Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Life at the water’s edge: an analysis of human behaviour and urban design of public open space at the… Letourneur, Christopher C. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0134z.pdf [ 22.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087427.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087427-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087427-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087427-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087427-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087427-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087427-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087427-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087427.ris

Full Text

LIFE AT THE WATER'S EDGE: A N ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOU R AND URBAN DESIGN OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AT THE WATER'S EDGE BY CHRISTOPHER C. LETOURNEU R B. A., The University of British Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE O F MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIE S (SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLU December 1993 © Christophe r C. LeTourneur, 1993 In presentin g thi s thesi s i n partia l fulfi lmen t o f th e requirement s fo r a n advance d degree a t th e Universit y o f Britis h Columbia , I  agre e tha t th e Librar y shal l mak e i t freely availabl e fo r referenc e an d study . I  furthe r agre e tha t permissio n fo r extensiv e copying o f thi s thesi s fo r scholarl y purpose s ma y b e grante d b y th e hea d o f m y department o r b y hi s o r he r representatives . I t i s understoo d tha t copyin g o r publication o f thi s thesi s fo r financia l gai n shal l no t b e allowe d withou t m y writte n permission. Department o f ^ftoo^<yUMMumv^l4^o^4L rc^UMpa The Universit y o f Britis h Columbi a Vancouver, Canad a Date TWoLSircfi DE-6 (2/88 ) L I F E A T THE WATER' S E D G E : A N ANALYSI S O F H U M AN BEHAVIOUR AN D U R B A N DESIG N O F PUBLI C O P E N S P A C E AT TH E WATER' S E D G E A b s t r a c t Over the past decade, North America's urban waterfronts have experienced a renaissance. Urban waterfronts, which once provided the heart and lifeline of many North American cities by acting as a gateway connecting the American interior and the rest of the World, have undergone vast changes and are now the staging areas for numerou s uses, to be enjoyed by all of the public, in many different ways. Throughout history, a relationship between man and the water's edge has always existed. The water's edge is where life is most diverse and unique. Th e water's edge has traditionally been viewed as part of the public realm. A  strong commitment to maintaining public access to the shore and waterways of the world has consistently been upheld, starting with the Justinian Law of ancient Rome and continuing through English Common Law as reflected in maritime ordinances. Urban waterfronts have historically been the hub of transportation, trade and commerce. Along many waterfronts, port cities symbolize the history and maritime activities of these traditionally working waterfronts. A s many of these waterfront cities first emerged, the waterfront was intimately linked with the city. However , in North America, with the rapid growth of commercial activity, warehouses, railway yards and expressways at the water's edge, cities became disconnected from their waterfronts. Over the past decade, many North American urban waterfronts have undergone yet another transformation. Th e waterfront has become a valuable amenity, to be shared by all. Urba n waterfronts, which were once stigmatized as a worthless industrial wasteland are now respected as a valuable asset for their views, large tracts of underdeveloped land, history, maritime industry and activity, environmental characteristics and their opportunities for recreation opportunities both on land and water. I n addition, watercourses have been cleansed due to stricter environmental regulations, and a "back to the city movement" of people seeking places to Uve in the inner cities, have resulted in the redevelopment of many of North America's waterfronts. ii As waterfronts undergo this transformation, an opportunity is afforded b y the public to regain access to the water's edge. A t the current time, municipal and provincial (or state) policies are in place which allow the public to require that a portion of land parallel to the water's edge be dedicated for public use, as waterfront lands are redeveloped. Thes e lands are usually used as public open space, in one form or another. I n the case of many urban waterfronts, th e space is developed with a seawall and a bicycle/pedestrian path . However , all too often little or no attention is paid to including proper lighting, the types of surface materials and landscaping used, seating opportunities, relationship of the space to the street and other nearby spaces, the history and/or maritime character of the area, or public access points to the open space. A s a result, the space is not used. To address these concerns, this thesis challenges the popular way of planning and designing waterfront open space by focusing on the specific issue of how urban waterfron t open space is designed and how it is used. T o accomplish this task, the thesis presents an exploratory study which firstly documents the complexities involved in the process of urban waterfront chang e from industria l uses to a mix of uses including public open space. It then reviews the literature regarding the design of urban plazas, which share many of the same characteristics as urban waterfront ope n space, in order to define a list of design elements which could be applied when designing waterfront ope n space. To test the similarities between the design elements of urban plazas and of urban waterfron t open space, case studies examine two waterfront locations in the Vancouver Lower Mainland: Westminster Quay in New Westminster, and; Steveston Landing in Richmond. In these case studies, field observations are used to identify how these waterfront ope n spaces are designed and how they are used. Thi s information i s augmented by survey data collected on site through interviews with the users of the spaces to determine how far and by what means users arrive at the spaces and for what purposes and how frequently d o they use the spaces. I n addition, interviews held with the designers, planners and managers of the two waterfront open spaces establish what the guiding policies, design approaches and anticipated outcomes were prior-to the construction of the spaces. i i i To synthesize the findings of the literature and case studies, the seventh chapter compares the case studies and reflects on the urban design literature regarding urban plazas. I n response to these findings, a series of design principles are presented which could be applied to guide the future creation of urban waterfront open spaces. The final chapter summarizes research findings from the case studies and literature, and presents conclusions regarding the relationship between the design and use of urban watefront ope n space, and provides insights regarding what other factors influence use. IV LIFE A T TH E WATER' S EDGE : AN ANALYSI S O F HUMA N BEHAVIOU R AN D URBA N DESIG N OF PUBLI C OPE N SPAC E AT TH E WATER' S EDG E TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table o f Content s v Table o f Figure s x i Dedication &  Acknowledgmen t xv i 1.0 Introductio n xvii i 1.1 Lif e at the Water's Edge: Context of the Study 1 1.2 Rationa l for the Study 2 1.3 Purpos e and Objectives 4 1.4 Scop e of the Study 5 1.5 Methodolog y 5 1.6 Assumption s 6 1.7 Chapte r Summary 8 2 .0 Th e Histor y an d Proces s o f Regainin g Public Acces s t o th e Water' s Edg e 1 0 2.1 Th e Historical Process of Waterfront Redevelopment in the North American Context 1 1 2.2 Othe r Reasons For Urban Waterfront Redevelopment 1 3 2.3 Comple x Issues Involved in Waterfront Redevelopment 1 4 2.4 Tool s For Planning Urban Waterfront Redevelopment 1 5 3 . 0 Designin g Urba n Publi c Ope n Spac e 1 9 3.1 Introductio n 2 0 3.2 Th e Water's Edge as a Public Open Space 2 0 3.3 Wh o Uses the Open Space 2 1 3.4 Sittin g Space 2 1 3.5 Microclimat e 2 3 3.6 Foo d 2 4 3.7 Triangulation , Public Art and Street Performances 2 4 3.8 Effectiv e Capacity and Undesirables 2 5 3.9 Publi c Open Spaces and the Street 2 5 3.10 Information , Signs, Paving and Street Furniture 2 6 v Method o f Analysi s 2 7 4.1 Wha t Is Being Measured 2 8 4.2 Metho d of Analysis: The Comparative Case Studies 2 9 4.3 Researc h Setting 2 9 4.4 Metho d of Collecting Data for Analysis 3 0 4.5 Observin g Physical Traces 3 0 4.6 Countin g and Observing the Behaviour of People 3 1 4.7 Focuse d Interviews 3 4 4.8 Use r Survey Questionnaires 3 5 Case Study : Westminste r Qua y 3 6 5.1 Locatio n 3 7 5.2 Physica l Setting 3 9 5.3 Histor y 4 1 5.4 Transportatio n and Access 4 5 5.4.1 Gateway s 4 6 5.4.2 Th e Road Network 4 8 5.4.3 Pedestria n and Bike Path Networks 5 0 5.4.4 Parkin g 5 4 5.4.5 Publi c Transit Access 5 5 5.4.6 Regiona l Transportation Linkages to Westminster Quay 5 5 5.5 Lan d Use and Zoning 5 6 5.6 Polic y Context 5 6 5.8.1 Municipa l Policies 5 8 5.8.2 Senio r Government Policies 6 2 5.7 Demographi c Profile 6 5 5.8 Use r Profile 6 6 5.9 Physica l Description of Design Elements at the Water's Edge 7 6 5.9.1 Boardwal k 7 6 5.9.2 Haz a 8 1 5.9.3 Railin g 8 4 5.9.4 Seatin g 8 4 5.9.5 Lightin g 8 6 5.9.6 Garbag e Receptacles 9 0 5.9.7 Publi c Art & History 9 0 5.9.8 View s and Visual Interest 9 0 5.9.9 Su n Angles and Shade 9 2 5.9.10 Them e and Character 9 5 5.10 Analysi s and Observations 9 5 5.10.1 Overal l Trends 9 5 5.10.1.1 Activities : How the Space is Used 9 5 5.10.1.2 Sittin g 9 7 5.10.1.3 Walkin g 10 0 5.10.1.4 Passiv e Activities 10 2 5.10.1.5 Activ e Activities & Children 10 2 5.10.1.6 Wheelchair s & Walking Dogs 10 4 5.10.1.7 Groupings : Who Uses the Space 10 7 5.10.1.8 Single s 10 7 5.10.1.9 Male/Femal e Pairs 10 9 5.10.1.10 Groups 11 0 vi 5.10.2 Weeken d Versus Weekday Trends I l l 5.10.2.1 Activitie s 11 6 5.10.2.2 Sittin g 11 6 5.10.2.3 Walkin g 11 8 5.10.2.4 Passiv e Activities 11 8 5.10.2.5 Activ e Activities 11 8 5.10.2.6 Activitie s Involving Children 11 9 5.10.2.7 Grouping s 11 9 5.10.2.8 Single s 12 3 5.10.2.9 Male/Femal e Pairs and Groups 12 3 5.11 Summar y 12 4 6.0 Cas e Study : Stevesto n Landin g 12 7 6.1 Locatio n 12 8 6.2 Physica l Setting 12 8 6.3 Histor y 13 2 6.4 Transportatio n an d Access 13 3 6.4.1 Gateway s 13 3 6.4.2 Roa d Network 13 6 6.4.3 Pedestria n and Bike Path Network 13 6 6.4.4 Parkin g 14 0 6.5 Lan d Us e and Zoning 14 0 6.6 Polic y Context 14 0 6.8.1 Municipa l Policies 14 3 6.8.2 Senio r Government Policies 15 6 6.7 Demographi c Profile 15 6 6.8 Use r Profile 15 8 6.9 Physica l Description o f Design Elements a t the Water's Edge 16 7 6.9.1 Boardwal k 16 7 6.9.2 Plaz a 17 3 6.9.3 Railin g 17 8 6.9.4 Destination-Publi c Fish Sales Dock 17 8 6.9.5 Seatin g 18 1 6.9.6 Lightin g 18 3 6.9.7 Garbag e Receptacles 18 3 5.9.8 Publi c Art & History 18 5 6.9.9 Landscapin g and Planters 18 5 6.9.10 Scal e 18 5 6.9.11 Them e and Character 18 5 6.9.12 View s and Visual Interest 18 7 6.9.13 Sunligh t and Shade . . . . 18 9 6.10 Analysi s and Observations 19 0 6.10.1 Overal l Trends 19 0 6.10.1.1 Activities : How the Space is Used 19 0 6.10.1.2 Walkin g 19 2 6.10.1.3 Passiv e Activities 19 5 6.10.1.4 Sittin g 19 6 6.10.1.5 Activ e Activities & Children 20 0 6.10.1.6 Wheelchair s & Walking Dogs 20 4 6.10.1.7 Groupings : Who Uses the Space 20 4 6.10.1.8 Single s 20 4 6.10.1.9 Male/Femal e Pairs 20 7 vii 6.10.1.10 Group s 20 7 6.10.2 Weeken d Versus Weekday Trends 20 7 6.10.2.1 Activitie s 21 1 6.10.2.2 Sittin g 21 1 6.10.2.3 Walkin g 21 2 6.10.2.4 Passiv e Activities 21 2 6.10.2.5 Activ e Activities 21 2 6.10.2.6 Activitie s Involving Children 21 3 6.10.2.7 Grouping s 21 3 6.10.2.8 Single s 21 3 6.10.2.9 Male/Femal e Pairs and Groups 21 7 7.0 Implication s an d Desig n Principle s 22 2 7.1 Compariso n o f Case Studies 22 3 7.1.1 Ho w the Spaces Were Used: The Activity Data 22 3 7.1.1.1 Overal l Trends 22 3 7.1.1.2 Weeken d Versus Weekday Trends 22 4 7.1.2 Use r Survey Questionnaire Data 22 9 7.1.2.1 Wh o Used the Spaces 22 9 7.1.2.2 Distanc e Traveled to Access Waterfront Open Space 23 0 7.1.2.3 Mod e of Transportation Used to Access 23 0 Waterfront Open Space 7.1.2.4 Wher e Users Came From: Municipality of Residence 23 1 7.1.2.5 Numbe r of Trips to The Waterfront Open Spaces 23 2 7.1.2.6 Reason s for Coming to the Waterfront Open Space 23 3 7.1.3 Summar y 23 4 7.2 Desig n Principles 23 5 7.2.1 Overal l Design Features 23 7 7.2.1.1 Boardwalk s 23 7 7.2.1.2 Plaza s 23 7 7.2.2 Acces s and Circulation 23 9 7.2.2.1 Linkage s 23 9 7.2.2.2 Integratio n of Street 24 0 7.2.2.3 Boundarie s and Transitions 24 1 7.2.3 Pedestria n Areas 24 3 7.2.4 Seatin g Areas 24 5 7.2.5 Bicycle s 24 7 7.2.6 Foo d and Commercial Uses 24 8 7.2.7 Them e and Character 24 9 7.2.8 Children' s Activities 25 1 7.2.9 Miaoclimat e 25 2 7.2.10 Environmenta l Considerations 25 3 8 . 0 C o n c l u s i o n s 25 5 8.1 Lif e a t the Water's Edge - Purpose Restated 25 6 8.2 Primar y Research Results 25 6 8.2.1 Ho w Design Influences Use 25 6 8.2.1.1 Walkin g Activities and the Boardwalk 25 7 8.2.1.2 Seatin g Activities and the Plaza 25 7 8.2.1.3 Viewin g the River From the Rail 25 8 8.2.1.4 Pedestria n Access and Circulation 25 7 Versus Level Changes viii 8.2.1.5 Integratio n of Street and Parking Areas 25 9 8.2.1.6 Boundarie s and Transitions 25 9 8.2.1.7 Destination s and Circulation 26 0 8.2.1.8 Microclimat e and the Impacts of Sun and Shade 26 0 8.2.1.9 Children' s Play Areas and Public Art 26 0 8.2.1.10 Them e and Character 26 1 8.2.2 Othe r Factors Which Influence Use 26 1 8.2.2.1 Barrier s to Access Beyond Site Boundaries 26 1 8.2.2.2 Connection s to Off-Site Pedestrian Networks 26 2 8.2.2.3 Critica l Residential Mass of Potential Users 26 2 8.2.2.4 Foo d and Commercial Uses 26 3 8.2.2.5 Visua l Interest on the Water 26 3 8.2.1.6 Programme d Events, Street Performers and Festivals 26 3 8.2.3 Overla p and Inter-Relationships Between the Influence 26 4 of Design and Other Factors of Use 8.2.3 Th e Bridgepoint Example 26 4 8.3 Additiona l Conclusions 26 7 8.3.1 Th e Process of Urban Waterfront 26 7 Redevelopment and Change 8.3.2 Achievin g Public Access to the Water's Edge 26 7 8.3.3 Overla p and Inter-Relationships Between the Influence 26 7 8.3.4 Polic y Context 26 8 8.3.5 Overlappin g Jurisdictions 26 8 8.3.6 Environmenta l Concerns and Policies 26 8 8.4 Strength s and Weaknesses of the Methodology 26 9 8.5 Anticipate d Outcomes of the Thesis 26 9 9 . 0 B i b l i o g r a p h y 27 1 9.1 Textua l References 27 2 9.2 Interview s 27 8 10.0 Appendice s 27 9 A Cas e Study Observation Data of Activities and Groupings 28 0 A l Westminste r Quay - Weekday Activities 28 1 A.2 Westminste r Quay - Weekend Activities 28 6 A3 Westminste r Quay - Weekday Groupings 29 1 A.4 Westminste r Quay - Weekend Groupings 29 6 A.5 Stevesto n Landing- Weekday Activities 30 1 A.6 Stevesto n Landing - Weekend Activities 30 6 A.7 Stevesto n Landing-Weekday Groupings 31 1 A 8 Stevesto n Landing - Weekend Groupings 31 6 B Sampl e Questionnaires for User Survey 32 1 B. 1 Westminste r Quay - Sample Questionnaire 32 2 B.2 Stevesto n Landing - Sample Questionnaire 32 4 ix C Use r Survey Questionnaire Data 32 6 C.l Westminste r Quay - Demographic Profile 32 7 C.2 Westminste r Quay - Distance Traveled From Residence 32 9 C.3 Westminste r Quay-Mode of Transportation 33 1 C.4 Westminste r Quay-Municipality of Residence 33 2 C.5 Westminste r Quay-Number of Trips to Site 33 4 C.6 Westminste r Quay - Purpose for Trips to Site 33 7 C.7 Stevesto n Landing-Demographic Profile 33 9 C.8 Stevesto n Landing-Distance Traveled From Residence 34 1 C.9 Stevesto n Landing-Mode of Transportation 34 3 CIO Stevesto n Landing-Municipality of Residence 34 5 C.ll Stevesto n Landing-Number of Trips to Site 34 7 C.12 Stevesto n Landing - Purpose for Trips to Site 34 9 X LIFE A T TH E WATER' S EDGE : AN ANALYSI S O F HUMA N BEHAVIOU R AN D URBA N DESIG N OF PUBLI C OPE N SPAC E AT TH E WATER' S E D G E TABLE OF FIGURES 1.0 Introductio n 1 2 .0 Th e Histor y an d Proces s o f Regainin g Public Acces s t o th e Water' s Edg e 1 0 2.1 Original  state, one  small jetty.  1 2 2.2 City  is  intimate  with  waterfront.  1 2 2.3 More  Piers are built. 1 2 2.4 Merchant  port  forms.  1 2 2.5 Landfill  used  to  create finger piers.  1 2 2.6 Rail  lines  intervene  to  connect  port  to  inland  cities.  1 2 2.7 Port  activities  are  at maximum,  waterfront  expressway  1 2 and rail  lines  disconnect  city  from  waterfront. 2.8 Port  activity  and  industrial  activity  decline.  Waterfront  1 2 is rediscovered  by the  people  (also  the  land  developers  and governments). New  mixed-uses  are  incorporated. 2.9 Harbourfront,  Toronto.  1 2 3.0 Designin g Urba n Publi c Ope n Spac e 2 0 4.0 Metho d o f Analysi s 2 7 5.0 Cas e Studies : Westminste r Qua y 3 6 5.1 Westminster  Quay:  Entry  to  open  space from parking  lot.  3 8 5.2 Open  space  in front of  market,  Inn at  the  Quay  hotel  and 3 9 Fist Capital  Place  offices  in background. 5.3 Pedestrian  Overpass of railway;  the gateway to  4 7 Westminster Quay. 5.4 Westminster  Quay:  Parking  lot  on  the  old  Westminster  Pier.  4 7 5.5 Westminster  Quay:  First  Capital  Place and  the  Inn  at  the  4 4 Quay hotel.  The  Esplanade  parallels the waterfront  for  the entire length  of Westminster  Quay.  At  the  right,  is  the  market, in front  of  which  observations  were  recorded. 5.6 Major  Roads,  Transit and  Bus Routes.  4 9 5.7 Westminster  Quay:  Open  Space  and Esplanade  can be  seen 5 1 in front of  the  market,  at the  water's  edge. xi 5.8 The  New  Westminster  Waterfront:  Westminster  Quay.  4 0 is in  the  centre  foreground. 5.9 Westminster  Quay:  Aerial  View  showing  Esplanade  on right  5 3 along shore and First  Capital  Place, Inn  at  the  Quay and the Market on  the  top  right. 5.10 The  New  Westminster  Downtown  District.  5 7 5.11 Westminster  Quay;  Adjacent  land  uses (as  per the  6 0 Downtown Community  Plan). 5.12 New  Westminster  Downtown  District  Character  Areas 6 1 for Signs. 5.13 FREMP  New  Westminster  Recreation  Unit  Map  6 4 5.14 Demographic  profile  of  respondents  6 8 5.15 Distance  traveled  from residence  6 9 5.16 Mode  of  transportation  used  to  travel  to  site.  7 0 5.17 Municipality  of  residence.  7 1 5.18 Number  of  trips  to  site.  7 3 5.19 Purpose  for trip  to  site 7 5 5.20 Westminster  Quay:  The  public  open  space 7 7 5.21 Relationship  between  market,  boardwalk,  plaza and  waterfront  7 7 5.22 Plan  view  of  public  open  space. 7 9 5.23 Cross-section  view of  public  open  space. 8 2 5.24 The  Boardwalk.  8 0 5.25 Activities  on  the  Boardwalk.  8 0 5.26 Integration  and  transition  of  boardwalk  and  plaza.  8 3 5.27 Pavement  of  plaza.  8 3 5.28 Railing  and  lamp  standard.  8 7 5.29 Ground  level  bollard  lighting and  sitting  on  the  planter  ledge.  8 8 5.30 Primary  fixed seating  on  immobile  picnic table  and benches  8 5 in the  plaza. 5.31 Primary  movable  seating on  plastic  bistro  chairs  and tables  8 5 in the  plaza. 5.32 Exposed  aggregate concrete garbage  receptacle next  to  planter  8 9 ledge along  edge  of  boardwalk. 5.33 Public  art and  history  reflected  in  an  old  cannon taken from a  8 9 historic exploration  ship. 5.34 Expo  Tugger  playground,  front view.  9 1 5.35 Expo  Tugger, side  view.  9 1 5.36 Street  musician  performing  in  front of  old  bellbuoy  which 9 3 provides a place  for children  to sit  or  play. 5.37 Rivtow  wharf  in  front  of  the  boardwalk.  9 3 5.38 Signage  in  a  maritime  river theme.  9 4 5.39 Overall  for all  observation  periods; frequency  of  activities.  9 6 5.40 Movable  chairs in  the  plaza moved to  the  edge  of the  plaza.  9 8 5.41 Primary  movable  bistro  chairs and tables  in the  plaza.  9 8 5.42 Secondary  sitting on  the  planter  ledge  benches. 9 9 5.43 Secondary  sitting on  the  stairs and  the  planter  ledge  benches 9 9 at the  edge  of the  boardwalk. 5.44 Leaning  on the  Rail.  10 1 5.45 Pushing  strollers  on  the  boardwalk.  10 3 xi i 5.46 Wheelchairing.  10 5 5.47 Biking  on  the  boardwalk.  10 5 5.48 Walking  dogs  on  the  boardwalk.  10 6 5.49 Feeding  frozen yogurt  to  the  dog  on the  planter  ledge  seating. 10 6 5.50 Overall  for all  observation  periods; frequency  of  groupings.  10 8 5.51 Overall  versus  weekday  and weekend;  comparison  of  11 2 frequency of  activities. 5.52 Overall  versus  weekday  and weekend;  comparison  of 11 3 frequency of  activities  (chart). 5.53 Weekday  for all  observation  periods; frequency of  activities.  11 4 5.54 Weekend  for all  observation  periods; frequency of  activities.  11 5 5.55 Secondary  sitting on  the  boardwalk  floor.  11 7 5.56 Primary  seating in  the  plaza. 11 7 5.57 Overall  versus  weekday  and weekend;  comparison of  12 0 frequency of  groupings. 5.58 Weekday  for all  observation  periods; frequency of  groupings.  12 1 5.59 Weekend  for all  observation  periods; frequency of  groupings.  12 2 6 . 0 Cas e Study : Stevesto n Landin g 12 8 6.1 Steveston  Landing.  12 9 6.2 The  open  space  at Steveston  Landing.  12 9 6.3 Steveston  in  the  context  of  Richmond.  13 0 6.4 Steveston  Landing:  Aerial  view.  13 1 6.5 Major  roads  which connect  Steveston Landing  13 4 to the  rest  of  Richmond. 6.6 Public  transit  bus  routes  in the  vicinity  of  Steveston  Landing.  13 5 6.7 Open  spaces  and  the  Richmond  trails  pedestrian  network  which  13 7 passes through  Steveston  Landing. 6.8 Pedestrian  trails in  nearby  Garry Point Park  13 8 which link  to  Steveston  Landing  site. 6.9 Bicycles  parked on the  rail.  13 9 6.10 Bicycles  parked on the  plaza floor in  the  centre  of the  plaza.  13 9 6.11 Designated  land uses  in  the  vicinity  of  Steveston  Landing.  14 1 6.12 Existing  land  uses  in  the  vicinity  of  Steveston  Landing.  14 2 6.13 The  Steveston  Revitalization  Area.  14 5 6.14 The  Steveston  Downtown  Design  Concept.  14 7 6.15 Urban  design  framework  for Steveston  Revitalization  Area.  14 8 6.16 The  Bayview  Street  Character  Area  within  Steveston.  14 9 6.17 Inter-tidal  area  and  redeveloped  waterfront.  15 1 6.18 Cross-section  of  water's  edge  showing where  senior  government  15 2 jurisdiction takes  precedence. 6.19 Examples  of 3  Metre  public  access path and  public  pier.  15 3 6.20 FREMP  map  showing  Fraser River  Recreation  Units. 15 4 Note unit  # 3 is  the  Steveston  waterfront. 6.21 FREMP map  of  Steveston  Recreation  Unit.  15 5 6.22 Demographic  profile  of  respondents  15 9 6.23 Distance  traveled  from residence  16 0 6.24 Mode  of  transportation  used to  travel  to  site.  16 1 xiii 6.25 Municipality  of  residence.  16 2 6.26 Number  of  trips  to  site.  16 5 6.27 Purpose  for trip  to  site 16 6 6.28 Plan  view  of  open  space. 16 8 6.29 The  boardwalk.  17 0 6.30 Integration  of  boardwalk  and plaza.  Note  the  ground  materials  17 0 and patterns. 6.31 The  historic  bunkhouse  boardwalk  which once  17 1 inhabited the  site  is  reflected  by the  current  boardwalk. 6.32 The  Boardwalk,  looking  east.  17 2 6.33 The  Boardwalk  looking  west.  17 2 6.34 Design  concept  of the  integration  of  street,  plaza,  17 4 boardwalk and  river. 6.35 Rip  rap  under  the  boardwalk.  17 5 6.36 Central  area  where boardwalk  and plaza  integrate.  17 6 6.37 The  Plaza. 17 6 6.38 The  railing  at  the  edge  of the  Boardwalk.  17 9 6.39 The  public  fish sales  dock. 18 0 6.40 The  ramp  to  the  public fish sales  dock. 18 0 6.41 Primary  sitting  on  the  boardwalk  benches. 18 2 6.42 Primary  movable  chairs in  the  plaza.  18 2 6.43 Lamp  standards  on  the  rail  with  hanging  planters.  18 4 6.44 Public  fish sales  dock. 18 6 6.45 Steveston  Landing:  A  fishing boat  reflects the history  18 6 and theme  of  Steveston  Landing. 6AS Activity  on  the  public fish sales  dock. 18 8 6.47 A  fishing boat  docked at the  public  fish sales  dock. 18 8 6.48 Overall  for  all  observation  periods; frequency  of  activities.  19 1 6.49 Plan  view  of  open  space. 19 3 6.50 Standing  stationary  and  eating  frozen yogurt.  19 7 6.51 Primary  sitting  on  the  boardwalk  benches with friend  standing  19 8 stationary close-by. 6.52 Leaning  on  the  rail.  19 8 6.53 Many  bicycles  parked on the  rail.  20 1 6.54 Bike  racks  are filled to  capacity.  20 1 6.55 Walking  dogs.  20 2 6.56 Pushing  strollers.  20 2 6.57 Wheelchairing  on  the  public  fish sales  dock.  20 3 6.58 Wheelchairing  on  the  Boardwalk.  20 3 6.59 Overall  versus  weekday  and  weekend;  comparison  20 8 of frequency of  activities. 6.60 Weekday  for all  observation  periods;  frequency  of  activities.  20 9 6.61 Weekend  for all  observation  periods;  frequency  of  activities.  21 0 6.62 Overall  for all  observation  periods;  frequency  of  groupings.  20 5 6.63 Overall  for all  observation  periods; frequency  of  groupings (chart)  20 6 6.64 Overall  versus  weekday  and  weekend;  comparison of  21 4 frequency of  groupings. 6.65 Weekday  for all  observation  periods;  frequency  of  groupings.  21 5 6.66 Weekend  for  all  observation  periods;  frequency of  groupings.  21 6 xiv 0 Implication s an d Desig n Principle s 22 2 7.1 Westminster  Quay:  Overall  for All  Observation  Periods,  22 4 Frequency of  Activities. 7.2 Steveston  Landing:  Overall  for All  Observation  Periods,  22 5 Frequency of  Activities. 7.3 Boardwalk  and Plaza,  Plan  View.  23 8 7.4 Boardwalk  and Plaza,  Section  View.  23 8 7.5 Pedestrian  Linkages  and Integration  of  Street.  24 0 7.6 Boundaries  and  Transitions.  24 2 7.7 Plaza,  Boardwalk  and  Destination:  Public  Pier. 24 4 7.8 Different  Types  of  Seating.  24 6 7.9 Accommodation  of  Bicycles.  24 8 7.10 Food  and Commercial  Uses.  24 9 7.11 Interpretive  and  Thematic  Signage.  25 0 7.12 Children's  Play  Areas and  Public Art. 25 2 7.13 Inter-Tidal  Benches  and Rip-Rap  Along  Foreshore.  25 4 0 Conclusion s 25 5 0 Bibliograph y 27 1 0 Appendice s 27 9 xv DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT This thesis is dearly dedicated to the late Kelly Jane Bennett, who tragically passed away at a young age, but whose youthful spiri t continues to live at the water's edge. There are numerous people who deserve recognition for their continued assistance and support throughout the compilation of this thesis. Firs t and foremost, I  would like to thank and recognize Dr. Penny Gurstein for her on-going assistance as Thesis Advisor. I  would also like to thank Mr. Larry Beasley for his professional expertise and involvement on the Thesis Review Committee, as External Examiner, and Dr. Henry Hightower for his guidance and involvement as Departmental Examiner . There are also a number of people who have provided valuable support, advice and feedback, throughout the research process. Specifically , I would like to thank my parents, Derek and Judy LeTourneur, and my sisters, friends and colleagues for their support and advice. Specifically , my good friends, Oscar Seig, Andrew Pau, Greg Seed and Wilson Yee should be recognized for their feedback an d friendship. Also , I would like to thank Mr. Steven Hayto and Mr. Keith Benjamin, who have provided professional advic e throughout the thesis research process. I would also like to thank the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning and my employer, JJBI Group, Architects, Engineers and Planners, for the experience I have gained over the past years, which has assisted in providing me with the knowledge and skills necessary to publish this thesis. xvi " I t is unfortunate that the (American) dream of growth and prosperity caused so many icons of the United States maritime legacy to become lost before American society reached a high level of maturity and sophistication to demand access to their greatest asset, the water's edge." (Torre, 1989: 6) xvii Chapter On e Introduction xviii 1.0 Introductio n 1.1 Lif e a t th e Water' s Edge : Contex t o f th e Stud y Throughout history, a relationship has always existed between man and the water's edge. Humans are fascinated by and attracted to the waterfront. I t is along the shores of the world's coasts, lakes and rivers, that man has often chosen to settle in the past. Therefor e it's no surprise that at these same waterfront locations many of the world's great cities have emerged. Th e water's edge is where life is most diverse and unique (Torre, 1989: 3). As reflected throughout history, the water's edge has been viewed as part of the public realm. Startin g with the Justinian Law of ancient Rome, and continuing through English Common Law as reflected in maritime ordinances, a strong commitment to maintaining public access to the shore and waterways of the world has always been upheld (Freedman and Hagopian, 1986: 58). Eve n today, as seen in recent amendments to the United States Coastal Management Act, the Act requires that state waterfront management programs develop a planning process for the protection of access to public beaches and other coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value. Th e Act also states that special attention should be given to the recreational needs of urban residents for increased shoreline access (Harney and OCZM, 1979: 5). Historically, the water's edge has been the hub for transportation, trade and commerce (Torre, 1989:4). Alon g many waterfronts, port cities symbolize the history and maritime activities of traditionally working waterfronts (Breen and Rigby, 1985: 3-5). A s many of these waterfront cities first emerged, the waterfront was intimately linked to the adjacent city and in most cases, provided the focus and center of activity for such cities (Torre, 1989:4-5). However , in North America, with the advent of increased commercial activity, warehouses, railway yards and expressways at the water's edge, the waterfront and the city became disconnected from one another. Throughout the twentieth century, numerous technological innovations have affected air , land and water transportation allowing industry to no longer be dependent on the waterfront and relocate to other more economical locations. A s a result, the port facilities and waterfront industrial activities of many North American cities have become obsolete, leaving large tracts of underdeveloped derelict lands (Wrenn, 1983:9). 1 Over the past decade, these tracts of waterfront land have become the stage for planning and developing new mixed use communities. Durin g this period, changing perceptions of the urban water's edge from a worthless wasteland to a valuable amenity have been initiated by stricter environmental policies promoting cleaner waters; a  "back to the city movement" of people seeking places to live in the inner city, and; a  rise in the number of urban dwellers seeking recreation opportunities within the city. A s well, the romantic image and character of the working waterfront, which reflects the maritime histories of many North American waterfront cities, has become popular. A s a result, many North American cities have once again become closely linked with their waterfronts. The result has been a renaissance for many urban waterfronts. A s redevelopment occurs, acquiring public access to the water's edge is often a prime objective, as demonstrated in the case studies of this thesis. Municipa l planning policies have reached a level of sophistication whereby acquisition of the water's edge for public uses is made possible by implementing park land dedications as subdivision and development proposals are established. In addition, environmental policies have been established which provide strict regulations regarding the materials and form of the region where the land touches the water, flood proofing standards and the types of land use and development which along the shoreline. 1.2 Rational e fo r th e Stud y Although achieving public access to the water's edge has become a reality, policies which encourage and regulate how public open space along the water's edge develops have not been firmly established. A  void of these kinds of policies exists. The case studies demonstrate this void of policies. Variou s planning policies and guidelines encourage and require public access and pedestrian linkages to the waterfront. These policy statements treat the waterfront as a valuable public amenity to be shared by all. It is ironic that the design of such a valued amenity is largely ignored. As characterized in the policy documents of most Vancouver Lower Mainland municipalities, and other government agencies, only vague and incomplete statements are provided to guide the design and development of waterfront open spaces. Often , waterfront open space is either left undeveloped, or to the discretion of the developer to 2 develop. A s a result, development of the open space is based on the economics of materials and construction costs rather than on thoughtful desig n principles. Unlike other districts in most cities, waterfront ope n spaces do not have development guidelines. A s development proposals are received for other city districts (other than single family dwelling districts), numerous policies regulate the types and amounts of amenity space, landscaping and open space. Municipa l development planners and plan checkers carefully examine the relationship between these spaces and uses both on and adjacent to the development sites. Downtow n urban plazas found a t the base of office buildings are a testament of development regulations. Fo r example, New York City has a requirement on the numbers and types of seating required in urban plazas (Whyte, 1984: 39). In some municipalities, landscaping retention and replacement by-laws and development guidelines provide streetscape and landscape requirements for single family dwelling districts. Registered  building schemes charged on property titles allow developers single family neighbourhoods, such as Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam, B.C., to regulate the driveway, sidewalk and retaining wall materials, as well as the number and type of trees and shrubs on a development site. Urba n waterfront ope n spaces could benefit fro m similar review and regulatory processes. As a result, the waterfront ope n spaces created are often not  used. Perhap s this is due to poor lighting, too much shade, not enough or too many places to sit, bad access or many other reasons which could have been addressed in a guiding design principles document. In response to the void in policies, this thesis attempts to go beyond the current policies which achieve public access by challenging the popular way of planning and designing urban waterfront ope n space. T o accomplish this task, the study focuses on the specific issue of how urban waterfront ope n space is designed and how it is used. 3 1.3 Purpos e an d Objective s o f th e Stud y The purpose of this thesis is to study how the design of urban waterfront open space influences the way such space is used, and to provide insights as to what other factors influence use . To accomplish this task, the study addresses the following objectives : • T o document the historical process of change of urban waterfronts ; • T o review the urban design literature in order to establish parallels between the design of urban plazas and of urban waterfront ope n space; • T o analyze two case studies whereby the waterfront has undergone a transformation from a n industrial waterfront to a mixed use waterfront and to identify the process and policies for acquiring public access to the water's edge; • T o analyze policies which regulate the design and development of urban waterfront site s and to identify policy statements regarding public access to the waterfront ; • T o identify types of design elements used in developing urban waterfron t open spaces; • T o identify the types of activities people perform in urban waterfront ope n space; • T o compare two case studies to analyze and determine how people use differently designe d spaces; • T o demonstrate that a deficiency exists in policies and guidelines which encourage and regulate the design of waterfront ope n space; • T o provide implications and establish design principles for the development of future urban waterfront open spaces, and; • T o determine what other factors influence the use of urban waterfront ope n space. 4 1.4 Scop e o f th e Stud y Although waterfront open space can be presented in many different forms , ranging from beaches and environmental reserves where little or no development exists, to asphalt bicycle/walking paths, stone sea walls and wooden wharves, etc., this thesis focuses only on the study of urban waterfront ope n spaces where recent redevelopment has occurred. Due to time and resource constraints, the scope of the case studies is narrowed to examine only examples of such spaces along the banks of the Fraser River in the Vancouver Lower Mainland. A s a result, two case study sites are studied in detail: Westminster Quay in New Westminster, and; Steveston Landing in Richmond. I t is assumed that similar underlying policies and physical characteristics effect the two sites. Within the two case studies, the thesis specifically examines the space directly adjacent to the Fraser River within the first 50 feet back from the high water mark upland and parallel to the water's edge. T o provide a context for this space, reference is made to the demographics, land uses and zoning of adjacent neighbourhoods and a brief history of each site is presented. A s well, policy contexts for the two sites are thoroughly reviewed. This thesis limits its scope (as noted above) to the study of the design and use of the open space as perceived on the land side of the water's edge. Althoug h there are various issues regarding the uses, design and activities which occur on the water side of the edge, and perception of development and open space at the water's edge as seen from th e water side, these topics are beyond the scope of this thesis and would serve as excellent topics for other studies. Thi s thesis does however make reference to on-water activities and design features as they are perceived from the land side. As well, this thesis does not examine engineering aspects of fluvial and tidal impacts on the design of the water's edge. Rather , in a general capacity, the study refers to the physical aspects of the water's edge, as they affect the design of waterfront ope n space upland of the high water mark. 1.5 Methodolog y As mentioned in the previous section, as well as reviewing the literature regarding the process of change of urban waterfronts an d the design of urban plazas, a comparative case study methodology was adopted to collect and analyze data. Chapte r four investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the method of analysis for the purposes of this thesis. 5 To determine which case study sites should be selected, an inventory was made of design elements present at various Vancouver Lower Mainland urban waterfront sites which had recently experienced redevelopment Fro m this inventory, a matrix was compiled and diagnostic studies were conducted to select two case study sites which shared similarities, but also had some differences. A s a result, Westminster Quay in New Westminster and Steveston Landing in Richmond were selected. To collect data fo r each of the case study sites, four methods were used. Thes e methods included: • Observatio n of physical traces; • Countin g instances of activities and groupings of open space users; • Focuse d interviews with planners, designers and property managers, and; • Use r survey questionnaires. The data collected by each of these methods are presented and analyzed in chapters five and six. Chapte r seven, compares trends identified from the data and establishes linkages between the physical trace data, which defines the design elements and the frequency of activities and groupings, and user survey data, which describe use. 1.6 Assumption s The thesis involves a limited number of assumptions. Fo r the most part, assumptions are noted in the text of chapter four (Method of Analysis) and chapters five and six (the case studies). Ther e are however a few underlying assumptions which should be stated at the onset. Thes e assumptions are noted below. The study assumes that weather has a profound impact on the way an outdoor (meaning without cover or canopies) open space is used. I n this case, all field observations were recorded on clear sunny days during the summer months. Thi s way, there was a consistency of observations across sites and across weekday and weekend observation periods. Th e weather was therefore not responsible for extremely high or low frequencies of use. T o further compensate for the minute changes in weather between observation periods, activities and groupings of open space users are not simpl y totaled in numbers, but rather relative frequencies of each activity and grouping are calculated for each observation period, so that relative frequencies rather than total numbers can be compared. 6 The study also assumes that the people included in the study, form part of a group defined as "people attending waterfront open space for recreation purposes". Th e activity data collected do not include the activities of maintenance workers, or people selling food , entertainment or other goods and services in the open space. I n addition, although children under the age of 19 are represented in the activity and grouping data, their comments were not solicited in the survey questionnaire process, for the fear that they may not understand the intent of the questions and provide misleading answers. Th e children may have provided interesting responses, however, to keep the study consistent, since most children were with adults, children's parents or guardians responded to the survey on the children's behalf. On the basis of initial diagnostic participant observation findings, it is assumed that only the most recurring activities be recorded for the case studies. Thes e activities appear in the pre-coded list presented in chapter four as well as in the various charts which illustrate the frequencies o f activities for the two case study sites. Thi s does not preclude that other activities may have occurred on an infrequent basis . However , to obtain consistency throughout the study and limit the scope of the thesis, activities are limited to the above-mentioned lists. Since this thesis examines a planning and design problem, economics are assumed not to influence the findings of the study or its recommendations. Ther e is no doubt that if this study was further pursued as a doctoral or consultant study, an economic component would be involved in making any design or policy decisions. However , for the purposes of this thesis, in order to explore the influence of design elements on the use of urban waterfront ope n space and identify othe r influences, economic factors are excluded fro m the study. Finally, it is assumed that this thesis does not try to solve the world's planning and design problems, but rather it is an exploratory study which provides insights into the relationship between the design and use of public open space at the water's edge in urban waterfron t redevelopments. Th e study offers implication s and design principles which could be used when designing future urban waterfront ope n spaces. Hopefully , thi s study will act as a catalyst to initiate future academic inquiry regarding the planning and design of waterfron t open space. 7 1.7 Chapte r Summar y To accomplish the goals and objectives of the thesis, the study is divided into various components, as reflected by the chapter structure. Variou s graphics are used to illustrate information presented in the text. Chapte r one introduces the thesis by providing a context and rational for the study, and by defining the thesis purpose, objectives, scope and assumptions. Chapters two and three review the literature pertaining to the redevelopment of waterfront lands and the design of urban open space. Chapte r two examines the history and process of urban waterfront redevelopment in the context of North American cities, and describes how public access to the water's edge is regained as a result of this process. A s well as establishing reasons for urban waterfront redevelopment, complex issues and planning tools related to the redevelopment process are identified. Chapte r three reviews the literature regarding the design of urban open space as presented by Clare Cooper Marcus, William Whyte, Kevin Lynch, John Ziesel and others. I n this review, various design elements used to develop urban plazas are identified. Thes e elements provide the basis for comparison with the design features present in waterfront open spaces. Chapter four explains the method of analysis used to collect and analyze information. Fou r methods are identified: observing physical traces, participant observations, focused interviews and user survey questionnaires. Th e pros and cons of each method are discussed. Chapters five and six present the case studies of Westminster Quay (in New Westminster, B.C.) and Steveston Landing (in Richmond, B.C.). Eac h case study, provides a detailed account of the history, physical context, policy context, access context, demographic profile, and land use context for each site. Inventorie s of design features are collected for each site, using the physical trace information. Participan t observation data regarding peoples' activities and groupings are analyzed and user survey questionnaires are reviewed to determine who uses waterfront open space; how they use the space; why they use the space; how they get to the space; how far they travel to get to the space, and; how often they use the space. Chapter seven summarizes and compares the findings of the case studies in order to identify overall trends regarding the use of waterfront open space. A s a result of this 8 analysis and other findings of the thesis (from the literature), a series conceptual design principles regarding the development of urban waterfront open spaces are presented. Th e anticipated outcome of the thesis is that these principles will be used by municipal planning departments to guide the development of future urban waterfront open spaces, and serve as the basis for further stud y and enquiry on this topic. The final chapter, chapter eight, summarizes the findings of the thesis and establishes conclusions regarding the use and design of public urban waterfront ope n space. Following the Conclusion, the Bibliography lists textual resources and references, as well as the names of people interviewed during the research process. Appendice s are attached and include tables and graphs which summarize the activity, grouping and user survey data collected. Copie s of the user survey questionnaires are also included. Combined together, the various components of the thesis provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the history and context of urban waterfront open space. Thesi s findings ar e summarized in a series of desig n principles which could be used to guide the development of future urban waterfront ope n spaces. 9 Chapter Two The History and Process of Regainin g Public Access to the Water's Edge 10 2.0 Th e Histor y an d Proces s o f Regainin g Publi c Access t o th e Water' s Edg e 2.1 Th e Historica l Proces s o f Waterfron t Redevelopmen t in th e Nort h America n Contex t Many of North America's urban centers have emerged along waterfronts, lakefronts and rivers. Waterways served as the first mode of transportation for the explorers, trading companies and pioneers who settled in North America. A t certain points along the waterways, settlements arose, which over the last century have turned into thriving urban centers. Som e of these waterfront cities supported port facilities and industrial activities as a result of international commercial activities and early twentieth century industrialization. However, throughout the twentieth century, a number of technological innovations have effected air , land and water transportation allowing industry to decentralize away from the waterfront. Thi s move has in turn caused the port facilities and industrial activities of many of waterfront cities to become obsolete (Wrenn, 1983: 9). Th e result, as experienced in the 1970's and 1980's, has been large tracts of unused deteriorated waterfront land, separating cities from their waterfronts. Wren n suggests that a reason for this condition is that these cities have historically suffered from lack of vision and management in their adaptations to successive demands for new functions (Wrenn, 1983: 9). A s well, Wrenn points out that traditionally, waterfront redevelopment policies have been disjointed by a web of loosely woven decisions by dozens of political jurisdictions and hundreds of entrepreneurs. The Toronto Planning Department has identified a "typical waterfront development pattern" to describe the historical changes that have taken place along Canada's waterfront cities (Toronto Planning Department - Central Waterfront Planning Committee, 1976: 3-5). I n this pattern, the process defined by Wrenn is presented in an eight stage model. These stages appear in Figures 2.1 through 2.8. I n the initial stage, first settlement, the waterfront and the city have "intimate contact", as illustrated in Figures 2.1 to 2.2. Ove r time, as commercial port activities grow, this contact is lost as warehouses, railways and expressways create a barrier to public access and disconnect the city from the water's edge, as shown in Figures 2.3 to 2.7. 11 Figure 2. 1 Original  state,  one  small  jetty. Figure 2. 2 City  is  intimate  with  waterfront. Figure 2 ^ More  Piers  are  built. Figure 2. 4 Merchant  port  forms. Figure IS  Landfill  used  to  create  finger piers. Figure 2. 6 Rail  lines  intervene  to  connect  port  to  inland  cities. Figure 2. 7 Port  activities  are  at  maximum,  waterfront  expressway and rail  lines disconnect city from waterfront. Figure 2. 8 Port  activity  and  industrial  activity  decline.  Waterfront  is rediscovered by the  people (also  the  land  developers  and governments). New  mixed-uses  are  incorporated. 12 (Taken  from Central  Vfaterfront  Planning  Committee,  Toronto,  1976) In the later stages of the model, industrial activities become run-down and obsolete, as depicted in Figure 2.8. Lan d values decrease and an opportunity for redevelopment exists. It is at this point that redevelopment (also termed revitalization) of the waterfront begins to take place. I t is also at this time that an opportunity exists for the public to regain public access to and ownership of the water's edge and re-establish linkages and intimate contact between the city and its waterfront (U.S . Dept. of Commerce, NOAA and OCZM, 1980: 13). 2 .2 Othe r Reason s Fo r Urba n Waterfron t Redevelopmen t As well as the "Historic Process", other factors have influenced the process of urban waterfront redevelopmen t throughout the 1970's and 1980's . T o begin with, during the 1970's, campaigns against pollution were initiated in an attempt to clean-up the environment (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA and OCZM, 1980 : 9). A s a result, man y waterfronts polluted by past industrial activities and sewer discharge were cleaned-up to a point whereby waterfront recreation activities such as swimming and sailing could once again be enjoyed withi n the city, at the water's edge. Also during the 1970's , the "Oil Crisis" was experienced. Skyrocketin g fuel prices sparked a "back-to-the-city" movement, initiated by people who did not want to commute in and out of the city (U.S. Dept o f Commerce, NOAA and OCZM, 1980 : 9). Thi s back to the city movement was accentuated by an increased in the number of smaller families, single parent families and families without children (Breen and Rigby, 1982: 6-7). Th e large tracts of derelict industrial urban waterfront land provided an ideal location to develop housing for these back to the city movers. Another reason for urban waterfront redevelopment has been the flood of tax incentives and zoning relaxations provided by governments to developers to undertake the renovation of historical buildings and places (Breen and Rigby, 1982: 6). Ol d urban waterfron t warehouses and piers provide an ideal medium for developers to renovate and reap these benefits. As more of these older waterfront structure s are instilled with new life, adaptive re-uses of such buildings begins to take place. Fo r example, offices an d residences can be found occupying renovated warehouse buildings such as on the piers of Philadelphia. Also , these same rehabilitated structures provide an ideal setting for urban festival market places, as 13 seen in the Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market Place in Boston, Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco and Granville Island Market in Vancouver (Breen and Rigby, 1982:7, and ; Wrenn, 1983: 174). As a result of cleaner waters, a broader variety of uses at the water's edge and more dense urban populations, the demand for local recreation opportunities has increased. Further -more, since disposable income has increased and people value that more time is spent on recreation, there is a demand for more recreation opportunities within cities (Johnson, 1984: 18-30). A s urban waterfronts redevelop, an ideal opportunity exists for the public to regain access to the water's edge and thus provide potential for both onshore and on-water recreation activity (Dept. of the Interior, 1980:1-9). In all of these reasons for waterfront redevelopment, bringing people back to the water's edge is an underlying theme. 