Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris 1. TITLE Reclaiming the Right-of-Way Best Practices for Implementing and Designing Parklets

Transcription

1 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris 0 0 TITLE Reclaiming the Right-of-Way Best Practices for Implementing and Designing Parklets AUTHORS Madeline Brozen, Program Manager Complete Streets Initiative UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs 0 Public Affairs Building Box Los Angeles, California 00 Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Associate Dean UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs 0 Public Affairs Building Box Los Angeles, California 00 Submission Date: August, 0 Word Count:, tables (000 words), figures (00 words) Total count:

2 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris 0 ABSTRACT Road space comprises a significant amount of acreage in US cities, and at least since the last century, it has been the exclusive domain of the automobile. Many cities are beginning to use innovative techniques and design treatments, such as parklets, to reclaim some of the excess road space for pedestrian uses. Parklets emerge from the low-cost conversion of small and underutilized residual spaces originally devoted to cars into spaces for the passive or active recreation of people. The idea of the parklet in its current expression emerged in San Francisco in the form of temporary, one-day installations intended to extend the social life and pedestrian space of the sidewalk into parking spaces. Cities including Philadelphia, Long Beach, Oakland, and many others have initiated or are in the process of planning parklet programs. This research examines how cities have implemented their parklet programs including considerations for departments involved, understanding permitting issues, and setting design guidelines. Additionally, the research examines specific sites to investigate how designers have translated design guidelines into safe, comfortable, and well-used spaces for people to enjoy. Interviews with city staff, designers, and business owners provide evidence towards best practices and recommendations for anyone wanting to use this innovative practice for transforming space within the right-of-way.

3 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris INTRODUCTION During the th century, many US streets and sidewalks were vibrant social spaces that hosted a number of uses including street peddling, public speaking, display of wares, etc (). Yet with the proliferation of the automobile in the 0 th century, road space became the exclusive domain of the automobile. In recent years, some US cities including San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York City, among others are rethinking this mono-functional use of roadway spaces. These cities are beginning to consider how some roadway space can be used for more purposes than simply moving and storing vehicles. Rather, streets and sidewalks are once again being reclaimed as multi-purpose public spaces. Many urban areas suffer from a general lack of green and open public space. However, converting large swaths of land in highly built central and inner city neighborhoods is often unfeasible or very expensive. Considering roads as public spaces presents an opportunity for decreasing this open space deficit. However, roads require some modifications in order to operate as public spaces. These modifications can take place at a small scale through the conversion of formerly automobile-occupied spaces into multi-use spaces for pedestrians. Cities are increasingly turning to parklets spaces that emerge from the low-cost conversion of small and underutilized residual spaces originally devoted to cars into spaces for the passive or active recreation of people. Parklets present an opportunity for creating public open space through re-purposing, re-designing, and modifying areas. Given that parklets are a relatively recent phenomenon, there is very limited guidance for cities wishing to initiate or pilot parklet projects. Additionally, there is little evidence regarding the role of site design and the contribution of community partners on the effectiveness of a parklet program. By examining case studies of more advanced city parklet programs, this research identifies the lessons learned and offers recommendations to cities and designers interested in reclaiming residual roadway spaces. In the paper that follows, we will first explore the history of reclaiming these residual spaces to understand the roots of the parklet movement. Next, we will describe a methodology, which includes examining case studies of seven North American cities through interviews with municipal staff, designers, and business owners; we will present the results of these case studies in the following section. Finally, we will provide policy recommendations based on these findings. LITERATURE REVIEW Though parklets are a recent phenomenon in American cities, they have roots in earlier trends in public space design and urban placemaking in North America. The parklet movement is much inspired by a successful and nimble parklet program in San Francisco, which was inspired by earlier public space creation efforts in New York City. The idea of the parklet in its current expression emerged in San Francisco in the form of temporary installations intended to extend the social life and pedestrian space of the sidewalk into parking spaces. Temporary parklets first appeared in 00, when Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio, converted a single metered parking space into a temporary (two-hour) public park in downtown San Francisco. This parklet was complete with a lawn made of artificial turf, a shade tree, and a park bench. This initial action developed into a national event known as Park(ing) Day (). Every year, multiple community groups and individual participants in cities across North America and Europe transform parking spaces into a diverse array of urban parks for a day. More permanent city-initiated efforts to increase the amount of public space mirrored the efforts of Park(ing) Day. In 00, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released PlaNYC (). This thirtyyear plan included visionary goals such as ensuring all New Yorkers live within a ten-minute walk of a park () and ways to re-conceptualize and green our streets and sidewalks as public spaces (). Over the following year, the New York City Department of Transportation worked to implement this strategy and in 00, launched the Pavement to Plaza program. This program allowed for community non-profit groups to propose the conversion of sites,000 square feet or greater in the roadway bed from spaces for cars into spaces for pedestrians (). During a visit to San Francisco, Mayor Bloomberg brought his city s enthusiasm for creative public spaces and challenged San Francisco to initiate a similar program providing more public parks and

