A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture Mark Francis

Home , Bryant Park, Central Park, Greenacre Park, Paley Park

A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture Mark Francis

Mark Francis, FASLA is professor and Abstract: Case studies are widely used in most professions, including medicine, law, past chair of landscape architecture engineering, business, planning, and architecture. This practice is becoming increasingly com- at the University of California, Davis. mon in landscape architecture as well. The primary body of knowledge in landscape architec- Trained in landscape architecture and ture is contained in the written and visual documentation—that is, stories—of projects, be it urban design at the University of Cal- well-known ones such as New York’s Central Park, or more modest projects such as a small ifornia, Berkeley and Harvard, his neighborhood park. Together, these cases provide the primary form of education, innovation, and work focuses on the use and meaning testing for the profession. They also serve as the collective record of the advancement and devel- of the built and natural landscape. opment of new knowledge in landscape architecture. This article summarizes a research project Much of this research has utilized a commissioned by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) in 1997 to develop a case case study approach to study and study method for landscape architecture. The project concludes that the case study method is a design parks, gardens, public spaces, highly appropriate and valuable approach in landscape architecture. This article presents a streets, nearby nature, and urban case study methodology for landscape architecture including it limits and benefits, a suggested public life. He is the author of sev- methodology and format, and an example case study of Bryant Park in New York City. With enty articles and book chapters trans- increased rigor and funding, the case study method promises to be an increasingly common and lated into ten languages and several effective form of analysis, criticism, and dissemination for landscape architecture research and books including The California Land- practice. scape Garden (University of California Press 1999), Public Space (Cambridge University Press 1992), The Meaning of Gardens (MIT Press 1990), and Commu- nity Open Spaces (Island Press 1984). He has received design, planning, and research awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Ameri- can Institute of Architects, the Amer- ican Planning Association, and eight national awards from the American Society of Landscape Architects including a 1999 Centennial Medal- lion.

Outstanding new projects can This article presents the results The Case Study Method and A Definition result from putting a new twist on of a study commissioned by the Land- The case study method has ideas from the past. scape Architecture Foundation (LAF) been utilized in various professions (Urban Land Institute, 1998) to develop a case study methodology and fields as an established method to improve the level of practice and of education and research.2 Law, busi- ase studies have a long scholarship in landscape architecture. ness, medicine, engineering, and pub- Cand well-established his- The study involved a review of past lic policy all use case studies (Yin and tory in landscape architecture. This is approaches to case study analysis in the Rand Corporation 1976; Yin how landscape architects frequently other professions and the social and 1993, 1994; Stake 1995). Fields such inform their colleagues and the pub- ecological sciences, including a sum- as sociology, economics, and psychol- lic about their work. Case studies mary of significant benefits and limi- ogy also use case studies as a research have been frequently used in land- tations. In addition, a survey was con- method. Case studies often serve to scape architecture education and ducted to determine how environ- make concrete what are often gener- research, and practitioners have also mental design professionals and alizations or purely anecdotal infor- utilized them to a more limited researchers have utilized case study mation about projects and processes. extent. As the profession develops analysis for designed and natural They also bring to light exemplary more of its own theory and knowledge places.1 projects and concepts worthy of base and communicates this more [Insert Photo 1 — Central Park replication. broadly, the case study method — about here] While case study definitions promises to be an effective way to have taken different forms, I offer the advance the profession.

Francis 1 following definition for use in land- projects as a form of case study analy- professional education. There is also scape architecture: sis. Empirical and critical analysis is a well-developed case study method- A case study is a well-documented and often lacking, along with the use of a ology in the social and natural sci- systematic examination of the process, systematic methodology. However, ences, much of which is useful for decision-making and outcomes of a pro- there is an opportunity through the landscape architecture (Riley 1963; ject, which is undertaken for the purpose leadership of the Landscape Architec- Platt 1992). of informing future practice, policy, ture Foundation in cooperation with [Insert Photo 3 — Faneuil Hall theory, and/or education. organizations such as the American — about here] Case studies can be valuable for Society of Landscape Architects Case studies in urban planning, a profession in a number of ways. For (ASLA), the Council of Educators in architecture, urban design, and urban practitioners, they can be a source of Landscape Architecture (CELA), and land development are most similar to practical information on potential others to increase the rigors as well ones used in landscape architecture. solutions to difficult problems. For as the application of case study analy- Research in architecture, planning, professional education, case studies sis in landscape architecture. These and urban design often relies on a are an effective way to teach by organizations can show how case case study approach, be it a historical, example, to learn problem-solving studies can both better inform prac- social, or policy-oriented exa m i n a t i o n . skills, and to develop useful evalua- tice and advance the state of land- tion strategies. For the profession as scape architecture research. Similar Efforts a whole, case studies are a way to Case study analysis is one of A number of case study archives several well-established research exist today in related fields including build a body of criticism and critical 4 theory, and to disseminate the effec- methods in landscape architecture. planning, urban land development, tiveness of landscape architecture Case studies typically employ a vari- and urban parks. The Urban Land outside the profession. ety of research methods. These Institute (ULI), which is dedicated to [Insert Photo 2 — Portland include experimental (Ulrich 1984), advancing urban land development Fountain — about here] quasi-experimental (Zube 1984), his- practice, has developed a strong There are several ways case torical (Walker and Simo 1994), story record of using case studies. The studies can be used. In the design telling/anecdotal documentation ULI’s Project Reference Files were (McHarg 1996) as well as multi- started in 1985 and contain develop- professions, such as landscape archi- 5 tecture, they are typically used to method approaches. ment details on over 250 innovative describe and/or evaluate a project or and successful projects. The Lincoln process. In other fields, case studies Use of Case Studies in Other Land Institute, the Trust for Public are sometimes used to explain or even Professions/Fields Land, the American Planning Associ- predict theory related to practice or The professions of law, medi- ation, and the Urban Parks Institute phenomena. Here, multiple case cine, business, and engineering rely are other organizations that develop studies are considered with an eye for heavily on case studies for education, and disseminate case studies related lessons from which one can general- research, and practice (Feagin et al. to urban parks, land conservation, ize or principles that can advance 1991). For example, the case study community greening, and land eco- method is a core part of the curricula nomics. In landscape architecture, knowledge.3 Case studies can describe exemplary projects that in medicine, law, and engineering. the Contemporary Landscape Inquiry demonstrate exceptional work, or Harvard Schools of Business, Law, Project at the University of Toronto’s they can also be conducted on more and Medicine all routinely use case Virtual Landscape Architecture typical projects, which may be easier studies to train their students. In Library Web site includes over 160 to replicate. They can be conducted business and law, hypothetical case project case studies in landscape on contemporary projects as well as studies are invented specifically architecture maintained by landscape more historic types. Successful cases for use in education and practice architecture faculty and students. typically include both aspects. (Cagranoff et al. 1991; Barnes et al. The site includes case studies of vary- Literature on the case study 1994). Cases are presented to demon- ing lengths and qualities, a case study method is clear on its potential bene- strate how difficult management or search engine, and a way to make fits and limitations (Sommer and clinical situations could be handled in available new case studies online. Sommer 1986; Sommer 1997; Webb practice. They challenge students and et al. 1966; Zeisel 1990). While there practitioners to be effective problem The Value of Case Studies are many benefits to a case study solvers and to devise solutions to com- Robert Yin suggests that the approach, there are some important mon situations encountered in prac- value of case studies lies in their limitations as well. One typical prob- tice. The case study method is now potential to “retain holistic and lem is the inability to compare across the standard method used in most meaningful characteristics of real life cases, especially when different types situations” (1994, p. 3). Case study of data have been collected. In land- analysis is a particularly useful scape architecture some designers research method in professions such consider taking photographs of built as landscape architecture, architecture, and planning where real world

