dissertation_urbandesign_final_lr_secure

MA in Urban Design

Evaluating the design and functionality of a small urban space: has modern technology altered social dynamics in small urban spaces? If so, what are the implications for the future of their design?

May 2013 | MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation | 11022988 | Ailsa Long

A good public space is not an afterthought.Larry Houstoun (2011)

4. Ingredients for Successful Public Spaces Available from: http://lhoustoun.wordpress.com/public-spaces/

[Accessed 6 June 2012].

2 Ailsa Long | 11022988 | MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation

This study was completed for the MA in Urban Design at the University of the Western England, Bristol. The work is my own. Where the work of others is used or drawn on it is attributed.

Signature:

Approximate word count: 17,305(excluding acknowledgements, bibliography, references and appendices)

The author would like to thank the following people for their encour-agement, guidance and support in the development and completion of this dissertation.

Dr. Louis Rice of the University of the West of England, for your academic guidance through the course of the masters programme and this disser-tation.

The professional organisations who have approved and supported me during this research. Special thanks to Anne Pauley of JEMB Realty for granting permissions to observe the James Center II Plaza. Thanks also to M.Paul Friedberg & Partners for pro-viding historic images of the plaza.

All interviewees who have contribut-ed to this dissertation, for giving up their valuable time and insights.

My friends, Melissa Barber, Anne Davlin, Gale Schurman, Jonathan Uzzle and Sarah Watt for providing your valuable input and support.

Finally, I would like to thank my mother, sister and neice for your sup-port, patience and kindness during my life transition this past year. This dissertation is dedicated to Jesse Owen Long, the newest addition to the Long family tree. n

All images were taken by Gale Schurman, MultiSync Photography © unless otherwise indicated. Illustrated maps and images are not to scale. A

CK

NO

WLE

DG

EMEN

TS

2 Ailsa Long | 11022988 | MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation

We are hard-wired with a desire for congenial places to gather. That’s why it’s particularly sur-prising how much we overlook the importance

of public places today.Jay Walljasper (2005)

Ode Magazine In praise of streets, parks, squares, cof-

fee shops, and other beloved hang-outs

Available from: http://www.pps.org/our_place/

[Accessed 15 July 2012]

MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation | 11022988 | Ailsa Long

AB

STR

AC

T

3

This research explores the physical, social and virtual features that create a convivial small urban space. William H. Whyte, who three decades ago systematically investigated urban design physical features in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980), reviewed social interactions within these spaces providing the urban design community with a co-hesive list of what makes and shapes a successful small urban space. These recommendations were primarily physical features that promote social interactions within a predetermined environment. Today, in the 21st century, there is a call to observe, survey, measure, evaluate and assess how the increase in virtual modern mobile technology has shifted the dynamics and social interactions of small urban public spaces.

In order to understand what a public space is, it is important to review na-tional guidance, such as the Ameri-can Planning Association, CABE and National Planning Policy Framework to determine their explicit definitions of what makes a public, private and semi-private space or realm.

This dissertation attempts to analyse how important physical features are to provide safety, shelter, comfort

and entertainment within a public space, following the methodology of William H. Whyte (1980). Today, with the constant evolution of modern mobile technologies, and their fre-quency of use in small urban public spaces, this dissertation seeks to determine what today’s public realm users’ physical, social and virtual needs are.

Whyte’s urban design guidance was assessed to determine the advised ways of achieving distinctive, inclu-sive urban design in small public spaces. In total 61 questionnaire par-ticipants contributed to the outcome of this dissertation who were made up of local working professionals, students and a few visitors.The definition of public, semi-public and private urban space was ex-plored, the importance of physical features, the importance of acces-sibility and connectivity to surround-ing buildings and streets, the social dynamics within, and an investiga-tion to determine which aspects of modern mobile technologies are deemed the most frequently used and the most important in today’s environment.

The researchers’ initial belief was that new mobile technology incor-

porated in urban design should be implemented when planning small urban spaces to foster a renewal of public social interactions verses private social communication within these spaces. The type of approach to small urban public spaces, which is important and should be aimed for in view of the professionals inter-viewed, is a public space which re-flects the local community’s culture and needs, a place where locals feel safe, at home and connected. n

Open space is now firmly part of statutory and community planning processes. Compre-hensive planning poli-cies for open space are fundamental to social inclusion, community cohesion, health and well-being.

CABE (2009)Open space strategiesBest practice guidance

Available from: http://webar-chive.nationalarchives.gov.

uk/20110118095356/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/open-space-strategies.pdf

[Accessed 29 July, 2012].

CO

NTE

NTS

4 Ailsa Long | 11022988 | MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation | May 2013

AcknowlEDgEMEnts ............................................ p. 2

AbstrAct ........................................................... p. 3

contEnts ......................................................pp. 4-5

1.0 IntroDUctIon ............................................... pp. 6-71.1 Introduction ................................................................. p. 61.2 Why choose the study topic? ................................. p. 61.3 Who was the influence for study? ................ pp. 6-71.4 Location background ............................................... p. 7

2.0 lItErAtUrE rEvIEw ....................................pp. 8-132.1 Introduction ................................................................. p. 82.2 What planning and design theories

are available? ............................................................... p. 82.3 What is a small urban space? ................................. p. 92.4 What visual qualities make up a small

urban space? ................................................................ p. 92.5 Why are small urban spaces important? .........p. 102.6 How do we define success in terms of

small urban spaces? ................................................p. 102.7 Why do we need successful small

urban spaces? ............................................................p. 102.8 What physical features contribute to

successful small urban spaces? ..................pp. 10-112.9 What social features contribute to

successful small urban spaces? ...........................p. 112.10 What defines virtual technology in

small urban spaces? .......................................pp. 11-122.11 What virtual features contribute

to successful small urban spaces? ......................p. 122.12 How do technologies change people

and their social relations? ............................pp. 12-132.13 Summary .....................................................................p. 13

3.0 MEthoDology ...........................................pp. 14-253.1 Introduction ...............................................................p. 143.2 Scope of the study ...................................................p. 153.3 Mixed Method ...........................................................p. 153.4 Qualitative Design ...................................................p. 153.5 Quantitative Design .......................................pp. 15-163.6 Case Study Design ...................................................p. 163.7 Theory of Design .............................................pp. 16-173.8 Site History.........................................................pp. 17-193.9 Site Selection ....................................................pp. 19-203.10 Research Questions .................................................p. 203.11 Methodology .............................................................p. 203.12 Equipment ..................................................................p. 213.13 Data Analysis Software ...........................................p. 213.14 Pilot Studies ................................................................p. 213.15 Observational Survey ....................................pp. 21-22 3.15.1 Survey Method ..................................pp. 21-22 3.15.2 Initial Time Frame ..................................... p. 22 3.15.3 Additional Surveys ................................... p. 223.16 Questionnaire ............................................................p. 22 3.16.1 Distribution ................................................ p. 223.17 Plaza-user behavioural observations .......pp. 22-233.18 Justification of Methods ........................................p. 233.19 Analytical Review ............................................pp. 23-243.20 Justification of Analytical Review .......................p. 243.21 Permissions .................................................................p. 243.22 Weaknesses ................................................................p. 243.23 Ethical Challenges ...........................................pp. 24-253.24 Summary .....................................................................p. 25

4.0 FInDIngs .........................................................pp. 26-514.1 Introduction ...............................................................p. 26 4.1.1 Observational survey ............................... p. 26 4.1.2 Questionnaire ............................................ p. 26 4.1.3 Plaza-user behavioural observations .. p. 26

Public spaces are favorite places to meet, talk, sit, look, relax, play, stroll, flirt, eat, drink, smoke, peoplewatch, read, soak in sun-shine and feel part of a broader whole. They are the starting point for all community, commerce

and democracy.Walljasper, J. (2005)

In praise of streets, parks, squares, coffeeshops, and other beloved

hang-outsOde Magazine

Available from: http://www.pps.org/our_place/

[Accessed July 15 2012]


CO

NTE

NTS

5

4.2 Locating the plaza ...........................................pp. 26-274.3 Historical reference ..................................................p. 274.4 General observations ..............................................p. 274.5 Observational Survey .............................................p. 28 4.5.1 Monday, August 27th ......................pp. 28-30 4.5.2 Conclusions for Monday ......................... p. 30 4.5.3 Wednesday, August 29th ................pp. 31-32 4.5.4 Conclusions for Wednesday ........... pp.32-33 4.5.5 Friday, August 31st ...........................pp. 34-35 4.5.6 Conclusions for Friday .....................pp. 35-36 4.5.7 Tuesday, September 4th ..................pp. 37-38 4.5.8 Conclusions for Tuesday .................pp. 38-39 4.5.9 Thursday, September 13th .............pp. 40-41 4.5.10 Conclusions for Thursday ...............pp. 41-424.6 Additional Findings .................................................p. 42 4.6.1 Physical features ....................................... p. 42 4.6.2 Food vendors ............................................ p. 43 4.6.3 Sitting places.............................................. p. 43 4.6.4 Ease of accessibility .................................. p. 43 4.6.5 Shade ........................................................... p. 43 4.6.6 Gender placement .................................... p. 44 4.6.7 Conclusion .................................................. p. 444.7 Summary .....................................................................p. 444.8 On-site questionnaire .............................................p. 45 4.8.1 Demographic profiles .....................pp. 45-46 4.8.2 Seasons and frequency ........................... p. 46 4.8.3 Why, what and how long? ..............pp. 46-47 4.8.4 Activities and time spent on them? ...... p. 47 4.8.5 Mobile technology use ............................ p. 47 4.8.6 Environment for mobile technology use ..................................pp. 47-48 4.8.7 Plaza engagement when using/not using .. mobile technologies ................................ p. 48 4.8.8 Who are mobile technology-users? ..... p. 48

4.8.9 How much time do plaza-users spend using mobile technologies? ................... p. 48 4.8.10 Respondents comments ......................... p. 48 4.8.11 Questionnaire conclusions ............pp. 48-494.9 Plaza-user questionnaire visual mapping pp. 45-50 4.9.1 On-site observation visual map ............ p. 50 4.9.2 Findings ..............................................pp. 50-51

5.0 DIscUssIons .................................................pp. 52-565.1 Introduction ...............................................................p. 525.2 William Whyte ............................................................p. 525.3 Analysis ........................................................................p. 52 5.3.1 Physical Features ...................................... p. 52 5.3.2 Social behaviours ..................................... p. 52 5.3.3 Virtual features ..................................pp. 52-535.4 Limitations ..................................................................p. 535.5 Conclusions ................................................................p. 53 5.5.1 Physical Features ..............................pp. 53-54 5.3.2 Social behaviours ..................................... p. 54 5.3.3 Virtual features .......................................... p. 545.6 Defining the impact ................................................p. 555.7 Design implications .................................................p. 555.8 Further study ....................................................pp. 55-56

6.0 bIblIogrAPhy .............................................pp. 57-58

7.0 APPEnDIcEs ...................................................pp. 59-657.1 University letter for permissions .........................p. 597.2 E-mail correspondence for permissions ...........p.597.3 Observational survey signage ..............................p.607.4 Visual map...................................................................p. 607.5 On-site Questionnaire ...................................pp. 61-627.6 Questionnaire comments ............................pp. 62-637.7 Questionnaire compiled data .....................pp. 64-65

Successful places have attractive and comfort-

able outdoor spaces.CABE

Seven principles of good designAvailable from: http://webar-

chive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.

org.uk/councillors/principles[Accessed 15 July 2012]

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

6

1

Ailsa Long | 11022988 | MA Urban Design Masters Dissertation | May 2013

1.1 Introductionsmall urban spaces form an es-sential part of the structure of any city. They either evolve organically due to changing street layout and city development or are specifically designed. Christopher Alexander et al (1977 p.518) explains that “an outdoor space is positive when it has a distinct and definite shape, as definite as the shape of a room, and when its shape is as important as the shapes of the buildings which surround it. These spaces are vital for the surrounding communities and act as ‘breathing spaces’ for a city. When urban spaces are designed, it is imperative that they are created with much consideration placed on who, what, why and how these spaces will be used. It is vital that these small urban spaces attract people rather than alienate them.” Urban designers need to consider the space, it’s scale and provide physical features that will encourage and foster comfort, safety, play and social dynamics as well as accom-modating for individual anonymity. And now, in the 21st century, with modern mobile technologies, urban designers need to be cognisant of virtual features of a small urban space and how this technology

affects the users and the space. This dissertation describes one small urban open space in the down-town business district of Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A. and evaluates the present urban design features within the Plaza, mirroring William Whyte’s methodology, to observe, survey and report plaza-users mobile technol-ogy use within the urban space to determine whether the introduction of modern mobile technologies has isolated or influenced social interac-tions in these spaces.

1.2 why choose the study topic?Having a professional background in multimedia and graphics since 1996, the researcher has always had a keen interest in artistic conception, designing and presenting pleasing visual stimulants in private or public forums traditionally through brand identities, publications, marketing materials, photography or video. With the increase in mobile technol-ogy use in our society, the researcher had noticed a shift in the human mindset and behaviour.

The researcher first noticed this shift in human dynamics when sitting around a dinner table in a restau-rant in Coral Gables. The researcher noticed that she was the only person

not on the phone or texting at the table. This virtual personal commu-nication from dinner guest members connecting with people located in other, external spaces was a new phenomenon. Later, in 2004, the researcher went to a multimedia conference in Dallas, and noticed that even while the speakers were on stage disseminating key informa-tion, most of the audience were on their mobile technologies, texting, blogging or tweeting to a cyber com-munity. This new mobile experience of wi-fi internet use in the public realm contrasts with the traditional wired internet use from the home or workplace.

Understanding the use of mobile technologies in a small urban space is important to determine what physical features are still success-ful in encouraging convivial social behaviour within the space and what additional virtual and technologi-cal features should be considered to adjust to the needs of users now and in the future.

1.3 who was the influence for study?William Whyte in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980) studied the life of plaza’s in New York City, de-

Places should be able to accommodate change over time, create conti-nuity with the past and respond to new social, market or environmental

demands.CABE (2011)

Seven principles of good designAvailable from: http://webar-

chive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.

org.uk/councillors/principles [Accessed July 15 2012]


INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

7

1

termining through time-lapse video, observation, interviews and visual mapping how people used the pla-zas, what physical features of a plaza were beneficial to social interaction and the success of the plaza. Whyte determined that certain features and human activities provided appropri-ate shelter, entertainment and social engagement for plaza-users, and these greatly contributed to the suc-cess verses the failure of a plaza.

The plaza’s that Whyte studied were already designed and in use, with predetermined physical features, such as, fountains, bench seating, concrete ledges, street food ven-dors, etc. However, Whyte’s study took place during an era that did not include the use of modern mobile technologies, and therefore the researcher was interested in deter-mining how physical attributes and human social behaviours may have changed or not changed with the introduction of these technologies in small urban spaces.

The researcher chose to consider a methodology of research which included a combination of visual observation and mapping and inter-cept questionnaires to help ascertain the opinions of present plaza-users

understanding of physical, social and virtual features that are successful, detracting or are needed to encour-age social interactions. By determin-ing which physical features still, to this day, support and encourage social interactions within an urban space, then perhaps these physi-cal features could be incorporated in new urban space designs or the renovation of existing urban spaces to increase social dynamic interac-tions. Through visual observation and questionnaire distribution one can determine how plaza-users us-ing mobile technologies utilize the physical features identified, what additional features are important to them, how they interact socially and with the space in general.

1.4 location backgroundOutdoor activities in public spaces can be divided into three categories, each of which places very different demands on the physical environ-ment: necessary activities, optional activities, and social activities (Gehl, 1987). But, what attracts people most, it would appear, is other people (Whyte, 1980). n

What is new, and some-what unexpected, for example, has been the popularity of virtual spaces — chat rooms, virtual worlds, Twitter, Facebook, etc. — that some argue will sup-plant our need to meet and interact in traditional public space, and will eventually lead to new

forms of urbanism.Alessandro Aurigi (2005)

Making the Digital City: The Early Shap-ing of Urban Internet Space

p. 17-31

LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

8

2


2.1 IntroductionIn order to present an accurate and in-depth study, it is important to review existing literature to help understand, define, and review what a small urban space is. Whyte (1980, p.16) points out that urban plaza’s are predominantly used by young office workers from nearby build-ings and that the elemental point about good urban spaces is supply creates demand. Whyte (1980 p.16) continues to state that “a good new space builds a new constituency. It stimulates people into new habits—al fresco lunches—and provides new paths to and from work, new places to pause.” 2.2 what planning and design theories are available?There are varying policies and advice given in national, regional and local documents regarding policies on urban space. All seem to agree that good quality design and manage-ment of public spaces will contrib-ute to active usage of space and the health, wealth and vitality of the surrounding communities. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012 8.69 p.16) states that plan-ning systems play an important role in facilitating safe and accessible developments, containing clear and

It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all develop-ment, including indi-vidual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Achieving sustainable development7. 57 p.15

Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sys-

tem/.../2116950.pdf[Accessed June 8 2012]

Figure 1: The Place Diagram

legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encour-age the active and continual use of public areas.