4 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris amenities (Powers, A. Pavement to Parks Program, San Francisco City Planning Department. March 0, 0 interview by M. Brozen. Unpublished data.). In response, the City of San Francisco Mayor s Office, working in partnership with other city agencies, implemented the first San Francisco pilot project, Castro Commons, at the site of a triangular intersection on th, Market, and Castro Streets. This pilot effort was followed by five additional installations that converted curbside parking spaces into parklets in 00. These parklet installations, privately financed and installed, have multiplied in San Francisco, with thirty permits to be issued in 0. While parklets are a recent phenomenon, the conversion of underutilized, residual, and automobile-oriented spaces into places to relax, recreate, or engage in the public life of the city is part of at least three broader trends in reshaping urban public space. Use of Residual Space There is a long tradition in public space design and implementation to leverage residual spaces into active public spaces or new community parks (). These include roadway medians, spaces under bridges, traffic islands, roadway edges, freeway caps, and parking lots. These spaces are often valued for their availability, since their leftover status does not require expensive acquisition or intense competition for their use. A recent effort to reclaim residual spaces is seen in the celebrated reuse of the High Line in New York City. Approaches for the reclamation of residual spaces vary widely, but typically require creative sitespecific design solutions and engagement with the local community. Solutions tend to be long-term in intent and design, and may vary widely in scale. Tactical Urbanism There is a growing interest across North America in creating or transforming public space with a quicker, lighter, cheaper ethos (). Not only does this use of temporary tactics allow for more affordable public space creation in an era of limited public resources, it also encourages experimentation, iteration, and adaptation (). Many tactical urbanism projects use the notion of the pilot program or interim use to avoid a bureaucratic approval processes. This enables cities or community groups to try public space interventions, like parklets, see what works, and build a supportive constituency for the project. Other terms associated with this trend include D-I-Y (do-it-yourself) urbanism, guerrilla urbanism, or pop-up urbanism. These terms reflect the small-scale, affordable, flexible, and often temporary nature of tactical urbanist interventions, as well as their accessibility and appropriateness for community or advocacy group-led projects. Tactics typical of this approach to public space intervention are usually temporary in intent and design. Examples include city repair (community groups reclaim neighborhood streets as public gathering places with paint, plantings, artwork, or other communityoriented amenities), pop-up cafés or retail spaces (short-term commercial uses that create opportunities for small-scale entrepreneurs to experiment), and mobile playgrounds (light and easily assembled and disassembled play facilities that can be transported to alternative places). These interventions range in scale, including a three-block Popuphood launched in Oakland, CA in September 0 (a short-term lease space to spur revitalization), chair-bombing (filling a public space with chairs to encourage sitting and socializing), pop-up town halls (providing temporary spaces for public discussions and forums), and site pre-vitalization (enabling temporary uses such as community gardens, temporary markets, and art events on vacant parcels or prior to permanent development). Car-Free Streets Parklets also align with the trend to transform street space to pedestrian or other non-automobile-centric uses. There is a broad spectrum of public space interventions within this category, including temporary or permanent street closures and conversion to spaces for walking and cycling, car-free days, and open streets initiatives, where streets are closed to car traffic during specific hours and days (often during