2 Landscape Journal contexts make more controlled tion of case studies on the use and build on existing cases by under- empirical study difficult. redesign of urban open spaces, partic- standing aspects of a project unique Case studies can often answer ularly in the Bay Area (Marcus et al. to a given context while gleaning big questions at the intersection of 1997).6 principles useful in similar projects. policy and design. They are useful in More recent examples of case Case studies can help practitioners participatory planning, for culturally study approaches to landscape archi- replicate successes and avoid failures. sensitive design, and for studies try- tecture education include Ann Spirn’s Case studies can also help to demys- ing to refine or test emerging con- studios at the University of Pennsyl- tify what landscape architects do and cepts and ideas. The questions posed vania, which are developing and to explain how projects are success- in case studies thirty to forty years evaluating community garden case fully implemented. They can be par- ago by Ian McHarg, Kevin Lynch, studies in west Philadelphia; Rob ticularly useful in the design process Herbert Gans, and Jane Jacobs still Thayer’s bioregional studios at The as a way of engaging a variety of peo- form the basis for much contempo- University of California, Davis ple in the complex process of moving rary thinking in environmental focused on the Putah/Cache Creek from identifying problems to creating design. These cases have contributed watershed of central California; and solutions. seminal normative theory useful for John Lyle’s former studios at Cal Poly Theory building. While not always design and planning. Pomona on regional design problems used this way, case studies can be There are several potential ben- within the Los Angeles Basin. Several instrumental in developing new theo- efits of case studies for landscape courses are utilizing case studies to ries related to landscape architecture. architects. These are summarized in teach theory in landscape architec- They not only describe projects or six general areas: teaching, research, ture, particularly at Arizona State places but can also explain and pre- practice, theory building, criticism, University, Harvard, The University dict future action. Case studies can and communication and outreach. of Virginia, and The University of be used to develop what Kristina Hill Teaching. Landscape architec- California, Davis to name just a few. calls a “strategic approach” or rule- ture is predominantly taught by Research. There is a large and of-thumb regarding landscape archi- example. Case studies are an effec- well-developed body of literature on tecture projects from the scale of the tive and established way to use exam- the case study method and its many site to the region (1995). For examples in the classroom or studio. Most applications. Landscape architecture ple, case-by-case data on amounts of schools include some form of case researchers have employed the case impervious surface can test the larger study method in their curriculum. study method in post-occupancy eval- communal or regional impacts of a Case studies are a useful way for stu- uations, landscape ecology, site tech- project. Findings from case studies on dents to gain insight into past pro- nology, and historical analysis.7 Many pedestrian or park behavior can be jects in order to successfully design M.L.A. and Ph.D. theses and disserta- used to predict how activity may take new ones. They are particularly tions provide excellent examples of place in similar projects.10 instructive in teaching history and case study analysis.8 Organizations [Insert Photo 4 — Battery Park useful for students in community out- such as the Council of Educators in City — about here] reach projects. Case studies are an Landscape Architecture, the Ameri- Criticism. A body of criticism is excellent way to get students involved can Society of Landscape Architects, essential for any profession to develop in landscape architecture research and the Environmental Design and advance. Case studies are a use- since the method is easy for students Research Association all report on ful way to develop that body of criti- to use. advances in case study research to cism in landscape architecture. They Examples of past case study some degree at their annual meet- can illuminate both the positive as approaches to landscape architecture ings.9 Increased use of case studies well as the negative aspects of pro- education include McHarg’s early can expand the research base in land- jects. Case studies can also inform case study studios at the University of scape architecture as well as to com- ongoing intellectual debates and crit- Pennsylvania (1995) which focused on municate these research advances to ical discussions within landscape the Delaware River Basin; Carl the profession. architecture. Steinitz’s studios at Harvard, which Practice. Case studies are a Communication and Outreach. Case developed useful information for spe- structured way of recording landscape studies are an effective way to com- cific communities or regions includ- architecture projects. Case studies municate the results of landscape ing Monroe County, Pennsylvania and are a useful way for practitioners to architecture projects. They are par- Camp Pendelton, California (Steinitz evaluate the success and failure of ticularly well suited for reporting to et al. 1994; 1996); and those of Clare projects, although few practitioners the media and can make the profes- Cooper Marcus who with her stu- routinely do this. Future practice can sion more accessible to the public. dents in her social factors seminar course at The University of Califor- Limitations nia, Berkeley developed a large collec- While case studies are one of the best means for communicating lessons in many fields, they are plagued with difficulties. One of the

