reclamando el derecho a la vía: caja de herramientas para crear e implementar 'parklets

7/29/2019 Reclamando el Derecho a la Vía: caja de herramientas para crear e implementar 'parklets'

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reclamando-el-derecho-a-la-via-caja-de-herramientas-para-crear-e-implementar 1/173

A Toolkit for Creating and Implementing Parklets



Lewis Center



Reclaiming the Right-of-Way:a toolkit foR cReating and implementing paRklets

UCLA Complete Streets InitiativeLuskin School of Public Affairs

September 2012



ABOUT THE COMPLETE STREETS INITIATIVE

The C om plete Streets Initiat ive is a jo int effo rt of the Lewis

Ce nte r for Reg iona l Policy Stud ies, the Luskin Center for

Innova tion, a nd the Institute of Transportat ion Stud ies in the

UCLA Luskin Sc hool of Pub lic A ffa irs. The Initiat ive’ s mission

is to c ond uc t resea rc h, ed uc ate stude nts, and eng ag e

the pub lic on the m any c ritic al and often c omp eting roles

streets play in creating a mo re vibrant, produc tive, and

susta inab le Ca lifornia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This rep ort wa s ma de p ossible b y the ge nerous support of

The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbe rt Found a tion.

AUTHORSAna sta sia Loukaito u-Side ris, Assoc iate Dea n, Profe ssor

UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs;

UCLA Dep artment of Urban Planning

Ma de line Brozen, Prog ram Ma nag er

Comp lete Streets Initia tive

UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

Colleen C allaha n, Dep uty Direc tor

Luskin Center for Innovation

UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

…

Ind ia Brookove r, Gradua te Stud ent


Neal LaM onta gne , Grad uate Stude nt


Veena Sneha nsh, Grad ua te Stud ent




ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anastasia Loukaitou- Side ris

is the assoc iate dea n o f the Luskin

Sc hoo l of Pub lic Affa irs and a p rofessor

in the Department of Urban Planning

at UCLA. Her research foc uses on

the p ublic environm ent o f the c ity, its

physica l rep resentat ion, ae sthet ics,

soc ial mea ning, and imp ac t on the

urban residen t. Her bo oks include Urban

Design Dow ntown: Poe tics and Politic s

of Form (1998), Jobs and Economic

Developm ent in M inority Co mm unities

(2006), Sidewalks: Conict and

Negotia tion ove r Pub lic Spa c e (2009),

and Companion to Urban Design (2011).

Made line Brozen is the

program m ana ge r of the UCLA

Co mplete Streets Initiat ive a t the Luskin

Sc hool o f Pub lic Affa irs. Her resea rch

interests inc lude spa tial a na lysis,eq uity, transpo rtation, a nd innova tive

streetsc ape de sign. She holds a M.A in

Urba n Planning from UCLA and a B.S in

Urba n Stud ies from the University of New

Orleans.

Colleen Callahan is

dep uty d irec tor of the UCLA Luskin

Cente r for Innova tion. Her resea rch

interests include the intersec tion o f

transpo rtation po lic y and p ublic he alth,

pa rticularly in the a rea of a ir qua lity

policy. She holds a M.A. in Urban

Planning from UCLA and a B.A. in

Urban a nd Environm enta l Policy from

Oc cidenta l College .



table of contents

1. Introduc tion 1

Purpose of this Toolkit 2

Scope 2

Methodology 4

Parklet Basics 5

Need and Rationale 7

Parklet Precedents 8

2. Parklets in Los Ang eles 17

Park(ing) Day LA 18

Streets for People 20

Bike Corrals 23Fitness Zones 25

Other Key Precedents 27

Current Efforts and City Support 30

3. PROGRAM CASE STUDIES 34Introduction 35

San Francisco 36

Montréal 44

New York City 48

Vancouver 54

Philadelphia 59

Long Beach 64

Oakland 67

Policy Recommendations 72

Conclusion 73



4. DESIGN GUIDANCE 77Introduction 77

How do I select a site? 78

How do I design a site? 80

What are land use considerations? 81

What are design considerations

based on shape and size? 85What are considerations based on the duration of the

installation? 97

How do I construct the parklet base? 109

How do I design my site for safety? 114

How do I design my site for comfort? 117

How can I landscape my site? 120

What amenities can I include in my site? 124

How do I design an active recreation parklet? 127

How are parklets marked as public space? 129

How much does it cost and where can I find support? 134

How do I maintain my site? 136

Conclusion 138

5. VISIONS FOR FUTURE PARKLETS 140Site 1: “Residential parklet” 142

Site 2: “Street vending parklet” 143

Site 3: “Skid Row revitalization parklet” 144

Site 4: “School proximate parklet” 145

Site 5: “Culturally significant parklet” 147

Site 6: “LA’s diagonal parklet” 148

Site 7: “Garden space parklet” and/or

“Active recreation parklet 149

6. APPENDIx 153A: Los Angeles Bike Corral Maintenance Agreement 153

B: Interview Questions for City Staff 154

C: Interview Questions for Businesses 156

D: Interview Questions for Parklet Designers 157

E: Interview References 158



list of tables

Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Parklet Programs………………………………74

Table 2. Parklet Typologies………………………………………………………………...80

Table 3. Summary of Design Guidelines for Parklets in Different Cities………………87

Table 4. Parklet Traffic Safety Guidelines in Different Cities……………………………114

Table 5. Costs for Various Parklets………………………………………………………. 134

Table 6. Parklet Cost Breakdown..………………………………………………………..135



Fig. 1. Rendering of 40th Street, Oakland, CA.

Credit: Andrea Gaffney and Justin Viglianti 1

Fig. 2. Parklet use on Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Jeremy Shaw 3

Fig. 3. Rendering for Spring Street Parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Berry and Linné 6

Fig. 4. Park(ing) Day, Seattle, WA.

Credit: Rob Ketcherside 9

Fig. 5. Park(ing) Day Bratislava, Slovakia.

Credit: Mark Archimera 11

Fig. 6. Castro Commons, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Frank Chan, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition 11

Fig. 7. Herald Square, New York City, CA.

Credit: Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris 12

Fig. 8. Painted intersection, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Michelle Selvans 14

Fig. 9. Chair “bombing,” Brooklyn, NY.

Credit: Aurash Khawarzad 14

Fig. 10. CicLAvia, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Waltarrrrr 15

list of illustRations

Fig. 11. People at Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Pacoima Beautiful 17

Fig. 12. Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 13. Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Neal LaMontagne 21

Fig. 14 . Plan view rendering, Sunset Triangle Plaza,

Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Rios Clementi Hale Studios 22

Fig. 15. Sunset Triangle Plaza design,

Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 16. Bike corral, Portland, OR.

Credit: Chris Brunn 24

Fig. 17. Bike corral, Highland Park, CA.Credit: LADOT Bikeways 24

Fig. 18. Fitness Zone, South Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Christine Trang 25

Fig. 19. Fitness Zone equipment, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Office of Council member José Huizar 26



Figs. 20 and 21. Before and after: Pico Blvd. and Hoover St.,

Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative 28

Figs. 22 and 23. Before and after: Pico Blvd. and Normandie Ave.,

Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 24. Rendering of Spring Street parklet, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Berry and Linné 31

Fig. 25. Plan view of Spring Street parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Tony Lopez 31

Fig. 26. Rendering of El Serrano parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Kelli Rudnick 32

Fig. 27. Rendering of York Boulevard parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Kelli Rudnick 32

Fig. 28. Pop up café, New York City, NY.

Credit: NYC Department of Transportation 34

Fig. 29. Castro Commons, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Jamison Wieser 36

Fig. 30. “Parkmobile” Yerba Buena district, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Madeline Brozen 39

Fig. 31. Café Abir, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopiad.org 41

Fig. 32. Devil’s Teeth parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: San Francisco Pavement to Parks 41

Fig. 33. Powell Street Promenade, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: SFMTA Livable Streets Division 42

Fig. 34. Planters, Powell Street Promenade, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: SFMTA Livable Streets Division 42

Fig. 35. Terrasse, Montréal, Quebec.



Credit: Laurence Parent 44


Credit: Alain Quevillon 45

Fig. 38. FIKA, New York City, NY.Credit: Sam Smith 48

Fig. 39. Traditional sidewalk café seating, New York City, NY.

Credit: Ted Jensen 49

Fig. 40. Pop-up café locations, New York City, NY.


Fig. 41. Flexible bollard and wheel stop, New York City, NY.


Fig. 42. Car free day, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Credit: Christian Paul 54

Fig. 43. Parallel Park, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Credit: VIVA Vancouver 56

Fig. 44. Parklet, Philadelphia, PA.

Credit: Philly Bike Coalition 59



Fig. 45. Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.


Fig. 46. Wheel stop and flexible bollard, Philadelphia, PA.


Fig. 47. Berlin parklet, Long Beach, CA.

Credit: Daniel Faessler 64

Fig. 48. Berlin parklet, Long Beach, CA.

Credit: Daniel Faessler 65

Fig. 49. Rendering of 40th Street in Oakland, CA.

Credit: Andrea Gaffney and Justin Viglianti 67

Fig. 50. Parking kiosk, Oakland, CA.Credit: Mike Linksvayer 70

Fig. 51. Parklet, Philadelphia, PA.

Credit: Dan Reed 82

Fig. 52. Colorful chairs at parklet, Philadelphia, PA.

Credit: Philly Bicycle Coalition 82

Fig. 53. Sloped seating at Deeplet parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopia.org 84

Fig. 54. Succulent dinosaur, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Kimberly Conley 84

Fig. 55. Seating lined with landscaping, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Matarozzi Pelsigner Builders 86

Fig. 56. Plan view of Noriega parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Matarozzi Pelsigner Builders 88

Fig. 57. Plan view of traffic triangle conversion, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris 89

Fig. 58. Converted traffic triangle, Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 59. "Billboard" with green polka dots, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Ross Reyes 91

Fig. 60. Planters at Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Alissa Walker 92

Fig. 61. LADOT installation crews at Sunset Triangle Plaza,

Los Angeles CA.

Credit: Margot Ocañas 92

Fig. 62. Children at Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Alissa Walker 93

Fig. 63. Picnurbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.


Fig. 64. Picnurbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.


Fig. 65. Conceptual design forPicnurbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Credit: Loose Affiliates 96

Fig. 66. Park(ing) Day installation in Downtown Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Mike Manal 97

Fig. 67. Whimsical drawing from parklet petition, Oakland, CA.

Credit: Actual Café 98



Fig. 68. Signage at Pacoima Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 69. Parklet installation, Philadelphia, PA.

Credit: Philly Bicycle Coalition 101

Fig. 70. Conceptual drawing, "Peace Keeper" parklet, SanFrancisco, CA.

Credit: Erik Otto 103

Fig. 71. Steel substructure diagram, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: fabric8 103

Fig. 72. Installed steel sub-structure, "Peace Keeper" parklet.

Credit: Martha Traer 103

Fig. 73. "Peace Keeper" parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: fabric8 104

Fig. 74 . “Walklet,” San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Jeremy Shaw 105

Fig. 75. Plan view for “Walklet” options, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Rebar 105

Fig. 76. Options for "Walklet" pieces.Credit: Rebar 106

Fig. 77. Trouble Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: San Francisco Planning Department 107

Fig. 78. Trouble Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org 108

Fig. 79. Bison pedestal system during installation in San

Francisco, CA.


Fig. 80. Cross-section of Bison pedestals of differing heights.


Fig. 81. Pre-cast concrete pavers during installation,

San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Streetsblog SF 111

Fig. 82. Steel sub-structure, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Martha Traer 112

Fig. 83. Divisadero Parklet platform, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 84. Wooden sub-structure for platform, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Excelsior Action Group / www.eagsf.org 113

Fig. 85. Pre-fabricated modules, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Kate McCarthy 113

Fig. 86. Four Barrel parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Bruce Damonte Photography 115

Fig. 87. Bombay / FIKA edge, New York City, NY.


Fig. 88. Haight Street parklet, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 89. Café Seventy8, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: San Francisco MTA Livable Streets 117



Fig. 90. Squat and Gobble parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Brian Kusler 118

Fig. 91. Plastic lawn chairs, Times Square, New York City, NY.

Credit: Jennifer Wu 119

Fig. 92. "Walklet," Mission District, San Francisco, CACredit: Rebar 119

Fig. 93. Dinosaur landscaping at Deeplet parklet, San

Francisco, CA.

Credit: Kimberly Conley 120

Fig. 94. Landscaping with a roll of Astroturf, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 95. Drought-resistant plants, Freewheel Bike Shop,San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 96. Planters doubling as bollards, Just for Fun parklet,

San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Trees on San Pedro Street Project 122

Fig. 97. Landscaped focused parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Ogrydziak Prillinger Architects 123

Fig. 98. Umbrellas, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Elizabeth Daniels Photography 124

Fig. 99. Bike corral, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: LADOT Bikeways 125

Fig. 100. Bicycle parking mounted to parklet platform, Mojo Café,

San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Thomas Rogers 126

Fig. 101. Vertical bicycle racks, Four Barrel Café,

San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Bruce Damonte Photography 126

Fig. 102. Active recreation parklet rendering,

Downtown Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Berry and Linné 128

Fig. 103. Required signage, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Noah Christman, SPUR 129

Fig. 104. Pop-up café sign, New York City, NY.

Credit: Sam Smith 129

Fig. 105. Personalized signage, Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 106. Personalized signage, Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 107. Parklet, Long Beach, CA.

Credit: Studio 111 131

Fig. 108. Four Barrel Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.


Fig. 109. Public signage at Parallel Park, Vancouver, BC.

Credit: Phil Kehres 133

Fig. 110. Parallel Park, Vancouver, B.C.

Credit: Phil Kehres 133



Fig. 116. Concept for “LA’s diagonal parklet,”

Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps 147

Fig. 117. Rendering of “LA’s diagonal parklet,”

Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover 148

Fig. 118. Concept for parklets at Cesar Chavez

Ave. and Grand Ave, Los Angeles CA.


Fig. 119. Rendering of “active recreation parklet,”

Los Angeles CA.

Credit: Veena Samartha 150

Fig. 120. Rendering of “garden space parklet,”

Los Angeles CA.

Credit: India Brookover 151

Figure 111. Concept for “residential parklet,”

Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: India Brookover/ Google Maps 142

Figure 112. Concept for “street vending parklet,”

Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Madeline Brozen/Google Maps 143

Fig. 113. Concept for “Skid Row revitalization parklet”

Los Angeles, CA.


Fig. 114. Concept for “school proximate parklet,”

Los Angeles,CA.


Fig. 115. Concept for “culturally significant parklet”

Los Angeles, CA.




Figure 1. Rendering from 40th Street, Oakland, CA.Credit: Andrea Gaffney and Justin Viglianti

1. IntroductIon



2 RECLAIMING THE RIGHT OF WAY

The p urpo se o f the Parklet Too lkit (to olkit) is to provide

city staff and co mmunity memb ers with prac tica l guida nce

to supp ort the d evelop ment of sma ll-sc ale p arks, ca lled

pa rklets. Pa rklet prog rams and p rojec ts a re sprea d ing

qu ickly ac ross the na tion, from San Franc isc o to New York

and other cities proled in the toolkit. This decision support

toolkit is designed specically to facilitate the development

of p arklet p rojec ts in the c ity of Los Ange les and enc ourage

a p arklet program that c rea tes an institutiona lized pa thwa y

for their installation. Despite the focus on Los Angeles, the

program case studies, project guidelines, and other best

prac tice s presente d in this too lkit are easily transferab le to

other communities across the nation.

This too lkit be gins with a n introduc tion to parklets,

including the denition of parklets and a summary of their

use, value, and prec ed ents. Next, Chap ter 2 provides

c on text for pa rklets in Los Ang eles. This c ha p te r high lights

ac tivities tha t led to c urrent effo rts to re-purpose streets,

re-energize p ub lic spa c es, and insert physica l ac tivity

op po rtunities into the urba n e nvironme nt.

Cha p ter 3 co nsists of c ase stud ies of p arklet p rogram s

in c ities ac ross North Am erica . The c ase stud ies a re

ordered starting with the most ad vanc ed program to the

mo st na sc ent. These c ase stud ies rep resent a snap shot

in time , co ntaining information g lea ned from interviews

with prog ram lead ers and a literature review c ond uc ted

during the sp ring of 2012. As the p arklet m ove me nt is

rap idly evo lving and expa nding, the autho rs of this toolkit

ac knowledge that the p rogram sec tion c ontains an

inco mp lete list of p a rklet prog rams. The p rogram s include d

in the toolkit, howeve r, were selec ted by UCLA resea rchers

to c ollec tively show a rang e of b est prac tices that c ould

serve a s mo dels for Los Ange les and other c ities see king

Purpose of this Toolkit Scope



RECLAIMING THE RIGHT OF WAY 3

Figure 2. Parklet use on Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Jeremy Shaw

to b eg in similar initiat ives. The c ase stud ies high light key

information a bo ut reoc c urring them es of p rog ram go als, site

selec tion, de sign d evelop ment, pe rmitting, ma intenanc e,

and lessons lea rned.

Cha pte r 4 provides prac tica l ad vice a nd supp orting

de tails at a micro level to help read ers select a project site

and then design parklet projects based on the specic

context, including surrounding land use, desired project

duration, and project function a nd o bjec tives. Examp les of

specic projects are included throughout this chapter to

illustrate and highlight examples within a parklet typology

ma trix. This c hap ter a lso gives rea ders dec ision suppo rt too ls

for designing a project that incorporate s c onsiderations of

c ost, safety a nd c om fort, landsc ap ing a nd environm enta l

am enities, as well as ma nag eme nt and m aintena nc e.

The to olkit c onc ludes with a summ ary of whe re pa rklet

prog rams and p rojec ts origina ted , their c urrent sta tus,

and future opportunities. As such, Chapter 5 includes

seve ra l photo simulations to illustrate the rang e o f po tent ial

possibilities for parklets in Los Angeles.




UCLA resea rc hers c om piled the informa tion used in the

toolkit through a c om bination o f online literature reviews

and one-on-one interviews with p arklet program and

project leaders. Specically, the program case studies of

Cha pter 3 involved structured interview s using a sta nd ard

format of 17 p roc ess-oriented q uestions. These interviews

were co nduc ted with the p arklet p rogram direc tors of ea ch

of the proled cities. Interview questions addressed program

goals and objectives, program history, organizational

proc ess, sc op e (numb er of projec ts and project typ ology),

pe rmitting a nd m aintena nc e req uirem ents, and funding, as

we ll as p rog ram e va luation, impa c ts, cha lleng es, suc c esses,

and lessons lea rned. The survey instruments c an be found in

the App endix.

For Chap ter 4, UCLA resea rc hers c ond uc ted two

types of interview s: 1) with pa rklet de signers; and 2) with

business ow ners or mana ge rs who ha ve a do pte d e ac h of

the parklets. The interviewees provided insights into specic

elements of parklet projects and answered questions such

as:

• What design considerations should I make if Ihave a site of a c ertain size?

• What should be taken into account if thepa rklet is surround ed by pa rtic ular land uses?

• What factors should I consider when designing

parklet seating?

The resea rc hers extrac ted lessons and p rac tica l advice

d raw ing from the interview s with d esigners, business ow ners,

and c ity staff. The g oa l of the to olkit is to p rovide prac tica l

ad vice and dem onstrate the wide range o f design o ptions

ava ilab le for pa rklet insta lla tions.

Methodology




The term “parklet” was rst used in San Francisco to

rep resent the c onversion of an auto mo bile p arking spa c e

into a mini-park for p assive rec reation. This too lkit expa nds

this basic denition to include other spaces formerly

oc c upied by c ars as well as spa c es that c an a lso fa c ilitate

ac tive rec reation.

Parklets e me rge from the low -co st conversionof sma ll and under utilized residua l spaces

originally devo ted to ca rs into spac es for the

passive or ac tive rec rea tion of peop le.

Parklets are typ ica lly c rea ted by b uilding a platfo rm o n

the pavement to extend the sidewalk space, and retrotting

it with be nc hes, plan ters, tab les and c ha irs, umb rellas, and

bike racks. In the case of active recreation parklets, exercise

mac hines c an b e bo lted to the p latform.

Parklets va ry based on the fo llow ing c harac teristics:

• Loc ation: Parklets c an oc c upy former pa rkingspaces, street medians, trafc triangles, re-purposed travel lanes and parking lots orexcess asphalt space at angled or irregularintersections.

• Surrounding land uses: Commercial orresidential,

• Size: From a couple of parking of spaces tospaces extending along the length a block,to larger spaces occupying entire parts of ablock,

• Shape:Linear, square, rectangular, triangular,or irregular,

• Duration:From a few hours (e.g. Cic lovias andSund ay Streets), to one day (Park(ing ) Day), topa rt of the yea r (du ring sp ring and summ er), toyea r-a round insta lla tions,

• Typeofactivity:Passive or ac tive rec rea tion.

This parklet p rojec t typ olog y will be further exp lored in

Cha pte r 4.

Parklet Basics




Figure 3. Rendering for Spring Street Parklet, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Berry and Linné

In addition to presenting a range of locations and typologies for parklets, this toolkit also introduces the concept of

ac tive rec rea tion p a rklets. Typ ica lly, pa rklets have served passive recrea tion p urposes, suc h as sitting a nd enjoying a c up of

c offee p urcha sed a t a ne arby ca fé. But as will be d isc ussed in Chap ter 2, in Los Ang eles, plans a re m oving fo rwa rd fo r the

de velopm ent o f a pa rklet t hat will inc lude e xerc ise eq uipm ent. This type of p arklet would allow pe de strians to ac tively use the

pub lic right-of-wa y.




The Los Ang eles pa rk system la gs beh ind o the r large

c ities of the West Co ast in terms of p ercenta ge of spa c eded ic ated to pa rks.1 The exac t am ount of a c c essible op en

space in Los Angeles varies widely by neighborhood and

largely relates to ne ighbo rhood ec onom ic prospe rity.2

While wealthier and disproportionately non-Hispanic white

area s ha ve ove r 100 ac res per 1,000 residents, ma ny low -

income neighborhoods in the densely populated areas

of Los Ange les have less than one ac re o f pa rk spa c e p er1,000 residen ts.3 These “ pa rk-po or” neighbo rhood s also have

limited ac c ess to fresh a nd hea lthy foo ds. Not surp risingly,

ob esity prevalenc e is higher in these area s; ap proximat ely

one in th ree a dults in South Los Ang eles is ob ese.4 These

pa tterns c ollec tively de mo nstrate the d ire nee d fo r

increased open space for physical activity in inner city Los

Ange les neighbo rhood s.In comparison, signicantly more space in Los Angeles

is de dic ate d to the mo veme nt of vehicles (i.e. roa dw ays

and the p ublic rights-of-wa y) than is found in all of the c ity’s

parks.5 Los Ange les is not alone in this rega rd . Roa d spac e

comprises a signicant amount of acreage in US cities,

and a t least since the last c entury, this spac e ha s be en

the domain of the private automobile. Indeed, US cities

are characterized by wider trafc lanes and more surface

parking lots tha n c ities in o the r co untries.Rec ently, som e US c ities have sta rted to rethink the

use o f street spa c e a nd c onvert formerly auto mo bile-

oc c up ied spa c es into multi-use spac es for pedestrians in

the fo rm o f pa rklets. While co nverting large swa ths of land

in central and inner city neighborhoods is often unfeasible

or very expensive, an a dvanta ge of p a rklets is their low

insta lla tion a nd ma intenanc e c osts for c ities. This is due inpart to their relatively small size, less permanent nature,

and partnerships with a dja c ent businesses. A lead ing

orga niza tion in the p a rklet movem ent , San Franc isc o Grea t

Stree ts Projec t, de sc ribes pa rklets in the fo llow ing way:

“ Parklets are b uilt out o f sem i-perma nent m a teria ls

and are installed in a way that does not require

reconguring the roadway or pouring concrete.

They a re usua lly hosted or sponsored by a loc a l

business or organization that pays to design and

build them and ag rees to keep them ma intained.” 6

Need and Rationale




Parklets, as dened and explored in this toolkit, are a

rec ent p henom enon in Americ an c ities, but one with roo ts

in ea rlier trend s in public spa c e d esign and urba n p lac e

ma king in North Am eric a . The c onversion of under utilized ,

residual, or automobile-oriented spaces into places to relax,

rec rea te, or enga ge in the p ublic life of the c ity is pa rt of a t

lea st three b roa de r trend s in reshap ing urban pub lic spa c e.

