DOCSLIB.ORG

VISUALIZING RESIDUAL SPACES in a NEW LIGHT a Study for Creating & Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San José Freeway

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
VISUALIZING RESIDUAL SPACES in a NEW LIGHT a Study for Creating & Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San José Freeway VISUALIZINGVISUALIZING RESIDUALRESIDUAL SPACESSPACES ININ AA NEWNEW LIGHTLIGHT A Study for Creating & Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San José Freeway Caitlin C. Campbell December 2013 (This page is intentially left blank) VISUALIZING RESIDUAL SPACES IN A NEW LIGHT A Study for Creating & Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San José Freeway A Planning Report Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning San José State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Urban Planning By Caitlin Campbell December 2013 San José State University Urban and Regional Planning Department (This page is intentially left blank) Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of the people who have supported me throughout this project and my time at San José State University. I dedicate this report and my degree to you because without you this would not have been possible. Thank you to all of the planning and design professionals who took time out of their busy schedules to share with me their experience, knowledge and visions for their design projects. In addition, I would like to thank the residents of downtown San José and Spartan-Keyes for sharing your time and knowledge about your community. I thoroughly enjoyed speaking with all of you. my personal cheerleaders and I am very fortunate to have you in my life. I am eternally grateful for my parents and family who supported and encouraged me during the difficult times. You are To my advisor Asha Weinstein Agrawal, thank you so much for your words of encouragement, advice, and patience throughout the entire 298 process. Lastly, I would like to thank the Urban and Regional Planning department and faculty for your guidance, knowledge and support over the past 2 1/2 years. i (This page is intentially left blank) ii Table of Contents List of Tables & Figures ................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Report .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Relevance for Studying Residual Spaces ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Relevance for Choosing the City of San José ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Focus of Research ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Scope of Report ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for Creating Successful Urban Public Spaces ...................................... 7 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Design Qualities, Characteristics & Elements ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Defining Public Space Chapter 3: Studies of Existing Residual Space Transformations ....................................................... 15 3.1 Selection Process .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Methodology for Analyzing Each Space ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Residual Space Observation & Analysis Tool ....................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Observation & Analysis of Studies ............................................................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 4: Site Analysis of San José's 2nd & 3rd Street / I-280 Underpass .......................................... 53 4.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.2 Site Constraints ................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 4.3 Site Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................................................ 61 4.4 Summary of Findings from the Site Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 64 4.5 Interviews with Nearby Residents ........................................................................................................................................... 66 iii Chapter 5: Design Recommendations for Transforming the 2nd & 3rd Street / I-280 Underpass ......... 73 5.1 Development of Program Elements & Design Solutions ................................................................................................. 73 5.2 Conceptual Design Recommendations for the 2nd & 3rd Street / I-280 Underpass .............................................. 75 5.3 Supporting Perspectives for Design Recommendations ................................................................................................. 80 Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommended Steps for Redesign Implementation .................................. 85 6.1 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 85 6.2 Implementation & Design Phases ............................................................................................................................................. 86 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A: Residual Space Observation & Analysis Tool ............................................................................................................ 95 Appendix B: Interview Questionnaires ................................................................................................................................................. 97 Appendix C: Interview List ......................................................................................................................................................................... 99 iv List of Tables & Figures TABLE 3.1 Summary of residual spaces studied ........................................................................................................................ 16 TABLE 5.1 Program elements & design solutions ..................................................