Research methods/ Thresholds of urbanity

A STUDY ON

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY CP241 | RESEARCH METHODS IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Prepared by:

Rama Husamddine Sonali Praharaj Arezoo Besharati Irene Ho Peter Bosselmann Stella Kim (GSI) College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley December, 2015

A STUDY ON

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY CP241 | RESEARCH METHODS IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

07 Introduction 07 Hypothesis 11 Definitions & Variables 14 Methodology 14 Site Selection 22 Data Collection

4

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

23 24 26 34 42

Field Observations Census Data Site A: Hayes Street Site B: Clement Street Site C: Noe Valley

50 50 54 59 65

On-site Surveys Survey Questions & Methodology Intercept Survey Findings Focus Group Survey Findings Focus Group Ranking

69 70 71 73 76

Conclusion Research limitations & Suggestions Works cited Appendix Sample Survey

ABSTRACT This study investigates the attributes of city neighborhoods that are perceived as urban, and identifies the threshold values of urbanity that make a place seem more urban. The research is conducted in a three-block area in three different San Francisco neighborhoods – Clement Street, Hayes Valley, and Noe Valley. These neighborhoods commonly evoke a general perception of urbanity, despite their varying features. This research attempts to define the features/characteristics that make them distinct from one and other, thus achieving varying degrees of urbanity. Through field observation, site measurements, on-site intercept survey, and focused group survey, several factors have been tested, and proven to influence the perception of urbanity. This research studied vitality, transparency, and enclosure as thresholds of Urbanity.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

5

What one needs to know in order to interpret this scale of urbanization is the point (10% perhaps?) at which it attained a minimum degree of efficiency. And would there not be another significant landmark at about 50% or 40% , perhaps even lower?

Are there, as Wagemann suggested, certain thresholds, marking levels at which self-generated transformations would occur?

“

“

-Fernand Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life

INTRODUCTION Throughout history and theory, Urbanity has always been defined by different scholars in different ways. In Fernard Braudel’s “The Structures of Everyday Life”, the thresholds of Urbanity were questioned, contemplating the degree at which the characteristics of a place make it Urban.

“The truth is that these densely populated cities, in part parasites, do not arise of their own volition.

They are what society, the economy and politics allow or oblige them to be. They are a yardstick, a means of measurement. If they display ostentatious luxury, that is because society, the economy, and the political and cultural order are cast in this mould, and because capital and surplus wealth is poured into them, partly for want of anything better to do with them. Above all, a great city should never be judged in itself: it is located within the whole mass of urban systems, both animating them and being in turn determined by them”.

RESEARCH QUESTION | Acknowledging that variables change with place and over time, what are the characteristics of a place that give people the perception of urbanity?

HYPOTHESIS | Urbanity is perceived when a place has a higher degree of Permeability, Vitality and Enclosure.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

7

INTRODUCTION

Urbanity in Theory/ Literature Review

In theory, the definition of Urbanity is always a varying one, percieved differently from one thoeritian to another. In this introduction, we gathered at the many variables that have been considered over time as defining factors to the perception of Urbanity.

John Montgomery: Defines a set of Principles for achieving Urbanity: (A) Activity Principle 1: Generating pedestrian flows and vitality Principle 2: Seeding people attractors Principle 3: Achieving a diversity of primary and secondary uses Principle 4: Developing a density of population Principle 5: Varying opening hours and stimulating the evening economy Principle 6: Promoting street life and peoplewatching Principle 7: Growing a fine-grained economy (B) Image Principle 8: Legibility Principle 9: Imageability Principle 10: Symbolism and memory Principle 11: Psychological access Principle 12: Receptivity Principle 13: Knowledgeability

Principle 23: Green space and water space Principle 24: Landmarks, visual stimulation and attention to detail Principle 25: Architectural style as image Paul Goldberger: Defines urbanity as the making of public places where people can come together for both commercial and civic purposes.

Fernand Braudel: Defines certain characteristics of Urban places: 1) Urban Places are planned: “The Renaissance marked the first development of deliberate town planning, with the flowering of a series of supposedly ‘ideal’ geometric plans in chessboard pattern or concentric circles. This was the spirit in which the widespread urban development in the West remodelled squares and rebuilt districts acquired from the suburbs. They set down their grid-plans alongside the tortuous streets of the medieval town-centres.”

2) Urban places include vegetation/ landscaping: “ If the town is a revival of the countryside, the city is a revival/remodeling of the town. The urban renaissance from the eleventh century was precipitated by and superimposed on a rise in rural vigour, a growth of fields, vineyards and orchards... Towns grew in harmony with villages and clearly outlined urban law often emerged from the communal privileges of village groups. The town was often simply the country revived and remodelled.”

(C) Form Principle 14: Achieving development intensity Principle 15: Zoning for mixed use Principle 16: Building for a fine grain Principle 17: Adaptability of the built stock Principle 18: Scale Principle 19: City blocks and permeability Principle 20: Streets: contact, visibility and horizontal 3) Material Used: grain “‘Modern’: Dutch brick was already replacing wood Principle 21: The public realm in house-building, a clear sign of growing prosperity.

Principle 22: Movement

8

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

The urban character of these centres where the one, because people have diverse backgrounds; population was still of modest size is clear to see.” people living in urban environments are also less likely to know other people as closely as those in 4) Urban Places are self-developing: rural environments, despite being physically near “Are there, as Wagemann suggested, certain and interacting with more people. Their interactions thresholds, marking levels at which self-generated with other people are “superficial,” “anonymous,” transformations would occur?” and “transitory”. This creates the stereotype of sophisticated, rational city-dweller 5) Services: “ But in a poorly urbanized country, villages had no • Density: Increased density leads to differentiation choice but to do everything for themselves.” and specialization, similar to Darwin’s findings with flora and fauna. Because the demand for space is 6) Economic Activity & Social Status: so high, cities create an environment of specialized “ Such was the region between the Loire and the functions based on area (e.g. place of work becomes Rhine, for instance, or northern and central Italy, disassociated from home); because people interact and certain key points on Mediterranean coasts. with each other so frequently out of necessity, it Merchants, craft guilds, industries, long-distance creates a higher tolerance for difference. trade and banks were quick to appear there, as well Routines are the only thing preventing an environment as a certain kind of bourgeoisie and even some sort of physical closeness without emotional ties from of capitalism.” becoming disorganized and exploitative .

