Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR-11-24-2015-8A
50 NYC BIDs:Assessment:Year Established:Alliance for Downtown New York $13,000,000 1995 Grand Central Partnership $12,709,370 1988 Times Square Alliance $11,685,440 1992 34th Street Partnership $9,940,000 1992 Fashion Center $5,750,000 1993 Fifth Avenue $2,715,720 1993 MetroTech $2,639,190 1992 East Midtown Partnership $2,200,000 2002 Lincoln Square $2,000,000 1997 Union Square Partnership $2,000,000 1984 Madison Avenue $1,757,000 1996 Hudson Square Connection $1,700,000 2009 Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership $1,600,000 2006 Fulton Mall Improvement Association $1,501,500 1976 Chinatown $1,300,000 2011 Village Alliance $984,900 1993 Bryant Park Corporation $900,000 1986 125th Street $893,410 1994 Jamaica Center $737,500 1979 Court-‐Livingston-‐Schermerhorn $700,000 2000 Bed-‐Stuy Gateway $675,000 2009 Fordham Road $625,000 2004 NOHO NY $540,000 1997 Washington Heights $517,420 1986 47th Street $500,000 1997 DUMBO Improvement District $500,000 2005 HUB/3rd Avenue $450,925 1988 Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn Partnership $425,000 2005 Myrtle Avenue (Queens)$406,140 1988 Long Island City $400,000 2005 Downtown Flushing Transit Hub $380,000 2003 Belmont $357,275 2008 Bay Ridge 5th Avenue $338,000 2006 Lower East Side $335,600 1993 Kingsbridge $329,000 2001 Steinway Street $325,000 1991 Westchester Square $320,000 2012 Flatbush Avenue $314,520 1988 Columbus Avenue $308,800 2000 Fulton Area Business (FAB) Alliance $300,000 2008 Park Slope 5th Avenue $300,000 2008 Sunnyside Shines $300,000 2007 Kings Highway $290,000 1990 Jerome-‐Gun Hill $259,000 1997 Sunset Park $250,000 1995 Atlantic Avenue $240,000 2011 Columbus/Amsterdam $230,000 1987 Pitkin Avenue $225,000 1993 82nd Street $224,450 1990 Brighton Beach $220,000 1987 Woodhaven $218,000 1993 86th Street Bay Ridge $210,000 2001 Flatbush-‐Nostrand Junction $200,000 2006 161st Street $190,000 2005 Church Avenue $188,500 1987 Grand Street $181,170 1985 Southern Boulevard $180,000 2007 Sutphin Boulevard $177,000 2004 Montague Street $175,000 1998 165th Street Mall $168,725 1978 Bayside Village $155,000 2007 Forest Avenue $150,000 2005 Graham Avenue $137,640 1987 North Flatbush $115,000 1986 White Plains Road $110,000 1994 East Brooklyn $95,000 1985 180th Street $53,000 1996 Table 11: NYC BIDs organized by annual budget. 51 New York City BIDs Assessment:Year Established:Bronx 161st Street $190,000 2005 Belmont $357,275 2008 Fordham Road $625,000 2004 HUB/3rd Avenue $450,925 1988 Jerome-‐Gun Hill $259,000 1997 Kingsbridge $329,000 2001 Southern Boulevard $180,000 2007 Westchester Square $320,000 2012 White Plains Road $110,000 1994 Total:$2,821,200 Average:$313,466.67 Brooklyn 86th Street Bay Ridge $210,000 2001 Atlantic Avenue $240,000 2011 Bay Ridge 5th Avenue $338,000 2006 Bed-‐Stuy Gateway $675,000 2009 Brighton Beach $220,000 1987 Church Avenue $188,500 1987 Court-‐Livingston-‐Schermerhorn $700,000 2000 DUMBO Improvement District $500,000 2005 East Brooklyn $95,000 1985 Flatbush Avenue $314,520 1988 Flatbush-‐Nostrand Junction $200,000 2006 Fulton Area Business (FAB) Alliance $300,000 2008 Fulton Mall Improvement Association $1,501,500 1976 Graham Avenue $137,640 1987 Grand Street $181,170 1985 Kings Highway $290,000 1990 MetroTech $2,639,190 1992 Montague Street $175,000 1998 Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn Partnership $425,000 2005 North Flatbush $115,000 1986 Park Slope 5th Avenue $300,000 2008 Pitkin Avenue $225,000 1993 Sunset Park $250,000 1995 Total:$10,220,520 Average:$444,370.43 Table 12: NYC BIDs organized by borough and name, part one. 52 Manhattan 125th Street $893,410 1994 34th Street Partnership $9,940,000 1992 47th Street $500,000 1997 Alliance for Downtown New York $13,000,000 1995 Bryant Park Corporation $900,000 1986 Chinatown $1,300,000 2011 Columbus Avenue $308,800 2000 Columbus/Amsterdam $230,000 1987 East Midtown Partnership $2,200,000 2002 Fashion Center $5,750,000 1993 Fifth Avenue $2,715,720 1993 Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership $1,600,000 2006 Grand Central Partnership $12,709,370 1988 Hudson Square Connection $1,700,000 2009 Lincoln Square $2,000,000 1997 Lower East Side $335,600 1993 Madison Avenue $1,757,000 1996 NOHO NY $540,000 1997 Times Square Alliance $11,685,440 1992 Union Square Partnership $2,000,000 1984 Village Alliance $984,900 1993 Washington Heights $517,420 1986 Total:$73,567,660 Average:$3,343,984.55 Queens 165th Street Mall $168,725 1978 180th Street $53,000 1996 82nd Street $224,450 1990 Bayside Village $155,000 2007 Downtown Flushing Transit Hub $380,000 2003 Jamaica Center $737,500 1979 Long Island City $400,000 2005 Myrtle Avenue (Queens)$406,140 1988 Steinway Street $325,000 1991 Sunnyside Shines $300,000 2007 Sutphin Boulevard $177,000 2004 Woodhaven $218,000 1993 Total:$3,544,815 Average:$295,401.25 Staten Island Forest Avenue $150,000 2005 TOTAL:$90,304,195 Average:$1,347,823.81 Median:$335,600 Number of BIDs:67 Table 13: NYC BIDs organized by borough and name, part two. 53 New York City BIDs Assessment:Year Established:Bronx 161st Street $190,000 2005 Belmont $357,275 2008 Fordham Road $625,000 2004 HUB/3rd Avenue $450,925 1988 Jerome-‐Gun Hill $259,000 1997 Kingsbridge $329,000 2001 Southern Boulevard $180,000 2007 Westchester Square $320,000 2012 White Plains Road $110,000 1994 Total:$2,821,200 Average:$313,466.67 Brooklyn 86th Street Bay Ridge $210,000 2001 Atlantic Avenue $240,000 2011 Bay Ridge 5th Avenue $338,000 2006 Bed-‐Stuy Gateway $675,000 2009 Brighton Beach $220,000 1987 Church Avenue $188,500 1987 Court-‐Livingston-‐Schermerhorn $700,000 2000 DUMBO Improvement District $500,000 2005 East Brooklyn $95,000 1985 Flatbush Avenue $314,520 1988 Flatbush-‐Nostrand Junction $200,000 2006 Fulton Area Business (FAB) Alliance $300,000 2008 Fulton Mall Improvement Association $1,501,500 1976 Graham Avenue $137,640 1987 Grand Street $181,170 1985 Kings Highway $290,000 1990 MetroTech $2,639,190 1992 Montague Street $175,000 1998 Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn Partnership $425,000 2005 North Flatbush $115,000 1986 Park Slope 5th Avenue $300,000 2008 Pitkin Avenue $225,000 1993 Sunset Park $250,000 1995 Total:$10,220,520 Average:$444,370.43 Table 14: NYC BIDs organized by borough and age, part one. 54 Manhattan 125th Street $893,410 1994 34th Street Partnership $9,940,000 1992 47th Street $500,000 1997 Alliance for Downtown New York $13,000,000 1995 Bryant Park Corporation $900,000 1986 Chinatown $1,300,000 2011 Columbus Avenue $308,800 2000 Columbus/Amsterdam $230,000 1987 East Midtown Partnership $2,200,000 2002 Fashion Center $5,750,000 1993 Fifth Avenue $2,715,720 1993 Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership $1,600,000 2006 Grand Central Partnership $12,709,370 1988 Hudson Square Connection $1,700,000 2009 Lincoln Square $2,000,000 1997 Lower East Side $335,600 1993 Madison Avenue $1,757,000 1996 NOHO NY $540,000 1997 Times Square Alliance $11,685,440 1992 Union Square Partnership $2,000,000 1984 Village Alliance $984,900 1993 Washington Heights $517,420 1986 Total:$73,567,660 Average:$3,343,984.55 Queens 165th Street Mall $168,725 1978 180th Street $53,000 1996 82nd Street $224,450 1990 Bayside Village $155,000 2007 Downtown Flushing Transit Hub $380,000 2003 Jamaica Center $737,500 1979 Long Island City $400,000 2005 Myrtle Avenue (Queens)$406,140 1988 Steinway Street $325,000 1991 Sunnyside Shines $300,000 2007 Sutphin Boulevard $177,000 2004 Woodhaven $218,000 1993 Total:$3,544,815 Average:$295,401.25 Staten Island Forest Avenue $150,000 2005 TOTAL:$90,304,195 Average:$1,347,823.81 Median:$335,600 Number of BIDs:67 Table 15: NYC BIDs organized by borough and age, part two. 55 NYC BIDs:Assessment:Year Established:Fulton Mall Improvement Association $1,501,500 1976 165th Street Mall $168,725 1978 Jamaica Center $737,500 1979 Union Square Partnership $2,000,000 1984 East Brooklyn $95,000 1985 Grand Street $181,170 1985 Bryant Park Corporation $900,000 1986 North Flatbush $115,000 1986 Washington Heights $517,420 1986 Brighton Beach $220,000 1987 Church Avenue $188,500 1987 Columbus/Amsterdam $230,000 1987 Graham Avenue $137,640 1987 Flatbush Avenue $314,520 1988 Grand Central Partnership $12,709,370 1988 HUB/3rd Avenue $450,925 1988 Myrtle Avenue (Queens)$406,140 1988 82nd Street $224,450 1990 Kings Highway $290,000 1990 Steinway Street $325,000 1991 34th Street Partnership $9,940,000 1992 MetroTech $2,639,190 1992 Times Square Alliance $11,685,440 1992 Fashion Center $5,750,000 1993 Fifth Avenue $2,715,720 1993 Lower East Side $335,600 1993 Pitkin Avenue $225,000 1993 Village Alliance $984,900 1993 Woodhaven $218,000 1993 125th Street $893,410 1994 White Plains Road $110,000 1994 Alliance for Downtown New York $13,000,000 1995 Sunset Park $250,000 1995 180th Street $53,000 1996 Madison Avenue $1,757,000 1996 47th Street $500,000 1997 Jerome-‐Gun Hill $259,000 1997 Lincoln Square $2,000,000 1997 NOHO NY $540,000 1997 Montague Street $175,000 1998 Columbus Avenue $308,800 2000 Court-‐Livingston-‐Schermerhorn $700,000 2000 86th Street Bay Ridge $210,000 2001 Kingsbridge $329,000 2001 East Midtown Partnership $2,200,000 2002 Downtown Flushing Transit Hub $380,000 2003 Fordham Road $625,000 2004 Sutphin Boulevard $177,000 2004 161st Street $190,000 2005 DUMBO Improvement District $500,000 2005 Forest Avenue $150,000 2005 Long Island City $400,000 2005 Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn Partnership $425,000 2005 Bay Ridge 5th Avenue $338,000 2006 Flatbush-‐Nostrand Junction $200,000 2006 Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership $1,600,000 2006 Bayside Village $155,000 2007 Southern Boulevard $180,000 2007 Sunnyside Shines $300,000 2007 Belmont $357,275 2008 Fulton Area Business (FAB) Alliance $300,000 2008 Park Slope 5th Avenue $300,000 2008 Bed-‐Stuy Gateway $675,000 2009 Hudson Square Connection $1,700,000 2009 Atlantic Avenue $240,000 2011 Chinatown $1,300,000 2011 Westchester Square $320,000 2012 Table 16: NYC BIDs organized by age. 56 Address Parklet/Plaza Host Host Type Designer Installation Date 423 Columbus Ave.Parklet Caffe Greco Business REBAR October, 2010 3248 22nd St.Parklet Revolution Café, Escape from NY Pizza, Lolo Business REBAR April, 2010 639 Divisadero St.Parklet Mojo Bicycle Café Business Riyad Ghannam of rg-‐architecture March, 2010 3868 24th St.Parklet Martha & Brothers Coffee, Noe Valley Merchants Association Mix/CBD Riyad Ghannam of rg-‐architecture December, 2010 3982 24th St.Parklet Just for Fun, Scribblenoodles, Noe Valley Merchants Association Mix/CBD Riyad Ghannam of rg-‐architecture December, 2010 1755 Polk St.Parklet The Crepe House, Bone Flowers Business May, 2011 3600 16th St.Parklet Squat & Gobble Café Business March, 2011 914 Valencia St.Parklet Freewheel Bike Shop Business Kanbayashi Designs, Thrive Landscaping March, 2011 526 Columbus Ave.Parklet Caffe Roma Business REBAR May, 2011 1300 Fulton St.Parklet Café Abir Business June, 2011 375 Valencia St.Parklet Four Barrel Coffee Business Seth Boor Parklet June, 2011 1234 Polk St.Parklet Quetzal Café Business May, 2011 937 Valencia St.Parklet Amandeep Jawa Resident Jane Martin June, 2011 1132 Valencia St.Parklet The Crepe House, Zaytoon Wraps Business Riyad Ghannam of rg-‐architecture June, 2011 1570 Stockton St.Parklet Tony's Coal-‐Fired Pizza and Slice House Business REBAR July, 2011 78 29th St.Parklet Café Seventy8 Business July, 2011 384 Hayes St.Parklet Mad Wills Food Co., Arlequin Business September, 2011 1315 18th St.Parklet Farley's Business Russell Zeidner August, 2011 4033 Judah St.Parklet Trouble Coffee Business September, 2011 3318 22nd St.Parklet Fabric8/Luna Rienne Gallery Business September, 2011 Art-‐parklet 1331 9th Ave.Parklet Arizmendi Bakery Business Jack Verdon September, 2011 3876 Noriega St.Parklet Devil's Teeth Baking Company Business Shane Curnyn of Matarozzi Pelsinger Parklet December, 2011 Less than one year:754 Post St.Parklet Farm:Table Business Zoe Prillinger of Ogrydziak/Prillinger Architects June, 2012 212 Ritch St.Parklet Darwin Café Business Michael Lambert July, 2012 544 Castro St.Parklet The Dancing Pig Business Jonathan Hradecky, Juan Manuel Carmon July, 2012 990 Valencia St.Parklet The Blue Fig Business Riyad Ghannam of rg-‐architecture August, 2012 4754 Mission St.Parklet Mama Art Café, Excelsior Action Group Mix/NPO Students from Out of Site Youth Arts Center 2012 1568 Haight St.Parklet Martin Mack's Business December, 2011 2410 California St.Parklet Siol Design, Zinc Details, Pizzeria Delfina Business Jessica Weigley, Kevin Hackett of Siol Design 2012 544 Jones St.Parklet Nile Café Business February, 2012 236 Townsend Parklet D'Urso Italian Delicatessen Business WRT September, 2012 4001 Judah St.Parklet Outerlands Business 1530 Haight St.Parklet Haight Street Market Business September, 2012 533 Jones St.Parklet Karachi Classics Business July, 2012 1452 Valencia St.Parklet EHS Pilates Business December, 2012 1122 Folsom St.Parklet Brainwash Café Business Early 2013 Permitted:1026 Valencia St.Parklet Ritual Coffee Roasters Business Cindy Burkowski Permitted Mobile:3rd and Folsom Mobile Parklet #1 YBCBD CBD CMG Jul-‐11 $6000 each 880 Harrison St.Mobile Parklet #2 YBCBD CBD CMG 870 Harrison St.Mobile Parklet #3 YBCBD CBD CMG 370 4th St.Mobile Parklet #4 YBCBD CBD CMG 325 5th St.Mobile Parklet #5 YBCBD CBD CMG 363 Clementia St.Mobile Parklet #6 YBCBD CBD CMG Promenade:Powell Street Promenade Promenade Union Square Business Improvement District BID Walter Hood July, 2011 Plazas:Jane Warner Plaza Phase 1 Plaza Castro/Upper Market Community Benefit District CBD Public Architecture May, 2009 Jane Warner Plaza Phase 2 Plaza Castro/Upper Market Community Benefit District CBD Seth Boor May, 2010 Guerrero Park Plaza Neighborhood Residents Residents Jane Martin September, 2009 $20,000 Naples Green Plaza Jane Martin November, 2010 Persia Triangle Plaza Excelsior Action Group Table 17: San Francisco parklet information. 57 City Name Installation date Address Permit Holder BID San Francisco Noe Valley Parklet 1 Dec-‐10 3868 24th St.Noe Valley Association CBD Noe Valley Parklet 2 Dec-‐10 3982 24th St.Noe Valley Association CBD Powell Street Promenade Jul-‐11 Powell b/w Ellis and Geary Union Square BID Jane Warner Plaza May-‐09 Castro, 17th, Market Castro/Upper Market CBD YBCBD Mobile Parklets #1-‐6 Jul-‐11 Around Yerba Buena Yerba Buena CBD New York City Willoughby Plaza Mar-‐06 MetroTech BID Pearl Street Plaza Aug-‐07 DUMBO BID Broadway Boulevard Aug-‐08 Fashion Center BID Flatiron Plaza Aug-‐08 Flatiron BID Manhattan Bridge Archway Plaza Sep-‐08 DUMBO BID Herald Square May-‐09 34th Street Partnership Times Square May-‐09 Times Square Alliance Water-‐Whitehall Plaza Sep-‐10 Alliance for Downtown New York Belmont Plaza Aug-‐11 Belmont Ave at East 186th St and Crescent Ave.Belmont BID Albee Square Jun-‐11 Fulton Mall Improvement Association Putnam Plaza Sep-‐11 Fulton Area Business Alliance Fowler Square May-‐12 Fulton Area Business Alliance Table 18: Parklet installation dates for NYC and SF BID projects.Permit Holder BID Name Park type Assessment Size of space Cost Funding Noe Valley Association CBD Noe Valley Parklet 1 Parklet $225,000 2 spaces $37,000 total Office of Economic and Workforce Development Noe Valley Association CBD Noe Valley Parklet 2 Parklet $225,000 2 spaces (for both)Commercial Revitalization Budget Union Square BID Powell Street Promenade Promenade $3,041,000 2 blocks $890,000 Audi USA Castro/Upper Market CBD Jane Warner Plaza Plaza $397,000 Intersection $20,000 Upgraded with CBD grant money Yerba Buena CBD YBCBD Mobile Parklets #1-‐6 Mobile Parklet $2,384,000 16'x6' each $6,000 each + donations YBCBD + donors Table 19: SF BID parklet project information. 58 Appendix II: Interviews/Questionnaires Robin Abad Ocubillo and Ilaria Salvadori, San Francisco Planning Department (Questionnaire)Preface: San Francisco Pavement to Parks – in forming partnerships for the conceptualization, installation, and ongoing management of pedestrian plazas – works not only with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), but also Community Benefit Districts (CBDs), local nonprofits, and other Merchant or Neighborhood Associations. For each site, partners range from Community Benefit Districts (The Castro Community Benefit District - Jane Warner Plaza) to Associations (Outer Mission Resident and Merchants Association). These organizations are referred to as ‘partner,’ ‘operator,’ ‘steward,’ or ‘host;’ although a definitive, standard term is not currently employed by the City in its partnerships relating to the Plazas.The term ‘Plaza’ is applied to four pilot projects initiated through Pavement to Parks around 2009. These entailed the conversion (closure) of roadway to pedestrian-only spaces. Moving forward, the Plaza projects initiated through Pavement to Parks shall continue to focus on opportunities for creating pedestrian-only spaces through the conversion (closure) of roadway.Interview Questions:1. What are the goals of the Pavement to Parks/NYCDOT Plaza Program in administering Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas? Could you rank those goals in order of importance and explain the ranking?The Goals of the Pavement to Parks Program are to: 1. Reimagine the potential of city streets especially in areas that are underutilized or underserved 2. Encourage non-motorized transportation / Encourage pedestrian activity 3. Innovate design experimentation 4. Strengthen collaborations between government, community, and institutions 5. Support local businesses communities Sites and project proposals (including but not limited to Plazas) are assessed using these basic criteria:Sizeable area of under-utilized roadway Lack of public space in the surrounding neighborhood Pre-existing community support for public space at the location Potential to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety Surrounding uses that can attract people and support activation of the space •Identified community or business steward 59 2. Could you list some examples of cases in which agreements with BIDs resulted in satisfaction of those goals?The Pavement to Parks partnership with The Castro Community Benefit District exemplifies a successful relationship, although, being a pilot, it was not initiated with a written agreement (‘MOU’) in place. The relationship continues to be managed directly between the Planning Department, City Supervisor’s Office, and the Castro CBD. Refer to the response to question 5 below for the criteria we use to define and assess a successful partnership.3a. Streets for People is interested in the meaning of the word “operating,” as they understand that in SF and NYC, community partners are responsible for “operating” the spaces. Is this the term that your agency uses in its arrangements, and if so, could you please explain its meaning?While we do not explicitly employ the term “operating” in our partnership arrangements for plazas, we do (for current plazas) and will (for future plazas) expect community partners to undertake a basic set of responsibilities which include maintenance and stewardship (further defined in the response to question 5, below).However we also recognize that the term “operating” can refer to a broader range of obligations including but not limited to: 1) programming, 2) ongoing community outreach and engagement, and 3) resolving local conflicts that may arise within or in response to the Plaza installation.In some cities, “operating” can also include the procurement and management of concessions. However, at present, concessions contracts do not figure into the Plaza Program at San Francisco Pavement to Parks (see response to question 11, below). There is currently a discussion at interagency level if concessions - managed through the community partner organization or perhaps directly by the City - should be incorporated in future plazas.3b. How explicit in the MOU are expectations regarding responsibilities, expectations, and liability? How important is that explicitness? Is there anything you would change in your existing contracts, and why?All four existing Pavement to Parks-initiated plazas were installed as pilots for the citywide program. As such, those four have not been nor are currently managed from a standard “MOU” with the local ‘operator’ (‘community partner,’ ‘steward,’ ‘host,’ etc.). The four pilots demonstrated that moving forward, a strongly and explicitly articulated “MOU” between the City and the ‘operator’ is absolutely essential.4. Does your agency provide BIDs with initial or continuing guidance to