Final project final draft

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study

LA 241/CP 241 - Research Methods in Environmental Design

Prof Peter BosselmannFall 2008December 18, 2008

Rachel Edmonds Erin Machell

Brendan Stewart

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study

Rachel Edmonds, MCP ‘06/MLA ‘09 Erin Machell, MCP ‘10

Brendan Stewart, MLA ‘09

LA 241/CP 241 - Research Methods in Environmental Design

Prof Peter BosselmannFall 2008December 18, 2008

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 Literature review: High rise living and sense of community 11.2 Literature review: Community gardens as social spaces 3

2 Research Design2.1 Our research hypothesis is 42.2 Defi nitions 42.3 Variables 52.4 Site selection 62.5 Study Design 6

3 Site Characteristics3.1 Geographic context 63.2 Historic context 73.3 Proposed changes 73.4 Previous studies 83.5 Current design and layout 83.6 Demographics 10

4 Measurements and Observations4.1 General observations of the open space 124.2 On-site interviews 124.3 Picture series tests: facial recognition and exterior views 144.4 Behavior mapping and observations 17

5 Research Instrument5.1 Development of a questionnaire 195.2 Questionnaire distribution and response 195.3 Questionnaire results 205.4 Three key fi ndings 205.5 Questionnaire map analysis 215.6 General fi ndings 225.7 Use of and Value for open space and its features 225.8 The community garden 235.9 Farmer’s Market 24

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyi

5.10 Social impacts of open space use and affi nity 245.11 Spending time outdoors 255.12 Spending time in the garden or market 265.13 Paths by the community garden 275.14 Analyzing the impact of resident’s fl oor height 285.15 Other mitigating factors: age, tenure, student status 29

6 Critique of the study 29 7 References 31

8 Appendix A - Behavior observation maps 32

9 Appendix B - The Questionnaire 43

10 Appendix C - Questionnaire Analysis 52

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyii

List of Tables and Figures

Fig 1 Jan Gehl StudyFig 2 Dogs in Park MercedFig 3 City ContextFig 4 Layout of Park MercedFig 5 Proposed changes Fig 6 Sinuous lines in the landscapeFig 7 former ‘big view’Fig 8 new colorsFig 9 building entrancesFig 10 Juan Bautista Community GardenFig 11 PlaygroundFig 12 Farmer’s MarketFig 13 Stability: Number of years ago householder moved inFig 14 Age distribution in Park MercedFig 15 On site interviewsFig 16 Park Merced residents refl ect on the presence of the CGFig 17 Looking at the fog catcher instrumentFig 18 Looking in while walking byFig 19 Exterior viewsFig 20 Facial RecognitionFig 21 Friday morning commuteFig 22 Friday morning open space useFig 23 Saturday morning errand patternsFig 24 Sunday morning open space useFig 25 Questionnaire distribution diagramFig 26 RemindersFig 27 Commute homeFig 28 Non-commute pathFig 29 Stars and CirclesFig 30 Responses to question 4Fig 31 Responses to question 12Fig 32 Sense of connectedness to people vs. # of people socialized with

Fig 33 Sense of connectedness to people vs. # time spent outdoorsFig 34 Adjectives by amount of time spent outsideFig 35 Social characteristics of FM and CGFig 36 Adjectives by time spent in CGFig 37 Adjectives by time spent at FMFig 38 Floor people live on vs. # of neighbors they socialize withFig 39 Age demographics of respondants

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyiii

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study1

1 Introduction At the outset of this semester, all three members of our research team, Erin Machell, Rachel Edmonds and Brendan Stewart, were interested in conducting a ‘sense of community’ study. The three of us also approached the class with a specifi c interest in studying the well-documented social capital building capacity of community gardens. Brendan was working concurrently on his MLA thesis about the livability of high-rise neighborhoods in Toronto, and pitched the idea to Erin and Rachel that it would be interesting to investigate the commonly held bias that the sense of community among residents who live in high-rise buildings tends to be low. One variable that has received little attention in the studies that support this bias, however, is the role that the design of open spaces surrounding high-rise buildings plays in the health of the local sense of community. All other things being equal, would the sense of community within a typical ‘tower in the park’ neighborhood – with the large lawns, coercive fencing and vast parking lots characteristic of this typology - be different from a high-rise living environment that included a more intentionally designed landscape that included elements known to facilitate social interaction?

After discussing several potential study neighborhoods, it was discovered that the Park Merced neighborhood in San Francisco included a cluster of high-rise buildings set in a historically signifi cant Tommy Church landscape and that the open space recently saw the addition of a community garden and a weekly farmers market. Rather than measuring the local sense of community and comparing it to another neighborhood with a different landscape, it was decided to focus our energies within the Park Merced tower neighborhood. In general, we set out to better understand whether there was a relationship between open space and the local sense of community. Before getting into the specifi cs of our study design, the following section reviews

the literature that we drew upon in developing our research question.

1.1 Literature review High Rise Living and Sense of Community

One of the 253 ‘patterns’ presented in the infl uential planning and design book A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, is pattern number 21: ‘Four Story Limit’. This pattern suggests that tall buildings:

“…are not cheaper, they do not help create open space, they destroy the townscape, they destroy social life, they promote crime, they make life diffi cult for children, they are expensive to maintain, they wreck the open spaces near them, and they damage light and air and view. …[T]hey aren’t very sensible, [and] empirical evidence shows that they can actually damage people’s minds and feelings”

(Alexander et al., 1977, p.115). This indictment, which is directed at tall residential and offi ce buildings, is clearly cut and dry: buildings taller than four stories are bad, and that’s that. That said, some of the research on the social and psychological effects of living in high-rises does paint a similar picture to that portrayed in the passage above1, but considering the complex set of variables one has to control when studying such an environment – differing variables having to do with the buildings surroundings or the characteristics of the buildings inhabitants - it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to draw broadly generalizable conclusions connecting fi ndings to building form alone (Gifford, 2007 pg 14).

1 For a contemporary, critical review of global research conduct-ed on the social and psychological consequences of living in tall build-ings, see Gifford, 2007


The literature does suggest, though, that the sense of community among residents of high-rise buildings is generally poorer than that among residents of neighborhoods composed of single-family dwelling. This literature measures sense of community in two principle ways. First, residents of high-rises tend to have lower quality and less dependable relationships with their neighbors - more acquaintances but fewer friends (Gifford, 2007). Second, high-rise residents generally exhibit a lower level of ‘pro-social’ behavior: “rates of helping others are lower in high-rise buildings” (Gifford, 2007, p. 13).

A formal reason for the generally lower quality of social relationships observed in the literature is offered by Cooper-Marcus and Hogue, who point out that unlike the environment of the single family home, the high-rise apartment lacks the semi-private ‘transition spaces’ – like a yard, a porch or a driveway – that would enable residents to feel comfortable enough to “make an initial contact with an adjacent or passing neighbor” (1976, p. 255). Lobbies, elevators, and corridors approximate this type of space, but tend to be perceived as anonymous and un-neighborly, and lead to interaction of shorter duration (Becker, 1974, p. 180). Michelson helps to further explain the relationship between neighborly anonymity and the ‘sociofugal’2 nature of indoor space, by referring to the “lack of areas.. where people can naturally interact without having to excuse themselves to others for remaining in a particular place. Even people desiring social contact do not normally want to appear ‘forward’ or strange in areas of a building where the norms do not support socially acceptable forms of loitering” (1977, p. 51). In other words, the shared perception of such spaces is that they are impersonal, anonymous and un-neighborly, and this creates a social norm that says that 2 Hester (2006, p.32-33) defi nes ‘sociofugal’ space as space that provides solitude; as designed space that discourages social contact and communication. On the other hand, ‘sociopetal’ space facilitates social contact, internal identity and control.

prolonged interaction in such a place feels awkward.Despite the generally lower levels of social interaction observed repeatedly in the literature, Gifford states that “most social interaction occurs among residents of the same fl oor” (2007, p.10; Ginsberg & Churchman, 1985). Finding comfort and identifying with a smaller group size is perhaps related to the sheer volume of people living in one residence, and a fear associated with strangers living so close by (Gifford, 2007, p.3). Cooper-Marcus and Hogue suggest that “the fewer the [number of] people sharing an entrance way or corridor, the more likely they are to be able to recognize and greet one another, and the less likely they are to perceive their environment as anonymous and un-neighborly” (1976, p. 256).

Lower levels of ‘pro social’ behavior in high rises versus comparable low rises have been measured in several studies (Bickman et al., 1973; Wilcox & Holahan, 1976; Husaini et al., 1990). Gifford makes the connection between low levels of interaction and low levels of caring, by arguing that the ‘sociofugal’ nature of most high-rise environments “supports anonymity and depersonalization of one’s neighbors… [leading to] greater privacy and freedom from unwanted social interaction.. [as well as] less intimate social interaction and less caring about anonymous others” (2007, p. 13). The low levels of social interaction that result from this sociofugal organization of space “can lead to withdrawal, which can lead to loss of community and social support” (Gifford, 2007, p. 13).

In practical terms, the generally lower rates of social interaction and lower levels of caring that result can mean that something as simple as being able to depend on a neighbor to borrow eggs is less likely to occur. Poor ‘sense of community’ weakens social support and the ability to depend on one’s neighbors.

Alexander et al, (1977) believe that social and psychological

Fig 1 - Jan Gehl Study


problems are directly attributable to high-rise building form. To them, the explanation is simple:

“high-rise living takes people away from the ground, and away from the casual, everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and on the gardens and porches. It leaves them alone in their apartments. The decision to go out for some public life becomes formal and awkward; and unless there is some specifi c task which brings people out in the world, the tendency is to stay home, alone” (116).