Francis 3 most common limitations for land- Haag, Randy Hester, Ann Spirn, Ian time; unique constraints; community scape architecture is that case studies McHarg, Carl Steinitz, Rob Thayer, and cultural impacts of the project; are often costly to do, especially if John Lyle, and Peter Walker, to name environmental sensitivity and impact; they are done well with time spent just a few. There is also a sizable body impact on the profession; infrastruc- on-site. In addition, project designers, of literature on landscape architecture impacts; lessons learned and owners, and managers may be unwill- ture projects based entirely or in part theory. In addition, it is useful to ing to provide frank information on case studies. There has been a examine outside critiques, reports of about problems with their projects— recent increase in the number of case the projects in the popular media, information that is necessary to pre- studies, particularly those published and peer reviews in the form of pare a full and critical case study. by Process Architecture and Space- awards and honors. These dimensions Case studies are also not as effective maker Press in the United States. are discussed in further detail in on new projects. For example, the Professional design awards are also Table 2. Urban Land Institute typically waits a useful source of exemplary case [Insert Table 2 about here] one or two years after a project is studies.12 complete before they begin a case A Suggested Format for Case Studies study. Some projects are best evalu- Seminal Case Study Projects From the range of knowledge ated after a decade or more. There is There are several seminal that can make up a case study, at often limited information available projects that make up a large part least three levels of information are on existing case studies. For example, of the knowledge base as well as the possible in a case study analysis. The cases done as graduate theses are popular culture of landscape archi- first, and simplest, is a project rarely published and are often diffi- tecture. These single projects, as well abstract of two to three pages. The cult to access. as comparative studies of project second level is a full project case Case studies can sometimes types, have had enormous influence study. The third level is a more in- point out failures as well as successes on the development of the profession. depth case study with contextual or of projects. While we often learn as They illustrate the impact that well- specialized material included. While much or more from failure, profes- documented case studies can have on each level of information may have a sionals are not eager to have this practice. Several single or compara- different audience, the greatest need, aspect of their project highlighted. tive case studies have been commonly especially in teaching, is for the more There is often a lack of peer review cited as seminal to the theory and detailed case studies of the second for case studies unless they are sub- practice of landscape architecture. and third level (see Table 3). mitted for publication in refereed While not a comprehensive survey, it [Insert Photo 5 — North Park journals such as Landscape Journal. As demonstrates the large number of — about here] a result, publications that contain well-recognized case studies that case study projects are not rewarded have had a significant impact on Methods/Process in the tenure or promotion process as landscape architecture thought and Case study analysis typically often as “scientific” research.11 action (See Table 1). involves designing the case study, con- Finally, a limited number of case [Insert Table 1 about here] ducting the case study, analyzing the studies is available beyond the well- results, and disseminating the known projects that tend to be stud- Critical Dimensions results. Case studies can be done ied over and over again such as New Case studies can be utilized to alone or together to compare across York’s Central Park. There is a criti- bring out several kinds of informa- projects (Yin 1994). Case studies in cal need for case studies of more tion. While some of this information landscape architecture can be orga- modest, everyday landscapes such as may be unique to the given project nized around the type of project, the urban gardens, greenways, etc. and its context, it may also be useful problem, the geographical region, or for advancing knowledge in the pro- the designer. Each has its own unique Case Studies in Landscape Architecture fession in general. The elements that purpose and benefits. Case study analysis has a long a full case study should include are: One methodological issue is history in landscape architecture. baseline information; the roles of key who should actually prepare the case Although these documents are not participants; financial aspects; study. It is important that objectivity always called case studies, the docu- process; problem definition and be ensured in the design and execu- mentation and dissemination of pro- response; goals; program; design; site tion of the case study. Subjectivity can jects has been done since the days of visit(s); use; maintenance and man- be avoided if other people such as Olmsted. However, many of these agement; and perception and mean- academics, journalists, and users are documents lack more in-depth and ing. Additional critical dimensions to involved in preparing the case study. critical review. Some contemporary include in a case study are: scale; The person or team that prepares the landscape architects have used case case study needs to be free of bias studies to develop and test their theo- and skilled in asking questions, listen- ries and design ideas. They include ing, and comprehending the issues landscape architects such as Rich involved. Information for case studies can

4 Landscape Journal be gathered in a variety of ways. It is management and maintenance or hand and unrealistic on the other. important to be systematic and con- permanency in community gardens. Clearly many urbanites seek a place sistent in using these methods. Most of retreat from the activity of the city, successful case studies incorporate a Example Case Study: Bryant Park and Bryant Park is one of the few variety of methods such as site visits; To illustrate how case study places in central Manhattan that site analysis; historical analysis; analysis could be structured two could conceivably offer this respite. design process analysis; behavioral example case studies were Indeed, in their 1976 study of the analysis; interviews with designer(s), developed.15 Bryant Park in midtown park, Nager and Wentworth found developer(s), manager(s), and public Manhattan is presented here to illus- that relaxing or resting was the most officials; interviews with users and trate the kind of information that can frequent activity engaged in by the non-users; archival material searches be contained in a case study. It is not park users they interviewed. including project files, newspaper presented here as a full or complete However, as these same articles, public records; bibliographic case but as an abbreviated illustra- researchers suggest, some of the very searches; and internet searches. tion of the type of information that factors that made the park a place for should be included in case studies of retreat and relaxation, such as its A Landscape Typology landscape architecture projects. ample vegetation and the stone Case studies can be organized in several ways. One method is based Project Name: Bryant Park, New York City16 on geography, documenting projects Location: Avenue of the Americas between 41stt and 42nd within a region or part of the country Streets, behind New York Public Library, Manhattan or world. Another method is to orga- Date Designed/Planned: Original design completed in 1934; redesigned early nize the case studies by type of fund- 1990s ing, decision-making, or the role of Construction Completed: Built in phases from 1991 to 1995 the landscape architect. A third Construction Cost: Park Rehabilitation = $5.9 million method is to arrange the case studies Size: 4.6 acres by project type, which is particularly Landscape Architect(s): Hanna/Olin, Landscape Architects helpful to compare and learn across Client/Developer: New York City Parks Department and Bryant Park projects. Case studies of projects can Restoration Corporation (BPRC) follow a typology for landscape archi- Consultants/Architects: Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer, New York City tecture that may include the follow- Managed By: New York City Parks Department and Bryant Park ing types (partial listing)13: cam- Restoration Corporation (BPRC) puses, cemeteries, city plans, community open spaces, gardens (private), Context. Bryant Park, located fences separating it from the street, gardens (public), greenways/park- one block from Times Square and also encouraged its intensive use by ways, historic landscapes, housing behind the main branch of the New drug dealers, who operated easily in environments, institutional and cor- York Public Library, is a major public the semi-seclusion of the park from porate landscapes, landscape plan- open space in Manhattan’s bustling the 1970s until its redevelopment in ning, metropolitan open spaces, midtown. It is located in a busy office the 1990s. During the 1970s it national forests, national parks, new and educational district of Manhat- became clear that some design or community design, plazas, recre- tan and serves as an outdoor retreat management changes were necessary ational areas, regional plans, restored for office workers, tourists, and stu- in order to counteract the appropria- natural landscapes/reclamation, state dents. In the 1970s it was populated tion of the park by dealers and their parks, streets, urban parks, and by drug dealers and the homeless. clients and to increase its use by a waterfronts. Today it is heralded as a revitalized wider range of people, including local [Insert Photo 6 — Boston City and democratic urban public space office workers and shoppers. This Hall Plaza — about here] that can serve as a model for other concern gave rise to current redesign cities. and development of the park, com- An Issue Typology The history of the park graphi- pleted in phases from 1991 to 1995. Case studies can also be con- cally demonstrates some of the con- Site Analysis. Bryant Park is ducted and organized around issues flicts inherent in managing public bounded on three sides by streets and that face landscape architectural pro- spaces in dense urban centers. Con- on the fourth by the back of the New jects.14 While several types of issues sidering its location, the notion of York Public Library. Two of the three are possible, they can address, for Bryant Park as a place for relaxation streets, 42nd Street and Avenue of example, approaches to community can be viewed as appropriate on one the Americas, are heavily trafficked. participation, design decision making, Historic elements include a stand of development costs, low cost urban heritage sycamore trees on the site parks, use and users, meaning, park framing a central lawn area and a plaza at the western end. There are stunning views of the skyline of midtown Manhattan from most parts of

