Del Departamento de DCE

There are four components of public spaces namely movement space; places of transaction; places of assembly; and public and cultural buildings (B. Erickson, 2001). Movement space been highlighted as the first component of public spaces that offer the most basic function of public space which is to allow access to private buildings and three other public space’s components. It is usually performed by streets, footpaths, routes, alley, boulevard, boulevard, etc. Jane Jacob (1961) raised her opinion about streets as the first element when thinking of a city. If a city’s streets look interesting, the city looks interesting; if they look dull, the city looks dull. Scholars agreed such movement spaces certainly need a new approach to make them enjoyable places to be, rather than just a way to get from A to B (Hoehnke, E.,2008 and Pharoah, T., 2008). The main focus of this paper is to investigate the physical element in the urban design that could promote for pedestrian friendly environment. The question is in what kind of environment that is friendly for those who choose to walk as their mode of transport in order to connect them to their desired destination in the city centre. What are the urban design features that could help people to navigate efficiently through the city?

Many scholars agree that in order to create a lively and convivial public spaces it depends on how attractive the places are (Bentley et al., 1985, Robert,M. 2001 and Erickson, B., 2001). Researchers have included the Kevin Lynch’s urban design elements such as paths, landmark, edges, districts and nodes (Kevin Lynch, 1960) are needed in order to guide people movement in the city. For examples, people move through the city from one districts to another using paths. Each district has its own special landmarks and memorable features like squares that give its own identity. Those elements are believed to furnish pedestrian experience while walking.

Robert. M, (2001) suggests that in order to promote convivial experiences; designers need to consider the relationship between activities, buildings and spaces. She also addresses Copenhagen as an example of a city that has achieved a great pedestrian conviviality. The City of Copenhagen produces policies that are hostile to cars and friendly to pedestrians and cyclist, and the traffic has remained stable in the city for the last 30 years. Eighty per cent of all journeys undertaken in the city are now on foot and

the population of the city centre has also risen (Jan Gehl, 1987, 1995). Researchers summarized activities such as people sitting in parks, streets and squares, looking at each other, and looking at the view, eating and drinking in outdoor café are the contributors to a lively street life (J. Barnett, 2004, Bently et al, Jan Gehl, 1995).

Photo: People enjoying the public Art in La Ramblas, Barcelona (2008)

Most pedestrian movement are occupying the sidewalks along the street, therefore an active frontage is also seen as another factor that could encourage pedestrian friendly environment. An active frontage allows visual relationship between the person outside and the activity inside (Erickson,B., 2001 and Robert,M, 2001). Apart from interactive retail or building frontage, at a scale to which human beings can relate also determine the pedestrian comfort. Pedestrian could feel distracted and claustrophobic if the scale of development to the pavements and walkways’ are not appropriate in size (Robert, M., 2001 and Bently et al, 1995).

The Urban Design Compendium 1(UDC 1) (2000) also highlights the important of connection as one of the key aspect for the city’s interaction. The success of the city centre depends on how well the connection works. Each quarter of the city needs to be

linked up as to assure greater integration. People should be given maximum choices in how to conduct their journey, with a presumption in favour of walking, cycling and public transport. Apart from providing a maximum number of choices in how people move around easily in their environment, the route design must be feel safe as well. The needs of people on foot could be further analysed using the Five C’s principles are as below (UDC1, 2000):

Connections – Do good pedestrian routes connect the places where people want to go? Convenience – Are routes direct, and are crossings easy to use? Do pedestrians have to wait more than 10 seconds to cross roads?

Convivial – Are routes attractive, well lit and safe, and is there variety along the street? Comfortable - What is the quality and width of the footway, and what obstructions are there?

Conspicuous – How easy is it to find and follow a route? Are there surfaces treatments and signs to guide pedestrians?

The Five C principles extensively used for evaluating the quality of environment that is ideal for the pedestrian in the city. For example London Analytics working with analysts at Space Syntax Limited have carried a specific research on the pedestrian movement and the environment based on the Five C principles. In 2001, The Walkability Index has formulated which later developed into the International Walkability Benchmark. The objective is to replicate measures of the public realm across an entire area (http://www.londonanalytics.info/walkability).

Diagram for International Walkability Benchmark (http://www.londonanalytics.info/walkability)

3

Research Methodology

The study began with a review of relevant materials from textbooks, journals, conference papers, refereed publications, research reports, and internet information to understand the state of pedestrian friendly environment with the issues of urban and community sustainability. Existing studies on public spaces and pedestrian movement in the city centre were then reviewed and their relationships were identified. By integrating the previous studies, authors had discussed the urban design elements and the importance of assessing the existing environment which would contribute to the creation of pedestrian friendly city.

The purpose of the literature review was to find research gap and to develop a research framework. The review is intended to support the development of pilot surveys and interviews of pedestrians and experts in case studies in the later stages of the research project.

4

Findings and Discussion

The review of relevant literature has identified the quality of the pedestrian environment could be evaluated and measured according to the degree to which it meets pedestrians’ needs. There are various evaluation methods that are available to UK practitioners, which can be broadly divided between Level of Service (LOS) assessment techniques, pedestrian reviews (or checklists) and community-based audits (Cerrano, M. et al.,2008).