Alexander believes that a threshold exists at four stories: that residents of buildings under this limit do not suffer from the negative social and psychological consequences attributable to living in tall buildings. The authors state that

“at three or four stories, one can still walk comfortably down to the street, and from a window you can still feel part of the street scene: you can see details in the street – the people, their faces, foliage, shops. From three stories you can yell out, and catch the attention of someone below. Above four stories these connections break down. The visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene below as if it were a game, from which they are completely detached. The connection to the ground and to the fabric of the town becomes tenuous; the building becomes a world of its own” (1977, p.118).

Jan Gehl, in his book ‘Life between buildings’ (1971), speculates about this threshold idea six years before Alexander’s book. From the ground, he photographs the

face of a friend standing on a balcony on each fl oor. Moving up, the facial features become diffi cult to discern, and the potential for recognition is lost. Gehl’s test fi nds that the threshold at which the facial features of a friend become unrecognizable occurs around the 4th fl oor (fi g 1). We replicated Gehl’s study, and had similar conclusions. We also added an additional layer, which was to test whether a threshold existed where views of the landscape switched from views of the open spaces surrounding the tower bases, to regional views. Our fi ndings are presented in the measurements and observations section of this document.

1.2 Literature review Community gardens as social spaces

Laura Lawson chronicles the history of community gardening in the US in her book ‘City Bountiful: a Century of Community Gardening in America’, and discusses the various benefi ts that community gardens (CG)s have been seen to confer to the people that occupy them (2005). Lawson


provides a good summary of these benefi ts by quoting the ‘American Community Gardening Association’ vision statement, that says:

“Our vision is that community gardening is a resource used to build community, foster social and environmental justice, elimi nate hunger, empower communities, break down racial and ethnic barriers, provide ad equate health and nutrition, reduce crime, improve housing, promote and enhance education, and otherwise create sustain able communities” (Lawson, 2005, p.239).

The myriad benefi ts that CGs have been documented to confer in a sometimes anecdotal way, have also become the subject of focused and rigorous research from a range of disciplines. Hancock (2001) looks at the capacity of CGs to build ‘social capital’, and Glover et. al (2005) studies the correlation between voluntary affi liation with a CG and the creation of democratic citizens. Shinew et. al (2004) look at CGs in urban St. Louis, Missouri as leisure spaces where positive interaction occurs between inter-racial groups (namely black and white). In an earlier publication, Lawson describes how the Berkeley Youth Alternatives Community Garden Patch has become a ‘community open space’ where “residents who tend the gardens” represent “diverse social and ethnic groups” but that the garden “brings together people who may not normally interact” (Lawson,1995). While the role(s) that CGs play are many, and vary with the specifi c characteristics of the neighborhoods in which they are located, in general, the literature suggests that they tend to be places where people get to know each other and spend time together.

2 Research Design

This research study we conducted attempted to evaluate the relationship between open space and related amenities and their ability to foster a sense of community.

2.1 Our research hypothesis is:

In a residential tower neighborhood, there will be a greater sense of community associated with shared open space amenities, such as a community garden, when residents have 1) a visual connection from their dwelling units; 2) an awareness of such amenities; and 3) opportunities to interact along their commute or recreational routes.

In contrast, when residents do not have a visual connection or opportunity for interaction, the sense of community associated with shared open space will be weaker.

2.2 Defi nitions:

Sense of community:

A ‘sense of community’ entails: 1) knowing neighbors; 2) being aware of social patterns and interactions around you and a sense of where you fi t into them; 3) a sense of belonging; 4) security and safety 5) shared identity and sense of ownership/stewardship 6) having the perception of shared values or interests.

Awareness:

The word ‘awareness’ entails: Having special or certain knowledge from a fi rst hand source, either one’s own experience of having heard about it from others.

Fig 2 - Dogs in Park Merced


2.3 Variables

Several things aside from open space amenities were identifi ed as independent variables that could contribute to the sense of community at the Park Merced meadow towers. In our questionnaire and other measurements, we attempted to control for these variables.

Relationships that persist outside of housing is a variable unrelated to open space that may contribute to an enhanced sense of community. For example, tower residents in Park Merced might have friendships that came about through outside things, like working together, attending the same church, or taking transit together etc. If this is the case, we can’t attribute reported sense of community to qualities of Park Merced we are testing.

Proximity to mass transit or existence of neighborhood carpools may be a source of sense of community. Carpools and waiting at transit stops translates to daily, regular, scheduled contact with neighbors who may not otherwise share much in common. Given the distance of Park Merced from downtown San Francisco (more than 7 miles), we assumed that carpools and transit use is a major way people commute to their jobs. Waiting for an M-line train going downtown on weekday mornings with the same group of people can engender a sense of shared experience. A carpool arrangement between neighbors might entail members having semi-regular phone contact, creating opportunities for more signifi cant associations.

Presence of dogs in households is a variable independent of open space amenities that can contribute to the sense of community at Park Merced (fi g. 2). Although dog owners tend to be intensive users of open space, the particular issues of pet ownership creates regular, predictable places and moments where owners can meet each other and have ease of conversation over shared interests and

concerns related to their pets.

Sense of community can be facilitated between households where there are children present who attend Montessori or other nearby schools. Children have ways of breaking the regular social barriers that can exist between adults. Parents whose children socialize together at school or at the playground have reasons to meet and interact.

Other community amenities that may engender a sense of community with use:

Saturday morning farmer’s market Gym facilities on each building’s ground fl oor Movie theater at Park Merced concierge Parking garages Tennis courts Montessori school Playgrounds

Fig 3 - City Context


2.4 Site Selection

The site we chose to study is a 9-acre portion of the Park Merced development, located in Southwest San Francisco. On this site are a total of 608 studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom rental apartments in four towers. Each 13-story tower has 152 units. The residential density at our site is 68 dwelling units per acre.

The site is surrounded many 2-story garden apartments and several other tower apartment buildings, all managed by the Park Merced Management Corporation. To the north is San Francisco State University’s campus. The Stonestown Galleria is a shopping mall located northeast of Park Merced. The 19th Avenue corridor establishes the eastern boundary of the overall Park Merced development. Brotherhood Way establishes the southern boundary. To the west is the Harding Park Golf Course and Lake Merced. The Pacifi c Ocean is 1.3 miles west of our site.

2.5 Study Design

Our team devised a research study that included a period of time for site observations, measurements and mapping. During this period, we interviewed residents we encountered at open space amenities at Park Merced. In the course of carrying out these steps, we began developing a written questionnaire that tested other elements of our hypothesis that are more diffi cult to observe fi rst hand. In particular, this meant trying to get a sense of how residents perceive the sense of community at Park Merced’s towers.

3 Site Characteristics3.1 Geographic context Park Merced is located in the southwest corner of San Francisco (fi g 2). It is located to the south of San Francisco State University, to the east of the regionally signifi cant Lake Merced, and is connected to downtown by the Muni metro ‘m’ line (fi g 3).

Fig 4 - Layout of Park Merced

Fig 5 - Proposed changes


3.2 Historic context

Park Merced was built in the 1940’s by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to meet the low to mid-income housing demands created by the families of WWII veterans. The neighborhood was laid out in the beaux-arts style, in partnership between the architect Leonard Schultze & Associates and the landscape architecture offi ce of Thomas Church, with Robert Royston as project landscape architect. Radial streets set up long visual axes and defi ne unique wedge shaped blocks built with garden apartments with shared central courtyards. These blocks separate the vehicular form the pedestrian realms – an expression of the American garden city ideas of the time. Each of the courtyards is different, and because they have been so well maintained over the years, they are considered by landscape historians today to be a signifi cant showcase of the sinuous modern landscape design style pioneered by Church (Weinstein, 2008). Moving through the courtyards reveals a sequence of spaces from communal gardens, to shared laundry facility to parking facility, all concealed from the street. The other housing type in the neighborhood, built in the early 1950’s, is a series of eleven 12-storey modern apartment towers (Weinstein, 2008). The four towers in our study (fi g. 4) are arranged along a long linear pedestrian meadow. All of the apartments, whether in high or low-rise buildings, are rental units.

3.3 Proposed Changes

The current owner, Parkmerced Investors, plans to revitalize the neighborhood by demolishing the garden apartments and building a new mix of housing types. A large controversy surrounds these plans, with one side fi ghting to preserve the neighborhood for the sake of the historic signifi cance of the Tommy Church landscape design, and the other side arguing that the original design

Fig 6 - Sinuous lines in the landscape


– with its overall low densities, single uses, and its resource intensive landscape - is not sustainable enough to justify its preservation in the 21st century. (Weinstein, 2008). The vision presented by Parkmerced Investors (fi g. 5), to be implemented over a 15-20 year time horizon, is grounded in concepts of sustainable development. Interestingly, the only existing buildings that are proposed to be salvaged are the tower buildings, including the four that we look at in this study, however the open spaces surrounding the buildings are to be changed. In place of the garden apartments is a mix of rental and owner housing, ranging in height from two stories to heights similar to those of the existing towers, but the average being four stories (http://www.parkmercedvision.com/housing/index.html). In addition to raising the overall density of the neighborhood, the plan would see the inclusion of neighborhood retail amenities and community facilities, would bring the Muni metro light rail line into the heart of the neighborhood at Juan Bautista Circle, provides an extensive bike and pedestrian circulation network, and includes the provision of renewable energy generation (http://www.parkmercedvision.com/plans/index.html).