7) An Urban Mindset: ‘Urban consciousness’

• Heterogeneity: Urban environments break down class structures but create their own, more complicated form. Because so many different Luis Wirth: people are living physically close to each other, it Defines Urbanity as dependent on population size, has a leveling influence but also a depersonalizing density, and heterogeneity. one. City dwellers are highly mobile (rarely homeowners), creating fluid social status for a given • Sociological definition of a city: “A relatively group; a person is involved with several groups that large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially each serves a compartmentalized need. Institutions heterogeneous individuals.” therefore must meet “mass requirements”.

• Population size: Great numbers of people leading to a “greater range of individual variation” and increased interaction that will make these variations more obvious; therefore, the diversity of an urban group will have a greater range than in a rural environment • Traits like kinship and neighborliness are likely to be lower in an urban environment than a rural

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

9

VARIABLES

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

Identifiable boundaries Urban network/connectivity access to transit Building materials Built Density fine grain of buildings

Phases of habitation/use over time

Landuses: Mixed use Services Commercial Residential Retail

Physical enclosure building heights, tree foliage & size Perceived street width Public realm squares/ gathering areas Landmark Block size & Permeability Faรงade continuous block frontages, frequency of entrances Architectural elements bay windows, stairs, doorways, thresholds, etc Scale roads, sidewalks Infrastructure street furniture Layering the accumulation of multiple physical elements Variety

Pedestrian orientation Demographics incomes, age groups, ethnicities Population Density residents, visitors Social status of people Mindset Continuous occupancy (day/ night) Vitality Neighborliness Citizen participation sense of community

Property values Commercial activity Type of commercial activity

Constant Variables Variables to be analyzed

10

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

INTRODUCTION Definitions & Variables

Urbanity / ur·ban·i·ty / noun ( Mid 16th century: from French urbanité or Latin urbanitas, from urbanus ‹belonging to the city› )

1 Suavity, courteousness, and refinement of manner. (Oxford Dictionary) 2 Urban life; relating to, or characteristic of a city or town. (Oxford Dictionary) 3 The quality of being refined, courteous, or sophisticated. (Encarta)

Urbanity The making of public spaces which have characteristics of activity, physical setting and meaning.

This quality fluctuates as the diversity of each factor changes, and is percieved differently as it changes and varies over time.

Threshold The magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to occur or be manifested.

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS Permeability The visual and physical penetration reflected by frequency of entrances and transparency of building frontages.

Vitality Vitality is the street character reflected in pedestrian flow and density and mixture of activity.

Enclosure The degree to which spaces are visually defined by buildings, walls, trees, canopies and other elements.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

11

INTRODUCTION Faculty Insights

Faculty accross UC Berkeleys’ College of Environmental design were asked to identify the places in the San Francisco area which they percieved as “Urban”, and what charasterists they recognized as being aThreshold for their “Urbanity”.

building - Victorian box) - A strong sense of physical enclosure due to the height of the street wall and the perceived street width.”

Response 2: HansJoachim Neis “After reading your text on Braudel and urban Response 1: Stefan Pellegrini “ I think it is easy to think about large portions of the threshold value, I am thinking about my last visit in San Francisco Bay Area as at least comparatively downtown SF in Fall of 2013 and what I remember urban. However upon closer scrutiny there are that might apply. actually very few urban places and locations.

One case that comes to mind is the UN Plaza In San Francisco the following comes to mind, compared to the large open civic area in front of followed by what I think contributes to a threshold of City Hall. While UN Plaza felt quite urban with lots of urbanity. These are based on perceptions that differ people and a positive urban space, the large civic plaza ( urban garden, or army space) did not feel depending on my experience of that place: urban at all. But the space behind City Hall and opposite Opera and Davis Hall felt urban again in 1. Portions of Jackson Square and Chinatown: - A very fine grain of buildings that contribute to and spatial and activity terms.” create continuous block faces.

- A clear and visible layering that suggests phases of habitation/use over time.

- A strong pedestrian orientation with a high frequency of entrances and openings at the ground floor.

- Evidence of continuous (ie throughout the day and night) occupancy.

2. Portions of my own neighborhood, Alamo Square historic district and the Duboce Triangle nearby.

- A relatively high density that is for the most part, directly oriented to the public realm.

- Building types that suggest and accommodate different uses and activities within the urban module -storefronts/offices, residences, institutions- with flexibility.

- Strong pedestrian orientation with a high frequency of entrances and a rich vocabulary of visually interesting elements (bay windows, stoops, stairs, doorways, thresholds, etc) - High level of block subdivision that results in a variety of established addresses and orientations including streets, alleyways, courtyards.

- Building types that are flexible in accommodating a variety of intensities and unit configurations (open

12

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

Response 3: David Alumbaugh “It would be easy to take some of the “standard” SF neighborhoods as labs (North Beach, Chinatown, Mission Bay, etc.). But it might be more interesting to look elsewhere in the city. I’m thinking about some of SF’s “urban villages” that are so touted as wonderful places to live within the larger city fabric.

Places that come to mind are Bernal Heights, Mission/24th, Clement around 5th to 7th, West Portal, Inner Sunset, maybe even Dogpatch (lots of new development to assess the effects of), Glen Park. These are some of our less-dense (though high density for the region and much of the US), lower rise neighborhoods that are continually selfreported to be great urban places. They have commercial centers, good density surrounding, more or less identifiable boundaries, and seemingly good levels of urbanity and neighborliness. It would be interesting to learn if those who live there selfidentify with those neighborhoods.(Clement might be more of a citywide/regional shopping street to serve as a neighborhood focus.)

There are others like those that might be problematic for one reason or another: Bayview (too remote and hard to get to for the students), Union Street (too wealthy to be useful as a “typical” study area).”

Response 4: Allan Jacobs “ Unsurprisingly, as an area I would pick the Duboce Triangle area. It has density, street definition, tightness as achieved by the trees, slow traffic on reasonably narrowed streets, parklets at corners, seating, indications of citizen participation.

As a major street try Dolores Street: reasonable density, good long line of trees in center that make it a real place, people, occasional stores, reasonable traffic, maybe San Francisco’s best long major street. Octavia Boulevard is turning out to be a fine street: new density, the small park at Hayes St. is a real neighborhood center and it’s getting better.

The new apartment block at Market Street (by ex student Saitowits) is a good example of how a building can go a good distance to ruin an otherwise fine street. Hayes Street has become more lively and now passes Octavia in activity which was not previously the case.

A number of other good shopping streets that have urbanity would be 24th street from Diamond to Church, Valencia from 24th to 16th, Union Street, Chestnut St, part of Columbus, Fisherman’s wharf area, many more. For another residential area try the streets in the Haight area moving south of Haight Street.

In my note to you last week re SF streets and urbanity I neglected to mention the Bernal Heights area, including Courtland Street: narrow streets, many small houses on small lots, reasonable densities, mixes of uses, nice public realm on Courtland, handles topography well, a sense of community, mixture of people and incomes I think.“

Respons 5: John Ellis “ Urbanity depends on a number of factors and it is not just a question of residential density but a combination of factors including net density, land use, the street and block pattern, access to transit, neighborhood retail, the design of the public realm etc. In San Francisco neighborhoods such as Hayes Valley, the Western Addition, North Beach, SOMA, South Beach, the Tenderloin, Telegraph and Russian Hills are all urban because of the combination of the above elements.

The Marina District is more urban than the Sunset District because of the density of population (averaging 35 DU/Ac) all within walking distance of places such as Chestnut Street. The Sunset District may have a similar net density but it feels suburban since it is essentially car-oriented, there are fewer pedestrians on the streets and fewer pedestrian destinations or neighborhood retail streets.

Hayes Valley, SOMA, North and South Beach etc all feel urban because of the complexity of their block patterns with a mix of street types and widths, midblock alleys etc. The small parcel size also has a lot to do with a sense of urbanity and the multiplicity of parcels also contributes to this sense. For example the South Park block bounded by 2nd, 3rd, Bryant and Brannan has 82 parcels in contrast to the fewer parcels in some of the more industrial SOMA blocks further west. Another feature is the variety of building types with a mix of townhouses, stacked walk-up flats and apartment buildings makes a neighborhood more urban than one that consists solely of single family homes .

The net density of 35 dwelling could be defined as an urban threshold since it results in a continuous street-wall of individual townhouses or stacked walk-up flats in contrast to a net density of up to 24 DU/Ac which can be achieved with detached single family dwellings.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

13

METHODOLOGY Site Selection

The selection of sites is based on the suggestions of CED faculty members. They were asked to list the places in San Francisco that achieve the threshold values of urbanity, or connote the perception of urban. The map shows the potential study areas. Neighborhoods labeled in green - Duboce Triangle, Hayes Valley, Chestnut Street, and North Beach - are repeatedly mentioned among the responses from the faculty. Neighborhoods labeled in yellow are individual sites mentioned by the faculty. Most sites are located in the east part of San Francisco, and are mixed use neighborhood consist of one or more .commercial corridor and residential area with distinctive neighborhood character

14

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

METHODOLOGY Site Selection

In selecting the sites, we intended to choose three places that were each considered individually “Urban”. The distinction in our perspective was the degree of the “Urbanity” when compared to one another.

By focusing on the study of three variables (Vitality, Permeability, and Enclosure) we aimed at colecting data from Primary and secondary sources in order to test our hypothesis.

The first segment of this research focused on data collection, both on-site (Sidewalk widths, pedestrian counts..etc) and from primary resources (GIS, Census..etc). After collecting the data necessary, field observations were carried out (Intercept surveys and focus-group surveys) to study the preception of the variables selected.

Clement St. Hayes St.

24th Mission St.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

15

METHODOLOGY Selected Sites

HAYES VALLEY The selected site is Hayes street between Laguna street on its west and Franklin to its east side. The Octavia boulevard runs perpendicular to this stretch. With the wide range of retail stores, art galleries and restaurants, this particular site is one of the most popular tourist destination in the city. It’s well connected by public transportation with one of the MUNI lines running through Hayes street within the selected section. The Patricia’s green, within the study area contributes additionally to the vitality of the place.

16

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

17

METHODOLOGY Selected Sites

CLEMENT STREET The selected site is Clement Street between the section of Arguello street and 6th street. The section predominately represents Asian restaurants among others which brings a diverse population to this stretch of the site. The street is also famous for its weekly farmer’s market making it a magnet for the locals.

18

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

19

METHODOLOGY Selected Sites

NOE VALLEY The selected site is 24th Street between the section of Noe street and Church street. Laguna street on its west and Franklin to its east side. The Octavia boulevard runs perpendicular to this stretch. This stretch is one of the two bustling commercial strips serving the Noe valley neighborhood. The section has a wide variety of commercial and retail stores, groceries stores, banks- functions essentially for the neighborhood.

20

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

21

METHODOLOGY Data Collection

Each of the three variables was studied by gathering data from on-site measurements and observations, as well as GIS and census data references.

Primarily, a research through census data was made to gain information on age, income levels, and variances in housing tenures accross the sites.

Vitality was measured by recording a typical 5-minute walk along each of the sites. The information from that recording was then represented on a plan, showing the aggregation of people and their points of gathering. The recording also gave footage of the directionality of pedestrian movement, and the noise peaks in decibles along the length of the street.

Additional pedestrian counts were taken at different places of activity accross the sites (e.g.

Parklets, In fronts of restaurants, at public open space.. etc_ To calculate Enclosure, street sections were created for each of the three sites using on-site measurements. These focused on illustrating the street and sidewalk widths in comparison to the tree canopy and awnings, and also building heights.

Enclosure was further studied by taking fish-eyelense photos from similar positions, to see the extent of exposure to the sun. These photos are a useful comparison tool when calculation of the actual canopy is hard to acquire.

For Permeability, GIS was used to study the layout of building grain, barriers, and open spaces in between buildings. To analyze transparency, the elevations of all three sites was drafted with CAD to denote the frequency of entrances along the street facade.

22

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

PRIMARY DATA

FIELD OBSERVATIONS

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

23

SITE ANALYSIS Census Data

The demographic characteristics of each site demonstrates marked differences. In terms of age, Hayes Valley has significantly more young adults of 20s to 40s and less children as well as elderly. Noe Valley, in contrast, has exhibits a reverse pattern with more children and elderly. Clement shares the similar age distribution with Noe, but fewer children are living in the neighborhood.

In terms of housing tenure, all sites have more renter-occupied housing units. The majority of housing units in Hayes Valley and Clement are renter-occupied, and the proportion of owneroccupied units is small. Noe has a relatively even split between the renter- and owner- occupied units, in which renters-occupied accounts for slightly more than half, and the rest is owner-occupied.

HOUSING TENURE

American Community Survey 2009-2013, 5 year estimate

24

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

Almost half of Hayes Valley residents are in the lowincome range, while the proportion of middle- and high-income residents demonstrate a relatively even distribution.

HAYES VALLEY

A quarter of Clement residents are in the highincome range, while the middle- and lower-income residents account for approximately one-third of the neighborhood population respectively.

CLEMENT ST

Slightly more than half of Noe Valley residents is in the high-income bracket, while middleincome residents account for close to a quarter of the neighborhood population, and low-income represent about one-fifth of it.

NOE VALLEY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

25

26

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SITE A:

HAYES STREET

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

27

HAYES: VITALITY

Laguna St

Franklin St

Pedestrian Movement

430m

53

148 People

4

Sitting/ Standing Children

86

Moving

5

Cycling

Weekend -Peak time of pedestrian density 5-7pm (for a span of 15 mins) In front of the restaurant (highest pedestrian concentrations)

198

HIGH PEDESTRIAN DENSITY Highest concentrations are: - in front of restaurants - at pedestrian crossings - near public seating/ open spaces On-street parking creates more activity (people move to/from their cars)

Hayes Valley’s vitality is reflected from pedestrian number and density. During the weekend peak time at 5-7pm, average pedestrian count is 148. Of these 148 people, more than half is walking, and one-third is sitting or standing. 4 children and 5 cyclists are recorded. Pedestrian tend to cluster around restaurant entrances, pedestrian crossings, and public seating as well as open spaces. A peculiar observation of the pedestrian flow is that on-street parking tends to create more activity, since people are moving to and from their cars.

28

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

HAYES: VITALITY Noise

vehicular traffic

intersection

intersection

intersection

- Public Open Space - Pedestrian Crossing

- Corner Restaurant - Pedestrian Crossing - Vehicular Traffic

Noise is highly correlated with the pedestrian flow, as the highest intensity of decibels is where pedestrian density is the highest, i.e., public open space, pedestrian crossing, restaurant entrance. It should be also noted that vehicular traffic also accounts for the noise, as Hayes Valley is in the vicinity of the Central Freeway.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

29

HAYES: ENCLOSURE Tree Canopy / Fish-eye

79% Canopy Enclosure

30

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

HAYES: LANDUSE Usage & Opening Hours

under construction

under construction

park / open space

Opening Hours

LANDUSE Retail and food and beverages are the major ground floor usage, accounting for 90%. The remaining 10% is open space, the Patricia’s Green. No residential or office or services uses is recorded. The long opening hours of ground floor businesses also contribute to vitality, as they draw people to the neighborhood over a longer time span.

ENCLOSURE Hayes Valley has a high number of trees and large canopy enclosure, both by trees and commercial canopies. On average, streets are about 80% enclosed.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

31

HAYES: TRANSPARENCY Elevation Analysis

Hayes Valley has a high level of transparency due to high frequency of entrances (53) and windows on the ground level. Streets of high transparency fosters pedestrian interaction with shops, contributing to vitality. It should be noted that several buildings along Hayes Street are currently under construction, and the number of entrances and transparency measurement will likely to be changed once the construction is completed.

Under Construction

Under Construction

430m

32

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

53 entrances

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

33

34

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SITE B:

CLEMENT STREET

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

35

CLEMENT: VITALITY

6th St

2nd St

Pedestrian Movement

380m

61

114 People

0

Sitting/ Standing Children

53

Moving

0

Cycling

Weekend -Peak time of pedestrian density 5-7pm (for a span of 15 mins) In front of the restaurant (highest pedestrian concentrations)

120

MEDIUM PEDESTRIAN DENSITY

Highest concentrations are:

- in front of restaurants

- at fruit market

- at pedestrian crossings

- near public seating

Clement has high-to-moderate vitality in terms of pedestrian number and movement. During the weekend peak time at 5-7pm, average pedestrian count is 114. Of these 114 people, slightly more than half is sitting or standing, and the rest is walking. No children or cyclist is recorded. Pedestrian tend to cluster around restaurant entrances, fruit market, pedestrian crossings, and public seating.

36

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

CLEMENT: VITALITY Noise

- Ice cream shop Fruit Market

intersection

intersection

- Restaurant Spillout - Pedestrian Crossing

- Restaurant Spillout - Pedestrian Crossing

Noise is highly correlated with the pedestrian flow, as the highest intensity of decibels is where pedestrian density is the highest, i.e., restaurant entrance and pedestrian crossing. Destination eateries such as ice cream shop also recorded high decibels. Vehicular traffic is not a major component of the ambiance sound on Clement..

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

37

CLEMENT: ENCLOSURE Tree Canopy / Fish-eye

NO CANOPY

46% Canopy Enclosure

38

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

CLEMENT: LANDUSE Usage & Opening Hours

Opening Hours

LANDUSE Clement has a diversity of ground floor space usage for neighborhood services and destination eateries.

Retail and food and beverage account for 75% of the usage. 10% is residential, 10% is services, and the rest is education. The opening hours is moderately long, which correspondingly contributes to pedestrian flows, hence vitality.

ENCLOSURE Clement has a low level of enclosure of 46%, as it does not have tree canopy, and commercial canopy is not significant.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

39

CLEMENT: TRANSPARENCY Elevation Analysis

Clement has a moderate level of transparency. It has high frequency of entrances and less windows.

Despite that, the building grain is larger than that of Hayes. Unlike Hayes St as well, Clement has enterances to residential units from ground floor, and has a number of vacant shops.

380m

40

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

68 entrances

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

41

42

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SITE C:

NOE VALLEY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

43

NOE VALLEY: VITALITY

Noe St

Church St

Pedestrian Movement

390m

14

77

People

3

Sitting/ Standing Children

60

Moving

0

Cycling

Weekend -Peak time of pedestrian density 5-7pm (for a span of 15 mins) In front of the restaurant (highest pedestrian concentrations)

150

LOW PEDESTRIAN DENSITY

Highest concentrations are:

- at pedestrian crossings

- near public seating

Noe Valley has low-to-moderate vitality in terms of pedestrian number and density. During the weekend peak time at 5-7pm, average pedestrian count is 77. Of these 77 people, 60 are walking, 14 are sitting or standing, 3 children are recorded. No cyclist is observed. Pedestrians tend to cluster around pedestrian crossings and public seating.

44

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

NOE VALLEY: VITALITY Noise

- Pedestrian Crossing

intersection

intersection

intersection

Noise pattern is consistent with pedestrian flow pattern. The highest intensity of decibels is at pedestrian crossing and intersections. Vehicular traffic is not a major component of the ambiance sound in Noe Valley.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

45

NOE VALLEY: ENCLOSURE Tree Canopy / Fish-eye

55% Canopy Enclosure

46

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

NOE VALLEY: LANDUSE Usage & Opening Hours

Parking Lot

Opening Hours

Parking Lot

LANDUSE The ground floor uses in Noe Valley is more neighborhood-oriented. Retail (35%) and residential (33%) are the major uses, accounting for about 70% of the uses. The remaining 30% is food and beverages and services. The opening hour span of ground floor businesses is moderate, as some of them are services such as banks and post office.

ENCLOSURE Noe Valley has a moderate level of enclosure of 55%, as the tree canopy is relatively small in size and scattered, and commercial canopy is not frequent in the site.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

47

NOE VALLEY: TRANSPARENCY Elevation Analysis

Noe Valley has high level of transparency. It has relatively lower frequency of entrances but the windows on the ground level are relatively larger in size and foster pedestrian interaction with shops. There is also a large number of enterances to residential units.

380m

48

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

45 entrances

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

49

50

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SURVEYS

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

51

SURVEY QUESTIONS & METHODOLOGY Asking the Questions

To verify the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the study, the team surveyed the people of the three selected streets of Clement, Noe and Hayes. Two kind of surveys, Interceptor and Focus group surveys were conducted to capture the varied opinions of the users. Keeping the time of the surveys constant, the surveys were conducted on the weekends between four and six in the evening.

Intercept and Focus group survey A total of 60 Intercept surveys were conducted across the three sites, 20 from each site. The respondents on each site observed and rated individual factors in the survey which contributed to urbanity of the particular site. The respondents for Intercept surveys ranged from younger to elderly people, with a balanced gender ratio. Additionally, a focus group survey of 11 people was conducted who visited all the three sites and then comparing all three together, rated and ranked all the sites. The 11 people were a mixed group of locals and international group and belonged to varied professions.

Survey questions The survey essentially was designed to capture people’s perception of the hypothesized variables which contribute to the urbanity of a place. The survey questions that were asked included question about the respondent’s perception of ‘vitality ‘of the place, ‘permeability’, ‘transparency’, ‘Comfort’ and ‘Scale’ and ‘Enclosure’ within the selected site. The responded were asked to rate each of the questions under these categories through a five-point scale, where one was the least rating and 5 being the highest. For focus group survey, in addition to the ratings, they were also asked to rate all the three sites in terms of Vitality, Transparency, Comfort/ Scale, Enclosures and Urbanity.

The questions of the survey are mentioned on the next page.

52

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

INTERCEPT SURVEYS RATING

(individual sites) x20x3 =60 Surveys

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS RATING + RANKING

(all three sites) x11 =11 Surveys

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

53

INTERCEPT SURVEYS Survey Findings

VITALITY: COMPOSITION OF PEOPLE IN TERMS OF SEX

More Females Balanced mix HAYES ST

CLEMENT ST

NOE VALLEY

More Males

VITALITY: COMPOSITION OF PEOPLE IN TERMS OF AGE

few

54

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

ELDERLY

many

few

CHILDREN

many

INTERCEPT SURVEYS Survey Findings

VITALITY: ACTIVITY & STREET LIFE

1 Active 2 3 4 5 Inactive HAYES ST

To measure the vitality of a place, along with understanding how active a place is, through our initial studies and field measurements, the composition of people in terms of gender and age was also important. Hence to rate Vitality, three questions were asked: Composition of people in terms of gender, Composition of people in terms of gender and how active the street life is. For composition of people in terms of gender, most of the people in all three sites perceived the places

CLEMENT ST

NOE VALLEY

as being more of a gender balanced place. In terms of composition of people as per age, Hayes being one of the location of destination restaurants and Apparel stores, respondents noted younger population. Clement and Noe owning to their more neighborliness character, more elderly population were assessed in Clement and in Noe, more number of children were rated. In terms of Vitality, Hayes was rated as the most active by majority of the respondents.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

55

INTERCEPT SURVEYS Survey Findings

TRANSPARENCY: INTERACTION BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND SHOPS

TRANSPARENCY: NUMBER OF ENTRANCES INTO BUILDINGS

Through the field measurements, some of the factors which were noted to determine the perception of transparency and permeability of a place were building grains, number of entrances into buildings, interactions between pedestrian and storefronts.

Owning to the smaller building grains as studied in field measurements, the highest permeability was rated in Noe and highest interaction was rated in Hayes and Noe. It might have to also do the kind

56

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

of building uses. Since Noe and Hayes offered more retail uses than Clement which had more residential entrances along the street, it might have also influenced the perception of transparency and permeability of the respondents One of the things which were also noted during conducting the survey was the terms “Transparency” and “Permeability” are not intuitive for respondents.

INTERCEPT SURVEYS Survey Findings

PEDESTRIAN COMFORT & SCALE: HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

WIDTH OF SIDEWALK

WIDTH OF STREET

PEDESTRIAN COMFORT & SCALE: LENGTH OF WALK

Height of the buildings at the site, width of sidewalk and streets, perceived length of the walk were the questions included in the survey to understand the comfort and the scale of the place as a factor to contribute to the urbanity of the place. The respondents perceived the heights in mid-range across all sites. Hayes was significantly rated as having a narrow street and sidewalk, whereas Clement, the streets were perceived to be too wide by majority of the people. The perception of the

width might have also to do with the lack of tree line in Clement which makes it appear more wide.

In terms of length of walk, majority of the people in Noe perceived the selected site to be within a 2-8 min walk. Whereas, significant number of people out of the 20 respondents assumed Hayes to be between an 8-15 min walk and Clement to be 5-10 min walk.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

57

INTERCEPT SURVEYS Survey Findings

ENCLOSURE:TREE CANOPY

Clement Hayes Noe

ENCLOSURE: SENSE OF ENCLOSURE ALONG SIDEWALK

Tree Canopy and Sense of Enclosure along the sidewalk were the survey questions asked to understand the important of enclosures as being one of the major theme for contributing to the urbanity of a place.

The intercept survey at the three sites rated highest Canopy in Hayes & Noe and owing to absence of trees in Clement, rated no canopy in Clement. In terms of enclosure, highest sense of enclosure in Hayes & Noe was perceived, whereas Clement was noted to have the least enclosure, which is consistent with primary data.

58

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

FOCUS GROUP SURVEY

RATINGS

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

59

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS Survey Findings

VITALITY: COMPOSITION OF PEOPLE IN TERMS OF SEX

More Females Balanced mix HAYES ST

CLEMENT ST

NOE VALLEY

More Males

VITALITY: COMPOSITION OF PEOPLE IN TERMS OF AGE

few

60

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

ELDERLY

many

few

CHILDREN

many

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS Survey Findings

VITALITY: ACTIVITY & STREET LIFE

1 Active 2 3 4 5 Inactive HAYES ST

Similar to the intercept survey, the focus group was asked to rate the vitality across the three sites. For composition of people in terms of gender, unlike the intercept survey, more number of female population was observed in Hayes and Clement. In terms of composition of people as per age, the survey result was consistent with the Intercept survey where majority rated more children in Noe and more

CLEMENT ST

NOE VALLEY

elderly in Clement. In terms of Vitality too, it again was consistent with the results of intercept and field measurements, where Hayes was rated as the most active by majority of the respondents.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

61

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS Survey Findings

TRANSPARENCY: INTERACTION BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND SHOPS

TRANSPARENCY: NUMBER OF ENTRANCES INTO BUILDINGS

As the intercept survey, the questions asked were number of entrances into buildings and interactions between pedestrian and storefronts to understand the perception of transparency and permeability among the focus group. Consistent with the field measurements, high permeability was rated in Hayes and Clement by majority of the people.

62

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

Highest interaction was rated in Hayes and Clement.

Similar to the case of Intercept surveys, the terms “Transparency” and “Permeability” were not intuitive for the focus group respondents too. The terms had to explained to them on site pointing towards more tangible elements.

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS Survey Findings

PEDESTRIAN COMFORT & SCALE: HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

WIDTH OF SIDEWALK

WIDTH OF STREET

PEDESTRIAN COMFORT & SCALE: LENGTH OF WALK

Similar to the intercept surveys, the height of the distances were perceived similar which is about 5-8 buildings is perceived in the mid-range across all minutes in all three sites. the sites. The perception of the width of street and sidewalk was perceived as the widest across all three sites. Unlike the Intercept surveys, the walking

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

63

FOCUS GROUP Survey Findings

ENCLOSURE:TREE CANOPY

Clement Hayes Noe

ENCLOSURE: SENSE OF ENCLOSURE ALONG SIDEWALK

Consistent with the primary data, the least canopy and enclosure were observed in Clement. The highest sense of enclosure in Hayes and Noe and highest canopy in Hayes was answered by the respondents in the focus group. The sense of enclosures by majority of them were perceived by the tree canopy and width of sidewalk and streets across all three sites.

64

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

FOCUS GROUP SURVEY

RANKINGS

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

65

FOCUS GROUP SURVEY:

RANKING

VITALITY Hayes is ranked as the most active; Clement most inactive.