It has been said that we must trans-form our parks, streets and squares

into attractive, vibrant places that help to create sustainable commu-nities (CABE 2004). There is further explanation that open space is now firmly part of statutory and commu-nity planning processes. Comprehen-sive planning policies for open space

SOURCE: pps.org. [online] http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/ [Accessed July 18, 2012].


LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

9

2

are fundamental to social inclusion, community cohesion, health and well-being (CABE 2009).

PPS has developed The Place Dia-gram that illustrates four key quali-ties that make a space successful and 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.

PPS also introduced The Power of 10 design theory, which suggests that every place should have at least 10 reasons to visit it. These could include a place to sit, playgrounds to enjoy, art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to meet. Whatever poli-cies and practices are available to the planners, designers and communi-ties, it is clear that urban space is a vital place for interaction. Ultimately, public spaces are about the people (Shaftoe 2008).

2.3 what is a small urban space?The traditional urban design can be regarded as the evolved state of urban form immediately prior to the

onset of large-scale industrialisation and urbanisation (Carmona et al 2010). Small urban spaces are usually lo-cated in cities, towns or villages and have urban areas within or around them. Small urban spaces can be considered parks, green spaces or other open land use. Generally, small urban spaces are open to the public, however some are semi-public, semi-private, or privately owned.

A public space only exists to the extent that it is controlled as a com-mons by agreement for all public to use. Semi-public space is defined as a private space which is accessible to the general public, for example, a shop or a Public House. Semi-private space is defined as a space that is access controlled and only acces-sible to residents and associated people only. If privately owned and managed, it is usually owned by surrounding higher education cam-puses, community parks, institutions or corporations. All these small urban spaces can provide an aesthetic and psychological relief from surround-ing urban development in today’s hectic world.

There are different types of typology of urban space. These can be broken

into traditional or innovative types of space (Francis 1986). Francis states that examples of traditional urban open spaces include public parks, neighborhood parks, playgrounds, pedestrian malls and plazas. Inno-vative urban open spaces can be unstructured spaces, such as traffic underpasses and streets, neigh-bourhood and community spaces, farmer’s markets and trails, vacant land and waterfronts.

2.4 what visual qualities make up a small urban space?The small urban space can be a positive or a negative space. An outdoor space is positive when it has a distinct and definite shape, and when its shape is as important as the shapes of the buildings which surround it. Positive urban space can be partially enclosed, with ease of accessibility where paths lead to and from surrounding areas and the space area which exists is convex. There are three main space-defining elements to an urban space; the walls, the floor and the ceiling (sky). These three factors provide a visitor to the space with a sense of enclo-sure, safety and comfort (Alexander et al 1977).

Placemaking capitalizes on a local community’s assets, inspiration, and potential, ultimately creating good public spaces that promote people’s health, happi-ness, and well being.

PPS, Project for Public Spaces (2011) What is Placemaking?

Available from: http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/

[Accessed July 17 2012]

LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

10

2


However sophisticated the simulations of cyberspace become, they are unlikely to be a total substitute for the buzz and unpredictability of real life being played out 360 degrees around you.

Henry Shaftoe (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces

Creating Effective Public Places.Chapter 2, p.11

London: Earthscan

2.5 why are small urban spaces important?Small urban spaces are important to provide an outlet for urban dwellers to escape to, meet, talk, sit, look, re-lax, play, stroll, flirt, eat, drink, smoke, people watch, read, soak in the sun and feel part of a broader whole. It is indicated that experiencing people, who speak and move about, offers a wealth of sensual variation. No moment is like the previous or the following when people circulate among people. The number of new situations and new stimuli is limitless (Gehl 1987).

2.6 how do we define success in terms of small urban spaces?The Project for Public Spaces (PPS, 2009) declares that great public spaces are where celebrations are held, social and economic exchanges take place, friends run into each other, and cultures mix. They are outdoor spaces that front the streets outside of corporations, institutions, libraries and educational facilities. PPS has identified four key qualities that make a public space successful; • accessible • active • comfortable • social

Public spaces are essentially dis-cretionary environments where people choose to go and use them when they could conceivably go elsewhere. Therefore visiting a small urban space is an individualistic, per-sonal choice. The success of an urban space is contingent on its popularity, which is measured by the number of users who visit the park, night or day. It’s success can be achieved through a multi-faceted approach of grass-roots outreach to tap local commu-nity assets, inspiration, and potential combined with excellent planning, design and management (Carmona et al, 2010). 2.7 why do we need successful small urban spaces?It has been said that good spaces are nutrients of urban life. They help keep our heart happy and are a vital ingredient in creating a community where there is tolerance and respect for each other, where the so-called “big society” happens naturally (Sarah Gaventa (2010) The Guardian).

Urban spaces and streets are where democratic voices talk and are heard debating, protesting, celebrating and commiserating. Urban space is important as a democratic platform and without such convivial space,

cities, towns and villages would be mere accretions of buildings with no purposeful opportunities for casual encounters and positive interac-tions between friends or strangers (Shaftoe 2008).

Research over the past decade focus-ing on previously neglected aspects of open space quality has provided recognition of the social, psychologi-cal, and economic benefits of urban open space (Francis 1986). There is a keen awareness that urban dwell-ers need open healthy space that is easily accessible in light of the in-creasing levels of obesity that result from inactive lifestyle. The Biophilia hypothesis, originally proposed by Edward O. Wilson in 1984, suggests that human beings have an innate and very strong link with the natural world, and that close contact with the latter reduces human stress, anxi-ety and aggression.

2.8 what physical features con-tribute to successful small urban spaces?It was determined that a crucial influ-ence on whether people will use or avoid urban public spaces is the de-gree to which they feel safe in them. Comfort and safety in open urban spaces are imperative to the success


LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

11

2

of the convivial space. Excellent de-sign and management promote pop-ularity and therefore increased visita-tion and more “eyes on the street” deflecting crime, bad social behav-iour and misconduct (Shaftoe 2008). Whyte observed during his study of New York parks and plazas, that flex-ible seating space was important to allow visitors personal options. It is also important that an urban open space has balanced protection from the natural elements (wind, rain, sun, snow) whether through natural enclosure (tree canopies, shrubbery, overhangs or roofs) or through built enclosure (three-sided open spaces surrounded by buildings). Accessible water features provide open space users with touchable, splashable and audible entertainment. Water provides all sensory stimulation and acts as a white noise within an open space allowing for a sense of privacy during intimate conversations. Food vendors around an urban open space, by default, have become the caterers of the city’s outdoor life where eating, schmoozing or just standing becomes an active triangu-lation node (a stimulus that prompts strangers to talk which can be a physical object or a visual sighting)–a cluster point. Street performers and public artwork also fall into the

triangulation node category, allow-ing people to stop, watch, appreciate and acknowledge either individually or with groups. Whyte reported that in observing the social effects within an urban open space, we can find how they can be anticipated and planned (Whyte 1980).

2.9 what social behaviours con-tribute to successful small urban spaces?Whyte (1980) stated that the rela-tionship to the street is integral, and it is far and away the critical design factor to an active and social urban space. He continued to say that a good plaza starts at the street corner. If it’s a busy corner, it has a brisk social life of its own. Sight lines and visibility for the onlooker and space user are essential to provide a sense of comfort and security, personal empowerment and connectivity with the social aspect of the site. Whyte discusses the importance of triangulation, specifying that street characters make a city more amiable. These street characters, whether public art, entertainment performers or natural performers, provide some external stimulus that links people together and encourages social interactions between them. The fluc-tuation of street activity surround-

ing an open urban space, the office buildings, retail, residential and just plain doorways that are open at all hours of the day and night, keep the active streetscape and urban space alive. Gehl (1987) talks about three modes, yet fairly broad requirements of public spaces that include space for; necessary outdoor activities, optional recreational activities and social activities.

2.10 what defines virtual technol-ogy in small urban spaces?Hampton (2010 p.701) suggests that “virtual technology in small urban spaces means internet access in pub-lic parks, plazas, markets, and street which has been made possible by the proliferation of broadband wire-less internet in the form of municipal and community wi-fi and advanced mobile phone networks. This access to virtual accessibility is a method of communication with other geo-graphically located social commu-nities. Where as before, wi-fi was restricted to one’s personal realm or professional environment, now this personal wi-fi connectivity is available in the public realm.” Hampton goes on to state that to-day’s internet access in public spaces may reshape the public realm. This may change the focus of urban

To begin with, it is self evident that to be in the presence of other human beings is reas-suring! Perceiving their presence - through look-ing, hearing and touch-ing - enables each of us to experience ourselves as less alone.

Lennard, H. L. & Crowhurst Lennard, S. H. (1984)

Public Life in Urban PlacesChapter 1, p.5

London: Gondolier Press

LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

12

2


design in urban spaces to allow more wi-fi communication to provide plaza-users with the comfort and accessibility that is expected today (Hampton 2010).

2.11 what virtual features con-tribute to successful small urban spaces?In The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces, Hampton (2010 p.704) indi-cates that while there is an extensive literature in sociology and urban planning on the role of benches, wa-ter, trees, security, vendors, and other infrastructure for social life of urban spaces, little attention has been paid to the role of media. While Whyte was a pioneer in physical features creating human behaviours and social interactions that contribute to a successful small urban space, his studies pre-date mobile technolo-gies of today. However sophisticated

the simulations of cyberspace be-come, they are unlikely to be a total substitute for the buzz and unpre-dictability of real life being played out 360 degrees around you (Shaftoe 2008). Contemporary public space is increasingly constructed through the articulation of physical and elec-tronic spaces (McQuire et al, 2008). Urban public spaces are increasingly a place for the use of mobile phones, portable video games, and most recently devices that can connect to wireless internet (Hampton 2010). There is no doubt that virtual fea-tures play an integral role in lifestyles today. With the fast evolution of vir-tual mobile communications, urban designers will need to be cognizant of virtual features required within urban spaces in the future.

Direct meetings in public spaces can now be replaced by indirect

Figure 2: Mobile technology use in an urban space, Geneva, Switzerland.

SOURCE: Ailsa Long, March 2012

Smart Phone use. Laptop and iPod use.

telecommunication. Active pres-ence, participation, and experience can now be superseded by passive picture watching, seeing what others have experienced elsewhere (Gehl 1987). During the recent Spatial Vibrations Symposium in Spain (2011), Professor Dr. Joan Busquets discussed that many European cities as well as other countries have a new type of public space emerging that is trying to reconsider some of the values of traditional space. But Busquets specifies that it should also incorporate the ambitions of the 21st century. Busquets believe that by creating value into the public space, you change the value of the whole city.

2.12 how do technologies change people and their social relations?Traditionally, communities were formed in a geographical area, with-in a locality, so neighbours were able to meet, greet and share news. This enabled them to create a common identity (Clark 2007). However, with today’s highly mobile lifestyles, it has become harder for connectivity with surrounding communities as people relocate more often and commute from/to work. The modern mobile technologies allow people to join virtual communities (i.e. online social

Through the mass media we are informed about the larger, more sensational world events, but by being with others we learn more about the com-mon but equally impor-

tant details.Gehl, J. (1987)

Life Between BuildingsUsing Public Space.

Chapter 1, p.22 New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.


LITE

RAT

UR

E R

EVIE

W

13

2

networks) that provide one way to connect distributed members, but their “hiding-behind-a-screen” access model might not be enough to stir up the feeling of belonging (Neman-ja et al, 2011, pg. 3).

It is believed that the effects of new technologies are not direct, but negotiated through people’s con-struction and use of them. Over time, these interactions create a whole new landscape (Humphreys 2005). Man paradoxically uses communica-tion technologies to build societies that do not communicate in the distance but that build a distance in communication (Casalegno 2004). He continues to emphasise that through the interactions taking place in cyberspace, we face the creation of several communities: The Internet, a matrix for new human relation-ships, allows the encounter—virtual and/or real—between people who share some affinities.

Hampton (2010 p.711) notes in The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces that internet users are relatively detached from their physical set-ting, but they represent yet another diverse activity for others to observe within public spaces. This could indicate that the mobile media users

within the urban space are now the cause of the triangulation effect, where the users become the ob-served. As William H. Whyte (1980) pointed out in The Social LIfe of Small Urban Spaces, what attracts people most is other people.

Being detached from your surround-ings but being connected to your cyber community may provide just the right incentive for urban design-ers in the future to focus their atten-tions on the importance of “good” urban space design that promotes, provides for and encourages good social and virtual interactions be-tween present space and virtual space users.

2.13 summaryIn review, an urban space is defined by the surrounding built form and the spaces between. The three space-defining elements of an urban space are the walls, the floor and the sky. These three factors provide a visitor to the space with a sense of enclosure, safety and comfort. A small urban space can be an impor-tant space for activities, democratic discussions and social interactions. Physical features (i.e. seating, food, shelter and accessibility) , social

features (e.g. sight lines, visibility, planned or not planned entertain-ment) and nowadays, virtual features (modern mobile technology access) are key to the success of a small urban space. In order to determine how to maintain small urban space social dynamics moving forward, it is important to observe, question and evaluate behaviours within the space, compare them with Whyte’s previous findings from his study of a predetermined plaza environ-ment, and from this, determine what features are necessary to encourage social interactions in an era of mod-ern mobile technologies. n

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

14

3


3.1 IntroductionThis mixed-method empirical ex-ploratory research has three specific objectives, with a final aim to under-stand the relationship between phys-ical features, social interactions and how new mobile technologies influ-ence or effect social dynamics within a small urban space. The purpose of this research was to determine the physical features within predesigned plaza’s, once identified by William H. Whyte (1980) that to this day, are important features to encourage use, participation and social interaction within a small urban space. The fol-lowing are physical features that Wil-liam Whyte uncovered as essential for a successful plaza; sitting space, shelter, food, and proximity to the street. Whyte investigated additional social aspects of a successful plaza pointing out the necessity of triangu-lation, capacity of the plaza and the need for a variety of plaza-users. The second focus of this research was to determine how, if any, changes exist with social dynamics within a small urban space due to the use of modern mobile technologies. The third focus of this research was to see what physical features combined with virtual features are needed within an urban space for user com-fort, satisfaction and social interac-

tion. This study consequently makes an important contribution through the collection and analysis of empiri-cal data on the relationship between physical, social and virtual features of a small urban space.

This chapter explains and justifies the research strategy adopted; the selection of data collection meth-ods, sample selection and the data analysis completed. Any concerns of reliability, valididy and viability are also addressed.

In order to define the focus and explore the issues highlighted by the literature review, a 5-stage approach was developed for this study:

Stage 1: Literature review: This consisted of reviewing the most relevant and up-to-date literature on small urban spaces and mobile technology.

Stage 2: Defining and refining the focus: This included reviewing the findings of the literature review, identifying im-portant areas that would be useful to include in the observational research and questionnaire development.

Stage 3: Site selection: Determining and choosing an existing small urban space in which to study the issues identified in Stage 1 and 2.

Stage 4: Data collection: This included taking panoramic photographs over a five work-day period, still photography of virtual mobile technology useage within the plaza, visual mapping techniques to determine placement, movement and activities and finally, conducting a one-on-one ques-tionnaire within the plaza with 60 participants.

Stage 5: Analysis: This stage consisted of reviewing panoramic photographs, in-depth analysis of the visual maps and compiling data from the ques-tionnaires, using Microsoft Excel for chart development and Adobe Illustrator for maps and illustration production. Enabling the Research Questions to be answered and form the conclusion of the report.

The literature review identified a significant lack of research into modern mobile technology within small urban spaces and it’s effect on social behaviour within these spaces.

1. James Center Property1051 E Cary St Ste 610, Richmond, VA232190.00mi (804) 225-8197

Maps

SOURCE: Bing.com

SOURCE: Bing.com

Figure 4: Map indicating James Center II Plaza located in Richmond, Virginia on the east coast of the United States.

Figure 3: Map indicating Richmond, Virginia on the east coast of the United States.


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

15

3

In addition, none of these studies did comparisons on previous physical attributes within urban spaces that contributed to social interactions, and how these attributes are used in today’s environment where modern mobile technologies are prevelant.

3.2 scope of the studyDue to the time and resource con-straints of the study, it is confined to an analysis of one urban semi-public plaza in Richmond, Virginia, United States. This is a case study. A signifi-cant amount of data was collected and analysed, from which conclu-sions are drawn in later sections.

The aim of this study has been to observe, survey, measure, evalu-ate and assess how the increase in virtual mobile technology useage has shifted/not shifted the dynamics and social interactions of small urban public spaces. This study, following in the footsteps of William Whyte’s ini-tial small urban space study from the late 1970s of physical features that were considered essential and social behaviours that naturally occured for a plaza’s success, determined which physical features and social plaza activities remain important today, and what additional virtual features are/or are not required.

3.3 Mixed methodThis research is considered a mixed method approach. The concept of using a variety of mixed methods quite probably originiated in 1959, when Campbell and Fiske used multiple methods to study validity of psychological traits.This includes collecting data using mixed methods that included observations and in-terviews (qualitative data) combined with traditional quantiative data.

