano (1990), who focused on visual aspects with respect to the public domain. Lawrence (1986) identifies five domains of transition between the public street and the private dwelling (public, outdoor collective, outdoor private, indoor collective, indoor private) based on access control, use and maintenance regulations, and group organization of users. Rapoport (1977: 288-289) illustrates how

these domains between private and public space vary cross-culturally and imply different meanings. Other terms used such as “soft zone” (Gehl, 1987) and “thresholds” (von Meiss, 1990) emphasize the permeability of this zone and the control devices it offers users to regulate the interface between private and public domains. Ciolek (1978) proposed the division of the sidewalk into three zones based on pedestrians use of the sidewalk. Since each of the above definitions depends only on one functional dimension (privacy, social interaction, visual harmony, or pedestrian use), they cannot be adopted for this study, which aims at a more integrated approach. They serve, however, to indicate the inclusive limits of this transition zone. It follows that, for the purpose of this study, the street boundary is defined as a series of zones between the right of way of vehicles and the interior use of the private domain. Based on the literature, these zones may include: the transition zone between vehicular and pedestrian modes (e.g. parking areas), the sub-zones of the sidewalk, the transition zone between the edge of the public sidewalk and the facade, the facade itself, the interior use of the indoor space. This is not a universal subdivision. In some cultures, zones may merge or overlap, in other cultures they may not exist and different zones may be discovered. This division only serves as a preliminary guide to my research and may be modified. The dimensions considered will include: the physical form (consisting of fixed and semifixed features), regulatory rules that govern the use of the street (parking regulations, traffic, codes for public behavior9, garbage removal, maintenance of sidewalk etc.), and managerial regulations that govern the use of the private domain10. The primary goal of this study is to find an integrative approach that makes use of the existing knowledge and resolves some of the above problems; a conceptual model that: (1) shows the compatibility between competing explanations i.e. integrates theories; (2) clarifies apparently contradictory evidence, i.e. integrates research findings; (3) provides a common language by using a concept with which designers and social scientists are familiar; (4) applies at different scales; and (5) acknowledges multiple users, multiple needs, and change over time. The significance of this study can be summarized in the following three points: 1. The developed approach will present a way to describe the physical environment which would be subjectively and behaviorally meaningful while maintaining physical rigor, thus providing a common language for researchers and designers to communicate; 2. The research findings will enhance the understanding of the consequences of design decisions at the different scales as they relate to the use of the street by different users; 3. The developed approach will provide designers with a new set of research-based design criteria that are less prescriptive in the formal sense, and more predictive of use than general goal statements.

In some cities nothing is allowed to obstruct pedestrian movement on the sidewalk so that putting chairs out on the sidewalk or having a sidewalk sale is only allowed by a permit. Other behaviors such as singing, playing a musical instrument or begging are prohibited by law in many cities (Lofland, 1973). 10 Opening and closing hours of retail shops, regulations governing corporate plazas and facades—sitting is forbidden on the steps of the Firstar Bank in Downtown Milwaukee.

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH PROBLEM CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN CHAPTER FIVE: THEORETICAL MODEL CHAPTER SIX: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS OF PART I: DEVELOPING WORKING HYPOTHESIS CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN CHAPTER NINE: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS OF PART II AND LINKS TO PART I CHAPTER ELEVEN: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER THREE

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter Three

LITERATURE REVIEW: The Search for Common Grounds This chapter serves three purposes. The first is to review prior attempts at integrating urban design with E-B knowledge applicable to urban streets within the definition presented in Chapter Two. The second purpose is to explore theory and research in both fields in a search for common grounds and compatible concepts. This discussion is organized in topical sequence around those derived themes: learning from the past; the interrelationship between designed characteristics and behavior; and, the role of the physical environment. This chapter concludes by introducing Functional Opportunities as an integrative concept.

3.1. Attempts to integrate UD and E-B theory As early as 1961, Kevin Lynch wrote his most influential book; Image of the City , which suggested a new approach to understanding the order of urban form. The criterion behind this structure was based on what ordinary people remembered most about city form. He had interviewed people and asked them to draw maps of the city from memory. This technique is still used in E-B research today. From that he inferred that the city structure can be defined in terms of five elements: nodes, paths, edge, landmarks, and districts. In urban design practice, those elements were used to analyze existing urban fabric and to justify the order in a new design. Quickly, the elements of the structure became the theory; they were clear, succinct, and very usable and were no longer questioned in the design arena. Lynch’s impact was equally influential in the E-B field. The whole sub-field of environmental cognition was triggered by his book. The method of inquiry and the nature of the image in the mind was the main focus in this field. As abstract categories, the five elements have not been refuted, but research findings about what constitutes each category has been controversial. The meaning and significance that people attach to physical features seemed to play a major role. Kevin Lynch himself in his book, Good City Form (Lynch, 1981), tried to downplay the structure and the five elements by pointing out the function they serve. They serve to perceive where things are and how to get there, which consequently will save time, effort and avoid the stress of being lost. The five elements became one of the prerequisites to enhance the legibility of the environment and, together with meaning, lead to the quality he calls “sense.” In addition to “sense” Kevin Lynch added other “performance dimensions,” namely; “vitality,” “fit,” “access,” “control,” “efficiency,” and “justice,” which he based on some E-B knowledge and great insight on his part. Although it may be the most integrative theory so far, Lynch’s propositions were too hard to test empirically and therefore not pursued by E-B researchers. Being much less prescriptive in physical terms, they were not readily usable in design practice either. However, a few of his propositions regarding users’ rights in public spaces have been kept alive by such researchers as Stephen Carr, Mark Francis and Jon Lang, reintroduced then in the framework of users’ needs theory (Carr et al, 1992; Lang, 1994). 18

A team of urban designers at Oxford Polytechnic, UK, operationalized some of Kevin Lynch’s propositions (Lynch, 1961,1981) and presented them as qualities necessary to create “responsive environments,” and these were; “permeability,” “variety,” “legibility,” “robustness,” “visual appropriateness,” “richness,” and “personalization,” (Bentley et al,1985). Like Kevin Lynch’s performance dimensions, these qualities focused on the use of the physical form. Some qualities, like legibility and personalization are mainstream E-B issues. However, the authors quickly translated these qualities into design features based on their personal judgment and experience as designers, without making use of the available E-B theories and empirical findings. The responsive environment team—who exemplify the British urban design movement and are often labeled the “empiricists” in the urban design field—pay more attention to the user perception and legibility issues.1 They look more and more at human aspects, using questionnaires and conducting informal POEs, but they still have not capitalized on E-B research and theory. These designers still think in physical terms despite the goals being more socially responsible. This group has been criticized for its obsession with pre-industrial, pre-automobile environment (Rowe & Koetter, 1978). In urban design, the terminology is still in the features domain; typologies, patterns, and precedents are considered and then predictions are made about the use. An example of that could be Bill Hillier’s work (space syntax in the social logic of space–Hillier & Hanson, 1984), Chris Alexander’s pattern language (Alexander et al, 1977), and the most recent neo-traditionalists/empiricists reliance on types that have proven to work well (Murrain, 1993). They cannot break loose from this bias, which consequently results in solutions that work only in some cases such as European city centers, historic conservation, and small resort towns. This bias towards physical types is seen to hinder the generalizability of their approach; they cannot deal with high speed arteries, peripheral commercial growth and the rehabilitation of suburbia, or other problems that face a metropolis (Simmonds, 1993). Their principles are more generalizable than their image of what physical features construe those principles. The problem lies in the way they make use of precedents. Urban design theory and a large portion of architecture and planning are based on “learning from the past,” “historic precedents” (Rapoport, 1990a), “studying the existing conditions.” The most recent phrasing was “tried and tested solutions” (Murrain, 1993). The act of testing a solution is where E-B has a lot to offer to urban design. As it is, the repertoire of solutions empirically tested with E-B research rigor is very limited compared to the wide scope of solutions tried, and tested (by trial and error, judged by evaluations and insightful personal speculation) which is available to the empiricist urban designer. Jon Lang approaches urban design from the social science perspective of the E-B. He starts by users needs, and relies on a variety of empirical studies each addressing a different need. He adopts a functional approach which he relates to Modernism, explaining that the failure of Modernism was due to the narrow definition 19

1 Along with the neo-traditionalists (e.g. Duany and Plater-Zyberk, 1984), these empiricists are quickly becoming the new mainstreamers. I will not repeat what has recently been succinctly and masterfully told about the history of urban design, or its definition. For that you can refer to John Lang’s (1994) and Hayward and McGlynn’s (1993) in addition to an earlier, less critical, more descriptive review of Broadbent (1990).

Amos Rapoport’s (1977) book Human Aspects of Urban Form is still the most comprehensive review of E-B literature that relates to urban design issues as of the date of publication, but it does not relate that body of knowledge to urban design theory or practice.

of function. The new, broader, definition of function—beyond the sunlight, ventilation... etc. which were considered at the time of Le Corbusier—is prevalent in the E-B field. Amos Rapoport (1977)2 showed how function can be cognitive, or latent, as well as manifest. Cognitive function is often the more important of the two, for example, a seemingly unused lawn area among residences, is actually used for the cognitive function of communicating status. Considering cognitive functions stretched out the functional approach into the domain of meaning, which was neglected, at least in assumption, in the Modernist era. Jon Lang (1987, 1994) may be the only one who tries overtly to integrate urban design and E-B theory. The focus is still on the person and the human response. The translation back to design criteria still suffers from over-generalization and neglect of contextual factors. Jon Lang makes the effort, but still the substantive knowledge he relies on is fragmented by the approach from the “Needs” end of the equation—which is characteristic of the E-B field. Other E-B researchers directed their efforts towards the development of research-based design guidelines. Claire Cooper-Marcus is the leading figure of this group (Cooper-Marcus & Francis, 1990) and her work is one way of using E-B research to inform urban design at the micro scale. This approach is atheoretical, and like all design guidelines has to be seen in context of the culture, and the time, the studies were conducted.

3 Process of urban design has been addressed in UD, but only recently has it been addressed in EBS (Lang, 1994).

The conclusion here is that both UD and E-B are dealing with features, needs, and wants. E-B starts from the needs end; UD starts from the features end.3

3.2. In search for more common grounds The first theme common to both urban design and E-B Studies concerns “lessons from the past” and the notion of adaptability. Urban designers speak of typologies, patterns and precedents, always looking at examples of “good” design; of precedents, of successful existing examples. However, underlying every urban design theory, the author has assumptions about the relationship between the physical environment and behavior associated with it, and usually these assumptions remain hidden. On the other hand, this relationship between physical environment and people’s behavior is the essence of the E-B field; it is the focus of many E-B models. In E-B , research-based design guidelines also depend on knowledge about existing places, which is then generalized to “similar” situations. In the case of urban streets, the lesson from the past seems to be related to the notion of adaptability. When E-B research went beyond the confines of a single user group and a single moment in time, the ability of the physical environment to adapt to conflicting needs and change over time, was found to be a key factor. Discussing this relationship constitutes the second theme. The role of the designed physical environment is singled out as the third theme. Here I explain the deterministic, probabilistic and possibilistic views to the Environment-Behavior relationship, and move on to exploring concepts such as adaptability, environmental fit, and choice that relate to a public setting such as the street.

3.2.a. The notion of adaptability: Inherent adaptability is a trait I found to be common to historic precedents cited in design theory as successful design examples; the reason behind the “good” performance of many physical characteristics of the street hailed in design theory. In design literature, the lessons learnt from examples of historic precedents are usually in terms of design principles such as “articulation” of space, “transitions zones,” and “thick walls.” Cited examples show that articulated spaces allow ready subdivision into different subspaces that can be used for different purposes (Hertzberger, 1991). Articulation of spaces also provided users with places to sit on and lean on; places close to or far from the action, it allowed freedom of posture and orientation (Joardar & Neill, 1978). Arcades and portals, often referred to as transition zones, are a favorite in prescriptive UD theory. Besides their aesthetic effect, they seem to have accommodated a variety of space appropriations over the years, and cross culturally (Geist, 1983; von Meiss, 1990). “Thick walls” refers to exactly what it means; the large thickness of the exterior walls of buildings. Thick walls have apparently allowed infil buildings to accommodate the demands of the interior space, and the demands of the exterior space, which is the public street. This is because their thickness allowed a variety of configurations (niches, recesses, angles) independently on each side of the wall (Lozano, 1990; Rowe & Koetter, 1978); they basically increase the options of utilizing the building-side of the street. Some studies concerning the interior organization of spaces in a building also concluded that inherent adaptability underlies user satisfaction with these buildings (Doll, 1987; Moudon, 1986). The mentioned examples are but some of what urban design literature suggests about the role of adaptability in the survival and continued use of historic precedents to the present day. Adaptability is also important for the survival of the physical form (Lozano, 1990). Urban form must be capable of being adapted in order to accommodate changing economic, cultural and technological demands. Economic obsolescence is a risk facing any urban area that is based on serving a single activity. This change is not one of absolute but rather of comparative obsolescence depending on the adaptability of the urban form to new activities (Lozano, 1990). Furthermore, flexibility of land use regulations, i.e. allowing mixed use, can be crucial to the economic situation of some low income groups, where being able to rent out part of their home, operate a workshop, or share a daycare service with neighbors is vital (Stoner, 1991; Turner, 1976). Also for economic reasons, urban form outlives its users, but when elements of urban form are no longer useful for new functions and conditions, they become culturally obsolete and are either transformed or simply disappear (Cowan, 1963; Lozano, 1990). Adaptability of urban form is important in order to increase users’ choices at one point in time, and to accommodate change over time. So far we have been dealing with the what – what needs, what activities, what features – in both fields. The second theme concerns the how: how do features, needs, and activities relate? This is the concern of theories and models in environmental psychology, behavioral

ecology, anthropology, archeology among other disciplines.

4 Wicker also addressed how settings are created and how they relate to other settings and to the larger social context.

3.2.b. Theories about the relationship between people’s behavior and physical form The theory of behavior settings introduced by Roger Barker (1968) is still the most appealing theory to researchers and designers interested in creating a better environment. This is because of its insistence upon inclusion of the “physical milieu” (both human and non-human entities and conditions) as a fundamental factor to comprehend an action. This sets it apart from person-centered theories that rely solely on an individual’s perceptions, motivations, attitudes and other information about the individual to explain the occurring behavior; they psychologize the environment (Barker et al., 1983:174). The theory underwent significant development mainly by Allan Wicker (Wicker, 1979; 1987; 1992) who brought in psychology-related concepts and social psychological theory to interpret internal dynamics within the behavior setting,4 which some scientists thought was a violation of the theory’s original hallmarks (Kaminski,1983). The role played by the physical milieu was undermined and became part of what Wicker termed “resources” which are the components needed to create and sustain a setting. The physical environment (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981) came to be regarded as having a “latent value” depending on its potential suitability for various behaviors, “the latent value of a place refers to its as-yet unrecognized capacity for accommodating the preferred goals and activities of prospective occupants....... an undiscovered pond that remains frozen throughout winter has the latent potential value as an outdoor recreational area. Once the pond is discovered by ice-skating enthusiasts, its potential value is recognized and transitional (presetting) activity develops in the area.”

(Stokols and Shumaker, 1981:470, my emphasis)

Note that even when the activity starts to occur it is not yet a behavior setting. The role played by the physical environment before the establishment of a behavior setting is more possibilistic—according to this conceptualization—than its role after the establishment of the behavior setting. Daniel Stokols and his colleague (1981) suggest certain environmental and occupant factors as the determinants of the perceived place value such as the degree of accessibility, uniqueness of the place compared to the range of alternatives available to the occupants, and the kind of activities these occupants desire. Some activities are more “resource-specific” than others, for example, playing tennis requires more specific resources in the environment than washing a car (Wicker, 1987). The tightness or looseness of “fit” required between the physical environment and the users’ activities is partially dependent on the activity itself. This development of behavior setting theory acknowledged, more than Barker did, the goals and desires of the occupants of the setting. Stephen Kaplan (1983) proposes a model which regards people’s actions as having two components: “necessary action” or behavior that is either required or actively discouraged in a particular setting (as in Barker’s original behavior setting theory); and “purposive action” or what a person is trying to do. This model also regards the role of the supportive environment as one that “would make 22

it possible for an individual to strive toward such outcomes and goals...a supportive environment is one in which choice and information necessary for making choices is readily available” (Kaplan, 1983: 323) A person’s perception and knowledge of the world, are derived from external information from the environment. The clearer this information, the easier it is for the person to carry out her or his plans. Legibility is emphasized as the essential quality in the surrounding environment. Illegibility, which Kaplan defines as the “lack of adequate information” may result in frustration, feeling of helplessness, or distraction, all of which hinder the fulfillment of the plan (Kaplan, 1983). The acquisition of desired environmental information may also be hindered by environmental demands (necessary action), or cultural norms (expected behavior). This model is embedded in the information processing perspective, and therefore action is the result of a linear process of perception— cognition—evaluation/reflection—and choice to act.5 The focus is on post perceptual processes, viewed as a goal-directed and rational strategy, which differs from the ecological and phenomenological perspectives where perception and cognition are not distinguishable from each other and occur tacitly in everyday situations (Heft, in press).

5 Perceptions are understood through the process of cognition where the perceived images are compared to a person’s (stored) cognitive schemata, or mental images, which represent the knowledge this person acquired from past experience, culture and so on.

Generaux, Ward, & Russell’s (1983) conceptualization of behavior with relation to the physical environment is more articulate than in Kaplan’s model. Purposive action is subdivided into levels ranging from the ultimate goal, down to the activities necessary to fulfill that plan. These are necessary actions that are decided upon by the person. The physical environment may make their fulfillment easy or difficult, but they are clearly purposive and necessary at the same time (see Table 3.1). It considers spontaneous behavior, which is not explained in Kaplan’s model, and illustrates how it may be by choice or out of one’s control. Spontaneous behavior by choice may be considered as purposive by Kaplan’s definition because the person chose to do it, but at the same time it was not part of the original plan and was only considered because of the environment (physical and other people) at that particular time. Level of abstraction

Actual behavior

Behavioral components of meaning reason-for-going

higher level plan

“have fun” “keep fit”

plan subplan (+ve) spontaneous elicited by immediate surroundings (-ve) spontaneous elicited by immediate surroundings

play basketball “change clothes” “pass” “dribble” “chat” “buy a snack” “rest” “to be assaulted” “to have an accident” “to panic” “to feel embarrassed”

reason-for-going activities-while-there associated activities (a person’s own behavior) activities-while-there

Table 3.1. Example illustrating conceptual levels of behavior based on Generaux, Ward, & Russell’s (1983) model of the behavioral components of meaning.

6 The concept of setting as used by Amos Rapoport refers to “a milieu which defines a situation, reminds occupants of the appropriate rules and hence of the ongoing behavior appropriate to the solution defined by the setting” (Rapoport, 1990b). 7 Che Wen Liu (1994) studied two streets in Taiwan. Both streets included a residential and commercial mix, but one was a traditional streets in the old part of town, while the other was a modern wide street. Both streets were heavily used.

A similar conceptualization of activity is suggested by Amos Rapoport (1977, 1986, 1990b), where any activity is seen to have four components: the activity itself, how it is carried out, how does it associate with other activities, and what does it mean. The E-B models discussed earlier addressed the micro-scale environment, whereas Amos Rapoport stresses the macro-scale relations between activities. In his view, activities can only be understood as “activity systems” (Rapoport, 1990b). Any urban space exists in a wider context to which it is linked through the activity systems of its occupants. It follows that defining the urban environment in terms of physical nominal elements (building, plaza, street) with all preconceived concepts that accompany these typologies, should be replaced by a more relevant spatial entity that relates to activity systems. He adopts the behavior setting concept suggesting that urban form could be described as a system of settings.6 This view of the environment is useful because it acknowledges that the same space could become a different setting at different times (Rapoport, 1982). Although it has been recently applied to two urban streets (Liu, 1994),7 many parts of urban streets do not involve ongoing patterns behavior with the intensity, organization, and distinction required for such parts of the street to be considered a setting. The system of settings can therefore be considered to apply in situations where cultural norms are shared, and street use is intense enough to result in ongoing patterns of predictable behavior. William Michelson (1977), believes that the different models to explain the relationship between people’s behavior and their environment are complementary. There are those that emphasize perception, those that emphasize culture, and those that propose the behavior setting that explains this relationship. His point is that with respect to design, there is a primary criterion to be satisfied, and that is “whether or not physical opportunity is provided for the specified behavior to occur” (Michelson, 1977: 211, my emphasis). He also recognized that the provision of adequate opportunity is hardly sufficient to ensure that the behavior will occur. Other factors influence that, factors that provide a more compelling explanation of why a particular behavior observed actually occurred. The perceptual perspective explains the “why” better than the opportunity perspective, while the cultural perspective is better yet. However, in terms of primacy for design purposes, William Michelson suggested to reverse the order in which one considers these perspectives “placing opportunity first, perception second, and culture third, although not failing to consider any” (Michelson, 1977: 211). He considers the designed environment as “opportunity fields” that provide more or less chance for a wide range of behavior to take place. Unlike many E-B models that focus primarily on the impact of the physical environment, William Michelson’s (1976) model of congruence recognizes that the relationship between a person and the physical environment is two-way. A model would not be complete if it did not include the effect of a person’s actions on the environment as well.

From the above review the different theories seem to converge towards the following: 1. the same designed form is adapted, or transformed, into different settings at different times of the day for different users; 2. that the physical environment cannot be dissected into neatly bound design problems; a problem in X may well be fixed by changing Y; 3. the role of the designed physical environment is essentially possibilistic. 3.2.c. The possibilistic role of the environment The role of the physical environment has always been an underlying assumption in design theories. The modernist designers and social scientists had an agenda of social reform. This deterministic view is out of fashion, nevertheless it is still alive among urban designers, especially the neo-traditionalists (Hayward & McGlynn, 1993).8 Aware of the negative consequences of adopting this view in the Modern era, designers today are more wary and the issue is currently in discourse. The probabilistic view is the prevailing one in E-B , where the environment makes some behavior more probable than others (Rapoport, 1977). In current architecture discourse, there is yet another view that I would call “fatalistic,” where some designers give in to the fact that media and marketing are the forces that shape people’s minds and choices. According to this view, change in the physical environment will occur driven by those market forces (Rowe & Koetter, 1978; Venturi et al, 1977). Decisions made by developers for short term profit are given more importance in the theory, at the expense of acknowledging the users’ (and the designers’) active role and responsibility. The advantage of this view is that it acknowledges macro/micro interconnections, but on the other hand, it lacks analytic and conceptual clarity (Simmonds, 1993). ENVIRONMENTAL “FIT” AND ADAPTABILITY: Environmental fit refers to the harmony and close agreement between the physical environment and the behavior taking place in it. Equivalent terms would include “synomorphy” (used by Barker and colleagues in behavior setting theory), “compatibility” (Kaplan, 1983), “congruence” (Michelson 1976; Stokols, 1979), and “synergy” (Seamon & Nordin, 1980), to name a few. One of E-B research’s most widely shared assumptions is that the “fit” between the physical environment and users’ behaviors or needs should be maximized. Jacqueline Vischer (1985) poses two challenges to this assumption. The first challenge is whose needs and preferences should be given priority? The environmental decisions in one location affects more than just the those residing in it (Vischer, 1985). Mark Francis (1989) identifies as non-users those whose interests include visual quality, effect on local economy and tax base, image, and so forth. In practice, the UD is challenged to resolve conflicts between the needs of two or more sets of users of public urban spaces. For example, in an urban waterfront, the needs of joggers, nature lovers, and those coming for the commercial attractions, are usually conflicting, not to mention the needs of user groups that have no political voice such as teenagers (Witzling, 1990). The second challenge is with regard to change over time. Users’ needs and preferences are often assessed at one point in time and then assumed to be constant, whereas

8 E-B researchers also want to defend the rights of minority groups, create democratic streets, discourage drug dealing...which sounds more like the utopian modernists and their agenda of social reform. Lang admits the link to modernism, showing that the difference lies in the broadening of the definition of “function;” beyond the sunlight, ventilation... etc. which were considered at the time of Le Corbusier.

Michelson’s (1977) theory of environmental choice indicates that people’s choices are a function of the situation at hand, and therefore reflect what people want for a finite period of time only. Social norms, lifestyles, and fashions are changing rapidly from one generation to the other, dictating new demands and introducing new uses in the urban form. The single family house does not satisfy the needs of the new household structures introduced in the US. culture (Ahrentzen & Frank, 1991). In contrast to the concept of fit are the concepts of “adaptability” and “flexibility.” “Adaptability”, “resilience” or “inherent adaptability” are terms used in the literature to refer to the ability of the environment to serve a variety of functions and allow a variety of cultural interpretations over time, without disrupting the structure of the whole (Moudon, 1986; Pikusa, 1983; Rapoport, 1990b). “Flexibility” is defined by Oxman (1977) as the ability of the environment to change or “be made different” to adjust to change in order to fit the function it serves (Rapoport, 1990b). Adaptable environments do not change, but rather accommodate change in use while maintaining a strong structural order. On the other hand, flexible environments do change to fit any changes in use. The concepts discussed above are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Lynch (1981) proposed both “fit” and “adaptability” as qualities to be sought in “good” urban design. To illustrate this point further, one could consider the example of an airport. Whereas the structure of the building may be adaptable, the interior subdivisions must be flexible in order to adjust to changing technologies and provide a greater fit where required, at one point in time. The tightness or looseness of “fit” between the physical environment and the users’ activities is defined mostly through semi-fixed and non-fixed feature elements (Rapoport, 1982).

That is because in E-B the researcher’s aim is to understand human behavior with relation to the physical environment, while for designers, the aim is to create a successful design that for some designers, like Chris Alexander, Gordon Cullen, or Kevin Lynch, means a design that will survive and serve its users satisfactorily.

The concept of “fit,” as it is used in E-B research, refers to the relationship between people’s activity patterns and the environment in its sociophysical totality—which includes the designed physical environment, the furniture, vegetation, awnings, as well as people and their behavior. Amos Rapoport distinguishes between the fixed feature elements of the environment (slow changing physical, or designed, characteristics), the semifixed feature elements (e.g. awnings, furniture, vegetation), and the nonfixed feature elements (the human component of the environment). The same designed environment is adapted, through semifixed, nonfixed features and social norms, to a diversity of sociophysical totalities which are perceived in a yet greater variety of ways. The relationship between the designed environment and human behavior is mediated by semifixed and nonfixed features that change rapidly over time. Therefore the “fit” between the environment in its totality and activity patterns is complemented by a “loose” relationship between the designed physical environment and the different environmental totalities it allows (Rapoport, 1991). While designers who addressed the issue of “fit” were aware of the balance needed between fit and adaptability (e.g. Lozano, 1990; Lynch, 1981),9 E-B proponents of “fit”, with the exception of very few (Rapoport, 1991; Vischer, 1985), are not. The possibilistic view seems to be shared by researchers and 26

designers concerned with the dynamics of urban form; change over time, multiple users of the public domain, and the societal forces that impinge on it. The concern of this study is, therefore, with the relationship between the designed environment of the street and the different sociophysical environments it allows. DESIRABILITY OF PERCEIVED CHOICE: Normative criteria for “good” urban design promote such attributes as diversity, variety, complexity, and mixed use (Jacobs, 1961; Lozano, 1990). These attributes characteristically increase people’s choices: choice regarding what to perceive, choice in interpretations, and choice in the use of the physical environment. Research-based guidelines for “good” design strongly promote users’ free access to, and control of, public space (Carr, Francis, Rivlin & Stone, 1992; Cooper Marcus & Francis, 1990; Francis, 1989; Lynch, 1981). This is based on research that illustrates people’s need to feel in control of their surroundings (c.f. Francis, 1989 for a review). One way of achieving this is by feeling one has control over choice (Barnes, 1981; Proshansky et al, 1976). Freedom of choice, although different from “actual control”, increases “perceived control” (Barnes, 1981). PERCEIVED CHOICE VS. PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITIES: The term ‘choices’ has often been used interchangeably with terms such as ‘opportunity’ and ‘options’, to refer to alternatives offered by the place—what the environment brings to the choice situation. However, in the psychology literature the term “choice” is reserved for the experience or act of deciding, whereas “option” is used to define the available possibilities (Barnes, 1993). The environment is seen to afford options for choice. In most of the work on perceived choice, perceived freedom and perceived control over choice have been used almost synonymously. Harvey et al (1979) distinguish between them and define “perceived freedom” as the experience or feeling associated with the act of deciding; and “perceived control” as the long-term, on-going belief one can predict events and cause changes in one’s environment. Theoretical and empirical work on the determinants of perceived freedom of choice indicate that perceived choice depends on the quality of alternatives (how distinguishable, positively valanced, close in attractiveness they are), the number of alternatives (to the extent that they are manageable), and the time allowed to choose among them (Barnes, 1981).10 For the purpose of this study it is important to distinguish between perceived choice and the opportunities offered by an environment. While an increase in the opportunities offered by the environment may increase people’s freedom of choice or perceived control, the inverse is not necessarily true. Francis (1989) gives the example of elderly groups participating in gardening the landscape of the institutional facility they live in. That activity increases people’s perception of control, but is not an indicator that the physical environment affords opportunities for different activities. The proposed study concentrates on assessing people’s perception of opportunities for action and not feelings associated with the act of deciding, which is considered a related, but different, issue. Freedom of choice has been considered an integrative concept that underlies several human needs of utmost relevance in design:

Perceived choice will be increased in a decision situation if the available alternatives can be distinguished from one another, but at the same time, greater freedom of choice will be experienced when the available options are close enough in attractiveness to generate some uncertainty over which alternative is the best choice (Mills, 1970). Greater choice will be felt when the available options have positive valence than when they have negative valence (Harvey & Harris, 1975). A third influence on the perception of choice is the number of alternatives. It was found that the presence of a large number of options results in high perceived choice only when the options can be easily discriminated from one another (Harvey & Jellison, 1974), that is, if the number of options reaches unmanageable proportions it leads to “unfreedom” (Toffler, 1970), also called overchoice. The time allowed for decision making also affects the perception of choice. The lesser the time available to decide, the lesser the number of alternatives that can be managed by the decision maker without it being an overwhelming task. In other words, if a decision task is restricted by time urgency, increasing the number of options will reduce the perception of choice (Harvey & Jellison, 1974).

privacy, territoriality, and social interaction. The founders of environmental psychology regarded privacy and territoriality, not as human needs, or ends in themselves, but rather as forms of spatial appropriation that “seem always to be instrumental to the achievement of more primary goals” (Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin, 1976: 180). The further development of theories about privacy and territoriality regarded them as “mechanisms” to regulate social interaction, whereby people can increase the range of options open to them in the given situation, and have control over the choice of level of interaction (Altman, 1975). Other social and psychological needs, such as expression of identity, also require a certain amount of choice in order to be fulfilled. This implies having options to choose from, and the power to actualize one’s choice.

11 Social class and education influence how aware one is of the opportunities available, and how to get the best out of the political system. 12 Cultural and subcultural factors affect one’s perception of choice, the meaning of the environment, and the ways it can be used.

THE ELUSIVENESS OF CHOICE: A decade ago socially responsible designers and researchers were saying “the built environment should provide its users with an essentially democratic setting, enriching their opportunities by maximizing the degree of choice available to them” (Bentley et al., 1985: 9). Words such as “choice,” “democratic,” “empowerment” were used to define the goals of urban design regarding issues of social and economic equality. This view is still held strongly among some E-B researchers (e.g. Francis, 1991). The ability to exercise choice depends on a number of factors (McGlynn, 1993): (1) economic power; (2) social class; (3) education:11 (4) cultural and subcultural factors12; (5) age, gender, competence; and (6) personality. Ten years later, in both fields, designers and researchers acknowledged that one user group’s increased freedom of choice often means less choice for another user group. (Hayward & McGlynn, 1993 in UD, and Carr et al., 1992 in E-B). Designers also realized the meager real power of urban designers in relation to many of the other actors in the development process (McGlynn, 1993). The heroic approach was substituted for a “bottom line” approach in order to be more effective; an approach which tries to avoid the restriction of choice for the eventual users of a place, particularly those user groups with less power. Another point realized by some urban designers and E-B theoreticians was the fact that the built environment lasts a long time, particularly at the level of street systems and site layouts (e.g. Lozano, 1990; Maurrain, 1993; Rapoport, 1991; Visher, 1985). Another implication of the temporal dimension was that even the best of participatory design can only benefit the first-off users of a place. E-B researchers do not acknowledge this point in research-based design guidelines nor in the design process they propose (e.g. Carr et al., 1992; Lang, 1994). However, in urban design, acknowledging these points lead to a reversal in the goal of urban design from “maximizing choice” to “minimizing disadvantage” for first-off and future users. In practice this meant an interactive design process with users (in consideration to current users), complemented by the application of tried and tested solutions which have proved to work over time for different users (in consideration to future users).

3.3. Conclusion: Functional integrative concept

Opportunities,

The common threads found in this search can be summarized in the following five points: 1. Characteristics of “good” street design are generally also highly adaptable. 2. Choice is desirable and many human need theories were restated in terms of freedom of choice by their proponents. 3. Both fields rely on lessons learned from precedents to guide future design. The critical issue is what to learn, in what terms? 4. The term opportunities is common to all disciplines involved. 5. The relationship between human activity and the designed environment is only possibilistic. Human needs and wants (the language of E-B substantive knowledge) may be translated into functional opportunities (FO). On the other hand, designed features of the street may be described in terms of their potential to allow FO more easily than they can be described in terms of needs. The same FO may be utilized to fulfill different needs and therefore variations in FO are less than variations in what they are used for. Operable windows, for example, allow looking out and controlling the internal ambient environment. At a higher level of abstraction, operable windows could fulfill the need for privacy, social interaction, and control over one’s environment. At a lower level of abstraction (the material world that designers manipulate), operable windows may be achieved in different styles, shapes, proportions, materials, and dimensions. The term function as I use it in this study includes both manifest function expressed usually in overt behavior, and cognitive function which refers to mental behavior (Rapoport, 1982). The suggested concept of FO promises to be compatible with the various views and theories, and it allows a discourse that is abstract, yet clear because of its direct relation to behavior and features at the lowest level of abstraction. The concept of opportunities is not new; on the contrary, it is a common term, and not pretentious in its goals. “Opportunities” is a term that was used by many in both fields, however without rigorous operationalization or conceptualization, which is what I attempt in this study.

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter Four

STUDY DESIGN AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Bearing heavily on the social sciences, mainstream E-B research design usually includes the following key components in more or less this sequence: 1. conclusions from prior research 2. theoretical perspective 3. research questions and hypotheses 4. methodological design 5. data collection 6. data analysis (the majority employing descriptive and inferential statistics) 7. significance of results 8. conclusions Although most of these components are part of this research design, it was inappropriate to make the same a priori plans for this research study. The deductive approach was inappropriate to use in this study because when one starts with an idea (hypothesis) of what is, one has already decided the variables a priori, defined them operationally, and decided how they should be measured. In many cases, the kind of data, the measures and the methods of analysis are predetermined before actually exploring the phenomena. In the hard sciences, where the development of measures is cumulative, this is appropriate. In E-B research in general, the application of this approach presented some shortcomings (discussed in Chapter Two), and in my study, in particular, where the aim is to weave a theory from existing knowledge and data, this approach would be too limiting. The reasons it is inappropriate are: (1) the purpose of this investigation is inductive; I am looking for the variables; and (2) I am looking for relations among very different kinds of data; observations of use, verbal accounts of use, planning departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evaluation studies, archival studies of streets, and many personal accounts of streets and how they are used in the normative literature. The naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) lent itself better to the purpose. Naturalistic inquiry is an evolutionary process of inquiry, where research questions, working hypotheses, and methods are refined over and over with the progress of the research itself. The primary difference lies in the specifity of the original research plan. I started with research questions but not definite hypotheses. Planning for the study included preliminary methods of gathering data, but decisions like sample size, interview questions, and analysis were much less formed than in a conventional E-B study. How data were going to be analyzed was particularly vague at the beginning in order to allow for flexibility in data collection to make sure the data were usable. How the data were analyzed was not finalized until all data had been gathered. What was pre-designed was a program of sequences and processes not specific contents (Erlandson et al, 1993; Strauss, 1987). The following sections show that sequence and explain how each evolved through the whole study. 32

4.1. The evolution of research questions and hypotheses Naturalistic inquiry relies on theory that emerges from the data. The research questions therefore evolved as the study proceeded and became more specific as they were guided by the context under study. Their main role was to establish boundaries on what will be studied next. At the most general level my objective is to bridge a gap between urban design and the field of E-B studies. My intent was to identify what is common between the knowledge in the two fields, and develop that into an integrative theoretical approach, thus making available knowledge more usable by both camps–kind of a first step toward more cumulative development of knowledge. The literature review served as a search for common grounds. Adaptability, desirability of choice and the possibilistic relationship between designed environment and use were found to be common themes. After the literature review I thought the clue was adaptable environments. My first impulse was to ask: What characteristics of the physical environment increase its adaptability? How can this be measured? Operationally, adaptability was the capability of the environment to provide multiple options for use without much structural change. Multiple options or multiple functional opportunities seemed like a suitable construct to describe the implications for use of an adaptable environment. Inspired by methods used in psychology to study affordances (Heft, 1988b), I started re-analyzing descriptive data about street use found in the literature. Observed use and accounts of use of street features could be translated into Utilized FO. But soon other questions started arising like functional opportunities for whom? for what purpose? In the case of urban streets, user groups often had conflicting interests and seemed to perceive different FO of the same characteristic. Furthermore, the street environment is far from static: businesses move in and out, plots are combined and subdivided, property values go up and down. So in order to understand how Potential FO can be created, other questions like how do these changes come about, and who are the actors, had to be considered. To answer these questions I had to differentiate between utilized functional opportunities, Perceived FO, and Potential FO. Designers only manipulate the realm of Potential FO. What FO are perceived are conditioned by the user and the context in which he or she interacts with the physical environment. What FO are actually utilized vary even more and depend a great deal on the circumstances of the individual situations. In order to clarify the construct, FO, I had to develop a conceptual model that relates all these variables in a plausible logic, to say the least. My first objective was therefore: (1) to develop an integrative conceptual model of the relationship between design characteristics of the street and its use based on the notion of functional opportunities.

After looking at different E-B models of perception, decision, and action, I established a preliminary model of the street dynamics in terms of FO. That’s when I realized that the premise of my study shifted from “adaptable environments are a prerequisite for “good” street environments” to “potential functional opportunities 33

is a construct compatible with urban design and E-B concepts.” My initial research questions sounded positivistic. I was substituting “adaptable environments” for all other principles of “good” design, and I was about to discover the recipe for it. I had to be less judgmental and avoid jumping to over-generalizations. The second objective became: (2) to examine the extent to which the concept of Potential FO can integrate knowledge about the relationship between street design and street use, and describe the design characteristics of the street in terms of their implications for use.

A purposeful sample is a “relatively small sample selected purposefully” to reveal “the issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (Patton, 1990: 169). Its logic and power lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. There are different strategies for purposeful sampling, each serving a particular evaluation purpose. Qualitative inquiry typically uses purposeful sampling.

My research questions had to be restated to explore the extent to which multiple Potential FO underlie examples of favorable street use, the context in which these experiences were defined positively, for whom, and for what purpose? This would serve to find patterns of consistency in the perception and utilization of FO, as well as patterns among Potential FO themselves. Do some Potential FO always exist together? Can they be categorized to define the different functions of the street? If so, how useful are these categories for design purposes? The answer to these questions was sought in the existing literature, both normative and empirical. I qualitatively analyzed descriptive data from a purposeful sample1 of previous studies relating street use to designed characteristics of the street restating observed behavior and accounts of use as Utilized FO. I also critiqued a selection of seminal urban design theories to see the plausibility and usefulness of reiterating their propositions in terms of Potential FO. It may be a useful tool for designers to think about street characteristics, but do people actually think of the street in terms of FO? How close a language is it to people’s description of their experience? In short, how do the working hypotheses developed from the literature in Part I relate to a lay person’s experience of the urban streets? My third objective was therefore: (3) to explore the extent to which the concept of FO represents how ordinary people perceive and describe urban streets.

4.2. Purposive data gathering In inductive or “naturalistic” inquiry, the data determine the relevant variables, which requires a very large body of data collected by different means. There is so much descriptive data that have been collected about the use of streets in different cities at different times, that I thought it would be a shame to depend solely on what I could collect on a low budget and limited time. The idea of a secondary analysis of previously conducted studies did not violate the naturalistic inquiry paradigm as long as I considered descriptive observational data and accounts of use and not inferences made by the researcher(s). Several E-B and design theories relevant to the use of urban streets were also critiqued because they address street characteristics and uses that are not researched in empirical studies. This partially answered the second research objective. To further validate the working hypotheses and to answer the third objective, I needed to investigate Potential FO directly and discover a method to do that. A case study was partially designed for that purpose. An elaborate discussion of the research procedures for each exercise 34

appears in their own chapters (Chapters Six and Eight respectively). This secondary use of empirical data may be criticized on the grounds that any data are biased by the method of its collection. While true, that matters little in this case because the purpose of this analysis is to find general common themes at an abstract rather than a specific level. The diversity of the evidence analyzed serves the purpose rather than hinders it. The more diverse, the more challenging it is to find patterns in common. 4.2.a. Purposeful sampling For this case study, purposeful sampling was preferred over random sampling because it aims at selecting of information-rich cases from which one can learn a great deal about the questions under study (Patton, 1990), rather than aiming at generalizing findings from the sample to a larger population, which is the aim of random sampling. This criterion is applied in sampling the literature for the secondary analysis and sampling respondents in the case study. Maximum variation sampling is a strategy of purposeful sampling which aims at capturing and describing the central themes that cut across a great deal of variation in the characteristics of participants. For small samples, a great deal of heterogeneity can be a problem when the purpose of the research is to generalize to the population. The maximum variation sampling strategy turns that apparent weakness into a strength by applying the following logic. Any common patterns that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences and central shared aspects. Using maximum variation sampling strategy is not aimed at generalizing findings to all people but rather at outlining variation, and the significant common patterns within that variation. After the criteria for constructing the maximum variation sample were decided, within each group random purposeful sampling was employed. A small purposeful random sample aims to reduce suspicion about why certain cases were selected for study. But such a sample does not permit statistical generalization. In other words, the purpose of using this is to increase credibility2 but not representativeness. Sampling each kind of evidence will be discussed in Chapters Six and Eight. 4.2.b. Data collection methods As shown above, sampling goes on during data collection. Methods to analyze the data are also refined during data collection. This simultaneous analysis and data collection allow the researcher to direct the data collection phase more productively. In the secondary analysis, I re-analyzed descriptive data (not inferences) of various kinds (observation, interviews, and archival documents) translating every instance and account of street use into Utilized FO and Perceived FO. Each Utilized and Perceived FO is an indication of the streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential to afford a certain FO. The different conditions under which each Potential FO is perceived or utilized is revealed by compiling the data from different studies or, in the case of the case study, by different respondents. How this data were sorted and organized could only be decided after several studies were reanalyzed.3

2 Credibility refers to the confidence in the truth of the findings. This construct is to naturalistic inquiry what â&#x20AC;&#x153;internal validityâ&#x20AC;? is to conventional research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3 Instruments also keep changing to fit the data best (Erlandson et al, 1993).

