Page 1

SUSTAINABLE socialspace The Understanding and Application of Social Space at Rutgers University’s Cook/Douglass Campus

WRITTEN AND ILLUSTRATED BY MICHELLE HARTMANN


SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE: THE UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SPACE AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

by Michelle Hartmann ‘14

A thesis submitted to the Honors Committee of the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of The George H. Cook Scholars Program

Written under the direction of INSTRUCTOR HOLLY NELSON Of the Department of Landscape Architecture

New Brunswick, NJ

April 10, 2014


SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE: THE UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SPACE AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

I have reviewed the project conducted by Michelle Hartmann and endorse its consideration for the George H. Cook Scholar Award

HOLLY NELSON, Project Advisor Of the Department of Landscape Architecture


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS// Thank you to everyone who has assisted me with this process. The George H. Cook Scholars Program is an excellent experience for students to perform independent research. A special thank you to my project advisor, Holly Nelson, for her support, excitement, and motivation throughout the process. Without her energy through discussion and motivation throughout the process, this project would not have reached its full potential. Her participation in this project has acted as a constant inspiration for my exploration and enthusiasm throughout the project To our readers and project jury, Dr. Laura Lawson and Dr. Wolfram Hoefer. Thank you for your great feedback and insight during project milestone presentations and discussion. Thank you to all the campus experts and students who have participated in this project. Every conversation I have had since the start of this project has helped me to understand the importance of their presence in the social spaces designers create on campus.


TABLE OF CONTENTS// INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH

PEOPLE

ACTIVITY

SIZE

CONNECTIVITY

DESIGN LESSONS APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL SPACE THE ROLE OF DESIGN IN RESEARCH RESEARCH METHODS ABSTRACT GLOSSARY CONCEPT FRAMEWORK SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STUDYING SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE CAMPUS CONTEXT THE SOCIAL USER USERS IDENTITY AND GROUPING TIME ANALYSIS UNDERSTANDING ACTIVIES AS DESIGN PROGRAM ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES ON CAMPUS UNDERSTANDING SIZE AND TYPE THE SPATIAL TRANSLATION FIELDS PLAZAS YARDS POCKET PLAZAS BUS STOPS CONNECTIVITY MODELS STUDENT CONNECTIONS MASTERPLAN POTENTIAL PROGRAM


introduction


ABSTRACT// This project aims to study social space through the principal research question “Can social space design increase campus sustainability?”. Sustainable social space is designed for longevity through its constant use by everyday people. This investigation approaches the complexity of social space dynamics as both a designed and spontaneous experience. To do so, the research approaches the problem through an integrated bottom up process beginning with people. Outlined are the key elements intended to ensure the success social space in a campus context. The method is designed to help identify existing social areas and integrate new elements specific to the site’s users, their desired activities, and the scale of the space. The booklet provides a series of chapters to explain each element of the exploration, and how it contributes to the topic as a whole. This booklet will guide the reader through the methods, exploration, and conclusions inspired by observations of the campus lifestyle. The research presented is a comprehensive view of existing concepts, site observations, user inquiries, and speculated conclusions from a student’s perspective.


“WHAT ATTRACTS PEOPLE MOST, IN SUM, IS OTHER PEOPLE” HOLLY WHITE


INTRODUCTION// Social space is understood as any place, indoor or outdoor, where people spend time either alone or together with other people. Physically, these places take on many different forms but are distinguished by the frequency of people coming and going. Over time, they have evolved into designed and undesigned areas in the environment that occur instinctively for the convenience of rest, meeting others, eating, and other human uses. Despite their design, social spaces are dynamic; their success is dependent on their convenient relationship to people. As William Whyte describes, “what attracts people most, in sum, is other people�. Thus, the success of a social space, is based on the frequency of users coming and going from any given space. However, studying this phenomenon of social space is sometimes difficult to locate on a map. As Whyte describes social space is an experience, both planned and unplanned, with as much spontaneity as design. Therefore, to study it, investigators must understand the user, their activities, and their daily lives, before they can begin to understand how they use it to ensure its success (Project for Public Spaces, 2014). It is the flexibility of social space that fosters its complexity and individuality in each design discipline. In the field of landscape architecture, social space design aims to engage people and their interaction with outdoor enviornment and natural landscape. Designers prioritize natural views, microclimates, plant ecologies, aesthetics, and access for their users. They value the landscape as an oasis for relaxation. Like many designed places, these areas intend to provide the necessary elements to support the human relationship with nature (Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2014).


COLLECT INFORMATION FORM HYPOTHESIS DESIGN EXPERIMENT COMPARE RESULTS

S

THE LINEAR MODEL FAILURE?

HYPOTHESIS SUCCESS ?

DRAW CONCLUSION

OBSERVE SITE

FORM THEORY

ASK QUESTIONS

REVISE DESIG N

THE ITERATIVE PROCESS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT


tHE ROLE OF THE DESIGNER IN RESEARCH // Scientific research is used to advance the potential solutions to outstanding problems. Design, as a research method has the same premise. Designers compile the existing data and research on an outstanding problem and investigate potential solutions. However, unlike a scientist, designers are challenged with the difficulty of organizing both quantitative and qualitative data. The process explores the existing factual data of an issue, understands background theory, but investigates the potential solutions through creativity and out-of-the box thinking. Design is the experiment of this process. Through this method, it is the job of the designer to, compile, organize, and interpret all of the existing site specific, theory-related, and case study data sources.