3.4 Previous studies

The Park Merced neighborhood has received considerable attention from UC Berkeley students in recent years, although it has not to our knowledge been the subject of a study in LA/CP 241 – Research Methods in Environmental Design. Thomas Kronemeyer studied the neighborhood in his 1996 MLA/MCP thesis entitled: “Living in a Diagram: a case study on the neighborhood form of Parkmerced”, and students investigated how the landscape might be re-designed in light of proposed changes in the Thomas Church design competition held in January 2008.

3.5 Current Design and Layout

When viewed from the air, the strong octagonal geometry of the 1940’s layout plan of the Park Merced becomes extremely visible. Interestingly, while the road network and architecture are informed by a rigid and largely symmetrical geometry, much of the landscape stands in juxtaposition, with sinuous and often asymmetrical lines defi ning form (fi g. 6). Much of the original design remains intact today, with several notable exceptions. First, a long visual axis that is defi ned by the four towers of our study used to continue through the meadow to Juan Bautista circle. Today the Montessori school and the Juan Bautista Community Garden interrupt this big view (fi g. 7). Second, the garden apartments have recently been painted a variety of warm earth tones (fi g. 8), but originally, all of the architecture was fi nished in a subdued palette of whites and grays. The original intent was to bring the landscape to the foreground, and the colors today detract from this once strong contrast.

Fig 7 - former ‘big view’ Fig 8 - new colors

Fig 9 - building entrances


The four towers that we studied are 12 stories tall, with 152 units each. Each tower has a main front entrance facing the street, and a secondary entrance facing onto the meadow (fi g. 9). The central meadow is long and linear, and is defi ned by a curvilinear path that traces its perimeter, with small entrance courtyards sitting on the meadow side at the base of each building. At the east end of the meadow


is the Juan Bautista community garden (fi g. 10), which was established by 2004. There is a small playground at the base of the southwestern tower (fi g. 11), and a weekly farmer’s market sets up on an asphalt pad at the base of the north western most tower (fi g. 12). Residents of the towers park in angled street parking adjacent to building entrances, or in a large underground parking lot to the west of the meadow.

3.6 Demographics:

The most recent demographic data for Park Merced comes from the 2000 US Census, which is somewhat problematic since Park Merced is currently going through changes and actively trying to recruit new residents. These data indicate that Park Merced residents are a primarily lower-income group, and composed of a wide age-range of people

Fig 10 - Juan Bautista Community Garden Fig 11 - PlaygroundFig 12 - Farmer’s Market

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,2000 Census of Populationand Housing,SF3, Table H38

g

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF1, Table P12


including families with children, elderly people, and young adults. Many Park Merced residents have lived in their current apartment for a great many years. Though most own a vehicle, residents are likely to use alternate methods of transit for commuting, such as carpooling and public transit.

Block-level data, which include the central tower apartments as well as a large number of garden apartments, indicate that many Park Merced residents have a long history of living at Park Merced (fi g. 13), and that:3

• The average per capita income is $27,400 (in 2000 dollars)• Median household income is $47,000 (in 2000 dollars)• 9% of households live below the poverty line

• 85% of households have a vehicle available• 36% drive to work• 36% take public transit• 12% carpool

Block level data, which includes only a handful of garden apartments in addition to the central towers, indicate a wide age distribution, with professional-aged adults as the most-represented age group (fi g. 14). These data also show that:4

• 50% of households are family households and 50% are nonfamily

• 21% of households have children

Anecdotally, it was clear from site visits that many residents of the towers are students, who walk to nearby SF State University for school.

3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3, Table P30, P35, P52, P82, P85, P87, H44.4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF1, Table P21, P35.

Fig 13 - Stability: Number of years ago householder moved in

Fig 14 - Age Distribution in Park Merced


4 Measurements and Observations

To test the hypothesis, the research team spent several weeks in late September and early October observing patterns, conducting behavior mapping and on-site informal interviews with residents. Also, with an interest to test ideas gathered in our literature review, the team also carried out on-site facial recognition photography exercises that simulated the experience of one’s capacity to both 1) recognize neighbors in the open space from every fl oor in the towers and 2) assess from what fl oors views outside are characterized as “regional” or “local”.

4.1 General observations of the open space

Our site has several features in the open space that facilitate user activity. First, the central turf meadow is lined with a circuitous perimeter pathway. This pathway is heavily used due to the fact that the turf tends to be persistently damp. Second, the community garden on the eastern edge of the site attracts periodic use from both tower residents and those residing in the garden apartments. Third, the Park Merced Community Farmer’s Market, located at the site’s western boundary at Arballo and Serrano, attracts heavy use on Saturday mornings from 10am to 2pm. The Farmer’s Market was in operation each weekend during the time that our fi eldwork was conducted and that our questionnaire was distributed. Lastly, a playground nearby the Farmer’s Market attracts use by children and parents.

4.2 On-site interviews

On Saturday, September 13, our team conducted an informal interview with an elderly Russian couple (fi g. 15) that was in the community garden tending to sweet pea shoots. The couple lived in the garden apartments and had used

the community garden for about two years. They admitted to visiting the plot a few times each week together. They indicated that the garden was popular among older people like themselves at Park Merced.

During the midmorning hours of Saturday, October 11, team members conducted informal interviews with two residents working in the community garden. These interviews each lasted about ten minutes and provided comments that helped shape our understanding of the garden’s users and typical patterns (fi g. 16). Both of these interviews were with adult women in their 50s. One was a habitual user of the garden who lived on the 7th fl oor of a tower; the other, a Russian woman who worked in early childhood education, knew a couple with a plot in the garden and dropped by periodically to tend to their plants and vegetables.

We also took note of other people using the garden without

Fig 15 - On-site interviews in the community garden

“The garden is a way to keep tabs on neighbors. I learned about an elderly woman’s surgery when I noticed she and her husband hadn’t made it out to the garden for several weeks. I saw him on the elevator one day and he fi lled me in.”

“My friends have a plot in the garden. Every so often I walk through here to look at it and tend to it.”

Russian woman, 50 years old, preschool teacher

“My wife and I have gardened here for two years; we’ve lived here for 12 years. We come by a few times each week.”

Elderly Russian man, 75 years old

Woman, 50 years old, treasurer fo garden committee

”Lots of folks who aren’t gardeners use the commu-nity garden during early afternoons on weekdays. Young mothers with stroll-ers and grandpar-ents with grand-children stop by.”

“The community garden and farm-er’s market are big draws, almost all organic and cheaper, suits the community’s needs and values.”

“The gardeners who have been here for a while tend to know what grows best in this difi cult microcli-mate. They give advice to new-comers.”


interviewing them. Twice we observed a parent with a stroller sitting in the garden on the benches that remain in the sun. We observed two young male adults enter the garden and investigate the Fog Catcher instrument (fi g. 17). We observed elderly people in the garden looking at roses. We also observed many people stopping to pause while walking on the paths that go past the garden or pointing it out to a friend as they passed by (fi g. 18).

During these interviews, it was brought to our attention that the Park Merced management had much to do with the level of amenities offered in the tower open space in

Fig 16 - Park Merced residents refl ect on the presence of the community garden

Fig 17 - Looking at the fog catcher instrument

Fig 18 - Looking in while walking by


recent years. By 2004, the community garden was built at the western edge of our site, a project spearheaded by a small group of Park Merced residents (an individual, “MK”, was identifi ed by an interviewee) and supported by management. The Park Merced Farmer’s Market was established in recent years by the management and is run by a private enterprise, the California Farmer’s Market Association (http://www.cafarmersmkts.com/). It operates from mid-May to late December. One interviewee indicated that residents were appreciative of these investments in the open space, but simultaneously mentioned that people were uneasy with the proposed redevelopment plans for Park Merced (see 3.3 Proposed Changes section).

4.3 Picture series tests Facial recognition and Exterior Views

Our site measurements included a replication of Jan Gehl’s threshold study to determine limitations for facial recognition (see 1.1 Literature Review). We also tested whether a threshold existed where views from tower fl oors tended to be dominated by regional views (ocean, hills, etc) versus open spaces surrounding the tower bases (meadow, garden, playgrounds, etc.). Each photo series was accomplished by having one person take photos from the exterior balconies of the fi re escapes on the northwestern tower.

For the regional versus local view series (fi g. 19), a picture was taken at eye level from each fl oor looking outward. It was later determined that local views tend to overtake regional views at fl oor 5 at the Park Merced towers. With this information, we planned to formulate a question on our survey that would ask residents to verify our fi ndings. Refl ecting on our hypothesis, we anticipated that residents who live at or below fl oor 5 would report the ability to visually

connect to the open space and activities below their units, as well as having a greater affi nity to socially connect to others in these spaces given that degree of visual familiarity.

For the facial recognition series (fi g. 20), a picture was taken from each fi re escape balcony looking down at a subject (Brendan) on a lawn area at the base of the tower. The photos were taken at a focal length of 70mm from each fl oor looking down at the subject, approximating the range of the human eye. The results of the exercise illustrated to us that a threshold for recognizing people at ground level exists at the fourth fl oor (the towers’ actual 5th fl oor).


Fig 19 - Exterior Views


Fig 20 - Facial Recognition


4.4 Behavior mapping and observations

Our on-site measurements and observations included behavior mapping of commute and recreation paths on a Friday and Saturday morning, as well as a Sunday afternoon (fi g. 21 - 24). The behavior mapping allowed us to test an aspect of our hypothesis to see whether tower residents’ commuting paths included a signifi cant number of routes past the community garden and farmer’s market and other open space amenities.

In mapping commute paths, we observed residents leaving and entering one building on the meadow, the northeast tower, which is adjacent to the community garden and is the closest tower to major transit connections. We recorded the observations on a foggy, chilly Friday morning starting at 7:30 AM and ending at 8:30 AM. Two team members were stationed at the north and south building entrances. The third team member roved through the open space to track morning open space users. All of our behavior observation maps that we produced, and the annotation language that we developed, can be referred to in appendix A.

