Characterisitics of Usability in Privately Owned Public Open Spaces

CHARACTERISTICS

OF

USABILITY IN

P R I VAT E LY OWNED PUBLIC OPEN S PACES A r i Ta k a t a - Va s q u e z | K a t i e F i t z m a h a n | M a r v i n N e t t l e s University of California Berkeley | Professor Peter Bosselmann

| CPLA 241 Research Methods

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

T a bl e o f C ont en t s Introduction

Photo Collages Abstract History and Precendents San Francisco Ordiance

Study Design

Hypothesis Definitions Assumptions Research Limitations

Methodology

Site Selection Observational Research Quantiative Measurements Perception Analysis Comparative Results

Findings

Results Hypothesis Evaluation Recommendations and Implications

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

One California 1970

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Mechanics Plaza 1980

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

333 Market 1979/2008

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Zellerbach Plaza 1959

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

525 Market 1973

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Yerba Buena Plaza 2002

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

RESEARCH DESIGN

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Introduction POPOS, or Privately Owned Public Open Spaces, are spaces that are privately-owned, provided, and maintained, which are characterized by limited public access (resulting in a somewhat controlled environment. Such spaces may include parks, terraces, walkways, snippets, etc.1 History George Williams (2009) adequately summed-up the importance of public open spaces in downtown San Francisco. He writes: Public open spaces should be the pride and joy of any city... especially in San Francisco, where a quarter of a million people converge on a daily basis. After all, these are the places... where we can sit and relax, meet with friends, eat or read in the open air and engage in the timeless urban pastime of people watching. This is where we get a glimpse of nature amid the hardscape of the downtown area. Where we can take a break from the daily grind.2 Most of the City’s Privately Owned Public Spaces were born from planning incentives to encourage developers to include more open space in the downtown area.3 Before the adoption of the 1985 Downtown Plan, developers may have included public spaces in their buildings either “voluntarily, in exchange for a density bonus, or as condition of approval.”4 The 1985 Downtown Plan is an area plan in the City’s Master Plan, “... which guides the physical development of San Francisco’s downtown area.”5 One of the goals of the Downtown Plan was to “provide in the downtown quality open space in sufficient quantity and variety to meet the needs of downtown workers, and residents and visitors”6, and required new office buildings to provide “...open space of a size relative to that of the new building, as well as contribute dollars per square foot to a fund for a downtown park.”7 The plan identified sidewalks and public open spaces, and sought to protect them from shadowing by setting “height rules to prevent buildings from casting shadows at certain hours and time of the year.”8 As a result, the Downtown Plan represents the first instance of a zoning ordinance, which set standards on “the shape of a building to prevent the creation of unpleasant wind currents at ground level in both pedestrian and sitting areas.”9 1

Adapted from Williams, G., Liebermann, E, et al. (2009). Secrets of San Francisco. Retrieved October, 12, 2012, from http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/secretsofsanfrancisco_010109 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id; Macris, D., and Georger Williams. (1999). San Francisco’s Downtown Plan. Retrieved October, 23, 2012 from http://www.spur.org/publications/library/aritcle/sfdowntownplan08011999 6 Williams, G., Liebermann, E, et al. (2009).

7 Macris, D., and Georger Williams. (1999), at p. 4.

8 Id at p. 2.

9 Id.

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Bonus System Prior to the 1985 Downtown Plan, the San Francisco Planning Department developed a density bonus system (1968) whereby new buildings could be increased in size provided that certain public features were included in the building’s plan.10 By 1980, the Planning Department determined that this system was insufficient as the “[t]he requirements were too general and did not always lead to quality spaces.”11 Precedents This study follows in the footsteps of previous efforts, which sought to better understand public spaces. In fact, several of the variables defined in this study were borrowed, or adapted from earlier works such as William Whyte’s (1980) inquiry into small public spaces.

