Background

Public art and play structures can serve many purposes: as an interactive play structure, creative inspiration, or as a gathering point for play activities. The Rose Kennedy Greenway (RKG) uses art and interactive structures to their fullest. The RKG is the 1.5 mile park that replaced Boston’s Central Artery, an elevated highway that ran directly through the heart of downtown. Traffic now travels below the park in a tunnel. The RKG is a median park between two high-volume local roads, and the park is crossed by a number of perpendicular streets. The greenway varies in width and has different amenities in each segment. Although the RKG design has been criticized as unimaginative and not responsive to its context, its public art and interactive structures have been tremendously popular with children and families from the very beginning. On warm days throughout the year, the park is teeming with children and families who play in one of the several fountains and in the large grassy areas, or sit and have lunch in a plaza.

Adopted From: Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy

Lessons Learned
Potential Benefits

• Provides creative inspiration for play.
• Serves as a gathering point for play activities.
• Increases green space for families and communities.

Potential Issues:

• Ensure context-sensitive design.

View this Case Study's Photos    

Background

Lyman Place is a three-block street that has been closed to traffic in the summers for the past 34 years. The initiative was started by Hetty Fox, now seventy–three, when she moved back to the neighborhood in the Bronx where she had spent her childhood. Growing up there, she had learned to ride her bike on the block, and had played games and learned about conversation, confidence and respect. She wanted to give the same opportunity to current and future generations of kids.

It was not easy in the beginning. A vegetable garden in a vacant lot soon became a garbage-strewn lot, and funds for running a summer play street were always short. Initially the street stayed closed from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. so parents could play with their children when they came home from work. During the last 11 years, police have directed that the closure cannot go beyond 5 p.m. in response to the crime and drug dealing in the greater neighborhood. Hetty Fox believes that keeping the street closed to traffic and allowing people to hang out actually discourages those kinds of activities.

Today the money situation remains difficult, Fox is dependent on grants and donations to fund supplies for the program. However, a second generation of children now run and play on the street–a testament to the need for such places in some of our most difficult neighborhoods.

Lessons Learned
Potential Benefits:

• Allows play to happen on the entire street.
• Creates a sense of real and perceived safety.
• Increases public space for children, families and the community.

Potential Issues:

• Address the lack of funding for organizing the play street.
• Work with police interference regarding activities and street closures.

View this Case Study's Photos    

Background

“San Francisco’s streets and public rights-of-way make up fully 25% of the city’s land area, more space even than is found in all of the city’s parks. Many of our streets are excessively wide and contain large zones of wasted space, especially at intersections. San Francisco’s new Pavement to Parks projects seek to temporarily reclaim these unused swathes and quickly and inexpensively turn them into new public plazas and parks.”

From: Pavement to Parks (http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/index.htm)

Implementation and Design Concepts

Interview with Andres Power, San Francisco Planning Department, Urban Design Group, P2P Project Manager

• The project was inspired by a visit from NYC Transportation Commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, who had successfully implemented a similar program in NYC, including the Times Square pedestrian plaza. She met with department heads in various San Francisco city offices and the mayor. Her vision proved inspirational to city officials.
• Currently there are two different park types:
• Parklets
• The first parklets installed were done by the city. Beginning in September 2010, the city began accepting RFP’s for community-led parklet installation. The city would no longer be installing (or funding) parklets and would instead rely on the community to take initiative. The city did, however, issue permits and design guidelines for any proposed parklets.



• Approximately 25 parklets were permitted in the first RFP round in late 2010.
• Parklets were installed in parking lanes where there was capacity.
• Those organizations submitting proposals were responsible for designing their own parklet space. They were generally allowed wide range as far as design and type of activities are concerned–within reason.
• Applicants were encouraged to hone community support before they applied. If they met design criteria, a public notice was posted at the site. If there were any community objections, it triggered a public hearing.
• Overall, parklets are loved by the community, including businesses and residents. They also have the support of the Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Commission.
• Plazas
• These were generally installed in larger spaces where there was excess/unused roadway.
• Plazas are city-led projects.
• Designers were hired pro-bono to work with city urban designers to come up with a concept.
• Currently there are four plazas.
• Funding
• Philanthropic donations.
• Donations by fronting businesses.
• City general fund.
• Accommodating Children and Play
• The city’s original parklet designs did not have children and play explicitly in mind. The plaza spaces tend to have more child-appropriate amenities, but it is not a specific design requirement.
• However, a business fronting the 24th street parklet in Noe Valley installed a board for children to paint on and another gadget with moving parts.
• Two other parklets that were approved in the first RFP round also included child-friendly amenities.
• Challenges



• One particular challenge related to proving child-friendly amenities has been dealing with the issue of liability. In the Guerrero Plaza park, the city had planned to install a play structure, but because of jurisdictional overlap between the two city departments overseeing streets and parks, there were some legal issues to work out. Overall, it was not an insurmountable problem. However, the plaza was completed without the play structure to complete it on schedule.

Lessons Learned
Potential Benefits:

• Expand the realm of the sidewalk.
• Provide space for children to gather.
• Include interactive structures.
• Have a specific policy toward creating child-friendly spaces.

Potential Issues:

• Address merchants’ fears that taking away parking will be harmful to business.
• Determine who maintains the facilities.
• Address cost issues.
• Is appropriate for both residential and commercial streets.

View this Case Study's Photos    

Background

In the 1960's as shopping malls were springing up across the country, a group of forward-thinking citizens owning property and working in downtown Boulder began to look for ways to keep the historic center of the City of Boulder attractive and economically sound. In 1966, the Boulder Committee for the Exploration of Core Area Potential (CECAP) was formed. The group consisted of mostly city officials and downtown property owners, but felt it vital to have citizens participate in all aspects of the planning process and opened the membership to all interested persons.

Later that year, the group changed its name to Boulder Tomorrow and with the assistance of Sally Irwin, who became the volunteer Director, began a two-phase downtown improvement plan. The first phase sought support both in planning and fund raising. Phase One facilitated the move to Phase Two, a plan and proposal for Downtown development. Two downtown plans were eventually rejected due to cost, but the second, developed by the Boulder architectural firm of Carl Worthington Partnership proposed a four-block pedestrian mall on Pearl Street – a concept that was eventually adopted and designed by the firms Sasaki & Associates and Communication Arts.

In 1970, Governor John Love signed the Public Mall Act into law. Among other things, the law allowed Colorado cities to close downtown streets in order to build pedestrian malls and detailed the suitable methods of financing such projects.

Assembling funding to build the Mall became a cooperative effort. A Mall Assessment District was formed. The City of Boulder applied for and received a $650,000 federal grant from the 1974 Community Housing and Development Act, or 1/3rd of the cost. Property owners assessed themselves $1.2 million in a graduated system, or 2/3rd's of the cost needed to build the four block, brick-paved pedestrian mall.

On June 12, 1976, Pearl Street was closed between 11th and 15th Streets. The completed mall was dedicated on August 6, 1977. The Mall has been called the “crown jewel” of Boulder.

Adapted From: City of Boulder “History of the Downtown Boulder Area”

Design Concept and Interventions

Interview with Richard Foy, Principle, Communication Arts (now part of Stantec):

• The idea to build a child-friendly environment came from CommArts. We wanted to create a space that signaled to kids that it was a place to play and be animated.
• There are three major play elements that are part of the Pearl Street Mall:
• Boulders: There are smooth river rocks for kids to play, sit, and slide on, ranging from 12 inches to four feet high. They are appropriate sizes for toddlers to 12 year-olds. The boulders sit in a recessed area filled with sand. Parents will sit on the step and watch their kids. Also in this area are tube structures that kids can climb through.
• Four whimsical statues of a snail (marble), frog (bronze), rabbit (marble), and beaver (bronze), are included, which are all animals found in the local environment. They all have soft edges so kids can easily climb on them. There are no protrusions that can be vandalized. The statues sit in beds of gravel, which was chosen because kids would pick up and throw stones. Sand would get tracked into businesses.
• The pop-jet fountain is very popular in the summertime. Toddlers love it. Parents will bring their kids and a towel to play in the fountain.
• The mall originally had a grassy area, but it was taken out on the 25th year anniversary of the mall. It attracted college students who would lounge with shirts off and play Frisbee. The grass just got trampled and the college students were deemed not good for business. In its place, they installed a large fountain made out of Colorado flagstone. Kids can run their hands through the water.
• Another popular element with kids and adults alike is a giant boulder that has been split in half. People can walk between the two halves and be able to hear the “spirit of the rocks.”
• According to Foy, “Slides and swings are suburban. We wanted to create an urban experience.”