In mapping weekend morning recreational and errand patterns, we visited the towers on a sunny and cool Saturday morning, starting at 9:30 AM and ending at 10:30AM. One person was stationed in the meadow near the community garden’s west entrance. From this vantage point, it was relatively easy to observe the entirety of movement along the meadow open space. Observations of this activity from afar were not diffi cult to record due to the fact that many residents carry large orange shopping bags back and forth from their units to the Park Merced Farmer’s Market. These bags are provided free of charge to customers visiting the market.

Analysis of behavior mapping of weekday morning commute paths outside one of the towers shows that there is

Fig 21 - Friday morning commute

Fig 22 - Friday morning open opace use


an overall northerly movement of students and adults going toward the SFSU campus and to major transit connections (M-Ocean View on 19th Ave. and Font Blvd. bus stops). We observed that residents of this tower tend to take the shortest routes in the morning to these destinations, which means that the building’s south entrance is not utilized very much. Many residents also head to their parked vehicles on Serrano Drive as they depart in the morning; this movement pattern intensifi es use of the tower’s north entrance.

During the same weekday morning, we also recorded general open space use. We observed a number of people using the meadow path system as an exercise route. Assuming that these patterns are representative of the rest of the week, we can say that residents do regularly walk by many of the open space amenities this study looks at. We also observed that the north entrances of the south towers were used by people moving in a northerly direction towards SFSU or the MUNI rail and bus stops.

Analysis of weekend morning recreational and errand patterns along the meadow shows that use of the meadow-facing entrances have a greater volume of use than on weekdays. As people in the towers head towards the Farmer’s Market, they also tend to take the shortest routes, and these routes traverse the meadow. Overall, on Saturday mornings when weather conditions are favorable, the number of people walking past the meadow open space amenities is steady, frequent, and greater in volume than on weekday mornings. On weekend mornings when weather conditions are not favorable, open space use tends to be less active and more static, with residents using amenities such as the playground and community garden.

Fig 23 - Saturday morning errand patterns

Fig 24 - Sunday morning open space use


5 Research Instrument5.1 Development of a Questionnaire:

In order to test our hypothesis we created a questionnaire to distribute to residents of the central Park Merced towers. The questionnaire was informed by our site visits, observations and other background investigations, and it formed the primary source of data for evaluating our hypothesis. Since our hypothesis suggests a link between awareness of and interaction with open space features on the one hand, and a sense of community on the other, we needed to design a questionnaire that would give us information about both of these areas, so that we could try to discover and relationship between them. It was also important to us to include a map question, so as to gain data from the residents that was visual and more emic in nature.

On the subject of open space, we tried to get at peoples’ use, perceptions, and feelings about open space, asking questions about the time people spent outdoors in particular places or doing particular things, asking open-ended and qualitative questions about peoples’ open space perceptions, and asking them to indicate any open space areas that were special to them on a map. We also tried to understand peoples’ passive interaction with the open space through questions asking about views from residents’ windows, about where they observed other residents, and asking them to identify their customary walking routes on the map.

Questions about sense of community were more challenging, as this is a diffi cult concept to defi ne and to measure. Based in part on our defi nition of sense of community, we attempted to measure this concept by asking a variety of questions about our respondents’ social interactions and activities with their neighbors,5 including

5 Throughout this report, the term “neighbor” is indicates anyone who lives in the neighborhood, not merely next-door-neighbors.

number of neighbors respondents recognize and socialize with, what they do with them, how often and where. We also asked about respondents’ general sense of connectedness to people, their sense of responsibility for shared space, and we asked them to circle areas in the open space that they considered to be social spaces on a map.

In addition to these core areas of inquiry, we also asked general questions about living in Park Merced, including an open-ended question about what people liked or would miss about living there if they moved away. Finally, we asked demographic and lifestyle questions (e.g. age, student status, presence of dogs or children) that would help us to analyze and sort the data.

The fi nal questionnaire is seven pages long and is composed of 29 questions and a set of map activities. The questions are composed of multiple-choice, scaled, and a few open-ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

5.2 Questionnaire distribution and response:

The process for distributing our questionnaire required us to gain entry to the towers. This was easily accomplished, as residents and staff habitually prop open entries that face the road to facilitate moves, deliveries and maintenance. We assembled 152 questionnaires that would go to two of the four towers. On November 8, we delivered these questionnaires to all units on every other fl oor of these two buildings (fi g. 25), sliding the folded letters underneath hallway doors or wedging them into the doorframe. We left questionnaires on fl oors 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (the fi rst level of the building is called the Lobby, so fl oor 1 is actually on the second level).


The response rate to our questionnaire was low in the weeks following. Two weeks after the delivery date, only 10 questionnaires had been returned. On November 22, the team returned to Park Merced and distributed neon orange reminder cards (fi g. 26) to the units we left questionnaires at. The result of this intervention was favorable; we received

an additional 5 questionnaires in the following days. With n=152, our fi nal response rate was just over 10%.

5.3 Questionnaire results

Having received only 15 questionnaires back from Park Merced tower residents, our ability to analyze the data for patterns was unfortunately limited. Our analysis is therefore anecdotal, alongside the anecdotal information we have from our observations and conversations with residents. In addition, the small number of questionnaire responses precluded our ability to analyze the way peoples’ visual access to the garden or market from their apartment windows affected their interaction with the garden, market, or with other residents. There were simply too few people with such views.

Nonetheless, some intriguing patterns appeared in the data we received. The caveat must be given up front that these patterns may be due to statistical drift rather than real relationships, due to the small number of surveys. However, the patterns were intriguing enough to warrant further study at a future time.

5.4 Three key fi ndings

• The shared open space in Park Merced is highly valued and heavily used by Park Merced tower residents, who express their affi nity in a variety of different ways throughout the questionnaire. This is unusual in a towers-in-the-park apartment design.

• The community garden and the farmer’s market each play different roles in terms of creating a sense of community in Park Merced.

• There are differences in the reported social behavior between residents of the lower fl oors (below the 6th

Fig 25 - Questionnaire distribution diagram

Fig 26 - Reminders


fl oor) and upper fl oors (above the 6th fl oor). There is no reported difference in relationship to or use of open space.

The remainder of this section will analyze responses to various questions on the questionnaire that support these fi ndings. Spreadsheets with the responses to all questions, with tallies and averages are available in Appendix C, as are various data-group comparison tables.

5.5 Questionnaire Map Analysis

Residents were given a map of the towers and the meadow (see Appendix B) and were asked to draw a solid line with an arrow to indicate the route that they take when commuting home, a dashed line with an arrow to indicate the route that they commonly take when not commuting, to place a star over locations in the open space that are particularly special or important to them, and to draw circles around places that they frequently encounter or meet other residents. Figure 27 is a consolidated diagram of the commute paths of questionnaire respondents, fi gure 28 shows non-commute routes, and fi gure 29 shows the stars and the circles. Upon analysis, several interesting patterns emerge.

For one, nearly all of the non-commute walking routes choose to walk in and round the pedestrian only ‘backyard’ side of the towers, rather than choosing to walk along roads of the ‘front yard’. Also, people tend to walk along the existing circuitous paths, particularly when walking for leisure (non-commute). Perhaps the most interesting fi nding from analyzing the questionnaire maps is drawn from fi gure 29 that illustrates the consolidated stars and circles. The meadow and Juan Bautista Circle, both large park-like open spaces rated the highest on both measures. The farmers market and the community garden were chosen an

Fig 27 - Commute home

Fig 28 - Non -commute path

Fig 29 - Stars and Circles


equal number of times as locations in the open space that hold signifi cant importance to people (places of personal signifi cance), but these two landscape elements scored very differently in terms of how frequently people encounter or meet other residents (a measure of social interaction). The farmers market was chosen as often for both measures, but the community garden was very infrequently chosen as a socially important place. These fi ndings complement a similar trend that emerged through an analysis of responses to questionnaire questions. Another important fi nding that came out of the circles and stars map, was that building entrances were frequently chosen as socially important places, which is something that we had not anticipated and that was not largely factored in to our questionnaire design.

5.6 General Findings

Our survey respondents generally seem fairly happy with living in Park Merced, calling the place friendly, comfortable, safe, well maintained and attractive (question 3). Residents rated Park Merced an average of 4 on a fi ve-point scale for each of these adjectives. Affi nity for open space stood out in the general questions about Park Merced at the beginning of the survey, refl ected in both reasons residents moved to Park Merced, and things they would miss when they left (questions 2 and 4). Social characteristics were less prominent in the responses to both of these questions.

The most commonly used open space features are the meadow (11 people), the farmer’s market (9 people), the community garden (8 people) and Juan Bautista Circle (7 people). Favorite open-space activities include people watching, going for walks, and sitting outside doing work or reading. The most valued features, (chosen from a list), are open spaces and lawns, trees, views, and the paths that run around and through the open spaces (questions 7, 6 and 13).

5.7 Use of and Value for Open Space and its Features

The open space in Park Merced is heavily used, and it is highly valued in striking ways, which is surprising in a residential tower situation. Respondents expressed the importance of the open space to them repeatedly throughout the survey. To begin with, 5 out of the 15 respondents report spending more than four hours outdoors in Park Merced each week, while only one respondent reported spending less than one hour outdoors each week (question 5).

Fig 30 - Question 4: In general what would you miss about Park Merced if you were to move away?