LOS Assessments

Techniques have been developed in the USA (and elsewhere) to measure LOS provided for pedestrians, based on the amount of available space per pedestrian taking

into account pedestrian flow and density conditions (e.g. Fruin, 1971). LOS is defined on a range of between five and six different service levels using letter A-F based on the assessment of the factors affecting LOS (e.g. LOS A, where average space is 12sqm which is ideal for pedestrian condition to LOS F where average space is less than 0.6sqm which is unsuitable pedestrian condition )(Gallin, N., 2001)

Although, recommendations are made to include additional aspects (e.g. aesthetics, safety/security considerations) in determining overall LOS provided, no guidance on how these factors can be quantified is provided (Cerrano, M. et al ,2008).

Pedestrian Reviews (or checklist)

Pedestrian reviews are techniques for assessing the ‘user-friendliness’ of a proposed or existing walking network or route (London Walking Forum, 2000). Such reviews typically include a number of ‘factors’ to be measured (either on dichotomous, yes/no or Likert scales- very good to very bad). Examples, of such reviews are provided by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT), 1991; DETR, 2000; National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF), 2002 and the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), 2006). In the UK, The Five C’s have formed the basis for a suggested checklist for local authorities to assess the overall quality of walking areas (Cerrano, M. et al ,2008). An example of such a checklist is provided in Encouraging Walking (DETR, 2000), which asks five main questions (Is the walking environment Connected, Comfortable, Convenient, Convivial and Conspicicuous), with sub-questions for each of the main headings (see also NRPF, 2002).

The Pedestrian Environmental Review System (PERS, TRL, 2006) is a systematic process to assess the pedestrian environment within a framework that meets pedestrian needs. It is a comprehensive review process whereby each pedestrian route, link and crossing point is evaluated (on 7 point Likert scales) against relevant criteria for the

specific area being assessed. Accompanying guidance is providing for conducting the review and how the scoring system can be used to compare different types of pedestrian environment such as links, crossing, routes, public transport waiting areas, interchange spaces and public spaces (PERS, TRL, 2006). All discrepancies are summarised as to allow the improvement priority and development strategies for the area.

Vulnerable Pedestrian Review developed by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT, 1991) consists of six broad areas (Pedestrian routes/surfaces; Crossing facilities; Lighting; Street Furniture; Access by public transport and Access by car), containing a series of related questions requiring Yes/No answers, with additional space for ‘reviews’ to add comments. Each specific aspect of the area being audited is assessed in terms of their compliancy (yes/no) according to current UK ergonomic minimum standards (Cerrano, M. et al ,2008).

Community-Based Audits

Community based style audits are fundamentally different from reviews in that the evaluation involves actual users of the environment being assessed and are typically evaluated according to qualitative responses (words) rather than physical measurement and/or numerical scales(Cerrano, M. et al ,2008).

In the UK, the most comprehensive guidance on how to conduct a community-based evaluation is provided by the Living Streets DIY Community Street Audit (Living Streets, 2002). The audit is based around eight main categories, Footway surfaces and obstructions; Facilities and signage; Maintenance and enforcement issues; Personal security; Crossing points and desire lines; Road layout and space allocation; Aesthetics; and Traffic conditions. The guide suggests the types of questions that should be asked as well as guidance on how (and to whom) the results of the audit can be presented. In the UK, LOS measurement has not been widely used except for the evaluation of high-density areas (e.g. Public transport passenger termini and major road crossing points). The use of pedestrian reviews and community based auditing techniques is more widespread, although, the choice of which method to use varies between different local authority areas. At present, there is no standardised evaluation methodology used and there have been no comparative evaluation (between methods) to examine their reliability (are they measuring the same things?) and validity (do they detect the most important issues faced by pedestrians) (Cerrano, M. et al ,2008).

At this early stage in the research, the following points are emerged in creating a pedestrian friendly environment:

• Public spaces and pedestrian movement in the city centre is seen as the main catalyst in creating pedestrian friendly city.

• Three dimensional design - sturdy relationships between activities, buildings and public spaces. The integrated design for floor plane spaces, integral elements and built edges would determine user to stay longer and enjoy being in the public spaces.

• Attractiveness – fully depending on the pedestrian experience deambulate themselves in the environment which is user friendly. The public edge of the buildings would house activities which is benefit from the interaction with the public realm, and can contribute to the life of the public spaces and its movement network.

• Aesthetic and scale - pedestrian friendly environments would embrace a human scale in its built form. The vertical and horizontal elements should have a balance size for human comfort. Aesthetic value in the built form is also fundamental in enhancing the image and identity of the area.

• Five C principles in the urban network – connections; convenience; convivial; comfortable and conspicuousness reflect the fact that transport users, regardless the mode, wish to make their journeys in the shortest, most convenient manner that is consistent with their personal and road safety and with pleasant and comfortable journey experience.

