Experimenting With the Margin: Parklets and Plazas as Catalysts in Community and Government

EXPERIMENTING WITH THE MARGIN

PARKLETS AND PLAZAS

AS CATALYSTS IN COMMUNITY and GOVERNMENT by

Robin Abad Ocubillo

A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

August 2012 Copyright 2012 Robin Abad Ocubillo

Abad Ocubillo 2012 ii

Acknowledgements

Thesis Committee:

Rachel Berney, Ph.D. Committee Chair Assistant Professor, School of Architecture University of Southern California Robert Harris, FAIA, Hon. ASLA Director, Graduate Landscape Architecture Program Professor Emeritus, School of Architecture University of Southern California Simon Pastucha Head, Urban Design Studio Los Angeles City Planning Department

Additional Reviewers:

John Kaliski Vinayak Bharne

Thank you to all the ‘Parkleteers’ who supported this study, especially those who generously contributed their time with an interview.

Abad Ocubillo 2012 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................v ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................viii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1 1.1 – EXPERIMENTING WITH THE MARGIN........................................................................................... 2 1.2 – AREAS OF INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................................. 6 1.3 – QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................................................18 1.4 – METHODS OF INVESTIGATION......................................................................................................19

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................22 2.1 – PLANNING CONTEXT .....................................................................................................................23 2.2 – FROM TACTICS TO STRATEGIES AND BACK: OVERLAPPING URBANISMS ..............................34 2.3 – THE GENEALOGY OF PARKLETS AND PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS ....................................................44 2.4 – INTEGRATED MODES OF SPATIAL AND SOCIAL PRODUCTION.................................................58 2.5 – OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES OF HEURISTIC URBANISM..........................................................68

CHAPTER 3 – FINDINGS.......................................................................................................77 3.1 – INNOVATION AND RESTRUCTURING............................................................................................78 3.2 – PRE-‐EXISTING CONDITIONS AND EMERGING CRITERIA FOR VIABILITY .............................132

CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 151 4.1 – RADICAL, INCREMENTAL, CATALYTIC......................................................................................152 4.2 – THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF HEURISTIC URBANISM ........................................................155 4.3 – EPILOGUE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.......................................................185

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................ 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 199 APPENDIX A – METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................211 APPENDIX B – CATALOGUE OF INTERVIEWS.................................................................................214 APPENDIX C – CATALOGUE OF CASES ............................................................................................217 APPENDIX D – INTERVIEW TOOLS..................................................................................................224 APPENDIX E – HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW EXEMPTION / APPROVAL LETTER........................238 APPENDIX F – PARKLET PERMITTING FLOW CHARTS.................................................................238

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#!

!"#$%&'%()*+,#%

!$%&'(!)*!!$+(!,"--(.(/0(!&(12((/!3.45(016!%/,!3.47.%8699999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999):!!$%&'(!;*!3<&'"0=3."#%1(!>..%/7(8(/169999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999?@!!$%&'(!A*!B%1%'47<(!4-!C/1(.#"(26 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999;)@!!$%&'(!D*!B%1%'47<(!4-!B%6(6E!B"1F!4-!G%/!H.%/0"60499999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999;)I!!$%&'(!@*!B%1%'47<(!4-!B%6(6E!B"1F!4-!J4/7!K(%0+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999;;L!!$%&'(!?*!B%1%'47<(!4-!B%6(6E!B"1F!4-!M%N'%/, 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999;;)!!$%&'(!:*!B%1%'47<(!4-!B%6(6E!!B"1F!4-!J46!>/7('(699999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999;;A!

Abad Ocubillo 2012 v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Categories of Public Space Intervention ...................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Heuristic Urbanism model ...............................................................................................21

Figure 3: Parklet at Arlequin Café, ..................................................................................................13

Figure 4: 'Curbside Public Seating Platform' or Parklet ........................................................14

Figure 5: "Castro Commons” Plaza ..................................................................................................15

Figure 6: Typical Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza Stakeholder Structure...........................21

Figure 7: Parklets and Plazas in a Continuum of Permanence. ...........................................28

Figure 8: Tactical Spectrum ................................................................................................................37

Figure 9: Guerilla Sidewalk Beautification..................................................................................39

Figure 10: Heuristic Urbanism process illustrated..................................................................44

Figure 11: 'Portable Park IV' .............................................................................................................46

Figure 12: Hayes Valley Farm ...........................................................................................................47

Figure 13: The first PARK(ing) installation..................................................................................50

Figure 14: Parklet hosted by Caffé Roma......................................................................................50

Figure 15: ‘Community Living Room’ .............................................................................................55

Figure 16: A Historical Timeline for Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas .............................56

Figure 17: New Sidewalk Landscaping ..........................................................................................60

Figure 18: Elmer Avenue Greenstreet...........................................................................................62

Figure 19: What Makes a Good Place?...........................................................................................71

Figure 20: ‘Deepistan National Parklet,’ ........................................................................................75

Abad Ocubillo 2012 vi

Figure 21: Plaza at 'Fowler Square' ................................................................................................81

Figure 22: 'Pavement to Parks' Inter-‐Agency Collaborators ................................................84

Figure 23: ‘Showplace Triangle’ Plaza............................................................................................86

Figure 24: Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation..........88

Figure 25: City of Long Beach Internal Stakeholders .............................................................91

Figure 26: City of Oakland -‐ Initial Internal Parklet Stakeholders....................................96

Figure 27: CicLAvia, Saturday April 10 2012 ..........................................................................103

Figure 28: Map of Relevant Council Districts in Los Angeles ...........................................106

Figure 29: Sunset Triangle Plan ....................................................................................................109

Figure 30: Sunset Triangle Stakeholder Structure ...............................................................112

Figure 31: Parklet and 'Street Porch' Stakeholder Structure...........................................114

Figure 32: 'Street Porch' on York Boulevard in Highland Park, Los Angeles ............116

Figure 33: Spring Street Parklet Initiative (Abad Ocubillo 2012).................................118

Figure 34: Four Barrel Coffee Parklet.........................................................................................138

Figure 35: A network of design and planning professionals .............................................118

Figure 36: Concentric Circles of Catalysis.................................................................................153

Figure 37: Noe Valley Parklets ......................................................................................................160

Figure 38: Parklet signage at Absinthe restaurant ..............................................................129

Figure 39: Parklet signage at the 'Squat & Gobble Café’.....................................................129

Figure 40: Standard Cafe Furniture,............................................................................................165

Figure 41: Parklet at Lola's Mexican Cuisine...........................................................................167

Figure 42: Parklet access should not be restricted or regulated....................................168

Abad Ocubillo 2012 vii

Figure 43: Standard Signage for NYC 'Public Curbside Seating Platforms'................171

Figure 44: "Priority Map" from the "NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines" 173

Figure 45: Freewheel Bike Shop Parklet and Bike Corral..................................................176

Figure 46: 40th Street Parklet.........................................................................................................177

Figure 47: Fabric8 Parklet...............................................................................................................178

Figure 48: Parkmobile.......................................................................................................................180

Figure 49: Spring Street Parklet Typologies............................................................................182

Figure 50: The Powell Street Promenade ..................................................................................184

Figure 51: Parklet Implementation Process, City of San Francisco................................241

Figure 52: Parklet Implementation Process, City of Long Beach....................................242

Figure 53: Parklet Implementation Process, City of Oakland ..........................................243

Abad Ocubillo 2012 viii

Abbreviations

BID Business Improvement District BOE Bureau of Engineering (Department of Public Works) BSS Bureau of Street Services BTE Bureau of Traffic Engineering (Department of Public Works) BSUM Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (City of San Francisco) CEDA Community Economic Development Agency (City of Oakland) CBD Community Benefit District CD Council District CRA Community Redevelopment Agency DP Department of Planning DOT Department of Transportation (City of Los Angeles) DPH Department of Public Health DPW Department of Public Works HOZ Historic Overlay Zone IMA Installation and Management Agreement (City of Long Beach) ISCOTT Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Transportation LA Los Angeles, City of LAC Loc Angeles County LB Long Beach, City of

Abad Ocubillo 2012 ix

LACBC Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition MTA Municipal Transportation Agency (San Francisco) NYC New York City P2P Pavement to Parks (City of San Francisco) PLUMC Planning and Land Use Management SubCommitte (City of Los Angeles) PWOP Public Walkways Occupancy Permit (City of Long Beach) S4P Streets for People (City of Los Angeles) SPC Street Plans Collaborative RFP Request for Proposals ROW Right-‐of-‐Way SF San Francisco, City and County of SFBC San Francisco Bicycle Coalition SFGS San Francisco Great Streets (A project of the SFBC) UDG Urban Design Group (San Francisco Planning Department) UDS Urban Design Studio (Los Angeles City Planning Department) WOBO Walk Oakland, Bike Oakland

Abad Ocubillo 2012 x

Abstract

Two related typologies of small-‐scale, experimental urban design have

emerged in recent years as a synthesis of community action and progressive

governmental experimentation: the Parklet and the Pedestrian Plaza. The Parklet

occupies curbside parking spaces while the Pedestrian Plaza reclaims excess

roadway, often at irregular intersections. While the typologies differ in physical

form, both emerge from a common thrust of experimental action redressing the

urban fabric and environment. Together, these two typologies – and the city

programs created to facilitate their implementation – begin to define a process of

Heuristic Urbanism: a collaborative practice that engages urban design through

provisional programs and projects that are continually self-‐evaluating. This thesis

illustrates how the Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas necessitates

innovation within city government through the assimilation of grassroots initiatives.

A literature review outlines the theoretical and practical contexts from which

Heuristic Urbanism emerges; suggests the evolutionary heritage of Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas; and examines the range of assumptions, expectations, and

outcomes engendered by the new typologies and their relatives. The thesis then

leverages interviews with over 65 individual stakeholders from government,

advocacy groups, design and business communities in four California cities which

are in various stages of advancing Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza programs.

Abad Ocubillo 2012 xi

The findings outline the evolution of Heuristic Urbanism in California,

critiquing the modes by which its contributing programs are initiated and

implemented; conditions for viable projects; and the observed and anticipated

impacts of those programs and projects.

By profiling four case cities where urban design experiments are being

institutionalized from grassroots actions into sanctioned planning objectives, the

thesis develops a narrative of how this Heuristic Urbanism is being disseminated

throughout California. While the study identifies some elemental commonalities

across all four cities, it also reveals a great variation in the respective processes of

each, illustrating how the process of Heuristic Urbanism adapts in unique contexts.

The discussion then moves from overarching examination of program

development to circumstances at the site and neighborhood scale; identifying

common physical and social conditions as pre-‐requisites for Parklet and Plaza

viability. This set of conditions is generated from stakeholder interviews and

correlated with the literature review. Here the thesis articulates a coherent

practical framework for evaluating future potential sites of intervention; engaging

the dialectic between action, research, analysis, and refinement that characterizes

Heuristic Urbanism.

The study concludes with a discussion on the long-‐term implications of

Heuristic Urbanism for urban design and planning practice. Significant and

recurring themes emerge from the interviews; defining a territory which addresses

public-‐private tensions, the role of design professionals in activism and governance,

Abad Ocubillo 2012 xii

and the catalytic potential of Heuristic Urbanism for re-‐adapting both the urban

fabric and modes of its management.

Abad Ocubillo 2012 1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION


1.1 – Experimenting With the Margin

Through the last half century the American streetscape has suffered

significant inattention, to the grave detriment of the pedestrian experience. The

work of Donald Appleyard (1981), Douglass Lee (1973), Serge Chermayeff and

Christopher Alexander (1963), Mike Davis (1990/2006), Jane Jacobs (1961) and

others has demonstrated the devastating social effects of rationalist planning and

auto-‐centric urban design. Furthermore, the literature indicates that low-‐income,

minority communities are often disproportionately affected by proximity to

highways, the absence of open space amenities, and services accessible by walking.

This environmental injustice correlates with higher pollution levels, increased

disease and social dystopia.

As our principal open space network, streets embody significant potential for

improving urban life. In this complex spatial and social realm, constructs of public

and private fuse and overlap; modes of mobility compete for space; ecological and

habitat values remain largely underdeveloped. The sidewalk is now, perhaps more

than ever, the subject of exacting scrutiny and a venue of heightened contestation.

It’s functional, physical and philosophical extents seem to expand even as it

becomes a singular focal point through which new configurations of urban life are

envisioned and executed.

A bourgeoning movement of passionate designers, community groups, and

government facilitators has emerged in recent years to remake the streetscape with


design experimentation. A robust ethos seems to inform the motivations of all

stakeholders involved, perceiving streetscape revolution as a critical mode for

advancing social and environmental equity. These interventions range from

engineered storm water gardens and permanent ‘road diets’ to semi-‐permanent,

‘artscape’ outdoor ‘living rooms’ and newly formed Pedestrian Plazas. The Parklet

(San Francisco) recently emerged as an unprecedented experimental form.

Ideologically aligned, these Programs and projects seem to occur through varying

modes of social, political, and design engagement; and at differing levels of financial

support from private and public sources.

1.1.1 – Relevance to Design

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas are design products. They are tactical

responses to the environmental, spatial, and social dysfunction of our streets, which

comprise up to 25% of the urban ground plane (Sadik-‐Khan 2011, Seligman 2011).

This translates into over 6,500 miles of streets apiece for the cities of Los Angeles

and New York (Sadik-‐Khan 2011). These environments – products of traffic

engineering – require immediate attention from other professions which are more

attendant to humanistic and ecological dimensions.

Currently, the public realm is planned and administered by a vast array of

agencies (public works, traffic, transit, planning) each imbued with their own realm

of oft-‐conflicting authority (Ford 2000; Garde 1999). Collectively – though not

necessarily collaboratively – these agencies produce the streetscape in its


contemporary form. Here, landscape architecture can play a role integrating the

interests of each agency through the lens of design

The landscape architecture tradition draws upon vast aesthetic, social and

scientific considerations which equip it for design experimentation in the

contemporary streetscape. Moreover, when considered with its allied disciplines

such as Architecture, Urban Design, and Planning, Landscape Architecture most

consistently incorporates the human experience with ecological (horticultural,

biological, hydrological) performance criteria within its practice. Besides the

human and ecological aspects, current infrastructural systems are also under

examination and experimentation by landscape architects. Streets – within which

infrastructure such as energy, freshwater, sewage and storm water services are

spatially collocated – comprise a complex realm for which landscape architecture is

especially suited to investigate.

Experimental landscape architecture in the streetscape can effect lasting

collaboration between disparate government agencies while mitigating socio-‐

ecological dysfunction. For example in San Francisco, a new government program

comprised of several agencies was created to facilitate Parklet and Plaza

installations. This case demonstrates how the mutual desire for a landscape

architecture product necessitated the reformation of policy and structures of civic

governance.


1.1.2 – Issues and Dilemmas

Throughout history, streetscape interventions have involved a complex

public-‐private dynamic. Much contemporary experimentation – for example with

the Plaza Program in New York and Pavement to Parks Program in San Francisco – is

based on a public-‐private partnership. At the very least, these partnerships impose

a maintenance and management burden on the private stakeholder; at the very

most, private entities fund all the costs of design, construction, and maintenance.

Extensive literature focuses on the implications of the private management of public

space, addressing issues of policing and classicism (Crawford 2008; Davis

1990/2006; Ehrenfeucht and Loukaitou-‐Sideris 2009). Again, landscape

architecture – by way of its development of park and boulevard typologies in

modern history – can inform the design and execution of streetscapes which

straddles the physical and legal boundaries between the public and private realm.

Experimental landscape architecture in streetscapes satisfies a wide array of

concerns, both conceptually and practically. Notable enterprises include the Plaza

Program in New York City; the Pavement to Parks program in San Francisco, Parklet

programs in Long Beach and Oakland; and other yet-‐isolated efforts throughout Los

Angeles. By investigating these phenomena, the landscape architecture profession

(along with urban designers, planners, and other advocates) can systematically

understand successful experimental approaches for retrofitting existing

streetscapes to improve the social and ecological functions of neighborhoods.


1.2 Areas of Investigation

Experimental urban design can take many forms and is executed through

diverse modes of social, political, and governmental action. This study investigates

those cases which occur within or adjacent to the auto-‐right-‐of way. The pervasive

spatial and social extent of streets has already been discussed, thus narrowing this

study to the appropriation of auto-‐exclusive land uses.

1.2.1 – Places, Projects and Programs

This study focuses on two regions in California which exhibit significant

activity or potential for experimental urban design within the right-‐of-‐way: The San

Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Region. The two regions – with their

respective cities – provide ample potential for structural comparison. By inquiring

with design professionals, governments, and other advocates in each city, models of

implementation emerge.

A brief presentation of experimental urban design in New York City prefaces

the discussion of California cities; providing valuable background. In NYC, urban

design experimentation has achieved a highly regarded and institutionalized status.

Underpinned by a rich and thorough heritage of urban traditions and planning, New

York’s Plaza Program presents an ever-‐relevant model for study and appropriation.

Indeed, the Plaza Program in New York has directly influenced the efforts of cities

elsewhere in the country.


Figure 1: Categories of Public Space Intervention (Abad Ocubillo 2012). The typologies examined by this thesis are outlined in red.

San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks Program was modeled heavily on the New

York example. San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks program just completed an

inaugural two years and can be understood as experimental itself. The most striking

features of the San Francisco program are the cross-‐agency coalition on one hand,

and on the other hand, the emergence of the Parklet, an unprecedented public space

typology with roots in avant-‐garde performance art endemic to San Francisco. A

research focus on the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza – typologies of experimental


design – sharpens the study and provides a ready unit of investigation in all four

concerned cities.

San Francisco provides a rich venue for discovering how ‘activist

architecture’, ad-‐hoc urbanism, and the initiatives of design professionals have

produced not only landscapes but also changes in policy and governance.

Describing the process of ‘bottom-‐up’ urban design – especially that emerging

explicitly from the design community – informs potential strategies for Los Angeles

and other cities. Here the thesis identifies three other cities with initiatives that

parallel those in New York and San Francisco. The study tracks possibilities for or

intentions of government, community organizations, and design networks to

institutionalize experimental programs within the cities’ sanctioned structures. The

cities examined in this these are presented order of their relative development:

1. The City and County of San Francisco

2. The City of Long Beach

3. The City of Oakland

4. The City of Los Angeles


1.2.2 – Heuristic Urbanism

This thesis examines the dialectical relationships between urban design

experimentation and planning; tactics and strategies; citizen actions and

government policy. The recursive interplay between these overlapping arenas –

this process – is here named Heuristic Urbanism.

Heuristic Urbanism observes how ephemeral, renegade actions in public

space become legible to and assimilated by the governance regimes of cities. This

assimilation takes the form of permanent legislation, policies, programs, and

planning imperatives. This process of institutionalization – resulting in great part

from grassroots effort – entails a deeper and greater citizen involvement that tends

to become a normative and engrained element of the new policy or program.


Figure 2: Heuristic Urbanism model (Abad Ocubillo 2012). The process often begins with a radical action or event staged by radical actors; the idea then

becomes institutionalized. The participation of radical actors – and the radical action itself – becomes normalized within this process. See Figure 10 for an

illustration of how the Parklet becam

e a Sanctioned Typology.


Heuristic Urbanism refers to an evolutionary process within urban design

rather than the individual constituent actions, typologies, events, tactics, and

strategies associated with that process. An extensive survey of those actions,

typologies, and events is beyond the scope of this thesis. Instead, this study focuses

on two new and related urban design typologies at the center of Heuristic Urbanism:

the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza.

In outlining the shared genealogy of Parklets and Plazas, this thesis reveals

four commonalities which characterize the two interventions, the city programs

through which they are implemented, and Heuristic Urbanism:

1. Encroachment onto Auto-‐Exclusive Land Use – Each Program deliberately

targets the automobile right-‐of-‐way for opportunities to expand the

pedestrian realm. This fits within cities’ long-‐term intentions to create more

spatial balance between the auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modalities.

2. Experimental Nature – Both interventions are administered under programs

which typically begin with a 12-‐month pilot phase. Each individual project

usually receives a provisional permit of one year to accommodate monitoring

and evaluation on a site-‐by-‐site basis.

3. Innovation of New Government Structures and programs – Parklet and Plaza

Programs are often novel inter-‐departmental partnerships created to

facilitate implementation. The new collaborative program is self-‐monitoring

– becoming more sophisticated through successive cycles – suggesting

exciting potential for this study, and for longitudinal analyses as well.


4. Public-‐Private Partnership – As interventions which integrate functional,

aesthetic, and experiential considerations, design professionals are often

critical initiators, participants, and advocates for projects and programs. This

community-‐based initiative, sometimes integrated with local government

planning activity, can predate implementation by up to a decade.

Furthermore, the public-‐private arrangement also aligns with the fiscal

realities of governments, who rely increasingly upon monetary and creative

investments from private groups and citizens. The public-‐private structure

also touches issues of privatization, policing, and design ethics.

1.2.3 – The Parklet

The term ‘parklet’ has heretofore been used informally to refer to a small

urban park, ‘mini park’ or ‘pocket park’ (Gillool 2010; Martin 1998; The

Washington Post 1967; Z Waugh 1947; Zion 1962). This thesis recognizes the

Parklet as distinct urban design typology with specific spatial characteristics

prototyped in San Francisco: the Parklet occupies a curbside parking lane, often

reclaiming contiguous spaces, functionally expanding the pedestrian realm of the

sidewalk.

Parklet installations are essentially temporary. Projects are granted permits

on a renewable annual basis, which implies a limit to their lifetimes and their

potential to effect – as individual sites or cumulatively – more permanent

interventions and policies.


Figure 3: Parklet at Arlequin Café, Hayes Street, San Francisco. (Abad Ocubillo 2012). This simple platform extends from the sidewalk into the curbside parking lane. Most other Parklets employ a greater range of design creativity with integral seating, unconventional material combinations and whimsical plantings. (Designer:“Arlequin Café”)

Parklet projects are funded and managed exclusively by private entities

(‘applicants,’ ‘sponsors’ or ‘hosts’). Only one city in California surveyed in this thesis

(Long Beach) allows the host to regulate access to the Parklet. San Francisco

stringently stipulates open public access to the Parklet as a condition of permitting.

Oakland and Los Angeles, both in various stages of articulating Parklet regulations,

at this time trend towards equal public access as well.1


The new typology described here as the Parklet does appear elsewhere

under different monikers. For example, the New York City Department of

Transportation refers to them as “Curbside Public Seating Platforms” or “Pop Up

Cafés” (New York City Department of Transportation 2011). They are referred to

alternatively as “Street Porches” or “Street Plazas” in community planning

discussions for Northeast Los Angeles (Newton 2012). This thesis recognizes all

interventions that share the same programmatic profile outlined above as Parklets.

Figure 4: 'Curbside Public Seating Platform' or Parklet at Cafe Local, 144 Sullivan Street, Brooklyn. (Designers: Craig and Elizabeth Walker; Architect: Sean Gale)


1.2.4 – The Pedestrian Plaza

The term ‘plaza’ is imbued with rich and varied meaning in western culture

which undergirds its application to the specific typology studied here. In this thesis,

Pedestrian Plaza refers directly to pedestrian spaces reclaimed from formerly auto-‐

exclusive land use; often at irregular intersections or along the margins of wide

roadways. This definition comes from the NYC DOT (2012a, 2012b), which by

originating this method of open space production, formed the basis for like

procedures in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Figure 5: "Castro Commons” Plaza (Design and Rendering by Seth Boor, Boor Bridges Architecture 2009. shown with permission). Boor generated this design rendering after a trial street closure that used reclaimed materials and temporary barricades (the trial phase was coordinated by Pavement to Parks, The Castro CBD, and Public Architecture). The second and permanent phase was executed using Seth's design shown here, with some modifications in the field. The checkered surface pattern and tall planters indicate the area closed to auto traffic. See Figure 23 and Figure 29 for examples of other Pedestrian Plaza plans.


The ‘pilot’ phase of Pedestrian Plazas facilitates two crucial aspects of

experimentation: performance evaluation and resource efficiency. New York and

San Francisco systematically study the impacts of road closure to auto traffic,

pedestrian safety, and user perception (Dunlap 2009; New York City Department of

Transportation 2011, 2012; San Francisco Great Streets Project 2010, 2011). In

terms of project execution, the pilot design iterations often employ recycled,

reclaimed or otherwise inexpensive materials to facilitate speedy implementation

(Arieff 2009).

Though planning, design, and implementation is funded totally or in large

part by their host cities, Pedestrian Plazas are often predicated on significant,

longstanding local activism of community groups, associations, and Business

Improvement Districts (BIDs). In most cases, these same groups also assume the

management, maintenance, and programming of Plazas.


Table 1: The difference between Projects and Programs. Programs are comprised of individual Projects. In San Francisco, Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza Projects are administered under a single Program: Pavement to Parks. A future arrangement for Los Angeles could also place Parklets, Pedestrian Plazas – and even other related typologies – within a single Program.


1.3 - Questions

The inquiry in this thesis is guided by three questions examining the process

of Heuristic Urbanism, through the lens of Parklet and Pedestrian Plazas. These

questions address the larger structural context within which the Programs evolved;

the specific spatial and social conditions of project sites; and the significance of

Programs to urban design:

1. How are existing structures and systems of governmental and social

organization adapted in order to realize Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas in California Cities? What are the new innovative governmental,

private, and community mechanisms created?

2. Do the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza typologies emerge from specific

spatial and social conditions? What circumstances engender projects

and their viability?

3. What are the long-term implications of Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza

Programs in cities? For newer modes of producing urban space and

culture? What are factors worth watching?


1.4 – Methods of Investigation

Literature Review

This study reviews the extensive literature touching experimental urban

design interventions, laying out a theoretical and epistemological background for

the contemporary cases in San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, Los Angeles and

elsewhere. Here, Parklets are framed within a historical narrative of temporary

streetscape intervention in modern American culture. At the same time, synthesis

of the literature furnishes a working set of definitions and terms specific to this

study and its analysis. Popular press and media material include newsprint, blogs,

audio and video interviews related to experimental urban design.

Stakeholder Interviews

A comprehensive catalogue of projects was developed by reviewing popular

press on programs in San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach and Los Angeles (see

APPENDIX C). The study then targeted a minimum of 30% of cases in each city in

order to develop representative findings for each city.

The process of developing a catalogue of projects helped to identify

individual and group stakeholders associated with each city’s program and its cases.

At this stage, it became apparent that stakeholders across all cases fell naturally

within groupings indicative of their roles in the Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and


Pedestrian Plazas. (the significance of this organizational structure is discussed in

Sections 3.1.6 and 3.2.2). In terms of case and interviewee selection, the study then

targeted at least one individual from each of the first four stakeholder groups for

every case profiled. The exclusion of Users – the fifth and final group – is addressed

in later in Section 4.3.2.

• Government – City Departments and Staffers; Elected and Appointed Officials

• Private Partners – Businesses; Parklet and Plaza sponsors

• Community Partners – Local Non-‐profits, Neighborhood Groups, Homeowner

Associations

• Designers – Architects, Landscape Architects, Landscape Designers, plant

experts

• Users – Pedestrians and/or Parklet Users; Residents, Neighbors, Shoppers

and Commuters


Figure 6: Typical Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza Stakeholder Structure (Abad Ocubillo 2012). The primary research revealed five main categories of people engaged with Projects and Programs. For each case study project, at least one individual from each group was targeted for interview.


CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

This Chapter focuses on a brief historical overview that outlines the

theoretical and practical context from which Heuristic Urbanism emerges. Here,

constructs of public, private, space, permanence, and improvisation are surveyed

and defined. The literature review then develops a narrative tracing the evolution

of the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza typologies; connecting them with avant-‐garde

performance art and establishing a genealogy of concepts which undergird Heuristic

Urbanism, and. Finally, the literature review examines the impacts of Parklets,

Pedestrian Plazas, their antecedents and related typologies.


2.1 – Planning Context

Heuristic Urbanism signifies a radical departure from the ‘master planning’

paradigm that dominated the first half of the previous century. Henri Lefebvre’s The

Right to the City (1967) established a philosophical benchmark that framed planning

and urban design discourse in following decades. Lefebvre argued for a collective,

collaborative, and holistic mode of shaping urban life and experience. This

contrasts sharply with the rigid absolutism, linear rationality, and panoptic

ambition of modernist urban planning, which were duly criticized by Douglas

(1973), Faludi (1973), Hall (1983, 1992), Jacobs (1961), and Webber (1983).

The postmodernists’ attitude towards urbanism moves away from

normativity, universality, and conformity towards plurality, multivalence, and

flexibility (Bugarič 2010; Rowe & Koetter 1984; Dear and Flusty 1998). Davis

(1990/2006), Harvey (1990), and others examined the production of urban space

and life in the postmodern era in great detail. Ellin describes the emergence of

“social planning, community-‐based planning, participatory architecture, process

architecture, advocacy planning, self-‐building, and sweat-‐equity” (1996, p. 49) in the

late 1960s and 1970s as conscious challenges to the dominant paradigms of the

prescriptive, auto-‐centric tradition. Alternative approaches including

“Incrementalism” (Lindblom 1959) and “Mixed-‐Scanning” (Etzioni 1969) entered

the discourse around this time; and are especially pertinent to the process of

Heuristic Urbanism in the present day.


2.1.1 – Incrementalism and Mixed Scanning

Incrementalism was first proposed by Charles Lindblom (1959) as a radical

alternative to long-‐range master planning typical in the mid-‐twentieth century. The

major contribution of Lindblom’s theory to that of Heuristic Urbanism relates to

processes of self-‐evaluation and adjustment absent in the regime against which

Lindblom railed. As Marcus Lane enumerates in his history of “Public Participation

in Planning,” Incrementalism according to Lindbolm is characterized by Marcus

Lane in large part by: “continuously adjusting policy objectives,” “a reconstructive

treatment of data,” “serial analysis and evaluation,” and “remedial orientation and

evaluation” (2006, p. 290). Since Lindblom’s initial treatise in 1959, “Incremental

change” has been employed in discourse when referring not only to government

process and restructuring, but to physical changes to the urban fabric as well (Hou

2010; Street Plans Collaborative 2012). This thesis found that amongst

stakeholders, Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas are frequently identified with

“Incremental Change.”

David Harvey argues for the necessity of adopting an incremental approach

to the interpretation and production of urban space, describing The Condition of

Postmodernity as

…a conception of the urban fabric as necessarily fragmented, a ‘palimpsest’ of past forms superimposed upon each other, and a ‘collage’ of current uses, many of which may be ephemeral. Since the metropolis is impossible to command except in bits and pieces, urban design (and not that postmodernists design rather than plan) simply aims to be sensitive to vernacular traditions, local histories, particular wants, needs, and fancies, thus generating specialized, even highly


customized architectural forms that may range from intimate, personalized spaces, through traditional monumentality, to the gaiety of spectacle. (1990, p. 66)

Later, Amitai Etzioni would propose the Mixed Scanning approach as both a

critique of and alternative to Incrementalism. Etzioni sought to mediate what he

saw as a polemic between “the rationalistic approach” and Incrementalism:

Mixed-‐scanning reduces the unrealistic aspects of rationalism by limiting the details required in fundamental decisions and helps to overcome the conservative slant of incrementalism by exploring longer-‐run alternatives. …The mixed-‐ scanning model makes this dualism explicit by combining (a) high-‐order, fundamental policy-‐ making processes which set basic directions and (b) incremental ones which prepare for fundamental decisions and work them out after they have been reached. …The flexibility of the different scanning levels makes mixed-‐scanning a useful strategy for decision-‐making in environments of varying stability and by actors with varying control and consensus-‐building capacities. (1969, p. 385)

Contemporary Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza Programs can be considered Mixed

Scanning in practice. Whereas a municipal imperative to improve and augment the

pedestrian realm can be considered ‘high-‐order’ policy, the organic proliferation of

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas – through mixed community-‐government initiatives –

embody incremental efforts.