Brewer (1989 p.21) states that by enlarging the scope of research to which it is applied, the multimethod perspective holds out the larger promises of more sociologically significant conclusions and greater opportunities for both verification and discovery.

In this study, a concurrent mixed method procedure was facilitated that converged quantitative and qualitative data in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem. “In this design, the investigator collects both forms of data at the same time during the study and then integrates the infor-mation in the interpretation of the overall results.” (Creswell 2009 p. 82)

3.4 Quantitative designAccording to Neuman (1997 p.106) the language of quantitative re-search is a language of variables, hypotheses, units of analysis, as well as casual explanations. It is considered a positivist approach to research. Neuman continues to ascertain that quantitative research design uses a deductive logic: one that starts with a general topic, then narrows down to research questions and hypotheses and finally, tests the hypotheses against empirical evi-dence. While this study does incor-porate some quantitative data pulled from the questionnaire analysis, the design is considered predominantly qualitative due to the small study and questionnaire participation.

3.5 Qualitative designQualitative and quantitative styles of research differ in many ways, but in others they are complementary. When the data is collected in the form of written paragraphs rather than numbers, different research techniques and strategiies are put into place. Neuman (1997 p.327) indicates that qualitative research adopts assumptions about social life, objectives for research, and ways to deal with data that are often at odds with a quantitative approach. Patton SOURCE: http://thejamescenter.com/index1.html

Figure 6: Historic image of Canals and exca-vation of James Center II Plaza.

SOURCE: http://article-new-ehow-images-a07-jb-dl-hotels-west-richmond-virginia-1.1-800x800

Figure 5: View of downtown Richmond, Virginia.

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

16

3


(1990, p. 14) specifies that qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed information about a much smaller number of people and cases. He also states that a qualitative design needs to remain sufficiently open and flexible to permit explora-tion of whatever the phenomenon under study offers for inquiry.Qualitative designs continue to be emergent even after data collection begins (p.196). This tends to increase the understanding of the case stud-ied, however it can reduce the ability to generalize.

This study focuses on qualitative data documented through events, recording people’s opinions and ex-periences (with words, gestures and tone), observing specific behaviours, studying questionnaires and examin-ing visual images.

3.6 case study designThere have been many definitiions given for case study research; Yin (1994 Chapter 1, p.8) clarifies that case studies are the preferred strat-egy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed, when the investiga-tor has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. The case study’s unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence —documents, artifacts, interviews, and observa-tions (Yin, 1994).

This case study design , as a research strategy comprises an all encompas-ing method —data collection and data analysis. This study includes documentation and archival records, interviews and direct observation to draw analysis from.

strategy Form of research question

control over be-havioural events?

Fo-cuses on contem-porary events?

Survey who, what, where, how many, how much

no yes

Case study

how, why no yes

3.7 theory of designThe components of this research design contain the study’s question, study’s proposition, unit of analysis, data analysis and conclusions.

The case study will show how the use of modern mobile technologies has affected or not affected the social dynamics within a small urban space. Us-

Figure 9: Series of Architectural renderings of James Center II Plaza.

SOURCE: Courtesy of M. Paul Friedberg & Partners.

SOURCE: http://thejamescenter.com/index1.html

Figure 8: View of James Center II Plaza.

SOURCE: Courtesy of M. Paul Friedberg & Partners.

Figure 7: Architectural models of James Center II Plaza.


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

17

3

ing this knowledge, what con-siderations do Urban designers need to incorporate when designing or redesinging small urban spaces for public use.

3.8 site historyThe James Center II Plaza is located in downtown Richmond, the capital of the commonwealth of Virginia in-land on the east coast of the United States. The city of Richmond was founded in 1737 and to date has an estimated population of 204,2141. Richmond is the center of the Rich-mond Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Richmond Metropolitan Area has an estimated population of 1,269,380.

Geographically, Richmond is located at the fall line of the James River, 108 miles south of Washington DC. It is surrounded by the counties of Hen-

rico and Chesterfield and is servicedby Interstates 95 and 64 and en-circled by Interstate 295 and the Virginia State Route 288. Prior to the formation of the city, the Powhatan and Shocquohocan Native American tribes had lived and culti-vated the land. The city of Richmond was settled by English colonists from Jamestown in 1609, and offi-cially founded in 1737. Richmond is steeped in Revolutionary War history, with many early presidents origi-nating from the area. In 1782, after being burned down by British troops during the Revolutionary War, Rich-mond was rebuilt and became one of the largest manufacturing centres in the country with iron works, flour mills, tobacco facilities along with the slave trade.

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. [Accessed 16 July 2012]

James Center II Original Canal Stones Original Canal Stones Boatman’s Tower Food CartFigure 11: Aerial view of James Center II Plaza.

Figure 10: Illustration of James Center II Plaza, camera placement for panormaic shots.

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

18

3


Today, Richmond’s downtown economy is made up of law, finance, state and federal government. Between 1963 and 1965, there was a “downtown boom” that led to the construction of 700 buildings in the city with a lean towards architec-tural classicism. An example of this would be The Virginia State Capitol designed by Thomas Jefferson and Charles-Louis Clérisseau in 1785.

The James Center II Plaza in down-town Richmond was selected for the study as it has a rich history and is a vibrant transient small urban plaza in the central business district. The Plaza is located at 10th and Cary Street and most of what is now the James Center was occupied by the great Turning Basin of the James River and Kanawha Canal.

The Turning Basin of the James River and Kanawha Canal was a huge man-made body of water that was three blocks long, from what is now 8th Street to 11th Street and one block wide, from just inside Cary Street to Canal Street. The Canal and Basin were the transportation focus of the city, and clustered near the edge of these features were tobacco ware-houses, flour mills and iron works. The Turning Basin served as a termi-

nal for canal barges to unload, turn around and prepare for their return trips. The main imports were English woolens, French perfumes, Brazilian coffee, and East Indian spices with the export business primarily made up of tobacco, cotton, flour and coal.

In 1985, the developers of the 2.5 million square foot James Center, began to design and build the larg-est mixed-use project to date that would be submerged in the history of Colonial and Civil War Richmond. During the excavation of the site, remains of 63 canal boats that had been abandoned more than 200 years ago were unearthed. During the development, the focus was on the design of the streetscape to reflect the history of the city and to bring a modern twist to the space. The surrounding buildings were built to provide drama to the city’s skyline with triangular notches, rounded corners, odd angles and reflective glass providing a sharp contrast to the square and rectangular block buildings surrounding the James Center.

Purposefully, the buildings were set back from the street with interweav-ing pathways and seasonal plantings and trees. The original Kanawha

Figure 12: Illustration of James Center II Plaza, camera placement for panormaic shots.

James center II Plaza, richmond, vA

opened May, 1987 typology Part-enclosed, Hard and soft surfaces, square

type Pedestrian way Predominant surface

Concrete, Inlaid stone

height of buildings 21 storeys no of accesses 3, from street level

Major Axis North-East location Downtown Rich-mond, Virginia

Active frontages None


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

19

3

Canal stones were inlaid into the landscaping as seating and retaining walls and represent the original canal lock outlines when viewed from above.

The plaza’s central vista is the 45-foot limestone tower housing a 25-bell carillon and cast figures of bargemen and mules that rotates on the half hour to the tune of changing melo-dies crafted by Koninkiijke Eijsbouts, from the Netherlands. This tower was designed as a tribute to the canal life of 1785-1879.

3.9 site selectionThe researcher chose the study site of James Center II Plaza because the researcher frequented the plaza dur-ing lunchtimes when she worked in downtown Richmond and found the small urban space easily accessible and convivial.

The researcher briefly considered a selection of sites in Richmond, Virgin-

ia, including: Kanawha Plaza, Monroe Park Plaza and James Center II Plaza.

The two plaza’s, also located in the central business district of down-town Richmond, that were consid-ered, were not selected because they had little foot traffic, few visitors and were poorly maintained. The Kanawha Plaza (see figure 15), a public city park and plaza, house a few homeless people and some visit-ing skateboarders (see figure 14), but was primarily an unused and barren park and plaza. The Kanawha Plaza is located in the center of four 3-lane major roadways that weave through the downtown Richmond area. This plaza is primarily used by thorough-fare foot traffic and is poorly main-tained by the City of Richmond. The water feature rarely runs and the surrounding noise barrier cement walls create the feeling of isolation and danger.

The other plaza has no known name or identity (see figure 16) and it is located in front of an enclosed parking garage. This plaza is poorly maintained. It is primarily used as a thoroughfare by local business foot traffic. The stone work along the plaza is damaged and broken, and the pathways are weed-infested with broken brick paving.

Both small urban plaza’s are located within a one mile radius of the James Center II Plaza. However, James Cen-ter II Plaza was chosen as the selcted site on the grounds that:

1. It is a small urban plaza, cen-trally located in the heart of downtown metropolitan Rich-mond city.

2. It has a varied group of people, doing a variety of things, that represent a metropolitan cen-tral business district.

3. It has constant foot traffic and visitors passing through it dur-

PHOTOGRAPHY: Ailsa Long.

Figure 15: Panoramic photograph of Kanawa Plaza




Figure 16: Parking Garage Plaza, two streets away from James Center II Plaza.

Figure 14: Skateboarders on Kanawa Plaza broken fountain feature.

Figure 13: Kanawa Park and Plaza.

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

20

3


ing the weekdays.4. There is easy access to street

food vendors, and inside the James Center II there is access to restaurants, banking, hotel, restaurant and sports facilities.

5. It is well maintained and has behind-the-scenes security patrols providing a sense of safety.

The James Center II Plaza in down-town Richmond, Virginia was se-lected as the small urban area for the subjective qualitative single-case study. It is officially considered a private plaza managed by JEMB Realty, which is responsible for the management of the surrounding commercial buildings, James Center 1, 2 and 3. However, the plaza itself is unofficially a semi-public plaza which

is open, easily accessible and has a high frequency of use by the general public and tenants.

The small urban space has a large number of local working profession-als from diverse occupations as well as frequent visitors and a selection of local downtown residents. James Center II Plaza also is used for a variety of different functions, particu-larily during the lunch hour, by local employees, visitors and residents alike. There are seasonal events that are held in the plaza, from lunchtime zumba classes in the spring and local jazz music during the summer, to the switching on of the downtown Christmas lights during the holiday season. The pedestrian desire lines lead plaza-users into and out of the James Center II building towards

East Cary Street, 10th Street or down towards Shockoe Bottom further east.

3.10 research questionsIn order to access the relationships between physical, social and virtual features within an urban small space, the following Research Questions were addressed:

1. Are Whyte’s previously ob-served successful physical and behavioural features of a small urban space still relevant today for social interaction?

2. Is there a change in social dynamics within a small urban space due to the increase use of modern mobile technolo-gies?

3. Are physical features combined with virtual features needed within an urban space for user comfort, satisfaction and social interaction?

3.11 MethodologyThis section describes the methods used in data collection and analy-sis but also addresses alternative methods considered and why the preferred method was chosen.

Data Recorded• Timeanddateofobservation• Physicalcharacteristicsofsite• Socialcharacteristicsofsite• Humanbehaviourwithinsite• Moderntechnologicaluses

within site

Figure 17: East to west view of James Center II Plaza.

Figure 18: South view of James Center II Plaza.

Figure 19: Northwest view of James Center II Plaza.

Figure 20: East view of of James Center II Plaza.


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

21

3

3.12 EquipmentOfficial background research:• Preapprovedpermissions

sheet• PrintedobservationsheetFor plaza observation:• Pre-printedvisualmaps• Pre-printedquestionnaires• Pens• ClipboardsFor timing observation:• SmartphoneandwatchFor photographing plaza activities:• TriPod• NikonDS300cameraandlensFor personal comfort:• Water• Snacks• Notebookandpens• Rucksack

3.13 Data analysis softwareMicrosoft Excel was used to analyse the numerical data drawn from the questionnaire. Adobe Photoshop was used to create panoramic shots of the plaza and activities within the plaza. Adobe Illustrator was used to create summary visual maps of plaza placement and activities, and InDesign was used to develop the document.

3.14 Pilot studiesA pilot study was carried out to ensure that the questionnaire was practicable and there was a solid balance of different parts of the study. This pilot study was sent electronically to a select group of six workers in the downtown Richmond business district, who worked close to the James Center II Plaza. These were people who worked in the financial and advertising industries. This preliminary test determined if the order and questions made sense to the audience. Although there was an inclination to include qualitative and quantative research questions, the need for statistical significance was curbed for the more qualitative aspects of the study. Due to time and resource limitations, one site study was appropriate to achieve significant qualititative results.

3.15 observational surveyThis subjective, qualitative, single case study incorporates a mixed-method approach. Using non-par-ticipant/naturalistic observational survey measurements is a “means to gather information about behav-iours of interest, but with the goal that your presence does not alter the behaviour you are observing” (Devlin 2006 p.52). Observational

measurements permit the evalu-ation researcher to understand a program or treatment to an extent not entirely possible using only the insights of others obtained through interviews (Patton 1990 p.23). Empir-ical research was conducted to avoid plaza-users being aware that they were being studied, which assisted in collecting images reflective of ev-ery-day plaza life. Observations and surveys were conducted at James Center II Plaza site over several week work days. In return for participat-ing in the questionnaire survey, participants, who chose to enter a drawing, could win a $25 Starbucks gift certificate. Eighty-eight percent of those contacted agreed to partici-pate in both the questionnaire and enter the Starbucks gift certificate drawing, yielding 61 completed questionnaire surveys.

3.15.1 Survey MethodThe type of research is defined as a ‘longitudinal survey’, in which differ-ent groups of plaza users are sur-veyed at different points in time. The panoramic photographs were shot by a volunteer research assistant and were taken from two specific angles at the plaza (see figure 10), using a tripod and ground markings to ensure consistency and accuracy

We are in an age of sweeping change. Communities engaged in Placemak-ing benefit from the ac-celeration that authentic community-centered digital methods can

enable.Latorre, D. (2011)

Digital Placemaking – Authentic Civic Engagement

VP of Digital Placemaking, Available from: www.pps.org/blog/

digital-placemaking-authentic-civic-engagement/

[Accessed 11 August 2012]

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

22

3


of shots. However, marks could move due to weather, pedestrian foot traffic or other factors.

3.15.2 Initial Time FrameThe research was gathered over a five working day (non-consecutive) period. The first week observations and questionnaires were distributed and collected on Monday, Wednes-day and Friday, and the second week on Tuesday and Thursday. The research was gathered during a 2 1/2 hour time frame , with photo-graphs taken every fifteen minutes (11:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.) during the business lunch period. William Whyte (1980 p.18) states that “around noon, the main clientele begins to arrive. Soon, activity will be near peak and will stay there until a little before 2:00 p.m.” This was indeed the case at the James Center II Plaza.

The research days were organized this way to avoid a non-typical run of activity or inclement weather chang-es and also to prevent any potential influencing of behaviour due to the researcher’s visible presence within the plaza. The research time frames were determined having conducted preliminary observation and noting that the largest volume occupancy of the plaza was during the lunch hours

between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Be-fore and after work-hour plaza activ-ity was virtually non-existent during weekdays and also at weekends.

3.15.3 Additional SurveysWith the availability of additional resources and extended time frames, more surveys could be completed using the same criteria but spanning seasons to incorporate accurate data on plaza usage and physical, social and virtual features needed through-out the year.

3.16 QuestionnaireA questionnaire was conducted in tandem with the observational survey. This mixed method approach to real-life questions is important, be-cause it allows triangulation of data; and if the results of different meth-ods coverage (agree, or fit together), then we can have greater confidence in the findings (Gillham, 2007 p.28). The questionnaire itself contains a combination of open and close-ended questions that were used for content and statistical analysis. These questions focus on physical and virtual features of an urban space and the plaza-user experience of the space.

3.15.1 DistributionDue to resource and time constraints, the questionnaire was conducted using convenience purposeful sampling. The key question for the researcher is: are the people in this sample similar to those in the target group? (Gillham 2008 p.18) About 10 questionnaires were distributed electronically to local working pro-fessionals and the remainding 52 were distributed one-on-one during intercept on-site interviews to busi-ness professionals, near-by residents and visitors of the plaza. In total 61 questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher, with only five plaza-users requesting to abstain from the questionnaire due to their infrequent plaza usage or not having enough time during their lunch time break.

3.17 Plaza-user behavioural observationsWhen the researcher was conduct-ing the observational survey, general plaza-user behavioural observations were made and visually mapped ac-cordingly. Plaza users were observed during the research time frame, their placement, their movement and in-teractions and their technology use-age within the plaza. This observa-tion determined patterns of certain

Figure 21: Examples of mobile technology use in James Center II Plaza, Richmond, Virginia.

Smart Phone use

Tablet use

E-reader use


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

23

3

physical, social and virtual features that plaza-users gravitated towards.

