@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Applied Science, Faculty of"@en, "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Johnson, Richard John"@en ; dcterms:issued "2010-05-25T02:26:10Z"@en, "1984"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """This paper considers the problem of including recreation and open spaces in urban waterfront redevelopments. The major difficulty arises in providing recreation and open spaces that will be well used and therefore easily justified in an area of relatively scarce supply and high demand, such as commonly occurs in urban waterfront redevelopments. The history and recent state of urban waterfronts was examined as were current waterfront redevelopments and their recreation and open spaces. The various types of recreation and open spaces, and the factors that commonly affect them in waterfront locations were also addressed. Case studies of San Antonio's Riverwalk, Toronto's Harbourfront, and Baltimore's Inner Harbour were discussed in detail. Research was conducted and reported on the recreation and open spaces on Granville Island in Vancouver. Peak use periods on a variety of sunny days were studied to determine how well the spaces were used, and total users, users/sq. meter, and factors affecting use were examined. The major conclusion was that on Granville Island and most other urban waterfront redevelopments, urban and marine oriented attractions serve as the most popular recreation and open spaces, and large, passive open spaces are neither in great demand or particularly well used. It was also concluded that passive forms of recreation such as walking, sitting, and viewing, were the most popular activities. It is however important to consider specific situations since they vary from site to site and local needs and conditions can alter this pattern. Finally some suggestions were made as to types of recreation and open spaces that should be considered from inclusion in future Vancouver urban waterfront redevelopments."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/25023?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACE IN URBAN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTS RICHARD JOHN JOHNSON B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF MASTER OF ARTS T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1984 ® RICHARD JOHN JOHNSON, 1984 by in In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: September 1984 A B S T R A C T This paper considers the problem of including recreation and open spaces in urban waterfront redevelopments. The major difficulty arises in providing recreation and open spaces that will be well used and therefore easily justified in an area of relatively scarce supply and high demand, such as commonly occurs in urban waterfront redevelopments. The history and recent state of urban waterfronts was examined as were current waterfront redevelopments and their recreation and open spaces. The various types of recreation and open spaces, and the factors that commonly affect them in waterfront locations were also addressed. Case studies of San Antonio's Riverwalk, Toronto's Harbourfront, and Baltimore's Inner Harbour were discussed in detail. Research was conducted and reported on the recreation and open spaces on Granville Island in Vancouver. Peak use periods on a variety of sunny days were studied to determine how well the spaces were used, and total users, users/sq. meter, and factors affecting use were examined. The major conclusion was that on Granville Island and most other urban waterfront redevelopments, urban and marine oriented attractions serve as the most popular recreation and open spaces, and large, passive open spaces are neither in great demand or particularly well used. It was also concluded that passive forms of recreation such as walking, sitting, and viewing, were the most popular activities. It is however important to consider specific situations since they vary from site to site and local needs and conditions can alter this pattern. Finally some suggestions were made as to types of recreation and open spaces that should be considered from inclusion in future Vancouver urban waterfront redevelopments. i i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I would like to thank my advisors Henry Hightower and Henry Leung for their guidance. I would also like to thank my parents for their support throughout my university career and dedicate this thesis to the memory of Stanley J. Johnson. i v Tab le of Contents Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 HISTORY OF URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH AMERICA 1 1.2 RECENT STATE OF URBAN WATERFRONTS 4 1.3 IMPETUS FOR REDEVELOPMENT 8 1.4 INCLUSION OF RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACE IN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTS 9 1.5 T H E NEED FOR T H E STUDY 12 1.6 DEFINITIONS 13 1.7 OBJECTIVES O F T H E STUDY 14 1.8 M E T H O D O L O G Y 15 1.9 LIMITATIONS OF T H E STUDY 15 2. INCLUSION OF RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACE IN URBAN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT 18 2.1 FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS 18 2.1.1 SITE CONDITIONS 19 2.1.2 USER CHARACTERISTICS A N D L O C A L NEEDS 22 2.2 TYPES OF RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 25 2.2.1 ACTIVE RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 26 2.2.2 PASSIVE RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 27 2.2.3 COMMERCIAL RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 29 2.2.4 PUBLIC RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 30 2.3 CASE STUDIES O F RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES IN NORTH AMERICAN URBAN WATERFRONTS 34 2.3.1 SAN ANTONIO'S RIVERWALK 34 2.3.2 TORONTO'S HARBOURFRONT 36 2.3.3 BALTIMORE'S INNER HARBOUR 39 V 3. VANCOUVER WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT - A CASE STUDY OF GRANVILLE ISLAND RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACE 43 3.1 URBAN CORE AREA DESCRIPTION 45 3.2 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES IN THE CORE AREA 46 3.2.1 USAGE OF RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 49 3.2.2 RESIDENT OPINIONS OF RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 50 3.2.3 RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACE NEEDS 51 3.3 CASE STUDY - GRANVILLE ISLAND, VANCOUVER, B.C 52 3.3.1 AREA DESCRIPTION A N D CHARACTERISTICS 52 3.3.2 GRANVILLE ISLAND RECREATION A N D OPEN SPACES 55 3.3.3 CASE STUDY M E T H O D O L O G Y 66 3.3.4 RESULTS OF T H E STUDY 66 3.3.5 CONCLUSIONS 67 4. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 73 4.1 SUMMARY 73 4.2 CONCLUSIONS 77 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 83 APPENDIX 1. FALSE CREEK. COMMUNITY CENTER STATISTICAL SUMMARY - 1983 85 APPENDIX 2. USAGE RATES 86 APPENDIX 3. USE/SQ. METER 87 APPENDIX 4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 v i List of Figures FIGURE 1 - San Antonio's Riverwalk 35 FIGURE 2 - Toronto's Harbourfront 37 FIGURE 3 - Baltimore's Inner Harbour 40 FIGURE 4 - Vancouver Region 44 FIGURE 5 - Vancouver Core Area 47 FIGURE 6 - Fairview Local Area 53 FIGURE 7 - Granville Island Recreation and Open Spaces 56 FIGURE 8 - Physical Characteristics 71 v i i List of Tables TABLE 1 - Recreation Activity Participation Rates 22 T A B L E 2 - Inner Harbour Attractions Attendance 42 T A B L E 3 - Vancouver Urban Core Growth Rate: 1976-1981 45 T A B L E 4 - Core Area and CMA Demographics 46 1. INTRODUCTION There is a problem in designing facilities for people in that they often are not well used or not used for what they were designed for. The recent state of many urban waterfronts in North America is one of changing land uses and redevelopment. Some have completed redevelopments, some are in the process of redeveloping and others are being planned for redevelopment Most of the redevelopments to date, in both completed or planned form, include various types of recreation and open spaces in a typically mixed-use development The problem that this thesis addresses is what are the successful recreation and open spaces according to their rates of physical usage and what are the factors that influence their usage in urban waterfront redevelopments. A critical analyses of existing literature as well as studies of rates of usage will be used to determine success in facility design. It is realized that success could also be measured on the basis of economic return, ease of implementation, environmental harmony, or other criteria. However, literary critiques of projects and usage rates are two of the more accessible and meaningful methods of evaluation. 1.1 HISTORY OF URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT IN N O R T H AMERICA The history of urban waterfront development has commonly been ruled by response to trade and commerce. The original settlements of North America's leading cities were almost of necessity located on water bodies, as a good harbour provided security and accessibility. \"Seventy percent of 415 U.S. cities with a population greater than 50,000 . . . are located on the edge of a river, lake, bay or ocean\" (Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service, P. 1). In colonial ports the waterfront became an important meeting place and a symbol of community strength and prosperity (Urban Land Institute, 1983). \"Cargo from the world changed hands at the docks. The structures then built to house goods, shops, assembly halls, houses and churches, still stand near the water's edge in many cities chronicling the development of the city's 1 2 waterfront section\" (Harney, 1979, P. 7). Spectacular early growth in Philadelphia was primarily due to building roads into the hinterland to capture trade (ULI, 1983). The introduction of the steamboat served to stimulate port growth in inland waterfront cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St Louis, as well as phenomenal growth in New Orleans. Rail transport gave a competitive edge to the first cities that obtained rail connections, but it also diminished a city's need for overland water access and handicapped ports whose original waterfronts could not accommodate it due to land restrictions, such as in St Louis' LacLede's Landing (ULI, 1983). Railroads were advantageous transportation routes because they were usable year-round, the speed of delivery offset the relatively low cost of water transport and land routes could reach areas previously commercially unapproachable by water (ULI, 1983). The Industrial Revolution with it's explosion of rail and truck transport, signalled the first withdrawal of dependency on waterfront trade. Cities began to expand away from the water's edge and to turn the their backs on the waterfront The advent of air transportation further decreased the dependancy on the waterfront As Harney (1980, P. 7) says, \"Tourists who once flocked to the waterfront for ocean liner travel now use airports, and boat cruises have become a luxury mode of travel in warm climate ports.