The concept of Mixed Scanning applied by Etzioni to decision-‐making can also

frame scales of space and time. Klaus Ronneberger – when discussing regulation of

urban development – acknowledges the agency of tactical actors often operating at a

highly localized or site-‐specific scale, in elastic spaces defined by social meaning:

“…take into consideration the greater whole and avoid defining any one spatial level

as the decisive field of action. It would be far better to link urban-‐planning schemes


at a number of different levels with projects that focus on social space” (2006, p. 54).

Here, Ronneberger addresses the utility – and indeed necessity – of accommodating

smaller, temporary programs within development planning. Not only do these

experimental programs provide crucial information by way of monitoring and

observation, but are unto themselves distinct and valuable (Temel 2006).

2.1.2 – Gradients of Permanence

Heuristic Urbanism observes how ephemeral, renegade actions in public

space become understood and assimilated by the governance regimes of cities. This

assimilation takes the form of permanent legislation, policies, programs, and

planning imperatives. However the transition between informal tactic and formal

strategy often requires intermediary stages of vetting and experimentation that

allows all stakeholders to become accustomed to the possibilities of change (Jones

2008).

In The Condition of Postmodernity, David Harvey contends that “the most

startling fact about postmodernism [is] its total acceptance of the ephemerality,

fragmentation, discontinuity, and the chaotic…” (1990, p. 44). Given this general

acceptance of the temporary and shifting nature of the states of postmodern life, its

follows that urban planning has – in transition from modernist absolutism –

assimilated short-‐term tactics and strategies into its practice. This mode of

experimentation and engagement is described variously as ‘semi-‐permanent,’

‘temporary,’ ‘interim,’ ‘provisional,’ and ‘ephemeral.’ A review of the literature

reveals varying definitions for these states of temporality which overlap in a


continuum. By describing these gradients, a territory for Heuristic Urbanism

becomes discernible. The literature also defines aspects of the ‘temporary’ which –

as corroborated by stakeholder interviews – become essential in the execution of

Parklets, Pedestrian Plazas, and like projects.

In Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, Haydn and

Temel (2006) delineate how the ‘temporary,’ ‘provisional,’ and ‘ephemeral’ form a

spectrum of potential states:

‘Ephemeral’ is a term from biology that refers to creatures that live for only a day. Ephemerality is thus an existential temporality; the ephemeral has a short life, its existence cannot be extended. This contrasts with the provisional, which begins as something with a short life but then, not infrequently, remains for very long periods. The temporary stands between these two positions. It is, on the one hand, short-‐lived like the ephemeral, but unlike the latter it can certainly exist for a longer period than was initially intended. It is possible to extend its life (p. 55).

Heuristic Urbanism and its related typologies (see Section 1.2 and Section 2.3) are

readily categorized according to the construct offered by Haydn el al. For example,

PARK(ing) DAY installations – which exist for one day only – qualify decidedly as

‘ephemeral.’ The ‘testing’ phases of Plaza interventions – often employing low-‐cost

or recycled materials to reconfigure use of the ROW (Arieff 2009) – are ‘temporary.’

Parklets, typically permitted for a year at a time and perceived as urban design

interventions in their own right, might be categorized as ‘temporary.’ However

when considering Parklets as site-‐ or district-‐specific precursors to permanent

sidewalk widening, they can be categorized as ‘provisional.’


Figure 7: Parklets and Plazas in a Continuum of Permanence (Abad Ocubillo 2012). Definitions for ‘Ephemeral,’ ‘Temporary,’ and ‘Provisional’ are based on Haydn and Temel, 2006.

This condition of ‘temporariness’ – incongruous with the preceding

conditions of modernist planning practice – is now recognized as a critical mode for

moving towards longer-‐term planning goals and imperatives. Framing

interventions as temporary experiments allows for monitoring and testing, by both

communities and government, in order to refine permanent strategies. For

example, the impact studies conducted in New York and San Francisco – during trial

phases of Plazas and Parklets – helped justify the permanent institutionalization of

those programs and projects (Dunlap 2009; New York City Department of

Transportation 2010, 2011; San Francisco Great Streets Project 2010, 2011). Parklet

programs are beginning in Oakland and Los Angeles as one-‐year trials; a period

allowing each city to vet the viability of a permanent, ongoing program.


Temporary programs and interventions can recast the use of urban spaces in

ways previously inconceivable (Bugarič 2010; Jones 2009; Temel 2006), as the

Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza have done in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,

and elsewhere. Peter Arlt describes “Interim Use… as a provisional measure rather

than as a permanent solution, although it can also be a way of demonstrating a

concept’s success in order to convince and investor that the chosen use could also

provide a permanent solution.” (2006, p.39). By accommodating an increasingly

diversified repertoire of temporary programs in public space, cities also further

empower their citizens to engage proactively in changing their urban environment,

engendering a practice of engagement described in Lefebvre’s Right to the City

(1967).

2.1.3 – Urban Design Research and Experimentation

The greater flexibility that distinguishes contemporary urban design from

past modes also allows for increased sophistication through iterative

experimentation and monitoring. Ephemeral, provisional, and temporary

typologies, projects, and phases provide for continual self-‐evaluation and

adjustment. At the typological and project level, research and experimentation

programmes monitor human factors such as usability, safety, and comfort. At the

program level, self-‐evaluation can lead to more efficient procedures, structures and

policies; modes of public engagement and collaboration with other city agencies.

Thus the programs and projects entailed in Heuristic Urbanism not only result from


and are subjects of social science research, but are themselves tools in ongoing,

long-‐term experimentation by cities.

Jane Jacobs’ ethnographic approach to documenting the vibrant life of inner

cities just after the midcentury can be considered among the first pieces of research

most pertinent to the process of Heuristic Urbanism observed from the present day.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1989/1961) – considered by every

measure a radical work at the time of its publication – would influence generations

of future urbanists and planners. Her seminal treatise would, over decades, become

assimilated within the perspective of urban design and planning.

Around a decade after the publication of Jacobs’ first work, Donald Appleyard

outlined a research agenda for urban design and decision making with his 1973

article Priorities for Environmental Psychology; the tenets of which filter into the

very practice of Heuristic Urbanism today. Here he advocated for the integration of

social science research throughout the various stages of architectural and urban

design (Cuff 1984). This research programme emphasized situational research

such as user interviews and observation; simulation; and continual augmentation to

the body of research with documented findings that could be disseminated for

practical application. Later, William Whyte and Jan Gehl would each practice robust

variants of Appleyard’s research regimen in cities around the globe. Indeed,

Whyte’s studies of parks and plazas in New York City during the late 1960s and

early 1970s led to the revision of municipal codes in that City, resulting in increased

use and liveliness of once-‐underutilized open spaces. Decades later in the 2000s,


Gehl Architects’ corridor studies of Broadway in New York City and other urban

districts around the world would substantially affect the planning objectives

adopted by those cities for redesign and reprogramming. The National Complete

Streets Coalition (LaPLante and McCann 2008), The Alliance for Biking and Walking

(2012), and the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project all base

their highly effective advocacy on vigorous research programmes that test the

effects of and explore the need for policy actions and streetscape interventions.

Others have expounded on the covalent relationship between social science

research and urban design. In his essay The Social Construction of Public Space, Ezio

Manzini observes that

Academics and designers are shifting their attention, and issues relating to the social city, i.e. to the communities and interconnected networks that make up a city, are attracting increasing interest. This has led us to observe the social phenomena taking place in cities, and in society at large, more attentively…. We find that cities are like huge social laboratories where new ideas and new solutions are being invented and experimented within all fields of daily life… These are feasible solutions that have already been implemented and, as a side-‐effect, are generating unprecedented forms of community (elective communities) and public spaces (shared public spaces). (2010, pp. 12-‐13)

Kathy Madden revives Donald Appleyard’s founding argument in her essay Public in

Place: Creating Successful Public Places. Here she reiterates the critical potential for

social science research to affect development and management of urban space:

It is clear that public space planning is really a ‘science’ that can yield important data to inform both the design and management of public space. The challenge remains how to bring this science into the mainstream so that designers, people in government and others who make decisions about public space respect and use this knowledge in


their work. Only then, will public spaces achieve their full potential to positively impact the lives of citizens in every community around the world. (2010, p. 93) These lines of inquiry and criticism – from Jacobs and Appleyard through to

Whyte and Gehl – all directly influence the process of Heuristic Urbanism in the

present day. The pilot Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza projects in New York City and

San Francisco provide opportunities for observation of onsite uses, traffic impacts

and other factors; producing studies that heavily influenced final decisions for

permanent interventions at those individual sites. Occupancy and post-‐occupancy

studies help shape policies and standards at the Program scale as well. In 2011, NYC

DOT published the Pilot Program Evaluation Report for Curbside Public Seating

Platforms, which included recommendations for the NYC Program and future

Parklet projects.

The necessity for research expands beyond social dimensions; for example

traffic studies are especially critical in situations involving road reconfigurations

(LaPlante and McCann 2008). When referring to Plaza-‐related street closures in

Midtown, NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-‐Khan carefully indicated that

ongoing monitoring and communication is critical to projects’ success: “It’s an

important first step to ease traffic and sidewalk congestion and create safe,

attractive spaces that are good for business… But it’s a work in progress, and we’ll

be monitoring the area closely during the initial adjustment period” (Dunlap 2009).

The 2010 Green Light for Midtown Evaluation Report helped New Yorkers


understand the traffic and circulation impacts of the pilot road closures along

Broadway.

Parklets have likewise been the subject of close scrutiny in both New

York City and San Francisco. The first-‐ever Parklet impact study was

conducted by the Great Streets program at the San Francisco Bicycle

Coalition (2010). SF Greatstreets published more studies in 2011; and NYC

DOT published a Pilot Program Evaluation Report for their Parklets in 2011

as well. These invaluable studies documented user behaviors and

perceptions specific to Parklets, forming a foundation of applied research

literature particular to that typology. In the City of Oakland, the nonprofit

Walk Oakland Bike Oakland (WOBO) partnered with a City Planning

Department Intern to design and execute pre-‐Parklet studies of project sites;

to be followed up with additional observations after Parklet installation.2 The

Parklet initiative on Spring Street in Los Angeles is also conducting pre-‐ and

post-‐project studies.3


2.2 – From Tactics to Strategies and Back:

Overlapping Urbanisms

Heuristic Urbanism refers to an evolutionary process rather than the

individual constituent actions, typologies, events, tactics, and strategies associated

with that process. It emerges from the Tactical vs. Strategic paradigm established by

Michel de Certeau (1984); where tactics are employed by the citizenry while

negotiating daily life in the city and strategies emanate from the state and

corporations in the form of government regulation and production of public space.

Heuristic Urbanism observes how ‘tactics’ become assimilated by the state (or city),

thereby transitioning from guerilla action into a sanctioned ‘strategy.’

Contemporary Parklet and Plaza programs are the premiere example of this tactic-‐

cum-‐strategy, and thus the subject of this thesis’ investigation.

The tactics first defined by de Certeau have been further elaborated by

others, signifying a broad range of actions and intentions. These ‘other urbanisms’

present a landscape of overlapping fields upon which Heuristic Urbanism is

inscribed and operates. De Certeau constructed a “producer / consumer” binary

that dissociated everyday people from modes of production, manipulation, or

regulation of their urban environment. An abundance of subsequent theory and

practice blurs de Certeau’s dual paradigm, demonstrating how the traditional

‘consumer’ defined by him is in fact intensely engaged – if not directly influencing –


the production of urban experience. Alvin Toffler (2008) first named the ‘prosumer’

or producer-‐consumer, which more recently Anna Meroni described as

The new kind of aware citizen who knows what the right solutions are for his/her local situation. Without prosumer action, the mere physical public space is as useful as a piece of hardware without software. The community is the context in which to orchestrate this plurality of voices through a democratic process that recognizes equal opportunities to all member s and allows their desires to guide the creation and implementation of solutions. (2010, p. 19)

The prosumer figure presents both a challenge to and evolution of de

Certeau’s dichotomy. This hybrid citizen appears more and more prominently in

subsequent urbanism discourse and is the central persona enacting Heuristic Urban

Design in the present day. Parklet and Plaza Program initiatives emerge from both

communities and governments; requiring intimate collaboration between both

groups for production, management, and improvement of the projects and

programs.

Haydn and Temel catalogue Temporary Urbanism (2006) in Europe, where

ephemeral uses recast the programmatic potentialities of abandoned or underused

venues. Many of their examples of temporary uses were intended to precipitate

structural or institutional changes and therefore cannot be categorized as ‘tactical’

in the sense established by de Certeau. This is the exact case with the Heuristic

Urbanism of Parklets and Demonstration Plazas – which, while connected with a

‘tactical’ heritage, are deliberately cast as change agents and not just reactions to the

physical and social environment.


Temel uses ‘tactical’ to describe the orientation of Temporary Urbanism,

while at the same time defining a causal relationship between ‘tactics’ and change in

a way that diverges from de Certeau:

…communities neither have the financial means nor the political power to plan entire neighbourhoods themselves. Like other individual actors, they have to proceed tactically rather than strategically, reacting to existing situations by attempting to locate the fulcrum that makes it possible to achieve large effects with limited means, by making arrangements with other actors or by cooperating with them. (2006, p. 57) More recently, groups such as the Street Plans Collaborative (2011, 2012)

employ the term ‘tactical’ when referring to a broad range of urban interventions

enacted by both sides of de Certeau’s tactical / strategic divide: the grassroots and

government. Their Tactical Urbanism explicitly links a wide spectrum of action with

an explicit intent to create change: “While larger scale efforts do have their place,

incremental, small-‐ scale improvements are increasingly seen as a way to stage

more substantial investments” (2011, p.1) They also acknowledge the

epistemological provenance of ‘tactic’ while decidedly expanding its realm of

contemporary application: “While the term is not our own, we do believe it best

describes the various initiatives surveyed herein… Sometimes sanctioned,

sometimes not, these actions are commonly referred to as ‘guerilla urbanism,’ ‘pop-‐

up urbanism,’ ‘city repair,’ or ‘D.I.Y. urbanism’” (2011, p.1).


Figure 8: Tactical Spectrum (Street Plans Collaborative, 2012 p.7; shown with permission). PARK(ing) DAY and SF Pavement to Parks appear towards the ‘Sanctioned’ end of this Spectrum. Bu involving City departments, those actions become ‘strategic’ as much as ‘tactical.’

Other inventories of “DIY Urbanism” diverge from de Certeau by co-‐

identifying initiatives of both communities and governments. In a September 2010

essay accompanying an exhibit at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research

Association (SPUR), author and curator Ruth Keffer (2010) lists ‘Outdoor Living

Rooms’ and PARK(ing) DAY with Parklets and San Francisco Sunday Streets, amongst

others. These cases which Keffer groups under “DIY Urbanism” fall on either side of

the tactical / strategic divide; their agents resembling the “prosumer” rather than

either producer or consumer. Furthermore Keffer celebrates the revolutionizing

ethos driving “DIY Urbanism,” with implicit cooperation between citizens and


government: “these projects reveal the ways in which small or finite efforts can

blossom into larger-‐scale, ongoing transformations” (2010).

Street Plans Collaborative ‘Tactician’ Mike Lydon carefully delineates the

distinction between the popular term ‘D.I.Y. Urbanism’ and Tactical Urbanism as

defined by the SPC. Shortly after the online publication of Tactical Urbanism:

Volume 1 (March 2011) via the Pattern Cities website, Lydon posted an entry on the

website entitled “The Difference Between Tactical and DIY Urbanism,” in which he

expounds:

DIY efforts are enacted from the bottom-‐up, not the top down. In other words, individuals or small groups of people work together to make an improvement or to communicate a message, typically at the scale of the urban block or building. Tactical Urbanism, however, allows both bottom-‐up and top-‐down initiatives to proliferate. Thus, you can DIY, or sometimes, if you are luck [sic] enough to have progressive leadership, the city may do it for you. (2011)

Thus DIY Urbanism – as framed here by Lydon – can be associated more closely with

de Certeau’s pure concept of the ‘tactical:’ actions emanating solely from the

disenfranchised polity; not a mode of engagement employed by both citizens and

government.


Figure 9: Guerilla Sidewalk Beautification (Abad Ocubillo 2012) on Valencia Street, between 15th and 16th Streets. These granite curbs have been painted around their bases, evoking grass. The salvaged blocks also provide a place to sit and rest. (Guerilla urbanist unknown)

The popular moniker “Guerilla Urbanism” is also subject to codification and

definition. Jeffrey Hou begins to characterize “Guerilla Urbanism” in his preface to

Insurgent Public Space (2010), outlining a realm of investigation that is decidedly

‘tactical:’

The making of insurgent public space suggest a mode of city making that is different from the institutionalized notion of urbanism and its association with master planning and policy making. Unlike the conventional practice of urban planning, which tends to be dominated by professionals and experts, the instances of insurgent public space… suggest the ability of citizen groups and individuals to play a distinct role in shaping the contemporary urban environment in defiance of the official rules and regulations. Rather than being subjected to planning regulations or the often limited participatory opportunities,


citizens and citizen groups can undertake initiatives on their own to effect changes. The instances of self-‐help and defiance are best characterized as a practice of guerilla urbanism that recognizes both the ability of citizens and opportunities in the existing urban conditions for radical and everyday changes against the dominant forces in the society. (2010, p.15)

In articulating a framework for “Guerilla Urbanism,” Hou duly acknowledges

“Everyday Urbanism” previously articulated by Crawford, Kaliski and Chase

(1999/2008). “Everyday Urbanism” deliberately turns from fixed or bourgeoisie

ideas of urbanism to those forms previously undervalued. Springing from

Lefebvre’s regard for the “quotidian,” Crawford et al. exhibit a decided focus on

cultural adaptations to the environment; bringing certain under-‐examined realms of

urban life and production into the formal discourse through the very act of defining

them as being traditionally excluded.

In 2008 – the same year as Everyday Urbanism’s second publication – Diego

Ramirez-‐Lovering published “Opportunistic Urbanism,” examining the survival

adaptations of a rapidly expanding population of Guadalajara, Mexico:

Large, disenfranchised segments of the population in this vulnerable economy have become displaced with little access to socio-‐economic infrastructures. To contend with such pressures, many turn to a well-‐established culture of informality where housing, commerce and public space -‐ the fundamental elements of city life -‐ are shaped by the ad hoc, the contingent and the easily obtainable. This is a city governed by opportunity -‐ an Opportunistic Urbanism. (RMIT Press 2008, p. 27)

Of the constructs thus far surveyed in this thesis, the “Opportunistic Urbanism,” so

named and studied by Ramirez-‐Lovering, bears the closest resemblance to de

Certeau’s definition of the tactical: that which is purely responsive, necessitated by


daily survival, and enacted in spite (or in absence) of the state’s apparatus of control

and regulation.

Reflecting upon their work, Blaine Merker of REBAR Group eloquently

describes the zeitgeist of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas with the concept of

“Generous Urbanism” (2011). As an organization closely associated with the early

prototyping of Parklets in San Francisco (discussed in detail in Section 2.3),

Merker’s precision is not surprising:

Rebar defines generous urbanism as the creation of public situations between strangers that produce new cultural value, without commercial transaction. This isn’t to say that money doesn’t play a role in the execution, since materials may still be bought, and grants or commissions distributed. However, the ultimate value is produced independently of commerce. It’s possible to call this activity art production (“art” being a convenient category for cultural goods that are ends in themselves), but there are not absolute “consumers” or “producers” for this type of art, only participants with varying levels of responsibility for instigating the situation. (2011, p.51)

“Generous Urbanism” is not specific to Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas, but refers to

a broader range of experiments, and overlaps with other constructs here surveyed;

especially in terms of the continually shifting roles of tacticians and strategists.

Merker directly evokes the ‘prosumer’ first identified by Toffler as a “new kind of

citizen” but who has since become prominent and recognizable player in the urban

sphere. The increasing fluidity between tactics and strategies create an interstitial,

dialectical territory within which Heuristic Urbanism is situated.


Figure 10: Heuristic Urbanism process illustrated with the PARK(ing) --> Parklet typology (Abad Ocubillo 2012)


The Heuristic Urbanism posited by this thesis considers the progression of

urban interventions from guerilla tactics to sanctioned strategies. Whereas the

‘Urbanisms’ surveyed here present a series of case studies, Heuristic Urbanism refers

to a specific process of urban change engendered by those cases: the Parklet and

Pedestrian Plaza each form a ready unit for investigating the assimilation of tactical

prototypes into state-‐sanctioned, ‘prosumered’ programs.


2.3 – The Genealogy of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas

This thesis suggests a conceptual and physical genealogy of Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas by identifying their historical antecedents. The typologies can be

traced to a series of precedents strongly linked with avant-‐garde performance art,

especially in San Francisco. These precedents exemplify a provocative and

transgressive ethos that lends a particular cast to the genesis of Parklets, especially.

As the outcomes of evolving and institutionalizing processes within city

governments, Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas embody the potency of radical

grassroots actions to effect larger systemic changes.

2.3.1 – SITUATIONISTS and the AVANT-GARDE

The ethos of avant-‐garde art, demonstration, and performance in the public

realm is deeply interrelated with the Situationist movement of the mid-‐nineteenth

century. In his assessment of the Situationists, Boštjan Bugarič essentially describes

the philosophy underlying various precedents of the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza

experiments: “Temporary installations, performances and urban actions organized

in public space represented an answer to social, cultural, and spatial discordances…

The situationists raised space-‐related questions through staging stiuationist

events…” (2012, p.22). He then elaborates on the effects of ‘temporary

installations’ in the contemporary context:

The concept of active urban scenes increase the attraction of the place and induce the consideration of issues associated with the site. In that way they become places with deliberately constructed events or spatial installations whose staging of events transforms their


significance. Staging changes non-‐places to places and brings in all symbolic expression displaying its character, relations or historical predispositions…. The problems associated with a chosen site are presented to the wider public on location with the purpose of educating and justifying physical interventions. (2010, p22) This thesis contends that the 1970s performance art demonstrations of San

Francisco artist Bonnie Ora Sherk form the first major preceptor to contemporary

Parklets and Plazas. Her work anticipated later expressions of the ‘tactical’ in both

physical and conceptual terms. Sherk’s Portable Parks I-III (installed in partnership

with Howard Levine) temporarily appropriated road and highway spaces using the

design and material vocabulary of an idealized countryside; importing turf, trees,

picnic tables, bales of straw, and farm and zoo animals (including a live calf and

llama) into the urban environment (Lewallen 2011; San Francisco Museum of

Modern Art 1970). In succeeding decades, she explored elements of agriculture,

animals, and the urban/natural construct with gallery and museum installations,

public performance pieces, and at the Crossroads Community or ‘The Farm,’ 1974-‐

80) (Bradley 2005; Sardar 2005). “The Farm,” situated underneath the 101

Freeway in San Francisco, forms another distinct typology of reclaimed use. Sherk’s

application of an agricultural program to abandoned lots and highways anticipated

widespread experiments in the current era characterized by ‘shrinking cities,’

deindustrialization, and increasing concerns over food security. The Crossroads

Community also anticipated the Hayes Valley Farm (Figure 12), which began

operating in 2010 with a provisional license on former freeway ramps in central San

Francisco.


More recently, Sherk reprised the Portable Park concept with an exhibit at

Santa Monica Place, a mall in Southern California. Portable Park IV (2011-‐12)

converted the central courtyard of a private mall into a vegetable and herb garden.

By employing symbols of self-‐sustenance agriculture and the commons, Portable

Park IV subtly comments on contemporary inversions of public and private space.

Figure 11: 'Portable Park IV' (Abad Ocubillo 2012) at Santa Monica Place. (Artist: Bonnie Ora Sherk)

Sherk’s carefully orchestrated tableaus on San Francisco roads and highway

underpasses underscored how autocentricty accelerated the degradation of

naturalized environments within the city; and the ongoing decimation of exurban


countryside via sprawl. Portable Parks I-III were underwritten by the Society for the

Encouragement of Contemporary Art (SECA) grant at the San Francisco Museum of

Modern Art, which mandated that funded projects acquire the proper permits and

clearances, the installations exemplify an ongoing tension and negotiation between

renegade actors and the regulators of the public realm (Merker 2010). In 1981

Sherk explained that “With the Portable Parks it was necessary for me to deal with

certain established systems, communicate with them, and convince them of the

rightness of the work” (Burnham 1981). This negotiation is an ongoing dimension of

Parklets, Pedestrian Plazas, and their precedents.

Figure 12: Hayes Valley Farm (Abad Ocubillo 2011). The Hayes Valley Farm is a temporary program located at the site of the Central Freeway onramps and offramps at Laguna, Oak, and Fell Streets in San Francisco.


Other guerilla actions in cities across the globe have helped to

reconceptualize the purpose and meaning of urban space by temporarily

introducing similarly incongruous programs. For example, the Permanent

Breakfast art experiment began in Vienna in 1996 as a way to challenge the

traditional regulation of public spaces (Hofbauer 2006). Each breakfast participant

is asked to organize yet another meal on a different day, inviting new guests; who

then organize other breakfasts with new invitees, and so on. The meals have been

staged in public squares, on sidewalks, in traffic islands, and on even on beaches.

Permanent Breakfast founder Friedmann Dershmidt evokes Lefebvre’s Right

to the City in an interview:

Our point of departure is the question of who owns the public space and how local situations determine that. Historically the open domain was a stage for authoritarian entities. Nowadays there is supposedly a guaranteed right of assembly which in fact is more than infringed. This discrepancy allows us to engage in a play with authorities. Permanent Breakfast in Chile was non-‐stop escorted by a patrol car... (Derschmidt 2006)

An ingenious organizing structure leveraging social networks rapidly expanded

participation in permanent breakfast worldwide. Between 1996 and 2010, the

Permanent Breakfast demonstration was celebrated around in over 25 countries

(2012).

The dissemination and enactment of collective street demonstrations, art

performance, and other forms of spatial appropriation through social networking is

an emerging hallmark of Heuristic Urbanism. As discussed later in Sections 3.1.6

and 3.2.2, the social network figures prominently into the processes of Heuristic


Urban Design as well; where the inception, advocacy, execution and monitoring of

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas are highly dependent on tightly knit social-‐

professional groups.

2.3.2 – PARK(ing) DAY

This thesis further contends that curbside PARK(ing) DAY installations

(‘PARKs’) are the immediate preceptor to the Parklet typology and a strong relative

of the Pedestrian Plaza (indeed, the founders of PARK(ing) DAY designed three of

the first eight pilot Parklet projects and one pilot plaza in San Francisco). Both

PARK(ing) DAY and Parklet installations are defined physically by parallel parking

space; programmatically by their connection to and extension of the sidewalk;

economically in terms of their sponsorship by private organizations; and by a

temporary or provisional existence.

PARK(ing) DAY began in 2005 as a single isolated experiment by REBAR

Group in San Francisco and has since evolved into an annual celebration with global

participation (Merker 2010). The concept involves appropriating curbside parking

stalls for an entire day; using furniture, vegetation and props which evoke parks and

leisure. The material and conceptual palette of PARK(ing) DAY directly recalls

Sherk’s Portable Parks from several decades earlier; noted most recently by

Constance Lewallen in her writing on Conceptual art of the 1970s (Lewallen 2011).

The same subtext of militancy and transgression is clearly replicated with


Figure 13: The first PARK(ing) installation (REBAR Group 2005, shown with permission). Lifetime: 1 day, voluntarily self-regulated, non-permitted. (Designer / Installer: REBAR Group)

Figure 14: Parklet (Abad Ocubillo 2011) hosted by Caffé Roma at 526 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco. Lifetime: 1+ years, regulated and permitted by city. (Designer: REBAR Group)


contemporary PARK(ing) DAY actions. Others have observed a renewed focus

within contemporary art practice which fuses “environmentalism and urban

planning,” with “a resurgence of interest in 1970s street actions like Sherk’s”

(Zimbardo 2011, p.144).

We see how ‘tactics’ such as Permanent Breakfast and PARK(ing) brilliantly

leverage a crowdsourcing strategy as a means to encourage worldwide participation

in place-‐specific events. The first annual PARK(ing) Day in 2006 was celebrated in

forty-‐seven cities and in 2007 increased to fifty cities (Merker 2010). In September

2011, over 975 ‘PARKs’ registered for PARK(ing) DAY; representing 162 cities in 35

countries (REBAR Group 2012). This movement (and indeed all corollary

expressions of ‘Tactical Urbanism’ cataloged by the Street Plans Collaborative, see

Section 2.1.2) has rapidly and radically readjusted the popular discourse on public

space and life in cities in several ostensible ways:

First, the simple ‘open-‐source’ formula of PARK(ing) DAY invites easy

widespread participation. The first PARKs were organized by groups of architects,

landscape architects, urban designers and planners; however now, community

groups, government agencies, neighborhood associations, and even private

individuals increasingly sponsor them. The accessible nature of PARK(ing) Day

increases the possibility for citizens to experience and cultivate a ‘prosumer’

identity (see Section 2.2) focused directly on the spatial and environmental

conditions of their localities. In his essay The Space Formerly Known as Parking,

John Chase credits PARK(ing) DAY for creating


…a new set of opportunities for an individual citizen to participate in ownership of the city, at the scale of a quarter in the meter rather than the quarter million dollars and up that it would cost that citizen to invest in a place to live. (2008, p.195)

PARK(ing) DAY’s global presence amplifies the popular dialogue on public space and

life with unprecedented scope. Abetted by information technology in a postmodern

era, the annual celebration is – in spatial and temporal terms – both specific and

transcendent.

Second, the PARK challenges casual passersby to re-‐envision the possibilities

for public life and mobility through its provocative combination of spatial,

programmatic, and temporal novelty. Its temporary re-‐appropriation of the street

with highly visible and often flamboyant installations not only incites renewed

dialogue on public space, but also actually reinvents a new vocabulary, giving us

new images and experiences with which to discuss the land typically allotted to car

storage. The PARKs’ open configuration interacts with citizens both visually and

experientially, inviting inhabitation and rendering an oft-‐unforgettable sensory

experience for observers and users alike. In this regard, the provenance of

PARK(ing) DAY celebration in avant-‐garde art is unmistakable. Indeed

contemporary reflections on the Situationists readily illuminate the parallels

between both movements (Haydn and Temel 2006; Bugarič 2010).