Initially, Whyte sought to test whether a correlation exists between the position of the sun over open spaces in the New York downtown area and where people chose to sit, or not, in those spaces. Similar to our preliminary observations of open spaces in downtown San Francisco, Whyte discovered most open spaces in downtown New York were underused, while some were quite popular, and thus sought to understand what factors lead to increased use in those spaces.12 Whyte’s work informed much of our study. Additionally, variables defined in this study were borrowed, or adapted from Dean Nieusma’s (2004) work on alternative design13, Kevin Lynch’s (1980)14 book on city formation, and Mark Francis’ (1989) article on Control as a Dimension of Public Space Quality.15 Also pertinent to this report is the POPOS research conducted by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)16. In 2009, SPUR published a guide to the privately owned public spaces in the San Francisco’s downtown area, along with evaluations, and recommendations for any needed improvements.17 Of the fifty-six POPOS studied by SPUR, six of those spaces (located along Market Street) were selected for this report to discern whether, or to what extent conflict exists between the appropriateness of design (as enumerated in the Downtown Plan) versus the public’s actual use of those six spaces.

San Francisco Ordinance Under the Downtown Plan, “a required ratio of one square foot of open space for each 50 square feet of occupied office space would 10 11 12 13

Press.

14 15 16 17

Williams, G., Liebermann, E, et al. (2009) Id. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative Design Scholarship: Working Toward Appropriate Design. Design Issues, Vol. 20, No. 3. p. 13-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Lynch, K. (1981). A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Francis, M. (1989). Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality. Public places and spaces, Vol. 10. p. 147. New York: Plenum Press. http://www.spur.org/ Williams, G., Liebermann, E, et al. (2009). Secrets of San Francisco. Retrieved October, 12, 2012, from http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/secretsofsanfrancisco_010109

be established for all office buildings.�18 In addition, section 135.3 (b) of the plan requires open spaces provide a host of features and attributes, such as19: 1. Be in such locations and provide such ingress and egress as will make the area; convenient, safe, secure and easily accessible to the general public; 2. Be appropriately landscaped; 3. Be protected from uncomfortable wind; 4. Incorporate ample seating and, if appropriate, access to food service, which will enhance public use of the area; 5. Be well signed and accessible to the public during daylight hours; 6. Have adequate access to sunlight if sunlight access is appropriate to the type of area; 7. Be well lighted if the area is of the type requiring artificial illumination; 8. Be designed to enhance user safety and security; 9. Be of sufficient size to be attractive and practical for its intended use; and 10. Have access to toilets, if feasible.

Hypothesis After visiting the six POPOS selected for this study, we developed an hypothesis based on our preliminary observations. As a whole, we concluded that frequency of use varied among the six spaces. From this, we developed our hypothesis: Privately-owned public open spaces will be used more, if appropriately designed.

To test our hypothesis, we set out to answer one straightforward, albeit procedurally arduous research question: What properties/characteristics impact the frequency of use in privately owned public open spaces?

18 19

Id. Municipal Code Corporation. (2006). City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code. Planning Code. (Vol. 1). Tallahassee, Fl. p. 64.

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Definitions For the purposes of this study, the properties/characteristics that impact the frequency of use were identified, and defined as follows: • Appropriate Design - Appropriate design of public space accounts for as much diversity as possible when conceptualizing users.20 • Independent Variables: o Seating - Spaces that are designed with the intention of sitting people.21 o Frontage - The POPOS’ relationship to the street, or the amount of linear feet of the POPOS that is adjacent to the street.22 o Greenery - Organic material and vegetation. Here, there are two categories: (1) groundcover, and; (2) canopies.23 o Hardscape - Impervious surface cover.24 • Dependant Variables: o Accessibility - “For a space to be well used it must be accessible”25  Three types of access are important in public spaces: 1. Direct Physical Access to a park or plaza; 2. Social Access, where a space is open to different classes or types of users, and; 3. Visual Access, or the ability to see into a park or plaza.26 • Visibility - Similar to the third type of accessibility, or the ability to see into a park or plaza.27 • Use - One’s ability to use a space.28 • Comfort Variables - Sun (and light), and Wind, or elements that determine warmth and coolness. Comfort elements being those that cool on hot days and maintain warmth on cool days.29 • Aesthetics - The overall composition of a place. This is not limited to visual elements but can include olfactory and tactile sensations. “The form, color and texture of various landscape elements: trees, shrubs, fountains, and sculptures, variously shaped artifacts, space articulations, nooks, corners, and changes in level.”30 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Nieusma, D. (2004).