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 1.1 Context map of the study area ................................................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3.1 Location of residual space studies........................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 3.2 Concrete planter beds and moveable chairs in Jane Warner Plaza / Castro Commons ................... 20 FIGURE 3.3 Metal trailer hitch used as a raised planter bed and barrier from cars on Castro Street ................ 21 FIGURE 3.4 Historic F-Line cuts through Jane Warner Plaza / Castro Commons. ...................................................... 21 FIGURE 3.5 Farley's East Café Parklet ............................................................................................................................................ 24 FIGURE 3.6 Wooden bar table and red moveable stools at Farley's East Café .............................................................. 24 FIGURE 3.7 Parallel Park's modular design ................................................................................................................................. 27 FIGURE 3.8 Parallel Park's angeled seatwall and bike rack .................................................................................................. 28 FIGURE 3.9 Basketball courts at the Mission Bay Park Sport Courts ................................................................................ 30 FIGURE 3.10 Colorful bioswale ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3.11 Wave mural at Mission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PLAYGROUND UTILIZATION: a Study on Urban, Community and Neighborhood Park Playgrounds in Manhattan, Kansas
    PLAYGROUND UTILIZATION: A Study on Urban, Community and Neighborhood Park Playgrounds in Manhattan, Kansas by KANGLIN YAO B.S., Lingnan Normal University, China A REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING Department of Landscape Architecture / Regional & Community Planning College of Architecture, Planning and Design KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2015 Approved by: Major Professor Dr. Hyung Jin Kim Abstract Children’s play is partially satisfied through provision of public playgrounds with manufactured playground equipment in urban settings in the U.S., however, manufactured playground equipment is often criticized for its monotonous play equipment and is considered to be the primary cause of low playground utilization and dissatisfaction by many researchers (Hart, 2002; Beckwith, 2000; Cunningham & Jones, 1999; Davies, 1996; Masters, 2011). This study selected an urban park playground, a community playground, and a neighborhood park playground with manufactured equipment in the city of Manhattan as study sites. The purpose of this study is to examine utilization of the current playground areas and equipment —specifically by examining playground satisfaction levels and utilization frequency, and playground equipment satisfaction and utilization frequency to reveal playground utilization issues. A playground field audit and an on-site visitor survey were used to collect data. This study found (a) study playgrounds are underutilized among 6-to-10 and 11-to-15 age groups, (b) correlations exist between play equipment utilization frequencies and satisfaction ratings for most play equipment, and (c) no correlation exists between playground utilization frequency and playground satisfaction ratings. Results also revealed that (d) rare and occasional playground visitors are more likely to be attracted to play equipment with moving parts, higher physical challenges, and creative designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks and Recreation in the United States
    June 2009 Parks and Recreation in the United States Local Park Systems Margaret Walls BACKGROUNDER 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org Resources for the Future Walls Parks and Recreation in the United States: Local Park Systems Margaret Walls∗ Introduction The United States has 53 national parks and over 6,600 state park sites, but many outdoor pursuits often begin at the playground around the corner, the nature center down the road, or the sports fields at a nearby recreation area. These close-to-home parks and open spaces are a critical component of the U.S. recreation estate. Characterizing and describing these resources is difficult, however, given the wide variety of parks provided in individual communities and the lack of a central organization or government agency responsible for collecting and managing data on local parks. In this backgrounder, we show some of the available information. We analyze park acreage and facilities for a set of cities, show trends in local government spending on parks and recreation services, and describe results from a survey we conducted of local park directors identifying current challenges they face and popularity trends in their parks. A Brief History Parks have played an important and ever-changing role in American urban life. The Boston Common, designated as a public open space in 1634, is considered the nation’s first city park. A total of 16 parks were created before 1800, including the National Mall in Washington, DC, in 1790 (Trust for Public Land 2008). From the mid to late 1800s, the urban park vision centered on providing natural settings in an urban environment, or so-called “pleasure gardens.” The parks designed by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted epitomized this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • IN NEW YORK CITY January/February/March 2019 Welcome to Urban Park Outdoors in Ranger Facilities New York City Please Call Specific Locations for Hours
