sign in sign up

<<

Do Food Trucks and Pedestrians Conflict on Urban Streets?

Do Food Trucks and Pedestrians Conflict on Urban Streets?

Journal of Urban Design

ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

Do food trucks and pedestrians conflict on urban streets?

Renia Ehrenfeucht

To cite this article: Renia Ehrenfeucht (2017) Do food trucks and pedestrians conflict on urban streets?, Journal of Urban Design, 22:2, 273-290, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2017.1281731 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1281731

Published online: 06 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 200

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20

Download by: [Tarbiat Modares University] Date: 05 November 2017, At: 21:39 Journal of Urban Design, 2017 VOL. 22, NO. 2, 273–290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1281731

Do food trucks and pedestrians conflict on urban streets?

Renia Ehrenfeucht

Community and Regional Planning, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

ABSTRACT In the late 2000s, food trucks became common in US cities and municipalities debated controversial food truck regulations. When they justify the regulations, municipalities raise safety, health and general welfare concerns, including potential pedestrian congestion. This paper uses the insights from pedestrian behaviour research to determine whether food trucks interfered with pedestrian flow. Based on direct observation of food truck customers and customer- pedestrian interactions in and near the Chicago Loop, the findings show that food trucks served customers most often without interrupting pedestrian flow. In part, this was due to the street furniture zone, including trash cans, bike racks and utility poles that created waiting space along the kerb. During periods of crowding, pedestrians adeptly manoeuvred through lines of food trucks. Food truck customers were also responsive to pedestrian flow and the lines moved in ways that reduced impact.

Introduction In 2008, Roy Choi’s fusion taco truck Kogi became a Los Angeles sensation (Shouse 2011). People travelled long distances around Los Angeles to wait in 45-minute lines for his Korean tacos. Since then, food trucks have appeared in US cities from Seattle to Savannah and Chicago to New Orleans. This has led to conflicting pressures to both enable and restrict food trucks, and municipalities across the US have debated food truck ordinances. In 2010, Chicago chefs Matt Maroni and Philip Foss approached their aldermen about revising Chicago’s mobile food vending ordinance to allow cooking on food trucks. When Chicago Alderman Scott Waguespack introduced a revised ordinance, he met with resistance Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 from another alderman, a member of the Illinois Restaurant Association whose opposition was based on competition with brick-and-mortar restaurants (Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). In 2012, the City passed an ordinance that allowed vendors to cook on food trucks. The City’s press release celebrated the change because food trucks created jobs and enhanced its vibrant food culture. Nevertheless, food trucks were prohibited within 200 feet of restaurants except at designated food truck stands and they had to move every two hours. The City announced the ordinance as ‘a collaboration between the mobile food operators and the restaurant industry’ (City of Chicago Press release, 10 August 2012), but two food

CONTACT Renia Ehrenfeucht [email protected] © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 274 R. EHRENFEUCHT

truck operators subsequently legally challenged the 200-foot limit and an additional requirement that trucks install GPS tracking devices. Once the new regulations were challenged, a second discussion took shape. Because local governments in the US cannot explicitly limit competition, they justify the ordinances on grounds that align with their police power to protect health, welfare and safety. The City of Chicago defended the ordinance based on the potential the food trucks had to create trash and pedestrian congestion. This research uses a public space approach to evaluate whether potential food trucks create the street level pedestrian congestion or trash impacts. The research addressed three questions: in what ways do food truck customers impact pedestrians on city sidewalks? Do food truck customers generate observable trash on city sidewalks? Were there observable differences when food trucks operated within 200 feet of restaurants? Using direct observation of the food trucks operating along urban sidewalks, this analysis found pedestrians adeptly manoeuvred through crowding and both food truck customers and pedestrians self-organized to facilitate pedestrian flow. No trash impacts or differences within 200 feet of restaurants were observed. The new attention to street food vending ordinances offers an opportunity to bring insight about the use of public space and public behaviour to the political regulatory process. This can help shape equitable street vending policies that facilitate compatibility among public space uses.

The regulation of street food vending Food trucks and street food in the US Choi has been credited with sparking a new food truck craze (Shouse 2011), but the trend can be attributed to a confluence of factors. Choi built on Los Angeles’s longstanding tradi- tion of catering trucks (colloquially known as taco trucks) that served work sites, institutions, festivals and events, and others were experimenting with street food during that period (Myint and Leibowitz 2011). These new food truck operators offer fresh, novel food that appeals to urban residents (Intuit 2012) who also value variety, including pop-up bars and restaurants and street vending (Zukin 2010; Myint and Leibowitz 2011; Shouse 2011; Bishop and Williams 2012). During the recession in the late 2000s, as restaurants struggled, food trucks became an opportunity for restaurateurs (Newman and Burnett 2013; Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014; Martin 2014) because the $20,000 to $50,000 required to start a food truck is much less than a restaurant at $400,000 (Shouse 2011). Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 The National Restaurant Association estimated that 2012 mobile food industry sales were $650 million, or approximately 1% of restaurant revenues. Emergent Research and Intuit have projected that number will grow to $2.7 billion by 2017 (Intuit 2012). In 2012, the industry market research firm IBISWorld named street vending one of 11 hot start-up industries based on both increasing numbers and low start-up costs (Forbes 2012). Although few ‘gourmet’ food trucks operated before 2008, by 2012 there were over 1400 in US cities (Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). Food trucks are one of many types of street commerce. People begin street vending because the barriers to entry are low. In the US, street vendors often worked in immigrant neighbourhoods where such enterprises were familiar and newcomers needed to make a living (Bromley 2000; Raijman 2001; Stoller 2002; Cross and Morales 2007; Kettles 2007; JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 275

Martin 2014). In some cities, including Los Angeles and New York, street vending notably increased with more immigration in the 1980s (Stoller 1996; Kettles 2007). Consumers patronize street vendors because they are inexpensive and convenient (Bromley 2000; Donovan 2008; Urban Vitality Group 2008). In an online survey, Portland food cart customers prioritized the food’s low cost. Fewer than 20% of respondents anticipated frequenting vendors who moved to brick-and-mortar establishments with higher prices (Urban Vitality 2008). In San Francisco, however, food truck customers prioritized food quality and convenience (Wessel 2012), which speaks to changing perceptions about food trucks. Popular media distinguishes ‘gourmet’ food trucks from ‘roach coaches’ and researchers have turned attention to new food trucks (Wessel 2012; Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). Previous efforts to decriminalize sidewalk vending have had limited success (Kettles 2007; Martin 2014), but new food trucks have received public support. Martin (2014) has argued that public officials embraced the new food trucks because their customers and proprietors are middle-income residents associated with gentrification and the creative class (see also, Newman and Burnett 2013; Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014).

