Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration (The Urban Book Series) 303115407X, 9783031154072

Citation preview

The Urban Book Series

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration

The Urban Book Series Editorial Board Margarita Angelidou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, Silk Cities, London, UK Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Jesús M. González Pérez, Department of Geography, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma (Mallorca), Spain Daniel B. Hess , Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA Paul Jones, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Andrew Karvonen, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Stockholms Län, Sweden Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Ali Modarres, Tacoma Urban Studies, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Steffen Nijhuis, Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira , Porto University, Porto, Portugal Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Roma, Italy

Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Claudia Yamu, Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, University of Groningen, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Qunshan Zhao, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development. The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, transport systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparative and applied research. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Indexed by Scopus.

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana (Fasto Curti) Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU) Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic) The Urban Book Series ISBN 978-3-031-15407-2 ISBN 978-3-031-15408-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

A City is not a Coincidence, it is the Artwork of Architects and Urban Planners Orchestrated. For urban planners, placemaking enthusiasts, and nature lovers, this book is for you. Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

Foreword

At the centre of any wonderful place are people, well-being, and joy. In this way, we can say the best urban places foster positive human experiences—driven by their form and function. Therefore, city planners and urban designers need to know-how to (a) evaluate and understand the problems associated with the design and performance of urban spaces, and then (b) know-how to enact policies and programmes to solve the problems observed. Key to this is knowing how to understand the human experience in urban places—from the ecosystem to the human scale—and what makes them joyful, enriching, and special. Therefore, the main goal of this book is to appreciate, observe, and understand the human experience of urban places, and then figure out how to make things better. This book is timely as the importance of place has been brought to the forefront of academia and the new urban agenda lately by the UN. This book covers the interaction between people and their environment, moving from the human-centred to ecosystem scale in its recognition of urban regeneration, helping us understand interactions at the scale of our human senses and sensibilities. As Dr. Mahmoud states. “A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone; it must also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always trumps form,” which again highlights the importance of people in the placemaking equation, accentuating our humanity and the sensory experiences of place. At this time when some are talking about building cities in the desert out of nothing, we need to think about the happy accidents that occurred to create great places. Times Square, for example, grew out of the intersection of Broadway, which existed before the gridiron plan as an organic path travelling from the south part of Manhattan to the north, and seventh avenue.

vii

viii

Foreword

This book also talks about how we can rapidly respond to make conditions better for people through lighter, quicker, cheaper approaches and other placemaking techniques. This book examines the efforts to quantify the hard to quantify and provides generalisable lessons on how to enhance any public space, so it lives up to its potential of fostering enriching and joyful human experiences. Bruce Appleyard Associate Professor, City Planning and Urban Design San Diego State University San Diego, USA

Preface

Processes of green urban regeneration have to embed an intrinsic, measurable sense of improvement in changing and adapting urban areas. Both research and practice demonstrate that most systemic approaches to regeneration, such as placemaking, need to integrate processes of evaluation both before and after implementation. In parallel, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have arisen to a key position, bringing to the forefront the need to create multiple benefits, including social and cultural, in urban regeneration processes. However, dealing with complex, multifaceted adaptations is neither easy nor something that has been researched much up to now. In this book, insights into analytical evaluation methods, planning strategies, and shared governance examples are given as well as a simple tool, namely the Public Space Index (PSI), that will together help determine successful pathways to implementing urban change anchored in placemaking that uses a socio-cultural approach. The case study (the Rose Kennedy Greenway of Boston, Massachusetts, USA) that has been extensively researched over a number of years, helps to ground the discussion with examples of how the implementation of the PSI measures the quality of urban space including its adaptability and replicability in other contexts. As Nature Based Solutions are playing a major role in physical and spatial regeneration in current city contexts, they represent the key to bringing place and natural flourishing together. One thing that can certainly be taken from this book is that the combined roles of people, space, and nature must come to the fore in any current urban planning policies debate aimed at reform, regeneration, and rebirth. Milan, Italy 2022

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

ix

Acknowledgements

The journey taken to produce this work was not easy. The book in your hands today is a result of long days of discomfort, travel, research, and sleepless nights. It was done with full consciousness of leaving “a science that might help.” For that purpose, I hope that I may have added something to the field of knowledge of urban regeneration. I have always been fascinated by how public spaces and urban design would change our lives, and vice versa. Thus, hopefully, this work adds a drop in the ocean of the world of urban planning and the development of more humane cities. Together I hope we can strive for a better future through the design of public spaces in a way that makes them public places. Firstly, I thank GOD for giving me the strength and guiding my way and commitment to finish it. Secondly, all praise goes to my mother (Magda Bayoumi El Karadisy), without her support, love, and understanding I would not have been able to go so far and beyond. Thirdly, my gratitude goes to my professors along the way, especially Prof. Eugenio Morello from Politecnico di Milano who believed in me from day one and gave me all the opportunities for self-development and learning in my post-doc journey from 2018 at Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana (Fausto Curti) until today. I also want to warmly thank Prof. Niki Frantzeskaki from Utrecht University and Prof. Fabiano Lemes di Oliveira from Politecnico di Milano for all their kind words and support all the time. Special words of Gratitude go to Professor Bruce Appleyard and Carmelina Bevilacqua for guiding me through the writing of this book. I have to admit, it would not have been easy to combine all this work, without their encouragement and supervision. I also want to thank Sean Bradley from the Groundwork London, for his revisions to the text and English editing. For that, I owe him a lot. Finally, special thanks to the interviewees for the main case study: Katerina Zimmerman, Nidhi Gulati, John (Tad) Read, Laura Jasinski, Michael Nichols, and Natalia Urtubey.

xi

About This Book

Placemaking and the sociability of public spaces have been at the centre of urban planning anthropological studies for quite a long time, either in the academic field or in on-the-ground implementation. However, there are ongoing difficulties in the processes of concretely identifying, defining, and evaluating the non-material interrelationships that map onto physical space. The coherence of the relationship between space and day-to-day life is what the concept of sociability is based on and what needs to be at the core or of regeneration. Contemporarily, a placemaking-centred approach to green urban design has emerged, paving the way more refined understanding of the correlation between the physical qualities and conditions in which these public spaces prosper, taking into consideration the social and cultural aspects in order to capture the essence of the contexts and the nature of the places in which human life unfolds. Based on these notions, finding common ground between the sociability of public spaces and the placemaking approach in culturally sensitive urban regeneration processes is still somewhat of a missing link in a robust methodological empirical framework for evaluating the performance indicators of public spaces, known as the Public Space Index (PSI). Hence, the main aim of this book is to understand how in the placemaking approach to implementation, the dynamics of sociability and the social mixing in public spaces help to shape the cultural aspects of public space itself. In the case studies presented here, particular attention was given to the role of green corridors and other naturebased solutions, in line with current research literature, in order to enhance the cities’ resilience and green strategic planning.

Part I In the first part of this book, the placemaking movement is investigated by means of a review of literature on public space development including definitions, social roles, current trends in placemaking, and the different on-the-ground placemaking xiii

xiv

About This Book

implementation strategies. That is followed by the definition of sociability, its role as an attribute of public spaces that adds economic and cultural value, and how specific urban design elements can change its facets.

Chapter 1: Introduction The first chapter introduces the main concepts addressed in this book: placemaking, public spaces, and the green urban regeneration nexus. The chapter provides a brief insight into the overall research approach, hypothesis, and aims and objectives.

Chapter 2: Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation Strategies The focus of this chapter is to identify the definition of public spaces and the role they play in daily life, whether cultural or social. In addition to that, the main aim is to analyse placemaking as an approach “in practice” to better regenerate public spaces in contemporary cities, and how the different implementation techniques and strategies of placemaking have proven able to produce positive economic outcomes and social responses. As it is connected to so many urban processes, placemaking is not an easy topic to wrest with; this is evident in how widely implementation policies differ between European and US contexts. Definitions tend to be tricky and fundamentally intertwined, strategies and their execution are inherently multifaceted and complex, and these can be either top-down approaches, led from a governmental agency, or bottom-up approaches starting from grassroots or citizen movements.

Chapter 3: Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects This chapter introduces the definition of public place with a clear focus on the social dimension; it sheds light on the different poles of the physical environment that have an influence on human behaviour, as well as on human agency and other key social influences on urban spaces. Moreover, it brings sociability to the forefront as the core identifiable attribute of successful public places. Other key considerations are how cultural and economic influences can impact the liveability of public spaces. The important weight of non-physical aspects of public space is clearly qualified by observations of the occurrence of cultural activities and social events. In sum, this

About This Book

xv

chapter intentionally raises the questions of the impact of sociability on public life as seen through users’ activities, and it relates these processes to urban form and public space design.

Part II The second part utilises an empirical methodology to consider the quality of public spaces in three similar case studies. Key criteria are qualified, quantified, and comparatively analysed. This is followed by an evaluation matrix that vertically compresses four evaluation tools (individual user surveys, observational analysis, in-depth interviews with on-site and in-field experts, and finally analysis of micro urban planning smart tools). This evaluation matrix is built horizontally across two identifiable categories of metrics (public life and public space). In total, this accounts for the mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to be subsequently incorporated into the Public Space Index (PSI) matrix.

Chapter 4: Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies: Boston, Cambridge, and Valencia This chapter introduces case studies that are similar to the final implementation case study, where the similarities and differences are presented either in the stakeholders— represented by a Public–Private Partnership in which the urban regeneration project was implemented—or in the urban scale at which the implementation took shape. That said, three case studies are dealt with; the first is the Lawn on D project, and the reason for this choice is that it falls in the innovation district of Boston, which allowed the PPS to intervene and implement the so-called lighter, quicker, cheaper techniques (LQC) to regenerate the surrounding community. The second is Harvard Square in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the governmental approach for the city of Cambridge, in collaboration with a variety of community groups and stakeholders, involves implementing the power of 10+ strategy towards regenerating sociability in the previously underutilised square. The third and last case study is part of the “Rio Túria Gardens” grassroots movement, a citizen-led regeneration project that led to significant changes to the city of Valencia, Spain by transforming a highway into a greenway, similar to the North End Park project. This case study helps provide a better understanding of the similarities and differences in urban planning policies in different contexts. The choice of the first two case studies focused on investigating urban policies implemented in the context of the State of Massachusetts. Together these case studies all help inform the decisionmaking process of public authorities and provide context for the analysis of sociability and place.

xvi

About This Book

Anchoring the analysis in tangible developments has led to better insights into how to understand the stakeholders and to formulate the placemaking strategies at the heart of this work. The learnings acquired from the case study of North End Park provide a critical framework of the implementation of effective placemaking strategies that can be developed.

Chapter 5: Sociability and Placemaking Methodological Framework Approach: Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI) In this part of the research, the public life/public space metrics—as introduced by the Gehl Institute—are used to identify different criteria sets and/or methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data on users, their behaviour, frequency of use, age, and gender, as well as physical observations on site during the first phase. The reason for this mixed-methods approach was to capture a wide range of the aspects of public spaces that affect people and places and vice versa. Using Gehl’s framework, it is possible to identify the qualities of a public space that make the space work, including how the space is used, what makes it desirable, and where user experience is positive mostly based on where people prefer to linger and socialise. The Application case study in this research is on the so-called North End Park and Plaza. It falls within what is called the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway of Boston, MA. The reason for selecting the North End Park in the city of Boston is that it fulfils the criteria of being a public space formed after a regeneration project that involved various stakeholders, while transforming an eyesore into a green corridor as a vital liveable destination in the heart of the city.

Part III The third and last part encompasses the application of the evaluation tools in the case study in order to evaluate the success or failure of using the placemaking approach while emphasising the sociability aspects in achieving the aims of cultural-oriented urban regeneration projects. The Case Study in question is the North End Park on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, MA; identified as a cultural cluster that—in a wider scope— aims to foster the infusion of a theoretical approach from literature into the evaluative work of the sociability evaluation matrix of the case study realised on the ground. That said, with the aim of implementing the placemaking approach as an identifiable urban planning policy, by which, we can change the key components of a human-centred approach to designing public spaces in cities today.

About This Book

xvii

Chapter 6: Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway: Boston, Massachusetts, USA The North End Park is part of the Boston Ribbon of contemporary parks. The Rose Kennedy Greenway is a mile and a half of contemporary parks in the heart of Boston city. The Greenway is a roof garden over a highway tunnel that connects people, cityscape, and fun. The Greenway connects a series of parks, in which there are public art installations, water fountains, historical sites (the freedom trail), public transit and bike sharing stations, food truck vending locations, and public restrooms. The chapter lays the historical background of the case study area as well as the context of North End park as a public space within the Greenway in Boston.

Chapter 7: The North End Park as a Liveable Destination, an In-depth Analysis While physical analysis is important for any site, one of the most important measurable qualities of any public place is its attraction for users. People gather in squares, walk in parks, and the relationship between people and their urban spaces is an essential component of urban design. Based on this notion, the following in-depth analysis looks at the users of North End Park with the help of the public life matrix toolkit technique; the main outcomes are part of physical observation analysis, with a statistical survey of the users, interviews with on-site and in-the-field experts, and a video camera surveillance records analysis, as well as an analysis of smart planning tools such as Co-Urbanize, Vision Zero, and the Liveability Calculator.

Part IV Chapter 8: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations This Chapter discusses the findings and conclusions from the literature, the methodological framework, and the case study of North End Park. It gives a general path for the application of the Public Space Index in reality, laying common ground between the theory and practice of placemaking on the ground. It also involves testing sociability measurements in terms of quantitative authenticity rather than just an environmental dimension concept. The research was based on a mixed-methods approach in the case study analysis; Both qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques were used in order to investigate the sociability of public spaces as a driver for cultural regeneration projects. The first part of the research involved a literature review to establish a better understanding of the concept of placemaking. In addition, the important concept of

xviii

About This Book

sociability is discussed as a fundamental dimension of urban design as the generative relationships between people and day-to-day spaces form the collective built environment. However, it is worth noting that attempting to adapt environmental psychology into an applied science like urban planning and design is not an easy task. Sociability is the bridge needed to connect from different perspectives and correlate the different approaches of these distinct fields. By connecting behaviour and space through sociability we will be able to develop truly healthy urban space at a human scale creating liveable places in our parks, squares, and all other public spaces in general.

Contents

Part I

Introduction to Placemaking Theory and Implementation Strategies in Contemporary Public Spaces and Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Approach and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Research Hypothesis and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Why Public Space? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Taxonomy, Uses, and Performance of Public Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes a “Place”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Placemaking and Climate Change Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Key Principles of Placemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 The Power of 10+: Applying Placemaking at Every Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Cultural Programming of Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept, or an Immeasurable Quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Place-Based Governance Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 6 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 24 24 25 xix

xx

Contents

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects . . . . . . . . 3.1 Prologue: The Social Dimension of Urban Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Economic Value of Sociability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 What Is Social Mixing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Is Sociability Contested in Public Spaces or Is It Affected by Activities in Public Spaces? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion and Vitality in Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Understanding Social Behaviour and the Character of Public Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Cultural Influences on Sociability Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part II

29 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

An Organizational Framework to Assess Sociability of Public Spaces, a Mixed Methods Approach for a Public Space Index Deduction

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies: Boston, Cambridge, and Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Methodological Analysis of Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Cultural Programming, Community Games, and Artwork at the Lawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Placemaking Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Placemaking in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Evaluate Short-Term and Long-Term Placemaking Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Future Recommendations: Improve Sociability Around the Edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The Urban Highway Project and the Citizen Movement . . . . 4.4.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 The “El llit del Túria es nostro i el volem verd” Civic Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Urban Regeneration of the Highway into Greenway Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 47 47 47 49 50 50 50 52 53 55 57 58 58 60 60 61 63 65

Contents

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological Framework Approach: Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction: Why a Mixed-Methods Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Site Selection: Interpretative Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Understanding the Model . . . . . . 5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing the Model . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Public Life Metrics—User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Public Space Metrics—Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Urban Micro Trends: Statistical Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools and Online Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Data Collection Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scales . . . . . 5.5.4 Micro Trends: Smart Planning Tools Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.5 Evaluation Matrix for the Data Analysis of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating the Public Space Index (PSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Public Space Index Variables and Measuring Criteria . . . . . . 5.6.2 Public Space Index Interpretation of Weighing, Scoring, and Implementation Techniques for Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Individual Users’ Survey Form (Site Users) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 In-depth Interviews Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

67 67 68 68 69 69 70 70 71 72 72 72 72 73 73 73

79 79 79 81 82

Part III The Case Study of North End Park from Boston, Massachusetts, USA 6 Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway: Boston, Massachusetts, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Context Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Preliminary Place-based Analysis of the Rose Kennedy Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Culturally Oriented Activities on Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Historical Background of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park . . . . . . . . . 6.3 North End Park Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 87 87 88 90 93 97

xxii

Contents

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Physical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Placemaking Programming of Uses and Activities . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion: The North End Park as a Successful “Public Place” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 101 102 103

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 North End Park: An In-Depth Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Visual Observation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Visual Observation Analysis: Timeline and Locations . . . . . 7.2.2 Visual Observation Analysis: Pedestrians Counts Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Visual Observation Analysis: Stationary Activities Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Visual Observation Analysis: A Photographic Storyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5 Interpretation of Users’ Sociability in North End Park and Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.6 Notes on the Video Camera Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Users Intercept Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Timeline and Counts (See Appendix 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: An In-Depth Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Discussion of Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Key Informants’ Interviews: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Key Informant Interviewees and timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Interview Results and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools . . . . . . . 7.5.1 The Liveability Calculator: Methodology and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 The The Liveability Calculator’s Measurement Metrics: See Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Vision Zero Project: A Real-Time Street Safety Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Co-Urbanize Platform to Imagine Boston 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107 107 108 108

104 104

110 112 119 133 135 139 140 141 141 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 154 154 156 157

Contents

xxiii

Part IV General Discussions and Conclusions 8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Interpretation of the Results from the PSI of the North End Park Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Future Planning in the North End Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 A Vibrant Open Space Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 Create a Complementary Urban District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Meet with the Community and Identify Stakeholders . . . . . . 8.6.2 Evaluate Space and Identify Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.3 Place Vision and Management Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.4 Short-Term Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.5 Ongoing Re-Evaluation and Long-Term Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Further Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161 161 162 163 164 164 167 167 167 167 169 170 170 171 171 172 172 172

Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Appendix 2: Surveys Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

About the Author

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud is a Polyglot urban planner and architect by education. Since 2018, she is a Post-Doctoral Researcher Fellow at the Urban Simulation Lab (Fausto Curti), Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), at Politecnico di Milano. Now she is the research team leader together with Prof. Eugenio Morello on CLEVER Cities Project—Funded by the European Commission—Horizon 2020 as an expert of Co-creation guidance for cities to implement Nature-based solutions in socially inclusive urban regeneration processes. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban Regeneration and Economic Development. In 2016, she pursued her Ph.D. degree in Northeastern University of Boston MA as an (ESR) early-stage researcher part of a European Commission—MARIE-CURIE Action funded Horizon 2020 Project—GA # 645651—MAPS-LED Project then in 2017, as an Experienced Researcher (ER) in San Diego State University, CA, USA. In 2010, she earned her bachelor’s degree from Architectural Engineering Department Alexandria University of Egypt with a major in Urban Design section about Psychological and Environmental urban design, in a collaboration programme with Michigan State University and Bauhaus—Universität Weimar, Germany. In Politecnico di Milano, she also lectures about Nature-Based Solutions and placemaking in the Master of Science in Urban Planning and Policy Design, as well as Master of Sustainable Architecture and Landscape design. She is also an Adjunct professor at the Alleanza Italiana dello sviluppo Sostenibile (ASVIS), advocating for Climate Change and Environmental sustainability pathways. Lately, she co-led the Greening Cities, Shaping Cities international symposium at Politecnico di Milano, October 2020 and co-edited the latest published book Nature-based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning: Greening Cities, Shaping Cities (2022).

xxv

Part I

Introduction to Placemaking Theory and Implementation Strategies in Contemporary Public Spaces and Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract Placemaking of public spaces is a phenomenon that has arisen in contemporary urban cities lately, specifically, those involved in art and cultural urban regeneration and, more recently, in climate change challenges. In turn, creative placemaking movement fosters entrepreneurial and cultural activities that generate jobs and income in most cities. Moreover, when the correct urban development approach is applied, the outcome can benefit several social target groups such as community development actors, by increasing economic viability, and cultural vitality. Contemporary placemaking, known as creative placemaking, envisions urban public spaces acting as creative crucibles for citizen engagement between public sector, private sector, businesses, housing, residents, and visitors. In light of potential radical changes in the outcomes of placemaking, this book investigates a possible placemaking approach efforts in literature, results from similar examples and finally in the case of North End Park, on the greenway in Boston, Massachusetts. The final aim of looking at these areas of research is to revitalise public spaces and improve their sociability; and to emphasise their significant role towards sustainable community development, in general and specifically in green-based urban regeneration processes. Keywords Placemaking · Urban design · Public spaces

1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities With the trend towards greater economic urbanisation and the rapid emergence of mega-cities continuing unabated (Brenner and Schmid 2015; European Commission 2015; Oliveira and Mell 2019), many policy makers ask themselves whether some cities are becoming too large, and whether policies should be aimed at stimulating the growth of intermediate-sized cities (UN-Habitat 2010; Desmet and Rossi-Hansberg 2014). In this light, this research tries to identify models for successful public spaces in a system of cities, together with some basic urban and aggregate data that can be used to help identify the success of sociability phenomenon, considering the issues related to the built environment in a structural setting of cultural-based environment and economic attributes of public spaces. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_1

3

4

1 Introduction

For this reason, the sociability of public spaces and the need for new methods to understand the robustness of public life metrics together with the quality of life in the public realm is believed to contribute to social mixing of people in current urban regeneration projects. According to this notion, the focus shifted from empirical data research to implementation of evidence-based and qualitative/quantitative user-based design, to support planning decisions to make cities better for people. Meanwhile, the public realm teaches us that civic equalisation, and design and planning tools could be equally critical issues for divisions in cities. The mutual interaction between one’s personal space and social space depends mostly on the public realm itself. Commutes to work, park walks, a coffee in a plaza; such activities are the experiences that shape the tolerability, civic commons, and inclusiveness of a public space. A closer look at the relationship between public life and public space reveals a mutual interest. People could sit, enjoy the shadow of a canopy tree, walk pleasantly, and/or observe a prevalent visual. Nonetheless, inclusive planning of any public spaces, influenced by furnishings, types of seating, commercial and cultural attractions, sidewalks, paving characteristics, etc., catalogues the attractiveness in the public realm at this fine-grain scale. This book aims to investigate the taxonomy of successful public urban spaces meanings in green urban regeneration settings. It also sets out to analyse different interpretations for public spaces and their significant role in generating social capital in general, and specifically in urban regeneration processes. The major focus is to understand the functional aspects of public spaces (urban design features, physical design elements, cultural values generated, etc.) and their correlation with the social capital importance of an urban regeneration process, see Fig. 1.1. Urban design is believed to play a determining role in the quality of existing and new urban areas by influencing the various dimensions of urban form: urban layout, land use distribution, building types, density, and mobility infrastructure (Colantonio and Dixon 2011; UN-Habitat 2014) thus, the need to articulate this within the trending framework of urban regeneration, as the ultimate goals for urban public spaces are for people to enjoy them and to provide a gathering place for social events demonstrating different characteristics and real-life scenario stages (Appleyard 1981; Gehl Architects 2004; Gehl 2006; Gehl and Svarre 2013; Appleyard et al. 2014). In addition, it seeks to figure out the importance of social activities in public spaces, as highlighted by Sassen (2005) in terms of raising the degree of spatial and socioeconomic inequalities in global cities. Dempsey (2010) also put forward a different planning theory that relies on the benefits of the compact city movement that calls for development by extending mixed-use approach, walkable communities, cycling, and increasing social interaction that leads to safety consequences as highlighted by Ameli et al. (2015). In any case, the placemaking approach and the city-we-need approach (PPS and UN-Habitat 2015) are discussed in order to evaluate how the placemaking trend is improving the efficiency of socio-economic performance in green urban regeneration policies. It also covers the newly introduced implementation strategies of

1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities

5

Introduction PLACEMAKING

SOCIABILITY

Placemaking & Sociability EVALUATION FRAMEWORK fill-in the gap between top-down/bottom-up implementation ▪ Public Life/ Public Life Model explanation ▪ Data collection Tools and Techniques ▪ Evaluation Matrix + PUBLIC SPACE INDEX

NORTHEND PARK

Fig. 1.1 Book parts and chapter’s structure

IMPLEMENTATION

6

1 Introduction

placemaking such as the power of 10+ or the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper technique (LQC). Further public space case studies are considered in order to evaluate the proposed urban form analysis methods over a wider range of urban configurations with different mobility and socio-economic contexts. For example, the Lawn on D project in the new Boston Innovation District represents a traditionally monocentric urban region of private-led urban regeneration, the Harvard Square is another example that demonstrates a successful Public–Private Partnership in placemaking initiatives. These additional case studies would provide information on the general applicability of the analysis methods and their principles. Lastly, the Public Space Index aims to contextually analyse the performance of certain cases—such as the North End Park in this research—in order to better understand the correlation between some urban planning approaches (such as the placemaking implementation strategies: power of 10+ or LQC) and the Environmental Psychology field studies (such as the sociability phenomenon). Summing up, the designated point of arrival is the triangulation of the data collected, see Fig. 1.1, based on the robust evaluation criteria on which the Public Space Index is built. Finally, a general discussion is conducted, and findings are drawn based on the aforementioned analysis; moreover, some limitations to the research and recommendations are given, based on the premises.

1.2 Research Approach and Methodology The research in this book attempts to push the knowledge forward in order to understand the sociability phenomenon of public spaces (by analysing different demographic and social indicators) and their effect on social aggregation and segregation, in order to generate cultural capital in public spaces in contemporary city morphologies, in addition to the specific importance of public spaces in urban regeneration processes. • Investigate several aspects of public spaces (social, cultural, economic, etc.). • Correlate several aspects of the formation of public spaces in terms of generating cultural spillover. • Evaluate public space sociability as a driver for cultural regeneration processes. Within this discipline, this research attempts to study the relation between the social approach as a valuable concept and the placemaking approach, in order to improve the understanding of how people use public spaces, their motivational attitude, and how urban designers can stimulate a better qualified built environment in order to generate cultural spillover. Finally, this research calculates a numerical Public Space Index (PSI) that considers the quantification of the sociability of public space attributes and evaluation criteria in correlation with placemaking implementation strategies in urban regeneration projects.

1.4 Aims and Objectives

7

1.3 Research Hypothesis and Problem Statement To what extent does the diversity and sociability mixture in public spaces affect the quality of those public spaces? How robust are the socio-demographic metrics for changing the facets of public policies concerned with the diversity of public life? How are findings comparable between different taxonomies of public spaces? How do cultural programming strategies impact the variety of people who spend time in public spaces? What are the measurable outcomes of public life sociability in the case study of North End Park, and did the change from a highway to a greenway affect the cultural aspects of the surrounding area?

1.4 Aims and Objectives This book aims to investigate the multidisciplinary relationship between the builtup urban spaces and the social effect users have over them; using this approach to reformulate the theoretical-operational paradigms of urban—social, cultural, and sociological—morphology. It addresses the question of understanding: What relationships are there between urban design qualities and the human social dimension in public urban spaces? How can we analyse people’s perception of public urban spaces? What methods and tools are used for evaluating the interrelation of human social—urban qualities with cultural activities in green spaces?

1.4.1 Aims • To acknowledge the role of urban design enterprises and local economic development within the social context of a built-up environment. • To explore innovative approaches to cultural-led urban regeneration policies, in order to strengthen Public–Private Partnerships. • To improve knowledge and skill in relation to different forms of Public–Private Partnerships implemented for urban regeneration initiatives. • To also apply a nature-based solution to the cultural, financial, social, and environmental feasibility of urban and territorial transformation based on community-led and place-based approaches.

1.4.2 Objectives 1. Evaluate the relationship between urban spatial configuration and the human social and economic behavioural experience and understanding of specific public places’ urban qualities.

8

1 Introduction

2. Analyse people’s perception of city public space models through theoretical and conceptual models (with variations in scale/purpose). 3. Highlight the importance of activities observed in different public spaces in terms of (stationary/physical/cultural/transit) aspects. In this specific approach, measuring the people/place relationship using three methods: visual, interaction, and statistical. 4. Develop a matrix for evaluating the interrelation between social and economic principles and the formation of urban design using qualitative and quantitative methods.

References Ameli SH, Hamidi S, Garfinkel-Castro A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead to more walking in Salt Lake City, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 74809.2015.1041894 Appleyard D (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley Appleyard B, Ferrell CE, Carroll MA, Taecker M (2014) Toward livability ethics. Transp Res Rec 2403:62–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2403-08 Brenner N, Schmid C (2015) Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19:151–182. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712 Colantonio A, Dixon T (2011) Urban regeneration & social sustainability: best practice from European cities. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/ 9781444329445 Dempsey N (2010) Revisiting the compact city. Built Environ 36:5–8. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv. 36.1.5 de Oliveira FL, Mell I (2019) Planning cities with nature. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-01866-5 Desmet K, Rossi-Hansberg E (2014) Analyzing urban systems: have mega-cities become too large?, pp 1–30. http://www.princeton.edu/~erossi/WBChapterKD%26ERH.pdf European Commission (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for naturebased solutions & re-naturing cities. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/765301 Gehl Architects (2004) Zurich public spaces. Quality & use analyses for 18 selected public streets, squares, and parks. Report presented to Stadt Zurich and delegation fur wirtschaft und offentlichen raum des stadtrates. March–September 2004 Gehl J (2006) Life, spaces, buildings. In: Urban design futures. Routledge, London, pp 70–75 Gehl J, Svarre B (2013) Public space, public life: an interaction. In: How to study public life. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8 PPS, UN-Habitat (2015) Placemaking and the future of cities. http://www.pps.org/wp-content/upl oads/2015/02/Placemaking-and-the-Future-of-Cities.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2022 Sassen S (2005) The global city: introducing a concept. Brown J World Aff XI:27–43 UN-Habitat (2010) State of the world’s cities 2010/2011-cities for all: bridging the urban divide. https://unhabitat.org/state-of-the-worlds-cities-20102011-cities-for-all-bridgingthe-urban-divide. Accessed 3 Oct 2022 UN-Habitat (2014) The economics of urban form: a literature review. https://unhabitat.org/ sites/default/files/download-manager-files/The%20Economics%20of%20Urban%20Form.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2022

Chapter 2

Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation Strategies

Abstract The focus of this chapter is to identify the definitions of public spaces and the role they play in daily life, whether cultural or social. In addition to that, the chapter aims to analyse placemaking as an approach “in practice” to better regenerate public spaces in contemporary cities, and how the different implementation techniques and strategies used for placemaking have proven to provide diverse economic and social results. Thus, placemaking is not an easy topic to wrestle with; the implementation policies differ widely between European and US contexts. Definitions are tricky and fundamentally intertwined with the execution level to which strategies lead, whether that be a top-down approach from a governmental agency or a bottom-up approach from grassroots or citizen movements. Keywords Public spaces · Placemaking · Urban regeneration

2.1 Why Public Space? Contemporary trends indicate that urban design is stressed in public urban spaces. Public spaces have been involved in urban revitalisation projects to create a symbol of city identity, as well as proving to be a useful tool for regeneration processes (Ramlee et al. 2015). In line with these trends, this part of the book aims to define the role of public space in contributing to areas of scientific research in terms of (1) definition, (2) placemaking concept, (3) types of public spaces, and (4) evaluating that role within a framework that promotes a social contribution to the cultural-based urban regeneration process (Miles and Paddison 2005). Moreover, the focus on the “criteria of successes” of public urban spaces is somehow determined based on the users’ perception. These, in fact, include various aspects of motivation, purposes, diversity, and differences in activities according to cultural backgrounds, local characteristics, and social cohesion. Hence, this study stresses the role of urban public spaces in new revitalising developments or bringing public spaces in cities to the forefront of cultural regeneration developments. With ideas of equality, plurality, and progress constituting part of its very foundations, the contemporary cities are today facing new challenges arising from their exponential growth and increasing social and cultural complexity. Some of society’s © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_2

9

10

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

main problems are expressed in its public spaces (CCCB 2012; Ulldemolins 2014): segregation, rampant construction, and deficiencies in guaranteeing the rights to housing and to the city are some of the phenomena that are putting the ideal of the open and democratic community that has always been so distinctive of cultural cities into jeopardy. Thus, urban regeneration is a useful tool in understanding cultural clustering and place branding in contemporary cities. An important notion in Western thought about public space is that of an “unrestrained public sphere” in which social and political movements can occur. Although public space is referred to as a space for participation and amicable social behaviour, it is also a territory contested between various groups, between private and public, and between regulating authorities and the citizenry. Scholars agree that unconditional universal access to public space is almost impossible (Lofland 2010; Carmona 2014; City Space Architecture 2014; Pollock 2014). Nevertheless, access and use are good measures for defining and evaluating public space, even if they do not capture all dimensions of public space, they do cover several crucial and fundamental dimensions of public space in contemporary society. On that, public spaces are inherently multidimensional. Successful and genuine public spaces are used by many different people for many different purposes at many separate times of the day and the year. Because public spaces welcome so many uses and users—or fail to do so—they are also where a staggering cross-section of local and global issues converge (PPS 2016).

2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces While definitions of what public space is are contested, it is still possible to identify common characteristics that change across spaces and time have kept intact. It takes the work of protagonist Jane Jacobs (1961) to understand the role of public spaces in our “urban way of life,” consisting of cultural openness and tolerance, or William Whyte’s (1980a) masterpiece on social life of public spaces as relevant elements of people’s quality of life, drawn from observations for designing public spaces for people. Then, it is also fundamental to approach Gehl’s (1987) definition of public spaces as being “responsive, democratic, and meaningful spaces in the city like streets, squares, plazas, and urban green spaces, which are open and accessible to everyone for gathering and socialising.” This definition shaped the overall idea about public space being the centre when it comes to public spatial practice. Later, Gehl (2010) developed criteria for assessing the qualities of public spaces in cities. Among these, enjoyment covers the human scale, the aspects of sensory experiences in a place, the different measures to investigate the physical characteristics of public spaces, and how people use public spaces and interact there daily. Later, that approach changed public policies adopted on many governmental levels in some European cities (City of Copenhagen 2009).

