62patternsofuse.pdf

Patterns

of

Use

in

Main

Street Activity:

A

Case

Study

of

Downtown

Chapel

Hill

*

Kevin

Krizek

With

increasinggrowthinsuburbanfringes,

many

downtown

areas are faced with challengesto

maintaintheirvitality.

A

thrivingbusinessdistrict,a

centerfocus forthecommunity, andtheopportunityto

walk

from shoptoshopare

common

featuresthathelp maintain such vitality. While

many

ofthesefeatures aredependent

upon

largerand

more complex

factors

such as

economic

conditions, coordinated planning efforts, and striking the correct

mix

ofretail, other

aspects, including the physical surroundings,

how

people

use

downtown

publicspace,and the safetyof

pedes-trianaccess, are oftenoverlooked. Unsuccessful

pub-licspacesin

many

cities

may

bearesultofthislackof concernwiththe qualityof

human

useandactivity.

To

address this problem, researchers have

exam-ined

how

pedestrians use urban (and small town)

public spacestoimprovethequalityof those spacesfor

the pedestrian.'Thispaper continuesthatresearchby

usingChapel Hill,NorthCarolinaasacase study to

examine

the relationshipsbetweenpatternsofuse,the

downtown

physical environment,andthetimeofday

.

I conclude that increased awareness of

commonly

overlooked items could lead to important improve-ments in the total pedestrian environment, thereby leadingtoincreased

downtown

livabilityandvitality.

Description

of

Study

The

study

was

conductedonthe 100Block ofEast FranklinStreet,oftentoutedasthe"heartbeat"ofthe

Kevin Krizek received a Master's degree in City and

Regional PlanningfromtheUniversityof North Carolina atChapelHillin

May

of1995.

He

iscurrentlyworkingfor

the American Planning Association in Chicago before

pursuing a

PhD

in Urban Design andPlanning at the

Universityof WashingtoninSeattle.

Town

ofChapelHill.

A

livelycollegetown.ChapelHill hasapproximately 40,000residents,

many

of

whom

are students-.FranklinStreetisthe

main

thoroughfare through

downtown

withthe centralfocusbeingthe100

blockofEast FranklinStreet,located directlyadjacent tothe north side ofcampus. This specific block

was

chosenforstudybecauseitisasectionhighlytraveled bybothresidentsandvisitorsandisoftenconsidered

the representative block for the town.

Almost

all

festivitiesforthe

town

andtheuniversitytakeplacein

this

downtown

area.

The

100 block

ofEast

Franklin Street (hereafter

simplyreferredtoasFranklinStreet)islinedwith

two-and three-storybuildingsthat

accommodate

over60 commercialuses.Thereare alsoinstitutionalbuildings

atthe eastend oftheblock,includingapost officeand

plazaonthenorth sideofthe streetandachurch and university offices lining thesouthside.

The

1,000foot blockface hasa continuous sidewalk oneach sideof the street with three well-marked pedestrian

cross-walks.

The roadway

has fourlanes fortraffic(two in eachdirection)withonelaneon each sidedevotedto parking,loading/unloading,andbusstops.

The

greater

downtown

areaofChapelHillis

some-what unusual in that it is linear in nature. Besides Franklin Street,there are

two

other east-west routes for

moving

traffic through

downtown

—

Rosemary

Street to thenorth and

Cameron

Street to the south,

bothofwhichonlyhave

two

lanesthroughthisarea. Because ofthe restrictedcapacityonthesesecondary streets,Franklin Street bears the burden ofthe east-westtrafficthrough

downtown

ChapelHill.

Description of

Methodology

singlepersondoingstructuredbehavior

map-ping. Fiveviewing areasalong East Franklin

Streetwere chosenasrepresentativeplacesto

map

the

downtown

activity. Theseare

shown

on the

accompanying

map. All locations are street-sidepublicspaceswhich appearedtobe highactivity areas.All ofthese spacesexcept

one (veiwing area #3) are approximatelythe

same

size,andallcontainsittingplaces. Sevenbehavior

mapping

studieswere

com-pletedateachofthe five locationsduringthree differenttimesofday. These were lunchtime (12:30 p.m.to 1:30 p.m.), earlyevening(5:1 p.m.to6:15p.m.),andlateevening( 10:15 p.m.

to 11:15 p.m.). In total, observations were

made

21 times at each location

—

fifteen on

weekdaysand

sixonSaturdays

—

foreach time

period. At each time, the

number

ofgroups present at each location as well as the total

number

ofpersonsineach group,their

approxi-mateagesand principalactivitieswerenoted.

Any

other relevant circum.stances were also

recorded (the presence ofstreet performers,

forexample).