Whyte, W. H. (1980).

Id. Id. (http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs65.pdf) Nieusma, D. (2004).

Francis, M. (1989).

Lynch, K. (1981).

Francis, M. (1989).

Whyte, W. H. (1980).

Marcus, C.C, and Francis, C. (Eds). (1990). People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Assumptions In order test the hypothesis, we made certain assumptions based on prior experience and knowledge of Market Street. Firstly, we determined our controls in order to retain consistency across all six sites. By limiting our sites to open spaces direct adjacent to Market street in the Financial district (with exception of Yerba Buena Lane which negotiates the border between the financial and retail districts) we assumed our user groups would remain relatively consistent.

We also assumed multiple user groups are present during different times of the day. Usage was separated by time by creating three time frames to best capture office workers’ use of these publicly accessible spaces. To accommodate the commuter rush into and out of the city, we assumed the ‘morning’ period is between 7am-10am and the ‘evening’ is between 4pm-7pm. We also anticipated office workers take their lunch breaks between 11am and 2pm. Given our prior knowledge of Market Street and general patterns of office workers we limited ‘weekdays’ to Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays given that Mondays and Fridays are one-offs. We expected very little to differ between users on these ‘weekdays’ and considered this to be a fair postulation.

The largest assumption made was in separating our user counts into sitting/standing and passing-through. We suspected people sitting or standing in a space truly engage it in a way passing-through a space does not. Our decision to delineate different means of engaging the spaces comes from precedents such as William H. Whyte’s analysis of public spaces in New York. We also assumed ‘undesirables’ primary means of interacting with the space is laying-down because we observed many homeless people sleeping in the open spaces at night or early morning. In addition, we noticed seating often had metal brackets or arm dividers to discourage laying down or use by skate-boarders.

Limitations Many limitations came from the realities of conducting our research in the time-restriction of a semester. Ideally, more thorough collectiion of user counts would have been performed by visiting all the sites three days a week for two weeks. Also, we would have liked to conduct our counts simultaneously, however were unable to because we only had three researchers but six sites.

Beyond schedule constraints, we were limited by the time of year. As many residents of San Francisco know, the city’s weather is unpredictable in Fall. We encountered such erratic weather conditions when we counted people and measured comfort variables. We also realize there are external factors we did not measure possibly effecting frequency of use. Building densities surrounding our selected open spaces may play a role in determining the quantity of users, however, time limitations prevented us from analyzing the land-use component of this research beyond analyzing ground level amenities and proximity to BART stations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

METHODOLOGY

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Methods In evaluating the effectiveness of various design features in privately owned public spaces, research was broken into two phases: (1) observed measurements, and (2) user perceptions. The rationale behind a two-pronged method is to develop an initial findings solely based on measurable features unbiased by our own impressions of the site and then test the validity of those initial inclinations by interviewing end users.

Qualitative Analysis Usage To begin collecting data about the use of a public space we visited each of the six sites for 15 minutes during the week (ie. Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) during each of the set periods: 路

Morning: 7am-10am

路

Lunch: 11am-2pm

路

Evening 4pm-7pm

A matrix was used to track how people interacted with the space and the activities they partake in. Based on the assumption that sitting and standing engage a space more than passing through, we annotated sitting, standing, passing through, or laying down (Figure 1). In examining the reasons a user may choose to go to one public space over another we looked at the activities each space best facilitated. To capture this we noted their activity: using their phone, reading, smoking, eating/drinking, socializing, or people watching (Figure 2). After tallying the number of people sitting or standing in a space we ranked the six privately owned public spaces from most to least used:

1. 525 Market

2. Mechanics Plaza

3 Zellerbach Plaza

4. 333 Market

5. Yerba Buena Plaza

6. One California

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES Morning One California 333 Market Mechanics Zellerbach Plaza 525 Market Yuerba Buena

Sitting 2 1 3 1 0 2

Standing Passing Through laying down 5 4 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 1 3 0 0 7 0 0 35 0

Lunch One California 333 Market Mechanics Zellerbach Plaza 525 Market Yuerba Buena

Sitting 2 0 0 0 2 3

Standing Passing through Laying down 3 18 0 0 8 0 11 20 0 9 2 0 17 0 0 0 18 0

Evening One California 333 Market Mechanics Zellerbach Plaza 525 Market Yuerba Buena

Sitting 1 0 4 0 0 8

Standing Passing through Laying down 11 17 0 0 3 0 2 12 0 2 4 0 0 13 0 2 0 0

Figure 1

Time of Day: Period:

Activity/interacting

Morning 9:15-9:30

Using Phone

Reading

Smoking

Sitting

Socializing

People Watching Commuting

2 (sun)

Passing Through 5 (mon)

Standing

Eating/Drinking

1 (mon)

1 (Sun)

1 (sun)

3 (sun) / 15 (mon)

1 (sun)

3 (sun) / 2 (mon)

Laying Down

Figure 2

Field Measurements Next, we gathered measurements of the aforementioned characteristics via Google Earth or on-site using a laser measure. This was fairly straight forward with the exception of measuring seating. The definition used for seating says we should only count seats “…that are designed with the intention of letting people sit.”,1 However in spaces such as Zellerbach Plaza, many of the people created ad hoc seating. In order to retain consistency among sites, we only measured seating design for the purpose of seating. (Figure 3). In order to compare the features in each of the sites more easily, we created dough-nut charts ( Figure 5-10) 1

Walter H. Whyte 1980, The Secret Lives of Small Urban Spaces

One California 333 Market Mechanics Zellerbach Plaza 525 Market Yuerba Buena

Canopy (ratio of sq Greenery/Hardscape Visibility (linear Street Access Building Access Seating (linear ft canopy to (ratio of sq greenery feet) (linear feet) (linear feet) feet) overall sq ft) to sq ft hardscaping) Light 125 811 9 168 0.207 0.356 452 18 18 309 0.082 0.335 487 134 30 171.5 0.169 0.002 87 41 18 8 0.208 0.41 380 180 0 194.5 0.052 0.052 304 171 24 208.5 0.015 0.016

1000 500 1300 1980 1080 1140

Wind

-2.5 -4 -3 -4.5 -9.5 -6.5

Weighted Analysis

Temp (degrees)

61 62 63 63 60 58

Figure 3

Total usage for each space was tallied and organized from most used to least used by people sitting and standing. This confirmed an initial inclination that the lunch period had the most usage during the week. A weighting system was then employed to determine the most important features. We compared each feature and numbered their prevalence in relation to one another. For example, Mechanics plaza had the most linear feet of visibility and Zellerbach plaza had the least of our six sites, so Mechanics was assigned a ‘6’ and 525 was assigned a ‘1’. Next, we multiplied each of the features according to the usage ranking. Since 525 Market was the most used space, each of its ranked features were multiplied by 6 and One California was the least used so its features were only multiplied by 1. Weighted points each of the features received were tallied. Visibility, sunlight, canopy, and greenery emerged as the four highest scorers, receiving 81, 80, 75, and 74 points respectively. This means these features were the most prevalent in the most used spaces. (Figure 4) POPOS 525 Market Mechanics Plaza Zellerbach 333 Market Yuerba Buena Lane One California Importance