3.18 Justification of methodsIn 1980, William Whyte used time-lapse video cameras during his observation of public spaces. While this produced great insight into human behaviours, physical plaza attributes and provided interesting results, there are questions regarding the practical and ethical consider-ations when using videography. The presence of video equipment in a space could, in fact, alter the regular behaviour that occurs within that space. Videography can be perceived as secretive whereas photography is considered more visible and “in full” view. The researcher determined that timed panoramic photography would yield the best visual results without jeopardising the anonymity of the plaza-users. Also, Whyte had a team of researchers to assist with his research that spanned several years, whereas this research project had limited resources and a restricted time frame. One main disadvantage of observation methodology is that the presence of the observer can affect the situation that is under observation.

With more time to conduct research, more evidence-based research would have been collected. Due to time constraints and limited resourc-es, five days was considered a valid study period. The study days were not concurrent and spread out over a two week period to take into consid-eration exogeneous events, such as climatic, social and political changes. Ideally, an assessment of the plaza over different seasons would provide a better understanding of the extent mobile technologies play with social dynamics within the plaza and what physical features are still required for these virtual experiences through the varying seasons. The researcher was required to fit within the time restrictions, so this was unavoidable. The conclusions have taken this into account.

3.19 Analytical reviewAn analytical review was presented for each panoramic photographic ‘still’ taken. This review was con-ducted to determine the number of plaza-users using mobile tech-nologies, their placement within the plaza and any social behaviours and cluster patterns that evolved from observation. This information was then collated and presented through written and visual representations to

address the research question. Illustrated plans were drawn (see figure 34) to show different social phenomena including, gender placement, cluster patterns, mobile technology use, and plaza usage in relation to features within the space.

Ideally, triangulation methodology would be the best method for this study, however with limited budget and short time frame constraints affected the amount of triangula-tion that was practical. Certainly, one important strategy for conducting evaluation research was to employ multiple methods, measures, re-searchers, and perspectives–but to do so reasonably and practically. (Patton, M. Q. 1990 Qualitative Evalu-ation and Research Methods 2nd ed. p.187)

The primary analysis was done dur-ing the lunch time period, from 11:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. at the James Center II Plaza to understand the plaza usage and movement during this active time of day. This analysis was conducted to concentrate on the use of the public space, move-ment, location, cluster development, mobile technology useage and social interactions. Using mapping and area illustrative maps, the analaysis

Figure 22: Examples of mobile technology use in James Center II Plaza, Richmond, Virginia.

Smart Phone use

Laptop and iPod use

E-reader use

MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

24

3


focused on certain areas, character-istics and use within those areas. In-formal people observations and data averaged out across all days studied to compile single graphs or where comparative data did not exist they were drawn up for each day of as-sessment. This demonstrated which areas were frequently used and at which times and for what activities.

3.20 Justification of analytical reviewPhotographic documentation and observing plaza-users, movement/locations and activities, were consid-ered a logical and practical way to analyse the data. Plans and illustra-tions used to address the research question were appropriate to visu-ally document spatial patterns and phenomena. A more quantitative method of plaza-user count charts and tables would have produced a less visually expressive result. The panoramic photographs of the site and the commentary provides more detailed and insightful evidence to back up assertions made.

3.21 PermissionsThe main obstacle that the research-er had to overcome was getting approval and permissions from Anne Pauley, Management Agent of JEMB

Realty for James Center II Plaza. This included email communications be-tween the Agent and the head office of JEMB Realty in New York. This pro-cess took approximately two months to complete, and then, the research-er was required to sign a “Hold Harm-less Agreement.” At which point, dates for the observational survey at the plaza were agreed upon and the research was approved to move ahead. Security guards at James Center II Plaza were informed and on each day of observation and photog-raphy, the researcher and volunteer photographer would checked in with the Chief of Security on site.

3.22 weaknessesAs the paper only studied one site, there is the issue of subjectivity of site selection. However, the purpose was to consider the extent of plaza usage, movement, location, cluster development, mobile technology useage and social interactions in a downtown urban plaza.

In order to create a more in depth report, the plaza could have been observed over a 12 month period through the various seasons to distinguish patterns in usage and ac-tivities within the plaza from Spring to Winter. However, due to time and

resource limitations, this was not feasible at this time. Further studies could yield a clearer understanding of plaza usage, movement, location, cluster development, mobile tech-nology useage and social interac-tions in a downtown urban plaza.

The plaza, on previous non-planned observation by the researcher, was not used during the weekday eve-nings or at weekends. This plaza is strictly a weekday business plaza. Due to time and resources, the observation was restricted from 11:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. during the work week lunch hour. If a plaza had been chosen for the study that had constant 24-hour usage, and was observed during 24-hour cycles, the results analysed could have been significantly different.

Another limitation of the study concerns the inability to have flexible physical attribute arrangements. This plaza, similar to the plaza’s that Wil-liam Whyte studied in New York, had established physical features with no flexibility for change. This inability to make subtle changes to the physical environment to determine certain human behaviours hindered the op-portunity to see varied results.

Another potentially significant limitation was that some leading edge modern mobile technologies were absent from the plaza. This, of course, raises the possibility that the plaza-users for whom modern mobile technologies are important may forego this site in favour of another plaza where those features are present. In this instance, the need for these kinds of features would not have necessarily been identified with the plaza-users that were surveyed. As a result, the lack of interest in these needs of modern technological features could well be understated and underrepresented.

3.23 Ethical challengesIt was important, during the research observation, that the research should be designed, reviewed and under-taken to ensure integrity and quality. Therefore the following measures were undertaken to ensure that:• Alltheresearchassistantsand

participants were informed fully about the purpose, meth-ods and intended possible use of the research and what their input entailed and involved.

• Anyharmtoparticipantswasavoided at all costs. No physi-cal contact was made with the participants and no psycho-


MET

HO

DO

LOG

Y

25

3

logical damage was incurred by the research conducted.

• Theconfidentialityandanonimity of the individuals remained secure during the plaza being photographed and during on-site question-naire distribution to plaza tenants and visitors alike.

• Thecoreprincipleofethicalcodes were conducted — that of informed consent.

• Duringthephotographses-sions signage was placed strategically next to the photographic equipment to clarified the purpose of the research and stating that any-one wishing to be removed from photographs would be removed, upon request.

• Thequestionnaireitselfwasdistributed voluntarily and explained, in the one-on-one intercept interviews, that re-sponses would be confidential and no personal information would be released or sold.

• Participantscouldchoosetowithdraw at any time and this was explained to them by the researcher either verbally or in writing.

• Peoplewhomtheresearcherunderstood to be vulnerable

plaza-users were not targeted for research involvement, for example, children under 18 and disabled and therefore were not approached.

• Anincentiveofa$25(equiva-lent to £15) Starbucks gift certificate, should the partici-pant choose to be included in the free drawing, was avail-able upon completion of the questionnaire and ONLY if the participant felt comfortable providing their name and email address for the drawing entry.

• Allimageswerestoredelectronically and all ques-tionnaires were stored in a safe and secure environment, electronically protected by passwords to be destroyed at a later date.

• Allresearchmethodscon-ducted would not lead to unethical behaviour in others. Only standard approaches to research were undertaken involving professional people and the general public.

3.24 summaryIn review, the approach taken by the researcher was to design a methodology that was an empirical

mixed-method with primary focus on qualitative research using one case study. This approach incorpo-rated on-site questionnaires, obser-vational surveys as well as photo-graphic documentation to collect significant data for a well-rounded analysis on the plaza space, physi-cal attributes, activities and plaza-users experiences at James Center II Plaza. This analysis will assist in evaluating, in an already predeter-mined environment, what physical features and human behaviours remain consistent today, and how mobile technologies may/may not have affected behaviours within the small urban space. n

It’s a story about how we will communication and use technology in the future.

Corning Incorporated (2012)A Day Made of Glass 2 HD

Available from: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0

[Accessed 21 August 2012]

FIN

DIN

GS

26

4


Figure 23: Illustration of James Center II Plaza, downtown Richmond.

4.1 IntroductionThe researcher was tasked with studying a small urban space, and evaluating the physical features that encourage and foster comfort, safety, play and social dynamics as well as accommodating for individual ano-nymity. The researcher observed, sur-veyed and reported plaza-users wi-fi mobile technology use within the urban space to determine whether

the introduction of mobile technolo-gies has isolated or influenced social interactions in these spaces.

4.1.1 Observational surveyThe observational survey conducted included a series of “time-lapse” photographs taken at fifteen min-ute intervals between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. during the business lunch hour shot from the peripheral region of the downtown plaza (see figure 10). Each half hour time frame is analytically described for each survey day. The objective was to evaluate the plaza features, flow and movement, usage and to investigate the frequency of mobile technology useage within the plaza.

4.1.2 QuestionnaireThe on-site questionnaire was completed during the five day ob-servational survey time frame. These intercept on-site questionnaires were distributed to plaza-users by the researcher in person during the on-site observational survey, and some were distributed electronically. The objective of the questionnaire was to collect feedback from plaza-users on their plaza experience, preferred usage and placement, as well as their mobile technology preferences within the plaza.

4.1.3 Plaza-user behavioural observationsThe Plaza-user behavioural observa-tions were made using visual map-ping techniques that were con-ducted by both the researcher or assistant and also visual mapping within the questionnaire completed by the respondents. The researcher observed plaza-users movement, placement and activities within the plaza. This helped assertain the pre-ferred placement of plaza-users for varied activities.

4.2 locating the plazaThe James Center II Plaza is a semi-public plaza located in downtown Richmond’s central business district. It is owned and operated by JEMB Realty Corporation. James Center includes three office towers that together form a showpiece of the downtown Richmond skyline. The site includes over 986,000 square feet of office space, a fitness facility, five restaurants, a 1,600 car parking garage and a 50,000 square foot re-tail atrium that connects to an Omni Hotel.2 The plaza is within walking distance of the financial district to historic Shockoe Bottom, the city’s most fashionable shopping and dining district with its cobblestone streets and restored warehouses


FIN

DIN

GS

27

4

containing unique assortments of exclusive apparel stores, galleries, restaurants, hotels and apartments.

4.3 historical referenceThe plaza is situated on the corner of 10th Street and East Cary Street, and was once occupied by the Great Turning Basin of the James River and Kanawha Canal. The Canal and Basin were the transportation focus of the city, surrounded by tobacco ware-houses, flour mills and iron works. The Turning Basin served as a termi-nal for canal barges to unload, turn around and prepare for their return trips importing and exporting goods.

During the early stages of construc-tion, the workers digging at the site discovered the remains of several canal boats dating back 200 years. The remains of 63 Kanawha Canal boats were recorded and all were salvaged and preserved which took precedence over the construction.The construction was planned and developed to integrate historic with contemporary by incorporating triangular nodes, rounded corners, odd angles with reflective glass that stand out in sharp contrast to the historic surroundings. As building began, every detail of the streetscape contributes to the goal

of making James Center a “people place”. The Plaza, one of the focal points of the project, was designed to offer ample seating for outdoor lunches, concerts, or quiet relaxation. The seating is comprised of stones which lined the walls of the Great Turning Basin, and which have been arranged to resemble a canal lock when viewed from above. The clock tower, features revolving sculpted figures reminiscent of the workers who toiled on the river barges.3

4.4 general observationsIn figure 24, you will see the plaza pedestrian desire lines as well as the traffic flow around the plaza. Figures 25 and 26 show how little the plaza has changed in over twenty years from it’s original design. The physical features have remained the same, with only the tree canopy’s maturing with age. Typically, during this sea-son, the sun does not access the pla-za until approximately 11:45 a.m. and retreats behind the buildings by 1:15 p.m. The Plaza has three food carts located on the city-owned street corners; one located on the plaza peripheral, and two located across the road from the plaza. During dif-ferent seasons, certain programmed entertainment occurs within the plaza, increasing plaza usage.

Figure 24: Traffic patterns and pedestrian desire lines at James Center II Plaza

SOURCE: Courtesy of M. Paul Friedberg & Partners. SOURCE: Photography by Ailsa Long

Figure 25: Aerial view of James Center II Plaza c1990s.

Figure 26: James Center II Plaza clock tower and barge boatmen sculpture.

2,3 Available from: http://www.thejamescenter.com/index1.html [Accessed 27 Oct, 2012]

FIN

DIN

GS

28

4


4.5 observational surveyThe visual panoramic observational survey was taken over five working days within a two week time frame during the business lunch hour from 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. The re-search team included the researcher, one volunteer photographer and one documentary observer who participated during the five day ob-servational period.

4.5.1 Monday 27th August11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. • At11:30am,thelocalstreet

corner food vendors begin to set up their stalls in prepara-tion for the lunch time crowd.

• Thereisapatternofsmokerstaking a smoke break by exit-ing the building and smoking in the front entrance while checking their smart phones or

having general conversations with other smokers.

• Thereareafewcellphoneusers that are on their own, checking messages and mak-ing calls.

• Asmallselectionoftransitionalpedestrians were crossing through the plaza coming to-and-from their destinations.

• Thistimeframeaccomodates

the “regular” plaza users as well as the early lunch “grab-bers” with the occasional smart phone “reviewers”.

• Thecentralseatingareaap-pears to be more populated by early lunch time plaza-users providing the best people-watching views.

12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.• Thisperiodaccommodateda

Monday 27th August, 2012

11:3

0 a.

m.

11:4

5 a.

m.

12:0

0 p.

m.

12:1

5 p.

m.


FIN

DIN

GS

29

4

Monday 27th August, 2012 (continued)

12:3

0 p.

m.

12:4

5 p.

m.

1:00

p.m

.1:

15 p

.m.

mix of lunch groups, transition-al pedestrian foot traffic, smart phone users with fewer visible smokers at the entrance.

• Thelunchgroupswerelocatedon the two exterior wall seat-ing looking into the plaza for prime people-watching, with trees behind them as natural barriers around the exterior of the plaza.

• Thereareindividualmobiletechnology users who are walking and talking on their devices.

• Thecentralseatingareawasalso popular for lunch-time dining, meeting and greeting.

• Thepedestrianpathwaysaround the exterior of the plaza are frequented by pedestrian foot traffic only.

• Triangulationoccursprimarilyat the corner of 10th and Main, by the food vendor cart.

• Casualencountersoccuronthe pathways within the plaza to and from the building to the street.

• Duringlunchtime,theplaza-users sit either alone, in two’s or in groups of three.

1:30 pm - 2:00 pm• From1:30until2:00p.m.there

is a rise in plaza-users who eat alone.

• Thereisasignificantamountofsmart phone “reviewers” walk-ing through the plaza.

• Thesmokersreturntotheentrance doorway around 1:45 p.m.

• Thestreetvendorsbeginto

FIN

DIN

GS

30

4


1:30

p.m

.1:

45 p

.m.

finish off serving the late lunch eaters, and prepare to break-down their carts.

• Thetransientpedestrianfoottraffic reduces significantly by 1:30 p.m.

• Theplazamaintenancecrewempties rubbish bins and col-lects debris left over from the plaza lunch crowd.

4.5.2 Conclusions for MondayFrom general observations in the past, the chief plaza activity occurs at lunch hour during the working week days. From close observations dur-ing the 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. time frame, certain plaza-user movements and activities can be seen.• Thestreetfoodvendorisan

integral part of the plaza life.

As Whyte (1980 Chapter 4 p. 52) states, “Food attracts people, who attract more people.” The vendors situate themselves on the outskirts of the plaza, on the street corner, on city pavement, within the busiest pedestrian throughfare. Whyte (1980 Chapter 5 p.54) states that a successful plaza “starts at the street corner, it has a brisk social life of its own.” This placement enables maxi-mum food sale potential, but allows for the congrega-tion of customers to cause a triangulation effect, provid-ing perfect opportunities for casual business or personal encounters and community.

• Thesmokersprefertostayclose to the entrance of the building, where smoking is allocated and they bring mo-bile technologies with them to keep them occupied dur-ing their smoke break. They frequently smoke alone, but some smokers will bring a friend. The smoking area also causes a triangulation effect, where like-minded smokers can meet and greet.

• Theprimaryseatingactivityoccurs within the central plaza seating region, with the original raised canal ledge seating. This seating has two backsides deep capability allowing for maximum seating capacity.

The inlaid canal stone ledges on the green space are also used often with only single seating capacity. The plaza edges, under the tree cano-py, are also popular seating locations with maximum viewing capabilities of the whole plaza.

Monday 27th August, 2012 (continued)


FIN

DIN

GS

31

4

4.5.3 Wednesday, August 29th11:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. • At11:30am,thelocalstreet

corner food vendors begin to set up their stalls in prepara-tion for the lunch time crowd.

• Thereisapatternofsmokerstaking a smoke break by exit-ing the building and smoking right by the front entrance, the designated smoking area.

• Asmallselectionoftransitionalpedestrians were crossing through the plaza coming to-and-from their destinations.

• Thistimeframeaccomodatesthe “regular” plaza users as well as the early lunch “grabbers”.

• Veryfewmobiletechnologyplaza-users were visible.

• Thecentralandsideseat-ing area appears to be more

populated by early lunch time plaza-users providing the best people-watching views.

• Visibly,theBellTowerandsteps, considered a vista or public art piece, does not appear to act as a triangulation point in the social life of this plaza. Few people congregate, meet or sit on the steps.

