LIVING STREETS WOONERF-BASED, PEOPLE-ORIENTED STREET POLICY AND DESIGN FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE
1
STREETS FOR LIVING SETH GEISER
A PROFESSIONAL PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER’S OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN AND MASTER’S OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 2011
PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED TO OFFER DEGREE: DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN EVAN’S SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING EVAN’S SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS COPY OF A PROFESSIONAL PROJECT BY SETH GEISER AND HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY IN ALL RESPECTS, AND THAT ANY AND ALL REVISIONS REQUIRED BY THE FINAL EXAMINING COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN MADE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: NANCY ROTTLE JOAQUIN HERRANZ GARY JOHNSON DATE: JUNE 2, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LIVING STREETS DEFINED Living streets are streets which promote urban vitality by allowing for active, daily use by residents. Through the bending and blurring of automobile travel lanes, space can be shared, speeds can be reduced, and activity can occur. Where empty pavement once sat, people space can be provided. Achievement of living space design requires cooperation by neighborhood residents, private developers, and city departments.
RECOMMENDATIONS: This document contains a series of policy and design recommendations aimed at designing, implementing, regulating, and maintaining livable streets in Seattle.
‘Living street’ is used in this document as an umbrella term which synthesizes design and policy features of woonerven, home zones, and shared space projects.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: »»» SDOT should incorporate a living street designation in the Right-of-Way Improvement Manual.
WHY WE NEED LIVING STREETS Seattle’s center city neighborhoods face three confounding problems: 1. Many streets have excess capacity and inefficiently use scarce public land. 2. Public open space for daily use and play is scant and expensive to provide. 3. An unsustainably low proportion of Center City residents are families with children, in part because of the lack of space required to comfortably and livably raise a family.
»»
DPD should develop a legal and funding framework for the implementation of living streets.
»»
SDOT and DPD should investigate methods for living street residents to engage in the design process and long-term maintenance of their street space.
»»
SDOT and DPD should partner with University of Washington or private firm to conduct study of street quality and resident perception for designation and evaluation of livable streets.
Backed by findings from the great minds of urban planning and international case studies, living street design provides: 1. More efficient use of valuable street right-of-way. 2. Livable, family-friendly neighborhoods by creating public open space directly adjacent to homes that can be used for a wide variety of daily activities. 3. Promotes safety by lowering travel speeds through design. 4. Provides increased opportunity for green stormwater infrastructure.
»»
DPD should coordinate neighborhood plans, zoning designations, and development incentives that promote living street design.
While the document is primarily aimed at exploring how to integrate living street design to Seattle, most of the findings and analysis would be useful and applicable in other city contexts.
»»» SDOT and DPD should develop living street design guidelines that allow for context-specific living street design. »»
DPD should select a South Lake Union EIS alternative that promotes ground-related housing and would accommodate living street design.
CONCEPTUAL STREET DESIGN FOR 8TH AVE N: To show how the policy and design recommendations can be applied to a specific context within Seattle, a conceptual design was developed for 8th Ave N in South Lake Union.
Through context-sensitive site analysis and assembly of living street design features, the 8th Ave N conceptual plan envisions a street that is more than just a thing to pass though, it is also a place to live in.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because of a confluence of development potential and neighborhood interest, 8th Ave N serves as a prime example of how living street design could help anchor an age-diverse and livable neighborhood in a dense, urban setting.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8
PROJECT STATEMENT
LITERATURE REVIEW
CASE STUDIES
Pages 10-12
Pages 13-28
Pages 29-54
The introduction, covering: what is a living street, why this document exists, how it was developed, what it contains, and what it could be used for.
While no one has yet to write the definitive text on the merits of living street design, a great wealth of urban design texts from the luminaries of the field points the way forward.
12 projects, 6 countries. The concept of living streets is seeped in 50 years of physical experiments and adaptations. While no two designs look the same, they all share common features which inform how streets can be better designed.
Some authors mention woonerven or home zones by name, while others simply describe the features which define living street design. All agree that streets should be for more than the most banal of transportation needs; that street space should be used for enjoyable activity, for daily recreation and interaction, for living in.
From a trove of living streets scattered across the globe, a sampler of model cases is provided to show what can be done when streets are designed for activity and life.
POLICY
DESIGN
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Pages 55-64
Pages 65-74
Pages 75-98
Baseline facts exist which define the streetscape problems our city must overcome and inform the set of solutions available. Simply put, people need room to do things and the space they need, in an urban context, is limited and precious.
As the history of woonerf and home zone projects has been one of context-sensitivity, there is a wide range of ways to take the core design elements and rearrange them.
As a culmination of the project, a conceptual living street design has been prepared which provides a sense of what a living street could look and feel like.
Acknowledging this, a menu of configuration options and design features is provided. From this, future planning efforts can assess the context of the street considered for living street design and use the menu to begin conceptual design work.
Should the proposed recommendations be implemented, this conceptual design can serve a visual example of the sorts of changes that can be made to streetscape design in Seattle.
The first step to resolving this dilemma is acknowledging the physical, perceptual, and regulatory barriers to living streets. Research and analysis wouldn’t be much without investigating where gained insight leads. To that end, recommendations focus on setting up the procedural and funding system required to locate, plan, and implement living street upgrades.
CONCLUSION Pages 99-106 Wrapping everything up, this section looks back at what has been presented and what remains to be done. This project can start the process of implementing living street design, but it’s going to have to be carried by others.
Recommendations are then provided which key on the physical elements essential to the living street form.
F
9
WHAT IS ‘LIVING STREETS’ ?
10
PROJECT STATEMENT
This document is three things: 1. A Primer on the History of Living Street Design, compiling the best written and built studies on the subject 2. A Proposal for the City of Seattle, offering analysis and recommendations on how to implement living street design 3. A Vision of Living Street Design, rendering policy guidelines into a conceptual design project
WHAT IS THE PROJECT’S PURPOSE? The purpose of this document is threefold: 1. To question our status quo design that sees streets as things to pass through, not spend time in. By marginalizing pedestrians, limiting them to the edges of the street, existing street design works contrary to many of our sustainability and livability-oriented goals and policies. It is this document’s contention, backed by literature review and case study, that street space can, and should, be better designed to encourage daily use and social interaction. 2. To offer a solution to the imbalance of supply and demand of usable space in the urban context. For lightly trafficked streets, large swaths of potentially usable public space sit underutilizied, while, at the same time, urban residents find themselves with relatively small living spaces and scarce public open space. Living streets provide an elegant solution to this imbalance and provide a great deal of positive effects to urban livability.
3. To spare others the trouble of hunting down the disjointed and dispersed information on living streets. This project began as a design exploration for a single street. It has since expanded to become a primer on the history and justification for living streets. While conducting research, I was stymied by the fact that no one has yet written the definitive, or even decent book, on living streets. Instead, the concept and characteristics of living streets are scattered across sixty years, under differing names through the footnotes of reports and legislation. Finding out what a living street is, what it looks like, and how to make one was a frustrating process.
WHAT DOES THE TERM ‘LIVING STREETS’ MEAN? Living streets are streets which promote urban vitality by allowing for active, daily use by residents. Through the bending and blurring of automobile travel lanes, space can be shared, speeds can be reduced, and activity can occur. Where empty pavement once sat, people space can be provided. Achievement of living space design requires cooperation by neighborhood residents, private developers, and city government. ‘Living street’ is used in this document as an umbrella term which synthesizes design and policy features of woonerven, home zones, and shared space streets. Each of the three types offer something critical to the living street concept, but all have flaws which make them difficult to adapt to the Seattle context individually. Since woonerf is a 50 year old concept, it has been modified and adapted over the years to the extent that the original version is no longer quite the same as the modern interpretation. Much like the terms ‘sustainable’ or ‘green’,
Woonerf, as a concept, has been diluted and the potential for misunderstanding is present. Woonerf, itself, is an ungainly term, roughly translated as ‘living yard’, that is not initially discernible nor widespread in its use.
document is intended to be legible to transportation engineers, design professionals, and people who simply use streets in their daily lives.
As a derivative of woonerf design, the Home Zone is a uniquely British take on streetscape design. As it stands codified, tailored to the specifics of British law, simply copying and pasting Home Zone regulations into Seattle code would be problematic. The term ‘Home Zone’ evokes a clearer understanding of its purpose than does woonerf, yet still doesn’t fully encapsulate living street design.
2. Utility: Related to the previous point, this document was designed to be used. Not as a plan for a specific street in intricate detail nor as a theoretical broadside against autodominated street design that will sit in polite obscurity on some shelf, Streets for Living is instead a platform for further investigation into and implementation of living streeets. Each section can be taken and used to inform, implement, or inspire.
Finally, shared space is the most current design type adapted within living streets, but is too specific to stand alone. By focusing primarily on the removal of signage and physical barriers to mode mixing, shared space misses the daily use component of woonerven and the community involvement aspect of Home Zones. Shared spaces can also be applied in contexts, such as heavily trafficked arterials, where living street design would be inappropriate.
That may seem a touch bold, but it has become my belief that living street design is not just some fancy that cities should toy with in order to beautify a street (though it can help), but that it is a critical tool in fostering a sustainable, livable neighborhood in places of urban density. It is my desperate hope that this document, in some way great or small, helps shift the mindset that streets are for the enjoyment of life, not just the moving of things.
So ‘living street’ serves to combine positive features from woonerven, Home Zones, and shared space while providing a new concept that can be implemented in Seattle’s context. The term is also gaining in use in the US and abroad.
WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH THE ‘LIVING STREETS’ PROJECT?
HOW WAS THE ‘LIVING STREETS’ PROJECT DEVELOPED? ‘Streets for Living’ is designed with two characteristics: 1. Digestibility: Streetscape policy and design can be a very dry and obtuse subject, interesting and understandable only to transportation wonks, especially when in the form of an academic degree project. To the extent possible, this
To anyone reading, please shamelessly take anything you find useful and run with it. Run as far as you can, because, for the most part, we deserve better than the streets we’ve been given and the streets we continue to build. Share it, adapt it, realize it. That’s all I ask. Now, on to the project...
11
12
LITERATURE REVIEW Life Between Buildings - Jan Gehl Livable Streets - Donald Appleyard The Forgotten Child - Henry L Lennard The Death and Life of Great American Cities - Jane Jacobs Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities - Eran Ben Joseph Image of the City- Kevin Lynch The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces - William H Whyte Housing as if People Mattered - Clare Cooper Marcus
LR1 LR2 LR3 LR4 LR5 LR6 LR7 LR8
13
14
“LIVING CITIES, THEREFORE, ONES IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER, ARE ALWAYS S T I M U L A T I N G BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH IN EXPERIENCES, IN CONTRAST TO LIFELESS CITIES, WHICH CAN SCARCELY AVOID BEING POOR IN EXPERIENCES AND THUS D U L L NO MATTER HOW MANY COLORS AND VARIATIONS OF SHAPE IN BUILDINGS ARE INTRODUCED.” - JAN GEHL
LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS Gehl’s findings and views in this text stem from his statement that “Life in buildings and between buildings seems in nearly all situations to rank as more essential and more relevant than the spaces and buildings themselves.” Planners and architects, he argues, focus too much attention on the buildings and large scale plans of the city, while neglecting the spaces between buildings where the majority of public life actually takes place. In the below graphic, Gehl notes that for activities residents find necessary, the quality of the space has little impact on whether or
LR1
not they visit the space. For optional activities, those spent at leisure with family and friends, the quality of space has a significant impact on where the activities take place. For this reason, any space where people are encouraged to linger in, whether for play, conversation, or simple people watching, careful attention should be applied in the design of the space. Gehl recommends looking at use of space holistically, in terms of time spent, not just number of people moving through. He argues “The number of people or events does not in itself give a real indication of the activity level in an area, because actual activity, life between buildings as it is experienced, is equally a question of duration of stays outdoors. This implies that a high level of activity in a certain area can be stimulated both by ensuring that more people use the public spaces and by encouraging longer individual stays.” It is this ability to linger in the public realm that Gehl advocates. To achieve these quality urban spaces, Gehl offers thoughts and principles to keep in mind on street form, building edge zones, play of children and site planning. Gehls’ thoughts on these topics are especially pertinent for development of living streets in Seattle.