BIDs, or monitoring of the spaces? What does that guidance consist in and have you found it to be effective in producing a successful relationship? Why or why not? 60 All four existing Pavement to Parks-initiated plazas were installed as pilots for the citywide program. As such, standard initial guidance for operations and monitoring (i.e. an “MOU”) had not yet been articulated. As the City and its partners continually learn from the ongoing life of the Plazas, we are able to develop continuing guidance for the ‘Community Partner’ that is currently being codified in a draft ‘Plaza Manual’ for San Francisco Pavement to Parks.5. When BIDs are successful partners, what are the characteristics that most account for that success, would you say, and why? When they are unsuccessful partners, what are the characteristics that most account for that, and why?Successful partners (BIDs, CBDs, Associations and other organizations) demonstrate:- Fiscal solvency and organizational stability - An organizational budget with appropriate balance between program and administrative allocations - Capacity to fundraise and garner resources for their own programs and staff • Active engagement with local residents, business operators, property owners, other community organizations - A track record of bringing together divergent local interests and groups, brokering compromise, facilitating productive community dialogue - Productive relationships with City Councilmember / Supervisor’s office - Positive relationships with the Planning Department, Department of Public Works, Building Department, and SFMTA - Either a track record of, or reasonably demonstrated capacity to, undertake public realm improvements and stewardship, ‘community beautification,’ or similar programs - Consistent maintenance and repair of physical plant (ground surface treatments, permanent and movable furnishings, trees and vegetation) - Daily and/or weekly stewardship (garbage clean up, graffiti and/or pest abatement, cleaning and securing movable furnishings) - Programming (farmer’s markets, movie nights, etc.) that is appropriate to and embraced by the neighborhood.6. When forming partnerships with BIDs, is there ever negotiation over terms? If so, which elements are subject to the most and least negotiation and why?Forming partnerships with community organizations for the four existing Pavement to Parks-initiated plazas was an open experiment. All organizations were required to assume maintenance and stewardship responsibilities for the plazas, which was and will be non-negotiable.7. If you can, please tell me which of the following BID qualities are important predictors of success as Parklet/Pedestrian Plaza partners, how important each of them are, and why: 61 7a. BID assessment revenue.As explained above, Pavement to Parks seeks partnerships with organizations other than BIDs when implementing and managing pedestrian Plazas. While the organization’s historical and future long-term financial stability are important factors in assessing its past or future potential “success” as a partner, we do not at this time prefer partners with particular source(s) of funding.7b. Existing capital improvement/community beautification programs, over and beyond the basic ‘Clean and Safe’ operations.Prior experience implementing capital improvements is an important consideration, however we do not discriminate against potential partners if they do not have a track record of undertaking public realm improvements and stewardship, ‘community beautification,’ or similar programs.7c. BID standing in the community – new/risk-averse/under greater scrutiny vs. established/risk- taking/possessing broad support.The age of the community partner organization is not always an indicator of ‘standing.’ Some newer organizations may be just as successful as long-established groups. Older groups do have more inherent potential for proving their viability with a track record.7d. Locational context: pedestrian activity, presence of cafes, young professional population.Applied research studies on pedestrian Plazas correlate high levels of pre-existing pedestrian activity with increased use and activity in the Plaza once installed. However high levels of pre-existing pedestrian activity, while preferred, are not absolutely requisite for intervention with a Pavement to Parks plaza. At some locations, we recognize the potential for increasing pedestrian safety (traffic calming) through the closure of excessive roadway, while at the same time creating a new venue for increased pedestrian activity.Road-to-plaza conversions can also serve other valuable functions, such as augmenting the urban forest; providing stormwater infiltration opportunities; and increasing invertebrate habitat with planting (Naples Green, Guerrero Park).In terms of San Francisco Pavement to Parks Plazas, the presence of cafes or similar land uses is preferred but not absolutely requisite for intervention at the location. Two of the four pilot Plazas (Naples Green and Guerrero Park) are located in residential areas, and are not fronted exclusively by commercial establishments. Potential future sites may be embedded within or adjacent to commercial districts; or within mixed land use contexts.The “young professional population” of the neighborhood does not factor into site selection. However, we are attentive to demographics such as family and youth populations; elderly population; and economically disadvantaged populations. Geo-spatial factors such as excessive or underutilized roadway, limited access to public open space resources, and proximity to public transit are also considered. 62 8. How important is proven economic benefit to the partnership and why?[Be clear about how you are defining “Economic Benefit” in the discussion of this question in your report. Pavement to Parks is careful about using the term “Benefit” but rather describes ‘Impacts’ when discussing the potential effect that pedestrian Plazas have on their neighborhoods. Different segments of the community can perceive ‘Impacts’ as either beneficial or detrimental.]Pavement to Parks-initiated plazas are intended to create alternative open space(s), especially in areas with limited access to open space resources; foster and coalesce neighborhood activism and involvement; and encourage walking and biking as alternatives to driving. Creating “economic benefit” for the neighborhood or the ‘partner’ is less of a priority for the Pavement to Parks program.Partners - which include organizations other than BIDs - are not always exclusively interested in – or emphasize the project’s potential for – “economic benefit” to themselves or the community they represent.9. Is there anything you would change about your existing program of partnering with private community entities, particularly BIDs? Why?A standard, strongly articulated ‘MOU’ or partnership agreement is critical for the long-term success of each project, and the Plaza Program as a whole. See responses to questions 3b and 4, above.10. In your partnerships with business improvement districts, could you offer a ranking of which partnerships have been a) most and least satisfactory in meeting those goals, and b) most and least successful in some other regard? Please explain why you have ranked them as such.[Decline to respond].11. What is the policy regarding concessions and rental for filming of the spaces, and how often do community partners utilize such revenue-generating opportunities?There is currently a discussion at the interagency level examining if private entities should be allowed to rent public spaces and /or organize specific events that are revenue-generating. The issue is further complicated by questions related to the type of permit that is required; jurisdiction over space; and liability. When the interagency discussion is resolved, it will be translated into a policy decision. Also see response to question 3a, above. 63 Vaidila Satvika, NYC DOT Plaza Program 1. What were the NYC DOT’s goals and priorities? The goals really are, the most significant one is to create a plaza in every neighborhood in NYC. We have different ways of defining what a neighborhood is.Generally, that goal is a good one and we that we shoot for. People talk about creating a plaza within a ten-minute walk of all New Yorkers. So we have some ways of trying to measure that. And we have maps that help us to do that. But really we’re trying to spread them across the whole city.2. What if there is already another public space within a ten-minute walk, such as a park? Do you look at the plaza as a different type of amenity that all New Yorkers should have access to?The way that the broad idea of the plaza program was outlined, it said to create or enhance an existing public space. So in many cases, we have a park in a neighborhood, I’m thinking of a project right now in Hamilton Heights Manhattan where there is a park that is basically fenced in so that you can’t actually sit on any of the grass, there is very limited seating. It is owned by the parks department, so it’s a different agency, but any passerby would look at it and say there’s already a park here, why are we building a plaza and the plaza program’s response would be that it’s not a very effective space and we need to enhance it so that the public can gain access to it and actually use it in a good way. And when we enhance it, we’re also trying to take advantage of the second goal, that I would highlight, which is that we’re trying to make more open space by repurposing underutilized streets. So, in this case, you can imagine a big traffic triangle that’s a park, so there’s streets on three sides of it. Well one of the streets, although it’s used for parking is really not that essential, because you have a street next to it. You can navigate where you’re going without using that slip lane. So we can close that, add that square footage to the park, redesign that whole thing and make it open and accessible so that we’re enhancing the existing park and we’re adding a lot more open space by giving it the street that is essential.Another way of looking at it is that all streets, not only in NYC, but in every city in the US, are over-built. We’ve given 100 years to automobile prioritization and we just don’t need as many streets and we can get rid of some of them and transfer them to accessible open space and meet our goals.3. Do you prioritize particular uses - active use vs. passive use, etc.?I think that by definition, by creating more open space, we’re promoting health and we’re creating places that are walkable and ideally they should be interesting places so people will want to go there or they’ll want to walk there or they’ll want to walk more often. So, I 64 think by nature of the fact that we’re creating more open space and improving the public realm, we’re working on improving health. In some cases, they’re have been groups that have talked about including adult playground equipment - I don’t know what the technical term is - not so much like a monkey bar thing, engage with these kind of machines that that will have lots of moving parts that you can swing on them or move around. We haven’t done that, but it’s an interesting idea that we’ve explored a little bit. 4. A basketball hoop in LA?Our spaces are pretty actively managed. Probably in general, we have more density, a higher population density - so something like that would probably not work well here. Our active partner would look at and would probably leave it there for a day or two maybe, and then if it was in the way, get rid of it or something because these spaces have so many people and we have table and chairs and things, so you have to manage that spaces well. But that’s interesting. 5. Why is it that plazas are in some cases successful, in others unsuccessful? You need to think about both the design and operations. You can have a really well designed space, but if its not taken care of well, it’s going to go down hill and it’s going to be a disaster. Likewise you can have a really well managed space, but if its designed poorly, it won’t be a success. So you need those two things.I think from my experience, it seems like the most significant design elements and years of analysis of public spaces will show you that lots of different seating and having a significant amount of seating is one of the most crucial things for making a public space successful. So, we always try to promote both formal and informal seating, by that I mean a seat, like a bench or a chair as a formal seat, or informal seating, meaning a planter wall or steps - something that younger people would want to sit on, or kids may want to jump on. You want seats with backs, seats without backs. You want to create options and opportunities. You want to create some social seating, you want to create opportunities for individual seating to be by yourself. You want it in the sun, you want it in the shade. You want some that’s fixed, you want some that’s moveable so that people can take their seats from the shade to the sun or gather in a group if they’re together. The more options you can make with seating, the history and the data shows that you’re space will be more successful. So for design, that’s the key thing. The other thing is keeping it as open and transparent as possible, so people feel that they can come and go and not be boxed in. On the operations side, it’s really maintenance. At minimum, the space needs to be kept clean. And if you can do that, those two things will most likely lead to successful places. Now if you can have opportunities for food, that’s even better. Because people like to be able to be outside and they like to meet people and eat. Especially in the summer time when they’re outside for longer. So those are a couple things that determine success. 65 6. What are some of the most important predictors of success for a BID partner?We don’t always work with BIDs. I just wanted to highlight that when we’re working with a BID, the size of the BID, which is dictated by their assessment, will certainly factor into how much capacity they have and how many resources they have to devote to maintenance. I’m not sure if assessment revenue is really that important. For example, we have one BID I’m thinking of that administers the area around Grand Central terminal. It’s a massive BID and they have a lot of money, but be have other plazas with BIDs that have a tiny fraction of that budget, say in a neighborhood in Brooklyn, a small neighborhood BID in Brooklyn, that does a much better job of programming and maintenance. They’re committed to it and they like the idea of the public space and in a certain way, they sort of developed themselves around managing this public asset. So, I don’t think that just by having a big budget, you’ll be a success. The organization has to be committed to maintenance, programming and results in the public realm. Where other BIDs just might not be that interested. So it’s more about the organizational focus. So having said that, maintenance is very important to the success of the plazas - they have to be kept clean, the plants have to be watered, the administrative capacity of that group is important, but in some cases it can be two people and be a success. In others it can be a much larger staff. I don’t think it’s a question of money, per se, or staff. In one case, in a far-out plaza in East Brooklyn, they have very little funding, but the nearby businesses collaborate and they themselves will have their staff go out and clean the plaza and water the plants, and they do a pretty good job, and spend next to nothing on the plaza. It’s almost managed by community commitments. You can imagine business volunteers that like seeing it clean and like seeing the neighborhood improving, but they just don’t have enough as much foot traffic to afford a staff to manage the space, because it’s such a small space. So, it’s a little difficult to define these predictors. Obviously, if you have money, and if you have a board thats committed to public space, that’s a great thing. But you don’t need to have that. What you need to have is a group that’s committed to making that space a success and to using whatever resources they have to get that done. The demographic context I don’t think matters that much. We have plazas in Chinatown, Mid-town, in Latin-American communities, in mid-town Manhattan where it’s basically business districts. And they really vary and they can be a success in all these communities. So I think that’s less important and its more about the organization’s commitment and willingness to commit resources. 7. What have you found to be most effective in terms of providing continual monitoring of the spaces?Well, before we start, we meet with them and usually we meet with them on numerous occasions to talk through all of the issues. We talk about the design, operations, the 66 agreement that has insurance and liability and all this legal language and what happens when it snows and every single detail you could think of, we go through it and talk to them and give them examples of what other groups do. Just so they have this steep learning curve just by meeting with us and talking with us through the experience we have. We also try to put them in contact with other organizations - particularly organizations that have had similar challenges or similar neighborhoods, so we let them talk amongst each other. So that covers most of it. We do have some reporting that they’re in charge of, providing to us, especially if they have a concession agreement with the transfer of money. 8. As the agreement has evolved, which elements have evolved?There are a couple of things - one - we have this application that any nonprofit can fill out to apply for a plaza, so there’s that application that has developed and changed and their is our maintenance and concessions agreement. The application is basically any nonprofit filling out the paperwork, saying I want one of these in my neighborhood. The agreements are the documents are the legal contracts that we sign with the NPO once they have a plaza and we need an agreement with them to have them operate and manage the space. So those are separate things.The application process has developed. We’re preparing now for round six - this is the sixth year we’re launching the opportunity to apply for the plaza program. There are minor adjustments. This year we’re customizing it a little bit. It used to just be a capital program so nonprofits would apply to us for capital dollars to reconstruct part of the streets. This year we’re changing it to make it a temporary or capital program, so any type of a plaza. If you want a plaza in NYC, you apply to us and if we select you, we will give you what we think is appropriate, which may be a plaza with temporary materials, paint, planters, moveable tables and chairs, which is very inexpensive, on the order of $20-50,000, or we can select them for a capitally constructed plaza, which means fully reconstructing the roadbed, and that’s more like a $2 million project and that takes many more years. In some cases we award some capital dollars, but we’ll also roll out a temporary plaza in the meantime because it takes so long to build out the capitally constructed one. So that program has developed a little bit. As far as the maintenance and concession agreement, I haven’t been involved in that a whole lot. One of my colleagues who actually just left DOT last week, he was managing the operations of our plazas, so he worked to develop these agreements with our legal staff. So he was a wealth of knowledge of all the institutional history and knowledge about the development of those contracts - Ed Janoff. He’s the one who works with the BIDs. Now we’re working to replace that position. One thing I can say, is that since we launched the program, we developed the concession agreement, which really is a new thing that I haven’t seen or heard of in other cities, and 67 it’s so creative because it gives our partners the ability to generate revenue in three ways - through limited sponsorships, sub-concessions, and commercial events. That part has been very successful, but we don’t have a whole lot of them yet. 9. How often do groups take advantage of that opportunity?Everyone that has a concession agreement is working to get a sub-concession. Some of them have them already. I don’t recall which do and which don’t. We have different sub-concessions in the city already. Some of them use the agreements for commercial events and sponsorship opportunities, so they’re definitely generating lots of money from these agreements. The ones that are in place are in the wealthier districts of the city, like Mid-town Manhattan, so there’s a lot more monied interest there. So, it’s a little bit still too early to determine how successful these will be in some of the more remote out of the central business district plazas. 