ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
Title of Disertation:     LIVELY STRETS: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP 
    BETWEN BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND 
    SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 
 
 
    Vikas Mehta, Doctor of Philosophy, 2006 
 
Disertation directed by: Profesor Sidney Brower 
    Urban and Regional Planning and Design 
 
 
Strets constitute a significant part of open public space and are the most 
important symbols of the public realm. Strets that cater to the functional, social, and 
leisure needs of people have been positively asociated with economic growth, physical 
health of people, and a sense of community. Increasingly, scholars suggest thinking of the 
stret as a social space rather than just a channel for movement. Despite such suggestions, 
few studies have addresed the relationships betwen social behavior and the 
environmental quality of the stret. Moreover, the studies that have, tend to separate the 
study of physical features from land uses, and hence do not deal with the 
interelationships betwen behavioral paterns and the physical features of the stret, and 
its sociability. 
This disertation was an empirical examination of behavioral responses, 
perceptions, and atitudes of people to the physical characteristics, use, and management 
of the neighborhood commercial stret in two cities and one town in the Boston 
metropolitan area. It used methods based in environment-behavior sciences involving 
   
extensive observations of these strets over eight months, and interviews with people 
using these strets to understand their behaviors and perceptions. 
 The biggest competitive advantage of neighborhood commercial strets is their 
ability to support social interaction. The findings reveal that people were equaly 
concerned with the social and physical dimensions of the stret. The presence of 
community places and the stret?s landuse and physical character determined the use of 
the stret. People prefered setings that had stores that were community-gathering places, 
which held special collective meanings for the people of the neighborhood and were thus 
destinations to met friends and to se other people and activities; that had a variety of 
stores on the block, particularly those that served daily shopping needs; that had unique 
independently operated stores with friendly service, a distinctive character and ambience, 
and personalized shop-windows and entrances; that were pedestrian-friendly with ample 
sidewalk space with seating and other stret furniture, and shade and shelter; and that had 
buildings with permeable and articulated stret facades providing sheltered smal-scale 
spaces. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIVELY STRETS: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEN 
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 
 
 
by 
 
Vikas Mehta 
 
 
 
 
Disertation submited to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfilment 
of the requirements for the degre of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
2006 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Commite: 
 
 Profesor Sidney Brower, Chair 
 Profesor Reid Ewing 
 Profesor Guido Francescato 
 Profesor Shenglin Chang 
 Profesor Mary Sies 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
?Copyright by 
 
Vikas Mehta 
 
2006 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   i
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 I would like to expres my deepest gratitude to Profesor Sidney Brower. I was 
fortunate to have him as my advisor. His expert advice, positive atitude, encouragement, 
guidance, and unconditional support made this journey a wonderful, pleasant, and 
enriching experience for me. Sidney was an ideal mentor through this proces. 
 I would like to thank al my commite members for their constructive criticism, 
guidance, and support; Profesor Reid Ewing for helping me expand the scope of the 
study areas, for meticulously reviewing the methodological aspects of the study and 
suggesting valuable changes; Profesor Guido Francescato for providing new 
perspectives to look at the theoretical basis of the research design; Profesor Shenglin 
Chang for encouraging me to always question the given norms of current scholarship and 
look for new ideas; Profesor Mary Sies for her guidance in providing new ays to 
explore my data, encouraging me to broaden my research and to look at the cultural 
aspects of the study. 
 Thanks to Profesor Marie Howland, Director of the doctoral program, for her 
continued support over the course of my doctoral study; to my colleague Doan Nguyen 
who painstakingly reviewed and advised on various statistical aspects of the disertation; 
to my good friend and former neighbor Scott Oakley for helping me with editing the 
document. 
 For financial support, I would like to thank the Urban and Regional Planning and 
Design program at the University of Maryland and the Active Living Research program 
 
   ii 
of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for awarding me disertation grants to fund my 
research. 
 I am grateful to al the people who voluntered to participate in my study. Their 
stories, experiences, opinions, ideas, and insights are invaluable to this study. 
 Finaly, I would like to thank my family and close friends - both nearby and in 
other continents - for their encouragement and support; especialy my father who did not 
live to se the end of my disertation and my mother. I am thankful to my wife Shilpa 
Mehta for her timely decision to go back to graduate school in Cambridge. Living at the 
MIT campus was an enriching intelectual experience and made the research possible in 
the Boston metropolitan area. I am especialy grateful for her unconditional love and 
support, patience, interest, and enthusiasm about my research. 
 
   iv 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS????????????????????????.i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS...???????????????????????..iv 
LIST OF FIGURES..?????????????????????????...vi 
LIST OF TABLES..??????????????????????.........vii 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..........................................1 
Public Space...................................................................3 
The Role of Public Space......................................................4 
Open Public Space............................................................7 
Streets as Primary Urban Public Space............................................8 
Neighborhod Commercial Streets...............................................9 
Defining Lively Streets.........................................................10 
Streets as Social Space........................................................1 
Research Question and Theoretical Basis for Study..................................13 
 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................15 
Theoretical Framework.........................................................16 
Behavior Settings............................................................17 
Environmental Affordances....................................................18 
Place Theory................................................................18 
Human Behavior as a Basis for Design..........................................19 
Human Needs: A Sense of Comfort and Pleasure on the Street.........................20 
Sense of Safety on the Street...................................................2 
Sense of Belonging: Community Places..........................................23 
Environmental Comfort on the Street............................................24 
Physical Comfort and Convenience on the Street..................................25 
Territory, Personalization, and Control on the Street...............................26 
Sensory Pleasure on the Street.................................................28 
Oportunity for Research........................................................29 
Conceptual Framework.........................................................31 
 
CHAPTER 3: METHODS..............................................33 
Concurrent Transformative Mixed-Method Strategy..................................3 
The Study Areas...............................................................35 
Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA............................38 
Harvard Street, Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA..................................43 
Elm Street, Davis Square, Somervile, MA.......................................48 
Units of Study...............................................................53 
Procedures....................................................................54 
 
   v
Observation: Behavioral Mapping..............................................54 
Pilot Study.................................................................5 
Reliability of Observations....................................................58 
Pedestrian Counts............................................................58 
Walk-by Observations........................................................60 
Direct Observations and Field Notes............................................62 
Survey and Interview.........................................................65 
Measures.....................................................................67 
Measuring Liveliness.........................................................67 
Selection of Street Characteristics..............................................68 
Measuring Characteristics of Settings...........................................70 
 
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ISCUSION..............................73 
Calculating Liveliness: Behavioral Maps of People and Activities......................73 
Stationary Activities..........................................................74 
Social Activities.............................................................82 
Duration of Stay.............................................................82 
Liveliness Index.............................................................85 
Liveliness Index for each Block................................................86 
Lively Sites: Behavior Settings for Interaction, Play, and Relaxation....................87 
Location of Activities and Use of Physical Elements...............................8 
Types of Postures and Activities................................................93 
A Sense of Comfort and Pleasure on the Street.....................................102 
Purpose and Frequency of Use................................................103 
Commonalities and Differences in Perception....................................109 
Sense of Safety on the Street..................................................13 
Sense of Belonging: Community Places.........................................17 
Environmental Comfort on the Street...........................................12 
Serving Needs - Physical Comfort and Convenience on the Street...................124 
Territory, Personalization, and Control on the Street..............................132 
Sensory Pleasure on the Street................................................138 
Important Characteristics of the Street and Liveliness................................143 
Summary of Findings..........................................................150 
 
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS..........................................160 
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research..............................160 
Three Aspects of Neighborhod Public Space......................................162 
Social Qualities - Community Places...........................................164 
Landuse Qualities...........................................................165 
Physical Qualities...........................................................168 
 
APENDIX I........................................................171 
APENDIX I.......................................................183 
APENDIX II......................................................185 
APENDIX IV......................................................187 
LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................192 
 
   vi 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
 
Figure 1.  Framework of Needs on Neighborhod Commercial Streets....................21 
Figure 2.  Conceptual Framework for the study........................................32 
Figure 3.  Concurrent Transformative Mixed-Method Strategy...........................3 
Figure 4.  Location Plan ? three study areas in the Boston metropolitan area................36 
Figure 5.  Massachusetts Avenue ? main commercial street of Central Square neighborhod..37 
Figure 6.  Map showing the five blocks studied on Massachusetts Avenue.................39 
Figure 7.  Views of the five blocks studied on Massachusetts Avenue.....................40 
Figure 8.  A combined plan and elevation of five blocks studied on Massachusetts Avenue....41 
Figure 9.  Harvard Street ? main commercial street of Coolidge Corner neighborhod........42 
Figure 10. Map showing the six blocks studied on Harvard Street........................4 
Figure 1. Views of the six blocks studied on Harvard Street............................45 
Figure 12. A combined plan and elevation of six blocks studied on Harvard Street...........46 
Figure 13. Elm Street ? main commercial street of Davis Square neighborhod.............47 
Figure 14. Map showing the eight blocks studied on Elm Street..........................49 
Figure 15. Views of the eight blocks studied on Elm Street..............................50 
Figure 16. A combined plan and elevation of eight blocks studied on Elm Street............51 
Figure 17. A combined plan and elevation of eight blocks studied on Elm Street (contd.).....52 
Figure 18. Notations used in Walk-by Observations to record behavior and activities........60 
Figure 19. Notations for recording Duration of Stay of people on the street.................63 
Figure 20. Understanding behavior & perceptions - observations, surveys, and interviews....65 
Figure 21. Number of people in stationary activity.....................................74 
Figure 2. Behavioral map of people in stationary activity on Massachusetts Av............75 
Figure 23. Behavioral map of people in stationary activity on Harvard St..................76 
Figure 24. Behavioral map of people in stationary activity on Elm Street..................7 
Figure 25. Number of people in stationary activity.....................................78 
Figure 26. Behavioral map of people in stationary social activity on Massachusetts Av.......79 
Figure 27. Behavioral map of people in stationary social activity on Harvard Street..........80 
Figure 28. Behavioral map of people in stationary social activity on Elm Street.............81 
Figure 29. Duration of Stay of people in stationary and social activities....................83 
Figure 30. Axonometric showing the three zones of activity on the sidewalk...............89 
Figure 31. Articulation of the street wall fa?ade and liveliness...........................90 
Figure 32. The different uses of the three zones of activity on the street....................90 
Figure 3. The different uses of various physical artifacts and street furniture...............91 
Figure 34. Various postures, and stationary and social activities that people engaged in.......93 
Figure 35. Children?s Play ? newspaper- and magazine-dispensing boxes..................95 
 
   vi 
Figure 36. Children?s Play ? street furniture..........................................96 
Figure 37. Children learned social skils and were exposed to new activities and objects......97 
Figure 38. Permeable storefronts offered oportunities to learn...........................97 
Figure 39. The street provided a platform to bring special arts programs...................98 
Figure 40. Permeability of the street wall fa?ade and liveliness...........................98 
Figure 41. People?s postures, body language, and activities were an indication of relaxation...9 
Figure 42. Pets became the center of conversation and generated casual social interaction....10 
Figure 43. Musicians occupied sheltered spaces near commercial or public seating.........101 
Figure 4. Occasional activities such as decorating the storefront and campaigns...........101 
Figure 45. Daily average pedestrian counts per hour on weekdays and weekends...........103 
Figure 46. Distance of block from ajor transit stop and number of persons walking........104 
Figure 47. Liveliness of block and number of persons walking..........................104 
Figure 48. What users did on 12 blocks in three study areas............................106 
Figure 49. Level of use of 12 blocks in three study areas...............................106 
Figure 50. Why users preferred some blocks more than others on the same street...........107 
Figure 51. Why users preferred not to use some blocks on the same street.................108 
Figure 52. Distance from ajor transit stop and liveliness..............................108 
Figure 53. Users? perception of daytime and nightime safety on the block and liveliness....14 
Figure 54. Users? perception of building and sidewalk condition of the block and liveliness..15 
Figure 5. Why users preferred some stores and busineses to others on the same street.....120 
Figure 56. Trees, canopies, awnings, overhangs, and setbacks in buildings provided shade...123 
Figure 57. Shade and shelter through trees, canopies, awnings, and overhangs, and liveliness.123 
Figure 58. Users? perceived variety of gods and services on the block and liveliness.......124 
Figure 59. Users? perceived pedestrian-friendliness of the block and liveliness.............126 
Figure 60. Chairs from the coffee house were moved to nearby locations to suit their needs..128 
Figure 61. The lack of seating on these streets was evident.............................129 
Figure 62. Physical artifacts provide alternative seating options.........................130 
Figure 63. Personalization and liveliness............................................132 
Figure 64. Territorial map of street space on five blocks on Massachusetts Av.............13 
Figure 65. Territorial map of street space on six blocks on Harvard Street.................134 
Figure 6. Territorial map of street space on eight blocks on Elm Street..................135 
Figure 67. Territorial map of street space on eight blocks on Elm Street (contd.)...........136 
Figure 68. Users' perception of attractiveness and interesting appearance and liveliness......139 
Figure 69. Users? perception of change in signs and displays and liveliness................140 
Figure 70. Users? perception of occurrence of events and liveliness......................142 
Figure 71. Users? perception of uniqueness of gods and services available and liveliness...142 
Figure 72. Scree Plot showing the Eigenvalues of the components.......................146 
Figure 73. Important Characteristics of the Street.....................................150 
Figure 74. Varying liveliness on two similar physical street configurations................152 
Figure 75. Three aspects suport stationary, lingering, and social activities on the street.....163 
 
   vii 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 
Table 1.  Codes used in pedestrian counts, walk-by observations, and direct observations.....59 
Table 2.  Symbols used in recording pedestrian counts..................................59 
Table 3.  Schedule of behavioral mapping for the three study areas.......................60 
Table 4.  Symbols used in recording walk-by observations and direct observations..........61 
Table 5.  Asigned Score for Duration of Stay.........................................63 
Table 6.  Selected characteristics of the street environment..............................71 
Table 7.  Liveliness Index.........................................................85 
Table 8.  Liveliness Index at Block level.............................................87 
Table 9.  Amount of Outdors Seating...............................................93 
Table 10. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros stores where gods may be consumed 
     outside.................................................................94 
Table 1. ?What are the three most important things about this block that you would not want to 
     change??..............................................................10 
Table 12. ?What are the three most important things that you would like to change or add on this 
     block??...............................................................11 
Table 13. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros block-segments with varying percentage 
     of ?no dead space.?.....................................................16 
Table 14. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros block-segments with or without 
     Community Places......................................................19 
Table 15. User Choice of Favorite Stores/Businesses..................................120 
Table 16. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of independently 
     owned stores...........................................................12 
Table 17. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros difference in variety of stores on the 
     block.................................................................125 
Table 18. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of seating provided by 
     public authorities.......................................................127 
Table 19. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of seating provided by 
     businesses.............................................................127 
Table 20. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different width of sidewalk.........131 
Table 21. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of ?rooted? signs..141 
Table 2. Relationship between characteristics of the street and liveliness.................143 
Table 23. Correlations between the eleven characteristics...............................145 
Table 24. Percentage Variance of Four Factors.......................................147 
Table 25. Details of Factor Analysis showing the weightings of each characteristic..........147 
 
   1
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
 
Urban design literature streses the role of and need for meaningful public space 
for the experience of public life and social interaction (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984; Gehl, 
1987; Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard, 1987, 1995; Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Car et al., 
1992; Tibbalds, 1992; Sorkin, 1992; Zukin, 1996; Cooper-Marcus and Francis, 1998, 
among others). Urban areas in the last few decades have sen only a marginal expansion 
in public open spaces such as parks, neighborhood sports facilities, open park systems, 
and grenways; cities, especialy in the United States, are struggling to keep up with the 
demand for these types of public open spaces (Banerje, 2001). At the same time, there 
has been a growing demand and resurgence in the investment in, and use of, existing and 
new pedestrian oriented strets, squares, plazas, and other traditional types of open public 
spaces in cities (Whyte, 1980; Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard, 1987, 1995; Gehl, 1989; 
Car et al., 1992; Gehl and Gemzoe, 1996, 2000; Dane, 1997; Cooper-Marcus and 
Francis, 1998; PS, 2000). 
In urban areas, strets constitute a significant part of the open public space and are 
sen as the most important symbols of the public realm (Jacobs, 1961; Appleyard, 1981; 
Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Jacobs, 1993; Chekki, 1994; Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 1996; 
Lofland, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999; Carmona et al., 2003). People depend on strets 
for functional, social, and leisure activities. Strets that cater to these needs have been 
positively asociated with economic growth (Florida, 2002), physical health (Frank et al., 
2003), and a sense of community (Smith, 1975; Whyte, 1988; Christoforidis, 1994; 
 
   2
Langdon, 1997). Increasingly, scholars suggest thinking of the stret as a social space 
rather than just a channel for movement (se, for example, Jacobs, 1961; Appleyard, 
1981; Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Gehl, 1987; Brower, 1988; Jacobs, 1993; Loukaitou-
Sederis and Banerje, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999). Some argue that the social 
afordances offered for the presence of people in public spaces such as strets might be 
more important than the physical afordances that the environment offers (Gibson, 1979; 
Knowles and Smith, 1982; Heft, 1989; Stokols, 1995). However, not al strets are able to 
equaly aford social activities. Some strets are certainly livelier than others. 
This disertation is an empirical examination of behavioral responses and atitudes 
of people to the physical characteristics, use, and management of neighborhood 
commercial strets in two cities and one town in Masachusets. The focus is to 
determine relationships betwen micro-scale physical characteristics and uses, and 
people?s paterns of social activities on neighborhood commercial strets. The underlying 
objective of the study is to aid policymaking, planning, and design proceses in creating 
new strets or modifying existing ones such that they are able to beter aford social 
interaction. The study uses a theoretical framework and methods based in environment-
behavior sciences. It atempts to provide rich and detailed information on the 
relationships betwen the stret environment and human behavior while also aiming at 
some generalization of this information. By employing a mixed-method strategy using 
qualitative and quantitative methods, the research atempts to be exploratory and 
inductive, as wel as confirmatory and deductive. 
 
 
   3
Public Space 
 Public space is only one part, a physical manifestation, of the public realm 
(Thomas, 1991). Yet, it plays an important role in sustaining the public realm (Sennet, 
1971; Thomas, 1991; Lofland, 1998). There are various definitions of public space 
largely distinguished by isues of ownership, control, and aces. Some authors define it 
strictly as the ?space that is not controlled by private individuals or organizations, and 
hence is open to the general public. This space is characterized by the possibility of 
alowing diferent groups of people, regardles of their clas, ethnicity, gender and age, to 
intermingle? (Madanipour, 1996, p. 144-145). For the purpose of this study, such a 
definition may be at the same time both limiting and too broad. For example, there are 
indoor and outdoor spaces owned and operated by private trusts and conservancies that 
are just as open to the public as publicly owned libraries and parks. At the same time, 
there are spaces that are publicly owned, such as the offices of government employees, 
which offer very limited aces to the public. Hence, ownership and control are 
inadequate criteria to define public space in the context of this study. 
Another basis for defining public space focuses on the isues of aces and use. In 
this sense, public space is defined as ?publicly acesible places where people go for 
group or individual activities? (Car et al., 1992, p. 50). In the physical dimension, public 
space is ?al the parts of the urban fabric to which the public has physical and visual 
aces. Thus, it extends from the stret, park, square of a town or city into the buildings 
which enclose and line them? (Tibbalds, 1992, p. 1). 
For the purpose of this study, the term public space is used to refer to the aces 
and use of the space rather than its ownership. Hence, privately owned spaces that are 
 
   4
acesible to the public qualify as public space and those publicly owned spaces that are 
not acesible to the public do not. Therefore, public space is the space that is open to the 
general public and subject to the regulations that govern the use of the space. 
The Role of Public Space 
This intent of this study is not to produce an extensive list of the roles of public 
space through history. Many of these roles, such as the collection of water and the 
disposal of garbage, the disemination of news, and the display of public punishments 
and executions (Lofland, 1998) no longer pertain in present times. Rather, the intent is to 
identify the roles of public space in highly privatized contemporary societies.  
There is a growing belief that while modern urban societies no longer depend on 
the town square or the piaza for basic needs, good urban public space is required for the 
social and psychological health of modern communities (Poppink cited in Cooper-Marcus 
and Francis, 1998). Recent research in urban studies indicates that public space in 
contemporary times is important to generate, enhance, and sustain a sense of community 
(Boyer, 1994; Hayden, 1995). Local residents atach meaning to everyday public spaces 
and places as valuable ?sacred structures? in their daily life (Hester, 1993). Public spaces 
where people regularly met their friends and watch daily life play a critical role in 
people?s lives (Low, 2000). Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard (1987, 1995) engage the 
literature from sociology, psychology, psychiatry, political science, architecture, urban 
design, and planning to develop a list of social functions served in public spaces. This list 
includes learning, the development of social competence, the exchange of information, 
the facilitation of social dialogue, the fostering of social awarenes, the enhancement of 
social integrative functions, and the encouragement of ethical conduct. Scholars in 
 
   5
various fields related to urban studies contend that it is the strets, plazas, squares, parks, 
and other urban public spaces that have the potential to be ?the stage upon which the 
drama of communal life unfolds? (Car et al., 1992, p. 3). It is argued that such spaces are 
?? our great scenes of the civic, visible and acesible, our binding agents?(Sorkin, 
1992, p. xv). Public space offers various possibilities for social contact to experience 
diversity and creative disorder, which, as Sennet (1971) suggests, enhances personal 
growth. 
For if the multiple points of social contact once characterizing the city can 
be reawakened under terms appropriate to afluence, then some channels 
for experiencing diversity and order wil again be open to men. The great 
promise of city life is a new kind of confusion possible within its borders, 
an anarchy that wil not destroy men, but make them richer and more 
mature (p. 108). 
 
Meaningful urban public space has the ability to support, facilitate, and promote 
public life, adeptly characterized by Oldenberg (1981) as an esential counterpart to our 
private, home and work spaces, to satisfy our need for contact, communication, play, and 
relaxation. 
The dichotomy of private and public, the duality of life man leads, is recaled by 
Berman (1986) interpreting Marx?s (1840) concept of an ?egoistical individual? and a 
?communal being? or ?a man and a citizen.? Making a case for public space, Berman 
suggests that to resolve the diferences and inner contradictions betwen the private and 
the public self, and to lead more integrated lives true to democratic societies, people not 
only need radical change in the political and social systems but a place to ?come together 
frely to do it on their own? (Berman, 1986, p. 476). Similarly, Arendt (1958) argues that 
public space provides the ability for people to come together, to discuss, and to recognize 
each other?s presence, which is crucial to democracy. Thomas (1991) expands on this 
 
   6
role of public space and suggests ?that public space is an esential arena which provides 
opportunities for individuals and communities to develop and enrich their lives? (p. 222). 
He identifies four roles for public space: 
 i) as an arena for public life; 
 i) as a meting place for diferent social groups; 
ii) as a space for the display of symbols and images in society; 
iv) as a part of the communication system betwen urban activities 
(p. 210). 
 
Further, Walzer (1986) argues that public space is the ?space we share with 
strangers, people who are not our relatives, friends or work asociates. It is the space for 
politics, religion, commerce, sport; space for peaceful coexistence and impersonal 
encounters. Its character expreses and also conditions our public life, civic culture and 
everyday discourse? (quoted in Thomas, 1991, p. 215). Advocating for public space in 
the city center, Whyte (1988) describes the multiple roles of public space as being the 
place for news and gossip, for the creation of ideas, for marketing them 
and swiping them, for hatching deals, for starting parades. This is the stuff 
of the public life of the city-by no means wholly admirable, often abrasive, 
noisy, contentious, without apparent purpose. But this human congres is 
the genius of the place, its reason for being, its great marginal edge. This 
is the engine, the city?s true export (p. 341). 
 
Lofland (1998) adds yet another dimension of tolerance and argues that active and 
pasive social contact in open public space such as strets provides the seting for the 
?learning of cosmopolitanism? and citizens 
? must, in the normal course of their everyday lives, rub shoulders with ? 
acomplish uneventful interactions with ? persons of whom they 
disapprove, with whom they disagre, toward whom they fel at least mild 
antipathy, or who evoke in them at least mild fear. That means that any 
city that is capable of teaching urbanity and tolerance must have a hard 
edge. Cleaned-up, tidy, purified, Disneyland cities (or sections of cities) 
where nothing shocks, nothing disgusts, nothing is even slightly feared 
may be pleasant sites for family outings or corporate gatherings, but their 
public places wil not help to create cosmopolitans (p. 243). 
 
   7
Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard (1995) argue, ?urban public space is the single 
most important element in establishing a city?s livability? (p. 25). From their research in 
European cities, they suggest that good urban public space provides easy and safe aces 
for al, facilitates a variety of activities, fosters self-estem and sense of belonging, 
increases awarenes and interest in the environment, and provides enjoyment and social 
contact. 
Open Public Space 
As a part of an overview of public space, Car et al. (1992) have compiled a 
typology of contemporary urban public spaces. The authors suggest that these diferent 
urban public spaces cater to diferent needs and various physical and social aspects of 
human functioning including comfort, relaxation, pasive and active engagement, and 
discovery. By the nature of their type, aces, and use, these spaces are likely to satisfy 
one or more of the aspects mentioned above. 
Much of the literature on public space does not distinguish betwen enclosed and 
open public space, as open public space constitutes a substantialy larger portion of the 
typology of public space. Historicaly, open public spaces have constituted a majority of 
public space where public life occurred in cities. As a contrast, in contemporary times, 
indoor public spaces that are often semi-privatized house a majority of public life. 
However, there is currently a renewed interest in traditional open space typologies. For 
the purpose of this study, then, open public space wil connote not only the spaces 
betwen buildings but also the objects and artifacts therein, and the buildings that help 
define the physical boundaries of the spaces. Hence, open public space is more than 
merely the exterior open space of a stret or square. It includes the interface betwen the 
 
   8
exterior public open space and both private and public interior space. This study, 
however, is limited to the study of one type of traditional open public space ? the 
neighborhood commercial stret. 
Strets as Primary Urban Public Space 
Think of a city and what comes to mind? Its strets. If a city?s strets look 
interesting, the city looks interesting; if they look dull, the city looks dull 
(Jacobs, 1961, p. 29). 
 
Strets are an important part of open public space in the city. For many urbanites, 
it is the strets that represent the outdoors (Jacobs, 1993). People depend on strets for 
functional, social and leisure activities, for travel, shopping, play, meting, and 
interaction with other people, and even relaxation (Jacobs, 1961; Appleyard, 1981; Gehl, 
1987; Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Car et al., 1992; Jacobs, 1993; Southworth and Ben-
Joseph, 1996; Lofland, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999; Carmona et al., 2003). ?Strets and 
their sidewalks, the main public spaces of the city, are its most vital organs. Sidewalks, 
their bordering uses, and their users, are active participants in the drama of 
civilization?? (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 29-30). In urban areas, strets represent a majority of 
the area of public space (Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Jacobs, 1993; Southworth and Ben-
Joseph, 1996) and the eforts to revitalize the public realm are often eforts to revitalize 
strets ? to generate activity and to make strets lively (se, for example, NMSC). Strets 
are a very significant part of the informal external public realm. ?Acesible to al, these 
spaces constitute public space in its purest form? (Carmona et al., 2003, p. 111). Scholars 
suggest that if ?? we do right by our strets we can in large measure do right by the city 
as a whole ? and, therefore and most importantly, by its inhabitants? (Jacobs, 1993, p. 
314). Strets hold a special place in the literature on public space and are both literaly 
 
   9
and metaphoricaly the most fiting symbol of the public realm (Jacobs, 1961; Rudofsky, 
1969; Jacobs, 1993; Chekki, 1994; Lofland, 1998). Hence, the discourse about the public 
realm or urban public space is often a discussion of the stret.  
It is noted that with the privatization of public space, shopping mals, corporate 
plazas, and the like have replaced traditional public spaces and Main Strets (Rybczynski, 
1993; Kowinski, 1985 from Banerje, 2001). The same consumer culture and the need for 
active and pasive engagement and interaction, relaxation, and leisure also supports the 
concept of public life in coffe shops, bookstores, theaters, health clubs, etc. on 
traditional public spaces such as strets (Banerje, 2001). In mixed-use neighborhoods, 
much of this public and social life now occurs at such venues on neighborhood 
commercial strets. 
Neighborhood Commercial Strets 
Mixed-use neighborhoods are predominantly residential neighborhoods that also 
include work, retail, cultural, and/or light industrial uses. Urban design and planning 
literature in the last few decades has suggested that mixed-use neighborhoods are a 
desirable patern of physical development in urban regions. It is expected that by mixing 
various land uses we can achieve a more vital, vibrant, atractive, safe, viable, and 
sustainable patern of urban lifestyle (Jacobs, 1961; Bentley et al., 1985; Whyte, 1988; 
Krier, 1992; Calthorpe, 1993; Kunstler, 1994; Ewing, 1996; Coupland, 1997; Llewelyn-
Davis, 2000; Duany et al., 2000, among others). Previous studies have shown that one of 
the most important characteristics that people look for in mixed-use neighborhoods is the 
livelines and diversity of the predominantly core areas - the neighborhood commercial 
strets (Brower, 1996). Hence, one of the most important components of mixed-use 
 
   10 
neighborhoods is the planning and design of neighborhood commercial strets to support 
the functions, activities, and ambience desired by the people who wil live or work there. 
Considerable work has been done to establish the relationship betwen the level 
of pedestrian activity and macro-scale physical factors such as socioeconomics, location, 
acesibility, major destinations, density, major natural features, and so on (se, for 
example, Cervero, 1996; Mesenger and Ewing, 1996; Cervero and Kockelman, 1997; 
Vernez-Moudon, Hes, Snyder, and Stanilov, 1997; Kitamura, Laidet, and Mokhtarian, 
1997; Kasturi, Sun, and Wilmot, 1998; Grenwald and Boarnet, 2000; Crane, 2000; 
Boarnet and Crane, 2001; Ewing and Cervero, 2001; Frank and Engelke, 2001; Handy, 
Boarnet, Ewing, and Kilingsworth, 2002; Saelens, Salis, and Frank, 2003, among 
others). However, even when these macro-scale factors are similar there are distinct 
variations betwen the use of strets even within one mixed-use neighborhood. Some 
strets are certainly livelier than others. 
Defining Lively Strets 
Dictionary meanings of livelines vary imensely, connoting such felings as full 
of life and energy, animated, exciting, full of activity and stimulating, and even bright 
and colorful, bouncy, or springy, to name just a few (Webster?s Dictionary, 1996). Based 
on these definitions many kinds of strets may qualify as lively. However, for this study 
livelines is exclusively asociated with people and activities. Hence, in this context 
livelines may be atributed to the presence and amicable interaction of people in their 
surrounding environment. Variations in activities result in diferences in the kinds of 
perceived livelines of a stret. Hence, a stret may appear lively because of a number of 
people walking through it: a dynamic activity. Alternatively, the appearance of livelines 
 
   1 
of a stret may be the result of a number of people engaged in various activities while 
seated, lingering, or standing in it: a predominantly static or stationary activity. Further, 
the appearance of livelines may be a result of a combination of both static and dynamic 
forms of activities. For the purpose of this study, a lively stret is defined as a stret with 
the presence of a number of people engaged in a variety of predominantly stationary and 
sustained activities, particularly those activities that are social in nature. 
The idea of lively strets as defined for this study is not new. Urban Planning 
literature in the past has often refered to these types of strets and similar spaces. Lively 
strets are synonymous with the qualities that Jacobs (1961) appreciated on Grenwich 
Vilage strets and sidewalks, and they are what Walzer (1986) has described as 
open-minded space, designed for a variety of uses, including unforesen 
and unforeseable uses, and used by citizens who do diferent things and 
are prepared to tolerate, even take interest in, things they don?t do. When 
we enter this sort of space, we are characteristicaly prepared to loiter 
(Walzer, 1986, pp. 470-471). 
 