THE DESIGN-TIFIC METHOD // Design research, like traditional scientific research, aims to generate the discussion of a topic preceding extensive exploration of a scientific problem, theory, or question. Similar to the scientific method, the design process follows a series of steps to achieve a desired outcome. The scientific method, as it is widely known, proceeds as follows: (1) Collect information, (2) formulate hypothesis, (3) design experiment to test hypothesis, (3) perform experiment, (4) observe test results (note: if experiment fails to meet the criteria of the hypothesis, reevaluate the hypothesis), (5) Compare results of multiple experiments, (6) draw conclusions, and (7) formulate theory to test with additional experiments (Chauhan, 2013). Similarly, the design process begins with the collection of data to provide insight for the topic of research. However, as designers begin their ‘experimentation’ process the original framework begins to change as additional questions are integrated through additional observation. This flexibility and iterative process is attributed to the design method’s heavy emphasis on observation for inspiring insights, formulating questions, testing hypotheses, and generating design solutions (Zeisel, p.90) Physically, social space is designed. It is a collection of elements placed by the designer in a way to affect behavior in that space. However, to understand

human response, designers need to reevaluate the design process. Human behavioral sciences introduce the idea, if you put a bench somewhere, we won’t necessarily sit on it. Social space design uses both social science and design to develop a more integrated design process that evaluates the user’s needs and the designer’s desires simultaneously. In order to do so, the designer must evaluate the user’s intrinsic behaviors and uses in space, the design intention, and the problems of the existing conditions. This method of evaluating existing design function through the scope of its users is called Environmental-Behavior Research (Lawson 2014) When investigating the topic of social space, these methods are integrated. Social space, unlike other design practices, requires the balance of methods in the scope of social science and design. Both fields of study are vital to the complete understanding of observing places as a physical and experiential phenomenon. Designed social spaces have evolved from a simplified design process that tends to disregard the character of its users and context. This project reinstates the importance of site analysis and behavioral understanding when designing social space.


project METHODs// HOW TO APPROACH THE QUESTION Understanding social space begins with a the understanding of its theories and concepts. In design, it is important to understand what is out there (i.e. case studies) before you can begin to critique it and create something new. The research component of this project includes a literature review, case studies exploration, and an understanding of existing concepts and theories regarding social space. The background RESEARCH| BACKGROUND REVIEW gathered in this component was critical to the organization and interpretation of the additional steps of the process.

Observation is a key component of all design processes. In this project, students and faculty/staff were observed in their campus habitat. Data was collected from and organized into a series of questions to be explored further in later phases of the project methods. OBSERVATION| DATA COLLECTION

Questions, as designers see them, are the tools used to distinguish the problem and overall goal of the design concept. This step helps the designer see the problem and begin to model a framework for approaching and investigating it. UNDERSTANDING| DATA ORGANIZATION & SYNTHESIS

Exploration is a design step that synthesizes the conceptual research with observation. It allows designers to draw conclusions and begin to understand the problem and envision potential solutions. EXPLORATION| POTENTIAL DESIGN SOLUTION The design process fosters consistant feedback and discussion. This reoccuring process happens repetitively throughout the process, but is synthesized in a section of the booklet called “lessons”. This chapter shows the investigator’s organization and application of the feedback in a way to understand the overarching takeaways of the project. DISCUSSION| CONCLUSIONS


Campus context// As Jane Jacobs described in a short film called “Neighborhoods in Action”, “a [city] heart is not a disembodied thing, that you just set down arbitrarily, that you just set down like choosing a shopping center site. It needs to have an anatomy and the anatomy, the clue to it is what you always hear, the hangout….”. In this short film Jacobs discusses her observations about the success of American cities, and the identification of their “City center”. She describes how these geographic locations, are not just set down arbitrarily, picked out of a hat for a development; rather, they are selected strategically by where people ‘hangout’ (Vinnitskaya, 2012).

rutgers university cook/douglass campus

When understanding the relationship of social spaces to the broader context of Cook/Douglass campus, and even Rutgers University, it is a similar phenomenon as described by Jacobs. The diagram shown [right] shows this social spatial relationship. Rutgers University (the largest circle in the upper diagram) can be understood as the regional perspective, and Cook/ Douglass the city within that region. However, like Jacobs describes, cities are not entirely social. Instead, they contain a center or, in this case, a social center, where users have the tendency to gather. The lower diagram depicts this relationship through the narrow scope of Cook/Douglass campus. The boundaries of the Ruth Adams building to the Environmental and Natural Sciences (ENR) building, can be delineated as the “social zone”. This areas is designated through the frequency of students using campus space for academic, residential and other everyday activities.

“social core” PROJECT AREA

cook/douglass campus


The campus landscape acts as both a home and place of work for most of its everyday users. Thus the campus social zone, located in the crux of campus, acts as the “town” for the community to socialize and perform daily activities. The diagram [right] shows a land use map in accordance to the campus lifestyle. This map indicates areas on campus where people go/ teach class, eat lunch, socialize, and sleep. As seen from the map, the academic center and community core, sit at the forefront of the campus with the other amenities surrounding it. In a sense, these areas act as the “city center” Jacobs describes, and have great potential zone for sustainable site development. However, zones along the edge (i.e. the residential and underutilized areas) have great opportunity for other open space but don’t seem centralized enough for constant use.

academic center

community core residential buffer

ACADEMIC AREAS

underutilized edge COMMUNITY (PUBLIC) AREAS ON CAMPUS LIVING AREAS UNDER-USED AREAS


ESEARC

RESEARCH// Understanding the principles and existing concepts of social space is the first step in considering its problems on campus. The Research chapter of this project gives the reader a brief background some designer language, the existing concepts of social space, and two case studies of similar campus style projects. This portion of the exploration helped structure the framework of the rest of the exploration.