In the case study, interviews were conversations with a purpose. Questions and probes changed but followed certain criteria of phrasing that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Eight. Behavior observation was similarly evolutionary; decisions about what should be documented, and how often, were made after it had started. All this will be discussed in more detail in Chapters Six and Eight. It is important however to make it clear that in naturalistic inquiry the researcher is the primary instrument. Acknowledging that all instruments suffer an interaction effect with respondents— because all instruments are value-based—the advantage of the view of researcher as instrument is that he or she is in a position to identify, and take into account some of those resulting biases (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 39-40).

4.3. The interactive process of data analysis Qualitative data analysis is a process that is ongoing, ambiguous, time consuming, creative, and non linear (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Unlike conventional research, a naturalistic study involves an inseparable relationship between data collection and data analysis. In the secondary analysis, the most recent units of data analyzed were compared with previous ones for consistencies, discrepancies, and negative cases. From a functional perspective, different features that allowed similar Utilized FO would belong to the same category of Potential FO. Constant comparison of the units started generating the properties of each category, such as its definition, the conditions under which it is utilized, and its relation to other categories of FO (Strauss, 1987).

4 Here, the data are divided into units that make sense on their own, they are then sorted in a variety of ways resulting in a variety of interpretations, from which the researcher selects the hypotheses that seem to fit the data best. Erlandson and his colleagues point out that this stage could shift the very focus of the study (Erlandson et al, 1993). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, I had started out this research thinking that I was studying adaptable environments, but after the search in the literature for common themes and preliminary re-analysis of existing empirical studies, my research questions shifted focus. 5 “Member checks” are when the researcher returns to a person in the setting who has served as a data source and asks their opinion about the data and the interpretations made by the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). “Peer debriefing” involves showing a sample of the data to a jury of professional peers to test their insights and direct the inquiry to questions they may raise (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Both techniques are used to enhance the “trustworthiness” (confidence in the “truth” of the findings) of the study. “Negative case analysis” is a technique where hypotheses are tested against individual pieces of data that would tend to refute the suggested working hypotheses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

In the case study, part of the analysis occurred during data collection in the field, and part of it away from the field (between visits) following a period of data collection. I would ask myself key questions at the end of each interview, or day of observations; questions such as: What did I learn from this respondent that will shape my questions for the next respondent? What are the major working hypotheses that are emerging from my observations? How can I be more efficient and effective in collecting and analyzing data? Conducting my case study required a 300-mile round trip commute between the site and my home. On each return trip home after two days in the site, I would record my thoughts with a voice-activated tape recorder. This was equivalent to “memoing” (Strauss, 1987); something like a “talking” reflexive journal. This continuous adjustment process resulted in the effective collection of rich data. Guiding this interactive data collection/data analysis process are three methodological tools: (1) “triangulation” which refers to seeking out several different types of sources that can provide insights about the same events or relationships; (2) developing working hypotheses, which involves unitizing the data, coding them, and designating categories4; and (3) testing the working hypotheses for their viability by techniques such as “member checking,” “peer debriefing,” or “negative case analysis.”5 My data involved users’ behavior in, and perceptions of, the street, as well as characteristics of the street. The first level of coding in both the secondary analysis conducted in Part I and the field study in Part

II, is in terms of acted out behavior or terms used by the users to describe their street experience. This type of coding is referred to by Anselm Strauss (1987) as “in vivo” codes. Particularly in the case study, using in vivo codes directly from quotes gave the data a vivid imagery, seldom forgotten by the readers, yet sufficiently precise in meaning. Some Utilized FO appeared to be part of complementary pairs and triads of FO that, together, allowed another Utilized FO. These groups of FO form what I refer to as a category of Potential FO to which I give a label that describes what relates those subordinate FO. This helped reveal how these FO are interdependent, and maybe conditional, to one another. As more units of data were considered I continually checked for within category consistency, and continually compared categories to clarify the differences between them. This process was applied to both the secondary analysis and the case study.

4.4. Planning for quality in the study My main concern in presenting this data was to maintain the link between the raw data and the stages of analysis, making sure decisions are documented and transparent, and, above all, ensuring the rigorous presentation of the physical environment. In this study I tried to juxtapose graphic and verbal description so as not to lose the connection between the two forms of data. Wherever possible, I used sketches to complement the verbal description of the physical environment. These steps enabled me to establish an “audit trail” and thus enhance the trustworthiness6 of my study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Further measures to enhance the quality of each part of this research, included “peer debriefing” for both the secondary analysis and the case study analysis, and “member checks” in the case study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer debriefing involved showing several peers a random sample of my collected data and all the stages of analysis it went through. Member checks involved going back to the case study site, contacting a random few of the respondents who participated, and asking them to comment on my interpretation of what they said. More about those techniques later in Chapter Eight.

According to Lincoln & Guba (1985), the criteria to achieve trustworthiness of a research study are; credibility (confidence in the truth of the findings), transferability (the ability to judge its similarity to other contexts), dependability (stability of the data), and confirmability (the degree to which the findings are a function of the subject of inquiry and not biased by the inquirer). Documenting the data and the process of analysis—that is establishing an “audit trail”—allows an external auditor to examine the data collection, and analysis. An audit trail also helps certify that data exist in support of every interpretation.

4.5. Presenting the findings For the secondary analysis I presented my results in table form, where units of data from different empirical studies appeared grouped according the Potential FO that was most salient in each. Illustrations of the street characteristics, actual use, accounts of use and usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of FO were all documented accompanied by me interpretation of the underlying Potential FO utilized in each instance. For the case study I developed the â&#x20AC;&#x153;condition chainâ&#x20AC;? diagram as a visual means to illustrate how features of the street were utilized and perceived as FO. Instead of the more common narrative form, those diagrams readily illustrated the interdependence, or conditional relationship, between different Utilized FO as mentioned by the street users. Figure 4.1 shows the structure of such a diagram.

Figure 4.1. The structure of a condition chain diagram. The diagram is read from right to left : each Utilized FO contributes to the one on its left. The level-of-abstraction increases from right to left .

Each box contains a FO that was perceived or utilized by the users in the study. Street characteristics mentioned in interviews, or observed to be utilized by users, are plotted at the far right of the condition chain; they are not framed to distinguish them from FO, and should be considered as examples of many features that may have the same Potential FO. On some occasions, the condition chain is accompanied by actual quotes by respondents or sketches of the street characteristic they were describing. The diagrams allowed juxtaposing different kinds of data (quotes, maps sketches). The line between any two FO in the diagram indicates that, at least, one respondent has linked those two FO in a conditional relationship; the one on the right-hand-side being a condition that allows the one on the left-hand-side. The diagrams should therefore be read from left to right in the direction of the derivation. The box in the far left of the diagram contains what I consider the category of Potential FO. These diagrams were developed to present the data analysis of my case study and are therefore discussed in more detail in Chapter Eight. Unlike the conventional research “black box” (Erlandson et al, 1993; 68), the way I present my findings maintains the links between the actual raw data, the conceptual codes, and ultimately the derived categories.

4.6. Alternative methods and the decision to use qualitative methods Multiple sorting of photographs is the most common method used in E-B to generate categories, but is based on people’s purposefree perception of a picture. It has been used successfully to elicit subjective and personal meanings in the study of meaning (Groat, 1982)7. Although the method yields categories that are meaningful and important to users (i.e. inductive), it would still be inappropriate to use in this study because the categories will be based on pretense rather than real-situation trade-off (Sancar, 1985). Asking people to sort a set of photographs of streets according to what they think they could do there would be overburdening the respondents with the task of imagining herself, or himself, in countless situations (by car, on foot, shopping, going to work, spending idle time), and thus losing the reality of purposeful behavior. Most importantly, photographs could never capture the interdependence, or interactive effect, between different characteristics of the street environment (how far is this part of the street to the bus station, who lives there, what regulations govern the use of the sidewalk). Observations of actual use complemented by interviews are important to answer questions about use such as: Who does what? Where? When? Including and excluding whom? and Why? (Rapoport, 1977). Combining observational data with interview data to construct the use patterns in the area under study is not new to E-B research. Sidney Brower & Penelope Williamson (1974) combined observational data with interviews to construct the use patterns in an area, and the reasons behind it. The results were in terms of percentages and frequencies of activity types (a list decided beforehand), who performed them, and in what location (two predetermined locations). The inferences from this study wouldn’t have been so useful if it were 39

7 For example, Linda Groat (1982) used multiple sorting task to elicit how lay people would categorize buildings of different architectural styles. This study and others showed that lay people used different criteria to judge similarities and differences and had different categories than architects.

not for the accurate documentation of the physical environment (site maps, building plans, and photographs). In the re-analysis, I could count the number of dwelling units sharing the same entrance, the orientation of windows, and the number of entrances per unit length of sidewalk; all these variables were not considered by the researchers in the original study, but yet could be extracted from the documented data. Arza Churchman and her colleagues (1994), who recently conducted a study in 8 Israeli cities, also combined observations with interviews to investigate the implications for use of building setbacks. This sounds similar to the purpose of my case study, but in Churchman’s research the functions served by the street were predetermined by the researchers (a list of 8 functions that respondents were asked to rate according to importance). Noteworthy in that study is the fact that the description of the physical environment remained qualitative (graphic description). Qualitative data are the substance matter of design literature. Analysis of the urban form may include descriptive quantitative data, but it mostly consists of qualitative visual data (photographs, perspectives, plans and cross-sections). For integration in the theory critique, and the re-analysis of existing studies from the design field, it was essential to accommodate the variety of data which could not have been possible using quantitative means. Qualitative descriptions of the physical environment and its use has been used by E-B researchers, but in most cases these data were then coded numerically and analyzed statistically. The physical environment, on the other hand, has usually been described in nominal categories (entrance, parking lot, sidewalk) without much further description of this entrance; the size, or edge conditions of this parking lot; or the relationship of the sidewalk to adjoining uses, and so forth. The limitations of this level of description has been discussed earlier in Chapter Two. Regarding the accusation that qualitative research is subjective and thus less generalizable than quantitative research, investigators and readers equally forget that in quantitative studies, layers of assumptions are made at the beginning. Decisions about choosing which variables to study, the “quantifiable” measures to represent them—besides the assumptions about the sample which are inherent in any statistical method—are subjective decisions. The point is that quantitative methods also include subjective judgments, and while good quantitative studies would document those judgments, many do not and still get away with it because their very use of statistical methods grants them “scientific immunity.” In qualitative methods, on the other hand, the subjective judgment of the researcher is acknowledged overtly and measures are taken throughout the study to lessen that bias.

P A R T I P A R T II

P A R T I

PART I

CHAPTER FIVE: THEORETICAL MODEL

PART I

This part involves the development of the concept of potential FO and the exploration of its usefulness as an integrative concept. Chapter Five is where I develop a model of FO to address the first objective of this research; to develop and integrative model of the relationship between design characteristics of the street and its use based on the notion of FO. Chapter Six consists of two exercises-a secondary analysis of existing empirical studies about street use, and a theory critique-which explore the integrative capabilities of the concept. The theoretical implications of this attempt at integration and its usefulness are discussed in Chapter Seven thus fulfilling the second objective: to examine the extent to which the concept of Potential FO can integrate knowledge about the relationship between street design and street use, and describe the design characteristics of the street in terms of their implication of use.

P A R T I P A R T II

P A R T I

CHAPTER FIVE

CHAPTER FIVE: THEORETICAL MODEL

Chapter Five

THEORETICAL MODEL This chapter aims at developing a tentative model of FO based on the conclusions drawn from the search for common grounds conducted in Chapter Three. In order to explore the FO allowed by the physical environment it is necessary to outline a framework that addresses how FO are produced and reproduced in the physical environment, and how they relate to the human experience; the processes of perception, choice, and action. First, I discuss the conceptualization of the physical environment from different ontological world views concluding that the ecological world view is the most appropriate for the study of FO. Within this view, I define FO based on modifications to existing concepts; namely, J.J. Gibson’s concept of affordances and Daniel Stokol’s “latent value” of a place, discussing in the process their relation to perception, choice and action. Following that, I outline a model that ties the experience of FO to broader social and cultural factors, and to the processes of production and management of the urban street.

5.1. Conceptualizing the physical environment The relationship between the physical environment and human behavior is a two-way relationship involving human processes such as perception, cognition, meaning, motivation and choice (Michelson, 1977), among others.1 How this relationship is defined and explored differs according to the world view adopted by the researchers. One dimension along which these world views differ is the ontological and epistemological position each view takes towards the physical environment. Along this dimension, world views can be divided into those that distinguish between the objective and the subjective environment, and those that refuse to acknowledge this dichotomy. The interactional approach distinguishes between the objective (real) and subjective (perceived) environment (Rapoport, 1982). Its analytic rigor and clarity in problem definition is appealing to E-B researchers. In the Kurt Levinian tradition, researchers adopting this view tend to describe the environment in postperceptual rather than preperceptual terms (Barker et al., 1983). This is often due to the researchers’ fear to analyze the objective environment, lest someone asks “who says?” (see Chapter Two on Inadequate conceptualization of the physical environment). E-B founders such as Joachim Wohlwill have outcried this neglect of the objective environment (Wohlwill, 1974). In opposition to the above approach, other E-B researchers have adopted a spectrum of approaches (e.g. transactional, phenomenological, ecological).2 What those approaches have in common is their refusal to acknowledge such a distinction between the subjective and the objective worlds. The physical environment is an inseparable component of a system characterized by its dynamic processes rather than by its individual components. Environment and behavior are interdependent; each one helps define the other (Wicker, 1979).

The information processing (or psychologists) view adopted mainstream E-B researchers considers the relation of perception to action to be linear and rational: perception cognition - evaluation - action, where these processes mediate a person’s interaction with the environment. It focuses on the cognitive representation of the environment (schemata, cognitive maps, images) in the mind; an active interpretation of the environment influenced by the person’s past experience, goals, preferences and a host of personal characteristics (Rapoport, 1977). The genius loci is strictly in the person. The reliability of this approach on information about the person is adequate for explaining only part of the behavior occurring (Barker, 1983). Alternative E-B approaches posit that the physical environment can affect behavior even when people are unaware of it (Barnes, 1981). In phenomenology, many day-to-day behaviors—”internalized routines”— are considered habitual sequences of movements performed by the person in a preconscious “precognitive” way (e.g. washing dishes, or driving to work) (Seamon & Nordin, 1980). The difference between the different approaches lies in the level of consciousness and intentionality. I see those approaches as complimentary and that they apply to different situations; those human processes do not necessarily occur in a linear manner, nor is the person always conscious of them.

Some theoreticians believe that these world views have recently converged under the umbrella of naturalistic inquiry (Wicker, 1992).

The transactional world does not deal with the relationship between elements, in the sense that one independent element may cause changes in, affect, or influence another element. Instead, a transactional approach assumes that the aspects of a system, that is, person and context, coexist and jointly define one another and contribute to the meaning and nature of a holistic event” (Altman & Rogoff, 1987: 24).

Following this principle of reciprocal definition are several E-B theories: Roger Barker’s behavior setting theory (Barker, 1968), J.J. Gibson’s theory of affordances (Gibson, 1979), Irwin Altman transactional view (Altman & Rogoff, 1987), among others. Behavior settings consist of behavior patterns, people, and objects that are closely linked and interdependent with one another—in “synomorphy”—to form a self-regulating dynamic entity (Wicker, 1984). J.J. Gibson’s ecological approach to perception (Gibson, 1979) conceptualizes the perceiver-environment relationship as a fittedness emphasizing the functional compatibility between the two. According to Heft (in press), this view is not inconsistent with the transactional view (Altman & Rogoff, 1987) which emphasizes the interdependence of person and environment in each “event”.3 However, these theories differ in their locus of control; that is some are more environment-centered in their definition of the personenvironment entity and some are more people-centered. In Figure 5.1, I illustrate how these views of the environment relate to one another. Objectivity and subjectivity can be considered the poles along a continuum of agreement. The paradigm of multiple truths that I adopt in this study tolerates the idea of a continuum of consistency from total agreement (objective) to low agreement (subjective). It would not then be a violation to this paradigm if one assumes that there are definitions or descriptions of the environment that would be constant considering most individuals, and others that would vary more among individuals, with cultural, social, and individual factors.

Figure 5.1. A schematic showing the difference between theories that abide by the principle of reciprocal definition of person and environment.

Theories such as J.J. Gibson’s theory of affordances (1959) describes the environment relative to human body measurements and competence; human aspects that vary least with culture, personality, or situation. I would therefore place it more towards the total agreement pole of the continuum. Roger Barker’s theory (1968) of behavior settings provides a unit for the description of the environment; a multiplicity of human, non-human entities,

conditions, and processes connected by a “program” of on-going behavior. It is further from the total agreement pole because it relies on the roles each person plays in the behavior setting, and that role is more culture-dependent than the physiological aspects considered in the theory of affordances. However, although the role is constant in a setting the persons are replaceable and therefore this definition of the environment is not dependent on the individual characteristics of the occupants.4 Irwin Altman’s transactional world view describes the environment in terms of the situation at hand, “the holistic event”; that is the actors, the behavior, and as much of the dynamic relationships as can be discerned. The description of the environment is very much dependent on the specific context and participants of the event, and therefore it fall more towards the low agreement pole of the continuum in Figure 5.1. The difference between these theories is which human aspects each theory considers in its definition of the environment. For example, the concept of affordances, based in relation to strictly physiological human aspects, offers the most ‘objective’ yet reciprocal conceptualization of the physical environment.

4 In recent developments of behavior setting theory (Wicker, 1984, 1987, 1992) there is greater emphasis on the motives and cognitive schemata that participants bring to the setting and therefore behavior settings in their current definition depend more on—and consequently vary more with—human characteristics than when they were conceptualized by Roger Barker.

The clear cut distinction between objective (real) environment and subjective (perceived) environment in the interactional world view perpetuates the divide between concepts that describe the environment and concepts that describe the subjective human response. I find the reciprocal definition of environment and behavior more suitable for the study of an integrative concept that attempts to capture the use-implications of the designed environment.

5.2. A Functional Taxonomy of the Environment There are a few existing concepts in the literature that come close to defining FO. One often reads “opportunities offered by the physical environment” (Lang, 1987; Michelson, 1976, 1977) or terms such as the “resources” of the behavior setting (Wicker, 1987), the “potential” or “latent value” of a place (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981), the “behavioral potentials” of a place (Michelson, 1976), and yet, the conceptualization and operationalization of these environmental opportunities remained quite obscure. The most developed conceptualization of this notion is J.J. Gibson’s (1979) concept of “affordances.”5 J.J. Gibson (1979) introduced the concept of “affordances” to functionally describe the environment in relation to the perceiver. Here, the environment is seen as a relational concept defined by, and defining to, the individual it surrounds. The environment can therefore be described in terms of what it affords an individual, that is, in terms of its affordances, “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or for ill” (Gibson, 1979: 127). They are the functionally significant properties of the environment taken with reference to an individual (Heft, 1988a: 331). For example, a surface of support at approximately knee-height to an individual, and having sufficient mass relative to the individual’s weight, will afford sitting-on (Heft, 1988a). The concept of affordances also has the following operational characteristics (Heft, in press). First, affordances establish what 49

Although behavior settings are by far a more developed concept than the concept of affordances, in case of the public street environment it would be limited only to parts of the street with on-going patterns of behaviors and defined participant roles, “behavior settings depend in their definition on consensual behavior where the degree of consensus establishes the clarity of identity of the place” (Barker et al., 1983). Only recently did new developments address the ambiguous issue of defining the boundaries of a behavior setting in an environment as public and continuous as the public street (Liu, 1994). However, the limitation still applies that many parts of the urban street do not qualify to be considered behavior settings; they may lack “the clarity of functional orientation and occupant organization that typify behavior settings” (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981: 469). That is why Daniel Stokols and his colleague introduced the idea of “latent value of a place” to describe the environment at its presetting phase (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).

behaviors are possible in a particular place based on the functional fit between environmental features and an individual; they create opportunities for actions (a large number), and they constrain actions. Second, affordances are on-going and continuous rather than discrete “through the course of exploration and learning; new affordance possibilities of the environment are revealed” (Heft, in press) (e.g. Bungee-jumping). In addition, new environmental affordances can be created through human activities, thereby opening up new possibilities for action (Shotter, 1983). The third and most important characteristic is that viewing environmental features as affordances allows these features to have multiple functional significance (Heft, 1988b). For example, a bench could afford sitting-on, resting other objects on, and standingon to enhance one’s view. But a bench considered as a nominal feature can fit into only one object category (e.g. it cannot also be a table and a wall). The functional taxonomy of the environment, on the other hand, can categorize different environmental features according to functional properties they have in common (e.g. bench, crate, fence, and tree all share the common functional property of affording “climbing-on”), or, inversely, draw functional distinctions among features that can otherwise be seen as being one object (e.g. trees that afford climbing can be differentiated from those that afford shade, or fruit-picking). These operational characteristics are useful to the study of FO to the extent that they allow a functionally significant taxonomy of the environment which is more use-implying than the physicalistic terms conventionally used by designers (measurements, proportions... etc.). At the same time, although it is related to human aspects by definition, it is a taxonomy that varies less with social, psychological and cultural factors than other E-B concepts of the environment. The possibilistic view to the environment’s relationship to human behavior, and the ability to accommodate change over time are also characteristics of affordances that resonate the characteristics of FO derived at the end of Chapter Three. Despite the theoretical synomorphism between the concept of affordances, and the suggested concept of FO, the strict dependence of affordances on physiological aspects does not allow for articulation of who the opportunity is for. Most of the existing empirical work concerns affordances specified relative to some measurement of a perceiver’s body, for example, climbable steps relative to leg length (Warren, 1984), graspable surface relative to hand-span (Halford, 1984), sittable surfaces relative to eye-height (Mark, 1987). While they do vary across types of individuals, according to their body dimensions and limitations (e.g. a child vs. an adult, or in the case of people with a handicap), the individual characteristics considered in the definition of affordances is largely pan-human, transcultural in nature. J.J. Gibson’s neglect of the role played by culture in defining the functional reciprocity between environmental features and an individual is the reason for the reluctance to make use of this concept among E-B theoreticians and researchers (e.g. Rapoport, 1977; 1990). More recent developments on the concept of

affordances

acknowledged that besides these transcultural affordances, there are those “constructed over historical time by individuals within a culture, and the functional meanings of these affordances are specified within the context of a culture” (Heft, 1993). Harry Heft (1989) had developed the ecological view of perception further to accommodate cultural considerations in the derivation of affordances. This development offered new explanations to old findings. For example, regarding the salience of functional properties of environmental features among young children (Heft & Wohlwill, 1987) J.J. Gibson’s explanation was that, for children, intellectualization of environmental experience is less likely than it is for adults (Heft & Wohlwill, 1987). In light of the new developments—that culture partially defines functional significance of environmental features— the alternative explanation was that children know less about, or are less abiding by, the cultural and social norms which, in the case of adults, would restrict the range of affordances they perceive; for example regarding the statuary in a church as “climbable” (Heft, 1993). The previous example illustrates that culture would specify affordances to the extent that cultural norms belong to the “core”,6 rather than “periphery” of this culture. For example, the left hand of a Hindu, does not afford ‘assisting in feeding’, even though physiologically, it is possible. Does the left hand have the affordance ‘holding food’ in India? No. On the other hand, one may perceive that the neighbor’s steps afford sitting on, but does not choose to do such an action because it is inappropriate. Do the neighbor’s steps have the affordance sittability? Yes, on the grounds that it is perceivable, as affording sitting under certain circumstances that do not violate core cultural norms (e.g. if one makes friends with this neighbor). In a Midwestern neighborhood new behavior patterns emerged; more and more people were seen using their front yards, taking walks, greeting neighbors who happen to be passing by, and proudly displaying their blue recycling bins for their neighbors to see (Krause, 1994). These behaviors were not existent a few years earlier; they are evidence of changes in that subculture’s norms— peripheral norms. However, it was the physical presence of sidewalks in that neighborhood that allowed such behavior patterns to emerge. One could conclude that peripheral, or less radical, cultural norms would influence the choice to utilize, and that historically established “core” cultural norms would influence the perception of affordances.

Culture “core” includes those norms that change very little over time (Rapoport, 1979, 1983) and may be said to be usually associated with higher levels of meaning and beliefs (Rapoport, 1988), while culture “periphery” includes other cultural and social norms that are associated with middle and lower level of meanings. .

5.3. A tentative model of FO The concept of affordances—after its most recent development— seemed useful to define FO. However, the term affordance was coined by J.J. Gibson from the verb to “afford,”7 and therefore it is not understood beyond the field of environmental psychology, which makes it a poor candidate to use for an integrative E-B/urban design concept. Furthermore, even within environmental psychology, the term “affordances” has been associated for decades with J.J. Gibson’s biologically-based definition. The developments on the concept were just recently published and therefore the term, as currently known, was inappropriate to use. I therefore chose to stick with the term FO and define it in the light of the above discussion of affordances. 51

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition (1992), to afford means “to make available; to provide.”

The “latent value of a place” refers to its asyet unrecognized capacity for accommodating the preferred goals and activities of prospective occupants. To the extent that this capacity of an environment and the activities of its users is recognized and, in some cases, actualized by occupants, its value becomes manifest rather than latent (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). 9 I do not discuss the perception and cognition separately, because the ecological approach rejects a distinction between perception and cognition as separable functions, and instead considers perception one of the modes of cognition (cognition refers to ways of knowing) (Reed, 1988) . The distinction between perception and other non-perceptual modes of cognition (e.g. imagining, expecting, and remembering) clarifies some ambiguities in the ‘sequential’ information processing approach which relies exclusively on perception (mainly past experience) as the source for cognitive knowledge (Moore, 1989). Factors that affect perception and cognition are the subject of extensive research and theory in the E-B field. Discussing this literature is beyond the scope of this study. For the purpose of my study I resorted to the literature on concepts similar to the concept of FO (e.g. latent value, affordances...etc.), and the literature on the choice among environmental alternatives.

Awareness refers to an individual’s knowledge of relevant options” (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981: 460). This awareness may occur directly through experience or indirectly through the media (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981), however, the restricted mobility of certain individuals or groups (e.g. the urban poor) may limit the Potential FO they perceive in comparison to more mobile groups (e.g. the rich) (Michelson, 1976). 10

Factors that affect perception and cognition are the subject of extensive research and theory in the E-B field. Discussing this literature is beyond the scope of this study. For the purpose of my study I resorted to the literature on concepts similar to the concept of FO (e.g. latent value, affordances...etc.), and the literature on the choice among environmental alternatives. 11

5.3.a. Distinguishing between ‘Potential,” “Perceived,” and “Utilized” FO. FO exist in the physical environment as a potential. Potential FO— similar to “affordances” and the “latent value” of a place8 (Gibson, 1979; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981)—are what the environment offers; they exist independent of their discovery. Potential FO establish what behaviors are possible and constitute the ecological resources of the environment. Whether they are perceived or not, depends on many more factors. Perceived FO are the mental interpretation of the former which are the product of perceptual and cognitive operations.9 I draw upon the literature10 to identify factors that may influence the perception/ cognition of FO. Perceiving Potential FO, like the “latent value” of a place, is dependent on the individual’s awareness of their presence in the first place (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981), like the undiscovered pond that remains frozen throughout winter and thus has latent value as an outdoor recreation area for ice-skating enthusiasts.11 Different people may perceive different Potential FO depending on their personality. Personality styles; a person’s flexibility (rigid versus open style), a person’s imagination, a person’s adherence to core culture norms (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981) may explain why some people are more willing to learn about possible options—new functions, locational alternatives—than others. The meaning of a place to a certain subculture or group of society also affects a person’s perception of the FO in that place. Sidney Brower (1989) illustrates the difference between the insider’s and outsider’s perception of a neighborhood. What may seem as a slum to city officials, may be offering its economically-restricted occupants maximum opportunity and support in their current situation (Rapoport, 1977). The goals, needs, or wants of a person may also affect which Potential FO that person perceives (Rapoport, 1977). A homeless person is expected to perceive FO of the street different from those perceived by a shopper, different from those perceived by a shop owner on the same street. Personally, after being a parent for a while, I notice places that could interest my child; places I would have never noticed before. The fact that I did not perceive those places before being a parent does not deny their existence as Potential FO for children. I therefore consider Potential FO as those FO that are perceivable in principle within the context of the culture core of the population.

Knowing about a place or knowing what to do with it are factors that vary among users and change over time. The decision to utilize a Perceived FO varies even more among users and over time. After perceiving those FO,12 people then choose whether to utilize them or not. Assuming that this process of choice is often more reflective in nature than the process of perception which occurs more tacitly (Heft, 1993; Kaplan, 1983),13 factors that affect this process of choice may include: (1) a person’s plans and priorities; (2) a person’s preferences; (3) cultural and social norms; and (4) regulatory rules that govern the operation of the physical environment (e.g. traffic speed, pedestrian crossing points, signage rules, allowed behavior in privately owned but publicly used plazas.)14 The plans and priorities that an individual brings to each situation may influence this individual’s choice as to which Perceived FO to utilize in that situation. An individual’s preference is the idiosyncratic variable that expresses this individual’s affective tendencies (Rapoport, 1990). Also in the street environment, cultural and social norms may influence behavior to varying degrees according to the user’s relation to other users (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). For example, individuals who are alone, or unobserved, on the street are less restricted to follow shared social norms (e.g. muggers, lovers), whereas users who are members of an aggregate tend to conform more (to varying degrees) to widely shared norms (e.g. someone walking downtown). This differs still from users who are members of a group (e.g. clients of a local bar, residents in a community, or a neighborhood gang), who are strongly influenced by the specific social norms of the group. It should be noted that the factors that affect the perception and utilization of Potential FO mentioned in this model are by no means conclusive. Instead they should be regarded as a set of hypotheses that require inductive exploration. However, this task would be the subject of future research, since this study gives priority to verifying the initial distinction of FO into Potential, Perceived, and Utilized, exploring the operational characteristics of the concept, and testing its usefulness as an integrative concept.

Perception may occur tacitly (Barnes 1981; Heft, 1993) or consciously (Rapoport, 1977). I consider both to be complementary views; each explaining different situations. This is supported by the attempts of theoreticians such as Stephen Kaplan to reconcile the two perspectives (Kaplan, 1983) by distinguishing between a reflective mode of perception and a more tacit mode of perception.

13 In some situations such as daily routines, this process of choice may not be as intentional as it is viewed in mainstream E-B theory which assumes the individual is a goal-driven being, continuously making rational decisions; sequentially comparing the alternatives and making choices to maximize his or her goal achievement. This view is the one adopted by the phenomenologists among the E-B researchers (e.g. David Seamon) and also acknowledged by mainstream theoreticians such as Daniel Stokols who cautions, “we are not suggesting that people are continuously and self-consciously monitoring their transactions with places. The evaluative judgment becomes relevant when circumstances occur that heighten the occupants’ awareness...” (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). 14

It should be noted that these regulatory rules often embody the social and cultural norms of the dominant subcultural group(s). In most cases in the United States these rules reflect the norms of the Anglo-American middle class (e.g. Becker, 1973; Pader, 1993). Whose values and norms are institutionalized varies in each culture. Sometimes it is one dominant group and sometimes it is several, but it is the degree of enforcement of these regulatory rules that determines whose norms are effectively applied (Gunter, 1986).

5.3.b. The production and re-production of Potential FO: The model in Figure 5.2 attempts to illustrate the relationship between factors at the macro and the micro scales as they relate to the production, perception, and utilization of Potential FO of the urban street. This is a tentative model because it addresses issues and relations that lie beyond the scope of this study. Instead it serves to put the concept of FO in perspective. This is central to the development of a concept concerned with the dynamics of the physical environment to the benefit of design. The nature of the street is multi-faceted and involves aspects at the micro and macro levels; at the neighborhood level, at the street level, and at the architectural level of the street edge (see Table 5.1). At any point in time, the physical features of a street are the result of decisions made by different actors; property owners, developers, designers, organized-user groups, local business associations.

Ambient -- Noise level: children play, traffic, industry. -- Odor: -ve industry, or +ve baking) -- Lighting -- Sunlight & shade -- Wind -- Temperature -- Pollution

Physical Environment Neighborhood Street Edge of Fixed-features -- Location -- Dimensions: street wall of street in length, width. neighborhood and -- Layout: -- skyline city -- linear, curved. -- building bulk -- Public transport -- Ped. crossing -- spacing system -- points: -- fenestration -- Surrounding -- location, -- projections facilities: interval. -- entrance points -- parks, -- Block size -- intervals commercial -- Visual landmark between areas, schools, -- Lot frontage entrances community -- Building -- steps centers...etc. configuration: -- private open -- courtyards, space block interiors, cul-de-sacs. sidewalk -- Ground cover -- width -- change in levels -- ground cover (bricks, tiles, concrete slabs, asphalt) -- curb height

Table 5.1. Variables of the urban street at different levels as addressed in the literature.

the Street Semifixed-features street wall -- overhangs, sheds awnings -- windows -- doors -- vegetation -- fences -- lighting -- color sidewalk -- ground cover: seasonal -- vegetation: amount, type, location. -- lighting: -- amount, type, location. -- seating -- phone booths -- bus stops -- poles -- drinking fount. -- fountain -- signs -- mail boxes -- traffic lights

Figure 5.2. A model of Functional Opportunities in urban streets.

Changes in the street characteristics occur within the limits set by regulations and decisions at a higher level and a broader scale (e.g. planning and zoning regulations, building codes, and public policies) which involve planners, city officials and different interest groups (e.g. the business community, environmentalists, representatives of an industry). The resulting planning and design tools inferred by other societal forces at the macro scale—technology, economy, the legal system, and the overall ideology and culture—govern the production process of the physical environment. Street characteristics are not just physical form, there are regulations that govern the use of the physical form and set the limits on Potential FO. These may include:

15 The behavioral sciences, including E-B research, are full of theories and studies about users’ characteristics that affect the processes of perception, evaluation and action. Although this is an interesting psychological problem, it is not central to the development of a concept concerned with the dynamics of the physical environment to the benefit of design.

Other alternatives would include: modifying behavior to fit the environment, or giving in (often associated with learnt helplessness and stress) (de Lauwe, 1967). However, the latter alternatives are beyond the scope of my study, and therefore will not be investigated.

• sidewalk regulations, signage, overspil of private use, shop fronts • security and policing • traffic speed limits • parking (location, duration) • legal code of behavior Societal forces at the macro scale also relate to users’ characteristics in so far as the individual’s identity and lifestyle are the product of both individual and society (Hummon, 1989; Pratt, 1982). On the other hand, the aggregates of individual lifestyles often result in new social trends, which if sustained, produce new social worlds (e.g. teenage skaters or gangs—Frick, 1986). Other users’ characteristics include socio-economic conditions, gender, age, and personality traits.15 These characteristics influence people’s goals, needs, wants, priorities, and preferences, all of which play a major role in the perception and utilization of FO in the physical environment. At any moment in time, the resulting physical environment has Potential FO which people perceive, consider, and choose to use. People’s activities may then result in new opportunities and new demands (change in land values, catchment areas, traffic congestion) which in turn, exert pressure on zoning regulations to accommodate the redistribution of uses and services. For example, when a new mall opens on a highway, it affects the spatial distribution of the shoppers’ activity patterns. At the same time, the presence of the new mall attracts other retail businesses which start a “strip” effect along the highway, consequently changing not only the form of the built environment but also the land value in the vicinity and thus the demographics of nearby residential areas (Shehayeb, 1990a). This change in built form, in turn, reshapes the residents’ activities and use of the streets. The central point is that people’s choices, needs and activities, societal forces and urban form evolve by mutual adjustment. I therefore differentiate the street user’s actions into four alternatives:16 utilizing FO without modifying the environment; utilizing FO causing modifications to the environment (which result in changes in the Potential FO); creating new Potential FO (e.g. a shortcut path in the lawn); or simply non use. Modifying the meaning people associate with the occupants, physical features, or activity itself may eventually change the physical characteristics and consequently the Potential FO of the environment (Stokols & Schumaker, 1981). The park that is perceived as a dangerous place, becomes less frequented, which makes it more dangerous, which 56

eventually may lead to its permanent physical alteration. As a result, I conclude that users’ actions affect the Potential FO of the street environment directly and indirectly; directly through users’ actions that involve modifications or additions, and indirectly, by changing people’s perception of the FO offered by the environment. The analysis of street users’ actions in this manner can be useful to the purpose of the study because: (1) it acknowledges the twoway relationship between the physical environment and behavior within it; (2) it illustrates how different people utilize FO offered by the physical environment in different ways; (3) it captures the temporal dimension of the physical environment; and (4) it indicates the appropriateness of Potential FO offered to the behavior desired by different user groups (e.g. a “no parking” spot that is constantly parked in, or a cross-over bridge that no one uses). This model although tentative has a few heuristic merits. It sets FO in perspective in the broader picture; it acknowledges the twoway relationship between societal forces and users characteristics, and between societal forces and the physical environment. I do not elaborate upon these relationships in my study because they have been studied separately in other disciplines. The model also acknowledges that some users of the urban street are involved in the process of its production and change, and that regulatory rules that govern the operation and use of the street are an inseparable part of its physical characteristics. Furthermore, it accommodates the role played by social and cultural rules; informal rules, which affect the perception and utilization of FO to varying degrees. Potential FO offered by the physical environment are distinguished from Perceived FO. The following chapters are dedicated to further exploring the operational characteristics of the concept of FO and its usefulness in describing the physical environment. This investigation is guided by the conclusion from this chapter that the physical environment has Potential FO, yet not all Potential FO are perceived; some may not be noticed, and if noticed may not be seriously considered by a person as an opportunity for certain behavior.

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER SIX

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter Six

RESULTS OF PART I: Applying Potential Functional Opportunities as an integrative concept

Heft (1988b), explores affordances in children’s outdoor environments by conducting secondary analysis on descriptive data from several observational studies of children’s outdoor activities (Barker & Wright, 1951; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986; Muchow & Muchow, 1935; Ward, 1978), compiling a preliminary list of affordances (“functional taxonomy”), and evaluating its validity in a field study. He then conducted a tour, guided by the children, of favorite play areas and their description of favorite activities. This data was then compared to the researcher’s assessment of these areas (conducted by the investigator prior to meeting with the children) using the list compiled from the secondary analysis of previous studies. The percentage of “utilized” affordances (actually used by the children) to “potential” affordances Assessed by the researcher) approximated 70% or higher in 7 of the 10 taxonomic categories.

In this chapter, I attempt to explore the usefulness of the concept of Potential FO as an integrative tool, in the light of the outlined model (the second objective). To achieve this, different kinds of data from existing empirical studies are translated in terms of Potential, Perceived, and Utilized FO. The first part of this chapter discusses the methods and the substantive results of this secondary analysis. This attempt at integration yielded categories of FO that underlay the use of the urban streets in different contexts (the following chapter—Chapter Seven—discusses the theoretical implications of those results). To further explore the integrative potential of the concept a different kind of evidence is explored; it involves selected theories from UD and E-B. In this theory critique, I translate principles and propositions into FO using the empirical evidence presented by the proponents of each theory. This exercise served to unravel more links between the two fields than currently known.

6.1. Secondary Analysis of Empirical Studies Secondary analysis is the re-analysis of primary research data (the original data collected in any typical scientific study) of a study by another researcher for a different purpose (Glass, 1976). Secondary analysis was used1 on descriptive data from observational studies to compile a functional taxonomy that describes the physical environment in terms of its potentials for use (Heft, 1988b). 6.1.a. The method In this secondary analysis, I qualitatively analyze descriptive data from a purposive sample (N= 23) of previous studies relating street use to designed characteristics of the street. Studies included in this analysis had to have at least one design variable of the street documented graphically, and had to include accounts of actual use (not inferences only). Data about street use had to have been gathered either by systematic observation, interviewing or archival research; personal observations with undocumented intensity were not included in the re-analysis, but could be mentioned as “speculations” in the discussions. My third criterion to select studies for the re-analysis was to cover as wide a range of street design variables as possible. Studies about downtown plazas were included as the plazas adjoin the sidewalk and are accessible to public use; those plazas are part of the street as I defined it. From the studies about pedestrian streets, I selected the ones that associated designed characteristics of the street to street use. The procedure of analysis was as follows. For each selected study I asked myself the following questions: 1. What are the Potential FO utilized by the users in the study? 2. Which designed characteristics were utilized, and/or perceived, by the users to fulfill those FO?

The answer to the first question was found in documentation, and reports of, actual activity on the street. The answer to the second question was found in maps, photos, sketches, as well as verbal description. As the re-analysis proceeded, I asked myself: 1. Are there combinations of Potential FO that repeatedly appear to work together in different contexts? 2. Can these combinations be grouped into categories? Potential FO provide a description of the street’s design characteristics and operating regulations in terms of the behavior they allowed to occur. I phrased these Potential FO in terms derived from the data as reported; they are “conceptual codes” of low level of abstraction (Erlandson et al., 1993; Strauss, 1987). Sets of Potential FO that appeared consistently to contribute to the same FO were grouped together to form what I refer to as a “category” of FO. The label I give to each category describes what relates those subordinate FO. For example if a planter, a column base, or a few steps were used to “sit,” I would say they share the Potential FO “to sit.” Now, consider a set of stationary behavior—sitting, looking at a view, and relaxing in the sun—that occur simultaneously, then the planter, the view, and the sunlight afford the Potential FO “to sit,” the Potential FO “something to look at,” and the Potential FO “for comfort,” respectively. Together, these Potential FO and street characteristics are considered a subset of yet a larger group of street characteristics which, together, create the Potential FO “to stop and stay.” “To stop and stay” is therefore one category of Potential FO. Deciding upon these categories was accomplished by continually checking for consistency within each category, and continually comparing categories to clarify the differences between them.2 For example, the planter, the view, or sunshine may allow a number of FO, but there are some FO they do not allow. They do not, for example, allow one “to see inside the private domain,” they do not necessarily relate to the person’s ability to walk the street. However, this does not mean that each unit of data belonged to only one category. Some Potential FO belonged to more than one category at the same time. This procedure of analysis is illustrated further in the forthcoming discussion of the results. 6.1.b. Results of the secondary analysis The results of the secondary analysis are presented in table-form organized in terms of the categories of FO I discerned. The first column includes the street characteristics; both physical and operating regulations. In addition to those characteristics mentioned by the researcher(s), I also make note of those physical characteristics that may appear in maps, plans, or photographs included in each study. Observed behavior is noted as Utilized FO the second column, and verbal accounts of use as Perceived FO in the third. The fourth column in the table includes my interpretation of the Potential FO of the street environment based on the FO perceived and utilized in each unit of data. The fifth column indicates who the user is, as stated in the study. On some occasions, different parts of data from the same study appeared under two different categories of FO. To clarify the context of each unit of re-analyzed data, I appended— on the same page each unit appeared on—information about the context, the sample, and the methods used in the corresponding 61

Every time a unit of data is entered in the analysis this process of checking for consistency is performed. By repeating this procedure, the characteristics of each category becomes clearer and clearer until all the salient categories are distinguished from one another and their characteristics outlined.