Francis 5 the park, and the New York Public park” for drug dealing (Longo 1996). The landscape architectural firm Library building forms a strong visual Years of neglect, deterioration, and Hanna Olin was hired in the early edge at the east end of the park. problems of use led the Rockefeller 1990s to redesign the park. Their Anita Nager and Wally Wentworth Brothers Fund to finance a reexami- design goal was to make the park a (1976) conducted a behavioral analy- nation of the park. The fund brought multi-use and user-friendly urban sis of Bryant Park in the early 1970s, in noted public space expert William open space. followed by filming and observation Whyte, who used past research on the Design/Development Process. Six of use of the park by the sociologist park to create a formula for redesign million dollars worth of physical William Whyte (1979). Landscape (see program). changes were made to the park in architect Laurie Olin conducted After Whyte’s report, the several phases in the early 1990s. detailed sketches, site analysis, and Bryant Park Restoration Corporation These included adding more seating; redesign studies of the park in the (BPRC), a public-private partnership, increasing access points; refurbishing 1980s.17 Several economic studies was formed to redevelop the park, hedges, lawns, and flower beds; were done on the importance and and a team of designers was hired. restoring the fountains and Bryant redevelopment of the park during Construction of the park took place statue; and expanding the library’s that same period. in the early 1990s and it has enjoyed central book stacks underneath the Project Background and History. a rebirth as a result. Today it is a Great Lawn (Program on Public While Bryant Park has served as a well-used and popular open space in Space Partnerships 1987). The office public open space since the mid- midtown Manhattan. of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associ- 1850s, its main configuration was Genesis of the Project. The recent ates, an architectural firm known for established in 1934 and then modi- redevelopment of Bryant Park grew its sensitivity to historical landmarks, fied in the early 1990s. Bryant Park out of significant social and crime was hired for the restaurant addition was originally a potter’s field in 1823. problems within the park, especially at the rear of the New York Public It was developed as a park in 1847 during the 1970s. To redevelop the Library, facing the park. The pro- and named Reservoir Park, “after the park, the BPRC, a private nonprofit posed encroachment into the public city reservoir that was constructed on group funded primarily by corpora- park with a private development met the site now occupied by the public tions located near the park and the with considerable opposition, includ- library” (Berens 1998, p. 45). In 1884, Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund, was ing objections from the influential it was renamed Bryant Park after the founded in 1980. While the corpora- private advocacy group, the Parks poet William Cullen Bryant, who was tion dealt extensively with mainte- Council. After three years of public a strong advocate for parks. When nance and security issues in coopera- debate and review, a scaled-down pro- Robert Moses became head of the tion with the city’s parks and police posal called for two smaller buildings New York City Parks Department in departments, its major goal was “to on the upper terrace, one housing an 1923, he mounted a major redevelop- fill Bryant Park with activity, to upscale restaurant, the other conces- ment of the park. Moses intended the attract to the park as many legiti- sions for lower-cost food. Design cou- park to be a place of “restful beauty,” mate users as possible” (Bryant Park pled with an aggressive events pro- with ample trees and hedges, rather Restoration Corporation 1981). In the gram increased maintenance (includ- than a space for active recreation years it has operated, the restoration ing an annual maintenance budget of (Biederman and Nager 1981). Moses group, in conjunction with the Parks $2 million and the employment of a held a design competition and the Council, the Public Art Fund, and staff of thirty-five full-time people ) winning design converted the park other organizations, has been respon- and new elements such as food, into a classically influenced formal sible for an array of events and new music, and movable seating provided space surrounded by a stone fence activities in the park. These include the ultimate formula for success for and laid out in a symmetrical fashion. several concert series, an artists-in- the park (Thompson 1997; Berens [Insert Photo 7 — historic residence program, arts-and-crafts 1998). photo of Bryant Park — about here] shows, a booth selling half-price tick- Role of Landscape Architect(s). Until then the park was on ets to musical and dance events, and Landscape architect Laurie Olin and grade with the surrounding sidewalk, book and flower stalls (Carr et al. his firm Hanna Olin played a major but fill was used from nearby subway 1992). It is generally agreed that role in the design and redevelopment construction to raise the park above these activities, along with improve- process.18 Their concern was “design, the surrounding streets. Gayle ments in policing and maintenance, rather than sociology” since the exist- Berens of the ULI, who has written significantly increased park use and ing park had many physical problems an excellent and detailed case study reduced crime (Cranz 1982). How- ranging from years of neglect to of the park, attributes the decline of ever, it was clear that more had to be numerous dead ends, hidden places, the park to the late 1960s when it was done to restore and refresh the park. and a general lack of amenities. In “ignored by leisure-time” users (1998, the end, many of the changes were p. 46). The recent redevelopment subtle, building on the classical prin- effort largely addressed the percep- ciples of Moses’s 1930s design. tion of Bryant Park as a “needle

6 Landscape Journal Program Elements. The park agement and maintenance program land owners to want to change the redesign program was essentially (Berens 1998; Thompson 1997). park. identified in the original behavioral Aggressive activity programming has Since the redesign, the amount research done by Anita Nager and clearly played a key role in the park’s of use and the diversity of users have Wally Wentworth, two doctoral stu- success. For example, numerous free clearly increased in the park. Park dents in environmental psychology at concerts, fashion shows, and fairs use has reportedly more than doubled the City University Graduate Center, have been held in the park on a regu- since the redesign, and use of the which directly faces the park (Nager lar basis. A staff of more than thirty park by females is up considerably and Wentworth 1976). William Whyte people maintain and manage the according to records kept by the man- summed up the park’s problems by park including “a full-time horticul- agers (Thompson 1997, p. 33). A post- stating that “access is the nub of the turist, a maintenance and sanitation occupancy evaluation was conducted matter. Psychologically, as well as crew, and a security team that oper- after some construction was com- physically, Bryant Park is a hidden ates 24 hours a day, seven days a pleted in 1993 by a student in the place. The best way to meet the prob- week” (Thompson 1997, p. 33). This same City University of New York lem is to promote the widest possible unusual level of maintenance is made (CUNY) environmental psychology use and enjoyment by people” possible by a unique public-private program that conducted the original (quoted in Berens 1998, p. 46). Whyte partnership between the city of New 1976 study of the park (Park 1993). translated this observation into a York (which in many ways gave up its Using behavioral observation and number of specific recommendations claim to maintaining the park), cor- interview methods, the author found in 1979: porate and institutional tenants of that people felt safer using the park surrounding buildings, and the pri- as a result of increased visual and • Remove the iron fences vate foundations. A Business physical access. The CUNY study • Remove the shrubbery Improvement District (BID) assesses found that much of the success was • Cut openings in the fees that are used to fund manage- due more to increased maintenance balustrades for easier pedes- ment and staff maintenance for the and policing than physical design. It trian circulation in and out of park.19 is clear, however, that the redesign is the park User/Use Analysis. Significant a magnet for users and contributes to • Improve visual access up the behavioral problems identified in sev- the park’s overall success. Continued steps on the Avenue of the eral detailed studies of the park led observation, evaluation, program- Americas to the current redevelopment. In the ming, and redesign will be needed to • Provide a third set of steps early 1970s, the detailed study con- keep the park functioning as a suc- midway between the existing ducted by environmental psychology cessful urban park. stairs and 42nd Street doctoral students Anita Nager and [Insert Photo 8 — Bryant Park • Provide ramps for the handi- Wally Wentworth (1976) identified before reconstruction — about here] capped many of the core physical problems Peer Reviews. Bryant Park has • Open up access to the terrace with the park. Many of these were enjoyed a very favorable reception by at the back of the library with perceived safety concerns that kept the larger landscape architecture and new steps people out of the park except during urban design communities. It has • Restore the fountain, and peak periods. My faculty office at the received many awards from organiza- • Rehabilitate Carrere and City University Graduate Center was tions such as the ASLA, the AIA, and Hastings’ historic restroom directly across the street from Bryant the Regional Plan Association structures Park from 1977–80 and I frequently (Thompson 1997, p. 34). It has been While not all these ideas were used the park during lunch hours and widely publicized in professional mag- adopted in the final design program, on nice days. I also had my students azines and books. Bryant Park was they became the essential redesign use the park as a way to evaluate the selected by a distinguished jury agenda for Bryant Park. A number of use and meaning of urban parks. The assembled by Urban Initiatives in additional elements were included in park was a run-down, yet pleasant, 1996 as one of the sixty most flourish- the park, such as 2,000 movable fold- retreat from the busy world of Mid- ing and successful public spaces in ing chairs and extensive new planting town Manhattan. One would see drug America (Longo 1996). In 1998 the to make the edge of the park more dealing occurring on the edge of the Environmental Design Research like a public garden. The restrooms park, but the central lawn was often a Association and the journal Places were also restored, complete with safe haven, especially during periods awarded Bryant Park one of the first fresh flowers and a baby-changing of heavy use.19 It was this perceived Exemplary Place Awards. The jury for table. sense of danger that led planners and this prizeincluded the landscape Maintenance and Management. architect Lawrence Halprin, architect One of the keys to the park’s rebirth Donlyn Lyndon, and social researcher (as described in recent case studies of Clare Cooper Marcus. In terms of Bryant Park) was its extensive man- peer review, Bryant Park has become one of the most publicized and her-