GLOSSARY//

BEHAVIORAL APPROACH An approach which examines people’s activities and decision-making processes within their perceived worlds. COMMUNITY A much-used term with little specific meaning but usually refers to a social group characterized by dense networks of social interaction reflecting a common set of cultural values. Often, but not necessarily, geographically concentrated. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE The science and art of design, planning, management and stewardship of the land. Landscape architecture involves natural and built elements, cultural and scientific knowledge, and concern for resource conservation to the end that the resulting environment serves a useful and enjoyable purpose. Successful landscape architecture maximizes use of the land, adds value to a project and minimizes costs, all with minimum disruption to nature. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER A professional who designs, plans, and manages outdoor spaces ranging from entire ecosystems to residential sites and whose media include natural and built elements; also referred to as a designer, planner, consultant. Not to be confused with landscapers, landscape contractors or nurserymen. MASTER PLAN A preliminary plan showing proposed ultimate site development. Master plans often comprise site work that must be executed in phases over a long time and are thus subject to drastic modification. PROGRAM The activities planned or designed for a site SCALE Scale is the relative size of one part of a landscape to another. Scale may be the proportion or ratio of size to other components in the landscape. SPACE A term often used in a general sense to indicate geography, location or distance, but also used specifically by human geographers to acknowledge the socially constructed nature of environments. SOCIAL SPACE Any place, indoor or outdoor, where people spend time either alone or together with other people. SUSTAINABILITY A much contested idea with many different interpretations but generally alludes to economic development in a manner which can be sustained in the long-run for future generations. (urban social sustainability - Social life within cities that is relatively free of inequality and conflict and that can be sustained in the long run. A component of sustainability.) SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE A landscape designed, installed, and maintained in a residential, commercial, or public setting that is functional, maintainable, environmentally sound, cost effective, and visually pleasing throughout the entire life of that landscape. TERRITORIALITY The idea that humans have an innate desire to occupy a specific territory to satisfy needs of safety, security and privacy and to enable the expression of personal identity. Sometimes called the ‘territorial imperative’. * Referenced University Of Minnesota’s Sustainable Land Glossary and The Asla Glossary for definitions


the balance// UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL SPACE THROUGH DESIGN Sustainable social space aims to balance the needs of people and nature through the subjects of social science and environmentalism. Understanding the principles behind these opinionated platforms is important when exploring an integrated approach. Both subjects explore the subject of social space from a different perspective and frame potential design solutions around that perspective. The following gives an example of some key figureheads from both extremes and how they approach the problem.

nature

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

people

ENVIRONMENTALIST

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE


SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY// What is sustainability? TO BE USED WITHOUT BEING COMPLETELY USED UP OR DESTROYED. INVOLVES METHODS THAT DO NOT COMPLETELY USE UP OR DESTROY NATURAL RESOURCES AND ARE ABLE TO LAST OR CONTINUE FOR A LONG TIME. MERIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY

+

= What is sustainable Social space?

SUSTAINABLE SPACE AIMS TO INSPIRE SOCIAL INTERACTION AMONG PEOPLE, WHILE “PROVIDING THE NATURAL BENEFITS ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH”. SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE


social science// William Holly Whyte, Jane Jacobs, and Jan Gehl are leaders for their observation and criticisms in design of modern cities. Understanding and interpreting their methods is critical to the study of social space. Additionally, similarities between urban life, and campus life, allow for many of their conclusions to be applied to the context of Rutgers University.

WILLIAM HOLLY WHITE// William Hollyingworth Whyte was a leading contributor to the understanding of cities as a product of human behavior and social nature. His most widely known theories come from a study performed in the early 1970’s called the Street Life Project. His findings reestablished social spaces as a product of design and pedestrian behavior (Project for Public Spaces, 2010). Some of his most widely known work was published in the book and movie counterpart, Social Life of Small Urban Places. This project walked through the small behavioral details we experience without consciousness, and the patterns that emerge amongst all users. Some of his most keen observations include: • • • • • •

Proportion of people in groups tells a lot about the success of a place. High numbers of groups of 2s an 3s calls for successful plazas. The most socialable places have the greatest number of individuals “The number one activity is people looking at other people” “Right angles are great places for people to gather”. Some features are put in place discourage sitting/socializing (spikes on a ledge, etc.), but we find a way around them “people don’t often stop to talk in the middle of a large space.” “People tend to sit where there are places to sit”, but prefer the ability to move them as they see fit


JANE JACOBS// Jane Jacobs was a pivotal critic of urban planning in the early 20th century. Many of her observations, based out of Greenwich Village in New York City, posed radical reforms of the current design of major cities. Her observational techniques were the first to establish social space as a spontaneous interaction among people, not necessary only occurring in design places (Martin, 2006).

//JAN GEHL Jan Gehl is an urban planner, architect, and critic of the process for designing cities. He has always seen cities as a structural and social frame for the daily life of the people; today, cities are often designed otherwise. He an interview with Jared Green from the American Society of Landscape Architects, Gehl explains, “…planners were to look after the plan, the architects were to look after the buildings. With modernism, they were free of the context of the city. They placed it on open lands surrounded by grass. Nobody was responsible for looking after the people who were to move in these new structures” (ASLA.org, 2014). His major criticisms lie in the role of design in the landscape and plan of the city context. He claims, many designers are distracted by the aesthetic of art and form, forgetting that this place must function for people. This personal, eye-level, view of the landscape acts as the primary motivation for this project.


environmentalism//

JOHN MUIR// John Muir is a classical environmentalist from the late 1800s. Much of his work is devoted to the understanding that nature, in its rawest form, provides amazing benefits to human body. He advocated for conservation and preservation of land to be left untouched by development and only visited by humans.

//MICHAEL BRUNE Michael Brune, exectutive director of the Sierra Club and John Muir contemporary counterpart, is also an environmentalist. He shares the same core ideals of conservation and preservation as Muir, and sees nature as an asset to be “kept clean�. As a contemporary conservationist, Brune understands the concept of sustainability and agrees that our resources must be conserved. However, in reference to social space, he believes nature is best utilized in its natural form (forests, wetlands, etc.). Brune thinks it is important that we introduce humans to the natural landscape but only to explore as a visitor, never to be fully integrated (Sierra Club, NP).


1 2 3 4

MAKE THE SITE USER FRIENDLY FOCUS ON NATURAL VIEWS EDUCATE SITE USERS AND KEEP CUTLURE AND HISTORY ALIVE PROVIDE SPACES FOR MENTAL RESTORATION, SOCIAL INTERACTION, AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE// The Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI) is an interdisciplinary initiative founded on the platform of voluntary guidelines and performance benchmarking for sustainable design. The American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanical Garden created the program to help convey the importance of sustainable practices and management in a selection of design categories. The categories include: hydrology, soils, vegetation, materials, and human health and well being. For the purpose of this project, it is important to understand the details of creating places to promote human health and well being that promote sustainability. According to the SSI analysis, there are four key practices to help inspire good health and well being for people experiencing sustainable design: (1) make the site user-friendly, (2) focus on natural views, (3) educate site users and keep culture and history alive, and (4) provide spaces for mental restoration, social interaction, and physical activity.

//AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS The American Society of Landscape Architects, a national organization of landscape architecture professionals, has developed a series of toolkits and models for the design of social space. These models investigate the ideal conditions for environmental, economic, and social sustainability at a wide variety of scales. The social model uses a person-focused framework to enable design of sustainable communities at different scales. Using their core principles of social sustainability (seen to the right), designers are advised to think about a person’s quality of life when developing land on a regional, community, or site scale. The model emphasizes the importance of human health benefits, and their multifaceted advantages on the environmental and economic levels (i.e. multiple modes of transportation provide healthier environments with limited emission pollution and reduce overall housing and transportation costs) (ASLA, 2014).

MEET THE LONG TERM HEALTH AND SOCIAL NEEDS EMPOWER RESIDENTS GIVE EQUAL ACCESS TO HEALTHY PLACES ALLOW CHOICE FROM MULTIPLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION CHOICE OF TRANSPORTATION INSPIRE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN PROCESS

1 2 3 4 5 6


THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE| A COGNITIVE MAPPING EXERCISE Understanding social space from the professional perspective was vital to the initial research of this project. However, when understanding social space at the campus scale, it is important to understand how students define social space.

The cognitive mapping project was designed to approach two different groups of students asking them to distinguish where they spend time on campus. With little direction, the students were asked to map there favorite places on campus providing word cues for atmospheric understanding. Interestingly enough, with no specification of indoor or outdoor space, 97% of students perferred spaces that were outdoors, Passion Puddle being the highest ranked social space.

2 groups of students 1 map per student Draw a mental map of Cook/Douglass campus. On the map indicate places you like to hangout, or your favorite places to be. Note, or identify, at least one key feature or building on the map to help me understand or orient where you are on campus. In addition to your map, feel free to write any words on your sheet to help describe your favorite places (is it shady? Do you hangout there alone or with friends? Is it quiet or loud? If you have colored pens or markers feel free to use color. When you are done with your map please write your name and graduations year in the bottom right corner. You will have 15 minutes to perform the exercise

97%


The maps to the left show examples of the mapping results. Students were surveyed in two different size groups, one organizational group (20-25 students) and one large lecture hall (100-150 students). The results were then scanned and analyzed for both quantitative (where the place was, how many times it was chosen), and qualitative (what they liked about the space, etc.). The results of this project lead to the exploration of student life in greater detail and how that can shape design. Additionally, the results from this process were used in a deeper understanding of the ideal locations for these spaces on campus


THE COMPLEXITIES OF SOCIAL SPACE// The goals published by The Sustainable Sites Initiative for sustainable social space, are not innaccurate, just somewhat incomplete. Sustainable social space is a place to meet, not only the needs of today’s daily visitors, but also promote the longevity for future users on campus. The process of understanding social space, looks at teh people using space in great detail to help grasp an understanding of their daily lives, and how social space fits into it. Sustainable social space offers program for a variety of users. Some program is universal; whereas others are site specific. This goal is achieved based on the analysis of a selection of factors which include, site scale, context, design program, and human scale. Social spaces in the campus context must not only accommodate the large quanitites of campus users that frequent them, but also provide a quality of experience to promote sustainable living styles. Social Space, as it was observed, was comprised of four core principles that were infinitiely connected and codependent on each other to prove social space sustainable. These principles included: understanding people, activities, size of social space, and their connections, or overall accessibility. The diagram to the right emphasizes this point

1 LOCATION

PROXIMITY TO HIGHLY USED AREAS AND CONVENIENT FOR PEOPLE

2 ESSENCE OF PLACE

CONTEXT, HUMAN COMFORT AND DISCOMFORT

3 CORE PRINCIPLES

PEOPLE, ACTIVITIES, SIZE, AND CONNECTIVITY


BIKING

EATING

CLASS

FOOTBALL GAME

KICKING AROUND A BALL

THOROWING A FOOTBALL

CONVERSATION PEOPLE WATCHING

SKATEBOARDING

RUNNING

FRISBEE

READING WALKING

SOCCER GAME

HOMEWORK

INDIVIDUAL

ACTIVITES

INTIMATE (2-3)

PATHWAY

SMALL GROUP (4-6) COMMUNITY

PEOPLE

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE

LARGE GROUP (8-15)

CONNECTIVITY

PLACE TO REST PATHWAY BUS STOP

SIZE OF SOCIAL SPACE

FIELD

YARD POCKET PLAZA PLAZA


EOPLE

THE SOCIAL USER// Social space is shaped by the daily life of the human user. Thus it is necessary to explore the user’s schedule, routine, and day-to-day activities and how they relate to the use of outdoor places. Despite Jan Gehl notion that lifestyles are ephemeral, the daily schedules of students, faculty and staff, will be consistent in the campus context.


USER IDENTITY//

FACULTY AND STAFF

STUDENTS

The “student user” identifies the group of people using social space that call Rutgers University “home” for the next four years. This relationship to campus translates into at 24 hour use of the campus. It is important to identify this group because they have a wide array of potential uses for campus (sleeping, eating, studying, etc.). Their fast-paced lifestyle and rhythmic schedules due to course times offer a variety of opportunities for the use of social spaces.

Faculty and staff users, unlike students, do not live on campus. Therefore, how they use their time, and perceive the campus is different than that of the student user. Faculty and staff come to campus to work. Therefore, with the exception of the overnight shifts of some custodial and emergency staff, most faculty and staff members work between the 9AM to 9PM, and break for a lunch break.

USER GROUPS//

INDIVIDUAL

INTIMATE GROUP

SMALL GROUP

LARGE GROUP

Understanding users as they translate into space is critical to the study of social space. Despite their identity, people occupy places and participate in activities in groups of variable in size. The initial complexity web (located on p. 23) visually displays the user group to activity relationship.


24-hour day// THE STUDENT LIFE ON CAMPUS PARTICIPANT 2

PARTICIPANT 1

12am

12am

24 hrs

12pm THE COMMUTER is a student who does not spend their full day on campus. In most cases their commute time can span anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour. Additionally, their schedule requires a need for performing the activities any on campus student could do at home (i.e. eating, studying, etc.)