Age

categories of1 to 1_7, 18to

30,and31 and over

were

estimatedinorderto separatepedestrians

who

werein high school

oryounger,university students,andadults.All individualswere counted as their

own

group and all persons

who

appeared to be together

were judged as a group, irrespective of

how

many

therewere.All datawerecollected duringfine weatherconditionsbetween October 22 and

Novem-ber 17, 1994.

Less formal

methods

of data collection included observations whilewalkingtheblockat

random

times. Inaddition,discussionswith

Town

officialsprovided

thebackground ofthe

downtown

situationaswellas detailsofthe

Town's

StreetscapePlan.These explor-atory studies

were

intendedtoascertain relationships betweenpatternsofuseandthephysicalenvironment and to suggest possible improvements for the total pedestrianenvironment^

Whilethisstudy describes findingsthatare specific

toChapelHill,theinformation gatheredand

methodol-ogy

used couldbeappliedtoanystreetscenesetting.

The

primary purposeistoprovideuseful information

thatdraws attentionto

commonly

overlooked issues, and

compare

thefindingstoaccepted standards. For

example,

knowing

theageand composition of groups ofuserson Franklin Street could provide merchants

with informationthat

would

help

them

target specific usersaccordingtothe timeofday. Dataon people's useofthebuiltenvironment,includingaIcoves,benches.

COLUMBIASTREET

ViewingArea 15

seal-liigliplanter outIIfront

3

Porthole Alley

ViewingAreaS4;

bus slopaod

sittingledge

StoneWaO

iiftit

Viewing Areafl: Spanky's Restoaianl

Viewing AreaK:

sittingledgeinfront

PeppenPizza

-NationsBankPlaza

HENDERSONSTREET

Viewing AreaS3;

'oslOffice-witlisteps

ledgesforpercliing

North

(sottoscale)

Mapof theviewing areasalongthe100blockofEast FranklinStreet.

andledges,canalsobe appliedto

many

differentstreet

scenes. In a similar vein, furtherexamining

some

ofthe factors that lead to increased vibrancy in one area could beused toenlivena differentarea.

In thenext section,the general patternsofuseare

explainedandtheadequacyofthe existingfacilitiesare described.

The

resultsofthebehavior

mapping

asthey relatetouse overtimearethen discussed,followedby a description of variations of use by location and physical design.Finally, possibilitiesforimprovements

oftheFranklin Streetscene areexplored.

Patterns of

Use and

Adequacy

ofFacilities

As

isthecasewith

most downtowns,

thedominant pedestrian activity on Franklin Street is walking. In

fact,during

most

studyperiods,over90percentofthe groupswere simplypassingby.Whileitisimpossible

to

know

where everyone

was

walking to or from, I

surmised

many

were goingtooneofthe

many

shops onthisblock.However,duringlateevening, Franklin

Streetmanifestsa hintoftheChamps-ElyseesinParis,

64

CAROLINA

PLANNING

shoppingwhilecasuallysauntering

down

the sidewalk.

Franklin Street is one of the few places in the

community where

peopleofvariousages, classes,and races

come

together in our increasingly privatized

lives.

Sidewalk Width

Using average pedestrian traffic counts at our highest use area,

we

can determine ifthe width of pedestrian sidewalk space is adequate, accordingto acceptedstandards.

The

width ofasidewalkdepends on accepted levels ofservice

much

the

same

as for roadways. Fruin''ofthe PortAuthorityof

New

York

determinedthat,foralevelofservice

A

involving

some

crowdingatthe busiesttimebut freelyflowing passage

therestofthe time,

walkways

shouldhaveaflowrate ofseven people orlessper

m

inuteper footof

walkway

width.

Whyte^ who

is particularly sensitive about allowing the pedestrian too

much

space for fear of

creatingvacuums,endorsesthisstandard.Instudiesof

Copenhagen,Gehl" estimated aflowrateofbetween three to five people per minuteper foot of

walkway

widthasa

good

densityrange.

Average

use over the ten-foot wide sidewalk in

front ofPepper's Pizza

was

about 66 people per 3

minutes. This converts to2.2 people per minuteper

footof

walkway

.

By

theabovestandardsandprobably

to

many

people'ssurprise,thissidewalk appearstobe borderingonbeing too wide! Butfoottrafficbeforea

Carolinavs.N.C.State football

game

onaSaturdayis

much

heavier

—

about anhourbeforekickoff,over 150 people passedthe

same

location.This convertstofive

people per minute per foot of

walkway

width, well

within the acceptablerange. Allofthissuggeststhat thewidthofthesidewalk along FranklinStreetisfine.

Safety

Not

onlydoesthere

seem

tobeadequate sidewalk width, but pedestriansalsohaveaconsiderablebuffer to shield

them

from traffic. In addition to a

row

of parked cars, there are about 15 feetalongthe south

sideofthestreetand an averageof seven feetonthe

north side between the

roadway

and the part ofthe

sidewalk intended forwaiking. This bufferareausually

includes nothing

more

thana bench, parking meters, light posts, or tree planters, but it is an asset for

separating auto from pedestrian traffic.

