01 Social Performance and POE 02 Canal Park 03 The Process 04 How Did We Do? (Metrics) 05 What Else Did We Learn? 06 Conclusions
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
WHY DO A POE? 1. Rating Systems and the Performance Paradigm 2. Comparing Use with Design Intent 3. Learning More about Park Use and Users in the Contemporary City
PREDICTED VS. ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
USE VS. INTENT
PEOPLE, PARKS, AND CITIES
WHY SOCIAL PERFORMANCE? 1. Central Purpose of Public Space 2. Least Developed in Sustainability Literature 3. Present, but De-Emphasized in Rating Systems 4. Difficult to Develop Metrics
ESSENTIAL TO PUBLIC SPACE
LEAST DEVELOPED IN SUSTAINABILITY LITERATURE “there is no consensus on the definition of social sustainability because this concept is currently being approached from diverging study perspectives and discipline-specific criteria” Colantonio. “Social Sustainability: A Review and Critique of Traditional vs. Emerging Themes and
Assessment Methods.” Working Paper. Oxford Brookes University.
“there is general agreement that the different dimensions of sustainable development have not been equally priorities by policy-makers within the sustainability discourse” Colantonio. “Measuring Social Sustainability: Best Practices from Urban Renewal in the E.U.” European Investment Bank EIBURS Working Paper Series. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development. July 2007.
“Within EIA, the social dimension has been very much the ‘poor relation’” Glasson and Wood. ”Urban Regeneration and Impact Assessment for Social Sustainability” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 27(4), December 2009. 283 - 290.
MINOR ROLE IN RATING SYSTEMS
32/250 POSSIBLE POINTS
SOCIAL METRICS: QUALITATIVE + HETEROGENEOUS SECTION 6: HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Protect And Maintain Cultural And Historic Places Provide Optimum Site Accessibility, Safety, And WayďŹ nding Promote Equitable Site Use Support Mental Restoration Support Physical Activity Support Social Connection Provide On-Site Food Production Reduce Light Pollution Encourage Fuel-Efficient And Multi-Modal Transportation Minimize Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke Support Local Economy
SECTION 2: PRE-DESIGNMENT ASSESSMENT + PLANNING Engage Users And Stakeholders
SECTION 9: EDUCATION + PERFORMANCE MONITORING Promote Sustainability Awareness And Education
CANAL PARK
THE MALL
POTOMAC RIVER
CAPITOL HILL
CANAL PARK ANACOSTIA RIVER
U.S. CAPITOL
THE MALL
CAPITOL HILL THE MALL
SOUTHWEST DC
CANAL PARK
NAVY YARD
NATIONALS PARK ANACOSTIA RIVER
11th STREET BRIDGE
ANACOSTIA
POTOMAC RIVER
PRI 2000
OLIN DESIGN 2009-2011
THE PROCESS
105 QUESTIONS
SITES
RFP
OLIN DESIGN TEAM
Are the entrances easy to find?
6.5
SITES
CIRCULATION/ ACCESSIBILITY/ WAYFINDING
Does the restaurant serve as the primary landmark? Are the park’s spaces succesful at providing rejuvenating and restful experiences? Do people come for the aesthetic experience of planting?
How much noise does the park itself generate?
Does the park feel accessible and open?
How many people attend the farmer’s market?
6.7
MENTAL RESTORATION
Do people feel safe at night?
How are the lawns used? How does use vary with size?
6.8 SOCIAL INTERACTION
Do the fountains and sculptures act as nodes of social interaction?
RFP
Does the park function as a node in an open space network connecting Capitol Hill to the waterfront?
Does the park create places for both social interaction and solitude?
Do people of diverse backgrounds feel ownership over the park?
Does Canal Park serve as the primary open space for the people who live and work near it?
DESIGN TEAM
Is the park being used exibly rather than prescriptively; do people feel free to do what they please?
At the speed tables, are people aware that they’re crossing the street, or do they just wander out?
Does the park have an identity separate from the waterfront?
Is the paved areas in the center of the south block comfortable in summer, or is it too hot?
How many people actually climb up in the lantern on the south block?
How well does the cast in place concrete of the ice skating rink match the unit pavers in summer?
Is the client open to adaptation?