Visibility 24 30 4 15 6 2

81 1

Street Access 30 15 8 3 8 6

Building Access Seating 6 24 30 15 14 4 10.5 18 10 10 2 2 70 72.5 8 7

73 5

Canopy 12 20 24 9 5 5

Greenery light 18 18 5 25 24 24 12 3 10 8 5 2 75 74 3 4

wind

80 2

6 25 12 12 4 6

65 9

temp 12 27.5 16.5 12 2 3

73 5 Figure 4

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

BUILDING ACCESS

STREET ACCESS

VISIBILITY Yerba Buena Lane

One California

One California

Yerba Buena Lane

Yerba Buena Lane, 5

One California 333 Market, 3.5

333 Market 525 Market

525 Market, 1

333 Market

525 Market

Zellerbach Plaza, 3.5

Zellerbach

Mechanics Plaza, 6

Mechanics Plaza Zellerbach

Mechanics Plaza

Figure 5

Figure 6

CANOPY

SEATING

Figure 7

GREENERY

Yerba

Yerba Buena

One California

525 Market

Yerba Buena Lane

One California

One California

525 Market

333 Market

Zellerbach Plaza 333 Market

525 Market

333 Market Zellerbach Plaza

Mechanics Plaza

Mechanics Plaza

Zeller.

Mechanics

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Additionally, we analyzed the land use and programatic features influencing usage of each of the spaces (Figure 11). Initally, we thought proximity to BART stations(Bay Area Rapid Transit) would correlate with people passing through, however our results we inconclusive. One California street is the cloest to the BART station, but is neither the most or least used for passing through. Mechanics plaza falls between two BART stations and is the least used for passing through. This finding however is inconclusive because Yerba Buena Lane is an equal distance to a BART stations yet is second most used for passing through.

Another feature we assumed would effect usage of spaces was the presence of food and beverage amenities.

525 Market and Mechanics Plaza both had directly adjoining food services and were the first and second most frequented spaces. Additionally, Mechanics Plaza has the largest quantity of amenities within a one and a half block radius. Zellerbach Plaza had the second highest quantity of amenities and despite only being rated as a ‘fair’ space according to SPUR’s analysis.

Furthermore, One California had the least neighboring amenities and was the least used. While this is not conlusive, it suggests access to food and beverage may influence usage. (Figure 12)

Figure 11

Figure 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES Square

Light Measurement

One California

44

1000

333 Market

35

500

Mechanics Plaza

49

1300

Zellerbach Plaza

58

1980

525 Market

60

1080

Yerba Buena

49

1140

Due to weather variances in San Francisco and tool limitations, we were not able to gather valid readings using a light meter. Rather than skew our data, we adjusted our measurement to look at the area of ‘open sky’ to evaluate light in the space(Figure 13). This method actually is a better means of evaluating the design of privately owned public spaces because it speaks to the urban form of San Francisco’s Downtown. We traced the amount of ‘open sky’ and counted the area to determine which spaces had the most sky visibility and describe the quality of light in each space.

Figure 13

One California

333 Market

Mechanics Plaza

Zellerbach Plaza

525 Market

Yerba Buena Lane

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

To determine the type of users encouraged to access the public space we graphically compared the linear feet of building access to direct street access. In Figure 14, brown represents building access and orange represents street access. In Zellerbach Plaza it becomes rather clear the space is intended to be used by office works because it limits street access with a large retaining wall. Yerba Buena Lane also is designed for the patrons of adjacent stores, restaurants, hotels, and museums because it has more building access than street access. Opposite on the spectrum is 333 Market and Mechanics Plaza. Both of these spaces have two full sides of their plaza exposed directly to the street.

Figure 14

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Qualitative Analysis After completing quantitative measuring, we looked to the end users of the space and their perceptions of what features are lacking, what is problematic in using the site, and an overall evaluation of the space. To gather such information we performed intercept surveys of 15 users in each of the public spaces during lunch on a weekday. Lunch was determined as the best time to survey users because our qualitative analysis showed the lunch period as being most populated, therefore giving us the largest population to sample from. The pitfall of this method is in skewing some of our results. By interviewing people at lunch, they are more likely to say they are there during lunch and may not be representative of the morning and evening user groups. In addition, the users being in the space indicates there is something about the public space they appreciate so their feedback may have been less critical. The survey questions shown in Figure 5 were asked informally and annotated by the researchers.