Third, the temporary nature of PARKs disarms immediate reactionary fears

of rapid change. Ephemeral installations such as the day-‐long PARKs allow

observers to reconsider multiple and overlapping uses of public space without


aggressively threatening accustomed patterns of behavior. In his essay Active Urban

Scenes, Boštjan Bugarič contents that

Participative techniques of cultural practices address questions concerning various urban topics as means of inducing development of programmes in various urban environments. This prevents the development of a single type of activities by encouraging visits to certain urban areas, which are facing abandonment due to various urban, social and economic processes. Temporary installations, performances and urban actions organized in public space represented an answer to social, cultural, and spatial discordances. (2010, p.22)

Lastly, PARK(ing) DAY directly influenced the formulation of the Parklet

typology itself (Seltenrich 2011). In primary research undertaken by this thesis,

stakeholders draw a direct association between PARK(ing) Day and the adoption of

‘Pavement to Parks’ and like programs by city governments. The provisional

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas produced by such programs are, in turn, positively

linked in stakeholder interviews with an intention to permanently re-‐appropriate

right-‐of-‐way for pedestrian uses. A great number of Parklet locations examined in

this thesis were anticipated for one or more preceding years by a PARK(ing) Day

installation – some examples include Lakeshore Avenue and Actual Café in

Oakland;4 Ritual Coffee in San Francisco;5 and at LA Café on Spring Street in Los

Angeles. Thus, PARK(ing) DAY can be understood as directly advancing – through

‘tactical’ means – the long-‐range, ‘strategic’ agendas of cities to make permanent

change.


2.3.3 – Analogues

This thesis cannot ignore the significance of other similar forms of avant-‐

garde action that are contemporaneous with, and even somewhat precede, the rise

of PARK(ing) DAY in 2005. In addition to the cases of ‘Tactical Urbanism’ indexed

by the Street Plans Collaborative (2011, 2012), other guerilla actions bear

acknowledgement. Artist and “traffic campaigner” Ted Dewan originated the “road

witching” movement in Oxford, England in 2003. These “folk traffic calming” tactics

employ sculpture and household furniture staged like rooms as temporary road-‐

closure devices (Coughlan 2005). Dewan’s manifesto frames his activism as “The

Road Witch Trial;” an ongoing process of “Challenging the popular delusion that

roads are for cars to drive down and little else” (Dewan 2005) One road witch

installation was staged like a living room (“Room Rage”) in the middle of the street,

replete with furniture such as a couch, floor lamp, houseplants and television. In an

interview with the BBC, Dewan states:

There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the ambition to encourage people to re-‐examine how roads are used… With the living room, it was the most direct way of saying 'We live here. This is our living space. (Coughlan 2005, p.1)

Dewan applies the moniker “road witching” to a broad spectrum of related actions

overlapping with the ‘tactical’ and ‘guerilla.’ Indeed, the Road Witch website refers

directly to the first PARK(ing) installed by REBAR, with a photograph and link to

“Road Witching in San Francisco”


The ‘living room’ program deployed quite literally by Dewan – and more

abstractly by PARKs, Parklets and demonstration Plazas – finds other creative and

socially conscious applications within the urban context of California. Having

pioneered the concept in Oakland several years before (Gropman 2008; Steinhauer

2008), landscape architect Steve Rasmussen Cancian coordinated the installation of

‘Community Living Rooms’ throughout Los Angeles.

Figure 15: ‘Community Living Room’ at a bus stop for both Metro (regional) and LADOT ‘Dash’ (local) lines, 7th and Witmer Streets, Los Angeles. Besides introducing much-needed seating facilities, the simple sculptural objects transform the character of the streetscape. (Designer: Steve Rasmussen Cancian)

Cancian’s ‘Community Living Room’ tactic issues from a personal philosophy

especially attentive to the spectre of gentrification. Cancian carefully outlines how


public space improvements can contribute to larger patterns of displacement in

central cities (Jesi 2010; Gropman 2008). Cancian emphasizes a ‘Planning to Stay’

approach that investigates and addresses problems identified by existing resident

communities (Jesi 2010; Gropman 2008) and implements solutions through simple

and straightforward means that are carefully calibrated for those residents. The

‘Community Living Rooms’ explicitly target neighborhoods deficient in public space

amenities. In Los Angeles, a survey of bus riders indicated a lack of seating at transit

stops; in response to the survey, 7 of the 15 living rooms catalogued in April 2008

were installed at central-‐city transit stops (Steinhauer 2008). The ‘Community

Living Rooms’ can be carefully distinguished from other typologies of ‘tactical

urbanism,’ which (as the thesis discusses in Section 4.1) can become associated with

gentrification, displacement, and replicating existing patterns of inequity.

2.3.4 – A Genealogical Timeline

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas are no longer regarded as wholly novel

typologies, but rather tried and tested interventions incorporated into sanctioned

city strategies. Their conceptual and material expression, however, originates in a

militant strain of avant-‐garde performance art which challenged dominant modes of

designing and managing public space. An analysis of the typologies’ origins reveals

a marked revolution within urban design and planning practice; showing how

radical action resulted – with especial rapidness in over the last five years – in the

widespread reconsideration of the function of streets.


Figure 16: A Historical Timeline for Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas (Abad Ocubillo 2012)


2.4 - Integrated Modes of Spatial and Social Production

As the spatial and social interface between public and private domains, the

sidewalk has been the venue of intense contestation throughout history

(Ehrenfeucht & Loukaitou-‐Sideris 2010; Ford 2000). The sidewalk remains a site of

ongoing negotiation between the public and private dimensions of our society; it

physical and spatial manipulation expresses political, social, and economic

dynamics. Furthermore, as municipalities continually reassess their expenditures in

order to balance ever-‐shrinking budgets, investment in and stewardship of public

open space amenities shifts to private citizens and non-‐governmental groups. This

presents a number of implications specific to the production of space at the

sidewalk; and the following section establishes the historic context of physical and

social production and re-‐production from which the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza

emerges.

2.4.1 – Grassroots Initiative, Organizing and Action:

In the most successful and inspring cases coming from Heuristic Urbanism,

the involvement of individuals and community groups can initiate greater social

integration, environmental quality, and changes in city polices and programs. The

streetscape provides a ready arena for expression and experimentation, where

Margaret Crawford sites “the intersection of publics, spaces, and identities” which

“delineate a new urban arena for democratic action that challenges normative

definitions of how democracy works. Specifically constituted conunterpublics


organized around a site or activity create what anthropologist James Holston calls

‘spaces of insurgent citizenship’” (2008, p.35).

Meroni and Tapani assert that bottom-‐up design initiatives inherently

reinforce or even create local social capital where none had existed before, thus

illustrating “the power of the social fabric to shape the meaning and structure of a

physical public space, instead of the other way round” (2010, p.16). This causality

lies at the heart of Heuristic Urbanism, where local actors or groups of actors assume

tactical approaches to changing government strategies of planning, production, and

management of the urban topos.

In California, several grassroots initiatives in the last decade directly

addressed the ecological dysfunction of streets and sidewalks, resulting in the

creation or adjustment of new municipal codes. These legislative victories

anticipated or concurred with a suite of actions and policy changes concerning the

streetscape; a survey of which is beyond the scope of this thesis. In brief, the

‘sidewalk greening’ efforts described here relate to a broad range of activism around

bicycle and transit mobility, complete and living streets policy (LaPlante and

McCann 2008), neighborhood beautification and economic development.

For example in San Francisco, advocacy by landscape architect Jane Martin

resulted in the formulation of a Sidewalk Landscaping Permit (2006). This permit

created a valid legal definition for the resident-‐sponsored replacement of sidewalk

concrete with plantings – an informal practice of parkway intervention technically

forbidden before, or permittable only though expensive and cumbersome means.


Martin’s pilot landscaping experiments on her own residential block in the Mission

District also functioned as a community-‐building endeavor – giving neighbors

reasons to speak, interact and collaborate where they had never done so before

(Bishop 2009; Eaton & Sullivan 2009). Martin also founded Permeable Landscape As

Neighborhood Treasure in San Francisco (PLANT SF), which provides technical

support and information for interested residents. Between 2006 and 2009, the City

of San Francisco received over 500 sidewalk landscaping permits (Taylor 2009).

Figure 17: New Sidewalk Landscaping at 24th and Alabama Streets in San Francisco (Abad Ocubillo 2012). This was planted by Friends of the Urban Forest through the Sidewalk Landscape Permit.


Similarly, in Los Angeles, a diverse range of landscape activists also thrive;

empowered through organizations focusing on design, ecological restoration, and

community development. These nonprofits in southern California mediate complex

relationships between the City and local communities, setting precedents of

increased interaction with demonstration projects.

Recently, a new Residential Parkway Landscaping Guideline (2010) was

adopted by the City of Los Angeles. The guidelines were co-‐authored by Tree

People, “…an environmental nonprofit that unites the power of trees, people and

technology to grow a sustainable future for Los Angeles” (2012). The new guidelines

expanded the palette of plantings to include native and drought-‐tolerant species,

whereas before, only turf grass was legally permissible. North East Trees, founded

in Los Angeles in 1989, seeks “To restore nature's services in resource challenged

communities, through a collaborative resource development, implementation, and

stewardship process" (2012). North East Trees produced a number of pocket parks

from remnant pieces of road right-‐of-‐ways in working class neighborhoods adjacent

to the Los Angeles River. These small, networked project sites were produced in

intimate collaboration with community residents. North East Trees also works

closely with the Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Street Services’

Engineering Division to experiment with new landscape infrastructure solutions

addressing storm water mitigation. Their partnership installed demonstration

projects with parkway rain gardens and storm water infiltration technologies below

the street; an integrated mode of streetscape and infrastructure enhancement


advised by Ehrenfeucht and Loukaitou-‐Sideris (2010, p.462) and others. In these

cases of ‘sidewalk greening,’ a nonprofit group bridges the political and technical

gap between communities and the city government.

Figure 18: Elmer Avenue Greenstreet (Abad Ocubillo 2011). This unincorporated neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley was prone to flooding during rainstorms. The streetscape, which previously lacked sidewalks, became untraversable for pedestrians and cars alike.

The creation of the Sidewalk Landscaping Permit (SF) and the Residential

Parkway Landscaping Guideline (L.A.) clearly demonstrates how design-‐based


streetscape activism can produce community cohesion, enhance environmental

ambience, and affect change in municipal government. Later, this thesis reveals how

Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza initiatives effect the same changes in both the

community and government arenas.

2.4.2 – Public-Private Partnership in the Parkway

The American tradition of planting the ‘parkway’ (the strip between curb and

sidewalk) dates as far back as the early nineteenth century (Lawrence 2006). The

custom of private citizens cultivating their city-‐owned frontages persists to the

present day. This arrangement has since been formalized in municipal codes, which

typically place the initiative for planting – and the burden of maintenance – on the

fronting property owner.

The Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Street Services

already requires a 3-‐5 year privately-‐funded maintenance plan for all new parkway

landscape projects (City of Los Angeles 2003). While the cost and maintenance of

‘parkway’ plantings has always rested with fronting property owners, arboriculture

(care of trees) is typically undertaken by municipal urban forestry divisions due to

its technical complexity. However recently, in some extreme cases, urban forests

are transitioning away from governmental management entirely. In San Francisco,

the Department of Public works expects to relinquish approximately 90% of the

urban forest into the care of fronting property owners before 2019 (Gordon 2011;

Kuchar 2011; Sabatini 2011).


As discussed in the previous Section, numerous nonprofit programs provide

fully or partially subsidized parkway tree-‐planting programs: Friends of the Urban

Forest (San Francisco), Tree People, North East Trees and the Los Angeles

Conservation Corps (Los Angeles). This helps to offset the financial hardship faced

by may lower-‐income neighborhoods which suffer from a historic lack of

investment. At the same time, these tree plantings tend to compound the resource

challenges faced by governmental forestry divisions. This has been the chief

criticism of Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa’s Million Trees L.A. initiative – that our

human desire and ecological necessity for augmenting the urban canopy directly

conflicts with the city’s capacity to manage that infrastructure properly. Without a

robust and sustainable stewardship component, the future outcomes of aggressive

tree planting programs does seem uncomfortably uncertain. This underscores the

necessity for ongoing maintenance and management agreements for Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas, which Sections 1.2 and 3.2.2 discuss in greater detail.


Table 2: Public-Private Arrangements: Parklets and Pedestrian Plaza Im

plementation (Abad Ocubillo 2012)


2.4.3 – Inequity and the Distribution of Open Space Amenities

The historic practice of privately-‐sponsored parkway planting created

uneven tree distribution and inequitable streetscape investment from the very

beginnings of American urbanization. These patterns are still legible today – the

environmental infrastructure of mature urban forests and open space preserves are

typically associated with the districts of wealthier citizens (Pincetl & Gearin 2005).

A clear correlation exists between adjacent open space amenities and increased

property values, further reinforcing preexisting conditions of geographical class

distribution (Criscione 2001). For example in Los Angeles, Bel Air has 53% canopy

cover, whereas South Los Angeles has less than 7% (McPherson et al 2007), a

contrast attributable to the city’s historic narrative of class settlement. This

inequality contextualizes current efforts to ‘green’ city streets; where community

organizations such as North East Trees (Los Angeles) are working towards

environmental and social equity through the landscape medium.

Class and race intersect as well, creating a condition whereby certain

ethnicities are disproportinately affected by the lack of open space amenies. In an

analysis of parks and park funding in Los Angeles, Wolch, Wilson, and Fehrenbach

found that “low-‐income and concentrated poverty areas as well as neighborhoods

dominated by Latinos, African Americans, and Asian-‐Pacific Islanders, have

dramatically lower levels of access to park resources than White-‐dominated areas of

the city” (2005, p1). Other studies track the same perpetuation of historic patterns

in other cities; for example in Baltimore where of Boone, Buckley, Grove and Sister


assert that “the present-‐day pattern [of parks]… should be interpreted as

environmental injustice” (2009, p.1).


2.5 – Objectives and Outcomes of Heuristic Urbanism

The previous section explored how the physical sidewalk is a product of

social forces; the manipulation of public and private interests; and the remnant of

past regimes of investment and management. Conversely, this section explores how

physical interventions – or the process of implementing them – are meant to

influence social dynamics and contribute to the formulation of a new urban culture.

2.5.1 – Living Streets: Multimodality, Safety and Public Health

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas form integral components of a whole suite of

interventions correlated with encouraging pedestrian and bicycle mobility. The

primary research undertaken by this thesis found that stakeholders universally

identify Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas with ‘Living’ and ‘Complete Street’ strategies.

‘Living’ or ‘complete streets’ are, according to LaPlante and McCann, “designed to be

safe for drivers; bicyclists; transit vehicles and users; and pedestrians of all ages and

abilities” (2008, p.24). Physical traffic-‐calming features include small

interventions such as bulb-‐outs, neck downs, and curb extensions; while larger

projects such as Pedestrian Plazas have demonstrated decreased danger to both

pedestrians and motorists (McFredies 2008; Los Angeles County 2011). For

example robust impact studies of interventions in New York City verified reduced

pedestrian-‐motorist injuries along Broadway (New York City Department of

Transportation 2010); while auto collision rates on Guerrero Street in San Francisco


were shown to decrease by 53 percent since the installation of Guerrero Park

(Arieff 2009). The primary research undertaken by this thesis also found that

Parklets are perceived as having traffic-‐calming effects as well (presented in more

detail in Section 3.2.1), although these effects have not yet been tested.

Furthermore, an abundance of literature documents how sedentary lifestyles

contribute to widespread obesity and other health issues (Ashe et al 2009; Frank,

Schmid & Sallis 2005; Frumkin, Frank & Jackson 2004; Jackson 2003; McCann &

Ewing 2003). Thus much of the rhetoric of streetscape intervention emphasizes the

potential for more walkable communities to impact public health; especially that of

children. For example, Rahman, Cushing and Jackson (2009) have found that

“children lacking access to sidewalks or paths, parks, playgrounds, or recreational

centers have 20% – 45% higher odds of becoming obese or overweight compared

with children who have regular access to such amenities” and that “perceived safety

from traffic and crime is associated with higher rates of children walking and

bicycling to school” (201, p.54). The ‘Safe Routes to Schools’ movement in California

– structured heavily around a multi-‐stakeholder community engagement approach –

focuses on interventions which increase pedestrian and bicycle accessibility for

young people (Seifert, Christopher, Farrar, Preston, Duarte & Geraghty 2009).

2.5.2 – Quality of Place

Jane Jacobs (1961/1989), Donald Appleyard (1981), Davis (1990/2006), and

others have described how the urban environment – and therefore the humane


urban experience – was decimated by programmes of urban renewal and the

predominance of traffic planning starting around the mid-‐twentieth century. They –

along with Jan Gehl (1987; 2010), William Whyte (1988/2009), the Project for

Public Spaces (1975-‐present) – also developed schema for a high-‐quality urban

experience. The primary research undertaken by this thesis revealed how Parklets

and Pedestrian Plazas are positively associated by stakeholders with creating a high-‐

quality urban experience, correlating with attributes identified by the literature.

The Project for Public Spaces identifies four key qualities of successful open

spaces: “…they are accessible; people are engaged in activities there; the space is

comfortable and has a good image; and finally, it is a sociable place: one where

people meet each other and take people when they come to visit” (Project for Public

Spaces 2012). The primary research undertaken by this thesis (presented in

Chapter 3) links stakeholder perceptions of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas to all four

of these qualities. Additionally, the schema articulated by The Project for Public

Spaces comprehensively synthesizes a range of findings identified by the other

urbanists cited above, and provides a ready structure for parsing their respective

contributions to a definition of what constitutes a successful urban place.


Figure 19: What Makes a Good Place? (The Project for Public Spaces 2012)

Jane Jacobs found that multi-‐functional spaces and a concentration of users

were key elements of high-‐quality urban places. Similarly, Gehl Architects and

William Whyte identified (in each of their respective studies) that a range of

activities and options for activities are also a characteristic of good spaces. Whyte

found that food service – in or adjacent to urban open spaces – encouraged

occupation and inhabitation throughout greater periods over the day. This thesis


observed how the physical implantation of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas expand

the range of opportunities for gathering and therefore activities.

The work of Kevin Lynch (1960), Peter Bosselman (1998; 2008), and Dolores

Hayden (1995) explored how people remember and image their urban experience.

Bosselman documented the space-‐time experience of progressing through the city;

while Lynch and Hayden studied spatial memory and perceptions of legibility and

territory. This thesis found that at the project level, Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas

act as landmarks; while at the program level, they contribute significantly to the

image of the city in terms of its progressiveness. Other research emphasizes variety,

differentiated articulation, and heterogeneity of urban fabric, architecture, and

streetscape environments to be important contributing elements to successful

places (Appleyard 1981; Gehl 1987, 2010; Project for Public Spaces 1975-‐present;

Whyte 1988).

Appleyard correlated wider streets with greater traffic volumes and higher

vehicle speeds, which in turn correlated with decreased interaction and cohesion

between neighbors (1981). Jacobs (1961/1989), Gehl (2010), and Bugarič (2010)

insist that a variation in the articulation and vintage of buildings lends added

interest and opportunity to the street scene; while Dover and King (2007) call for a

mix of land uses and housing types. At the same time, Appleyard’s work emphasizes

the necessity of pedestrian connectivity and access for the success of public spaces.

William Whyte developed the theory of “Triangulation,” whereby “some

external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk


to other strangers as if they knew each other… The stimulus can be a physical object

or sight” (2009, p.154). While Whyte was refering here to public art (sculpture), his

theory of triangulation also applies to Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza installations.

These novel insertions into the urban landscape prompt lively discourse in the

popular media as well as on the street, in their immediate environs. In this way,

Parklet and Pedestrian Plazas can – given the appropriate prerequisite conditions

(presented in Section 3.2.2) – be understood as vital, contributing elements of

successful public spaces.

2.5.3 – Economic Boosterism

Pedestrian and bicycle enhancement programs can correlate directly with

increased economic development at the site and district scales (Drennen 2003; New

York City 2011; Prokai 1999; San Francisco Great Streets Project 2011). Projects

that improve streetscape ambience, expand the pedestrian-‐right-‐of-‐way, and even

close streets to automobile traffic on temporary or permanent bases are perceived

as positively contributing elements of a business environment (Baltes 2004;

Schaefer 2011). These have the documented effects of decreasing local vacancy

rates, increasing property values, and diversifying the mix of business types (Prokai

1999).

In particular, the few impact studies of Parklets indicate the probability of a

highly localized enhancement of business performance. The Divisadero Trial Parklet

Impact Report (SF Great Streets Project 2010) reported that increased foot traffic


correlated with the Parklet does “have the potential to contribute to economic

activity in an area” (p. 17). Overall, the SF Great Streets studies were not at the time

of their publication able to confirm a causal relationship between Parklets and

increased profits for hosts or adjacent businesses (2010, 2011). However, the scope

of their studies focused on environmental perception and pedestrian amenity only

months after the completion of certain Parklet cases. Its likely that longitudinal

studies that focus more on economic impacts would reveal the true effects of

Parklets on local business performance. The Curbside Public Seating Platform Pilot

Program Evaluation Report (New York City Department of Transportation 2011)

reported that “Most establishments experienced sales increases, and they all felt the

installations were good for business… and would also bring financial benefits in the

long term” (p. 14).

2.5.4 – Collective Identity and Citizenship

By engaging all strata of society in its processes, Heuristic Urbanism effects a

sense of group and community identity amongst its participants. Rachel Berney

identified the “Pedagogical Urbanism” (2011) of Bogotà, Colombia, where public

infrastructure programmes initiated by civic leadership formulated a renewed

image for the city and sense of collective identity for its citizens. A similar dynamic

prevails with Heuristic Urbanism, whereby citizens are invited to participate in the

improvement of urban life through interventions to the streetscape. Indeed much of

the tactical action associated with Heuristic Urbanism as defined by this thesis was


Figure 20: ‘Deepistan National Parklet,’ 937 Valencia Street (Abad Ocubillo 2012). “Trixie’ the triceratops has become a mascot for mid-Valencia. (Parklet Host: Amandeep Jawa, a private citizen; Designer: Jane Martin, Shift Design Studio)

credited by interviewees as being directly inspired by strategies employed by the

“Pedagogical Urbanism” described by Berney in Bogota. For example, bicycle street

festivals such as ‘Sunday Streets’ (San Francisco), ‘CicLAvia’ (Los Angeles)’ and

‘Critical Mass’ (cities worldwide) were patented on ‘Ciclovia,’ which began in Bogota

in the late 1970s. These events not only alter street functions on an ephemeral

basis, but also provide alternative modes of engaging physically with the city and

identifying with a civic community. In Chapter 3, this thesis will describe how the

open space infrastructure of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas entails intense


cooperation between government, neighborhood groups, business operators and

individuals; engendering a type of community-‐building process tied closely with

identities as the neighborhood and civic scale.

The impact studies conducted by San Francisco Great Streets emphasized the

effects Parklets have on neighborhood identity. This exemplifies what Kevin Lynch

called “Place Character,” that which lends a sense of identity, security, pleasure and

understanding to a landscape (1976). The character of a neighborhood is enriched

by the diversity and variation of activity on the sidewalk (Ehrenfeucht & Loukaitou-‐

Sideris 2010; Ford 2000; Gehl 2010; Whyte 1988), which streetscape interventions

can support. Parklets tend to help enhance, or in some cases help generate, a

persona for their neighborhood where none had existed before. Sole installations

function as local landmarks, whereas an assemblage of Parklets create a district with

enhanced or special character, such as the Valencia Street, Polk Street, or Columbus

Avenue Corridors in San Francisco. The findings of this thesis, generated from

stakeholder interviews, concur decidedly with the literature by confirming place-‐

making effects of projects like Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas on their respective

neighborhoods.


CHAPTER 3 – FINDINGS

The research questions structure the inquiry and subsequent findings into

discussions focusing on three different scales: that of the city, as an independent

case and in terms of its relationship to the other cities being studied; that of the

individual project site; and that of development over time. Only questions one and

two are addressed here in this Chapter; question three is addressed in the next and

final Chapter of the thesis.

The first question reveals the developmental histories of Parklets and

demonstration Plazas in each case city; which taken together begin to outline a

meta-‐narrative for Heuristic Urbanism in California. The second research question

investigates pre-‐existing conditions at project sites; drawing a set of commonalities

across Parklet and demonstration Plaza interventions. The third research question

considers the long-‐term implications of Heuristic Urbanism for neighborhoods and

cities over time.


3.1 - Innovation and Restructuring

The Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza typologies (defined in Section 1.2) are

relatively novel in comparison to existing modes of urban design, especially in

California. Thus their implementation requires considerable innovation and

creativity on the part of stakeholders. The thesis explores the challenges that each

city faces with the Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas, revealing

sets of differences and commonalities between municipalities. A narrative history

of each case city is presented here in order of their relative stage of development

with Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza experimentation: San Francisco, Long Beach,

Oakland, and Los Angeles. Though not in California, a brief narrative of New York

City’s Plaza Program is provided as context for subsequent program developments

in the other cities. This Chapter considers the first research question:

1. How are existing structures and systems of governmental and social

organization adapted in order to realize Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas in California Cities? What are the new innovative

governmental, private, and community mechanisms created?


3.1.1 – Background: The New York Plaza Program

The New York City Plaza Program provided a model for the ‘Pavement to

Parks’ program in San Francisco.6 Recognizing the successful formula prototyped by

New York, San Francisco assimilated the key aspects of that program which would

in turn influence the development of Parklet programs in other cities. The primary

characteristics of the New York model – thence disseminated to other cities – are

both spatial and social: First, the program redresses the imbalanced allocation of

uses in the right of way. Secondly, the interventions were staged initially as

temporary experiments whose performance would inform the possibility of

permanent changes. Third, the city created new apparatuses for the

implementation, evaluation and regulation of the program and its sites. Lastly, the

program relied upon a public-‐private partnership for execution and ongoing

management of the interventions.

New York deliberately targeted sites with an acute spatial imbalance

between pedestrian and automobile facilities; identifying areas of “underutilized

street space” as potential venues for expansion of the pedestrian realm:

Streets make up approximately 25% of the City's land area and yet, outside of parks there are few places to sit, rest, socialize, and to enjoy public life. To improve the quality of life for New Yorkers, DOT creates more public open space by reclaiming underutilized street space and transforming it into pedestrian plazas. (New York Department of Transportation 2012a)

This pervasive spatial condition forms the logical basis for intervention by other

cities, amply supported by the primary research undertaken in this thesis7.


Experimentation – by way of monitoring and evaluation – facilitated the

temporary road closures on Broadway in midtown Manhattan during the summer of

2008 (Dunlap 2009; Jones 2009; New York City Department of Transportation 2008,

2010). The popularity of this seminal experiment prompted the ‘Green Light for

Midtown’ project, an even larger trial substantiated by a monitoring program

evaluating the impacts on traffic flow and pedestrian safety. The results of the

“Green Light for Midtown Evaluation Report” (NYC DOT 2010) provided concrete

justifications for transitioning the closures along Broadway from experimental to

permanent. Since then, all plazas created from closure of excess roadway are

studied with “pedestrian and vehicle counts, accident data, reports from the

nonprofit partners and surveys targeted to get feedback from the public, businesses

and landlords” (NYC DOT, 2012b).

The creation of a Plaza Program entailed a significant cultural shift within the

NYC Department of Transportation that prioritized pedestrian amenity over

automobile efficiency. As this shift in priorities was and is occurring in other cities,

Parklet and/or Plaza programs within those cities have entailed the creation of new

interdepartmental and community collaborations, policy innovations, and

permitting procedures.

Every plaza in New York requires advance community initiative and local

support before it is considered by the City. A lead nonprofit assumes responsibility

for maintenance and programming of the site; also garnering endorsement from

local community boards and elected officials. Likewise, Plazas in


Figure 21: Plaza at 'Fowler Square,' Brooklyn (Abad Ocubillo 2012). Despite its name, Fowler Square is actually a triangle park formed between Lafayette Avenue, Fulton Street, and Elliot Place. This plaza was created by closing Elliot Place between Lafayette Avenue and Fulton Streets.

San Francisco – implemented through the Pavement to Parks Program – often

capitalize upon pre-‐existing community organizing and local planning efforts. These

Neighborhood Associations or Improvement Districts become the natural stewards

for Plaza sites in both cities. The public-‐private arrangement was also adapted to

facilitate Parklets in San Francisco and New York; Long Beach, Oakland, and soon

Los Angeles. While Plazas are installed by the city private maintained, Parklets are

both funded and maintained through private means. This cost-‐sharing structure

provides for faster public realm improvements than if undertaken by the city alone.


A fascinating dialectical relationship developed between these two flagship

initiatives: Its important to note that though Pedestrian Plazas began in New York,

San Francisco originated the Parklet typology which was subsequently exported

back to New York. In San Francisco, Parklets are administered together with

Pedestrian Plazas under the Pavement to Parks program.


3.1.2 – San Francisco: Emergence and Evolution

As the Parklet pioneer, San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks (P2P) Program

offers the longest narrative and history for examining how a such a novel initiative

evolves within a California city. The Program’s inception can be attributed to a visit

of New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-‐Khan to San Francisco

in 2008. She addressed Mayor Gavin Newsom and city staff, challenging them to

experiment with a plaza program like that initiated in 2007 by NYC Mayor

Bloomberg (Jones 2008; Seltenrich 2011).8 In response, Mayor Newsom issued an

executive mandate to city staff to create a pilot program.9 The subsequent

interaction between New York City and San Francisco around typologies of

streetscape intervention exemplifies a dynamic that is replicated between the other

cities in this thesis. The interviews indicated how stakeholders in Long Beach,

Oakland, and Los Angeles looked towards San Francisco and New York for models of

projects and programs. The issuance of an executive mandate – in this case by

Mayor Newsom – also resurfaces as a tactic in other cities; notably in Los Angels

where city departments are looking to City Council for a directive to create a Parklet

program.

In response to Sadik-‐Khan and Newsom, various city departments in San

Francisco appointed staffers to an internal task force to formulate the program. The

initial stakeholders were the Mayor’s Office of Greening, the Urban Design Group of

the Planning Department, the Bureau of Street Use and Mapping of the Department


of Public Works (DPW), and the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA).10 Since

the initial mayoral mandate, however, the Mayor’s Office of Greening has not been

involved.11 Together, these staffers devised a program with two distinct typologies

of intervention: Plazas and Parklets. The first typology borrowed directly from New

York’s plazas; whereas the latter typology evolved from PARK(ing) DAY installations

as discussed previously in Section 2.3.2.

Figure 22: 'Pavement to Parks' Inter-Agency Collaborators (Abad Ocubillo 2012)

At this stage, the Urban Design Group (UDG) from the Planning Department

was mutually identified as an appropriate lead agency for the inter-‐departmental

collaboration. The experimental and public-‐private characteristics of the proposed


program were identified more closely with a public engagement strategy rather

than a capital improvement program. Whereas the latter function is typically

handled by other agencies, the former is endemic to the Planning Department; thus

making the UDG a more natural choice for administering the program.12 Andres

Power – a staffer at the UDG – spearheaded the effort; marshalling resources,

materials, and information while coordinating city staff members, external

communications, and recruitment of design talent.

The program officers defined a trial period of approximately one year, during

which interventions were granted a provisional status (the significance and function

of ‘temporary urbanism’ was introduced in Section 2.1; and is discussed in detail

later in Section 3.1.6). A public-‐private partnership emerged as a viable

arrangement for implementation; with differing application to the Plazas and

Parklets. For pilot Plazas in San Francisco, the City typically provided capital

funding and installation services while the private partner(s) accepted long-‐term

stewardship13. For pilot Parklets, the private partner(s) were responsible for

capital costs, liability and ongoing maintenance. For both pilot Plazas and Parklets,

Andres Power was involved in soliciting designers to participate on a voluntary

basis with the demonstration projects (see Table 2, Section 2.4.2).14 In later cycles

subsequent to the pilot stage, the public-‐private structure would to include some

compensation by host for design services.