Lively strets are a desired component of any good mixed-use neighborhood and 
therefore of any good city (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984; Gehl, 1987; Whyte, 1988; 
Montgomery, 1998; Coupland, 1997; Llewelyn-Davis, 2000; Carmona et al., 2003, 
among others). 
Strets as Social Space 
Historicaly, strets in cities were used as spaces to serve basic survival, 
communication, and entertainment needs and to perform several political, religious, 
commercial, civic, and social functions (Rudofsky, 1969; Lofland, 1973, 1998). In 
contemporary developed societies, many of these functions have moved to private or 
virtual realms or to diferent types of parochial and public spaces (Bril, 1989, 1990; 
 
   12 
Chidister, 1989; Rybczynski, 1993; Banerje, 2001). However, especialy in many 
center-city and mixed-use neighborhoods, people stil depend on strets for functional, 
social and leisure activities, for travel, shopping, play, meting, and interaction with other 
people, and even relaxation (Jacobs, 1961; Appleyard, 1981; Gehl, 1987; Vernez-
Moudon, 1991; Car et al. 1992; Jacobs, 1993; Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 1996; 
Lofland, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999; Carmona et al., 2003). The notion of the stret as a 
space for social interaction that may occur as a result of any of these activities is the 
focus of this study. 
Research in shopping behavior and why people go shopping provides valuable 
information on people?s needs in the public realm and has relevance to neighborhood 
commercial strets. Studies show that besides the primary activity of acquiring goods and 
services, people go shopping to met and spend time with their friends, to look around 
and people-watch, and to walk around. Sociologists and environmental psychologists 
have identified social afiliation and interaction, sensory stimulation, and other leisurely 
activities among important and basic motives for shopping behavior (Tauber, 1972; 
Jansen-Verbeke, 1987; Bloch, Ridgway and Sherel, 1989; Bloch, Ridgway and 
Dawson, 1994; Falk, 1997, among others). 
Scholars in various fields related to urban studies suggest thinking about the stret 
as a social space rather than a channel for movement (se, for example, Jacobs, 1961; 
Appleyard, 1981; Vernez-Moudon, 1991; Gehl, 1987; Brower, 1988; Jacobs, 1993; 
Loukaitou-Sederis and Banerje, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999). Strets provide 
opportunities for short-term, low-intensity contacts that constitute easy interactions with 
other people in a relaxed and relatively undemanding way (Jacobs, 1961; Gehl, 1987). It 
 
   13 
is suggested that these short-term, low-intensity contacts or weak ties are possible 
beginnings of deeper and more long-term social interactions and engagements betwen 
people (Jacobs, 1961; Granoveter, 1973; Grenbaum, 1982; Gehl, 1987). Jacobs (1961) 
argues that through repeated short-term contacts people grow to trust their felow city 
dwelers who may otherwise be total strangers. 
The sum of such casual, public contact at a local level ? most of it 
fortuitous, most of it asociated with erands, al of it metered by the 
person concerned and not thrust upon him by anyone ? is a feling for the 
public identity of people, a web of public respect and trust, and a resource 
in time of personal or neighborhood need. ? Lowly, unpurposeful and 
random as they may appear, sidewalk contacts are the smal change from 
which a city?s wealth of public life may grow. (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 56 & 72) 
 
The stret is an environment that offers multiple lesons for children just by 
watching people and their activities. Experiences in public space are not only a source for 
the education of children in learning how to cope with new situations in real life (Jacobs, 
1961; Gehl, 1987; Francis, 1988; Moore, 1991), but also for the education of adults in 
learning, by observing the way people do things diferently (Lofland, 1998). 
Additionaly, seing other people engaged in activities can be an inspiration to engage in 
new activities. Hence, even in contemporary times, the stret, as a social space, can play 
multiple roles and offer social contact and interaction, social awarenes and learning, and 
social cohesion.  
Research Question and Theoretical Basis for Study 
This study is an empirical investigation of peoples? behavioral responses and 
atitudes toward the physical characteristics, use, and operation of neighborhood 
commercial strets in cities. The specific research question is: What micro-scale physical 
characteristics, uses, and their management strategies are able to support stationary and 
 
   14 
social activities on neighborhood commercial strets? This study therefore examines 
neighborhood commercial strets in an atempt to ascertain what atributes of stret 
design are asociated with stationary, sustained, and lingering activities, especialy social 
activities that make the stret lively. It focuses on determining relationships betwen 
micro-scale physical characteristics and uses, and people?s paterns of social activity on 
neighborhood commercial strets. 
As a basis for inquiry, the study uses a theoretical framework and methods based 
in the field of environment-behavior sciences. The study builds on Barker?s (1968) 
concept of behavior seting which examines everyday human behavior with relation to its 
physical setings; Gibson?s (1979) theory of environmental affordances, which suggests 
that the physical characteristics of a seting afords activities and aesthetic experiences; 
and Canter?s (1977) theory of place, which proposes that a seting is understood as a 
combination of its physical characteristics, the activities asociated with it, and the 
meanings that it holds for people. 
Using this theoretical framework, this study analyzes neighborhood commercial 
strets in the context of Maslow?s (1943, 1954) hierarchy of human needs and Stele?s 
(1973) dimensions of physical setings. The study identifies and engages only those 
human needs and dimensions that are pertinent to the public realm and may be satisfied 
in public space.  
 
   15 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
Camilo Site (1889) sensed the boredom and inhumane qualities of the modern 
city. In his treatise he elaborated on Alberti?s idea of a ?science of art? which suggests 
that in order to provide aesthetic pleasure the built environment must folow a set of rules 
that are imposed by the human body (Choay, 1997). Site was aware of Alberti?s concern 
with commodity and he acknowledged its importance in his work. He scientificaly 
formulated universal principles for the design of urban fabric by basing his work in the 
realm of psychology and urged city planners not to overlook the visual, experiential, and 
public use dimensions of the historic city. Of these, the former, the visual and artistic 
aspects, became the focus of urban design in the twentieth century. As Cullen (1961) 
suggests, ?We turn to the faculty of sight, for it is almost entirely through vision that the 
environment is apprehended? (p. 8). As a result, traditionaly the ?visual-aesthetic 
tradition? has been the dominant urban design paradigm (Jarvis, 1980; Carmona et al., 
2003), and the proces of design has been largely governed by the personal tastes, 
intuition, and aesthetic criteria of profesionals trained in the fields of design. Even 
livelines and vitality were asociated with the appearance of buildings and their formal 
and spatial composition. Cullen (1961) suggests that when, ?? buildings have been put 
together in a group so that one can get inside the group, then the space created betwen 
the buildings is sen to have a life of its own over and above the buildings which created 
it ?? (p. 7). The visual needs and personal tastes of the few trained profesionals became 
the benchmark for the design of the environment. As a result, a substantial source of 
 
   16 
literature on strets and other public spaces emerges from architectural and design circles 
and is largely conceptual, theoretical, and inspirational in nature (se, for example, 
Rudofsky, 1969; Rowe and Koeter, 1978; Krier, 1979; Rossi, 1982). This kind of 
literature is often engaged in the evolution of new and creative methods to analyze form 
and space, rather than the understanding of isues of use and meaning for everyday users 
of these spaces. 
Advances in environmental psychology, behavioral sciences, and social sciences 
provided an alternative to the traditional visual-aesthetic approach. It was suggested that 
for the planning and design of the environment, the study and analysis of human behavior 
provides a more appropriate, relevant, and richer view of human needs in the use of 
space, form, and artifacts than the traditionaly intuitive visual-aesthetic approach 
(Lynch, 1960, 1984; Jacobs, 1961; Alexander, 1964, 1965, 1977; Studer, 1969; Perin, 
1970; Jarvis, 1980; Lang, 1987). This study builds on theories that resulted from these 
advances, and develops a theoretical framework and methods based in the field of 
environment-behavior sciences. 
Theoretical Framework 
As stated earlier, Barker?s (1968) theory of behavior setings, Gibson?s (1979) 
theory of environmental affordances, and Canter?s (1977) theory of place form the 
theoretical framework for this study. Al thre theories were developed in the fields of 
environmental and ecological psychology in the last four decades and have been 
recognized as foundations for environment and behavior research (Lang, 1987) also 
known as environment-behavior studies or EBS (se, for example, Rapoport 1990). Al 
thre theories have overlapping concepts. Gibson particularly, more than Canter, has built 
 
   17 
upon Barker?s work in ecological psychology. This study atempts to synthesize the thre 
theories and use the synthesis as a theoretical base for investigation.  
Behavior Setings 
Barker?s (1968) concept of behavior seting and the creation of the field of 
Ecological Psychology focus on the study of everyday human behavior with relation to 
physical setings. This concept of a behavior seting examines the relationship betwen a 
physical environment (seting) and the paterns of behavior that may possibly take place 
in it (Lang, 1987). A behavior seting consists of a milieu (a particular layout of the 
environment), a standing pattern of behavior (a recurrent activity), and a synomorphy (a 
congruent relationship betwen the two) (Barker, 1968; Bechtel, 1977, 1997; Lang, 
1987). The greater the congruent relationship betwen the particular layout of the 
environment and the activity, the beter the behavior seting is able to aford human 
behaviors and needs. Alan Wicker further enhanced the concept of ecological 
psychology by placing it in the context of larger social contexts and isues. His work 
emphasized the importance of behavior setings as the most imediate and ?behavioraly 
significant, human environments? (Wicker, 1979), and the importance of the theory of 
?manning?: the dependency of the behavior seting to operate with an optimal number of 
people. Wicker suggests that in the case of undermanning or overmanning adjustments 
must be made in order for the behavior seting to operate normaly. 
The present study of neighborhood commercial strets uses the concept of a 
behavior seting and identifies a block and a block-segment as the milieu (se Methods 
chapter for details). The relationship betwen the layout and characteristics of the block-
segment and the behaviors and activities taking place there is examined to determine how 
 
   18 
wel it is able to support stationary, sustained, and lingering activities and social 
interaction. 
Environmental Afordances 
The term ?afordances? coined by Gibson (1979) refers to the physical properties 
of an object or environment (seting) that enable it to be used for some activity. Unlike 
the concept of behavior setings, affordances do not posses ?coercive? or ?invitational 
qualities? (Gibson, 1979; Lang, 1987). Gibson further developed Barker?s (1968) work 
on behavior setings and proposed that the physical properties are characteristics and 
configurations of the object or seting that not only aford behaviors but aesthetic 
experiences as wel. By physicaly altering an object or seting, we can, and constantly 
do, change its afordances. Even if do not alter the afordances of an object or seting, 
their usefulnes and meaning may change with the needs, and the cultural and individual 
background of the individual who perceives them (Lang, 1987). However, 
In addition, similar to the idea of a behavior seting, the various afordances of an 
object or seting do not imply that it wil be used. Afordances may either support or limit 
activities; they do not necesarily generate or ?trigger? an outcome (Heft, 1997). ?The 
afordances of the environment are what it offers ? what it provides or furnishes, either 
for good or for il? (Gibson, 1979, p. 129). 
Place Theory 
Canter?s (1977) theory of place adds another dimension to the concept of behavior 
seting in environmental psychology. Acording to Canter, environments or places are 
defined by, and understood as, the physical characteristics of the place, the activities in 
them, and the meanings that they hold for people. Unlike for Tuan (1977), Relph (1976), 
 
   19 
Norberg-Schulz (1982), or His (1990), this concept of place does not imply a quality of 
a seting. Instead it makes ?? available a unit of study that encapsulates a mixture of 
proceses that create our experience of our socio-physical surroundings? (Canter, 1991, p. 
118). Therefore, in esence, Canter suggests that our understanding of a seting depends 
on what we do in places and how we fel about them. 
Human Behavior as a Basis for Design 
Environmental psychologists have developed new research methods in order to 
test their theories. These methods involve studying real life situations and engaging 
comon users of the environment. It is suggested that an efective way to study human 
behavior and to understand human needs and preferences is by empiricaly observing 
human behavior (Studer, 1969; Craik, 1970; Michelson, 1975). 
The most commonly acepted unit for design purposes is ?human need?. 
Such a concept has relevance perhaps; what it lacks is empirical substance. 
That is, we cannot observe need, but we can only infer its existence 
through observation of its empirical counterpart, behavior ?  Human 
behavior to be more correct unit of analysis, it has characteristics, which 
are relevant, empiricaly verifiable and operationaly definable (Studer, 
1969, quoted in Joardar, 1977). 
 
Based on theories in ecological psychology and criticizing the results of 
architectural designs, Perin (1970) developed the concept of behavior circuits suited to 
the field of environmental design. A behavior circuit implies ?? an anthropological 
ergonomics, tracking people?s behavior through the fulfilment of their everyday 
purposes at the scale of the room, the house, the block, the neighborhood, the city, in 
order to learn what resources - physical and human - are needed to support, facilitate or 
enable them? (p. 78). However, following Canter (1977) and Gibson (1979), it is 
suggested that the criteria for selection of place encompas more than its ability to aford 
 
   20 
behavior. The role that aesthetic responses and afective qualities play in selection of 
place is equaly important in understanding the use of space (Hull and Harvey, 1989; 
Kaplan et al., 1989; Nasar, 1994). 
Hence, following the theories in ecological psychology and understanding of 
place, an efective way to beter understand human needs and preferences on 
neighborhood commercial strets would be to empiricaly study the interelationships 
betwen the characteristics of the stret (including its uses, physical characteristics, and 
the management of the uses and the stret space) and the behaviors (actions) as wel as 
atitudes (felings) of the users through both observational techniques and user 
evaluation. 
Human Neds: A Sense of Comfort and Pleasure on the Stret 
Establishing a hierarchy of human needs, Maslow (1943, 1954) identified 
physiological needs, safety, belonging, estem, self-actualization, and cognitive and 
aesthetic needs in the built environment. Similarly, Stele (1973) suggested six purposes 
or dimensions of the built environment that influence the functioning of individuals or 
groups: shelter and security, social contact, symbolic identification, task instrumentality, 
pleasure, and growth. Maslow?s (1954) and Stele?s (1973) concepts of human needs in 
the environment may be understood as elaborations on the Vitruvian concerns for utilitas 
and venustas ? commodity and delight. In esence, it is argued that if the built 
environment can house and support desired activities, human paterns of interaction, and 
human paterns of movement, it can satisfy most of the range of human needs (Lang, 
1987). 
 
   21 
Hence, a responsive environment is one that provides physiological comfort, 
afords standing paterns of behavior, provides pleasing sensory experiences, and has 
positive symbolic asociations for its users (Lang, 1987; Santayana, 1896 from Lang, 
1987). However, both Maslow and Stele addres human needs in both private and public 
realms. This study only encompases those needs and dimensions that may be satisfied in 
public space. 
 
 
Figure 1. Framework of Needs on Neighborhood Comercial Streets 
 
Seven categories of human needs on neighborhood commercial strets are 
identified based on this theoretical framework. It is suggested that desirable 
neighborhood commercial strets would be ones that provide a sense of safety, a sense of 
belonging, environmental comfort, convenience and physical comfort, a sense of control 
over the environment, sensory pleasure, and opportunities for social contact and 
interaction. Strets that cater to the first six categories of human needs in public space are 
likely to atract more people, and are therefore likely to create possibilities for satisfying 
the need for social contact and interaction (se Figure 1). The following sections 
 
   2 
summarize the theoretical and empirical literature in these categories and reveal the voids 
in the existing literature. 
Sense of Safety on the Stret 
Maslow (1943, 1954) clasified safety needs as second only to physiological 
human needs. While the sense of real and perceived safety is afected by the 
characteristics of the environment, it also afects the use of the environment. Previous 
research has shown that the sense of safety on the stret is afected by these 
environmental characteristics: the physical condition and maintenance of the 
environment; the configuration of strets and spaces; the types of land uses; the 
alterations and modifications made to the environment; and the presence or absence of, 
and the kind of, people. Some recent studies show that people perceived strets to be 
safer where there were tres, and the gras was maintained (Kuo, Bacaicoa and Sullivan, 
1998) and also where there was a presence of stores and other non-residential properties 
on the stret (Perkins, Wandersman, Rich and Taylor, 1993). Jacobs? (1961) treatise on 
city strets identified stores, bars, restaurants, and other ?third places? (Oldenburg, 1981) 
as basic components of surveilance and safety throughout the day.  
The basic requisite for such surveilance is a substantial quantity of stores 
and other public places sprinkled along the sidewalks of a district; 
enterprises and public places that are used by evening and night must be 
among them especialy. Stores, bars and restaurants, as the chief examples, 
work in several diferent and complex ways to abet sidewalk safety 
(Jacobs, 1961, p. 36).  
 
 Perkins (1986) found that personalization of property made the stret environment 
appear safer, as did the presence of stret lights, block watch signs, yard decorations and 
private plantings (Perkins, Meks and Taylor, 1992). Conversely, a lack of teritorial 
 
   23 
control made the stret environment perceptibly les safe (Taylor, Gottfredson and 
Brower, 1984). Various other studies have found the perception of safety to be negatively 
afected by the presence of liter, grafiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained buildings 
(Skogan and Maxfield, 1981; Hope and Hough, 1988; Perkins, Meks and Taylor, 1992). 
Sense of Belonging: Community Places 
 Sociologists have for long emphasized the significance of symbolic dimension of 
shared experiences of people in a neighborhood. Both Maslow (1954) and Stele (1973) 
recognize the need for a sense of belonging and shared symbolic identification, as basic 
human needs. A sense of belonging and emotional atachment along with an ability to 
influence and fulfil certain needs is required to achieve a sense of community in a 
neighborhood and to define it as a community rather than a just a group of people 
(McMilan and Chavis, 1986). It is suggested that asociations with people, places, and 
events contributes to a sense of familiarity and belonging to the community (Oldenburg, 
1981; Hester, 1984). Places that help shape community atitudes, that provide a 
continuity from past to present, that may often cater to mundane but esential everyday 
functions, that help in establishing their community?s identity become significant to the 
neighbors and achieve a social value and meaning (Johnston, 1992; Lofland, 1998). 
Johnston adds that these are places that ?loom large in the daily comings and goings of 
life? and ?are acesible to the public and offer the possibility of repeated use to build up 
asociations and value to the community of users.? Often these are smal local busineses 
or informal community gathering places in the neighborhood and are what Oldenburg 
(1981) has termed ?third places.? Hester (1984), contends that in neighborhoods these 
places are usualy ?public and ambiguously owned private spaces? and among many 
 
   24 
others, are likely to be favorite spaces, strets, sidewalks, storefronts, aleys, parks, and so 
on. His research suggests that these places atain a sense of ?collective-symbolic 
ownership? and are ones that people in the neighborhood hold most ?sacred? (Hester, 
1984, 1993). As Hester suggests, because often these places appear to be ordinary, their 
loss is realized only when their existence is threatened or when they no longer exist 
(Lofland, 1998).     
Environmental Comfort on the Stret 
Environmental comfort through protection from the natural elements and the 
provision of shelter is the most basic human need, and this is a primary role of the built 
environment (Maslow, 1954; Stele, 1973). While humans are known to sometimes 
function in very chalenging environmental conditions, the satisfaction of basic 
physiological needs, including environmental comfort precedes the acomplishment of 
higher order needs such as belonging, estem, cognitive and aesthetic needs (Maslow, 
1943, 1954).  
Existing literature on the efects of environmental factors on human behavior 
shows that comfortable microclimatic conditions, including temperature, sunlight and 
shade, and wind, are important in supporting outdoor activities (Pushkarev and Zupan, 
1975; Cohen, Moss and Zube, 1979; Bosselmann et al., 1984; Gehl, 1987; Arens and 
Bosselmann, 1989; Khisty, n. d. from Rapoport, 1990). In a recent study of 20 towns and 
cities in Europe, Has-Klau et al. (1999) found that social activities occurred in places 
that had ?plenty of sunshine? and were protected from the wind. Sunlight has been found 
to be a major atraction in the use of open public spaces (Share, 1978; Liebermann, 1984; 
Whyte, 1980; Banerje and Loukaitou-Sederis, 1992). However, Whyte?s (1980) study of 
 
   25 
plazas in New York City showed that while sunlight was an important factor in the 
spring, people sought shade provided by tres, awnings, canopies, and overhangs during 
the warmer summer months. Similarly, Zacharias et al. (2001) found that in Montreal?s 
public open spaces at temperatures above 20? Celsius (68? Fahrenheit) people prefered 
to move to areas under shade. 
Hence, good microclimatic conditions that may largely be a consequence of man-
made conditions altering the natural climate become a prerequisite for supporting outdoor 
activities in open public spaces. 
Physical Comfort and Convenience on the Stret 
 Beyond offering protection from sun, wind, and rain, and providing a 
physiologicaly suitable seting, the stret environment as a milieu needs to aford the 
various activities and standing paterns of behavior that may potentialy occur on the 
stret within its cultural context (Barker, 1968; Rapoport, 1969, 1977). In doing so, the 
design of the stret environment needs to be anthropometricaly and ergonomicaly 
sensitive (Croney, 1971; Kanowitz and Sorkin, 1983, from Lang, 1987). 
Physical characteristics and uses identified as contributing to retaining people in 
public spaces and possibly supporting social behavior include siting space (DiVete, 
1977 from Rapoport 1990; Joardar and Neil, 1978; Linday, 1978; Share, 1978; Whyte, 
1980; Has-Klau et al., 1999); other stret furniture and physical artifacts (Prieser, 1971; 
Cooper-Marcus, 1975; Joardar and Neil, 1978; Gehl, 1987); generous sidewalk width 
(Whyte, 1980); tres (Share, 1978; Joardar and Neil, 1978; Whyte, 1980; Coley et al., 
1997; Sullivan et al., 2004, among others); a high degre of articulation with nooks, 
corners, smal setbacks in adjacent wals, and landscape elements such as ledges, 
 
   26 
planters, and so on (De Jonge, 1967-68; Stilitz, 1969, 1970 from Joardar, 1977; 
Alexander et al., 1977; Joardar and Neil, 1978; Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987); eating 
establishments such as restaurants and cafes (DiVete 1977 from Rapoport 1990; 
Alexander et al., 1977; Whyte, 1980; Banerje and Loukaitou-Sederis, 1992; 
Montgomery, 1997; Has-Klau et al., 1999); a variety of shops (Jacobs, 1961; Alexander 
et al., 1977; Montgomery, 1998; Has-Klau et al., 1999, among others); and the presence 
of retail (Whyte, 1980; Banerje and Loukaitou-Sederis, 1992); 
Studies of plazas in Vancouver and New York City showed that choice of siting 
space in the form of benches, ledges, low wals, and so on was the most important factor 
in retaining people (Joardar and Neil, 1978; Whyte, 1980). Additionaly, movable chairs 
were the most desired due to the choice, flexibility, and comfort they offered (Whyte, 
1980). De Jonge (1968) observed that in public spaces the open parts of the space are 
occupied only after the edges have been fully occupied. This he termed the ?edge efect.? 
It is suggested that if the edge fails, the space is also likely to fail. 
In sum, the literature suggests that the characteristics of landuse and the physical 
environment are both important to provide a useful, convenient, comfortable, and 
meaningful seting to atract and retain people in urban public spaces such as strets. 
Teritory, Personalization, and Control on the Stret 
First recorded in animals, teritoriality or teritorial behavior in humans is a kind 
of spatial behavior that involves permanently or temporarily laying claim to ownership of 
an area by personalizing it with the use of physical and/or symbolic bariers, markers and 
artifacts (Hal, 1966; Altman, 1975; Brower, 1980; Lang, 1987). Although teritorial 
behavior is a critical mechanism for achieving private needs such as intimacy and 
 
   27 
solitude (Brown, 1987), of concern to this study is the role teritorial behavior plays in 
?stabilizing social relationships? (Altman, 1975). Acording to El-Sharkawy?s four-part 
model, it is the supporting and peripheral teritories, which addres semipublic and 
public spaces that are pertinent to this study (El-Sharkawy, 1979, from Lang, 1987). By 
personalizing a space, people change the environment to met their needs and specific 
activity paterns. This provides psychological security, a symbolic aesthetic, and the 
marking of teritory (Lang, 1987, p. 148). Further, these gestures and objects, as 
manifestations of personalization suggest the presence of people and activity, and 
therefore of life, adding a human touch to the environment. 
Signs asociated with occupancy can do more than announce the existence 
of teritorial claims; they can also be sen as visible evidence of caring. 
They can represent a feling of atachment betwen the occupant and the 
physical seting, and as such they wil be felt to add ?warmth? or 
?intimacy? to a seting, which, in the absence of such signs, would be too 
?monumental? or ?sterile? or ?inhuman?(Brower, 1980, p. 189). 
 
Thus, personalization and sense of occupancy act as a sign of communication and 
a proxy to the presence of people and activity. ?The concept of teritoriality deals, then, 
with behavior that directly afects the security and maintenance of the physical 
environment. Because of this, it has much to offer to the city planners and urban 
designers, ?? (Brower, 1980, p. 183). Increased opportunities for personalization add 
those elements in the environment that are of prime interest to people (Gehl, 1987). 
Teritorial flexibility and opportunities for defining personal space are especialy 
important in public spaces that are designed for supporting casual leisure behavior (Hal, 
1966; Sommer, 1969 from Joardar, 1978). Hence, setings those offer the ability for 
people to personalize and teritorialize space transfer a level of control, which provides 
fredom and comfort to the users. 
 
   28 
Sensory Pleasure on the Stret 
Pleasure derived through a sensory experience of the stret depends on various 
stimuli perceived from the environment ?from the lights, sounds, smels, touches, colors, 
shapes, paterns, textures, and so on, of the fixed, semi-fixed, and movable elements that 
make up the stret (Lang, 1987; Bel et al., 1990; Rapoport, 1990; Porteous, 1996). It is 
argued that to achieve sensory pleasure pedestrians prefer a high level of complexity 
resulting from variety and novelty (Plat, 1959; White, 1959; Berlyne, 1960; Par, 1965, 
1966; Rapoport and Kantor, 1967; Lozano, 1974; Alexander et al., 1977; Bentley et al., 
1985; Gehl, 1987; Rapoport, 1990, among others); as wel as order and coherence (Smith, 
1980; Herzog et al., 1982; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Nasar, 1998). Scholars note that 
sensory stimuli at the stret are perceived from, but are not limited to, the characteristics 
of the edges of buildings that define the stret, including fenestration, shop windows and 
the goods in them, canopies, awnings, signage, and so on; the stret and sidewalk, 
including vehicles, stret furniture and al other physical artifacts on it; natural features, 
such as landscape elements and tres; and people and their activities, including 
movements, sounds, etc. (Cullen, 1961; De Wolfe, 1966; Sharp, 1968; Gehl, 1987; 
Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Rapoport 1990; Arnold, 1993; Jacobs, 1993; Elshestaway, 
1997; Lofland, 1998; Stamps, 1999; Heath et al., 2000, among others). 
Specificaly, empirical studies of strets and plazas show that sensory stimuli 
identified in contributing to the retention of people in public spaces include other people 
and activities (DiVete, 1977 from Rapoport 1990; Ciolek, 1978; Share, 1978; Whyte, 
1980; Gehl, 1987; Has-Klau et al., 1999); building features and shop windows (Ciolek, 
1978; Whyte, 1980); personalized shop windows and signs (Gehl, 1987); tres (Joardar 
 
   29 
and Neil, 1978; Share, 1978; Whyte, 1980); and the density and variety of form, texture, 
and color of shrubs and plants (Grey et al., 1970; Joardar and Neil, 1978; Share, 1978; 
Coley et al., 1997; Sullivan et al., 2004, among others). 
In sum, studies conclude that people prefer open public spaces that provide a high 
level of culturaly aceptable sensory stimuli resulting in a complexity that heightens 
interest without becoming over-stimulated and chaotic. 
Oportunity for Research 
In a literature review of both static and dynamic pedestrian activities, Rapoport 
(1990) found that most studies were done at a macro-scale and engaged ?geographic 
literature? and ?history of urban form?; were ?based on personal, intuitive, and aesthetic 
criteria?; dealt more with trafic than pedestrian movement; that only a few dealt with 
perceptual characteristics of spaces; and that studies from the field of social sciences 
ignored the physical environment (p. 254). Additionaly, there is rich literature on the 
history of the stret that engages the subject of the historicaly changing cultural meaning 
of the stret (Girouard, 1985; Celik, et al., 1995; Fyfe, 1998). However, there is limited 
research on the stret as a behavior seting for everyday activities and social interaction. 
Behavioral studies of open public spaces have been in use for the last four 
decades. Social activities in urban open spaces have been used as a measure of the town?s 
vitality and livelines, and as an indicator of the satisfaction of people with their physical 
surroundings (se, for example, Jacobs, 1961, Alexander et al., 1977; Gehl, 1987; Has-
Klau et al., 1999). However, a review of the literature reveals that there are only a 
handful of empirical studies that addres the stationary and social behavior of people in 
urban open public spaces. Even among these that do, most are studies of plazas (se, for 
 
   30 
example, Cooper-Marcus, 1975-1988 from Cooper-Marcus and Francis, 1998; Dornbush 
and Gelb, 1977; Joardar & Neil, 1978; Linday, 1978; Miles et al., 1978; Share, 1978; 
Whyte, 1980; Liebermann, 1984; Banerje and Loukaitou-Sederis, 1992; Loukaitou-
Sederis and Banerje, 1993). Other studies have focused on predominantly residential 
strets and spaces (Appleyard, 1981; Eubank-Ahrens, 1991; Skj?veland, 2001; Sullivan, 
Kuo and DePooter, 2004). More noticeable is the fact that most studies deal with the 
macro- and meso-level aspects of the environment. Others categoricaly separate the 
study of the physical features of the environment from the land uses and the busineses 
and places that hold special meanings for the community. Hence, such studies do not deal 
with the interelationships betwen the uses, the comunity places, and physical features 
of the stret and the strategies in place to operate and manage these uses and the stret 
space (se, for example, Has-Klau et al., 1999; Joardar and Neil, 1978). At the same 
time, however, urban designers and planners realize that ?? it remains dificult to isolate 
physical features from social and economic activities that bring value to our experiences 
?? (Jacobs, 1993, p. 270). 
There is opportunity for research to view the experience from a user?s perspective 
by focusing on the physical features, the uses and facilities, their operation and 
management, the meanings these hold for the users and, most important, the 
interelationships betwen these that make the stret lively. The curent study atempts to 
analyze the neighborhood commercial stret environment as a behavior seting that 
constitutes paterns of behavior as wel as paterns of the physical layout of the 
environment. By simultaneously focusing on the physical features, the uses, and their 
operation and management, the meanings the have for the users and the interelationships 
 
   31 
betwen these, the study atempts to discover what makes the experience comfortable, 
interesting, and meaningful for stationary activity and social interaction. 
Conceptual Framework 
 Figure 2 shows a conceptual framework for the study based on the theoretical 
framework discussed earlier and the review of the literature. The conceptual framework 
suggests that thre factors - physical, landuse, and community places - constitute the 
characteristics of the stret. These characteristics of the stret influence a user?s atitudes 
and perception, which also depend on the user?s individual asociations and background, 
and the presence of other people and activities. Together, user perceptions and stret 
characteristics afect the overal perceived quality of the stret, which, based on 
Maslow?s (1954) and Stele?s (1973) concepts, is presented here as a set of six categories 
discussed in detail in the preceding pages. The livelines of a neighborhood commercial 
stret, defined as the presence of stationary
1
, sustained, and lingering activities
2
, and 
social activities
3
, and measured by the number of people, the number of people in groups, 
and their duration of stay, depends on the overal quality of the stret. 
 