JAN GEHL “Something happens because something happens because something happens.” 15
LR1 “A summary of observations and investigations shows that people and human activity are the greatest object of attention and interest. Even the modest form of contact of merely seeing and hearing or being near to others is apparently more rewarding and more in demand than the majority of other attractions offered in the public spaces of cities and residential areas.”
16
LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS On Street Design “Winding or interrupted streets make pedestrian movement more interesting…a walking network with alternating street spaces and small squares often will have the psychological effect of making the walking distances seem shorter.” “Woonerf principles of slow vehicular traffic in predominantly pedestrian and bicycle streets represent a remarkable improvement compared with the situation commonly found in city streets.” On Edge Zones “The edge zone offers a number of obvious practical and psychological advantages as a place to linger. Additionally, the area along the façade is the obvious outdoor staying area for the residents and functions of the surrounding buildings. It is relatively easy to move a function out of the house to the zone along the façade.” “It is important that it is easy to go in and out of dwellings. If the passage between indoors and outdoors is difficult – if it necessary, for example, to use stairs and elevators to get in and out – the number of outdoor trips drops noticeably”
“Life between buildings can be supported further if opportunities for staying outdoors are offered in the form of a semiprivate front yard placed in the transitional zone between the dwelling and the access street.” “To improve the quality of the outdoor environment in an area by simple means, it is almost always a good idea to create more and better opportunities for sitting.” On Children’s Play “Generally, play is not arranged. It evolves when children are together, when they see others at play, when they feel like playing and ‘go out to play’ without actually being certain that play will get started. The first prerequisite is being in the same space. Meeting.” “Being able to see what is going on in public spaces can also be an element of invitation. If children can see the street or playground from their homes, they can also follow what is happening and see who is outside playing. They then are more motivated to go out and play, in contrast to the children who cannot see what is going on because they live too high up or too far away.”
LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS “It is nearly always more interesting to be in small spaces, where both the whole and the details can be seen – one has the best of both worlds…whenever in doubt, leave some space out.” TO ASSEMBLE
TO INTEGRATE
OR DISPERSE
OR SEGREGATE
“In these woonerf areas, automobiles are permitted to drive right up to the front doors but the streets are clearly designed as pedestrian areas...cars are guests in the pedestrian domain. The concept of integrating automobile traffic on pedestrian terms offers considerable advantages over methods that segregate traffic.” “It is [important] that in public spaces in residential areas there are not only opportunities for walking and sitting, but also opportunities to act...This should be supplemented preferably with possibilities for taking small, daily domestic activities, such as potato peeling, sewing, repair jobs, hobbies, and meals, out into the public spaces.”
TO INVITE
OR REPEL “One of the reasons why relatively few activities take place in front of houses in many residential areas is undoubtedly that suitable places for outdoor stays are lacking precisely where it would be most natural to have them - at the entrance or at places where it is equally easy to enter and exit.”
TO OPEN UP
OR CLOSE IN
LR1
“It is, quite simply, of utmost necessity to be very careful with every single square foot of facade or pedestrian route.” 17
LIVABLE STREETS
LR2 In the wake of surveys conducted as part of San Francisco’s 1969 Urban Design Plan, Appleyard wrote Livable Streets as an examination of the results of those surveys and their implications on how livable streets function.
DONALD APPLEYARD “In many communities, streets are overdesigned for the traffic they have to carry. There is a great deal of spare fat in many residential street systems, and at low traffic levels street space can be shared between slowmoving vehicles and pedestrians.” 18
By combining the findings of a physical quality survey of street blocks and an attitudinal survey of residents, Appleyard found that use and perceptions about streets tended to match the level of traffic on each street. Dividing them into Light (2,000 cars/ day), Medium (8,700 cars/day) and Heavy (15,750 cars/day), his findings were that pedestrian activity and sense of ownership was inversely related to traffic volumes. On ‘Light’ street, residents reported more social interaction with neighbors, felt safer from collisions and crime, and were more likely to spend time outside. On ‘Heavy’ street, the noise seemed worse, the air seemed dirtier, and children were less present. On the subject of children, Appleyard channels Jane Jacobs stating that “As a domestic hearth, the street offers a place for children living up and down the block to meet, gather, and pursue their activities in a territory which is neither strictly supervised by parents, yet not completely disassociated from their watchful gaze” Noting the potential for socialization and activity, Appleyard argues that residential streets should be designed so that people of all ages feel safe and welcome.
To this end, Appleyard attempts to envision what the ideal residential street would look like. To achieve this vision, he proposes a ‘Charter of Street Dwellers’ Rights’
Livable Streets Action Items From Appleyard’s findings, there are some pertinent action items that could be beneficial for the development of Living Streets, and streets in general, in Seattle: » Conduct a physical and attitudinal survey of street blocks within Seattle to assess the quality of existing street infrastructure and to identify which streets would benefit from living street upgrades » Address right-of-way norms and regulations in residential areas to provide equal standing for all modes of traffic » Design and regulate streets with the “Street Dwellers’ Rights” in mind (see page 18) » Limit speeds on residential streets to 15-20 mph through design features
LIVABLE STREETS
“On Light Street, inhabitants were found to have three times as many local friends and twice as many acquaintances as those on heavy street...there was a marked difference in the way these streets were seen and used, especially by the young and the elderly...Front steps were used for sitting and chatting, sidewalks for children playing, and for adults to stand and pass the time of day.”
LR2
“Life on light street...was in some ways idyllic. Residents were much more engaged in the street. They saw it as their own territory. Their children played on the sidewalk and in the street. ...and they were generally much more aware of its detailed qualities. The contrast between the two streets was striking. On the one hand alienation, on the other friendliness and involvement.”
“As with the woonerf, we may seriously have to consider changing the right-ofway rules in residential neighborhoods. At the present time, drivers believe they have the right of way on even the quietest residential street. Until this attitude is changed, livability and safety will be in jeopardy. “ 19
LIVABLE STREETS
LR2 “The protection and creation of livable streets is not simply a matter of increasing the comfort or safety of urban living. The street has other functions. As the place where most children grow up, it is a crucial mediator between the home and the outside world, where the child learns to confront strangers and environments on his own. It should be a receptive and reasonably safe environment that the child can explore, manipulate, and use as a setting for all kinds of activities.”
20
A CHARTER OF STREET DWELLER’S RIGHTS 1. Street as a safe sanctuary: “Streets on which children grow up should be safe... Drivers of cars, delivery vans and other vehicles should understand that they are in a pedestrian territory when traveling on these streets, and should therefore move slowly, carefully and with warning.”
5. Street as a place for play and learning “Since the street is where many children spend by far the largest amount of their time outdoors, it should be a fine place to play... Learning about the larger city depends on their freedom to roam safely in their neighborhood”
2. Street as a livable, healthy environment “[Street dwellers] should not be forced to withdraw from the street because of discomforts caused by traffic. The street environment should have places where people can sit, converse, and play”
6. Street as a green and pleasant land “Trees, grass, plants, and flowers not only provide relief from the hardness and greyness of the city, they provide shade in the summer and remind people of the natural environment which is often far away.”
3. Street as a community “Streets should be places where communal life is possible, where it can happen if street dwellers want it to... street communities can not only reduce the anomie of urban life, they can encourage street activities, keep the street clean, and engage in common action.” 4. Street as a neighborly territory “The street should become in a symbolic, if not a legal sense, territory that the residents feels belong to them”
7. Street as a unique historic place “People take pride in places that have a special identity... and its present history can be recorded were residents able to begin seeing it as a ‘place’ rather than a ‘channel’.”
THE FORGOTTEN CHILD Lennard’s prime contention is that well designed urban places not only provide space for children to grow up, but can allow children to grow up better.
for outdoor cafes and restaurants, ensuring public presence on the street, and opportunities for a sense of community to develop”
By exposing children to the complexity of movement and commerce, diversity in race, culture, economics, and age, they become better equipped to deal with the complexity of life and to become socially-integrated people.
Lennard ends his text imploring “twenty-first century architects and urban planners [to] have the courage and vision to create a meaningful urban environment that accepts children as integral participants in the social world; that encourages playfulness, curiosity, and discovery; that emphasizes cooperation and interdependence over isolation and independence; and that respects the best qualities of the cultural heritage of the built environment”
For this reason, Lennard recommends that norms about where children play should be reenvisioned. “Sandboxes, swings and slides inside chain link fences are no substitute for playing on a traffic free street where children can be a part of the everyday life of the city. Ideally, the whole city should be usable as a playground. In the city-as-playground, children redefine ordinary objects – steps, walls, bollards, posts and rails – as elements in their play…all of these activities occur within sight of adults carrying on their daily lives, and the child is free to move back and forth between play and playful interaction with adults.” In the direction of universal use of the public realm, Lennard advocates the German Wohnstrasse, “where parking is available only to residents, through traffic is impossible, and vehicles must travel slowly and give way to pedestrians and playing children. Many are repaved with stone paving, and planted with trees and climbing plants, and have blossomed as public parlors for people to meet, and as locations
Benefits of the city as playground: » » »
Everyday components of street design can double as play space and equipment, saving the need for dedicated playground space Broadly defined play spaces are more likely to be used as adult recreation spaces as well Children are able to experience active street life instead of just protected child spaces
LR3
HENRY L LENNARD “Beauty is important to every child, perhaps especially to disadvantaged children. And yet, in the twentieth century, we have permitted cities to evolve with vast areas that are so ugly that, if we can, we adults flee the city as fast as our cars will take us, leaving the poor, and the children of the poor to bear them as best as they may”
21
LR4
THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES In a section titled, “The uses of sidewalks: assimilating children”, Jacobs argues that children can passively learn about how to integrate with their neighborhood while playing in the streets and observing the daily activities of adults. Instead of being isolated in bedrooms or playgrounds, children should be allowed to play in and around the general life on the street.
JANE JACOBS “You can’t make people use streets they have no reason to use. You can’t make people watch streets they don’t want to watch. Safety on the street by surveillance and mutual policing may sound grim, but in real life it is not grim. The safety of the street works best, most casually, and with least frequent taint of hostility or suspicion precisely where people are using and enjoying the city streets voluntarily and are least conscious, normally, that they are policing”
22
Jacobs claims “There is no point in planning for play on sidewalks unless the sidewalks are used for a wide variety of other purposes and by a wide variety of other people too...If sidewalks on a lively street are sufficiently wide, play flourishes mightily right along with other uses.” In supportive coexistence, active daily use of streets by children at play and adults at work and leisure provide at once both security in numbers and neighborhood vitality. In general, she argues that compact retail use on the ground floor with housing above is the ideal form for encouraging this active street life. When retail is not available (such as in plans for groundrelated housing on 8th Ave N), active spaces should be provided in the street right-of-way to encourage residents to spend time outside.
Three main qualities for successful neighborhood streets: » First, there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space. Public and private spaces cannot ooze into each other as they typically do in suburban settings. » Second, there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those who we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on the street equipped to handle strangers and to insure that the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind. » Third, the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street. Almost nobody does such a thing. Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity.
STREETS AND THE SHAPING OF TOWNS AND CITIES
LR5
While much of Ben-Joseph’s text is oriented towards solving flaws in suburban forms of residential streets, many of the principles can be adapted nicely to the 8th Ave N setting. Ben-Joseph argues that street standards, and the norms embedded within them, have a great impact in how we build and perceive the built environment. This being the case, he suggests that street standards be revised to make residential streets more livable, safer, and equitable. Specifically, he recommends the shared street model as an intelligent option to pursue.
Design Characteristics of Shared Streets
» Through traffic is discouraged » Paved space is shared, with pedestrians having priority over the entire street » Walking and playing are allowed everywhere » Entrances are clearly marked » No conventional, straight stretches of pavement with raised curbs » The pavement and sidewalk are not rigidly demarcated » Car speed and movement are restricted by physical barriers and deviations, bends and undulations » The area has extensive landscaping and street furnishings
ERAN BEN-JOSEPH “Shared streets establish a socIal milieu and make the street a mixed-use public domain as it was prior to mass ownership of the automobile. They are especially supportive of children’s activities, providing more play options and social contact within a safe home-base territory.” 23
LR5
Criteria for Improved Street Standards
STREETS AND THE SHAPING OF TOWNS AND CITIES appropriate furniture should be provided for the activities.