    OutdoorsIN NEW YORK CITY January/February/March 2019 Welcome to Urban Park Outdoors in Ranger Facilities New York City Please call specific locations for hours. BRONX As winter takes hold in New York City, it is Pelham Bay Ranger Station // (718) 319-7258 natural to want to stay inside. But at NYC Pelham Bay Park // Bruckner Boulevard Parks, we know that this is a great time of and Wilkinson Avenue year for New Yorkers to get active and enjoy the outdoors. Van Cortlandt Nature Center // (718) 548-0912 Van Cortlandt Park // West 246th Street and Broadway When the weather outside is frightful, consider it an opportunity to explore a side of the city that we can only experience for a few BROOKLYN months every year. The Urban Park Rangers Salt Marsh Nature Center // (718) 421-2021 continue to offer many unique opportunities Marine Park // East 33rd Street and Avenue U throughout the winter. Join us to kick off 2019 on a guided New Year’s Day Hike in each borough. This is also the best time to search MANHATTAN for winter wildlife, including seals, owls, Payson Center // (212) 304-2277 and eagles. Kids Week programs encourage Inwood Hill Park // Payson Avenue and families to get outside and into the park while Dyckman Street school is out. This season, grab your boots, mittens, and QUEENS hat, and head to your nearest park! New York Alley Pond Park Adventure Center City parks are open and ready to welcome you (718) 217-6034 // (718) 217-4685 year-round. Alley Pond Park // Enter at Winchester Boulevard, under the Grand Central Parkway Forest Park Ranger Station // (718) 846-2731 Forest Park // Woodhaven Boulevard and Forest Park Drive Fort Totten Visitors Center // (718) 352-1769 Fort Totten Park // Enter the park at fort entrance, north of intersection of 212th Street and Cross Island Parkway and follow signs STATEN ISLAND Blue Heron Nature Center // (718) 967-3542 Blue Heron Park // 222 Poillon Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION FUTURES TAX LEVY (CFT) APPLICATION for 2020 FUNDS SECTION 1. PROJECT SUMMARY Updated 3/21/2019
    Updated 3/21/2019 CONSERVATION FUTURES TAX LEVY (CFT) APPLICATION FOR 2020 FUNDS Project Name: Urban Greenspace – Skyway and White Center Applicant Jurisdiction: King County Parks If applicable, Open Space System Name: (Only if applicable, the name of a larger connected system, such as Cedar River Greenway, Mountains to Sound, a Regional Trail, etc.) Proposed Project Acreage: 20 CFT Funding Request: $975,000 (Identify the acreage targeted under this year’s funding request) (Dollar amount of CFT award requested) Total Project Acreage: 100 KC PL Funding Request: $525,000 (Estimate total acreage at project completion for multi-year projects) (King County Projects Only: Dollar amount of KC Parks Levy requested) Type of Acquisition(s): ☒Fee Title ☐Conservation Easement ☐Other: King County Council District in which project is located1: 2 and 8 CONTACT INFORMATION Contact Name: David Kimmett Phone: 206-510-5668 Title: Open Space Program/Project Manager Email: [email protected] Address: 201 S Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104 Date: March 6, 2019 SECTION 1. PROJECT SUMMARY In the space below, provide a brief description of the project. Please reference how the targeted parcels are significant individually, and (if relevant) as part of a larger open space system, reach, or watershed. Acquisition of green space in King County’s unincorporated urban neighborhoods of Skyway (West Hill) and White Center (North Highline). This project continues King County Parks’ long term mission to increase public green space in unincorporated urban communities. Working with King County’s Open Space Equity Cabinet and local community groups, King County Parks will identify opportunities to create new urban parks, trails and open space in the Skyway and White Center neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • City Parks, Clean Water Making Great Places Using Green Infrastructure
    City parks, clean water Making great places using green infrastructure City parks, clean water Making great places using green infrastructure The Trust for Public Land March 2016 Printed on 100% recycled paper. ©2016 The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. Our Center for City Park Excellence helps make cities more successful through the renewal and creation of parks for their social, ecological, and economic benefits to residents and visitors alike. tpl.org Table of contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................5 The problem .........................................................................................................................................8 The different goals ...........................................................................................................................10 The different solutions and how they actually work ..............................................................18 Design considerations for success ..............................................................................................30 Staying involved ................................................................................................................................33 Negotiating between different uses of a park..........................................................................37
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Parks and Playgrounds As Green Infrastructure for Stormwater and Climate Resilience