10. How do sponsorships work without advertising?Sponsorship is just small recognition, so it’s like having the name on a chair, or a small plaque on a planter. It’s small and it recognizes a donor, as compared to a large sign that is a clear advertisement. It’s a little bit of a subtle difference, but it’s pretty clear when you start seeing it. Think of plaques on a bench, or a small name on paving stones. That’s sponsorship. Advertising is typically much more intrusive. I think there’s a little bit of judgment that takes place whenever determining advertising vs. sponsorship. We have a say in reviewing sponsorship and we can say, no that’s not sponsorship, that’s an ad, you can’t do that. 11. What actually happens in the case of repairs?We’re trying to move in a direction where we use more standard DOT materials, for example, we would use concrete for pavement rather than unique individual pavers, because we have a whole sidewalk and concrete crew that can go and fix things.So a couple things, one - we only have a couple 2-3 capitally constructed plazas that have finished construction. It takes a long time to plan design and build a plaza - 3-4 years and this program started five years ago. The first projects coming are just being built now. They don’t have much damage because they were just built, so we have yet to see how this is going to work. Having said that, we understand that we’re working with groups that don’t have a lot of capacity, so we’re trying to use as many resources that DOT and the CIty can manage and maintain, so that if it’s typical concrete, we can go in there and fix it if it’s a problem. But if it’s part of the natural wear and tear, like a bench that is broken, it’s assumed that the partner can take care of that and it’s written into the agreement that they’ll take care of that. 68 12. Term renewal length?The initial term is three years and then there are renewal terms in three years. 13. Parklet program?We have a program. It used to be called the Sidewalk Cafe program, now its the curbside seating program. It’s ongoing. Oh actually it’s now street seats. We’ve gone through different names. If you go to NYC.gov/streetseats - you can learn about the program and it’s open and anyone can apply. It’s open, but it just isn’t taking off in the same way, but it’s really new. Particularly because we have so many other programs...I can put you in contact with someone else. Contact Nick - tell him you talked with me.14. Anything else especially relevant?I guess I would say that it’s important to consider how to make these happen quickly. Because there can be so many obstacles in trying to make a larger project or a more permanent structure, that whatever the CIty designs, there should be a temporary way to build these every season so that people can see the changes on the streets. You can do that, because you can do it with paint, planters, and moveable tables and chairs. We added to that palette epoxy gravel, which is a more longer-lasting better material than paint. The paint that we use has grit in it, so it is skid resistant but the epoxy gravel is a much better surface and it really brightens the street and makes you feel better and it goes down for about $4/sf. I suppose the takeaway is to try to figure out a way to try to build these, whether you call them temporary plazas or fast plazas, something to let people know that this can happen quickly and not be a new bureaucratic project that takes years and years to make something happen. I think a lot of people realize the value of improving the public realm and they really want to see more changes and historically, it seems like the streets have been these hard-to-change things. People think of them as concrete and asphalt and that’s not something you can change overnight. But really, when you start looking at it, you can use paint and some creative minds to redesign the street space - space a lot of times that can be reconfigured so that vehicles go in a different way or you can change the street from four lanes to three lanes to free up the square footage. So part and parcel to thinking about a particular public space program, you really need to have some traffic engineers, because ultimately, in any city, the traffic engineers have a lot of power, because this has to do with safety and highway design, and things that manage large vehicles that can crash into people, so there’s a lot of deference to these people in the city or agency somewhere that manages the engineering. They’re the ones that sort of have 69 to drink the juice. They’re the ones that need to hear it from the Mayor or whoever wants to make this improvement that it’s important and they have to see not only how they can improve public space but how they can save lives and make the streets safer. I should highlight that all these projects should improve public safety, because we’re narrowing streets, we’re making shorter crosswalks for people that help the elderly and the disabled. We’re closing streets to reduce the number of conflicts, so that more people can enter a space without worry that a car is coming there. So highlighting the importance of safety in these projects and getting the engineers in the City behind it and making them understand it. Because if they don’t understand it, you will inevitably find challenges. You might be wondering why these projects aren’t moving forward, and likely it’s because some of the engineers think a design is non-traditional or non-standard and it hasn’t been proved, it doesn’t make sense with the typical engineering that they’re used to. So if you know of people in the City that can inspire them or if they need to have a conference call with other city engineers with our highway design unit or another city’s highway design unit, those people can talk the same language and make them feel comfortable, you will have a lot more successful. 15. Skepticism about pedestrian success for LA?The key is siting them in real active pedestrian zones, so I would say subway or bus hubs or subway stations - you don’t have that many of them there, or any other location where you have lots of people walking, which is going to be harder to find in LA, but you still have them. It might be more of a political challenge in transforming the street, to takeaway space for parking and automobile use, but start with the densest pedestrian locations, and you’ll probably have more success there. 70 Andrea Aiello, Castro CBD 1. What were your CBD’s goals in the first place in initiating the place?The intersection was very dangerous for pedestrians.To address pedestrian safety issues. The other goal was that there was a tremendous lack of public seating in the Castro.The goal was to provide some public seating that wasn’t connected to a café or bar.Those were the two goals.2. How successfully has your partnership with P2P contributed to achieving those goals?It’s interesting that you’re referring to it as a partnership and ongoing relationship. “I don’t even know if Pavement to Parks in San Francisco still exists.” We don’t have a relationship with the Pavement to Parks program and I couldn’t even tell you if there is still one going on.The parklets program is still going on – P2P is doing more work with parklets and trying to better define and create parklets, but I don’t think the city is doing anymore of these pedestrian plazas – taking a paved area and making a plaza out of it. I think there’s only three, maybe four in the city. There was a little flurry of them and then that was the end, there haven’t been anymore. That was probably in 2009 and 2010.We were working with Pavement to Parks when we created the plaza, but that was it. They helped us – they were the lead agency, you could call them, in the creation of the plaza, but not so much afterwards. It’s been other city agencies that whenever we have problems, we go to. So if LA or any place is going to look at pedestrian plazas in these funky little places that no one would think of creating plazas, you should develop an ongoing program that would provide support, and rules, and legislation, and that kind of thing. 3. Which agencies do you go to for problems, and what are those problems that have arisen? You didn’t ask me to rank the plazas, you asked me to rank the partnerships. The other agencies are mainly the police department and DPW, but we also have a transit line running through the plaza, so the transit agency gets involved; also the supervisor’s office - our elected official. 4. What are some of the qualities of your relationships with the city agencies that make for success, if you consider it a relative success?I wouldn’t consider it a relative success, a real success. If you had talked with me last summer or last September, but since then it’s become a huge homeless encampment. We’re having a meeting with the supervisor next week to try to figure out some better ways to 71 manage it. We’re not part of Parks and Rec – there are so many problems with the ways these ideas were conceived in San Francisco. There wasn’t any planning and so it’s not part of Parks and Rec, there are no rules. Castro Blvd. was just a street, and you can do anything you want on a street. But there were lots of promises from the elected officials that everything would be great and wonderful, but after a year, guess what, those elected officials aren’t there anymore. It’s really important to have systems in place before you create these things. A CBD or BID can’t do much if people are allowed to sit all day in chairs with backpacks and garbage all around them, and dogs. If they’re allowed to do it, they’re allowed to do it. Can’t do anything about that. So that’s the biggest issue. In San Francisco there’s not loitering laws - you can sit or stand anyplace all day long for weeks at a time and no one can bother you. So that’s a huge issue. If the city is expecting the BID or CBD to manage the space, the BID or CBD should really understand what that means and have a big enough budget to do that. So I think you need a lot of honesty, a lot of planning ahead. Can you really afford to have a police officer there 24/7? I don’t know. Is that going to do anything? I don’t know.5. Do you have explicit responsibilities regarding your management of the space, or is there a permit renewal process that you go through?No permits. No nothing. There was nothing. It was done on the fly for political reasons, I think. It’s now considered permanent, there is some sort of permanent status for this little plaza out here, but we don’t hold a permit and we wouldn’t want to because that would mean that we are responsible liability-wise. This is a street, there is a crosswalk – and this may be different for other places, but it’s a street and a streetcar runs through it. There is no permit that I know of. We don’t hold a permit, that’s for sure. It does have permanent status at this point, but it could always be revoked, changed. That’s the problem. There was no overall structure that was developed first for thinking about what it was going to be like moving forward and now the city is scrambling to figure out what to do because at least this one, which is the most popular one, has turned into a homeless encampment and people are pretty upset.Our CBD has a very tiny budget, and we can’t put all our money into one 400 square foot space. 6. What does your CBD do with the space right now?We clean it like we clean the rest of the CBD – sweep and pick up litter, but we don’t have someone stationed there all the time. They go through it in the morning and the afternoon 72 and we steam clean it about once per month. 7. Is the perception of the space among your members low at this point?We’re not a membership organization. The property owners pay into the assessment. Many of the property owners don’t even live here so they don’t even know. The residents and merchants, I would say, are kind of disappointed with what is going on right now. There is a group of residents that are housed, they live in homes, that use the plaza a lot – kind of regulars. They still, even though there are a lot of homeless there, they still talk about how it has absolutely changed their lives. It’s the best thing that has happened and they’ve lived in the Castro for 30 years, and this is the best thing that has happened to them, because it provides them a place to sit outside, and to meet other people. Because they were isolated in their apartments, and that’s the beauty of these things, but this is a bad time to be talking about this little plaza. We’re in the middle of bad times. 8. What were the positives that you observed last summer? It was heavily used by a big mix of people – residents, visitors – some that were more regulars, some that would just stop for lunch or have a cup of coffee or meet somebody there. It became a meeting place, so that was the purpose of it right? So it was very successful, and in the summer we do our concerts there – it is a very funky little space because it has a trolley running through the middle of it and its very small, but we do put on concerts in the summer, a couple times a month – June-October. 9. And the concerts are your initiative? You’re allowed to do with the space whatever you want?If it’s amplified sound, we have to get a permit. We can program it as we want. Different people have fundraisers there and there’s a little space that the Arts Commission has for street vendors – in San Francisco you can be a street artist with a permit from the Arts Commission. And so you have a table out on the sidewalk or in a plaza, and so there is a small designated little spot in this plaza for street artists to have a plaza. Sometimes there spontaneous flash dances and things like that that happen, but mainly we program it or someone might come and ask us if they can have X,Y, or Z there. The stuff they did would have to be small.10. Have you considered renting the space?We don’t have any vendors and the groups that have approached us have been community-based nonprofits, so we wouldn’t think of pricing the space and we don’t own the space so there is no vehicle to do that. 73 In the beginning, when the Pavement to Parks program first started, the manager was talking to me a lot that we could do something like that, rent it out, and this, that, and the other thing, but that never materialized. It’s surrounded by other merchants that would give a lot of objection to having a coffee cart in the plaza. In this particular location, it borders a gas station and so the gas station has rented out space for a coffee cart. It was one of those food truck vendor things and was part of an organization and it one point they gave us a donation and now there is one truck that is there on weekends and I have not asked them for a donation. I don’t know if they even make a lot of money. That’s all that we have done, is ask for a donation to help with cleaning costs and things like that. This space is really so small that it would be difficult to have a vendor in there. 11. Who came up with the idea in the first place?It was kind of our organization, but the idea for closing this place off has been talked about by different neighborhood organizations for about ten years on and off, but there was never any money. In 2008, the CBD did a neighborhood streetscape plan. We had four focus groups and out of that focus group process this idea bubbled up to the surface. Gavin Newsom was Mayor at that time and he was interested in doing greening things in the city and this idea of Pavement to Parks got raised and the Planning Department suggested this little plaza since he wanted to do something quick and since it had already been vetted by the community, they decided to do this as an experiment. So it was something that had been talked about in the community before but then through a committee vetting process that we organized, it rose to the top. 12. Are there any other lessons to be learned that would be useful to consider?It’s really important to iron out roles and responsibilities beforehand. And if there is some way to generate revenue that should be worked out and made clear. 13. So there is no written contract or MOU?No. We’re nothing official. 14. On New York…The High Line – it’s so different because it has hours – 7:30 AM – 5 PM. It’s not like that here – it’s 24/7 in the middle of the night-time entertainment district. 74 Ellen Goldstein, Times Square Alliance 1. In the case of the Times Square Plaza conversion, who initiated that?Well it depends on your definition of initiating. We had been advocating for many years for additional pedestrian space. Times Square clearly had, in the language of the traffic engineers, a level of service problem. We had way too many people and way too little pedestrian space. And prior to Janette Sadik-Khan coming in, we had met with the previous administration of DOT many times and had done many, many studies showing that our level of service was terrible and was only going to get worse. We had more and more buildings, more and more stores, more and more people coming and we did a breakdown and it was something like 11% of the space was for pedestrians, or something to that effect and the rest of the space was for cars. We weren’t really getting anywhere with that and then we had been in discussion with DOT to do modified smaller sidewalk widening and things like that. Then when Janette came in, she started to seed the issues a lot more like we did and wanted to do something a lot more bold to balance out the space between pedestrians and vehicles, to have more shared streets and more balance. And so she came up with the idea of the Broadway Plaza program and extending to Broadway. There were two reasons for it. One was the pedestrian overcrowding and the other was that in the vehicular network of city streets, Broadway was a problematic street. It runs on a diagonal, it requires a lot of signals, there were a lot of problems with Broadway, so taking it out of circulation also had some other benefits, but the primary driver was that in neighborhoods like ours, like in Union Square, there wasn’t enough pedestrian space. So these ideas of creating these Broadway plazas were DOT’s, but the awareness that we needed more pedestrian space was an idea we had held for years. 2. How was it decided that your BID would maintain that space?When they thought about that closure of Broadway, when they knew that there were BIDs pretty much all along Broadway, that made it a more attractive proposition for the DOT. I think the original vision counted on the BIDs maintaining that street. That was the deal all along. When they came to us with the idea of the Broadway closure, it was assumed that we would have a maintenance agreement and that we would be responsible for it. They’d do the initial build-out and we’d be responsible for it. For the last two years, we’ve been going through the design process to make the plazas permanent. The city will cover the capital for the build out, but we will be responsible once it is finished. 75 3. Were your goals in harmony? Everyone was interested in creating more pedestrian space, etc.?That was a radical idea and I think there were those among our stakeholders who were nervous about it. Change makes people nervous. Some in our community were particularly nervous about vehicular access to the theaters and what this would mean. It wasn’t…about 100% of our stakeholders. Once we got over our initial shock that they wanted to do something this radical, we felt that on balance it was a very interesting idea and we supported it. 4. Do your member property owners perceive it to be a success?Yes, I think overall. A couple of storeowners were vocal about it, but overall, people appreciated the magnitude of the problem we had, in terms of pedestrian mobility in Times Square and appreciated how much better it is. We also did some surveying and found that among employees and visitors there was a high level of support for the closing of Broadway and the creation of the plazas. 