Another striking result came from question 4 (fi g. 30), an open-ended question that asked residents what they would miss if they moved away from Park Merced. Seven out of 15 respondents mentioned open space features of some kind. This was second in frequency only to practical considerations, mentioned by eight people. Only four people gave socially-oriented responses. All responses can be seen in fi gure 3 (most respondents listed more than one attribute). Two thirds of all respondents either report spending more than four hours per week outside, or spontaneously say they would miss open-space features if they move away.

In addition, when prompted to choose adjectives that describe the open space around the towers in question 12, the responses where overwhelmingly positive (fi g. 31 - the size of the word represents frequency of responses.)

We also asked residents in an open-ended way to tell us what they like best about the shared open space (question

9). Some of the responses included:

“Feeling of spaciousness, fresh air, views, green grass, shrubs, trees, centers of social interaction between residents.”

“It’s a good amount of space between buildings; open spaces give the community an earthy vibe.”

“I like that it is peaceful and allows me to recreate with nature.”6

All of this is striking and unusual for tower-in-the-park buildings, and suggest the possibility of further study in order to understand the design elements that make this open space so welcoming and successful.

5.8 The Community Garden

We know anecdotally that the garden is valued by those that use it, as well as by some that don’t, from informal onsite interviews. For example, one woman, the treasurer of the garden committee, told us that:

“Lots of folks who aren’t gardeners use the community garden during early afternoons on weekdays. Young mothers with strollers and grandparents with grandchildren stop by.”

The questionnaires confi rmed this description, showing that the community garden is used and valued by many respondents, and not only by those that garden. Of the fi fteen respondents, 1 person has a plot in the garden, 2 people spend time gardening, 2 say the garden infl uenced their decision to move to Park Merced, 3 placed a star on

6 When asked in the next question what they liked least, virtually the only responses were wet/soggy grass, and dog-owners that don’t clean up after their dogs.Fig 31 - Responses to question 12


the community garden on their map, 7 say they spend time in the garden sometimes and one person spends time there frequently (questions 29, 7, 2, 8). Overall, nine respondents indicated some kind of positive association with the garden.

However, the community garden barely registered when respondents were asked to choose their top three open space features from a list of 8 (question 13). While the garden is used and valued by a large number of respondents, it was only ranked highly amongst all open-space features by one person—and not the person with the garden plot! Though the garden draws from all of Park Merced and not only the towers, it is important to note that the garden is in high demand. There is a waiting list for plots, and a Park Merced spokesperson said that Park Merced is planning to create more plots.

5.9 Farmer’s Market

The farmer’s market was not only highly valued, but was chosen by three respondents as their favorite of all open space features (question 13). Three respondents said the market infl uenced their decision to move to Park Merced, 4 starred the market on their map, and 7 people report spending time at the market. Only three people did not express one of these positive associations with the market (questions 2, 7).

5.10 Social Impacts of Open Space Use and Affi nity

It is clear that the open space is highly valued by most of our respondents, and the farmer’s market and the community garden in particular are used and valued by many of them. More diffi cult to determine is the social effects of these spaces.

Neighborhood social inclination and activity did not show up particularly strongly in the questionnaires responses. As mentioned earlier, only three people spontaneously mentioned social attributes as aspects of Park Merced that they would miss if they moved away (question 4). When asked how important it was to them to socialize with their neighbors, the most common response was “somewhat important”, followed by a tie between “not important” and “important” (only one person chose “very important” as a response) (question 15). On a fi ve point scale from “not at all connected to people” to “very connected to people,” respondents said that living in Park Merced made them feel an average of a 3.5—just above neutral, though the range of responses varied from 2.5 – 5 (question 16). Interestingly, we discovered that respondents’ sense of connectedness to other people from living in Park Merced bore no discernable relationship to the number of neighbors they knew or socialized with (fi g. 32).

In order to assess the way that open space uses affected

Fig 32 - Sense of Connectedness to People vs. # of People socialized with


social feelings and behaviors, we divided the respondents into groups in the following ways: those that spend more or less than two hours per week outside, those that do or don’t spend time in the community garden, and those that do or don’t spend time at the farmer’s market (questions 5, 7). These seemed like the best proxies available for the questions we were asking in our hypothesis. We compared the groups to see if any social or other patterns emerged.

5.11 Spending time outdoors

The questionnaires showed some limited evidence of outdoor social activity: 5 respondents reported having met neighbors through outdoor activities, 6 respondents said they regularly had casual conversations with neighbors outside, and 2 regularly took part in group activities or sports outside (questions 21, 20).

What was most intriguing though, was a striking relationship between the amount of time that respondents spend

outside, and the degree to which they report feel connected to others (fi g. 33)(questions 5, 16). However, not only was there no corresponding relationship between time residents spend outside and the number of people they socialize with (question 17), there was an inverse relationship. The group that spends more time outside reports socializing with an average of 3.75 people, while the group that spends less time outside socializes with 6 people on average!Respondents that spent more time outside were more

likely to know residents from other buildings however, and they were more likely to express a sense of responsibility for the shared open space (questions 18, 14). In addition, the group that spent more time outside was more likely to apply adjectives like beautiful, communal, friendly, open, social and welcoming, many of these social adjectives, to the open space (fi g. 34)(question 12).

Fig 33 - Sense of Connectedness to People vs. # Time Spent Outdoors

Fig 34 - Adjectives by amount of time spent outside


5.12 Spending Time in the Garden or Market

The social results from spending time in the garden or the market are somewhat mixed. We found that in general, it was different people that were drawn to the market vs. the garden, and that they were drawn to it for different reasons. They both seemed to have a role to play in forming a sense of community, but in distinct ways.

We know anecdotally through informal interviews that the garden has a social role to play for the relatively small number of residents that garden in it, ranging from keeping tabs on neighbors, to stopping by to check on a friend’s garden plot. (see section 4.2). Nonetheless, it seems signifi cant that while only two people report spending time gardening, fully half of the respondents report spending some time in the garden (questions 7, 6). Three respondents report having met neighbors in the garden, 3 tend to encounter their neighbors there, and 9 report observing their neighbors in the garden (questions 21, 19, 9) .

The farmer’s market was the second-most popular place to spend time amongst survey respondents (question 7). Of the 9 residents that report spending time there, 7 report encountering their neighbors at the market, and 3 report having met neighbors there (questions 19, 21).

In order to compare social characteristics across respondents that do or don’t spend time at the market or garden, we took 4 social questions with responses that fi t on a relative scale (desire for social interaction, # of neighbors respondent says hello to, # of neighbors respondent socializes with and general sense of connectedness to people in Park Merced—questions 15, 17, 16), calibrated the scales, (we put all of them on a 100-point scale, since the questions responses were on different scales) and graphed them.

Fig 35 - Social characteristics of FM and CG


The results in fi gure 35 illustrate the different social functions played by farmer’s market and the community garden. Desire for social interaction is strong in farmer’s market attendees, but not garden-dwellers. Garden-dwellers have fewer social contacts over all, and market-dwellers a greater number (although market-dwellers don’t seem to actually socialize with a greater number of people than non-market dwellers.) This corroborates the analysis of the garden and market as social vs. meaningful places in section 5.5. Additionally, Figures 36 and 37 show that market- and garden-users emphasize different sets of social adjectives when they describe Park Merced’s shared open space in a general way.

Most striking of all, however, is the fact that across all groups, the sense of connection to people is reported as identical. Garden-dwellers socialize with fewer people than non-garden dwellers (and than market-dwellers), but feel just as great a sense of connection as those who do. The converse is true as well. Those that don’t spend time in the garden, or don’t spend time at the market, feel equally connected as those that do. People seem to meet their social needs in different ways. This particular aspect seems like rich fodder for further study.

5.13 Paths by the community garden

As stated earlier, the limited number of questionnaires made it impossible for us to do any kind of analysis related to windows overlooking the garden or market. However, we were able to do an extremely limited analysis of those residents that indicated on in the map activity that they have a regular walking path that goes by the community garden. We found that the six respondents with paths that went directly by the garden were more likely to spend time in the garden, more likely to encounter neighbors through the garden, more likely to meet others through the garden,

Fig 36 - Adjectives by time spent in CG

Fig 37 - Adjectives by time spent at FM


and more likely to people watch (questions 7, 19, 21, 6). They were also more likely to go for walks, more likely to take part in outdoor activities or sports, and more likely to value the open-space paths (questions 6, 13).

5.14 Analyzing the Impact of Resident’s Floor Height7

We also found interesting results when comparing questionnaire results from respondents that lived on different fl oors. Specifi cally, we compared residents that lived below the sixth fl oor to those that lived above the sixth fl oor. We excluded sixth-fl oor residents, the fl oor at which we had determined a threshold exists, a threshold where facial details disappear and regional views become signifi cant, through observations on our site visits. We found that in general, living on higher fl oors had an impact on social indicators and connection to open space, but not on use or appreciation of open space.

7 Floor heights are given here in the traditional American system (ground fl oor is the 1st fl oor), for the sake of generalizability. Park Merced’s fl oors were numbered in the European system, where the ground fl oor is the lobby, and the fi rst fl oor is actually on the building’s second level.)

Residents who live on the upper fl oors claim to socialize with fewer people (see chart 10), know fewer people in other buildings, and have less desire for social interaction with their neighbors, than do people who live on lower fl oors (questions 17, 18, 15). Upper-fl oor residents also identifi ed fewer open-space features on their maps, and indicated a lower sense of responsibility for the open space (question 14).8 However, upper-fl oor residents report spending as much time outside as do lower-fl oor residents, and they are equally as likely to appreciate and value open space and individual open space features, and to have met people through open-space activities, as well (questions 5, 21, etc). All of this is consistent with Christopher Alexander’s four-story limit thesis, although in our case we found the “limit” at the fi fth fl oor.