2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces

11

There are various definitions of public space distinguished by issues of ownership, control, access, and use. Some authors define it as the “space that is not controlled by private individuals or organisations, and hence is open to the general public” (Madanipour 1996, 144; 2006). Others base their definitions on issues of access and use, and public space is defined as “publicly accessible places where people go for group or individual activities” (Carr et al. 1992, 50). Contemporary definitions of public spaces have been brought to the forefront of academia and the new urban agenda lately by the UN-Habitat (2016, 7), as a matter of quality-of-life indicator in the transformative power of urbanisation, by looking at public spaces as drivers of prosperity. In 2011, at the 23rd Session of the Governing Council of UN-Habitat, member states mandated UN-Habitat to consolidate agency-wide work on public space, to develop and promote public space policies, co-ordination, disseminate knowledge and directly assist cities in public space initiatives (UN-Habitat 2015). As a matter of fact, ten policy tools were amended to be used for public spaces in different contexts based on the analysis of diverse case studies; nonetheless, these general policies focus mainly on the dilemma between goals and constraints to achieve better public spaces. The term “public” has long been a key concept for interpreting and shaping collective human life. With roots in Ancient Greece, it has played a constituent role in the development of modernity from the eighteenth century onwards. In a sphere of publicness, citizens are said to develop their deliberative capacities and identities, make claims for recognition and transform multiple self-concerns into a recognised common interest (Koch and Latham 2012). Classic conceptions of public space have been those of citizens gathered in the city in an ideally civil manner: the agora in Ancient Greece; the piazzas of Renaissance Italy; the streets and coffeehouses of the modern city. In the 1990s, urban public space emerged as a key focus of geographical concern. Empirically, scholars became attentive to how the ongoing reconfiguration of all sorts of public spaces was linked to wider processes of urban transformation. Public space is an integral part of the public realm and is receiving increased attention across the range of social science and humanities disciplines. Each academic discipline views through a different lens and with particular interests and concerns to the fore, (Hanafi Mahmoud, et al. 2013). Political scientists, for example, generally focus on democratisation and on rights; geographers on sense of place and “place lessness”; anthropologists and sociologists on the historical construction and subjective value of place; legal scholars on access and control in public places (Carmona 2021). The relative “publicness” of space can be considered in terms of three qualities: • Ownership—whether the space is publicly or privately owned, and whether—and in what sense—it constitutes “neutral” ground. • Access—whether the public has access to the space. This poses the question of whether a place becomes private when an admission fee is charged: consider, for example, the difference between museums for which an entry fee is charged and for which no entry fee is charged: is one public and the other not, or are neither

12

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

public While, in urban design terms, “accessibility” is the capacity to enter and use a space, not all public spaces are “open” and accessible to everyone. • Use—whether the space is actively used and shared by different individuals and groups. This notion was basically initiated by the Charter of Public Space1 (INU 2013, 6, 7) as a key policy document to outline a useful working definition and description of public spaces as follows: Public spaces are all places publicly owned or of public use, accessible and enjoyable by all for free and without a profit motive. Public spaces are a key element of individual and social well-being, the places of a community’s collective life, expressions of the diversity of their common, natural, and cultural richness and a foundation of their identity. […] The community recognises itself in its public places and pursues the improvement of their spatial quality.

2.3 Taxonomy, Uses, and Performance of Public Space Carmona (2010) states that public space narrowly defined relates to all those parts of the built and natural environment to which the public has free access by typology. It encompasses all the streets, squares, and other rights of way, the open spaces and parks, and the public/private spaces to which public access is unrestricted, see Table 2.1. Parks would be one typical example of green space, while their counterpart the square would typically be grey space. It is possible to generalise space in terms of the dominant form or to subdivide it if it is large enough, to describe the space more accurately. Squares in particular can be defined as intentionally built multi-purpose open spaces framed by buildings on most sides, usually grey space, and often open to public access. In accordance with this typology, plazas, like other open spaces, squares range in scale in relation to city, neighbourhood, and residence, or city-wide, intermediate, and individual buildings. This emphasises how they are used within the city as well as their scale rather than their precise size. City scale would refer to squares or plazas often planned by the government and aimed at serving substantial portions of population. The intermediate scale impacts multiple residences at local levels of neighbourhoods, districts, or block levels. A square contained between individual buildings or private residences even may have an interior courtyard that might be only neighbourhood accessible, for instance. With this typology in mind, public spaces, and squares are historically reviewed in terms of perception importance. Probably the most coherent literature review on uses and performance of public space starts with Kevin Lynch’s (1981) “Dimensions of Performance” with vitality, 1

In 2008, under the aegis of the National Planning Institute (INU), the initiative of a Biennial on public space was launched. In 2013, UN-Habitat engaged in the official partnership and actively participated in the drafting, review, and adoption of the charter of public space by many city councils for the development of public spaces.

2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes a “Place”?

13

Table 2.1 Urban space types classification Space type

Distinguishing characteristics

Examples

Positive spaces 1. Natural/semi-natural space/green Space

Natural and semi-natural features Rivers, natural features, within urban areas, typically under seafronts, canals State ownership

2. Civic space

The traditional forms of urban space, open and available to all even if temporarily controlled

Streets, squares, promenades

3. Public open space

Managed open space, typically green and available and open to all, even if temporarily controlled

Parks, gardens, commons, urban forests, cemeteries

4. Movement space

Space dominated by movement needs, largely for motorised transportation

Main roads, motorways, railways, underpasses

5. Service space

Space dominated by modern servicing requirement needs

Car parks, service yards

6. Left over space

Space left over after development, often designed without function

“SLOAP” (space left over after planning), Modernist open space

7. Undefined space

Undeveloped space, either abandoned or awaiting development

Redevelopment space, Abandoned or transient spaces

Negative spaces

sense, fit, access, and control as the five main criteria for evaluating the city’s provision of place quality, on the basis of the society occupying it (cultural values implied, see Patil and Patil [2016]) and not solely with reference to the spatial form of the city. Along the same lines, Clifton et al. (2008) argue that the impact of urban design on people’s perception and the dimensional performance of a space are an important qualitative interpretation of the environment in the form of psychological measures rather than only cleanliness, attractiveness, and pedestrian friendliness qualities.

2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes a “Place”? The distinction between “Public Space” and a “Place” is a slippery concept. In the existing body of literature as well as in policy documents both terms are used interchangeably. However, not all public spaces are effective “Places” (Chen et al. 2013; Zamanifarda et al. 2016). Indeed, more often the failure of attempting to create “places” out of regeneration or retrofitting projects, is considered as creating barriers

14

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

between people and their places due to them being unsafe, inaccessible, exclusive, abandoned, or poorly maintained on a variety of scales. However, the idea of the public space at the centre of the user’s identity or building spaces around people’s culture is not new or innovative. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE 2007) introduced the concept of building public spaces based on a process of measurement whereas the characteristics involved the access, use, people, environment, design, surrounding community, and the user. That guide paved the way to involving a variety of diverse groups of people and to developing relations between users and their space, by measuring the qualities and recording individual perceptions of their space. In compliance with this, acknowledging human-led design (putting the user at the centre of the policy and planning) in the so-called “Placemaking Process”—by which physical environment is made meaningful, or a space becomes a “place”—leads to rethinking about the ways placeled governance (putting the place at the centre of planning policies) is a key step in creating safer, healthier places and rebuilding inclusive communities (Locke 2013; Foo et al. 2014; Mackenzie 2015; Main and Sandoval 2015; Kelkar and Spinelli 2016). Any research on placemaking would be incomplete without examining the role of the Project for Public Spaces (PPS)2 in defining the field. Founded in New York City by Fred Kent in 1975 to build on the work of William “Holly” Whyte and his Street Life Project, PPS has been championing placemaking since that time. Building on these premises, one of the most important human-led urban design models for successful public spaces is the model built by PPS (2009a) in turn from places, whereas “Sociability”—highlighted in purple—is seen as an “unmistakable feature” to attain and achieve, see Fig. 2.1. In evaluating thousands of public spaces around the world, PPS found that to be successful, they share the following four qualities: they are accessible; people are engaged in activities there; the space is comfortable and has a good image; and finally, it is a sociable place: one where people meet each other and take people when they come to visit. PPS developed The Place Diagram above as a tool to help people to judge any place, good or bad. The model is place-based, the centre circle in the diagram is a specific place, a street corner, a playground, a plaza outside a building. That place could be evaluated according to the four criteria in the orange ring. In the ring outside these main criteria are a number of intuitive or qualitative aspects by which to judge a place; the next outer ring shows the quantitative aspects that can be measured by statistics or research. Today, the term placemaking is used in many settings, not just by citizens and organisations committed to grassroots community improvement, but also by planners and developers who use it as a “brand” to imply authenticity and quality, even if their projects do not always live up to that promise. Using “Placemaking” in reference to a process that is not really rooted in public participation dilutes its potential value (Vazquez 2012; Montgomery 2016; URBACT, n.a.).

2

https://www.pps.org.

2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking?

15

Fig. 2.1 PPS Model of successful public spaces in the urban sphere, the Model originated in 2009 and was then updated3

A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone; it must also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always trumps form (Sepe 2018). When people of all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds can not only access and enjoy a place, but also play a key role in its identity, creation, and maintenance, that is when genuine placemaking is in action. The mutual influence of community and place is, in other words, called the virtuous cycle of placemaking, see Fig. 2.2; whereas mutual stewardship and community engagement grow and provides the opportunity to enter, maintain, programme, and enliven on an ongoing basis (MIT—DUSP 2013).

2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking? In literature, placemaking refers to “a collaborative process of shaping the public realm in order to maximize shared value. More than promoting better urban design, placemaking facilitates use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural, and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution” (PPS 2017). 3

https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat.

16

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

Fig. 2.2 Placemaking process virtuous cycle (Source MIT—DUSP 2013, 12)

Hence, placemaking is both a philosophy and a practical process for transforming public spaces. It is centred on observing, listening to, and asking questions of the people who live, work, and play in a particular space in order to understand their needs and aspirations for that space and for their community as a whole (Callanan 2014; PPS 2018). In the growing body of the literature, contemporary placemaking is based on the teachings of Whyte (1980b) and Gehl and Svarre (2013) as well as the retheorising urban design theorem introduced by Carmona (2015, 2017), whereas public space will be affected by the socio-economic and political context within which it is shaped. Understanding the merging of interdisciplinary spheres over time is non-negotiable, the placemaking process has intrinsically been accompanied by the physical, social, economic, and cultural qualities of urban public realm. Rather, the placemaking concept is based on a simple principle; by planning cities for cars and traffic, we will get cars and traffic. Planning cities for people and places, we will get people and places. Yet puzzled by community fabrics, economic development, and sustainability, governments at all levels must recognise the formation of public spaces and places as the core incremental process of city-making. Bearing that in mind, the obstacles facing designing and planning public spaces in contemporary cities with sustainability challenges have become more complex, more environmental, as highlighted by Santos Nouri and Pedro Costa (2017), and in need of continuous adjustments.

2.5.1 Placemaking and Climate Change Approach The objective of restructuring is not to compete with the other factors as established by the PPS. Instead, the goal is to complete a generic approach in identifying the

2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking?

17

wholesome “success” of a given public space in a century that can witness continually growing climatic threats, see Fig. 2.3. Over time the placemaking concept developed towards the new field of creative placemaking by describing how this approach could sustain the intersection of community and cultural and economic development (Vazquez 2012). The National Endowment Act in 2014, used the definition of “creative placemaking” that is provided from Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa Nicodemus’s white paper (2010): In creative placemaking, partners from public, private, non-profit and community sectors strategically shape the physical and social character of a neighbourhood, town, tribe, city or region around arts and cultural activities. Creative placemaking animates public and private spaces, rejuvenates structures and streetscapes, improves local business viability and public safety, and brings di- verse people together to celebrate, inspire and be inspired.

Having said so, the belief is that effective placemaking centres local community, and results in the creation of quality public spaces; those quality public spaces

Fig. 2.3 Environmental climatic comfort model by PPS revised by Santos Nouri and Pedro Costa (2017)

18

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

contribute to people’s health, happiness, and well-being (Sepe 2017, 2018). The core of the placemaking movement remains the people themselves, in a survey by PPS (2009b), the public spaces developed by the creative placemaking movement meant the following: “…designing a public space that can be used by the community as a meeting place for communication, fun, relaxation, bonding, and civic involvement, to name a few.”

2.5.2 Key Principles of Placemaking While creative placemaking goes beyond community development as a concept, the lack of metrics and models that show the economic and social impact that arts and culture projects have in community are key barriers to broader integration in the different contexts of community revitalisation (The Kresge Foundation 2015). Unfortunately, the rigid planning processes of the twentieth century have become so institutionalised that community stakeholders rarely have the chance to voice their own ideas and aspirations about the places they inhabit. Placemaking can break down these barriers by showing planners, designers, and engineers the broad value of moving beyond the narrow focus of their own professions, disciplines, and agendas. Considered as the Springboard for community revitalisation, the placemaking approach offers wide guidelines for communities to integrate cohesive visions and translate them into a plan, in other words, to translate theory into practice. Meanwhile, it ensures the plan’s sustainable implementation (Kelkar and Spinelli 2016). In that regard, it is believed that placemaking belongs to everyone, its message and mission are bigger than any one person or organisation. Table 2.2 summarises the distinct roles that placemaking could be playing in current everyday lives, and above all in the growing field of human urban design.

2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies While there are many strategies for transforming cities and public spaces, the growing momentum relies on effective and immediate solutions for regenerating public spaces rather than traditional top-down approaches to improving cities (PPS 2017). Another approach to the field of creative placemaking implementation strategies builds on the definition of the Transportation for America Initiative (The Scenic Route, see Fig. 2.4) by encompassing the arts and Culture in the transportation planning field as follows: In the transportation context, creative placemaking is an approach that deeply engages the arts, culture, and creativity, especially from underrepresented communities, in planning and designing projects so that the resulting communities better reflect and celebrate local culture, heritage and values. (Transportation4America 2018)

2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies Table 2.2 Placemaking key principles from theory to practice

19

Placemaking is

Placemaking is not

1. Community-driven

2. Top-down

3. Visionary

4. Reactionary

5. Function before form

6. Design-driven

7. Adaptable

8. A blanket solution or quick fix

9. Inclusive

10. Exclusionary

11. Focused on creating destinations

12. Car-centric

13. Context-specific

14. One-size-fits-all

15. Dynamic

16. Static

17. Trans-disciplinary

18. Discipline-driven

19. Transformative

20. One-dimensional

21. Flexible

22. Dependent on regulatory controls

23. Collaborative

24. A cost/benefit analysis

25. Sociable

26. Project-focused

Fig. 2.4 Creative placemaking project—Downtown Memphis Murals (Source http://www.downto wnmemphis.com/downtown-mural-guide/)

The inclusion of the arts and cultural programming at the basis of the placemaking approach somehow became revolutionary in the years 2011–2013. The reason is the major new US cultural policy and funding trend—creative placemaking, wherein cross-sector partners strategically shape the social and physical character of a place (Nicodemus 2012, 2013, 2014). However, the main concerns with implementation of creative placemaking were about financing such a concept. If not funded, local communities remain underprivileged in terms of such opportunities. That initiated the growing momentum to get “back to the basics” of what makes cities thrive, and how art catalyses Cultural Destinations within Neighbourhoods, as an economic driver to prosperity (Holmes 2016).

20

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

2.6.1 Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper4 Strategy Since the quality of a public space has always been best defined by the people who use it. Many of the most effective and immediate solutions proposed by communities are lighter, quicker, and cheaper than traditional top-down approaches to improving cities. Hence, one of the most common strategies is the so-called “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC)” approach that is proof that expensive and labour-intensive initiatives are not the only nor the most effective ways to bring energy and life into a community’s public space. United under the core principles of community vision, cost-effectiveness, collaboration, and citizen-led change, this exciting movement goes by many names—action-planning, guerrilla urbanism, popup projects, city repair, D.I.Y. Urbanism, and Tactical Urbanism (Bazzu and Talu 2017; Lydon and Garcia 2015). All are seen as important tools and catalysts for larger community-based placemaking processes (Gildner et al. 2014). The proliferation of LQC efforts all over the world signals the emergence of a powerful, networked, and creative movement, and it shows that more and more people are beginning to see how communities can be created and transformed by making a series of affordable, human-scale, and near-term changes (Bravo et al. 2012). Although many of the challenges facing today’s cities go well beyond the scope of these individual interventions, taken together they demonstrate that incremental and place-led change is possible, even in the midst of ongoing social, economic, and political obstacles. To sum up, the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach is not for every situation (it may not be the right solution, for example, for large infrastructural projects like building bridges), but it can be a creative, locally powered alternative to the kind of capital-heavy and top-down planning processes that so often yield end results that are completely detached from the needs and desires of the communities they are meant to serve.

2.6.2 The Power of 10+: Applying Placemaking at Every Scale The power of 10+ is a concept PPS developed to evaluate and facilitate placemaking at multiple city scales. It is a powerful tool for generating constructive conversations to identify targeted placemaking efforts. Cities succeed or fail at the human scale— the place scale—and this scale is often overlooked. The power of 10+ shows how paying attention to the human experience when building a city’s destinations and districts can have immediate and widespread impacts, see Fig. 2.5. 4 “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” is a phrase borrowed from Eric Reynolds (Master Of Low-Cost, High-Return Public Space Interventions in London and NYC) to describe the simple, short-term, and low-cost solutions that are having remarkable impacts on the shaping of neighbourhoods and cities.

2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies

21

Fig. 2.5 Power of 10+ as a placemaking strategy on a place scale

The idea behind this concept is that places thrive when users have a range of reasons (10+) to be there. These might include a place to sit, playgrounds to enjoy, art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to meet. Ideally, some of these activities will be unique to that particular place, reflecting the culture and history of the surrounding community. Local residents who use this space most regularly will be the best source of ideas for which uses will work best. Further, when cities contain at least 10 of these destinations or districts, their public perception begins to shift among both locals and tourists, and urban centres can become better equipped for generating resilience and innovation (PPS 2014). The power of 10 expands across the cities’ scale as well, not just the place. In fact, the UN-Habitat (2016) initiated the movement to bring public spaces as a policy tool to change the urban planning management system. Yet, in 2014 PPS lead the way with 10 amending strategies for transforming cities and public spaces through placemaking, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Improving streets as places. Creating squares and parks as multi-use destinations. Building local economies opportunities through market places. Designing buildings to support public places. Linking the public health agenda to public spaces. Re-inventing community planning. Utilising the power of 10+ on a place scale. Creating comprehensive public space agendas.

22

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

9. Experimenting with the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach. 10. Restructuring the government to support public spaces. In essence, the 10 amending strategies opened the window of opportunities for communities to thrive and implement what they think is convenient on their scales. The governmental approach to supporting public spaces changed over time and, the implementation process is where the cities’ consultation processes take place. However, current trends in cities in which placemaking has taken hold, have involved local government in making the change happen through community development organisations, business improvement districts, and neighbourhood partnerships.

2.6.3 Cultural Programming of Public Spaces In a debatable article by Southworth (2014) the argument extends to the cultural programming of public spaces and how is as important as physical design, whereas the elements of urban design might stimulate the social life and the setting for public spaces. Such a demonstration of active edges, attractions for people of all ages and social backgrounds, comfortable spaces for sitting and observing the urban scene, or the works of art that engage imagination are the social drivers for the success of public spaces. Nikitin (2012) stresses the role the public spaces play as hubs and centres for contemporary cultural changes. Even with the shifting attitudes, people are demanding more inspiring, interactive gathering places. While the ideas of creative class and creatively engaged people are at the forefront of academia (Florida 2002; Markusen 2006); creating great, engaging centres of culture are the product of great placemaking; and that is where the cultural programming of public spaces kicks-in. Despite huge changes in technology, cultural changes, and context, public spaces have maintained their liveability and continue to serve as the city’s outdoor living room, and it is therefore undeniable that public spaces are to play a leading social role.

2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept, or an Immeasurable Quality? Outlining the defined role and the cultural value of public spaces has been a longdebated subject in academia, the political environment, and in professionally interested communities. The differences in definitions, types of public spaces, quality goals, implementation strategies, as well as the challenges facing cities nowadays are the major contradictions between the planned urban developments and the achieved on-site plans.

2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept …

23

Project for Public Spaces (PPS 2014) offers a guide on how to design sociable public spaces that are rich in activities and able to guarantee access and linkages: a guide which is widely used by urban planners to design new or revitalise existing public spaces, in a sustainable way. Public spaces—streets, squares, and parks—afford an essential human opportunity for interaction, exchange, creativity, and knowledge transfer. They support the capabilities of residents to improve their own prosperity, health, and well-being, and to modify their own relations to one another and adapt to conditions and opportunities. On such a connective matrix, great cities grow.

On one hand, UN-Habitat (2015) recognises the role of public spaces to generate social capital as an essential part of the “city we need” call, see Fig. 2.6. On the other hand, urban regeneration of public spaces involves distressed urban areas, through actions, programmes, and policies on a larger scale, in order to improve the living conditions; with the development of public spaces, parks, squares, etc., and mobilisation of cultural capital (defined as rejuvenation of significant outdoor spaces). This includes the role of economic and commercial facts about public spaces as well, which is the focus of the economic regeneration process; it also points out how urban regeneration tools based on the leverage of “Public–Private Partnerships

Fig. 2.6 The city we need model (Source UN-Habitat 2015)

24

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

(PPP)” can give different public spaces a local sense of “place” as an iconographic symbol of the community and develop this as an outcome. Yet, the fact of the space itself remains, the guarantees that this space is attractive to people, how individuals meet, move through the “space,” and interact with each other; that, in itself, is the heart of public life diversity. This kind of social behaviour intersects with socio-economic trends, street networks, and down to the fine-grain small-scale urban furniture, landscape, and programme analysis. In fact, contemporary theories of urban morphologies encompass the “urban whole” and the ways the city develops by responding to human behaviour (Bravo and Crawford 2014; Karssenberg and Laven 2012). In other words, public spaces, when they are part of the entire urban context, are subject to place-based policies. These forces are somehow constraints on the place’s social development.

2.8 Place-Based Governance Policies In a controversial article on place-based policies, Robin Hambleton (2015) articulates the role of civic leaders in framing governance of their places. Whereas various powerful forces shape the context within which they operate, such as environmental limits, socio-cultural framing, governmental framing, and economic framing, rather than limiting the impact of forces in any place locality. While the environmental limits are non-negotiable, as Fig. 2.7 shows, the sociocultural forces that include people like activists, entrepreneurs, community-based groups, and their cultural values may drive place governance. Nonetheless, the horizontal economic forces that drive localities to compete give rise to the need for inward investment and for attracting talented people. The top-down approach manifested in governmental framing for place-based governance includes planning policy obligations in different contexts.

2.9 Conclusion This chapter discussed the successful placemaking concept, the distinct roles public spaces play in daily lives, and how the social qualities emerge. It shows the new paradigm of creative placemaking and the implementation strategies on a local communities’ scale as well on city-wide scales. It is now undebatable that the very definition of placemaking has expanded far beyond its roots in the works of Jane Jacobs, William H. Whyte, et al. Placemaking encompasses a vast arena of physical scales, from town green to district; processes; initiators; and partners. The gradual turn from “what makes a good place?” to “what—and who—makes a good placemaking process?” indicates that an increasingly nuanced understanding of community involvement, political power, and social capital is beginning to permeate the field. And rather than diluting the field due to

References

25

Fig. 2.7 Framing approach to place-based governance (Source Hambleton 2015)

the increasing size of placemaking’s “tent,” placemaking’s increased inclusiveness and diversity is strengthening at ground level. To sum up, the major trends in placemaking point towards a new, “makingfocused” paradigm for the practice. Public and private sector place-makers, funders, community advocates, and public officials all have a role in successful placemaking. The most interesting, most successful placemaking projects today leave previous tenets of the field behind: gone is the master-planner, the big, top-down bureaucracy, and the enormously expensive, multi-year debt-financed capital plan. By then the importance of the placemaking movement and its different techniques emerged, in changing the facets of the current urban design. It has still never been used as an amending policy in various cities. The following chapter discusses the sociability attribute and its importance for evaluating the implementation strategies of the placemaking theorem of public spaces.

References Bazzu P, Talu, V (2017) Tactical urbanism. tutta mia la città. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091567-0 Bravo L, Crawford M (2014) Publics and their spaces: renewing urbanity in city and suburb. In: Cavallo R et al. (eds) New urban configurations. IOS Press & TU Delft, Amsterdam, pp 784–789. http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/36063. Accessed 11 Dec 2017

26

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

Bravo, L., Carmagnini, C., & Matityahou, N. (2012). Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper: towards an Urban Activism Manifesto. In INU (Ed.), XXVIII Congresso dell’Istituto Nazionale di urbanistica (pp. 45–48). http://www.urbanisticainformazioni.it/IMG/pdf/ud004_tema_2.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2022 CABE (2007) Spaceshaper: a user’s guide. CABE, London Callanan L (2014) Creative placemaking. Community Development Invest Rev—Fed Reserve Bank San Fr 10. https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/community-develo pment-investment-review/2014/december/creative-placemaking/ Carmona M (2010) Contemporary public space, part two: classification. J Urban Des 15:157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111 Carmona M (2014) The place-shaping continuum: a theory of urban design process. J Urban Des 19:2–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695 Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8:373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014. 909518 Carmona M (2017) The formal and informal tools of design governance. J Urban Des 22:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338 Carmona M (2021) Public places urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457 Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin LG, Stone AM (1992) Public space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CCCB (2012) Public space. Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, Barcelona Chen X, Orum AM, Paulsen KE (2013) Introduction to cities: how place and space shape human experience. Cities as places and spaces, 1st edn. Blackwell, Hoboken City of Copenhagen (2009) A metropolis for people: Copenhagen together. Copenhagen. http://geh lpeople.com/story-article/a-metropolis-for-people/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017 City Space Architecture (2014) Past present and future of public space. http://www.cityspacearchit ecture.org. Accessed 11 Oct 2017 Clifton K, Ewing R, Knaap G, Song Y (2008) Quantitative analysis of urban form: a multidisciplinary review. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 1:17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/175 49170801903496 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it is transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/ 0205.florida.html Foo K, Martin D, Wool C, Polsky C (2014) Reprint of “The production of urban vacant land: relational placemaking in Boston, MA neighbourhoods”. Cities 40:175–182. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cities.2013.12.006 Gehl J (1987) Life between buildings: using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York Gehl J (2010) Cities for people. Island Press, Washington, DC Gehl J, Svarre B (2013) Public space, public life: an interaction. In: How to study public life. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8 Gildner, P., Pacheco, K., Jackson, K., Kalu, O., Bilak, M., Younan, E., Marquez, C., Mayers, J., Henderson, St., Rewers, J., Komarakulnanakorn, P., Soldatova, T., & Tham, C. (2014). Hackable Cities: A Toolkit for Re-imagining your Neighbourhood. https://issuu.com/pgildner/docs/hac kable-cities-pages. Accessed 27 Jan 2018 Hambleton, R. (2015). Place-based leadership: A new perspective on urban regeneration. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 9(1): 10–24. https://www.henrystewartpublications.com/jur r/v9 Hanafi Mahmoud, I., El Araby, M., Al-Hagla, K. S., & El Sayary, S. (2013). Human social behavior in public Urban spaces: towards higher quality cities. Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies 3(2):23–35. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8676/CGP/v03i02/ 5369 Holmes TE (2016) The catalyzing power of art. Shelterforce—National Housing Institute, July 1–4

References

27

INU (2013) Charter of public space. https://inu.it/wp-content/uploads/Inglese_CHARTER_OF_ PUBLIC_SPACE.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2017 Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York Karssenberg H, Laven J (2012) The city at eye level: lessons for street plinths. In Meredith Glaser HK, van ‘t Hoff M, Laven J, van Teeffelen J (eds) The city at eye level. Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands. 978-90-5972-999-5 Kelkar NP, Spinelli G (2016) Building social capital through creative placemaking. Strateg Des Res J 9:54–66. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2016.92.01 Koch, R., & Latham, A. (2012). Rethinking urban public space: accounts from a junction in West London. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 515–529. http://www.jstor. org/stable/41678652 Locke R (ed) (2013) Shifting from objects to places. In: Future of Places International Conference on Public Space and Placemaking. Ax:son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm, p 156 Lofland LH (2010) Review essay—American public spaces—whose property? Int J Urban Reg Res 34:709–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00990.x Lydon M, Garcia A (2015) Tactical urbanism: short-term action for long-term change. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0 Lynch K (1981) A theory of good city form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Mackenzie A (2015) Placemaking and place-led development: a new paradigm for cities of the future. https://www.pps.org/reference/placemaking-and-place-led-development-a-new-par adigm-for-cities-of-the-future/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 Madanipour A (1996) Design of urban space. An inquiry into socio-spatial process. Wiley, Chichester Madanipour A (2006) Roles and challenges of urban design. J Urban Des 11:173–193. https://doi. org/10.1080/13574800600644035 Main K, Sandoval GF (2015) Placemaking in a trans-local receiving community: the relevance of place to identity and agency. Urban Stud 52:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014522720 Markusen A (2006) Urban development and the politics of a creative class. Environ Plan A 38(10):1921–1940 Markusen A, Gadwa A (2010) Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: a review and research agenda. J Plan Educ Res 29:379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09354380 Miles S, Paddison R (2005) Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban Stud 42:833–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500107508 MIT—DUSP (2013) Placemaking is about the “making”. https://issuu.com/mit-dusp/docs/mitdusp-places-in-the-making. Accessed 20 Nov 2017 Montgomery A (2016) Reappearance of the public: placemaking, minoritization and resistance in Detroit. Int J Urban Reg Res 52:776–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665 Nicodemus, A. G. (2012). Creative Placemaking 2.0. GIA READER. https://www.giarts.org/art icle/creative-placemaking-20. Accessed 31 Oct 2016 Nicodemus, A. G. (2013). Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant US cultural policy. Cult. Trends 22(3-4): 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2013.817653 Nicodemus, A. G. (2014). Creative Placemaking 101 for community developers. LISC Institute for Comprehensive Community Development, May (27), 1–5. http://www.instituteccd.org/news/ 5014 Nikitin C (2012) Creativity & placemaking: building inspiring centers of culture. PPS. https:// www.pps.org/article/creativity-placemaking-building-inspiring-centers-of-culture. Accessed 26 Jan 2018 Patil R, Patil V (2016) Review of a theory of good city form by Kevin Lynch. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 5:1172–1174. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501109 Pollock, S. (2014). Production, Use, and Barriers to Access in Public Space: A Comparative Case Study in Metro Atlanta, GA, USA (Unpublished Thesis). PPS (2009a) What makes a successful place? http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/. Accessed 2 Mar 2016

28

2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …

PPS (2009b) What placemaking is? http://www.pps.org/reference/placemakingis/. Accessed 5 Apr 2016 PPS (2014) Ten strategies for transforming cities and public spaces through placemaking. PLACEMAKING 101. https://www.pps.org/reference/ten-strategies-for-transforming-cities-thr ough-placemaking-public-spaces/ PPS (2016) Public space at the crossroads of everything, July. https://www.pps.org/blog/publicspace-at-the-crossroads-of-everything/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017 PPS (2017) What if we built cities around places? https://www.pps.org/article/greatcitiesinitiative. Accessed 4 Apr 2017 PPS (2018) 5 steps to making places. https://www.pps.org/article/5-steps-to-making-places. Accessed 11 Jan 2018 Ramlee M, Omar D, Yunus RM, Samadi Z (2015) Revitalization of urban public spaces: an overview. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 201:360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.187 Santos Nouri A, Pedro Costa J (2017) Placemaking and climate change adaptation: new qualitative and quantitative considerations for the place diagram. J Urban 9175:1–27. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17549175.2017.1295096 Sepe M (2017) The role of public space to achieve urban happiness. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 12:724– 733. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-724-733 Sepe M (2018) Placemaking, livability and public spaces: achieving sustainability through ecoliv@ble design. In Bisello A, et al (eds) Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions, green energy and technology. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-75774-2_16 The Kresge Foundation. (2015). Financing the NEXUS of arts and community development: Key barriers to broader integration of creative placemaking in community development (Issue january). https://kresge.org/resources/ Transportation4America. (2018). What is creative placemaking? https://creativeplacemaking.t4a merica.org/what-is-creative-placemaking/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018 Ulldemolins R (2014) Culture and authenticity in urban regeneration processes: place branding in central Barcelona. Urban Stud 51:3026–3045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013515762 UN-Habitat (2015) Habitat III issue papers—public space. United Nation Conf Hous Sustain Urban Dev 2015:1–8. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-report.pdf UN-Habitat (2016) Global public space toolkit from global principles to local policies and practice. https://unhabitat.org/global-public-space-toolkit-from-global-principles-to-localpolicies-and-practice. Accessed 30 Mar 2017 URBACT (n.a.) https://urbact.eu/p4c-placemaking-cities-complete-overview. Accessed May 2022 Vazquez L (2012) Creative placemaking: integrating community, cultural and economic development. Natl Consort Creat Placemaking, p 40. http://www.petkovstudio.com/bg/wp-content/upl oads/2017/03/Creative-placemaking-integrating-CCED.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2017 Whyte WH (1980a) The social life of small urban spaces. 1st edn. PPS, New York Whyte WH (1980b) The social life of small urban spaces, 3rd edn. PPS, New York Zamanifarda H, Alizadeha T, Sipeb N (2016) Why some places do better than others? A closer look at urban public space management. In: 9th International Urban Design Conference. Hyatt, Canberra

Chapter 3

Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

Abstract This chapter introduces the definition of the social dimension of public places; it sheds light on the two poles of the influence of the physical environment on human behaviour as well as the human agency and social influences on urban spaces. Moreover, it brings sociability to the fore as one identifiable attribute of successful public places as discussed in the previous chapter, the cultural and economic influences on the liveability of public spaces, as well as the weight of public life as identified by observation of the occurrence of cultural activities and social events. This chapter intentionally raises the questions of sociability’s impact on public life and users’ activities, whether it affects the public space or shapes the public space, especially green spaces. Keywords Placemaking · Urban design · Sociability · Urban regeneration

3.1 Prologue: The Social Dimension of Urban Planning The relationship between people and their environment has long been debated as a vital component of the determinism of urban design. Claiming social space and being seen in public becomes a way for social groups to legitimise their right to belong in society. Yet because they can be used by everyone, public spaces are frequently considered contested spaces; as argued by Habermas (1989), Mitchell (2003), Grazian (2004) and Marcuse (2007), places where opposition, confrontation, resistance, and subversion can be played out over “the right to space,” see also Appleyard and Riggs (2021). On the one hand, human behaviour in a built-up environment is strongly influenced by “the physical milieu” in which people interact (Carmona et al. 2010; Carmona 2015, 2017). Critically, people using public spaces that are unknown to them may experience a range of emotions from curiosity to uncertainty to insecurity, which can also affect behaviour. At the same time, the users of these spaces are also capable of influencing their form and feeling, by introducing social characteristics and elements such as culture, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and age. These elements, together with the physical and ambient (or non-physical) features of the public space, are capable of having a profound effect on the way that people behave in, experience, and interact © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_3

29

30

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

in public spaces. Nonetheless, passive engagement is seen as a low-profile issue, thus, sociability is better believed to be a two-way process in which people create and modify spaces while being influenced by those spaces in several ways. On the other hand, Kashef (2008) describes the urban public space as a “neutral” container to which economic and social activities are backdrops and considers urban space to be configured and reconfigured by societal and cultural changes, but not vice versa. That being said, we come to the argument that urban designers influence the patterns of human activity and shape social life in public spaces. Hence, the forms of public life that occur are in perfect correlation with the social space, where used for social interaction, regardless of the ownership (public or private), as long as it is accessible to the public (Brill 1989; Banerjee 2001). Figure 3.1 illustrates the human liveability indicator in relation to the quality of the Built environment. The human liveability (lifestyle) which is a qualitative factor, is related to personal preferences and behaviour and is linked to urban design (the built environment) which is a quantitative factor—related to frequency of visits, traffic, crime, climate, and measurable urban qualities. In any public space, objective indicators such as age, gender, and time in the lifestyle domain are to be quantitatively considered along with frequency of visits, the time of observation, and weather status. Meanwhile, subjective indicators such as activities based on the public space and their relation to individual satisfaction levels are to be considered qualitatively. The built environment (domains) variables along with the cultural and lifestyle aspects are responsible for changing (indicators) human behavioural preferences along with age, personal preferences, and the urban design details, according to Fig. 3.1. However, the importance of sociability as a phenomenon is its intangibleness; public spaces have always been designed to support intensive civic life. However, sometimes ignored, some urban spaces have been architecturally designed in their entirety as if sociability has not always been considered (Martí and Roca 2017). Thus, sociability could be looked at as the weight of life that unfolds in designed spaces, which is the main aim of urban design for public spaces; identified using observation as the basic tool. Besides, urban public spaces work as unlimited community pots, they pave the way for socialising, public attendance, social relations, and creativity (Moayedi 2014). Hence, by giving attention to the importance of the quality of public spaces in relation to people’s voluntary attendance, working on this issue is vital to create focus, diversity, and dynamism in order to increase the quality of public spaces.