3 The full references of all the studies included in the secondary analysis are listed at the end of this chapter.

study.3 By grouping data from different studies (and different contexts) about a certain category of FO, one could see the different conditions that either allow or inhibit this Potential FO from being utilized. For example, the secondary analysis revealed that there is more to make a person stop and stay on the street than having a feature that has the Potential FO “to sit;” it revealed the conditions under which this Potential FO was utilized. This usually involved the presence of a few other Potential FO. The relations between those Potential FO is addressed in the discussion of the results that follows. The sample of studies I re-analyzed yielded the following categories of FO. The order of listing is of no particular consequence: to generate potential users to draw pedestrians to walk a street to see, to hear, to be with people to stop and stay In addition to the above categories, three other FO; to appropriate public space, to know about places and the means to get there, and to give identity to a community were also found in my sample of studies. Unfortunately, there was not enough data about those FO for them to develop as categories so I dropped them from the analysis.

Studies of downtown plaza use do not include accounts of use in the weekends, however, the few cases where use in weekends was observed, these places were much less used (Cooper Marcus, 1978-1985).

Different combinations of the above listed categories were found to underlie urban street functions and issues addressed in the literature such as “near home recreation” in E-B, and “visual aesthetics” and “pedestrianization” in UD. The categories of FO listed above have been touched upon in the literature without differentiation under the all-subsuming topic “street use.” The re-analysis I conducted helped articulate each of these FO, and clarify the relations between them. For example, characteristics of the street which have the Potential FO “to generate potential users” were different from those which have the Potential FO “to draw pedestrians.” Street characteristics belonging to the first group imply the presence of a predictable number of people in a location during known periods of time. Those belonging to the second group involve other kinds of destinations which motivate the already existing population of users to move short distances; characteristics such as enjoyable views, climatically enjoyable places, and places to eat. The two Potential FO are reasons to go somewhere, or what I refer to as “attractants,” but the attracting power of the second is much less than that of the first. For example, people did not drive from the suburbs to downtown San Francisco to enjoy the sun in a plaza,4 but the office workers—who were already downtown—did walk up to 900 ft. to get to a sunny place and have lunch (Lieberman, 1984). Tables 6.1. to 6.5. present the findings of the secondary analysis organized according to the categories of FO derived from my sample of studies. The tables serve to demonstrate how one could apply the concept of FO as an integrative analytic tool. Each category is then discussed separately explaining: its conditions, i.e. the FO that contribute to its existence; its consequences, i.e. how the category, itself, contributes to other categories of FO; and examples of street characteristics having those Potential FO. The purpose 62

of this discussion is two-fold: to further explore the operational characteristics of the concept of FO; and to demonstrate usefulness of its application. Further analysis of a wider sample of empirical studies is needed to verify the substantive working hypotheses derived from this analysis. TO GENERATE POTENTIAL USERS: To generate pedestrian traffic is often the goal in urban street design projects.5 To increase the Potential FO for large numbers of people to use the street on foot, the findings suggested three underlying conditions. One is the presence of potential users; the Potential FO “to generate potential users.” The second is the Potential FO of the street to attract those potential users from an origin to a destination; to provide them with a reason to use the street; “to draw pedestrians”. The third is to make walking a particular street possible, which I refer to as the Potential FO “to walk the street.” These are not the only conditions for people to use the street on foot, but rather the minimum required conditions in the situations analyzed. According to the findings, land use in the surrounding vicinity is an influential factor in creating the Potential FO “to generate potential users” (see Table 6.1). For example, in U.S. downtowns, offices, restaurants, retail stores, and their parking facilities were found to have the Potential FO to generate large numbers of street users during working hours; more so than residential uses. Residential use, however, implies the presence of people after working hours on weekdays, and during the weekends; a time that was not researched in any of the studies about downtown streets. Each use and its operating hours implies the presence of a number of people during a certain time. It also sheds a light on who those potential users might be (office workers, factory workers, children, ...etc.). The presence of a minimum number of potential street users can be critical to the utilization of other Potential FO of the street.6 For example, the waterfront view of Manhattan from an empty lot (Brooklyn’s Grand Street Waterfront Park) may not have been an attractant if it were not for the large numbers of potential users who were already in the vicinity (working class residents and factory workers). An attractant, however, is a Potential FO relative to the user’s wants, preferences, and available alternatives known to him or her. If a vacant lot, similar to the one mentioned above, was in an affluent neighborhood where each house has a large backyard, it may not have attracted all these users; in other words, it may not have been perceived as an attractant at all. Therefore, uses that ensure the presence of a large number of potential users are essential, but not enough to create the Potential FO “to generate pedestrian traffic.” The second condition is therefore to provide potential users with a reason to use the street. TO DRAW PEDESTRIANS: This Potential FO involves the reason to go from a point of origin to a destination; to an “attractant.” Examples of attractants found in the studies I re-analyzed include: comfortable seating, public fountains, natural views, the combination of retail and food, a regular meeting place, and the ability to watch people. Plazas, mini parks, public fountains, and steps alongside busy sidewalks had the potential FO to attract downtown office

5 Pedestrian traffic is an important component of an economically healthy urban street, especially those with commercial establishments. Reduced pedestrian traffic makes it increasingly difficult to lease street-level space, and as shops and eateries close people are even less inclined to walk the street, further hurting the businesses. The street dies. This is significant not only for downtown streets, but equally so for neighborhood streets with dispersed neighborhood services and stores.

6 This is supported by Eduardo Lozano’s (1990) discussion of “critical mass” in which he shows how certain functions require a minimum number of potential users in order to exist.

These two attractants seem contradictory, and the literature leads us to believe that some groups seek a quiet landscaped minipark (women, elderly) , and others seek a busy street corner (construction workers). These associations to particular characteristics of users are controversial and whether the user of one option is not also the user of the second, at other times, has not been investigated. Further research may reveal that having the choice of both those contrasting options may be the most valuable.

workers on their lunch breaks. Some studies revealed the use of downtown squares by the elderly as regular meeting places. Other studies reported reasons such as watching people,7 or enjoying natural elements (the sun, the sound of a waterfall). The view at the waterfront in Vancouver attracted downtown office workers more than the plazas closer to their offices (Joardar & Neill,1978). According to the re-analysis, street characteristics that contributed to create or inhibit the Potential FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to draw pedestriansâ&#x20AC;? included: building use, cues about access points, the density of access points from the sidewalk, regulations governing behavior, and the alternatives available to the users.

(F)

# Code

Francis, M. (1991)

Reference

+ wide street + wide sidewalk + facilities: + play area for young children + rest rooms + trees that afford shade

# Farmer’s market

Street Characteristics

Context

park: - children playing in the park

sidewalk: - farmers set their stalls on the sidewalk by the curb - people buying - strolling - standing and talking in groups - parents surveilling young children at play

roadway: - farmers’ trucks parked diagonally at the curb

Davis biweekly Farmers’ Market, Davis, CA

(F)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Table 6.1. Category of Potential FO “to draw/generate pedestrians”

case study

Sample

for children to play while their parents shop

Method

- pedestrians

- city residents

FO for whom?

User

a survey of public space : observation, interviews

to do more than one activity at the same time (recreate, shop, socialize, surveil children...)

to meet diverse people

to maintain existing social contacts

to lobby city officials for a promenade

to accommodate periodical events

to draw a large number of pedestrians on regular basis

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to bump into friends

to buy fresh produce

what people said

Perceived FO

Chidister, M. (1986)

Robertson, K. (1991)

(R)

Reference

(Ch)

# Code

(R)

(Ch)

Context

downtown pedestrian streets & transit malls in Sweden

6 cities

8 plazas comparable in physical characteristics:(comfortable seating, at sidewalk level, good visisbility to and from the street, ans sun and shade options), and the 9 blocks that surrounds each of them .

Sample

Method

- business owners elsewhere downtown

- shoppers

- office workers - shoppers

- shoppers - residents

- office workers - shoppers

FO for whom?

User

observation, counts, interviewing, archival

pilot study, observation, (once/hour, 7 times/day, 4 days in May,) count of people present in plazas irrespective of use.

to draw potential customers

- no pedestrians at night

to get basic services and goods (photocopy, haircut, shoe repair...)

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to see diverse people

to find a variation of retail merchandise from city to city

what people said

Perceived FO

- no pedestrians traffic on other downtown streets

- less diverse people on the street

- most used plaza among the 8 plazas

- less people use the plaza

- plazas highly used by people with brown lunch bags (11am -2pm)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

downtown, Minneapolis, MN

Chain specialty stores replace local independently owned businesses + retail 77% + business services 5.9% + personal services 5.5% + food/drink 8.9% + few movie theaters + few restaurants

Uses in plaza vicinity: overlapping shopping + offices

Uses in plaza vicinity: - banks, - department stores, - housing

Uses in plaza vicinity: - restaurants, bars - offices - parking - manufacturing facilities

Street Characteristics

Table 6.1. (Continued)

Robertson, K. (1991)

Robertson, K. (1988)

Greenberg, K. (1991)

(R2)

(G)

Reference

(R1)

# Code

subway stop subway stops installed in 1950s in Toronto

Public transit stop

Skywalk level establishments downtown: + mixed use + climate controlled environment + chain stores

Pedestrian shopping street does not include: grocery hardware appliance furnature + parking at > 200 m (1 or 2 blks away)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.1. (Continued)

Context

- shopped more around stops than between them

% of users stating the estabilshment they most often use in 5 cities

skywalk street level equally 74.3 16.8 6.9 77.7 9.7 9.7 22.0 41.0 27.0 69.7 21.2 4.0 88.9 5.1 5.1 66.5 18.7 10.6

- these stores moved out of pedestrian shopping streets to suburban locations with abutting parking situations

downtown, Toronto, Canada

5 cities in the US: Cincinati, Des Moines, Duluth, Minneapolis, & St. Paul

downtown pedestrian streets & transit malls in Sweden

(G)

(R2)

(R1)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

City of Toronto Planning work

100 respondents/city

6 cities

Sample

to feel comfortable

to feel secure

to find a variation of retail merchandise on the street

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- business owners on the street

- shoppers used to suburban mall shopping

- street level business owners

- shoppers

FO for whom?

User

archival

survey conducted in 1985

observation, counts, interviewing, archival

to have a larger number of pedestrians on the street

to attract affluent shoppers

to generate pedestrian traffic volume on the street

to buy heavy items and carry items to car

inferred by myself

Potential FO

(H)

# Code

Reference

Harrison, M. (1991)

2/3 mile long transit mall + marked intersections + bricks on the sidewalk + 24 ft. wide sidewalk + benches, trees, wide curb + mounted police

Transit mall

# no increase in parking spaces since 1975

(H)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.1. (Continued)

Context

- transit ridership increased by 10,000 trips/day since the mall opened

downtown Portland, Oregon

(H)

- majority people use public transit - 5,000 bikes each day

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

case study

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

archival

to generate pedestrian traffic downtown and therefore increase potential shoppers

to generate pedestrian traffic downtown

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- business owners

FO for whom?

User

56,900 m2

Robertson, K. (1991)

Gehl, J. (1986)

(G)

Reference

(R)

Code

the city population did not increase from 1968 to 1986

18,800 m2

(G)

(R)

Context

- the total number of pedestrians doubled

6 cities

Copenhagen, main pedestrian street, StrĂ¸get.

Tuesdays in July 1968, 69.

Method

- business owners

- pedestrians

- shoppers - office workers

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

behavioral mapping

observation, counts, interviewing, archival

to draw pedestrian traffic

to have something to watch

- the spectrum of outdoor activities broadened

to feel discomfort

to generate pedestrian

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to recreate outdoors

Sample

- high levels of pollution

- high levels of noise

what people said

Perceived FO

- the number of people standing and sitting tripled

3500 people

1986 1250

1968

- 1100 busses cross daily

- 1400 busses go through daily

- increase in number of pedestrians (e.g. 26,000/day at stops, 17,000/day at the next most active location)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

downtown pedestrian streets & transit malls in Sweden

the area of pedestrian streets and squares downtown tripled 1968 1986

+ street closed to pedestrian traffic + narrow width of street + ground-level commercial uses + continuous built-up edge + frequent entrances

Pedestrian streets:

- busses crossing pedestrian street

- busses along transit mall

- tram stops

# Transit mall:

Street Characteristics

Table 6.1. (Continued)

(F,C,P)

(B), (L)

Francis, M., Cashdan, L. & Paxson, L. (1984)

Joardar, S. & Neill, J. (1978)

(J,N)

Liebermann, E. (1983)

(L)

(F,C,P)

Bosselmann, P. et al. (1984)

Reference

(B)

# Code Context

- office workers walk to it from downtown during lunch break - sitting - looking at the view

- children and teens explore the river edge and throw stones - adults walk and drive in and look at the view - littering - drug use and prostitution at night

- sitting in the sun in plazas and along streets during lunch break - walking on sunny sidewalks

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

downtown Vancouver

Grand Street Waterfront Park, Brooklyn, N.Y. City

downtown San Francisco, CA

(J,N) plaza + view of mountains and distant suburbs across the water, view of marine activities + seating + fountain + planters

Views:

vacant lot + view of Manhattan skyline across the river + residential neighborhood + factory in the viscinity

Views:

- amount and duration of sunlight at street level - wind velocity at street level

# Building height downtown:

Street Characteristics

Table 6.1. (Continued)

10 plazas, 600 people

case study

12 downtown spaces

models of 4 downtown areas

Sample

for sunlight is the number one quality attracting users to the street

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- office workers - pedestrians

- residents - workers from nearby factories

- children 6-16

- pedestrians - office workers

FO for whom?

User

observation

observation, archival

survey questionnaire

measure of sun and wind conditions using Environmental Simulation

to enjoy the view

to draw pedestrians

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Studies revealed that building uses such as convention centers and libraries were associated with low numbers of pedestrians in their viscidity. In this case, land use is not an indicator, because building uses within the same land use category differ in their Potential to draw pedestrians, this is especially true for commercial use. This difference is evident in the case of department stores and banks on one hand and retail and food establishments on the other. Although both groups are zoned commercial, their association with the number of pedestrians in the viscidity differs, the latter attracting many more pedestrians.8 Other studies revealed that the design of the boundaries separating some public uses from the street lessened their potential as attractants for large numbers of users. Having visual access into a public place provided the pedestrian with the opportunity to know it is there, to judge if it is safe, to see who other users are (Cooper Marcus, 1978). Visual barriers cited included high hedges around a park, and indoor atriums with solid exterior walls. Studies about plaza use also revealed that those with a single entry or a barrier separating the plaza from the street were sparsely used by passers by; they were exclusively used by occupants of the building sponsoring the plaza. The barrier here was more one of social cues rather than a physical visual barrier. Such is the case as well of plazas, indoor gallerias, and miniparks with security guards standing at their entrance. The barrier here is the result of regulations governing behavior in those supposedly public spaces. Studies have shown that mass transit stops along the sidewalk are a significant generator of pedestrians on the street (see Table 6.1). It is the underlying principle in transit mall design. Although not directly explored in research, existing research and practice suggest9 that the number of entrances per unit length of sidewalk is also a factor that affects the number of pedestrians on the street. The rationale behind it is that instead of one reason to walk a block, there are sixteen reasons to do so. Small street frontage and a high density of entrances along the sidewalk are design criteria implemented in practice to generate pedestrians on the street.10 Jan Gehl (1987) reports that in Denmark, some cities have ordinances that do not allow banks and offices at the street level. In other Danish cities, these are allowed as long as their street frontage does not exceed 15 ft.. Movie theaters in the U.S. are a similar example. The bulk of those larger units is situated either above, or behind, other smaller units along the facade, (see Figure 6.1). In these cases it is the combination of the number of entrances per unit length of the sidewalk and the building use that is at work.

8 This has been suggested in design literature (e.g. Lynch, 1981; Schumacher, 1986) based on personal observations of the designer. Unfortunately, the unsystematic documentation of the inquiry does not allow me to consider this information to be empirical evidence.

Although not a variable considered in any of the reviewed plaza studies, judging from photographs included in the studies, the number of building entrances from a plaza may have been associated with the number of pedestrians using it.

Examples in practice of narrow frontage design in residential areas include: the project for the extention of the city of Roras, in Norway; row houses in Paddington, Australia, and Siedlung Halen Housing Project in Bern, Switzerland (Gehl, 1987). Anne Vernez Moudon in her research on Victorian houses in San Fransisco had also speculated tht the high frequency of entrances from the sidewalk increases the opportunity of seeing someone on the street entering or leaving the area.

large plot developments

behind smaller ones

above smaller ones

Figure 6.1. Practiced design solutions to maintain narrow street frontage and high density of entrances along the sidewalk.

11 This is supported by E-B literature about choice and evaluation among alternatives (see Stokols & Shumaker, 1981 for a review). 12

Whether those high-rises had private open space or not was not documented in the study.

A destination attracts people who want to, or need to, go to it. The findings show that an attractant depends, not only on the needs and wants of potential users, but also on how the Potential FO it offers compares to other alternatives available to those users.11 The elderly who were using Union Square in San Francisco to regularly meet their friends, may have done so because—as reported in the study— they lived in nearby high-rises12 (Cooper Marcus, 1978-85). According to my analysis, the density of access points from the sidewalk, the uses they lead to, the design of their boundary, and the regulations governing their use are characteristics of the street edge that together contribute to the Potential FO “to generate pedestrian traffic” on the street. An attractant’s potential “to draw pedestrians” is relative to the potential users’ needs and wants which are modified by user characteristics such as culture and preference. Another modifying factor is the number and quality of existing alternatives that offer those users the opportunity to fulfill that need or want. Knowing a street’s Potential “to draw pedestrians” answers the questions: how many people use the street? who are they? and when do they use it? This is valuable information to designers. Yet, there is one more condition that contributes, together with the two discussed so far, to the generation of pedestrian traffic on any particular street, and that is the Potential FO “to walk the street.” TO WALK THE STREET: Besides giving potential users a reason to use the street, a third FO contributed to the generation of pedestrian traffic on the street; the possibility to walk a certain street, in other words, the street’s potential to sustain someone walking. I refer to this category as the Potential FO “to walk the street.” While the Potential FO “to draw pedestrians” suggests how many people use the street, who they are, and what are their wants, the Potential FO “to walk the street” answers the questions: which route do they take? and how long do they stay visible on the street?

The findings revealed some subtle factors, beyond cultural norms and personal preference, that influence people’s decision to walk a certain street; factors such as whether entrances to the private domain are from the sidewalk, and whether the sidewalk allows the pedestrian safe access. The analysis revealed that despite the movement of large numbers of people between destinations, some street characteristics inhibit the Potential FO to see those people on the street. The extent to which potential users are visible on the street depended primarily on the interface between movement systems (pedestrian and vehicular), and the attractants. This involves several street characteristics. One was the orientation of access points to the private domain; a variable that has been mentioned more often than it has been formally researched (Lozano, 1990: 288). Site layouts where building entrances are not related to the street decrease the Potential FO to walk the street. The high-rise housing estate in Queens, New York City (see Table 6.2.) had the Potential FO “to generate potential users.” The large number of residents had reasons to walk to places (subway stations, grocery, school...etc.), but they had no reason to use the distant sidewalk. The possibility of a resident to walk home from that street sidewalk is close to nil because he, or she, cannot access the high-rise towers from the street. Studies applying space syntax theory and methods also contend that the more dwelling entrances are distant from the street and diffused from a series of subspaces, the more diffused the people are on foot, the less the probability of seeing someone on the street (Miller, 1989).13 In its most general form, one may conclude that any pedestrian access from the sidewalk has the Potential FO for someone to walk the street.

13 Miller (1989) studied the residential redevelopment of old city blocks in historic Lund, in Sweden. The new design had a series of private collective spaces within the block from which entrances lead to hallways in different parts of the block, which then lead to the individual units. Although I disagree with the premise of Bill Hillier’s space syntax theory, this study actually observed pedestrian use of the streets before and after design changes in the number of entrances and their distribution.

(A&B)

(U)

(P&R)

# Code

Appleyard, D. & Bosselmann, P. (1982)

Untermann, R. (1991)

Pharaoh, . Russell,. (1991)

Reference

residential streets, US

US cities

city center, Frankfurt Germany small town main street, DK neighborhood commercial street, London, UK

Context

- taking fast turns

+ wide curb radii at intersections

- increase in pedestrian, bicycle and car accidents

Sample

observation

archival

case study

to walk safely

to go faster to one’s destination

to cross the street safely

to increase pedestrian traffic and therefore the number of potential customers

- street activity increased by 47% in DK by 60% in Germany, and on neighborhood commercial streets in the UK

to walk safely

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to shop and eat while you walk; to be entertained

- driving at high speeds

(U) (A&B)

(U)

what people said

Perceived FO

- cafés, restaurants and shops relocated by choice on (larger) sidewalks

(P&R) - crossing the street at more frequent intervals

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

+ wide driving lanes + no on-street parking

street layout

+ free right turns on red light

Traffic

+ wider sidewalks + cycle lanes, bus lanes + street parking + service bays + narrow roadway + signal crosswalks + bus stops + central islands

# Commercial streets

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. Category of Potential FO “to walk a street”

Method

- pedestrians

- drivers

- pedestrians

- business owners

- pedestrians

- pedestrian

FO for whom?

User

75 (G)

Untermann, R. (1991)

Greenberg, K. (1991)

(G)

Reference

(U)

# Code

Context

- prostitution

- other businesses on the street closed

- few people walk the street

- drivers pull in at speed of street traffic

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Downtown, Toronto, Canada

US cities

3 block long indoor mall + access from 2 subway stops inside the mall + set back from the street + 2 block long parking structure separates building from sidewalk

# Mega-structures downtown

+ deeply setback retail stores + parking lot abutting the sidewalk + wide driveways into parking lots

Parking lots: (U)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. (Continued)

City of Toronto Planning work

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

archival

to benefit from shoppers drawn to the mall

to see shoppers come and go to the mall

to see store windows from the street

to walk on sidewalk safely

not to interrupt flowing traffic

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- other businesses on the street

- street users

- pedestrian

- pedestrians

- drivers

FO for whom?

User

Pharaoh and Russell (1991)

Shaffer, G. & Anderson, L. (1983)

(S,A)

Reference

(P&R)

Code

B low bushes/fence high trees

A high fence large bushes

# parking lot enclosure

+ narrow lanes + trees on the sidewalk + frequent crosswalks: + raised paving + trees to mark crosswalk

# slowing traffic: The Berlin Moabit (20 mph area)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. (Continued)

Context

- no increase in stationary activity reported

- drivers slow down wxpecting pedestrians on the street

- frequent crossing

Commercial and muli-famly residential

residential streets, Berlin, Germany

(S,A)

(P&R)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

109 undergraduate students random from Athens GA. Slides of 40 parking lots

Method

- pedestrians - drivers walking to their cars

- residents on foot

FO for whom?

User

perception of security measured by rating 0-9 of 30 physical features.

to feel safe walking

B: to see the whole parking lot

Sample

to feel safe walking

to walk safely

inferred by myself

Potential FO

A: to see the whole parking lot

what people said

Perceived FO

Shaffer, G. & Anderson, L. (1983)

Robertson, K. (1991)

(R)

Reference

(S,A)

# Code

transit mall

Context

downtown transit malls, Sweden

Commercial and muli-famly residential

(R)

6 cities

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- pedestrians

- pedestrians - drivers walking to their cars

FO for whom?

User

observation, counts, and interviews

perception of security measured by rating 0-9 of 30 physical features.

to feel safe walking

to feel safe walking in the parking lot

109 undergraduate students random from Athens GA. slides of 40 parking lots

Sample

to feel safe (1 out of 6 pedestrians concerned about being hit by a bike)

to get help from other people around

(S,A)

parking lot: - high % of parking stalls in use - large number of cars parked - presence of people in the parking lot

to duck into the building

to easily access the building fast

what people said

Perceived FO

to get help

(S,A)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

+ small distance to building entrance + windows overlooking the parking lot

# parking lot

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. (Continued)

(G)

Code

Greenberg, K. (1991)

Reference

+ infil projects + transformation of vacant lots into small open spaces + thru-block linking of pedestrian routes

policy encouraging the following:

Context

City of Toronto Planning work

archival

to walk the street

- people took shortcuts thru blocks

for more streets to be improved to walk the street

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to stop briefly on your way

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

- sitting, eating, reading

- improvement affordable by the city

- private property owners contributed more readily

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Downtown, Toronto, Canada

+ incremental improvement with scheduled maintenance + incremental improvement when initiated by private sector contribution

incremental improvement:

+ flexible specifications regarding street scape design

design:

# Street scaping process:

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. (Continued)

Method

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

(S)

# Code

Schumacher, T. (1986)

Reference

across the street: + small lots + building entrances from the sidewalk

High-rise housing estate: + building configuration independent from street layout + no building entrances from the street front

# Building entrances:

Street Characteristics

Table 6.2. (Continued)

Context

- people walking - standing in groups - talking

- street sidewalk A is not used as much as sidewalk B

- residents walking are dispersed along various routes across the estate

Queens, Brooklyn, N.Y. City

(S)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Sample

for unplanned encounters

to walk the street

what people said

Perceived FO

User

- pedestrians

- residents going to or from their buildings

FO for whom?

Method personal observation

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Mixed-use projects aimed at drawing users to vitalize the downtown have often lead to exactly the opposite because they “suck” people off the streets. One reason is the weak connections between the new structure and the existing shopping streets. Such is the case of the Grand Avenue Mall in Milwuakee. Mall entrances from the parking structures are given more attention in design from the inside than entrances from the street in terms of location, visual treatment, and programmed activities (authors visit). If several parking structures were dispersed a block away, shoppers would have populated the streets around the mall, and street businesses would not have suffered as much. 15

In the sample of studies I re-analyzed, design solutions applied to reduce traffic speed were narrow roads, narrow lanes, street parking, small curb radii at intersections, and narrow driveways.

A similar effect results from activity-generating-uses, such as indoor gallerias with abutting parking structure or sky walk connections. They did not have the Potential FO “to generate visible pedestrian traffic” in adjoining streets no matter how large the number of people they attract (Robertson, 1988).14 Eaton Center on Yonge Street, Toronto, was such a case (see Table 6.2), where the 3-block-long mega mall includes 2 subway stations (Greenburg, 1987). There is no possibility for shoppers who go there by car or subway to walk on the street. The effect of the interface between the private domain and movement systems on the Potential FO to walk the street was also illustrated by Jan Gehl (1977) who illustrated that the closer the car is to the home (driveway, street parking, or at the end of the block) the lesser the Potential FO for residents to walk the street (see Fig. 6.2).

Figure. 6.2. An example from street studies in Melbourne illustrating the effect of the distance on the street from a parked car to a destination on the possibility of someone to walk that street. The further the car, the higher the Potential FO “to walk the street” (source: Gehl, 1987).

Traffic speed and volume in a street are often considered to be inversely proportional to the safety of walking along that street.15 The effect of traffic calming on increasing the Potential FO “to walk the street” has been confirmed by extensive research in both urban design and E-B fields. This Potential FO offered in downtown pedestrian shopping streets and transit malls was utilized to varying degrees in European and North American cities since the sixties. Traffic calming and traffic restriction in some streets were associated with increased numbers of pedestrian use in both Europe and North America, although in some transit malls, the pedestrian’s concern about safety from cars was replaced by a concern about safety from bikes, as well as discomfort due to high levels of noise and pollution caused by frequent buses. Traffic calming was also applied to residential streets, like the acclaimed Woonerf concept, but in that context, it was intended at increasing the street’s potential to allow stationary near home activities. This will be discussed further in the category concerned with the street’s potential to keep people on the street; the Potential FO “to stop and stay.” 80

Providing a connecting sidewalk uninterrupted by wide driveways and parking lots has also been suggested to increase the Potential FO for pedestrians “to walk the street.” In the United States, the possibility “to walk the street” was re-introduced in urban neighborhoods. New community shopping centers that encouraged people to walk, did so by simply making it possible to walk—diverse neighborhood services, activities and daily shopping needs were located close together and connected by a sidewalk. The designers’ intent was to allow the users to do several shopping stops from one parking place (Moudon & Untermann, 1987). Also, in existing suburban and urban neighborhoods with wide streets, new designs narrowed the roadways, created sidewalks with planted strips,16 and minimized the interruption of the sidewalk by driveways (using alleys and service roads as a substitute) to allow residents the Potential FO “to walk safely” around their neighborhood (see Figure 6.3).17

Richard Untermann (1991) suggested that to separate the sidewalk from the roadway, using a planted strip or a row of parked cars, offered the pedestrian on the sidewalk more protection from passing cars and the possibility of being splashed. This is just an opinion that has not been confirmed by research to my knowledge. 17

Unfortunately there are no published studies to my knowledge that assessed the extent to which users utilized this Potential FO.

Figure 6.3. Examples illustrating the potential of wide residential streets to be used for more functions than access by car. These functions include: to allow pedestrians to walk safely (a,b,c,d), to allow near home green spaces for recreation (c,d), to reduce noise and air pollution (b,c,d), and to allow more parking (a,b): (a) San Francisco; (b) Santa Monica, CA; (c) Santa Cruz, CA; (d) San Francisco. (source of data: Moudon & Untermann, 1987).

The pedestrian’s concern about safety while walking goes beyond safety from cars, it also involves safety from assault. E-B research on crime and fear of crime is not conclusive18 about the association of certain street characteristics with higher opportunity for an assailant to assault a pedestrian. However, certain street characteristics were found to be associated with the perception of safety on the street. Such characteristics allow pedestrians the Potential FO “to see clearly around,” and “to get help” when needed.19 The presence of other people, and the possibility of being seen from the street (no visually obstructing fences or bushes) or from inside buildings (windows and glazing) were two factors that increased the pedestrian’s perception of safety in the parking lot.20 As shown above, the Potential FO “to walk the street” affects the number of people visible on the street, the duration of their stay 81

The literature suggests that social factors play a major mediating role in the relationship between street characteristics and crime or fear of it (see Lee, 1992 & Shehayeb, 1989 for a review).

The concepts of “prospect” and “refuge,” respectively as termed by Jack Nasar.

Similar results were found with respect to the use of residential street fronts in problem neighborhoods. The ability to be seen from the street increased the residents’ perception of safety and thus the perceived opportunity to use their street fronts (Schnee, 1993).

Amos Rapoport (1990a) presented a set of hypotheses regarding the street characteristics that sustain the activity of walking based on a compilation of perceptual characteristics of pedestrian streets in different cultures (most from the pre-industrial era). Although very interesting, I could not include it in my secondary analysis because it is itself a secondary analysis and does not include primary data about street use. 22

The aesthetic experience of walking an urban street gets a lot of attention in urban design literature but rarely is it the focus of empirical research. E-B research on urban aesthetics usually focusses on the experience of static scenes. This may be an outcome of the reliance of their research methods upon simulation of real settings using still photographs and slides as stimulants to evaluate. Recently, the use of computer generated animations are being considered. When aesthetic enjoyment was discussed in E-B research on street use, it mostly concerns the experience of street users who are sitting somewhere, not walking. 23

In the field of E-B, this FO is addressed in studies regarding the use of urban open spaces, some of which are parts of the street. In UD, design principles such swellings in the street space and sequences of spaces...etc. aimed at actualizing such activity.

on the street, and their choice of route, that is, where exactly do they choose to walk. Choosing to walk a certain street when alternatives are available was not directly investigated in any of the studies included in this re-analysis. However, in the sample of studies I analyzed there was some reference to the role played by the use, configuration and design of the street edge in increasing the opportunity to walk the street. Building height that allowed desirable ambient conditions on the street—such as long exposure to direct sunlight and shelter from high winds in San Francisco— was one such example (Bosselmann et al., 1984). Also small plot frontage, and ground level uses that allowed seeing people inside the private domain were pointed out in one study as offering the pedestrian the Potential FO “to look at something interesting while walking” (Gehl,1977). Although this is an issue extensively addressed in design literature (e.g. Jacobs, 1993; Moughtin, 1992; Rapoport, 1990a21), not many empirical studies have explored the aesthetic experience of people walking.22 The subject of people’s interest in Jan Gehl’s study was not the physical environment but actually seeing other people in action. Glazed elevator lobbies, long solid facades, and uses such as banks and furniture stores did not offer the street user to Potential FO “to see, to hear, and to meet people” which is the next category of Potential FO derived from this re-analysis. Before moving on I would like to conclude this trilogy by pointing out that the difference between the three categories of Potential FO discussed so far may seem subtle, but this articulation of FO underlying the subsuming goal to generate pedestrian traffic is useful because it can pinpoint the failure in an urban design project, like the failure in North American downtowns of pedestrian shopping streets. One reason revealed by this analysis is the neglect, in the North American experience, to complement the Potential FO “to walk the street” with the Potential FO “to draw pedestrians” as in European cities. Pedestrian streets in North American downtowns, although interesting to walk through (scale, visually interesting, safe) did not necessarily lead anywhere; they were not congruent to the logical pedestrian routes between destinations (Robertson, 1988, 1993; Schumacher, 1986). TO STOP AND STAY: The quality of the street that allows a person to spend more time, in one place, on the street I refer to as the Potential FO “to stop and stay.” Once there is a reason for someone to be on the street, or to walk the street, there are certain qualities of the street that allow or inhibit a person from stopping and staying for a while.23 As shown in Table 6.3, this has to do with having something to watch, somewhere to stay, some comfort and safety, the possibility of doing simultaneous activities, choice of seating locations, and rules that allow all of the above.

+ car parking zone

street B

(G)

# Code

Gehl, J. (1986)

Reference

Context

- standing and talking by the fence

- conversing with neighbors

- leaning on fence watching toddlers play

- some people put large umbrellas and tables in the garden

- people sitting in the front garden

- street fronts in A were used 21 times more frequently to sit or stop than in B

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

residents streets, Copenhagen, Denmark comparable size and popultion

front yards are collective, there is no direct access from ground level units to the yards

+ fenced front yards yards creating walkways to building entrances

street A

Residential streets equal number of dwellings/building entrance 3 storey apartment building

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. Category of Potential FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to stop and stayâ&#x20AC;?

comparison of 2 streets, June 1980, 10am-8pm

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

User

Method

- residents

FO for whom?

20 recordings of activities

to recreate near home

to see, to hear people

inferred by myself

Potential FO

(P&Z)

# Code

Pushkarev, B. & Zupan, J. (1975)

Reference

+ intermittent or continuous barrier + mid-block location

Plazas/street boundary

+ same as sidewalk + no barrier + long street frontage or corner location

Plaza/street boundary

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Context

- >90% of people using it are occupants of the adjacent building

- few people pass through it

-75% people sitting are not users of the building

- people walk through it

Manhattan plazas, N.Y. City

(P&Z)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- office workers

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

aerial photography, random observation

for territorial claim

for a short cut

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Reference

Joardar,S. and Neill, J. (1978)

# Code

( J&N)

Undifferentiated expansive platforms

Physical artifacts in plazas: -level changes -sculptures, fountains - steps at the edges -nooks and corners -variety of shape, texture and subspaces

Seating in a plaza

Waterfront + view of distant mountains, water & marine activities + seating + railing at the water edge + near downtown

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

- not used

(J&N)

10 plazas in downtown Vancouver, in 197576

Context

- 90% of people carry out stationary activity only by physical artifacts

- people sit at ends of benches

- people sit at corners of raised pools and planters

- people watching the view

- people sitting having lunch

(J&N)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

6000 people

Sample

- for orientational freedom and postural choice

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- pedestrians

- office workers

FO for whom?

User

Observation at different times, some using super 8-time lapse camera Interviews of 50 persons

to watch something

to claim a territory

to sit or lean on something

to control social interaction

freedom of orientation

to have something to watch

inferred by myself

Potential FO

(CM)

# Code

Reference

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1978-85)

+ public ownership

+ diagonal circulation pattern

+ ledges, benches -B-

+ hedged small lawn areas -A+ circulation and entrances + change in level

# Articulation of space into subspaces

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Context

- less control over use than private owned open space

- walking through the square

- sitting and - eating - waiting for friends - resting

- lying down on lawn - sleeping - reading - drinking -smoking marijuana

Union Square, San Francisco, CA

(CM)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

case study

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

observation

to attract diverse users

for a short cut

for choice of seating

User

- pedestrian

- elderly, shoppers, tourists

- office workers

- young people

- homeless

FO for whom?

Method

not to be seen by passers by

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Reference

Carr, S. et al (1992)

Code

(CFRS1)

(CFRS2)

+ concrete bollards along the sidewalk edge of the plaza + subway station

+ sunken sitting area + fountain, paving, no entrances

Utilized FO

Downtown, Boston

Context

- people sitting on concrete bollards watching pedestrians and vehicles flow

City Hall plaza, case study

case study

Sample

for comfort because it is windy

to have something to watch

- no people eating brown bag lunches - rarely used

for comfort

- few people walk across to city hall

for spontaneous activity

- large number of people standing watching

observation

to watch people

for pedestrian traffic

to see, to hear, to be with people

to watch people from vantage point

- large number of people on the way to the center

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to have something to watch

what people said

Perceived FO

- non-programmed performers (live music, magic, dance...)

activity as reported in study

Beaubourg, Paris

# (CFRS2) Plaza + no retail stores + only 2 restaurants + trees, benches at the edge only, visually far from street

(CFRS1) Large urban space + entrances to center of information & cultural center + paving + no landscaping + no retail + connected to surrounding pedestrian street where retail and food are offered + sunken level from street + open-minded management

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Method

- pedestrians

- office workers

- diverse users

FO for whom?

User

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1975-1988)

Carr, S. et al (1992)

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1975-1988)

(CFRS)

(CM2)

Reference

(CM1)

# Code

Sunken plaza + pedestrian traffic on street above + upper level terrace railing + skating rink below + shopping atrium

+ no access to any private domain + trees providing shade + fountain

Sunken plaza

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Context

- crowds line the street level railing

by the upper ledge -C- sitting - watching people on the sidewalk

by the stairs -B- sitting - standing - talking

by the fountain -A- eating - reading - sunning - napping - some sit in shade

Minneapolis, MN

Rockfeller Plaza, New York

downtown San Fransisco,. CA

(CFRS) (CM2)

(CM1)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

case study

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

observation

to watch people while avoiding eye contact

to choose from contrasting experiences

to experience contrast from the bustling street

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- pedestrians

- mostly people working in building

- women, couples, office workers

FO for whom?

User

Reference

Linday, N. (1978)

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1978-85)

Code

(L)

(CM)

+ niches in building -D-

+ concrete blocks by shrubs in planters -C-

Street level plaza edge: + at busy interaction + subway entrance + steps with diverse orientation -B+ sunny + food trucks + vendors + regulations allowing entertainers

sunken area: -A+ access to subway station + no retail

# Corner plaza

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Context

-C-D- groups of 2 or 3 sitting, eating, lunch - watching from a distance

-B- eating brown bag lunches - watching - talking among strangers

-A- walk to and from subway station - smoking marijuana

Crocker Plaza, San Francisco, CA

downtown San Francisco, CA

(CM)

(L)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Sample

case stduy

inferred by myself

Potential FO

observation

Survey of users

for choice of privacy level

to watch people for chance contact for choice of seating

to be seen from the street

9 public spaces downtown, 6 of which indoor gallerias and food courts

to sit alone

to be more distant from crowds

to get food for lunch

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- women

- predominant men, - office workers, - construction workers, - shoppers

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1978-85)

Harrison, M. (1987)

Carr, S. et al (1992)

(H)

(CFRS)

Reference

(CM)

Code

Stairs in front of public building + wide sidewalk + pedestrian traffic + performers

CafĂŠ + wide sidewalk + pedestrian traffic

+ benches with backrest -A+ orientation facing sidewalk + bus station + sunny + statue on stepped pedestal -B+ building entrances

# Street corner plaza

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

- people linger over a drink or coffee

- no interaction among strangers

- reading

- people mostly alone rest (approx. 20 mins), then move on

Paris and New York

downtown, Portland, OR

Mechanics Plaza, SanFrancisco, CA

Context

(CFRS) - people sitting on steps watching performers

(H)

(CM)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

case study

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- pedestrians

- pedestrians general

FO for whom?

User

observation

personal observation and archival

observation

to see activity better from vantage point

to step out of pedestrian traffic and watch people

for an excuse to stay longer and observe the street

to stop and rest for a while

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Reference

Harrison, M. (1987)

Nasar, J. and Yarkudol, A. (1990)

Code

(H)

(N&Y)

+ pedestrian traffic + bus stop

# building side seating

+ arcaded entrance to a public library + wide stairs + tables & chairs in good weather, on Sat. & weekends + cafe + close by food vendors + pedestrian traffic + large number of office workers around

stairs along sidewalk

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

Context downtown, Columbus, OH

one street, case study

Method

- vagrants

- pedestrians, shoppers

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

observation, video tape 3 times/day in May

personal observation and archival

to see and not be seen

- people begging

to rest

for choice of seating

to get out of the crowds

to watch people from vantage point

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to watch people

Sample

ď&#x201A; to get away from people

ď&#x201A; to have a good view of whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s going on

what people said

Perceived FO

- people sitting looking out for the bus

- littering

- people sitting for a short time

- thinking, reflecting - people searching for sun shade a corner a clean place a central place

- sleeping

- standing, leaning - sitting + - looking at their belongings - rearranging or removing pieces of clothing - eating from brownbag or nearby vendors - listening to music - reading and writing

downtown, Portland, OR

(H) (N&Y)

(CFRS)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

(M)

(CFRS1)

Carr, S. et al (1992)

Mozingo, L. (1984)

Love, R. L. (1973)

Whyte, W. (1980)

Carr, S. et al (1992)

(M)

(L)

(W)

(CFRS2)

Reference

(CFRS1)

# Code

Seating + movable seats in plazas + sun and shade (even in crowded situation)

Context case study

downtown plazas in NY, Chicago, Seattle

N.Y. downtown plazas

Two fountains in Portland, OR

downtown, San Fransisco, CA case study

Method

- individuals and groups

- adults & children

- women who are alone

- women

FO for whom?

User

observation and interviews

8 mm-time lapse photpgraphy

observation and interviews

behavior mapping and questonnaire survey

observation

to choose sun or shade

to choose what to watch

- people move a chair a few inches expressing respect for the privacy of adjacent users

to watch diverse people

for different users to use it simultaneously

to claim a spot

for an excuse to sit in plaza alone (culture norm)

to relax

inferred by myself

Potential FO

to choose how close or distant one wants to be from others

Sample

for aural separation from other users and from traffic

to be free from unwelcome advances, threats, harassment, intrusion by men

what people said

Perceived FO

- people engaged in group conversations

- large number of people - wading - laying - conversing - watching

- sitting, eating

- relaxing

- sitting

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Greenacres Park, Manhattan, New York

(W), (CFRS2)

(L) Fountain differentiated into a number of subspaces: - variety of pools, - waterfalls, - seating platforms (loud roar of water muffles conversation in the vicinity and overrides traffic noise)

Furnishing + tables to eat on + take-away food places

+ small vest-pocket + parks with security guard

# Seating where view was NOT obscured from street

Street Characteristics

Table 6.3. (continued)

In many cases people were already drawn to the street for a particular reason; to have lunch, to meet friends, to shop, to enjoy the weather and such. But it seems there are also times when people head out to the street with the sole intention to sit, as is the case when people sit in building entrances, stoops, and door fronts.24 The findings reveal that having something to watch was an essential component in all reported instances of stopping along the street. People sat in elevated places where they had a good view of the pedestrians walking past. People sat where they could enjoy the relaxing sounds of nature by a fountain or a waterfall. People watched the waterfront, children at play, or the rushing crowds to a subway station. Even when there was no place to sit, people stood to watch some other people in action; performers, people bargaining the price of fresh produce, or simply construction workers going about their business.