Street food vending regulation The US has never affirmatively granted rights to people to work in the street, unlike Mexico, Colombia and India, where constitutional courts granted some rights (Meneses-Reyes and Caballero-Juarez 2014). Because complex and restrictive regulations make it difficult to vend without violating the law, most street commerce is informal. In the 1980s and 1990s, thousands of New York’s street vendors worked informally (Stoller 1996), the same as many of the estimated 20,000 vendors in 2015 (The Street Vendor Project n.d.). In Los Angeles, street vendor estimates range from 10,000 to 50,000 who generate approximately $504 million annually in sales (Hsu 2014; The Economic Roundtable n.d). In 2010, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health licensed 3820 food trucks, only about half of those operating (Shouse 2011). Street vending prohibitions have nineteenth-century roots, a time when thousands of mobile food vendors sold a variety of fresh and prepared foods by foot, cart and wagon (Bluestone 1991; Morales 2000). During this period, cities adopted wide-ranging ordinances that restricted street vending with the intent to modernize and Americanize the city by eliminating activities perceived as old world and ethnic. The downtown business elite was an influential force, but shopkeepers competing with specific vendors were also vocal pro-

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 ponents of restrictions. Conflicts among businesses resulted in specific requirements for different products (such as flowers, fruit or cooked snacks) (Bluestone 1991; Scobey 2002). In the twentieth century, opponents sought to ‘replace third-world chaos, filth, and informality with first-world order, cleanliness and regulation’ (Stoller 1996, 784). In the twenty-first century, approaches to street vending and street food have changed. In the US, there is growing awareness that some neighbourhoods lack full service grocery stores, only have restaurants serving fast food, and few sources for fruit and vegetables (Walker et al. 2010; Lee, Hoffman, and Bleich 2012). Morales and Kettles (2009) have argued that street food is one way to offer healthier food choices in underserved environments. In addition, cities want to create dynamic public spaces and planners and urban designers seek innovative ways to support street activities (Mehta 2009). While street vendors continue to be what Yatmo (2008) has called out of place urban elements, public officials recognize that 276 R. EHRENFEUCHT

street vending is an important source of income to many households, and increasingly municipalities attempt to balance the interests of vendors and their supporters with the interests of opponents. In the 2010s, the US debates about vending regulations express what Huang, Xue, and Li (2014) have called ambivalence towards street vending or a post- revanchist policy approach that mixes punitive and enabling policies. While regulations neither cause nor eliminate street vending, they have created patterns of opportunity and vulnerability. Informal vendors can be fined, have goods confiscated or at times are arrested. However, vending regulations are irregularly enforced. Enforcement is reactive and occurs when someone complains (Kettles 2007), and harassment by abutting businesses determines how and where vendors operate as much as specific regulations (Devlin 2011). Newman and Burnett (2013, 245) noted that in Portland a ‘laissez-faire attitude towards minor infractions’ aids in the success of Portland’s authorized street vending. Establishing vending districts or markets has been a repeated response to street vending conflicts. However, these solutions disregard factors that make street vending profitable (Donovan 2008; Huang, Xue and Li 2014). Even though some vendors move to the markets in order to legally vend, markets have not replaced sidewalk vending (Stoller 2002; Kettles 2007; Donovan 2008). Kettles (2007) found that onerous regulations caused unauthorized street vending to flourish in Los Angeles while vendors avoided legal vending districts, and the few legal districts failed (Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht 2009). In contrast, Newman and Burnett (2013) found the low cost and ease of acquiring permits contributed to Portland’s successful street food industry. In the contemporary food truck regulatory process, the public dialogue focuses on pro- tecting brick-and-mortar restaurants. Because of the low overhead costs and prices, restaurant and business associations have argued that street vendors are unfair competition (Stoller 1996; Kettles 2007; Newman and Burnett 2013; Ehrenfeucht 2016). Nevertheless, one business survey found that 69% of surveyed restaurant owners and 94% of other business owners ranked food carts as positive or very positive (Urban Vitality Group 2008). Street vendors differ from brick-and-mortar businesses. They have less selection and fewer goods, no seating or the amenities of full service restaurants, no changing rooms and no pro- tection from the weather (Kettles 2007). However, street food may compete with take-out establishments where it becomes a local, fresh alternative to fast food (Urban Vitality Group 2008; Intuit 2012; Newman and Burnett 2013). In one survey, however, 48% of respondents said visiting a food truck replaced food at or from home (Intuit 2012). New food trucks use social media extensively and therefore they might not compete primarily with nearby eateries. More

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 than half the respondents in one survey found the truck through social media (Wessel 2012). In conflicts over street vending, in addition to competition, adjacent businesses have raised concerns about trash, noise, scents and aesthetics (Kettles 2007; Urban Vitality Group 2008). In Portland, one analysis found trash was a problem for food carts operating on private property. However, a majority of respondents from public and business surveys heard no noticeable noise from food carts. In a public intercept survey, 65% noticed the scents but, of those, 86% found them pleasant (Urban Vitality Group 2008).