3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition In the urban studies sphere, the concept of the sociability of public urban spaces was first introduced as an analytic term by the German sociologist Georg Simmel in 1977 to highlight features of organisational life that connect individuals, groups,

3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition

31

Fig. 3.1 Domains of (human) liveability and urban design (built environment) quality-of-life indicators

organisations, and society, as also pointed out by Kanter and Khurana (2009). Moreover, Simmel’s ideas—according to Scott (2009)—approach social interaction by relevantly describing social roles, positions for locating social actors in relation to each other; and urban structure in order to describe recurring social relationships. On the definition of sociability, Project for Public Spaces (2009) gives the most fitting characterisation as “a place where people would meet each other and take people when they come to visit.” However, it is considered as one of the most difficult qualities to achieve but once attained it becomes an unmistakable feature, places where people arrange to see friends, neighbours, and feel comfortable interacting with strangers. It triggers a stronger sense of place, community attachment and fosters diverse types of social activities. Historically, Madanipour (1996, 2003, 102) coined the sociability definition as “a performative exchange among strangers as a main feature of the modern urban

32

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

society” where individuals engage in the exchange of ideas, goods, and services, but mediated through interpersonal space. As a consequence, this led to more stable and cohesive societal relations of exchanges between strangers in the realm of the public sphere. Meanwhile, Di Giovanni (2014) defines sociability, in other words, as “a new trend of self-made urbanism”; stating its occurrence as a phenomenon in which people have organised themselves autonomously, to look for and provide for their needs, in terms of facilities and performances in the urban public space. Ravazzoli and Torricelli (2017, 43) reviewed the definition of public spaces from a social perspective in terms of the quality of public spaces being enhanced when the space stimulates accessibility, diversity, identity, interactions, openness, social cohesion, and capital, as well as cultural diversity. While the cultural diversity could be tracked by a variety of activities and functions in public spaces; it remains one of the fundamental indicators of liveability and sociability. The place, culture, and historical background determine how people use and behave in public spaces; although each public space has its own spatial, historic, social, and economic features that must be considered. Moreover, the promotion of social diversity, through creating inviting and active spaces for social activities is related to how public spaces are designed, what they offer, and how they are managed (Hes and Hernandez-Santin 2019). Thus, redefining the role of public spaces from an economic perspective is achieved when there are opportunities to develop the local economy and the space is self-sustainable economically (Heynen et al. 2008).

3.3 Economic Value of Sociability In a study conducted by Cowan (2012) about the occurrence of sociability in public spaces and consumption by users, he states: Sociability has figured prominently in recent histories of consumer society and material cultures. It has become increasingly clear to historians and social theorists that the places where consumption took place, or where consumer desires were stimulated, and the ‘social milieux’ in which consumers were located, are just as important to understand as the actual acts of consumption.

It is crucial to affirm the relationship between income of individuals and the rise of the “public sphere” in cities. It is clear that studies into deepening the thoughts of what the major factors could be that affect the presence of people in public places, their significance in a wider analysis (Hanafi Mahmoud et al. 2013), and what kind of activities they engage in in these places is related to where they consume and spend their income. Similarly, CNU (2016) published a study discussing the economic values of public spaces in a city and the urban design qualities existing in places themselves, drawing examples from The San Antonio River Walk in Texas. A similar study conducted

3.4 What Is Social Mixing?

33

in San Francisco by Popper (2010) assessed sociability of public spaces and active engagement in commercial shopping activities by identifying users’ income. In addition to that, Steuteville (2015) emphasises that “the real issue involved behind design elements are economics, because they are critical to establish a unique place.” On investigating urban design aesthetics and elements in greater depth, it is considered to play an undebatable role in the quality of existing and new urban areas by influencing the various dimensions of urban form: urban layout, land use distribution, building types, density, and the mobility infrastructure (UN-Habitat 2014). Thus, the need to articulate this role within the trending framework of urban regeneration—from a sociological and psychological point of view—since the ultimate goals of urban public spaces are for people to enjoy them and to provide a gathering place for social events, in order to demonstrate distinctive characteristics and reallife scenario stages it is fundamental to follow (Colantonio and Dixon 2011). This, in addition to figuring out the importance of social activities in public spaces, as highlighted by Sassen (2005) in terms of the powerful effect of personal economics in raising the degree of spatial and socio-economic inequalities in global cities.

3.4 What Is Social Mixing? Human encounters in public spaces depend fundamentally on the chances that we might pass by someone, contact someone, or that someone may become a familiar “stranger” (Risom 2015). Social mixing occurs across the spectrum from aloneness to close friendships, mixing between different groups, which is because under appropriate conditions, interpersonal contact is an effective way to reduce prejudice between social groups. In the (Chetty et al. 2014) article about economic geography, there is a statement that there is a correlation between areas with high economic mobility and positive social capital, and outcomes coupled with greater socio-economically integrated neighbourhoods and family stability. Nonetheless, this is demonstrated by the frequency of public spaces and their urban design. Thus, strengthening the belief that good urban design, from street networks to benches, creates tolerant, inclusive communities where there is a shared opportunity for human flourishing. However, the appropriate tools to measure this inclusiveness or this mixing in public spaces were always missing. The majority of urban designers blame it on the delayed measurements of social outcomes when it comes to public spaces, which often take years to physically manifest. As found from a study conducted by Tonnelat (2010), the sociability of a selected place is based on correlating physical behavioural preferences of users and their psychological preferences, using their rating for sociability of the selected place as a measurement. This measurement considers that the space is fixed in terms of geographic location, and the period (period) is fixed as well.

34

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

In another study Farahani (2015) analyses how the physical characteristics of commercial streets can either promote, affect, or mitigate the social life of people, capture social behaviour in spaces, and generate a sociable environment. Agrawal (2013) argues in a brief sociability review, that successful public spaces in terms of design elements, increase the sense of safety and security as well as foster social interactions, community cohesion, and social integration. According to Whyte (2007), the father of social behaviour studies in urban settings, the presence and number of people within a space are what define a space’s success. Whyte also believed the presence of people positively attracts others to enter a space as well. Thus, increasing social interaction that leads to safety as a consequence as also highlighted by Smets and Watt (2013) and Ameli et al. (2015).

3.5 Is Sociability Contested in Public Spaces or Is It Affected by Activities in Public Spaces? The belief is that sociability is a two-faced coin, it affects public spaces and gets demonstrated in it. Scholars of urbanism articulate the need for public space in political, social, and cultural contexts—as an important arena for the growth of the individual and society. Making a case for public space and associating sociability with political action, Francis (1989) suggested that to resolve the differences and inner contradictions between the private and the public self, and to lead more integrated lives true to democratic societies, people not only need a radical change in the political and social systems but a place to “come together freely and to do it on their own.” Historically, public spaces in cities were used as spaces to serve basic survival, communication, and entertainment needs and to perform several political, religious, commercial, civic, and social functions. Public spaces where people regularly meet their friends and watch daily life play a critical role in people’s lives (Rotenberg 2001). In contemporary developed societies, many of these functions have moved to private or virtual realms or to diverse types of privatised and parochial spaces (Brill 1989; Banerjee 2001). Contrarily, in many city-centre and mixed-use neighbourhoods, people still depend on public space for functional, social, and leisure activities for travel, shopping, play, meeting, interaction with other people, and even relaxation. Within this shift in the functions, of a city’s public places the patterns of user’s activities have shifted too. The activities within the main city spaces were specifically divided into three main categories of outdoor activities in the public spaces of a city, each of which imposes very different demands on the physical environment: necessary activities, optional activities, and social activities, Table 3.1. Functional, recreational, and social activities intertwine in all conceivable a combination…Life between buildings is not merely pedestrian traffic or recreational or social activities. Life between buildings comprises the entire spectrum of activities which combine to make communal spaces in cities meaningful and attractive. (Gehl 1987, 2006)

3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion …

35

Table 3.1 Activity types in public spaces comparison according to the importance of occurrence Necessary activities

Optional activities

Social activities

Include those that are more or less compulsory, such as going to work, shopping, waiting for a bus or a person, running errands. Among other activities, this group includes the vast majority of those related to walking. Because the activities in this group are necessary, their incidence is influenced only slightly by the physical framework. These activities will take place throughout the year, under nearly all conditions, and are more or less independent of the exterior environment. The participants have no choice

That is, those pursuits that are participated in if there is a wish to do so and if time and place make it possible—are quite another matter. This category includes such activities as taking a walk to get a breath of fresh air, standing around enjoying life, or sitting and sunbathing. These activities take place only when exterior conditions are optimal—when weather and place invite them. This relationship is particularly important in connection with physical planning. In other words, these activities are especially dependent on exterior physical conditions

Are all activities that depend on presence of others in public spaces. Social activities include children at play, greetings and conversations, communal activities of various kinds, and finally—as the most wide-spread social activity—passive contacts, that is, simply seeing and hearing other people. These activities could also be termed as “resultant” activities because social activities occur spontaneously, as a direct consequence of people moving about and being in the same spaces. This implies that social activities are indirectly supported whenever necessary and optional activities are given better conditions in public spaces

The discussion and debate on public space is often the discussion on which activities and behaviours are deemed appropriate in the space. In many ways, public space may be thought of as “flexible and ambiguous” (Loukaitou-Sederis and Ehrenfeucht 2009) ever changing to accommodate the activities and behaviours of its users. This way of conceptualising social life in public space is particularly important because sometimes people also invent new activities in public space and often appropriate spaces for activities and behaviours that suit their needs (Frank and Stevens 2007).

3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion and Vitality in Public Spaces Good public space creates a platform for engagement and discussion, for planned and spontaneous chance encounters, see Table 3.2, and for learning of diverse attitudes and beliefs. That, nonetheless, is unachievable without developing a list of social functions served in public spaces, including learning, development of social competence, exchange of information, facilitation of social dialogue, fostering of social awareness, enhancement of social integrative functions, and encouragement of ethical conduct. Scholars in various fields related to urban studies contend that it is the streets, squares, parks, and other urban public spaces that have the potential to

36

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

Table 3.2 Types of strangers, their social relations, and behaviours Types of strangers

Unknown strangers Familiar strangers Categorical strangers

Unknown strangers Categorical strangers

Types of social relations between strangers

Passive

Active

“People-watching” “Public solitude”

Fleeting encounters Intimate secondary Routinised/necessary encounters Chance encounters Quasi-primary relationships

Types of social behaviours involved

Visual encounters (observation) Civil inattention cooperation

Brief encounters (interaction) Visual and verbal brief and standard

a Definitions

Longer encounters (sociability) Visual and verbal emotional infused long-lasting

adapted from Aelbrecht (2016)

be “the stage upon which the drama of communal life unfolds” (Carr et al. 1992). Aelbrecht (2016, 125) discusses the fact that in some urban settings, living with diversity is beneficial to social cohesion; everyday social contact and encounters are crucial for overcoming ethnic cultural differences and building positive communities. Sociability in public spaces is hence seen in the context of people’s need to affiliate and interact with others. This affiliation involves people participating in a supportive social system in order to acquire psychological comfort. Sociability not only increases vitality in public spaces but also allows people to connect and to exchange information. Sociability is also related to the public life of a place. When the urban environments are uncomfortable, unused, or lack many physical amenities, sociability in public spaces diminishes. Although in this research the sociability concept is discussed separately from the physical, functional, security, and climatic issues, it cannot be fully understood if viewed in isolation from these factors. Therefore, socialisation occurs in a setting when activities in the square, the physical amenities, security, and climatic conditions are favourable for attracting groups of people, hence fostering liveability and vitality.

3.6.1 Understanding Social Behaviour and the Character of Public Life One important concept addressed is the notion of public life, which is related to sociability in public spaces and the behaviour of people around these spaces. Public life involves bonding different and diverse people together for good or bad. It also defines people’s roles in the community in order to become members of groups to make social or political statements. People can discover new things and learn

3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion …

37

from others, in fact living in a walkable neighbourhood proves to encourage social interactions, a sense of community, and informal and social cohesion (Du Toit et al. 2007). Thus, the character of public life depends on the setting’s characteristics: the activities, the culture of people that interact in it, and the time activities take place. Moreover, public life offers relief from daily stress, provides opportunities for relaxation, entertainment, and social contact. Public life offers the possibility of bringing diverse people together and becoming a realm in which people can express and proclaim their freedom. That, in other words, fosters social interactions between unknown strangers in public spaces; there is no ideal advocacy on the type of social interaction in inclusive and lively public realms, it then becomes a place in which people are brought together with no fear of strangers (Amin and Thrift 2002; Paulos and Goodman 2004; Amin 2010). Hence, public spaces do not exclude any type of interactions, on the contrary, the public realm gets populated by diverse types of strangers and social realms (Lofland 1989).

3.6.2 Cultural Influences on Sociability Value The socio-cultural characteristics of the community, the social values, and the beliefs of people influence the way they interact and socialise in public spaces. Another factor is the presence of shared meanings and rituals in public spaces determined by holidays, and cultural and historical events that encourage a sense of belonging and participation in the community in the public space. The nature of the community also determines the public life of a society; its size and heterogeneity can affect the balance between public and private realms. In highly diverse communities, it can be difficult to establish people contact and interaction. This can cause isolation and create “tunnel vision,” contributing to the “anonymity and facelessness of the city” (Carr et al. 1992). Social public spaces are generally filled with people. This presence of people in public spaces also attracts other people, which suggests that what attracts people the most to urban plazas is the presence of other people. Therefore, the best-used open areas are those that are sociable, with a higher diversity of people, more people engaged in groups, in couples, and more people meeting people. Those who visit public spaces alone also prefer to frequent the liveable ones (Whyte 1980; Madden 2010). Most sociable and liveable public spaces tend to: have higher numbers of women in them, amenities such as monuments, stairs, fountains that encourage people to lean and socialise, and a sense of security experienced in public space. Theoretically, visually, and aesthetically pleasing open areas are sociable spaces, but this condition alone does not provide complete satisfaction. The size and number of seating spaces in the public space and their comfort influence sociability and people gathering in the space. Finally, cultural programming of public spaces such as the

38

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

Fig. 3.2 Research approach to environmental psychology and urban design (Source The author after James et al. 2015)

presence of unique events, shows, street performances, and public art become activities or events that link people and make open spaces more amicable and attractive for people, see Fig. 3.2. Whyte (1980, 94) defined this ability as “triangulation” which is: The process by which some external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk to each other as though they were not.

To sum up, urban design and environmental psychology literature suggests spaces, activities, and conditions that are effective in anchoring social activities— spaces for stationary activities: sitting, standing, waiting, and “people-watching;” and favourable spatial conditions, e.g., “people-watching” is usually associated with places with a theatre setting layout, a well-defined stage and audience (Whyte 1980; Gehl 1987). Theories related to sociability can provide an understanding of the factors that bring people together in public open areas and therefore obtain the set of physical, functional, security, and climatic comfort factors that influence the various levels of people’s involvement.

3.7 Conclusion This chapter highlights sociability as a Value, its definition in the built-up environment, how it could be contested in public spaces and influenced by it, or vice versa. It also raises the questions of economic and cultural influences of certain public spaces on sociability. Moreover, it paves the way to better understand sociability in correlation with social cohesion and liveability indicators in some urban morphologies based on its public life stage. More than any other dimension, the social dimension raises a host of issues related to cultural values and affects different individuals in dealing with their “social space.” Social urban design should focus more on supporting and creating opportunities for public life than having a limited focus on physical public spaces. However, public spaces do exist in urban environments and public life does occur in them. Residents of the city deserve an examination of the quality of these public spaces.

References

39

Open spaces should provide opportunities for people to interact and engage. This interaction may occur at various levels of people’s involvement, which will depend on the conditions in such spaces. This last statement, in particular, is fundamental to understanding, because knowing about how sociability occurs in public spaces will provide indications on the physical and functional, climatic, and general conditions that favour this social contact. In highly populated cities in which the community is diverse, the possibility of having public spaces that can favour interaction between people (even strangers) can support people’s sense of community and belonging within those spaces.

References Aelbrecht PS (2016) ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. J Urban Des 21:124–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1106920 Agrawal, A. W. (2013). Literature review of Sociability of Public Places: A Study for Creating and Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San Jose Freeway (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https:// doi.org/10.1080/14616680010034711 Ameli SH, Hamidi-Castro S, Garfinkel A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead to more walking in Salt Lake City, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 74809.2015.1041894 Amin A (2010) Cities and the ethic of care for the stranger. Joint Joseph Rowntree Foundation/University of York Annual Lecture Amin A, Thrift N (2002) Cities: reimagining the urban. Urban Policy Res 21:217–222. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsnr.2002.0171 Appleyard B, Riggs W (2021) Human rights to the street: ethical frameworks to guide planning, design, and engineering decisions toward livability, equity, and justice. J Transp Land Use 14(1):911–931. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1918 Banerjee T (2001) The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. J Am Plan Assoc 67:9–24 Brill M (1989) Transformation, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public place. In: Public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York, pp 7–29 Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8:373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014. 909518 Carmona M (2017) The formal and informal tools of design governance. J Urban Des 22:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338 Carmona M, Tiesdell S, Heath T, Oc T (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge New York, pp 133–166 Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin LG, Stone AM (1992) Public space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Chetty R, Hendren N, Kline P, Saez E (2014) Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Q J Econ 129:1553–1623. http://www.equalityof-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_geo.pdf CNU (2016) Welcome to public square: a CNU journal. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/. Accessed 3 Mar 2016 Colantonio A, Dixon T (2011) Urban regeneration & social sustainability: best practice from European cities. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/ 9781444329445

40

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects

Cowan B (2012) Public spaces, knowledge, and sociability. In: The Oxford handbook of the history of consumption. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199561216.013.0013 Di Giovanni A (2014) Open minded urbanism. In: Bravo L (ed) Past present and future of public space. City Space Architecture, Bologna, Italy, pp 106–107 Du Toit L, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Stud 44:1677–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665 Farahani LM (2015) The social life of commercial streets. Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC Francis M (1989) Control as a dimension of public-space quality. In: Public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York, pp 147–172 Frank K, Stevens Q (eds) (2007) Loose space: possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge, New York Gehl J (1987) Life between buildings: using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York Gehl J (2006) Life, spaces, buildings. In: Urban design futures. Routledge, London, pp 70–75 Grazian D (2004) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Contemp Sociol A J Rev 33:361–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610403300361 Habermas J (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere. an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press). Comp Stud Soc Hist 34(1):189–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500017527 Hanafi Mahmoud, I., El Araby, M., Al-Hagla, K. S., & El Sayary, S. (2013). Human social behavior in public Urban spaces: towards higher quality cities. Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies 3(2):23–35. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8676/CGP/v03i02/ 5369 Hes D, Hernandez-Santin C (2019) Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4 Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E (2008) In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Springer, New York, pp 77–78 James K, Thompson-Fawcett M, Hansen CJ (2015) Transformations in identity, governance, and planning: the case of the small city. Urban Stud 53:1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209 8015571060 Kanter RM, Khurana R (2009) Types and positions: the significance of Georg Simmel’s structural theories for organizational behavior. In: Adler P (ed) The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: classical foundations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–11 Kashef M (2008) Architects and planners approaches to urban form and design in the Toronto region: a comparative analysis. Geoforum 39:414–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.09.002 Lofland LH (1989) Social life in the public realm: a review. J Contemp Ethnogr 17:453–482. https:// doi.org/10.1177/089124189017004004 Loukaitou-Sederis A, Ehrenfeucht R (2009) Sidewalks: conflict and negotiation over public space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Madanipour A (1996) Design of urban space: an inquiry into socio-spatial process. Wiley, Chichester Madanipour A (2003) Interpersonal space of sociability. In: Public and private spaces of the city, 2nd edn. Routledge, London and New York, pp 95–118 Madden K (2010) Creating successful public spaces. In: Maruši´c BG, Nikšiˇc M, Coirier L (eds) Human cities: celebrating public spaces. Stichting Kunstboek, Oostkamp, pp 97–104 Marcuse P (2007) The politics of public space/the right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Am Plan Assoc J Am Plan Assoc 73:125 Martí M, Roca E (2017) Urban visions for the architectural project of public space. J Public Sp 2:13–26. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i2.89 Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press, New York and London Moayedi M (2014) Planning to enhance sociability of urban public spaces in order to manage creative social relations. Kuwait Chapter Arab J Bus Manag Rev 3:78–89

References

41

Paulos E, Goodman E (2004) The familiar stranger: anxiety, comfort, and play in public places. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ’04) 6:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1145/985 692.985721 Popper A (2010) Walking, bicycling & public space on market street: a public space, public life study of San Francisco’s most important street. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA PPS (2009) What makes a successful place? http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/. Accessed 2 Mar 2016 Ravazzoli E, Torricelli GP (2017) Urban mobility and public space. A challenge for the sustainable liveable city of the future. J Public Sp 2:37–50. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i2.91 Risom, J. (2015). Live@SPUR—Putting public life back Into public space. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. https://vimeo.com/120541313 Rotenberg R (2001) On the plaza: the politics of public space and culture. Am Anthropol 103:875– 876 Sassen S (2005) The global city: introducing a concept. Brown J World Aff XI:27–43 Scott A (2009) Georg Simmel: the individual and the organization. In: The Oxford Handbook of sociology and organization studies: classical foundations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199535231.003.0012 Smets P, Watt P (2013) Exclusion and belonging in urban public and quasi-public space. Open Urban Stud J 6:27–29 Steuteville R (2015) The economic value of a unique place. CNU, pp 2–4. https://www.cnu.org/ publicsquare/economic?value?unique?place. Accessed 14 Oct 2019 Tonnelat S (2010) The sociology of urban public spaces. In: Territorial evolution and planning solution: experiences from China and France. Atlantis Press, Paris, pp 1–10. http://stephane.ton nelat.free.fr/Welcome_files/SFURP-Tonnelat-published.pdf. Accessed 02 Apr 2016 UN-Habitat (2014) The economics of urban form: a literature review. Accessed 22 Feb 2015 https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/The%20Economics% 20of%20Urban%20Form.pdf Whyte WH (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, 3rd edn. PPS, New York Whyte WH (2007) The life of plazas. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader. Routledge, London, pp 349–363

Part II

An Organizational Framework to Assess Sociability of Public Spaces, a Mixed Methods Approach for a Public Space Index Deduction

Chapter 4

Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies: Boston, Cambridge, and Valencia

Abstract This chapter introduces similar case studies to the placemaking implementation case, whereas the similarities and differences are presented either in terms of the stakeholders’ engagement processes—represented in a Public–Private Partnership through which the urban regeneration project was implemented—or of the urban scale on which implementation took shape. That said, three case studies are dealt with. The first is the Lawn on D project. The reason for that choice is that it falls within the innovation district of Boston, which allowed the PPS to intervene and implement the so-called Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper techniques (LQC) to regenerate the surrounding community. The second is the Harvard square in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in which the governmental approach for the city of Cambridge was maintained, in collaboration with a variety of community groups and stakeholders by implementing the power of 10+ strategy for regenerating sociability in the previously underutilised open space. The third and lastcase study is the first by the “Rio Túria Gardens” grassroots movement, a citizen-led regeneration project that changed the facets of the city of Valencia, Spain, by changing a highway into a greenway like the case of North End Park. The reason for investigating this case study is to better understand the similarities and differences in urban planning policies, informing the public authorities involved. The choice of the two first case studies was made to better investigate the urban policies in place, in the context of the state of Massachusetts. That gave better insights into how to formulate the North End Park learning case study, dealt with later in North End in this book, as well as providing information on the implementation of placemaking strategies at the forefront of the case study and the stakeholders involved. Keywords Boston · Urban design · Sociability · Cambridge Greenway

4.1 Methodological Analysis of Case Studies The important matter is to review how similar case studies used urban regeneration strategies and implementation techniques to validate the theoretical approach to both placemaking and sociability concepts.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_4

45

46

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

In each case study, stakeholders are identified, spaces in need of regeneration are evaluated and developed from a placemaking point of view. That said, the placemaking re-evaluation framework, see Fig. 4.1, is quite flexible and does not always happen in the same order (PPS 2018). In some cases, short-term experiments are needed to overturn the current place status or attract attention. While the placemaking implementation is the core of the process, the techniques could vary, as explained in Chapter 2; nonetheless, all placemaking processes aim to develop communities, leading to long-term improvements in terms of amenities and cultural programming, and help to create/shape a common vision of the place, see also (Leinberger and Loh 2018). Fig. 4.1 Methodological steps for re-evaluating the placemaking process

4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA

47

4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA The Lawn on D,1 an outdoor event space in Boston’s Innovation District, reflects the unique and changing character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The 2.7-acre public space is owned and operated by the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA), that will eventually expand their facilities and programming for the space permanently. In the meantime, they are using LQC strategies to evaluate possible interventions that will facilitate community engagement and nurture local arts.

4.2.1 Background The initial installation of the Lawn opened in August 2014 and consisted of colourful seating, lounge chairs, picnic tables, public art exhibits, a bar under a large white tent, games such as bocce and ping pong, and free Wi-Fi access. The space had a heavy programme of performances, live music, food trucks, and frisbee tournaments. In the winter months, The Lawn on D hosted a series of seasonal events and amenities such as a giant maze made out of ice blocks, organised snowball fights, and food trucks serving hot chocolate. There was even a two-storey snow hill on which skiers and snowboarders could perform tricks. Since its unveiling, the space has become a centre for cultural events and socialising, and because it is equipped with various amenities and a range of programming that includes children’s activities, sports, places for relaxation, a bar, and performances, the space meets the needs of diverse Bostonians (BCEC 2017).

4.2.2 Stakeholders A first-of-its-kind outdoor interactive space in Boston, The Lawn on D Powered by Citizens Bank began as an experimental event landscape that brings together different communities, audiences, and area residents for innovative programming and events in the epicentre of the South Boston Waterfront and South Boston neighbourhoods. There is always something to see, do, or experience at The Lawn on D, see Fig. 4.2. Open daily during designated hours, The Lawn on D provides a colourful collection of public seating and lounge chairs, interactive art exhibitions, assorted games such as bocce and ping pong, and an open venue for 4,000 people at maximum capacity. The Lawn on D is the perfect place to relax, enjoy the South Boston neighbourhood, and spend time with friends and family. 1

https://www.signatureboston.com/lawn-on-d.

48

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(f)

The Lawn on D becomes a destination Rotating installations add excitement to the space Performances activate the Lawn on D The ice mazes Winter-friendly programming is key to the lawn’s success A great place for conversation

Fig. 4.2 On-ground pictures from the Lawn on D Park in Boston, MA (Source https://www.pps. org/places/the-lawn-on-d/)

4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA

49

4.2.3 Cultural Programming, Community Games, and Artwork at the Lawn Swing Time is an interactive, lighting-enabled swing-set from award-winning architects Eric Höweler and J. Meejin Yoon of Höweler + Yoon Architecture. This immersive and visually stunning public work of art interacts with guests and reflects the playful nature and purpose of community embodied by The Lawn on D, see Fig. 4.3a.

Fig. 4.3 Lawn on D Swings (a and b), Summer 2016–2017 (Source https://www.bostonmagazine. com/tag/lawn-on-d/)

50

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

Fig. 4.4 Musical concerts and networking events on The Lawn on D

The ever-popular Swing Time is a seasonal community activity. Swing Time is an engaging set of swings fitted with solar-powered LED lights that change colour when swung at varying speeds and heights, see Fig. 4.3b. This immersive and visually stunning public work of art interacts with guests and reflects the playful nature of The Lawn on D. Swing Time 3.0 debuted in July 2016 and includes some design improvements, including a sleeker design that incorporates the attachment point into the shape of the swing. The new swings are fabricated using a roto-moulding process, which makes them more robust, but also smooth and seamless.

4.2.4 Placemaking Activities The Lawn on D offers a variety of outdoor games for visitors of all ages, game of bocce, ping pong, cornhole, or Jenga. Game equipment is available to the public during open Lawn hours, when the Pavilion on D is open and is supervised by The Lawn on D staff, see Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.

4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA 4.3.1 Historical Background The Harvard Square triangle used to be a traffic island at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue, Brattle Street, and John F. Kennedy Street. Space at the traffic island was taken up by the kiosk and terminus for MBTA’s newly extended Red Line leaving little to no room for civic life to unfold. Cars dominated Harvard Square and stunted its potential as a commercial centre and civic gathering place, see Fig. 4.6. A new vision for Harvard Square was beginning to take shape in the 1970s— as a place for people. In response to these new expectations, extensive street and sidewalk improvements took place to create a new pedestrian-oriented environment from Holyoke St to Brattle Square. The island occupied by the kiosk was joined

4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA

51

Fig. 4.5 Community games on The Lawn on D (Source https://signatureboston.com/lawn-on-d)

Fig. 4.6 Harvard Square 1969 (upper)–Harvard Square as of May 2014 (lower)

52

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

Fig. 4.7 Harvard Square redesigned site gathering area diagrams (Source Halvorson Design Partnership)

to the sidewalk in front of the Cambridge Savings Bank to make room for a new terminus and plaza as seen today, see Fig. 4.7. For nearly a decade, Harvard’s ongoing placemaking efforts have been activating the campus’ public spaces and enriching the lives of students, faculty, staff, and the wider Cambridge community. PPS began working with Harvard in 2005 to support their long-term placemaking initiative, helping to use Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper tactics to transform several public spaces. The first step was adding seating. A number of brightly coloured, movable chairs and benches were scattered around Harvard Square. This simple intervention quickly gained immense popularity. Chairs were constantly rearranged and turned into venues for hanging out, studying, eating, conducting seminars, and even hosting a giant game of musical chairs.