Figure 23: ‘Showplace Triangle’ Plaza (Designer: REBAR Group, plan rendering shown with permission). The triangle is formed at the intersection of Eighth, Wisconsin and Sixteenth Streets. The colored portion of the plan represents portions of Eighth Street closed to traffic and reclaimed for pedestrian use. A similar triangular configuration forms other San Francisco Plazas, including Jane Warner Plaza or ‘Castro Commons’ (Figure 5) at Castro, Seventeenth and Market Streets; and at Guerrero Park where Guerrero Street terminates at San Jose Avenue.

The Pavement to Parks task force identified four sites for demonstration

Plazas, employing two site selection criteria common to other programs including

the Streets for People initiative in Los Angeles:15 Firstly, the plaza spaces are all

formed from excess right-‐of-‐way16 (see Figure 5, Figure 23, and Figure 29).

Secondly, the P2P program in two cases (‘Castro Commons’ and Naples Green)

leveraged existing planning and conceptual design proposals produced by local

community and business organizations.17 At the same time, the P2P group identified

eight sites in four neighborhoods for demonstration Parklets.18 As with the Plaza


demonstration projects, Parklet interventions were preceded in at least two

neighborhoods by significant community planning (Noe Valley)19 and intervention

in the streetscape. A discussion of general site selection criteria for both Parklets

and Pedestrian Plazas is presented in Section 3.2.

The proposed interventions were, at the time, legal novelties in the City of

San Francisco. The closest legal definition for the plaza was a temporary street

closure.20 Permits for those closures and encroachments were typically processed

and granted by the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and

Transportation (see Figure 24).21 During the early scoping phases of P2P Parks,

Andres Power presented case studies to ISCOTT to give them a sense of what was

being planned. It was through this body that provisional approval was granted to

the trial Plazas and Parklets initiated in March 2010 and completed in December

2010. 22

Concurrent with pilot project implementation through 2010, the P2P group

developed a structure for the Program, including an RFP and a new legal definition

for the Plazas and Parklets. Nick Elsner (DPW) authored a Public Works Order

laying out the structural and procedural aspects of the Pavement to Parks program

(San Francisco Municipal Code 2010). The new order was modeled on the existing

Table and Chairs Ordinance (San Francisco Municipal Code 1993), but legally tied to

a pre-‐existing Landscaping Ordinance (San Francisco Municipal Code 2008). DPW

Director Ed Rieskin signed the order into effect of October 2010; in September, the

first Parklet RFP was circulated publicly by P2P.


Figure 24: Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation, San Francisco (Abad Ocubillo 2012). This body reviewed and approved the proposals for pilot Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza projects.

At present, the DPW Order facilitates the efficient functioning of a Parklet

Program within the current structure of municipal code and does not necessitate

full legislation by the city council. However as the nominal application processing

fees do not offset the true cost of staff resources devoted to project management,

staffers may eventually recommend that council enact legislation that could secure

in perpetuity funding and human resources for the program.23

A nonprofit group served as a vital complement to the city departments’

internal efforts. San Francisco Great Streets (SFGS), a program of the San Francisco

Bicycle Coalition, conducted outreach and public engagement throughout the pilot


and ongoing program phases.24 Their independent Parklet monitoring programme

produced some of the first research on the short-‐term local impacts of Parklet

interventions. The Divisadero Parklet Impact Study in March 2010 focused on the

very first pilot Parklet project, while later reports with a broader geographic scope

allowed for comparison across different neighborhoods (SF Great Streets 2011a,

2011b).

Ongoing monitoring by the Pavement to Parks Program – and its nonprofit

partner SF Great Streets – resulted in careful revisions of the Parklet RFP and permit

requirements. The pilot stage was succeeded (as of the writing of this thesis) by two

annual cycles of open RFPs (SF Planning Department 2010, 2011). Between these

two stages, the language in the permit evolved in response to emerging issues

related to privatization and design quality (addressed in detail in Section 4.2.3). In

preparation for the release of a third-‐cycle RFP, the P2P program plans to convene a

working committee of city staffers and current permit holders to brainstorm ways

to improve the program even further.25


3.1.3 – The City of Long Beach: Straightforward Simplification

The City of Long Beach created its Parklet permitting procedure quickly,

relative to the other three cities (San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles) profiled in

this thesis. As in San Francisco, the Long Beach Parklet initiative resulted from

unilateral priorities within the city government and strong leadership by its staff.

Long Beach is committed to becoming ‘America’s Most Bike Friendly City,’ and

agenda which is systematically reconceptualizing and reconfiguring the ROWs

throughout the entire city. The Parklet typology fits easily within the city’s

improvement of bicycle-‐pedestrian facilities and was rapidly assimilated by the

Department of Public Works (DPW).

Sumi Gant, then Transportation Planner in DPW Traffic Engineering Bureau,

presented the idea in early 2011 to City Engineer Mark Christoffels and Right-‐of-‐

Way Coordinator Sue Castillo.26 All three immediately recognized the potential for

Parklets to enhance a bourgeoning sidewalk culture in Long Beach. As with San

Francisco, a lead government agency in Long Beach (DPW) established early and

naturally, without the same difficulty observed later in the cities of Oakland and Los

Angeles.

Sue Castillo was well positioned in her capacity as plan-‐checker to focus

attention and action on Parklets, thenceforth assuming a project management and

advocacy role for the fledgling program. From inception to first Parklet installation,

Sue diligently shepherded the process through city and community process;


resolving construction and safety details as well as coordinating with the architects,

local business and community groups around issues such as site selection.27

Castillo identified several Long Beach neighborhoods for Parklet

demonstrations and worked with other city agencies (Figure 25) to vet their

viability.28 To help build support and understanding for the initiative within the

Department of Public Works, Sue brought DPW Inspector Rene Bracamontes on a

tour of Parklets in San Francisco in October 2011.29 This provided both city staffers

with an understanding of the physical realities of Parklet installations in different

spatial contexts; and develop their own sensibilities about what conditions could be

appropriate for installations in Long Beach.

Figure 25: City of Long Beach – Internal Stakeholders (Abad Ocubillo 2012)


Equipped with case studies, resources from San Francisco’s Parklet program,

and impressions from the San Francisco’s Parklet tour, Castillo then worked with

the City Engineer (then Mark ChrisTofflers), City Traffic Engineer (David Roseman)

and the City Attourney (Linda Trang) to develop criteria for Parklet construction

and operation.30 These criteria were then circulated to the City Departments for

review and comment. The City also worked with a local architecture firm (Studio

111) during the program development process. The firm’s concept drawings and

renderings helped city staffers visualize what the interventions could look like at

those sites.31

Initial concerns with the Parklet program in Long Beach were both technical

and political in nature. The DPW Traffic Engineering Bureau anticipated a

specification for a no-‐ Parklet buffer clearance from street curbs32 – already

articulated in the San Francisco RFP – which the City Attorney duly included within

the language of the eventual permit.33 The Department of Safety and DPW Traffic

Engineering Bureau were concerned with liability issues; whereas the Planning

Department anticipated community opposition to the loss of parking.34 Eventually

the City Engineer, City Manager and City Council adopted a philosophy that the

anticipated net benefits of Parklets (expanded pedestrian facilities, economic

development, public space improvement) would according to Castillo “be a higher

win than losing a parking space.”


At this juncture, the city attorney was asked to draft a modification of the

Public Walkways Occupancy Permit (PWOP – City of Long Beach 1989/2010).35

Structurally, the modification of a PWOP was more efficient as it didn’t require the

passing of a municipal code change by City Council.36 As a consequence of adapting

the sidewalk dining (PWOP) permit, full public access to Parklets in Long Beach is

articulated somewhat differently than that of San Francisco and other cities.

Namely, private table service on Parklets is permissible in Long Beach as a natural

extension of the sidewalk dining permit. The public/private dimensions of Parklets

are addressed in more detail in Sections 3.2 and 4.1.

The PWOP clearly articulated liability as the business owner’s responsibility,

addressing the initial concerns brought up by the Bureau of Traffic Engineering

(DPW). In contrast to other cities, Long Beach also dispensed with creating a formal

RFP process like that pioneered by San Francisco (and currently in development

during Oakland’s Parklet pilot cycle). This reflected a desire for streamlining and

resource efficiency with city government. The pilot program was initiated the

winter of 2011, and the first Parklet installed in January 2012 at Lola’s Mexican

Restaurant on 4th Street.


3.1.4 – The City of Oakland: Synthesis and Synergy

The genesis of the Oakland Parklet program exhibits a clear synergy between

community activists and government actors. A significant level of community-‐

instigated action, intervention, and planning predated and influenced the creation of

a pilot parklet program by the City.37 As with San Francisco and Long Beach,

development of Oakland’s city program is attributable to strong leadership from a

few city staffers. However despite unilateral commitment to the program across the

community and government of Oakland, the collapse of the Community

Redevelopment Agency (CEDA) presented immediate organizational challenges for

the city which severely impacted the schedule of implementation for their pilot

Parklet program.

Blair Miller joined (CEDA) in May 2010, recognizing that a general awareness

of Parklets already existed within city government. With the backing of Eric

Angstadt – then Deputy Director of the CEDA – Blair volunteered to lead the Parklet

initiative within city government by adopting the orphaned idea into the Agency.38

While Eric handled external communications, interfacing with the City Council and

the media, Blair led the internal coordination between city agencies.39

As with every other developing Parklet program profiled in this thesis,

Oakland’s scoping phase began with the formation of an interdepartmental task

force and research into San Francisco’s pioneer program. Miller consulted with San

Francisco Pavement to Parks staff; acquiring the Parklet RFP and project


specifications from Andres Power.40 Miller also initiated outreach within the City of

Oakland; taking David Harlan of the Oakland City Building Department on a tour of

San Francisco Parklets to examine the installations firsthand. Harlan agreed to

serving as the Building Department’s liaison to the Parklet initiative, as the

Department would be the city agency to process the pilot projects with ‘minor

encroachment permits.’41 In May 2011, Miller convened an internal working group

of representatives from various city departments (Figure 26). The initial group

discussions resulted in several agreements which are nearly identical to those of the

other cities profiled in this thesis: 42

1. Test the Parklets with a pilot program

2. Execute the program efficiently, without changing or amending municipal code through legislative action by City Council

3. Implement Parklet projects with a revenue-neutral (public-

private) model

Blair Miller then set about developing a ‘notice of opportunity’ adapted

directly from San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks RFP.43 This was presented to the

Rules Committee of the City Council, who advised her to reproduce the RFP in

different languages to better represent Oakland’s ethnic complexity.


Figure 26: City of Oakland - Initial Internal Parklet Stakeholders (Abad Ocubillo 2012)

Walk Oakland, Bike Oakland

At the same time, a nonprofit organization – Walk Oakland Bike Oakland

(WOBO) – was working to bring awareness of Parklets to communities and

neighborhoods. As with agitators in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles,

WOBO leveraged the PARK(ing) DAY celebration as a part of a public education

campaign for future Parklets. WOBO had directly sponsored a number of PARK(ing)

DAY installations in September 2010, which in particular provided valuable insights

for the organization’s evolving sensibilities about site selection.44 For example, one

2010 PARK(ing) installation was located outside a bar, which WOBO organizers


later concluded would not be ideal for a Parklet as alcohol consumption is not

permitted on city streets.

In the next year, WOBO would transition from directly sponsoring

PARK(ing) DAY installations to conducting advocacy and research around Parklets.

For example on Bike to Work Day 2011 (Thursday May 12), WOBO gathered

approximately 700 petitions in support of a Parklet pilot program for the City.45

Ruth Miller – then fellow with WOBO – worked with Oakland North, a news project

of U.C. Berkeley Journalism Program, to create video and audio explorations of a

Parklet program.46 WOBO also worked in coordination with Stephen Newhouse, an

intern staffer within the city of Oakland, to develop an impact study for the pilot

Parklets in Oakland. Ruth Miller and Stephen Newhouse worked together to devise

an approach methodology. WOBO recruited and trained volunteers who executed

both Quantitative and Qualitative components of the study in the field. 47

In 2012, WOBO selected the Parklet initiative in Oakland as a top campaign

priority,48 acting at both the project and citywide program levels. They identified

technical support as a key function of a nonprofit Parklet advocate, and currently

provide assistance to applicants by helping potential Parklet sponsors complete

applications to the level required for approval. Additionally, WOBO has committed

to assisting hosts with community relations for Parklet projects as they are rolled

out, advising crafting to replies to appeals.49

Besides assisting with individual projects, WOBO also campaigns at the

citywide scale and aggressively lobbyies for the advancement of a Parklet Program


for Oakland. 50 In 2011, WOBO initiated an advocacy campaign targeting city

officials, meeting with select council members between October and December of

that year to present Parklet case studies from other cities.51 At the writing of this

thesis, WOBO staff expressed the desire for the creation a new ordinance within the

City of Oakland institutionalizing the program within city code, passed by the City

Council.52 According to WOBO strategists, this code could be modified from the

existing minor encroachment permit,53 and consist of a temporary one year permit

renewable up to three years.54

WOBO is committed to the installation of at least one Parklet in every

Oakland Council District,55 and are actively identifying other sites, neighborhoods,

and businesses.56 Additonally, the organization has identified itself as a key shaper

of the Parklet culture in Oakland; advocating for equity in geographic distrubtion

and access for the City’s diverse classes and ethnicities.57

Actual Café

In 2011, Sal Bednarz – the proprietor of Actual Café – contacted WOBO

regarding his plans to transform an abandoned bus stop fronting the café.58

Bednarz exemplifies the Parklet community champion; having conducted extensive

research and communication in order to execute his own project while at the same

time contributing to the overall movement with his continued commitment to the

realization of a program in his own city. Bednarz had already assembled the

funding and material resources to execute a PARK(ing) DAY installation;59 and so


WOBO and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition helped to recruit volunteer labor to

construct the platform. Bednarz had also communicated previously with AC Transit,

who confirmed that it was very unlikely that the bus zone would become active

again. Sal was also able to garner tacit support from the City Planning Department

for the installation;60 however approval for such an installation lays formally within

the purview of The Department of Public Works. However at this time, the DPW did

not have an appropriate permit for such an installation. The Actual Café Parklet

crew was resolved to building the Parklet anyway, with tacit (but not official)

approval from city officials, with whom Sal communicated regularly about progress

at his site. At this time, Actual Café is one of the seven approved applicants in

Oakland’s pilot program.

Moving Forward in Oakland

Seven applicants responded to the pilot RFP released by CEDA in fall 2011.61

As of March 2012, Kaminski was in the process of finalizing the application

requirements for the pilot projects, which was originally intended to be distributed

by January 2012.62 The final application is based on the minor encroachment

permit, which names commercial liability within its language; ordinarily with an

encroachment permit, it’s the property owners who carry liability, but the

adaptation allows for the private sponsor to take it on.63

At the writing of this thesis, several of circumstances have contributed to a

slowed formation of the pilot Program’s final structure and procedures. As an


initiative led from within CEDA, the program’s goal was to have a final RFP, with

internally-‐approved application materials by winter 2011/2012. However with the

dissolution of the CRA and consequently of CEDA, the program’s development was

significantly curtailed and those materials were not made available until May 2012.

After Blair Miller’s departure from the City of Oakland at the dissolution of CEDA,

Planning Department staffer Laura Kaminski assumed leadership of the program

and since advanced it by ensuring the City Attorney’s Office and Buildings

Department reviewed and vetted the draft application materials.64

The final RFP will entail “construction level approval” reviewed and

approved by the Building Department.65 The pilot phase will last one year, during

which Oakland will draft a permanent program.66 The Planning Department will

oversee design review and coordinating with the technical divisions (Figure 26).67

In the event that a permanent Parklet program is created by a change of municipal

code, the City Council can, before enacting the new legislation, influence the

program’s structure and provisions.

Moving forward, the pilot program will likely be administered from within

the Planning Department,68 (or possibly from Building or Public Works).69 As with

the other cities profiled in this thesis, Oakland began its citywide Parklet program

with a trial, which stakeholders here confirmed as the best tactic for garnering

approval from the Oakland City Council and the City Attorney’s Office.70 In this way,

CEDA (now Planning) could demonstrate an intention to learn from mistakes as the

program was seen in action.71


As Oakland finalizes its pilot stage, and evaluates weather or not a

permanent program is feasible, the city will likely modify an existing permitting

mechanism to process Parklet applications. The Minor Encroachment Permit has

been identified by WOBO72; however some city staff feel that it may be too unwieldy

a process for a permanent Parklet program.73 As with other cities, the issue of

liability remains sensitive and in Oakland, is unresolved at this time.


3.1.5 – Los Angeles: Fledgling Incubation

The narrative in Los Angeles is much more complex than the other cities

covered by this investigation – reflecting the city’s geographic, cultural, and

jurisdictional complexity; an enormous government apparatus (Sonenshein 2006);

and a highly idiosyncratic political landscape. Despite a robust and diverse

coalition of public and private agencies working in and around the streetscape, local

leadership around Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas is, as of yet, somewhat more

diffuse and loosely organized than initiatives observed in the other cities.

As with other cities profiled in this thesis, Los Angeles is currently

undergoing a renaissance of street life and culture, with amplified presence in the

public consciousness.74 Department of Public Works Commissioner John Choi

referred to the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza experiments as “Symptomatic of [a

pervasive] effort to try and rethink our urban space” (personal communication,

interview 4/15/2012). Growing participation in ephemeral and temporary street

celebrations evidence a newfound enthusiasm for public life and citizenship, setting

the stage for more permanent forms of intervention and interaction in the urban

fabric of Los Angeles.

Foremost among these energizing events is CicLAvia, a day-‐long celebration

which closes miles of Los Angeles streets to automobile traffic. CicLAvia began as a

single event in October 2010 and since enjoyed ever-‐increasing attendance,

popularity with city officials, and an expanding portfolio of sponsors. Organizers


have managed to produce the event every six months, with the possibility of even

greater frequency. The self-‐reinforcing popularity of CicLAvia follows that of similar

pedestrian-‐bicycle events such as Sunday Streets in San Francisco, Pedalfest in

Oakland, BikeFest in Long Beach.

Figure 27: CicLAvia, Saturday April 10 2012 (Abad Ocubillo).

This thesis documents how the importation of PARK(ing) DAY links to

Parklet initiatives in cities. The first PARK(ing) DAY was celebrated in Los Angeles

in 2007,75 and as with CicLAvia,, participation increased exponentially over coming

years. This thesis will describe how a PARK(ing) DAY was leveraged in 2012 by the

Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council to advance its own Parklet campaign


while at the same time expanding public awareness of like projects. The popularity

of CicLAvia and PARK(ing) DAY events indicates an increasing receptiveness of

public and government to temporary street closures in Los Angeles: at a large

geographic scale in the case of CicLAvia, or at the microscale in the form of

PARK(ing).

As a large City in its fledgling stages of experimentation with Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas, each project in Los Angeles was initiated independently from the

others. This typifies the City and Region, described by stakeholders as a ‘community

of communities’ or ‘city of cities.’76 This also underscores the highly localized,

community-‐driven processes inherent to the ‘radical’ stages of Heuristic Urbanism.

Each community in Los Angeles adopted different approaches of interfacing with the

City to permit and implement their projects; 77 to varying degrees of success. Despite

the apparent disjuncture between initiatives, their concurrence is creating increased

consensus among community organizers that a unified approach to the City could

expedite and consolidate processes of approval.78 Some community stakeholders

also suggested that uniting under a single brand, coalition, or umbrella organization

would create more opportunity to share tactics and approaches that could transfer

successfully to other projects and sites.

The structure and culture of Los Angeles’ government shapes Heuristic

Urbanism in ways totally unique from the other cities profiled in this thesis. On the

government side, Parklets were championed by individual City Council members –

elected officials; whereas like initiatives in other municipalities typically emerged


from the staff of city agencies. The involvement of Neighborhood Councils also

distinguishes the Los Angeles cases. The Council program was created in 2001 to

improve citizen engagement in policymaking through local boards of elected

volunteers. These bodies comprise a unique layer of civic governance, lending their

respective Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza initiatives with added political and even

fiscal resources.

The Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza interventions are located in 3 adjoining

Council Districts comprising some of Los Angeles’ oldest neighborhoods, on streets

which continue their historic function as local shopping districts. Dating to an era

before auto-‐dominance, the street fabric and building stock in these districts largely

retain their intimate scale and humane ambience. This spatial and social character

generally supports the findings presented in Section 3.2.2, which suggests that

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas tend to appear in – or are proposed for –

neighborhoods with a robust pre-‐existing base of pedestrian and commercial

activity. The projects are presented here in rough order of when planning for each

began:

A. Sunset Triangle Plaza – Silverlake

B. ‘Street Porch’ Parklet – Highland Park / York Boulevard

C. ‘Street Plaza’ Parklet – El Sereno / Huntington Blvd

D. Downtown Los Angeles / Spring Street Parklets


Figure 28: Map of Relevant Council Districts (as of March 2012) . A – Sunset Triangle Plaza; Council District 13, Eric Garcetti. B – Highland Park / York Boulevard ‘Street Porch,’ and C – El Sereno / Huntington Blvd ‘Street Porch;’ Council District 14, Jose Huizar. D – Downtown Los Angeles / Spring Street Parklets; Council District 14, Jose Huizar and Council District 9, Jan Perry. Redistricting in 2012 will bring the Spring Street Parklets wholly within the new boundaries of Council District 14) Hoover Street (indicated by the dotted line) marks the interface between the historic Spanish street grid (angled 45 degrees) and the Jeffersonian street grid. (Map generated using GIS datasets provided by the Los Angeles City Department of Planning).



Sunset Triangle Plaza

As in New York City, irregular street intersections abound in Los Angeles,

forming triangular islands of oft undeveloped value and amenity to pedestrians.

Several concentrations of these triangles occur throughout the city; most notably

along the Hoover Street, at the interface of the Jeffersonian and historic Spanish

street grids (Garde 1999). Topography of the Los Angeles basin also influenced the

organization of streets, especially along the interface with the Santa Monica

Mountains. The trajectories of major east-‐west corridors (Hollywood, Sunset, Santa

Monica, Melrose, Beverly, Wilshire and San Vicente) bend in conformity with the

mountainous terrain to the north; generating a variation of interstitial roadway

spaces when intersecting with regular north-‐south streets. Sunset Triangle Plaza is

situated at just such an intersection, in a neighborhood straddling the interface of

the mountains with the Spanish and Jeffersonian street grids (Figure 28, Location

A). The project site’s geometry resembles that of numerous Pedestrian Plazas in

New York City and San Francisco, where an aberration of an orthogonal street grid

forms opportunity for reclamation by closure to the automobile.

Planning at and around this site dates as far back as the early 2000s, when

Council District 13 leveraged Community Block Grant Development Funds to

develop a vision plan for the neighborhood.79 Those plans, generated by Katherine

Cerra Associates,80 were only partially executed. The fountain at the center of the

triangular park is one mark of the Cerra plan, which also recommended a road


closure. More recently the site was considered by the Living Streets LA working

group (part of the Transportation Working Group at the Green Los Angeles

Coalition, a nonprofit housed within the California Endowment)81 in community

meetings as a potential site for a demonstration project.

Figure 29: Sunset Triangle Plan (Design and Rendering by Rios Clementi Hale Studios 2012, shown with permission). The Los Angeles Department of Transportation generated final construction drawings based on this pro-bono design developed by Rios Clementi Hale Studios. The light green fields are new pedestrian-only areas created from the closure of Griffth Park Boulevard along this block length. The dark green field is a pre-existing park in the triangular traffic island.


The Living Streets LA working group provided a venue for resources such as

funding, expertise, and political clout to coalesce around the Sunset Triangle

project. In August 2010, Planning Commission President Bill Roschen connected

with Margot Ocañas, then Policy Analyst the Los Angeles County Department of

Public Health. Margot oversaw the deployment of funding through project RENEW

(Renew Environments for Nutrition, Exercise, and Wellness) which sought to

change environmental conditions contributing to obesity.82 Until then, RENEW

funding had supported policy and planning initiatives, but no physical interventions

in the execution of its mission. Both Roschen and Ocañas immediately recognized

that a partnership could bring such a demonstration to fruition. Together they

formed Streets for People, a collaboration with their two agencies (LA City Planning

Commission and County DPH) at the core; partnering with other city agencies and

community groups to advance the repurposing of streets for pedestrian use and

mobility.

Despite funding provided by LAC DPH, and the considerable political backing

through the LA City Planning Commission, the execution of a demonstration project

by Streets for People proved challenging for two reasons. First, a funding expiration

date in 2012 demanded an expedient implementation schedule that precluded

extensive site scoping, outreach, and vetting. Second, project approval by the city’s

technical Departments proved elusive, as a street closure of this kind was

unprecedented in Los Angeles.


A constrained execution timeline strongly influenced site selection criteria.

The Streets for People team initially identified a number of locations, with

underutilized streets space appropriate for pedestrian reclamation, in

neighborhoods with documented health issues.83 However, as the reality of ongoing

maintenance became more and more prominent in discussions with City staff, it

became apparent that the presence of a stable community partner would play a

greater role in site selection.84 Finally the Sunset Triangle location was chosen, with

the Silverlake Improvement Association as a community partner and 13th Council

District on board as local stewards. A strong, pre-‐existing relationship between the

Association and Council District Office better ensured long-‐term viability of the

demonstration project, addressing concerns with maintenance, programming, and

ongoing communication with local stakeholders.

In most cases of Heuristic Urbanism, novel ideas face skepticism or even

opposition from municipal technical Departments whose current set of standards,

procedures, and policies delimit nonconforming experimentation. The cases in Los

Angeles experience the most acute difficulty of this kind, whereas in the other

California cities, resolution of departmental concerns proceeded more quickly. To

build support within the City government, Bill Roschen and Margot Ocañas brought

Planning Department Director Michael LoGrande to NYC in June 2011. There,

LoGrande met with NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-‐Khan, Planning

Commissioner Amanda Burden, Ethan Kent at the Project for Public Spaces and

others to discuss how Pedestrian Plazas are implemented and operated through the


NYC Plaza Program. The visit also provided an opportunity for LoGrande to observe

street-‐reclamation Plazas firsthand. Upon his return to Los Angeles, LoGrande

initiated conversations with Jaime de la Vega, General Manager of Los Angeles

Department of Transportation (DOT) about advancing the Sunset Triangle

proposal.85

Figure 30: Sunset Triangle Stakeholder Structure (Abad Ocubillo 2012)

In order to execute the Sunset Triangle Plaza on time, de la Vega adopted the

project into DOT, issuing an executive order to his staff to implement the project. In

making the project one of its own, DOT essentially absolved other technical

Departments (namely the Department of Public Works and its Bureaus) of further


interactions with the applicant on issues of review and permitting. 86 Thus the

Streets for People group, through the implementation of Sunset Triangle Plaza,

established an important precedent for Heuristic Urbanism in Los Angeles by

leveraging an opportunity within City government’s existing structure to minimize

and streamline approvals from different agencies

Implementation also required motions from City Council to authorize the

transfer of funding from LAC DPH to LA DOT; and to authorize the street closure at

Griffith Park Boulevard between Sunset and Edgecliffe.87 LA DOT installed the Plaza

in February 2012 (based on conceptual designs developed by Rios Clementi Hale

Studios in the preceding year). The Silverlake Improvement Association officially

accepted maintenance of the space; which is also undergoing continual monitoring

by Streets for People volunteers. Since the expiration of RENEW funds in 2012 and

the consequent departure of Ocañas from LAC DPH, Streets for People remains an

initiative of the City Planning Commission with Bill Roschen as its current President.

The ‘Street Porch’ and ‘Street Plaza’

The interventions proposed in Los Angeles Council District 14 (Jose Huizar)

do conform with the physical and programmatic profile of a Parklet outlined in

Section 1.2.3; there defined as a removable platform extending the sidewalk into the

roadbed. However several conceptual and philosophical characteristics distinguish

the two CD 14 cases from the Parklet appearing elsewhere. These characteristics

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! ""#!

$%&'(%! ()! (*%! +&',,-,.! +$)/%001! 23,4-,.1! ',4! ,)5%,/&'(3$%! )2! (*%! +$)+)0%4!

-,0('&&'(-),06!

!

!%/)0(12%3.4%%5#16*27%#8$%9:71227%5+1';9%:7#62;+*$21%:71('7(12%%<!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,=%%%

78+-/'&&81!9)3,/-&!:-0($-/(!)22-/%0!-,!)(*%$!/-(-%0!'$%!-,;)&;%4!-,!0)5%!/'+'/-(8!

<-(*! 5#16*27! +$)+)0'&01! =3(! ,)(! +$-5'$8! .%,%$'()$0! )2! (*%56! ! ! 7*%! 0($%%(0/'+%!

-,(%$;%,(-),0! -,!9)3,/-&!:-0($-/(!"#!>?-.3$%!@A1!B)/'(-),0!C!',4!9D!'$%!+$)43/(0!)2!

(*'(!:-0($-/(! )22-/%E0!+&',,-,.!+$).$'51AA! '!3,-F3%!+$);%,',/%!3,&-G%! ',8!)(*%$! -,!

9'&-2)$,-'6! ! H,! @I"I! 9)3,/-&!5%5=%$! J)0%!K3-L'$! -4%,(-2-%4! (*%0%! (<)! /)55%$/-'&!

/)$$-4)$0! $%/%,(&8! %M*-=-(-,.! %/),)5-/! $%;-;'&N! ('$.%(-,.! (*%5! 2)$! 23$(*%$!

-,;%0(5%,(!()!=)&0(%$!(*%!$%;-('&-L'(-),!-,!*-0!:-0($-/(6AO!!7*%!+$)+)0%4!PQ($%%(!R)$/*E!


(York Boulevard, Highland Park) and the ‘Street Plaza’ (Huntington Boulevard, El

Sereno) installations are components of larger Community Vision Plans for each

neighborhood, not isolated projects unto themselves. While some other Parklet

cases in California form parts of larger neighborhood improvement strategies, these

are the first to emerge directly from a Councilmember’s office. Also, the two

projects in Highland Park and El Sereno are further distinguished by their funding

source. Planning and design funds came directly from the Council District Office,

with capital costs budgeted there as well. If installed, they will comprise the first

Parklets funded through public monies.

The Community Vision Planning facilitators (Steve Rasmussen Cancian and

Ryan Lehman of Shared Spaces Landscape Architecture) deliberately refer to the

proposed interventions as a ‘Street Porch’ and ‘Street Plaza.’ This distances those

installations somewhat from the Parklet proper, which as discussed later in Section

4.2, can be associated with gentrification and privatization. The choice to deploy a

Parklet typology – but refer to it with other terminology that re-‐emphasizes the

democratic essence of the Parklet’s origins – evidences Cancian’s ‘planning to stay’

approach to urban design exemplified the by ‘Community Living Rooms’ presented

previously in Section 2.3.3.


Figure 32: 'Street Porch' on York Boulevard in Highland Park, Los Angeles (Design and rendering by Steve Rasmussen Cancian, Shared Spaces Landscape Architecture 2012, shown with permission). While this installation matches the physical definition of a Parklet outlined in Section 1.2.3, it’s deliberately referred to as a 'Street Porch’ in Community Vision Planning discussions in the neighborhoods of Highland Park and El Sereno.