    Designing Parks and Playgrounds as Green Infrastructure for Stormwater and Climate Resilience June 201Designing8 Parks and Playgrounds as Green Infrastructure 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project was conducted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) with funding from the City of Chelsea as part of its Open Space and Recreation Plan update for 2018. Special thanks to Alexander Train, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, and D.J. Chagnon, Principal of CBA Landscape Architects, LLC for their review and consideration for incorporating more enhanced green infrastructure in Chelsea’s park system. METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Officers President Keith Bergman Vice President Erin Wortman Secretary Sandra Hackman Treasurer Taber Keally Executive Director Marc D. Draisen Senior Environmental Planner Darci Schofield With special thanks to Principal Planner Ralph Wilmer, AICP Director of Municipal Collaboration Mark Fine CITY OF CHELSEA City Manager Thomas G. Ambrosin Director of Planning John DePreist. AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development Alexander Train Chelsea City Council Leo Robinson Roy Avellaneda Damali Vidot Robert Bishop Luis Tejada Joe Perlatonda Enio Lopez Judith Garcia Giovanni A. Recupero Yamir Rodriguez Calvin T Brown Citation Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 2018. Designing Parks and Playgrounds as Green Infrastructure for Stormwater and Climate Resilience. Boston, MA Designing Parks and Playgrounds as Green Infrastructure 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program Overview and Examples
    Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program Overview and Examples Authority The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, as amended (54 U.S.C. 2005), authorized the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. Implementing regulations are found at 36 C.F.R. Part 72. Mission The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program gives matching grants and technical assistance to economically distressed urban communities to revitalize and improve recreation opportunities through: • Remodeling, rebuilding or improving existing neighborhood outdoor or indoor recreation areas and facilities; • Developing innovative cost-effective ideas, concepts, and approaches to improve facility design, operations, or programs for local recreation services; • Planning activities that set recreation priorities and strategies for overall recreation system recovery; and • Perpetual protection of urban recreation properties and opportunities. Background A 1976 amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 directed the Secretary of the Interior to study the needs, problems, and opportunities associated with urban recreation. The resulting National Urban Recreation Study (1978) concluded that urban park and recreation facilities were in a state of deterioration, there was compelling need to restore the facilities, and federal funds would be necessary. In March 1978, President Carter announced a comprehensive national urban policy, A New Partnership to Conserve America’s Communities, including the concept of an urban park and recreation recovery program to encourage revitalization and rehabilitation of urban recreation systems. The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 formally established the UPARR Program, first administered by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS), within the Department of the Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile
    From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile: How Urban Park Systems Can Best Promote Health and Wellness Related publications from The Trust for Public Land The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get There (2006) The Health Benefits of Parks (2007) Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System (2009) Funding for this project was provided by The Ittleson Foundation, New York, New York PlayCore, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia About the authors Peter Harnik is director of The Trust for Public Land’s Center for City Park Excellence and author of Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities (Island Press, 2010). Ben Welle is assistant project manager for health and road safety at the World Resources Institute. He is former assistant director of the Center for City Park Excellence and former editor of the City Parks Blog (cityparksblog.org). Special thanks to Coleen Gentles for administrative support. The Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence 660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202.543.7552 tpl.org/CCPE © 2011 The Trust for Public Land Cover photos: Darcy Kiefel From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile: How Urban Park Systems Can Best Promote Health and Wellness By Peter Harnik and Ben Welle TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 1. A MIXTURE OF USES AND A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PROGRAMMING 6 Cincinnati Recreation Commission 8 Fitness Zones, Los Angeles 9 Urban Ecology Center, Milwaukee 10 2. STRESS REDUCTION: CALMING TRAFFIC AND EMOTIONS 12 Golden Gate Park, San Francisco 15 Sunday Parkways, Portland, Oregon 17 Seattle’s P-Patch 18 Patterson Park, Baltimore 20 3.
    [Show full text]
  • ULI Creative Placemaking
    ULI Creative Placemaking: Self‐Guided Tour of Seattle Welcome to Seattle! We invite you to use this guide, which is also accessible on the Google Maps app, under “My Places” to: 1. Tour robust and diverse developments noted for their innovative use of Creative Placemaking, the integration of arts and culture in community revitalization to build strong, healthy cities. You can get around town car‐free with an Orca Card transit pass at participating retailers or transit station kiosks. 2. Add your comments and suggestions about public and private developments that contribute to our understanding of Creative Placemaking by emailing [email protected]. 3. Keep in touch with Creative Placemaking through ULI events, resources and publications nationally at ULI.org/CreativePlacemaking and locally through your District Council: https://uli.org/councils/district‐councils/locations. Tour Guide Central Seattle Adventurous Address Public Transit Legend: Locations Locations A visual overview of 12 suggested tour locations in the central city, along with 7 additional tour locations in the surrounding areas for the adventurous types. ________________ This map can be added to or updated at: https://goo.gl/vCPf2X Page 1 of 12 ULI Creative Placemaking: Tour Sites in Central Seattle Find this information online or on your mobile device at: https://goo.gl/vCPf2X Occidental Park Description 117 S Washington St. Occidental Park is a redevelopment of a half‐acre asphalt parking lot into a vibrant, Seattle, WA 98104 verdant square, opened to the public in 1971. Today, it is home to bookstores, art galleries, ping pong tables, bocce ball courts, boutiques, unique shops and eateries.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Urban Park Values and Residential Properties Utilizing GIS in Rochester, Minnesota Aaron J. Buffington Resource