A public space approach Even though competition and, to a lesser degree, concern about sidewalk aesthetics dom- inate the food truck and street vending discussions, the bases for the ordinances are direct JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 277

impacts, including pedestrian congestion. This is because local governments had the authority to restrict sidewalk and street obstructions but limited authority to restrict productive activities that did not interfere with travel (Novak 1996). This leads to two parallel discussions in which competition, aesthetics and social control are the root of the controversy but pedestrian access becomes the solution. In the last decades of the twentieth century, New York business associations were forces behind campaigns to remove vendors (Stoller 1996) and former mayor Rudolf Giuliani established the Street Vendor Review Panel as part of his ini- tiative to eliminate street level disorder (Vitale 2008). Nevertheless, the Panel evaluates potential impacts based on pedestrian congestion (NY ADC. LAW § 20–465.1: NY Code - Section 20–465.1). These parallel discussions are reflected in the public space research. Extensive scholarship has interrogated the politics of public space planning, demonstrating how public space planning, design and management have controlled and excluded particular groups (Stoller 1996; Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 1998; Mitchell 2003; Gibson 2004; Vitale 2008). Others have investigated public space behaviour, use and meaning (Goffman 1971; Whyte 1988; Gehl 2011; Mehta 2014) or examine how informal uses of urban space create vitality (Sankalia 2014). A public space approach to street vending regulation uses insights from the public space use research to inform the political regulatory process. The assumptions in a public space approach would differ from a traffic approach that assumes the potential for pedestrian congestion and privileges unimpeded traffic flow (Blomley 2011). First, pedestrians enjoy what Whyte (1988) called the pleasures of downtown streets. Pedestrians are attracted by other people, activities and enjoy unexpected occurrences (Goffman 1971; Whyte 1988; Lofland 1998; Stevens 2007; Gehl 2011). Second, pedestrians are ‘marvelously complex and efficient’ transportation units who negotiate rapidly moving, changing and varied pedestrian environments without formal regulations (Whyte 1988, 56). Pedestrians change direction, move in front or behind others to get through narrow spaces, and walk past people with little disruption to flow or speed (Goffman1971 ; Whyte 1988; Helbing et al. 2001). Pedestrians in large cities with dense pedestrian traffic walk faster and more efficiently (Whyte 1988). Helbing et al. (2001) call the phe- nomenon self-organizing pedestrian movement. Morales (2010) and Kim (2012) have also found that vendors in a market and along sidewalks, respectively, organize themselves, both responding to and creating local norms and coordinating with other vendors. The regulatory process can be seen as a tool through which public space conflicts play

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 out and decisions about public space use are made. Regulations also structure access to the street. To enable street vending and public markets, Morales and Kettles (2009) have argued that right-of-way restrictions should be relaxed and zoning regulations modified.

Revisiting food truck regulation in US cities The explosion of food truck popularity has caused US cities to revisit their food truck regulations. Food trucks are subject to state and local regulations pertaining to permitting, food preparation health and safety, parking and vending locations (Morales and Kettles 2009). Location specific restrictions include proximity bans, time limits on vending or parking, and restricted zones which can but often do not reflect the underlying zoning (Morales and Kettles 2009; Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). In a survey of 11 cities with food truck 278 R. EHRENFEUCHT

associations that were working on favourable food truck regulations, two had caps on the number of permits, four had time limits on parking, seven had proximity bans near restaurants, and all had some restricted zones (Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). New food truck operators have established new organizations (which are different from longstanding street vending advocates), and revising location restrictions has been a priority for food truck associations (Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). The regulations are changing. Washington DC eliminated a requirement that trucks must move until hailed by customers (Esparza, Walker, and Rossman 2014). In California, the state’s Vehicle Code allows commercial activity along its streets. When Los Angeles revised its regulations in 2008 to limit food trucks to one hour stops, the restriction was overturned because it preempted the state’s Vehicle Code (Morales and Kettles 2009). However, cities are also introducing new restrictions. For example, Albuquerque and Savannah have discussed regulations that include proximity bans. In 2012, Chicago enacted an ordinance that allowed food trucks to cook on board, creating two options for food truck operators. A Mobile Food Dispenser License for selling prepared food costs $700 for a two-year term, while a Mobile Food Preparer License that allows cooking costs $1000 for a two-year term. The ordinance went into effect on 1 August 2012. In the first week, 34 operators started applications, of which 27 intended to cook (City of Chicago press release, 10 August 2012). The City of Chicago has prohibited food trucks from operating within 200 feet of a restaurant since 1991. The new ordinance prohibited food trucks from parking ‘within 200 feet of any principal customer entrance to a restaurant which is located on the street level with the exception of 12 AM‒2AM.’ The definition of a restaurant included establishments such as coffeehouses and convenience stores. The trucks must move every two hours and they cannot park in privately-owned vacant lots or on the lot of a vacant building. In addition, each truck is required to install a GPS device so the City can track its movements. Few locations in Chicago’s Loop, the downtown business district, are outside the 200-foot restaurant buffer because of the density of eateries. The proprietors of two food trucks, the Schnitzel King and Cupcakes for Courage, filed a lawsuit to challenge the GPS tracking pro- vision and the 200-foot restaurant buffer. This was not the first time the 200-foot regulation had been challenged. The City had such a restriction that was overturned in 1986, but it was successfully reintroduced in 1991 (Gowins 2014). By 2015, the City established 35 designated sites where food trucks can park. In summer 2015, it sponsored weekly food trucks festivals in Daley Plaza and monthly festivals near

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 Willis Tower. In summer 2015, Chicago Food Truck Finder (www.chicagofoodtruckfinder.com) listed approximately 110 active food trucks in the City. It is important to note that Chicago also has other forms of sidewalk vending, which the City’s press releases do not recognize and the street vendors have unsuccessfully attempted to get permits (Martin 2014).

Methods To examine how food trucks impacted the sidewalks, 13 graduate students in urban planning, sociology, anthropology and performance studies observed sites where food trucks regularly operated in and near Chicago’s downtown business district. In pairs, the students observed seven sites for a total of 37 periods that averaged 2.5 hours. All but two periods were from 11 am to 1:30 pm. Two periods were in the morning from 7 am to 9:30. One observation JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 279

Table 1. Site characteristics.