The parklet movement is also specically an offshoot of the

suc c essful and nimb le pa rklet prog ram in San Franc isc o,

which has its own roots in a similar program in New York City.

A b rief overview of the history of the p arklet m ovem ent is

provided below to highlight the c ontext a nd explain how

parklets t within the North American public space tradition,

and how the y ca n provide new o pp ortunities for pub lic

spac es in urba n env ironm ents.The idea of t he “ parklet” in its c urrent expression

em erge d in San Franc isc o in the form of tem porary

installations intended to extend the social life and

pe de strian spa c e o f the sidewa lk into pa rking spa c es.

Reb ar, a San Franc isc o a rt and design stud io, crea ted the

rst such parklet in 2005 by converting a single metered

pa rking spa c e into a te mp orary (two-hour) pub lic pa rk in

dow ntown San Franc isc o. This parklet w as c om p lete w ith a

lawn, shad e tree, and pa rk be nc h.

This initial ac tion q uickly transformed into a glob a l

trend and spa rked the developm ent of a n international

Park(ing ) Day mo vem ent. Every yea r myriad o rga niza tions

and individua l pa rtic ipa nts in cities ac ross North Ame ric a

and Europe transform p arking spac es into a d iverse a rray of

urban p arks for a day or less.

The succ ess of Park(ing) Day e nc ourag ed Reb ar to

experiment with mo re extensive forms of tem po rary spa c e

ac tivation. Eventua lly the City of San Franc isc o incorpo ra ted

parklets (including a Reb ar designed pa rklet kit) as part

of its “ Paveme nt to Parks” prog ram. This prog ram seeks to

rec laim und er utilized street spa c e a nd c onvert it into ne w,

quick, and afforda ble p ublic plazas and pa rks that c an e xist

for days or years (ra ther tha n a day or less). The prog ram

sta rted in 2009 with an initial pilot p laza , Castro Comm ons,

c rea ted at the triang ular intersec tion of 17th, Market, a nd

Ca stro streets in San Franc isc o.

Parklet Precedents




Figure 4. Park(ing) Day, Seattle, WA.Credit: Rob Ketcherside




This prog ram wa s, in turn, insp ired by New York City’ s

2008 “ Pavem ent to Plaza” Prog ram, whic h transformed

excess roa dw ay spa c es into pub lic plazas throug h the

simp le use o f b arriers, sea ting, a nd surfac e p a inting ,

and ” Green Light Manha ttan” in 2009, whic h co nverted

auto mo bile-oriented spa c es on Broa dw ay, Times

Squa re, and Herald Squa re into p ed estrian p lazas. This

“ ped estrianiza tion” of Broad wa y in Times Square involved

ad ding movea ble seating and sidew alk pa int to c reate

ope n spa ce in the hea rt of the c ity.

While the San Franc isc o a nd New York p rogram s signify

the genesis of parklets in the US, the rise of pa rklets is a lso

c onnec ted to three b roa de r trend s, including:

Use of Residual Space

There is a long trad ition in pub lic spa c e d esign a nd

imp leme ntation to leverag e residua l spa ce s into a ctive p ublic

spa ce s or new c omm unity pa rk spa ce . These include roa dw ay

medians, spaces under bridges, trafc islands, roadway edges,

freewa y ca ps, and p a rking lots. These spa c es are o ften va lued

for their ava ilab ility, since the ir “ leftove r” sta tus doe s not

req uire e xpensive ac qu isition or intense c om pe tition fo r their

use. A rec ent effo rt to reclaim residua l spa c es is see n in the

c eleb rated reuse o f the High Line in New York City.

App roa c hes for the reclam ation of residua l spa c es

vary widely, but typically require creative site-specic design

solutions and eng ag em ent with the loc al co mm unity.

Typic a l solutions tend to be long-te rm in intent , while

the d esign and sc ale of the p rojec ts are ba sed on

c onsiderations unique to the project.

Tactical Urbanism

There is a growing interest ac ross North Am erica in

c rea ting o r transforming p ublic spa c e w ith a quicker,

ligh ter, cheaper ethos. Not o nly doe s this use o f tem po rary

tac tics allow for more afforda ble pub lic spa c e c rea tion in

an era o f limited pub lic resources, but it a lso e nc ourage s

experimentation, iteration, and ad ap tation. Many tac tica l

urba nism p rojec ts use the not ion of ” pilot” program o r

“ interim” use to avoid lengthy b urea ucratic ap proval

p roc esses, thereby ena bling c ities or group s to try pub lic

spa c e inte rventions, like p a rklets, to see wha t works, and

build an evidenc e-ba se o r supp ortive c onstituenc y for the

intervention.

Other terms associated with this trend include D-I-Y

(do-it-yourself) urbanism, guerrilla urbanism, or pop-up

urbanism. These terms reect the small-scale, affordable,

exible, and often temporary nature of tactical urbanist




Figure 6. Castro Commons, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Frank Chan, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Figure 5. Park(ing) Day Bratislava, Slovakia.Credit: Mark Archimera




Figure 7. Herald Square,New York City, NY.Credit: AnastasiaLoukaitou-Sideris




interventions bu t a lso the ir ac c essibility and ap prop riatene ss

for c omm unity or ad voc ac y group -led p rojec ts. Tac tics

typica l of this ap proac h to pub lic spa c e intervention are

usua lly tem porary in intent a nd design. Examp les include

“ c ity rep air” (c om munity group s rec laiming neighb orhood

streets as pub lic ga the ring p lac es with pa int, p lantings,

artwork, or other co mm unity-oriented am enities), “p op -

up cafés or retail spaces” (short-term commercial uses

tha t c reate op portunities for sma ll-sc a le entrep rene urs to

experime nt), and “ mo bile p layg round s” (light and ea sily

assem bled and disassem bled play fa c ilities that c an be

easily transported to new locations).

Suc h interventions c an range in size. On the larger end

of the spec trum wa s a three-block “ Popup hood ” launc hed

in Oakland , CA in 2011 that p rovided six mo nths free rent

to six new retail stores in ve previously vacant store fronts.

Other interventions include “chair-bombing” (lling a public

space with chairs to encourage sitting and socializing),

“ po p-up to wn ha lls” (providing tem po rary spa c es for public

disc ussions and forums), and “ site p re-vitaliza tion” (ena b ling

temporary uses such as community gardens, temporary

ma rkets, and art events on vac ant pa rc els or prior to

permanent development).

Car Free Streets

Parklets also t well in the trend to transform street

spa c e t o p ed estrian or other non-autom ob ile-ce ntric uses.

There is a broad spe c trum o f p ublic spa c e interventions

within this c at eg ory. These include tem po ra ry or perma nent

street c losures and c onve rsion to spac es for wa lking a nd

c yc ling , ca r-free days, and op en streets initiatives, where

streets are closed to car trafc during specic hours and

da ys (often d uring w eekend s) to ena ble b iking a nd w alking.

Although c ar-free spa c es tend to b e larger sc ale tha n

pa rklets, there is a c om mo n linea ge in the c onc ern for

expa nding p ed estrian spa c e in urba n areas.

Car-free streets range from permanent

ped estrianiza tion--inc luding Santa Monica ’s Third Street

Prom ena de --to tem po rary c losure tha t ena bles pe de strian

or eve nt use, suc h a s c a r-free days du ring C icLAvia in Los

Ang eles and Sund ay Streets in San Franc isc o, a mo ng othe rs.

The c a r-free streets move me nt a lso include s new street

de sign ap proa c hes that restric t or limit auto mo bile a c c ess

and increa se the use of lane wa ys or a lleys for festivals or

mo re pe rma nent p ed estrianization.




Figure 9. Chair “bombing,” Brooklyn, NY.Credit: Aurash Khawarzad

Figure 8. Painted intersection, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Michelle Selvans




Figure 10. CicLAvia, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Waltarrrrr




1. Harnik, P. (2000). "Comp arison of Parks and Op en Spa c es am ongMa jor West C oa st C ities," Inside City Parks . Washingt on, DC .: Urba n Land

Institute.

2. Louka itou -Side ris, A. and Stieg litz, O, (2002). "Children in Los

Ang eles Parks: A Stud y o f Equ ity, Qua lity a nd Children's Sat isfac tion w ithNeighborhood Parks," Tow n Plann ing Review 74(4): 467-488.

3. The City Projec t. (2011). “ Hea lthy Parks, Sc hools and

Co mm unities: Green Acc ess an d Equity for Los Ang eles Co unty,”ac ce ssed July 18, 2012, http:/ / ww w.cityprojectc a.org/ ourwork/ mappinggreenaccess/index.html.

4. Los Ang eles Co unty Dep artm ent of Pub lic Health. (2009). “ Key

Indicators of Health.”

5. Pastuc ha , S. (2011, Feb 24). “ Co mp lete Stree ts for Los Ang eles,”UCLA Co mp lete Streets Confe renc e. Los Ang eles: Urba n Design Stud io,Los Ang eles City Planning De pa rtment .

6. San Franc isc o Grea t Stree ts Projec t.(2012). Parklets: How to ge t

them o ff the ground, sca le them up a nd transform a c ity.

Footnotes



Figure 11. People at Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Pacoima Beautiful

2. paRklets in los angeles




Sta rting in 2007 as pa rt of the large r Park(ing) Da y

movement described in Chapter 1, Park(ing) Day LAmarked the appearance of the rst temporary parklets in

Los Ange les. Park(ing ) Day LA ha s c ont inued annua lly eve r

since 2007. While not the rst effort to increase public space

in Los Ang eles, Park(ing) Da y LA “ c eleb rates the mo me ntum

of providing a dd itional parks and op en spa c e throug hout

Los Angeles, especially as it relates to smaller, more inll

op po rtunities” b y co nverting me tered p arking spa c esinto eng ag ing, p ublic spa c e installations.7 Insta lla tions on

Park(ing) Day seek to ed uc ate the ge neral pub lic a bo ut

the p rob lems and op po rtunities relating to op en spa c e

ava ilability in the c ity of Los Ange les.

The follow ing is an eamp le of how and why one

orga niza tion, Pac oima Bea utiful, pa rticipates in Park(ing )

Day.

Pac oima Bea utiful, a me mb er-ba sed environm enta l

health and justice non-prot organization operating in Los

Ang eles’ Northeast San Fernand o Va lley, inco rporates

Park(ing) Da y into its Co mp lete Streets initia tive. The

community of Pacoima contains industrial land uses that

contribute to trafc and air pollution impacts for local

residents, who a re p redo minantly low er-inc om e La tinos.

Pac oima Bea utiful lea ds c am pa igns to increase o pe nspace and specically to improve livability along Van Nuys

Boulevard, a major trafc artery in the neighborhood.

Pac oima Bea utiful’ s Park(ing ) Day g oa ls include :

• Have a free, fun event in the c om munity.

• Increase awareness about the organization

(especially for people who are outside thetrad itional outrea c h.)

• Give out informa tion ab out Pac oima Bea utifulcampaigns and other public awarenessinformation.

• Promote the idea of increasing the amount ofgreen space and environmental amenities in

Pacoima.

Pacoima Beautiful participated in Park(ing) Day in

2010 and 2011, utilizing a pa rking spac e in front o f the libra ry

a long Va n Nuys Bouleva rd. The site wa s c hosen b ec ause o f

high foot trafc and because it has a median that shields

pedestrians from automobile trafc.

Park(ing) Day LA




Figure 12. Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Pacoima Beautiful

While the rst year’s installation successfully

attrac ted c omm unity mem be rs to the site, in the

sec ond yea r, Pac oima Bea utiful wa s ab le to be tter

me et its go als by de signing the insta lla tion to loo k

more like a trad itiona l street fair, which a re c omm on in

Pac oima. Design elem ents included ad ding a te nt and

having more tables and chairs. Organizers found that

the tent and signa ge w ere imp ortant to de signate a

pub lic spa c e. Also to c rea te a street fair environm ent

and enga ge peo ple in the spa c e, the orga nizers

epa nde d their program ming in the sec ond year to

include sidewalk art projects, a plant rafe, Popsicle

give-awa y, and bicyc le safety information. In ad dition,

Pacoima Beautiful realized the benet of coupling

Park(ing) Day with other campaign events, specically

neighborhood clean-up events.

In the fall of 2012, Pac oima Bea utiful will op en a

new poc ket pa rk. The Park(ing) Day eve nt will wo rk as

a p romo tional event for that c amp aign.

Overall, a temporary installation like the one by

Pac oima Bea utiful c osts approimately $50 to $300,

depending on how many items (such as tents, chairs,

and plants) an organization o wns prior to the event.




The Streets for Peo p le p ilot initiat ive resulted in arguab ly

the rst large-scale and longer-term parklet in Los Angeles.This pa rklet, c a lled the Sunset Triang le Plaza, op ened in

March of 2012. Yet its origins occurred years earlier, when

c om munity a c tivists within the group Living Streets LA m et to

disc uss p ilot p rojec t interventions tha t wo uld imp rove streets

in Los Angeles. Insp ira tion c ame from the c onve rsion of New

York City’s Times Square into a ped estrian pla za. O ne of

the m em bers of Living Streets LA, Ma rgo t Oc añas, movedinto a position with the Los Angeles County Department of

Pub lic Hea lth’ s RENEW prog ram (Renew ing Environm ents

for Nutrition, Eerc ise a nd Wellne ss). RENEW, which was

fede rally funde d for three yea rs (from Ma rc h 2009 to M arch

2012), provided nancial and technical assistance to cities

to inc rease oppo rtunities for physica l ac tivity within the built

environment. RENEW program funding was used to ofcially

launc h the Stree ts for Peo ple (S4P) projec t.

During the sam e time, the Los Ange les Planning

Comm ission, also interested in c rea ting hea lthier built

environments, saw an opportunity to work with the Los

Ange les County Dep artment of Public Hea lth through the

scope of RENEW and their S4P project. Bill Roschen, President

of the Planning Co mm ission, and Ma rgo t Oc aña s be ga n

looking for op po rtunities to initia te a p rojec t simila r to the

Times Squa re pe destrian p laza.Ultima tely, S4P bec ame an initiative o f the Los

Ange les County Dep artment of Public Hea lth and the Los

Ang eles Planning Comm ission, working c losely with the c ity

Dep artme nts of Transpo rtation, Planning, a nd Pub lic Works

as well as the Ofce of Council member Eric Garcetti, local

businesses, and c om mun ity-based orga niza tions, inc luding

the Silver Lake Improveme nt Assoc iation and the Silver LakeNeighb orhood Co unc il. Living Streets LA a nd its parent

orga niza tion, Green LA Co a lition, have b een integ ra l to S4P,

providing stafng support and acting as scal agents.

The S4P’s Sunset Triang le Plaza op ened in Ma rch 2012,

occupying 11,000 square feet of a former trafc triangle and

road wa y. This pa rklet mo ved from idea to insta lla tion in less

tha n two yea rs and for a to ta l cost of $25,000. It is eq uipp edwith mo va ble c ha irs and tab les, umbrellas, bike rac ks, and

plante rs, all sitting on aspha lt pa vem ent tha t ha s be en

transforme d through the a pp lic ation of bright g reen p aint.

The p rojec t is a one -year pilot. It will be eva luated in 2013,

and either c onverted to a p ermane nt installation, altered , or

removed.

Streets for People




Figure 13. Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Neal LaMontagne

Los Angeles Direc tor of Planning, Michael LoG rand e,

be lieves that this pilot p rojec t ca n be a n effec tive wa y to

provide p ublic spa c es within neighb orhood s:

“ I think by moving quic kly and show ing p eop le we

can take chances, we can try things that are pilot

programs and not necessarily go through a huge

proc ess tha t pe op le lose interest in be c ause it takes

too long to see results. In government, we have to

be nimb le a s eve r, and show sma ll suc c esses.” 8

More de tails ab out the d esign o f this project c an b efound in Chap ter 4 of this too lkit.




Figure 15. Traffic barricades, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Neal LaMontagne

Figure 14. Plan view rendering, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Rios Clementi Hale Studios




Bike c orrals are a t ype o f pa rklet d ed ic ate d to bic ycle

parking.

“A corral is an on-street bicycle facility that canac com moda te many more bicycles than a typica lsidewalk rack…and typically replaces an eistingsingle vehicle parking space with up to eightbicycle rac ks—enough spa ce to ac co mmo da te 16bicyc les. In a rea s with high c ycling de ma nd, c orralsuse space much more efciently than a single car pa rking sta ll wo uld.” 9

At the time o f this too lkit’s pub lic a tion, Los Ang eles had

insta lled two b ike corrals, with p lans to insta ll si mo re. The

Los Angeles Dep artment o f Transportat ion (LADOT) insta lled

the rst bike corral on York Boulevard and Avenue 50 in the

Highland Park neighborhoo d , and a nother in the Sunset

Triang le Plaza , desc ribed in the p revious sec tion.

As pa rt of a c om mon the me , the effort to bring b ikec orrals to Los Ange les is root ed in c om munity ac tivism.

Orga nizat ions includ ing the Los Angeles County Bicyc le

Co a lition a nd C.I.C.L.E. (Cyc lists Inc iting Chang e Throug h

LIVE Echa nge), along with Ma tt Sc hod orf (Café d e Lec he

c o-ow ner), Josef Bray-Ali, Joe Linton, a nd c ount less other

ad voc ates and ded ic ated citizens, helped ma ke the idea

of bike corrals in Los Angeles a reality.

10

Co unc il me mb er José Huiza r, hearing the support for

bike corrals successfully voiced by activists using socialme dia in 2009 and 2010, drafted a m otion to c rea te a bike

c orra l “Pilot Projec t” at York Bouleva rd and Avenue 50. In

only 14 days during Ma rc h of 2010, the initial mo tion swe p t

through the Los Ang eles Transportat ion Com mittee a nd C ity

Counc il to g ain a pp rova l for installation.11 The b ike c orra l at

York Bouleva rd and Avenue 50 op ene d in Feb rua ry 2011.

The b ike c orra l cost approima tely $2,700 and wa s pa id for

by the LADOT.

Since then , the LADOT has imp lemented a Bike C orra l

Pilot Prog ram . LADOT ha s issues a p romot iona l doc ument

abo ut these b ike c orra ls tha t epla ins the p rocess for

businesses to a pply for and rece ive c orrals. The d ep artment

also created a ma intenance a greement template that

app lying businesses have to sign.12 This temp late, shown in

App end i A, c ould a lso b e used as the b eg inning for a c ity-

ap proved tem plate for future pa rklet projects. The LADOT

Bike Corral Prog ram is c urrent ly working with C ity Counc il

ofces and local businesses to identify locations for six more

bike corrals.

Bike Corrals




Figure 16. Bike corral, Portland, OR.Credit: Chris Brunn

Figure 17. Bike corral, Highland Park, CA.Credit: LADOT Bikeways




Figure 18. Fitness Zone, South Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Christine Trang

This toolkit d isc usses not on ly pa rklets as plac es for

passive enjoyment (intended for people to sit, rela andsoc ialize), but a lso p a rklets as pub lic spac es for ac tive

rec rea tion. A lea de r in the mo vem ent for public spa c es

for ac tive rec rea tion in the Los Ange les region, the Trust

for Pub lic Land beg an their “Fitness Zone s” prog ram in

2005 with fund ing from the Kaiser Perma nente Found a tion.

These tness zones are outdoor gyms that contain exercise

eq uipm ent ma c hines and are loc ate d within pub lic pa rks.

The goa l of the Fitness Zones prog ram is to :

“ Create a fun, ac c essible, and soc ial environm ent

where people can enjoy getting t. We know that

just gett ing outdoors ma kes peop le he a lthier and

ha pp ier. Fitness Zone s ta ke tha t o ne step further by

giving people free access to top-quality eercise

equipment suitable for all levels of tness.”13

The process, from planning to installation of a tness

zone, p rovides lessons releva nt to insta lling p a rklets in

Los Ange les. For ea c h p rojec t, the Trust fo r Pub lic Land

wo rks with a c om munity pa rtner to selec t a pa rk loc ation.

Selec tion is ba sed on loc al nee d, d em onstrate d by limited

pa rk spa c e a nd a sizab le loc al p op ulation representing

Fitness Zones




Figure 19. Fitness Zone equipment, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Office of Council member José Huizar

a va riety of p a rk users and pote ntial users. After the p a rk

is selec ted, the Trust fo r Pub lic Land wo rks c losely w ith the

Los Ang eles County Rec reation a nd Parks Dep artment to

selec t a p a rticula r pla c e within the park. Selec tion c riteriainc lude site visibility a nd sha de. The Trust fo r Pub lic Land the n

hires a c ont rac tor to insta ll the e erc ise m ac hines at t he

selec ted site, and gifts the m ac hines to the Rec rea tion and

Parks Dep artme nt tha t is respo nsible for the ir ma intena nc e.

The Rec rea tion a nd Parks Dep artment also holds liability

insurance for the tness zones.

Each tness zone costs approximately $45,000.Costs include si to e ight p iec es of eerc ise equ ipme nt,

installation, and staff time for permitting and ag enc y

coordination. As of June 2012, tness zones were located

in 29 different p arks in Los Angeles County. By the end of

Aug ust 2012, it is epe c ted tha t 42 LA County p a rks will

contain tness zones.

Researchers evaluated the tness zones in 12 parksand found tha t pa rk use ha d inc rea sed in half of the p arks

since the installation of a tness zone.14 They a lso found a

correlation between the presence of a tness zone and

elevate d levels of e erc ise in a pa rk, not o nly am ong

users of the tness zone but also in other parts of the park.

Resea rchers spe c ulate tha t see ing peo p le on eerc ise

eq uipm ent enc ourage s others to b e mo re p hysica lly ac tive.




The Los Angeles Neighb orhood Initiat ive (LANI) is

a non-prot organization that has initiated a number of streetsc ape p rojec ts. LANI fac ilitate s sta keholder

pa rticipation and de c ision-ma king, and p rom ote s pub lic-

private partnerships that result in community improvement

p rojec ts. Seve ral of LANI’ s transportat ion a nd c orrido r

improvement projects involve converting underutilized

roa dw ay spa c e into pub lic spa c e for ped estrians.

For insta nc e, LANI c reate d a public p laza from astreet me dian by c losing a sma ll po rtion of a c ut-throug h

street nea r the intersec tion o f Norma ndie Ave nue a nd

Pico Boulevard (see gures 22 & 23). LANI also added

landscaping and benches as part of a beautication

project on a street med ian nea r the intersec tion of Hoo ver

Street and Pico Boulevard (see gures 20 & 2). LANI is

c urrently in the p ermitting pha se to e pand the p laza a tNormandie and Pico, seeking to ll in part of the street and

c reate a la rge r, co ntiguo us pla za. LANI ha s seve ral other

op en spa c e p rojec ts in the building, c onstruc tion, and

prop osed / planning pha ses.

LANI projects are d esigne d by a c om munity-driven

proc ess in whic h a Stee ring Com mittee me ets witharchitec ts and gives them fee db ac k throug h design

de velopm ent. Funding for pa st projects was aw arde d

through the Los Ange les Me tropo lita n Transpo rtation

Autho rity’s Ca ll for Projec ts, the Co mm unity Red eve lopm ent

Ag enc y, and LADOT rep rogram me d funds. While similar

to pa rklets, these p lazas invo lve mo re e pensive a nd

permanent changes to the streetscape.15

Other Key Precedents




Figures 20 and 21. Before and after:Pico Blvd. and Hoover St., Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative




Figures 22 and 23. Before and after:Pico Blvd. and Normandie Ave., Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative




In ad dition to the a forem entioned efforts, the

Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC)formed a Com plete Streets Working Group in the summ er

of 2011 with the o bjec tive to eplore innova tive de sign

ideas for imp roving stree ts in Downtown Los Ang eles. The

group foc uses on two initiatives: 1) working with the LADOT

Bike Prog ram o n designs for bicyc le treatm ents; and 2)

installing parklets. The working group identied potential sites

along Spring Street fo r pa rklet insta llat ion a nd ha s spo kenwith business ow ners a t the Histo ric Dow nto wn Business

Imp rove me nt Distric t a bout spo nsoring them . They also

prepa red de sign co nc ep ts for the c and idate sites, and

c ollab orated with Los Ange les City Counc il mem be rs and

the Dep artment o f City Planning to mo ve these p rojec ts

forwa rd . Add itiona lly, two p rojec ts in Counc il Distric t 14 are

mo ving forwa rd w ith prelimina ry de signs and a re see king tobe amo ng the p iloted pa rklet p rojects.

As a result of these a nd o ther efforts from ad voc a tes,

Los Angeles City Council members Jan Perry and José Huizarbrought a mo tion to the City Counc il in Sep tem be r 2011.

The m otion now instructs the Dep artme nts of C ity Planning,

Pub lic Works, and Transporta tion:

“ To a ssist with the implem entat ion of p a rklet

demonstration projects currently under

consideration and to create a citywide parklet

p ilot prog ram simila r to San Franc isc o’ s Pavem entto Parks Program .” 16

With sup port from the UCLA Luskin Sc hool o f Pub lic

Affa irs and a gran t to UCLA from The Rosalinde and Arthur

Gilbert Found at ion, the DLANC is c urrently moving forwa rd

for the d evelop ment of a pa rklet o n Spring Street that wo uld

include exercise equipment. This will be the rst active

recrea tion p arklet in Los Ange les, allowing pe de strians to

ac tively utilize the p ub lic right-o f-wa y. This toolkit is designed

to support this effo rt a nd othe rs tha t will follow from it.

Current Efforts and City Support




Figure 25. Plan view of SpringStreet parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Tony Lopez

Figure 24 . Rendering of SpringStreet parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Berry and Linné




Figure 27 . Rendering of York Boulevard parklet, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Kelli Rudnick

Figure 26 . Rendering of ElSerrano parklet, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Kelli Rudnick




7. Park(ing ) Day LA. (2012). Ac cessed July 18, 2012,

www.parkingdayla.com.

8. LoG rand e, M., as qu ote d in: Berg, N. (Ma rch 5, 2012). “ LosAng eles See ks Pede strians,” The A tlantic Cities, ac c essed July 19, 2012,http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/los-angeles-see ks-pe destrians/ 1410/ .

9. Los Ang eles Dep artme nt of Transpo rtation Bike Blog. (Ma rch23, 2012). “ Bike Co rral Informa tion,” ac c essed July 18, 2012, http:/ / ladot bikeblog.wordp ress.com / 2012/ 03/ 23/ bike-corral-information-document/.

10. Los Ang eles Dep artm ent of Transpo rtation Bike Blog. (Feb ruary 9,2011). “Bac k from the Dea d: Bike Co rral o n York Blvd,” ac c essed July 18,2012Feb ruary 9, http :// lado tbikeblog.wordp ress.com / 2011/ 02/ 09/ ba ck-from-the-dead-bike-corral-on-york-boulevard/.

11. Los Ang eles City Co unc il. (Ap ril 27, 2010). “ Mo tion09-1710,” a c c essed July 18, 2012, http:/ / c lkrep.lac ity.org/ onlinedo cs/2009/ 09-1710_c a_04-27-10.pd f.

12. Los Ang eles Dep artme nt of Transpo rtation Bike Blog. (Ma rch23, 2012). “ Bike Co rral Informa tion,” ac c essed July 18, 2012, http:/ / ladot bikeblog.wordp ress.com / 2012/ 03/ 23/ bike-corral-information-document/.

13. Trust for Pub lic Lan d. (n.d .). “ Fitness Zones,” ac cessed July 18,2012, http://www.tpl.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/california/los-angeles-county/tness-zones.html.

14. Cohen, D., Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & McKenzie, T.(2012). “ Impa c t a nd Co st-effec tiveness of Fam ily Fitness Zone s: A Natura lEpe riment in Urba n Public Parks,” Health & Place 18(1): 39-45.

15. Ap ostolos, A., Sen ior Prog ram Ma na ge r of LANI. (2012). ,Person al

co mmunica tion, June 7, 2012.

16. Perry, Jan and Huizar, Jose. (2011 Sep t 16) “ Los Ang eles CityCo unc il Motion 11-1604.”

Footnotes



Figure 28. Pop up café, New York City, NY.Credit: NYC Department of Transportation

3. pRogRam case studies




The following c ha pt er provides eam ples of pa rklet

program s in lea ding c ities throug hout North Am eric a.This c hap ter doe s not ad dress eve ry effo rt in eve ry city.

Rather, UCLA researchers selected seven cities because

their parklet programs can provide specic lessons for Los

Ang eles. The fo llow ing seve n mun icipa l pa rklet p rogram s a re

discussed in this chapter:

• San Franc isc o,

• Montréal,

• New York City,

• Vancouver,

• Philadelphia,

• Long Bea c h,

• Oakland.

Co llec tively, these prog ram c ase stud ies und ersc ore

key c om mo na lities as well as the diversity am ong st p a rkletp rog rams in c ities throug hout North Americ a. These

c ase stud ies a re not mea nt to b e a n ehaustive list of a ll

parklets in North Ame rica , but rathe r to high ligh t som e key

d istinct ions betw ee n selec ted c ases. The c onc luding sec tion

of this c hap ter inc lude s a t ab le co mp aring c ities by the ir

number of parklet sites, the city departments involved in

their pa rklet p rogram , their permit req uirem ents and c osts,required insuranc e, and d uration of the pa rklets. Also fo r

c om pa rison p urpo ses, eac h p arklet p rog ram c ase study

includes sec tions on:

1. Origins and goa ls of the pa rklet program ;

2. Planning p roc ess and de sign deve lopme nt;

3. Implementation and maintenance (includingthe responsibilities of the applicant/parkletsponsor); and

4. Suc c esses and c ha lleng es of ea c h pa rklet

program.

Introduction




Origins and Goals

San Franc isc o c oined the term parklets and w as therst city to introduce parklets (specically in parking spaces)

in the United Sta tes. This d istinc tion is due, in pa rt, to a 2008

visit from New York City Transportat ion Co mm issione r Jane tte

Sadik-Khan. During her visit, Commissioner Sadik-Khan

c halleng ed San Franc isc o to initiate a p rog ram that w ould

c rea te q uality pub lic spa c es. Respo nding to the c halleng e

to rec laim p ublic spa c e fo r peop le, the C ity of San Franc isc o

opened its rst plaza pilot project on Castro Commons in

April 2009 (gure 29).

The San Franc isc o Planning Dep artment led this

initial effort. In orde r to avoid leng thy p ermit proc essing, it

dened this project as “removable” in character ensuring

an e ped ited d esign review p roc ess and c onstruction.

Figure 29. Castro Commons, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Jamison Wieser

San Francisco




c ollab orative effort be twe en the Planning Dep artment, the

Dep artme nt o f Pub lic Works, the Municipal Transpo rtation

Agency and the Mayor’s Ofce.

Ac c ording to c ity p lanner And res Pow er, SanFranc isc o’ s ma in ob jec tive for pa rklets is to rep rogram

auto mo bile p arking spa c es for alternate uses and rea lloca te

them in strate gic w ays to p rovide b etter pub lic spa c e for

ped estrians. The City o f San Franc isc o w ants to p ursue

the p arklet projects quickly a nd c ost-effectively and also

possibly in a reve rsible way, in c ase t here a re unforesee n

c ha lleng es. As the c ity’s rece nt reque st for pa rklet p ropo sals

indicates:

“ Parklets are intended to p rovide spa c e for peo ple

to sit, rela, and enjoy the city around them,

espec ially whe re narrow sidew a lks wo uld o therwise

prec lude suc h a c tivities. They a re intend ed to b e

see n a s piec es of street furniture, p roviding a esthet ic

enha nc eme nts to the overall streetsc ap e.” 18

Planning Process and Design Development

The rst pilot plazas in the Pavement to Parks program

we re pe rmitted a s tem po rary street c losures, typica lly for

ab out a mo nth or two to te st out the viab ility of the spa c es.

Onc e the pla zas we re proven suc c essful, the c ity leg islated

the spaces as permanent open space. The rst pilot parklets

Following the Ca stro Co mm ons pa rklet, San Franc isc o

estab lished the “ Pave ment to Parks” program to ad dress the

follow ing issue:

“Many of our streets are ecessively wide and

contain large zones of wasted space, especially

at intersec tions. San Franc isc o’ s new ‘Pavem ent

to Parks’ p rojec ts seek to tem porarily rec laim the se

unused swa thes and qu ickly and inepensively turn

them into ne w p ublic plazas and pa rks.”17

After Castro C omm ons, the c ity p iloted projects atothe r loc at ions. The p rojec ts resulted in po sitive c om mun ity

interest and overwhelming de ma nd for more rem ova ble

public spac es in San Franc isc o.

Following the suc c ess of these p laza pilots and insp ired

by PARK(ing) Day, the c ity innovated a new program

to c rea te tem po rary plazas in pa rking spa c es, which it

dubbed “parklets.” After installing the rst pilot parklets,

the c ity stream lined permitting for these spac es, inc luding

the p rocessing of t he a pp lic a tions, selec tion of sites, and

their subseq uent insta lla tion b y p rivate parties suc h a s

businesses and residents. As of July 2012, San Francisco has

35 pa rklet projec ts insta lled and 35 more in the p ipeline. The

Pavem ent to Parks prog ram is now housed in the City Design

Group at t he San Franc isc o Planning Dep artme nt a nd is a




in pa rking spa c es we re pe rmitted under an eisting street

closure permit. Given the positive feedback on the rst

pilots, along w ith com munity-driven d em and for more

parklet projects, the City streamlined permitting and initiatedan epe dited ap prova l proc ess. Sinc e the p rog ram ’s

estab lishme nt, the c ity ha s issued three rounds of Req uests

for Proposals for parklet projects, and it will issue a fourth

round in fall 2012.

The c ity evaluates the viability of a pa rklet loc ation o n

a c ase-by-c ase b asis, using the follow ing c riteria :

• Lack of public space in the surroundingneighborhood,

• Pree isting c om munity support for pub lic spa c eat the loca tion,

• Surround ing uses that c an attrac t p eop le tothe spa ce ,

• Identied community or business steward,

• Not blocking a re hydrant or bus stop,

• Generally not located on a corner or on theCity’s ve year paving plan,

• Slop e o f the stree t is less tha n 5% grad e.

The c ity reco mm end s the fo llow ing ge neral de sign

guidelines:

• Parklet should be easily accessible from the

sidewalk,

• Some landsc ap ing is epec ted ,

• Parklet should b e visua lly pe rme ab le to ena b lepeople to rest and eperience the street offthe sidewalk,

• Parklet should conform to ADA access

guidelines. Parklet must be open to the publicand display two standard signs (per citytemp late) stating “ pub lic pa rklet,”

• Should feel pub lic and be de void of c ues (e.g.umbrellas and condiment bottles on tables)that signify that the space’s primary function isfor c omm ercial act ivity,

• Sea ting should be included and anyrem ova b le furniture m ust be d istinct from thoseof restaurants.

The Request fo r Proposals a lso strong ly enc ourag es

xed/permanent furniture―including benches and bike

racks to denote that it is a public space―rather than

mo vab le tab les and c ha irs. If a b usiness c hoo ses to inc lude




mo vab le tables and c ha irs, this furniture must be d ifferent

tha n the furniture tha t the b usiness c urrently uses. The site

should ‘ rea d ’ o verall as a p ub lic spac e, and businesses a re

not a llow ed to p rovide t ab le-side servic e to the p arklet.These ta c tics all com bine to indic ate that t he p arklet is

pub lic rather tha n a private etension of the business.

Other tha n the ab ove req uirem ents, the g uidelines are

not ve ry presc rip tive. These g uide lines will a llow pa rklets to

have a unique c harac ter and d isplay a sense of b elonging

to their particular neighborhood, as the city cherishes the

d iversity of pa rklet d esigns. The fo urth round of RFP to b e

relea sed in fall 2012, will have stronge r de sign g uide lines and

mo re deta iled ac c essibility guid elines. As a result, pa rklets in

San Franc isc o ha ve d ifferent c ha rac teristics and typ olog ies.For instance, the installation on Powell Street is a corridor

trea tme nt--spo nsored b y Audi Mo tors and de signed by

Walter Hood --that runs along two bloc ks and on b oth side s

of the street (gures 33 & 34). The city views this corridor

trea tme nt as a hyb rid b etwe en a p arking-spa c e pa rklet and

a p ed estrian plaza.

On the other end of the size and duration spectrum, si

projects in the Yerba Buena Community Benet District are

“ pa rkmo b iles,” sma ll insta lla tions c onsisting p rima rily of just

a b enc h and a p lanting that c an be m oved p eriod ic ally to

different sites in the district (gure 30). Parkmobile parklets

are d istinc t from b oth the plazas and pa rking spa c e pa rklets,

as they req uire a different p ermit tha n the now-stand ard

permit used for pa rklets.

Implementation and Maintenance

Each applicant―typically a business owner, community

benet district, non-prot or resident―agrees to certain

respo nsibilities. The app lic an t m ust b e w illing to pay for the

c onstruction c osts of the p a rklet. The a pp lic ant also a greesFigure 30. “Parkmobile” Yerba Buena district, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Madeline Brozen




to provide day-to-day maintenance of the parklet, including

the storag e of mo vab le tables and c hairs, and the c lea ning

of trash. The a pp lic ant must show the c ity evidenc e o f at

least $1 million in liab ility insuranc e a nd na me the C ity andCounty o f San Franc isc o as ad d itiona lly insured. The c ity

gran ts suc c essful ap p lic ants a revo c ab le lea se a nd issues

a tem po rary oc c upa nc y use p ermit to install a p arklet. The

follow ing fee structure is impo sed for p rojec ts de signed and

c onstructe d by outside pa rties:19

• $791 base fee for all applica tions; and

• $650 for up to two parking meter removals(required only if meters currently eist);

• $191.50 to pay for site inspection before anda fter insta lla tion; and

• $285 ad ditiona l ba se fee for eac h p arking stallused beyond the rst two,

• $325 additional fee for each additional meterremoval beyond the rst two (required only ifme ters c urrently eist,)

• $221 for yearly p ermit renew a l.

Successes and Challenges

The non-prot organization Great Streets SF conducted

an eva luation o f the Divisad ero Street pa rklet, loca ted in

front o f Mojo Bicyc le Ca fé.20 Resea rchers found tha t the

numb er of ped estrians inc rea sed by a n ave rag e o f 13

pe rc ent a fter the installation o f the pa rklet, with the greate st

increases on weekday evenings.

Ac c ording to San Franc isc o p lanners, the bigg est

suc c ess of the Paveme nt to Parks p rog ram is helping the

pub lic to re-imag ine c reations in the c ity’s righ ts-of-way. In

the c ase o f pa rklets, by reca sting spac es for ca rs as spac es

for peo ple, loc al merchants have a new w ay to interac t

with the c om munity and a ttrac t new c ustom ers. San

Franc isc o p lanning sta ff a lso rep ort tha t m any b usinesses,

espe c ially ca fés and restaurants, have eperienc ed ma rked

revenue increa ses since the insta lla tion of a nea rby pa rklet,

resulting in inc reased sa les ta reve nue fo r the c ity and in

som e c ases inc rea sed jobs, as resta urants hire a dd itiona l

staff to m eet increased dem and .




How eve r, the go a l of the se insta llat ions is not for

increa sed business reve nues, but fo r a c rea tion of p ub lic

spa c e a nd a ca talyst for co mmunity developme nt.

Parklets p rovid e m erchants of a ll va rieties another wa yto e nga ge with their c om munity which is not solely

ba sed on a m arketp lac e interac tion. For eam ple,

a fte r insta lling a pa rklet, its stewa rd in the Mission District

initiate d a loca l farmers ma rket in the ne ighbo rhood ,

the M ission Com munity Market. Now, the c ity a nd the

neighbo rhood are looking to red esign the street to

be tter fac ilitate this ma rket. This eam p le de mo nstrates

how pa rklets in San Franc isc o a re ac ting a s a c a ta lyst

for incremental interventions in the public realm.

In terms of challenges, some businesses have not

be en g rea t stew ards of the ir spa c es. There ha ve b ee n

a fe w inc iden ts of b usinesses turning a wa y memb ers

of the pub lic w ho w ere not their pa trons from using

the p arklet. The c ity must enforce and follow up on

c om plaints to p revent the m isuse o f p arklets and has

the right to revoke the pe rmit at any time . Yea rly pe rmit

rene wa l is thus a useful too l for the City to ensure tha t

pa rklet stew ards ad here to the rules of o pe ration.

Figure 31. Café Abir, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopiad.org

Figure 32. Devil’s Teeth parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: San Francisco Pavement to Parks




Ac c ording to c ity planne r Andres Pow er,

pa rklets have be en so p op ular, (mo re tha n

100 app lica tions) that the a mo unt of c ity

resources req uired to review the p rop osalsand issue the pe rmits is be c om ing a c onc ern

for the city. Regardless, this public-private

pa rtnership mo de l that is supp orted by

community-driven demand, strives to bring

mo re p ublic spa c es to the c ity.

Figure 33. Powell Street Promenade,

San Francisco, CA.Credit: SFMTA Livable Streets Division

Figure 34. Planters, Powell Street Promenade,San Francisco, CA.Credit: SFMTA Livable Streets Division




Figure 35. Terrasse, Montréal, Quebec.Credit: Neal LaMontagne





Origins and Goals

City sta ff mem be rs in Montréa l a re uncertain as towhen parklets rst appeared in the city. Montréal has long

allowe d on-street pa tio de c ks, (ca lled te rrac es in Mo ntréa l)

as req uested by loca l businesses to inc rea se the ir outd oo r

seating without impinging on sidewalk space (gure 36).

A c urrent wa ve of inte rest in p arklets stem s from the

Ave nue Verte –– Mo nt Roya l initia tive. This large pa rklet

along Mont-Roya l, a ma jor c om me rc ial street in Montréal,brings attention to the ide a of livab le co mm ercial streets,

which c om bine plac es for pe op le, nature, and vehic les.

The Mont-Royal Ave nue Stree t Assoc iation sup ports ha ving

terrac es while retaining auto mo bile ac c ess to the street.

While Montréa l has not yet institutionalized a robust p a rklet

program , the c ity did upd ate and stand ardize its pe rmitting

proc ess for pa rklets (terrac es) in 2007. There are now over 90

terrac es insta lled sea sona lly in Mont réal.


Simila r to o ther c ities, typ ica l pa rklet sites in Montréa l

are on-street p arking spa c es loca ted a djac ent to the

app lic ant b usiness (c afé , restaurant, o r ba r). The street

spa c e rema ins pub lic, and the p ermit only allow s for

tem po rary oc c upa tion. The p resenc e o f on-street terrac es

must no t c ause nuisanc e t o p ed estrians or dang er to

residents and users.

Figure 36. Terrasse, Montréal, Quebec.Credit: Laurence Parent

Montréal





The p rocess to d eve lop a terrac e b eg ins with a b usiness

subm itting an ap plic ation to the c ity. Site c riteria used by the

city to d etermine ap proval include:21

• Maintain a minimum continuous linear sidewalkwidth o f 1.8 m (5.9 ft.).

• Ma intain a 1 m (3.3 ft.) buffer betw een theterrac e and the trave l lane.

• Maintain a 0.5 m (1.65 ft.) buffer betweenterrac e furniture and street furniture (be nc hes,trees, bins, parking me ters, etc .). Can reque stto m ove som e street furniture.

• Must be loc ate d direc tly in front o f theestab lishme nt it serves and have a ma imumwidth eq ua l to the b usiness frontag e. Ifthis width ca nnot be a c hieved due to thepresenc e o f a bus stop or minimum distanc efrom a n intersec tion, the op erator may a pp ly,with agreement from neighboring business,

to etend to a w idth of 30 perce nt of theneighb oring business fronta ge .

• Not a llow ed in bus stop area s, in lanesded ic ated for buses, or any plac e d eeme dunsa fe b y Pub lic Works.

• Not a llow ed within 5 m (16.4 ft.) fromintersections.

The size o f a typ ica l on-street t errac e is one pa rking

spa c e, but as noted ab ove, the prec ise size d ep end s

on the b usiness fronta ge and c onformanc e with the

a foreme ntioned site c riteria . The numb er of terrac esvaries by yea r, based on a pp lic ations rec eived, and they

are installed during the warmer weather months (April to

Oc tob er), ofte n on p op ular destination streets. Terrac es

have become a popular xture in Montréal with some

neighbo rhoo ds having several along their c om mercial

streets. These pa rklets are c onsidered pub lic spa c e.

Figure 37. Terrasse, Montréal, Quebec.Credit: Alain Quevillon





How eve r, there a re c ertain time restric tions: terrac es are

only open to the p ublic from 7 am to 11 pm (Sunda y

through Thursday) and from 7 am to midn ight (Friday and

Saturday.)Additionally, the permit guidelines detail the following

de sign req uirem ents:

• Terrac es must have a guard ra il along the e ntireperimeter (ecept 1.8 m. entry).

• Plante r boes must b e p rovided along the tw oend -sides with a minimum w eight of 75 kg. (165lb.) and a minimum height of 0.5 m. (1.65 ft.).These b oes ac t as bollards to p rotec t aga instparking maneuvers. Boes must be plantedwith owering plants (perennials or annuals).

• Hedges (between 1-1.5 m. / 3.3-4.9 ft.) arerequired along the entire length along thestreet and parking sides. A list of acceptedshrubs to compose the hedge is provided in

the g uide lines.

• Alternative p lanting req uires a prop osal to besubmitted to Pub lic Works.

• Floor of the terrace to be at the same levelover its entire area, taking into account thec row n of the roa d. Floor should b e c onstruc tedof wooden slats or plywood with a smoothsurfac e of a na tural woo d c olor.

• Railings should be constructed of metal(painted blac k) or wood .

• Furniture should not be constructed of orcontain PVC; it should be sturdy, durable, andde signed to b e outd oors.

• No sound amplication system is permitted.

• No hea ting system is permitted .

• No vinyl, ca nvas, cloth atta c hed to the railingsis allowe d.

• No a dve rtising on the terrac e is allow ed .

• Umb rellas must not c a rry ad vertising, must no tetend past the terrac e, must not a ffec t visibilityof signag e, and must b e sec ured to w ithstandwind stresses.






The C ity of Mo ntréal requ ires a permit for pa rklet

installation. Permits are a dm inistered and ma nag ed by the

Division d es étud es tec hnique s –– Direc tion d es travaupublics (Public Works) for the specic arrondissement

(distric t). App lic ations must c om e from the o wner of the

ap plic ant estab lishment; a joint ap plic ation from a djac ent

businesses is a lso p ossible. The c ost of the permit a pp lic a tion

is $600, while the c ost of a 6-mon th p ermit is $7,625 for a

street with p arking me ters and $2,207 for a street w ithout

pa rking me ters. Costs are e stimates and de pe nd on theprec ise a rea taken up by the te rrac e. The c ost for the

pa rklet insta lla tion is c om p letely the responsibility of the

ap plica nt b usiness.

The b usiness is a lso responsible fo r the ma intenanc e o f

the te rrac e and the c leanliness of the sidewa lk (inc luding a

street section triangle 2.5 m 2.5 m, or 8.2 8.2 ft, on each

side o f the p arklet where the c ity street swee pe r ca nnot

c lea n). Cleaning of the te rrac e a nd sidewa lk is to b e d one

ea c h evening a fter the business c loses.

The op erato r must ho ld liab ility insuranc e of $2 million.

The o pe ra tor is liab le for any da ma ge s, theft, or loss and is

responsible fo r terrac e use. The c ity is not liab le for any injury

due to ac c ident or inc ide nt within the bo unda ries of the

terrac e or ca used by it.


Although on-street terraces are a long-standing

prac tice in Montréal, the d riving force for these p arklets

comes from local businesses rather than through an ofcial

c ity prog ram . Conseq uently, there has not b een a c ity-

spo nsored e valuation of the te rrac es to d etermine imp ac t,

suc c esses, and c ha lleng es. Reg ardless, pa rklets ap pe ar to

be a suc c ess in Montréal as indic ate d by the ir po pularity

and the city’s standardized permitting process for terraces.

While the c ost und ertaken b y the b usiness c hamp ion is not

trivial, our interviews indica ted tha t many b usiness ow ners

see va lue in p a rklets.





Origins and Goals

New York City’s Dep artment of Transpo rtation (NYCDOT) rec eived a letter in Janua ry 2010 from a g roup o f

businesses in Lower Manhattan requesting permission to

c onstruc t ad ditional outdo or sea ting in the p ublic rea lm

nea r their esta blishme nts. Ineligible fo r a sidew a lk ca fé

permit (see gure 39 for traditional sidewalk café) because

of the narrow sidewalks in front of their establishments, these

businesses reque sted sea ting in the pa rking spac es ab utting

the sidew a lk. The b usiness applica nts soug ht c onc ep tua l

approval from the local NYC Community Board (similar to

neighborhood councils or other citizen elected/appointed

group s) as we ll as ad vice from San Franc isc o p lanne rs who

had a lrea dy insta lled pa rklets in their c ity.

The t iming w as right. At the t ime o f the businesses’

reque st, NYC DOT sta ff me mb ers we re a lrea dy aw are o f

similar interventions in San Franc isc o a nd had p relimina ry

discussions on the feasibility of transforming parking

spa c es into mini pa rks in NYC, a longe r-term ve rsion o f the

insta lla tions a lrea dy ta king p lac e in NYC o n Park(ing) Day.

Also a s a key prec ed ent , NYC ha d a lrea dy suc c essfully

c onverted large r swa ths of road spa c e into p ed estrian

pub lic spa c e, notably through the ir p reviously disc ussed

Figure 38. Pop-Up Café, Fika, New York City, NY.Credit: Sam Smith

New York City





Pave me nt to Plazas program and the G reen Light for

Midtow n p rojec t, which c losed sec tions of Broa dw ay in

Midtown Manhattan for increased pedestrian space,

including large pe destrian p lazas a t Times Square a ndHera ld Squa re.

Conseq uently, NYC staff p artnered with the a pp lic ant

businesses in Low er Ma nha tta n to p ilot a pa rklet, referred to

in NYC a s a “ po p-up c afé .” San Franc isc o staff c onnec ted

them w ith architec ts and de c k contrac tors who w ere willing

to d ona te p ro b ono or at c ost servic es for the pilot p arklet.

The rst pop-up café was installed in New York in the summer of 2010 in front of two resta urants, Bom bay’ s and FIKA, a long

Pea rl Street in Low er Ma nha tta n.

The c ity plans to launc h an o ngoing p rog ram to replac e

the p ilot p rog ram soo n. The goa l for this pa rklet/ po p-up c a fé

program is “to provide seasonal outdoor public seating in

the p arking lane of the street a s an a menity to pedestrians

at p lac es whe re sidew alk sea ting is not a vailab le, and tobuild well-designed pub lic op en spa ce s that invite p eop le

to stay.” 22 The c ity also e xpe cts pop -up c afés to be autify

the street, foster wa lking and soc ial interac tion, co ntribute

po sitively to street life, and c omp lement o ther public spa c e

initiatives. Its nal objective is economic development, with

the hope that pop-up cafés increase pedestrian trafc and

thus bring mo re c ustome rs to loc a l businesses.

Figure 39. Traditional sidewalk café seating, New York City, NY.Credit: Ted Jensen





• The street c ha rac teristics must be d ee me dsuitab le for parklet insta lla tions by DOT.Typic a lly, this me ans it would be a one -

wa y street tha t has no mo re tha n one laneof moving vehicle trafc. Sites close tointersections or driveways or where turns orlane c hanges oc cur could b e rejected d ue tosafety concerns.

• The lane along the c urb c annot b e a movinglane of trafc at any time of day.

• The p arking reg ulations a t the c urb must besuitable for parklet installation. Eamples ofunsuitable sites include bus stops, re zones,authorized vehicle parking, or no stoppingzones.

• The site must no t ha ve elem ents obstructingthe use o f the p latfo rm o r that require regularaccess such as re hydrants, driveways, or new ssta nds. Certain typ es of und erground

utilities ma y not b e suitab le loc a tions forc urbside sea ting p latfo rms.

The size o f the p a rklet (ho w m any pa rking spac es

it oc c up ies) is dete rmined by the business fronta ge . The

rst pop-up café built in front of two adjacent restaurants

occupied ve parking spaces. The other three parklets

rang ed from two to four pa rking spa c es.


Based on the suc c ess of the initial pilot p rojec t and

follow ing a letter of supp ort from the Co mm unity Boa rd, c ity

sta ff issued a c ity-wide c a ll for new p arklet loc a tions, ba sed

on initial and ba sic d evelop me nt c riteria. They rece ived 29

ap plica tions, with the c ity ultima tely selec ting three sites for

insta llat ion in 2011 (in ad d ition to the one insta lled in 2010).

The c ity c anno t estima te how m any mo re po p-up

c afés will be insta lled in 2012 and 2013. There will be a rolling

ap plica tion p roc ess with no dea d lines. NYC sta ff will review

applications and proposed sites using technical criteria

that ta ke into a c c ount the physic al feat ures of the site

and its trafc characteristics. For instance, the city typically

allows parklets only at locations with low-speed and low-

volume vehicular trafc and on one-way streets. Parklets

are c urrently allowe d o nly in front o f co mm ercial/retail

estab lishme nts (initially o nly in front of c afé s and resta urants),

and ca n only be loca ted in pa rking spa ce s along the c urb.

More deta iled tec hnic al criteria include:23





In terms of other requirements, the city mandates that

parklets have plantings, but is exible in regards to the type

of p lantings and othe r design elem ents. The c ity also req uires

signag e, to b e loc ate d a t either end of the p arklet, stating

tha t it is an op en p ub lic spa c e. There a re restric tions on the

hours for sea ting, and the a d jac ent e sta b lishme nt is req uired

to store sea ting when they c lose o r a t the hours stipulate d

by the Co mm unity Boa rd.

The e stima ted c ost for ea c h p a rklet is abo ut $20,000,with the c osts for design, construc tion, and ma intena nc e to

be co vered by the ap plica nt/o perator. The c ity disco vered

that it is sometimes difcult for businesses to create and

pay for the d esign wo rk. Therefore, NYC DOT asked an

architec ture intern to d evelop som e sc hema tic d esigns

that future applicants can use. While city staff does not

wa nt to de velop restrictive stand ardized de signs for all pop -up c afé s, the c ity wo uld like to be ab le to supp ort future

app lic an ts by providing e amp les of d esign lessons learned .


App lic ants are required to 1) ob tain Com munity Boa rd

ap prova l; 2) prepa re a d esign for ap proval ba sed on the

de sign guidelines; and 3) sign a leg al a greeme nt for the

ma intena nc e a nd insuranc e o f the pa rklet. Insuranc e should

c ove r liab ility of $1 to 3 million ($1 million for one p arklet or $2

million in the aggregate with an additional $1 million liability

to c over any vehicle d am ag e). The c ity reta ins ow nership of

the land , and there is no lea se. The a d jac ent esta blishme nt

is not g rante d a ny rights to the p op -up c afé prope rty, but

has an o bliga tion for its ma intenanc e.

Figure 40. Pop-up café locations, New York City, NY.Credit: NYC Department of Transportation





The Trafc and Planning Division’s Public Spaces Unit in

the NYC DOT ad ministers the p a rklet p rogram . Reg ulation

and review ta ke plac e internally at DOT, and there are

no ne w ordinanc es issued for the p ilot prog ram . After anap plic ant subm its an ap plic ation, DOT reviews the te c hnic al

feasibility based on the ab ove state d c riteria and , if

ap propriate , issues a notice of p reliminary ap proval to the

applicant. At this point, the applicant prepares professionally

certied design plans, which are once again reviewed by

the DOT. After DOT approva l, the a pp lic ant must sub mit the

annual authorization agreement including the maintenanceag reem ent issued by DOT. The m aintena nc e a greeme nt is

effectively a permit because it specically states permission

to use the spa c e b y the ad jac ent estab lishme nt, and the re

is no c ost fo r this agreeme nt. Befo re the site is c onstructe d,

DOT insta lls new signa ge includ ing a ny c hanges in pa rking

regulation, parking stops, and exible bollards.

Community Board approval is the ofcial public vettingproc ess for these p rojec ts. DOT advises and epe c ts the

ap plic ants to do outreac h in their area prior to reque sting

the a pp rova l of the Com munity Boa rd. Ap plic ations req uire

the signature of the p rop erty owner who is also e pec ted to

engage other building tenants and neighboring businesses.

Figure 41. Flexible bollard and wheel stop, New York City, NY.Credit: NYC Department of Transportation






DOT co nduc ted a simp le p ost-oc cup anc y evaluation

of the initial pilot site. A time -lap se vide o show ed tha t 96

pe op le used the p arklet in one da y. These include d c hildrenpla ying, seniors resting, and other peop le interac ting with

neighbo rs or their do gs. Althoug h the c ount d id not revea l

signicant increases in pedestrian volumes, Edward Janoff,

c ity planner for the NYC DOT, note s tha t p op -up c a fés utilize

parking spaces efciently and with exibility.

“The parklets t very well with a message the cityis emphasizing: city streets don’t need to function

the sam e wa y a ll the time. Just b ec ause the street

is designed with concrete and asphalt, it doesn’t

need to be used for the same thing. It can be for

driving sometimes, and for walking or sitting other

times; it can be exible.”24

Yet some mino r c ha llenges eist. The p arklets

have e perienc ed som e vand alism, although no other

ma intena nc e issues ha ve em erged to da te. Thus far, the

pop -up ca fés have eperience d a few c hallenges fromneighborhoods that oppose additional pedestrian trafc.

Smo king is prohibited a t pa rklets but ensuring c om p lianc e is

difcult. The city has also faced a problem with an operator

(a restaurant) d oing formal tab le servic e a t the site and had

to c a ll and rem ind the b usiness tha t the p a rklet is pub lic .

All in all, there ha ve no t b ee n any serious p rob lems,

written c om p laints, or ba d press. All four parklets wereinstalled and then e asily taken a pa rt d uring the w inter

sea son. Ac c ording to Mr. Janoff, all op erators are g lad that

they installed and ma intained the p arklets and would d o it

aga in. The c ity view s the pa rklet p rog ram a s a suc c ess.




Origins and Goals

Inte rest in p a rklets for Vanc ouve rgrew w hen c ity sta ff from the Eng ineering

Dep artme nt’ s Street Ac tivities Branc h

learned abo ut pa rklets in New York City

from NYC Transportat ion Com missioner

Janet te Sad ik-Khan, who visited

Vanc ouve r in 2010. In a dd ition, sta ff from

San Franc isc o’ s pa rklet p rog ram m et

with Vanc ouver sta ff at t he 2010 Walk21

co nference to share knowledge on how

to ma ke p arklets suc c essful.

Aga inst this ba c kdrop, Vanc ouver

rec eived a “ pa rklet-like” p rop osal

during the 2011 Viva Vanc ouver c all for

prop osa ls p roc ess. Viva Vanc ouve r is

a c ity initiative t o a c tivate streets and

pub lic spa c es, building from Vanc ouver’s

successful Car-Free Day (see gure 42)

and a d esire to promo te a lternative uses

of streets and roa dw ays. The initiato r of

Figure 42. Car free day, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Christian Paul

Vancouver




this rst proposal envisioned a parklet that would “move”

every week from o ne loca tion to anot her within the c ity’s

Mount Pleasant neighb orhood . After the prop osal was

short-listed for furthe r co nsiderat ion b y the Viva selec tionc om mittee , city sta ff asked the d esigner if he wa s willing to

have the installation rema in in one plac e for a longe r pe riod

of time, and he a greed.

Another p arklet follow ed in 2011, and the p arklets

are now a key pa rt of the Viva Vanc ouver program. The

ob jectives of this program are to “ transform road spa c es

into pe op le plac es” a nd epe riment with new w ays to

increase the exibility of roadway infrastructure in order to

c rea te a mo re vibrant public realm fo r pe destrians. The

ofcial goals are to:25

• Create a variety of p ublic spa c es for a mi ofeng ag ing a c tivities and sojourning.

• Increase neighborhood livability benetingreside nts, businesses, c om munity g roup s, andvisitors.

• Enc ourage sustainab le and ac tivetranspo rtation b y c rea ting more safe andinteresting spaces for walking and cycling.


The C ity of Va nc ouver’s Ca ll for Proposals resulted

in the rst two parklets, both of which are located on city

property and m aintained by the city rather than b eing

leased to ad jac ent business ow ners. These two pa rklets differ

in cha rac ter and de sign. Para llel Park is the only c urbside

pa rklet a nd ta kes up tw o p arking spa c es (ap proima tely

500 sq . ft.) on a side street a d jac ent t o a c afé . Insta lled

in Sep tem ber 2011, the structure is now c onsidered sem i-

perma nent . The o ther pa rklet, refe rred to a s Picnurbia,

is located on a street temporarily closed to vehicles.

Picnurbia wa s a lso insta lled in the summ er of 2011, and is

ap proima tely three pa rking spa c es in length.

Site selec tion w as an itera tive p roc ess. For insta nc e, the

curb-side café parklet at Parallel Park involved the designer

and loc al b usiness improve me nt a ssoc iation (BIA) ide ntifying

three possible locations. The nal location was determined

c ollec tively by the d esigner, city sta ff, and t he BIA.

Criteria for site selec tion includ ed pa rklet p roimity to high

ped estrian vo lumes and retail as we ll as both sun ep osure

and shad e from trees.




Figure 43. Parallel Park, Vancouver, BC.Credit: VIVA Vancouver




Specic design features were not specied by the city;

rather, staff reviewed submittals to the Call for Proposals and

ap proved pa rklet d esigns. Conside red pub lic spa c e, the tw o

pa rklets fea tured p rom inent signag e to highlight this fac t.


The c ity hop es to strea mline proc esses and c rea te

tools so tha t the p arklet m od el ca n live o n outside of the

epe rimenta l platfo rm that Viva p rovides—likely as a c ousin

to t he c ity’s eisting p atio p rog ram , which p ermits tab les

and c hairs on the sidewa lk. Acc ording to c ity planner

Krisztina Kassay, more parklets are epected to be installed

in 2012 as a result o f the Ca ll for Proposals. How ever, the c ity

would like to nd sponsors for this “expansion phase.” The

c ity p rovided c onstruction and installation supp ort as well as

nanced the liability insurance for the Picnurbia parklet. In

ad dition, c ity staff time and in-kind servic es provided by the

de signer and builde r were used for both Pic nurbia and the

Parallel Park.

The c ity do es not issue permits for pa rklets, bu t m ay

do so if the p arklet m od el ca n succ essfully epa nd to

more neighb orhood s. Staff m emb ers antic ipate that

future permitting will be done through the Engineering

Dep artment’ s Stree t Ac tivities Branc h, whic h is a lso

responsible for issuing permits for the eisting patio program.

When the Picnurbia pa rklet was insta lled , c ity solid-

wa ste c rew mem bers ma intained it b y picking up ga rba geduring the ir routine c leaning. The Para llel Park insta lla tion is

c ontinuously ma intained b y staff from the ad jac ent ca fé.

Ca fé staff c lea n the pa rklet d aily, whic h includes swee ping

the ground a nd c ollec ting c eramic c ups and sauc ers left

behind.

Parklet installation also requires designers to have

professional liability insurance. However, thus far the city

has c ove red a ll insuranc e c osts whe n the d esigners d id not

have the resources for the liab ility insuranc e. In the future,

the c ity would like to p rec lude the ne ed for etra liab ility

insuranc e b y hav ing p a rklets a t street seg me nts, where the

c ity alrea dy provides c overag e fo r the street and side wa lks.


The C ity of Vanc ouve r evalua ted the Para llel Park using

a ma il-in resident survey, time -lap se p hotog rap hy, and fac e-

to-fac e me etings with the m ana gers of the two ad jac ent

c afé s. The m ana ge r and ow ner of these c afé s are very

supp ortive of ha ving a pa rklet nea rby a nd b elieve tha t it




has increased foot trafc to their business; however, this has

not b een fo rma lly trac ked. The c ity had a relatively go od

response rate (13 percent ) to their ma il-in resident survey,

with many respo nde nts inc luding c onta c t information. Over60 perce nt of the survey respo ndents viewe d the structure

as a community asset, irrespective of whether or not they

had spent t ime o n it. Afte r the pa rklet’ s insta llat ion, the

c ity also p ut signa ge on the structure a sking pe destrians to

c onta c t the city and g ive their eva luation. Overall, pe op le

enjoy the etra spa c e tha t the p arklets c rea te a nd som e

eve n use the m throug hout t he rainy fall and w inter sea sons.

The c ity c onside rs it a succ ess tha t Parallel Park ha s

not b een va nda lized . The c onc erns and fears of nea rby

residents that the pa rklet wo uld b ec om e a have n for drug

de aling a nd late night drinking ha ve not m ate rialized .

Nevertheless, pub lic e nga ge ment c ould be imp roved

during the p lanning p hase, a c halleng e g iven tha t pa rklet

projects are de signed to m ove q uickly from c onc ep t to

implem enta tion. Ac c ording to c ity p lanner Krisztina Kassay,staff co uld “ c ertainly do more to keep those w ho ha ve

indicated interest in Viva Va ncouver enga ged and have

them b e our cha mp ions at-large .” The c ity’s c om munity

eng ag eme nt spe c ialists in the Co rpo rate Com munica tions

Depa rtme nt a re in the proc ess of d esigning a mo re rob ust

enga gem ent strateg y.

An ongo ing c hallenge has bee n that, even w ith

a large sign that says “ pub lic sea ting” atta c hed to the

structure, many assume that the seating belongs to the

ad jac ent c afé. An ad ditiona l c halleng e relates to resources

and funding for pa rklets as the p rog ram epa nds to m ore

areas in 2012. The c ity hopes that b usiness will view parklets

as a benet and provide at least some in-kind support.




Origins and Goals

In 2011, Philadelphia’s University City

Distric t (UCD) received gran t fund ing

to d evelop innovative p lac e-making

prog rams. This c om munity orga niza tion

approached the Mayor’s Ofce of

Transporta tion a nd Utilities a t the same

time that this ofce was looking to

de velop a p ed estrian ame nities program .

With support offered by the William

Penn Found at ion, UCD wa s ab le to b uild

two p arklets at a c ost of a pp roima tely

$10,000 per parklet. The rst two sites in

the University City District were piloted in

2011.

Philadelphia ’ s go al fo r its pa rklet

effo rt is to b uild p ed estrian-friend ly spa c es

for co mm unity mem bers to e njoy. Build ing

off the succ ess of the UCD pilot p rojec t,

Philadelphia is now piloting a citywide

program. As such, the city provided

$5,000 grants to ve organizations (not

including the UCD) in the 2012 pilot

Philadelphia

Figure 44: Parklet, Philadelphia, PA.Credit: Philly Bike Coalition




Figure 45. Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.Credit: Philly Bicycle Coalition




pha se. These funds are assisting som e m ore p ilot p rojec ts,

but will not be an ong oing feature of the forma l program .

The c ity is wo rking to transition its parklet pilot p rog ram into

a pe rma nent p rog ram , which involves formalizing and

streamlining the planning, design, and permitting processes

so a s to enc ourage future ap plic ants to p artic ipate .


As p reviously disc ussed, the Unive rsity City Distric t

proposed the rst two pilot parklet locations, receiving

approval from the Mayor’s Ofce. Both parklets were sited

in two former pa rking spa c es. One p arklet w as loc ate d net

to a pa rk and the o ther in front o f a c afe . The c ity’s primary

c riterion in site selec tion wa s, and rema ins, loc a tion a long

streets with a low spee d limit. This is based on ea mp les from

other cities, ind ica ting tha t suc c essful pa rklets a re typ ica lly

loc ated on stree ts with low spee d limits (25 mph or less). The

c ity also p refers to loc ate pa rklets along ac tive c om mercial

c orridors and high-de nsity resident ial a rea s.

The c ity prefers loc a tions outside o f the C entra l

Business Distric t (C BD) to avo id resista nc e from the CBD

business community on reduction of parking space. Most

parking locations outside of the CBD have parking meters,

but d em and for pa rking is lower there a nd the a mo untFigure 46. Wheel stop and flexible bollard, Philadelphia, PA.

Credit: Philly Bicycle Coalition




of revenue loss due to the c onve rsion of p arking spo ts

to parklets is not substantial. Applicants are responsible

for seeking ap proval from a minimum of 51 percent o f

adjacent property owners at an early stage to avoid conictand d elays. This p roc ess is a p roven method for ga ining

community approval, as it is the same process the city

follow s to designa te a c ity-spo nsored c a r-sha ring site.

Parklets in Philadelphia eist from Ma y to O c tob er

and then a re d isassemb led b ec ause of ha rsh wea ther

during o ther months of the yea r. Therefore, the c ity has

pursued a d esign mo del that e nsures ea se o f assem b ly anddisassem bly. The c ity also pu rsues a c ertain c om mo na lity in

the design features and materials to achieve cost savings.

Parklets need to b e ADA a c c essible a nd include safety

features such as wheel stops and exible bollards (gure 46).

No ta ble servic e is permitted a t the p a rklets.

Implementation and MaintenanceThe Philad elp hia Dep artment o f Stree ts issues a

temp orary lic ense to a pp lic ants. No a dd itiona l permits are

req uired to esta blish a pa rklet. The Streets Dep artme nt is

also req uired to sign off on the te mp orary license. A new

ordinanc e m ay b e introd uc ed in the near future, assuming

tha t mo re pa rklets a re insta lled . The p ilot p rojec ts did not

require maintenance agreements, insurance, or liability

co mmitments. A ma intenance ag reeme nt and p roof

of liab ility insuranc e w ill be req uired as the p rog ram is

formalized and stand ardized .Co mm unity groups and b usinesses are in cha rge o f the

day-to-da y ma intena nc e o f pa rklets. This include s putting

aw ay sea ts at night to disc ourage vag ranc y. Yet the c ity is

willing to be exible if the residents want nighttime access to

the p arklet.


There has be en no forma l evaluation of the tw o

pa rklets, but ane c do tal evidenc e sugg ests that b oth a re

well rec eived by c omm unity memb ers and have c reated

dem and for mo re pa rklets in othe r loc a tions. Parklet users

are residents of the neighbo rhood and c ustom ers of

the a djac ent c offee shop. The p arklet a djac ent to the

Green Line Café has successfully helped to attract newc ustom ers, with the c afé owne r estimating tha t the pa rklet

has increa sed business revenue by nea rly 20 pe rcent.26 The

sec ond pa rklet ha s not b een a s suc c essful, po ssibly bec ause

the site is less visible tha n the insta lla tion near the G reen Line

Café.




The fund ing the c ity provided in the sec ond pilot round

is supporting pa rklet construction in othe r neighb orhoods.

There wa s a g reat d ea l of interest epressed onc e the

notice of fund ing op po rtunity a pp ea red . This wa s espe c iallyhelpful fo r areas of low er rents whe re peo p le we re less likely

to build a parklet, if the nancial support was not available.

This include s a prop osed pa rklet in front of Log an Library in a

predominantly African American neighborhood. According

to city staff, some parklet installations are good for place

ma king , while others for c om me rcial vitality. Neve rtheless,

the b est p arklets are g ood for both.The lac k of c oo rd ination b etw ee n businesses,

c om munity mem be rs, and various de pa rtments within

the c ity presents a c halleng e to implementa tion. The

city, however, epects that formalizing the permitting

and installation processes with more clear epectations,

de sign g uide lines, and de ad lines will help o vercom e suc h

c ha lleng es. The c ity also prefe rs tha t the parklet spo nsorsalloc ate m ore resources for be tter design op tions. As the

sec ond round of p ilot p rojec ts is insta lled , the de sign op tions

will likely epa nd .




Origins and Goals

Ma ny reta il and resta urant businesses on Fourth Stree t

in Long Bea c h epressed interest in pa rklets. Fourth Stree t is

a sort of main street, with a mi of small-scale retail stores--

such as cafés, restaurants, ofces, and movie theaters-- onthe ground oor and residential units on the upper oors.

In the rec ent past, ma ny o f the sma ll businesses on this

street strugg led to c om pe te w ith new shop ping m alls.

In response, physical improvements and the renovation

of a loc al theater helped to increase the numb er of

pe op le pa tronizing resta urants a long the c orridor. Spa c e-

co nstrained a nd una ble to ac c omm oda te its increased

business, Lola’ s resta urant b ec am e inte rested in crea ting a

pa rklet to enha nce sea ting c ap ac ity.

During the sam e time, the City of Long Bea c h wa s

interested in invigo ra ting its ma in street to preve nt a nydete riora tion resulting from the rise in shop p ing m a lls.

Inspired by the Pavem ents to Plazas p rog ram of San

Franc isc o a nd the p op -up c afés of New York, city staff

anticipa ted that p arklets c ould supp ort these ob jectives

and have a “ street c alming” effec t. Thus, the c ity initiated a

parklet p rogram in 2010.

Figure 47. Berlin parklet, Long Beach, CA.Credit: Daniel Faessler

Long Beach




Since then , two p arklets have b ee n insta lled in front

of two resta urants: Lola ’ s and Berlin. Two mo re pa rklets a re

in the planning and design stage. The rst two parklets are

loc ate d in c om mercial c orridors with substantial p ed estriantrafc and are sponsored by the adjacent restaurants.

They p rima rily func tion as outd oo r sidew a lk d ining spa c es

for these businesses. Unlike parklets in other cities, in Long

Bea c h the sponsoring business c an te c hnica lly limit use of

the pa rklet to only its c ustom ers. While the resta urants do

not e plic itly ob jec t to the p ub lic using their pa rklets, the

pa rklets are p red om inantly used by resta urant p a trons. Theland oc c upied by the p arklets is loc ate d o n the c ity’s right-

of-wa y and is tem porarily lea sed to the p rivate businesses to

op erate the fac ility.


A single architec t and c ontrac tor designed a nd

c onstructe d bo th p a rklets. The c ity do es not issue d esignspecications and does not stipulate design elements for

pa rklets, other than a minimum area of o ne p arking stall,

with at least 7 feet p arallel and 15 feet p erpend icular to the

road.27 Site selec tion criteria a re c urrent ly op en-end ed and

site feasibility is determined on a case-by-case basis. First, an

interested business ow ner ha s to ma ke a prop osa l. The c ity

then veries the site characteristics such as size, location,

ad jac ent prop erty, and street fe at ures to a ssess the v iab ility

of the p roject.

App rova l and rec om mend ations are soug ht from theDepartment of Water and Power, Department of Trafc, and

Fire Depa rtme nt. After these de pa rtments grant ap proval,

the City Council grants the nal permit. Adjacent property

owners are notied and should also approve the conversion

of p arking spa c es to a pa rklet. Once the a pp roval

c ond itions are me t, the c ity issues an o c c upa nc y pe rmit for

insta lla tion p er Municipal c od e, Sec tion 14.14.

Figure 48. Berlin parklet, Long Beach, CA.Credit: Daniel Faessler





The business ow ner or any entity leasing the land for

a p arklet is responsible for the reg ular maintenanc e o f the

fac ility. The c ity req uires that t he permittee ma intains liabilityinsuranc e for the entire p ermit pe riod, and the a mo unt c an

rang e from $1 million t o $2 million. The p ermit is va lid for

one yea r and is eligible for renew al, provide d there are no

c hang es to the fac ility. App lica nts pa y $819 pe r yea r for the

processing of the permit.

Successes and ChallengesThe tw o p arklets are a c hieving the o bjec tive o f

increa sing resta urant serving spa c e and stimulating business.

Restaurant patrons often gravitate to seating in the parklet

ra ther than the indo or sea ting a rea . The p a rklets’ p op ularity

is pa rtly at tributa b le to the ir loc at ion on a busy street w ith

ma ny bus lines and a rec ently designate d bike route.

Ac c ording to Micha el Bohn, projec t de signer, the c rea tionof the pa rklets has contribute d to tw o full-time and four pa rt-

time emp loyment p ositions in the ad jac ent restaurants.

On the othe r hand , som e have be en c ritic al of the

Long Bea c h p arklets bec ause of the ir mo re p rivate na ture

compared to the parklets in other cities. While other cities

are eplic it a bo ut the pub lic nature of their pa rklets,

the p ublic c an use the Long Bea c h pa rklets only at the

discretion of the business operator. As editorialized in the LA

Weekly:28

“ How , then, ca n this truly be a pa rk? The ta bles

obviously are reserved for customers, who on a

sunny Tuesday afte rnoon seeme d to b e enjoying

themselves even without margaritas (an alcohol

permit is pending). The short answe r is, it’ s not a

park. In addition to the modied liquor license and

additional insurance required for the new space,

Lola’s owner, Luis Navarro, paid for the parklet:

approimately $20,000 plus the c ost of those c ha irsand tables. It’s fantastic visibility for his restaurant

and a grea t investme nt to e pa nd his business, but

shouldn’ t it be c alled wha t it is: a p rivate pa tio ... in

the street?”




Origins and Goals

Supp ort for pa rklets in Oakland has com e from ma ny

d ifferent g roup s. Ma ny residents and business ow ners

repeatedly met with city ofcials and council members

to push for a pa rklet program , with Walk Oa kland / Bike

Oakland , a g roup ac tive in ad voc ating for pede strian

improveme nts, mounting a pa rklet c am pa ign. In ad dition,

the suc c ess of p a rklets in nearby San Franc isc o along with

the p op ularity of Park(ing) Day in Oakland built mo mentum

for pa rklets. The City of Oa kland b ec ame inte rested in

translating the temporary Park(ing) Day event into a longer-

term a nd m ore permanent program for Oakland .

Oa kland initiated a pilot p arklet p rog ram in the fall of

2011. The m ain ob jec tive fo r this p rog ram is to increa se a nd

attract ped estrians and ec onomic ac tivity in c omm ercial

a rea s. The c ity hop es to c reate a m ore ped estrian-friend ly

environm ent a nd p rovide spa c es for peop le to sit and rela.

Oakland

Figure 49. Rendering of 40th Street, Oakland, CA.

Credit: Andrea Gaffney and Justin Viglianti




Ac c ording to c ity planne r Blair Miller, formerly with the

Oakland Rede velopm ent Agenc y,

“ Parklets c an b e a n innova tive way to imp rove the

pedestrian eperience in Oakland. We hope all

residents will benet from the creativity and initiative

of p rivate businesses and c om mun ity groups in the

c rea tion o f unique , attrac tive urban spa c es.”


Althoug h no p arklets c urrently eist in Oakland a t the

time of this writing, several parklets will soon be installed.

The c ity released a Notice o f Op po rtunities to e nc ourage

ap plica tions for pa rklets throughout the c ity. The c ity

pub lished a no tice for ap plic ants to a pp ly for a p arklet;

a m aimum o f eight p arklets co uld have b een a pp roved

for the p ilot p rog ram with a go al of one p arklet in ea c h of

the e ight c ounc il districts. App lic ants had to de mo nstrate

a suitab le loc ation, co mm unity supp ort, a c lear and w ell

thought out d esign, and evidenc e tha t the p arklet wo uld

be well-maintained. The c ity p rimarily c onsidered loc ation of

the p rop osed pa rklet, the vision of the ap plic ants, and their

ab ility to take it to com pletion. A $150 ap plic ation fee was

req uired to b e c onsidered for a p arklet.

Seven a pp lic ations were co mp lete e nough to move

forward, just shy of the g oa l to have one pa rklet in ea c h of

the e ight c ounc il distric ts. The seven c om pleted ap plic ations

ca me from two ca fés, a b akery, a photog rap hy shop, a

reta il shop , a hom eow ner, and a c ond om inium a ssoc iation.The c ity esta blished the following proc ess for pa rklet

implementation:

1. City of Oakland relea ses Notice of Op portunity.

2. Interested p arties respo nd to the notice withpreliminary d esign sketc hes, demonstratedcommunity support and evidenc e o f

ma intenanc e ca pa bility and $150 ap plication fee.

3. City of Oa kland selec ts sites tha t ca n moveforward.

4. Design Review Eemp t p roc ess be gins and thec ity review s pla ns c hec king fo r ba sic safe tygu idelines (see be low.)

5. Pub lic notic e of future pa rklet is posted for 17ca lenda r days.

6. If no conc erns a re ra ised d uring the p ub licnotice pe riod, a Notic ing Permit is granted .

7. App lic ants ap ply for enc roa c hment permit(with $1,100 fee ) w ith full construction d rawings.

8. Onc e encroac hment permit is granted ,applicants can begin construction.




City staff worked with the City Attorney’s Ofce to

create the required pa perwork for the enc roac hment

permit a nd the ma intenance ag reeme nt. The m inor

enc roa c hment p ermit c arries a p roc essing fee of ab out

$1,100. The c ity req uires ap p lic ants to notify the pub lic of

their intent p rior to a pp lying fo r their encroac hment pe rmit.

Pub lic notic e is req uired a t this ea rly sta ge so tha t interested

parties could voice concerns sooner rather than later, in

the hopes that all issues are addressed before nalizing

construction drawings and other later steps.

At the time o f this writing, only two sites had rece ivedap proval of their enc roa c hment p ermits. One of these

pa rklets will be loca ted at Alca traz Avenue nea r San Pab lo

Avenue a nd is spo nsored by Ac tua l Ca fé. The o ther pa rklet

will be loc a ted nea r the intersec tion of 40th Street a nd

Webster Street and is sponsored by Sub rosa Co ffee and

Manifesto Bicycles. The other ve sites are in earlier stages of

development.The c ity doe s not stipulate design guid elines but doe s

have safety guidelines, including c urb distanc es and bo llard

distance specications. The City Engineer reviews the

de signs to ensure tha t the y include fe a tures suc h a s 42-inc h

high railings along the road edge. Parklets must be located

at lea st one pa rking spo t a wa y from a street c orner and

c anno t be a long a street w ith a spe ed limit of more than

25 mp h. They m ay b e a llowed in white (load ing zones) and

green (ten minute parking) zones if the entity that requested

these zone s ag rees to re-pu rpose the c urb a rea. Parklets

cannot be placed in front of a re hydrant or in a way that

restricts access to any private or public utility. Parklets shall

also not b e p lac ed in front of or ad jac ent to a multi-spa c e

parking m ete r kiosk; a minimum c learanc e o f si fee t sha ll

be maintained around all kiosks.


The c ity is c onsidering a mend ing the municipa l cod e to

inc lude pa rklets and allowing a limited numb er of pa rklets to

be a pp roved twice a yea r through an a pp lica tion process

similar to a request for prop osal (RFP). The initial ap p lic a tion

proc ess for the pilot p rog ram wa s started by the Com munity

Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Upon dissolution of the

CRA, pa rklet p ermitting mo ved to the Planning Dep artment,whic h issues the no ticing permit and review s initial design.

The Building De partment is the n responsible fo r the

nal review and plan approval for the encroachment

permit.




The applica nt/ parklet sponsor must co ver construction,

ma intena nc e, a nd insuranc e c osts. The c ity subsidizes sta ff

time and som e of the a pp lic ation/ pe rmitting fee s. Eac h

parklet site must be c ost-neutra l. Therefore, revenue lost

from pa rking me ters ha s to b e c om pensa ted elsew here. The

city staff must c reate a new m etered spa c e to replac e the

one lost by the p arklet or the a pp lic ant m ust pa y the c ity

the lost m ete r reve nue up to $14,442.44 per spac e. Si of

the p rop osed pa rklets are loc ate d in free pa rking spa c es,

and only one ha s be en prop osed in two me tered p arking

spa c es. Rep lac eme nt me ters are b eing installed a t a nothernearby loca tion.

Figure 50. Parking kiosk, Oakland, CA.Credit: Mike Linksvayer




The c ity req uires the fo llow ing o f the pa rklet’ s sponsor:29

• Provide e videnc e o f at least $1 million ingeneral liability insurance naming the City ofOa kland as ad ditional insured .

• Sign a Ma intena nc e Ag reem ent with the Cityof Oa kland that m ay req uire the pe rmit holde rto d o the following:

A. Keep all plants in go od hea lth.

B. Kee p pa rklet free of de bris andgrime.

C. Ade qua tely ma intain the surfac e.

D. Swe ep out deb ris from und er theparklet as needed.

E. Onc e a yea r be fore the rainysea son p ow er wa sh und er the Parklet.Do not allow power wash water to ow

into the storm drain. Use ap prop riatestorm drain inlet protection and stormwa ter best ma nag eme nt prac tices. (SeeMob ile Cleane rs guidelines at http :// cleanwaterprogram.org/resources/ commercial.html )


Given tha t no pa rklets have be en installed in Oakland

as of this writing, it is too early to evaluate successes and

c halleng es of the c ity’s nasc ent p arklet p ilot program.




In orde r for cities to m ake the m ost out o f their

pa rklet p rog rams, we p resent the following list of p olicy

recommendations based on lessons learned from our case

studies:

• Identify residua l spa ces in priority area s. Not a ll sites ora ll neighbo rhood s are ap prop riate fo r pa rklets. Parkletswork well where there is a certain level of foot trafc,where automobile trafc is low-speed, and wherethere are surrounding establishments that can provide

a level of natural surveillance. Cities can develop aninventory of residual spaces in priority areas with lowam ounts of op en spa ce .

• Provide urban design guidelines. As alreadydem onstrated by som e c ities, de sign g uidelines shouldnot stie parklet design and experimentation, but mustensure tha t a pp rop riate safe ty stand ards are m et.

• Enco urag e c reative p arklet design. Parklets can be

functional and aesthetic assets for cities, especially ifthey demonstrate unique and innovative architecturaland landscape designs. Cities should encourageinnovation and eperimentation in parklet design. Attimes, de sign c omp etitions or cha rrettes may p rod uc ea rich inventory of ide as abo ut p arklet d esign.

• Enco urag e c omm unity ap propriate design. Depending on the community needs and the

character of the surrounding area, parkletsshould facilitate passive or active recreation,include age-specic activities (i.e. for youngc hild ren or senior citizens, etc .), and inco rporateneighborhood-specic cultural and landscapeelem ents in the ir design.

• Streamline permitting process. Part of theappeal of parklets is that they are relativelyeasy to plan and install. Cities should ensure

that the permitting process is simple, low-cost,and do es not de ter po tential pa rklet spo nsors.At the same time, permits should be renewedannua lly, giving c ities the o pp ortunity to mo nitorthe op eration and ma intenance of p arklets.

• Designate lead staff person and public ag enc y.While various public departments have jurisd ic tion ove r c ity streets, it is essent ia l tha t apa rticular city agenc y (and idea lly a pa rticular

staff p erson) ta kes the lea d in co ordinating theparklet planning and installation process.

• Streamline maintenance requirements. Citiesshould ma ke the epec ted levels of ma intenanc every clear to parklet sponsors and keep awa tchful eye to gua rantee tha t all ma intenanc ereq uirements are met. This c an be do ne w ith aninspe c tion p rior to the renew al o f permits.

Policy Recommendations




The seve n c ity p rog rams include d in this c hap ter

rep resent a rang e of programs from the most ad vanc ed

to na sc ent. The short time fram e b etwe en them

de monstrate s how quickly pa rklet programs have spread

across North America. While not every city has conducted

an eva luation of its pa rklet p rog ram , the data that d oes

eist, along w ith ane cdo tal evidenc e sugg ests that b oth

users (residents and custome rs of loc a l businesses) and

sponsors (typically a business or business association) are

respo nding p ositively to p arklets and de ma nding m ore of

them . All c ities d iscussed in this too lkit plan to epa nd their

pa rklet p rog ram in som e wa y. Add itiona lly, ma ny more

c ities a re p lanning to b eg in piloting p arklet p rojec ts in late

2012 or ea rly 2013. This inc ludes Chic ago, IL, Asheville, NC,

and Boston, MA , with mo re c ities likely to b eg in pilots andprograms.

Los Angeles and o ther cities seeking a pa thway

for more parklets can learn from the history, processes,

cha lleng es, and succ esses of the se p arklet p rog ram s.

For co mp arison p urposes, the ta b le be low high light s the

c ities by their numb er of pa rklet sites, the c ity dep artme nts

involved in their parklet p rog ram, their permit req uirem ents

and c osts, req uired insuranc e, and dura tion of the p arklets.

The following c hapter provides deta ils a t a m ore mic ro

level to help read ers select a project site and de sign a

parklet based on its specic context.

Conclusion




Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Parklet Programs

CityNumb er of Parklets

Installed

Departments

Involved

Permit Req uired

and Cost

Insura nc e/ Lia bility Dura tio n

San Franc isc o 35

Lead: Departmentof City Planning

Coordination:Department ofPub lic Wo rks,MunicipalTransportat ion

Agenc y, and non-prot partner

$791 base fee

$191.50 forbefore and afterinspection

$221 Yea rly p ermitrenewal

$1 million

Year-round;Applicants mustrenew pe rmits

yearly

Montréa l Approimately 90Department of

Pub lic Works

$600 for application

$7,625 fee withpa rking m eters

$2,207 fee withou tpa rking m eters

$2 million April – Oc tober

New York City 4

Department ofTransportat ion,

Trafc and PlanningDivision

Ca fés must a pp lybut no fee required

$1 - $3 millionde pe nding on size

Ap ril 15 – Oc tob er14

Vanc ouver 2

EngineeringDepartment’s

Street Ac tivitiesBranch

No pe rmit required – ca ll for prop osa lssolicited from artists

None – co nduc tedas city projec t

Summer:(Picnurbia)

Sem i-perma nent :(Parallel Park)




Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Parklet Programs (Continued)

CityNumb er of Parklets

Installed

Departments

Involved

Permit Req uired

and Cost

Insura nc e/ Lia bility Dura tio n

Philadelphia 2

Lead: Mayor’sOfce ofTranspo rtation andUtilities

Design Review:Streets Depa rtment

Tem pora ry lic enseissued : Depa rtmentof Licenses andInspection

No permit requiredNone required toda te – temporary

licenseAp ril – Oc tob er 22

Long Beac h 2

Lead: Departmentof Public Works

Approval:Department ofWater and Pow er,

Department ofTrafc and FireDepartment

$819 with ye arlyrenewal

Between $1 millionto $2 million liab ility

coverage

Year-round;Applicants mustrenew pe rmits

yearly

Oakland7 sites in permitting

process

Lea d : PlanningDepartment

Rev iew s: Build ingDepartment

$1,100 for a permit$1 million in ge neral

liability insurance

Yea r-round ; ye arlyrenewa l yet to b e

determined




17. San Franc isc o Paveme nt to Parks. (2012). Ac cessed July 18, 2012,http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/inde.html

18. San Franc isc o Planning Dep artm ent. (Novem be r 7, 2011).“ Req uest fo r Prop osals for Tem pora ry Side wa lk Etensions Parklet s,”accessed July 19, 2012, http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/ ima ges/Parklet_Ca ll_for_Projec ts_110711.pd f.

19. San Franc isc o Parklet Req uest for Prop osals. (2012).

20. Prat t, L. (Ma rch 18, 2010). “ Divisadero Tria l Parklet Impac t Rep ort,”accessed July 18, 2012, http://www.greencitiescalifornia.org/sites/all/ les/SF-Divisadero%20Parklet%20Impact%20Report.pdfGreat Streets San

Francisco.

21. Le Plate au -Mont-Roya l Mo ntréa l. (2011). “ Ca dre Normat if aL’ém ission De s Permis Pour Les Ca fés en Co ntre Terra sse Sur Chaussée Surle Domaine Public.”

22. New York City Dep artm ent of Transpo rtation. (2012). “ CurbsidePub lic Sea ting Sponsored b y Loc a l Businesses Eva luat ion Rep ort,”accessed July 18, 2012, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/ curbside-seating_pilot-evaluation.pdf.. “- Café Pilot Program EvaluationRep ort Prog ram Desc ript ion.”

23. New York City Dep artm ent of Transpo rtation. (2012). “ Pop -upCa fé: Design Guide lines.”

24. Janoff, E. (February 28, 2012). City Planner, Ofce of Planningand Susta inab ility, NYC De pa rtment of Transpo rtation. (M . Brozen,Interviewer)

25. Viva Van c ouve r. (2012). Ac ce ssed July 19, 2012, http :// vancouver.ca/engsvcs/streets/vivavancouver/about.htm.

26 Philadelphia Mayor’s Ofce of Transportation and Utilities. (April11, 2012). “ Parklet G rant Req uest for Prop osals,” ac c essed July 18, 2012,http://phillymotu.les.wordpress.com/2012/05/parklet-grant-rfp.pdf..”

27. City of Long Bea c h Munic ipa l Cod e. (2012). Ac c essed July 18,2012, http://library.municode.com/inde.asp?clientId=16115.

28. Walker, A. (Janua ry 26, 2012). “ Southe rn Ca lifornia’ s First ‘Parklet ’Asks the Question: What is a Park, Really?” LA Weekly, accessed July18, 2012, http:/ / blogs.lawee kly.com/ arts/ 2012/ 01/ long_be ac h_pa rklet_ public_spac.php.

29. City of Oa kland . (2011). “ Notice of Parklet Op po rtunity.”

Footnotes



This pu rpose o f this c hap ter is to p rovide p rac tica l

guida nc e o n selec ting a site a nd de signing a pa rklet. The

information provided in this c hap ter was c ollec ted throug h

interview s with pa rklet d esigners, business ow ners, and

c ity staff from c ities where p arklets have be en p lanne d or

implemented. The rst section provides site criteria about

where to b uild a p arklet. Informa tion ab out how to d esign

a p arklet is then p rovided throug h a rang e o f pa rklet

eamp les. A well-de signed pa rklet in a n idea l loc ation a nd

with a strong co mmunity pa rtner c an e nco urag e a vibrant

street life and foster future investment in a neighborhood.

4. design guidance

Introduction




Physical Site Considerations: Required

• Lowtrafcspeeds.Cities with pa rklet p rog ramsstipulate that parklets should only be installedin streets with low spe ed limits, typ ica lly 25 mp hor lower. To m inimize a ir pollution e po sureto pedestrians, it is also recommended thatparklets are not installed in areas with hightrafc volumes.

• Existing pedestrian activity. Although parkletshave the potential to increase pedestrian

activity, there should already be demand forwa lking in the a rea .

• Surrounding land uses that can supportped estrian a c tivity. These c om mo nly includecommercial, high-density residential andmied-use a reas.

A num be r of c om munities are seeking wa ys to improve

the p hysica l environme nt b y re-purposing roa d spa c e into

parklets. A rst step in the parklet development process

is to selec t a site. Site selec tion should be driven b y tw o

main criteria: appropriate physical site characteristics and

a respo nsible site stew ard / c om munity pa rtner. Both a re

c ritic a l for parklet suc c ess. For eam ple, a n idea l physica l

site c ould eist; how eve r, either throug h d esign fa ilure or

an irrespo nsible stew ard, a site c ould fa ll into d isrepa ir and

not reac h the g oa l of imp roving the p hysica l environme nt.The c om munity pa rtne r is typ ica lly the ad jac ent b usiness

who ap plies for the p ermit, pa ys for the c onstruc tion,

and ma intains the pa rklet a fter its insta lla tion. Criteria for

a p hysic al site and c om munity pa rtner are driven b y the

follow ing c onsiderat ions:

How do I Select a Site?




Physical Site Considerations: Recommended

• High visibility from inside adjacent business.

This will p rovide “ eye s on the street” to support

safety fo r pa rklet users.

• Adjacent businesses open during normalbusiness hours or longer. This is pa rtic ula rlyimportant if there are movable tables andc ha irs in the site tha t must be ta ken in and outat night.

• Existing shade trees. Most parklets feature

landscaping; however, this is typically forgreening rather than for providing shade,particula rly b ec ause of site v isibility issues.Therefo re, it is recom me nded to selec t siteswith o ff-site shade, suc h a s nea rby trees.

• Existing street lights on site. For safetyconsiderations, the ideal parklet site is well litat night.

Community Partner Considerations: Required

• Dedic ated pa rtner for site upkeep . Partners ma yinclude: adjacent business owners, business

improvement associations/districts, communitygroups with close ties to a particular area, orreside nt a ssoc iations. The id ea l group shoulddemonstrate dedication to a specic arearathe r than a b roa d foc us.

• Ability to take on $1 million of insurance. Mostpa rklet a pp lica nts alrea dy ho ld this am ount ofbusiness insurance.

Community Partner Considerations: Recommended

• Existing c leaning c rew. A business improve me ntdistrict (BID) can be an ideal partner asthey typically already handle cleaningresponsibilities in the a rea.

• Previous involvement in sustainability and/ or beautication projects. Parklets programs

typica lly involve a variety o f c ity d ep artments.Therefore, p rior eperienc e w orking with c ityag enc ies/ de pa rtme nts is helpful.




Parklet d esign c an be driven b oth b y physica l site c harac teristics and the d esired planne d duration for the p arklet.

There a re a va riety o f different op tions to b e c onsidered . The fo llow ing ta b le outlines these op tions and the fo llow ing sec tion

provides more details that are illustrated with specic parklet projects.

How do I Design a Site?

Surround ing Land Use Parklet Shape Dura tion

Residential

Eample:• San Franc isc o’ s Dee plet

Parallel Parking Spac e

Eample:• Most o f the pa rklets from San

Franc isc o’ s Pavem ent to ParksProgram

One Day

Eample:• Park(ing) Day

Diag ona l Spa c e

Eample:• San Franc isc o’s Dev il’s Toot h Parklet

Sea sona l

Eamples:• New York City’s “Pop-Up Ca fés”• Philad elp hia’ s University C ity Distric t

Commercial

Eample:• Philad elp hia’ s University City

Distric t

Roa dwa y Travel Lane

Eample:• Vancouver’s Picnurbia

Yea r-Round / Sem i-Perma nent

Eample:• The pa rklet s in San Franc isc o

Trafc Triangle

Eample:• Los Angeles’ Sunset Triang le

Permanent

Eample:• Los Ang eles’ Byzantine-Latino

Quarter Parklet

Table 2. Parklet Typologies




…in a commercial area

Most parklets are located in commercial districts.

Yet no t eve ry p art of eve ry c om mercial d istrict is a go od

c and idate for a p arklet. While pa rklets have the p ote ntial

to increase the a mo unt of pe op le walking in an area, they

should no t b e the only ped estrian a ttrac tion on a street. A

c om mercial area that is alrea dy a ttrac ting p ed estrians is

impo rta nt to e nsure pa rklet use.

A b usiness ow ner who wo uld like to spo nsor a parklet

in a c om mercial area should b e m indful that p arklets are

public spaces (unless otherwise specied, as could be the

c ase in Long Bea c h, CA). Parklet signa ge must c onvey to

pedestrians that the space is public rather than an etension

of a business. Other design elements can be included to

unde rsc ore that the spa c e is welc om ing to the pub lic . For

instance, as shown in gure 52, colorful chairs and tablesplac ed in the pa rklet c an b e used to a ttrac t attention from

pa ssing pe de strians, who c an enter the platform from the

sidew alk (with railings on the street side as p rotec tion from

vehicles).

If a pa rklet is prop erly loca ted and de signed in a

c om me rc ial district, it ca n supp ort eco nom ic ac tivity

by helping to d raw peo ple to a co mme rc ial street a nd

providing more spa c e for the enjoyment of the a rea a nd its

businesses. This is true in Philadelph ia’ s Unive rsity C ity Distric t,

where a sea sona l pa rklet (from spring to m id-autumn) ha s

helped inc rea se revenue b y 20 pe rc ent for the ad jac ent

c a fé, Green Line. A similar result oc c urred in New York City,

where the owners of Local, a parklet-adjacent business,

reported that the installation was “denitely good for

business, especially in a way that creates new space for

the community.” 30 Othe r pa rklet-ad jac ent businesses in

NYC—including Ec op olis, Le Pa in Quo tidien, Bom bay, a nd

FIKA—agreed with this assessme nt. For insta nc e, Bom bay’ s

sales increa sed by 14 perc ent from the ye ar prior to the

parklet’ s insta lla tion, w hile FIKA’ s sa les increased by 9 to

15 pe rc ent. Depe nding o n a pa rklet’ s de sign, construc tion

and imp lementa tion, business ow ners investing in a pa rklet

can expect to recover costs in approximately ve years,

a lthoug h som e b usinesses reco up c osts a t a q uicker ra te.

What are Land Use Considerations?




Figure 51. Parklet, Philadelphia, PA.Credit: Dan Reed

Figure 52. Colorful chairs at parklet, Philadelphia, PA.Credit: Philly Bike Coalition




…in a residential area

While m ost p arklets are loc ate d in com mercial or

mied-use commercial areas, parklets can be successful

in residential areas, with sponsorship from one or moreresiden ts and supp ort from loc al neighb ors. The “ Deep let”

pa rklet on San Franc isc o’ s Valenc ia Street is a go od

eamp le of residential spo nsorship a nd eng ag em ent

(gures 53-54). During renovation of a house on this street,

the project’ s architec t sugg ested installing a pa rklet net to

the d rivewa y. The hom e o wne rs, ca r-free environme nta lists,

ag reed that c onstruc ting a pa rklet in front o f their houseoffered an op po rtunity to epress their values and c ontribute

to the ir loc al c om munity. They reco gnized that the

sidewa lks on Va lencia Street were no t w ell maintained and

installation o f a p arklet co uld help to imp rove the p ed estrian

eperience and encourage walking. Amandeep Jawa and

Kimberly Conley, sponsors of the Deep let p arklet, sa id o f the ir

project:31

“It is no coincidence that our effort involves

reclaiming our private “car-space”--the street

spac e in front o f ou r house…only useful for us to pull

a car out of our private driveway--and converting

it into a spot many can enjoy by making it into a

parklet.”

The site’ s de signer, Jane Ma rtin, worked with the pa rklet

spo nsors and their neighbors to selec t a parklet d esign tha t

connected with their love of animals, specically dinosaurs.

The nal site design features a succulent sculpture in the

shap e o f a Triceratop s, a unique aspe c t d iffering from ma ny

other parklets that most prominently feature seating.

In most insta nc es, parklets in reside ntia l area s should

not inc lude mova ble ta bles and c hairs. Unlike w ith

c om me rc ial spo nsors who c an ta ke suc h furniture inside

their business a t the end of t he day, a residen tial sponsor will

likely not wa nt th is respo nsibility nor have the spac e to storefurniture at night.

A p a rklet within a resident ial area should also b e

de signe d to a dd ress any c onc erns ab out usag e. For

insta nc e, to ad dress pote ntial issues of noise from pe op le

c ong reg ating in the site a t night, the de signer of the Deep let

pa rklet included slightly dow nwa rd sloping woo de n be nc hes

that are c om fortable for sitting but inc onvenient for sleeping.With the eception of the benches, all other surfaces are

ma de o f aluminum to fac ilitate ea sy cleaning in the c ase of

grafti.




Figure 53. Sloped seating, Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopia.org

Figure 54. Succulent dinosaur, Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Kimberly Conley




…if my site is a parking space

Parking spa c e c onve rsions p rovide fo r the m ost

c om mo n p arklet shap e, with two pa rking spo ts as the

mo st c om mo n size fo r c urbside parklets. For insta nc e, San

Franc isc o’ s pa rklet p ermit de sign guide lines epla in that

parklets are generally two parking spots wide, although

epa nsion ma y be c onsidered . Tab le 3 provides a summ ary

of d esign g uidelines for curbside parklets as p rovided by San

Franc isc o a nd three o ther c ities.

Whether or not a parklet requires a licensed engineer’s

or architec t’ s stamp is an impo rta nt d istinct ion in these

de sign g uidelines. Cities tha t d o no t ha ve th is req uirem ent

note that it is an epensive and costly barrier for community

groups seeking to install parklets. Cities that require such

a stamp nd it to be helpful for ensuring that safety

c onsiderat ions are me t. Reg ard less of this req uirem ent,

businesses designing parklets should seek review from an

architect or engineer for safety considerations.

Parklets in curbside p arking spac es c an be designed in

a m yriad wa ys. A few unique c urbside d esign o ptions c an

be found in the sec tion, “If my pa rklet w ill be insta lled yea r-

round/semi-permanently.”

…if my site is using diagonal parking stalls

Typ ica l pa rallel p a rking spots only a llow for a si-

foot wide pa rklet. In c ontrast, diag ona l stalls are d eep er,

etend ing 11 fee t into the street, which a llow s for a large r

c urbside pa rklet. For eamp le, the Devil’s Tee th Bakery in

San Franc isc o d ec ided to transform its three a ng led p a rking

stalls into a uniquely designed parklet featuring two areas

sep arated by a two-foot wide ba rrier. These two “ zones”

allow the pa rklet to ac co mmo da te d ifferent user groups

at the sam e time , including do g wa lkers and bic yclists,

peo ple o f varying ag es, and soc ializing g roup s, as we ll as

individua ls see king a quiet plac e to rea d . The d esign of this

pa rklet inco rpo rate s bo th sea ting and landsc ap ing. Sea ting

is paramo unt in this parklet, with p lante d zones a long the

length of the benc hes. This design a llow s land sc ap ing

without decreasing seating capacity.

The p arklet de sign wa s c onstricted by the ac ute

ang les of the spa c e but de signe r Shane Curnyn w as able

to suc c essfully c onve rt the se c ha lleng es into op po rtunities.

One ac ute angle at the uphill end o f the parklet be ca me

an op portunity to create a “ cha ise lounge” co ndition.

This c ould have b een a n awkwa rd c onjunction, but g ood

What are design considerations based on shape and size?




design transformed it “into the b est sea t in the ho use.” The

other ac ute a ngle provided an o pp ortunity for planting. The

slope of the street a lso m ade it tricky to rend er the street/

pa rklet interfac e c lea nly, but this ob stac le was overco me b y

skilled c a rpentry.

Ove ra ll, diag ona l pa rking sta lls and othe r irregularly

shap ed sites c an b e a c halleng e a s we ll as an o pp ortunity

for simp le but c reative d esign. Shane C urnyn provides the

following a dvice for suc h sites:

“Keeping the shape of the parklet as simple as

possible while providing the most usable spaceand seating for the occupants is the best way to

ap proa c h the p lan. Save your de sign energy (and

budget) for the many tricky details and threshold

conditions invoked by street, curb, materials, city,

builde r and the c lient.”

Figure 55. Seating lined with landscaping, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Matarozzi Pelsigner Builders




City San Franc isc o Oakland New York City Philadelphia

Size o f Parklet6’ width, ush with curb

(1/2” g ap ma)

Sam e designguide lines as San

Francisco

6’ wid th. Should beas ush to the curb as

possible—at a minimum12’ must be ush with

the sidewalk

6’ width

Load Not speciedLoa d bea ring : 750 lbs/

sq. ft.Must sup port 100 lbs/ sq . ft.

load

DrainageMust ma intain cu rb line

drainage

Curbside drainag emust not be imp ede d

and must allow for easyac c ess to the spa c e

underneath

Platfo rm should a llow forea sy ac c ess unde rnea th

and curbside drainage maynot be imped ed

Wind/ Visibility

Visua lly permea b leoutside edge ; railing

ma y be required

Should ha ve vertic alelements so tha t it isvisible from vehic les

Should b e stab le unde rwind-loa ds of 80 mph w ith

op en gua rd rails

Barriers

4’ d istanc e from p arklet

to whe el stop (behind)3’ w hee l stop insta lled1’ from c urb (ahea d)

DOT assesses site tode termine safe ty

improvements: trafcmarkings, exible

bo llards, and w heelstops

Must have reective soft hitpo sts and ma y have whe elstops installed 1 ft. from curb

LicensedEng ineer Sta mp

Required?No Yes Yes No

Table 3. Summary of Design Guidelines for Parklets in Different Cities




Figure 56. Plan view of Noriega parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Matarozzi Pelsigner Builders




…if I want to design within a traffic triangle and/or a

travel lane

Com pa red to the c onversion of a p arking spa c e,

transforming a trafc triangle and/or travel lane into a

parklet can be a more signicant and longer-term endeavor.

The Los Ang eles Neighborhoo d Initiative (LANI) construc ted

such a parklet, converting both a trafc triangle and a travel

lane into a pedestrian plaza within Los Angeles’s Byzantine

Latino Quarter neighborhood. Prior to construction, the trafc

triang le was disc onnec ted from the a djac ent sidewa lk by a

slip turn lane (a lane which a llow s d rivers to turn right w ithout

coming to a complete stop). LANI used concrete to ll in the

slip turn lane and connect the sidewalk to the trafc triangle,

which transformed the dangerous trafc triangle into a

we lcom ing and safe plac e for pe de strians and transit riders.

Trafc patterns were not affected by this change because

drivers are still able to turn right, although they must go

around the c orner rather than in the slip lane.

While LANI soug ht to c rea te a pe rmane nt pe de strian

plaza a nd w ent through the p ermitting p roc ess to d o so, less

permanent parklets can also be installed in trafc triangles

and / or trave l lanes. Designers som etimes have the o pt ion to

use p aint instea d of c onc rete to c rea te their parklet, as wa s

the case a t the Sunset Triang le Plaza parklet.

Figure 57. Plan view of traffic triangle conversion, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris




…if my site is a street segment

Mo st p a rklets involve the c onversion of p a rking spac es,

but som e large r pa rklets take up entire sec tions of a street.

Add itiona l spa c e allows for c rea tive de signs that c an serve

mu ltiple users. The follow ing two ea mp les illustrate the

exibility and diversity among this type of large parklet:

the Sunset Triang le Pedestrian Plaza in Los Ang eles and

Picnurbia in Vancouver.

Sunset Triangle

The Sunset Triang le Ped estrian Plaza in Los Ang eleswa s orga nized by Streets for People, a n initiative o f the

Los Ang eles County Departme nt of Public Hea lth and the

City o f Los Ang eles Planning Co mm ission, as desc ribed

in Chap ter 2 of this too lkit. Opened in March o f 2012, the

parklet exists on one block of Grifth Park Boulevard in Silver

Lake that was closed to automobile trafc between Sunset

Boulevard, Maltman Avenue, and Edgecliff Drive.

The ad jac ent b usinesses and the Silver Lake

Imp rovem ent Assoc iation formulate d the initial plan for

the p a rklet, and the Los Ang eles County Pub lic Hea lth

Department funded the p roject b efore their federal

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act grant expired. A

quick implementation schedule and the temporary natureFigure 58. Converted traffic triangle, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative




of the p ilot p rojec t d rove design c onsiderat ions. Parklet

de sign elements had to be “ non-co mm ittal.” This translated

into the use of p aint instea d o f jac khamm ers and remo vab le

furniture and planters rather than permanently built pieces.

Transforming the site req uired using the entire 11,000

squa re-foot site a s a “ billbo ard, ” w ith a p ainted green

surfac e a nd po lka d ots. The c olor green wa s selec ted

be c ause m any o ther co lors we re “ off limits” as they d enote

specic purposes in trafc control (i.e., red denotes a no

pa rking zone, and blue is used for handica pp ed spa c es).

The c olor green wa s selec ted to highlight the transforma tion

of the site into a pub lic spa c e fo r peop le, similar to a

trad itiona l pub lic pa rk with green grass. Add itiona lly, la rge

po lka d ots in a lighte r green c olor were ad de d to t he

pattern to give dimension and help camouage dirt and

other imp erfec tions on the pa veme nt.

Design e lements inc lude c ha irs, ta bles, umb rellas,

p lante rs, and b ike rac ks. Plante rs a re used to c lose the

street and bloc k off entranc e to c ars. These b ollard plante rsare lled with sand and soil at their base and with drought

tolerant p lantings on top . The C ity of Los Ang eles selec ted

the planters and other design elements based on their use

in parklets in other cities. After installation, someone also

ad ded a b asketball hoop , which p roved to b e one of the

mo st we ll used elem ents in the parklet.Figure 59. "Billboard" with green polka dots, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Ross Reyes




The Los Ang eles Dep artme nt o f Transporta tion (DOT)

insta lled the parklet in ea rly 2012. Insta llat ion b y the DOT

allowed the p roject to move forward w ithout going through

a pe rmitting proc ess be c ause m any project tasks—such as

pa veme nt pa inting, street c losure signa ge , and bike rac k

installation—are c om mon functions pe rformed by t he DOT

installation crews.

Still in its infanc y, the pa rklet is showing ea rly signs

of suc c ess. Although som e c ustom ers ma y ha ve initially

struggled to nd parking after several parking spaces were

remove d, mo re rece nt anec dota l evide nce sugge sts that

business has since p icked up a fter c ustom ers learned of t he

relocated parking spaces. Business may also be beneting

from an increased number of pedestrians visiting the area.

For insta nc e, the o wne r of Morning Nights Ca fé, Julie Choe,

noted tha t revenues at her café ha ve gone up by ab out 20

pe rc ent on w eekend s sinc e the installation o f the pa rklet.32

Fig. 60. Planters, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Alissa Walker

Figure 61. LADOT installation crews, Sunset Triangle Plaza,Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Margot Ocañas




Figure 62. Children at Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Alissa Walker


Pi bi



Picnurbia Another eam ple of a pa rklet that emerged from a

street c losure is the Picnurbia pa rklet, whic h w as insta lled on

Rob son Street in dow ntown Vanc ouver d uring the summ erof 2011. During th is time , the c ity had c losed Rob son Stree t

to vehicular trafc due to underground construction. The

pa rklet a llowed the c ity to transform a c losed street into a

playful public spa c e tha t me asured 96 feet in leng th, 15 feet

in width, and 8 feet in height (at its highest po int). Loc ated

in an area with relatively high foot trafc within a popular

c om mercial distric t and nea r a pub lic squa re, the p arkletenhanc ed the p ede strian eperienc e.

Picnurbia w as de signed to be a te mp orary and

mova ble installation, creating a pub lic “ living room ” where

pe op le co uld spe nd time, whether with friends, food , or a

bo ok. One of t he de signers, Philipp Dittus, used the follow ing

de sc ription to eplain the c harac ter that Pic nurbia soug ht to

create:33

"It is a p lac e. A w ave. A stimulus. An ena b ler. A pa rk.

A p iece of furniture. A p iece of a rt. A roa d bloc k. It

is ye llow . It is fo r everybody. IT IS PUBLIC."

Figure 63. Picnurbia, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Neal LaMontagne


Th d i f h Pi bi kl d h b ildi d C f id d b h f f f



The d esigners of the Picnurbia pa rklet wa nted the

insta llat ion to b e inc lusive for ma ny pote ntial users, and to

denote pub lic spa ce . Bec ause the pa rklet w as not a ttac hed

to a c om me rc ial op eration, it did not require muc h effort

to und erstand that it was pub lic spa c e. Design e lements

inc lude d sea ting in the shap e o f a w ave , umbrellas for

providing shad e, a s well as bridg es, be nc hes, and tab les

spa nning the leng th o f the wa ve. Design ma terials inc lude d

plywood and co nstruction timb er, pa inted for weather

protection and covered by a 1 1/3-inch-thick yellow articial

turf. No d esign eleme nts were c onsidered mo re imp ortant

tha n o thers. The d esigner desc ribed the elem ents in the

following way:

“ The wo od en ma terial which is c om mon a nd e asy

to ge t, gives it the c ha rac teristics of furniture. The

turf attracted visually with its color, plus it teased

pe op le to c ome c loser, touc h it, ge t in on it. The

umbrellas offered shadow and made it visible

from bloc ks aw ay; they a lso c rea ted zones on theinstallation. The b ridge / be nc h/ tab le d id the sam e

for eac tly the sam e rea sons.”

Safet y for pa rklet users wa s ensured tha nks to

Picnurbia’ s loca tion on a c losed street with no vehicular

trafc and because the installation conformed to the city’s

building c od e. Com fort was provided by the soft-surfac e turf

ma terial, shad ow from the um brellas, and the “ ergonom ic”

form of the wave design. There were no specic design

elements intended to p rotec t the pa rklet from va nda lism or

c rime but the c ity maintained a nd c lea ned the installation

on a regular basis. Bec ause the insta lla tion was designed to

be mova ble, the c ity could de cide to bring the p arklet to

other a reas during future summ ers.

Figure 64. Picnurbia, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Neal LaMontagne




Figure 65. Conceptual design for Picnurbia, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Loose Affiliates


Wh t id ti b d th d ti f th i t ll ti ?



…if I want to have a parklet installed for one day

Participating in Park(ing) Day, an annual event

desc ribed previously in this too lkit, is a wa y for g roups

and organizations to transform a single metered parking

spac e into a tem po rary pa rklet. A Park(ing ) Day insta lla tion

ca n p rovide an op portunity to b uild pub lic awa reness

of parklets and also increase potential support for more

permanent insta lla tions. This oc c urred suc c essfully in Los

Ange les and Oa kland , as the e amp les be low highlight.At the Spring Stree t parklet insta lla tion o n Park(ing)

Day in 2011, the Dow ntown Los Ang eles Neighb orhood

Council conduc ted a survey for peop le stopp ing b y the

tempora ry insta lla tion. They asked questions suc h as:

• How wo uld you like to spe nd your time while

at a pa rklet?

• How often w ould you spe nd time in a p arklet?

• What a re your p riorities for design e lements ina p arklet?

• Would yo u kiss your loved one in a p arklet?

Figure 66. Park(ing) Day installation, Downtown Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Mike Manal

What are considerations based on the duration of the installation?


Responses to t hese questions helped inform design “ I am a life-long Oa kland er The p arklet c hang ed



Responses to t hese questions helped inform design

for a mo re p erma nent p arklet o n the same site. The

neighborhood council collected 50 responses to their survey

and found the following:

• Seve nty p erce nt of respond ents would v isit aparklet a t the site da ily or weekly.

• Fifty percent of respondents were mostinterested in having space to hang out aloneor with others and having p lanting/ greenery asdesign elem ents in the pa rklet.

• Eighty-ve percent of respondents would kisstheir love d o nes in a parklet.

Simila rly, one c urrently p lanned site fo r a m ore

pe rma nent p arklet p ilot project in Oa kland go t its start with

a Park(ing) Day installation that included a sidewalk party

with a DJ and da nc ing. The pe rmit app lic ant, Actua l Ca fé,

left a p a rklet guest boo k for peo ple to register their inte restin c rea ting a mo re pe rma nent installation. These c om ments

were used as evide nc e o f c om munity supp ort in their pa rklet

ap plic ation. The g uest bo ok co llec ted c om me nts such a s:34

I am a life-long Oa kland er... The p arklet c hang ed

the whole atmosphere of this block in a way

I’ve never seen in Oakland. It makes the street

feel like ‘‘ours’ in a way it did not before. Just

looking at the cozy benches and warm wooden

construction gives the eyes a rest from the asphaltand grime that, unfortunately, pervad es this area.

I hope and believe this parklet will bring long-

term neighborhood residents of all ages out onto

the street to help renew and refresh this district

and highlight our beautiful diversity and peaceful

strength.”

Figure 67. Whimsical drawing from parklet petition, Oakland, CA.Credit: Actual Café


In ad dition to the g uest bo ok pa ge s Actua l Café a lso



In ad dition to the g uest bo ok pa ge s, Actua l Café a lso

c ollec ted over 600 signatures for a p etition to the C ity of

Oa kland for a p ermanent pa rklet o n the site. The p etition

stated:

“Make Actual Café’s parklet a permanent xture of

the G olden Ga te District! Plea se g rant Ac tual Ca fé

a permit for permanent installation of its parklet in

the d efunc t AC transit bus stop on Alc atraz Avenue.

I believe the parklet will enhance the livability of

the G olden G ate district.”

The O akland and Los Ang eles Park(ing ) Day ea mp les

show the p ow er of using Park(ing) Day to g arner support for

mo re p erma nent insta llat ions. Both of these sites a re in the

pe rmit ap prova l proc ess at the time of p ublic ation of this

toolkit.

Any group c an p artic ipate in Park(ing) Day, even if a

mo re pe rmane nt p a rklet is not prop osed for the site. The

follow ing informa tion provide s prac tica l advice for a group

wa nting to stage a Park(ing) Day insta lla tion:

• Bring material for the “oor” of the parklet. This is c om mo nly a large piec e o f Astroturf orsomething which conveys the transformationfrom a pa rking spa c e to a te mp orary pa rk.

• Pickalocationwithsignicantfoottrafc. This willhelp ensure that the Park(ing) Day installationis well attended. As described in Chapter I ofthis toolkit, the organization Pacoima Beautifulselec ted a loc ation in front o f a p ublic library.

• Plan some activities. Not everyone is familiarwith parklets and as such, may not feelcomfortable spending leisure time in a parkingspac e. By having a c tivities suc h as art p rojectsor informa tion ta b les, peo ple w ill be more likelyto ente r the p arklet a nd e nga ge in act ivities.

• Bring signa ge . This is espec ially imp orta nt w henpe op le are no t fa milia r with p a rklets or Park(ing )Day. Signag e w ill help to avo id c onfusion a bo utthe p urpose o f the insta lla tion. The signa ge doe snot ha ve to say “ pa rklet,” as this term ma y notyet be understood in a particular community,but should somehow denote that the space is

public.

Ove ra ll, pa rticipa ting in Park(ing) Day is a g reat

opp ortunity for co mmunity memb er enga gem ent and to

build p ub lic support for pa rklets.


if a parklet is installed seasonally



…if a parklet is installed seasonally

Parklets in c ities with harsh w inter mo nths, includ ing

New York City and Philad elphia, are d esigne d to b e

removed in the w inter. Design c onsiderat ions for pa rklets in

these c ities are sligh tly different tha n for yea r-round parklet

installations, with designers nding solutions to address

the issue o f sea sonal insta lla tion. Typ ica lly, the d esign of

sea sona l pa rklets is simp ler c om pared to ye ar-round pa rklet

installations.

The Philade lphia solution wa s to d evelop a mo dular

system that could fold up at to t into a truck and be

quickly insta lled , minimizing lab or c osts and insta lla tion time .

The Philad elph ia d esigners a lso w an ted a system tha t wa s

generic enough in its components to be congured for a

va riety o f d esigns, differing sizes, and va rying c urb c uts.

Indeed, the nal Philadelphia modular system provides great

exibility and can be placed practically anywhere. The

mo dules take less than a da y to install and c an be ea sily

insta lled a t short notic e fo r other type s of p ub lic eve nts, suc h

as street fairs, bike events, or marathons.

The mo dular system c onsists ma inly of three

c om po nents: a railing, a de c k, and a plante r bo. The

railing is ma de of steel a nd de signed in suc h a wa y that it

is co mfortab le to lean on a nd c an handle oc c asional high

Figure 68. Signage at Pacoima Park(ing) Day, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Pacoima Beautiful


cap ac ity The dec k and p lantersare ma de of wood Planters



cap ac ity. The dec k and p lanters are ma de of wood . Planters

and railing can be combined and congured in a variety of

ways to dene the boundaries of a parklet. Other components

such as be nc hes, tab les, high-top tables, and bike rac ks can

be custom ized to suit the p referred type of use a nd size o f the

site. In a dd ition, the de signers have devised ab out si to seven

atta chment p oints or connec tors that a llow for attaching any

number of co mp onents to the ba sic mod ule.

New York City’s rst parklet design employed Riyad

Gha nnam , a de signer who had previously worked on

parklet d esigns in San Franc isc o. The o bjec tive was to c rea te

“ the nice st spa ce we co uld make for the least am ount

of money,” said Gha nnam.35 Similar to Philad elp hia, the

site de sign is a simple d ec k ringed by meta l p lante rs and

c ab le fenc ing. The p lanters are the mo st c ostly item o f the

c onstruc tion but are imp ortant as they have ma ny functions

including providing a main structural element, a barrier from

vehicles, and supp ort railing/ fenc ing. The d ec king “ do es

the most for the least,” providing the ooring for the parklet

in a c ost-effec tive ma nner. For la ter itera tions of the de sign,

the d esigner substituted c onc rete for woo d o n the de c ks

be c ause c onc rete is mo re d urab le. The c ab le gua rdrail

and the planters are intended to be as tall as possible within

structural and budget constraints.

Figure 69. Parklet installation, Philadelphia, PA.Credit: Philly Bicycle Coalition


The New York City de signer believes tha t the pla ntings c lear The sem i perma nenc e o f San Franc isc o’ s parklets



The New York City de signer believes tha t the pla ntings

are the m ost impo rtant p art of p arklet de sign. Mr. Ghanna m

noted the imp ortanc e of including a s muc h ”g reen” spa ce

elem ents as possible or else it “ just loo ks like a side wa lk.” 36

In bo th Philadelphia and New York City, the sea sona l

pa rklets c anno t be atta c hed to the street o r the sidewa lk

but rather need to b e enc omp assed on a platform. Neither

c ity has enc ountered any p roblem s with this system thus far;

howe ver, there is a limit on the am ount o f de sign eleme nts

and a menities that ca n be p lac ed o n a platform.

Responses to inte rview s in New York City a ndPhilade lphia indic ate the ab ility for pa rklets to b e

c onstructe d, remove d, a nd stored by the pa rklet spo nsor/

business ow ner d uring the winter months. Therefore, loc a tion

and wea ther do not seem to a ffec t the ultimate suc c ess of

parklets.

…if my parklet is installed year-round orsemi-permanently

Parklets in San Franc isc o e ist yea r-round , altho ug h

ap plica nts must submit a $221 fee for yea rly rene wa l fees.

Most p a rklets have b ee n insta lled in San Franc isc o o ver

the last two years with no set e pirat ion da te. As suc h, the

ove ra ll lifespa n and long evity of ea c h pa rklet site is not ye t

c lear. The sem i-perma nenc e o f San Franc isc o s parklets

and the e ver-inc rea sing num be r of insta lled sites provide

for a d iversity o f d esigns. This sec tion high lights three sem i-

perma nent pa rklet d esigns in San Franc isc o, selec ted by the

autho rs of th is too lkit bec ause o f the ir unique ness and ability

to inspire c rea tive d esigns for othe r sem i-perma nent pa rklets.

Peace Keeper Parklet The “ Pea c e Keepe r” pa rklet is loca ted in front o f a

loc al a rt g a llery in San Franc isc o. Erik Otto , an a rtist w ho ha d

wo rked with the g allery for ma ny yea rs, designe d and builtthis parklet, whic h is c onstructe d w ith rec yc led m aterials.

The m a jor design elem ents include a sma ll house and

remova ble b eanb ag s. Neighbo rs dona ted the landsca ping

elements, including most of the succulents and an olive

tree. These e lements sit on top of a founda tion m ad e o f a

ga lvanized steel frame with an array of regularly spa c ed

1/2--inch anchor points for bolting.

The a rt g allery intend ed for the p arklet p latfo rm to

house a variety o f different p arklet elements and to b e b uilt,

recongured, and secured over time. The gallery is currently

ac c ep ting submissions for the net p a rklet insta lla tion in front

of their estab lishme nt.




Figure 71. Steel substructure diagram, San Francisco, CA.Credit: fabric8

Figure 72. Installed steel sub-structure,"Peace Keeper" parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Martha Traer

Figure 70. Conceptual drawing of the"Peace Keeper" parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Erik Otto




Figure 73. "Peace Keeper" parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: fabric8


Valencia Street Parklet



Valencia Street Parklet

The Rebar group, the art group that rst initiated

Park(ing) Day, designed a pa rklet t ha t is situate d in three

parking spac es a long Valenc ia Street in San Franc isc o.

Reb ar envisioned the installation a s a “ wa lklet,” a mo dular

sidewa lk etension system.

Although a unique parklet, Rebar designed this parklet

with mod ular system piec es that c ould b e used at o ther

parklets. All pieces are manufactured in-house by Rebar for

anyone to purc hase. The p iec es ca n be co mb ined in any

numb er of wa ys as pa rt of a mi-and-matc h system , as see nin gure 76.

Figure 74. "Walklet," San Francisco, CA.Credit: Jeremy Shaw

Figure 75 . Plan view for "Walklet" options, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Rebar




Figure 76. Options for "Walklet" pieces.Credit: Rebar


These mo dular piec es interloc k with ea c h othe r and Trouble Café Parklet



p

c an be bo lted to the sidewa lk, if de sired . Howe ver, bo lting

into the sidewa lk or roa db ed is not required be c ause o f

the sufcient weight of the pieces. The decking system is

created by using renewable bamboo and is pre-nished

on a ll fac es. Also, if desired , a railing system c an be ad ded .

The insta lled site on Va lenc ia Street doe s not use a railing

system.

Trouble Café Parklet

Another unique pa rklet is loca ted in front o f Troub le

Ca fé, in San Franc isc o’ s Oute r Sunset neighb orhood . The

parklet is c onstructe d e ntirely of found wo od . The p arklet

spo nsors and ow ners of Troub le Ca fé, G iulietta Ma ria

Ca rrelli and Aja Oa kford, wante d to c om bine the look of

bo th “ land a nd sea , like a shipw rec k that b rings pe op le

together.” 36

Figure 77. Trouble Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: San Francisco Planning Department


…if a parklet is permanentJohn King, urban d esign c ritic for the San Franc isc o



…if a parklet is permanent

The p reviously de sc ribed pa rklet in Los Ang eles’

Byzantine Latino Qua rter that p rovided an e amp le of

transforming a trafc triangle and driving lane, is also a good

eamp le o f a pe rma nent p arklet. Permane nt installations

req uire d ifferent m ate rials and a d ifferent permit co mp ared

to non-p erma nent parklets. For insta nc e, rathe r than using

paint as in the Sunset Triang le Plaza p a rklet, the Byzantine

Latino Quarter installation involved lling in a travel lane with

concrete and permanently re-routing turning trafc around

the c orner of the site. Remo ving c onc rete c an b e labo r and

c ost intensive; therefore, it should only be used if a p rojec t is

not p lanned for rem ova l. Due to its pe rma nent na ture, the

project required a lengthy permitting process, a B-permit

in Los Ange les. This is no t a revoc able p ermit, a s is typ ica l

with p a rklet insta llat ions. The B-permit must b e a pprove d by

a number of different c ity dep artments, and the a pp roval

proc ess c an ta ke a ye ar or more. In c ontrast, the revoc ab le

R-permit takes approimately si weeks for processing.

This pa rklet p rojec t d ram atic ally a nd pe rma nently

transforme d the a rea by c rea ting a p ed estrian p laza tha t

included land sc ap ing, irriga tion, street furniture, tree we lls,

and an improved bus shelter.

g g

Chronicle , desc ribed the Troub le Ca fe p a rklet in the

follow ing w ay:

“If parklets were nothing more than sidewalketensions ab ove aspha lt, the no velty would w ea r

off. This and a hand ful of othe rs show wha t ma kes

the p ote ntial so e citing. They em bo dy a spe c ts

of neighborhood life, letting outsiders eperience

strains of local culture. At best, they’re a physical

ma nifesta tion of to day’s San Franc isc o - and

pe rha ps a hint of to mo rrow ’s c ity as we ll.” 37

Figure 78. Trouble Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org


How do I construct the parklet base?



Parklets have a base or platform to create a ush and

sa fe e tension of t he sidew a lk into the street right-of-wa y.

This is c om mo nly co nstructe d through a sub-structure w itha p latfo rm c onstruc ted on to p, leveling the street sec tion

to the sidew a lk. Streets are c om mo nly slight ly c rowned fo r

drainag e w ith the midd le of the street slightly higher than

the edges; therefore, the sub-structure must account for this

c urvature in the street in orde r to c rea te a level platform.

Engineering options for leveling the platform include the

use o f ped esta ls with d iffering heights, or stee l or woo d sub-

structures with angled beams. With all sub-structures, it is

imp ortant to ma intain curbside drainage by not plac ing a ny

sub-structu re d irec tly net to the c urb.

The c om pany, Bison, manufac tures the ped esta l system

mo st c om mo nly used in pa rklet sub -structures. How eve r, the

Fab ric 8 insta lla tion e mp loys a stee l structure w ith angled

crossbars to create a platform as seen previously in gures 71

& 72. Figure 80 shows a pedestal cross section with spacing

be twee n the pe de stals and the c urb for drainag e p urpo ses.

The Reb ar-designed pa rklet m od ules fea ture individua l stee l

Figure 79. Bison pedestal system during installation,San Francisco, CA.

Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org

How do I construct the parklet base?




2 ' - 6 "

L 4 X 4 1/4" LEDGER

STEPSTONE PAVERS ON

BISON VERSADJUST

PEDESTAL SYSTEM

LARR #25754

PLANTER PER PLAN

ALIGN

CUSHIONS PER PLAN

BENCH PER PLAN

DRILL & RED HEAD

EPCON A7 ADHESIVE

ANCHOR SYSTEM

LARR #25379

L 4 X 4 1/4" LEDGER

STEPSTONE PAVER

L 4 X 4 1/4" LEDGER 1"H WEEP BETWEEN

VERTICAL POSTS TO

PERMIT DRAINAGE

LANDSCAPE PER PLAN

STEPSTONE TURF PAVER

1 ' - 6 "

8 "

5"

EMBED

Figure 80. Cross-section of Bison pedestals of differing heights.Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopia.org


sub-structu res rathe r tha n one c ont inuous p latfo rm. Wood woo ds wea ther well and do not require ma intenanc e or



c an a lso b e used to c onstruct t he sub-structu re a s wa s used

in front o f Ma ma ’s Art Ca fé in San Franc isc o.

A platform must be c onstruc ted on top of the sub-

structure. This is typ ica lly ma de o f either permea ble p re-c ast

co ncrete pa vers or pre-treated woo d.

The a forement ioned Devil’s Tee th p arklet in San

Franc isco ut ilizes a new ap proach for building the sub-

structure in a d iagona l pa rking spa ce. This solution invo lved

a simple, co nc rete top ping slab po ured ove r a slip-sheet (to

prevent b ond ing to the street ), which ha s turned out to b e a

very c ost-effec tive a nd durable ground surfac e a nd a natural

extension of t he sidew alk. Conc rete also eliminates the ne ed

for cleaning unde rnea th, and ea sily mitigate s the sloping

c row n of the roa d. While t his c onc rete solution seem ingly

negates the remo vab le nature o f pa rklets, in fac t the slip

sheet a llows the c onc rete to be remove d quickly; a few hits

with a c hippe r will c rac k it into ea sily remo vab le piec es.

The insta lla tion uses a fe w w ed ge anc hors to sec ure

pressure-treated ba se plate s to the roa d, p roviding a solid

ba se for pa rklet fram ing. Wed ge anc hors are only 1/2” in

diam ete r and pe netrate o nly ab out 2” into the street. These

anc hors c an be c ut ea sily in the event of p arklet remo val. The

platform on top uses unnished cedar or redwood as these

renishing. Additionally, grafti can be sanded off the platform.

Ad justab le ped estals and pre-ca st c onc rete p ave rs

are the mo st c omm on c omb ination for c reating the p arklet

platform. Howe ver, there is a rang e o f op tions that c an

be em ployed . Anyone w anting to d esign a p arklet should

wo rk with a lic ensed architec t or eng ineer to select the

mo st a pp rop riate, safe and c ost-effective m ate rials for

c onstruc ting the p arklet platform.

Figure 81. Pre-cast concrete pavers during installation,San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Streetsblog SF




Figure 82. Steel sub-structure, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Martha Traer

Figure 83. Divisadero parklet platform, San Francisco, CA.Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org




Figure 85. Prefabricated modules, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Kate McCarthy

Figure 84. Wooden sub-structure, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Excelsior Action Group / www.eagsf.org


How do I design my site for safety?



For hea lth and sa fety rea sons, co nsidera tion should be

made to locate parklets on low-speed streets in relatively

low-trafc areas. This can help minimize user exposure topa rticulates and othe r air pollutants.

In addition, city departments of transportation should

install safety features that separate parklet users from trafc

while allowing fo r visibility and thus p rote c tion from c rime .

These features could include parking/wheel stops, exible

bollards, and trafc markings such as striping the outline

pa rking lane o r pa inting the a djac ent c urb spa c e. Parklets

also typica lly ha ve a railing ed ge to p rotec t users from

trafc. These railings should be visible to motorists. Railings

that a llow the p arklet to be ob served from b oth sides of the

street c an help to e nsure user sa fety from c rime .

Moreove r, pa rklet designers should c onsider safety

considerations when selec ting a site, pa ying pa rticular

attention to the ho urs and type of op eration of surround ing

businesses. Op en-front estab lishments a llow na turalsurveillanc e o f the p arklet b y the p at rons and owners of

surround ing businesses. For nightt ime use a nd to instill a

fee ling of safety, a selec tion o f parklet sites near street ligh ting

or other sources of lighting is advisab le. Lastly, ca me ras and

closed-circuit television systems can be employed for security

purposes, but m ay b e c ostly and not ne c essarily warrante d.

Table 4. Parklet Traffic Safety Guidelines in Different Cities

g y y

City Guideline

San Francisco

Gene rally, the pa rklet m ust be loc ate dawa y from a co rner and a long a streetwith a spee d limit o f 25mp h or less. Thepa rklet m ust not etend be yond si feetfrom the c urb line in plac es where there isparallel parking.

New York City

Curbside sea ting p latfo rms are no tap prop riate for every street. Typic allythey are only permitted on one -waystreets with a single moving lane of trafcand low vehicle spe ed s.

Philadelphia

Parklets should be loc a ted on stree ts withposted maimum speed limits of 35 mph.App rova l of any loca tion must be g iven

by the trafc engineers of the StreetsDepartment.

Oakland

Prop osed loc ation should ha ve aposted spee d limit o f 25mph o r less. Theproposed street should have parkinglanes and o nly minima l slope .




Figure 86. Four Barrel parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Bruce Damonte Photography


Figure 87. Bombay / FIKA edge,New York City NY



New York City, NY.Credit: NYC Department of Transportation

Figure 88. Haight Street parklet,

San Francisco, CA.Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org


How do I design my site for comfort?



Sea ting is one of the m ost impo rtant d esign elements

for the p arklet to function as a p ublic spa c e. Goo d sea ting

ma kes the site attrac tive to pe op le pa ssing by a nd p rovides

a rea son to linger. Acc ording to San Franc isc o’ s guid elines,

pa rklets must have be nc hes in order to d esigna te them as

public spac es. The c ity has no de sign restric tions for sea ting,

and encourages unique parklets that reect the character

of the c om munity. As a result, San Franc isc o pa rklets fea ture

a w ide variety of sea ting styles, from func tiona l to a rtistic.

If a d esign em p loys remova ble furniture, it should be

durab le, light, and e asy to rem ove . How eve r, it is advised

to inc lude som e b uilt-in sea ting o r other am enities. When

parklets a re d esigned with no b uilt-in sea ting, the p arklet

looks very ba re when sea ting is stored inside the a d jac ent

business (see gure 89).

Figure 89. Café Seventy8, San Francisco, CA.Credit: San Francisco MTA Livable Streets


Add itiona lly, if a p arklet is loca ted ad jac ent to a c afé



or resta urant, the ta bles and c ha irs should not b e the same

style as the ones inside the business. This d ifferent iat ion

visua lly designa tes the pa rklet as a sep arate e ntity from a

private b usiness, and pe op le will not c onfuse the pa rklet

with c a fé sea ting. Figure 90 show s a San Franc isc o pa rklet

which is c om mo nly criticized for crea ting an a mb iguo us

delineation betwe en the private a nd p ublic spa ce .

There is an a lmost e nd less va riety o f c reative wa ys to

provide sea ting with eithe r built-in or movable furniture.

Mova ble furniture p iece s are c om mo nly used in pa rklets

ac ross the c ount ry. Their po rtab ility ma kes it ea sy fo r

pa rtne ring b usinesses to c a rry them in eve ry night, and they

are o ptima l for pa rklets with te mp orary p ermits be c ause

they c an b e ea sily remo ved . Cities have inc orporated

everything from c heap folding lawn c hairs to b eanb ag s

as sea ting. How eve r, possibly the mo st c om mo n types of

furniture are metallic, European café-style tables and chairs

from t he c om pa ny Fermob , whic h are light, durab le, and

simple to c lea n.

Figure 90. Squat and Gobble parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Brian Kusler




Figure 91. Plastic lawn chairs, Times Square, New York City, NY.Credit: Jennifer Wu

Figure 92. "Walklet," Mission District, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Rebar


How can I landscape my site?



Land scap ing in pa rklets rang es from minima l dec king to

etensive, ga rden-like e nvironm ents. There is a va riety of w ays

to inco rpo rate plants into the de sign, mo st commo nly withmovab le plante rs and bo es. In orde r to m aimize spa c e,

landscap ing eleme nts often serve dual purpo ses. One o f the

most c om mon wa ys is to ha ve p lanters do uble a s bo llards,

in order to de lineate the spa ce and protect the site from

vehicles. Resilient, drought-tolerant plants are rec om mende d

bec ause w ater ca n weigh d own the de cking. Plants that

grow ve rtica lly instea d of late rally are a lso a dvisab le bec ause

they c an p rovide shad e a nd ta ke up less spa ce .

Land sc ap ing ca n also b e the fo c us of the p arklet.

Eamples of this include the p reviously ment ioned

Deep let pa rklet in San Franc isc o. An other eamp le of a

veg eta tion-foc used pa rklet is in San Franc isc o’ s Tend erloin

neighb orhood , insta lled in front of Fa rm:Tab le ca fe (see

gure 97). The parklet is an extension of their rooftop garden.

Og rydziak/ Prillinge r Architec ts describes the Farm:Tab le

pa rklet de sign in the following wa y:

“A lot of parklets are about café seating – this is

a landscape. Each clearing is an isolated pocket

with an immersive eperience.” 38 Figure 93. Dinosaur landscaping at Deeplet parklet, San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Kimberly Conley




Figure 94. Landscaping with a roll of Astroturf, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopia.org




Figure 95. Drought-resistant plants, Freewheel Bike Shop,San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Daveed Kapoor / utopia.org

Figure 96. Planters doubling as bollards, Just for Fun parklet,San Francisco, CA.

Credit: Trees on San Pedro Street Project




Figure 97. Landscaped focused parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Ogrydziak Prillinger Architects


What amenities can I include in my site?



In ad dition to sea ting and landsc ap ing fea tures,

am enities suc h as tables and bicyc le pa rking a re c om mo nly

found in pa rklet sites. Bicyc le p a rking elements a re mo stco mmo nly mounted to the top o f the pa rklet p latform.

However, this is not recommended when using pre-cast

c onc rete p ave rs be c ause d rilling into the p ave r de grad es its

strength.

A b icyc le c orral c an b e installed in a pa rklet site when

there is amp le spa c e to d o so. This ma imizes the amo unt o f

bicycle parking.

Ad d itiona lly, pa rklets should fea ture shade d uring

the da ytime a nd lighting at night. Loc ating a p arklet nea r

street trees and street lamps can fulll this need. Shade

c an a lso b e p rovided with umbrellas, and lighting c an b e

inc orporated in a numb er of crea tive and environm enta lly

sensitive w ays suc h a s LED o r sola r. “There a re m any p ossible

improvements such as solar-powered lighting available,”

ac c ording to Riyad Gha nnam , designe r of pa rklets in New

York City and San Franc isc o. Umb rellas c an b e p rovided in

pa rklet sites to p rovide shad e. How ever, bec ause the y c an

be heavy to take in and out, they are not c omm only found

in parklet sites.Figure 98. Umbrellas, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.

Credit: Elizabeth Daniels Photography




Figure 99. Bike corral, Sunset Triangle Plaza, Los Angeles, CA.Credit: LADOT Bikeways




Figure 101. Vertical bicycle racks,Four Barrel Café, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Bruce Damonte Photography

Figure 100. Bicycle parking mounting to parklet platform,Mojo Café, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Thomas Rogers


How do I design an active recreation parklet?



Parklets a re co mm only plac es of p assive ac tivity.

How eve r, as sma ll pa rks, they a lso p rovide a unique and

thus far uneplored o pp ortunity to c rea te spa c es forphysical eercise. Given the cost of creating large-scale

pa rks in urba n environme nts, as we ll as the p ub lic and

private c osts assoc iated with overweight a nd ob esity, ac tive

rec rea tion pa rklets c ould p rovide a solution to help a dd ress

these challenges.

The p roposed p a rklet on Spring Stree t in Los Ang eles

will likely be the rst active recreation parklet in the

na tion. The p a rklet is de signed using the same outdo or

tness equipment found in Los Angeles’ tness zones (see

description in Chapter 1). Various types of outdoor tness

equipment a re a vailab le a nd c an b e installed at the

pa rklet. Equipment used in a pa rklet should be rela tively

co mpa ct and intuitive for peop le to ope rate. An ob served

study of users of tness zones in Los Angeles found that the

least utilized eq uipment w ere the ho rizontal bars and leg

press.39

The installation of tness equipment in parklets affects

the type of ma terial that c an b e used for the p arklet

platform a s well as the m inimum eq uipm ent c lea ranc es.

The p roposed Spring Street pa rklet uses sta tiona ry b icyc les.

Ac c ording to the de sign plans, the platform will be

constructed of pre-cast concrete pavers; thus, the eercisema c hines will be b olted into the roa db ed rather than on top

of the p latform. The land sc ap ing will etend from the sea ting

area into the e erc ise a rea in orde r to link these tw o a rea s

tog ethe r. The b enc h in the midd le will be situate d slightly

awa y from the ma c hine to allow for prop er clearanc es.

Designe rs should c hec k with eq uipment c om pa nies to

select the type of tness machines and incorporate theap prop riate c learanc es into the site de sign.