                                                
1
 Stationary and Sustained Activities were defined as activities where a person was standing, siting, or 
lying down in one place in the outdors at the stret for a duration of more than 15 seconds. ?Stationary 
activities? is used throughout the document to mean stationary, sustained, and lingering activities. 
 
2
 Lingering Activities were defined as activities where a person was moving around in the outdors at the 
stret within the 50 to 60 fot block-segment for more than 15 seconds, but not just pasing through the 
block-segment. 
 
3
 Social Activities were defined as activities where there were two or more persons engaged in stationary, 
sustained, or lingering activities and interacting with each other either actively or pasively.     
 
 
   32 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework for the study 
 
 3 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3: METHODS 
 
Concurent Transformative Mixed-Method Strategy 
A Concurrent Transformative Mixed-Method Strategy of inquiry consists of both 
qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry to collect and analyze data (Creswel, 
2003). In this study, qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously and 
merged during the analysis phase to add dimension to the findings (se Figure 3). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Concurrent Transformative Mixed-Method Strategy (adapted from Creswell, 203) 
 
As stated in the introduction, the primary objective for this study was to determine 
what environmental characteristics of neighborhood commercial strets support 
stationary, sustained, and lingering activities, especialy those activities that are social in 
nature. As a part of the mixed-method strategy, the inquiry employed a multiple-method 
QUAL   +  QUAN 
Analysis of Data 
Data Collection 
Interpretation of 
entire Analysis 
  Presenting Findings 
 
 34 
survey involving a variety of techniques, including direct observation (with extensive 
field notes and photography), walk-by observation, pedestrian counts, a survey, and 
interview, to collect data on the behavior of people on the neighborhood commercial 
strets. Simultaneously, the thre locations of study were used as case study areas for 
detailed observations of behavior. A face-to-face interview ith residents, workers, and 
visitors of the thre study areas provided information on people?s atitudes and 
perceptions toward the stret environment. Hence, both qualitative and quantitative data 
were collected, analyzed, and presented simultaneously in the study. It is suggested that a 
?survey design is useful when investigators want to find out in detail about a 
phenomenon, ?? (Zeisel, 1981, p. 67). Additionaly, although it is dificult to base 
generalizations on a few cases, case studies provide useful knowledge to suggest possible 
relationships betwen various factors (Yin, 2003; Zeisel, 1981). Miles and Huberman 
(1994) reiterate this view by stating that ?? qualitative research lives and breathes 
through seing the context; it is the particularities that produce the generalities, not the 
reverse? (p. 34). 
 The study also aimed to provide some generalization of this rich and detailed 
information. Structured visual surveys and other quantitative techniques provided data 
that could be analyzed using quantitative methods. Hence, by employing a mixed-method 
strategy using qualitative and quantitative methods, the research atempted to be 
exploratory and inductive, as wel as confirmatory and deductive. ?Quantitative research 
excels at summarizing large amounts of data and reaching generalizations based on 
statistical projections. Qualitative research excels at ?teling the story? from the 
 
 35 
participant's viewpoint, providing the rich descriptive detail that sets quantitative results 
into their human context.? (Trochim, 2004) 
The Study Areas 
Data presented in this study were collected on Masachusets Avenue in the 
Central Square neighborhood in the City of Cambridge (population: 101,355
*
); Harvard 
Stret in the Coolidge Corner neighborhood in the Town of Brookline (population: 
57,107
*
); and Elm Stret in the Davis Square neighborhood in the City of Somervile 
(population: 77,478
*
). Al thre town/cities are in the Boston metropolitan area in 
Masachusets, and are on the MBTA transit system ? the ?T? (se Figure 4). 
Al thre strets studied are the major commercial strets in the neighborhoods. 
The main transit (?T?) stops are located on or adjacent to these neighborhood commercial 
strets that are promoted as pedestrian-friendly areas. Al thre are historic strets that 
comprise mostly older building stock with only a few new buildings constructed in the 
last 40 years. Almost al buildings are built to the sidewalk leaving no setbacks. Aside 
from a few newer buildings with commercial space, al buildings range from one to four 
stories in height. Al thre neighborhood commercial strets have a combination of smal 
independently owned local busineses and national chain stores. 
 Central Square, Coolidge Corner, and Davis Square, may be clasified as 
predominantly residential neighborhoods with most of their daily commercial, cultural, 
entertainment, and other needs and amenities catered for by the busineses and other uses 
                                                
*
 Source: US Census Bureau ? Year 200 data 
*
 Ibid. 
*
 Ibid. 
 
 36 
on the neighborhoods? commercial strets. In addition, the people of Boston metropolitan 
area consider these destinations for shopping, dining, and entertainment. 
 
    
Figure 4. Location Plan ? three study areas in the Boston metropolitan area 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Masachusetts Avenue ? main comercial street of Central Square neighborhood 
 
 38 
Massachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA.  
The Central Square area is a diverse, vibrant, and lively mixed-use area in 
Cambridge. A myriad of uses, including a wide range of housing from single to multi-
family, various types and scales of retail, ofices, public institutional uses and some 
industrial uses, can be found in and around Central Square. Within close proximity to the 
south is the campus of the Masachusets Institute of Technology; to the north is the main 
campus of Harvard University. 
Masachusets Avenue is the main north-south connection and the primary public 
stret. Central Square itself is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 
Masachusets Avenue and Prospect Stret. Major retail and commercial uses are located 
on Masachusets Avenue, two blocks north and four blocks south of Prospect Stret (se 
Figures 5 and 6). On this stretch of approximately six blocks on either side of 
Masachusets Avenue, there is a variety of commercial establishments, some smal 
independently owned or local chains, and some chain stores. These include a variety of 
restaurants, coffe shops, bars, fast food restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, 
hardware stores, pharmacies, electronics stores, cleaners, apparel stores, barbershops, hair 
and beauty salons, bookshops, video rental stores, teaching institutes, banks, offices, 
apartments, and so on (se Figures 5 and 6). The intersection of Masachusets Avenue 
and Prospect Stret is also a major transit node for this part of Cambridge, with numerous 
bus stops and subway (?T?) entrances and exits located around the square on 
Masachusets Avenue. The five blocks studied here are located on the northeast side of 
Masachusets Avenue (se Figures 7 and 8). 
 
 39 
 
Figure 6. Map showing the five blocks studied on Masachusetts Avenue in the Central 
Square neighborhood of Cambridge, MA. 
 
 40 
 
 
Figure 7. Views of the five blocks studied on Masachusetts Avenue 
 
 41 
 
 
Figure 8. A combined plan and elevation of five blocks studied on Masachusetts Avenue 
 
 42 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Harvard Street ? main comercial street of Colidge Corner neighborhood 
 
 
 43 
Harvard Stret, Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA.  
Coolidge Corner is the center of the historic town of Brookline. The 
neighborhood supports a mix of uses, including a variety of housing options, diferent 
scales of retail, commercial, public institutions, and cultural uses. The MBTA?s on-grade 
Gren Line runs on Beacon Stret connecting what were once stretcar suburbs of 
Boston. Beacon and Harvard Strets are major comercial corridors with busineses 
located in the majority of the buildings located on both strets. The core of Coolidge 
Corner?s commerce is concentrated on a few blocks in al directions at the intersection of 
Beacon and Harvard Strets. The six blocks studied here are located on Harvard Stret, 
just north of where it intersects Beacon Stret (se Figures 9 and 10). The S. S. Pierce 
building, erected in 1899, stands as a landmark at the northwest corner of the intersection, 
and is part of the six blocks studied. On these blocks on either side of Harvard Stret, 
there are a variety of commercial establishments, some smal independently owned or 
local chains, and some chain stores. These include a combination of delis, restaurants, 
coffe shops, a bar, fast food restaurant, grocery stores, convenience stores, pharmacies, 
cleaners, apparel stores, opticians, shoe shops, a boutique, a galery, a gift and antique 
store, florists, hair and beauty salons, bookshops, video rental stores, a theater, teaching 
institutes, banks, offices, apartments, and so on (se Figures 11 and 12). The intersection 
of Harvard and Beacon Strets is also a major transit node for this part of Brookline with 
the ?T? stop and a few bus stops. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
Figure 10. Map showing the six blocks studied on Harvard Street in the Colidge Corner 
neighborhood of Brookline, MA. 
 
 45 
 
 
Figure 1. Views of the six blocks studied on Harvard Street 
 
 46 
 
 
Figure 12. A combined plan and elevation of six blocks studied on Harvard Street 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13. Elm Street ? main comercial street of Davis Square neighborhood 
 
 
 48 
Elm Stret, Davis Square, Somervile, MA.  
Davis Square is one of the bustling commercial and entertainment centers of 
Somervile. The MBTA?s Red Line ?T? stop is located here, as is a major bus terminus. 
The Davis Square area is comprised of a mix of residential and commercial strets. Elm 
Stret is the main commercial corridor of the neighborhood. The surrounding 
neighborhood is mostly residential, bounded by Highland Avenue on the northeast and 
Masachusets Avenue on the southwest. The campus of Tufts University is located 
within close proximity to the northeast. 
A variety of commercial, cultural, and entertainment establishments are located 
on Elm Stret. The eight blocks studied here are located on Elm Stret, just south of 
where it intersects other strets at Davis Square (se Figures 13 and 14). On these blocks 
on either side of Elm Stret there is a variety of comercial establishments, some smal 
independently owned or local chains, and some chain stores. These include a combination 
of restaurants, a diner, coffe shops, ice-cream shop, pubs, bars, fast food restaurants, 
grocery stores, a dollar store, a liquor store, cleaners, a newspaper store, florists, hair and 
beauty salons, used books and records shops, video rental stores, photography stores, 
banks, offices, and so on (se Figures 15, 16, and 17). Additionaly, there are two theaters 
(a movie and an off-Broadway) located on these blocks of Davis Square, along with some 
apartments over commercial establishments. 
 
 49 
 
Figure 14. Map showing the eight blocks studied on Elm Street in the Davis Square 
neighborhood of Somervile, MA. 
 
 50 
 
 
Figure 15. Views of the eight blocks studied on Elm Street 
 
 51 
 
 
Figure 16. A combined plan and elevation of eight blocks studied on Elm Street 
 
 52 
 
 
Figure 17. A combined plan and elevation of eight blocks studied on Elm Street 
(Continued from Figure 16) 
 
 53 
 Units of Study 
Data presented in this study were collected at two levels ? the stret block and 
segments of the stret block approximately 50 to 60 fet in length - within the thre study 
areas. These are refered to as ?blocks? and ?block-segments? respectively. The ?blocks? 
to be studied were selected first. The ?block-segments? constituted smaler units of study 
within the selected ?block.? 
Selection of Blocks. The author conducted several drive-bys and walk-bys at 
each of the study areas and selected six to ten blocks in each area in which to make 
preliminary observations. The blocks were selected based on the presence or absence of 
stret furniture; the diference in the number, physical size, and type of busineses; and 
the range in the variety of busineses on a block. Hence, some blocks had more stret 
furniture than others, fewer stores than others, larger stores than others, and more variety 
in the busineses than other blocks. 
Ultimately, 19 blocks were selected for the study. Five blocks were on 
Masachusets Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, six on Harvard Stret at Coolidge 
Corner in Brookline, and eight blocks on Elm Stret at Davis Square in Somervile. An 
atempt was made to select blocks within a study area where macro-scale characteristics 
would remain common. These macro-scale characteristics included the housing and 
commercial density of the area, the type of people living in the area, and the proximity to 
major natural features such as a water?s edge; major uses such as a university or a cultural 
institution, a transit hub, and so on. The distance betwen the diferent blocks and a major 
subway station ranged from zero and 1080 fet. Thus, the selected blocks in each of the 
thre study areas were part of the same urban context with similar macro-scale 
 
 54 
characteristics of the environment. Al the blocks within a study area were within 1600 
fet of each other. This alowed for minimum variation in the macro-scale factors among 
the selected blocks in a study area. 
Fiften of the 19 blocks selected were betwen 191 and 348 fet long. The four 
remaining blocks were 80, 100, 134, and 165 fet in length. Se Figures 8, 12, 16, and 17 
for detailed descriptions of the physical characteristics, and types of busineses on each 
block. 
Procedures 
Observation: Behavioral Mapping 
The purpose of this part of the study was to understand the relationship betwen 
the temporal and spatial forms of the physical seting and people?s behaviors (social 
actions and interactions) ? to examine how people use the strets. It provided information 
on what people did on strets and where they walked, sat, stood, gathered, and socialized, 
and what facilities they used, either as a part of their daily functional activities and/or for 
recreational purposes. This part of the study also provided information on the duration of 
the various activities in which people engaged on the strets. 
 Behavioral mapping links the design features of the seting or location with 
behavior in both time and space (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987). In this study, it included 
Pedestrian Counts, Walk-by Observations, and Direct Observations. Behavioral mapping 
was conducted in acordance with five elements suggested by Itelson (1970): (1) ?A 
graphic rendering of the area (s) observed; (2) A clear definition of the human behaviors 
observed, counted, described, and diagramed; (3) A schedule of repeated times during 
which the observation and recording takes place; (4) A systematic procedure followed in 
 
 5 
observing; (5) A coding and counting system, which minimizes the efort required in 
recording observations? (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987).  
Observation Period. Data were collected on days with temperatures betwen 
55?F and 85?F from late April through early October in 2005. While the cloud cover and 
wind conditions varied during the observations, no observations were made when it was 
raining. Observations were caried out betwen 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM spread out on 
wekdays and wekends. Blocks and block-segments were surveyed randomly. 
Pilot Study 
A pilot study was conducted on two blocks on Masachusets Avenue in Central 
Square, Cambridge to test and improve the data-gathering instruments, including 
pedestrian counts, walk-bys, and direct observations. 
Sample Size. The sample size for the study was initialy intended to be two 
adjacent blocks at Masachusets Avenue, one of the thre neighborhood commercial 
stret study areas. However, the pilot study showed that only two adjacent blocks at each 
study area would be inadequate to capture al the physical design and landuse variables 
intended for study. Upon the suggestion of one of the commite members, the sample 
size was increased from the initialy planned six blocks (two at each study area) to 19 
blocks.  
Direct Observation and Observer Fatigue. During the pilot study, for the 
purpose of observation, the author divided the two stret blocks into segments of 
approximately 100 fet in length. The observations included 1) recording users? location, 
grouping, and duration of stay, 2) tracking users to record their movements to se which 
parts of the stret, furniture, and busineses they used, and 3) taking field notes. Each 
 
 56 
observation was 30 minutes long. The pilot study showed that in areas of high activity it 
was not possible to observe and record al the requisite information. Tracking users 
consumed most of the observer?s atention and compromised the acuracy of other 
information. Often users moved out of the 100-foot observation zone to use another 
busines or amenity and this information could not be recorded acurately. The task of 
recording al this information for 30 minutes led to observer fatigue that compromised the 
quality of the gathered data. As a result, and in the interest of improving the quality of 
data, the time of observation was reduced from 30 to 15 minutes to addres the problem 
of observer fatigue. Additionaly, user tracking was eliminated from the observation and 
a question was added in the interview to gather information on the busineses that people 
used when they visited the block. 
Duration of Stay Intervals. The literature review of similar studies of human 
activities and behavior in public places showed that the duration of activities is often 
recorded in five-minute intervals (se, for example, Eubank-Ahrens, 1991). During the 
pilot study, the author noticed that a significant number of people observed on 
neighborhood commercial strets stayed there for a short duration of les than a minute. It 
was considered important to record this duration of stay as a separate category. As a 
result, 15 seconds to les than one minute was added as one of the categories to record 
duration of stay. 
Determining Optimal Size of Block-segment. If the observer locates 
him/herself to get a good view of the stret block, it is possible to record observations of 
a 100 to 150 foot segment of a stret block. However, during the pilot study the author 
noticed that there was significant variation betwen the characteristics and activity levels 
 
 57 
within a segment of this length. The more active parts of the block helped to determine an 
optimal size for the block-segment that could be observed for users? duration of stay 
without loss of valuable information. A 50 to 60 foot block-segment was determined to 
be the optimal size for observation. Further, where there were two adjacent 50 to 60 foot 
block-segments with very low activity, duration of stay data for both these block-
segments was recorded simultaneously to save time. 
Improving Survey and Interview Questionaire. Flyers were posted on 
community boards at busineses on the two blocks and at a campus family housing 
nearby for the pilot study. Five people were interviewed for the pilot study. After the 
interview, the interviewes were asked to comment on the questionnaire and suggest 
changes. Based on their comments and the suggestion of one of the commite members, 
words and phrases that semed ambiguous or confusing to participants were revised. 
Specificaly, during the pilot study, photographs were used as a basis for responding to 
two visual scales in the survey (se Questions 7 and 9 in Appendix I). Upon the 
suggestion of a commite member, these were replaced by two sketches representing the 
same place. Hence, the two sketches showed the same environment and difered only in 
the specific aspects addresed in each question. Lastly, two questions asked the 
participants to suggest characteristics or aspects that they would like to retain on the 
block and to suggest those they would like to change. As a response, some participants 
made only one suggestion, not realizing that they could make more. Revising the 
questions to read, ?? the thre most important things you would like to ?? made the 
question unambiguous and provided a more definite and consistent number of responses.  
 
 58 
Reliability of Observations 
For the purpose of determining the reliability of the observational data, another 
researcher, a city-planning student, occasionaly conducted observations. The author and 
the second researcher independently conducted pedestrian counts, walk-by observations, 
and direct observations of the same seting at the same time and compared them to check 
for discrepancies. This crosscheck was conducted more frequently at the beginning of the 
study, after the pilot study was complete. It was repeated randomly at al thre study 
areas. 
Two types of discrepancies were noted. First, there was a maximum of 2-3% 
variation betwen the two researchers? pedestrian counts during the busiest hours of the 
day. Second, there were occasional discrepancies in gauging apparent age of users on the 
stret, especialy betwen a tenager (5) and adult female (2) (se Table 1). Both these 
discrepancies were considered within aceptable limits and hence inconsequential to their 
efect on the research. 
Pedestrian Counts 
The author counted al pedestrians crossing a randomly selected imaginary line in 
both directions at various locations on each block for 10 or 15 minutes. On several 
occasions, pedestrian counts were conducted more than once within a time-slot and the 
results averaged. Results of the 10- or 15-minute counts were then converted to estimate 
hourly pedestrian volumes at each block. Skateboarders and roller skaters were included 
in the count, as were people walking pets or pushing strollers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 59 
Table 1. Codes used in pedestrian counts, walk-by observations, and direct observations 
 
Code Description 
1 Adult male (aproximately 20 to 60 years) 
2 Adult female (aproximately 20 to 60 years) 
3 Older adult male (aproximately over 60 years) 
4 Older adult female (aproximately over 60 years) 
5 Tenager (aproximately 13 to 19 years) 
6 Child (aproximately les than 12 years) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Symbols used in recording pedestrian counts 
 
Symbols Description 
J Runing/joging 
C Cycling (on the sidewalk) 
P Walking pets 
Sk Skateboarding or rolerblading 
Pr Pushing a stroler 
 
 
 
 
Apparent age, gender, and activities such as walking pets, pushing stroller, and so 
on were coded for ease of recording (se Table 1 and 2). The size of the walking user-
group such as solitary person, dyads, triads, and so on were noted. Pedestrian counts were 
conducted at eight times each on wekdays and wekends (se Table 3). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60 
Table 3. Schedule of behavioral mapping for the three study areas 
 
Pedestrian Counts Walk-bys Observations 15-minute Direct Observations 
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend 
  7 AM ? 8 AM  7:30 AM ? 9:0 AM 
 
8 AM ? 9 AM  8 AM ? 9 AM 8 AM ? 9 AM 
 
8:30 AM ? 10:0 AM 
9 AM ? 10 AM 9 AM ? 10 AM 9 AM ? 10 AM 9 AM ? 10 AM 9:0 AM ? 10:30 AM 
 
 10 AM ? 1 AM 10 AM ? 1 AM 10 AM ? 1 AM 
 
10:0 AM ? 1:30 AM 
  1 AM ? 12 PM 1 AM ? 12 PM 10:30 AM ? 12:0 PM 
 
12 PM ? 1 PM 12 PM ? 1 PM 12 PM ? 1 PM 12 PM ? 1 PM 
  
1 PM ? 2 PM 1 PM ? 2 PM 1 PM ? 2 PM 1 PM ? 2 PM 12:0 PM ? 2:0 PM 12:0 PM ? 2:0 PM 
  2 PM ? 3 PM 2 PM ? 3 PM 
  
  3 PM ? 4 PM 3 PM ? 4 PM 
  
  4 PM ? 5 PM 4 PM ? 5 PM 
 
4:30 PM ? 6:0 PM 
5 PM ? 6 PM  5 PM ? 6 PM 5 PM ? 6 PM 5:0 PM ? 6:30 PM 
 
6 PM ? 7 PM 6 PM ? 7 PM 6 PM ? 7 PM 6 PM ? 7 PM 
 
6:0 PM ? 8:0 PM 
 7 PM ? 8 PM 7 PM ? 8 PM 7 PM ? 8 PM 6:30 PM ? 8:0 PM 
 
8 PM ? 9 PM 8 PM ? 9 PM 8 PM ? 9 PM 8 PM ? 9 PM 
 
8:0 PM ? 9:30 PM 
9 PM ? 10 PM 9 PM ? 10 PM 9 PM ? 10 PM 9 PM ? 10 PM 8:0 PM ? 9:30 PM 
 
   10 PM ? 1 PM  10:0 PM ? 1:0 PM 
 
Walk-by Observations 
Walk-by observations were used to record stationary, sustained, lingering, and 
social activities. The author slowly walked past the complete length of each block in the 
study area and recorded the total number of stationary people encountered, their 
locations, the activities they were engaged in, and their postures. 
 
Figure 18. Notations used in Walk-by Observations to record behavior and activities 
 
 61 
Walk-by observations were recorded on coding shets consisting of a detailed 
plan and elevation of the block. People that just pased by or entered a premise without 
stopping were not recorded in the walk-by observations. There were thre bus stops at 
thre blocks in the study areas. People waiting for a bus were not recorded in the 
observations. Each person was represented by a dot on the coding sheet. People who were 
engaged in an activity as a dyad, triad, and so on were circled on the coding sheet to 
indicate that they were in a group. Siting, standing, and lying or sleping, were recorded 
as variable postures (se Figure 18). Apparent age, gender, activities, and postures were 
coded for ease of recording. Apparent age was recorded under four categories - children, 
tenagers, adults (approximately 20 to 60 years), and older adults (approximately above 
60 years). Activities were recorded under the categories shown in Table 4 and were 
described in detail where required. 
 
Table 4. Symbols used in recording walk-by observations and direct observations 
 
Symbols Description 
L Lying/sleping 
P Walking pets 
Sk Skateboarding or Rolerblading 
T Conversing 
Pr Pushing a stroler 
E Eating/drinking 
R Reading or using a Laptop computer 
Sh Shoping 
Ws Window-shoping 
G Playing a game or Performing 
Sm Smoking 
V Vending 
 
 
 
 62 
In most cases (74 of 90), the walk-by observations of al the blocks within a study 
area were conducted contiguously with the author starting the walk-by observation at one 
end of the study area and continuing to the other end. Walk-by observations were 
conducted at every hour betwen 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on wekdays and betwen 8:00 
AM and 11:00 PM on wekends on each block (se Table 3). Thus, there were 15 walk-
by observations conducted on wekdays and 15 walk-by observations on wekends for 
each study area and hence each block. 
Direct Observations and Field Notes 
Direct observation was the most important of al the techniques employed to 
collect behavioral information, and was used in both a structured and unstructured 
manner. Human behavior may be studied at diferent scales ranging from global or molar 
to molecular (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987). Molecular human behavior deals with minute 
gestures and expresions whereas molar behavior is concerned with observing the actions 
of a limited number of people engaging with their environment. Environmental behavior 
research is concerned with the scale of molar behavior as it involves observing people in 
their environment. Direct observations were made to record molar behavior that included 
details about the types of activities and postures, kinds of social interactions and contacts 
among people, interactions of people with the physical features of the environment, and 
their duration of stay. 
Structured Direct Observations. As previously noted, each block was divided 
into equal block-segments of approximately 50 to 60 fet in length to conduct direct 
observations of behavior. Hence, there were a total of 78 block-segments - 21 on 
Masachusets Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, 26 on Harvard Stret at Coolidge 
 
 63 
Corner in Brookline, and 31 on Elm Stret at Davis Square in Somervile (se Figures 8, 
12, 16, and 17). 
The author located himself at a discret vantage point for maximum visibility of 
activity at each of the block-segments for 15 minutes. People just pasing by or entering a 
premise without stopping were not included in the observations. As in the walk-by 
observations, people waiting at bus stops were not recorded. 
 
Figure 19. Notations for recording Duration of Stay of people on the street 
 
Table 5. Asigned Score for Duration of Stay 
Duration of Stay Asigned Score 
15 seconds to < 1 minute 1 
1 minute to < 5 minutes 3 
5 minutes to < 10 minutes 7.5 
10 minutes to < 15 minutes 12.5 
> 15 minutes 15 
 
Activities were recorded in detail on observation sheets containing plans and 
elevations of each 50 to 60 foot long block-segment and were supplemented with 
 
 64 
extensive field notes. Persons interacting with each other or engaged in a common 
activity were indicated on the observation sheets as a group. Duration of stay was 
recorded under five categories: 15 seconds to les than one minute, one minute to les 
than five minutes, five minutes to les than 10 minutes, 10 minutes to les than 15 
minutes, and over 15 minutes (se Figure 19), and a corresponding score was asigned 
(se Table 5). The asigned scores were aggregated to arive at a total score for duration 
of stay for each block-segment. The author repeated this at al the 78 block-segments to 
capture the behaviors and activities along the full length of every block. Direct 15-minute 
observations of activities were conducted seven times each on wekdays and wekends at 
each block-segment in the thre study areas (se Table 3). 
Unstructured Direct Observations. The author observed the thre study areas 
from April through late October, 2005, and recorded activities and behavior paterns 
using field notes. In addition, photographs and short videos (30 seconds to thre minutes) 
were utilized to record behavioral paterns. During this period, the author acted as a 
participant observer, using the busineses and stret space in the study areas.  
The combination of pedestrian counts, walk-by observations, and direct 
observations provided a kind of ?snap-shot? of the behavior on the selected blocks on the 
stret at various times from morning to late evening on wekdays and wekends from late 
April to late October 2005 in good weather. In understanding environment-behavior 
relationships it is suggested that the research provides ??answers to these five questions: 
what was done (act), when or where was it done (scene), who did it (agent), how he did it 
(agency), and why (purpose)? (Burke cited in Asplund, 1979, p. 12). The observations 
provided the main body of information on human behavior in the study areas ? especialy 
 
 65 
on four of the five questions: what, when or where, who and with whom, and how, 
leaving only ?why? as the unknown (se Figure 20). 
  
  What 
  here 
  When      
  How long  +    Why 
  Who 
  ith whom 
  How 
  
   OBSERVATION  +    SURVEY/INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE 
 
Figure 20. Understanding behavior & perceptions - observations, surveys, and interviews 
 
Survey and Interview 
Researchers have various options for gathering data on people?s atitudes and 
perceptions about the environment. Telephone surveys, mail surveys, personal diaries, 
focus groups, and face-to-face interviews are among the commonly used techniques. 
Although telephone surveys and interviews are eficient, they could not be used for this 
study as the survey involved visual material. Mail-in surveys can include visual material, 
but they were not used in this study because they cannot acommodate an interview 
component. Additionaly, the purpose of the survey and interview as to obtain 
information from people who actively used the neighborhood commercial stret. Hence, a 
face-to-face survey and interview as considered the best method to provide in-depth 
information to help understand the users? felings, perceptions, and atitudes toward the 
stret environments that were being observed in the thre study areas. Further, by posting 
and distributing flyers about the research at the study areas, the author was able to target 
the neighborhood residents, workers, and visitors who actualy used the neighborhood 
 
 6 
commercial stret on a regular basis. The survey and interview instrument was used to 
reinforce and confirm the findings from the observations - to get answers to ?why? 
people did what they were observed doing (se Figure 20). 
Design. As mentioned earlier, five, six, and eight blocks respectively were 
observed in the thre study areas. However, as a result of learning from the pilot study, 
the four blocks that were most representative of each study area were selected for the 
purpose of the survey and interview. Hence, each participant responded to four standard 
questionnaires that included a survey and open-ended interview questions. The 
instrument was designed to obtain information on why users of these neighborhood 
commercial strets prefered to use certain blocks or block-segments more than others. 
This included geting insight on users? perceptions and atitudes toward the busineses 
and other uses on the blocks, their location, operation and management, and the physical 
characteristics of the environment including its management and upkeep (se Appendix I 
for the survey and interview instrument). 
Sampling. A flyer seking participation in the survey and interview as designed 
for each study area (se Appendices I and Ia). These were regularly posted at stores and 
shops in the study areas that had space for community notices and announcements. Each 
study area had five to six such community notice boards. Flyers were given to al the 
busineses on the first floor and were also distributed to people pasing by in the study 
areas at several occasions. A total of 51 people were surveyed and interviewed ? 21 for 
Masachusets Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, 17 for Harvard Stret at Coolidge 
Corner in Brookline, and 13 for Elm Stret at Davis Square in Somervile. Se Appendix 
II for a detailed description of the participants. Most people were surveyed and 
 
 67 
interviewed on the stret or at one of the stores in the study areas. Thre people chose to 
be interviewed at their residences or libraries that were not in the study area. The time for 
survey and interview ranged from 30 minutes to two hours, with an average time of 50 
minutes. The survey component of the questionnaire took approximately the same time 
with al participants. However, some people, especialy ones that have lived in the 
neighborhood for a long time, spent more time answering the open-ended questions. 
Measures 
Measuring Livelines 
For the purpose of this study, a lively neighborhood commercial stret was 
defined as a stret with the presence of a number of people engaged in a variety of 
predominantly stationary, lingering, and sustained activities, particularly those activities 
that are social in nature. Using the data collected from walk-by and direct observations, a 
Livelines Index was determined for each of the 78 block-segments by calculating 1) the 
number of people engaged in some stationary and sustained activity at the seting, 2) the 
number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some social activity, and 3) their 
duration of stay. As discussed earlier, observations were conducted and analyzed at the 
scale of a block-segment that was 50 to 60 fet in length of block of the neighborhood 
commercial stret. The survey and questionnaire solicited user responses at the scale of a 
stret block. Hence, a Livelines Index was also calculated for each stret block to enable 
correlation betwen the user atitudes and perceptions and the livelines of the stret at 
the scale of the block. The results of the following measures were adjusted for the length 
of block
4
: 1) the number of people engaged in some stationary and sustained activity at 
                                                
4
 Almost al blocks in a study area were of diferent lengths. Most blocks were aproximately 20 fet 
long. Hence, a 20 fot long block was established as a datum and al data colected at each block were 
 
 68 
the block, 2) the number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some social 
activity, and 3) their duration of stay. 
Selection of Stret Characteristics 
Physical characteristics of the built environment have long been of interest to 
urban designers and architects (Site, 1889; Zucker, 1959; Cullen, 1961; Bacon, 1967; 
Krier, 1979, among others). More recently, by bringing the knowledge from research 
conducted in the social and behavioral sciences and environmental psychology, urban 
designers have emphasized numerous perceptual qualities that afect peoples? selection of 
environments. With the growing body of literature in urban design there is an increasing 
number of characteristics of the built environment that are deemed important in 
determining the quality of the built environment, and hence its use. These characteristics 
now include physical and landuse characteristics and aspects of control and management 
of the environment. Rapoport (1990) identified technology, safety, environmental 
variables, climate and weather, topography, distance, presence and availability of 
services, culture, and physical and perceptual characteristics as factors afecting the 
pedestrian use of strets (pp. 248-249). In a review of literature on only the perceptual 
factors, Ewing, et al. (2005) identified 52 qualities of the environment. Working with an 
expert panel of urban designers, they studied nine of the most comprehensive perceptual 
qualities that may be pertinent to walking behavior, each of which was a result of tens of 
physical characteristics of the built environment. From this and other similar studies it is 
                                                                                                                                            
proportionately reduced or increased. For example, say on thre blocks of 20, 30, and 40 in fet length 
the number of seated people observed was 42, 6, and 70 respectively. The 6 people observed on the 30 
fet block were reduced to two-thirds (20/30) as if this block was only 20 fet long. Similarly, the 70 
people observed on the 40 fet block were reduced to half (20/40) as if this block to was only 20 fet 
long. Hence, the final data considered for the thre blocks were - 42 people seated on the 20 fet long 
block, 4 people on the 30 fet block, and 35 people on the 40 fet long block. 
 