Number of Total Food observation number of Trucks per Sidewalk truck < 200 feet of days* trucks day** width (ft) stand eatery 125 S. Clark 13 34 3.1 17 Y Y Clark & Washington 5 7 1.4 15 N N Madison & Wacker*** 5 10 2.0 14 N Y Columbus & Randolph 3 2 1.0 10 N N 828 N. Larrabee 6 29 4.8 6–18 Y Y 450 N Cityfront Plaza 2 3 1.5 16 Y N Van Buren & Wabash 2 2 1.0 9 N Y Total or average 36 87 2.4 13 *One observation period at Clark & Washington was a food truck rally which is not included; **Days with no trucks were not included; ***At different times, trucks were parked on both Wacker Drive and Madison Street.

period was at an event, a food truck rally, organized to attract food trucks to Daley Plaza, which was kitty corner from one vending site. Table 1 shows that 87 food trucks operated at the sites during the days and times observed. In some instances, there were too many trucks or they were parked in ways that prevented the observers from watching all the trucks and 77 trucks were observed. Direct observation is a primary method employed to explain how public space activities and interactions unfold as well as how people respond to public space design (Gehl and Svarre 2013). Because pedestrian congestion is a foremost reason given for enacting street vending restrictions, pedestrian flow impacts were a primary focus of this study. The observers were instructed to observe how the food truck customers impacted pedestrians. They were instructed to count the number of food trucks; the number of food truck customers; the number of customers in line every 15 minutes; the number of times that food truck customers disrupted pedestrian flow; and, the number of disruptions to pedestrian flow from other sources (for example, from unloading trucks). The protocol was pretested and slightly modified after the pretest. The observers were trained onsite to identify pedestrian disruptions. Following Gehl and Svarre (2013) and Low, Taplin, and Scheld (2005), the definition of disruption remained open to ensure that observers captured the full range of interactions. Instead of defining a specific set of interactions, the observers were instructed to describe interactions between the pedestrians and food truck customers in detail. The observers wrote extensive qualitative field notes to describe the sidewalk dynamics associated with the food trucks, the direct ways

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 that the food truck customers impacted pedestrians, how the interactions played out, and the scope and intensity of occurrences. The social science graduate students were selected because of their training in ethnographic methods. The observers stood apart from one another but near enough to the food trucks to make them visible to food truck operators. In a few cases, the food truck operators approached the observers during slow times and stated they saw them at different sites. The customers gave no indication that they noticed the observers. In Portland, trash was identified as a problem in particular circumstances (Urban Vitality Group 2008). The potential for trash impacts was one justification given for the Chicago ordinance (personal communication). To evaluate this concern, the observers counted incidences of littering and overflowing trash cans in the vicinity of the food trucks. These counts 280 R. EHRENFEUCHT

were tabulated. The observers did not observe food truck customers after they walked away from the food truck. The author coded the field notes by identifying the different types of interactions and the mechanisms by which they played out. This included anticipated interactions such as pedestrians slowing, rerouting due to the food truck customers or moving through lines. These were expected because the food trucks were introducing a different dynamic on the sidewalk. It also led to emergent themes such as the food truck lines moving in response to pedestrians and customer self-organization. The duration of the events were estimated from the field notes (the observers noted the beginning and ending times during longer instances of activity) in order to be able to give one measure of intensity of impact. The duration and types of pedestrian disruptions were interpreted and later referred to as crowding. This was a descriptive term based on the analysis because it became clear the pedestrians manoeuvred crowding rather than being disrupted by the food truck customers. In three cases, the two observers had noteworthy different interpretations of disruptions. The field notes explained the basis of the interpretation and allowed these to be reconciled. Although buffers from eateries has been a common tool in the regulatory process, there is no specific reason vis-à-vis sidewalk use. These differences would have to emerge inductively from the evidence and the observations were designed to help identify such differences, if any existed. All of the observation sites were located in commercial areas in and near Chicago’s downtown. Referred to as the Loop, Chicago’s central business district is both the commercial core and the seat of Cook County and governmental offices. All the locations were high density commercial locations with high-rise office towers nearby. In Chicago, office towers range from 30 or fewer to 110 floors. A 2010 pedestrian count survey found the streets with the heaviest pedestrian flows have over 36,000 pedestrians each workday (Chicago Loop Alliance 2011). Chicago has numerous public plazas and arcades that offer outdoor seating, and eating take-out food outside is a visible practice. The sites were chosen to maximize variation in the downtown area. The 125 S. Clark location was a designated mobile food vehicle vending location in close proximity to numerous eateries. The streets are lined with multi-storey office buildings and commercial complexes. Three blocks to the north, Clark & Washington, there was a regular food truck vending location without eateries within 200 feet of the corner. The site is kitty corner from Daley Plaza, a plaza that spans the entire block associated with the Richard J. Daley Center, a pre- mier civic centre. The nearby streets contain high-rise office and governmental uses. The site at 450 N. Cityfront Plaza had numerous office towers, hotels and complexes nearby, but the

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 vending location fronted a plaza. The intersections at Madison & Wacker and Columbus & Randolph both surrounded by high-rise office towers. They had through pedestrian traffic and they also had nearby outdoor seating areas. Van Buren & Wabash was chosen because it had an uncomfortable pedestrian environment due to elevated rail tracks. The site at 828 N. Larrabee Street (also called 600 W. Chicago) was chosen because it had the most food trucks operating daily. The customers for the food trucks primarily came from the adjacent office complex where, at that time, 1000 Groupon employees worked. Few pedestrians walked along the sidewalks who were not associated with the office complex. Some food trucks parked in a parking lot across the street. The nearby neighbourhood has high density hous- ing, big box and small-scale retail in addition to office space. It was not apparent that customers came from the neighbourhood to the food trucks. JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 281

The sidewalk widths ranged from 9 to 18 feet (Table 1). Three of the sites were City designated food vehicle stand locations and the other four were identified as popular food truck sites on Chicago Food Truck Finder (Chicago Food Truck Finder n.d). All sites had food trucks operating regularly, but only 828 N. Larrabee had food trucks operating every weekday. Some sites had food trucks on more days, and these were observed more often. The site at 125 S. Clark had heavy pedestrian traffic and frequent food trucks and it was observed for the most periods. Many food trucks have a semi-regular schedule, and most tweet where they park. The author followed the trucks on Twitter as well as consulting Chicago Food Truck Finder. Thirty-three of the 37 observation periods took place between 2‒18 October. From 2‒15 October, the temperatures ranged from the lower 60s F to the upper 70s F. On 16 October, the temperature dropped to the 50s F. All but two observation periods were during lunch, with the observers arriving at 11 am and staying until 1:30 pm. The other two were from 7 am to 9:30 am. Trucks can park at a given location for 2 hours. At times, the trucks would leave prior to 1:30 pm and the observers would also leave. Food trucks were present during 34 observation periods. The food trucks must find a parking spot or factors such as construc- tion can change available parking, food trucks might leave if there is nowhere to park. On a few occasions, observers arrived and there were no trucks. At times, the locations were still observed to better understand the local pattern without a food truck.