4.3.2 Stakeholders Harvard Planning + Allston Initiative (HP + AI) hired Project for Public Spaces in April 2005 to conduct a study of urban design options for creating successful public spaces in the North Campus. Working closely with Harvard, PPS’ task was to apply its placemaking methodology by engaging a group of Harvard stakeholders in the evaluation and visioning process for this key campus opportunity. PPS conducted a workshop with about 20 faculty and staff and 20 students to gain the user’s perspective and identify issues and opportunities. Participants agreed

4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA

53

that the North Campus lacks the amenities, activities, identity, and character to make it a successful public space. Based on the workshop’s findings, PPS developed a series of programmatic and physical planning recommendations for the campus that would enhance existing destinations and improve the overall image. In addition to long-term proposals, PPS identified several short-term experiments that allowed the University to evaluate ideas, make immediate improvements, and learn more about how placemaking could be incorporated into future planning efforts (PPS 2005). On 17 September 2013, the city of Cambridge, along with the Harvard Square Business Association and Harvard University, co-sponsored a community placemaking workshop attended by over 75 individuals. The workshop was guided by Project for Public Spaces on helping communities transform public spaces into vital places that highlight local assets, spur rejuvenation, and serve common needs (PPS 2014, 5, 7; Cambridge CCD 2015). Local businesses, nearby and city-wide residents, institutions, city departments including community development and the police, and local non-profit organisations such as Youth on Fire, participated. Together they developed A Community-Driven Vision for The Heart of Harvard Square (PPS 2014) to create a thriving civic square and world-renowned shopping, dining, cultural, and historic destination that continues to promote an authentic urban experience while encouraging the spontaneous interactions and improvisational activities that make, and have made, Harvard Square a unique and dynamic place. (PPS 2017).

4.3.3 Placemaking in Action Implement Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper at every scale: It all started with the chairs. By simply placing some movable furniture in Harvard Yard in 2009, the University took the first steps in what eventually became a long-term activation of its outdoor campus space, see Fig. 4.8. With just this small, temporary act of placemaking, the change was dramatic and immediate. PPS applied the LQC approach to Harvard Square public spaces—Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC). In short, the most effective solutions to improve a public space are often cheap, non-permanent interventions that can be accomplished instantly (Lester 2009; PPS 2015a, 2016). Define the power of 10 in Harvard Square: 10+ things to do, layered to create synergy with the right planning and management, Harvard Square has long been one of the ten great destinations in Cambridge. The destinations within Harvard Square and the activities that enliven and define them create these special places. They will be the attractions that locals and visitors will return to repeatedly, where friends will gather, and where everyone will experience the unique qualities of a civic square in the heart of Harvard Square, see Fig. 4.9. Improve the Activation and Use of the Out-of-Town News Kiosk and its integration within the Square. In June 2016, the long-term planning arts, and public facilities together with the community held a workshop for revising and improving the function of the

54

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

Fig. 4.8 Social activities in Harvard Square (Source Places in the making: How placemaking builds places and communities [MIT–DUSP 2013])

Fig. 4.9 Placemaking activities in Harvard Square: the 10+ destinations (Source Harvard Common Spaces—Great Public Spaces [PPS 2014, 2015b])

planned open space and surrounding areas and its activities, see Fig. 4.10. Community workshops helped to further refine a concept of use: • Reclaim public use of the news kiosk and promote better integration within the plaza.

4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA

55

Fig. 4.10 Harvard Square Out-of-Town News Kiosk Re-design Project (Source Harvard Square Placemaking Process: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/parks/hsquarepublicspace)

• Engage the community year-round through effective presentation, use, and experience. • Improve amenities like soft landscapes planters, flowers, greenery, and bring in pop-up vendors. • Provide the best local information point in order to engage a diverse population • The kiosk and plaza should be able to support meetups, free time sitting, and immersion within the square’s culture and offerings. • Improve wayfinding signage and circulation planning.

4.3.4 Evaluate Short-Term and Long-Term Placemaking Experiments With this success, Harvard Square identified its next site for activation—The Plaza— an underutilised outdoor space passed through by almost every person on campus. Through pointed LQC improvements and exciting programming, The Plaza was turned into an anchor on campus and a destination for the Cambridge population. The Plaza became the host of The Plaza Pet Therapy Zoo, the Cambridge Open Market, an ice skating rink during the winter, food trucks, games, exercise classes, performances, and more. Today, The Plaza and the Harvard Yard are places for coming together, for relaxation, and for connecting students across disciplines and with faculty and residents in unprecedented ways (PPS 2005).

56

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

If the goal is to transform Harvard Square into one of the world’s most successful civic squares, then we have to understand how people experience the square. From our outreach and community engagement, we came to understand that people feel that there is an overwhelming sense of vehicular traffic surrounding the triangular area or the “heart of Harvard Square.” For example, every group at the workshop raised the issues of traffic and recommended redesigning the streets so that space could be reclaimed for the Square and hence, pedestrians. There are measures that can be taken in the medium term to right-size the streets and make them work for the authentic urban experience we are trying to create at the Square. There is a big opportunity, and an easily implementable improvement, for Harvard Square to feature amenities that would enhance the image of the Square while also making the place comfortable for people to use and spend time there. The Square should offer a variety of seating, especially movable seating, to support a range of activities such as eating, reading, people-watching, or socialising. The location of the amenities and how they are triangulated, or layered together with each other and their uses, are the secrets to creating a truly lively place, see Fig. 4.11.

Fig. 4.11 Redesigned plaza seating and amenities at Harvard Square proposal (Source PPS [2015a])

4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA

57

4.3.5 Future Recommendations: Improve Sociability Around the Edges The streets, sidewalks, and storefronts surrounding the square need to be improved in order for Harvard Square to become a great civic square. Currently, the ground floor of the adjacent buildings such as the banks or the COOP do not engage with the outside. The storefronts need to be more porous and transparent so that they open up to showcase the products and activity happening inside, see Fig. 4.12. The goal is to have the uses inside spill out onto the sidewalk and contribute to the street life. The local and historic stores in Harvard Square represent a huge opportunity for the Square to have active, enticing edge uses that will draw people in and through the district and square. These include:

Fig. 4.12 Sociability re-designed in Harvard Square Plaza

58

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

• Open up the edges of existing Businesses into the triangle. • Create a better relationship between banks so that they relate more to the community and public realm. • Connect the inner square—Harvard Square triangle to the outer square to create synergy between the two.

4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain Once the Túria River was diverted to the outskirts of Valencia after the great flood of 1957, the Francoist government planned to build a large urban highway in the old channel that runs through the entire city. The great citizen mobilisation that took place in the mid-70s against this project, organised around the “El llit del Túria és nostre i el volem verd” (the Túria bed is ours and we want it green) civic campaign, managed to paralyse it. A few years later, the firm commitment of the first democratic council emerged after the municipal elections of 1979, chaired by the socialist mayor Ricardo Perez Casado, would make a citizen’s claim to transform the old Túria channel into green space, thus becoming the longest urban park in Europe, with its 9 kms in length (Esteban Longares Pérez 2012), see Fig. 4.13.

4.4.1 The Urban Highway Project and the Citizen Movement The starting point for the existence of the Túria gardens was the great flood of October 1957, one of the most tragic events in the recent history of the city of Valencia due to the great human, economic, and material losses it caused. So that such catastrophe did not return to flood the city, the Francoist government of that time decided to divert Túria River towards the outskirts of Valencia (the South Plan), building a new channel to the south of the city. In this way, the old riverbed remained empty and disused, ceasing to function as such and waiting for a new use (Ciudad Observatorio 2014). In 1973, the plenary session of the city council of Valencia created a commission to study the use that would be given to that new space, where it was decided, along with the central government, to create a great freeway that would cross the entire city and would connect the access from Madrid with port. But the idea of building a highway in the urban centre generated strong social rejection, and many critical voices were soon raised in defence of the paralysis of this project and in favour of the creation of a large park for citizen use, given the enormous shortage of green areas and public spaces that characterised Valencia at the time. Then a whole citizen movement was initiated, contrary to the construction of the road network, a great civic protest that, however, should not be understood as an isolated claim, see Fig. 4.14.

4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain

Fig. 4.13 Location map of Túria River

Fig. 4.14 Valencia, Spain Flooding 1957 (left)–Garden Fountains 2007 (right)

59

60

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

4.4.2 Stakeholders At the beginning of the 70s, a strong citizen movement emerged in Valencia, as in other cities of the country, from neighbourhood associations and other groups and associations, mainly to demand social improvements and basic services in the neighbourhoods, with serious shortages of equipment and public spaces, gardens and parks, housing, walks, transport, public lighting, etc. As a result of the developmentalism of the time, the peripheral neighbourhoods (also Ciutat Vella) were very degraded by fierce real estate speculation and a disastrous urban policy, which allowed the city to grow in a completely chaotic and disorderly manner based on a lot of built-up space and with hardly any green areas or gardens. The neighbourhood movement of the 70s was local and urban in nature, with a broad and plural social base, of a vindictive and socio-political nature, diverse in its forms but essentially united in its approaches since the central basis of its actions revolved around the poor living conditions in the neighbourhoods, and the lack of democratic means to rectify them. The neighbourhood associations were formed by groups of neighbours, professional associations, parish groups, people from the University Movement, the Women’s Democratic Movement, and by militants from left-wing political organisations and unions (still clandestine) such as the CCOO and, above all, the PCE, which appeared as the main anti-Franco opposition force.

4.4.3 The “El llit del Túria es nostro i el volem verd” Civic Campaign In the midst of this convulsive social context, the protest movement that sought to paralyse the project of the urban highway and the transformation of the old Turia channel into green space was gaining more and more strength, organised around the “El llit del Túria es nostre i el volem verd” civic campaign. This was a great success in the mid-70s and was the genesis of what would later become the “Salvem” phenomenon. Urbanists, architects, and other professionals shaped this movement. Among them was the great promoter of the campaign, Just Ramírez, who would play a key role in the citizen movement of the 70s in Valencia. The issue of the channel became very relevant for Valencians, generating a great debate on the street. Citizen pressure was increasing; A public debate on the subject, held at the Mercantile Athenaeum in 1974, had great resonance. With the triumph of this campaign, the impulse of the Coordination of Neighbourhood Associations, and the support of the most important newspaper of Valencia in the 70s, Las Provincias, which kept the debate alive and gave the opportunity to neighbours and professionals, played a fundamental role, in expressing themselves in relation to the projects for the old channel, which was still empty and waiting for a new use.

4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain

61

In this sense, a major role was played by the director of Las Provincias, María Consuelo Reyna, in her firm support for civic demands. In one of his numerous articles on the subject, she pointed out that “It is the city who has the word, who must decide if it is convenient to have a road, although for its construction it is necessary to touch up a bridge, renounce green areas, of which there are not many left … or if you prefer to have places where children can play and with sports fields where young people can enjoy practicing sports.” This campaign was run in parallel with another whose actions also found great social support and is none other than “El Saler per al poble,” which fought against the privatisation and urbanisation of the Devesa del Saler and managed to paralyse a plan that would have deprived Valencians of one of the most important wetlands in Europe. At the end of 1975 new times arrived. The dictator died; the regime changed. Obras Públicas desisted from its original idea and the City Council of Valencia agreed to use the old channel for a green zone, modifying the PGOU and asking the State for ownership. The mayor of the time, Miguel Ramón Izquierdo (1973–1979), facilitated the conversion of the new urban space into a park, and during the first visit to the Túria capital of Juan Carlos I as head of state in November of 1976, ownership of the old channel was given to Valencia, an indispensable condition for the city to decide on its future use. In 1979 the new democratic town hall would definitively reclassify the riverbed as a green zone. It was the triumph of citizenship; It was the triumph of the great social mobilisations of the previous years.

4.4.4 Urban Regeneration of the Highway into Greenway Gardens Ricardo Bofill designed the stretch of the garden in the noble area of the city, with orange and palm trees, the area near the Palau de la Música. The team “Vetges Tú - Mediterrania” designed the section from Casa del Agua to Nuevo Centro, including sports facilities and some springs. The Department of Agriculture designed the section of the “Urban Forest” included between New Centre and the sports area of Serranos, planting thousands of pines. Subsequently, the Gulliver Garden was set up, see Fig. 4.15. Mayor Ricardo Pérez Casado, also in El País, said that “the river is going to be the great articulator of a modern and different city from the very problematic one we now have. This new design will be implemented with criteria of maximum efficiency and participation.“ That’s how it went. From the beginning, this project was considered as something democratic, which would involve citizen participation. The Architecture Workshop of Ricardo Bofill presented the project to the public in the months of June and July of 1982 in an exhibition at the Lonja de la Seda that had great citizen impact, 30 years later.

62

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

Fig. 4.15 Images of the initial proposals for the empty channel of the Túria with motorways and railway tracks. The model on the right explored the coexistence of these infrastructures with a linear park in the 70s

Around one hundred thousand neighbours came to observe and assess the various plans and models of the project that were shown in the exhibition. There were also conferences and round tables that included the involvement of the mayor, Bofill himself, municipal technicians, and Valencian architects. This exhibition was the basis for the opening of a citizen participation campaign. The City Council launched a survey among the population in order to collect suggestions on the final configuration of the channel, editing 100,000 forms of consultation at the time the campaign began. The survey conducted among those attending the exhibition of the blueprints and models of the preliminary draft showed that 97% of the respondents were in favour of implementation of the same. In December of 1983, the Urbanism Commission of the City Council of Valencia definitively approved the Special Plan of Interior Reform of the Old Channel of Túria. The channel was divided into 18 sections, which facilitated its execution in parts. The objectives and bases of intervention that this project encompassed were defined after a series of working meetings with qualified professionals and representatives of citizen associations, as well as the results of the public participation programme conducted during the exhibition of the plan in the Lonja. On 27 February 1986, Mayor Pérez Casado officially inaugurated the works with the symbolic palette in the same channel, marking the beginning of the construction of the Túria garden, a garden (really much more than that) that represents the success of the civic effort and popular will, because in the end, it was what the Valencians wanted it to be.

4.5 Conclusion

63

Fig. 4.16 Rio Túria Gardens aerial view (Source https://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Spain/Valencia/ Turia%20Gardens/)

Already in 2000, after the inauguration of the Alameda metro station and the new Exposición bridge (popularly “de La Peineta” or “de Calatrava,” due to its peculiar shape and its designer, respectively) the section next to this station was used for a sandbox with games, a wooded area useful for fairs and exhibitions, and an esplanade for the firing off fireworks and the installation of fairs, circuses, and outdoor events. Next, the bridge of the Flowers was built. In 2007, the section of the garden between the Parque de Cabecera and the Casa del Agua was reconditioned in such a way that this park is the beginning of the garden itself, see Fig. 4.16.

4.5 Conclusion This chapter discusses the placemaking movement and urban regeneration in three different case studies, see Table 4.1. The main aim is to provide an overview of the similar implementation cases on the ground, to better understand the validity of the theoretical literature. The empirical evaluation framework, presented in the next chapter, starts from the understanding that a difference in project types, sizes, land ownership, and stakeholder involvement gives a different placemaking result, and hence a different sociability impact on public spaces users. The most important deduction from these case studies is that the placemaking movement—whether grassroots or top-down—irrespective of whether LQC techniques or 10+ strategies are implemented, changes the facets of the surrounding

64

4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …

Table 4.1 Comparative analysis of the three case studies based on evaluation criteria of urban regeneration project Lawn on D

Harvard Square

Rio Túria Gardens

Type of project

Public Park

Public Square

Highway–Greenway

size

10,900 m2

7,689 m2

1,100,000 m2

Land ownership

Land owned by MCAA

City of Cambridge land owned

Municipal–city of Valencia

Stakeholders

Citizens Bank

Harvard University Students’ groups Project of Public Spaces (PPS)

Community groups

Funding type

Private sector

Public sector

Municipal funding

Placemaking

Average

Strong

Weak–None

Sociability

Gated–controlled

Strong–open

Open

Implementation approach

Top-Down

Public–Private Partnership

Grassroots movement

Community involvement

Little–None

Average

Time-framed Natural Disaster

Strategies

Power of 10+

LQC techniques

Learned lessons

Creative placemaking

Continuous evaluation Community is powerless without public/private funding

communities. However, opting for the best results, the community should be involved at the initial planning levels, with continuous evaluation. Breaking the silos of the governmental approach towards the change in cities is fundamental when coupled with community willingness and beyond, and with funds availability, whether from a public or private sector. Another notable outcome of the analysis of the last example of the urban regeneration project of Rio Túria gardens is that the main aim was not the placemaking of the greenway, as much as the outcome of the grassroots movement. The removal of highways is one of the most expensive types of regeneration projects in all cities; nonetheless, it changes the people’s perceptions of their neighbourhoods, their parks, and their transit modes. In fact, Walker (2016) discusses the effect of the induced demand theory of high-occupancy freeways over users; the triumph over street removals into more public spaces, walking and biking paths, plus new transit lines instead of “double-decker” freeways.

References

65

References BCEC (2017) The Lawn on D Powered by Citizens Bank. https://signatureboston.com/bcec/thelawn-on-d. Accessed 29 Jan 2018 Cambridge CCD (2015) Harvard Square Kiosk and Plaza. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/pro jects/parks/hsquarepublicspace. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 Ciudad Observatorio (2014) parque urbano o autopista urbana? http://www.ciudadobservatorio. com/2014/03/parque-urbano-o-autopista-urbana.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2017 Esteban Longares Pérez (2012) “El llit del Turia es nostre i el volem verd”: Historia de una conquista ciudadana Leinberger CB, Loh TH (2018) Catalytic development: (re)creating walkable urban places. https:// www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/brookings-180420-catalytic-developmentpaper_may-2018-final.pdf. Accessed 19 Jun 2018 Lester R (2009) Placemaking at Harvard yard: enhancing the humanities with human activity. PPS. https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-at-harvard-yard-enhancing-the-humanities-withhuman-activity. Accessed 29 Jan 2018 MIT - DUSP. (2018). Places in the making. https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attach ments/project/mit-dusp-places-in-the-making.pdf Accessed May 2022 PPS (2005) Harvard University north campus placemaking study. https://www.pps.org/projects/har vardcampus. Accessed 7 Mar 2017 PPS (2014) Harvard Square: vision plan. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/parks/~/ media/54BCDC518F594C6B824D4F0115A225AE.ashx. Accessed 29 Jan 2018 PPS (2015a) Meet me at the plaza: new seats, new scene at Harvard University. https://www.pps. org/article/meet-me-at-the-plaza-new-seats-new-scene-at-harvard-university . Accessed 22 May 2022 PPS (2015b) Harvard Common Spaces, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://www.pps.org/places/har vard-common-spaces. Accessed 22 May 2022 PPS (2016) 8 placemaking principles for innovation districts. https://www.pps.org/article/eight-pla cemaking-principles-for-innovation-districts. Accessed 22 May 2022 PPS (2017) Proposal for services: Harvard Square Kiosk. Cambridge, MA PPS (2018) 5 steps to making places. https://www.pps.org/article/5-steps-to-making-places. Accessed 11 Jan 2018 Walker A (2016) Six freeway removals that changed their cities forever. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo. com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937. Accessed 1 Nov 2017

Chapter 5

Sociability and Placemaking Methodological Framework Approach: Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI)

Abstract In this chapter, public life/public space metrics—as introduced by Gehl (Gehl Institute, The public life diversity toolkit 2.0., 2016) are used to identify different sets of and/or methods for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data on people’s usage, behaviour, frequency, age, and gender, as well as physical site observations in the first phase. The reason for this mixed approach is to capture all the aspects of public spaces that affect people and places and vice versa. In addition to the designated Public Space Index in this chapter, using Gehl’s framework it is possible to categorise the qualities of public space that make the space work the space is used, and those that make it desirable—where the user experience is a “good” one and where people prefer to linger and socialise. The Application case study in this research is on what is referred to as the North End Park and Plaza, it falls in the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway of Boston, MA. The reason for the selection of the North End Park in the city of Boston is that it fulfils the criteria of being a public space formed after a regeneration project that involved different stakeholders as well as having transformed an eyesore to a vital liveable destination in the heart of the city. Keywords Placemaking framework · Public Space Index · Mixed-methods research

5.1 Introduction: Why a Mixed-Methods Approach? Carmona (2015, 377) specifically retheorises the mixing methods for urban design research on placemaking and sustainability as follows: “Mixed methods” are increasingly common in social science research, for reasons implied by an alternative, less popular term for the approach: the pragmatist paradigm, also see (Creswell and Garrett 2008, 327). In other words, “what works” is more important than the “purity” of the approach taken to the research, and researchers can pick and mix particular methods, depending on the nature of the problems to be investigated, for example addressing questions that do not sit comfortably within a wholly quantitative or qualitative genre (Gaber and Gaber 1997, 2007; Srivastava and Thomson 2009). Creswell and Piano © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_5

67

68

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

Clark (2011) offer the most comprehensive discussion of mixed methods and argue that using quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination will provide a better understanding of research problems than either approach used alone. For researchers dealing with the sorts of “wicked” multidimensional problems of urbanisation encompassed in understanding public space, mixed methods can help give confidence that findings will be robust (Clifton et al. 2008). Groat and Wang (2013) link the use of mixed research methods to conducting case studies, arguing that it can be particularly enlightening to explore settings or circumstances holistically by using a variety of data collection and analysis tactics. They cite Jane Jacobs’ (1961) foundational study of New York’s urban vitality to suggest that many scholars of the built-up environment have gravitated to the use of case studies, precisely to marshal the benefits of applying different research techniques to one or more real-life contexts (Flyvbjerg 2006).

5.2 Site Selection: Interpretative Strategy 1. The notion behind these sites is that they are part of larger cultural urban regeneration projects, which is the scope of the research on a wider scale. 2. The public space is in a downtown/city centre location in the selected cities, hence, widely used for various levels of activities and is of recognisable importance at a city level, which makes the hypothesis of sociability basically valid for producing a captivating outcome of the research.

5.3 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Understanding the Model The toolkit used in this research functions on three different scales of analysis. At the larger scale/the urban form scale, it helps to understand the diversity of the neighbourhood surrounding and the urban fabric in which the public places are set; where the people living in a certain buffer zone have easy access to a range of public places, see Fig. 5.1. At the block/group scale, the toolkit measures the diverse price points of businesses that attract a range of socio-economic groups/individuals. The quality criteria that cover building entrances and facades. Finally, on the smallest scale, which is the individual scale, it operates on the people’s existence in the space itself. It evaluates the level of attractiveness of the space, the furnishings, landscape, and programming to stay and linger.

5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing the Model

69

Fig. 5.1 The different levels of public life/public space toolkit measurements used in study (Source The author based on the Gehl Institute [2016])

5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing the Model 5.4.1 Public Life Metrics—User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale The main aim of the survey is to identify the users of the public spaces, their age range, gender, race,1 income, educational attainment, and Zip code home location. Along with those demographic indicators, the frequency of visits to the space is analysed across different hours of the day, favourite time of visits, and the sticky places phenomenon. The in-depth interviews are conducted on two levels; on the first level, preliminary interviews with placemaking experts in the field and urban anthropologists, to help identify the major quality criteria for measuring successful public space 1

Due to research results and triangulation, race was omitted in the course of the surveys due to a noticeable attitude of discomfort when race was noted in doing on-site surveys in the park.

70

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

attributes. This level of interviews helped shape the specific set of criteria that suit the North American (east coast) culture; basically, the social aspects of public spaces, cultural programming effects on public life scenarios, the impact of ownership of a space on the urban policies and people’s existence. The second level involves conducting interviews with on-site experts that work with the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy,2 Livable Streets Initiative,3 The Emerald Network, and the Liveable Streets Alliance in order to gain insights from key informants into the implications of looking at human behavioural patterns and uses, when planning and programming in the particular case study area affected by those initiatives.

5.4.2 Public Space Metrics—Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scale This layer of data helps understand the physical relationships between a space and its users; it encompasses the furnishings, surrounding landscape, and physical programming. Finding a reason to stay in that public space and to use it (North End Park and Plaza) is specifically identified in the premise, with observational counting techniques and photography. The first level of observation deals with the qualitative information gathered from physical design elements such as paving, furnishing, seating, lighting, greenery, and sidewalks to understand the extent to which the public space responds or does not respond to requests from the public realm at this fine-grain scale, see Fig. 5.2. The second level of observation looks at pedestrian uses and activities by measuring stationary activities and the perception of the public space in terms of staying and enjoying. Thus, the methodology adopted for measuring the stationary activities uses the framework of capturing the nuances of how people participate in those different activities by separating the physical position (either lying on the lawn or sitting) from the activity itself (standing, waiting to transit, commercial, cultural, or physical activities), etc. This approach reduces surveyor error and interrelates user comfort in the space, as well as evaluates the sticky places phenomenon picked up in the user intercept surveys as well.

5.4.3 Urban Micro Trends: Statistical Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools and Online Mapping Three online-based mapping and statistical tools are used to analyse the micro social trends in the North End Park and Plaza. The Liveability Calculator, the Vision Zero 2 3

https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/overview/. https://www.livablestreets.info/.

5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools and Techniques

71

Fig. 5.2 Graphic representation of the research matrix implementation techniques (Source The author)

project platform, and Co-Urbanize are the tools selected, and the reason is the easy open access to the databases of these tools and their online availability. Nonetheless, the accuracy and triangulation of the qualitative data in correlation to the quantitative data is also captured from recorded videos. A frequency count is collected from a security camera at the entrances and exits to/from the North End Park Plaza. Camera tracking videos capture the inward/outward connection between The Plaza and the crossing streets to the Haymarket subway T station across Hanover Street. The records collected are for the same days of as the observations, divided into 2 hourly intervals during a 12-h coverage from 10 am to 10 pm over the period from April to July 2017.

5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools and Techniques Traditionally, the case study approach allows the use of mixed methods in research, including qualitative and quantitative approaches. This combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches can provide a deep understanding of human perception and preference towards public spaces rather than using a single approach. Also, this combination allows the use of multiple techniques or data resources to triangulate findings for consistency and validation.

72

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

5.5.1 Data Collection Steps 1. Identification of the public space context, conducting a preliminary qualitative study to capture the attraction of the space to public usage, and mapping its study opportuneness. 2. Review of the secondary data sources on and qualitative analysis of the public space on the larger scale, as part of a cultural corridor and/or part of a historical cultural district/form. 3. Collection of the public life metrics data in the form of random samples of intercept surveys, tailored to suit individual levels, for identification of demographical usage of the public space as well as specific research questions such as behaviour, social activities, and duration of stay. 4. Physical observational analysis to monitor the public space metrics data in the forms of image analysis for observation points, from different modes of transportation to the public space itself, considering the physical design elements, quality criteria parameters of protection, comfort and image, enjoyment, and publicness (following the methodology of Mehta [2014]).

5.5.2 User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale • Demographics: Age, gender, race, income, educational attainment, place frequency and activities engagement, transportation modes, and accessibility. • Social Mixing catalysts: individuals with familiar strangers, areas in a space that facilitate social groups, etc. • In-Depth interviews with urban anthropologists, liveable streets initiative experts, and in-the-field placemaking experts.

5.5.3 Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scales • Diversity: Pedestrian, volume of cyclists, and rates of social groups. • Volume and diversity of social stationary activities: children’s garden, cultural, physical, commercial, or just “being” in the space. • Accessibility and linkages to transit nodes. • Duration and frequency of stays.

5.5.4 Micro Trends: Smart Planning Tools Analysis • Social shed of the place: the transformation of geo-tagged data sources into people information. (Campanella 2017).

5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating …

73

• Socio-economic diversity of surrounding neighbourhoods and people who spend time in that space, by connecting census data to people’s data (Instagram engagement analytics: heat maps http://sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-analytics/ retrieved April 2017).

5.5.5 Evaluation Matrix for the Data Analysis of the Case Study Table 5.1 summarises all the tools and data collection techniques used in the research, based on the availability of surveys and observation raw data to be cross checked for evaluation. A mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques are used as follows in Table 5.1.

5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating the Public Space Index (PSI) 5.6.1 Public Space Index Variables and Measuring Criteria Four qualities are identified and evaluated in the selected public space case study based on literature to build the Public Space Index (PSI), see Table 5.2 (Mehta 2014).4 This PSI is on a scale of 100 points, where each of the four quality features scores 25 points. These 25 points are an accumulated score based on on-site visual observation, pedestrian counts, measurement of stationary activities, sociodemographic data collected through users’ statistical surveys, background information from interviews with key informants, and smart planning tools at the urban micro scale. The researcher altered the main five dimensions of the “Mehta” methodology in order to match the aims of this study and the major qualities to be measured while implementing the case study. However, this step kept the main aim of the public life/public space toolkit, but nonetheless, changed the main framework from the groups/individuals/networks level. The main weighing score in the Public Spaces Index applied is based on the existence of the four qualities and them being seen in public spaces, but it does not claim to cover the full range of activities where public life is likely to be found. It does help to assess an important part of the public realm that continues to foster social life. Based on these premises, it is important to define the following qualities 4

By far, the most comprehensive and context adaptable methodology of public space sociability measurement, that shaped and altered the overall Book research methodology, in relation to implementation of the case study on the North End Park, within the time frame between 2015 and till the end of 2018.

74

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

Table 5.1 Case study implementation: evaluation matrix Category rating

Intercept survey

Visual In-depth observation interview

Quantitative Qualitative Age category

Gender

25–35

x

36–46

x

47–57

x

59–68

x

Male

x

Female

x

Other

x

Income

Categorial

x

Race

Omitted*

Once a day Frequency and stickiness Weekly to place Monthly

Meaningful uses and activities

x

x

x

x

x

Occasionally

x

x

Other

x

x

Community activities

x x x

x

* Due

x x

x x

Cultural programming x

x

x

Attractive

x

x x

Safe

x

x

Clean/Well Maintained

x

x

Protection

Sociability

x x

Diversity

Accessibility and linkages

x

x

Vital Physical design

Comfort

Qualitative Quantitative

x

x

Surrounding services

Smart planning tool

x

Identifiable

x

x

x

walkable

x

x

x

easily accessible

x

x

x

Interactive/welcoming

x

Groups of people

x

Sense of pride

x

Children/seniors’ presence

x

x x

x

to research results and triangulation, race have been omitted through the course of surveys due to a noticed uncomfortable attitude when race was noted in doing on-site surveys on the park

5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating …

75

Table 5.2 Public Space Index (PSI): The qualities and variables observed associated with measurement tools used Quality measured Variables observed

Weighting

Measurement tool

Scoring criteria

Inclusiveness

1. Variety in age range

5

Users’ survey’s statistical analysis

2. Variety in gender

5

1 = none 2 = very limited 3 = low 4 = medium 5 = high

3. Safety and security 5

Visual observation

4. Publicness and opening hours

5

Visual observation + signs availability

5. Community engagement in planning

5

Key informants interviews + micro smart planning tools

25

Subtotal Meaningful activities

8. Range of activities 5 and behaviours

Users’ survey rating 1 = none 2 = very limited Visual observation 3 = low 4 = medium 5 = high Stationary activities measurement

9. Diversity of cultural programming activities

5

Key informants’ interviews and stationary activities measurement

10. Availability of food within or at the edges of space

5

Visual observation

6. Surrounding services

5

7. Physical design flexibility

5

Subtotal Accessibility and linkages

25 11. Walkability

5

12. Accessibility

5

13. Transit usage

5

14. Transportation modes diversity

5

15. Maintenance and 5 perceived safety

Visual observation + users’ surveys

25

Subtotal Sociability and liveability

Users’ survey rating 1 = none 2 = very limited 3 = low Pedestrian counts 4 = medium Visual observation 5 = high and users’ survey Smart planning

17. Interactive space

16. Groups of people 5 5

Users’ Surveys and visual observation

18. Stickiness of places

5

Users’ surveys

19. Mixture of uses and a variety of activities

5

Key informants’ interviews

1 = none 2 = very limited 3 = low 4 = medium 5 = high

(continued)

76

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

Table 5.2 (continued) Quality measured Variables observed 20. Space attractiveness

Weighting

Measurement tool

5

Users’ surveys

Subtotal

25

Total

100

Scoring criteria

and keep them intact, in order to establish some concrete measuring variables that can be given a score.

5.6.1.1

Inclusiveness

Public space is a space of participation. It is an arena for the collective voice and shared interests but is also the space where the differences and conflicts of various groups play out. In discussing the publicness of public space, Mitchell (2003) as cited in Routledge (2004) suggested that the appropriation and use of space by a group to fulfil its needs makes the space public. Subsequently, it could be suggested that the extent of inclusiveness of any space is only revealed when some activity takes place in it. In addition, the range of activities a public space is able to support and the actors it is able to include may determine its inclusiveness (Gehl Institute and JMBC 2015; Patel 2016). However, public spaces have never been completely inclusive. Historically, when public space played an active role in supporting daily life, certain groups were not allowed to participate. Nevertheless, the idea of an inclusive and accessible public space is worthy as an ideal, even though the space may never be able to support all activities and behaviours or be open to people from all social classes. Access to public space concerns two aspects: the ability to reach the space and to enter and use it.

5.6.1.2

Meaningful Activities

Place meaning is a complex phenomenon influenced by both individual and collective experiences and by the narratives of places that help construct place identity and ownership. There are several factors that contribute to meaningfulness, such as prior familiarity, and historical and political events. However, this research measures meaningfulness in the context of the ability of a space to support activity and sociability, and the resulting attachment to the place. As part of the Public Space Index, this measurement is called Meaningful Activities. To be specific, the criterion is interested in the aspect of place meaning where space becomes meaningful when it is useful, when it supports activities that are symbolically and culturally meaningful to individuals or groups, and when it supports sociability. Usefulness is the ability of the environment to satisfy basic needs

5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating …

77

for shopping, eating, entertainment, and special needs to gather, display, express, discuss, debate, demand, and protest. However, it is not only the presence, but also the quality of the public space, the goods and services provided in and adjacent to it by businesses and other uses that make the environment useful. Usefulness translates the general criteria of space design and land use diversity and makes it meaningful to the individual or group. Studies in phenomenology suggest that by satisfying day-to-day needs, environments encourage repeated visits and increased frequency of use that translate into a familiarity with the environment and become a routine, creating a sense of place and place-attachment (Buttimer and Seamon 1980). Such seemingly ordinary time– space routines make the space useful to people, and these were at the core of Jacobs’ (1961) observations on the life of the streets. While all meaningful public space does not need to be (and is not) sociable, this research is interested in this aspect of public space those sociable spaces that are meaningful to people. Hence, the Public Space Index (PSI) is designed to measure the meaningful activities of public space by rating whether the public space supports any community-gathering third places, the suitability of the layout and design of the space to support activities and behaviours, the number of businesses that offer food and drinks, and the variety of uses and businesses.

