Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Emotional and behavioral responses of people to urban plazas : a case study of downtown Vancouver Joardar, Souro Dyuti 1977

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A1 J63.pdf [ 21.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094166.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094166-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094166-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094166-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094166-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094166-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094166-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094166-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094166.ris

Full Text

EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES OF PEOPLE TO URBAN PLAZAS-A Case Study of Downtown Vancouver by SOURO DYUTI JOARDAR M.Sc, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS. SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE -REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Plant Science) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JULY 1977 Souro Dyuti Joardar, 1977 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n In presenting th i s thes i s in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of ' (JMJtfM The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1WS Date ABSTRACT Despite t h e i r ubiquitous presence i n the centre of the modern c i t y , micro-scale outdoor environments l i k e plazas and squares have remained almost t o t a l l y free of any intensive re-search to suggest to designers: what physical make-up would render them perceptually good, what form and configuration would sustain public use and what would repel. This empirical study uses concepts and methods of psychological sciences to e s t a b l i s h relationships between the v i s u a l quality and physical configura-t i o n of plazas and human use and feelings within them that may serve to suggest guidelines for t h e i r designs. The phenomenological impacts of several open spaces of the central business d i s t r i c t of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, on the psychological states of people were measured through people's ratings on verbal psychological scales within.these environments. The extent and nature of use of these spaces were observed over a period of seven months. The number of persons using these spaces, the i r overt a c t i v i t i e s , postures, demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as well as physical d i s t r i b u t i o n across various f a c i l i t i e s and parts thereof were recorded at d i f f e r e n t points of time through time lapse photography as well as v i s u a l observation supported by behavioral mapping technique. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found among nine plazas i n terms of t h e i r observed popularity as well as verbally measured pleasantness and d i v e r s i t y i n the v i s u a l environments. Perceived d i v e r s i t y i n the v i s u a l environment of plazas accounted for 60% of t h e i r pleasantness and popularity. Season, weather condition, time of the day and vocational background of respondents ( i . e . designer or nondesigner) had i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on the per-ceptual and emotional responses of people across these plazas. Across plazas located i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown, s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e relationships were found between t h e i r verbally measured pleasantness and d i v e r s i t y i n the environment and the variety (Average uncertainty; Re: Information Theory) as well as density in t h e i r i n t e r n a l furnishing elements. Furthermore, respondents' comments indicated that the amount and variety i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l furnishing, the presence or absence of fo c a l attractions and the colour of t h e i r pavements and enclosing surfaces were the most popular reasons for people's pleasure-displeasure and perception of d i v e r s i t y (or the lack of i t ) across these spaces. Waterfront plazas were more pleasant, more diverse and more popular, p a r t i c u -l a r l y i n Summer, than most plazas i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown. Across these plazas, however, the surrounding view rather than the i n t e r n a l landscape was the determining factor i n peoples pleasure and perception of d i v e r s i t y . Population d i s t r i b u t i o n within plazas suggested the greater e f f i c i e n c y of small-sized, densely furnished spaces with a r t i c u -lated edges and limited and defined pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n channels than extensive areas and expansive pavements. A c t i v i t i e s tended to accumulate on a r t i f a c t s , along edges, around fo c a l elements and close to other a c t i v i t i e s while open and undefined paved areas and f a c i l i t i e s remote from the area of population concentration, view or movement channels were rarely used. Pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n s i i i took place along shortest routes between streets and buildings. S o l i t a r y persons and small groups were the predominant users of plazas. The observed use of furniture elements i l l u -strated the greater e f f i c i e n c y of a r t i c u l a t e d shapes and arrange-ments that i n t r i n s i c a l l y provided defined t e r r i t o r i e s and or i e n t a t i o n a l choice for small-group users than non-articulated expansive forms and straight l i n e a r constructions of benches, r a i l i n g s , pools' and planters' edges. Diverse configurations, furthermore, provided niches for users of d i f f e r e n t demographic nature and supported t h e i r co-existence within plazas. The eff e c t s of extraneous factors l i k e time, weather condition, season and landuse surrounding plazas on the use of these spaces were also analyzed. The findings indicate that subtle difference i n the physical environments across these small outdoors may s i g n i f i -cantly a l t e r people's feelings within them as well as the nature-and extent of use of these spaces. S p e c i f i c a l l y , d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l contents and a r t i c u l a t i o n i n t h e i r s p a t i a l configuration and f a c i l i t y planning are esse n t i a l ingredients to render plazas pleasant, popular as well as supportive of personal and behavioral freedom of t h e i r users. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i CHAPTERS I... INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the study 1 Scope of the study 5 Hypotheses 21 II STUDY AREAS 28 III METHODOLOGY 40 Assessment of emotion e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s and v i s u a l (collative) properties of study areas . 40 Assessment of popularity and behavioral p r o f i l e of study areas 43 IV DISCUSSION ON FINDINGS 53 Perception of d i v e r s i t y and emotion-elicitation across plaza environments 53 Relationship between physical features and psychobehavioral responses to plazas 67 Behavioral maps of lo c a t i o n a l pattern of use... 90 Use of furniture elements 10 3 Examples of t e r r i t o r i a l use of plazas 117 A note of temporal, c l i m a t i c and landuse factors i n plaza-use 128 A summary of findings 140 v page V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 APPENDICES 177 A. Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Measures of Emotional S t a t u s . 177 B. Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l S c a l e s Measuring Information Rate 177 C. Survey Measuring E m o t i o n - e l i c i t y Q u a l i t i e s and Information Rates of P l a z a Environments 178 D. D e b r i e f i n g 179 E. I l l u s t r a t i o n o f ia T y p i c a l Photographic Observation o r Recording S e s s i o n ( r e f e r . pp43-51) 180 F. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Ob s e r v a t i o n Sessions I 8 4 G. O r t h o g o n a l l y Ratated F a c t o r M a t r i x o f the P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s o f Scores on Information Rate S c a l e 1 8 5 H. I n t e r n a l F u r n i s h i n g Elements of Pl a z a s I 8 6 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLES PAGE I. A Breakdown of Responses to the Survey of Psychological Attributes of Plazas 54 II. Variance on Scores on Psychological Scales 56 II I . Mean Scores of Plazas on the Psychological Scales. 57 IV. Variance on Scores on the Diversity Scale 60 V. Variance on Number of Users Recorded per Observation 64 VI. Relationship Between Average Uncertainty Factors of Plaza Landscape and Their Perceived Measures 77 VII. Number of User-groups Engaged i n Different A c t i v i t i e s 84 VIII. Density of User-groups on Different F a c i l i t i e s of Bentall Two Plaza 108 IX. Number of Lawn Users i n Different Seasons 115 X. Distances Maintained by User-groups i n Court-house Square 116 XI. Plaza-wise Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of User-groups under Different Sizes 118 XII. Number of User-groups on Different Bench-types i n Granville Square 123 XIII. Landuses (in '000 sq.ft.) within 500ft. from Edges of Plazas 130 XIV. Difference Between Spring and Summer Use 132 XV. Summary of Multiple Regression on Peak-use of Plazas i n Summer 135 XVI. Difference i n Use Between Sunny and Shaded Parts i n Summer 137 v i i LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE PAGE 1. A Diagrammatic Expression of the Relationship Between People and Plaza Environments Hypothesized i n the Study 2 3 2. Locations of Study Areas Within.Vancouver Downtown 29 3. Visual I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Granville Square .... 31 4. Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Guiness Plaza 32 5. Visual I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Baxter Plaza 33 6. Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Bentall Two Plaza .... 34 7. Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of MacMillan Bloedel Plaza 34 8. Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of P a c i f i c Centre Plaza... 35 9. Vis u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of I.B.M. Plaza 35 10. Visual I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Courthouse Square 37 11. V i s u a l I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Trounce A l l e y Square... 38 12. Visual I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Victory Square 38 13. Relationship Between Verbally Measured Diversity and Pleasantness of Plazas 6 3 14. Relationship Between Verbally Measured Dive r s i t y and the Observed Popularity of Plazas 65 15. Reasons for Perception of Pleasure-displeasure and Variety-redundancy Across Plazas as Reported by Subjects 6 8 16. A Few I l l u s t r a t i o n s of the Surrounding View From Granville Square 70 17. I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Water-front View from Guiness and Baxter Plazas 71 18. Development of Waterfront Plazas are Taking Place Eccentric to the Pedestrian Movement and Shopping A c t i v i t i e s within Downtown.... 74 v i i i FIGURE PAGE 19. P a c i f i c Centre Plaza. Its Barrenness and Monotony of the Expansive Dull Surface Were Unpleasant to People 79 20. Internal Landscape of Bentall Two. An Example of Plaza Furnishing With Many Things of a Wide Variety within a Small Area that Appealed to People 80 21. Internal Furnishing of MacMillan Bloedel Plaza An I l l u s t r a t i o n of "Perceptually Redundant Plaza Landscape with Excessive Coverage by the Same Form, Colour or Texture 82 22. Among Materials i n a Designer's P a l l e t , Moving Water, Perhaps has the Greatest Potential to Generate Fun and Play 85 23. Difference Between the Enclosing Masses of Bentall Two Plaza and Those of MacMillan Bloedel and P a c i f i c Centre Plazas. People Reported a Feeling of Domination by Sky-scrapers i n the Latter Two Open Spaces... 8 8 24. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users i n Granville Square 92 25. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within Courthouse Square 93 26. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users.. Within the Central Paved Area .of Courthouse Square.. 94 27. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within P a c i f i c Centre Plaza 95 28. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within Guiness Plaza 96 29. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within Baxter Plaza 96 30. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within Bentall Two Plaza 97 31. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users Within Victory-Square 97 32. Relationship Between Observed Maximum Density and Area of Plazas 99 ix FIGURE PAGE 33. Granville Square - Absence of a Progressive Realization of the View and Counter-attractions Leave the Large Waterfront Plaza I n e f f e c t i v e l y U t i l i z e d 102 34. Corners of Railings are Greater U t i l i z e d than Straight Linear Sections 105 35. On Oblong Pools' Edges, Use Tends to Build Up on Corners 106 36. An A r t i c u l a t e d Space with Small Sized Structures and Angular Variety Tends .to Accommodate Greater Use than an Expansive Rectilinear Form. These Photographs of Bentall Two Plaza Were Taken at the Same Time 109 37. D i s t r i b u t i o n Patterns of Seated Users on .. Benches of Victory Square 110 38. I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Use of Oblong Park Benches of Victory Square 112 39. A Comparison of Observed Maximum Summer-time Use of Different Forms of Seating F a c i l i t i e s .- 114 40. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Different Types of Users Within Victory Square 120 41. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Young and E l d e r l y Users Observed Within Granville Square.. 124 42. Locational D i s t r i b u t i o n of Observed Users by Sex-groups Within Bentall Two Plaza.. 126 43. Temporal Difference i n the Observed Average Number of Users of Plazas 129 44. Position of Shadows on P a c i f i c Centre Plaza. 138 45. Position of Shadows on I.B.M. Plaza 138 46. Position of Shadows on Guiness Plaza 139 47. Position of Shadows on Courthouse Square.... 139 x FIGURE 48. 49.. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. PAGE A Variety of Water Movement Patterns Have Greater Potential to A t t r a c t Use Than Simple Cascades or S t i l l Pools 151 The Use of Rocks and Strubs i s an Excellent Way to Break the Monotony of Large S t i l l Water Bodies 151 A Sculpture that Invites Exploration and Use in Various Ways is. Better Than a Mere Showpiece 152 The Presence of Semiparmanent Displays or Exhibits i s One Possible Way to Att r a c t Use i n Ex i s t i n g Barren Plazas.. 154 P a c i f i c Centre Plaza - Merely a Concourse for Through C i r c u l a t i o n . A r t i c u l a t e d Edges May Provide A t t r a c t i v e Seating as Well as an E f f i c i e n t Internal Space 157 Seating Arrangement Along the Edge Should Provide Choice for Users to Face Any Direction 158 Victory Square - Long Edges and a Rigid Row Seating Dictate', Users' Choice. They Should be A r t i c u l a t e d to Provide T e r r i t o r i e s as Well as Personal Choice for Orientation 158 Granville Square - Use iTends to Build Up on Corners Rather than Straight Section of Railings. Railings are Key Elements i n Waterfront Plazas and Should be a r t i c u l a t e d to Provide as Many Cornersas. Possible-as Well as A t t r a c t i v e Niches for the Many Different Types of People That Use the Space i 5 9 Compact Clustering of Small Movable Benches May Provide E f f i c i e n t Seating and Freedom for Users at the Same Time 161 MacMillan Bloedel Plaza - A r t i c u l a t i o n of Typical Oblong Pools Brings i n Change-in Stimuli as Well as Provide E f f i c i e n t Seating and Orientational and Postural Choice for Users x i FIGURE PAGE 58. Expansive Grass Lawns are Wasted F a c i l i -t i e s for Downtown Plazas. They Should be Avoided or A r t i c u l a t e d 164 59. Granville Square - Large Open Spaces on Waterfront Locations Would Need Counterbalances and a Progressive Realization of the View i n Order to be E f f e c t i v e l y U t i l i z e d 166 x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It would have not been possible to complete th i s i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y study without the assistance and the advice I received from many sources. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. John W. N e i l l , my supervisor, for his guidance and encouragements, to Dr. John B . C o l l i n s for his un f a i l i n g enthusiasm, many suggestions and constructive c r i t i c i s m s , and to Dr. Michael Seeliggand Dr. W. Wellington for t h e i r many insights and suggestions. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Vi c t o r C.Runeckles for his aids and advice on the various matters concerning my study. I take this opportunity to thank the Government of Canada for providing me with a Commonwealth Scholarship. x i i i This report i s dedicated to my wife Anuradha S.D.J. xiv 1 / CHAPTER I •INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study T h i s study was an e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l and emotional responses of people t o open space environments i n the h e a r t of the c i t y . The a r e a l focus was on m i c r o - s c a l e designed p u b l i c concourses, p o p u l a r l y known as p l a z a s and squares. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was based on concepts and methods developed i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s as p e r t a i n i n g to the study, of man-environment i n t e r a c t i o n s . From a d e s i g n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , the u n d e r l y i n g g o a l was d i r e c t e d towards the improvement of the design and planninggprocess by p r o v i d i n g i n s i g h t s of the p e r c e p t u a l and b e h a v i o r a l needs and p r e f e r e n c e s of people i n these micro-environments and the r e l a t e d p h y s i c a l parameters t o . support such needs and p r e f e r e n c e s . The purpose, i n broad terms,was to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v i s u a l f e a t u r e s and p h y s i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of p l a z a s and squares and people's f e e l i n g s as w e l l as i n f o r m a l l e i s u r e use p a t t e r n s w i t h i n them t h a t would serve t o suggest g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e i r d e s i g n s . The study d e r i v e d i t s source o f i n s p i r a t i o n from the emerging premise t h a t analyses and r e s e a r c h i n t o human 2 p e r c e p t u a l and b e h a v i o r a l needs might form the onl y adequate b a s i s f o r s u c c e s s f u l designs of our day-to-day environments. The paradigm of environmental design has been, t r a d i t i o n a l l y , based on an i n t u i t i v e process r e l y i n g on the p e r s o n a l t a s t e s , e xperiences o r p e r c e p t i v e s k i l l s o f a s e t of a e s t h e t i c a l l y i n c l i n e d i n d i v i d u a l s r a t h e r than upon a s c i e n t i f i c p r e d i c t i v e knowledge of the ways people would use or r e a c t to p h y s i c a l surroundings. The growing q u a n t i t y and complexity of our p h y s i c a l environmental problems, the widening gap i n communi-c a t i o n between form-makers and u s e r - c l i e n t s and evidences o f poor f i t between designed environments and t h e i r users now c h a l l e n g e such ' p r o f e s s i o n a l determinism' based on i n t u i t i v e assumptions on human response p a t t e r n s and c a l l e f o r u s e r s ' i n p u t s i n t o the design process i n a v a r i e t y o f ways and f o r v a r i e d types of environments (Alexander, 1964; Sommer, 1969; Rapoport, 1970; C r a i k , 1970; Studer and Stea, 19 66; Mic h e l s o n , 1974; V i g i e r , 1969; Deasy, 1974; e t c ) . The c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t i n a b e h a v i o r a l b a s i s of design has been f u r t h e r e d w i t h growing evidences of the profound i n f l u e n c e of p h y s i c a l environments on p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e s of people and the c o n s i s t e n c y i n ways people p e r c e i v e environments or respond t o s i t u a t i o n s as w e l l as w i t h the advent of t o o l s and techniques t o measure both p h y s i c a l and human v a r i a b l e s i n the environment ( C r a i k , 1970; Proshansky e t . a l . , 1970; Lowenthal, 1967; Mehrabien and R u s s e l , 1974; Lynch, 19 59 and 19 61; V i g i e r , 3 1969; Fiske and Maddi, 1961; Good et. a l . , 1965; e t c ) . An e f f e c t i v e strategy to b u i l d up knowledge of human needs and preferences and the concomitant s p a t i a l parameters to support them i s to empirically examine the interplay between existing physical systems and the behavioral and emotional responses of people through both observational methods and assessments from people (Craik, 19 70; Sommer, 1972; Michelson, 1974). I believe, that the most relevant information wilt be discovered by evaluating existing projects rather than by asking people what they want. Certainly it is important to talk with potential users about a prospective park; it is also necessary to look at existing parks which are similar [Sommer, 1972). ifihe most commonly accepted unit for design purposes is 'human need'. Such a concept has relevance perhaps; what it lacks is empirical substance. That is, we cannot observe need, but we can only infer its existence through observation of its empirical counterpart, behaviour... Human behaviour appears to be more correct unit of analysis, it has characteristics, which are relevant, empirically verifiable and operationally definable (Studer, ±969). One appealing approach to the application of knowledge about behaviour in designed environments leads rather directly from observed patterns of behaviour to design decisions. A well conducted ecological analysis of an, [existing system) should convey a vivid sense of the^ spatial configuration of Its activity system, . . . com.ce the designer discovers the spatial parameters of activity systems... .he simply designs around them [Craik, 1970). The present study undertook such empirical examine ation of several e x i s t i n g public open spaces i n the centre of the c i t y and attempted to discover any generalized 4 pattern of r e l a t i o n s h i p that might e x i s t between t h e i r physical make-up and the emotional reactions as well as the overt a c t i v i t i e s of people within them. The importance of open spaces f o r public enjoyment i n the heart of the c i t y has been long recognized (zucker, 1953; Clay, 1965; Lynch, 1961; Gutheim, 1963; Highbee, 1960; Guggenheimer, 1963; e t c ) . However, despite t h e i r rationale and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of centuries of design experience, evidences of underuse or lack of appreciation of present day public open spaces are not scarce; and such phenomena, to a great extent, may be attributed to professional determinism based on value-loaded and often erroneous assumptions on user-behaviour (Jacobs, 1967 and 1969; Gans, 1957; Revelle, 1967; Gold, 1973; Deasy, 1970; e t c . ) . As Alexander summarizes, public open spaces are ' c e n t r i f u g a l ' rather than ' c e n t r i p e t a l 1 ; people are driven away rather than attracted to them. On the other hand, the very few studies on man-environment relationships i n open spaces, notwithstanding t h e i r weakness to generalize findings, provide some indications of patterns i n the way people d i s t r i b u t e themselves, use s p e c i f i c furniture elements or prefer certain landscape features or configurations to others (Alexander et a l , 19 70; De Jonge, 19 67; Lyle, 1970; Deasy, 1970 and 1974; Prieser, 1971; etc.) Such patterns, once thoroughly established through future researches,may have greater p o t e n t i a l than preconceived v i s u a l or functional design p r i n c i p l e s to shape open spaces i n f i t t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n 5 with t h e i r prospective users. In the past, plazas and squares i n the centre of the c i t y enjoyed the r i c h association of formal s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s of a p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s or commercial nature (Mumford, 1961; Hilberseimer, 1955; Zucker, 1953; Hirons, 1956; Giedion, 1962; J e l l i c o e , 1975; e t c . ) . Generally devoid of s o c i a l a t t r a c t i o n s , present-day plazas and squares may primarily cater to the b r i e f leisure-use and the aesthetic or psychological enjoyment of people within the mundane business d i s t r i c t of the c i t y . Approach to these environments may be regarded as more by 'choice' than compulsion (as may be i n the case of 'business' environments or 'she l t e r ' ) . S a t i s f a c t i o n of perceptual and emotional needs of people may thus require a l l the more research e f f o r t i n the context of today's plazas and squares to render them e f f e c t i v e , useful spacesiin the c i t y . Many open spaces i n the centre of modern c i t i e s are piecemeal private ventures associated with multi-storey developments where designers are, presumably, interested i n .meeting the demands" of 'their':"immediate'~ c l i e n t s rather than the psychobehavioral needs of the remote but actual users of the open spaces. Scope of the Study The primary focus of t h i s study was on the physical make-up of plaza environments as they related to people's 6 feelings as well as use of these spaces. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the objectives were: o to assess the phenomena logical impacts of these environments on the feelings on. emotional states of people and to Investigate how emotional reactions were related to their visual or per-ceptual attributes. o to assess the level of use and physical activities within these spaces and Investigate their relation-ships with the visual attributes of these environments. o to investigate how physical configurations and facility planning of plazas, i.e., the shapes, sizes and arrangements of their furniture elements, panXlcuZarly, seating facilitiess and the internal layouts of these spaces affected people's use, physical activities and distribution patterns within them. Furthermore, i t was of i n t e r e s t to note the ef f e c t s of several extraneous factors l i k e the time of the day, weather conditions, seasons, surrounding landuses, etc., on people's use of or emotional reactions within these open spaces. In a/general approach to understanding man's interactions with various environments, i t i s e s s e n t i a l to i d e n t i f y those responses that are immediate re s u l t s of stimulation (Mehrabien and Russel, 1974). The immediate reactions to v i s u a l s t i m u l i may be p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant i n the context of plazas and squares which are generally experienced as b r i e f encounters over the day. How can such reactions be parsimoniously described? Can they be 7 measured? To t h i s extent, t h i s study r e l i e d upon the recent postulation i n environmental psychology (op c i t ) that there were a l i m i t e d set of immediate and basic emotional responses that cut across a l l sense modalities and represented the common core of human response to a l l types of environments. Based on works on synesthesia or intermodality associations, physiological responses to sti m u l i and semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l , Mehrabien and Russel (19 74) proposed that the three emotional states of "pleasure-displeasure", "arousal-nonarousal" and "dominance-submissiveness" could provide a comprehensive c l a s s i f i c a t i o n base to describe one's feelings i n any si t u a t i o n . This was revalidated through t h e i r own experiments. Additional terms describing a var i e t y of reactions may be defined i n terms of these three basic emotions. For instance, the f e e l i n g of boredom' or 'fatigue' may be described as one that i s low on 'pleasure*, 'arousal' and f e e l i n g of 'dominance'; while'excitement' may be defined i n terms of a high state on a l l the above basic dimensions; 'anxiety' or stress may rate high on 'arousal' but low on 'pleasure* and 'dominance' while 'relaxation' or 'comfort' would characterize low state on 'arousal' but high on the other two; and so on. Semantic-d i f f e r e n t i a l scales constituting sets of bipo l a r adjective pairs were also developed to measure these basic emotions (see Appendix-A) which, when rated by a subject i n an environment, would provide measure of his emotional states i n the environment. At the same time, the averaged measures 8 obtained from the ratings of a sample population i n the environment may be used as descriptors of the environment i n terms of i t s "emotion-eliciting quality" and may be used to compare d i f f e r e n t settings: The mean level of pleasure e l i c i t e d from a represen-t a t i v e sample, of people. In an znvln.onme.nt defined i t s 'pleasantness'. The mean level of arousal e l i c i t e d In an environment defined Us 'arousing q u a l i t y ' . A s i m i l a r average dominance response defined i t s 'dominance-eliciting q u a l i t y ' . These emotion-defined c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n ^ of environments provide a parsimonious means to describe and measure differences among s i t u a t i o n s [Ihehrabien and Russel, 1914, p.201). The present study measured these emotion-eliciting q u a l i t i e s of open space environments through the scales developed by the above research and explored t h e i r physical antecedents by asking people reasons for t h e i r feelings i n the environment. Such an investigation might provide a comprehensive assessment of how people f e e l i n these spaces and why they f e e l so, leading to physical design implications. However, are a l l these emotion-defined c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s equally important i n the context of designing a good urban open space? Do they have sim i l a r behavioral implications to render open spaces a t t r a c t i v e or popular places? There i s a lack of evidence on the behavioral implications of the emotional state of "dominance-submissiveness." However, the f e e l i n g of dominance connotes freedom to act i n a v a r i e t y of ways i n the environment. Thus freedom of choice for a c t i v i t i e s , postural relaxation, privacy, t e r r i t o r i a l freedom etc., may 9 be factors a f f e c t i n g t h i s f e e l i n g (Proshansky et a l . 