This is a special case because those street users are still in their private domain which may legitimize to them their stay on the street without further reason to be there. This aspect fo near home recreation was not directly investigated in any of the studies included in the analysis.

The second requirement is having a place to stand or sit, usually out of the way of pedestrians on the move. For the most part this Potential FO was offered at the building side of the sidewalk, except for a few occasions where the street included designed benches on the curb side of the sidewalk. Street characteristics that had this potential on the building-side included: steps, arcade, niches, deep set entrances, canopies and awnings. Sometimes the sidewalk widened to form a plaza. In these cases, the studies revealed that the more articulate the design of the space, the more potential it had for people to sit and linger about. Small changes in level, sittable planter ledges, fountains, statue pedestals, bollards, steps, railings overlooking a different level, and of course benches were utilized to sit. One study points out that in some cultures, in this case the casual culture in San Francisco, the ground offered the Potential FO to sit for young people (Linday, 1978). But it was not the ground anywhere, only the ground around artifacts such as fountains and such was perceived and utilized for that. The quality shared by all of the above mentioned street characteristics is that they afford something to sit on, or to lean on. The more variety in seating offered by the street characteristics, the more choice it provides the user as to the level of involvement or detachment they want from other users. Yet another Potential FO that contributed to the category “to stop and stay” is the opportunity for comfort and safety. Being comfortable may be the factor the most influential on the duration of people’s stay on the street; comfortable seating (e.g. benches with backs), ambient comfort (sun, shade, wind, noise, traffic pollution), comfort that allows the person staying the opportunity to relax. The findings reveal that this Potential FO is more dependent on users’ characteristics than the two FO discussed above. Studies show that it varied by age, preference, and culture.25 A related FO is the Potential FO to feel safe; one cannot enjoy physical comfort if one is concerned about one’s safety. This again is a Potential FO closely related to the culture of the users. In all the studies where safety was addressed, it was users’ perception of safety that counted and not actual crime statistics. Some people felt safer to use a plaza when a body guard was posted at its boundary, other users found in a sunken plaza a safe haven to smoke marijuana. Women were found to give this FO more weight in their decision as to where to

The same person’s requirements for comfort may even vary from one day to the other; the same person may enjoy the hustle and bustle of the street one day, and avoid it with a splitting headache the other. Also the preference for sun and shade varies with the seasons. This point is not investigated in the studies.

sit on the public street. Some sat in center locations on steps, others sought building-side individual seating, when they used secluded mini-parks there was always a security guard at this park. The common criteria was to increase the opportunity of being seen by others who can help in case of trouble. According to the studies analyzed, this Potential FO seemed to be the same one underlying the perception of safety in parking lots, street fronts in troubled residential neighborhoods. Large windows, entrances facing the street, the presence of other people, were all street characteristics that increased people’s perception of safety allowing them to utilize the other Potential FO offered by the street “to stop and stay.” One Potential FO that seemed to contribute as well to sitting on the street was the opportunity to satisfy several wants at the same time. People sitting were often also eating, reading, and resting. In downtown plaza research, under-used places were mentioned to be far from food selling facilities, retail stores, and such. Even people waiting for a bus, were often also looking at window displays and eating some wrapped food (littering along the building-side where people waited was noted in this study—Nasar & Yurkadul, 1990). This factor was not pointed out in any of the studies about stationary use on the street, but was overtly expressed by residents using their street fronts. Studies concerning near home recreation almost always compared street front use to use of block-interior spaces. One observation applicable to all studies analyzed was that the street front offered the opportunity for more simultaneous activities than the back. For adults, it allowed the opportunities: “to see, to hear and to be people” as a form of passive entertainment, to socialize with neighbors thus maintaining already established social contacts; to survey children at play; to see what’s going on; and to perform some daily chores, all at the same time. For children, it allowed them to play all games that require a hard surface, to be safe under the supervision of the adults, to be with adults and thus learn about the social world around, to watch the unexpected on the street.

When the city allows private investment in street improvement projects, the private sector usually gets its way imposing certain codes of behavior to exclude undesirable users from spending too much time on the street. This characteristic of the street development process allows the occupants of the private domain the Potential FO”to appropriate public space” to their own benefit. Unfortunately, the sample of studies I analyzed did not include enough data about this FO to develop it into a category.

One last street characteristic that sometimes stands in the way of utilizing the street’s Potential FO “to stop and stay,” is management. Examples of that is management in housing estates that prohibits sitting in building entrances overlooking the street; management that dictates a behavioral code for privately owned, but publicly used, parts of the street such as downtown plazas; management of public streets that have been claimed—through financing street improvement projects—by local merchant associations.26 As far as this analysis revealed the Potential FO “to stop and stay” when it is utilized it affects: the duration of people’s stay on the street; the number of people visible on the street; who uses it; and the economic viability of activities such as food vending, or performing. “To stop and stay” is also strongly interdependent with the category of FO “to see, to hear, and to be with people,” since the latter can be both a reason and a consequence of the former. TO SEE, TO HEAR, TO BE WITH PEOPLE: The urban street was also found to offer its users the possibility “to see, to hear, and to be with people” on neutral grounds and without commitment. To be able to see and to hear people is a prerequisite for other forms

of social interaction such as chance contacts, maintaining already established contacts (such as neighborly interaction), and knowing about the social world (Gehl, 1987). Seeing, hearing, and being with other people also provides sensory stimulation needed for the psychological well-being of a person; it provides an alternative to being alone when that is not desired. In Melbourne, Australia, chance contacts by the front yards lead to higher levels of interaction (Gehl et al, 1977). As shown in Table 6.4 the traditional neighborhood street (Brower & Williamson,1974; Holohan, 1978), the Woonerf (Eubank-Ahrens, 1991), the small parking lot of a housing complex (Schnee,1993) played a role in maintaining already established contacts due to the extended opportunity “to see, to hear and to be with people.” Studies showed that, whenever possible, interaction between neighbors in a community occurred while they were doing other chores like washing the car, watching young children at play, or bringing the groceries in; it is an uncomplicated way “to stay in touch” (Gehl, 1987).27 Other studies showed that children like to be where the action is; they played more on the street where the fire engine might come, where someone may be repairing his car, where something unexpected may happen (Eubank-Ahrens, 1991; Krier, 1984). In the literature about children’s development, it is indicated that this behavior offers children the Potential FO “to know about the social world around” (Moore, 1987).28 Besides being a pre-requisite for other FO, being with other people, at its most modest level, can be rewarding. For many people, seeing and hearing people on the street offers an alternative to being alone.29 The Potential FO “to see, to hear, and to be with people” is a form of passive recreation that underlies near-home recreation30 and the preference for watching people during lunch breaks which is documented on downtown streets. Not all chance contacts were necessarily welcome. One study showed that the increase in chance contacts and the lack of control over regulating those contacts lead to lack of privacy and resentment on behalf of the residents (Baum, Davis, & Aiello, 1978).31 The Potential FO “to see, to hear, and to be with people” was utilized favorably when people had the choice to control it.32 Whether people like or dislikes the consequences of a Utilized FO is an evaluative judgment and is therefore beyond the scope of this discussion. The first point revealed by the analysis is therefore that the Potential FO “to see, to hear, and to meet people” is: a prerequisite for several other Potential FO to exist; its utilization satisfies several psychological and developmental needs; and that the public street is a primary source of this Potential FO. When the street environment does not allow this most basic Potential FO, it eliminates a valuable domain where all of the levels of interaction mentioned above may burgeon.

The easiest way to maintain already established contacts is by having the chance to see and meet those people regularly without having to plan it. 28

There was no indication of this Potential FO for adults in any of the studies I reanalyzed. 29

Studies in psychology show that people provide a limitless wealth of sensory variation. Compared to inanimate objects, they are a primary source of sensory stimulation which is a human need. Being with other people for a short while, at its most modest level, can be rewarding. Jan Gehl (1987) mentions that it has been found that retired people in large cities (he doesn’t cite the reference) would take a long bus ride every day for no other reason than to be in the presence of other people. Also many of the regular users in plazas and public squares were elderly (Cooper Marcus, 1978-1985; Carr et al, 1992). 30

The studies also show that ertain user groups (e.g. elderly, children, the poor) are more dependent on social contacts made on the street in their near-home environment. 31

When stores on a predominantly residential street attract outsiders, or large numbers of insiders, the residents did not use their front yards and expressed their resentment. Similarly, studies about downtown public spaces revealed that when designs allowed the users to choose their distance from the spectacle of moving pedestrians—that is they had control over the degree of social interaction—those places satisfied a larger number and variety of users (Carr et al, 1992; Whyte,1980, 1988). 32

This is supported by studies that investigated the effect of proximity and arrangement of dwelling unit on social interaction among neighbors. The controversial findings lead to the conclusion that neighbors interacted more whene the design allowed them the choice to engage or avoid social interaction (Michelson, 1976).

Gehl, J. (1968)

Whyte, W. (1980)

Gehl, J. (1968)

(W)

(G)

Reference

(G)

# Code

-construction going on in the street

-photography exhibits -Marquee outside movie theaters -clothing and toy stores -an artist painting the pavement -a musician playing live -children playing -newly weds on their way to the photographer

Pedestrian street -banks -offices -showrooms -office furniture -porcelain

+ benches oriented towards planted areas

Context

- when workers left no one stopped anymore

- people stop and watch

- people walking by do not stop or look

- used less

- used most

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Copenhagen, Denmark, main pedestrian street, Stroget

New York city, Manhatten plazas

Copenhagen, Denmark

(G)

(G),(W) Squares and plazas in streets + benches with a view of the most trafficked pedestrian routes

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. Category of Potential FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to see, hear and meet peopleâ&#x20AC;?

Tuesdays in July 1968, 69

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- pedestrians

FO for whom?

User

behavioral mapping

8 mm time lapse photo survey

observation

to watch other people in action

to see, to hear, to be with people are

inferred by myself

Potential FO

(S)

(CM)

(CFRS)

# Code

Schnee, D. (1993)

Carr, S. et al. (1992)

Reference

3-storey apartment buildings + entrance to each dwelling from the street front + external stairs leading to second storey porch

# Srteet front

Public square + seating + nearby residential hotels

Vacant lots in neighborhoods

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

Context

- teenagers get up every time someone needs to climb up or down

- teenagers sit, stand and lean on stairs of buildings on the street side

- sit by circulation path looking out for friends - sitting in groups talking

-building â&#x20AC;&#x153;casitasâ&#x20AC;?, clubhouses, where members gather regularly

San Fransisco, Robert Pitts Plaza, new public housing. 3-storey apts. walk ups. Population African Americans relocated from towers

Union Square, San Francisco, CA

East Harlem, Brooklyn, NY City

(S)

(CM)

(CFRS)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- teenagers +14 year old

- elderly men

- Hispanic men and teens

FO for whom?

User

questionnaires, interviews, and observations

observation

unobstructed access

to see and hear people on the street

to maintain existing social contacts

43 residents responded to questionnaire. 9 interviewed. 6 observations in May 1992.

case stduy

Sample

to watch street action while remaining detached

what people said

Perceived FO

Gehl, J. (1986)

Krier, L. (1984)

(G)

(K)

Code

Reference

access streets + low traffic volume + entrances to houses and buildings from the street

multi-storey apartment buildings + sunny court

access alley + back yard only

Single family housing + backyards, + parks and pedestrian routes

access alley + back yard + front yard A

# 2 housing projects

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

Context

- children playing, most play on access roads where there is traffic and people

- in A front yards were used twice as much as back yards

- 35% more outdoor activity occurred in A than in B

Denmark, single family house areas

residential areas, Copenhagen Denmark

(K)

(G)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

2 residential areas

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- children of all ages

- residents

FO for whom?

User

observations survey of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play habits

observations on Saturdays, 1980-1981

to have something to look at

for something unplanned to happen

to see and hear other people (passive contacts) in project A

inferred by myself

Potential FO

(G)

(B,D,A)

# Code

Reference

Gehl, J. (1980)

Baum, A., Davis, G. & Aiello J. (1978)

Residential street + row houses + small front yards + fences

Type of stores - drugstore - local markets - retail stores

Residential street + front yards (small) + stores

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

Context

- duration of stay corresponded with increase in social interaction (talking, playing...)

- residents do not use front yards a lot

- large number of passers by on sidewalk

- people from outside the neighborhood come to shop

Street life study in Melbourne, Australia

low-middle income class, white

(G)

(B,D,A)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

case study - 2 blocks Aug-Oct. 1971

inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- residents adults

FO for whom?

User

resident observation on predetermined route 107 times Diaries 13 adult residents Interviews: 13 adults

observation, multivariate analysis of variance, questionnaire.

for neighboring to occur

to see, to hear, to meet people

to see, hear strangers on the street

to control social interaction with acquaintances

9 residential streets observation: 6:30-8:30 pm weekdays July-August

Sample

to control territory adjacent to house

to feel private sitting in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s yard

to encounter acquaintances and friends on sidewalks frequently, (more than desired)

what people said

Perceived FO

100

Baum, A., Davis, G. & Aiello J. (1978)

Jacobs, J. (1961)

Gans, H. (1962)

Eubank-Ahrens, B. (1991)

(J)

(G)

(EA)

Reference

(B,D,A)

# Code

+ traditional buildings + doors and windows overlooking the street (G) + scattered stores providing daily needs (EA)

# Residential streets

Residential street + stores or pharmacy with soda fountain + bars/ pubs local + snack shop/ diner + bakery + candy store

Residential street + front yards (without stores)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

- people use their yards more - few encounters on sidewalk 19% of contact - socialize within the home 49%

Hanover and Linden SĂźd, Germany German and Turkish working class

Boston West End, Italian ethnic working class

New York, East Harlem

low-middle income class, white

Context

- residents in windows talk to passers by pursuing daily errands

(G) - men stop by on their way (B,D,A) home.

- customers casually interact while they shop there for daily (J) needs.

(B,D,A)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Sample

inferred by myself

Potential FO

2 streets before and after Woonerf design

Method

- residents

- residents adults

- residents, adults

FO for whom?

User

observation of number and duration of stationary behavior

ethnographic study; participatory observation

unsystematic conversations & observations

observation, multivariate analysis of variance, questionnaire.

to see and talk to passers by

for neighboring to occur

to buy daily needs

to encounter non-residents on the sidewalk

9 residential streets observation: 6:30-8:30 pm weekdays July-August

to meet friends

to meet people from the neighborhood

to get a cup of coffee, a newspaper

what people said

Perceived FO

101

Reference

Holohan, C. (1978)

# Code

(H)

Context

- people meet and talk while engaged in different taskrelated activities: -shopping -child care -repairing car

- 90% activity near entrances, stoops on sidewalk

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

New York city lower East Side, Puerto Rican and African American low-income residents

+ street with sidewalk + 3-5 storey rental apartment buildings built around 1940 + buildings at property line (no set back) + residential use + scattered commercial use (grocery stores, candy stores, cleaners) + Density: 350-400 persons/acre

# â&#x20AC;&#x153;traditionalâ&#x20AC;? neighborhood:

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

for informal social exchange

inferred by myself

Potential FO

User

- adult residents

FO for whom?

Method behavioral mapping

to keep in touch with neighbors and events

random sampling of the 3 projects 3 Sat. 1:00-5:30 pm in June and July

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

102

(S)

# Code

Schnee, D. (1993)

Reference

+ 12 - 14 spaces + fewer cars than parking spaces + dwelling unit entrances from parking lot. + windows overlooking parking lot

Residential street front

(S)

Street Characteristics

Table 6.4. (continued)

San Fransisco, Robert Pitts Plaza, new public housing. 3-storey apt. walk ups. population African Americans relocated fom towers

Context

- men repairing and maintaining cars.

- men playing ball with boys

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO inferred by myself

Potential FO

for chance contact with neighbors

get help if needed

to directly see parking lot from inside dwelling units.

43 residents respond to questionaire. 9 interviewed. 6 observations May 1992.

Sample

to feel safe in the parking lot (84%)

to feel safe by their front door at night (86%)

to feel safe on their street at night (71%)

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- residents

FO for whom?

User

The second point revealed by the analysis concerns the street characteristics that allow or inhibit the Potential FO “to see, to hear, to be with people.” The results show that the this Potential FO is closely related to the number of people visible from the street, and more importantly, to the amount of time they spend on the street, that is, the duration of their stay. The longer the time people spend on the street the more opportunity they have for chance contacts. This time could be time spent either walking or staying. In other words, the possibility to see and hear people depends on the degree to which the Potential FO “to walk the street,” and the Potential FO “to stop and stay” are utilized on the street. Consequently, street characteristics that afforded these Potential FO, indirectly also afford the Potential FO “to see, to hear, and to be with people.” This explains why street characteristics associated in the studies with the ability to see and hear people on the street, included such characteristics as stoops, deep set building entrances, traffic controlled residential streets all of which afford a place to linger (see Table 6.3). What those characteristics have in common is that they have the potential to keep people on the street; they afford the Potential FO “to stop and stay.” The studies point out that in residential streets, the presence of utilized street front yards increases the number of people seen from the street. The small front yards in Paddington, Australia, offered the pedestrian on the street the Potential FO to see more people (sitting in their porches, sunning, or gardening) than the large apartment blocks with one shared entrance (Gehl, 1987). In this case the ability to see inside the private domain from the sidewalk complemented by the presence of people using this private domain, increases the street’s potential for passers by to see and hear other people. Since building entrances is where people tend to linger, it was no surprise to me when I noticed that the number of residents observed using the residential street fronts was often relative to the number of entrances per unit length of sidewalk33 (see Table 6.5).

103

Brower & Williamson’s (1974) study in Baltimore revealed that comparable users in different residential layouts used their street front entrances for sitting, playing and socializing, but the site with the fewer building entrances had fewer people seen sitting in the street, despite the fact that these entrances served a greater number of dwelling units.

104

Appleyard, D. (1981)

Eubank-Ahrens, B. (1991)

(EA)

Reference

(A)

# Code

+ no through traffic allowed + parking allowed + some trees and bollards + bikes or cars move thru slowly

Woonerf

Street Characteristics

Context

- adults maintaining cars and children watching and talking with them

- men maintaining their vehicles beyond necessityresulting in consultations, conversations with passers by

- teens use the Woonerf ’s near playground on high pedestrian route - elderly used benches viewing playgrounds and trafficked street intersections

- adults and elderly numbers and duration of stay dropped

- children play increased in number and duration - children playing in larger groups

Hanover and Linden SŸd, Germany German and Turkish working class

The Dutch Woonerf

(EA) (A)

Utilized FO activity as reported in study

Table 6.5. Category of Potential FO “near home recreation”

Method

- children

- elderly, children and adults

- elderly

- teens

- adults - elderly

- residents: children

FO for whom?

User

Observation of number and duration of stationary behavior

Observation

to interact with adults

to watch what’s going on to meet and talk with neighbors

to have something to watch

to play motor-play to play in larger groups

inferred by myself

Potential FO

2 streets before and after Woonerf design

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

105

(B&W)

# Code

Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974)

Reference

+ 2-storey row-houses + private front and rear access for each unit + private back yards, + no porches on either sides + inner court (lawn) + front setback approx. 20 feet (lawn) NOT designated as private front yards +10 entrances/unit length of sidewalk (1/2 a block) + 1 entrance/dwelling unit

# Residential street front

Street Characteristics

Table 6.5. (continued)

)McCulloh Homes, Upton, Inner City, Baltimore, low income, black neighborhood

Context

- street front is used 8 times more by adults and teens than the back - front and back equally used by children

The court: - children playing

- sitting and watching the children play

The back yards:

- sitting - playing

The front (grassy, area, (B&W) sidewalk and walkways):

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO inferred by myself

Potential FO

Method

- children

- resident parents

- adults

- children - adults - teens

FO for whom?

User

walk through observations: 98 times. diaries by residents: 15 adults. interviews: 12 adults.

to play safely

to surveil children

for quiet

to have something to watch

case study -1 public housing project Aug.-Oct. 1971

Sample

for children to play safely

to watch the children playing from the house or backyard

to get away from the children

to see more exciting activities

what people said

Perceived FO

106

(H)

Reference

Holohan, C. (1978)

# Code

(H)

Context

- people sitting, standing alone, or in groups watching people on the street

- no adults use benches inside projects

- children played ball on hard surface areas: - (pedestrian mall), - amphitheater, - observation areas - around playground

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

New York city lower East Side, Puerto Rican and African American low-income residents

+ benches with view of neighboring traditional neighborhood -D- streets and building entrances

high-rise apartment housing project Interior project spaces: + adventure playground -A+ hard surfaced pedestrian mall -B+ amphitheater for events -C+ benches at periphery facing center + no daily-supply shops allowed inside

# Residential street front

Street Characteristics

Table 6.5. (continued)

inferred by myself

Potential FO

behavioral mapping

User

- adult residents

- children

FO for whom?

Method

to see people engaged in daily activities & coming in and out of buildings

to see other adults

to do task-oriented activities inside project

to play ball

random sampling of the 3 projects 3 Sat. 1:00-5:30 pm in June and July

Sample

what people said

Perceived FO

107

(B&W)

Code

Reference

Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974)

The inner park: -A+ paved + benches + small shelter + water fountain + several planting beds

+ 3-storey single family home (owned) + 16 entrances/block + 1 entrance/dwelling

# Residential street front

Street Characteristics

Table 6.5. (continued)

Rutter street, Botton Hill, inner city, Baltimore, middle-upper income, white

Context

- bicycle riding - dogs - kids playing music late at night - childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s noise

Inner block park: - playing - sitting - reading - chatting with neighbors

- people on foot stay within the block

- no adults sitting - no childern playing

Street front (street, sidewalk, (B&W) front steps):

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

Case study - 2 blocks Aug-Oct. 1971

Sample

no opportunity for quiet to be private to easily supervise young children playing because: no equipment, park has boundary wall

for getting together on a regular as well as on an occasional basis

to feel safe

to communicate a nice image

what people said

Perceived FO

Method

- children

- residents adults

FO for whom?

User

resident observation on predetermined route 107 times diaries 13 adult residents interviews: 13 adults

to be safe from strangers

for quiet

to maintain already established social contacts

for chance contact

to feel safe walking

to communicate status

inferred by myself

Potential FO

108

Reference

Schnee, D. (1993)

Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974)

# Code

(S)

(B&W)

+ 1 entrance/3-4 dwelling units + 21 entrances/unit length of sidewalk (1 block) + building abuts sidewalk (not set back) + street parking + small backyards + back alley (dirty)

3-storey traditional buildings

# Residential street front

3-storey apartment building + access to apartments directly from the street front + ground level front yard + outdoor staircase to second storey porch

# Residential street front

Street Characteristics

Table 6.5. (continued)

- passers by see all unit entrances from the street

- 30% of residents use their front yards daily

Harlem Ave., Upton, Inner City, Baltimore. Low income, black neighborhood

San Fransisco, Robert Pitts Plaza, new public housing. 3-storey apt. walk ups., population: African Americans relocated fom towers.

Context

activities occuring in both front and back: - sitting and talking - babysitting - playing cards - bicycling

the back (backyards, back porches and alley): - listening to music - cookouts, picnics

street front (sidewalk +front steps): - walking - playing ball - roler skating - washing cars

street front used 10 times more (B&W) than back by all age groups

(S)

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO

to see, to hear, to be with people for something to watch to play games that require a hard surface to interact with adults

to feel safe

to use oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s front yard

inferred by myself

Potential FO

3 blocks case study May-July, 1971

43 residents respond to questionnaire. 9 interviewed. 6 observations May 1992

Sample

Method

- children - teens

- residents adults

- residents

FO for whom?

User

walk through observations: 108 times. diariesby residents: 15 adults. interviews: 15 adults.

POE using observation, survey questionnaire and interviews

the back : for privacy and quiet for choice between two for children and teens to cause contrasting ambiences property damage

street front: to see what goes on to see people to be with people noise from playing teens and children

to feel safe on the street (80% by day and 46 % by night) to feel safe by the front door (80% by day and 63% by night) to see your car parked

what people said

Perceived FO

109

Reference

Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974)

Code

(B&W)

the back: + play equipement -A+ parking lot -B+ adjoining playground -C-

activity as reported in study

Utilized FO what people said

Perceived FO

cse sudy -1 poject July-Sept 1971

Sample

for choice as to what to play and where

to see the children play from indoors

for quiet because children played often in the courtyard in the back to sit with friends for children to enjoy to enjoy the scenery

Bruce Manor, Upton, Inner City, Baltimore. low income, black neighborhood

Context

the back: - sitting and talking - playing tag, running, playing baseball - skating - riding bicycles - listening to radio

(B&W) steps at building entrance: - sitting and talking - getting up every time someone wants to go in or out of building

4-storey apt. building + 20 ft. set back from street, lawn, but NOT designated as private front yards + management prohibits sitting in the front + 3 entrances/unit length of sidewalk + 1 entrance/16 dwelling units + windows overlooking front and back

# Residential street front

Street Characteristics

Table 6.5. (continued)

walk through observations: 69 times. diaries by residents: 10 adults. interviews: 9 adults.

Method

-children -teens

- parents to surveil the children to play near home

- residents adults - young children

FO for whom?

User

to maintain social contacts to play safely to recreate near home

for quiet

inferred by myself

Potential FO

While the opportunity to see and to hear people is a consequence of other categories of Potential FO such as “to walk the street,” “to stop and stay,” and “to draw pedestrians,” it is sometimes a reason underlying people’s decision to walk a certain street, or stop and spend time on the street (e.g. near-home recreation, people-watching downtown). NEAR HOME RECREATION: This category of Potential FO is the most compounded category of FO because it is afforded, not by a set of Potential FO, but rather by a set of other categories of FO. In other words, the street characteristics that allow it, all belong to other categories of FO. “Near home recreation” can be dismantled into: the category FO “to stop and stay,” and the category of FO “to see, to hear, to be with people” with all the subordinate Potential FO and street characteristics that contribute to each one of them (see Table 6.5). Therefore it would be redundant to discuss those once more. However, there are two noteworthy points revealed in this analysis. The first point revealed by the analysis is that the Potential FO “near home recreation” has to be specified as to who the users are. The second point involves the role played by the alternatives available to the users.

In two of the four areas studied by Sydney Brower and his colleague (Brower & Williamson, 1974), and in the housing project in David Schnee’s study (Schnee, 1993), adult residents mentioned that. However, there was no information in either studies about the traffic volume on the street. I therefore assume it was moderate.

Unlike other categories of Potential FO, “near home recreation” was heavily associated with the specific user group. The opportunity to recreate near home for children involved street characteristics that are different, and often in conflict with, street characteristics that allowed near home recreation for adults. Young children’s opportunity to play revolved around being close to their parents for surveillance so there was no conflict there, but in the case of children over six years old, the conflict surfaced. Safety from vehicular traffic which did not appear to inhibit adult near home recreation, was very significant to the children’s opportunity to play safely. The Woonerf increased the range of children’s play and the number of children using the street. However, the two studies about it revealed a decrease in the number of adults, elderly, and teenagers who use it. In one occasion the elderly and the teenagers were found to gravitate to the edges of the Woonerven where conventional streets with vehicular traffic afforded them with the Potential FO “to have something to watch.” On conventional residential streets,34 adults expressed that noise from the children playing was more of a nuisance than the traffic. In one study (Holohan, 1978), where the interior spaces of the housing project was completely taken over by teens and older children, adults were observed to exclusively use the benches facing the streets bordering the project rather than any of the seating choices available—and there was a variety—on the inside. Besides having something to watch, and the opportunity to see and meet people of the same age, part of adult residents’ recreation involves the car; cleaning the car, repairing the car, and surveilling the car for security purposes were activities mentioned in the studies. Making this distinction as to whose opportunity for near home recreation is being increased is important to make in both evaluation and design of street characteristics for such purposes. The second point also involves our interpretation of empirical studies about near home recreation. The evidence that cultural preference is behind the increased use of the street around the home 110

for recreation, is controversial according to the studies analyzed here. For example, Sydney Brower’s (Brower & Williamson, 1974) study showed that working class residents used street fronts adjacent to the home while middle class residents did not.35 Studies such as this one are often cited as evidence of class-based lifestyle preferences. In many cases, the lower working class also happen to have less private open space. What was not mentioned, when citing Sydney Brower’s study, is the fact that the middle class households, in this particular study, lived in a 3-storey house with a private backyard in a neighborhood where they felt unsafe walking the street! Other studies have shown that middle class children, in safer neighborhoods with less vehicular street traffic, did play on street fronts (Francis, 1987), and that middle class adults used their front porches and yards to sit (Danahy, 1984). Jan Gehl’s studies in Denmark, Australia and Canada did not make the class distinction, but illustrated that in these three different cultures, people did recreate on their street fronts when given the opportunity (Gehl, 1987). One reason behind this controversial evidence is that studies exploring lifestyle preferences do not explore the alternative options available to the user groups (Michelson, 1977; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).

Another similar example is a study demonstrated how the middle class living in Le Corbusier’s Super Block in Brasilia were satisfied because they are not dependent on spatial proximity for social relations (Holanda, 1989). In contrast, the study showed how a marginal population of poor Brazilians living in illegal settlements rely heavily on the street for social and economic vitality.

6.2. Theory Critique In the theory critique I test the plausibility and usefulness of integrating E-B and UD theory propositions using Potential FO. These theories constitute another portion of the existing knowledge about the use of urban streets; a knowledge beyond that gleaned from empirical studies like the ones I re-analyzed in the secondary analysis. The street characteristics found in the studies (e.g. the orientation of entrances, plot size...) are the embodiment of design principles formulated by design theoreticians such as Le Corbusier or Gordon Cullen. On the other hand, the answer to a question such as ‘why did the lack of control over chance encounters lead to the non-use of the front yards?’ lies in E-B theories about social interaction. The second reason for this theory critique is because the secondary analysis was limited to special types, or special parts, of streets (traffic-controlled streets, plazas, residential street fronts. A lot more knowledge about street design and street use is found in UD literature and technical reports (e.g. in city planning departments and municipalities). This body of knowledge includes many examples of ordinary streets in different contexts. However, beyond traffic counts, census data, and crime statistics, information about street use is based on personal observations which are not considered to be research, and therefore were not included in the secondary analysis. I choose design propositions as a starting point UD theory addressed street characteristics much more extensively than E-B studies have. Another reason is the recent directions in the two fields, E-B and UD towards relying on learning from precedents (e.g. Carr et al., 1992;36 Hayward & McGlynn, 1993; Lang, 1994; Rapoport, 1990). the identification of prototypes, typologies, or patterns from precedents has always been an aim of urban design theoreticians. The prescriptive propositions are first defined as

111

A critical step in the E-B research-based design process is how needs, rights and meanings desired by, or appropriate to, the users would translate into an actual design. This step is supposed to be based on research findings about similar precedents. How does one translate the information about users’ preferences and activities into spatial possibilities for shaping new spaces? Stephen Carr and his colleagues (1992) suggest: (1) the designer’s knowledge of precedents (experience); (2) the direct observation of people using the space in question, or using “similar” spaces; and (3) using existing research and case studies of “similar” situations as a “prototype.” They caution to make sure, the “context” and the “users” are comparable when searching for prototypes. Knowledge sources (1) and (3) require answering the following questions: what lessons to learn from precedents or existing spaces in use? E-B theory does not address these questions.

The Potential FO are translations of users’ activities in real situations presented by the UD theoreticians to support their argument.

mentioned in urban design literature, and then translated into Potential FO based on the evidence cited by different authors to support that proposition.37 Once translated into Potential FO terminology, links between the design propositions and E-B theories become easier to see. In the following discussion, the usefulness of such a translation is demonstrated through examples of well known urban design concepts such as “articulation of space,” and “enclosure” are linked to E-B theories. These examples are not by anyway an exhaustive study of all possible links between these UD concepts and E-B theories; they merely represent how the extensive body of knowledge in the two fields can relate to one another when interpreted in terms of Potential FO. 6.2.a. Articulation of space: According to the examples of “good” articulation given in UD literature, street characteristics that achieved this quality allowed spatial differentiation, turf definition, demarcation of activity areas, and visual interest. Translated into FO, it allowed the following Utilized FO: “to differentiate space into identifyable domains,” “to appropriate space,” “to orient oneself,” “to have something interesting to look at.”

Change in level, in shading, the presence of artifacts (e.g. fountains, planters), and building-side niches, were forms of articulation utilized to subdivide the plaza into domains each offering alternative qualities. Undefferentiated expansive platform plazas were not used, while the distribution of users in other plazas showed their tendency to gather around artifacts and along the edges (Joardar & Neill, 1978). Less than 1% of 6000 users observed in the 10 plazas carried out activities in the open pavement away from 39

Users were observed to sit at corners of ledges at the end of benches so as to maximise their freedom of body posture and orientation (Joardar & Neill, 1978).

One strategy to achieve articulation is to design a place so that it has the potential to be subdivided—physically or cognitively—into subspaces. spatially differentiated spaces provided more alternatives for street users; different levels of noise, privacy, comfort, involvement (see Table 6.3 on pages 101-110 ).38 E-B theories regarding the desirability of choice explains why this Potential FO (allowed by the articulation of space) has been positively associated with increased use. Partitioning spaces was also used to mark territorial domains (Kent, 1987). In urban streets territoriality could be temporary. E-B theories explain that claiming a spatial boundary is a strategy used by a person to increase hi or her control over social interaction with others (Altman, 1975)39. Urban designers acknowledged that articulation of space allowed users the Potential FO “to appropriate space.” They also advised that the opportunity to appropriate should be where it will be utilized (Hertzberger, 1991, von Meiss, 1990). According to E-B theory, appropriation of space occurs under three conditions (Brower, 1980): (1) a ‘range’ of control over the use of space; (2) a person or group who wants to appropriate; and (3) a display of signs announcing the appropriation.

This may be the explanation why this Potential FO was not utilized by the tenants in front lawns in some U.S. housing projects (see Brower & Williamson, 1974 in Table 6.5 pp. 124-129 ). Those lawns were not private yards and the juridicial function is much more explicit in public housing than it is in traditional housing.

In the example cited by the designer (see Fig. 6.4), the second condition for appropriation—a person or a group who wants to appropriate—existed on the classroom side but not on the hallway side of the door. The utilization of the Potential FO to appropriate (a person or group’s willingness to appropriate) depends on the “formal” regulations and the “informal” cultural rules that allow, or preclude, the users from exerting any kind of influence on their surroundings. These conditions change over time.40 But what may not change is the potential of the physical characteristics of the space to allow, or inhibit, the realization of Brower’s third condition. 112

glass

Figure 6.4. An example of the Utilized FO to appropriate articulated space. The ledge above the classroom door in a school building shows how the opportunity to appropriate was utilized from the classroom side and not from the hallway side (source: Hertzberger, 1991: 25).

Besides being used to appropriate or to mark territories, articulation of space was found to provide clues for orientation (Prieser, 1971); the Potential FO “to orient oneself.” The articulation of the street layout through curves, bends in axis, and changes in width, is a strategy used in UD for centuries41 (see Fig. 6.5). One claim in UD theory is that articulation of the street layout helps divide the long street into “memorable” segments. Kevin Lynch’s work on paths and the consequential subfield of E-B, environmental cognition, supports this claim (e.g. Garling et al, 1990; Lynch, 1961). One explanation given in E-B is that the paths are cognized as intermittent stretches (Stanton, 1986) because cognition of a continuous space may be influenced by a mental time limit. It has also been suggested to be influenced by “the number of noticeable differences42“ one could perceive at once (Lozano, 1990; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). the links between UD and E-B theory regarding the Potential FO “to remember a place” are well established since Kevin Lynch published his study of the Image of the City (Lynch, 1961). However, the street layout characteristics shown in Figure 6.5 embodies a few more design propositions such as the claim that the achieved articulation makes the street visually more interesting.

113

According to Cliff Moughtin’s recent review (1992) characterisitics of a memorable path include: a beginning and an end; nodes at 200 to 300 meter intervals (an intersection or intensified activity); contrasting elements; a vertical rhythm to give a scale.

Amos Rapoport (1977, 1990) suggests “the number of noticeable differences” as a measure of complexity. It could also apply to space configuration and therefore be considered an operational definition of space articulation.39 Users were observed to sit at corners of ledges at the end of benches so as to maximise their freedom of body posture and orientation (Joardar & Neill, 1978).

beginning/end closed vista p l a c e 2 curve to create anticipation node broken axis creating short views place 1

“bulge” beginning/end

Figure 6.5. The principle of articulation of street layout proposed in urban design theory. A classic example cited in the literature is John Nash’s design of Regent Street, London. The concepts describing the street layout reflects the terminology of UD (source of drawing: Moughtin, 1992: 134)

Stephen Kaplan’s research on “mystery” operationalizes it as the anticipation of additional information through advancing into the scene (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982).

When Joachim Wohlwill (1966; 1976) proposed “novelty,” “complexity,” “variation,” and “surprisingness,” as dimensions of the physical environment that would sustain a desirable level of interest, he expressed concern about the effect of familiarity, and the need to research it.

Translated into Potential FO this proposition would be: articulation of the street layout increases the Potential FO for passersby “to have something interesting to look at.” This proposition has been corroborated by findings from research on environmental aesthetics (Nasar, 1989). Streets that are visually more interesting fill the pages of UD textbooks (e.g. Moughton, 1992; Jacobs, 1993). Anticipation is one way suggested to make a street more interesting to walk through (Bacon, 1967; Cullen, 1961) and the street characteristics most mentioned to fulfill it are a curved street layout and bends in the street axis. E-B research findings on environmental aesthetics corroborate the proposition that a moderate level of “mystery”43 is desirable in urban streets (e.g. Hesslegren, 1976). However, the research method mostly used in this area consists of showing a sample of people photographs or slides of different scenes they have never seen before. What was not researched was the effect of familiarity with a place on the perception of “mystery.” According to psychology, the effect of long exposure to a stimulus, in general, lessens the response to that stimulus (Helson, 1964)44. Also when one is familiar with a place, its physical appearance is less noticeable than the associations one makes to it; “residents’ interactions with the environment...become associated with the physical setting in 114

which they occur and charge them with purely local meanings... so powerful that they supersede physical qualities as the dominant influence on perception” (Brower, 1989: 194). Neglecting to study the effect of familiarity on perception may also be why findings of research on environmental cognition is controversial. The role played by meaning in the definition of a landmark or a district often outweighed the one played by physical characteristics. Articulation can also be understood to increase the number of street characteristics to perceive, and consequently the number of associations one could make to them (Hertzberger, 1991). Amos Rapoport (1990)45 suggested that “the number of noticeable differences” increases both perceptual and experiential choices available to the pedestrian and is therefore positively associated with the pedestrian’s satisfaction and hence desire to use a street. One of the views shared in E-B is that meaning would grow out of the satisfaction of needs and rights; “a space that truly meets people’s needs will, by virtue of that alone, have meaning to them.” (Carr et al, 1992: 237). If one accepts this theory then, as function and users change, a designed place will remain meaningful as long as it fulfills the needs of each new user group. This offers an explanation as to how certain urban forms, created in a certain time and culture for a particular purpose, still continue to be meaningful for wave after wave of users (Shehayeb, 1989). The underlying proposition here is that as long as these forms have the potential to accommodate new functions they will accommodate new meanings over time. In other words, the survival of their meaningfulness depends on the Potential FO they have. Consequently, historic precedents in-use can be understood as places that have multiple Potential FO.

Amos Rapoport (1990) summarizes the literature and presents cross-cultural evidence of streets to identify the characteristics of street form that support pedestrian walking and stationary activity. His list of street characteristics includes: high level of enclosure, narrow width, complex spaces with many potential noticeable differences, short and blocked views, high articulation of grain and texture of defining surfaces, high complexity of space organization at the area level (e.g. high contrast among spaces at area level, sequences of space, large number of choice points and possible paths).

Another street characteristic cited by designers to achieve spatial articulation is the ìbulge” which refers to the widening of a middle section of the street (Alexander, 177: 590). The urban design principle of the street as a series of “connected places” (Lynch, 1961:47-56),and what contributes to the sense of place is an important issue in UD theory. The most mentioned design concept to define a place has been “enclosure.” 6.2.b. Enclosure: “Enclosure” has been defined as “the spatial separation of the immediately occupied locality from the larger environment within which it lies” (Thiel et al, 1986: 228). More casually, it has been referred to as the difference between “here” and “there” (Cullen, 1961). Urban designers contend that enclosure increases the street user’s opportunity “to stop and stay.” It has been one of the goals of urban design to make the street “not just a place to pass through” (Moughtin, 1992). Design strategies used to achieve enclosure include widening the street and creating closed corners.46 Widening part of the street increases the Potential FO for users to stop and spend time on the street has not been corroborated. According to my secondary analysis, there are other characteristics that allow this opportunity related to the edge conditions of the street. The presence of these characteristics (e.g. stoops, groundlevel retail use, and number of entrances) on the street is increased when the defining edge of the street is continuous. This may be an 115

In UD literature, continuous corners is discussed under the principle of “enclosure.” However, enclosure could be uniform along the entire length of the street. In this case it does not relate to the Potential FO “to stop and stay.”

This is shown in examples sighted in UD literature.

Other examples of characteristics that invite to appropriate include: corners, a niche in the wall, a 45° wall in a square space (Hertzberger, 1991). 49

One study showed that occupants of openplan dwellings did not take advantage of the designed flexibility as much as the designers expected; the variety of interior layout and spatial arrangements were found to be very limited (Shoul, 1993). Other studies of Victorian houses in San Francisco and Georgian houses in London revealed the the capability of these plans to accommodate a variety of uses (Cowan, 1963; Moudon, 1986).

explanation to the positive association between enclosure and use of the street.47 Continuity of space boundary especially at the corners is stressed in prescriptive design literature; “the corners may be characterized as the ‘critical’ zones’ of the space” (Norberg Schultz, 1965: 136). The perceived enclosing effect of corners was confirmed by E-B research (Thiel et al., 1986), but whether the resulting enclosure increased users’ opportunity to “stop and stay” was not directly researched. However, suggestions were made about the relationship between enclosure and place-identity (Thiel et al., 1986). Another explanation was that “corners in a square, for example, can be more easily seen as separate from one another than parts of a round place can” (Zeisel, 1981:134) (see Figure 6.6). Yet a third suggestion was that corners provide incentives to appropriate (Hertzberger, 1991). The argument is that elements that set certain limitations on the arrangement of the whole room are the starting point.48 This proposition has not been directly investigated, however, one example cited to support this argument is that of open-plan dwellings versus traditional English closed plans.49

Figure 6.6. Corners suggest the Potential FO to subdivide into domains. (Source: Zeisel, 1981: 134).