Findings In what ways did food trucks customers affect pedestrian flow or the abutting businesses? The first subsection that follows explains how food truck customers used the sidewalks and how this influenced sidewalk dynamics and pedestrian flow. The second section focuses on the periods with the most food truck customers, and highlights a key finding that the food truck customers were responsive, self-organizing in ways to reduce the impact on pedestrians. The final subsection discusses the ways in which food truck customers might have impacted abutting businesses and whether it would be different for abutting restaurants.

Food trucks impacts along the sidewalks In all but the busiest periods, customers could make purchases and be served when standing near the truck, as Figure 1 shows. When no customers were in line, a person would walk up,

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 order, wait or receive their food and leave. In and around the Chicago Loop, two to three feet of sidewalk area near the kerb regularly has signposts, bike racks, trashcans and planters, as Figure 2 shows, and pedestrians do not walk in the street furniture zone. Because of this and the tendency of pedestrians to avoid walking along kerbs or close to buildings (Whyte 1988; Helbing et al. 2001), the activity near the kerb did not interrupt pedestrian flow. The average number of customers in line was three people. With a few people near the truck, customers would make space for new arrivals and adjust their positions. At the busiest times, more than 20 customers were in line. On the days trucks were operating, on average 2.4 trucks worked at a given location. The sites varied greatly. Some of the sites had only one truck operating (and many days, no trucks worked that location) whereas the 828 N. Larrabee location had the most trucks (4.8 on average) operating every weekday. The second most popular site was 125 S. Clark with 3.1 282 R. EHRENFEUCHT

Figure 1. Bike rack and board creating food truck waiting area near 125 S. Clark. Source: Photo Credit: Camille Fink. Figure 2. Customer waiting near a food truck as people walk by at 125 S. Clark. Source: Photo Credit: Camille Fink.

trucks located there, and trucks almost every day. Each food truck served on average 61 customers per day, as shown in Table 2, and 130 customers were served at a given location. Most pedestrians responded neutrally or positively to the food trucks. The majority of pedestrians continued along with no observable response. Positive and negative responses were noted but not systematically counted. These included exclamations about the food trucks’ presence or scents, pedestrians redirecting their path to the food trucks when they were observed, pedestrians studying the menus, and photos of the food trucks and food truck operators. On a few occasions, pedestrians acted visibly annoyed when another person stopped to look at a menu or made an unexpected movement. When more customers were in line or waiting for food, pedestrians would take notice and stop to look at the menu, which confirms the finding from Whyte’s (1988) studies that people are attracted to other people. In the Chicago Loop, trash and recycling receptacles are regularly placed and the streets were substantially free of litter. Unlike in Portland where trash was observed in the vicinity of some food carts, the observers in Chicago saw no overflowing garbage cans near the food

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 trucks and no incidences of littering. The observers stood or sat where they could see the food truck customer and pedestrian interactions. Ninety-seven per cent of the food truck customers took their food to go. Because of this, the observers could not see where the food truck customers ate. Some sites had nearby locations (plazas with seating, planters with wide ledges or benches) where customers could sit and eat. Taking food to go is common in the Chicago Loop, evidenced by the people carrying take-out containers in the morning and during lunch. Observations of the seating areas near the food trucks indicated some food truck customers ate in nearby plazas that were open to the public alongside customers of McDonalds, Native Foods, Jimmy John’s and Pret A Manger, among others. No consistent pattern of use by food truck customers was observed and the outdoor seating areas were JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 283

0/5 0/6 0/8 0/22 0/16 0/23 0/21 Customers in Customers line: min/max t times, the trucks were the trucks were t times, A *** 3 2.8 1.5 2.8 2.6 3.5 2.3 2.8 Customers in Customers line: mean 61 66 49 68 58 49 48 61 Customers Customers per truck: mean 65.5 74.0 81.6 97.2 48.0 130.0 285.2 154.5 Customers Customers per day: mean Days with no trucks were not included in calculation; not included in calculation; with no trucks were Days 96 131 148 408 486 4679 1711 1699 ** Number of customers 2 3 2 7 77 25 10 28 Number of observed trucks*** 2.4 1.0 1.5 1.0 4.8 1.4 2.0 3.1 Trucks per Trucks day** 2 3 2 7 87 29 10 34 Total number Total of trucks Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 2 6 2 5 3 5 36 13 Number of days at at Number of days location* andolph parked in ways that observers that not observe could all trucks present in ways parked ne observation period at Clark & Washington was a food truck rally which is not included in these calculations; which is not included in these calculations; truck rally a food was Washington O ne observation Clark & period at Total uren & Wabash & B uren Van 828 N . L arrabee Plaza 450 N Cityfront Madison & Wacker Columbus & R Columbus Clark & Washington 125 S . Clark Table 2. S ummary truck observation of food periods. Table * 284 R. EHRENFEUCHT

well maintained. There are no indicators that food truck customers acted differently, for example, littered more frequently than other take-away food customers.

Sidewalk crowding and self-organization of food truck customers Two emergent themes help to explain sidewalk dynamics and how food trucks impact pedestrian behaviour. During busy periods, the pedestrians had to weave through a cluster, multiple lines or a crowd to pass the food trucks. The observers were instructed to observe pedestrian disruptions, but instead of being disrupted, pedestrians manoeuvred the crowd adeptly, and therefore the incidences are more accurately described as crowding. Crowding incidents came from the following activities: interested passersby stopped to read the menu, requiring pedestrians to step around; orderly food truck lines caused pedestrians to walk through or veer around; and irregular clusters of customers caused pedestrians to weave through them. During an observation period, an average of 2.4 incidences of customer crowding from the food trucks impacted pedestrian travel. Based on estimates from the qualitative descriptions provided by the observers, the food trucks influenced pedestrian flow less than 10% of the time. The crowding incidences were estimated to last from less than two minutes to 10 minutes. The pedestrians responded in ways that were consistent with the pedestrian behaviour literature. Pedestrians were able to walk through or veer around lines that formed with only slight pauses and redirection. Pedestrians with bicycles or trolleys were able to move through the lines with delays of seconds. An estimated half of the crowding incidents involved lines that pedestrians could walk around or walk through without slowing significantly. An instan- taneous reroute to step through a line or to walk around it would take less than one second. A pedestrian without interference would pass a truck in approximately three seconds, based on Whyte (1998) who found that pedestrians on downtown streets in cities with over one million residents walked quickly, at a rate of 280–300 feet per minute or five feet per second. Whyte (1988) and Helbing et al. (2001) found that adjustments to avoid collision took frac- tions of seconds, and therefore a slight variation in route or adjustment to turn through the line (a three foot or one step distance) would take less than a second. During the most crowded periods, pedestrians self-organized as they made their way through the lines. This could result in a delay of seconds as pedestrians shifted into a single line formation or paused to allow pedestrians to come through from the other direction. For example, the following describes one of the crowding incidents that resulted in pedestrian