5 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris weekends) to enable biking and walking (). Although car-free spaces tend to be of larger scale than parklets, there is a common lineage in the concern for expanding pedestrian space in urban areas. Car-free streets range from permanent pedestrianization, including Santa Monica s Third Street Promenade, to temporary closure that enables pedestrian or event use, such as car-free days during CicLAvia in Los Angeles, a one-day closure of downtown streets for cycling or other non-motorized uses. The car-free streets movement also includes new street design approaches that restrict or limit automobile access and increase the use of laneways or alleys for festivals or more permanent pedestrianization. METHODOLOGY To understand how parklets are designed and implemented, the authors examined case studies from seven North American cities: San Francisco, Montréal, New York City, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Long Beach, and Oakland. These seven case studies do not represent an exhaustive list of programs in North America, but rather a select sample of parklet programs in various stages of development. As part of the case study examination, we conducted three different sets of interviews (see also Table ):. Interviews with public officials with experience in the development, implementation, and administration of parklet pilots and programs in North America. These interviews sought to uncover information about the program regarding its origins and goals, planning process and design development, implementation and maintenance, and successes and challenges. The information provided in these interviews and supplemental material in related documents, such as request for proposals, brought to light the process for implementing parklet projects and programs in the seven cities.. Site-level interviews with community partners and business owners of establishments adjacent to specific parklets in the case study cities. These yielded information about the maintenance challenges as well as the perceived success and impact of parklets on adjacent businesses.. Site-level interviews with designers of specific parklets in our case study cities, which provided information about parklet design, landscaping, and safety challenges and solutions. TABLE Types of Interviews and Questions Interviewee Key Questions City Staff - Describe the history of the program including initial idea and evolution over time. - What departments are involved in regulation and development? - Has the city issued new ordinances or policies for the development and regulation of the parklets or are existing ordinances used? - How does the city handle liability concerns about the parklets? Who must hold the insurance and how much? Have you had any liability issues to date? - What are the successes, challenges and lessons learned for the program to date? Business Owner - Why did your business elect to support a parklet? - How is maintenance handled? - Describe the process of working with the city. - Have you noticed any change in business volume since the project was installed? Site Designer - Describe the site characteristics including function, primary users, surrounding land use, prior use of space, size and duration of installation. - How did the site influence the design? - Describe the landscaping and stormwater management elements. - How was the site designed to maximize safety and comfort for users? - How does the project convey that the site is open to the public? The site-level examples helped to create a parklet typology that categorizes parklets by their surrounding land uses, site shape and size, and duration of the installation. Information from interviews also yielded practical recommendations for designing a parklet, including considerations of cost, safety, comfort, landscaping, and environmental amenities, as well as management and maintenance needs.