Research studies revealed that the morphology of spatially defined rooms, and separate circulation elements allowed greater freedom for behavioral variation, to a degree unattainable in open-plans. On the other hand, people often confound expectations and equate freedom with open. E-B theory regards this equilibrium between society and individual, insider and outsider, community and privacy as a dialectic (Altman & Gauvain, 1981). In this light, the two interpretations of the closed-plan can be considered complimentary. The open plan allows outsiders more freedom, and insiders less control over what goes on in the space, while the closed-plan allows outsiders less freedom and insiders more control (see Fig. 6.7). Although the desirable equilibrium between the two varies cross-culturally, some closed-plans may allow variation (Moudon, 1986) while the openplan does not.

116

Figure 6.7. A comparison of closed-plan and open-plan designs in terms of the Potential FO to control. The dialectic between personal occupancy and communal occupancy using Sydney Brower’s terms (Brower, 1989).

Some closed plans allow both conditions, openness, and closedness. That is when enclosure, or the Potential FO “to separate” is complemented by the choice to separate or connect the differentiated domains. This FO was associated with characteristics such as operable windows, gateways, hallways, lobbies, and entrances. These characteristics were described as “thresholds” in E-B (e.g. Altman & Gauvain, 1981) and UD (e.g. von Meiss). E-B theory shows that having this opportunity to control what one can hide and what one can show contributes to the definition of the self (Korosec-Serfati, 1985). 6.2.c. Discussion Based on a review of urban design literature I conducted previously (Shehayeb, 1990c), other UD concepts were analyzed as illustrated above. Table 6.4 shows a list of these concepts and their translation in terms of sets of Potential FO. The categories of Potential FO revealed included some that were already derived from empirical studies, and also introduced a few additional categories of Potential FO utilized on urban streets such as the opportunity “to look at something interesting while you walk,” and the opportunity “to appropriate” space.

117

Table 6.6. Concepts from UD literature and their translation in terms of sets of Potential FO. _______________________________________________________ Articulation, demarcators PFO to differentiate or partition space into identifiable domains PFO to appropriate space PFO to orient oneself PFO to maintain the interest of passersby Transition zones, â&#x20AC;&#x153;locksâ&#x20AC;? (undesignated space between usedesignated spaces) PFO for gradual differentiation between two or more adjoining domains (different appearance, use, level of privacy, ambient environment...) PFO for uses from the private domain to overspill PFO to socially interact on neutral grounds (neither private nor public) Thresholds PFO for choice to separate or connect differentiated domains PFO for choice as to the level of social interaction and privacy PFO to control of territories Anchors (characteristics having a holding power without necessarily generating activity) PFO for stationary behaviors of different kinds (standing against, sitting, leaning on, climbing on, sleeping on) PFO for prospect and refuge PFO for social contact Breathing space PFO for diverse activities rating low in terms of resourcespecificity PFO for diverse arrangement of semifixed features into different settings _______________________________________________________

The critique also reveals what needs to be addressed in research. E-B research addresses perceptual attributes (related to the Potential FO to have something interesting to look at), cognitive attributes (related to the Potential FO to orient oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s way and know where things are), and evaluative attributes (related to such Potential FO as the opportunity for safety, comfort, and use) of the street separately. It often misses to explore relational aspects between those Potential FO.

6.3. Concluding remarks The social relevance of streets of the urban street has been questioned by the argument that social relationships, with the advancement of telecommunication networks have become independent of geographical space (Jameson, 1984; Webber, 1964). In every society

118

there are groups that are less restricted spatially than others, and these groups in most cases, command greater power (Carr et al, 1992). Different groups have different degrees of spatial dependence for maintaining their contacts. As studies show, “near home recreation” is desirable for young children, elderly, and working adults who have limited spare time (Gehl, 1987). When economic means are sparse and private space is limited, the dependence on streets increases (Brower & Williamson, 1974; Cooper Marcus, 1975-1988; Eubank-Ahrens, 1991). Streets that have multiple Potential FO for space-dependent groups are not necessarily adverse to those groups who wish to preserve more transpatial and selective contacts. The reverse is not possible. When street frontage, building configuration, number and orientation of entrances towards the street, ground level uses, parking lot size and location, and other factors are such that they reduce the number of Potential FO of the street, the street can accommodate the latter user group but not the former (Gehl, 1987; Holanda, 1989; Shehayeb, 1989). Irrespective of which FO are utilized – which differ with time, culture, age group...etc. – streets that have multiple Potential FO, can allow for the unintended, but persistent, co-presence of diverse people as a social resource. The Potential FO “to see, to hear, and be with other people” in an undemanding way, was found to be a prerequisite for a host of personal and social needs. William Whyte’s renowned study revealed that even in the most heterogeneous city in the U.S., New York, the most heavily used plazas seemed to be those that offered a wide range of FO, from quiet secluded corners, to in-the-middle-of-the action people watching spots (Whyte, 1980). Those plazas were also found to be the ones that were used by the widest variety of people. The secondary analysis and the theory critique conducted in this chapter illustrate the plausibility and the usefulness of integrating substantive knowledge from the fields of E-B and UD. The resulting categories of FO serve to summarize knowledge about functions of the urban street addressed in the literature in a way that retains, even clarifies the relations between those functions (see Table 6.7).

Table 6.7. An example of street functions addressed in the literature translated into their underlying Potential FO _____________________________________________________ Potential FO that underlie those activities/functions

Functions of the street as discussed in the literature

“to walk the street” “to draw pedestrians”

strolling shopping

“to stop and stay”

resting/contemplating/relaxing “shmoozing” eating/lunch breaks/drinking waiting enjoying nature/the aesthetic

“to stop and stay” and “to see to hear people”

watching people near home recreation children playing

_______________________________________________________ 119

The secondary analysis also served to indicate the planning regulations and design variables that are most critical to each Potential FO. Some have been already known and explored such as the effect of building height and envelope on the amount and duration of direct sunlight at street level. But the implications for use of other variables, such as orientation of building entrances relative to the street, and the location and design of parking lots relative to the destinations they serve, were not unknown. And finally the advantage of integrating the existing knowledge using Potential FO is that it shows the interdependence of different functions served by the street and thus safeguards against application guided by knowledge about one aspect in isolation. This advantage is intrinsic to the operational characteristics of the concept itself and addressed fully in the following chapter.

Full reference of studies re-analyzed in the secondary analysis Appleyard, D. (1981). California Press.

Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of

Baum, A. Davis, G. & Aiello, J. (1978). Crowding and neighborhood mediation of urban density. Journal of Population 1 (3). Fall: Bosselmann, P. et al. (1984). Sun, wind and comfort: A study of open spaces and sidewalks in four downtown areas. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development. College of Environmental Design. University of California. Brower, S. (1988). Design in Familiar Places. New York: Praeger. Brower, S. & P. WIlliamson (1974). Outdoor recreation as a function of the urban housing environment, Environment and Behavior 6 (3): 295-345. Brown, D., P. Sijpkes, & M. MacLean. (1986). The community role of public indoor space. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 3 : 161-172. Burden, A. (1977). Greenacre Park. New York: Project for Public Spaces. Chidister, M. (1986). The effect of context on the use of urban plazas. Landscape Journal 5 (2): 115-127. City of Portland (1980). Downtown Design Guidelines. Oregon: City of Portland. Cooper Marcus, C. (1978). A tale of two spaces. AIA Journal 67 : 34-38. Cooper Marcus, C., Francis, C., & Russell, R. (1990). Urban Plazas. In C. Cooper Marcus, & C. Francis (Eds.) People Places. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold: 9-64. Cooper Marcus, C. (1975-1988). Unpublished student papers from Landscape Architecture 140. Social and Psychological Factors in 120

Open Space Design. University of California at Berkeley. Cranz, G. (1984). Public attitudes. In Tall Buildings: Tight Spaces. A research Project for Kaplan, McLaughlin, Diaz, Architects. Degnore, R. (1987). The Experience of Public Art in Urban Settings. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York. Eubank-Ahrens, B. (1991). A Closer look at the users of Woonerven. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use . New York: Colombia University Press: 63-79. Forrest, A. & Paxson, L. (1979). Provisions for peoples: Grand Central Terminal/CityCorp Study. In L. G. Rivlin & M. Francis (Eds.). New York: Center for Human Environment, City University of New York. Francis, M. (1984). Mapping downtown activity. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning Research 1 : 21-35. Francis, M. (1991). The making of democratic streets. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use . New York: Colombia University Press: 23-39. Francis, M., Cashdan, L. & Paxson, L. (1984). Community Open Spaces. Covelo, CA Island Press. Gans, H. (1962). The Urban Villagers. New York, Free Press. Gehl, J. (1968). Mennesker til fods (Pedestrians). Arkitekten 70 (20) (Danish): 429-46. Gehl, J. (1980). The residential street environment. Environment 6, (1): 51-61.

Built

Gehl, J. (1986). Soft edges in residential streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 3 (2), May 1986 : 89-102. Gehl, J. et al. (1977). The Interface Between Public and Private Territories in Residential Areas. A study by students of Architecture at Melbourne University. Melbourne, Australia. Greenberg, K. (1991). Toronto: Streets revived. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use . New York: Colombia University Press: 189-202. Harrison, M. (1991). Promoting the urban experience in Portland, Oregon. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use . New York: Colombia University Press: 181-188. Holahan, C. (1978). Environment and Behavior: A dynamic perspective. New York: Plenum Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of American Cities. New York, Vintage Books. Joardar, S. D. & Neill, J. W. (1987). The subtle differences in configuration of small public spaces. Landscape Architecture 68 : 487-491. Krier, L. (1984). Houses, palaces, cities. Architecture Design Profile 54, Architectural Design 7/8. 121

Lieberman, E. (1983). Downtown open space use survey. Paper presented at the Boulder Pedestrian Conference. Boulder: CO, September 23. Linday, N. (1978). It all comes to a comfortable place to sit and watch. Landscape Architecture 68: 492-497. Love, R. L. (1973). The fountains of urban life. Urban Life and Culture 2, : 161-209. Madden, K. & Bussard, E. (1977). Riis Park: A Study of Use and Design. New York: Project for Public Spaces. Morville, J. (1969). Planlægnong af børns udemiljø i etageboligområder (Planning for Children in Multistory Housing Areas). Danish Building Research Institute, report 11. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. Mozingo, L. (1984). Women and Downtown Open Space. MLA thesis. University of California at Berkeley. Pharaoh, T. & Russell, J. (1991). Traffic calming policy and performance. Town Planning Review 62 (1) : 79-105. Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (1978) Plazas for People: Seattle’s First National Bank Plaza- A Case Study. 44. New York. Pushkarev B. & Zupan, J. (1975) Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

Urban Space for Pedestrian.

Robertson, K. (1988). Pedestrian skywalk systems: Downtown’s great hope or pathways to ruin? Transportation Quarterly 42: 457484. Robertson, K. (1991). Pedestrian streets in Sweden’s city centers. Cities 8: 301-314. Robertson, K. (1993). Pedestrinaization strategies for downtown planners: Skywalks vs. pedestrian malls. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59 (3). Summer 1993: 361-370. Rutledge,A. J. (1976). Looking beyond the applause: Chicago’s First National Bank Plaza. Landscape Architecture 66 : 22-26. Schnee, D. (1993). An evaluation of Robert Pitts Plaza. Paper presented at the EDRA 24th Annual Conference at Chicago, IL. on March - . Untermann, R. (1991). Changing design standards for streets and roads. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use : 255-260.

122

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER SEVEN

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS OF PART I: DEVELOPING WORKING HYPOTHESIS

P A R T I

Chapter Seven

CONCLUSIONS OF PART I: Developing the Working Hypotheses

This chapter discusses the theoretical implications of the secondary analysis and theory critique reported in Chapter Six. The results of the secondary analysis helped develop the concept of FO further by revealing its operational characteristics. These operational characteristics of the concept are presented and discussed as the following working hypotheses: (1) Potential FO take into account the interdependence of variables of the physical environment; they exist in combinations with a certain order of precedence so that certain Potential FO have to exist as a precondition for other Potential FO; (2) this interdependence cuts across scale of design intervention—it does not follow hierarchies of the built form; and (3) Potential FO are more general than specific street characteristics, and can be found at different levels of abstraction—expressing use at the level of goals and needs, or acted out routine behaviors.

7.1. Operational characteristics of the concept of Potential FO I present the operational characteristics of the concept as working hypotheses because, from the analysis so far, they have explained real data from diverse studies in different contexts. Nevertheless, they are still hypotheses because there may always be conditions where they do not apply.1 7.1.a. Interdependence and the order of precedence: There is an interdependence among sets of Potential FO. Some of them exist in pairs or triads. For example, a street that offers the Potential FO “to have something to watch,” combined with street characteristics that allow the Potential FO “to sit,” and some considerations that enhance physiological comfort, together contribute to increase the Potential FO “to stop and stay.” In the case of downtown streets and plazas, the presence of large numbers of potential users, giving those people a reason to walk the street, and making walking possible are perquisite FO. They precede in importance the FO “to sit,” or the FO “for comfort.” Only then will there be something to watch and consequently people could be attracted to stop and stay on the street for a while. This combination of Potential FO underlies the famous findings of William Whyte in Manhattan, New York City; they explain why plaza design based only on his recommendations regarding seating, ambient comfort, and food vendors have often failed in other cities. In such cases, available comfortable seating where there was no reason for people to walk that street—and consequently no pedestrian traffic to watch— were not enough. The interdependence between Potential FO also involves an order of precedence which is not necessarily linear (see Fig. 7.1).

125

This is the view taken in naturalistic inquiry regarding any research conclusions. The reason behind that position is to safeguard against the unquestioned acceptance and blind application of theory propositions.

Figure 7.1. An hypothetical condition chain showing the interdependence between categories of FO. The Potential FO “to stop and stay” or “to walk the street” affect the duration of stay on the street. The longer people stay on the street when complemented by the presence of a large number of potential users, together increase the Potential FO “to see, to hear, to be with people.” this Potential FO is also sometimes a reason to stop on a street, or to walk the street.

The interdependence between categories works not only to maximize Potential FO, but also to minimize them. For example, the negative effect of the skywalk system on downtown streets can be illustrated as shown in Fig. (7.2).

Figure 7.2. A condition chain showing the negative effect of skywalk systems upon street use. The lesser the opportunity for pedestrians to walk the street, the lesser time they spend on it, the lesser the opportunity to see or hear people on the street. This decrease in the number of people seen on the street lessens its Potential FO as an attractant, decreasing the opportunity for other users to walk the street. The cycle reinforces itself, and the street dies.

7.1.b. Cutting across scales Using the concept of FO, the relations between macro and micro aspects of the environment are, by definition, not ignored. For example, high pedestrian traffic is the consequence of land use 126

zoning, building regulations, and street design all together. Street characteristics at different scales work together to create one Potential FO. This non-hierarchical interdependence characteristic of FO is compatible with Amos Rapoport’s concept of activity systems and system of settings in its latest development (Rapoport, 1990b, see Chapter 3, p.30). I intentionally avoid the term ‘hierarchy’ because it has been narrowly interpreted in many models of urban form to mean a hierarchy in scale2. For example, the implication of narrow plot frontage for the user’s perception of the street as a whole was the Potential FO “to perceive visual order.” The implications of that for individual plot developers was freedom in facade design3. The same street characteristic provided order at one scale and allowed flexibility at the other.

Concepts such as territorial occupancy, privacy domains, and framework and infil, have suffered distortion because of this idealization.

The dominating vertical rhythm of narrow frontages was resilient to variations in facade design; it allowed plot developers freedom in designing the facade (Moudon, 1991).

7.1.c. Different levels of abstraction: FO describe the environment in terms of the behavior it allows. Since behavior can be defined at different levels of abstraction— molar or molecular, FO can consequently be phrased at different levels of abstraction. As shown in the conditional chains in Chapter Six, FO can be used to phrase human goals, needs, as well as observed behavior. The language of FO can articulate theory propositions which are at a high level of abstraction.4 Also sometimes theories are more complementary than their proponents care to acknowledge. Translating theory propositions into Potential FO—which are less abstract than the propositions, yet more generalizable than the specific pieces of evidence—illustrates these relations between the different theories. Linking theories in terms of the FO utilized in its supporting evidence reveals the conditions under which each theory is a valid explanation.

These theories can be only operationalized in terms of the specifics in each piece of their supportive evidence; specific street characteristics, and specific users’ behavior.

7.2. The usefulness of integration in terms of FO 7.2.a. Resolving conflicts in research findings: Whyte’s (1980) most popular study looks at the physical characteristics of urban plazas in Manhattan, New York and highlights the effect of aesthetics, solar exposure, amount of seating, and food vendors on plaza use. Linday (1978) questions the generalizability of the seating criteria and discovers that in the case of San Francisco, the micro-climate (more sunlight, less wind) was more strongly related to use. Chidister (1986), corroborates Whyte’s findings, but adds that contextual factors, namely the surrounding land uses and user population, are more important determinants of intensity of use in urban plazas. This is contradictory to the findings of Joarder & Neill (1978)5 who show that plazas with a scenic view, away from high pedestrian concentration areas, attract more people through-out the day than plazas located in the hub of downtown. One explanation revealed by the re-analysis is that the “attractant” was different in each case; a good view of the pedestrian traffic in Manhattan, less wind and more sun in San Francisco, short distances in Minneapolis and a nice view in Vancouver. Another explanation may lie in the difference in alternatives available to the users in each case. In both 127

Joardar & Neill (1978) survey 600 users in 10 plazas in Vancouver, Canada.

explanations one should remember that an attractant is the most culturally dependent Potential FO. Another area of controversy was shown in the theory critique of defensible space theory. When the relationship between the environment and behavior was considered deterministic, or even later on when it was considered probabilistic, the evidence was controversial regarding the effect of design characteristics on crime. The conflict in research findings disappears when the relationship between the design and behavior is considered possibilistic—which is the view underlying the concept of Potential FO. Propositions of defensible space theory set the range of what is possible. What makes it more or less probable are the social variables in each context. 7.2.b. Clarifying the lesson to be learned: Many empirical studies do not report who is doing the activity (in the case of plaza use, extensive research revealed certain FO consistently utilized by a certain group of users-women-undesirables-working class men-users of a building vs. other pedestrians). Some studies would describe implications for use for one group of users and not another. One advantage of analyzing in terms of Potential FO is that it cannot overlook for whom and consequently raises questions regarding the implications for other users. For example, if activities on a street are observed before and after a design intervention, the results are likely to be reported as: the design “x” was responsible for an increase in the usage of the street; or “the number of people using the street increased after redesign;” or “more pedestrians use a street after the streetscaping.” While this information is valuable, it is still ambiguous regarding who the users are. When using the language of opportunities it has to be followed by “for X” (Potential FO for bikers, Potential FO for drivers, Potential FO for residents, for business owners, for elderly, for teens...).

For example, elevator lobbies at street level in downtowns were said to be bad because they do not relate to the street (Schumacher, 1986). What is meant by they do not relate to the street is unclear.

Analyzing in terms of Potential FO also served to indicate the planning regulations and design variables that are most critical to the existence of each Potential FO. Some are already known such as the effect of building height and envelope on the opportunity for pedestrians to walk or sit in the sun or shade. Other implications for use of planning and design variables (e.g. orientation of building entrances relative to the street, location of parking lots relative to the destination of its users) were not clear. They may have been mentioned here and there by urban designers as assertions of good or bad design without explaining why.6 7.2.c. Defining the design problem: The concept of Potential FO can also be used in design to define the problem. Table (7.1) illustrates the case of downtown shopping streets in the United States as an example. With the intention to attract pedestrians, designers attempted to make the street a more pleasant place to be. As mentioned by a few and clarified by my re-analysis showed that pedestrian designs in the U.S. focused more on creating the Potential FO “to stop and stay,” than on creating the Potential FO “to walk the street.” This may be one explanation for the frequent failure of such

128

projects. This is because the Potential FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to walk the streetâ&#x20AC;? was found to rely heavily on factors outside the physical boundaries of the street space in question.

Table: 7.1. An example of defining the design problem in terms of Potential FO: Pedestrian Streets in Europe and the U.S7. In Europe

In the U.S.

The surrounding area: already existing high downtown user density low downtown user density

low downtown user density (office workers during lunch break)

connected to central public transit stations Potential FO: for large number of pedestrians to be there

not well connected to major traffic routes

connector between destination points - the street is the natural route to walk to get from one to the other (work, recreation, shopping, transit station, parking) Potential FO: to walk

it does not necessarily lead to heavily used destinations

The physical design: occasional seating shop display outdoors the street width is usually narrower than in the U.S. and therefore Potential FO: for performers, and street vendors to claim the space is limited. the flanking buildings are usually traditional, streetscape

raised planters fountains shelters food stands play areas street vendor stages performers

Potential FO to engage the interest of pedestrians as they walk

and the standard aesthetic fancy lights brick paving banners trees benches

Potential FO: to stop and stay

(increased)

(limited)

Potential FO: to cross the street from one shop to the other (increased)

(limited)

Potential FO: to see window displays as you walk

(limited)

culture: walking as a means of going places

culture: walking as exercise

Source of data included in the table: Kent Robertson (1993) and Stephen Carr et al. (1992).

129

Kent Robertson (1993) points out that the purpose of creating pedestrian shopping streets are entirely different in the two cases. In Europe, it is a response to traffic congested streets, and awareness to the economic and ecological cost of burning gasoline. In the U.S., it is an attempt to save a declining downtown; because Americans reside, shop, recreate, and increasingly, work elsewhere (industrial parks, office parks).

7.2.d. Explaining design theories and pointing out what needs to be researched: The use of precedents in application is the key to contemporary design thinking. The most important question is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;what lessons should we learn from precedents, in what terms?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; The concept of Potential FO provided a new dimension of what is successful in the precedent; a measure that showed links to E-B theories which explained why this precedent is successful. In other words, E-B theories explain why a Utilized FO was satisfactory, what human factors (user characteristics, social organization...), which human processes, and which human needs underlay that incident of utilization. The operational characteristics of the concept of FO derived in this Part answer the first and second objective of this study. They also confirm the initial idea that FO can be a mediating language between the UD and E-B fields. So far, the analysis dealt with the integration of existing knowledge. The following part of this study is dedicated to directly exploring the concept of FO in an empirical case study.

130

P A R T I P A R T II

PART II

P A R T II

PART II

This Part consists of a case study designed to explore the third objective of this research; to explore the extent to which the concept of FO is used by ordinary people to describe their experience of urban street. Also, the case study provides additional data to verify, and develop further, the working hypotheses-derived in Part I. Chapter Eight explains the case study design, procedure, and instruments. Chapter Nine presents the substantive results of the case study organized around the research questions outlined in Chapter Eight. Chapter Ten answers the question do ordinary people think of the street in terms of FO. This chapter also discusses the implications of the case study findings with respect to the development of the construct of FO. It therefore serves a double function; it is a conclusion to Part II, and the link between Part I and Part II.

P A R T I P A R T II

P A R T II

CHAPTER EIGHT

CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN

Chapter Eight

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN

The secondary analysis in Part I yielded several working hypotheses. The field study served to further test the validity of those working hypotheses by exploring people’s experience of urban streets, and the extent to which they perceive and describe the street environment in terms of FO (objective number three). This chapter outlines the research questions addressed in the field study and the research design that answered them. Sampling techniques of sites and respondents are presented, followed by an account of the data collection methods and instruments used. The analysis procedure used during various stages of the field research are explained. The measures taken to enhance the quality of the field study conclude this chapter.

8.1. Research questions and procedures The third objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the concept of FO is used by different people to describe their experience of urban streets. In fulfillment of this objective the following questions were outlined:

(1) What are the different FO utilized by different street users, and what are the characteristics of the street that people relate to those Utilized FO? (2) What are the kinds of attributes people use to describe the experiential dimension of the street: do they describe their experience in terms of Utilized FO; do they describe the street in terms of Perceived FO? The results of these questions would highlight the Potential FO of the street that are utilized by different people under different circumstances. This is the focus of Chapter Nine. To answer these questions, it was necessary to elicit the street’s FO inductively from potential street users, FO which may have been ignored in the existing literature. Guided interviews with an intentionally diverse sample of street users about streets they liked and streets they disliked yielded the FO allowed or inhibited by those streets. Besides people randomly solicited on the street (residents, employees, shoppers, passers by), I interviewed business owners and service department workers. This way the study aims at including the perspectives of street users who have been overlooked in previous studies in addition to the more traditional resident or passerby. Respondents were encouraged to talk freely about their experiences. This had three advantages: (1) I do not impose upon respondents which characteristics or which FO to talk about; (2) it allows the people to draw upon a wealth of experience, thus providing a wide and random sample of streets; and (3) it serves to explore people’s use of the street in greater depth than observational data could alone. Interviews were complemented by behavioral observations on the 137

two streets most mentioned by respondents. The observations served the following purposes: (1) to record changes in the physical environment, including traces of behavior, (2) to identify salient use patterns, (3) to validate accounts about use patterns compiled from the interviews. Use patterns on those streets were constructed from both observational and interview data, thus shedding light on the meaning (or higher-level Utilized FO) of the observed behavior. The study design therefore responds to the criticism that many previous studies on street use are limited to counting and mapping users without considering their purpose. It also takes into consideration the fact that the same people can perceive and use the same environment differently depending on their purpose in each situation (Rapoport, 1994). For the two streets selected for observation, the physical environment was documented using a photographic survey (Collier & Collier, 1986) and maps from the city showing plot subdivision, building configuration, building uses, and some street and sidewalk furniture. Interviews with selected city officials were conducted to obtain information about regulations, policies, and design criteria, governing the production, operation and management of those streets.

138

8.2. Sampling of sites and respondents 8.2.a. Sampling respondents: First, respondents were chosen for the likelihood of their supplying new perspectives to my understanding. The major purpose was to ensure that as many stake-holding groups as possible have had the opportunity to contribute their perspectives. Later in the process, respondents were more likely to be chosen for their ability to elaborate, or explicate, perspectives that have already be introduced. Sampling techniques used in this study are common to qualitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990). Purposive sampling of potential street users employed maximum variation sampling, described in Chapter Four. A small sample of great diversity yielded important shared patterns; patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity. Variation among gender, age, occupation and income level were represented in the study. Table (8.1) shows my sample’s demographic profile.

Table 8.1. Potential street users sample profile (N=24) Age

20s 30s 40s 50s 60 +

6 5 7 3 5

Gender

7 women, 17 men

Occupation

Home-based self -employed Unemployed Mother w/young children Workers Professionals (lawyers/designers/exec. sec.) Store/Business owners Students Social workers (policemen, firemen, teacher) Retiree

2 1 2 2 3 8 3 3 1

After the criteria for constructing the maximum variation sample were decided, random purposeful sampling was employed within each group. Random purposeful sampling adds credibility1 to the sample and reduces judgment within a purposeful category; i.e. it aims at reducing suspicion about why certain cases were selected for study. The resulting sample still does not permit statistical generalization because of its small size; I employ it to increase credibility not representiveness. I randomly solicited people in publicly accessible establishments on several streets of the East Side of Milwaukee (Laundromat, tavern, café, drugstore, grocery, marketing office, restaurant, firehouse...). I also randomly asked three students from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee to volunteer. I briefly described to the person what I was doing, then I asked them if they are residents of the East Side, and whether they are willing to talk about their experiences of 139

Credibility refers to the confidence in the truth of the findings. This construct to naturalistic inquiry what “internal validity” is to conventional research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

streets for an hour over a cup of coffee. I also randomly selected a small purposeful sample of business owners on the East Side from the listed businesses in the City Directory. One hour interviews were conducted in their establishment by appointment. An interview guide included questions about the effect of the street characteristics and regulations on their businesses (see Business Owner’s Interview Guide in Appendix A). For business owners, I also employed intensity sampling which focuses on cases that are rich in information. The logic behind this technique is that one could learn a lot from a few cases. This led to interviewing the presidents of the merchants associations on the East Side as well as business owners who had been in the area the longest. All interviews but two (22 respondents), were conducted in public establishments on the East Side where at least part of the street was visible; six interviews took place on the sidewalk. The two other interviews were, upon the respondents’ request, in a downtown office and in someone’s home. For interviewing city officials, “snowball” or “chain” sampling was employed. This is an approach for locating information-rich, key informants. The process begins by asking well-suited people to recommend others who know a lot about the subject in question. The chain of recommended informants will typically diverge initially as many possible sources are recommended, then converge as key names get mentioned over and over again. It is important to acknowledge that there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what will be useful, what will have credibility and what can be done with the available time and resources. Like all other aspects of qualitative inquiry, the sample must be judged in context. Probability samples cannot accomplish what in-depth purposeful sampling can accomplish and vice versa. Michael Patton (1990) reminds us that Piaget contributed a major breakthrough to the understanding of how children think by observing his own two children at length and in great depth. 8.2.b. Site selection: Criteria for case study site selection include: 1. A site that maximizes the opportunity to engage the problem. The East Side of Milwaukee is an area with a concentration of a rich mix of people, diverse uses, and different street characteristics. 2. A site where I can gain access easily. Accessibility in terms of geographical location and accessibility in terms of gaining cooperation from pertinent “gate keepers”. 3. Best site possible within the boundaries of my resources. The streets that were included in the sample were generated by the respondents themselves. Some of these streets were within the East Side and some were elsewhere, in the city of Milwaukee (see map in Fig. 8.1). There were three cases where the respondents talked about a street in another city in the United States (see Table 8.2). 140

Figure 8.1. Map of Milwaukee showing the streets mentioned by respondents.

141

For streets within the East Side, documentation of the physical environment was available through building footprint maps, land use maps and photographic survey when needed.

Table 8.2. Streets that respondents talked about in the interviews City

Street

Milwaukee ...East side

Frequency

Brady St. Downer Ave. Oakland Ave. (Locust to Capitol) North/Farwell Aves. intersec. Newberry Blvd. Lake Dr. Lincoln Memorial Dr.

10 8 3 3 2 2 2

Oakland Ave. (North of Capitol) Water St. Capitol Dr. Santa Monica Blvd. Wilson Dr. Lloyd St. Wisconsin Ave Wells St. National Ave.

4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Sheboygan, WI

7 th St.

Chicago

Michigan Ave.

Brooklyn area streets East Village Manhattan area

1 1

...other

New York City

Since this sample of streets was generated from a sample of maximum variation of respondents, then it could be considered a random sample within the boundaries of the East Side. 8.2.c. Sites selected for observations:

Opportunistic sampling takes advantage of whatever unfolds as it unfolds since it is concurrent to the occurrence of events (Patton, 1990: pp.179-180).

The streets most mentioned by the respondents, which turned out to be Brady St. and Downer Avenue, were chosen for further systematic observation,. The focus on Brady St. later on follows the logic of opportunistic sampling, which takes advantage of new opportunities which were unforeseen after the field work began.2 In this case, it was the Brady St. streetscape project which had just started jointly between the city and the Brady Street Merchants Association who had succeeded to get approval for Brady St. to be a Business Improvement District (BID) (see Fig. 8.2).

142

Figure 8.2. Boundaries of the newly formed Brady St. BID

Brady St., with its current upsurge of change, offered what later proved to be a most valuable display of process, conflicts, and dynamics; like a compressed-time display. There was a portrayal of the different stakeholders, reactions of different users who were so stirred up to be willing and even eager to talk about it, both positively and negatively.

8.3. Data collection 8.3.a. Documenting the physical environment For the two streets selected for observation, the physical environment was documented using a photographic survey and maps from the city: Platt maps showing plot subdivision, aerial photography maps showing building configuration, land use maps showing building uses, and street paving construction drawings showing the street and sidewalk dimensions and furniture. Interviews with selected city officials were conducted to obtain information about regulations, policies, and design criteria, governing the development, operation and management of those streets. I interviewed officials in the City Engineersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Department who are responsible for orchestrating the work of the eight divisions of the Department of Public Works and implementing street design interventions. I also interviewed from the Department of City Development, three planners in charge of zoning and land use, historic preservation, preparation of publicprivate development enterprises; BIDs, of which there are 3 on the East Side. 8.3.b. The interview guide: I realized in my pilot study that asking people to relate their experience of urban streets didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get them talking. A more rewarding strategy was to ask them to talk about streets they liked and streets they disliked. This had several other advantages as well (Saile, 1994): 1. Accounts of use are grounded in real experience, given that the discrepancy between what they say they do, and what they actually do, is far less than when they are asked about abstract preferences or what they think; 2. In the context of positive and negative experience, peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 143

strong feelings made them able to talk about their experience of streets fairly easily. 3. Also in the context of “like” and “dislike”, I did not have to ask why; respondents always volunteered it. 4. Because it is from memory, and they feel strongly about it, the FO and the street characteristics remembered indicate that they were significant to the experience.

Activities-while-there were of two kinds, one associated to the person’s reason for going (a subplan of action to fulfill the plan), and the other elicited by the surroundings (e.g. getting mugged). Suitable behavior reflected the person’s perception of the extent to which a place met the physical and affective requirements for a behavior (which sound very similar to Potential FO). Expected behavior reflected the specific social rules that indicate which activities are appropriate in which places (Generaux, Ward & Russell, 1983).

An alternative method would be to show people photographs of a variety of streets, and ask them what they think they could do there. Generaux, Ward, & Russell (1983) found that for the same photograph of a place, people gave a different answer to each question; What would you do there? What do you think this place is suitable for? What do you expect happens there? For each question the respondent had to assume certain conditions to this pretend situation; conditions that remain hidden.3 For the purpose of my study, I needed an instrument that would make people think about, and verbalize those conditions that create or deny each functional opportunity. I therefore decided to depend for my data on people’s accounts of real situations they have experienced, rather than hypothesized ones, which was more difficult for me to analyze. I started by asking street users, who had agreed to participate, to talk freely about their experiences of a familiar street they liked most and one they disliked most. I used an interview guide that goes as follows: “tell me about your experience of a street you like that you are familiar with, it could be anywhere;” “tell me about a street you dislike;” “talk about a street you like, and another you dislike, on the East Side of Milwaukee.” I taped the interviews using a micro cassette recorder and took notes simultaneously. Respondents remained anonymous. Those interviews with potential street users were open-ended; more of “a conversation with a purpose” (Erlandson et al, 1993). This way respondents could explain more what they mean and hidden assumptions begin to surface. Each interview lasted about one hour, on average. More structured interview questions were developed for business owner interviews; yet they were still used as an interview guide (see Appendix A). After the first question, I allowed the respondent to just talk freely. When they were done with what they had to say, I used the interview questions as a checklist to make sure I covered all the issues that were not brought up. My probes during the interviews aimed at eliciting detail description of experiences, behaviors, actions, and activities. For example, if the respondent mentions playing on the street, I would ask: “what would you play?” or “tell me how you would play on the street.” Some probes were aimed at assessing factual information such as “how many houses were in the block?” or “ how big was the front yard?” Background demographic questions were not asked directly, although most of the respondents volunteered some information about their occupations. I verified their ages and most respondents mentioned where they lived. Probes during the interview were singular, not double-loaded, in wording; I asked about one thing at a time, and avoided as much as possible questions whose answers were “yes” or “no.” I also avoided presupposition as much as possible, so I 144

wouldn’t lead the respondent into a certain direction. Whenever the respondent came up with a meaning loaded term such as “meaning of community”, “cosmopolitan”, or “that was a neighborhood”, I would ask the person to clarify those value-laden terms in terms that describe behavior and factual information. For business owners only, I asked them to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the street and the neighborhood to their business, and how their business contributes to the street and the neighborhood. That was the only time when I employed opinion-value questions. Being a foreigner myself, I had the advantage that the respondents did not take for granted that I knew what they meant and so they took the trouble of explaining key cultural terms that they use, since they could tell from my accent that I was an outsider. Interviewing people where the street was visible, enabled me to see the operational meaning of what they were saying and lessened the chance for misinterpretation. The street, being visible to both of us, was used as a reference point to single out examples of what they were talking about. The fact that I lived for 5 years on the East Side of Milwaukee, also helped me understand better the constructed realities of the respondents. 8.3.c. Behavior observation The main purpose of the observations was: (1) to record changes in the physical environment, including traces of behavior; (2) to identify salient use patterns; and (3) to validate accounts about use patterns assessed from the interviews. The interviews provided leads for the observations and the observations provided probes for the interviews. The instrument used involved a coded base map, and a table where behaviors were recorded both graphically as well as in the form of notes: who does what, when and where (Churchman, 1994; Saile, 1994) (see Appendix B). My obtrusiveness was no problem because I was in the public street (Erlandson et al. 1993: 99). I used a small camera, a wide-angle 35mm (no heavy equipment), so I was not that visible. I was also careful, while noting observations, to avoid the use of judgmental terms in describing what is going on. I did not preset a checklist of behavior (e.g. work, play, social interaction....) to check during observation, instead I described in notes the episodes I saw, their location, and duration. Recording use qualitatively was more important for my study than accurate counts of pedestrians and cars which in most studies involves short periods of observation at fixed intervals (e.g. for 5 min. every few hours). In my case study, observation would go on for 20 minutes or more with two blocks in view, then I would move to another section of the street. I observed for approximately two hours total along one street at each visit. I also took photographs of rich scenes to summarize description. Photo frame number was noted alongside the time, place and notation of the activity in the table. This strategy ensured the link between the observed behavior and the physical environment. At the beginning, observation was systematic and randomized at different times of the day, and different days of the week. Later in the process, the observation focused on habitual patterns of use or non-use. Observation took place 3 days during each of the 4

145

months of observation (June, July, August, and September). In each month, I made sure I covered all hours from 9 a.m. to midnight at least once. Late night observations were restricted to driving trips along the street, and sit-down observation from the step-out of the firehouse on Brady St., or Gil’s Bongo (café) outdoor seating on Downer Avenue. Behavior observation also contributed to the general documentation of what the physical environment was like. It yielded some knowledge of the context, and provided clues about use and abuse of the physical environment. Most importantly, it revealed the street characteristics that are used during overt (observable) behavior that may not have been explicitly mentioned in the interviews. This documentation of the physical environment and the use patterns of the street served as a reference point, or a back drop, against which interview data could be better understood. Who the people on the street were, mostly came from the interviews. The patterns of use came partly from observation and partly from the interviews. Information about the frequency and duration of those patterns (how typical such a situation was, as well as the seasonal differences) came mostly from the interviews. Combining the information from the interviews about patterns of use with the observational data, I constructed maps and sketches of salient routes, views significant to the street users, and locations of consistent stationary behavior. The advantage of using graphics as a recording device as well as in presenting the findings is that it synthesizes many observations as well as verbal data from the interviews into an easily legible format, and ensures rigorous description of the physical environment.

8.4. Data Analysis The data analysis process has three main elements (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Pfaffenberger, 1988; Strauss, 1987): unitizing data, coding, and emergent category designation. Excerpts from one interview are included as an illustrative example. The rest of the transcribed interviews with the initial unitizing and coding appear in Appendix (C). 8.4.a. Unitizing text The unit was defined by three components: a feature, a behavior, and a FO that relates both. Sometimes respondents would stress causality using words like “because.” Sometimes, but not frequently, people would just mention their behavior and the function it serves, without mentioning street characteristics that relate to this use. These were also acknowledged as units. On the other hand, on the few occasions when someone mentioned a feature to describe a place but did not relate it to any function throughout the entire interview, that feature was not considered a unit by itself. In the first round of analysis of the interviews, I would write the feature, or group of street characteristics, and the related Utilized FO in the margin of the transcribed interview data. The unit was defined in the terms used by the respondents. I added the information “Utilized FO for whom?”, where I typed the respondent’s status in this particular situation: e.g. pedestrian, driver, business owner, resident (see Fig. 8.3). Dividing the text into units in place, allowed

146

me to keep a permanent record of the translation from free-flowing conversation to units of street characteristics and FO, without losing the context of the whole conversation (Pfaffenberger, 1988). This established an “audit trail” to check the “dependability”4 of researcher-as-instrument. The second step involved making a copy of all the interviews with the margin notes, cutting out each unit from the margin, and stapling it to the corresponding quotes in the interview. Each piece of paper containing a quote was given a number to indicate its location in the original interview and thus enabled me to track it back if necessary. Following that, I wrote each Utilized FO and feature on color coded cards (see Fig. 8.4). This allowed me: 1. the flexibility of sorting units in different ways; by Utilized FO, by street characteristics; 2. to see the combination of street characteristics that appeared to be necessary for each Utilized FO; 3. to see Utilized FO that seemed to be necessary conditions for other Potential FO to be utilized; 4. to see the different street characteristics that allowed the same Utilized FO; (i.e. had the same Potential FO); 5. to assess the frequency of each Utilized FO which, in case of a bigger sample, could indicate the significance of these functions of the street.

147

According to Lincoln & Guba (1985), dependability is concerned with the stability of the data. Instabilities could be due to multiple realities or developing insights of investigatoras-instrument. Documenting the data and the process so that an external auditor could examine the process of data analysis—an audit trail—is one way to increase dependability.

Figure 8.3. Excerpt from an interview to illustrate the initial process of unitizing and coding interview data in the margin.

148

Figure 8.4. Illustration of initial sorting, where each envelope included one card of Utilized FO and all cards of corresponding street characteristics mentioned by all respondents interviewed.

At this point, it is noteworthy to realize that the activities/functions mentioned by respondents were at a molar level; for example, “to watch people,” “to sit and have lunch,” “to enjoy a walk,” “to park in front of my destination,” instead of the molecular level such as, to sit, to see, to walk, to drive, to eat. This level of behavior was only sometimes found in the answer to the direct question I asked at the end of the interview “what have you used streets for?” This affirmed my decision that asking them to relate their experience of streets they liked and streets they disliked was a better technique, than asking them directly about functions served by the street, or FO. 8.4.b. Coding and category generation I developed the condition chain diagram to illustrate the second stage of analysis; category generation. The structure of these diagrams was described briefly in Chapter Four (see Fig.4.1). Each box is a FO that was perceived or utilized as indicated by the respondents in my case study. Street characteristics mentioned by the respondents are plotted at the far right of the condition chain, not framed to distinguish them from FO. Each Utilized and Perceived FO is an indication of the street’s potential to afford a certain FO. The different conditions under which each Potential FO is perceived or utilized is revealed by compiling the data from the interviews of different respondents. The street characteristics appearing in those diagrams should therefore be considered examples of the street characteristics that allow the Potential FO they are linked to. The line between any two boxes in the diagram indicates that, at least, one respondent has linked those two FO in a conditional relationship; the one on the right-hand-side being a condition that allows the one on the left-hand-side. Potential FO at a higher-level of abstraction would appear in the boxes on the left-hand-side of the

149

diagram. Some boxes are connected to more than one box of midchain FO. Whenever a set of FO were always mentioned together as conditions for a certain higher-level FO, they appear in the diagram linked by an “AND.” Whenever several FO were mentioned as conditions, but not necessarily together, they appear in the diagram linked by an “OR.” In this case, each of those mid-chain FO was utilized to achieve the higher-level FO, independent of the other FO that also allow—for other respondents, or in other situations—that same high-level FO. To maintain the link between this stage of analysis and the raw data, I incorporated in the diagrams, some of the corresponding quotes from the interviews, and sketches of the physical environment in question. They facilitated the compilation of the interview data, and allowed ready comparison between the different kinds of data.