 
 69 
apparent that many characteristics afect the way in which the environment is perceived 
by people, which is only one aspect determining peoples? decision to use the 
environment. In sum, there are likely scores of macro- and micro-scale characteristics 
that afect people?s atitudes, preferences, and decisions to use an environment. 
This study is concerned with the micro-scale characteristics of the environment. 
Consequently, the blocks in the thre study areas were chosen so that, as far as possible, 
the macro-scale characteristics would be similar to al. In order to identify the 
characteristics for study, the following sequence was used. As discussed in chapter 2, a 
review of literature helped identify numerous characteristics that are known to be 
important to users of public spaces. The literature review acted as a guidance tool that 
directed the inquiry. Next, extensive direct observations were caried out at the thre 
study areas to map user-behavior supplemented with field notes, photographs, and short 
videos. Observations revealed that people interacted with several characteristics of the 
stret, and certain qualities supported their activities and behaviors on the stret. These 
qualities and characteristics were often physical characteristics, but they also involved the 
type of busineses on the stret and how these busineses and the stret space were 
managed and operated. This was followed by a survey and interview of users of the stret 
environment to complement the data from the observations. Together they provided a 
body of empirical information on the aspects of the stret environment that contributed to 
retaining people on neighborhood commercial strets and supporting social interaction. 
While the literature covered many aspects of the environment, user behavior and 
atitudes showed direct engagement and interest with only certain aspects of the 
environment. Observations and interviews clearly pointed to certain characteristics that 
 
 70 
were the most important in making the users? experience comfortable, interesting, and 
meaningful in using the stret environment, engaging in stationary, sustained, and 
lingering activities, and social interaction. 
As an example of one of the characteristics, a sense of enclosure, defined as a 
certain desirable proportion of the vertical elements and the horizontal stret space, is 
noted as an important quality of a stret (Cullen, 1961; Alexander et al., 1977; Jacobs, 
1993; Lynch and Hack, 1984, among others). The proportion of the height of buildings, 
wals, tres, and other vertical edge elements to the stret space is critical in creating a 
sense of enclosure. However, some other studies have suggested that the pedestrian?s 
visual atention and focus is usualy limited to eye-level in enclosed spaces (Rapoport, 
1977) and ground floor buildings, floor surface, and the activities going on in the stret 
are most important (Gehl, 1987). Observations and interviews in this study concur with 
the later and hence, without underestimating the importance of the sense of enclosure 
and overal height of vertical elements, etc., the present study limited its atention to the 
characteristics related to this realm of user-atention. Similarly, only those characteristics 
that the majority of users engaged with or discussed in the interview ere included in the 
study. 
Measuring Characteristics of Setings 
 Eleven specific characteristics of the stret environment were identified based on 
the literature review and the observations and interviews conducted by the author (se 
Table 6). They are described in detail in Appendix IV. 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
Table 6. Selected characteristics of the street environment. 
 
 
Stret Characteristic 
1 Variety of gods and services on the block 
2 Number of independent businesses on the block-segment 
3 Degree of permeability of street-front on the block-segment 
4 Degree of personalization of storefront on the block-segment 
5 Number of community places on the block-segment 
6 Percentage articulation of street front on the block-segment 
7 Number of public (non-commercial) seating on the block-segment 
8 Number of commercial seating on the block-segment 
9 Average sidewalk width on the block-segment 
10 Percentage shade and shelter from trees and canopies on the block-segment 
1 Number of other street furniture and physical artifacts on the block-segment 
 
 
These characteristics were measured in order to understand which physical 
features of the stret and its adjacent buildings, and the type and management of uses in 
the buildings influence and support stationary, sustained, and lingering activities, 
especialy those activities that are social in nature. Eight of the eleven characteristics 
were largely objective and were measured by the author. For example, the author counted 
the number of seats at the sidewalk provided by the public agencies at each block-
segment. ?Degre of personalization of the storefront? and ?degre of permeability of the 
stret-front? were subjective characteristics. Four urban designers (two female and two 
male), including the author, independently rated these two subjective characteristics by 
visiting al the blocks at the study areas, and a mean score was calculated. ?Community 
places on the block-segment? was determined by the interview responses from the 
participants. The units for measurement of the characteristics were either numeric counts 
or percentages. Since Livelines Index was calculated within a range of one to ten for al 
block-segments, percentages were converted to scores ranging from one to ten for ease of 
 
 72 
correlation. For example, 68% was converted to a score of 6.8. Thus, there was a score 
for al eleven characteristics at each of the 78 block-segments in the thre study areas. 
 
 73 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ISCUSION 
 
Observations and visual surveys provided a kind of ?snapshot? of the activities 
and human behavior on the strets in the thre study areas from morning to late evening 
from April to late October in 2005. Surveys and interviews with people in these areas 
provided information on their felings, perceptions, and atitudes toward the stret 
environment. The sample of blocks and block-segments observed and surveyed in the 
thre study areas, as wel as the people interviewed, have already been described in the 
Methods chapter. 
This chapter consists of five sections that present the findings of these 
observations, surveys, and interviews. The first section presents the results of the 
Livelines Index calculated for each block-segment and block. This is followed by a 
section on the findings from observations in the field and a detailed discussion on the use 
of the stret as a behavior seting for interaction, play, and relaxation. The third section 
combines the results of observations, surveys, and interviews and discusses them in the 
context of the theoretical framework developed on the basis of Maslow?s (1954) 
hierarchy of human needs and Stele?s (1973) dimensions of physical setings. Section 
four discusses the results of multivariate regresion and factor analyses. The chapter 
concludes with a section on the summary of findings. 
Calculating Livelines: Behavioral Maps of People and Activities 
 The thre measures of livelines were mentioned in the last chapter. The 
following is a description of the findings relating to these thre measures by elaborating 
 
 74 
on: 1) where most of the stationary and sustained activities occurred; 2) where most 
people were sen engaging in social activities; and 3) where people spent the most 
amount of time. Based on these thre measures, a Livelines Index was calculated for 
each block-segment (se Table 7). A Livelines Index was also calculated for each block 
on the strets in the thre study areas to examine correlations betwen user atitudes and 
perceptions and the livelines of the stret at the scale of the block (se Table 8). 
Stationary Activities 
Observations and pedestrian counts throughout the hours of study from 8.00 AM 
to 11.00 PM on wekdays and wekends showed that al of the 19 blocks in the thre 
study areas were used as concourses for pedestrian movement. However, the results of 
the walk-bys and observations revealed that the presence of a large number of people on 
the stret does not necesarily generate stationary and sustained use of, or social activity, 
on the stret. 
 
 
Figure 21. Number of people engaged in some type of stationary activity on weekdays and 
weekends on 78 block-segments in 19 blocks in three town/cities in the Boston metropolitan 
area. Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening
 
 75 
 
 
  
 Figure 2. Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on five blocks on 
 Masachusetts Avenue at Central Square, Cambridge, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person 
 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Figure 23. Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on six blocks on 
 Harvard Street at Colidge Corner, Brookline, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 Figure 24. Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on eight blocks on 
 Elm Street at Davis Square, Somervile, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person 
 
 78 
 
Figure 25. Number of people engaged in some type of stationary activity on weekdays and 
weekends on 19 blocks in three town/cities in the Boston metropolitan area. 
Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening 
 
 Using the walk-by technique, 3242 persons were recorded engaged in some kind 
of stationary activity on al the 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in the thre study areas. 
While al the 19 blocks were concourses for pedestrians, over half of the stationary 
activities were found on blocks 1, 6, 7, and 14 [1759 (54.26 %) of 3242 persons]. Further, 
block 1 exhibited the highest number of stationary activities throughout the day. Seven 
hundred and seventy one (23.8 %) of al 3242 people engaged in stationary activities 
recorded in the walk-by observations on wekdays and wekends were on block 1. 
Results of walk-by observations also provided a valuable spatial recording of people 
engaged in various activities, and clearly indicated their prefered locations on the 19 
blocks. 343 (10.6 %) of al the 3242 people engaged in stationary activities on al the 78 
observation block-segments on the 19 blocks were located on block-segment 2, followed 
by 190 (5.9%) on block-segment 59, 159 (4.9%) on block-segment 26, 118 (3.6%) on 
block-segment 4, 116 (3.6%) on block-segment 5, 104 (3.2%) on block-segment 65, 97 
(3%) on block-segment 70, and 95 (2.9 %) on block-segment 22 (se Figures 21, 22, 23, 
and 24)
 
 79 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 26. Behavioral map of people in groups engaged in some stationary social activity on weekdays and weekends on five 
 blocks on Masachusetts Avenue at Central Square, Cambridge, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 27. Behavioral map of people in groups engaged in some stationary social activity on weekdays and weekends on six blocks 
 on Harvard Street at Colidge Corner, Brookline, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 
 Figure 28. Behavioral map of people in groups engaged in some stationary social activity on weekdays and weekends on eight 
 blocks on Elm Street at Davis Square, Somervile, MA. 
 Data from 30 walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening. Each black dot represents a person
 
 82 
Social Activities 
Walk-bys on wekdays and wekends showed that almost two-thirds of the 
stationary people in the thre study areas were engaged in some kind of social activity 
[1996 (61.6%) of 3242 persons]. Social activities included talking, eating or drinking, 
walking pets, window-shopping, playing a game, and performing or watching a 
performance on the stret with one or more companions, and were not mutualy 
exclusive. Four hundred and eighty five (24.3 %) of al 1996 people engaged in social 
activities on wekdays and wekends were on block 1 (se Figure 25). Further, 253 
(12.7%) people were engaged in some sort of social activity at the stret on block-
segment 2, 126 (6.3%) on block-segment 26, 104 (5.2%) on block-segment 59, 90 (4.5%) 
on block-segment 4, 76 (3.8%) on block-segment 22, 72 (3.6%) on block-segment 70, 
and 70 (3.5%) on block-segment 65 (se Figures 26, 27, and 28). 
There was a strong relationship betwen the locations with stationary activities 
and locations with stationary social activities. Neighborhood commercial strets that were 
designed to support stationary activities were beter able to aford social activities. 
Duration of Stay 
The 78 block-segments on 19 blocks with a wide variation in the number of 
people engaged in some type of stationary activity were also tested for people?s duration 
of stay. Walk-by observations showed concentrations of people along many block-
segments on the 19 blocks in the thre study areas (Figures 21 through 28). The results of 
structured direct observations on wekdays and wekends highlighted the diference in 
their duration of stay.
 
 83 
 
 
Figure 29. Duration of Stay of people in stationary and social activities on weekdays and weekends on 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in 
the three study areas. Data from 14 observations of 15 minutes each at each block-segment spread throughout the day and evening
 
 84 
Figure 29 shows that the block-segments 2, 59, 26, 4, 22, 5, 63, and 65 were the 
ones with the greatest number of people spending the maximum amount of time on the 
stret. Al these eight block-segments had places to sit ? either benches instaled by a 
public agency or chairs provided by the stores at these block-segments. Seven of the eight 
block-segments had stores that sold goods that could be consumed outside on the stret 
near the stores: coffe shops, restaurants, or a convenience store. The eighth block-
segment acted as a spilover area for an adjacent eating establishment that did not have 
any outdoor seating. 
Block-segments 23, 30, 39, 52, and 64 also had a large number of people but they 
spent very litle time on the stret (15 seconds to les than a minute). None of these 
block-segments had any fixed or movable seating. Two of these five block-segments 
were locations of movie theaters, which atracted many people who stayed at the stret 
for very short durations before entering or after leaving the theater. One block-segment 
had an ice-cream shop that atracted many people who moved to the adjacent block-
segment, which had public seating. The remaining two block-segments had stores with 
large show-windows that often changed displays. Both these block-segments had one 
store each that very frequently brought goods out on the stret for display and sale. 
Observations showed that a large number of people were atracted to the changing show-
window displays as wel as the goods outside the store. However, most users at these two 
block-segments spent no more than five minutes at each block-segment. The nature of the 
busineses and/or lack of seating may be an explanation for their limited duration of stay. 
 
 85 
 Livelines Index 
A Livelines Index was calculated for each of the 78 block-segment by using the 
results of observation of stationary activities, social activities, and people?s duration of 
stay at each block-segment (se Table 7). 
Table 7. Liveliness Index 
A measure of the combination of: 1) the number of people engaged in stationary activities; 
2) the number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some stationary social activity and; 
3) their duration of stay. Each block-segment is approximately 50 to 60 feet in length in a 
neighborhod commercial street block. N=78 
 
Block-Segment # Livelines Index  Block-Segment # Livelines Index 
2 10.0  9 0.76 
59 5.50  7 0.75 
26 5.15  34 0.72 
4 4.80  12 0.72 
2 3.73  69 0.70 
5 3.60  16 0.65 
65 3.09  71 0.62 
63 3.01  46 0.61 
4 2.82  7 0.60 
30 2.80  78 0.56 
23 2.7  27 0.52 
70 2.50  62 0.46 
39 2.3  32 0.46 
1 2.18  36 0.45 
6 1.9  61 0.43 
3 1.89  76 0.43 
15 1.85  18 0.42 
3 1.76  6 0.40 
56 1.75  25 0.40 
64 1.73  75 0.40 
8 1.62  60 0.40 
52 1.58  5 0.39 
1 1.53  67 0.38 
28 1.4  17 0.38 
38 1.38  50 0.34 
57 1.31  42 0.3 
31 1.31  54 0.31 
29 1.2  47 0.28 
68 1.21  43 0.26 
73 1.18  58 0.26 
45 1.15  41 0.24 
74 1.14  40 0.1 
72 1.02  35 0.10 
10 0.98  14 0.10 
13 0.97  21 0.08 
24 0.97  49 0.07 
37 0.93  51 0.06 
53 0.82  19 0.04 
20 0.82  48 0.02 
 
 86 
The Livelines Index was determined for each of the block-segments by 
aggregating the score for: 1) the number of people engaged in some stationary activity at 
the seting; 2) the number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some social 
activity; and 3) their duration of stay. A Cronbach?s Alpha was calculated to test the 
reliability of the scales and to determine if these thre measures reflected the same 
underlying construct. The value of the Cronbach?s Alpha was 0.97, suggesting that the 
Livelines Index was reliable using these thre measures. The thre measures were 
standardized and given equal weighting in determining the Livelines Index. 
Livelines Index for each Block 
As discussed in the methods chapter, a Livelines Index was also calculated for 
each stret block to be able to examine the relationships betwen user atitudes and 
perceptions gathered through surveys and interviews, and the livelines of the stret at the 
scale of the block (se Table 8). Theaters were located at Coolidge Corner and Davis 
Square on blocks 9 and 16. Both these blocks were also among the smalest blocks. As 
expected, large numbers of people were observed at these blocks just before and after the 
show times, especialy in the evenings. As a result, data for these blocks multiplied 
exponentialy when they were adjusted for length of block
4.
 Thus, they achieved a very 
high Livelines Index. For example, block 16 was 100 fet in length and results of 
Livelines Index doubled when adjusted for length of block. It is most unlikely that if 
block 16 were 200 fet in length, there would be two independent theaters located on it. 
Hence, both block 9 and 16 were excluded from the final results.  
 
 
 87 
 
Table 8. Liveliness Index at Block level 
A measure of the combination of: 1) the number of people engaged in stationary activities; 
2) the number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some stationary social activity and 
3) their duration of stay. 
* Each Block was of different length. Hence, data were modified to adjust for the length of the 
block (see Methods chapter for more detail). N=19 
* Theaters were located on blocks 9 and 16 and these were excluded from final results 
 
Block* # Liveliness Index 
1 10.0 
 16*
 
6.4 
 
6 
5.63 
 
  9* 4.37 
7 3.8 
14 3.85 
18 3.30 
1 3.2 
2 2.49 
17 
2.49 
 
3 
2.3 
 
13 
1.92 
 
4 
1.79 
 
19 
1.30 
 
8 
0.97 
 
5 
0.83 
 
15 
0.76 
 
10 
0.65 
 
12 
0.31 
 
 
 
 
Lively Sites: Behavior Setings for Interaction, Play, and Relaxation 
The affordances of an environment are properties that alow it to be used in a 
specific way (Lang, 1987). The concept of behavior seting (Barker, 1968) has been 
introduced earlier. Using Barker?s definition of a behavior seting, it was observed that 
many block-segments lacked a milieu (particular layout of the environment) to aford a 
standing pattern of social behavior (a recurrent activity) and as a result, there was litle or 
no synomorphy (a congruent relationship betwen the two). 
 
 8 
The strets in al the thre study areas have been upgraded and modified within 
the last eight years. This has included sidewalk widening, and/or curb extensions, 
reconfiguration of trafic lanes, addition of bicycle lanes, trafic calming, tre planting, 
new stret lighting on sidewalks, and the provision of benches and other stret furniture 
in some cases, and so on. There has been an atempt to modify the stret environment to 
aford certain pedestrian oriented activities and make it more pedestrian-friendly. 
However, only certain block-segments on the stret served as good behavior setings for 
stationary and social activities and behaviors. Observations showed that not al block-
segments on the strets were able to equaly aford stationary activities and behaviors, 
especialy those activities that were social in nature. 
Behavior setings often contain other nested and overlapping behavior setings 
(Lang, 1987). Certain stores at the stret created behavior setings that supported social 
activities and behaviors, which could be extended to the stret. Such nested behavior 
setings at these block-segments, along with the paterns of organization and 
configuration of buildings, floor, landscape, stret furniture and artifacts, and the 
materials, textures and colors of these, provided the afordances for social activities and 
behaviors on the stret. 
Location of Activities and Use of Physical Elements 
Zones of Activity. There were thre distinct zones of activity on the sidewalk in 
most of the blocks in the thre study areas (se Figure 30). The first zone was along the 
edges of buildings and was esentialy used for entering and exiting, window-shopping, 
 
 89 
 
Figure 30. Axonometric showing the three zones of activity on the sidewalk 
 
reading signs displayed by the stores, standing and often leaning on the building fa?ade 
while taking a smoke-break or talking on the mobile phone, using a public phone or 
ATM, or for decision-making and/or talking while standing before entering a door or 
after exiting one. Panhandlers and performing stret musicians also used the first zone. 
There was greater use of this zone wherever the building design and the uses in them 
created favorable conditions for people to perform these activities; where the building 
fa?ade was articulated creating nooks and corners and steps for people to stand and sit 
(se Figure 31 and 32); where there were canopies or awnings to provide shade and 
shelter; where there were show-windows that provided useful and interesting 
opportunities for window-shopping; and where there were utilities such as a public phone 
or an ATM. Children were atracted to this zone on the stret to look into buildings where 
possible or to use the undulated fa?ades of buildings to go in and out, or to use it as a 
surface to drive miniature toy vehicles on. 
 
 90 
 
Figure 31. Relationship between articulation of the street wal fa?ade and liveliness 
Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.561  p=<0.01) 
 
The second zone was primarily for pedestrian movement, although bicyclists and 
skateboarders sometimes used it. People did not hesitate to stop in the middle of this 
zone, especialy for short periods, in the midst of the pedestrian flow. 
 
      
 
Figure 32. The different uses of the three zones of activity on the street 
 
The third zone was used to perform the majority of the stationary and social 
activities observed on the stret, such as siting, people-watching, reading, eating and 
drinking, talking, socializing, sleping, playing a game, children playing, listening to 
 
 91 
music, using a laptop computer, and so on. This zone was the most richly furnished with 
stret furniture and other physical artifacts including fixed benches and movable chairs, 
planters, magazine and newspaper dispensing boxes, advertisement signs on the 
sidewalk, bicycle stands, trashcans, light poles and sign posts, tre trunks, railings, fire 
hydrants and electrical panel boxes, parking meters, and vehicles parked adjacent to the 
sidewalk. The size of this zone varied on the blocks in the study areas. Some blocks did 
not have a wide enough sidewalk to have a distinctly defined third zone that could 
acommodate stret furniture and other physical artifacts. Other blocks had wider 
sidewalks at the ends of the block designed as curb-extensions. Wherever available, these 
curb-extensions served as the third zone or its extension for that block.  
 
      
      
 
Figure 3. The different and often unforeseeable uses of various physical artifacts and 
street furniture  
 
 92 
 Use of Physical Artifacts. Observations showed that les than 10 percent of over 
13,000 users caried out any stationary or social activities in the open part of the sidewalk 
away from physical artifacts. Physical artifacts on the sidewalk included building wals, 
show-windows, steps, fences, gates, benches, tables and chairs, planters, advertisement 
signs on the sidewalk, magazine and newspaper dispensing boxes, bicycle stands, 
trashcans, light poles, sign posts, tre trunks, railings, fire hydrants, electrical panel 
boxes, mailboxes, parking meters, vehicles parked near the sidewalk, and so on. These 
were objects on which the users sat or leaned or just stood next to (se Figure 33). 
People as Atractors. People atracted more people. The observations showed 
the maximum use of the physical artifacts that were in close proximity to active 
busineses that retained people on the stret for long periods. Benches or other integral 
seating options such as steps, ledges, and low wals that were near other commercial 
seating, such as seats provided by a coffe shop, were occupied more frequently than 
other benches or integral seating options. Users of these benches and integral seating 
were frequently not patronizing the coffe shop or a nearby restaurant but were atracted 
to the presence of people and resultant activities. The same areas on the stret that had the 
maximum number of people throughout the day on wekdays and wekends atracted 
other activities such as musicians who then atracted even more people, especialy on 
wekends. Responses to open-ended questions in the interview clearly indicated that the 
ability to met or just se people was one of the important factors that determined the 
locations on the strets that people visited (se Figure 50). 
 
 
 
 93 
Types of Postures and Activities 
Postures                                                                      Activities
0
500
1000
1500
2000
standing
sitting
sleeping/lying
eating
reading
talking
using laptop
walking pets
window-shop
games/perform
vending
smoking
panhandling
public phone
Number of Persons
 
Figure 34. Various postures, and stationary and social activities that people engaged in at 78 
block-segments in the three study areas. Postures and activities were not mutually exclusive. 
Data from 30 walk-bys at each block-segment 
 
Table 9. Amount of Outdoors Seating 
 
   Mas. Ave.     Harvard St.     Elm St.      TOTAL 
   No. Percent     No. Percent    No. Percent   No. Percent 
 
       Public
5
         42   57       30   65       3   10     75    49 
       Comercial
6
   32   43       16   35      29   90     7    51 
 
            TOTAL             74   10      46  10      32  10    152  10 
 
 
Postures. Figure 34 shows the various types of activities and postures observed 
on the stret. As mentioned earlier, most of the activities recorded for this study were 
stationary and sedentary in nature. Results of observations of stationary behavior 
demonstrate that a greater number of people were standing rather than siting or lying. 
                                                
5
 Public seats were outdor seating oportunities provided by a public agency in the form of benches, 
chairs, and so on. Anyone would be able to use these seats. 
6
 Comercial seats were outdor seating oportunities provided by private busineses, usualy in the form 
chairs. Generaly, only patrons of these busineses were permited to use these seats. 
 
 94 
Siting was much more popular on block-segments on Masachusets Avenue at Central 
Square, where there was more public and commercial seating in the form of benches and 
chairs (se Table 9). There was also some integral seating (steps, ledges, low wals, etc.) 
available at al the study areas. 
 
 
Table 10. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros stores where gods may be 
consumed outside. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
(t=-3.41, p<0.01) 
 
 
 
Number of stores on the Block-segment 
where gods can be consumed outside 
 
 0 1 2 
Mean Livelines Index 0.87 2.61 4.78 
N (Block-segments) 59 18 1 
 
 
Active Social Interaction. Over 40 % of the social interaction was asociated 
with eating and/or drinking. Al the lively block-segments on the strets were in close 
proximity to eating and drinking establishments. 343 (10.6 %) and 190 (5.9%) of al the 
3242 people engaged in stationary activities on al the 78 observation block-segments on 
the 19 blocks were located outside two coffe shops, followed by 159 (4.9%), 118 
(3.6%), and 97 (3%) outside restaurants, 116 (3.6%) outside a convenience store, 104 
(3.2%) outside a pub, and 95 (2.9 %) outside an ice-cream shop. Hence, the block-
segments with the highest levels of social interaction were ones which had food 
establishments such as a coffe shop, restaurant, a deli, an ice-cream shop, even a 
convenience store, and so on. However, it is important to note that while the block-
segments with the highest social interaction were the ones with some food establishment, 
not al block-segments with eating and drinking establishments were lively. Wel-
 
 95 
established coffe shops and restaurants exist on block-segments that scored low on the 
Livelines Index. For example, only 36 people at a block-segment with a coffe shop, and 
11 people at another block-segment with a restaurant, were engaged in any social 
activities on the stret during the wekdays and wekends. Nevertheles, block-segments 
that had stores that ofered goods and services that users could consume outside the store 
were livelier (se Table 10). 
Among al the social interaction, talking was the most frequent (se Figure 34). 
Most of it occurred at block-segments that provided opportunities for other supporting 
behavior activities such as siting, eating or drinking, window-shopping, and so on. The 
next common social activity observed was eating and/or drinking. Playing a board game 
or a musical instrument in the company of other people was recorded infrequently; 
however, even the infrequent presence of these activities was a sign of a sense of comfort 
and enjoyment that people were able to derive from the stret space. 
 
 
Figure 35. Children?s Play ? Newspaper- and magazine-dispensing boxes become objects of 
interest, discovery, and play. 
 
Children?s Play and Learning. Previous research on children?s behavior has 
shown that children perceive strets diferently from adults; find play opportunities in 
stret furniture, mailboxes, fire-hydrants, parked vehicles, and so on, and prefer to use 
 
 96 
strets as places for play even when other options are available (Barker and Wright, 
1966; Francis, 1985; Eubanks-Ahrens, 1985; Brower, 1988; Moore, 1991, among others). 
 
 
Figure 36. Children?s Play ? A bench was used climb, descend, and perform various kinds 
of gymnastics. 
 
Numerous children?s play activities were recorded on the stret. Children 
repeatedly used newspaper and magazine dispensing boxes as equipment for play (se 
Figure 35). They opened and shut the various boxes to fetch papers or magazines for their 
parents. Children used the same boxes to run around and as props to play hide and sek. 
Benches were another popular prop with some children, and were used to climb, descend, 
jump on, perform other gymnastics, and play hopscotch and hide and sek (se Figure 
36). As briefly discussed earlier, children also interacted with the building facade on the 
strets by walking close to it; touching diferent materials of the building surface, going 
in and out of the alcoves, niches, nooks and corners, driving toy vehicles on the surface 
of the buildings, using steps at entrances to sit and play with their toys, playing bal using 
the building surface, and so on. 
 
 
 97 
   
 
Figure 37. Children learned social skils and were exposed to new activities and objects. 
 
 
 
   
 
Figure 38. Permeable storefronts offered opportunities to learn from sensing activities, 
gods, and artifacts. 
 
 
 
 Opportunities for play were simultaneously opportunities for learning. The stret 
environment provided an experience and exposed children to diferent objects, surfaces, 
colors, and the ability to se how they were used and operated. Seing and meting 
people on the stret further educated children in the acquisition of social skils (se Figure 
37). 
 
 98 
 
Figure 39. The street provided a platform to bring special arts programs that brought 
opportunities to learn not only by seeing but also by actively engaging in the activities. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40. Relationship between permeability of the street wal fa?ade and liveliness. 
Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.469  p=<0.01) 
 
Storefronts that were permeable, such that the activities in the stores could be 
sen, heard, and smeled, offered children the opportunities to learn by sensing the 
activities and artifacts inside the stores (se Figure 38). Observations showed that 
permeability was an atraction not only for children but also for adults. Block-segments 
 
 9 
with a higher degre of permeability were livelier (se Figure 40). Special programs 
aranged and managed by organized groups on the stret brought additional opportunities 
for children to learn through firsthand experiences (se Figure 39). 
 
      
      
 
Figure 41. People?s postures, body language, and activities were an indication of relaxation 
on the street. 
 
 
Relaxation. Car et al. (1992) identified relaxation as one of the five primary 
needs of people in public space. Parks, plazas, squares, and other spaces of rest or 
gathering rather than the spaces of movement are usualy asociated with relaxation 
(Nager and Wentworth, 1976; Burden, 1977; Rapoport, 1990; Car et al., 1992). 
However, Becker (1973), in his research of a Sacramento pedestrian mal, noted that 
people also sek relaxation in spaces that may usualy be designed and suitable for 
 
 10 
functions that are more active. Whyte (1980) observed that even when people in urban 
areas sek relaxation they do not want a complete retreat and separation from city life; 
rather, they look for some livelines, activity, and some form of engagement. 
Observations from the present study indicate similar results. Postures and body language 
were an indication of relaxation on the stret that is usualy asociated with movement 
(se Figure 41). Reading, eating and drinking, people-watching, watching other activities, 
and so on were the common and discernable signs of relaxation. 
 
 
   
Figure 42. Pets often became the center of conversation and generated casual social 
interaction on the street.  
 