2.3 Comple x Issue s Involve d i n Waterfron t Redevelopmen t Urban waterfront redevelopment is more complex than the development and planning of most inland projects. Ther e are a number of issues identified in the literature which impact urban waterfront redevelopment. Th e United States Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) identifies some of these issues. T o begin with, the waterfront presents numerous technical challenges. Waterfronts , unlike other urban development sites, are subject to tides, erosion and flooding. Redeveloping waterfront lands requires expensive measures to bulkhead, dyke, breakwater and secure the water's edge. I f these measures are not undertaken successfully, both developers and government can be liable for damages incurred by the water (Dept. of Commerce, NOAA and OCZM, 1980: 10). Since waterfronts are usually located where the original townsite of a city emerged, there is often fragmented ownership of the land adjacent to the water's edge (and sometimes water lots along the edge). I n the United States, many waterfront property owners have riparian rights to exclusively use the water abutting their properties. I n Canada, as can be seen in Coal Harbour, Vancouver, water lots are owned (from old land titles) by the owners of abutting waterfront lands. Obtainin g access to and along these types of waterfronts presents a complex challenge. I n such cases, the question regarding what is or should be private versus public must be addressed. 14 When urban waterfront redevelopment occurs, there is often a competition between the uses that are to take place at the water's edge (Torre, 1989: 8-9). If the market is allowed to prevail, the land will be assigned to the best use to achieve the highest economic value. This often results in housing and commercial development, built by developers. However , parks, open space, streets, pedestrian/bike paths, recreation opportunities and other modes of providing public access to the water's edge also afford a  high value. Therefor e a  conflict of interest exists at the water's edge. No t only does this conflict involve private and public interests but also political interests, and interests from the many different governmen t agencies and overlapping jurisdictions involved at the water's edge. Torr e suggests that the key word in waterfront redevelopmen t is "compromise". H e states that a consensus between all the groups involved must be achieved and a successful balance of uses must be established. This , in turn will allow for greater diversity in expression along the water's edge and create a stronger base for repeatedly bringing the people to the water's edge (Torre, 1989 : 8-10). Before redevelopment occurs, waterfront area s are often extremely dilapidated and as a result carry with them very stigmatized senses of place. A  challenge thus exists to change the public's perceptions of these underutilized, obsolete and often dirty industrial waterfront areas . I t is crucial that the most appropriate balance of uses be incorporated into waterfront redevelopment projects to attract curiosity and invite people back to the water's edge (Eckstut, 1986 : 25). Th e success of making these areas attractive to people will determine the success developers will achieve in obtaining financing or federal governmen t grants to undertake such projects (Dept . of Commerce, NOAA and OCZM, 1980: 11). 2.4 Tool s Fo r Plannin g Urba n Waterfron t Redevelopmen t In order to cope with the complex issues involved with urban waterfront redevelopmen t and for achieving public access to the water's edge, numerous planning tools have been presented in the literature. No t every tool will be appropriate for every situation; rather different mixe s and variations of the tools is usually the case. One solution presented by the United States Office of Coastal Zone Management is to appoint management councils to oversee the planning and development of waterfront area s (OCZM, 1980:11) . Thes e management councils consist of a cross-section of people representing public, private, and government interests. Th e main reason for these councils is to organize and direct all of the other overlapping interests and jurisdictions involved in 15 waterfront planning. A n example of such a council is the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission which has achieved great success in achieving public access to the water's edge by developing and implementing "Public Access Design Standards" (Dept. of the Interior, 1980:16) . Torre suggests that planners try to create "windows" of waterfront activit y whereby public visual access is targeted on key components of the waterfront, both onshore and on-water (Torre, 1989:10). Fo r example, the working waterfront consisting of functional maritime uses could be viewed as one window of activity. Anothe r window could be an environmental waterfront view . H e even suggests an international window of activity consisting of ships from around the world, as well as a waterfront dotte d by restaurants and shops selling international cuisine and goods. A more basic tool for bringing the public to the waterfront presented by Craig Whitaker, a Torontonian Architect/Designer, is to use the street system. Whitake r states that when waterfront areas are developed in the absence of streets and the buildings intermingle with the parks and open space, the public becomes confused a s to what is public versus private space. I n this case, the waterfront parks are often perceived as not for public use (Freedman, 1983 : E3). A prime example of this situation takes place at Harbourfront , Toronto, where buildings and open space are mixed together and no street exist. This relationship is demonstrated in Figure 2.9. A s a result, the public does not use or feel invited to use the open space on the site. Whitaker suggests that flow and access be used as design tools to bring people to the water's edge (Freedman, 1983 : E3). H e uses the city of Rio De Janeiro as an example to prove his point, where a street divides the public (beach) and the private (buildings) realms. He also states that this type of plan was originally considered in 1912 for the Toronto waterfront b y the Harbour Commissioners of that time (Freedman, 1983 : E3). Designer Stanton Eckstut also praises the street as being the best tool for designing "people places and bringing the people to the water's edge (Eckstut, 1986:25-27) . Eckstu t emphasizes that public access and spaces need to be designed and not simply the areas left over after the buildings are constructed. H e is also a firm believer that the streets should come first (before the buildings) and are the designer's tool to plan with; the buildings and uses will fall into place within that plan. 16 Figure 2. 9 Harbourfront,  Toronto. Ekcstut also suggests that every effort should be made to integrate and create direct linkages between the waterfront and upland areas. T o accomplish this goal Eckstut points out that buildings should be built at grade and not on huge platforms which disconnect the water's edge from the city. Eckstu t states that of all the physical connections to be made in waterfront developments, the most important are those to the water itself. Acces s to the waterfront must be maintained as an irrevocable public right, and the land at the water's edge and the means of access to it must be kept in public hands (Eckstut, 1986: 55). It is clearly evident from the literature that there are no simple solutions or tools for achieving public access to the water's edge in urban waterfront redevelopment projects, but rather there are a number of different techniques that have been attempted on different sites and under varying circumstances. Th e question arises as to what is the appropriate mix of planning tools to use in order to achieve successful public access to the urban waterfront and link the city with its water's edge. 18 Chapter Thre e Designing Urban Public Open Spac e 19 3.0 Designin g Urba n Publi c Ope n Spac e 3.1 Introductio n The previous chapter established that the process of urban waterfront redevelopment has allowed many North American cities to regain public access to their waterfronts. Thi s achievement is reflected in policy statements such as Vancouver's Coal Harbour Officia l Development Plan which states "there shall be continuous and uninterrupted public access to the water's edge" (City of Vancouver, 1990) . Howeve r these statements provide little direction as to how such space should be designed and for what use. Thes e details are often left for the developer to decide. As seen in the emptiness of many North American downtown plazas, the end result is often a space that is not used. A  void exists in the provision of policies and guidelines regarding the design of public open space along the water's edge. Thi s chapter reviews the literature concerning urban design, social behavior and public open space in order to better understand the process of design to establish various design elements and criteria by which public open space at the water's edge may be characterized. 3 .2 Th e Water' s Edg e a s a  Publi c Ope n Spac e Public open spaces at the water's edge in urban waterfront redevelopments are very similar to the spaces found in urban plazas and along busy streets. Krie r defines the "square" and "street" as being the two components which comprise public urban space (Krier, 1979:17) . Krier points out that it is in these spaces the typical functions o f shopping, selling goods, eating, recreation and leisure take place. A s well, squares provide a venue for cultural activities, and streets provide the means for human circulation (Krier, 1979 : 17-19). Waterfront publi c open spaces possess similar characteristics. Throughou t history, many studies have been conducted to research the design and social functions o f urban plazas and streets. B y reviewing the findings of these studies, design criteria can be established fo r studying public open spaces at the water's edge. 20 3 .3 Wh o Use s th e Ope n Spac e In a comprehensive study of downtown New York City plazas, Whyte found that the first task is to watch the people to determine who uses the space and how they use it (Whyte, 1980: 16). Whyt e recorded the numbers of males or females, in singles, couples or groups, who were occupying the space. Whyt e suggests the best used plazas are sociable places with more couples and groups (Whyte, 1980: 17). In a closer study of the five most used plazas in New York City, Whyte discovered that plazas which were attended by large numbers of couples and groups attracted more individuals. H e also found that the most-used places tended to have higher than average proportions of women (Whyte, 1980: 18). Whyt e attributes these observations to a condition which he terms "self-congestion" meaning what attracts people the most is other people. Althoug h not many people would consciously admit they enjoy sitting in the middle of a crowd, Whyte discovered that they instinctively and unconsciously continue to find themselves there. Fo r example, traveling street conversations were held in the middle of the pedestrian flow, and people were found to sit directly in the mainstream of movement. Rathe r than find a quiet, secluded space, people appeared to cluster together at certain points in the plazas (Whyte, 1984: 21). From Whyte's study, it was also found that there exists daily and seasonal rhythms of plaza life. Th e daily rhythm was attributed to downtown office hour s and daylight hours. The seasonal rhythm was due to changes in climate and weather experienced throughout the year (Whyte, 1980: 18-19). Whyt e also found that there were sub-groups of plaza users who would frequent the plaza during certain hours of the day. Tw o such sub-groups of users were the lovers and the girl watchers. Thes e groups would use the plaza as a meeting point for their activities. 3.4 Sittin g Spac e A key component of any plaza or open space is seating space. Peopl e will not come to relax by a reflecting pond or eat their lunch in a plaza if there is nowhere to sit. Ironically, in Whyte's study of New York City plazas, he found tha t it was not the angle of the sun, the aesthetics of the seating and the surrounding buildings, the proximity to transit or the size of the space that affected wher e people sit. Instea d he simply discovered that 21 people sat most where there were places to sit, and that a place to sit was the most important element of plaza use (Whyte, 1984: 28)(Cooper Marcus, 1990: 32). Fo r this reason, New York City's municipal government has established design guidelines requiring one linear foot of sitting space for every thirty square feet of plaza space (Whyte, 1984: 39). Sitting space should not only be physically comfortable but more importantly should be socially comfortable. Thi s means choice should be built into the seating design so that users have a choice to sit alone or in groups, up front, in back, to the side, or in the shade (Whyte, 1984: 28). A  variety of seating types should be provided in order to achieve this condition. Coope r Marcus defines two types of seating: "primary" and "secondary" seating (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 33). Primar y seating consists of the benches constructed of both hard (concrete) and soft (wooden) materials. Coope r Marcus suggests that too many benches cause a space to become intimidating and monotonous (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 32). Secondary seating consists of ledges, seating walls, steps, and mounds of grass. Thes e secondary seats can accommodate up to 50 percent of the total seating in a plaza. Whe n secondary seats are unoccupied, they do not appear devoid of life, as would a row of empty benches, since they do not look like seats when unused (Cooper Marcus, 1990 : 33). To be functional, this form of seating should be between sixteen and thirty inches in height. Sitting space can also consist of chairs. Chair s should not be fixed to the ground as this limits peoples' choices regarding where to sit and may result in over control of the social environment. Rather , chairs should be movable (Whyte, 1984: 34-35). Whyt e observed a body language of movement in the way people choose vacant chairs and then position them to define their personal space while being careful no t to disturb neighbouring plaza users' space (Whyte, 1984: 35). Invasio n of a neighbouring user's space might lead to tension and withdrawal and the neighbouring user will either move their chair or be scared off (Sommer, 1974 : 202-208). A variety of orientations of seating is also an important. Thi s includes variety in what is seen while seated for people differ i n their needs to watch passerby, water, foliage, trees, distant views, and other people (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 36). Also , there should be a variety of seating locations in both the sun and shade, so that people have seating choices 22 when they want more or less sun depending on the season, the weather and personal preference. 3.5 Microclimat e Sun, wind, trees and water are important components of public open space. I n Whyte's study of Seagram's Plaza in New York City, he noticed that as the day progressed and the sun moved across the plaza leaving some areas in shade, the people also moved with the sun. I n almost every observation, people would stand, walk and sit in the sun while the shaded area was empty (Whyte, 1980: 40). I n the Northern Hemisphere, southern exposure (to the sun) should be capitalized on by designers. Temperature and warmth are also important factors. Peopl e will not use an open space if it is too windy or cold. Ofte n tall buildings create down drafts which are guaranteed to empty a plaza of its people. Peopl e tend to seek sun traps where they can escape from the wind and enjoy the warmth of the sun. I n this respect, small open spaces function bette r than larger ones (Whyte, 1980: 44). Trees are a valuable asset for an open space. No t only do trees shelter open space users from wind and sun, but they have a cooling effect fro m thei r transpiration process which provides fresh oxygen . Tree s visually enhance an open space and can be used to delineate sub-spaces. The y can also serve as a visual barrier blocking-out unwanted views of bad architecture, underground parking entrances, service ducts, etc. Seatin g should be integrated with trees to provide plaza users with seating choices by making use of tree-shaded areas. Water can also be an attractive open space feature. Wate r can take the form of a fountain, reflecting pond , waterfall, or an abutting water body such as a lake, river or ocean. Wate r has a psychological and physical cooling effect, especially if you can touch it. Wate r is visually stimulating and creates a relaxing sound called white noise, which drowns out loud noises from the street. Wate r should be accessible to touch and sit by or it can create a sterile environment, as happened at Chicago's Buckingham Fountain which has an electric fence and "Danger - Keep Out" signs (Whyte, 1980:49) . 23 Food Selling food within a plaza or open space is an excellent way to attract people and achieve "self-congestion". Foo d attracts people who attract more people (Whyte, 1980:52). Foo d can be prepared and sold by street vendors or from bistro-type sidewalk cafes. I n either case, people are given the opportunity for outdoor eating (weather permitting) which they love to do. Foo d creates excitement Ofte n one will be fascinated just to view all the different types of food and then, if they decide to eat, take pleasure in deciding what type of food to eat. Peopl e are intrigued by watching other people eat or line-up to buy food (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 43-46). Foo d is a sure way to create excitement in a public open space. Othe r than sitting, eating is the most frequent activity occuring in most urban open spaces. 3.7 Triangulation . Publi c Ar t an d Stree t Performance s Triangulation refers to the condition where some external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk to each other as if though they were friends (Whyte, 1980: 94). Triangulatio n may be initiated by a beautiful view, or by commenting on a bizarre piece of public sculpture or art (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 40-42). Triangulation , the drawing of people together, can also be achieved by musicians and street entertainers such as mimes, magicians and jugglers. Programmed events such as cultural festivals and sports events can also create triangulation. Vancouver' s annual Canadian International Dragon Boat Festival, held at the B.C. Place Plaza of Nations on False Creek, is an excellent example of how people are drawn together in a public open space. 24 3 .8 Effectiv e Capacit y an d Undesirable s In his study of Seagram's Plaza in New York City, Whyte discovered that as a plaza fills, people will tend to cluster together rather than find quieter less dense places to sit. Th e area where people are located continues to get more dense until a limit is reached whereby a self-regulating factor takes place. Whe n this point has been reached, it appears as though someone leaves just before someone new arrives, thus the area never becomes overly saturated with people (Whyte, 1980:68). I t is people who determine the level of crowding and they do it very well. When public open spaces are not extensively used, a sub-group which Whyte and Cooper Marcus call the "undesirables", moves into the space. Thi s group consists of homeless people, winos, teenage gangs, and drug dealers. These people usually do not harm other plaza users but they portray a gloomy and intimidating image which makes other plaza users uncomfortable and often scares them off. Th e reason these undesirables use such open space is usually because no one else is using it. Thi s condition can sometimes be attributed to bad design decisions, such as having little or no places to sit. The best way to rid undesirables from public open space is to get more people to frequently use the space. Thi s way a self-policing mechanism is initiated where people keep watch over other people. Th e plaza of the New York Telephone Company in New York City was frequented b y a group of teenagers and drug dealers until numerous movable chairs and tables and a lunch time buffet were added to the plaza. Afte r these improvements were made, the undesirables moved on and the plaza was used by other people (Whyte, 1980: 62). 3 .9 Publi c Ope n Space s an d th e Stree t Plazas and open spaces should be integrated and yet separated from the street. On e should lead into the other so that it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. However , each must exist as a separate entity. T o achieve this condition, the skillful incorporation of boundaries and transitions can be used. I f a level change is incorporated into the design to separate the plaza from the street, the plaza should not be sunken or raised by more than a few steps from the street (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 39-40). 25 An ideal plaza has one or preferably two sides exposed to public rights-of-way such as the sidewalk and street Step s should be shallow and inviting to attract people in from th e street Circulatio n and flow within the open space should connect with busy street corners and pedestrian thoroughfares alon g the street so people flow naturally off the street and into the plaza (or vice versa). 3.10 Information . Signs . Pavin g an d Stree t Furnitur e Information, signs, paving and street furniture shoul d be used to guide people. Sign s are a direct way to get information across (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 46). The y portray massages such as "Keep Out!", "This way to the subway station", "Food Fair", or they can state the name of a street or building. I n any event, signs should be in visible but tasteful location s which relate to their functions and , if possible, should be made of materials which suit the architectural theme of the plaza. Street furniture, such as garbage receptacles, lamp posts and benches, can be positioned to subconsciously direct people where to go and to promote circulation in a certain way (Cooper Marcus, 1990:30-31). Difference s i n height material types and surface treatments can also be used to separate spaces and direct people through an open space (Cooper Marcus, 1990 : 39,43). In order to summarize this sub-section, the following lis t of important issues to be considered when designing urban public open spaces is presented by Cooper Marcus: Design Revie w Checklis t Size Leve l Changes Visual Complexity Plantin g and Trees Uses and Activities Publi c Art and Sculpture Microclimate Fountain s and Water Subspaces Groun d Cover Circulation Foo d and Vendors Seating Program s Paving Informatio n an d Signs Boundaries & Transitions Maintenanc e and Amenities (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 65-68). 26 Chapter Fou r Method of Analysi s 27 4.0 Metho d o f Analysi s 4.1 Wha t I s Bein g Measure d This thesis examines how design influences use in urban waterfront ope n spaces. I n this case, the dependent variable measured is "use". T o measure this variable, the chosen unit of analysis is the "individual person". Babbi e states that individuals are the most typical units of analysis for social scientific research. Individual s can be studied alone or in circumscribed groups such as students, workers, parents or voters (Babbie, 1986: 74 -75). Fo r the purposes of this study, individuals are also studied as forming a  group defined a s "people who attend the waterfront fo r recreation purposes". Thi s study is therefore limited to studying this group of people. The independent variables which affect the dependent variable, "use", are the "design elements" used to develop the open space in urban waterfront redevelopments , as defined in the literature review. T o determine which combinations of these elements exist, five recently completed urban waterfront redevelopmen t projects in the Vancouver Lower Mainland were examined: Granville Island, Lonsdale Quay, Westminster Quay, Steveston Landing and Bridgepoint. Usin g field observations from what Zeisel terms physical traces (Zeisel, 1981:89-110) , a diagnostic study was conducted where an inventory of design elements at each site was compiled and a matrix showing combinations of design elements was constructed. Diagnostic studies are a powerful way of obtaining exploratory information a t the beginning of a research project since they provide a general overview as well as illustrate any generalizations apparent in the data (Zeisel, 1981: 60). Diagnosti c studies allow for deeper understanding of a topic and help refine concepts and hypotheses (Zeisel, 1981: 61). I n his study, The Urban Villagers. Gans explains that he had no rigorous hypothesis to test and that in fact his findings were themselves hypotheses (Gans, 1962: 347). Thi s thesis does much the same, by presenting exploratory research and findings on a topic which to date, has not been investigated in detail. However , diagnostic studies are not suitable for the precise measurement of the characteristics and relationships within a defined group and thus they must be complemented by conducting other descriptive studies (Zeisel, 1981 : 61). 28 4.2 Metho d o f Analysis : Th e Comparativ e Cas e Studie s From the matrix, two waterfront redevelopmen t projects were chosen as case studies on the basis of the similarities and differences i n combinations of design elements within each. Each case study defines a single object, the urban waterfront public open space, for which the boundaries were delineated. Withi n each, the design elements comprising the space, the relations among elements and contextual influences were examined. More importantly, the case studies were compared to each other to determine how differen t combinations of design elements affected us e of the public open space at th e water's edge. The comparative case study method is good for yielding specific analytica l statements regarding case study sites, but is weak for implying the results to other areas outside the case studies. Unlik e a survey sample, which conducts analysis over a broad geographic area, a case study only looks at one or a few (in the case of this study, two) specific sites. Furthermore, because a case study, like an experiment, attempts to examine one measurable variable as the result of one or a few control variables, and all other variables are held constant, it may often be the case that a phenomenon was not the result of the control variables but of some other influence (Smelser , Osherson and Warwick, 1973:44 , 56-58). For example, the study found tha t weather has a large impact on how many people attend the urban waterfront Othe r side effects on e might not see within a physical environment when using the comparative case study method are history of events outside the study, instrument decay as measurement techniques change and maturation of the individuals being studied (Zeisel, 1981: 83-84). 4.3 Researc h Settin g Since this thesis studies environment and behaviour, data was collected from th e field in a natural research setting. A s seen in Gans' studies of The Urban Villagers (1962) and The Levittowners (1967), a natural research setting is ideal for diagnostic studies where one wishes to find out  "what is actually happening"; what elements, relationships and dynamics are salient (Zeisel, 1981: 72-74). Also , case studies naturally take place in non-laboratory, non-contrived environments where observations and data are collected from the field. Natural settings allow the investigator to carry out an experiment, by manipulating part of 29 the physical environment, a particular social behaviour, or a policy. Natura l research settings also allow for situations, settings and events that reflect theoretically relevant questions (Zeisel, 1981 : 75). 4.4 Metho d o f Collectin g Dat a fo r Analysi s In order to collect data for this thesis, the study uses multiple methods of analysis. Zeise l points out that in case studies, especially those involving participant observation, multiple research methods are often required for investigators to obtain sufficient dat a about different aspect s of an object (Zeisel , 1981: 66). Furthermore , using multiple research techniques to observe different trait s of a complex phenomenon increases the convergent and discriminant validity of a research design. Becaus e this study observes environment and behaviour relationships, three methods for collecting data were implemented. Thes e three methods were: 1) Observing Physical Traces 2) Counting and Observing the Behaviour of People 3) Focused Interviews 4) User Survey Questionnaire s Together, these four methods provided sufficient dat a for the analysis. A  brief discussion of each method, which follows, determines the strengths and weaknesses of each, and why they were chosen for this study. 4.5 Observin g Physica l Trace s As mentioned earlier in this chapter, observations of physical traces were used to compile an inventory of the different desig n elements apparent in the field.  Physica l traces consist of reflections o f previous activity found in the physical surroundings, which were not intended to be measured by researchers (Zeisel, 1981: 89). Physica l traces provide a durable physical record of what actually exists and are easy to record, count, draw or photograph. Thi s thesis uses all of these techniques to document physical traces. 30 Observing physical traces provides an opportunity to determine what is missing from a scene or what props are used to separate, connect, personalize, identify o r legitimize different space s (Zeisel, 1981: 89-110), (Sommer, 1974 : 202-209), (Freedman, 1975: 70-76). Physica l traces provide information regarding adaptations for use of space as well as by-products of use. Becaus e physical traces are durable and exist as part of the physical environment, one can easily observe them without affecting th e behaviour which caused them or the results of an inquiry. Observin g physical traces is therefore an unobtrusive method of data collecting. A caution which must be considered when observing physical traces is that the investigator can take note of the trace only as a piece of data. Physica l traces alone cannot be analyzed objectively because one would be assuming the intent of why the trace was left and by whom. Sinc e physical traces posses this illusionary quality, they must be confirmed together with other data collection techniques, in order to be successfully analyzed . For this thesis, physical traces were observed to diagnose preliminary findings regarding which design elements were apparent at the different urba n waterfront redevelopment sites in the Vancouver Lower Mainland. Fro m these observations, the elements were analyzed using a matrix and two case study sites were chosen. 4.6 Countin g an d Observin g th e Behaviou r o f Peopl e As stated at the onset of this chapter, "individual persons" are the unit of analysis for this study. B y observing the actors, the act they are performing, relationships between actors, the context and the setting of the actions, an inventory of behaviour can be accumulated. Such behaviour can be recorded in notes, maps, diagrams, photographs and videotapes. Observed Behaviour can also be quantified by counting the instances of a type of behaviour over time at a distinct location using precoded checklists. I n doing so, field observation s become more precise or descriptive in appearance and complement previously recorded diagnostic observations (Zeisel, 1981: 122). I n a study of how elderly people in Montreal use the space in indoor shopping malls, Sijpkes, Brown and MacLean conducted two types of observations. Ittelso n describes these two observations types as being "place-centered " and "person-centered" observations  (Ittelson, 1974). 31 The place-centered observations studied the activities of the elderly at certain focal points of activity in the two malls being compared. Count s of how many elderly people were performing wha t activity with whom were recorded and analyzed, providing quantifiabl e observation data. T o complement these observations, person-centered observations, consisting of focused interviews with the elderly users of the space and the security guards who watch over the space, were conducted. Th e interview data thus confirmed the validity of the place-centered observations (Sijpkes, Brown and MacLean, 1983: 15-22). This thesis uses the same place-centered and person-centered observation techniques as did Sijpkes, Brown and MacLean in their study. A t each case study site, focal points of activity at the water's edge were determined. Thes e focal points are illustrated in the site plans displayed in the following chapters . Thes e focal points were selected because of their similarity in size and character, thus providing a consistent departure from which to conduct comparative analysis. Within each of these focal points, numbers of activities and groupings of open space users were observed and recorded four times within a day: Noon (from 12:0 0 to 13:00) , Afternoon (fro m 14:0 0 to 15:00), Late Afternoon (fro m 16:0 0 to 17:00) and Evening (fro m 18:00 to 19:00) . Eac h observation period was one hour long, durin g which the number of instances of each activity and grouping were recorded over a five minute period, every fifteen minute s (ie., four times in an hour). Thi s one hour sequence of observations was repeated four times on a weekday and on a weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). Observations of the frequency o f activities were recorded on pre-coded checklists. Th e categories of activities observed were: Primary Sitting in the Plaza Adult s Pushing Stroller s Secondary Sitting in the Plaza Bikin g Primary Sitting on the Boardwalk Wheelchairin g Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk Walkin g Dogs Walking in the Plaza Kid s Playing in Playground Walking on the Boardwalk Adult s Watching/Playing in Playground Standing Stationary Leaning on the Rail 32 During the same observation periods, the groupings of people were analyzed, to determine who uses the waterfront open space. Instance s of the following groupings were counted: Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (2 or more) Females in Groups (2 or more) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups (>2) The data was then totaled and averaged for the observation period. A s well, sinc e it is possible that factors other than the design of the open space could influence how many people use the space, frequency percentages were calculated for each activity and grouping to determine their occurrence relative to other activities groupings. Th e percentage calculations were then used to rank the highest to lowest order of activities and groupings, for each site. Fro m these rankings, trend s and patterns were identifiable. Overal l trends were compared and analyzed against the weekend and weekday trends for the frequencies of activities and groupings. Table s showing the frequencies of activities and groupings for all observation periods, for the case study sites appear in Appendix A. Observed behaviour is dynamic and allows the observer to experience a glimpse of the role of time on the life of a space. Often , activities being observed affect other activities (Zeisel, 1981: 114). Th e observer must decide how intrusive they wish to be when examining behaviour in the field. The y can either be a secret outsider who observes from a distance and is unknown by those being observed, or a full participant living among the people being observed. Whyt e has been very successful as a participant observer in the various studies he has conducted. For example, in Whyte's participant observation study, A Street Corner Society (1955), his involvement with a street gang enabled him to uncover more than ordinary evidence (Zeisel, 1981: 114). However , other researchers such as Blau have not been so lucky. While comparing two job-placement offices, Blau introduced himself as a researcher and explained his study to those who were to be observed (Zeisel, 1981: 117). A s a result, the people being observed altered their normal routines in order to impress the researcher. Therefore, study results were not a true representation. Whe n subjects, who know they are being observed, fabricate their behaviour, the condition is known as the Hawthorne Effect. 33 In order to avoid the Hawthorne Effect, behaviour observations for this thesis were taken from the vantage point of a marginal participant. Thi s way, due to time constraints, the observer did not have to win rapport with any social group. A s well, observations of the units of analysis, the open space users, could be recorded without changing their routine behaviour. 4 .7 Focuse d Interview s As Whyte explains, interviewing must be linked to observation. Observatio n guides us to ask certain questions and interviewing helps to determine the significance of what we are observing (Whyte, 1982: 96). I n order to confirm th e validity of field observations , focused interviews with people involved must be conducted. Fo r the purposes of this thesis, the users, the "individual persons" have been observed. B y interviewing the designers and planners who developed the open spaces in the case studies, this study achieves a sense of the intended uses and activities that the spaces were designed to accommodate. In order to accomplish focused interviews, this study incorporated what Zeisel calls an "interview guide", based on pre-interview diagnostic analysis. A n interview guide consists of a conceptual map of topics, elements, patterns and relationships to be covered in a non-directive interview which uses open-ended questions (Zeisel, 1981: 137-149). Rather than ask directed structured questions in a questionnaire format, this non-directed list of questions was complemented by probing for information wher e it was required. I n order to avoid subjectivity, questions were restricted to descriptive or nonspecific questions. Thi s way, results were not affected b y observer biases. I n the case of this study, professional informant bias, since the majority o f people interviewed were design professionals. Th e focused interviews conducted were successful i n achieving person-centered observations and thus confirming, complementing and validating the point-centered field observations . 34 4.8 Use r Surve y Questionnaire s To further enhance the place-centred observations of activities and behaviour, a questionnaire, consisting of five questions was circulated to a random sample of respondents at the two case study sites on a weekend afternoons i n July, 1993. Approximately thirty people were surveyed at each site. Th e intent of the questionnaire was to investigate why people come to the two waterfront ope n spaces, who uses the spaces, and where users come from. Th e questionnaire asked the following questions : 1. Ho w far did you travel to get to Westminster Quay/Steveston Landing ? 2. Which  municipality do you reside in ? 3. Ho w did you get to Westminster Quay/Steveston Landing today ? 4. Wha t was your purpose for coming to Westminster Quay/Steveston Landing ? 5. Ho w many times in one year do you come to Westminster Quay/ Steveston Landing ? In order to code the responses, questions 3 and 4 provided multiple answer options, as can be seen on the blank questionnaire forms in Appendix B. Question s 1,2 an d 5 requested open-ended replies, since their nature was numeric or factual rather than chosen from a series of options. Th e responses were then coded into groups and the relative frequencie s of groups of responses were analyzed and compared. In the following chapters , which present the case studies and comparative analysis, each of the research techniques explained in this chapter were used to collect and analyze information. A s a result, conclusions are drawn in the final chapter regarding the success or failure of these methods in achieving the purpose and objectives stated at the onset of the thesis. 35 Chapter Five Case Study: Westminster Qua y 36 5.0 Cas e Study : Westminste r Qua y Westminster Quay is the first of two case studies to be examined, in order to evaluate the relationship between the design and use of urban waterfront ope n space. 5.1 Locatio n Westminster Quay is situated on the northern shore of the Fraser River on the southern edge of the City of New Westminster, located in the centre of the Greater Vancouver Region (as shown in Figure 5.8). Adjacen t to the Quay, the Fraser River splits into its South Arm and North Arm. On the south side of the river is the Municipality of Surrey, with the Surrey Docks located along its shore. T o the southwest is the eastern tip of Lulu Island, which is also part of the City of New Westminster, and Annacis Island, which is part of the Municipality of Delta. The eastern tip of Annacis Island accommodates Fraser Port's Annacis Terminal and Fraser Wharves, where Canada's west coast auto port, which serves 25 auto makers from aroun d the world, provides intermodal linkages between rail, truck and auto carrier marine freighters. Directly to the west of Westminster Quay, is "Renaissance Square", a medium density residential complex. T o the west of this development is a tract of land which accommodates heavy industrial uses involving the processing of forestry products, pulp and paper. Directly to the north of the site are the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks, the B.C. Transit SkyTrain elevated guideway and a commercial district, located at the base of the slopes of New Westminster. Furthe r to the north, on the slopes, are single family and medium to high density residential neighbourhoods and Douglas College. To the northeast is the historic Downtown District of New Westminster, in which are located numerous commercial, retail and office uses . Som e of the larger public office s located in this area include the B.C. Assessment Authority, the Provincial Court House and the Fraser River Harbour Commission (Fraser Port Authority). T o the north of the Downtown District is New Westminster Municipal Hall. 37 Figure 5. 1 Westminster  Quay:  Entry  to  open  space from parking  lot. Figure 5. 2 Westminster  Quay:  Open  space in  front of  market, Inn at the Quay  hotel  and Fist  Capital  Place offices  in background. 38 Directly to the east is the Front Street elevated parkade, which provides off-street parkin g for the downtown area. Betwee n this parkade and the Fraser River is the location of the vacant New Westminster Her, a portion of which currently accommodates off-stree t parking for Westminster Quay, but is proposed to be developed with hig h density residential development in the near future. T o the east of the pier is the Pattullo Bridge, which provides automobile and pedestrian access to Surrey and points beyond to the south. Parallel to the Pattullo Bridge are SkyBridge, which carries SkyTrain across the Fraser River, and a railway bridge , which serves as the Lower Mainland's primary rail crossing of the Fraser River. 5 .2 Physica l Settin g Westminster Quay consists of four vital components: the Esplanade, a festival market, a n office building , a hotel and a residential neighbourhood (a s shown in Figures 5.5,5.7,5.8 and 5.9). A t the western edge of the Quay is a children's playground named Quayside Park. A t the eastern edge of the site is the "Expo Tugger", a playground consisting of the old wheel house of a tug sitting on dry land. Her e children and adults can enjoy activel y playing with the dials and knobs inside the Tugger and imagine they are the Captain of the ship. Nex t to the Tugger is the berth for numerous boats which provide Fraser River tours. Along the entire water's edge is the Esplanade, a public path consisting of a wooden boardwalk paralleled by a landscaped buffer an d a brick paved walkway (in the residential areas). Th e Esplanade connects vital components of Westminster Quay and provides an important pedestrian linkage to the Downtown District. Quayside Drive, the rail yards and the SkyTrain elevated guideway provide a buffer an d limit access between the Quay and other parts of New Westminster. However , due to its waterfront location and southern exposure, the Quay benefits from views looking east, up the Fraser River towards the Pattullo Bridge, SkyBridge and the Golden Ears mountains; views looking south to the working waterfront o f the Surrey Docks, and; views looking west to Lulu Island, Delta, the Gulf Islands and sunset beyond. Mos t of the open space at the Quay enjoys sun for the greater part of the day, due to the southern exposure. Directly beneath the Esplanade boardwalk, the foreshore is developed with rip-rap of medium sized rocks, to maintain the water's edge against flooding and to provide for 39 ;V3ES £ «-<-:#•%;$**:' « : - > : • S ^ * * [Wi~.tinin>.lor Qu.iv Siti -* , . •?  ••  •  fe' S -we t ^  - . , * * » * * • ' : • " -Figure 5. 8 TTz e New Westminster  Waterfront:  Westminster  Quay  is  in  the cen tre foreground. marine habitats. A t some locations, such as in front of Renaissance Square (abutting the western edge of Westminster Quay), intertidal benches have been created and planted with intertidal marsh vegetation to further enhance opportunities for marine habitats to thrive (FREMP., 1991 : 29). The Westminster Quay site is relatively flat, and meets the Ministry of the Environment's minimum 2.6 metres above GSC datum, flood level, and the regulations of the City's Flood Plain Bylaw No. 5095 (City of New Westminster, 1987 : 11). 5 .3 Histor y Until recently, the New Westminster waterfront existed as an industrial area with limited public access. Today , after a  revolution of changes in land use at the water's edge, the New Westminster waterfront now provides one of the best places for the public to get an overview of the many activities that occur at the water's edge along the Fraser River. The City of New Westminster was incorporated on July 17,1860 , as the capital of the new Colony of British Columbia. A t that time, New Westminster served as the West Coast's major supply centre and was considered the gateway to the interior of British Columbia (City of New Westminster, 1987:1) . When the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) decided to construct its western terminus in Vancouver in 1887, New Westminster's dominance as a commercial centre began to decline. I n the same year, the CPR extended a 9 mile branch line from Por t Moody to New Westminster. A s well, the Great Northern Railway (now called the Burlington Northern Railway) reached New Westminster in 1891, providing direct access to the United States (Mikichik, 1991 : 102). By the 1890's , New Westminster's waterfront ha d established a firm economic base. A s British Columbia's primary industries experienced growth in the years preceding World War I, New Westminster's waterfront became a growth centre for fish processing and forestry product related industries, as well as being the commercial service centre for the Fraser Valley. Columbi a Street, the City's principal thoroughfare, evolved as a retail district of regional importance (Mikichik, 1991:103) . 41 In this same period, port facilities developed along the waterfront to accommodate the transshipment of forestry products and general cargo. With the opening of the Panama Canal and the formation of the New Westminster Harbour Commission, New Westminster became an international freshwater por t (Scott, 1985: 14). New  Westminster and its port enjoyed economic prosperity during the 1930's and early 1940's . Th e growth of port facilities stimulated the growth of warehouse and related activities. However, the construction of the Pattullo Bridge in 1937 , and the realignment of regional traffic pattern s through the construction o f new highways and bridges during the 1950' s and 1960' s provided suburban communities with better access to Downtown Vancouver , therefore making housing development opportunities attractive in suburban communities such as Richmond, Surrey, Delta and Coquitlam. Th e realigned traffic routes , which were oriented towards the automobile, bypasse d the Downtown District of New Westminster, resulting in a decline of retail activity in the downtown area. In addition, in the 1970's , a movement towards larger ships and containerized cargo rendered New Westminster's port facilities to become obsolete, as reflected by a rapid decline in the volume of cargo handled by the port. A t the same time, newer container and bulk loading facilities were being developed in Burrard Inlet, Robert's Bank, and the Surrey Docks (Hardwick, 1974:160-161) . A t this time it became apparent that the long-term future o f the New Westminster waterfront would realize the relocation or phasing-out of port and industrial activities, and the redevelopment of the waterfront fo r other uses including residential and public open space uses. During the early 1960's , as a result of federal urban policies and funding strategies , the City of New Westminster initiated various studies regarding urban renewal in New Westminster. Th e urban renewal process required that the City establish a municipal planning department to secure and administer federal funding an d to implement a renewal program and insure its conformance to a municipal official communit y plan (Corporation of City the of New Westminster, 1966 : 18). Soon after the Planning Department had begun its urban renewal activities, it was recognized that planning activity was limited to the physical and economic conditions of the City of New Westminster, and that planning had to take place on a more regional context. As a result, in 1975, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) published the 42 "Livable Region Plan", which was aimed at rationalizing development of the Greater Vancouver area (City of New Westminster, 1987 : 3). On e of the Plan's strategies was the development of "Regional Town Centres" which would: "...bring jobs, shopping and cultural opportunities closer to where people live. Decentralization to the centres of some of the office growth that otherwise will locate in Downtown Vancouver, will generally reduce transportation problems. Th e aim therefore, is to create urban spaces which are attractive alternatives to Downtown". (GVRD, 1975 : 10). With the approval of the City of New Westminster, the GVRD selected New Westminster as its first priority in the development of the "Regional Town Centre" concept I n 1977, the GVRD and the City of New Westminster published a document titled "A Regional Town Centre for New Westminster - Action Plan Report", which stated that while the City had the potential for development, competition from newer centres would require New Westminster to implement special techniques in order to flourish as a town centre (Joint Review Committee, GVRD & City of New Westminster, 1977 : 4-7). One of the policy statements in this plan was "the opening-up of the Downtown to the river". Th e plan described New Westminster's waterfront a s a "major opportunity for public action" (Joint Review Committee, GVRD & City of New Westminster, 1977:10) . The report also argued that a revitalized waterfront would provide the catalyst necessary to begin the development of a New Westminster Regional Town Centre. As a result, in 1978, a partnership named the First Capital City Development Company Limited (FCC) was formed between the City and the British Columbia Development Corporation, to guide the redevelopment of downtown New Westminster (City of New Westminster, 1987 : 3). A t that time, a community plan for the downtown was written, to provide the formal strategy and policy framework. Par t of the FCC agenda included the revitalization of the waterfront area , to replace the historic Westcoast Terminals and industrial activities which previously inhabited the waterfront wit h 1200 units of housing, an office building (First Capital Place) and a 70,000 square foot public market (Westminster Quay Public Market). A s well, the Esplanade boardwalk, a 2,000 lineal foot, 30-100 foot 43 I > I —  - \ . m Jt -  "TW A »".i«Tj — • •--TVs- '  i  s a i j :—•^«-,-pS',~ " , "  J&- '; k . / i  •• » •  •  »* • v 'J - . i ... .._-a v *  .  ;. nfc1 - : S O if s  >.* ' J f c ' '••§& . s - / " 1 - i ^ •ST' \  '  ''1A& ' SPlV" . - i T^ t e S • * ' ! • ^ P-. 44 wide linear open space, which parallels the entire water's edge of downtown New Westminster, was constructed. Polic y statements in the Downtown Community Plan and the Official Community Plan provided the policy directives establishing the Esplanade and public access to the New Westminster waterfront . Over time, FCC acquired most of the lands along the central waterfront I n the early 1980's, they rezoned and subdivided the site to accommodate residential, commercial and open space uses. A  portion of the FCC Concept Plan is shown in Figure 5.5. I n the early 1980's, FCC marketed the various newly created development parcels using a competitive bid tendering process (Schieving, 1991) . A s developers developed the residential parcels to the west of the market place along Quayside Drive, the Esplanade was constructed, in piecemeal fashion. Discussion s with the New Westminster Planning Department and the Hulbert Group (the architects who worked on the physical site planning) uncovered that there were no written municipal guidelines regarding how the Esplanade should be designed, but that FCC may have implemented private design guidelines for the residential development, as an agreement of sale using a registered building scheme (ie. a contractual agreement between FCC and the numerous builders/developers). By 1986, much of this development was completed, and more housing units began construction to the west of Westminster Quay (and are still currently developing). Th e extension of SkyTrain from Vancouver to New Westminster in 1986 provided a strong catalyst for much of the redevelopment which occurred in the waterfront area . 5.4 Transportatio n an d Acces s The circulation system at Westminster Quay is comprised of five components: gateways, the road network, pedestrian and bike path networks, parking and public transit access (as illustrated in figures 5.3 , 5.4 and 5.6). Whe n the Westminster Quay development concept was first planned, a decision was made by FCC to separate automobiles from the pedestrians and provide pedestrians with exclusive access to the water's edge (McLaine, 1991) . 45 5 .4 .1 Gateway s The rail yards present a barrier, which limits pedestrian and automobile access to Westminster Quay. T o cross this barrier, at-grade and elevated crossings of the railway have been built. Thes e crossings also provide gateway accesses into the Westminster Quay residential neighbourhood. Th e most pronounced of these gateways are the pedestrian bridge at the foot of Eighth Street, and the at-grade road crossing at the foot of Begbie Street. The pedestrian bridge connects pedestrians between Hyack Square, a small urban park at the foot of Eighth Street and flanking Columbia Street (in the heart of the Downtown District), and the market at Westminster Quay. Althoug h this bridge provides an effectiv e gateway to the Quay for agile pedestrians on foot, it has too many stairs and no ramps to accommodate seniors, the physically challenged, adults with children in strollers and bicycle riders. The Begbie Street at-grade crossing allows quick access for automobiles between the Downtown District and a large surface parking area adjacent to the market on the vacant New Westminster Pier. Thi s crossing also connects to Samson Drive which later connects to Quayside Drive and Old Columbia Street, all of which serve as the loop road servicing the Quay residential neighbourhood. Th e frequency o f trains passing through the crossing is approximately one train every hour, which causes some delays to traffic . A street light has recently been installed at the intersection of Begbie and Front Streets, to relieve congestion and accidents at this previously three-way stop intersection. Th e street light has resulted in some congestion forming during weekend peak hours, which causes automobiles to be backed-up into the surface parking area on the south side of the tracks, and as far up as Columbia Street, on the north side of the tracks. Ther e is no sidewalk at this crossing to accommodate pedestrians. However , since the pedestrian bridge is not accessible for seniors, the physically challenged, adults with children in strollers and bicycle riders, these people can often be seen crossing the tracks, amongst the cars, at the Begbie Street crossing. 46 Figure 5. 3 Westminster  Quay:  Pedestrian  Overpass of  railway;  the gateway to Westminster  Quay. Figure 5. 4 Westminster  Quay:  Parking  lot  on  the  old  Westminster  Pier. 47 Other crossings, primarily for automobiles, but which also have sidewalks, are located at Mclnnes Street and at Third Avenue. Thes e crossings provide quick automobile access into the Westminster Quay residential neighbourhood, away from the traffic created by the market and the Downtown District. 5.4.2 Th e Roa d Networ k As discussed above, the road network is separated from the water's edge and the pedestrian paths (as shown in Figure 5.6). Th e only interface between cars and pedestrians takes place at street-end cul-de-sacs located at Kdek Court and Reliance Court. Smal l urban parks comprised of a dedicated strip of land landscaped on the sides and paved with brick pavers connect the street with the waterfront Esplanade. Automobil e access beyond the cul-de-sacs is restricted by the use of knock-down bollards (which can be removed for emergency or servicing access). The road network acts as a loop which crosses the railway at three access points (two elevated crossings and one at-grade crossing) and passes through the centre and the north side of the Westminster Quay and Renaissance Square neighbourhoods, via Quayside Drive. In response to the need for an at-grade pedestrian crossing of the railway tracks near the public market, Larco Development, the current owner and manager of the market, has submitted a proposal to the City to reopen Eighth Street, and have it pass through Hyack Square, across Front Street and across the railway tracks, to terminate in a shared automobile and pedestrian turn-a-round in front of the market. Fro m this turn-a -round, underground parking areas to accommodate the market and private roads to access the proposed residential developments along the New Westminster Pier would be accessed. I n addition, the at-grade crossing at Begbie Street would be closed to both cars and pedestrians. Th e General Manager of the Westminster Quay Market informs that the Canadian Pacific Railway finds this proposal acceptable. Negotiation s and legal arrangements to accommodate the proposal are currently underway. 48 •BUS ROUTES |SKYTRAIN STATIONS •RAPID TRANSIT ROUTE MAJOR ROADS, TRANSIT & BUS ROUTES Figure 5. 6 Major  Roads,  Transit  and  Bus  Routes. (Taken from City  of  New  Westminster,  1987) 5 .4 .3 Pedestria n an d Bik e Pat h Network s At Westminster Quay, the entire water's edge has been dedicated to the public for access by pedestrians. A s a result of redevelopment, a strip of land varying from 3 0 feet (10 metres) to 100 feet (30 metres) in width, paralleling the foreshore, has been dedicated as park for public use. Thi s public waterfront pathway , called the "Esplanade", extends the entire distance from the eastern edge of the market to the western edge of Renaissance Square, for a total of approximately 2000 lineal feet. Th e City has plans to extend the Esplanade to the east, along the edge of the New Westminster Pier, as residential developments occur in the future, and; to the west, as waterfront properties located between Renaissance Square and the Queensborough Bridge, which currently accommodate industrial uses, rezone and redevelop to other uses. The Esplanade serves as the backbone of the pedestrian circulation system. Adjacen t to the residential neighbourhoods, it consists of three components: a wooden boardwalk of 10 feet in width (on average), a landscape buffer o f 5 feet width (on average) and a brick paved path of 20 feet in width. In the residential areas of Westminster Quay, the boardwalk is for the exclusive use of pedestrians on-foot. Th e brick paved path is for the use of pedestrians and cyclists. Th e landscaped buffer, located between the boardwalk and the brick paved path, provides a transition and separation between the pedestrian only boardwalk and the brick paved area for pedestrians and cyclists. Beyon d the brick paved area, is a narrow strip of grass, then a 20 foot landscaped area which buffers th e Esplanade from th e edge of the residential low-rise development (a s shown in Figure 5.9). In front of the First Capital Place office building, the hotel and the market, the wooden boardwalk, which widens to 20 feet in width, i s for the use of pedestrians and cyclists. The brick paved path does not exist here. I n front of the market, there is a small plaza, surfaced with exposed aggregate and brick, which provides pedestrian access between the market and the boardwalk (as shown in Figures 5.7, 5.20 and 5.21) . At the street ends cul-de-sacs of Kdek Court and Reliance Court (in the waterfront residential neighbourhoods), there are interfaces between the street and the pedestrian/bicycle path portion of the Esplanade. A t these portions of the Esplanade, the 50 Lf\ Figure 5. 7 Westminster  Quay:  Open  Space  and Esplanade  can be  seen in front of  the market, at the  water's edge. boardwalk protrudes out over the river by an extra 60-80 feet, giving the sense that the street continues out over the river, but not for cars; only for pedestrians. Th e combination of the street ends and the widened Esplanade create small urban parks where a focus of pedestrian activities takes place. Th e street end connections to the Esplanade allow glimpses of the river from the road network through the pedestrian realm. There are also occasional pedestrian connections to the Esplanade through the centre of the low-rise residential buildings. Althoug h these paths are for public use, they appear to be for private use by residents living here, since they pass very closely through the centre of the residential buildings. There are sidewalks located parallel to the road on the Mclnnes and Third Avenue elevated crossings of the railway tracks, which provide pedestrian access to the Westminster Quay and Renaissance Square neighbourhoods. However , because these crossings have steep grades and cause travel in a round-about way, they are not widely used by pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestria n and cyclists activities are focused on the Esplanade. The Esplanade allows residents of Westminster Quay and Renaissance Square to walk or ride bicycle s to the market and Downtown District. A t the current time, the Esplanade terminates at the western edge of Renaissance Square. Pedestrian s must either continue along the road network (Quayside Drive) or turn around and double-back on the Esplanade. In most cases, pedestrians choose the latter. Studies conducted by the market management found that many people drive their cars to the site and park in the surface parking lots on New Westminster Pier (which are supposed to be exclusively for market users) and then go for walks along the Esplanade, without ever entering the market. As discussed in the previous section, a pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks, at the foot of Eighth Street connects pedestrians between the Downtown District and the market and waterfront. However , because the bridge has many stairs and no ramps, seniors, physically challenged people, adults pushing children in strollers and cyclists cannot use the bridge. Thes e people must use the at-grade Begbie Street railway crossing to access the site, alongside the cars. 52 [Westminster Qua y Site • • • • • • • • • .'V»B«>^ \ ' . ' '  "*>•-'*•• -• ci mm mm Sk j&*%*Efft SggsS* IP fftpi "JST '*•'• if Figure 5. 9 Westminster  Quay;  Aerial  View  showing  Esplanade  on right along shoreline and First  Capital  Place, Inn at  the  Quay  and  the Market on  the  top  right. 5.4.4 Parkin g There are numerous off-street parking opportunities located in the Westminster Quay area. Directly to the east of the market, a large surface parking area located on the vacant New Westminster Pier can accommodate approximately 400 cars. Thi s parking lot is intended for market users and has a three hour maximum time limit to restrict SkyTrain commuters from using the lot as a park-and-ride facility. Durin g evenings, a fee is incurred for parking in this lot to reduce security risks resulting from patrons of adjacent cabarets on Front Street. Prio r to the market implementing an evening parking fee, cabaret patrons used the parking lot as a hang-out. To the north of the surface parking area, on the north side of the railway tracks, is the Front Street (above ground) Parkade. Thi s pay parking lot accommodates approximately 756 spaces. On the west side of the market are surface and underground parking lots which accommodate the market, hotel (the Inn at the Quay) and office building (First Capital Place) located at Westminster Quay. Th e first two hours of parking is free in these lots. After two hours a fee is incurred. The residential portions of Westminster Quay and Renaissance Square provide underground off-street parking for residents and guests as per the requirements specified in the City of New Westminster Zoning Bylaw No. 1743 (primarily 1.2 spaces for each one-bedroom dwelling unit and 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling unit). I n order to reduce traffic congestion and get parked cars off the street, street parking has been reduced to a minimum in the Westminster Quay area. Beyond the bounds of the Westminster Quay neighbourhood, there are approximately 6,300 parking spaces in the entire Downtown District, of which 5,026 are off-street and 1,261 are street parking (City of New Westminster, 1987: 9). 54 5 .4 .5 Publi c Transi t Acces s Although there are no public transit routes which pass through Westminster Quay, there is a regional bus/SkyTrain station (called New Westminster Station) on the north side of the pedestrian bridge, near the intersection of Eighth Street and Columbia Street. Fro m this station, buses travel to Burnaby, Vancouver, Delta, Surrey, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, loco and the Vancouver International Airport (Figure 5.6 on page 49 illustrates the bus routes passing through the New Westminster Downtown District), (B.C. Transit, 1993) . This station serves as an important regional transportation interchange point (City of New Westminster, 1987 : 8). The SkyTrain automated light rail rapid transit service, provides quick and easy transit connections between Surrey, New Westminster, Burnaby and Vancouver. Local bus routes and stops are located along Columbia Street, Eighth Street and Sixth Street. 5 .4 .6 Regiona l Transportatio n Linkage s t o Westminste r Qua y Beyond the bounds of Westminster Quay, a series of arterial roads and highways provide access to New Westminster and the Quay. The streets which pass through Westminster Quay can be accessed from Columbi a Street, an arterial road which travels in an east-west fashion through the core of the Downtown District. Figur e 5.6 shows the context of these streets to the site. A t its western edge, Columbia Street turns into Stewardson Way, which provides access to the Queensborough Bridge, Alex Fraser Bridge, Surrey, North Delta, and East Richmond. Stewardso n Way also provides access to Marine Way which connects with South Burnaby and South Vancouver. Traveling east on Columbia Street, the Pattullo Bridge provides access, via the King George Highway, to Surrey City Centre, and points beyond to the south (such as the Canadian/United State s border crossing). Travelin g further east on Columbia Street, Trans Canada Highway #1, provides access to Surrey, Langley and points beyond (to the southeast) and to Burnaby, Vancouver and the North Shore (to the northwest). A t its northeastern edge, Columbia Street becomes North Road as it crosses the Coquitlam 55 municipal boundary. Nort h Road provides access to the Loughheed Highway, Port Moody, and Coquitlam. 5.5 Lan d Us e an d Zonin g The Westminster Quay site is zoned C-4, "Central Business District", which allows various uses including (but not restricted to) retail, office, general and personal services, wholesaling, marinas and numerous forms of residential development (single family dwelling, duplex, townhouse, and medium and high rise apartments). Th e maximum permitted floor space ratio for the site is 5.2 and the maximum allowable heights are 120 feet for the market and 220 feet for the second phase of offices proposed to be built on the north portion of the First Capital Place office development. I n this case, the market site is grossly underdeveloped. Ther e are plans by the current market owners to develop the parking lots to the east of the market wit h high rise apartments and to expand the market building to the east to include a "Fraser River Discovery Centre". To the northeast of the site, the majority of the Downtown District is also zoned C-4 (Central Business District) and is developed with four to six storey buildings containing a mixture of various commercial uses. T o the west of the site, on either side of Quayside Drive is a residential district zoned RM-6, Multiple Dwelling District (Downtown). O n the south side of Quayside Drive, medium-rise buildings of up to 90 feet in height are permitted, while on the north side of Quayside Drive, high-rise buildings up to 170 feet are allowed. N o commercial uses are permitted in this district. Figur e 5.11 on page 60 shows the location of these different land uses. To the northeast of the site and beyond the RM-6 residential neighbourhoods, there are M-1, Light Industrial Districts on the north side of the SkyTrain ahgnment and M-2, Heavy Industrial Districts along the river's edge. 5.6 Polic y Contex t Various policies guided the development of Westminster Quay. Mos t of these policies are still in place today. Th e majority of these policies are municipal, however, there are also some federal and provincial polices. A s mentioned earlier in this chapter in the history section (5.3), redevelopment of New Westminster's waterfront was initiated by a joint 56 i u j o o a. < UJ £ S 3 S O O O O Z tt" 0 U J -> C D is §i 1 ( 0 Z 2 *3 < U J w> cs U J < o < 5 5 K 3 o 3 o Q VI s -R 0 0 en en u o R 57 venture between the City and the British Columbia Development Corporation (a provincial crown corporation). Thi s joint venture was called the First Capital City Development Corporation (FCC). FC C was largely responsible for initiating the policies specified in the Community Plan for Downtown New Westminster, the document which provided the blueprint for redevelopment of the New Westminster waterfront I n 1979 , the New Westminster Redevelopment Act was ratified by the Legislature of B.C., which established the enabling legislation for FCC to operate and defined the development review process for development proposals in the downtown area. 5.6 .1 Municipa l Policie s The municipal policies which regulate waterfront redevelopment in New Westminster include the Zoning Bylaw. Official Community Plan for the City of New Westminster, and Community Plan for Downtown New Westminster. The Zoning Bylaw regulates the height, density, siting and use of buildings. Th e implications of the Zoning Bylaw on the case study site were examined in the previous section (5.5) regarding land use and zoning. Althoug h the bylaw provide s minimum usable open space requirements for residential developments (minimum of 25% of site area shall be for open space), it does not make reference to where this open space should be located or any special reference for lots near the waterfront . The Official Communit y Plan for the City of New Westminster provides very general statements regarding, waterfront revitalization , open space and public access and linkages to the waterfront. Th e following are selected policy statements taken from the plan, which make reference to these issues: "A series of small parks and public open spaces should be created and developed along the waterfront areas as part of the waterfront redevelopmen t process." p . 27 "A pedestrian circulation system, separate from the road system, should be considered in areas of high pedestrian movement and activity such as at the waterfront..." p.2 9 "The waterfront should be developed as a public promenade, with access provided through the ends of public streets, small parks and easements from adjacent developments." p . 30 "Provide parks... based upon population requirements and in accordance with accepted contemporary standards." p . 11 58 "Encourage new and alternative uses of vacant, under-developed and derelict land." p . 13 "Promote the revitalization of the port and waterfront area s by encouraging imaginative uses and alternative proposals." p . 12 "Protect views, encourage creative innovative architecture and provide extensive landscaping and imaginative street, plaza and open space treatments." p . 13 "Medium and high density housing should be encouraged along the waterfront." p . 21 "Commercial development should be integrated with the waterfront" p.2 3 "All major building projects should be required to street or boulevard trees as part of the design approval process in all rezoning, subdivision and development permit applications." p.3 3 (City of New Westminster, 1982 ) These policies provide a framework fo r waterfront redevelopment and for public open space at, and access to the water's edge. However , they do litde to define how such spaces should be designed or what form they should take. I n much the same fashion, the Community Plan for Downtown New Westminster provides various policies regarding public access and the development of derelict industrial property. Th e following are selected policy statements extracted from the Community Plan: "To develop public access to the Fraser River waterfront a t various points including a public Esplanade along the full length of the waterfront within the area." p . 5 "To promote viable and positive alternative uses for vacant, underdeveloped and derelict property." p. 5 "To develop viable and positive alternative uses for the City's port and waterfront." p . 5 (City of New Westminster, 1987 ) In addition, Section 10 , "Public Open Space", of the Community Plan explains: "...A thirty foot wide park strip of over 2,000 lineal feet will be created along the Fraser River waterfront and will be dedicated for public use as each project is completed. Al l citizens will have access to the waterfront an d public open space will not merely be protected but will be created." p . 10 (City of New Westminster, 1987 ) 59 s BOUNDARY OF THE PLAN AREA •  • • . MAIN PEDESTRIAN ROUT E INSTITUTIONAL ANCHORS PRESTIGE OFFICE SITE : AND THEME DEVELOPMENT '//////, WATERFRON T HOUSING OTHER HOUSING RAPID TRANSIT (SKYTRAIN ) WATERFRONT WALKWAY £ PARK MAIN ELEMENT S O F TH E PLA N (Diagramatic only ) Figure 5.11 Westminster  Quay;  Adjacent  land  uses  (as  per the  Downtown Community Plan). (Taken from City  of  New  Westminster,  1987) E)fnl|sk^> *" AUCKLAND ST . NS \ \  V  ""- v X F R  A  S  E  R FIGURE 6 CHARACTER AREA S FO R SIGN S Figure 5.1 2 New  Westminster  Downtown  District  Character  Areas for Signs. (Taken from City  of  New  Westminster,  1987) Unfortunately, the document does not give any indication or guidelines on how this waterfront public open space will be created, but simply states it "will be created". Discussions with the New Westminster Planning Department indicated that there were no formal City policies implemented regarding the actual design of the waterfront Esplanad e and open space paralleling the New Westminster waterfront. Discussion s with some of the designers also indicate that although there were privately regulated (by the parcel developers) design guidelines for the buildings, there were no such guidelines for the design of the waterfront ope n space. 5.6 .2 Senio r Governmen t Policie s In addition to the municipal policies, there are also provincial and federal policies which govern development along the foreshore of the Fraser River. Thes e policies are administered by the following federal and provincial agencies: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Environment Canada Public Works Canada Fraser River Harbour Commission Steveston Harbour Authority North Fraser Harbour Commission B.C. Ministry of Environment B.C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Regional Districts. In order to streamline the development review process and ensure consistency of policies among these agencies, the Fraser Estuary Management Program (FREMP) was initiated in 1980. FREM P acts as an umbrella organization which facilitates a "linked management system" for the Fraser River estuary to ensure that an appropriate environmental review process is undertaken for all  development proposals along the shores of the Fraser estuary (Fraser River Estuary Study , 1980 : 8). 62 In the 1980 summary report, A Living River by the Door, which was jointly authored by the Fraser River Estuary Study (the precursor to FREMP), and the federal and provincial governments, the framework fo r FREMP was established. I n this report, the following policies regarding recreation goals and development were stated: "Planning: ...t o link waterfront site s and upland recreation systems..." "Development: ...t o incorporate recreational opportunities , where feasible, into urban-industrial development s along the foreshore... " (Fraser River Estuary Study, 1980 : 7). Part of the FREMP review process involves ensuring conformance to B.C. Ministry of the Environment flood proofing standards for the Fraser River. I n most cases, to accomplish flood proofing requires either land filling o r the construction of dykes. One of the functions o f FREMP is to bring together representatives of the agencies listed above to sit on sub-committees which examine specific issues such as the habitat, port and industrial land supply/demand and development strategies and recreation plans. Thes e sub-committees produce reports which include policy recommendations to better manage development within the estuary, while keeping in mind environmental protection and conservation. In a FREMP report entitled, Report of the Habitat Activity Working Group, a map identifies the downtown New Westminster waterfront a s being of low value shoreline habitat, due to its industrial history, and current residential uses (FREMP, 1991:47). Th e same report mentions that an intertidal bench was successfully incorporated into a dyke constructed along the New Westminster waterfront a s redevelopment occurred. I n 1988, this bench was planted with intertidal marsh vegetation (FREMP, 1991 : 27). FREM P calls this technique "habitat compensation". 63 PROPOSED RECREATIONAL UNIT #11: NEW WESTMINSTER Fraser River Estuary Recreation Pla n LEGEND ' o • A • Existing Parkland Staging Area Interpretive Kiosk Proposed Kiosk Boat Launch - Trail , Path Figure 5.1 3 FREMP  New  Westminster  Recreation  Unit Map fid In another FREMP report entitled, Proposed Recreation Plan, the New Westminster waterfront i s described as a recreation unit, as shown in Figure 5.13. Th e report quotes: "the heavily developed shoreline of New Westminster is undergoing a transformation from industria l to residential and other uses, with public access to the waterfront a s a key feature of the redevelopment. Historically , New Westminster has had its back to the river. Toda y it is in the process of turning around to face the main arm, where the river is considered a feature attraction. There are a variety of public places, including the Market area, where the river is featured... " (FREMP, 1990 : 90-91). 5.7 Demographi c Profil e In order to obtain an understanding of the demographic characteristics in the vicinity of Westminster Quay, 1986 Statistics Canada census data were abstracted for enumeration areas within a 500 metre radius of the site. 198 6 Census data were used because at the time of the research, and currently, the more recent 1991 census data have not been readily available for enumeration areas. I t is important to realize that since much of the development in the vicinity of Westminster Quay occurred in the period from 198 4 to 1986, the 1986 census data numbers have most likely increased. However , the purpose of this profile is to provide a glimpse of the demographic context in the vicinity of Westminster Quay. From the Statistics Canada data, the following profile was defined : Total Population 89 0 Males 50 0 Females 39 0 Occupied Private Dwellings 53 5 Single Detached Houses 5 Ave. # of Persons/Household 1.7 3 Non-Family Households 31 0 Total # of Families 21 0 Ave. # of Children/Household 0.6 5 (Statistics Canada, 1987) . 65 From these data, although the total population was about half that of Steveston Landing in 1986 (which was 2,110), it is apparent that there is a critical mass of residential population living in the vicinity of Westminster Quay. I t is interesting to note that in 1986, there were more males than females (56% males and 44% females). O f the 535 occupied private dwellings, only about 39% were occupied by families. Thi s is much lower than the numbers of families in the vicinity of Steveston Landing (which will be reviewed in the following chapter) . Th e average number of people per household (being 1.73) and the small average number of children per household (being 0.65) reinforce the fact that there are few families and suggests that the neighbourhoods are dominantly occupied by singles and couples. O f the 210 families, 45 (or 21%) were single parent families, which is in keeping with the low average numbers of people per household. Only about 9% of the households were located within single detached dwellings, which is consistent with the fact that the housing stock is primarily denser multiple low-rise and high-rise dwellings. Th e number of people living in multiple dwellings has probably increased since 1986, with the construction of recent residential buildings in the vicinity of Westminster Quay. From these data, it is important to recognize that there is a critical mass of people living in the vicinity of Westminster Quay, most of whom are singles or couples, but some families, and almost all of which live in multiple dwellings. Thi s resident population represents a potential user group who live close to Westminster Quay and may even walk or ride a bicycle to access the Quay. Thes e topics will be analyzed in the next section which examines survey data collected at Westminster Quay, in order to determine the origins of people attending Westminster Quay. 5.8 Use r Profil e Using the method described in section 4.8 of the previous chapter, survey questionnaires were circulated to a random sample of people using the open space at Westminster Quay, on a weekend afternoon i n July, 1993. Approximatel y thirty people responded to the survey. Th e following section summarizes the results of the responses. Figure 5.15 demonstrates the responses to question one, which asked how far people had traveled to get to Westminster Quay. Overwhelmingly , the data displayed that 82% of the respondents traveled between 5 and 30 miles to get to the site. O f this number, 47% 66 traveled from 5  to 10 miles and 35% traveled 1 1 to 30 miles (for a total of 47%). Thes e data suggest that the majority of the people attending Westminster Quay live beyond walking distance from th e site. Thi s observation is further proven by the results of question two, which show that only 17% of the respondents reside in the municipality of New Westminster. Thes e respondents also accounted for the 18% who traveled less than 2 miles to get to the site. A n interesting trend identified wa s that many of the people attending Westminster Quay, reside in municipalities which abut New Westminster, primarily, Coquitlam (where 18% resided), Surrey (where 18% resided), Burnaby (where 6% resided) and Delta (where 6% resided). Othe r noticeable origins were Langley (where 18% resided) and Vancouver (where 17% resided). To determine how these people traveled to the site, the results of question three (as shown in figure 5.16) show that the majority, 52%, drove automobiles and 6% rode motorbikes to get to Westminster Quay. Non e of the respondents had taken a bus, however, 12 % used SkyTrain to access the site from other municipalities. I n like manner, little or no people had taken a bus to get to Steveston. Unlik e Westminster Quay, Steveston does not have a rapid transit station nearby. I n total, 30% had used pedestrian means to travel to Westminster Quay. O f this number, 18% had walked and 12% had bicycled (for a total of 30%). Th e majority of these respondents were the same people who lived less than 2 miles away from the site. Som e of the bicyclists had come from nearby Burnaby as well. A s will be seen in the next chapter, this 30% is smaller than the 42% of respondents at Steveston Landing, who had bicycled or walked to the site. Question four asked what the purpose was for coming to the Westminster Quay. Th e responses to this question can be seen in Figure 5.19. Respondent s were able to provide multiple answers to this question, since there may have been numerous purposes for their trip. Fro m Figure 5.19, three purposes appeared to stand out. Th e most popular purposes were to eat (47%), to exercise (47%), to entertain children (35%), to view the river (35%) and to relax (29%). Th e next group of moderately frequent purposes were to meet friends (18%), to shop (18%) and to walk dogs (12%). Th e least frequent purpose s were to watch people (6%) and to entertain friends (6%). Nobod y at Westminster Quay replied that to see the fish was a purpose, most likely because Westminster Quay does not have a Public Fish Sales Dock, as does Steveston Landing. 67 Westminster Qua y Demographic Profil e o f Respondent s oo 45% 40% 35%-30%-S 25% " 3 S" 20% -u_ 15%-10%-5%-0% 0 t o 15 16 t o 25 26 t o 35 36 t o 4 6 t 45 5 5 Age Grou p i r  i 6 t o 6 6 t < 65 7 5 svsrx 75 and Older Figure 5.1 4 NWDemog Profile Cha n 1 ON 50% - r 45% 40% + 35% £ 30 % c 0) 3 25 % CT O £ 20 % 15% - -10% - -5% 0% 0 t o 2 Figure 5.1 5 Westminster Qua y Distance Travelle d Fro m Residenc e (In Miles ) 2 t o 4  5  t o 1 0 1 1 t o 3 0 Distance Travelle d (Miles ) 31 o r Mor e NWDlstance O wl 1 - J o 60% T 50% -40% -> o c d) 3 30 % d) 20% 10% 0% Automobile Motorbik e Figure 5.1 6 Westminster Qua y Mode o f Transportatio n Used t o Trave l t o Sit e NWMode Chart 1 Westminster Qua y Municipality o f Residenc e JO CD c CO CO •g DC jtD Q . CO w c CO o o CO > E J5 •«—< ' 3 cr O O I o T3 C o E sz o be CD CO 0 > ZZ O O C ca > 03 0) £ 0) > 3 0 0 c ca > o o cr 0 SZ o Municipality Figure 5.1 7 NWMunicipality Char t 1 It was clearly apparent that almost half of all respondents identified eating (47% of respondents) and to exercise (47% of respondents) as reasons for visiting the Quay. Thi s information is consistent with the activity data (to follow) which show walking on the boardwalk and sitting in the plaza, next to the public market where food can be purchased, and sitting on the secondary planter ledge benches, which parallel the boardwalk and view out to the river, were very popular activities. Man y of these people sitting were usually eating food as well. Viewing the river was a purpose for 35% of the respondents. Fro m the activity observations, it was noted that many of the people sitting in the plaza, would adjust their chairs to orient their views towards the river.  People would also lean on the rail at the edge of the boardwalk, with their views to the river.  O f the respondents, 29% reported that relaxing was a purpose for visiting the Quay. Thi s purpose is consistent with the large numbers of people sitting and the purpose of viewing the river. Entertaining children was also a popular purpose at Westminster Quay for 35% of the respondents. Thi s activity is largely due to the "Expo Tugger" playground. Although the public market is directly adjacent to the waterfront open space at Westminster Quay, only 18% of those interviewed saw shopping as a reason for coming to the Quay. This would suggest that the people who use the open space are not the same people who use the market for their everyday shopping. Fiel d observations noted that market shoppers often walked from thei r car to the market, shopped, then walked back to their cars, with bags in hand, without ever walking on or near the boardwalk. Th e frequency o f this activity is included in the walking in the plaza data in following sections . A s reflected by the high frequency o f eating as a purpose, field observations confirmed tha t most peopl e coming out of the market to enter and use the open space were not carrying bags, but were eating or drinking food and beverages. Although there were not many people watchers (only about 6%), 18 % found meeting friends an d 6% found entertaining friends to be reasons for coming to the Quay. O f these people, many mentioned they enjoyed bringing tourists, friends and family to Westminster Quay to see the Fraser River, have something to eat, exercise and then relax. 72 u Frequency t—»• C CD oo c cr o • a O) 3 o^ 1st Tim e Once i n 5  Year s Once i n 3  Year s Once i n 1  Year 1 t o 5  Time s a Year 6 t o 1 0 Time s a Yea r 11 t o 2 4 Time s a Yea r 25 t o 4 9 Time s a Yea r 50 t o 9 9 Time s a Yea r 100 o r Mor e Times a  Yea r -+-(XI l\5 O 3 cr (D • n o —K H -^ T3 (0 # - • • o 0) ^ Q (0 ••+ 3 5" (/> (D -^ c c 0) *< Q There were also some dog walkers at Westminster Quay. 12 % of the respondents included people who were taking their dogs for a walk along the Esplanade boardwalk. Man y of these people were part of the 18% who had walked and traveled less than 2 miles to get to the site. Som e had driven to the site from othe r municipalities to have lunch or an ice cream cone and take the dog for a walk along the boardwalk. Fro m the purpose data, clusters of numerous purposes rather than a single purpose explained why people had attended the open space at Westminster Quay. With regard to question four, which enquired about the frequency o f trips to Westminster Quay, it was found that very few people traveled to the site more than 50 times in a year. The majority o f the respondents either attended the site 1 to 5 times a year (as represented by 23%) or 11 to 24 times a year (as also represented by 23%) . Thi s is consistent with the municipality of residence and distance traveled data which identified tha t most people had come to the site from neighbouring municipalities. Ther e were almost equal numbers of people who had come to the site 6 to 10 times a year and once in every 5 years (with each one having about 19% frequency). As respondents were interviewed, their approximate age and sex were noted. A s a result, it was determined that the majority (42%) of the respondents were between the ages of 26 and 35. O f these people, 32% were females and 10% were males (for a total of 42%). Th e remainder of the respondents were seniors over 66 years of age (as represented by 19% who were between 66 and 75 years and 23% who were over 75 years). Almos t all of the people 66 to 75 years of age were females while the majority o f the people 75 years or older were males. Ther e were limited numbers of people aged 56 to 65 and almost nobody between the ages of 36 to 45 years, as demonstrated in Figure 5.14. Ther e were very few young adults between the ages of 1 9 and 25. Also , although children were present at the site, they were not interviewed for the reason that they were usually with a parent or grandparent who provided responses on their behalf. Childre n may not have been able to provide comprehensive answers to the questions asked. 74 SL P ft) vO Shop Frequency S c n o o i o o i o o i vO %* p v* P %* p v P v P v P tf^ 6 ^ O ^ O ^ Eat Exercise View Rive r Relax no c -i "O Mee t Friend s o w <T> Entertain Friends Entertain Children TJ O 33 o (0 "D O 3 W O W "D (T> -n 33 o W O 3 a o 3 C O (0 © —K o "1 H -* TJ o CO (D O (0 i - h 3 3 W l -H (D -n o c «< Walk Dog Watch Peopl e See Fis h From the user survey questionnaire results, the following items were found to play an important role in urban waterfront public open space: - Opportunitie s to view the river - Attraction s for children such as playgrounds - Opportunitie s to purchase food - Opportunitie s to sit or stand and relax or eat food - Opportunitie s to sit - Opportunitie s to walk and exercise, such as boardwalks Good automobile access and adequate parking facilities - Goo d pedestrian access and linkages to nearby residential and commercial areas - Pedestria n linkages to nearby public transit stops. - Place s to meet and entertain friends . - Place s to walk dogs The next section analyses how the open space is physically designed at Westminster Quay and reviews the activity data obtained through on-site participant observations . 5.9 Physica l Descriptio n o f Desig n Element s a t th e Water' s Edg e In order to be consistent in the case studies, the thesis examines the design, human behaviour and groupings of people only in the open space areas directly adjacent to the commercial/retail market components of the case study areas. At Westminster Quay, the open space directly adjacent to the market is comprised of two major components which parallel the water's edge: the Boardwalk and the Plaza (as shown in Figures 5.20, 5.21, and 5.22). Withi n each of these two realms, numerous design elements define the space and impacts how it is used. 5.9 .1 Boardwal k A boardwalk is located directly above the water's edge, parallel to the river. Thi s boardwalk forms a part of the greater Esplanade which spans most of the distance of the New Westminster waterfront, an d provides pedestrian access to the residential areas of Westminster Quay and Renaissance Square, to the west. 76 *?WH*S 3 £ ^ ^ £ i 5 £ s i £ S i # W,N* V^V^" Figure 5.2 0 Westminster  Quay: The public  open space ± Figure 5.2 1 Westminster  Quay:  Relationship  between  market,  boardwalk, plaza and  waterfront. 11 The boardwalk is 20 feet (6.56 metres) wide on average. A t some points, such as near the entry plaza and parking lot for the market (to the east) and near the main southern entry to the market, the boardwalk widens to up to 50 feet (16.40 metres) (as shown in Figure 5.20). Wher e the boardwalk widens, it extends further out  over the water's edge. Directl y beneath the boardwalk, the foreshore is built-up with rip-rap consisting of medium-sized (10 inch diameter) rock. Onl y at low tide can the rip-rap be seen from the boardwalk. Th e remainder of the time, the boardwalk hangs over the water, giving people a sense of being on the water. The boardwalk is constructed of 12 inch (30.48 cm) wooden boards laying perpendicular to the water's edge, in much the same fashion as many piers. A s people walk along the boardwalk, you can hear each footstep o n the wood. Ever y 50 feet (16.40 metres) or so, large bronze coins have been glued onto the surface of the wood, for architectural interest. It is quite humorous to watch how many people try to pick these coins up, then realize they are securely glued to the boardwalk. The boardwalk is bounded on the waterfront side by a railing and on the market side by a linear concrete ledge and landscape planter which separates the plaza from the boardwalk. There is no primary seating (benches, etc.) located on the boardwalk. A s a result, most activities occuring on the boardwalk, such as walking, jogging, walking a dog, bicycling, or wheelchairing, are active rather than passive. Som e passive activities also take place, such as standing and leaning on the rail at the edge of the boardwalk. Man y people use the ledge of the planter which separates the boardwalk from the plaza, as a place to sit and enjoy the view or eat food. Although the boardwalk forms part of the greater Esplanade, and is owned by the City of New Westminster (ie. the public), the managers of the market perform daily maintenance of the boardwalk, such as garbage collection and security. 78 R A l U h ^ Wtt.AKf* FKgrMMiMARY 4,K2:-rcM  FL-AlO  vie w Figure 5.2 2 Westminster  Quay:  Plan  view  of  public  open  space. Figure 5.2 4 Westminster  Quay:  The  Boardwalk. Figure 5.2 5 Westminster  Quay:  Activities  on  the  Boardwalk. 80 5 .9 .2 Plaz a A plaza area is located between the boardwalk and the market. Thi s plaza serves the dual purposes of providing access from th e boardwalk/Esplanade to the market and providing market users with a place to sit, relax and enjoy the waterfront rive r view, eat, drink coffe e or watch entertainment (when it is programmed). The plaza is elevated by three steps from th e boardwalk, which results in a difference in height of approximately 1 8 inches (45 cm). Thi s difference alon g with the landscaped planter (which separates the plaza from the boardwalk) creates a noticeable transition between the plaza and the boardwalk. Sinc e most of the plaza users were often eating food, it would appear as though they from inside the market. Ther e were usually very few people sitting or standing in the plaza who were not eating food. Thi s would suggest that people get a sense that the plaza is for market users, while the boardwalk, is for the general public. Most of the activities taking place in the plaza were passive, such as sitting, eating food, sun tanning or watching views of the river and people on the boardwalk. Peopl e love to watch people. Sinc e the plaza is elevated, it provides an excellent opportunity for people watching. The plaza surface materials consist of exposed aggregate bounded by brick pavers. Bot h have a grey colour. Betwee n the market and the boardwalk, the plaza is triangular in shape and ranges in width from 1 5 feet (4.92 metres) to 40 feet (13.12 metres) (as shown in Figures 5.22 , 5.2 6 an d 5.27) . The plaza is filled with many primary seating opportunities. Ther e are both movable and fixed chairs and tables, to accommodate market users for the most part On e gets the sense of being in a streetside bistro cafe in the plaza area. Th e plaza is not publicly owned but is owned and maintained by the managers of the market The plaza extends around the east side of the market, to act as the gateway and main entrance to the market. Thi s portion of the plaza is used most frequently by people walking to and from th e parking and the market A t the edge of this entry plaza, there are a few decorative concrete bollards which separate cars from the plaza and house ground lighting. Occasionally, people use these bollards as a place to sit 81 oo to &OA^XM^O^ /£TKxE tfV.riTi,nPTT^^T"""J/ilSj:=:uaciMC^^ I Figure 5.2 3 Westminster  Quay:  Cross-section  view of  public  open  space. Figure 5.2 6 Westminster Quay:  Integration  and transition of  boardwalk  and  -plaza. Figure 5.2 7 Westminster  Quay:  Pavement  of  plaza. 83 Within the plaza between the boardwalk and market, and the entry plaza, there are various sculptures and public art, which create thematic visual interest and provide secondary seating opportunities. 5.9 .3 Railin g At the river side of the boardwalk, running parallel to the boardwalk, is a continuous metal rail, which keeps people from falling into the water. Th e rail is painted with white cross pieces and powder blue posts, which enhances a nautical theme. Ever y 20 feet (6.56 metres) along the rail, there is a lamp standard, also painted in the white and powder blue nautical colours. Hangin g planters, in pairs, hang from som e of the lamp posts. A popular activity on the boardwalk is to lean on the rail and watch the river activity. Th e rail is the closest people can get to the water. The y cannot touch the water, but they can feel close to the water. 5.9 .4 Seatin g There is no primary seating located on the boardwalk. However , the ledge of the planter which separates the boardwalk from the plaza provides excellent secondary seating. Th e observation results, which are examined in the next section, discovered that sitting on this ledge is the most popular activity at Westminster Quay. Occasionally , some people could be seen sitting on the floor of the boardwalk, next to the rail, which is the closest seating to the water. On the other hand, there is a considerable amount of primary seating but little secondary seating, located in the plaza, as shown in Figures 5.30 and 5.31. O f these primary seats, there are both fixed an d movable seating. Th e fixed seating consists of two large picnic tables and benches. The remainder of the seating is movable and consists of round bistro tables and umbrellas, with four chairs per table. Th e coffee an d yogurt shops often put extra chairs out, which people move around all over the plaza. O n some days, these chairs can even be seen on the boardwalk. Ther e are no distinct patterns of the movable tables and chairs. Eac h day, they 84 rrr; . <!>.- -Blchi'n S^z'-^O: . > . t - ^ , *&& Mi Figure 5.3 0 Westminster  Quay:  Primary  fixed seating  on  immobile  picnic table and  benches  in the  plaza. Figure 5.3 1 Westminster  Quay:  Primary  movable  seating on  plastic  bistro chairs and tables  in the  plaza. 85 were arranged differently; som e days there were more, some days there were less. B y the end of any given day, they were in totally different arrangement s than the way they started in the morning. Most of the people occupying the chairs and tables in the plaza were usually eating something, which suggests that they were inside the market and purchased food. Durin g lunch and dinner hours (more so lunch hours), the tables and chairs in the plaza were usually fully occupied, and the ledge along the boardwalk was also full with people sitting and eating. Only a few secondary seating opportunities exist in the Plaza. Thes e are found on the two wooden bollards and the bronze cannon statue. Sittin g on top of these items was a favorite spot for having photographs taken. Childre n and the odd adult also enjoyed playing and sitting on the decorative Bell Buoy, which is located near the entry portion of the Plaza. 5.9 .5 Lightin g There are two types of lighting present in the plaza and boardwalk. Alon g the rail of the boardwalk and in the landscaped planter which separates the boardwalk from the plaza, posts with two decorative hanging lamps are located every 20 feet (6.56 metres). Hangin g from these lamp posts are pairs of hanging planters. Th e lamp posts and shades are painted white and powder blue and the nautical theme of the site. In the plaza and along the steps which take people from the boardwalk up to the plaza, there are wooden and concrete decorative bollards which have ground lights built into them. These bollards are also located along the edge of the plaza, near the parking lot to the east of the market. At night, the shaded lamps hanging from th e lamp posts in combination with the bollard ground lights produce a subdued, indirect soft light, whic h may not be comfortable fo r people who fear the dark. Th e lighting creates the same effect one might have felt on the old industrial docks of the Pacific Coast Terminal which previously inhabited the site. 86 Figure 5.2 8 Westminster  Quay:  Railing  and  lamp  standard. 87 Figure 5.2 9 Westminster  Quay: the planter  ledge. Ground level  bollard lighting and  sitting  on 88 . . . . - \ .„• ; .  v  • * *  • & & * "tr^rii: Tir**^ I If I'M * • • • £ IS'-' Figure 5.3 2 Westminster Quay: Exposed aggregate  concrete garbage receptacle next to planter ledge  along  edge of boardwalk. W Figure 5.3 3 Westminster  Quay:  Public  art and  history  reflected  in an  old cannon taken  from a  historic  exploration  ship. 89 5.9 .6 Garbag e Receptacle s All servicing and garbage bins for the market are located out of public view, on the north side of the market, along Quayside Drive. I n the open space between the market and the water's edge, there are garbage receptacles located on each side of the steps which pass between the boardwalk and plaza. Thes e receptacles are built of exposed aggregate, which matches the plaza floor. However , there are few of these garbage cans which often result s in people leaving their garbage on the tables or ledge along the boardwalk. 5.9 .7 Publi c Ar t &  Histor y There are numerous pieces of public art and history in this open space area which compliment the nautical river theme of the open space. O n the western portion of the boardwalk there is a large bronze statue of Simon Fraser. I n the plaza between the boardwalk and the market there are two bronze cannons replicating those which were found on a British military ship which protected the Fraser River during colonial times at Fort Langley, B.C . At the eastern part of the open space, there is a large Bell Buoy in the entry plaza, on which kids enjoy playing (as shown in Figure 5.36). O n the boardwalk, at the eastern end, there is a kiosk in the shape of a wheel house from a n old tug boat, which accommodates the tour boat ticket and information outlet . The most prominent and fun piece of public art is the "Expo Tugger" playground, which was once set-up at Expo '86. Th e "Tugger" consists of the superstructure and wheel house of a large tug boat. Bot h outside and in, children and adults can turn dials, crank reels, adjust knobs, move levers and imagine they are the captain of the ship. Th e "Tugger" provides history, fun and imagination all into one, while providing an active recreation component which enhances the nautical theme of the open space. Th e Tugger can be seen in Figures 5.34 and 5.35. 