Figure 102. Active recreation parklet rendering,Downtown Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Berry and Linné


How are parklets marked as public space?



Parklets in San Franc isc o, Vanc ouver and New York City

feature eplic it signag e d enoting the ir pub lic nature.

In a dd ition to signag e, p arklet de sign should d enotethe p a rklet’ s public na ture. This include s designing a n op en

ed ge from the side wa lk into the p arklet and using distinctly

different sea ting from those o f the a dja c ent b usinesses.

Figure 103. Required signage, San Francisco, CA.Credit: Noah Christman, SPUR

Figure 104. Pop-up café sign, New York City, NY.Credit: Sam Smith




Figure 105. Personalized signage,Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.


Figure 106. Personalized signage,Deeplet, San Francisco, CA.





Figure 107. Parklet, Long Beach, CA.Credit: Studio 111




Figure 108. Four Barrel Café parklet, San Francisco, CA.Credit: SF Bicycle Coalition / sfbike.org




Figure 109. Public signage,Parallel Park, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Phil Kehres

Figure 110. Parallel Park, Vancouver, BC.Credit: Phil Kehres


How much does it cost and where can I find support?



Businesses seeking to install a parklet can epect to

spe nd ap proima tely $25,000 on a rec tang ular p arklet

oc c upying two pa rking spa c es. A co st estimate for thep lanned Spring Street p a rklet in Los Ang eles with the tot al

budge t o f $26,100 is provided in the ta b le below . This is

a p rop osed project; therefore the a mo unts show n are

estimates.

Ac c ording to our interview ee s, businesses tend to

recoup their investment in a parklet in approximately ve

yea rs. While the $25,000 pric e ta g m ay be intimida ting fora small business, previous eamples show that costs can

be lowered through a variety o f de sign de c isions and in-

kind do nations. Inde ed , ma ny p arklets rec eive a variety

of d ona tions that lower the c osts for the ir sponsors. These

may include a designer providing pro-bono hours or using

volunteers to help du ring the insta lla tion p ha se. Som e

businesses have utilized an online fundraising site that

a llow s the p ub lic to suppo rt crea tive projec ts, like p a rklets.

For insta nc e, the Farm:Table Kicksta rter ca mp a ign fo r a

parklet in San Franc isc o ra ised $15,000. Prospec tive p a rklets

in Chic ag o and Oa kland have raised $5,600 and $10,000

respec tively. Go vernme nt suppo rt is a lso imp ortan t. An

ec onomic d evelopment and public realm imp roveme nt

grant from the Mayor’s Ofce of Economic and Workforce

Developm ent funde d tw o p arklets in the Noe Va lleyneighb orhoo d o f San Franc isc o. Private found a tions suc h as

the Wells Fa rgo Found a tion in San Franc isc o, William Penn

Found a tion in Philad elphia , and The Rosalinde and Arthur

Gilbert Found at ion in Los Ang eles have a lso c ont ribute d

c ritica l resources in support o f p a rklets.

Table 5. Costs for Various Parklets

Site Cost In Kind Donations

New York City – Bomb ay Ca fé

and FIKA$24,000 total

Design p rovidedpro bono

Lola ’s Long Bea ch $25,000

None, a ll c osts(inc luding de signer

fees) pa id for byLola’s

Philadelphia$11,000 ($10,000ma te ria ls + 10%

de sign fee)

All c osts pa id forby William Penn

Foundation

San Francisco“Deeplet”

$20,000 None

Permit

$1 000


Table 6. Parklet Cost Breakdown



Contingency

$2,300

Labor

$7,600

Misc.

$945Signage

$750

Sea ting a nd

furnishings

$4,200

Railings

$3,000

Planters

$1,100Plantings

$1,000

Decking

Structure

$4,300

$1,000


How do I maintain my site?



Maintenance is etremely important for ensuring the

longe vity and user-friend ly na ture of p a rklets. A pa rklet c an

only b e w ell used if it is we ll ma intained . Every c ity req uires

that a ma intena nc e a greeme nt is in plac e b efore issuing a

pa rklet pe rmit.

Ac c ording to the San Franc isc o pa rklet req uest fo r

proposals:

“If your project is selected, you will be required

to p rovide d aily ma intena nc e of the Parklet. This

maintenance includes watering any landscaping,

hosing down the surface, and removing any

grafti. You will also be required to hose down the

area und erneath the Parklet a t lea st onc e a w eek.

The Dep artment o f Pub lic Hea lth may req uire p est

abatement.”

Som e p arklets a re m ainta ined b y the b usinessow ner, while som e emp loy support from the loc a l business

improve me nt d istric t. Emp loying b usiness improve me nt

district staff c an b e a dva ntag eous as they a re typ ic ally

responsible for clea ning in the a rea . In som e p lac es, suc h

as the Sunset Triang le Plaza in Los Angeles, both loc a l

businesses and business improvement districts undertake

parklet m a intena nc e. In Philadelphia , the University City

Distric t sha res ma intena nc e respo nsibilities with the ow ner

of an a djac ent c afé . The c afé is in c harge o f arrang ing

furniture e very morning a nd taking it out by the end of

business hours, and is a lso responsible fo r clea ning c ha irs

and ta b les. The University C ity Distric t is responsible for

pa rklet installation and disma ntling during the ap propriate

sea sons of the yea r.


In all maintenance agreements, the responsible

pa rty o r pa rties and their assigned ta sks should be c learly



p y p g y

de linea ted . The m aintena nc e a greem ent for the Sunset

Triang le Plaza outlines the following four c a teg ories for

ma intenanc e servic es:40

• Site cleaning: A minimum of twice monthlyc leanings and on an ‘ as need ed ’ b asis, rem ova lof d irt, litter, ob structions, trash to ma intain thesite in a c lean, neat, and goo d c ondition.

• Landscaping and planter maintenance:

Watering, w eed ing, trimm ing, a nd re-plantingin the event that a planter is damaged ordestroyed.

• Tab les, c ha irs, umbrellas and trash ca ns: Dailycleaning of debris, installing and removingchairs, emptying trash receptacle, andc onta c ting a pp rop riate pa rties if any ame nitiesmust be replac ed or rep aired .

• Grafti: Notifying the council district if graftioc curs and must b e removed .


Conclusion



Parklets symb olize the d esire to c reate a mo re

c om muna l, enjoyab le, healthy, and vibrant pub lic rea lm.

Transforming ec ess street spa c e into a c ost-effec tive, sma llpa rk ca n have a b ig imp ac t. As John King, urba n de sign

c ritic of the San Franc isc o Chronic le said:

“ Som e a re m ore we lcom ing than others. Some

alread y show their age. The b est strive to c rea te

destina tions, not just sea ting . It's a d esign eperiment

being conducted before our eyes, and it's not

going awa y.”41

Designing a suc c essful pa rklet req uires a va riety

of considerations. The site must rst be selected by

ide ntifying the idea l loc ation and c omm unity pa rtner.

After site selec tion, co nc ep tua l designs should c onsider

the surround ing land uses, size a nd shape o f the site, and

de sired duration of the insta lla tion.The p arklet b ase, including sub-structure a nd p latfo rm,

should be selected ba sed on c ost, aesthetic ap pea ranc e,

and durab ility co nsiderat ions. From the p latfo rm up , the rest

of the pa rklet is de signed for safet y, com fort, and to p rovide

an e njoyab le pub lic spac e to soc ialize, rest, or eercise.

There a re a range of d esign op tions ava ilab le for a ll of

these ca teg ories. A pa rklet spo nsor should p lan to spend

ap proima tely $25,000 on a pa rklet site oc c upying tw opara llel p arking spa c es. These funds c an b e ra ised using a

va riety of d ona tions, grants, and in-kind ma terials.

As mo re p arklets are p rop osed and pe rmitted, the

de signs are be c om ing more c rea tive and distinctive.

Designers must und ersta nd a va riety of c onsidera tions whe n

working w ith the c omm unity pa rtner to c reate a welcom ing,

well-used , and unique private spa c e in the right-of-way.Overall, these installations are re-imagining small portions of

the urba n landsc ap e from o rdinary ca r-storage spa c es into

bea utiful public spac e a ssets for all to e njoy.


Footnotes



30. New York City Dep artm ent of Transpo rtation. (2012). “ CurbsidePub lic Sea ting Sponsored b y Loc a l Businesses Eva luat ion Rep ort,”accessed July 18, 2012, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/ curbside-seating_pilot-evaluation.pdf.,” New York City.

31. Deep ista n Nationa l Parklet. Deep let pa rklet. (2012). Ac ce ssedJuly 18, 2012, www .de ep let.org.

32. Cho i, J. (2012, Ma y 9). Ow ner, Mo rning Lights Ca fe. (I. Brookvoe r,Interviewer)

33. Dittus, P. (2012, Ma rch 15). Architec t. (N. LaM onta ge , Interview er)

34. Ac tua l Ca fé (2011) “ Parklet Propo sal.”

35. Gha nna m, R. (2012, Ap ril 1). Princ ipa l, RG Arc hitec ture. (N.LaMo ntag e, Interviewe r)

36. Wilcox, A. (2012). “Parks & Recreation,” The Bold Italic , accessedJuly 18, . (2012,). http://www.thebolditalic.com/abbywilco/stories/1585-parks-and-recreation.

37. King , J. (Dec em ber 29, 2011). “ S.F. Parklet s: A Little Tour parklets:a little tour of a ma jor trend ,” San Franc isc o C hronicle, ac ce ssed July 19,2012, http:/ / www .sfga te.co m/ ba yarea/ plac e/ article/S-F-parklets-a-little-tour-of-a-major-trend-2430136.php.

38. Friend s of the Farm:Tab le. (2012). “ A Parklet a t Farm:Tab le,”ca mp aign a cc essed July 18, (2012, ).http:/ / www .kickstarter.co m/ projects/parklet/help-us-build-this-parklet.

39. Cohen, D., et al.Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., &Mc Kenzie, T. (2012). “ Impa c t a nd Co st-effec tiveness of Fam ily FitnessZones: A Natural Experiment in Urban Public Parks,” Health & Place 18(1):39-45.: 39-45.

40. City of Los Ang eles, Stree ts for Peop le (S4P) Prog ram . (2012).“ Com munity Partnership Ag reement.”

41. King , J. (Dec em ber 29, 2011). “ S.F. Parklets: A little tour of a Ma jorTrend,” San Franc isc o Ch ronicle, ac c essed July 19, 2012, http:/ / ww w.sfga te.co m/ ba yarea/ plac e/ article/ S-F-parklets-a-little-tour-of-a-major-trend -2430136.php .King, John “ S.F pa rklets: a little to ur of a ma jor trend,”San Franc isco Chronic le, Dec em be r 29, 2011.

5. Visions foR

futuRe paRklets



futuRe paRklets


Introduction



As alrea dy disc ussed , pa rklets c an take ad vanta ge

of und erutilized and residual roa d spa c e a nd c onvert itinto a m ea ningful op en spa c e for rec rea tion and physica l

ac tivity. Mo st US c ities, and c ertainly Los Ang eles, have an

ab undanc e of such spa ce s that c an b e ea sily co nverted

into p a rklets. As suc h, this c hapt er show s a selec ted set

of sites a round Los Ang eles tha t ha ve the pote ntial for

dram atic c hang e throug h low c ost transforma tions. The

sites were selected to demonstrate a variety of forms andpo tent ial uses. The c om puter simulations that follow illustrate

the ap plic ation of princ iples and c onc ep ts de sc ribed

throughout this too lkit.

Introduction


Site 1: Olympic Boulevard and Schumacher Drive

“Residential Parklet”



Existing Conditions:

• Intersec tion o f co mm ercialbo ulevard and reside ntialneighborhood,

• Ove rly wide intersec tion,

• Residua l spa c e a t the c enterof the intersection.

Potential Improvements:

• Conne c ting residual spa c eat the c enter of intersec tionto ad jac ent sidew alk,

• Trafc calming,

• Provide spa c e for ac tiverecrea tion in residen tialarea.

Figure 111. Concept for “residential parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover/ Google Maps


Site 2: Alvarado Boulevard and 6th Street

“Street Vending Parklet”



Existing Conditions

• Etremely narrow sidewalk,

• High p ed estrian volume s,

• Only street vend ing d istric t inLos Angeles,

• Area with high transitridership.


• Street ve nd ing orientedpa rklet allowing mo respace for pedestrians onsidewalk,

• Can be com bined withbus stop to p rovide moreco mfortab le spa ce forwaiting transit passengers.

Figure 112. Concept for “street vending parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Madeline Brozen/Google Maps

g


Site 3: Main Street between 4th and 5th Streets, Downtown Los Angeles

“Skid Row Revitalization Parklet”




• Transitiona l area b etw ee nrevita lized Spring Streetand Skid Row ,

• Newly insta lled b ike lane ,providing buffer betweenpe de strians and mo vingvehicles.


• Continue streetsc ap eupgrading andrevita liza tion towa rds SkidRow,

• Connect with other grass-roots effo rts like urban

ga rde ning in the a rea,

• Install active recreationpa rklet to p rovide m oreop portun ities for Skid Rowresidents.

Figure 113. Concept for “Skid Row revitalization parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps


Site 4: Hoover Street and Myra Avenue

“School Proximate Parklet”




• Large but underutilized pedestrianlanding,

• Five schools within a one mile radius,

• Comm on p ede strian route betwe entransit stops and Silver Lake a ndEc ho Park neighb orhoods,

• Skewe d intersec tion tha t ishazardous to ped estrians.


• Ac tive rec rea tion parklet ge aredtowa rd neighbo rhood children,

• Possible epansion into nearbysurface parking lot,

• Possible site for pub lic art insta lla tion,

• Redesign and possible narrowing ofintersec tion roa d spa c e.

Figure 114. Concept for “school proximate parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps


Site 5: 2nd Street and Alameda Avenue

“Culturally Significant Parklet”




• Located between downtown Los Angeles’Arts Distric t a nd Little Tokyo,

• Trafc triangle/pedestrian refuge,

• Ca rs ma ke righ t turns without stop p ing, posinga d ang er to pe de strians.


• Connect trafc triangle to adjacent sidewalk for ped estrian sa fety,

• Culturally brand the a rea and c rea te a senseof p lac e w ith design inspired by neighb orhoodhistory,

• Involve ac tive neighb orhood o rga nization,Little Tokyo Service Ce nte r. Figure 115. Concept for “culturally significant parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps


Site 6: Traction Avenue, south of 3rd Street

“LA’s Diagonal Parklet”




• Diag ona l pa rking spa c es,

• Comm ercia l co rrido r with mied-use housing , including artists’ lofts,

• Recent increase in residents,42

• Proimity to Southe rn Ca lifo rnia Institute of A rchite c ture (SCI-ARC),

• Limited a mount of o pen spa ce in neighborhood .

Potential Opportunity:

• Deep pa rklet, utilizing spa c e c rea ted from unde rutilized diag ona lparking spaces,

• Design c om pet ition for SCI-ARC stud ents,

• Inc rea se op en spa c e in c omm unity,

• Pote ntial ac tive rec reation parklet fo r SCI-ARC stud ents, fac ulty, andresidents,

• Eco nomic d evelopment p otential by c reating spa c e for peop le tolinger and enjoy the neighb orhood .

Figure 116. Concept for “LA’s diagonal parklet.”Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps




Figure 117. Rendering of “LA’s diagonal parklet.”Credit: India Brookover


Site 7: Cesar Chavez Avenue and Grand Avenue

“Garden Space Parklet” and/or “Active Recreation Parklet




• Trafc triangle,

• Red unda nt trave l lane ,

• Lac k of ope n spa ce andfresh food in ad jac entarea,

• High Sc hool for thePerforming Arts is locatedacross the street,

• High p erce ntage ofeld erly residents in theneighborhood43,

• Highly traveled pedestrianintersection.

Figure 118. Concept for parklets at Cesar Chavez Ave. and Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover/Google Maps


Potential Opportunity for “Active Recreation Parklet”

Figure 119. Rendering of “active recreation parklet,” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: Veena Samartha



• Convert redundant travellane , c losing street with

p lante rs, as used at theSunset Triang le Plaza,

• Allow pe de strians andc yc lists to sa fely trave lthroug h area withoutautomobile trafc,

• Install outdoor eerciseequipment to fa cilitate

physical activity for highsc hoo l stud ents andseniors,

• Install tables for socialinteraction.


Potential Opportunity for “Garden Space Parklet”

Figure 120. Rendering of “garden space parklet” Los Angeles, CA.Credit: India Brookover



• Convert redundant travellane , c losing street with

p lante rs, as used at theSunset Triang le Plaza,

• Install raised beds forco mmunity ga rdening,

• Involve students fromhigh sc hool as “ ga rde nstewa rds” to learn ab outurba n a gric ulture,

• Create a safe pe de strianarea, creating a nopportunity for moderatephysical activity for seniors.


42 Downt ow n po pula tion increa sed from 35 884 pe op le in 2000 to

Footnotes



42. Downt ow n po pula tion increa sed from 35,884 pe op le in 2000 to51,329 peo p le in 2010 (U.S c ensus).

43. Twe nty-seve n pe rcent of resident s in c ensus trac t are over 65years of a ge co mp ared to 10 perce nt in the City of Los Angeles (2010Census).


Appendix A: Los Angeles Bike Corral Maintenance Agreement




Design/Development: Implementation/Maintenance

Appendix B.: Interview Questions for City Staff



g / p

• Describe the history of the program. Where did

the initial ide a c ome from a nd how it ca me to beas it is today?

• Please desc ribe your p rogram goa ls. Do youhave a ny written do c umenta tion on these go als?

• What are typical sites that you are using forparklets? How do yo u selec t sites for parklets? Arethere esta b lished selec tion c riteria? Wha t a re thecommon surrounding land uses? Who owns theland , or is it leased tem porarily?

• Have parklets been installed? If yes, how manyand what is their typical size? Does the city planto allow mo re p arklets to be installed ?

• Are there landscaping/design features commonto a ll the pa rklets? If yes, of w ha t kind? A lso, if yes,a re the se feat ures req uired ?

• Overall, what are the functions of the parklets?Who are the primary users?

• Do you c onsider p arklets as public spac es? If so,how do you denote this to the public? Are thererestric tions to their ac c ess and use?

p /

• How is design and construction of the parklets

funded?

• Which departments are involved in parkletregulation and development and what aretheir roles? Has the c ity issued new ordinanc esor polic ies for the d evelop me nt and reg ulationof the parklets or are yo u using e isting one s?

• Is a permit required? If so, who is eligible to

ap ply for a permit and how m uch d oes it c ost?

• Is the p ublic involved in the pa rklet d evelop mentproc ess?

• How are the parklets maintained? Who is incharge of their maintenance? Is there anagreement about their maintenance whichyou c an share?

• How does the city handle liability concernsabout the parklets? Who must hold theinsuranc e a nd how muc h? Have you had anyliab ility issues to date?


Evaluation

• Do you have a process for evaluating thekl t t i t ll ti ? If h t

Follow-up

• Do you have any other additional insights ord ti f f th i f ti ?



parklets post-installation? If so, what are youevaluating? Do you collect data both beforeand after installation?

• What have been the impacts of the parkletprogram? [I.e. increased revenue at nearbybusinesses, etc.]

• Afte r insta lla tion, have you seen a ny relationshipbetween pedestrian trafc volumes in the areaand pa rklet usag e?

• What have been the challenges associatedwith this p rog ram?

• What have been notable successes andfailures?

• What a re the lessons lea rned ?

rec om mend ations for further informa tion?

• Do you ha ve high resolution photo s highlight ingthe pa rklet projects?

• If we want to seek more details at a projectsite level, which projects do you recommendwe use as case studies and whom should wespe ak w ith for informa tion ab out p arklet d esign,landsc ap ing, and other project-level deta ils?

• Are you aware of other similar programs in

othe r c ities ac ross the nat ion or the w orld?


1. Why d id your business sup port a pa rklet?

Appendix C: Interview Questions for Businesses



2. Did the projec t fac e any obstac les from your

municipality/city?

3. Did you c ove r the insuranc e for the parkletproject?

4. Cha lleng es and suc c esses abo ut few differentelements of the pa rklet.

5. Please sha re any lessons lea rned regarding thefollowing:

A. Loc a tion and size

B. Design elem ents suc h asligh ting, sea ting, signa ge etc

C. Signa ge

6. What was your proc ess for ma intena nc e? Whoconducted the maintenance and who often?Who pa id for it?

7. Did the pa rklet help at trac t new custom ers? Didyou nd the parklet protable/worth it?

8. Do you have any other thoug hts that co uld helpother businesses in other c ities interested in hav inga p a rklet net to the ir esta b lishme nt?

9. Please desc ribe any lessons learned rega rd ingthe d esign and loc ation of the p arklet.


1. Please de sc ribe the follow site cha rac teristics of the 5. Eplain how you de signed the projec t to ma imize

Appendix D: Interview Questions for Parklet Designers



parklet:

A. Function (ac tive rec rea tion, quietrelaa tion, sidew alk dining, etc .)

B. Prima ry users

C. Surround ing land uses

D. Prior use of spa c e (pa rking spa c e,median, trafc triangle, etc.)

E. Size

F. Duration of insta lla tion

2. Eplain the design and its c onc ep tion. In what wa y didthe site inuence the design? What element have youused to designate and differentiate the parklet fromthe surrounding area?

3. What design elements we re imp ortant to include andwhy?

4. Desc ribe the following land sc ap ing and storm waterma nage ment elements:

A. Trees, p lanters and otherlandscaping

B. Type s of ground c ove r

C. Integ ration of be st ma nag eme ntpractices for ma naging wa tersustainability

D. Shade

sa fety and c om fort fo r users? This inc lude s sa fety fromcrime, safety from trafc, buffer from air pollution and

safe ty with eq uipm ent and other on-site am enities)

6. How do es the projec t conve y that the pa rklet is op ento the pub lic?

7. How muc h did the project co st and what were thefund ing sourc es?

8. How w ell is the site be ing used ? Do you know o f anypo st-insta lla tion eva luation e fforts? If yes, wha t a re t hendings?

9. If you were to de sign the pa rklet ag ain, wha t would youdo differently?

10. Do you have a ny other rec om me nda tions and lessonslearned regarding planning, nancing, design, or other items tha t you c a re to share with othe r designers?


Akhiam, L. (2012, April 2). Com plete Streets Coo rdinato r, Pac oima Bea utiful.

Appendix E: Interview References



(M. Brozen, Inte rview er)

Ben-Amos, A. (2012, February 20). Planner, Mayor's Ofce of Transportation and Utilities, City of Philadelphia.(N. LaMontagne, Interviewer)

Bohn, M. (2012, Ma y 31). Princ ipa l, Stud io 111 Archite c ts.


Choi, J. (2012, May 9). Owner, Morning Lights Cafe.

(I. Brooko ver, Inte rview er)

Clem enti, F. (2012, Ap ril 1). Princ ipa l, Rios Cleme nti Hale Stud io.


Curnyn, S. (2012, June 27). Projec t Architec t, M ata rozzi Pelsinge r Builders.


Ding le, J. (2012, Ma y 5). Princ ipa l, DIGSAU.

(V. Sneha nsh, Interview er)

Dittus, P. (2012, Ma rch 15). Arch itec t.

(N. LaMontagne, Interviewer)

Ghannam, R. (2012, April 1). Principal, RG Architecture.



Janoff, E. (2012, February 28). City Planner, Ofce of Planning and Sustainability, NYC Department of Transportation.




Jawa , A. (2012, May 1). Hom eo wne r.


Kassay, K. (2012, Feb ruary 29). City Planner, City o f Va nc ouver.


Miller, B. (2012, March 15). Projec t Ma na ge r, City of O akland Planning Departme nt.


Oc anas, M. (2012, April 15). Policy Ana lyst, LA County Dep artme nt o f Pub lic Hea lth.


Pittma n, B. (2012, Feb ruary 29). Right-of-wa y Coo rdinato r, Dep artment of Pub lic Works,City of Long Bea c h.


Pow ers, A. (2012, Ma rch 20). City Planner, Paveme nt to Parks Program , San Franc isc o C ity Plann ing Department.


Rose, O. (2012, Ma rc h 1). Montrea l Urban Ec olog y Ce ntre, City of Mo ntreal.

reclamando el derecho a la vía: caja de herramientas para crear e implementar 'parklets

Documents