Spring Street Parklets

The Parklet initiative in the downtown Historic Core is highly exceptional in

terms of its formation through a Neighborhood Council, a type of governance body

of grassroots volunteers empowered through a municipal ordinance to advise on

the creation of City policy. While collaborations between governmental and

community actors has produced pilot Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza experiments in


other cities, none enjoyed the unique institutional backing furnished by a

Neighborhood Council structure.

The Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC) engages in a

wide range of community projects, including a suite of bicycle and pedestrian

initiatives through its Complete Streets Working Group (CSWG). Valerie Watson –

then Director of the CSWG – already spearheaded the organization’s collaboration

with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and the LA DOT on bicycle

infrastructure improvements downtown. The collaboration would bring the first

green-‐striped, dedicated bicycle lane to Spring Street in the downtown Historic

Core.90

Leveraging the positive social and political capital building around the

bicycle lane effort, Watson assembled a group of volunteer designers and architects

to explore the possibility of a Parklets on Spring Street. Through DLANC, Watson

was also able to forge collaboration between Council Districts 9 and 14, whose

jurisdictions met on Spring Street (Figure 28, location D). Concurrent planning by

CD 14 for Parklet interventions in Highland Park and El Sereno complimented the

effort downtown.91

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! ""#!

!%/)0(12% 334% % 561)70% 581228% 9#1:*28% ;7)8)#8)<2% % =>+?78+?7% @+A% !702*2A% B2)0C"+1C++$% D+(7')*E% D+F6*282% 581228A%G+1:)70%H1+(6I%%!1'C)82'8A4%%J+7K%@+62LE%M+"%N211KE%>#<22$%O#6++1P%Q#1'C%,-.,IR%

!!

$%!&'()'*+',!-.""/!)0'!1&23!4,56(!7(5%75,'8!9!:;<=>?%4@!A;B!?%7)9CC9)?5%!

5%!&(,?%4!&),'')D! !E0'!'F'%)!(,5F?8'8!)G5!*9H5,!97('I)7!5J!(6+C?I?)K!9%8!56),'9I0!

J5,! )0'! JC'84C?%4! 85G%)5G%! 9#1:*28! 'JJ5,)D! ! LK! )0?7! )?*'/! )0'! 156%I?C*'*+',7! J5,!

A?7),?I)7! M! >N9%!:',,K@! 9%8!"O! >N57'!P6?Q9,@! 94,''8! )5! ?%),586I'! 9!156%I?C!R5)?5%!!

?%7),6I)?%4! 1?)K! :C9%%?%4! )5! G5,S! G?)0! )0'! A'(9,)*'%)7! 5J! :6+C?I! 25,S7! 9%8!

E,9%7(5,)9)?5%! )5! ?*(C'*'%)!8'*5%7),9)?5%!(,5H'I)7!6%8',G9K! ?%!A5G%)5G%!9%8!

T5,)0'97)!U57!;%4'C'7DM-!!E0?7!156%I?C!R5)?5%!G97!9%%56%I'8!)5!4,'9)!J9%J9,'!G?)0!9!

(,'77!I5%J','%I'!0'C8!9)!)0'!I6,+7?8'!:;<=>?%4@!A;B!?%7)9CC9)?5%!5%!&(,?%4!&),'')D!

E0'! :;<=>?%4@! A;B! 'F'%)! 9C75! (,5F?8'8! 9%! 5((5,)6%?)K! J5,! 8'7?4%',7! 9%8!

5,49%?Q',7! )5! I5%86I)! 56),'9I0! 9%8! (,'C?*?%9,K! ,'7'9,I0! J5,! J6)6,'! 9#1:*28A! 5%!


Spring Street. This outreach effort entailed the administration of a short intercept

questionnaire, the results of which helped Watson and her team understand the

range of programming desires endemic to the neighborhood. The survey results

generated three different themes, which then directly influenced the design of three

separate Parklets for Spring Street.

This especially deliberate, research-‐rich approach to Parklet design and

programming produced a collection or assemblage of Parklets heretofore

unprecedented in California. Designed at the same time, the three Parklets share the

same modular elements, detailing and materials; but are each executed according to

the ‘Active,’ ‘Passive,’ or ‘Communal’ theme particular to each site. DLANC also

initiated an Impact Study which will evaluate the effects of the Parklets on a range of

local issues including pedestrian volumes and behavior, environmental perception

of residents and neighbors, and the business confidence of merchants. Another

partnership between DLANC and the Lewis Center at UCLA will both fund and

evaluate a single Parklet designed to encourage walking and activity in “park-‐poor,

low-‐income community.” The suite of research programmes at DLANC have the

potential to help Angelenos understand the impacts and benefits of Parklets on local

sociability, economy, image, identity, human activities and behaviors.93

Moving Forward in Los Angeles

As different Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza projects came forward during 2011

and 2012, the ‘family’ of LA City Government officials and staff realized the necessity


for developing a standard process, program, and policy for vetting, approving and

regulating the requests for pilot projects.94 Issues of permitting, maintenance, and

liability became magnified as the technical divisions reviewed proposals for the

projects which are unprecedented in Los Angeles.

At present, a process for achieving approval for current pilot Parklet

proposals in Los Angeles is unclear. Community and government stakeholders

described a range of different courses of action that could – in various combinations

– garner the appropriate sign-‐offs that would facilitate implementation. These

involve application through existing mechanisms such as the A-‐Permit (Minor Street

Construction) and R-‐Permit (Revocable Private Use of Public Right-‐of-‐Way) with

DPW Bureau of Engineering; and the Adopt-‐a-‐Median Program within the Board of

Public Works’ Office of Community Beautification. All stakeholders indicated the

eventual necessity of a Motion from City Council directing the Departments to move

forward with implementation of the pilot projects; or designating a single

Department to adopt the pilot initiative. All stakeholders likewise indicated that a

Motion from Council was likely required for the Departments or a Department to

create and administer a permanent program for Parklet and/or Pedestrian Plazas.

The re-‐organization of Council District Boundaries in 2012 will also bear on

the development of both a pilot and long-‐term program within the City for Parklets

and/or Pedestrian Plazas. The thesis observes how when compared to other cities,

the championship of an elected Council Member is an especially critical element of

successful initiatives in Los Angeles. Outcomes which in other municipalities might


not require the passing of a full Council Motion – for example to begin a trial Parklet

program – seems by all accounts requisite in Los Angeles. With the absorption of all

current Proposals (Figure 28, locations B, C, and D) into the newly redrawn

jurisdiction of Council District 14, especial emphasis is placed on Councilmember

Jose Huizar to advance the fledgling effort.


3.1.6 – Heuristic Urbanism Across California

The cities of San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and San Francisco are each

undergoing a renaissance of street life and culture.95 This manifests in citizens’

tactical actions and experiments; the advocacy and organizing of community groups

and nonprofits; and the steady re-‐alignment of planning and public policy. Cities are

re-‐prioritizing the use of streets to better balance between pedestrian, cyclist,

transit, and auto mobility. By profiling the Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas in all four cities, a number of significant themes emerge which

bear upon the structures and even cultures of city government. These themes

center on experimentation, adaptation and innovation;96 the structure of city

governments and their attendant procedures of permitting and evaluation;

interdepartmental collaboration and the championship of individuals and agencies.

Program Modelling and the Social-Professional Network

Stakeholders in each city attested to the strong influence of New York and

then San Francisco on Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza programs in their own cities.

Those model programs, policies, and projects were examined by individuals in all

stakeholder groups – from city staffers to architects and designers; community

organizations and business operators. The thesis documented the directness with

which Commissioner Sadik-‐Khan (NYC DOT) affected Mayor Newsom, effecting the

genesis of the Pavement to Parks Program in San Francisco. City staffers from Long

Beach and Oakland visited San Francisco’s Parklets, as did community organizers


and designers from Los Angeles. Commissioner Roschen and Director Lo Grande

from the Los Angeles Planning Department paid visits to their counterparts in New

York City and experienced those Plazas firsthand.

Stakeholders universally referred to San Francisco’s pioneering of the Parklet

typology. The Parklet design standards, RFPs, and permit language developed by

San Francisco provided models for organizers and governments in Long Beach,

Oakland, and Los Angeles.97 A majority of interviews with designers and city

staffers described direct, one-‐on-‐one communication with and support from Andres

Power and the staff at San Francisco Pavement to Parks. This underscores the

necessity for a design and program manual which synthesizes all the practical and

technical aspects of creating a Parklet program. Neither the Pavement to Parks

Program nor their nonprofit corollary SF Greatstreets are developing such a guide

or toolkit (although Greatstreets produced several substantial impact studies on

Parklets which, when taken with the study produced by NYC DOT on Curbside

Dining Platforms, comprise the whole of practical studies on the typology). The

Lewis Center at UCLA is currently developing such a toolkit, with publication

targeted for summer 2012.

The interpersonal interaction between SF Pavement to Parks staff and other

interested stakeholders – so critical to the dissemination of the Parklet throughout

California and indeed elsewhere – had the effect of amplifying, replicating, and

enlarging a social-‐professional community associated with Heuristic Urbanism. This

thesis contends that such a network is requisite for the advancement of radical


actions to institutionalized projects, for example from PARK(ing) DAY to Parklet

programs; anarchist Critical Mass bike rides to the creation and implementation of

municipal bicycle plans and infrastructure. These networks span professional

disciplines (design, planning, engineering); the governance spectrum (community,

advocacy groups, neighborhood councils, city agencies and staff); and geographies

(between efforts in different neighborhoods, cities, regions).

Experimentation

A pilot phase figured into every project and program in all cities profiled in

California; and in New York as well. The merits of temporary or provisional projects

were presented in Section 2.1; and stakeholders universally acknowledged the

utility of – and necessity for – structuring Parklet and Pedestrian Plazas around

temporary or experimental phases. The practical dimensions of pilot phases are

twofold. First, demonstrations at both the project and program level function as

critical public outreach and education tools. A majority of stakeholders referred to

the potential for built demonstrations to galvanize support and positive opinion of

Parklet and Plazas. Often, built projects had the effect of reversing negative or

oppositional attitudes of which may have preceded implementation.

Second, Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza pilot projects facilitated greater

understanding of those novel typologies within city government.98 Stakeholders

often referred to differences of culture and values between city agencies – rooted in

the training of their respective disciplines – which exacerbate the challenges with


experimental projects and programs.99 However stakeholders also observed how

processes of negotiation associated with Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas – and indeed

the built projects themselves – helped to change the traditional cultures of city

departments.100

On the project level, demonstrations allowed city agencies to assess site and

situation, and to develop technical standards related to construction, drainage,

clearance, materiality, etc.101 A majority of stakeholders cited the utility of pilot

projects to allow for more conservative elements of city governments – for example

technical divisions such as traffic engineering – to evaluate nonconforming

interventions before denying their installation outright.102 Issues of insurance and

liability surfaced most often as the single biggest impediment to the project

implementation; insurance arrangements were tested and resolved during the

demonstration stage, setting important precedents for proceeding with an ongoing

program. On the program level, trials also give cities the opportunity to test

resource allocation, structural and procedural aspects of a potential future program;

better informing the creation of related policies or legislation.103 Thus, the Heuristic

Urbanism of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas effect cultural shifts within both the

government and public; at the program and project level.

Adaptation

Interviews with government stakeholders (and other informed individuals)

confirmed that rather than enact new municipal code, Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza


projects were implemented by re-‐interpreting current laws. Existing permits and

approval processes were adapted to accommodate the new typologies. This

facilitated speedy execution of pilot projects, 104 as well as efficient management of

long-‐term programs. Interviews with all government stakeholders indicated a

preference for adaptation of existing permits and working within existing legal

frameworks,105 while other community stakeholders (for example WOBO in

Oakland and others in Los Angeles) believed that the creation of new municipal

code(s) for Parklets and/or Pedestrian Plazas was either ideal or necessary.106

In San Francisco, the Parklet permit was based on that used for ‘Tables and

Chairs (sidewalk dining),’ and connected formally with the ‘Sidewalk Landscaping

Ordinance.” This permitting structure still operates today. Long Beach adapted the

existing ‘Public Walkway Occupancy Permit’ for its Parklets; whereas staffers in

Oakland and Los Angeles based their proposed pilot program structures directly on

those of San Francisco.107 With the absence of pilot program at this time

stakeholders in Los Angeles are experimenting with standard ‘A’ and ‘R’ permits.

Where a Parklet permitting process does exist – in San Francisco and Long

Beach (and in Oakland as a pilot) – stakeholders expect to see the procedure and

requirements change over time in response to new conditions and situations.108 For

example in San Francisco, the language of the permit evolved to address the design

of Parklet seating elements. Some Parklet designs in constructed in 2011 employed

a very minimal program consisting of a deck, planters and railing. Consequently the

language in the RFP for the succeeding cycle was amended to encourage greater


interest and variety by suggesting the incorporation integral seating in Parklet

designs. In another San Francisco case (discussed in detail in Section 4.2.3),

neighborhood controversy over perceived privatization prompted the revision of

the permit to prohibit the use of matching street furniture in the Parklet and

sidewalk dining areas of sponsors.109

Agency Adoption

Heuristic Urbanism entails highly functional collaboration across city

agencies, often engendering the creation of new inter-‐departmental coalitions and

partnerships, typically with a single agency at the lead. In San Francisco, pilot

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas were vetted through ISCOTT (Figure 24); later,

projects were processed by the formally created Pavement to Parks Program led by

the Urban Design Group of the Planning Department. Pavement to Parks officers

represent a number of key city Departments (Figure 22). In Long Beach, city

staffers identified a lead agency naturally and with relative ease. That Department

also led Parklet effort by coordinating between technical and legal agencies,

communicating with Council District offices and business, and setting up policies

and procedures for project implementation.

In the Cities of Oakland and Los Angeles, where Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza

initiatives are less developed as of yet, interaction between city agencies has been

less clear. In Oakland, the early reticence of the Planning and Zoning Department

and Public Works Agency to spearhead the initiative caused frustration for eager


community partners.110 Later, the pilot Parklet Program in Oakland suffered from

the dissolution of the CRA which delayed the release of a final pilot RFP by several

months. The Oakland program finally found a home within the Planning

Department which will likely administer a permanent Parklet program as well.

In Los Angeles, a single lead agency or ‘home’ for Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas has not been confirmed as of yet. This is the chief difficulty cited by a

majority of Los Angeles stakeholders regarding the implementation of pilot Parklet

proposals currently in circulation amongst city agencies. The Sunset Triangle Plaza

project demonstrates how a nonprofit community forum (Green LA Coalition)

provided a venue for brokering new collaborations between government agencies.

The only built project to date, Sunset Triangle Plaza was executed by the

Department of Transportation through an initiative of the City Planning Commission

and funding from the County Department of Health (Figure 29). However moving

forward, its unclear if the precedent set at Sunset Triangle – where DOT acted as the

‘owner’ and lead – will result in DOT permanently adopting the Streets for People

program and projects. 111 Furthermore, stakeholders varied in their opinions on

which department should lead the approval of Parklet proposals; 112 DPW, DOT, and

Department of City Planning were all cited as preferred ‘home’ agencies. The

majority of non-‐governmental stakeholders in Los Angeles identified DOT as the

most logical choice for a Parklet program (pilot and permanent), due to the

precedent set with DOT’s adoption of the Sunset Triangle Plaza. A majority of

stakeholders from all cities agreed that review processes for both the Parklet and


Pedestrian Plaza typologies should be consolidated within a single Department; or a

collaborative of departments with one as the lead.

This thesis contends that strong leadership of a single city agency is

absolutely requisite to the process of Heuristic Urbanism; facilitating the

advancement of radical ideas to pilot projects, and the successful development of

those projects into viable city programs. The thesis documented how such

leadership brought about institutionalization of programs in San Francisco, Long

Beach, and Oakland. Los Angeles progresses somewhat more slowly due to the

absence at this time of a single agency lead; despite an abundance of dedicated

individual champions and the consolidation of proposed Parklet sites within a single

Council District in summer 2012.

Internal vs. External Generation

The emergence of the Parklet idea – and implementation of the typology –

typically followed one of two patterns in the case cities. In San Francisco and Long

Beach, the ideas were nurtured primarily by city staff and introduced to the public

at large with a fairly organized program devised by city government. However in

Oakland and Los Angeles, the Parklet typology percolated upward into government

from grassroots and community efforts; which then compelled city staff to respond

with program development.

The relative distinctiveness of these two patterns may bear on the efficiency

and speed with which cities were able to implement programs. Its clear that the


successful formation of a pilot program hinges upon leadership by a single agency

within the city; and that ongoing, permanent programs require a ‘home’ agency to

coordinate between government divisions, community groups, applicants, and other

stakeholders. In the cases of San Francisco and Long Beach – each characterized by

strong leadership by a single department – the Parklet went from idea to pilot

implementation in a little over a year. In Oakland and Los Angeles, the process from

community agitation to city adoption may take between a year and a half to two

years; possibly longer.

Above and Beyond

The advocacy and internal leadership of city staffers is also another

necessary element in the process of Heuristic Urbanism. Stakeholder interviews

consistently cited one or two such leaders in every city profiled here. These agents

coordinated between departments, set up public fora, and helped broker new

agreements between stakeholders. Pilot Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza initiatives are

typically managed without city Program budgets, further underscoring the deep of

commitment and leadership exhibited by city staffers who often assume these new

responsibilities in addition to their existing workload.113 This was emphasized by

interviews in San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles.

Fee structures for permit processing do not offset the cost of staff time

required to review applications. In Los Angeles, some interviewees suggested that

in addition to capital costs, applicants for Pedestrian Plazas should fund city staff


time associated with that particular project.114 Irrespective of how city staff are

compensated in ongoing, institutionalized city programs, its clear that the process of

Heuristic Urbanism entails not only the championship but extraordinary

commitment of time from individuals in government; especially during pilot and

demonstration phases.

This thesis also observed how championship for Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas does emerge from other quarters of the government besides that of city staff.

In some cases, a kind of executive mandate galvanized stakeholders into action.

This was the case with San Francisco Mayor Newsom115 and the Pavement to Parks

Program; or Los Angles DOT Director de la Vega and the Sunset Triangle Plaza

demonstration. Los Angeles Planning Commissioner Roschen was widely cited as

the personality leading the Sunset Triangle Plaza effort, connecting resources and

decision-‐makers around the project. Interviews in Los Angeles universally

acknowledged the necessary advocacy of Los Angeles City Councilmembers and

their staff in advancing projects Silverlake, Highland Park, El Sereno and downtown.

Leadership on the part of individual government agents – working in tandem with

their corollary champions in the general public – creates a ‘bottom-‐up meets top-‐

down dynamic’ that animates Heuristic Urbanism.


3.2 – Pre-Existing Conditions and Emerging Criteria for Viability

Whereas the previous Section explored Heuristic Urbanism using the City as

the unit of investigation, this Chapter focuses the scale of analysis to the site and

neighborhood. The interviews reveal a common set of conditions at the local scale

that tend to anticipate Parklet and Pedestrian Plazas. In some cases the conditions

appear universally across all cases and can be considered requisite for the

successful implementation of project proposals.

At times the popular discussion around Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas refers

to them as agents which activate neighborhoods; whereas this thesis actually

contends that conditions of public life and liveliness, commercial success, and

revitalization in fact anticipate proposals for the projects.116 Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas are seen to enhance what already exists, rather than introduce wholly new

elements. The narrative here begins to define criteria for the viability of Parklet and

Pedestrian Plaza proposals, ranging from physical prerequisites such as the size and

configuration of pedestrian facilities to social factors such as community networks

and fiscal potency.

A successful project is here defined as one which is not only implemented,

but is used by the community as intended. A successful project is also sustainable

over the long-‐term; the continual beneficiary of local investment and stewardship.

Anna Maroni described “physical public space” as “hardware” which is only as useful


as its software – the people and programs which animate it.117 In this Chapter, we

consider the second research question:

1. Do the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza typologies emerge from specific

spatial and social conditions? What circumstances engender projects

and their viability?


3.2.1 – Spatial and Physical Conditions

The prevailing rhetoric justifying the creation of Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas centers largely on correcting a pervasive spatial imbalance between

pedestrian and automobile uses in the public right-‐of-‐way. Historical overviews

have documented how over the last century, street functions rapidly transitioned

from prioritizing pedestrian circulation to that of the automobile (Barthold 1993;

Ehrenfeucht & Loukaitou-‐Sideris 2010). Others have observed how our legacy of

modern Euclidean zoning, planning regulations, and the dominance of traffic

engineering in structuring the urban environment produced a street network which

treats its pedestrian function as secondary to that of the car (Appleyard, 1981;

Garde 1999).

As our principal open space network, streets form the single largest

opportunity for reinventing urban life – as experienced in public space – through

physical, design-‐based interventions. In Rediscovering the City, William Whyte

enjoins cities to

take a closer look at what they already have. Most of them are sitting on a huge reservoir of space yet untapped by imagination. …In their inefficiently used rights-‐of-‐way, their vast acreage of parking lots, there is more than enough space for broad walkways and small parks and pedestrian places – and at premium locations, at ground level. (2009/1988, p75)

Heuristic Urbanism observes how Whyte’s call to action becomes institutionalized

within city planning processes and policies. The New York City Plaza, San Francisco

Pavement to Parks, and Oakland Parklet Programs all refer explicitly to repurposing


of the ROW. In its Background Statement for the Pavement to Parks Program, the

San Francisco Planning Department declares:

San Francisco ’s streets and public rights-‐of-‐way make up fully 25% of the city’s land area, more space even than is found in all of the city’s parks. Many of our streets are excessively wide and contain large zones of wasted space, especially at intersections. San Francisco’s new “Pavement to Parks” projects seek to temporarily reclaim these unused swathes and quickly and inexpensively turn them into new public plazas and parks. (San Francisco Planning Department 2010)

All the interviews referred to common spatial and physical conditions – at both the

city and site scale – which justify the necessity for Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas.

These factors relate to the proportion of roadway to sidewalk; the presence or lack

of pedestrian amenities; environmental factors such as urban vegetation; and

remnants of historic urban fabric.

Excess and Irregularity

Most interviews expressed the perception that in general streets in their

cities, and in the vicinity of their proposed project site, are ‘unnecessarily,’

‘needlessly,’ or ‘excessively’ wide.118 Many interviewees correlated wider streets

with faster traffic119 while at the same time expressing a belief that Parklets could

act as traffic calming devices that change driver behavior and speed.120 Nonetheless,

streets with speed limits over 25 mph are generally considered unsuitable for

Parklet installations.

Besides creating excess roadway, irregular intersections tend to present

human safety issues. Motorist and pedestrian behavior is often unpredictable and


difficult to regulate at street intersections of varying geometry (NYC DOT 2010).

Pedestrian safety did figure into the creation of Pedestrian Plazas in New York, San

Francisco, and Los Angeles. As presented earlier in Sections 2.1.3 and 3.1.1, robust

impact studies of interventions in New York City verified reduced pedestrian-‐

motorist injuries (NYC DOT 2010, 2011). At Sunset Triangle Plaza in Los Angeles,

stakeholders attested to the mitigating effects of the road closure on dangerous

motorist behavior. Before Plaza installation there, Griffith Park Blvd. provided a

direct route into the neighborhood which encouraged speeding, while a blind corner

at its intersection with Maltman Avenue caused a number of vehicle-‐pedestrian

accidents. Thus the simplification of irregular intersections – by using street

closures to eliminate redundant paths of vehicle travel – renders the multiple

benefits of creating expanded pedestrian spaces, reducing traffic speeds and traffic-‐

related injuries.

Constrained Pedestrian Right-of-Ways

A poor pedestrian facilities or a lack of amenities formed the principal

concern for many Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza stakeholders, especially merchants

and neighborhood groups. For example in majority of cases, stakeholders referred

to sidewalks being too narrow to accommodate existing levels of pedestrian activity

at their sites.121 This was the case in middle Valencia Street and at Powell Street in

San Francisco; on 4th Street in Long Beach; at 40th Street and on Lakeshore Avenue

in Oakland. Interviewees often described streetside conditions as congested not


only by high volumes of pedestrian traffic, but bicycle racks, newspaper stands and

other fixtures on the sidewalk.122 Cities recognized these constrained conditions

which furnished much of the justification for experimenting with curbside Parklets.

In the case of upper Valencia Street (between 15th and 19th Streets) in San

Francisco, the city actually widened the sidewalk to accommodate high pedestrian

volumes generated by the local shopping district and Bay Area Rapid Transit

(BART) station. In some situations, areas with amply proportioned sidewalks were

discounted by government stakeholders as viable locations for Parklet installations.

This was the case in the Naples neighborhood in Long Beach, which was considered

by city staffers during early scoping but later discounted due to the 12-‐foot

sidewalks.


Figure 34: Four Barrel Coffee Parklet, 375 Valencia Street, San Francisco. Valencia Street was recently subject to a 'road diet' that introduced bicycle lanes and conversion of the parking lane between 15th and 19th streets with permanent sidewalk extensions. The rest of Valencia’s length features the highest concentration of Parklets on a single street anywhere in the world. (Design: Seth Boor, Boor Bridges Architecture)

Lack of Seating Opportunities

The next most pervasive factor cited by stakeholders was an acute lack of

seating opportunities at or near project sites.123 At times this shortage forces

pedestrians to improvise seating in uncomfortable and potentially dangerous ways.

For example on Lakeshore Avenue in Oakland – a busy shopping district– patrons

are accustomed to sitting literally on the curb; sandwiched between the congested

pedestrian thoroughfare and parked cars.124 The Greater Lakeshore Retail

Association Group produced a study in 2008 which documented how seating and


pedestrian facilities in the district did not support current or projected levels of use.

Demonstrating a scarcity of safe seating options is perhaps the single most

important and reliable factor for helping Parklet organizers garner project support

and approval from local stakeholders and governments. This thesis notes how

pedestrian advocates, in justifying a range of interventions in the ROW (not just

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas but also their antecedents), refer often to the

deficiency or complete absence of seating facilities where they are most needed. In

selecting sites for 2011 PARK(ing) DAY installations, Walk Oakland Bike Oakland

(WOBO) deliberately targeted areas where they observed seating was most

needed.125 As presented previously in Section 2.3.3, a survey of transit riders in Los

Angeles substantiated the installation of ‘Outdoor Living Rooms’ at transit stops

throughout central Los Angeles.

Greening the Gray

Augmenting human comfort and amenity emerged as a significant driver for

the creation of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas. Besides expanded walkways and

seating facilities, nearly every interview described the projects as opportunities for

introducing vegetation and trees to environments that typically lacked such

features.126 This attitude concurs with the genealogy of Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas presented in Section 2.3, which traces the typologies’ genesis to precedents

that employed the material vocabulary of parks and countryside. Indeed every

Parket and Pedestrian Plaza studied here incorporates plants and trees as an


integral design component, at times with great virtuosity and inventiveness. The

Parklet at Four Barrel Coffee on Valencia Street in San Francisco incorporates a

trellis and canopy for climbing vines (Figure 34), while the Deepistan National

Parklet further south features a topiary dinosaur (Figure 20).


3.2.2 – Social Prerequisites

Anna Meroni referred to “physical public space” as “hardware” made useful

only through the ‘software’ of human activity, inhabitation and use. This thesis

documents a number site-‐scale social factors that precede the inception and

implementation of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas. Stakeholders routinely referred

to a suite of conditions related to commercial activity and pedestrian traffic; social

networks; political and financial backing; and supportive public policy. This thesis

contends that these pre-‐existing social conditions – universally present in all cases

examined by this study – as absolutely requisite for both implementation and long-‐

term viability of projects.

Bases of Captive Pedestrians and Commerce

“…visitors did not create the foundations of diversity in areas like these, nor in the many pockets of diversity and economic efficiency scattered here and there, sometimes most unexpectedly, in big cities. The visitors sniff out where something vigorous exists already, and come to share it, thereby further supporting it.” -‐ The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs 1961, p149

All Parklets and Pedestrian Plaza projects rely upon local foot traffic,127128 an

assumption confirmed by all stakeholder interviews. This emerged as the principal

factor for evaluating appropriate neighborhoods and sites. Though not codified as

an official criterion in Parklet RRPs or permit documents, the instinct for a steady,

‘captive ‘pedestrian base affected how project sites were targeted. For example

when editing a shortlist of neighborhoods for Parklet pilot projects in Long Beach,


city staff opted for “Retro Row” on 4th Street over the Naples neighborhood as the

former exhibited higher volumes and variation of pedestrian activity. 129

Stakeholders attribute high levels of foot traffic to various factors; notably

local commercial activity or recurrent temporary programs such as festivals and

markets. The great majority of projects examined by this thesis are sited on local

shopping streets embedded in neighborhoods of relative commercial and residential

density, creating a suite of nested social structures referenced by stakeholder

interviews as ideal for project success.130 Valencia Street and Columbus Avenue in

San Francisco, 4th Street in Long Beach, and ‘Sunset Junction’ in Los Angeles are

excellent examples.

Often, interviewees correlated projects with extant processes of

neighborhood revival; for example in formerly blighted shopping districts reviving

an historic character of bustling commercial activity. Stakeholders described the

recent resurgence of ‘Retro Row’ and East Village in Long Beach;131 ‘The Lakeshore’

and downtown in Oakland; 132, 133, 134, 135 Highland Park and Spring Street in

downtown Los Angeles. 136, 137 Interviews described how new energy and

investment targeting those districts naturally drew the interest of Parklet and

Pedestrian Plaza organizers; engendered local receptivity to project proposals; and

helped establish local sources of funding and stewardship for projects. Section 4.2.2

discusses how in turn, Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas elevate the profile of

neighborhoods, drawing even more patrons which fuel local revival.


Stakeholders also linked other soft factors to a robust pedestrian presence

that in turn, support the placement and use of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas.

Events, festivals, and markets – by temporarily transforming sites with their

programme – often anticipated projects in neighborhoods. Interviews referred

specifically to the Farmer’s Markets at Sunset Triangle in Los Angeles and in the

Lakeshore district of Oakland.138 Stakeholders in Oakland also cited the summer

events staged by Manifesto bicycle shop and Subrosa Café on 40th Street; 139 and the

‘Art Murmur’ events in downtown.140

Social and Political Capital

This thesis identified how robust social networks undergird the creation of

projects and programs associated with Heuristic Urbanism. The networks

encompass government and community agents, designers and planners, elected

officials and everyday citizens. Almost every single project profiled by this thesis is

preceded with vigorous local community outreach and planning efforts, even before

the inception of a Parklet or Pedestrian Plaza in those neighborhoods. At times,

those local fora produced proposals for interventions resembling Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas many years before, evidencing the appropriateness of projects in

the local social context.

For example, community organizations in San Francisco – such as the

Castro/Upper Market CBD, Noe Valley Association, and Outer Mission Merchants

and Residents Association – had for many years explored the potential for street


closures in their neighborhoods. These local planning efforts were eventually

leveraged by the Pavement to Parks Program in pilot Parklets and Plaza

demonstrations in the Castro, along 24th Street, and at Naples Green. Similarly, the

4th Street Business Association in Long Beach had for years explored possibilities for

public realm improvements in their district.141 In most cases, these BIDS, CBDs, and

Associations became natural stewards for Pedestrian Plaza interventions, entering

formal agreements to manage, maintain, and program the newly created spaces.