24 hrs

12pm THE ON CAMPUS ACADEMIC is a student whom is heavily invested in their academic life and lives on campus. Their daily activies include mostly homework and class with a limited commute. Students with similar schedules have less necessity to be outside.


The diagrams below show the wide variation between the way students spend their days on campus. The student’s perception of campus as “home” makes it the place that they spend 24 hours of their day. Below, the pie charts represent a full day of living on campus. Each student represents different on a small sample of the wide variety of campus lifestyles

SLEEP

EATING

WORK

COMMUTE

INVOLVEMENT

HOMEWORK

CLASS

EXERCISE

LEISURE

PARTICIPANT 4

PARTICIPANT 3

12am

12am

24 hrs

12pm THE ON CAMPUS INVOLVED student spends much of their day on the go. Students with similar lifestyles may not have much leisure time to spend outdoors, but their day is heavily spent commuting from place to place on campus.

24 hrs

12pm THE LITTLE-BIT-OF-EVERYTHING student often has a full schedule, but has time for leisure and exercise throughout the day. This student, in particular, also commutes from another Rutgers University campus. Therefore, their freetime, and inconvenience of going home brings opportunity for outdoor use.


(STUDENTS)

FREQUENCY OF POTENTIAL USERS OF OUTDOOR SPACE

STUDENT TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHEDULES

FACULTY TEACHING CLASS WORKDAY FACULTY & STAFF WORKDAY 180-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE 80-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE 55-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE

12AM

1AM

2AM

3AM

4AM

5AM

6AM

7AM

8AM

9AM

10AM

11AM

12PM

TIME

1PM

2PM

3PM

4PM

5


5PM

SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES IN DAYLIGHT SHORT INTERVALS OF TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AT NIGHT COMBINATION OF SHORTER AND LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT ONE LONG BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT COMBINATION OF LONG AND SHORT BREAK OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT LONGER BREAKS OF TIME IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT

This diagram shows the relationship between the student’s daily schedule relative to the time of classes on Cook/ Douglass campus . The illustration [left] supports the understanding that student’s have versatile schedules including an infinite combination of 55, 80, and 180 minute class blocks. Thus, their schedules provide variety in their amount free time and their potential to spend it outdoors. Additionally, visualizing the campus schedule in a lateral format, helped understand where overlap was an how those times had the potential for peaks in student frequency in campus social space.

6PM

7PM

8PM

9PM

10PM

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS COMMUTING STUDENTS CAMPUS SCHEDULE

11PM

12AM

The research behind this illustration is speculative and based on an understanding of variability in student scheduling. The schedule combinations are hypothetical and represent a model for that potential programs


(FACULTY & STAFF)

FREQUENCY OF POTENTIAL USERS OF OUTDOOR SPACE

FACULTY/STAFF TIME ANALYSIS// A SPECULATION OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BASED DAILY SCHED

FACULTY TEACHING CLASS WORKDAY FACULTY & STAFF WORKDAY 180-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE 80-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE 55-MINUTE CLASS SCHEDULE

12AM

1AM

2AM

3AM

4AM

5AM

6AM

7AM

8AM

9AM

10AM

11AM

12PM

TIME

1PM

2PM

3PM


DULES

TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT AND NIGHT TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES TAUGHT IN DAYLIGHT TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN CLASSES AND A “LUNCH BREAK” IN DAYLIGHT TIME BEFORE AND AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK” TIME BEFORE WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK” ONE “LUNCH BREAK” OF TIME TIME AFTER WORK DAY AND A “LUNCH BREAK”

Similar to the previous diagram, this shows a similar understanding, but from the faculty and staff perspective. Unlike the students, their schedules are relatively more consistent with the exception of over-night staff and instructors/professors. In most cases, these employees participate at work from 9am to 5pm with a typical 1 hour lunch break midday. The information gathered from this illustration allowed for the understanding of faculty and staff in primary need of seating for eating lunch, given it is the biggest use of their break.

4PM

5PM

6PM

7PM

8PM

9PM

10PM

11PM

12AM

POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY POTENTIAL TIME SPENT OUTDOORS BY FACULTY OR STAFF COMMUTING STUDENTS CAMPUS SCHEDULE

As previously mentioned, the information articulated in this diagram is speculative and related to the campus schedule and the typical day of an employee at Rutgers University


ACTIVIT

activites// Social space aims to embrace the social life of people and provide for their everyday needs. It is designed to actively integrate the needs of its users. Therefore, social space does not take on a singular form, nor does it have a list of “must-haves�. These sites are unique to the places they are located and the people they accommodate for.


Leisure describes the category of activities students and faculty/staff do in their “free time”. These activities can include reading, checking your phone, checking social media programs (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.), people watching, daydreaming, etc.

Work Related describes the category of activities students and faculty/staff experience related to work or school. These activities can include, academic school, homework, checking emails, class, etc.

Transportation describes the category of activities and methods for students and faculty/ staff to move around campus. In this case, transportation activities may occur when students go to class, faculty go to lunch, etc. These activities may include, walking to class, biking to class, etc. Often, these activities may be paired with another during their use.

Recreation describes the category of activities for students and faculty/staff involving exercise. This category can include all recreational including both formal and informal actiivies related to exercise. It is important to remember, that recreation is an activity that does not alway include lines on a field. For instance, “kicking around all ball” is just as much exercise as a soccer game.

Eating describes the the selection of activities associated with consuming food. Often, they correlate with the meals of the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), but provide a different essence of the activity based on the user group. For example, this category can include, “grabbing a bite to eat”, “meeting a collegue for lunch”, and “coffee with a friend”.

Conversation describes the the selection of activities associated with consuming food. Often, they correlate with the meals of the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), but provide a different essence of the activity based on the user group. For example, this category can include, “grabbing a bite to eat”, “meeting a collegue for lunch”, and “coffee with a friend”.


PATHWAY

This diagram helps to visualize the relationship between program (daily activities) and place scale. The graphic gives examples of potential campus program and coordinates different activities with the size places needed to engage in them.