5.9 .8 View s an d Visua l Interes t As well as all the on land activities of the Tugger playground, the market, the plaza and the boardwalk, there are also many things to watch on the river. Directl y in front o f the boardwalk, on the water, is a small wharf which accommodates RivTow's tug boats. 90 Westminster Quay:  Expo  Tugger playground, front  view. Figure 5.3 5 Westminster  Quay:  Expo  Tugger,  side  view. 91 Often the tug boat operators would leave their radios on full volume, adding a working waterfront componen t to the site. Also , views of tug boats chugging along towing barges and log booms, further enhances the ambiance of the working waterfront. View s of freighters being loaded at the Surrey Docks, across the river, can also be seen. Occasionally, a speed boat or jet ski riders will pass by the site, and sometimes even put on a bit of a show for people on the boardwalk. Th e excitement of the sound of their engines is always bound to turn a few heads and get people to walk over to the rail to get a closer look. At the east end of the site, there are two paddle-wheeler river boats which take people on tours of the river. O n the west end of the site, the Samson V, an old paddle-wheeler, is docked and serves as a nautical museum showcasing the history of the Fraser River. In addition to these unintentional components of visual interest, programmed events and entertainment occur in the open space from time to time. Th e market programs entertainers, such as the Soul Survivors reggae band, to play in the plaza on summer weekends. Th e occasional carnival and festivals such as the Fraser River Festival and the Hyack Festival also take place in the open space at Westminster Quay. I n each case, these events and entertainment enhance the experience one has when visiting the water's edge. 5.9 .9 Su n Angle s an d Shad e Due to its southeastern exposure, the site enjoys sunlight from sunrise until early evening (in the summer). Th e site would probably benefit from more sunlight in the evening if the Inn at the Quay hotel, directly to the west of the site, was not built out over the river and obstructing the site's evening sun. Throughout the day, many people escape the sun by sitting in the Tugger playground or by sitting in parts of the plaza which are shaded from the sun by the shape of the market. Often, people will move the chairs around in the plaza, to find a spot that enjoys either greater sun or greater shade. Th e bistro umbrellas of the plaza also provide limited amounts of shade. 92 Figure 5.3 6 Westminster Quay:  Street  musician performing in  front  of  old  bellbuoy which provides  a  place  for children to sit or  play. Figure 5.3 7 Westminster  Quay:  Rivtow  wharf  in  front  of  the  boardwalk. 93 Figure 5.3 8 Westminster  Quay:  Signage  in  a  maritime river theme. 94 5.9 .10 Them e an d Characte r As demonstrated by all of the design elements discussed so far, the open space at Westminster Quay has a distinct nautical theme and character. Thi s theme is defined to celebrate the Fraser River, as reflected by the Expo Tugger playground, the Simon Fraser statue, the bronze cannon and the Samson V paddle-wheeler and is successful i n tying the different component s of the site together. 5.10 Analysi s an d Observation s In order to determine who uses open space at the water's edge and how they use it, data and observations examining human behaviour, using the methodology described in section 4.6 of the previous chapter, were collected. T o collect a representative cross-section of data, observation periods took place at different hour s of the day, on weekdays and weekends. T o be consistent, all observations were taken on sunny days during the summer months when daylight hours are at a maximum and the largest number of people use outdoor open space. Rathe r than comparing total numbers of activities and groupings, relative frequencies o f each activity and grouping were calculated for each observation period in order to limit external factors such as weather. Trend s were identified, analyzed and compared for overall, weekend and weekday observations. 5 .10 .1 Overal l Trend s The total number of activities and groupings for all observation periods at Westminster Quay were calculated. Fro m this number, relative frequencies of each activity and grouping were calculated as percentages of the total. Activitie s and groupings were then ranked from highes t to lowest in frequency. Figur e 5.39 illustrates these frequencies . Throughout the following analysis , these frequencies ar e noted in parentheses. 5 .10 .1 .1 Activities : Ho w th e Spac e i s Use d In ranking the activities, five distinct trends emerged from the data. Sittin g accounted fo r almost half of all activities as reflected by Primary Sitting in the Plaza (23%) and Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk (22%). Walking , as noted by Walking on the Boardwalk (15%) and Walking in the Plaza (13%), was the second most frequent activity . Passiv e activities such as Standing Stationary (8%) and Leaning on the Rail (6%) were the 95 Westminster Qua y Overall Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Activitie s 25% T 20% £ 15 % + CD 5% 0% § '3 " * 0 0 T 3 DO a •a oo S Figure 5.3 9 .3 o ia oo oo n 3 a, M-g .3 TO a 3 o O O TO "3 < oo '?> TO O O c o Activity £ " T3 C 3 O VH oo TO NWOverall Char t i next identifiable group. Anothe r group included Adults Pushing Strollers (3%), Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground (3%) , Kids Playing in the Playground (2%), an d Biking (2%). Th e most infrequent activitie s were Wheelchairing (0.6%) and Walking Dogs (0.4%) . 5 .10 .1 .2 Sittin g Primary Sitting in the Plaza (23%) and Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk (22%) accounted for almost half of all activities taking place in the open space at Westminster Quay. Thi s pattern is consistent with Cooper Marcus, who suggests that seating space is the most important design element in plaza use (Cooper Marcus, 1990:32). Whyte's studies of plazas in New York City concluded that people will sit where there are places to sit (Whyte, 1984:28). I n the waterfront open space at Westminster Quay, there is a good supply of both primary and secondary seating. I n the plaza, two fixed picnic tables, constructed of wood and exposed aggregate concrete, and numerous movable plastic bistro chairs and tables (some with umbrellas) provide many seating opportunities, and were fully occupied during most observation periods. Sinc e the plaza is located directly in front of the market, where food is sold, many people Sitting in the Plaza were eating food, therefor e causing what Whyte calls "triangulation". As will be demonstrated later in the hourly observation analysis, the number of people Sitting in the Plaza peaked at noon then declined in the late afternoon, followed by an evening peak near dinner time. Peopl e tended to move the movable chairs to the sunny areas of the plaza. Also , groups, rather than male/female pairs or singles tended to occupy the seats in the plaza. A s soon as a group would leave a table or an individual would leave a seat, the seats and tables would be quickly occupied by other people, therefore accomplishing a sense of "self-congestion". I n other words, the seating was consistently occupied at maximum effective capacity . There were little opportunities for Secondary Sitting in the Plaza, and thus the number of instances of this type of sitting activity was almost 0%. 97 Figure 5.4 0 Westminster  Quay:  Movable  chairs  in  the  plaza  moved  to  the edge of  the  plaza. Figure 5.4 1 Westminster  Quay:  Primary  movable  bistro  chairs  and  tables in the  plaza. 98 Figure 5.4 2 Westminster Quay:  Secondary  sitting on the  planter  ledge  benches. Figure 5.4 3 Westminster  Quay:  Secondary  sitting on  the  stairs and  the planter ledge  benches  at the  edge  of  the  boardwalk. 99 Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk (22%) took place on the benches along the planter ledge which separates the boardwalk from the plaza. A s with the plaza, this seating space was consistently occupied at maximum effective capacit y during eating hours. However , not everybody seated here was eating. Man y people were relaxing and watching the view of the river and people on the boardwalk. I f people sitting here were eating, ice cream and frozen yogur t were what most of them were eating. There were more male/female pairs and individuals sitting on the ledge benches than groups. A s the benches became more occupied, peoples' social space would reduce and they would sit closer together. Jus t as with the plaza seats, if a space was vacated on the benches, others would soon fill the space. Other than the secondary ledge benches, there were no primary seats located on the boardwalk. Occasionally , people would move a couple of the chairs onto the boardwalk, but this did not happen often. Durin g one observation period, there was a merry-go-round set-up on the boardwalk, which provided limited primary seating opportunities. However , both of these instances were not enough to make Primary Seating on the Boardwalk a noticeable activity. 5 .10 .1 .3 Walkin g Walking was the next most frequent activity , accounting for almost a third of all activities . Walking in the Plaza (13%) was often undertaken by people accessing the market from the boardwalk or the parking lot (or vice-versa). Thes e people would quickly pass through the plaza to reach some other destination such as the boardwalk, market or parking lot I n the entry to the market portion of the plaza, there is no seating, therefore walkers can pass through the space without visual, social or physical obstructions. However , in the portion of the plaza between the market and the boardwalk, walkers must weave their way through tables and chairs, which are often occupied by people eating. Althoug h passing through this area is more congested, it provides more excitement and the destination is the boardwalk. On the other hand, most people Walking on the Boardwalk (15%), did not visit the market but were walking only on the boardwalk, from one end to the other. Man y people would continue along the waterfront Esplanade, to the west, which provides pedestrian circulation between the commercial and residential neighbourhoods of Westminster Quay. 100 Figure 5.4 4 Westminster  Quay:  Leaning  on the  Rail. 101 The Boardwalk, which is constructed of wooden plank boards positioned perpendicular to the water's edge, i s free of any seating, garbage cans, or other street furniture, an d thus allows unobstructed walking (garbage cans, low level lighting and seating are located next to the planter on the market-side edge of the boardwalk while overhead lighting is along the rail). Th e only obstacle on the boardwalk is other people, who may be walking, standing stationary, leaning on the rail, walking a dog, riding a bike, pushing a stroller, riding a wheelchair, etc., all of which cause the pace to be slow on the boardwalk, especially during busy times. 5.10 .1 .4 Passiv e Activitie s Passive activities such as Standing Stationary (8%) and Leaning on the Rail (6%) were the next identifiable group of activities. Peopl e Standing Stationary were usually speaking with people who were sitting and eating. Som e of the people Standing Stationary were in the line-up to purchase ice cream or frozen yogur t from the window vendor on the side of the market. Thi s observation reflects Cooper Marcus' observation that people are intrigued with watching other people eat and line-up to buy food (Cooper Marcus, 1990:43-46). When people wanted to look at the river view, if they were not sitting, they tended to stand and Lean on the Rail at the edge of the boardwalk. Th e rail is the closest the public can get to the water. The y cannot touch the water (depending on the tide it can be between ten and twenty-five feet below the boardwalk) but they can get an unobstructed view of the water and the river activity while Leaning on the Rail. Mos t people Leaning on the Rail had their views focused ou t towards the river. 5.10 .1 .5 Activ e Activitie s &  Childre n The more active activities of Adults Pushing Strollers (3%), Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground (3%) , Kids Playing in the Playground (2%) and Biking (2%) were the next discernible group of activities. I t is interesting that all of these activities usually involved children and adults. Also , the fact that there were more adults than children in the playground on average, would suggest that possibly two adults (parents or otherwise) were watching each child. Th e "Expo Tugger" playground, located on the eastern edge of the boardwalk, provides lots of excitement for kids and adults alike. Ther e are benches inside 102 « r r-i.,i.»I. M.,, ^SSSSSSBBkdAiM  Am>m , . , « » . *'«a^Sr'''»*«* * ^'"yjy^puwff^B Figure 5.4 5 Westminster  Quay:  Pushing  strollers  on the boardwalk. 103 and large unglazed open windows on the front and sides of the Tugger so adults/parents can enjoy good visual access to their children when they are playing in the Tugger playground. The low frequency Bikin g could be attributed firstly to the fact that there is only one small set of bike racks, which are located far away from the water's edge, out of view, near the front of the market. A s a result, cyclists park their bikes on the rail which blocks the view of the river for boardwalk and plaza users. Secondly , although the Esplanade connects the residential portions of Westminster Quay to the boardwalk near the market, the site is separated from the remainder of New Westminster by the railway tracks. Th e at-grade crossing of the tracks at the foot of Begbie Street does not provide safe access for bicyclist , since three sets of tracks must be crossed and bikes are integrated with automobile traffic a t the crossing. Questionnair e results found that people riding their bikes to the site tended to have traveled from residences in the nearby Westminster Quay residential neighbourhood. 5 .10 .1 .6 Wheelchair s &  Walkin g Dog s The least frequent activities taking place in the open space at Westminster Quay were Wheelchairing (0.6%) and Walking Dogs (0.4%). Th e low frequency o f Wheelchairing could be the result of the same barriers to access caused by the railway as were experienced by cyclists. Also , most people in wheelchairs were located on the boardwalk or entry plaza, which are both easily accessible from the parking lot, without level changes. Fe w or no wheelchairs were seen in the plaza between the market and the boardwalk, probably because due to the stairs which separate the boardwalk from the plaza here, and because there are many obstacles including tables and chairs within this plaza. There were very few people Walking Dogs (0.4%) at Westminster Quay. Thi s is also probably due to the limited pedestrian access. Th e residential neighbourhoods near Westminster Quay are predominately low and medium rise apartments in which pets are not permitted. However , after asking a number of the people walking dogs where they lived, the majority lived in Westminster Quay, and had walked to the site along the Esplanade. 104 Figure 5.4 6 Westminster  Quay:  Wheelchairing. Figure 5.4 7 Westminster  Quay:  Biking  on  the  boardwalk. 105 Figure 5.4 8 Westminster Quay:  Walking  dogs on the  boardwalk. Figure 5.4 9 Westminster  Quay:  Feeding  frozen yogurt  to  the  dog  on the planter ledge  seating. 106 5.10 .1 .7 Groupings ; Wh o Use s th e Spac e The overall numbers for all observation periods at Westminster Quay identified fou r different trend s for the groupings of people. Th e first trend involved Male/Female Pairs (Couples), the most frequent groupin g accounting for 27% of all groupings recorded. Th e next identifiable group was the Single Males making up 20% of the total. Th e third trend included Single Females (16%), Males and Females in Groups two or more people (15%) and Females in Groups of two or more (13%). Th e least frequent groupin g was Males in Groups of two or more (9%). Figur e 5.50 illustrates the frequency o f groupings for all observation periods. Although the frequency numbers yielded the trends specified above , if the rank order of groupings is analyzed, it becomes apparent that there were three sub-groups as follows: Male/Female Pairs (Couples) Singles (Male or Female) Groups of Two or More People (Males or Females or combined) 5.10 .1 .8 Single s If Single Males (20%) and Single Females (16%) are added together, singles account for 36% of all groupings using the open space at Westminster Quay. Mos t of these singles were either seniors (appearing to be over 65 years of age) or young adults (appearing to be 25 to 35 years of age). Th e seniors were often seen sitting on the easily accessible secondary seating ledges of the planter, along the edge of the boardwalk. A s well as watching the river, these people enjoyed watching people walking on the boardwalk. Th e sitting ledge was at such a height that senior singles could comfortably sit-down and get-up without difficulties. Also , to get to these benches from th e parking lot or Esplanade, there is no change in grade or stairs for seniors to encounter. In the evening hours, after 6:00 p.m., a sub-group consisting of a few senior single males inhabited the space. Thes e men appear to be poor and homeless, by their appearance and the shopping buggies full of pop cans, garbage bags and second hand goods that many of them have at their side. O n any evening at least one of these people could be seen, usually sitting on the ledge along the planter at the edge of the boardwalk, which makes a 107 Westminster Qua y Overall Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s 30% T 25% - -20% -  ~ >» o C a> =J 15 % -  * cr a) > _ u_ 10% -5% -0% ^ — ^ ] — I — ' i — i — F ' — I — ! - i — I — ' • • • j  1  i~~~~~~~——i Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Groupings Figure 5.50 comfortable place to sit or lay down and relax (or sleep). Thes e single men keep to themselves and usually do not even talk to one another. I n his study of Seagram's Plaza in New York City, Whyte found that when open spaces are not used extensively is when the sub-group he calls "undesirables", inhabit the space (Whyte, 1980:68). Young adult singles were often seen riding bikes or jogging on the boardwalk. Man y young adults could also be seen sitting on the seating ledges of the planter and on the stairs which separate the boardwalk from the plaza. Often , as these people were sitting here, they were also eating. Occasionally , by the looks of their uniforms, some of these people appeared to be market employees taking breaks from their jobs. Som e of the young adult singles were walking dogs along the boardwalk. 5.10 .1 .9 Male/Femal e Pair s If analyzed individually, Male/Female Pairs (Couples) were the most frequent grouping , accounting for 27% o f all groupings. Accordin g to Whyte, the best plazas and open spaces are ones which are full of couples and groups, which as a result, attract more individuals (Whyte, 1980: 17). Th e large number of Male/Female Pairs (Couples) using the waterfront open space at Westminster Quay appears to accomplish this condition. Most of the Male/Female Pairs were either walking along the boardwalk or sitting in the plaza between the market and the boardwalk. Th e ones who were sitting were usually eating and would occupy a table that was designed to seat four people, therefore under utilizing the space. However , other singles, groups and Male/Female Pairs would ofte n ask Male/Female Pairs sitting at tables in the plaza if they could use extra chairs, since these chairs are movable. The majority of the Male/Female Pairs consisted of males and females who were close in age. Th e age of Male/Female Pairs ranged between 25 and 75 years of age (the user survey data in previous sections explained the age profile in more detail). Ther e were also a few instances where a Male/Female Pair consisted of a mother and son or a father and daughter. The sons and daughters were usually, but not always children. Youn g children were being pushed in strollers or buggies by adults. 109 5.10.1.10 Group s For the purposes of this thesis, a group means either two or more males together, two or more females together or males and females together in a group of at least three people. If all groups are totaled together, Males/Females in Groups (15%), Females in Groups (13%) and Males in Groups (9%) made-up a total of 37% of all groupings. A s with the couples, this large number of groups, is consistent with Whyte's analysis that the best open spaces are ones in which there are many Male/Female Pairs and groups. However , if each group type is analyzed individually, the frequencies of each group are much smaller. There were more Females in Groups (13%) than Males in Groups (9%). Th e number of Females in Groups (13%) was almost the same as the number of Males/Females in Groups (15%). Th e majority of Males in Groups consisted of male pairs. Ther e were very few groups of males that were greater than two people. O n the other hand, the Females in Groups consisted largely of three or more females together. Often , these female groups would be intergenerational as represented by what appeared to be a grandmother, mother and daughter (who was a child); or a mother and two daughters (all adults). Ther e were also many groups of female seniors in groups of two or three. Thes e intergenerational and (senior) female groups seemed to be more frequent on weekdays than weekends, as reflected by the differences between the patterns shown in Figures 5.57,5.58 and 5.59 (on pages 120 to 122). Most Females in Groups were either Walking on the Boardwalk or Sitting in the Plaza. The female groups Sitting in the Plaza were often eating. Most Males in Groups were between the ages of 25 and 55. Male s within any given group were often of the same age. I n a few instances, a male group consisted of a father and son (who is a child). Thi s type of group was more prevalent on weekdays than weekends as reflected in Figures 5.57, 5.58 and 5.59. Most Males in Groups were either Walking on the Boardwalk or sitting on chairs, which they had moved to the edge of the plaza, in the plaza between the market and the boardwalk. Thes e male groups, often consisting of two males were usually not eating but engaged in a conversation while looking out towards the river. 110 Males/Females in Groups accounted for 15 % of all groupings. Thes e groups usually consisted of families with either one or two parents (male or female) and at least one or more children. Man y of these groups were also made-up of seniors with either two male/female pairs , or a male and two females or female and two males. I n all cases, groups were usually seen sitting in the plaza eating, and often overcrowding the tables (designed for four people) with extra movable chairs; or were walking slowly along the boardwalk. In both cases, these groups would act as obstacles taking-up much of the space in the plaza and boardwalk. The y caused a sense of self-congestion by creating visual excitement for people watchers, while slowing the pace of the boardwalk and plaza. Males/Females in Groups were more frequent on weekends than weekdays, as reflected b y the patterns in Figures 5.57, 5.58 and 5.59. 5 .10 .2 Weeken d Versu s Weekda y Trend s In addition to the overall trends for all observation periods, different trends emerged when comparing the weekday and weekend observations. Th e majority o f these differences too k place in the sitting and walking activities, and to a lesser degree in the passive and a few of the active activities. A s well, there were differences i n the groupings of people using the open space in almost all of the categories of groupings. Figure s 5.51, 5.52, 5.53, 5.54, 5.57,5.58 and 5.59 compare the overall, weekday and weekend trends and illustrate these differences. The total number of activities for all observation periods at Westminster Quay was 2,971. Of this number, 2,025 activities took place during the weekend observation periods while 946 took place on weekdays. I n relative terms, weekend activities accounted for 68% of all activities, while weekday activities accounted for 32%, which is close to a two-thirds/one-third split. Thi s weekend increase was probably due to the fact that people have more recreation time available on weekends. Th e overall two-thirds/one-third spli t does not reflect the outcome of the way the space is designed, since it does not compare individual activities or design elements, but simply is a total, which represents overall usage and attendance in the open space on a weekday versus a weekend. I l l z\\ rt> Frequency > o <" •< Primary Sittin g on Boardwal k Primary Sittin g in Plaz a Secondary Sittin g on Boardwal k Secondary Sittin g in Plaz a Walking o n Boardwal k Walking in Plaz a Standing Stationar y Leaning on Rai l Biking Walking Dog s Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playgroun d Adults Watching/Playing i n Playgroun d _ i _ i |V J o u i o -•8 v j x ? o^ o ^ o ^ CO C O -P -O O l o "-S ^ S "- S o o 3-o 0) - 1 to o 3 o •n CD n c CD 1 O •< o > o ! - • < p + CD to O < —i 0> —— < CD to c to £ CD CD 7? a. u> 0) 3 Q. ^ CP CD * • CD 3 a CD to 3 13 to CD D c 05 < I I ? (D (D TT (D 3 Q . m ? CD CD 7? a. tu *< D o CD -* G) _ Westminster Qua y Overall Versu s Weekda y Weeken d Comparison o f Frequenc y o f Activitie s HHH^HHHHHI Primary Sittin g o n Boardwal k Primary Sittin g i n Plaz a Secondary Sittin g o n Boardwal k Secondary Sittin g i n Plaz a Walking o n Boardwal k Walking i n Plaz a Standing Stationar y Leaning o n Rail Biking Walking Dog s Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playin g i n Playgroun d Adults Watching/Playin g i n Playgrou n ;|li|i||||||li 2% 23% 22% 0% 15% 13% 8% 6% 2% 0% 1% 3% 2% 3% iiiiiiiiiiii:!:; 0% 36% 15% 0% 14% 15% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 3% iiillllillliill 3% 13% 25% 0% 15% 12% 10% 7% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2% 3% Figure 5.5 2 NWOAComp HI t -»* CJQ C 0> en In Frequency > o •-+ <" I-H s Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sittin g in Plaza Secondary Sittin g on Boardwal k Secondary Sittin g in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza en o i o en o CO en o .a * < ^ £ >  ° O B  » - ®  < D > s o ^ - o ™ o ' c < 3  » rt. * < 5" " 0 to o —t o Q. Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sittin g on Boardwalk Secondary Sittin g in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground 5.10 .2 .1 Activitie s By comparing the frequency o f individual activities taking place on weekdays versus weekends, difference s becam e apparent. Mos t differences involve d sitting and walking activities, but could also be seen in the passive (such as Standing Stationary and Leaning on the Rail) and some of the active activities (primarily Biking). 5 .10 .2 .2 Sittin g The greatest differences occurre d in Sitting in the Plaza. O n weekdays, this activity accounted for 36% of all activities, but then decreased to only 16% on weekends. Thi s decrease was attributed to the fact that on weekdays, most people attending the open space had come to Westminster Quay not just to enjoy the open space but to shop in the market, as was evident by the grocery bags they were carrying and because they would travel through the open space to access the market. Almos t all of the people sitting in the plaza were eating food, especially in the noon and afternoon observatio n periods. Man y of these people were either Singles or Females in Groups, and appeared as though they were taking an outdoor meal break from the hustle and bustle of the indoor market. Som e of these people appeared to be market staff by the looks of their uniforms. The next greatest difference wa s in the frequency o f Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk. The frequency o f this activity increased from 15 % on weekdays to 25% on weekends. Al l of the increase in this activity took place on the ledge benches, along the landscaped concrete planter at the edge of the boardwalk. A s with Sitting in the Plaza, most of the people seated on the ledge on weekdays were eating food and appeared to have come out of the market. However , on weekends, as was also reflected by the small increase in the number of people Walking on the Boardwalk, most people sitting on the ledge were relaxing and watching the river and other people on the boardwalk. A  few of these people were eating ice cream or frozen yogurt and some were drinking coffee . 116 Figure 5.5 5 Westminster  Quay:  Secondary  sitting  on  the  boardwalk  floor. Figure 5.5 6 Westminster  Quay:  Primary  seating  in  the  plaza. Ill 5 .10 .2 .3 Walkin g The frequency o f Walking on the Boardwalk remained consistent with a slight 1% increase on weekends from 14 % on weekdays to 15% on weekends. A t the same time, Walking in the Plaza experienced a decrease in frequency from 15 % on weekdays to 12% on weekends, making it a less frequent activity than Walking on the Boardwalk on weekends. Less people used the plaza as an access route to the market on weekends. Instead , more walkers had come to the site to see the river and walk along the boardwalk and Esplanade. Questionnaire results were consistent with this conclusion by indicating that many of the people who attend the open space at Westminster Quay on weekends did so to relax, to exercise and to see the river (Figure 5.19 on page 75 demonstrates the questionnaire results which yielded this trend). Th e boardwalk and the ledge seating along the edge of the boardwalk provide opportunities for these activities to take place. 5 .10 .2 .4 Passiv e Activitie s The two passive activities of Standing Stationary and Leaning on the Rail experienced increases in frequency o n weekends. Standin g Stationary doubled in frequency fro m 5% on weekdays to 10% on weekends. Thi s increase took place in the plaza and on the boardwalk. I n the plaza, most of the standees were standing next to a table where part of their group was sitting and eating. O n the boardwalk, standees were usually standing in the middle of the boardwalk, either involved in a conversation, looking at the river view or watching their children (if they had children in their group). Som e people standing on the boardwalk were standing next to the ledge seating at the edge of the boardwalk, where their spouse or someone in their group was sitting. 5 .10 .2 .5 Activ e Activitie s Biking experienced a slight increase in frequency o n weekends while Walking Dogs and Wheelchairing experienced slight decreases. Biking increased from only 1% frequency o n weekdays to 3% on weekends. Mos t cyclists on weekends appeared to enter the site from the Esplanade, to the west, which would suggest that they either lived in the residential portion of Westminster Quay, or they entered Westminster Quay on the less congested overpasses which cross the railway at Mclnnes Avenue and Third Avenue. 118 The frequency o f Walking Dogs decreased from 1 % on weekdays to almost 0% on weekends. Walkin g dogs was more frequent o n weekday evenings, as demonstrated in Figures 5.51 and 5.53 and Appendices A.1 and A.2. I n like manner, Wheelchairing decreased from 1 % on weekdays to almost 0% on weekends. I n both cases, the scale of the boardwalk and the plaza became tighter when the space was crowded with slow moving people on weekends. Thi s self-congested environmen t results in various obstacles for people in wheelchairs and walking dogs. A s a result, less of these activities occurred on weekends. 5 .10 .2 .6 Activitie s Involvin g Childre n The three activities involving children experienced no change in frequency betwee n weekdays and weekends, but remained constant. However , groupings of adults and children appeared to shift from a  majority o f young mothers with babies on weekdays, to fathers, mothers and children of ages 1 to 12 on weekends. Thi s shift is reflected in the decrease in the frequency o f Females in Groups from 14 % on weekdays to 12% on weekends and the increase in frequency o f Males/Females in Groups from 22% on weekdays to 30% on weekends. O n both weekdays and weekends, there were more adults than children in the Expo Tugger playground. However , on weekdays, there were more mothers (or female guardians) in the playground, while on weekends there were both mothers and fathers (or female and male guardians) in the playground. 5.10 .2 .7 Grouping s Various differences i n the data also became apparent when comparing the frequency of groupings on weekdays versus weekends. Th e greatest differences involve d Singles, Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females in Groups. 119 Westminster Qua y Overall Versu s Weekda y &  Weekend Comparison o f Frequenc y o f Grouping s K1 Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2 ) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Figure 5.5 7 Grouping 25% 20% - -15% -10% 5% 0% Single Males Westminster Qua y Weekday Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Grouping Figure 5.5 8 GNWWcckday Chart 1 to to 30% 25% 20% + o c <D 3 15 % d> 10% 5% 0% Single Males Westminster Qua y Weekend Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s Single Females Males in Groups (>2) »\, v ^ ^ • ^ - A ^ « ^ Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Grouping Figure 5.5 9 GNWWcckcnd Chart 1 5.10 .2 .8 Single s On weekdays, Singles (both male and female totaled together) accounted for 43% of the groupings. O f this number, 24% were Single Males and 19% were Single Females. A s mentioned in the "Overall for All Observation Periods" section of this chapter, many of these Singles were either between the ages of 25 and 35, or were seniors. However , on weekends, the frequency o f Singles decreased to 35%. Th e number of Single Males (18%) and Single Females (17%) was almost the same on weekends. Th e majority o f the decrease in frequency o f Singles was in Single Males, decreasing by 6%. 5 .10 .2 .9 Male/Femal e Pair s an d Group s At the same time, the frequency o f Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females in Groups largely increased. Male/Femal e Pairs increased by 8%, from 22% on weekdays to 30% on weekends. Males/Female s in Groups increased by 10%, from 9 % on weekdays to 19% on weekends. Mos t of the weekend Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females in Groups were either Sitting in the Plaza and eating, or were Walking on the Boardwalk. Som e of the weekend Male/Female Pairs were sitting on the ledge next to the boardwalk. Man y of the weekend Males/Females in Groups were families with young children. Often , a grandparent or senior would be included in these family groups . Othe r weekend groups consisted of two Male/Female Pairs. Som e weekend groups consisted of either two senior females with a senior male or two senior males with a senior female. However , this type of senior group was more prominent on weekdays. Males/Female s in Groups were also largely comprised of mothers (or female guardians) with male and female children on weekdays. Contrary to the increase in the frequency o f Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females in Groups, the frequency o f Males in Groups and Females in Groups decreased on weekends. Male s in Groups decreased from 12 % on weekdays to 7% on weekends, while Females in Groups decreased from 14 % on weekdays to 12 % weekends. Th e decrease in the number of Males in Groups (and the decrease in the number of Single Males) on weekends suggests that either less males attend the open space on weekends, or if they do attend, they do so with females in Male/Female Pairs or groups. 123 5.11 Summar y The New Westminster Quay case study uncovered various lessons. I n addition to reviewing the design and use of the waterfront ope n space at Westminster Quay, the case study pointed out other factors which also effected use . A  review of the current policies which regulate waterfront redevelopment in New Westminster proved that there are currently no design policies which guide the development of waterfront ope n space. The New Westminster waterfront has a long history involving industrial uses. A s industrial buildings became old and less viable due to technological advances and relocation of some industries, large tracts of under used waterfront land became available. Ne w Westminster seized the opportunity to redevelop these lands. T o accommodate the process of change, a joint venture established between the City and the British Columbia Development Corporation (BCDC - a provincial crown corporation), which was called the First City Development Corporation (FCCDC), was an effective mean s for acquiring the large tracts of dilapidated waterfront land and to redevelop these lands with a mix of residential, commercial and public open space uses. A s redevelopment occurred, a strip of land parallel to the water's edge was dedicated for park and public access to the waterfron t and was developed into what is called the Esplanade. New Westminster's municipal policies are consistent with the FCCDC principles regarding dedicating the water's edge for public access, as reflected in various municipal policy goals and objectives. Thes e policy statements have provided a strong basis for achieving public access to the waterfront and pedestrian linkages to waterfront ope n spaces. However , nowhere in the policy framework is there mention of design principles regarding how the space should be designed or what purposes the space should serve, therefore providing the rational for this study. From the case study, it was found that access to the waterfront ope n space was crucial to the way the space was used. Westminste r Quay, although providing a continuous open space parallel to the water's edge which links the waterfront residentia l neighbourhoods to the commercial market, had poor access for pedestrians coming from outside  of the Quay neighbourhood. Th e railway crossing provided a barrier to pedestrian and automobile access. Th e design techniques implemented to cross this barrier were ineffective. Th e pedestrian bridge overpass of the railway had too many steps for people, including seniors citizens, the physically challenged, bicyclists and people pushing children in strollers, to 124 climb. A s well, the at-grade railway crossing at the foot of Begbie Street did little to protect the pedestrians from the automobiles and trains. A s a result, the number of people who had used pedestrian means to access the open space was small, as reflected by the user survey questionnaire results. Thes e same results, and the consistently filled parking lot determined that the majority of open space users had accessed the site by automobile. However, even automobiles were faced by the constraints posed by the (often congested) railway crossings. Th e majority of open space users who had accessed the site by pedestrian means, had come from the adjacent waterfront neighbourhoods, by means of the Esplanade. The waterfront open space at Westminster Quay was dominated by two overall design features: the boardwalk, and; the plaza. Th e boardwalk provided the edge along the waterfront, while the plaza provided the linkage and transition between the built form edge and the waterfront boardwalk. Th e land-based plaza was surfaced with the solid materials of exposed aggregate concrete and brick pavers while the water-based boardwalk was surfaced with wood, a softer material. Withi n each of these spaces, there were various elements of design. Betwee n the two spaces, a landscaped planter with seating on its ledge (on the boardwalk side) and a few shallow steps provided a boundary and transition between the plaza and boardwalk. Thi s landscaping also provided shade opportunities and protection from wind for plaza users. Along the edge of the boardwalk, was a railing, which was the closest people could get to the water's edge. A  few primary benches (with tables) and numerous movable chairs and tables were located in the plaza. Alon g the ledge of the planter and on the steps (between the plaza and boardwalk), there were secondary seating opportunities. Ther e was sufficient lighting located on lamp standards along the waterfront rail and on bollards along the edge of the plaza. Lighting , as well as street furniture, public art and signage, all had a consistent working river theme and character, which was consistent with the industrial heritage of the New Westminster waterfront. A  playground in the shape and colours of a river tug boat provided various play opportunities for children as well as telling a story about the history of the site. Thi s playground, called the Expo Tugger, was also in keeping with the theme and character of the open space and provided a catalyst for children's and adults' imaginations. The dominant activities in the waterfront open space were walking and sitting, as determined by the frequency of activity observations. Th e boardwalk provided an excellent 125 medium for walking and was often filled with people walking. Th e user survey questionnaire results discovered that exercising was a major purpose for coming to the open space at Westminster Quay. Man y people walked through the plaza to get from th e market or the parking lot to the boardwalk. The primary benches and movable chairs in the plaza and secondary planter ledge benches along the boardwalk provided numerous seating opportunities. Movabl e chairs were brought out or put away according to seating demand. Thes e chairs were moved around the plaza frequently, to accommodate smaller or larger groups and allowing open space users to catch a better view of the water or escape or capture sunlight A s primary seats became congested, the steps and planter ledge benches provided alternative seats for many people. Man y of the people sitting were also eating food which had been purchased from the market The survey results also identified that viewing the river was a major reason for attending the space. Mos t people sitting or walking had their eyes pointed towards the river. Th e closest view of the river was obtained by the many people who would lean on the boardwalk rail, which was the closest the public could get to the water's edge. Demographic statistics demonstrated there is a critical mass residential population in the vicinity of Westminster Quay, and that the majority o f this population consists of Singles and Male/Female Pairs, living in multiple dwelling buildings (apartments and townhouses). There were very few families in this population. Th e majority o f the respondents in the user survey were either seniors over 65 years in age, or between the ages of 30 to 40. Th e grouping data pointed out there were more males than females using the open space and that the majority of the users were in Male/Female Pairs or Males/Females in Groups (together) of greater than 3 people. A s the number of Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females in Groups increased so did the number of Male Singles and Female Singles, which is consistent with Whyte's observation of New York City plazas. The Westminster Quay case study provided an excellent example for studying the process of waterfront chang e and acquisition of the water's edge for public open space uses. I t also established a  strong basis from which to compare a second case study (Steveston Landing, which will be discussed in the following chapter) and provided an example against which the findings o f the literature regarding the design of urban plazas could be made. 126 Chapter Six Case Study: Steveston Landin g 127 6.0 Cas e Study : Stevesto n Landin g 6 .1 Locatio n Steveston Landing, a small commercial development with waterfront open space and a public fish sales dock, is located on the shores of the South Arm of the Fraser River, on the edge of Cannery Channel, in the southwest corner of the City of Richmond. Figur e 6.3 shows the context of Steveston Landing in Richmond. The site of Steveston Landing lies within the historic community of Steveston, which has a heritage focused o n the river and ocean as expressed by the canneries, ship yards, maritime marine markets and the fishing boa t fleet which inhabit Steveston. Steveston Landing is bounded by Cannery Channel on the south, a gas dock and numerous canneries to the east, the Gulf of Georgia Cannery and Pacific fleet of fishing boats to the west, and the town of Steveston to the north. 6 .2 Physica l Settin g The site is located on the top of the South Arm dyke. A s redevelopment occurred, the water's edge was reinforced wit h rip rap of medium-sized rocks, in order to provide flood protection and provide habitats for fish and wildlife species. Located along the South Arm of the Fraser River, the site experiences tidal flooding and ebbing from the Georgia Strait . However , Steveston Island (also called "Shady Island"), which separates Cannery Channel from the South Arm, provides shelter and protection of the site from fluvia l erosion processes and wind coming from th e Strait. Stevesto n Island has formed over time as the result of the collection of fluvial deposits near the mouth of the South Arm and from deposit s of sand spoil dumped on the island from river dredging. Since there is no development on the island, it serves as a habitat for various bird and wildlife species. Vista Views from the site extend to the south towards Westham Island and the South Arm. To the west, distant vista views extend to the Strait of Georgia and Gulf Islands. T o the west, the site enjoys immediate views of the Pacific Fleet of fishing boats 128 Figure 6. 1 Steveston  Landing, Figure 6. 2 The  open  space at Steveston  Landing. 129 TOWNSHIP O F RICHMON D Figure 6. 3 Steveston  in  the  context  of  Richmond. (Taken from City  of  Richmond,  1992) STEVESTON OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLA N KEY MAP Richmond Plannin g Departmen t %M ' H : ''A . ^ n 'ISPS v (moored) and the Gulf of Georgia Cannery. Directl y to the east, there are immediate views of canneries and fishing boat s located along the north side of Cannery Channel. Uninterrupted southern exposure allows direct sunlight to reach the site during most daytime hours. Som e shade areas are experienced internal to the site, however, these are the result of the design of the development, not the location of the site. 6 .3 Histor y Steveston, a community which has a heritage involving the fishing industry and farming in its upland areas, is named after the pioneer, William Steves, whose father, Menoha, settled in Richmond in 1877 . B y the end of the 1800's , Steveston was the largest, most prosperous population centre in Richmond and was the location of the Lower Mainland's largest fishing port (Richmon d Planning Department, 1992 : 37). B y 1914 , there were 14 fish canneries in operation, a number of hotels, an opera house, theatre and numerous stores. Many of the original buildings of Steveston were destroyed in fires during 191 7 and 1918. Fortunately, most of the cannery buildings still exist and some buildings have been restored. A s a result, Steveston has maintained a strong sense of community, largely based on its heritage. Over the past decade, Steveston's waterfront are a has been dramatically reshaped. A s a result of the decline in the number of canneries over the past several decades and an increase in the attraction of tourists to Steveston and its waterfront, i n 1987 , the Minister of Fisheries, (past Richmond Member of Parliament) at that time Mr. Tom Siddon, presented a report by the Fisheries Department recommending the development of some federally-owned waterfront properties (Ross, 1989: 12-13). Later in that same year, the federal government unveiled plans to build a public fish sales float at the foot of Second Avenue and a waterfront commercial development, soon to be named "Steveston Landing", along Bayview Street at the foot of Second Avenue. Prio r to the commencement of development, the site existed as a parking lot which serviced the Pacific Fleet moorage. 132 Steveston Waterfront Propertie s Inc. won the federal bid to develop the site. Thei r proposal included the construction of a restaurant, small shops and a pub, as well as a pedestrian extension of Second Avenue to connect to the public fish sales float, and a boardwalk along the water's edge. I n order to achieve public access to the water's edge, the pedestrian extension and boardwalk were requirements of the terms of reference fo r federal tender bids. Throughout 1988 , the Steveston Landing proposal received much opposition and criticism from the fishermen and local merchants, who feared that the development would create a barrier separating the town of Steveston from the waterfront, and that the waterfront woul d become a yaught basin for tourists, displacing the fishing boats . However , in late 1988, Richmond Council approved the development scheme and despite many attempts by the community to halt the development by requests to the B.C. Supreme Court, in 1989, development of Steveston Landing began. Today, the site remains federally owned, and is leased to the developer, whose sub-lets the commercial units. Th e boardwalk is not included in this lease, but out of good will, it is maintained by the developer. Th e public fish sales float is owned by the federal government and is operated and maintained by the Steveston Harbour Authority, which is a subsidiary of the Fraser River Harbour Commission. 6 .4 Transportatio n an d Acces s The circulation system at Steveston Landing is comprised of four components: gateways, the road network, the pedestrian and bike path network and parking. Publi c Transportation does not play a major role, since bus routes do not pass or stop near Steveston Landing, but are located five blocks away (which is within walking distance) at the intersection of Moncton Street and No. 1 Road. 6 .4 .1 Gateway s The entrance to the site at the intersection of Second Avenue and Bayview Street is designed to create a pedestrian gateway to the river which invites movement of people from the centre of Steveston on Moncton Street, along Second Avenue and into the site. Although only pedestrians can pass through the gateway, the gateway is located directly 133 J < z \r 2 V) Z e i * 3 134 so as I 9 ! ! z fc i Mii...iTrnTrnTnT iiiiiuiiiijiijiiJilJiiil adjacent to Bayview Street, thus connecting the automobile and pedestrian realms for access to the river. Shops, frozen yogurt and other food stores line each side of the plaza within the gateway and further enhance the sense of passage on the way to the water's edge. Often , the centre of this passage is interrupted by chairs, parked bicycles or people, causing congestion and excitement. 6 .4 .2 Roa d Networ k Bayview Street, which parallels the Steveston waterfront, abuts the northern edge of the site, and provides two-way automobile access to the site. Ther e are numerous road linkages which connect Bayview Street to Moncton Street and No. 1 Road, the arterial roads which connect Steveston to the rest of Richmond. Th e closest of these linkages is Second Avenue which provides automobile access from Moncton Street to the site. Figur e 6.5 illustrates the road network in the vicinity of the site. 6 .4 .3 Pedestria n an d Bik e Pat h Networ k Steveston Landing benefits from an excellent pedestrian trail network which connects Steveston Landing with downtown Steveston, local arterial roads, Garry Point Park (to the west of the Steveston town site) and the dyke trails. Figure s 6.7 and 6.8 show the trail network, which was developed by the Richmond Leisure Services Department as originally proposed in the Richmond Trails Plan drafted in 1978 (Stiches, 1991). From the user survey data collected at Steveston Landing (which will be discussed later in this chapter), it was apparent by the 21% of respondents who walked and the 25% who biked to the site, that the trail system is an effective mean s of public access to the waterfront at Steveston Landing. Together , these figures total 46% which is equal to the number of respondents who accessed the site by automobile. Th e activity data collected at Steveston Landing (also be discussed later in this chapter) demonstrated that bicycling and walking were the dominant activities taking place in the open space at Steveston Landing. (Figur e 6.48 shows these trends). Th e large number of people who had accessed the site by bicycle was evident by the number of bikes parked throughout the space, as shown in Figures 6. 9 an d 6.10 . 136 Ltl . j ^  M^-f k MIIHlllHIIlllllliiillllimillnimniiHi l»i»\ >\>* I 1 3 TO < i z 11 • • 11 ss p r z 5 I 1 • : -A 3 ? r C> 35 (/> \c?:.^) »O.