5.6.1.3

Safety and Security

Safety is often cited as the first concern in public spaces (De Vita 2021). Several environmental characteristics affect the real and perceived safety of public space. Present times have seen a heightened concern regarding safety, and policies addressing such fears have dominated the design and management of public space. A sense of safety may be achieved using explicit means and controls, although some suggest that oversecuritisation and policing can itself make the space perceptibly unsafe. Alternatively, a feeling of safety may be achieved simply by the constant presence of people and “eyes on the street” where the space becomes self-policed, see also (Hosseinalizadeh et al. 2022). Regardless, perceptions play a significant role in making places appear safe or unsafe. Empirical research shows that the sense of perceived safety from crime is affected by the physical condition and maintenance, the configuration of spaces, the types of land uses, the alterations and modifications made to the environment, and the presence, absence of, and type of people. Some studies showed that people perceived public space to be safer where there was a presence of stores and other non-residential properties. Perkins et al. (1992) also found that personalisation of property made the street environment appear safer, as did the presence of streetlights, block watch signs, yard decorations, and private plantings. Besides acting as a source of attention and interest, the presence of people increases the perception of safety (Perkins et al. 1993). Various other studies have found the perception of safety to be negatively affected by the presence of litter, graffiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained buildings. In her

78

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

treatise on city streets, Jacobs (1961) identified stores, bars, restaurants, and other “third places” as basic components of surveillance and safety. Safety from traffic is another important factor related to the use of public space. Studies regarding real and perceived safety from traffic have suggested the importance of many measures and physical features. Appleyard’s (1981) landmark work on street activity and traffic clearly established the inverse relationship between traffic volume and neighbouring behaviours. Thus, in the context of public space, safety is a person’s ability to feel safe from the social and physical factors from crime and traffic. The Public Space Index is designed to measure the safety of public space by rating how safe people feel in the space during different times of the day, the appropriateness of physical condition and maintenance of space, and if the presence of surveillance measures in the public space makes them feel safer or not.

5.6.1.4

Sociability5

Spaces become pleasurable/sociable when they are imageable, have a high level of spatial quality and sensory complexity. In his landmark study on how people orientate and navigate the city, Lynch (1960) discovered that in order to do so, people formed a mental image of the city. He called it “imageability” and defined it, as the “quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer.” Lynch found that places with high environmental imageability provided comfort and were pleasurable. Most imageable places are those in which several factors come together to create a coherent impression. It is that shape, colour, or arrangement which facilitates the making of vividly identified powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environment. That imageability is fostered with the presence of groups of people, interactions in space, a mixture of uses and community involvement as well as the perceived user’s physical attraction to certain spaces (Ewing and Clemente 2013; Ameli et al. 2015). There is no doubt that some places are highly imageable because of their strong negative attributes as well. However, this research associates and measures imageability of public space in terms of its positive attributes.

5

The original Mehta methodology took the Pleasurability of the space to be synonymous with sociability, however, different measures were applied with precautions related to the types of spaces, as an alteration to the base methodology, during the course of Implementation of the Public Space Index, as in this book.

5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating …

79

5.6.2 Public Space Index Interpretation of Weighing, Scoring, and Implementation Techniques for Measurements This matrix for evaluating the Public Space Index is built based on the Mehta methodological approach as previously mentioned, however, some omittances have occurred to match the type of the case study used in this book. Nonetheless, it considers the main research placemaking approach across the Project of Public Spaces (PPS) and Gehl Institute Toolkits. The Public Space Index (PSI) is constructed on 20 variables used to evaluate the four measured qualities of public space, see Table 5.2. The Index captures and measures behaviour (uses) and perceptions of users in the public space realm. Seven variables are visual observation related (using structured and semi-structured observations across times of day, weeks, and a period of almost two-years’ timeframe) and rated by the researcher in the space and the interaction between the space and its occupants. Meanwhile, another seven variables are analysed based on a statistical analysis of the users’ surveys. The rating associated with the users that use the space was collected in relation to scoring criteria for each variable based on a Likert rating scale from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the highest).

5.6.3 Individual Users’ Survey Form (Site Users) See Table 5.3.

5.6.4 In-depth Interviews Form The researcher first introduced herself, the purpose of the study as well as the final expectation from this interview, for information disclosure and personal data record authorisation. 1. Please identify yourself for me, stating your current work position as well as your previous experience in the field of urban planning for people. Having said so, being an experienced in-field researcher, this interview consists of 8 questions, I will be asking you 3 theoretical questions, then 5 touch base site questions. 2. Since the case study falls within The Emerald Network/liveable streets alliance in which you are the programme manager, what are—in your opinion—the considerations that are convenient for impacting the presence of people in this specific case study of North End Park Plaza?

80

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

Table 5.3 Users’ individual survey of age, race, time, etc. Site: North End Park, MA

Date:

Thank you for participating in this survey, your response will be confidential User information:

Number:

Age:

Race:

Income:

Education:

Occupation:

Home Zip code:

Travel modes:

□ Walking alone

□ Bus

□ Bike

Instagram user:

□ Car Yes/No

Gender: M/F/

□ Group walking □ Subway Did you post a photo here? Yes/No

How often you visit the place? How much time do you spend here? □ Daily □ Weekly □ Every month □ Rarely/occasionally

□ Walk through □ 5 minutes □ 10 minutes

How do you use this place?

How do you feel about this place?

□ Just crossing through □ Lunch time □ Work nearby □ Public transit station □ Meeting up friends □ Tourist

□ Negative □ Somehow Unpleasant □ Neutral □ Positive □ Very positive □ Other

□ 15 minutes □ 30 minutes □ 1 hour or more

3. In your opinion, does the PPS model in which the evaluation of the place is based on Imageability, accessibility, activities, and sociability by identifying ratings and opportunities, sound robust? Do you think there are missing factors that could be used to correctly study the public spaces’ vitality and life metrics? 4. Gehl Institute recently introduced a toolkit for measuring and quantifying public life in public spaces, in which the main criteria are to look at social mixing, a phenomenon that causes strangers in public spaces to become familiar strangers due to the context. What is your opinion about this? Do the activities conducted in public spaces, which could be divided into “just being,” waiting to transit, commercial, cultural, or physical activities, affect user comfort? Now this scientific research is specifically designed to be conducted based on four criteria (users intercept survey, physical observations, interviews with field experts, and statistical heat maps based on ACS) that are divided horizontally into two categories of evaluation. People life category: People diversity: age, gender splits, frequency (sticky places) and duration of stay, transportation mode used, stationary activities, Perception of place, different usage, and perceived feelings of (protection, sense of comfort, enjoyment).

5.7 Conclusion

81

Place form category: Accessibility, physical attributes (furniture, enclosure, etc.), aesthetic quality, planning and programming (cultural events, food trucks, etc.), quality of surroundings, business services, street vibrancy, and imageability. 5.

I will list a few items and ask that you give me a rating of their importance from 1 to 5: • • • •

Evidence of diversity (age/gender/social classes) safety and security Comfort and space image furniture and physical attributes Accessibility, walkability and biking attractiveness Mixture of uses and activities (concerts, food trucks, etc.); pride and ownership of places • Business activities surrounding and rent prices green and natural elements 6.

In your opinion what are the catalysts of social mixing in public spaces, can you name three in order of importance? 7. In terms of public policies, the NEA6 recently endorsed creative placemaking as a cultural movement and supports its funding. What other local/public partnerships could there be, that when implemented, improve the public spaces sphere that we witness nowadays? In your opinion, what are the long-term changes that change the face of public spaces? Now, for the sake of scientific credibility, the questions above will be quantified. As you may have been told the main aim of the research is to quantify the quality criteria of public spaces. However, the quality criteria in the index (inclusiveness, pleasurableness, comfort, safety, and activities) are quantified on a scale of 0 to 100 that is based on observing 45 variables, of which just 14 are user-oriented. 8. In your opinion, how much is the quantification of this phenomenon based on the users’ experience of public spaces? How likely do you think it is that those aspects might affect the users’ presence in the case study area of North End Park Plaza, on a scale of 0 to 100? 9. For the specific case study of Boston, have you previously worked on identifying cultural attributes related to public spaces in the east coast culture? 10. Do you have any additional opinions to express?

5.7 Conclusion This chapter takes the different methodological tools used in the deductive evaluation matrix framework for the final evaluation (PSI) into consideration. It investigates the public life/public space model against which then the case study was analysed indepth, by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data on people’s usage of the public spaces, behavioural patterns, and frequency, by means of visual observations 6

https://www.nea.gov.sg/.

82

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …

on site, during the first phase. Then, in the second phase, data on the users is collected through on-site surveys (see Table 5.3) covering their sticky places, sociability index, and socio-demographic data (such as age, gender, residency zip code, and yearly income). In the third phase and last level of analysis, the case study is investigated on a Micro trend scale based on the public space scenario as a successful liveable destination by analysis using the Liveability Calculator, Vision Zero, and Co-Urbanize data tools. In greater depth, a Public Space Index tool is built up to produce an overall evaluation of four different qualities based on 20 categories. Alterations were considered over the time frame in which the research was conducted in place; however, the main aim of outlining a method to empirically evaluate urban public spaces remained robust. The implementation of the PSI and its results is discussed after the case study analysis in Chapter 7.

References Ameli SH, Hamidi S, Garfinkel-Castro A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead to more walking in salt lake city, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 74809.2015.1041894 Appleyard D (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley Buttimer A, Seamon D (1980) The human experience of space and place, 1st edn. Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315684192 Campanella R (2017) People-mapping through google street view. Places Journal. https://placesjou rnal.org/article/people-mapping-through-google-street-view/?cn-reloaded=1. Accessed 19 Nov 2017 Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8:373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014. 909518 Clifton K, Ewing R, Knaap G, Song Y (2008) Quantitative analysis of urban form: a multidisciplinary review. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 1:17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/175 49170801903496 Creswell JW, Garrett AL (2008) The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. S Afr J Educ 28:321–333. http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/art icle/view/176/114 Creswell JW, Piano Clark VL (2011) Designing and conducting mixed-methods research. In: The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA De Vita GE (2021) Safety and security: renewed challenges for urban regeneration. In: Coppola F, Girmaldi M, Fasolino I (eds) Safe urban space strategies and actions for an integrated approach to settlement quality. FedOA Press, Naples, pp 463–481 Ewing R, Clemente O (2013) Measuring urban design: metrics for liveable places. Island Press, London Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 Gaber J, Gaber SL (1997) Utilizing mixed-method research designs in planning: the case of 14th Street, New York City. J Plan Educ Res 17(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701 700201

References

83

Gaber J, Gaber SL (2007) Qualitative analysis for planning and policy: beyond the numbers. American Planning Association, Chicago Gehl Institute (2016) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/20160301_Public-Life-Diversity-Toolkit-V2_HighQuality-1.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2017 Gehl Institute, JMBC (2015) Public life and urban justice in NYC’s Plazas. https://gehlinstitute. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PublicLifeUrbanJustice_Gehl_2016.pdf. Accessed May 2022 Groat LN, David W (2013) Architectural research methods. Wiley, Somerset, NJ. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 1 Apr 2016 Hosseinalizadeh S, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022) A deduced method for assessing safety and security perception: case study of Biblioteca Degli Alberi Park in Milan, Italy. In: Mahmoud IH, Morello E, Lemes de Oliveira F, Geneletti D (eds) Nature-based solutions for sustainable urban planning. Contemporary urban design thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-89525-9_8 Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House Inc., New York Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Mehta V (2014) Evaluating public space. J Urban Des 19:53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809. 2013.854698 Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press, New York and London. ISBN 1 57230 847 8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/147 4474004eu312xx Patel S (2016) Public spaces for all: How “public” are public spaces ? Case of Ahmedabad city’s Riverfront Parks. CEPT University Perkins DD, Meeks JW, Taylor RB (1992) The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: implications for theory and measurement. J Environ Psychol 12:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80294-4 Perkins DD, Wandersman A, Rich RC, Taylor RB (1993) The physical environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality, and incivilities. J Environ Psychol 13:29–49. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0272-4944(05)80213-0 Routledge P (2004) Book review: The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Cult Geogr 11(3):356–357. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474004eu312xx Srivastava A, Thomson SB (2009) Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research. J Adm Gov 4(2):72–79

Part III

The Case Study of North End Park from Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Chapter 6

Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway: Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract The North End Park is part of what is known as Boston’s ribbon of contemporary parks. The Rose Kennedy Greenway is a mile and a half of contemporary parks in the heart of Boston city. The Greenway is a roof garden topping a highway tunnel that connects people, cityscape, and fun. The Greenway connects a series of parks, in which there are public art installations, water fountains, historical sites (the freedom trail), public transit and bike sharing stations, food truck vending locations, and public restrooms. At the same time, The North End Park Plaza is part of The Emerald Network, 200 miles of greenway networks that is an initiative under the liveable streets alliance. The Emerald Network is a seamless shared-use series of Greenway paths in the urban core of the city of Boston and adjacent cities, that provides walking trails and biking connections through parks. The major aim of the greenway project is to connect people to jobs and to neighbourhood assets by foot, bike, and any non-motorised means, which is explored in this chapter in detail. Keywords Boston · Greenway · North End Park · Urban Greening

6.1 Context Overview 6.1.1 Preliminary Place-based Analysis of the Rose Kennedy Greenway As stated in Mahmoud et al. (2019), The Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway is part of the Emerald Necklace. Primarily planned as a series of parks and open spaces to provide linear recreation facilities that are continuous and provide connectivity. The Emerald Necklace parks system was the first to be built in Boston based on Olmstead’s This chapter contains materials from the previous publication by the main author Mahmoud, I.H., Appleyard, B., Bevilacqua, C. (2019). From ‘Highway into Greenway’: How Public Spaces Change Zoning Regulations. In: Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., Bevilacqua, C. (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. ISHT 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92102-0_22. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_6

87

88

6 Learning Case Study …

vision; sinuous parkways, connected pathways, which provide opportunities for quiet contemplation, together with conveyed travel ways for pedestrians that have a slower pace than the parkway users. However, the term “Emerald Necklace Greenway” arose in the late 1990s; by virtue of state legislation in 1996, the re-generation of the Central artery on the downtown portion was renamed “Rose Fitzgerald Greenway” in honour of the mother of President John Kennedy (BPRD 2015) (Fig. 6.1). This greenway corridor stretches for 11/4 miles in a highly dense section of downtown Boston and contains 11 acres of protected parkland (Fig. 6.2). Owned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which also owns and manages the “Tip” O’Neill Tunnel underneath, these parklands are managed and maintained by the Rose Fitzgerald Greenway Conservancy. This non-profit organisation is a partner with the state, which provides 40% of its funding; the other 60% is provided through donations, endowment income, and earned revenue. The Greenway has several enhanced features that are emblematic of its highly urbanised location: a carousel, a labyrinth, many public art pieces, a pavilion for visitors to the Boston Harbour Islands National Recreation Area, several fountains, various horticultural beds, and an urban arboretum. In 2011, one of the Greenway parks became the temporary site of the Occupy Boston protest, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, entering the history books like the Boston Common as a site for political speech and assemblage. The Conservancy is currently engaged in a five-year public art strategy to help liven up the spaces (BPRD 2015, 137). This Greenway helps to connect users to the New Charles River Reservation, Harbour walk, and the Boston Harbour Islands via the Visitor Pavilion located on the Greenway. It has become an important corridor for residents in adjacent neighbourhoods, downtown workers, tourists, and regional recreation enthusiasts.

6.1.2 Culturally Oriented Activities on Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway By definition, the Greenway’s corridors act as linear “recreation” facilities, which can be formed by different components such as natural preservation areas, parks, and open spaces, cultural and historic resources, and sidewalk corridors (BPRD 2015, 7.1.1, 131). The common belief is that in urban areas, these linear facilities could be used to link existing parklands and natural areas. Interchangeably, parks, squares, and recreation areas are ideal candidates for social inclusion in greenways. In addition to that, the open space linkage help to reinforcing a feeling of connectedness and connectivity, providing relief from the maze-like spatial experience of city streets typical of the urban public realm in dense cities. In that sense, cultural and historical resources that are features of human origin help define the character of places along the gGeenway. They, in fact, provide special core points along the Greenway route that attract a diverse set of users and stewards

6.1 Context Overview

89

Fig. 6.1 The mapped location of the North End Park along the Greenway in Boston, MA (Source http://www.mappery.com/map-of/rose-fitzgerald-kennedy-greenway-map)

90

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.2 Bird’s Eye View of the Greenway, November 2017 (Source The researcher after MDA Geospatial Services, scale 1:250 m)

of the Greenway. On the one hand, recreation-oriented greenways are based on trails, paths, or water fountains (Fig. 6.3). On the other hand, culturally oriented greenways based on historical and cultural resources are often created with tourism in mind. Yet, on the ground, these greenway categories overlap as is the case with the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Fabos (1995) states that in older, highly urbanised cities like Boston, this overlap is inevitable and part of the attraction and excitement of well-established greenways. The target area selected along the Greenway (Fig. 6.4), is characterised by culturally oriented enrichment, due to touristic traffic passing through following the freedom trail (a historical landmark in the city centre of Boston). In fact, the onsite design reinforces the tourism-focused activities at the crossroads of the North End Park and Square.

6.1.3 Historical Background of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway The North End Park—currently known as part of the Greenway (Fig. 6.5)—was designed by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol and Crosby Schlessinger Small-ridge back in 2005. Both firms were commissioned by the city of Boston, specifically by the

6.1 Context Overview

91

Fig. 6.3 Recreational Greenway Rings Fountain, July 2016 (Source City of Boston 2016, 10)

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA 2008a), to design a park that reflects the link between the historic neighbourhood of North End and the rest of the city. The North End Park and Square, opened on 5 November 2007, replacing an area that was formerly an eyesore—the long awaited controversial sixteen-year-long Central Artery/tunnel project known as the “Big Dig,” (Fig. 6.6(a), (b)). One of the largest and most expensive public works projects in American History, it replaced an elevated highway that bludgeoned the city for nearly half a century, dividing the city waterfront and historical North End from the adjacent Downtown area (Mahmoud, 2021). The buried sections of Interstate 93 and 90, are now topped with the 1.5-mile-long Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway (Fig. 6.6(b)). The project was federally funded and overseen by the state, at the place the Bostonians recall it as “the battlefield of Menino.” Somehow, though, Mayor Tom Menino managed to sell investors and ordinary citizens alike on his vision for the clean, efficient, and business-friendly city that would emerge from the project’s dust (Goldhagen 2010). “The Big Dig” ballooned into a $22 billion extravaganza boondoggle, but Boston came out of it as a better city; Property values have more than doubled, streets are safer, and economy is more robust than ever. “The Rose Kennedy Greenway will transform the heart and character of Boston in so many ways. We have taken a space that previously hosted an outdated elevated steel highway and turned it into a vibrant park. Today’s dedication of the North End Parks is a significant step

92

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.4 North End Park site interactive map (Source https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/Greenway_Map-1.jpg)

6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park

93

Fig. 6.5 The current view of North End Parks (Source The researcher, Summer 2016)

forward in the overall development of this Greenway.” said Governor Patrick in the opening ceremony of the North End Park. (MTA 2008b)

This was once the “Land Bridge” that connected the peninsula of Boston with Sudbury Street to the west, a site with a rich history of more than 300 years as a crossing ground for Bostonians. This site was also the low point between Beacon Hill and Copps Hill and subsequently was the logical choice for a mill canal that connected the swampy area known as the Mill Pond (later the Bulfinch Triangle) with the bay. The Central Artery Master plan developed in 2001 by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (Fig. 6.7), provided a framework designating eight acres for open spaces and parks in Bullfinch triangle and North End. The plan stipulated the development parcels, focusing on reconnecting districts with a seam of futuristic— yet historical—open space that knits its neighbourhoods back together (McCown 2001; EDRG 2006).

6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park The “Big Dig” left planners debating long and hard about the mix of open spaces and buildings on the freed-up land following the removal of the elevated highway. However, the (Boston Redevelopment Authority, 1991) mandated the development of 75% of the land “as a series of parks and urban squares,” and that was later adopted the “Air-Rights Park plan” mandating 25% surface development only, while the rest remained as public open space (Federal Highway Administration; Turner 2003). In 2003, the mapped central artery corridor main plan showed designated specific parcels for open space development; among which Parcels 19, 21, and 22 were assigned to the Massachusetts Horticultural Society to develop outdoor gardens and an enclosed winter garden. Then, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority delegated the assignment of development Parcels 6, 12, and 18 to the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy (RFKGC) which created the Dewey Square and Fort Point Channel parks (Fig. 6.8).

94

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.6 (a) The Central Artery, 2004. North End to the right, Downtown to the left (b) The Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in 2012. Picture from Peter Vanderwarker, author of The Big Dig: Reshaping an American City (Source Boston Magazine 2013)

6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park

95

Fig. 6.7 Map of Central Artery Parcel Land Use, year 2001 (Source Economic Development Research Group)

96

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.8 Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Parcel Land use map, year 2007 (Source https://www.mas sdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/ Images/bigdig/parcelmap. gif)

NORTHEND

DOWNTOWN

6.3 North End Park Site Description

97

Fig. 6.9 Greenway Open space and John Fitzgerald Surface road continuum, view from top of Custom House tower towards Parcel 8, 10, and 12 (Source Map Data Imagery Google 2022, CNES, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA)

Nonetheless, the “Big Dig” plan called for the creation of a pair of one-way surface roads extending the length of the Greenway, now called the John Fitzgerald surface road (Fig. 6.9), to manage local traffic that existed, underneath most of the replaced Central Artery. In the meantime, the Greenway parks and development parcels were bordered as well by other crossing streets (North, Cross, and Sudbury streets) separating the development parcels. Both Parcels 8 and 10 gave way to the North End parks in 2005. The same land parcels were formerly seen as underutilised space, as described by (Baker 2017): Before the Big Dig brought down the Central Artery, the North End felt more like a lovable enclave off the beaten path…literally. I lived there in the early ’90s and had to access the neighbourhood from downtown via a shadowed and cracked asphalt walkway under the elevated highway. A welcoming gateway it was not.

6.3 North End Park Site Description Geographically located at coordinates 42.362358 N, 71.055875 W; the North End Parks and Square are physically identified as Parcels 8 and 10. With a size of 2.83 acres and approximately 12.000 m2 , the design of the North End open space and park square (identified in Boston Maps geospatially as ID 570) whereas the open spaces data layer is defined as open spaces of conservational and recreational interest in Boston, Massachusetts regardless of ownership (Analyse Boston 2017) framing

98

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.10 Constructed design of the North End Park, after Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd (Source http://www.ggnltd.com/north-end-parks)

the entry to North End neighbourhood from one side and to downtown on the other (Fig. 6.10). In 2010, the Boston Redevelopment Authority developed Greenway District Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines with the purpose of repairing the urban fabric of the neighbourhoods surrounding the new park system. The aim was to place equal weight on urban design issues of parcels within a unified and continuous system of parks and public spaces (City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment Authority 2010). Similarly, the unique location of the Parcels 11A and 11B presented an opportunity to reinforce the area as a destination with its abundant historical sites and popular restaurants. In fact, the goals presented in the development plan built on expanding the food-related retail in North End, in relation to its historical fabric; limiting development to consistent heights of existing buildings; and re-establishing connectivity with infill developments on the edges and the residentially scaled fabric surrounding it. The notion of design for the North End Park and Square is that it works as a significant “city hinge,” between the grand civic spaces of Quincy Market, Government Center, and Haymarket, leading to approach the intimate North End, Boston’s oldest Italian neighbourhood.

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch”

99

Fig. 6.11 Freedom Trail at night across the North End Park Parcel 8 (Source http://www.cssbos ton.com/portfolio/nep/)

While located at the threshold between downtown and a historic/touristic neighbourhood, the concept behind the design was not been easy, creating a critical link that acknowledged the importance of North End as a “home” to a large Italian community since 1890s. In fact, the neighbourhood—still distinguishably abutting the narrow streets and alleys—contains several historical sites that still remain an appealing attraction. Hence, local residents have accepted the resulting influx of tourists and the gradual increase of restaurants and retail shops over the years (City of Boston 2006; Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge 2016). Ken Greenburg, an urban design consultant hired by the city to visualise the future of the Greenway, noted the importance of keeping existing businesses in the North End to retain the Italian ambiance and help retain a 24-hour environment. At the same time, he predicted, that North End’s parks could be “one of the great public spaces in America” (Reidy 2004). However, since the 1950s, the freedom trail crossed the site in a confined space beneath the Central Artery viaducts. Now, the park design holds the city’s historic freedom trail high (Fig. 6.11), as it now crosses the main path. sit in the dark shadow of the elevated highway.

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch” The flexible design of The North End Parks features spaces that include green landscapes with a path system, squares with pergolas, and water features that run through both parks and appeal to a wide range of people, including North End residents of all

100

6 Learning Case Study …

ages and the thousands of tourists and Bostonians who visit them each year (MTA 2008a). The Gustafson Nichol (2017) design for these two adjacent parcels restored views and street connections that were severed for decades by the elevated highway. The North End Parks, which had always been a physical and social threshold, are now the most popular Greenway destination in Boston. The enthusiastic involvement of the neighbourhood community centred on an engaging public process—through local collaboration and public meetings—that was fundamental in shaping the design of a new “front porch” for the North End. The residents’ traditional, lively street culture is celebrated in the parks’ design of furnished terraces, intimate garden spaces, and interactive water features. A large pergola defines the North End neighbourhood’s gateway and “front porch” as a place to gather, to stroll, and to be seen (Fig. 6.12). A steel pergola lines one side of the site and is the conceptual “Front Porch” of the North End neighbourhood, complete with site furnishings that encourage its use, making it an “exception” as described by (Goldhagen 2010). A reflective water feature separates the porch from a series of lawns and perennial gardens. The design of the circumference of the park design has streets and walkways (North Street, Hanover Street, and Salem Street walkways) that reconnect the city to North End. Each crosses the gardens, water feature, and pergola. The site’s rich history is reflected in interpretive elements that include granite marking the edge of the Mill Pond and the water’s edge, descriptive quotes and a timeline engraved in

Fig. 6.12 The North End “Front Porch” steel pergola (Source The researcher, Spring 2016/ Summer 2017, Spring 2018)

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch”

101

leaning rails, and an engraved stone map illustrating the changing form of the site (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge 2016).

6.4.1 Physical Conditions The park furniture was continuously improved, in 2014 the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy approved the placement of 14 sets of tables and chairs, 11 umbrellas, and 32 benches along the North End Park alone (Fig. 6.13). That, however, increased the attractiveness of the square and the Rose Fitzgerald Conservancy recorded 1,190,000 visitors in the year 2014 due to the offerings of food vendors, Counts of Public WI-FI logons, carousel riders, and the attendance at Musical Events, making the greenway a major attraction in Massachusetts. A boxwood hedge frames the perennial gardens of irises, lavender, peonies, and poppies that border the western edge of the parks. A variety of plants flower continuously through spring, summer, and fall. Trees such as magnolia, ash, and a larger Washington elm adorn the parks. As a vibrant expression of the Italian origins of today’s North End, the community porch pergola is planted with flowering vines. Chairs and tables and benches abound to read a book or enjoy a slice of local pizza. The park’s leaning rails on Hanover Street feature quotes from some of North End’s prominent residents as well as a timeline of historical events. The parks are divided by the reconnected Hanover Street, which can be closed to traffic to connect the two parks. Moving water with vertical jets invite park visitors to explore (Fig. 6.14). Paving in the park uses granite in a variety of textures and sizes to mark the contrasts between the park’s elements. Patterned granite slabs are a visual reference and link to the historical stone pavements in the North End neighbourhood. More specifically, the North End Park was listed in June 2015, with a total budget of $400,000 and underwent to facelifts to lighting fixtures, and lights along the freedom trail were made to work again and condensed. Benches were replaced, along with porch swings under the pergolas and the greenery in the gardens, and redesigned to be more welcoming (RFKGC 2015).

Fig. 6.13 Cross sectional and front design of the North End Park’s Pergolas and Seating areas (Source Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway North End Community Meeting, 25 February 2015)

102

6 Learning Case Study …

Fig. 6.14 (a) Aerial View towards Parcels 8 and 10 to show the flower boxes and the front Porch steel pergola (b) Stationary activities observation: Kids playing in water fountains, and adults reading on sides. Summer 2017 (c) water jets fountains along the edge of the sitting chairs, tables, benches, and the steel pergola (d) Kids playing in water fountains

6.4.2 Placemaking Programming of Uses and Activities The park is planned to take advantage of all its spaces. While the primary use is passive activities (such as watching water fountains, relaxing on lawns, and sitting around, with benches, chairs, and existing tables); active engagement programmes include the Berklee Concert series (Fig. 6.15(a)) on Fridays in July and August (Berklee 2017)), free fitness, pilates, and yoga classes (Fig. 6.15(b)), or, food cart vendors, Galleries on the fence (Conti 2012). By October 2016, the Conservancy had already partnered with for-profit and nonprofit organisations to run 300 + free events and programmes designed to connect people from all backgrounds and generations in the park. In fact, about $500,000 was invested in an Arts, Culture, and Humanities programme for June 2016 through May 2017. The conservancy’s public art programme has received highly competitive national grants from Art Place America and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) (RFKGC 2016).

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch”

103

Fig. 6.15 (Left) North End Park seasonal summer concerts (Berklee Concert Series) (Source The researcher, July 2017. (Right) Yoga and fitness classes activities in the North End Park [Photo courtesy of local artist and North End resident Lucie Wicker, via http://www.luciewicker.com/])

6.4.3 Accessibility Bounded by two metro stations, the (North Station) on the edge of Parcel 8 connects to the exit of Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy surface road (Fig. 6.16) and the (Haymarket Station) at the edge of Parcel 10. Both stations are on the green line and the orange line, which makes the accessibility of the North End Park quite easy from inbound connections. As a consequence, crossing over Hanover Street gets difficult on weekends due to the Public Market held on the adjacent Blackstone Street.

Fig. 6.16 Accessibility from North End station towards Parcel 8, an aerial view of the crossing

104

6 Learning Case Study …

6.5 Conclusion: The North End Park as a Successful “Public Place” The ever-evolving debate about the difference between a “Public Space” and a “Place” goes beyond semantics when distinguishing between the two concepts. A place is shaped by the environment in which people invest meaningful time; it has its own history, a unique cultural and social identity that is defined by the way it is used and the people who use it (Boros and Mahmoud 2021). In addition, physical, social, environmental, and economic aspects of communities can be nurtured by creating places (Carmona et al. 2010; Mackenzie 2015). In this regard, the North End park shows successful pillars. While the North End Park and square were at the heart of a city-wide project to regenerate a highway area, the leading characteristics of the public place were its historical roots of community engagement and a deep culturally oriented territorial neighbourhood relationship. That said, based on the notion of the North End Park as a city hinge and the historical freedom trail path, the physical design and the imagery of the park was a challenging task. The city ballooned the economic debt of the Big Dig giving rise to an everevolving economic urban regeneration project of the Greenway. Then, its location on the very end of a series of open spaces and parks and due to its context, the North End park is considered one of the greatest parks and squares in the city of Boston, MA (Mahmoud et al. 2017). Nonetheless, community involvement in the design process played an essential role in creating a distinguished public place. In addition to that, there is the continuous effort of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy in promoting the cultural programming of the Greenway through festivals and special events such as artistic installations, outdoor movie displays, and dog carnivals (RFKGC 2017). Moreover, the public art programme along with the active placemaking activities of creating and activating open spaces, have bolstered the creation of longer-term economic value creation in the whole urban downtown business district and North End in particular (BRA 2010; RFKGC 2016).