As

long as each

mode

oftrafficstaysin itsrespectivelane, there canbe a "peaceful coexistence"betweenthetwo.

The

problem, however,

comes

when

pedestriansneed to cross the street.

InPedestrian Planning

and

Design, Fruin argues thatthere aresixindicestothe pedestrianenvironment:

safetyand security,convenience andcomfort, conti-nuity, systemcoherence,andthe visualand psycho-logicalattractivenessoftheenvirons.Althoughafour

lane

roadway

can adverselyaffecteach ofthese,one particularlydeservesattention

—

safety.FranklinStreet

isclassifiedas astatehighway, and sometimesitacts

Iikeone,withcarssometimesreachingorexceeding35

mph.

Forthe pedestrian waitingtocross thestreet,this presentsarealdanger.People

were

oftenseen inching intothestreetagainst thelighttospot

oncoming

traffic,

normalbehavior'

which

many

argue should be

toler-atedin ahigh pedestrian area suchasFranklin Street.

Curb

extensionscan mitigatethis concern and

addi-tionalsafetymeasuresshould besought.Further

"fine-grained" research is alsonecessaryto

document

the factors involved with pedestrian safety at Franklin

Streetcrossings.

Biking

and

Bike Parking

An

additional safety problem involves bicycles. Although cyclistsare not permitted on the sidewalk

wherethey

would

conflictwithpedestrians,theyarea

factorin the

roadway

itself.

Given

the importanceof bikes as a

mode

oftransportation, there are

remark-ablyfewconcessions forthecyclistonFranklinStreet. Therearenobikepathsandtrafficlanesnarrowtoten

feetinplaces.Giventhattheaverageautoisaboutsix tosevenfeetwide andtheaveragebicyclistneeds

two

feettomaneuver,this leavesamargin ofonlyoneto

two

feetforthedrivertoavoidanyautosontheleftand cyclistsontheright. Thisdoesnot considerthe

possi-bilitythatthedoor ofaparkedcar

m

ightopen,thereby reducing the

room

even further.

The

100 block of

Franklin Streetiscurrentlynotsafe forcyclists.

As

a

result,cyclistsarereferred tothe parallel

Rosemary

or

Cameron

Streets,

where

they have barely adequate bicycle access.

Bicycleparkingisanotherproblem.Five bike racks

areavailableinthe area,andeach rack

accommodates

betweentwo and eight bikes. Intotal, the bike racks holdabout36bikes,although

some

ofthese spacesare occupied by

abandoned

bicycles. Because the rack spaceis insufficient, bicycleowners

must

seek other

places to locktheirbikes.

On

an averageday around

lunchtime,21 of34 (62 percent) parking metersand signpostsalongthe blockhadbikes lockedtothem.

Although there is

enough

room

forthe useofthese make-shift bikeracks,theinadequatesupplyofbicycle

parking indicates a lack ofrespect for cyclists and

Variations

in

Use

Over

Time

Variations with timeof dayaredescribed heretothe extentthattheactivitieswithineach time period can be

generalized.

The

well-documented peaking

phenom-enon*

was

demonstrated, withthepopulationreaching

itshighpointaround

noon

andthenlevelingoffinthe earlyandlateevening.Infact,thetotalpeople

mapped

duringthe

noon

periodexceededthe

sum

ofthetotal peoplefrom both othertimes.

Different patterns

emerged

fordifferentage groups.

Duringtheiunchtimeandeveningtimeperiods,Franklin Street attracts a surprisingly diverse

number

of age

groups forthe

main

streetinacollegetown. Thereis

a consistent

mix

of age groupsat allfive locationsat

noontime. Approximately 60 percent ofthe people

appeartobebetweentheagesof18and30,37percent

areages31andabove,and3percentareages 1 to17.

As we

move

into early evening, these proportions

generallyhold.

Not

surprisingly,lateeveningmarksa drop in people 31 or older, and a peak inthe

mix

of peoplebetween 1 to17and 18 to 30.Insum,

college-agepeoplecomprisedatleasttwo-thirdsofthepeople

inalmosteveryperiod.

Considering Franklin Street's social atmosphere,

one

would

expect most peopleto be in groups.

As

a

whole,however,there are

more

singlewalkers.

Even

thoughthenoonobservationsinclude

more

totalpeople, thereisremarkablesimilarityinthe

breakdown

during

noon

andearlyeveningtimes,

showing

56percentand

55 percent ofpeople alone respectively. Likewise,

there are32percentand29percentofthetotalpeople

groupedincouples.Nighttimeis

charac-terizedby

more

college-age peopleanda

dramaticincreaseinthe

numberof

people

ingroups. For

weekday

nighttraffic, 40

percentofthepeoplewereincouplesand 40 percent

were

in groups of three or more.