The culture in Los Angeles of strongly self-‐identified communities was

presented in Section 3.1.5; and every case of Heuristic Urbanism there emerged from

pre-‐existing local community organizing. Sunset Triangle had been subject to

planning in the early 2000s through Community Development Block Grant funding.

142 Community Vision Planning in Highland Park and El Sereno – spearheaded by the

Council District but heavily engaging local neighborhood Councils – rendered ‘Street

Porch’ and ‘Street Plaza’ proposals in those neighborhoods. 143 The Downtown Los

Angeles Neighborhood Council’s Complete Streets Working Group had partnered

with the LACBC and DOT to bring bicycle infrastructure downtown; 144 introducing

Parklets more recently.

In cases where Parklets emerged as initiatives of individual business owners

and/or intrepid design professionals instead of larger community planning efforts,

public outreach and education still played a critical role. This is due in most part to

the provisions of Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza permitting procedure, which in San

Francisco, Long Beach and Oakland (patterned on New York City) require


demonstration of local support from merchants, residents, and/or other groups.

Lack of demonstrated support leads to rejection by city regulators. Or, in some

cases in San Francisco where Parklets were approved by the city, subsequent

community opposition expressed during the public hearing period belayed

construction altogether. For those cases, city staffers in San Francisco concluded

that pre-‐application public engagement had been minimal. 145 Thus, local outreach

and support forms a critical factor to successful project implementation and use.

This thesis documented the natural tendency of many Parklet organizers to

themselves be active stakeholders in their communities, lending a additional layer

of social and political integrity to their projects. Interviews often cited particular

individuals whose advocacy in other areas besides Parklets or Plazas exemplified

their roles as community champions. Amandeep Jawa – who sponsors a Parklet in

front of his residence in San Francisco (Figure 20) – is an avid bicycle activist and

had been involved with sidewalk widenings on Upper Valencia street. Before

designing Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas, Jane Martin led an effort to create San

Francisco’s Sidewalk Landscaping Permit (Section 2.4.1). Sal Bednarz of Actual Café

in Oakland pioneered discussions with city staff and transit authorities;

coordinating first semi-‐permanent Parklet – billed as an extended PARK(ing) DAY

installation – at a decommissioned bus stop, in advance of a sanctioned city pilot

program. Valerie Watson leveraged a considerable network of engaged

stakeholders already working around complete streets projects in downtown Los

Angeles.


The backing of political figures or high-‐ranking city managers also bears

upon the successful implementation of projects. In some cases, a strong executive

mandate created a progressive operating environment. This was the case with San

Francisco Mayor Newsom146 and Oakland CEDA Deputy Director Angstadt. In Los

Angeles, Councilmembers Huizar and Perry introduced the first Council Motion

addressing pilot Parklets, while Huizar continues to advocate for the projects now

consolidated within his newly redrawn District. Sunset Triangle Plaza in Los

Angeles is associated with the backing of Planning Commissioner Roschen, Planning

Director Lo Grande, and Department of Transportation General Manager Jaime de la

Vega. In Long Beach, the approval of City Council is required for the execution of the

permit associated with Parklets.

Finally, the involvement of nonprofit advocates comprises an invaluable

element of the social-‐political network associated with Heuristic Urbanism. The

Great Streets program of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition produced the first

Parklet impact studies on the west coast, establishing a critical foundation for

ongoing monitoring and analysis of the new typology in San Francisco and

elsewhere. Walk Oakland Bike Oakland (WOBO) sponsored a number of PARK(ing)

DAY installations in 2011, and also collaborate with the city to execute impact

studies of Parklet projects in Oakland. WOBO identified the Parklet campaign as

their ‘top priority’ for 2012,147 committing to provide technical assistance to

applicants, engage in community outreach and education, and lobby for new

municipal code for Parklets. Along with WOBO in Oakland, Bicycle Coalitions in San


Francisco and the County of Los Angeles are strongly associated with the successful

advancement of Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza experiments.

Generosity of Design Professionals

This thesis discovered that leadership and involvement of designers is a

defining element of Heuristic Urbanism. Architects, landscape architects, urban

designers and horticulturalists contributed much more than just designs to Parklet

and Pedestrian Plaza projects. The literature review and findings revealed how the

same designers were already involved as agitators and advocates in other arenas of

urban design – from guerilla gardening and sidewalk landscaping to bicycle activism

and car parking-‐occupying.

Notably, a great majority of Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza designers worked

pro-‐bono on the cases studied here. This emphasizes that Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas are first and foremost products not only of design, but of love and a certain

pronounced altruism. During the pilot program stages in San Francisco, Oakland,

and Los Angeles, design professionals worked for free. In San Francisco, a number

of designers contributed work to more than one project at a time, advancing the

movement through their generosity of time and spirit.


Figure 35: A network of design and planning professionals involved with Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas in San Francisco. (Abad Ocubillo

2012). Often, individuals contribute to multiple projects. The projects shown here are those targeted in this thesis – every designer shown was interviewed. The

actual network in San Francisco is much larger, involving many more designers and fabricators; individuals, organizations, business operators and other

stakeholders. This network also interacts with those in New York, Long Beach, Oakland, and Los Angeles; m

ainly through communications between Pavement

to Parks staff with their corollaries in other city governments, but also through the involvement of designers in multiple places. For instance, Riyad Ghannam

(rg-Architecture) designed and constructed projects in both San Francisco and New York. The international influence of REBAR group – especially with

PARK(ing) DAY – was presented in Section 2.3.2.


Designers of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas exemplify the “Prosumer” figure

presented in Section 2.2. Thus far, those involved the early stages of Heuristic

Urbanism have all advanced the movement without making their living from doing

so; and this thesis contends that their donation of time and expertise is a recurring

feature of pilot projects and programs in cities.

Financial Capital

In an era of waning budgets, cities increasingly rely upon public-‐private

partnerships in order to implement projects. Therefore Parklets rely upon the ready

availability of private financial resources for implementation and stewardship;

while Pedestrian Plazas also rely on private management. Given the necessity of

local foot traffic and therefore adjacent commercial programs, Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas routinely appear in neighborhoods of economic significance and

stability. As discussed earlier, these districts are often supported by BIDs and CBDs

who – if not outright initiators of Parklets and Plaza projects – become the

managers, maintenance partners, and programmers of the spaces. In the cases of

Parklets, a private sponsor underwrites capital costs as well as assumes

maintenance responsibilities. These public-‐private arrangements have profound

implications for issues of access and equity, discussed in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.24.


Policy Frameworks

A progressive policy framework establishes social-‐political contexts

amenable to the Heuristic Urbanism of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas. For example

San Francisco has declared itself a ‘transit-‐first city,’ undertaking infrastructure

projects which encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit mobility. Similarly, Long

Beach adopted an aggressive bicycle plan, the aims of which intersect with those of

the Parklet experiments there. In downtown Los Angeles a suite of recent policies

set the stage for the emergence of a Parklet initiative there.148 First, the Adaptive

Reuse Ordinance (1999) introduced a new residential community to downtown,

which then spurred the development of local-‐serving businesses there. Secondly, a

number of related efforts emerging from the Urban Design Studio of the Los Angeles

City Planning Department explicitly address the streetscape; most notably the

reclassification of downtown streets with the Downtown Street Standards (2009)

and the corresponding Downtown Design Guide (2009). Other documents include

the Walkability Checklist (2006), Urban Design Principles (2008), Bicycle Plan and

Bicycle Plan Technical Design Handbook (adopted as components of the General Plan

in 2011).

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#"!

CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSION

$%&'! (&)*+! ,%*-./0! 12)'&3/0'! .%/! +*'.! 0/'/*01%! 45/'.&2)! -2'/3! *.! .%/!

6/7&))&)7!2(!.%&'!.%/'&'8!

!

/0%%%12#3%#45%325%*+6783549%)9:*)'#3)+6;%+<%9*0:+/.%#6$!9/3/'.0&*)!9+*;*!=4+74#9;%

)6% ')3)5;>% % ?+4% 65@54% 9+$5;% +<% :4+$(')67% (4"#6% ;:#'5% #6$% '(*3(45>% % 12#3% #45%

<#'3+4;%@+432%@#3'2)67>%

%

$%/!<&./0*.50/!=/>&/?!@,%*-./0!AB!/'.*6+&'%/3!*!'/.!2(!/C-/1.*.&2)'!*)3!25.12D/'!

*''21&*./3!?&.%!A5(4);3)'%B4"#6);9E!?%&+/!,%*-./0!F!G!H&)3&)7'!>/0&(&/3!%2?E!*.!.%&'!

.&D/E!'2D/!2(!.%2'/!/C-/1.*.&2)'!*)3!25.12D/'!?/0/!(5+(&++/3!.%0257%!=#4C*53;!*)3!

=5$5;34)#6% =*#D#;0! ! ,%*-./0! I! G! ,2)1+5'&2)! +*J'! 25.! .%2'/! 25.12D/'! ?%&1%! J/.! .2!

12D/! .2! (05&.&2)K! 3/>/+2-'! 10&.&1&'D! *)3! 0/12DD/)3*.&2)'! (20! =#4C*53! *)3!

=5$5;34)#6% =*#D#! -0270*D'K! *)3! (&)*++J! &3/).&(&/'! /D/07&)7! +&)/'! 2(! &)45&0J! *)3!

25.+&)/'!*!(5.50/!0/'/*01%!*7/)3*L!

!

!


4.1 – Radical, Incremental, Catalytic

The literature review (Chapter 2 ) established a prevalent appreciation for

temporary tactics within contemporary urban design, planning and practice. The

interviews likewise confirm how ephemeral, temporary, and provisional projects

are perceived as instrumental for achieving larger-‐scale, longer-‐term change. A vast

majority of interviews referred to Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas as on the one hand

having their own merits unto themselves, but on the other hand as provisional

measures leading towards more permanent transformation; at both the site and city

scale.

Parklets were universally cited as a catalyzing agent, 149 encouraging the

production of even more Parklets which in turn galvanize other types of local

change. A number of stakeholders clearly linked Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas with

the future possible permanent closure of streets to automobile traffic; citing

precedents in Denmark, New York, and elsewhere. The small acts of reclamation

enacted by Parklets were understood as incremental means towards more sweeping

changes;150 practicing a form of Incremental Urbanism first posited by Charles

Lindblom (1959) so many years ago.


Figure 36: Concentric Circles of Catalysis, Illustrated with PARK(ing) Day as the root action. This model is synthesized from stakeholder interviews, which in different ways described this progression of transformative action/events

Stakeholders also observed that as privately funded public infrastructure

projects, Parklets demonstrate immediate and tangible transformation;151 while at

the same time concluding that they should lead to more investment of public

resources towards the improvement of the public realm.152 Specifically,

Stakeholders in San Francisco described the potential for corridors of Parklets to

result in permanent sidewalk widening, like that implemented on Valencia Street

between 15th and 19th Streets.153

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas are perceived as change agents not only for

physical public space, but for social and cultural spaces as well. Chapter 3 described


how demonstration projects can effect shifts in the cultures of city agencies and

governments. A majority of stakeholders described how the Heuristic Urbanism of

Parklets and Plazas effect a shift in the public’s perception of how public space

should and can be used. Thus the sidewalk becomes the venue for transforming and

enlarging physical, social, and cultural public spaces through urban design

interventions on ephemeral, temporary, provisional and permanent bases.

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "##!

!"#$%$&'($)*(+(,-$.,/$01-1*($23$4(1*5+-56$7*8.,5+9$

!

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

!

4.2.1 – Car Parking

$%&! '()*+! (,! +-.! )-./*01! +(0'*02-334! ).(5(/&6! 7('%! )()23-.! 8&7-'&! -08!

-+-8&9*+! *0:2*.4;! ! <(0-38! =%(2)! >?@@#A?@""B! -08! ('%&.6! %-5&! '.&-'&8! '%&!

&+(0(9*+! -08! &05*.(09&0'-3! -6)&+'6! (,! )-./*01C! *3329*0-'*01! *'6! '.2&! +(6'6;! $%&!

+%*&,! +(6'! (,! +-.!)-./*01! +*'&8!74!/#01*9:! -08!/9$9=:0)#3%/*#@#! 6'-/&%(38&.6! *6! '%&!

3(66!(,!)('&0'*-3!)&8&6'.*-0D-++&66*73&!)273*+!()&0!6)-+&;!!E(%0!F%-6&!-0'*+*)-'&6!'%&!

())(.'20*'4! +(6'6! (,! -2'(D&G+326*5&! 3-08! 26&! *0! %*6! &66-4! H$%&! =)-+&! I(.9&.34!

J0(K0!-6!L-./*01MN!

!HO-+%! +-.! *0! '%&! P0*'&8! ='-'&6! +3-*96! ,(2.! )-./*01! 6)-+&6C! (0&! -'!

%(9&C!-08!'%.&&!,(.!-33!('%&.!8&6'*0-'*(06;!QO-+%!2.7-0!)-./*01!6)-+&!

%-6!-0!&+(0(9*+C!6(+*-3C!-08!2.7-0!8&6*10!+(6'C!-08!&-+%!+(9)&'&!K*'%!

('%&.!)('&0'*-3!7&0&,*+*-3!26&6!(,!'%-'!6)-+&;N>)!?RSB;!!

T*5&0! '%&! 8*.&+'! U'-/*016V! (,! (0D6'.&&'! )-./*01! ,(.! /#01*9:! -08! /9$9=:0)#3%

/*#@#!+.&-'*(0C!'%*6!'%&6*6!&G)&+'&8!'(!8*6+(5&.!-!1.&-'!8&-3!(,!+(0'.(5&.64!(0!

'%&!627W&+';! !F2.*(2634C! '%&!.&+3-9-'*(0!(,!(06'.&&'!)-./*01! ,(.!/#01*9:=!-08!


Plazas came up as an issue in only a small minority of cases. A number of

possible factors might account for this. First (as noted in Chapter 3), Parklet

and Pedestrian Plaza projects are often preceded by significant outreach that

crystallizes support at the local level. Second, permitting processes for

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas (where existing) entail two measures that,

when not satisfied, tend to disqualify project eligibility: proof of support

(usually in the form of a letter) by neighboring merchants and residents; and

a period of public comment for addressing outstanding community concerns.

Third, the realignment of city policies – and public attitudes – towards more

balance between modalities (presented in Section 3.2.2) creates an operating

environment which favors the creation of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas.154 This

thesis documented how an executive (mayoral) mandate in the cities of New York

and San Francisco provided an aegis for both experimentation and the de-‐emphasis

of factors related to the private automobile.

Lastly, all the stakeholders interviewed are involved with the creation of

Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas and, as a group, regard the repurposing of car

parking as a necessary consequence of project implementation. In many interviews,

especially those with sponsoring businesses, car parking was perceived as

negatively impacting businesses. For example at Manifesto bicycle shop and

Subrosa Café on 40th Street in Oakland – one block away from a regional BART train

station – onstreet parking is both free and without time limit. Often, curbside

parking spaces fronting the two businesses are occupied all day by the cars of BART

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#$!

%&''()*+,-! "##! ! ./(,! )/&,*! 01+2345! ,01%*,! 636! 4&)! ,*+7*! 8&%18! 9(,34*,,*,! &+!

+*,36*4),:!9()!+1)/*+!1%)*6!1,!,/&+);)*+'!%1+!,)&+15*-! !./*!34,*+)3&4!&<!1!/#01*23!1)!

)/1)!%(+9!34%+*1,*,!146!637*+,3<3*,!(,*,!&<!)/1)!8146!=3)/!14!1%)!&<!+*%81'1)3&4!)/1)!

188!/#01*23!146!/2$2430)#5!,)12*/&86*+,!(437*+,188>!,(00&+)-!

?,! 01+2345! +*7*4(*! %&'0+3,*,! 1! ,3543<3%14)! ,&(+%*! &<! 34%&'*! <&+! %3)3*,:! )/*!

8&,,!&<!'*)*+*6!,01%*,!=1,!%3)*6!9>!1!<*=!,)12*/&86*+,!1,!1!%&4%*+4!<&+!'*'9*+,!&<!

)/*! 5*4*+18! 0(983%-! ! ./*! 0+*7138345! 0*+%*0)3&4! &<! &4,)+**)! 01+2345! <&+! )/*! 5*4*+18!

0(983%!@! %/1+1%)*+3A*6!9>! 34)*+73*=*6!,)12*/&86*+,!@!=1,! )/1)!&<!1!0(983%!5&&6!&+!

%&''&63)>!)/1)!%&(86!4&)!9*!,1%+3<3%*6:!&48>!+*081%*6!=3)/!14&)/*+!0(983%!5&&6!&+!

%&''&63)>-! ! B4!5*4*+18:!/#01*234!146!/2$2430)#5%/*#6#4!=*+*!0*+%*37*6!9>!8&%18,!1,!

14!16*C(1)*!)+16*;&<<-!!./*!D3)>!&<!E14!F+14%3,%&:!34!03&4**+345!)/*!5*4*,3,!&<!1!%3)>!

/#01*23! 0+&5+1':! %&4,36*+,! )/*! 8&,,! &<! +*7*4(*! <+&'! ,*8*%)! '*)*+*6! ,01%*,! 1,!

1%%*0)198*!537*4!)/1)!/#01*234!1+*!&0*4!)&!188!'*'9*+,!&<!)/*!0(983%-!"#G!

/#01*234!146!/2$2430)#5%/*#6#4!1+*!18,&!*'*+5345!6(+345!1!)3'*!&<! 34%+*1,*6!

*H0*+3'*4)1)3&4! 146! ,&0/3,)3%1)3&4! &<! )/*! '1415*'*4)! &<! &4,)+**)! %1+! 01+2345!

+*,&(+%*,-!!F&+!*H1'08*!34!E14!F+14%3,%&:!)/*!4*=!038&)!0+&5+1'!78/#01!81(4%/*6!34!

IJ"J!,**2,!)&!3'0+&7*!)/*!%3)>K,!%1+!01+2345!*%&8&5>!)/+&(5/!)/*!(,*!&<!)*%/4&8&5>-!!

./*! 0+&5+1'! '1415*,! 6>41'3%! 0+3%345! &<! '*)*+*6! 01+2345! ,01%*,! (,345!

%&4)34(&(,8>! (061)*6! 61)1! &4! &%%(014%>! 8&%1)3&4,! 146! )3'*,-! ! ./*! 0+&5+1'! 18,&!

0+&736*,! 1! (,*+! 34)*+<1%*! @! 1%%*,,398*! 9>! %&'0()*+! &+! ,'1+)0/&4*! @! )/1)! 63,081>,!

+*18;)3'*! 71%14%>! 146! 0+3%*,! &<! ,01%*,! &4! )/*! ,)+**)! 146! 34! 0(983%! 51+15*,-! ! ./*!

0+&5+1'!13',!)&!*4%&(+15*!*<<3%3*4)!)(+4&7*+:!'343'3A*!%+(3,345:!+*6(%*!6*'146!34!


overused areas while increasing use of underutilized areas of the city. In November

2011, NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-‐Khan announced plans to establish a

similar system in New York.

4.2.2 – Identity and Economic Incentive

The literature review (Section 2.4) and subsequent findings (Sections 3.1.6

and 3.2.2) outlined how Heuristic Urbanism fortifies local social capital by focusing

community organizing, action and interaction around a common objective. The vast

majority of interviews indicate that first and foremost, Parklets and Pedestrian

Plazas come to symbolize community effort and pride.157 Additionally, the projects

– products of tightly interwoven networks of local residents, business, and

designers – represent those stakeholders’ economic hopes and desires.

A majority of stakeholders held the perception or assumption that Parklets

and Pedestrian Plazas result in economic development, at the site, neighborhood, or

even civic level. The literature does confirm that some types of pedestrian

improvement programs can yield economic benefits in discrete districts as a

function of increased foot traffic. The few studies in New York and San Francisco

targeting Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas do indicate a slight increase volume for the

sponsoring and/or adjacent businesses (see Section 2.5.3). However these studies

were undertaken within months of Parklet installation, suggesting that longitudinal

studies could confirm the expected increase in business performance.158

Stakeholders at the government level identified how Parklet and Pedestrian

Plaza projects tend to elevate the profile of their cities, reinforcing civic image

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#$!

%&'(&)*+,-!!./0!12&'(31!4&+!.0&+%),%/!),!5/6517!&,!&!50&+,)589)0,5!%)5:;!5<1!()/+110!/9!

5<1!/#01*23!&+7!)+!=&3)9/0+)&>!5<1!/2$2430)#5%/*#6#!12(10)'1+5-!?/+*!@1&%<!),!A)713:!

01*&0717!9/0!)5,!31&710,<)(!)+!(171,50)&+!&+7!B)%:%31!(/3)%)1,-"#$!C1&+A<)31>!D&E3&+7!

),!31F10&*)+*!&!01+&),,&+%1!/9!,50115!3)91!A<)%<!&0/,1!760)+*!5<1!3&,5!71%&71-"GH!I<1!

%)F)%! )'&*1! /9! &+! /(1+>! 90)1+73:>! &+7! A&3E&B31! 1+F)0/+'1+5! J! 1+*1+71017! B:!

/#01*234! &+7!/*#6#4>! &'/+*,5! /5<10! 5:(/3/*)1,! J! 3)+E17! 12(3)%)53:!A)5<! %)5)1,K! 3/+*8

510'! ,50&51*)1,! 9/0! 1%/+/')%! *0/A5<>! )+%01&,17! B6,)+1,,! %/+9)71+%1! &+7!

&550&%5)F1+1,,!5/!)+F1,5/0,-"G"!

! I<1! 3)+E! B15A11+! )71+5)5:! &+7! 1%/+/')%! )+%1+5)F1,! &3,/! (3&:,! /65! &5! 5<1!

+1)*<B/0<//7! &+7! ,)51! ,%&31,-! ! L1,()51! 5<1! &B,1+%1! &5! 5<),! 5)'1! /9! &'(31!

7/%6'1+517! 1F)71+%1>! 5<1! %</)%1! /9! B6,)+1,,! /(10&5/0,! &+7! @ML4! 5/! 96+7! &+7!

'&)+5&)+! /#01*234! 6+710,%/01,! &! ,50/+*! )+,5)+%5! &B/65! 5<1! (/51+5)&3! 9/0! 5<1!

)+510F1+5)/+! 5/! '&E1! )'(&%5,! 5<&5! A/637! )+! 560+! (/,)5)F13:! &991%5! B6,)+1,,!

(109/0'&+%1-"GN! ! @1,)71,! )+%01&,17! 9//5! 50&99)%>! ,5&E1</3710,! %017)5! /#01*234>!

/2$2430)#5% /*#6#47% &+7! 5<1)0! (01%17)+*! ()3/5! (<&,1,! A)5<! 1+<&+%)+*! 5<1!

+1)*<B/0<//7!B0&+7!/0! O719)+)+*!&!+1)*<B/0<//7K,! %<&0&%510-P! !I<),!/BQ1%5)F1!A&,!

12(3)%)53:! ,5&517! )+! ,5&E1</3710! )+510F)1A,! 9/0!C&+)91,5/!@)%:%31,! )+!D&E3&+7>"GR! &5!

S6'B10!S)+1!01,5&60&+5!)+!?/+*!@1&%<>"GT!&+7!)+!5<1!=/''6+)5)1,!/9!U3!4101+/!&+7!

V)*<3&+7! W&0E! )+! ?/,! X+*131,-"G#! ! I<),! 5<1,),! 7/%6'1+5,! </A! ,1F10&3! %/''6+)5:!

)71+5)5:! %&'(&)*+,! 1+5&)317! 5<1! 71,)*+! &+7! )+,5&33&5)/+! /9! 5A/! /0! '/01! /#01*234-!!

I<),!A&,!5<1!%&,1!A)5<!5<1!!S/1!Y&331:!X,,/%)&5)/+>!Z10B&!@61+&!=@L>!&+7!5<1![+)/+!

4\6&01!@ML!)+!4&+!.0&+%),%/;!&+7!5<1!L/A+5/A+!?/,!X+*131,!S1)*<B/0<//7!=/6+%)3-!


Figure 37: Noe Valley Parklets (Abad Ocubillo 2011). This pair of Parklets is sponsored by the Noe Valley Association. They were designed and installed together as part of the Association’s ongoing streetscape improvement initiative. (Designer: Riyad Ghannam, rg-architecture)


Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza projects act not only as a district landmarks, but

as a marker for sponsoring business(es) as well. Though the Parklet culture

originating in San Francisco strongly discourages the application of graphic

branding (logos) onto Parklets, their adjacency to the business is enough to indicate

sponsorship. The uniqueness of Parklet designs reflect their respective host

businesses,166 resulting in a diverse collection of installations comprised of a wide

range of design expression (a discussion of sub-‐typologies is presented later, in

Section 4.2.5). A number of stakeholders expected their Parklet to make the

sponsoring business “more visible” to passersby on all modes of transportation.167

4.2.3 – Shifting Motivations

As the Parklet typology gains increasing notoriety and popularity, its

significance expanded beyond the core objective of improving and augmenting

pedestrian amenity and ambience. The ‘generous urbanism’ with which Blaine

Merker characterized the founding ethos of Parklet experiments seems to some

extent challenged or even endangered by the spectre of gentrification and

privatization associated with some cases.168 As Merker presaged in his essay Taking

Place: Rebar’s Absurd Tactics in Generous Urbanism:

There is always the danger among the more successful forms of generous situations that they will absorbed by the dominant cultural milieu and, once absorbed, their critical dimension diminished as they join familiar, acceptable, and potentially commercial categories of festival and spectacle. (2012, p.51)


In certain instances, private commercial interests seem to override free public

access to Parklet installations. These interests can manifest in the design and

material execution of Parklets. In one case city, sanctioned privatization sits at the

heart of the Parklet permitting process.

As the Parklet program evolved in San Francisco, planners recognized that

public-‐private partnership was essential for the execution of individual projects and

the success of the Program as a whole.169 The first pilot Parklets were executed by

businesses and organizations who shared a collective priority with the Planning

Department to improve the public realm.170 In later permitting cycles, city staff (?)

attested to the diversifying motivations of applicants; some of whose intentions

clearly tied more closely with commercial gain for their businesses.171

The first San Francisco Parklet permit emphasized an all-‐public access policy

that also restricted how hosts incorporate their Parklet into business operations.

For example, while hosts assume responsibility for cleaning, maintenance, and daily

stewardship of movable furniture on the Parklet; they are not legally permitted to

bar access to the amenity. In the case of cafés and food service establishments –

which comprise a majority of Parklet hosts – policies in San Francisco adhere to a

strict ethic. The Parklet permit does not extend the right to provide table service

within the Parklet; table service is permissible only on the sidewalk immediately

adjacent to the storefront, and only when the business already holds a pre-‐existing

permit for sidewalk dining. Through the experience of several successive annual


cycles of Parklet permits, these basic rules would become even more specific in

response to certain cases that challenged the spirit of the Program.

The Parklet at the ‘Squat & Gobble Café’ on 16th and Market Streets in San

Francisco is the premiere example of how a private sponsor’s choices challenge both

city policy and local neighborhood support, prompting the city to revise its

permitting standards for future applicants. At the Squat & Gobble, the Parklet

furnishings exactly match those of the Café’s sidewalk dining area. This confused

both the general public and café patrons as to the subtle operational distinctions

between the Parklet, sidewalk dining area, and the restaurant (Nevius 2011).

Despite the standard city signage posted at the Parklet and additional signage

posted by the Squat & Gobble (Figure 39), the overall impression of that site can still

mislead patrons and passersby as to the functional and philosophical status of the

Parklet installation.


Figure 38: Parklet signage at Absinthe restaurant, 384 Hayes Street, San

Francisco. The language in this sign differs subtly from that in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Parklet signage at the 'Squat & Gobble Café,’ 3600 16th Street, San

Francisco (Abad Ocubillo 2011). Interpreted with this sign, the intentions of the

Parklet sponsor here contrast sharply with others’.


In response, the City decided to permanently update the language for future

RFPs and permits to help ally confusion about the purpose of Parklets. The 2011

RFP was the first to address this issue by specifying that moveable furniture at

Parklets be distinctly different than those used by the host business.

Figure 40: Standard Cafe Furniture, 1755 Polk Street, San Francisco (Abad Ocubillo 2012). The same folding tables and chairs, manufactured by Fermob, are used in New York City Plazas and the Sunset Triangle Plaza in Los Angeles. These models are recommended by San Francisco for use in Parklets and Plazas. Using the same movable furniture in all Parklets and Plazas also helps to unify disparate sites under the same city program. (Parklet Designer: Riyad Ghannam, rg-architecture. Bicycle Corral installed by SFMTA).

Other tactics employed by the Squat & Gobble disrupted the community’s

initial support of their Parklet installation. Besides using identical outdoor

furnishings, the café operators deployed matching potted plants and lights strung


over the Parklet and sidewalk, further enhancing the impression of a private

extension of their restaurant. This conflicts with local community expectations

about the provision of truly publicly accessible open space, as well as prevailing

attitudes about the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. During the writing of

this thesis, San Francisco Pavement to Parks staff were engaged in ongoing

conversations with the Squat & Gobble operators to address conflicts with

neighbors.

Iterative changes to the San Francisco Parklet permit illustrate a process of

Heuristic Urbanism whereby public policy adapts to protect the foundational ethos

of an urban design idea; namely unmitigated public access to an enhanced public

realm. Thus the Parklet program in San Francisco remains alert to the spirit of the

first, radical PARK(ing) installation staged by REBAR group which reclaimed public

space from privatized (car parking) use.

In the City of Long Beach, the adaptation of an existing permit to

accommodate Parklets creates a wholly different functional arrangement than that

of San Francisco and Oakland. As described in Section 3.1.3, Parklets in Long Beach

are approved through the ‘Public Walkways Occupancy Permit (PWOP),’ a tool

already used to sanction sidewalk dining. The PWOP essentially grants the right to

provide table service on the sidewalk; thus extending that right out into the Parklet

as well.172


Figure 41: Parklet at Lola's Mexican Cuisine, 4th Street, in Long Beach. Lola's is the first Parklet in Southern California and provides table service within the Parklet. (Designer: Michael Bohn, Studio 111).

The use of a PWOP to approve Parklet installations in Long Beach essentially

creates an expanded private encroachment into the public realm; sandwiching the

pedestrian right-‐of-‐way with private commercial operations at both the building

line and in the curbside parking lane. While the installations themselves provide

some benefits (see Section 2.5) to the streetscape, in reality the Parklet situation in

Long Beach does not augment publicly accessible open space. Here, sponsors retain

vested authority, through their city-‐issued permit, not only to refuse service but to

bar access to their Parklet.173 This sits in direct opposition to the functional and


philosophical origins of the Parklet prototyped in San Francisco which (as discussed

in Section 2.3) emanated from a then-‐radical set of actions and there prioritizes

truly full public access. Oakland also remains committed to a policy of open access

to Parklets, articulated in their draft RFP and permit materials.174 The Oakland

Planning Department is also developing Parklet signage inspired by those in San

Francisco.175

Figure 42: Parklet access should not be restricted or regulated by private entities. The full spectrum of urban inhabitants have a right to public open space; for example this transient citizen at Powell Street Promenade in the early morning (Abad Ocubillo 2012).