12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.• Theplaza-useisit’sbusiest

during this time frame.• Thereappearstobeamix

of lunch groups. The larger groups (3 + people) sit on the peripheral seating, with the smaller groups preferring seat-ing in a more central location.

• Thereisasmallamountoftransitional pedestrian traffic,

Wednesday 29th August, 2012.

11:3

0 a.

m.

11:4

5 a.

m.

12:0

0 p.

m.

12:1

5 p.

m.

FIN

DIN

GS

32

4


Wednesday 29th August, 2012 (continued)

12:3

0 p.

m.

12:4

5 p.

m.

1:00

p.m

.1:

15 p

.m.

a few mobile technology users and only a couple visible smok-ers at the building entrance.

• Thecornerfoodcartactsasameeting, greeting and grab-bing food stop.

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.• Duringthistimeframe,there

is a rise in single “eaters” with a few parties of two eating or

conversing.• Themaintenancecrewsbegin

their clean-up at 1:45 p.m. after the lunch-time plaza-use rush.

• Onlyaselectfewsmokersap-pear at the designated smok-ing area at the front entrance after the lunchtime rush.

4.5.4 Conclusions for WednesdayHere are some of the researcher’s findings from close observations during the 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. time frame, visually reviewing certain plaza-user movements and activities.• Verylittlemobiletechnology

use occurs within the plaza. The mobile technology use that does occur is primarily

done by individual plaza-users, not within groups.

• Thesunexposurewithinthe plaza seems to dictate the frequency of plaza-use. When the sun is at it’s fullest exposure within the plaza (11:45 a.m. until 1:45 p.m.), is when the highest plaza-use occurs.


FIN

DIN

GS

33

4

1:30

p.m

.1:

45 p

.m.

Wednesday 29th August, 2012 (continued)

• Thelargestgroupsoflunchplaza-users occurs during the 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. time frame.

FIN

DIN

GS

34

4


4.5.5 Friday 31st August11:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. • Smokersprimarilysmokein

the door entrance designated smoking area between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.

• Duringthistimeframethereare a few transitional pedestri-ans crossing through the plaza to reach their destinations.

• Thistimeframeconsistsof

single lunch eaters with the occasional small lunch groups.

• Againthereisonlyasmallgroup of mobile technology plaza-users and smart phone “reviewers” visible. The primary plaza-user that brings technol-ogy with them into the plaza are single plaza-users.

• Theprimaryseatingchoicelocations are within the central

zone or on the more centrally located peripheral edges.

12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.• Duringthe12:30p.m.through

1:00 p.m. there appears to be an increase of lunch groups (large and small), transitional pedestrian traffic and smart phone “reviewers”.

• Thelunchgroupstendtositonthe exterior wall seating look-

ing into the plaza for prime people-watching experience.

• Thisplaza,isnot“specialneeds” equipped. The stairs down into the plaza prevent disabled plaza-users from en-tering using this desire line.

• TheBellTowerisstillnotusedby plaza-users for either seat-ing or for casual business or personal encounters.

PHOTOGRAPHY: Gale Schurman, MultiSync Photography.

Friday 31st August 2012

11:3

0 a.

m.

11:4

5 a.

m.

12:0

0 p.

m.

12:1

5 p.

m.


FIN

DIN

GS

35

4

Friday 31st August 2012 (continued)

12:3

0 p.

m.

12:4

5 p.

m.

1:00

p.m

.1:

15 p

.m.

• Themainpedestrianthorough-fare is along 10th and Main street along the northeast and northwest of the plaza periph-ery.

• Thethreeentrancestotheplaza from the street are the pedestrian desire lines through the plaza.

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.• Theplazausersaremini-

mal during this time period, although there are left over small groups of plaza-users and lunch “eaters”.

4.5.6 Conclusions for Friday• TheBellTower,isnotused

as a seating area or a meet-ing place, where traditionally public art or vistas do act as an attraction point for plaza-users.

• Fromgeneralobservations,itappears that there is an equal balance of single men and single women who use mobile technologies within the plaza.

• Thesingleplaza-usersbringtheir mobile technologies while in the plaza. It would seem that as a single plaza- user, bringing mobile technol-ogies into the space, provides

the user with a connection to a cyber community and there-fore not actually alone within the physical space.

• Themajorityofplaza-usersprefer to sit under the periph-eral and central tree canopy’s for shade. Whyte (1980 Chapter 1 p.18) explains that the best plaza’s he studied, afforded a good view of the passing

FIN

DIN

GS

36

4


1:30

p.m

.1:

45 p

.m.

Friday 31st August 2012 (continued)

scene and the pleasure of be-ing comfortably situated under a tree for shade while doing so. Although, there are a select group of plaza-users who prefer to sit in direct sunlight during their lunch hour.

• Theoverlappingfoliageonthe peripheral of the plaza provides a combination of sunlight and shade which en-courages plaza-users to sit, eat, watch and stay.


FIN

DIN

GS

37

4

4.5.7 Tuesday 4th September11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. • Therewassometransientpe-

destrian foot traffic in and out of the plaza, to and from the street to the buildings.

• Thistimeframeaccomodatesthe early lunch “grabbers” with single “eaters” and small groups and the occasional smart phone “reviewer”.

• Onebicyclistsitsandrestsatnoon, although the plaza does not accomodate for cyclists as there are no bike racks present at street level.

• At12:15p.m.,onesoloplaza-user sits on the steps of the Bell Tower to use his smart phone.

12:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. • Theplazausersprimarilysit

within the central zone of the plaza during this time frame.

• During12:30p.m.through1:30p.m. there appears to be an increase of lunch groups (two to five) and transitional pedes-trian traffic.

• Thereisanincreaseinmo-bile technology plaza-users. Predominantly in the desig-nated smoking area infront

of the entrance to the build-ing. These technology users predominantly stand or pace when using their devices at the entrance to the building.

• At1:00p.m.theplazahasrandom encounter and conver-sationalist groups who remain in the main throughfare paths into and out of the plaza. Whyte (1980 p.21) noted that

Tuesday 4th September 2012

11:3

0 a.

m.

11:4

5 a.

m.

12:0

0 p.

m.

12:1

5 p.

m.

FIN

DIN

GS

38

4


Tuesday 4th September 2012 (continued)

12:3

0 p.

m.

12:4

5 p.

m.

1:00

p.m

.1:

15 p

.m.

people tended not to move out of the main pedestrian flow. They prefered to stay in it or move into it or remain in the center of the flow of pedes-trian foot traffic.

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.• Withinthistimeframe,the

final lunch crowd are finishing up their lunch break.

• Thetransitionalpedestrianwalks through the park to their destination.

4.5.8 Conclusions for Tuesday• Whenplaza-usersusemobile

technologies, they tend to sit when located within the plaza, but tend to stand and pace, when smoking within the des-

ignated smoking area beside the main entrance doorways.

• Theplaza,whileaccomodatingto local pedestrian plaza-users, does not seem to visibly acco-modate bicyclists or alternative transportation plaza-users.

• Thechanceencounterplaza-users, located themselves in the middle of the pedestrian

traffic flow on the pathways through the plaza. Whyte (1980 Chapter 1 p.21) pointed out that if you were in the cen-ter of the crowd, you have the maximum choice of leaving or continuing the conversation.

• Itisapparentthattheveryclear sightlines in and out of the plaza creates a sense of


FIN

DIN

GS

39

4

1:30

p.m

.1:

45 p

.m.

Tuesday 4th September 2012 (continued)

safety and provides an environment that street users want to be a part of. The plaza is at eye level and distinctly associated with the street. While this plaza is semi-public and maintained by a private company, it is easily accessible to the general public and does not forbid passers-by from entering, sitting, eating and relaxing.

FIN

DIN

GS

40

4


4.5.9 Thursday 13th September11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. • At11:45a.m.theJazzBand

entertainment begins set-up for lunchtime performance. The temporary stage is set up by the entrance doors to the building in prime visibility for all plaza-users and passers-by.

• Whenthebandisplaying,from 11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. no

smokers come out to the front entrance of the building to smoke.

• From11:30-12:00noonthereare transitional pedestrian crossing through the plaza with the occasional “regular” plaza visitor present.

• Thistimeframeaccomodatesthe lunch “grabbers” with sin-gle “eaters”, small groups and

the occasional smart phone user and “reviewer”.

• Atnoon,theThursday“jazz”band begins. During the 12:00 noon through 1:00 p.m. there is a significant increase of lunch groups (large and small), single “eaters” and transitional pedestrian traffic.

• Therearenomobiletechnol-ogy or smart phone users or

Thursday 13th September 2012

11:3

0 a.

m.

11:4

5 a.

m.

12:0

0 p.

m.

12:1

5 p.

m.

NOTE: Adverse weather conditions prevented the observational survey on Thursday, September 6th, and was therefore rescheduled for Thursday, September 13th.


FIN

DIN

GS

41

4

Thursday 13th September 2012 (continued)

12:3

0 p.

m.

12:4

5 p.

m.

1:00

p.m

.1:

15 p

.m.

“reviewers” visible during this time frame.

12:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. • From12:30until1:30p.m.

there is a large mix crowd of single “eaters” and small lunch groups.

• Itisobviousthatthelivemusicentertainment has drawn a

crowd to the plaza. Maximum people-watching and listening is participated in.

• Inthislargecrowd,thereareonly a small select few that check their mobile technology while out in the plaza.

• At1:00p.m.,oncethemusicentertainment finishes, the plaza crowd disperses slowly.

• Thelargergroupsofplaza-users disperse, and at 1:15 p.m. the smaller groups and indi-viduals are left in the plaza to finish their lunch break.

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.• Duringthistimeperiod,afew

remaining plaza-users use their mobile technologies.

• Thefoodvendorcartcleansup

and leaves early after a suc-cessful and profitable lunch hour of sales.

4.5.10 Conclusions for Thursday• Whyte (1980; Chapter 11 p.

96) specifies that musicians and entertainers draw people together. The live music en-tertainment in the plaza did

FIN

DIN

GS

42

4


1:30

p.m

.1:

45 p

.m.

Thursday 13th September 2012 (continued)

increase the plaza-useage. • Withthemusicentertainment

and the increase of plaza-use, there was a significant de-crease in visible mobile tech-nology use.

• Themusicentertainmentap-peared to be a smoker’s deter-ant. No smoker’s were smoking in the designated smoking area until after the entertain-ment had finished.

• Assoonastheentertainmentstopped, the large crowds dis-persed within a fifteen minute period, leaving the plaza-users in smaller groups or individu-als.

4.6 Additional findingsThrough the photographic observa-

tion of the James Center II Plaza cer-tain findings were seen and analysed over the course of the study.

Additional illustrative map observa-tions were made of people, place-ment and activity within the plaza during the same time frames.

These initial visual observations were to determine:• Whichphysicalfeaturesarestill

important today in small urban spaces.

• Whatactivitiesplaza-usersare participating in within this small urban space.

• Whatpreferredplacementwaschosen by plaza-users within the plaza

• Wastheregenderspecificpref-

erences of location within the plaza.

• Whatsocialbehavioursarestill common today in a small urban space.

• How,why,whereandwhatmodern mobile technologies are used within the space.

These various findings, while not purposefully intended, supported William Whyte’s observations regard-ing good plaza elements recorded in 1980. These observations would ultimately help determine physical and social features that were impor-tant then, whether these features are just as important today with the introduction of modern mobile tech-nologies into our public spaces and gender-specific placement that are

contained within a plaza along with activities that are conducted there.

4.6.1. Physical FeaturesThe primary physical features that William Whyte felt created the life of a plaza were:• Sittingspace• Sun,wind,trees,water• Food• Thestreet

From the James Center II Plaza obser-vational survey (Appendix 7.7), it was determined that the primary physical features required for the ac-tive life of a plaza were:• Foodvendors• Sittingplaces• Easeofaccessibility• Shade


FIN

DIN

GS

43

4

4.6.2 Food VendorsWilliam Whyte stated in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (p. 50), that “If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food.” He observes that “food attracts people who attract more people” and that “if business picks up in one spot, there will soon be a cluster of vendors there.” While James Center II Plaza has one specific vendor in close proximity to the plaza and cross streets, additional vendors have located across from from the plaza, along with fast food and sit-down restaurants that are located within the James Center II building.

From the visual observational study we were able to determine that the primary reason to frequent the plaza was to visit the food vendor located on the corner of the plaza on the public city pavement. Two addi-tional food vendors were located on the public sidewalk across from the James Center II Plaza but were not as popular. The food vendor located on the corner of the plaza was the most frequently used food cart by local office workers from the James Center II building. The food vendors appeared to attract individuals and groups of workers, who collect their food, chat in the queue, then find a good vantage point within the plaza

to people watch or to converse. From observations, few plaza-users brought their food out of the James Center II building into the plaza, prefering to purchase their lunch from the local vendors.

4.6.3 Sitting placesWilliam Whyte stated in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980 p. 31), the importance of “making other flat sur-faces do double duty as table tops or seats.” He observes that “the periph-ery ... is just right for sitting, eating, and sunbathing.” He also observes (1980 p. 31) that “ledges and spaces two backsides deep seat more people comfortably than those that are not as deep.” James Center II Plaza not only contains periphery ledges and seating, but also incorporates a selec-tion of original canal stones inlaid into the landscape for seating, along with additional canal stones placed together centrally within the plaza that allows for multiple-person seat-ing front and back. Additional seating was located along the low back walls, cut into the landscape, that frame the plaza edges. There were no benches, seats or movable chairs located anywhere within the plaza, although during questionnaire responses (See Appendix 7.6, question 22), movable chairs and benches were requested

by frequent plaza-users.

4.6.4 Ease of accessibilityWilliam Whyte explained in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 5, p.54), that “The relationship to the street is integral and it is far and away the critical design factor.” Whyte continued to observe that (Chapter 5, p.57) “The area where the street and plaza or open space meet is a key to the success or failure. ” continuting to explain that “the transition should be such that it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.” James Center II Plaza is within the close prox-imity to two main streets and is open to the public pavement at the corner of 10th and Main, where the bell tower creates a gateway and meeting point.

It was visibly clear that the ease of ac-cessibility to the plaza helped create an active plaza. There are three out of four sides for street access to the plaza by foot (See figure 12), and two access points from the James Center II building itself. The proximity of the plaza to the main roads of 10th and Main Streets, the local vendor cart at that corner and the bell tower created a collection point for people to meet, bring or purchase food and gather.

4.6.5 ShadeWilliam Whyte stated in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 3, p.46), that “Trees ought to be related much more closely to sitting spaces than they usually are.” Whyte contin-ued to observe that “by far the best liked are those affording a good look at the passing scene and the pleasure of being comfortablly under a tree while doing so.” This was indeed the case at the James Center II Plaza.

The plaza has a significant amount of tree canopy coverage that is primarily located along the peripheral exterior of the plaza, creating a visual exterior wall between the street and the plaza. This appears to provide a boundary and screen to soften urban street noises from the plaza as well as pro-vide a enclosed sanctuary for plaza-users. Some trees were located in the middle of the plaza, so most seating area’s had some canopy coverage from the sun’s rays. A few question-naire respondants indicated that the trees provided shade, which was important, yet there was an increase in insects dropping from the trees into people’s food, laps and hair. This brought some discomfort and safety concerns to the forefront.

FIN

DIN

GS

44

4


4.6.6 Gender placementWhile conducting the visual survey, data, such as gender, which was not intended to support any conclusions, was collected. This data, during the analysis process, helped to map gender placement and movements within the plaza. Ultimately, this provided a clearer understanding of gender placement preferences.

As seen in figure 34, it is clear that the majority of male plaza-users prefered to eat lunch or meet/greet within the central plaza zone, with the majority of female plaza-users preferring peripheral seating around the exterior of the plaza looking into the plaza. This would suggest that male plaza-users preferred central placement to be active participants and immerse themselves in the central hub of the plaza life activity. Whereas, female counterparts felt more at home being voyeurs and passive participants to the central hub of plaza life activity. These gender placement findings at James Center II Plaza support William Whyte’s theory in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 1, p.18) that “Men show a tendency to take the front-row seats, and if there is a kind of gate, men will be the guardians of it. Women tend to favor

places slightly secluded.”

4.6.7 ConclusionHaving reviewed the data from this report, it is apparent that the most important physical features within a plaza that contribute to social inter-actions remain very similar to William Whyte’s findings from the 1980’s. The primary physical features that William Whyte felt created the life of a plaza were sitting space, sun, wind, trees, water, food and ultimately the s proximity to the street.

Today, the primary physical features that encourage an active plaza life are food, sitting places, ease of accessibility and of course, shade. This helps us determine necessary physical elements of urban design that should remain incorporated into small urban spaces but also assists with understanding the necessity of these elements for the actual social life of the space.

4.7 summaryIn conclusion, the visual panoramic observational survey, taken over five working days during the business lunch hour provided some interest-ing data regarding plaza-use and be-haviours. Below is a summary of the key observations that were visible for

the success of the plaza.