The

largestdifferencebetween week-day and

weekend

use

was

a significant increaseinthenumberofpeopleingroups.

Noon

andearly evening traffic

showed

almost identicalnumbers, with couples

comprising44percent ofthetotal.

Dur-ing the night, a

mere

8 percent ofthe

people were alone, while there

was

an

increase (52 percent

compared

to 40

percenton weekdays)ingroupsofthree ormore.

250

200

Variations

In

Use

By

Area

or

Features

100 Percent Corner

Whyte** uses the term "100 percent corner" to

indicate the heartofthe

downtown

area.

Most

often

thisissituatedatthe intersectionof

two

majorstreets, and in Chapel Hill, the intersection ofFranklin and

Columbia

isconsideredbymosttobethe "100percent

corner."This studyindicatesotherwise.Althoughthe viewingareaatlocation#1 did not takeintoaccount

people passingon

Columbia

Street, inthisstudy, the

spaceinfrontofPepper'sPizza(location#2), continu-allyhad

more

people thantheFranklin/Columbia

inter-section.Infact,ithadahigher

number

ofpeople than

allotherlocationsin 16ofthe21 studies.It

seems

fair toposit thatthehighestuse

downtown

areainChapel

Hill is not ata corner, but rather

somewhere

around

Pepper's,on thenorth sideofthestreet acrossfrom

PortholeAlley.

Use Across the Block

The

graphofthetotal

number

ofpeopleineach area

foreach time period during

weekdays shows

distinct

differencesaccordingtolocation.AssumingFranklin Street recruitsmostheavilyfrom theUniversity,itis

interesting to posit the highest use approach points

usingthedatacollected.

The

high usedirectlyacross

fromPortholeAlleyprobablyindicates thatitisalsoa primaryentrancetotheUniversity.

As

thePostOffice plaza closely rivals the use at Pepper's Pizza, it is

50

Location #1 LocationU2 Location#3 Location^4 Location#5

Noon PU. Nlgtit

66

CAROLINA

PLANNING

probablythesecondfavoriteentrance.Itseemsclear that the walk along the stone wall is the least used entrance pointtothe University.

Inaddition,night-timeusage

was

remarkablystark

alongthe south sideofthe street. This side does not containas

many

latenight attractions as thenorthside andappearstohavesignificantlylesslightingthanthe

northsideofthestreet.Efforts to"spruceup"thisside ofthestreetincluded planting

some

ornamentaltrees. Thesetreesappeartoblock

some

ofthelight,thereby

making

the south side relatively darker. Although

peoplelike trees, atnighttheylike lighteven more.

Standing

Spatialdifferencesforpeople standingare relatively

simple.

The

only locations in which

more

than

two

people were

mapped

standingat anytime were bus

stops.

Given

the space, thefactthattheyoften chose

nottositissurprising.People

may

prefertobeonfoot

or do not like the location of the seating areas. Determiningprecisely

why

and wherepeoplesitand

stand at bus stops is an interesting question that is

beyond

this research design. However, I did notice

that,firstandforemost,people waitingforabus sought

overheadshelter.Althoughit

was

neverrainingduring

any ofthestudyperiods,peoplestillpreferredtowait

under shelter, near the lot-line (where the building

meetsthesidewalk),andinan alcove

where

possible. While onesitehad

two

alcoves,onlyonecould beused

forbuswaitingbecauseofthehightrafficlevelsinand

out of Pepper's Pizza. For this reason, it

was

not

uncommon

forstrangerstosharea single alcove. At

another location with three alcoves, none had heavy traffic.

The

firstindividual

would

placeherselfinthe nearest alcove,withthenextpersonliningupnocloser

thanten feetaway,usuallyintheadjacentalcove.At times, there

would

be four peoplelined up underthe awnings,evenly spaced nocloserthanfive feetfrom the next person.

Sitting Places

The

relatively small

number

of people sitting on

Franklin Street raised an interesting question: are

peoplewalking because ofa lackofgoodsittingplaces orbecausetheywish towalk?

Each

area studied contained differentseating

op-portunities.Duringthe 21 observedstudyperiods, the

eight-footledge infrontofPepper's Pizza

was

occu-pied 17times. Sittingspaceinviewingarea#4,albeit dividedbetweenthebusstopbench andthestonewall,

was

occupied 15times.Whileeachofthese locations

isnearabusstop,themajorityofpeoplesittinginthese locationswere simplylookingfora

good

placetosit.

Inconstrast, alookatthebenchinfrontofSpanky's

Restaurant explains

why

it

was

used less than a handfuloftimes duringthe21obser\'ation periods.