• Good Design Quality – it is as an assurance to long term cost effective and quality of life for the people. The pedestrian review and audit are believed as an approach that can help to examine the existing conditions in more systematic way. It is important that these approaches are adopted and applied comprehensively and systematically by local highway authorities, architects and urban planners to improve the pedestrian environment.

5

Conclusion and Further Research

The initiatives toward pedestrian friendly city need a comprehensive strategy which involves many parties in the built environment. This includes the creation of attractive city squares and public spaces, the role of pedestrianisation, additional measures to restrain traffic, the harmonisation of walking and public transport and improved safety and security for pedestrians. The urban environment somehow needs to achieve certain quality as to assure it successfulness in meeting the quality of life. Researchers suggested for an integrated approach in assessing the quality in order to reduce the environmental uncertainty facing by the decision makers in the development and infrastructure industries (Curwell et al., 1998). Comprehensive knowledge and ideas exemplifies from this integration are believed could lead toward sustainable urban development and community.

6

References

Adams, J., 1999. The social implications of hypermobility. In: OECD, Project on sustainable transport (EST). The economic and social implications of sustainable transportation. Proceedings of the Ottawa Workshop, 20–21 October 1998. OECD Publications, Paris.

BBC News (2007), Londoner encourage to walk more at: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6582597.stm

Barnett, J., (2004), Urban Places, Planning for the use of: Design Guide, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behaviol Sciences, pp 16031-16035.

Bently et al., (1985 and 1993 new edition), Responsible Environment. The Architectural Press Ltd. London.

Cerrano, M. et al (2008), Is current UK street-auditing guidance good enough? Results from a series of ‘whole journey’ audits involving mobility-impaired pedestrians, Walk 21 Conference, Barcelona, Spain

CABE Space (2004). The value of public space: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and environmental value. Archived at: /www.cabespace.org.uk

Curwell et. al (1998), The BEQUEST network; towards sustainable development, Building Research & Information, Volume 26, Issue 1, January 1998 , pages 56 – 65 Deakin,M., and Curwell, S.,(2004), The BEQUEST Framework: the Vision and

Methodology of a Collaborative Platform for Sustainable Urban Development. www.enviroinfo2004.org/cdrom/Datas/Deakins.htm

DETR (2000) Encouraging walking: advice to local authorities. London, TSO.

Department for Transport (2002) Inclusive mobility- a guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure. London, HMSO.

Department for Transport (2007) Manual for streets. London, HSMO.

Fruin, J. J. (1971) Designing for pedestrians: a level of service concept. Transportation Research Record 355, 1-15.

Erickson, B. (2001) The ‘armature’ and ‘fabric’ as a model for understanding spatial organisation in Approaching Urban Design: The design Process. Pearson Education Ltd. England.

Institution of Highways and Transportation (1991) Revised guidelines for reducing mobility handicaps: towards a barrier free environment. London, IHT.

Institution of Highways and Transportation (2000) Guidelines for providing for journeys on foot. London, IHT.

Jane Jacobs (1991), The death and life of Great American Cities: The failure of Town Planning, Random House, Great Britain.

Jean-Christophe Foltˆete and Arnaud Piombini (2007), Urban layout, landscape features and pedestrian usage, Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) pages 225- 234.

Living Streets (2002) DIY Community Street Audits. London, Living Streets.

London Walking Forum (2000) Walking: making it happen. London, Landor Publishing.

Mangin, D., Panerai, P., (1999). Projet urbain, Parenth`eses, Marseille.

National Retail Planning Forum. (2002) Going to town: improving town centre access, a companion guide to PPG 6. London, Llewelyn- Davies Ltd. Paris

ODPM, (2003a) Government Response to ODPM Select Committee Report on Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener. HMS, London (Cm 5989).

Project for Public Spaces, PPS (2008), Place Making, Walk 21 Conferences, Barcelona, Spain.

PORTAL (2007), Non Motorised Transport Vol 1, Teaching and Learning Material funded within the 6th Framework Programme of the EU as Specific Support Action,

ODPM, (2003a) Government Response to ODPM Select Committee Report on Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener. HMS, London (Cm 5989).

Transport Research Laboratory , TRL (2006) Pedestrian Environment Review System in Review Handbook Version 2. TRL Limited.

Gehl, J (1987) Life Between Buildings, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Gehl, J (1995) The Challenge of creating a human life in the city, Town and Country Planning Summer School, Royal Town Planning Institute, London.

ReNew Northwest (2007), Places Matter,

Robert, M. et al (2001), Making convivial places in Approaching Urban Design: The design Process. Pearson Education Ltd. England

R. Ehrenfeucht and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, (2005) Constructing the sidewalks: municipal government and the production of public space in Los Angeles,

California, 1880-1920, Journal of History Geography 33, pp 104-124.

Sisiopiku, V. P., and Akin, D., (2003), Pedestrian Behaviours at and Perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: an examination based on observation and survey data, Transportation Research Part F 6, pp.249–274

Urban Design Compendium 1 (2000), English Partnership, London

Vicky Cattella,_, Nick Dinesb, Wil Geslerc, Sarah Curtisd (2008), Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place 14 (2008) pages 544-561.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.