5. Differentiate streets by function and scale. 6. Relate street design to the natural and historic setting.
3. Provide a well-connected, interesting 1. Support varied uses of residential streets including children’s play and adult recreation. pedestrian network. An ideal path system is 7. Conserve land by minimizing the amount of Streets should reflect a pedestrian orientation, explorable, offering new experiences. land devoted to vehicular movement. rather than just facilitate vehicular movement. 4. Provide convenient access for people who live on the street, but discourage through 2. Design and manage street space for the traffic. The street system should provide access comfort and safety of residents. Walking and to all dwellings in a logical way. Speeds should playing surfaces should be comfortable, and be below 20 mph.
24
IMAGE OF THE CITY In developing a program and design for a space, Lynch advocates for an anticipation of user needs and qualities so that form and function of a space align with the sort of people who are intended to use the space. In addressing the habitability of a space - that is, the likelihood that it will be made use of by residents Lynch lists four criteria: Sense “Places should have a clear perceptual identity: be recognizable, memorable, vivid, engaging to our attention...places play a part in the intellectual and emotional development of the individual, particularly in childhood, but also in later years.” Fit “A good user environment supports purposeful behavior; it makes a good fit with user actions... one needs to know what people actually do and also what they experience and plan.” Access “The degree to which users can reach other persons, services, resources, information or places...one needs to know the access that users consider adequate or optimum, including what it is they most want access to.”
LR6
Control “The ideal environment is one controlled in all its essential respects by those who use it, who thereby have the greatest stake in its quality and are most familiar with its requirements...The site designer seeks to encourage responsible control by the actual user.”
Notes on Spaces for Children
“It is better to distribute a varied set of play opportunities in many locations rather than to concentrate them in one area.” “The grounds of a housing site are, for many of its residents, the most important setting for social life. Children are not only the most committed group of users but also the brokers for many adult friendships.” “Parking areas will be hockey arenas, baseball diamonds, and basketball courts. Retaining walls will be climbed and walked upon, benches will be stages, and flowerbeds will be ideal for earthworks...all this can be restrained by strenuous adult supervision, but it is preferable to design the site to withstand the assault.”
KEVIN LYNCH “An environment which is ordered in precise and final detail may inhibit new patterns of activity.”
25
LR7
THE SOCIAL LIFE OF SMALL URBAN SPACES Starting as a time study of activity in New York City plazas, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces turned out to be a seminal study on how and why space is used in the city.
WILLIAM H WHYTE “We have given a disproportionate amount of our street space to vehicles, and the time has come to start giving some of it back to the pedestrians from whom it was taken.” 26
By observing the patterns of people in space as they react to each other, amount of sunlight, time of day, and space design, Whyte came across profound understandings about basic human nature. The power of these observations are their simple, almost common-sense nature. On Play “It is often assumed that children play in the street because they lack playground space. But many children play in the streets because they like to.” “The street itself was the play area. Adjoining stoops and fire escapes provided prime viewing across the street and were highly functional for mothers and older people.” Why People Go Where They Go “What attracts people most, it would appear is other people. If I belabor the point, it is because many urban spaces are being designed as if the opposite were true.” “People tend to sit most where there are places to sit…Ideally, sitting should be physically comfortable – benches with backrests, well-contoured chairs.
It’s more important, however, that it be socially comfortable. That means choice: sitting up front, in back, to the side, in the sun, in the shade, in groups, off alone. Choice should be built into the basic design.” On Open Space “The area where the street and or plaza or open space meet is a key to success or failure. Ideally, the transition should be such that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.” “I end, then, in praise of small spaces. The multiplier effect is tremendous. It is not just the number of people using them, but the larger number of people who pass by and enjoy them vicariously, or the even larger number who feel better about the city center for knowledge of them. For a city, such places are priceless, whatever the cost.”
HOUSING AS IF PEOPLE MATTERED Noting the poor performance of high-rise and suburban development for the space needs of families with children, Marcus wrote Housing as if People Mattered as a design treatise on how to properly design and site low-rise, high-density housing. While the majority of the document focuses on proper building form and site layout, Marcus recognizes the crucial link between the home and public open space. Specifically for children, it is crucial that the public realm works to provide spaces for exploration, socialization, and play in a way that is acceptably safe. To this point she specifically mentions adapting living street design principles to provide the sorts of public spaces that she believes people require “The relatively new solution of mixer courts in Britain or woonerfs in the Netherlands may be a satisfactory compromise between total vehicularpedestrian segregation and the traditional street. Cars are allowed access right up to the dwelling, but they must pass through a zone where paving, landscaping, and layout clearly indicate that the space is primarily for pedestrians, thus slowing the car to a walking pace and strongly reducing the likelihood of accidents to children, the physically disabled, or the frail elderly.”
LR8
THE BASIC NEEDS OF CHILDREN FOR PUBLIC SPACE 1. Children need safe, uninhibited outdoor play for their physiological and mental health 2. Parents need to be able to allow their children outside without constant, close supervision 3. The environment around children’s homes needs to be safe from traffic, pollution, and unnecessary physical and social hazards 4. Children should be able to experience the pleasures of finding bugs, picking leaves, smelling flowers, collecting things, and so on without their parents or the management harassing them. 5. Children need to create private spaces for themselves (for example, tree houses, forts, or clubhouses) on wild or unmaintained ground away from public view 6. Children need easy, casual access to other children without a formal invitation to play 7. Children need places in the communal environment that are undeniably their territories where they can expect to find other children 8. Children need to be able to move about their home neighborhoods safely and to take little trips father and farther from home to gain a sense of independence
CLARE COOPER MARCUS “It is inappropriate, whatever the budget, to regard landscaping, site layout, play areas and community facilities as luxury areas.” 27
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY SPACE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR ACTIVE USE, COMMUNAL INTERACTION AND RESTFUL INHABITING PROVIDING OUTDOOR PLAY SPACE WITHIN VIEW OF THE HOME IS IMPORTANT FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC REALM VITALITY ALL MODES SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PRIORITY IN THE STREET
HOUSING THAT IS ORIENTED TO AND DIRECTLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE STREET IS CRUCIAL FOR ACTIVATION AND SAFETY OF LIVING STREETS LIMITING TRAFFIC SPEED THROUGH DESIGN IS IMPORTANT FOR CREATING USABLE SPACE AND A SENSE OF SAFETY SPACE SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR ADAPTIBILITY AND LINGERING SO THAT RESIDENTS FEEL A SENSE OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE STREET SPECIFICALLY, WOONERF DESIGN IS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR CREATING LIVABLE SPACES
28
CASE STUDIES Woonerven Original Woonerven, Delft, The Netherlands Potato Rows, Copenhagen, Denmark Moabit District, Berlin, Germany Terry Ave N, Seattle, USA
CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4
Home Zones The Methleys, Leeds, UK Morice Town, Plymouth, UK Lansbury Estates, Poplar, UK Northmoor, Manchester, UK
CS5 CS6 CS7 CS8
Shared Spaces Ashford Ring Road, Kent, UK Kensington Market, Toronto, Canada False Creek N, Vancouver, Canada Longfellow Street, Santa Monica , USA
CS9 CS10 CS11 CS12
29
Woonerven
Developed by the Dutch in the late 1960’s, the development of the woonerf street designation was a response to the growing segregation of cars and pedestrians in the right-of-way. To resolve the conflict of residents’ natural inclination to use the street for daily recreation and an increase in collision injury rates, the design of woonerven is specifically intended to integrate the use of street space by all modes. Translating as ‘living yard’, the woonerf serves as a means to make for safe, accessible, and usable public street space. By breaking down the rigidity of lanes and sidewalks, woonerf designs reduce speeds and put pedestrians and vehicles on equal footing in use of the street. The concept has been incorporated widely throughout the world, showing up in variations in the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Israel, Japan, and only recently in the United States.
30
CASE STUDY INTRODUCTION
Home Zones
Inspired by woonerf design principles, the Home Zone designation was enacted as a national policy in the United Kingdom with the specific intent of improving the quality of public space in new and existing residential developments. To promote the long term use and upkeep of redesigned streets, the Home Zone process requires the cooperation of neighborhood organizations throughout the project’s design, development, and maintenance. By adding a regulatory framework and promoting resident involvement, Home Zones add to woonerf design by expressly promoting community development, rather than let it be a fortunate side effect.
Shared Spaces
Shared space design relies on the observation that an individuals’ behaviour in traffic is determined more by visual clues incorporated into the built environment of the street than it is by conventional traffic control devices and speed regulations. In standard street design, lanes are excessively wide, speed limit signs are ignored, and drivers are able to travel with little concern, except at controlled intersections. By removing street lights and similar traffic control clutter, users of all modes are required to actively negotiate traffic, reducing speed as caution and awareness increases. Advancing the importance of mode integration and visual cueing, shared space design is many ways an extension of the principles incorporated in woonerf design. While shared space design is more focused on the efficient and safe movement of traffic than creating daily-use street space, the increased safety created and aesthetic value of street clutter removal provided meshes nicely with the principles enshrined in woonerf/home zone design.
Lane Configuration
1. Sidewalks should be level with the roadway or non-existent. Reducing the emphasis of sidewalks encourages free pedestrian flow over the entire street rather than solely in isolated channels. 2. Adopt the minimum lane dimensions that allow for staggered two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access (Between 15-20ft)
Surface Treatment
4. Incorporate interesting patterns and varied surface treatments to send both visual and physical cues to drivers, signalling that their driving context has changed. 5. Changes in surface color or type can be employed to signal where driving is intended, but paint lines should not be used.
Street Furniture
6. Bollards should be used in front of houses entrances to prevent vehicle intrusion (both driving and parking), and where pedestrian-protected areas are intended. Bollards provide permeable barriers that protect but do not divide. 7. Street furniture, squares, children’s play areas, and cafes should be encouraged to spill into or be located within the street right-of-way. Encouraging community use of the street and a sense of ownership,
Green Features
8. Planters boxes, swales, lawned spaces should be located along and within the street right-of-way to bend lane paths and provide usable public space. 9. Street trees are encouraged to provide vertical elements in the street that assist in calming traffic and provide for pedestrian scale when adjacent to tall buildings.
Lighting
10. Pedestrian-scale lighting in the street and on adjoining buildings helps foster a sense of security and encourages use of public space at all times of day.
Parking
11. On-street parking should be provided at an adequate level for direct home access and loading. 12. Parking should be provided intermittently in small groups to help reduce the linearity of the street and to limit visual monotony.
Gateways
13. Gateway elements should be provided at the entrances and exits of woonerf streets to alert drivers that they are about to enter a different street context. 14. Simple signage should be incorporated to mark the street transition. *
Derived from design criteria provided in Evolving Streets: a review of contemporary approaches to street design by Dylan Passmore, 2005.
WOONERF DESIGN PRINCIPLES
3. Drive areas should be designed to limit speeds to under 20mph. Curvatures in the drive lanes help reduce driver sight lines and should be employed to achieve speed targets.
these features act to obstruct linear travel and thus reinforce driver engagement.
31
DELFT, NETHERLANDS
ORIGINAL WOONERVEN
CASE DETAILS:
32
» Birthplace of the woonerf design concept. » Now nearly ubiquitous street design in Delft central neighborhoods, which primarily consist of densely ordered 2-3 story buildings. Wide range of design styles contextually employed in residential, commercial, and mixed-use streets. » Slightly raised pavers are used to mark pedestrian-only and front door spaces, but otherwise continuous, level street surface. » Pedestrian use of entirety of street width, with informal agreement that use of street should not block local car access. » Street trees used within street right-of-way to mark outdoor rooms, parking bays, and divert traffic lanes.
Ground-related housing
Integrated green features
Tree boxes extend into roadway Roadway narrowing
Planters define parking bays and provide seating
Quality pavers add vibrancy and character
Corner-markets support nearby residences
Linked pocket parks
Ground-related townhomes
Paving change alerts drivers
Woonerf sign identifies street as shared space
Pedestrian scale lighting
Ample bicycle parking
Roadway bend slows travel Semi-private front yard spaces
Bollards protect pedestrian-only spaces
33
CASE DETAILS:
» Small neighborhood just outside of downtown Copenhagen. » Series of 13 parallel streets, 11 lined with two-story townhomes, lined with six-story stacked flat and mixed-use buildings.