The condition of Long Beach Parklets replicates forms of privatization

decried by Davis (1990/2006), Ehrenfeucht & Loukaitou-‐Sideris (2010), Kohn

(2004), and Mitchell (1995); while realizing Merker’s prediction that ‘generous

situations’ become co-‐opted and commodified into ‘commercial categories’ of policy


and action (Merker 2010). As more and more cities across the country experiment

with and adopt Parklet programs, the typology’s original cast may morph into a

wholly different set of meanings, potentialities, and functions within the larger

discourse of urban public space. The Parklet may come to signify less for

enhancement of the accessible pedestrian realm and more for economic boosterism

and privatization. This thrust would concur readily with opinions that Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas are a function and/or facilitators of gentrification.

4.2.4 – Public-Private Partnership, Classism, and Inequity

The literature review outlined both the necessity for and problems with

public-‐private partnerships. In his essay “Deregulation and Urbanity,” Peter Arlt

(2006) describes how governments which traditionally acted as ‘strategists’ no

longer have the resources to do so; establishing an operating environment which

relies upon the solutions generated from the ‘bottom-‐up.’ Recent structural changes

in California – such as the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency in

2011-‐12 – underscore the imperative for private, non-‐governmental stakeholders to

invest more in public infrastructure. This imperative was described almost

universally by stakeholders in all groups, including those in city governments.

The creation of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas was often – and rightly –

touted by stakeholders as real examples of ‘Participatory Planning.’ Despite near-‐

universal enthusiasm for Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas, the ‘Participatory Planning’

paradigm itself has been duly criticized by Arnstein (1969), Sandercock (1994), and


others for its limitations. The chief indictment of ‘Participatory Planning’ is its

tendency to tokenize the planning process or to exclude certain classes or

populations. This line of criticism usually outlines exclusion in terms of economic

class; for example ESL populations and/or working class groups without the means

or free time to participate in public fora. The same classicism inherent in

‘Participatory Planning’ can also manifest in the geography of Parklets and

Pedestrian Plazas.

The work of Wolch, Wilson & Fehrenbach (2005) on equity mapping in Los

Angeles revealed that despite new innovations in park funding, the distribution of

open space assets remained relatively unchanged from historical patterns. In other

words, investment in parks continued to occur in communities of higher socio-‐

economic status instead of underserved areas. Some stakeholders interviewed for

this thesis believe that a like dynamic effects the distribution of Parklet and

Pedestrian Plazas today. For example, some stakeholders observed how to date,

Parklets tend to occur in neighborhoods of relative affluence. This observation

concurs with the Findings (Section 3.2.2), which indicated the success of Parklets

and Pedestrian Plazas depends on a robust baseline of pedestrian activity which

exists in a complimentary relationship with a diverse and plentiful local merchant

population. Furthermore, as Parklets rely upon private partners for design,

construction, and ongoing maintenance,176 they most often appear in districts of

economic significance and stability; or districts transitioning into increased levels of

commercial activity.177 This has the effect of concentrating public space


improvements in areas already experiencing influx of investment (Wolch et al

2005).

Figure 43: Standard Signage for NYC 'Public Curbside Seating Platforms' or Parklets (Abad Ocubillo 2012). This unobtrusive sign is affixed to Parklets in New York City, for example at this installation at Cafe Local, 144 Sullivan Street.

The rhetoric of Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas emphasizes the creation of

‘public open space’ in highly urbanized parts of the city. While Parklets do augment

the pedestrian-‐accessible realm of the sidewalk, they do so at a highly localized scale

that perhaps reinforces – in physical and spatial terms – current patterns of

inequity. In terms of park funding, Wolch et al. (2005) concluded that in order to


achieve better distribution of open space assets, policy should shift to prioritize

currently underserved areas; and provide technical assistance to applicants from

those neighborhoods. The New York City Plaza program incorporates such a policy

measure by awarding ten extra points to Plaza applications from low-‐ or moderate-‐

income neighborhoods. Their “NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines” (March

2012) even provides a “Priority Map” (Figure 44) indicating where Plazas are most

in need. This thesis asserts that California cities should adopt a similar framework

for the publicly funded Pedestrian Plazas.


Figure 44: "Priority Map" from the "NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines," (New York City Department of Transportation, March 2012, p.13). In addition to low- or moderate-income neighborhoods, NYC DOT prioritizes proposals from communities lacking open space.

Some stakeholders do believe that the public-‐private partnership for Parklets

should evolve to include support from public sources, in the form of partial or


matching funds for capital costs; 178 or possibly maintenance. Such arrangements

could help certain neighborhoods develop unrealized economic potential – as the

literature review and findings revealed how Parklets do tend to increase the

confidence of adjacent business operators. This thesis noted how cases in Highland

Park and El Sereno in Los Angeles are funded through public sources (via the

Council District), which entailed higher levels of community engagement, planning

and participatory design than seen in most other Parklet cases. Partial or full public

funding for Parklets would also further democratize not only the process of

implementing them, but possibly their distribution across the cities also. Still other

measures could help to encourage equity in the Parklet permitting process; for

example in Oakland, pilot Parklet RFPs were provided in multiple languages.179

Moving forward, Parklet programs in cities should consider evolving their selection

and funding structures; which would not only encourage greater equity but also

mitigate the associations of gentrification180 and classism which some believe are

overtaking the Parklet movement.

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#$!

4.2.5 – Emerging Sub-Typologies of Parklets

! %&'! ()*+,! /#01*23% -'*.),/! 0'1'23-'0! )4! 564! 7*648)+83! 640! +9:+';9'4,2<!

606-,'0! :<! 3,&'*! 8),)'+/! =6+! .30'2'0! 34! 64! 39,+)0'! 0)4)4>! ?%6:2'+! 640! @&6)*+A!

-'*.),B! !%&)+!46,9*622<!+6=!,&'! (948,)34!3(!/#01*234!6+! (948,)3462!'C,'4+)34+!3(! ,&'!

-'0'+,*)64!*'62./!=),&!3--3*,94),)'+! (3*!+),,)4>B! !%&'!-'*.),!'++'4,)622<!+-'8)()'+!6!

0'8D! +)0'=62D! 'C,'4+)34/! -*3,'8,'0! (*3.! ,*6(()8!=),&! 1'*,)862! '2'.'4,+! 3*! :6**)'*+!

6*3940!,&'!-'*).','*B! ! !5)48'!,&'!()*+,!-)23,!-*3E'8,+! )4!FG""/!-'*.),,'0!/#01*234! )4!

564! 7*648)+83! &61'! 6--'6*'0!=&)8&! 'C-640! ,&'! -*3>*6..6,)8! -*3()2'! 3(! ,&'! ()*+,!

-)23,%/#01*2345!!%&)+!*'26,'+!,3!,&'!0)1'*+),<!3(!+-34+3*!,<-'+!83.)4>!(3*=6*0B!

!"#$%&'(#)#*+$

73*! 'C6.-2'/! ,&'! /#01*23! +-34+3*'0! :<! 7*''=&''2! H)D'! 5&3-! 34! I62'48)6!

5,*'',! )4! 564!7*648)+83!=6+! ,&'! ()*+,! ,3!:'! 834E3)4'0!=),&! 64!34+,*'',!:)D'! 83**62B!!

%&)+!83.:)46,)34!8*'6,'+!6!0)+,)48,! )4,'*+,),)62! ,'**),3*<!:',=''4! ,&'!+)0'=62D!640!

+,*'',!,*61'2! 264'+B! !%&'!:)D'!83**62! )+! )4+,622'0!,&*39>&!6!+'-6*6,'!&'6*)4>!-*38'++!

J57K%LM! 640! 6+! 3(! <',! )+! 43,! 64! )4,'>*6,'0!-6*,! 3(! ,&'!/#01*23! -'*.),,)4>!-*38'++!

J=&)8&! >3! ,&*39>&! 6! NOP! &'6*)4>! -*38'++MB"Q"! ! R3='1'*! ,&'! O61'.'4,! ,3! O6*D+!

-*3>*6.! )4,'40+! ,3!=3*D!.3*'! 823+'2<!=),&! ,&'!K%L! ,3! 834098,! )4(3*.6,)34! 640!

39,*'68&! (3*! ,&'! ,=3! )4,'*1'4,)34+! ,3>',&'*/! 6+! ,&'<! .6D'! +'4+'! 6+! 6! 834E3)4'0!

)4,'*1'4,)34B! ! ! S,&'*! /#01*234! )4! 564! 7*648)+83! &61'! 6,,68&'0! :)8<82'! 83**62+/! (3*!

'C6.-2'!6,!,&'!@*'-'!R39+'!34!O32D!5,*'',B!!S,&'*!/#01*234!)4,'>*6,'!:)8<82'!-6*D)4>!

(68)2),)'+! )4! ,&')*! 0'+)>4B! ! %&'! 6+(0% 7#002*% 8+9922% /#01*23! 34! I62'48)6! 5,*'',! J564!


Francisco) and future 40th Street Parklet (Manifesto Bicycles and Subrosa Coffee,

Oakland) feature integral custom-‐made bike racks. A majority of stakeholders

referred to bicycle planning and infrastructure in interviews; and these ‘bikelets’

emphasize the influence and overlap of bicycle culture with that of the Parklet

movement.

Figure 45: Freewheel Bike Shop Parklet and Bike Corral (Abad Ocubillo 2012). See Figure 40 for another Parklet-Bike Corral pairing on Polk Street in San Francisco. (Parklet Designer: Kanbayashi Designs; Planting Design by Micah Reed of Thrive Landscaping; Bicycle Corral installed by SFMTA)


Figure 46: 40th Street Parklet or ‘bikelet,’ Oakland, CA. (Designers: Andrea Gaffney and Justin Viglianti, Rendering dated May 2012, shown with permission. Sponsors: Manifesto Bicycles and Subrosa Coffee.)

The ‘Artscape’

A children’s art gallery on 22nd Street in San Francisco leveraged the Parklet

format to create an ‘artscape.‘ The concept here is to host different artists to create

new installations on the Parklet on a quarterly basis. The Fabric8 Parklet explores a

whole new dimension of community engagement and interaction by inviting

community artists to shape the installations; and for extending the community-‐

based programming from inside the gallery outside. This Parklet demonstrates how

other types of businesses besides food and coffee service can come forward and


sponsor a meaningful place. Another gallery-‐adjacent Parklet is proposed in

Oakland at the Marquee Lofts building.

Figure 47: Fabric8 Parklet or 'Artscape.’ 3318 22nd Street, San Francisco. (Designer / Artist: Erik Otto).

The Trapezoid

Increasingly, communities become interested in the Parklet concept and

adapt it to unique physical site conditions. For example, proposals for angled

parking situations have been put forth in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los

Angeles.182 These proposals are subject to considerably more revision and

adjustment given their nonconformity to the parallel parking configuration. The


Pavement to Parks officers in San Francisco have acknowledged an intention to

develop guidelines for Parklets in non-‐parallel parking stalls.183

The ‘Collection’

Several groupings of Parklets emerged from the efforts of BIDs, CBDs, and

neighborhood groups, often as part of district brand identity campaigns. The 24th

Street Parklets sponsored by the Noe Valley Association in San Francisco were

discussed in Section 4.2.2. As a ‘collection’ of interventions designed together, these

Parklets can be understood as defining a subset unto themselves. Additionally,

within these ‘collections,’ certain sub-‐typologies emerge that further evolve the

diversity of the Parklet’s form and function.

The Parkmobile

The Yerba Buena CBD, also in San Francisco produced Parkmobiles with its

design partner CMB Landscape Architecture. The Parkmobile emerged as one of the

36 components of the Yerba Buena Street Life Plan developed by CMG for the

District. The Parkmobiles are easily relocated using a trailer truck: “repurposed

dumpsters which include a bench and planting space for distinct gardens ranging

from bird habitats to prehistoric Tasmanian fern landscapes. The six Parkmobiles

will rotate around parking spots throughout the district every 2-‐3 months so that

businesses and institutions can have chances to engage Yerba Buena's street life at

their doorstep” (CMG 2012).

!

!"#$%&'(")**+%,-.,! ! "#$!

%&'()(*+! +,! %&-./! ,0012(-/! 1*! 3&*! 4-&*21/2,! 5&'(! &2.*,67(89(8! &*! 1*+(*+1,*! +,!

8('(7,:!9;18(71*(/!0,-!/#01*234%1*%*,*<:&-&77(7!:&-.1*9!/+&77/=">?!!

!"#$%&'((#)*+',-$

3('(-&7! 9-,;:1*9/! ,0!/#01*234! ()(-9(8! 0-,)! +5(! (00,-+/! ,0! @AB/C! D@B/C! &*8!

*(195E,-5,,8!9-,;:/C!,0+(*!&/!:&-+!,0!81/+-12+!E-&*8! 18(*+1+F!2&):&19*/=! !G5(!HI+5!

3+-((+! /#01*234! /:,*/,-(8! EF! +5(! J,(! K&77(F! L//,21&+1,*! 1*! 3&*! 4-&*21/2,! 6(-(!

81/2;//(8!1*!3(2+1,*!I=H=H=!!L/!&!M2,77(2+1,*N!,0!1*+(-'(*+1,*/!8(/19*(8!+,9(+5(-C!+5(/(!

/#01*234! 2&*! E(! ;*8(-/+,,8! &/! 8(01*1*9! &! /;E/(+! ;*+,! +5()/(7'(/=! ! L881+1,*&77FC!

61+51*! +5(/(! M2,77(2+1,*/CN! 2(-+&1*! /;E<+F:,7,91(/! ()(-9(! +5&+! 0;-+5(-! (',7'(! +5(!

81'(-/1+F!,0!+5(!/#01*2354!0,-)!&*8!0;*2+1,*=!

!"#$!"#$%&'()*+

G5(!O(-E&!@;(*&!D@BC!&7/,! 1*!3&*!4-&*21/2,!:-,8;2(8!/#016+")*24!61+5! 1+/!

8(/19*!:&-+*(-!DPQ!R&*8/2&:(!L-251+(2+;-(=!!G5(!/#016+")*2!()(-9(8!&/!,*(!,0!+5(!

?S! 2,):,*(*+/! ,0! +5(! O(-E&! @;(*&! 3+-((+! R10(! %7&*! 8('(7,:(8! EF! DPQ! 0,-! +5(!

B1/+-12+=! ! G5(! /#016+")*24! &-(! (&/17F! -(7,2&+(8! ;/1*9! &! +-&17(-! +-;2.T! U-(:;-:,/(8!

8;):/+(-/!65125! 1*27;8(! &! E(*25! &*8!:7&*+1*9! /:&2(! 0,-! 81/+1*2+! 9&-8(*/! -&*91*9!

0-,)!E1-8!5&E1+&+/! +,!:-(51/+,-12!G&/)&*1&*! 0(-*! 7&*8/2&:(/=!G5(! /1V!%&-.),E17(/!

6177! -,+&+(!&-,;*8!:&-.1*9! /:,+/! +5-,;95,;+! +5(!81/+-12+! ('(-F!H<?!),*+5/! /,! +5&+!

E;/1*(//(/!&*8!1*/+1+;+1,*/!2&*!5&'(!25&*2(/!+,!(*9&9(!O(-E&!@;(*&W/!/+-((+!710(!&+!

+5(1-!8,,-/+(:X!!YDPQ!HZ"H[=!!!


Figure 48: Parkmobile mobile Parklet (Abad Ocubillo 2012). The repurposed dumpster is modified on the sidewalk side with a long bench. (Designer: CMG Landscape Architecture)

Sponsoring businesses and institutions are able to host the Parkmobiles with

a maintenance agreement with (property owner or business operator??) to do light

cleaning. The YBCBD maintains the plantings through their contract with a vendor

(Gardens Guild). The as with the Powell Street Promenade, Parkmobiles are

permitted through the Pavement to Parks Program.184


The pre-programmed Parklet

In Los Angeles, the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council took a

research and design approach to developing concepts for three Parklets in the

Historic Core (see Section 3.1.5). They leveraged PARK(ing) Day in 2011 to conduct

on-‐street surveys of local residents to gain an understanding of preferred

programmes for future Parklets in the area. Consequently, the design tem in the

Complete Streets Working Group developed three Parklet “typologies” for

implementation at three separate sites on Spring Street: the “Active,” “Passive,” and

“Communal” Parklets. The “typologies” incorporate different design strategies to

encourage certain uses and situations according to the Parklet theme. The

programs for each “typology” were generated based on observation of the existing

life at each identified location and were crafted to enhance, support or compliment

the lively activity already present.185

For instance, the design team observed that LA Café already has a busy

sidewalk seating area and so surmised that more cafe-‐style seating could be

redundant. They instead proposed instead “active uses” such as a foosball table and

exercise equipment for that Parklet that would to further enliven the storefront and

adjacent residential building entrances. The proposed Parklet location north of LA

Café suffers from a constrained sidewalk condition, due to the presence of utility

boxes and other physical impediments to pedestrian flow. The restaurant and cafe

businesses along that stretch have more limited capacity for sidewalk dining.


The pre-programmed Parklet

In Los Angeles, the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council took a

research and design approach to developing concepts for three Parklets in the

Historic Core (see Section 3.1.5). They leveraged PARK(ing) Day in 2011 to conduct

on-‐street surveys of local residents to gain an understanding of preferred

programmes for future Parklets in the area. Consequently, the design team in the

Complete Streets Working Group developed three Parklet “typologies” for

implementation at three separate sites on Spring Street: the “Active,” “Passive,” and

“Communal” Parklets. The “typologies” incorporate different design strategies to

encourage certain uses and situations according to the Parklet theme. The

programs for each “typology” were generated based on observation of the existing

life at each identified location and were crafted to enhance, support or compliment

the lively activity already present.185

For instance, the design team observed that LA Café already has a busy

sidewalk seating area and so surmised that more cafe-‐style seating could be

redundant. They instead proposed instead “active uses” such as a foosball table and

exercise equipment for that Parklet that would to further enliven the storefront and

adjacent residential building entrances. The proposed Parklet location north of LA

Café suffers from a constrained sidewalk condition, due to the presence of utility

boxes and other physical impediments to pedestrian flow. The restaurant and cafe

businesses along that stretch have more limited capacity for sidewalk dining.


Additionally, designers observed how residents of all walks of life seem to gather,

socialize, and linger at that location despite narrow sidewalk conditions. Thus, the

Parklet “typology” proposed there focused more on provision of communal seating

and is arranged to encourage group interactions. The “Passive” Parklet was

designed with more opportunities for quietly sitting, people-‐watching, or using

computers and smart phones.

Figure 49: Spring Street Parklet Typologies (Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, Complete Streets Working Group. Architects: Tony Lopez, Rob Berry, Daveed Kapoor. Graphic layout by Valerie Watson; shown with permission).


The Promenade

On Powell Street in San Francisco, Walter Hood designed a series of 8

platforms which flank the street and are collectively referred to as The Powell Street

Promenade. Organized through the Union Square BID and sponsored by Audi, 186

the Promenade was approved using the same permit as that used for Parklets. This

indicates the flexibility and inventiveness that the San Francisco permit encourages.

To date, Parklet projects are typically sited, designed, and executed as single

interventions, but the Promenade permutation allows us to understand the potential

for integrated series or assemblages.

The Future of Parklet Sub-Typologies

Given the relative newness of the Parklet typology, a great variety of

permutations and adaptations of the concept has yet to evolve. However even a

cursory inventory in the present day reveals the adaptability and flexibility of the

Parklet concept. At present its is most associated with adjacent food service land

uses, however even a cursory inventory of Parklet sponsors reveals an ever-‐

diversifying set of sponsors with equally varied business programs.


Figure 50: The Powell Street Promenade. The sweeping aluminum forms create a signature for Powell Street at Union Square, which experiences some of the highest pedestrian volumes of any two blocks in San Francisco. (Designer: Walter Hood)


4.3 – Epilogue: Recommendations for Further Study

4.3.1 – Long-Term Economic Impacts

To date, Parklets have been subject to only a handful of impact studies;

mostly undertaken within months of Parklet installation. Some measures –

especially those related to economic impacts – revealed little to no change in the

immediate term. However the willingness of so many private entities to invest in

these unique public-‐space improvements indicates an intuition that Parklets can and

will render economic benefits to sponsors. Other studies have attempted to

examine the economic impacts of related streetside infrastructure improvements –

for example bicycle facilities (Drennen 2003). Longitudinal studies of Parklets –

both as individual cases or as a local assemblage of installations – have the potential

to help substantiate prevailing opinions about the economic benefits of the

interventions.

4.3.2 – User Behavior and Perception

This thesis focused on the four stakeholder groups directly involved with

Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza implementation: Government, Private Partners,

Community Partners, and Designers. Users – the fifth and final group – were

excluded as not all project cases were built during the execution of this thesis. Only

cases in San Francisco, and one in Long Beach, had been installed. Cases were

selected to represent all four cities, the range of sponsor types (cafes, bike shops, art


galleries, BIDs, CBDs, etc), and to represent all stages of project design, planning,

and operation.

4.3.3 – Heuristic Urbanism and the Grand Narrative of Parks

Galen Cranz’s Politics of Park Design (1982) established a critical framework

for the social and spatial history of parks in the United States. Later, Cranz and

Boland would advance the narrative with the Ecological Park (2003) and the

Sustainable Park (2004). Others (Byrne & Wolch 2009; Low, Taplin & Scheld 2005)

further explored the social, cultural, and political dimensions of our park legacy.

Byrne and Wolch explore “ethno-‐racial” and “socio-‐ecological” factors of park

production, while Cronon (1996) and others critiqued our culture’s construct of

‘nature.’ This thesis attempted to historicize the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza, thus

establishing a basis for placing them within a larger narrative of the development of

park types in the American context.

The rhetoric of Parklets employs vocabulary and imagery linked with

traditional parks, countryside, and ‘nature.’ This rhetoric was inherited from the

radical performance art installations of Bonnie Ora Sherk (1979, 2012), REBAR

Group (2005-‐present) and others. While at first glance, these isolated interventions

– each with their bits of vegetation – may seem to possess negligible ecological or

environmental value. However their importance to evolving socio-‐cultural values

about ecology and ‘nature’ bears further investigation. For example Mozingo (1997)

and Nassauer (Ed., 1997) observe that ecological parks no longer depend on


picturesque aesthetics to communicate the idea of nature and therefore the

appreciation of it. Hough (1987) contends that our connection to ‘nature’ flows

through a nesting hierarchy of types of experiences, from backyard gardens to

remote nature preserves. The potential for Parklets and even Pedestrian Plazas to

form a link in the urbanite’s connection to, sense of, or appreciation for ‘nature’

warrants serious consideration.

The significance of multiple Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas for

neighborhoods, corridors, or even cities also bears further exploration. For

example, this thesis noted the series or “corridor” of Parklets appearing along

Valencia Street in San Francisco. These independently sponsored Parklets on

Valencia transform – as a function of their proximity and serial distribution – street

life and character exponentially. This suggests the potential for a cluster or series of

Parklet or Pedestrian Plazas to function – and be examined – collectively as a

‘Corridor.’ Valencia Street was already a commercial corridor, a bicycle corridor

(Drennen 2003), a pedestrian corridor, and now – a Parklet Corridor as well.

Section 3.1.5 noted how in Los Angeles, roadway triangles occur in series

where the different urban grids of the city intersect. Other designers and planners

in Los Angeles have recognized the potential of repurposing these strings of largely

vacant and underdeveloped parcels under a single programme, For example,

Hoover Street – along which multiple roadway triangles occur – connects the

significant public open space assets of Exposition Park to the south and La Fayette

Park in the north. The coordinated development of its roadway triangles into


enhanced places would have manifold impacts beyond just the site and

neighborhood scale of its constituent parcels. Hoover Street could become a

Pedestrian Plaza Corridor, and in so becoming, an open space and ecological

corridor as well. Thus the Parklet and Pedestrian Plaza Corridor – as a type

emerging through uncoordinated interventions or as the product of a holistic and

comprehensive open space plan for a street – radically expands the potential of the

Parklet or Pedestrian Plaza typologies themselves. In this way, the two typologies

can be understood as elements augmenting or helping to complete urban open

space and ecological networks.

This thesis suggests that Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas together form a type of

“Prosumer Park,” one which through a process of Heuristic Urbanism is created not

through the planning of government strategists but the once-‐radical tactics of

artists, designers, and ordinary citizens. The “Prosumer Park” is the fulcrum over

which new values of land use and are balanced. They become charged conversation

pieces for popular and academic discourse, expanding the horizons of both with

fresh material. These Parks creates the forum for convening both the government

and polity to broker new agreements and formulate new structures of interaction.

The Prosumer Park offers a new standard for the production of urban space and life.


ENDNOTES These notes indicate where a particular theme, idea or fact formed a major point of

discussion in a particular interview or interviews. Oftentimes, the content from many

interviews support a theme, idea or fact; however only those conversations which

focused on that theme, idea, or fact are noted here. For a full listing of the

interviewees referenced here, see APPENDIX B – Catalogue of Interviews.

1 Angstadt 2012; Blackman 2012; Drake 2012; Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Jones 2012; Kaminski 2012; Lehman 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Traecy 2012 2 Angstadt 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Shannon 2012 3 Blackman 2012; Watson 2012 4 Bednarz 2012; Drake 2012; Hughes 2012; Katz 2012; Lim 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012 5 Burkowski 2011; Hassi 2011 6 Chasan 2012; Elsner 2011; Power 2011; Provence 2011 7 Castillo 2012; Choi 2012; Dubose and Henry 2011; Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Hacket and Weigley 2011; Ion 2012; Jawa 2012; Kim 2012; Lehman 2012; Martin 2011; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Ocañas 2012; Peccaianti 2012; Power 2011; Watson 2012 8 Elsner 2011; Power 2011 9 Eisner 2012; Power 2011 10 Eisner 2011; Power 2011 11 Elsner 2012; Chasan 2012 12 Power 2011


13 Aiello 2011; Currier 2011; Dumesnil 2011; Elsner 2011; Power 2011 14 Ghannam 2011; Martin 2011; Passmore 2011; Power 2011 15 Lehman 2012; Ocañas 2012 16 Elsner 2011, Power 2011, Pratt 2011; Provence 2011 17 Aiello 2011; Boor 2011; Currier 2011; Dumesneil 2011; Martin 2011; Ogbu and Petersen 2011; Power 2011 18 Elsner 2011, Power 2011, Provence 2011 19 Elsner 2011; Ghannam 2011; Neiman 2011; Power 2011 20 Elsner 2012 21 Elsner 2011 22 Elsner 2011, Power 2011, Provence 2011 23 Elsner 2012 24 Pratt 2011 25 Elsner 2012 26 Castillo 2012 27 Castillo 2012; Ulazweski 2012; Van Dijs 2012 28 Castillo 2012; Trang 2012 29 Castillo 2012 30 Castillo 2012 31 Ulaszewski 2012 32 Pittman 2012


33 Castillo 2012; Trang 2012 34 Castillo 2012 35 Castillo 2012; Pittman 2012; Trang 2012 36 Castillo 2012; Trang 2012 37 Angstadt 2012; Bednarz 2012; Drake 2012; Gaffney 2012; Karchmer 2012; Katz 2012; Lim 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012 38 Angstadt 2012; Miller, B. 2012 39 Angstadt 2012; Miller, B. 2012 40 Miller, B. 2012 41 Angstadt 2012; Miller M. 2012 42 Miller, Blair 2012 43 Miller, B. 2012 44 Miller, R. 2012 45 Miller, R. 2012 46 Miller, R. 2012 47 Andree 2012; Miller, R 2012; Tracey 2012 48 Tracey 2012 49 Andree 2012; Tracey 2012 50 Tracey 2012 51 Miller, R. 2012 52 Tracey 2012 53 Tracey 2012


54 Andree 2012 55 Andree 2012; Tracey 2012 56 Tracey 2012 57 Andree 2012; Tracey 2012 58 Bednarz 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Tracey, 2012 59 Miller, R. 2012 60 Miller, R. 2012 61 Angstadt 2012; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012 62 Angstadt 2012; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012 63 Angstadt 2012 64 Angstadt 2012; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012 65 Angstadt 2012 66 Angstadt 2012; Miller, B. 2012 67 Angstadt 2012; Kaminski 2012; Miller B. 2012 68 Angstadt 2012 69 Miller, B. 2012 70 Angstadt 2012 71 Angstadt 2012 72 Miller, R 2012; Tracey 2012 73 Angstadt 2012


74 Blackman 2012; Choi 2012; Kim 2012; Lehman 2012; Robbins 2012; Watson 2012 75 Box 2012 76 Choi 2012 77 Lehman 2012;, Ocañas 2012 78 Blackman 2012; Choi 2012; Kim 2012; Lehman 2012; Robbins 2012; Watson 2012 79 Olive, Oishi, & Gutierrez

2012

80 Olive, Oishi, & Gutierrez 2012

81 Ocañas 2012

82 Ocañas 2012

83 Ocañas 2012

84 Ocañas 2012

85 Ocañas 2012

86 Olive, Oishi, & Gutierrez 2012

87 Kim 2012; Ocañas 2012

88 Lehman 2012; Robbins 2012

89 Robbins 2012

90 Blackman 2012; Rumsey 2012; Watson 2012

91 Blackman 2012; Lehman 2012; Robbins 2012

92 Blackman 2012; Robbins 2012; Rumsey 2012; Watson 2012


93 Blackman 2012; Watson 2012

94 Blackman 2012; Choi 2012; Kim 2012; Lehman 2012; Olive, Oishi, & Gutierrez

2012; Robbins 2012; Rumsey 2012; Watson 2012

95 Angstadt 2012; Castillo 2012; Castillo 2012; Choi 2012; Drake 2012; Gibbs 2012; Karchmer 2012; Katz 2012; Kim 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Peccianti 2012; Pratt 2012; Tracey 2012; , Van Dijs 2012; Ulaszewski 2012 96 Blackman 2012; Burkowski 2011; Elsner 2011; Katz 2012; Kim 2012; Hacket and Weigley 2012; Hughes 2012; Ion 2012; Jawa 2011; Martin 2011; Miller, R. 2012; Peccanti 2012; Power 2012; Provence 2012; Tracey 2012; Watson 2012 97 Angstadt 2012; Blackman 2012; Castillo 2012; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Trang 2012; Watson 2012 98 Aiello 2011; Choi 2012; Elsener 2011; Ogbu & Petersen 2011; Olive, Oishi & Gutierrez 2012; Martin 2011; Power 2011; Ocañas 2012 99 Blackman 2012; Lehman 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Watson 2012

100 Elsner 2011; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Power 2011;

101 Angstadt 2012; Ulazsewski 2012

102 Blackman 2012; Elsener 2011; Ion 2012; Drake 2012; Gaffney 2012; Miller, B. 2011; Passmore 2011; Power 2011; Upwall 2011; Watson 2012 103 Angstadt 2012; Blackman 2012; Kim 2012; Ocañas 2012; Rumsey 2012

104 Angstadt 2012; Elsner 2011; Miller, B. 2012; Power 2011; Pittman 2012

105 Angstadt 2012; Castillo 2012; Miller, B. 2012;

106 Andree 2012; Blackman 2012; Choi 2012; Kim 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Ocañas 2012; Tracey 2012; Watson 2012 107 Blackman 2012; Miller, B. 2012

108 Angstadt 2012; Elsner 2011; Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Pittman 2012; Power 2011; Provence 2011