Curiously enough, upper-fl oor residents were actually much more likely to spend time in the community garden than were lower-fl oor residents, and everyone who reports encounters neighbors or having met neighbors at the garden lives on an upper fl oor (questions 7, 19, 21). This is a particularly odd anomaly, and a deeply confounding factor. The social patterns we observed in the garden could really be refl ecting the social patterns of upper-fl oor residents, or vice verse (of course, this sort of problem is really present in all of our analysis, because of the small number of questionnaires).

8 On a fi ve-point scale where one is “don’t feel responsible” and fi ve is “feel responsible,” lower fl oors gave an average response of 4.5, while upper fl oors gave an average of 3.7

Fig 38 - Floor people live on vs. # of neighbors they socialize with


5.15 Other Mitigating Factors: Age, Tenure, Student Status

Other mitigating factors to take into account include age, student-status and tenure (questions 23, 25, 1). For example, we had a wide age-range of respondents, ranging from 18 – 70, with some representation of all age ranges—though quite different than the age demographics suggested by the census (see fi gure 39). Different age groups had very different social habits. Younger people reported socializing with more people than did mid-age adults, and people over 65 socialized with by far the most people (question 17). Tenure also plays a role. Socializing with neighbors is more important to long-term residents, and long-term residents report socializing with many more people than do shorter-term residents (questions 15, 17). In addition, the fi ve students who responded had markedly different lifestyles in terms of social characteristics and open space usage than did non-students, and were less engaged with the place or

people in it by most measures. If we had a great deal more questionnaires, it would be useful to analyze them by age group, and omit students altogether (or at least analyze them separately). However, only 1 questionnaire respondent had a child at home, and no one had dogs (questions 28, 26). These are confounding social factors that we did not

Fig 39 - Age demographics of respondants

6 Critique of the study

The hypothesis being tested in this study is

In a residential tower neighborhood, there will be a greater sense of community associated with shared open space amenities, such as a community garden, when residents have: 1) a visual connection from their dwelling units; 2) an awareness of such amenities; and 3) opportunities to interact along their commute or recreational routes.

In contrast, when residents do not have a visual connection or opportunity for interaction, the sense of community associated with shared open space will be weaker.

Given that the response rate to the questionnaire was low, it is not possible to determine whether the key fi ndings that emerged from the hypothesis (restated above) were in fact trends or simply anomalies. Even had we received 100% of our questionnaires back, it would have been challenging to conclude that the presence of elements like a community garden or farmer’s market is a cause for the sense of community in a tower setting. That said we are confi dent that our fi ndings provide an interesting variety of qualitative conclusions that have the potential to reveal even more in a future sense of community study at this Park Merced site.


In terms of the wording of our hypothesis, we simply took on too much; it was diffi cult to account for all three sub-points of sense of community (visual connection, awareness, and opportunity to interact). It may have been more effective to test for only one of these sub-points of the hypothesis rather than all three.

In terms of the methodology of our questionnaire, we may have benefi ted from doing both a mail-in questionnaire AND an on-site survey that could have been a shorter version of our original questionnaire. This on-site survey could have been administered on a Saturday when the Park Merced Farmer’s Market was in progress. Aside from that, given the fact that the questionnaire was eight pages in length (including a cover letter), we may have benefi ted from limiting it to fewer pages. Fewer pages may have made the questionnaire less daunting to complete, especially for residents that may not read or speak English with adequate fl uency. Also, upping our n to more than 152 may have been another way to get more respondents.

The way the questions were specifi cally worded in the questionnaire also presented problems in getting at what we hoped to learn from Park Merced tower residents. In other words, only after completing our analysis did we realize that many of our questions failed to comprehensively interrogate the stated hypothesis. Rather, our questions tested for social attributes and use of space.

Lastly, our approach to learning about sense of community around the towers neglected to address the imminent changes proposed for Park Merced by developers. These changes will alter the landscape and add high-rise density by removing most of the garden apartments, among other things. It follows that these future changes are having an impact on the sense of community at Park Merced today. Through informal interviews on-site we gathered that residents are fairly cognizant about these changes, but our

questionnaire did not directly solicit opinions from residents about how this is impacting the sense of community at the meadow towers. In that, we missed an opportunity.

7 References Alexander, . 1977. A pattern language. New York.

Becker, Franklin, D, and Lawrence Friedburg P. 1974. Design for living: The residents’ view of multi-family housing. Ithaca: New York Center for Urban Development Research.

Bickman, L., A. Tegar, T. Gabriele, C. McLaughlin, M. Berger, and E. Sunaday. 1973. Dormitory density and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior 5, : 465-90.

Cooper Marcus, Clare, and Lindsay Hogue. 1977. Design guidelines for high-rise family housing. In Human response to tall buildings. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life between buildings: Using public space. Trans. Jo Koch. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gifford, Robert. 2007. The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural Science Review 50, (1) (Mar.): 2-17.

Ginsberg, Y., and A. Churchman. 1985. The pattern and meaning of neighbor relations in high-rise housing in israel. Human Ecology 13, : 467-85.

Glover, Troy, D, Kimberly Shinew J, and Diana Parry C. 2005. Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 27, (1): 75-92.

Hancock, Trevor. 2001. People, partnerships and human progress: Building community capital. Health Promotion International 16, (3): 275-80.

Hester, Randolph T. 2006. Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Husaini, B.,A, R. Castor S, R. Whitten-Stovall, and S. Moore T. 1990. An evaluation of a therapeutic health program for the elderly. Journal of Health and Social Policy 2, : 67-85.

Kronemeyer, Thomas Albert. 1996. Living in a diagram : A case study on the neighborhood form of parkmerced, san francisco, CA.

Lawson, Laura J. 2005. City bountiful a century of community gardening in america. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lawson, Laura. 1995. A garden grows a community. Places 9, (3): 47.

Michelson, William M. 1977. Environmental choice, human behavior, and residential satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parkmerced Resident’s Organization. Facts about YOUR neighborhood. San Francisco: Parkmerced Resident’s Organization, .

Shinew, Kimberly, J, Troy Glover D, and Diana Parry C. 2004. Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research 36, (3): 336-55.

Weinstein, Dave. 2008. Parkmerced: Symbol of future or the past? San Francisco Chronicle, May 3, 2008, 2008.

Wilcox, B., L, and C. Holahan J. 1976. Social ecology of the megadorm in university student housing. Journal of Educational Psychology 68, : 453-8.


Appendix ABehavior observation maps












Appendix BThe Questionnaire




*The orange t

ext indicates c

odes used to re

cord questionn

aire response

s for analysis.

This text wa

s not present

on the survey

s given to resp

ondents.

The first section asks you some general questions about your experience living in Park Merced.

1. How

long have you lived in your unit in Park Merced?

_____ le

ss than one ye

ar

_____ 1 – 2 yea

rs _____ 2

– 5 years

_____ more tha

n five years

(if more than

five, please st

ate how

many years)

2. W

hat factors influenced your decision to live in the Park Merced tow

ers? (pleas

e mark all tha

t apply)

_____ great vie

ws _____ pr

oximity to tran

sit _____ af

fordability

_____ proximity

to work/scho

ol _____ op

en space/lawn

s _____ fa

rmer’s marke

t

_____ communi

ty garden

_____ good sens

e of community

_____ pe

acefulness

_____ attractiv

eness _____ ne

ar natural spa

ces _____ ot

her ____________

_______ 3. Do you find Park Merced to be . . . (please

circle the app

ropriate numb

er in each cate

gory) friendl

y comfor

table safe well m

aintained

attractive 5

4 3

2 1

5 4

3 2

1 5

4 3

2 1

5 4

3 2

1 5

4 3

2 1

unfriendly

uncomfortabl

e unsafe

poorly

maintained

unattractive

4. In general, what would you miss about Park Merced if you were to move aw

ay?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) (2) (4)

(3)


In the second section you will be asked about how

you use the open space around the Park Merced

towers.

5. How

much time do you spend outdoors in Park Merced each week?

_____ none

_____ less than

1 hour per we

ek _____ 1

– 2 hours per w

eek _____ 2

– 4 hours per w

eek _____ m

ore than four

hours/ week

6. How

often do you engage in the follow

ing activities outdoors?

jogging

walking your

dog people

watching

sports or othe

r activities wi

th friends

sitting and rea

ding/doing w

ork going f

or walks

gardening

taking childre

n to the playgr

ound taking

children elsew

here. (ple

ase specify wh

ere)___________

__________ never/

rarely______

sometimes

______

often______

never/rarely_

_____ som

etimes ______

often_

_____ never/

rarely______

sometimes

______

often______

never/rarely_

_____ som

etimes ______

often_

_____ never/

rarely______

sometimes

______

often______

never/rarely_

_____ som

etimes ______

often_

_____ never/

rarely______

sometimes

______

often______

never/rarely_

_____ som

etimes ______

often_

_____ never/

rarely______

sometimes

______

often______

7. How

often do you spend time in the follow

ing places?

“The Meado

w” central law

n

never/rarely_

_____ som

etimes ______

often_

_____ farm

er’s market

never

/rarely______

sometime

s ______

often______

community g

arden

never/rarely

______ so

metimes ______

often

______ playg

round

never

/rarely______

sometime

s ______

often______

Juan Bautist

a Circle

never/rarely

______ so

metimes ______

often

______ other

never

/rarely______

sometime

s ______

often______

(please s

pecify where)__

________________

__ 8. W

here do you observe other Park Merced residents spending time? (pleas

e mark all tha

t apply)

_____ “The Mea

dow” central l

awn

_____ farmer’s

market

_____ communi

ty garden

_____ playgrou

nd _____ Ju

an Bautista Ci

rcle _____ ot

her (please sp

ecify) _________

____

(1)(2)

(3)

(1)(2)

(3)

(1) (3) (2) (5)(4)


The third section will ask you how

you feel about the open space around the Park Merced towers.