Francis 7 alded urban parks since Olmsted’s Significance and Uniqueness of the for the park. They would like to Central Park. Project. Bryant Park has become a extend the park hours and institute a Criticism. Bryant Park has also model for how to transform rundown sculpture program (Berens 1998). In enjoyed quite favorable reviews in the historic urban parks into lively and addition they would like to renovate popular press. According to Bill successful public spaces. The private- the Pavilion at the corner of West Thompson (1997, p. 34), Time maga- public partnership used to redevelop 40th Street and Sixth Avenue. Land- zine named Bryant Park the “Best Bryant Park has been widely heralded scape architect Laurie Olin offers the Design of 1992,” New York Magazine as one of the best ways to renew older following assessment of the future of called it a “touch of the Tuileries . . . urban open spaces in periods of the park: “The Park now has a con- the perfect endorsement for restoring declining public funding of parks and stituency of tens of thousands of peo- public space with private funds,” and open spaces (Berens 1998). ple. It’s going to endure” (Thompson a New York Times article by Paul Gold- [Insert Photo 10 — Park after 1997, p. 34). berger called the restored park “a restoration — about here] monument of pure joy.” Yet the Limitations. It is unclear if the Recommendations and Implications redesigned park has not been without early success enjoyed at Bryant Park Two types of recommendations critics. Some have expressed fear that can be sustained over the long term. result from this research. The first the park has become privatized. With Recent declines in funding for main- type of recommendation suggests its redesign and upgrading and the tenance and management of Bryant specific ways the Landscape Architec- addition of an expensive restaurant, Park have caused some to worry ture Foundation (LAF) and related the park has attracted an upscale whether current levels of use can be organizations such as the American clientele and has discouraged use by maintained without affecting the Society of Landscape Architects and more undesirable users. park’s overall image and safety. Council of Educators in Landscape [Insert Photo 9 — Redesign Generalizable Features and Lessons. Architecture could become involved Plan — about here] The key ingredients of Bryant Park’s in the development and dissemina- Urban designer Stephen Carr, rebirth—programming, movable tion of case studies in landscape environmental psychologist Leanne seating, food, high quality mainte- architecture. The second type of Rivlin, planner Andrew Stone and nance, strong design, and detailing— recommenation involves more gen- myself raised a number of concerns are now considered standard for any eral research recommendations and before the redevelopment of the park successful public open space. Yet the implications of this study. took place (Carr et al. 1992). The scale of funding used to transform The LAF Board has adopted a first issue was whether Bryant Park Bryant Park was not typical, even in series of recommendations made as could accommodate all of these new major parks in other downtown areas. part of this work. Specifically they activities and still serve as a place of Yet there is evidence that funding is haveendorsed the development of a retreat and relaxation for some of its increasing for park rehabilitation.21 “Case Studies in Landscape Archi- users. Another issue was a debate Bryant Park’s process and design tecture Initiative.” The Initiative will about who has ultimate control over offers several lessons for the design of develop ten or more new case studies public parks. In spring 1983, the similar park projects. Bryant Park is of projects each year, several issue- Restoration Corporation, in coopera- an exemplar of how behavioral analy- based analyses of existing cases, and tion with the New York Public sis can be combined with thoughtful several hypothetical cases useful for Library, entered into a thirty-five-year design to create successful public education. In addition, LAF will agreement with the city parks depart- spaces. Yet not every urban park can provide a suggested methodology, a ment whereby the corporation would command a multimillion-dollar bud- peer review process, a dissemination be responsible for all aspects of the get raised from private sources. Most mechanism for the case studies, and park’s maintenance, management, projects are more modest in budget a clear statement of the criteria for and renovation under the overall and scope. However, the principles selection of cases.22 Emphasis will supervision of the city’s parks com- are the same—get people involved, be placed on cases that can advance missioner. Responding to the original do careful social and economic analy- theory, improve practice, and reach cafe proposal and the overall manage- sis, realize that design alone is often supportable conclusions and recom- ment plan, Peter Berle, then presi- not enough (programming and man- mendations. dent of the Parks Council, said: agement are critical as well), and LAF has established a National I’m concerned about taking public land, expect that good parks must be con- Advisory Council to oversee the Initia- removing it from the protections of public tinuously evaluated and redesigned to ti v e and to ensure that a high stan- park status and turning it over to a pri- ensure success. dard of quality and consistency is vate entity. If you have a private entity Future Issues/Plans. The Bryant maintained. A call for proposals for running a public park, who is to say that Park Restoration Corporation is con- “Land and Community Case Studies” you and I may not be the undesirables tinually seeking additional funding in landscape architecture has been next year? (Carmody 1983, p. B3). issued. LAF will award grants on a competitive basis for researchers to create the in-depth case studies, following a common format provided by