1970; Mehrabien and Russel, 1974). To t h i s extent, "dominance-e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t y " may be a po s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e for most environments. In a public open space context, however, i t s importance would depend on the nature of use and the type of user; i . e . to the extent i n d i v i d u a l freedom might be required. An open space meant sol e l y for self-engaging a c t i v i t i e s of s o l i t a r y persons and the one meant for mass entertainment, conglomeration or organized recreation would be two extreme examples i n t h i s regard. Arousal i s a f e e l i n g state varying along a single dimension from sleep to f r a n t i c excitement (Mehrabien and Russel, op c i t p.18). Psychological evidences suggest that while extremely arousing situations may be d i f f i c u l t to cope with, low arousing situations are generally avoided (Bexton, Heron and Scott, 19 54; Davis, McCourt and Solomon, 1958); and, therefore, a moderate l e v e l of 'arousing quality' may be desirable. Outdoor recreation spaces, unlike many other public entertainment areas should not be highly arousing (possible exceptions may be F a i r s or exhibition grounds), for passive relaxation might be one primary objective of users. Among these emotional dimensions, "pleasure-displeasure" has the most obvious evaluative connotation of universal appeal. Although within the present concept,'pleasure' has been defined as an emotional state d i s t i n c t from people's l i k i n g or preference for environments, psychological researches f o r 10 a v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t 'approach behaviour' of a l l t y p e s , such as p h y s i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n t o environments, degree of a t t e n t i o n , e x p l o r a t i o n of environments, and v e r b a l l y or n o n - v e r b a l l y measured p r e f e r e n c e o r l i k i n g f o r environments i n c r e a s e d i r e c t l y w i t h the experience of p l e a s u r e ( G r i f f i t , 1970; G r i f f i t and V e i t c h , 1971; Rohles, 1967; Skinner, 1971; Mehrabien and R u s s e l , 1974). The r a t e d 'pleasantness' o f p l a z a s , t h e r e f o r e , would p r o v i d e key c r i t e r i a t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r 'goodness' and t o compare among these s e t t i n g s . What physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , however, may c o n t r i b u t e t o such emotion-defined a t t r i b u t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y , 'pleasantness' of these open space environments? The f e e l i n g of p l e a s u r e has a w e l l d e f i n e d p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s . The f u n c t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n of the b r a i n may be a major element i n our p l e a s u r e and a e s t h e t i c s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus, a t the r o o t of p l e a s u r e must l i e the same p r i n c i p l e s t h a t govern the n e u r o p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s of our p e r c e p t i o n of the v i s u a l environment ( P i a t t , 1961). A tendency t o " c l o s u r e " , to i n t e r p r e t e i n f o r m a t i o n on g r o s s , s i m p l i f i e d p a t t e r n s or g e s t a l t s i s a t the core of human p e r c e p t i o n of v i s u a l environments. Such p a t t e r n s , however, are p e r c e i v e d through a continuous process of s e l e c t i o n , s c a n n i n g o r a continuous f l u x of the nervous systemeand a. demand" f o r "change-in-stimuli or new i n f o r m a t i o n by the h i g h e r organ. 11 ... If we say that the brain consumes and demands info motion, we are not using these words lightly. The nervous system oscillates fan. information, that is, for the variable, the contrasting and the least expected,.. .the requirements for aesthetic enjoyment are simply the requirements for perception Itself, raised to a higher degree.... and the essential thing In each case is to have patterns that contain.' the unexpected [Vlatt, 1961). While the neuro-physical requirements for novelty and variety i n v i s u a l environments have been well argued by s c i e n t i s t s (Piatt, 1959- Fiske and Maddi, 1961; Heron, 1957; Parr, 1965 and 1966; e t c ) , a host of psychological experiments to date document the role of such v i s u a l properties i n r e l a t i o n to people's preference f o r , approach or avoidance and exploration of environments XBerlyne, 1960, 1963; Berlyne and Lawrence, 1964; Dey, 1966, 19 67 and 1968; Wohlwill, 1968; V i t z , 1966; Leckart and Bekan, 1965; e t c ) . These laboratory findings, based on subjects' responses to geometric patterns, photographs e t c v a r y i n g along stimulus dimensions,suggest that humans prefer ambiguous and complex patterns i n the v i s u a l f i e l d and i t seems to be a fundamental perceptual preference. The notions of s i m p l i c i t y and c l a r i t y have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y upheld i n the design d i s c i p l i n e . However, the case for va r i e t y , surprise and even incongruity i n our day-to-day environments has been argued from time to time by design t h e o r i s t s , either e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y (Venturi, 1966; Jacobs, 1961; Van Eyck, 1962; Cullen, 1961; Halprin, 1969). In view of psychological research,such 12 attributes of our b u i l t environment may no more be considered as merely an issue of aesthetics, personal experiences or credos of designers. Behaviorally i n c l i n e d designers now have a strong footing to argue that variety and novelty are impor-tant components of a v i s u a l l y 'good' environment because they help to achieve an optimal perceptual rate which i s related to richness and complexity of perceptual inputs. (Rapoport and Kantor, 1967), However, despite a current t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n perceptual opulence as opposed to s i m p l i c i t y i n our designed environments, very l i t t l e attempt has been made to t e s t the emotional or behavioral s i g n i f i c a n c e of such attributes of r e a l l i f e urban settings of any kind. In the open space context, behavioral studies have been minimal although they say: ...successfat recreation spaces have the generic attribute of diversity and accessibility...within they should be spatially diverse so that they will encourage a variety of uses [Alexander et. al., 1970). The present study hypothesized that the rated pleasantness as well as the observed popularity of plazas would be a p o s i t i v e correlate of d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l environments. Small outdoor spaces l i k e plazas and squares are micros-environments i n our day-to-day experience of the physical c i t y . R e a l i s t i c a l l y speaking, wide differences i n v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may not be expected across these small settings. However, do small and subtle variations across such micro-environments 13 mean anything i n r e l a t i o n , to people's feelings and use? The crux of t h i s study lay on seeking answers to t h i s question. In l i n e with various psychological research on arousal and exploratory behaviour (Berlyne, 1960; Fiske and Maddi, 1961; Berlyne and McDonnell, 1965; Baker and Franken, 1967; Leckart and Bekan, 1965; Wohlwill, 1968; etc) a hypothesized p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y and 'arousing quality' of plazas might be suggested. C u r i o s i t y and exploratory drive are primary i n s t i n c t s as basic as those of hunger and sex and t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a re q u i s i t e to maintaining a healthy active being (Koestler, 1967). Within the mundane central working area of the c i t y , public places supporting exploratory behaviour would have th e i r desirable recreative q u a l i t y . In the open space context, such a q u a l i t y may be manifest i n various overt a c t i v i t i e s l i k e l o i t e r i n g , watching things, playing on or around a r t i f a c t s , photographing, etc. Variety i n the v i s u a l environment, complexity or ambiguity i n the form of a r t i f a c t s furnishing these areas, i t might be hypothesized, would have aa s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e bearing on such recreative q u a l i t y of public plazas. 'Dominance-eliciting q u a l i t y ' would possibly have more functional than v i s u a l implications; that i s , i t might be dependent upon a physical configuration supporting a variety of people and a c t i v i t i e s and t h e i r personal space 14 and t e r r i t o r i a l requirements. Nevertheless, the v i s u a l message of 'freedom of choice 1 might e x i s t . A diverse physical configuration providing personal freedom or niches for various types of people or a c t i v i t i e s , postural choice etc. y would obviously be v i s u a l l y diverse and have some i n i t i a l impact on people's f e e l i n g s . Thus v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y , i t might be hypothesized, would have a po s i t i v e e f f e c t also on the 'dominance-eliciting quality' of plaza environments. To investigate the role of v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y i n people's feelings within or use of plazas i t would be necessary,as a f i r s t step, to develop a measure of v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y for these environments. Visual properties l i k e variety, novelty, s i m p l i c i t y , complexity, unity, etc. are molar properties which have been termed as " c o l l a t i v e " ones (Berlyne, 1964) since t h e i r perceptions depend upon the comparison or c o l l a t i o n of information received from d i f f e r e n t parts of the environment. The more the change i n information or stimuli from the d i f f e r e n t parts, the more i n t r i c a t e , complex or uncertain the t o t a l environment i s l i k e l y to be. The concept of "Information Rate" or "Average Uncertainty" has been postulated to provide an empirically v a l i d measure of the c o l l a t i v e properties of environments (Attneave, 1959; Garner, 1962; Mehrabien and Russel, 1974). In mathematical terms, i n a given environment with a set of 15 d i f f e r e n t types of elements, the uncertainty associated V with each type xs log P_. where, p^ i s the p r o b a b i l i t y or the r e l a t i v e occurrence of the i t h type of element; and the Average Uncertainty (or Average Information Rate), U, of the t o t a l environment i s E ^ P j L l o g 2 r i . e . , the sum of the weighted uncertainty associated with each type of element. The Average Uncertainty or Information Rate of the environment, therefore, i s expressed i n terms of the r e l a t i v e occurrence or the p r o b a b i l i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p among d i f f e r e n t types of elements composing the environment. In perceptual terms, t h i s would make sense, for a landscape with patterning or excessive r e p e t i t i o n of one type of element i s v i s u a l l y simple or redundant rather than diverse. Mathematically, such r e p e t i t i o n means the increase of pr o b a b i l i t y value of the r e p e t i t i v e element within the t o t a l number of elements i n the landscape, which reduces the value of the Average Information Rate. Conversely, an environment with elements a l l highly equiprobable i s extremely complex tending towards chaos. ?zAha.pt> the. most fundamental concept of information theory ii, that of a continuum extending from extreme lawfulness or redundancy or regularity on one hand,_ to extreme disorder or unpredictability or uncertainty on the other. One end of the continuum is homo-geneity, the other chaos [Attneave, 7 9 5 9 ) . While the exact mathematical s p e c i f i c a t i o n of i n f o r -mation rate of an urban space may be quite cumbersome, a human response scale has been developed to measure information rates of settings of a l l types (Mehrabien and Russel, 1974). 16 This semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale c o n s t i t u t i n g a set of bipolar adjective pairs corresponding to judgements of higher and lower values of information rates (see Appendix-B) may be rated by subjects as t h e i r perceptual response to an environment. The averaged rating of a sample population may define the information rate of the environment ( i b i d , pp.88-95). In t h i s study people's responses on t h i s scale were used to compare vi s u a l d i v e r s i t y across plaza environments and to relate such d i v e r s i t y measures with the rated emotion-eliciting q u a l i t i e s and the observed popularity across these environments. At the same time, comments were in v i t e d from subjects through which the environmental antecedents of people's perceptions of c o l l a t i v e properties i n these settings could be explored. Various components of these environments, such as t h e i r i n t e r n a l landscapes, surroundings or people and a c t i v i t i e s within these places might contribute to t h e i r d i v e r s i t y i n varying degrees i n d i f f e r e n t locations. By using verbal scales, the peAcei-ved d i v e r s i t y and people's own judgements of the r e l a t i v e significance of these various environmental components and physical features could be assessed. V i s u a l d i v e r s i t y i n the i n t e r n a l designs of plazas might be further analyzed by using the mathematical model of information rate (in terms of variety i n number and type of a r t i f a c t s of d i f f e r e n t forms, colours, textures, etc.) and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with perceived d i v e r s i t y or emotion e l i c i t a t i o n investigated. 17 While the above investigation would focus, p r i m a r i l y , upon the perceptual or the v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of plaza environments and explore implications for designing emotionally s a t i s f y i n g and popular plazas, observation of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of people and a c t i v i t i e s within e x i s t i n g open spaces would,hopefully, indicate the r e l a t i v e use-potentials of d i f f e r e n t types of s p a t i a l configurations and forms and arrangements of physical f a c i l i t i e s and thereby explore functional s i t e design implications to support user-behaviour. Any controlled experiment i n t h i s regard was beyond the scope of t h i s study which r e l i e d on the l i m i t e d range of configurations and f a c i l i t i e s available across several e x i s t i n g designed settings. Nevertheless, within l i m i t a t i o n s , some quantitative relationships between use and space forms might be, hopefully, derived relevant to future design or improvement of plazas and squares. Observational studies of small public open spaces have been minimal. However, a few casual observations, p i l o t studies and studies on large-scale parks or non-urban outdoor areas reported indications of patterns in the physical d i s p o s i t i o n of people and a c t i v i t i e s across public spaces. Prieser's (1971) study based on one plaza on a college campus reported that a c t i v i t i e s occurred almost exclusively on or near physical a r t i f a c t s while p h y s i c a l l y undefined or unstructured locations were behaviorally "voids." 18 S t i l i t z (1969 and 1970) usually observed stationary groups in'the v i c i n i t y of physical e-Lements such as niches, corners, edges and columns i n public lobbies. Both these studies reported that pedestrian movements tended to take routes of least appearing e f f o r t s , i . e . d i r e c t paths between connectors. Barbara Lindsay's (1973)"^ observations car r i e d out i n a few small open spaces i n the l o c a l context provided s i m i l a r broad indications of the relat i o n s h i p between physical features and di s t r i b u t i o n s of people and a c t i v i t i e s within spaces. Derk de Jonge (1968) found physically a r t i c u l a t e d spaces l i k e " f o c a l points", "edges" and geographically bounded t e r r i t o r i e s to have high- ,• valences to at t r a c t people i n large non-urban park settings. A r t i c u l a t e d edges and central f o c a l elements have been advocated by Alexander et-:.al. (19 70). The p a r t i c u l a r p o t e n t i a l of waterbodies as f o c a l elements has been casually noted by Whyte (1969) and Lyle(1961). Some consistencies i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t i population groups within open spaces have also been observed by a few observers. Lyle's (1961) study on large urban parks i n Europe and U.S.A., for example, reported d i s t i n c t preferences for central to outer or remote zones between 1 Lindsay, B. Methods of studying the effects of the, Surroundings on outdoor activities In.iurban public places. Unpublished Masters Thesis 'in Plant-Science,. University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B.C., 1973. 19 young and e l d e r l y users; Whyte (1969) found s i m i l a r l o c a t i o n a l differences i n use between female and male patrons of urban plazas. Derk de Jonge found c u l t u r a l l y determined prefer-ences, such as between manual and white-collar workers i n picking s i t e s of varying degrees of closeness or remoteness from entrances; he also found the high potential of contrived configurations, such as bounded t e r r i t o r i e s l i k e islands or clearing i n forests to support group a c t i v i t i e s . Further-more, a c t i v i t i e s or people themselves have been believed to be strong attractors of use i n urban open spaces (Deasy,19 70) and locations remote from main c i r c u l a t i o n routes or i s o l a t e d places have been found to be l i t t l e used i n one or two large park settings (Lyle, 1961). Wide generalizations would not be possible from the above studies. In essence, however, most of them have been suggestive of the greater p o t e n t i a l of a r t i c u l a t e d than non-articulated s p a t i a l configurations, of compact, busy or ce n t r a l i z e d than loose, scattered or i s o l a t e d space forms. Furthermore, t e r r i t o r i a l freedom and provision ofspersonal space are e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s of a good public space (Hall, 1966; Sommer, 1969), p a r t i c u l a r l y , where informal l e i s u r e behaviour of various types of people might be anticipated. Spaces contrived by a r t i f a c t s provide not only./ postural support but also environmental clues:for d i r e c t i o n finding (Prieser, 19 71) as well as a physical 20 medium to mark and defend a t e r r i t o r y i n which to act. I t was hypothesized, therefore, that the presence of a large number and variety of physical elements, nooks and corners, p h y s i c a l l y bounded areas, topographic variety,etc might have considerable p o s i t i v e e f f e c t i n supporting a large quantity and: a wide variety of use across plazas. The behavioral significance of small differences i n physical configurations across these micro-environments would be i n t e r e s t i n g to note. Size, shape and arrangement of i n d i v i d u a l a r t i -facts, p a r t i c u l a r l y seating f a c i l i t i e s , to a great extent, structure the o v e r a l l i n t e r n a l form of open spaces. These factors, i n turn, are c r u c i a l to support the behavioral requirements of users. Furniture layouts of public places, Like lobbies, lounges, l i b r a r i e s etc.; have been often c r i t i c i z e d as being r e f l e c t i v e of designers' misconceptions and lack of knowledge about the normal size of informal s o c i a l groups and t h e i r t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour. Self-gene-rated groups i n public places are generally small: s o l i t a r y i n d i v i d u a l s and dyads forming the major constituent of the users. Their t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour seeking interpersonal segregation i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n i n e f f i c i e n t use of seats meant to accommodate a large number of persons (Deasy, 1974; Sommer, 1969). In the context of public plazas and squares, therefore, the e f f i c i e n c y of the t y p i c a l oblong park benches and the str a i g h t l i n e a r constructions of 21 r a i l i n g s , pools or planters might be suspected. I t might be hypothesized that small sizes of seating f a c i l i t i e s and a r t i c u l a t i o n and angular variety i n t h e i r forms and arrangements, providing b u i l t - i n horizontal, v e r t i c a l and o r i e n t a t i o n a l segregation among s o l i t a r y or small-group users would be more e f f i c i e n t than expansive, non-articulated f a c i l i t i e s and oblong l i n e a r shapes. Since face-to-face orientation among actors i s a s i g n i f i c a n t requirement to sustain i n t e r a c t i v e behaviour of various kinds (Sommer, 1969; Mehrabien, 1969; Mehrabien and Diamond, 1971) t y p i c a l l i n e a r shapes or arrangements of seating f a c i l i t i e s might be considered i n e f f i c i e n t also for large group a c t i v i t i e s . Hypotheses The above discussion would lead to the central hypothesis of the study that, across these small-scale outdoor environments i n the heart of the c i t y , i . e . plazas and squares, d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l contents and a r t i c u l a t i o n i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l layout and form and arrangement of furniture elements would have s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on people's feelings as well as t h e i r use of these environments. The following s p e c i f i c hypotheses, summarizing the scope of t h i s study, provided foundation for the c o l l e c t i o n 22 of data and t h e i r subsequent analyses. The a n a l y t i c a l framework of the study i l l u s t r a t i n g these hypothesized relationships between people and plaza environments, to be tested through empirical data, i s shown i n Figure 1 . 1 . As measured through verbal psychological scales, the 'pleasantness', 'arousing q u a l i t y 1 and 'dominance-eliciting q u a l i t y 1 of plazas would be d i r e c t l y related to the d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l environments. Various physical features of the environment would contribute,, i n varying degrees, to people's emotions and judgements of c o l l a t i v e properties i n plazas across d i f f e r e n t locations. These would be revealed through verbal responses of people i n these plazas. 2. The observed l e v e l of use of plazas, measured i n terms of the average number of users (excluding pedestrians simply walking through) wou'ld be d i r e c t l y related to the verbally measured d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l environments. 3. Plazas varying along d i v e r s i t y dimension would display 'considerably d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y patterns within them. S p e c i f i c a l l y , recreational Keasured through subjects' ratings on psychological scales FEELINGS EMOTION-ELICITING QLTY. OF PLAZA PLEASANTNESS . AROUSING QLTY DOMINANCE-ELICITING QLTY. USE ENVIRONMENTAL ANTECEDENTS FOR SUBJECTS EMOTIONS ANO PERCEPTIONS IN PLAZA TO BE ANALYZED THROUGH SUBJECTS' COMMENTS HYPOTHESIS #1 TIME i hour of the day SEASON : summer/spring/falll WEATHER: sunny/cloudy moderate SURROUNDING IANDUSE! type;quantity(total covered space);day population POPULARITY-LEVEL OF USE OF PLAZA HYPOTHESIS I 2 Measured through di r e c t observation BEHAVIORAL PROFILE OF PLAZA ACTIVITY PROFILE., .number of persons/ usergroups engaged in different activities anJ pastures. RELATIVE USE OF DIFFT,PARTS ...population , distribution across different locations within plajaf TYPE OF USERS'.••demographic characteristics and distribution of different population croups across the open space USE OF FACILITIES... frequency and density of use of different furniture elements, like benches, pool, planters,.etc. HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS Measured through subjects' ratings on psychological scales COLLATIVE PROPERTIES- • LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IN THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT (variety,novelty, simplicity complexity, etc.) CONFIGURATION-LAY-OUT OF PLAZA SHAPE SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT OF FURNISHING ELEMENTS Figure 3- i A. diagrammatic Expression of the Relationship Between People and Plaza Environments Hypothesized in the Study. 24 a c t i v i t i e s of exploratory type (as opposed to passive relaxation or self-engaging a c t i v i t i e s ) would be r e l a t i v e l y more frequent i n locations with greater v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y with the presence of complex man-made or natural features i n the landscape. 4. A r t i c u l a t e d spaces l i k e nooks and corners, areas close to physical a r t i f a c t s or contrived or bounded by them would be observed to be more popular or frequently used than non-articu^ lated, p h y sically undefined, "open" areas. Users would tend to agglomerate rather than widely disperse i n secluded locations. 5. Site layouts would a f f e c t the distribution.-.;, of users by demographic groups (e.g. by age sex e t c ) . D i v e r s i t y i n configuration with various physical means of segregating users wouldff a c i l i t a t e t e r r i t o r i a l i z a t i o n and support the co-existence of d i f f e r e n t demographic groups. 6. Forms and arrangements of furniture elements providing defined separation and o r i e n t a t i o n a l variety, such as small seats, s t a i r - s e a t s , corners of furniture, benches having angular variety i n shape, informal seating 25 arrangements, etc. would be observed to be more e f f i c i e n t i n terms of supporting frequency, density, or variety of users than large and non-articulated furniture elements l i k e oblong benches, l i n e a r pool and planter structures, long r a i l i n g s or exp'knsive grass areas. While the above hypotheses would summarize the primary objectives of the study, the e f f e c t s of several extraneous factors on the observed use or on the perceptual and emotion-e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s of plazas would also be noted. Temporal and seasonal fluctuations' i n the use of outdoor spaces i s common. In the c l i m a t i c context of Vancouver, where t h i s study was undertaken,significantly higher plaza-use i n summer than i n any other season.and j l n sunny than i n cloudy days might be hypothesized. Seasonal differences i n use, however, might vary across open spaces; for instance.? grass areas and shaded locations might be more diversely affected than other locations during the cold season. Furthermore, seasonal change i s associated with change i n atmospheric quali t y , blooming or flowering times of plant materials, etc. Seasonal v a r i a t i o n , therefore,might be hypothesized to have e f f e c t s on the perceived d i v e r s i t y and pleasantness of plaza environments, p a r t i c u l a r l y where deciduous plant materials, annuals, distant scenery, etc., constitute major v i s u a l elements. Temporal pattern of use of these open spaces might bear association with a c t i v i t y programmes i n t h e i r surrounding landuses. In l i n e with suggestions of a few 26 observers (Jacobs, 1961; Alexander et a l , 1970), i t was hypothesized that the presence of mixed landuses i n the v i c i n i t y of plazas would have a po s i t i v e e f f e c t on use. In summary, therefore, t h i s study attempted to est a b l i s h relationships between v i s u a l q u a l i t i e s and physical configurations of micro-scale outdoor environments, i . e . plazas and squares i n the centre of the c i t y and human use and feelings within them. Despite t h e i r importance for b r i e f leisure-use and psychological or aesthetic enjoyment of people within the business d i s t r i c t of the c i t y , these small public settings have remained almost t o t a l l y free of any intensive,research to suggest to designers; what physical make-up would render them emotionally s a t i s f y i n g , a t t r a c t i v e places, what form and configuration would sustain use and what would repel. By using concepts and , methods developed i n the s o c i a l sciences, t h i s study measured the psychological reactions as well as the l e v e l of use and physical a c t i v i t i e s of people across several plazas and explored the related physical parameters a f f e c t i n g people's emotional states and behaviour within them. I t also observed the d i s t r i b u t i o n of people and a c t i v i t i e s across the d i f f e r e n t locations and f a c i l i t i e s within plazas to assess the r e l a t i v e use-potentials of d i f f e r e n t types of physical configurations and forms and arrangements of physical f a c i l i t i e s . The core hypothesis of the study was 2 7 that, across these small-scale outdoor environments i n the heart of the c i t y , d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l contents and a r t i c u l a t i o n i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l layouts and forms and arrangments of furniture elements would have s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on people's feelings as well as t h e i r use of these environments. The open spaces selected as settings for t h i s study are introduced i n the _ forthcoming chapter. Chapter III describes the procedures for c o l l e c t i o n and analyses of data while the subsequent chapter discusses the findings. 