PLACE-MAKING: A STUDY OF EMERGING
PROFESSIONALS’ PREFERENCES OF
PLACE-MAKING ATTRIBUTES
By
Jack Thomas McDonough

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Environmental Design – Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
PLACE-MAKING: A STUDY OF EMERGING
PROFESSIONALS’ PREFERENCES OF
PLACE-MAKING ATTRIBUTES
By
Jack Thomas McDonough
Place-making is increasingly becoming a widely used development process in the State
of Michigan and urban cores across the country. The multi-disciplinary approach to this process
is often overlooked and misunderstood as key component to the success of projects, and is
affected by many variables, such as sociability, access and linkages, uses and activities, and
comfort and image. This study compares the preferences of emerging professionals in planning,
design, and construction fields using a visual assessment survey technique. These stakeholder groups
were selected because of their future role as definers and makers of public space. These emerging
professionals will be the first generation that deals with the Michigan Place Making Initiative in their
early careers. Their role in Michigan’s economic future is imperative to the success of many of
Michigan’s cities, towns, and villages. The null hypothesis is that stakeholder groups will identify the
same important elements. Statistical analysis will explore correlations and differences between the
stakeholder groups. The objective is to uncover relationships among the surveyed groups to improve
interactions within cross-disciplinary environments that professionals often come across in placemaking career settings.

This study is dedicated to my mom and dad,
Whitney and Jim McDonough, without their hard work
and dedication, I wouldn’t be able to express any of my own.
Thank you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The culmination of this thesis would certainly not be attainable without the support and
encouragement from multiple sources in my life. I take this time to thank them.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Crawford. Your
professionalism and unwavering kindness was an incredible motivator through this process.
You adapted your teaching to fit with my interesting way of getting tasks done in an
unorthodox manner, and pressed me when I needed it. I am blessed to have an inspirational
faculty member like you to guide me to the finish line.
Also, Warren Rauhe, I thank you for encouragement and inspiration over the past three
years. You made my transition from an undergraduate to a graduate student and professional
much easier than I anticipated. Without your generosity and employment as a designer for
MSU, I wouldn’t have been able to financially finish my degree. I thank you for everything you
have done for me.
And Paul Nieratko, I thank you for truly being an inspiration in this program from day
one. Your cheerful attitude and unconditional love for our profession and students will always
be something I cherish and reference when talking about Michigan State Landscape
Architecture.
Thank you to all my friends and family that expressed encouragement when I needed it
the most. A special thanks to the rest of the staff in the School of Planning, Design, and
Construction. Your hard work and dedication truly inspires your fellow Spartans. As always, Go
Green!
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Significance of Study………..………………………………………………………………………………..4
Chapter Description……………………………………………………………………………………………5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..………………………..6
Definition of Place-making…………………………………………………………………….………….6
Theories of Place-making……………………………………………………………………..……………8
Pieces of Place-making………….…………………………………………………………….…………..15
Project for Public Spaces (PPS)..…………………………………….……………………………….15
Michigan Place-making Initiative……………………………………………………………………17
Walkability……………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Culture………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Entertainment……………………………………………………………………………………………….23
Retail…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
History and Heritage……………………………………………………………………………………..26
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS…………………………..…………………………………………………..29
Research Design and Rational…………………..……………………………………………………..29
Participants………………………………………………………………………………………………………29
Instrument…………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..30
Survey Preparation……………..……………………………………………………………………………30
Site Selection…………………………..……………………………………………………………………….31
Image Description…………………………………………………………………………………………….32
Survey Description……………………………………………………………………………………………38
Coding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
Cross Tabulations……………………………………………………………………………………………..39
CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION………………………..………………………………………………………….40
Demographic Data……………………………………………………………………………………………40
Physical Differences………………..……………………………………………………………………….46
Emotional Differences………………………………………………………………………………………62
v

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION………………………..……………………………………………………………………72
Physical Differences………………………..……………………………………………………………….73
Emotional Responses………………………..……………………………………………………………..77
Overall Observations………………….……………………………………………………………………80
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………..84
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………..………………………………………………………………………………..91

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gender……………………………………………………………………………………………………………40
Table 2: Age…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 3: Race-Ethnicity…………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 4: Major.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
Table 5: Educational Status………………………………………………………………………………………….42
Table 6: Physical Difference Pearson Chi-Square Summery……………………………….………43
Table 7: Emotional Response Pearson Chi-Square Summery…………….………………………..44
Table 8: Image 1 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………………………………………………..………………………………………………………..47
Table 9: Image 1 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………47
Table 10: Image 1 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………47
Table 11: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49
Table 12: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………..49
Table 13: Image 2 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..50
Table 14: Image 3 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………..52
Table 15: Image 3 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………....52

vii

Table 16: Image 3 Physical Differences Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53
Table 17: Image 7 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning….………55
Table 18: Image 7 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning…55
Table 19: Image 7 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Urban
Planning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….55
Table 20: Image 7 Chi-Square for Urban Planning and Construction Management.……57
Table 21: Image 7 Cross tabulation for Urban Planning and Construction
Management……………………..………………………………………………………………………………………..57
Table 22: Image 7 Physical Differences for Urban Planning and Construction
Management…………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..57
Table 23: Image 9 Chi Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………..59
Table 24: Image 9 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management…………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..59
Table 25: Image 9 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management…………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..59
Table 26: Image 9 Chi-Square for Interior Design and Construction Management.…….61
Table 27: Image 9 Cross tabulation for Interior Design and Construction
Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………61
Table 28: Image 9 Physical Differences for Interior Design and Construction
Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62
Table 29: Image 1 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………………………..…………………………………………………………..…………………63
Table 30: Image 1 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..63
Table 31: Imagine 1 Emotional Responses for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………………..………………………………………………………………………………………..64
viii