WALKING BIKING

DOG WALKING

SKATEBOARDING

RUNNING

In this diagram, the space needed increases as the programs are listed from right to left. This illustration helps the reader understand that different daily activities call for different sizes of space It is important to note that ‘pathway’ and ‘spatial’ node have been isolated in this model. A spatial node, is an area or place to come to rest; whereas a pathway is a place of movement. It is important to understand this comparision when reading the diagram.

RECREATION

GOSSIPING CHATTING MEET A COLLEGUE

SKATEBOARDING

WALKING

DRIVING

SCOOTERING

JOGGING

TAKING THE BUS

BIKING

ROLLER BLADING

CONVERSATION

TRANSPORTATION

ACTIVITES

INCREASING SPATIAL DIMENSION NECESSARY EATING

how people move desirable views versatile paving

LISTENING TO MUSIC

LEISURE

BIKING

EATING

CLASS

FOOTBALL GAME

KICKING AROUND A BALL

THOROWING A FOOTBALL

CONVERSATION PEOPLE WATCHING

SKATEBOARDING

RUNNING

FRISBEE

READING WALKING

SOCCER GAME

HOMEWORK

INDIVIDUAL

ACTIVITES

INTIMATE (2-3)

PATHWAY

SMALL GROUP (4-6) COMMUNITY

PEOPLE

SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPACE

LARGE GROUP (8-15)

CONNECTIVITY

PLACE TO REST PATHWAY BUS STOP

SIZE OF SOCIAL SPACE

FIELD

YARD POCKET PLAZA PLAZA

WORK RELATED


SPATIAL NODES SOCCER GAME

RECREATION

PLAYING CATCH

LACROSSE

DANCING

THROWING A FOOTBALL

FOOTBALL GAME

YOGA

KICKING AROUND A BALL

WIFFLE BALL

FRISBEE

FRISBEE GOLF

TEACHING

PERFORMING

GOSSIPING CHATTING CONVERSATION

MEET A COLLEGUE

INCREASING SPATIAL DIMENSION NECESSARY

TRANSPORTATION

S

PREACHING

STORY TELLING

GRABBING A SNACK

EATING

GRABBING LUNCH

GOING TO THE DINING HALL

GETTING COFFEE WITH A FRIEND

GRABBING COFFEE

EATING PACKED LUNCH

LUNCH WITH A FRIEND

GOING ON FACEBOOK

LEISURE

CHECKING TWITTER

READING

PLAYING AN INSTRUMENT

CHECKING INSTAGRAM

DOING SUDOKU

PLAYING CARDS

BLOGGING

PEOPLE WATCHING

SUN TANNING NAPPING

LISTENING TO MUSIC STUDYING FLASHCARDS CHECKING EMAILS WORK RELATED

GOING TO OFFICE HOURS

READING

DOING HOMEWORK

WRITING A PAPER

MEETING WITH A PROFESSOR

STUDYING WITH A GROUP

FACULTY/STAFF MEETING CLASS


This diagram shows the relationship between activities performed by students Cook/ Douglass campus and the places they most commonly occur. This diagram emphasizes the idea that programs like “walking” can be used for different purposes. Additionally, it illustrates the idea that activies are not always connected to a single type of place (i.e. a soccer game has to be played on a field).

SKATEBOARDING

LISTENING TO MUSIC

PATHWAY

CHECKING INSTAGRAM

STUDYING

TAKING THE BUS

BUS STOP

STORY TELLING

DOING HOMEWORK

POCKET PLAZA


WALKING

EATING LUNCH

YARD

GROUP PROJECT

GOSSIPING

PLAZA

RUNNING

NAPPING

CHATTING

FIELD


SIZE

spatial scale// However, despite the uniqueness of each space’s aesthetic and the user group they provide for, we all experience spatial constants. These are measurements in space that make us feel comfortable. They are not measured, per se, but are inherently known by people, and provide a level of comfort to the user.


NOTE: The dots indicated on ALL MAPS distinguish the social scale of a designated area, or the ‘popularity’ of these places. Larger circles mark existing social areas that are frequently visited by students and faculty/staff users.


2 4 3

1

6 7

5


FIELD SPACE//

USER GROUPS

The “Field” typology can be described as a physical, outdoor, planned social space. Fields, are designed as largescale recreational areas, with a primary focus on physical activity. However, because of their popularity and accommodation of large numbers of students, they have the opportunity to bring people together for other programs such as: large events, performances, outdoor classes, and informal activities. The “Field” typology of social space is most closely related to open space. It can be described as, a large scale softscape that indirectly promotes social interaction through both formal and informal recreation, large events, etc. . On campus, few of these areas are used to their full potential. Both Skelley Field and Antilley Field are very under utilized and others are just used for their pathways. Regardless of their physical condition, much of the human disregard for field space relates to its lack of intimate scale and relative location to high student frequency areas on campus.

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 PASSION PUDDLE 5 RUTGERS INN AND CONFERENCE CENTER (RICC) 2 ANTILLES FIELD 6 RECREATION CENTER FIELD PHYSICAL CHARACTER 3 FIELD BY HICKMAN HALL 7 SKELLEY FIELD 4 FIELD BY GIBBONS

GRASS OPENNESS LARGE MOSTLY SUNNY TREES ALONG THE EDGES PUBLIC USES

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES


2 1 3

10

4 5

6 7 8

9


PLAZA SPACE//

USER GROUPS

The “Plaza” space can be defined as a larger scale hardscape area that inspires social interaction through its proximity to living and learning. This typology, much like the “pocket plaza” can be described as a physical, outdoor, social space. However, unlike the pocket plaza, these hardscapes are typically larger scale. On campus, the plazas that are most successful are in areas of high frequency traffic where students tend to go to relax, eat lunch, study for an exam, etc. However, in some cases, if designed outside a building with less student traffic, plazas can be very unsuccessful and highly under utilized. An example of this is the plaza located in the front of the Recreation Center on Biel Road. Despite the foot traffic passing through that uilding, it is not the place for students to stop and sit for rest, eating, studying, etc.