9. W

hat do you like best about the open space around the tower buildings? ______

________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. W

hat do you like least about the open space around the tower buildings? ___________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Describe the things that stand out in the view

from

your window

(without going to your

window

to check!) ___________________________________________________________________________________________

12. W

hich of the follow

ing adjectives best describe the open space around the Park Merced

towers? (pleas

e circle all tha

t apply)

barren

beautif

ul busy comfortable communal friendly

green impersonal isolated lifeless

littered lively

lonely maintained open ordinary peaceful social

soggy lush ugly uncomfortabl

e unique

welcom

ing 13. Of the follow

ing features, choose the three that you value most (please

rank order th

ose that yo

u choose, with

“1” being you

r favorite and

“3” your least

favorite.)

_____ trees

_____ Juan Bau

tista circle

_____ large law

n/open spaces

_____ vi

ews from your

apartment

_____ communi

ty garden

_____ farmer’s

market

_____ paths

_____ playgrou

nds

Why does num

ber 1 have the

greatest valu

e to you? ____

_________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. To what degree do you feel a sense of responsibility for the open space around the tower

buildings? (e.g. picking up litter, reporting vandalism, etc.) (pleas

e place an X o

n the following

scale) feel

don’t feel

responsible

respo

nsible 5 4

.5 4

3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5

1


The fourth section will ask about your relationships with other residents in Park Merced.

15. How

important is it to you to know

or interact with the people that live in your neighborhood?

_____ very imp

ortant _____ im

portant

_____ somewha

t important

_____ not impor

tant 16. Living in the Park Merced towers generally makes me feel . . . (pleas

e place an X o

n the followi

ng scale)

very conn

ected

very

disconnected

to p

eople

from people

17. How

many neighbors or other residents of Park Merced do you . . . . (please

place an X on

the following

scales)

0

3

6

9

12 or mo

re . . . . rec

ognize?

0

3

6

9

12 or mo

re . . . . say

hello to?

0

3

6

9

12 or mo

re . . . . soc

ialize with?

18. Do the neighbors and other residents that you say hello to live: (pleas

e mark all tha

t apply)

_____ on your fl

oor? _____ in

your building

? _____ in

other tower b

uildings?

_____ in other p

arts of Park M

erced?19. W

here do you tend to encounter your neighbors and other residents of Park Merced?

(please mark a

ll that apply)

_____ elevator

_____ hallway

_____ communi

ty garden

_____ lawn spa

ce/ “The Mead

ow” _____ on

the street

_____ farmer’s

market

_____ playgrou

nds _____ tr

ansit station/s

top _____ pa

rking garage

_____ other (pl

ease specify) _

____________

5 4.5

4 3.5

32.5

2 1.5

1

1.5

4.5 7.5

11.5

1.5 4.5

7.5 11.

5 1.5

4.5 7.5

11.5

(3) (4) (1)(2)


Section four, continued:

20. How

often do you have the following interactions with your neighbors or other residents

of Park Merced? (please

mark an X on t

he following scal

es) greeting

your neighbors

as you pass

them by

indoors

greeting your ne

ighbors as you

pass

them by outdoo

rs

longer casual co

nversations ind

oors

longer casual co

nversations ou

tdoors

doing activities t

ogether outdoo

rs

indoor parties

or get‐together

s attendin

g meetings or do

ing activities

together within

Park Merced

attending meetin

gs or doing activ

ities togethe

r outside of Par

k Merced

other (please sp

ecify) ___________

__________

21. How

did you meet the neighbors or other residents of Park Merced that you know?

(please mark al

l that apply)

_____ haven’t met

any _____ wh

ile moving in

_____ due to an e

mergency

_____ at the farm

er’s market

_____ through th

e community ga

rden _____ thr

ough children’s

friends, or

daycare/babysi

tting

_____ introduced

self or through

neighbor

_____ due to neig

hborhood conce

rns (eg crime o

r politica

l issues)

_____ through ou

tdoor activities o

r time spent

outdoors

_____ through wa

lking my dog

_____ other (Plea

se specify) _____

_________ 22

. Can you think of an event, group, organization or activity that brought/brings this

neighborhood together as a community?

If so, what? _____

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you involve

d? (please circle

) yes / no

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

every day never o

r rarely

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

11.522.5

34.544.5

5


In order to help us evaluate your responses, the final section will ask a few questions about yourself

and your habits. Your answers w

ill help us evaluate our responses.

23. List the age of each mem

ber of your household:

Person 1 a

ge: __________

Person 2 a

ge: __________

Person 3 a

ge: __________

Person 4 a

ge: __________

Person 5 a

ge: __________

Person 6 a

ge: __________

24. W

hat type of apartment do you live in?

_____ stu

dio _____ 1 b

edroom

_____ 2 bedroom

_____ 3 b

edroom 25. Are you a student? (please

circle) y

es / no

26. Do you ow

n a dog? (please

circle) y

es / no

27. How

do you get to work or school?

_____ single auto

mobile _____ car

pool _____ ma

ss transit

_____ auto and m

ass transit

_____ bike

_____ bike and m

ass transit

_____ walk

_____ work at ho

me _____ ret

ired/don’t work

_____ oth

er (please speci

fy) _____________

28. If you have children, do you walk them

to school? (pleas

e circle) yes

/ no / no children

29. Do you have a plot in the community garden? (pleas

e circle) y

es / no

Thank you so much for taking the tim

e to fill out our survey!

If you would be

interested in be

ing contacted fo

r follow‐up que

stions, please em

ail us at

parkmercedresearch@

gmail.com

with your name

and phone numb

er. (Your survey

responses will r

emain anonym

ous). If you ha

ve any comment

s or questions fo

r us, or anything

you would like

to add, we welcom

e your feedback

at the email ad

dress above. In a

ddition, we wou

ld love to see yo

ur impress

ions of the open

space around y

our building,

and so we invite

you to email to u

s a digital photo

graph or two, ei

ther of the view

from your wind

ow or of the

outdoor feature

s you value mos

t in your neighbo

rhood (with a lab

el and brief expl

anation). Such ph

otographs

would be very h

elpful, but they a

re entirely option

al.


Appendix CQuestionnaire Analysis


Quest

ion 5

# if more

than five

years

great

views

prox to

transit affordability

prox to

work/

school

open

space/

lawns

farmer's

market

community

garden

sense of

community

peaceful-

ness

attractive

ness

near

natural

spaces other Friendly comfortable safe

well

maintained attractive jogging

walking

dog

people-

watching

sports/

activities

sitting

and

reading/

doing

work

going

for

walks

1 EV110 E 11 K 3.5 x x x 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2

2 ER105 E 3 E 0.5 easy to move in 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 3

3 ES111 E 5 L 35 x x x x x x 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 2 2

4 ES106 E 5 F 0.5 x x x x x x x x 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3

5 ET103 E 7 C 35 x x x x x x x x x 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 3

6 RV105 R 11 E 3.5 x x x x x x 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 3

7 RV111 R 11 L 3.5 x x 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 2

8 RQ107 R 1 G 0.5 x 3 3 2 2 3 5 2 1 3 2 3 3

9 ET110 E 7 K 35 x x x x x x x 5 5 4 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 3

10 ES108 E 5 H x 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 1 1 2 1

11 ER102 E 3 B 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x

Lake Merced, golf

courses, low crime rate,

high visibility patrols by

sf state univ police dpt

and private secrity 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3

12 RR111 R 3 L 15 x x x 3 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 2

13 RQ105 R 1 E 22 x x x x x x x x 4 4 4 4 4

14 RS106 R 5 F 18 x x x x 4 4 3 3 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 3

15 RR106 R 3 F 27 x 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1

15.5 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 57 60 60 57 54 18 14 29 18 25 34

7 7 7 7 8 7 9 3 2 2 7 8 9 2 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

average value 2.2143 26.7143 4.1429 4.0714286 4 4 4.07143 3.86 1.2857 1 2.07143 1.28571 1.78571 2.429

# of answers recorded for

the question

Sum of values

Question 2Question 1 Question 3 Question 6

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt.


1 EV110 E 11 K

2 ER105 E 3 E

3 ES111 E 5 L

4 ES106 E 5 F

5 ET103 E 7 C

6 RV105 R 11 E

7 RV111 R 11 L

8 RQ107 R 1 G

9 ET110 E 7 K

10 ES108 E 5 H

11 ER102 E 3 B

12 RR111 R 3 L

13 RQ105 R 1 E

14 RS106 R 5 F

15 RR106 R 3 F

average value


the question

Sum of values

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt. gardening

taking

children

to play-

ground

taking

children

elsewhere (where?) meadow

farmer's

market

community

garden

play-

ground

Juan

Bautista

Circle Other Meadow

farmer's

market

community

garden

play-

ground

Juan

Bautista

circle other barren beautiful busy comfortable communal friendly green impersonal isolated lifeless litered

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 nowhere x

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x

1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 x x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 x x x x x x

2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 x x x x x x x

2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 x x x x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x x

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3

3

(walkin

g

paths) x x x x x open spaces x x x x x x

1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1

walking to and

from homes on

the street x

x x x x x

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 x x x x

1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

catchin

g bus x x x x x

16 15 14 0 26 25 23 17 23 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 14 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 11 10 9 6 9 3 1 8 2 7 6 9 14 2 0 0 0

#DIV/0! 1.0714 1 1.85714 1.7857 1.642857 1.214 1.6429 0.857

Question 8Question 7


1 EV110 E 11 K

2 ER105 E 3 E

3 ES111 E 5 L

4 ES106 E 5 F

5 ET103 E 7 C

6 RV105 R 11 E

7 RV111 R 11 L

8 RQ107 R 1 G

9 ET110 E 7 K

10 ES108 E 5 H

11 ER102 E 3 B

12 RR111 R 3 L

13 RQ105 R 1 E

14 RS106 R 5 F

15 RR106 R 3 F

average value


the question

Sum of values

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt.