5. Beyond clean and safe, do you do programming, etc.?We were doing cleaning and security in the area, but this added a lot of real estate, something like 150,000 square feet, and that needed to be maintained by us. Now that there are people in those spaces, so that means there is garbage and wear and the need for security, so there was a tremendous expense for us taking on management for the spaces, so that’s one aspect of it. The other aspect of it, and this is one of the chief lessons of the creation of the spaces is that programming is extremely important. If you’ve just created a big pedestrian plaza, you’ve just created a big vacuum for activity that you may or may not want in those areas. We have a really robust public works program that we have focused a lot on the pedestrian plazas. There’s also a lot of events that take place in Times Square. On any given day there’s probably something happening in the plazas. That’s very important and even though we’ve put a lot of effort into programming these spaces, there’s still activities that pop up – the guys dressed in the character costume outfits that are very unappealing. So if I were going to do this, I would make sure that the programming of the plazas is absolutely elemental; what you’re going to do with the spaces once they’re created. Through DOT, we had the right to engage in a sub-concession process so we created some food service kiosks within the plazas to keep some positive activity happening. If you’re just going to put tables and chairs out, and not have anything going on, you’re not necessarily going to get great activity there all the time. 76 So if Los Angeles should be very serious about what they’re going to allow to take place in those spaces. In Times Square, there’s a lot of commercial events that take place very frequently, because like to launch products or promote entertainment or whatever in Times Square, so we have a lot of stuff going on that we don’t even program but that just happens there. And then we have our own events and our own public art program, and our own concessions, and so you want to make sure that there is a lot of stuff happening in those plazas. 6. How do you handle concessions agreements, permitting, etc. and are you able to raise revenue in that way?DOT gave us two ways to recoup the expense for taking care of the plazas. DOT did think about this ahead of time and they told us that when a commercial event takes place in Times Square, they will have applied to the City for a permit to have an event in the public space, they have always paid a fee to the city and they will also pay a fee to us. That was one way we could recoup some revenue. The second way was that he had a concession agreement with the City and we had a right to do a sub-concession for commercial activity that is positive to the area. So that’s how we went out and did the RFP for food service to have these movable, but not mobile kiosks that sell food. We have three and they pay us a base rent or a percentage, whichever is higher and that revenue is completely dedicated as per our agreement with DOT, to the maintenance of the plaza. 7. How does the percentage break down?There is a pre-determined scale. X to the City, Y to us, but I don’t know the numbers.8. Do you have a continuing relationship with DOT?We have a continuing relationship with DOT anyway, because we work with them very closely, and for the past two years, we have been a co-client with them on the design contest on the plazas, so I work with them on a daily basis on any number of issues and the people who run the plaza program, we talk to all the time. For example, there was an idea about doing a different kind of concession and so I went back to them to say, is this within the realm of what’s possible through our concession agreement and things like that? We wanted to do a tourism kiosk out there, and they said yes that’s fine, we’d have to go through the City process, but yes, they provide guidance as to whether its okay to activate the plazas in certain ways, but as far as maintenance, they don’t really get involved. We just do what we have to do and they don’t inspect or anything like that.9. And that was all outlined explicitly in written form?We have a master license agreement that is pretty detailed as to what we can and can’t do in the space. Some of it was predetermined and some of it was based on the fact that we had good relationships with the people in DOT, some of it was outlined in the service 77 agreement and it became subject to negotiation as we went forward, because they tried to imagine everything that might happen but you never know with these spaces, that sometimes things come up that you can’t think of. So it’s an existing ongoing conversation about how the spaces evolve. 10. Were there any terms that were subject to negotiation?There were a number of BIDs that had gone before us, in terms of negotiating this agreement, and you might want to talk to them, the Flatiron BID and the Fashion Center BID, and 4th Street, which wouldn’t sign the agreement at first, but I think they have signed it now. There was a lot of negotiation before Times Square got involved, and by the time we got involved basically DOT wasn’t negotiating anymore. They were finished with the agreement and it was take it or leave it. Our feeling was, if we leave it, we’re still going to maintain this space because we’re not going to let Times Square look crappy, so we went ahead and signed it, and the truth is while it was not subject to a lot of negotiation and not every clause was favorable to us, the reality of the fact is, on a day to day basis, it’s a working relationship between us and the agency and they were pretty flexible as far as making sure things worked out. 11. What are the most important qualities of the relationship and plan that are key?It’s important to think about the activities that you do and do not want to take place in these spaces. One of our great concerns was vending. We already have a lot street vending in Times Square. It’s an issue of much contention and one of the things that we were really worried about was that these plazas are still effectively streets and sidewalks in terms of how they’re governed. And our concern was that all the rules are extending distance from the curb and it just created all this new space and how do we make sure that it doesn’t fill up with vendors, because we’re not going to have as much legal backbone anymore to say that its overcrowded or that there’s a curb-line, so that’s an ongoing issue because when they do the permanent build-out, there won’t be any curbs anymore. For the whole extent of Broadway, there won’t be a curb. So one of the things I would think about ahead of time is what are the activities we don’t want to see out there and how can we control for that. The other thing that is very important is how they’re designed and laid out. If you’re thinking of doing a temporary pilot, that’s one thing – if you’re thinking of doing something permanent, that’s something different. But you want to use the design and programming to facilitate the kind of activity that you envision that you’d like to see out there and that will work for the public. We really didn’t expect for it to fill up with costume characters, and is there is anything that we could have done to avoid that, I don’t know. But maybe we could have thought about the design differently. Maybe we wouldn’t have created a big open space, but smaller gathering spaces or had more greenery or whatever – greenery doesn’t really work in Times Square. 78 What are the existing rules governing the spaces – how will the spaces be defined legally – are you going to be able to have a code of conduct. New York City has an incredibly strong First Amendment ethos – our local judges will never rule that something isn’t First Amendment productive, so we knew we had a problem with things like the costume characters and people First Amendment vending, like selling picture-postcards – we had very little control over that. So I would think about your rules that would help you with the land use – that would help you control for the things that you don’t want to see out there. That also relates to, what are your goals for the space? Why are you creating these spaces? I’m curious about where Los Angeles is planning to do this? Because you also want to have a critical mass of people; there has to be a reason for creating these spaces. 12. Broadway – partial plaza extension, also smaller plazas. My feeling for Los Angeles in general, again, I’m a native, is you want to have a critical mass of users. It’s the saddest thing in the world – and it’s happened some places in New York where they created some of these little plazas and they’re never used, so I would be very strategic about where and why you’re creating the plazas. In our area, the need was so clear. We were so overcrowded and also it wasn’t just that we were overcrowded, but that you have so many people come to Times Square just to look at it, that you had all these people walking really slowly and stopping and it was driving people who were trying to get somewhere crazy. So there was a very clear imperative for doing this. And I would say that to create a plaza just to create a plaza because right now pedestrian projects are cool is not a good idea. There really have to be functional reasons that requires the closure of the street, and if there isn’t, it doesn’t work. And I think particularly of little half-plazas that they created. Broadway is completely closed between 42nd and 47th Street, but then they created these mini-plazas between 47th Street and 69th, all the way up to Columbus Circle, and they’re seriously under-utilized spaces – nobody uses those spaces. And people complain about it as a waste of space. There’s not really anybody sitting there and they’re not really programmed and what’s being accomplished with the space? So I would really recommend that you target spaces where the sidewalks are just brewing with people and where people gather. In Silver Lake people actually walk there and people might want to have a coffee in a plaza – there’s no parkland so it may make sense to have that. But I think they can be useless in the wrong location and for the wrong reasons.In LA, you want to get people out of their cars and create pedestrian destinations, but NY has a lot of natural destinations, LA does not. 79 I would focus on places near the County museum – places where people are going anyway – a natural pedestrian space and then extend that. If you’re choosing a triangle and thinking that you can create a park…it has to work with the culture. Start on focusing on the existing destinations. LA is really tough from this perspective. Broadway (LA) is a really heavy commercial street. I would think a lot about who is going to sit there. What are people looking at? If you have a density of office workers that’s a possibility - people want to come out at lunchtime and eat in a public space. Don’t think, “Plazas are cool, they’re doing them in New York – let’s do them here.” What’s the problem you’re trying to solve where the plaza is a tool?Should create spaces for people coming to spaces anyway and have no where to stop and sit and look. I would start with what’s the problem we’re trying to solve where the plaza is a fix, and not the other way around. Who is going to be in those spaces?We have a natural user group of millions of visitors. A lot of things in urban planning that become trendy as solutions, and instead of finding solutions for problems, they start with solution and then back in. Plazas around Herald, Union, Times Square – very successful – in between spaces with just office buildings and not too many people on the sidewalks – not successful. So I would really think carefully about that and whether that makes sense. I can think of places in LA that make sense, Santa Monica, although that has the beach…13. On the homeless problem…We don’t have a homeless problem. We used to have a homeless problem, but then we got so developed and overrun with visitors, that we were no longer attractive to homeless. We just have a few homeless hanging around the plaza.If you don’t a critical mass of people that you think will be there everyday, then you’ve created a vacuum and a vacuum is going to be filled by somebody and that somebody might be a homeless. If nobody else is using it and you’ve just created an empty space, then you’ve just created a fantastic space for the homeless. They don’t want to be in places that are really crowded. Homeless congregate where there aren’t a lot of other people. 80 Jennifer Brown, Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership 1. Was this a DOT or BID idea?It was actually DOT’s initiative and it had to do with a larger vision that they had for Broadway in particular, along the corridor in Manhattan. They had set their sights on doing these kinds of plazas and improvements along Broadway, basically from 59th Street down to 14th Street. So when our project was implemented back in 2008, it was along with Broadway Boulevard, which is in the Fashion Center BID District, and then came Times Square and Herald Square, so we were one of the first. They definitely came to us, although now they have a version of the plaza program where groups apply, but were we being totally responsive to DOT at that time. 2. Anything you could tell me about that relationship?When they first approached us, it was more conceptual, they had an idea of what they wanted to do – they wanted to reduce the lanes of traffic and take away a roadbed and create these spaces out of what was under-utilized roadbed. So at the time we had these traffic asphalt triangles at the major intersections of Broadway and 5th Avenue, 23rd Street that were kind of a mess and there were these barren traffic triangles, so they came to us with this whole plan to reconfigure the traffic pattern and then create the spaces, so it was really part of this larger plan. The details of the agreement, because we were so new, we were among the first to be implemented, the actual agreement itself didn’t even exist at that point in time. Now they have the template – but at the time, the project and idea came first and then we started to negotiate the details of what would ultimately end up being the model for the license agreement, which came after. We didn’t actually have anything signed when they implemented our spaces.3. What were the goals that you were hoping to accomplish?The traffic configuration that they were proposing sounded like a good idea. It was a master force and they had done research and studying of traffic patterns, and we were independently confirming or denying anything they had to say about the traffic patterns and we relied on them to talk about how it would be an improvement to what was there now. Certainly from a pedestrian experience, there were improvements that were part of that package and we were enthusiastic about that. There were these derelict asphalt traffic triangles there because of the positioning of the main space that we now call the North Plaza, it looks directly south at the Flatiron Plaza – arguably one of most photographed buildings in the world. And so what was happening before that was that a lot of the visitors that were coming to take pictures of the Flatiron 81 were standing in the middle of the street – so our initial reaction was that at least it would be good for that situation, because people were literally standing in the middle of 5th Avenue and Broadway trying to take pictures of the building. The project created 35,000 sq. ft. of new public space. It’s right next to Madison Square Park, and so in the beginning, we questioned whether or not the spaces would be heavily utilized. In some of the other neighborhoods where they were talking about doing this, there was a real lack of public space, so you could see where that we would be a huge benefit to the community because there wasn’t a lot of passive space. At first, we thought it would at least be good for the visitors. We weren’t sure how it would work since there is a six-acre park right next to the sight. We have now seen that people see the spaces differently and use the plaza as a gathering place. Traffic, picture taking, we thought would be benefits, for the rest, wait and see how it goes. 4. Once on the ground, how successful would you rate it, how has that evolved? People started using the spaces the minute that DOT started to map out the plazas with orange cones. When the plazas were initially opened with the furniture and all that, there was an immediate gravitation to the spaces from people in the neighborhood and visitors. We learned very early on that they were going to be utilized and that people looked at them in different ways than they way they looked at the park and would use it in different ways.There were glitches with the traffic patterns at the beginning. For the first couple of weeks, we had concerns about Broadway, but they worked themselves out in few weeks. What they were intentionally trying to do was to take traffic away from Broadway, and so everyone was still used to using it, especially the cabs and there was some bottlenecking in the early weeks, but then the southward flow started to go off on other avenues, as DOT intended. There has been more bottlenecking south of 23rd Street, for the second implementation, but nothing that has been catastrophic. 5. Was there ever any discussion of reverting the space?No, they were well received from the get-go and that has never come up. We started getting anecdotal comments immediately and we also do a community survey every year. The proportion of people liking vs. disliking the space has always been above 90%. 82 6. Does DOT provide continuing guidance and support?It’s up to DOT if they want to share the license agreement with you, but if you read the agreement, the roles are very clear and there is discussion about reporting things to DOT and actually issuing reports to DOT, so all those things are happening on a regular basis and that keeps the line of communication open, but we’re also talking to them on a very real-time basis about various things that are going on with the plazas. The main point of contact who managed the program on a day-to-day basis for years just left last Friday to take a new position – Ed Janoff. There is specific reporting that is required – quarterly and annual reports – and if a sub-concession, then reporting related to that. There is also the behind-the-scenes day-to-day stuff that goes on when something is coming up or we need to talk to them about something that has happened or there is an emergency situation. 