Each block of the mall has a major child-oriented amenity.

Reception by the Community

Interview with Eli Madrone, Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District:

• Children’s amenities bring business to the pedestrian mall.
• Core demographic of the local businesses is young and middle-aged mothers, who bring their kids to play and then do some shopping while they are there. It is very much a destination for this demographic as well as for other residents from the surrounding neighborhoods.
• The Mall is walking distance from residential neighborhoods as well as the local university.

Interview with Molly Winter, Boulder Parking District:

• The Pearl Street Mall is completely embraced by the community. It is a major icon for the city.
• The mall is considered an urban park, so it is maintained by the city parks department.
• The boulder sand box would not be allowed to be built today because the boulders are too close together for health standards – a child could fall off one boulder and hit his/her head on another one.

Lessons Learned
Potential Benefits:

• Provide pedestrian-only streets.
• Include public art, such as interactive structures.
• Increase business at nearby businesses.
• Have a specific policy toward creating child-friendly spaces.

Potential Issues:

• Initial merchants’ fears that taking away parking will be harmful to business must be addressed.
• The responsibility for maintaining facilities must be determined.
• Cost is a issue.
• A pedestrian mall is most appropriate on commercial streets.

View this Case Study's Photos    

Background

The British Home Zone Program developed from the Dutch “woonerf” concept. Key design features include level carriageways and shared surfaces. Alongside other landscaping and traffic calming measures, these serve to slow down vehicles, open up road space and create a place suitable for social uses in which the driver feels like a guest. Like the woonerf, Home Zones incorporate both formal and informal space for children’s play and social activities. In 1999 the British Government funded a pilot program in nine communities in England and Wales, which led to a £30 million Home Zone Challenge program and funding for 59 additional schemes in 2001.

Most streets designated as Home Zones have been existing streets that have been retrofitted. Physical design varies widely: “Designs tend to lie somewhere along a continuum from – at one end – a woonerf-style treatment involving level carriageways, shared surfaces and widespread use of visual and physical elements that break up drivers’ sight lines, to – at the other – conventional traffic calming, though with higher quality materials and greater use of soft landscaping than is usual in the UK (Gill 2006).” Overall, final designs are heavily influenced by and responsive to community input, which is seen as crucial for gaining local support.

The UK Department for Transport’s website (2005a) gives the following definition of a home zone: Home Zones are residential streets in which the road space is shared between drivers of motor vehicles and other road users, with the wider needs of residents (including people who walk and cycle, and children) in mind. The aim is to change the way that streets are used and to improve quality of life, by making them places for people, not just for traffic.

The Morice Town Home Zone, Plymouth, UK

Morice Town is an area within the City of Plymouth that was selected as one of nine pilot sites for the UK Home Zones program in 1999. Before this, Morice Town had received little physical investment during the 50 years since it was rebuilt in the aftermath of WWII bombing. A small residential community with a population just over 4,000 people, Morice Town consists of a primary school in the center with predominantly young families living in the surrounding flats and terraced houses (approximately 450 households).

The Morice Town Home Zone was designed and implemented with significant community input over a three-year period, and consists of 12 streets on a grid pattern. The single most important objective was to create an area where residents felt safe. That meant tackling the problem of traffic and speed, as well as introducing “friendly” features, such as designated parking spaces and attractive street furniture. The architects proposed a shared space for both pedestrians and vehicles on the same level. Speed limits in Morice Town are 5 mph, although most Home Zone schemes have a speed limit of 10 mph.

Funding for the project came mostly from government resources, both at the local and national level. Those involved in the project estimated that the cost of implementing a Home Zone design was about five times more than a standard traffic calming scheme, but argue that the extra cost is justified given the regeneration of the area and the improved quality of life for residents.