 
Other Activities. Figure 34 shows that window-shopping, reading, smoking, 
walking pets, and performances were the other activities that were recorded relatively 
infrequently compared to talking or eating and drinking. Some window-shopping and 
smoking occurred as social activity. Pets frequently became the center of atraction and 
generated conversation and other social activity among the people on the stret. People 
walking pets frequently interacted with other pet-walkers and with people with young 
children who were atracted to the pets (se Figure 42). Stret musicians were sen to 
 
 101 
perform at each of the thre strets, usualy locating themselves in alcoves created by 
articulated building facades that offered them space to set up. Musicians prefered to 
locate close to private or public seating (se Figure 43). Watching and listening to the 
musicians generated pasive social interaction and valuable ?low-level contacts? (Gehl, 
1987) among the audience on the stret. 
 
   
Figure 43. Musicians occupied sheltered spaces near comercial or public seating to attract 
an audience. 
 
   
Figure 4. Occasional activities such as decorating the storefront and campaigns added 
interest and social activity to the street. 
 
Busines activity such as regular maintenance, the occasional decoration of the 
storefront and entrance, and the movement the stret furniture out to the stret and back 
 
 102 
in at closing time, added activity to the stret. An increase in the number of stores and 
busineses per block-segment resulted not only in an increase in such activity but also a 
greater variety of materials and expresion that added more visual interest to the stret. 
Ocasional campaigns and fund raising events on the stret made the stret an 
arena for learning and the sharing of ideas, and contributed to the social life of the stret 
(se Figure 44). Some panhandling activity and occasional vending on the stret were 
also recorded. 
A Sense of Comfort and Pleasure on the Stret 
It is reasonable to asume that most people who were observed engaged in 
stationary activity on the stret were there by choice. The number of people and the 
duration of their stay was an indicator of how comfortable and pleasurable these locations 
were and how wel they served basic human needs. A comfortable and pleasurable 
environment is one that provides physiological comfort, afords standing paterns of 
behavior, provides pleasing sensory experiences, and has positive symbolic asociations 
for its users (Lang, 1987; Santayana, 1896 from Lang, 1987). The livelier places on the 
stret were the ones that were beter able to satisfy the range of physical, social, and 
psychological human needs on the stret. Observations and user responses suggested that 
by providing a sense of safety, a sense of community and belonging, environmental 
comfort, convenience and physical comfort, a sense of control over the environment, 
sensory pleasure, and the opportunity for socializing, these setings supported the 
hierarchy of human needs that may be provided for in the public realm. 
The surveys and interviews of users provided information on people?s 
perceptions, atitudes, and felings about these neighborhood commercial strets. This 
 
 103 
aided the proces of understanding the behaviors that were recorded through 
observations, and discussed in the previous section. While the macro-scale characteristics 
such as the proximity of the neighborhood commercial stret to home or work, or the 
acesibility of the stret, remain similar, results of the interviews clearly demonstrate 
that people chose to visit and spend more time at certain locations on the stret. This is 
consistent with what was found through observations. 
Purpose and Frequency of Use 
 Results of average pedestrian counts per hour on wekdays and wekends for al 
19 blocks are presented in Figure 45. Since al thre strets are near major transit stops, a 
significant amount of foot trafic on these blocks is generated from these transit stops. As 
expected, Figure 46 shows that there were more people walking by on blocks closer to 
major transit stops. 
 
  
 
Figure 45. Daily average pedestrian counts per hour on weekdays and weekends on 19 
blocks. 
 
 
  
 
 104 
 
 
Figure 46. Relationship between distance of block from ajor transit stop and number of 
persons walking. Data from 19 blocks in three study areas. (Pearson?s Correlation r = -0.6, 
p=<0.01) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 47. Relationship between liveliness of block and number of persons walking. Data 
from 19 blocks in three study areas. (Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.4, p=<0.06) 
 
 
 Figure 47 suggests a relationship betwen number of persons walking and 
livelines (people engaged in stationary and social activities), but raises the question 
whether the number of people walking afects livelines or whether livelines influences 
where people walk? In other words, did people stop on their way when they found 
something interesting or useful, and as a result, engage in stationary and social activity or 
 
 105 
did the characteristics of certain blocks atract people to walk on those blocks? Common 
sense would suggest both. However, it is worth exploring if one of these was 
predominant. Observations showed that there were people who stopped by to window-
shop or take a break in their walk. However, Livelines Index for each block was 
calculated based on stationary and social activities that occurred for more than 15 
seconds and many people who stopped for short durations of les than 15 seconds did not 
contribute to the Livelines Index. Hence, blocks where people engaged in stationary 
activities for a longer duration were livelier. This suggests that Livelines Index for a 
block was determined more by people who were there for longer durations and in groups 
than by the number of people present for shorter durations. 
 Most important, responses to open-ended questions confirmed that people 
prefered to be at the blocks that scored higher on Livelines Index obtained through 
observations (se Figures 48 and 49), such as this woman who noted her preference for 
blocks with more people. ?I go down this side more often. I walk on this side [of the 
stret]. There are more people there. That makes me prefer to use that side.? Even when 
they did not intend to spend time in stationary activity, some people prefered to walk 
along the livelier blocks, suggesting that the lively character of the block itself was the 
atraction. One man?s comments summarized this wel. 
  I prefer to walk on the JP Licks side of the stret. There are a variety of 
  shops and displays to se. There?s flowers etcetera and seating at  
  Zathmary?s. It is more interesting. There is much more foot trafic on that 
  side. I se more people I know on that side of the stret. 
 
 In most cases, people suggested that a combination of presence of people and 
visual interest afected their preference for walking on a particular block, such as this 
woman. ?I prefer to walk on this side [of the stret]. It has much more interesting visual 
 
 106 
things. I look into the [shop] windows, people-watch. There are more people here.? 
Moreover, in some cases it was a mater of habit as noted by another user: 
  I?m here at least once a wek. I hang out at 1369 [Coffehouse]. I?l get 
  lunch at the Mexican place. Sometimes I come to read the paper here, get 
  videos once in a while, go to the hardware store sometimes. Sometimes I 
  just like to walk on this side of the stret when I?m going somewhere. 
 
 
  
 
Figure 48. What users did on 12 blocks in three study areas. Response to open-ended 
question. Data from 51 interviews with each participant responding to four block. Dots 
proportionally represent frequency of use of block.  
 
 
 
 
Figure 49. Level of use of 12 blocks in three study areas. Response to open-ended question. 
Data from 51 interviews with each participant responding to four blocks. Dots for each block add 
up to 10 percent. 
 
 107 
 
 
Figure 50. Why users preferred some blocks more than others on the same street. Response 
to open-ended question. Data from 51 interviews with each participant responding to four blocks 
 
 
 Opportunities to met friends and se other people and activities were important 
criteria in people?s decision to use a block (se Figures 50 and 51). Blocks that were 
livelier had more variety of uses and stores, were visualy more interesting, had more 
community meting places and destinations, were pedestrian-friendly, and so on. 
Undoubtedly, there are many other factors that may have contributed to walking 
behavior, and these have not been controlled for in this study; however, interviews and 
observations suggest that blocks that were lively atracted more people to walk there, 
indicating that livelines influenced walking behavior more than the number of people 
walking afected livelines. This is further supported by the fact that there was no 
significant correlation betwen distance from major transit stop and livelines (se Figure 
52). 
 
 108 
 
Figure 51. Why users preferred not to use some blocks on the same street. Response to 
open-ended question. Data from 51 interviews with each participant responding to four blocks 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 52. Relationship between distance from ajor transit stop and liveliness. Data from 
78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. (Pearson?s Correlation r not significant)  
  
 People had diferent perceptions of the stret at diferent blocks. Responses to the 
open-ended questions revealed that people prefered blocks that had a variety in the mix 
of uses and stores, particularly those that served daily needs; blocks that were visualy 
 
 109 
interesting and had a distinctive/unique character and ambience; blocks that had 
destinations, which held special meaning for the community and were gathering places, 
where they could met their friends and also be able to se other people and activities; 
blocks that were pedestrian-friendly such that they provided ample sidewalk space to 
acommodate walking as wel as siting areas, and provided shade and shelter; and blocks 
that had unique independently operated stores on them (se Figures 50 and 51). 
Commonalities and Diferences in Perception 
The most common suggestion for al thre strets was to retain the existing 
variety and diversity of uses and stores as wel as the physical and visual characteristics 
that made the stret more pedestrian-friendly, and to add to them (se Tables 11 and 12). 
However, the diference of emphasis is evident among the responses from users of the 
thre strets. Overal, the four blocks on Masachusets Avenue have les variety of uses 
and stores and fewer independently owned busineses compared to Harvard Stret and 
Elm Stret. Additionaly, unlike Harvard Stret and Elm Stret, the variety of stores and 
the independently owned busineses are mostly concentrated on one of the five blocks 
studied on Masachusets Avenue. However, at the same time, the sidewalks on 
Masachusets Avenue are much wider, with more benches and other stret furniture, 
mature tres, artwork on objects on the sidewalk, and other pedestrian-friendly amenities 
(se Figures 7 and 8). These diferences were reflected in the responses from users of 
Masachusets Avenue, who emphasized that the pedestrian-friendly amenities they have 
should be retained. Similarly, users of Harvard Stret and Elm Stret emphasized the 
variety of uses and stores, and independent busineses, which were perceived as 
paramount to the character of their neighborhood commercial stret (se Table 11). 
 
 
 10 
 
Table 1. ?What are the three most important things about this block that you would not 
want to change?? Response to open-ended question. Data from 51 interviews with each 
participant responding to four blocks 
 
                      Mas. Ave.   Harvard St.    Elm St.     TOTAL 
                      No. Percent   No. Percent   No. Percent  No. Percent 
 
Variety & diversity of uses and stores           27   1%     25   19% 4   30%    96  18.5% 
Independent, smal, unique stores and uses      17    7       21   16 23   16      61  12 
Way busineses are operated/managed           2    1        0    0  1    1       3   0.5 
Stores remain open late               1    0.5      1    1  0    0       2   0.5 
 
Comunity places ? not just a busines          4    1.5     10   7.5    13    9      27   5 
Stores that suport stret activities/people places   3    1       7    5 13    9      23   4.5     
Mix of people on the block        8    3       2    2  0    0      10   2 
Ambience/atmosphere/fel of the area       4    1.5      0    0  0    0       4   1     
 
Pedestrian- & child-friendly stret with       78   3      10   7.5 15   10      103  20     
wide sidewalks, seating, shade & shelter 
Tres, landscape features, public art      41   17      17   13 13    9       71  14  
Visual interest - displays, shop-windows, wares   5    2       6    4.5  4    3       15   3 
Historic architectural quality, building features   31   13      15   1 12    8       58  1    
 
Low impact of trafic, proximity to public transit   9   4       9    7  6    4       24  4.5 
Bicycle-friendly block ? bike lanes, bike stands    1   0.5     0    0  0    0        1  0 
Kep stret parking near stores        1    0.5    1    1       1    0.5 3  0.5  
   
Maintenance of sidewalk and buildings        6    2.5     6    4.5  1    0.5     13  2.5 
 
Safety on the block         2    1       1    1  0    0       3   0.5 
 
TOTAL number of responses            240  10%   131  10%   146  10%   517  10% 
 
 
 
 
This diference in perception is further supported in the data in Table 12. In 
providing suggestions for changes and additions to the blocks, responses from the users 
of Masachusets Avenue showed les emphasis on the physical characteristics, which the 
blocks already posses, and more on adding variety of uses and stores and independently 
owned busineses. Similarly, responses from the users of Harvard Stret and Elm Stret 
showed a greater emphasis on changing and adding to the physical characteristics of the 
stret to make it more pedestrian-friendly with wider sidewalks, seating, and other 
amenities ? the characteristics that the blocks there do not already posses (se Table 12). 
 
 11 
 
Table 12. ?What are the three most important things that you would like to change or add 
on this block?? Response to open-ended question. Data from 51 interviews with each participant 
responding to four blocks 
 
                      Mas. Ave.   Harvard St.   Elm St.      TOTAL 
                      No. Percent   No. Percent  No. Percent  No. Percent 
 
Variety & diversity of uses and stores           56   25%    3   20%  3   25%   12   24% 
Independent, smal, unique stores and uses       20    9      25   16  12    9      57   1 
Way busineses are operated/managed           4     2      4    2   1    1       9    2 
Stores remain open late               8     4      5    3   1    1      14    3 
 
Stores that suport stret activities/people places  25    1      9    6  12    9      46    9     
 
Pedestrian- & child-friendly stret with       21    10     32   20  31   24      84   16     
wide sidewalks, seating, shade & shelter 
Tres, landscape features, public art      21    10     12   7.5   9    7      42    8  
Visual interest ? displays, shop-windows, wares  13     6      9   6  17   13      39    7.5 
Architectural quality, building features          18     8     13   8  3    2      34    6.5    
Information about uses ? signs                 5     2      2    1       1    1       8    1.5 
 
Low impact of trafic, proximity to public transit   7     3      3    2  0    0      10    2 
Bicycle-friendly block ? bike lanes, bike stands    3     1      1    0.5  3    2       7    1.5 
Increase parking near stores        0     0      0    0      1     1      1     0 
 
Maintenance of sidewalk and buildings       1     5     12    7.5  7    5      30    6 
 
Safety on the block         9     4      1    0.5  0    0      10    2 
 
TOTAL number of responses      21   10%  161  10%   131  10%   513  10% 
 
 
The lack of an appropriate layout of the physical environment to support 
stationary and social activities on the stret was further apparent in the results of the 
survey for the blocks on Elm Stret. These are presented in the sections that follow. Some 
of the les lively blocks (block 18 and 13) were perceived to have more variety and more 
unique goods and services on the block. The stores on these two blocks were also 
perceived to change their signs and displays more often compared to block 14, which was 
the liveliest block on Elm Stret (se Figures 58, 69, and 71). These diferences may be 
explained as follows. Blocks 14, 18, and 13, al have a beter behavioral environment 
 
 12 
(uses that support stret activities) than the physical environment required to support 
stationary and social activities on the stret. Of the thre, block 14 is the only one that has 
some supporting elements of the physical environment in the form of commercial seating, 
adequate sidewalk space to acommodate the seating, and so on. While the other two 
blocks have a suitable behavioral environment, the opportunities for stationary and social 
activities are stifled due to the lack of supporting elements of the physical environment. 
Hence, although block 14 is the liveliest of al blocks on Elm Stret, the other two blocks 
are likely to be equaly or more lively if the appropriate physical environment was 
provided in conjunction with the already existing behavioral environment. This is also 
reflected in the users? perception for change (se Tables 11 and 12).  
 Two other major diferences in the responses need some elaboration. First, 
although there are already more independently owned busineses on Harvard Stret 
compared to Masachusets Avenue, users of Harvard Stret in Coolidge Corner 
suggested adding more. This may be explained as follows. As a result of increasing 
property values and rents in the last few years, Coolidge Corner has been losing many 
independently owned busineses that have been replaced by chain stores. Users of the 
neighborhood busineses lamented this loss and reflected this in their suggestions for 
bringing back the smal independently owned busineses. This long-time resident of the 
neighborhood noted: 
  It?s sad to se local smaler mom and pop stores go. They are being 
  replaced by big chains. It changes the fel of the block. There?s more 
  loudnes with younger people visiting. ?? there are so many banks here. 
  Banks are prety boring. It doesn?t add character to the neighborhood. 
  When stores move out you expect an interesting busines to move in. 
  That?s not happening. 
 
 
 13 
 Second, the suggestions from the users of Elm Stret in Davis Square to the efect 
that the visual interest of the stret should be enhanced, were considerably higher than 
those of Masachusets Avenue and Harvard Stret. Davis Square, like the other 
neighborhoods in the city of Somervile, has been a blue-collar neighborhood for most of 
the last century. Demographics have begun to change only in the last ten years or so, and 
Davis Square has now been ?discovered? as an atractive neighborhood in the Boston 
Metropolitan area. However, most of the busineses in Davis Square have been around 
for many years, and they cater to the long-time blue-collar residents of the neighborhood. 
As a result, many of these busineses are old and appear grungy, and in need for 
upgrades. Users responded to this need and suggested adding to the visual interest of the 
stret by upgrading the display of shop-windows, wares, and so on. This woman put it 
succinctly. ?There are lot of relics here [at Davis Square]. They need to jaz them up a 
bit.?   
The commonalities and diferences in the responses to the open-ended questions 
in the interview show that the users were concerned with both the social and physical 
dimensions of the stret ? what it offered as an amenity, how it was operated and 
managed, what physical comforts it provided, what activities and who they were able to 
se and met, and how it looked. 
Sense of Safety on the Stret 
Since the unit for the survey and interview for this study was a stret block, sense 
of safety was studied not for each 50 to 60 foot long block-segment, but for each block 
(se Appendix 1). From the observations of thre neighborhood commercial strets, it 
was evident that while many more people used and spent more time at some locations, al 
 
 14 
the blocks studied at the thre study areas were perceived to be generaly safe. None of 
the properties was vacant. While the level of tidines on the stret varied from store to 
store, none of the buildings or sidewalks was in a state of disrepair. Even the frequency of 
stret lighting fixtures and the ilumination levels after dark were similar at al thre study 
areas. There were no significant signs of anti-social activity or unruly behavior recorded 
by the author at any of these thre locations. Panhandlers and homeles people were sen 
in some places but that did not sem to cause a major conflict with the use of the stret by 
other people. Responses from surveys and interviews reinforced these observations. 
Sense of safety was the most minor factor indicated in determining whether to use a 
particular block on the stret (se Figures 50 and 51). Even when suggesting changes, 
users placed much les emphasis on safety than other characteristics (se Tables 11 and 
12). 
 
 
 
Figure 53. Relationship between users? perception of daytime and nighttime safety on the 
block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at the three study areas. 
Daytime safety and Liveliness ? Correlation not significant 
Nightime safety and Liveliness ? Correlation not significant 
 
 15 
 
 
Figure 54. Relationship between users? perception of building and sidewalk condition of the 
block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at the three study areas. 
Building condition and Liveliness ? Correlation not significant 
Sidewalk condition and Liveliness ? Correlation not significant 
 
 Since the buildings and sidewalks on al blocks were generaly perceived to be 
similar in physical condition and state of maintenance, the perception of safety was not 
afected by physical condition (se Figures 53 and 54). However, people perceived some 
of the blocks in each study area to be relatively les safe as this woman who noted that ?I 
find [this block] les safe and interesting due to the parking lot, especialy at night. 
[When] walking by, my preference would be for the other side.? Many users commented 
that ?nothing semed to happen there,? that those blocks were les interesting in 
appearance and les atractive, and had few or no stores that offered unique goods and 
services (se Figures 68 and 71). Others found it dificult to relate to the blank and 
monotonous facades of buildings, as this man who commented that ?the building fa?ade 
looks like an armor with big plates. It?s not welcoming. They should change the fa?ade 
slightly to make it welcoming.? These were blocks that rated low on the no ?dead space? 
scale. He suggested: 
 
 16 
  They should get rid of the Sovereign Bank building. It?s uninviting, ugly, 
  [and] blank. It?s almost like it tries not to have an identity. The buildings 
  there have nothing to draw the eye. I do not like the bottom of those 
  buildings. [However,] the sidewalk is wel-defined for people to use.? 
 
Similarly, for another block a user noted: 
 
  The huge Quest building is realy designed to keep people out. Those 
  dark windows ? you just slide right by. It?s like a transition block   
  especialy compared to the stuff across the stret. There?s nothing for me 
  to stop for. No reason to stop. It is a blank zone in my mind.? 
 
 
 
Table 13. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros block-segments with varying 
percentage of ?no dead space.? Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. 
 
 
 
 
No Dead space on the Block-segment  
 
 0 to 3% 34 to 67% 68 to 10% 
Mean Livelines Index 0.23 
0.64 
1.70 
N (Block-segments)  7 18 53 
 
  
 Additionaly, correlations showed that the block-segments with a higher 
percentage of ?no dead space? were livelier (se Table 13). While the users of these thre 
strets had a general impresion of safety, these subtle diferences in perception of safety 
were results of the appearance of each busines ? the way it looked and felt as noted by 
this woman: 
  I have not been to The Burren but I fel it is a good place because of the 
  way it presents itself on the outdoors. If it were not for The Burren pub 
  there would be almost no sidewalk life. 
 
 People?s perception of appearance of setings was addresed in the survey by 
using atractivenes and interesting appearance as measures that related to signs, 
plantings, openings at stret level, lighting fixtures, and furniture on the sidewalk, and 
 
 17 
also a variety in these elements. Users suggested that the lack of personalization and 
teritorial control were the main reasons for these blocks to be perceived as les atractive 
and interesting, as this woman who suggested, ?We need planters, awnings ? things that 
give off that people are around. Something that makes the stores communicate with you. 
Window boxes for flowers would do a lot for me.? This lack of personalization and 
teritorial control made these blocks appear les safe compared to other blocks on the 
stret. 
Sense of Belonging: Community Places 
 People noted many busineses as their favorite community-gathering places. They 
valued these places as destinations to met neighbors, friends, and sometimes strangers. 
Over time, these places had become neighborhood landmarks for the community. People 
designated a variety of busineses as community places including coffe shops, 
convenience stores, restaurants, bookshops, bars, and even a used goods store. Most 
people who lived or worked in the neighborhood had some place they could identify with 
as a community place. However, observations and interviews suggested that in some 
cases the choice of community place was based on clas and atitudes that resulted in 
diferent community places for diferent groups in the neighborhood. New residents 
seldom mentioned an old bar that was a favorite comunity place for the long-time 
residents of this neighborhood as suggested by one man. 
  Sligo [bar] is an institution of the community. It?s a good place to hang  
  out. It?s a community place. It?s a place you go to. People hang out there. 
  It fels very comfortable for an average middle clas person but there is a 
  variety of people there. That?s the old Davis Square. I know friends that 
  use Sligo. I know people there for years. 
 
 
 18 
 However, users emphasized the ability of having people with diferent 
backgrounds as an important quality of a community place as suggested by this woman. 
?I like the big open space feling at Goodwil. It is not pretentious. You can se people of 
al backgrounds. I like seing the real community.? Another participant pointed to the 
diversity of people in the neighborhood who used a coffehouse as a gathering place. 
  I like the fact that people can hang around here and socialize and not just 
  be a customer. It is a meting area, a destination. Everybody comes here. 
  It atracts [people from] al walks of life, al races, working clas, families, 
  ??.. it has it?s own unique aura about it. 
 
 This woman compared the past to the present and noted some diferences that 
were significant in her decision to use the busines. 
  There used to be a Grek local caf? where there is Diva [restaurant and  
  bar]. It had hundred seats. People with al diferent backgrounds would go 
  there. You could se the whole community there. Inside, it felt like a 
  public restaurant. Now it is Diva, which is very private. 
 
 People atached special significance to community-gathering places that extended 
and engaged the outdoors, particularly by providing seating on the stret. These two long-
time residents noted: 
  ? Greater socialnes is created when you are outdoors. People fel les 
  private and have an ease of interaction. Sociability increases in outdoor 
  seating. It just sems more comfortable and results in higher social 
  interaction with al types of people. 
 
  People in outdoor seating give the appearance of ?friendlines?, sort of 
  vilage model as contrasted with ?parking lot next to store?. It has a sense 
  of connectednes. 
 
 
 Many others noted this outdoor quality for a coffehouse that was frequently 
mentioned as a community-gathering place as this resident of the neighborhood. ?1369 
 
 19 
[Coffehouse is my favorite]. It?s afordable and I met my friends there. It has a good in-
out flow. The tables on the sidewalk and the benches are great. It is a magnet for stret 
culture.? However, not al these busineses had outdoor seating. The nature of some of 
these community-gathering spaces was not suitable to support outdoor seating. In a few 
instances, the busines was suitable to support outdoor seating but the environment did 
not offer afordances to do so, such as inadequate width of sidewalk. 
 In some cases, the community-gathering places were so significant for people that 
they were part of their lives even when they no longer lived in the neighborhood as noted 
by this previous resident of the neighborhood. 
  People have changed due to the rents. It used to be neighborhood people 
  earlier [at the coffehouse]. It has changed from neighborhood people to a 
  destination with more new people. But people who lived here [in the 
  neighborhood] stil come back to this block. I used to live here ?? Now 
  I live in Davis Square. ? I stil come back here. 1369 [Coffehouse] is a 
  community-gathering point. I fel at home ?? It has an ambience of 
  community. 
 
 
 In contrast, interviews with the participants who were visitors to the neighborhood 
commercial stret suggested that they distinguished very litle betwen community places 
and other similar busineses. The visitors atached litle or no value to such community 
places compared to the participants who lived or worked in the neighborhood. 
Table 14. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros block-segments with or without  
Comunity Places. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. 
 
 
 
 
Comunity Place on the Block-segment  
 
 No Yes 
Mean Livelines Index 1.01 3.24 
N (Block-segments)        67      1  
 
 
 
 120 
 Table 14 shows that block-segments with a community place were livelier than 
block-segments with no community place (mean 3.24 on Livelines Index compared to 
1.01, t=-2.85, p<0.02). 
 Almost al the busineses identified by the users as community places were 
independently operated busineses where the busines owners and workers too were an 
active part of the community. 
Table 15. User Choice of Favorite Stores/Businesses 
                   Mas. Ave.     Harvard St.     Elm St.      TOTAL 
                   No. Percent     No. Percent    No. Percent   No. Percent 
 
Independently owned store/local chain       42   98       27   69 38   86     107   85 
Chain store       1    2       12   31  6   14      19   15 
 
TOTAL number of responses               43  10       39  10      4   10    126  10% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Why users preferred some stores and businesses to others on the same street. 
Response to open-ended question. Data from 51 interviews with each participant responding to 
four blocks. 
 
 
 121 
 Independently Owned Busineses. People prefered smaler independently 
owned and operated busineses not only for the quality and variety of goods and services 
and friendly staf but also for their uniquenes and character and the overal ambience 
they created. Most important, as discussed earlier, were the collective atachments to 
some of these stores that acted as community places. One resident noted, ?Booksmith is 
the best bookstore around. I love it because it is independently owned. They have 
scheduled readings by decent authors??. The staf is knowledgeable. ??You can go 
in and hang out without buying anything??. They have a diverse selection.? Some 
customers, as this woman, supported independent stores as a mater of principle. 
?Philosophicaly, I prefer smaler independent bookstores.? Another woman concurred 
and further suggested that independent busineses were an important part of a 
neighborhood. 
  Booksmith is my favorite because I strongly believe in supporting smal 
  busineses. The people at Booksmith make a great atempt at  
  acommodating the customer. The employees are knowledgeable and  
  helpful. They have marked down books. It is the center of cultural life. It?s 
  one of the reasons we chose to move here. 
 
 A large number of people found that the smaler busineses were friendlier and 
treated their premises, including the sidewalk and stret outside, with more care and  
personal atention. This, they thought, made the strets more interesting and atractive 
and more conducive to lingering and meting people (se Table 15 and Figure 55). This 
was consistent with the findings through observations (se Table 16). Block-segments 
with one or more independently owned stores were livelier than block-segments with no 
independently owned stores (mean 1.69 on Livelines Index compared to 0.76, t=-3, 
p<0.01). 
 
 12 
 
Table 16. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of independently 
owned stores. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. 
 
 
 
Number of Independent Stores on Block-segment  
 
 0 1 2 3 
Mean Livelines Index 0.76 1.46 1.38 3.24 
N (Block-segments) 31 20 20 7 
 
 
Users of diferent ages, races, genders, profesions, and income groups semed to 
recognize their deliberate choice to live in a mixed-use area and were wiling to support 
the smaler stores. 
Environmental Comfort on the Stret 
Sunlight and Shade. As expected, people?s preference for spaces in the sun or 
under shade on the stret changed with changing seasons and weather. Most people were 
observed siting in the sun during spring. However, during summer a combination of 
shade and filtered sunlight through tre-cover, canopies, awnings, and overhangs was 
most sought after. Sometimes people used retractable canopies provided by stores to 
create the desirable conditions. Direct sunlight was not desirable in sumer. People who 
spend considerable time on the stret particularly tended to use shaded or semi-shaded 
spaces under tres, in entrance alcoves, and in niches and nooks of buildings adjacent to 
the stret (se Figure 56). The six liveliest block-segments had a combination of sunlight 
and shade with a mean of 63 percent stret frontage under shade in summer compared to 
only 22 percent for the six least lively block-segments. 
 
 
 123 
   
Figure 56. Trees, retractable canopies, awnings, overhangs, alcoves, and setbacks in the 
building fa?ade provided shade. 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 57. Relationship between shade and shelter through trees, canopies, awnings, and 
overhangs, and liveliness. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.454 p=<0.01) 
 
User comments on retaining the physical characteristics as wel as suggestions for 
change to make the stret more pedestrian-friendly included the availability of shade and 
shelter from the sun and rain with the help of tres, canopies, awnings and overhangs on 
these blocks (se Tables 11 and 12). This was consistent with the findings of the 
 
 124 
observations, which showed that block-segments that provided greater opportunities for 
shade and shelter were also livelier (se Figure 57). 
Serving Neds - Physical Comfort and Convenience on the Stret 
 In order to be perceived as a comfortable and pleasurable environment, the stret 
needs to provide more than just a sense of safety, and protection from sun, wind, and rain. 
The stret as a milieu must cater to the needs of people and provide support for various 
activities and standing paterns of behavior that may potentialy occur on the stret. 
 
 
Figure 58. Relationship between users? perceived variety of gods and services available on 
the block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at the three study areas. 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.621, p=<0.03) 
 
 Variety of Goods and Services. The results of open-ended questions in the 
interview showed that the presence of a variety and diversity of stores offering diferent 
goods and services on a block, particularly of day-to-day use, was the most important 
factor in the users? selection and preference for that block (se Figures 50 and 51), such 
as to this resident. 
 
 125 
  I use this block several times a day. I browse at the bookstore, go to CVS, 
  rent movies, pick up dry cleaning. ??.. I prefer it because everything is 
  so close by and there are many types of uses. I don?t use al but it is 
  pleasant to se the variety. This block is more like a neighborhood center. 
 
 
 Even when they did not use al the busineses regularly, people were happy to 
have the variety as suggested by this man?s comments. ?This is my favorite block. It has 
got a litle of everything, which I like ? videos, food, Asmara has good food, [and] sort 
of, decent Mexican place. Even the places I do not visit, it?s nice that they are there.? 
This preference for blocks with variety of goods and services was supported by 
the user survey (se Figure 58). The author?s unstructured observations tracking some 
individuals further reinforced the conclusion that users of the neighborhood commercial 
strets combined chores and visited multiple stores during one visit.  
 
Table 17. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros difference in variety of stores on the 
block. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. Numbers adjusted for 
Length of Block. 
 
 
 
Variety of Stores on the Block  
 
 0 to 2 More than 2 
Mean Livelines Index 0.80 1.64 
N (Block-segments) 30 48 
 
 Additionaly, the author also measured the variety of stores for each of the 78 
block-segments on 19 blocks. Table 17 shows that the block-segments on blocks with a 
higher variety of stores were also livelier. Block-segments with more than two types of 
store on the block were livelier than block-segments with two or les than two types of 
stores on the block (mean 1.64 on Livelines Index compared to 0.80, t=-2.63, p<0.011). 
Pedestrian-friendlines. Since this study primarily addresed pedestrian 
behavior on the stret, it was important to determine whether the users perceived the 
 
 126 
stret as a pedestrian-friendly environment or not. In the user survey a pedestrian-friendly 
stret environment was broadly defined as a place that was good for walking, siting, and 
other pedestrian oriented activities (se Appendix I). Hence, the level of pedestrian-
friendlines of a block-segment on the stret was an important factor in determining the 
level of physical comfort it provided to its users. Results of user surveys reported in 
Figure 59 show that the blocks on the strets that were perceived as being more 
pedestrian-friendly were also the ones that were livelier. Additionaly, as discussed 
earlier, people emphasized pedestrian-friendlines as an important quality that they 
wanted to retain (se Table 11). In suggesting changes and additions, they prioritized it as 
a quality for the blocks that were not already pedestrian-friendly (se Table 12). 
 