7. Is there anything in the agreement that should be changed?We were in a group of three BIDs that were among the first to see plaza implementation, Fashion Center, Flatiron, …implemented Broadway Boulevard, and then the people that ran the 34th Street Partnership were at the table in those early days in terms of the maintenance agreement negotiation initially because they also managed the Chelsea Improvement Co. and there was a plaza in Chelsea, but then Herald Square became part of the plan and so they were at the table in two capacities. One group of people led by Dan Bederman, who runs the 34th Street Partnership and Bryant Park and Chelsea Improvement Co. The initial agreement was completely not something that any of us could sign or would sign and it took about a year to negotiate the first maintenance agreement. We didn’t actually sign that until the fall of 2009 after over a year of managing the public plazas, and so we did go through a lot of negotiations and growing pains with that initial round. Now, they just present essentially what we all signed.We had issues, which were primarily related to liability and insurance coverage. There was a lot of discussion about reporting requirements and whether or not they were too onerous. At the time, there was a lot of concern that they were too onerous. It hasn’t really felt that way in reality in the last several years. We don’t have a sub-concession up yet, so we’re working on that now and that kicks in a whole other level of reporting, so the jury is still out on whether or not that reporting is going to be too onerous. We did make the strides we needed to make in terms of liability. We did have to increase our insurance coverage to manage the plaza program. All of the BIDs contract with the City through the Department of Small Business Services, so we already have a contract 83 with the City and we already have insurance requirements related to that and DOT was requiring more, so that was a negotiation that went back and forth, but we ended up signing at the higher level and agreeing to the higher insurance level, but there were people within the group that didn’t think that BIDs should have to sign an agreement with an agency that stipulated a higher insurance level than what we were required to have under our basic contract with the city. So that was a point of negotiation.The agreement works for us and we got a lot of what we needed out of the negotiation process in order to feel comfortable signing it. We’re larger than a lot of the organizations that DOT is asking to sign the same agreement, so from the capacity and liability and insurance perspective, I don’t think it’s one size fits all, and I think that they’ve been focused on getting everybody to sign the same thing. Increasing our insurance, which costs us a few thousand each year, at the budget we’re at, $1.6 million, we can handle that, but an organization with $200,000 budget may not be able to deal with that. DOT was asking for $5 million, they agreed to $2 million. Anyone who wants to do filming is required to do $1 million –that’s the standard level. It depends on who you’re asking to do these things. It’s not just BIDs. In some cases, it’s other organizations without the built-in capacity for clean and safe. And that is where it becomes really challenging for some of the groups to figure out how they’re going to do what the agreement requires them, which always require at least clean, if not safe. 8. You don’t have a sub-concession agreement for the space?There is language in the maintenance agreement about sub-concessions – a food kiosk or something that is there longer-term. The ability to recoup revenue to offset expenses was a huge part of the original negotiations that year and we do have that capacity in multiple ways. We can take direct sponsorships of the plazas – if somebody wanted to sponsor the fact that they’re there, where you can brand furniture and umbrellas and we can raise sponsorship money. We can raise money through sub-concessions, so if we have a food kiosk out there, which is something we are working on, we have the ability to negotiate a percentage of the revenue and events and filming is another way that we’ve made revenue. In NYC, two different offices that deal with those types of activities in public space, and the scenario for the revenue stream is different depending on what it is. If it is a commercial event, and we have a lot of commercial events in public spaces in NYC, they have to pay a fee to the City, through the Street Activity permit office and then those of us that have signed a maintenance agreement for a public plaza space have a separate fee schedule so we’re guaranteed to get a fee if it’s a commercial event in our spaces. When 84 it comes to filming, in NYC, filming is basically free it is considered a huge economic driver to the City, so we may take voluntary contributions from film crews, but it’s not a set schedule the way it is with commercial events. But we have been able to raise a pretty significant offset from those activities. The term sub-concession is its own thing. If DOT does share the license agreement, you’ll see pages and pages of language about sub-concessions.9. Do you actively program the space?We do. That’s one of the ways that the spaces have evolved over time. In the first years, we were just getting up and running. We have 148 standing planters, some of which are traffic barriers, others just decoration. Just doing clean and safe, horticulture, and being responsive to filming and commercial events. That’s a lot of staff time to coordinate those things on site and to make sure everyone is doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Now we’ve evolved to where we’re doing more programming. We did a large holiday program last year with 23 days of consecutive free programming on the spaces and we had a large holiday installation that we commissioned ourselves. Last year we did Tech Ed classes with an incubator space called General Assembly that’s right in the neighborhood, so we’ve definitely done more of that over time. 10. Anything else that are the most important qualities about the DOT relationship?The understanding of the organization’s capacity to do everything that we just talked about is really important. And to not set up expectations for a group that just can’t handle it, even from a staffing point of view. On a day-to-day basis it can be a lot of work, in terms of the reporting and all that. It created a whole new project area for us. It’s not just an extension of existing maintenance programs, but is a standalone project in itself, and so that’s important for everyone to realize – DOT and organization.11. Homelessness? There have been some issues in some of the spaces in NYC. I spoke to the SF people about 18 months ago having the same conversation. We have situations like that sometimes during the day, although the spaces are pretty heavily populated when the weather is nice, in particular. We lock our furniture up at night to prevent theft, but also we don’t want them to become large homeless encampments overnight. We suspected that might happen, based on activity happening around Madison Square Park over the years. Fashion Center had some issues with that several years ago. They were leaving their stuff out overnight. Google – Homeless in Public Plazas in NYC 85 We haven’t had as much problem. With plazas, there are no curfews. During Occupy, plaza managers were interested in how the City would interpret the rules. We don’t see people just lying down on the spaces. They lock up the furniture and so they haven’t had problems. 86 Phillip Kellogg, Fulton Area Business Alliance 1. How were the plazas initiated?We approached DOT. They announced the plaza program and we had a couple locations that we thought were terrific underutilized traffic triangles so we brought it to the City.2. What were your goals?In both cases, enhancing the pedestrian experience, converting the traffic triangles into public spaces. From the BID standpoint, by enhancing the pedestrian experience and making it more appealing to spend more time in the commercial corridor. We strongly believe that it has translated to people coming to our strip more often and discovering more of the stores and businesses. Pedestrian safety – in both, to enhance pedestrian safety as they walk around the busy areas of the city.The Fulton and Grand plaza, taking back for the community an area that had long been inhabited by drug dealers and changing the usage. It is a work in progress, but it has had a transformative effect. We’ve only been in business as a BID for 3.5 years and a couple of months, we had a tree giveaway in connection with a City program to give away trees to people in the community. We chose what became the future Putnam Plaza site as the location to have the giveaway because we wanted different uses at that location that had been long an open-air drug market. It was a huge success and that’s why we pursued that as a plaza. We haven’t been able to get rid of all the drug dealing, but they don’t own it. There are a lot of initiatives going into it, but that was one of our goals – to take back an area in the district by bringing in multiple uses to an area that unfortunately had only one. 3. What are the characteristics of your district?Putnam Triangle is different than Fowler Square, where the demographics are changing fast. Flatiron has a lot of office, retail. Our area is lower scale buildings and development. 4. Do you have a continuing relationship with NYC DOT?We’re working with them very closely. Our plazas are temporary materials right now, but they’ve both been funded to be built out as capital construction projects. Landscape 87 designers and architects are working in the community with us and the DOT to reimagine the space in each case with the geometry, the usage, and moving fire hydrants, curbs, looking at pavings and public art – all things are on the table. So we’ll be working with DOT for the next 2.5-3 years on those projects. Putnam was a recent announcement. It’s not sink or swim. We’re constantly talking as things come up.5. What is their reception?Both have been overwhelming successes. There are always protests from some community members, but 90% of the opposition went away the day the plaza was installed. People were drawn to them instantly. 6. What were the issues?Fears are usually identical – traffic Armageddon, people hanging out all night or creating havoc – those are the two biggest ones. They are often articulated different ways. Between you and I, a lot of people just don’t want change. Traffic has been improved in both locations. People haven’t been hanging out all night. One still has drug problems, but these things take time. 7. Have you had much trouble with homeless?We don’t have that problem. 8. The first in 2011, the second 2012 – they came about through the RFP?Fowler Square first came about through the NYC DOT Plaza Program application process. Putnam is when we went to DOT and said here is another great opportunity. In order to get in the funding pipeline, we followed up with an application.9. What are the key qualities of the program?It’s interesting how much they’ve learned since the first year of the project. They learn from each roll out. We even learn from each rollout. Where they are now with community engagement and community partners – they’re doing studies beforehand, answering questions before people ask them, anticipating the issues from experience is something they do a good job of. It’s really important to listen to the local community partners, because what they deal with on Flatiron might be very different than what I’m dealing with on Fulton Street. Being mindful of their presentations, they’re good at. 88 They’ve been great with sharing information with what happens with different BIDs to learn from and vice versa. 10. Was the maintenance agreement set or was anything negotiable?We’re in the process of signing our document shortly. We’re still ironing out one last thing. But we’ve gone back and forth on some details. 11. What are those details? Well, or an oversight. There’s one location where at our request, they installed some pedestrian lights and the contract indicated that we would be maintaining those, but because they were like streetlights, we said, we can’t do that because that’s what you guys do.Clarifying snow removal pathways was something we went back and forth on. There are some points we were open to…12. Was that all laid out explicitly? It was laid out explicitly, but some of it was just correcting geometry and locations. 13. Have you conducted metrics to measure economic benefit? With Fowler Square, before going forward with making it permanent, we went back around to all the businesses surrounding the plaza and got a letter of support from all but one. When we applied at Putnam to be part of the NYC Plaza Program, after we had the plaza in place for a while as a regular LADOT project, we got letters of support for making it permanent from people around the plaza. Those were very tangible demonstrations of people’s supports.We received an award from MetLife Foundation for police/community partnerships for drug trade disruption for our strategy with the plaza among other things, as part of a multifaceted strategy.We had a real estate agent do a survey of property values and found that within six months of the plaza opening, prices had skyrocketed in that area, whereas overall, the neighborhood’s property values decreased in that area. It was an area that was ripe for attention and we attained a lot more development interest. Check the DOT Post-Implementation presentation on the website for Fowler. 89 14. Considering your lower revenue, is management a strain on your BID?I wouldn’t say that it’s a strain, but because we have recognized it as a priority, we have had to adjust the budget to fund some of the incremental costs. We already have people cleaning and doing trashcans there, so that did fold into our operations. One of our commitments to the community was to tie up the tables and chairs at night to allay their fears of people sitting outside all night. We have a crew member working 4-5 hours in the summer from 4-9 or 10 all summer, so that’s an incremental cost, and we’re taking on snow removal, but that’s not a huge amount.Flatiron, on the other hand, has the most amazing horticulture plantings – we don’t have that as dramatic as they have, because of their budget. We have some, but it’s more modest. DOT money pays for the reconstruction. 15. How did the upgrade come about?Fowler was selected and funded out of the Plaza Program budget. The implementation of the temporary materials plaza by the DOT was in part to test how it would work with a modest budget with all of-the-shelf materials from the detail.I highly recommend that two-step approach. 16. Is there anything else that you recommend?The arguments against these things are universal in NYC and everywhere else, but when people see it, the arguments go away. 90 Jesse Goldman, Alliance for Downtown New York 1. Who initiated the Water-Whitehall Plaza project, BID or DOT?It was a little of both, because we have a Water Street study that looked at that whole corridor and suggested something similar. So that’s how that came about. That study is on our website. 2. You already had an existing relationship with DOT and the plaza came about through discussions? Yes, we have a relationship with them on many different projects. 3. What were the BID’s goals in creating the plaza?You should read the study. It’s about that corridor and making a gateway to that corridor. 4. How successful has the plaza been in helping you reach those goals outlined in the document? It’s one of many steps. We like the plaza. We think it provides much needed space. But if you’re looking at it in terms of redefining an entire commercial corridor, I guess it’s a little different. 5. How have your stakeholders received the plaza?It’s generally been received well. The property owner actually wants something more permanent and they have their own ideas about how it should be designed, but other than that, we are forced to mitigate their concerns, they had a few, and that was during implementation that we worked to mitigate that. But generally, positive, definitely. 6. What is the most relevant thing you can tell me about the project and your relationship with DOT, in light of my description of my goal?We do a lot of the maintenance, and they assist us – if something’s broken, they’ll help us replace it. They have a bunch of other programs that they wind up trying to use the plaza space for, and we just try to represent the owners. They want to try out a new piece of furniture, and we’ll say that we’ll run it by the owners. That’s really our job in everything we do. 7. Do you generate revenue?No. 91 8. Were there any terms that were subject to negotiation?We don’t follow the usual agreement that other BIDs have signed. That is a policy that we have with a lot of their stuff. I can’t really comment on that, as to why we’re different, but we do not sign that agreement. I know which agreement you’re talking about, and we would never, I don’t think we’ve ever signed it. 9. Is there any signed agreement? In some cases, the relationship is ad hoc.It’s more formal than that, but it’s not an agreement…10. How necessary is it to have a large assessment revenue for success of the project?I think it matters how important it is to the BID. To us, you’re right, it’s a smaller percentage of our overall budget, because we are a bigger BID and we do a lot more, but for other BIDs where it’s very important, they spend a big percentage of their budget on something like this. So I think it matters what the BID’s goals are. We know how much it costs us, but we don’t comment on that publicly. We think it’s important enough to continue.11. Metrics on economic benefit?We haven’t studied it. Feel free to call back with any follow-up questions. I don’t know how much help are because we treat the program very differently from someone like Times Square. I encourage you to read the document to show why we did it in the first place. 12. Is it just that it’s not as important to the BID?It’s very important, but we don’t sign that regular agreement, we don’t program it the same way – it’s more tailored to our needs. 92 Appendix III: References/Bibliography Business Improvement Districts Allen, Sam. “Some chafe at downtown L.A.’s business improvement districts.” LA Times: December 14, 2012.Becker, C. & Grossman, S. (2010). Census of United States BIDs. International Downtown Association. Washington, D.C.Becker, C. (2010). Self-determination, accountability mechanisms, and quasi-governmental status of business improvement districts in the United States. Public Performance & Management Review, 33 Blackwell, M. (2005). A critical appraisal of the UK government’s proposals for business improvement districts in England. Journal of Property Management, 23 (3). Briffault, R. (1999). A government for our time: Business improvement districts and urban governance. Columbia Law Review, 99(2), 365-477.Brooks, L. (2008). Volunteering to be taxed: Business improvement districts and the extra-governmental provision of public safety. Journal of Public Economics 92(1-2): 388-406.Caruso, G., & Weber, R. (2006). Getting the max for the tax: An examination of BID performance measures. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(1-3), 187-220 Cook, I. R. (2008). Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US business improvement districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies, 45 (4). pp. 2261-2284.Dickerson, M. (1999, January 20). Small business, enterprise zone, zones of controversy: Improvement districts spur revival – and division. Los Angeles Times Ellen, I.G., Schwartz, A.E., & Voicu, I. (2007). The impact of business improvement districts on property values: Evidence from New York City. In Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, edited by Gary Burtless and Janet Rothenberg Pack, 1-31. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.“Figueroa Corridor Partnership Business Improvement District Engineer’s Report.” Prepared by Kristin Lowell Inc. Los Angeles, CA, February 2012.Gross, J. S. (2005). Business improvement districts in New York City’s low-income and high-income neighborhoods. Economic Development Quarterly, 19 (174). 93 Grossman, S. A. (2010, August). Elements of public-private partnership management: Examining the promise and performance criteria of business improvement districts. Journal of Town & City Management, 2 Grossman, S.A. (2008, December). The case of business improvement districts: Special district public-private cooperation in community revitalization. The Public Performance & Management Review, 32 (2)Holter, D. (2002). BIDs: A quiet revolution in urban management. California Policy Options, UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, pp. 47-52.Houstoun, L. (2000, February). BIDs growing pains. Urban Land, 65 Houstoun, L. (2003). BID: Business improvement districts. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute Houstoun, L. (2004, January). Capitalist tool. Planning. retrieved from: http://lhoustoun.wordpress.com/business-improvement-districts-2/capitalist-tool/Howard, B. (2000, March 28). Valley business: A BID for change. Los Angeles Times Hoyt, L. (2005). Do business improvement districts make a difference? Crime in and around commercial areas in Philadelphia. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(2) 185-199 Justice, J. B., and R. W. Goldsmith. (2006). Private governments or public policy tools? The law and public policy of New Jersey’s special improvement districts. International Journal of Public Administration. 29. (1-3): 107-36. Justice, J. (2009, May/June). Public places and quasi-private administration. Public Administration Review. pp. 553-556 International Downtown Association (1996). Establishing Property-Based Business Improvement Districts in California. Washington, D.C.Hoyt, L. & Devika, G. (2007). The business improvement district model: A balanced review of contemporary debates. Geography Compass, 1 (4). Kotkin, J. (2000, August 20). Grass-roots business; A casbah for clothes is bustling in California. The New York Times Lofland, L. H. (2002). Commodification of public space. College Park: Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of Maryland. 94 Los Angeles BID Consortium. (2009, April). The state of Los Angeles’ business improvement districts: Why BIDs matter. Retrieved: http://www.labidconsortium.org/pdf/STATEofBIDs.pdf Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Blumenberg E., & Ehrenfeucht R. (2005). Sidewalk democracy: Municipalities and the regulation of public space. In Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, edited by Eran Ben-Joseph & Terry S. Szold, 141-66. New York: Routledge.McCloud, J. (1996, May). Bidding for success: BIDs are helping cities compete with malls. California Real Estate Journal, pp. 16-19 Mitchell, D. & Staheli, L. A. (2006). Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public space, and homelessness in downtown San Diego. In The Politics of Public Space, edited by Setha Low & Neil Smith, 143-75. New York: Routledge.Mitchell, J. (1999, November). Business improvement districts and innovative service delivery. PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government Mitchell, J. (2008). Business improvement districts and the shape of American cities. Albany: SUNY Press Pack, J. (1992). BIDs, DIDs, SIDs, SADs: Private government in urban America. Brookings Review, 10, 18-21 Renstra-Bryant, R. (2010). Evaluations of business improvement districts: Ensuring relevance for individual communities. Public Performance & Management Review, 33 (3), pp. 509-523 Schaller, S. & Modan, G. (2005). Contesting public space and citizenship: Implications for neighborhood business improvement districts. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24(4): 394-407.Segal, M. Bradley. (1997, March). Business improvement districts: Tool for economic development. Management Information Service Report 29 (3), International City/County Management Association Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.Stokes, R. (2007). Business improvement districts and small business advocacy: The case of San Diego’s citywide BID program. Economic Development Quarterly, 21 (3), pp. 278-291 95 Westman, A. (2010). BIDs take care of business: How LANI can use business improvement districts to improve and maintain its neighborhoods. (graduate thesis). University of California, Los Angeles.Parklets and Pedestrian Plazas Abad Ocubillo, R. (2012). Experimenting with the Margin: Parklets and Plazas as Catalysts in Community and Government (graduate thesis). University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Arieff, A. (2009, September 22). Pavement to Parks. The New York Times: Opinionator Barthold, E. (1993). The Predicament of the “Parklets”: Understanding Washington’s Smaller Parks. Washington History, 5 (7), pp.28-45 Benjamin, W. (1999) The Arcades Project. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Berg. N. (2010). From Parking to “Parklets”. Planning, 76 (6), p.5 Chase, J. L. (2008). The Space Formerly Known as Parking. In J.L. Chase, M. Crawford & J. Kaliski (Eds.) Everyday Urbanism, pp.194-199. New York, NY: Monacelli Press CMG (2012). Parkmobiles and Yerba Buena Street Life Plan Unveiled. Retrieved from CMG website: http://www.cmgsite.com/news/2011/parkmobiles-and-yerba-buena-street-life-plan-unveiled/Drennen, E. (2003, December). Economic effects of traffic calming on urban small businesses. http://www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf Ehrenfeucht, R., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2010). Planning Urban Sidewalks: Infrastructure, Daily Life and Destinations. Journal of Urban Design, 15 (4). Pp.459-471.Garde, A.M. (1999). Marginal Space in the Urban Landscape: Regulated Margins or Incidental Open Spaces? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, pp. 200-210.Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, D.C.: Island Press Haydn, F. & Temel, R. (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser Hou, J. (Ed.). (2010). Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Routledge. 96 Jesi, A. (2010, September 7). DIY Urbanism: Outdoor living rooms improve neighborhoods without resorting to gentrification. Retrieved from the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Blog: http://www.spur.org/blog/2010-09-07/diy_urbanism_outdoor_living _rooms_improve_neighborhoods_without_resorting_gentrifica Jones, C. (2009, September 22). “Broadway broadens pedestrian access.” USA Today Keffer, R. (2010 September). DIY Urbanism: Testing the grounds for social change. The Urbanist, September 2010, Issue 496 Lavine, E. (2012). Spectacle in the New Green City. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25.1 Los Angeles County. (2011). Model Design Manual for Living Streets Lydon, M. (2011, March) “The Difference Between Tactical and DIY Urbanism.” Retrieved from the Pattern Cities website: patterncities.com/archives/284 Martin, D. (1998, April 4). Greening of the Forgotten Islets; Concrete Deserts Bloom as Parks Dept. Thinks Small. New York Times, p. B1 McCormick, C. (2012, June). York Boulevard: The economics of a road diet. http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/york_blvd_final_report_compress.pdf Miller, R. (2012, Winter) Parklets: Turning Parking Spaces into Parks. The New Planner New York Department of Transportation (2012, October). Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf New York Department of Transportation (2012, March 9). Curbside Public Seating Platforms: Pilot Program Evaluation Report. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/curbside-seating_pilot-evaluation.pdf New York Department of Transportation (2012, March). NYC Plaza Program Application Guidelines New York Department of Transportation (2012a). Pedestrians & Sidewalks: Public Plazas. retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/sidewalks/public-plazas.shtml New York Department of Transportation (2012b). Frequently Asked Questions: NYC Plaza Program. retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/faq_publicplaza.shtml 97 New York Department of Transportation (2010, January). Greenlight for Midtown Evaluation Report. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/broadway_report_final2010_web.pdf New York Department of Transportation (2008, November 14). World Class Streets. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/World_Class_Streets_Gehl_08.pdf Newton, D. (2012, May 3). Huizar, Living Streets, Unveil Parklet Designs for El Sereno Street, York Blvd. retrieved from Los Angeles Streetsblog: http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/05/03/huizar-living-streets-unveil-parklet-designs-for-el-sereno-street-york-boulevard Pennsylvania Bureau of Community Development, and Pennsylvania Dept. of Community Affairs (1968). Parklets: a guide to a program for the development of small neighborhood parks. Pennsylvania Dept. of Community Affairs Sadik-Khan, J. (2011, June 7). NYC’s Plaza Program, An Open Space Model for L.A.? retrieved from Los Angeles Streetsblog: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/nycs-plaza-program-an-open-space-model-for-l-a/San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2010). Divisadero Trial Parklet Impact Report – March 2010. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Streets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Retrieved from: http://sfgreatstreets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DivisaderoReportPart1.pdf San Francisco Great Streets Project, (2011, June). City-wide Preliminary Findings. Retrieved from: http://sfgreatstreets.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ParkletStudy_InitialConditions.pdf San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2011a). Parklet Impact Study – August 2011. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Streets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2011b). Parklet Impact Study: Initial Conditions Summary – April 2011. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Great Streets Project. San Francisco: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2009, June). 17th Street Trial Plaza: User Perception and Analysis. Retrieved from: http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/upload1/17thsummary.pdf San Francisco Great Streets Project. (2012, January). Parklet Impact Study. Retrieved from: http://sfgreatstreets.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Parklet_Impact_Study.pdf 98 San Francisco Municipal Code (2010, October 19). ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS (PARKLETS). DPW Order No: 178,939 San Francisco Planning Department (2010-present). About Pavement to Parks. retrieved from http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/San Francisco Planning Department (2010, September 17). REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS “PARKLETS”San Francisco Planning Department (2011, May 5). REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS “PARKLETS”Seifert, W., Christopher, H.V., Farrar, S.M., Preston, T., Duarte, T.H., & Geraghty, A.B. (2009). Partnership Leads Community Towards Complete Streets. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 37 (6), pp.S420-S427 Seligman, K. (2011, June 19). San Francisco’s tiny plazas convert parking to parks. The Sacramento Bee Seltenrich, N. (2011, October 23). San Francisco Parklets swap parking spots for community space. San Francisco Examiner Steinhauer, J. (2008, April 26). Outdoor ‘Living Rooms’ Bring Touches of Cheer to Central Los Angeles. New York Times Street Plans Collaborative (2011, March). Tactical Urbanism: Volume 1. New York, New York: Street Plans Collaborative Street Plans Collaborative (2011, April). Tactical Urbanism: Volume 2. New York, New York: Street Plans Collaborative Taylor, T. (2009, October 21). From concrete to community. Financial Times UCLA Complete Streets Initiative. (September 2012). Reclaiming the Right-of-Way: A Toolkit for Implementing and Designing Parklets Vives, R. (2012, January 7). Long Beach joins the national ‘parklets’ trend. The Los Angeles Times The Washington Post. (1967, October 14). Neighbors’ Objections Change ‘Parklet’ Plans. Times Herald, p.B3 99 Waugh, D. (1947). Parklets: Gardens of Eden for Those Who Cannot Go to a Real Park. Landscape Architecture, 37 (2), p.56.Wolch, J., J.P. Wilson, and J. Fehrenbach. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography 26: 4-35. 100 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN LADOT PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM AND GARY BENJAMIN, UCLA MURP ‘13 Project Title: LADOT Pedestrian Programs Division Parklet and Plaza Program:Recommendations for Los Angeles BID Partnerships Introduction:This document constitutes a Memorandum of Understanding between Gary Benjamin, UCLA MURP candidate, and Margot Ocañas, Pedestrian Coordinator, LADOT Pedestrian Programs Division for a report that will determine:What are the optimal characteristics of BID-parklet management relationships in New York and San Francisco and how do those relationships translate to the LA context?This report will evaluate the LA BID context and make recommendations concerning: - The optimal structure of BID-parklet management relationships between LADOT and LA BIDs.- The optimal strategy LADOT strategy for initiating BID-parklet management relationships.This work in part fulfills the Master’s of Urban and Regional Planning degree requirements at the University of California, Los Angeles.Scope of Work:Gary Benjamin will undertake all the tasks listed in Exhibit A (Scope of Work) in order to complete the “Recommendations for Los Angeles BID Partnerships” report.The client project will be completed according to the agreed upon timeline from Exhibit B. 101 Terms:The service of Gary Benjamin is to begin on the date of execution of this Memorandum of Understanding (November 8, 2012) and shall be completed by June 14, 2012. The final product of the tasks, as described in Exhibit A, shall be delivered in the form of a report and presentation. Gary Benjamin will meet with the LADOT Pedestrian Programs Division representative every three weeks to discuss progress on the project. The final product will be completed by June 7, 2013, unless extended by the parties involved.The MURP Candidate will provide the Client Representative and University Faculty Advisor with a draft of the final document as defined in Exhibit A no later than May 4, 2013. The Client Representative and University Faculty Advisor will review the draft and return it to the MURP Candidate for revisions no later than May 25, 2013.The MURP Candidate will then provide a revised final report to the Client Representative and University Faculty Advisor for approval and signature on June 7. Upon acceptance of the final report document, the Client Representative will provide the MURP Candidate with a brief letter indicating approval of the project by June 14.Client Representative:Margot Ocañas, Pedestrian Coordinator with the LADOT Pedestrian Programs Division, will act as the Client’s representative and primary contact person for Gary Benjamin for the duration of the project as defined in Exhibit A. The Client Representative will provide Gary Benjamin with assistance, advisement, and direction as deemed necessary for the completion of the project.University Faculty Advisor:Professor Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, faculty member in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, will be the academic contact person to the MURP Candidate. The University Faculty Advisor will provide assistance, advisement, and direction, and be responsible for ensuring the quality of the report.Compensation and Privileges:The Client Representative will ensure that the MURP Candidate is provided will all resources (supplies, equipment, etc.) as deemed necessary to satisfy the completion of the project. 102 Rights:Gary Benjamin has the right to use the information collected in the project in other contexts (e.g., later publication). The project will be filed with the University of California, Los Angeles as a requirement for Master’s degree in Urban and Regional Planning. Therefore, the product will become a public document and access to the report cannot be only restricted to the Client.Agreement: The terms of this Agreement shall run from November 8, 2012 to June 15, 2012, with an option to renegotiate terms. In recognition of the obligations stated in this Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have executed the agreement on the date indicated below. In recognition of the conditions stated in this Memorandum of Understanding, the Client Representative, MURP Candidate, and University Faculty Advisor have executed this understanding on the date indicated below.Signatures: Date:______________________________________________________________ ________________Gary Benjamin ______________________________________________________________ ________________Margot Ocañas, LADOT Pedestrian Programs Division ______________________________________________________________ ________________Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, PhD ¬(Signatures already obtained on an earlier draft.) 103 EXHIBIT A:SCOPE OF WORK BETWEEN LADOT PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM AND GARY BENJAMIN, UCLA MURP ‘13 Context:In March of 2012, the non-profit Streets for People, in conjunction with various LA City and County agencies and community groups, opened Los Angeles’s first roadway-to-plaza conversion project, the “Sunset Triangle” in the Silver Lake neighborhood. In February of 2013, Los Angeles saw the opening of its first four parking space-to-park “parklet” projects in Downtown, Highland Park, and El Sereno. The LADOT Pedestrian Program seeks to encourage more parklet and pedestrian plaza projects in the City, as they contribute to the agency’s goal of enhancing the City’s pedestrian environment. LADOT intends to initiate a citywide RFP for new parklet/plaza conversion projects in late-spring/early-summer 2013. In San Francisco and New York City, Business Improvement Districts frequently serve as managing partners in parklet/plaza projects, and LADOT anticipates that BIDs will be key partners in projects here, as well.Project Objectives:This project seeks to answer the following question:What are the optimal characteristics of BID-parklet management relationships in New York and San Francisco and how do those relationships translate to the LA context?The report will evaluate the LA BID context and make recommendations concerning: - The optimal structure of BID-parklet managements relationships between LADOT and LA BIDs.- The optimal LADOT strategy for initiating BID-parklet management relationships. 104 Information Needed:In order to carry out this analysis and provide meaningful recommendations, I will need to acquire the following information:A. Organizational goals of:1. The LADOT Pedestrian Program.2. The NYC DOT Pedestrian Plaza Program and pilot parklet program, and the San Francisco Pavement to Parks program.3. BIDs in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.a. I will determine an LA BID “goal spectrum”, with an interest in determining which BIDs most share in the goals of the LADOT Pedestrian Program.B. Project needs, including:1. Maintenance.2. Capital.3. Liability, etc.C. Institutional capacity, varieties of BIDs.Methodology/Tasks Required to Complete Work: In order to document the range of experiences within the category of BID-parklet management relationships I will conduct exploratory case studies with interviews of the NYC DOT and SF P2P programs.A. Acquire and review MOUs and other documents pertaining to how the relationship was constituted.B. Interview stakeholders about how the relationships are going. 1. BID and city agency staff.C. Document behaviors, practices taking place on the ground. 1. How are these behaviors meeting the goals of each party?D. Note variety of relationships. 1. Downtown vs. neighborhood setting. 2. Property-based BID vs. merchant-based BID, etc. 3. Capacity, disposition of BIDs, etc.In order to discuss the transferability of the case study examples to Los Angeles, and to provide specific and thorough recommendations to LADOT, I will acquire specific facts regarding the LA BID context through published reports and by speaking with BID staff. 105 Data Collection Sequencing:After reviewing relevant literature and published materials:1. Conduct a phone scan of NYC DOT, SF P2P, and partner BIDs to determine the varieties, qualities, failures, and successes of relationships.2. Obtain 3-6 BID-parklet management MOUs from BIDs/agencies in each NYC and SF representing range of relationship experiences.3. Interview stakeholders about how relationships are going, practices on the ground, how the parklets are meeting their organizational goals.4. Conduct a phone scan of LA BID Directors, LA City agencies to determine range, qualities of LA BIDs, institutional histories.5. Obtain LA BID documentation from City Clerk to analyze capacity, goals, i.e. mission.6. Interview (select group or complete set of) LA BID Directors, to determine goals, short-term and long-term objectives, organizational capacity and interest as relates to the LADOT Pedestrian Program.Recommendations:The report will provide specific recommendations concerning:1. The optimal structure of BID-parklet managements relationships between LADOT and LA BIDs.2. The optimal LADOT strategy for initiating BID-parklet management relationships.Deliverable Products:The final product will be a report consisting in case studies of BID-parklet management relationships in New York City and San Francisco and an evaluation of the LA BID context and the transferability BID partnerships in those other cities to Los Angeles. The report will contain specific recommendations, as discussed in the previous section. I will also create a presentation on my findings that I can deliver to LADOT, the LA BID Consortium, and other interested stakeholders. 