• Thestreetfoodvendorisanintegral part of the plaza life.

• Thelivemusicentertainmentin the plaza increased plaza-usage.

• Thesmokersprefertostayclose to the entrance of the building, in the designated smoking area. Most individual smokers bring mobile tech-nologies with them when on break, prefering to pace or stand when smoking.

• Mobiletechnologyuseoccurswithin the plaza primarily by individual plaza-users, who prefer to sit down when using their smart phones or devices.

• The popular seating choices within the plaza are in the central zone as well as the pe-ripheral seating stone ledges on the plaza boundaries, under the tree canopy with maxi-mum viewing capabilities of the whole plaza.

• The chance encounter plaza-users, located themselves in the middle of the pedestrian traffic stream on the pathways through the plaza.

• Theveryclearsightlinesinandout of the plaza creates a sense

of safety and provides an environment that welcomes street users to come, meet, eat and watch.

• Theplazadoesnotaccomo-date or provide for disabled users or cyclists needs.


FIN

DIN

GS

45

4

4.8 on-site questionnaireDuring the observation of the James Center II Plaza, a carefully crafted questionnaire was developed and piloted to determine plaza-users needs and wants within a small urban space in a central business district.

The on-site final questionnaires were distributed by hand on a one-on-one interview process to plaza-users by the researcher during the observa-tional survey at James Center II Plaza in downtown Richmond, Virginia.

There were 61 questionnaires con-ducted over five work days in the plaza. The objective of the question-naire was to collect feedback from plaza-users on their experiences, preferred usage and placement, as

well as their modern mobile technol-ogy use within the plaza.

The questions were specifically targeted to (see Appendix 7.3 for original questionnaire details):

• determineplaza-userdemo-graphic profiles

• determinepreferredseasonto visit plaza

• decipherfrequencyof plaza use

• establishwhypeoplevisittheplaza

• decipherwhatactivitiesareconducted when visiting the plaza

• establishwhichphysicalfea-tures are still important today

• estimatehowlongplaza-users spent participating in

these activities• determinemobiletechnology

use in plaza• deciferwhatphysicalfeatures

are still important when us-ing/not using mobile tech-nologies within the plaza

• establishuserobservationalabilities when using/not us-ing mobile technologies.

• mapuserplacementwithinplaza.

4.8.1 Demographic profilesIt was determined that the main age group of plaza users at James Cen-ter II Plaza was between 55-64 with plaza-users aged 35-44 years coming in a close second. The predominant ethnicity of James Center II Plaza-users was, in order, white/Caucasian (77%), African American (10%) and

SOURCE: Illustrations by Ailsa Long SOURCE: Illustrations by Ailsa Long

Figure 28: Time frames of plaza-use Figure 29: Preferred season to visit the plaza

SOURCE: Illustrations by Ailsa Long

Figure 27: Plaza-use age distribution.

The first step is listening to best experts in the field—the people who live, work and play in a place.

Project for Public Spaces (2009) What is Placemaking?

Available from: http://www.pps.org/articles/grplacefeat/

[Accessed 30 June 2012]


Figure 30: What activities do people do in the plaza?

FIN

DIN

GS

46

4


SOURCE: Illustrations by Ailsa Long SOURCE: Illustrations by Ailsa Long

Figure 31: What modern mobile technology do people use in the plaza?

Figure 32: What physical features remain important today for plaza-users.


Figure 33: Physical features of importantance when using/not using technology.


Figure 34: Gender mobile technology plaza-use distribution.

Asian or Pacific Islander (6%). These results would not be able to determine trends in plaza-user demographic profiles due to the limited research that was conducted on this one downtown plaza. The actual demographic results could be skewed by the geographic location of the plaza. James Center II Plaza is a central downtown business dis-trict urban plaza in the south-east of America with a different population than say, a northeast or a southwest American urban plaza.

William Whyte stated in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 1, p.16) that “commuter distances are usually short; for most plazas, the effective market radius is about three blocks... But office workers still predominate, the bulk from nearby.”

What can be taken away from the research is that, today, the down-town working environments are predominantly still made up of 35-64 year old professionals, and that any results taken from this study, may shift dramatically when the next, more technologically wired genera-tion moves into the workforce in the next five to ten years.

4.8.2 Seasons and frequencyFrom the 61 plaza-users who re-sponded to the questionnaire, the prefered time to visit the plaza was during the spring and summer sea-sons, when they would tend to visit the plaza every day or a couple times a week, Monday through Friday. These results are indicative of an active urban downtown plaza within the central business district during

working hours. The James Center II Plaza appears to provide a temporary outdoor escape for the local workers and visitors alike and as the weather warms up, the plaza-users seem to take advantage of this urban escape.

In the questionnaire, a few respon-dents did explain that they visited the plaza during the Christmas and holiday season due to the spectacu-lar Christmas tree and reindeer lights that are displayed throughout the James Center plaza grounds. This is traditionally visited after hours dur-ing the winter season and primarily at weekends, which is contrary to the regular plaza-user’s visiting hours, that of weekday lunchtimes.

4.8.3 Why, what and how long?From the questionnaires compiled

and analysed, 91.8% of respondents visit James Center II Plaza because they work in the area, and of those, half of them visit the plaza because of the food located nearby.

These findings corroborate the observational survey results confirm-ing that food vendors are an integral part of a plaza’s activity and life.

The main activities, in order, that plaza-users participate in are people watching, sitting, eating, being outdoors and meeting friends. Plaza-users spent approximately 25 min-utes outdoors and meeting friends, sitting and eating for an estimated 24 minutes and people-watched for an average of 23 minutes.


FIN

DIN

GS

47

4

These findings corroborate William Whyte’s theory in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 1, p.19) that specifies that “what attracts people most, it would appear, is other people”. It seems that the old traditions of people-watching and be-ing near or around other people in public spaces continues through many generations. Human be-haviour attracts voyeurs. It is innate in human nature to be curious and watch activities in and around us in a small urban space.

4.8.4 Activities and time spent on them?The top five activities peo-ple did in the plaza were to people watch (77%), sit (74.5%), eat (73.8%), be outdoors (65.6%) and meet friends (55.7%).

Plaza-users people-watched for an average of 22.6 minutes, they sat for an average of 24.57 minutes, eat for an aver-age of 23.4 minutes, were outdoors for an average of 25.36 minutes and met friends for an average of 25 minutes.

4.8.5 Mobile technology useFrom the questionnaire re-sponses, the most popular modern mobile technol-ogy that respondents used in the plaza were smart phones (59%) and regular cell phones (23%) but sur-prisingly a high proportion of respondents (24.6%) said that they did not use technology in the plaza, preferring to abstain from technology use during their lunch breaks.

However these findings did not collaborate with the visual observation survey. William Whyte

pointed out in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Chapter 1, p.19) that pla-za-users “speak of getting away from it all, and use terms like “escape”, “oasis”, “retreat”. What people do, however, reveals a differ-ent priority.” It was appar-ent from the visual obser-vation, that plaza-users were frequently checking, texting and calling on their smart phones or cell phones, and yet during the questionnaire, respon-dents indicated that they preferred not to be “con-nected” when taking their lunch in the plaza.


Figure 35: Plaza-use respondents technological demographics

Technology Users Age

Male Female Under 17 18 - 24 25 - 34 35-44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 +

iPad 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

iPod 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

smart phones 18 18 0 5 10 9 5 7 0

Cell phones 10 4 0 1 2 2 4 5 0

Laptop 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0

E-Reader 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0

Camera 1 4 0 0 2 1 1 1 0

None 6 9 0 3 1 4 2 5 0

4.8.7 Environment for mobile tech-nology useIt was determined from the ques-tionaire compiled data that the primary physical features that were deemed important to plaza-users to-day, when not using mobile technolo-gies, that reflected William Whyte’s recommendations from 1980’s, were food vendors, sitting places, ease to get to, security, safety and shade.

However, when comparing this data to physical features that were deemed important to plaza-users who were using mobile technolo-gies, the following features were considered imperative; sitting places, shade, security and wi-fi.

The primary differences between these two comparisons was a) physi-cal ease of accssibility to the plaza was not important to mobile tech-nology users however, b) wi-fi access was considered essential for virtual accessibility.

We can conclude that the needs of today’s society, with the frequent and increased use of modern mobile technologies, transcends the physi-cal accessibility but now requires technology-users ease of access to

FIN

DIN

GS

48

4


enter virtual public realms of people, spaces and places elsewhere.

4.8.7 Plaza engagement when us-ing/not using mobile technologies.When plaza users were asked how engaged or disengaged they felt with their surroundings when using modern mobile technologies as well as when not using technologies, the average response was that people are more engaged when not using technology within the plaza.

These observations are in parellel with Keith Hampton’s observations in The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm, (p. 713). “The re-duced attention to surroundings, in the form of people-watching, a focus on private, head-down activities, and


Figure 36: Time that Plaza-users participate in activities

limited response to stimuli from the environment suggest that wireless Internet users are exposed to signifi-cantly less social diversity in urban public spaces than those who use portable media, with the possible exception of mobile phone users.”

4.8.8 Who are mobile technology-users?From the statistical analysis of the questionnaire responses, it is appar-ent that 56.3% of males and 62.1% of females use smart phones within the plaza, with the average age of smart phone users being in the 25 - 44 age range (see figure 35). The second most popular form of technology is the cell phone, with 31.3% of males and 13.8% females using one within the plaza with the average age group being 45-64. Then across all age groups came the results that plaza users say they prefer not to use any technology within the urban space. This conclusion was equally dis-persed across all age groups. Finally, in order of preference and usage, the results showed low useage by either gender of e-reader, camera, laptop, iPad and iPod.

4.8.9 How much time do plaza-users spend using mobile technologies?When reviewing the data from the

questionnaire responses, respon-dants indicated that most of their time was spent participating in non-technological activities within the plaza. However, when using mobile technologies, blogging, Twitter and on-line purchases consumed the most time for plaza-users. However, less time was dedicated to more popular technology activities like Facebook, texting and email.

It is possible that more time consum-ing technological activities are done during plaza-users lunchtime period and other, less time-consuming activities are done during all other hours. Further studies on technology uses, outside of urban plaza spaces, could determine more accurate answers.

4.8.10 Respondent commentsAdditional comments from question-naire respondents were collected (See Appendices 7.7).

The physical features most requested were water features, tables and chairs, public art and more enter-tainment within the plaza. From the observational study, it was apparent that entertainment within the plaza drew more plaza-users.

The social features most requested included art, music and entertain-ment but generally, respondents liked the plaza space as is.

From these comments, it is apparent that most respondents use their mo-bile devices during their lunch break to text or talk to friends rather than communicate for work.

There were a variety of suggestions for additional virtual features to be introduced into the plaza, however the most frequent request by re-spondents is free wi-fi. A significant amount of plaza users specified they like the plaza space as is—a simplis-tic urban space.

4.8.11 Questionnaire conclusionsWith more time and resources, the research could have extended to collect data on modern mobile technology-users demographics, to determine social and demographic diversity. The research could also investigate:• Moredataonthedemo-

graphic population of mod-ern mobile technology users within the urban space.

• greaterdetailonwi-fiac-tivities; i.e. social networking, blogging, or other forms of


FIN

DIN

GS

49

4

online communication. • Clusterpatternsofwi-fiusers

within plaza space. • Whichtechnologiesplaza-

users could use to multi-task while people-watching and communicating with peers in “real time” plaza space.

• Exposuretosocialdiversitynetworks within the urban plaza or within the wi-fi pub-lic realm.

These additional studies could help urban designers in the future, determine what physical and social features are essential to a plaza for the social health and vitality of the space.

At present it is apparent from the questionnaire respondants, that, on average, most plaza-users in James Center II Plaza, choose not to use modern mobile technologies and rather prefer the “simplicity” of the downtown urban plaza space, as they felt that their work lives were consumed with mobile technology use and the plaza, during their lunch time, provided them with a “break” from technology. This is contradic-tory to the data collected from the visual survey conducted at the plaza, which clearly indicated that plaza-users did participate in mobile tech-

nology uses on a frequent basis.

4.9 Plaza-user questionnaire visual mappingWithin the questionnaire was a visual map of the plaza and the respondents were asked to map their preferred location within the plaza during their lunch hour visit. The objective of the visual map was to gather feedback from plaza-users on their preferred placement within the plaza. This was gathered to determine which features or areas attracted users. Behavioural patterns emerged that indicated specific gen-der location preferences and place-ments. With a clearer understanding of wi-fi accessibility within these lo-cation preferences, further research could determine future plaza move-ments and placements.

The on-site visual mapping was con-ducted separately by the researcher to capture data of plaza-user place-ment and activity. From this visual mapping technique, the researcher was able to indentify specific activity zones within the plaza. For example, by the front entrance of the James Center II Building, most plaza-users smoked or used mobile technolo-gies, whereas, along the pathways leading to and from the plaza,

Figure 37: Gender distribution and preferred placement from Questionnaire answers.


Figure 38: Camera placement during the observation plaza-use period.


Figure 39: Summary illustration of plaza-use and placement.

FIN

DIN

GS

50

4


people participated in inpromptu meetings and phone conversations. The actual “green” plaza space with seating was dominated by plaza- users eating, conversing or using their mobile technologies.

As you can see from Figure 37, the gender distribution seems fairly sporadic, however, when reviewed closely it is apparent that the central locale of the plaza is primarily domi-nated by clusters of male plaza-users, whereas the perimeter of the plaza is primarily home to the female plaza-users. This gender distribution is a record of the questionnaire respon-dents own visual mapping of their preferred placement within the plaza during their lunch period. When cross-referencing this data with the panoramic photography

of the plaza, it is visually apparent that male plaza-users do seem to gravitate towards the central seat-ing within the plaza, with a good balanced mix of male and female seated within the peripheral plaza area. This collaborates with Whyte’s (1980; Chapter 1, p.18) observa-tion that “men show a tendancy to take the front row seats” and that “women tend to favor places slightly secluded.”

4.9.1 On-site Observation visual map The visual mapping was conducted separately by the researcher to captured data of plaza-user place-ment and activity, to determine hotspots of popular areas for specific activities or preferred placement. The researcher was able to record laptop,

phone and reading activities, as well as consumption of food, smoking or “other“ activities. This would estab-lish the usage of modern mobile technologies and other activities that plaza-users participated in within the urban small space.

Each day of observation was mapped (see Appendices 7.4) locating all plaza-users and their activities from 11:30 a.m. through until 2:00 p.m. observing and recording activities in 15 minute intervals. The maps per day are summarised in figures 32-36, indicating hotspots of activities.

4.9.2 FindingsHaving reviewed and analysed the visual data from the visual mapping techniques during the survey period, and overlapping the maps over each

lunchtime period, certain patterns of movement, activities and place-ment were discovered. Each day of the survey, the researcher charted plaza-users, placement and activi-ties. These were charted on the visual map for that day using numbers of plaza-users, location and what activi-ties from a predetermined list were being completed.

Once these visual maps were sum-marised, it was discovered that the primary smoking area is located at the James Center II front entrance doors, an official designated smok-ing area. Food and phone usage is located within the central location and the south and west peripheral areas of the plaza, where the original Kanawha Canal stones were inlayed into the landscaping as seating.


Figure 41: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment. Monday, 27th August.


Figure 40: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment data tracking. Monday, 27th August.


Figure 42: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment data tracking. Wednesday, 29th August.


Figure 43: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment. Wednesday, 29th August.


FIN

DIN

GS

51

4

Phone usage and other activities, such as random meetings and casual encounters are conducted at the en-trance paths and steps into and out of the plaza, including some limited activity at the boat tower steps. This would make sense because these areas are located in or close to transi-tory paths into and out of the plaza. As far as visually recording and docu-menting modern mobile technology use within the plaza, it was deter-mined that there was little or sporad-ic use of laptops, e-readers, camera’s or iPods within the urban space.

Having conducted a wi-fi connectiv-ity study in the plaza, it was deter-mined that a 5-bar wi-fi connectivity was available throughout the plaza, however, the wi-fi connectivity dropped to 2-bar around the Bell

Tower vicinity. Therefore, this could explain the sporadic sitting, standing or conversing by plaza-users around this site (see figure 47).

However, from observation, the primary modern mobile technol-ogy used were smart phones or cell phones (50 total) and their main function was to complete email reviews, texting or calling family or friends. Most plaza-users who used their mobile technology within the plaza, tended to prefer sitting while communicating, with a small minor-ity of plaza-users walking and talking or texting. Nearly all plaza-users who were using mobile technologies were in the plaza and alone, with small to large groups of plaza-users choosing eating together and talking rather than reviewing their mobile

technologies during the lunch hour. Those very few plaza-users (5 total) who were using e-readers or laptops (4 total) within the plaza at lunch-time, preferred to be seated under the tree canopy, presumably for shade and ease of readibility. n


Figure 47: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment data tracking. Friday, 31st August.


Figure 48: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment. Friday, 31st August.


Figure 44: Wi-fi accessibility in and around James Center II Plaza.


Figure 49: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment data tracking. Tuesday, 4th September.