^CZ' CHATHA M S t m>. a > L R Q K N D '  * £ ft • raar round vahleular aooaaa ^ • optional vahlanlar aooaaa D H M O H A I v e h i c u l a r aooaa a • • • p a d a a t r l a n o l r o u l a t l o n 'A»»EL • p l a y a rmiiw l I a a i p h l ••••••••••••^ ' aMiph tboalr* • w l n t a r g * r d a n 4 r a a i a n r a a * » . _ •  f laharaaan b m a n o r i a l • m n r l n o Intarprota t lo n aantr a 7 p a d a a t r l a n p l a a a • d n n a a 9 pla n la a rM 10 l o o k o u t t o w a r °" " 1 1 a-orr * p o i n t tra a IB b e a c h GARRYFomrmmg^ a UJOLJnL-'m ^ _ __ _ ATWsmWBi  L I J pnepunEDFOHTHE COIlPOnATIO N O F TH E TOWNSHI P O F RICHMOND raEFWICD BY T HE PACIFI C LANDPTUA N COLLABORATIV E LTDMIANSO N E R B Figure 6.8 ' Pedestrian  trails in  nearby  Garry Point Park  which link  to  (Taken  from City  of  Richmond,  1992) Figure 6. 9 Steveston  Landing:  Bicycles  parked on the rail. i*"i ; P  ,: ^ T&& "•. " ' • ' • ' : % '  ^ tS \1 '•• - J ; i:^0 •' L. N f A: ! 3 ^ • '  •  • ' •  1 ' c I J  i V •I Ri •  " " Btt\ i B r t ™ J . ^ri^iigliifiWTiif r Ulii. fll . > • ' • . • " ' • • • ; ^ ~ ^ T T ^'^ffef^ltfililTi J ^ * J 1 = |  \wf  ' • is >. ,-:,T / I - ^ — ^j5jgj^^t/v"J*'. V-*;V ^-L n^^^^^^^^^^H * * * « tv M - is —^fiCl -j-Ii^HBl1 y V ^ t B ^ ^ ^ B B '- ; " " ^ ^V-^ '. ' ....un... i  ;i- « \&mm ft  j ^ J _j Figure 6.1 0 Steveston  Landing:  Bicycles  parked on the  plaza  floor in  the centre of the plaza. 139 6 .4 .4 Parkin g There are two at-grade on-site surface parking areas at Steveston Landing (as shown in Figure 6.28 on page 168) . Bot h of these parking areas access Bayview Street, however, together they accommodate only a total of 25 cars, which is far below the average parking demand for people visiting Steveston Landing. A s a result of a condition of development permit based on municipal parking regulations, there is also a larger surfac e parking lot on the north side of Bayview Street which is for the exclusive use of Steveston Landing users. This lot is also part of the federal lease and is maintained and operated by the developer of Steveston Landing. Street parking is available along portions of Bayview Street and other streets throughout Steveston. Directl y adjacent to the site, angle parking is available on Second Avenue. 6.5 Lan d Us e an d Zonin g The Steveston Landing site is zoned C-4 Commercial and is the only portion of the Steveston Waterfront that is zoned commercial and accessible to the public. The remainder of the Steveston waterfront i s zoned 1-2 Industrial, and is the location of numerous canneries and shipyards along Cannery Channel. To the north of Steveston Landing, C-4 Commercial zoning dominates most of the Steveston townsite, especially on Second Avenue and Moncton Street (as shown in the zoning map in Figures 6.11 and 6.12). T o the east and north of Steveston there are detached single family dwelling residential neighbourhoods. 6.6 Polic y Contex t Various policies, from differen t level s of government and different jurisdictions, regulated the development of the open space at Steveston Landing. However , in most cases, these policies did not provide specific principles, guidelines or criteria regarding the design of the space. Instead , they simply state that there shall be open space for public use at the water's edge. 140 i A i >T >T a SS 1 ^ 4 > * i z > 3 /SHI < , M i i  »  / ' J ' rrsTa/ . ilrrrf MnTTTlimilitii Hi iUmil i i i i iH Hi I IJ i l l! 111 fTrTTiTTTl lieiiilULI **11 iglli 142 6 .6 .1 Municipa l Policie s The City of Richmond Zoning and Development Bylaw provides standards for the development of buildings and the provision of open space based on a percentage of the number of residents living within a development However , it does not provide any guidelines regarding how open space should be designed. The Steveston Area Plan, which makes up part of the Richmond Official Communit y Plan. provides policy statements regarding public access to the water's edge. Som e of these statements include: "Objective 13 : To ensur e tha t ope n spac e an d viewpoint s ar e provide d alon g th e waterfront i n futur e development s creatin g a  continuou s ope n space syste m throughou t th e Stevesto n area... . 13.3 Suppor t the design of waterfront developmen t which preserves and enhances waterfront viewpoint s for the public." (Richmond Planning Dept., 1992 : 18). The Steveston Area Plan also prescribes a minimum park space per thousand population of 2.63 hectares (6.5 acres) (Richmond Planning Dept., 1992 : 17). However , it does not provide any design principles or criteria regarding the design of waterfront ope n space. Steveston Landing lies within the study area of the Steveston Development Permit Area and is therefore subject to compliance with the Design Criteria for the Steveston Revitalization Area guidelines, which were drafted in 1987. Figur e 6.13 defines the area impacted by these guidelines. Thes e guidelines served as the primary means for the Steveston Downtown Design Concept shown in Figures 6.14 an 6.15. These guidelines provide elaborate design guidelines and criteria for the buildings and street sidewalks, but do not provide any guiding principles or design criteria for the development of waterfront ope n space. Sectio n 1.2 of the guidelines provides specific developmen t guidelines for the facade of buildings and the treatment of the sidewalk for sites flanking Bayview Street, in what is defined a s the "Bayview Street (C-4 Zoning District) Character Area" (which is shown on the map in Figure 6.16), but does not mention anything about 143 the open space on the waterfront side of buildings along Bayview Street (Cit y of Richmond, 1992 : 9). The most sophisticated policies the City of Richmond offers regarding open space at the water's edge are contained in two policy documents: the Criteria for the Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas: A Design Manual, and; Amendment Bylaw No. 5554 (amending the Official Communit y Plan. Bylaw No. 5400) regarding Float Home Marinas. Section two of the Criteria for the Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas: A Design Manual addresses "Special Design Considerations for Foreshores". I n this section, the following policy guidelines regarding public access to open space at the foreshore are presented: " 1. Foreshor e developments should dedicate or preserve a natural vegetated buffer strip within the first 30m (100 ft.) o f the high-water mark of the Fraser River and estuary, except where access is essential for water transportation or public use. Wher e there is existing vegetation, the width of the buffer may be averaged to preserve significant stands of trees. 3. Publi c access to the waterfront for the purpose of recreation or education should be designed into each foreshore development in a manner which is consistent with the natural values of the site." (City of Richmond, 1991 : 5-7). Appendix A of the same document provides guidelines regarding "Construction Practices to Preserve Natural Areas". Guidelin e number six of this appendix states: "Recreation Acces s Pedestrian or bicycle access pathways should be provided in locations approved by the Municipality. Acces s paths should be a minimum of 2 m (6 ft.) wide and should consist of compacted crushed limestone or equivalent. Slope s should not exceed 1:6 , especially adjacent to waterways. Acces s for disabled persons is desirable. Public access to the slough edge or "beach" should be limited to certain areas only, Othe r areas should be protected by dense plantings of hearty shrubs, or retention of existing dense brush." (City of Richmond, 1991:13) . 144 5 5. i -A \~ a H en " " ~" * O H O W - ) C C £ < 2 l- < «en - J 1 U  U  H ' I O W P H D CO Q X W  2 O O S M H O M 2 § M Pu ( K • < n 2 W H Pu t- ( X w o W Q  < B S E Q O  < Z 6 P-c 145 These guidelines establish a basis for achieving public access to the water's edge and for preserving vegetation, fish and wildlife species along the foreshore. However , they do little to define criteria regarding how this space should be designed. Th e only reference to the actual design of the water's edge is illustrated in two sketches which appear in Figures 6.17 and 6.19. Th e following text complements this sketch: "Where waterfront acces s is required for industries or public purposes, every effort should be made to preserve existing foreshore vegetation by building docks out over the water on piles and by "bridging" the sensitive foreshore and intertidal zone..." (City of Richmond, 1991 : 6) . As can be seen in the sketch in Figure 6.17, the "bridge over the rip rap" is the same way which the boardwalk and rip rap at Steveston Landing have been developed. Althoug h this sketch and the associated guidelines provide direction on the development of waterfron t boardwalks, they do not provide suggestions or guidelines regarding the design of open space on top and upland of such boardwalks. In much the same manner, Amendment Bylaw No. 5554 provides statements regarding public access to the waterfront, foreshore preservation and development of boardwalks. This bylaw defines the shoreline as consisting of the intertidal area plus the area within 30 metres of the high-water mark, and that a buffer strip of existing natural vegetation of an average width of 15 metres should be maintained on the shoreline of environmentally sensitive areas. As outlined in the Criteria for the Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Amendment Bylaw No. 5554 , the area upland of the high-water mark is under the jurisdiction of the municipality while the wetted area below the high-water mark is under the jurisdiction o f the federal government (through the offices o f the Fraser River Harbour Commission and the Steveston Harbour Authority). Thi s relationship is illustrated in Figure 6.18 . 146 STEVESTON DOWNTOWN DESIGN CONCEPT glfeVeffl&N flWNTPWN  t&MN  COHOdFT i — i !___( PPOP06.6 P SUWX>lM 6 M A ^ I M f i * gg§ Pe>TCWT;A1 , H€RJTAG* £ 0U\U>(KJ&6  •  4CE Arrm» X v • " - *&wu ? - T 8' une -• p  FfrtKlhlG*  \  KCCJEZ9 PRopo^eo ttfcCAH*.  IREATM&N T WALK . Figure 6.1 4 The  Steveston  Downtown  Design  Concept. (Taken from  Richmond  Planning  Department,  1992) 147 B.C. Packers urban design framewor k Figure 6.1 5 Urban  design  framework for  Steveston  Revitalization  Area. (Taken from Richmond  Planning  Department,  1992) CHARACTER AREAS CMTW1 5T. O^ARA^BR MfA : > M& W B u u p i N ^ T O H-M/ £ 3/M(uA K ^eTlEAC K AM D ^ARA^Te ^ A6 ^ X l ^ f i ^ (APJ"A£&KJT ) COW/VI&KC/AI - 0 i ; i u M 6 S . r— t  ,  .  .  . ^ ^ ^ CHATHA M STREE T i mccoH st , 6MAiA/ 6of M M E#>£fAo &AupiM6 £ MAXIMUM TW O 6"l0^^y£ , ' • £MLX T o U I E 5Tp€e T UM E ' fyM^ e ftfcNT,  £*e>i ^ £r<P p ^ . Mixruf^ e £ f <SMAU ^ • \ / |£W 5 « F " ^ WAT& R ' 3T& P t>oi M ^  6T&36 / HuMAfi-^ue tun-tiny^ To 13 © NcfUtf . - ^ r&aAo7^vTM^H T *> F 5* Figure 6.1 6 The  Bayview  Street  Character  Area within  Steveston. (Taken from Richmond  Planning  Department,  1992) 149 In Amendment Bylaw No. 5554. more specific guidelines regarding the development of waterfront publi c viewing wharves and boardwalks are provided. Sectio n One of the bylaw states that: "Wharves should not extend over marshes or other productive foreshore areas. Wharve s should, in any case, not extend over the water beyond the mean low-water mark, except for wharves which are less than 8 metres wide and are for the purpose of access to floats or public viewing access." (City of Richmond, 1990: 1). Figure 6.17 illustrates the relationship of the foreshore, rip rap, intertidal marsh and wharves defined in the policy statement above. In Section Two of the bylaw, which discusses "Public Access", the following guidelines regarding access to the foreshore and foreshore walks and boardwalks are presented: "A continuous 3 metre wide public access pathway should be constructed parallel to and as close to the water's edge as practicable provided it does not impact wildlife habitat areas. In existing marinas where it is not possible to provide a continuous public access, then a public pier of a minimum of 20 square metres should be provided at the water's edge. Th e pier shall be connected to the municipal trail or sidewalk via a minimum 1.5 metre wide walkway." (City of Richmond, 1990: 2). Figure 6.19 shows examples of a 3 metre continuous public access path and a 20 square metre public pier with a 1.5 metre connecting walkway. Thes e guidelines address public access to the water's edge, and even provide some minimum standards for the configuration of waterfront paths and public piers. Figur e 6.19 also suggests that the continuous public access path and public pier be constructed of wood in a boardwalk fashion. Also , connections of the waterfront with existing upland municipal trails and roads are discussed. Ther e is even a small section regarding landscaping which states that all undeveloped portions of the upland shall be landscaped, and that one tree shall be planted for every 15 metres of waterfront. Tree s located on the dyke are required to be in planters or have root containers (City of Richmond, 1990: 2). 150 U\ Vl£U/jtf6> WtitoP Figure 6.1 7 Intertidal  area  and redeveloped  waterfront. (Taken from Richmond  Planning  Department,  1992) OUtflSDi£?i£r\i Bl>mK 3&K VBJSLoPty&TT 5 <tte*c~K Figure 6.1 8 Cross-section  of  water's  edge  showing  where  senior  government jurisdiction takes  precedence. (Taken from Richmond  Planning  Dept.,  1992) u> n&yO0> ^ V ^ f v w 1 VN ^ Figure 6.1 9 Examples  of 3m public  access path and public  pier. (Taken from Richmond  Planning  Dept.,  1990) MAP 1: PROPOSED RECREATIONAL UNITS FRASER RIVER ESTUARY Figure 6.2 0 FREMP  map  showing  Fraser  River Recreation  Units. #3 is  the  Steveston  waterfront. Note unit  (Taken  from FREMP,  1990) PROPOSED RECREATIONAL UNIT #3: STEVESTON Fraser Rive r Estuar y Recreation Pla n A Scotch Pond, Garry Point Park LEGEND • O A A • _L Existing Parkland Staging Area Interpretive Kiosk Proposed Kiosk Boat Launch Fishing Pier - Trail , Path Figure 6.2 1 FREMP  map  of  Steveston  Recreation  Unit.  (Taken  from  FREMP,  1990) 155 However, there are no design criteria provided regarding the design of the space on top of the public paths and piers. Ther e are no principles or guidelines which discuss materials, seating, railings, surface treatment, lighting, signage, garbage receptacles, circulation, boundaries and transitions, use and activities, scale, theme, public art, maintenance, microclimate, level changes or landscaping. 6 .6 .2 Senio r Governmen t Policie s The policies of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), which coordinates senior level government agencies and their associated policies to regulate development of the water's edge along the Fraser River, which were referred to in the previous Westminster Quay chapter, also apply to Steveston Landing. A FREMP report entitled, Report of the Habitat Working Group, provides environmental design recommendations for the construction of new or restored dykes for Fraser River developments. Thes e recommendations suggest that dykes should be designed to include habitat compensation by placing a bench marsh in the intertidal section of the rip rap (FREMP, 1991: 27). Althoug h it cannot be seen from the open space, the rip rap in the dyke under the boardwalk at Steveston Landing includes this environmental design feature. In the report, A Recreation Plan, the Recreation Activity Group of FREMP identifie s Steveston as a "Recreational Unit". Withi n this recreation unit, the report describes Steveston Landing as having "safe access" to the waterfront wit h interpretive signage about habitat and fish (FREMP , 1990: 32-35). 6.7 Demographi c Profil e In order to obtain an understanding of the demographic characteristics in the vicinity of Steveston Landing, 1986 Statistics Canada census data were abstracted for enumeration areas within a 500 metre radius of the site. 1986 Census data were used because at the time of the research, and currently, more recent 1991 census data is not readily available for enumeration areas. 156 From the Statistics Canada data, the following profile was defined : Total Population 2,11 0 Males 1,04 0 Females 1,07 5 Occupied Private Dwellings 77 5 Single Detached Houses 53 0 Ave. # of Persons/Household 2.7 5 Non-Family Households 19 0 Total # of Families 60 0 Ave. # of Children/Household 1.1 5 (Statistics Canada, 1987) . From these data, it is apparent that there is a critical mass of residential population in the vicinity of Steveston Landing. Ove r 77% of the occupied private dwellings were inhabited by census family households (which include husband/wife families and single parent families) in 1986 . Th e small number of average people per household (being 2.75) and average number of children per household (being 1.15 ) suggests that many of the families were either young families or families approaching empty nesting, with only one child living in the house in either case. Approximately 68% of the households were located within single detached dwellings. Although the number of single detached houses has probably increased since 1986, the relative frequency o f the number of households in multiple dwellings has probably immensely increased since 1986, as a result of the construction of multiple family housing in Steveston. According to the 1986 Statistics Canada census data, the area in the vicinity of Steveston Landing not only had a larger population than the areas (within a 500 metre radius) around Westminster Quay (which had a total population of 890 in 1986) and Bridgepoint (which had a population of only 340), but also had a much larger percentage of families living nearby. Westminste r Quay only had about 210 families, making-up only 39% of the households there, while Bridgepoint only had 75 families, making-up 56% of the households there. I t should be noted that the total population of the Westminster Quay area has probably increased with the construction of numerous multiple family dwellings in the 157 Quay area. However , since many of these units have only one or two bedrooms, the number of families has probably not increased by much. Of this population, many more of the Steveston Landing area people lived in single detached houses (68% of all households), while only 0.9% of the Westminster Quay area people and 67% of the Bridgepoint area people lived in single detached houses. From this demographic profile, it is apparent that in 1986, there was a greater critical mass of residential population and families in the vicinity of Steveston Landing than in the Westminster Quay and Bridgepoint areas, and that many of these people lived in single detached houses. Thi s resident population represents a potential user group who live close by, and may even walk or ride bikes to access the site. Th e next section examines survey data collected at Steveston Landing in order to determine the origins of people attending the open space. 6.8 Use r Profil e Using the same method used at Westminster Quay, and previously described in section 4.8 of this study, a questionnaire was circulated to a random sample of open space users at Steveston Landing, on a sunny weekend afternoon i n July, 1993 . Th e following sectio n summarizes the findings of the survey data. As demonstrated in Figure 6.23, in response to question one, the majority o f the people at Steveston Landing had either traveled between 2 to 4 miles (29% of all respondents) or 11 to 30 miles (33% of all respondents). Thes e data suggest that almost one-third of the people at Steveston Landing live in the vicinity of Steveston. Thi s observation is further proven by the results of question three, which are shown in Figure 6.25. Forty-tw o percent of the respondents resided in Richmond. Th e only other noticeable origin was Vancouver, where 25% of the respondents resided. To determine how these people traveled to Steveston Landing, the results of question two, shown in Figure 6.24, point out three major trends. Th e majority o f the people either arrived by automobile (46% of all respondents), walked (25% of all respondents) or bicycled (21% of all respondents) to the site. Almos t nobody used public transit to access the site; most likely because the bus routes are over five blocks away from the site. 158 60% 50% 40% >. o c =J 30%- l 20% 10%-o%-Steveston Landin g Demographic Profil e o f Respondent s 0 t o 15 16 t o 25 26 t o 35 Figure 6.2 2 36 t o 45 46 t o 55 56 t o 65 Age Grou p ™ 7 SLDemog Profile Char t 1 35% 30% 25% - -o £ 20 % a> cr 2 15 % U . 10% -5% -0% 4 0 t o 1 Figure 6.23 Steveston Landin g Distance Travelle d Fro m Residenc e (In Miles ) i H J 1 J  1  h - H 2 t o 4  5  t o 1 0 1 1 t o 3 0 3 1 o r Mor e Distance Travelle d (Miles ) SLDistance Char t 1 ON SU7o " 45% -40% -35% -£" 30 % -c o 3 25 % -CT d> £ 20 % -15% -10% -5% -0% -F \ i E - i \ : E t • 1 Automobile Motorbike Figure 6.2 4 Steveston Landin g Mode o f Transportatio n Used t o Trave l t o Sit e Bus SkyTrai n Bicycl e Walke d Mode o f Transportatio n SLMode Chart 1 Z9I t—*-c l-t fD Ol Frequency Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley Maple Ridg e New Westminster North ^ Vancouve r 3 2. Por t Coquitla m » < Por t Mood y Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouver -j- -» • r o r o c o o e n o  o i o vp v P v P v P N P O ^ O ^ O ^ O * O ^ 4-$ o O l 3"- 5 ~ -\ 1 Is 1 3 < o o 3 - I -® Q . 3 O (D ! White Roc k Other Together, 46% of the respondents used pedestrian means to access the site. Thi s frequency equals the number of respondents who drove automobiles. Thi s finding would make sense since many of the people who walked or bicycled to the site were most likely part of the 29% of respondents who lived between 2 to 4 miles from the site. I n other words, a critical mass of Steveston Landing users live close by the site, and excellent pedestrian access to the site is made possible by the integration of the design of the site (without level changes) and the Richmond Municipal Trails and road systems, as reflected by the 46% who walked or bicycled to the site. This is in contrast to Westminster Quay, where the same questionnaire was conducted. The results yielded that most respondents drove to the site, and had traveled long distances from other municipalities to reach Westminster Quay (as previously discussed in section 5.8). In response to question four, which enquired about the purpose for coming to the site, Figure 6.27 displays the frequency of responses. Respondent s were able to provide multiple responses to this question since there may have been numerous purposes for their trip to the site. Fro m the graph in Figure 6.27, i t is apparent that most people came to Steveston Landing to either exercise or view the river. Th e people whose purpose was to exercise were usually the same people who walked or bicycled to the site. Th e next most popular purposes were to eat and to shop. Man y of the people who responded that their purpose was to shop, clarified that it was to shop for fish. Thi s purpose is also partially represented by the 21% of respondents who didn't necessarily want to buy fish, but wanted to see the fish and the fish boats. Th e purposes of meeting friends, people watching and relaxing were the next most popular, each with a frequency ranging from 13% to 17%. These findings point to conclusions that the following items should be built into the design of a waterfront public open space, as they appear to be at Steveston Landing: - Goo d pedestrian access to the site - Goo d automobile access to the site Opportunities to buy food - Opportunitie s to sit or stand and eat food 163 - Opportunitie s to shop - Visua l Interest and Catalysts for Visual Interest - Maximiz e View Potentials - Opportunitie s for People to Sit or Stand to Relax and Watch the Water The following section, analysis of the incidence of each of these items as reflected in the context and design of the waterfront open space at Steveston Landing. Question five asked how many times a year respondents attended Steveston Landing. Th e frequency of responses to this question are shown in Figure 6.26. Fro m this figure, three groups appear to dominate. Th e number of respondents who made over 50 trips to the site in one year was 30%. Broke n down, 17% made 50 to 99 trips a year and 13% made over 100 trips a year. Thi s number most likely corresponds to the 29% who lived 2 to 4 miles from the site, many who walked or bicycled to the site. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents made between 1 to 5 trips to the site in one year. From the completed questionnaires, it was apparent that most of these people were the ones who had driven to the site, many who lived in the City of Vancouver. The third group which stands out were the people who had visited Steveston Landing for the first time. Approximatel y 17% of the respondents were of this type, some of which were tourists and others who did not know that Steveston Landing existed but had been brought to the site by friends or come across it by accident. To get an understanding of the age and sex profile of the people attending the open space at Steveston Landing, the age and sex of each respondent was noted. Th e results of these notes are shown in Figure 6.22 on page 159. Fro m this figure, it appears as though the majority of the people were between ages of 26 to 35 years. Anothe r group which stands out, but to a much lesser degree are the seniors between 66 to 75 years of age. It is also interesting to note that in the younger age groups of respondents, there were slightly more males than females, while in the 46 to 55 year age group there were more females than males. I n the 56 to 65 year age group this trend reversed. I n the seniors age groups over 66 years in age, the number of males and females was the same. 164 S9T Frequency Crq C 1-1 ON hO ON c (T> • a (A 3 1st Tim e Once i n 5 Years Once i n 3  Year s Once i n 1  Yea r 1 t o 5  Time s a Year 6 t o 1 0 Time s a Yea r 11 t o 2 4 Time s a Yea r 25 t o 4 9 Time s a Yea r 50 t o 9 9 Time s a Yea r 100 o r Mor e Times a  Yea r s o o c 3 C7 <D O —+i H -^ T l CO ! • * o 0) 0) <D < (D (0 1—H o 3 r~ 3 Q. 5" CQ (D 991 S1 era* c • " t rt> OS N> s Shop Frequency $ 3 at o ro en 5^ co o •-5 CO en O J*. cn Eat Exercise View Rive r Relax c "O Mee t Friend s o w o Entertain Friends Entertain Children Walk Do g Watch Peopl e TJ <D 73 O <n • a o 3 W (D (/> a (D •n 30 •o o 3 a © 3 "0 C •a o W CD -4 * o " 1 H —i • a o c/> F * CD 0) CD < CD W o 3 r~ 3 a 3 CQ See Fis h •8 5 There were almost no respondent users in the 16 to 25 year age group. I t should be noted that these figures represent only the random sample of open space users who were interviewed with the questionnaire on site. Althoug h many children were present at the site during the time of the surveys, children were not interviewed or represented in this sample, since it was assumed that they may not provide complete or accurate answers. 6.9 Element s o f Desig n In much the same fashion as Westminster Quay, the waterfront open space at Steveston Landing is dominated by two overall design features, within which numerous elements of design are situated. Thes e two dominant features are the boardwalk and the plaza. Unlik e Westminster Quay, these features are not separated by boundaries or level changes, but rather are integrated together on an axis and function a s one large open space. Th e plan view of Steveston Landing illustrated in Figure 6.28 shows the relationship between these two features . The smaller, more intimate scale of Steveston Landing, created by placing buildings closer to the water's edge, enhances the integrative relationship between boardwalk and plaza, as can be seen in the photograph displayed in Figures 6.29 and 6.30. Although the boardwalk and plaza function together , the individual design elements, such as seating, street furniture, microclimate , sunlight, circulation, etc., vary within each. These different use s will be discussed further in the following sections . 6.9 .1 Boardwal k A wooden boardwalk parallels the water's edge for the entire distance of the Steveston Landing development. Thi s boardwalk is reminiscent of the historic "Bunkhous e Boardwalk", which linked the canneries to upland bunkhouses during the late 1800's , in the vicinity of the Steveston Landing site (Figure 6.31 shows a photograph of the historic Bunkhouse Boardwalk). At each end of the boardwalk, there are bicycle racks and level connections to the Richmond Municipal Trails System. Eac h bicycle rack accommodates approximately 12 bikes. Als o at each end, there is direct, level access to the two small on-site parking lots which service Steveston Landing (as shown in Figures 6.28 and 6.32 ) . I n this case, 167 •S^ig*U-r - . A|ViP?0 PARt<Urt<=t TO: .  /SfARR Y F*r , P / H * K J ^ »<SfUL F O F ,s,eoI&3|/ A 00 ftCR.\TA0,6 -i=J>-TDTi.dWAFCT House RBiTAuo . •''/|:l!if[->rj "^KT pAl l_ F^nt-ia. s  f^; t/G.., ^ J Figure 6.2 8 Steveston  Landing:  Plan  view  of  open  space. cyclists, adults pushing strollers, people in wheelchairs and seniors have direct uninterrupted access to the boardwalk. The east side of the boardwalk links-up with the neighbouring Bay view Pier development (which hosts numerous restaurants, artisan shops and offices). A t the centre of the boardwalk, there is ramp access to the public fish sales dock, located in front of Steveston Landing (as shown in Figure 6.40 on page 180). For the most part, the boardwalk is 20 feet wide, except where there are benches along the water side, where it extends for an extra 3 feet to accommodate the benches without interrupting the circulation of the boardwalk. A t the centre of the open space, where the boardwalk and plaza integrate, the boardwalk extends an extra 20 feet out over the water to provide a linkage to the ramp which accesses the public fish sales dock. The boardwalk is constructed of wooden planks oriented parallel to the water's edge, in a similar pattern as the original Bunkhouse Boardwalk which inhabited the site at the turn of the century. Th e orientation of these planks draws people in from both ends of the boardwalk to come into the centre of the site where the plaza integrates with the boardwalk. At this location, the boards shift into a circular star pattern, spanning out from a  centre point which is marked by a brass inlay. Th e boards are intertwined with concrete patches, of the same concrete which is used to surface the plaza. Thi s way the plaza and boardwalk become integrated as one at the centre of the open space, as well as providing a focus of attention. Figure s 6.29 and 6.30 illustrate this integration of plaza and boardwalk at the centre of the boardwalk. Underneath the boardwalk, the water's edge has been reinforced with a new dyke consisting of medium sized rip rap and an intertidal marsh, as recommended by FREMP. This dyke can be seen Figure 6.35. Th e dyke provides flood protection to Steveston Landing, as well as creating a habitat for intertidal vegetation, fish and wildlife. On the edge of the upland side of the boardwalk, are the buildings of Steveston Landing which accommodate Dave's Seafood Restaurant on the west side of the plaza and the Shady Island Restaurant on the east. Bot h of these restaurants have full height windows which allow restaurant patrons to enjoy the river view as well as an opportunity to people watch the boardwalk activities. I n like manner, the boardwalk walkers can watch the people in the restaurants. 169 Figure 6.2 9 Steveston Landing: Figure 6.3 0 Steveston  Landing:  Integration  of  boardwalk  and plaza. ground materials  and  patterns. Note the 170 Native women enjoying ice cream cones while walking along the bunkhouse boardwalk. Figure 6.3 1 Steveston  Landing:  The  historic  bunkhouse  boardwalk  which once inhabited  the  site  is  reflected  by  the  current  boardwalk. 171 \ i/ 9 Figure 6.3 2 Steveston  Landing:  The  Boardwalk,  looking east. ^H^iMiifl^HHfl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l ^B 1 H^ •*!«•-' :/-_;-'....' • I T - ; . , - . . —  . - - — - - _ • 1 Figure 6.3 3 Steveston  Landing:  The  boardwalk  looking west. 172 This activity is further enhanced by the outdoor bistro seating which each of these restaurants has flanking the area where the boardwalk meets the plaza. I n the case of Shady Island, outdoor seating also parallels and encroaches onto the western side of the boardwalk. I n both cases, this outdoor bistro seating is not for the public, but is corded-off for use by restaurant patrons only. Non e the less, it creates visual excitement, and helps fill the outdoor space activity. Fo r the purposes of this thesis, data regarding the frequency o f activities and groupings do not include activities and groupings taking place in these bistro areas since they are not part of the public open space (but are private open space). The boardwalk extends out over the high-water mark and is owned by the federal government. A s a measure of goodwill, the developer/manager of Steveston Landing maintains the space on the boardwalk. Thi s is a similar arrangement as to that at Westminster Quay, where the municipality owns the Esplanade boardwalk, but the management of Westminster Quay Market maintain the portion of boardwalk in front of the market. As will be analyzed in following sections , Walking on the Boardwalk was the most frequent activity overall at Steveston Landing, as demonstrated by the frequencies show n in Figure 6.48 on page 191. 6 .9 .2 Plaz a In the centre of the site, the plaza provides a pedestrian connection between Bayview Street and the boardwalk and public fish sales dock. Thi s plaza also serves as a street end park which allows a linear passage along Second Avenue, to link Steveston with the waterfron t The plaza is approximately 20 feet in width and is flanked on each side by artisan souvenir shops, a seafood stor e and numerous food vendors . Th e food vendors shops have open walls onto the plaza, therefore giving a sense that the plaza extends into the shops, similar to an open marketplace. Th e roof overhangs over the store fronts have been exaggerated, to provide shade and protection from bad weather for plaza users. Th e souvenir shops provide opportunities for window browsing. Line-up s of people can often be seen in front of the food shops. A t any given time, there was an average of 12 people in the frozen yogurt store line-up. Thi s number occasionally peaked to 30 or more on some days. 173 Figure 6.3 4 Steveston  Landing:  Design  concept  of  the  integration  of  street, plaza, boardwalk  and  river. M A O T \ O A U C<3KA?A-y > 0 ^ \ ^ M V A T \ O ) O 174 - J Figure 6.3 5 Steveston  Landing:  Rip  rap  under the  boardwalk. Figure 6.3 6 Steveston  Landing:  Central  area  where boardwalk and plaza  integrate. Figure 6.3 7 Steveston  Landing:  The  plaza. 176 Directly in the centre of the plaza there are two wooden benches placed perpendicular to the flow of the plaza, and two lamp standards with hanging planters. A s well, movable chairs, which are offered by the Japanese sushi shop on the east side of the plaza, are often moved by passersby into the centre of the plaza to take advantage of sun or shade, and to ironically, get out of the flow of people. I n actual fact they are located in the centre of the flow. Peopl e often stand next to the benches and seats to converse with their friends or family who are seated. The result of all this activity is a cluttered space full of visual excitement, but with very few clear passages to access the boardwalk and water's edge. Thi s condition is further amplified when bikes are parked in the plaza and people with babies position their strollers next to the seating in the plaza. Th e overall effect created by the design of the space and the way people use the space is a cluttered tunnel of activity which serves as a gateway or gauntlet passage to the waterfront. Discussions with the developer identified that the municipality originally did not want benches to be placed perpendicular to the flow of the plaza, as they would create an obstacle to public access to the waterfront. However , although this orientation of the seating may not allow the most efficient circulation, it has created a space which appears vibrant and filled with people during all hours of the day. The surface material throughout the plaza is concrete. A s discussed in the previous paragraphs, there are no boundaries or level changes between the plaza and boardwalk. A s the plaza reaches the central circular star portion of the boardwalk, there is a transition of surface materials from concrete to wood and concrete intertwined. Th e transition from plaza to boardwalk, although integrated, is further enhanced by the outdoor bistro seating of the two boardwalk restaurants, which create a visual transition between the end of the plaza and the beginning of the boardwalk. 177 6.9.3 Railin g As at Westminster Quay, the railing is the closest the public can get to the water while remaining safely on the shore. I n fact, at the centre of the boardwalk, where the boardwalk protrudes out over the water, people can get a sense that they are on top of the water, as if they were on a boat. Thi s may explain why many people would enjoyed leaning on the rail as illustrated in Figure 6.48. Unlike the hard edged solid metal rail at Westminster Quay, the rail at Steveston Landing is constructed of a white metal top rail and posts, within which a series of metal cables and brackets provide the cross-pieces, as shown in Figure 6.38. Thi s configuration creates a softer edge which is just as secure and safe as a completely solid metal rail, and has the same appearance of the cables which are used to support masts and railings on fishing boats. Thi s design element is in-keeping with the nautical fishing boat theme of Steveston Landing. This railing configuration allows for minimal maintenance since the cables do not require paint and can simply be tightened annually by turning the cable brackets. Th e cables and brackets also provide an exciting design feature for children and adults to touch and look at. As shown previously in Figures 6.9 and 6.10, many bikes could be seen parked on the rail, as the cables at different heights provide an ideal place to lock bikes to. Du e to the large number of bikes at Steveston Landing, the bike racks on other end of the boardwalk, which provide only 24 bicycle parking spaces, were usually full, causing more cyclists to park their bikes on the boardwalk rail. Bike s on the rail tended to clutter the rail for others who may have wanted to lean on the rail. However , they create visual interest and add to the vibrancy of the open space. 6.9.4 Destinatio n -  Publi c Fis h Sale s Doc k At Steveston Landing, people can also descend down the ramp to the public fish sales dock where they are only inches from the water and floating on top of the water. Ther e is no rail on the fish sales dock. A s many as 84 people were seen traveling down the ramp within a 5 minute period. A s one fisherman noted, only 2% of these people actually buy fish; the rest just come to see the salmon, the fish boats and the river. Thes e reasons for 178 Figure 6.3 8 Steveston  Landing: The  railing  at the  edge of the  boardwalk. 179 Figure 6.3 9 Steveston Landing: The public  fish  sales  dock. Figure 6.4 0 Steveston  Landing:  The  ramp  to  the  public  fish  sales  dock. 180 coming to Steveston Landing are also reflected in the user profile survey data (discussed in previous sections) whereby 21% of respondents came to Steveston Landing to see the fish and another 42% came to see the river. 6.9.5 Seatin g There are two types of seating at Steveston Landing: primary seating on the benches, and; primary seating on movable chairs. Ther e are no secondary seating opportunities in the open space, other than sitting on the floor (which rarely took place since the space was filled with people walking and other activities). Primary wooden benches are located in two different locations. A s noted in the boardwalk section above, there are 9 benches along the rail of the boardwalk. Al l benches are constructed of wood planks which match the boardwalk, and are about 5 feet in length. The benches have no backs, therefore people can sit on either side or end of the benches, as appeared to be the case when the benches became filled with people, and peoples' social space was reduced. The boardwalk benches provide an excellent place to view the river and fishing boats. Because most of the benches are located in portions of the boardwalk which extend 3 feet out beyond the remainder of the boardwalk, these benches do not interrupt the flow of people walking on the boardwalk. On the other hand, in the plaza, there are two wooden benches placed perpendicular to the flow of people, right in the centre of the plaza. A s mentioned earlier, these benches are frequently used by people eating food purchased from the food vendor shops. Th e benches create a focus of attention for friends and family members who could not get a seat and ended up standing nearby the benches. A s a result, the flow of the plaza became interrupted and congested. Red folding movable chairs offered by the Japanese sushi store usually ended up right in the middle of the plaza, therefore further cluttering the plaza, and creating an obstacle course for passersby. Often , people moved movable chairs close to the benches, if they could not get a bench seat Othe r times, the movable chairs were placed in the sun or shade depending on the user's preference. 181 •&W: -• v i • '.li s • f V m „— ^^g^ • if ••' K j 1 - ' • . ' . '. _r4 1 > B^SRBI^ 3zz &3m.hf  .f  • — 'Mpp-^BWWlt. ' ,. ^ _ y ^ v j T ^ s ZTow^i •SS I^ ^ > : -IpB, - ,. . y 1 /  • i I 1*1 /I * -Jr- i T  i  -J T V I  '"'& " sf lMh^^^—J^M te^^^t^lli-gBscBBS -M^u\ ' I  ! 1 1 1 i ij 1 r i • « 4 - i f '  \ \ J-tritf T I B ' T T 1 j i HI f^Jfflk'ffiw >i>2 ' ' - I s ™ .—=•'• • /  ff-H'f/.  '"'.^ >::-' „ .- f . ' - - -:.•-» • W *' AwfedS^jj^B x^ [-. •,'^&'  ^° ^ r f : / ^ T " -K^ SB 1^ Figure 6.4 1 Steveston  Landing:  Primary  sitting  on  the  boardwalk  benches. Figure 6.4 2 Steveston  Landing:  Primary  movable  chairs  in  the  plaza. 182 These seated sun or shade seekers would often reposition their chair two or three times in one sitting, to either capture or evade the sun's rays. As shown in the activity data for observation periods throughout the day (on both weekends and weekdays), the frequency o f primary sitting on the boardwalk benches increased in the late afternoon an d evening, while the plaza benches and movable chairs were used more frequently in the weekday late afternoon period . 6 .9 .6 Lightin g There is very little overhead lighting at Steveston Landing. Ther e are two types of lighting in the plaza and along the boardwalk. A t the centre of the boardwalk, there are two lamp standards on each side, along the rail. Thes e lamps have white posts with blue shades, which is consistent with the nautical theme of the site. Hangin g from either side of these lamp posts are planters, filled wit h trailing purple flowers (as shown in Figure 6.43). At intervals along the rail, there are dome lamps on top of the rail posts. Thes e dome lamps have white cages over them, which is similar to the light fixtures found o n the exterior of a ship (as shown in Figure 6.38). Together , the overhead lighting and the post dome lamps provide dim lighting, reminiscent of the old cannery buildings which once inhabited the site. 6.9 .7 Garbag e Receptacle s Garbage receptacles do not match the theme. The y are made of exposed aggregate concrete with black tops, which does not complement any of the other design elements in the open space. Th e garbage receptacles on the boardwalk are placed at the rail-side edges of the boardwalk, near the area where the boardwalk meets the plaza. In the plaza, like the benches, the garbage receptacles are situated in the centre of the open space. Althoug h these receptacles efficiently servic e people eating food, they are an eyesore which clutters the centre of the plaza area. 183 Figure 6.4 3 Steveston  Landing:  Lamp  standards on the rail  with  hanging  planters. 184 6.9 .8 Publi c Ar t an d Histor y There are no planned pieces of public art or historical reminders located in the plaza or on the boardwalk at Steveston Landing. However , the fishing boats docked on the public fish sales dock and moored beyond, as well as the Steveston heritage cannery architecture of the buildings provides a sense of history. Ther e does not appear to be a need for forma l reminders of the site's history. Recently, a flag pole hosting the Canadian Flag was erected in the centre of the boardwalk near the access ramp to the public fish sales dock. 6.9 .9 Landscapin g an d Planter s There are no planted beds or landscaping at Steveston Landing. Instead , there are four half-barrel floor planters which are filled with multi-coloured flowers. Thes e barrel planters are all located near the outdoor bistro seating of the two restaurants on each side of the plaza/boardwalk interface and act as a boundary between the public space of the boardwalk and plaza and the private spaces of the restaurants. A s well, the overhead lamp posts have flower baskets hanging from each side of their posts. 6.9 .10 Scal e The buildings at Steveston Landing are only two stories in height and are located only 20 feet away from th e water side edge of the boardwalk. B y having buildings this close to the water, the scale of the boardwalk is small and intimate. Also , since the plaza is tightly flanked with shops on each side and cluttered with benches, lamp posts, planters, garbage receptacles and people, the scale of the space is very small, and does not take many people to make the space appear busy. 6.9 .11 Them e an d Characte r A nautical theme which is symbolic of the Fraser River and Steveston's fishing boat an d cannery heritage is apparent in almost all design features at Steveston Landing. Thi s theme is consistently reflected i n the colours, materials, signage and architecture of the buildings, boardwalk and plaza. 185 Figure 6.4 4 Steveston  Landing:  Public  fish sales  dock. Figure 6.4 5 Steveston  Landing:  A  fishing  boat  reflects the history  and theme of  Steveston  Landing. 186 The buildings are massed in a shape which is similar to the historic cannery buildings to the east of the site. T o further enhance the cannery look, the buildings are sided with light grey beveled 4 inch cedar siding. Th e windows have wooden muntin bars through which metal cross-braces which support the second floor above can be seen. The rail, with its cable cross pieces and the white and blue overhead lamps and caged dome lamps add to this theme. However , the most important features, which provide the basis for the theme and character at Steveston Landing are the fishing boats . Thes e are not planned and constructed design elements, but are a residual caused by the construction of the public fish sales dock. The other residual design feature which enhances the theme and ambiance of the open space is the people which use the different catalyti c planned elements of design. Fo r example, when bikes are parked on the rail and people are sitting on the benches in the middle of the plaza, the space comes to life. Th e benches and the rail are planned and constructed; the people and bikes are not. The y are attracted to use these elements and then become part of the design of the space. The views and sounds of the river and scents of the fish and the river are natural features which also are not planned and constructed, but add to the nautical fishing boat/canner y theme of the open space. 6 .9 .12 View s an d Visua l Interes t There are numerous view opportunities and an abundance of visual interest in the open space and on the river. Two  types of views are available: "framed views " and "panoramic views". The "framed views" , which can be seen from the end of Second Avenue and inside the plaza, looking-out towards the river, provide a glimpse of the activity taking place on the boardwalk and the river beyond. Thi s window of activity is filled with design elements, people, shops, signs, bicycles, and fishing boats . Together , all this visual interest draws one's eye into the site and attracts people to enter the site by passing through the busy plaza to reach the boardwalk and waterfront. Thi s attraction of people to activity and other people is consistent with Whyte's observation of plazas in New York City that "people attract more people". 187 Figure 6.4 6 Steveston Landing:  Activity  on the public  fish  sales  dock. Figure 6.4 7 Steveston  Landing:  A  fishing  boat  docked  at  the  public fish sales  dock. 188 Panoramic views are seen from along the boardwalk. Ther e are two types of panoramic views: close views and distant views. Th e close panoramic views look-out towards the fishing boats, public fish sales dock, Cannery Channel and Steveston (Shady) Island, all of which are in the foreground of the vista. Thes e close views are filled with visual interest created by the fishing boats, maritime movement in Cannery Channel and the seafood sales, tour boats and people on the public fish sales dock. Th e high frequencies o f people leaning on the rail (as shown in Figure 6.48 on page 191) was most likely attributed to the visual interest created by these close panoramic views. On a clear day, distant panoramic views span out from Mount Baker (to the southeast) across Westham Island and the Fraser River, to the Strait of Georgia and Gulf Islands beyond (to the southwest). Thes e distant views are limited by weather conditions. 6.9 .13 Sunligh t an d Shad e Due to southern exposure and orientation of the buildings, the site benefits from continuou s sunlight for most hours of the day, throughout the year. Th e boardwalk is always in direct sunlight and does not offer an y design features which provide protection from the sun. The bistro seating areas in front of the two restaurants have umbrellas to provide shade. However, this space is for restaurant patrons only, and is not open to the public. On the other hand, the exaggerated roof overhangs of the buildings and shops on either side of the plaza offer some shade and protection from the sun. A s the day progresses and the sun moves across the sky, so does the location of shade in the plaza. I n the summer months, after 5:30 p.m., the entire plaza is in shade since the buildings on the west side completely block-out evening sun (as shown in Figure 6.42 on page 182) . Th e movement of the sun and shade throughout the day could be traced by watching how people constantly moved movable chairs throughout the plaza. In the centre of the plaza, there are lamp posts situated next to each of the two wooden benches. Thes e lamp posts are identical to the lamp posts on the rail of the boardwalk. Their dim light is enhanced by floodlights under the roof overhangs of the shops and by street lights along Bayview Street, which shine into the plaza resulting in different degree s of lighting. 189 6.10 Analysi s an d Observation s Data regarding how people use the waterfront ope n space at Steveston Landing were collected using the same methods that were used for Westminster Quay, whereby frequencies o f each activity and grouping were calculated. 6.10 .1 Overal l Trend s Frequencies of activities and groupings were determined using the same methods as were applied for the Westminster Quay case study. Fro m these frequencies, the trends and information discusse d in the following sections were discovered. 6 .10 .1 .1 Activities ; Ho w th e Spac e i s Use d Unlike at Westminster Quay where seating activities were the most frequent uses of the open space, at Steveston Landing walking on the boardwalk was the dominant activity. Figure 6.48 displays the frequency o f activities which occurred at Steveston Landing. I n the following list , the overall frequency o f activities for all observation periods are listed in rank order: Activity Frequenc y Walking on the Boardwalk 2 1 % Standing Stationary 18 % Biking 12 % Primary Sitting on the Boardwalk 12 % Leaning on the Rail 1 1 % Walking in the Plaza 10 % Primary Sitting in the Plaza 8 % Pushing Strollers 4 % Walking Dogs 2 % Wheelchairing 2 % There were no frequencies of secondary sitting or playing in the playground, since there is no secondary seating or playground in the open space at Steveston Landing. 