6 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris Additionally, the interviews formed the basis of a list of recommendations for businesses seeking to invest in parklet projects, work with designers, and navigate the administrative process as required by city programs. RESULTS The seven parklet programs studied displayed a number of commonalities as well as key differences. In the following section, we will discuss this variety of parklet program origins and goals, planning process and design guidance, design considerations, and evaluation methods. Origins and Goals The origin of parklets can be traced to a trend of pilot projects and peer learning among major city leaders. Before installing parklets, New York City and San Francisco both implemented pilot projects of converting street rights-of-way to public spaces. New York transformed the streetscape around Times Square, while San Francisco designed Castro Commons. Each of these projects repurposed areas dangerous for pedestrians into public plazas by redirecting traffic and painting the street surface. Both projects helped to inform later parklet efforts by demonstrating which city departments and mechanisms are required to support such projects, and by generating positive interest from the public for additional projects. While these larger-scale plaza projects were transformative, cities were still investigating ways to provide and quickly implement low-cost pedestrian amenities. Cities found that they could transform single-use automobile parking spaces into places for pedestrians. This parking space conversion provided a number of advantages over the larger plaza projects, including a smaller scale, relative uniformity of sites, and the ability to attach the project to one particular business. Several of the cities researched in this project thus began exploring how to implement pilot parklet projects. Our interviews showed that all seven cities seek to achieve similar goals with their parklet projects. Their primary goal is to provide inviting public spaces for people. Parklets aim to foster more social interaction among people, particularly by increasing pedestrian space where existing sidewalks are narrow. An additional goal is to enhance streetscapes by converting dull pavement spaces into landscaped, well-designed public spaces, which can foster local economic development. Overall, cities implementing parklets are working to increase livability by providing benefits to residents, businesses, community groups, and visitors. One notable difference among cities is the level of public access to the parklets. San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Vancouver make every effort to demonstrate that parklets are public space, requiring a sign on each installation denoting that the space is open to the public. In Montréal and Long Beach, however, it is up to the private business that maintain the parklet to allow the general public (in addition to the patrons of the business) to use the space. Planning Process and Design Guidance Across the seven cities studied, we found that institutional capacity can present a challenge for implementing parklets. This is due in part to the fact that many agencies have jurisdiction within the rightof-way. Overcoming this challenge requires many municipal departments to work together, typically including departments of city planning, transportation, and public works. We found that having one lead agency is preferable in the parklet planning and implementation process. In the cases of San Francisco and Philadelphia, this lead agency is the Mayor s Office. In Oakland and Vancouver, the lead agency is the City Planning Department, while the Department of Transportation is the lead agency in New York City. While San Francisco s program began in the Mayor s Office, the program is now housed in the City Planning Department, demonstrating this lead agency role can change over time. The local context largely determines which public agency takes the leading role. We found that a clear institutional process that identifies a lead agency and the supporting agencies is crucial for overcoming the challenge of institutional capacity.

7 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris 0 The lack of a permitting process for parklets is an additional challenge. Some cities use existing permits for street closures or minor street encroachments to pilot their initial parklet installations while simultaneously working to revise their municipal code for the creation of a standard parklet permit. In some cases, such as in New York City, a permit is not required, but rather an interested party applies to the city and then is granted permission to install the parklet project. A city s exact permit strategy largely depends upon the local context, but viable options include piloting through an existing permit, modifying municipal code, or moving forward without a permit. Permits are the mechanism through which cities exercise control by creating a standard framework for ensuring the safety of these installations in the public right-of-way. In all but a few cases, these projects are designed by outside architects and landscape architects rather than by in-house municipal staff. Nevertheless, four cities have already issued design guidelines (Table ) that give a general guidance to designers making sure that parklet design is consistent to city standards. TABLE Parklet Design Guidelines in Four Cities City Size Street selection guidelines Load Drainage Wind/ Visibility San Francisco New York City Philadelp hia width, flush with curb (/ gap maximum) width, as flush to the curb as possible; at a minimum must be flush with sidewalk mph or less and away from corner One-way streets, single moving lane of traffic, and low vehicle speeds width mph maximum speed limit; approval required by Streets Departme nt traffic engineers Oakland width mph or less with parking Not specified Load bearing: 0 lbs/ sq. ft. Must support 00 lbs/ sq. ft. load 0 lbs/ sq. ft. Must maintain curbline drainage Curbside drainage must not be impeded and must allow for easy access to the space underneath Platform should allow for easy access underneath and curbside drainage may not be impeded Must maintain curbline Visually permeable outside edge; railing may be required Should have vertical elements so that it is visible from vehicles Should be stable under wind loads of 0mph with open guard rails Visually permeable outside Barriers distance from parklet to wheel stop (behind); wheel stop installed from curb (ahead) DOT assesses site to determine safety improveme nts: traffic markings, flexible bollards, and wheel stops Must have reflective soft hit posts and may have wheel stops installed ft. from curb distance from parklet to wheel Engineer stamp requirem ent No Yes No Yes