28 CHAPTER II STUDY AREAS In view of the objectives of t h i s study, r e l a t i v e l y active open spaces i n the heart of the c i t y , accessible to public and apparently representing a f a i r range of v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , site-layouts and form and arrangements of furniture elements were c r i t e r i a for selecting study areas. The central business d i s t r i c t of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia was the setting for this study. Observational p i l o t surveys yielded ten open spaces that apparently met these c r i t e r i a and constituted nearly a l l the major plazas and squares of Downtown Vancouver. The locations of these study areas, i n the Downtown context, are - r-shown i n Figure 2 . The accompanying s i t e plans and photographs of these open spaces provide V i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h e i r environments. A l l these study areas were within close walking distances from the mainstreams of pedestrianncirculation i n Downtown Vancouver, i . e . from Granville*Street, Georgia Street, Burrard Street, -Pender.Street and Hastings Street. Three of these plazas (Granville Square, Guiness plaza and Baxter plaza) were located on the edge of Downtown overlooking the sea (Burrard Inlet) and distant suburbs dotting the North Shore mountains. Pivoting around the St-B U R R A R 0 Cuir: L.N.L B T • • • • • • a n ' TTT in nn nn n n n n 1 C D St. r,eTV G e ° r g i a st. f IBM a c a r t <ft O G e °rg ia St.' i o Figure 2 f 2 iso e S Locations o f Study Arias within Vancouver Downtown. ' ' 30 30-storey Canadian P a c i f i c Tower, the 1L 1-shaped Granville Square was an expansive paved terrace, furnished with clusters of square-shaped wooden seats, many small concrete planters, a few large pools, a fountain, a pair of large c i r c u l a r planter structures and a rather novel wood sculpture, over a parking garage at the foot of Granville Mall (see Figure 3) . Located i n a rather quiet o f f i c e area along West Hastings Street, the other two water front plazas: Guiness (Figure 4 ) and Baxter (Figure 5 ) were landscaped precincts of i n d i v i d u a l high-rise developments. These three plazas, as well as Bentall Two, a densely furnished small open space located amidst a c l u s t e r of o f f i c e towers and a bank building on Burrard Street (Figure 6 ) and the plaza of MacMillan and Bloedel, a narrow, l i n e a r open space decorating the massive exposed concrete o f f i c e tower on West Georgia Street (Figure 1) were s l i g h t l y away from the major shopping hubs of Downtown where the rest of the study areas were located. The r e l a t i v e l y sparse paved areas of P a c i f i c Centre (Figure 8 ) and I.B.M. plazas (Figure 9 ) were located on the busiest node of Downtown. Only a block away from the above two was one of the oldest public places of the c i t y : the Courthouse Square. This extensively planted symmetrical plaza, surrounded by a mix of oTd and modern architecture, had a fountain pool as i t s central feature which ^  was programmed to;, produce sequences "of -Water- movement 32 West side of Guiness Tower J L ft East side of Guiness Tower Figure 4 : Visual Illustrations of Guiness Plaza 33 Figure 5 : Visual Illustrations of Baxter Plaza 34 Figure 6 : Visual Illustrations of Bentall Two Plaza Figure 8 : Visual Illustrations of Figure 9 : Visual Illustrations of Pacific Centre Plaza I.B.M. Plaza 36 patterns (Figure 10 ). These l a t t e r three open spaces were situated within the most int e n s i v e l y developed commercial core of the downtown and had a variety of public uses including small shops as well as large departmental stores, commercial o f f i c e s , public i n s t i t u t i o n s , hotels and pubs and restaurants i n t h e i r immediate v i c i n i t i e s . Most plazas were t y p i c a l l y associated with one or more commercial o f f i c e towers, i n s t i t u t i o n a l architecture or multi-storey office-cum-shopping mall developments; while Trounce A l l e y and Victory Squares of the older shopping d i s t r i c t of Downtown were exceptions to t h i s r u l e . In contrast with the suave, modern look of most plazas, the oblong Trounce A l l e y Square of the Gastown shopping area was paved and furnished with rough-cut granites, cast i r o n gaslight lanterns and antiques and was surrounded by low-rise old brick architecture sheltering boutiques, pubs and restaurants. I t was l i k e an environment designed to be reminiscent of the past (Figure 11 ). Victory Square, an extensive green area surrounded by streets was l a i d out i n the V i c t o r i a n s t y l e on a r o l l i n g topography, with rows of standard park benches along i t s edges facing a central sloping lawn bounded by low fencing and formal walkways. Topographic change, hedges and trees segregated the rear park from the f r o n t a l paved c i r c u l a r arena b u i l t -around the World War I memorial on Hasting Steet (Figure 12). i Figure 10 Visual Illustrations of Courthouse Square 39 This open space,which was older than a l l but Courthouse sguare, had, however, a, unique s o c i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , . that i s , as one study reported "the park was found to host a number of s o c i a l l y marginal l i f e - s t y l e groups who, as powerless outcasts of "a wider aff l u e n t society, coexisted as a separate world" "(Hall, 1974) \ Patrons of t h i s park, who were generally regular v i s i t o r s , consisted of apparently poor old and middle-aged persons, hippies and native Indians. i i # Alcohol drinkxng withxn the park was widely reported ( i b i d ) . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i f f e r e n t user-groups across i t s diverse configuration and the use of furniture elements, p a r t i c u l a r l y the standard park benches were observed i n t h i s study area. However, due to i t s a t y p i c a l s o c i a l makeup, i t was excluded from the invest i g a t i o n of people's perceptions or emotions i n the environment. I 1 Hall,Peter. Spatial Behaviour In Victory Square. Unpublished Master's I thesis i n Geography, the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, ' Vancouver, B.C., 1974. i 40 CHAPTER UJ, METHODOLOGY The framework of relationships between people and plaza environments hypothesized i n t h i s study was examined through empirical data on the selected plazas and squares of Downtown Vancouver. The emotion-eliciting q u a l i t i e s and the c o l l a t i v e properties (variety, novelty, s i m i l a r i t y , contrast, s i m p l i c i t y , complexity, etc.) of these open space environments were assessed through a questionnaire survey of people's responses to these settings on verbal psychological scales. The popularity of these settings, the physical a c t i v i t i e s they generate and the r e l a t i v e uses of d i f f e r e n t locations and f a c i l i t i e s within them were assessed through an observational •survey^employing-both v i s u a l and photographic techniques of recording people and th e i r a c t i v i t i e s within these spaces. These two surveys or procedures for data c o l l e c t i o n have been separately described as follows: Assessment of Emotion-Eliciting Q u a l i t i e s and Visu a l  (collative) Properties of Study Areas. The four d i f f e r e n t sets of semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scales to measure emotion e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s and i n f o r -mation rate ( c o l l a t i v e properties) of environments have been already introduced (see Appendix A and Appendix B). 41 It was f e l t that va,l;Ld data on a,n environment's, impacts© on feelings and perceptions could be generated through the subject's presence i n the r e a l environment rather than through his i n d i r e c t experience of the environment presented through simulation techniques. A f i e l d experiment was, therefore, c a r r i e d out between A p r i l and September of 1976 i n which a sample of 50 subjects v i s i t e d the selected study areas and rated t h e i r feelings and perceptions i n each plaza on the above scales. A set of four or f i v e plazas, randomly selected from amongst the nine study areas, was assigned to each subject who was instructed to v i s i t them, one by one, i n a randomly designed sequential order and spend some time i n each to rate his/her feelings and per-ceptions on the scales, before proceeding to the next plaza.. Each subject was asked to specify the date, time and weather condition of v i s i t to each plaza as well as his age and sex on the response sheet containing the psychological scales (see Appendix - C). On completion of his v i s i t s to a l l the prescribed plazas, a subject was required to provide s p e c i f i c reasons f o r his feelings and perceptions i n each, on a separate debriefing form (see Appendix - D) supplied to him. Part and f u l l time students of •aiwide v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n e s ( i . e . Education, Language, Economics, Psychology, Science, Architecture and Landscape Horticulture) of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and eight l o c a l landscape architects (members of the B.C.S.L.A. ) were subjects of t h i s experiment. 42 Ea,ch nine-point semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale was weighted with scores ranging from +4 to -^4, corresponding to a subject's extreme p o s i t i v e to extreme negative response for the f e e l i n g (or perceptual) dimension described by i t s bipolar adjective p a i r . For instance, +4 was assigned to extremely " s a t i s f i e d " ( i . e . a check on the blank nearest to the word) and -4 for extremely "unsatisfied". A subject's emotional state of 'pleasure-displeasure', 'arousal-non-arousal' or 'dominance-submissiveness' i n a plaza environment was measured by the sum of his scores for the corresponding set of six scales (Appendix - A). S i m i l a r l y , his perception of information rate of the environment was calculated by summing his scores on a l l the 14 scales f o r information rate (Appendix-B). These scores on pleasure, arousal and dominance state and perceived information rate for each subject i n each plaza were transferred onto punch cards along with the coded information on subject's age, sex, vocational background (designer/nondesigner) and the temporal, weather and seasonal conditions of v i s i t to the plaza and analyzed through the SPSS Programme i n the IBM 370 computer of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Subjects' comments on the debriefing forms r e f e r r i n g to s p e c i f i c features of the open_spaces as seasons for th e i r f e e l i n g and perceptions were categorized and the frequencies of responses under the d i f f e r e n t categories of reasons were noted. For each plaza, the mean scores of a l l 43 v i s i t i n g subjects on the four; d i f f e r e n t scales provided, respectively,, the measures of i t s pleasantness, arousing q u a l i t y , dominance-eliciting q u a l i t y and information rate. The value of each emotion-eliciting q u a l i t y of a plaza, therefore, could range anywhere between +24 and -24; and, s i m i l a r l y , i t s information rate could range anywhere between +56 and -56. While composing each of the four scales on the survey response sheet (Appendix - C), a subject's response bias was controlled by so arranging the adjective pairs that approximately half the time the adjective on the r i g h t corresponded to higher value of emotional state (or information rate) and the reverse was true i n the other half of the instances. Moreover, a l l the 18 scales for the three emotion factors were presented together i n a random sequence. Assessment of Popularity and Behavioral P r o f i l e of Study Areas An observational survey was c a r r i e d out i n each study area i n order to record, at d i f f e r e n t points of time, the number of persons using the plaza, t h e i r demographic and behavioral make-up as well as t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n across the space, based on which the nature and the extent of use of the d i f f e r e n t study areas as well as the d i f f e r e n t parts and f a c i l i t i e s thereof could be compared. 44 In view of the objectives of the study, the survey attempted to quantify the following socio^behavioral variables. I*Activities of various nature, such as: •exploratory types l i k e l o i t e r i n g and looking about, watching s p e c i f i c objects or displays on the plaza or the surrounding view, photography, p l a y f u l use of a r t i f a c t s l i k e climbing, touching a r t i f a c t s , splashing water, children's play on or around a r t i f a c t s , feeding birds, etc.; •stationary passive types - l i k e sleeping, l y i n g and relaxing, s i t t i n g and contemplating or looking about, etc.; •self-engaging types - l i k e eating, reading books, magazines, etc.; • s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i v e types - l i k e conversation, group play, etc.; •various other activities;'-"" " ' - • 2.Postunej> - l i k e s i t t i n g , standing, lying, squatting, kneeling, leaning on or against something, etc.; 3.Size of useA.-gtiou.ps—like s o l i t a r y persons, dyads, t r i a d s , group of four, f i v e , etc., A.OtheA. demographic characteAlstics — l i k e apparent age (young/old or middle-aged), sex, etc. 45 The number of persons or groups of, users found under d i f f e r e n t categories of a c t i v i t i e s , postures, age, sex, group s|ze, etc. within a plaza, across i t s d i f f e r e n t locations were recorded i n discreet units of recording session or "obser-vation" which were repeated at d i f f e r e n t hours of the day, under both clear and cloudy situations and over d i f f e r e n t months or seasons. Conceptually then, an "observation" was l i k e a 'snap-shot' or 'frozen picture' of the number and type of people and th e i r a c t i v i t i e s within a plaza, across d i f f e r e n t parts thereof at a given point of time and series of such observations were 'time samples' of behaviour i n the plaza (Olson and Cunninghum, 1934; Arrington, 1939, 1943; Hutt and Hutt, 19 70) across d i f f e r e n t temporal, c l i m a t i c or seasonal conditions. In r e a l i t y , however, the actual length or duration of an observation was determined by the t o t a l time required to capture or record the information. The observations were made operational-through Super-8 time-lapse photographic recording of plaza users and th e i r a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y during peak use hours. Time-lapse photography has been often used i n animal as well as human studies i n the environment (Hutt and Hutt, 19 70) and has been recently advocated as an adequate t o o l to measure human behaviour i n our day-to-day settings (Davis and Ayers, 19 75). In the present context, the prime advantage of the use of camera over v i s u a l recording was thought to be the 46 briskness and accuracy w^th which the former t o o l could capture the simultaneous occurrence of; many a c t i v i t i e s across a given space at a given point of time. At the same time, various physical d e t a i l s l i k e the appearance, dress, cosmetic make-up and physical location of subjects and, sometimes, t h e i r gestures, g a i t , f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , etc., could be recorded quickly. This proved to be an advantage i n understanding people, t h e i r behaviour and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the physical features of the environment. Furthermore, photo-graphic methods allow the researcher to observe a c t i v i t i e s f i r s t and then quickly record them for subsequent quanti-f i c a t i o n unlike 'paper and p e n c i l ' methods that quantify predetermined ch e c k l i s t s of a c t i v i t i e s (for instance, see Prieser, 1971; Ittle s o n et. a l . , 1970). Such photographic records become permanent ones reviewable time and again i n future. The set-up for photographic recording was decided through t r i a l and error i n empirical p i l o t studies of the selected plazas. One battery operated Super-8 Nizo movie/time-lapse camera (Model S56 ) with zoom lens and automatic focussing, shutter trigger and exposure set-up was used. Photographs were taken as much as possible unobstrusively and whenever possible roofs or windows of adjacant buildings were u t i l i z e d as observation stations. Some of these were: the two corner windows on the fourth f l o o r of the old Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l station building 47 or the corner of the upperstorey r a i l i n g of the parking garage on the crossing of Granville and Cordora Streets both overlooking Granville Square; the fourth storey window of a building on Burrard Street facing Bentall Two Plaza, the roof of Dominion building on Hasting Street facing Victory Square, the 11th storey windows of I.B.M. Tower overlooking both P a c i f i c Centre and I.B.M. plazas (Figure 2 ). A five-seconds time-lapse or -frame i n t e r v a l was empirically selected through p i l o t photography of d i f f e r e n t kinds of a c t i v i t i e s i n plazas and was constantly used during--the survey. The frame i n t e r v a l was checked from time to time during the survey with the help of a stop watch .It was found necessary to expose a set of successive 'close-up' frames (approximately, 2-5, depending on the situation) to record the a c t i v i t y of each user group within the plaza. Such successive frames could provide a continuity to understand what a c t i v i t y the user group was engaged i n . A c t i v i t i e s were expected to be predominantly of stationary nature, such as s i t t i n g and looking about, t a l k i n g , eating, reading, etc. For i n t e r p r e t i n g these recorded over a few sets of successive frames, a very fa s t frame i n t e r v a l was not necessary. On the other hand, a very slow frame i n t e r v a l might lose the continuity of an event and miss many d e t a i l s or ' Actones' such as gestures, postures, f a c i a l expression.yetc. A slow frame-interval, moreover, would unnecessarily prolong the t o t a l observation time to record 48 a l l user groups Qf the plaza,. Occasionally, however, the camera was triggered i n between the pre^-set five-seconds time-lapse to 'snap-shot' a transient actone (such as a gesture or movement) of the user group being photographed. Such a d e t a i l could provide an important clue for l a t e r i n t e r -pretation of the event, for instance, the r a i s i n g of a beer bo t t l e or a coffee cup to the mouth could confirm the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y of 'alcohol drinking' or 'coffee drinking' of the person or the group. S i m i l a r l y , movement of hand during conversation, stopping or bending of body during close exploration of something,etc., were sometimes quickly recorded. Wide angle views taken at five-seconds frame i n t e r v a l could record pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n through the space (between streets and adjacant buildings) as d i s t i n c t from other movements such as l o i t e r i n g , through the r e l a t i v e displace-ments of moving persons recorded over successive frames, t h e i r d irections or channels of movement and other clues l i k e the o r i e n t a t i o n of body or face. Direct pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n without stopping or l i n g e r i n g , i . e . people walking through without displaying any overt i n t e r e s t i n the plaza environment per se were excluded from the measurement of popularity or l e v e l of use. A t y p i c a l photographic observation or recording session began by capturing a wide angle view of the entire plaza or a large portion of i t (depending on how much was 49 c l e a r l y v i s i b l e through the l e n s from one camera s t a t i o n ) and exposing a s e t of 3-4 s u c c e s s i v e frames to r e c o r d the number of u s e r s , t h e i r l o c a t i o n s and movement a c t i v i t i e s . Immediately f o l l o w i n g the wide angle exposures, the zoom l e n s was s e t to t e l e p h o t o and the camera was r o t a t e d to frame and photograph, one by one, each s t a t i o n a r y "event", i . e . each user group.'occupying a s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n of i t s own w i t h i n the space. A s e t of 3-5 s u c c e s s i v e c l o s e -up frames was exposed f o r each event to r e c o r d the a c t i v i t y , p o s t u r e and p e r s o n a l d e t a i l s of i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . Manual adjustment o f the camera was not needed d u r i n g the obser-v a t i o n except.to r o t a t e i t by hand t o frame each event and o c c a s i o n a l . adjustment of the zoom, depending on the r e l a t i v e c l o s e n e s s o r remoteness o f events from the camera. Close-up views were taken a l s o of the l o i t e r i n g events. When the e n t i r e p l a z a c o u l d not be captured from one s t a t i o n , the above procedure was repeated from a s u c c e s s i v e s t a t i o n immediately a f t e r completion of r e c o r d i n g from the f i r s t . As was e m p i r i c a l l y determined through p i l o t surveys,a t o t a l t e n minutes' time was adequate to complete such a r e c o r d i n g s e s s i o n or photographic o b s e r v a t i o n of any study area even d u r i n g the most crowded c o n d i t i o n , o f t e n l e a v i n g room f o r w r i t i n g notes t o supplement the photographic r e c o r d or f o r 35 mm photography o f the p l a z a scene. The a c t u a l photographic r e c o r d i n g time depended on the number of people and a c t i v i t i e s p r e s e n t i n the p l a z a a t the time of the o b s e r v a t i o n . However, 50 for r e p e t i t i v e observations on the game plaza, a constant i n t e r v a l of 10 minutes was maintained between the beginnings of successive observations, A record of the date, s t a r t i n g time, place (study area) and weather (sunny/cloudy/moderate sky; windy/not windy) was made for each observation. The r e t r i e v a l of photographic data recorded on Super-8 Kodachrome movie films was ca r r i e d out through frame-by-frame analysis of films on the screen of a Goko Dual-8 Editor-Viewer (Model A203). For each oobservation, the data was transferred event by event, i n a quantifiable format on a logsheet (see Appendix-E). For each event, the number of participants ( s o l i t a r y person/dyad/triad e t c ) , age, sex, a c t i v i t y and posture were noted. Thus, for each observation, the l e v e l of use, i . e . the t o t a l number of plaza users and frequencies for the d i f f e r e n t age, sex, group-size, a c t i v i t y and posture categories could be quantified. Simultaneously, a "behavioral map' (Ittleson e t . a l . , 1970) f ortthe observation', was prepared by p l o t t i n g the location of each event (with a dot for stationary and an arrow for the approximate movement route of a l o i t e r i n g event) on the plan of the plaza. Prio r to the survey, plans for the d i f f e r e n t study areas were prepared to-the-scale showing accurately the e x i s t i n g locations and dimensions of d i f f e r e n t a r t i f a c t s , such as benches, planters, pools, sculptures, r a i l i n g s , 51 columns, walls.; etc,, f u r n i s h i n g these spaces. V a r i o u s o t h e r d e t a i l s l i k e the s i z e s of pavement t i l e s , d i s t a n c e between b a l u s t e r s o f a r a i l i n g , e t c , , were measured b e f o r e the survey to f a c i l i t a t e a c c urate p l o t t i n g of p l a z a users on t o maps. By superimposing numbered g r i d network on the p l a n o r by numbering pavement u n i t s , benches or o t h e r elements, the d i f f e r e n t p a r t s and f a c i l i t i e s of each p l a z a were coded. For each event i t s l o c a t i o n a l code was entered i n t o the l o g s h e e t , thereby q u a n t i f y i n g the frequency of use of d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the p l a z a i n each o b s e r v a t i o n . An o b s e r v a t i o n has been i l l u s t r a t e d i n Appendix - E showing the photographs of recorded events and the subsequently r e t r i e v e d d ata on l o g s h e e t and b e h a v i o r a l map. Not a l l o b s e r v a t i o n s i n the survey, however, were made through t i m e - l a p s e photographic r e c o r d i n g . Photographic r e c o r d i n g was c o n s i d e r e d as redundant, c o s t l y and time-consuming ( f o r r e t r i e v a l ) f o r o b s e r v a t i o n s when very l i t t l e o r no a c t i v i t y might be expected i n the study area t o be observed. In such cases, v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s were made w i t h hand-written r e c o r d i n g of events on the map of the p l a z a as w e l l as on the l o g s h e e t . Procedure was the same i . e . f o r each o b s e r v a t i o n , n o t i n g down, one by one, t h e l o c a t i o n of each eventconto the map of the p l a z a and the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s , age, sex, group s i z e and a c t i v i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the event onto the l o g sheet. Wherever necessary, hand w r i t t e n comments on the event were added 52 to the above informa.tion.; In the cage of observation when there was no user i n the plaza, a zero value for the l e v e l of use was recorded. The observational survey of plazas spread over a period of six months between March and September of 19 76. Four plazas, namely Granville square, Courthouse square, Victory square and P a c i f i c Centre plaza, were observed also during the F a l l (mid-October to mid-December) of 19 75. Recording.-sessions' or observations were carr i e d out under both clear and cloudy conditions on weekdays between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. .-Several casual observations were, however made during weekends, Sundays or holidays, before 10 a.m. and a f t e r 5 p.m. and during rainy-period. The number of observations taken across the study areas have been l i s t e d i n Appendix - F. The observational data recorded onto logsheets were subsequently transferred onto punch cards for analysis through SPSS Programme i n the Computer. For each plaza, behavioral maps for d i f f e r e n t observations were super-imposed to study the r e l a t i v e use of d i f f e r e n t parts of the space. These behavioral data along with the data on emotion-e l i c i t i n g q uality and c o l l a t i v e properties of study areas, as discussed i n the previous section, formed the basis for discussion of findings i n the next chapter. 53 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION ON FINDINGS Perception of Diversity and Emo t i o n - E 1 i c i t a t i o n Across  Plaza Environments. The survey of psychological responses across nine plazas of Downtown Vancouver generated 209 response sheets from 50 subjects who v i s i t e d these areas to rate, on verbal scales, t h e i r emotions and perceptions within these environments. A breakdown of response sizes i s shown i n Table I. Approxi-mately one-third of the responses were from students and professionals of design d i s c i p l i n e s while the rest came from subjects having the humanities or s o c i a l sciences as t h e i r educational backgrounds. The v i s i t s to plazas by the responding subjects were made at d i f f e r e n t hours of the day (between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.) although.cases of forenoon v i s i t were r e l a t i v e l y small (24%) . They were made under varying weather conditions although most of the visits(89%) were under clear ("sunny and bright" or "moderately bright") rather than cloudy and overcast condition. Cases of v i s i t s during the Summer were s l i g h t l y higher than those made during the Spring. The scores on each set of verbal psychological scales were analyzed through a Multiple Analysis of Variance to study the differences i n response across the selected plazas as well as across the d i f f e r e n t seasonal, TABLE I: A BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES TO TEE SURVEY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF PLAZAS Granville Bentall Court- P a c i f i c I.B.M. Trounce MacMillan Guiness Baxter Sq Two House So. Centre Plaza Alley Sq. Bloedel Plaza Plaza TOTAL Total No. of Cases 31 30 25 30 18 14 19 21 21 209 Vocational background Non-designers 21 20 17 20 13 8 11 12 10 132 % 67 7 66.6 68 0 66.6 72.2 57 1 57 9 57 1 47 6 63.2 Designers 10 10 8 10 5 6 8 9 11 77 ' % 32 3 33.3 32 0 33.3 27.8 42 q 42 1 42 9 52 4 36.8 Season of V i s i t -Spring (April-June) 17 16 16 • 19 4 3 7 7 6 95 % 54 8 53.3 64 0 63.3 22.2 • 21 4 36 8 33 3 28 6 45.4 - Summer (July-mid September- 14 14 9 11 14 11 12 14 15 114 7. 45 2 46.7 36 0 36.7 77.8 78 6 63 2 66 7 71 4 54.6 Weather Condition of V i s i t Sunny and bright 16 12 19 13 11 9 10 11 8 99 X 51 6 40.0 36 0 43.3 61.1 64 3 52 6 52 4 38 ± 47.4 Moderately bright 12 12 13 14 7 5 7 7 11 88 X 38 7 40.0 52 0 46.7 38.9 35 1 , 36 8 33 3 52 4 42.1 Cloudy 3 6 3 3 0 0 2 3 2 22 X 9 7 20.0 12 .0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10 5 14 3 9 5 10.5 Time of V i s i t Morning (10 a.m.-12 p.m.) 7 7 3 7 4 1 4 6 5 44 X 22 6 23.3 12 0 23.3 22.2 7 1 ' 21.1 28 6 23 8 21.1 Mid-afternoon (12 p.m.-2 p 15 10 11 12 7 5 8 ' 10 10 8S % 48 4 33.3 44.0 40.0 38.9 35 7 42 1 47 6 47 6 42.1 Late afternoon (2 p.m.-5 p m.) 29 0 43.3 44 0 36.7 38.9 57 1 36 8 23 8 28 6 36.8 Resnondents 1 Age (in years) Mean 30 27 25 26 40 40 32 33 31 30 Stand. Dev. 13 43 10.48 9 75 9.33 14.02 15 39 12 46 11 43 9 21 12.21 Minimum 17 17 18 17 20 22 18 17 IS 17 Maximum 65 65 54 59 65 65 65 65 54 65 Respondents' Sex Male 18 18 15 17 10 7 11 12 13 121 % 58.1 60.0 60 0 56.7 55.6 50 0 57 9 57 1 61 9 57.9 Fctnle 13 12 10 13 8 7 c 9 8 83 % 41 9 40.0 40 0 43.3 44.4 50 0 42 1 42 9 38 1 42.1 55 temporal and weather conditions of v i s i t s and the vocational background of respondents (see Table I I ) . The mean scores of study areas on these sets of verbal scales, i . e . t h e i r measures for the d i f f e r e n t emotion-eliciting q u a l i t i e s and perceived information rate, have been shown i n Table I I I . Variance on respondents 1 scores on the set of scales measuring the feelings of 'pleasure-displeasure' indicated that the selected plazas s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d i n terms of t h e i r ' p l e a s u r e - e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t y ' . A Multiple Range test indicated that Guiness plaza and Granville square, the two areas located on the edge of the downtown and exposed to panoramic view were perceived as the most pleasant areas, clos e l y followed by Bentall Two, the small densely furnished plaza on Burrard street and Trounce A l l e y square of the Gastown shopping d i s t r i c t of the downtown. At the lowest end of the scale were P a c i f i c centre, MacMillan and Bloedel and I.B.M. plazas, while Courthouse square and Baxter plaza occupied an intermediate range. However, the mean score of each plaza was p o s i t i v e (see Table III) suggesting that notwithstanding t h e i r differences i n l e v e l , each open space was more pleasant than unpleasant to the average respondent. Pos i t i v e scores ranged between 80 to 95% of the responses from Guiness plaza, Granville square, Courthouse square and Bentall Two plaza, 69-70% of the responses from Trounce A l l e y and Baxter plazas and 45-56% of the responses from P a c i f i c Centre, MacMillan Bloedel and I.B.M. plazas. 