HAYES ST

CLEMENT ST

NOE VALLEY

4

NOE VALLEY

High

5

Med

2

Low

CLEMENT ST

High

6

Med

3

Low

2

High

Med

HAYES ST

Low

TRANSPARENCY Hayes is ranked as most transparent.

4

5

2

COMFORT/SCALE Hayes & Clement highest comfort.

HAYES ST

Low 1 Med 5 High 5

66

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

CLEMENT ST

Low 1 Med 4 High 6

NOE VALLEY

Low 4 Med 4 High 3

ENCLOSURE Highest enclosure ranked in Hayes. Less in Clement & Noe.

10

8

/11

91% Hayes St

8

/11

/11

73% Clement St

73% Noe Valley

URBANITY Majority of people ranked Hayes as most Urban; then Clement, and finally Noe.

MID

18% 2/11

HIGH

45% 5/11

18% LOW 2/11

HIGH

45% 5/11

36% LOW

4/11

HAYES

CLEMENT

NOE

82% HIGH 9 /11

36% MID

18% MID

Consistent with the primary data and the hypothesis, the focus group across the three sites ranked Hayes for having the highest Vitality, being the most transparent and permeable, having the most appropriate human scale, most enclosed and being the most urban among Hayes, Noe and Clement.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

67

68

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

CONCLUSION After gathering data on-site, and carrying out field observations, we recognize that our hypothesis was proven to be correct, however at varying degrees.

That, in fact, these three variables surely affect the perception of the Urbanity of a place.

Vitality and Enclosure seemed to be directly related to the perception of Urbanity (as theorized

by Braudel). The more active a place is, the more Urban it is. Similarly, the more enclosed a place is, the more Urban it is.

Transparency and permeability seemed hard to comprehend/visualize by survey respondents.

Hayes Street was observed, rated, and ranked to be the most Urban amongst all three sites, in reference to the variables of Vitality, Permeability, and Enclosure.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

69

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS This study focused on only three of the many variables that affect the perception of Urbanity. The influence of these variables may have been affected by the presence of other variables that were not considered as part of the scope of this research (e.g. Public Realm, outdoor seating, usage, etc..).

SUGGESTIONS

To support the findings of this research, future studies can look at other variables that affect the perception of Urbanity.

One very important feature in the Hayes Street site was the intersection of the garden on Octavia Boulevard, giving the public an open space to use and rest in. The presence of a plaza/public The field observations for this study were carried out open space might have had a large impact on the over a certain time period of the week (weekends perception of Urbanity in that site. from 4-6pm) in order retain a consistency of results.

The limitations of this study therefore, only address Ground floor usgae is also a very important variable urbanity for that time frame. However, a site may that must be studied. It was observed that people be Urban in the afternoon, but less Urban in the gathered, and the highest noise and activity was mornings or the evenings. Therefore, it would be that in front of restaurants and food markets. The interesting to test the degree of these thesholds time of day is also directly related to popularity of of Urbanity as the day progresses. That is also usage. directly affected by opening hours of shops and restaurants.

An additional variable that would feed into the findings of this research is one that draws the Additionally, the small sample size of the focus distinction between the users of these sites: group may have relayed inaccurate, or insufficient Residents vs. Visitors. It was noticed that Hayes information . With a larger sample size of focus had more visitors and less residents . For Noe, the group respondent -who would visit and rank all opposite was correct. three sites-, we would have had more accurate survey findings.

A larger focus group and intercept survey sample is suggested for future studies. Finally, clearer One very important finding of this research, is the questions must be asked to the public when asking varied understand of “design/planning” terms for about terminology used by planners and designer. those who are not within the discipline. The terms “transparency” and “Permeability” were vaguely understood be respondents as we carried on the survey, and frequently needed an explanation. In order to get more insightful responses for the variable of permeability and transparency, respondents from a design/planning background may be more suited.

70

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

WORKS CITED Braudel, Fernand The Structures of Everyday Life Bosselmann, Peter Urban Transformation: Understanding City Form and Design. Chapter Three: To Measure Watson, Donald Time Saver Standards for Urban Design Montgomery, John Making A City: Urbanity, Vitality, and Urban Design Bentley, Ian Responsive Envirnments: A Manual for Designers.

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

71

72

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

APPENDIX

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

73

DATA COMPUTATION PARAMETERS

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

CLEMENT

VITALITY Activity/ Street life 1- Inactive 2 3 4 5- Active Composition of people| In terms of sex 1- Female 2 3-Balanced 4 5- Male Composition of people| In terms of elderly 1- Few 2 3 4 5- Many Composition of people| In terms of children 1- Few 2 3 4 5- Many TRANSPARENCY Interaction between shops and buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High Number of entrances into buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High

Comfort/ Scale Width of sidewalk 1- Narrow 2 3 4 5- Wide Q2 Width of street 1- Narrow 2 3 4 5- Wide 74 THRESHOLD VALUES OF Q3 Height of buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High Q1