8.5. Preparing for quality in the study The study acknowledges the interactive role of the researcher. To diminish this bias, I collected different kinds of data (interviews, maps, photographs, and archival data) in a variety of ways (interviews with residents, business owners, presidents of merchants association, designers, city officials in various departments, and behavior observation). Gathering data from a variety of sources using different methods—usually referred to as “triangulation”— minimizes the risk of preconceptions I may have had interpreting just one type of data. Triangulation increases the degree to which the findings of an inquiry are a function solely of subjects and conditions of inquiry, and not biases, motivations, interests, perspectives of the inquirer (Lincoln & Guba, !985). Another measure I took was encouraging respondents to engage in less structured conversations so that hidden assumptions and construction begin to surface. Also, the conceptual codes I used to describe units of the data were terms used by the respondents in the interviews; “in vivo codes” (Erlandson et al, 1993). As for the process of analysis, which involves breaking down complex realities into more simplified parts, I attempt to make clear the stages of this reduction process. By keeping the raw data (quotes, sketches, maps and photographs) visible even throughout the stage of generating categories (the condition chains) I established an “audit trail” that allows peers to revise the interpretation I made from conversations to condition chain diagrams. This step also helps other researchers judge the “transferability” of my conclusions to other contexts. A sample of the interviews and the initial stage of coding are appended to enable the reader to see that transformation. The rest of the raw data is available upon request. This transparency of the process of analysis enhances the trustworthiness of my methods. Finally, to verify the unitizing of interview data, and the conditional relationships drawn between different FO, I employed both “peer debriefing,” and “member checks.” These techniques were described earlier in Chapter Four. For the first technique, I gave a random sample of the interviews to a peer and asked her to identify units of street characteristics and functions and compare them with what I had derived. As for member checks, I randomly selected 5 150

respondents from my list and contacted them to schedule meetings. Three of them were willing to give me some of their time to verify my interpretation of what they said in the initial interviews. All these strategies helped enhance the credibility of my measures and the general trustworthiness of my research findings. The aim of this case study was not to generalize the substantive findings beyond the East Side of Milwaukee. The substantive results, reported in Chapter Nine, play a heuristic role; they demonstrate how ordinary people conceptualize the street environment, which answers the third objective. And since FO have never been directly researched before, this case study also presents a method of inquiry to do that.

151

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER NINE

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter Nine

Case Study Analysis The first section of this chapter presents the results of the case study regarding the first research question: What are the different FO utilized by different street users, and what are the characteristics of the street that people relate to those Utilized FO? This is followed by a discussion of the findings regarding the second research question: What are the kinds of attributes people use to describe the experiential dimension of the street? Do they describe their experience in terms of Utilized FO? Do they describe the street in terms of Perceived FO? Answering these questions, helps explore the extent to which the concept of FO is used by ordinary people to describe their experience of urban streets (the third objective).

9.1. Perceived and Utilized FO in urban streets

The number of respondents who mentioned each attribute is used in other studies as an indication of the relative importance of the attributeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the higher the frequency, the more important the attribute. Because of the small sample size (n=24), I would not consider this measure to be more than suggestive, especially that the relative importance of FO is an issue beyond the scope of this study.

The significance of streets to ordinary people goes far beyond safe and efficient means to go from one place to another. Previous E-B research had identified different functions of the street (see Chapter Two), yet, exploring FO the way I did in this case study revealed some interesting and unprecedented additions to those in the literature. Table 9.1 lists the Utilized FO mentioned by the interviewees and the number of respondents who mentioned each. This list is just illustrative of the broad range of FO served by streets; it is not of any generalizable consequence.1 FO most specific to the role of the person were those perceived by business owners and service people, although fire fighters perceived some, more general, FO that were also mentioned by other people (see table 9.2).

Table 9.1. The list of Utilized FO mentioned by respondents in the case study (N = 18)*. For each Utilized FO, the table shows the number of respondents who mentioned it at least once. This number does not indicate the number of times each Utilized FO was mentioned (i.e. frequency) based on the assumption that repetition of one Utilized FO by the same person may depend on the respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conversing style. UFO mentioned by respondents in the case study - to watch diverse people, people doing different thing - to see people - to be entertained while you walk; to look at something interesting - to accomplish more than one errand in one trip by foot or one stop by car - to feel at home - to greet, or wave at, people you know - to be seen by peers - to know whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s happening: keep up with visible changes - not to get bored - to enjoy an aesthetic - to see a familiar face - to see your neighbors often - to recognize them - to interact with them - to stop and walk into a place spontaneously (unplanned) - to talk to passersby from your turf * Two of the business owners also recounted their experience as residents.

154

Number of respondents 16 10 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4

For whom (if specified)

young adults pedestrians, drivers

Table 9.1. (continued) UFO mentioned by respondents in the case study - to wonder about other people’s lives and stories - for people to walk the street - to know about/notice places one may need to go to later - to enjoy the weather - to buy daily needs any time, without planning, without having to drive

Number of respondents 4 4 4 4 4

- to do many things in one location (recreate, shop, work...) - to go bar hopping - to discover something new every time - to be close to contrasting qualities (loud:quiet) (busy:private, isolated) (commercial:residential) - to be assaulted - to see an assertion of one’s values - to be proud of one’s city/neighborhood - to reach a destination - to meet regularly with the same friends - to meet people different from oneself - to feel free - to be yourself - to recreate for free

4 3 3 3

- to enjoy waiting time - to break the daily routine - to walk to work - to go somewhere at night in your neighborhood (movie, listen to music - to see peers doing the same thing you are doing - to see a changing scene from your home - to experience excitement due to ‘slight’ perceived danger - to know about organized events - to enhance perception of safety of the area - to take a break during working hours - to get assistance - to exchange news; information centers - to socially interact by choice - to experience democracy - to talk with elderly - to hang out - to be loud and rowdy - to know the history of a place - to be hit by a car - to do mischief - to exercise - to rollerblade, bike, or skateboard, for fun - to be intimidated and feel unsafe - to enjoy an evening walk - to kiss a girlfriend goodnight

3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

- to read on a bench

- to voice political thoughts - to experience spaciousness - to remember better where you parked - to get to know people in the area

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

155

For whom (if specified)

residents: working women, blue collar worker young adults

children young adults teens, young adults, retired men, lower income

residents young adults

employees pedestrians

young adults young adults young adults bikers teens

Table 9.1. (continued) UFO mentioned by respondents in the case study

Number of respondents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

- to remind us of our national history - to remind us of our personal memories - to duck into an entrance in case of danger - to eat different foods - to express oneself - to be with other people who share your ideologies - to spend time inexpensively

For whom (if specified)

young adults young adults

Table 9.2. The list of Utilized FO mentioned by business owners and service people (N = 10). UFO mentioned by business owners and service men

Number of respondents

Business Owners (N=8) - to get shoppers to come - to attract attention of passersby - to draw shoppers from outside the area - to get shoppers to walk the street - to increase pedestrian traffic - to get shoppers to spend more time on the street - to benefit from customers coming to nearby businesses - to be accessible to shoppers on foot - to benefit from pedestrian traffic created by other factors - to maintain regular customers - to get more customers for lunch - to sustain diversity of pedestrians

6 6 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1

Fire Captain (N=1) - to access with a fire engine - to know residents in the neighborhood - to exchange news with residents - to get involved with the community - to be summoned more often for fire-related emergencies - to be summoned more often to help handicap elderly - to be summoned more often for alcohol-related emergencies Police Officer (N=1) - to be jumped upon - to be greeted by residents on the street

Utilized FO also varied according to the mode of transportation (car, bike, on foot) but there were instances of overlap where the same FO were utilized by people while they drive and while they walk, such as “to make a spontaneous stop,” “not to get bored while going from A ––– B,” “discovering places to go to in the future,” and “to enjoy an aesthetic.” Out of the 24 street users interviewed, 15 related their experience of the street in more than one mode (as pedestrians, as drivers, as bikers), and 18 in more than one role (resident, shopper, jogger, employee...). Most respondents talked about where they live even though it was never the first choice of street they liked or disliked. Utilized FO for children and teens were specific to these age groups alone (based on adult respondents’ accounts of their childhood). Similarly, “to be seen,” “to go bar hopping,” and “to be loud” were specific to students, except for “to be seen” which was shared by non-student, young adults (20s early 30s). Besides the above observations, there were no Utilized FO that were specific to any particular user group (age beyond 20s, income, and gender). It was interesting that despite the diversity of the sample, many Utilized FO were shared by a variety of people; FO such as “to see diverse people,” “to be entertained while you walk,” “to see what’s going on,” and “to see signs of life.”

156

The case study is too small to generalize from (N=24), yet it brings to light a wide range of Potential FO a street may have. It also shows how diverse people utilized the street’s Potential FO to fulfill subtle, yet important, functions. Many of those subtle Potential FO were often stated as the reason to reside in a certain area, to walk a certain street, or to drive a particular route. For example, for people driving, several FO—besides going to their destination quickly— were identified as reasons to choose one route over the another:

to know about resources

(UFO driving through city streets vs. highway)

“I collect places in my mind; yes I’d like to go the Mexican place when I have time, even if I can’t stop then...and it makes me want not always to be on the speedway from point A to B, or from point A to point C, and missing all the alphabet in between!” to remember good memories

(UFO driving)

“I think of certain streets...Wisconsin Ave. holds a lot of memories for me; my first husband and I we’d stroll Wisconsin Ave., or when he finally got a car, you’d cruise Wis. Ave. on a Saturday night and just look at the bright lights, or the windows” to keep up with the changes

(UFO driving through city streets vs. highway)

“I look to see which house is torn down...to see what’s happening” “I collect what’s on that street; like a place we used to go to all-you-caneat meals when we were more into eating...and then we notice if it was closed, and then it’s open again.” to enjoy the view

(UFO driving)

“Wilson also is a wide street...on one side [it] has the park so the trees and landscaping is very lovely” “I would often go out of my way and take Lincoln Memorial Dr. home just to see the lake and drive along the parkway.” to see an assertion of ones values

(UFO driving)

“...there are people walking, there are people tending to their yards, children about...you get the feeling there is community to this...it gives a very nice feeling...a nice sense of community.” to make spontaneous stops

(UFO of driving through city streets vs. highway)

“when we can’t get on the freeway B & I don’t get upset much because on a street there’s always a place to see, a place to stop, a place to eat...” not to get bored

(UFO driving through city streets vs. highway)

“I take different routes home, I like having the choice; a change in the scenery so it wouldn’t be boring.” Respondents also explained what street characteristics made these FO possible. The following compilation from different interviews illustrates a sample of street characteristics mentioned in relation to the Utilized FO “not to get bored”: “small houses...chimneys,” “nice architecture,” “the lake front,” “lights in shop windows,” “there is always change,” “people doing something.” Respondents also explained how these street characteristics led to the Utilized FO:

157

“I will notice if there is a house I have never seen before and I’ve passed it a 100 times, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, there’s a new house, I never knew it was here and it’s rather attractive, I wonder who lives here’.”

“a Cajun place once, I waited for a year after it burnt down to see if they were going to open it again and then I wondered if they burnt it down on purpose, so there is this kind of stories where things that happen.”

The urban characteristics of the street that contribute to the diversity of the people seen on it are discussed in section 9.2 of this chapter where I talk about the behavioral implications of urban design and planning variables.

The method of inquiry delineated the functional dimension of the street in an unprecedented clarity. Besides additions to the literature about the different functions of the street, the case study articulated functions already discussed. For example, “to watch people” is a FO of the street discovered in previous studies. The case study findings distinguish among different forms and purposes for watching people: “to see diverse people,” “to experience street life,” “to see familiar faces.” The Utilized FO “to see diverse people” was one of the most mentioned (16 out of the 24 respondents) as a reason to walk, spend time on a particular street, or live in a particular area (see Fig. 9.1); 2

“I happen to be a person who likes diversity in many things, food and stuff. Because there are all age groups that come to Downer Ave.; people from different backgrounds, different countries, this gives a very interesting feeling...” Respondents, who talked about Downer Ave. as a street in which to stop and spend time, stressed the diversity in age of its clientele; “Downer to me is intriguing because you see the cross section of people that it brings in...Lixx is not only for high school kids, I know friends of mine that live in other parts of Milwaukee who especially come to Lixx just for the icecream...I want to go back to that mix of people, because then you have, like, older people going to the Coffee Trader’s, it’s interesting because this generational gap is totally meshed.” On Brady St., the diversity of people seen on the street was its main characteristic. It was a diversity in race and income, as well as of age and occupation. Respondents who talked about Brady St. never failed to mention how they value this diversity. Residents among them pointed out that it made them feel free to be themselves, unlike any other part of Milwaukee. A blue collar worker who lives around Brady St. explained to me; “...because you live on the South Side, you have a narrow mindedness, the one-way to live. You come over to the East Side you were more or less left alone; you could be neighborly or not. You might have moved here from the inner city of the North Side because you’re a black person and you didn’t like the violence and you didn’t like what was going on, you come to the East Side. Because the diversity here that’s really nice, you could either be a part of it, or you could be left alone or you could be part of it and be left alone...This was always the place where, if you were a little odd, you could escape to it and be left alone...” 158

159

Figure 9.1. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to see diverse peopleâ&#x20AC;?

A related FO was “to experience street life,” which in many cases involved diverse people, but had a few more conditions to it. One respondent said “unpredictability” was the main criterion for street life. Another respondent said it required a “happening.” “To me street life is to sit down, or lean against the building and be content watching what’s happening, whatever is interesting to watch.” One condition brought up by several respondents was the sheer number of people on the street. Respondents who talked about street life were talking about streets like Michigan Ave. in Chicago, or streets in Manhattan, New York. “There is a critical number of people that should be there to call it street life. People are fewer here.” The third component of watching people was the Utilized FO “to see familiar faces” which was mentioned as a valued function served by the public street (see Fig. 9.2). “it’s impossible for me to walk on Downer without seeing someone I know; if I grab a paper or coffee I always see someone I know, and I really like that, because being a student, you know, housed in my books and my residence, when a person goes out, they want to talk to people; and people they know. And even if it is a mere acquaintance or a friendly face, it doesn’t have to be a close friend.” It was also mentioned as a contributor to the feeling of neighborhood; “Even if you don’t know people, you recognize people, because a lot of people in the neighborhood stay within a few blocks so you’re bound to see the same people all the time; it’s so familiar, so community like...” Reviewing all the Utilized FO elicited (the list in Table 9.1) is not the purpose of this case study. Although a condition chain—such as the one in Figure 9.1 or 9.2—was mapped out for each Utilized FO, I only discuss some of them to illustrate the discovered patterns; patterns that describe the way FO relate to one another. It is important to note that the condition chains are my representation of the relationship—described by respondents—between the different Utilized FO, and the characteristics of the street that afforded them. The contents of each condition chain are strictly from the interview data, consequently, the street characteristics mentioned and the conditional relationships drawn are not the only possible ways of creating any of the Utilized FO (the structure of those diagrams was explained in detail earlier in Chapters Four and Eight). 9.1.a. Patterns of Utilized FO: To stop, or sit, on the street is a behavior often mentioned by respondents as a means to fulfill different Utilized FO. It is one of those FO that appeared in the middle section of many condition chains; I refer to them as mid-chain FO. Respondents’ experiences demonstrated some conditions under which the FO “to sit on the street” existed. They also demonstrated some of the consequences of utilizing this FO; the FO allowed as a result of sitting on the street. The following discusses the conditions and consequences of two of those mid-chain FO: “to sit/to stop on the street,” and “to walk the street.” Other mid-chain FO are also discussed within 160

161

Figure 9.2. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to see familiar facesâ&#x20AC;?

this framework. The findings presented here are elicited from the interviews and verified by observations on both Brady St. and Downer Avenue. TO SIT, TO STOP, ON THE STREET On Brady St., stationary behavior (sitting, standing in a group) occurred more along the building-side of the sidewalk and on many occasions involved talking, greeting, and drinking (see Fig. 9.3). Stationary behavior occurred at the curb as well but for shorter durations, and was mainly transit-related (waiting for the bus, unloading a truck or car). With the multitude of stoops characteristic of Brady St., the Potential FO to sit was available all

along the street, but sitting for more than a few minutes was only found in particular spots on the street. The Utilized FO “to sit/stop on the street” observed along Brady St. were at: Brewed Awakenings Café Glorioso’s grocery/Bon Appetit restaurant the firehouse the ledge behind Walgreens drugstore the planter in front of the marketing office the Laundromat parking lot The first two—the café, and the restaurant—have one condition in common and that is the FO “to have something to watch”. In the case of Brewed Awakenings, besides the regular pedestrian traffic and people entering and leaving the café itself (see Fig. 9.4), the café customers sitting outdoors on the sidewalk have a lot to watch. The bar next door provides something to watch every now and then (bands unloading their equipment, employees putting up the sign for the night’s show, unloading beer from a truck). They also have a good view of the firehouse, which is a neighborhood meeting point; “I like to be in the street , to see what’s happening,” says one of the regulars at Brewed Awakenings. At Bon Appetit restaurant, the main attraction for customers sitting on the sidewalk is the next door grocery store, Glorioso’s. Because there is no back alley available, loading merchandise occurs from the street entrance. Every day from noon till 2p.m.. (lunch time at the restaurant), the grocery employees are heard and seen unloading trucks (see Fig. 9.5). From 5p.m. to 6p.m. again it is busy outside Glorioso’s, this time the owner himself is supervising the clearing of the showcases on the sidewalk and the loading of his vans with merchandise. Next door, the restaurant owners are often sitting outside sipping a cup of coffee, or chatting with Joe Glorioso, as they wait for the first dinner customers to arrive. The daily ritual outside this famous grocery store is one of the “happenings” on Brady Street.

162

Figure 9.3. Zones of stationary behavior across the sidewalk on Brady Street

163

Figure 9.4. The Utilized FO “to have something to watch” at The Brewed Awakenings Cafe on Brady Street: a. Andy at the Up and Under blues club putting up the signs for tonight’s show; b. the view west includes the firehouse

164

Figure 9.5. Lunch time action at Gloriosoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grocery store on Brady Street

165

The firehouse is another place “to stop on the street” because of its corner location, its significance, and the vital fenced step-out (see Fig. 9.6). This private step-out allows the firemen to sit outside; sometimes one alone, sometimes the whole shift. I observed them eating lunch out there once, and the firemen told me they do so occasionally when it’s nice out. The result is, firemen regularly see and are seen by people from the neighborhood; this consequently allows several other Potential FO (the multiple Utilized FO of the firehouse are listed later in this chapter). When asked if he felt he was sitting on the sidewalk, the fire captain replied; “Absolutely not, this is our turf. It’s been here forever. There is nobody alive who remembers it any different, even people who died 50 years ago knew no different; this is the extension of the firehouse.” The ability “to interact with passersby from the private domain” allowed a person the chance to enjoy the consequences of sitting on the street, while giving that person control over interaction with others. Sitting in one’s second or third storey balcony allowed respondents the choice of when and how to interact with passersby on the street. Figure 9.7 illustrates the conditions that allowed this Utilized FO and examples of street characteristics that afforded them. There are other conditions that allow some people to sit and spend time on the street. The edge of the planter behind Walgreen’s drugstore is a regular sitting place for groups of men from the neighborhood. This stationary spot is deemed “negative” by some residents and business owners because some of these groups harass passersby (beg for money, or talk to passersby when drunk). What is particular about this ledge (privately developed by Walgreens) is the fact that it cannot be seen from inside the store. The FO “to see outside from the inside of the store” was utilized by business owners interviewed who said they simply go outside and urge loiterers to move on; it enabled the businesses the FO “to control behavior immediately outside their stores” which I will discuss later with regard to walking the street and making a business accessible.

On the same street, a little further down, another planter ledge did not attract loiterers mainly because it is visible from inside the adjoining business, a marketing office. “once in a while we have a street person walking, but no confrontation; ‘no, I am sorry but you have to leave.’ We have kids sometimes walking the ledge...I thought there would be people congregating here and sitting on those ledges because they are perfect little stools...[but they don’t]” This planter ledge was often used by the office owners and employees for breaks. Being able to see any nearby ledges from inside the private domain influences who sits there, and what behavior they do while sitting.

166

Figure 9.6. The social spot at the firehouse on Brady Street

167

168

Figure 9.7. Conditional chain for the Utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to interact with passersby from the private domainâ&#x20AC;?

The case of the Laundromat highlights another condition for the Utilized FO “to sit on the street;” the adjoining building use. The Laundromat parking lot has 5-inch-high curb stones to mark parking spaces; that is the only Potential FO “to sit” it offers. The reason behind this surprising Utilized FO is the use of the building; people have to wait for their laundry to be done, and in nice weather, some people rather do it outside (see Fig. 9.8). A use that requires waiting has the Potential FO “to generate potential users.” The immediate surroundings of such a use determine whether this Potential FO is utilized. One example mentioned by a respondent was the continuous sidewalk connecting a car repair shop to other businesses where one can spend waiting time; “...a building has just been restored on 6th and National by Esperanza Unida...We started going to Esparanza Unida to get our car repaired, and we discovered this very good Mexican restaurant “Dos Hermanos” while waiting for our car to be repaired...[also there]...the Lopez family have this wonderful bakery.” The distance between the place to sit and the adjoining building was also found to be a factor. A big stone in the planter in front of Walgreens drugstore’s entrance was used for sitting more often— usually by someone waiting for a companion buying something from the store—than a mini-plaza 180 feet away. This mini-plaza or platform is designed for people to sit; it has a sittable low ledge, and is located at the street corner of a busy intersection, yet, it is hardly used

by pedestrians “to stop or sit” (see Fig. 9.9). Even people waiting for the bus do not sit there. One explanation—based on my observation of other sittable ledges—is the long distance between this platform and any building, fence, or entrance. On the other hand, the stone is next to the entrance of the most frequented store in this block (open 24 hours). That may be why this spot is also where individuals were seen on several occasions selling newspapers and handing out flyers. First, there is a reason to sit there, and second, there are people to watch. On Downer Ave., the commercial block and a half were heavily used for sitting on the street. There is a lot to watch there; street musicians playing on the bench in front of Sentry, the grocery store; people sitting, enjoying their dripping cones on the benches outside Lixx, the icecream parlor; people coming and going to the different retail stores and restaurants. On the outdoor seating and the planter in front of Gil’s (the new café that opened at the beginning of 1995) people are waiting, watching, sometimes kissing or drawing (see Fig. 9.10). That part of Downer Ave. has many places and many reasons for a person to sit. The streetscape was designed in 1979 to make the street a nice place for people to spend time, and it succeeded in doing just that; “Downer is where we spent our time in summer, there’s Sendik’s and all these things. I used to go to the Webster’s...I worked at the Coffee Traders...but as far as the street it’s fun; watching people and watching cars.” 169

Figure 9.8. The Laundromat on Brady Street: a. one can see the parking lot from inside the Laundromat; b. sitting in the sun playing; c. sitting in the shade waiting for the laundry to be done.

170

Figure 9.9. The sittable stone (a) and the deserted ledge (b) at the Brady St. shopping center

171

By contrast, several respondents remarked how the part of Downer Ave. closest to campus—which has the Potential FO “to generate large numbers of users”—fails to offer similar FO; “it seems like it should be a lively place being close to campus like that but there’s really nothing there that makes people want to go to it compared to Downer down here; with uses where people want just to sit and talk, and then uses for people just going to do their business and leave, like the grocery store. So it creates the amount of people you want to see in a place. Although they’re not spending time there it gives people who are sitting something to watch.”

During my interview with a resident on Brady St., he greeted 15 passers by and invited a friend who was coming to the establishment next door to join us. On Downer Ave. another interviewee greeted and talked with at least three acquaintances during the coarse of the hour-long interview. This also happened dutring the interview with the fire captain, and 3 business owners.

According to the findings, the conditions for the Utilized FO “to sit on the street” can be summarized into: somewhere to sit, an excuse to sit, something to watch—preferably people doing something. These conditions are affected by the building use at street level and the ability to see other people inside the private domain. Consequences of sitting on the street include the Utilized FO “to watch people,” and “to see and greet familiar faces,” which were mentioned earlier (see Fig. 9.1 and Fig. 9.2). Other consequences that follow from these two were the Utilized FO “to get to know people from your neighborhood,” “to see what’s going on,” and “to meet people you know and exchange news”3. While the FO “to see other people” was utilized by most respondents, the FO “to be seen” was a consequence utilized by young adults in their mid-twenties and early thirties (see Fig. 9.11). The FO “to sit on the street” was utilized by different kinds of people. Who is sitting on the street, and what they are doing, was what influenced the direction—whether negative or positive—of the affective appraisal of the viewer. For example, one resident of Brady St. said, “...I don’t like people trying to yuppify the area. I dislike Mimma’s. It’s highly bourgeois. All those people coming from outside the neighborhood, it’s good for the economy but socially I consider them ‘undesirables’; people wearing furs. I don’t want that in my neighborhood if it was a vegetarian restaurant and upscale, I wouldn’t mind it because it would be something alternative, it would go well with the attitudes of the people in the neighborhood,” It depended on the viewer’s subcultural values and his, or her, role on the street business owner, resident, shopper, policeman). TO WALK THE STREET Another mid-chain FO is “to walk a street.” The following are the conditions and consequences that the respondents related to this FO. On Downer Ave., the grocery store, Sendik’s, creates a large number of visible pedestrians on the street. With no abutting parking lot (except for the 8-stalls alley-like parking on site), shoppers are seen walking to and from the grocery store; their cars parked along the street or in the city lot across Park

Place (see Fig. 9.12). There is always action around that corner; cars waiting to enter the little 8-stall parking lot, cars pulling in and out of parking spots, shoppers crossing the street. Sendik’s was singled out by all the respondents who talked about Downer Ave. 172

173

Figure 9.11. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to be seenâ&#x20AC;?

(n=8). The type of commercial use—causing one parking space to turn over 12 times from 9 a.m. to 7p.m.—the distance to available parking, and the orientation of the store’s entrance—street level from the sidewalk—are street characteristics that work together to generate visible pedestrian traffic, and consequently, provide other street users with something to watch.

Figure 9.12. The relationship of Sendik’s grocery on Downer Ave. to where its customers park, and the implications of that for visible pedestrians on the street.

The type of commercial use, and its operating hours, has implications for the number of people that come to it as a destination, and the time of day they do so. Businesses and services answering to daily needs—such as the grocery store, drugstore, bakery, post office— attracted many more customers during their operating hours than an art gallery or a furniture store. There are restaurants that open for lunch and dinner only, like Mimma’s on Brady St., and those that open all day into the evening, like the Coffee Trader’s on Downer Avenue. Use patterns on the same street differ with the time of day. One respondent who works in the Downer (movie) Theater’s box office described the path young people walk on summer nights; “In the summertime a lot of high school kids, they just come back and forth. It used to be they used to go from the Coffee Trader’s to Webster’s, just back and forth, and now...they’re going back and forth from the Coffee Trader’s to Gil’s; it’s really a hang out for youth especially high school youth.” I verified that by observation and it was a pattern that extended to include Lixx (icecream parlor) and the Downer Theater (see Fig. 9.13). While popular among all age groups, Lixx, Gil’s (café), and the Coffee Trader’s (restaurant/café) are places that offer snack-like food that high-school and college students can afford; it gives them a place to hang out especially at night.

174

Figure 9.13. The use pattern on Downer Ave. on summer nights.

The Downer theater is another destination on Downer Avenue. “Sometimes on Downer here we sit outside on the benches in front of Lixx on summer nights watching people coming to the theater...” The movie theater, which operates in the evening, also has something to offer daytime pedestrians. Many people who strolled the short block and a half stopped in front of the marquees flanking the theater entrance to read about the coming attractions. “...working on Downer you see a lot of conversations; people coming out and hanging out in front of the Marquees, ‘see this film coming’ and all that.” According to the accounts of a few respondents when Webster’s (bookstore/café) was at the south end of this block, people used to walk there to browse or have a cup of coffee. Now that it has moved out and that corner is temporarily used by the furniture store next door, very few people meander past the clothing store by the theater—they come back right away. It would be interesting to find out the amount of pedestrian traffic generated by each use along a street. Such an endeavor was beyond the scope of my case study, but Table 9.3 demonstrates how this information can easily provide a profile of a street’s potential for having people on the street.

175

Table 9.3. Generators of street-use on Brady St. based on mapping the peak-use hours of different businesses. The information in this table is the result of the question I asked business owners about daily and seasonal use patterns, and from other respondents’ accounts of personal experiences on Brady Street. Business

8-10a

10-12

12-2p

2-4p

4-6p

6-8p

8-10p

10-12

12-2a

Liquor store Up & Under Glorioso’s Mimma’s Walgreens Art Gallery

Another characteristic that was found to influence the FO “to walk the street” was the connection between the destination and the starting point of a pedestrian’s trip. On Downer Ave. and Brady St., residential use is immediately adjacent to the commercial uses. On Downer Ave., its small scale—practically two blocks—and the fact that the two parking lots at the ends have landscaped edges allows the commercial blocks to blend with the surrounding residential use (see Fig. 9.14). On Brady St., residential use is sometimes above the commercial street level, and because of historic preservation, no new driveways are allowed to interrupt the continuous sidewalk, and no plots can be redeveloped into parking lots. People from the residential side streets just turn the corner and walk the sidewalk on the commercial street. The commercial blocks on Farwell and North Ave. are not so closely connected to the residential use around them. Uses requiring large parking lots or block-long blank walls such as the Public Library, gas station, bank, car dealer, school, and warehouses break up the continuity of the commercial blocks and thus decrease their Potential FO “to walk the street.” “...I think what makes Downer special, is that...here residents bleed into the commercial while on Farwell, its commercial seems more distinct...here it only goes on for 2 blocks instead of like 4 or 6 or the entire street...I guess that’s what makes these two blocks so special; is that, it is focused in two blocks.” One respondent said about North Avenue; “I was here for many, many months and I never discovered the Market Place, [Latin American crafts shop on North Ave.] I never discovered it until I drove past it because it is off the main area of Farwell that I walked in.” so her friend who happened to join us towards the end of the interview added; 176

“I would walk on any street; North is not attractive you know, there is nothing to look at. And I never walked on the gas station side of the street. I was just going to Prospect Mall when I saw it.” The distance between source and destination of a pedestrian’s trip was not as important a factor as the qualities of the connecting route. The above quotes illustrate a negative implication of a dispersed commercial area; the decreased opportunity to be entertained while one walks. One respondent was explaining to me why she often walks south on Oakland Ave.—1.2 miles from Capitol Dr. to Locust Ave.—and not less than a third of the distance in the other direction.

Figure 9.14. Land use map of area surrounding Downer Ave. showing plot size and occupancy differences between east and west of the commercial block and a half.

177

“I walk south as far as Locust and even though it is a heavily traveled street and there are a lot of businesses and a lot of activities. This street, because of the different types of businesses that are upstreet and different types of restaurants...it is very interesting...this is a more active area, very active area; you feel that there’s something going on all the time...Sometimes I go just to walk...Sometimes I walk south because I have errands to do...I do walk to Walgreens [North] Sometimes I walk to Kohl’s, but there isn’t much beyond that, there really isn’t.” The Utilized FO “to be entertained while you walk” appeared to be a criterion used by pedestrians to choose a certain route. The pedestrians’ route in the shopping center at the intersection of Brady St., Cambridge Ave., and Farwell Avenue illustrates a negative example (see Fig. 9.15). Except for an occasional person headed for the video store or the public phone stand, people usually cut across the parking lot diagonally instead of walking the path along the stores.

Figure 9.15. Movement paths at the Brady Street shopping center. Path B was the one most used by pedestrians from Brady Street headed for any of the stores on the north side, or to Cambridge Ave. or Farwell Avenue. Pedestrians coming from Cambridge into Brady St. also used this short cut.

The idea for this graphic analysis was inspired by the mapping of “view sheds” used by landscape architects in street studies (Sancar, 1994). 4

Flyers on telephone posts were a controversial issue on Brady Street; residents interviewed (N = 4) thought they lent character to the street, and were informative and interesting, but some business owners thought they conveyed a bad image. 5

The diagonal is the shortest logical path to walk this corner. The hazard of walking through a parking lot does not seem to make pedestrians consider the safer, more sheltered alternative. The drugstore and the video store offer nothing but blank walls – no Potential FO “to look inside.” And when it is offered, a dry cleaners, a haircut salon, and a take-away Subway sandwich shop were not mentioned by users of the street as a significant view on the street. I mapped the views4 mentioned by respondents along two blocks on Brady Street; it seemed a useful way to present the implications of the street edge to the pedestrian’s experience (see Fig. 9.16). Posters and flyers, which characterize Brady St., were singled out as informative and entertaining5; 178

Figure 9.16. View analysis for pedestrians along part of Brady Street

179

Characters such as Andy who is seen every day around 1:30 p.m. standing on the ladder, changing the lettering on the Up & Under’s sign announcing the band that will play that night; or Mike who stands by Walgreens calling “express yourself ” to passers by (he sells a paper called Expressions); or the oldest street sweeper talking with residents. 6

“you can actually read your way down Brady Street...It’s kind of alerts one of what’s going on the street...going up and down the street or going to the Laundromat, or going to buy something, you might be interested in a certain type of music or art or something going on.” In addition to window displays, the characters of the street6, and the people pedestrians could see inside restaurants and stores were mentioned as something interesting to look at. According to the findings, what people could see inside of the private domain was significant to their pedestrian experience. “...because when one drives a car you pass so fast you can’t pay attention to a lot of things—so walking, I’m able to look in a store window or say ‘Hello’ to someone that I happen to know, or say ‘Hello’ to the tailor...” Being able to see inside the private domain also satisfied a need expressed by several respondents; the opportunity “to see signs of life” (see Fig. 9.17). Respondents explained that seeing signs of life helped them know what’s going on, and that there was something reassuring about that. Another explanation given by the respondents was that seeing signs of life makes one aware of other people’s lives; a chance for the mind to reflect and wonder; “there’s this child on Farwell he leaves all his toys out. It’s interesting to walk there everyday and see what toys he left there. It’s not on the front yard but usually like on the sidewalk; the big wheel tipped over and there’s a stuffed animal lying about, you know, remnants of what he played with. It makes me angry because as a kid I had respect for my toys; bring them in every night and here’s this spoilt kid leaving them out for anyone to kick over, steal and all that, but I suppose things like that make my walk to school interesting” Before going any further with discussing consequences of walking the street, I would like to discuss one more condition; the condition of safety. One respondent mentioned block-long blank walls with no entrances when he talked about streets he disliked such as the part of Water St. up by the tanneries. He said he wouldn’t have a place to duck into in case of danger, and he wouldn’t find someone to call for help. The policeman’s criterion for safety on foot was direct; if it’s dark, it’s unsafe, “in the dark anyone can jump you.” Another respondent also mentioned the dark as he compared the River West area, which he frequents, to Brady St. where he resides; “...people fear this area [River West] there’s high sexual assault, there’s high burglary it starts getting more dangerous; it’s darker; there’s not as much activity at night [as Brady St.] The streets are much darker...One of the good things about Brady St. is that it’s so populated that crime doesn’t happen much. Once you get off Brady, it’s a little darker, it’s easier for someone to commit a crime.” What seems to be recurring are the associations of dark with assault, and the presence of other people with safety. To have people on the street at different times of the day is a consequence of the Utilized FO “to walk the street” at different hours. This was found 180

181

Figure 9.17. Conditional chain for the utilized FO “to be entertained while you walk” and “to see signs of life”

on Brady St. because of the mix of residential use, commercial use, and especially night uses (clubs and taverns);

I verified this by observations on Brady St. and the portion of the street from Humboldt to Farwell—the six blocks where most of the taverns are found—had people walking up and down the street till midnight, that was the latest I observed the street. 7

“What is also neat about Brady St. is that it is a store–front street, not residential, yet it is not like downtown; deserted at night because nobody lives there, people are there a lot on business hours but after that it’s out. What’s unique to this area, people live here that’s why there are always people on the street except at 3 or 4 in the morning. There’s always sound on the street, all night...On Friday and Saturday night it can be all night on weekdays, maybe 3 o’clock in the morning, but by 7 o’clock there are people going to work already, so it’s just 3 or 4 hours without people7.” The FO “to feel safe walking” was also brought up by business owners who recognized it as a critical condition for potential clients and shoppers to walk the street (see Fig. 9.18). On Brady St., having available parking close by pacified some customers’ concerns about safety mainly from harassment from an occasional drunk (see Fig. 9.19). On Downer Ave., the concern was more about safety from wheels. To achieve that safety there are frequent marked crosswalks (developed by the city as part of the streetscaping initiated by the merchants in 1978). There is also an unwritten rule along the two commercial blocks that prohibits roller blading. Business owners also explained how walking a distance on the street to the desired destination—when made possible and safe—allows street-level businesses the Potential FO “to benefit from customers coming to nearby destinations” (see Figs. 9.20 and 9.21). This consequence was utilized on Downer Ave. and guided the plans for Brady Street.

Sometimes the competition initiates each business to make some adjustments so that each specialize in a different domain. When Sendik’s on Downer applied for a liquor license, the liquor store across the street objected. Now it worked well for both both. Sendik’s specialized in wines and the liquor store specialized in micro-breweries beer. 8

It should be noted that Pick’n Save is in another area of town. 9

Even when nearby businesses are apparent competitors8 The two grocery stores in the same block on Downer Ave. are such an example. They specialize in different qualities; Sentry in low prices, and Sendik’s in fresh produce, meat and fish. The owner of Sendik’s explains how it works; “...I like to feel he’s a complement because he keeps people on the street. I hope he runs a good clean business to keep the grocery customer on the street; the one that doesn’t buy my groceries. I need him, to be strong for what he does, because he’s a complement, because if someone is going to buy toilet paper from Pick’n Save9, they’ll also buy their apples and oranges there too. And Downer Avenue would lose that customer.”

182

183

Figure 9.18. Conditional chain for the utilized FO “to feel safe walking from one’s car to a business”

Figure 9.19. MIMMAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S restaurant on Brady St. has to put a sign pointing at the private parking across the street. Some customers are so concerned about their safety walking from their car to the restaurant, they call in advance to ask about available nearby parking.

184

185

Figure 9.20. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to benefit from nearby businessesâ&#x20AC;?

186

Figure 9.21. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to keep a clean sidewalk and storeâ&#x20AC;?

The three conditions for that Utilized FO were: to be close to uses that draw many customers, to keep people on the street, to be connected by means of a safe and entertaining path, and to be noticeable on foot. Keeping people on the street was the main goal of the new streetscape project on Brady Street. Making the street look cleaner and safer was one strategy which accounts for the marked crosswalks at each intersection, the rule that bans of posting flyers on the wooden telephone poles (which is raising some controversy in the community), and the pressure that the Brady St. Merchant Association is putting on liquor stores and bars to stop offering cheap liquor (some business owners believe that making cheap liquor unavailable will eliminate public drunkenness and panhandling on the street). Another strategy was to introduce more snack-like food on the street; not fast food restaurants, but places for people to have a coffee, a sandwich, or an icecream. Inspired by the success of the latest addition to the street, the Brewed Awakenings Café, another property owner is developing a Gilatteria; an Italian-style icecream parlor. The contribution of such places toward keeping people on the street was visible on Downer Avenue. I did observe people walking the street till they finished their icecream or the sample of bread they had picked at the bakery. Also on Oakland Ave. in Shorewood, a respondent attributed the increase in pedestrians to the addition of two cafés within the last year; “actually this has become more of a trendy part of town, never used to be, now with Schwartz’s, and Daily’s, people are spending much more time here; you see more people around the area...I’ve seen more people around here than 3 years ago when I first lived here; I see more people move into the area, more people on Sundays...That means it’s getting more trendy” One interesting condition for a business to be noticeable on foot involved the Utilized FO “to keep a clean and accessible sidewalk.” Business owners acknowledged that the sidewalk is public property, some even explicitly assuring me that they have no control over behavior that occurs out there. However, when I asked what they do when something they resent occurred on the sidewalk, they all admitted they would go out and ask the people to move, even threaten to call the police. This was the case even if what those people were doing was not illegal; “the store is laid out and designed with so much glass because we want people to see what’s going on, and we also want to see what goes on outside...No loitering of beggars and so on including street musicians. It’s not a written rule but I would go out and tell them to move...they ask for money, that’s begging, begging scares customers.” The conditional tree in Fig. 9.22 shows how the above FO contribute to the overall goal of street-level businesses, and that is “to attract customers.” Besides consequences for businesses along the street, the FO “to walk the street” has consequences for other users. When the FO “to walk the street” is complemented by a concentration of diverse uses, the street allowed the Utilized FO “to do more than one errand in one trip;” a convenient consequence mentioned by several respondents; 187

188

Figure 9.22. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;to draw customersâ&#x20AC;?

“After two months in Milwaukee, I visited NY for the first time after I moved. I entered the city by subway, I got out and on the 3 blocks to my friends’ place, I fixed my watch, got something to eat and bought some film that I needed. I did three errands on a short walk instead of running around Milwaukee by car to do them. I knew that I could do those in NY, on my way to my friends because they’re very close. They’re are very diverse stores and concentrated...like meeting needs of people up and down the street.” For residents this allowed the Utilized FO “not to drive” and in some cases “not to own a car” (see Fig. 9.23).

“It’s a convenient neighborhood; if you need food, there’s a place for food there’s a place to have coffee, a clothes store, a Laundromat. There’s a drugstore, a shoe repair store; you don’t need to drive away.”

“...Brady Street is the most convenient area for almost anything that I can do; coming to the coffee shop here a lot and read, and I go to a lot of the bars around here to hear the bands...There is a 24 hour copy center, a food store, and a drug store 24 hours.” “...there is Schwartz...I go to sit, have a coffee, read by myself, I go buy books, study once in a while. That’s my bank across the street, the Badger, so it’s actually convenient for a lot of things; I go to Sendik’s every day; that’s where I do my shopping [grocery]. Another consequence of the FO “to walk the street,” especially one with stores, was browse-shopping. To browse and window shop allowed the person to know about what is on sale. It allowed making comparisons before deciding what to buy. It gave the shopper more choices. “I can run into a shop, if I don’t like what they have I go the next. It’s easier to shop. It’s easier to browse, I like to browse...In NY there are shops open in the evening or just shop windows to look at... not that I shop a lot, I just like to go in and look at things, even look at windows of interesting shops.” One respondent strongly expressed the opportunities denied when walking the street is not an option; “what I can’t stand are strip malls like Brown Deer road. You don’t have time to drive by and explore. You have to have a mission... you had to know what they have ahead of time so you wouldn’t go driving around all day to find something you want. I thought it was very confusing...I cannot with ease get to know these places...I cannot explore and know different shops and not necessarily buy...” When the FO “to browse/shop” is available in one’s neighborhood, it leads to a growing familiarity between the shop keepers and the clients. This familiarity was said to contribute to the feeling of neighborhood; “shops know you; they don’t ask, they know your name and address.

189

190

Figure 9.23. Conditional chain for the utilized FO â&#x20AC;&#x153;for convenience where one livesâ&#x20AC;?