 
Figure 59. Relationship between users? perceived pedestrian-friendliness of the block and 
liveliness. User response to survey of four each at the three study areas. 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.679, p=<0.02) 
 
 
 Seating. Siting space has been identified as one of the most important 
characteristics in retaining people in public spaces and possibly supporting social 
behavior (Whyte, 1980; Linday, 1978). The findings in this study tend to validate 
 
 127 
Whyte?s findings. Block-segments with one or more public seats were livelier than those 
with no public seats (t=-2.88, p<0.01). However, not al block-segments with public 
seating were lively (se Table 18). Observations and behavioral maps show that public 
seating near busineses that support stationary activity was used much more than similar 
public seating located at block-segments without these busineses. The relationship 
betwen seating provided by stores (commercial seating) and livelines was clearer: 
block-segments with more commercial seating were livelier (se Table 19). Block-
segments with one or more commercial seats were livelier than those with no commercial 
seats (mean 3.99 on Livelines Index compared to 0.97, t=-3.21, p<0.013). 
 
Table 18. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of seating 
provided by public authorities. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
 
 
 
Number of Public Seats on the Block-segment  
 
 0 3 6 
Mean Livelines Index 0.75 1.6 0.81 
N (Block-segments) 58 12 8 
 
 
Table 19. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of seating 
provided by businesses. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
 
 
 
Number of Comercial Seats on the Block-segment  
 
 0 1 to 8 9 to 16 
Mean Livelines Index 0.97 2.10 6.36 
N (Block-segments) 69 5 4 
 
 
 The location of seating, especialy public seating, with respect to activity-
supporting stores was found to be critical. Al of the six liveliest block-segments had 
 
 128 
either fixed benches provided by a public agency, or movable chairs provided by private 
stores. In addition, incidental integral surfaces on which people could sit, such as ledges, 
planters, steps, bollards and so on, contributed to retaining people in these locations. The 
use of fixed, movable, and integral seating increased dramaticaly when the seating was 
provided near stores that offered goods and services that could be imediately consumed 
outside the stores. In the liveliest seting (block-segment #2), fixed benches provided by a 
public agency (the City of Cambridge) combined with movable chairs and tables 
provided by the coffe shop alowed users to expand teritories when needed and contract 
them when not (se Figure 60). 
 
 
Figure 60. Chairs from the coffee house were moved to nearby locations by patrons to suit 
their needs. 
 
Fixed wooden benches with backs semed to be physicaly comfortable and 
retained people, especialy singly or in pairs, for long periods. In contrast, fixed wooden 
benches without backs semed les comfortable for long periods of time, although they 
 
 129 
were able to acommodate a greater number of people in social activities, either siting or 
standing nearby. 
Benches, chairs, tables, and integral seating also acted as furniture that people 
used for purposes other than siting. Often people used these horizontal surfaces as a 
place to put or reorganize their belongings, taking things out of a bag or putting them in, 
or just taking a rest on the walk. 
 
   
Figure 61. The lack of seating on these streets was evident. 
 
Other Physical Artifacts on the Stret. In the absence of seating or when they 
were not siting by choice, people caried out most of their sustained or social activities 
near building wals, show-windows, steps, vehicles parked near the sidewalk, and other 
physical artifacts on or near the sidewalk. These included planters, bollards, advertising 
signs on the floor, magazine- and newspaper-dispensing boxes, bicycle stands, trashcans, 
light poles, sign posts, parking meters, tre trunks, railings, fire hydrants, electrical panel 
boxes, and so on. The users sat, leaned, or just stood next to on these objects. While 
physical artifacts were spread al along the sidewalk, the ones that were near the activity-
supporting stores and busineses were used the most. 
 
 130 
People used physical artifacts on the stret for various purposes other than what 
may originaly have been intended. Siting was an example of the postures that occurred 
on the stret. Armrests of benches, fire hydrants, bollards, electrical panel boxes, railings, 
window sils, edges of planters, and so on, were al used to sit on, sometimes even when a 
bench was available nearby. These artifacts provided diferent siting heights and vantage 
points for viewing the stret. In some cases, these artifacts may have been closer to the 
individual?s destination, and hence more convenient. These physical artifacts also served 
as short-term seating alternatives to a bench. 
 
   
Figure 62. Physical artifacts provide alternative seating options 
 
 
 
Children used physical artifacts for play. They drew no distinction among 
benches, magazine- or newspaper-dispensing boxes, advertising signs on the floor, and so 
on. Al of these objects presented children with opportunities for play and for exploration. 
Since adults acompanying the children were near activity-supporting uses, children used 
physical artifacts more if they, too, were near activity-supporting uses. This alowed 
children to play near the watchful eyes of adults, alowing the adults to remain on the 
 
 131 
stret longer, if they wished. Watching children play became yet another activity to 
engage people on the stret. 
 
Table 20. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different width of sidewalk at block-
segment. Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas 
 
 
 
Width of Sidewalk at Block-segment  
 
 upto 12 fet 13 to 24 fet 25 to 36 fet 
Mean Livelines Index 0.98 1.5 2.56 
N (Block-segments) 47 2 9 
 
 
Sidewalk width. Retaining the existing wide sidewalks and increasing the width 
of the narow sidewalks were among the key recomendations from people for creating a 
pedestrian-friendly stret environment (se Tables 11 and 12). The width of the sidewalk 
with ample space to walk (zone 2) is obviously an important criterion for acommodating 
the movement of pedestrians on the stret. However, to support stationary activities it 
was even more critical to have a wider sidewalk area to acommodate stret furniture and 
physical artifacts (zone 3) adjacent to the walking space. It is important to note that while 
this study found no significant correlation betwen the average sidewalk width of the 
block and livelines, it did find a positive correlation betwen the width of the sidewalk at 
each block-segment and livelines (se Table 20). This suggests that although the width 
of a sidewalk is an important physical characteristic to support stationary activities on 
neighborhood commercial strets, it is most critical to have wide sidewalks in 
conjunction with other physical and landuse characteristics that support stationary and 
social activities. 
 
 132 
Teritory, Personalization, and Control on the Stret 
The expresion of teritorial claim varied greatly at diferent locations on the 
stret. Some busineses extended their teritories on the stret by personalizing their 
stret interfaces with canopies, signs, planters, wares, and so on. Busineses offering 
items that could be consumed imediately outside the stores expanded their teritories by 
placing tables and chairs for the use of their patrons, efectively extending the interior 
teritory of the store to the exterior stret space. Stores that extended their teritories by 
putting tables, chairs, and other furniture on the stret also transfered a certain level of 
control to their customers who could move and rearange furniture acording to their own 
needs. This alowed people to expand and contract their teritories acording to their 
needs. In this way, the otherwise public or peripheral teritory was transformed into a 
semipublic or supporting teritory. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 63. Relationship between personalization and liveliness. Data from 78 block-segments 
on 19 blocks in three study areas. (Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.418, p=<0.01) 
 
 13 
 
 
 
Figure 64. Territorial map based on observations and behavioral maps showing the range 
and intensity of the territories of stores. Five blocks on Massachusetts Av. at Central Square, 
Cambridge, MA. Intensity of color indicates the clarity of territorial claim. 
 
 134 
 
 
Figure 65. Territorial map based on observations and behavioral maps showing the range 
and intensity of the territories of stores. Six blocks on Harvard Street at Coolidge Corner, 
Brookline, MA. Intensity of color indicates the clarity of territorial claim. 
 
 135 
 
 
Figure 6. Territorial map based on observations and behavioral maps showing the range 
and intensity of the territories of stores. Eight blocks on Elm Street at Davis Square, 
Somervile, MA. Intensity of color indicates the clarity of territorial claim. (Continued in Fig. 67) 
 
 
 136 
 
Figure 67. Territorial map based on observations and behavioral maps showing the range 
and intensity of the territories of stores. Eight blocks on Elm Street at Davis Square, 
Somervile, MA. Intensity of color indicates the clarity of territorial claim. 
(Continued from Figure 6) 
 
 
 
 137 
 Figures 64, 65, 66, and 67 ilustrate the varying extents of teritorial claim and 
influence established by diferent busineses on the stret. The ilustrations depict the 
teritorial claim as a result of a combination of locations on the stret where the busines 
owners personalized the stret by bring their goods, wares, decorations, and furniture, as 
wel as the extent of the stret space that people used in asociation with that busines. 
The intensity of the color is proportionate to the consistency and repetition of use of the 
stret for personalization and teritorial claim. Hence, the most intense color represents 
the area where the busines most often brings out its goods and furniture, where workers 
or customers asociated with the busines are most often present. The most intense color 
also represents the area on the stret that is claimed first. When there is more need for 
space due to more patrons, the range of the teritorial claim expands as represented with 
decreasing intensities of color. 
 Block-segments on the stret that were claimed as teritories by the storeowners 
also appeared to be ?occupied,? ?lived-in,? and cared for. ?The personalization of places 
thus serves many purposes: psychological security and symbolic aesthetic as wel the 
adaptation of the environment to met the needs of specific activity paterns. Above al, 
however, personalization marks teritory? (Lang, 1987, p. 148). . The block-segments 
with a higher degre of personalization were able to aford an increased level of teritorial 
behavior on the stret and were thus livelier (se Figure 63). 
The degre of teritorial behavior and control on the stret was not only dependent 
upon the types of busineses but also on the management of the busineses and the formal 
and spatial quality of the buildings and stret space. The articulation of the building 
fa?ade at the stret level and at the entrance played an important role in creating 
 
 138 
transitional space betwen the stret and the interior that could be personalized and 
teritorialized by the storeowners. The presence of this space to mediate betwen the 
stret and the store?s interior space helped in supporting physical expresions of a claim 
to teritory on the stret. The availability of adequate sidewalk space, which alowed for 
space to be designated for siting or standing without directly interupting the flow of 
pedestrians, was an important factor in enabling storeowners and users to exercise 
teritorial control over the stret space. Stores conducting the sort of busines that enabled 
the use of stret space, and which therefore personalized and teritorialized that space, 
also shared in the maintenance of that public space. 
 In order to control teritory people modify their environment to beter fit their 
needs (Lang, 1987). In the case of the stret, this ned and ability to modify and control 
an otherwise public teritory involved a certain degre of negotiation, compromise, and 
acommodation of the needs of other people present at the stret. People were obliged to 
interact with other people to move furniture, ask for a chair, or ask to share the same 
table. Al of this resulted in opportunities for social interaction, often with complete 
strangers. 
Sensory Pleasure on the Stret 
Observations of people?s behavior, their activities, their interactions with other 
people, and their postures, suggested that certain block-segments on the stret provided a 
sense of pleasure to the users of the stret environment. Their relative duration of stay on 
the stret further reinforced this. Through observations of people?s behavior the author 
was able to record expresed pleasure resulting from social encounters in the form of 
planned and unplanned interactions, and active and pasive engagement in activities, such 
 
 139 
as actively participating in playing a game or listening to musicians on the stret. 
However, the pleasure or displeasure that users asociated with various other sensory 
qualities of the environment, especialy the physical characteristics of the stret 
environment, were explored through user surveys and interviews. 
Five measures were used in the survey to capture the degre of pleasure or 
displeasure that users derived through the sensory experience of the stret: atractivenes, 
interesting appearance, change of signs and displays, occurrence of events, and 
uniquenes of goods and services (se Appendix I). Equaly important were the responses 
from users to open-ended questions presented in Tables 11 and 12, and Figures 48, 49, 
50, 51, and 55. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 68. Relationship between users? perception of attractiveness and interesting 
appearance of the block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at the three 
study areas. 
Interesting appearance and Liveliness ? Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.81, p=<0.01 
Atractiveness and Liveliness ? Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.80, p=<0.01 
 
Atractivenes and Interesting Apearance were measured on a visual rating 
scale, and related to stimuli from fixed, semi-fixed, and movable elements such as the 
 
 140 
articulation of the building fa?ade, the openings at stret level, lighting fixtures, furniture 
on the sidewalk, signs, plantings, displays, and a variety in these elements. Hence, 
atractivenes and interesting appearance were set up as variables in an atempt to capture 
the sensory pleasure that the stret environment as a seting was able to offer to its users. 
The results of the survey indicated that the blocks that semed more atractive and 
interesting in appearance to their users were also the liveliest ? the blocks that atracted 
the greater number of users, the blocks in which the users engaged in some form of social 
interaction, and the blocks in which the users spent the most amount of time (se Figure 
68). While visual appearance and atractivenes are subjective qualities, people were 
generaly able to agre that some blocks were more atractive and visualy interesting 
than others. These were important factors in their selection and use of these blocks, 
especialy when the environment lacked these factors (se Figures 50 and 51). 
 
 
 
 
Figure 69. Relationship between users? perception of change in signs and displays on the 
block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at three study areas. 
Change in signs, displays and Liveliness ? Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.493, p=<0.10 
 
 
 141 
Table 21. Distribution of mean Liveliness Index acros different numbers of ?rooted? signs. 
Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks in three study areas. 
 
 
 
 
Number of ?Roted? Signs on the Block-segment  
 
 0 1 2 3 
Mean Livelines Index 0.73 1.39 2.43 10.0 
N (Block-segments) 34 35 8 1 
 
 
Change of Signs and Displays in show-windows and entrances of stores 
atempted to capture the sensory pleasure that the stret environment was able to offer to 
its users over time as a result of change. Results of the survey of al study areas indicated 
that users generaly perceived a low level of change of signs and displays at the stret. 
However, blocks that users perceived as having more changes in signs and displays were 
livelier (se Figure 69). Additionaly, observations showed that window-shopping (used 
in a broad sense of looking at signs, displays, and so on) was a significant activity on the 
stret, second only to eating and/or drinking. ?Rooted? signs and displays were ones that 
were specific to the stores and block-segments where they were located. Social activity 
frequently occurred as people engaged in window-shopping. This was consistent with the 
findings through observations (se Table 21). Block-segments with one or more ?rooted? 
signs were livelier than block-segments without them (mean 1.78 on Livelines Index 
compared to 0.73, t=-3.4, p<0.01). 
 Ocurence of Events included outdoor sales, neighborhood campaigns, 
festivals, block parties, stret musicians, and so on. Results of the survey of al study 
areas indicated that users generaly perceived a low level of occurrence of events on the 
stret. However, blocks that users perceived to have more events were livelier (se Figure 
70). 
 
 142 
 
Figure 70. Relationship between users? perception of occurrence of events on the block and 
liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at three study areas. 
(Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.717, p=<0.01) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 71. Relationship between users? perception of uniqueness of gods and services 
available on the block and liveliness. User response to survey of four blocks each at three study 
areas. (Pearson?s Correlation r = 0.674, p=<0.02) 
 
 
 Uniquenes of Goods and Services. Results of open-ended interviews in Tables 
11 and 12 also show that the uniquenes of goods and services on a block was an 
important factor in the users? preference for that block (se Figure 71). 
 
 143 
  Yes [I prefer this block to other blocks] because of the variety and its 
  uniquenes. There?s a great sports bar, great ice cream place, a great niche 
  supermarket, a nice florist. 
 
 As a response to questions about specific busineses, users indicated that the 
sensory pleasure they derived from the goods, services, and ambience in some stores was 
an important factor in their preference for that block (se Figures 50 and 51). Of the 
stores mentioned by users, al except one offered goods and services of day-to-day use. 
Users prefered stores that provided goods and services of day-to-day use in a manner 
and ambience that was unique. The user survey further supported this finding. 
Important Characteristics of the Stret and Livelines 
Eleven specific characteristics of the stret environment were identified based on 
the literature review, interviews, and extensive observations made by the author. These 
were discussed in detail in the previous section. Table 22 shows the correlations betwen 
 
Table 2. Relationship between characteristics of the street and liveliness. 
Data from 78 block-segments on 19 blocks.  * p<0.05, * p<0.01,  ** p<0.01 
 
Street Characteristic Pearson?s r 
Commercial seating 0.781** 
  
Articulated street front 0.561** 
Personalized storefront 0.507** 
Community places 0.504** 
 
Permeability of storefront 0.469** 
Shade from trees and canopies 0.454** 
Independent uses 0.37** 
Public (non-commercial) seating 0.343* 
Other furniture and physical artifacts 0.303* 
Sidewalk width 0.294* 
 
Variety of businesses on block 0.269* 
 
 14 
these characteristics and livelines of the neighborhood commercial stret. A multivariate 
regresion analysis with al the eleven characteristics showed that these variables together 
explained 85 percent of the variation in the Livelines Index across al the 78 diferent 
block-segments on thre neighborhood commercial strets (adjusted R
2
=0.83, F=36.2, 
Sig. of F=0.000). The multivariate analysis showed that commercial seating 
(coef.=0.250, t=9.28, p<0.0001), public seating (coef.=0.206, t=4.59, p<0.0001), 
community gathering places (coef.=1.08, t=4.65, p<0.0001), personalization 
(coef.=0.244, t=3.02, p<0.005), and sidewalk width (coef.=0.03, t=2.09, p<0.04) were 
significant and had a positive impact on livelines of a neighborhood commercial stret. 
A comparison betwen the correlations and the multivariate analysis points to the 
important role that commercial and public seating, presence of community places, 
personalization of the storefront, and width of sidewalk play in supporting stationary, 
lingering, and social activities on the stret. The articulation of the building fa?ade had a 
high correlation with livelines but it did not show significance in the regresion. 
Similarly, many other characteristics that appeared to correlate with livelines were not 
significant (se Table 22).
 
 145 
 
Table 23. Correlations between the eleven characteristics 
 
 
 
Comercial 
Seats 
Public 
Seats 
Sidewalk 
Width 
Other 
Furniture 
Shade Articulation Permeability Block 
Variety 
Independent 
Uses 
Personalization Comunity 
Places 
Comercial Seats 1.0 .019 .198 .209 .316*   .372*    .41* .091  .25*   .367*    .34* 
Public Seats  1.0   .464*   .353* .351*   .321* -.131 .056 .037 -.036 -.053 
Sidewalk Width   1.0   .536* .41* .201 -.186  -.293* -.24*  -.238* -.062 
Other Furniture    1.0 .584*   .405*  .028 .19 -.01  .10  .080 
Shade     1.0   .389*  .14 .097 .203  .20  .095 
Articulation      1.0    .351*  .370*   .313*    .376*    .302* 
Permeability       1.0  .526*   .461*    .749*    .31* 
Block Variety        1.0   .494*    .541*   .256* 
Independent Uses         1.0    .68*    .314* 
Personalization          1.0    .305* 
Comunity Places           1.0 
* p<0.01, * p<0.05 
 
 
 
 146 
 However, Table 23 shows a high corelation betwen some of these eleven 
characteristics suggesting that many of the highly correlated characteristics may be 
explaining the same concept. A factor analysis can determine the variables that belong to 
the same concept, reduce them to a smaler set of constructs, and help make sense of 
social behavior by explaining it with a limited number of factors (Bryman and Cramer, 
2001). A factor analysis was performed on al these characteristics using a principal 
component method to determine the key factors and concepts that explained the livelines 
on the neighborhood commercial stret
7
. Four components were selected using the Scre 
test
8
. 
 
 
 
Figure 72. Scree Plot showing the Eigenvalues of the components. 
 
                                                
7
 A KMO Measure of sampling adequacy recorded at 0.741 and the Barlet?s Test of Sphericity being 
significant at p=0.00 showed that factor analysis was an apropriate method for the available data. Eleven 
factors explained 10% of the variance. 
 
8
 The Kaiser criterion recomends using only those components that have Eigenvalues of more than one. 
However, a Scre test is sometimes more apropriate in determining the number of factors to be retained 
(Catel, 196). The components were extracted using an Eigenvalue of over 0.75. Four components were 
selected using the Scre test. 
 
 147 
Table 24. Percentage Variance of Four Factors 
Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. 
 
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings 
 
Factor Total 
% of 
Variance Cumulative % 
1 2.984 27.129 27.129 
2 2.672 24.290 51.419 
3 1.269 1.535 62.954 
4 1.136 10.31 73.285 
 
 
 
 
Table 25. Details of Factor Analysis showing the weightings of each characteristic 
Principal Component Analysis using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. 
 
Street Characteristics Factors 
 
1 2 3 4 
Commercial Seating provided by businesses   .780  
Seating provided by public authorities  .708   
Personalization and signs on street-front .860    
Articulation of the building fa?ade  .540   
Shade provided by trees, canopies, overhangs, etc.  .762   
Width of the sidewalk  .762   
Permeability at the street-front .738    
Variety of businesses on the block .81    
Other artifacts and furniture on the sidewalk  .802   
Number of independent stores .78    
Number of community places    .912 
 
 
 
 
 The results of the factor analysis suggested that these four components or factors 
explained 73% of the variance (se Figure 72 and Table 24). Table 25 shows the details 
of the factor analysis with weightings of each characteristic. 
 A multivariate regresion analysis with these four factors showed that together 
they explained 73.6% of the variation in the Livelines Index across al 78 block-
 
 148 
segments on the thre neighborhood commercial strets (adjusted R
2
=0.721, F=50.75, 
Significance of F=0.000). 
 These four factors may be understood as the aspects of the stret that help support 
stationary, lingering, and social activities on the stret and make it lively. Factor 1 is a 
combination of characteristics of the stret that are afected by busineses and land uses 
and explains 27% of variance (se Table 24). The four characteristics that load this factor 
suggest that the variety in the busineses on the stret and the number of independently 
owned stores are important characteristics that determine one aspect of the stret to 
support livelines. The personalization of the stret-fronts of the busineses by means of 
decoration, signs, plants, and so on, as wel as the ability of a store to be permeable to the 
stret are also important characteristics that make up this first aspect (se Table 25). 
These characteristics are largely the result of the initiative of the busines owner but may 
depend on the design of the buildings and the policies in place. The result of the 
multivariate regresion analysis confirmed that this factor had a positive impact on the 
livelines of the stret (coef.=.351, t=5.83, p=0.000).  
 Factor 2 is a combination of the physical aspects of the stret and explains 24% of 
variance (se Table 24). Five characteristics load this factor (se Table 25). The width of 
the sidewalk, public seating, and other artifacts and stret furniture may be noted as 
?stret improvements? that are usualy provided by public authorities. Shade on the 
sidewalk may be a result of tres provided by a public authority but also includes 
awnings, canopies, retractable umbrelas, and so on, provided by the busineses. The 
articulation of the building fa?ade is a characteristic that is determined by the architecture 
 
 149 
of the buildings. The result of the multivariate regresion analysis confirmed that this 
factor had a positive impact on the livelines of the stret (coef.=.467, t=7.67, p=0.000).  
 Factor 3 is a function of the seating provided on the stret by busineses and it 
explains 11.5% of variance (se Table 24 and 25). Although commercial seats are a 
physical characteristic of the stret, it is interesting to find that this characteristic alone 
creates an independent factor to support livelines on the stret. This is probably so 
because it does not fal in the category of ?stret improvements? (factor 2) that are largely 
the responsibility of public agencies. Further, the correlation betwen the number of 
commercial seats and Livelines Index was the most significant (0.78), indicating that it 
was a powerful characteristic for supporting livelines. The result of the multivariate 
regresion analysis confirmed that this factor had a positive impact on the livelines of 
the stret (coef.=.453, t=7.53, p=0.000). 
 Factor 4 represents the community places aspect within the neighborhood 
commercial stret and explains 10% of variance (se Table 24 and 25). The collective 
atachment to places where people of the neighborhood come together stands apart from 
the landuse and physical characteristics. This suggests that busineses that people 
regarded as community places were independently an important factor in supporting 
livelines. The result of the multivariate regresion analysis confirmed that this factor had 
a positive impact on the livelines of the stret (coef.=.434, t=7.20, p=0.000).  
 
 150 
 
Figure 73. Important Characteristics of the Street. 
 
 Factor 1 represents landuse qualities of the stret, factors 2 and 3 represent 
physical qualities of the stret, and factor 4 represents social qualities of the stret (se 
Figure 73). 
Sumary of Findings 
Findings presented in the preceding pages clearly indicate that an engagement 
betwen the physical layout of the environment, the elements of behavioral environment 
(uses, activities, and management) and the places that have collective meanings for the 
community is esential for the social life on neighborhood commercial strets. A 
physicaly wel-designed stret for people, with generous sidewalks, ample seating and 
other stret furniture, tre-cover and other landscape elements, articulated stret facades 
of buildings built to sidewalk, and so on, becomes much more useful and meaningful for 
people when there are community-gathering places and a variety of activity-supporting 
stores and other land uses at the stret, and vice versa. The following example helps to 
 
 151 
ilustrate this. Figure 74 shows two comparative examples of stret configurations on 
corners of two blocks on Masachusets Avenue. These two corner conditions drasticaly 
difer in their Livelines Indices (6.1 and 0.54). Both blocks are approximately 300 fet 
long and are very similar in their physical characteristics. At these block corners, the 
sidewalks are wide and wel-maintained by the city, there are a few benches and other 
stret furniture, the buildings are historic with many large openings, and so on (se Figure 
74). The busineses at these two corner locations, however, difer drasticaly, and as a 
result, so does the management of the stret space. This diference in the busineses 
afects the perception and significance of the stret for the users at these two locations 
and in ways that certain physical characteristics are manifest and utilized. A cofe shop 
at Block 1 is recognized as a community-gathering place for a variety of people in the 
neighborhood. This coffe shop provides commercial seating to use the sidewalk as a 
place to relax, interact, and socialize. The bank that occupies the whole building at the 
corner of Block 4 provides no such opportunities and as a result, the same area of 
sidewalk and the benches are seldom used at Block 4. There are large windows and doors 
at the stret in both buildings. The thre smal busineses on Block 1 use the windows 
and doors in their own way, customizing and personalizing them with displays, signs, 
decorations, flowers, plants, lighting, and so on, to atract customers. In contrast, 
 
 152 
 
 
Figure 74. Varying liveliness on two similar physical street configurations. 
 
 
the bank has litle use for these fenestrations, and most of them remain covered with 
blinds making them appear like blank wals from outside. Additionaly, the busineses on 
the corner of Block 1 remain open late, one of them from 7:00 AM until 11:00 PM, 
creating opportunities for activities to occur throughout the day. The diferences in these 
two very similar physical conditions at the same neighborhood commercial stret further 
ilustrate how the engagement betwen the behavioral paterns and paterns of the 
physical environment is important to support stationary and social activities on the stret. 
 
 153 
The mixed-method strategy employed by this study used multiple qualitative and 
quantitative means of inquiry. Results suggest that the following characteristics are 
important to support livelines on neighborhood comercial strets. However, the most 
important finding was that none of these characteristics alone was adequate for creating 
livelines. Each of these characteristics depends on the presence of others, and it is their 
co-presence that is able to support various activity paterns leading to livelines on the 
neighborhood commercial stret. 
Seating near activity-supporting stores and busineses 
Seating on the stret in the form of benches, chairs or other surfaces provided by a 
public agency or a private busines, located near activity-supporting busineses, had a 
strong interelationship with livelines. 
Seating provided by stores was usualy near busineses that were public and 
where goods could be consumed outdoors. This meant that in most places where there 
was commercial seating there was a co-presence of other stret characteristics that 
supported livelines. The ability to consume goods or services outside the store alowed 
for an extension of the activity and hence the extension of the teritory of the store space 
that would otherwise be limited within the store. This extension alowed people to engage 
in social activities on the stret. Eating and drinking was an activity commonly asociated 
with relaxation, with a break in the regular schedule, a pause. People frequently 
combined eating and drinking with socializing. This combination of food and social 
activity made people stay longer on the stret, making it a very important characteristic in 
the generation of livelines on the stret. Additionaly, this seating, in the form of chairs 
 
 154 
that could be moved, provided a level of flexibility and control desirable to users. Hence, 
the relationship betwen commercial seating and livelines was most evident. 
Public seating in the form of benches not only provided a place for anyone to sit 
but also acted as physical artifacts for children to play on and for adults to stand next to, 
lean on, use as a table, and so on, and supported other postures and activities that 
encouraged social behavior. 
Community places: stores that were places to met neighbors, friends, and sometimes 
even strangers 
 
 Al thre neighborhood commercial strets had busineses that the residents and 
workers in the area identified as community places. These busineses had established 
themselves as destinations over time. People reported and were sen engaged in a variety 
of activities at these busineses. They treated these as places to spend time at to met 
neighbors, friends and strangers, to chat, read, work, play games, listen to music, and so 
on. Users noted that these places meant more than just the act of conducting busines and 
the busines owners encouraged this notion by making the environment and policies 
conducive to leting people stay as long as they desired. These busineses supported a 
higher level of activity for longer durations compared to other busineses. In cases where 
the physical characteristics of the stret, such as the ones identified in this study, were 
present these community places became anchors for livelines. Most of community 
places identified by people were smal independently owned busineses. 
Stores that had personalized their stret-frontage with signs, displays and decorations, 
and by bringing out their wares, goods and services to the stret 
 
Familiarity and change are particularly significant in neighborhood commercial 
strets since most of the users are people who live or work nearby, and who therefore 
 
 15 
come back to visit the stret and stores frequently. Many people expresed a preference 
for stores that had been present for a long time, because they were familiar with the 
goods and services, and owners and workers. This dealt with long-term familiarity and 
stability. However, in the short-term the liveliest setings were the ones that made 
frequent changes to their d?cor by personalizing them by, for example, updating or 
changing the goods they sold, the music they played, the signs, the plants and flowers, the 
displays, the decorations and artwork in show-windows, and so on. Personalization 
created change in an otherwise familiar seting that provided stimulation and interest, and 
created a reason to stop and window-shop (used in a broad sense), further generating 
conversation and other social interaction. Changing signs and displays also provided 
current information about schedules and events, and goods and services in the stores, 
right at the stret.  
Personalization of the storefront made each one appear and fel diferent, and that 
created variety on the stret. This variety created interest and engaged people in various 
activities such as reading signs, window-shopping, touching and smeling objects, 
browsing through goods, trying things out and so on. Al of these activities lead to more 
people spending more time on the stret. Many of these activities further lead to social 
interaction with acquaintances and sometimes even with strangers. 
Some stores within the liveliest setings limited the personalization to their stret 
fronting show-windows, wals, doors, and windows. A few brought their wares, furniture, 
and furnishings out on to the sidewalk. They extended the store?s teritory into the 
sidewalk, thereby extending the types and levels of activity that occurred inside the store. 
People were sen going in an out of the store in a way that suggested the 
 
 156 
interpenetrability betwen the stret space and the space inside. In esence, the stret 
space outside these stores became an extension of the store itself, making the stret more 
lively. The stores with the highest level of personalization were mostly independently 
owned and operated or were smal local chain stores. 
Stores that offered goods and services for daily use in a manner and ambience that was 
unique 
 
The liveliest setings on the stret had a very high number of stores that were one-
of-a-kind. Most were independently owned but a few ere local smal chain stores. It is 
important to note that the goods and services they sold were not necesarily specialty 
items. Instead, these were goods and services for daily use that were most commonly 
desired by people of various socio-economic groups, cultures, and ages. These goods and 
services were provided in ways and in a seting that were special to that particular store.  
Since these stores offered goods, services, and an ambience that were not 
commonly available elsewhere in the same form, people could not easily substitute the 
experience by visiting another store. Hence, these stores became destinations in 
themselves. 
Sidewalk width 
 
Sidewalks provided a stage to house artifacts and gestures to support social 
activities. A certain minimum width of sidewalk was required to support the activities at 
the edges of buildings, the pedestrian flow of trafic, and space for stret furniture and 
other artifacts. Sidewalks with width that could acommodate al the zones for these 
activities also enabled busineses to personalize the space at their threshold with the 
stret and establish their teritories, which was important to users of the neighborhood 
commercial stret. The width of the sidewalk was critical as it was a prerequisite for 
 
 157 
supporting other stret characteristics, such as space for display of wares and signs, tres, 
stret furniture, public and commercial seating that were crucial to support social 
activities. 
Articulation: Building fa?ade at stret-level with nooks, corners, alcoves, small 
setbacks, steps, and ledges 
 
The liveliest setings on the stret had highly articulated building fa?ades at the 
stret-level with nooks, corners, alcoves, smal setbacks, steps, and ledges. This 
articulation in the fa?ade provided spaces for storeowners to personalize their interface 
with the stret by, for example, the placement of signs, information boards, decorations, 
planters, flower boxes, and items for sale. This personalization provided an opportunity 
for people to se or do something on the stret without entering the store, often 
encouraging pasive or active social interaction. People used these spaces to sek shelter 
from the sun or rain, or to get out of the pedestrian trafic flow for a moment, or to stop 
and rearange their belongings, or to use a cel phone, and so on. Spaces created by the 
articulation of the building facades were also the spaces of choice for the stret musicians 
and performers. Articulated building facades with the smal-scaled spaces and levels they 
created, were also atractive to children for active play with toys or to extend their 
pasage along the stret by playfully going in and out of the articulations. 
Tre cover, canopies, awnings, and overhangs providing shade and shelter 
It is often recommended by designers and planners that public spaces should 
generaly be oriented to receive maximum sunlight. The observations of this study 
generaly support this. However, it is equaly important to provide shade at the stret with 
tres, canopies, awnings, and overhangs as people?s preferences for spaces in the sun or 
under shade change with changing seasons and weather. 
 