References Baker MR (2017) The evolution of Boston’s North end how the neighbourhood has changed—but thankfully also stayed the same. Boston Magazine Berklee (2017) Berklee returns to the Greenway for another summer series of Concerts. In: Music Movies Greenw. https://www.berklee.edu/events/summer/greenway-series. Accessed 4 July 2017 Boros J, Mahmoud I (2021) Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming naturebased solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca Degli Alberi case study in Milan. Front Sustain Cities 3(June):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.635610 Boston A (2017) Open space layer BOSTONMAPS: OPEN DATA. http://maps.massgis.state.ma. us/map_ol/oliver.php. Accessed 17 March 2017 Boston Magazine (2013) Then and now: Menino’s Boston. https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/ 2013/09/24/mayor-tom-menino-big-dig-photos/. Accessed 21 Apr 2017

References

105

Boston Redevelopment Authority (1991) Boston 2000: A plan for the central artery. United States of America. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/21/items/boston2000planfo00bost/boston2000planf o00bost.pdf BPRD (2015) Open space & recreation plan 2015–2021. Boston Parks and Recreation Department, City of Boston. https://www.cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp. Accessed 12 Aug 2017 BRA (2010) Rose Kennedy Greenway: creating long-term value. HR&A ADVISORS, INC. Accessed 11 Feb 2017 Carmona M, Tiesdell S, Heath T, Oc T (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge, pp 133–166 City of Boston (2006) Community open space & recreation mission: the neighborhoods. Central Boston. https://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/pdfs/os3c.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2017 City of Boston. (2016). Imagine Boston 2030: A Plan for the Future of Boston. In Boston redevelopment Authority. https://www.boston.gov/civic-engagement/imagine-boston-2030. Accessed 12 Oct 2017 City of Boston, Boston Redevelopment Authority (2010) Greenway district use and development City of Boston. Boston Conti M (2012) Pilates on the North end greenway attracts hundreds. In: Northend Waterfront. http://northendwaterfront.com/2012/09/hundreds-turn-out-for-pilates-on-the-northend-greenway/. Accessed 1 May 2017 Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge (2016) North end parks. http://www.cssboston.com/portfolio/ nep/1/2. Accessed 25 April 2017 EDRG. (2006). “Economic Impact of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority & Related Projects Volume II: The Metropolitan Highway System & Urban Transformation” (p. 24). Economic Development Research Group Inc. http://www.masspike.com/pdf/reports/MTA-Economic-V2. pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2017 Fabos JG (1995) Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)02035-R Federal Highway Administration. The Central Artery Environmental Oversight Committee. https:// www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/artery/artery_4.asp. Accessed 1 May 2016 Goldhagen, S. W. (2010). Park Here | Architecture in Millenium Park, the High Line, and City Garden Reviewed | New Republic. New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/76951/cityparks-urban-planning. Accessed 24 Apr 2017 Gustafson Guthrie Nichol (2017) North end parks. http://www.ggnltd.com/north-end-parks. Accessed 25 April 2017 Mackenzie A (2015) Placemaking and place-led development: A new paradigm for cities of the future. https://www.pps.org/reference/placemaking-and-place-led-development-a-new-par adigm-for-cities-of-the-future/. Accessed 25 October 2017 Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2019). From ‘Highway into Greenway’: how public spaces change zoning regulations. Smart Innov, Syst Technol 2:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-92102-0 Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2017) From a highway to a greenway: A land use dilemma or a rebirth of a place? The case of Northend Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Green Way: Boston, MA, USA. Urban Inf 272:388–392. ISSN 0392–5005 Mahmoud I (2021) Nature-based solutions: The holy grail of green urbanism. International conference on eco-urbanism and nature-based solutions at: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 28–35. Accessed 20 Jun 2022 https://attachments.waset.org/21/ebooks/october-2021-in-dubai-2021-1013-12-29-37.pdf McCown, J. (2001). Boston Reconnecting. Architecture Week, September 2001, 2–3. http://www. architectureweek.com/2001/0926/building_2-1.html. Accessed 25 Apr 2017 MTA (2008a) The North end parks. In: May. http://web.archive.org/web/2008a0514151741/http:// www.masspike.com/bigdig/parks/nendpark.html. Accessed 23 April 2017

106

6 Learning Case Study …

MTA (2008b) North end parks openings. In: July. http://web.archive.org/web/2008b0724170121/ http://www.masspike.com/bigdig/parks/nendpkopen.html Accessed 23 April 2017 Reidy, C. (2004). North Enders determined to shape their future. The Boston Globe, June(15), 27. http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/15/north_enders_determined_to_shape_t heir_future/. Accessed 27 Apr 2017 RFKGC. (2015). North End Parks Community Meeting: 2015 Improvements. https://www.roseke nnedygreenway.org/calendar/?event-categories=board-meeting. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 RFKGC (2016) Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy Inc. NON-PROFIT Report, Boston. https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/. Accessed 11 Feb 2017 RFKGC (2017) Special events. In: GSA Today. ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0906. pdf. Accessed 1 November 2017 Turner RL (2003) A spectacular winter garden is the centrepiece of the Massachusetts Artery. But can the society get the job done? Boston Globe 1–4

Chapter 7

The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Abstract This chapter explains in detail the methodological analysis conducted on the main case study in this book: The North End Park in Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, Massachusetts. The multi-methods evaluation framework, known as the Public Space Index (PSI), implemented encompasses visual observation analysis, behavioural pattern tracing, the measurement of stationary activities, a photographic storyline, as well as users’ surveys, key informants’ interviews, and finally analysis of urban micro trends. Mainly, this chapter presents the results of the methodological analysis implemented on North End Park as a case study. Keywords Liveable cities · Northend Park · Rose Kennedy Greenway · Placemaking · Social evaluation

7.1 North End Park: An In-Depth Analysis While physical analysis is important for any site, one of the most important measurable qualities of any public place is its attraction for users. People gather in squares and walk in parks, and the relationship between people and their space is an essential component of urban design (Nassar 2010, 312). Based on this notion, the following in-depth analysis looks at the users of North End Park with the help of a public life matrix toolkit technique. The main outcomes are part of a physical observation analysis, an intercept user’s statistical survey, interviews with on-site and in-the-field experts, and a video camera surveillance records analysis, as well as the analysis of smart planning tools such as Co-Urbanize, Vision Zero, and Liveability Calculator. In compliance with the above, North End Park is as vibrant as one can imagine a public place to be. An intensive visual observation timeline1 conducted for a threemonth period from April 2017 to July 2017 and showed an attractiveness factor for usage of the North End Park as a culturally oriented destination due to its adjacency to the Italian Neighbourhood’s cluster of food and restaurants, which occurred especially on weekend days. Sociability (defined as a liveable street life and diversity in 1

The visual observation timeline was conducted from 10 am to 10 pm for a full 3 months and divided into 2-hour slots based on a preliminary analysis that frequent users do not spend more than 2 hours in North End Park each day.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_7

107

108

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

public place use and stewardship [PPS 2009; Carmona et al. 2010; Wortham-Galvin 2013]) measured a noticeable feminine presence in the square, within a frequent period between 5:30 pm and 8 pm that peaks on weekend days. The evaluation framework matrix constructed beforehand considers the variation of types and uses of the public space chosen, the North End Park in this case. Methods for analysing public space frequently use observation either in person or by video, and/or a combination of the two. That was elaborated, coupled with intercept users’ surveys to verify the sociability attribute in the public space, in addition to interviews with key informants and governmental bodies in BPDA.

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis The visual observation techniques used in this analysis are based on a mix between the researcher’s individual observations and video camera surveillance recordings. The matrix was used to analyse uses and activities, comfort and imagery of the North End Park, accessibility, and links with services, and lastly the sociability of the place. Within this, the major observational categories were the trends in stationary or frequent uses in terms of pedestrian pattern counts. Ten specific points of observations were assigned in order to easily map the users’ behavioural patterns, in addition to their locations and their in-space experiences.2

7.2.1 Visual Observation Analysis: Timeline and Locations In-person observations were conducted over three months between April and July 2017. The reason for this period choice was a previous weather frame analysis, Boston was hit by cold fronts in both the 2015 and 2016 winter seasons, which made winter observation impossible, see Fig. 7.1. At the same time, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy plans cultural programming events during the period from May to August each year. A timeline for the observational studies was built up based on time slots from 10:00 am to 22:00 and normally divided into two-hour stays, see Fig. 7.2 (that is due to an earlier observation that no frequent users stay in the North End Park for more than two consecutive hours at weekends or on workdays). A specific focus was placed on the days on which the weather conditions showed a better temperature and an accommodating environment in correlation with the occurrence of cultural events occurring in the North End Park, such as the weekend 2

As part of the observational phenomenological experiments, the researcher assessed various seating areas from different perspectives and deliberately analysed her own travel pattern behaviour and environmental considerations. Idea adopted from (Johnston 2012, 57) and considerations adopted from (Gehl Institute 2016b, 47).

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

109

Fig. 7.1 Monthly average temperature recorded in Boston Massachusetts, year 2017 (Source https://www.foreca.com/United_States/Massachusetts/data-sources)

Fig. 7.2 Timeline and dates of the visual observation during the month of July 2017

of 15th and 16th of July and Friday 14th or Friday the 21st when the Berklee music concerts took place. Data collection on the ten observation points, see Fig. 7.3 was completed by taking a “snapshot” of the park and/or attentively observing the users at walkthrough or crossing points. Attention was paid to avoid double counting, this required between 5 and 30 min at each point to record all stationary activities. A total of 1160 pictures were taken in the site observational analysis process, varying between the ten points and within the 10:00 and 22:00 timeframe.3

3

This chapter contains a figure from the previous publication by the main author Mahmoud IH, Appleyard B, Bevilacqua C (2019) From ‘highway into greenway’: how public spaces change zoning regulations. In: Calabrò F, Della Spina L, Bevilacqua C (eds) New metropolitan perspectives. ISHT 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-92102-0_22

110

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.3 Observation points base map with exemplary views from around the North End Park, April/July 2017 (Source The researcher, base map adapted from Microsoft Corporation Here Maps ©2017)

7.2.2 Visual Observation Analysis: Pedestrians Counts Methodology Starting December 2015, the physical observation of the plaza showed a touristic tendency at the crossing between Hanover Street and the Blackstone Street whereas, on the freedom trail path, when the weather is good, the human flow increases. Tourists often stop at a specific spot to take pictures (point 2 or point 8), enjoy the view of the waterjet fountains, and maybe grab something to eat from adjacent bakeries of the Italian neighbourhood (point 10), see Fig. 7.3. While the observational analysis was set up to understand the behavioural travel patterns in the North End Park and Square, the main technique was about analysing the pedestrian counts around/through the observation points. Due to the large sample size, the readings were compiled into two categories: weekdays (from Monday to Thursday) and weekends (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) for simplification. However, the two hours timeframe slots were kept unchanged from 10 am to 22:00, and the readings for same points over the observation hours were averaged. Pedestrian counts include total number of walkers, cyclists, etc.; other categories of sitting users (on benches, chairs, laying on lawns, etc.) were recorded separately for analysis of stationary activity events. However, the measurement counts followed the same order as the ten observation points, see Fig. 7.3. The same observation points order as that mapped for the site was followed for the pedestrian counts graphs.

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

111

Fig. 7.4 Total pedestrian counts over 4 consecutive weekends in July 2017

7.2.2.1

Behavioural Pattern Tracing at Weekends

During the observation of pedestrian counts, a peak trend was noticed between the hours of 12:00 (34 users) and 20:00 (15 users) for the point 8 location, at weekends see Fig. 7.4. That is due to the location of observation point 8 at the crossing between the Haymarket metro station and North End Park in the direction of the North End neighbourhood (either Salem or Hanover Street), see Fig. 7.5. Saturday 15th of July 2017 had the highest count recorded; that may be due to the adjacency to the market on weekends from 9:00 am to 18:00. The temperature recorded for that weekend had an average of between 28 and 31°C with zero chances of rain and clear skies, which explains the impactful significance of this on the North End Park users.

7.2.2.2

Behavioural Pattern Tracing on Weekdays

The major trends during weekdays showed an increased users count during lunch time between 12:00 and 14:00, also around point 8 at the crossing from Haymarket Station and Public Market where some eateries are clustered as well, see Fig. 7.6. The second trend of a higher pedestrian traffic flow was at point 2 towards the restaurant’s area between 10:00 am and slowing down at 14:00, and drastically increasing again at 16:00 until 20:00. Again, the temperature recorded for the weekdays between July 1st and July 29th average between 18 and 28°C with a low chance of rain and

112

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.5 Observation point 8, Saturday 15th July 11:00

scattered clouds, which affected the flow of pedestrians to some extent. Moreover, a noticeable count occurred at both points 5 and 6 in Parcel 10. This was specifically in the time slot between 16:00 and 20:00, the justification of which was the installation of an art piece that has the surrounding fountains working daily around 14:00 during July, see Fig. 7.7. It is easier to visually compare the values of the pedestrians crossing at each point of observation by the same time slot as well, see Fig. 7.8. This shows that the weekends (second reading at each observation point) have a higher average in some locations and times such as points 2, 4, 8, and 10, respectively. That is explained by them being on the axes of crossings either in the early morning at 10:12:00 or late in the evening at 18:20:00 due to the connection between the North End neighbourhood and the Haymarket Metro Station and/or with the cluster restaurants, while the weekdays only showed peaks at points 2, 8, and 10 at times between 12:14:00 and 18:20:00.

7.2.3 Visual Observation Analysis: Stationary Activities Measurement Many of the stationary activities recorded at the North End Park and Square are explained by its nature as an open public park located between a residential neighbourhood, and one famous for its food, and as a major crossing point between Haymarket metro transit station and the freedom trail as a culturally attractive touristic path. It is also explained by its being part of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway which gives privileges in terms of its cultural programming uses, and its

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

Fig. 7.6 Total pedestrian counts over 4 consecutive weeks (Monday to Thursday), July 2017

Fig. 7.7 Observation point 5, Tuesday 11th July 20:00

113

114

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.8 Average pedestrian counts for both weekends and weekdays at 10 observation points, July 2017

usage by the North End residents during their commuting times and Lunch-eaters around their workplaces. The quality of the space is measured by the number of people who spent time in the park and the amount of time spent there (Popper 2010, 27). Stationary activities were recorded six times on both one weekday and one weekend—at least—between 10:00 am and 22:00 and then compiled across days and 12 hours of observation for simplification. The same ten visual observation points were used and recorded by mapping users’ activities. That helped understand the “sticky places” around the North End Park and Square and the variety of activity types and attractiveness to the park users’ whether on weekends or weekdays.

7.2.3.1

Stationary Activities—Recording Methodology

The methodology used for recording stationary activities was built from the classic Gehl categorisation of stationary activities, within a framework of how people participate in different activities in the space by separating “type” of activity from “time” they spent in there (Gehl Institute 2016a). The primary function of this framework is also depicted by stationary activity “mapping” in order to understand the occurrence of a variety of activities in a space and their length of stay. This methodology of tracking the duration of stationary activities reduces errors by tracking users who spent between 5 and 30 min in the same position whether sitting, standing, waiting to transit, or doing any other activity. This measurement provides greater flexibility than standard stationary activity recording. A space in

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

115

which the majority of people spend 5 min or less is more of a passing-through place than a place that encourages people to sit, talk, and linger for 15 min or more. Another layer of data is revealed by mapping social groups in the stationary activity, representing groups of people who are socialising with one another in the space. This method helps with the evaluation and tells the story of social life in the park.

7.2.3.2

Stationary Activities—Uses and Locations

In the case of stationary activities, the number represents an average of the users in the park in the process of engaging in that stationary activity within a certain depicted timeframe. Again, the timeframes in which the count took place are between 5 and 30 min with a range of two hours to cover the whole park’s ten observation points at a certain time at least once a day. The sum of users is then compiled and averaged by days, be they weekdays or weekends. Peaks in certain activities were noticed on specific occasions and around certain points, as explained later for specific locations. Moreover, this is consistent with the pedestrian counts in the previous section, in terms of the lunch-hour hypothesis and the major crossing points around the Haymarket Station and the North End neighbourhood such as points 2, 8, and 10, respectively. Stationary activities were then identified by type such as standing, waiting to transit around the edges, or crossing; while for instance, the seating behaviour was analysed in two diverse ways, by sitting on/in a bench/chair and lying down on the grass throughout the entire observation process. Importance was also given to the occurrence of culturally oriented activities such as musical concerts in Parcel 8, the Art Installation piece in Parcel 10, or the physical activities such as the pilates or the yoga classes that both occur in Parcel 8. Another trend was observed in the Children playing activity around the water fountains, especially on sizzling summer days (weekend of July 21st, 22nd, and 23rd) at observation points 3, 5, and 6 due to their protected location from the surrounding streets’ traffic and being seen as “families’ corner.” A total of 271 users were recorded at weekends while 184 were recorded on weekdays for the park entire and square, see Fig. 7.9. Figure 7.9 shows the cumulative readings for stationary activities during the weekdays and weekends of July 2017. Mapping of stationary activities was done in twohour timeslots, by recording the count and activity type on location at the observation by hand, and then digitalising it for ease of analysis. Afterwards, the hourly maps were compiled into a daily composition in order to look for patterns in stationary activity types in the North End Park and Square in both Parcels 8 and 10. A noticeable tendency of the standing pattern and waiting to transit or crossing through the edges of the North End Park is easily tracked and was higher at weekends than on weekdays. Meanwhile, the sitting behaviour is equally proportional whether on weekends or weekdays. In the same way, the cultural activity is engaged in during the weekend, which is due to the Berklee musical concerts held on Friday afternoons from 17:00 to 19:00 in Parcel 8. In addition to that, there was a noticeable extent of children playing during

116

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

300 271 250 200

25 184

100

5 22 35

50

60

150

children playing physical activity cultural activity

30 28

commercial lying down on grass

88

seating bench/ chair waiting transit/ crossing

31

45

WEEKDAY

WEEKEND

0

Standing

Fig. 7.9 Stationary activities measurement on weekdays and weekends for a total of the 10 observation points, July 2017

the weekend that is, however, explained later by point of observation as a cluster in points 3, 5, and 6, respectively.

7.2.3.3

North End Park and Square—Stationary Activities in Detail

Figure 7.10 shows the mapping of the stationary activities throughout the North End Park and Square during the month of July 2017. The ten observation points were looked at respectively and represented by two pie charts for each point, whereas the outer ring shows the intense activity at weekends, and the inner ring shows the weekdays activities. No extremely prominent differences were recorded in the observed activities between weekends and weekdays; however, some noticeable trends in waiting to transit or crossing were easily tracked by eyesight at all points, but especially at points 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, as well as some concentration of culturally oriented activities at points 3, 6, and 9. In addition to that, the obvious preference of users to lay down on the grass as a seating behaviour was seen at points 1, 6, and 8 respectively, as opposed to the sitting on benches or chairs at points 2, 3, 4, and 7. Figure 7.11 depicts the count differences between weekends and weekdays at each point of observation and gives an idea for the setting, as to how the users’ activities have different patterns at different observation points. Moreover, it records users’ count gaps, such as at points 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10, between weekends and weekdays. In fact, which is explained by the locations of these observation points as can be seen in both Figs. 7.12 and 7.13. That said, the weekends show a higher count at points 1 and 5 due to children playing events as well as the observation of few skaters in those two locations, while the gap at point 3 on weekends is due to an amateur guy playing the guitar nearby.

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

117

Fig. 7.10 Mapping stationary activities at ten observation points during July 2017

Fig. 7.11 Average users count for measuring stationary activities at the 10 observation points on weekends and weekdays, July 2017

118

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

WEEKEND 40 35

children playing

30

physical activity

25

cultural activity

20

commercial lying down on grass

15

seating bench/ chair

10

waiting transit/ crossing 5

Standing

0 point 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5 point 6 point 7 point 8 point 9 point 10

Fig. 7.12 Average stationary activities at weekends—observation by points in July 2017

WEEKDAY 30 children playing

25

physical activity 20

cultural activity commercial

15

lying down on grass 10

seating bench/ chair waiting transit/ crossing

5

Standing 0 point 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5 point 6 point 7 point 8 point 9 point 10

Fig. 7.13 Average stationary activities on weekdays—observation by points in July 2017

In the same manner, point 9 is ambiguously high in cultural activities occurrence during weekends due to the Berklee musical concerts on Fridays while remarkably high in physical activities during weekdays due to yoga and pilates classes groups on Wednesdays. Point 10 however remains stable as just a standing and waiting to transit or crossing point, which is due to a lack of places to sit in addition to the fact that it is located between the public market held at weekends and the entrance to the North End park as well as to the whole neighbourhood, see Fig. 7.11. However descriptive the visual observation analysis gets, the main image the user can get is usually by walking through the North End park at all times and all observation points. The following parts of the visual observation analysis are based on imagery as captured on site—point by point—and during the entire observation period from April 2016 (preliminary) to July 2017.

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

119

7.2.4 Visual Observation Analysis: A Photographic Storyline The initial observation of park users started in December 2015. However, intensive photography and specific observation points were established from April 2016 to July 2017. The photographic storyline aims, then, to compare the same observation points and camera angles during weekends and weekdays as much as possible, and so each picture recorded is dated and analysed in its context. Point 1 Weekends

Weekdays

Friday, July 21, 2017, 17:52

Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:50

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:46

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 20:08

Sunday, July 2, 2017, 19:00

Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 19:01

During the weekends we can see more families around the corner tree of the observation point on Parcel 8, more children playing under the tree shade. It is common as well to see adults rambling around barefooted in running water. There will always be someone sitting there

People around this observation point tend to be more in couples or groups gathering, sitting, or lying on grass due to seats missing in that spot. However, it is noticeable the noise barriers from the street traffic helps which leaves this spot appealing for a relaxing crowd

120

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Point 2 Weekends

Weekdays

Friday, July 21, 2017, 18:34

Monday, July 10, 2017, 14:13

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:40

Thursday, July 20, 2017, 17:18

Saturday, July 15, 2017, 20:45

Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 20:26

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:56

Monday, July 10, 2017, 14:17

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

121

Point 2 (Continued) Weekends

Weekdays

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:56

Monday, July 10, 2017, 15:07

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 13:06

Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:49

This is one of the most projecting points in the observation, it is a highly crowded crossing point during the weekends and a famous (touristy) pictures spot through the Freedom Trail and the North End Custom Tower view. Nonetheless, the sitting behaviour around this point is ambiguous, very few people stay seated on the chair and tables around this point for long times due to its vicinity to the street noise and crowded all the time. However, few sitting clusters form around the sunken edges of the water fountains, children playing there are always accompanied by their parents, and whatever time there will be crossing flows

During weekdays, the most common trend is the pedestrian crossing flow from Downtown to North End around lunch break time and vice versa towards the Haymarket public market and metro station around 17:00. A usual wanderer pedestrian behaviour occurs in this point before people take the decision to cross to North End or stay other few minutes in the shades of the park or take touristy pictures. The sunken fountains surprise them with some breeze so they, somehow, bring desserts to eat and come back for a quick pause. Very few bicycles were noticed around this spot as the bike crossing sign prohibition is enforced

122

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Point 3 Weekends

Weekdays

Point 3 has an almost fixed rate of pedestrian count and stationary activities counts, that is due to its location in between a crossing point and a sitting area in front of a lawn where some consider one of the nicest spots of the park It is also considered a cultural spot during the weekends as sometimes the dog festival takes place. Some marketing agents use the spot to give away their samples or hang on their posters

From pictures is observed some families/children point of gatherings, strollers are observed frequently on the lawn during the midday time till dinner time. The crossing at the end of point 3 towards Hanover Street is popular for locals as the street narrows and they don’t risk while crossing. Moreover, most of sitting activity is on benches, tables, and chairs

Friday, July 21, 2017, 19:37

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 20:05

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:20

Monday, July 10, 2017, 15:07

Sunday, July 23, 2017, 15:14

Monday, July 17, 2017, 18:12 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

123

(continued) Point 3 Weekends

Weekdays

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:56

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 20:05

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 12:05

Thursday, July 20, 2017, 12:01

Point 4

Friday, July 14, 2017, 12:30

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 14:40

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 20:56

Monday, July 10, 2017, 13:36 (continued)

124

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

(continued) Point 4

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:28

Thursday, July 20, 2017, 19:20

Sunday, July 23, 2017, 16:16

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 12:45

During the weekends, the seating crowd seems to be more into groups and families, meanwhile the crossing pedestrian flow doesn’t stop by the small alleys leading to the street as far as they can use the main pedestrian crossing at the street curb. More people lying on the grass are observed in the midday time and a lot of families take advantage of the sunken part to sit aside and take pictures

The main seating crowd during the week are the outdoor working people or the lunch break eaters. Meanwhile, the pedestrian crossing flow wanders around a little bit of pause figuring out which alley to cut towards the park crossing (into point 7) or just stay a little bit Shade seekers are observed around this point whereas in midday they stop under the tree and sit around the edge of the pathway

Point 5

Saturday, July 15, 2017, 18:17

Thursday, July 6, 2017, 17:38 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

125

(continued) Point 5

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 19:20

Thursday, July 6, 2017, 17:40

Friday, July 22, 2017, 16:20

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 12:57

Saturday, July 15, 2017, 21:20

Thursday, July 20, 2017, 17:20

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:30

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 14:51 (continued)

126

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

(continued) Point 5 Through the visual analysis it was depicted that this point holds the family corner preferred spot tag. During the summer weekend since the art piece installation however the weather, always children were playing with water fountain and adults will stop, sit, relax either on the red chairs around the corner or lay on the grass. On average there are around 40 pedestrians crossing by two hours average in a weekend day and an average of 26 persons sitting/lying down on grass or playing with their children at this point by two hours average count

There is an average of 24 pedestrians crossing at this point by two hours average in a weekday between 10:00 am and 20:00. As well as an average of 12 people sitting in this spot whether scattered on the few tables and chairs around or around the corner of the stairs It was noticed a sticky spot around the handrail; the polish was a bit rut, and it was a bit away from the splash of the water jets so noticeable sitting pattern on the floor/stairs so basically avoiding the wet feeling around while still enjoying the space feeling

Point 6

Friday, July 21, 2017, 17:46

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 14:52

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:31

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 12:52

Sunday, July 15, 2017, 11:57

Monday, July 10, 2017, 12:05 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

127

(continued) Point 6 It is noticeable that this point has fewer users that is due to its location around the edge of Parcel 10. Moreover, no transit or crossing patterns are almost present owing to the hidden path that is not visible from the Joan Fitzgerald Kennedy surface street

During the weekdays, this spot has almost the same crowd of users for stationary activities while it holds half the number of pedestrian counts than weekends. More in-depth, it is believed that the art installation project activated that edge of Parcel 10 in terms of users’ presence

However, the remarkable pattern is the sitting and lying on grass pattern whether on weekends or weekdays, that is due to the missing of seats or benches to use

Point 7

Sunday, July 9, 2017, 18:32

Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 12:47

Friday, July 21, 2017, 17:05

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 15:06

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:24

Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:25 (continued)

128

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

(continued) Point 7 There is always a scattered crowd of locals who cross at this observation point, which is maybe due to the long waiting time for the pedestrian traffic light between the surface road and Hanover Street. Another remarkable issue is the crossing pedestrian count during the weekends at this point that is the triple of the rest of the week (45vs12) while the number of people in stationary activities remains intact at 15 during weekends vs 10 on weekdays with no variations in activity types

During the week, there are always few people seated under the shade of the big tree around midday hours, most of the times a small family, or a couple. A common point to seek some privacy is the corner between the edge of Parcel 8 from Hanover Street with the Kennedy surface road where point 7 is on the elevated level of the park. That is due to the canopy trees that work as a noise barrier as well as the seats availability with a less crowd than the rest of the parcel

Point 8

Friday, July 14, 2017, 18:25

Monday, July 10, 2017, 14:13

Friday, July 14, 2017, 18:06

Thursday, July 6, 2017, 18:07

Saturday, July 15, 2017, 21:24

Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 20:25 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

129

(continued) Point 8

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 13:06

Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 20:25

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:29

Monday, July 17, 2017, 18:10

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:30

Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 19:20

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:36

Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:07 (continued)

130

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

(continued) Point 8

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 18:00

Monday, July 10, 2017, 15:31

Statistically, the crossing point has around 100 users by an average of two hours during the weekend days. Meanwhile, the stationary activities count, and types remain intact with no remarkable changes between weekends and weekdays (27vs23) per average of two hours However, the main noticeable activity is the waiting transit and crossing pattern that is due to the location of this point following the historic freedom trail towards the park. Users during the weekend have a slower pace than weekdays and a wanderer attitude at the info pole around the corner Interestingly, the Berklee musical concerts around this point and the following (9) form a diverse crowd during the Fridays from 17:00 to 19:00 that are either standing or sitting on lawn

During the weekdays, the users crossing the street or standing at this point have a faster pace than users during the weekends. On average of two hours, 36 persons cross from this point that is due to the location in between the transit station from one side and the park along with the North End neighbourhood on the other side Another noticeable attribute to this observation point is the low seating behaviour around this point, users uncomfortably sit around the edges of the lawn (due to the homeless spikes designed) which make them never stay for more than 30 min at most (Whyte 1990). However, they remarkably sit on the lawn at all times with no limitations to time or weather

Point 9

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:46

Monday, July 10, 2017, 20:29 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

131

(continued) Point 9

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:59

Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 19:06

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:46

Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 11:40

Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:59

Thursday, July 27, 2017, 20:00

During the weekends, this is a common point to passively watch the musical concert without interfering with the crowd

During the weekdays, this is a common spot to sit and relax or for the yoga and Pilates classes on Wednesdays

More privacy seekers around this point as seen, there is always a couple of people sitting under that corner tree and someone talking over the phone around the edge or two people chatting in private space around the same edge. However, someone is standing or sitting on the edge to be facing the mid path of the parcel at that end or a group or individuals scattered on the ground wherever they can sit or lay on the lawn. 2 h stay guitar guy, he seemed more comfortable to be playing around an edge where there is no traffic volume surrounding. As well as a more passive watching pattern is observed, at this end of Parcel 8 people sit around to see and not to be seen

132

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Point 10

Saturday, July 8, 2017 18:07

Monday, July 17, 2017, 16:48

Friday, July 14, 2017, 19:08

Thursday, July 20, 2017, 17:17

Saturday, July 8, 2017, 18:09

Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 13:48

Saturday, July 8, 2017, 18:10

Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 20:03 (continued)

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

133

(continued) Point 10

Sunday, July 16, 2017, 11:54

Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 10:45

Point 10 is one of the clearest observation point that showed no specific diversity in the activities between weekends or weekdays as it is just used as crossing or transit point. In weekends the crowd is the public market one, which made the visual observation ambiguous hence it was impossible to follow the users’ diverse patterns. Statistically, the peak of pedestrian counts occurred between 12:00 and 18:00, that is however due to the market occurrence on Fridays and Saturdays till 18:00

Noticeably, the only sitting chairs and tables were always locked up between midday and 20:00 which made the seating pattern almost uncountable. Even though the biking lane is highlighted, very few bikers were noticed. Statistically, 35 persons were counted per two hours average at this point for stationary activities, which is however due to the low numbers between 17:00 and 20:00 while the peak occurred between 12:00 and 14:00

7.2.5 Interpretation of Users’ Sociability in North End Park and Square In relation to social behaviour in public squares, Whyte (1980a, b) notes that people sit where there are places to sit, and that was observed during the visual analysis. Scholars vigorously argue that the quality of the built environment manifested in public spaces, such as the case of the North End Park, helps understand and contributes to the flourishing of public life diversity or hinders it (Whyte 1990; Chen et al. 2013; Carmona 2015; Gehl Institute 2015; Zamanifarda et al. 2016). Hence, an assessment of the Users’ patterns or stationary activities helps to unfold the main qualities of the North End Park as it depicts the users’ preferred uses, times, and sticky locations. Points 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 show a triangle of transit or pedestrian crossingoriented activities, however, they also show a great appeal to small groups of families or individuals to pause, sit for fleeting time, and/or move towards their designated destinations. In few cases, there is a noticeable slow pace at weekends between midday and 18:00 or a high pace on weekdays between midday and 16:00 around the same points. That is due to the historical freedom trail path tours around points 2, 8, and 10. However, points 3, 4, and 7 have a more local crowd either for crossings

134

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Pedestrian counts / by point 600

542 500 400 300

251 35 15 36 12 20 22 17 24 55 15 WEEKDAY

200 100 0

point 10

87

point 9

32

point 8

101

point 7

45 38 42 50 35

point 6

76

point 2

36

point 1

point 5 point 4 point 3

WEEKEND

Fig. 7.14 Summary of pedestrians count at observation point on weekends and weekdays, July 2017

Table 7.1 Uses and activities: quality criteria of a place Protection

Safe against vehicular traffic

Safe against crime and violence

Safe against unpleasant sensory experiences

Comfort

Walkable

Standing/staying

Sitting

Seeing

Hearing

Play/recreation

Enjoyment

Human scale

Climate

Aesthetic qualities

or stationary activities, as they accommodate traffic calming shrubs, and/or more sitting opportunities and a pleasant human-scale enjoyment experience, see Fig. 7.14. In the same fashion, during the observations some quality criteria for those visual experiences were noted as indicated in Table 7.1. However, the importance of tracking and recording daily life on the small streets surrounding the North End Park was noted, such as the market that occurs at the edge between points 7, 8, and 10, see Fig. 7.15. Then there are the users crossing traffic lights at observation point 2, see Fig. 7.16. The signage around the park also offers a variety of safety indications and informations on how to use the park, see Fig. 7.17.

7.2.5.1

Daily Life in the North End Park and Square

See Figs. 7.15 and 7.16.

7.2.5.2

Signs Around North End Park

See Fig. 7.17.

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

135

Fig. 7.15 Public market at the edge of the park at crossing point 10

Fig. 7.16 Pedestrian crossing at traffic lights at observation point 2

7.2.5.3

Passive Watchers Around North End Park

While the main passive watching pattern is persistent, see Fig. 7.18. There is active placemaking around the edges on both Parcels 8 and 10, that is visible in variations in the stationary activities between weekends and weekdays, around points 3, 6, and 9 in terms of space.

7.2.6 Notes on the Video Camera Analysis The Video Surveillance Camera was located at the crossing of Hanover Street with Blackstone Street, where the Haymarket public market is held each weekend. The pedestrian counts observed for this crossing were taken at point number 10, and there was a noticeable increase during weekend peak hours around the Crossing

136

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.17 Different signs and wayfinding stands as seen around the North End Park

Fig. 7.18 Passive watching behaviour around the niches of the North End Park

as per the observed counts. Data was collected in two-hour timeslots at weekends in April 2017 and on weekends and weekdays in July 2017 to match the visual observation timeline and objectives. The total mass is analysed based on a selection of non-randomised videos, done at the time of the visual observation, and extracted from surveillance camera tapes afterwards. The outcome of the video recordings was

7.2 Visual Observation Analysis

137

Fig. 7.19 An amateur guitar guy, casually playing for money at the North End Park for two hours between 15:00 and 17:00 (Source The researcher, captured on Sunday, July 23, 2017)

subsequently combined with the visual in-person quantitative analysis and qualitative data obtained via interviews with key informants about daily life in the square.

7.2.6.1

The Weekend Guitar Guy

As in Fig. 7.19, when he was seated at the crossing next to the North End Salem Side (point 2) people stopped for the traffic light, so they were able to notice him because of their slow pace. There are also seats and chairs available so they could sit for a bite. Nonetheless, he was not heard because of the street noise around that point. Statistically, at this point, an average of 55 persons cross every two hours on a normal weekday and 76 persons on a weekend every two hours. 25–30 people could be seated around this point at most whether weekday or weekend, respectively. Meanwhile, where he was seated (Point 8) people do not stop, as it is a crossing point at high pace towards the park (following the freedom trail) or from the park towards the downtown area and the corner store opposite the public market. Or they wander around the info pole in front of him, but they are already heading towards their goal. They do not stop there; they have no place to sit so they improvise seating (uncomfortably because of edges blades/homeless spikes) as seen in both Figs. 7.20 and 7.21 (and that means they do not stay long (no more than 30 min)). Statistically, at this point, 36 persons cross on average every two hours on a normal weekday, and 101 persons on a weekend every two hours. 23–27 people could be seated around this point at most.