POTATO ROWS
34
COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
» Although built in the 1800s, well prior to woonerf concept, the streets embody many of the design principles. » Residents are allowed to place furniture, play equipment, and planters in the street so long as they don’t obstruct traffic and are movable. » Since lanes are straight, tree boxes are used to narrow the street at points and slow traffic.
Trees narrow drive lanes
Eyes on the street
Ground-related housing
Semi-private buffer space
Roadway used for play-space Roadway used for lingering Paving used to show change in user priority
Private Semi-private Public
35
CASE DETAILS:
» Center city neighborhood composed of 4-6 story buildings used for work-force housing and commercial corridors.
BERLIN, GERMANY
MOABIT DISTRICT
» Application of German Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich, a derivative of woonerf design, which translates roughly to “traffic-reassuring area”.
36
» Contextually applied based on adjacent uses and street width. » While regulation is in place for traffic speed and mode priority, Woonerf design standards of continuous grade paving, traffic redirection, and gateway signing are typically present.
VERKERSBERUHIGTER BEREICH STANDARDS:
1. Pedestrians may use the whole width of the road; Children’s games are permitted everywhere. 2. Vehicle traffic must keep pedestrian rate (roughly 5mph). 3. The drivers may not endanger nor obstruct pedestrians; if necessarily they must wait. 4. Pedestrians may obstruct the vehicular traffic, but not unnecessarily. 5. Parking is not allowed, except in designated areas, or for loading vehicles.
Roadway bend breaks up lane linearity
Bollards provide permeable barrier
Integrated seating
Tree canopy reduces perceived bulk of buildings
Outdoor room provides inhabitable space
Paver variety indicates road narrowing and provides visual interest
37
CASE DETAILS:
» Intended to be a fully-designed woonerf street, but regulatory and legal problems pushed back the design. » Runs the length of six city blocks, lined with new office and retail development. » Neighborhood streetcar line runs down a portion of the street. » Was meant to have seamless, flush pavement, but short curbs had to be installed.
SEATTLE, WA
TERRY AVE N
» Angled parking bays are defined by green infrastructure.
38
* More information and design documents at http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ terryavenuenorth.htm
Tree canopy in development
Comfortable benches promote longer outdoor stays
Bike parking promotes shared space
Pavers provide visual interest Pedestrian lighting improves sense of safety
Planting and street furniture create outdoor rooms
Active ground-floor uses
Planting space used to define parking bays
39
Planning a Home Zone
40
HOME ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Home zones must be designed to fit the character of individual streets and spaces. Home zones will work best when prospective residents or the existing local community has a sense of ownership of and commitment to the scheme. 2. The concept and detailed design of a home zone must be redeveloped with the participation of the local community, so that any potential conflicts and problems are resolved. 3. In many situations, the design and implementation of a home zone scheme will provide a focus for the physical and social regeneration of an area, empowering local residents to shape their neighborhood. 4. Home zones are appropriate in all types of residential area, including suburban, urban and inner city locations; and for all dwelling types including highrise flats, terraces and semi-detached or detached homes. 5. Home zones will enable higher density development to be created as the space outside the home is more useful and the area given over to traffic is reduced. 6. Home zones can be suitable for use in areas that have a significant level of non-residential use provided that the volume and type of non-residential traffic is not excessive or damaging to the quality of the residential environment. There must always be enough residents to form a viable community throughout the home zone. 7. Home Zone streets should have traffic flows of no more than about 100 vehicles per hour.
Defining the Home Zone Space
8. It is the buildings, trees, planting and surface treatments that should define the home zone’s spaces, rather than conventional kerb edges and carriageway widths. Each home zone should be unique depending on the building heights, setbacks, its overall architectural character and the community’s use of the street. 9. A high proportion of residential buildings in Home Zones should have active fronts to the street to provide good opportunities for natural surveillance and to foster a sense of local ‘ownership’ of the street 10. High walls and fences that divorce dwellings from the street should also be avoided wherever possible. Within home zones, the street should not be seen as a hostile place. 11. Home zones must be clearly marked at their entrances and exits to ensure that all street users recognize the different nature of the area.
Designing for Activity
12. Home zones should be designed to encourage vitality in residential streets, with a high level of social interaction between residents. 13. Home zones must provide children with a safe and attractive area outside their homes, which will provide a place to meet and play with their friends. 14. Children playing will generate greater adult presence on the street, through informal supervision, leading to more social interaction between residents of all ages – a virtuous circle. * Derived from design criteria provided in Home Zone Design Guidelines by Institutute of Highway Engineers, 2002.
15. Any communal features, including play equipment, must be located carefully so as to not cause nuisance to local residents.
Designing for People and Vehicles
23. Opportunities for indiscriminate parking should be removed through the design and location of street furniture, planting or other features so that it is only possible to park within the designated on-street spaces.
16. The design for a home zone should make motorists feel that they are a guest in the street, and must make it difficult for them to travel at speeds of more than 10mph. Vehicles must be accommodated within homes zones as an intergral part of daily life, but must share the space with people on foot.
Designing for Safety
17. Home zones must be designed to be accessible to, and usable by, disabled peoples of all types.
25. Until further experience is gained, it is advised that speed control measures within home zones should be provided at a spacing of up to around 30m.
18. Drivers usually expect to have priority over any part of the street between raised kerbs and therefore a continuous raised kerb should not normally be provided throughout the home zone. 19. The route for vehicles through a home zone should be narrow as is practicable, with a minimum of width of 3m. 20. Home zones must be designed to cater for occasional use by large vehicles.
24. In locations where it is considered necessary to maintain visibility, a stopping sight distance of 12m should be applied. Significantly longer views will encourage drivers to increase their speeds and should be avoided where possible.
Adoption and Maintenance
26. Where new home zone streets are to be adopted, developers should consult with the relevant authorities at an early stage in the design process to agree the materials and other design specifications that need to be met. Developers should also establish the agencies that will be responsible for the maintenance of each element of the street, as this will have a major bearing on the scheme.
Parking
21. Some on street-parking should normally be provided in home zone street. 22. On-street car parking should be arranged so that it does not dominate views of the street or impinge upon the other activities that will take place in the home zone.
41
CASE DETAILS:
» 330 mixed-income units in the home zone. The majority have direct street frontages. » Questionnaire, newsletter, charrettes, and steering group used to involve community in redevelopment process. » Design focused on providing safe public space for childrens’ play and social interaction.
LEEDS, UK
THE METHLEYS
» Gateway treatments and paving color used to signal a change in street use to drivers.
42
» Use of road chicanes and bump-outs to create plazas, green spaces, and play areas in the street right-of-way. Lack of nearby public open space frequently cited as a concern for residents.
Bump-outs slow traffic and provide play space
Naturalistic, green stormwater management
Ground-related housing
Semi-private front yard spaces
Change in paving type for visual interest
43
CS#
CASE DETAILS:
» Designated for Home Zone funding in 2002, completed by 2004. » Covers 9 streets in a post-war residential neighborhood with an elementary school and local retail. » Residents concerned with lack of usable public space, car cruising, and crime.
POST-HOME ZONE RESULTS:
PLYMOUTH, UK
MORICE TOWN
» Incidents of crime reduced by 94% from 142 in the year before to nine in the year after.
44
» Average traffic speed dropped to 13mph and through traffic was cut by 40%. » Community groups thriving including gardening club and history club.
School integrated into neighborhood
Ground floor has view and access to street level
Bumpout slows traffic and provides people space
Bollards form permeable barrier
Change in pavement marks travel area
Parking bay defined by planter walls
Linked to public play spaces
Mini-plazas created by bollards and surface treatment
45
CS#
CASE DETAILS:
POPLAR, UK
LANSBURY ESTATES
» Selected for Home Zone funding due to high residential use, well-connected street network, and ample street width for redesign.
46
» Inclusion of existing community groups in streetscape design and public space programming. » Set within a reduced speed neighborhood to accustom vehicle users to lower speeds on home zone streets. » Green features extended in street space to link neighborhood park and ball play area. » Mid-block roundabouts and pinch-points used to reduce traffic speeds.
Mix of housing types and affordability
Semi-private front yard spaces
Continuous, shared paving
Tree canopy encloses street
Connected pocket parks
Defined parking boxes Pinch point to lower speeds
47
CASE DETAILS:
» 1400 stacked flat and townhouse units. Almost all have direct street access. » Residents reported concerns about continuous parking on both sides of the street, narrow sidewalks and lack of large vehicle access. » Low demand for car use (0.4 cars/household) due to proximity to services and transit network.
MANCHESTER, UK
NORTHMOOR
» Design focused on redesigning streets as linear courtyards where people have street priority.
48
» Some units demolished to create linear park cross-street. » Post-development study found speeds reduced from 25mph to 10mph.
Shared-space street Green alley w/ backyards Public mid-block connector
Pedestrian midblock connection
Semi-private front yard spaces
Continuous paved surface
Eyes on the street provides security
Mini-plazas and tree plantings integrated
Chicane gives street variety and breaks up lanes
49
Street Design
1. Barriers and curbs should be removed if not absolutely necessary 2. Design elements, including pavement color and material, should be used to mark the line between open space and shared space 3. Travel speeds should be determined by the width of travel lanes and the placement of street furniture
50
SHARED SPACE PRINCIPLES
Equal Priority
4. All street users, regardless of mode, have equal priority in travel lanes 5. Street users should signal to each other their intentions rather than assume them 6. Street users should not unfairly obstruct the passage of others
Removal of Signage
7. Street signs provide visual distractions to drivers which divert their eyes from the road 8. Street signs clutter the visual landscape and detract from urban aesthetics 9. Speed limit signs have little effect on the prevailing speed of travel 10. Crosswalk signs implicitly tell drivers that pedestrians should never be in the general drive lanes which makes them less cautious
Removal of Traffic Signals and Stop Signs
11. Traffic signals force cars, bikes, and pedestrians to queue even when cross-traffic is not present, promoting red-light running and jaywalking 12. Yellow lights induce drivers to speed through intersections 13. Free right turns at stops put crossing pedestrians in danger
CASE DETAILS:
» Redesign of a historic ring road to account for growth projections doubling the city’s population of 55,000 by 2035.
» In the first year post-development, for 10,000 vehicles/day, only 6 reported accidents for all modes.
BEFORE
KENT, UK
AFTER
» Incorporates numerous woonerf design principles, including level surface, colored permeable pavers, pedestrian lighting, and lane narrowing.
ASHFORD RING ROAD
» For $24 million, 1.4 miles of road were leveled and repaved, traffic signals removed, and extensive green infrastructure installed.
51
CASE DETAILS:
TORONTO, CANADA
52
KENSINGTON MARKET
» Live/work shops and artist lofts provide residential and commercial opportunities to wide income diversity. » Road is curbed and continuously parked, but is informally a shared space as people and bicycles use main drive lane. » Community group made of residents, owners and workers collaborate to maintain local nature of the market. » On Sundays, street ends are blocked off to make for a pedestrian street.
Narrow storefronts and upper-level residences provide vitality
Full width of roadway used by all modes Bollards and curbs used to protect sidewalk space
CASE DETAILS:
Design guidelines* for high-density family housing that promote: »» family-sized units »» passive surveillance from units »» ground-related housing »» links between protected, private play spaces and public, outdoor play spaces » 13% of population is under 18 years old in the False Creek N neighborhood (compared to the 5% of South Lake Union).
Ground-related units with semi-private front yards
Pedestrian-scale lighting
Limited access for automobiles through bollarding
*see document at http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/H004
VANCOUVER, CANADA
» Shared streets run perpendicular to more traditionally-organized arterial streets.
FALSE CREEK N
» Integrates high-density, tower development with ground-related housing options.
53
CASE DETAILS:
» Proposed* in 2008 for a cost of $117,000. The project ‘envisions a communal front yard’. » With 40ft of roadway, Longfellow St was unnecessarily wide and used primarily by speeding, through traffic.
» Incorporates numerous woonerf design principles, including level surface, colored permeable pavers, pedestrian lighting, and lane narrowing.