4 METHODS
INTERVIEWS SURVEY
OBSERVATION
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
MATCHING QUESTIONS AND METHODS
10 DAYS, 4 SEASONS
SURVEY
217 SURVEYS | OVER 400 PEOPLE ENGAGED
OBSERVATION: TIMELAPSE + ON GROUND
MONITORING (SOUND + LIGHT) SPOT METERING (dB level) 8/10/14, 1:00PM 62 53
53 56
55
SPOT METERING (dB level) COMPOSITE
59
59
ANSWERS TO 99/105 QUESTIONS
SITES
RFP
OLIN DESIGN TEAM
HOW DID WE DO?
USE
spring
summer
fall
winter
USE: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARISON FOLGER PARK
X PARK
MARION PARK
GARFIELD PARK
YARDS PARK
WINTER WEEKEND: 2/15/14, 9-10am
25
CANAL PARK
YARDS PARK
0
l
na
Ca
s
rd Ya
eld
rямБ Ga
n
rio
Ma
er
lg Fo
X
COLD FALL WEEKEND: 11/3/14, 9-11am
50
CANAL PARK
GARFIELD PARK
0
Ca
n
al
s rd Ya
eld
rямБ Ga
Ma
r
ion
lg Fo
er
X
WARM SPRING WEEKEND: 4/12/14, 10-11am
120
CANAL PARK
MARION PARK
0
Ca
n
al
s
rd Ya
eld
rямБ Ga
n
rio
Ma
lg Fo
er
X
PERCEPTION: SATISFACTION 86% DESCRIBED THE PARK IN POSITIVE TERMS, LIKE: BEAUTIFUL, RELAXING, AWESOME 44% SAID THEY WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PARK “Pretty amazing - whoever designed it designed a really nice spot” “Very elegant for a neighborhood park” “Sexy, no - refreshing” “Adore it. Gorgeous. I would come here all the time if I could.” “A little green haven of beauty” “they should build more parks like this. . .the mind that came up with it. . .”
PERCEPTION: FEELING WELCOME
Q: DO YOU FEEL WELCOME IN ALL PARTS OF THE PARK?
Q: WHO DO YOU THINK THE PARK WAS DESIGNED FOR? NO
DY O B
SUR
E % R
13
T /NO WER% ANS 8
OW
T KN
NO
ON’
7% D
3%
O TH
RY4% E V 3
E
OFFICE WORKERS
E
12%
REN/F AMILI
CHILD
D
O
O
RH BO % H 12
G
EI
N
90% YES
E+ D FIC S OF OO LT RH O U B H D IG 7% A NE G N 8% U YO
ES
6%
PERCEPTION: FEELING SAFE Q: DO YOU FEEL SAFE IN THE PARK AT NIGHT?
12% N’T
DO NO
OW
KN
8%
80% YES
PERCEPTION: SOLITARY AND SOCIAL SEEKING QUIET
ACTIVELY SOCIAL
WHAT ELSE DID WE LEARN?
PEOPLE ARE LAZY
TYPICAL RULE OF THUMB: 1/2 MILE, or 10 MINUTE WALK OFFICE PLAZAS 2-3 BLOCKS, or <5 MINUTE WALK Liebermann 1984 Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris 1992
27% FROM ADJACENT BUILDINGS
36% FROM WITHIN 2 MINUTES
67% FROM WITHIN 5 MINUTES
78% FROM WITHIN 10 MINUTES
DOG WALKERS: 42% WITHIN 5 MIN 100% WITHIN 10 MIN
THE USERS
LUNCH CROWD: 83% WITHIN 5 MIN 100% WITHIN 30 MIN
ICE SKATERS: 88% WITHIN 20 MIN 100% WITHIN 120 MIN
TAVERN: 67% WITHIN 15 MIN 100% WITHIN 20 MIN
KIDS PLAY: 77% WITHIN 15 MIN 100% WITHIN 20 MIN
FOUNTAINS: 65% WITHIN 15 MIN 100% WITHIN 30 MIN
PROGRAM DRIVES SOCIAL INTERACTION
Q: HAVE YOU MADE ANY NEW ACQUAINTANCES IN THE PARK?