The UK Department for Transport has issued guidelines for Home Zone design that emphasize the following key principles:

1. Designing for people: Vehicles must be accommodated within the Home Zone as an integral part of daily life, but they must share the space with cyclists and people on foot. Motorists should feel that they are a ‘guest’ in the street.
2. Gateways: It is important that a strong gateway feature clearly identifies to users that they are entering (or leaving) a different environment. These features distinguish the boundary of the Home Zone and should set the tone and character for the rest of the area.
3. Movement: One of the main criteria for the development of a Home Zone is the creation of an environment where pedestrians and vehicles use shared space at comparable speed. This means tighter clear vehicle paths and the introduction of constraints to easy and direct vehicular passage are needed. The Home Zone should be embedded in a wider 20 mph zone so that the reduction of vehicular speeds is achieved gradually rather than in one step. Redefine the streetscape away from the conventional straight lines of carriageway and footway to incorporate a single shared surface between property boundaries, even blurring the distinction between private and public space. This approach has succeeded in creating areas where a.ctivities other than movement can be undertaken safely while still allowing vehicles access. However, consideration must still be given to defining the vehicle path. Different surface textures and colors have been used to influence driver perceptions. The preferred choice has been horizontal shifts in vehicle paths, rather than frequent vertical deflections. This has been achieved using a variety of features.
4. Delineation: While the overall concept is for pedestrians and vehicles to share the space, in some cases definition of space is still necessary. Using colored or textured paving or bollards to create more defensible space are two strategies to increase delineation where necessary.



5. Accommodating play: One of the key objectives of Home Zones is to increase the opportunity for children to play in the streets. This can be achieved through the introduction of both formal and informal play spaces. Formal play spaces have been developed as segregated areas with play equipment sited where it is well overlooked and caters to a range of ages. Involving children and young people throughout the design process has been particularly important in achieving acceptable schemes – from the perspective of both children and adults. Even without formal play spaces, the creation of a less formal street can encourage play and outdoor activities where it would otherwise have been unacceptable. Informal play is often the answer and just providing a safe space within the street may be all that is needed. Children will use their imagination to transform features of the environment. Large concrete balls in the street, designed to demarcate the vehicle path, can become anything in a child’s eyes.
6. Parking: Improve parking adjacent to houses (in-curtilage parking) or by creating structural (echelon) parking blocks along the street with a reduced and variable running width. In some schemes, on-street parking provision has actually been increased by providing more formalized parking arrangements. The best approach is a flexible one, identifying areas where people are able to park without causing an obstruction, even to the emergency services. Areas where parking is not acceptable should be readily identified by their restricted width.
7. Lighting: The level and quality of lighting in a Home Zone is important as it can increase feelings of safety and security. Lighting columns can have both a positive and negative impact within a Home Zone. They can mark routes but can also strengthen linearity of the street. Factors such as style, height and spacing of columns and color spectrum of the lighting will be important in determining both the day and night time appearance of the Home Zone.

While overall evaluations of the Morice Town Home Zone have been mixed, workshops conducted in the area after implementation of the Home Zone noted the positive effect for children; namely, the increase in play area and the decrease in traffic speeds of 10-15 mph.

Adapted from: Department for Transportation (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets.

A major challenge in implementing Home Zones schemes is the cost required. As a result, Sustrans, a mass-transit advocacy organization in the UK has created a program called DIY Streets that focuses on less capital-intensive traffic-calming designs. Interventions are often not permanent, are driving-psychology oriented and focus broadly on traffic calming rather than on creating child-friendly environments.

Lessons Learned
Potential Benefits:

• Use the UK Department for Transportation design guidelines for Home Zones for direction on design approaches.
• Solicit community input, particularly from children.

Potential Issues:

• Different communities will have different tolerances for more pedestrian-oriented design, so gauging where a community falls in this regard is critical.
• Dealing with the potential loss of parking is a concern.
• Community questions and anxiety around the safety of shared streets, particularly for children, is an issue.
• Bias against children, such as the perception that children “loitering” on the street is a public safety concern, may be an issue.
• Cost is a concern.
• Home Zones are most appropriate on residential streets and in the context of a larger traffic calming scheme for an entire neighborhood or community.
• Selling this concept to communities may be challenging. Tolerance for shared streets may grow in the future.

Sources

Department for Transportation (2005) “Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets”, London DfT.

Gill,Tim (2006) “Lessons from London Play’s Home Zones project Report”

The UK Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/)

Sustrans “What is DIY Streets?” (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/liveable-neighbourhoods/diy-streets)

Photo Sources

MIG, Inc.