SANTA MONICA, USA
LONGFELLOW ST
» Design based on providing visual cues to slow traffic and allowing pedestrians to use the full width of the street.
54
*see document at www.nelsonnygaard.com/Documents/Quals-Project-Profiles/NNproj-Santa-Monica-Borderline.pdf
DESIGN FEATURES + RECOMMENDATIONS
55
56
This section is designed to:
2. Offer a starting point for development of a conceptual living street plan While not full exhaustive of the potential permutations of living street design, the following design features section offers a sample menu of how to arrange a living street and how to fill it with functional spaces. The design features are separated into two types: street layout prototypes and design components.
For street layout prototypes pages, simplified forms are shown in a progression from most-standard on the left to most-living streetesque on the right. Complex assemblies of these prototypical forms are possible and have been built, but these graphics serve as a beginning point to start the process of rearranging street space. For instance, chicanes could occur on the same block as a mid-block roundabout, but what is important is that there is some element that contributes to lane diversion.
Following are the design components pages, which are divided into four categories: street furniture, surfaces, outdoor rooms, and green stormwater infrastructure. Unlike the layout prototypes, design components can be added and combined in an endless variety of ways to create unique and interesting living streets. A successful living street design could have every component listed and more, but, as a minimum, it should have a couple from each category.
Later in the document, an example of how to assemble the layout prototypes and design components will be provided. This example was quite helpful in my own design process to develop a conceptual design for 8th Ave N.
DESIGN FEATURES + RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Serve as a distillation of the most common and essential elements of design found in the case studies While looking through the case studies, hopefully you noticed that no two projects looked identical and that each project was a unique representation of living street design, custom-tailored to the specifics of each location. While each case study may have taken on a different shape, color, and scale, there are commonalities between them that together constitute the essential elements of living street design. These commonalities influenced the selection of the provided design features and the list of design recommendations proposed in this section.
57
ROUNDABOUTS
CHICANE
STRAIGHT LANE 1-WAY
SHARED PASS, BOTH SIDES 2-WAY
SHARED PASS, ONE SIDE 2-WAY
ANGLED STAGGERED
BAY
18’
20’ STRAIGHT-LANE 2-WAY
16’
BLOCK BULBS
12’
PINCH-POINTS
PARKING
LANE WIDTH AND DIRECTION
LANE DIVERSION
STREET LAYOUT PROTOTYPES
58
PARALLEL
ANGLED
PEDESTRIANPRIORITY SPACE
SIDEWALKS + MID-BLOCK CROSSING
SHARED SPACE
SHARED SPACE + PROTECTED SIDEWALKS
CURB LINE
LINEAR PARK
BOULEVARD
WOONERF
SUNKEN
FENCED ATTACHED
FENCED IN R.O.W.
FRONT YARDING
STREET TREE LAYOUT
SIDEWALKS
STOOP
59
STREET FURNITURE
DESIGN COMPONENTS:
60
BOLLARDS - ACT AS PERMEABLE BARRIERS THAT PROTECT BUT DON’T RESTRICT PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
SEATING - PROVIDES A PLACE TO SOCIALIZE, REST, PEOPLE-WATCH, CONTEMPLATE, AND PLAY.
PLANTERS - ESSENTIALLY GREEN BOLLARDS. PROVIDE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
OVERHEAD PROTECTION - CREATES YEAR-ROUND GATHERING SPACES.
BIKE RACKS AND BAYS - PROMOTES BICYCLE USE AND CAN BREAK UP WALLS OF PARKING
BARRIER WALLS - CAN ENCLOSE OUTDOOR ROOMS WHILE PROVIDING PLANTING SPACE OR SEATING
PLAY EQUIPMENT- IN A PROPERLY
WATER FEATURES- PROVIDES VISUAL
LIGHTING- LIFE DOESN’T STOP AT DUSK
WORKING LIVING STREET, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE PLAY EQUIPMENT
INTEREST, PLAY POTENTIAL, AND CAN REVEAL NATURAL WATER MOVEMENT
PERVIOUS CONCRETE - SOLID, HARD
PLANTED PAVERS - VISUAL INTEREST COUPLED WITH PERMEABLE BENEFITS
COLORED PAVERS - OPPORTUNITY FOR
STAMPED CONCRETE - THE LOOK OF
NATURAL GROUNDCOVER - GREEN BENEFITS FOR PLACES WHERE PEOPLE SHOULDN’T WALK
ARTISTIC PAVING AND A TEXTURED FEEL
SURFACE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL
BRICK WITH THE SIMPLICITY OF CONCRETE
POLLUTANTS AND BE REPLACED. GOOD FOR PARKING SPACES
PAINT - AN EASY WAY TO SPRUCE UP ANY SURFACE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY EXPRESSION
SURFACES
CONTAINED GRAVEL - CAN CATCH
DESIGN COMPONENTS:
BRICKS - PEDESTRIAN AMENITY WITH A RUSTIC FEEL
61
OUTDOOR ROOMS
DESIGN COMPONENTS:
62
SEATING SQUARES- A PLACE
POCKET PARK- SPACES TUCKED BETWEEN
GROWING GARDENS- MEDITATIVE
PLAYGROUNDS- MONITORABLE SPACES FOR YOUTHLY RAMBUNCTIOUSNESS
COMPETITION
COMMUNITY KITCHENS- A PLACE FOR A
STREET FOOD STATION- STREET LIFE
SHELTERS- PLACES TO GATHER DURING THE UNPLEASANT MONTHS
FOR CONVERSATION, OBSERVATION, RELAXATION, AND ENJOYMENT
SPACES TO SUPPLEMENT DIETS
WEEKEND BBQ OR A BLOCK PARTY BUFFET
BUILDINGS
WHEN YOU DON’T FEEL LIKE COOKING
GREEN PATCHES- SPOTS TO TOUCH EARTH
BALLCOURTS- VENUES FOR FRIENDLY
CISTERNS- REGULATES WATER FLOW AND FEEDS OTHER GREEN ELEMENTS
GARDENS- MAKES LOCALLY-SOURCED PRODUCE WHILE PROVIDING INFILTRATION POTENTIAL
TREE PITS- HOME TO STREET TREES AND
SOIL ACCESS
DESIGN COMPONENTS:
GREEN WALLS- VERTICAL GROWING POTENTIAL THAT CAPTURES CO2 AND BEAUTIFIES BUILDING SURFACES
GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
SWALES- LINEAR ELEMENTS DESIGNED TO SLOW AND CLEAN RAINWATER
63
Design:
64
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
In preparing a Living Street designation, the following principles should be incorporated as part of the design guidelines: » Context-sensitive design All features of a living street design plan should be carefully tailored to the physical and spatial characteristics of the project site. » Narrow lane widths Lanes should be as narrow as possible while allowing for emergency vehicle access » Public to private progression Design for activity throughout the range of space ownership. Private interiors, semi-private stoops and front yards, semi-public outdoor rooms, public pathways. » Outdoor rooms Open space provided in the right-of-way should be consolidated to create a variety of play spaces, plazas, green patches, seating areas, and overhead protected spaces. » Multi-age/function Spaces should be designed for use by the full-range of user age and activity. » Adaptable/’ownable’ space Spaces should be designed with established edges, but adaptable interiors for residents’ daily use
» Integrated stormwater infrastructure Green spaces, plantings, and paving system should promote ecological function of the street while providing edges to outdoor rooms, parking spaces, and pedestrian-protected spaces » Ground-oriented housing The street wall should be composed primarily of units that have entrances and windows that look out onto the street and outdoor rooms » Travel lane diversion Parking bays, outdoor rooms, and green features should be used to disrupt linear drive paths » ADA compliance Protected pedestrian-only spaces should be provided for the length of the block to allow children, the elderly, and the disabled guaranteed safe passage » Permeable barriers Features such as bollards, tree boxes, and planters should be used to define outdoor rooms while allowing for easy passage by pedestrians » Intersection bridging Street tables and continuation of paving type should be used to provide physical and visual continuity of the living street as it crosses other streets » All-day lighting Lighting should be provided that promotes a pedestrian scale and a safe feeling throughout the entire day
ANALYSIS SECTION PAGE
POLICY ANALYSIS + RECOMMENDATIONS
65
THE PROBLEM
Center City Seattle has an age imbalance with an unsustainably low population of children. It is little surprise to find that the housing supply in the center city is predominantly comprised of studio and 1-bedroom units. Whether chicken or egg, not many kids are living in center city and space to live and play is a factor.
Ages
CENTER CITY POPULATION
AGES 0-4 AGES 5-9 AGES 10-14 AGES 15-20 AGES 21-24
66
*data adapted from 2000 US Census
Where are all of those kids going and what is forcing their families to relocate?..
BARRIERS TO URBAN LIVING
For the most part, those families are moving out of the urban neighborhoods or out of the city altogether. If not addressed, characteristics of the built environment can create barriers to a economically and socially diverse population.
LIVABILTY BARRIERS
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
AFFLUENT EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT SINGLES AND EMPTY NESTERS
CASH-LIMITED SPRAWLING DEVELOPMENT FAMILIES SMALL, EXPENSIVE HOUSING
DISTANT SCHOOLS
JOB LOCATION MISMATCH
LACK OF ESSENTIAL SHOPS AND SERVICES
LOW SENSE OF SAFETY
SCARCE, LOW-QUALITY PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
EXPENSIVE, LIMITED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
Fortunately, there are ways to overcome those barriers...
67
LIVABLE STREETS PROVIDE USABLE SPACE
For lightly travelled streets, large swaths of potentially usable space sit vacant and unused for most of the day. Some streets, like 8th ave n, are simply over-designed for their demand and that space could be put to better use. By implementing living street design, street space can be more efficiently used for a host of benefits.
CAPACITY FOR A STANDARD TWO-LANE ROAD
24,000 VEHICLES/DAY 22,000
IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
20,000 18,000 16,000
BETTER SENSE OF SAFETY
14,000 12,000 10,000
MORE SPACE FOR PLAY AND ACTIVITY
8,000 6,000 4,000 68
8TH AVE N ACTUAL USE
2,000
MORE SPACE FOR GREEN FEATURES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT We just have to make the choice of what kind of streets we want...
TWO POSSIBLE PATHS FOR STREET DESIGN
As streets are developed, we can either continue to design conventionally or we can choose to design better. Streets for moving through or streets for living in.
STATUS QUO
VEHICLE ORIENTED STREETS
MODE SEPARATION
INDUCED SPEEDING
SHARED SPACE
SLOWER SPEEDS
REDUCED SAFETY
LESS PLAY AND INTERACTION
LIVING STREETS
PEOPLE ORIENTED STREETS
INCREASED SAFETY
MORE PLAY AND INTERACTION
Through living street design we can have less of...
69
UNSAFE STREETS THROUGH STANDARD DESIGN
Although they are designed to promote safety though long sight-distances, standard lane design induces drivers to peed because they see straight-aways that pedestrians aren’t supposed to be in. But when collisions occur, higher speeds mean more deaths. Living street design encourages slower speeds.
LIVING STREET SPEEDS STANDARD STREET SPEEDS 100% 80% PROBABILITY OF DEATH FROM IMPACT FOR PEDESTRIAN
60% 40% 20% 0% 0
5
10
15
20
25
SPEED OF VEHICLE IN COLLISION WITH *data adapted from D.C. Richards (2010) Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants, PEDESTRIAN 70
Department for Transport: London
30
35
40
Living streets also provides nice benefits such as...
INCREASED SPACE FOR PLAY AND SOCIALIZATION
By increasing safety and providing usable space, living street design gets kids outdoors and active. Whether it’s more kids moving nearby or just existing kids spending more time playing outside, living streets increase the presence of children in a neighborhood.