Survey Design

In designing our survey we wanted to ensure it could be completed in less than four minutes and would not tire the interviewee with either too difficult or too many questions. The survey shown in Figure 16 has the questions and possibly answers we presented to people using the space. The purpose of surveying users was to validate three findings from our quantitative analysis; the time of day people most frequented the space, which characteristics are most desired, and what activities people partake. In addition, we asked people their overall opinion of the space based on a Lickert scale comparable to SPUR’s analysis and evaluation of San Francisco privately owned public spaces(Figure 15; 1: Very Poor 2:Poor 3: Good 4: Very Good).2 2

San Francisco Planning + Urban Research 2009, A Guide to San Francisco’s Privately-Owned Public Spaces.

Survey

SPUR

4

4

333 Market

3.87

2

Mechanics Plaza

3.5

1

Zellerbach Plaza

3.93

2

525 Market

4.07

4

Yerba Buena

4.29

N/A

One California

Figure 15

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Public Space Survey We are a group of graduate students in the Department of City & Regional Planning, UC Berkeley studying the qualities and characteristics of public spaces. Your feedback will become an integral part of our research. The survey is five questions long and will not take more than 5 minutes of your time. All questions must be answered before submitting your responses. Thank you for your participation. * Required At what times of the day do you come here? * check all that apply Morning (7am-10am)

more seating

Afternoon/Lunch (11am-2pm)

more visibility

Evening (4pm-7pm)

more sunlight

Other:

more security guards/cameras more direct street access

Why do you come here? * Check all that apply People watch Eat/Drink

What is problematic about accessing this space? * check all that apply

Talk on the phone/Text

too crowded

Read

too noisy

Smoke

too hot/too cold

Socialize

level change (ie stairs/ramps)

Passing Through/ On the way to somewhere

Other:

Other:

How did you first discover this public space? *

Overall, how would you rate this space * Very poor Poor Neutral Good Very Good

Given the resources and means, what would you change about this space? * Check all that apply

Submit

more trees

Powered by Google Docs

more plants

Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms

Figure 16

QUANTIATIVE & QUALITATIVE COMPARISON

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

The quantitative and qualitative data was compared to determine the commonalities between research methods and confirm our initial findings. Through our weighted analysis of observable features we determined the four most important characteristics and compared it to the four most desired features and found three characteristics to be the same:

1. Greenery

2. Canopy

3. Seating

To illustrate the current design of the space and effectively compare it to the desire for more greenery, tree canopy, and seating we re-imagined the spaces with plans. The dark green represents the trees and greenery already existing and the light green is in relation to the number of people expressing a desire for more trees or foliage. (Figure 18-23). We also graphically represented the various wants expressed by users with a nested dough-nut chart (figure 17)

Most Desired Features

Yerba

Greenery Canopy

525 Market One California

Seating

Zellerbach Plaza 333 Market

Mechanics Plaza

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 20

Figure 19

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 21

Figure 24

Figure 27

One California

Number of People

Number of People

22

25

25

20

20

Observed Survey

15 10

7

3

5 0

14

15

2.9

0.6

8

5

1

Lunch

Morning

Evening

25

25

31 26

25

20

20

Observed Survey

15

10

5

525 Market

30

Number of People

Number of People

26

Evening

35

35

30

Lunch

Figure 28

333 Market

Observed Survey

0.33

0

Morning

14

10

6.1

Figure 25

4

2.4

10

5

2.08

Observed Survey

15

5.2

3

5

0

Lunch

Evening

Morning

Figure 26

Figure 29 Mechanics Plaza

35

2.06

0.2

0

Morning

Lunch

Evening

Yerba Buena Lane

35

25

Number of People

24

25

20

Number of People

30

30

23

25

20

16

Observed Survey

15

16

16

Observed Survey

15

10

10

0

30

30

30

5

Zellerbach Plaza

35

35

1

3.33

0.33

Morning

5

0

Lunch

Evening

3

1.53

0

Morning

Lunch

Evening

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

We then compared our observed user counts to our respondents answers regarding the time of day visit the open space most.