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 delays: The most significant disruption to pedestrian traffic occurred this way as a particularly large group of about six waited ‒ half along the buildings, half at the truck, while a large line of patrons formed behind them, forcing pedestrians to squeeze between the group waiting along the buildings and the line forming at the food truck. This caused a bottleneck effect as pedestrians from one side had to wait for pedestrians on the other side of the line to pass through. This was the only major physical obstruction to normal foot traffic and occurred at 12:17, which was by far the busiest moment for the food truck. The line had cleared and things were back to normal by 12:25. (Occurred at Washington & Clark) The food truck customer lines and crowds also showed a tendency towards self-organization. This was a noteworthy finding that emerged from the field notes. Not only could pedestrians walk around or through the food truck lines, but the lines separated or moved in response to pedestrian flow in ways that reduced disruption. Figure 3 shows a perpendicular line from JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 285

Figure 3. Line perpendicular to the food trucks. Figure 4. L-shaped line with pedestrian walking Source: Photo credit: Site observer. at Washington & Clark. Source: Photo credit: Site observer.

Figure 5. Diagonal line at 828 N. Larrabee. Source: Photo Credit: Site observer.

the truck into the sidewalk, Figure 4 shows an L-shaped line running parallel to the food truck, and Figure 5 shows a line angled into the sidewalk, the three ways that the lines formed. Frequently, the lines were informal clustering near the truck as customers approached, read the menu and assessed where a line began or ended. The lines moved as people walked through and around them because the waiting cus- Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 tomers attempted to get out of the pedestrian paths. If a line crossed the sidewalk, a section would open to make space for pedestrians or a line perpendicular to the truck at times became an L-shaped line. One observer described the line movement this way: When the 5411 line [5411 Empanadas, a food truck serving Argentinean food] passed seven people, the people were spaced such that the line filled the edge of the sidewalk to the metal columns. At this point, pedestrians began to move through the line rather than around it. As the line grew longer, it pushed back against the storefront and bent parallel to the street. The line’s positions changed a few different times, either crossing all the way to the building and bending, or crossing approximately half of the sidewalk and bending. When it stretched the whole distance, the line bent north, and when it stretched half the distance, it bent south. As the lunch rush increased, groups and pairs began standing side by side facing the truck, while keeping approximately the same spacing as the seven-person line. The line optimized itself to 286 R. EHRENFEUCHT

allow pedestrians to flow through most easily. However, this did not include bicycles, and any cyclists coming through the line at this time did dismount and walk through the gaps. There were occasionally people pushing handtrucks and other carrying devices on the street, and these people had no difficulty navigating through the line, although the line was also more likely to bend around them. (Occurred at 125 S. Clark) Figure 5 shows an angled line which occurred at 828 N. Larrabee. Multiple food trucks would vend along the building and in a parking lot across the street. Customers would primarily come from the adjacent office complex to purchase lunch and either sit outside or take their food back to the building. As the area became crowded, the lines would shift in response to other customers or lines from other food trucks as well as pedestrians (who were primarily people walking to and from the building). The food truck operators were not observed directing the lines at any vending site. Given that the lines adapted, it appears that they could be directed, if necessary. The food truck proprietors were not asked if they made efforts to control their lines.

Access to abutting businesses In Chicago and other cities with proximity restrictions in food truck ordinances, the ordinances have not been narrowly tailored to ensure access to building entrances, but instead the regulations presume impacts to restaurants. The reasons for this have not been explained and therefore differences would have to emerge from the empirical evidence. To explore potential differences between locations within and outside 200 feet of eatery entrances, this project compared vending sites as well as conducted observations near eateries with an active take-out business. Two sites, Clark & Washington and 125 S. Clark, were three blocks apart and offered sites with similar characteristics except for the presence of eateries. 125 S. Clark was located across the street from a Walgreens and Subway and kitty corner from McDonalds. Daley Plaza was located at Clark & Washington. Offices, governmental uses and a Methodist Church building are located on the block, kitty corner and across the street from the Clark & Washington site. The observations showed no patterns that uniquely impacted food establishments. The food vending locations and specific observations of take-out establishments showed that even on crowded sidewalks, people entering or exiting restaurants moved through pedestrians smoothly and no bunching was noted. No sidewalk seating was observed and, during the observation periods, the restaurants did not have patrons waiting outside. At times customers would wait near the building to be out of pedestrian traffic. Customers Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 of food trucks did not block access to building entrances even during times they were near the building. Increased lunchtime foot traffic is created by people leaving and entering office buildings as much as entering and leaving restaurants so it is not obvious that traffic would be heavier within 200 feet of restaurants. There were no observed differences between restaurants and other businesses. In many cases, more than one truck vended, which also indicated how pedestrians and customers reacted in situations where crowding came from multiple sources. This was always the case at 828 N. Larrabee and frequently at 125 S. Clark. Customers had to determine where to get in line. They did so by observing or asking other customers where lines began and ended. The customers waiting would respond to pedestrians as well as the food truck customer lines and clusters. Customers would go from one line to another, suggesting that they JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 287