Figure 50: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment. Tuesday, 4th September.


Figure 45: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment data tracking. Thursday, 13th September.


Figure 46: Observational Plaza-use and place-ment. Thursday, 13th September.

DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

52

5


5.1 IntroductionThe aim of this dissertation has been to observe, survey, measure, evalu-ate and assess how the increase in mobile technology useage has shifted the dynamics and social inter-actions of small urban public spaces.

This study follows in the footsteps of William Whytes’ initial small urban space study from the late 1970s where he uncovered physical and social features that he considered es-sential for a plaza’s success. His study had limitations; the plaza’s he stud-ied in New York were predesigned and that limited the ability to make changes to the actual physical fea-tures. This study also studied a pre-designed plaza with the inability for flexible feature changes. This study was designed to determine which physical features and social plaza behaviours remain important for an active vibrant plaza life, and with the prevalence of modern mobile technologies, how have these virtual necessities impeded or propelled social interactions within the space.

5.2 william whyteThis study focused on one small urban plaza that had the same limita-tions as the plaza’s studied by Whyte. The features of the plaza are un-

changeable however, this study, un-like Whyte’s, faces features of a plaza beyond physical and behavioural.

This study now investigates the invisible or virtual features that have become prevelant in today’s envi-ronments. With the introduction of these expanded features into an urban space, the design of a plaza is no longer confinded to the physical features and social behaviours within the plaza but has entered new virtual dimensions reaching beyond the present physical plaza space.

5.3 AnalysisFrom the observational study, the questionnaire and the visual map-ping we identitied specific physi-cal features, social behaviours and potential virtual trends within James Center II Plaza.

5.3.1 Physical featuresNo major changes have occured since Whyte established the primary physical features that are essential to secure an active and vibrant plaza life some three decades ago. Fixed plaza features are exogeneous, fixed and non-changeable and out of one’s control. To this day, the same features are essential. The physical features, however, in both Whyte’s study and

in the researcher’s study are already embedded in the plaza design. Flex-ibility of physical features placement could adjust the social behaviours and findings significantly.

5.3.2 Social BehavioursBasic social behaviours within a small urban space have not changed significantly from Whytes plaza study and behavioural observations from the late 1970s. Plaza-user movement, triangulation and cluster patterns re-main the same today. However, new mobile technologies have changed some behavioural interactions.

Plaza users who are using techno-logical devices within the plaza are primarily in the space alone and use their mobile technologies as con-nections to social groups outside of the physical plaza space. Groups of plaza-users do not tend to use their devices, but spend more time conversing with each other. Mobile technologies have taken urban social interactions beyond the physical space of the plaza to virtual com-munities and spaces outside of the physical plaza.

5.3.3 Virtual featuresVirtual technologies incorporated into small urban spaces is the newest

But, Internet use in the public realm has re-mained relatively unex-plored. This type of use carries with it significant implications for urban planning, the structure of community, and the

nature of democracy.Hampton, K. N., Livio, O. &

Goulet, L. S. (2010)

The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks,

and the Public Realmp. 701

Available from: irasilver.org/wp.../08/Reading-Wireless-urban-spaces-

Hampton.pdf[Accessed 19 August 2012]


DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

53

5

change for all urban outdoor spaces. This is a feature that Whyte did not anticipate or account for three decades ago. The introduction of new mobile technologies into urban spaces, brings a whole other element of behaviours that are indogeneous.

From this study, we concluded that a significant amount of plaza us-ers who experienced the space in groups, preferred to leave their mobile technologies indoors and appreciate the outdoor space as is. From the visual observation study (see figure 34), it is evident that single plaza-users would bring their mobile technologies into the plaza to feel less awkward sitting, eating and being alone and to feel connected to a greater virtual community. Pro-dominently male single plaza-users walk, sit and talk on their mobile devices removing the awkwardness of sitting alone outside but still com-municating with their personal cyber communities. There are significantly less single female plaza-users that use mobile technology within the plaza.When the single female mobile technology plaza-users did par-ticipate, they tended to walk or sit within the small urban space. It could be discerned that females are natu-rally more female-group oriented

relying less on mobile technologies but more on human contact to feel connected. It would appear that males are more likely to enter the plaza alone, relying more on the mobile technologies to keep them feeling connected.

The James Center II Plaza was fully wi-fi connected allowing the tenants and visitors alike to enjoy connectiv-ity throughout the plaza. However, around the Bell Tower, there was sporadic wi-fi accessibility which might explain why this substantial landmark was rarely used for meet-ing, sitting, eating or greeting (see figure 47).

Urban Designers in the future will require understanding the flexible virtual dimensions introduced by mobile technology as aspects of future plaza design.

5.4 limitationsFrom the analysis, the research dis-covered that plaza physical features and behaviours have not significantly changed in three decades, since the days of William Whyte’s study (1980). Whyte determined which physical features and what social behaviours occur within a predesigned plaza. This study’s researcher strived to

determine what physical features are still applicable today in a prede-signed small urban space and how people socially interact and use plaza features nowadays with the increase use of modern mobile technologies.

The discussion focuses on how the study was undertaken in downtown James Center II Plaza, Richmond, Virginia during the late summer. The study could contain some limitations of conclusions as indicated below:• Culturaldifferenceswithother

countries and regions might reflect different results.

• Seasonaldifferencesintheresults as the observational surveys and questionnaires were conducted during the late summer season.

• Onlyonesmallurbanspace was observed and studied

which limits any comparison or the variety of results.

• Theplazahadenoughspacetomeet footfall traffic, however, if increased, movement, inter-actons and activities would change and social dynamics may be different.

• Canweapplytheseconclu-sions to other small urban spaces which exhibit similar characteristics?

• Isitpossibletospeculatethevirtual needs of future plaza-users from the responses of one downtown plaza?

5.5 conclusionsUltimately, William Whyte’s (1980) conclusion on physical features that contribute to an urban spaces’ suc-cess remain relevant today. But to continue the success of active urban spaces some physical features, some social features and nowadays, virtual features are necessary to be compat-ible to today’s mobile lifestyles.

The relevance of this study to practi-tioners of Urban Design is important. How might urban designers use these findings and incorporate the ideas into future urban spaces?

5.5.1 Physical featuresPrimarily the following physical features remain important in todays small urban public spaces.• Foodvendors• Sittingplaces• EaseofAccessibility• Shade

Therefore as urban designers, it is important to be aware of these fea-tures and ensure that they are built into the urban space design as the

DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

54

5


skeletal backbone in development.

From this study, the researcher be-lieves that shade or protection from the elements is an essential physical feature that tends to be disregarded when designing small urban spaces. When an urban designer is consider-ing designing a small urban space, seasonal entertainment requires sea-sonal protection for the entertainer and audiences alike.

The additional comments from the questionniare repondants (see Ap-pendix 7.7, Question 22) indicated that the James Center II Plaza could benefit from more primary seating (benches or movable chairs/tables). Respondents also were interested in incorporating more flowers and wa-ter features into the space to increase the beauty of the plaza rather than the functionality.

The request for better landscaping and water features made by the questionniare respondants is rel-evant, however, good maintenance would need to remain at James Center II Plaza. The Kanawha Park and Plaza has had, in the past, a functioning water fountain and good landscaping but due to lack of fund-ing and irregular maintenance, the

fountain and landscaping is in poor condition today.

5.5.2 Social behavioursThe simplicity of the urban space with desirelines and visibiity for the onlooker and space user leading to and from the plaza, an ease of ac-cessiblity and close proximity to the main streets provides ample oppor-tunity for interactions with stranger or serendipitious meetings with colleagues. The food vendors create a “triangulation” effect on the corner of the plaza, allowing for informal meetings and conversations while awaiting food.

Additionally, the social aspect of “Thursday jazz concerts” performed witin the plaza, drew larger crowds during the lunch time and appeared to be a good talking point for local employees and visitors alike. Many questionnaire respondents (see Ap-pendix 7.7, Question 23) were inter-ested in seeing more social activities incorporated within the plaza, with suggestions ranging from more music and exercise performances, wine/cheese tastings, outdoor art, jewelry exhibits, outdoor cafés and embracing buskers within the plaza.Urban Designers should take note that these social activities have also

not changed since William Whyte’s observations in the New York Plaza environments back in the late 1970s. People like watching people. There-fore it is essential that urban design-ers consider appropriate seasonal entertainment within small public spaces to encourage and entice suc-cessful social dynamics and activitiy.

5.5.3 Virtual featuresUnlike during Whyte’s study, the introduction of modern mobile technologies has become prevalent in today’s society. With wi-fi acces-sibility in a small space, virtual social interactions become common, al-lowing plaza-users to be social not only in “real-time”, but in virtual time and space too. These new mobile technologies and lifestyles create new considerations for urban design in the future. Nowadays, the need for wi-fi connectivity in all spaces has risen significantly. The internet cafe’s have shut down due to the wide-range wi-fi technology access that has become standard in today’s environments.

However, surprisingly, many ques-tionniare respondents did not wish the plaza to incorporate more virtual features, but rather, preferred it the way it was, simple and unencum-

bered by technologies. And yet, another subset of younger demo-graphic respondents, were eager to incorporate High Definition TVs, interactive media and news projec-tions on buildings, specific wi-fi hotspots and projected reality video feed.

In this instance, urban designers need to keep their finger on the pulse of new technology trends con-sumed by a younger demographic. As the older generations retire from the professional arena, the younger generations rise into the profes-sional workplaces bringing cause for new and innovative ideas that will enhance their experiences in small urban spaces and provide them with the virtual support they are used to on a hourly and daily basis.

Wireless internet users are heavily involved in e-mail, instant messag-ing and social networking as well as consuming online news and political information. These interactions gen-erate positive outcomes relating to the quality of social diversity within a public realm. These interactions are diverse and broad public realm interactions that expand experience and knowledge beyond the presence of a small urban space.


DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

55

5

5.6 Defining the impact William H. Whyte (1980) evaluated in his studies on The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, the physical features that provide a convivial space for it’s users, but also evaluated the behav-iours within these spaces. Whyte observed behaviours and provided urban design recommendations that would enhance or react to these behaviours. To the extent that a plaza ‘alters’ basic behaviour, the impact of the plaza is relatively small.

External environmental changes to-day have seen changes in the effects of behaviour within plaza’s; natural environmental changes, entertain-ment and events, human traits and characteristics and also technological advances play substantial roles.

In the 20th century, there were substantial shifts in technology and approaches to ‘health and leisure’ activities. The main technological advances that shifted behaviours in-cluded the introduction of television, home phones, radio and the auto-mobile. But although altering leisure behaviour drastically, the impact on urban plaza activities was somewhat limited. These technologies were fixed and generally site specific, ei-ther located at home or at work.

Most people participate in leisure time activities at lunchtime, near work or at home, after work hours. Therefore lunchtime is a prime time for professionals to leave their work-ing environment and find urban spaces that allow them to pursue activities at their leisure.

In the 21st century, however, tech-nology has no strict fixed location. The portability of technology should potentially have a greater impact on leisure activities within a small urban plaza at lunchtime. Indeed the mobility of technology should po-tentially have a much larger impact on plaza-based leisure activities. So today and in the future, this mobility of technologies is a big factor that should contribute to the design of small urban spaces.

If being “better off” is considered an increase in “utility”, then, in a plaza, an urban designer must recognise that mobile technologies may alter “utility” and thus a change in behav-iours occur. In the future, individuals may change behaviours in the plaza in two ways, adding activities that make them better off using new mo-bile technologies, but also dropping (or limiting) some activities previ-ously enjoyed in the plaza, as now,

they may be irrelevant to their needs or their new technology allows them to engage in those activities better elsewhere.

The exogenous technological devel-opment that is “mobile” does impact behaviours, including leisure behav-iours, independent of fixed loca-tions. In fact, the former “segmented” impacts fade or disappear, replaced by location independent impacts. So social behaviour, broadly speaking, is altered by mobile technology.

Human behaviour dictates that all individuals want to be up-to-date and better off and so they engage in a set of activities that they view as making them better off. In the future, any mobile technologies that facili-tate this feeling of being “better off” will be employed wherever they view it makes them so.

5.7 Design implicationsAs a plaza is a fixed location, physi-cal facilities designed to encourage human interaction, mobile tech-nologies have two main avenues of impact on urban design.The first is new activities that individ-uals undertake in the plaza, that are now due to mobile technology use. Secondly, activities have changed.

Activities that were formerly done in the plaza, are now done elsewhere due to mobile technologies mak-ing it easier and more attractive to individuals.

One could argue that the social behaviour increased at the James Center II Plaza with the addition of entertainment and events. Plaza’s need to be capable of housing enter-tainment, events, music and markets and should be properly designed for shade and longevity of wear. If a plaza is landscaped then can these social events exist within the space?

Urban designers must be aware of both types of impacts and incorpo-rate plaza features to accommodate them. As the young upwardly mobile workers enter the workforce, new plaza’s should be designed with mobile technology activities in mind and older plaza designs may ben-efit from the implications of mobile technologies and be redesigned to incorporate them.

5.8 Further studyThe preceding has described a framework for thinking about the introduction of mobile technology, changes in social behaviours and ac-tivities and the potential implications

DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

56

5


for physical feature plaza design. While a useful exercise for fram-ing the issue, it says little about the actual activities being pursued by users or their intensity of usage. An urban designer would benefit from a more extensive study to understand both activities and intensity of usage with some precision. This will allow an urban designer to transform the set of activities (i.e. map the activi-ties) into the appropriate features in the plaza. This process should allow potential plaza users to reveal their preferences to the extent possible. n


BIB

LIO

GR

APH

Y

57

6

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M. With Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S. (1977) A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape. London. p.73.

Aurigi, A. (2005) Making the Digital City: The Early shaping of Urban Internet Space. Ashgate: London.

Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989) Mul-timethod Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Chapter 1, p. 21.

Busquets, J. (2011) Spatial Vibrations Symposium, Importance of Public Space. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llnvvVmlRlk&feature=related [Accessed 15 July 2012].

CABE (2004) Manifesto for Better Public Spaces. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/manifesto-for-better-public-spaces.pdf [Accessed 29 July 2012].

CABE (2009) Open space strategies: best practice guidance. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/open-space-strate-gies.pdf [Accessed 29 July 2012].

CABE (2011) Seven principles of good design. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/councillors/principles[Accessed 15 July 2012].

Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Health, T. & Taner Oc. (2010) Public Places Urban Spaces, The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxon: Architectural Press, Routledge.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. & Stone, A. (1992) Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Casalegno, F. (2004) Thought on the Convergence of Digital Media, Memory, and Social and Urban Spaces. Space & Culture vol. 7 no. 3 pp. 313-326. London: Sage Publications.

Clarke, A. (2007) Understanding Community: A review of networks, ties and contacts. Available from: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/469/ [Accessed 10 July 2012].

A Day Made of Glass 2 HD (2012) Corning IncorporatedAvailable from: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0[Accessed 21 August 2012].

Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd. 2nd ed.

Crowhurst, S. H. & Lennard, H. (1984) Public Life in Urban Places. NY: Gondo-lier Press. Chapter One, p. 5.

Devlin, A. S. (2006) Research Methods. Planning, Conducting and Presenting Research. Belmont, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Francis, M., (1986) Research Ap-proaches to Urban Open Spaces. Ad-vances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol 1. Available from: http://lda.ucdavis.edu/people/websites/francis/Urban%20Open%20Spaces-Francis.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012]New York and London: Plenum Press.

Gaventa, S., (21 June, 2010), The Guardian, Tate debate: open your mind to public spaces. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cul-ture/2010/jun/21/open-mind-public-spaces [Accessed 17 July 2012].

Gehl, J., (1986) Life Between Buildings, Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gehl, J., (1994) Places for People. Available from: http://www.gehlar-chitects.dk/files/pdf/Melbourne_small.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2012].City of Melbourne in collaboration with GEHL Architects, Urban Quality Consultants Copenhagen.

Gillham, B., (2007) Developing a Ques-tionnaire. 2nd Ed. London: Continu-um International Publishing Group.

Gillham, B., (2008) Small-Scale Social Survey Methods. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Hampton, K., Livio, O., Trachtenberg, C., & McEwen, R. (2010). The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces. Con-texts, Vol 9, No. 4, USA. Available from: http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2010/the-social-life-of-wireless-urban-spaces/ [Accessed 11 May 2012].

Hampton, K., Livio, O., Trachtenberg, C., & Sessions Goulet, L (2010) The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm. Journal of Communi-cation, USA. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.uwe.ac.uk/store/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01510.x/asset/j.1460-2466.2010.01510.x.pdf?v=1&t=h62bfj3w&s=7941c061c2253f0867944f52e516a7c4ff994e16 [Accessed 19 August, 2012].

Holland. C., Clark, A., Katz., J. and Peace, S. (2007) Social interactions in urban public places. Bristol: The Policy Press.

BIB

LIO

GR

APH

Y

58

6


Humphries, L. (2005) Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society vol 7 (6): 810-833. London: SAGE Publications.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

James Center. History. Available from: http://www.thejamescenter.com/contact.html [Accessed 2 June 2012]. JRF, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2011) The Social Value of Public Spaces. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2050-public-space-community.pdf [Accessed 21 January 2012].