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER ENTRY PLAZA 6 NEW GIBBONS PLAZA (NORTH) 2 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER SIDE PLAZA 7 NEW GIBBONS PLAZA (SOUTH) 3 DOUGLASS CAMPUS CENTER DINING AREA 8 RICC BACKYARD PLAZA 4 HICKMAN HALL PLAZA (NORTH) 9 COOK CAMPUS CENTER PLAZA PHYSICAL CHARACTER 5 HICKMAN HALL PLAZA (SOUTH) PAVED (HARDSCAPE) PROVIDES BENCHES AND TABLES BALANCE OF SUN AND SHADE FEW TREES NEAR BUILDINGS PUBLIC USES

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES


1 2

9

3 4

10

5

7 6

8


YARD SPACE//

USER GROUPS

The “yard” space introduces a new level of privacy and territoriality into social space. Because of their location in proximity to student residential communities, yard space can be determind as semi-private, softscape areas where students can relax and spend time outside. Currently, the campus conditions leave these ares under-utilized by design with great opporunity for revitilization. The spaces, now, typically are not large enough for the programed “backyard activities” and provide few amenities to inspire students to ‘get outdoors’. From a design perspective, areas like these have great potential to promote sustainable living in students, and they should be some of the first to be analyzed and reenvisioned.

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 ART HISTORY YARD 2 JAMESON YARD 3 FORAN HALL YARD 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER YARD 5 VORHEES HALL YARD

6 STARKEY APARTMENT YARDS 7 NEWELL APARTMENT YARDS 8 NEWELL APARTMENT YARDS 9 LIPMANCOTT YARD 10 HENDERSON APARTMENT YARD

PHYSICAL CHARACTER GRASS (SOFTSCAPE) LOCATED NEAR RESIDENCES PROVIDES TABLES FEW TREES SEMI-PRIVATE USES

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES


1

9

2

6

3 4

8 7 5


POCKET PLAZA SPACE//

USER GROUPS

The “pocket plaza” is a typology created to describe the small gateways or entrances to buildings. These social spaces can be described as physical, outdoor, designed spaces. They are intentional social spaces created to inspire outdoor interaction prior to the beginning to class. Unlike other typologies, the “pocket plaza” typically only provides a few amenities to inspire this interaction (i.e. benches, trash cans, cigarette disposals). However, the success of these spaces is often higher than others because of the convenience they have to the student. Because of their proximity to classrooms, they provide the ability for a student to spend time outside up until 30 seconds before their scheduled class time. On Cook/Douglass campus, these spaces are some of the most successful. Despite there size, the convenient location and proximity to high pedestrian traffic areas makes them highly used. However, although these spaces are successful, they are not the most beautiful or experiential. Perhaps, with improved design, they would be sought out by students and even more successful and desirable than their current conditions.

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 WALLER HALL 2 BLAKE HALL 3 BARTLETT HALL 4 MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCE BUILDING 5 COOK RECREATION CENTER

6 7 8 9

NICHOLAS HALL LIPPINCOTT HALL KATZENBACH HALL LOREE HALL

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

PHYSICAL CHARACTER PAVED (HARDSCAPE) SMALL SIZE LOCATED AT BUILDING ENTRANCE PROVIDES BENCHES PUBLIC USE

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES


8

9

1

7

2

6

3 4

5


BUS STOP SPACE//

USER GROUPS

The “bus stop” typology can be described as a social space that is physical, outdoors, and spontaneous. Although physically designed structurally, its social role in the landscape is spontaneous to its users. Unlike a plaza or recreational field, bus stops primarily receive high volumes of users in short peak intervals. The bus stop social space is unique because it must accommodate large numbers, for short, rhythmic durations of time (until the bus arrives). On Cook/Douglass campus, most bus stops are under utilized as a designed social space. Yes, by default, they promote interaction, but they lack an enjoyable aesthetic quality that could improve experience. They have a tendency to lack the additional benefits of open space and its role in human health and well being.

SPATIAL INVENTORY

1 JAMESON-CABERET THEATER 2 RED OAK LANE 3 LIPMAN HALL 4 FOOD SCIENCE 5 BIEL ROAD

6 7 8 9

HENDERSON APARTMENTS KATZENBACH NEW GIBBONS COLLEGE HALL PHYSICAL CHARACTER PAVED (HARDSCAPE) SMALL SIZE LOCATED NEAR ROADS PROVIDES SMALL SHELTER PUBLIC USES

INTENDED ACTIVITIES

CURRENT USE ACTIVITIES


CONNECTIVITY

The network// Connectivity among social space systems is similar to that of a greenbelt or open space network. As stated by the Sustainable Sites Initiative making sites “user-friendly� is important to their success and usability. It has been clearly emphasized that people will go to places they find convenient; convenience comes with connectivity.


NOTE: This map indicates the social space scales of frequency under the previously determined typologies. This map begins to help the investigator understand where the most popular places are located and how to affectively connect them to increase the success of under-utilized spaces.


connectivity models// Understanding the various ways designers can connect spaces is critical to the design of a “social system”. This study was performed by the current George H. Cook Canidate, Jessie Woods, and myself to understand the different models available for connecting spaces. Each of the diagrams shown explores a different methodology of connecting spaces independent of their popularity and spatial scale. [top left & bottom left] The first model explores the connections between space in a linear model that starts at a ‘beginning’ and terminates at an ‘end’. This model is common when trying to connect the network to a larger context. This model aims to hit each space at least once with limited circular connection.

Single Path Linear System

Primary/Secondary Network System

Single Path Linear System (George St)

Radial Network System

The next model [top right] demostrates the connection between social spaces of high popularity. The system has a series of primary, secondary, tertiary pathways that aim to connect spaces of high, medium and low frequency [bottom right] The final model exploration emphasizes the importance of a circular system around the “social core” of campus with a series of secondary and tertiary pathways connecting the the outer edges of the system. This is an important feature for campuses spaces because the academic areas are more highly utilized than the residential outer edge.