The

streetbenchesare starkinappearance and

seem

tobe

randomly placed along the block.

The

Post Office plaza boaststhe highest

number

ofseatsofanyarea, butconsideringtheirlocation

more

than25 feetfrom thesidewalk, itis little

wonder

thattheywererarely

used by anyone otherthan teenagers looking foran

isolatedplacetosit.

The

stepsandledgesareata

good

heightforperching,andconsideringthe highactivityof

thePostOfficeplaza, Icannot help but envisiontheir

increased use if they were brought closer to the

sidewalk.

The

treeplantersnearviewingarea#5were

used onlybypeople

who

wereeatfoodfrom one ofthe nearbytake-outrestaurants.

Nasar'sfindings'" thatheavilyused spaces contain

more

sittingspacedo notholdtrueinChapelHill.In

fact,thefindingsfromthisstudyindicatethe reverse.

Pepper's Pizza had the highest use and the least

amount

of"sittable" space

—

less than eight feet of

bench.Location#4 hadthe lowestoveralluseandthe second highest

amount

ofsitting room. Despite the

stone wallnearlocation#4being

somewhat removed

from

most

of the activities, it

may

be used

more

extensivelyona

good

daythanallothersittingspaces

combined.

One

conclusionisthatpeopleare attracted tospecificlocationsonFranklinStreetbyforcesother thanthe

amount

ofsittingspace.

A

secondconclusion

is that people prefer ledges over formal benches,

especially

when

the ledgesareonthelotlinelooking out ontothestreetscene.

The

placesthatcontainsuch

a sittingspacewere usedextensively.

Exactly

how many

sittingplaces areenough?Franklin Street currentlyhasatotalof61 linear feetofformal

andinformalsittingspaces.

Almost

halfofthisspace

iscomprisedofthestonewallborderingtheUniversity.

Whyte"

recommends

onelinearfootofsittablespace

foreverythirtysquarefeetofplazaspace. Inthiscase,

FranklinStreet hasonlytheoneplazainfrontofthe

Post Office. Since the entire block is considered a socialplaceandisrelativelycompact,the entire side-walkspace couldperhaps beconceivedofasonebig

plaza. This

comes

to a total of 39,472 square feet.

Location#2infrontofPepper'sPizza.

Territories

There appear to be

some

locations,

more

thanothers, that

assume

a certain character by thetypeofpeople they

attract.

One

type is

what

Whyte

'-_termsthe

"undesirables." This type,

which

includes

panhandlers and

va-grants, is present on

Franklin Street. Pan-handlers were not ob-served during any part ofthedaytimeon week-days.

They

were,

how-ever, seen atnight and

duringalltimeson Sat-urday,althoughnot

con-centratedinany one

lo-cation.

Of

more

interestisthe locational patternsofthe

vagrants that frequent the Franklin Street scene.

By

far,themostnoted character

was

an older

man

called "Mr.

C"

because he

was

always seen

smoking

a

cigarette.

Of

the 14 study periods at Pepper's Pizza duringdaylight,"Mr.

C"

was

spotted 12times.

Atthe time ofthis study, aChapel Hill ordinance prohibited peddlers inthe publicright-of-way along FranklinStreet.

A

drivingforcebehindthisordinance

are the merchants

who

claim that any peddler or vendor

who

comes

in andoperates outofa suitcase,

does so in direct competition while paying no rent. Whilethe logicbehindthisisevident, theargumentis

alsoaneffective

way

to"du11ify"the

downtown

scene.

Fortunately, this ordinance

was

not strictly upheld. Jugglerssometimesreceive

money

forperforming on thePost OfficePlaza.

On

almostany

weekend

orbusy night,youwill

fmd

"theflowerladies" selling flowers, justastheyhave been doingforthepast30-plusyears. While the "flower ladies" are mostoftenspreadout

alongone ofthe starkbenchesnear

Spanky

's,theyare sometimes located on private property, either in the alleynear

Miami

SubsortheNationsBankPlaza. [The ordinance

was

changed in 1995

—

Ed.]

Fora

town

ofonly40,000,ChapelHi1 1hasa

number

ofstreet performers.

On

most Friday and Saturday

nightsandSaturdayafternoon,youwillseeatleastone

musician. Street musicians seek high activity areas, andalmostallperformerswerelocatedwithin 50feet ofthe NationsBank Plaza, nearthe high use area in

frontof Pepper'sPizza.

On

twoSaturdayafternoons.

Hare Krishnas were seen chanting in front of the NationsBank Plaza.

In sum, activities on Franklin Street are found

primarily on the north side ofthe street. All street performers,allpeddlers,mostvagrants,and almostal

nighttimeactivitiesareonthenorthside.Perhapsitis

because ofthe differences in lighting, but perhaps there are largerforces atwork.