106 EXHIBIT B:TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF WORK BETWEEN LADOT PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM AND GARY BENJAMIN, UCLA MURP ‘13 UCLA Required Terms:Submit Final Document Draft to Client, Faculty Advisor: May 18, 2012 Client, Advisor Return Reviewed Draft to MURP Candidate: May 21, 2013 Final Product Completion: June 3, 2013 Client Provide Letter Indicating Project Approval: June 14, 2013 LADOT Timeline:First Meeting with Client: November 5, 2012 Execution of Memorandum of Understanding: November 12, 2012 Client’s Stated Request:- Be ready in April-June to provide thorough recommendations for the monthly meeting of the LA BID Consortium.Proposed Timeline:Client phone check-in: Friday, February 15, 2013 Client check-in meeting: Thursday, February 28, 2013/March 7, 2013 Final submittal: June 3, 2013 36 ITE Journal / May 2013 Parklets Providing Space for People to Park…Themselves By Michelle Birdsall T he movement to design complete streets that encourage more pedes -trians and bicyclists is leading major metropolitan cities to reclaim street-side parking spaces and turn them into min -iature public parks. Known as parklets, these spaces are popping up internation -ally, providing an economical and eye-pleasing solution to the need for increased public space where people can reconnect with the environment and each other in their community. In repurposing part of the street into a public space, parklets add aesthetic enhancements to the streetscape through benches, tables, umbrellas, plant -ers, and art. While originally developed as a place for pedestrians to sit and relax, some cities are even incorporating exer -cise machines into the parklet platforms to create active recreation opportunities. While parklets may be maintained by the businesses adjacent to them, they are built for the general public and are accessible and open to all, and as such the seat -ing and design must be distinct from the sponsoring business. Parklets are tempo -rary installations, with permits allowing them anywhere from a few months to a year, with options for time extensions. They are becoming a tool to change pub -lic policy in areas that have promoted cars over pedestrians, bringing back elements of an era where people interacted face-to-face with their neighbors on the street. While they may be small in size, park -lets promise tremendous impact in urban areas. By providing traffic calming and an extension to existing sidewalks, parklets are proving to be a fast, efficient way for cities to increase safety and livability while promoting active transpor -tation. Parklets can help address the need for wider sidewalks at a fraction of the cost and time of installing permanent sidewalk improvements, a major benefit for munici -palities that would like to make positive changes but do not have the budget for large scale projects. With bike racks being incorporated into the installations, some areas with parklets are seeing an increase in bicycling even without the implemen -tation of additional bicycle infrastructure. Parklets range in price between $20,000 to $50,000 depending on their design and scale, according to guides such as The San Francisco Parklet Manual .1 Best of all, most parklets are funded and maintained by neighboring businesses, residents, and community organizations who benefit from increased pedestrian activity.The Metered Parking s pace That s tarted i t a ll Part of the concept for parklets grew out of an action taken by the Rebar Group, a cutting-edge design studio. The studio describes how on one fall day in 2005 it transformed a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in an area of San Francisco, CA, USA that had been identified as lacking public open space. As part of its mission to produce artwork and design solutions that pro -mote human interaction and commu -nity, the Rebar Group fed the meter on the parking spot for two hours, taking what it called a short-term lease on the space and installing sod, a bench, and a tree for passersbys to enjoy. When the metered expired, they packed everything up and removed all traces of the tempo -rary park. A picture of the park spread on the Internet, and before long the stu -dio was fielding requests to create other temporary parks in metered spaces. The studio decided to create a how-to manual to help people create their own parks, thereby creating “PARK(ing) Day.©”* * PARK(ing) Day© is a Registered Servicemark of REBAR Group, Inc. ITE Journal / May 2013 37 Now occurring annually on the third Friday in September in hundreds of cities around the globe, PARK(ing) Day brings together citizens, artists, and activists who temporarily transform metered parking spaces into temporary public places. The mission of PARK(ing) Day is to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is cre -ated and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban living. Park(ing) Day installations have provided an opportu -nity to build public awareness of parklets and have increased potential support for more permanent installations.2 c ollaboration and Process l ead to s uccess Since the experiment that led to Park(ing) Day, San Francisco has set the stage for parklets. The world’s first formal parklets were installed in 2010 as part of the city’s Pavement to Parks program, a collab -orative effort between the San Francisco Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, the Municipal Trans -portation Agency, and the Mayor’s Office. Pavement to Parks also drew inspiration from successful projects in New York City, NY, USA, where plazas and seating areas have been created in former vehicle-heavy areas such as Times Square using simple treatments such as painting or treating the asphalt, placing protective barriers along the periphery, and installing moveable tables and chairs. According to Pavement to Parks, the program seeks to address the issue of ex -cessively wide city streets that contain large zones of wasted space, especially at intersections, in areas that need more public spaces by temporarily reclaiming these underused areas and inexpensively turning them into new public plazas and parks in a short amount of time. The pro -gram is helping the public to re-imagine uses for the city’s rights of way. By recast -ing spaces for cars as spaces for people in the form of parklets, local merchants have a new way to interact with the com -munity and attract new customers. Many businesses have reported revenue increases since the installation of a nearby parklet. This type of success can result in increased sales tax revenue for the city, and in some cases increased jobs as merchants hire more staff to accommodate the increased number of patrons.3 As of January 2013, 38 parklets have been installed throughout San Francisco, and the program is being emulated in cities around the world. Those looking to implement a parklet are turning to -wards the San Francisco Parklet Manual , which Pavement to Parks has developed not only as a comprehensive overview of the goals, policies, process, procedures, and guidelines for creating a parklet in o n Spring Street in downtown l os a ngeles, C a , u S a , two parklets have been installed in conjunction with new bike lanes and improved pedestrian crosswalks.Photo courtesy the Los Ange L es De PA rtment of t r A ns P ort A tion 38 ITE Journal / May 2013 San Francisco, but as a resource for those outside of San Francisco working to estab -lish parklet programs in their own cities. This extensive manual provides detailed specifications and guidelines for develop -ing parklets and provides a detailed over -view of the entire start-to-finish process, from obtaining a permit to disassembling the parklet when the project is over. San Francisco also disseminates information about parklets through informational meetings, bringing city staff from the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Transportation together to answer ques -tions about the parklet application, de -sign, and construction processes. The San Francisco Parklet Manual des -ignates parklets as being able to occupy former parking spaces, street medians, traffic triangles, repurposed travel lanes, or excess asphalt space at angled or ir -regular intersections. Their shapes may be linear, square, rectangular, triangular, or irregular depending upon the available space, with sizes ranging from one or two parking spaces to the length of an entire block. Parklets are generally permitted on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less and need to be located at least one park -ing space away from an intersection or street corner where they are less at risk for a motorized vehicle collision. Integrated bicycle parking is strongly encouraged, with bike racks integrated into the parklet structure or installed adjacent to the par -klet as a bike corral on the street.4 Another valuable resource is a manual developed by the University of California, Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Af -fairs, titled Reclaiming the Right of Way: A Toolkit for Creating and Implementing Parklets . The manual documents examples from cities such as Montréal, Quebec, Canada; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Los An -geles, CA, USA; Long Beach, CA, USA; and Oakland, CA, USA. The city of Los Angeles has been suc -cessful with its own emerging efforts to establish parklets in downtown areas where officials would like people to stop and linger rather than drive through to other destinations. According to Valerie Watson, Assistant Pedestrian Coordina -tor, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Pedestrian Programs Division, the most effective projects are using parklets as one applica -tion within a complete streets toolkit, in -stalling the parklets in conjunction with traffic lanes restriped for bicycles and im -proved pedestrian crosswalks. Watson is on the Los Angeles Parklet Design Team, which has installed two of the first four pilot parklets on Spring Street in Los Angeles in February 2013. These first two parklets occupy the length of two metered parking spaces in downtown Los Angeles and have been installed to com -plement the overall life of the street along with new bike lanes and crosswalks. The overall effect, achieved with simple paint and the parklet construction materials, has yielded significant safety benefits at a low cost. Lessons learned from installa -tion of these pilot parklets will help with the development of a citywide parklets Before and after images showing a former parking space transformed into a parklet in downtown l os a ngeles, C a , u S a .Photo courtesy the Los Ange L es De PA rtment of t r A ns P ort A tion ITE Journal / May 2013 39 program, similar to San Francisco’s Pave -ment to Parks. Watson explains that the Los Angeles pilot parklets are the result of a success -ful collaboration between LADOT em -ployees across many departments and elected officials. The project has brought together the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Complete Streets Working Group with Downtown Los Angeles Councilmembers José Huizar and Jan Perry, the City of Los Angeles Departments of Transportation and City Planning, the UCLA Complete Streets Initiative, the Gilbert Foundation, and the Historic Downtown Business Im -provement District. These groups con -vened volunteers and community mem -bers to work with design professionals on a pro-bono basis. Concerning the role of traffic engineers, Watson states that the city’s traffic engineers have been in -volved in the parklets initiative from the very beginning, taking a leading role in evaluating site locations and helping with designs and specifications.Another large part of the appeal and success of parklets has been their tempo -rary designation, which clears the way for faster implementation. Approaching them as pilot projects helps remove barriers. Los Angeles Director of Planning, Mi -chael LoGrande, has been quoted on these benefits, stating, “By moving quickly and showing people we can take chances, we can try things that are pilot programs and not necessarily go through a huge process that people lose interest in because it takes too long to see results. In government, we have to be nimble as ever, and show small successes.”5 Primarily parklet projects are about rethinking the way that streets are used. By opening up opportunities for more efficient, people-friendly uses of streets, parklets provide an opportunity for trans -portation engineers and planners to work with officials and community organiza -tions in making urban environments safer and more desirable. By creating parklets, cities can support community building and sustainable transportation. n References 1. The San Francisco Planning Department. The San Francisco Parklet Manual. February 2013. http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/docs/SF_P2P_Parklet_Manual_1.0_FULL.pdf.2. The Rebar Group. http://rebargroup.org/. Accessed April 9, 2013.3. Pavement to Parks. http://sfpavement toparks.sfplanning.org. Accessed April 9, 2013 4. Op. Cit. The San Francisco Planning Department.5. LoGrande, Michael, as quoted in: Berg, Nate. (March 5, 2012). “Los Angeles Seeks Pedestrians,” The Atlantic Cities , accessed April 9, 2013, www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/ los-angelesseeks-pedestrians/1410.Parklets are clearly marked as open public spaces for the community to use and enjoy.Photo by s ecret Agent P r . City of Boston Parklet Evaluation Report August 2014 Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics I. Introduction II. Evaluation design III. Significant findings IV. Overview of parklets V. Recommendations for parklets VI. Recommendations for future evaluation Kim Etingoff Summer Fellow, New Urban Mechanics 2 I. Introduction This evaluation was conducted from May to July 2014 and focuses on four parklets in the City of Boston , a program run out of the Office of Transportation . Each parklet is sponsored and maintained by a business: Fornax Bread in Roslindale Village, Mei Mei Street Kitchen in Audubon Circle, Pavement Coffee on Commonwealt h Ave. near Boston University, and @Union Café on Harvard Ave. in Allston. The evaluation is meant to help guide the City in reflecting on its two -year pilo t parklet program, expanding the number of parklets in Boston, and transitioning to a program involv ing business ownership of parklets. Background Parklets are tiny, temporary open spaces meant to make the streetscape more vibrant and pedestrian -friendly. They add crucial seating and green space to neighborhoods, and encourage livable streets. Parkl ets usually take up two parking spaces, but add in seats, tables, plants, shade, phone charging stations, and more. The City of Boston piloted its first two parklets in 2013. Faced with mixed success, the City piloted four more in 2014 in different locatio ns, and is seeking to improve and expand the program further if parklets prove successful. Takeaway Overall, parklets show a lot of potential to energize neighborhoods , and indeed already are contributing to neighborhood vitality . One parklet in partic ular , sponsored by Fornax Bakery, has already achieved significant success in terms of use, user experience, and integration into the neighborhood. The Fornax parklet can serve as a mode l for what parklets are able to achieve with community support and com fortable design. The other parklets each face challenges in capturing the attention of neighbors and visitors, but challenges that are possible to overcome. Primary concerns include unintuitive and impractical design, lack of signs, and maintenance and saf ety issues. However, with some changes during the current season and into the future, parklets promise to become an integral part of the city, building on the excitement that surrounds them both at the business and resident levels. 3 I I. Evaluation d esign All evaluation activities occurred during two -hour slots, one on a weekday and one on a weekend. Days with pleasant weath er were generally chosen to employ the evaluation tools. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected to capture peopl e’s and business’ perceptions, as well as impacts the parklet has had on the neighborhood and local businesses. The following steps were followed to conduct the evaluation: 1. Pre -counts of pedestrians and p atrons of sponsoring businesses. 2. Post -installation counts of pedestrians, patrons, and parklet users at sponsoring businesses. 3. Observations of parklet. 4. Parklet user surveys administered to people interacting with parklets . 5. Business surveys administered to owners and managers at businesse s surrounding the parklet. 6. Implementing a text poll using Poll Everywhere. 4 II I . Significant findings The following findings resulted from the surveys and observations. Pedestrian and patron counts were also conducted, but provide limited data about the impact of parklets on neighborhoods. See the app endix for graphs of counts. Parklet users: • Half of respondents had already visited the par klet they were surveyed in. 9 respondents had visited once or twice, 3 ha d visited a few times, and 3 had visi ted five or more times. (This latter category was all at the Fornax parklet ). • Users spend short amounts of time in the parklets, usually under 20 minutes. Only at Fornax did 2 users report spending more than 20 minutes at a time. • Parklets are most popular in the afternoons. Half of respondents used the parklet during the afternoon, which was when the surveys and observations took place. The Fornax parklet saw use from morning to night, while users at other parklets stuck mainly to afternoons. • Most respondents said there were usually either no other parklet users or one or tw o users when they visit. However, a t Fornax, all users said at least one other person was in the parklet during their visits. • Parklets sometimes operate as a social space - 5 out of 13 respondents talk to other people whi le in the parklet, and 22 were observed socially interacting. • Parklet use is tied to business patronage. All but one parklet user surveyed said they visit businesses either befor e or after using the parklet. The majority of those vi sit businesses besides th e sponsoring business. • Plants, shade, and seating were people's favorite features in the parklets. • People consistently suggested signage to improve the parklets, as well as m ore shade, more seating, higher or more prominent traffic barriers, and different designs for the plastic block parklets. • Parklets attract people who are already in their neighborhoods. Almost all respondent s live in the neighborhood that houses the parkl et in which they were surveyed , or visit the neighborhood every day. • 24 out of 29 respondents walked to get to the parklet, 1 biked, 2 took the train, and 2 drove (one via Uber). • Respondents spen t an estimated average of $16.43 per visit to the neighborhood. 5 • Neighborhood i mprovements suggested by respondents, and which tie in to parklet presence , include crea ting a livelier environment, adding more relaxing spaces , adding more green space, and encouraging neighbors to support their community . • Parklets are visited mostly by young people aged 18 to 35 , which may be a product of where they are placed . The exception was Fornax, where more than half of respondents were over the age of 35. Businesses: • Most businesses did not notice a change in pedestrian traffic since the parklet opened. One noticed a decrease for reasons u nrelated to the parklet and 5 felt there had been an increase in pedestrian traffic . • Most businesses felt the parklet nearby was well maintained, with the exception of the @Union parklet. • Parklets are conversation starters. Almost all surveyed businesses said their customers had at least asked about the parklets. About half thought their customers also used the parklets. • A majority of surveyed businesses would recommend them t o other businesses, although 6 would not. The businesses who would not often expressed confusion about what the parklets were. • The sponsoring businesses generally felt that the City made the process for acquiring parklets simple an d easy. One fel t the design of the final parklet was different than the sketches they had been shown, and one found the maintenance schedule to be more demanding than expected. 6 IV . Overview of p arklets Each parklet’s success is dependent on its unique location, design, and sponsorship, and faces unique challenges. Fornax Bread Fornax is by far the most successful parklet. It enjoys significant support from the sponsoring business, surrounding businesses, and residents of Roslindale. The parklet is used almost continuously, with a majority of survey respondents claiming three or more people are usually in the parklet when they visit. Most survey respondents had also visited the parklet before, some five or more times. Most people use the parklet to eat, often bringing food from Fornax but sometimes from other establishments as wel l. A wide age range of people use the parklet, from young children to the elderly. Customers are generally happy with the design, and love the shade, plants, and seating. The only consistent complaint was the placing of the parklet in relation to traffi c. It is located on a corner that drivers often take sharply, potentially endangering the parklet and the people in it. There have been no incidents as of yet, and there are small traffic barriers up, but people remain nervous. Otherwise, t he owner of Forn ax believed the parklet would improve even more with a bike rack, trash can, and wireless Internet. In the meantime, Fornax maintains its own trash can by the parklet, and changes it regularly. The owner also takes care of the plants and cleans the floor a nd seating to keep the parklet well -maintained. Businesses are generally positive about the space, and three said that the parklet has increased pedestrian traffic in the area. Three businesses al so believe th eir customers use the parklet, and some area employees use it on their lunch breaks. Unprompted, one business manager said he wanted more parklets in the neighborhood, and the Roslindale Main Streets director also cited that more businesses would like their own parklets. Quotes: “brings ene rgy and v itality to the street” “creates [a] welcoming community for customers and staff” “great addition to the neighborhood, everyone seems to enjoy it” “beautif[ies] the neighborhood” 7 Mei Mei Street Kitchen The Mei Mei parklet has a lot of potential, though it has not yet captured as many users as it could . This parklet enjoys community support without any identified opposition, as well as strong s upport from its sponsoring business . However, more work needs to be done to channe l that support and capture the full benefits of the space it adds to the neighborhood. Despite the interest, few people actually use the parklet. It suffers from a lack of signage, which may deter interested passersby from actually engaging with it; one survey respondent described it as “odd” and “unclear.” The parklet offers many choices for seating, but none of them are completely intuitive. Seating includes very small, short seats that nest inside taller seats that could also function as tables and are slightly too tall for comfortable use . It is difficult to take the nested seating apart; the seats also slide down th e sloped floor on their wheels instead of remaining stationary . In addition, t he original sig ns left by the student group that b uilt it we re made out of unlaminated paper and have faded in the rain and sun. However , since its installation , signs have been added explaining the phone chargers, which are underutilized. The street the parklet is located on is mostly residential with many Boston University students, and has less foot traffic than the other parklet locations. While this parklet does not have an abundance of users currently, that may change as students move back into the neighborhood and as the empty storefronts next door are occupied. This parklet clearly generates a lot of interest from people walking —and even driving —by, and Mei Mei’s customers frequently ask staff about the structure outside. In all, with a few improvements and time, Mei Mei may see far more users. Quotes: “g reat for drawing attention, offering additional seating, bringing more people, increasing walkability” “t here’s lots to show and talk about!” 8 Pavement Coffee Pavement’s parklet is little used, but has potential. The parklet’s design does not appear to be intuitive for passersby , which prevents the parklet from capturing the many hundreds of people who walk by on both week days and weekends. The plastic blocks may be confu sing to some people, since they don’t offer obvious seating or a table surface. The seating areas in the blocks also collect w ater after rain, making them unusable . Finally, at least two users felt the parklet needed a higher and more substantial traffic b arrier to feel more protected from the high volume traffic passing by on Commonwealth Ave. The parklet is situated in an area with a lot of foot traffic and a need for seating. People often sit on the benches on either side of the parklet, but rarely sit in the parklet itself. More than half of users were children who were briefly exploring the parklet. The rest of the observed users mostly waited in the parklet before meeting up with friends to go to Pavement. The parklet does attract some interest, howev er: two groups of people took pictures either of the parklet or in the parklet. The surrounding businesses were generally unsure of what the parklet was, but did not offer any particular opposition. Pavement seems to be taking care of the parklet, but ha s not necessarily tied it into their business. A surveyed member of the management team did not recommend parklets to other businesses , but also did not seem to have a strong negative opinion about them either . The relatively neutral business stance and cl ear interest from pedestrians could be used to channeled into making this parklet more successful. Quotes: “I want to know what this blue thing is.” “l ooks very different from the s amples given in [the] brochure” “i t’s a conversation piece ” 9 @Union Cafe The @Union parklet has the least amount of support and observed use. This parklet is in the worst shape of the four —one of the plants has been stolen, people have used the parklet as a trash receptacle , and graffiti has been sprayed on in some places. It has been hard for @Union to keep clean, and the manager noted that cleaning the parklet has taken up more time than expected. Surrounding businesses also note d the uncleanliness of the parklet. In fact, many of the businesses were strongly opposed to the parklet, mainly because it has attracted homeless people, drunkenness, smoking, and trash. They also complained about the loss o f valuable parking spaces. Four of five businesses would not recommend park lets to other businesses, based on their experiences, including the sponsoring business. (The fifth did not answer the question.) Two businesses thought they had seen a decrease in pedestrian traffic since the parklet’s installation , and one said more cust omers were complaining about parking. As in the other parklets, passersby often show ed interest , especially since it is very distinctive in color and design. There are signs that a parklet could fit into this neighborhood with additional attention , such as a trash bin and signage , as business owners and parklet users suggested. T wo businesses mentioned that they had noticed a guitarist playing in the park let at least twice, attracting a n audience. One family took a photo in it, while other pedestrians loo ked curious but did not interact with the parklet. The people who do use it are not @Union customers - at least one was a local employee, while others were mainly students or other young people just passing by. While the location and uncleanliness of the ne ighborhood make this parklet less primed for success, some improvements could be made to encourage a more successful space. Quotes: “the design lacks creativity” “I like looking out and seeing the parklet, it’s better to see than cars” “[it’s] hard to ma nage” 10 V . Recommendations for parklets P arklet s could benefit from the following suggestions. A few suggestions may be able to be implemented this year, though t he majority of suggestions are more relevant for future parklets. Design Signage Introducing signage should be a priority. Right now, many people, including business owners and managers , are confused about what the parklets are for. Prominent signage (which is in the works, but not yet implemented) would go a long way toward neighborhood acceptance and parklet use. Business owners who are particularly averse to the parklets often cited t hat they didn’t know what the structures were for , or didn’t like that people were smoking in it . People at all th e sites were clearly interested in the parklet, but were often unsure of wh at to do with it. For example, four instances of people taking phot os of the parklets were observed, although the photographers often did not actually use the parklet. Prioritizing signage early on in the parklet season may help alleviate some issues. Introduce shade elements to future parklets. People consistently ra ted shade elements of the Fornax parklet as among their favorite features, and wanted even more. (The owner added umbrellas herself, since they were not part of the original design.) The other parklets could have benefited from shade as well, to provide a more inviting resting spot for potential users. In fact, survey takers in two of the other three parklets wanted more shade, excluding the Pavement parklet which was placed in the shade of buildings. Use/encourage more natural materials and easy -to -care for greenery in future designs. The material used in the Pavement and @Union parklets should be reconsidered. The plastic becomes hot in the sun, collects pools of water after rain, and presents blank canvases for graffiti. While some people liked the br ight colors, others complained about the material and suggested more natural materials such as wood, and more plants. A list of hardy plants that are easy for sponsoring businesses to take care of would be useful, to provide more green space while preventi ng extra work for business owners. Consider adding more interactive elements to capture the attention of appropriate audiences. Each parklet has a unique set of potential users. The Fornax parklet has done a good job of providing a space appropriate to the users in the area, with plenty of seating and 11 shade for restaurant -goers and people on lunch breaks or relaxing during the weekend. The Mei Mei phone chargers are another good idea that will likely be used more as people discover they are there and re ad the accompanying signs. Other parklets could consider more interactive features for the audience they are trying to attract. Children’s play areas, bike racks, and wireless internet might all have a place in parklets, particularly ones in areas with stu dents or a large population of children. Location Reconsider best places to site parklets. The least successful parklet has been the @Union site, for various reasons. The parklet takes up valuable parking, has a confusing design, and attracts nuisance activities . While a parklet may contribute to a more vibrant streetscape over the long term, in the short term it takes on the ch aracter of the neighborhood it is located in. In neighborhoods facing challenges with cleanliness, public intoxication , and other issues, parklets may need to be reconsidered or given more maintenance support. Outreach Conduct a photo contest. More people than expected took photos of the parklets during observation. The City may want to sponsor a photo contest to tap into this interest, and encourage people to spread the word about parklets. Conduct more business outreach before and after park let installation. In all neighborhoods, at least some of the businesses surrounding the parklet were moderately supportive. However, in the @Union neighborhood, several businesses surveyed were strongly opposed to the parklet. They were unsure what it was for, and disliked that it took up valuable parking space . Part of the problem may simply be the confusing design of the parklet, but increased outreach to more surrounding businesses may also be able to help them understand the relevance of the parklet to their business and the neighborhood in general. Prepare sponsoring businesses with accurate information before installation. Some sponsoring businesses were surprised at the end results of parklet implementation. @Union has ended up needing to do more maintenance (trash pickup, sweeping, plant car e) than originally envisioned , and a member of the management team at Pavement noted that the design of their parklet ended up being very different than was first presented . Owner investment is closely tied to parklet success. At Fornax, the owner has taken improvements into her own hands by planting more greenery and add ing shade and a loveseat to the parklet. However, not all owners have the time or 12 inclination to do this. More accurate information about parklets will help business owners decide whether to invest in a parklet, and will help the City partner with owners w ho will maintain successful parklets. With two years of pilot parklets, the City is now in a better position to offer more accurate information. 13 V I . Recommendations for future evaluations Use PlaceMeter to monitor pedestrian activity, patronage, and parklet use starting in September. The data collected so far provides a us eful starting point, but more data points are needed in order to accurately assess parklets’ impact. The data points collected so far don’t yet paint a full picture; right now, they reflect context such as a lack of student presence at the Pavement and Mei Mei sites during the summe r. With more data, it will be easier to determine if parklets hav e increased pat ronage at sponsoring businesses and if they are encouraging a more walkable s treetscape. More data will also show if parklet usag e changes over time, and if the parklets become a more integral part of their neighborhoods. Address the parkin g issue with more accurate transportation data. One of the most voiced complaints about parklets around the country is that they are less useful than the parking spaces they eliminate. Interestingly, almost all visitors to parklets walked to get there. O nly 2 out of 28 people surveyed got to the parklet by car (one of those by Uber), and both of those respondents were at the @Union parklet; small numbers biked and took the train. Additionally, there was a t least one parking spot open for significant perio ds of time at all four parklets (particularly on weekdays). This suggests that perceptions about parking availability may be more important than actual parking availability, at least some of the time. More information on traffic and parking is needed at di fferent points in the year, to accurately assess whether parklets truly come into conflict with parking and to possibly redefine the issue. Re -admin i ster evaluation at same sites. The documents used for this evaluation can be reused for future studies, to track what happens to parklets and sponsoring businesses over a longer period. This evaluation was done one to two months after installation; parklet use and perception will change over time, and more people may use the parklets as they become more established in their neighborhoods, which could tell a different story than the one presented in the first evaluation. Yearly evaluations conducted at the same sites will provide a much f uller picture over time. Continue text poll through fall of 2014. The text poll was started at the end of July, and should stay open for responses through the fall in order to collect more feedback. If possible, the poll question should be changed peri odically, and posters with new questions redistributed to sponsoring businesses. 14 Appendix Pedestrian, patron, and parklet user counts pre - and post -installation at all four sites: 215 321 226 542 97 71 73 55 28 11 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Pre-Install Post-Install # of people Fornax Pedestrians Weekend Pedestrians Weekday Patrons Weekend Patrons Weekday Parlet Users Weekend Parklet Users Weekday 0 89 56 83 0 32 35 61 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pre-Install Post-Install # of people Mei Mei Pedestrians Weekend Pedestrians Weekday Patrons Weekend Patrons Weekday Parlet Users Weekend Parklet Users Weekday 15 390 231 857 776 106 132 278 210 28 11 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Pre-Install Post-Install # of people Pavement Pedestrians Weekend Pedestrians Weekday Patrons Weekend Patrons Weekday Parlet Users Weekend Parklet Users Weekday 967 918 464 910 107 75 61 51 12 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Pre-Install Post-Install # of people @Union Pedestrians Weekend Pedestrians Weekday Patrons Weekend Patrons Weekday Parlet Users Weekend Element Area/Length Unit Cost per Unit Subtotal Ipe Wood Deck (est. 6'x34')Deck Material 204 SF $16 $3,264 Perimeter Containment System 46 LF $100 $4,600 Install 204 SF $15 $3,060 Subtotal $10,924 20% Shipping and Tax $2,185 Total Deck System 204 SF $64.26 $13,109 Rail (est. 42"h)46 LF $200 $9,200 Labor for planters and furniture $2,000 Planters 6 unit $943 $5,658 Signage 2 unit $1,000 $2,000 Subtotal $18,858 Contingency 10%$3,513 Parklet Budget Total $35,480 City of Santa Monica Parklet Pilot Project Budget Two Parking Stalls Long July 15, 2015 Preliminary Budget for Parklet Pilot Project - TWO STALLS Attachment I Attachment J Examples of Parklet Costs San Francisco b Patisserie 2821 California Street San Francisco Parking Spaces 1 plus an additional 10 feet Design Services $ 4,000 Materials $ 7,500 Fabrication $ 4,000 Total Cost $17,500 Outlands 4001 Judah Street, San Francisco Parking Spaces 2 Design Services $ 1,500 (low in comparison to others) Materials $ 7,000 Fabrication $20,900 Total Cost $29,400 Dandelion Chocolate 740 Valencia Street San Francisco Parking Spaces 2 Design Servcies $6,500 Materials $22,147 Fabrication $27,060 Total Cost $55,707 Exploratorium 1241 Valencia Street, San Francisco Parking Spaces 2 Design Servcies $25,000 Materials $29,000 Fabrication $17,000 Total Cost $71,000 11/11/15 T o: Mayor, City Council, City Manager, From: Main Street Business Improvement Association Re: Parklets As you may recall, the Main Street Business Improvement Association (MSBIA) corresponded with the City Council in 2014 seeking a pilot program for four Parklets to begin by Summer 2015. We understand that City Staff will be recommending two P arklets for a pilot program. The Board thinks two is not enough to gain the potentially valuable information a thorough program will produce. MSBIA would still prefer four, but at the last Board meeting voted to request three P arklets at each of the following locatio ns: Rawvolution, Finn McCool’s, and Holy Guacamole. If a fourth one is included, Ashland Hill is the B oard’s fourth preference . MSBIA requested a Parklet Pilot Program because Parklets contribute positively to the ambience and aesthetic of the street, a ffirm and encourage a pedestrian orientation, serve as brief rest stops or places for people to converse and eat or drink and enjoy the outdoors of Southern California. Parklets on Main Street will fit hand in glove with the outdoor dining already on the street in the form o f several patios at restaurants, furthering the streets’ reputation as a place to relax in the sun or under the stars. A variety in the approaches to design can liven up the street as each Parklet can have an artistic quality springing from the minds of the creative sponsors who will design and maintain the Parkle ts, and that variety is reinforced with the approval of at least three Parklets , moreso with four . The specific locations are based on a solid, strategic approach designed to give maximum feedback to the staff, merchants and community as evaluations of the program occur. Rawvolution is at the northern end, Holy Guacamole is at the southern end, and Finn McCool’s is cl ose to the middle. Locating a P arklet at Finn’s has the add itional ad vantage of having a parklet at an important intersection (Main & Hill) for pedestrians, bikes and cars, and since it’s just south of the Sunday Farmers Market, many people will see it and potentially experience it. Adding a fourth Parklet at Ash land Hill would provide serious additional information for the staff and community evaluation. Holy Guacamole and Finn’s are on the west side of the street, Ashland Hill is on the east side, and somewhat midway between the two. Obviously this placement w ill allow staff, the community and the merchants to evaluate this array as considerations for additional Parklets are created, based on the success of the program. An additional advantage of selecting Rawvolution, Finn’s and Holy Guacamole is that these t hree restaurants are longtime establishments on the street owned by substantial businesspeople who have demonstrated in a variety of ways a commitment to the street and the community as a whole. Their longtime involvement increases the value of their comm unications to the city about the program when the program is evaluated. An obvious advantage of adding a fourth Parklet for Ashland Hill is that they are new to the street, and there is information to be gained from that, too. Parklets at Rawvolution, Fi nn McCool’s, and Holy Guacamole would create a solid pilot program. The addition of a Parklet at Ashland Hill would increase the value of the program. The MSBIA Board was also asked to weigh in on the idea of outdoor dining at the Parklets —that is, resta urants being able to take orders and serve customers there while maintaining the non -ownership/public space aspect of the Parklet. While the Board favors this it is aware of the objections this idea faces; the Board raised the question at its meeting that since this is a pilot program, why not try this idea as part of the pilot? If tried, the idea and activity can be evaluated; if untried it will remain in the arena of simple speculation. In any case, with or without this outdoor dining element, the requ est and recommendations of the MSBIA Board as to the number and location of the Parklets remains and is the primary subject of this communication. Thank you for your work and consideration. Gary Gordon, Exec. Dir., MSBIA for the MSBIA Board Reference: Agreement No. 10221 (CCS) & Agreement No. 10222 (CCS)