 158 
Other Stret Furniture near activity-supporting stores and entrances 
More than 90 percent of the more than 13,000 people observed caried out most 
of their stationary and social activities on or near some physical artifact, such as furniture 
on the sidewalk, building wals, show-windows, steps, vehicles parked near the sidewalk, 
tres, and so on. The users sat or leaned, or just stood next to these objects. While stret 
furniture was often provided al along the sidewalk, the furniture that was near the 
activity-supporting stores and busineses was used the most. 
People used stret furniture for various purposes other than what may have been 
intended. Children used stret furniture and other artifacts as objects for play and 
exploration. Since adults acompanying children were near activity-supporting uses, 
children used the stret furniture that was near activity-supporting uses. This alowed 
children to play under the watchful eyes of adults, and this permited the adults to linger 
on the stret longer when desired. Watching children play became yet another activity to 
engage people on the stret. 
Permeability: Stores with stret-fronts where goods, services and activities inside could 
be sen, heard, touched and/or smeled from outside 
 
This finding refers to the permeability of a stret front, which is more than mere 
transparency. The liveliest setings in the studied areas were the most permeable. People 
who were not simply pasing through on their way to another destination, such as work, 
were generaly curious about what went on in the buildings and spaces along their path. 
People did not linger and engage in any social activities where there was nothing to do or 
se in their surroundings. For the purpose of this study ?dead spaces? at the stret 
frontage are defined as blank surfaces of buildings that one cannot se through, such as 
blank wals or opaque or very dark glas, building wals set back more than ten fet with 
 
 159 
vacant space, parking lots, and other spaces where the people on the stret have no 
opportunity to engage and use the stret frontage. Stores with none or limited ?dead 
space? and that readily revealed interior activity atracted more atention. As a result, 
people spent more time lingering there. Window-shopping, including looking at goods in 
show-windows, looking at signs, or watching activities going on inside the stores, often 
encouraged conversation. However, this permeability in the liveliest setings was not 
limited to visual stimuli. Many stores left their doors or windows wide open, leting the 
people outside hear the activities inside and in some cases, smel the goods for sale. This 
permeability and information of the inside of stores atracted the curiosity of many, 
especialy children, who were able to satisfy their curiosity by observing the objects and 
activities and also learn about these objects and activities that were visible from the 
stret. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 160 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 
 
 This study was an empirical examination of behavioral responses, perceptions, 
and atitudes of people to the characteristics of neighborhood commercial strets. Many 
environmental psychologists, sociologists, landscape and urban designers, and cultural 
anthropologists emphasize an approach to design that incorporates the elements of the 
behavioral environment (its uses, activities, management), the elements of the milieu (its 
fixed, semi-fixed and movable objects), and the places that have special meanings for the 
community. This study was an atempt to integrate these approaches to arive at an 
understanding of the nature of the neighborhood commercial stret as a seting comprised 
of behavior paterns, the elements of the physical seting, and places that held 
community?s collective meanings. Using this integrated approach, this study was an 
exploration of new ays to addres the understanding, design, and management of this 
common neighborhood public space. 
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 
 There are practical considerations of time and resources that limit al research. In 
this study, the inquiry was limited to neighborhood commercial strets in two cities and 
one town in the Boston metropolitan area in Masachusets. Al thre locations are similar 
in many ways: they are in urban areas that have a high population density. Al are 
perceived as being mostly safe. They are wel served by major transit and are relatively 
beter places for people to walk in the neighborhood, to shop, dine, and sek other 
entertainment. However, none of these neighborhoods is generaly perceived as 
 
 161 
representative of the sort of caf? society found in many European and South American 
cities. Although none of these neighborhoods is considered a downtown, the strets 
studied are among the major commercial strets in their respective neighborhoods. A mix 
of uses occurs at the block level such that most of the blocks have some variety of retail 
at the stret level to serve daily needs, and some office space usualy in buildings with 
upper floors. While there is very limited residential space on the upper floors of the 
buildings on these commercial strets, most of the adjoining strets are primarily 
residential. Hence, most people in the neighborhood need only walk a few minutes to 
reach the neighborhood?s commercial stret. This study is therefore most applicable to 
dense urban neighborhoods that have similar characteristics, or urban neighborhoods that 
may be planned to acommodate similar paterns of use.  
 Additionaly, although the people observed on the neighborhood commercial 
strets represent a wide range of age, gender, and clas, the majority of people 
interviewed were Caucasian. Culture, race, clas, age, and gender play a significant role 
in molding atitudes and perceptions. There are likely to be cultural diferences in 
preferences for location and day-to-day shopping and other commercial activities, 
especialy in relation to local residential environments. Further, it is likely that in 
neighborhood commercial strets or similar environmental setings with a diferent ethnic 
and racial mix and diferent culture the use of these setings may be diferent. The social 
interaction on the stret, as observed, and desired by people in this study may not 
represent a cultural behavioral patern that is universaly acepted. There is also a strong 
likelihood of many other variations. Diferent cultures have diferent thresholds for the 
tolerance and aceptance of perceptual stimuli and levels of social interaction, especialy 
 
 162 
among people of diferent gender, race, and clas. Climatic/environmental variables alone 
may render certain locations hostile to social interaction outdoors. For these reasons, and 
to test, validate, and broaden the findings of this study, it would be useful to repeat the 
study on commercial strets in neighborhoods in other towns and cities, and in diferent 
cultures. 
Thre Aspects of Neighborhood Public Space 
 Urban neighborhoods and other inhabited places are often known to have their 
own cultures and norms. Certain behavior paterns in public spaces and the particular use 
of neighborhood commercial stret may be peculiar to the residents of the town/cities 
studied. This study is not intended to suggest that the specific paterns of the behavioral 
environment, the elements of the physical seting and busineses that have special 
meanings for the community found on these thre neighborhood commercial strets are 
representative of al possible behavioral and physical paterns. It is likely that 
neighborhood commercial strets or similar setings in other cultural contexts may have a 
diferent aray of such paterns. 
 However, this study does suggest that the thre aspects that emerged from the 
findings are critical in the understanding of neighborhood commercial strets (or other 
similar public and parochial spaces) and in achieving a quality of neighborhood public 
space that is conducive to stationary, lingering, and social activities. Further, the 
conceptual and theoretical framework and the mixed-methods used in this study, to 
understand the public environment as a combination of paterns of behavior and paterns 
of the physical environment, has demonstrated merit and should be useful for 
understanding, design, and management across varied environments and space types in 
 
 163 
diferent cultures. This study suggests a thre-part model to support stationary, lingering, 
and social activities on the neighborhood commercial stret (se Figure 75). 
 
Figure 75. Three aspects support stationary, lingering, and social activities on the street. 
  
 
 The findings of this study suggest that it is the engagement betwen the places 
that have special meanings for the community, the elements of the behavioral 
environment (land uses and their management), and the elements of the physical seting 
(form and space characteristics) that creates a comfortable, pleasurable, meaningful and 
therefore desirable environment for people on neighborhood commercial strets. These 
findings have implications for urban design, community planning, and economic 
development policies. The findings show that people tend to choose setings that are 
meaningful to them as places of the community and that offer comfort and pleasure 
through various amenities and micro-scale physical features: elements that are extremely 
significant to the users of the environment.  
 
 164 
 Transportation planners generaly characterize strets as dynamic spaces or paths 
that are channels for vehicular and pedestrian movement. However, the findings of this 
study chalenge this view and contribute to the notion of the stret as a social space as 
suggested by some social commentators, sociologists, and urban designers (se, for 
example, Jacobs, 1961; Appleyard, 1981; Gehl, 1987; Brower, 1988; Vernez-Moudon, 
1991; Jacobs, 1993; Lofland, 1998; Loukaitou-Sederis and Banerje, 1998; Has-Klau et 
al., 1999). The findings show that when an appropriate combination of characteristics is 
present, the stret can be a desirable place for stationary, lingering, and social activities. 
This is particularly important for North American and other modern cities, which, unlike 
most European and Asian medieval center-cities, have few or no squares or plazas 
designed specificaly for casual stationary and social activities. Additionaly, while 
modern urban societies no longer depend upon the square or the plaza for certain basic 
needs, like collecting water and gathering news, the neighborhood commercial stret is a 
current and relevant behavior seting, especialy in mixed-use neighborhoods because the 
amenities and activities on the contemporary neighborhood commercial stret offer 
opportunities for informal social interaction as a part of the daily round. 
Social Qualities - Comunity Places 
In al thre neighborhoods, the specific stret studied is perceived to be the major 
neighborhood commercial stret. This is where many people who live in the 
neighborhood do their daily or wekly shopping and come to eat and drink, to sek 
leisure and entertainment, to met friends and watch people, and to se or participate in 
activities. These strets are the most lively, diverse, social, and public strets in their 
respective neighborhoods. However, the findings of this study suggest that there is a 
 
 165 
hierarchy in the busineses that support this quality of livelines, variety, diversity, and 
social contact on neighborhood commercial strets. In esence, certain busineses are 
able to generate and anchor this quality; others act as supports; and yet others contribute 
minimaly or sometimes even detract from it. 
 People with diferent outlooks and backgrounds expresed an atachment to 
certain busineses that had evolved into community places: where they were able to se 
and met friends, neighbors, or strangers, spend their leisure time and engage in various 
activities that reinforced their sense of community. When complimented with other 
physical characteristics, these busineses that were the community places of the 
neighborhood were the anchors for this quality of livelines on the stret. Almost al the 
busineses that had evolved into community places for people in the neighborhoods were 
smal independent busineses. The most important and unparaleled benefits from these 
smal independent busineses are that besides seling goods and services ?they give out 
history, memory, a sense of place, local flavor, [and] community knowledge? (Solnit, 
2000, cited in Johansen, 2005). 
Landuse Qualities 
Four characteristics of landuse were important in supporting livelines on the 
stret: independent stores, variety of stores, personalization of stret-fronts, and 
permeability of stret-fronts. There is clear evidence from the observational data, surveys, 
and interviews that users of diferent backgrounds and outlooks prefered smal 
independently owned busineses. Smaler independently owned busineses were key to 
the livelines on the stret not only because people prefered them for their quality of 
goods and services but also because they incorporated other landuse characteristics those 
 
 16 
were important to support livelines. Physicaly, smaler busineses consumed much les 
stret frontage, permiting more variety through increased numbers of busineses per unit 
length of the stret. Smaler independently owned busineses had more personalized 
stret-front with shop window and entrance decorations, plants, changing signs, and so 
on. Smal busineses were also relatively more permeable to the stret such that activities 
inside the store could be sensed on the stret outside. Independent stores also provided 
important physical characteristics. Eighty-eight percent of seating on the stret provided 
by stores was provided by smal independent busineses. Hence, smal busineses were 
important on multiple levels to support livelines. Additionaly, smal busineses were 
more likely to offer a certain uniquenes of goods and services that cannot be replicated 
in larger chain stores. People prefered to deal with busines owners who seldom change, 
as compared with the employees in larger chain stores, who are more likely to come and 
go. 
Urban design and planning literature in the last two decades has suggested that 
mixed-use neighborhoods offer a desired patern of physical development to achieve a 
more vital, vibrant, atractive, safe, viable and sustainable patern of urban lifestyle. 
Previous studies have shown that one of the most important characteristics that people 
look for in mixed-use neighborhoods is the livelines and diversity of the neighborhood 
commercial areas (Brower, 1996). A great deal of what is developed and built, however, 
fals far short of the promise of an interesting, lively, diverse, and stimulating 
environment, failing to capture the esence of a truly mixed-use neighborhood. 
Contemporary developments with distinct zones for living, working, shopping, and 
leisure, but lacking a mix of uses at the finer grain (Jacobs, 1961; Alexander et al., 1977; 
 
 167 
Coupland, 1997; Montgomery, 1998, among others) are often clasified as mixed-use 
neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, however, there is litle sharing of facilities and 
public open spaces and ?the mixture is one of oil and water? (Montgomery, 1998, p. 
105). As a result, there are few opportunities for seing or meting people. 
The strets in this study posses a fine grain mix typical of older smal North 
American towns. This study showed that variety of stores was an important landuse 
characteristic to support livelines. The liveliest blocks in these strets had seven to eight 
busineses for every 200-foot segment of the block. On almost al of these lively blocks, 
there was a mix of places to eat/drink (coffe shop, restaurant, deli, pub/bar), to serve 
daily/wekly-shopping needs (convenience store, hardware, drycleaner), and to provide 
other services (bookshop, video shop, bank, florist, apparel, footwear, and so on). This 
variety provided most shopping needs on a stretch of just a few blocks. However, over 
the years, in some instances, smal shops have been consolidated into larger busineses 
and, in a few cases, entire blocks have been razed and replaced by new monolithic 
structures with few uses. This has detracted from some of the fine grain quality of mix in 
some blocks. The findings clearly suggest that blocks that lacked the fine grain mix and 
variety were les lively and not prefered by people. More important, this has taken away 
smal busineses many of which were community places for the people who live and 
work in the neighborhood. 
It is unrealistic and even inappropriate to suggest that a neighborhood commercial 
stret should consist only of cafes, coffe shops, restaurants, and the like, simply because 
these atract people and generate stationary, sustained, lingering and social activities. Any 
neighborhood is likely to support only a limited number of busineses of any particular 
 
 168 
kind. As found in this study, people desire and value amenities and conveniences that 
satisfy day-to-day needs of shopping, entertainment, and social contact. It is not 
unreasonable, therefore, to suggest a variety of busineses and stores as wel as physical 
characteristics on each block to provide for day-to-day shopping and leisure needs: some 
that generate and anchor stationary, sustained, lingering, and social activities, and others 
that support such activities. The fine grain mix of uses at each block mentioned earlier is 
important in containing the activity and the resulting livelines on just a few blocks. Even 
within a single block, it is suggested that activity-supporting busineses be clustered 
together as much as possible.   
Physical Qualities 
 Acording to this study six physical characteristics were most important in 
supporting livelines on the stret: commercial seating, public seating, width of sidewalk, 
shade on the sidewalk, other furniture and artifacts on the sidewalk, and articulation of 
the building facades. The relationship betwen commercial seating and livelines was the 
most evident. Among other physical characteristics the width of the sidewalk, as a clear 
pedestrian domain on the stret, was most important as it was required to acommodate 
most of the other physical characteristics, such as seating, tres for shade, and other 
furniture.  
 Additionaly, certain characteristics of the environment and the elements of the 
physical seting, such as permeability, personalization, articulation of the building 
facades, stret furniture, and signs, add to the perceptual diversity and complexity of the 
stret. It was not the intent of this study to quantify an optimal perceptual diversity and 
complexity. Nevertheles, the findings do suggest that strets with higher levels of 
 
 169 
perceptual diversity and complexity are generaly preferable. While considerable work is 
currently being done in the area of visual preference, the findings of this study show that 
visual preference is only one factor afecting people?s preference for an environment. It 
would be more appropriate to conduct further research regarding optimal levels of 
perceptual diversity and complexity by simultaneously studying the characteristics of use 
and the physical elements that engage al the senses. 
However, ?Who should be responsible for the overal design and operation of 
such public environments?? remains an open question. Presently, there is no profesion in 
the social sciences, design, planning, management, or marketing fields that caters to 
understanding and providing for the needs of a cultural, behavioral, and physical 
environment. Should this be a realm of the urban designer, architect, community planner, 
economic planner, or the Main Stret manager? Currently, the predominant paradigm in 
architecture and urban design lacks an engagement with the social sciences and scientific 
rigor. Should the holistic design of public environments be an area of education in the 
design and planning schools or should sociologists or environmental/ecological 
psychologists embrace it? 
For now, urban designers, social scientists, community planners, and urban space 
managers need to incorporate empiricaly studied characteristics that combine meaning, 
use, management, and physical characteristics, like the ones in this study, which appear 
to be foremost in the people?s choice of everyday use of neighborhood commercial 
strets. Community programs, and planning and economic development policies need to 
support and preserve smal independent busineses, especialy the ones that are perceived 
as community places, adopt building codes and laws, and management and design 
 
 170 
strategies that serve pedestrians and help integrate social functions to make neighborhood 
commercial strets more useful and atractive to its users. Above al, rather than just a 
channel for movement of people and vehicles, the neighborhood commercial stret 
should be conceived as a place for shopping, play, relaxation, and social interaction. 
 
  
 
 
 171 
 
 
 
APENDIX I 
 
FINAL SURVEY and INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT 
 
Introduction Leter, Questionnaire, and Visuals 
(One block of Masachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 172 
Introduction Leter 
 
Helo. My name is Vikas Mehta. I am a doctoral student in the Urban and 
Regional Planning and Design program at the University of Maryland. As a part of my 
disertation, I am studying people?s ideas about some parts of Central Square in 
Cambridge, MA. 
 
Anything you say wil be treated as confidential. Your responses and inputs wil 
not be directly asociated with your name but wil be combined with responses from 
other participants in this project to become a collective data-source. For example, the 
study wil mention that so many people said so-and-so as a response to a question without 
mentioning any names. 
 
As a part of the interview, I wil ask you a few questions about some parts of 
Central Square. I wil also show you some pictures of this area and ask you to respond to 
some questions about the pictures. 
 
I am not testing you on your knowledge about Central Square. There are no right 
or wrong answers to these questions. I am interested in your opinions. 
 
I appreciate your participation in this study. Please read and sign the Informed 
Consent Form on the back of this page. 
 
Thank you. 
 
 
 
 
Vikas Mehta 
Ph.D. Candidate 
Urban & Regional Planning & Design 
University of Maryland 
College Park, D 
vmehta@ursp.umd.edu 
617-577-5701 
 
 173 
Informed Consent Form 
 
Project Title: Lively Strets: Exploring the relationship betwen the 
physical environment and social behavior 
 
Statement of age of subject: You state that you are over 18 years of age and wish to 
participate in a program of research being conducted by 
Prof. Sidney Brower in the Department of Urban Studies 
and Planning at the University of Maryland, College Park. 
 
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to understand people?s use 
and ideas regarding strets in cities. 
 
Procedures: The procedure involves answering a questionnaire. 
 
Confidentiality: Al information collected in this study is confidential to the 
extent permited by law. The information you provide wil 
be grouped with information others provide for reporting 
and presentation and that your name wil neither be 
recorded nor used on the questionnaire. 
 
Risks: There are no known risks posed to you by this study. 
 
Benefits, Fredom &  Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. 
Ability to Withdraw, and The study is not designed to help you personaly, but to 
Ask Questions: help the investigator learn more about people?s use and 
ideas regarding strets in cities. You are fre to ask 
questions or withdraw from participation at any time and 
without penalty.  
 
Contact Information of Profesor Sidney Brower, 1230, School of Architecture, 
Investigator Planning and Preservation, 
 University of Maryland, College Park 
 Telephone: 301-405-6796 
 
Contact Information of If you have questions about your rights as a research 
Institutional Review Board: subject or wish to report a research-related injury, please 
contact: 
Institutional Review Board Ofice, 
 University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 
 Telephone: 301-405-0678 
 e-mail: irb@deans.umd.edu 
 
Name of Subject: 
Signature of Subject: ______________________________ 
Date: 
 
 174 
Questionnaire 
Again, there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. I am interested in your 
opinions. 
 
These are a few pictures of a block in this area. 
[Researcher shows one photograph with a general view of the block and two to three pictures 
(depending on the length of the block) taken at eye level while walking on the sidewalk on the 
block. These photographs atempt to capture and represent the diferent segments of the block. 
See Apendix 1a and 1b]. 
 
1. How familiar are you with this block? Please circle one of the folowing. 
 
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
      Not         Somewhat      Very 
    familiar          familiar          familiar 
 
2. I am going to ask you to rate this block for the range of different gods and services that are 
available on the block. Think of a block where there are stores that sell a variety of gods, and 
almost every store and business offers something different as a #10 range, and a block where 
there is a very limited number of stores, and every store and business offers much the same thing 
as #1 range.  
Now, using this scale of 1-10, tell me how you would rate this block for its range of different 
gods and services. 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
   Very litle            High  
     range             range 
 
3. Next, I am going to ask you to rate this block for the degree to which the gods and services 
available on this block are not commonly available on other blocks. 
Think of a block where almost every store and office offers gods and services that are only 
available on that block as a #10, and a block where every store and office offers gods and 
services that you can find almost anywhere as a #1. 
Now, using this scale of 1-10, tell me how you would rate this block. 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
  No special         Al special  
  Stores and shops           Stores and shops  
  
4. Now, I am going to ask you to rate this block for the frequency with which signs, show-
window displays, and other decorations change on the buildings and on the street. 
Think of a block where about half the stores and offices change signs, show indow displays and 
other decorations once every month as a #10, and a block where no stores or offices change any 
signs, show indow displays and other decorations for a year as a #1. 
Now, using this scale of 1-10, tell me how you would rate this block. 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10          Don?t 
     Litle             Once     know 
   or no change        a month or more   
 
 175 
5. The next question is about frequency of outdor events such as block parties, outdor sales, 
festival sales and other outdor events. 
Think of a block where at least one such event takes place once every month as a #10, and a 
block where such events almost never take place as a #1. 
Now, using this scale of 1-10, tell me how you would rate this block for its occurrence of 
events. 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10         Don?t 
     Few or             Daily   know 
   no events                    events 
 
6. Kindly provide me any other information on what kinds of events take place here, when 
they take place, and who are the participants. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
For the next series of questions, I wil ask you to use a visual scale. 
 
7. Here is the first scale. 
[Researcher shows the participant a visual scale. See Apendix 1c]. 
These two sketches ilustrate the two ends of a scale, which I wil call the "interesting" scale. 
The sketches differ in this respect: the one on the left shows a place where there are few signs, 
plantings, and openings at street level, and with litle variety, and no lighting fixtures, or 
furniture; the one on the right shows a place that has all of these features and with a lot of variety. 
Which place do you find more interesting to lok at? 
Now, please tell me whether you think this block is closer to the picture on the left or to the 
one on the right. Please indicate where it fals on a scale of 1?10, where 1 is just like the 
picture on the left, and 10 is just like the picture on the right. You may write the number 
here  
____  
 
 
8. Now, I wil show you a different visual scale. 
[Researcher shows the participant a visual scale. See Apendix 1d]. 
These two pictures ilustrate the two ends of a scale, which I wil call the "pedestrian-friendly" 
scale. 
 
The picture on the left represents a place that is not god for walking, siting, and other pedestrian 
activities, and the picture on the right represents a very god place for walking, siting, and other 
pedestrian activities. 
Now, please tell me whether you think this block is closer to the picture on the left or to the 
one on the right. Please indicate where it fals on a scale of 1?10, where 1 is just like the 
picture on the left, and 10 is just like the picture on the right. You may write the number 
here  
 ____ 
 
 176 
9. Here is the next visual scale. 
[Researcher shows the participant a visual scale. See Apendix 1e]. 
These two sketches ilustrate the two ends of another scale, which I wil call the "atractiveness" 
scale. 
 
The sketches differ in this respect: the one on the left shows a place where there are few openings 
at street level, and no planting, lighting fixtures, signs, or furniture; the one on the right shows a 
place that has all of these features. Which place do you find more attractive to lok at? 
Now, please tell me whether you think this block is closer to the picture on the left or to the 
one on the right. Please indicate where it fals on a scale of 1?10, where 1 is just like the 
picture on the left, and 10 is just like the picture on the right. You may write the number 
here  
 ____  
 
 
10. How safe do you feel walking around this block during daytime? 
I would like you to rate this on a ten-point scale, where #1 means you do not feel safe here at all, 
#5 or #6 means you feel somewhat safe and #10 means you feel very safe here during daytime. 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
    Not safe             Very safe  
     at all        
1. How safe do you feel walking around this block after dark? 
I would like you to rate this on a ten-point scale, where #1 means you do not feel safe here at all, 
#5 or #6 means you feel somewhat safe and #10 means you feel very safe here after dark. 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
    Not safe             Very safe  
     at all        
12. How ould you rate the overal physical condition of the buildings on this block in terms 
of cleanliness and need for repair? 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
   Very por    Poor     Fair     God      Excelent   
 
13. How ould you rate the overal physical condition of the sidewalk on this block in terms 
of cleanliness and need for repair? 
 
 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 
   Very por    Poor     Fair     God      Excelent   
 
 
I have a few more general questions.  
 
 17 
[Researcher tok the questionaire back from the participants and filed out their responses to 
the next ten questions]. 
14. Do you live in this area/neighborhood? 
If yes, please answer the folowing questions. If not, skip questions 15, 16 and 17, and proceed to 
question 18. 
 
15. How long have you lived in the area/neighborhood? 
16. What has changed in the area/neighborhood in the last few month or years? 
 
 
 
17. Can you tell me what changes, if any, have hapened in this block during that period? 
 
 
 
 
18. How frequently do you visit this block? 
 
19. What brings you here? And, what do you do when you are here? 
 
 
 
20. Do you use this block more often compared to other blocks on this street? If yes, why? If 
not, why not? 
 
 
 
 
21. Do you have favorite stores and shops on this block? If yes, what are they, and what 
makes them your favorite? 
 
 
 
 
 
2. What are the three most important things about this block that you would not want to 
change? 
 
 
 
 
 
23. What are the three most important things that you would like to change or add on this 
block? 
 
 178 
APENDIX Ia 
 
(One block of Masachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 
 179 
APENDIX Ib 
 
(One block of Masachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 180 
APENDIX Ic 
 
Interesting Scale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   
 
           Not Interesting         Interesting 
 
 
 
 
 181 
APENDIX Id 
 
Pedestrian-friendly Scale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10   
 
     Not Pedestrian-friendly        Pedestrian-friendly 
 
 182 
APENDIX Ie 
 
Atractivenes Scale 
 
 
 
 
      1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
 
 
        Not Atractive to look at       Atractive to look at 
 
   183 
 
APENDIX I 
 
Flyer advertising the study  
(Masachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 
 
   184 
 
 
 
 
APENDIX Ia 
 
Flyer advertising the study  
(Masachusets Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   185 
APENDIX II 
 
Characteristics of Survey-Interview Participants 
           Mas. Ave.      Harvard St.     Elm St.     TOTAL 
         Number Percent  Number Percent   Number Percent  Number Percent  
 
Age 
  18 to 29     7 3%    4 24%     2  16%    13    26% 
 30 to 4       8 38    6 35     5    38    19    37 
 45 to 59     4 19    6 35     5    38    15    29 
       60 and over     2 10    1  6     1     8     4     8    
 
Gender 
 Male     14 67%    9 53%     4    31%    27    53% 
 Female      7 3    8 47     9    69    24    47 
 
Race 
White-American    15 71%   14 82%    13  10%    42    82% 
African-American    1  5    1  6     0   0     2     4 
Hispanic-American    0  0    0  0     0     0     0     0 
Asian-American     3 14    2 12     0     0     5    10 
Hispanic     1  5    0  0     0     0     1     2 
Asian      1  5    0  0     0     0     1     2 
 
Marital Status 
Maried      9 43%    9 53%     6   46%    24    47% 
Single     1 52    7 41     7   54    25    49 
No response     1  5    1  6     0    0     2     4 
 
Ocupation 
 Artist/Musician/Writer    4 19%    2 1.5%     1    7.7%    7    13.5% 
Photographer/Play Director 
Schol Principal/    1  5    2 1.5     0    0     3     6 
Schol Teacher/Teacher 
 Sociologist            0  0    0  0     1    7.7     1     2 
 Researcher (Psychology)     1  5    1  6     0    0     2     4 
 Marketing/Advertising/    1  5    2 1.5     1    7.7     4     7.5 
Comunications/Fundraising 
Publishing/Editor    1   5    1  6     1    7.7     3     6 
Computer Eng/Sys. Admn    2  9.5    1  6     1    7.7     4     7.5 
Programer/Software Eng. 
Sound Enginer     0  0    1  6     0    0     1     2 
Busines owner     0  0    2 1.5     1    7.7     3     6 
Busines Manager    2  9.5    0  0     0    0     2     4 
Administrator     1  5    1  6     0    0     2     4 
Disaster Mngmnt. Planer    0  0    1  6     0    0     1     2 
Atorney                  0  0    0  0     1    7.7     1     2 
Architect     1  5    0  0     0    0     1     2 
Web Designer          0  0    0  0     1    7.7     1     2 
Employe in Hardware    0  0    1  6     0    0     1     2 
Store/Picture-framing store 
Realtor      0  0    0  0     1    7.7     1     2 
Employe w/ non-profit    1  5    0  0     0    0     1     2 
Nurse      1  5    0  0     0    0     1     2 
 
 
   186 
           Mas. Ave.      Harvard St.     Elm St.     TOTAL 
         Number Percent  Number Percent   Number Percent  Number Percent  
 
Ocupation (contd.) 
Police Oficer     0  0%    0  0%     1    7.7%    1     2% 
Student      2  9.5    1  6     1    7.7     4     7.5 
Retire      1  5    1  6     1    7.7     3     6  
Loking for Job     0  0    0  0     1    7.7     1     2 
No Response     2  9.5    0  0     0    0     2     4 
 
TOTAL     21  10%   17  10%    13    10%    51   10% 
 
 
   187 
APENDIX IV 
 
Description of Measures for each Characteristic 
 
The author or architects/urban designers calculated scores by visiting each neighborhood 
commercial stret 
 
1. Variety of gods and services on the block  
 
Variety was based on the type of businesses and other public uses at the street level, which were 
open during normal business hours on the block. Only public uses, as described above, were 
included in determining variety. A block that had two banks, a restaurant, a coffee shop, a fast 
food restaurant, a hair salon, and a video store would result in a score of six for that block. The 
two banks would only count as contributing one to the score of variety. This score for the block 
was then used as a score of variety for each block-segment on that block. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
2. Number of independent businesses at the block-segment 
 
Al independently owned or small local chain stores at the street level on the block-segment were 
included. Again, only public uses, as described above, were included in determining the score for 
independent businesses. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
3. Degree of permeability of street-front at the block-segment 
 
Al businesses and uses (public or private) at the street level were individually rated. The degree 
of permeability was determined by rating how ell the activities inside the buildings were visible 
or could be sensed by sound or smell from the street. Each architect/urban designer rated the 
permeability for each business or use (see Apendix IVa). The scores for all businesses or uses 
within a block-segment were aggregated and a mean calculated. Finally, a mean was calculated 
for all four raters? scores to determine the final permeability score for a block-segment. 
 