KIDS OBSERVED AT PLAY OUTIDE OF HOMES
AVERAGE DURATION OF OUTDOOR PLAY
PRE-WOONERF 123 KIDS POST-WOONERF 241 KIDS
SPORTS PLAY 95% INCREASE
NON-SPORT, ACTIVE PLAY
PRE-WOONERF 9.85 MINUTES POST-WOONERF 15.15 MINUTES
PRE-WOONERF 1,211 MINUTES POST-WOONERF 3,657 MINUTES
POST-WOONERF 115 COUNTS
201% INCREASE
*data adapted from The Impact of Woonerven on Children’s Behavior by Brenda Eubank-Ahrens for the Institute for Landscape Planning, Technical University of Berlin
BICYCLE PLAY
1816% INCREASE
PRE-WOONERF 5 COUNTS POST-WOONERF 67 COUNTS
53% INCREASE
SOCIAL PLAY TOTAL CHILDRENMINUTES OF OUTDOOR PLAY TIME
PRE-WOONERF 6 COUNTS
1240% INCREASE
PRE-WOONERF 45 COUNTS POST-WOONERF 263 COUNTS
484% INCREASE
PRE-WOONERF 8 COUNTS POST-WOONERF 109 COUNTS 1262% INCREASE Which is why we need...
71
A GOAL-ORIENTED, OUTCOME-DRIVEN DESIGN PROCESS
To properly align our urban livability goals with the designs we produce, it is crucial that we identify the inputs we will use for implementation, the output indicators by which we will measure success, and the desired outcomes we hope to achieve.
GOALS • A PUBLIC REALM THAT FOSTERS ACTIVITY AND HAPPINESS
72
INPUTS • DESIGNATION OF AND INVESTMENT IN LIVING STREET DESIGN • COLLABORATIVE CITY/ COMMUNITY DESIGN MEETINGS
• ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
• REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGING PUBLIC SPACE • BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT LINK TO LIVING STREET FEATURES
• COMMUNITIES OF CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND FAMILY SIZE DIVERSITY
• INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE AND FAMILY-SIZED UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING STREETS
OUTPUTS • SAFER, MORE USABLE STREET SPACE
• • • • • • •
SWALES GARDENS TREES PLANTERS GREEN ROOFS GREEN WALLS PERMEABLE SURFACES
• 2-3 BEDROOM UNITS AT A RANGE OF INCOME LEVELS
OUTCOMES • PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO ENJOY SPENDING TIME OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOMES
• A CARBON-NEUTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
• AN AGE, INCOME, AND BACKGROUND DIVERSE POPULATION
City-wide:
Incorporate Living Street designation in the SDOT Rightof-Way Improvement Manual allowing SDOT/DPD to:
Promote community involvement by encouraging community groups to participate in living street designation and design process: 5. Utilize charette methods: Similar to the process involved in the South Lake Union Framework Plan and Thomas Street Conceptual plan, allow existing/new community groups opportunities to participate in living street design. 6. Promote shared maintenance responsibility: Work with community groups to take on some of the maintenance of outdoor rooms and green features. These arrangements can vary from passive daily upkeep to scheduled maintenance events.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Designate living streets: SDOT needs a new designation to establish the requirements for where living streets are appropriate and the configuration and design features which are required. 2. Allocate development funding: With living street designations, SDOT will be able to use street improvement funds to upgrade streets to living street design standards. 3. Designate compatible zoning: The link between living streets and the adjacent buildings is critical, so it’s necessary that DPD align building use, height, and form on designated streets. 4. Create incentive/development agreements with private/non-profit developers: With living street designation and appropriate zoning in place, DPD and SDOT can work with property developers to coordinate funding sources to pay for living street plan implementation.
Develop legal framework for home zone streets: 7. Enforce speed limit of <20mph: Although shared space principles advocate for removal of speed limits signs and speed restriction through design, low speed enforcement will probably be necessary in the shortterm while residents and drivers acclimate to the new street arrangement. 8. Allow for full pedestrian use of road width: Roadway rules and assumptions will need to be adjusted in living streets so that people are free to use the full width of the street without being subject to jaywalking or obstruction of traffic fines. It’s critical to note that all users must accommodate those who wish to pass through the living street regardless of mode, including pedestrians. 9. Create Living street gateway signage: Adopt a general design to mark the entrances of designated living streets to alert roadway users that they’ve entered a different type of road situation. Advisable to adopt signage similar to those used by other woonerf/ home zone countries. 10. Develop long-term maintenance contracts: Living space design will require more attention that typical street design so agreements need to be established so that living street spaces maintain usable quality. City departments, building owners and community groups should be brought together to take on the long-term care of living streets. 11. Identify funding sources: Look into existing methods such as local improvement district funds, building incentive development pool funds, and bonding. Also look into new sources such as tax increment financing and development impact fees.
73
74
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Investigate methods for street ownership: 12. Offer year-leasing for ‘front-yarding’ of right-ofway: Much like the city does for P-Patch or shared car service space, develop a permit to allow residents to lease a small plot to use as a semi-private front yard. Either along the building edge or within the right-ofway, these spaces would allow residents to put out seating, play equipment, or storage. 13. Plant streets with harvestable trees and planters: Where feasible, look into planting street trees and groundcover that could be harvested by living street residents. This would allow for productive use of planted areas and additional activity for people. 14. Simplify permit processes: The current right-of-way permit is a bit complicated and could dissuade people from making use of the street space. For living streets, look in simplifying the process for street use permits for benches/chairs/tables/play equipment/planters. Partner with the University of Washington or a private firm to conduct study of street quality and perception for potential Living Streets: 15. Gauge resident perception of Seattle streets: In terms of function and perception, it would be useful to know how people feel about the utility of streets. 16. Identify design/amenity/daily need gaps in neighborhoods: To better create functional, livable neighborhoods, it would be useful to know what’s missing in the built environment. 17. Develop data baselines: In order to properly evaluate living street implementation, it is critical that pre-living street baselines are established. This should include activity number and duration counts, travel mode counts, population demographics, and other useful indicators.
8th Avenue N:
Select an appropriate South Lake Union Environmental Impact Statement alternative: 18. Support ground-related housing: For living street activation and passive surveillance, the EIS alternative should promote ground-related housing along 8th Ave N. 19. Restrict podium height to 6 stories or less: Over 6 stories, buildings are forced into lobby elevator arrangements, pedestrian scale is compromised, and people are less willing to let their children play outside. Further the goals of Seattle’s Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative that would support designated living streets 20. Designate a family-friendly cluster overlay for 8th Ave: The cluster concept could be useful in branding the neighborhood as livable for families and help focus and direct funding for livable street design 21. Site a downtown school: The lack of a public school in the downtown area is a crucial hindrance in making the neighborhood livable for families with young children. 22. Create incentives or requirements for 2+ bedroom units: The lack of multiple bedroom units is a problem for families who want to locate in the Center City, or for any potential residents who need more unit space.
8th AVENUE N CONCEPTUAL STREET PLAN
75
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS
76
For the purposes of visually representing the analysis and recommendations made in this document, a conceptual street plan for 8th Ave N in the South Lake Union serves as a quality example of what can be done with living street design. The following subsections are provided to detail how 8th Ave N was chosen for conceptual design, the context in which the street rests, and what implementation of living street design could look and feel.
POLICY CONTEXT
The selection of 8th Ave N for conceptual design wasn’t made arbitrarily, but rather as the end product of years of city policy and planning. Detailed here are the working plans and documents that identified 8th Ave N as a street with a potential and need for living street design. Also included are the documents that are critical in understanding how a living street could be implemented at this site.
SITE CONTEXT
South Lake Union is a neighborhood in the middle of a development transition that will drastically change its built form. 8th Ave N is nestled near the center of this renewal and so its physical context had to be considered while the conceptual design was developed.
DESIGN COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
Utilizing the menu provided in the previous section, a diagram shows how street layout options and design components can contribute formation of a conceptual street design.
CONCEPT PLAN DETAIL
As the resulting sum of the document, design diagrams are provided to display how a living street can be arranged and dimensioned. Renderings help convey what it might feel like to spend time in a living street.
Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative (FUN) Recognizing that a center city population of which only 5% is under the age of 18 had serious implications for meeting Seattle’s sustainability goals, the Family Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative proposed a wide-range of policy solutions to address the age imbalance.
Four potential cluster areas were identified in the plan which included the Denny Park Cluster, centered around 8th Ave N. Investments that promote safe, usable open space, such as living streets would offer, are specifically what the FUN plan envisioned. By pooling private investment to help fund living streets, the physical and perceptual conditions of the neighborhood could be shifted to encourage families to move into the city center.
YESLER TERRACE CLUSTER CHINATOWN/ INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT CLUSTER
POLICY CONTEXT
One of the main recommendations was to create amenity cluster zones which would focus funding in targeted areas to promote family-friendly neighborhoods. Being mindful of limited budgets, the amenity cluster idea would leverage investment by coordinating private development with public realm investment and maintenance. With footholds in family-friendly clusters, residents and developers should be more likely to view Center City neighborhoods as places for families to locate and live.
DENNY PARK CASCADE CLUSTER CLUSTER
77
South Lake Union Urban Design Framework During the summer of 2009, city staff, design professionals, and neighborhood residents met during a series of six workshops and design charettes to create a shared design and implementation strategy to guide the neighborhood’s development. From these meetings, a framework plan was developed which looked at the combination of street function and land use. The map to the lower left was developed to show the desired use and function of street-level development. In this, a district of groundoriented residential development was marked as desirable along the 8th Ave N corridor. The intent is to promote the creation of a closeknit, residential neighborhood, despite its location in a busy city center.
78
POLICY CONTEXT
In the map to the lower right, streets were classified by expected use. These classifications inform the scale, width, lane configuration, and design of each street. 8th Ave N was identified as a potential woonerf street. In conjunction with the residential focus marked in the prior map, this designation is intended to promote urban livability by providing slower through-traffic and usable public open space.
Seattle Urban Village Element As a critical element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Village Element is Seattle’s novel approach of promoting the development of urban densities in order to accommodate required growth targets in a livable, sustainable manner. South Lake Union is one of these Urban Villages. Designation and development of living streets would fulfill many of the stated policies and goals of the urban village element: UV1 Promote the growth of urban villages as compact mixed-use neighborhoods in order to support walking and transit use, and to provide services and employment close to residences.
UV8 Involve the public in identifying needs for, planning, and designing public facilities, programs, and services. Encourage and provide opportunities for extensive public involvement in City decisions, and encourage other agencies to provide similar opportunities. UVG10 Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, and deliver those services more equitably by focusing new infrastructure and services, as well as maintenance and improvements to existing infrastructure and services, in areas expecting to see additional growth, and by focusing growth in areas with sufficient infrastructure and services to support that growth. UVG11 Collaborate with the community in planning for the future. UVG12 Increase public safety by making villages places that people will be drawn to at all times of the day. UVG13 Promote physical environments of the highest quality, which emphasize the special identity of each of the city’s neighborhoods, particularly within urban centers and villages. UVG38 Provide safe and welcoming places for the people of Seattle to play, learn, contemplate, and build community. Provide healthy spaces for children and their families to play; for more passive activities such as strolling, sitting, viewing, picnicking, public gatherings, and enjoying the natural environment; and for active uses such as community gardening, competitive sports, and running.
POLICY CONTEXT
UVG4 Promote densities, mixes of uses, and transportation improvements that support walking, use of public transportation, and other transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, especially within urban centers and urban villages.
79
South Lake Union Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) In the process of developing a new plan for height and density changes in the South Lake Union neighborhood, 8th Avenue N has been identified as an area for special focus, partially from the interest shown in the framework planning meetings.
80
POLICY CONTEXT
Two pertinent concerns come out of the EIS discussion that living street design could be of use: 1. “Consider facilities to address the identified gaps in service in the 8th Avenue Corridor and the Fairview Corridor focus areas in conjunction with potential future development.” 2. “Stormwater runoff from the 8th Avenue Corridor is routed to a 12 and 15-inch diameter combined sewer system in 8th Avenue [which] has capacity issues starting with the 2-year storm event, in a 25-year event some manholes in the system could over top, causing local street flooding.” Using living street design that refocuses streetspace as usable public space, containing and bordered by green stormwater features, we can: 1. Fill the open space gap by creating a series of small outdoor rooms that link the larger park facilities in the neighborhood, and 2. Mitigate 8th Ave N’s storm event problem by providing increased opportunity for stormwater retention and detention To the right, are the three height scenarios being considered in the EIS. It’s important to note that all three suggest building podium heights along the streetwall that are in the ranges suggested in the literature review and would promote activation of a living street.