Table 32: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..66
Table 33: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………..66
Table 34: Image 2 Emotional Responses Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management…………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..67
Table 35: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning….………68
Table 36: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning...69
Table 37: Image 2 Emotional Responses for Landscape Architecture and Urban
Planning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….69
Table 38: Image 3 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..71
Table 39: Image 3 Cross Tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management……………..………………………………………………………………………………………………..71
Table 40: Image 3 Emotional Responses for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..72
Table 41: Responding Participant and Chi-Square Correlation for Physical Differences
Identification…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..74
Table 42: Responding Participants and Chi-Square Correlation for Emotional Response
Identification……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..78

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site 1 - Proposed Saginaw Riverwalk Extension……………………………………………33
Figure 2: Site 2 – Existing Morely Plaza……………………………………………………………………….35
Figure 3: Site 3 – Existing Dow Events Center.................................................................36
Figure 4: Site 1 – Image 1…………………………………………………………………………………………….46
Figure 5: Site 1 – Image 2.................................................................................................49
Figure 6: Site 1 – Image 3…………………………………………………………………………………………….52
Figure 7: Site 2 – Image 7…………………………………………………………………………………………….54
Figure 8: Site 3 – Image 9…………………………………………………………………………………………….58

x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Place-making is becoming a widely used development practice, and gaining respect
among private and public sectors across the United States (Bohl, 2002). Additionally, the
opportunity place-making creates for a community to gain a sense of place, or identity, is being
embraced by community leaders, planners, designers, and developers (Bohl, 2002). The
extensiveness of the practice heeds involvement from multiple disciplines. The following study
investigates preferences of attributes of place-making from the perspective of emerging
professionals in four different majors in Michigan State’s School of Planning, Design, and
Construction. The outcome of this study may increase professional communication in cross
disciplinary efforts in the Place-making environment.
“Place-making” is currently an alluvial term. It portrays slightly different importance to
each discipline and community. At a large scale, place-making might offer solutions at a
regional level by using a transect planning approach (Wycoff and Heidel). Alternatively, a single
neighborhood’s involvement may be focused primarily on engaging with other residents within
the community, capturing the social benefits of place-making (Silberberg, 2013). The
advantages of this ideology lie within the cooperation of public and private sectors, economists,
developers, professional planning and design groups and the educational backgrounds that
stem from each participating organization or individual. The challenging part of this process is
remaining on task, and positively collaborating to pursue a successful product. This study
attempts to grasp an understanding of what a select few of these disciplines tend to primarily
identify with in a physical environment.
1

The majority of place-making projects are established in the urban realm. This is where
early influencers of place, like Jane Jacobs and Kevin Lynch, pressed the importance of public
interaction in the urban core (Silberberg, 2013). These philosophical trends are beginning to
resonate with the current population. Studies are beginning to show an increased interest in
living within the urban core, prompting developers to accommodate for this new market trend
(Bohl, 2002). Demographically, research suggests that a diverse selection of the population
actually prefers the urban realm. These findings relate to a variety of age groups, from retiring
baby boomers, to empty nester parents and young adults (Speck, 2012). Many suburbanites
feel they would be better accustomed to living an urban lifestyle (Bohl, 2002). In relation, a
recent study that surveyed homebuyers found that people overwhelmingly express interest in
some sort of urban linkage to their neighborhood, citing that only “One in ten say they would
prefer a suburban neighborhood with houses only” (Cortright, 2013).
A significant portion of the population returning to urban locations will be young adults,
also known as the millennial generation. The classic teenage goal of getting a driver’s license
and owning their first car is currently fading. Since the 1970’s the number of nineteen year-olds
acquiring a license has dropped by fifteen percent (Neff, 2010). In The Great Car Reset, Richard
Florida ( explains that, today, the millennials aren’t viewing the car as a necessity, but
alternatively embracing the sense of financial freedom and flexibility that result from not
experiencing the weight of car payments and maintenance. Without a car, young adults need
different modes of transportation and walkable environment. This encourages public and
private sector collaboration to retrofit many urban cores, communities, and public spaces to
accommodate this changing lifestyle.
2

The financial benefit affects more than individuals. Washington D.C. has focused efforts
on building transportation infrastructure over the past decade. As a result, there has been an
increase in population and a decrease in registered vehicles, attributing to an estimated
$127,275,000 retention in local economy (Speck, 2012). These growing circumstances and
needs for accessible places are a major emphasis of place-making.
American’s will also profit from increased walkability, and the crucial role that it plays in
place-making practice. The health of this country’s society has been brought into question
extensively over the past twenty years. “According to rules of the U.S. military, 25 percent of
young men and 40 percent of young women are too fat to enlist (Speck, 2012 40).” These
health concerns may be attributed to the “automotive lifestyle” and the environments that
have been built around it (Speck 2012). “As recently as 1991, no states had obesity rates over
twenty percent. By 2007, only one state, Colorado, was under 20 percent” (Mapes, 2009 230).
Additionally, high stress levels from driving are critically affecting our health (Speck, 2012).
Research in Miami found that “after driving their cars across the city for forty-five minutes,
university students had higher blood pressure, higher heart rates, and lower frustration
tolerance” (qtd. in Speck, 2012 48). The quest for walkable communities with necessary goods
within a public realm could eliminate the majority of these risks, decrease vehicle usage and
traffic, and build a healthier society. Positive results from place-making implementation can
possibly assist in fields of human and environmental well-being and shape towns and cities for
better efficiency.