\" Changing port technology from breakbulk methods to containerization shipping required that newer facilities be developed away from the traditional port to provide the necessary back-up space, deeper and wider shipping channels for larger ships, and improved transportation access. Containerization requires an estimated 30 to 50 acres of back-up space for each container berth (Moss, 1976). It also uses fewer but larger piers, and along with decreasing railroad volumes caused by competition with truck and air transport, this resulted in many waterfront facilities falling into disuse and eventual disrepair. This decline of -traditional port areas is reflected on the west side of 3 Manhattan where 36 city-owned piers still stand and over two-thirds are vacant or used for storage (Moss, 1976). The advantages to containerized shipping are too great to ignore as it takes twelve days to load a 6,000 ton ship break-bulk style and it only takes one day to load the same ship container style (ULI, 1983). Expanding port facilities on older waterfronts is often difficult, as other industries using waterfront lands can be water dependant or too costly to relocate. The result is the construction of newer port facilities outside of the urban core. The movement and temporary storage of vehicles are two functions that took the place of the displaced port activities. This was exemplified by the fact that during the 1950's low priced parking was the most profitable use of Boston's central waterfront (Farrell, 1980). A second and perhaps more important functional change in waterfront usage was the development of major commercial airports (ULI, 1983). This was due to the large sites that were available and needed for the larger aircraft after WW II. The result has been convenient airport access but severe long range impacts (noise, traffic, congestion, use conflicts, and limited waterfront access). Increased competition for waterfront land and concern for the environment has curtailed further airport expansion recently (ULI, 1983). The environmental effects of the historical patterns of use include increased air pollution, greater noise, more congestion, destruction of fish habitats, and improper waste disposal (ULI, 1983). The motivational factors behind waterfront location of industries include: convenient goods handling, waste disposal, and water supply; low building costs due to relatively flat land; competitive options between land and water transportation; and speculation on rising land costs (Hankin, 1968). Hankin also claimed that these factors are partially responsible for the historically industrially oriented attitude towards the waterfront, and that few occupants genuinely require their location. This is partially because historical zoning of waterfronts has not been promotional of 4 uses other than industrial one and has therefore mininized the competition for industry. Filling and dumping for the accommodation of these industries resulted in the loss of aquatic life and serious pollution problems (Harney, 1979). Waterfront evolution is significant because many of the incentives and constraints associated with contemporary development opportunities stem from changes that occurred in the past. Recreation, however, was historically a secondary function and often the waterfront was thought to provide adequate open space for the needs of the citizens just by the fact that the water was open space (ULI, 1983). Fortunately, this was not the case in every city. Washington has 80% of the Potomac and Anacostia rivershores under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (National Capital Planning Commission, 1972). Nearly 24 of Chicago's 30 miles of shoreline consist of public parks and beaches (Heckscher, 1977). Vancouver had farsighted forefathers who reserved the majority of the shoreline for public use. But these examples tend to be exceptions to the rule as most North American cities have developed in the Miami style of uncontrolled hotel/residential development along the water's edge or in the previously discussed industrial style development 1.2 R E C E N T S T A T E O F U R B A N W A T E R F R O N T S Harney (1979) stated it well when he said waterfronts which were once the hub of power and trade for most American cities, more recently have been considered the seamy side of America. Conomos (1979) pointed out that aboriginal Californians left little evidence of their several thousand years of habitation along San Francisco Bay, however modern man had caused major changes within 75 years. Conflicting uses of our waterways as transportation routes, food sources, water sources, and waste dumps has resulted in impacts ranging from trivial to dramatic with perhaps irreversible consequences. One impact is that natural eutrophication processes can be sped up immensely (McLusky, 1981). Human built impacts promoted by land speculation include 5 reclamation, diking, and filling of the shoreline (Conomos, 1979). The National Estuary-Study (1970) estimated that in the continental U.S. 23% of estuaries were severely modified, 50% were moderately modified, and only 27% were slightly modified. In San Francisco Bay over one-half of the bay was in private ownership and water lots were selling for $600,000 (Reynolds, 1970) Land filling had decreased the water surface area from 680 square miles in 1850 to 400 square miles in 1968 (President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, 1968). Marshlands have fared even worse, decreasing from 128 million acres to 70 million acres in the continental U.S. (Niering, 1970). Disease carrying pathogens can be introduced to the aquatic environment through the discharge of raw sewage. The introduction of chemical wastes from industrial sites can have even more dramatic effects depending upon the toxicity of the waste materials to the life forms present. Discharge of oil and gas from ships, seaplanes, and pleasure craft can have the same results when in sufficient quantity or in an enclosed or small water body. (US Department of the Interior, 1970). When not overtaxed, estuaries have the capacity to assimulate and dissipate wastes; but when heavily stressed, these systems suport fewer and more adaptable species, frequently in great abundance but of little value to man (USDI, 1970). Shipping, fishing, and industrial concerns had been left alone on the waterfront with the result that few people ventured down to or were concerned with the plight of the urban waterfront Poor management and environmental abuses increased environmental decline into a state of decay. The recent condition of the waterfront was brought to the public's attention through a number of dramatic events. An examination of Lake Erie in 1966 made the shocking discovery that the lake was almost totally anoxic and incapable of the supporting anything but \"sludgeworms\" and other primitive forms of life (Nelson, 1970). The Cuyohoga River flowing through Cleveland is so polluted with oil that structures called \"fire breaks\" were built out into the water to 6 help in fighting fires (Nelson, 1970). Nelson also stated that scientists estimate that it would take 100 years to recover the polluted waters of southern Lake Michigan. The Mississippi River at St. Louis was so polluted in 1968 that a fish placed in 1 part river water and 10 parts clean water died within minutes (PCRNB, 1968). It was evident that many forms of pollution were present along waterfronts including sewage disposal, septic tank seepage, industrial waste discharge, shipping discharge, pesticides, detergents, and roadway runoff. In 1965 the U.S. Water Quality Act authorized a nationwide attack on water pollution. In 1966 the Clean Water Restoration Act authorized a total of $3.5 billion in federal grants for sewage treatment plant construction. In 1968 the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration estimated the costs of cleaning up the waterways as ranging from $50 - $100 billion over the next ten years (Nelson, 1970). Efforts at recovering waterways had been occurring since the 1950's at which time the Thames. River in London was anoxic and sewage treatment plants were constructed. By 1975 the water had returned to pre-1875 cleanliness levels and fish not seen in twenty years had returned (McLusky, 1981). In Detroit, a $355 million program begun in 1968 has resulted in fish returning to urban waterways (Leedy, 1981). The Mohawk River has had 75% of the discharge controlled and fish have returned. Pensacola Bay in Florida has had a recovery of the shellfish industry to pre-pollution levels (Leedy, 1981). There is a question however, of whether sub-lethal but chronic contamination may effect animal populations in equally dangerous ways. A recent article in the Vancouver Sun newspaper stated that in Vancouver Harbour and Seattle Harbour, half of the sole examined were found to have skin cancer, liver disease, or tumors (Munro, 1983). The effects of feeding fish caught in these waters to rats is rather ominous as all developed thyroid disorders and many showed liver and immune system dysfunction (Munro, 1983). John Harshborger of the Smithsonian Institute says that 60,000 7 chemicals commonly used have never been tested for their effects on animal populations (Munro, 1983). This information leads to the question of whether fishing should be allowed in urban areas. This is a sensitive point since most \"urban\" fishermen are recreational or subsistence level (Munro, 1983). Harney (1979) outlined some issues facing urban waterfronts. These include: CINDERELLA SYNDROME - typified by a run-down environment and poor public perception. AESTHETIC AND CULTURAL POTENTIAL - of man-made and natural features of the area. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS - water and air quality, shoreline maintenance, etc. COMPETITION OF USES - residential, recreational, industrial, commercial, transportation, etc. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS - Riparian rights, multi-level jurisdictions (local/regional/federal). ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS - tax issues, funding, money market conditions. Leedy (1981) summarized the current condition of most non-redeveloped urban waterfronts as being: under-utilized; of high economic, esthetic and cultural potential; environmentally sensitive; in demand when cleaned up restricted by multiple legal and institutional constraints; and poorly accessible due to restrictive barriers. 