(Figure 24-29). To make our survey results comparable to our observed use counts, we expressed survey results as a percentage

User Demographics To authenticate our initial assumption about the users of privately owned public spaces in the financial district we annotated an estimated age, occupation and race as we interviewed users. Our results confirmed our initial assumptions. The average age for each public space ranged from 29.3 years old to 40 years old for an average of 34.7 years old. Overwhelmingly, the users of the space where workers for nearby office towers. Racially, the majority is white, followed by Asian, Black, and Hispanic (68.5%, 18%, 9%, and 4.4% respectively).3

3

Percentages do not total to 100% because of rounding to the nearest tenth place

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

FINDINGS

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

Findings The data collected throughout the course of this research tells a story of user preference and significant design features. However, the data also points out certain assumptions made from the beginning. Nonetheless, our research findings prove to be valuable and have the potential to inform future development and open space design.

The data, once collected and analyzed, illustrates a common thread of popular design characteristics for Market Streets’ privately owned public spaces. The quantitative research performed for this study shows a clear commonality between the six spaces. The findings from our usage counts lead us to determine the most important design features for our chosen spaces. According to our quantitative measurements, the most significant design characteristics of our chosen privately owned public spaces are:

1. Sunlight

2. Greenery

3. Canopy

4. Visibility

These findings tell us about design decisions that may influence the frequency of use of a its privately owned public spaces The results from our qualitative research and our intercept surveys corroborate our quantitative findings. From a total of 15 surveys for each space, 90 in total, we came to a conclusion; when asked, people tended to prioritize specific characteristics for the specific spaces they visited:

1. Sunlight

2. Greenery

3. Canopy

4. Seating

When comparing both quantitative and qualitative research results we see that greenery, canopy, and sunlight are the most desired features as well as the most common features amongst the most used spaces. While these results are not entirely conclusive, they speak to the significance of these three characteristics as design elements for a frequently used space.

Possible Errors We can see that sunlight, greenery, and canopy are important design features. However, not all of our quantitative and qualitative results confirm each other. What can we say about visibility and seating, the odd ones out? These variances, we believe, stem from a communication problem and too specific of measurements. In our discussions of visibility in our surveys, we believe people did not re-

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

spond to this category due to issues of semantics. In retrospect, the term ‘visibility’ may not be clear to everyone. This may explain the lack of surveyed concern over this feature. This oversight is a reminder to practitioners in the field of Design and Planning that common terms used in the field are not always common knowledge to the general public.

Originally, we set out to measure the quantitative data of design characteristics. We made the decision to measure only linear feet of seating that was designed with the intention of people sitting. For example, we measured benches and seats but did not include measurements of walls or planter edges. It became clear from our surveys and use counts that people in fact will sit where they please. As William H. Whyte emphasizes, and Zellerbach Plaza is evidence of, people will find seating anywhere as long as it is convenient, accessible, and exposed to people watching and adequate sunlight.

Evaluation of Hypothesis As we conclude our research study we can evaluate and critique our original hypothesis. There were two primary issues evident in our hypothesis: Privately-owned public open spaces will be used more, if appropriately designed. The terms ‘appropriate’ and ‘users’ are vague and non-specific. This lack of clarity is due to the variances between our original research goals and the final goals of our study.

Our original hypothesis was intended to address the conflict between Market Street’s privately owned public spaces and accessibility for a diverse user group. We intended to address how to democratize spaces to include a larger user-group. Early on in our study we established definitions for our terminology based on academic literature in the field. These decisions, in the end, lead to vague terms and a relatively unstructured hypothesis. Due to limited time and resources, we ended up looking at a specific user group at a specific time. In the current study, we focus on office workers who are prevalent in these spaces during weekday lunchtime.