190 T6I Frequency — 1 . o c£ _ L O l N> O --9 l\D ( J Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sittin g on Boardwal k Secondary Sittin g in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dog s Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground 6.10.1.2 Walkin g As shown in Figure 6.48, the dominant activity at Steveston Landing was Walking on the Boardwalk, which accounted for 21% of the activities. Thi s activity was dominant for almost all observation periods. Th e consistently high frequencies of this activity were attributed to the excellent pedestrian access and circulation of the boardwalk. A t each end of the boardwalk there are connections to the parking lots, Richmond Municipal Trails system and Bay view Street. The boardwalk can also be accessed from the plaza at the centre of the site, which provides pedestrian linkages to Bayview Street, Second Avenue and the Steveston townsite beyond (by means of Second Avenue). Sinc e there are no level changes between the boardwalk, the plaza and the access points, walkers, seniors, physically challenged people, bicyclists and people pushing strollers can easily access the boardwalk. Once people access the boardwalk, the wooden planks which make-up the boardwalk are oriented parallel to the water's edge, and due to their vertical nature, draw people into the centre of the site. Peopl e know they have reached the centre when they see the changing pattern on the ground where a mixture of wood planks and concrete patches are presented in a star pattern. Thi s mixture of materials not only symbolizes the centre of the site, but also acts as a crossroads on the boardwalk through which all people must pass to access the public fish sales dock or enter the plaza area. Figure s 6.30 and 6.49 show the location of this cross-roads portion of the boardwalk. I n order to reach the destination of the public fish sales dock, all people must partake in the activity of Walking on the Boardwalk. The boardwalk is also where the best views of fishing boats and the river can be obtained. Benches are located in two nodes (one on the east side and one on the west), as illustrated in Figure 6.49. Thes e nodes extend out over the water by 3 feet and therefore do not obstruct the circulation or views from the boardwalk. The user survey questionnaire data presented in section 4.2.8 identified that many people had come to Steveston Landing to exercise and see the river, as was shown in Figure 6.27 on page 165. As well, 25% of the respondents had walked to the site. Thes e data all point to the conclusion that walking is an important and frequent activity at Steveston Landing, 192 T-^^hzjz^i^STi X T ^ ^ ^ ' '  l  L p^pKINi^I PAF:H.|hJ6i - &,AiZKi  p t , P A R K . ' N e v r TXKlSTPlAiU »<3»ULP O F <S,eoK<S,/ A H C R . \ T A G , S -TO', .CWAPT"Hous e KBiTAOtt . • PEMCAt i Pe-TE* > * EAYs-iPe - C_AF g 1 , 1 1 -  R I P - K A ^ Pfigfc-IAMMARY Figure 6.4 9 Steveston  Landing:  Plan  view  of  open  space. and waterfront open space should be designed to facilitate this use. Th e boardwalk, with its uninterrupted walking opportunities, successfully accommodates this use. On the other hand, Walking in the Plaza was not as frequent, and accounted for only 10% of the overall activities. Althoug h the plaza provides the shortest distance connection between Bayview Street and the waterfront, th e cluttered nature of the plaza places many obstacles on circulation. A s a result, people often end up Standing Stationary rather than walking, which partly explains the high frequencies of the Standing Stationary. There are many exciting design elements in the plaza, such as the two wooden benches, the two lamp posts with hanging flower baskets, the red movable chairs and even the garbage receptacle. However , all of these design elements have been placed in the middle of the plaza, creating an obstacle course for passersby. T o add to these obstacles, shops which line each side of the plaza provide visual distractions with their window displays and elaborate signage (and occasionally sidewalk displays). Th e food shops are open onto the plaza which results in people lining-up in the plaza to buy food. Th e most pronounced food line-up was in front of the frozen yogurt shop, where as many as 39 people could be seen standing in the line-up. The benches and chairs in the middle of the plaza attract people to sit on them, but since there are so few of them, some family members or friends were seen standing next to the rest of their group who was seated. Peopl e also had a tendency to park their strollers next to these benches. T o seek sun, shade or be close to people sitting on the benches, the red movable chairs were often moved into the centre of the plaza. The problem is, most of the design elements noted above, which are found in the plaza, cannot be situated at the sides of the plaza, because this is where the storefronts and food shop entries are. A s a result, these elements have been squeezed into the middle of this already small scale space. Also , the benches and chairs attract people to sit or stand stationary nearby. Th e end result was a very busy space, often filled with people, but placing constrictions on circulation. 194 6 .10 .1 .3 Passiv e Activitie s As mentioned above, Standing Stationary was a popular activity, as reflected by the many people in food line-ups and who could not get a seat. A s shown in Figure 6.48, Standing Stationary was the second most frequent activity within the open space at Steveston Landing, with a frequency o f 18%. As well as the standing in the plaza, many people would stand on the boardwalk. Standin g Stationary on the boardwalk usually took place in three locations on the boardwalk. On e location was next to the rail, where people would stand and view the fishing boats and river, without the interruption of benches, light posts, garbage receptacles or other people. Another location where standing on the boardwalk took place was in the central area, where the boardwalk and plaza meet, as symbolized by the wood and concrete star pattern on the ground. Thi s surface desig n causes many people to stop and look down at the ground, possibly trying to figure out what the pattern means. Thi s centre area also provides a resting area where people who have just come up the ramp from the public fish sales dock can stop to rest and think about whether they wish to continue to the east or west along the boardwalk, or enter the plaza. The third location for standing on the boardwalk was next to the benches, at the centre and on the eastern and western ends of the boardwalk. I n much the same way as in the plaza, people who could not get a seat, or some who preferred t o stand, would stand next to their friends or family who were sitting on the benches. Therefore , the large number of people Standing Stationary could be attributed to the fact that there were not enough benches or seating opportunities. Overall, Leaning on the Rail was the fifth mos t popular activity, enjoyed by 11 % of the people at Steveston Landing. Th e rail is where one can get the best view of the fishing boats and river. A s the rail is conveniently designed to a height of about three feet, it is comfortable for most adults to lean on. Th e cables which act as cross pieces provide protection from children and dogs falling of f the boardwalk, and children who cannot reach the rail can look through and hold onto the cables to see the river. Th e cables also provide a place for bikes to lock-up to, which unfortunately takes  rail space away for those who wish to Lean on the Rail. A  photograph displayed previously on page 139 in Figure 6.9 shows this situation. 195 However, even with bikes locked on the rail, there are many more opportunities for people to Lean on the Rail than to sit on the boardwalk benches to see the fishing boats and river and relax. A s stated earlier, the user survey data showed that viewing the river was the purpose for 42% of the visits to Steveston Landing. Anothe r 13 % attended the site to relax. Whe n people Leaned on the Rail, their views are almost always focused ou t to the fishing boats and river. Thes e people appear totally relaxed and in a daydream, perhaps initiated by the view. Leaning on the Rail was a more popular use of the open space on weekdays than on weekends. Thi s may have been due to the fact that there were less people walking on the boardwalk on weekdays than on weekends, and therefore there was less congestion on the boardwalk and more space for people to relax at the rail. 6 .10 .1 .4 Sittin g As discussed in previous sections, compared to Westminster Quay, sitting was less frequent tha n other activities at Steveston Landing. Thi s low frequency wa s due to a deficiency in the number of benches, chairs and seating opportunities. Secondary seating opportunities have not been designed in the open space at Steveston Landing. Althoug h this open space appears to be developed generically, the opposite is the case. Th e emphasis of the design of the open space is focused on providing good circulation and opportunities to view the fishing boats and river from the boardwalk. Primary Sitting on the Boardwalk accounted for only 12% of the activities at Steveston Landing. Althoug h these benches are built in the same character and wooden materials as the boardwalk, an d are double-fronting (i n other words they have no back piece), they do not have the capacity to accommodate the large numbers of people seeking places to sit I n total, there are only nine benches located along the water-side of the boardwalk, as shown in Figure 6.49 . 196 Figure 6.5 0 Steveston  Landing:  Standing  stationary and eating  frozen  yogurt. 197 Figure 6.5 1 Steveston  Landing:  Primary  sitting  on  the  boardwalk  benches with friend  standing  stationary  close-by. Figure 6.5 2 Steveston  Landing:  Leaning  on the  rail. 198 Four of these benches are located in the central portion of the boardwalk (where the boardwalk and ramp to the public fish sales dock meet); three are located in a node which extends out over the water at the east end of the boardwalk, and; two are located in a node which extends out over the water on the west end of the boardwalk. Thes e benches are 6 feet in length and 2.5 feet in width. Wit h people seated on both sides, these benches are able to seat 8 people per bench, for a total of 72 people on all boardwalk benches. Thi s is a relatively small number of seats to accommodate the 500 or so people who occupy the space during peak hours. As the benches reached capacity, people would sit closer together. I n some instances, family members or friends would try to squeeze in an extra person or seat children on their laps. Th e deficiency in the provision of seating was evidenced by the number of people Standing Stationary next to the crowded benches, as explained in previous sections. The frequency o f Sitting on the Boardwalk numbers can be a misleading in that the 12% frequency, which seems low, does not point out that the benches were full durin g most observation periods, but was a result of few seating opportunities. Thi s observation was recorded as a point-centered observation since it does not arise from the activity/behaviour data. The instance of Sitting in the Plaza was even less than on the boardwalk. Sittin g in the Plaza accounted for only 8% of the activities. Ther e are two reasons for this low frequency. Firstly , there are very few seats in the plaza. Base d on the same seating capacity assumptions as noted above, the plaza has the capacity to seat 24 people comfortably. Durin g most observation periods, the seating was filled beyond capacity, as noted by how close people would sit together. Secondly, portions of the plaza were in the shade during different time s of the day. I n the evening, after 5:30 p.m., the entire plaza was in the shade. A s a result, people would only briefly si t on the benches and chairs, then would move to the boardwalk, where the sun was still shining. Som e people would move the movable red chairs to the edge of the plaza, where it meets the boardwalk, to sit in the sun. From the activity data , it was noted in Figure 6.59 (on page 208) that more people were Sitting in the Plaza on weekdays than on weekends. Thi s appeared to be due to smaller food line-ups on weekdays, therefore freeing-up plaza space for more movable chairs to be 199 placed in the centre and edges of the plaza, where food line-ups might otherwise be located, as was largely the case on weekends (a trend which was reflected by the high frequency o f Standing Stationary on weekends, shown in Figure 6.61 on page 210). 6 .10 .1 .5 Activ e Activitie s an d Childre n Unlike Westminster Quay, Biking was a popular activity at Steveston Landing, accounting for 12 % of all activities and being the next most frequent activity after Walking and Standing Stationary (as shown in Figure 6.48). Ther e were as many as 60 bicycles parked along the rail and in the two bike racks at any given time (as shown in Figures 6.53 and 6.54). Th e high incidence of Biking was also reflected by the user survey data, which identified tha t 21% of the open space users surveyed had traveled to the site by bicycle. The high incidence of Biking was due to the fact that there are no level changes within the open space and the space benefits from excellent linkages with the street and the Richmond Trails System. Richmon d is also relatively flat so Biking is a relatively easy activity. Th e user survey data also determined that almost half of the respondents had traveled four miles or less to access the site and that exercising was a purpose for going to the site. Thes e people lived in the residential neighbourhoods in the vicinity of Steveston Landing. Although Pushing Strollers (4%) experienced low frequencies relative to other activities, it was more frequent than at Westminster Quay. I n fact on weekdays, the frequency o f pushing strollers increased to 7% on average. Thes e higher frequencies wer e probably a result of the excellent connections to the street and sidewalk with no level changes. There was no playground at Steveston Landing, and therefore there were no frequencies of Kids Playing in the Playground or Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground. A s well, there were no pieces of public art on which children could play or allow their imaginations to wander. However , the fish for sale on the fishing boats along the public fish sales dock provided lots of visual excitement for children and adults. 200 Figure 6.5 3 Steveston Landing:  Many bicycles parked on the  rail. W # *-*'>-: r r » — _ « Figure 6.5 4 Steveston  Landing:  Bike  racks are filled to  capacity. 201 Figure 6.5 5 Steveston  Landing: Walking dogs. Figure 6.5 6 Steveston  Landing:  Pushing  strollers. 202 *— . . . - . r ,  - n r M ^ ^ • *-*• • nnf=--'';-j5J|"' iiMlIltf1flfii,f"-TT f^flr^ ^H fff l .-•=_^ ..: ^il^^^R^ 1 o - r x: J H • i_ a St  • fclS ^^^^^^^M^M eaessSBB&B^^^^^n^^^a B B ^ ^ / 51 "NJ*" X~ ^ TfcJV. ' . * -1 r i 1 1 ^ -  •  \  1 • te^s iS H.'4w^ .* - -^^ W •" •••A' i  i yM* .7 v 1  -' ^ Figure 6.5 7 Steveston  Landing:  Wheelchairing  on the  public  fish sales  dock. Figure 6.5 8 Steveston  Landing:  Wheelchairing  on  the  boardwalk. 203 6.10.1 .6 Wheelchair s an d Walkin g Dog s Similar to Westminster Quay, the frequencies o f Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs were low at Steveston Landing, relative to other activities. However , the frequencies o f these two activities were higher at Steveston Landing than Westminster Quay, where they were almost non-existent. A s shown in Figure 6.48, Walking Dogs and Wheelchairing each had frequencies o f 2% at Steveston Landing. Th e frequency o f Walking dogs increased from 1% to 2% on weekdays, especially in the late afternoon an d evening observation periods. When the space was not crowded on weekdays, the frequency o f wheelchairing rose to 3%. 6.10.1 .7 Groupings : Wh o Use s th e Spac e Overall frequencies o f groupings were calculated for all observation periods in order to determine who was using the open space at Steveston Landing. Whe n ranked from most to least frequent, four trends of groupings were identified : Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups Females in Groups (of 2 or more) Singles (Male or Female) Males in Groups (of 2 or more) 6.10 .1 .8 Single s In much the same way as Westminster Quay, Single Males and Single Females experienced moderate frequencies, a s shown in Figure 6.62. Ther e were more Single Males than Single Females: Single Males accounted for 15 % of the groupings while Single Females accounted for only 10% . However , overall, the frequency o f Singles was lower than at Westminster Quay. Adde d together, the total frequency o f Single Males and Single Females equaled 25%, which was equivalent to the frequency o f Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups, which were the dominant groupings. 204 Steveston Landin g Overall Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s 30% T 25% - -20% - -o c 3 15 % - - r cr o> J _ 10% - - ! 5% - -0 % I  f - '  I  '  ' — I — ' J — I — ' ' — I — ' — — ' — I — l •  J Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2 ) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Figure 6.6 2 Grouping f W o n c S t e v e s t ° n Landin g Overall Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s Oroupln| §|nSlejyiales__ ^ i^ !Ogle__Female s ^®IIlS!®sJn_Grojjps_(>2) Male/Female_^airs ~ Males^Femaiesin Grou t Figure 6.63 110% [22%. 120% [Weekend 15% J0% 8%_ J6% 126% \24% 1 1 7 4 ^ 9 2 I265 163 6.10 .1 .9 Male/Femal e Pair s Male/Female Pairs were the most frequent grouping at Steveston Landing, accounting for 26% of groupings for all  observation periods (as shown in Figures 6.26 and 6.27). Thi s pattern is identical to that which occurred at Westminster Quay. Th e user survey data pointed out that the majority of Male/Female Pairs consisted of people between the ages of 26 to 35 years old. Th e next noticeable age group of Male/Female Pairs were between the ages of 36 to 45 and seniors over 65 years of age. However , these age groups each accounted for only about 12% of the survey respondents. 6.10.1 .10 Group s Males/Females (combined) in Groups had almost the same frequency a s Male/Female Pairs, both being dominant groupings. Males/Females  (combined) in Groups accounted for 24% of groupings for al l observation periods (as shown in Figure 6.27). Together , Males/Females (combined) in Groups and Male/Female Pairs accounted for half of all groupings. Th e frequency o f Males/Females in Groups was much higher at Steveston Landing than at Westminster Quay. Females in Groups (of 2 or more) and Males in Groups (of 2 or more) had almost the same frequencies a t Steveston Landing as at Westminster Quay, except that the spread between Females in Groups and Males in Groups was greater. I n fact, since Females in Groups accounted for 16 % of the groupings overall, they were ranked between the dominant groupings of Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups, and Singles. On the other hand, Males in Groups were less frequent accounting for only 8% of groupings for all observations (as shown in Figure 6.27). Male s in Groups were the least frequent groupin g at Steveston Landing. 6.10 .2 Weeken d Versu s Weekda y Trend s In addition to the overall trends for all observation periods, various trends emerged from the data, when comparing weekday and weekend observations. Th e majority o f these differences occurre d in the walking and standing stationary activities . Ther e were also differences i n the groupings of people using the open space. Figur e 6.59 compares the overall, weekday and weekend activities. 207 803 Crq' l - S ON en Frequency > o < Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground ° n | ? "U ~ * Q> C O w O O —* ~n CD J2 r (D -J O < o —h > o i -h < 0 CO < CD CO c CO : > CD CD * • a Q> < CO Q. ^ CD CD 7s CD 3 a O) i -h CD < 0 CO O D P" CD =J Q. (£2 11 O < CD -^  QJ — • £ CD CD 7? CD 3 a. a :> CD CD 7T Q . 0) *< Steveston Landin g Weekday Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Activitie s >. o c 3 cr 0) lOVo 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% + B O B a § 1 £ ° 00 B •a to 00 B oo PH 8 o to oo o m g 00 B •g oo B o o <D 00 B o 00 B 03 OH oo B Standing Stationary a o 00 .S m 00 o Q 00 B • J •8 -a o oo 00 B 3 .3 DO " 2 .5 § >> o 43 o o (X > > «s * oo .3 - o >-. B a B 5 w  I S ^ - 8 S t3 , B Figure 6.6 0 Ac t i v i t y Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground 013 Frequency _ L o S* — i en ^9 r\3 o ^8 ro en + The total number of activities for all observation periods at Steveston Landing was 3,851. Of this number, 2,142 activities took place during the weekend observation periods while 1,709 took place on weekdays. I n relative terms, weekend activities accounted for 56% of all activities, while weekday activities accounted for 44%. Th e spread between the number of weekend and weekday activities was not as great as a t Westminster Quay, where only one-third of the activities took place on weekdays. Thi s small spread suggests that the space was consistently used on weekdays and on weekends, perhaps because it was located within easy walking and biking distance from nearby residential neighbourhoods, as was reflected by the user survey data which showed that almost half of the respondents had walked or bicycled to the site. 6 .10 .2 .1 Activitie s By comparing the frequency o f individual activities on weekdays versus weekends, it was found that the dominant activities of Walking and Standing Stationary increased in frequency o n weekends, while the least popular activities of Pushing Strollers, Walking Dogs and Wheelchairing decreased. Th e frequency o f the moderately frequent activitie s of Sitting, Leaning on the Rail and Biking, remained almost constant. Thes e trends are similar to that which occurred at Westminster Quay, except that the dominant activities were Sitting and Walking at Westminster Quay. 6 .10 .2 .2 Sittin g The frequency o f Sitting remained almost constant on weekdays and weekends, as shown in Figures 6.59, 6.60 and 6.61. Primar y Sitting on the Boardwalk slightly decreased fro m 13% to 11 % frequency o n weekends. Primar y Sitting in the Plaza also slightly decreased from 9 % to 8%. Thes e decreases occurred because the activities of Walking and Standing Stationary became more frequent o n weekends. Thi s trend is consistent with the observation that as the seats became congested, more people were forced to stand. Since there were no secondary seating opportunities on the boardwalk or in the plaza (other than sitting on the ground), there were no frequencies o f Secondary Sitting at Steveston Landing. 211 6 .10 .2 .3 Walkin g Walking, which was the most popular activity at Steveston Landing, increased in frequenc y on weekends. Walkin g on the Boardwalk increased from 17 % to 23% on weekends, while Walking in the Plaza increased from 9% to 11%. I n both cases, the increase in the frequency o f walking reflected the larger numbers of people using the space on weekends. As illustrated in Figure 6.61, there were almost twice as many walkers on the boardwalk than in the plaza, which suggests that the majority of the people preferred to walk close to the water's edge, on the boardwalk in the sunlight, rather than in the often shaded plaza. Also, participant observations found that people would walk through the plaza to access the boardwalk, whereas people on the boardwalk would slowly stroll along while enjoying th e waterfront view of the river and fishing boats. 6 .10 .2 .4 Passiv e Activitie s As mentioned in previous sections, the frequency o f Standing Stationary almost doubled on weekends, rising from 13 % to 21% (a s shown in Figures 6.59, 6.60 and 6.61). Thi s increase was reflected in the larger number of people using the space on weekends and the many people who could not obtain seats and would end up standing. Leaning on the Rail slightly decreased in frequency fro m 13 % to 10% on weekends. Participant observation discovered that as the space became busy with people Walking on the Boardwalk on weekends, there was less room along the rail for people to lean. Also , bikes parked along the rail took valuable leaning space away from rai l leaners. 6 .10 .2 .5 Activ e Activitie s Biking, which was much more frequent a t Steveston Landing than at Westminster Quay, remained almost constant in frequency o n weekdays and weekends (as shown in Figure 6.59), accounting for between 12 % and 13% of all activities. Thi s consistency suggests that people would ride their bikes to the site regardless of how busy the site was. Th e user survey questionnaire data determined that almost half of the people at Steveston Landing had traveled less than 4 miles to access the site and 21% traveled to the site by bicycle. Forty-three percent replied that exercising was a major purpose for attending Steveston Landing. O n weekends and weekdays, many bikes were parked in the bike racks and along the boardwalk rail. 212 The other active activities of Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs, which were of low frequency o n weekdays became even less frequent o n weekends. Thi s trend was identical to that experienced at Westminster Quay. However , the frequencies o f these two activities were greater at Steveston Landing than Westminster Quay on both weekdays and weekends. A t Steveston Landing, the frequency o f Wheelchairing decreased from 4% to 2% on weekends, while Walking Dogs decreased from 3 % to 2%. Thes e decreases suggest that as the space became filled with people waking and standing stationary on weekends, wheelchairers and dog walkers were faced with various obstacles and became displaced from the space. 6 .10 .2 .6 Activitie s Involvin g Childre n The frequency o f Adults Pushing Children in Strollers decreased dramatically from 7% to 2% on weekends (as shown in Figures 6.59, 6.60 and 6.61). Thi s decrease was probably for the same reasons as the decrease of Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs on weekends. Since there was no playground at Steveston Landing, there were no frequencies o f Kids Playing in the Playground or Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground. 6 .10 .2 .7 Grouping s The frequency o f groupings varied immensely between weekdays and weekends. O n weekdays, Single Males and Females in Groups (of 2 or more) shared almost the same frequencies wit h Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups. However , on weekends, the frequency o f Single Males sharply declined, as did Males in Groups (of 2 or more) and Females in Groups, while the frequency o f Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups increased to become the dominant groupings. Thes e trends are depicted in Figure 6.64. 6 .10 .2 .8 Single s Similar to Westminster Quay, the number of Singles decreased on weekends. However , at Steveston Landing, the decrease in the frequency o f Single Males, from 20% to 11 % on weekends, was much greater than at Westminster Quay. Th e frequency o f Single Females remained almost unchanged by decreasing from 11 % to 10 % on weekends. 213 I—» 35% 30% 25%-c 20 % O 3 CJ £ 15% H LL 10% 5% 0% Steveston Landin g Overall Versu s Weekda y an d Weeken d Comparison o f Frequenc y o f Grouping s r1 i i ^ L I i i i^J Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Grouping D Weekda y H Weeken d H Overal l Figure 6.6 4 GSLOAComp Chart 1 Steveston Landin g Weekday Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s 25% x 20% - -£ 15 % C <u cr £ 10 % 5% 0% Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Figure 6.6 5 Grouping Steveston Landin g Weekend Fo r Al l Observatio n Period s Frequency o f Grouping s h—» 35% 30% 25% - -c 20 % 0) 3 XT 2 15 % 10% - -5% 0% Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Grouping Males/Females in Groups Figure 6.6 6 GSLWeekendChaitl On average, there were less singles at Steveston Landing on weekdays and weekends than at Westminster Quay. A s the frequency of Singles decreased at Steveston Landing, the frequency of Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups dramatically increased. 6.10.2.9 Male/Femal e Pair s an d Group s The frequency of Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups greatly increased on weekends. Together , these groupings dominated the space on weekends and overall, but shared similar frequencies with Single Males and Females in Groups (of 2 or more) on weekdays. Couple s increased from 22% to 30% on weekends while Males/Females (combined) in Groups increased from 20% to 28%. The reverse trend was the case for Females in Groups and Males in Groups which both decreased on weekends. Female s in Groups, which shared dominance on weekdays (with Male/Female Pairs, Males/Females in Groups and Single Males) decreased from 18 % to 15% on weekends. Th e drop in Males in Groups was even greater, from 10 % to 6% on weekends. Thes e decreases suggest that as more Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups inhabited the open space, less Males in Groups (of 2 or more) and Females in Groups (of 2 or more) used the space. 217 6.11 Summar y Numerous lessons were learned from the Steveston Landing case study. Th e scale of Steveston Landing is much smaller than Westminster Quay and as a result, a similar open space to that at Westminster Quay has been created, but in a much more concentrated space. The most beneficial aspec t of the Steveston Landing waterfront open space is its close proximity and linkages to the street and adjacent pedestrian systems, which connect the site with various Richmond residential neighbourhoods. Similar to Westminster Quay, the Steveston Landing site historically accommodated a working waterfront based on the commercial fishing and cannery industries. However , unlike in New Westminster, the small scale redevelopment of Steveston Landing has displaced only a small portion of the waterfront from the water-dependent fishing and cannery industries. Th e remainder of the Steveston waterfront continues to be the location of many active canneries and the berths for much of the Pacific commercial fishing boat fleet. The process of change and redevelopment was initiated by one owner: the federal government of Canada. Th e terms of reference tendering the redevelopment of the site included specific requirements that development proposals include a 20 foot waterfron t boardwalk along the water's edge, and a public fish sales dock in front o f the redevelopment. Stevesto n Landing Developments, a private company, who currently manages the site, won the tender and redeveloped the site to its current use and form. Th e federal government retains ownership of the site, while Steveston Landing Developments controls the site through lease agreements. Thi s process, whereby one large government owner owns and manages the redevelopment of a waterfront sit e is highly effective a t achieving public access to the water's edge and creating an exciting waterfront open space. Over the past five years, the City of Richmond has adopted various policies regarding public pedestrian access to the waterfront and environmental concerns. Thes e policies provide very general conceptual guidelines regarding how the water's edge should be developed, with rip-rap, inter-tidal benches, development-free setbac k zones and public boardwalks and piers which hang over the natural edge. However , they provide little guidance on how waterfront ope n spaces should be designed and what uses they should accommodate. 218 Steveston Landing had excellent pedestrian access, free from level changes and well-linked to the street, sidewalks, Richmond Trails system and downtown Steveston. Th e success of these linkages was reflected by the large numbers of people who walked or rode bicycles from nearby residences, to get to Steveston Landing. Th e majority of these people had traveled less than 4 miles to get to the site, as was discovered by the user survey data. As at Westminster Quay, the waterfront open space is dominated by two overall design features: the boardwalk and the plaza. Th e public sales dock, located in front of the open space (on the water), acts as a third major design feature, which draws people through the plaza and boardwalk, to the water's edge. Th e boardwalk provides the edge along the waterfront, while the plaza acts as a linkage through the buildings from the street-end (at the foot of Second Avenue) to the waterfront boardwalk and public fish sales dock beyond. The land-based plaza is surfaced with concrete, a solid material, while the water-based boardwalk is surfaced wood, a soft material. Sinc e there are no level changes, steps or landscaping to provide boundaries and transitions between the boardwalk and plaza, the concrete and wood surface materials are intermixed at the centre of the open space, where the two meet. Th e resulting pattern on the floor takes the shape of a circular star, which draws people to its centre and allows them to feel as though they are passing through the centre of two different but connected spaces. Two-sided, double width wooden benches are located along the waterside of the Boardwalk in alcoves protruding out over the water, so that walking circulation is not congested by people occupying these benches. Ther e are also two benches in the centre of the plaza. However , these benches are placed perpendicular to the flow of people through the plaza, and thus cause congestion. Ther e are no movable chairs or secondary seating opportunities in the public open space. Overall , there are not enough benches to service the many people who seek places to sit, as was reflected by the low frequencies of seating in the activity data and the frequently congested benches. A s a result, many people are forced to remain standing since there is often nowhere to sit. Lighting, street furniture and signage are consistent in theme, colours and materials with the cannery/fishing boat theme and character of the open space and buildings. However , the standard exposed aggregate concrete garbage receptacles and the small half-barrel planters seem out of place, and do not complement the theme. Th e lighting, although dim at night, is sufficient, and add to the old cannery ambiance of the space at night. Othe r than the half-barrel planters (which appear to be a mitigative measure added to the site after 219 redevelopment occurred) and a few hanging flower baskets, hanging from the overhead lamp standards, there is no other landscaping. Nowher e is there any permanent landscaping in solid planters. However , because of the small scale and cannery character of the space, it does not appear necessary to have permanent landscaping. Althoug h there is no landscaping or trees, the orientation of buildings creates shade in different portion s of the plaza throughout the day. Withou t the protection of trees, wind rushes through the plaza, which acts as a wind tunnel on windy days. Under the boardwalk, a reconstructed dyke, built of medium-sized rip rap stabilizes the foreshore and provides a habitat for fish, birds, vegetation and wildlife. Thi s dyke treatment conforms to the rigorous City of Richmond and FREMP environmental policies and criteria for waterfront redevelopment . As at Westminster Quay, walking was the dominant activity at Steveston Landing, as determined by the activity data and behaviour observations. Linkage s to adjacen t pedestrian systems allowed large volumes of walking to occur. Also , the parallel orientation of the boardwalk wooden planks to the water's edge, created a linearity that invited people to walk along the boardwalk. Unlik e Westminster Quay, sitting was only a moderate activity, due to the small supply of seating at Steveston Landing. A s a result, Standing Stationary was a dominant activity, closely followed in frequency by Leaning on the Rail. Bikin g was also very popular at Steveston Landing as reflected by the activity data and the many bicycles seen parked in the bike racks and along the waterfront rai l at all times during the day. From the user survey data, the most popular purposes for coming to Steveston Landing reported were to exercise, to view the river and to see the fish. Th e high frequencies of to exercise and to see the river were consistent with purposes at Westminster Quay. Th e purpose to exercise was also noted by almost half of the people who used pedestrian means to access Steveston Landing. Th e public fish sales dock and many fishing boats allowed viewing the fish to be a purpose at Steveston Landing as well as enhancing the theme and character of the open space. Since there is no playground or public art at Steveston Landing, there were no frequencies of children's activities. Ther e were however, many adults pushing children in strollers, especially on weekdays, when the space was less congested. 220 Most of the people using the space had traveled less than 4 miles to get to Steveston Landing, and lived in nearby residential neighbourhoods in Richmond. Thes e same people were the ones who had walked or bicycled to the site. Ther e were also people using the space who had traveled to the site from Vancouver and the North Shore by automobile. Some open space users were tourists who were visiting from foreign countries. Th e majority of the users were between the ages of 26 to 35. Th e next most noticeable group of users were the seniors between the ages of 65 to 74. The demographic profile statistics identified that a critical residential population mass exists in the vicinity of Steveston Landing, and that the majority of these people live in single family detached houses in either male/female pairs or families with children. Th e grouping data showed that Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups dominated the space overall, but that there were also many Females in Groups (of 2 or more) and Single Males. Th e dominance by Male/Female Pairs and Males/Females (combined) in Groups and the slightly larger number of Single Males than Single Females was the same trend as was experienced at Westminster Quay. The Steveston Landing case study provided an excellent alternative example of redeveloped urban waterfront open space to Westminster Quay, since there were various similarities and differences between the design and use of the two spaces. A s well, by comparing the two sites, other factors which impact use, such as site access, critical residential mass and demographic characteristics were discovered. 221 Chapter Seve n Implications and Design Principle s 222 7.0 Implication s an d Desig n Principle s This chapter summarizes the results of previous chapters by comparing the activity and user survey questionnaire data for the case study sites. I n response to these summaries, a series of design principles are presented which synthesize the lessons learned from the case studies and the urban design literature. 7.1 Compariso n o f th e Cas e Studie s From the behavioural activity data, demographic profiles and user survey analysis for the two case study sites, various trends identified similarities and differences between the two sites. Thes e trends provided insights as to why people visit the water's edge, what activities people undertake at the water's edge, and when the majority of these activities take place. I n addition, the user survey data and grouping observations identified who was using the waterfront open space, how far these users traveled to get to the space and how they accessed the space. To understand these trends, clues were sought by examining the location, physical setting, history, policy and land use context, transportation and access to the sites, and elements of design for each site. Thes e clues are referred to throughout the chapter. 7.1.1 Ho w th e Space s Wer e Used : Th e Activit y Dat a Analysis of the activity data for the case studies revealed overall trends. Th e overall frequencies of the different activities taking place at each of the case studies appear in figures 7.1 and 7.2. 7.1.1.1 Overal l Trend s By ranking the most frequent to least frequent activities, it was apparent that the most popular activities were different for the two case study sites. A t Westminster Quay, Sitting and Walking on the Boardwalk and in the Plaza area, were the most popular activities. Although there was no primary seating on the boardwalk, there were many secondary seats along the planter ledge bench flanking the boardwalk. Th e passive activities of Leaning on the Rail and Standing Stationary were of medium frequency while the active activities of Biking, Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs as well as activities involving children were least frequent. Althoug h the Expo Tugger playground was often occupied by at least two 223 children with one or two adults watching over, there were many more people performing other activities such as Walking and Sitting, therefore reducing the relative frequency o f children's activities in the playground. At Steveston Landing, the ranking of activities was different. Walkin g on the Boardwalk and Standing Stationary were the dominant activities closely followed by Biking and Leaning on the Rail. Sittin g and Biking were of medium frequency. Th e least frequent activities were Pushing Strollers, Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs. Sinc e there is no playground at Steveston Landing, there were no frequencies for Kids Playing in Playground and Adults Watching/Playing in Playground. Biking was more frequent a t Steveston Landing, as noted by 12% of the activities for all observation periods while at Westminster Quay, Biking was infrequent (onl y 2% of overall activities). The high incidence of Biking at Steveston Landing was a result of excellent access and linkages between the site and the Richmond Trails System. A s well, a critical mass residential population Uves within five miles from Stevesto n Landing. The flatness of Richmond's topography provides incentive for people to ride their bicycles to Steveston Landing rather than drive their cars. On the other hand, Westminster Quay experienced low frequencies o f Biking, even on weekends. Thes e low frequencies wer e the result of poor access to the site for bicyclists. The railway lines which separate the waterfront and Westminster Quay from the remainder of New Westminster provide a barrier to access. Ther e are only three railway crossings in the vicinity of Westminster Quay. Th e pedestrian overpass (at the foot of Eighth Street, near Hyack Square) has too many steps for bicyclists to carry their bikes over. Th e automobile overpass to the west of the site has a steep slope for cyclists climb and the at-grade crossing at the foot of Begbie Street has no sidewalk or bike lane, but dangerously mixes pedestrians, bicycles and cars. Bicycle s also risk getting their tires caught in the railway tracks. The passive activities of Standing Stationary and Leaning on the Rail were much more frequent a t Steveston Landing than Westminster Quay. Ther e were two reasons for this trend. Firstly , there was a lack of seating opportunities at Steveston Landing as reflected by the total of Primary Sitting in the Plaza and Primary Sitting on the Boardwalk combined, which accounted for 20% of all activities. Seat s here were often fully occupied and congested. 224 Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground 9ZZ Frequency S Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sittin g on Boardwal k Secondary Sittin g in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playgroun d ca en t\3 o O l As a result, many seat seekers would ended up standing. Standin g Stationary was also due to line-ups to purchase food at the window-style food shops. Th e most prevalent of these shops was the frozen yogur t store, where as many as 35 people could be seen lining-up at any given time. Line-up s provide an excellent opportunity for people watching and spontaneous conversation amongst strangers. Whyt e calls this condition "triangulation" . At Westminster Quay, there were many more seating opportunities along the planter ledge benches (flanking the boardwalk) and in the movable bistro chairs in the plaza, as reflected by Primary Sitting in the Plaza and Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk, which together accounted for almost half (45%) of all activities. A s well, since the public market building is close-by (only about 40 feet from the water's edge, abutting the plaza) with food outlet s located indoors, people would line-up to purchase food inside the market rather than in the outdoor open space. I f a seats are not available outside, there are opportunities to sit in one of the many seats located in the market, especially in the food fair on the second floor or the outdoor deck next to the food fair . Walking was a popular activity at both of the case study sites, accounting for approximately one-third of activities at each. Th e boardwalk at Steveston Landing and the Esplanade boardwalk at Westminster Quay provided excellent mediums for walking. Th e surface of the boardwalks are of wooden planks protruding out over the water's edge, giving people a sense of being close to the water but safe from falling in (since the rail holds people back). In the case of Steveston Landing, the boardwalk connects to the Richmond Trails System. At Westminster Quay, the Esplanade connects to the parking lot of the market on the east and the medium density waterfront residential communities on the west, therefore providing people who drive to the site with a place to stroll along the waterfront, and residents with a pedestrian linkage to the market. A t both case study sites, the plaza provides a transition passageway through which people pass to access the waterfront ope n space from the street, market or parking lot. Anyon e who uses these two open spaces must walk on either the boardwalk or the plaza in order to access and move through the waterfront ope n spaces. 227 7 .1 .1 .2 Weeken d Versu s Weekda y Trend s There were also similarities and differences i n the various weekday and weekend trends for the two case study sites. Two-third s (66%) of the activities took place on weekends at Westminster Quay. Thi s trend was not as noticeable at Steveston Landing, where 56% of the activities occurred on weekends. Seating trends were much different a t the two sites. Primar y Sitting in the Plaza decreased from 36% to 16% on weekends, while Secondary Sitting on the Boardwalk increased from 15% to 25% at Westminster Quay. Therefor e the dominant location of seating activity shifted from th e plaza to the boardwalk on weekends. A t Steveston Landing, the sitting activities (which consisted only of Primary Sitting on the Boardwalk and Primary Sitting in the Plaza) remained constant on weekdays and weekends. Primar y Sitting on the Boardwalk accounted for about 12% of all activities, while Primary Sitting in the Plaza accounted for about 8%. I n much the same way that Westminster Quay experienced more seating activity on the boardwalk on weekends, Steveston Landing did for all observations periods. Walking activities remained constant on weekdays and weekends at Westminster Quay, consistently dominating all activities. A t Steveston Landing, Walking in the Plaza remained constant, but Walking on the Boardwalk dramatically increased from 17 % to 24% on weekends. A s the seats became filled at Steveston Landing, more Walking on the Boardwalk occurred. Althoug h Walking in the Plaza was a moderately frequent activit y at Steveston Landing, Walking on the Boardwalk dominated all activities on weekends and weekdays. Biking experienced moderate frequencies o n weekdays and weekends at Steveston Landing, accounting for about 12% of all activities. O n the other hand, Biking was almost non-existent at Westminster Quay. Othe r active activities such as Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs slightly decreased in frequency a t both sites on weekends. O n weekends, frequency o f these activities was almost 0% at Westminster Quay. A s more walkers occupied the open space, Wheelchairers and Dog Walkers were displaced. Standing Stationary increased in frequency a t both sites on weekends. A t Westminster Quay, the increase was from 5% to 10%, while at Steveston Landing, the increase was 228 from 13 % to 21% to become a dominant activity. A s seats became filled, Standin g Stationary became more popular on weekends. The frequency o f Kids Playing in the Playground, Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground and Pushing Strollers remained constant at Westminster Quay on weekends and weekdays. A t Steveston Landing, because there was no playground, there were no frequencies o f Kids Playing in the Playground or Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground. However , unlike at Westminster Quay, the frequency o f Pushing Strollers decreased from 7% to 2% on weekends at Steveston Landing. Thi s decrease was most likely for the same reasons that Wheelchairing and Walking Dogs decreased on weekends. 7.1.2 Use r Surve y Questionnair e Dat a User survey questionnaire responses also yielded similarities and differences. Summarie s of the responses to each of the questions asked in the survey identified thes e similarities and differences . 7 .1 .2 .1 Wh o Use d th e Space s Although the sample size was small, a diagnostic indication of who used the waterfron t open spaces was established by the user survey results. Fro m the survey responses it was found that at Westminster Quay, the dominant age group of users were people between the ages of 26 to 35 years. Thes e people accounted for 42% of the survey respondents. O f these people, 76% were females and only 24% were males. Th e next largest group were senior citizens over the age of 75 accounting for 23% of respondents, and between the ages of 66 and 74 accounting for 19 % of respondents. I f these two age groups are added together, 42% of the users were over the age of 65. Onl y 3% of the respondents were between the ages of 36 to 45. At Steveston Landing, most of the respondents were also between the ages of 26 to 35, as represented by 58% of respondents. Unlik e at Westminster Quay, 57% of this age group were males and 43% were females; presenting a more equitable balance of males and females. Simila r to Westminster Quay, the next largest group of respondents were senior citizens between the ages of 66 to 75 (as represented by 18% of respondents). Ther e were no respondents over the age of 75 at Steveston Landing and only 12% were between the ages of 36 to 45. 229 The number of respondents between the ages of 56 to 65 was much higher at Westminster Quay (as represented by 13 % of respondents), than at Steveston Landing (as represented by only 3%). O n the other hand, while 9% of respondents were between the ages of 46 to 55 at Westminster Quay, there were almost no respondents in this age group at Steveston Landing. I t should be noted that questionnaire respondents were randomly selected and that children and youths were not included in the sample (as mentioned in earlier sections). 7 .1 .2 .2 Distanc e Travele d t o Acces s Waterfron t Ope n Spac e Overall, people using the open space at Steveston Landing had traveled shorter distances from thei r residences to access the site, than had the people using Westminster Quay. A t Steveston Landing, almost half (42%) of the respondents had traveled less than 4 miles to get to the site. O f these people, 29% traveled 2 to 4 miles and 16% traveled 0 to 2 miles. These large numbers were made possible by the critical mass residential populations in the direct vicinity of Steveston Landing. O n the other hand, at Westminster Quay, only 18% traveled 0 to 2 miles and none traveled 2 to 4 miles. Almos t all of these people lived in the adjacent Westminster Quay waterfront residential neighbourhoods. The majority o f respondents at Westminster Quay had traveled 5 to 10 miles (as represented by 47% of respondents) or 11 to 30 miles (as represented by 35% of respondents). A s will be seen in following sections, most of these people accessed the site by automobile and lived in adjacent municipalities . A t Steveston Landing, only 14% had traveled 5 to 10 miles and 33% had traveled 11 to 33 miles. A s at Westminster Quay, most of these people had traveled to the site by automobile from othe r municipalities. There were very small numbers of people who had traveled greater than 31 miles to access either of the waterfront ope n spaces. A t Steveston Landing, 8% of the respondents fell into this category and reported that they were tourists visiting Canada from othe r countries. 7 .1 .2 .3 Mod e o f Transportatio n Use d t o Acces s Waterfron t Ope n Spac e The mode of transportation responses replicated the distance traveled data by identifying that the majority of Westminster Quay respondents had accessed the site by automobile, while many of the Steveston Landing respondents had accessed the site by pedestrian means (either walking or bicycling). A t Steveston Landing, 25% had bicycled to the site 230 and 21% had walked. Thes e are the same people who had traveled less than 4 miles to access the site. At Westminster Quay, 52% had accessed the site by automobile while only 12% had bicycled and 18% had walked. Th e people who had walked were the same people who reported they traveled less than 2 miles to access the site, and lived in the waterfron t residential neighbourhoods. Th e people who had driven automobiles to the site were the same people who had reported traveling over 5 miles to access the site. Therefore , it appeared that the nearby residential neighbourhoods and pedestrian linkages between the open space and these neighbourhoods affected th e number of people who had accessed the site by pedestrian means. As a result, many people had traveled to Steveston Landing on foot or by bicycle; while at Westminster Quay, only people who lived in the waterfront residentia l neighbourhoods, connected to the open space by the Esplanade boardwalk, had walked to the site. Du e to poor and unsafe at-grade pedestrian linkages to the rest of New Westminster caused by crossing the railway tracks, few pedestrians had walked or bicycled to Westminster Quay from outsid e the waterfront neighbourhoods. Th e majority o f Westminster Quay respondents had traveled to the site from adjacent municipalities by automobile. Th e large parking lots to the east of the Quay, accommodated these auto travelers. Nobody reported taking public transit buses to access either of the sites. Onl y 3 people traveling to Westminster Quay from Surre y reported riding SkyTrain. 