    An Assessment of Urban Park Values and Residential Properties Utilizing GIS in Rochester, Minnesota Aaron J. Buffington1,2 1Resource Analysis Department, Saint Mary’s University, Winona, MN 55987 2Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department, Rochester, MN 55904 Keywords: urban parks, residential property, property value, geographic information systems, and spatial correlation Abstract Urban parks and open space have always been a valuable asset to human communities. They are multi-faceted in the kind of value that they have provided to local communities. For this reason, parks and open space have been given much attention during the planning processes in the urban environment. Urban parks have not only provided recreation benefits to communities, but have provided much economic wealth to local communities. Community residents have noted the benefits of urban parks. In many urban environments, residential property values have increased near parks as a direct result. The City of Rochester, Minnesota has been acknowledged as having a very strong urban park system. The city’s several ravines, rivers and woodland areas have provided natural corridors for the development of its park system. A strong economy in Rochester has resulted in continuous urban growth. Along with the city’s growth, the downtown and residential areas are now becoming more urbanized. Rochester has also been noted for its stable property and housing prices. City property is in demand, and will continue to be in great demand for years to come. As Rochester expands, its parks system needs to be considered during the urban planning processes to protect the high sense of residential value that Rochester is known for today.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape and Urban Planning Property Values, Parks, and Crime: a Hedonic Analysis in Baltimore, MD
    Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2008) 233–245 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD Austin Troy a,∗,J.MorganGroveb a Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, Aiken Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA b Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 705 Spear Street, South Burlington, VT 05403, USA article info abstract Article history: While urban parks are generally considered to be a positive amenity, past research suggests that some Received 26 June 2007 parks are perceived as a neighborhood liability. Using hedonic analysis of property data in Baltimore, Received in revised form 21 May 2008 MD, we attempted to determine whether crime rate mediates how parks are valued by the housing mar- Accepted 26 June 2008 ket. Transacted price was regressed against park proximity, area-weighted robbery and rape rates for Available online 3 August 2008 the Census block groups encompassing the parks, and an interaction term, adjusting for a number of other variables. Four models were estimated, including one where selling price was log-transformed but Keywords: distance to park was not, one where both were log-transformed, a Box–Cox regression, and a spatially Hedonic analysis Property value adjusted regression. All results indicate that park proximity is positively valued by the housing market Crime where the combined robbery and rape rates for a neighborhood are below a certain threshold rate but Urban parks negatively valued where above that threshold. Depending on which model is used, this threshold occurs Green space at a crime index value of between 406 and 484 (that is, between 406% and 484% of the national average; Baltimore Ecosystem Study the average rate by block group for Baltimore is 475% of the national average).
    [Show full text]
  • ULI Creative Placemaking: Self-Guided Tour of Seattle
    ULI Creative Placemaking: Self-Guided Tour of Seattle Welcome to Seattle! We invite you to use this guide, which is also accessible on the Google Maps app, under “My Places” to: 1. Tour robust and diverse developments noted for their innovative use of Creative Placemaking, the integration of arts and culture in community revitalization to build strong, healthy cities. You can get around town car-free with an Orca Card transit pass at participating retailers or transit station kiosks. You can also pay on your cell phone through the Transit GO Ticket app, with cash or with a day pass. 2. Add your comments and suggestions about public and private developments that contribute to our understanding of Creative Placemaking by emailing [email protected]. 3. Keep in touch with Creative Placemaking through ULI events, resources and publications nationally at ULI.org/CreativePlacemaking and locally through your District Council: https://uli.org/councils/district-councils/locations. Tour Guide Central Seattle Adventurous Address Public Transit Legend: Locations Locations A visual overview of 12 suggested tour locations in the central city, along with 7 additional tour locations in the surrounding areas for the adventurous types. ________________ This map can be added to or updated at: https://goo.gl/vCPf2X Page 1 of 12 ULI Creative Placemaking: Tour Sites in Central Seattle Find this information online or on your mobile device at: https://goo.gl/vCPf2X Occidental Park Description 117 S Washington St. Occidental Park is a redevelopment of a half-acre asphalt parking lot into a vibrant, Seattle, WA 98104 verdant square, opened to the public in 1971.
    [Show full text]