109 Chasan 2012; Elsner 2011, 2012; Power 2011; Provence 2011

110 Miller, R. 2012

111 Kim 2012; Watson 2012

112 Blackman 2012; Kim 2012; Olive, Oishi & Gutierrez 2012; Watson 2012

113 Angstadt 2012; Olive, Oishi & Gutierrez 2012; Miller

114 Olive, Oishi, & Guierrez 2012

115 Miller, R. 2012

116 Van Dijs 2012

117 Io 2012

118 Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Kim 2012; Ocañas 2012; Rumsey 2012

119 Robbins 2012; Watson 2012

120 Karchmer 2012; Robbins 2012; Tracey 2012

121 Becker 2012; Castillo 2012; Drake 2012; Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Jones 2012; Provence 2011; Tracey 2012; Ulaszewski 2012; Upwall 2011; Van Dijs 2012 122 Gaffney 2012; Watson 2012

123 Gaffney 2012; Gibbs, 2012; Jones 2012; Karchmer 2012; Katz 2012; Lim 2012; Miller, R. 2012 124 Drake 2012; Ion 2012; Karchmer 2012; Katz 2012; Lim 2012

125 Miller, R. 2012

126 Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Martin 2011; Power 2012

127 Gaffney 2012; Ion 2012

128 Miller, R. 2012


129 Castillo 2012

130 Drake 2012; Katz 2012; Lehman 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Ocañas 2012 131 Castillo 2012; Ulasewski 2012

132 Io 2012

133 Miller, B. 2012

134 Jones 2012

135 Drake 2012; Robbins 2012

136 Robbins 2012


138 Choi 2012; Drake 2012; Ion 2012; Katz 2012; Kim 2012; Lim 2012; Ocañas 2012

139 Gibbs 2012

140 Miller, B. 2012

141 Van Dijs 2012

142 Choi 2012; Ocañas 2012; Peccianti 2012



145 Elsner 2012

146 Miller Ruth 2012

147 Tracey 2012

148 Blackman 2012; Rumsey 2012; Watson 2012

149 Gaffney 2012


150 Angstadt 2012

151 Angstadt 2012

152 Drake 2012; Robbins 2012

153 Elsener 2011; Provence 2011; Power 2011

154 Van Dijs 2012

155 Gaffney 2012

156 Provence 2011

157 Tracey 2012

158 Angstadt 2012

159 Castillo 2012; Peccianti 2012; Van Dijs 2012; Ulaszewski 2012

160 Drake 2012; Hughes 2012; Ion 2012; Jones 2012; Miller R 2012; Miller B 2012; Tracey 2012 161 Angstadt 2012; Katz 2012; Trang 2012; Vigilanti 2012

162 Angstadt 2012

163 Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Vigilanti 2012

164 Ulazsweski 2012; Van Dijs 2012


166 Tracey 2012

167 Bednarz 2012; Gaffney 2012; Gibbs 2012; Ion 2012; Vigilanti 2012

168 Miller, R. 2012

169 Power 2011

170 Power 2011


171 Power 2011

172 Castillo 2012

173 Castillo 2012

174 Kaminski 2012; Miller, B. 2012; Miller, R. 2012; Tracey 2012

175 Kaminski 2012

176 Miller, R. 2012

177 Karchmer, 2012

178 Upwall 2011

179 Miller, B. 2012

180 Miller, R. 2012

181 Elsener 2011; Provence 2011

182 Drake 2012; Ion 2012; Katz 2012; Lehman 2012; Lim 2012; Provence 2011; ; Robbins 2012 183 Chasan 2012; Elsner 2012

184 Provence 2012

185 Watson 2012 186 Ficarotta 2011; King 2011; Patwa 2011


BIBLIOGRAPHY The Alliance for Biking and Walking (2012). Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report. Washington, DC: The Alliance for Biking and Walking Appleyard, Donald (1973, June). Professional Priorities for Environmental Psychology. In Küller, Rikard (ed.), Architectural Psychology: Proceedings of the Lund Conference: June 26-29, 1973. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Appleyard, Donald (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press Arieff, A. (2009, September 22). Pavement to Parks. The New York Times: Opionator Arlt, Peter (2006). Temporary Uses: Deregulation and Urbanity. In Haydn, Florian and Temel, Robert (Eds). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of CitySpaces, pp.39-‐46. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser Ashe, Marice; Bennett, Gary; Economos, Christina; Goodman, Elizabeth; Schilling, Joe; Quintiliani, Lisa; Rosenbaum, Sara; Vincent, Jeff; and Must, Aviva (2009, Summer). Assessig Coordination of Legal-‐Based Efforts across Jurisdictions and Sectors of Obesity Prevention and Control. National Sumit on Legal Preparedness for Obesity Prevention and Control. Baltes, Sharon (2004, August 30). High hopes for streetscape to boost business climate. Business Record, v22 i35, p.14 Bartfhold, E. (1993). The Predicament of the "Parklets": Understanding Washington's Smaller Parks. Washington History, 5 (7), pp.28-‐45 Berg, N. (2010). From Parking to "Parklets". Planning, 76 (6), p.5 Berney, Rachel (2011). “Pedagogical Urbanism: Creating Citizen Space in Bogota, Colombia.” Journal of Planning Theory, 10 (1), pp.16-‐34 Bishop, D. (2009, June 22). Where the Sidewalk Ends. Dwell Magazine Bradley, William (2005, October 3). Let It Grow. Frieze Magazine, Issue 94 Boone, Christopher G.; Buckley, Geoffrey L.; Grove, J. Morgan; and Sister, Chona (2009). Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99 (4) 2009, pp.767–787


Bosselman, Peter (1998). Representation of Places: Reality and Realism in City Design. Berkeley: University of California Press Bosselman, Peter (2008, March). Urban Transformations: Understanding City Design and Form. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press Bugarič, Boštjan (2010). Active urban Scenes. In Marušić, Barbara Goličnik; Nickšič, Matej; and Coirier, Lise (Eds). Human Cities: Celebrating Public Space, pp.21-‐25. Brussels, Belgium: Stichting Kunstboek Burnham, Linda Frye (1981, Fall). Between the Diaspora and the Crinoline: An Interview with Bonnie Sherk. High Performance: 58 Byrne, Jason and Wolch, Jennifer (2009 December). Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (6), pp.743-‐765 De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall, University of California Press, Berkeley Chase, John; Crawford, Margaret; & Kaliski, John. (2008). Everyday Urbanism. New York, NY: Monacelli Press Chase, John Leighton (2008). The Space Formerly Known as Parking. In J.L. Chase, M. Crawford & J. Kaliski (Eds.), Everyday Urbanism, pp.194-‐199. New York, NY: Monacelli Press Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher (1963). Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. New York, NY: Doubleday City of Long Beach (1989/2010). Occupation of Public Walkways. Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Title 14 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2010). Bicycle Plan City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2010). Bicycle Plan Technical Design Handbook City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Urban Design Studio (2009). Downtown Design Guide City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Urban Design Studio (2009). Downtown Street Standards


City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Urban Design Studio (2006). Walkability Checklist City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Urban Design Studio (2008). Urban Design Principles City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services, Engineering Division (2010). Residential Parkway Landscaping Guideline City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (2003, December 7). Chapter VI, Section 62.104. Public Works and Property: CURB AND SIDEWALK REPAIRS. CMG (2012). Parkmobiles and Yerba Buena Street Life Plan Unveiled. Retrieved from CMG website: http://www.cmgsite.com/news/2011/parkmobiles-‐and-‐yerba-‐buena-‐street-‐life-‐plan-‐unveiled/ Cronon, William (1996, January). The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Environmental History, 1 (1), pp.7-‐28 Coughlan, Sean (2005, October 22). Driving the argument home. BBC News UK Crankshaw, N. (2010). Creating Vibrant Public Spaces: Streetscape Design in Commerical and Historic Districts. Washington, DC: Island Press Cranz, G. (1982). The Politics of Park Design. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press Cranz, Galen and Boland, Michael (2003): The Ecological Park as an Emerging Type. Places, 15, p.44-‐47 Cranz, Galen and Boland, Michael (2003): Defining the Sustainable Park: A fifth model for Urban Parks. Landscape Journal, 23, p.102-‐120 Crawford, Margaret (2008). Blurring the Boundaries: Public Space and Private Life. In J.L. Chase, M. Crawford & J. Kaliski (Eds.), Everyday Urbanism, pp.22-‐35. New York, NY: Monacelli Press Criscione, K. (2001, August 9). Gradens group seeing green. Times Union. Cuff, Dana (1984). The Writings of Donald Appleyard. Places, Volume 1, Number 3. Berkeley, CA: Places Journal Foundation Dear, Michael and Flusty, Steven (1998). Postmodern Urbanism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, pp.50-‐72


Davis, Mike (1990/2006) City of Quartz London: Verso Books Derschmidt , Friedemann (2006, April 12). Interview by Markuz Wernli Saitô, translated from German. Retrieved from http://www.momentarium.org/dialog/derschmidt/ Dewan, Ted (2005-‐present). The Roadwitch Trial. retrieved from http://www.wormworks.com/roadwitch/index.html Drennen, Emily (2003, December). Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. Master’s Thesis: Department of Public Administration, San Francisco State University Dover, Victor and King, Jason (2007). Neighborhood Definition. In Farr, Douglas (Ed.). Sustainable Urbanism. San Francico, CA: Wiley Drennen, Emily (2003 December). Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. Department of Public Administration, San Francisco State University. San Francisco, CA. Dunlap, David W. (2009, May 25). No Vehicles, but Plenty of People on Broadway. The New York Times Eaton, J., & Sullivan, R. (2009, 12 13). PlantSF turns pavement into a garden spot. The San Francisco Chronicle, p.L-‐1. Ehrenfeucht, R., & Loukaitou-‐Sideris, A. (2010). Planning Urban Sidewalks: Infrastructure, Daily Life and Destinations. Journal of Urban Design , 15 (4), pp.459-‐471. Ellin, Nan (1996). Postmodern Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Erickson, D. (2006). MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Etzioni, Amitai (1967, Dec). Mixed-‐scanning: A “Third” Appraoch to Decision-‐making. Public Administration Review, 27, pp.385-‐92 Ford, Larry R. (2000). The Spaces Between Buildings. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press Fraser, Nancy (1993). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the Critique of Actualy Existing Democracy. In Robbins, Bruce (ed.). The Phantom Public Sphere.


Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson RJ. (2004). Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities. Washington DC: Island Press Garde, A. M. (1999). Marginal Space in the Urban Landscape: Regulated Margins or Incidental Open Spaces? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, pp.200-‐210. Gehl, Jan (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Gehl, Jan (2010). Cities for People. Washington, D.C.: Island Press Gillool, Amanda (2010, October 28). Canonsburg Plans ‘Pocket Park.’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Metro p.S3 Gordon, Rachel. (2011, June 14). S.F. Supervisors get earful on tree maintenance. The Grand-‐Lakeshore Retail Advisory Group (2008). The Grand-Lakeshore Retail Advisory Group Survey. Oakland, CA: The Grand-‐Lakeshore Retial Advisory Group Greenberg, Ellen. (2008). Sustainable streets: An Emerging Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal , 78 (5), p.29. Gropman, Adam (2008, August 7). Living Room on the Street: Public Parking on a Sofas Level. LA Weekly Hall, Peter (1992). Urban and regional planning. London: Routledge Harvey, David (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Hayden, Dolores (1995). THE POWER OF PLACE: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge: MIT Press Haydn, Florian and Temel, Robert (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser Hofbauer, Ursula (2006). Horror Vaui. In Haydn, Florian and Temel, Robert (Eds). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, pp.105-‐112. Basel, Switerzerland: Birkhauser Holston, James (1996). Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship. Planning Theory, 13, pp.30-‐50


Hou, Jeffrey (Ed.). (2010). Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Routledge. Hough, Michael & Barrett, Suzanne (1987). People and City Landscapes. Toronto: Conservation Council of Ontario. Jackson, RJ (2003). The impact of the built environment on health: an emerging field. Public Health 2003; 93, pp.1382–1384. Jacobs, Jane (1961/1989). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books Jesi, Anika (2010, September 7). DIY Urbanism: Outdoor living rooms improve neighborhoods without resorting to gentrification. retrieved from the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Blog: http://www.spur.org/blog/2010-‐09-‐07/diy_urbanism_outdoor_living_rooms_improve_neighborhoods_without_resorting_gentrifica Jones, Charisse (2009, September 22). “Broadway broadens pedestrian access.” USA Today Keffer, Ruth (2010 September). DIY Urbanism: Testing the grounds for social change. The Urbanist, September 2010, Issue 496 Kohn, Margaret (2004). Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. New York: Routledge Kuchar, S. (2011, June 14). Private Property Owners Not Thrilled About Potentially Taking On More Tree Maintenance. retreived from Curbed San Francisco: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/06/14/private_property_owners_not_thrilled_about_potentially_taking_on_more_tree_maintenance.php Lane, Marcus B. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36 (3), pp.283-‐299 Laplante, J., & McCann, B. (2008). Complete Streets: We Can Get There from Here. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal , 78 (5), pp.24-‐29 Lee Jr., Douglas B. (1973, May). Requium for Large-‐Scale Models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol 39, Number 3 Lefevbre, Henri (1967). La droit a la ville. Paris: Antrhopos


Lefebvre, Henri (1974/1984 Thrnopos; 1991 English) The Production of Space. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Lewallen, Constance (2011, October 31). A Larger Stage. In Lewallen, Constance and Moss, Karen (Eds). State of Mind: New California Art circa 1970. University of California Press Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19 (2), pp.79-‐88 Los Angeles County (2011). Model Design Manual for Living Streets Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking urban parks: public space and cultural diversity. Austin: The University of Texas Press Lydon, Mike (2011, March) “The Difference Between Tactical and DIY Urbanism.” retrieved from the Pattern Cities website: patterncities.com/archives/284 Lynch, Kevin (1976). Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Lynch, Kevin (1981/1984). Good City Form. Cambridge MA and London: MIT Press Lynch, Kevin (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Madden, Kathy (2010). Public in Place: Creating Successful Public Places. In Marušić, Barbara Goličnik; Nickšič, Matej; and Coirier, Lise (Eds). Human Cities: Celebrating Public Space, pp.54-‐57. Brussels, Belgium: Stichting Kunstboek Manzini, Ezio (2010). The Social Construction of Public Space. In Marušić, Barbara Goličnik; Nickšič, Matej; and Coirier, Lise (Eds). Human Cities: Celebrating Public Space, pp.12-‐15. Brussels, Belgium: Stichting Kunstboek Martin, D. (1998, April 4). Greening of the Forgotten Islets; Concrete Deserts Bloom as Parks Dept. Thinks Small. New York Times, p.B1 McCann, B & Ewing, R. (2003 September). Smart Growth America: Surface Transportation Policy Project. Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and Chronic Disease. Retrieved from http://www. smartgrowthamerica.org/report/HealthSprawl8.03.pdf McPherson, G., Simpson, J., Xiao, Q., & Wu, C. (2007). Los Angeles One Million Tree Canopy Cover Assessment Final Report. Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research,


Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service and Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Univerity of California Davis Merker, Blaine (2010). Taking Place: Rebar’s Absurd Tactics in Generous Urbanism. In Hou, Jeffrey (Ed.). Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, pp.45-‐58. New York: Routledge Meroni, Anna (2007). Creative Communities: People inventing sustainable ways of living. Milan, Italy: Edizioni Polidesign Meroni, Anna and Tapani, Paola (2010). Social innovation, collaborative networks and public space. In In Marušić, Barbara Goličnik; Nickšič, Matej; and Coirier, Lise (Eds). Human Cities: Celebrating Public Space, pp.16-‐20. Brussels, Belgium: Stichting Kunstboek Miller, Ruth (2012, Winter) Parklets: Turning Parking Spaces into Parks. The New Planner Mitchell, Don (1995). The End of Public Space? People's Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85.1 Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guildford Press Mozingo, Louise. (1997). The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. In Landscape Journal, 16, pp.49-‐59 Nassauer, J. I. (1997). Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Washington D.C.: Island Press Nevius, C. (2011, April 5). Cafe finds it can't convey food to 'parklet' outside. San Francisco Chronicle, p.C2 New York City Department of Transportation (2008). World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm. The New York City Department of Transportation. New York City Department of Transportation (2010 January). Green Light for Midtown Evaluation Report. New York City Department of Transportation (2011) Curbside Public Seating Platforms: 2011 Pilot Program Evaluation Report


New York City Department of Transportation (2012, March). NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines New York Department of Transportation (2012a). Pedestrians & Sidewalks: Public Plazas. retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/sidewalks/public-‐plazas.shtml New York Department of Transportation (2012b). Frequently Asked Questions: NYC Plaza Program. retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/faqs/faq_publicplaza.shtml Newton, Damien (2012, May 3). Huizar, Living Streets, Unveil Parklet Designs for El Sereno Street, York Blvd. retrieved from Los Angeles Streetsblog: http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/05/03/huizar-‐living-‐streets-‐unveil-‐parklet-‐designs-‐for-‐el-‐sereno-‐street-‐york-‐boulevard/ NorthEast Trees (2012). Mission Statement. retrieved from the NorthEast Trees website: http://www.northeasttrees.org/ Permanent Breakfast (2012). The continually ongoing breakfast in open space. retrieved from the Permanent Breakfast website: http://www.permanentbreakfast.org/ Pincetl, S. and Gearin, E. (2005). The Reinvention of Public Green Space. Urban Geography , 26 (5), pp.365-‐384 The Project for Public Spaces (2012). What Makes a Successful Place? retrieved from http://www.pps.org/articles/grplacefeat/ Prokai , F. Thomas (1999). Understanding Impacts of Pedestrian Friendly Streets in Urban Retail Areas. Graduate Thesis: The University of Guelph, Ottowa. National Library of Canada Ramírez-‐Lovering, Diego (Ed.). (2008). Opportunistic urbanism. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Press Rebar Group, Inc. (2012). PARK(ING) DAY 2011 – Official Park Count! retrieved from http://parkingday.org/parking-‐day-‐2011-‐official-‐park-‐count/ RMIT Press (2008, November 17). OPPORUTNISTIC URBANISM BOOK Launch [press release]


Roach, C. (2008). Urban Guerillas: Streets and the Sociopolitical Architecture of the Public Realm.” On Site, 19, pp.27-‐33 Ronneberger, Klaus (2010). From regulation to moderation. In Haydn, Florian and Temel, Robert (Eds). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces, pp.67-‐74. Basel, Switerzerland: Birkhauser Rowe, Colin & Koetter, Fred (1984). Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Sabatini, J. (2011, June 13). DPW cost-‐saving tree plan faces resistance. San Francisco Examiner Sabatini, J. (2011, June 06). San Francisco tree upkeep is target of budget trim. The San Francisco Examiner Sadik-‐Khan, Janette (2011, June 7). NYC’s Plaza Program, An Open Space Model for L.A.? retrieved from Los Angeles Streetsblog: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/nycs-‐plaza-‐program-‐an-‐open-‐space-‐model-‐for-‐l-‐a/ Sandercock, Leonie (1994). Citizen participation: the new conservatism. In Sarkissian, W & Perglut, D. (Eds). The community participation handbook: resources for public involvement in the planning process (2nd edition). Institute for Science and Technology Policy in association with Impacts Press, Murdoch, p.7-‐16 San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2010). Divisadero Trial Parklet Impact Report - March 2010. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Streets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2011a). Parklet Impact Study - August 2011. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Strets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2011b). Parklet Impact Study: Initial Conditions Summary - April 2011. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Strets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Municipal Code (2008, March 31). LANDMARK TREES. Public Works Code Article 16, Section 810 San Francisco Municipal Code (1993, July 16). TABLES AND CHAIRS IN PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR ROADWAY AREAS. Public Works Code Article 5.2.


San Francisco Municipal Code (2010, October 19). ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS (PARKLETS). DPW Order No: 178,939 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (1970). SECA/VESA Award 1970 news release, 1970. Carton 10, Folder 56, “Vernal Equinox Special Award, 1970–1972,” Society for the Encouragement of Contemporary Art (SECA) Records, 1960– 2010. SFMOMA Archives San Francisco Planning Department (2010-‐present). About Pavement to Parks. Retrieved from http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/ San Franisco Planning Department (2010, September 17). REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS “PARKLETS” San Franisco Planning Department (2011, May 5). REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS “PARKLETS” Sardar, Zahid (2005, May 22). Land Art: Living Truths: A performance artist-‐turned-‐educator sheds light on the Islias Creek. San Francisco Chronicle Schaefer, Margie (2011, July 13). “Powell Street Promenade Transforms Union Square” TRANSCRIPT from CBS Local San Francisco. retrieved from http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/powell-‐street-‐promenade-‐transforms-‐union-‐square/ Seifert, W., Christopher, H. V., Farrar, S. M., Preston, T., Duarte, T. H., & Geraghty, A. B. (2009). Partnership Leads Community Towards Complete Streets. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 37 (6), pp.S420-‐S427 Seligman, Katherine (2011, June 19). San Francisco's tiny plazas convert parking to parks. The Sacramento Bee Seltenrich, Nate (2011, October 23). San Francisco Parklets swap parking spots for community space. San Francisco Examiner Shaw, Robert (1989). Interviews With Robert Shaw. Interview by John Schaffer. Chicago: Brentwood Press Shoup, Donald (2005/2011). The High Cost Free Parking. Chicago, IL: Planners Press


Sonenshein, Raphael J. (2006). Los Angeles: Structure of a City Government. Los Angeles: League of Women Voters Steinhauer, Jennifer (2008, April 26). Outdoor ‘Living Rooms’ Bring Touches of Cheer to Central Los Angeles. New York Times Street Plans Collaborative (2011, March). Tactical Urbanism: Volume 1. New York, New York: Street Plans Collaborative Street Plans Collaborative (2012, April). Tactical Urbanism: Volume 2. New York, New York: Street Plans Collaborative Taylor, T. (2009, October 21). From concrete to community. Financial Times TreePeople (2012). Who We Are. retrieved from the Tree People website: http://www.treepeople.org/who-‐we-‐are Toffler, Alvin (1980). The Third Wave. London, UK: Collins. Vives, Ruben (2012, January 7). Long Beach joins the national ‘parklets’ trend. The Los Angeles Times The Washington Post. (1967, October 14). Neighbors' Objections Change 'Parklet' Plans. Times Herald, p.B3 Waugh, Dorothy. (1947). Parklets: Gardens of Eden for Those Who Cannot Go to a Real Park. Landscape Architecture, 37 (2), p.56. Whyte, William H. (1988). Rediscovering the City. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach (2005). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity-‐Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography, 26 (1), pp.4–35 Zimbardo, Tanya. (2011). Resonances: The Art of the Award. In Gass, Alison & Zimbardo, Tanya (Eds). Fifty Years of Bay Area Art and the SECA Art Award. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Zion, R. L. (1962, July 1). Impractical' Ideas for Tomorrow's City. New York Times, pp.140-‐2


APPENDIX A – Methodology

Literature Review

This study reviews the extensive literature touching experimental urban

design interventions, laying out a theoretical and epistemological background for

the contemporary cases in San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, Los Angeles and

elsewhere. Here, Parklets are framed within a historical narrative of temporary

streetscape intervention in modern American culture. At the same time, synthesis

of the literature furnishes a working set of definitions and terms specific to this

study and its analysis.

In terms of the legal and procedural aspects of the S.F. Pavement to Parks,

and Long Beach pilot Parklet programs, publicly accessible documents furnished

much of the necessary information. With the absence of a corollary program in Los

Angeles, parsing the procedural in that city proved more difficult. Here, the

researcher relied on close communication with Los Angeles officials to develop a

nuanced understanding of the policies, structures and regulations in effect during

the study.

Case and Interviewee Selection

A comprehensive catalogue of projects was developed by reviewing popular

press on the programs in San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach and Los Angeles (see


APPENDIX A). The study then profiled a minimum of 30% of cases in each city in

order to develop representative findings for each city.

While developing a catalogue of projects, the popular press review also

identified individual and group stakeholders associated with each city’s program

and its cases. At this stage, it became apparent that stakeholders across all cases fell

naturally within groupings indicative of their roles in the broader Heuristic

Urbanism movement (see Figure 2). The study then targeted at least one individual

from each stakeholder group for every case profiled. With the Government group,

the methodology attempted to triangulate:

• Government – City Departments and Staffers; Elected and Appointed Officials

• Private Partners – Businesses; Parklet and Plaza sponsors

• Community Partners – Local Non-‐profits, Neighborhood Groups, Homeowner

Associations

• Designers – Architects, Landscape Architects, Landscape Designers, plant

experts

• Users – Pedestrians and/or Parklet Users; Residents, Neighbors, Shoppers

and Commuters

A total of 29 cases were profiled through interviews. In the case of Oakland,

which had neither Parklets nor Pedestrian Plazas installed during the course of this

study, the General Public stakeholder group is not counted.


Interviews and Surveys

A total of 68 interviews of individual stakeholders were administered

between July 2011 and May 2012. When possible, interviews were conducted in

person; while most were administered over the phone by appointment. Interviews

lasted between 10 minutes and 1 hour 36 minutes. In most cases, the interview was

audio-‐recorded, with the interviewee granting consent verbally before the recording

began. All audio-‐recorded interviewees were offered electronic copies of the

recorded conversation.

Throughout narrative development of the thesis itself, the researcher kept in

communication with interviewees to follow up on issues and questions which

emerged as the study progressed. Key interviewees were asked to review and

comment on both the narrative and flow chart diagrams presented here in their

final form.


APPENDIX B – Catalogue of Interviews


Table 3: Catalogue of Interviews


Table 3 (Continued): Catalogue of Interviews


APPENDIX C – Catalogue of Cases

This thesis examines four cities with initiatives that parallel those in New

York City. They are presented order of their relative development:

1. The City and County of San Francisco



4. The City of Los Angeles


Table 4: Catalogue of Cases, City of San Francisco


Table 4 (Continued): Catalogue of Cases, City of San Francisco


Table 5: Catalogue of Cases, City of Long Beach


Table 6: Catalogue of Cases, City of Oakland


Table 6 (Continued): Catalogue of Cases, City of Oakland


Table 7: Catalogue of Cases: City of Los Angeles


APPENDIX D – Interview Tools

The following sets of questions were used to guide interviews with individuals in four stakeholder groups.

• Government – City Departments and Staffers; Elected and Appointed Officials • Private Partners – Businesses; Parklet and Plaza sponsors • Community Partners – Local Non-‐profits, Neighborhood Groups, Homeowner

Associations • Designers – Architects, Landscape Architects, Landscape Designers, plant

experts


Interview Tool – Government Stakeholders

1. How did the [Parklet and/or Pedestrian Plaza] movement become initiated in [your city]? 2. How do these [Parklet and/or Pedestrian Plaza] projects impact their neighborhoods? The

City?

3. Who are the key individuals, groups, and agencies within the city government critical to this/these projects/program?

4. Can you describe the collaboration that you created between agencies? Pavement to Parks

Program?

5. Are there any other individuals, or organizations outside of city government own who were instrumental in the [initiative]?

6. Can you describe the process of creating the pilot [project / program]? How might the

permitting process evolve?

7. Please describe the process of creating the permanent [program/permit/ordinance].

8. Are the [projects and/or programs] fully accessible to the public? Why?

9. How might the [permit and/or program] evolve to address emerging issues between public and private interests? How might design specs or parameters evolve to address the privacy question? (Offsets, chains)?

10. One of the best characteristics of the Parklet type is its experimental nature; semi-permanence

and flexibility. Can you comment on this?

11. What is the average project budget?

12. Many [Parklet and/or Pedestrian Plazas] are designed pro-bono. Can you comment on this?

13. How are maintenance, insurance and liability arranged for the projects?

14. What are the long-term intentions of the [pilot or permanent] [project and/or program]? How do these fit within the larger planning context for your city?

15. What kind of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are currently in place for [projects

and/or programs]. If not, what kinds of studies are you interested in undertaking? What kind of data are you interested in gathering; dimensions to measure?

16. In terms of the questions discussed previously, how would you advise staffers in other cities who

are interested in creating [pilot or permanent] [projects and/or programs] in their own communities?


17. On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rate the participation of the following groups? You may give the same number to more than one group if you feel its appropriate. If there are specific departments or organizations, please write them in:

___ City Planning / Public Works ___ Nonprofit / Community Groups ___ Designers / Landscape Architects / Architects ___ Private Entities / Businesses ___ The General Public / Residents / Neighbors

18. On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rank the participation of the following groups? Each must have a different number:



Interview Tool –Private Partners

Name: Group: Type:

Address: Phone: Fax: Email: Project(s): Project Budget: $ Since this project was installed, safety on the street has:

(Greatly Improved) 1 2 3 4 5 (Greatly Worsened) I define safety as Since this project was installed, the feeling of comfort on the street is

(Greatly Improved) 1 2 3 4 5 (Greatly Worsened) I define comfort as Since this project was installed, the atmosphere or environment of the street is

(Greatly Improved) 1 2 3 4 5 (Greatly Worsened) I define atmosphere as Since with project was installed, my desire or ability to interact with people is

(Greatly Improved) 1 2 3 4 5 (Greatly Worsened) How So? Since this project was installed, Business Activity in the areas is

(Greatly Improved) 1 2 3 4 5 (Greatly Worsened) How so?


I believe that this project should

1) become permanent 2) become permanent, with some improvements and changes 3) maybe become permanent, after a some more monitoring 4) remain temporary 5) be taken out as at once

Why?¨ Who are 1-‐2 key people or groups outside your organization that helped to implement this project / these projects? What was the most challenging aspect of this project? Why? On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rate the participation of the following groups? You may give the same number to more than one group if you feel its appropriate. If there are specific departments or organizations, please write them in:


Which person or group presented the greatest challenge to the project? Why? How can this project / process be improved?


On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rank the participation of the following groups? Each must have a different number:


Additional Comments:


Interview Tool –Community Partners

Name: Group: Type:


















Interview Tool – Designers

Name: Group: Type:

Address: Phone: Fax: Email: Project(s): Project Budget: $ How does your firm select projects to pursue? What percentage of your firm’s work is comprised of design in the public realm (streetscapes, pocket parks, interventions in the auto right-‐of-‐way)? Pro Bono? How much of your future work do you anticipate will constitute similar projects? Why? How were you selected for this project? Who from you staff were on the project team, and what are their backgrounds (Industrial Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Engineering, etc)?


Who are 1-‐2 key people or groups outside your organization that helped to implement this project / these projects? What was the most challenging aspect of this project? Why? On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rate the participation of the following groups? You may give the same number to more than one group if you feel its appropriate. If there are specific departments or organizations, please write them in:


Which person or group presented the greatest challenge to the project? Why? How can this project / process be improved? On a scale of 1 to 5 – with 1 being the least critical and 5 being the most critical – how would you rank the participation of the following groups? Each must have a different number:



Interview Tool – Advocates / Community Partners

Name: Group: Type:


















APPENDIX E – Human Subjects Review Exemption / Approval Letter



APPENDIX F – Parklet Permitting Flow Charts

The following charts illustrate how a Parklet permit application moves through the

process of approval in three cities which currently have a program in place. These

processes are subject to adjustment and modification by their respective cities. The

diagrams presented here only reflect what was described by stakeholders in

interviews; most of which were conducted between July 2011 and April 2012. The

three cities presented in this APPENDIX are:

1. The City of San Francisco




Figure 51: Parklet Im

plementation Process, City of San Francisco



plementation Process, City of Long Beach



plementation Process, City of Oakland

Documents

Experimenting With the Margin: Parklets and Plazas as Catalysts in Community and Government