3

Purpose
This study will compare the preferences of emerging professionals in Michigan State
University’s Construction Management, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, and Urban
Planning majors using a visual assessment survey technique. These stakeholder groups were
selected because of their future role as definers and makers of public space. These emerging
professionals will be the first generation that deals with the Michigan Place Making Initiative in
their early careers. Their role in Michigan’s economic future is imperative to the success of
many of Michigan’s cities, towns, and villages.
Significance of Study
Researchers have investigated place-making on several different levels of planning,
design, and implementation procedures. Interestingly, due to the adolescence of the practice,
its definition is characterized differently depending on the stage it is viewed upon. This is
common in literature as well. Charles Bohl’s Placemaking (2012) is primarily viewed from a
“top-down” approach, whereas MIT’s 2013 white paper, Places in the Making, argues the
importance of a “bottoms-up” approach (Silberberg, 2013). This vague perception of placemaking allows for more than one type of interpretation. Planners, designers, developers,
economists, communities, and everyday people can all be involved in the same project. How is
place-making viewed by these different influencers?
This is a question that previous research has yet to specifically investigate. The
significance of answering this question will be a better understanding of how groups of certain
stakeholder’s perceptions of place-making attributes are related or unrelated to other groups

4

of stakeholders with common backgrounds. This understanding could possibly enhance
professional relationships with other disciplines, progressively resulting in improved
conversation and active engagement in the place-making realm.
Chapter Description
This thesis study is organized in the following manner:
Chapter Two reviews previous literature relating to place-making. As mentioned, the
practice is executed in various formats, involving an array of disciplines and established
ideologies. The literature review investigates these previous and existing influencers,
organizations, and characteristics that articulate the realm of place-making. The third chapter
explains the methodology and process used to survey the subject population. Chapter four
describes the survey data that was received. Additionally, a section of the chapter will analyze
the data and formulate answers to the questions that this study poses. The fifth chapter will
summarize and provide concluding statements, as well as imply further research and
suggestions.

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The following chapter investigates the origins of Place-making ideologies, as well as key
attributes of place-making. The sections are written to specifically emulate the site design
portion of the methodology process, in which the characteristics of place-making are
individually removed from the “whole” in order to be examined exclusively. The process is
further detailed in the methodology chapter. This practice allows each key attribute to be
viewed solely in its own existence, rather than among other place-making attributes, allowing
for deeper understanding of each characteristic.
The following section, “Definition of Place-making”, examines critical points in which
place-making has evolved. “The Theories of Place-making” briefly examines other urban
renewal and development applications that have been used in the recent past that helped
shape place-making theories. The “Pieces of Place-making” section allows for deeper
examination into individual attributes of place-making as mentioned previously. The following
sub-sections include information on two significant and ongoing place-making efforts pertaining
to this study, as well as individual place-making characteristics such as “Walkability, Culture,
Entertainment, Retail, and History and Heritage” perspectives.
Definition of Place-making
Place-making – the art of making places for people (Sepe, 2013 xvi) is the creation of
unique places that people want to use, to be in, to enjoy, to be a part of, and to remember
(Wycoff and Heidel, 2012). It concerns the connections between people and places, movement

6

and the urban form, nature and the built fabric (qtd. in Sepe, 2013 xvi). Also referred to as the
difference between place and space (quoted in Bonner, 2002 2), or the separation of space and
place in modern life (Giddens, 1990). Its setting often dictates its execution, ranging from
urban, to suburban, even rural venues (Wycoff and Heidel, 2012).
The practice of place-making can be traced to several origins, such as 1960’s New Town
Movement, in which “placeless suburbs” sought after European towns, creating community
centric villages and cities, offering different housing and working opportunities all within close
distance of the public realm (Bohl, 2002). Simultaneously, William “Holly” Whyte began
scientifically observing people and the way that naturally used public space in his movie The
Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1979). His work began “turning the tide”, and focusing placemaking on more of a “human-centered design” (Silberberg, 2013). At a larger scale, urban
activists Jane Jacobs and Kevin Lynch were studying human perceptions and issues of the
current built environment, and how it affected developing cities as well as urban sprawl
(Silberberg, 2013). Their expertise in each of their particular fields has educated planners,
designers, and developers, as well as communities across the world. The key attributes of placemaking, “Sociability, Uses and Activities, Access and Linkages, and Comfort and Image”,
according to Project for Public Spaces (PPS), are surely attributed to the foundation laid by past
researchers and scholars in the likes of Whyte, Lynch, and Jacobs.
If creating a “Sense of Place” is the main objective of place-making (Wycoff and Heidel,
2012), understanding place is an integral piece of making place, beseeching the opportunity to
investigate the root word, place. It is expressed as “spaces endowed with identity” (qtd. in

7

Sepe, 2013 xiii). These urban tangible and intangible identifying factors are “morphological,
natural, historical, and cultural invariants” that relate to the local populace, and “life of the city”
(qtd. in Sepe, 2013 xiii). Additionally, spaces become places when they are “relational and
historical” (Auge, 1995 77), with a “harmonious balance between variant and invariant
components, people and urban events, which are intrinsically linked by a reciprocal relationship
that makes specific place unique and recognizable” (qtd. in Sepe, 2013 xiii). “The place,
although complex, is none the less a total phenomenon, a set of all the individual
characteristics that make it up” (Sepe, 2013 13). The elements that embody the idea of place
include, but are not specifically limited to, “environmental, historical, symbolic, urban,
perceptive, anthropological, sociological, and psychological characteristics” (Sepe, 2013 xvi).
Theories of Place-making
Place-making is not the only prominent urban renewal and development philosophy
with a presence in the modern era. Many of the attributes that make up the theory of placemaking can be derived from other ideologies. The first portion of this literature review
investigates the theories and barriers that have advanced and obstructed key implementations
in urban development across the entire country. These include progressive applications like
New Urbanism, Main Street Development, and Place-marketing, as well as obstacles like
suburban sprawl and vehicle oriented environments. A few of the common themes involve
accessibility, or lack of accessibility, to human interactive spaces and environments that are
keystones to place-making. This section offers solutions to some of the fractured connections
to urban cores of American society.

8

The arrival of place-making in the urban realm is often referred to as a response to the
emergence of urban sprawl (Bohl, 2002). Addressed by William Whyte in the late 1950’s, sprawl
is described as an urban phenomenon in which, the suburban lifestyle is likely to experience an
identity crisis as the sum of their parts fails to add up to a community (Bohl, 2002).
The missing pieces are often attributed to the lack of accessible public gathering places.
These places include cafés, taverns, town squares, village greens, as well as parks and plazas
(Bohl, 2002). This is where social capital, or economic benefit derived from community
interaction, is accumulated (Silberberg, 2013). The culmination of these activities is established
in a setting referred to as the “third place” (Bohl, 2002). These are social gathering places found
outside of home, the first place, and the work environment, the second place (Bohl, 2002). It is
an on-going key role of place-making and place-makers to strive for the creation of the third
place and civic engagements that often represent the community aspect of resurging edge
cities and suburban environments (Silberberg, 2013).
The void created by sprawl is exemplified not just in the suburbs, but exponentially in
the urban community. “The costs of suburban sprawl are all around us – they are visible in the
creeping deterioration of once proud neighborhoods, the alienation of large segments of
society, a constantly rising crime rate and widespread environmental degradation” (Katz, 1994).
Large mid-western U.S. cities like Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis can relate. Katz further
describes the rise of sub-urbanism and decline of the urban core in The New Urbanism: Toward
and Architecture of Community (1994):

9

“For most of human history, people have banded together for mutual security or
to be close to critical resources – water, food and, more recently, ports, rail hubs
and employment centers. The advent of the automobile and a host of other
factors provided an opportunity to disperse – to go beyond the limits of one’s
own walking range or that of a streetcar line. The crime and disease which
plagued center cities in the past offered reasons enough to leave. In the postwar
era, suburbia became the lifestyle of choice for most Americans” (ix)
The deterioration of Detroit has been well documented (Silberberg, 2013). Ironically, the
motor city literally built the vehicle of suburbanization (Robertson, 1997). As a result, along
with plenty of other infrastructural issues, brick houses that lined the urban neighborhoods of
Detroit are currently being demolished at incredible rates. Communities are finding better ways
to use the vacant land by engaging in community based projects, like urban farming. These
communities seek programming funds and donations from proactive local business, like manure
from the Detroit Zoo, and scraps from GM’s assembly plants (NAR, 2013). Civic engagements
like these are visual representations of turning space into place. The social aspects of
experiences like this are crucial to building a communal environment.

The first smart growth development theory that is addressed in this literature review
focuses on New Urbanism. This new development application relates to the theory of placemaking, relating to the multiple scales of design and implementation, engaging in anything from
regional planning to streetscaping and public gathering spaces. Additionally, attempts to

10

harness the civic engagement of the local community through public space are a cornerstone to
new urbanism and place-making.
The New Urbanism movement “addresses many of the ills of our current sprawl
development pattern while returning to a cherished American icon: that of a compact, closeknit community” (Katz, 1994 ix). A partial goal of this application is to utilize advantages that
the suburban realm brings to society – single family living, quiet neighborhoods, and perceived
safety - and incorporate accessibility to urban lifestyle opportunities. In Place Making:
Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages, Charles C Boyle explains, “The New
Urbanist’s strongly support revitalizing old town centers and main streets, and re-configuring
newer retail, office, and higher-density residential growth to transform them into village
centers, town centers, and urban districts”(2002 25). The movement also proposes diversity in
living styles, including high end apartments and townhouses within the urban realm that offer
different places to live.
These undertakings offer small scale urban cores for broadly laid out suburban
neighborhoods. The advantage that new urbanist theory provides to the suburbs is an
opportunity to reach public goods within a public space without getting on the highway and
driving into the city. In Katz’s The New Urbanism, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
express that these entities, like neighborhoods, are urbanized areas with balanced mixed
human activity; districts are areas dominated by a single activity; corridors are connectors and
separators of neighborhoods and districts (1994 xvii). The emphasis on building communal
strength strongly correlates with the overarching goals of place-making.

11

Although the sentiments of New Urbanism and its increasing popularity has reenergized
struggling cities across the country, its primary foundation of theory is architecturally based
(Bohl, 2002). This may soon become a hindrance to the creation of public space. Additionally,
much of the focus is on creating small urban cores within current suburban environments (Katz,
1994). This notion is a well received philosophy, but is it perhaps too little, too late? The
returning importance of the downtowns and urban lifestyle has some viewing the suburbs as
the next slum of the United States (Leinberger, 2008). Therefore, it may be a concern that we
are allocating resources and funding for a less-desirable future environment.
Whether it is city wide, or inside a local neighborhood, a continuing goal of placemaking is to create a “sense of place” (Silberberg, 2013). This is not just an ambition for towns
and cities in the United States. For past decade, Europe has been at the forefront for the
introduction of Place-marketing, a branding technique used to promote a city’s image in lieu of
attracting business and workers, and residents (Allen, 2011). The idea is to create and build off
of a certain identity, or uniqueness, to create a sense of place that is parallel to the specific
environment. For example, companies like Coca-Cola, or McDonald’s are brands that are
recognizable worldwide. In relation, one can say the same for some cities. They are not
necessarily limited to large metropolis’ like New York, or London, known mostly for their size.
The branded cities are known for certain assets, or “infuencers”, that are unique qualities that
draw people to the city (75). What would Vegas be without the bright lights and
entertainment? What would Branson, Missouri be without the music? Other urban cores of a
variety of scales must ask the same question of their own community. The answers often come
from focus-group sessions with residents and stakeholders to determine what the heart of the
12

city is, as well as the meaningful and significant characteristics of the urban core (83). This is a
crucial step in branding the authentic sense of place for a community, especially in a placemaking format, considering that the design portion typically takes a back seat to the community
engagement in the actual implementation (Silberberg, 2013).
Place-marketing and branding, although key components of creating a sense of place,
are not philosophies of urban development. It’s is more of an organizational theory and
enhancement of attributes of public space. Regardless, Place-marketing, and its worldwide
success, is certainly crucial piece of place-making theory.
Key attributes of place-making, like “comfort and image”, relate to historic preservation
and protection of a community’s past and heritage. The National Association for Realtors
further explain the relationship in Place-making for Realtor Associations (NAR), stating, “A Main
Street approach can be considered place-making as the end result will enable people to come
together to live, work and play in their community” (2013 13). Great examples of this are the
numerous Main Street programs across the United States keeping small downtowns thriving,
despite economic decline due to the effects of American suburbanization (Filion et al., 2004).
“Currently, there are over 1,000 Main Street communities and 43 state Main Street programs in
the United States” (Robertson, 2004 56).
According to Robertson (2004), “The Main Street Approach is arguably the most widely
used and heralded method of downtown revitalization - especially for smaller cities - in the
United States” (The Main Street Approach to Downtown Development 56). Recently,
downtowns have seen a returning increase in residents within the city limits. “This trend may

13

be due to many factors, including the aging population; boredom with the same combination of
national chains at the mall; traffic congestion on suburban and ex-urban roads; and the efforts
of many urban and historic preservation groups to "sell" the unique character of historic
downtowns” (Edwards, 2006 30). This encouraging development should resonate well with the
place-making efforts occurring throughout the United States. It confirms that the importance of
a sense of place within a community ranks high among attributes when choosing a place to live.
These developments have not been overlooked. The National Trust for Historic
Preservation created the National Main Street Centre (NMSC) in an attempt to revitalize small,
traditional downtowns across America (Edwards, 2004). Using a four-point system – Economic
restructuring, promotion, design, and organization – the NMSC began helping small downtowns
in need of help. Its success has been well documented in Robertson’s Can Small-City
Downtowns Remain Viable, where he again found that the main street approach was the most
successful strategy among smaller downtowns (276).
Certainly main streets across the United States have benefitted from these
organizations and programs. Unfortunately, the majority of main street center resources have
been purposely focused into smaller cities (Edwards, 2004). Still some of the struggling urban
cores in metropolitan environments have very prominent and important main streets that the
cities were founded upon. The lack of funding for these urban areas could be viewed as a
downfall of NMSC’s past philosophies.
Fortunately, the NMSC has a led to other similar approaches like the Main Street
Program, which has recently opened up to smaller neighborhoods within larger metropolitan
areas like Boston, Baltimore, and Chicago (Edwards, 2004). The addition of this program infers
14

that the use of historic character leading to the success of smaller downtowns can transitively
be applied to metropolitan historic neighborhoods also.
Overall, these results confirm the importance of comfort and image within the placemaking realm. Furthermore, this endorses the relationship between the other main attributes
of place-making (sociability, uses and activities, and access and linkages) and the needs of
residents within a historical community.
Pieces of Place-making
Place–making, as a whole, is a conglomerate of attributes and nuances of the built and
natural environment that serves the public realm. Although the term Place-making is relatively
new, as the organization Project for Public Spaces (PPS) explains, the ideology that represents
the process has been around for quite some time. This portion of the literature review
examines key organizations that have contributed to the evolution of the practice, as well as
the critical fragments of place-making and where they fit within the application. The following
sub-sections represent the critical portions of issues and attributes that currently encompass
the place-making practice.

Project for Public Spaces (PPS)
Perhaps two of the greatest contributors to the place-making ideologies are Fred and
Ethan Kent, founders of Project for Public Spaces (Silberberg, 2013). In 1975, this non-profit
planning, design, and educational organization based out of New York, New York has been
“dedicated to helping people create and sustain public spaces that build stronger communities
(PPS). As a colleague of author and educator William Whyte, Fred Kent continued pursuing the
15

importance of the public realm within the deep fabric of cities and towns across the world
(White). Since the founding of the organization, Project for Public Spaces has been a leader in
the place-making community. (Silberberg, 2013)
Project for Public Spaces has taken on projects in forty-three countries, all fifty states,
and over three thousand communities worldwide. They are increasingly becoming engaged in
foreign projects and other endeavors through the United Nations’ “Habitat” program. In
addition, they have reached people of all realms through educational programs that are offered
by the organization (PPS). They have contributed to research and innovated design methods
that have resulted in a conglomerate of guidelines, diagrams, and other strategies like “The
Power of 10”, “11 Principles of Place-making”, and “Attributes of a Sense of Place” that are
keystone applications for neighborhoods, design firms, and cities around the globe (PPS).
The role of Project for Public spaces differs from traditional design firm interaction and
implementation processes. Rather than involving outside help from private firms to shape a
downtown or public square, communities are put to work through PPS’ programs and training
(PPS). Kent views the people that live within and around these public spaces as the experts in
the community (Silberberg, 2013). To the dismay of many design based firms, Project for Public
Spaces is a big proponent of “Lighter, quicker, cheaper”, which allows the community to start
and finish projects, known as place led design. They choose the tasks that are feasible and only
incorporate funds that are available. The lighter, quicker, cheaper model allows for temporary
implementation. Simply explained by Ethan Kent, “It allows you to do bold things and make
mistakes. No Pressure” (Silberberg, 2013). Ethan Kent measures success in a different manner

16

than some other private firms. Intangible observations of things like happiness, smiling people,
and user diversity constitutes for successful place-making attributes (Silberberg, 2013). This
application encourages social interaction, and is an immense producer of social equity.
In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology white paper, Places in the Making by Susan
Siberberg, the focus is taken primarily away from design, and instead is focused prominently on
community based organizations. (PPS) “The intense focus on place has caused us to miss the
opportunity of community” (Silberberg, 2013 3). Local residents, neighborhood organizations,
and other stakeholders are too often left out of the design process. This concern also resonates
with Project for Public Spaces, stating:
“The people who live and work in a given area are left without a place to
interact in a casual, comfortable environment, and the people who visit or pass
through miss out on the opportunity to experience the unique sense of place
that would come to the fore had the community been more involved.”

Michigan Place-making Initiative
In an attempt to revitalize Michigan’s “economic competitiveness”, Governor Rick
Snyder and the State of Michigan organized the Michigan Place-making Initiative, or MiPlace
(Wycoff and Heidel, 2012). This endeavor is an example of the cross disciplinary system needed
for urban success. Snyder was quoted in 2011 while addressing Michigan officials stating, “I
don’t separate place making from economic development. They are intertwined” (quoted in
Wycoff and Heidel, 2012). According to Wycoff and Heidel (2012), that meant engaging in “new

17

economy” strategies like attracting educated talent, instead of the companies, and
understanding that people are choosing places to live before finding a job, rather than following
wherever the job market would take them. Therefore, the significance of creating a sense of
place for regional and local communities becomes a vital part in progressing the Michigan
economy.
Within a larger scaled perspective, the Michigan Place-making Initiative challenges the
current trend of Michigan having a “state economy”. Instead, due to the state’s very diverse
environments, climates, cultures, and other strong assets, a multi-regional approach allows for
better globalization as a state (Wycoff and Heidel, 2012).Within each of these regions, urban
centers of commerce and culture act as talent magnets, currently pulling in 82% of the
population and 84% of the jobs in Michigan (Wycoff and Heidel, 2012). These urban cores have
become crucial targets from place-making opportunities in the state.
Wycoff and Heidel (2012) defend the importance of place-making in accordance with
the continuing demand for city living opportunities and occupations from the millennials. This
generation represents the largest population bubble in fifty years (Speck, 2012) According to
Doherty and Leinberger, authors of The Next Real Estate Boom (2010), “Fully 77% of them plan
to live in America’s urban cores”.
Additionally, retiring baby boomers will soon be strongly impacting the economy.
Leinberger notes in The Option for Urbanism (2008), that 88% of the new households built
between now and 2025 will be childless, which is a significant difference from the early 70’s
when nearly half of the households had children (89). The majority of these retirees, at a full
18

one quarter of the U.S. population, will be leaving their oversized households in the suburbs
(Doherty and Leinberger, 2010). MiPlace is planning for this future shift of urban population, in
which the largest metropolitan regions among Detroit and Grand Rapids have already begun
witnessing (Wycoff and Heidel, 2012).
Walkability
The vitality of an urban environment often constitutes a walkable downtown (Speck,
2012). Walkability is described by Speck as “fabric, the everyday collection of streets, blocks,
and buildings that tie the monuments together” (Speck, 2013 10). He explains that in general
terms, an everyday walk, whether it’s downtown, or in your local neighborhood should be
useful, feel safe and comfortable, and be interesting (Speck, 2012). Walkability is arguably the
most important attribute of place-making. In Project for Public Space’s place-making diagram,
walkability is the only attribute found in more than one of the four main categories. The focus
on this subject within the profession encourages deeper research into the understanding of
walkability, including its purposes and implementation processes.
It is important to realize that walkability involves more than just the spaces that people
walk. The theory behind creating a walkable urban core encompasses motorized and nonmotorized vehicle environments, business organization, community and government
compliance, as well as urban development and planning purposes (Speck, 2012). The
importance of having a walkable community is well documented in Bohl’s Place-making,
stating that, “Recent years have witnessed a resurgence in downtown housing markets that is
being driven by young professionals, empty nesters, and others looking to escape traffic

19

congestion, gain access to urban amenities, and find lower maintenance housing options”
(2012, 14). This focus has enticed developers and designers to integrate higher density housing
with downtown and streetscape projects, engaging holistic planning theories, incorporating
separate fragments of the urban realm (Bohl, 2002). According to Speck, walkability is more
than just a nice vision of future planning and development; “Rather, it’s a simple, practical
minded solution to a host of complex problems that we face as a society, problems that daily
undermine our nation’s economic competitiveness, public welfare, and environmental
sustainability” (2012 11).
There is a reason why walkability is a significant factor in place-making efforts. From a
design standpoint, the range of issues that are addressed by walkability standards relate well
with place-making standards, making the implementation processes very comparable.
Culture
Place-making has an increasingly strong focus on cultural development in the urban
realm (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). It has a major impact in creating a sense of place, or
authentic core of the city (Allen, 2011). Ron Griffiths (1995) considers this to be a world-wide
phenomenon:
“Within this emerging framework of urban policy, an increasingly
significant role has been played by cultural policies of various kinds, reflecting a
strong belief among many commentators and governmental bodies that the
cultural realm is destined to play an increasingly important part in the future
evolution of cities”(253).
20

This is especially true for smaller institutions. Gil White, member of the National Association of
Realtors, agrees, citing that neighborhood culture is a critical unifier within the community, and
an integral piece of the place-making process (2013). Accordingly, larger metropolis
neighborhoods have become increasingly engaged in active place-making (Markusen & Gadwa,
2010). This type of community involvement is often considered the “bottoms up” approach,
wherein the communal work that is accomplished is often easier, and quick fix opportunities
(White, 2013). This lighter, quicker, cheaper approach can play an important role in these
higher density neighborhoods because it involves a large group of participants, which can result
in a bigger impact in the community.
Developing culture within the urban core can often affect the regional and local
economies, even a global scale (Wycoff and Heidel, 2012).With the economy representing one
of the main driving forces of place-making efforts, additional information on implementation
strategies and possible implications were pursued in this literature review.
Globalization is a continuing trend that will affect the future of the urban environment
(Rypkema, 2003). Its importance often is focused on the economy, for good reason. Arts and
culture are closely related to the private sector, with highly profitable imports and exports, as
well as retail and mixed-use housing (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Rypkema (2003) believes that
the highest impact will be locally, explaining, “Local response to globalization will necessitate
identifying local assets (human, natural, physical, locational, functional, cultural) that can be
utilized to respond to globalization. Those assets need to be identified, then protected, then
enhanced” (11).

21

In addition, “As cities compete as locations for investment and as spheres of influence,
city leaders are discovering how to use culture to make their cities distinctive” (Southwood,
1992 4). This offers opportunities to adopt entrepreneurial and cultural industries that increase
job opportunities, produce new products, and encourage diversity within the local economy
(Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). “Elsewhere in Britain, in Europe, and in parts of the United States,
culture is seen as a key organizing principle informing how cities plan for their future. No city
continues to thrive as a natural right” (Southwood, 1992 4). The economic benefits of cultural
place-making seem to be endless. Cultural expansion enhances economic growth locally due to
residents within the neighborhood becoming patrons of different types of entertainment that
circulates the economy (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010). Using vacant space with a “bottoms up”
approach can increase property taxes, leading to more top down projects (White, 2013). These
projects generate jobs, new business, and interest in the local community (Markusen & Gadwa,
2010). According to Rogers and Fisher’s A New London (1992), “cities are economically,
physically, and socially bound up with the creation of what they term a “new urban culture”, in
which artistic and cultural life is a central element of regeneration”(4).
Cultural strategies are often a main source of revitalization within struggling
communities (Griffiths, 1995). In Ron Griffiths’ Cultural Strategies and New Modes of Urban
Intervention (1995), he defends the cultural aspect of a downtown. In the early 1990’s, the
town of Bristol, UK invested in creating a set of cultural and city funded groups that took on the
task to make Bristol a cultural stronghold of Southwest England (Griffiths, 1995). They created
key areas of which businesses and people could build their lives around (Griffiths, 1995). Using
means of culture and re-integrating it into the city caused face to face relations, providing
22

“Interaction and communication that generates the scientific, technological, financial and
cultural creativity that is the engine of prosperity in the post-industrial age” (quoted in Griffiths,
1995 254). According Charles Bohl (2008), businesses desire similar values:
“Both for companies and that would otherwise be isolated in office and
technology parks, and for “new economy” workers who are tired of the “virtual
world” of computers, e-mail, and telecommunicating – and eager for face-toface contact – town centers and mixed use environments offer an appealing
alternative” (20).
Ironically, Project for Public Spaces doesn’t include culture as an attribute of
place-making within the place-making diagram used for this research. This isn’t to say
that PPS discourages the use of culture as vehicle for place-making efforts. Through the
literature, we can infer that the cultural aspect is much like the theory of place-making,
as there are multiple characteristics that make up the term. Deeming culture as an
attribute under just one category seems unfair. If you break up culture into the terms
that define it, you will realize that those terms are distributed among all four categories
of the place-making diagram.

Entertainment
Often, an important part of creating a sense of place concerns the amount of things a
person can do in a certain space (PPS). The possible activities presented can include rather
simple opportunities for social conversation, as explained by the Project for Public Spaces’

23

“Power of Ten” (PPS). “A park is good. A park with a fountain, a playground and hotdog vendor
is better” (PPS). However, in contrasting scale, new strategies implemented to attract a higher
intensity in entertainment have actually become its own category of development (Bohl 2002).
These urban entertainment centers (UECs) are migrating from big box establishments, like
suburban shopping malls, to “mixed-use projects that are infused with entertainment and
entertaining retailers in an entertaining environment” (Bohl, 2002 21). The UEC’s tend to
establish themselves within an existing urban realm, citing that the environment is more
authentic (Bohl, 2002).
In many cases, cities may have a very lively afternoon scene, but lack in nightlife, which
can increase vast amounts of revenue for downtowns (Campo and Ryan, 2008). Daniel Campo
and Brent Ryan’s The Entertainment Zone (2008) speaks on multiple types of downtown
revitalization and rehabilitation processes that encourages urban nightlife, and is sparked by
creating a cultural atmosphere and entertainment. Campo and Ryan describe nightlife in a
typical downtown, explaining, “Entertainment zones (EZs) are concentrated nightlife districts
occupying the margins of downtowns in former commercial and industrial areas, underutilized
retail corridors or underdeveloped waterfronts” (Campo and Ryan, 2008 292). Instead of
evolving through a large scale UEC, this urban nightlife is often woven within the confines of
existing urban fabric (Campo and Ryan, 2008). Campo and Ryan (2008) continue, stating:
“This location makes them easily accessible to downtown workers and
nearby residents while placing them in relatively familiar territory for
suburbanites. The boundaries of entertainment zones are often sharply

24

circumscribed by waterways and railroad rights-of-way, as well as the highways
and urban renewal sites that were the products of mid-20th century planning”
(293).
These Entertainment Zones, though organic in nature, often have underlying intangible
characteristics such as culture and other social applications that are relevant in the realms of
Place-making and New Urbanist movements (Campo and Ryan, 2008).