7 .1 .2 .4 Wher e User s Cam e From : Municipalit y o f Residenc e The municipality of residence responses were consistent with the distance traveled and mode of transportation results. A t Steveston Landing, almost half (42%) of the respondents lived in Richmond and had traveled less than 4 miles to get to the site. Th e majority of the remainder had come from Vancouver (26%) or the North Shore (16% from North Vancouver and 8% from West Vancouver). Onl y 8% had come from Burnaby and almost none from other southern and eastern Lower Mainland municipalities. Th e remaining 8% of respondents were tourists visiting from other countries. 231 The pattern at Westminster Quay was much different and reflected the large number of automobile users who had driven more than 5 miles to access the site. Onl y 17% of the respondents lived in New Westminster. Thes e people were the ones who lived in the waterfront residential neighbourhoods and had walked to the open space. 17 % of the respondents were from the City of Vancouver. Th e remaining 48% lived in neighbouring municipalities. Ther e appeared to be two sub-groups of neighbouring municipalities of residence. Th e first sub-group included Surrey, in which 18% of the respondents lived and Coquitlam, in which 18% also lived. Th e second sub-group included Burnaby and Delta, in which 6% lived in each respectively. Anothe r 18% had driven-in from Langley. Almost all of the respondents included in these two sub-groups reported that they had traveled to the site by automobile. Ther e were only 3 people from Surrey who had taken SkyTrain. 7.1.2.5 Numbe r o f Trip s t o th e Waterfron t Ope n Spac e At both sites, approximately one-quarter of the respondents reported they attended the site 1 to 5 times per year on average. Ther e were slightly more of these people at Steveston Landing (29%) than at Westminster Quay (23%). However, the number of respondents who attended the site frequently, meaning over 50 times per year, was noticeably larger at Steveston Landing. Here , 17% reported attending the site 50 to 99 times per year, and 13% attended over 100 times per year. O n the other hand, only 12% of the Westminster Quay respondents attended Westminster Quay 50 to 99 times per year, and less than 5% attended over 100 times per year. I n both cases, the people who attended the sites more frequently were the ones who lived close-by and had walked to the sites. The majority of the people at Westminster Quay attended the site between 6 and 24 times per year. Broke n down, 18% attended 6 to 10 times per year, and 23% attended 11 to 24 times per year. Ver y few (only 9%) of the Steveston Landing respondents attended 6 to 24 times per year. Westminste r Quay also had more people who had come to the site once in every 5 years (18% of respondents). Onl y 4% of the Steveston Landing respondents attended once in every 5 years. However , Steveston Landing also had a few people who had come to the site for the first time. Th e majority of these respondents were tourists visiting from abroad. 232 7.1.2.6 Reason s fo r Comin g t o th e Waterfron t Ope n Spac e Responses to the purpose for trip question yielded various parallels between the case study sites. Respondent s were able to provide multiple responses to this question. At both sites, many people responded that they came to the waterfront to exercise and view the river. A t Westminster Quay, 47% came to exercise and 35% to view the river. Similarly, at Steveston Landing, 43% came to exercise and 43% to view the river. Thes e were clearly the dominant purposes and are consistent with the activity data which demonstrated walking as the dominant activity and leaning on the rail as moderately popular at both sites. Meeting friends was also a consistent purpose at both sites as reported by 18% of the respondents at each site. The remainder of purposes were much different for the two sites. 20 % of the Steveston Landing users replied that to view the fish (for sale at the public fish sales dock) was a reason for coming to the site. Althoug h very few of the many people who traveled down the ramp to the public fish sales dock to see the fish did not actually purchase fish, the public fish sales dock acted as a destination which attracted peoples' attention. O n the other hand, nobody at Westminster Quay reported they had come to the site to see the fish, because there were no fishing boats or fish to see. Twenty-nine percent of the Steveston Landing respondents also stated that shopping was a reason for attending the site. Man y of these people added that they were shopping for fish. On the contrary, although Westminster Quay had a large public market next to the waterfront open space, only 18% reported that they had come to Westminster Quay to shop. I t would therefore appear that these people came to the site to enjoy the river and open space, rather than to shop. As reflected by the large number of shops in the market which sell food, 47% of the Westminster Quay respondents also included eating as a major purpose (although they did not consider this shopping). A t Steveston Landing, where there was frozen yogurt, espresso coffee, sushi and fish and chips available at window counters open to the plaza, only 20% of the users reported eating as a reason for coming to the site. 233 Relaxing was also a popular purpose at Westminster Quay, as answered by 29% of the respondents. Onl y 13 % reported this purpose at Steveston Landing. However , twice as many people noted people watching as a purpose at Steveston Landing (14% of respondents) than at Westminster Quay (6% of respondents). Six percent of the people said that entertaining children was a reason for using the open space at Westminster Quay. Althoug h this number is small, it is consistent with the activity data and participant observations which identified Kids Playing in the Playground and Adults Watching/Playing in the Playground as activities occurring in the open space. Thes e people all said that the Expo Tugger playground captured the interests of their children and they could watch their children play without visual barriers, therefore instilling a sense of safety. Ther e were no reports of entertaining children as a purpose at Steveston Landing. This is most likely because there was no playground or public art on which to play. 7 .1 .3 Summar y Overall, the user survey questionnaire responses were consistent with the activity data. Together, these two data sets established the basis for comparison of the two sites and provided insights regarding why people visit waterfront open space, who uses waterfront open space, what activities people enjoy a t the water's edge and how people access waterfront ope n space. Throughou t the section, reasons for the trends were identified by referring to the location, physical setting, history, policy and land use context, transportation and access to the sites, and elements of design of the spaces. Th e following section further summarizes these trends by presenting a series of design principles which reflect the lessons of the case studies and urban design literature and provide design strategies for the development of future urban waterfront open spaces. 234 7.4 Desig n Principle s As a result of the case studies, various trends and issues regarding the use and design of public open space at the water's edge in urban waterfront redevelopments were identified . Following are a series of design principles which address these trends and issues in order to provide the basis for future enquiry and establish design strategies for the development of future waterfron t ope n spaces. These principles could be encouraged during the municipal development review process or implemented privately by developers of the space through registered building schemes charged on property titles. Th e former is preferable, since it would provide public involvement in the development process and allow for continuity with other municipal (or otherwise) planning policies and guidelines. At the current time, it would be premature for municipal development review processes to implement such design principles in a regulatory or guideline manner. However , it is anticipated that the findings of this thesis and its associated design principles will act as a catalyst for further academic enquiry regarding the design and use of waterfront ope n space. A s further studies on this topic occur, design guidelines or other implementation strategies may be found to be ways of achieving the development of successful urba n waterfront ope n spaces. The design principles are sorted by major topic followed b y sub-topics within. I t should be noted that these design principles are conceptual in nature and address only the trends and issues discovered in the case studies and from the literature regarding the design of urban open space. Each design principle is presented in a brief statement, noted in italics, followed by a summary explanation which suggest strategies for achieving the principle. I n some cases, a sketch is included in the summary. Th e explanation and implementation strategies are followed b y brief statements of rationale, which discuss reasons for establishing the principle. 235 DESIGN PRINCIPLE S FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATERFRONT OPEN SPACE 236 Design Principle s fo r th e Developmen t of Urba n Waterfron t Ope n Spac e 7.2 .1 Overal l Desig n Feature s Waterfront open space in urban waterfront redevelopments should include a series of spaces with individual identities which are tied together by a consistent theme and character. These spaces could include Boardwalks or other waterfront pathways that accommodate active uses parallel to the water's edge, or Plazas, which accommodate passive uses and provide a transition and connection between the waterfront, Boardwalk and adjacent buildings and city. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y As waterfront areas redevelop and open space opportunities are created through the dedication of park land along the water's edge, buildings containing a mixture of uses are often developed adjacent and inland of the park land strip. A s a result, the open space becomes compacted between the water's edge and the development. I n order to create exciting and yet useful spaces within this medium, design features should accommodate both active and passive activities. A t the same time, the open space should provide a transition between the built form edge and the waterfront. T o accomplish this challenge, the following features are encouraged: 1) Plazas  - t o provide connections between adjacent development and space for passive activities such as sitting. 2) Boardwalks  - to parallel the water's edge and provide a medium for active activities such as walking, jogging and biking. Rationale In both the case studies, two overall design features were present in the waterfront open spaces; the Plaza and the Boardwalk. Th e Boardwalks, which paralleled the water's edge, provided the closest people could get to the water's edge. A t the waterside edge of the Boardwalks were the rails along which people would lean as they gazed out to the water and its activities and environment. Th e Boardwalks were built of wooden planks extending out over the natural foreshore. The wooden forms, materials and colours enhanced the waterfront character, and allowed people to safely stand out over the water's edge. The Plazas provided a transition space between the upland built form edge and the water's edge along the Boardwalk, and acted as a space through which people would pass to access the Boardwalk and waterfront. Plaz a areas were surfaced with concrete and exposed aggregate, establishing a firm land-base to the waterfront open space. Between the Boardwalks and Plazas were boundaries and transitions such as level changes, landscaped planters and changing surface materials, which linked the two spaces, but enhanced the individual identities of the different spaces. Boundarie s and transitions are discussed in subsequent guidelines. 237 Benches Transition Area <W> . • - 0 ^*~~Tabies  & Chairs > •  .  O o -  ^—/awe  &  Cte E= steps ~-T ,  •  ^ = ^ s a g s r F/^ ur<? 7. 3 boardwalk  and Flaza,  Flan View landscaped Boundary, •\ i  • Fianter ledqe Bench Figure 7A boardwalk  and Flaza,  5ectlon  View 238 7 .2 .2 Acces s an d Circulatio n 7 .2 .2 .1 Linkage s Pedestrian linkages which provide at-grade public access between waterfront open space and adjacent neighbourhoods,  pedestrian pathways, road  and sidewalk networks and public transit should be encouraged. These linkages should allow for easy access to waterfront open space for all pedestrians including the physically challenged bicyclists, senior citizens and people pushing children in strollers. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y Waterfront open space should be available for the enjoyment of all people. T o allow access to such open space for all people, barriers to access should be reduced to a minimum. To accomplish this task, the following are encouraged: 1) Pedestria n systems within the open space should connect with existing networks outside of the space. 2) Leve l changes should be reduced to a minimum, in order to allow access for wheelchairs, bicyclists, seniors, physically challenged people and people pushing children in strollers. 3) Wher e level changes are necessary, ramps with a shallow slope should be implemented to accommodate the above-noted people. 4) Wher e necessary, at-grade railway crossings should incorporate a dedicated pedestrian crossing space which is separated from the automobiles by bollards or other means and the gap between the rails and ground surface should be reduced to a minimum so that bikes and wheelchairs do not get stuck in the rails. 5) Surfac e materials should not cause difficulties to travel over. Board s on Boardwalks should be placed together such that people do not get stuck in the cracks. 6) Crosswalks , pedestrian-controlled streetlights and other provisions to allow safe pedestrian crossing of streets adjacent to the open space should be encouraged. 7) Gateways  using signage and/or boundaries and transitions such as change in surface materials, landscaping or public art should be encouraged to provide a transition between the neighbouring areas and the waterfront open space. These gateways should include elements such as colour, materials and forms, which reflect the maritime character and history of the waterfront space. Rationale From the case studies, it was found that although current municipal policies mention pedestrian connections and public access to the waterfront, they do not elaborate on how this could be achieved. I t was discovered that at Westminster Quay, the railway caused a barrier to pedestrian access which had not been dealt with effectively. Th e pedestrian bridge over the railway, connecting the waterfront open space to the core of downtown New Westminster had many stairs which created a barrier for physically challenged people, senior citizens, bicyclists and people pushing children in strollers. Th e at-grade railway crossing provided no safety for pedestrians to be separated from the automobiles. A s a result, there were only limited numbers of these types of people using the open space at Westminster Quay. 239 On the other hand, at Steveston Landing, where there are no level changes and the Boardwalk and Plaza link with the Richmond Trails System and the road and sidewalk networks, there were almost no barriers to pedestrian access and many bicyclists, people in wheelchairs, people pushing children in strollers and other pedestrians achieved barrier-free access to the waterfront open space. Figure 73  Pedestrian  Unkaqee  and  Integration  of  Street 7 . 2 . 2 . 2 Integratio n o f Stree t Opportunities to integrate street -ends with the waterfront open space should be encouraged and efficient and safe access for automobiles and emergency vehicles to adjacent off-street on-site parking areas should be established. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y Many streets terminate at the waterfront Often , these street-ends can provide wonderful linkages between the city and its waterfront I t is important that a balance is achieved whereby street-ends are integrated with adjacent waterfront open space using boundaries and transitions such as similar surface types, knock-down bollards, etc. Sinc e in most waterfront redevelopment projects, the waterfront is comprised of pedestrian oriented open space, it is important that this transition area determines where the automobile realm ends and the pedestrian realm begins; keeping in mind that visual access of the waterfront for automobiles and the city should be maintained. It is also important that adequate automobile access to off-street on-site parking spaces be established so that automobile users and emergency vehicles can access the open space effectively. Off-street parking should be provided, as per municipal regulations, so that congestion does not impact circulation and access for automobiles entering the site. Th e interface between the parking areas and the waterfront open space should be treated using the same design principles as noted above for street-ends. 240 Rationale The Steveston Landing case study demonstrated how the street-end at the end of Second Avenue in Steveston was integrated into the waterfront open space. Althoug h the road ends for automobiles, pedestrians can continue through the Plaza to reach the Boardwalk and waterfront. Th e Plaza has a similar width to the Second Avenue road right-of-way, but is separated from the road by a sidewalk and overhead gateway (which forms part of the Steveston Landing buildings). From Second Avenue, which connects to the core of Steveston, automobiles and pedestrians can catch a glimpse view of the waterfront by looking through the Plaza. At Westminster Quay a similar condition exists at the end of Kdek Court, a cul-de-sac in the residential portion of the Quay neighbourhood, where a street end park is used as a transition between the street and the waterfront open space. Knock-dow n bollards separate the automobile and pedestrian realms and a brick paver and exposed aggregate concrete surface provide the transition and linkage between the spaces. At Westminster Quay, there is also the large parking lot to the east of the open space, which is often full and congested, since there is only one primary railway crossing which is controlled by a streetlight. A  secondary access to the parking lot is located to the east of the lot. However , this access is not used often since it cannot be seen from the market or open space, and it enters and exists onto a four-way stop intersection of a truck route along Front Street. Knock-dow n bollards and a change in surface types create the transition between the automobile and pedestrian realms at the interface of the parking lot (asphalt), the Haza (exposed aggregate) and the Boardwalk (wooden planks). 7 .2 .2 .3 Boundarie s an d Transition s Boundaries and Transitions are encouraged to provide linkages between different spaces near the water's edge and to enhance the individual identities off each space. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y In many cases, waterfront open space is comprised of a Haza and a Boardwalk. Suc h spaces should be linked but there should also be distinct elements of design which allow a transition between spaces. T o accomplish boundaries and transitions between spaces, the following are encouraged: 1) Usin g different surface types. 2) Usin g landscaping, trees  and planters to provide an edge between spaces. 3) Creatin g slight level changes of one to three feet using steps, to provide a transition and connection between spaces. I f this technique is used, ramps or other provisions must be included to allow physically challenged people, bicyclists and people pushing children in strollers to move between the two spaces. 241 Rationale From the case studies, it was found that the Plaza acts as a land-based feature which is usually surfaced in hard solid materials such as exposed aggregate concrete, and provides the connection between the development close to the waterfront and the Boardwalk which parallels the water's edge. O n the other hand, Boardwalks were surfaced with wooden planks, a soft material, and reflected the water-based maritime character. Th e Boardwalks usually hang over the natural water's edge and provide the water's edge for the open space. Th e boundary/transition feature between the Boardwalk and the Plaza areas allows a visual and perceived protection of the land-based Plaza from the water and enhances the linearity of the edge of the Boardwalk along the waterfront Figure 7.6 Doundarlee  and Traneltione 242 7 .2 .3 Pedestria n Area s Boardwalks or other waterfront pathways should be developed along the water's edge to encourage people not only to come to the waterfront, but to walk alongside its edge. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y It was found that many people use waterfront open space to exercise by walking. T o accommodate this use safely and effectively, the following are encouraged: 1) Surface  materials which are suitable to walk on, which enhance the theme and character of the waterfront open space but do not impose constraints to wheelchairs, strollers or bicyclists should be encouraged. Woode n boardwalks are one way of providing an inviting thematic surface to accommodate such activities in open space at the water's edge. 2) Th e scale of the boardwalk or other pathways should appear as a linear edge paralleling the waterfront drawing people in and along Ihe water's edge. The scale of the width of the boardwalk or pathway should be a result of the setback and massing of abutting development or landscaping. 3) Interpretive  signage, which enhances waterfront themes should be incorporated. Suc h signage could refer to site history, local environment (plant, bird, wildlife and plant species), industrial activities, geography, etc. 4) Destinations  such as public piers can be used to draw people through the waterfront open space to the water's edge. Th e same destination effect could be accomplished by capitalizing on nearby views of waterfront activity or public art. 5) Th e terminus of boardwalk or waterfront pathways should not simply end in the middle of nowhere but should provide a destination such as a playground or a street-end park, or it should allow an alternative linkage to nearby pedestrian networks. 6) Appropriat e lighting should be developed along the boardwalk or waterfront pathway, to ensure safety for evening walkers. Suc h lighting should complement the colours, materials and forms associated with the waterfront character and history. 7) Provision s for the safe separation and accommodation of walkers, bicyclists, skateboarders and rollerbladers should be encouraged. Space s designed to accommodate varying uses should appear to be part of the same open space. 8) Althoug h boardwalks and waterfront pathways should allow continuous barrier free movement, there should be occasional seating opportunities along the edges of such pathways to allow walkers to rest 9) A  railing or ledge should be encouraged to prohibit walkers from falling over the water's edge and into the water. Suc h railings should be built to at least 3 feet (0.984 metres) in height and should be constructed of materials, colours and forms which complement the waterfront theme and character. Railing s should not block views through the railing but should stop small children from, a s well as adults from falling through beneath the rail. 243 Rationale The case study data identified that walking was the most frequent activity enjoyed by waterfront open space users. I n the user survey questionnaires, the majority of users included exercising as a main reason for going to the waterfront open space. Th e activity data showed that walking on the boardwalk was the most popular activity at both of the case study sites. Ever y person who enters the waterfront open space (who is not riding a bicycle or in a wheelchair) must walk through the space at one time or another. I t is therefore important to ensure that the space is safe to walk through and that there are reasons to continue walking through the space. At Steveston Landing, the Boardwalk, which is relatively short in distance and narrow in scale (only 20 feet [6.562 metres] in width) and the Plaza converge at the centre of the site in a star shaped pattern on the ground consisting of a mixture of the wooden boardwalk surface materials and the exposed aggregate Plaza surface materials. A t this centre, walkers are drawn through the space and attracted to the destination of the public fish sales dock, where many people go to see the fish fo r sale (off of the fishing boats). N o level changes and relatively smooth surfaces allow all people to easily pass through the space and to the public fish sales dock. However , many people cycle to Steveston Landing and thus congestion of walkers and cyclists often prevails on the Boardwalk. However , this space full of activity provides lots of opportunities for people watching. Figure 7.7  F\aza,  S>oardwa\k  and Deetination: Fub\ic Fier At Westminster Quay, the Esplanade Boardwalk draws people through the open space and its 1100 metre (3353 feet) length provide a challenging walk for many visitors. I t also provides a pedestrian linkage between the waterfront residential neighbourhoods and the public market and downtown area. O n the western portion of the Esplanade, walkers are separated from the bicyclists, skateboarders and rollerbladers, by a 5 foot (1.640 metre) landscaped area. Th e walking portion is a continuation of the Boardwalk along the water's edge, while the bicycling, skateboarding and rollerblading portion is inland of the landscaped separation and is surfaced with brick pavers and exposed aggregate concrete. Occasionally , there are connections between the two using steps as a transition. Th e problem with the Esplanade is that it currently ends at a development site next to a saw mill, therefore, walkers are forced into turning around and retracing their steps. Ther e are future plans to extend the Esplanade to connect with the pathways under SkyTrain and other pedestrian systems. 244 7 .2 .4 Seatin g Area s Seating opportunities consisting affixed benches, movable chairs and secondary seats are encouraged and should be strategically located throughout the open space to accommodate seating needs of most open space users. Careful attention should be considered when determining locations of fixed benches such that the flow and circulation of the space is not congested. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y In a study of New York City plazas, Whyte discovered that if there are places to sit, people will sit Waterfront open spaces should provide enough seating opportunities to accommodate some but not all people. A  balance should be achieved between the number of seats provided to service seating demand and seats which potentially could remain empty for much of the day. T o reduce the apparent emptiness of vacant seats, variations of primary fixed benches, movable chairs and secondary seating opportunities should be available throughout the open space. Movable chairs allow the flexibility of being moved throughout the space as sun and shade patterns change and so chairs can be brought out or put away as necessary, according to demand. B y including secondary seating opportunities such as planter ledge benches and steps, people are provided with places to sit when all the other seats are taken, and yet when nobody is sitting on the ledge or steps, the seats and space do not appear empty. People often sit when they eat food. I n this case, seats should be available near food outlets, which are often in or near the plaza areas. T o successfully provide seating, the following are encouraged: 1) A  balance should be achieved between the number of seats required to accommodate peak seating demand and the number of seats which potentially could be vacant most of the day. 2) Primary  benches should be located such that they do not congest circulation through the space. 3) Secondary  seats such as along planter ledges and steps should be incorporated, so when seating demand is low, these design components do not appear as empty seats. 4) Movable  chairs should be available so that people can move the chairs to join a group or adjust their position to take advantage of sun or shade. Movabl e chairs can also be brought out or put away according to seating demand. 5) Th e colours, materials and forms of seating should complement the theme and character of the open space. 6) Ther e should be seating opportunities, and possibly tables near food outlets, which are often located in or near the Plaza. Rationale The waterfront open space at Steveston Landing was deficient in providing enough seating to accommodate seating demand. Thi s condition was apparent by the large numbers of people who were forced to stand next to friends and family who were sitting. Also , as the space became congested with sitters, people would sit closer together. I n addition, the location of benches in the Plaza was perpendicular to the flow of people through the Plaza, thus congesting circulation. 245 On the other hand, Westminster Quay provided numerous seating opportunities. Th e most prominent of these seats were the secondary planter ledge benches and the steps between the Plaza and the Boardwalk. Whe n the space was busy, these seats would become filled, but there was always more seating space on the steps or further down the ledge. Whe n the space was empty, these seats simply appeared as a planter and steps. Ther e were also movable plastic bistro chairs and tables in the Plaza, close to the market, where food could be purchased. A s the space became more or less busy throughout the day, market staff would bring out or put away the chairs, as necessary. Benches j W ledqe Bench " MOVABLE  CHAIK5 Tables & Chairs 0-~ -  • Figure 73 Different  Typea of Seating Whyte suggests that a quantitative regulation should apply for the supply of seating in urban plazas. In his analysis of Seagram's Plaza in New York City, he determined a conceptual figure of one linear foot of bench space for every 30 square feet of plaza space. Suc h a formula could be helpful as a guideline for waterfront open space, however, due to the complexity, scale and shape of the space, and the variety of seating types available, it would be difficult to determine a standard figure which could be applied to various waterfront open spaces. 246 7.2 .5 Bicycle s Opportunities for bicyclists to safely access waterfront open space and securely park their bicycles should be encouraged. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y As an alternative to automobile use, many waterfront open space users ride bicycles to access the space. The Boardwalk or waterfront pathway provides an excellent medium for riding bicycles. As discussed in previous guidelines, it is important that barriers of access to waterfront open space be reduced in order to ensure safe and easy access for bicyclists to the space. I n addition, once bicyclists reach the space, there should be opportunities to securely park and lock their bicycles on bike racks or rails within public view. I n some cases, the rail paralleling the water's edge along the Boardwalk, can serve as an alternative location to park and lock bicycles. T o accommodate the access and parking of bicycles, the following should be encouraged: 1) Leve l changes should be reduced to a minimum. Where level changes must occur, ramps with a shallow slope should be constructed such that bicyclists can easily climb the grade. 2) Boardwalks  and other waterfront pathways are encouraged to provide space where bicyclists can travel without the threat of mistakenly striking a pedestrian. 3) Boardwalk s and other waterfront walkways which include bike paths, should connect with other pedestrian and bicycle networks outside the waterfront open space. 4) Bike  racks and rails should be located within public view, but not such that they congest the open space. Ther e should be enough bike racks to accommodate the average number of bicycles which attend the open space. Bike racks should allow bikes to be securely locked and parked. 5) Wher e it is not possible to provide bike racks, the waterfront rails can be designed so that bikes can be locked to it. Rationale At Steveston Landing, where there are excellent connections to the Richmond Trails system and no level changes, as many as 50 bikes could be seen parked in the racks and along the Boardwalk rail at one time. Th e user survey questionnaire data pointed out that over one third of the people had ridden bicycles to travel to the site. Althoug h there are bike racks at either end of the Boardwalk, which can park about 24 bicycles, the racks could not accommodate the demand for bike parking and therefore people would park and lock their bikes to the waterfront rail. Th e many colours of different bicycles parked on the rail and the outfits of people who ride them provide visual excitement, however, they also congest the flow of the open space and block some views through the rail of the water. At Westminster Quay, the railway creates a barrier to bicycle access. Bicycle s must either cross the railway tracks at-grade amongst the automobiles or by lifting their bikes up the many steps of the pedestrian overpass bridge across the railway. A s a result, very few people had traveled to the site by bicycle, as reflected by the user survey data and the small number of bicycles parked on the waterfront rail of the Boardwalk. 247 1 1 Figure 7.9  Accommodation  of  3icyc\ea 7.2 .6 Foo d an d Commercia l Use s Buildings adjacent to waterfront open space should be encouraged to incorporate commercial uses such as restaurants, gift shops, artists studios and food vendors. Also,  mobile food vendors should be encouraged to take-up temporary positions within the waterfront open space. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y Many of the people who attend waterfront open space can often be seen eating food. I n Whyte's analysis of New York City plazas, Whyte discovered that eating was one of the most popular activities enjoyed by plaza users. I n much the same way, if the opportunity is present to purchase food, waterfront open space users will purchase and eat food while they sit, walk or stand in the open space. Th e diverse aromas, colours and sounds arising from the food vendors add an exciting dimension to the character of the open space and aeate interesting visual stimuli. To accommodate eating activity, the following are encouraged: 1) Building s located adjacent to waterfront open space should be encouraged to include commercial uses, restaurants and food outlets (such as frozen yogurt, ice cream, fish and chips and espresso shops). 2) Food  outlets should have purchase windows open to the open space, whereby open space users can line-up outside to purchase food. Th e line-up creates visual excitement. 3) Mobile  food vendors should be encouraged to take-up temporary positions in the waterfront open space (under the appropriate municipal licensing and/or agreements with adjacent property managers where a portion of the Plaza is privately owned). 4) Sufficien t garbage receptacles, designed in a form, colours and materials which complement the theme of the open space, should be provided throughout the space to accommodate food waste. 248 Rationale In the case studies, it was found that many of the people who were sitting, standing or walking, were also eating food. Th e user survey questionnaire data determined that a many of the respondents replied that to eat was a major purpose for going to the waterfront open space. In Plaza at Steveston Landing, as many as 35 people could be seen standing in the line-up for frozen yogurt. Man y of the people strolling along the Boardwalk were either eating frozen yogurt or drinking coffee. I n the same manner, at Westminster Quay, numerous food outlets within the Public Market provide food for Plaza and Boardwalk users. I n the Noon and Afternoon observation periods, most of the people seated on the secondary planter ledge benches along the Boardwalk and in the movable chairs of the Plaza were eating food while seated. The diversity of food types, the colours of frozen yogurt and the smell of coffee and popcorn added an excitement to the open space. Figure 7.10 Food  and Commercial Usee 7.2 .7 Them e an d Characte r The theme and character of waterfront open spaces should make use of any maritime histories associated with such sites, and should be expressed in the colours, materials, forms, street  furniture and public art of the open space. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y Most waterfront redevelopments occur on waterfront lands which once were the site of industrial and maritime uses which historically provided the economic basis for the city as well as connecting the city to the rest of the world through port facilities. Thes e waterfront sites possess an maritime and industrial heritage based on a working waterfront Legacie s of these activities can be still be seen today as reflected by tug boats, barges and fishing boats. I n some cases, an environmental heritage regarding bird, fish, vegetation and wildlife species which once inhabited (and still inhabit) the waterfront exists. 249 In order to capture the history and character of the waterfront and successfully present these in a consistent theme, the following should be considered when designing waterfront open space: 1) A  consistent theme and character is encouraged in the signage, street furniture, lighting, surfaces, colours, materials, forms and public art. 2) Th e theme and character of waterfront open space can reflect the history of the waterfront Thi s history may include components of the industrial working waterfront, the environmental heritage or the maritime traditions. 3) Th e design components are encouraged fit together to tell a story about the history of the waterfront location and provide people with the feeling that they are close to the water. Public  art can be used to help tell this story and to spark peoples' imaginations. Figure 7.11 Interpretive  and Thematic Signage 4) Desig n components such as signage, street furniture, lighting, surfaces, colours, materials, forms and public art should be durable and be able to resist weathering, human use and seagulls. A s well, they should be safe. 5) Lighting  is encouraged to be consistent in form, colours and materials to the common theme, but should be sufficient to provide safety for evening and early morning open space users. 6) Signage  should be consistent with the theme, and should clearly portray its messages. Interpretiv e signage is encouraged to assist in telling the story of the history and current activities of the site and water beyond. 250 Rationale As waterfronts sites redevelop from industrial uses or a natural environmental state, it is important that a component of their history be maintained for future generations to understand and enjoy. Th e open space required in waterfront redevelopments provides the ideal medium in which to express this history. At Westminster Quay, bronze cannon sculptures and a statue of Simon Fraser tell a story about the history of settlement along the Fraser River. Th e Expo Tugger playground, in the shape of a tug boat and the bell buoy statue at the entry to the open space portray a nautical character. Thi s nautical historical theme is reflected in the wooden planks of the Boardwalk, the light blue and white colours of the Boardwalk rail and lamp standards and the signage, which shows an old river paddle wheeler boat. In much the same way, at Steveston Landing, the signage takes the form, colours and materials of the signs that historically could be found on the side of a cannery. Eve n the buildings look like cannery buildings in their form light grey colours and shiplap wood siding and fixtures. Th e lamp standards and other lighting are very similar to the type that is found on the docks which house the fishing boats at Steveston Landing. Th e close view of the fishing boats along the public fish sales dock provides the centre point of the fishing boat/cannery theme, which is reminiscent of the Steveston waterfront. A s well as providing a visually stimulating environment, the consistent theme and character of all of these design elements tell a story about the history and current uses of the Steveston waterfront. 7.2 .8 Children' s Activitie s Children's play areas are encouraged to be incorporated into waterfront open spaces. Play  areas and public art should capture children's' interests and provide stimuli for their imaginations, as well as providing an educating role regarding the waterfront. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y An important user group who are often neglected are children. Man y urban plazas do not provide design features which capture the interest of children. O n the other hand, waterfront open space is enjoyed by people of all ages and thus play areas and public art which allow children's' imaginations to wander should be incorporated. T o accomplish this task: 1) Play  areas and public art should capture children's' interests and allow their imaginations to wander. 2) Pla y areas and public art are encouraged to include thematic elements which tell a story about the history and current activities of the waterfront. 3) Pla y areas should be designed to allow safe visual security for on looking parents and guardians. 4) Play  areas and public art should not present a danger to children. Shar p objects and high ledges and platforms should be avoided. 5) Pla y areas and public art can also capture the interests and spark the imagination of adults. 6) Pla y areas and public art should be constructed of durable materials which can tolerate not only weathering but also the intense activities of children. 251 Rationale Children bring a youthful character to all types of parks and open spaces. Childre n should not be neglected when designing waterfront open space. A t Westminster Quay, the Expo Tugger playground demonstrated how a children's' play area could be incorporated into the space by building the playground in the shape of a tug boat. B y taking this shape, there are lots of knobs and levers for children to play with as they imagine they are the captain of the tug and they learn about the history of the river. As well, the form, colours and materials of the play area are consistent with the river theme of Westminster Quay, and thus enhance the character. Parent s and guardians can safely watch their children through the large windows of the Tugger, which do not have glass. Occasionally , seniors and others also enjoy watching the children play and bring a youthfulness to the waterfront space. J _ l Figure 7.12  Children's Play Areas and  Public Art 7 .2 .9 Microclimat e Trees and landscaping can be used to provide protection from the sun and shade opportunities. Where possible, southwest exposure should be capitalized in order to maximize sunlight into the open space. Buildings are encouraged to be oriented such that there are opportunities for both sunlight and shaded areas in the open space at different hours throughout the day. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y 1) Trees  and landscaping can be used to reduce the impacts of wind off of the water, and to provide protection from the sun. 2) Wher e possible, southwest exposure should be capitalized in order to maximize sunlight in the open space. 3) Building s are encouraged to be oriented such that a variety of sunlit and shaded areas are provided in the open space through different hours of the day. 252 Rationale The aspects of sun and shade were apparent at both of the case studies. Durin g the daytime, both site benefited from southwest exposure. However , in the late afternoon and evening (depending on the time of year), the spaces were largely shaded by the adjacent buildings. A s a result, the spaces would become cold, and would empty of people. People who did remain were usually found on the waterfront edges of the Boardwalk where the last glimpses of sunlight could be enjoyed. Th e Plaza areas, next to the buildings became void of people. On the other hand, on extremely hot and sunny days in the summer, the Boardwalk and its benches had no trees or landscaping to protect open space users from the extreme rays of the sun, or the evening breeze of the water. A t Westminster Quay, the landscaped planter and occasional trees between the Boardwalk and the Plaza provided Plaza users with a refuge from the sun and wind. 7.2 .10 Environmenta l Consideration s Special precautions should encouraged to ensure that the impact of development on bird, fish, vegetation and wildlife species is minimized Where  possible, environmental compensation and preservation measures are encouraged to be implemented. Explanation an d Implementatio n Strateg y The development of urban waterfront open space should try to result in a no net loss circumstance whereby bird, fish, vegetation and wildlife habitats are either preserved or replaced. I n order to accomplish this task, environmental compensation measures which include, but are not limited to the following, are encouraged: 1) Th e natural water's edge (often beneath a Boardwalk or parallel to a sea wall, dyke or pathway) is encouraged to be secured with rip-rap o r another material which extends well below the high and low water marks to stabilize the edge and provide a habitats where fish, birds and vegetation may thrive. 2) Inter-tidal  benches can be built into dykes, so that marsh vegetation and grasses can grow, providing a habitats for fish, birds and micro-organisms. 3) I f used, Environmental compensation and preservation measures are encouraged to be designed such that their form complements the design of the waterfront open space. 4) Stor m drains and run-off from the open space and adjacent development should be kept to a minimum. 5) Wher e possible and available, some areas may be preserved in a natural environmental state. 253 Figure 7.15 Inter-Tidal  denchee and  Kip-Kap alonq the Foreshore Rationale The Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), a co-operative effort comprised federal, provincial and municipal agencies, has published numerous reports regarding natural habitats, environmental regulatory policies and development along the Fraser River. Man y of these studies have suggested the above-noted guidelines as ways to preserve and enhance the waterfront environment. The City of Richmond has also developed a series of guidelines which pertain to waterfront preservation and conservation. Richmond publishes a map (which uses the same environmental inventory data as the FREMP studies) which identifies environmentally sensitive areas. Almos t all waterfront areas in Richmond are included in this inventory and guidelines suggest in such areas, a 30 metre strip of land (measured back from the high water mark) should be preserved in its natural state, free of development Wher e development is permitted, Richmond's guidelines suggest using Boardwalks and wooden public piers which hang over the water's edge, to conserve and protect shoreline habitats. 254 Chapter Eight Conclusions 8.0 Conclusion s 8.1 Lif e a t th e Water' s Edg e -  Purpos e Restate d As stated previously, the purpose of this thesis is to study the relationship between the design of public open space at the water's edge in urban waterfront redevelopments and how this space is used, and to determine what other factors influence use. 8.2 Primar y Researc h Result s To research this purpose, two waterfront case studies and the urban design literature regarding urban open spaces were examined. Fro m this process, an inventory was established of design elements found in urban waterfront ope n spaces. Fro m this inventory, parallels were made between the design of waterfront ope n space and urban plazas. Activities and groupings of waterfront open space users were observed to determine how the space was used and by whom. A s well, users were surveyed with questionnaires to find out their purposes for attending the open spaces, how far they traveled to access the open spaces and how they traveled. A s a result of this research, a series of design principles were developed, which summarize the thesis findings and provide implications for the development of future urban waterfront ope n spaces. As a result of the research findings, two critical relationships evolved from the case study data and the literature: 1 . Desig n Influence s Us e 2 . Othe r Factor s als o Influenc e Us e 8 .2 .1 Ho w Desig n Influence s Us e The design principles presented in section 7.2 provide a comprehensive summary reflecting the elements of design types of activities that were found in the case study waterfront ope n spaces. Eac h design principle provides a principle statement followed by explanations and implementation strategies, and rationale statements justifying th e reason for the principle, 256 by referring t o the case studies. Comparison s of activity data and user survey trends for the case studies in section 7.3 determined connections between the design of the spaces and how they were used. From the design principles and case study comparisons, research indicated the following connections between design and use: 1 . Walkin g Activitie s an d th e Boardwal k Urban waterfront open space often consists of two overall design features: the Plaza and the Boardwalk. Thes e two features are similar to the "Square" and "Street", which Krier defines as being the two components of urban public open space, within which eating, recreation and circulation take place (Krier, 1979:17) . Walking on the boardwalk was found to be the most frequent activity in the waterfron t open spaces. Th e boardwalk provided a safe comfortable and inviting place to walk, and was the closest the public could get to the water's edge. Use r survey questionnaire data identified exercising as the most popular purpose for peoples' trips to the case study waterfront open spaces. Th e boardwalk permitted unobstructed walking opportunities, with lots of visual interest both on-land and on-water. Th e wooden planks of the Boardwalk provided an excellent medium for walking and complemented the historical working river theme of the two spaces. 2 . Seatin g Activitie s an d th e Plaz a The plazas of both of the case study sites acted as through spaces, linking adjacen t buildings and streets with the boardwalk and waterfront. Th e plazas were often cluttered with fixed and movable primary seating, which was frequently occupied . Often people sitting in the plaza were also eating food, which they had purchased from the vendors on the perimetre of the plaza in adjacent buildings. Sitting in the plaza was the second most frequent activity after walking on the boardwalk at Westminster Quay, where there many places to sit. However , at Steveston Landing, although plaza seats were often fully occupied , there were only two benches and four movable chairs, therefore because there were no places to sit, seating frequencies were lower. A s a result, many people would end up standing stationary, as 257 was reflected by the data. Coope r Marcus suggests that seating is the most important element in plaza use (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 32). By providing seating opportunities in waterfront open spaces, sitting activity is encouraged. 3. Viewin g th e Rive r an d th e Rai l The user survey data discovered that to view the river was the second most popular purpose for peoples' trips to the two sites. Fro m the boardwalk on both sites, there were excellent views of the river. Th e medium to high frequencies of the activity of leaning on the rail were consistent with the purpose data. Th e rail was the closest people could get to the water's edge and still remain safe from falling in the water. Participant observations noted that almost all people leaning on the rail had their gazes focused out to the water. Th e rails light blue and white colours and steel tube materials complemented the maritime character of the sites, and provided ideal places to view the river. At both sites, the river could also be viewed from the boardwalk benches and in the case of Westminster Quay, from the slightly elevated plaza. A t Steveston Landing, there were only narrow glimpse views of the river, through the plaza. 