56 TABLE I I : VARIANCE ON SCORES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES Sources of V a r i a t i o n i n Each Scale Sum of D.F. Mean F-Ratio Prob. Squares Square PLEASURE-ELICITING QUALITY Plazas 1540.42 8 192.57 2.64 0.009 Vocational background of respondents (non-designer) 89.72 1 89.72 1.23 0.269 Weather condition 129.91 2 64.95 0.89 0.412 Season 3.41 1 3.41 0.05 0.829 Time of v i s i t 27.83 2 13.92 0.19 0.826 Explained V a r i a t i o n 1956.77 14 139.77 1.92 0.027 AROUSING QUALITY Plazas 525.54 8 65.69 1.18 0.312 Vocational background of respondents 3.38 1 3.38 0.06 0.805 Weather condition 11.17 2 5.58 0.10 0.904 Season 76.65 1 76.65 1.38 0.242 Time of v i s i t 38.36 2 19.18 0.35 0.708. Explained v a r i a t i o n 632.98 14 45.21 0.81 0.654 DOMINANCE-ELICITING QUALITY Plazas 216.25 8 27.03 0.81 0.597 Vocational background of respondents 13.07 1 13.07 0.38 0.533 Weather condition 28.75 2 14.37 0.43 0.652 Season 89.28 1 89.28 2.67 0.104 Time of v i s i t 38.96 2 19.48 0.58 0.560 Explained v a r i a t i o n 473.94 14 33.85 1.01 0.445 PERCEIVED INFORMATION RATE Plazas 2613.69 8 326.71 2.02 0.047 Vocational background of respondents 182.18 1 182.18 1.13 0.290 Weather condition 551.55 2 275.77 1.70 0.185 Season 172.32 1 172.32 1.06 0.304 Time of v i s i t 80.17 2 40.08 0.25 0.781 Explained v a r i a t i o n 3590.98 14 256.50 1.59 0.087 TABLE III: MEAN SCORES OF PLAZAS ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES Study Areas Pleasure-eliciting Quality Arousing Quality Dominance E l i c i t i n g Quality Perceived Information Rate Granville Square 8.32 2.57 1.40 5.93 Bentall Two 7.79 3.18 0.63 0.24 Courthouse Square 4.78 1.35 0.66 0.06 MacMillan-Bloedel 1.18 0.23 -0.99 -7.78 Pacific Centre 0.99 1.91 -0.07 -0.35 Trounce Alley 7.12 2.07 2.70 -3.63 Guiness Plaza 8.19 -0.79 0.39 -4.05 Baxter Plaza 5.46 -2.28 0.15 -0.40 I.B.M. Plaza 3.09 2.46 1.93 -4.93 GRAND MEAN 5.18 1.33 0.78 -0.99 58 The study areas, however, had i n s i g n i f i c a n t differences among themselves i n terms of the other two emotion-e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s (see Table I I ) , i . e . to the extent that they were 'arousing' or to the extent that they e l i c i t e d a fe e l i n g of 'dominance' i n the subjects. It appeared fromaa Multiple Range Test, however, that l o c a t i o n a l differences across these open spaces might have had some role i n t h e i r arousing - non-arousing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For the small Baxter plaza as well as Guiness plaza, both located i n a r e l a t i v e l y quiet o f f i c e district,were perceived as much less arousing than most other open spaces located i n the hub of the downtown. The study areas s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r verbally measured information rates (see Table I I ) . This set of scale however, was composed of a large number (14) of adjective pairs r e f e r r i n g to various dimensions of the environment. From t h i s large set, a few adjective pair s , namely, "novel-familiar", "varied-redundant", "surprising-usual", "similar-contrasting" and "rare-common" were further chosen to provide a semantically d i r e c t measure of subjects' perceptions of d i v e r s i t y or change-in-stimuli i n the v i s u a l environment unbiased of variables l i k e 'size', 'crowding', 'symmetry-asymmetry', etc., that composed the o v e r a l l scale. Also, the subjects were asked to provide reasons s p e c i f i c a l l y for t h e i r perception of variety and novelty across plaza environments i n the survey (see Appendix - D) where these 59 chosen adjectives were used. Furthermore, a P r i n c i p a l -Component factor analysis with orthogonal rotation of the scores on the o v e r a l l scale (see Appendix - G) indicated that the above variable, i . e . , novelty, surprise, r a r i t y , variety and contrast were cl o s e l y i n t e r - r e l a t e d having high loadings on the f i r s t factor. This set of f i v e adjective pairs was then taken as an index to measure subjects' perception of d i v e r s i t y across the study areas. Subsequent analysis of variance on scores on thi s set indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the plazas i n perceived d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l environment (Table IV). A Multiple Range Test indicated that Granville Square, followed by Bentall Two and Trounce A l l e y plazas were superior to other areas i n the l e v e l of d i v e r s i t y perceived by respondents. While Baxter, Courthouse and Guiness plazas occupied an intermediate range, P a c i f i c Centre, MacMillan and Bloedel and I.B.M. plazas, t r a i l i n g the l i s t with negative mean scores, were perceived as redundant and common environments by the average respondent. It i s in t e r e s t i n g to note that i n none of the above psychological measures temporal,seasonal or weather conditions of v i s i t s were s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a t i o n . Although v i s i t s under the cloudy sky were meagre i n numbers, d i f f e r e n -ces between sunny and bright weather and moderately bright 6 0 •TABLE IV ; VARIANCE ON SCORES ON THE DIVERSITY SCALE SOURCES OF VARIATION SUM OF SOURCES D.F. MEAN SQUARE F-VALUE PROB. Plazas 932.29 8 116.54 2.46 0.015 Respondent type (Designers/ Nondesigner) 5.13 1 5.13 0.11 0.743 Weather Condition 89.94 2 44.97 0.95 0.389 Season 10.33 1 P 10.33 0.22 0.641 Time of V i s i t 2.48 2- 1.24 0.03 0.964 Explained Variation 1061.50- 14 75.82 1.60 0.083 MEAN SCORES OF PLAZAS: GRANVILLE SQ. = 5.21 MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL = 1.64 GUINESS PLAZA = 0.10 BENTALL 'TWO = 2.02 PACIFIC CENTRE = 1.06 BAXTER PLAZA = 1.14 COURTHOUSE SQ. = 0.17 TROUNCE ALLEY =1.74 I.B.M. PLAZA =1.42 GRAND MEAN =0.87 1 weather had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on subjects' feelings or t h e i r perception of d i v e r s i t y i n the v i s u a l environments of plazas. Vocational background of subjects, s i m i l a r l y , had i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on response although designers appeared to be s l i g h t l y more c r i t i c a l than non-designers i n rating these environments, as suggested by t h e i r lower mean scores on pleasure (4.14) and Information Rate (-1.49) combining \ 61 a l l the plazas, than those of the non-designers (5.80 and 0.89 re s p e c t i v e l y ) . Differences i n attitudes or perceptual preferences between environmental designers or v i s u a l l y trained persons and the laymen have been reported i n various contexts (Appleyard, 1969; V i g i e r , 1969; Stephen Friedman i n Friedman and Juhasz, 1974; Rapoport and Kantor, 1967). In the present context, however, findings suggest that there existed inherent differences across these :open space environments that were a l i k e to people of d i f f e r e n t t r a i t s or attitudes. There were, however, a few scattered exceptions indicating s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of some of these extraneous variables i n a few study areas. Some of these scattered examples would show that the presence of s p e c i f i c v i s u a l features, l i k e panoramic views or ornamental deciduous plant materials i n the landscape might bring about s i g n i f i c a n t temporal v a r i a t i o n i n the perceptual quality of these open spaces. In both Granville Square and Guiness plaza, for instance, the mean score on d i v e r s i t y was s i g n i -f i c a n t l y higher i n the Summer than i n the Spring ( F G R A N V . = 3.529, a = .07; F G U N > = 5.315, a = .03). Greater v i s i b i l i t y during summer months renders the panoramic view across these water front plazas v i v i d and view was a major feature of these open space environments. On the other hand, the extensively planted Courthouse Square was perceived to be diverse more i n the Spring than i n the Summer (F=7.833, 62 a = .014), i e . , when the large number of cherry trees dotting i t s landscape were r i c h i n colour. Also i n t h i s plaza, the mean score on d i v e r s i t y fortthe l a t e afternoon v i s i t s (2 p.m. - 5 p.m.) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that for the e a r l i e r v i s i t s (F==7.173, a=.006) probably because the fountain, a major landscape "feature of t h i s plaza, generally operates from afternoon hours and people congregate. The multicoloured l i g h t i n g on water operates from l a t e afternooon hours. Designers perceived s i g n i f i c a n t l y more redundancy than nondesigners only i n the small o f f i c e plaza of Baxter (F=4.68, a=.05) where they were c r i t i c a l of the extensive r e p e t i t i o n of large planterboxes apparently out-of-scale with the size of the plaza. In no other instances, however, did these extraneous factors have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on response. The perceptually diverse plaza environments were also the pleasant ones, as suggested by the high p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between mean scores of plazas on these two measures (see Figure 1?3) . Individuals' scores on pleasure-displeasure also correlated with t h e i r scores on the d i v e r s i t y scale (R=0.50, a=.00). From a psychophysical view-point, such a relationship between pleasure and perceived d i v e r s i t y across these open spaces would make sense, for the requirements of aesthetic enjoyment are simply the require-ments of perception i t s e l f ; the organic basis for pleasure i s the f u n c t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the b r a i n ( P i a t t , 1961). And, s i n c e " c h a n g e - i n - s t i m u l i " and demands f o r new i n f o r m -mation or n o v e l t y are i n n a t e to p e r c e p t i o n o f v i s u a l environments, they are l i k e l y t o p l a y a major r o l e i n enjoyment. , G r a n v i l l e MEAN DIVERSITY Figure 13 : Relationship Between Verbally measured! Diversity and Pleasantness of plazas I Furthermore, the o b s e r v a t i o n a l survey r e v e a l e d t h a t p l a z a s r a t e d h i g h l y i n d i v e r s i t y were a l s o the p o p u l a r ones. A M u l t i p l e A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e on the number of users observed per u n i t of r e c o r d i n g s e s s i o n o r " o b s e r v a t i o n " 6 4 indicated that plazas themselves were s i g n i f i c a n t sources of va r i a t i o n i n the average observed population independent of the times (hours of the day), seasons (Spring and Summer) and weather conditions (clear and cloudy sky) of observation (Table V). The mean number of users of each plaza, adjusted for v a r i a t i o n accounted for by a l l other factors i n the analysis i s shown i n Table V. TABLE V: VARIANCE ON NUMBER OF USERS RECORDED PER OBSERVATION Sources of Variation Sum of Squares D.F. Mean Square F-Value Prob Plazas 60308.37 8 6700.93 44.72 .001 Time (hourly differences between 10 am and 5 pm) 9820.41 6 1636.73 10.92 .001 Weather (clear and cloudy) 1412.52 1 1412.52 9.43 .002 Season (Spring:March,April May Summer: July,August, early September) 7007.96 1 7006.96 46.77 .001 Explained Variation 83839.5 16 4931.73 32.92 .001 MEAN UO. OF USERS OF PLAZAS GRANVILLE SQ. = 35.00 MMACMILLAN BLOEDEL =5.16 GUINESS PLAZA BENTALL TWO = 15?36 PACIFIC CENTRE = 5.49 BAXTER PLAZA COURTHOUSE SQ.= 10.24 TROUNCE ALLEY =4.07 I.B.M. PLAZA GRANT MEAN = 10.80 = 5.55 = 2.52 = 1.34 6 5 The rela t i o n s h i p between these mean use le v e l s of plazas and t h e i r mean scores on perceived d i v e r s i t y i s ' , shown i n Figure 14 . f G r a n v i l i e MacMillan g Bloedel i 2 3 MEAN DIVERSITY Figure 14: Relationship between Verbally Measured Diversity' and the Observed Popularity of Plazas " 66 In summary, therefore, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the temporal, seasonal or weather conditions under which they were perceived and regardless of whether the perceiving subjects had previous design backgrounds, there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences among nine plazas i n terms of t h e i r p l e a s u r e - e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t y and perceived d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r v i s u a l environments. Perceptually diverse environments also appear to be popular as well as pleasant to everyone and under a l l conditions. Across a seven-interval difference-:between the scores of the least and the most diverse plaza,these relationships were not inverted U-shaped i n nature as the scattergrams wouQid suggest (see Figure 13 and 14 ) r which i s i n contrast with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between environmental complexity and preference or approach behaviour postulated i n several psychological researches (Strenfort and Schroeder, 1965; M i l l e r , 1956; Kessen and Munsinger, 1967, e t c . ) . Inherent i n these researches i s the notion of an 1 optimal'information rate (Rapopart and Kanter, 1967) that an average person can cope with. The range of d i v e r s i t y studied here was possibly narrow and the sample of environments small. R e a l i s t i c a l l y speaking, however, i t may be d i f f i c u l t to conceive of open spaces l i k e parks and plazas to be so extremely v i s u a l l y complex as to evoke displeasure or avoidance. Although small i n number, selected plazas were apparently not a t y p i c a l of what i s ubiquitous i n our c i t i e s . Findings suggest that 67 across these t y p i c a l environments, s i g n i f i c a n t differences may be achieved i n t h e i r perceptual q u a l i t i e s . The more the d i v e r s i t y , the more pleasant and popular they are l i k e l y to be. However, one might ask, why did these plazas d i f f e r i n perceptual q u a l i t i e s ? What physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s make up for t h e i r pleasantness and perceived variety or the lack of these? And, how does a diverse physical make-up support use? Respondents 1 comments on t h e i r feelings provided insights which were supplemented with a landscape inventory of these open spaces. Observed behaviour pattern across these settings and l o c a t i o n a l preferences of people, studied through behavioral maps of these plazas, provided further i n s i g h t s . Relationship Between Physical Features and Psycho-behavioral  Responses to Plazas. The environmental antecedents of subjects* feelings and perceptions across study areas were explored through t h e i r comments i n the survey. A comparison of the given reasons for displeasure and perception of redundancy i n the low-scoring plazas l i k e MacMillan and Bloedel, P a c i f i c Centre and I.B.M. with those for pleasure and perception of variety and novelty i n the other plazas (see Figure 15 ), would i l l u s t r a t e how differences i n physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these spaces accounted for t h e i r phenomenological impacts. 68 WATER FRONT I N T E R I O R PLEASURE DIVERSITY COf-'mtTS RtFERING TO: g § Scenic view % 35.0 33.3 Qu i e t n e s s , p e a c e , e s c a p e from c i t y % 20.0 28.6 Openness,spaciousness .... % 10.0 9.5 I n t e r n a l f u r n i s h i n g ar.d l a y o u t % 20.0 19.1 Pe o p l e and a c t i v i t i e s .... % 10.0 S u r r o u n d i n g a r c h i t e c t u r e . . . % M i s c e l l a n e o u s % S.O 9.5 TOTAL NQ. QF C f l l M L S - 40. 31 S c e n i c View. % 45.5 46.9 I n t e r n a l f u r n i s h i n g and l a y o u t % 27.3 31.3 S u r r o u n d i n g b u i l d i n g s % - 3.1 People.and a c t i v i t i e s % - 3.1 G e n e r a l r e n a r k s l i k e " n o v e l " , d i f f e r e n t " , " u n i q u e " % 7.3 6.3 Greenness, openness, c o n t r a s t w i t h i?jr,ediate s u r r o u n d . . . % 3.6 3.6 TOTAL r:o,0F COWENTS 55 32 o 5 29.4 32.9'; - -23.5 23.7 19.1 31.0 30.0 11.8 10.1 4.S 6.9 17.7 19.2 57.1 34,S 50.0 4.S 9.5 10.3 20.0 17.7 15.9 17 88 55.6 47.6 5.7 4.8 17.2 31 29 10 33.3 29.5 50.0 35.0 10.0 °- 9 ' 8.3 20.9 20.0 °- 9 16.7 13.9 .3 4.7 30.0 2 - 8 3.3 23.3 10,0 18 '10b 36 43 10 < O 25.7 4.9 40.6 11.1 28.6 70 38.2 15.7 13.S 8.9 15.7 89 I N T E R I O R LOW SCORING PLAZAS REASONS PROVIDED \ /DISPLEASURE AND REDLaiBANCY — UJ •J o >— o u — < =3 B a r r e n n e s s , o b v i o u s n e s s e t c . ........ % 4.4 Redundant s u r f a c e t e x t u r e 5 c o l o u r ...% 34.9 Monotonous space o r g a n i z a t i o n , s i m i l a r i t y , p a t t e r e n e d e t c % 8.7 Dominant b u i l d i n g , s r c a l l space, t y p i c a l b u i l d i n g s % 34.8 N o i s e , t r a f f i c , crowd °i 8.7 M i s c e l l a n e o u s % 8.7 TOTAL M0,OF COMMENTS 25 37.5 15.6 3.1 21.9 12.5 9.4 35 5.3 4.2 10.5 31.6 31.6 19 18.9 28.1 6.7 28.4 15.9 6.9 79 F i g u r e 15 Reasons f o r p e r c e p t i o n of p l e a s u r e - d i s p l e a s u r e and variety-redundancy across p l a z a s as r e p o r t e d by s u b j e c t s . 69 Among the l a t t e r areas,, however, a dichotomy between the edge and the i n t e r i o r of the downtown was apparent through the comments. In each water-front plaza, "view" was the most popular reason f o r subjects' pleasure as well as perception of d i v e r s i t y . The superiority of Granville square to a l l other areas i n p l e a s u r e - e l i c i t a t i o n , perceived d i v e r s i t y and observed popularity may be largely explained through i t s location commanding a wide panoramic view. Varied i n i t s depth, with mountain ranges dotted-.w-i.fch distant suburbs providing i t s backdrop, an expansive winding waterbody providing i t s middle ground and view of the harbour, marine a c t i v i t i e s and the edge of downtown composing i t s foreground, the 270/panorama offered by the edge of t h i s plaza (Figure 16 ). was a contrasting experience i n i t s e l f and rendered contrast to the ubiquitous b u i l t -environment of the downtown. This plaza was never found empty i n any of the 150 odd observations made during the f a l l , spring and summer months, at d i f f e r e n t hours of the day and under both clear and cloudy sky. During the Summer lunch hours, over 50 people were often observed at a time along i t s r a i l i n g s overlooking the Burrard In l e t . On the other hand, many open spaces amidst teeming shopping streets of the downtown were frequently observed to be absolutely vacant. The panoramic view across the plaza, moreover, attracted a wide range 6f users: shoppers, t o u r i s t s (in Summer), families with children, e l d e r l y r e t i r e d persons and, occasionally, large groups of school children were apparently present besides the usual Figure 16 : A Few Illustrations of the Surrounding View from Granville Square Figure 17 : Illustrations of Water-front View fromGuniess and Baxter Plazas 72 lunch-time o f f i c e workers. Interestingly enough the apparently r e t i r e d e l d e r l y people constituted, on the average, a meagre proportion:. (4.8%) of the observed t o t a l users across plazas i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown; whereas, 23% of the users of Granville square were el d e r l y persons watching scenery for long hours. This group of users constituted approximately 14% of the observed t o t a l population across a l l waterfront plazas. The p l e a s u r e - e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t y of the other two water-front plazas of the study was also greater than that of most open spaces i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown (see Table I I I ) . The emotional responses of people across these few open spaces would, no doubt, demonstrate the potential of water-front locations i n the heart of the c i t y for public enjoyment. Lynch's study (19 60) of Boston's Charles Rivers edge was a si m i l a r i l l u s t r a t i o n of the emotional and perceptual s i g n i -ficance of panoramic view to people. Such psychological responses to 'breadth of v i s i o n ' , as Rene Dubos (1974) suggests, might be b i o l o g i c a l l y innate. However, the sharp difference i n the l e v e l of use between Granville square and the other two waterfront plazas in the study (see Table V) would i l l u s t r a t e , at the same time, how such public recreation p o t e n t i a l of waterfront locations might be l o s t through piecemeal developments of private precincts i s o l a t e d from other pedestrian a c t i v i t i e s or movements within the downtown. Downtown Vancouver i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n 73 of such l o s t or unexploited potentials, for the termini of populous streets on the Burrard I n l e t have been wasted with parking spaces, storages, warehouses, etc., while i n d i v i d u a l Commercial o f f i c e plazas have been developing along the waterfront eccentric to the main streets and shopping locar l i t i e s of the downtown (see Figure 18 ). The presence of panoramic view with contrasting natural and man-made features, however, largely explains people's responses only across a few study areas. Plazas and squares located amidst streets and buildings are generally more t y p i c a l environments than waterfront plazas in our downtown settings. Why did people's responses vary, across such t y p i c a l spaces in the study? In contrast with the waterfront plazas, subjects' reasons for perception of pleasure and d i v e r s i t y , i n the i n t e r i o r plazas l i k e Bentall Two or Courthouse square focussed primarily on what was on the.;plazas themselves. "People and a c t i v i t i e s " were, no doubt, mentioned as reasons for variety but reference to the material environment within these spaces were more popular (see Figure 15 ). Although "Internal landscape" was referred to also i n the waterfront plazas such comments were much less i n numbers than those r e f e r r i n g to the outside view. These comments indicated that subjects' attentions were directed to i n d i v i d u a l f u r n i -shing elements, such as fountains (Courthouse and Bentall C e°rgxa St, U R R A R D 1 N L E T major pedestrian circulation 9. retail location "^•j™ locations of waterfront places /Js vista of north-shore mountains ISO o i o o f l H to a rt Figure 1 8 : Development of Waterfront Plazas are Taking Place l C H v ^ - C t 0 . ^ f P ^ e s t r i a n Movement and Shopping A c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the Downtown. . 75 Two), sculpture (Granville and Trounce a l l e y ) , trees, exotic shrubs, c o l o u r f u l annuals (Bentall Two, Courthouse, Guiness), etc., as well as to the o v e r a l l colour scheme and brightness (Bentall Two), va r i e t y i n shapes and sizes of a r t i f a c t s (Granville Square), space a r t i c u l a t i o n , e.g., nooks and corners or changes i n level s (Granville, Guiness, Courthouse), etc. Conversely, i n the low-scoring plazas i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown, i . e . , i n I.B.M., P a c i f i c Centre and MacMillan and Bloedel plazas, 54% of the reported reasons for displeasure and perceived redundancy referred to "barrenness" or "obviousness", redundancy i n material colour and texture i . e . "excessive cement-concrete/paving", "lack of colour contrast", "lack df.green" , etc., and monotony i n space organization, i . e . "patterned", " c l u t t e r of elements of the same type" and "no foc a l point". In view of t h i s popular reference to the in t e r n a l furnishing of these voids, an actual count of the number and type of form elements furnishing each plaza was made to arriv e at an approximate measure of d i v e r s i t y i n i t s physical landscape based on the mathematical model of "Average Uncertainty" as discussed i n the introductory chapter. The inventory counted the number of d i f f e r e n t form elements e x i s t i n g "on" the plaza without regard to either distant landscapes or immediate surrounds of plazas, 76 f o r the idea was to determine,, to what extent, perception of d i v e r s i t y was related to the i n t e r n a l configurations manipulable by site-planners or landscape architects of such areas. A l l major landscape features l i k e waterbodies, sculptural elements, seats or benches, plant materials and other s t r u c t u r a l or f l o o r elements were categorized, according to apparent differences i n shape,colour, texture or si z e into d i f f e r e n t types of elements and for each of these types the numbers present-in the landscape were noted. Plant materials were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n terms of species or phenotypes; shrubs were counted as "masses"; waterbodies were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n terms of s t i l l and moving water, i . e . fountain and the l a t t e r were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d further according to d i f f e r e n t movement programmes (eg. Courthouse Square). A detailed l i s t of elements that make up the landscape of each plaza, the p r o b a b i l i t y value associated with each type n i (Pj_ = — , where, n^ = the number of elements of the i t h type and N = t o t a l number of elements) and the Average Uncertainty factor (U = - p^ l o g 2 ^ P i ) for each plaza i s shown i n Appendix - H on the map of each plaza. Photo-graphs provide complementary descriptions of these environ-ments . The re l a t i o n s h i p between Average Uncertainty factors of plazas and t h e i r mean scores on perceived d i v e r s i t y and pleasantness i s shown below. 77 TABLE VI : RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY  FACTORS OF PLAZA LANDSCAPE AND THEIR PERCEIVED MEASURES PERCEIVED MEASURES AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY IN Ei 4.CH PLAZA LANDSCAPE Plazas in the Interior of Downtown All Plazas Mean Scores on Diversity r* = 0.70 a = .06 r = 0.31 a = .11 Mean Scores on ['Pleasure-eliciting Quality r = 0.75 a = .04 r = 0.65 a = .03 * Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient. Evidently, across these s i x open spaces i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown, the r e l a t i v e presence or absence of a variety of furnishing elements accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of variance i n t h e i r perceptual att r i b u t e s . However, with the inc l u s i o n of waterfront plazas i n the above analysis, the strength of the rela t i o n s h i p between perceived d i v e r s i t y and average uncertainty declined. Since waterfront plazas, p a r t i c u l a r l y . Guiness and Granville,had greater variety i n i n t e r n a l elements than many plazas of the i n t e r i o r , t h i s decline may suggest, i n conformity with subjects' comments, that the i n t e r n a l landscape possibly had a minor 78 role as compared to the surrounding view i n subjects' perceptions across waterfront open spaces. Waterfront developments thus have the advantage over t y p i c a l down-town plazas and squares that man-made e f f o r t s i n landscape treatment might be less c r i t i c a l to ensure t h e i r perceptual, goodness. No relationship was found between the number of elements within plazas and t h e i r perceived measures a l -though density, i . e . the number of elements per thousand square feet of open space had s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with perceived d i v e r s i t y (r = 0.86, a = .01) and pleasantness (r = 0.86, a = .01). Apparently, therefore, a p o t e n t i a l way to create perceptually appealing public plazas might be to provide small and compact open spaces densely furnished with a variety of small man-made and natural elements. Among the spaces studied, Bentall Two and P a c i f i c Centre might be two opposite examples to i l l u s t r a t e the point. In contrast with the sparse 15,000 sq . f t . of paved area of the low-rated P a c i f i c Centre plaza (Figure 19 ) the pleasant and perceptually diverse Bentall Two was a meagre 8000 sq . f t . of outdoor area studded with many small elements of exciting variety, such as c o l o u r f u l annuals of d i f f e r e n t variety, several species of exotic shrubs, rock gardens i n pool and planter, furniture of d i f f e r e n t shapes or sizes, s t i l l pool and one sculptural Figure 19 : Pacific Centre Plaza. Its "barrenness and Montony of the Expansive Dull Surface Were Unpleasant to People. 8 0 1 ( —~^^H Figure 20 : Internal Landscape of Bentall Two. An example of Plaza Furnishing With Many Things of a Wide Variety within a Small Area that Appealed to People. 81 fountain (Figure 20 ). Both density and variety as opposed to sparseness and r e p e t i t i o n appear to be perceptually important. Although present i n large numbers furnishing elements were r e p e t i t i v e i n nature i n several low-rated plazas. MacMillan and Bloedel, for instance, had many things; but they were i n the form of r e p e t i t i o n of same planter boxes with s i m i l a r plant materials and sheets of shallow water covering approximately half of i t s area (Figure 21). I.B.M. plaza was a similar example of r e p e t i t i o n or expansive coverage by the same form, colour or texture. Besides t h e i r sparseness or lack of va r i e t y and contrast i n the form, colour or texture of furnishing elements, low-scoring plazas were, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , devoid of any p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e f o c a l point. The sig n i f i c a n c e of such an attribute for these open spaces was r e f l e c t e d i n both perceptual and behavioral responses of people. The presence or absence of a t t r a c t i v e man-made features or complex forms may a l t e r the recreational q u a l i t y of these small outdoors as the observed behavioral make-up across these plazas would tend to indicate. The obser-v a t i o n a l survey indicated that:"overt : behaviour suggesting fun and amusement of people was. deplorably' absent across most of the these -spaces. They provided'-brief outdoor opportunities for young o f f i c e workers or clbseby,: shoppe-rs-for outdoor, lunch,reading' story books or magazines, gossiping or simply passive relaxation. 82 83 Overt a c t i v i t i e s were overwhelmingly passive with l i t t l e display of any exploratory drive (see Table VII). Waterfront plazas were exceptions where watching scenery - standing, leaning on or l o i t e r i n g along r a i l i n g s - was the most popular form of a c t i v i t y . Courthouse square, however, was the single plaza i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown where most popular form of overt behaviour was exploratory or p l a y f u l i n nature (Table VII) and nearly a l l of i t revolved around the fountain, a single landscape feature,complex in form (Figure 22 ). Among materials i n a designer's p a l l e t , moving water may be more noteworthy than others, for plants change slowly and seasonally and others provide l i t t l e temporal or s p a t i a l change i n s t i m u l i , while immense variety i n the landscape of t h i s small open space 5 may be achieved through choreographic programming of water movement alone. Such singular elements with r i c h perceptual inputs were lamentably few across most study areas. The exceptions, however, such as the Courthouse fountain, or the sculpture of Granville Square (Figure 3 ) or even an antique machine part i n Trounce A l l e y generated higher exploration or play than any other i n d i v i d u a l feature. Another common attr i b u t e of the landscape of low-rated plazas might be i n t e r e s t i n g to note, i . e . , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c dullness i n t h e i r surface colour and texture. MacMillan and Bloedel, P a c i f i c Centre or I.B.M. Plaza had neither the 'greenness' or contrast with the immediate TABLE V I I : NUMBER OF USER-GROUPS ENGAGED IN DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES A c t i v i t i e s B e n t a l l M a c M i l l a n - I.B.M. P a c i f i c Trounce C o u r t - V i c t o r y G u i n e s s B a x t e r G r a n v i l l e T o t a l Two B l o e d e l P l a z a C e n t r e A l l e y House Square P l a z a P l a z a Square L o o k i n g about 155 45 12 80 27 77 728 2 5 216 1347 Z 40.4 27.4 31.6 46.0 24.8 21.7 52.5 1.7 8.2 17.4 33.4 R e a d i n g 50 37 4 . 8 3 40 158 28 9 128 465 Z 13.0 22.6 10.5 4.6 2.8 11.3 11.4 23.5 14.8 10.3 11.5 E a t i n g 66 25 1 5 5 35 23 12 9 51 232 Z 17.2 15.2 2.6 2.9 4.6 9.9 1.7 10.1 14.8 4.1 5.8 S l e e p i n g 6 . 0 0 1 3 19 90 12 1 32 164 Z 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.8 5.4 6.5 10.1 1.6 2.7 4.1 H a t c h i n g S c e n i c View 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 12 433 465 Z 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 19.7 34.9 11.5 L o i t e r i n g 2 0 0 8 18 23 20 12 7 149 239 Z 0.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 16.5 6.5 1.4 10.1 11.5 12.0 5.9 Photography/Watching s p e c i f i c elements 8 1 4 10 16 72 2 4 5 20 142 Z 2.1 0.6 10.5 5.8 14.7 20.3 0.1 3.4 8.2 1.6 3.5 C h i l d r e n s ' p l a y 6 1 2 12 11 22 4 2 1 8 69 Z 1.6 0.6 52. 6.9 10.1 6.2 0.3 1.7 1.6 0.6 1.7 F e e d i n g b i r d s 0 0 0 ' 0 0 8 36 0 0 0 44 Z 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 A l c o h o l d r i n k i n g 0 0 -0 0 2 0 64 5 0 12 83 Z 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 4.6 4.2 0.0 1.0 2.1 Group I n t e r a c t i v e 85 51 9 46 20 53 256 20 11 188 739 Z 22.1 31.1 23.7 26.4 18.4 14.9 18.4 16.8 18.0 15.1 18.3 M i s c e l l a n e o u s 6 4 4 4 4 6 7 2 1 5 43 Z 1.6 2.4 10.5 2.3 3.7 11.7 0.5 1.7 1.6 0.4 1.1 TOTAL 384 164 38 174 109 355 1388 119 f l 1242 4032 No. o f O b s e r v a t i o n s 51 42 48 50 47 31 70 48 52 60 499 0 3 0*. Figure 22 : Among Materials in a Designers Pallet , Moving Water, Perhaps has the Greatest Potential to Generate Fun and Play Across These Small Open Spaces in the Heart of the City. CO Figure 22 : (Continued) 87 surrounds that Courthouse square had (a feature popularly mentioned as reason for perception of variety i n t h i s environment) nor the brightness of the white terrazo treatment for pavements, furniture and facades that Bentall Two possessed (Figure 20 ). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , they had extensive coverage of both horizontal and v e r t i c a l surfaces with materials of low brightness, i . e . grey exposed concrete or brown stone or t i l e paving (Figure ; 19,21).. Surface colour and texture were popularly mentioned as reasons for subjects' perception of redundancy and displeasure across these open spaces (see Figure 15). Furthermore, only these plazas, p a r t i c u l a r l y MacMillan and Bloedel i n v i t e d such comments as "dominating building", " t y p i c a l towers", "small space", etc., quoted as reasons for displeasure, whereas even smaller open spaces located amidst skyscrapers, e.g. Bentall Two or Baxter plaza did not i n v i t e such comments. Improper volume or loss of scale relationship between voids and surrounding masses i s t y p i c a l of piecemeal prestige; plazas which are cosmetic to i n d i v i d u a l architecture. Scale relationships may be c r i t i c a l more i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown than i n the waterfront location where extension of v i s i o n enlarges the perceived space. I t would seern, however, from the differences i n response between Bentall Two and plazas l i k e MacMillan and Bloedel or P a c i f i c Centre that the surface treatment of enclosing masses might a l l e v i a t e or add to claustrophobia. Brightness i n the 88 MacMillan Bloedel Pacific Centre I Bentall Two Figure 2 3 : Difference Between the Enclosing Masses of Bentall Two Plaza and Those of MacMillan Bloedel and Pacific Centre Plazas. People Reported a Feeling of Domination by Skyscrapers in the Latter Two Open Spaces, 8 9 colour of pavement and enclosing surfaces appear to be a perceptually desirable a t t r i b u t e for these small outdoor spaces. Plazas and squares of Downtown Vancouver thus exemplify that such subtle differences i n the i n t e r n a l furnishing of these voids may considerably a l t e r t h e i r perceptual q u a l i t i e s In summary, people's enjoyments within these small outdoors i n the hearttof the c i t y may be enhanced, to a great extent, through d i v e r s i t y i n "things to see" within or immediately surrounding these spaces. Waterfront locations-providing contrasting panoramic view have, i n t r i n s i c a l l y , immense outdoor recreation potential Man-made e f f o r t s i n landscape treatment, however, might be c r i t i c a l for the outdoor spaces t y p i c a l l y located amidst streets and buildings of the down-town. The psychological significance of a r t i c u l a t i o n of the physical landscape of these small open spaces i s apparent from the discussion above. However, how does a r t i c u l a t i o n of these environments render them functional or e f f i c i e n t l y used places? The functional implications of a r t i c u l a t i o n of the configuration of these small voids was apparent from the photographic and v i s u a l observational survey which indicated the l o c a t i o n a l preferences of people within plazas, t h e i r use of i n d i v i d u a l design.features or furniture elements' as well as t h e i r t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour within these spaces, as discussed below. 90 Behavioral Maps of Locational Pattern of Use For each plaza the l o c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n - of users recorded i n each observation was plotted onto i t s map. Such mapped data for a l l observations were trans-ferred onto one map. A set of such behavioral maps for several study areas (presented i n Figure 24 through 31 .) would i l l u s t r a t e the nature of d i s t r i b u t i o n of users within these spaces. These d i s t r i b u t i o n patterns of people within open-spaces indicated that plaza-use was generally t i e d up with physical a r t i f a c t s ? rarely did a c t i v i t i e s occur i n areas undefined by physical elements i . e . out i n the open pavements. Such a r t i f a c t s were not necessarily conventional seating f a c i l i t i e s alone (such as benches, pools' or planters' edges), for a variety of furniture elements, such as r a i l i n g s , fences, parapet walls, building walls and columns, staircases, l i g h t or flagpoles, trashcans, ashtrays and small planter boxes were observed to generate use. These elements were useful i n the absence of conventional seats, such as i n Courthouse Square as well as for postural relaxation, i . e . leaning. Only 0.5% (excluding l o i t e r e r s ) of the t o t a l 6300 users found across ten plazas over approximately 550 observations c a r r i e d out a c t i v i t i e s on open pavements away from physical a r t i f a c t s . Even l o i t e r i n g , l i n g e r i n g or 91 standing were generally associated with exploration of s p e c i f i c a r t i f a c t s l i k e fountain (Courthouse, Granville, P a c i f i c , Bentall Two), sculpture (Granville, Trounce Alley) or shop windows (Granville),watching scenic view along the edges of water-front plazas of feeding pegions (Victory, Courthouse) while formally l a i d out paths, such as i n Victory Square, were rarely used for simple pleasure walks. Furthermore, a c t i v i t i e s tended to agglomerate where other a c t i v i t i e s were, for locations remote from the general areas of population concentrations, view or major movement channels were rarely used, i n spite of presence of f a c i l i t i e s . In a r e l a t i v e l y large space l i k e Granville Square t h i s pattern was v i v i d . The entire south-western section of t h i s plaza f a c i l i t a t e d with benches, planters and r a i l i n g s (See Figure 24) constituted no more than 3% of the observed t o t a l a c t i v i t i e s even during peak hours. Interesting to note that even i n r e l a t i v e l y much smaller plazas, locations s l i g h t l y removed from view of others or the surrounds were rarely used. In Courthouse Square, for example, the lawns flanking the grand staircase of the Courthouse (see Figure 25) were l i t t l e used. The thick cypress hedges bordering the passage connecting Hamilton and Howe Streets through t h i s space blocked e n t i r e l y the view of the surrounding major street or the rest of the plaza to any user squatting on these lawns. The benches 92 93 HORNBY STREET in O O O P > o lawn I vpi'tlkMl fcAi-s a r e a V^ite = •"l 1 . 1 , 1 / \ M " H i O . Poo l ^ Jg f O _o a i -w u o LU O • Bus s t op Soft H O W E S T R E E T F i g u r e 25 : L o c a t i o n a l D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Observed U s e r s w i t h i n Cour thouse Square ( see f i g u r e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n the C e n t r a l paved area) © S t a t i o n a r y U s e r s ® U s e r s - l o i t e r i n g / e x p l o r i n g / p h o t o g r a p h i n g / c h i l d r e n ' s p l a y , e t c . § s Pedestrian circulation. 94 o 0 0 C o u r t h o u s e E n t r a n c e O Q 5E J0X <a .... O o* 4L 5£ Passage © S t a t i o n a r y U s e r s - j ^ n U s e r s - l o i t e r i n g / e x p l o r i n g p h o t o g r a p h i n g c h i l d r e n ' s play e t c . F i g u r e 26 : L o c a t i o n a l D i s t r i b u t i o n o f O b s e r v e d U s e r s W i t h i n t h e Central P a v e d A r e a o f C o u r t h o u s e S q u a r e , ( s e e a l s o F i g u r e 25 ) • G E O R G I A S T R E E T @ Stationary users Figure 27: Locational Distribution of © Users loitering Observed Users Within Pacific exploring/photo-Centre Plaza graphing etc. lU Pedestrian circulation B U R R A R D I N L E T DM | to garage HASTINGS STREET Figure 28 : Locational Distribution of Observed Users Within Guiness Plaza 25 O Soft " p DN ure Sculpt LT °2 DN H A S T I N G S S T R E E T Figure 29: Locational Distribution of Observed Users Within Baxter Plaza" © Stationary users (I Users-loitering looking about/ photographing etc. 97 L BENTALL TOWER TWO 41 10 ^ is—ay— m ^ , ^ # ^ = P l a n t e r ^ 9 3. 4 9 8 9 3 F o u n t a i n p o o l e ^ jr 12 1 A 2 BURRARD STREET F i g u r e 30 : L o c a t i o n a l D i s t r i b u t i o n o f O b s e r v e d Users W i t h i n B e n t a l l Two P l a z a » o H i t @ S t a t i o n a r y U s e r s © U s e r L o i t e r i n g / e x p l o r i n g Hd Ped e s t r i a n circulation H A S T I N G S S T R E E T @ S t a t i o n a r y U s e r s ® U s e r s - L o i t e r i n g / F e e d i n g P e g i o n s Pedestrian circulation F i g u r e 31 : L o c a t i o n a l D i s t r i b u t i o n o f O b s e r v e d U s e r s W i t h i n V i c t o r y S q u a r e . 98 and r a i l i n g s on the western end of Guiness plaza (Figure 28), the west side of Baxter plaza (Figure 29) f or the western edge of the planter i n P a c i f i c Centre (Figure 27) were sim i l a r i l l u s t r a t i o n s of unused f a c i l i t i e s . Pedestrians having no overt i n t e r e s t i n the open spaces themselves tended to take the shortest route through between connective elements i . e . , entrances and exists between buildings and streets, a tendency observed also i n previous studies of movements i n public spaces (Prieser, 1970," S t i l i t z , 1969 and 1970). This general pattern of space use with accumulation of a c t i v i t i e s on a r t i f a c t s , around fo c a l points, along edges and close to other a c t i v i t e s and of c i r c u l a t i o n taking place on shortest corridors would speak i n favour of compact and furnished spaces with developed edges and central f o c a l attractions rather than extensive size (as i n Granville square) or barren pavements l e f t open to movements (such as P a c i f i c Centre or I.B.M. plazas). The maximum density of population ever observed across the study areas during the survey (approximately 8-9 persons per 1000 sq. f t . of plaza space) was, apparently, f a r below a l e v e l of 'crowding' by any standard. Furthermore, there was some in d i c a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t decline i n the maximum density observed across several popular plazas during lunch hours with the siz e of these spaces (see Figure 32 ). i—i UJ Q X o n3 to o 4-1 o •p o o o u w C o in U <L> Cu <U O w • in o Baxter Bentall 4 t Correlation (r) Prob. = .12 = -0.51 Courthouse —q 1 — i — i 1 -2 4 8 10 15 — 4 — 2>0 vO Granville 4? 6 0 AREA (In '000 Sq.ft) Figure : Relationship Between Observed Maximum Density and Area of Plazas 100 Apparently, therefore, across these open spaces t y p i c a l l y serving l o c a l o f f i c e and shopping complexes spread over the downtown, an extensive size might be redundant from a, use point of view. Densely furnished outdoor areas as small as Bentall Two plaza ( i . e . of the order of 8-10 thousand sq.ft.) appear to be more e f f i c i e n t than extensive areas l i k e Granville Square or even Courthouse square. Water front locations a t t r a c t t o u r i s t s , shoppers, e l d e r l y r e t i r e d persons, etc., over and above l o c a l o f f i c e workers. However, even for water front places, a narrow; and l i n e a r shape might be more e f f i c i e n t than an extensive size and a shape penetrating deep into the i n t e r i o r , as the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern of users within such plazas tends to ind i c a t e . In Granville square, for instance^75% of the t o t a l observed users were found on r a i l i n g , benches, planters or pool's edges along the waterfront edge and within a distance of only 20ft. away from i t (see Figure 24)• In the waterfront precint of Guiness tower, the gazebo and the northern r a i l i n g s (see Figure 28 ) were .similarly greater used than the rest of the plaza. However, the tendency of people to take a d i r e c t movement route between the entrance to Granville Square and the remotest waterfront edge of t h i s plaza would suggest, at the same time, that drawbacks i n s i t e planning, i . e . , the absence of any counter attraction or any progressive r e a l i z a t i o n of the scenic view to users might lead to the i n e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of such 101 large plazas located on the waterfront (see Figure,33 ). One of the least used plazasin the downtown, P a c i f i c Centre would exemplify how an extensive pavement, barren i n t e r i o r and unstructured edge might render precious open spaces located on the busiest node i n the Centre of the c i t y to mere concourses for pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n . This plaza attracted people only during the very rare occasions of lunch-time concerts i n summer. However, one may not need extensive pavements even for such purposes. The oblong staircase of t h i s plaza (Figure 27) , for instance, took the crowd facing band players on a temporary wooden stage. The well furnished, compact Bentall Two plaza could also e f f i c i e n t l y handle such occasional entertainments involving crowds. These two plazas were contrasting examples to i l l u s t r a t e the role of developed edges i n e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of spaces within. While the l a t t e r provided seating f a c i l i t i e s on the edge for look-out as well as channelled movements by c o n t r o l l i n g entrances and e x i t points (Figure 30 ) f i n the former plaza, not only p o t e n t i a l seating areas were wasted but also the lack of control of entrance and exits l y i n g along a busy side walk generated random c i r c u l a t i o n within as well as c o n f l i c t s i n the pedestrian movements on the sidewalk near a busy crossing (Figure 27 ). 102 F i g u r e : G r a n v i l l e Square - Absence o f a P r o g r e s s i v e R e a l i z a t i o n o f the View and C o u n t e r a t t r a c t i o n s Leave the Large W a t e r f r o n t P l a z a I n e f f e c t i v e l y -U t i l i z e d . 103 These i l l u s t r a t i o n s , i n essence, tend to suggest how subtle d i f f e r e n c e s i i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e i r voids might considerably a l t e r the poten t i a l of these outdoor f a c i l i t i e s i n the heart of the c i t y . Compact furnishing, presence of f o c a l a t t r a c t i o n s , developed edges, li m i t e d and defined pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n through the space as well as avoidance of extensive barrenness and areas secluded from the view of the surroundings or presence of others appear to be a few es s e n t i a l attributes to render plazas e f f i c i e n t public places. While these implications for the functional design of plazas were apparent from the general pattern of d i s t r i b u t i o n of people within them, the observed use of a r t i f a c t s of d i f f e r e n t shapes, sizes and arrangements demonstrated how a r t i c u l a t i o n might be important even at the l e v e l of design and layout of i n d i v i d u a l furniture elements. Use of Furniture Elements. The observed d i s p o s i t i o n of people across seating and leaning f a c i l i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t kinds suggested the effectiveness of forms and arrangements that i n t r i n s i c a l l y segregate small groups of users and provide o r i e n t a t i o n a l choice for them. Straight l i n e a r f u rniture, such as r a i l i n g s , r e c t i l i n e a r pools' and planters' edges and oblong benches, t y p i c a l of park and plaza landscapes,were ubiquitious across the study areas. On such f a c i l i t i e s , use tended to b u i l d up more on the corners or at the end of the l i n e 104 than i n the middle. In Granville Square, for instance, 47% of the observed t o t a l users of the 260 feet r a i l i n g overlooking the Burrard I n l e t concentrated on the two 15 f t . x 15ft. corner sections (see Figure 24 ). The average density of population per ten feet length of r a i l i n g , found over 16 peak hour observations, was three times greater on the corner (2.91) than on the s t r a i g h t sections (0.99; T-value = 2.39;a=.04). In P a c i f i c Centre, 72% of the t o t a l observed users of pools' edge was found on the two extreme corners, 39 f t long while the rest was found t h i n l y spread over the 55 f t . long middle section (see Figure 27 ). Also i n t h i s plaza, 44% of the observed population onithe planter's edge used only 20ft i n one corner of the t o t a l 115 f t . long perimeter"*" of the structure. The o v e r a l l shape of the pool's edge of Courthouse square was more a r t i c u l a t e d than those of other plazas. However, 56% of the observed t o t a l population s i t t i n g on t h i s f a c i l i t y used i t s s i x corners (to t a l 82ft.) while the r e s t used the 114ft. long straight and s l i g h t l y convex sections(see Figure 26). These pattens of use of l i n e a r edges suggest the greater use-p o t e n t i a l of 'angular' than l i n e a r shapes. Corners of f a c i l i t i e s are more p h y s i c a l l y defined locations than straight l i n e a r sections. Such defined or marked t e r r i t o r i e s probably lend greater psychological support to people's personal space and t e r r i t o r i a l need within the broader environment. Moreover, on an undifferentiated straight l i n e , interpersonal segrega-ti o n i s maintained only through physical distance or gap ' 1 Leaving aside the unused western edge. 105 Figure 34 : Corners of Railings are Greater Utilized than Straight Linear Sections. 107 r e s u l t i n g i n wastage of seating space. Angular shapes or corners i n t r i n s i c a l l y provide such segregation through change i n the body orientation of users and, at the same time, o f f e r choice f o r users to face d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s . I t would appear, therefore, that a broken or contoured p r o f i l e for the t y p i c a l pool or planter structures with many corners and edges to face d i f f e r e n t directions might provide a more e f f i c i e n t seating f a c i l i t y than an expansive r e c t l i n e a r shape. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a number of small structures might more e f f i c i e n t l y replace a large structure for seating. Bentall Two plaza provided a s e t t i n g to i l l u s t r a t e further t h i s point. In t h i s plaza, seating f a c i l i t i e s of s i m i l a r shapes but varying sizes were available within a compact area. Although peak densities on i n d i v i d u a l f a c i l i t i e s of the plaza did not occur simultaneously, an analysis of variance indicated s i g n i f i c a n t difference among f a c i l i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t sizes i n the average density of user-groups (per foot-length of seating edge) observed during lunch hours (see Table VIII). Evidently, small f a c i l i t i e s were being more e f f i c i e n t l y used than the larger ones. Presumably, the differences i n means would have been sharper had the edge of the small and the middle-sized planters been equally broad as that of the large pool. 108 TABLE V I I I ; DENSITY OF USER-GROUPS ON DIFFERENT  FACILITIES OF BENTALL TWO PLAZA. FACILITIES MEAN DENSITY (per f e e t run) MIN. MAX. LARGE : 30'x60' pool's edge 14 inches wide 0.05 0.02 0.12 MEDIUM : 10'x20' P l a n t e r s edge 8 i n c h wide 0.08 0.02 0.22 SMALL : 8'x8' P l a n t e r s edge 8 inches wide 0.14 0.03 0.38 F-Value =14.54 a =0.00 Furthermore, V i c t o r y Square, a popul a r park i n the o o l d e r s e c t i o n o f the downtown p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe how the t y p i c a l oblong park benches were used. Over 65 o b s e r v a t i o n s on t h i s park, 16 d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f seated people a c r o s s a bench"*" were d i s c o v e r e d (see F i g u r e 37 ). An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the mean frequency o f occurrence o f these d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f bench-use. A M u l t i p l e Range T e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t "one s o l i t a r y person s i t t i n g a t the end of a bench" was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n frequency o f occurrence than any other s i n g l e p a t t e r n . For i n s t a n c e , more than 30% 1 A l l benches o f t h i s park were 1 0 f t . l o n g w i t h b a c k r e s t s and no arms. 109 Northern Portion of Bentall Two Plaza Southern Portion of Bentall Two Plaza Figure 36 : An Articulated Space with Small Sized Structures and Angular Variety Tends to Accommodate Greater Use than an Expansive RecrHinear Form. These Photographs of Bentall Two Plaza were Taken at the Same Time. 110 FIGURE 3)7?;; DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF SEATED USERS ON BENCHES OF VICTORY SQUARE PATTERN OF SEATING DESCRIPTION MEAN FREQUENCY % 0 F TOTAL BENCHES USED A 1 © 1 S o l i t a r y i n d i v i d u a l s i t t i n g at corner 5 . 9 6 1 3 0 . 2 6 B \m m Two s o l i t a r y persons at two corners 2 . 3 7 1 1 3 . 7 3 c .1 © 1 S o l i t a r y person i n the middle 2 . 2 2 1 1 2 . 8 8 D a © Three s o l i t a r y persons - 1 i n middle and 2 on ei t h e r ends 0 . 5 9 1 3 . 6 5 E | i Group o f 2 i n the middle 1.151 6 . 6 5 F | . '®%M Group o f 2 on one end 1.221 7 . 0 8 • G ^ ® | A group o f two on one side and a s o l i t a r y person on another 1.521 8 . 7 9 H I mm 1 S o l i t a r y person i n the middle, another at one end 1.781 4 . 5 1 i r ~ f e&i» i A large group o f 3 - 4 person " 0 . 6 7 1 3 . 8 6 J | m&\ Two s o l i t a r y i n d i v i d u a l s c l o s e l y s i t t i n g on one side 0 . 2 6 1 1 . 5 0 K !©©: ' © p Two groups o f 2 on either side 0 . 1 8 1 1 . 0 7 A group of two i n the middle and a s o l i t a r y person on a side 0 . 3 7 1 2 . 1 5 M e © © m Four s o l i t a r y persons evenly spread 0 . 1 8 1 1 . 0 7 A group of two and two s o l i t a r y . persons evenly spread 0 . 1 8 1 1 . 0 7 ' o ^dd^> © i A group of three and a s o l i t a r y person evenly spread 0 . 1 8 1 1 . 0 7 Two groups of two and a s o l i t a r y person evenly spread 0 . 1 1 1 0 . 6 4 V a r i a t i o n on the Frequency occurrence of Pattern Between Patterns Within Patterns Total = 4 6 6 benches (100%) Sum of Squares 8 8 6 . 1 2 5 7 5 2 0 . 3 7 2 3 Mean Squares 5 9 . 0 7 5 0 1 .2509 D.F. 15 4 1 6 F-Ratio = 4 7 . 2 2 6 Prob. = 0 . 0 0 I l l of the t o t a l occupied benches observed during the survey was used by one person s i t t i n g at one end. Even when the t o t a l benchepopulation was at its.peak(56 persons), 21% of the occupied benches were used i n thi s manner. When a second i n d i v i d u a l sat on the same bench, the predominant pattern was to use the other end of the ten-feet long bench; seldom did he s i t i n the middle or on the same half occupied by the f i r s t person. The t o t a l frequency of occurrence patterns: G+I+K+L+N+O+P (18.65%) was much greater than that of patterns,: D+M (4.72%; see Figure 37) . In other words, a density of greater than two persons per bench occurred through the presence of dyads or tri a d s rather than through the occupancy by s o l i t a r y i n d i v i d u a l s . Three or more s o l i t a r y i n d i v i d u a l s s i t t i n g on the same bench were rare occasions although cases when a s o l i t a r y person s i t t i n g i n the middle of a bench were frequently observed (Figure 37) , which might be a ploy to preempt the entire bench. Such wastage of seating f a c i l i t i e s as evidenced i n th i s parkwwas a clear i l l u s t r a t i o n of designer's ignorance of or indifference to the normal l e v e l of requirement for bench space as well as the implication of t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour of s o l i t a r y or small-group users seeking interpersonal distances. Evidently, a much smaller amount of t o t a l bench space i n the park as well as small sizes for seats or even oblong benches subdivided into smaller units by arm-rests might have resulted i n a greater e f f i c i e n c y i n the f a c i l i t y planning than what was observed. Figure 38 : Illustrations of' Use of Oblong Park Benches of Victory Square 113 In contrast withtthe t y p i c a l l i n e a r i t y i n shapes or arrangements of seating f a c i l i t i e s of most plazas, benches of Granville Square were f i v e - f o o t square arranged i n a r t i c u l a t e d clusters and often l a i d out i n close association with small planters, l i g h t poles and trash cans. Such a configuration could i n t r i n s i c a l l y provide more orientation as well as postural choice (lying on back or side, squatting, leaning against something, etc.) f o r users than the oblong pool or planter's edges observed elsewhere. However, due to the overwhelming number of benches as compared to patrons observed at any time and due to the primary a t t r a c t i o n of r a i l i n g s (for outside view), benches were rarely veryddensely used. Even then, a comparison of the observed maximum use during summer time lunch-hours between an a r t i c u l a t e d seating area of Granville square and the f a c i l i t i e s of MacMillan and Bloedel or Bentall Two (see Figure 39) f indicated that square shapes and informal clustered arrangements of benches could hold a greater density of population as well as a wider variety of a c t i v i t i e s and postures than the t y p i c a l l i n e a r pool constructions. In t h i s context, the use of non-articulated expan-sive grass areas was. also i n t e r e s t i n g to note. In con-t r a s t with paved platforms, lawns provided postural relax-ation as well as d i v e r s i t y within the hard-paved b u i l t environment. Although the summer time - use of lawns ? • was high, i n view of the p r e v a i l i n g wet climate of the 114 A p a i r of young o f f i c e women drinking coffee ii t a l k i n g — A casually dressed middle-aged man s i t t i n g , reading paper — A casually dressed young man in blue jeans,sleeping ~~ A large group of young o f f i c e women s i t t i n g , leaning against planter d r i n k i n g c o f f e e , t a l k i n g , l o o k i n g about e l d e r l y , r e t i r e d ma gossiping A middle-aged t o u r i s t i n straw-hat and fancy bush-shirt looking about A young o f f i c e woman squat legs stretched leaning against planter reading a book A large group of o f f i c e women squat i n c i r c l f a c i n g each other, gossiping A' BENCH CLUSTER OF GRANVILLE SQUARE i " =16'-0" Two very c a s u a l l y dressed (apparently not o f f i c e workers)young men s i t t i n g , r o l l i n g tobacco and t a l k i n g A well-dressed middle-aged man (appamtly o f f i c e r ) s i t t i n g reading newspaper Two young o f f i c e men s i t t i n g £ / ~ d r i n k i n g coffee and t a l k i n g One young o f f i c e woman s i t t i n g and eating lunch A middle-aged well dressed man s i t t i n g and looking about A middle-aged w e l l dressed woman dri n k i n g coffee A young man s i t t i n g and looking about Old woman(apparently shopper) leaning against and eating . lunch Young o f f i c e woman looking about Young o f f i c e woman leaning against high board.reading book Young o f f i c e couple t a l k i n g Young o f f i c e women eating Young o f f i c e women t a l k i n g Young o f f i c e women Teading ,Young o f f i c e men t a l k i n g Young o f f i c e women leaning against reading book Young o f f i c e men leaning against t . . , 1 column, s i t t i n g , s t a n d i n g , t a l k i n g E3 Young o f f i c e woman s i t t i n g looking about Young o f f i c e men, two s i t t i n g < -1 standing facing one another V Young o f f i c e won: eating lunch —Two young o f f i c e woman talking halfway turned face-lo-lace Tool U S Young o f f i c e woman h a l f - l y i n g and looking about w,.Young o f f i c e woman looking about .Well dressed o l d man looking about *» to 1 ' t 3 5 | irA poorly dressed i l l -I Ukept o l d man looking • " i a b o u t Young man looking about Young woman reading book A young couple with :i child (apparently shopper)talking Young couple t a l k i n g MACMILLAN AND BLOEDEL 1" = 20'-0" BP.NTALL TOO 1" = 16'-0" Figure 39: A Comparison of Observed Maximum Summertime Use of Different Form of Seating F a c i l i t i e s 115 r e g i o n the u t i l i t y o f expansive grass areas may be questioned, as evidenced from the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n . TABLE IX : NUMBER OF LAWN USERS IN DIFFT. SEASONS PLAZAS FALL SPRING SUMMER VICTORY SQ. No. 2 121 245 % t o t a l users 0.45 11.93 21. 38 COURTHOUSE SQ. No. 0 0 86 % t o t a l users 0.0 0.0 42.16 Winter o b s e r v a t i o n s (December, January and February) were not made, but one may expect even lower u s e , i n w i n t e r than i n the f a l l . Besides the problem of non-use d u r i n g most seasons, a c t i v i t i e s tend t o spread t h i n l y over expansive n o n - a r t i c u l a t e d grass areas. A comparison o f the summer time use of d i f f e r e n t types o f f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n Courthouse Square (see Tab l e X) may p r o v i d e an i n t e r e s t i n g i l l u s t r a t i o n on t h i s p o i n t . The d i s t a n c e s maintained by i n d i v i d u a l user groups between themselves appear t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on expansive grass areas than on a r t i c u l a t e d f a c i l i t i e s l i k e s t a i r c a s e s or po o l ' s edge t h a t i n t r i n s i c a l l y p r o v i d e d h o r i z o n t a l , v e r t i c a l o r o r i e n t a t i o n a l s e g r e g a t i o n between u s e r s . 116 TAHT.K. X : DISTANCES MAINTAINED BY USER GROUPS IN COURTHOUSE SQ.