//student CONNECTIONS The diagrams to the left show a variety of student routes on campus. The buildings in red denote academic buildings of high frequency use by users on a daily basis. The data collection process for the high frequency buildings comes from my co-collaborators, Jessie Woods and Rebecca Cook. Together we distinguished these building through a series of platforms including social media tags and indication, student interviews, and personal perspectives. The routes mapped help to validify the theory of the social core and its use in connection of social space


DESIGN


design solution// DESIGN GUIDELINES The analysis of social space is a process that is highly dependent on the core principles organized in this booklet (people, activities, size, and connectivity). Therefore, the design of thesis spaces should be equally as intricate. The guidelines presented aim to take an on-the -ground approach when understanding the location for newly design and redesigned social spaces.

1 CONNECT HOTSPOTS 2 GATHER PEOPLE

CREATE GATHERING PLACES FOR DIFFERENT SIZE GROUPS AND ACTIVITIES

CREATE NETWORKS TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY WANT TO GO

3 CREATE COMFORTABLE PLACES 4 HIGHLIGHT ESSENCE OF PLACE

CREATE PLACES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE CAMPUS CHARACTER

CREATE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO THAT FEEL COMFORTABLE


design solution// REDESIGN CASE STUDY The guidelines presented aim to identify areas of redesign based on an ‘on-the-ground’ student perspective. Areas identified for redesign have are highly active with student traffic. The Douglass Campus Center is the first example of this phenomenon. Because of its activity, the Douglass Campus Center’s uses makes it a place with no backdoor. The movement of students around this building present excellent opportunities for the redesign of existing and the integration of new spaces to promote sustainable living styles.

The diagram to the left shows student routes in relation to the pre-determine “hot spot buildings on campus. From the routes students take, it is clear, there is no “back side” to the Douglass Campus Center.

LEGEND: CAMPUS “HOT SPOTS”

STUDENT ROUTES


The diagram below shows the student activity along the designated routes seen in the diagram to the left. It is clear that they are heavily frequented by students.


design solution// SITE ISSUE IDENTIFICATION This map identifies the surrounding context of the site’s main artery route taken by students. The route connects two of the major transit areas (Jameson bus stop and College Hall) to one of the most highly used lecture halls, Hickman Hall. Along this route their are a wide variety of views, both good and bad, as well as desirable features, and other amenities.

COLLEGE HALL BUS

JAMESON BUS HICKMAN HALL


design solution// SITE IMPRESSION This map identifies re-envisions the route’s context based on the impressions I saw throughout the route. This map exercise was critical to the designation of sites for redesign.


design solution// SITE REDESIGN AREAS The previous exploration lead to potential re-design solutions for two critical sites. The site located on the south and east side of the building are current “eye-sores� for students in their daily routes to Hickman Hall. The image to the right shows these areas in relation to the building, with existing site photos below.


design solution// POTENTIAL SITE-SCALE MASTERPLAN CONNECTION This map shows the potential masterplan connection this site provides for the campus as a whole. By envisioning campus masterplanning from a student “on the ground” perspective designers are able to optimize the efficency and desirability of student routes on campus.

NEW SOCIAL SPACE

REDESIGNED SOCIAL SPACE

NE

W

SO

CI AL

PA TH

AY W

NEW SOCIAL SPACE NE

W

SO

CI AL T PA

HW AY


design solution// PLAZA RE-DESIGN VISUALIZATION

SOUTH SIDE PLAZA VISUALIZATION


EAST SIDE PLAZA VISUALIZATION


ESSONS


DESIGN LESSONS//

PROCESS LESSONS//

The process of this project started with me exploring space on a physical level, similar to the way I explored sites before. I understood scale in dimension and neglected the importance of people in space As I continued in this process, I started to understand the unique qualities to studying social space. Social space is created for people. Therefore, the scale is not about the physical dimension, but the scale of sociability and how it relates to the frequency of people in space. This project was designed to redefined scale as more than a physical dimension but the amount of use by people.

DESIGN PROCESS

DESIGN PROCESS

PRIOR TO GHC PROCESS

SUBSEQUENT TO GHC PROCESS

DESIGN FOR A DESIRE RESPONSE/ PROGRAM

ANALYZE HUMAN ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS

UNDERSTAND EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS EVALUATE SITE USERS AND DESIRED PROGRAMS DEVELOP MESSAGE OR CONCEPT OF DESIGN

UNDERSTAND EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS UNDERSTAND PERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL SPACE RELATIONSHIP TO PROGRAM ANALYZE THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO HUMAN SCALE

SOLVE SITE ISSUES

TRANSLATE HUMAN SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP TO PHYSICAL SPACE

INTEGRATE DESIRED PROGRAM

DEVELOP MESSAGE OR CONCEPT OF DESIGN

OBSERVE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF DESIGN

SOLVE SITE ISSUES PROVIDE NEW AMENITIES TO SUPPORT NEW BEHAVIORS OBSERVE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF DESIGN


WORKS CITED//

Chauhan, Y. & add. authors (2013). Scientific Method. InBritannica Encyclopedia (Vol. Online, p. NP). Chicago, Illinois: Britannica Encyclopedia, Merriam Webster. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from http://www. britannica.com/topic/528929/con (Chauhan, 2013) Curl, J. S. (2006). A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (2 ed.). Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University. Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Washington: Island Press. Howard T. Hall The Hidden Dimension: Hall, Howard T. (1990) Book. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books (Hall, 1990) Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2000). Urban Social Geography, An Introduction (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Martin, D. (2006, April 25). Jane Jacobs, Urban Activist, Is Dead at 89. The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25cnd-jacobs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Lawson, L. (Director) (2014, February 17). Observation and Diagramming.Social and Cultural Aspects of Design. Lecture conducted from Rutgers University , New Brunswick. (Lawson 2014) Sustainability Toolkit: Social Models | asla.org. (n.d.). American Society of Landscape Architects. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://www.asla.org/socialmodels.aspx University of Minnesota. “Glossary.” SULIS. http://www.sustland.umn.edu/design/gloss.htm (accessed April 10, 2014). Vinnitskaya, Irina . “Jane Jacobs: Neighborhoods in Action / Active Living Network.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, 12 May 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/231401/jane-jacobs-neighborhoods-in-actionactive-living-network/>.

Undergraduate Senior Thesis  

George H. Cook Scholar Rutgers University

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you