8 Landscape Journal LAF. Landscape architecture pro- tested in a wider variety of Davis tested the method on urban park and grams would be invited to prepare settings.Comparative methodologies open space sites in various California towns the case studies in their own region. for case study analysis also need to be and cities (Cochran, Francis and Schenker, 1998). At its October 1998 Board meeting, It has also been recommended developed. More case studies are Landscape Architecture Foundation endorsed that LAF disseminate the case stud- required on topics such as effective the recommendation to begin a three-year ini- ies through publications and an design practices, aesthetics, land- tiative to support and develop a critical mass of online archive at their website. Start- scape perception, what constitutes a case studies in landscape architecture. 2.For an excellent overview of case study ing in the second year of the Initia- successful project, and design theory. methods and applications in a variety of fields tive, LAF would develop a series of There also need to be more post occu- see Robert Yin’s Applications of Case Study Landscape Architecture “Case Study pancy evaluations of landscape archi- Research (1993), and Case Study Research: Design Institutes” or study courses. Institutes tecture projects, where evaluation and Methods (1994). could be organized around project becomes a part of built projects. More 3. I am grateful to Robert Sommer of the University of California, Davis for pointing type or by geographic region. These aggressive forms of dissemination are out that it is often in looking across multiple would be particularly well suited for needed such as dual forms of publica- case studies with an eye toward synthesis continuing education credit when and tion where case studies are published and patterns—rather than at individual case if this becomes part of professional in academic and professional journals studies—that common themes and principles can be identified. Two excellent examples of licensure. LAF could join with CELA as well as in more popular publica- this are Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s The Expe- and/or ASLA to sponsor sessions on tions such as airline magazines. With rience of Nature (1989) and With People in Mind case studies at annual meetings and increased support, case study analysis (1998), which both summarize case studies of invite people who do this kind of work promises to greatly advance under- people-plant relations and present them as to present and discuss their projects. standing of the profession for both patterns and principles useful for design and management. After it has developed its own practitioners and the larger public. 4. My purpose here is not to review the full track record with case studies, LAF [Insert Photo 11 — Rich Haag array of landscape architecture research meth- could form partnerships with other and Gas Works Park — about here] ods. Each method has its place depending on organizations such as Council of Edu- Case study analysis should the research approach, hypotheses, and issues to be addressed. cators in Landscape Architecture, occupy a central role in landscape 5. Much of my own case study research has American Society of Landscape architectur practice, education, and included a multi-method approach combining Architects, Environmental Design research. Case study analysis is an observational, attitudinal, archival, historical, Research Association, American effective way for landscape architec- and quantitative methods. Institute of Architects, American ture to advance and mature as a pro- 6. My own interest in the use and meaning of public space began as a student in Clare’s Planning Association, Trust for Public fession, providing a promising tool for course in 1970 when we conducted case studies Land, Urban Land Institute, and the profession to train students, of Union Square in San Francisco and several Urban Parks Institute to develop a develop a research base, and improve neighborhood parks in Berkeley. national archive of case study projects practice. 7. See past ASLA Research Awards in Landscape Architecture for some more notable examples. related to the built and natural envi- 8. There continues to be a problem in accessing ronment. Partnership would allow and disseminating graduate theses. This would LAF to reduce costs and reach a be a useful project for organizations such as broader audience. At the end of the the Landscape Architecture Foundation and third year, the Foundation would con- Notes the American Society of Landscape Architects. 9. Many of these case studies are published in duct an evaluation of the Initiative to 1. Interviews with leading researchers and the Proceedings of these organizations, yet they explore ways it could institutionalize practitioners were conducted to assess their are still largely unknown and inaccessible to the program. views of the usefulness of the case study most practitioners. method in future research and practice. Ques- 10. For example, William Whyte’s (1980) case tions included: What is the value/limitations of studies of public spaces in Manhattan in the Future Research Issues case study analysis in landscape architecture 1970s first alerted designers and city officials Case studies offer a promising (design, teaching, research)? What are the to the importance of use in creating successful methodology to advance teaching, seminal projects/examples/literature? What outdoor spaces. His work led to the develop- critical dimensions should be included in case ment of policies in many cities on the design of research, and practice in landscape study analysis? Would you use a case study architecture. However, before they plazas and public space. archive in your practice, or in teaching? If so, 11. An exception to this situation is the case can have a significant impact on the how? In addition, the same questions were study that is published as a monograph or profession, several critical issues posed in an electronic survey using some key book, which can be rewarded in the tenure sys- remain. There is a need for a large automated mailing lists including the Land- tem. Two noteworthy examples are Herbert scape Architecture Electronic Forum, Child- number of case studies that use com- Gans’s The Urban Villagers (1966) and Clare Youth Environments, Environmental Design Cooper Marcus’s Easter Hill Village (1975). parable methods so that findings can Research Association, and the Urban Parks 12. Publications of the professional awards pro- be identified across cases. In addition, Institute. In Fall 1998, landscape architecture grams of the ASLA, the Rudy Bruner Award, a number of research questions students from the University of California, and the EDRA/Places Awards are sources of remain. Existing methods need to be exemplary case study projects. more systematic and rigorous and 13. This typology is adapted from W. Tishler American Landscape Architecture (1989); and Carr et al. Public Space (1992).