URBANITY

NOE

HAYES

0 2 7 4 7

0% 10% 35% 20% 35%

0 1 2 9 8

0% 5% 10% 45% 40%

0 0 2 7 11

0% 0% 10% 35% 55%

0 1 17 2 0

0% 5% 85% 10% 0%

0 2 17 1 0

0% 10% 85% 5% 0%

0 3 13 4 0

0% 15% 65% 20% 0%

1 4 4 7 4

5% 20% 20% 35% 20%

2 8 5 5 0

10% 40% 25% 25% 0%

5 10 4 1 0

25% 50% 20% 5% 0%

5 6 4 1 3

25% 30% 20% 5% 15%

0 0 6 10 4

0% 0% 30% 50% 20%

2 9 6 2 1

10% 45% 30% 10% 5%

1 4 6 5 4

5% 20% 30% 25% 20%

0 0 7 9 4

0% 0% 35% 45% 20%

0 1 5 10 4

0% 5% 25% 50% 20%

4 1 6 5 4

20% 5% 30% 25% 20%

1 1 5 7 6

5% 5% 25% 35% 30%

3 2 6 5 4

15% 10% 30% 25% 20%

0 4 9 6 1

0% 20% 45% 30% 5%

0 6 6 7 1

0% 30% 30% 35% 5%

2 2 9 7 0

10% 10% 45% 35% 0%

0 6 7 3 4

0% 30% 35% 15% 20%

0 6 9 5 0

0% 30% 45% 25% 0%

2 7 8 2 1

10% 35% 40% 10% 5%

1 10 8 0 1

5% 50% 40% 0% 5%

1 5 12 2 0

5% 25% 60% 10% 0%

2 8 6 3 1

10% 40% 30% 15% 5%

Q1

Q2

Q1 Q1

Q2 Q2

Q3 Q3

Q4 Q4

Q1 Q1

Q2 Q2

Q1

Q2

Q3

TRANSPARENCY Interaction between shops and buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High Number of entrances into buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High PARAMETERS Comfort/ VITALITY Scale Width of Street sidewalk Activity/ life 1Narrow 1- Inactive 2 2 3 3 4 4 55- Wide Active Width of street Composition of people| In terms of sex 1- Narrow 1- Female 2 2 3 3-Balanced 4 4 5- Wide 5- Male Height of buildings Composition of people| In terms of elderly 11- Low Few 2 2 3 3 4 4 55- High Many Length of walk Composition of people| In terms of children 1min 1- 2 Few 22 5 min 3- 8 min 3 4- 10 min 4 5min 5- 15 Many Enclosure TRANSPARENCY Sense of enclosure along sidewalk Interaction between shops and buildings 1- Less enclosed 1- Low 2 2 3 3 4 4 5- More enclosed 5- High Tree canopy Number of entrances into buildings 1- Overexposed to sun 1- Low 2 2 3 3 4 4 5- Too shaded 5- High Comfort/ Scale Width of sidewalk 1- Narrow 2 3 4 5- Wide Width of street 1- Narrow 2 3 4 5- Wide Height of buildings 1- Low 2 3 4 5- High

1 4 6 5 4

5% 20% 30% 25% 20%

0 0 7 9 4

0% 0% 35% 45% 20%

0 1 5 10 4

0% 5% 25% 50% 20%

4 20% 1 5% 6 30% 5 25% 4 20% CLEMENT

1 1 5 7 6

5% 5% 25% 35% 30%

3 2 6 5 4

15% 10% 30% 25% 20%

0 0 4 2 9 7 6 4 1 7

0% 0% 20% 10% 45% 35% 30% 20% 5% 35%

0 0 6 1 6 2 7 9 1 8

0% 0% 30% 5% 30% 10% 35% 45% 5% 40%

2 0 2 0 9 2 7 7 0 11

10% 0% 10% 0% 45% 10% 35% 35% 0% 55%

0 0 6 1 7 17 3 2 4 0

0% 0% 30% 5% 35% 85% 15% 10% 20% 0%

0 0 6 2 9 17 5 1 0 0

0% 0% 30% 10% 45% 85% 25% 5% 0% 0%

2 0 7 3 8 13 2 4 1 0

10% 0% 35% 15% 40% 65% 10% 20% 5% 0%

1 1 10 4 8 4 0 7 1 4

5% 5% 50% 20% 40% 20% 0% 35% 5% 20%

1 2 5 8 12 5 2 5 0 0

5% 10% 25% 40% 60% 25% 10% 25% 0% 0%

2 5 8 10 6 4 3 1 1 0

10% 25% 40% 50% 30% 20% 15% 5% 5% 0%

0 5 9 6 4 4 6 1 1 3

0% 25% 45% 30% 20% 20% 30% 5% 5% 15%

1 0 7 0 7 6 3 10 2 4

5% 0% 35% 0% 35% 30% 15% 50% 10% 20%

1 2 2 9 9 6 7 2 1 1

5% 10% 10% 45% 45% 30% 35% 10% 5% 5%

6 1 8 4 1 6 4 5 1 4

30% 5% 40% 20% 5% 30% 20% 25% 5% 20%

0 0 2 0 12 7 6 9 0 4

0% 0% 10% 0% 60% 35% 30% 45% 0% 20%

2 0 6 1 5 5 7 10 0 4

10% 0% 30% 5% 25% 25% 35% 50% 0% 20%

10 4 5 1 4 6 1 5 0 4

50% 20% 25% 5% 20% 30% 5% 25% 0% 20%

0 1 2 1 17 5 1 7 0 6

0% 5% 10% 5% 85% 25% 5% 35% 0% 30%

0 3 3 2 14 6 3 5 0 4

0% 15% 15% 10% 70% 30% 15% 25% 0% 20%

0 4 9 6 1

0% 20% 45% 30% 5%

0 6 6 7 1

0% 30% 30% 35% 5%

2 2 9 7 0

10% 10% 45% 35% 0%

0 6 7 3 4

0% 30% 35% 15% 20%

0 6 9 5 0

0% 30% 45% 25% 0%

2 7 8 2 1

10% 35% 40% 10% 5%

1 10 8 0 1

5% 50% 40% 0% 5%

1 5 12 2 0

5% 25% 60% 10% 0%

2 8 6 3 1

10% 40% 30% 15% 5%

NOE

HAYES

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

75

SAMPLE SURVEY Page 1: Rating

76

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SAMPLE SURVEY Page 2: Rating

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

77

SAMPLE SURVEY Page 3: Rating

78

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

SAMPLE SURVEY Page 4: Ranking

THRESHOLD VALUES OF URBANITY

79

DECEMBER 2015