8 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris lanes and minimal slope drainage edge; railing may be required stop; wheel stop installed from curb; reflective soft hit posts Across all of the cities studied, parklet design guidelines are relatively similar, covering themes such as minimum parklet width, how much weight the structure must support, how the parklet interfaces with the curb, and how water flows underneath the structure. Parklets are not appropriate for every street, and for this reason, cities also set safety requirements regarding allowable locations for installation. Most frequently, cities use speed limits to determine where parklets can be installed. Some cities use more specific requirements such as requiring a certain number of travel lanes or only allowing parklets on oneway streets. Design guidelines and placement requirements help to ensure that parklets are placed in appropriate contexts rather than along high-traffic major arterials. Only half of the case study cities require that submitted parklet designs have a licensed engineer s stamp. The cities that do not require a stamp on designs argue that such a stipulation is costly and a barrier for community organizations wanting to create a parklet. In contrast, cities that require the stamp do so on the grounds of safety concerns. Regardless of whether a stamp is required, the purpose of design guidelines is to ensure that parklet design meets certain safety considerations. Parklet projects are unique in that the city creates the general design guidelines and reviews plans in order to grant permits, but after those city functions are completed, the installation, maintenance, and liability insurance are the responsibility of the permit holder. This distinction is important as it demonstrates how these projects in the public right-of-way differ from traditional municipally driven projects. No city crews are used for parklet installation, the liability (in the range of $- million) lies with the property or business owner, and the business owner must handle all maintenance concerns with a maintenance agreement in place (Table ). There are some notable cases to this hands-off structure, including Sunset Triangle Plaza in Los Angeles and Picnurbia in Vancouver. These municipally driven efforts are the exception and only used in very specific contexts rather than models for an entire city program. When submitting a parklet design, applicants in the seven cities must pay a permit fee ranging from $ This fee pays for the city to review the design plans, inspect the site before and after installation, and ensure basic safety precautions. Such safety items include wheel stops (installed in the roadbed at the end of the parklet to avoid a car bumping into the installation) and flexible bollards delineating the parklet edge in the street. San Francisco and Long Beach require a yearly permit renewal fee, while cities with colder climates, such as New York and Philadelphia, have no initial or renewal permit fee but require that structures be removed and stored by the business during the winter season. TABLE Selected Characteristics of Municipal Programs City Number of Parklets Departments Involved Installed Cost San Francisco Lead: Department of City Planning Coordination: Department of Public Works, Municipal Transportation Permit Required and $ base fee; $.0 for before and after inspection; $ yearly permit renewal Insurance/ Liability Duration $ million Year-round; applicants must renew permits yearly

9 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris Montreal 0 (approximate seasonally) New York City Agency, and nonprofit partner Department of Public Works Department of Transportation, Traffic and Planning Division Vancouver Engineering Department s Street Activities Branch Philadelphia Lead: Mayor s Office of Transportation and Utilities Design Review: Streets Department $00 for application; $, fee with parking meters; $,0 fee without parking meters Cafés must apply but no fee required No permit required; call for proposals solicited from artists No permit required $ million April to October $- million depending on size None; conducted as city project None required to date; temporary license April to October Summer (Picnurbia); semipermanent (Parallel Park) April to October Temporary license issued: Department of Licenses and Inspection Long Beach Lead: Department of Public Works Oakland sites permitted, none installed Approval: Department of Water and Power, Department of Traffic and Fire Department Lead: Planning Department Reviews: Building Department $ with yearly renewal $,00 for a permit Between $- million liability coverage $ million in general liability insurance Year-round; applicants must renew permits yearly Year-round; yearly renewal yet to be determined Design Considerations The review of the case studies and site-level examples of parklets in the seven cities showed that parklets can be installed in different land use areas, acquire different shapes and sizes, and have a range of durations, as shown in Table.