Francis 9 14. I am indebted to Anne Vernez Moudon of Acknowledgements ———. 1999. “A Case Study Method for Land- the University of Washington for pointing out scape Architecture.” Washington, D.C.: that case studies are needed that address I would like to thank Frederick Steiner and Landscape Architecture Foundation. processes and issues as well as specific types of Susan Everett who first encouraged me to do ———. Lisa Cashdan, and Lynn Paxson. 1984. projects. this study and to the Landscape Architecture Community Open Spaces. Washington, 15. See M. Francis “A Case Study Method for Foundation which funded the work. I would D.C.: Island Press. Landscape Architecture,” Landscape Architec- also like to thank the following people who pro- ———. and Randolph T. Hester, eds. 1990. The ture Foundation, 1999 for a full presentation of vided valuable input to the study: Nigel Allan, Meaning of Gardens. Cambridge, MA: both cases. Anne Beer, Gayle Berens, Kathleen A. Blaha, MIT Press. 16. Material for this case is drawn from Bieder- Herb Childress, Jay Farbstein, Clare Cooper Gans, Herbert. 1966. The Urban Villagers. New man and Nager, “Up from Smoke: A New Marcus, Galen Cranz, Stan Jones, Patrick York: Free Press. Improved Bryant Park?” (1981); Carr et al., Mooney, Jack Nasar, Cynthia Orcutt, Jan Garvin, Alexander and Gayle Berens. 1997. Public Space (1992); Garvin and Berens, Urban Schach, Robert Sommer, Carl Steinitz, Robert Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, Parks and Open Space (1997); Longo, Great Ameri- Thayer, Jr., Bill Thompson, Tom Turner, Anne D.C.: The Urban Land Institute. can Public Places (1996); Nager and Wentworth, Vernez Moudon, and Dennis Winters. Girling, Cynthia L. and Kenneth Helphand. “Bryant Park: A Comprehensive Evaluation of 1994. Yard, Street, Park: The Design of Sub- Its Image and Use with Implications for Urban urban Open Space. New York: Wiley. Open Space Design” (1976); and Thompson, Hester, R. 1984. Planning Neighborhod Space with The Rebirth of New York City’s Bryant Park (1997). People. New York: Van Nostrand Rein- 17. See Olin’s engaging sketches pp. 9–17 in W. hold. Thompson, The Rebirth of New York City’s Bryant References Hill, Kristina. 1995. “Emphasizing Strategic Park (1997). Agranoff, Robert, and Beryl A. Radin. 1991. Thinking in Landscape Architecture: 18. The redesign process and role of the land- “The Comparative Case Study Implications for the Form and Content scape architect for Bryant Park is discussed in Approach in Public Administration.” of the Curriculum.” In Renewing the great detail in W. Thompson, The Rebirth of New Research in Public Administration 1: American City. Proceedings of the 1995 ASLA York City’s Bryant Park (1997). 203–231. Annual Meeting. Cleveland, Ohio. Wash- 19. For a detailed discussion of how the Busi- Barnes, Louis B., C. Roland Christensen, and ington, D.C.: ASLA. ness Improvement District was used to rebuild Abby J. Hansen. 1994. Teaching and the Hough, Michael. 1984. City Form and Natural and maintain Bryant Park see Gayle Berens, Case Study Method. Boston: Harvard Busi- Process. New York: Van Nostrand Rein- “Bryant Park” (1998, p. 48). ness School. hold. 20. It was interesting to me that the drug buy- Berens, Gayle. 1998. “Bryant Park.” Urban Parks Jacobs, Alan. 1996. Great Streets. Cambridge, ers I observed were typically well-dressed office and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: The MA: MIT Press. workers from surrounding offices. This has Urban Land Institute. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great been found to be the case in studies of drug- Biederman, Daniel A. and Anita R. Nager. American Cities. New York: Random selling behavior in public space (Carr et al. 1981. “Up from Smoke: A New House. 1992). One wonders if this activity has only Improved Bryant Park?” New York Affairs Johnson, Jory. 1991. Modern Landscape Architec- shifted to less supervised and less policed pub- 6: 97–105. ture. New York: Abbeville Press. lic spaces. The problem in Bryant Park was Bryant Park Restoration Corporation. 1981. Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The that during periods of low use, drug dealing Annual Report. New York: BPRC. Experience of Nature. New York: Cam- was the predominant activity in the park. Carmody, Daniel. 1983. “Proposal for Restau- bridge University Press. 21. A number of private foundations have rant in Bryant Park Disputed.” The New ———. Stephen Kaplan, and Robert Ryan. become funding partners for rehabilitating York Times, May 16, B3. 1998. With People in Mind. Washington, urban parks in large and medium-sized cities. Carr, Stephen, Mark Francis, Leanne Rivlin, D.C.: Island Press. Especially noteworthy is the Urban Parks Ini- and Andrew Stone. 1992. Public Space. Kobayashi, H., et al. 1990. Contemporary Land- tiative of the Lila Wallace Reader’s Digest New York: Cambridge University Press. scapes of the World. Tokyo: Process Archi- Fund that is supporting up to $100 million in Cochran, Andrea, Mark Francis and Heath tecture. park renovations in various cities. Other foun- Schenker (eds.). 1998. “California Levitt, Rachelle L. 1987. Cities Reborn. Washing- dations are following Wallace’s lead, including Urban Parks and Open Spaces: 35 Case ton, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. the Goldman Foundation, which is funding Studies.” Davis, CA: Center for Design Longo, Gianni. 1996. Great American Public waterfront park projects for the Trust for Pub- Research Places. New York: Urban Initiatives. lic Land in San Francisco. Corner, James, and Alex S. MacLean. 1996. Lyle, John. 1996. Design for Human Ecosystems. 22. Landscape Architecture Foundation has Taking Measures Across the American Land- New York: Wiley. commissioned me to develop two prototype scape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cam- case studies including a project-based case Press. bridge, MA: MIT Press. study of Village Homes in Davis, California Cranz, Galen. 1982. The Politics of Park Design. Marcus, Clare Cooper. 1975. Easter Hill Village. and an issue-based case study of user conflicts Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. New York: Free Press. in urban open space. Feagin, Joe R., Anthony M. Orum, and Gideon Marcus, Clare Cooper and Marni Barnes. 1995. Sjoberg. 1991. A Case for the Case Study. Gardens in Healthcare Facilities. Martinez, Chapel Hill: University of North Car- CA: Center for Health Design. olina Press. ———. and Carolyn Francis, Eds. 1997. People Francis, Mark. 1975. “Urban Impact Assess- Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open ment and Community Involvement: The Space. New York: Wiley. Case of the John Fitzgerald Kennedy McHarg, Ian. 1995. Design with Nature. New Library.” Environment & Behavior. 7 (3): York: Wiley. 373–404. ———. 1996. A Quest for Life: An Autobiography. ———. 1998. “Proactive Practice: Visionary New York: Wiley. Thought and Participatory Action in Nager, Anita R. and Wally R. Wentworth. 1976. Environmental Design.” Places 12 (2): “Bryant Park: A Comprehensive Evalua- 60–68. tion of its Image and Use with Implica- tions for Urban Open Space Design.” New York: CUNY Center for Human Environments.