Daniel Latorre (2011) Digital Placemaking – Authentic Civic Engagement Available from: www.pps.org/blog/digital-placemaking-authentic-civic-engagement/ [Accessed 11 August 2012].

Lennard H. L., Crowhurst-Lennard , S. H. (1984) Public Life in Urban PlacesLondon: Gondolier Press.

Mcquire, S. Papastergiadis, N., Cubitt, S. (2008) Public Screens and the Trans-formation of Public Space. Available from: http://refractory.unimelb.edu.au/2008/03/06/public-screens-and-the transformation-of-public-space/

[Accessed 10 June 2012].

Memarovic, N., Langheinrich, M. & Alt, F. (2011) Connecting People through Content – Promoting Com-munity Identity Cognition through People and Places. CIRN Prato Com-munity Informatics Conference, Italy. Available from: uc.inf.usi.ch/sites/all/files/ci2011_0.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012].

Miep. (2011) Private Space vs. Public Space: Four Questions. Daily Kos. 13 March. Available from: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/13/956112/-Private-Space-vs-Public-Space-Four-Ques-tions [Accessed 19 July 2012].

McQuire, S., Papastergiadis, N. & Cubitt, S. (2008) Public Screens and the Transformation of Public Space. Available from: http://refractory.unimelb.edu.au/2008/03/06/public-screens-and-the-transformation-of-public-space/ [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Neuman, W. L. (1997) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 3rd Ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.

PPS, Project for Public Spaces (2011) What Makes a Successful Place? Available from: http://www.pps.org/

articles/grplacefeat/ [Accessed 30 June 2012].

PPS, Project for Public Spaces (2011) Eleven Principles for Creat-ing Great Community Places? Avail-able from: http://www.pps.org/reference/11steps/ [Accessed 30 June 2012].

PPS, Project for Public Spaces (2009) What is Placemaking? Available from: http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/ [Accessed 17 July 2012].

PPS, Project for Public Spaces (2011) Great Public Spaces: What Makes a Place Great? Available from: http://www.pps.org/reference/public_space_benefits/ [Accessed 30 June 2012].

Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evalu-ation and Research Methods. 2nd Ed. California: Sage Publications.

Shaftoe, H. (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places. London: Earthscan.

Springgate, L. (2008) Defining Parks and Park Systems. From Recreation to Re-creation. American Planning As-sociation, 2008.

Walljasper, J. (2005) Ode Magazine, In praise of streets, parks, squares,

coffeeshops, and other beloved hang-outs. Available from: http://www.pps.org/our_place/ [Accessed 15 July 2012].

Wilson E. O. (1984) Biophilia: the hu-man bond with other species. Cam-bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

WAUA (2008) On the strange disap-pearance of semi-spaces in London.Writings on architecture, urbanism & art. 28 July. Available from: http://waua.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/on-the-strange-disappearance-of-semi-spaces-in-london/ [Accessed 19 July 2012].

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 2nd Ed. London: Sage Publications.


APP

END

ICES

59

7

7.1 University letter for permissions 7.2 E-mail correspondence for permissions

APP

END

ICES

60

7


7.3 observational survey signage 7.4 visual map


APP

END

ICES

61

7

7.5 on-site questionnaire

APP

END

ICES

62

7


7.5 on-site questionnaire (cont.) 7.6 Questionnaire comments

Below are additional comments that questionnaire responders included in their answers to questions 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

Question 19When using technology in the plaza, do you use it for social communica-tions, and if so how ... (please specify)

• Connectwithfriendsnotlocatedin the plaza area (5).

• Textingandphonecalls(12).• Phonecalls.• Texting.• TextandFacebookusage.• Phone.• Businessandpersonalcalls(2)• Email(4).• Workemail.• Twitter(3).• Onlineforums.• Facebook(3).• Pininterest.

Question 20What activities did you used to do in the plaza prior to mobile technologies that you no longer participate in and why?

• Morewalkingandsitting.• Catchupandmeetpeople.• Peoplewatch.• Peoplewatching.• Hangoutwithfriendsandeat

lunch.

• Privateconversations.• Socialmeetings.• Morewalkingandsiteseeing.• Visitfriendsandcoworkers.• Talk.

Question 21Do you still do those activities and if yes, where do you do them? (please specify)

• Otherplacessomewhatmore.• Eatingandpeoplewatching.• Eatlunchandpeoplewatch.• Inotherparks.

Questions 22What additional physical features would you want to enhance your experience within the plaza? (please specify)

• Shade,maybepublicmediaandbig screen news.

• Moreseating,moreflowers.• Fountain(3),moreart,picnic

tables and movable chairs.• Bencheswithbacksupports.• Morefood,tablesandchairs.• Tables(3)• Seatingandbenches.• Moreseating(6).• Noadditionalfeaturesneeded.• Moresculptureandart(2).• Fountainandmorefoodvendors.• None,keepasis(6).• Chairs,umbrellasforshade.• Waterfountainsand“quiet”areas.• Morepark-like.


APP

END

ICES

63

7

• Shadewithnobugsdroppingoffthe trees.

• Publicart(2).• Moreentertainmentneeded(3).• Waterpodsinareas.• Recyclingbins(2).• Flowers(2).• Waterfeature(3).• Morecartsandfoodoptions.• Non-smokingplaza(3).• Lazyriveraroundbuildings.• Moreorganicseating.• Petparkarea.

Question 23What additional social features would you want to enhance your experience within the plaza? (please specify)

• None(11).• Comedyacts,performersthatare

work appropriate.• Waterfountains,streetperform-

ers, games, dancing, bicycle storage.

• Noadditionalfeaturesneeded.• Moremusic,chessorbackgam-

mon games.• Morefrequentmusicandenter-

tainment.• Aplacetocheckwhatisgoingon

at the James Center II Plaza.• Wine/cheesebar.• Additionalseatingtoencourage

social interactions.• Moreoutsidedrinkingfountains.• Bandsorconcerts.• Quieter,lesstrafficnoise.• Art(5).

• Aconversationpoint(visual/seen/understood and preplanned)

• Likethesimplicityofplazaasis.• Streetperformers.• Yogaclass,jewelrystalls,art

exhibits, baked good stalls, book exchange.

• Morefoodoptionsandentertain-ment.

• Moremusic(6).• Informationbooth.• Outdoorcafewithtables/chairs.• Opentopublic.• Waterfall.• Bands.• Busking.• Nodogsallowed.

Question 24What additional virtual technology fea-tures would you want to enhance your experience within the plaa? (please specify)

• Bigscreen,Airconditioning capabilities in the summer.

• Wi-fiandlazerlightshow.• None(20)• Scrollingnews,sportsprojected

on the buildings. Live music.• Noadditionalfeaturesneeded.• None,wanttoavoidtechnology

in the plaza.• AJamesCenterIIPlazaappthat

provides info on food vendor hours, entertainment, weather, events, etc.

• Freewi-fi(3).• Wirelessaccess

• Noadditionalfeaturesneeded,beautiful nature setting as is.

• Camerapointstocrowdandbe-comes James Center II Plaza Real-ity TV like New York Times Square.

• Announcementpostingsdisplayspace by front doors.

• Likethesimplicityofplazaasis.• Musicandskype.• HighdefinitionTV.• Wi-ficonnectivityandprojected

business news.• Interactivemedia.• Internetresearchkiosk.• News,gameshows,lightenter-

tainment.• Giantchess,scrabble,grouponfor

plaza, instigram photo contest.• Hollogramsoffamouspeople.• Specifichotspotinplazafor

free wi-fi technology useage.• Stockmarkettickerprojected

on buildings (newsfeed). Video board.

Additional Comments• Enjoytheplazaandit’sspacebut

the smoking is horrible. Would like to see the plaza as a smoke-free campus.

• Sometimestheentertainmentcanbe too loud.

• Thebelltowerbellsneedtuning.

Either people must bring the components of an interesting stay with them (in the form of equipment, books, or thoughts) or the place itself must provide the stimulation that enables users’ interests to en-

dure.S. Carr, M. Francis, L. G. Rivlin and

A. M. Stone (1992) Needs in public space

APP

END

ICES

64

7


7.7 Questionnaire compiled data

Respondent_Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61Name Anne Davlin Ray Owens no name 1 no name 2 Pam Campagnolino name 3 Jane Vukmer no name 4 Jana Burtner Lucas Scholl no name 5 Charles Lee no name 6 Megan JohnsonMatt Bley no name 7 Casey Green Aurica Green no name 8 George Gordon David Louie Cesley Musngi Josh Andes Susan Lexi Gray no name 9 Brinda George no name 9 Vicki Moore Laurie MacClintockCraig Secor Mikray Guerry Steven Sabol no name 10 no name 11 Jonathan Copelandno name 12Randi Mayfieldno name 13 Wayne Kelley Paula FarnhamLori Maass no name 14no name 15 no name 16 no name 17 James Ruffin Jennifer Mooreno name 18 no name 19 Scott Pomeroy no name 20 no name 21Alex HendricksonKaren Whitlock Doug Ellis Jaminah Williamsno name 22Nancy Reiland no name 23 Anna Carew

Q1 Sex (M/F) F M F M F F F F F M M M M F M M M F M M M F M F F F F M F F M F M M M M M F F M F F F M F M M F M M M F M M F M F M F M FQ2 Age (1-‐7) 3 6 4 6 6 6 2 5 2 2 6 5 5 3 5 4 6 6 4 5 5 2 3 3 2 4 6 5 6 5 3 4 2 2 4 2 4 6 3 6 3 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 4 6 4 5 5 3 3 5 4 6 6 6 3Q3 Ethnicity (1-‐8) 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 3 4 4 4 4 1 8 4 4 4 3 4 4 8 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 4 4 1 1 4 4 4Q4 Spring (1/0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1Q4 Summer (1/0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1Q4 Fall (1/0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1Q4 Winter (1/0) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Q5 Prefer_season (1-‐4) 1 1,2 1,2 1,2,3,4 1,4 1,3 2,3 1,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 2 1,3 1,3 1,2,3,4 1,2,3 1,3 1,4 1,3 2 1,3 4 1,2,3 1,3 1,2 1,2 2 1,3 1,2 2 4 1 1,2,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,2 2,3 3 1,3 1,2,3,4 1,2,3 1,2 4 0 2 4 4 1,2,3 2 4 4 0 0 1,3 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4Q6 Frequency (1-‐6) 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 4 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 1Q6A (if Q6 = 6, then enter Other Response) Frequency OtherQ7 Days_Mon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1Q7 Days_Tues 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1Q7 Days_Wed 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1Q7 Days_Thurs 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1Q7 Days_Fri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1Q7 Days_Sat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q7 Days_Sun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q7 Days_None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q7 Days_Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no standard day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 varies 0 every day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_before9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_9_10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_10_11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_11_Noon 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0Q8 Time_Noon_1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1Q8 Time_1_2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Q8 Time_2_3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_3_4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_4_5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_After_5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q8 Time_other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 to 5 0 8 To 5 0 0 0 0 0 0Q9 Lunch_start (enter the start time for lunch) 11:30 AM 12:15 PM 1:15 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:45 PM 12:00 PM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:30 AM 5:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 5:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 12:00 PM 11:00 AM 12:45 PM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PMQ9 Lunch_end (enter the end time for lunch) 12:30 PM 1:45 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 1:05 PM 2:00 PM 1:30 PM 1:30 PM 1:15 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:45 PM 7:00 AM 1:15 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 12:15 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PMQ10 Shopping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Live 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Work 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1Q10 Visit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Passing 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Activities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1Q10 Leisure 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q10 Food 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1Q10 Other (Specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vendor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JazzQ11 Read 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Q11 Walk 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1Q11 Sit 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1Q11 Meditate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q11 Sunbathe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q11 Meet Friends 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1Q11 Eat 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1Q11 Smoke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q11 Listen 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Q11 People-‐Watch 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1Q11 Be Outdoors 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1Q11 Email 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0Q11 Phone 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1Q11 Internet 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Q11 Text Messaging 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1Q11 Other (Specify) 0 0 0 work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xmas Lights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 passing through 0 0 0 prefer no IT 0 0 0 0Q12 Read 0 0 0 0 0 30 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 30 0 0 15 0 0 10 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 30 0 10 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0Q12 Walk 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 30 5 10 10 0 15 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 15 0 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 25 0 5 10 30 15 0 20 0 10 10 30 0 15 0 0 5Q12 Sit 30 0 0 0 5 30 30 25 30 30 15 30 20 30 20 30 30 15 30 30 30 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 15 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 10 30 0 0 0 30 0 15 0 30 10 0 5 10 15 0 15 0 0 15Q12 Meditate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 15 0 10 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Sunbathe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Meet Friends 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 25 30 30 0 30 0 30 20 10 30 0 0 30 30 30 0 30 15 0 0 30 30 10 30 30 30 15 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 15 0 0 10 10 30 15 30 30 20Q12 Eat 20 0 0 0 0 30 30 25 30 30 15 30 20 30 30 20 0 30 15 15 25 30 15 20 30 15 20 0 30 30 30 0 15 15 10 0 0 30 30 30 30 0 15 0 0 15 30 0 10 15 30 15 0 0 15 0 30 30 0 30 20Q12 Smoke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Listen 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 20 0 0 0Q12 People-‐Watch 5 5 5 0 0 30 30 25 30 30 15 30 20 30 20 20 0 0 15 15 30 0 5 30 30 15 10 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 15 5 5 15 10 0 25 30 0 20Q12 Be Outdoors 30 0 5 0 15 30 30 30 30 30 15 0 20 30 30 30 0 0 30 30 30 0 0 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 30 30 0 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 25 0 30 0 0 0 30 20 5 5 5 10 30 25 0 0 20Q12 Email 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 30 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0Q12 Phone 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0Q12 Internet 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5Q12 Text Messaging 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 5 20 0 0 0 10 0 5 20 0 5Q12 Facebook 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0Q12 Twitter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Blog 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Games 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0Q12 Apps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Web Search 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0Q12 Online Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Videos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q12 Other (Specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Easy to Get to 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 3 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Plantings 5 4 2 0 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 5 4 0 2 3 1 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 5 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Maintenance 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 2 0 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 2 0 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Security/Safety 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 0 5 0 3 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Quality of Space 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Shade 2 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 0 2 3 3 0 3 2 4 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 1Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Sun 2 4 2 0 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Water 4 4 4 0 1 3 3 5 5 2 0 2 5 5 3 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 5Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Food Vendors/Carts 1 4 4 0 3 4 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 4 2 0 3 3 5 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Entertainment 4 3 5 0 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 3 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 3 1 2 0 2 4 2 3 4 3 0 4 0 3 0 3 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Wifi 4 2 1 1 2 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 1 3 5 5 1 3 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 0 5 0 5 0 2 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 3Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Sitting Places 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Virtual Accessibility 5 1 2 0 1 5 3 5 2 4 5 5 2 5 5 3 3 1 3 5 3 1 3 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 0 5 0 5 0 3 2 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 2Q13 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5

for Not at All important) Public Art 5 3 2 0 3 5 1 4 2 4 5 4 3 3 5 3 2 1 3 4 2 3 4 4 2 4 2 5 3 4 2 5 1 4 0 2 3 3 4 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 3 3 0 5 0 don't use plaza 0 0 userfriendly 0 2 3 0 3Q14 ipad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Q14 ipod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q14 smart phones 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1Q14 CellPhones 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Q14 Laptop 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Q14 E-‐Reader 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Q14 Camera 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q14 None 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0Q14 Other (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 avoid 0 typically unplug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 work in IT 0 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Easy to Get to 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 1 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Plantings 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Maintenance 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Security/Safety 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Quality of Space 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Shade 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Sun 5 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Water 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Food Vendors/Carts 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Entertainment 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Wifi 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Sitting Places 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Virtual Accessibility 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

Q15 (enter 1 for Extremely Important and 5 for Not at All important) Public Art 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Q17 Engagement_level_tech (1-‐5) 3 2 4 2 3 0 4 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 0 3 0 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 5 2 2 0 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 1 3Q18 (enter 1 for engaged and 5 for disengaged)Engagement_level_no_tech (1-‐5) 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 0 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2


APP

END

ICES

65

7
































7.7 Questionnaire compiled data (continued)
































Digital Placemaking. It’s the integration of social media into Placemaking practices, which are community- centered, encourag-ing public participa-tion, collaboration, and transparency.

Latorre, D. (2011)Digital Placemaking – Authentic Civic

EngagementAvailable from: http://www.pps.org/digital-placemaking-authentic-civic-

engagement/[Accessed 15 July 2012].

NOTE:The winner of the $25 Starbucks gift certifi-cate drawing was Ms. Carew, a Richmond resident and one of the plaza questionnaire participants. The gift certificate was posted to her home address on 24 September 2012.

dissertation_urbandesign_final_lr_secure

Documents

urban design community

urban design physical

successful small urban

convivial small urban

ailsa long abstract

social interactions

social dynamics

masters programme