7.2.6.2

The Small Alleys—Privacy Seekers in the North End Park

See Fig. 7.20.

7.2.6.3

Signs of Personal Ownership at North End Park

See Fig. 7.21.

138

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.20 Different locations for privacy seekers around the park, in the back alleys at points 6, 7, 8, and 9

Fig. 7.21 Signs of personal ownership signs in North End Park (Source The author)

7.2.6.4

North End Park—Maintenance

Rubbish cleaning, trees, and horticulture maintenance as seen around the park along with security rangers taking care of the entrances and exits of the North End Park, see Fig. 7.22.

7.3 Users Intercept Survey

139

Fig. 7.22 Various aspects of park maintenance efforts by the Greenway Conservancy

7.3 Users Intercept Survey In compliance with any physical or visual analysis of an urban park, it is of major importance to understand the perception of its users, their reason for being there, and their overall satisfaction with their urban experience (Popper, 2010). Based on this notion, a preliminary survey was conducted during the summer of 2016 to better understand the North End Park’s physical attractiveness to the users. Then, starting April 2017 and until July 2017, overall surveys were conducted in correlation with the locations of the observation points and on site, using a hard copy survey form that was then digitised by building an SAV database using STATA software, and re-analysed using the DataCracker online tool, for the full data set See https://www. datacracker.com/Dashboard?project_id=-240748.

140

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

7.3.1 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Timeline and Counts (See Appendix 2) In-person and on-site surveys were conducted in the North End Park, in a totally anonymous form, the respondents were given a brief idea of the purpose of the survey and the background research idea. Moreover, the survey was assessed and adjusted with local stakeholders from the Boston Planning and Development Agency and urban experts from the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy and Project for Public Spaces (PPS) Consultancy, as well as with an expert from Gehl’s US offices, in order to comply with the public life, public space toolkit. Originally more than 70 surveys were conducted then some of the on-site responses were excluded due to them falling outside the general profile, skewing the overall sample used for analysis. As for the observation, the surveys covered the peak hours of counting pedestrian stationary activities crowd points and meaningful times. As a matter of fact, Figures 7.23 and 7.24 show the story timeline of the chronology of users intercept surveys conducted and the counts done during the observation times from 10:00 am to 22:00. As we have seen, special emphasis on the surveys was given to the time slot between midday and 16:00, and to the time slot between 17:00 and 19:00. A lower number of users opted to participate in the survey either early in the morning (before

Story Timeline Of Users Surveys Conducted 21:36 19:12 16:48 14:24 12:00 9:36

123

45

678

1213 9 1011

4748 3940 46 33 363738 4142434445 68 32 67 31 66 27 62 18 22 53 57 30 65 17 52 16 51 2829 6364 21 56 26 61 1415 4950 1920 5455 25 60 24 59 23 58 35 70 34 69

7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

Fig. 7.23 Users intercept surveys timeline and counting

Fig. 7.24 Timeline of the surveys conducted during the month of July 2017

7.3 Users Intercept Survey

141

12:00) or late in the evening (after 21:00), due to the use trends in these hours that rely on transit-oriented activities.

7.3.2 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Methodology 70 surveys were conducted spread over weekends and weekdays evenly, however, it was noticed that on working days during lunch times or after-work hour, people optedout, whereas at weekends they generally opted-in with no concern about the time the survey was conducted. In addition, conducting the survey was evenly subdivided between Parcels 8 and 10. The survey collected the following data: • User age, gender, yearly income, education, and home zip code. • User sociability (alone, couple, or groups), commuting modes, and social media usage. • Users’ frequency of visit, length of stay based on time spent • Users’ preferred activity (purpose of the visit: meeting friends, lunch time, tourism, etc.) • User’s feeling about the place (positive, negative, neutral, or preferred public place). Those surveyed were given a five-point Likert scale to rate their overall level of satisfaction with the qualities of the North End Park and square, where 1 indicates dissatisfied and 5 satisfied, in relation to a few physical and social qualities such as: • The availability of surrounding services (coffee shops, community activity and involvement, physical design elements, and the park’s uses and activities) • The comfort rate in relation to the park’s attractiveness, safety, cleanliness, and maintenance. • Accessibility and links to the park’s surroundings, in terms of them being identifiable, walkable, easily accessible, and interactive/welcoming. • Sense of ownership and sociability (the presence of groups of children and seniors, and a sense of pride about visiting and using North End Park).

7.3.3 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: An In-Depth Statistical Analysis In statistical terms, in the 70-user intercept surveys conducted, we analysed a 37% tendency towards using the public space among the surrounding inhabitants and community of the North End neighbourhood and greenway district. Considering the strong influence, the park parcels have on shaping the cultural aspects of the neighbourhood, it is significant that most of the frequent users are from the same zip

142

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

codes of 02113 and 02114 as those for the park’s location, showing that it is seen as an important node in the neighbourhood’s profile.

7.3.3.1

Users Survey—Sociability Findings in Detail

The North End Park visitors span a broad spectrum from daily workers around the area to North End residents, as well as tourists from other parts of the USA or Europe. However, their diverse opinions help shape the perception of the park compared to other public places. Yet, tourists tend to see the park through rose-coloured glasses rather than as it truly is. Hence more locals were subjected to the intercept surveys, as they are more familiar with the environment and likely to have greater depth to their experience in the place. Only 14% of the survey users were tourists from all genders in comparison to the rest of the survey sample. There was a noteworthy female attraction of 14% of survey takers during the weekends of 16th and 22nd July due to pleasant weather conditions (an average temperature of between 19 and 28°C was recorded) and the occurrence of two planned musical concerts on Fridays from 17:00 to 19:00. Meanwhile, the age and gender differences were not substantial, both categories reported ages of between 34 and 38 years as the most significant quantiles; a noticeable low correlation of 0.80 was recorded, between gender and age in the survey results. However, a higher correlation was assessed between age and social clusters of users; 57% preferred frequenting the park alone in the average age bracket of 34 and less, while 35 % preferred group activities in an age bracket between 35 and 40; lastly, only 8% of the survey takers were in couples at an average age of 34. While looking at gender in correlation to sociability of the park, 62% of female surveyors were walking alone and felt neutral or positive about the park vs 38 % of the opposite gender. Another important aspect of the users’ behavioural analysis refers to their yearly income, while 26% declared having an annual income between $60k and $90k (with a majority of 29% of males), 23% preferred to not declare their income (with a majority of 24% of female). Lastly, the 70 users were divided into subcategories by latent class analysis, while “daily” or “weekly” were the highest percentile of female gender frequency at 38%, “monthly” was the remarkable subcategory of opposite sex with just 14% of the sample analysis and a 95% confidence interval. On the same scale, the female gender scored 48 % in staying 30 min or more up to 1 hour in the square, which coincides with the female’s higher evaluation of the sociability of the public place as confirmed by the visual observation analysis.

7.3.3.2

Users’ Gender

More females than males stopped to complete the survey, see Fig. 7.25. However, this was not influenced by the researcher nor by the location at which the surveys were conducted, but simply correlated to the remarkable female presence in the North End

7.3 Users Intercept Survey

143

Fig. 7.25 Gender of respondents. July 2017

neighbourhood, as well as the Boston population between the benchmarked ages of the survey takers of between 25 and 34 (Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division 2017, 11–16, section 3). Nonetheless, this deduction seems logical aside from the North End share, more families were observed around the park constantly with their baby strollers on weekends; as well as that it somehow emphasises Whyte’s theory of female usage of a public square (Whyte 1980a, b, 18) The most used places tend to have a higher-than-average proportion of women. the femalemale ration is a plaza reflects the composition of work force... Women are discriminating than men as to where they will sit, more sensitive to annoyances, and women spend more time casting the various possibilities. if in a plaza, there is a higher-than-average proportion of women, the plaza is probably a good one and has been chosen as such.

7.3.3.3

Age and Gender in Correlation with Users’ Sociability

As seen in Fig. 7.26, the average age for couples’ using North End park was about 34, while the main groups surveyed had an average age of 39 years. On the other hand, the average age of walking alone was between 32 and 33, that, however, is a sign of perceived safety and security as the park falls between a residential neighbourhood and a regenerated downtown project such as the Big Dig. Moreover, the gender aspect in correlation with sociability showed the same tendency towards the safety and security quality, see Fig. 7.26 (left). More females (62%) responded that they prefer coming to the park walking alone vs 38% of male respondents. While 67% of females came along in couples vs. 33% of male respondents. Only 55% of females preferred coming along in groups vs. 45% of males in the park users surveys, see Fig. 7.26 (right).

144

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 Couple

Group

walking Alone

Fig. 7.26 Left Sociability aspect as in correlation with the age in surveys. Right Sociability aspect in correlation with gender, July 2017

Fig. 7.27 Sociability by income ranges in surveys, July 2017

7.3.3.4

Users’ Income and Sociability

For sociability ”Group,” see Fig. 7.27, 45% preferred to not declare their yearly income bracket. Meanwhile, 26% of survey respondents have a yearly income of “$90,001 to $120,000” which is relatively high compared to the average income in the age category of 18–34 in the Boston metropolitan area (Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division, 2017, 15). In terms of sociability in the form of “walking Alone,” 19% have a yearly income of “$15,001 to $30,000” that is low for the North End neighbourhood.

7.3.3.5

Users’ Length of Stay and Frequency

The thorough investigation of users made it possible to include and categorise them into patterns and frequencies of visit, that, however, elicit their length of stay in the

7.3 Users Intercept Survey

145

Fig. 7.28 Users’ length of stay and frequency of visits to North End Park—Surveys, July 2017

diverse locations of the park and how they use the place in a time-based manner. While the sociability of the North End Park is measured according to the diversity of the users’ ages, gender, income, and frequency of visits; the users’ length of stay added the time dimension to the analysis. Initially, the main perception was that users stay no more than 30 min; however, surveys revealed a consistent portion of users over the time remained 1 hour or more. Among the users, almost 50% visited weekly or 25% visited on a daily basis; that relates strongly to the family visits on weekends observed. Yet, the theory of lunch-eaters on weekdays and quick pause users at midday and after-work hours remains, which dominates the 30 min length of stay class with 50% on a weekly basis and almost 42% on a daily basis, see Fig. 7.28.

7.3.3.6

Users’ Place Feeling and Usage

The activity usage of North End Park by the 70 users surveyed, was correlated with their feeling for the place indicated to be neutral, positive, or preferred (the Negative category was excluded as no one picked it). Most of the users who assessed the park with a positive feeling had the majority use of crossing the park and using public transport, while the users who come because they work in the nearby area range did not vary between neutral or positive feelings, see Fig. 7.29.

7.3.3.7

Users Satisfaction

The 70 users concerned with the conducted surveys on North End Park were asked to assess their level of satisfaction with the quality of the conditions. 40 % rated the park as highly socially attractive on the Likert scale. This is followed by Cleanliness,

146

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.29 Feeling for place by usage type for survey respondents, July 2017

Fig. 7.30 Word cloud for users’ perception of quality in North End Park, researcher infographics tool, December 2017

Safety, Accessibility, and Walkability with 34%, 30%, and 24% respectively, see Fig. 7.30.

7.3.4 Discussion of Survey Results Many of those who use North End Park on a daily basis provided answers that indicated work nearby, meeting friends, or lunchtime. However, the most ambiguous category was that of crossing through (they only spend 5 min walking across the park from one side to the other) as they were somehow excluded from the observation of stationary activities and are only counted at pedestrian crossings at transport-oriented points (2, 3, 8, and 10) in an earlier observation section. The location of every survey respondent was recorded at the time of the survey and was then excluded from the study as users were aware of the park’s overall condition and status, whether, for instance, naming North End Park in particular or the Rose

7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews

147

Kennedy Greenway in general. In fact, a good portion of respondents was seen every week in diverse locations between Parcel 8 or 10, in other words, they come to the North End Park and enjoy it, whatever location they were seated or lying on the grass, or when attending a concert or any other stationary activity was recorded. All the survey’s findings were statistically correlated to sociability and conducted with a 95% confidence level. However, the overall satisfaction question was openended and provided a summed-up count of all the responding users based on their answers and ratings from 1 to 5.

7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews The third stage of the case study analysis was in-depth interviews with in-the-field experts. Interestingly, the insights gained from the meetings with Boston Development Planning Agency officials, the Emerald Network, and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy all concerned with the success of North End Park due to its strategic location in the city’s downtown area. Furthermore, there was a noticeable governmental approach to conserving age/gender/social class diversity and encouraging people mixing along the Greenway. Meanwhile, the matters that topped the agenda were safety, security, and accessibility for all colours to the park and to surrounding economic activities.

7.4.1 Key Informants’ Interviews: Methodology Key informants’ interviews were conducted and recorded in person using audio and written means. The interview form was divided into three parts with 8 questions, of which 5 were semi-open questions, one was an evaluative rating question, and two were open-ended questions. The personnel interviewed were explicitly asked for their consent to use the information given to construct the analysis of the case study’s authenticity, and their influence over the conclusions as well. The first part introduced the research approach and the methodological framework analysis, in addition to introducing the contextual case study of North End Park being investigated for scientific purposes. The second part collected each interviewee’s rating of importance for the elements of sociability triggers in the methodological framework such as mixture of uses and activities, walking and biking opportunities, evidence of diversity and social mixing by (age/gender/income ranges/users’ length of stay/and personal feelings). The third and last part, detailed the quantification and qualification of the sociability measures and techniques in public spaces according to the culturally oriented urban regeneration development projects.

148

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

7.4.2 Key Informant Interviewees and timeline See Appendix 1: Key Informants Interviews—Biographies 1. Katerina Zimmerman: an urban anthropologist expert. April 18th, 2017—http://thinkurban.org/projects/about 2. Nidhi Gulati: Emerald Network Program Manager/livable streets alliance. May 1st, 2017—http://www.livablestreets.info/staff 3. Michael Nicholas: Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, Chief of Staff. July 14th, 2017—https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ 4. Laura Jasinski: Associate Director of the Boston trustees of Reservation—Former director of the Programs and Planning department on the greenway Conservancy 2010–2017. July 18th, 2017—https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-jasinski-ba28777 5. John (Tad) Read: (Senior Deputy Director for Transportation & Infrastructure Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) July 20th, 2017—http://www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail? id=820 6. Natalia Urtubey—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030—Department Planning, Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) July 26th, 2017—http://www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id= 1367

7.4.3 Interview Results and Discussions For the first part, the most noticeable outcome of the interviews conducted is the difference in scale of perspective among urban planners who engage with the community on a daily basis or deal with the micro urban scale of placemaking and cultural programming, compared to governmental officials or those responsible for larger scale development projects. However, most of the interviews stressed conserving the liveability of the downtown area, whereas the North End Park case study is, in addition to work on equitable cultural programming, about inclusiveness in planning processes, and wayfinding and safety issues. Mostly, the goals set out in the blueprint document “Imagine Boston 2030” released in 2016 were in the core discussions, specifically investing in open spaces, arts, and cultural programming, together with transportation and infrastructure (City of Boston 2016, 48426). The second part of the interviews was more of a statistical overview of the importance according to rating by the interviewees, of measures for safety, security, sociability, mixture of users, etc. The third and last part integrated

7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools

149

the officials’ experience in the field with the evaluation matrix methodology, which shapes the urban environment in Boston. That helped to provide information for the following section of the Urban Micro Trends Analysis using smart planning tools.

7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools In recent years, the use of smart planning and collaborative tools has advanced in the field of academia as well as in the research methods, accompanied by open data sources to optimise urban planning performance and help rethink urban design processes (Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute 2017; Farinea et al. 2017; Mangialardi 2017). That said, the following part analyses a few prominent identified smart planning tools that helped to provide information for the case study such as the Liveability Calculator, the Vision Zero tool map, and the Co-Urbanize platform. In fact, one of the measurable tools used to identify the success of the case study of the North End Park was liveability performance, in which the transit corridor—in which it falls—showed a high ranking in terms of walkability, biking opportunity, accessibility to economic opportunities, social and governmental services, vibrant community and cultural recreation opportunities, healthy and safe neighbourhood, but scored low in terms of mixed income housing opportunity as is to be expected in the North End case (Appleyard et al. 2016; Oliver 2017).

7.5.1 The Liveability Calculator: Methodology and Implementation The Liveability Calculator relies on identifying the FIPS CODE of the zone being analysed. These codes consist of 12 or 11 digits based on the selected state. In the North End park case, 27 codes of 12 digits were identified using the OLIVER tool known as MASSGIS, an online mapping tool for the cities of Massachusetts, see Fig. 7.31. Using census Block groups, the query parcels are identified at the urban design scale and then input into the calculator, see Table 7.2, to identify the liveability opportunities, based on z-score metric measuring as follows: • • • • • •

Quality of transit, walking, biking opportunity: 6.55 Mixed income: −0.17 Accessible economic opportunity: 9.23 Accessibility to social and governmental service: 5.30 Vibrant and accessible cultural and recreational opportunities: 6.18 Healthy, safe, and walkable transit corridors: 2.36

150

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.31 Manual identification of the North End Park case study—FIPS codes using MASSGIS online tool (Source The researcher, 29 March 2017, after http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/ oliver.php)

7.5.2 The The Liveability Calculator’s Measurement Metrics: See Appendix 3 As seen in Fig. 7.32, the calculator’s performance indicators show a highperformance transit corridor around the North End section, that is due to the accessibility to transport services provided in the area, as well as to the high walkability of the neighbourhood. However, the undeniable low performance metrics in relation to mixed income housing refer to the percentage of income spent on housing, in terms of which affordability seems low in North End (Ferrell and Appleyard 2016). In greater depth, the Liveability Calculator considers the people’s accessibility to arts and cultural recreational opportunities among the evaluation principles (CFA Consultants 2017). That indeed helps to shape the calculator’s metrics with a more place-/people-oriented basis, see Fig. 7.33. The particular evaluation matrices covered the cultural enrichment through public art, creating cultural destinations, and district revitalisation. While the implementation strategies correlated to the Liveability Calculator seem to be efficient in the case of North End Park, a remarkably high coefficient in the pedestrian collisions per 10,000 pedestrians, was noted. That related to the data obtained through Boston Police department—fatality data 2010–2014.

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2355

025

025

025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2082

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2352

025

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2030

025 025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2011

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2028

025

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2010

025 025

25 25

025

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2008

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2007

025

025

025

025

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2009

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1877

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1878

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1808

025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1806

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1807

025

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1557

025 025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1551

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1553

025 025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1480

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1481

COUNTYFP10 025

STATEFP10 25

FID

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1479

020302

020200

030500

040100

030500

030500

030400

030300

030300

030300

020303

020303

030200

020301

020301

040401

030400

020303

070101

070101

070101

TRACTCE10

Table 7.2 FIPS CODE identified using the MASSGIS online tool for the Liveability Calculator input BLKGRPCE10

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

3

2

GEOID10

(continued)

250250203021

250250202001

250250305003

250250401001

250250305002

250250305001

250250304001

250250303003

250250303001

250250303002

250250203033

250250203031

250250302001

250250203012

250250203011

250250404012

250250304002

250250203032

250250701011

250250701013

250250701012

7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools 151

25 25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.3135

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.3307

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.4923 017

025

025

025 025

25 25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2357

025

25

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2413

COUNTYFP10

STATEFP10

FID

GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.2356

Table 7.2 (continued)

352101

030300

070101

981501

030100

030100

TRACTCE10

2

4

8

1

2

1

BLKGRPCE10

250173521012

250250303004

250250701018

250259815011

250250301002

250250301001

GEOID10

152 7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools

153

Fig. 7.32 Liveability calculator performance of indicators in North End Park case study (Source The researcher, January 2018)

Fig. 7.33 Measurement principles of the livability calculator (Source CFA Consultants 2017)

154

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

7.5.3 Vision Zero Project: A Real-Time Street Safety Platform Pedestrian safety enjoys priority on the Imagine Boston 2030 visionary plan, the result of the human scaled transformation of a highway into a greenway covered by the North End Case study, seems to have benefitted from that approach in recent years. However, the issues of the safety and street crashes are the focus of the Vision Zero Project.4 The Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition advocates for the implementation of Vision Zero in Boston and for the adoption of Vision Zero throughout Massachusetts. The new and growing coalition includes communitybased and non-profit organisations, businesses, civic groups, and individuals who represent communities across the state (Vision Zero Coalition 2017). Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. The core principles of the project rely on limiting traffic deaths and promoting safe human behaviours in roadways: That said, the city of Boston Transportation Department (2016, 15–16) has put in place an action plan to reduce speeds and build safer streets. In that sense, there is a city-wide action plan to create a safe crossing programme that improves bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major streets and includes criteria for un-signposted and mid-block crossings. During visual observational analysis of the North End Park, a pedestrian collision just once at the crossing from Hanover Street and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Surface road was only noted once, at point 10, see Fig. 7.34. Yet, at some crossings— such as Salem Street and the Surface road—as reported in Vision Zero, people run the red lights or even cross away from the crosswalk due to the longer walk signal time (City of Boston 2017). In greater depth, the priority concerns raised more on biking safety than pedestrian safety in the Vision Zero action plan, revealed community engagement folds in the process. In fact, the Walk Boston and the Boston Cyclists Union take part in the Vision Zero Boston Task Force. However, the Public–Private Partnerships, as mentioned, have always focused on implementation mostly related to the pedestrian, safety, awareness, and enforcement programme, as collaborative tools involving MassDOT, MassBike, and MBTA to name a few. On the topic of safety and security of public spaces, see (Hosseinalizadeh et al. 2022).

7.5.4 Co-Urbanize Platform to Imagine Boston 2030 Co-Urbanize is an online sharing platform on which citizens and residents of Boston were given a voice to share their inputs on how and where Boston should grow between now and 2030. Informed by Bostonians, the Imagine Boston 2030 blueprint 4

Vision Zero is a real-time online Platform to report safety issues as they occur in the city streets; Supported by the city of Boston and ESRI mapping tool. See http://app01.cityofboston.gov/VZS afety/.

7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools

155

Fig. 7.34 North End Park vision zero investigation of crossings (Source The researcher after [City of Boston Transportation Department, 2016]—Accessed: April 2017)

document—in which the Co-Urbanize tool was implemented—aims to preserve and enhance the city of Boston, while using growth to address challenges in terms of where to locate new housing and jobs, and make the city stronger and inclusive (Co-Urbanize 2016). The Co-Urbanize platform allowed the Bostonians to express their viewpoint (based on surveys) on where to live, work, and play, see Fig. 7.35. The North End section of the greenway was highlighted as one of the places to play. Residents’ comments showed great enthusiasm in relation to the pedestrian environment along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. However, they pointed out the long waits at pedestrian crossing lights between Crossing streets and Hanover Street, which may give rise to a risk of people running across outside the lines or not respecting the times. The knowledge gained through community voices is tremendous as we could see that from the Legions of Bostonians, in community workshops from September 2015 to November 2015. We could see their fears, hopes and dreams; that’s when Co-Urbanize came to life in May 2016. They entailed what they wanted to see in their expanding Neighborhoods or where there is an opportunity for growth, and the underutilized spaces in their opinions

Natalia Urtubey5—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030

156

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Fig. 7.35 Imagine Boston 2030 co-urbanize platform. The North End Park section cropped (Source https://courbanize.com/projects/imagineboston/comaps/3?loc=16%2C42.362388 87921827%2C-71.05332612991334)

7.6 Discussion and Conclusion This chapter particularly captured the North End Park users’ perceptions and diverse uses and activities while in the park, using three stages of analysis: A visual observation, statistical analysis of users’ surveys, and interviews with key informants. In greater depth, the analysis of the case study using visual observation highlighted the role North End Park plays as a “transit node” in the heart of the downtown district between a residential neighbourhood and a culturally attractive destination, such as the North End neighbourhood. Thus, it became clear that North End Park is subject to a variety of creative placemaking techniques, ranging from activation of the edges in both Parcels 8 and 10, to the cultural programming diversification for a wider audience by the Rose Fitzgerald Greenway Conservancy committees. Tracing behavioural patterns on both weekends and weekdays, along with measuring of stationary activities using image or video recordings, unfolded the daily life attractiveness factor of North End Park. There is an average of 250 pedestrians that cross on an ordinary day of the week and double that count at weekends. Whatever the time or the day, there will always be someone in the park standing, sitting, walking, waiting for a friend, riding their bike, and/or children playing in the fountains on a breezy summer day. It is also undeniable that a highlight is the activity of the neighbouring Haymarket public market held at weekends, augmenting the park’s sociability, and bringing in more users at peak hours. Surveys also revealed the matching sociability patterns in the park; vicinity to two metro stations, a residential neighbourhood, and a cluster of restaurants as is the case in North End brought a diversity of groups and individuals to the park constantly in remarkable commuting times and peak lunch/dinnertimes. In addition, key informants’ interviews unfolded the governmental and statuary approaches to the planning

References

157

development of the case study. However, the microscale of the North End Park is not among the placemaking priorities in the “Imagine Boston 2030” plan, used as the guideline for development; yet, the inclusiveness, community engagement, and safety issues come to the fore for a variety of the stakeholders involved. Among the Boston Planning and Development Agency, the Greenway Conservancy, the Liveable Streets Alliance, the Vision Zero Coalition, etc., there seems to be a certain collaborative linking on the wider scale of the parks and open spaces department and the transportation department, in that sense. To sum up, North End park is doubtlessly an open stage community for a variety of daily life scenes. While users vary in terms of their preferences for walking, bicycling, and stationary activities, evidence of sociability and the perceived attractiveness of the space is clear to see. Hence, North End Park illustrates a special and spatial uniqueness of success as a case study.

References Appleyard BS et al (2016) Livability calculator for the TCRP H-45 handbook, building livable transit corridors: methods, metrics, and strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC Boston Planning and Development Agency Research Division (2017) Boston by the numbers. Boston. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2009.4762951 Carmona M et al (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York, pp 133–166 Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative. J Urban: Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8(4):373–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175. 2014.909518 CFA Consultants (2017) TRB Webinar: livable transit corridors. In: National academics of sciences: transportation research funds, March, p 24. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/web inars/170316.pdf Chen X, Orum AM Paulsen KE (2013) Introduction to cities: how place and space shape human experience. Cities as places and spaces, 1st edn. Blackwell, Hoboken City of Boston (2016) Imagine Boston 2030: a plan for the future of Boston, Boston redevelopment authority. Available at: http://imagine.boston.gov/%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/A8A094EFDDA7-4F57-B273-0714CD2B6D58 City of Boston (2017) Vision zero safety issues. Available at: http://app01.cityofboston.gov/vzsafe ty/. Accessed 19 April 2017 City of Boston Transportation Department (2016) Vision zero Boston action plan. Boston. Available at: https://www.visionzeroboston.org/. Accessed 23 April 2017 Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute (2017) Digitally measuring public life: benchmark project. Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802915.ch1 Co-Urbanize (2016) No title. Available at: https://courbanize.com/projects/imagineboston/updates. Accessed 2 Nov 2017 Farinea C et al (2017) Merging the physical and digital layer of public space: the PobleJoc installation case study. In: Fioravanti A et al (eds) eCAADe ShoCK! Sharing of computable knowledge! Volume 1 Proceedings of the 35th international conference on education and research in computer aided architectural design in Europe. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, pp 471–476 Ferrell CE, Appleyard BS (2016) Livable transit corridors: methods, metrics, and strategies. In: Schwager DS (ed). National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/23630

158

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination

Gehl Institute (2015) Public life diversity toolkit: a prototype for measuring social mixing and economic integration in public space. San Francisco. https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/gehl_p ubliclifediversitytoolkit_pag/1. Accessed 1 Apr 2017 Gehl Institute (2016a) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. Available at: https://gehlinstitute.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016a0301_Public-Life-Diversity-Toolkit-V2HighQuality-1.pdf Gehl Institute (2016b) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. Available at: https://issuu.com/gehlinsti tute/docs/2016b0128_toolkit_2.0 Hosseinalizadeh S, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022) A deduced method for assessing safety and security perception: case study of Biblioteca Degli Alberi Park in Milan, Italy. In: Mahmoud IH, Morello E, Lemes de Oliveira F, Geneletti D (eds) Nature-based solutions for sustainable urban planning: contemporary urban design thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-89525-9_8 Johnston KL (2012) Public space and urban life: a spatial ethnography of a Portland Plaza. Portland State University, Portland Mangialardi G (2017) Reflections on urban management for unravelling the complexity. Urbanistica Informazioni, 272 (Creative Urban Metabolism, Social Networks, and ICT):588–591 Nassar UAE (2010) Landscape as a tool to enhance behavioural response and activities in historic urban parks: an evaluative methodology—Al Azhar park. Suez Canal University, Ismaïlia Oliver (2017) MASSGIS online mapping tool. Available at: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ ol/oliver.php. Accessed 29 March 2017 Popper A (2010) Walking, bicycling & public space on market street: a public space, public life study of San Francisco’s most important street. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA PPS (2009) What makes a successful place? Available at: http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefe at/. Accessed 2 March 2016 Vision Zero Coalition (2017) Massachusetts vision zero coalition the movement is growing. Available at: http://www.visionzerocoalition.org/. Accessed 1 Jan 2017 Whyte W (1980a) The social life of small urban spaces. Urban Life. https://doi.org/10.1177/089 124168201000411 Whyte WH (1980b) The social life of small urban spaces. In: Ebook, 3rd edn. PPS. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/089124168201000411 Whyte WH (1990) City: rediscovering the center. Anchor Books, New York Wortham-Galvin BD (2013) An anthropology of urbanism: how people make places (and what designers and planners might learn from it). Footprint 7(2):21–40. Available at: http://footprint. tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/issue/view/13 Zamanifarda H, Alizadeha T, Sipeb N (2016) Why some places do better than others? A closer look at urban public space management. In: 9th international urban design conference. Hyatt, Canberra. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309575666

Part IV

General Discussions and Conclusions

Chapter 8

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Abstract This chapter contains a general discussion of the findings and conclusions based on literature, the methodological framework, and implementation of the case study of North End Park. It gives a general path for implementation of the Public Space Index in reality, establishing common ground between the theory and practice of placemaking on the ground, and testing of sociability measurements, for quantitative authenticity rather than just an environmental dimension concept. This research is based on a mixed-methods approach to case study analysis. Both qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques were used in order to investigate the sociability of public spaces as a driver for green urban regeneration projects. Keywords Placemaking · Green urban regeneration · Research methods · Northend · Nature-based solutions

8.1 Brief The first part of the book deals with a literature review to establish a better understanding of the placemaking concept on the one hand. On the other hand, the sociability concept is discussed as a fundamental dimension of urban design, as the physical milieu in which the public spaces foster relationships between people and their built-up environment. However, putting environmental psychology into a rigid science of urban planning and design framework is not an easy job. The sociability concept was revisited from different perspectives and using different fields of correlations, in order to achieve it on a small scale in cities, in places such as parks, squares, and public spaces in general, see Williams and Green (2001), Madanipour (2003), Toit et al. (2007), Carmona et al. (2010), Cowan (2012), Agrawal (2013), Smets and Watt (2013), Moayedi (2014), Boros and Mahmoud (2021). The second part of the book puts together an empirical analysis of similar case studies found in the context of Massachusetts or a similar highway/greenway such as the case of Valencia, Spain. Consequently, the model of public life/public space is analysed based on users’ levels of interaction and sociability with the space. The Public Spaces Index is hence built-up and its different qualities are identified and

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_8

161

162

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

defined, based on the availability of metrics of implementation tools and techniques, see Mehta (2013, 2014), Nikitin (2013), Pollock (2014), Simões Aelbrecht (2016). The third and last part of the book undertakes a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the North End Park case study, see Conti (2012), Mahmoud et al. (2017, 2019), Baker (2017). On that, the patterns of user’s use of the space were discovered, as per the sociability indicators analysed using deductive evaluation framework analysis. Moreover, an in-depth analysis was done of the premises of the BIG DIG urban regeneration project, which helped triangulate the findings of the research, in order to better understand the historical background of the context, and therefore, distinguish its perceived importance and its current and future attributes. For the case study, the evaluative matrix proposed using a combination of four data collection methods—users surveys, visual observation, key informants interviews, and in-depth smart planning tools—to combine the public life and public space aspects in one robust framework statistically and qualitatively. Lastly, this research departs from the notion of creating a more comprehensive approach between the urban design field and the environmental psychological sciences. It empirically and statistically proves that common ground exists. To sum up, the aim was to respond to the research hypothesis that placemaking affects the sociability of public spaces extensively and in various aspects, based on the cultural-perceived importance of the context.

8.2 General Discussion Placemaking is both a philosophy and a practical process for transforming public spaces. It is centered on observing, listening to, and asking questions of the people who live, work, and play in a particular space in order to understand their needs and aspirations for that space and for their community as a whole.