Seattle Right-of-Way (ROW) Improvement Manual For all things street design related, it’s critical to refer to the ROW Improvement Manual. The document “defines the design criteria that shall be followed when designing improvements to the public rights-of-way including streets, sidewalks, trees and landscaping, and utilities.”
Within the classification list is the ‘Neighborhood Green Street’ which requires many of the elements of living streets, such as buffered pedestrian walkways, wide planting areas, natural drainage features, and pedestrian scaled lighting and furniture. While this classification clearly will benefit some streets in Seattle, it doesn’t provide some of the elements that are essential to living street design, namely shared space, lane diversion, and outdoor rooms. Although it will probably require another thesis-worth of work to determine the best method, living street design standards should be added to the ROW Improvement Manual. Initially, it looks as though there are two possible approaches to doing so: 1. ‘Living Street’ as its own distinct classification 2. ‘Living Street’ as an overlay that can be applied to the existing ‘Green Street’ and ‘Neighborhood Green Street’ classifications
POLICY CONTEXT
The Manual does this by defining the menu of street classification types and the design features which are required of each classification. The purpose of the classifications are to establish a street network that both meets the city’s transportation and mobility goals while also provide the physical and aesthetic quality required of livable neighborhoods and business districts.
81
Thomas Street Streetscape Concept Plan
82
POLICY CONTEXT
Through an extended design process, the Thomas Street concept plan would provide a strong pedestrian linkage across South Lake Union from Elliott Bay to Capitol Hill. Through reconfiguring of lane space, new space for expanded sidewalks, bike facilities, and planting areas is possible. This project also sets a good standard for collaboration between city staff and community voices that could be utilized for living street designation and design The intersection of Thomas at 8th Ave N was noted as a place for special design focus. Grade leveling through lowered curbs or an intersection island, coupled with consistent paving features could be used to preserve the different, but compatible functions of a living street design on 8th and the new design on Thomas.
8th Ave N Intersection
* More information and design documents at http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/ ThomasStreet/Overview/default.asp
SR520 LAKE UNION
SOUTH LAKE UNION
I-5 ELLIOTT BAY I-90
83
MERCER ST
WESTLAKE AVE N
8TH AVE N AURORA AVE N
DENNY WAY 84
I-5
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
As living street design puts all users at equal priority for use of the roadway space, it is important to take note of the transportation network that will help alleviate the need for required, everyday car use. With a well developed public transportation system, bicycle infrastruture, and walkable pedestrian environment, residents on living streets have increased options to getting to work, errands, and recreational activities. 8th Ave N has a good range of transportation options that are being expanded upon. With better bus linkages and the completion of the Lake to Bay trail, residents of 8th Ave N will have access to local shops and amenities and regional transit hubs.
LAKE TO BAY TRAIL STREETCAR BUS RAPID TRANSIT
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
SLU PARK SEATTLE CENTER
CASCADE PARK
For a Center City neighborhood, South Lake Union has good access to a mix of park sizes and types. However, there are some blocks that are not within an easy walking distance of a park and most blocks lack safe space for people to recreate directly outside of the home. Living street design, such as is being proposed for 8th Ave N, would create the sorts of small-scale daily-use spaces that are currently missing in the neighborhood. Improving streets with living street design would also provide people-scaled linkages between the existing large parks which would help to make those spaces more accessible. An additional benefit for living space design is that the city already owns the street right-of-way which would help to lower the cost of public open-space development, as land acquisition is usually a large obstacle in creating new outdoor activity space.
POCKET PARK DENNY PARK
85
DRAINAGE
Relatively flat, the South Lake Union Neighborhood feeds into a combined sewer system that has 5 overflow points located in Lake Union. Because of the excess of paved and built surface in the neighborhood and its location at the bottom of Capitol Hill and Queen Anne hill, there is a need to find ways for stormwater infiltration and detention. For 8th Ave N, in particular, there’s a high potential for runoff during storm events due to the large area of surface parking lots and wide street paving. New green, stormwater management features, as part of living street enhancement, could provide opportunities to slow down and filter stormwater and help prevent overflow incidents. Retention swales and cisterns can also provide for expanded planting potential and community gardening.
COMBINED SEWER PIPE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
ALLEY ACCESS
A complication for some living street designs will be providing adequate access to building units and parking spaces when necessary. 8th Ave N, and much of South Lake Union, has the benefit of being segmented by access alleys. These north-to-south alleys provide potential for access to parking structures, which would allow for the podium-tower build-out scenarios of the EIS. The mid-block alleys also allow for back of building deliveries and garbage removal. This creates potential for narrowing of the shared drive space within the living street as larger trucks would still have access to the buildings. These alleys also provide additional access for fire and emergency vehicles.
86
SITE PLAN ORIGNAL
SITE PLAN DESIGN OVERLAY
REPUBLICAN ST
THOMAS ST JOHN ST
WESTLAKE AVE N
AURORA AVE N
HARRISON ST
CONCEPTUAL LIVING STREET PLAN
MERCER ST
87
Mercer to Republican: With a well-developed row of trees on the western side and a new row on the eastern, this block has potential for a range of shade and enclosure for its outdoor rooms.
88
EXISTING STREET TREES
Mercer to Republican: Having completed the eastern block, the UW Medicine campus will be developing the western block over the next decade. New buildings should provide nearby job opportunity and streetlevel activation
Republican to Harrison: Having no street trees or planting strip, this block is essentially a clean slate for green features and outdoor space formation.
Republican to Harrison: The 8-story tower and 2-story ground-related building in the SE lots, provide good examples of the increased residential potential of this block’s surface parking lots and vacant shop spaces.
Harrison to Thomas: This block is heavilylined with street trees and a planting strip, but there is only a 4’ separation from the lot lines. This narrow sidewalk area could do well as a front-yard zone.
Harrison to Thomas: With a full block of blank wall on the west and surface parking on the east, this block has no pedestrian amenity from the built form. Efforts can be made here to activate the ground-level.
Thomas to John: Currently planted lightly, green infrastructure could be expanded in this block to make a perceptual and physical expansion of Denny Park from the south.
Thomas to John: With a new residential building and potentially reusable church buildings next to the park, this block has the potential to anchor a new, residential neighborhood.
DEVELOPABLE LOTS
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS 16’
By combining layout prototypes and design components, the form of a living street comes together. The graphic below shows how the generic elements and forms of living street design can be coupled with a site’s context to develop a streetscape design that fits within its location and provides new public space benefits to residents. The street plan in the resulting box will be detailed in following pages.
89
Bollards act as permeable barrier
90
STREET PLAN VIEW
Sheltered resting spot
Urban canopy promotes pedestrian scale
The streetscape plan began with experiments in bending the vehicle travel lanes. By nudging and diverting the lanes, a variety of new public open-space opportunities were formed. With varying angles and distances from the street centerline, the shared space travel lanes provide for continuous passage through the block, but in a manner that would reduce vehicle speeds and increase safety for all users of the street space.
Community garden space
Hard surface play space
Swales buffer ped-only space and provide stormwater function
Integrated parking bays
Narrow, nonlinear travel lanes
Rather than two linear sidewalks that provide only limited opportunity for outdoor activity, the living street design creates a range of outdoor rooms and walking areas. It what used to be a street of wasted space could be a street where people can play games, relax in shade, garden, socialize, and other sorts of extended outdoor activities. The living street transforms the roadway from a thing that people merely pass through into a place where people can live. By providing unique, context-sensitive spaces, the living street design allows for residents to feel that there is a character to their street, a character that can foster a sense of ownership and care for the space.
Plan Zoom View
Planting areas can be used to buffer pedestrian protected areas and can range in width from planting strips to full swales. Trees can be planted in clusters to shelter outdoor rooms or in two-deep rows to create canopied walking spaces. Parking spaces fit into the gaps of the travel area to provide short-term, direct access to building fronts. When not in use, these parking spaces can be used as extra playspace. Articulation of the paving surfaces can create a level streetspace without the distinction of curbs. Use of colors can help clue users as to where intended driving areas are and where pedestrian-only spaces are.
Section Cut Line
Perspective View
This map also serves as a reference for the detailed street views in the coming pages.
STREET PLAN VIEW
By breaking down linear continuity the runs the length of the block, living street design creates additional potential for articulated surface and planting features that promotes a pedestrian scale and an interesting appearance.
91
PAVING CHANGE CLUES INTENDED USE OF SPACE
92
PLAN ZOOM VIEW
25’ To promote a pedestrian scale, the widths of spaces fluctuate throughout the length of the living street.
18’ SEMI-PRIVATE SPACES ALLOW FOR PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE
WIDE SPACES ALLOW FOR CAR PASSING AND GAMEPLAY
Residents can find narrow and sheltered spaces for relaxing and contemplative activities while others can find wider, open spaces to experience the weather and for more active uses. All the while, a navigable travel area is present that serves local vehicle traffic and allows for emergency vehicle passage. By linking living street design to ground-related building development, particularly groundoriented housing, outdoor rooms can be passively monitored both by people using the spaces and people in their homes or porches.
PLANTED PAVERS ALLOWS FOR POLLUTANT CLEANSING
BOLLARDS DEFINE PEDESTRIAN SPACE
10’
Living street design creates an opportunity for residents to feel that the street space is an extension of their home and is worth using and investing in.
A child can play in dirt. A group of friends can meet up. A woman can read a book in the shade after work. A elderly lady can recline on her porch. An elderly man can tend to his garden. A group of kids can kick a ball. A woman can work on her car. Two friends can take a stroll.
Larger outdoor rooms create places for groups of people to get together for shared activity or socialization. Attention to detail on seating allows for people to sit and enjoy spaces, people watch, or catch their breath on the way to the store. Sharing of space lets people cross where they find convenient. No need to walk to the end of the block to meet up with the pal who lives across the street; just walk on over. While users still need to be aware of their surroundings and watch out for vehicles, people can use the entire width of the roadway without feeling like they’re in danger or out of place. Vehicles move in and around pedestrians and bikes, at safe speeds and in common courtesy.
PLAN ZOOM VIEW
Living street design allows for a wide range of people activity. Where there were just sidewalks and lanes to pass through, now people can sit, gather, relax, and play.
93
94
STREET SECTION VIEW BEFORE
The following two diagrams show how reconfiguring lane space can make use of excess lane capacity. In it’s current form, 8th Ave N affords a 17.5’ travel lane in each direction, far wider than any vehicle needs. To provide for the unnecessary width, the sidewalks are crammed to the edge of the street, barely wide enough for two people to pass. Continuous parallel parking along the street creates a car barrier for most of the day that further confines pedestrians. On the following page, a living street section is shown. There, the excess lane width is put to better use as ample pedestrian space, functional swale space, and usable outdoor room space. Vehicles are still able to pass the full length of the street, but must move aside to pass at wider points. Because the shared travel lanes put pedestrians at equal priority, the amount of usable street width for people to carry-on daily activities went from 14 feet to the full 65 feet.
SIDE- TREE WALK STRIP 3’ 4’
PARKING 7’
TRAVEL LANES 37’ ROW 65’
PARKING 7’
TREE SIDESTRIP WALK 3’ 4’
OUTDOOR ROOM 18’
SHARED TRAVEL SPACE 20’ ROW 65’
PROTECTED SWALE PEDESTRIAN SPACE 4’ 10’
STOOP SPACE 5’
STREET SECTION VIEW AFTER
PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN SPACE 8’
95
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE VISUALLY CONNECTED TO THE STREET
TREE CANOPY PROMOTES HUMAN SCALE
EYES ON THE STREET
SEMI-PRIVATE FRONT YARD SPACES
96
SHARED SPACE TRAVEL AREA OUTDOOR ROOM
BUFFERED PEDESTRIAN AREA
GROUNDRELATED HOUSING
PERSPECTIVE VIEW BEFORE
97
PERSPECTIVE VIEW AFTER
98
CONCLUSION
99
LIVING STREETS ARE CRUCIAL: It’s useful at this point to reiterate the problem statement of this document: 1. 2. 3.
Many streets have excess capacity and inefficiently use scarce public land. Public open space for daily use and play is scant and expensive to provide. An unsustainably low proportion of Center City residents are families with children, in part because of the lack of space required to comfortably and livably raise a family.