had little trouble negotiating the relatively complex crowding incident. Customer and pedestrian behaviour varied little from one location to another, suggesting pedestrian behaviour was more influential to the patterns than site characteristics. In all sites, the greatest impact was delays of a few seconds. At a given site, the specific vending locations changed due to parking constraints without obvious effect. At times cars would park in a designated food truck stand and the food trucks would park nearby. In addition, at times no parking would be available at the sites that were not within 200 feet of a restaurant, and the trucks would park nearer to a restaurant. Although on a few occasions police approached the food trucks, there was no visible enforcement and the trucks did not leave. There was no visible enforcement of illegal parking in the food truck stands. The relative impact of food trucks could be assessed in different ways. Because pedestrians walked adeptly and efficiently and the lines responded to pedestrian flow, the longest delays to pedestrians were significantly shorter than other delays on the street such as traffic signals where pedestrians can wait up to a minute (NYC (New York City) n.d.). Pedestrians also had to wait for delivery vehicles entering or exiting alleys (observed near 125 S. Clark) or unloading, groups of tourists and other disruptions. There were also people waiting along buildings to smoke or talk on the phone, prolonged conversations outside building entrances, cell- phone use and other occurrences that cause pedestrians to pause and reroutes. An additional assessment of the relative impact would include a systematic look at regular stopping and pausing on the street. This would give a more complete account of both relative and unique food truck impacts. There are limitations to this study. It did not address competition with adjacent businesses, competition among types of eateries or decision making by customers. Parking restrictions can also greatly impact how vendors operate. Observations allow for exploratory comments about parking and enforcement, but this project did not ask food truck proprietors about police relationships or parking. This project also does not address pedestrian or business perceptions of food trucks.

Conclusions A public space approach to food trucks and street vending can provide useful information for street commerce planning. This project offered three insights that build on previous public space research. The pedestrians adeptly manoeuvred through the lines and crowding

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 incidences, a finding that is consistent with decades of pedestrian research. The food truck customers were also responsive, and the analysis also found that food truck customers self-organized. The lines changed directions to facilitate pedestrian flow and passageways opened between waiting customers. In Chicago, the street furniture zone also created space for vending. A few feet of space on the edge of the sidewalk that is used for parking meters, signs, street lamps and signals and garbage cans is a common feature of sidewalks. Food truck customers used this space to order and wait. Customers also moved against the building wall, another zone from where pedestrians shy away. Envisioning these strips as multi-use spaces can help planners develop streets for a wide range of uses without slowing pedestrian travel. Nevertheless, Chicago’s sidewalks are relatively wide. Would the findings be generalizable to areas with narrow, crowded sidewalks? The pedestrian behaviour research suggests that 288 R. EHRENFEUCHT

pedestrians become more efficient in more crowded situations, and in fact, Whyte (1988) found that pedestrians move faster in more crowded cities such as New York, adeptly entering and exiting pedestrian flow, moving across the sidewalk and avoiding impediments. Therefore, it is likely that in more crowded areas and cities, pedestrians and customers would be more skilled and responsive to one another. The assumption that more street vending or stationary activity causes significant delays for pedestrians is unsubstantiated. More research is necessary to examine in what situations congestion impedes travel and, in empir- ically identified situations, what interventions would be effective. Because food truck lines were responsive, simple interventions such as requesting customers to form lines parallel to the truck could reduce impacts. The public discourse demonstrates that competition with brick-and-mortar restaurants is an ongoing concern and there is no consensus that sidewalks should be available for activities other than for walking. Future research could examine how food trucks compete and over what distances as well as how businesses respond to food trucks and street vendors. While preventing competition does not justify street vending regulations, such research can offer a more nuanced view of business responses and better information about customer behaviour since, in one survey, almost half of respondents replaced food at or from home with street food, suggesting that street vending might change food purchasing behaviour. Sidewalk crowding can reflect positive vitality that people enjoy, and streets can be designed to better accommodate public uses. When new uses become visible or controversial, the tendency is to adopt new regulations rather than plan for the new activity. Using a public space approach, planners can help facilitate compatibility between street vending and pedestrians to forward diverse objectives including allowing opportunities for work, creating dynamic public spaces and increasing access to food and goods.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding The research for this paper was funded by the Institute for Justice.

Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 References Bishop, P., and L. Williams. 2012. The Temporary City. London: Routledge. Blomley, N. K. 2011. Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Bluestone, D. M. 1991. “‘The Pushcart Evil’: Peddlers, Merchants, and New York City’s Streets, 1890-1940.” Journal of Urban History 18: 68–92. doi:10.1177/009614429101800104. Bromley, R. 2000. “Street Vending and Public Policy: A Global Review.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 20 (1/2): 1–28. doi:10.1177/0739456X10386379. Chicago Food Truck Finder. n.d. “Weekly Schedule.” Accessed November 20, 2013. http://www. chicagofoodtruckfinder.com/ Chicago Loop Alliance. 2011. “Loop Economic Study and Impact Report.” Accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.chicagoloopalliance.com/ JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 289