10 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris 0 TABLE Variety of Parklet Installations Surrounding Land Use Parklet Shape Duration Residential Parking space One day Diagonal space Seasonal Commercial Roadway travel lane Year-round/semi permanent Traffic triangle Permanent 0 The surrounding land uses are an important consideration for site design. Parklets designed in residential areas must provide space for people to sit in ways that do not constitute nuisances to adjacent residences (e.g., noise, public sleeping, etc.). Designs in commercial areas are the most common and have the greatest design diversity. Ensuring the public nature of these installations is an important consideration in commercial areas. This includes designing an open edge from the sidewalk into the parklet and using distinctly different seating from those of the adjacent businesses. The shape of the site is another important distinction driving the design process. The most commonly used site is a curbside space, previously occupied by one or more automobile parking spaces. These sites are usually designed with a fairly standard format of landscaped edges, a railing, and installed benches or movable seating. Parklets can expand upon this standard format, as demonstrated by San Francisco designs; one such installation focuses on landscaping and creating immersive seating areas (Figure ), while another uses the railing to double as a stand-up bar (Figure ). Diagonal parking spaces can be more advantageous than parallel spots because they provide a larger area for the parklet. The larger the site, the more opportunity for creative design, including using travel lanes or connecting traffic triangles or pedestrian refuges to the adjacent sidewalk. FIGURE Landscape-focused parklet rendering. Credit: Ogrydziak Prillinger Architects.

11 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris FIGURE Safety railing doubling as stand-up bar, San Francisco. Credit: Mark Hogan. 0 0 A third major consideration in the design process is the duration of the installation, which can range from a single day to permanent. Park(ing) Day installations feature one-day parklets, with community groups bringing portable materials such as fabric, tables, and plastic chairs into a site temporarily. Such installations often serve as an inspiration for a more permanent construction. New York City and Philadelphia host seasonal parklets that have simplified designs, are not bolted into the roadbed, and are disassembled and stored during the harsh winter months. In contrast, San Francisco s parklets are installed year-round, are lightly bolted into the roadway, and require a yearly permit renewal. The lifespan of these year-round installations has yet to be determined, as most projects have existed for less than two years. Projects with the longest duration are permanent parklets that often require pouring concrete to create a lasting structure. These more permanent projects require coordination among city departments, and the processing of their permits often takes much longer. Overall, the duration of the installation influences the selection of materials, type of construction, and design. Our case studies revealed that three major considerations influence parklet design: the surrounding land uses, site shape and size, and duration of the installation. As more parklets are proposed and permitted throughout North America, parklet designs are becoming more creative and distinctive, and the aforementioned design typology is likely to expand. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Parklets All cities studied in the course of this research found their programs to be a success. The parklet programs created new spaces for people using innovative treatments of the street right-of-way. While not every city has conducted a formal post-occupancy evaluation of their parklet program, the data that exist (, 0) along with anecdotal evidence, suggest that both users and sponsors are responding positively to parklets and demanding more of them.