Looking back at the wording of our hypothesis, it is unclear what ‘appropriate’ means. We initially used this term in order to look at a wide-variety of users and uses. The term ‘appropriate’ was employed in order to take into consideration any possible significant characteristic. Now that we better understand these spaces, their users, and their intended uses we would rephrase our hypothesis to be: “Which features of Market Street’s Privately Owned Public Open Spaces will facilitate lunch hour rush?” or “Will improved and more sunlight, greenery, and canopy increase the use of privately owned public spaces by office workers?” These altered hypotheses address a more specific user group and touch more closely on specific characteristics.

At the beginning of the study we struggled to limit the scope of our chosen user group. We collected and analyzed data for all users who were in the space: both those who engage with the space and those who do not. As the study progressed we separated the user group into two categories: those who were sitting or standing and those who were passing through. We made this decision in order to look more specifically at people who interact with the space for a more continuous and engaged period of time. The most spaces with the most use count for people sitting and standing are: 1. 525 Market St. 2. Mechanics Plaza 3. Zellerbach Plaza 4. 333 Market St. 5.

Yerba Buena Lane 6. One California St. While the spaces frequented the most by those passing through are: 1. 333 Market St. 2. 525 Market St. 3. Yerba Buena Lane 4. One California St. 5. Mechanics Plaza 6. Zellerbach Plaza. When comparing these two list, it is evident that people use different spaces depending on their activity. Similarly, certain spaces may be designed intentionally with a specific user group in mind.

We found that certain privately owned public spaces were frequented more by a certain category of people. For example, 525 Market St. and Yerba Buena Lane are both popular cut-throughs, used primarily for moving from Market St. to Mission St. If the research design were to be adjusted, these two types of users would have been identified and divided up earlier. Some of the disparities found within our research may be a result of these undefined assumptions when initiating our research.

Future Research We believe the next step for future research is to study more specifically these top characteristics. Within the context of San Francisco’s Market Street, how do canopy, greenery, and sunlight impact a space and people’s perceptions of that space? A better understanding of specific design features and ratios can promote design for more frequently used spaces.

In order to take this research further in the direction of our original study, we suggest further investigation into how privately owned public spaces can be more democratic and inclusive of all users groups. The solution may be a combination of design-oriented solutions and community programming.

Further research needs to be done on additionally factors that influence use and people’s perceptions of privately owned public spaces. This research can benefit from studies investigating the impact of surrounding building density and alternative street access on the use of Market Street’s privately owned public spaces.

Recommendations and Implications A major conclusion, or conundrum, that comes out of this research is a question of descriptive design versus prescriptive design. We can see from the current Ordinance that prescriptive designs are not necessarily an appropriate way to address privately owned public spaces However, Designers and Planners are in need of some guidance when establishing spaces for public use, often through public funds.

We suggest the city move away from the prescriptive demands of the Ordinance and move toward a more interpretive yet site-specific city-wide design guide for privately owned public spaces This guide would act as a model for future design projects of this nature.

It would ideally act as a descriptive model for neighborhood-specific spaces. For examples, Market Street could follow a set of design guidelines that address various characteristics and needs of downtown Privately owned public spaces While this model would not necessarily be required, it would provide recommendations on design features and pro come together to encourage a well-use and liked space.

Furthermore, Market Street and its privately owned public spaces require a holistic and time-sensitive plan. We suggest the privately owned public spaces of Market Street be incorporated into a longitudinal study and strategy for the design and programming of Market Street. Due to its central location and iconic status in San Francisco, Market Street and its open spaces need to be designed and main-

CHARACTERISTICS OF USABILITY IN PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES

tained with the city as a whole in mind. These spaces can be designed as places of interest to encourage people to come to Market Street and to improve the connectivity of San Francisco’s central corridor, Market Street. Further research into further mixed-use development and planning may encourage wider use by a more diverse users group. San Francisco’s Ferry Building and Civic Center are examples of spaces designed and programmed for mixed-use and diversity. Nonetheless, a holistic and long-term strategy needs to be in place to allow for responsible and flexible future development in these its privately owned public spaces.