* FACILITIES NO. OF GROUPS WITHIN DIFFERENT INTER-GROUP DISTANCE-RANGES TOTAL NO. OF USER GROUPS 3ne to three feet apart Three to five feet apart five to ten feet apart > ten ft apart. LAWNS 0 0.0 2 8.3 7 29.2 15 62.5 24 100.0 STAIRCASE 0 0.0 8 40.0 6 30.0 6 30.0' 20 100.0 POOL'S EDGE 6 40.0 6 40.0 2 13.3 1 6.7 15 100.0 I CHI-SQUARE =32.17 D.F. = 6 a = 0.00 * Lunch hour observations These few i n s t a n c e s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e the need f o r d e f i n e d t e r r i t o r i e s , s e g r e g a t i o n as w e l l as o r i e n t a t i o n c h o i c e f o r small-group users through a r t i c u l a t i o n i n the shapes and arrangement of f a c i l i t i e s t h a t f u r n i s h these s m a l l v o i d s . Such needs become r e l e v a n t p a r t i c u l a r l y to openspaces of the k i n d observed where l a r g e group a c t i v i t i e s appear t o be low. (See Table X I ) . Group s i z e p r o f i l e s observed i n ten p l a z a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t ' s o l i t a r y persons" ( l o o k i n g about, e a t i n g , r e a d i n g , s l e e p i n g , etc.) c o n s t i t u t e ; the s i n g l e l a r g e s t group of users a c r o s s most p l a z a s . Small groups i n v o l v i n g one or two persons ranged between 79.3% and 9 3.8% of users across 117 these plazas. T e r r i t o r i a l behaviour of such small "groups results i n wastage of expansive non-articulated forms or straight l i n e a r constructions. On the other hand, a diverse physical make-up with nooks and corners, steps,small seats and furniture with angular variety i n shape and layout that i n t r i n s i c a l l y provide horizontal or v e r t i c a l segregation and change i n body orientaton of users may lead to e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of these public open spaces. It may be added i n t h i s context, however, that a wider implication of t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour than designs of i n d i v i d u a l furniture was apparent through observations. Examples of t e r r i t o r i a l use of spaces within^several study areas suggested how i n t e r n a l configurations might play an important role i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n and coexistence of people of d i f f e r e n t demographic types. Examples of T e r r i t o r a l Use of Plazas T e r r i t o r i a l use of spaces within large outdoor recreation areas have been reported i n a few observational studies (Derk de Jong, 1968; Lyle, 1961). The observed d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern of demographic groups (such as age or sex groups) within a few areas i n t h i s study suggest, i n essence, that through d i v e r s i t y and a r t i c u l a t i o n i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l layouts, niches could be provided for d i f f e r e n t types of people and a c t i v i t i e s to coexist even with!fh 118 TABLE XI : PLAZA-WISE . PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF USERGROUPS UNDER DIFFERENT SIZES STUDY AREAS Solitary activities Two-person activities Three-person activities Four or more person activities TOTAL no. of user-groups VICTORY SQ. 72.4 19.0 5.6 3.0 1388 TROUNCE ALLEY SQ. 38.3 41.0 8.4 12.3 109 PACIFIC CENTRE 59.1 30.1 3.1 7.7 174 MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL 50.0 37.5 9.5 3.0 164 I.B.M. PLAZA 48.6 37.8 8.2 5.4 38 GRANVILLE SQ. 69.5 24.3 3.5 2.7 1242 GUINESS PLAZA 60.0 30.4 8.9 0.7 119 COURTHOUSE SQ. 49.5 35.5 8.5 6.5 355 BENTALL TWO 58.2 34.0 6.6 1.2 384 BAXTER PLAZA 50.0 39.4 9.6 1.0 61 T O T A L 68.8 24.1 5.1 2.0 4032 119 small outdoor areas l i k e plazas and squares i n the heart of the c i t y . In Victory Square, for instance, a s i x feet drop i n the elevation and the thick screening by conifers and t a l l hedges between the semi-circular cenotaph area and the inner park (see Figure 40) provided a dichotomy i n the physical configuration of the park that blended harmoniously with the dichotomized behavioral structure observed across t h i s study area. The cenotaph area was a haven for old and middle-aged men, p a r t i c u l a r l y , e l d e r l y r e t i r e d men dressed i n the a t t i r e of t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p e c t i b i l i t y , i . e . , suits and fedora, who constituted 50% of - the observed , . •.-. . t o t a l park users. They were, apparently, regular v i s i t o r s s i t t i n g for long hours i n the park either passively or gossiping with the peers. Some .occassionally l o i t e r e d and fed pigeons, on the pavement around the World War I memorial, which was a pastime p e c u l i a r l y r e s t r i c t e d within t h i s age group and t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area of the park. The inner park, on the other hand, was a stage for many actors and many a c t i v i t i e s . Within t h i s large area the differentiate'd f a c i l i t i e s and locations provided t e r r i t o r i e s for the d i f f e r e n t age or l i f e - s t y l e groups (Figure 40). The central lawns* which were well defined spaces, bounded by paths and low chain fencing,were arenas predominantly for young hippies and native Indians. Sometimes s o l i t a r y but generally found i n large groups, they squat i n c i r c l e , gossiping, 120 Formally Attired Elderly Users. Other Elderly Users. Poorly Dressed Middle Aged Users (Apparently Tramp/Alcholics) Casual Dressed Teenagers/Young Native1 H A S T I N G S S Indians/Hinnies Other Young Users (Apparently Shoppers/ College Students/Office Goers etc.) Figure .40 : Locational Distribution of Different Types of Users Within Victory Sq. 1 2 1 smoking, playing cards or guitar and occasionally drinking . beer. Poorly dressed middle-aged persons (apparently tramps) ly i n g drunk i n corners near the hedges, were not rare to f i n d . In warm afternoons, lawns attracted other.rgroups of people apart from the above major types of users, such as casually dressed young or middle-aged persons relaxing, looking about or reading newspaper, pairs of teen-age boys and g i r l s (apparently students from the nearby Vocational Institute),ete. In t o t a l , however, these lawn users were few as compared to the former types (see Figure 40). The use of lawns by old or middle-aged persons, other than the tramps, were conspicuously low. In warm afternoon r when the cenotaph area had become crowded the formally dressed e l d e r l y men were the major patrons of the sun-drenched east-side benches, a location where young hippies, native Indians or the unkempt middle-aged tramps were rarely found (Figure 40 ). On no occasion were the e l d e r l y people found to use the lawns even when they remained empty. Trespassing others' t e r r i t o r y might have been against a s o c i a l more; the formal design elements l i k e grass areas or fences, moreover, were probably greater symbolic b a r r i e r s to these people dwelling with old world norms. The most favourite area for the., middle-aged tramps were the generally l i t t l e used and shaded east-side benches on the southern edge of the park. Alcohol drinking, which engaged 7% of the observed users i n t h i s park, rarely occurred on the cenotaph area; i t concentrated towards the south-122 eastern and northwestern cornerssof the inner park diagonally across the central path traversing the park (Figure 40) , i . e . i n locations least v i s i b l e to the surrounding pedes-trians on Hastings and Pender Streets. In Granville Square, s i m i l a r l y , the young and the o l d or middle-aged persons showed d i s t i n c t preferences for d i f f e r e n t types of bench locations or sections of the f a i l i n g (Table XII and Figure 41). Although the young people outnumbered the e l d e r l y i n t h i s plaza the l a t t e r group displayed greater command over the benches close to the outside view, where over one-third of the e l d e r l y bench users concentrated. E l d e r l y persons s i m i l a r l y showed greater preference than young users for benchesiin r e l a t i v e l y remote locations (Table XII). Benches that lay .along the major movement channel between the entrance and the northern r a i l i n g were the le a s t favoured ones for either age group although young people made more use of these benches than the e l d e r l y (Figure 41) while benches s l i g h t l y away from the movement channel and yet located i n the middle of plaza facing movement (Table XII) were favoured by a l l . S i t t i n g areas close to the main o f f i c e entrance, such as Bench Type 'V1, the sculpture, the columns or glass facades of the building, and the c i r c u l a r planter's edge (Figure 41) were predominantly used by young o f f i c e workers during lunch hours. Apparently, there was a general tendency of segregation of the age groups 123 between the east and the north r a i l i n g . E l d e r l y persons were found i n greater proportion on.the east which was par t l y screened with several medium-sized slender trees than on the north which was bare and open to the view of a l l . (see Figure 41). The r a i l i n g corners were also dominated by the old and middle aged users. TABLE XII : NUMBER OF USER-GROUPS ON DIFFERENT BENCH-TYPES IN GRANVILLE SQUARE. BENCH-TYPES YOUNG USER-GROUPS OLD/MIDDLEAGED USER GROUPS NO. Uo t a l Density per bench NO. %tptal Density per bench I: Close to outside ra i l i n g exposed to view. (A,B and C of Figure 41 ) 50 21.6 5.55 61 33.7 6.78 II: Benches in remote locations,corners § building edge (D,E,F,G,H$I of Figure 41 ) 33 14.2 2.53 49 27.1 3.77 III: Benches on the main movement channel (J § K of Figure 41 ) 29 12.5 4.83 7 3.9 1.17 IV: Benches away from movement channel but in the middle of plaza (L,M §N of Fig. 41 ) 83 35.8 6.38 53 29.3 4.08 V: Benches near office entrance 0 § P of (Figure 41) 37 15.9 4.62 11 6.1 1.37 T O T A L 232 100.0 181 100.0 124 125 While the above two examples suggested the effectiveness of design features l i k e vegetative screens, elevational change, etc., as subdividers of r e l a t i v e l y large urban plazas to provide niches for the d i f f e r e n t user-groups, Bentall Two plaza i l l u s t r a t e d thatthe coexistence of d i f f e r e n t population groups might be brought about even within a very compact space through the design and arrangement of seating f a c i l i t i e s alone. In t h i s o f f i c e plaza, used predominantly by young white-c o l l a r o f f i c e workers, male and female -patrons, showed notice-able preferences for f a c i l i t i e s spread over a meagre 5000 sq.ft. of area (see Figure 42). Women c l e a r l y preferred the "inside" of the plaza? i . e . the pool's and planter's edges closer tot the o f f i c e building than the street leaving the street-side edges to the majority of the male users. William Whyte(1969) s i m i l a r l y observed the introvert l o c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of female users of open spaces. However, the difference between the north and the south side of the plaza would be p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g to note. On the r e l a t i v e l y non-a r t i c u l a t e d northside, furnished by an expansive r e c t i l i n e a r structure, the segregation between females and males or heterogeneous ( i . e . couples or t r i a d s of male and female) users was d i s t i n c t ; whereas, on the south side,many seating edges of-,-small-,size as well as o r i e n t a t i o n a l variety -allowed the coexistence of a greater mix of population types. The a r t i c u l a t e d bench layout of Granville square was a s i m i l a r example to demonstrate that small size and angular variety BENTALL TOWER TWO Ashtr P l a n t e r 1 9 DN B U R R A R D S T R iE T * o Figure 42 Locational Distribution of Observed Users by Sex-Groups witbjnBentall Two Plaza @ Females @ Males © Heterogenous group 127 i n the shape and arrangement of s e a t i n g f u r n i t u r e might be su p p o r t i v e o f not only a l a r g e number but a l s o a wide v a r i e t y of people (see F i g u r e 39 ) . A v i s u a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d open space may be p e r c e p t u a l l y good, p o p u l a r and e n j o y a b l e , as was noted e a r l i e r . V a r i e t y , however, has wider i m p l i c a t i o n s i n the design of open spaces as the above evidences of the d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n o f people, t h e i r use of f u r n i t u r e elements and t h e i r t e r r i t o r i a l behaviour w i t h i n p l a z a s would tend t o suggest. These spaces are r a r e l y used f o r a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g 'masses* or 'crowds' nor are they used f o r extremely p r i v a t e purposes. I n d i v i d u a l s o r s m a l l groups compose the users of these spaces who use them f o r b r i e f r e l a x i n g sojourns away from the c l o s e d o f f i c e s , shopping environments or crowds on the s t r e e t s . They l i k e to have i t open w i t h the view and the f e e l o f others' a c t i v i t i e s and t h i n g s i n the surrounds and y e t they need t h e i r own ~ p e r s o n a l space and t e r r i t o r i a l freedom. Large or s m a l l , a d i v e r s e p h y s i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h s m a l l s e a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , o r i e n t a t i o n a l and p o s t u r a l choice and p h y s i c a l l y d e f i n e d s e g r e g a t i o n among users i s l i k e l y to be more f u n c t i o n a l than the expansive, n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p l a t f o r m s o r s t r e a m - l i n e d l i n e a r i t y t h a t make up much of our p l a z a landscapes. 128 A Note on Temporal, Climatic and Landuse Factors i n Plaza-Use. Hourly variations (between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.)in the observed number of users i n each plaza are shown i n Figure 43). I n s u f f i c i e n t observations were made before 10 am or aft e r 5 pm, for casual p i l o t observations indicated that these areas were r a r e l y used i n those hours. A few observations made between 5 and 6 pm during the summer, months of July, August and September, however, indicated that with the extension of daylight hours, several areas were used aft e r 5pm. Examples were: Victory Square (20-30 persons), Granville Square (12-16 persons), Courthouse Square (6-8 persons), P a c i f i c Centre (2-3 persons), Guiness plaza (5-7 persons), Baxter plaza (1-2 persons) and Bentall Two (2-3 persons). Temporal variations i n use i n the d i f f e r e n t plazas were not, however, equally sharp. The e f f e c t of surrounding develop-ments was apparent through the differences between shopping area plazas and o f f i c e building plazas i n temporal pattern of use. Landuse c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of plazas are shown i n Table XVII. Guiness, Baxter, Bentall Two and MacMillan-Bloedel plazas located within t y p i c a l o f f i c e d i s t r i c t s of Downtown contained very few a c t i v i t i e s of a public nature, p a r t i c u l a r l y few r e t a i l stores i n t h e i r immediate surrounds. These plazas, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , show high concentration of use over the short lunch hour period while only 40-50% of t h e i r t o t a l d a i l y use -was spread overtthe rest of the day (Figure 43 . 129 ^ — G r a n v i l l e Sq. F- V a l u e = 4.2, a=.002, N=52 B e n t a l l Two F-V a l u e = 4;6, o=.001, N=51 _ G u i n e s s . " F - V a l u e = 7.6, a=.001, N=51 M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l F - V a l u e - 5.7, a=.001, N=34 B a x t e r F - V a l u e = 9.8, ot=.001, N=39 Co u r t h o u s e ' i' F - V a l u e = 1.9, a=.110, N=24 ^ ^ / - T r o u n c e A l l e y / F=2.8, a=.024, N=45 •I.B.M. P l a z a ' F=.423, a=.8S6, N=33 10-11 11-12 12-15 IV14 H-15 15-16 H O U R O F T H E D A Y 16-1? F i g u r e 45 ; Temporal D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e Ob s e r v e d Average Number o f U s e r s o f P l a z a s TABLE XIII: LANDUSES (IN '000 SQ.FT.) WITHIN 500 FT. FROM EDGES OF PLAZAS Commercial & Plazas Professional Restaurant, Pubs Hotels, Motels/ Offices & Banks Stores & Entertainments Rooming Houses Other Total I.B.M. Plaza 853.9 1183.2 28.1 1119.4 84.0 3267 % 26.1 36.2 0.9 34.3 2.6 100.0 Pacific Centre 812.7 1224.3 28.1 219.4 85.0 2369 % 34.3 51.7 1.2 9.2 3.6 100.0 Courthouse Sq. 1250.8 1157.9 25.8 1101.0 105.0 3641 % 34.3 31.8 0.7 30.2 2.9 100.0 MacMillan-Bloedel 1601.8 134.4 38.2 1550.0 107.7 3432 % 46.7 3.9 1.1 45.2 3.1 100.0 Bentall Two 1733.3 20.7 5.4 556.0 103.0 2418 % 71.7 0.9 0.2 23.0 4.3 100.0 Granville Sq. 958.8 5.3 10.8 62.4 46.0 1083 % 88.6 0.5 1.0 5.7 4.2 100.0 Victory Sq. 463.6 771.5 54.5 121; 1 350.0 1760 % 26.4 43.8 3.1 6.9 19.9 100.0 Trounce Alley 220.2 155.6 62.6 188.2 121.9 749 % 29.4 20.8 8.4 25.1 16.3 100.0 Guiness Plaza 1001.4 0.8 _ _ 29.0 1031 % 97.1 0.1 - - 2.8 100.0 Baxter Plaza 1232.2 1.4 11.5 245.0 1.0 1490 % 82.7 0.1 0.7 16.4 0.1 100.0 131 Time had much less e f f e c t (as evident from the F - s t a t i s t i c s ) on use i n the cases of plazas containing high mix of public a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y stores, i n t h e i r immediate v i c i n i t i e s . In P a c i f i c Centre, I.B.M. and Victory Squares, for instance, no d e f i n i t e temporal pattern of use was apparent, difference over the day being highly i n s i g n i f i c a n t . In Victory Square, however, th i s may be attributed also to the nature of users, for many users here were regular patrons of the park spending long hours (Hall, 1970). S i m i l a r l y , i n Courthouse and Trounce A l l e y Squares, the two other areas w i t h large proportion of public a c t i v i t i e s eg. retails-i n s t i t u t i o n s , restaurants and pubs (around;Trounce Alley) i n t h e i r surrounds, use was spread'over longer hours than i n the o f f i c e building plazas. Mid-day "lunch-eating" was rarely found i n the shopping area plazas l i k e P a c i f i c Centre and Trounce Al l e y . The seasonal v a r i a t i o n i n use s i m i l a r l y suggested a dichotomy between o f f i c e plazas and other^open spaces of the downtown. Differences between the spring (March, A p r i l and May) and the summer (July, August and early September) months i n the l e v e l of use of the d i f f e r e n t plazas i s shown i n Table XIV. For Courthouse Square, spring observations were i n s i g n i f i c a n t to calculate the F - s t a t i s t i c . In four areas, observations were made during f a l l months (October, November and early December) which have been shown i n parenthesis i n the Table. 132 TABLE XIV : DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPRING & SUMMER USE AVERAGE NO. OF USEI IS PER OBSERVATION PLAZAS SPRING SUMMER F-VALUE PROB. GRANVILLE SQ. (6.25) 22.79 56.73 28.35 .001 VICTORY SQ. (6.39) 24.97 45.70 17.83 .001 BENTALL TWO 10.38 10.04 0.00 .943 MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL 6.17 7.18 0.12 .735 GUINESS PLAZA 2.39 8.90 9.24 .005 BAXTER PLAZA 1.43 4.44 6.85 .014 COURTHOUSE SQ. (2.85) - 12.31 - -PACIFIC CENTRE (2.28) 3.45 8.77 12.27 .002 I.B.M. PLAZA 0.00 6.61 19.12 .001 TROUNCE ALLEY 3.58 4.46 0.69 .412 The s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher.ruse during the summer i n most plazas r e f l e c t s the general r i s e i n outdoor a c t i v i t i e s i n the heart of the c i t y with the greater presence of shoppers and t o u r i s t s . In spite of t h e i r distance from shops and stores, the use of a l l water-front plazas sharply rose during the summer. As noted e a r l i e r the perceived d i v e r s i t y of these plazas -was, also s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n summer than i n spring, possibly due to better v i s i b i l i t y across the 133 Burrard I n l e t with clearer weather. However, i n contrast with other plazas of the i n t e r i o r of the downtown the t y p i c a l o f f i c e plazas l i k e ^ B entall Two or MacMillan and Bloedel, which were patronized predominantly by closeby o f f i c e workers during midday, showed l i t t l e difference i n use with seasonal change (Table XIV) . Isolated from the major shopping hubs and devoid of environmental features of the kind water-front plazas possessed, these open spaces had r e l a t i v e l y much less part i n the r i s e i n outdoor recreation with the coming of the summer. The dichotomous s i t u a t i o n between o f f i c e plazas and other open spaces would c l e a r l y suggest the po s i t i v e influence of mixed landuses, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n sustaining the use of open-spaces over the day. Apparently, a perceptually diverse and pleasant open space l i k e Bentall Two plaza would have sustained higher use throughout the day with the greater presence of other attractions i n i t s v i c i n i t y . The same may be said about the pleasant waterfront plazas of Guiness and Baxter. In t h i s context, however, the differences among these t y p i c a l o f f i c e plazas might be int e r e s t i n g to note. The higher peak hour use of Bentall Two than the other plazas (see Fig.43 ) would tend to suggest that, i n the absence of large public a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i c i n i t y , c l u s t e r i n g of o f f i c e buildings bearing upon common plazas might lead to less wastage of outdoor f a c i l i t i e s than the t y p i c a l piecemeal development of private precints l i k e MacMillan and Bloedel, Guiness or Baxter plazav 134 Although the presence of public a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i c i n i t y had a role in sustaining a c t i v i t i e s over the day, i n general, the differences i n popularity across plazas and squares of downtown Vancouver appeared to be determined more by the differences i n t h e i r i n t r i n s i c physical or v i s u a l q u a l i t y than by the difference i n t h e i r surrounding landuses. A Multiple Regression of the average peak-hour (12-2pm) use during the summer across nine plazas with the measured perceived, d i v e r s i t y factors of these plazas and t h e i r surrounding landuse c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as f peak-hour pedestrian volumes and the amount of public and o f f i c e a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i c i n i t y , (see Table XV) indicated the overwhelming influence of t h e i r perceptual qu a l i t y rather than surrounding landuse characters on the use of these spaces. The i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of the surrounding landuse variables i n the above analysis, however, might be due to the confounding fact that the least diverse plazas l i k e P a c i f i c Centre and I.B.M. were located within the busiest milieu of the downtown; whereas, the perceptually diverse waterfront plaza of Granville square had l i t t l e public a c t i v i t i e s i n i t s immediate v i c i n i t y . Nevertheless, plazas and squares of Downtown Vancouver c l e a r l y exemplify that the presence of a large amount of people and a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i c i n i t y do not necessarily generate open-space use. The qua l i t y of t h e i r i n t e r n a l landscape, or the presence or 1 3 5 TABLE XV : SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ON PEAK-USE OF PLAZAS IN SUMMER VARIABLES Normalized Regression Coefficients(BETA) in the equation F-values PERCEIVED DIVERSITY 1.00985 11.152 significant at 5% SURROUNDING LANDUSE CHARACTERISTICS : Pedestrian Volume in the v i c i n i t y 1.04418 3.275 Insignificant at 20% Public activities in the vic i n i t y (in sq.ft.of covered space for stores, restaurants, pubs, etc. -0.93731 3.110 Insignificant at 20% Office activities in the vi c i n i t y (in sq.ft.of covered space for commercial offices, banks, etc. -0.00018 0.000 Insignificant Multiple R = 0.82- F-Value = 4.76 a = .07 absence of scenic view might-override any influence of the surrounding landuse development i n determining the l e v e l of use of these spaces. Landscape features or panoramic view apparently had a role also iri'sustaihing a c t i v i t i e s over late hours. Casual observations i n Granville Square, for instance, 136 found the presencecdf over 30 people i n summer long a f t e r the o f f i c e s were c l o s e d . Among p l a z a s i n the i n t e r i o r o f .the Downtown, Courthouse Square a t t r a c t e d users over such, l a t e hours around i t s c o l o u r f u l f o u n t a i n p o o l w h i l e a b l o c k yonder P a c i f i c Centre and I.B.M. p l a z a s l a y vacant i n the dark even t h o u g h t h e i r adjacent shopping m a l l s hummed wit h crowd. In t h i s c ontext, the i n t e r v e n i n g e f f e c t o f the c l i m a t e on the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f people w i t h i n these s m a l l outdoor spaces i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note. The l o c a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s o f users w i t h i n some p l a z a s were o v e r t l y s u g g e s t i v e o f the obvious, but o f t e n overlooked, o r i e n t a t i o n a l and s i t e p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e s w i t h regard to comfort c o n d i t i o n s . In a c o l d t o temperate r e g i o n w i t h h i g h p r e c i p i t a t i o n and low annual sunshine hours, sunny outdoors are l i k e l y to be popular. Many popul a r p l a z a s l i k e B e n t a l l Two, G r a n v i l l e Square or V i c t o r y Square were almost e n t i r e l y sunny over the usable hours of the day through southern o r e a s t e r n exposure. The r e l a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e between sunny and shaded l o c a t i o n s d u r i n g the summer months of J u l y and August c o u l d be compared w i t h i n a few p l a z a s l i k e P a c i f i c Centre, iE.BvM. , Courthouse and Guiness P l a z a s which remained, most o f the time, partly-shaded by t h e i r surrounding b u i l d i n g s and s k y s c r a p e r s . Shadow l i n e s (see F i g u r e 44-4-7) and corresponding l o c a t i o n s of users i n sunny and shaded p a r t s were recorded on maps i n each o f the s e v e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s between 11 am and 5pm i n these p l a z a s . The s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r use of sunny 137 rather than shaded parts was in t e r e s t i n g to note (Table XVI). TABLE XVI ; DIFFERENCE IN USE BETWEEN SUNNY AND SHADED PARTS IN SUMMER PLAZAS AVERAGE NO. OF USERS T-Value Prob. No.of Obser-vation Sunny portion Shaded portion PACIFIC CENTRE 4.13 0.50 3420 .015 8 I.B.M. PLAZA 5.63 1.25 3.42 .011 . 8 GUINESS 3.19 •1.13 2.28 .038 16 COURTHOUSE SQ. 14.17 1.08 3.90 .002 12 The d i s t i n c t l y lower preference for shaded locations across these paired observations may suggest the redundancy of t y p i c a l Downtown plazas l i k e I.B.M. or P a c i f i c Centre that remained shadowed by surrounding skyscrapers most of the time. These two plazas presented an i n t e r e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n where not only the sun-orientation and the relat i o n s h i p between voids and surrounding heights were overlooked but also there was l i t t l e consideration of the shadow p r o f i l e s i n the layout of furniture within the space. For, half of the seating f a c i l i t i e s of P a c i f i c Centre was placed i n the most shaded and dark corner of the plaza while the sunny edges were l e f t undeveloped, wide open to random c i r c u l a t i o n , (see Figure 4 4 ) . In I.B.M. plaza the only seating f a c i l i t y i n the middle of the plaza, i . e . a stepped podium, was 138 F i g u r e 44 r P o s i t i o n s o f Shadows on P a c i f i c C e n t r e P l a z a F i g u r e 45 : P o s i t i o n s o f Shadows on I.B.M. P l a z a 139 Figure Al : Positions of Shadows on Courthouse Square During July and August 140 pre c i s e l y located i n the shadow of the I.B.M. Tower while the only sunny s t r i p was l e f t for a diagonal movement between Georgia and Howe Streets.(see Figure 45). There was less open space on the east than west side of Guiness tower although the east remained sunny during lunch hours, (see Figure 46). In Courthouse Square the shadow p r o f i l e changed sharply over the day. T i l l midday, the pool's edge remained shaded by the Toronto Dominion Bank tower and the sunny west lawn was more popular. During lunch hour the plaza was sunny almost a l l over and highly used. On the Grand Staircase, however, users concentrated on the east side facing the sun while the shaded west side was rarely used. A Summary of Findings S i g n i f i c a n t differences among nine plazas of Downtown Vancouver were found i n terms of t h e i r rated pleasantness, perceived d i v e r s i t y and observed popularity. High p o s i t i v e l i n e a r relationships among the above attributes of plazas indicated that perceived d i v e r s i t y i n v i s u a l environments accounted for 60% of t h e i r variances i n terms of pleasantness and.observed popularity. There were i n s i g n i f i c a n t differences among these plazas with respect to other emotion-e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s , i . e . to the extent that they were arousing or to the extent that they e l i c i t e d a f e e l i n g of dominance or submissiveness i n people. Perceptually diverse environments were pleasant to anyone and under a l l conditions, 141 for extraneous factors l i k e season, weather condition, time or vocational background of subjects (designer or non-designer) had i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on the emotional responses across the plazas. Comments provided by subjects indicated that several attributes of the external landscape such as the amount and variety i n furnishing elements,the presence or absence of foc a l attractions and the colour of pavements and enclosing surfaces were the most popular reasons for people's perception of pleasure-displeasure and d i v e r s i t y (or the lack of i t ) across plazas located i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown. A physical inventory of the i n t e r n a l landscape of these open spaces, furthermore, revealed s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -ship between the verbally measured d i v e r s i t y and pleasantness of these environments and the variety (Average Uncertainty) i n the form, colour, and texture of t h e i r i n t e r n a l furnishing elements as well as the density of such elements (per unit area of open space). Waterfront plazas which had panoramic views, however, detracted from these relationships between i n t e r n a l landscape and perceived q u a l i t i e s . This, together with subjects'comments on perceptions of waterfront plazas, suggested' that i n t e r n a l furnishings were perceptually i n s i g n i f i c a n t and"surrounding view" was the major determining factor of pleasantness and perceived d i v e r s i t y i n these environments. Waterfront plazas, however, were found to be 142 more pleasant, more diverse and more popular, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n summer, than most plazas located i n the i n t e r i o r of Downtown. Plazas were used predominantly for stationary, passive relaxation and self-engaging a c t i v i t i e s . However, differences among locations i n terms of overt a c t i v i t i e s indicated that the presence of complex man-made features or scenery i n the landscape could respond to the c u r i o s i t y and exploratory drive i n people and generated a c t i v i t i e s l i k e l o i t e r i n g , watching things, photography, p l a y f u l use of a r t i f a c t s , e t c . The presence of a single a t t r a c t i v e f o c a l point—.-a fountain — generated aconsiderably higher amount of such active recreation i n Courthouse Square than any other plaza i n the heart of Downtown. The observed population d i s t r i b u t i o n within plazas i l l u s t r a t e d the greater e f f i c i e n c y of small sized densely furnished space! with a r t i c u l a t e d edges and defined and lim i t e d c i r c u l a t i o n channels than extensive areas and expansive pavements. F a c i l i t i e s located remote from areas of population concentration, view or major movement channels were rarely used and very l i t t l e a c t i v i t i e s occurred on open, undefined pavements. Stationary a c t i v i t i e s were t i e d up with a variety of small or large a r t i f a c t s providing postural support. L o i t e r i n g and li n g e r i n g were associated primarily with exploration of the environment and took place around fo c a l 143 elements(fountain, sculpture, shop windows, e t c . ) , along edges providing,outside view, or for feeding pigeons- i n a few open spaces. C i r c u l a t i o n through plazas took place along shortest routes between buildings and streets. Mass conglo-meration or large group a c t i v i t i e s were rare. Within waterfront plazas f a c i l i t i e s remote form edges providing the panoramic view were ra r e l y used. I n e f f i c i e n t use of furniture elements was frequent! and r e f l e c t e d designers' misconceptions of the normal group size , the nature of use, and the requirement of personal space and t e r r i t o r i a l freedom of users. Small groups involving one or two persons constituted over 80% of the observed number of user groups across plazas and forms-.and arrangements providing defined t e r r i t o r i e s and o r i e n t a t i o n a l choice for small-group users were more e f f i c i e n t l y used than expansive forms'and straight l i n e a r f a c i l i t i e s . Standard oblong park benches were predominantly "used "by s o l i t a r y individuals s i t t i n g at ends. On t y p i c a l l i n e a r pool and planter edges, corners providing angular variety were more frequently used than the straight middle sections. The density of use was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the angular than on the s t r a i g h t sections of r a i l i n g s and on small than large pool/planter boxes. Expansive lawns, r a r e l y used except for summer, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less densely used than pool's edges or staircases providing b u i l t - i n horizontal, v e r t i c a l or 144 o r i e n t a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n s to segregate users. Informal, clustered arrangements of square-shaped benches supported a greater density of population as well as a wider mix .ofe.age, sex, posture or a c t i v i t i e s than the t y p i c a l l i n e a r configuration of pool constructions. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i f f e r e n t age, sex or l i f e s t y l e groups within a few plazas i l l u s t r a t e d that d i v e r s i t y i n the physical-configuration brought about through various means, such as change i n l e v e l s , vegetation screens, defined boundaries between parts or, simply, o r i e n t a t i o n a l variety i n arrangements of seating or leaning f a c i l i t i e s could provide niches for the d i f f e r e n t demographic groups and support t h e i r coexistence. The e f f e c t s of several extraneous factors on plaza-use were i n t e r e s t i n g to no'te. A Multiple Regression analysis indicated that the perceived d i v e r s i t y of open space environments rather than t h e i r surrounding landuse c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as the pedestrian volume or the amount of shopping or o f f i c e a c t i v i t i e s i n the immediate v i c i n i t i e s ) largely accounted for the observed differences across these plazas i n terms of the number of summertime peak-hour users. However, the temporal pattern of use of plazas suggested a dichotomous s i t u a t i o n between the shopping area plazas and the o f f i c e plazas devoid of public a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r v i c i n i t i e s . While.temporal v a r i a t i o n i n the observed l e v e l of use (between 10 am and 5 pm) was small or i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n the former types, t y p i c a l o f f i c e plazas showed large c i r c u l a t i o n of use during the 145 mid-afternoon hours and some of them were almost 'dead' spaces during the post lunch hours. Among the l a t t e r types, however, a plaza located amidst a complex of commercial o f f i c e towers was greater u t i l i z e d than any of the t y p i c a l landscaped precints associated with i n d i v i d u a l high r i s e s . In most plazas, the observed l e v e l of use was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n the summer than i n the spring. Furthermore, sunny parts within plazas were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher used than parts shaded by buildings. Overhand above t h e i r improper orientation, the arrangement of f a c i l i t i e s within several"plazas f a i l e d _ t o consider such-users preference for the sun and disregarded shadowlines cast on them by the adjacent skyscrapers. 146 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS A few centuries back "there was a piazza for iv2.ftytkA.YiQ and everything in its piazza Nothing can be farther from the spirit of new technology than a place for everything and everything in its place" {McLuhan and Fiore, 1967). The number of plazas observed i n t h i s study was small. The findings, nevertheless, are s i g n i f i c a n t enough to generalize some of t h e i r implications for the design and planning of these public places i n the heart of the c i t y . In essence the findings h i g h l i g h t that subtle d i f f e r e n c e s t i n the physical environment across these small outdoors may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the feelings of t h e i r users as well as the nature and extent of use of these spaces. The primary conclusion that can be drawn from the study i s that d i v e r s i t y and a r t i c u l a t i o n i n v i s u a l forms as well as s p a t i a l configurations of these small open spaces are e s s e n t i a l ingredients of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l success. While perceptual opulence would render them pleasant and a t t r a c t i v e environments, a r t i c u l a t i o n i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l layouts and i n the form and arrangement of f a c i l i t i e s would render them e f f i c i e n t , supporting the personal, t e r r i t o r i a l and behavioral freedom of users. How much perceptual d i v e r s i t y i s optimal for these outdoor environments? The recent arguments1 i n 147 favour of perceptual opulence as opposed to s i m p l i c i t y i n designing our day-to-day environments have been based on psychological evidences, the neuro-physical basis of human perception, as well as personal convictions and i n t u i t i o n s of designers. In no instances, so far , however, the r e l a t i v e potentials of r e a l l i f e public settings, p a r t i c u l a r l y micro-environments, varying i n stimulus dimensions have been tested. I t was not the intention of this study to dispute the importance of harmony or c l a r i t y i n design. However, th i s study could not indicate how many things or how many d i f f e r e n t types of things to see should be optimum for these environments to avoid v i s u a l chaos and any possible displeasure r e s u l t i n g from i t . Surely, there shoulddbe an optimum as the psychological postulations tend to suggest. But are there plazas and squares so v i s u a l l y complex or chaotic as to repel '. use or evoke displeasure? Possibly not; and determination of such optimum may c a l l for experiments with hypotheticalrrather than r e a l l i f e settings of thi s kind. Evidences from r e a l l i f e settings i n t h i s study suggest that possibly there i s enough room for variety and complexity i n our plazas and squares without being apprehensive of such chaotic si t u a t i o n s . D i v e r s i t y may j u s t i f y greater emphasis than s i m p l i c i t y i n t h e i r design to render them a t t r a c t i v e and pleasant spaces. A harmony achieved through the inclu s i o n of the many or a c l a r i t y discovered through p a r t i c i p a t i o n and finding 148 resolution i n complex patterns and ambiguous forms would be more enjoyable and desirable than a harmony through exclusion or a c l a r i t y through the presence of simple, i d e n t i f i a b l e forms. What would make these small outdoors located within the t y p i c a l b u i l t environment of the c i t y perceptually diverse and, therefore, pleasant and popular? Findings c l e a r l y indicate that s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the perceptual q u a l i t y of plazas may be brought about through furnishing of t h e i r voids alone. What s p e c i f i c aspects of t h e i r i n t e r n a l furnishing are perceptually important? The available range of configurations as well as the size of response to the psychological experiment, no doubt, imposed constraints on t h i s study for any rigorous comparison among landscape elements or patterns or configurations thereof. Within the constraint, however,the perceptual p o t e n t i a l of a few general attributes for the in t e r n a l landscape of plazas was apparent, namely, 1. Variety i n the shape, siz e , colour or texture of plant materials and man-made a r t i f a c t s furnishing the space, as opposed A to excessive r e p e t i t i o n of s i m i l a r forms or_expansive coverage by the same elements (for instance, see Figure 20,21) ; 149 2. D e n s i t y o f a r t i f a c t s , i . e . compact f u r n i s h i n g as opposed t o sparseness o f expansive pavements > ( F i g u r e 20,19) ; 3. The presence o f complex man-made a r t i f a c t s as f o c a l p o i n t s , such tas moving waterbodies o r novel s c u l p t u r e s (Figure 3,10,48,50); and 4. B r i g h t n e s s i n the c o l o u r o f pavements and su r f a c e s ( f o r i n s t a n c e , see F i g u r e 20, 19/21)..i P l a z a s and squares o f Downtown Vancouver thus i n t e r e s t i n g l y exemplify t h a t p e r c e p t u a l l y d i v e r s e open-space environments can be c r e a t e d through simple and s u b t l e ways t h a t are common i n the i n t u i t i o n - b a s e d codebooks of s i t e p l a n n e r s o r landscape a r c h i t e c t s . The very e x i s t e n c e of d i f f e r e n c e i n people's p l e a s u r e and use across these p l a z a s l o c a t e d a few b l o c k s a p a r t , t h e r e f o r e , c h a l l e n g e s d e s i g n e r s ' ignorance of not only the need f o r v a r i e t y and a r t i c u l a t i o n but a l s o the p e r c e p t u a l and b e h a v i o r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f these simple and s u b t l e means o f la n d s c a p i n g of t h e i r v o i d s . In t h i s c o n t e x t , however, the r o l e o f complex man-made forms may be p a r t i c u l a r l y emphasized. As an a l t e r n a t i v e to "many t h i n g s o f many d i f f e r e n t forms", an approach t o landscape these s m a l l p u b l i c open spaces w i t h s i n g u l a r man-made f o c a l elements o f very complex and 150 ambiguous forms has additional advantages. Complex elements l i k e fountains or sculptures have greater p o t e n t i a l than other landscape features to generate exploratory type of recreation within a mundane work environment of the c i t y . " Open spaces furnished with such singular complex features i n v i t i n g observers to p a r t i c i p a t e and f i n d resolution in the forms may avoid both monotony and v i s u a l chaos at the same time. Waterbodies and sculptures have been features of the urban landscape for centuries. Although a very li m i t e d variety of such elements was available across the study areas, c e r t a i n forms appear to have greater p o t e n t i a l than others to a t t r a c t use. T a l l jets of water, v i s i b l e over a long distance to pedestrians are greater attractors of use within these small spaces than small fountains. A waterbody programmed to produce, simultaneouly, d i f f e r e n t movement patterns or patterns rapidly changing with time are greater attractors than single patterns of water movement, such as cascades (see Figure 48 ). Among water bodies, s t i l l pools appear to have the l e a s t percep-t u a l p o t e n t i a l to generate pedestrian use and exploration. The use of rocks, pebbles, plant materials that thrive i n water, etc., are more novel tools than the t r a d i t i o n a l glazed t i l e s (see Figure 49) to render large s t i l l water pools perceptually r i c h . A sculpture that could be explored not only v i s u a l l y but also through kinesthetic and t a c t i l e senses may be greater attractions of use than mere showpieces. 151 Figure 49 : The Use of Rocks and Shrubs i s an Excellent Way to Break the Monotony of Large S t i l l Water Bodies. Figure 50 : A Sculpture that Invites Exploration and Use i n Various Ways is Better Than a Mere Showpiece 153 (see Figure 50). Unless such showpieces are very novel i n t h e i r forms, such as many sculptures of Henry Moore, t h e i r attractiveness wane "with time. What s p e c i f i c aspects of t h e i r space configurations are important to render these small outdoorsfunctional and e f f i c i e n t public spaces? Both perceptual and behavioral data of t h i s study converged on the requirement for a r t i c u l a t i o n i n the physical form of the void i t s e l f . A desirable functional...model- emerging .from-the~behavioral data of t h i s study speaks of compact, densely furnished openspaces with developed edges, limited and defined pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n channels and.: a r t i c u l a t e d shapes and arrangements of seating and leaning f a c i l i t i e s providing i defined t e r r i t o r i e s and o r i e n t a t i o n a l and postural choice for small group users. Sparsely furnished expansive paved plazas are not rare to f i n d i n the heart of the c i t y . Such spaces are redundant from public l e i s u r e Use point of view and tend to become mere concourses for pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n through. A few possible means to generate public use across such e x i s t i n g plazas may be to stage frequent occurrence of concerts or r a l l i e s , i n s t a l l semipermanent outdoor exhibits, displays, information kiosks, food s t a l l s , etc. (for instance, see Figure 51 ). Possibly no other aspect of s i t e design of these small spaces i s functionally as important as a r t i c u l a t i o n 154 Figure 51 : The Presence of Semipermanent Displays or Exhibits i s One Possible Way to Attract Use in Existing Barren Plazas. 155 of t h e i r edges. Developed edges can playtthe dual role of providing seating or leaning f a c i l i t i e s and c o n t r o l l i n g entrance and e x i t points to l i m i t and define pedestrian routes increasing thereby the p o s s i b i l i t y of e f f i c i e n t use of the i n t e r i o r . Edges rather than interiors are more potent i a l areas for seating,for through pedestrian c i r c u l a t i o n i s a t y p i c a l a c t i v i t y within plazas. Although t h e i r routes should be lim i t e d and defined, the maintenance of diagonal or long routes through;-may .;be ^ desirable to generate use of f a c i l i t i e s within. Moreover, f o c a l elements, such as fountains or sculptures should be preferably located i n the i n t e r i o r , close to such pedestriansroutes, v i s i b l e from a l l around and with spaces around the a r t i f a c t s to support l o i t e r i n g , l i n g e r i n g , photographing, etc. Furthermore, edges are t r a n s i t i o n zones o f f e r i n g view of both inside and outside. This i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of the edge should be exploited through seating. Arrangements may suggest "extrovert"(facing distant landscapes or close views of pedestrian movement on the adjacent streets) or "introvert" (facing central f o c a l elements or a c t i v i t y with plaza); but, preferably , should be a mixed kind with choice for users to face any d i r e c t i o n or to retreat from the surrounds for self-engaging a c t i v i t i e s . Thus, a staggered seating or informal clusters of small seats may be preferable to r i g i d rows or oblong seats; a complex perimeter with nooks and corners providing defined niches or t e r r i t o r i e s may be 156 preferable to a stream-lined edge. The few i l l u s t r a t i o n s (see Figure 52 through 59)to support the discussion are examples of p o s s i b i l i t i e s . A r t i c u l a t i o n of the perimeter i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant i n the context of water-front plazas where majority of the use may occur along the "outer edges facing the view. Since corners of r a i l i n g support much greater use than s t r a i g h t sections, p r o f i l e s of waterfront plazas should be. p'referably broken with as many turns or angles-as-possible i n the r a i l i n g to lean on (for instance, see Figure 55 ). Furthermore, these plazas may support a wider variety of people and greater presence of e l d e r l y l e i s u r e seeker: than plazas i n the i n t e r i o r of the downtown. Thus, a diverse edge with provision of nooks and corners, projected balconies, small decks, some elev a t i o n a l changes, p a r t i a l screening by plant materials, etc., may not only enrich the v i s u a l and kinesthetic experience of l o i t e r e r s along the r a i l i n g but also o f f e r a t t r a c t i v e , defined niches for the d i f f e r e n t population groups. While r a i l i n g s are p a r t i c u l a r l y important f a c i l i t i e s along the waterfront edge, a variety of other furniture elements, such as benches, pools, planter structure, staircases, and grass lawns provide postural support for users across plazas and squares. Since self-engaging a c t i v i t i e s and passive relaxation c a r r i e d out by s o l i t a r y i ndividuals and small groups dictate the nature of use of these open spaces, the 157 Figure 52 4 ppesert O —oemaict Gtanville Mall V O/K <|o o o o o c g o ^ ,11 Pacific Centre Plaza - Merely a Concourse for Throiigh Circulation. Articulated Edges May Provide' . Attractive Seating as' Well as an Efficient Internal Space. Improved MWJOO^  p edestrian Matching f S " * * ^ Occasional Entertainment Granville M i l l Seating for Street Watchers 158 Sunken Deck r-y|j Sunken projected decks . 1——\ Figure 55 : Granville Square - Use tenclsto b u i l d -up on corners rather than straight sections of r a i l i n g s . Railings are key elements i n waterfront plazas and should be art i c u l a t e d to provide as many corners as [>ossible as well as attractive niches for the many different typos of people that use the space. 159 S T R E E. T LO fr-t V5 Figure 53 : Seating Arrangement Along the Edge Should Provide Choice for User to Face Any Direction. Break Qblong Edges to Provide Niches for Group Socialization 4 present Linear Park Benches iwere Wasted F a c i l i t i e s Figure 54 : Victory Square - Long Edges and a Rigid Row-seating Dictate. Users' Orientation. They Should be Articulated to Provide Territories as Well as Personal Choice for Orientation 160 keynote for designing these furniture elements should be the provision of personal space, o r i e n t a t i o n a l freedom and postural choice for small-group users. Such provisions can be made through angular variety and small size or physical d i v i s i o n s i n the form and arrangements of seating f a c i l i t i e s . Extensive monolithic structures of neat geometrical shape, however economic they may be i n t h e i r construction, do not lead to economy i n use. The generally low l e v e l of use of benches observed across plazas suggest that possibly we do not need a large amount of bench space. However, benches should be small with l i n e a r dimensions accommodating no more than two or three persons and preferably movable in-order to layout i n d i f f e r e n t patterns depending on users' choice. A compact but a r t i c u l a t e d arrangement of small seats (for instance, see Figure 56 ) may be more e f f i c i e n t as well as at t r a c t i v e ,to users than the standard oblong benches (9-10ft long) and a r i g i d row-seating. Oblong park benches are c l e a r l y wasted f a c i l i t i e s . Square-shaped benches provide greater o r i e n t a t i o n a l choice and freedom for users. Asso-c i a t i o n of benches with small furniture elements, such as planters, l i g h t p o l e s , flagpoles, trashcans, etc., may f a c i l i t a t e relaxing postures (Figure 56 ). 161 S i m i l a r l y , the edge of extensive l i n e a r pool or planter structures should be broken down. The t y p i c a l streamlined l i n e a r i t y i n shapes of pool containers s t r i c t l y conform to the o v e r a l l formal shape of the small open spaces and t h e i r surrounding architecture. However, even within small plazas 7, some complexity i n the p r o f i l e of these structures, a l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n the l e v e l of t h e i r f l o o r s etc., (for instance see Figure 57) may not only provide a functional seating but also enrich the v i s u a l experience of users. Paradoxically, the a t t r a c t i v e element, i.^e. water, i s always at the back of users of t y p i c a l l i n e a r pool structures. Angular v a r i e t y i n shape may provide clear view and greater 162 Royal Centre Figure 5? : MacMillan Bloedel Plaza -A r t i c u l a t i o n of Typical Oblong Pool Bring i n Change-in-stimuli as well as Provide E f f i c i e n t Seating and Orientational and Postural Choice for Users 163 interaction"- with the element than what i s offered by the present-day oblong containers.Extensive grass lawns are wasted f a c i l i t i e s for downtown plazas and squares, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the l o c a l c l i m a t i c context. An e f f i c i e n t alternative to provide some experience of the t u r f during the summer may be to provide small grass mounds on the ground or i n raised containers. Mounds i n t r i n s i c a l l y provide greater segregation between users than extensive non-articulated lawns. E x i s t i n g grass areas of extensive size may be a r t i c u l a t e d with shrubberies to provide defined niches or t e r r i t o r i e s f f o r users (see Figure 58). These means of a r t i c u l a t i o n of f u r n i t u r e elements are simple and subtle-. Yet they are l i k e l y to generate a more e f f i c i e n t seating and a greater freedom for users than what i s . o f f e r e d by the expansive form and steamlined l i n e a r structures furnishing most e x i s t i n g plazas and squares. A t y p i c a l problem associated with plazas i n the l o c a l climate Is shade, for locations-'shaded by the highrises remain unused even during the summer. Although certain factors, such as the orientation of plazas or the heights of surrounding masses are often beyond control of the land-scape architect, providing seating f a c i l i t i e s i n the sunny rrathe.r than the shaded parts of plazas i s not. The use of these t y p i c a l open spaces may be considerably i n c r e a s e d i i f c a r e f u l consideration i s taken about the shadow l i n e s cast by surrounding skyscrapers p a r t i c u l a r l y during the 164 Figure 58 : Expansive Grass Lawns Wasted F a c i l i t i e s for Downtown Plazas. They should be Avoided or Articulated Users Tend to Spread Thinly.on Non-articulated Grass Areas Low Shrubs and Ground Covers (Approx. 1 to l ' - 6 " high) Well Below Eye-level While Squatting Small Screens of Shrubs \ (Approx. 2'-6" - 3'-0" high) improved ^  Low Mounds Segregate Users: They May Ef f i c i e n t l y Offer Some Experience of Turf in Small PlsviS. Articulation of Expansive Lawns with Shrubberies May Provide Niches for Users as Well as Visual Variety . 165 peak-use hours. Some ways of u t i l i z i n g shaded parts may be to provide p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e or novel features that could generate transient l o i t e r i n g or li n g e r i n g around. Wherever.appropriate, f a c i l i t i e s l i k e food s t a l l s , l o t t e r y t i c k e t s e l l i n g , etc., may locate themselves i n the shade while sunny areas are used f o r seating. Shaded locations, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , may be t o t a l l y landscaped with plant materials that thrive i n the shadow of buildings. An i n t e r e s t i n g piece of data of t h i s study i s the p a r t i c u l a r recreation pot e n t i a l of waterfront plazas. Althought i t s implication-may not be universal, i t i s relevant i n the context of Downtown Vancouver or such other c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t s where p o s s i b i l i t i e s may ex i s t to provide such public outdoors for the enjoyment of sceniciview. As was evident i n the present study, waterfront plazas a t t r a c t a wide variety of people, o f f e r retreat for el d e r l y users and may require less s i t e design e f f o r t s than other spaces to ensure t h e i r attractiveness. A few aspects of th e i r design, however,,may be important to note. Besides, a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e i r edges, an o v e r a l l narrow and l i n e a r shape i s l i k e l y to be more e f f i c i e n t than a large area penetrating deep into the i n t e r i o r . Extensive waterfront plazas should, preferably, have counter attractions and a progressive r e a l i z a t i o n of the panoramic view to users i n order to be e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e d (for instance see Figure 59). The public recreation p o t e n t i a l of the waterfront i n the h.eart of the c i t y may be e f f i c i e n t l y .exploited'if such viewing 166 Area remote from the view would need strong man-made focal element to attract use. Devise a circuitous movement route aound artifacts between the entrance and the waterfront edge. Burrard Inlet Burrard Inlet Screens may provide a progressive realization s e ^ i n g ^ e a s ! " » " " M t 4 present Burrard Inlet Figure 59 : Granville square: large open space on waterfront locations would need counterbalances and a progressive realization of the view in order to be effectively u t i l i z e d . Railway Station The wide open scenery d i r e c t l y pulls uses for the very entrance to the remotest waterfront edge; relegation of artifacts towards the side leaves a straight movement route open. . 167 decks are v i s i b l e from and close to the mainstreams of pedestrian movement within the Downtown. These few considerations with regard to the v i s u a l design and s i t e planning of plazas and squares may render them perceptually pleasant as well as e f f i c i e n t public places. The exploratory nature of t h i s study, however, would leave questions and raise issues that are to be c l e a r l y resolved through future researches. Although a few general guidelines for the i n t e r n a l landscape of plazas could be outlined i n the present study, a rigorous analysis of the perceptual potentials of various types or combinations of form, colour or textures of landscape elements suitable for these spaces could not be made. Since i n t e r n a l land-scape of these small spaces can s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r people's perceptions and f e e l i n g of pleasure, a large-scale comparison among d i f f e r e n t types of natural or man-made materials may be of i n t e r e s t i n future studies. Such comparisons of the perceptual potentials of d i f f e r e n t forms may be made through people's responses to simulated environments. Furthermore, the role of the physical environment of plazas on people's arousal-nonarousal or the f e e l i n g of dominance-submissiveness was not revealed i n t h i s study. Is arousing q u a l i t y a desirable attribute for these spaces? To what extent? and, what are i t s physical implications? The small size of samples and lack of subjects' comments on t h e i r f e e l i n g were impediments for a rigorous analysis i n 168 t h i s r e g a r d . Although the p e r c e p t u a l data of t h i s study d i d not throw s u f f i c i e n t l i g h t on people's dominance-e l i c i t a t i o n a cross p l a z a s , the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n of people w i t h i n spaces and t h e i r , use of f u r n i t u r e elements suggested t h a t o r i e n t a t i o n a l and p o s t u r a l c h o i c e , p e r s o n a l space and t e r r i t o r i a l freedom are important needs of users o f these environments and c o u l d be supported through d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and. a r t i c u l a t i o n i n the form and arrangement of s e a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . While the focus of the study was p r i m a r i l y on the v i s u a l q u a l i t y and c o n f i g u r a t i o n of spaces themselves a few f i n d i n g s would r a i s e i s sues; p e r t a i n i n g t o the o v e r a l l open space p l a n n i n g i n the downtown con t e x t t h a t need t o be r e s o l v e d through f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . The d e s i g n of the space i t s e l f can s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r people's f e e l i n g and use. Even then, the g e n e r a l l y low l e v e l o f use observed i n most p l a z a s may r a i s e doubt about the u t i l i t y o f e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c open space f a c i l i t i e s i n the h e a r t t o f the c i t y . Concomitant with the q u e s t i o n of gross quantum, the q u e s t i o n of s i z e and d i s t r i b u t i o n of these spaces may be r a i s e d . Both p e r c e p t u a l and b e h a v i o r a l data ©f the study converged on the m e r i t of s m a l l and compact open spaces r a t h e r than e x t e n s i v e s p a r s e l y f u r n i s h e d p l a z a s . Apparently , t h e r e f o r e , a decentralized r a t h e r than a c e n t r a l i z e d p a t t e r n of open space development i n the^ h e a r t o f the c i t y would be d e s i r a b l e from a p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n a l use p o i n t of view. However, one may again ask, how much d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ? And what are the 169 other planning implications? Furthermore, t h i s study points out the merit of mixed landuse development from the point of view of sustaining the use of open spaces over the day. I t also points out that i n the o f f i c e d i s t r i c t of the Downtown, integrating commercial highrise developments around common plazas may lead to greater u t i l i z a t i o n of these outdoor f a c i l i t i e s than what i s possible through the t y p i c a l piecemeal development of precincts associated with i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e towers. These issues along with the problem of shade and wind turbulance commonly associated with downtown plazas would, i n essence, h i g h l i g h t the need for an integrated approach to public open space planning i n the centre of the c i t y and a co-ordinated control of the relationship between masses and voids as opposed to the piecemeal private action that currently provide the majority of public open spaces within the Downtown. While some of these questions and issues may, hope-f u l l y , i n s p i r e future research an array of simple but r e a l i s t i c means to support human needs and preferences has been l a i d out by t h i s study i n front of designers of public plazas and squares. The substance of t h i s study lay not merely i n the findings themselves but i n i t s demonstration that a systemic exploration into human emotional and behavioral responses to e x i s t i n g settingsdmay provide modest yet potent ways of designing them better. 170 Theoretical postulations on human perceptual preferences and behavioral needs developed by the psychological sciences were-translated.into .physical terms i n the context of a set of very common day-to-day settings.. These settings i n the centre of" the modern 1city are s t e r i l e counterparts of the s o c i a l l y r i c h plazas vand squares of the past; and the s t e r i l i t y i n t h e i r s o c i a l makeup demands that t h e i r physical make-up should be a t t r a c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t enough to render them useful spaces i n the c i t y . Yet, possibly i n no other instances of our day-to-day settings has objective research into the relat i o n s h i p between the physical environment and human feelings and behaviour been so lacking as i n the case of Downtown plazas and squares. More often than not we plan merely for the building rather than for the open space or for both; the l e a s t that we plan for i s people . in the landscape.lt i s possible, as t h i s study may suggest, to take- a more human approach to the design of these small outdoor spaces i n the centre of our c i t i e s . 1 7 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, C h r i s t o p h e r . 1964. Notes on the S y n t h e s i s o f form. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Alexander, C h r i s t o p h e r . 1968. "The Environmental p a t t e r n language", E k i s t i c s , 25. Alexander, C h r i s t o p h e r , Sara Ishikawa and Murray S i l v e r s t e i n . 1968. A p a t t e r n language t h a t generates m u l t i  s e r v i c e c e n t r e s , Centre f o r Environmental S t r u c t u r e , Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . Alexander, C h r i s t o p h e r . 1970. C e n t r i p e t a l p e d e s t r i a n paths, Centre f o r Environmental S t r u c t u r e , Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., Myer, J . 1964. "A View from the road", Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press. Appleyard, D. 1969. " C i t y d e s i g n e r s and the p l u r a l i s t i c c i t y " , i n L. Rodwin e t a l . (eds.), R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g f o r  Development, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. P r e s s . Appleyard, D. and L i n t e l l , M. 1970. Environmental Q u a l i t y of  C i t y S t r e e t s , B e r k e l e y , I n s t , o f Urban and Re g i o n a l Development, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a . Attneave, F. 1957. " P h y s i c a l determinants of judged complexity of shapes", J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 53: 221-227. Attneave, F. 1959. A p p l i c a t i o n o f Information Theory to  Psychology.,, N.Y. , H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Barker, Roger G. 1968. E c o l o g i c a l Psychology, C a l i f o r n i a , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , P r e s s , B e r l y n e , D.E. 1960. C o n f l i c t , A r o u s a l and C u r i o s i t y , N.Y., McGraw H i l l . B e r l y n e , D.E.,and Lawrence, G.H. 1964. " E f f e c t s o f complexity and i n c o n g r u i t y v a r i a b l e s on GSR, i n v e s t i g a t o r y behaviour and v e r b a l l y expressed p r e f e r e n c e " , J o u r n a l of Gen. Psychology, 71: 21-45. 172 Berlyne, D. E., and Lewis, J. L. 1963. "Effects of heightened arousal on human exploratory behaviour", CANADIAN JOURNAL  OF PSYCHOLOGY, 17: 398-411. Blumenfeld, Hans. 1967. The Modern Metropolis, Cambridge/ Mass., M.I.T. Press. Burton, T. L. (ed.). 1970. Recreation Research and Planning, Oxford, Aldan and Mowbray. Clay, Grady. 1961. "Magnets, generators, feeders; the necessities of open urban space", Journal of A.I.A., XXXV. Craik, Kenneth H. 1968. "The comprehension of the everyday environ-ment", Journal of the A.I.P., 34: 29-37. Craik, Kenneth, H. 1970. "Environmental psychology", New Directions  i n Psychology 4, N.Y., Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cullen, Gordon. 1961. Townscape, N.Y., Reinhold. Day, H. I. 1967. "A subjective d e f i n i t i o n of complexity", PERCEP-TUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, VOL. 25. Deasy, C. M. 1974. Design for Human A f f a i r s , N.Y., John Wiley. Deasy, C. M. 1970. "People Watching with a Purpose", Journal of the A.I.A., Dec: 35-39. De Jonge, Derk-. 1967. "Applied hodology", Landscape, '17: 10-11. Doxiadis, C. 1968. E k i s t i c s , N.Y., Oxford University Press. Doxiadis, CA., et a l . (ed.). 1974.,Anthropopolis: City for  Human Development, N.Y.-, Norton. Eckbo, Garrett. 1961. Urban Landscape Design, N.Y., F. W. Dodge. Eckbo, Garrett. 1969. Landscape We See, N.Y., McGraw H i l l . Fiske, D. W. and S. R. Maddi. 1961. Functions of Varied Experience, 111., Dorsey" Press. Friedman, S. and J. B. Juhasz. 1974. Environments: Notes and  Selections on Objects, Spaces and Behaviour, C a l i f . , Brooks and Cole. Fruin, J. 1971. Pedestrian Planning and Design, N.Y.-.,- Mandep Press. Gans, Herbert. 1957. "Recreation planning for l e i s u r e behaviour", unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univ. of Pennsylvania. Garner, W. R. 1962. Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological  Concepts., N.Y., John Wiley. 173 Goffman, E r v i n g , 1 9 6 3 . Behaviour i n P u b l i c P l a c e s ; Notes on the S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n Of Ga t h e r i n g , N";¥. , The Free P r e s s . Gold, Seymour M. 1 9 7 3 . Urban R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g , P h i l . Lea and Febiger.• Grey, A.L. e t . a l 1 9 7 0 . People and Downtown, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington. Guggenheimer, E.C. 1 9 6 9 . P l a n n i n g f o r Parks and R e c r e a t i o n  Needs i n Urban Areas, N.Y. Twayhe P u b l i s h e r s . Gutheim, F. 1963. "Urban Space and Urban Design" i n C i t i e s and  Space, Lowdon Wingo J r . (ed), John Hopkins, B a l t i m o r e . H a l l , E.T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension, Golden C i t y , N.Y. H a l l , E.T. 1966."Anthropology i n Space"^ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, Vol.140. H a l p r i n , Lawrence. 1963. C i t i e s , N.Y. Reinhold. H a l p r i n , Lawrence, 1969. C r e a t i v e Processes i n Human Environment, N.Y., George B r a z i l l i e r . H i l b e r s e i m e r , L. 1955. The Nature of C i t i e s ? . Chicago, P.Theobold. Heron, W. 1957B "The Pathology o f Boredom", SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Jan., 52-56. Hutt, S.J. and C. Hutt. 1970. D i r e c t O b s e r v a t i o n and Measurement  of Behaviour., C.C. Thomas, I I I . I t t l e s o n , W.H., L.G. R i v l i n and H.M. Proshansky. 1970. "The Use of B e h a v i o r a l Maps i n Environmental Psychology", Environmental Psychology, Proshansky e t a l (ed), N.Y. H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston. Jacobs, Jane, 1967. "Maintenance i n Urban Parks and Open Spaces", i n H.W. Eldredge(ed) Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , N.Y. Doubleday. Jacobs, Jane, 1969. "The Uses of Neighbourhood Parks", i n W.H.Seymour(ed), Small Urban Spaces. N.Y., New York U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and L i f e o f Great American  C i t i e s , N.Y. V i n t a g e . J e l l i c o e , G.A. and Susan J e l l i c o e 1975. The Landscape of Man, N.Y. V i k i n g P r e s s . 174 Leckart, B.T. and Bakan, P. 1965. "Complexity Judgements of Photographs, and Looking Time", PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR  SKILLS, 21:16-18. Lee, T. 1971. "The Ef f e c t s of B u i l t Environment on Human Behaviour", INT.JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, Vol. 1, No.l. Lindsay, B. 1973. Methods of Studying the E f f e c t s of the  Surroundings on Outdoor A c t i v i t i e s In Urban Public  Spaces, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, i n Plant Science. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Lewis, David (ed.) 1966. The Pedestrian i n the C i t y , N.J. Von Nostrand. Lowenthal, David (ed). 196 7. Environmental Perception and  Behaviour,ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press. Lyle, JohnnT. 19 70. "People Watching i n Parks", LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE, 31:51-52 Lynch, Kevin. 196 0. The Image of the City, Boston,:Cambridge Press. Lynch, Kevin.and M. Rivkin, 1970. "A Walk Around the Block", Environmental Psychology, H.M. Proshansky et a l (ed), N.Y. Holt, Rmehart and Winston. Mehrabien, A. and J. Russel.1974. An Approach to Environmental  Psychology, M.I.T. Press. Mehrabien, A and S.G. Diamond. 19 71. "Seating Arrangement and Conversation", SOCIOMETRY, 34: 281-289. Michelson, William H. 1970. Man and His Urban Environment: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach, Mass..-/Addis&ji-Wesley Publishing Co. Michelson, William H. 1975. Behavioral Research Methods i n Environmental Design, Eenn. Dowdon, Hutchinson and Ross. Mumford, L. 1961. The City i n History, N.Y. Harcourt, Brace and World. Parr, Albert E. 1966. "Psychological aspects of urbanology", JOURNAL OF. SOCIAL ISSUES, Vol.12. Parr, A.E. 1965. "Environmental Design and Psychology", LANDSCAPE winter 14, 15-18. Peter, George M. 1968. Public Squares, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. 175 P i a t t , J.R. 1959. "The F i f t h Need of Man", HORIZON, VI, 106-111. Porteus, J.D. 1971. "Design with People", ENVIRONMENT .AND BEHAVIOUR Vol. 3, No.2. Preiser, W.F.E. 1971. "The Use of Ethological Methods i n Environmental Analysis: a case study", EDRA THREE. Proshansky, H.M. e t . a l . (ed). 1970. Environmental Psychology, N.Y. Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Rapoport, Amos. 1970. "Observations Regarding Man-environment Studies", Man-Environment Systems, Sheet No. P L , January. Rapoport, and Robert Kantor. 1967. "Complexity and Ambuigity i n Environmental Design", Journal of the A.T.P.-,July. Rudofsky, Bernard. 1969. Streets for People, N.Y. Doubleday. Sanoff, Henry. 1969. V i s u a l Aesthetics of the Physical Environment, Research Paper, Design Research Lab., North Carolina State University. Simonds, J.O. 1961. Landscape Architecture, N.Y., F.W. Dodge Corporation. S i t t e , Camillo. 1965. City Planning According to A r t i s t i c P r i n c i p l e s , Translated by George R. and C.C. C o l l i n s , N.Y., Random House. Sommer, Robert. 1965. "The Significance of Space", Journal of  the A.I.A., 63-65. Sommer, Robert, 1969. Personal Space: the Behavioral Basis of  Design, N.J.. Englewood C l i f f s . Sommer, Robert. 19 72. Design Awareness, C a l i f o r n i a , Rinehart Press. Spieregen, Paul D. 1965. Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns  and C i t i e s , NcY. McGraw H i l l . S t i l i t z , I.B. 1969. "The role of s t a t i c pedestrian groups i n crowded spaces", ERGONOMICS, Vol.12, No.6, 821-839. S t i l i t z , I.B. 1970. "Pedestrian Congestion"; A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Psychology, D.V. Canter (ed.) , LondonR. I.-B..'A. Publications. Tankel, S.B.,1966. "The Importance of Open Space i n the Urban Pattern" i n C i t i e s and Space. Lowdon Wingo Jr.(ed) Baltimore, John Hopkins. 176 T h e i l , P h i l i p , 1970. "Notes on the Description, Scaling, Notation and Scoring of Some Perceptual and Cognitive Attributes of the Physical Environment", Environmental  Psychology, Proshansky et a l . (ed). N.Y. HHolt, Rinehart and Winston. Venturi, R. 1966. Complexity and Contradiction i n Architecture, N.Y., The Museum of Modern Art. V i g i e r , F.C. 1965. "An Experimental Approach to Urban Design", Journal of the A.I.P., 31 : 21-30. V i t z , P.C. 1966. "Preference f o r Different Amounts of Visual Complexity", BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, I I , 105-114. Wade, John W. 19 76. "The Design P r a c t i t i o n e r and His Research Needs." i n War, L.K., et a l . (ed.) The Behaviroal Basis of  Design, Book I, Eenn. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., pp. 339-341. Webb, E.J., D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz and L. Sceherst. 1966. Unobstrusive Measures, Chicago, Rand McNally. Whyte, W.H. 1972. "Please, Just a Nice Place to S i t " , The New York Times Magazine, December 3, pp.20-22. Wohlwill, J.F. 1968. "Amount of Stimulus Exploration and Preference as D i f f e r e n t i a l Functions of Stimulus Complexity", PERCEPTION AND PSYCHOPHYSICS, 4, 307-312. Zisman. 1967. "Open Spaces i n Urban Growth" i n Taming Megalopolis, H.W. Eldredge (ed.), N.Y., Doubleday. Zucker, Paul. 1959. Town and Square, N.Y. Colombia University Press. 177 APPENDIX - A . S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l M e a s u r e s o f E m o t i o n a l . S t a t e s . P l e a s u r e Happy P l e a s e d S a t i s f i e d C o n t e n t e d H o p e f u l R e l a x e d Unhappy A n n o y e d U n s a t i s i f i e d M e l a n c h o l i c D e s p a i r i n g B o r e d A r o u s a l S t i m u l a t e d E x c i t e d F r e n z i e d J i t t e r y Wide -awake A r o u s e d R e l a x e d C a l m S l u g g i s h D u l l S l e e p y U n a r o u s e d Dominance C o n t r o l l i n g -I n f l u e n t i a l -I n C o n t r o l -I m p o r t a n t -D o m i n a n t Autonomous -C o n t r o l l e d I n f l u e n c e d C a r e d f o r Awed S u b m i s s i v e G u i d e d A P P E N D I X - B S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l S c a l e s M e a s u r i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R a t e o f an e n v i r o n m e n t . Crowded : : : : : : ——: : : U n c r o w d e d Homogeneous : : : : : : : : h e t e r o g e n e o u s V A r i e d : : : .: : : : : r e d u n d a n t S i m i l a r : : : : : : : : c o n t r a s t i n g S m a l l - s c a l e • - — : : : : : : : : l a r g e - s c a l e S i m p l e : : : — — : : : : : c o m p l e x S u r p r i s i n g s : : : : : : : u s u a l N o v e l : : : : : : : : f a m i l i a r S p a r s e : : : : : : : : d ense I n t e r m i t t e n t : : : : — . — . c o n t i n u o u s Common s : : : : — t—r—: : r a r e A s y m m e t r i c a l : : s : ! : ! : s y m m e t r i c a l D i s t a n t : : : : : : : — : i m m e d i a t e Random » J s i s : : : p a t t e r n e d A p p e n d i x C - Su r v e y M e a s u r i n g E m o t i o n - e l i c i t i n g q u a l i t i e s and I n f o r m a t i o n R a t e s o f P l a z a E n v i r o n m e n t s (to be f i l l e d out la . -X. Tour - f e e l i n g s " In the s e t t i n g Each s e t t i n g e l i c i t s Impressions and f e e l i n g s I n our m i n i s . We would l i k e t o know what k i n d of f e e l i n g s you get I n t h i s plaza/square s e t t i n g where you are j u s t now. Please use the a d j e c t i v e p a i r s below t o r a t e your f e e l i n g s . Some of the p a i r s might seem unusual,but y o u ' l l p r o b a b l y f e e l more one way than the o t h e r . S o , f o r each p a i r , p u t a check nark ( e x a m p l e : — : - ^ — - ) c l o s e t o a d j e c t i v e which you b e l i e v e t o d e s c r i b e your f e e l i n g s b e t t e r . The more a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t a d j e c t i v e seems,the e l o s e r you should put your check marks t o i t . s l e e p y s a t i s f i e d l n - e o n t r o l c o n t r o l l e d bored J i t t e r y annoyed vnaroused h o p e f u l f r e n z i e d unhappy dominant contented awed guided s t i m u l a t e d l n f l u e n c l a l calm wide-awake u n s a t i s f i e d c a r e d - f o r c o n t r o l l i n g r e l a x e d .. d u l l pleased aroused d l s p a l r l n g s l u g g i s h happy submissive melaneholle Important autonomous r e l a x e d I n f l u e n c e d e x c i t e d environment around you w h i l e you ore u s l n c t h i s plaza/oquare ( c o n s i d e r * - i n e o i l t o c o t h c r whatever t h i n g s you ses w h i l e u s i n g t h i s a r e a ) . Each of the f o l l o w i n g a d j e c t i v o p a i r s helps d e f i n o the environment which i s v i s i b l e t o people u s i n g t h i s a r e a . F o r each p a i r , p u t a check mark c l o s e t o tho a d j e c t i v e which you b o l i c v o t o d e s c r i b e t h i s v i s u a l environment b e t t e r . The moro a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t a d j e c t i v e seems,the c l o s e r you put your check mark t o i t . crowded homogenooufl v a r i e d similar s m a l l - s c a l e olmplo s u r p r i s i n g novel sparse int»n-lttent oommon asym m e t r i c a l d i s t a n t random uncrowded heterogeneous redundant contrasting large-scale complex u s u a l f a n l l i a r dense continuous r a r e s y m m e t r i c a l Immediate p a t t e r n e d 2. "Aroearance" of the s e t t i n g Bow use t h e f o l l o w i n g a d j e c t i v e p a i r * t o deeerlbe the visual 3. A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many times have you been l a t h i s p l a z a / s q u a r e d u r i n g the past y e a r ? (Ploaoe mention the number) . 4. P l e a s e s u p p l y the f o l l o w i n g I n f o r m a t i o n ! • ft) Date o f t h i s v i s i t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b) l i m e o f t h i s v i s i t e) Woathor c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g your s t a y I n t h i s p l a z a / s q u a r e (cheek t h o a p p r o p r i a t e boxes b e l o w ) i 1) sunny and c l e a r oky • ; n o d o r o t e l y b r i g h t weather O ;verjr c l o u d y and poor l i g h t c o n d i t i o n • j 11) not windy a (windy • Aj Tour ago 8 y o u r BOX . 00 A P P E N D I X - D Te would like te taow "Why" you f e l t more one nay than another i n each of the plaza/square *nvirennents you visited. ?ire statements on personal impressions are given Below. Por each plaza/square you visited and for each statement check( } "yes" I f the statement agrees with your feelings and impressions i n that environment and "no" i f i t disagrees,and then,state briefly.why i.e what aspects/features of the environment you think might he responsible for your feeling or impression. Personal impressions First Plaza/square Second Plaza/square'- .. Third Plaza/square ,., Pourth, Plaza/square F i f t h Plaza/square I.I f e l t more pleased end happy than displeased i n the plaza/square environment yes n ! no • Why: yes 0 ; no Q Why: yes • ; no • Why: yes • 1 no O Why: yes O ; so O Whyr 2. I f e l t more stimulated and excited than Bored i n the plaza/square environment yes • t no • Why yes D j no D Why: yes a ; no a Why: yes • 5 no • Why: yes • ; no C Say: 3.1 f e l t more autonomous and in-contfol than guided and cared-for i n the plaza/ square environment yes • 1 no Q Why yes D j no n Why: yes • j no a Why: yes 0 J n o • Why: yes n ; no D Why: 4.1 found the visual environ--ment more varied than redun--dant yes n ; no • Whys yes O ; no P Why: yes • j no • Why: yes Q ; no n Why: yes • | no D Why: -5.1 found the visual environ--ment more, surprising and novel than usual and familiar yes Q ; no • Whys yes O ; no • • Why: :. . . . yes • : no • Why: yes • 1 no • Why: yes • j no n Why: 180 APPENDIX - E ILLUSTRATION OF A TYPICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC OBSERVATION OR RECORDING SESSION (Refer, pp 43-51) Log Sheet LOG SXZST ]««L_ ?>_A1A UillaikJiJa. . r:s.y. xo. S-v-»i CATS • alisi£i_i£i. oii.sza. 7<.y.z 13 to Cloudr cards ' , n RSMARK.a t ; ; s a T ) : Very su»»y <rl-»jfci. -in* oil aifiv plass. PZS'JlSUi CSSV. I3IO. S;y,OG3A?r i IC CH.| A j £ 5cA G r a y ? tii-51. t- J.^ i ij:-st. 13 -is-M 53 LI 7*?? A C T I g-S i r t i r u j - p o o l ' s c J ^ e . . ---e a»J. «JJ • - . a 3 ».2 I ^ « M *\ .... J>f;-0 y r- i cUT»«Y p^-^-^ ^ j O a i L ^ ' ' ~ ' Li • ~TTJ 1 -'LTOCATIOM BO*, A OH R E A R ~ X " 5 — , 1 p^>u;r«.- ^. 1TV\*~/ -MUsl. ^jCi ^wMw i ' n c ^ . , 182 183 Frame Nos. APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION OF OBSERVATION SESSIONS Conditions of STUDY AREAS Observations G r a n v i l l e B e n t a l l Court- P a c i f i c I.B.M. Trounce • V i c t o r y MacMillan Guiness Baxter Sq. Two House Sq. Centre Plaza A l l e y Sq. Sq. Bloedel Plaza P l a z a SEASON Spring 43 38 15 29 30 27 41 31 30 30 % t o t a l 65.2 58.5 42.9 56.9 61.2 52.9 58.6 73.8 57.7 57.7 Summer 23 27 ' 20 22 19 24 29 13 22 22 % t o t a l 34.8 41.5 57.1 43.1 38.8 47.1 41.4 • 31.0 42.3 42.3 WEATHER CONDITION • Clear 41 43 .18 35 30 40 56 26 36 37 % t o t a l 62.1 66.2 51.4 68.6 61.2 78.4 80.0 61.9 69.2 71.2 Cloudy 19 15 12 11 13 11 13 9 10 9 % t o t a l 28.8 23.1 34.3 21.6 26.5 21.6 18.6 •21.4 19.2 17.3 Wet 4 7 5 5 6 0 1 6 6 6 % t o t a l 6.1 10.8 14.3 9.8 12.2 0.0 1.4 14.3 11.5 11.5 TIME OF THE DAY Before 10 a.m. 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 % t o t a l 4.5 3.1 5.7 3.9 4.1 3.9 5.7 4.8 3.8 3.8 10-11 a.m. 6 5 3 3 5 4 6 5 4 5 % t o t a l 9.1 7.7 8.6 5.9 10.2 7.8 8.6 11.9 7.6 9.6 11-12 p.m. 7 8 4 5 7 5 5 5 7 5 % t o t a l 10.6 12.3 11.4 9.8 14.3 9.8 7.1 . 11.9 13.5 9.6 12-1 p.m. 12 11 7 8 • 9 8 12 9 12 3 % t o t a l 18.2 16.9 20.0 15.7 18.4 15.7 7.1 21.4 23.1 15.4 1-2 p.m. 8 14 5 9 7 6 10 8 7 10 % t o t a l 12.1 21.5 14.3 17.6 14.3 11.8 14.3 19.0 13.5 19.2 2-3 p.m. 8 5 3 7 7 7 8 6 8 7 % t o t a l 12.1 7.7 8.6 13.7 ' 14.3 13.7 11.4 14.3 15.4 13.5 3-4 p.m. 10 7 3 8 4 9 12 4 5 6 % t o t a l 15.2 10.8 8.6 15.7 8.2 17.6 17.1 9.5 9.6 11.5 4-5 p.m. 7 9 5 5 6 7 6 2 4 6 % t o t a l 10.6 13.8 14.3 9.8 12.2 13.7 8.6 4.8 7.6 11.5 A f t e r 5 p.m. 5 4 3 4 2 3 7 1 3 3 % t o t a l 7.6 6.2 8.6 7.8 4.1 5.9 10.0 2.4 5.8 5.8 T O T A L 66 65 35 51 49 51 70 42 52 52 10Q.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 APPENDIX G ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF SCORES ON INFORMATION RATE SCALE • Factor 1 (3.675) Factor 2 (1.849) Factor 3 (1.599) Factor 4 (1.239) Factor 5 (1.019) 1. Surprising - usual 0.84708 0.09191 0.13129 0.05979 0.05822 2. Common - rare 0.78081 -0.02984 -0.10559 0.15697 0.11330 3. Novel - familiar 0.75695 0.02770 0.16800 0.12743 -0.14522 4. Similar - contrasting 0.68422 0.06875 0.06099 0.31377 0.10253 5. Variety - redundant 0.65024 0.096C7 0.02926 0.49496 .-0.06853 6. Asymmetrical - symmetrical 0.25546 -0.00028 0.71224 0.06992 0.07529 7. Simple - complex 0.16808 0.50174 0.10148 0.54012 0.05822 8. Distant - immediate 0.16785 0.33763 -0.35045 0.13326 -0.61186 9. Sparse - dense 0.13300 0.79478 -0.14561 0.24030 -0.09772 10. Homogeneous - heterogeneous 0.10009 -0.00636 0.25923 0.81233 0-00827 11. Small scale - large scale 0.06542 0.08089 ' -0.05096 0.11234 0.84941 12. Random - patterned -0.03020 0.13859 0.74949 0.21119 0.07015 13. Intermittent - continuous -0.03453 -0.23817 0.50447 0.49537 . -0.15245 14. Crowded - uncrowded -0.06841 0.81917 0.1994,0 -0.21989 0.01811 186 APPENDIX H : INTERNAL FURNISHING ELEMENTS OF PLAZAS. g p i rt H •187 Provincial Courthouse G E O R G I A S T R E E T ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. COURTHOUSE SQUARE PROB. SCULPTURAL 1. A b s t r a c t stone s c u l p t u r e ELEMENTS i n the ce n t r e o f p o o l 2. L i o n s on grand entrance to Courthouse WATER BODY 3. S t i l l pool w i t h m u l t i -c o l o u r e d ceramic t i l e f l o o r 4. T a l l j e t f o u n t a i n i n the c e n t r e o f p o o l 5. Low f o r c e f u l j e t s a t the base o f p o o l -sculphere 6. Set o f j e t s forming low a r c h i n g c i r c u l a r r i n g s on e i t h e r s i d e 7. Above j e t s forming slow ration i n d i v i d u a l v e r t i c a l s PLANT MATERIALS 8. Large r e c t a n g u l a r f l o w e r beds 9. Rectangular Shrub-bed' 10. Cherry t r e e s 11". Shrub mass edging on lawns 18 1 IS 0.008 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.141 0.016 0.008 0.117 0.016 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) » 4.171 AREA APPROX. = 28,000 Sq.Ft. PLANT MATERIALS 12. 13, FREQ. 14. IS . 16. 17. POOL PLANTER 18. STRUCTURE ELEMENT TYPES Small p a r t e r e s Small hedge w a l l s on C e n t r a l c o u r t . Long Hedge w a l l s along passage Large Coniferous t r e e s 2 Med.size Shrub masses along b u i l d i n g w a l l 2 S l o p i n g bank p l a n t i n g along Howe S t r e e t sidewalk ] A r t i c u l a t e d P o o l c o n t a i n e r 1 OTHER 19. Round Cone-planter 20. Monumental Grand S t a i r c a s e 21. Small s t a i r - s e a t s 22. Ramps 23. S t a i r R a i l s 24. F l a g Poles 25. Commemorative T a b l e t 26. Small p i l l a r s 27. D e c o r a t i v e R a i l i n g s 28. L i g h t P o l e s 29. Metal b i n s 30. Grass Lawns 12 18 PROB. ( P ^ / N ) 0.016 0.062 3.016 0.016 0.016 0.00S 0.008 0.031 0.008 0.047 0.016 0.062 0.047 0.008 0.094 0.016 0.141 0.016 0.016 N=128 188 BENTALL TOVIER TWO 1 , . i •plaia 1? B U R R A R D S T R E E . T BENTALL TWO PLAZA iREMENT IYPi.3 FROB, ( p ^ i SCULPTURE l . One f o r m - t y p e 1 0.023 WATER BODY 2. 3. L a r g e r e c t a n g u l a r p o o l F o u n t a i n o f one f o r m o f vatermovement 1 1 0.023 0.023 SEATS 4. 8 f t . w h i t e t e r r a z o f i n i s h e d c o n c r e t e b e n c h 2 0.046 PLANT MATERIALS 5. 6. S m a l l t r e e s i n round p l a n t e r s F l o w e r mass (Type A) 4 1 0.093 0.023 7. F l o w e r mass (Type B) 1 0.023 8. F l o w e r mass (Type C) 1 0.023 9. F l o w e r mass (Type D) 4 0.093 10. Shrub mass (Type A) 6 0.139 11 . Shrub mass (Type B) 1 0.023 12. A clump o f e x o t i c s h r u b s 1 0.029 1 3 . Shrub ( t y p e D) 2 0.046 POOL/PLASTER 14. STRUCTURES 15. 10'x20' W h i t e t e r r a z o f i n i s h e d c o n c r e t e boxes 8 f t . sq.above f i n i s h e d box 2 1 0.046 0.023 16. 4 f t . round above f i n i s h e d b o x e s 4 0.093 17. L a r g e 30'x60' above f i n i s h e d p o o l c o n t a i n e r 1 0.023 OTHER 18 Rock c l u s t e r s i n p o o l 2 0.046 19. R o d - d u s t e r i n p l a n t e r s 1 • 0.023 20. F l a g p o l e s 3 0.069 2 1 . C o n c r e t e a s t r a y s 2 0.046 22. S i g n 1 0.023 H-46 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) » 4.163 APPROX. AREA - 7,700 Sq,.fe. 189 MACMILLAN AND BLOEDEL G E O R G I A S T R E E T WATER BODY PLANT MAT. POOL/PINT. STRUCTURES OTHER ELEMENT TYPES 1. Shallow pools with green ceramic tiles floor 2. Shrubby ground covers 3. Flower masses 4. Shrub masses 5. Small trees in container 6. Conifers in row along west wall FREQ. n. 6 6 2 6 2 2 7. Hedgerow on east wall 8. Square concrete planters 13 9. Oblong low pools edge 2 10. Stairs 1 11. Parapet walls 2 12. Concrete railing 2 13. Sign 1_ N=46 PROB. Pi = n±/N •' 0.043 0.130 0.130 0.043 0.130 0.043 0.043 0.283 . 0.043 0.022 0.043 0.043 0.022 MACKLLLAN-BLOEDEL PLAZA AV. UNCERTAINTY FACTOR (U) = 3.248 AREA ...10,800 Sq.ft. approx. ' 190-G R A N V 1 L L E S T R E E T PACIFIC CENTRE PLAZ* SCULPTURAL ELEMENTS WATER BODY PLANT MATERIALS POOL § PLANTER STRUCTURES OTHER ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. ( n i ) 1. A t a l l a b s t r a c t m e t a l 1 2. O b l o n g S t i l l p o o l 1 3. F o u n t a i n (one S h e e t o f w a t e r (one form) 1 4; M e d . s i z e d d e c i d u o u s t r e e s a l o n g E a t o n ' s w a l l 3 5. Shrub mass A. 1 6. Shrub mass B. 1 7. One o b l o n g p o o l c o n t a i n e r 1 8. T r a p i z o i d a l p l a n t e r 1 9. Wide s t a i r s 1 10. Narrow s t a i r s 5' 11. S t a i r h a n d r a i l s 5 12. Small C y l i n d r i c a l a s h t r a y s 6 13. S i g n 1 PROB. ( P i = n i / N ) 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.107 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.173 0.173 0.214 0.036 N =28 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) APROX. AREA = 3.313 = 14,500 S q . f t . .191 Four Seasons Hotel G E O R G I A I.B.M. PLAZA SCULPTURAL ELEMENTS PLANT MATERIALS PLANTER STRUCTURES OTHER ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. •OH).-1. Concrete Cylinders hollow S 3 2. Small round concrete platform 1 3. Fan-shaped stone stepped platform 1 4. Coniferous shrub masses on large planters 2 5. Flower beds on small planters 6 6. Shrub mass on a large c i r c u l a r p l a n t e r 1 i 7. Med.sized trees on large planters 6 8. Small trees on small planters 6 9. Small c i r c u l a r low planters 6 10..Large c i r c u l a r p l a n t e r 1 11. Large oblong planters 2 12. C y l i n d r i c a l Cone.Ashtrays 6 PROB CPi=ni/N) 0.073 0.024 0.024 0.049 0.146 0.024 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.024 0.049 0.146 N = 41 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) = 3.256 APR0X. AREA = 11,700 s q . f t . SHOPPING ARCADE I \ J IH OUNCE ALLEY TROUNCE ALLEY SQUARE •ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. PROB. ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. PROB (Pi-ni/H) ( h ^ (Pi-n^K) SCULPTURAL 1. Antique machine part(wheel) 1 0.014 OTHER 8. Protruding staircase Typo A 2 0.028 ELEMENT 2. Small circular con.drums 6 0.084 9. Protruding staircase Type B l 0.014 with vertical poles 0.042 10. Small steps 3 PLANTER 3. Square Stone Planters 7 0.098 0.070 STRUCTURES 11. Ramps (small) 5 4. Loading platform 1 0.014 0.070 12. Decorative lights 5 5. Articulated Planter 1 0.014 0.070 on East edge 13. Decorative bins 5 PLANT . 15 0.211 ' MATERIALS 6. Juniperous Strub masses 8 0.113 14. Small p i l l e r s 7. Sleder deciduous med. IS. Large Garbage enclosure 1 0.014 trees on square planter 7 0.098 0.042 16. Lantern posts • 3 -. N-71 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) - 3.566 AREA APPROX. » 9,700 0^.ft. • 10 ^ 1 — • BAXTER TOWER 15 10 —1 ^ij-fV1 H A S T I N G S S T R E E T BAXTER PLAZA ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. Cn^ PROB CPi==n SCULPTURE 1. M e t a l S c u l p t u r e A 1 .018 2. M e t a l S c u l p t u r e B 1 .018 3. M e t a l S c u l p t u r e C 1 .018 4. M e t a l S c u l p t u r e D 1 ,018 WATER-BODY 5. S h a l l o w c i r c u l a r s t i l l p o o l 1 .018 6. Low s l o p p i n g j e t 2 .037 PLANT MATERIALS 7. 8. Shrub masses A Shrub masses B 20 5 .370 .092 9. Shrub masses C 5 .092 10. S m a l l d e c i d u o u s t r e e s 5 - .092 POOL PLANTER 11. Low c i r c u l a r p o o l c o n t a i n e r 1 .018 STRUCTURES 12. Square Cone. P l a n t boxes 5 .092 OTHER 13. R a i l i n g s 6 .111 N=54 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) = 3 . 1 9 8 APROX.AREA = 5,800 s q . f t . 194 B U R R A R D I N L E T a _n n , n o. GUINESS TOWER •Tl D Q H A S T I N G S S T E E E T GUNIESS PLAZA ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. Cn 4) SEATS PLANT MATERIALS PLANTER STRUCTURES OTHER 1. Round concrete seats i n Gazebo 6 2. Square wooden benches 16 3. Large trees i n Gazebo 2 4. Flower annuals i n c y l i n d r i c a l planters 1 AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY (U) = 3.839 APROX. AREA + 10,000 Sq.ft. PROB. .061 .163 .020 .010 s. Coniferous shrub i n c y l i n d r i c a l planters S .051 6. Confierous shrubs i n sq.planters on benches 7 .071 7. Flower annuals i n sq.planters on benches (Type A) 4 .041 8. Flower annuals i n sq.planter on benches (Type B) 5 .051 9. S n a i l trees i n sq.planters on benches 4 .041 10. Coniferous shrub masses i n Central Gazebo 4 . .041 11. Rhododendron Shrubs on rectangular beds on West side plaza 6 .061 12. One large c i r c u l a r planter i n Gazebo 1 .010 13. C y l i n d r i c a l Concrete Planters 4 .041 14. Square small cone.plants on benches 15. .153 IS. Small staircases (rectangular plan) 7 .071 16. Small s t a i r c a s e ( c u r v i l i n e a r ) 1 .010 17. Signs 2 ,020 18. Straight r a i l i n g 7 .071 19. C i r c u l a r r a i l i n g i n Gazebo N 1 =98 .010 GRANVILLE SQUARE ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. PROB. (.nt) ( P i ^ / N SCULPTURE 1. A large Complex form composed of large wood cubes 1 0.004 WATER 2. S t i l l Pool (Circular) 2 0.009 BODY 3. Revolving spray jet of abstract shape in the centre of pool 1 0.009 PLANT 4. Slender Small:decid.trees MATERIALS Type A 5 0.023 5. Slender small:decid.trees Type B 53 0.241 6. Shrub mass: Type A 2 0.009 7. Shrub mass: B 2 0.009 8. Shrub mass: C 2 0.009 9. Coniferous hedge 4 0.018 10. Flowering shrubs along r a i l i n g 1 0.004 POOL/PLANTER STRUCTURES 10. Large circular low pool and planter structure 3 0.014 11. Small circular pool str. 1 0.009 12. Small round cone-planter boxes 53 0.241 13. Small square planter 2 0.009 ELEMENT TYPES FREQ. PROB. fai) ( P i ^ i 14.Square wooden low seats in Combination:A 15 O068 15.Square wooden low seats in Combination:B 9 .041 16.Square wooden low seats in Combination C 14 .064 17.Square wooden low seats in Combination D 10 .045 18.Square wooden low seats in Combination E 4. .018 19. Flag poles 3 .014 20. Light poles 18 .082 21. Wooden b^ns 6 .027 22. Railing 7 .032 23.Stair wall 2 .009 UNCERTAINTY (U) = APPROX.AREA N = 220 3.508 60,000 Sq.Ft. 196 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094166/manifest

Comment

Related Items