CONCLUSION
On all three points, designation and implementation of living street design in Seattle would do a great deal of good in alleviating those problems. Living streets:
100
1. Put street space to more efficient use by allowing people to make active use of the full width of the road. 2. Make use of land already held by the city. The city can save significant funding resources by improving the land it already holds in the right-of-way instead of having to purchase new land for public, open space. 3. Create a range of usable spaces directly at people’s doorstep. This provides space for play, recreation, relaxation, and other activities that there might not be room for within the home. Families who find themselves lacking the space they need to live comfortably may find the space they need in the living street. More than just the three primary benefits, living streets also provide: 4.
Increased safety for people in the street by designreinforced slower speeds and by passive surveilance from neighboring units.
5. 6. 7. 8.
Increased potential for green stormwater infrastructure integrated with outdoor public spaces. Increased opportunity for socialization and play as people are more likely to interact on a street that they have a sense of ownership in. Unique character for a neighborhood as the arrangement of spaces and components are applied in relation to the site’s context. Opportunity for community groups to engage with city departments and building developers during the design, implementation, and maintenance process.
Clearly, living street design is more than just an aesthetic beutification of street space. Living street design can be a key factor in making our urban neighborhoods vibrant and livable, in achieving our city’s sustainability goals, and in improving the quality of our built environment. WHAT FURTHER WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE: Although this project has met its goals of functioning as a primer, recommendation proposal, and visionary document, there is plenty of additional work to be done on living streets. 1.
The recommendations contained in this document should be considered and advanced where possible. The only way for the following research can be done is if more cities invest in making living streets a reality in the built environment.
2.
Cities considering living street design should begin the process of pre-implementation baseline studies. For a whole host of reasons, having data on how people use streets and how street design affects their day-to-day lives would be greatly helpful. While there is some data on the effects of living street design, there could be much more.
3.
Conversely, there needs to be continued postimplementation case-study research and documentation. It was an arduous process of hunting down living street projects that could be made simpler and more accessible. There are at least six projects I had hoped to include but couldn’t for lack of background information and I’m sure there are many more than I haven’t come across yet. A comprehensive database of living street projects would be supremely helpful to anyone trying to research the topic or implement a designation. If we could spare people time on research, they might be able to devote more to actualization.
4.
In a similar vein, there needs to be more professional and academic writing on the topic. For a rather historied urban design idea, living streets doesn’t seem to be a popular topic for book or article writing. It’s a bit of a problem that the majority of the relevant literature came from the previous century. New texts that advance the idea past rehashing of the historic documents might shed new insight on how to implement living streets in today’s context.
5.
Additional studies on the relationship between living street design streets and the adjacent building form would be highly useful. General platitudes about building height and type are helpful but don’t seem conclusive. It would be much easier to say that buildings shouldn’t be over six stories on a living street if there was more definitive research to back it up.
6.
Finally, studies on cost comparison analysis between standard design streets and living design streets would be intriguing and a bit ground-breaking. I tried to find information on the relative costs of the different design schemes, but to little luck. While one
can compare the overall buildout cost of the cases where the cost is provided, it seems almost necessary in the next phase of living street design to be able to prove that not only does it provide a wide range of physical and social benefits, but that it also pencils out nicely. Living street design has been explored before in Seattle, by way of woonerf design, but was derailed for various political and logistical reasons. This should not dissuade city staff and policy makers from investigating the topic again. While it may again turn out to be too costly, or difficult to implement, or just too different from what we already do, there is so much potential benefit to be had from living street design that it’s more than worth pursuing. Whether it’s rolled out across the urban villages or confined to a pilot location, Seattle, and cities like it, should take the opportunity to experiment in making their streets more livable and efficient. As Seattle continues to mature and densify, it is important that we recognize the potential for our streets. We are coming to a time where we cannot afford to let streets just be places for things to move through. We can do better by reconceiving of our streets as places to spend time, to be active, to live.
101
CLOSING THOUGHTS In researching and designing this document, I found it right odd that living streets, in the assorted forms of woonerven, home zones, and shared spaces, aren’t commonplace. My fear, now, is that living streets aren’t already the norm, not because they’re impractical or don’t make sense, but because we simply don’t talk about them enough. That we get so caught up, politically and personally, on notions of gridlock, mode split, and cost-benefit that we forget that streets can be spaces in addition to corridors.
not be swift nor easy. But take heart, as it is an honorable and worthwhile pursuit to provide spaces that stimulate activity, that enable friendships, that create memories, that allow for living.
For a concept that is fifty years old, woonerven have had plenty of time to become embedded in design lexicon and practice, yet haven’t quite. Instead, they’re spoken of in whispers as though they were dreams to fantastical to be real or foreign oddities that just can’t apply here.
I have been incredibly fortunate going on this exploration of living streets and I’m proud to share it with you. It has been a long, arduous process to get this far, but the work (hopefully) is just beginning.
Some demystifying is needed. Living streets aren’t the solution to all of our urban problems (they are just a different way of organizing space, after all) but surely they can make a dent. The nature of our relationship with the cities in which we live is constantly shifting, and if we refuse to recognize those shifts, we’ll be stuck with places that no one wants to live near or invest in. We need better, and we deserve better, streets and spaces. So to those willing to take on the cause of living streets, be ready. In an environment where proposals for road diets and bike lanes are met with reflexive vitriol, as though all of the freedoms we hold dear are in jeopardy, rolling out a street design that drastically challenges norms will 102
As designers of the built environment, our legacy should be streets, buildings and spaces that inspire activity, joy, and delight. These things that we add to the earth have long lifespans, and it would be a shame to continue burdening ourselves and our children with bland, dull, stodgy spaces.
Deep and profuse thanks to: Nancy Rottle and Joaquin Herranz, who were invaluable in focusing my thoughts and spurring me on, Gary Johnson, for being incredibly flexible and patient while I slowly developed this document, The staff of DPD and SDOT, for all the work that I piggybacked on and that you continue to do in spite of dire cutbacks And my friends and family, for your unfailing moral and financial support
IMAGES SOURCED Pg 1 Cover Page Photo: Adrian Trim, Morice Town Project Manager. http://bit.ly/mNT67T Literature Review Pg 13 Section Page Photo: London Play. http://bit.ly/mE4ssf Pg 14 Quote Background: Google Streetview, March 2011 Pg 16 Gehl Headshot: Jan Gehl, Cities for People. 2010. Pg 16 Appleyard Headshot: Donald Appleyard, Livable Streets. 1982. Pg 21 Lennard Headshot: LivableCities.org board member list. http://bit.ly/jtLTkQ Pg 22 Jacobs Headshot: WhatWeSee.org About Jane Jacobs page. http://bit.ly/kWxUfV Pg 23 Ben Joseph Headshot: MIT Faculty bio page. http://bit.ly/jOyXgW Pg 25 Lynch Headshot: MIT Museum Collection. http://bit.ly/lY8jM6 Pg 26 Whyte Headshot: Goodreads.com. Pg 27 Cooper Marcus Headshot: Project For Public Spaces. http://bit.ly/m8bAQt Case Studies Pg 29 Pg 32 Pg 33 Pg 34 Pg 35 Pg 36 Pg 37 Pg 38 Pg 39 Pg 42 Pg 43 Pg 44 Pg 45 Pg 46
Section Page Photo: Joel Mann, Flickr. http://bit.ly/mCXJGN Title Bar: Streetswiki.com. http://bit.ly/bPbHmZ Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Woonerf Diagram: Federal Highway Administration. http://1.usa.gov/jXEQHh All Graphics: Google Street View, March 2011 Title Bar: Mary Fialko, November 2010 Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Title Bar: Payton Chung, Toronto Star. http://bit.ly/jNE7j6 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Street Photos: Google Streetview, March 2011 Title Bar: Seth Geiser, May 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Street Plan Diagram: Terry Avenue North Street Design Guidelines, Seattle DOT http://1.usa.gov/mtPnHM Street Photos: Seth Geiser, May 2011 Title Bar: Methleys.Org.UK. http://bit.ly/mQsXaZ Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Street Photo: Methleys.Org.UK. http://bit.ly/lK7HLY Street Photos: Google Streetview, March 2011 Title Bar: Adrian Trim, Morice Town Project Manager. http://bit.ly/mNT67T Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Title Bar: Google Streetview, March 2011 Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011
103
Case Studies (continued) Pg 47 Street Photos: Google Streetview, March 2011 Pg 48 Title Bar: Google Streetview, March 2011 Street Photo: Northmoor Urban Arts Project. http://bit.ly/k1XHkA Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Pg 49 Street Photos: Google Streetview, March 2011 Pg 51 Title Bar: The Ashford Ring Road Project. http://bit.ly/iwMIl3 Before Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 After Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Pg 52 Title Bar: CC Chapman, Flickr. http://bit.ly/l5qrcq Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Pg 53 Title Bar: Google Streetview, March 2011 Street Photo: Google Streetview, March 2011 Aerial Photo: Google Maps, March 2011 Pg 54 Title Bar: Peter Swift. http://bit.ly/mn0tx7 Street Section: Blackbird Architects. http://bit.ly/mn0tx7 Aerial Diagram: Nelson-Nygaard. http://bit.ly/9mLQBt Design Components and Recommendations Pg 55 Section Page Photo: Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition http://bit.ly/l4csNz Pg 60 Bollards: Tim Pickford-Jones. http://bit.ly/loi89a Seating: Sasatro, Flickr. http://bit.ly/f31u05 Planters: Julie Rosenberg. The Brooklyn Paper. http://bit.ly/ivR5k5 Overhead Protection: groundwork.org.uk. http://bit.ly/jBUNtw Bike Racks and Bays: Seattle DOT Bike Smart. http://1.usa.gov/kLOrZd Barrier Walls: Sunny Pritchard. http://bit.ly/iupnvr Play Equipment: Paul Chinn. San Francisco Chronicle. http://bit.ly/lBFXyT Water Features: Seattletales.com. http://bit.ly/iUlXDa Lighting: Seth Geiser. September, 2008. Pg 61 Bricks: Historicalbricks.com. http://bit.ly/j7A8Xu Pervious Concrete: Quenchcrete.com. http://bit.ly/lUEHoj Planted Pavers: LA Team Effort. http://bit.ly/9WBYsF Colored Pavers: Lizdavid. Travelpod.com. http://bit.ly/lDU9PY Stamped Concrete: Madison Downtown Design Professionals Workgroup. http://bit.ly/khPZjU Natural Groundcover: Fred Leeson. http://bit.ly/a3zQAP Contained Gravel: Life Landscapes. http://bit.ly/l1gyEI Paint: Eric Higby. http://bit.ly/iADmwh Pg 62 Seating Squares: Mille Fiori. http://bit.ly/g8BSQ Pocket Park: Project For Public Spaces. http://bit.ly/i2Rm0 Green Patches: Streeteditors.com. http://bit.ly/ijH5gN Growing Gardens: Seattlerex.com. http://bit.ly/k8hZd5 Playgrounds: NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. http://bit.ly/jPhRS7 Ball Courts: Squarefour.org. http://bit.ly/jXfi0P Community Kitchens: TravelTam, Tripadvisor.com. http://bit.ly/is1bhT
104
Design Components and Recommendations (continued) Pg 62 Street Food Stations: MarieSam Sanchez. http://bit.ly/ig5kMP Shelters: Seattle.gov. http://1.usa.gov/jO4zyQ Pg 63 Swales: Buffalorising.com. http://bit.ly/23DG1c Green Walls: Designsquish.com. http://bit.ly/jwsCpx Cisterns: Urbaraincatchergazette.ca. http://bit.ly/m6L6ra Gardens: Bikinginmanhattan.com. http://bit.ly/ifbCgy Tree Pits: Dupontcircle.biz. http://bit.ly/mnpADx Policy Analysis and Recommendations Pg 65 Section Page Photo: Rob Ketcherside. Flickr. http://bit.ly/jFCK12 Conclusion Pg 99 Pg 106
Section Page Photo: Mary Fialko, November 2010. Closing Page Photo: Sascha Ethelberg, http://bit.ly/jBiM9M
105
LIVING STREETS WOONERF-BASED, PEOPLE-ORIENTED STREET POLICY AND DESIGN FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE 106