Calculated by: Four architects/urban designers including the author 
Unit of measurement: Likert-type scale rating ranging from 1 to 10 
 
4. Degree of personalization of storefront at the block-segment 
 
Al businesses and uses (public or private) at the street level were individually rated. The degree 
of personalization was determined by rating how the interface of the business with the street 
(building fa?ade, entrances, show-windows) was embellished with personal touches such as 
displays, decorations, signs, banners, planters, flowerboxes, and other wares. Each architect/urban 
designer rated the personalization for each business or use (see Apendix IVb). The scores for all 
businesses or uses within a block-segment were aggregated and a mean calculated. Finally, a 
 
   18 
mean was calculated for all four raters? scores to determine the final personalization score for a 
block-segment. 
 
Calculated by: Four architects/urban designers including the author 
Unit of measurement: Likert-type scale rating ranging from 1 to 10 
 
5. Number of Comunity Places at the block-segment 
 
As a response to an interview question, people mentioned certain businesses that were places 
where they would come to meet neighbors, friends, and strangers. They identified these 
businesses as places that reinforced their sense of community. 
 
Calculated by: author (based on the places people mentioned in the interviews) 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
6. Percent articulation of street-front at the block-segment 
 
Articulation of building fa?ade measured how much of it was articulated and punctuated with 
noks, corners, alcoves, small setbacks, steps, and ledges at the street level. It was calculated as a 
percentage for each block-segment and the percentage was converted to a score. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: percent converted to a score (for example, 68% = 6.8) 
 
7. Number of public (non-comercial) seating at the block-segment 
 
Public or non-commercial seating included benches and chairs that were provided by a public 
agency where people could sit at the sidewalk or street without having to pay for any gods or 
services. It was calculated as number of seats for each block-segment. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
8. Number of comercial seating at the block-segment 
 
Commercial seats were outdor seating oportunities provided by private businesses usually in 
the form chairs. Usually, only patrons of these businesses were permited to use these seats. 
It was calculated as number of seats for each block-segment. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
9. Average sidewalk width at the block-segment 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number in feet 
 
 
 
   189 
10. Percent shade and shelter from trees and canopies at the block-segment 
 
Shade and shelter at the street was provided by tree canopies, awnings, overhangs, canopies, and 
other shading devices. It was measured as a percent of area on the sidewalk that was under shade 
at each block-segment. The percentage was converted to a score. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: percent converted to a score (for example, 68% = 6.8) 
 
1. Number of other street furniture and physical artifacts at the block-segment 
 
Al objects (other than chairs, tables, benches and other seating) that users of the street could sit 
or lean on such as tree trunks, poles, parking meters, bicycle racks, newspaper-dispensing boxes, 
integral seating as ledges, railings, and so on, were counted at each block-segment. 
 
Calculated by: author 
Unit of measurement: number 
 
   190 
 
 
 
APENDIX IVa 
 
Rating form for Permeability for each business 
(Part of Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
 
Kindly rate each of the folowing stores or businesses for the degree to which gods, services 
and activities inside the store can be seen, heard, touched and/or smelled from outside. 
 
Think of a store with the highest permeability and in-out conectivity as a #10 and a store that 
offers very litle or no conection to the outside as a #1. 
 
Store or Business    Rating (1 to 10)   
Holywod Video _____________ 
Hair Colage _________________ 
1369 Coffeehouse _____________ 
Omni Hair __________________ 
Pils Hardware ______________ 
Asmara Restaurant _______________ 
Picante Restaurant ____________ 
Seven Stars Books _______________ 
Kaplan?s _________________ 
Convenience Store _______________ 
Bank of America _____________ 
 
Citizen?s Bank _________________ 
T-Mobile _________________ 
Office _____________________ 
Leader Bank _______________ 
 
Starbucks ___________________ 
Central Square Florist ___________ 
Wainwright Bank ________________ 
Cheapo Records ______________ 
 
   191 
 
 
 
APENDIX IVb 
 
Rating form for Personalization for each business 
(Part of Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square, Cambridge, MA example) 
 
Kindly rate each of the folowing stores or businesses for the degree to which they have 
personalized their street front with signs, displays, decorations, plants, flowers and so on 
and by bringing out their wares, gods and services to the street. 
 
Think of a store with a street front that is ful of personal touches as a #10 and a store with very 
litle or no personal expression on the street front as a #1. 
 
Store or Business    Rating (1 to 10)   
Holywod Video _____________ 
Hair Colage _________________ 
1369 Coffeehouse _____________ 
Omni Hair __________________ 
Pils Hardware ______________ 
Asmara Restaurant _______________ 
Picante Restaurant ____________ 
Seven Stars Books _______________ 
Kaplan?s _________________ 
Convenience Store _______________ 
Bank of America _____________ 
 
Citizen?s Bank _________________ 
T-Mobile _________________ 
Office _____________________ 
Leader Bank _______________ 
 
Starbucks ___________________ 
Central Square Florist ___________ 
Wainwright Bank ________________ 
Cheapo Records ______________ 
 
   192 
 
 
 
LIST OF REFERENCES 
 
 
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Pres. 
 
Alexander, C. (1965). A City is Not a Tre. Architectural Forum, April/May, 58f. 
 
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., and Angel, 
S. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford 
University Pres 
 
Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, 
Teritory, Crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. 
 
Altman, I. and Zube, E. (eds.) (1989). Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum. 
 
Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable Strets. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of 
California Pres. 
 
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. 
 
Arens, E., and Bosselmann, P. (1989). Wind, sun and temperature ? predicting the 
thermal comfort of people in outdoor spaces. Building and Environment, 24 (3), 315-320. 
 
Arnold, H. (1993). Tres in Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 
 
Asplund, J. (1979). Theories about the Future. Stockholm: Liber. 
 
Bacon, E. (1967). Design of Cities. New York: Viking Pres. 
 
Banerje, T. (2001). The future of public space - Beyond invented strets and reinvented 
places. Journal of the American Planning Asociation, 67 (1), pp. 9-24. 
 
Banerje, T. and Loukaitou-Sederis, A. (1992). Private production of downtown public 
open spaces: Experiences of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Los Angeles: University of 
Southern California, School of Urban and Regional Planning. 
 
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology. California: Stanford University Pres. 
 
Barker, R. and Wright, H. (1966). One Boy?s Day. New York: Harper Brothers. 
 
 
   193 
Bechtel, R. (1977). Enclosing Behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and 
Ross. 
 
Bechtel, R. (1997). Environment and Behavior: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage Publications. 
 
Bechtel, R., and Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The World Under a Glas. In R. Bechtel, 
R. Marans and W. Michelson (eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral 
Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 
 
Becker, F. (1973). A clas-conscious evaluation: Going back to Sacramento?s pedestrian 
mal. Landscape Architecture, 64, 295-345. 
 
Bel, P., Fisher, J. Baum, A., and Gren, T. (1990). Environmental Psychology (third 
edition). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 
 
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrian, P. McGlynn, S. and Smith, G. (1985). Responsive 
Environments: A Manual for Designers. London: Architectural Pres. 
 
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hil. 
 
Berman, M. (1986). Take it to the strets: Conflict and community in public space. 
Disent, 33 (4), 476-485. 
 
Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., and Dawson, S. (1994). The shopping mal as a consumer 
habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70 (1), 23-42. 
 
Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., and Sherel, D. (1989). Extending the concept of shopping: An 
investigation in browsing activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 13-
21. 
 
Boarnet, M. G., and Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of urban form on 
travel. New York: Oxford University Pres. 
 
Bosselmann, P., Flores, J., Gray, W., Priestley, T., Anderson, R., Arens, E., Dowty, P., 
So, S., and Kim, J. (1984). Sun, wind and comfort: A study of open spaces and sidewalks 
in four downtown areas. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 
College of Environmental Design, University of California. 
 
Boyer, M. (1994). The city of collective memory: Its historical imagery and architectural 
entertainments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Bril, M. (1989). Transformation, Nostalgia, and Ilusion in Public Life and Public Place. 
In I. Altman (ed.), Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Pres. 
 
Bril, M. (1990). An ontology for exploring urban public life today. Places, 6 (1), 24-31. 
 
   194 
Brower, S. (1980). Teritory in Urban Setings. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport and J. 
Wohlwil (eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research 
(Vol. 4 Environment and Culture). New York: Plenum 
 
Brower, S. (1988). Design in Familiar Places: What makes home environments look 
good. New York: Praeger Publishers. 
 
Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 
 
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for 
Windows. London: Routledge. 
 
Burden, A. (1977). Grenacre Park. New York: Project for Public Spaces. 
 
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis. Ecology, Community and the 
American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Pres. 
 
Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. New York: St. Martin's Pres. 
 
Canter, D. (1991). Understanding, asesing, and acting in places: Is an integrative 
framework possible? In G. Evans (ed.), Environment, cognition, and action: An 
integrative approach. New York: Oxford University Pres. 
 
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdel, S. (2003). Public Places - Urban Spaces: 
The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Pres. 
 
Car, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: 
Cambridge University Pres. 
 
Catel, R. (1966). The meaning and the strategic use of factor analysis. In Catel, R. 
(ed.), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNaly. 
 
Celik, Z., Favro, D., and Ingersoll, R. (eds.) (1995). Strets: Critical Perspectives on 
Public Space. Berkeley, CA: University of California Pres. 
 
Cerver, F. A. (1997). Redesigning City Squares and Plazas. New York: Hearst Books 
International. 
 
Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American 
Housing Survey. Transportation Research A, 30 (5), 361-377. 
 
Cervero, R., and Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, 
and design. Transportation Research D, 2 (3), 199-219. 
 
Chekki, D. (ed.) (1994). The community of the strets. Grenwich, CT: Jai Pres Inc. 
 
 
   195 
Chidister, M. (1989). Public places, private lives: Plazas and the broader public 
landscape. Places, 6 (1), 32-37. 
 
Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architecture: Form, Space and Order (second ed.) New York: 
Van Nostrand Reinhold. 
 
Choay, F. (1997). The Rule and the Model: On Theory of Architecture and Urbanism. 
Braton, D. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: IT Pres. 
 
Christoforidis, A. (1994). New alternatives to the suburbs: Neo-traditional developments. 
Journal of Planning Literature, 8, 429-440. 
 
Ciolek, M. T. (1978). Spatial Behavior in Pedestrian Areas. Ekistics, 45 (268) March-
April, 120-122. 
 
Cohen, H., Moss, S. and Zube, E. (1979). Pedestrians and the wind in the urban 
environment. In A. Seidel and S. Danford (eds.), Environmental Design: Research , 
Theory and Application (EDRA 10) (pp. 71-82). Washington, DC: EDRA. 
 
Coley, R., Kuo, F., and Sullivan, W. (1997). Where does community grow? The social 
context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29 (4), 
468-492. 
 
Cooper Marcus, C., and Francis, M. (1998). People Places: Design guidelines for urban 
open space (second ed.). New York: Wiley. 
 
Coupland, A. (ed.) (1997). Reclaiming the City: Mixed use development. London: E & 
FN Spon. 
 
Craik, K. (1970). Environmental Psychology. In K. Craik, B. Kleinmuntz, R. Rosnow, B. 
Rosenthal, J. Cheyne and R. Walters (Eds.), New Directions in Psychology, 4 (pp. 1-122). 
New York: Holt, Rinehart and inston. 
 
Crane, R. (2000). The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretative review. 
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15 (1), 3-23. 
 
Creswel, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
 
Croney, J. (1971). Anthropometrics for Designers. New York: Van Nostrand. 
 
Crowhurst-Lennard, S. and Lennard, H. (1987). Livable Cities ? People and Places: 
Social and Design Principals for the Future of the City. New York: Center for Urban 
Wel-being. 
 
 
   196 
Crowhurst-Lennard, S. and Lennard, H. (1995). Livable Cities Observed. IMCL Council. 
Carmel, CA: Gondolier Pres. 
 
Cullen, G. N. (1961). The Concise Townscape. New York: Reinhold Publishing 
Corporation. 
 
Dane, S. (1997). Main Stret succes stories. Washington, DC: National Main Stret 
Center, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 
 
De Jonge, D. (1967-68). Applied Hodology. Landscape, 17 (2), 10-11. 
 
De Wolfe, I. (1966). The Italian Townscape. New York: G. Braziler. 
 
Dornbush, D., and Gelb, P. (1977). High-rise impact on the use of parks and plazas. In D. 
Conway (ed.), Human Response to Tall Buildings (pp. 112-130). Stroudsburg, PA: 
Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. 
 
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck. J. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl 
and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Pres, a Division of 
Farar, Straus and Giroux. 
 
Elshestaway, Y. (1997). Urban Complexity: Toward the measurement of the physical 
complexity of stretscapes. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14, 301-
316. 
 
Eubank-Ahrens, B. (1985). Impact of Woonerven on children?s behavior. Children?s 
Environments Quarterly, 1 (4), 39-45. 
 
Eubank-Ahrens, B. (1991). A closer look at the users of Woonerven. In A. Vernez-
Moudon (ed.). Public Strets for Public Use. New York: Columbia University Pres. 
 
Ewing, R. (1996). Best Development Practices. American Planning Asociation. 
Chicago, IL: Planners Pres. 
 
Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment. Transportation 
Research Record, 1780, 87-114. 
 
Ewing, R., Clemente, O., Handy, S., Brownson, R., and Winston, E. (2005). Identifying 
and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Final Report prepared for 
the Active Living Research Program of the Robert ood Johnson Foundation. 
 
Falk, P. (1997). The scopic regimes of shopping. In P. Falk and C. Campbel (Eds.), The 
Shopping Experience (pp. 177-185). London: Sage Publications. 
 
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it?s transforming work, leisure, 
community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. 
 
   197 
 
Francis, M. (1985). Children?s use of open space in Vilage Homes. Children?s 
Environments Quarterly, 1 (4), 36-38. 
 
Francis, M. (1988). Negotiating betwen Children and Adult Design Values in Open 
Space Project. Design Study, 9 (2), 67-75. 
 
Francis, M. (2003). Urban Open Space: Designing for User Neds. Washington, DC: 
Island Pres. 
 
Frank, L., and Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and human activity paterns: 
Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature, 16 
(1), 202-218. 
 
Frank, L., Engelke, P. O., and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and Community Design: The 
impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC: Island Pres. 
 
Fyfe, N. (ed.) (1998). Images of the Stret. London: Routledge. 
 
Garvin, A., and Berens, G. (1997). Urban Parks and Open Spaces. Washington, DC: The 
Urban Land Institute. 
 
Gehl, J. (1987). Life Betwen Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. 
 
Gehl, J. (1989). A Changing Stret Life in a Changing Society. Places, 6 (1), 9-17.  
 
Gehl, J., and Gemzoe, L. (1996). Public Spaces Public Life. Copenhagen: Arkitektens 
Forlag. 
 
Gehl, J., and Gemzoe, L. (2000). New City Spaces. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural 
Pres. 
 
Gibberd, F. (1969). Town Design. New York: Praeger. 
 
Gibson, J. J. (1979). An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: 
Houghton Miflin. 
 
Girouard, M. (1985). Cities & People: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven, 
CT: Yale University Pres. 
 
Granoveter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 
1360-1380. 
 
Grenbaum, S. (1982). Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Social Networks, 4, 367-
384. 
 
 
   198 
Grenwald, M. J., and Boarnet, M. G. (2000). Built environment as a determinant of 
walking behavior: Analyzing non work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. 
Transportation Research Record, 1780, 33-42. 
 
Grey, A. et al. (1970). People and Downtown. Seatle: College of Architecture and Urban 
Planning, University of Washington. 
 
Groth, P. (1997). Frameworks for Cultural Landscape Study. In P. Groth and T. Bresi 
(eds.), Understanding Ordinary Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Pres. 
 
Hal, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension (1969 ed.) Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 
 
Handy, S., Boarnet, M., Ewing, R., and Kilingsworth, R. (2002). How the built 
environment afects physical activity-Views from planning. American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine, 25 (28), 64-73. 
 
Has-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C. and Nold, I. (1999). Strets as Living Space: 
Helping public spaces play their proper role. London: ETP/Landor. 
 
Hayden, D. (1995). The Power of Place. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Heath, T., Smith, S., and Lim, B. (2000). The Complexity of Tal Building Facades. 
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (3), 206-220. 
 
Heft, H. (1989). Afordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson?s 
ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 
1-30. 
 
Heft, H. (1997). The Relevance of Gibson's Ecological Approach to Perception for 
Environment-Behavior Studies. In G. Moore and R. Marans (eds.), Advances in 
Environment, Behavior, and Design, Volume 4: Toward the Integration of Theory, 
Methods, Research, and Utilization. New York: Plenum Pres. 
 
Herzog, T., Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. (1982). The Prediction of Preference for 
Unfamiliar Urban Places. Population and Environment, 5 (1), 43-59. 
 
Hester, R. (1984). Planning Neighborhood Space with People. Second edition. New 
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 
 
Hester, R. (1993). Sacred structures and everyday life: A return to Manteo, North 
Carolina. In D. Seamon (ed.), Dweling seing and designing: Toward a 
phenomenological ecology (pp. 217-298). NY: State University of New York Pres. 
 
His, T. (1990). The Experience of Place. New York: Knopf. 
 
 
   19 
Hope, T. and Hough, M. (1988). Area, crime and incivility: A profile from the British 
Crime Survey. In T. Hope and M. Shaw (Eds.), Comunities and crime reduction, (pp. 
30-47). London: HMSO. 
 
Hull, R., and Harvey, A. (1989). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban 
parks. Environment and Behavior, 21, 323-345. 
 
Hummon, D. M. (1986). Urban views: Popular perspectives on city life. Urban Life, 15, 
1, (April, 1986), 3-36. 
 
Jacobs, A. (1993). Great Strets. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Pres. 
 
Jacobs, A., and Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto. Journal of 
American Planning Asociation, 53, 112-120. 
 
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage 
Books. 
 
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1987). Women, shopping and leisure. Leisure Studies, 6, 71-86. 
 
Jarvis, R. (1980). Urban environments as visual art or social seting. Town Planning 
Review, 151, 50-66. 
 
Joardar, S. (1977). Emotional and Behavioral Responses of People to Urban Plazas: A 
case study of downtown Vancouver. Doctoral Disertation, University of British 
Columbia, Canada. 
 
Joardar, S. and Neil, J. (1978). The subtle diferences in configuration of smal public 
spaces. Landscape Architecture, 68 (11), 487-491. 
 
Johansen, B. (2005). Imagined Pasts, Imagined Futures: Race, Politics, Memory, and the 
Revitalization of Downtown Silver Spring, Maryland. Doctoral Disertation, University of 
Maryland. 
 
Johnston, C. (2005). ?What is Social Value?? Teaching Heritage. WW page, at URL: 
http:/ww.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/1views/w1v_johnston.html 
(version current as of October 26, 2006). 
 
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature ? A Psychological 
Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Pres. 
 
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison 
of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530. 
 
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind: Design and 
Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Pres. 
 
   20 
 
Kasturi, T., Sun, X., and Wilmot, C. G. (1998). Household travel, household 
characteristics, and land use: An empirical study from the 1994 Portland activity-based 
travel survey. Transportation Research Record, 1617, 10-17. 
 
Kitamura, R., Laidet, L., and Mokhtarian, P. (1997). A micro-analysis of land use and 
travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24, 125-158. 
 
Knowles, P., and Smith, D. (1982). The ecological perspective applied to social 
perception: Revision of a working paper. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 12, 
53-78. 
 
Krier, L. (1992). Leon Krier: architecture and urban design, 1967-1992. New York: St. 
Martins Pres. 
 
Krier, R. (1979). Urban Space. New York: Rizoli. 
 
Kunstler, J. H. (1994). The Geography of Nowhere: the Rise and Decline of America's 
Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster. 
 
Kuo, F., Bacaicoa, M., and Sullivan, W. (1998). Transforming inner-city neighborhoods: 
Tres, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30 (1), 343-367. 
 
Lang, J. (1979). Design Theory from an Environment and Behavior Perspective. In J. 
Lang (ed.), Advances in Environment Behavior and Design, 3, 53-101. 
 
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in 
environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 
 
Lang, J. (1994). Urban Design: The American experience. New York: Van Nostrand 
Reinhold Co. 
 
Langdon, P. (1997). A Beter Place to Live: Reshaping the American suburb. Amherst, 
MA: University of Masachusets Pres. 
 
Liebermann, E. (1984). People?s needs and preferences as the basis of San Francisco?s 
downtown open space plan. Paper presented at the 8
th
 conference of the International 
Asociation for the Study of People and Their Physical Surroundings, Berlin, July. 
 
Linday, N. (1978). It al comes down to a comfortable place to sit and watch. Landscape 
Architecture, 68 (6), 492-497. 
 
Llewelyn-Davies (2000). Urban Design Compendium. London: English 
Partnerships/Housing Corporation. 
 
 
   201 
Lofland, L. (1973). A World of Strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New 
York: Basic Books. 
 
Lofland, L. (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City?s Quintesential Social 
Teritory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 
 
Longo, G. (1996). Great American Public Places. New York: Urban Initiatives. 
 
Loukaitou-Sederis, A. and Banerje, T. (1993). The negotiated plaza: Design and 
development of corporate open space in downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco. 
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13, 1-12. 
 
Loukaitou-Sederis, A. and Banerje, T. (1998). Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and 
politics of form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Pres. 
 
Low, S. M. (2000). On the Plaza: The politics of public space and culture. Austin, TX: 
University of Texas Pres. 
 
Lozano, E. (1974). Visual needs in the urban environment. Town Planning Review, 45 
(4), 351-374. 
 
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Lynch, K. (1984). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Lynch, K., and Hack, G. (1984). Site Planning (third ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space. New York: Wiley. 
 
Marsh, M. (1990). Suburban Lives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Pres. 
 
Maslow, A. (1943). Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. 
 
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. 
 
McMilan, D. and Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of Community: A definition and theory. 
Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1), 6-23. 
 
Mesenger, T., and Ewing, R. (1996). Transit-oriented development in the Sunbelt. 
Transportation Research Record, 1552, 145-152. 
 
Michelson, W. (1975). Behavioral Research Methods in Environmental Design. 
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. 
 
Miles, D., Cook, R., and Cameron, R. (1978). Plazas for People. New York: Project for 
Public Spaces. 
 
   202 
 
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded 
sourcebook (2
nd
 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 
 
Montgomery, J. (1997). Cafe Culture and the City: The role of pavement cafes in urban 
public social life. Journal of Urban Design, 2 (1), 83-102. 
 
Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. Journal of 
Urban Design, 3 (1), 93-116. 
 
Moore, R. (1991). Strets as Playgrounds. In A. Vernez-Moudon (ed.), Public Strets for 
Public Use. New York: Columbia University Pres. 
 
Nager, A. and Wentworth, W. (1976). Bryant Park: A comprehensive evaluation of its 
image and use with implications for urban open space design. New York: Center for 
Human Environments, City University of New York. 
 
Nasar, J. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. 
Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401. 
 
Nasar, J. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
 
National Main Stret Center (NMSC) (2006). Internet WW page, at URL: < 
http:/ww.mainstret.org/> (current as of July, 2006). 
 
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1982). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. 
New York: Rizoli. 
 
Oldenburg, R. (1981). The Great Good Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California 
Pres. 
 
Par, A. (1965). Environmental Design and Psychology. Landscape, 14, 15-18. 
 
Perin, C. (1970). With Man in Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Perkins, D. (1986). The crime-related physical and social environmental correlates of 
citizen participation in block associations. Paper presented to the annual meting of the 
American Psychological Asociation, Washington, DC. 
 
Perkins, D., Mek, J., and Taylor, R. (1992). The physical environment of stret blocks 
and residents? perception of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and 
measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34. 
 
 
   203 
Perkins, D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R., and Taylor, R. (1993). The physical environment 
of stret crime: Defensible space, teritoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental 
Psychology, 13, 29-49. 
 
Plat, J. (1959). The Fifth Ned of Man. Horizon, VI, 106-111. 
 
Porteous, J. (1996). Environmental aesthetics: ideas, politics and planning. London: 
Routledge. 
 
Prieser, W. (1971). The use of ethological methods in environmental analysis: A case 
study. Environmental Design Research Asociation (EDRA 3). 
 
Project for Public Spaces (PS) (2000). How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for 
Creating Succesful Public Spaces. New York: PS. 
 
Pushkarev, B., and Zupan, J. (1975). Urban Space for Pedestrians. Cambridge, MA: MIT 
Pres. 
 
Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. Englewood Clifs, CA: Prentice Hal. 
 
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon Pres. 
 
Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment: a Nonverbal 
Communication Approach. (1990 ed.). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Pres. 
 
Rapoport, A. (1990). History and Precedent in Environmental Design. New York: 
Plenum Pres.  
 
Rapoport, A., and Kantor, R. (1967). Complexity and ambiguity in environmental design. 
American Institute of Planners Journal, 33 (4), 210-221. 
 
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelesnes. London: Pion. 
 
Rossi, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Pres. 
 
Roth, L. M. (1993). Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History and Meaning. 
Boulder, CO: Westview Pres. 
 
Rowe, C., and Koeter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres. 
 
Rudofsky, B. (1969). Strets for People. New York: Doubleday. 
 
Rybczynski, W. (1993). The New Downtowns. Atlantic Monthly, 271 (5), 98-106. 
 
Rybczynski, W. (1995). City Life: Urban Expectations in a New World. New York: 
Scribner. 
 
   204 
 
Saelens, B. E., Salis, J. F., and Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking 
and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. 
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25 (1), 80-91. 
 
Schneekloth, L. H., and Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The Art of Practice of 
Building Communities. New York: Wiley. 
 
Sennet, R. (1971). The uses of disorder: personal identity and city life. New York: 
Vintage Books. 
 
Share, L. (1978). A. P. Giannini Plaza and Transamerica Park: Efects of their physical 
characteristics on users? perception and experiences. In W. Rogers and W. Itelson (eds.), 
New Directions in Environmental Design Research (EDRA 9). 127-139. ashington, 
DC: EDRA. 
 
Sharp, T. (1968). Town and Townscape. London: John Murray. 
 
Site, C. (1889). Translated by Stewart, Charles T. 1945. City planning according to 
Artistic Principles. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation. 
 
Skj?veland, O. (2001). Efects of stret parks on social interactions among neighbors: A 
place perspective. Journal of Architectural Planning Research, 18 (2), 131-147. 
 
Skogan, W. and Maxfield, M. (1981). Coping with Crime: Individual and neighborhood 
reactions. Beverly Hils, CA: Sage Publications. 
 
Smith, P. F. (1980). Urban Aesthetics. In B. Mikelides (ed.), Architecture and People 
74-86. London: Studio Vista. 
 
Smith, R. (1975). Measuring neighborhood cohesion: A review of some suggestions. 
Human Ecology, 3, 139-160. 
 
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. London: Prentice-
Hal. 
 
Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992). Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Noonday. 
 
Southworth, M. and Ben-Joseph, E. (1996). Strets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. 
New York: cGraw-Hil. 
 
Stamps, A. (1999). Sex, complexity, and preferences for residential facades. Perceptual 
and motor skils, 88 (3), 1301-1312. 
 
Stele, F. (1973). Physical Setings and Organizational Development. Reading, MA: 
Addison-Wesley. 
 
   205 
 
Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of environmental psychology. American Psychologist, 
50, 821-837. 
 
Studer, R. (1969). The dynamics of behavior-contingent physical systems. In A. Ward 
and G. Broadbent (eds.), Design Methods in Architecture (pp. 59-70). London: Lund 
Humphries. 
 
Sullivan, W., Kuo, F., and DePooter, S. (2004). The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital 
Neighborhood Spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36 (5), 678-700. 
 
Tacken, M. (1989). A comfortable wind climate for outdoor relaxation in urban areas. 
Building and Environment, 24 (4), 321-324. 
 
Tauber, E. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 6-59. 
 
Taylor, L. (1981). Urban Open Spaces. New York: Rizoli. 
 
Taylor, R., Gottfredson, S. and Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear - defensible 
space, local social ties, and teritorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and 
Delinquency, 21 (4), 303-331. 
 
Thomas, M. (1991). The demise of public space, (pp. 209-224). Source unknown. 
 
Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making People Friendly Towns: Improving the public environment 
in towns and cities. Harlow, UK: Longman. 
 
Trochim, Wiliam M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Internet 
WW page, at URL: <http:/trochim.human.cornel.edu/kb/index.htm> (version current 
as of August 16, 2004). 
 
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: 
University of Minnesota Pres. 
 
Untermann, R. (1984). Acommodating the Pedestrian. New York: Van Nostrand 
Reinhold. 
 
Vernez-Moudon, A. (ed.) (1991). Public Strets for Public Use. New York: Columbia 
University Pres. 
 
Vernez-Moudon, A., Hes, P. M., Snyder, M. C., and Stanilov, K. (1997). Efects of site 
design and pedestrian travel in mixed-use, medium density environments. Transportation 
Research Record, 1578, 48-55. 
 
Von Meis, P. (1990). Elements of Architecture: From form to place. London: E & FN 
Spon. 
 
   206 
 
Walzer, M. (1986). Pleasures and cost of urbanity. Disent, 33, 470-484. 
 
White, R. (1959). Motivation Reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological 
Review LXVI, 297-333. 
 
Wicker, A. (1979). An Introduction to Ecological Psychology. Monterey, CA: 
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 
 
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: The 
Conservation Foundation. 
 
Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday. 
 
Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (third ed.) Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
 
Zacharias, J., Stathopoulos, T. and Wu, H. (2001). Microclimate and downtown open 
space activity. Environment and Behavior, 33 (2), 296-315. 
 
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research. 
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. 
 
Zucker, P. (1959). Town and Square: From the Agora to the Vilage Gren. New York: 
Columbia University Pres. 
 
Zukin, S. (1996). The Culture of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwel Publishing.