Yes 27% YES
No
73% NO
Q: HOW DID YOU MEET? 30%
0%
Ki
ds
Do
gs
s
r Pa
m kE
e ye o l p
g tin t i S
y
vit
O
e th
cti A r
t
ran u sta Re
ng ati k S r Fa
rs me
t rke a M
ain
Fo
t un
ou W
â&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ldn
y sa
Q: HOW DID YOU MEET? 54%
30%
0%
Ki
ds
Do
gs
s
r Pa
m kE
e ye o l p
g tin t i S
y
vit
O
e th
cti A r
t
ran u sta Re
ng ati k S r Fa
rs me
t rke a M
ain
Fo
t un
ou W
â&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ldn
y sa
MARION PARK, CAPITOL HILL, DC
PARKS CAN STILL BE COMMON GROUND
“One of the most significant changes in the neighborhood will be its transformation from a concentration of low-income public housing residents to a neighborhood of low, middle, and high-income residents of diverse ethnic backgrounds. It is the expectation that the future Washington Canal Park will become a common place of gathering for all of the future residents of the neighborhood as well as the significant population of day-time office workers.” -CANAL PARK RFP
700% INCREASE IN INCOME
1999 INCOME: $11,000 Median Household Income 2000 Census, Census Tract 72 2012 Constant Dollars
2012 INCOME: $89,000 Median Household Income 2012 ACS, Census Tract 72 2012 Constant Dollars
Q: DO YOU FEEL WELCOME IN ALL PARTS OF THE PARK?
OW
T KN
NO
ONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
7% D
3%
90% YES
Q: WHO DO YOU THINK THE PARK WAS DESIGNED FOR? NO
%
ER
Y D O
B Y ER 4%
E
SUR
13
T /NO WER% ANS 8
O TH
OFFICE WORKERS
12%
REN/F AMILI
D
O
O
RH BO % H 12
G
EI
CHILD
3
N
+ CE I F OD OF O TS H L R U BO H D G % I 7 A NE G 8% N U YO
ES
6%
EV
Q: WHO DO YOU THINK THE PARK WAS DESIGNED FOR? “I get the idea that this is a space for new residents and new development” “Young families moving into the area” “The modern, urban resident” “Hipsters” “People who shop at IKEA” “Yuppie dog owners and yuppie parents” “Rich white kids” “All white people - wait, don’t write that! I mean, everyone” TOTAL GENTRIFICATION-RELATED: 13%
SELF CRITICAL? “I get the idea that this is a space for new residents and new development” - White Male, 35-44, $75,000 - $99,999 “Young families moving into the area” - [no demographics given] “The modern, urban resident” - Asian, 35-44, $200,000+ “Hipsters” - White Male, 15-24, $100,000-149,999 “People who shop at IKEA” - White Male, $50,000-$74,999 “Yuppie dog owners and yuppie parents” -No demographics given, appeared to be white male in 30’s. “Rich white kids” -Black Male, 35-44, $25,000 - $34,999 “All white people - wait, don’t write that! I mean, everyone” -Black Male, 35-44, $200,000+
<$10,000 INCOME “All ages, everybody” “Everybody” “Everyone: kids, adults, anybody” “Everyone” “Do have a mix of cultures, so everyone, but. . .”
<$10,000 - 34,999 INCOME “People that live here” “City dwellers, very New York style” “Doesn’t discriminate against anyone; welcoming, family-friendly” “Children. For making friends” “Us, I guess. People in the area.” “All people”
Q: WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME?
100-149 35%
50-74
NEIGHBORHOOD
Q: HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY ETHNICALLY? NEIGHBORHOOD
CANAL PARK
CANAL PARK 0 $ in Thousands
Q: HOW OLD ARE YOU? WHITE
25-34 50% BLACK
NEIGHBORHOOD CANAL PARK
0 Years old
CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Well used, but not in all seasons. Program and context are essential. Well received; makes users feel welcome and safe, and provides both social and restorative experiences Achieved many, but not all, of the intended and claimed effects. Some features successful in terms of use and satisfaction, if not speciďŹ c intent The majority of users come from the immediate neighborhood, but destination programming draws from the metro region Program drawing users with dogs and kids contributes most strongly to interactions with strangers Although some users raised concerns about gentriďŹ cation, the park drew a representative sample of the neighborhood and most users perceived it to be opening and welcome to all
NEXT STEPS: ADAPTATION
NEXT STEPS: MULTIPLE PROJECTS
NEXT STEPS: PRE-DESIGN ASSESSMENT
NEXT STEPS: PROTOTYPES AND DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS