West Coast Parklets: a review of parklets in west coast cities

WEST COAST PARKLETS a review of parklets in west coast cities

DIANNE YEE Dec 2014

West Coast Parklets [] YEE 2014 2

Abstract This paper presents an up-to-date (until December 2014) review of parklets in the following West Coast cities: San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. It also includes the beginnings of a parklet inventory that could be expanded upon by city and through time. Through examining case studies, this paper hopes to provide advice to people who aim to create parklets, and to cities to learn from each other in developing their parklet programs. Contents Introduction 3

Park(ing) Day 3 Parklets 3 Research Purpose 4 Methods 4

San Francisco 5 Pavement to Parks 5 Divisadero Street Parklet 6 Deepistan National Park(let) 6 Mama Art Café Parklet 7 Mobile Parklets 8 Powell Street Promenade 8 Complications 9 Lessons Learned 10 A Strict Process 11

Vancouver 12 Parallel Park 12

Oakland 13 Actual Cafe 13 Arizmendi 14 Farley’s East 14 New Parklets 14

Berkeley 15 Long Beach 15 Los Angeles 17 Portland 18

Design Competitions 19 Opposition 20

Seattle 20 San Diego 21 Discussion 22 Limitations and Future Research 23 Cover photo: Parklet at Devil’s Teeth Baking Company in San Francisco. All photos are from flickr/sfplanning unless otherwise noted. © 2014 Dianne Yee.


Introduction Park( ing) Day

On 16 November 2005, Rebar Group, an art and design studio based in San Francisco, made a revolutionary move. They paid for two hours’ worth of time at a parking meter in SOMA (South of Market District), an area underserved by public open space, and laid out sod, a planter, a bench, and plopped down in the mini-park of a parking space. After the meter expired, they rolled up everything and left. The image of the temporary park went viral, and Rebar received requests to create their Park(ing) project in other cities. Instead of allowing their installation to be replicated exactly, Rebar “decided to promote the project as an ‘open-source’ project, and created a how-to manual to empower people to create their own parks without the active participation of Rebar. And thus ‘PARK(ing) Day’ was born” (Rebar, 2012). Since 2005, over one hundred cities across six continents have participated in Park(ing) Day. It is still celebrated annually on the third Friday of September. These temporary takeovers of car parking spaces, a form of “tactical/guerrilla urbanism”, kicked off a discussion of urban infrastructure and how streets are used. In most forward-thinking cities, people are now somewhat familiar with the notion that parking spaces could be better utilized in some other way, such as small parks and seating areas. Parklets

The Park(ing) Day installations came to be known as temporary “parklets”, and people loved them so much they desired for them to be permanent. Today, parklets are institutionalized in many cities as public space programs to convert underutilized space into vibrant community spaces. They are converted from curbside car parking spaces and usually feature designs that incorporate seating and greenery. They can be designed to be permanent or semi-permanent, depending on conditions like weather (concern for snow removal) and intended lifespan. They are often produced through partnerships between the city, local businesses, residents, or neighborhood groups. The first official parklet, meaning endorsed by a city through an official process, was installed in San Francisco in 2010. Since that first parklet, other cities across North America have followed suit in developing their own program to allow businesses and residents to construct parklets. But San Francisco still leads the count in number of parklets installed, at 49 as of this writing. Parklets are a relatively new kind of public space and as such, has not yet picked up a large pool of research on them. There have been a few impact studies conducted, like the San Francisco Great Streets study (2011) of 3 parklets, involving pedestrian and stationary activity counts, pedestrian surveys, and business surveys. In March 2013, the Los Angeles research collaborative Parklet Studies completed a one-year study of the two parklets on Downtown LA’s Spring Street (UCLA, 2013). Kathleen Corey, for her Master of Landscape Architecture thesis at the University of Guelph, researched parklets in New York City, San Francisco, and Vancouver (2014). Robin Abad Ocubillo, for the same degree requirement but at the University of Southern California, explored how the collaborative urban design process of parklets and their continually self-evaluating programs “necessitates innovation within city government through the assimilation of grassroots initiatives” (2012). He focused on four Californian cities as case studies: San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach. His research involved over 65 interviews of parklet stakeholders from government, advocacy groups, and design and business communities.

Rebar


San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks Program released a “Parklet Manual” in 2013, to give guidance to people interested in creating parklets in going through the process. UCLA also published a toolkit for creating and implementing parklets (2012). As helpful as these manuals are, they are city-specific and on that level, general. A compilation of parklet case studies could be more useful for smaller and more detailed issues. The gap in research is large, as expected of any emerging field. This paper attempts to bring some of the existing literature together along with new research. Research Purpose

This project compiles an inventory of constructed and to-be-constructed parklets in select North American West Coast cities. An up-to-date inventory allows for analysis of parklet characteristics and subsequently, strategies for improving the process of planning, implementation, and maintenance of parklets. It also provides a one-stop resource for people interested in building parklets. They can choose from the list of parklets businesses and designers to discuss lessons learned and design details. Information exchange regarding parklets is crucial to the development of, and speed of development of these new revolutionary public spaces. The inventory is an attempt to start a nationwide, continentwide, and even worldwide parklet directory. The paper also highlights, as case studies, certain parklets that have had significant challenges in their development and/or noteworthy characteristics. Actors planning on creating parklets can find relevant advice through these episodes. A larger question this research poses is: In places where parklets were built, were they already destinations? Or did the new parklets elevate those places into destinations? Put another way, are parklets effective at placemaking, or did they simply enhance a stable destination’s status as a destination? Methods

Research involved data collection from various sources: city websites, business websites, news articles, other academic papers, and photos. Parklet data were organized into a spreadsheet by city. The West Coast cities included in this review were selected from an updated and revised timeline of parklet programming based on Kathleen Corey’s master’s thesis studying parklets in North America (2014, p.11): West Coast Parklet Programs:

2009 San Francisco Pavement to Parks 2011 VIVA Vancouver Oakland Pilot Program 2012 Berkeley Limited Pilot Program Long Beach Official Program Los Angeles Pilot Program Portland Pilot Projects 2013 Los Angeles Spring Street Pilot Parklets Portland Street Seats Seattle Parklet Pilot Program Berkeley Pilot Program San Diego Pilot Program 2014 Los Angeles People St Program


This paper is organized into sections by city chronologically according to development of parklet programs, in the following order: San Francisco, Vancouver, Oakland, Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and San Diego. A discussion wraps up the case studies, followed by limitations and future work. San Francisco

Parklets in San Francisco. (Pavement to Parks, 2014)

Pavement to Parks

In 2008, the New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) launched the NYC Plaza Program. The Plaza Program works with non-profit organizations to create neighborhood plazas throughout the City to transform underused streets into vibrant, social spaces. Non-profit partners are responsible for programming activities and events at the site at least four times a year. These new public spaces were seen as the transformation of “pavement to plazas”. Thirty-eight plazas have been built since 2008. (Corey, 2014, p.22) In 2009, inspired by the success of New York’s Plaza Program, the San Francisco Planning Department launched its Pavement to Parks Program in coordination with Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisors. Pavement to Parks is a creative response to wide streets: a characteristic of auto-centric planning common to North American cities (SF Pavement to Parks, 2013). The program plans and implements plazas, parklets, and other tactical urbanism projects. Locations for Pavement to Parks projects are selected based on the following criteria (SF Pavement to Parks, 2013):

• sizable area of underutilized roadway


• lack of public space in the surrounding neighborhood • pre-existing community support for public space at the location • potential to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety • surrounding uses that can attract people and activate identified community or business steward

The SF Planning Department piloted San Francisco’s first parklets under the Pavement to Parks Program in 2010 to create more public space in the rights-of-way. Within a year, the program was made official. It was adapted from the New York plaza model using the community partnership model, in which much of the labor is volunteered by community members and pro bono services are commonly provided by art and design firms. (SF Pavement to Parks, 2013). The SF Planning Department merely facilitates the programming of the parklets. (Corey, 2014, p.27) In another instance of quick idea-borrowing, New York City adapted San Francisco’s parklet program in 2010. Parklets were originally called ‘pop-up cafes’ in New York, then later renamed ‘street seats’. The NYC DOT’s Street Seats Program accepts applications from business sponsors for the design, installation, and maintenance of parklets. The Div isadero Street / Mojo Parklet

"We need more emphasis on sidewalks, a place that's pleasant and fun to be in. How can we get it more sidewalk-centric, less car-centric?"

–Remy Nelson, owner of Mojo Café (Roth, 2010) The parklet in front of Mojo Bicycle Café on Divisadero Street is San Francisco’s first, opening on 18 March 2010. It received a six-month permit as part of the parklet trials, or “Pavement to Parks 2.0” projects, which had to be renewed if successful. San Francisco Planning Department's Andres Power, project manager for Pavement to Parks, described the parklet as “[essentially] the idea to build a cheaper bulb-out, to get the same effect as a $100,000 [concrete] bulb-out at a fraction of the funds” (Roth, 2010). Riyad Ghannam of AG Architecture and Greg Upwall of Studio Upwall provided design services pro bono. The parklet design features movable and fixed seating, planters, bike racks, and solar light. Stakeholders of the parklet included Mojo Bicycle Café, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Great Streets Project; and the city, regional, and federal agencies for fiscal sponsorship of a related Divisadero corridor project and parklet projects (Corey, 2014, p.32). The Mojo Parklet opened on 18 March 2010 in a kick-off ceremony that included Mayor Newsom, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Department of Public Works Director Ed Reiskin, and Andres Power. In September 2010, the San Francisco Great Streets Project released an impact report analyzing the before and after effects of the parklet. It found that pedestrian activity and people’s sense of community character increased with the trial parklet (Pratt, 2010). However, some of the other businesses on the block had mixed perceptions of the impact. They felt that they didn’t benefit from the increase in pedestrian activity of the parklet. Some businesses wanted parklets in front of their stores, too, to be competitive, while others in close proximity were concerned about the loss of parking space. Deepistan National Park( let )

The Deepistan National Park(let), or the “Deeplet”, is San Francisco’s first and only resident-sponsored parklet. Amandeep Jawa, a member of the SF Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors, built his parklet in front of his home’s driveway on Valencia Street in the Mission District. It was designed by local architect Jane Martin using green urban design principles and includes a dinosaur-shaped succulent sculpture named Trixie. Jawa maintains the Deeplet with his wife Kimberly Conley, whom he married in a wedding ceremony at the parklet during a flickr/ari


Mission District edition of San Francisco Sunday Streets. Regarding the Deeplet, they stated, “We have opened the private space in front of our house, that was only useful for us to pull a car out of our private driveway, and converted it into a spot many can enjoy by making it into a parklet” (Jawa, 2012). They use to the space to help build community, and hold events such as music performances there. Mama Art Café Parklet

The parklet in front of Mama Art Cafe in the Excelsior District was a community project that brought together two local nonprofit organizations Excelsior Action Group and Out of Site, high school students, and other community members. Craig Hollow, a designer at Sagan Piechota Architecture, is the lead faculty instructor at the Youth Arts Exchange. He led the final design/build phase of the Mama Art Café Parklet in collaboration with Out of Site instructor Raffaella Falchi. Out of Site is a youth arts program that offers free after school, weekend and summer programs in visual, literary and performing arts to public high school students in the south part of San Francisco. Ten youths from Out of Site, along with a few adult volunteers, worked together to build the Excelsior’s first parklet. The goal of the project was to “build something that will have a

EAG


permanent and positive impact in the community” (Excelsior Action Group). As a new green gathering space, the parklet helped to establish a sense of pride in the community. Mobi le Parklets

Parkmobiles are robust, movable containers with lush gardens that can placed in a standard on-street parking space (CMG, 2011). They were first introduced in 2011 through a partnership with CMG, a landscape architecture firm, the Yerba Buena Community Benefit District (YBCDB), and the City’s Pavement to Parks Program (SF Planning Department, 2014). CMG built six parkmobiles, which are in rotation in the YBCBD area in SOMA (South of Market). They each have different types of plants and serve to fulfill residents’ desire for more greenery in the neighborhood. Combining youth engagement and parkmobiles, the Pavements to Park Program launched its first youth-designed mobile parklet on 07 August 2014 at Fog Lifter Cafe on Ocean Avenue. Similar to the Mama Art Cafe Parklet, the mobile parklet was created by public high school students in collaboration with the Ocean Avenue Community Benefit District and the Youth Arts Exchange. The mobile parklet spends six months at each location, travelling and shared along the Ocean Avenue commercial corridor to encourage public gathering and commercial activity while beautifying the neighborhood (SF Planning Department, 2014). Powel l Street Promenade

Opened in 2011, the Powell Street Promenade is an extended parklet project covering four blockfaces of Powell Street between Ellis and Geary Streets in Downtown San Francisco and Union Square area. It features a cohesive design using aluminum ribbons to integrate planters, seating, standing tables, and leaning structures. It expands the pedestrian realm on this busy shopping street so that people have places to meet and linger without blocking the sidewalk space. The project was funded through a public-private

CMG


partnership with Audi USA and was intended to reflect their notion of ‘A Boldly Designed World’ (ASLA, 2012). Officials were particularly proud of this public-private partnership. “Both [Mayor Ed] Lee and Supervisor David Chiu gushed with praise for Audi. Chiu, who is car-free and gets around on an electric bicycle, even encouraged the automobile company to donate some new cars to the city” (Goebel, 2011). Complicat ions Vandalism Graffiti and vandalism are an inherent risk of any material objects in the public realm. Parklets are no exception. The Deeplet has been tagged many times, but thanks to designer Jane Martin’s choice of aluminum for siding material, the tags have been easy to erase. The Clement Street parklet, the first parklet in the Richmond District, was vandalized just a few days after it opened. Its wood panels required more work to remove the graffiti. Supervisor Eric Mar, who represents the Richmond District, said that the vandalism was especially disappointing considering how excited the community was to have the parklet. "We have been working to revitalize the area so when things like this happen it's demoralizing” (SF Examiner, 2013). Drunk Drivers On one late night in August 2013, a reportedly drunken driver smashed through EHS Pilates’ parklet on Valencia Street in the Mission District before knocking over a fire hydrant. The ruined parklet was two years in the making and cost the studio at least $16,000 of its own money, according to the studio's manager Andrea Scarabelli (Nagle, 2013). Maintenance and Smoking Martin Macks gastropub’s parklet on Haight Street was the first parklet to receive an order for removal. It was fined for numerous violations including lack of maintenance and smoking. Vivian Walsh, owner of Martin Macks, contended that the rules surrounding parklets were not so clear, making it was difficult to comply. Walsh said, “You can't smoke in the bar so we have to send people outside, then we go outside and tell them they can't smoke in the park either" (Koskey, 06.2013). Martin Macks went under new ownership in 2013 that decided not to re-apply for a new parklet. The parklet was uninstalled in August 2013. In contrast, Haight Street Market’s parklet less than 100 feet away was “wildly succcessful”. The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council pointed out that the development of that parklet had “neighborhood participation and support, intelligent and consistent management, and the ability to treat people with dignity and respect”, while “the Martin Mack effort came up short in all three areas” (HANC). However, the HANC noted that the issue was first magnified by Ted Loewenberg, father of the ineffective “sit/lie” law that prohibits people from sitting or lying on the sidewalk. He saw the parklet as undermining the law, attracting the “wrong” kind of people to the street. The media’s focus on this controversy helped lead to the parklet’s removal.

above: Martin Macks. below: Haight Street Market


Table Service

Polk St. Crepe House Parklet. flickr/geekstinkbreath

Parklets in San Francisco are designated as public spaces—open to everyone—and table service is not allowed. But as could be expected, restaurants do not always agree with this rule. Squat and Gobble Cafe in the Castro District is one of them.

“I took a parking space and built a parklet. I paid for it, I am keeping it clean, and now I can't deliver food to the table? It doesn't make sense.”

–Issa Sweidan, owner of Squat and Gobble Cafe (Nevius, 2011) It makes for a strange situation where waiters can serve food to the sidewalk seating on the building side, but for patrons sitting in the parklet they leave the food on a cart and call out order numbers for them to pick it up. Lessons Learned

Learning from the Martin Macks and Squat and Gobble episodes, the Pavement to Parks Program made significant changes to its parklets program. The second Request for Proposals, issued in 2011, included an amendment that restaurant and cafe owners will need to sign an explicit agreement saying they will not provide table service in the parklet, and the seating must look different than existing sidewalk furniture (Bialick, 2011). This was a measure to help ensure that parklets are public, and not used for private restaurant seating. In 2013, there were also changes to the program’s oversight and design guidelines, such that Martin Macks’ parklet would not have been approved today. With its brick columns, overhead latticework, and removable tables and chairs, the parklet was criticized for becoming a haven for homelessness and illegal activity (Koskey, 08.2013). Applicants must now describe what the parklets will include, even before submitting design drawings.


A Str ict Process

In late November 2012, Rapha Cycle Club, a high-end bicycling apparel shop in the Marina District, opened its parklet on the corner of Filbert and Fillmore Streets. Designed collaboratively with Rebar Art & Design Studio, the Rapha parklet features a bisected Citroën H-Van bookending the parklet with seating, planters, and bike parking slots in the middle. The H-Van is a relic of road cycling’s rich history, having served as support caravans called “broom wagons” sweeping up riders who’ve fallen behind in long races like the Tour de France (Rapha, 2012). However, the parklet got onto the SF Chronicle’s Sunday 06 January 2012 front page not because of its unique, eye-catching design, but because it didn’t have a final permit. Rapha and Rebar had followed all the rules and submitted all the necessary documents to the SF Planning Department.

Then, after receiving the verbal agreement of a thumbs-up, Rapha and Rebar made their mistake. They started installing the parklet before the permit was issued. Since the paperwork hadn't been completed, a stop-work order was issued a week or so later, along with a $1,000 fine. Planners say any mix-up by Rapha and Rebar was a procedural oversight, not an attempt to circumvent rules (King, 2012).

Supervisor Mark Farrell, who represents the area, expressed unease with the parklet’s design and also felt blindsided that he didn’t know about the parklet before this controversy. To find a middle ground in this problem, he suggested removing the vehicular aspects of parklet and letting the seating remain. The Union Street Association, which represents merchants on the popular shopping strip a block away, also took this opportunity to voice objection to the parklet, perhaps afraid of drawing business away from their area. On the same day as the news story, Rapha parklet supporters created a Facebook page called “Support the parklet” solely to encourage people to contact Supervisor Farrell and tell him "Man, I love that parklet!" The page has 95 “likes”. Rapha’s parklet is still parked in front of the shop today.

flickr/dianneyee


Vancouver

Parklets in Vancouver. (Corey, 2014, p.39; updated by the author, 2014)

In 2009, the Summer Spaces pilot program was launched in four Vancouver neighborhoods to bring people together through community events such as car-free Sundays and farmers markets. The 2010 Winter Olympics brought an unprecedented five straight car-free blocks on Granville Street. The positive reception of this open street led to Rediscover Granville, a collaboration between the City and Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to adopt car-free weekends on Granville Street. Summer Spaces and Rediscover Granville was combined in VIVA Vancouver, a program operating within the Street Activities Branch of the Transportation Engineering Department (Corey, 2014, p.37). Similar to San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks Program, VIVA Vancouver’s goal is to creatively transform streets into vibrant public spaces. Paral le l Park

Parallel Park, located on 14th Avenue at Main Street at the corner of two coffee shops, JJ Bean and Starbucks, was installed in September 2011 as Vancouver’s first parklet through the Summer Spaces program (before it became VIVA). It was designed by Travis Martin, a recent graduate of University of British Columbia’s Master of Landscape Architecture Program. Martin saw the parklet as an opportunity to be further involved with his Main Street neighborhood community (Corey, 2014, p.40). The Contemporist


Vancouver currently has four other parklets, with more in various phases in development. VIVA accepted applications to its Parklet Pilot Program in July 2013, and has selected six. At least four of the selected projects have encountered funding setbacks. Parklet applications may be accepted in 2014 on a case-by-case basis during the pilot period (City of Vancouver, 2014). Kathleen Corey, in her analysis comparing the timeline of San Francisco and Vancouver parklets, proposes a detailed list of twenty-six recommendations to the current Vancouver Parklet Pilot Program Guide (2014, p.76). Oakland

Parklets in Oakland. (City of Oakland, 2014)

Actual Cafe

Just across the Bay from San Francisco, Oakland catches on to ideas from San Francisco quickly. A growing number of Oakland businesses have participated in Park(ing) Day since news of its inception, and after Mojo’s parklet was installed, Oaklanders clamored for permanent parklets on their side of the Bay, too. But there was no process yet for parklets in Oakland. Actual Cafe, located on San Pablo Avenue in the North Oakland Golden Gate neighborhood near Emeryville, decided to go ahead and build one themselves. Actual Cafe


Utilizing only a few hundred dollars, volunteer labor, and mostly reclaimed and donated materials, Actual Cafe built their parklet on a defunct bus station on the Alcatraz Avenue side of their building. One night shortly after the parklets’ opening in May 2011, however, owner Sal Bednarz disassembled the parklet but out of exhaustion forgot to move the pieces inside. Thieves stole the parklet in its entirety (Actual Cafe, 2011). In 2011, the City of Oakland started developing its Parklet Pilot Program, modeling it after San Francisco’s. A key question was: Which department would be responsible for permitting parklets? As described in a Streetsblog article, “The choice of department jurisdiction will affect the participants in the final permitting process. If the ordinance falls under the Planning Department, it would be inserted into the zoning code. If the ordinance is put under Public Works, it would be part of the Streets and Sidewalk Use Regulations. Zoning requires the landlords to get involved, whereas an encroachment can deal exclusively with the tenant business” (Miller, 2011). A decision was made to include parklets in the Planning Department. The pilot program received seven applications, but as of writing, only three parklets have been built. Actual Cafe applied and received a permit to construct a new parklet, but a host of problems plagued its fruition. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) tore up the pavement along Alcatraz and installed a fire hydrant where the parklet was planned, so Actual Cafe move the parklet plan to San Pablo Avenue in front of the cafe entrance. That added another complication: San Pablo Avenue is also State Highway 123, under Catrans’ jurisdiction. The parklet would require an enroachment permit among many other things, and lastly and simply, Caltrans doesn’t know what to do to make a parklet happen (Curry, 2014). Ar izmendi

The other parklet currently still under permit review is planned for Arizmendi Bakery on Lakeshore Avenue near Lake Merritt. One of the parking spaces the parklet would occupy was reserved for handicapped placard holders, which had ramp requirements that made it impossible to move elsewhere, according to Laura Kaminski, the planner in charge of Oakland’s parklet program (Curry, 2014). A solution has not arisen, and community interest waned. Far ley’s East

Oakland’s first parklet was built in 2012 in front of Farley’s East cafe on Grand Avenue. Community support came in the form of a fully funded crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter. Since it was the first parklet, development took a long time, with City staff reviewing parklet designs for the first time. Oakland’s second parklet, on 40th Street in front of Manifesto Bicycles and Subrosa Coffee, went through a faster process after the City’s experience with Farley’s application. Design drawings were also more complete, which also aided the turnaround (Kaminski, 2014). New Parklets

On 19 September 2014 (Park[ing] Day), the City of Oakland opened the second round of its Parklet Pilot Program. It issued a Notice of Parklet Opportunity and plans to select up to fifteen parklets. City staff streamlined the process after learning from the initial pilot, and will decide which projects to approve based on geographical distribution throughout the city, and innovative design that shows a “unique Oakland flair” (McCamy, 2014). The application period closed on 17 November 2014, and selections will be announced in January 2015. Applicants then have six months to submit their final construction document package to the Public Works Department for final review (City of Oakland, 2014).


Berkeley In 2012, the City of Berkeley adopted a limited parklet pilot program for the North Shattuck area. It was modeled after San Francisco and Oakland’s programs in which the parklets are privately funded, installed, and maintained, but publicly accessible. Two parklets in “Gourmet Ghetto” on Shattuck Avenue have been conceived from the limited pilot, with the North Shattuck Association providing around $5,000 in seed money for each: the Cheese Board Collective’s parklet which cost $20,000 to $25,000 and opened in August 2014, and one in front of Guerilla Cafe and Philz Coffee which was successfully crowdfunded past its $15,000 goal in July 2014 and will be constructed. In July 2013, Berkeley City Council approved a three-year pilot program to bring up to ten new parklets to commercial districts in the city (Park, 2013). Long Beach

Parklets in Long Beach. (Author, 2014)

Long Beach launched its Pilot Parklet Program in early 2012, based on San Francisco’s process through Pavement to Parks. Long Beach’s Bicycle-Friendly Business District program was initially working with Retro Row businesses to consider more extensive, permanent traffic-calming and place-making solutions, such as bulb-outs. But costs were prohibitive and the time frame long, so they settled on cheaper and quicker solutions—the parklet (Linton, 2012). The collaboration between the business district program, businesses, and the City led to the completion of Long Beach’s and Southern California’s first parklet, located in front of Lola’s Mexican Restaurant on Retro Row.


Luis Navarro, owner of Lola’s, spent $26,000 on the parklet and has been pleased with the investment. He shared the restaurant’s revenue has increased by twenty percent since the implementation of the parklet (Chang, 2013). Architect Michael Bohn of Studio One Eleven, who designed Lola’s parklet, went on to design Long Beach’s two other parklets: Number Nine and Berlin Bistro, both restaurants on Fourth Street. The two restaurants have likewise experienced increased business after installation of the parklets.

Lola’s parklet. flickr/Brad Davis

A difference in Long Beach’s parklet program is that parklets are allowed table service. Businesses see them mainly as the opportunity to add more seating. “The three restaurants each paid anywhere between $18,000 to $25,000 for the parklet, but it allowed them to add 18 to 20 more seats, enhancing seating by as much as one-third” (Meeks, 2013). As such, the parklets lean more toward the category of private space, with business owners able to ask people to leave the parklets if they are not customers. The design of Lola’s parklet includes rails that separate the parklet from the existing sidewalk, which further suggest that the parklet solely serves as additional restaurant seating. Parking is always a contentious issue when the possibility of its removal comes up. Long Beach was able to quell parking concerns, such as the 1.5 spaces that were converted to Lola’s parklet, by reviewing existing parking zones in Retro Row. It ended up revising curb designations to create four new parking spaces, offsetting the two other planned parklets (Linton, 2012). Most recently, a “parklet” was built on the corner of At Last Cafe in Alamitos Beach. However, media are wrong to dub it a parklet since it is not truly a parklet. The outdoor restaurant seating area was created as part of a bulb-out and bioswale streetscape improvement. The seating area is built on top of the concrete


bulb-out, not directly on curbside parking space. Even if the bulb-out was constructed over what was previously parking, the bulb-out then constituted public pedestrian space until it was taken over by the construction of the seating area. Again, the Long Beach media and business owners focus on the benefit of these spaces, real parklet or not, as increased seating for patrons and following increase in business: The new space outside At Last Cafe “[offers] 40 additional seats, [...and] owner John McLaughlin is confident the streetdeck will increase business” (Addison, 2014).

At Last Café. (Google Maps Streetview, Sept 2014) Los Angeles

In 2012, Los Angeles approved a six-month pilot program for four parklets. The first of those opened in February 2013 on York Boulevard in Highland Park. Living Streets LA, an initiative by the Green LA Coalition, helped bring out about this and the Huntington Drive Parklet in El Sereno in its vision “to transform streets in the City’s urban core into vibrant, inviting and green community spaces” (Living Streets LA). Teaming up with Councilmember Jose Huizar who represents Downtown Los Angeles, Living Streets created these two parklets at the community level. Local Highland Park artist, Cathi Milligan, whose shop the Glass Studio is just down the block, added glass mosaic work to the Highland Park parklet. Youths from the Los Angeles Conservation Corps. built the entire parklet (People St, 2013). The Highland Park parklet strongly contrasts with all other established parklets. Instead of being sponsored by a restaurant and located in an affluent area, it sits in front of a bank and a hardware store. Only down the block are trendy bars and a cafe. This choice of location was meant

Parklets in Los Angeles. (People St, 2014)


to send a message that parklets are supposed to be public space. Steve Rasussen Cancian, principal architect at Shared Spaces and consultant with Living Streets LA, described the new parklet: “At the very least, it’s not something that is exclusive. But really, anyone who comes for new spark plugs or buy a bolt at the hardware store would feel comfortable, so that it’s for the whole neighborhood” (Fortin, 2013). The other two completed parklets are on Spring Street in Downtown Los Angeles, developed through its own Spring Street Pilot Parklets program, a collaboration between the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC), the City of Los Angeles Departments of Transportation (LADOT), Councilmember Huizar, and other partners. At the opening party, Councilmember Huizar said, “More and more, Downtown Los Angeles is becoming an increasingly vibrant and dynamic place to live, work, shop and entertain. The Spring Street parklets will add to Downtown’s unique urban atmosphere, encouraging and supporting a pedestrian-friendly, local experience…we are creating a model that can be used throughout the city” (Newton, 2013).

In August 2014, a drunk driver smashed his car into one of the Spring Street parklets after sideswiping several parked cars. Fixes were planned for the parklet (Lubell, 2014). In January 2014, LADOT launched People St, its program for public space projects. Mayor Eric Garcetti envisions People St as a way to develop partnerships with the community through a bottoms-up effort. The partnership starts with people and groups submitting an application and plans to the City (Orlov, 2014). Currently there are seven projects that have been approved to enter the design phase: four parklets and three plazas. Portland

The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) started its Street Seats Program in 2012, inspired as well by Pavement to Parks. PBOT’s program is unique in that it tries to strike a balance between San Francisco’s fully public parklets and Long Beach’s private parklets. Portland street seats, the City’s name for parklets, are allowed table service, but businesses must pay an annual permit of $2,600 for to serve food and drinks (Anderson, 2013). This stipulation helps keep businesses from completely freeloading off of the additional seating, and can serve as an incentive to keep parklets totally public. Twelve private parklets have been built in Portland that function as outdoor seating areas for restaurants. People must be customers at those establishments in order to use the space (Anderson, 2014). In July 2014, the SoMa Parklet project was approved by PBOT. It will be the first, truly public Street Seat installation in Portland.

Highland Park Parklet. Living Streets LA.

instagram/oneironaut11

Parklets in Portland. (PBOT, 2014)


Instead of being sponsored by a private business, it would be run by the new nonprofit South of Market EcoDistrict, in partnership with Portland State University’s School of Architecture and other community partners (Hormann, 2014). The SoMa Parklet will be located on SW Fourth Avenue along the existing food cart pod. It is a heavily trafficked area with workers and university students grabbing food from the food carts, but is without any public seating. Sarah Figliozzi of PBOT explains, “What we don’t want to see is decking and picnic tables. We try to explain it’s an option to not extend cafe seating and just have public seating, so anyone can sit down and read a newspaper” without having to buy food at any one business to enjoy the space (Anderson, 2014).

PBOT made changes to its Street Seats Program in 2014, including a ban on smoking and an approved operation plans that details maintenance and how the parklets will be used during the winter (Anderson, 2013). The latest round of Street Seats included a permit fee reduction from $500 to $250, and an open house info session that brought City staff and local design firms to answer questions share ideas. After applicants submit their concept plans by mid-January 2015, PBOT will review and select a maximum of ten to move forward through the design development and review process (PBOT, 2014). Design Competit ions

The Center for Architecture hosts an annual Street Seats competition through its Design|Build Program (AIA, 2014). The winning design(s) are temporarily installed for 6 to 10 weeks in the fall as part of Portland's annual Design Festival. This program acts as a conduit for creative parklet designs to be built. For the two 2014 finalists, Alberta Main Street adopted the parklets after the Design Festival.

"Dialogue”—one of two Center for Architecture 2014 Street Seat Design Competition finalists.

Designed by Scott Edwards Architecture. flickr/PBOT Active Transportation

(PSU, 2014)


Opposit ion

As mentioned, parking is an issue that drives pushback against parklets. The Portland Business Alliance (PBA) opposes the Streets Seat Program for fear of parking loss. The Downtown Retail Council, a PBA affiliate, successfully lobbied the City to stop applications for new parklets in the downtown area south of W Burnside Street bounded by SW 10th and 2nd Avenues (Maus, 2014). Seattle

Parklets in Seattle. (SDOT, 2014; updated by the author, 2014)

Seattle started its Pilot Parklet Program in 2013, with three parklets designed and permitted in Phase 1. The program is also modeled after San Francisco’s. Twelve additional parklets were selected for construction in 2014. Some are currently in the concept design phase and others in the permit review phase. There are a total of five completed parklets in Seattle. The first was the parklet at Montana Bar, which opened in September 2013. The most recent is the Urban Visions parklet at the Chromer Building, which opened on 03 December 2014. This was the most expensive parklet, with a total budget of $80,000, because it spans five parking spaces. According to the program timeline, Seattle Department of Transportation is currently reviewing the pilot parklets and preparing an evaluation report of the pilot program. Then it will present a recommendation on a permanent parklet program to the Mayor (City of Seattle, 2014).


San Diego Caffé Calabria in North Park was the first to build a parklet in San Diego, in August 2013. The coffee roaster had previously participated in Park(ing) Day. Its permanent parklet came about through a partnership with North Park Main Street, the City of San Diego and the North Park community. Then-Mayor Bob Filner had approved a pilot parklet program and put Angela Landsberg, executive director of North Park Main Street, in charge of working with city staff to make the parklet happen. The process mainly requires approval of the business or businesses in front of the space, and a vote of approval from the respective community planning group, in addition to an encroachment permit. Regarding the Caffé Calabria parklet, a Voice of San Diego piece said, “the City’s role was basically limited to letting the thing happen” (Keatts, 2013).

In 2014, the City of San Diego and the Downtown San Diego Partnership hosted a design competition for a “moving parklet”, aka a parkmobile. A trio of NewSchool of Architecture and Design master’s program graduates won the competition and received $5,000 for labor and material to construct their mobile parklet titled “The Boardroom”. Kate Hamby-Goodson, one of the designers, explained that they loved the idea of parklets as a place of assembly and “therefore, it is the board room taken out of the tower and into the street" (Showley, 09.2014). The Downtown San Diego Partnership (DSDP) business group was able to go through with this mobile parklet idea after endorsement from the board of Civic San Diego, a city-owned nonprofit development agency (Showley, 11.2014). The partnership aims to work out permit issues and develop a parklet program providing guidelines for locations and other details. DSDP spokesperson Jennifer Davies says that the City is warming up to tactical urbanism. “They're getting to a place where they feel empowered to say yes. We call it 'pink tape' as opposed to red tape; obstacles and barriers are being cautiously removed" (Morlan, 2014).

DSDP


Discussion

“If parklets were nothing more than sidewalk extensions above asphalt, the novelty would wear off. This and a handful of others show what makes the potential so exciting. They embody aspects of neighborhood life, letting outsiders experience strains of local culture. At best, they’re a physical

manifestation of today’s San Francisco—and perhaps a hint of tomorrow’s city as well.”

–John King, SF Chronicle urban design critic, in his review of Trouble Coffee’s parklet (2011)

As parklets were first created in San Francisco, it is natural that other cities looked to the SF’s Pavement to Parks Program as a foundation. They were able to wait for San Francisco to learn its lessons before fully developing their own parklet programs. Of course, some cities were not able to wait long due to communities’ enthusiasm for the revolutionary public spaces. Oakland struggled with the question of which department parklets should be responsible under, and San Diego was not certain how to proceed, simply letting a downtown business group figure it out. The Long Beach Parklet Program, although initially modeled after San Francisco’s, diverged in its allowance of table service. The parklets basically turn what was public space used by private automobiles into what was public space that is now used by private businesses. The transfer in type of private users by the implementation of parklets only benefits the public in two ways: visual/aesthetic character of the street, and sense of liveliness. Passersby who are attracted to a parklet would not be welcome to enter it unless they decide to patronize the corresponding business. Simply put, Long Beach parklets are glorified private outdoor seating areas in the public right-of-way.