Theselargerforces

may

beprecisely thereasonfor theuseofoneof FranklinStreet's

more

visible territo-ries

—

the PostOffice Plaza,

where

high school kids hangout.ParticularlyonFridayandSaturdayevenings

and nights, high school age kids constituteup to 50

percentofthepeopleinthislocation.

High

schoolkids

liketobewherealltheactionisalong FranklinStreet andtheyliketohavetheir

own

space.

The

PostOffice Plazaprovidesbothofthese,ft isalsoadjacenttothe

site ofthe

town

teen center. For this reason, it is

difficulttodetermineiftherearephysicalattributesof theplazathatare preferredbyhigh school people orif

theyhangout theresimplyduetoconvenience.

Improvements

Streetscape Plan

ImprovingtheenvironmentofFranklinStreethasa

longandunresolvedhistory.

Almost

everyoneagrees

itisan importantpartofthe

community

andthat steps

68

CAROLINA

PLANNING

adopted a

Downtown

Streetscape Master Plan in

1993.

The

plan is intended to apply criteria ofthe

Town's

designguide! inestothepublicrights-of-wayof

the

Town

Center.

The

plan

recommends

acurb extensionatthestreet crossingby PortholeAlley, amajorentrancepointto FranklinStreetfromtheUniversity.This curb exten-sion willdecreasethedistance pedestrianstraverseon thestreet,allow pedestrianstobetterview

oncoming

cars, and

make

space available for seating areas outsideoftheprimarypedestrian flow.Consideringits

proximitytoourhighestusearea,such animprovement willprobablybesuccessful.

Additionally, the plancalls foran increase in site

furnishings intheCentralBusinessDistrict.It

recom-mends

differenttypesoftrees and planters and

sug-gests thatbenchesbe arrangedatrightanglestoeach other and varied in orientation to provide different views and sun exposures. While this sounds good,

there are

some

potentialproblems.

The town

needsto explorethe possibilityofplacingbenchestoprovide

similar benefitsofthoseatlot-lineratherthanplacing

them

atcurbside facing the sidewalk. In addition, if

trees aretobe planted, everyeffortmustbe

made

to ensurethattheywillnotblockexistingnighttimelight.

The

Downtown

Streetscape Plan primarily

ad-dresses features that arecosmetic improvements for the street.

As

argued in thispaper, these features are

vitaltoasuccessfulcenter.Itisimportanttorecognize,

though, thatslappingband-aidsonold sores will not solvealltheproblems. FranklinStreetcannot optimally serve its

many

functions because it suffers from a fundamental lackofspace.

As

istheproblemwith

many

towns,thereissimply

not

enough

room

available toplease everyone.

The

North CarolinaDepartment ofTransportation

would

like to increase the level of service for autos by

increasingthe lane widths.

Many

pedestriansdesire

increased sidewalk widthsand

room

foroutdoorcafe seating. Merchants claim that on-street parking is

necessary for business. Bicyclists want a four-foot

paththatwi1 1allow

them

accessalongtheblock. Allof

these

demands

haveto beaccomodatedwithin a 100

footright-of-way.Needlesstosay,itisimpossibleto please all parties. Perhaps

we

should consider the options.

Pedestrian

Space

Franklin Street is often touted as one ofthe most

successful pedestrianareasinNorthCarolina. Consid-eringthe

number

ofpedestriansand activitiesonthe

streetperunitareaatmosttimesoftheday.thiscould

very well betrue.Inspiteofclaimsthat

more

walking

spaceisneeded, thatthings arejasttoocrowded, and thatthe

town

should

make

the areainto apedestrian

mall,thisstudyindicates that the

amount

ofsidewalk spaceseemsto bejustaboutright

Bicycle Lanes

As

already mentioned, bicycling conditions on

FranklinStreetaredeplorable. Bicyclists are not,and

should notbe, permitted onthe sidewalks; however,

theyshould not be run offthestreetorsubjecttoundue

risk. Referring bicyclists to other

downtown

streets doesnotsolvethe safetyproblems becausethe

condi-tions elsewhereare not

much

better.

On-Street Parking

Localmerchantsclaimthattheshort-termparking

currently availableon FranklinStreetisessential for

maintaining their business. In addition, this

row

of

parkingserves as a bufferbetweenthepedestrian area

andtheconstantstreamofcars,thereby servingasan importantsafety feature. Finally,short-term parking spaces infrontofstorescreateaconstantlychanging

facade that helpsthearea appearvibrant.

Vehicular Traffic Lanes

The

NorthCarolinaDepartment ofTransportation claims that the current four lanes of traffic along Franklin Street are the

minimum

formaintaining an acceptablelevelofservice.

They

arequicktomention thatthelanewidthsarealready

below

many

standards, and thatthe streetcurrently registersbetween a

"C"

and

"D"

levelofservice.Inlay-person'slanguage,this

isbetweenstableandthe lowest acceptablestandard. Improvingthisparticular situationcan be achievedby eitherdecreasingthe

amount

ofvehiclestraversing the

streetorincreasingthecapacityofthe streetthrough

wideningthe lanesoradding lanes attheexpense of on-streetparking.

Widen! Widen! Widen!

With developmentinChapelHillspreadinginevery

the lanesshouldbewidened and

new

onesshould be built.

However,

ifour goal is

more

comprehensive,

includingsuch objectivesas maintaining an inviting

towncenter,improvingpedestriansafety,and encour-agingalternative

modes

oftransportation,perhaps

we

should reconsider ouroptions.

Can

You

Visualize

What

aretheoptionstowideningFranklin Street? Advocatingdecreased capacityalong FranklinStreet

isa verytricky situation and is probably outsidethe

scopeofthispaper. ButasI

wear

my

hat for

advocat-ing vibrant public spaces,I envisiona five-foot bike

lane on each side ofthe street, outdoor retail sales, streetcafesanddining,and improvedpublicsquares

all atthe expense ofjust20 feet oftraffic lanes.

The

town

is

now

consideringchangingthezoning ordinance

toallow curbsideoutdoor dininginthepublic right-of-way.This possible variance

would

apply onlyto

estab-lishmentson

West

FranklinStreetsimplybecausethis

istheonlylocationwherethereissufficientroom.Such

a plancannotyetbe consideredonEast FranklinStreet becauseofthespace problem.Withoutdoubt,outdoor

dining

would

improvethevital ityofthe

downtown

area bycreatingan atmosphere in whichpeopleare

more

likelytostay.Peoplecouldstopandenjoy

downtown

Chapel Hillratherthansimplypassingthroughit.

Yes, But the Traffic Implications

As

I stop dreaming and put on

my

transportation plannerhat,1visualize theterribletrafficimplications

forChapelHillasawhole,nottomentionthehistoric

preservationists on

Cameron

and

Rosemary

Streets

who

would

beatmyjugularfordivertingtraffic tothose streets. Iffour lanes oftraffic are here to stay, it is

importantthatallconcessions be

made

to

accommo-date pedestrian safety and access. Certain features,

such as well-marked crossingareas and curb exten-sions, are important elementsthat enhance the total pedestrian environment.

The

StreetscapeMasterPlan addresses pedestrian safety through design recom-mendations for extending curbsto better

accommo-date pedestrian needs by enhancingcrosswalks.

The

plan,however, does notaddress the safetyconcerns attendantwithspeedingtraffic.sometimeswithinless than seven feet from the pedestrian. According to

Untermann,"

controlIing theautomobilecurrently

in-volves

two

interrelatedtechniques:(a)slowingtraffic byalteringthestreet,and(b)allowingoreven encour-agingtrafficcongestionthrough manipulatingthewidth

ofthe street.

The

mosteffectivething

we

candointhissituation

istoensurethatFranklinStreet'strafficlanes are not

widened.Anothermechanismforslowingtrafficisthe

useoftraffic lightsandsigns.

Thereare threetrafficlightsalongthe 100Block of

East Franklin Street.

The town

is currently testing a

closedlooptrafficsystemusing

Columbia

Streetand North

Boundary

Street (acrossstreet lessthan three-quartersofamileeast).Thiswillenable anautomobile

at 20

mph

totravelthisentire distance, includingthe

100 Blockof East FrankIin,without everhavingtostop

for trafficIights.

A

Ithough, thepurposeistoreducethe

timeittakesto travelalongthestretch,Icannot help but

thinkaboutthe implicationsthis

may

have ondrivers

whom

I seeracing

down

the street tobethe firstone

atthenextredlight.Perhapsthe

town

should consider placingsigns similartothoseusedinother

communi-ties, stating something along the lines of, "Traffic signalstimedfor20

mph

traffic

—

itdoesnotpaytogo faster!"

Perhapsthe

town

should usetrafficcalming

mecha-nismssuchasthosefoundintheDutchprincipleofthe

woonerf,which emphasizespedestrian-orientedstreet

design. Although usually found only in residential communities,furtheradaptationsofthewoower/could facilitateitstransfertocommercial andretailareas.

As

Untermann'"*mentions, supporting congestionisatricky strategy.Trafficengineershave

worked

longandhard

tosmoothouttheirregularitiesoftrafficandincrease

flows. For them, congestionisa

mark

offailure.Since

the on-street parking alreadyslows

down

the obser-vantdriver,though,perhapsitwouldn'thurt tokeepa red lightortwo,oreven add

some

cobblestone

pave-ment

alongtheblocktodo thesame.

Implications

The

mapping

of

downtown

activityinChapel Hill

providesusefulandprescriptiveinformation.Interms ofdescription,the

mapping

revealsdistinctpatternsof

use that are not necessarily consistent with Nasar's 1990 study or expected findings. These include the

siightmajorityofcollegeage peopleatnoon-time,little

correlationbetweenactivitylevelsandsittingplaces, andthealready adequatewidth ofthe sidewalks.

The

results are prescriptive in that they suggest

directions for improved use through design. With

regard to sitting places, patterns of use suggest a

preferenceforledgesatlot-line,looking outontothe

streetscene.Notsurprisingly,the

somewhat

randomly

placed stark-lookingstreetbenchesreceiveverylittle

70

CAROLINA

PLANNING

musicians. Alcoves provide sought-after shelter for peoplestandinganda stage-like setting for

perform-ers.

Compared

toacceptedstandards,Franklin Street

isalsoseverely lackinginthe

amount

ofsittingspaces.

This lack

may

be partially responsible for the high percentagesofpeople walking.

Anotherobservationisthatlowlevelsofnighttime use

may

betheresultof diminishedlightingcausedby

increasedvegetation. Finally, thereisalackofbicycle

facilitiessuchasbike lanesandbikeracks.

While

aone-timestudyofstreetactivity is

benefi-cial,monitoringstreet-side activityonanannualbasis

could presenta

more

telling story.Records ofactivity

use canassistinevaluatingtheimpactof

downtown

or

otherdeveiopments.Forexample,

how

wouldachange

in retail

mix

affectpatterns ofuse acrossthe block?

Would

physicalimprovementsincrease thevitalityof

some

areas orblocksat theexpenseofothers.

What

other factors contribute to a changing street life?

Through

using observations, suchasthosedeveloped here,"before"and"after"datacould beofassistance

to decision-makers. Increased resources or

technol-ogy

such as time-lapse photography, videotape, or

computer

could increase the scope and detail ofthe

information gathered. Ultimately,thedevelopment of

empirical

knowledge

concerningthe effectsandstatus

ofthe

downtown

environment could lead to

more

informeddecisions.

In themeantime, changestoaddressthe shortcom-ingsdescribedinthisstudywillenhancethelivabilityof thepublicspaceand

make

the

downtown

areaa

more

desirableplacetovisit, cp

References

Nasar,J. L.andA.R.Yudakul(1990). "PatternsofBehaviorin

Urban Public Spaces," The Joirnal ofArchitectural and

Planning Research.7:1,pages7 1-85.

NorthCarolinaDepartmentofCorrmerce( 1990).NorthCarolina CommunityProfiles. Raleigh.

Pushkarev,B.S.andZupanJ.M. (1977).Urban Spacefor

Pedes-trians:

A

ReportoftheRegional Planning Association.

Cam-bridge, MA: MITPress.

Untermann.Richard(1991)."TamingtheAutomobile,"Planning

Commissioner'sJournal,1:1,pages10-13.

Whyte, WilliamH.( 1980).TheSocialLifeofSmallUrbanPlaces.

Washington,

DC:

TheConservation Foundation.

Whyte, William H. (1988). The City, Rediscovering the City

Center.

New

York: Doubleday.

Notes

'Whyte. 1980;Francis, 1984; Gehl, 1987; Nasar, 1990;Li,1991;

Jacobs. 1993.

'NorthCarolinaDepartment ofCommerce, 1990.

'Theobjectivewasnottostatisticallyproverelationshipsbetween

specific patterns of useand the physical environmentwhile

controlling for all sorts of variables. Advanced statistical

documentationrequiresmoreelaborateresearchmethodology andadditionalresourcesthatwerenotavailable.

^Fruin.1971.

^_{Whyte, 1988.}

'Gehl, 1987. 'Harrell,1990.

"Pushkarev andZupan, 1975.

''Whyte, 1988. "Nasar, 1990. 'Whyte.1980.

'Whyte, 1980.

'Untermann,1991.

^Untermann,1991.

Chapel Hill,Departments ofEngineering. Planning,andPublic

Works.^November,1993).DowntownChapelHillStreetscape

MasterPlan.

Francis, Mark (1984). "Mapping Downtown Activity." The JournalofArchitecturaland Planning Research, 1:21-35. Fruin,John(1971). Pedestrian-PlanningandDesign.

New

York:

Metropolitan AssociationofUrbanDesignersand Environ-mentalPlanners,Inc.VanNostrandReinhold.

Gehl,Jan( 1987).LifeBetweenBuildings.NewYork:VanNostrand Reinhold.

Harrell,A.W.(1990)."Factors InfluencingPedestrian Cautious-nessinCrossingStreets.TheJournalofSocialPsychology. 131(3),367-372.

Li.Shaogang(1991)."AStudyofWinterPlazaUsein

New

York City,"intheProceedings ofthe22nd Annual Conferenceof