191

Figure 9.23. (continued)

I knew shops more, I did not know neighbors in my apartment building...the neighborhood feeling came more from interacting with businesses.” “Sendik’s is really an excuse to come to Downer for the experience, ‘Oh, I need this’ and I really don’t. Here the people know you, they give the kids a cookie, they know the kids by name. Sendik’s on Oakland has some produce, but it lacks familiarity.” From the findings discussed above, the conditions for the Utilized FO “to walk the street” can be summarized into: a reason to walk the street (a destination); the opportunity to be entertained along the way; and to be safe from vehicles and harassment. These conditions are affected by the concentration of diverse uses, and the characteristics of the built-up edge of the street (the number of noticeable elements, the ability to see inside the private domain, the number of entrances). Consequences of walking the street include the Utilized FO for business owners “to attract customers,” “to be accessible to customers,” and “to benefit from customers coming to nearby businesses.” For other users of the street, consequences include “not to drive for daily errands,” “to develop a neighborhood feeling,” and “to browse shop.” In conclusion, the results show that mid-chain FO, such as the two discussed in this section (“to walk the street,” and “to sit on the street”) allowed several other FO (the consequences) for diverse users. I can therefore say that a street that has those Potential FO offers its users more options than a street that does not. I do not deny, or overlook, the influence of culture (even subculture) and personality upon the decision to utilize any FO derived in this case study (the left side of any conditional chain diagram). However, for mid-chain FO there were patterns repeatedly utilized by many respondents sometimes without their being aware of it. Also, it should be noted that my small sample consisted of people with diverse backgrounds and roles. More will be discussed about the generalizability of the findings in Chapter Ten where I compare the findings from the case study with those from the literature. Characteristics of the street that appeared in the condition chains served the purpose of examples of how certain FO were allowed (the right side of the condition chain diagram). The next section discusses FO from the street characteristic-end of the transaction. This would complete the answer to the first research question; what are the characteristics of the street that people relate to the different Utilized FO?

9.2. Characteristics of the street related to Utilized FO Exploring FO in this case study also served to bring to the surface the behavioral implications of design variables. This exercise is illustrative of what could be assessed using FO as a research tool. It serves several purposes: 1. it demonstrates how to describe a street characteristic in terms of Potential FO; 2. it reveals the variables of the street characteristic that are critical to its Potential FO; 192

3. it reveals implications for use that people are aware of, and those that they are not aware of. 9.2.a. Behavioral implications of design variables and building regulations Some design variables were explicitly mentioned by respondents in relation to their experience of the street. Sometimes the respondents themselves attribute a Utilized FO to a certain design variable, and sometimes—and I do make the distinction—they relate their behavior to a characteristic of the street and it is I who elicit the underlying design variable. The following are some design variables to which the respondents attributed Utilized FO of the street: commercial use (what use, size, interface with sidewalk); traffic volume and direction; parking lots (edges, size, and interface with buildings, landscape); property value; In this case study, business owners were the group most aware of behavioral implications of planning and design variables, and that was probably because the current suggested changes concerned commercial streets. On Downer Ave., the Merchants Association was “vehemently” opposing the city’s suggestion to run a street car line through there. The president of the association was explaining how that would dramatically cut the number of available parking spaces, thus decreasing the accessibility of the commercial strip on Downer Ave.; “it would eliminate all [street] parking on Downer Ave. altogether... by the mayor of Milwaukee’s own admission it would make us very difficult for customers to come here unless they are coming by light rail, and I said a lady will not take the street car to come grocery shopping; take a street car and put her bags between her legs. They’re not going to do it...we would be hurt incredibly...” The importance of parking to a business was expressed strongly by several business owners. The owner of a grocery store eloquently explained that, “It’s so crucial; if you’re not accessible to people , people will not come to you. They want to go to a place where they know they can park and walk into the store. Our business is based on people. If we are not accessible we are done. Example, I had a customer come here on the 4th of July, I says ‘Mrs. so and so, we missed you, you haven’t come for so long,’ and she said, ‘I thought I’d come and fight the parking on Downer Avenue because my husband wanted something nice for the holidays,’ and I said, ‘But your husband should want something nice everyday.’ Afraid to come to Downer, afraid not to find a place to park. We see so many people only on the holidays; Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and we ask, ‘Where have you been?’ and they answer, ‘We wanted something nice for the holidays, we are lazy otherwise.’ Other streets on the East Side where things were happening 193

included Brady St. of course, where the city had already worked out construction drawings and schedules to implement the streetscape design, and the commercial blocks on Oakland Ave. where the businesses association had just got the city’s approval to assign it a Business Improvement District (BID). On Brady St., the overall aim of the businesses, as mentioned earlier, was to draw pedestrians from outside the neighborhood to walk the street. Besides the street beautification project, the businesses wanted to reinforce the street’s connection to the waterfronts on both ends; Lake Michigan at the east, and the Milwaukee River at the west, and to that end their plans included a pavilion at the top of the existing flight of stairs that go down to the lake front (see Fig. 9. 24). This connection was foreseen to put Brady St. on the city’s advertised tourist routes, and also to draw boaters from the McKinley Marina.

Figure 9. 24. Plan of Brady St. showing its connection to the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan.

Another variable that business owners on Brady St. were aware of was the negative implications for pedestrians of drive-thru commercial uses. They actually turned down an offer by Taco Bell to move into the street because they think it decreases a pedestrian’s feeling of safety and gives the image of the supremacy of the car. In the case of Oakland Ave., the BID was just recently formed and the business association was still preparing for its first meeting to discuss the plans for the street. However, the president of the association mentioned a few concerns regarding the location of the bus stop, and the trash receptacles. Because of the nearby high school, school kids congregate at the bus stop blocking the narrow sidewalk (some business owners think this also scares the elderly). Moving the bus stop to where the sidewalk could be wider was a suggestion. Trash receptacles were not enough in number especially near where the school kids waited; there was problem of wrappers on the sidewalk. Traffic volume was another variable that was significant to business owners. The exposure to a continuous flow of traffic increased the street-level business’s opportunity to be noticed by drivers. One business owner attributed the increase in his business to a relocation just four stores away. His business moved from a side street to the

194

main commercial street. Not all businesses are equally dependent on exposure to traffic volume. The owner of an art gallery on Brady St. wanted the street to be completely closed to vehicular traffic. At the other end of the spectrum is the grocery store that relies heavily (as shown above) on accessibility by car. Non-business owning users of the street also mentioned traffic volume. Three respondents had dangerous experiences biking and attributed them to heavy traffic. On Brady St., heavy traffic and street parking combined increased the opportunity of bikers being hit by a car getting in and out of a parking space. Heavy traffic and sharp turns on Lake Dr. was also deemed dangerous by bikers. As for pedestrians, heavy traffic was mentioned favorably as adding to the “fast pace” feeling of “night life.” Slow traffic was considered by other respondents as a factor that increased the walkability of the street; “...all those streets you mentioned [Locust, Farwell, and Oakland], there is more traffic...Downer does have a steady flow of traffic but not to the extent like that Oakland or Locust does. For example, this intersection here, it runs basically one way where you go in Shorewood, on Capitol and Oakland, you get traffic coming from all directions. Here you know where the direction of traffic is going; it’s going North to South. The East/West traffic is non-existent... it has a laid back feel.” Although both heavy traffic and slow traffic were mentioned favorably, each allowed a different FO. The diversity of people on the street was attributed in part, by respondents, to some planning characteristics of the surrounding areas which govern: who lives there (lot sizes, densities, land value); who comes there to shop or work (type of businesses); and, when are people on the street (operating hours of businesses, residential/ commercial land use mix). For example, the diversity of people on Downer Ave. was attributed by one respondent to the “geography of the area” as he put it, explaining that “...East of Downer you have the high class residences close to the lake, west of it you have your college students living along with other families, and then you have the business—people who come here to work—so you get all these factions coming together on Downer, this rendezvous point of sorts, for all walks and ages of life ...With the campus being so close and the lake, you know, with the high class residences. Downer is like this threshold, bridging the two, that of campus life and residences” A diversity in property value, density, and occupancy (single family and multifamily) zoning is the key behind the diversity of the population on the East Side of Milwaukee in general, and around Downer Ave. in particular (see Fig. 9.14). The much appreciated diversity of people on Brady St. was explicitly attributed to the huge difference in property value between the area just south of Brady St. (renovated condominiums and duplexes) and the area just north of Brady St. (run down cheap rentals), and the two public housing towers close by. The business owners on Brady St. (who are also residents) appreciate the economic and racial diversity of the street. What they don’t like is the public drunkenness and 195

begging that afflicted Brady St. since the mid 1980s—residents consistently blamed the law that allowed alcoholics and drug abusers into the public housing towers just off of Brady Street. However, the economic redevelopment they initiated—forming a Business Improvement District (BID) and commissioning the city to streetscape the whole street—is raising the price of properties and rents, hence driving out the lower income groups which contribute to the diversity of people on the street; the diversity that is the very reason the upper classes are so interested to go to, or live by Brady Street (see Fig. 9.25); “ Brady St. is one neat little Neighborhood; a piece of history of Americana, and Wisconsin, and the Midwest. It’s fun to be involved with the street. It’s fun to get to know old time Italians and Poles who are still around the area...you’ll find people that make $200,000/ year and people that make $2,000/year. Between 10 and 1 you’ll see more Jaguars and Mercedes, with more beat up trucks within a block from here.” The above quote is by a resident of Brady St. who drove a new BMW. On the other end of the income spectrum one residents I talked to on Brady St. was looking for a new place to live, because he couldn’t afford the raised rent any more (blue collar worker), and another had just lost his house because of the property tax increase in the last year (goldsmith artist currently bar tending at Regano’s tavern); “I’ve lived here through the 60’s and 70’s and it was a pleasant area to live in. Now I can’t afford to live here. You go here down 1 block and people are paying $700 /month for a 2-bedroom flat. For me, that can be 1/2 a month take home pay to stay alive...In the 80’s people could get all this money and they were paying high interest rates, but they were buying all these houses, like 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, one after another. Then the prices are going so high, it drove the affordability out of my reach...When I came here in the 60’s, I was fascinated, I could go to Glorioso’s and get great food, I could go here at Scortino’s and get great bread. I could go to 3 or 4 clubs in my neighborhood and listen to Jazz and whatever, and I was just a workman. Now I have to go and live where that isn’t, because I can’t

Figure 9.25. Diversity of people on Brady St. The view from Mimma’s restaurant where an entree averages $17; one instant a homeless person pushing his world belongings in a grocery cart, the other instant, two well dressed young men walking a Dalmatian.

196

afford to live where that is...I would love to stay here, because of the diversity, There is so many things. It’s like wearing our tights, from where we live , we could walk to the lake. These are all nice things and a price is put on everything that used to be free.” Other design variables frequently mentioned by respondents involved parking lots. “[parking lots surrounding a building] cut off any pedestrian access to the building, you could only get there by car, because you don’t want to walk down a place where people are driving in and out...[an] island surrounded by mechanics...the whole psychological barrier...” “...yesterday I was on Oakland, in Shorewood, in Daily’s Cafe. I wanted to walk down, I thought of going to Pizza Hut, and I started walking and it was like so far away I got so lazy, I just said ‘Ah, forget it’ I just went back to school...right by Kohl’s there, there’s this big gap that separates the two...” Large parking lots were found to influence people’s perception of distance. An example mentioned earlier is that of a respondent who said she would never walk up one street because there was nothing there. When I reminded her of the two-block-long commercial area, she said it was too far to walk. This same person was telling me how frequently she walks three times that distance down the same street in the other direction. The landscaping in the parking lot and the quality of the edge that separates the parking lot from the sidewalk were two factors that affected the pedestrians experience. A new landscaped parking lot was pleasing to walk past because the trees and the people walking on the lawn areas, lead to the Utilized FO “to have something to watch” for the passing pedestrian. Other parking lots mentioned positively were the two city lots flanking the Downer Ave. commercial blocks. Although quite large in size, the dense green hedge and trees at the edges didn’t make pedestrians perceive those parking lots to decrease the street’s Potential FO “to walk the street” (see Fig. 9.26). The following are examples of design variables that strongly influence street characteristics that respondents mentioned, but were not themselves identified by the respondents. Those include plot size and building height. Plot size was not mentioned by respondents, but they talked about the negative experience of walking by a long blank wall with no entrances. The lack of entrances or windows in a long wall denied the pedestrian the Potential FO “to escape from assault,” “to look at something while you walk,” and “to find people if one needs assistance.” On Brady St. where the new project aims at making the street interesting for people to walk through, the merchants association were aware of this point and dictated their opinion on a new development at the edge of the historic district. The owners of this new development—a nation-wide drugstore/convenience store chain—intended a blank walled building in a sea of parking. The owners needed the support of the Brady Street Merchants Association to apply for a liquor license, and a 24-hour operation license. The Association used that to negotiate a new design with

197

Figure 9.26. The parking lot on Downer Avenue and Park Place. Parked cars are concealed from pedestrians

the owners. The building, which is more than half a block long, is now to be aligned with the sidewalk, with an entrance from the sidewalk (in addition to the one from the parking lot in the rear), and windows along the facade (see Fig. 9. 27). In some portions where there cannot be real windows, there would be recessed panels to put up public art. The members of the Association felt strongly about this block which separates Brady St. from the high income residents on Prospect Avenue. They believe the size of the parking lot and blank-walled building that used to be on that site were the reason pedestrians from Prospect Ave. did not frequently walk to Brady Street; “...and right now there is no intercourse between Prospect Ave. and Brady St. and one of the reasons has always been this wasteland. There is nothing to draw them in...” The above characteristics—large parking lots and long blank facades—are only allowed by large plot sizes. The East Side of Milwaukee is characteristic for its small plot sizes because it was subdivided before there were any zoning regulations (Hislop, 1994). But the possibility for new development on large plots is still there,

Figure 9.27. Design plans for the new development at the edge of Brady St. historic district.

199

On Brady St., there is a currently large vacant lot which will soon be developed into a small shopping arcade with residential use on the upper levels. The Historic Preservation regulations safeguard against developing long blank walls and large parking lots by requiring building up to the property line (with parking in the back), dividing the facade up using bays, entrances, and windows to be compatible with the rest of the street. 10

since there is no zoning regulation that prohibits a developer to buy and combine several small plots to form a large one10. According to the findings, street users may not be aware of the implications of large plot size, but they showed awareness of the street edge characteristics that may rise as a consequence. When asked about building height specifically, respondents said it was irrelevant. Their choice of streets they liked included streets which varied in the height of its built-up edges. Only one of the 24 respondents mentioned building height in association with a Utilized FO; she would walk on Wall St. in New York City on the weekend and enjoy the aesthetic effect; “I love the way buildings come so close to the sidewalk, there is not a grassy area that you have to walk through to get to the building. All the buildings line up, like a wall, and that gives a neat effect especially on Wall Street. This feels like canyon lands; I like hiking, I call it that because the buildings are so tall and close together, it feels like a canyon. It’s like the building, the sidewalk, the street and the same on the other side. The effect is very intense on weekends, say in Wall St. because there’s no foot traffic...We’d always walk through the streets on the weekends, part of our day we’d walk on Wall St....” Other respondents explicitly expressed the irrelevance of building height when asked about it, but then, they would say something like Downer Ave. being sunny was important to their experience see Fig. 9.28).

Figure 9.28. A schematic cross-section of a street showing the effect of building height on the location and duration of sun and shade on the sidewalks. Calculations can be made to know these variables at different times of the year, and different times of the day (e.g. Bosselman et al, 1983).

This serves the purpose of revealing that users may not be aware of the implications of certain design variables, whereas they may feel strongly about street characteristics that evolve as a result of this variable. 9.2.b. Design variables associated with the largest numbers of Utilized FO Some characteristics of the street were attributed several Utilized FO. Those FO help designers (myself included) realize the significant role a design feature as mundane as a back alley, or a detail as small as big glass windows may play. Here are some of the 200

street characteristics associated with the largest number of Utilized FO. The listed Utilized FO are those which the respondents themselves linked to each street characteristics.

The alley –––– Utilized FO

UFO: to play without adult supervision

UFO: to learn social skills

(kids)

“you learn social skills, adults are not there to organize your game for you,” “in the confines of the alley we would make rules to accommodate our game; if you hit Miss Olsen’s house it’s automatic out; if the ball rolls on Mom’s garden it’s automatic out, you know...” UFO: to feel free

(kids),(teens)

“it’s less formal than the front, you don’t have to be at your best behavior,” “you don’t have to worry about a broken window or anything like that in the alley” “ that sense of freedom, not being conscious of others watching you” also shared by front yards + dark “ at night...we would play games like hide and seek in the dark...at night all the yards opened up...because of the darkness...we could just walk across all the yards, you had that sense of freedom at night being young and out...”

UFO: to bond with neighborhood kids

(kids)

“in the confines of the alley we would make rules to accommodate our game...silly things like that; it was a neighborhood thing” also shared by front yards, and backyards “10 houses per block, 30ft. front yards, then backyards, and the alley, so there was lots of openness, great for hide and go seek around the houses, there was a neighborhood camaraderie...”

UFO: to have a territory

(kids)

“we played in the street as well, but the alley...it was OUR alley; I knew every nook and cranny in the alleyway...it was more private because it was almost an extension of our backyard, while the front catered more to the street, more on display”

UFO: to do “naughty”, illegal things

(teens)

“there were a lot of squealing tires a year ago,” “the garbage would be out on Thursday nights, you’d always have like mountain bikers coming by at night kicking over the garbage with their tires,” “the basketball hoops on the garages...high school kids who learnt to jump would like bend all the rims,” “we walked through alleys to avoid the police but they saw us throwing the beer cans across the fence.”

201

UFO: for convenient and efficient garbage collection

(resident elderly)

“at least we have the alley; we don’t have to push ours all the way to the curb”

UFO: to access

(residents, businesses)

“there are people who only have access to their house or a place to park through this alley,” “We unload most of our stuff from the alley in the back...”

+ abutting solid wall UFO: to play bounce a ball back at yourself

(kids)

“you play tennis alone, or racquet ball against the side of the garage,” “we played a lot of basketball...basketball hoops were hanging on garages all along the alleyway.” also shared by front porch steps “it was a concrete porch, I would sit by the street curb and pitch balls into the stairs, so that it’ll bounce back to me. It’s just like playing on a wall”

UFO: to play games requiring a hard surface

(kids)

“a perfect place to play ball and ride your bike” also shared by collective driveway, and street + light traffic

UFO: to play near home, often, and for long periods of time

(kids)

“it’s a natural place for kids to play” “we had no curfew, we’d stay out till midnight in summer” also shared by collective driveway, and street + light traffic, and front yards

UFO: to have some privacy and quiet

(resident parents)

“you get out of your parents’ hair, and they get out of yours”

diversity range (Utilized FO for whom?):

for children for teenagers for store owners for resident elderly for resident parents

202

I was excited when the findings of my case study revealed the secret so well kept by urban designers and theoreticians. In every prescriptive urban design book, “enclosure” of the street takes up a great many pages. Principles like “continuous walls,” “building at the edge of the property line,” and “well defined urban spaces,” are given the importance of something sacred, without explaining why. Kevin Lynch attempted an explanation. Phil Thiel’s experiments explored the qualities of surfaces and their proportions that lead to experiencing different degrees of enclosure. However, he still did not provide an answer why enclosure was so good. here are some suggestions from the experience of a few Milwaukeans.

The built-up edges of the street vs. large open spaces, highways & large parking lots––– Utilized FO

UFO: not to get bored

(drivers, pedestrians)

UFO: to know what’s happening, keep up with change

(drivers)

“I collect what’s on that street; like a place we used to go to all-you-can-eat meals when we were more into eating...and then we notice if it was closed, and then it’s open again.”

UFO: to wonder about other people’s stories (drivers, pedestrians)

UFO: to know about new places, “resources”

(drivers)

“I collect places in my mind...I notice places I’d like to come back to...I’m noticing playgrounds to take my grandson to...”

UFO: to notice something new every time

(drivers, pedestrians)

“I will notice if there is a house I have never seen before and I’ve passed it a 100 times, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, there’s a new house, I never knew it was here and it’s rather attractive. I wonder who lives here’”

UFO: to bring back memories “my husband and I used to cruise Wisconsin Avenue,”

+ at night

UFO: to look at the lights

(drivers, pedestrians)

“I like looking into people’s lit up living rooms at night and admire, and wonder...”

203

“you look at all the lights in the store windows” “in Christmas we have to make the rounds on the East Side and compare decorations”

+ nice architecture

UFO: to enjoy the aesthetics

(pedestrians)

“I love the way buildings come so close to the sidewalk...All the buildings line up, like a wall and that gives a neat effect...like canyon lands, I like hiking. I call it that because the buildings are so tall and close together, it feels like a canyon...the effect is very intense on weekends, say in Wall St., because there’s no foot traffic; you’d walk there alone...”

+ commercial ground level

UFO: to cruise

UFO: to look at shop windows

UFO: to greet shop owners

(pedestrians)

UFO: to see pedestrians on the street

(pedestrians)

(drivers) (drivers, pedestrians)

diversity range (Potential FO for whom?):

for people on foot for people in cars, and buses

It seemed that the built-up edges of the street + small houses, have the Potential FO “never to get bored” and “to see what’s happening,” for passersby.

Big glass windows ––Utilized FO

+ commercial use

UFO: to see outside

(employees and cashiers)

and therefore;

UFO: to talk about the weather with customers

UFO: to see trouble in advance

UFO: to make sure customers are not harassed outside the store

UFO: to see the produce displayed in the showcase

and therefore;

UFO: to draw people, who did not have the intention to buy

UFO: to attract attention to store

(pedestrians, drivers)

(pedestrians, drivers) 204

UFO: to see the inside of store

diversity range (Utilized FO for whom?):

(pedestrians) for store owners for store employees for pedestrians for drivers

Certain uses such as the firehouse, the café, and the regular meeting place, were especially significant because they offered many FO for different users. The firehouse on Brady St. was more to the community than a dispenser of emergency services. It was significant to the young, and the old, the resident, and the visitor of the neighborhood.

The firehouse –––

Perceived FO: to feel safe

UFO: to get adult attention

UFO: to get all excited

(residents)

(children, mentally ill) (children, mentally ill)

+ step out

UFO: to enjoy good weather on private turf

(fire fighters)

UFO: to eat lunch outdoors on private turf

(fire fighters)

+ step out + location on commercial street

UFO: to recognize people from the neighborhood

(fire fighters)

UFO: to spot trouble,

(fire fighters)

UFO: to talk with residents

UFO: to play with children from the neighborhood

UFO: to know neighborhood news

UFO: to have a daily stop and chat

UFO: to ask for help more easily

UFO: to talk with fire fighters

(fire fighters) (fire fighters) (residents),(fire fighters) (residents) (pedestrians, drivers) (residents),(ped.),(drunks)

diversity range (Utilized FO for whom?):

for children for mentally ill for residents in the vicinity for firemen for pedestrians (general)

205

The café was another element on the street whose FO seem to be growing upon Americans. Three of the cafes mentioned by respondents were all less than a year old. Several respondents expressed their desire to see more of them open. The café ––––––––

UFO: to make a spontaneous stop on your way

(drivers & pedestrians)

UFO: to read

(anyone)

UFO: to study

(student)

UFO: to meet a friend

(anyone)

UFO: to have lunch

(residents, pedestrians)

UFO: to spend time inexpensively

(residents, pedestrians)

UFO: to break the day

UFO: to have a cup of coffee

(mothers with young children) (residents, pedestrians)

+ transparent interface with the street

UFO: to watch people on the street

(clientel)

UFO: to be seen

(clientel)

UFO: to recognize someone, greet them

(clientel)

diversity range (Potential FO for whom?):

for young adults for students for unemployed for older people for pedestrian for drivers for mothers with young children

206

Presenting the findings with respect to the physical characteristics served to illustrate how the concept of FO can actually be used to describe elements of the street. For example, instead of “café” as a nominal qualifier, one could describe it in terms of its Potential FO; a place: to make a spontaneous stop (pedestrian or driver)

to be among people; to see, hear, and meet people to drink or eat to spend time inexpensively to break the routine of the day for an excuse to watch people and street life for a long time

207

The Potential FO “to make a spontaneous stop” was utlilized by drivers only on the condition that parking was available nearby. 11

9.3. Do people think of streets in terms of FO? What attributes do people use to describe their experience of the street? Do people describe their experience in terms of Utilized FO? Do they describe the street in terms of Perceived FO? This is the second research question addressed in this case study. To answer this question, I start by exploring in detail the terms that people actually used. The following is a review of the different kinds of attributes respondents used to describe the street environment? Visual attributes, like “complexity”, “openness”, “enclosure” and so on, are the main language used by architects and aesthetics E-B researchers (see Gabr, 1994 for most recent review). These attributes are known to be etic labels; labels given by designers and researchers to describe the relationship between a group of street characteristics. It is no surprise that ordinary people would not use these terms often to describe a street. One respondent used the term “spacious,” and “compatible,” but others used more common terms such as “nice,” “hideous,” and “interesting.” Still, visual attributes of the physical form were the mode least used to describe the street. The interviews revealed that people used other abstract attributes to describe the street, such as “it’s alive,” “something is going on there,” “it’s not dead quiet,” “not isolated.” I refer to these attributes as use-related attributes just to distinguish them from street characteristics, behaviors, and visual attributes. People also used another group of attributes to describe the street. These use-related attributes summarized so many street characteristics, behaviors, and conditions, and were so personal, that I refer to them as meaning-loaded attributes and consider them the most abstract “it’s more urban,” “it’s more cosmopolitan,” “it gives you the feeling of a community.” Meaning-loaded attributes were not used often by respondents, but when they were, it was to summarize a long list of less abstract use-attributes, Perceived FO, street characteristics and behaviors.

People described their experience in terms of: (a) their own behavior; - overt behavior; “I look...” “I drive...” “I walk...” - mental (cognitive) behavior; “I notice...” “I wonder...” “I collect places in my mind” - feelings; “I feel unsafe” “I feel I’m alive” (used very rarely) (b) the physical street characteristics; “trees...” “windows...” “highrise condos...”

“cars...”

“the smell of chocolate...”

“tending their yards...” “heavy pedestrian traffic...” “people drive, park, and cross the street...” (d) visual attributes; “the street is spacious...” “it’s bright...” “the facade is hideous...” (e) use-related attributes; “it’s alive...” “something is going on there...” “it’s not dead quiet...” “there’s nothing beyond there...” “it’s unpredictable...” “there’s a lot to do per foot...” “a lot of activities...” (f) Perceived FO; “people could actually look inside...” “it allows you to meet different people...” “in a strip mall, you just can’t browse...it is simply impossible.” (g) meaning-loaded attributes; “it’s more urban...” “it’s more cosmopolitan...” “it gives you the feeling of a community...” The attributes most used by people were behaviors (a, c), Perceived FO (f), and use–related attributes (e), which, as we saw in the condition chains, are translatable to opportunities to do something; that is, to FO. The least used were visual attributes (d) followed by physical street characteristics (b), and meaning–loaded attributes (g). The following explains how the respondents used these attributes to communicate their experience. Because I asked respondents to talk about their experiences of streets they liked and streets they disliked, they would start by telling me what they do on a certain street (walk, talk, drive, play) and why they like doing this on that particular street. They started breaking down their own actions into smaller associated activities always linking them to a characteristic of the street: “I look into a store,” “I notice the flowers in the window,”

209

“I see the people tending their yards.” The street characteristics were often in terms of the label in the language given to each street characteristic (store, flowers, window, yards) and other people’s behavior (people walking, heavy traffic, children playing). Interestingly, people would follow that with an explanation of how this is significant to them; in other words, the higher-level FO that this behavior/physical characteristic transaction serves. “There are certain streets I like because I can speed because the lights are set right, like Wells Street...I would never take Capitol Dr. although it has less traffic lights, there’s something about it I don’t like, I like to look. Wells is interesting to me although it’s just little rooming houses now. I like architecture. You know, chimneys; I would never, never be bored...” People were describing the street in terms of what it does to them. For example, in the quote above, respondent “J” explained why she would drive a certain street by relating the FO it allowed, other than just to get from A—to—B fast.

Driving from “to look...” get bored driving”

“...chimneys...”

“...never

A— to— B (plan) (Utilized FO)

(activity) (street characteristic)

Even more interesting, was to find that people used the language of Potential FO directly; “it allows you to...” “you could only...” “I’m able to...” “you can...” “you have the possibility to...” The following is an excerpt from an interview that illustrates the use of the language of Potential FO.

“it’s the first time they’d ever done real windows where people could actually look into the store...”

“When I came here in the 60’s, I was fascinated, I could go to Glorioso’s and get great food, I could go here at Scortino’s and get great bread. I could go to 3 or 4 clubs in my neighborhood and listen to Jazz and whatever, and I was just a workman... from where we live , we could walk to the lake...Now, I have to 210

go and live where that isn’t, because I can’t afford to live where that is.” The above review suggests that respondents thought of the streets in terms FO. Based on these findings, and given the diversity of my sample, I conclude—at least tentatively—that FO is the natural way for people to perceive and describe the street environment.

211

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER TEN

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Chapter Ten

Conclusion of Part II and Links to Part I In this chapter serves as a conclusion to Part II, and it also addresses the links between Part I and Part II. I discuss the theoretical implications of the case study findings; what the case study tells us about the concept of FO. I also present findings from the case study that had resonance in the literature analyzed in Part I. This exercise serves to put the case study in perspective; it explores its links to current knowledge. This level of richness was found in Brower & Williamson’s (1974) study where observed use patterns were accompanied by interviews that explained why. However, not all studies that conducted interviews about use patterns got this information (e.g. Schnee’s, 1993); it depends on what questions are asked and how. Other studies about street use miss out completely on the why and therefore the interpretation of the findings are highly speculative (e.g. EubanksAhrens, 1991). On the other hand, extensive observation of a large sample of sites and users as William Whyte’s (1980) work in New York City, makes up for the lack of interviewing to some extent. 1

10.1. Theoretical implications of the case study findings 10.1.a. The meaning component of behavior Interviewees responses included the reason behind the overt behavior1 . Describing the physical environment in terms of Potential FO retains that richness within the concept itself. Respondents described their experience in terms of Utilized FO such as “to wonder about other people’s lives,” “to greet a familiar face,” “to see what’s going on,” rather than in more “molecular” level Utilized FO: “to sit,” “to stand,” “to walk.” The level of Utilized FO that people used includes the meaning of the behavior; why does “M” drive Santa Monica Blvd.?; why does “N” shop at Sendik’s on Downer?; why does “O” take the children out on the sidewalk at 4:30 p.m. every day? Because it’s the shortest route, because the produce is better, because it is warmer at that time of day, are not the reasons. “M” says that Lake Drive is a “very nice” street to drive and Wilson Dr. would be the shortest; “N” admits Sendik’s on Oakland has the same quality produce and is actually closer to her house; and “O” realizes that instead of going to a park, she deliberately lingers by the driveway where cars come in at that time of day; “In the apartment building where I live, I would go out with the kids around 4 p.m. when everyone is coming home, because then they wave to the kids. I like to see people, I find myself gravitating to the driveway.”

This corresponds to the distinction made by Genereux, Ward & Russell (1983) of a behavioral “plan” (e.g. play basketball), a higher-level “goal” (e.g. to be fit), and a “subplan” of actions (e.g. go to gym, change clothes, dribble). The “plan” and the “subplan” (Genereux ,Ward & Russell, 1983) are similar to what Stephen Kaplan (1983) refers to as “purposive” behavior and “necessary” behavior, respectively. 3 The term used in research about children’s use of streets (e.g. Gehl, 1987; Moore, 1991). 2

The responses demonstrate two points. First, that the description of “use” in terms of Utilized FO reveals the chain that links overt behavior (observed) which is usually a means-to-an-end, to higherlevel functions2 (higher-level plan or goal). The literature, for the most part, describes use in terms of “activity.” Table (10.1) shows an example that illustrates the difference between the activity, “to play”3 and the language of Utilized FO which reveals less obvious functions associated with the activity.

214

Table 10.1. Utilized functional opportunities associated with the activity play

Activity

Features mentioned

Utilized FO

playing

alley

to:

in the street and alley

garage side wall

• to play

tree

• feel free

front lawns

• to stay out late

stoop

• bond w/neighborhood kids

the roadway

• know and be known by police officers & neighbors

slow traffic

• be creative

passing cars planter between sidewalk & curb driveway

The concept of FO can therefore accommodate different levels of meaning so we need not separate behavior from meaning. In other words, FO as a concept, retains the meaning behind the activity4 . This confirms the working hypotheses derived in Part I: Potential FO is one language from abstract goals—to—needs—to—molar behavior—to—molecular behavior. The second point the responses reveal is that the spontaneous “activities-while-there” (Genereux, Ward & Russell’s (1983) term) are often the real reason for going and doing a particular planned behavior.

“I mostly come to Sendik’s on Downer...Sendik’s is really an excuse to come to Downer for the experience, ‘Oh, I need this’ and I really don’t...Sendik’s on Oakland has some produce, but it lacks familiarity...the access is from the parking lot, not the sidewalk...the layout of the store is cold...For very big loads I go to Pick and Save. I like Sendik’s on Downer because it’s small enough. It’s more open; you see more people while you’re inside, the partitions between isles are shorter, you can see the street, the ramp to the new extension is great for kids, they love it.” “Now since Gil’s opened this became the mission, coming to Gil for a cup of coffee, it helps break the day. I dislike the Coffee Trader; the service is bad, and they are not easy with kids, you can’t lounge.” “Our lives depend on these one and a half blocks or even shorter because since Webster closed I never walk there anymore.”

215

• learn social skills • be naughty

Almost a reverse approach to that of Genereux, Ward, & Russell (1983) who were exploring the behavior component of meaning—the concept of FO retains the meaning component of behavior. Amos Rapoport (1977) refers to the lartter as the latent aspecvt of activities. 4

In the literature, conclusions are drawn based on observed overt behavior. For example short conversations and exchanging greetings on neighborhood streets, in the literature, were regarded as activity secondary to whatever chores the person was doing (shopping or repairing the car). The findings of the case study reveal that some of these chores were just an excuse to interact. The social interaction was stated as the need more than the “grocery shopping” or “having a coffee.” Similar findings were showed in the use of common spaces in educational facilities (Campbell & Campbell, 1988). In urban design, Chris Alexander referred to this phenomenon as “social excuse” (Alexander et al, 1977). A few studies included comments to the same effect but they were stated as speculations. For example Brenda Eubanks-Ahrens (1991) speculated that the men observed in her study were doing more car repairs in front of their homes than was needed. Another speculation was that women alone would use plazas with tables and chairs, because it gave them an excuse to sit on the street without feeling embarrassed (Cooper Marcus & Francis, 1990). Those speculations from the literature, and the findings in the case study, indicate that sometimes people need a legitimate excuse to sit on the street, or seek the company of other people. “I don’t hang out on Downer, it’s just my neighborhood. Usually I’m on the go; where I’m just like walking by, grabbing a paper. I guess I can be included in that “genre” of hanging out on Downer...I’m sitting here the last two weeks with Gil’s here [a cafe] , but when the Laundromat was here I never would hang out here; I don’t sit on the street.” 10.1.b. The interactive effect The findings also reveal that the FO concept acknowledges the interactive effect among features. This effect has not been investigated before in research on “affordances”—the closest concept to that of FO. According to the concept of affordances, a ledge may be defined as a sittable feature—in other words, it has the Potential FO “to sit” in general. But using the concept of FO allows us to articulate the different Utilized FO this ledge has depending on its relation to other street characteristics. Table (10.2) illustrates the example of the sittable ledge. The findings in this case study revealed how different characteristics of the street play a conditional role modifying higher-level Utilized or Perceived FO. Notice that all Utilized FO involve sitting but using FO distinguishes who and what they are doing sitting. Also notice that the condition could be a physical feature, a regulation, or another Potential FO. The above example is from the data, and therefore restricted by the sample in this case study. A larger sample may reveal more Utilized FO of the ledge allowed under different conditions.

216

Table 10.2. Ledges: an example of the interactive effect among features

Environmental feature

Conditions

Perceived/Utilized FO

for WHOM?

office store

to have lunch to take a break

employees

cafe

to wait for someone to wait for a table to watch people

pedestrians & cafe clients

solid wall

to beg to hang out to harass passers by

drunks poor residents bums

big windows

to keep unwanted loiterers off the ledge

business owners

street level use closest to ledge

PFO to see the street from inside

One of the conditional FO in this example may well be dependent for its own existence, on other Potential FO. The condition chain shown in Figure (10.1) is an illustrative example of such a relationship. In this example, the Potential FO “for many people to walk the street,” was a condition for the Potential FO “to watch people,” yet, itself, it depends for its presence on a host of other Potential FO. To get many people to walk the street; i.e. high pedestrian traffic, is the primary goal of street level businesses. For the person sitting on the street, it is part of the street scene; it is “something to watch.” For the pedestrian walking, it implies that the street offered a destination, and the means to walk to it.

217

Figure 10.1. Example of a condition chain showing the interdependence between FO of the same level of abstraction.

10.1.c. Potential FO cut across the scales of the physical environment

Small plots and historic preservation may have restricted development to small scale businesses managed by owners, which then led to these characters being part of the street scene. On Downer Ave. where the scale is similarly small, and many stores are managed by owners, this behavior was not visible with the exception of Gil’s Bongo Lounge owners who were often standing on the sidewalk talking with customers. 5

Analyzing the street in terms of the views it offers to passers by is not new to urban design, but the findings in this case study revealed different kinds of views than those considered in the literature: continuity of skyline, unfolding vista (Bacon, 1967; Cullen, 1961), view sheds (Sancar, 1994) along side streets open spaces. My compilation of views on part of Brady St. (shown in Fig. 9.16) illustrates the implications for a passer by—a pedestrian in this case—of the characteristics of the street edge. Those views included: people sitting inside the restaurants and cafes; people inside stores; renovated historic buildings; flyers posted on telephone poles, fences and store windows; store window displays; and the characters of the street who were seen doing the same thing every day. The presence of these characters is not governed by design, but may be a result of the kind of businesses design variables allow to develop along the street5 . This analysis revealed that the street characteristics that are significant to the pedestrian’s experience can be the result of design intervention at different scales. The views mentioned were not restricted to design features usually governed by a streetscape urban design project. Instead those views are the result of planning variables such as plot size and land use zoning, historic preservation regulations governing the architecture, as well as the people who live there who have the tradition of posting flyers on old telephone poles. Many of these street characteristics mentioned above tend to be neglected in urban design literature.

218

10.1.d. FO come in different levels of abstraction People described Utilized FO’s of the street in terms of molecular behavior6; “I look...,” “I play...,” “I notice...,” as well as in terms of higher-level plans; “...I never get bored,” “...to be seen,” “to wave to a familiar face,” and yet higher-level goals; “to live in a real neighborhood,” “here, I can be myself,” “to feel I’m alive.” Respondents explained how characteristics of the street allow, or inhibit, the opportunity to do certain behaviors/activities, serve certain functions, fulfill certain goals. Each of those instances defines a Utilized FO at a different level of abstraction. Those Utilized FO range from the opportunity to fulfill a goal-like function; “to feel free,” “to be myself,” “to have fun,” which are heavily loaded with meaning, to more behaviorallyexplicit functions; “to watch people,” “to see familiar faces,”

Robert Bechtel & John Zeisel (1987) differentiate between “molar” behavior (to visit with a friend) vs. “molecular” behavior (sit, drink tea, chat). This distinction is first mentioned earlier in Chapter Three. 6

to actual “molecular” behaviors ; 6

“to sit,” “to drink,” “to chat.” The findings revealed that when the street allows some basic molecular behaviors, such as the Potential FO “to see my neighbor walk to their car” and the Potential FO “to hear each other speak.” Together these two FO, when utilized, may create other Potential FO: “to ask for assistance,” “to know ones neighbors.” These Potential FO—alone, or in combination with other Potential FO— when utilized, may allow higher-level Potential FO: “to feel safe,” “not to feel lonely.” The sequence is not hierarchical because of the interdependence between FO that was illustrated in Figure (10.1).

219

As mentioned earlier in Chapter Nine, several low-level-ofabstraction FO (usually occupying the middle section of a conditional chain) keep appearing in different chains as the condition to the fulfillment of several Utilized FO. For example, the view into the private domain contributed to a number of desirable Utilized FO for pedestrians. It allowed, in part, the Utilized FO: “to see signs of life,” “to wonder about other people’s life,” “to browse-shop without buying,” “to be entertained while you walk,” “to greet a familiar face.” Similar mid-chain FO are: “to see inside the private domain,” the Potential FO “to sit on the street,” the Potential FO “to see, and hear other people,” the Potential FO “for many people to walk the street,” “to have something to watch.” Street users utilized those in a subtle way; they were not frequently mentioned as a function of the street, but rather as means to an end. Therefore, these Potential FO are more generalizable (within the case study) than the ends themselves; they varied less with factors such as culture and personality. This conclusion is further corroborated by the fact that the categories of FO derived from the secondary analysis in Part I are at the same low-level of abstraction and many FO are found in both lists. Further research using FO is required before any more conclusions are drawn.