4. Pedestria n Acces s an d Circulatio n Versu s Leve l Change s The were fewer people in wheelchairs, bicyclists, seniors, and adults pushing strollers at Westminster Quay than at Steveston Landing. Leve l changes between the plaza and boardwalk at Westminster Quay (although providing an effective transition and boundary between the two spaces) presented an obstacle for these people. O n the other hand, Steveston Landing had no level changes in the open space. Th e number of bicyclists attending the space was much larger as were the number of adults pushing children in strollers and people in wheelchairs. Coope r Marcus points out that if level changes are incorporated, they should not be more than a few steps in height (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 39-40). 258 5 . Integratio n o f Stree t an d Parkin g Area s At Westminster Quay, the waterfront ope n space was well integrated with the large parking lots, to the east of the space. Althoug h not few people accessed Westminster Quay by pedestrian means, many people drove their automobiles distances over 5 miles to get to the site, as discovered in the user survey results. Th e availability of parking and the smooth transition between the parking lot and the open space, made it easy for these people to access the space. Steveston Landing suffered fro m onl y a small number of parking spaces on site, but was well integrated with the street-end of Second avenue, providing a linkage to the centre of Steveston. Thi s street-end linkage was used more by pedestrians than by automobiles, as reflected by the user survey data, which showed that almost half of the people had accessed the site by pedestrian means. Coope r Marcus suggests that open spaces should be integrated and yet separate from the street; one should lead into the other so that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins (Cooper Marcus, 1990: 39-40). 6 . Boundarie s an d Transition s Betwee n Space s an d Circulatio n Boundaries and Transitions between spaces were used successfully a t both sites to integrate and yet separate boardwalk and plaza areas. Th e treatment of the Westminster Quay edge between the two spaces, using a landscaped planter and steps (through a level change) created more of a boundary, restricting circulation between the spaces to a few key points where there were steps. O n the other hand, at Steveston Landing, the integration of boardwalk wood and plaza concrete surface materials created a transition and encouraged flow through the space. Man y people enjoyed walking and standing in the centre of the transition between the two spaces, symbolized by a star-shaped compass pattern on the ground (resulting from th e integrated wood and concrete). 259 7 . Destination s an d Circulatio n The Public Fish Sales Dock at Steveston Landing encouraged many people to walk through the open space, to access the water's edge, as noted by the average 35 people per minute that descended the ramp to the dock. I n like manner, the Esplanade at Westminster Quay attracted many people to walk its 1100 metre distance along the water's edge, as reflected by the dominant activity of Walking on the Boardwalk and the popularity of exercising as a purpose for attending the space. Destination s were used successfully o n both sites to attract and encourage circulation to or along the water's edge . 8 . Microclimat e an d th e Impact s o f Su n an d Shad e One of the pitfalls of waterfront ope n space is its exposure to off-shore wind s and the limitation of orienting the space to the natural water body (be it a river, lake, pond or ocean). Tree s along the landscaped planter at Westminster Quay provided some protection from win d for plaza users. However , the boardwalk was unprotected fro m wind. A t Steveston Landing, which had little landscaping and no trees, open space users were in direct contact with the wind. A t times, the narrow plaza acted as a wind tunnel. Both sites experienced southern exposure. I n this case, in the late afternoon, the sun would disappear behind the buildings and the plazas would become shaded. Withi n minutes, the spaces would become void of people. Mos t people would relocate to the boardwalks, where there was still sunlight. Whyt e found tha t people move with the sun while shaded areas become empty, in his study of Seagram's Plaza in New York (Whyte, 1980 : 40). 9 . Children' s Pla y Area s an d Publi c Ar t Children's play areas attracted children and guardians, as well as people watchers. Th e Expo Tugger playground at Westminster Quay, which was in the shape and colours of an old river tug boat, was excellent at capturing children's and adults' imaginations, as reflected by the activity data and participant observations. Th e Tugger's bright colours, form and materials enhanced the theme and character of the space. Also , a colourful bellbuoy and an old cannon provided places for people to sit or for children to play. 260 Steveston Landing did not have playgrounds or public art. A s a result, there were no frequencies o f children or adults playing in the playground and there were fewer children between the ages of 3 to 12 attending the site. 10 . Them e an d Characte r Both of the case study sites were comprised of design elements, including, street furniture, signage, lighting and public art, which were consistent with maritime themes reflecting the sites' working waterfront histories . Thes e themes and characters focused their attentions on the river. Th e user survey data identified tha t viewing the river was a major purpose for attending the space. B y including design elements which complement the river character, the high frequency o f viewing the river was partially a result not only of the river itself, but of the design elements which celebrate the river and focus peoples' attentions towards the river. 8 .2 .2 Othe r Factor s Whic h Influenc e Us e Earlier in the thesis, the impacts of weather wer e assumed to be held constant so as to not affect case study results. T o accomplish this task, site observations took place (consistently on both sites) only on sunny days in the summer months, when the peak number of people were using the spaces. A s well, since the thesis examines design issues, economics were assumed not to influence findings of the study. However, factors other than relating to open space design were discovered which had a marked impact on the way the waterfront open space was used. Thes e factors included the following: 1 . Barrier s t o Acces s Beyon d Sit e Boundarie s The Westminster Quay case study demonstrated that the barrier to pedestrian access caused by the railway crossing resulted in relatively low numbers of people walking or bicycling to the site. Th e user survey data showed that only a small portion of the users walked to the site, and that all of these walkers lived in the adjacent waterfron t residential neighbourhoods. Th e railway crossings either had too many steps (in the case of the pedestrian bridge) or were unsafe (in the case of the at-grade crossing) for 261 most pedestrians. Th e impact of these barriers was accented for senior citizens, the physically challenged and pedestrians pushing children in strollers. A s a result, few of these people used the open space at Westminster Quay. 2 . Connection s t o Off-Sit e Pedestria n Network s At Steveston Landing, excellent connections with the Richmond Trails System and the street sidewalks, with no level changes, provided pedestrians with an ideal walking and bicycling environment. Th e popularity of these activities was reflected i n the high frequencies o f people walking the boardwalk and biking, and by the many bicycles parked along the waterfront rail . Use r survey results illustrated that almost half of the open space users had accessed the site by pedestrian means and had traveled less than 4 miles. Th e flat topography of Richmond also encouraged easy biking and walking activities. 3 . Critica l Residentia l Mas s o f Potentia l User s Statistics Canada census data were consulted in order to determine if there were residential neighbourhoods in the vicinity of the case study sites. I n each case, the data demonstrated that indeed Westminster Quay and Steveston Landing had adjacen t residential critical masses. However , the composition of the residential neighbourhoods was different fo r the two sites. Stevesto n Landing had many single family dwellings housing male/female pairs and families within its vicinity. On the other hand, Westminster Quay had a multiple dwelling neighbourhood compacted between the railway and the river, to the west of the site. Th e majority of this population were singles and male/female pairs. Overall , there were slightly more people living in the vicinity of Steveston Landing. Th e critical mass in the vicinity of Westminster Quay is where most of the people who had walked to the open space lived, as reflected i n the user survey responses. 262 4 . Foo d an d Commercia l Use s The conceptual design principles presented in section 7.2 encourage opportunities for the selling of food. I n the case studies, food vendors were located within the buildings adjacent to the open spaces. A t Steveston Landing, where food outlets opened onto the plaza, line-ups as long as 35 people (such as at the frozen yogur t store) could be seen extending into the plaza. Th e diversity of colours, smells and foods sold by food outlets added an exciting dimension to the waterfront open space. Th e majority o f the people sitting in the plazas and boardwalks of both sites, were usually eating food . Whyte suggests that food attracts people, which in turn attract more people (Whyte, 1980: 52). 5. Visua l Interes t o n th e Wate r The various activities taking place on the river added an exciting element to the open space. Occasionall y a tug boat (sometimes with barge) or speed boat would pass Westminster Quay. I n almost every case, the number of people standing and leaning on the rail would increase dramatically. Also , the river activity comprised of components of the working waterfront, the tour boats, the natural environment and the water itself, could also have been reasons for the high frequencies o f viewing the river as a primary purpose for visiting the waterfront ope n space. 6 . Programme d Events . Stree t Performer s an d Festival s Programmed events such as live bands, carnivals and festivals attract people to a site. Even if people are not impressed by the function, the y will seek it out to satisfy thei r curiosities. Th e management of the market at Westminster Quay were very aggressive in organizing spring and summer events which occur in the waterfront open space. Often, the sounds of live bands, such as the Soul Survivors, could be heard ringing-out from th e space. One weekend there was a children's carnival. Durin g the Fraser Festival in July, two Canadian Navy ships berthed alongside the parking lot (to the east of the open space) and offered fre e tours of the ship. Th e line-up was two hours long to take the tour. Occasionally unprogrammed street performers would spontaneously set-up and start playing in the plaza. Ofte n a  crowd would be spectating from close by while other 263 people throughout the space also enjoyed the music. Programme d events and street performers can alter the way a space is used for short term periods. Festival s such as the Fraser Festival at Westminster Quay and the Salmon Festival at Steveston Landing carry with them a series of traditions that are focused on the river and the history of the waterfront. 8.2.3 Overla p an d Inter-Relationship s Betwee n th e Influenc e of Desig n an d Othe r Factor s o n Us e Research discovered that many of the above-noted design features and other factors which influence the use of urban waterfront open space overlap. Fo r instance, the activity data determined that sitting in the plaza was a frequent activity at Westminster Quay. As discussed previously in section 8.3.1.2, this activity was partly a result of the fact that there were seats located in the plaza. However , the sale of food in the adjacent market may also have caused the high frequencies of sitting in the plaza, since many of the plaza sitters were also eating food. The high incidence of viewing the river as a purpose found in the user survey results could have partially been a result of the views afforded by the sites orientation and the waterfront rail, but also could also have been because people like to look at tug boats. 8.2.4 Th e Bridgepoin t Exampl e In addition to the Westminster Quay and Steveston Landing case studies, which were studied in great detail, initial studies occurred on a third case study: Bridgepoint in Richmond BC. However , the Bridgepoint example could not be included as a complete case study because half-way through the research process, the owners of the site removed all commercial uses from the site, and as a result, very few people used the open space at Bridgepoint. Althoug h the same methods of analysis were used to collect data at Bridgepoint as were used for the other case studies, observation data sets would have been incomplete. Th e User Survey questionnaire could not be administered because there was nobody using the space. However , this in itself was an important finding. Many of the lessons regarding the influence of design on use, and more importantly the influence of other factors on use were clarified by the Bridgepoint example. T o begin with, Bridgepoint suffered from bad access. Bridgepoin t is located on the Bridgeport area of 264 north Richmond, along the North Arm of the Fraser River. Th e site is dominated by a massive market buidling, which at one time accommodated various commercial uses, and constructed in a design, theme and character which has no connection to the waterfront o r site history. The site is disconnected from the remainder of Richmond by a railway, vacant industrial lands and industrial land uses. On e road accesses the site, which ultimately joins to No. Three Road (to the south) and River Road (to the northeast). Ther e are no bus routes which frequent the site (other than an airport shuttle that formerly operated twice a day, during peak hours) and none of the municipal trails or sidewalks connect to the site. Man y of the commercial tenants whom used to occupy the market area of the site informed that their business declined because of the poor access, and that they had petitioned BC Transit for a bus connection since the opening of the market and site in the late 1980's. Poo r pedestrian and bicycle access was reflected by the low frequencies o f bicycling and people walking on the boardwalk. A review of Statistics Canada census tract data for the area within a 500 metre radius of Bridgepoint identified tha t there was a population of only 340 people, most of whom were families living in single family dwellings in the residential neighbourhood almost 0.5 Km to the east of the site. However , this neighbourhood is separated from Bridgepoin t by heavy industrial uses. A s a result, it appeared as though there was no critical residential mass nearby Bridgepoint. Thi s was also reflected b y the number of automobiles in the large off-street surfac e parking lots of the site, which suggested that most people had driven to the site from outside the area. The open space at Bridgepoint consists of a large plaza, filled with recycled mesh metal Expo '86 benches and fixed metal tables and chairs near the market. T o the north of the plaza, along the water's edge, a boardwalk, constructed of wood, which parallels the waterfront an d extends out over the water as a long public pier on the west side of the site. Beyond the usable open space is a large marsh area which has been left undeveloped and serves as a bird sanctuary for ducks and other birds. Ther e is also a restaurant/pub which extends out over the water on the east side of the site, and a private marina, on the water in front of the open space. Th e marina separates the open space from the river activity, but allows close views of the various boats. Distan t views of industrial activity on the north side of the river can be seen. Th e problem is, the space appears to large in scale, and 265 market patrons rarely ventured across the large plaza to access the boardwalk at the water's edge. When the market was occupied by commercial uses such as food vendors, bakeries, florists and gift shops, activity observations determined that the majority of activities occurred close to the market building in the fixed tables and chairs and in a children's playground next to this seating. Th e dominant activity was sitting in the plaza, as demonstrated by people who had purchased food in the market and were sitting and eating in the nearby fixed tables and chairs. Th e playground area was usually filled with children and adults, especially on weekdays. Mos t people using the space came out of the market and were carrying shopping bags, which indicated that they were at the site primarily to shop, not to use the open space. Ver y few people walked directly from the parking lot into the open space. Ther e were no people in wheelchairs or walking dogs at Bridgepoint. There did however, seem to be a following of young mothers with children who would frequently attend Bridgepoint on weekday afternoons. Thes e people were almost always seen carrying shopping bags and using the playground, which would suggest the intent of their trips was to shop in the market and entertain the children in the playground. In 1992, the market owners, Park Georgia Realty Ltd. terminated all lease agreements with the commercial tenants and shut down the market. Th e only uses remaining in the building are Park Georgia's office and an insurance broker. O n subsequent trips to the site, after the closure of the market, the largest number of people observed using the open space was 3. In every instance, these people were not at the site only to enjoy the open space, but were there to use the boardwalk for to access the marina. Bridgepoint provides an excellent example to demonstrate how poor pedestrian, transit and automobile access; the lack of a critical mass of potential users living nearby the site; the loss of commercial uses and food, and; poorly designed, oversized spaces with too many fixed chair s and benches, located far away from the water's edge, have ultimately resulted in a waterfront open space which has become dilapidated and unused. Thes e findings clarify some of the lessons learned from the Westminster Quay and Steveston Landing Case Studies. 266 8.3 Additiona l Conclusion s In addition to the primary research results, other issues were also identified by the case studies and literature, which did not directly influence use but provided insights regarding the complexities involved in the development process for waterfront ope n spaces. Thes e issues are summarized a s follows. 8.3 .1 Th e Proces s o f Urba n Waterfron t Redevelopmen t an d Chang e Review of literature documenting the urban waterfront redevelopment process identified that urban waterfront redevelopment is a recent phenomenon in North America, resulting from the decline of waterfront industria l activities and the demand for land on which to build residential neighbourhoods within inner cities. Othe r reasons for waterfron t redevelopment noted in the literature included an increased demand for urban recreation, stricter environmental policies and the cleansing of watercourses, and peoples' increased desire to live in amenity locations such as at the waterfront . 8 .3 .2 Achievin g Publi c Acces s t o th e Water' s Edg e The literature research discovered that it was during the waterfront redevelopmen t process that public access to the water's edge is secured. Thi s task is made possible by park land dedications along the water's edge and by the establishment of public pedestrian linkages between the waterfront an d the city. The redevelopment processes which occurred on each of the case study sites involved one public sector owner. I n the case of Steveston Landing the project was managed by the federal government and tendered out for development and property management. I n the case of Westminster Quay, a joint venture between the provincial and municipal governments called the First Capital City Development Corporation (FCCDC) assembled large tracts of dilapidated waterfront land and managed the redevelopment process. I n both cases, continuous public access to the water's edge was a major objective which was successfully achieved . 267 8 .3 .4 Polic y Contex t The literature and case studies discovered that numerous policy statements exist in officia l community plans and area development plans to achieve public access to the water's edge. However, in almost all cases, these statements were very general and provided no direction or guidance regarding how public access should be achieved or how waterfront ope n space should be designed. I n response to this deficiency, this thesis transcends municipal policies by closely examining how waterfront ope n space is designed and how it is used, in order to provide implications and design principles for the development of future urban waterfront ope n spaces. 8.3 .5 Overlappin g Jurisdiction s Research findings discovered that part of the reason for the deficiency in pohcies which guide and regulate the development of urban waterfront ope n space, was the complex web of regulatory jurisdictions involved in reviewing waterfront developmen t proposals. Numerous different agencie s (Usted in section 5.6.2) are involved in the review process for Vancouver Lower Mainland waterfront developmen t proposals. Fo r sites encompassed by the Fraser River estuary, a co-operative effort called the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) was established in the early 1980' s in order to co-ordinate and streamline the multi-jurisdictional review process. FREM P has also conducted various studies regarding the habitat, recreation and industrial aspects of the Fraser River, in order to provide recommendations for managing future growth and development in the Fraser River estuary. 8 .3 .6 Environmenta l Concern s an d Policie s One of the original reasons for establishing FREMP was to examine the state of the environment in the Fraser River estuary. A s a result of FREMP recommendations and other research, the development review process also involves a strict environmental review in which all levels of government are involved. Th e Steveston Landing case study demonstrated the rigorous environmental policies which Richmond implements and provided a sketch identifying the various jurisdictions responsible for regulation of development along the foreshore of the Fraser River. FREM P and the City of Richmond have identified site s along the river which are of low, medium or high environmental value, 268 depending on environmental inventories. Fro m this categorization system, potential development sites are identified o r not permitted. 8.4 Strength s an d Weaknesse s o f th e Methodolog y The comparative case study method and the data collection methods described in chapter four were effective fo r performing the exploratory research demanded by this thesis. Th e case studies provided a comparison between two urban waterfront ope n spaces which had undergone similar redevelopment processes, at about the same time, and shared various similarities and differences i n their design and use. Standing alone, any one of the four data collection methods used would have been inappropriate and invalid. However , trends were identified from the data by merging and comparing the data from four different dat a sources, which included observing physical traces; counting and observing the behaviour of people as noted by their activities and groupings; conducting focused interview s with the designers, planners, mangers and regulators of the case study sites, and; analyzing user survey questionnaires for each of the case study sites. 8.5 Anticipate d Outcome s o f th e Thesi s In the introduction, ten thesis goals and objectives were listed. Throug h a rigorous research and learning process, each one of these objectives was researched, analyzed and summarized in this study. Havin g researched these goals and objectives, the most striking finding was the void that exists in planning policies to guide and regulate the development of urban waterfront ope n spaces. Th e "Policy Context" sections of the case studies identified various policies which regulate land-use and the design of buildings. However , these types of policies were not available for waterfront open space. In response to this void, the anticipated outcome of the thesis is that the research finding s expressed throughout the study and summarized in the Design Principles presented for the development of future waterfront open spaces, will be adopted by agencies involved in the regulation of waterfront lands , and that these guiding principles will form the basis for further academic enquiry on this and other related topics. 269 Urban waterfronts are a unique and valuable amenity which should be accessible for all of the public to enjoy. I t is anticipated that this thesis will establish the basis for stewardship of the urban waterfront, so that the benefits of the waterfront can continue to be enjoyed by future generations. 270 Chapter Nine Bibliography 271 9.0 Bibliograph y 9.1 Textua l Reference s an d Resource s Appleyard, Donald Improvin g the Residential Street Environment. Federa l Highway Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1981. Appleyard, Donald Livabl e Streets. Universit y of California Press , Berkley, California , 1981. Babbie, Earl Th e Practice of Social Research. Wadswort h Publishing, Belmont, California, 1986 . Bennett, Corwin Space s for People: Human Factors in Design. Prentice-Hal l Inc., Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey, 1977 . Breen, Anne and Rigby, Dick Cautio n Working Waterfront: The Impact of Change on Marine Enterprises. Th e Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1985. Breen, Anne and Rigby, Dick Designin g Your Waterfronts. Th e National League of Cities, Washington, D.C. , 1982 . Breen, Anne and Rigby, Dick Urba n Waterfronts '84 : Towards New Horizons. Th e Washington Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1985. Breen, Anne and Rigby, Dick Urba n Waterfronts '85 : Water Makes a Difference. Th e Washington Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1986. Breen, Anne and Rigby, Dick Urba n Waterfronts '86 : Developing Diversity. Th e Washington Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1987. Breen Anne, and Rigby, Dick Urba n Waterfronts '87 : Water: The Ultimate Amenity. The Washington Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1988. Breen Anne, and Rigby, Dick Urba n Waterfronts '89 : Keeping Waterfronts Distinctive : Choosing the Right Mix. Th e Washington Waterfront Press , Washington, D.C., 1990. 272 Central Waterfront Planning Committee, Toronto Centra l Waterfront Precedents . Cit y of Toronto Planning Department, Toronto, 1976. City of Richmond Bridgepor t Area Plan. Cit y of Richmond, Richmond, B.C., 1993. pp. 1 , 14 , 23-24. City of Richmond Bridgepor t Area Plan: Background Report. Cit y of Richmond, Richmond, B.C. , 1993 . pp . 15-52 . City of Richmond Stevesto n Area Plan. Cit y of Richmond, Richmond, B.C., 1992. pp. 17-19 , 63-74. City of New Westminster Communit y Plan for Downtown New Westminster. Cit y of New Westminster, New Westminster, B.C. , 1987 . pp . 1-19 . City of New Westminster Communit y Plan for the City of New Westminster: Goals. Objectives and Policies. Cit y of New Westminster, New Westminster, B.C., 1982. pp. 11-13 , 21-33 . Cooper-Marcus, Clare and Carolyn Francis Peopl e Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space . Va n Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y., 1990. Corporation of the City of New Westminster Urba n Renewal Study. Corporatio n of the City of New Westminster, New Westminster, B.C. , 1966 . p . 18. Corporation of the City of New Westminster Zonin g By-Law. Corporatio n of the City of New Westminster, New Westminster, B.C., 1940 . Corporation of the Township of Richmond Th e Richmond Official Communit y Plan. Corporation o f the Township of Richmond, Richmond, B.C., 1986. Crowhurst-Lennard Suzann e H. and Henry L. Lennard Publi c Life in Urban Places: Social and Architectural Characteristics Conductive to Public Life in European Cities. Gondolier Press , Southampton, N.Y. 1984 . 273 Eckstut, Stanton "Designin g People Places", Waterfront Plannin g and Development. 1986. pp . 25-27. Eckstut, Stanton "Solvin g Complex Urban Design Problems", Waterfront Plannin g and Development. 1986 . pp . 54-56. Francis, Mark, Lisa Cashdan and Lynn Paxson Communit y Open Spaces. Islan d Press, Covelo, California, 1984 . Francis, Mark "Urba n Open Spaces", Advances in Environment. Behavior and Design. ed. E. Zube and G. Moore, Plenum, New York, N.Y., 1987 . pp. 71-106 Fraser River Estuary Management Program A  Recommended Port and Industrial Development Strategy. Frase r River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C., 1991 . Fraser River Estuary Study A  Living River by the Door. Frase r River Estuary Study, Surrey, B.C. , 1981 . Fraser River Estuary Management Program Por t / Industrial Land Supply and Demand Study. Frase r River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C., 1990. Fraser River Estuary Management Program Propose d Fraser River Recreation Plan: Report of the Recreation Activity Work Group. Frase r River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C. , 1990 . pp . 32-35, 90-94. Fraser River Estuary Management Program Repor t of the Habitat Activity Work Group. Fraser River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C., 1991. pp . 11-71 . Fraser River Estuary Management Program Summar y of Activity Programs and Proposed Framework for Action. Frase r River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C., 1992 . Freedman, Adelle " A Few Suggestions For the Waterfront", Globe and Mail. September 24, 1983 . p. E3. 274 Freedman, Johnathan L. Crowdin g and Behavior. W.H . Freedman and Company, San Francisco, 1975 . pp. 70-74. Freedman, Maurice and Hagopian, Varoujan "Desig n to Balance Public and Private Interest on the Waterfront", Waterfron t Plannin g and Development. 1986 . pp . 57-70. Fox, Tom Urba n Open Space: An Investment That Pays. Th e Neighbourhood Open Space Coalition, New York, 1990 . Gehl, Jan Lif e Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Va n Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y. , 1987 . Goodwin, Robert Waterfron t Revitalizatio n Fo r Smaller Communities. Universit y of Washington, Seattle , 1988. Gresko, Jaqueline and Howard, Richard Frase r Port: Freeway to the Pacific 1858-1985 . Sono Nis Press, Victoria, B.C. , 1986 . Johnson, Richard J. Recreatio n and Open Space in Urban Waterfront Redevelopments . University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1984. Joint Review Committee A  Regional Town Centre for New Westminster: Action Program Report. Cit y of New Westminster and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, New Westminster, B.C. , 1977 . pp . 4-10. Hardwick, Walter Vancouver . Collier-Macmilla n Canada Ltd., Don Mills, Ont., 1974. pp . 160-161 . Harney, Andy L. Revivin g the Waterfront. Offic e o f Coastal Zone Management, Partners For Livable Places and National Endowment of the Arts, 1979. Ittelson, W.H., Prochansski, Rivlin and Winkel A n Introduction to Environmental Psychology. Holt , Rinehart and Winston, New York, N.Y., 1974 . Kaplan R. and Stephen Kaplan Humanscape : Environments for People. Kapla n and Kaplan, Anne Arbor, Michigan, 1982 . 275 Kennett, Kristal and McPhee, Michael W. Th e Fraser River Estuary: An Overview of Changing Conditions. Frase r River Estuary Management Program, New Westminster, B.C., 1988 . Krier, Rob Urba n Space . Academ y Editions, London, England, 1979. Lynch, Kevin A  Theory of Good City Form. Massachusett s Institute of Technology, Boston, 1981 . Lynch, Kevin Sit e Planning. Massachusett s Institute of Technology, Boston, 1984 . Mikichik, Steven Waterfron t Redevelopmen t and the Post Industrial City. Universit y of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1991. New Westminster Cahmber of Commerce Ne w Wesminster: "The CEntre of the Lower Mainland". New  Westminster Chamber of Commerce, New Westminster, B.C., 1981. Richmond Planning Department Bulletin : Float Home Marinas. Cit y of Richmond Planning Department , Richmond, B.C. , 1990 . pp . 1-3 , 5. Richmond Planning Department Criteri a for the Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas: A Design manual for Developers. Conservationists, and Designers Who Are Working in or Near Richmond's nNatural Areas. Cit y of Richmond Planning Department, Richmond, B.C. , 1991 . pp . 5-7, 9 , 13 , 15-16. Richmond Planning Department Desig n Criteria for the Steveston Revitalization Area. City of Richmond Planning Department, Richmond, B.C., 1992 . pp . 5-15. Ross, Leslie J. Richmon d Child of the Fraser: 1979-1989 . Friend s of Richmond Archive s and the Corporation of the Township of Richmond, Richmond, B.C., 1989. Ross, Leslie J. Richmon d Child of the Fraser. Richmon d '79 Centennial Society and the Corporation of the Township of Richmond, Richmond, B.C., 1979 . pp . 111-130. Scott, Jack David Onc e in Royal David's City. Whiteca p Books, North Vancouver, B.C., 1985. p.14 . 276 Sijkes, P, Brown and MacLean "Th e Behavior of Elderly People in Montreal's Indoor City", Plan Canada . June, 1983 , pp. 15-22. Smelser, Neil J. "Th e Methodology of Comparative Analysis", Comparative Research Methods. Prentice-Hall , N.J., 1973 . Sommer , R. "Lookin g Back at Personal Space", Designing for Human Behavior. Dowden , Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1974 . pp. 202-209. Sommer, Robert "Lookin g Back at Personal Space", Designing for Human Behavior, ed . C. Burnette, J. Lang, W. Molesk i and D. Vashon, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 1974 . pp. 202-209. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and The Office o f Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) Improvin g Your Waterfront: A  Practical Guide. U.S . Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1980. United States Department of the Interior Urba n Waterfront Revitalization : The Role of Recreation and Heritage. Volumes 1  and 2, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1980 . Torre, L. Azeo Waterfron t Development . Va n Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989. Watmouth, Don Th e Discoverer's Guide: Fraser River Delta. Exploring the Delta. Lon e Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alta., 1992 . Whyte, W. F. Learnin g From the Field. Sag e Publications Ltd., Beverly Hills, California, 1984 . Whyte, William H. Th e Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Willia m H. Whyte, Washington, D.C. , 1980 . Wrenn, Douglas M. Urba n Waterfront Development . Th e Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. , 1983 . Zeisel, John Enquir y By Design. Wadsworth Inc., Belmont, California, 1981. 277 9.2 Focusse d Interview s In addition to the textual references and resources, the following people were interviewed throughout the research of this thesis: Ron Mann - City of Richmond Planning Department May , 199 3 Alex Jamieson - City of Richmond Planning Department May , 199 3 Ian Chang - City of Richmond Planning Department June , 199 1 Yvonne Stiche s -  City of Richmond Leisure Service s June , 199 1 Jim McLean - Park Georgia Realty Ltd. July , 199 1 Bob Beily - Steveston Landing Developments Ltd. June , 199 1 Steven Scheivin g -  City of New  Westminster July , 199 1 Planning Department Leda Molnar - Westminster Quay Public Market May , 1993 Captain To m Corsi e -  Fraser Port , Fraser River May , 1993 Harbour Commission Public Relation s -  Fraser River Estuary Management May , 1993 Officer Progra m (FREMP ) Norm Hotson -  Hotson Bakker Architects July , 199 1 Don Gurne y -  The Hulbert Group June , 199 3 Rebecca Richard s -  The Hulbert Group June , 199 3 Richard Johnson -  City of Vancouver Planning Department June , 199 1 Central Area Division Mike Beasel y -  PhD. Candidate, U.B.C. School o f Community July , 199 1 and Regional Planning 278 Chapter Ten Appendices 279 Appendix A Case Study Observation Dat a A. 1 Westminste r Quay - Weekday Activities A.2 Westminste r Quay - Weekend Activitie s A 3 Westminste r Quay - Weekday Grouping s A.4 Westminste r Quay - Weekend Grouping s A.5 Stevesto n Landing - Weekday Activities A.6 Stevesto n Landing - Weekend Activities A.7 Stevesto n Landing - Weeday Groupings A.8 Stevesto n Landing - Weekend Grouping s 280 Appendix A. l Westminster Quay - Weekday Activities £83 Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk '• Walking in Plaza 55 Frequency 01 ro 1 0 o 0 1 5-» o~ -CO o CO 0 1 --8 + Standing '  j Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground £SZ Frequency Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza S -x _ L r o O O l o vP v ° v g o^ &" • tf --_| 1  1 _ ro c o c o 01 o  O l -5 ^ S v P d^  o ^ o ^ -H 1  h -o Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Adults Watching/Playing in Playground Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground m Frequency S 9 > o < - L - k I O o O l o ^5 > S ^ 5 I 00 -n . 01 o Ol Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail + ra «sm Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground 'I a %  ^ § »  & *< r - 3 o S I a <°  C D > > " o s * D 2" . C D r sr. o  ^ CD o =5 s%z Frequency Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk 9 ->• to Ol o p"- p" -N) C O Ol O vg v P o~- P" -CO 4 ^ Ol O vP v P 3~- tf~ + 1 J Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground Appendix A. 2 Westminster Quay - Weekend Activitie s L2Z Frequency S s 01 O Ol Primary Sitting on Boardwalk ^ Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk • I — Walking in Plaza I Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground r-s?" '*<; 883 Frequency - i - L r o r \ D C o c o * . j i . S q j o o i o o i o u i o u i Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza + + + + Secondary Sittin g on Boardwalk Secondary Sittin g in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground w ^ WS 683 Frequency $9 S O l Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza !sM£?M Walking on ', Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground I K T T 1 " ,£|£?^V _ \ o 063 s a Frequency -»• - j - N > r o c o c o * . o e n o  e n o  e n o Vp N p ^ P -% P ^ P ^ P -y p O * o* * O ^ 0 s* O ^ o* * o ^ Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sittin g on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Stroller s Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground -+- + + + ^Vg&j y-4 + H Appendix A. 3 Westminster Quay - Weekday Grouping s Westminster Qua y Weekday Noon Frequency o f Grouping s 30% T Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Grouping Gnwwdnoon Chart 1 Westminster Qua y Weekday Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s to u> 30% 25% 20% - ->. o c a> n 15 % cr 10% 5% - -0% Single Males 4 -$<*• ***™&ir. ii%K%r Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Grouping Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Gnwwdaft Char t 1 Westminster Qua y Weekday Lat e Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s 35% 30% + 25% c 20 % -3 2 15 % -u. 10% -5% -0% -% -  V ' ^ ' »~ V -'S ,  ' s s — I — ' • • / : J- ' ^ : ' 5  '  ' 1 Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (£2) Females in Groups fe2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Grouping 30% T to Single Males Single Females Westminster Qua y Weekday Evenin g Frequncy o f Grouping s — 1 — ! Males in Groups (>2) f — — — h 1 • ; ™ 1 l-Females in Groups (>2) - i — • " » 1 Male/Female Pairs | —I_J [ Males/Females in Groups Grouping Gnwwdlcvc Chart 1 Appendix A. 4 Westminster Quay - Weekend Grouping s 25% - -20% " £ 15 % --c 0) 3 cr Q> £ 10 % - -5% -0% — Single Males Single Females Westminster Qua y Weekend Noon Frequency o f Groupings I Tumr * , \ .. ' s 1 ; ! Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) i ^ 4* * * Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Grouping Gnwwcnoon Chart 1 30% Westminster Qua y Weekend Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s 25% 20% >» o c a> 3 15 % c 10% 5% 0% V ' *-./-'/', Single Males Single Females i Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Westminster Qua y Weekend Lat e Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s 45% 40% 35% - -30% - -S 25 % 3 S" 20 % LL 15% 10% + 5% 0% Single Males anttfeMaaiMM^ftita Single Females \ v Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) n Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Grouping 45% u> o c 0 2 cr 0 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% - -10% 5% 0% Single Males Single Females Westminster Qua y Weekend Evenin g Frequency o f Grouping s Males in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Groups (>2) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Grouping GnwweeveEsp{eve) Chart 1 Appendix A. 5 Steveston Landing - Weekday Activitie s Z0£ Frequency 8^ Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking ' Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground O en I l\3 Steveston Landin g Weekday Afternoo n Frequency o f Activitie s o u> 16% 14% > 12 % o S 10 % 3 cr v u_ PL --8% 6% 4% 2% 0% P*M & ta ~T 3 s 4 00 if I 8 §§ oo W) 0 0 l - s | 8 00 a, .9 I .9 60 m BO O P eo g Activity 00 60 .3 «3 H oo "2 .9 § £> 2 5T1 6 0 P-l P> % a -60 .9 T 3 >» a 2 PI ^ a  $ « . 3 slwdaft Cbart 1 we Frequency S N J - ^ Q } O Q . o r o - & . a > c o VP V ^ V P O  *s 0 V P V P V ^ %> P CT* O ^ 0 s © ^ O ^ O ^ O" * O" * • ' 0 s O ^ Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground Walking in Plaza T H h 3 ^ o « > C 2> tf o « « »  3 a S  r > 5 E 2. w a © CD o 3 cr. CD 3 a < 3  - » £ o  <° CD O 3 £0£ Frequency Q 9 ? Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground S -J- N > Ol O •-8 <£ ro en vP + (D JD C o 3 O o - * > o < (D W £ (D (D ?r a. 0) *< m < <D 3 3 (a CO •-* (D < (D 0) o 3 r-3 a. 3 Appendix A. 6 Steveston Landing - Weekend Activitie s LOt Frequency - a . o # —X 01 N> O N> Ol CO O ~-5 CO Oi .*» o Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground CD - Q (D (0 C/> (D 13 O < o > o " • • < ^ a> o 7? O 3 Q. o o 3 (D < Q to i - i -O 3 r-o> 3 Q. • • • • 3 CQ 80£ Frequency S § en o e n sP ^ o £ Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground CD Si c (D 3 O *< => C/ > ° C D CD (D CD W 3 % a. o 3 2. > —K > o  S > 2. 3  a < 8  3 Si « CD (A 60£ Frequency 8 > o Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground vP s o vP PO 3 S (D n c o 3 O «< % £ o o o < D W r" o rs W  3 ° S  n > £ i =: o  9 : < 3  3 5 o  <° © o CO 3 oie Frequency S tn cn > O < I Biking Walking Dogs Wheelchairing Pushing Strollers Kids Playing in Playground Adults Watching/Playing in Playground Primary Sitting on Boardwalk Primary Sitting in Plaza Secondary Sitting on Boardwalk Secondary Sitting in Plaza Walking on Boardwalk Walking in Plaza Standing Stationary Leaning on Rail CD W S I < 3 ( D -3 5 " o a  = • * m > ( D O 3 o V) r-Q) 3 a 3 Appendix A. 7 Steveston Landing - Weekday Grouping s 35% T Steveston Landin g Weekday Noon Frequency o f Grouping s 30% 25% £ 20 % a> 3 cr £ 15 % u. 10% 5% 0% Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Steveston Landin g Weekday Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s auvo -25% -20% -> o c Q) 3 15 % -o u. 10% -5% -0% -t t t j ! t • I i i i i i — i — < — I — ! i i 1 ! : i | i 1 1  u_ J *• . s — 1 — • 4 1 Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Cslwdafl Chart I Steveston Landin g Weekday Lat e Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s u> auyo -25% -20% -o {2 =J 15 % -cr a> u. 10% -5% -0% -* ' / -< \  -  ' — I — %-I * — I — ' ; — H — — I — — I — >« — I Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Gslwdlaft Char t I Steveston Landin g Weekday Evenin g Frequency o f Grouping s 3t>7o -30% -25% -c 20 % -0) 3 O" £ 15 % -LL 10% -5% -0% -/ - > -— I — I / !s f 1 —1 1 1 1 Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Gslwdeve Chan 1 Appendix A. 8 Steveston Landing - Weekend Grouping s Steveston Landin g Weekend Noon Frequency o f Grouping s h-» -4 35% 30% 25% - ->» c 20 % + o 3 cr £ 15 % + LL 10% -5% 0% Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Cslwenoon Qiar t 1 Steveston Landin g Weekend Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s 30% - r 25% -20% - -Single Males Singl e Male s in Female s in Male/Femal e Males/Female s Females Group s (>2) Group s (>2) Pair s i n Groups Groupings Steveston Landin g Weekend Lat e Afternoo n Frequency o f Grouping s 25% -20% + o c a> 3 15 % + 0) 10% -5% - -0% Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Steveston Landin g Weekend Evenin g Frequency o f Grouping s u> to o 35% 30% 25% - ->» c 20 % <D cr £ 15 % u. 10% - -Single Males Single Females Males in Groups (>2) Females in Groups (>2) Male/Female Pairs Males/Females in Groups Groupings Gslweeve Chart 1 Appendix B Sample Questionnaire s for User Surve y B.l Westminste r Quay - Sample Questionnair e B.2 Stevesto n Landing - Sample Questionnair e 321 Appendix B. l Westminster Quay - Sample Questionnaire University of British Columbi a School of Community &  Regional Plannin g Graduate Thesis: "Life a t the Water's Edge: An Analysis of Human Behaviour and Design Elements of Public Open Space at the Water's Edge in Urban Waterfront Redevelopments " Questionnaire I am a graduate student in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. I  am currently writing a thesis which examines the way people use public open spaces (parks, boardwalks, etc.) at the water's edge in sites which have undergone redevelopment from industrial uses to mixed (meaning residentia l an d commercial/retail ) uses. In order to understand how far people travel to come to this waterfront open space, how they travel, and why they have come here, I have assembled a list of five questions, which I would very much appreciate if you could take a few moments to answer. Thes e are the questions: 1 Ho w far did you travel to get to Westninster Quay ? Which municipalit y d o yo u resid e in ? How did you get to Westminster Quay today ? a) b y car d ) walke d b) b y bus e ) b y bicycl e c) b y SkyTrain What was your purpose for coming to Westminster Quay ? a) t o shop d ) t o see the river b) t o eat e ) t o rela x c) t o exercise (go for a walk, jog, bike ride, etc) Other: How man y time s in o.n e year do you come to Westminster Qua y ? Thank you for participating in this questionnaire. You r responses and comments are much appreciated . 323 Appendix B. 2 Steveston Landing - Sample Questionnair e 324 University o f British Columbia School of Community &  Regional Plannin g Graduate Thesis: "Life at the Water's Edge: An Analysis of Human Behaviour and Design Elements of Public Open Space at the Water's Edge in Urban Waterfront Redevelopments" Questionnaire I am a graduate student in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. I  am currently writing a thesis which examines the way people use public open spaces (parks, boardwalks, etc.) at the water's edge in sites which have undergone redevelopment from industrial uses to mixed (meaning residentia l an d commercial A -tail) uses. In order to understand how far people travel to come to this waterfront open space, how they travel, and why they have come here, I have assembled a list of five questions, which I would very much appreciate if you could take a few moments to answer. Thes e are the questions: 1 Ho w far did you travel to get to Steveston Landing ? 2. Whic h municipalit y d o yo u resid e in ? 3. Ho w did you get to Steveston Landing today ? a) b y ca r d ) walke d b) b y bus e ) b y bicycl e c) b y SkyTrain 4. Wha t was your purpose for coming to Steveston Landing ? a) t o shop d ) t o see the river b) t o eat e ) t o rela x c) t o exercise (go for a  walk, jog, bike ride, etc) Other: 5. Ho w many times in o.ne year do you come to Steveston Landing ? Thank you for participating in this questionnaire. You r responses and comments are much appreciated . 325 Appendix C User Survey Questionnaire Dat a C.l Westminste r Quay - Demographic Profil e C.2 Westminste r Quay - Distance Traveled From Residence C.3 Westminste r Quay - Mode of Transportation C.4 Westminste r Quay - Municipality of Residence C.5 Westminste r Quay - Number of Trips to Site C.6 Westminste r Quay - Purpose for Trips to Site C.7 Stevesto n Landing - Demographic Profil e C.8 Stevesto n Landing - Distance Traveled From Residence C.9 Stevesto n Landing - Mode of Transportation CIO Steveston Landing - Municipality of Residence C.ll Stevesto n Landing - Number of Trips to Site C.12 Steveston Landing - Purpose for Trips to Site 326 Appendix C. l Westminster Quay - Demographic Profile of Respondent s 327 Westminster Qua y Demographic Profil e of Respodent s 0 t o 1 5 16 t o 2 5 26 t o 3 5 36 t o 4 5 46 t o 5 5 56 t o 6 5 66 t o 7 5 75 an d Olde r Totals Males 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 13% 0% 23% 45% Total 0% 0% 42% 3% 0% 13% 19% 23% 100% Females 0% 0% 32% 3% 0% 0% 19% 0% 55% Males 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 7 14 Total 0 0 13 1 0 4 6 7 31 Females 0 0 10 1 0 0 6 0 17 NWDemog Profile Appendix C. 2 Westminster Quay - Distance Traveled From Residence 329 Westminster Qua y Distance Travelle d Fro m Residenc e (In Miles ) Distance 0 t o 2 2 t o 4 5 t o 1 0 11 t o 3 0 31 o r Mor e Number 3 0 8 6 0 Percentage 18% 0% 47% 35% 0% Appendix C. 3 Westminster Quay - Mode of Transportation 331 Westminster Qua y Mode o f Transportatio n Use d to Trave l t o Sit e Mode \ Automobile Motorbike Bus SkyTrain Bicycle Walked Number 9 1 0 2 2 3 Percentage 53% 6% 0% 12% 12% 18% Appendix C. 4 Westminster Quay - Municipality of Residenc e Westminster Qua y Municipality o f Residenc e Municipality Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley Maple Ridg e New Westminste r North Vancouve r Port Coquitla m Port Mood y Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouve r White Roc k Other Number 1 3 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6% 18% 6% 18% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 18% 0% 0% 0% 334 NWMunicipality Appendix C. 5 Westminster Quay - Number of Trips to Site Westminster Qua y Number o f Trip s t o Sit e ft '  ,  '  -  i - ,  ,  '  .  >  <  V  s  V Trips •  •  • »  -;•'.•'- ••> . -1st Tim e Once in 5 Years Once i n 3 Years Once i n 1  Year 1 t o 5 Times a  Yea r 6 t o 1 0 Times a  Yea r 11 to 24 Times a  Yea r 25 t o 4 9 Times a  Yea r 50 t o 9 9 Times a  Yea r 100 o r Mor e Time s a  Yea r Number 0 3 0 0 4 3 4 0 2 1 Percentage 0% 18% 0% 0% 24% 18% 24% 0% 12% 6% NWNumber of Trips Appendix C. 6 Westminster Quay - Purpose for Trips to Site Westminster Qua y Purpose fo r Tri p t o Sit e (Multiple Response s pe r Respondent ) Purpose Shop Eat Exercise View Rive r Relax Meet Friend s Entertain Friend s Entertain Childre r Walk Do g Watch Peopl e See Fis h Number 3 8 8 6 5 3 1 6 2 1 0 Percentage 18% 47% 47% 35% 29% 18% 6% 35% 12% 6% 0% 338 NWPurpose Appendix C. 7 Steveston Landing - Demographic Profile of Respondent s 339 Steveston Landin g Demographic Profil e of Respodent s 0 t o 1 5 16 t o 2 5 26 t o 3 5 36 t o 4 5 46 t o 5 5 56 t o 6 5 66 t o 7 5 75 an d Olde r Totals Males 0% 0% 33% 8% 0% 4% 8% 0% 54% total 0% 0% 58% 13% 8% 4% 17% 0% 100% Females 0% 0% 25% 4% 8% 0% 8% 0% 46% Males 0 0 8 2 0 1 2 0 13 Total 0 0 14 3 2 1 4 0 24 Femates 0 0 6 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 SLDemog Profile Appendix C. 8 Steveston Landing - Distance Traveled From Residence 341 Steveston Landin g Distance Travelle d Fro m Residenc e (In Miles ) Distance '•'..,• * 0 t o 1 2 t o 4 5 t o 1 0 11 t o 3 0 31 o r Mor e Number 4 7 3 8 2 Percentage 17% 29% 13% 33% 8% Appendix C. 9 Steveston Landing - Mode of Transportatio n Steveston Landin g Mode o f Transportatio n Use d to Trave l t o Sit e Automobile Motorbike Bus SkyTrain Bicycle Walked ' ,  '  : Number W ^ i 1 l ' 0 0 0 5 6 Percentage • 46% 0% 0% 0% 21% 25% Appendix CI O Steves ton Landing - Municipality of Residenc e Steveston Landin g Municipality o f Residenc e Municipality Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley Maple Ridg e New Westminste r North Vancouve r Port Coquitla m Port Mood y Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouve r White Roc k Other Number 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 6 2 0 2 Percentage 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 42% 0% 25% 8% 0% 8% 346 SLMunicipality Appendix C.l l Steveston Landing - Number of Trips to Site Steveston Landin g Number o f Trip s t o Sit e 1st Tim e Once i n 5 Years Once i n 3 Years Once in 1 Year 1 t o 5  Times a  Yea r 6 t o 1 0 Times a  Yea r 11 t o 2 4 Times a  Yea r 25 t o 4 9 Times a  Yea r 50 t o 9 9 Times a  Yea r 100 o r Mor e Time s a  Yea r Mfttter * 4 1 1 0 7 0 2 0 4 3 Percentage 17% 4% 4% 0% 29% 0% 8% 0% 17% 13% Appendix C.1 2 Steveston Landing - Purpose for Trips to Site Steveston Landin g Purpose fo r Tri p t o Sit e (Multiple Response s pe r Respondent ) Purpose Shop Eat Exercise View Rive r Relax Meet Friend s Entertain Friend s Entertain Childre r Walk Do g Watch Peopl e See Fis h Number 7 5 10 10 3 4 0 0 1 3 5 Percentage 29% 2 1 % 42% 42% 13% 17% 0% 0% 4% 13% 2 1 % 350 SLPurpose 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087427/manifest

Comment

Related Items