Numerous complications can come up in the development of parklets as well as in their day-to-day existence. Procedural mix-ups, problematic actions by unforeseen actors, vandalism, parking advocates, and drunk drivers are all things that can prevent parklets from coming to fruition as well as damage them. Nearly all parklets built thus far (at least in this study), are sponsored by local businesses in well-to-do areas. The City of Oakland announced that projects in its current round of pilot parklets would be selected based on location so that they are distributed throughout the city. However, this ignores the initial costs of developing parklets, like the encroachment permit. Materials and construction costs of a parklet can start from several thousands dollars to upwards of $20,000. Would small businesses and community groups be able to afford that? Crowdfunding is a way to jump over that barrier, but would communities that don’t have proactive relationships with their city want to try to build a parklet in the first place? Businesses in areas of Oakland with high immigrant populations such as East Oakland and Chinatown most likely did not send in any applications to build a parklet. The birthplace of parklets also offers a solution to this equity problem. In the case of Mama Arts Cafe in San Francisco’s Excelsior District, the parklet was brought forth through community partnership with nonprofits, students, and other community members. A designer from an architectural firm led the students in the design and construction of the parklet. Following this model is a way to increase the capacity of a community and create positive impact and connections. Linking people and resources to underserved communities through projects like parklets can help ensure that parklets aren’t seen as a symbol of gentrification, but as true public spaces for everyone. Limitations and Future Research Due to limitations, the project was not able to answer its ‘big picture’ question of whether parklets serve to create new destinations or simply enhance a place’s status as a destination. This is one gap in research that could be filled in the future. In Ocubillo’s 2012 study, he recognized that he only included the government, private partners, community partners, and designers in his analysis (p.185). He left out users, who are perhaps the most important stakeholders as parklets are designed for the end users. Interviews and surveys with all stakeholder groups including users would be a way to find out perceptions of parklets related to destinations. The goal of the inventory was to have a comprehensive list of parklets and their characteristics. However, because of lack of available data, some fields were blank. Further research could look into details such as the number of parking spaces that a parklet replaces, project costs, and length of time from initial application approval to final build-out. Other important information should include cities’ evaluation criteria of parklets. These data could give a more complete view of the wide range of parklets throughout multiple cities, and help inform people who want to build parklets. References Corey, Kathleen. May 2014. “Making Space: An Exploration of Parklets in North America and Vancouver”. University of Guelph. http://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/8081 Ocubillo, Robin Abad. August 2012. “Experimenting with the Margin: Parklets and Plazas as Catalysts in Community and Government". USC. http://issuu.com/robin.abad/docs/experimentingwiththemargin_abadocubillo2012_ Rebar Group. 2012. “About Park(ing) Day”. http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/ UCLA Complete Streets Initiative. September 2012. “Reclaiming the Right of Way: A Toolkit for Creating and

Implementing Parklets". UCLA Complete Streets Initiative, Luskin School of Public Affairs. http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/content/reclaiming-right-way-toolkit-creating-and-implementing-parklets

UCLA and Parklet Studies. August 2013. “Reclaiming the Right-of-Way Evaluation Report: An Assessment of the Spring Street Parklets”. UCLA Complete Streets Initiative. http://www.its.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2014/06/parkletassessment.pdf


San Francisco ASLA. 2012. “Honor Award: Powell Street Promenade”. http://www.asla.org/2012awards/349.html Bialick, Aaron. 05 May 2011. “Businesses Eager to Apply for Parklets as New Request for Proposals Issued”. SF

Streetsblog. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/05/05/businesses-eager-to-apply-for-parklets-as-new-request-for-proposals-issued/

City of San Francisco: Pavement to Parks Program. Feb 2013. “San Francisco Parklet Program and Design Manual. v1.0”. http://pavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/parklets.html CMG. 2011. “Parkmobiles”. http://www.cmgsite.com/projects/urban-spaces/parkmobiles/ Goebel, Bryan. 13 July 2011. “Powell Street Promenade Enlivens the ‘Heart of San Francisco’s Downtown’”. SF

Streetsblog. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/07/13/powell-street-promenade-enlivens-the-heart-of-san-franciscos-downtown/

Excelsior Action Group. “Excelsior Parklet Project”. http://www.eagsf.org/excelsior-parklet-project.html Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council. “Martin Mack's Parklet Implodes”. http://www.hanc-sf.org/hanc-blog/martin-macks-parklet-implodes.html Jawa, Amandeep. 2012. “Deepistan National Park(let)”. http://deeplet.org/ King, John. 29 Dec 2011. “S.F. parklets: a little tour of a major trend”. SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/S-F-parklets-a-little-tour-of-a-major-trend-2430136.php King, John. 06.Jan 2012. “Split opinion on SF parklet made of van”. SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/Split-opinion-on-SF-parklet-made-of-van-4170363.php Koskey, Andrea. 17 June 2013. “S.F. orders parklet removed from Martin Macks”. SF Examiner. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-orders-parklet-removed-from-martin-macks/Content?oid=2467053 Koskey, Andrea. 04 Aug 2013. “S.F.’s parklets program learns from failure, moves ahead”. SF Examiner.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sfs-parklets-program-learns-from-failure-moves-ahead/Content?oid=2531534

Nagle, Rob. 12 Aug 2013. “Alleged drunken driver smashes into Mission district parklet and fire hydrant”. SF Examiner. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/alleged-drunken-driver-smashes-into-mission-district-parklet-and-fire-hydrant/Content?oid=2543829