Question

14

Question

15

Question

16

lively lonely maintained open ordinary peaceful social soggy lush ugly uncomfortable unique welcoming trees

Juan

Bautista

circle

lawn/o

pen

spaces views

community

garden

farmer's

market paths

play-

grounds recognize

say

hello

to

socialize

with

on

your

floor

in your

building

x x 2 1 3 1.5 1 2.5 7.5 4.5 1.5 x

x x x x x x 3 2 1 3.5 3 4.5 12 9 7.5 x x

x 3 2 1 4 3 3.5 10.5 12 1.5 x

x x x x 2 1 3 3.5 2 2.5 4.5 10.5 1.5 x

x x x x 2 1 3 3.5 2 3.5 10.5 10.5 4.5 x x

x x x 3 2 1 4.5 1 3.5 7.5 10.5 1.5 x x

x x 1 2 3 4 2 3 9 3 3 x x

x x x x x x 1 3

2 (view

from

roof) 3.5 2 4 9 6 6 x

x x x x x x x x 2 1 3 5 4 5 12 12 6 x x

x x x 3 2 1 3.5 2 3.5 4.5 10.5 0 x

x x x x x x x x 1 2 3 5 2 4 12 12 3 x x

x x x 1 2 3 4.5 4 4 12 12 12 x x

x 1 2 3 4.5 3 3.5 7.5 7.5 4.5 x x

x x x 1 3 2 4 1 3.5 10.5 10.5 7.5 x x

x x x 1 2 3 4.5 2 2.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 x

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5 26 12 3 3 16 6 59 34 53 139.5 141 70.5 0 0

2 0 11 10 2 11 4 3 2 0 1 3 8 9 2 14 8 1 3 6 2 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 15

1.889 2.5 1.857 1.5 3 1 2.67 3 3.93333 2.26667 3.53333 9.3 9.4 4.7

QueQuestion 13aQuestion 12 Question 17


1 EV110 E 11 K

2 ER105 E 3 E

3 ES111 E 5 L

4 ES106 E 5 F

5 ET103 E 7 C

6 RV105 R 11 E

7 RV111 R 11 L

8 RQ107 R 1 G

9 ET110 E 7 K

10 ES108 E 5 H

11 ER102 E 3 B

12 RR111 R 3 L

13 RQ105 R 1 E

14 RS106 R 5 F

15 RR106 R 3 F

average value


the question

Sum of values

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt.

in other

buildings

in other

parts of

park

merced elevator hallway

community

garden meadow street

farmer's

market

play-

grounds

transit

stop

parking

garage other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Other

frequency

other

description

haven't

met any

while

moving

in

due to

emergency

farmer's

market

community

garden

children's

friends

introduced

self

x x 2.5 2.5 x

x x x 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 x x

x x x x x x stores 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 x x

x 4.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 x x

x x x x x x x 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 x x

x x x x x x 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 x x x

x x 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 x

x x x x x x x SFSU 1 2 2 3 4 3.5 1.5 1.5

x x x x x x x x x x x

laundry room

is #1 spot 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 3 x x

x

lobby outside

entrance 4.5 3 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 x

x x x x x x x x

Park merced

grocery store

(Plaza Fine

Foods) 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 x

x x x x xx x x 4.5 4.5 4 4 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 x

x mail 2.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

laundry

room x

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 45.5 35.5 33.5 21 19 16.5 18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 4 15 12 3 8 9 7 1 5 2 6 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 0 1 0 4 0 3 3 1 11

3.5 3.3 2.7 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.5

Question 21estion 18 Question 19 Question 20


1 EV110 E 11 K

2 ER105 E 3 E

3 ES111 E 5 L

4 ES106 E 5 F

5 ET103 E 7 C

6 RV105 R 11 E

7 RV111 R 11 L

8 RQ107 R 1 G

9 ET110 E 7 K

10 ES108 E 5 H

11 ER102 E 3 B

12 RR111 R 3 L

13 RQ105 R 1 E

14 RS106 R 5 F

15 RR106 R 3 F

average value


the question

Sum of values

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt.

Question

24

neighbor

hood

concerns

outdoor

activities

walking

dog Other

Name/what

it is Involved

Not

involved 0 - 10 11 - 17 18 - 25 25 - 64 65 +

age of

respo

ndent

# of

bedrooms student

non-

student

dog

owner

not dog

owner

single

auto carpool transit

auto +

transit bike

bike +

transit walk

don't

commute other

walk

kids to

school

don't

walk

kids to

school

PRO

(organization

) x 2 65 1 x x x

Farmer's

market, hay

ride x 3 1 40 2 x x x

x 2 x x x x x

2 23 1 x x x

x

PRO (Park

Merced

Residents

Organization x 2 65 2 x x x x x

1 2 40 2 x x x x

1 40 studio x x x x

x

The garage

sale shindig

and pumpkin

patch x 1 23 1 x x x

x x

Cleanup and

Tree planting x 2 65 2 x x x

Farmer's

market is

Park Merced-

sponsored.

Activities like

Harvest Fair

and Arbor

Day x 2 23 2 x x x x

x 3 1 40 2 x x x

1 1 1 23 2 x x x x x

2 x x x x

x x 1 65 1 x x x

laundry

Welfare of

Park Merced x 1 65 1 x x x

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 6 8 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 5 0 1 7 4 3 0 1 7 5 5 15 5 10 0 15 4 0 6 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 2

0 1 1.857 1.2 1.6 1.533333

QuestionQuestion 26Question 25 Question 27Question 22 Question 23


1 EV110 E 11 K

2 ER105 E 3 E

3 ES111 E 5 L

4 ES106 E 5 F

5 ET103 E 7 C

6 RV105 R 11 E

7 RV111 R 11 L

8 RQ107 R 1 G

9 ET110 E 7 K

10 ES108 E 5 H

11 ER102 E 3 B

12 RR111 R 3 L

13 RQ105 R 1 E

14 RS106 R 5 F

15 RR106 R 3 F

average value


the question

Sum of values

Surv

ey

numb

er Code

Tow

er

Floo

r Apt.

no

children

comm

garden

plot no plot garden star

no garden

star market star

no market

star

path by

garden

no path by

garden

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x

yes

(sunflower

experiment

) x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 1 14 4 11 4 11 6 9

Map garden star map market star map path by garden28 Question 29


Question 9 Question 10 Question 13bapartment

characterist

ics

Social

characterist

ics

Open space

characteristics

practical

consideratio

ns

Emotional/qualit

y of life reasons View

features in

immediate

viscinity

far away

features

indetermina

te distance

1 EV110 E 11 J wood floors

2 ER105 E 3 E young people peaceful great views lots of lawns

grass is

always wet lake trees view is peaceful, nice

3 ES111 E 5 K friends spacious and well maintained often windy farmer's market

ocean, golf

course relaxing, interesting view

4 ES106 E 5 F farmer's market

proximity to

school

I like that it is peaceful and

allows me to re-connect with

nature

it feels a little

too man-

made, not

natural

enough townhouses rest of city trees it reminds me of home

5 ET103 E 7 C Retirees rent control not being closed-in feeling

dog walkers

not using

pooper-

scoopers

golf club, lake

merced,

ocean craft not being closed-in feeling

6 RV105 R 11 E open space

proximity to

transit Ocean view lawns nothing ocean

7 RV111 R 11 K

trees, lawn, open

space fresh air, sunshine, plants

construction

work,

painting

the other building,

lawn, community

garden

air. View and trees take years

to grow so big and tall

8 RQ107 R 1 G

people I've

met

convenience

walking to and

from school

it's a good amount of space

between buildings; open spaces

give the community an earthy

vibe

the sludge

and mud in

the middle of

it all

the townhouses:

boring!

I like trees, if I could I would

live off the land and trees get

that vibe

9 ET110 E 7 J

My home for so

long

It is like a village in San

Francisco nothing people I like to watch people

10 ES108 E 5 H

open space/lawns

and trees, proximity

to lake merced parking

Having an area like that outside

my door while in an urban

setting nothing

street below, people

walking trees

I have valued and used other

farmer's markets in other

areas where I have lived and

I think it is fortunate to have

a quality market so close

11 ER102 E 3 B

open green areas,

trees rent control

the entire Park

Merced

neighborhood, low

traffic, fresh air,

quitness, low crime

rate, proximity to

public transit

Feeling of spaciousness, fresh

air, views, green grass, shrubs,

trees, centers of social

interaction between residents nothing green grass

distant views,

sky, weather trees

Feeling of spaciousness,

green flora, fresh (high O2

levels and low pollution)

12 RR111 R 3 L

Good

maintenance,

solid

constructed

home cheap rent It's good for kids to play on

The dog

poop, the

muddy lawns

other buildings,

community garden BART trees

I like the convenience of the

market and wish we had more

markets

13 RQ105 R 1 E

hundred-year big

trees, stretch of

green grass fields

14 RS106 R 5 F open space/lawns green grass

15 RR106 R 3 F convenience fresh air dog poop SFSU

Peaceful-don't cut down any

more!

2 4 7 8 3 13 12 8 8 5 11

Number of answers for each

question or category

TowerCode

Survey

number

Question 11

Apt.Floor

Qustion 4


Documents

Final project final draft