Cross, J. C., and A. Morales, 58–78. 2007. Street Entrepreneurs: People, Place and Politics in Local and Global Perspective. London: Routledge. Devlin, R. 2011. “`An Area That Governs Itself ‘: Informality, Uncertainty and the Management of Street Vending in New York City.” Planning Theory 10 (1): 53–65. doi:10.1177/1473095210386070. Donovan, M. G. 2008. “Informal Cities and the Contestation of Public Space: The Case of Bogotá’s Street Vendors, 1988–2003.” Urban Studies 45 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1177/0042098007085100. Ehrenfeucht, R. 2016. “Designing Fair and Effective Street Vending Policy: It’s Time for a New Approach.” Cityscape 18 (1): 11–26. Esparza, N., E. T. Walker, and G. Rossman. 2014. “Trade Associations and the Legitimation of Entrepreneurial Movements Collective Action in the Emerging Gourmet Food Truck Industry.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43 (2_suppl): 143S–162S. Forbes. 2012. “The 11 Hottest Industries for Start-Ups.” Accessed August 1, 2015. http://www.forbes. com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/02/06/11-hottest-industries-for-start-ups-foodtrucks-wineries- booze/ Gehl, J. 2011. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gehl, J., and B. Svarre. 2013. How to Study Public Life. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gibson, T. A. 2004. Securing the Spectacular City: The Politics of Revitalization and Homelessness in Downtown Seattle. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books. Gowins, H. 2014. “Three Cities Show How Food Trucks Live and Die on Political Whim.” Huffington Post, July 26. Accessed July 26, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-gowins/three-cities-show- how-food-trucks_b_5621679.html Helbing, D., P. Molnár, I. J. Farkas, and K. Bolay. 2001. “Self-Organizing Pedestrian Movement.” Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design 28 (3): 361–383. doi:10.1068/b2697. Hsu, T. 2014. “More Angelenos Are Becoming Street Vendors amid Weak Economy.” The Los Angeles Times, September 6. Accessed August 1, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-street-vendors- 20140907-story.html#page=1 Huang, G., D. Xue, and Z. Li. 2014. “From Revanchism to Ambivalence: The Changing Politics of Street Vending in Guangzhou.” Antipode 46 (1): 170–189. doi:10.1111/anti.12031. Intuit. 2012. “Food Trucks Motor into the Mainstream.” Accessed July 15, 2015. http://network.intuit. com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Intuit-Food-Trucks-Report.pdf Kettles, G. 2007. “Legal Responses to Sidewalk Vending: The Case of Los Angeles, California.” In Street Entrepreneurs: People, Place and Politics in Local and Global Perspective, edited by J. C. Cross and A. Morales, 58–78. London: Routledge. Kim, A. M. 2012. “The Mixed-Use Sidewalk.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (3): 225–238. doi:10.1080/01944363.2012.715504. Lee, S. H., V. A. Hoffman, S. N. Bleich, and J. G..2012 . ““Frequency of Visiting and Food Dollars Spent at Carryouts among Low-Income, Urban African American Adults.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 7 (4): 459–467. doi:10.1080/19320248.2012.735220. Lofland, L. H. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Hawthorne, N.Y: Aldine de Gruyter. Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and T. Banerjee. 1998. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form. Berkeley: University of California Press. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and R. Ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space. Cambridge: MIT Press. Low, S. M., D. Taplin, and S. Scheld. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space & Cultural Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press. Martin, N. 2014. “Food Fight! Immigrant Street Vendors, Gourmet Food Trucks and the Differential Valuation of Creative Producers in Chicago.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (5): 1867–1883. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12169. Mehta, V. 2009. “Look Closely and You Will See, Listen Carefully and YouWill Hear: Urban Design and Social Interaction on Streets.” Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 29–64. doi:10.1080/13574800802452658. Mehta, V. 2014. “Evaluating Public Space.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 53–88. doi:10.1080/135748 09.2013.854698. 290 R. EHRENFEUCHT

Meneses-Reyes, R., and J. Caballero-Juarez. 2014. “The Right to Work on the Street: Public Space and Constitutional Rights.” Planning Theory 13 (4): 370–386. doi:10.1177/1473095213503967. Mitchell, D. 2003. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press. Morales, A. 2000. “Peddling Policy: Street Vending in Historical and Contemporary Context.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 20 (3/4): 76–98. doi:10.1108/01443330010789133. Morales, A. 2010. “Planning and the Self-Organization of Marketplaces.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 30 (2): 182–197. doi:10.1177/0739456X10385561. Morales, A., and G. Kettles. 2009. “Healthy Food outside: Farmers’ Markets, Taco Trucks, and Sidewalk Fruit Vendors.” The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 26 (1): 20–48. Myint, A., and K. Leibowitz. 2011. Mission Street Food: Recipes and Ideas from an Improbable Restaurant. San Francisco: McSweeney’s. Newman, L., and K. Burnett. 2013. “Street Food and Vibrant Urban Spaces: Lessons from Portland, Oregon.” Local Environment 18 (2): 233–248. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.729572. Novak, W. J. 1996. The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. NYC (New York City). n.d. “Frequently Asked Questions about Traffic Signals.” Accessed January 21, 2014. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/signals.shtml Raijman, R. 2001. “Mexican Immigrants and Informal Self-Employment in Chicago.” Human Organization 60 (1): 47–55. Sankalia, T. 2014. “The Median Picnic: Street Design, Urban Informality and Public Space Enforcement.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (4): 473–495. doi:10.1080/13574809.2014.923747. Scobey, D. M. 2002. Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Shouse, H. 2011. Food Trucks: Dispatches and Recipes from the Best Kitchens on Wheels. New York: Ten Speed Press. Stevens, Q. 2007. The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. London: Routledge. Stoller, P. 1996. “Spaces, Places and Fields: The Politics of West African Trading in New York City’s Informal Economy.” American Anthropologist 98 (4): 776–788. Stoller, P. 2002. Money Has No Smell. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. The Economic Roundtable. (n.d.) “Economic and Geographical Impact of LA Street Vendors.” Accessed August 1, 2015. http://economicrt.org/current-projects/economic-and-geographical-impact-of-la- street-vendors/ O’Donovan, C. 2012. “Schnitzel King, Cupcakes for Courage Fighting Chicago Food Truck Law.” WBEZ 91.5, November 2012. Accessed June 2, 2015. http://www.wbez.org/sections/food/schnitzel-king- cupcakes-courage-fighting-chicago-food-truck-law-103834 The Street Vendor Project. n.d. http://streetvendor.org/ Urban Vitality Group. 2008. “Food Cartology: Rethinking Urban Spaces as People Places.” Accessed July 12, 2014. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/200738 Vitale, A. S. 2008. City of Disorder: How the Quality of Life Campaign Transformed New York Politics. New York: New York University Press. Downloaded by [Tarbiat Modares University] at 21:39 05 November 2017 Walker, R. E., J. Butler, A. Kriska, C. Keane, C. S. Fryer, and J. G. Burke. 2010. “How Does Food Security Impact Residents of a Food Desert and a Food Oasis?” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 5 (4): 454–470. doi:10.1080/19320248.2010.530549. Wessel, G. 2012. “From Place to NonPlace: A Case Study of Social Media and Contemporary Food Trucks.” Journal of Urban Design 17 (4): 511–531. doi:10.1080/13574809.2012.706362. Whyte, W. H. 1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday. Yatmo, Y. A. 2008. “Street Vendors as out of Place Urban Elements.” Journal of Urban Design 13 (3): 387–402. doi:10.1080/13574800802320889. Zukin, S. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.