10 Landscape Journal Park, S. 1993. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Bryant Sommer, Robert, and Barbara Sommer. 1986. A Ulrich, Roger S. 1984. “View Through a Win- Park. New York: Environmental Psychol- Practical Guide to Behavioral Research. New dow May Influence Recovery from ogy Program, City University Graduate York: Oxford University Press. Surgery. Science 224: 420–21. Center. Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Walker, P. and M. Simo. 1994. Invisible Gardens. Platt, J. 1992. “Case Study in American Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Methodological Thought.” Current Sociol- Steinitz, Carl, et al., eds. 1994. Alternative Futures Webb, Eugene J. D., et al. 1966. Unobtrusive Mea- ogy 40: 17–48. for Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Cam- sures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sci- Program on Public Space Partnerships. 1987. bridge, MA: Graduate School of Design, ences. New York: Rand McNally. “Report.” Winter/Spring. Cambridge, Harvard University. Whyte, William H. 1979. “Revitalization of MA: Kennedy School of Government, ———. et al., eds. 1996. Landscape Planning for Bryant Park.” Report to the Rockefeller Harvard University. Biodiversity: Alternative Futures for the Brothers Fund. Riley, Matilda W. 1963. Sociological Research: A Region of Camp Pendleton, Calif. Cam- ———. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Case Approach. New York: Harcourt, bridge, MA: Graduate School of Design, Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Brace and World. Harvard University. Foundation. Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1975. Thayer, Robert, Jr. 1994. Gray World, Green Heart. Yin, Robert F. 1993. Applications of Case Study Primer of Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Wiley. Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. New York: Wiley. Thompson, George and Frederick Steiner. ———. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Sexton, Richard. 1995. Parallel Utopias: The Sea 1997. Ecological Design and Planning. New Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ranch and Seaside. San Francisco: Chron- York: Wiley. ———. and the Rand Corporation. 1976. A icle Books. Thompson, William. 1997. The Rebirth of New Review of Case Studies of Technological Inno- Simo. Melanie. 1999. American Society of Land- York City’s Bryant Park. Washington, D.C.: vations in State and Local Services. Santa scape Architects:100 Years. Washington, Spacemaker Press. Monica, CA: Rand. D.C.: Spacemaker Press. Tishler, William. ed. 1989. American Landscape Zeisel, John. 1990. Inquiry by Design. New York: Sommer, Robert. 1997. “Utilization Issues in Architecture. Washington, D.C.: National Cambridge University Press. Environment and Behavior Research.” Trust for Historic Preservation. Zube, Ervin. 1984. Environmental Evaluation. In Advances in Environment, Behavior and Treib, Marc, ed. 1993. Modern Landscape Architec- New York: Cambridge University Press. Design, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum. ture: A Critical Review. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Francis 11 TABLE 1 Seminal Case Studies in Landscape Architecture Single Case Studies: Amelia Island, Florida Boston Commons, Massachusetts Bryant Park, New York Camp Pendelton Study, California Central Park, New York Easter Hill Village, Richmond, California The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, Washington, D.C. Gas Works Park, Seattle, Washington Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, Calif. Greenacre Park, New York Lovejoy and Forecourt Fountains, Portland, Oregon Manteo, North Carolina National Center for Atmospheric Studies, Boulder, Colorado Reston New Town, Virginia Plan for the Valleys, Maryland Paley Park, New York People’s Park, Berkeley, California Raleigh Greenway, North Carolina Seaside, Florida Seattle Freeway Park, Seattle, Washington Stanford Campus Plan, Palo Alto, California Tanner Fountain, Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts Vietnam Memorial, Washington, D.C. Village Homes, Davis, California Washington Environmental Yard, Berkeley, California The Woodlands New Town, Texas Comparative Case Studies: American Society of Landscape Architects : 100 Years, Simo. 1999. Cities Reborn, Levitt, 1987. City Form and Natural Process, Hough, 1984 . Community Open Spaces, Francis et al., 1984. Contemporary Landscapes of the World, Kobayashi,1990. Design for Human Ecosystems, Lyle, 1996. Design with Nature, McHarg, 1995. Ecological Design and Planning, Thompson and Steiner, 1997. Gardens in Healthcare Facilities, Marcus and Barnes, 1995. Great Streets, Jacobs, 1996. Gray World, Green Heart, Thayer, 1994. Image of the City, Lynch, 1961. Modern Landscape Architecture, Johnson, 1991. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review. Treib, 1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs, 1961. People Places, Marcus and Francis, 1997. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. Hester, 1984. The Politics of Park Design, Cranz, 1982. Public Space, Carr et al., 1992. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Whyte, 1980. Taking Measures Across the American Landscape. Corner, 1996. Urban Parks and Open Space, Garvin and Berens, 1997. Yard, Street, Park, Girling and Helphand, 1994.

12 Landscape Journal TABLE 2 Critical Dimensions of Case Studies Baseline information/context—List the location, size, client, designer(s), consul- tant(s), density, land use type, etc. Roles of the key participants—What are the roles of the landscape architect and other professionals? Client? Users? What is the nature of the team? Who leads the team? What is their role in the beginning of the project? How does this change during the course of project? Financial—List the initial budget and the final costs. What are the reasons for any differences? Process—What is the political process? Decision making process? Design process? Implementation Process? Who influences a project’s decisions and outcomes? Why? How does the project come together? Definitions of and responses to problems—What problem(s) is the project trying to solve? Was it solved? If so, how? If not, why not? Were other problems solved? Goals—What are the key goals (social, ecological, aesthetic)? How were they set? Who defined them? Did the goals change during the course of the project? If so, how? Program—How was the program developed? Who developed it? Was it modified during the course of the project? Design—What are the key design concepts? The inspiration for form? How did the designer translate goals into form? Site visit(s)—What does the project look like? How does it work? How does it feel? Use—How is the place used? Who uses it? Who does not use it? Maintenance and management—What are the problems of management and maintenance? What are the maintenance costs? How is the project perceived by space managers? Perception and meaning—Describe how the place is perceived and valued. Scale—What is the size of the project? Dimensions of key elements? Amount of site coverage and impervious surface? Time—How well does the place fare over time? How does the project age incre- mentally? Unique constraints—How were they addressed in the process? Community—How is the community served by this project? What is its social impact? Meaning? Environmental sensitivity and impact—How is the environment served by this project? What is its contribution to sustainability? Impact on profession—How is the profession served by this project? What does it contribute to the professional knowledge base? Infrastructure—What are the underlying challenges of the site? Technological constraints? Lessons learned—Describe the site-specific lessons learned in comparison to the more general lessons? Theoretical underpinning—Why was the project done? What are the question(s) it is trying to answer? Problem(s) it is trying to solve? Outside critiques—Include critiques by awards jury, experts, users, review com- mittees, design critics, and journalists. Has there been any controversy associated with the project? Has this been resolved? If so, how?

Francis 13 TABLE 3 A Suggested Format for Case Studies Abstract/Fact Sheet: Photo(s). Project background. Project significance and impact. Lessons learned. Contacts. Keywords.

Full Case Study: Project name. Location. Date designed/planned. Construction completed. Cost. Size. Landscape architect(s). Client. Consultants. Managed by. Context. Site analysis. Project background and history. Genesis of project. Design, development, and decision making processes . Role of landscape architect(s). Program elements. Maintenance and management. Photograph(s). Site plan(s) to scale. User/use analysis. Peer reviews. Criticism. Significance and uniqueness of the project. Limitations. General features and lessons. Future issues/plans. Bibliography of project citations/related references. Web sites/links. Contacts for further information.

In-depth Analysis: Archival research (e.g., project records, newspaper articles, etc.). Awards or special recognition for the project. Copies of articles or reports on the project. Interviews with client. Interviews with managers and maintenance people. Interviews with users. Interviews with non-users. Longitudinal studies of the place over time.

14 Landscape Journal Figure 2: A well documented case study project is Portland’s Ira Keller Fountain designed by landscape architect Lawrence Figure 1: New York City’s Central Park has been documented numerous times as a case Halprin (Photo: Mark Francis). study project (Photo: Stephen Carr).

Figure 3: Boston’s Faneuil Hall is an example of an urban landscape that has been developed as a case study (Photo: Mark Francis).

Francis 15 Figure 4: The Promenade at New York City’s Battery Park City (Photo: Stephen Carr).

Figure 5: Plan graphics drawn to scale can be a useful part of case studies. The North Park at Battery Park City (Carr, Lynch , Hack and Sandell).

16 Landscape Journal Figure 6: Case studies can be usefu in redesigning existing projects such as currently is the case in the redesign of Boston’s City Hall Plaza (Photo: Stephen Carr).

Figure 7: Early photo of Bryant Park, New York City (Courtesy New York Public Library).

Francis 17 Figure 8: The central lawn area of Bryant Park in use before the park’s renovation in the early 1990s (Photo: Stephen Carr).

Figure 9: The Bryant Park Redesign Plan (Plan Courtesy of Olin Partnership).

18 Landscape Journal Figure 10: Bryant Park in use after renovation (Photo courtesy of Spacemaker Press).

Figure 11: Landscape Architect Rich Haag leading tour of Gas Works Park, a well documented case study project (Photo: Mark Francis).

Francis 19