10.2 Links between the case study findings and the literature Discussing the links between the case study findings and those from the literature (secondary analysis in Chapter Six) serves to increase the credibility of the case study findings and suggest the generalizability of some of them. The categories of FO derived from the literature (secondary analysis and theory critique) in Part I included the following FO: to generate potential users for near home recreation to walk a street to stop and stay to draw pedestrians to see, to hear, to connect with people to know about places and how to get there to have something interesting to look at to appropriate space Most of these FO were found in the case study. I will not discuss each category, but only a few to show the relationship. In the case study some respondents said they would go shopping more often than they need to just to have an excuse to get out of the house, and be where other people are. This was expressed more passionately by those who work at home, those who are retired, those who cannot afford paid recreation facilities, or those who do not drive. Jan Gehl (1987) had discussed the importance of this FO which he called “the

220

ability to see, to hear, and to meet other people.” The case study revealed that some groups are more dependent on the street for this FO than others. The permeability of the public/private boundary was researched in the field of E-B in relation to the social and psychological implications for those inside the private domain (to control their privacy, the degree of social interaction, the meaning of home—Altman & Gauvain, 1981; Korosec-Serfaty, 1985). Only a few observational studies explored its implications for street users; such as its role in sustaining people “to walk the street” (as discussed in Chapter Six). The role of permeability in public space design was given much more attention in prescriptive design literature (e.g. Bentley et al, 1985). Its assumed function is to entertain pedestrians; a FO which appeared in my case study to strongly influence the pedestrian’s choice of route. But, as mentioned earlier, the case study revealed several more FO associated with permeability of the private/public boundary of the street. In urban design literature, some of them were mentioned as unique instances of insight. For example, the ability to see inside the private domain was associated with “signs of life” (Rowe and Koetter, 1978), and “clarity of function” (e.g. Lynch, 1981). Both functions were mentioned by respondents in my case study as FO utilized and sought in their experience of urban streets, only in this case people used more everyday terms, for example “clarity of function” was mentioned as “to know what’s happening.” The important point here is that, as mentioned above, those FO derived from the literature correspond to the mid-chain FO discovered in the case study. There were other instances of resonance between the case study and the literature and here are a few. Brady St. embodies the controversy between revitalizing the businesses in the neighborhood, and the consequential affordability by low income residents. The Potential FO for “insiders” (Sidney Brower’s (1980) term) to use Brady St. as a neighborhood commercial street seems to conflict with the business/property owners’ interest in creating more Potential FO for “outsider” shoppers to come and walk the street7 . The literature also acknowledged that when retail sales determines the social design of public space, this works against the ideal of democratic streets (Francis, 1991) and decreases the Potential FO for social and economic diversity. Also, studies about pedestrian commercial streets show that when retail uses changed, the users eventually changed (Robertson, 1993a, 1993b). A similar phenomenon was found unfolding on Brady St. where local businesses—many of whom also own buildings—are gaining control over the uses along the street, thus indirectly influencing the demographics of the street. Residents of the area expressed their fears that this gentrification will do away with the diversity of people seen on Brady St. today. Another point of interest concerned the process of street development. Brady St. seems to follow the prevailing conventional streetscape approach (paving, benches, trees, fancy light posts, marked crosswalks to encourage more people—namely, potential shoppers—to walk the street, and to encourage them to spend more 221

This conflict seems aggravated by historic designation of many buildings in the area (as in the case of historic Plaka in Athens, reported by Appleyard and Seferi, 1991). It costs the property/business owners three times as much to renovate their property under preservation regulations, besides the restriction on alterations. Consequently property/business owners desperately need the outsider shopper, and thus the BID and the landscape project. What has already happened is that humble home owners can no longer afford the taxes on their raised property values. One may speculate that neighborhood businesses (cobbler, plumber, tailor), may not afford it either, but, according to the interviews, even those businesses get customers from outside the neighborhood. 7

The police officer interviewed, a liquor store owner, and two residents of the area all agree that the regulation in the 1980s to consider drug addicts and alcoholics as disabled people eligible to move (alongside with the elderly) into the two public housing towers off Brady St., is responsible for many of those problems. The police officer also fingerpointed one particular side street where he said there was a “problem house.” 8

time on the street. The improvement plan is restricted to Brady St., whereas some of the problems of Brady St. (loitering drunks, pedestrian harassment, and other crimes) come from side streets such as Warren and Arlington8 . Business owners on Brady St. acknowledge the need to draw residents from streets like Prospect and Farwell to walk the street, however, nothing is being done along those streets. From the literature, the experience in Toronto’s downtown with streetscaping revealed that there is a tendency to over-design and over-furnish the street space with coordinated objects (Greensberg, 1991). The outcome of Toronto’s evaluation study revealed that it is better to keep it simple and not try to unify, but rather rely on private uses in adjacent buildings to provide the prompts. In the case of Yonge St., it was found that improving the streetscape on side streets (one block in depth on both sides) caused the “snow-balling” of improvements; businesses along the side streets took their own initiative to improve the sidewalk in front of their store. This way improvement spreads faster and costs less per party involved. As shown above, some of the Utilized FO discovered in the case study are also found in the literature. Although this suggests some generalizability regarding these FO, it is not the purpose of this study to assess that. Recall that Utilized FO are still the most influenced by cultural norms, and—until further research is conducted with larger samples in different cultural contexts—the desirability of these FO will remain to be explored in different contexts.

222

P A R T I P A R T II

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CHAPTER ELEVEN: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Chapter Eleven

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The findings from Part I and Part II, reveal a new dimension that significantly affects street use. This new dimension—Potential FO of the street—presents both researchers and designers with a conceptual tool to analyze and design the street environment without losing sight of either its design components or their behavioral implications. The categories that comprise this dimension are more generalizable than the street characteristics that afford them. The street characteristics may differ by culture, but the research provides us with insights about characteristics that have consistently—at least in Northern American and Northern European cultures—afforded certain Potential FO. Ideally a wide range of studies in different cultures is required to discover the most generalizable Potential FO.

11.1. Methodological implications The methods used in Part I and Part II were developed to suit the exploratory nature of this investigation. In the case study, naturalistic inquiry in real-life settings allowed me to discover the different ways in which streets are used without being confined to one function or aspect of the street as is the case in many of the studies about street use. The open ended interviews about actual experience in liked and disliked streets yielded much richer information about street use than the activity lists that result from questionnaires, time budget charts, or conventional behavior mapping. This is because users’ responses in those interviews included the reason behind the overt, observable behavior (sitting, standing, eating, playing) level of description1 . The interviews also revealed that many subtle, yet significant (to the user), Utilized FO could never have been elicited just by observation of overt behavior, because sometimes that overt behavior was just an excuse. Many such Utilized FO as “to be seen,” “to break the daily routine,” “to know about resources” would not have surfaced. Also from the case study, I found that ordinary street users were not necessarily aware of the implications for use of some design variables. This raises doubts about research that depends for its findings on directly questioning people about the significance of certain design variables (e.g. building height, plot frontage...etc.). Exploring FO based on people’s actual experience revealed, indirectly, the design variables—in this case as implemented street characteristics—that are most significant to the user’s experience. Potential FO is a good language for communication in participatory design. User group participation in design decisions depends on the clarity with which design criteria and subsequent solutions are presented to the users. As shown in the case study, Potential FO may be a better means for ordinary people to understand the implications of design decisions, and to express their own priorities; “I want to be able to do this,” or “that.” As mentioned earlier, the method used in the secondary analysis was inspired by Harry Heft’s work on affordances. I developed his method by considering the relational aspect among physical characteristics

225

A comparable level of richness was found in Sydney Brower’s study (Brower & Williamson, 1974) study where observed use patterns were accompanied by interviews that explained why. However, not all studies that conducted interviews about use patterns got this information (e.g. Schnee, 1993), it depends on what questions are asked and how. Other studies about street use miss out completely on the WHY and therefore the interpretation of the findings are highly speculative (e.g. Eubank-Ahrens,1991). On the other hand, extensive observation of a large sample of sites and users as William Whyte’s (1980) work in New York City, makes up for the lack of interviewing to some extent. 1

and regulations instead of considering just one physical characteristic at a time. I could therefore discover interdependent street characteristics that, together, either created or inhibited a Potential FO from being. Considering those relational aspects across different scales and dimensions of the street environment sets this study apart from the score of dispersed empirical studies that address discrete variables of the street and without addressing their contextual relations.

11.2. Theoretical implications The usefulness of the Potential FO model and concept as a taxonomy of the physical environment that links the fields of E-B research and UD.

11.2.a. Does it integrate? The analysis in Part I shows that by applying the concept of Potential FO, one can integrate existing knowledge from the fields of UD and E-B Studies, into a comparable and comprehensive body of knowledge. It helped: • integrate across scales of the socio-physical environment of the street: In E-B studies, it is the gap between sociology-based and psychology-based theories and studies. In UD, it is the shortcoming of architecture-based UD “formal” theory. 3 There are many studies like this in every city municipality. 2

The relationships between the macro and micro environment discussed in Chapter Two is a problem that faces the two fields2 . The concept of Potential FO offers a dimension, or a way to describe the socio-physical environment, that relates rather than separates, characteristics of the environment at the macro and micro levels. • integrate dispersed empirical findings about street design and street use: Translating the data from previously conducted studies into Potential FO, showed that some of the apparent contradictions in their findings were due to the tendency, especially in E-B Studies, to generalize findings from studies focusing on one street function, one user group, or one type of street. Potential FO summarized street functions in a way that clarified their interdependence with other functions of the street, the different users, and the different contexts. In the design fields, especially city planning, evaluating the performance of existing streets is an essential source of knowledge to guide future design. The amount of data is large3, but because designers lack the knowledge of environment-behavior relations, the inferences they make regarding the implications for use of certain street characteristics are intuitive and lack justification. Translating this data in terms of Potential FO provides an explanation to those inferences and therefore renders this body of knowledge comparable with E-B studies. Evaluations of urban streets in use from the two perspectives are complementary and Potential FO allowed the translation of the findings from the two fields into a language they could both share. • integrate theory within the fields and between the fields of UD and E-B Studies:

226

In this study I demonstrated the advantages of using the concept of Potential FO to show more links than currently are known between theories in the two fields, UD and E-B Studies. The two fields address the same aspect of the streets, each in their own language—UD in terms of qualities of the physical environment, and E-B in terms of human needs and processes that occur within it. Translating UD principles in terms of what they allow—in terms of Potential FO— clarified the human issues underlying the satisfactory performance of this design principle in different applications. This study showed that Potential FO is a language compatible to both UD and E-B languages, consequently it can facilitate the development of cumulative knowledge produced in the two fields. 11.2.b The issue of culture and generalizability The highest level of abstraction of function are human needs, usually assumed to be generalizable to all humans (the need for privacy, the need for security...). Each culture has its own ways of fulfilling those functions. Variability increases as we approach the lowest level of abstraction; that of specific features and overt behavior. Potential FO is a concept that can describe function at the level of needs as well as at the level of overt behavior. Potential FO can at the same time, describe physical characteristics of the street in terms of what they allow. However, they are more generalizable than specific features, because different features may allow the same Potential FO. Potential FO may be more culture-specific than human needs, yet always more generalizable than the specifics. Instead of identifying (nominal) types of elements and the relationship among them as representative of cultural norms that reflect the socio-cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants, using Potential FO avoids the narrow-minded consequence of associating a type of form to a specific culture. The courtyard is used differently in different cultures, it allows a range of Potential FO depending on its relation to other elements, but it is ultimately the Utilized FO that reveals the socio-cultural norms of its inhabitants. Using Potential FO is more realistic in a time when urban societies (and rural societies in many cases) have the choice to adopt trans-cultural forms, technologies, behavior, and even values. 11.2.c. The Issue of Adaptability To what extent does having multiple Potential FO underlie “good” street design and “successful” street use? The speculative answer to this question had triggered this whole study. Now, the issue is revisited. In the conclusion of Chapter Six, I show that a street that has multiple Potential FO could satisfy the wants of many more people, and consequently, has a better chance to survive change over time. This statement is too simple, and maybe misleading, because there are certain functions that are more important than others, and this importance changes with time. However, the evidence shows that if street characteristics allow certain Potential FO (to walk the street, to subdivide the place into territorial domains, to see and hear other people), then the specific reasons and consequences of utilizing these Potential FO may change, but the place has a better chance of going on being used for different purposes. Historic precedents in-use are a living example of this. Further research 227

including longitudinal studies that trace change over time in urban streets is needed to verify this working hypothesis.

11.3. Practical implications: Potential FO as a tool for design In Chapter Six I demonstrated how lessons learned from existing streets in use could be presented in terms of the Potential FO of the street. One can also design in terms of Potential FO. 11.3.a. Compared to guidelines: Using Potential FO lessens the risk of blind duplication because, unlike prescriptive guidelines, it does not describe street characteristics, but rather what these characteristics do. Some guidelines are non-prescriptive. They are closer in nature to Potential FO, but they tend to be worded in an abstract language; usually that of needs and goals. Design goals could be so abstract, that no group of evaluators would disagree about them. Then their operationalization into actual designs is solely at the discretion of the designer. Many problems in city design were attributed to the ambiguity with which planning and design goals are phrased. The advantage of the concept of Potential FO is that it can be used to outline goals as well as to describe specific street characteristics. 11.3.b. Compared to Typologies: Many design problems and design solutions are not unique to a situation, and that is why classification into types has been usefully applied to minimize unnecessary and repetitive design work. However, Potential FO lack the disadvantages of coarser typologies because, individually, they are small enough units addressing single requirements, yet they can be combined to define, and solve, any scale design program. Another advantage of Potential FO over typologies is their ability to capture the essential dimensions of the design solution without running the risk of imposing remembered formal schemes, which is often the case (as shown in Chapter Three). 11.3.c. Compared to Kevin Lynch’s Elements of the City: Kevin Lynch’s elements of city structure (path, node, landmark, barrier, and district) proved to be a very useful and applicable conceptualization of city form. Each element can be met by a range of street characteristics and conditions which vary culturally. However, these elements, or categories, could never break free from the question that generated them: What do you recall? The image in the mind became the focus, and legibility and way finding the only function. Patterns are supposed to be more generalizable than specific design solutions, yet sometimes patterns are described in terms of specific features tailored precisely for a single situation. Some patterns involve a single use or function, and other times they could include variables within themselves to cope with varied situations and multiple uses. Also patterns are said to be interrelated ‘connected,” but this relationship remains under developed in application. 4

11.3.d. Compared to Pattern Language: Potential FO share with patterns their functional perspective. They also share the trait that they are less abstract and more physical than performance dimensions and human needs. The confusing variability in abstraction and structure of a pattern as well as the ambiguity of connections between patterns is overcome in the concept of Potential FO4 . Potential FO come at different levels of abstraction without reaching the extremes of being formalistic or 228

too vague. Interdependence among Potential FO can be outlined in conditional chains clearly showing the relationship between them. Furthermore, unlike patterns, conflicting and changing values do not disrupt the Potential FO concept itself, because Potential FO outline the range of possible behavior regardless of the priorities and goals of those who utilize them. The possibilistic view towards the physical environment, and the distinction between Potential, Perceived and Utilized FO, gives an advantage to the FO approach over the pattern language which is tied more closely to the culture and therefore more value-laden than Potential FO. One significant advantage of using a tool that acknowledges the interactive effect between different street characteristics is that it can guide the synthesis stage of design. For example, deep niches in the building-side of a street have the potential for two different FO; they allow a pedestrian to stop, rest, and enjoy watching the scene by day, and they allow an assailant to hide and jump a pedestrian by night. If this street characteristic were to be complemented by another characteristic or regulation that neutralizes the negative Potential FO—lights at night, or proximity to an activity-generating use that would ensure the presence of people at night (e.g. a movie theater or a nightclub)—then the duration of the negative Potential FO will be reduced, for example, from 12 hours (dusk to working hours) to 7 hours (midnight to 7am). 11.4. Limitations and Future Research The categories of FO derived from the secondary analysis were subject to the limitations set by the sample of studies. The emphasis on pedestrians was due to the scarcity of studies addressing drivers’ experience on the street. Limiting the sample to examples from Northern American and Northern European cultures was another bias. Even the case study revealed many more Utilized FO of the urban street than those derived from the secondary analysis in Chapter Six. Further research in different contexts may lead to the development of additional categories of FO. The case study also points out that much richer information can be gleaned about Potential FO of the street when it is the subject matter of the research study. This case study is the first to do so, and therefore, many more are needed whose objective would be to explore the Potential FO. Also, because it is the first time methods are developed to study Potential FO there is definitely room for improvement. The condition chains devised to present the interdependence between FO and their relationship to real life data (people’s behavior and street characteristics) may be too readily adopted, and misused, as a research tool; “let’s go out there and find some condition chains.” The painstaking iterations of sorting qualitative data to generate these condition chains is not so evident. Presenting the relationship between the condition chains and the qualitative process of analysis underlying each one of them could maybe documented with more clarity to avoid such misinterpretation. The integration of propositions included in the theory critique was limited by the heuristic intent of this study; the intent to test the plausibility and usefulness of such an endeavor using Potential FO. An in-depth analysis of the propositions postulated in every 229

theoryâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;each in their own context of assumptions, evidence, and methods of analysisâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;was conducted but not included in this study so as not to divert the course of the research from addressing its initial objectives. I will continue this exercise in future research as it would help expose the assumptions, and the conditions under which each theory is valid, and thus clarify the applicability and scope of the theory. At the end of the study I remind the reader that this research study is only the first step towards overcoming the problems discussed in Chapter Two. The ideas, models, and methodologies presented in this study overcame some of the problems, but not all. Some limitations are due to the novelty and multitude of research techniques developed in this study. Future research is needed to refine the concept of Potential FO and the categories that describe this new dimension of urban streets.

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, C. et al (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns - Building - Construction, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Alexander, C. (1987). A New Theory of Urban Design. New York: Oxford University. Alexander, E. & Reed, D. (1986). Density Measures and their Relation to Urban Form. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Altman, I., Brown, B., Staples, B., & Werner, C. (1992). A transactional approach to close relationships: Courtship, weddings, and placemaking. In W. Walsh. K. Craik, & R. Price (Eds.) Person-Environment Psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Altman, 1. & Gauvain. M. (1981). A cross-cultural and dialectic analysis of homes. In L. Liben, A. Patterson & N. Newcombe (Eds.) Spatial Representation and Behavior Across the Life Span: Theory and Application. New York: Academic. Altman, I. & Rogoff. B. (1987). World views in psychologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;: Trait, interaction, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley. Anderson, S. (1980). On Streets. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley, California: University of California. Appleyard, D., Lynch, K. & Myer, J. (1964). The View from the Road. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Appleyard, D. & Seferi. M. (1991). Conservation and Pedestrianization in Plaka, Athens. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press, 232-240. Arendt, H. (1987). The public realm: the common. In Glazer, N. & Lilla, M. The Public Face of Architecture. New York: The Free Press. Bacon, E. (1967). Design of Cities. New York, NY: The Viking Press. Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M. (1990). Quality in City Design. In (Ed.) City Sense and City Design Writing and Projects of Kevin Lynch.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barker. R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environmental of human behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Barker, R., Bechtel, R., Gump, P., Moos, R., Wicker, A., & Schoggen, P. (1983). 233

Discussion of “The enigma of ecological psychology” by G. Kaminski, Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1): 173-183. Barker, R.G. & Wright. H.F. (1951). One Boy’s Day: A Specimen Record of Behavior. New York: Harper. Barnes, R. (1981). Perceived freedom and control in the built environment. In J. Harvey (Eds.) Cognitive. Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Barnes, R. (1993). Personal correspondence. Barnett, J. (1974). Urban Design as Public Policy. New York: Harper & Row. Barnett. J. (1982). An Introduction to Urban Design. New York: Harper & Row. Baum, A. Davis, G. & Aiello, J. (1978). Crowding and neighborhood mediation of urban density. Journal of Population 1(3). Baumgartner, M. P. (1988). The Moral Order of a Suburb. New York: Oxford University Press. Bechtel. R. & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observations: The world under a glass. In R. Bechtel, R. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.) Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold: 11-40. Becker, F. (1973). A class-conscious evaluation: Going back to Sacramento’s mall. Landscape Architecture 64 (1): 448-457. Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., & Smith G. (1985). Responsive Environments: A manual for designers. London: Architectural Press. Berlyne, D. (1960). Conflict. Arousal. and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill. Bonnes, M., Giuliani. M. V., Amoni, F., & Bernard. Y. (1987). Cross-cultural rules for the optimization of the living room. Environment and Behavior 19 (2), 204-227. Bonnes, M. Mannette, L., Secchiaroli, G. & Tanucci, G. (1990). The city as a multiplace system: An analysis of people-urban environment transactions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10. 37-65. Bosselmann, P. et al. (1984). Sun, wind and comfort: A study of open spaces and sidewalks in four downtown areas. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development. College of Environmental Design. University’ of California. Braunfels, (1988). Urban Design in Western Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Brill. M. (1989). Transformation, nostalgia and illusion in public life and public space. In I. Altman & E. Zube (Eds.) Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Press. Broadhent, G. (1990). Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design. London: Van 234

Nostrand Reinhold (International). Brower, S. (1980). Territory in urban settings. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport and J. Wohlwill (Eds.) Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. Vol.4: Environment and Culture. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 179-207. Brower, S. (1988). Design in Familiar Places. New York: Praeger. Brower, S. (1989). Residents’ and outsiders’ perceptions of the environment. In S. Low & E. Chambers (Eds.) Housing. Culture & Design. Philadelphia, PA: University’ of Pennsylvania Press, 189-203. Brower, S. & Williamson, P. (1974), Outdoor recreation as a function of the urban housing environment. Environment and Behavior 6 (3). 295-345. Brown, D., P. Sijpkes, & M. MacLean. (1986). The community role of public indoor space. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 3 :161 - 172. Burden, A. (1977). Greenacre Park. New York: Project for Public Spaces. Campbell, D. & Campbell, T. (1988). A new look at informal communication. Environment and Behavior 20(2), 211-226. Caristein, T., Parkes, D. & Thrift. N. (1978). Human Activity and Time Geography. London: Edward Arnold. Carr. RivIm, L., Stone, Francis, M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapin, F. & Brail, R. (1969). Human activity s,’stems in the Metropolitan United States. Environment and Behavior (Dec). pp.107-130. Chermayeff, S. & Alexander, C. (1965). Community and Privacy. Garden City’, New York: Anchor Books. Chidister, M. (1986). The effect of context on the use of urban plazas. Landscape Journal 5 (2), 115-127. Churchman, A. & Poreh, C. (1993). Building Setback and the Urban Residential Street. Haifa. Isreal: Technion, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Churclunan, A. (1994). Personal communication in March 1994. Ciolek, M.T. (1978). Spatial behavior in pedestrian area. Ekistics 45 (269), 120-122. City of Portland (1980). Downtown Design Guidelines. Oregon: City’ of Portland. Clay, 0. (1991). The street as a teacher. In Moudon, A.V. (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University’ Press. Coleman, A. (1985). Utopia on Trial. London Hilary Shipman Ltd..

235

Collier, J. jr. & Collier, M. (1986). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Collins, 0. R. & Collins, C. C. (1986). Canullo Sitte: the Birth of Modern City Planning. New York: Rizzoli. Cooper Marcus, C. (1978). A tale of two spaces. AIA Journal 67, 34-38. Cooper Marcus, C. (1975-1988). Unpublished student papers from Landscape Architecture 140. Social and Psychological Factors in Open Space Design. Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of California at Berkeley. Cooper Marcus, C. & Francis, C. (1990). People Places. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Cooper Marcus, C., Francis, C., & Russell. R. (1990). Urban Plazas. In C. Cooper Marcus. & C. Francis (Eds.) People Places. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold: 9-4. Cowan, P. (1963) Studies in the growth, change and aging of buildings. Transactions of the Bartlett Society. 1, 53-84. Cranz, G. (1984). Public attitudes. In Tall Buildings: Tight Spaces. A research Project for Kaplan, McLaughlin. Diaz, Architects. Cullen. G. (1961). Townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Curran, R. (1983). Architecture and the Urban Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Daniel, T.C. & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of visual landscape quality. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill (Eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum, 39-84. Danahy, J.W. (1984). Adaptive behavior in frontyards of residential streetscapes. EDRA Proceedings: The Challenge of Diversity. Degnore, R. (1987). The Experience of Public Art in Urban Settings. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York. Depres, C. (1992). Alternative to the American dream: A study of shared housing options for low-income and moderate-income non-traditional households. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Depres. C. (1995). Presentation inEDRA 1995. Duany, A. & Plater-Zyberk A. (1984). The town of Seaside. Progressive Architecture 65 (1): 138-139. Eichner & Tobey (1991). Beyond Zoning. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press.

236

Eisner, Will. (1986). New York: The big city. Princeton, Wisconsin: Kitchen Sink Press. Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B. & Alen, S. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Eubank-Ahrens. B.(1991). A closer look at the users of Woonerven. In Moudon, A.V. (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press. Forrest, A. & Paxson, L. (1979). Pro,isions for peoples: Grand Central Terminal/ CitiCorp Study. In L. 0. Rivlin & M. Francis (Eds.). New York: Center for Human Environment, City University of New York. Francis, M. (1984). Mapping downtown activity. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning Research 1: 21-35. Francis, M. (1987). Urban open spaces. In E. Zube & G.T. Moore (Eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design Vol.1. New York: Plenum Press. Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimension of Public-space quality. Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Press. Francis, M. (1991). The making of democratic streets. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press: 23-39. Francis, M., Cashdan, L. & Paxson, L. (1984). Community Open Spaces. Covelo, CA Island Press. Frank, K. (1984). Exorcising the ghost of physical determinism. Environment and Behavior 16 (4), 411-435. Franklin, B. & Symes, M. (1991). Issues in Urban Regeneration: An Annotated Bibliography. Occasional papers in architecture and urban design no.1. School of Architecture, University of Manchester. Frick, D. (1986). Introduction, Ch. 1 in D. Frick (ed.). The Quality of Urban Life. New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.. Gans, H. (1962). The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press. Garling, T. Book, A. Lindberg, E. & Arce, C. (1990). Is elevation encoded in cognitive maps? Journal of Environmental Psychology 10 (4). 341-351. Gehi. J. (1 968). Mennesker til fods (Pedestrians). Arkitekten 70 (20) (Danish): 42946. Gehi, J. (1980). The residential street environment. Built Environment 6. (1): 51-61. Gehi, J. (1986). Soft edges in residential streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 3 (2), May 1986 : 89-102. Gehi. J. (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

237

Gehl, J. et al. (1977). The Interface Between Public and Private Territories in Residential Areas. A study by students of Architecture at Melbourne University. Melbourne, Australia. Geist. J. F. (1983). Arcades: The History of a Building Type. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Genereux, R.L., Ward,L.M. & Russels, J.A. (1983). The behavioral component in the meaning of places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1), 43-55. Gibson, J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: HoughtonMifflin. Glass, G. (1976). Prima~, seconda~ and meta-analysis of research. Educational Research. 5, pp. 3-8. Goodey. B. (1993). Urban design of central areas and beyond. In R. Hayward & S. McGlynn (Eds.) Making Better Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford: Buttenvorth Architecture. Gosling, D. (1992). Public realm design: urban issues for US mid-western cities. Cities 9 (1). 3442. Greenberg, K. (1991). Toronto: Streets revived. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press: 189-202. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2. pp.2-22. Groat. L. & Despres, C. (1991). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E. Zube and G.T. Moore (Eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, 3. New York: Plenum Press. Gunter, R. (1986). From the social movement towards the socio-cultural movement: the example of Amsterdam. In D. Frick (Ed.) The Quality of Urban Life. New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.. Habe, R. (1988). Sharing the urban space of third world city: Street hawking in Nairobi. EDRA 19: Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Needs/Planet Management. Hart, R. (1979). Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington. Harrison, M. (1991). Promoting the urban experience in Portland, Oregon. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press: 181-188. Harvey, J.H. & Harris, B. (1975). Determinants of perceived choice and the relationship between perceived choice and the expectancy about feelings of internal control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31, 101-106. 238

Harvey. J.H., Harris, B. & Lightner, J. (1979). cited in Barnes, R. (1981). Perceived freedom and control in the built environment. In J. Harvey (Ed.) Cognitive, Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harvey, J. & Jellison, J.M. (1974). Determinants of perceived choice, number of options, and perceived time in making a selection. Memory and Cognition. 32.539544. Hayward. R. & McGlynn, 5. (1993). Making Better Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Hedman, R & Jaszewski, A. (1984). Fundamentals of Urban Design. Washington DC: Planners Press, American Planning Association. Heft, H. (1 988a). The development of Gibson’s ecological approach to perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology 8 (4), 325-334. Heft, H. (1988b). Affordances of children’s ernironments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly 5 (3), 29-37. Heft. H. (1989). Affordances and the Body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 19 (1). 1-30. Heft, H. (1993). Personal correspondence. Heft, H. (1994). The relevance of Gibson’s ecological approach to perception for Environment-Behavior Studies. In G. Moore & R. Marans (Eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum. Heft, H. and Wohiwill, J.F. (1987). Environmental cognition in Children. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 175-204. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory. New York: Harper-Row. Hesselgren.S. (1976). Man’s Perception of Man-Made Environment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross. Hill, M.R. (1984). Walking, Crossing Streets and Choosing Pedestrian Routes. (A Survey of recent insights from the social/behavioral sciences). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Studies, (New Series No. 66). Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Holahan, C. (1978). Environment and Behavior: A dynamic perspective. New York: Plenum Press. Holanda. F. (1989). Brazilia: the daily in,’ention of the city’. Ekistics 334. 335. January /February, March/April. pp.75-83. 239

Hummon, D. M. (1989). House, home, and identity in contemporary American culture. In S. M. Low & E. Chambers (Ed.) Housing, Culture, and Design. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape. Jacobs. A. (1993). Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Janz, W.R. (1992). The extension of identity into home fronts: Two Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighborhoods. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9 (1). 48-63. Joardar, S. & Neill, J. (1978). The subtle differences in configuration of small public spaces. Landscape Architecture 68 (11). 487491. Jukes, P. (1990) A Shout in the Street. London: Faber and Faber. Kaminski, G. (1983). The enigma of ecological Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology 3, 85-94. Kaplan, 5. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and Behavior 15 (3), 311-332. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an uncertain World. New York: Praeger. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics 12 (4), 354-356. Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1985). Experience and use of the dwelling. In I. Altman and C. Werner (Eds.) Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press. Krause, L. (1994). Personal communication. Krier, R. (1979). Urban Space. London: Academy Editions. Krier, L. (1984). Houses, palaces, cities. Architecture Design Profile 54, Architectural Design 7/8. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lang, J. (1991). Design Theory from an Environment and Behavior Perspective. E.H. Zube & G.T. Moore (Eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design 3. New York: Plenum. Lang, J. (1994). Urban Design: The American experience. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lang, J. (1994). Urban Design: The American Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Langer, E. (1983). The Psychology of Control. Los Angeles: Sage. 240

Langdon, P., Shibley, R. and Welch. P. (1990). Urban Excellence. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lawrence, R. J. (1989). Translating anthropological concepts into architectural practice. In S. M. Low & E. Chambers (Ed.) Housing, Culture, and Design. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania: Dowden Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. Lawrence, F. (1986). Le Seuil Franchi: Logement populaire et vie quotidienne en Suisse romande 1860-1960. Geneve: Georg Editeur. Leach, (1976). Culture and Communication: The logic by which symbols are connected. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lee, K. H. (1992). Residential burglary and informal social control in urban residential street block. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Lieberman, E. (1983). Downtown open space use survey. Paper presented at the Boulder Pedestrian Conference. Boulder: CO, September 23. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E.G., (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Linday, N. (1978). It all comes to a comfortable place to sit and watch. Landscape Architecture 68, 492-497. Liu, Chi-Wen (1994). From old to new city: A study of behavior settings and meanings of streets in Taiwan. Ph.D. dissertation. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Lofland, L.H. (1973). A world of Strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York: Basic Books. Lofland, J. (1984). Analyzing social Settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. (2nd Ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Love. R. L. (1973). The fountains of urban life. Urban Life and Culture 2, : l61-209. Lozano, E. (1990). Community Design and the Culture of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, K. (1961). The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lynch, K. (1981). A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lynch, K. & Hack, G. (1984). Site Planninng. (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Madden, K. & Bussard, E. (1977). Riis Park: A Study of Use and Design. New York: Project for Public Spaces. Marshall, C. & Rossman. G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research, Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications. 241

McGlynn. S. (1993). Reviewing the rhetoric. In R. Hayward & S. McGlynn (Eds.) Making Better Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Michelson, W. (1976). Man and His Urban Environment. Reading, Mass. : AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Michelson, W.H. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior. and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Mills, J. (1970). Analysis of Perceived Choice. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri at Columbia. Mohney. D. & Easterling. K. (1991). Seaside. N.Y. : Princeton University Press. Moore, R.C. (1986). Children’s Domain: Play and Place in Child Development. London: Croom Helm. Moore, R.C. (1991). Streets as playgrounds. In Moudon, A.V. (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University’ Press. 45-62. Morville, J. (1969). Planlægnong af børns udemiljø i etageboligområder (Planning for Children in Multistory Housing Areas). Danish Building Research Institute. report 11. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. Moudon, A. V. (1991). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press. Moudon, A.V. (1986). Built for Change. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Moudon, A.V. & Untermann, K. (1991). Grids revisited. In Moudon. A.V. (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press, 132-150. Moughtin, C. (1991). The European city street. Part I: Paths and places. Town Planning Review 62 (l), 51-77. Moughtin, C. (1991). The European city’ street. Part 2: Relating form and function. Town & Planninn Review 62 (2), 153-199. Moughtin, C. (1992). Urban Design: Street and square, Boston: Butterworth Architecture. Mozingo, L. (1984). Women and Downtown Open Space. MLA thesis. University of California at Berkeley. Muchow, M. & Muchow, H. (1935). Der Lebenstraum des Grosstadtkindes. Hamgurg, Germany: M. Riegel. (H. Andrew, G. Gad and Wohlwill, Translation). Murrain, P. (1993). Urban expansion: look back and learn. In R. Hayward & S. McGlynn (Eds.) Making Better Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.

242

Nasar, J. (1983). Adult viewersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior 15, 589-614. Nasar, J. (1989). In I. Altman & E. Zube (Eds.) Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Press. Nasar, J. (1992). Paper presented at EDRA 23. Colorado. Nasar, J. & Yurkadul, A. (1990). Patterns of behavior in urban public spaces. The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 7 (1), 71-85. Newman, O. (1973). Defensible Space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Collier Book. Norberg-Schulz. C. (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Publications Inc. Oldenberg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon House. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1974). Streets for People. Paris: OECD. Owens, J. H. (1991). A successful street design process. In Moudon, A.V. (Ed.). Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Colombia University Press. Oxman, R. (1977). Flexibility in Supports: An analysis of the effect of selected physical design variables upon the flexibility of support type housing systems. D. Sc. Dissertation. Haifa: Technion-Isreal Institute of Technology. Pacione, M. (1984). Local areas in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. In D.T. Herbert & R.J. Johnston (Eds.) Geography and the Urban Environment: Progress in Research and Application Vol. VI. Chichister, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Pader, E. (1993). Spatiality and social change: Domestic space use in Mexico and the United States. American Ethnologists. 20 (1). 114-137. Patton, C. (1986). The private use of public space in Greece. Ekistics. 318/319, 128136. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newberry Park, CA, Sage. Perkins, D.D., Meeks, J.W. & Taylor RB. (1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (1), 21-34. Pfaffenberger, B. (1988). Microcomputer Applications in Qualitative Research, Newberry Park, CA, Sage. Pikusa. S. (1983). Adaptability. Architecture Australia 72 (1), 62~67. 243

Pharaoh, T. & Russell, J. (1991). Traffic calming policy and performance. Town Planning Review 62 (1) : 79-105. Prakash, A. (1972). Rehri-the mobile shop of India. Ekistics 34 (204), 328-333. Pratt, G. (1982). The house as an expression of social worlds. In J. Duncan (Ed.) Housing and Identity. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers Inc.. Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (1978) Plazas for People: Seattle’s First National Bank Plaza- A Case Study. 44. New York. Proshansky, H., Rivim, L. & Ittelson, W. (1970) Environmental Psychology. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Punter, J. (1990). The Ten Commandments of Architecture & Urban Design. The Planner (Oct.). 10-14. Pushkarev B. & Zupan, J. (1975) Urban Space for Pedestrian. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Ramati, R. (1981). How to save your own street. Garden City’, New York: Dolphin. Rapoport, A. (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York: Plenum. Rapoport, A. (1983). Development, culture change and supportive design. Habitat International 7 (5/6), 249-268. Rapoport. A. (1986). The Use and Design of Open Spaces in Urban Neighborhoods. In D. Frick (Ed.) The Ouality of Urban Life. New York, N.Y. : Walter de Gruyter & Co. Rapoport, A. (1990a). History and Precedent in Environmental Design. N.Y. : Plenum Press. Rapoport, A. (1990b). Systems of activities and systems of settings. In Susan Kent (Ed.) Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. Rapoport, A. (1991). Flexibility, open-endedness and design. In PAPER 34-35, Oct. 1990-Jan. 1991. Reed, E.S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the Psychology of Perception. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rowe, C. & Keetter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Robertson, K. (1988). Pedestrian skywalk systems: Downtown’s great hope or pathways to ruin? Transportation Quarterly 42: 457-484. Robertson, K. (1991). Pedestrian streets in Sweden’s city centers. Cities 8: 301-314.

244

Robertson, K. (1993 a). Pedestrinaization strategies for downtown planners: Skywalks vs. pedestrian malls. Journal of the American Planning Association. 59 (3). Summer 1993: 361-370. Robertson, K. (1993b). Pedestrians and the American downtown. Town and Planning Research. 64 (3): 273-286. Rudofsky, B. (1982). Streets for People. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rutledge,A. J. (1976). Looking beyond the applause: Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s First National Bank Plaza. Landscape Architecture 66 : 22-26. Seamon, D. & Nordin, C. (1980). Market place as place ballet. Landscape 24 (3), 35 - 41. Sancar, F. (1985). Towards theory generation in landscape aesthetics. Landscape Journal 4 (2): 116-124. Sanoff, H. (1991). Visual Research Methods in Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Saile, D. (1994). Personal communication in April 1994. Sancar, F. (1994). Personal communication in January 1994. Schnee, D. (1993). An evaluation of Robert Pins Plaza. Paper presented at the EDRA 24th Annual Conference at Chicago, IL. March 1993. Schumacher, T. (1986). Buildings and streets: notes on configuration and use. In S. Anderson (Ed.) On Streets. Cambridge Mass, MIT Press: 133-149. Sennet, R. (1977). The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf. Shehayeb, D. (1989a). Man/Environment Relations: Socio-cultural aspects as a dimension of design. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of Architecture, Cairo University, Egypt. Shehayeb, D. (1989b). Fear of crime in residential environments: A critical review. Paper presented in Ph.D. coursework. Shehayeb, D. (1990a). Greendale/Southridge shopping center. Class project. Working paper. Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Shehayeb, D. (1990b). The resilience of historical physical forms: The case of Cairo, Egypt. Working paper. Department of Architecture, University of WisconsinMilwaukee. Shehayeb, D. (1990c). Towards a definition of urban design. Working paper. Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Shehayeb. D. (1992). Urban design and EBS: An integrational approach. Working paper. Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 245

Shields, J.W. (1990). The American Mall: Towards a corporate control of “public” spaces. Urbanism 3, Spring 1990. Shirvani, H. (1990). Beyond Public Architecture: Strategies for design evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Shotter, J. (1983). “Duality of structure” and “intentionality” in an ecological psychology. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 13:19-43. Silverstein, M. & Jacobson, M. (1978). Restructuring the hidden program: Towards an architecture of social change. In W. Preiser (Ed.) Facility Programming. Davidson, Hutchinson & Ross, 7-26. Simmonds, R. (1993). The built form of the new regional city: A radical view. In R. Hayward & S. McGlynn (Eds.) Making Better Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Stanton, B.R. (1986). The incidence of home grounds and experiential networks. Environment and Behavior 18 (3), 299-329. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S.A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.) Cognition, Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Stokols. D. (1979). A congruence analysis of human stress. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.) Stress and Anxiety Vol. 6. New York: John Wilet & Sons. Stoner, J. (1991). The party’ wall as the architecture of sharing. In Collective Housing. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge. MA: Cambridge University Press. Taylor. R. B. & Brower. 5. (1985). Home and near-home territories. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.) Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press. Thakurdesai, S. G. (1972). Sense of place in greek anonymous architecture. Ekistics 204. 334-340 Thiel, P., Harrison, E.D. & Alden, R.S. (1986). The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position of architectural surfaces. Environment and Behavior 18 (2), 227-245. Tiwari. G. (1987). Changes in activity patterns and urban forms: An analytical approach for developing countries. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois, Chicago. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. New York: Random House. Trancik, Roger. (1986). Finding Lost Space: theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

246

Turner, J.F.C (1976). Housing People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. New York: Pantheon. Untermann. R. (1991). Changing design standards for streets and roads. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use : 255-260. Vischer, J. (1985). The adaptation and control model of user needs: A new direction for housing research. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5 (3), 287-286. Von Meiss, P. (1990). Elements of Architecture: from form to place. (translated by Katherine Henault) London: Van Nostrand Reinhold (International). Walmsley, D.J. & Lewis, G.J. (1989). The pace of pedestrian flows in cities. Environment and Behavior 21(2), 123-150. Ward, C. (1978). The Child in the City. London: Architectural Press. Whyte. W.H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC: The Conservation Foundation. Whyte. W. (1984). The gifted pedestrian. Ekistics 306. May/June: 224-229. Whyte. W. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday. Wicker. A. (1979). An Introduction to Ecological Psychology. Monterey. CA: Brooks/ Cole. Wicker, A. (1981). Nature and assessment of behavior settings: Recent contributions from the ecological perspective. In P. McReynolds (Ed.) Advances in Psychological Assessment 5, San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass: 22-61. Wicker, A. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages. resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wicker, A. (1992). Making sense of environments. In W. Walsh. K. Craik, & R. Price (Eds.) Person-Environment Pyschology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Witzling, L. (1990). Presentation on the Lake Front Project in Milwaukee as part of the Urban Design Process course presented at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Wohlwill, J. (1966). The physical environment: A problem for a psychology of stimulation. Journal of social issues. 22 (4), 29-39. WohIwill, J. (1974). The environment is not in the head! In W.F.E. Preiser (Ed.) Environmental Design Research Vol. 1. Stroudsburg, Pennsykania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross: 166-181. Wohlwi1l, J. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. 247

In I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.) Human Behavior and Environment. Vol. 1, New York: Plenum press, 37-86. Wolf, P. (1986). Towards an evaluation of transportation potentials for the urban street. In S. Anderson (Ed.) On streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

248

Business Ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Interview Guide

APPENDIX A

251

252

253

Observation Log

APPENDIX B

255

Samples of Transcribed Interviews with Initial Unitizing and Coding

APPENDIX C

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

VITA

Title of Dissertation Potential Functional Opportunities in Urban Streets An integrational approach to the evaluation and design of urban streets

Full Name Dina K. Shehayeb

Place of Birth Cairo, Egypt

Colleges and Universities

December 2, 1962

Degree

Year Cairo University

B.A.

1984 Cairo University

M.A.

1989 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Ph.D.

1995 Memberships in Learned and Honorary Societies Member in EDRA

Publications Shehayeb, D. (1994). The behavioral opportunities approach: An explanatory and normative approach to urban public spaces. In A. Seidel Power by Design. Oklahoma City, OK: Environmental Design Research Association. Shehayeb, D. (1993). Applying NVCA to assess the socio-cultural dimensions of residential environments. In preparation for submission to the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. Serageldin, H. & Shehayeb, D. (1988). An analytical study to appraise the practical application of current theoretical concepts in housing: a case of Hai-el-Salam, Ismailia. African Urban Quarterly, 3 (1 & 2) .

312

Serageldin, H. & Shehayeb, D. (1987). Socio-cultural vs. economic criteria: User transformation of public housing in Helwan. Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Shelter in Developing Countries. London, September 1987. Paper Presentations Elgea Vejar, S., Shehayeb, D., & Stea, D. (1992). Socio-cultural transitions and participation. Equitable and Sustainable Habitats. 23rd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Boulder, Colorado, April 9 – 11, 1992. Ahrentzen, S., Stampf, K., & Shehayeb, D. (1991). New Practices for Qualitative Data Analysis. Healthy Environments. Environmental Design Research Association 22 proceedings. Moore, G., Shehayeb, D., & Gabr, H. (1991). Towards an integrative theory of Architecture and EBS. Healthy Environments. 22nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Oaxtepec, Mexico, March 12 – 15, 1991. Shehayeb, D. (1992). How are people considered in design? Seven models of the designer/ people/design triadic relationship. Equitable and Sustainable Habitats. 23rd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Boulder, Colorado, April 9 – 11, 1992. Shafie, Z., Hammam, S. & Shehayeb, D. (1989). Design implications of nonverbal communication: A case study in Egyptian context. Presented at the University of Arizona, Tempe, November 5th, 1989. Major Department Architecture Minor

Urban Planning

Prof. Amos Rapoport Date

313

314