Nevius, C.W. 05 April 2011. “Squat and Gobble's 'parklet' comes with a catch”. SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Squat-and-Gobble-s-parklet-comes-with-a-catch-2376126.php Pratt, Liza. 18 March 2010. “Divisadero Trial Parklet Impact Report”. San Francisco Great Streets Project. http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/divisadero_trial_parklet_impact_report_pratt.pdf Rapha Cycle Club. 12 Nov 2012. “Rapha Parklet SF”. http://pages.rapha.cc/events/rapha-parklet-sf Roth, Matthew. 16 Feb 2010. “San Francisco Takes Parking Spaces for Trial Sidewalk Extensions”. SF Streetsblog. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/16/san-francisco-takes-parking-spaces-for-trial-sidewalk-extensions/ SF Examiner. 11 Aug 2013. “Brand new San Francisco parklet vandalized days after completion”.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/brand-new-san-francisco-parklet-vandalized-days-after-completion/Content?oid=2540283)

San Francisco Great Streets Project. 2011. “Parklet Impact Study”. http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/parklet_impact_study_sf_planning_dept.pdf SF Planning Department. 06 Aug 2014. “Pavement to Parks Launches First Youth-Designed Mobile Parklet”. http://pavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/docs/Advisory_Mobile_Parklet_Ceremony_0806.pdf Vancouver City of Vancouver. 2014. “Parklets: converting street parking spaces to mini plazas”. http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/parklets.aspx Oakland Actual Cafe. 21 May 2011. “parklets, built, enjoyed, now missing...” http://actualcafe.blogspot.com/2011/05/parklets-built-enjoyed-now-missing.html City of Oakland. 2014. “Parklet Program”. http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/parklets/index.htm Curry, Melanie. 26 March 2014. “Oakland Looks to Restart Its Faltered Parklet Program”. SF Streetsblog. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/03/26/oakland-looks-to-jumpstart-its-faltered-parklet-program/ Kaminski, Laura. 05 Dec 2014. City of Oakland Parklet Project Manager. Interview. McCamy, Laura. 01 Oct 2014. “City of Oakland Expands Parklet Pilot Program. Oakland Local. http://oaklandlocal.com/2014/10/city-of-oakland-expands-parklet-pilot-program/) Miller, Ruth. 10 May 2011. “Oakland Hopes to Approve City’s First Parklet by September”. SF Streetsblog. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/05/10/oakland-hopes-to-approve-citys-first-parklet-by-september/


Berkeley Park, Euna. 16 July 2013. “Pilot Program for "Parklets" in Berkeley Approved”. Berkeley Patch. http://patch.com/california/berkeley/pilot-program-for-parklets-in-berkeley-approved) Long Beach Addison, Brian. 27 March 2014. “Meet Long Beach’s Newest ‘Parklet': At Last Café”. Longbeachize. http://www.longbeachize.com/meet-long-beachs-newest-parklet-at-last-cafe Chang, Hetty. 03 May 2013. “Parklets Give SoCal Residents a New Way to Dine Outdoors”. NBC Southern California. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/new-outdoor-dining-parklet-popular-in-long-beach-206009401.html Linton, Joe. 24 Jan 2012. “The View from Long Beach’s New Parklet”. LA Streetsblog. http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/01/24/the-view-from-long-beachs-new-parklet/ Meeks, Karen. 19 Jan 2013. “Long Beach parklets lead way in Southern California's newest urban planning trend”. Press

Telegram. http://www.presstelegram.com/20130120/long-beach-parklets-lead-way-in-southern-californias-newest-urban-planning-trend

Los Angeles Fortin, Kris. 04 Feb 2013. “Highland Park Parklet Not in Front of Restaurant? Attempts to Create Public Space For All”.

LA Streetsblog. http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/02/04/highland-park-parklet-not-in-front-of-restaurant-attempts-to-create-public-space-for-all/

Living Streets LA. “About”. http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/ Lubell, Sam. 05 Aug 2014. “Parklet Down! Motorist Rams Downtown Los Angeles’ First Parklet”. Archpaper Blog. http://blog.archpaper.com/2014/08/parklet-down-motorist-rams-downtown-los-angeles-first-parklet/ Newton, Damien. 06 Feb 2013. “Parklet Party in Downtown Los Angeles”. LA Streetsblog. http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/02/07/parklet-party-in-downtown-los-angeles/ Orlov, Rick. 26 Jan 2014. “People St parklet program goes citywide”. Los Angeles Daily News. http://www.dailynews.com/lifestyle/20140126/people-st-parklet-program-goes-citywide People St. 02 Feb 2013. “York Boulevard Pilot Parklet Grand Opening”. http://peoplest.lacity.org/highland-park-york-boulevard-parklet-grand/ Port land AIA Portland. 2014. “2014 Street Seats Competition”. http://aiaportland.org/committees/designbuildprogram Anderson, Jennifer. 13 May 2013. “Portland Street Seats expanding, changing”. Portland Tribune. http://koin.com/2014/05/13/portland-street-seats-expanding-changing/ Anderson, Jennifer. 24 April 2014. “Less parking, tastes great”. Portland Tribune. http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/218048-76349-less-parking-tastes-great- Hormann, Elizabeth. 07 July 2014. “SoMa Parklet project gets green light”. Portland State University. http://www.pdx.edu/sustainability/solutions-blog/soma-parklet-project-gets-green-light Maus, Jonathan. 15 April 2014. “Fearing parking loss, downtown business group stops ‘Street Seats’ program”. Bike

Portland. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/15/fearing-parking-loss-downtown-business-group-stops-street-seats-program-85486

Portland Bureau of Transportation. 2014. “Portland Street Seats”. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/59158 Seatt le City of Seattle DOT. 2014. “Seattle Pilot Parklet Program”. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parklets.htm San Diego Keatts, Andrew. 03 Sept 2013. “Scenes From the City’s First ‘Parklet’”. Voice of San Diego. http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/09/03/scenes-from-the-citys-first-parklet/ Morlan, Kinsee. 01 Oct 2014. “Parklets and pop-ups”. San Diego Citybeat. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13471-parklets-and-pop-ups.html Showley, Roger. 06 Sept 2014. “Mobile park at Park(ing) Day”. U-T San Diego. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/06/parking-day-gaslamp-downtown-partnership/ Showley, Roger. 06 Nov 2014. “Parklets coming to downtown”. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/24/parklet-downtown-partnership/

West Coast Parklets: a review of parklets in west coast cities

Documents