8 1.3 IMPETUS FOR REDEVELOPMENT Due to increasing pressures on downtown cores to revitalize and expand, urban waterfronts have recently been noticed again. Clean water programs have increased the opportunity for urban recreation as well as other land uses. With the present condition of many waterfronts, it is seen as an opportunity to redevelop an abused, under-utilized, and potentially valuable area of the urban core. Chris Therral Delaporte, the director of the U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service has stated (HCRS, 1980, Preface): Urban waterfronts are important because their sound and sensitve revitalization, incorporating recreational and heritage resources, provides an opportunity to help support community and economic development goals, reduce the impact of natural hazards and to demonstrate excellence in environmental planning and design. Revitalization of urban waterfronts also encourage energy conservation through providing easily accessible water recreation and through re-using existing structures. It also provides area for growth since few cities can expand their boundaries and the redevelopment of the waterfront represents the most viable alternative for the enlargement of a city (Moss, 1976). Darling (1973) estimated that when cleaned up, the value on an urban water resource is large. Hankin (1968) stated that: 1. Past use of waterfronts has been careless and wasteful. 2. Current development and zoning does not fully acknowledge the diverse potential value of waterfronts. 3. Waterfronts of good quality and accessibilty is a limited resource under substantial pressure from many types of users. 4. Waterfronts have valuable potential for multiple uses. This may result in redevelopment decisions based solely on values derived from benefit-cost analysis and a disregard of intangible values as derived from social or cultural amenities. 9 Cowey and Rigby (1979), P. 11) outlined some plus and minus factors in the redevelopment of urban waterfronts in the U.S.: PLUS the nations's gradual success in cleaning up it's rivers and shore waters, the new economic attractiveness of re-using older structures, the \"back to the city\" movement, the new urban emphasis on national recreation policy, the establishment of the Maritime Heritage Preservation Program. MINUS public investment skepticism, derelict conditions, undesirable uses, access to and along the shore, water pollution. multiple owners and confused titles, fragmented government jurisdiction. 1.4 INCLUSION OF RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE IN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTS The answer to the problem of under-utilized urban waterfronts lies not only in the recovery of them to a usable state, but \"The advent of cleaner waters, at public expense, raises a basic question: Who should reap the benefits, private development interests, the public at large, or some mixture of the two?\" (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1980, P. 12). If left entirely to the private sector, it may redevelop in the most profitable way, but not necessarily the most environmentally sound or democratic way. The provision of recreation and open space is one of the least environmentally disruptive and most publicly satisfying forms of redevelopment 10 However, the uses that commonly have the highest rent potential are in declining order 1. retail 2. hotel/office 3. residential 4. industrial 5. recreational (London, 1976). In the past, commercial association with waterfront activity has been both considerable and profitable, and it has been used to induce local communities to develop for that purpose while ignoring the social costs. In a waterfront redevelopment the advantages of constructing office facilities are that it generates steady activity, supports services, provides employment, represents a large tax base, and pays high rent (London, 1976). The disadvantages are that it derives little benefit from a waterfront location, many people disapprove of commercializing public amenities (i.e., the water), offices are boring and few areas are provided for people to relax in an often hectic city situation (London, 1976). In Halifax an attempt is being made to solve part of the problem by restricting offices to upper floors and having retail on the ground floor. This is an effort to mix land uses in order to suit multiple interests. It is commonly termed mixed-use development The basic advantage of this technique is that it allows us to mix high rent producers (office, retail, and residential) with high amenity producers (recreation and open space). The result can . be an exciting urban environment with a high level of activity, both day and night, and with opportunities for active and passive recreation in the urban core. Witherspoon (1976) has outlined a rationale for practicing mixed-uses in urban core redevelopments that include recreation and open space by arguing: the areas are currently under-utilized and this trend is increasing. the public has a right to access to land and water. open space in CBD's are limited and water access is usually nil. mixed-use development increases vitality through round the clock usage. inclusion of recreation and open space provides identity and a healthy environment walking access decreases pressure on the transportation system. 11 the urban waterfront is a unique attraction. mixed use has already met with success in many projects. mixed use provides comparatively low cost opportunity for increasing CBD recreation and open space. Recreational use along with commercial fishing have the least damaging effects on the natural estuarine environment when not excessive in form (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970). Undesirable consequences that could result from uncontrolled development include; \"haphazard growth and unrelated developments, limited public access over private developments, loss of public benefits that should be accrued from public expenditures on cleaning up waterways, and increased pollution from indiscriminate and insensitive developments\" (Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, P. 1). Gold (1980) made a number of statements regarding the importance of recreation and open space in urban areas, including: 1. Leisure services can improve the quality of urban form, function and life. 2. Preferences for leisure activities and facilities can be measured. 3. These preferences can be translated into built form with both professional and citizen input Dhar (1975) determined in a thesis on the factors influencing recreation usage that the amount of available leisure time had doubled from 1920 - 1960 due to shorter work weeks, more holidays, early retirement, mandatory schooling, and labour saving devices (Dhar, 1975, P. 3). Because half of all leisure time is for short periods (2 -4 hours) it is evident that this must be served by facilities close to home. The shift from rural to urban population concentration has decreased the availability of open space close to home. The people that live in the worst serviced areas recreationally (inner cities) are often the ones with little ability to change this (Dunn, 1974). The public also may have differing views on leisure time activity than 12 in the past, with increasing emphasis on esthetics, environment, cultural and historical enrichment, and spiritual renewal (NOAA, 1976). It is therefore obvious that; waterfront redevelopers have an obligation to help meet needs for more recreation and open space in inner cities in return for public investments, public access should be built into the design while minimizing impacts and conflicts, recreation and open space inclusion can be a cost-effective means of satisfying demands, and currently the recreation and open space component of may projects is often marginal (HCRS, 1980). 1.5 THE NEED FOR THE STUDY The need for the study is based in the attitude of early 20th century municipal governments who attempted to place large bucolic parks widely spaced throughout cities which were meant primarily for weekend use. Recently, due to increased mobility, there has been an exodus out of the city for the countryside instead of facsimiles of it (Dhar, 1975). There is a need for changing park design to meet changing public demands. Gold (1980) maintains that public preference has swung full circle recently even though most urban parks are still under-utilized. Reduced speed limits, higher energy costs, traffic congestion on freeways, and the decrease in freeway construction will limit access to regional parks. Decreased disposable income, increased unemployment, and increased inflation will limit demand for high cost activities. It is therefore necessary that we find out what sort of activities will be well used in urban areas especially since development and maintenance costs are around $10,000/acre (Gold, 1980). The 1975 U.S. National Assessment projected an increase in demand for water oriented recreation and a corresponding decrease in recreation surface water area (cited in HCRS, 1980). The National Urban Recreational Study concluded that most of this unmet need could be satisfied by increasing access to and making better use of 13 existing urban waterfronts (HCRS, 1980) The opposition to recreation and open space provision is often based on the spectre of under-utilization. As McHarg said \"Useless open space is generally over-provided, but valuable open space is seldom created.\" (Cited in Wright, Braithewaite, and Forster, 1976, P. iv). This results in the attitude of those such as Arthur Cotton Moore who when referring to recreation provision on Washington's riverfronts said, \"There is already enough for the entire population of the east coast to picnic there at once\" (cited in Morton, 1975, P. 60). It is in this attitude that one can see the necessity for planning and designing for well-used recreation and open space in areas as potentially valuable and relatively scarce as urban waterfronts. 1.6 DEFINITIONS LEISURE - time beyond that which is required for existence and subsistence. RECREATION - leisure behaviour with a maximum of descretionary behaviour. OUTDOOR RECREATION - recreation in which \"uncovered space\" is an important element LOCAL AREA - arbitrarily assumed as an area of between 1 and 3 kms. in radius. LOCAL PARK - primarily used by local residents who travel to it on foot or bicycle and which lacks public parking. RECREATIONAL PLANNING - the use of information for the allocation of resources to accommodate the current and future leisure needs of a population. RECREATION DESIGN - the use of information to create designs for recreational spaces that will relate to existing or potential users. 14 RECREATION RESOURCE - land, water, or facility that provides recreation. RECREATION SITE - a specific tract within an area that is used for recreation. RECREATION FACILITY - a man-made improvement of a recreation site. RECREATION COMPLEX - an area containing a variety of recreational opportunities and facilities. RECREATION CARRYING CAPABILITY - the capability of natural resources of facilities to withstand recreational use at a desired level of quality. GOAL - an ideal that cannot be measured. OBJECTIVE - a point that is measurable. OPEN SPACE - land and water not covered by buildings and used primarily for passive recreation. RECREATION SPACE - land and water that may be covered buildings and is used primarily for active recreation. RECREATION DEMAND - an activity demand that is calculated through the measurement and projection of recreation occasions. 1.7 OBJECT IVES O F T H E S T U D Y The main objective of this study is to determine what factors influence recreation and open space usage in urban waterfront redevelopments, and what types of recreation and open spaces are best suited to these projects. Relevant local needs and site considerations will be determined through examining case studies of completed urban waterfront projects. These results will be compared with the local needs and site considerations of Granville Island and the rates of usage for its various recreation and open spaces. The final objective of the thesis is to determine what types of recreation and open space are successful on Granville Island, with the goal that this information 15 may be useful when planning recreation and open spaces for future waterfront redevelopments in Vancouver. 1.8 METHODOLOGY Case studies .and critical reviews of urban waterfront redevelopment projects across North America will be described in Chapter 2 and factors affecting the success of recreation and open space will be discussed. Rates of usage will be studied where available, but particularly for Baltimore's Inner Harbour facilities as they are readily available. Relevant factors affecting the success of these spaces such as topography, climate, local needs, and existing land used can be used to predict success of recreation and open space in other sites. Chapter 3 will examine the usage of recreation and open space in the Granville Island mixed-use waterfront redevelopment A study was conducted determining rates of usage/square meter of a variety of recreation and open spaces on the Island. Information from personal interviews with individuals associated with the project will also be used in determining factors affecting success of Granville Island recreation and open space. In the concluding chapter, successful waterfront recreation and open spaces will be identified along with the factors influencing their success and suggestions will be made for types of recreation and open spaces that should be considered for future waterfront redevelopments in Vancouver. 1.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Comparing the needs of competing sectors is obviously an important aspect of a comprehensive waterfront redevelopment plan, as is cost-benefit analysis of proposed uses. Ease of implementation as well as ease of incorporation with exising or planned uses are also consideration. While these are important factors and will be recognized 16 as such, the scope of this thesis will be restricted to identifying successful recreation and open space along with site characteristics and user needs associated with them, in a variety of urban waterfront redevelopment projects. The data from Granville Island is subject to variables arising from limited time and resources for conducting the study. It is also recognized that potentially successful recreation and open spaces are subject to site specific conditions and needs that are difficult to predict at times. The success of recreational facilities is a complex area determined by people's recreational behaviour and preferences both of which are easily shifted by a number of factors (NOAA, 1976). Data is not often available and if it is, it may need to be conceptually organized in order to determine needs. It is also recognized that data from parucpation rates can be misleading for projecting future demand in that what is observed is not demand but consumption (Wright, Braithewaite & Forster, 1976). A wide range of demographic variables influence recreational patterns of which Pincombe determined age, sex, and income seem to be the most important (cited- in Wright et al, 1976). Collection and analysis of data has proven to be a difficult job. Felt need can tell us much but it can be biased by inexperience with activities or status level of activities (U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1983). As well, different activities or mix of activities at a given site will produce different participation rates therefore confusing the issue further (McLellan & Medrich, 1969). It should also be stated that the total worth of a space cannot be judged solely on its physical use. The visual or ecological use of a space may also be valuable to individuals and society. Therefore opinion surveys would be useful in addition to usage surveys in order to attempt to determine a space's total worth, but time and resources do not allow for it in this study. For these reasons this thesis shall concentrate on determining success of existing recreation and open spaces and suggesting possibilities for future redevelopments in Vancouver as opposed to predicting success of future recreation and open space in urban waterfront redevelopments. 2. INCLUSION OF RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE IN URBAN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT 2.1 FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS The inclusion of recreation and open spaces in urban waterfront redevelopment is an important aspect for the enhancement of each waterfront Harney (1979, P. 2) stated \"waterfront areas can be centres of tourism, trade, and urban recreation.\" However, we have little understanding of the types and design of recreation facilities that might be successful in these projects (HCRS, 1980). For example, most waterfront recreation and open spaces do not consider the very young, handicapped, elderly, minorities, or low income groups, with the provision of recreation facilities such as boat launches and marinas. These groups may be those who have the most time available to use the facilities but lack the money or ability necessary to do so. Most cities tend to develop park and recreation facilities of a traditional nature, that is, pastoral and passive. This is reminiscent of the urban parks environment of the late 1800's and is not always suitable today. Night-time use is not often encouraged and the underprivileged are seldom designed for. Variations in recreation and open spaces can be attributed to many interrelated factors; city age and size, location, climate, surrounding uses, and government intervention are just a few of these. Public access to waterfronts is important because of the transportation facilities often present, and public ownership of the water and adjacent land; but many physical, institutional and psychological barriers exist (ULI, 1983). The ultimate success of a waterfront redevelopment will depend upon many things, among which how responsive the design is to the unique qualities of each specific waterfront is of major importance. This includes providing recreation and open space that is sensitive to both the site and local needs. 18 19 2.1.1 S ITE COND IT IONS There are many general site conditions that are problems when redeveloping an urban waterfront These include; bad area reputation, deteriorated facilities, conflicting land uses, inhabitation by underprivileged groups, variety of government agency involvement, variety of regulations, facilities that are hazardous, pollution of the area, and multiple ownership (NOAA, 1980). There are also barriers to access including: natural (cliffs, etc.), private property, and transportation routes. There was only 25% of surface water area available for recreation use in a clean and accessible state in the U.S. in 1978 (USDI, 1979). For this reason fishing, swimming, and non-power boating are rarely found in urban watefront redevelopments. In some urban waterfront redevelopments, the HCRS has learned that site specific problems such as these are not resolved or only partially resolved (HCRS, 1980). This is mostly because the use and condition of the waterfront can dramatically add to the up-front costs if much needs to be done (ULI, 1983). The waterfront geography and climate are important factors in affecting demand for outdoor recreation and open spaces but since they are difficult to quantify meaningfully, they are usually disregarded (McLellan & Medrich, 1969). Climatic variations will cause usage fluctuations and are therefore necessary to consider. Onshore and offshore breezes are often present in waterfront locations and can be caused by large water bodies gaining and losing heat faster than land masses. The temperature imbalances result in colder air rushing in to fill voids left by rising warmer air. Waterfronts also have more instances of fog mist than Central Business Districts (CBD) because the heat of the city evaporates moisture and onshore breezes bring in moisture laden air from the ocean (ULI, 1983). Waterfronts are also more susceptible to winds due to their unsheltered location adjacent to water bodies, and can be affected by winter ice and cold water in northern latitudes and high rainfall in wet climates. 20 Geographical characteristics are also key factors in the overall success of recreation and open spaces in a waterfront redevelopment project. Most often shallow water is a hindrance to usage but in the case of Seattle, it is a steeply sloping bottom and overly deep port that is the problem, to the point that piers must be built on an angle to reach sufficient length. Another water restriction is caused by tides, as large fluctuation in high and low tide water levels may necessitate floating pier construction and high sea walls, as well as cause dangerous rip tides (ULI, 1983). Sedimentation, salt water corrosion, and marine organism deposits must be taken into account, and the presence and size of waves may necessitate breakwaters and limit ability to build close to the shoreline (ULI, 1983). Access to the water may be limited by rugged terrain or steep bluffs and the waterfront may be therefore limited in the range of its development potential. Flood plains adjacent to waterways are also limited in development potential due to the hazardous situation and generally unstable soil conditions. In both of these examples recreation and open spaces may be a particularly suitable land use where most others are not (ULI, 1983). The amount of land available, in an urban waterfront redevelopment situation is a key factor in the types and amount of recreation and open spaces included. Configuration of the land is also important in that a bay shape differs from a point shape in amount of water area available (ULI, 1983). The same thing commonly is the case between oceanside, lakeshore, and riverside waterfronts with not only water area but water depth varying greatly. Waterfront lands often have poor load-bearing capacity due to water table levels, deltaic soils, and compacted fill material. There may also be erosion due to seawall damage or poor management practices. There are also urban variables affecting waterfronts that unlike geographical and climatic variables can often be altered. Waterfront land use varies greatly with some 21 uses being water-dependant but most being only water-related or water-independant (ULI, 1983). This means that many uses can be relocated away from the waterfront if financially feasible. This is especially desirable with restrictive land uses such as waterfront freeways which proliferated because of, among other things, cheap available land, to the point that 94% of Manhattan's waterfront has major highway development (Wagner, 1980). Other restrictive access land uses may not have hazardous conditions but may have trespassing restrictions that limit recreation and open space usage along waterfronts. This may necessitate grants of immunity to tort liability in exchange for grants of access easements across private lands (NOAA, 1976). Environmental and perceptual restrictions as discussed earlier are also urban variables that are subject to alteration. An extensive site analysis should be undertaken to reveal (ULI, 1983, P. 82): neighboring land and water uses access to the site by highways or railroads shoreline configuration and erosion potential water resource characteristics (water quality, water depth, flow dynamics, flood potential, etc.). soil and subsoil conditions and depth of bedrock extreme climatic variations exceptional views of and from the site pedestrian circulation the relationship at ground level with surrounding buildings and open spaces the type and location of utility services easements, covenants, and deed restrictions distinctive cultural or natural features 22 2.1.2 USER CHARACTERISTICS AND LOCAL NEEDS Demand is the key issue in determining whether or not private development, which is so necessary in large scale development, will occur. In some cases the amenity of the water is not enough to cover the costs of waterfront development for private developers and other situations must be present for it to occur (ULI, 1983). Presently, many factors exist that favor redevelopment These include general demographic trends such as increasing population average age, decreasing family size, increasing divorce rates, and increasing single parent families. These all add up to more inner city residents with special demands for recreation and open spaces (Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group, 1983). Almost 47% of adults in a 1978 Gallup poll participated in physical fitness activities as compared to 24% in 1961 (USORRRC, 1983). The age group 25-34 had the largest growth rate and was the prime recreation market because of high levels of disposable income, personal interest, and mobility in 1979 (USORRRC, 1979). On top of this, good retirement plans and earlier retirement is increasing the recreation market for the elderly (USORRC, 1979). Recreation activity participation rates as reported by the USORRRC (1983) were as follows: TABLE 1 - RECREATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION RATES Picknicking Swimming Driving for Pleasure Walking for Pleasure Sightseeing Attending Outdoor Sports Fishing Nature Walks Bicycling Attending Outdoor Culture Camping Power Boating Hiking Hunting Water Skiing Horseback Riding 73% 70% 69% 68% 62% 61% 55% 49% 47% 40% 37% 35% 28% 20% 17% 15% 23 It should be noted though that participation in many forms of recreation increases and decreases in cyclical fashion (USORRRC, 1983). This can be for a variety of reasons ranging from economic conditions to technological changes to fadish popularity. The amount of leisure time can also influence participation in recreational activity but this does not appear to be due to the number of free hours but rather to the size of free time blocks (USDI, 1979). Cultural factors can also influence participation rates with certain ethnic, age, or sex groups participating more in certain activities than others (Burke & Silverman, 1977). As Gold (1979) points out, this is affected by individual or group recreation desires which can be resource directed (dependant on contact with high quality natural resources) image directed (dependant on the fulfillment of a desired image), or leisure directed (dependant upon the pleasurable consumption of leisure time). Local needs and availability are also key factors in participation in recreation activities and according to the 1977 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey (USDI, 1979) 1/3 of city residents have to go outside their own neighborhoods to find a public recreation facility. With the recent increases in transportation costs it is even more critical that close-to-home recreation opportunities be provided (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1972). Other factors that influence participation include entrance fees, lack of knowledge, lack of experience, satisfaction levels, life cycle stage, income, and perception of resource characteristics (Burke & Silverman, 1977). Local groups are also conscious of employment opportunities and the importance of ports are generally considered of high economic value to the residents of cities within which they are1 found (Ministry of State and Urban Affairs, 1978). This naturally leads to conflicts of uses that are difficult to resolve and the greater the range of potential uses of a waterfront, the greater the potential competition and conflict between uses. 24 Access is also a critical factor to both resident and non-resident participation. Even though 70% of Americans live within 1/2 mile of public busline, these systems are infrequently used for access to public recreation areas and automobiles remain the chief form of transportation (USORRRC, 1979). Public perception can be improved through public investment in an area and private investment will follow once people are attracted to an area (ULI, 1983). However, public investment does not guarantee that an area will be or will continue to be well-used. The USDI reported in the 1977 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey that perceived deterrants to using outdoor recreation facilities included: Lack of time Areas too crowded Lack of money Lack of information about opportunity Recreate mostly at residence Interesting areas not convenient Areas had pollution problems Lack of interest Personal health reasons Lack of transportation Area is poorly maintained Personal safety reasons at area The USORRRC reported in 1983 on low-income inner city residents percieved deterrants and they included lack of facilities #2, health #4, different family interests #6, young children to care for #8, no friends to participate with #10, and too tired #12 (USORRRC, 1983). Although personal safety was rated low on the list it is still perceived as a violent crime problem. However, larceny, vandalism, and drug abuse statistically occur much more frequently than violent crime in parks and this can be 25 addressed by designing facilities that discourage this behaviour, staffing the areas, providing adequate programs, and practicing proper maintenance USORRRC, 1979). In order to have positive perceptions of public recreation and open spaces, they must be both interesting and inviting (ULI, 1983). This is a design problem but first it must be determined what the public wants. A citizen survey in Marquette showed that 48% wanted a multi-use redevelopment, 52% wanted a \"Fisherman's Wharf type development, and 29% wanted it strictly recreational. Citizen input such as this has many flaws but at least it solves the problems caused by using secondary data based on socio-economic factors to determine public demand (Burke & Silverman, 1977). However, we are still left with the problem of changing preference patterns to the point that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission does not keep user statistics for recreation and open spaces. They feel that general guidelines are not very helpful as each site must be examined individually, plus, changes causing the increase in windsurfing participation and decrease in boat sales in the San Francisco area would have been very difficult to predict from studying user rates as they were primarily caused by declining personal incomes due to high unemployment (Pendleton, 1983). Three major findings of the ORPRG (1983) were: 1. outdoor recreation is urgently needed near metropolitan areas 2. although considerable land is available it does not effectively meet demand 3. to meet this demand more funding is necessary. 2.2 T Y P E S O F R E C R E A T I O N A N D O P E N SPACES Recreation and open spaces vary greatly in both form and function. Both the activity oriented and relaxation oriented individual should be accommodated. This may mean a multitude of choices are present when designing a recreation and open space system for an urban waterfront redevelopment Some forms may be purely functional and suited to specific activities, others may be flexible in purpose or merely for 26 aesthetics or visual access to the water. 2.2.1 ACT IVE R E C R E A T I O N A N D O P E N SPACES The recreation potential of an urban waterfront is larger than the traditional water-based activities in that it encompasses activities which are more urban in nature (ULI, 1983). The facilities for these activities can range from; ballfields, golf courses, skating rinks, tennis courts, pools, shooting ranges, skateboard parks, ball courts, playgrounds, etc. These types of facilities typically are characterized by seasonal use, weather dependancy, equipment need, specific designs, limited adaptability, skill orientation, intensive use, and often indoor settings Because something is specifically designed for a certain activity does not assure usage or necessarily satisfy demand as can be seen by the fact that 47% of a nationwide sample cycled regularly but only 6% used federal bikeways in the 1977 U.S. Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey (USORRRC, 1979). Trends are also difficult to predict as many people are currently taking up indoor activity to ensure year-round fitness (ORPRG, 1983). In 1979, racquetball and soccer were the fastest growing sports (USDI, 1979). Since then, racquetball has slowed to a certain extent with aerobic exercise and weight training increasing in popularity. The market for female recreational activities has recently boomed (USDI, 1979) but several other group markets remain virtually untapped. Recreational facilities for the disabled, elderly, and lower income groups have yet to be firmly established, especially along urban waterfronts (HCRS, 1980). Where they have been established, such as free sailing lessons for low income youth in Boston, response has been strong (HCRS, 1980). The Bronx River Restoration is an example of a mixed-use waterfront redevelopment with a strong recreational component It is modelled after Riverwalk in San Antonio and includes walkways, bikeways, boat launches, playgrounds, picnic areas, 27 as well as more passive recreation facilities. A non-waterfront development, but of interest anyway is an inner city apartment development in San Jose, California which has 4 major courts, each alloted to a specific age group as well as communal facilities shared by all (Schmertz, 1970). For example, the pre-school courtyard contains climbing apparatus, play decks, tunnels, bridges, sand boxes, hills, etc. The 5-12 year old courtyard contains a tower and slide, net climber, swings, merry-go-round, log climb, etc. The 10-14 year old courtyard contains game tables, a geodesic dome, seating areas, etc. The 14+ year old courtyard contains badminton courts, shuffleboards, a horseshoe pitch, tetherball pole, volleyball net, etc. Shared facilities include tennis courts, a pool, and playfields. There have also been some unique recreational spaces developed for either non-traditional recreation activities with non-traditional materials and labour. One example of non-traditional material and labour is \"The Park\" in the \"Hell's Kitchen\" area of New York. It was a vacant lot used for stripping stolen cars and with volunteer labour was rebuilt using scrap materials such as a cargo net and cable spools for a climbing apparatus (Schmertz, 1970). An example of non-traditional public recreational activities is a USDA funded project in 6 U.S. inner cities where garden plots are grown by local residents (mainly seniors and children) for both recreation and as source of free fresh vegetables (Lopez, 1983). It has been found to be therapeutic for the participants which include alchohol and drug rehabilitation patients, environmentally positive in cleaning up vacant lots, and aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. 2.2.2 PASSIVE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES Although the fastest growing recreational activities are active ones such as tennis and jogging, passive recreation continues to dominate in total hours in participation and this is projected to increase as the Baby Boom ages (USDI, 1979). The types of 28 recreation and open spaces that are commonly referred to as passive areas include, trails, gardens, landscaped parks, picnic areas, beaches, nature centers, museums, historic attractions, viewpoints, galleries, and libraries. These areas are characterized by often having; the ability to accommodate multiple uses, possible historic value, importance as elements in urban design, ability to reclaim derelict facilities, possibility for year-round use, accessibility to the handicapped, and comparatively steady flow of use (USORRRC, 1979). These spaces can be provided in a number of key ways. For example, street ends allow for the opportunity to provide view corridors if left as unbuilt recreation or open space (ULI, 1983). This can be active recreation space but it is best suited as unobstructed passive open space. Allowing for changes in topography, orientation, and facility, (such as in undulating and windy walkways punctuated with different attractions), can provide a variety of visual and physical experiences rather than having a boring flat plane of homogenous open space. The inclusion of passive recreation and open spaces along waterways provides vegetative buffers to filter out pollutants before they reach the water and these need not be capricious in width (EPA, 1977). In New Orleans, an esplanade is under construction and will stretch along the river grade when possible and over port facilities when necessary (Dixon, 1975). Davenport, Iowa is using it's river levees to locate roads and trails on top and overlooking the river (HCRS, 1979). An emphasis on atmosphere is especially important when building passive recreation and open space since so many people use them for their aesthetic and cultural value. Greenwich, Connecticutt has outdoor lighting in brass and copper marine lanterns in their Palmer Point waterfront redevelopment (ULI, 1983). The South St Seaport in New York has located 5 historic vessels as well as maritime museum and galleries to develop the atmosphere (NOAA, 1980). The previously mentioned Bronx River Restoration has future designs on incorporating an amphitheatre/arts building and 29 a reconstructed watermill (NOAA, 1980). 2.2.3 COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES It must be recognized that private concerns supply a significant portion of our. recreation and open space opportunities in North Anmerica. In 1965, the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation reported 132,000 private recreational enterprises owning 39 M. acres of land and attracting 1.2 B. patrons (cited in Smith, 1973). It was also estimated that 62.4% were under-utilized, 24.1% were at capacity, and 13.5% were over-used. It would appear then that there is no lack of entrepreneurs but there may be a lack of direction. In fact, the ORPRG (1983) has reported an increase in private recreation goods and services over the last 20 years due to imporved incentives for the private sector in the U.S. The largest commercial recreation interests lie in specatator sports facilities, travel and resorts, vacation homes, theatre, movies, television, and radio (Smith, 1973). Corporations are becoming much more actively involved in providing recreation and open space not only for employees but the public at large. An example of this would be the Atlantic-Richfield Oil Company which has converted 14 defunct service stations into mini-parks (USDI, 1979). A number of private plants have built on-site recreational facilities such as tennis courts on the roofs of buildings (USDI, 1979). The Reynolds Metal Co. has provided recreation and open space in a waterfront setting by restoring locks, and building an urban waterway park in its new plant that spans the James River in Richmond, Va. This has resulted in waterfront access to employees, tour groups, residents, and visitors along a walkway that includes benches, viewpoints, educational/historic signs, and plantings (Ferebee, 1977). It has been suggested that in an urban waterfront redevelopment, off-shore facilities should be leased to private concerns for both operational efficiency and liability concerns (ULI, 1983). Onshore facilities can be leased depending upon whether 30 they are profitable and if there are operational advantages to doing so. Newport, Rhode Island, always had a private fish market of some kind and now has had it refurbished as part of the waterfront redevelopment to act as a heritage and tourist attraction, while leaving it in control of the perfectly capable private entrepreneurs. 2.2.4 PUBLIC RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES The provision of public recreation and\" open spaces in urban waterfront development is by necessity turning to compromise solutions of mixed-use developments due to the financial feasibility of involving the private sector (NOAA, 1979). This often means the inclusion of facilities adjacent to non-traditional uses such as in Baltimore where the new aquarium is beside a converted generating plant/hotel and existing port facilities (NOAA, 1979). Transportation routes provide a frequent opportunity for converting to recreation and open spaces. They can be converted to trails if not used or, decked over if still in use. Relocation is a third but very costly alternative (HCRS, 1980). Illinois Center in Chicago has decked over transportation routes and linked the waterfront and CBD with walkways, cultural facilities, shops, and landscaped open space on the top (Witherspoon, 1976). Seattle is planning to turn the ground level Alaskan Highway into a public garden with pedestrian level lighting and pathways, as well as widening the sidewalk into a promenade (City of Seattle, 1983). This is in keeping with public demand where more pedestrian trail systems need to be emphasized in urban areas (USDI, 1979). The re-use of historic buildings present along urban waterfronts is another popular method of gaining recreation and open space. Many of them have become abandoned and it is often more efficient to rehabilitate them than to demolish and rebuild indoor facilities which are convenient, in great demand, independent of weather, but very expensive to build (USDI, 1979). 31 The conversion of garbage dumps and sanitary landfills can be another oportunity along urban waterfronts for increased recreation and open spaces. It must be noted however that strict controls must be applied to check the condition of the site. Gasworks Park in Seattle, a converted gas plant, is currently closed and under E.P.A. investigation for dangerous levels of soil contamination. Many by-products and materials from other public or private agencies can be utilized for the construction and maintenance of public recration and open space in order to cut costs. For instance, parklands can be irrigated with treated sewage effluent, thereby conserving both water and fertilizer. Burnt coal by-product can be used for ash along bike or pedestrian pathways (USDI, 1979). Decking over water and land filling has been used extensively in Manhattan to obtain open space for 1/4 - 1/2 the onshore land prices (Dixon, 1975). This decking is designed in over-hang fashion to provide covered area in arcade fashion (Dixon, 1975). Because of the possibility of multiple levels, escalators and elevators are sometimes necessary as was the case in the Midtown Manhattan project (Progressive Architecture, 1975). Isolation from ground level inhibits use to a point in these projects but it is argued that the solitude is beneficial in such an urban environment (P.A., 1975). Manhattan Landing has provided a single level deck which steps down to the river's edge and results in a 2.6 acre park that links up with a pedestrian promenade (P.A., 1975) Seattle is proposing partially covered pavillions on unused piers that also will descend by steps directly into the water (City of Seattle, 1983). Landscaping and terracing has been used to screen the railway running along the waterfront from the recreation facility in Little Rock, Arkansas (HCRS, 1980). As well, pedestrian pathways are recessed into the riverbank to divorce them from the CBD and a pedestrian bridge linking the waterfront and the CBD is covered and heated (HCRS, 1980). 32 Toledo, Ohio has begun redeveloping their urban waterfront and are including such innovative recreational facilities as trolley rides, a lagoon, an international village and festival grounds, as well as more common recreation and open spaces. It should be noted however, that they are having difficulty funding it to completion (HCRS, 1980). Savannah, Georgia is having similar problems and is leaving out public restrooms in order to minimize cost, vandalism, and maintenance (HCRS, 1980). San Francisco's Embarcadero Gardens will incorporate a showboat theatre, a \"boatel\", historic shops, floating restaurants fountains, food fair, carousel, covered play area, and a public fishing pier (HCRS, 1980). Due to severe winter weather, a hard-edged redevelopment is occurring in Le Vieux-Port de Montreal. Plazas, planters, benches and walkways are surrounding heritage features such as the Sailor's Memorial Clock Tower, locks, a drawbridge, and historic buildings. A large marina and sailing school is planned and bars and restaurants will be included but much of the design will be dictated by weather considerations (Port de Montreal, 1983). Although not totally necessary due to a more moderate climate, Seatde's waterfront park has a similar hard-edged appearance with unadorned concrete and creosote-soaked planks (P.A., 1975). An aquarium with underwater viewing into Puget Sound, a fish hatchery, and fishing holes in piers (simulating ice fishing) serve as unique attractions to the area (NOAA, 1979). Denver's South Platte Riverway is a more soft-edged example with a 17 mile greenway containing both passive and active public open spaces. Facilities such as archery and gun clubs, kayak runs, golf courses, beaches, and nature trails are included but at present operating costs are a problem (HCRS, 1980). Maintenance costs are also a problem in San Diego where the 3.5 mile Embarcadero includes large landscaped areas and beaches separating hotels and retail facilities (ULI, 1983). Undulating berms serve as physical and visual separation of uses as well as providing seating walls along the waterside. 33 Portland's Williamette Park has made an important step by making everything fully accessible to the handicapped. They have also provided tennis courts on top of buildings in the residential sector (ULI, 1983). The inclusion of local ethnic and heritage themes was important to Tulsa, Oklahoma River Park's success. An \"old west\" playground and an American Indian Heritage center were imaginative additions to the project and the programming of special events has aided in a steady growth of visitors which was at 2 M. in 1980 with the project not yet complete (HCRS,- 1980). Norfolk, Virginia has included such innovative attractions as a people mover that doubles as a fun ride and a Jacques Cousteau oceans center, as well as funding an organization called \"Festevents\" that is responsible for programming any events for the waterfront park. Boston has combined historical preservation, recreation, retail and industry through the redevelopment of it's waterfront Navy Pier has maintained it's shipping function while restoring historical structures and adding recreational facilities. A dry dock has been permanently flooded with a promenade encircling it and the adjacent 16 acre Shipyard Park has included marine oriented plantings and design in an attempt to improve the area image (ULI, 1983). Faneuil' Hall Marketplace, developed by the Rouse Company has been a booming success due to a large extent the fact that it has both day and night activity businesses such as flower sellers open 24 hours a day, and good pedestrian links to both the waterfront park and the CBD (Ferebee, 1977). Walsh (1968) feels that the construction of the adjacent waterfront park was the key to providing an attractive setting and reinforcing the credibility of the overall project 34 2.3 CASE STUDIES OF RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES IN N O R T H AMERICAN URBAN WATERFRONTS 2.3.1 SAN ANTONIO'S RIVERWALK Due to conservation status since 1924 the San Antonio River has always been a mixture of plant and floral species (Gunn, 1974). The development of the central city portion of the river has progressed over 50 years and resulted in \". . . the most outstanding example of an urban greenway, a tribute to this far-sighted city. . . \" (EPA. 1980, P. 35). The Riverwalk is broken up into four distinct areas. Area A (FIG. 1) has landscaped walkways with no shops. Area B has the walkway flanked by hotels, a hospital, and a library. Area C includes shops, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment facilities flanking the walkway. Area D is a man made landscaped link between the Riverwalk and the civic center. The location of the Riverwalk is one level down. from the city and the same level as the river, therefore providing a distinctive character change from the city. Exising adjacent uses have been inventoried and attempts are made for matching similar activity levels along the Riverwalk (P.A., 1975). Previously street oriented businesses have inverted to face the river or added entrances along the river (Gunn, 1974). A variety of links and connections go through buildings, down spiral staircases and beside bridges. It is patrolled and well-lit, and all of this adds up to the perception of it as safe, accessible, unique, urbane, and offering a variety of activities from restful to exciting (P.A., 1975). A 1971 Texas A & M University user survey (Gunn, 974) found that although 74% of users were visitors, no conflicts were reported or observed with local or ethnic groups. A wide range of user age was found and although there are 2.5 million visitors/year, many commented that they came to relax in a peaceful setting away 35 Area A - landscaped walkways along the river, open space, footpath linkage with the core and upper San Antonio, no commercial outlets. Area B - destination greenspace area with hotels, a library, and a hospital; both sections are heavily verdant Area C - landscaped setting featuring many shops, restaurants, hotels, and places of entertainment Area C - man-made excavated area that links the Riverwalk with the civic center theatre, exhibition, and arena. FIGURE 1 - San Antonio's Riverwalk 36 from the city. In addition, a survey of voters (Gunn, 1974) found that 98% had visited the Riverwalk, 97% said it was of value to the tourists, 81% said it was of value to the city, and 75% said it was of value to them. San Antonio's small size has probably helped, generate community response, and development pressures have been low therefore allowing uninterrupted growth (Papademetriou, 1975). However, Gunn (1974) feels the success has been due to its diversity of activity combined with a compatability of adjacent land uses. 2.3.2 TORONTO'S HARBOURFRONT The city of Toronto has a history of land-filling in it's water harbour area and building rail lines and roadways along it's waterfront. The original redevelopment idea in the 1970's for this area was to create a large urban park but this would only have been usable 6 months/year. Instead, what happened is that 'Harbourfront' was developed with climate in mind, as the summer is pleasant with lake breezes but the winter is severe. (FIG. 2) Buildings, trees, and landscaping are used to block winds and walkways can be enclosed in in glass in winter. A glass covered garden called \"Winter Gardens\" is in full bloom year round and provides a well needed respite from the bleak Toronto winters. The positive features of the site upon redevelopment were; single ownership (Federal Government), southern exposure, large amount of shoreline, water views, and proximity to CBD (ULI, 1983). The negative features were; physical and visual barriers, poor infrastructure, incompatible land uses, restricted access, and wind exposure (ULI, 1983). Visual access was maintained wherever possible with downtown by leaving major street ends open that connected the waterfront to the CBD. Trees and plantings were not only used as windbreaks but also to enclose open space and orient it to the water (ULI, 1983). FIGURE 2 - Toronto's Harbourfront B. (as Roosc: H- Texj&VrSiorvA -STATIONA-Mourn C O I _ T I ; 4 A U ce>JT&^ I- C A i O A 1 > A H A L T l O ^ i M. kjAiuoJAY M0-6&UHI jk o B A T W O ^ T ^ - P A T > 1 N J A M A P L E U £ A F a i > K ^ V « £ > C ©OA-/ QvMS 3 U A V C^UAV 'M- P f t o \" P o s e X 5 M A R ( K i A P. UNST>e<2_OATe:f2. T l S A / i ^ l N i C , C ^ i - J - r ^ - ^ 4-00 Q- T o R e M - T O 1312-16, A N A T O V J S C N \\ E T E R S S- Ato-riaoe M A i ^ e n T. WALUS tAA6o i i Tue Thur Sat Sun 4 / 6 / 1 5 / 1 7 129 2 12/15 / 15 / 14 11 / 10 / 18 / 20 8 / 7 / 1 8 / 2 2 170 .3 4 / 1 / 3 / 12 6 / 8 / 9/11 4 / 3 / 6 / 8 75 4 8 / 7 / 10 / 5 3 / 1 / 8/12 6 / 4 / 10 / 7 81 5 4 / 4 / 6/14 6 / 6 / 10 / 7 8 / 1 3 / 1 5 / 1 1 104 6 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 2 7 3 / 4 / 7/10 4 / 4 / 8 / 2 0 4 / 6 / 8 / 9 87 8 5 / 7 / 23 / 22 6 / 3 / 28 / 24 4 / 10 / 12 / 9 153 9 30 / 33 / 24 / 42 20 / 17 / 25 / 22 1 / 3 / 5 / 7 229 10 2 / 6 / 27 / 6 5 / 3 / 4 / 5 0 / 1 / 5 / 3 67 11 32 / 28 / 33 / 85 14 / 7 / 2 0 / 2 2 3 / 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 275 12 115 /125 /169 /469 75 / 81 /180 /210 10 / 9 / 2 5 / 7 0 1538 13 20/17 / 40 / 33 12 / 19 / 22 / 27 4 / 1 / 2 5 / 3 9 259 14 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 0 / 0 / 3 / 2 0 / 0 / 2 / 2 . 12 15 2 / 3 / 7 / 1 3 2 / 4 / 6 / 3 0 7 0 / 2 / 0 42 16 2 / 1 / 6 /115 4 / 6/51 /145 1 / 2 / 8 / 6 347 17 3 / 4 / 8 / 1 0 3 7 9 / 10 / 9 4 / 3 / 4 / 5 72 18 12 / 15 / 17 / 23 11 / 13 / 18 / 20 3 / 2 / 8 / 6 148 86 APPENDIX 3. USE/SQ. METER GRANVILLE ISLAND RECREATION & OPEN SPACES # SQ. M. AVERAGE NUMBER OF USERS 12-1 P.M. 3-4 P.M. 5-6 P.M. AVERAGE , USERS/SQ. M. 1 5200 12.25 9.5 1 0 . 5 .0026 2 3000 14.0 14.75 13.75 .0047 3 7400 5.0 8.5 5.25 . 0008 4 350 7.5 6.0 6.75 .0578 5 2000 7.0 7.25 11.75 .0130 6 600 0.0 0.0 .5 .0003 7 1500 6.0 9.0 6.75 .0145 8 6300 14.25 12.75 8.75 .0057 9 480 32.25 21.0 4.0 .1192 10 700 10.25 4.25 2.25 .0239 11 750 44.5 15.75 8.5 .0916 12 1100 219.5 136.5 28.5 .3495 13 500 27.5 20.0 17.25 .1295 14 50 .75 1.25 1.0 .0600 15 200 6.25 3.75 .5 .0525 16 750 31.0 51 .5 4.25 .1153 17 1000 6.25 7.75 4.0 .0180 18 1300 16.75 15.5 4.75 .0285 87 A P P E N D I X 4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 8^ 15 s-. $ 9 S 2 ^ J > < mi VI q > 3 C •L Ul -1 Ul t- fr p CO O 0 *~— £ i > >/ \\f> J 0 < 111 5 s*s ' g iU |0 ^ £ s ^ I i - J 5 3 for? < »3 < f 0 ^ 1 \\n f I a 1 ? ? ! i l l 5« §^ I o \"R 10 <=. I S 3 II hM I 5 0 * . 5 S < « «i 0 1 f f f f o i l 0 be * « 1 Ul III in iff65 l 33 *- 5 v it W - i IM 3 2 \"* - 7 ' lU I f ff ? 3 v?(S > mi | o o Z i» i Ul 2 ai >i v- « i * - l i r 1 1 : o § ^ t .Ul 5 St < i f f M l 1 3 ^ «5 > in Ss £ va vn • f i g 0 — , % sf f iiil lis VI ^ z j w ul l i u id 0 — • ^ ^ l I * i >^ ^ ui i t < o | x 1 n i l 1 \\n Q 8 In «vim h u i j 0 ^ O '—' I •J \"J r ^ H 1 \\ l l Ul > o 3 s £ 0 W \"^ •* b f.f f f J f i If 111 m O _ i l l £ v5 V1 0 • -ul £ UJ < r 0 r •3 v rr \"o 1111 3 JaJS M) V •! m i n t j « ^ -* ^ .S CM Q t- „ t ^ 0 '—• 3 SPvir 1 Ik* M J ^ 1^ « c ui 5 — m 0 c=. - - 7r a £ T 7 < H i f ^ f | P j P <& ^ Ul v 5 2 81 s if 2 ^ X 1 1 U l ^ ^ — <3 < UJ 'ui > 0 £ ^ cr i 8 1 1 a £ « ui £ ^ i -O * 3 «> I « -7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Balchen, B. & J. Linville. \"The Waterfront: Let's Face It\" Journal of the American Architects Institute. V. 55, #4, 1971, P. 17-28. Baltimore City. Fact Sheet: Baltimore's Inner Harbour Shoreline Program. Baltimore Department of Housing & Community Development, Sept., 1983. Breen, Anne & Dick Rigby. \"Along the Anacostia.\" Waterfront World. V. 3, #1, 1984, P. 1-3. Burke, D. Leslie & S. H. Silverman. Ports and Public Access. Unpublished thesis, University of Britsh Columbia, 1969. Burke, James, E. Recreation Planning in the Coastal Zone. Berkeley: Institute of Urban & Regional Development, 1977. Burton, T. L., J. B. Ellis, & H. P. M. Homenuck. Guidelines for Urban Open Space Planning. Vanier City, OnL: Canadian Parks & Recreation Association, 1977. Charles Center Inner Harbor Mangement Inner Harbor Attractions Statistics. Baltimore, Dec, 1983. City of Seattle. Waterfront Development Plan Draft. Seattle, Nov., 1983. Conomos, T. J., ed. San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. Washington, DC: American Association for Advancement of Science, 1979. Corell, Harold K. Substitution Between Privately and Publicly Supplied Urban Reacreation and Open Space. Journal of Leisure Research. V. 8, #3, 1976, P. 160-164 Cowey, A. & D. Rigby. \"On the Waterfront\" Planning. V. 45., #11, 1979, P. 10-14. Darling, Arthur, H. \"Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks.\" Land Economics. V. 49 (Jan. 1973), P. 22-32. Dean, J. H. & C. S. Shih. \"Decision Analysis for Riverwalk Expansion in San 89 Antonio.\" Water Resources Bulletin. V. 11, #2, 1975, P. 237-243. Dhar, S. Factors Influencing the Use of Local Parks. Unpublished thesis, University of British Columbia, 1975. Dixon, John Morris. \"In Progress: Waterfronts.\" Progressive Architecture. V. 56 (June 1975), P. 36-65. Dunn, Diana, R. Open Space and Recreation Opportunity in America's Inner Cities. Washington, DC: National Recreation & Parks Administration, July, 1974. False Creek Community Center. Community Center Statistical Summary. Jan., 1984. Farrell, Virginia. Development and Regulation of the Urban Waterfront: Boston, San Francisco, & Seattle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980. Ferebee, Ann. Urban Design Case Studies. Washington, DC.: RC Publications, 1977. Gold, Seymour. \"The Fate of Urban Parks.\" Parks and Recreation, V. 2 (Oct 1976), P. 13-17. Gold, Seymour. \"The Non-use of Neighborhood Parks.\" Recreation Canada, V. 31, #2, 1973. Gold, Seymour. Recreation Planning & Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Goldin, Kenneth, D. Recreational Parks & Beaches: Peak Demand, Quality, & Management\" Journal of Leisure Research. V. 3, #2, 1971, P. 81-108. Gunn, Clare A. Urban Waterfronts: A Park-Business Mix. Sir Wilfred Laurier University: Dept of Geography Seminar Papers, V. 5 (1974-75), P. 164-168. Hankin, R. A. An Investigation of the Utility of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Waterfront Allocation. Unpublished thesis, University of British Columbia, 1968. Hanna, J., S. Philips, & G. Mullins. \"Decision-making in Development of Waterfronts for Park-Business Use.\" Water Resource Bulletin. V. 14, #1, 1978, P. 179-180. Harbourfront Corporation. Harbourfront News. Toronto, June, 1983. Harbourfront Corporation. The Harbourfront Plan. Toronto, 1983. Harbourfront Coproration. Harbourfront '82. Toronto, 1982. Harney, Leon ed. Reviving the Urban Waterfront. Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Space, 1979. Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service. Urban Waterfront Revitalization, V. 1 & 2. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1980. Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service. The Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan. Executive Report & the Assessment. Washington, DC: G.O.P., 1979. Heckscher, August. Open Spaces: The Life of American Cities. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Hotson, Norm. Granville Island Trust Association. Personal interview, March 1984. Joardar, S. Users Perceptions of Different Functions & Attributes of Neighbhorhood Parks: Unpublished thesis, University of British Columbia, 1975. Le Vieux Port de Quebec. Redevelopment Master Plan. Quebec City, Feb., 1982. Le Vieux Port de Quebec. The Clock Tower. Montreal, Feb., 1982. Leedy, D. L., T. M. Franklin, & R. M. Maestro. Planning for Urban Fishing & Waterfront Recreation. Columbia, M : Urban Wildlife Research center, 1981. Lehmann, Richard, A. \"The Principles of Waterfront Renewal: A Summary of Experiences in Fifty American Cities.\" Landscape Architecture. V. 56 (July 1966), P. 286-291. London, Mark. \"Urban Waterfront Planning.\" Canadian Institute of Planners Forum, V. 1 (May 1976), P. 3-7. Lopez, Stephen. \"Preserving Open Space Via Community Stewardship.\" Parks & Recreation. V. 18 (Jan. 1983), P. 66-69. Mann, Richard, C. Vancouver Downtown Waterfront Plan. Vancouver City Planning Department, 1974. Marcou, George. \"Open Space For Human Needs.\" In Open Space For People. Ed. by Mildred F. Schmertz. Washington, DC: AIA, 1970. Marlin, William. \"Anchor's Aweigh on Chicago's Latest Ammenity.\" Architectural Review. V. 161 (March 1977), P. 107-114. McLellan, Keith & Elliott Medrich. \"Outoor Recreation: Economic Consideration for Optimal Site Selection & Development\" Land Economics. V. 47, #2, 1968, P. 174-182. McLusky, Donald S. The Estuarine Ecosystem. Glasgow: Blackie, 1981. Ministry of State & Urban Affairs. The Urban Waterfront Growth & Change in Canadian Port Cities, V. 1 & 2. Ottawa, 1978. Moore, Arthur C. Bright Breathing Edges of City Life. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1970. Morton, David. \"The Battle of Georgetown.\" Progressive Architecture. V. 56 (June 1975). P. 58-61. Moss, Mitchell. \"The Urban Waterfront: Opportunity for Renewal.\" National Civic Review. V. 65 (May 1976), P. 241-244. Munro, Margaret \"Scientist Link Cancer in Fish to Pollution of Water in B.C.\" Vancouver Sun Newspaper, Dec. 1, 1983. i National Capital Planning Commission. The Urban River. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1972. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Improving Your Waterfront: A Practical Guide. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1980. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Recreation. Washington, D . C : G.P.O., 1976. Nelson, Gaylord. \"National Pollution Scandal.\" In Ecological Crisis: Readings For Survival. Ed. by Glen A. Love. New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1970. Norfolk Festevents. News Release. Norfolk, Dec, 1983. Neiring, William A. \"The Ecology of Wetlands in Urban Areas.\" In Ecological Crisis: Readings For Survival. Ed. by Glen A. Love. New York: Harcourt-Brace Inc., 1970. P. 141-151. Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group. Outdoor Recreation for America - 1983. Washington, DC: G.O.P., 1983. Papademetriou, Peter, C. \"Stream of Consciousness.\" Progressive Architecture. V. 56, #6, 1975, P. 62-65. Pendleton, Allan R. Personal Correspondance, Nov. 29, 1983. Progressive Architecture. \"Urban Waterfronts.\" Progressive Architecture. V. 56 (June 1975) P. 1-89. Reynolds, Malvina. \"A Song of San Francisco Bay.\" In Ecological Crisis: Readings for Survival. Ed. by Glen A. Love. New York: Harcourt-Brace Inc., 1970. Rouse Co. Harbourplace & Inner Harbour Data. Baltimore, Nov. 1982. Schmertz, Mildred, F. ed. Open Space for People. New York: AIA, 1970. Semotuk, Verna. Social & Recreational Ammenities in the Downtown Core. Vancouver City Planning Department, 1982. Smith, C. Ray. The Endless American Weekend. Washington, DC: AIA, 1973. Stephens, Suzanne. \"Urban Waterfronts.\" Progressive Architecture. V. 56 (June 1975), P. 41-42. The Port of Vancouver. Master Plan - Final Draft. Summary Report Vancouver, Nov., 1983. Urban Land Institute. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington, DC: ULI, 1983. US Department of the Interior. A Preliminary Urban Parks Study. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1977. US Department of the Interior. National Urban Recreation Study, Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1977. 94 US Department of the Interior. Recreation of the Nation's Cities: Problems & Approaches. Washington, DC: National League of Cities, 1968. US Department of the Interior. National Estuary Study, V.I. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1970. US Department of Housing & Urban Development. Urban Recreation. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1972. US Environmental Protection Agency. The Public Benefits of Cleaned Water: Emerging Greenway Opportunities. Washington DC: Office of Land Use Coordination, 1977. US Environmental Protection Agency. Recreation & Land Use: The Public Benefits of Cleaned Water. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Review. 1980. US Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation For America. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1962. US Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation for America - 1983. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1983. Vancouver Board of Parks & Recreation. Master Plan. Vancouver, Dec, 1982. Vancouver Board of Parks & Recreation. Parkland Acquisiton Priorities Report. Vancouver, Feb., 1982. Vancouver City Planning Commission. Goals For Vancouver . Vancouver, Feb., 1980. Vancouver City Planning Department Local Area Population Change 1976 - 1981. Vancouver, Feb., 1983. Vancouver City Planning Department Changes & Trends in Natural, Social, & Cultural Ammenities in Vancouver's Core: 1960-1970: Vancouver, April, 1983. Vancouver City Planning Department. Vancouver Local Areas. Vancouver, 1979. Wagner, Robert F. \"New York City Waterfront Changing Land-use Prospects for Redevelopment In Urban Waterfront Lands. Environmental Studies Board. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1980. Walsh, R. \"Demothballing the Boston Navy Yard.\" Journal of Housing . V. 35, #7, 1978, P. 347 - 350. Witherspoon, Robert E. ed. Mixed-Use Development: New Ways of Land Use. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1976. Wright, J. R., W. H. Braithwaite, & R. R. Forster. Planning for Urban Recreational Open: Towards Community Specific Standards. University of Guelph: Center for Resource Development, 1976. "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0096355"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Planning"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Recreation and open space in urban waterfront redevelopments"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/25023"@en .