12 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris In San Francisco, parklets are so popular that the city received over 00 applications during the last request for proposals (Powers, A. Pavement to Parks Program, San Francisco City Planning Department. March 0, 0 interview by M. Brozen. Unpublished data.). The demand for parklets is so overwhelming that the city is currently harboring some concerns about the saturation of parklets in particular neighborhoods and the amount of city resources required to review the proposals and issue the permits. According to a San Francisco report (), parklets have demonstrated the potential of generating foot traffic in commercial areas, thus increasing the number of customers for local businesses. These results mirror other cities. Philadelphia boasts that its parklet installations boosted the revenue of adjacent business by nearly 0 percent (). Parklets in Long Beach have contributed to two full-time and four part-time employment positions in the adjacent restaurants (Bohn, M. Studio Architects. May, 0 interview by M. Brozen. Unpublished data.). A survey administered by the city of Vancouver found that sixty percent of residents viewed parklet installations as a community asset, regardless of whether or not they had spent time at parklets (Kassay, K. City of Vancouver Planning Department. March, 0 interview by N. LaMontagne. Unpublished data.). These results indicate positive public sentiments for parklet projects. Parklet success, however, comes with some challenges. Coordination among the many city departments that have jurisdiction over the street right-of-way during the permitting and installation process can be problematic at times, especially when projects are in the pilot stage. Financial challenges also face individuals and community groups hoping to sponsor parklets. Though the cost, which typically ranges from $,000-0,000, is relatively modest for a road project, it may be beyond the means of local groups. However, the success of many parklets demonstrates that these challenges can be overcome. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The concept of parklets has caught on quickly because it provides a low-cost and innovative way to reclaim residual and underutilized road spaces. Some of the cities we have explored as case studies plan to expand their parklet program in some way, and additional cities including Chicago, Boston, and Asheville, NC plan to begin piloting parklet projects in late 0 or early 0. In an effort to help cities make the most out of their parklet programs, this section presents a list of policy recommendations based on the lessons learned from our case studies: Identify residual spaces in priority areas. Not all sites or all neighborhoods are appropriate for parklets. Parklets work well where there is a certain level of foot traffic, where automobile traffic is low-speed, and where there are surrounding establishments that can provide a level of natural surveillance. Cities can develop an inventory of residual spaces in priority areas (with low amounts of open space) that fit the previous criteria and encourage their conversion into parklets. Encourage variety of parklet design. Parklets can be functional and aesthetic assets for cities, especially if they demonstrate unique and innovative architectural and landscape designs. No two parklets should be alike, and cities should encourage innovation and experimentation in parklet design. At times, design competitions or charrettes may produce a rich inventory of ideas about parklet design. Tailor design to community needs. Depending on the community needs and the character of the surrounding area, parklets facilitate passive or active recreation, have age-specific activities (young children, senior citizens, etc.), and incorporate neighborhood-specific cultural and landscape elements in their design. Provide urban design guidelines. As already demonstrated by some cities, design guidelines should not stifle parklet design and experimentation, but must ensure that appropriate safety standards are met. Streamline permitting process. Part of the appeal of parklets is that they are relatively easy to plan and install. Cities should ensure that the permitting process is extremely simple, low-cost,

13 Brozen & Loukaitou-Sideris and does not deter potential parklet sponsors. At the same time, permits should be renewed annually, giving cities the opportunity to monitor to operation and maintenance of parklets. Designate lead staff person and public agency. While various public departments have jurisdiction over city streets, it is essential that a particular city agency (and ideally a particular staff person) takes the lead in coordinating and streamlining the parklet planning and installation process. Streamline maintenance requirements. Cities should make the expected levels of maintenance very clear to parklet sponsors and keep a watchful eye to guarantee that all maintenance requirements are met. This can be done with an inspection prior to the renewal of permits. Currently, excitement about parklets is spreading across North American cities. The parklet movement has the potential of reclaiming underutilized roadway spaces as meaningful social spaces for people. Time will tell if this potential will become realized. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation. REFERENCES. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. and R. Ehrenfeucht. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 00.. Rebar Group. About Park(ing) Day 0. Accessed July 0, 0.. City of New York. PlaNYC Update April 0. Accessed July 0, 0.. New York City Department of Transportation. NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines 0. NYC Plaza Program. Accessed July 0, 0.. Trancik, R. Finding Lost Space. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey,.. Nordic Urban Design Association & Project for Public Spaces. Waterfront Synopsis 00 Summary Report, 00.. Hou, J. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Routledge, New York, 00.. Street Plans Collaborative and Alliance for Biking & Walking. The Open Streets Guide, 0. %0Final%0Print---.pdf. Accessed July 0, 0.. San Francisco Great Streets Project. Divisadero Trial Parklet Impact Report, Divisadero%0Parklet%0Impact%0Report.pdf. Accessed July 0, New York City Department of Transportation. Curbside Public Seating Platforms Sponsored by Local Businesses 0 Pilot Program Evaluation Report, 0. Accessed July 0, 0.. Philadelphia Mayor s Office of Transportation and Utilities. Parklet Development Program RFP, 0. Accessed July 0, 0.