The placemaking process can be used either in retrofitting an existing space or planning a new space. Because every situation is different, the steps are not always exactly the same, nor do they always happen in the same order. The general trends prove that these could be to shape communities, involve creative classes (Florida 2002; Evans 2009), and help shape a cultural framework for certain places. Nonetheless, to a major extent, its success depends on land ownership, surrounding land uses, community involvement in planning, identification of stakeholders, and funding opportunities, as well as the implementation strategies put in place. Generally, public spaces—including streets are, and must be seen as, multifunctional areas for social interaction, economic exchanges, and cultural expression for a wide diversity of people. UN-Habitat (2016) amends the sociability, walkability, street vibrancy, and affordability using the latest toolkits in the global policies and customary practices context, on public spaces. In that regard, the link with placemaking is not new, the only novelty might be the transferability of knowledge in the

8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study

163

implementation processes between cities and regions, and in international contexts, see UN-HABITAT (2013, 2015). While the main aim is to measure the quality of public spaces by means of a contextual place-specific analysis of the park, the overall aim of the research was to provide a policy guideline for better designing of human spaces and leveraging public space as a resource multiplier for cultural and economic development. The challenges faced by these policy tools would be territorially tailored policies on a general scale. The American measures are different from European standards, however, the proven scale of placemaking implementation strategies on the ground improves social cohesion, adds cultural value to spaces, and helps regenerate the districts as a whole economically. Importantly, the status of developing a specific guideline to better develop and move the practice of public life/public space forward has significantly increased in the last few months. This is due to the Public Life Data Protocol, just launched by Gehl Institute in Partnership with the city of San Francisco, Copenhagen Municipality, and the Seattle Department of Transportation, see Gehl Institute et al. (2017). The process of creating places is not linear, nor is the relationship between communities and their places. Even for traditional, open-and-closed, top-down placemaking projects such as the design and construction of a new park, public programming and maintenance can completely shift the way a community relates to and shapes its place, going forward. There are remarkable challenges to urban space strategies and planning, see Frantzeskaki et al. (2022). In consolidated areas, adequate public spaces must be carved out within the existing built fabric. In expansion areas, planning must secure the availability of adequate public spaces, particularly for lower income residents. The last words on the development of this research deal with having solid policies and/or implementation strategies in placemaking practice, without compromises to different governmental approaches. That said, the part that follows discusses the results for North End Park and gives a brief idea of research of the results produced by implementing the Public Space Index, and finally, research limitations and conclusions.

8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study The Big Dig regeneration project helped to change the mindset of average Bostonians on seeing the long-awaited project results. This paved the way to acceptance of the new Greenway District and the changes to the old—somewhat dead—downtown district. The North End case study is really diverse and makes a vivid contribution to the overall neighbourhood. This was demonstrated throughout the visual observation, whether covering pedestrian counts or stationary activities, and the analysis of the users’ surveys. The sociability of the park is subjective as the stakeholders behind

164

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

its success are funded by public money, which makes the approach more governmental—top-down—than a bottom-up community-led one. However, a debate on successful public spaces is never achieved without putting the public into it.

8.3.1 Interpretation of the Results from the PSI of the North End Park Case Study This index is designed to produce an evaluation for the public space’s sociability ratings in relation to 20 different criteria, see Table 8.1. When the case of the North End Park is compared to Mehta Methodology measured Public Spaces Indices, it produces an above average score of 79.37 (71 is the average score). That is due to the park having a more flexible design, mostly open access, more aggregate activities and uses, and above all more perceived safety and security. Using the PSI is however subjectively contextual. The North American cities have their own subcultures as well, and that is the case within the North End Park. A lot of the inclusiveness measured is low (based on the weighing score) considering the users’ changing needs and focuses on certain aspects in the park. Neighbouring residents who use it, such as families and couples, were annoyed with overcrowding at weekends; even though that is a remarkable indicator of Sociability success. The sample size was also carefully measured, in other words, using econometrics models in an earlier version of the data17F.1 Sociability shows a correlation of 0.47 when associated with users’ surveys and visual observation tools. However, in this research, the sample size had a correlation of 0.86 which gives a higher confidence in the results overall, but a 0.95 confidence interval between the separate criteria evaluated. The case of the North End Park is a gem analysis in terms of the overall outcome. The reasons would rely on the living standards and location with the neighbouring high-end northern part of the city. In addition, its location within the Rose Kennedy Greenway, which favours cultural programming activities, put the park in shape as an overall idea.

8.3.2 Future Planning in the North End Park The future of the North End neighbourhood relies much on its park and current profile. In 2016, the Boston Planning and Development Agency approved a 145,000 square feet hotel space to be developed in Parcel 9, namely the Haymarket Hotel (Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division 2017). 1

Sociability of another case was studied by the researcher in a microeconomics case as an implementation case for a multiple regression analysis report and figured between 30 and 100 surveys generate more accurate results.

8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study

165

Table 8.1 Public Space Index (PSI) implementation results in the case of North End Park Quality measured

Variables observed

Inclusiveness

1. Variety in age range 5 5 5

Surveys + security videos

3

4. Publicness and opening hours

5

Visual observation + signs availability

3.75

5. Community engagement in Planning

5

Visual + key 3 informants interviews + micro smart planning tools

25

17.2 = 68.8%

6. Surrounding services

5

Users’ survey rating

3.25

7. Physical design flexibility

5

Visual observation + users’ surveys

3.5

8. Range of activities and behaviours

5

Stationary activities measurement

5

9. Diversity of 5 cultural programming activity types

Key informants’ interviews and stationary activities measurement

5

10. Availability of food within or at the edges of space

5

Visual observation

5

25

21.75 = 87%

11. Walkability

5

Users’ survey rating

4.6

12. Accessibility

5

Smart planning

3.75

13. Transit usage

5

Pedestrian counts

3.72

14. Transportation modes diversity

5

Visual observation and users’ survey

3.85

15. Maintenance and perceived clean

5

Visual observation + users’ surveys

5

25

20.92 = 83.68%

16. Groups of people

5 5

Users’ surveys and visual observation

4.5

17. Interactive space 18. Stickiness of places

5

Users’ surveys

3

19. Mixture of uses and a variety of activities

5

Key informants’ interviews

4

Subtotal Sociability and livability

Scoring 3.5

3. Safety and security

Subtotal Accessibility and linkages

Measurement tool Users’ surveys’ statistical analysis

2. Variety in gender

Subtotal Meaningful activities

Weighting*

3.96

4

(continued)

166

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Table 8.1 (continued) Variables observed

Weighting*

Measurement tool

Scoring

20. Space attractiveness

5

Users’ surveys

4

Subtotal

25

19.5 = 78%

Total

17.2 + 21.75 + 20.92 + 19.5 = 79.37/100

Quality measured

*Weighing Scores explanation The researcher used the Data Cracker tool to analyse the weight of different variables in the surveys forms. In the implemented methodology the weighing is based on the perceived importance of the criteria of the quality in question, hence its mathematical value

• Age is weighed on a standard deviation of 11.3 and a median of 31 while the average is 35.6. the weighing scores. • Gender weighed on the variation between the two with a P correlation of 0.9 for the two genders counts of sample size (N = 70)–female = 5.4, male = 2.52 • Safety and security were perceived from surveys then analysed from video camera of surveillance at the corner of Hanover Street. 42/70 = 0.6*5 = 3 • Publicness and opening hours are measured with time accessibility. The park is open 24/7 with no restrictions, however, seats and tables and chairs get locked at mid-night summertime or 10 pm wintertime. 24–6 = 18/24 = 0.75 = 3.75 • Community engagement had a score of 5 divided by 3 from interviews and 2 from smart planning tools = 1. Interviews = 2, • Surrounding services were perceived from surveys then analysed on infographic tool 45/70 = 3.25 • Physical design flexibility = visual observation 2/2.5 + users 1.5 = 3.5 • 9. 10. Were all given the highest ranking in conjunction with data measured from visual observations and pedestrian counting. • walkability surveys 51/70 = 1.85 + pedestrian count from observations = 793/291 = 2.75 = • accessibility from smart planning liveable calculator 6.55 across 10 points scales. • Transit points 2 = 1.35, 8 = 3.2, 10 = 2.9. sum = 3.72 • Transit modes, sample 54/70 = 0.78*5 = 3.85 • Maintenance visual observation = 2.5 + • groups of people were divided between surveys and visual observation weighing 2.5 • Interactive Space: 44/70 = 0.62*5 = 3.15 + 0.85 of correlation. • Stickiness averaged on 3 based on survey frequency and time spent categorial measures. • Mixture of uses was given an average score of 4 in all key informants’ interviews (out of 6) • Attractiveness sample 56/70 = 0.8*5 = 4

8.5 Limitations

167

8.4 General Findings 8.4.1 A Vibrant Open Space Network With 95 per cent of the population living within a five-minute walk of open space, Boston’s existing parks network connects many residents to a diversity of places for recreation. As Boston grows, the city will collaborate with partners to improve the quality and connectivity of its open spaces. The city will also direct strategic investment into existing and new parks that support its increased population and enhance the quality of life for all residents. In some expanded neighbourhoods, Boston will guide the development of new open spaces, funded in part by revenues from development in these areas (City of Boston 2016). At its core, Boston will strengthen existing parks like the Boston Common and support a vibrant public realm along the waterfront. In existing neighbourhoods, Boston will invest in parks, from local pocket parks to signature parks such as Franklin Park and enhance paths and greenways that connect neighbourhoods to open spaces and to the waterfront (Fig. 8.1).

8.4.2 Create a Complementary Urban District The North End Park is part of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, which continues to improve and plan the Greenway Urban District as part of the overall city (BRA 2010) (Fig. 8.2).

8.5 Limitations Due to the nature of the research as a case study and the consistency consigned with these types of implementation techniques, the researcher had to stop the surveys and visual observations during the time frames between winter 2016 and before spring 2017, in order not to influence private opinions on the fairness of the case study. Check (Gehl Institute 2016, 47) drawbacks for more information on this issue. Mehta (2014) evaluation of the public space framework is dependable for the case study. However, the convenience of having a research team behind observations and weighing activities was not convenient due to the individual case research. Hence, the evaluation is solely subjective to the researcher’s opinion and previous experience. The topic of sociability of public spaces has been fully in motion over the last few years from 2015 onwards. The reason for that is the UN-Habitat—Future of Places Conference, at which the concerns about regenerated public spaces in downtown areas of cities, need to be aired in order to avoid empty spaces in the hearts of the cities as well as overcome homelessness levels.

168

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Fig. 8.1 Open space network as the overall plan in the city of Boston

The latest trends in the sociability of public spaces introduced the Benchmark Project, see (Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute 2017). This is an advanced data-oriented research method used to digitally measure public life after placemaking activities have been put in action. A case study was done in MIT north court as recently as summer 2019, after the researcher had developed her in-situ case study. That required a research team and advanced technology was used for some benches to measure how many people used a bench to sit, how long they sat, and what they did while sitting. In addition, a go-pro camera digitally recorded and encoded 4 angles on the park using designated software tools to analyse people flows and the occurrence of sociability in the park and its aspects.

8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

169

Fig. 8.2 The overall Greenway District

8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations Fulton (1996) discussed the hope among American Communities that there would be a drive to fix the suburbs by introducing “bite-size pieces” solutions. He stressed the role of the New Urbanism movement as a set of so-called “neotraditional planning” methods to restore both the physical design and social values of American neighbourhoods, with an emphasis on walking and community life. Moving forward, the spark of human-oriented urban design extended to all kinds of social movements. Fulton was not wrong. The increased concern that our cities should be more human-oriented, more enjoyable, and more social, paves the way to similar studies. Tactical Urbanism, DIY urbanism, and other implementation strategies emerged in the field later. Yet, keeping the methodological frameworks within a realisable attainment range is the challenge that sociability lacked in the main steps moving forward. As a concept sociability is also an organising theorem to guide the expected results whenever questioned in implementing case studies. It might be on the forefront of the priorities or in the backdrop, nonetheless, people crave places where they can meet with no concerns or judgement as to their social status and demographic data. That is when the sociability is at its peak. Some guiding steps for placemaking and sociability measures would be useful on many sides, and the following points are the takeaway from a practice approach.

170

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

8.6.1 Meet with the Community and Identify Stakeholders Selecting the right stakeholders is also crucial to turning a place around. It starts with a meeting to engage community representatives from both public and private sectors, to identify the range of issues that various groups face, regarding a particular place. This conversation will lead to hypotheses about issues that merit further data collection, as well as a workplan. A rule of thumb: Stakeholders should have some direct connection, as well as a personal stake in the space. This will usually include residents; businesses adjacent to the space; and cultural, religious, or educational organisations. Another rule is that the role of government officials should be to support and implement the stakeholders’ vision. The end result is that people around the space who have a personal stake in its success not only have an active voice in the process, but also become strong and sustained partners in the project. Then, it is important to answer a few questions, including (1) Are locals interested in having things change? (2) Are they willing to participate in some way using their talents or funds? (3) Are there any existing funds that could be used to make improvements or programme the space? (4) Are there organisations that could provide long-term management services for the space?

8.6.2 Evaluate Space and Identify Issues In this step, the focus remains on the space, with participants taking stock of how a space is used, and how it can be improved. The Placemaking Workshop is one of the most effective tools for using stake-holders’ knowledge, intuition, common sense, and input. The heart of this workshop is the Place Game, in which PPS are developed to be used in evaluating a space and which can be used by anyone, ranging from children to highly trained professionals. The goal of the Placemaking Workshop is to get an understanding of the challenges faced by a space. To kick off the Placemaking Workshop, it is usually most effective for a local group—a non-profit or neighbourhood association—to coordinate the planning. Such an organising strategy ensures community participation in greater numbers than if the event were organised by local government. Nonetheless, including local officials in the workshop is vital to the project’s success. Successful workshops begin with a review of the goals, followed by a trip to the space, during which the stakeholders split into groups to play the Place Game and further familiarise themselves with the site. Then, each group reports back to the rest of the stakeholders, leading to a discussion of a preliminary vision for the space and a brainstorming session for potential partners. Topical focus groups may also emerge during this process.

8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

171

8.6.3 Place Vision and Management Strategy It is important to formulate a place vision based on the issues and insights that come out of the Placemaking Workshop. This differs from an architect’s design for a site, it is a vision for the future use of the space. This document includes several parts: • Aims for the place, goals to achieve. • Refine or modify the goals, based on the results of the Place Game. • Clearly define how the space could be used and how adjacent stakeholders would be involved. • Describe the “character” of the space (i.e., a space that is busy at all times of the day and week versus a space that is calm and restful). • Identify potential anchors of activity in the space (i.e., café, garden, or game area). • Develop a conceptual plan for the layout of activities. Just as important as the Place Vision document is the subsequent plan for management. A management organisation is necessary to keep a space active and wellmaintained. While it is not so much a matter of “if,” as of “when” such a man- aging organisation is formed, not having one to start with is no reason to delay action on a space.

8.6.4 Short-Term Experiments The most crucial step in the placemaking process is implementation—putting the vision into action. Also referred to as “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper,” or LQC, there are short-term changes that can be implemented very quickly and that do not cost a lot of money. These ideas will often come as a result of the Placemaking Workshop. The duration of these projects can vary, from a few days in the case of a street festival, to months in the case of transforming an alley into a square. LQC can take many forms, requiring varying degrees of time, money, and effort. This range of investments can be used as an iterative means to build lasting change. Amenities: Moveable seating, landscaping and horticultural displays, games like ping pong or bocce, seasonal swimming pools, temporary restrooms, innovative signage, dog parks that integrate into the other activities of the space, interactive fountains, and outposts for civic and cultural institutions like library or museum kiosks. Programming: Continuous seasonal markets of all types, outdoor film series, sports tournaments, concert series featuring local talent, food festivals, yoga classes, bicycle repair clinics, and ice sculpture competitions. Light Development: Cafés and stage sets built with shipping containers, sheds for retail or food vendors, beer gardens, temporary sports equipment lending kiosks, ice skating rinks, and shade structures of diverse sizes.

172

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

8.6.5 Ongoing Re-Evaluation and Long-Term Improvements It is easy to forget that a public space project will never be finished! Whereas “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” experiments can jump-start the placemaking process, they never truly finish the job on their own. Creating great places is an ongoing process: It is important to check in on early projects, with an ongoing evaluation of the space giving insight into how it is being used at various times of the day and year. The best parks have staff members complete evaluations on a regular basis, as part of their long-term plan—some as often as once a day! Beyond looking for things that are “broken,” it focuses on how parts of the space are used over time. With this information, spaces can continue to re-invent themselves. But at the same time, more long-term decisions can be made about the space and its management. Keeping stakeholders involved can make or break a project. Ensuring that the vision for the space always mirrors the goals of the community is the most crucial part of the process. Adapting the management plan in accordance with changing circumstances and needs also ensures that the space is well-loved and well-used over time. When needed, additional experts and consultants can be helpful in addressing specific, remaining challenges, but most important is the input of maintenance and programming staff. But, bringing in new partners and experimenting with new “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” projects can bring in the needed creativity and local know-how to tackle obstacles before outside expertise becomes necessary.

8.7 Further Studies Implementation of the PSI in different case studies, relatively in the same North American contexts to keep the results comparable. Place the results in the hands of governmental authorities and community stakeholders to better plan and achieve sociability along the greenway.

References Agrawal, A. W. (2013). Literature review of Sociability of Public Places: A Study for Creating and Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San Jose Freeway (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https:// doi.org/10.1080/14616680010034711 Baker, M. R. (2017, February). The Evolution of Boston’s North End How the neighborhood has changed—but thankfully also stayed the same. Boston Magazine. http://www.bostonmagazine. com/restaurants/article/2017/01/27/north-end-history-big-dig/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017 Boros, J., Mahmoud, I. (2021). Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming naturebased solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca Degli Alberi case study in Milan. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 3635610. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.635610 Boston Planning; Development Agency Research Division. (2017). Neighborhood Profiles (Issue August). http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/7987d9b4-193b-4749-8594-e41f1ae27719

References

173

BRA. (2010). Rose Kennedy Greenway: Creating Long - Term Value (Issue March). Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., &; OC, T. (2010). The Social Dimension. In Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (2nd ed., pp. 133–166). Routledge. City of Boston. (2016). Imagine Boston 2030: A Plan for the Future of Boston. In Boston redevelopment Authority. https://www.boston.gov/civic-engagement/imagine-boston-2030 Civic Data Design Lab, & Gehl Institute. (2017). Digitally Measuring Public Life: Benchmark Project. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802915.ch1 Conti M (2012) Pilates on the North end greenway attracts hundreds. In: NorthEnd Waterfront. https://northendwaterfront.com/2012/09/hundreds-turn-out-for-pilates-on-the-north-endgreenway/ Accessed 1 May 2017 Cowan, B. (2012). Public Spaces, Knowledge, and Sociability. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Consumption, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561216.013.0013 Du TL, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Studies 44:1677–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665 Evans G (2009) Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Stud 46:1003–1040. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042098009103853 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it is transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books, New York Frantzeskaki N, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022). Nature-based solutions for resilient and thriving cities: opportunities and challenges for planning future cities. In: Nature-based solutions for sustainable urban planning, contemporary urban design thinking, 1st ed, pp 3–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-89525-9_1 Fulton WB (1996) The new urbanism: hope or hype for American communities? Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA Gehl Institute. (2016). The Public Life Diversity Toolkit 2.0. https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/ 20160128_toolkit_2.0. Accessed 21 Mar 2017 Gehl Institute, Seemann, M., Tsay, S., & Andersen, C. S. (2017). Public life data Protocol: Version BETA. http://www.hobartcity.com.au/files/405a908f-94e1-4495-8097-9e3e00bcac2a/04_Final_ report_-_Public_Life_Data.pdf Madanipour A (2003) Interpersonal space of sociability. Public and private spaces of the city, 2nd edn. Routledge, London and New York, pp 95–118 Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2017) From a highway to a greenway: a land use dilemma or a rebirth of a place? The case of Northend Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Green Way: Boston, MA, USA. Urban Inf 272:388–392. ISSN 0392–5005 Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2019) From ‘Highway into Greenway’: how public spaces change zoning regulations. Smart Innov Syst Technol 2:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-92102-0 Mehta, V. (2013). The street: A quintessential social public space. In The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203067635 Mehta V (2014) Evaluating public space. J Urban Des 19:53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809. 2013.854698. Moayedi, M. (2014). Planning to enhance sociability of urban public spaces in order to manage creative social relations. Kuwait Chapter Arab J Bus Manag Rev, 3(12a): 78–89. Nikitin C (2013) All placemaking is creative: how a shared focus on place builds vibrant destinations - project for public spaces. Proj Public Spaces 1–10 Pollock, S. (2014). Production, Use, and Barriers to Access in Public Space: A Comparative Case Study in Metro Atlanta, GA, USA (Issue June) Simões Aelbrecht P (2016) ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. J Urban Des 21:124–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015. 1106920 Smets P, Watt P (2013) Exclusion and belonging in urban public and quasi-public space. Open Urban Stud J 6:27–29

174

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

UN-HABITAT. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. https://unhabitat.org/books/global-public-space-toolkit-from-global-principles-tolocal-policies-and-practice/ UN-HABITAT. (2013). Turning Spaces into places. http://www.unhabitat-kosovo.org/repository/ docs/Turning_Spaces_ENG_web1_164105.pdf UN-HABITAT (2015) Habitat III issue papers - public space. United Nation Conf Hous Sustain Urban Dev 2015:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.19065 Williams, K., & Green, S. (2001). Literature review of public space and local environments for the cross cutting review: final report (Issue November).

Appendix 1

Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies1

Interviews have been conducted with the followings: 1. Katerina Zimmerman—urban planner—http://thinkurban.org/projects/about Katrina Johnston-Zimmerman is an urban anthropologist based in Philadelphia. Founder of http://thinkurban.org/ a consulting firm working to create better cities by observing and understanding where she specialises in research and analysis of behaviours in public space. After graduating from Arizona State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, she took part in a multidisciplinary research project investigating open space (public and private) in cities through space and time. She holds a master’s degree in urban studies about “ethnography of place” from Portland State University. Coming to New York City, she worked as the Communications and Outreach Manager at Project for Public Spaces leading the biannual training workshops and managing all communications and social media. Most recently, she was an Urban Anthropologist at City ID where she conducted user testing and user behaviours analysis and applied small-scale ethnographic research to public spaces ahead of wayfinding projects. Her experience in both contexts led her back to an emphasis on the human element and the need to continue observational research in our public spaces—especially in this era of “smart city” data-centric thinking. As a “professional people-watcher” she can tell the story of a place—be it a street, park, or plaza—in order to better inform the built environment. It is her belief that through applied anthropology, we can create happier and healthier cities for humans. 2. Nidhi Gulati Biography—Emerald Network Programme Manager. http:// www.livablestreets.info/staff

1 Biographies are updated as the time of the physical interview conducted, the researcher kept contact on interviewees tracks. However, between July 2017 till the time of thesis deliverance, biographies might have changed following the dynamics of interviewees personal careers. Links provided accessed: January 20, 2018.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9

175

176

Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies

Nidhi is the Programme Manager for the Emerald Network, an initiative of LivableStreets Alliance. The Emerald Network is a vision for two hundred miles of seamless greenways across the Metro Boston area, creating an urban recreation and transportation system that is safe and convenient for all. She provides management, technical assistance, and advocacy support to all embedded greenways in the network and supports LivableStreets staff with other initiatives to continually advance the vision for a walkable, bikeable, and liveable Boston. Previously, Nidhi worked as a project associate and manager at Project for Public Spaces (PPS) in New York City. During her three years at PPS, she worked in over fifteen states and five countries on community-based placemaking projects and participated in several national and international conferences. She received her bachelor’s degree in Architecture from Malaviya National Institute of Technology in Jaipur and a master’s in Park and Community Planning from Texas A&M University in College Station. Born and raised in India, Nidhi has also been involved with several advocacy organisations and initiatives in the global south, and has made contributions related to developmental challenges, ban issues, as well as safety and equity in the public realm. 3. Michael Nicholas: Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, Chief of Staff. http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/about-us/conservancy/staff/ Michael joined the Conservancy in October 2014. He is responsible for the Conservancy’s community and government affairs, as well as advancing strategic Greenway priorities. He also manages the Conservancy’s outreach efforts including social media and public relations. Michael formerly served as Chief of Staff & Legal Counsel at the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Research & Policy Director at the Boston City Council, and was a 2013 candidate for election to the Boston City Council. He is an admitted attorney with a BA and JD from UConn. Outside of the Greenway, Michael serves as President of the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association in Boston. 4. Laura Jasinski: Associate Director of the Boston trustees of Land trust reservation Former director of the Programs and Planning department on the Greenway Conservancy 2010–2017. https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-jasinskiba28777 Laura Jasinski (Conservancy Director of Programs & Planning, 2010–2017) was instrumental to instaling the Janet Echelman aerial sculpture and to coordinating our many programmatic efforts. She is now the Associate Director of the Boston Waterfront Initiative for The Trustees of Reservations. Laura is working to identify and create a network of waterfront open spaces that will provide a climate resilience benefit, serve community needs, and become a world-class destination. 5. John (Tad) Read, (Senior Deputy Director for Transportation & Infrastructure Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA). http:// www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id=820

Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies

177

Deputy Director for the infrastructure and transportation planning. Main principal in Imagine Boston 2030, in all aspects of planning development. Under the direction of the Director of Planning, Tad serves as manager for the formulation, execution, and completion of the Planning Divisions’ various planning studies and initiatives. Tad reads, manages, and conducts planning research and studies; engages community and other constituencies to solicit input and feedback; represents the agency in planning activities. He leads and participates as a member of an interdepartmental project team charged with conducting various planning studies. He creates successful strategies, coordinates activities of all participants; manages consultants/consulting teams. 6. Natalia Urtubey—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030—Department Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA). http:// www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id=1367 Under the direction of Executive Director of Imagine Boston 2030, Natalia Urtubey will be responsible for engaging external entities, such as community-based organisations, businesses, and residents to elicit insights and refinements, gauge buy-in, ensure support, and incorporate feedback into IB2030 plan. She will also serve as a bridge to and from the IB2030 office, both for clarity and implementation. She will navigate city systems to ensure efficiency, communication, and implementation of IB2030.

Appendix 2

Surveys Data

Chart Title Series1 21:36

19:12 16:48 14:24

12:00 9:36

13 12 45 11 123 678910

48 47 40 39 3378 442434456 33 36 68 41 32 67 31 66 27 62 1178 22 5523 57 30 65 16 51 29 64 21 56 28 63 15 50 26 61 14 49 20 25 55 60 19 54 24 59 23 58 35 70 34 69

7:12

4:48 2:24 0:00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9

179

180

Appendix 2: Surveys Data

more than 2 walk 1 hour or more 15 minutes 30 minutes hours through

Count of time_spent rarely Occasionally

Weekly Daily

Weekly rarely

Daily Weekly

m onthly Daily

Weekly Occasionally

m onthly Daily 0

2

4

6

8

10

40 38 36

34 32 30

Couple

Group

walking Alone

12

14

16

Appendix 2: Surveys Data

181

Count of time_spent

1 hour or more

4 24

6

15 minutes 30 minutes

more than 2 hours 8

28

walk through

PhD

Count of education walking Alone Group

NA

walking Alone Group Couple

Msc

walking Alone Group

dipl high bachelor oma school

Couple walking Alone Group walking Alone walking Alone Group 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Appendix 3

Liveability Calculator Matrix

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9

183

0 .2 0 0 .1 6 0 .0 0

4 .0 0

3 .0 0

2 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .2 9

0 .0 0

-0 .6 3

-1 .0 0

32

31

30

29

28

Pr incip le Sco r e

Sco r e 27 Z - Sco r e

26

25 M easur e

24

23

22

9 4 3 9 4 .6 2 4 .6 0

Transit jobs accessibility

6 .55

2 770 5.2 0 8 .50

Transit service coverage

Hig h- q ualit y t r ansit , walking , and b icycling o p p o r t unit ies

-1 .0 0

0 .3 5

5 .0 0

1 .8 0

-0 .4 5

0 .4 0

6 .0 0

2 .0 0

20

0 .6 0

7 .0 0

3 .0 0

3 0 .3 6 0 .8 7

0 -0 .0 . 4 18

0 .0 0

0 .1 0

0 .1 5

0 .2 0

0 .3 0

0 .4 0

0 .5 0

0 .5 4

0 .6 0

-0 .17

0 .2 7 -1.2 1

Income diversity

19 5.71 17.9 2

6 .51 0 .54

Retail jobs density

9 .2 3 N OT E: B alance o f f lo w d at a must N OT E: Ped est r ian co llisio n d at a is b e ent er ed manually. o nly availab le f o r C alif o r nia. `

Jobs density

T r ansit - accessib le eco no mic o p p o r t unit ies

0 .0 0

Inp ut s C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean

Emer g ing C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean

-0 .1 0

-1 .4 0

H

T r ansit io ning C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean

-0 .0 4 -1 .2 1

-5 .0 0

0 .0 0

2 .0 0

5 .0 0

1 0 .0 0

1 5 .0 0

1 7 .9 2

2 0 .0 0

C o lo r Leg end Int eg r at ed C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean

G

-1 .0 0

0 .0 4

0.35

F

-1 . 2 0

-0 .8 0

-0 .6 0

-0 .4 0

-0 .2 0

-0 .1 1

0.00

0 .2 0

0 .4 0

0 .6 0

M ixed inco me ho using near t r ansit

-0 . 1 9

Housing unaffordability

-0 .4 0

-0 .2 0

0 .8 0

8 .0 0

4 .0 0

0 .0 2

0 .8 7

8 .5 0

4 .6 0

1 .85

1 .0 0

9 .0 0

5 .0 0

21

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Z - Sco r e 16 C o mp ar iso n 17 C har t s 18 19

8

2 includes an additional 16%; and a z-score above 2 includes the remaining 1%. All together, these account for half of the TCRP Report 187 study 5 corridors (i.e.; the ones that score above the study’s average). The same is true of z-scores that are negative; they include the other 50%. The graphs 6 also show, for reference, the average scores for corridors of all three types studied in this research project—red for Emerging, yellow for 7 Transitioning, and green for Integrated corridors.

4 score calculation method). A z-score between 0 and 1 includes 33% of all the 250+ corridors in the TCRP Report 187 study; a z-score between 1 and

A B C D E 1 S TEP 2 : EX P LO RE METRIC S CO RES 2 This worksheet displays the characteristics of your study corridor as a set of scores, based on the census block group IDs you inserted into the 3 Inputs worksheet. The black diamonds in the graphs below represent the performance of your corridor as “z-score” values (see Handbook for z-

Livability Calculator - Northend Park -

184 Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix

-0 . 5 9

0 .0 0 -0 .5 0

-0 .5 1

-1 .0 0

-0 .3 0

N o t av ailab le. N o t av ailab le.

Ridership balance

5.3 0

11.4 7 5.3 0

Health care opportunities

A ccessib le so cial & g o ver nment ser vices

-1 .0 0

0 .2 4

0 .0 0

6 2 .9 7 3 .6 3

Population density

6 .18

17.10 8 .74

Access to culture and arts

V ib r ant & accessib le co mmunit y, cult ur al & r ecr eat io nal o p p o r t unit ies

-1 .0 0

-0 .5 5

-2 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .2 5 0.00

0 .1 8

No

-0 .9 9

0.02

0 .6 4

N

3 6 7.9 3 6 .13

Pedestrian environment

6 .13

Pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians N o t av ailab le. N o t av ailab le.

Healt hy, saf e & walkab le t r ansit co r r id o r neig hb o r ho o d s

-1 .2 0

-1 .0 0

-0 .8 0

-0 .6 0

-0 .4 0

-0 .2 0

1 .0 0

-0 .2 6

0 .0 0 dat a.

1 .4 0

2 .0 0

-0 .2 0

-0 .0 3

-0 .4 5

1 .0 0

1 .0 0

-0 .1 0

-0 . 1 0

3 .0 0

dat a.

0 .0 0 0.00

1 .9 9

0 .2 0

0.60

0 .8 0 0 .4 0

6 .1 3

4 .0 0

2.00

4 .0 0

2 .0 0

7 .0 0

M

5 .0 0

6.00

1 .5 0

3 .0 0

0 .1 0

6 .0 0

2 .5 0

L

1 .7 9

4 .0 0

0 .2 0

8 .7 4

1 0 .0 0 8 .0 0

3 .6 3

3 .0 0

3.50

4 .0 0

K

1 .3 9

5 .0 0

0 .3 0

J

Is r aa Hanaf i M ahm o ud

2 .0 0

5 .3 0

0 .3 3

No

6 .0 0

0 .4 0

I

Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix 185

Index

B Boston, 47, 81, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 97–100, 104, 108, 148, 149, 154, 155, 167, 176, 177 C Cultural-based, 3, 9 G Green, 4, 13, 24, 58, 60, 61, 99, 103 Green space, 7, 10, 12, 13, 58, 60 Greenway, 7, 64, 88, 90, 97, 99–101, 104, 141, 147, 154, 155, 161, 163, 167, 172, 176 H Human social dimension, 7

P Perception, 7–9, 12–14, 21, 64, 70, 71, 77, 79, 80, 139, 142, 145, 156 Placemaking, 4, 6, 9, 14–22, 24, 25, 46, 50, 52–54, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 79, 81, 104, 135, 148, 156, 157, 162, 163, 168, 169, 172, 176 Plaza, 4, 10, 12, 14, 37, 52, 54–56, 70, 71, 79, 81, 110, 175 Public life, 4, 7, 24, 30, 36–38, 68–70, 73, 80, 81, 107, 133, 140, 161–163, 168 Public realm, 4, 11, 15, 16, 37, 70, 73, 88, 167, 176 Public spaces, 3, 4, 6–14, 16–18, 21–25, 29, 30, 32–39, 52, 53, 58, 60, 63, 64, 69–71, 73, 76, 77, 80–82, 98, 99, 133, 147, 154, 161–164, 167, 175

L Liveability, 22, 30–32, 36, 38, 82, 148–151

S Sociability, 3, 4, 6, 7, 30–34, 36–39, 45, 63, 68, 73, 76, 78, 80, 82, 107, 108, 141–144, 147, 148, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 167–169, 172

N Northend (or North end), 6, 70, 71, 73, 79–81, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97–101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114–116, 118, 121, 130, 137–139, 141–150, 154–157, 162–165, 167

U Urban design, 4, 7–9, 12–16, 18, 22, 25, 29–33, 38, 52, 67, 98, 99, 107, 149, 161, 162, 169 Urban regeneration, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 23, 33, 45, 63, 64, 68, 104, 147, 162

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9

187