Retail
Another frequent form of urban entertainment within the urban core is retail and
shopping districts. The economic benefits of retail are an important measurable standard for
place-making applications (PPS). The accessibility of consumer options within the urban core
regularly affects more than just local residents. For years, urban retailing has been a topic of
regional economic concern (Robertson, 1997).
According to Robertson’s Downtown Retail Revitalization in America (1997), the
emergence of the suburban mall was timely and enticing option to fleeing urban baby boomers.
Shopping within the urban core became rare due to the inconveniences and crime activity
heightening in the inner-city (Robertson, 1997). The resurgence of urban retail has followed
many of the principles engraved in the suburban mall formula, such as “design,
implementation, and organization” (Robertson, 1997 387).
These newer undertakings have come in four main forms of retail: “Pedestrian malls,
festival markets, downtown indoor shopping centres, and mixed use centres” (Robertson, 1997
25

387). Concluding his article, Robertson (1997) explains, “Cities looking to rejuvenate downtown
retailing today are much more likely to embrace a mixed-use centre, and enclosed mall,
skywalks or centralized retail management than strategies that offer a sharp alternative to
suburban malls, such as festival markets, pedestrian malls or historic preservation” (Robertson,
1997 399). The future of retail development must plan on including a variety of uses and
activities in relation to the shopping district, as for there may be too many opposing forces to
the previous model (Robertson, 1997).
The characteristics of these findings strongly suit the New Urbanist movement. With an
added diversity, retail in the urban core will attract a higher diversity of consumers. This will
also bode well with place-making theory. Increasing diversity and the amount of uses within a
space are crucial characteristics to the “Sociability” and “Uses and Activities” attributes of
place-making.
History and Heritage
“The Historic core of a city is often what differentiates one place from another,
provides an identity and sense of place, and offers an authentic experience” (Allen, 2011 75).
This important piece of place-making typically relates to the “comfort and image” of a certain
space, but often relates to other important attributes of place-making. Some towns and cities
choose to enhance the historical character to produce consumerism. Professor April Allen
(2011) explores the philosophy of branding:
“Place marketing and branding are being used in cities all over Europe to
promote a city’s image and serve as a conduit for identification with the city.
26

Historically, cities have promoted their image (or brand) in order to attract
residents, workers and tourists, a category of people called ‘influencers’…
Branding of a city may provide a solution for promoting the diversity, history,
cultural activities, investment opportunities and sense of place that is unique to
a particular city or town” (75).
In Filion’s et al. (2004) study of Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions, he
explains, “Historical flavor has turned many of these downtowns into major tourist
destinations” (332). This is perhaps due to present day visitor’s interest in authenticity, which
constitutes for a historical character (Allen, 2011). A town’s visible heritage can capture the
meaning of a sense of place:
“Historical buildings with diverse architectural facades, the presence of
residential units in the streets, the human scale of the streets with strong
enclosure, street activities and people watching, the presence of tourists and
visitors, and mature landscaping and trees provided an emotional connection
and attachment to place which was a significant contributor in influencing sense
of place” (qtd. in Allen, 2011 78).
This is yet another example of how one characteristic in of place-making can
relate to other important attributes. The literature provides examples that involve all
four main categories of the place-making realm. The implementation of enhancing
historical character also relates very closely with the lighter, quicker, cheaper approach.
With an engaged community, things like signage, façade updates, and manicured
27

landscaping can all be made possible without hiring a design firm or other professional
practice.
Conclusion
Place-making tends to be a very relatable practice. As mentioned, many of the existing
theories that are currently integrated within planning and design fields, as well as many towns
and cities, share common attributes with the place-making realm. The important part of placemaking that continues to stand out among the rest of the ideologies is the engagement in
public participation. Although a top-down design approach is part of the implementation
process in many cases, the focus continues to be based on more of a “bottoms up” approach.
The execution of this approach may be the precise solution to some of America’s biggest
urban core issues. By successfully engaging public and private sectors of the country’s most
corroded neighborhoods and town centers, Project for Public Spaces and has proven the power
of social equity. This renaissance of empowering the people has opened doors for communities
that don’t have the local funding to enhance their public spaces. In turn, these communities
have increased property value and encouraged local business, which has stimulated funds,
grants, and additional participants for future projects.
This progress is noted within a local community, but can also be celebrated at a regional
and even global scale. The civic engagement has been known to procure business opportunities
that can bring in consumers from all over the world. This advance in economic kinetic energy
has potential to turn the economy around for some areas of the country if applied correctly.

28

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

The following chapter will explain the research methods used during this study to
answer key questions identified in the introduction. Rational for the types of study,
participants, and instruments used for data collection is described in detail.
Research Design and Rational
The main goal of this study is to compare the preferences of emerging professionals in
planning, design, and management fields to enhance future cross-disciplinary interaction and
communication. In order to accomplish this main goal, key questions needed to be answered.
What place-making attributes do key stakeholders identify with the most? Which stakeholder
groups share the same tendency to identify similar attributes of place-making? To successfully
answer these questions, an online voluntary visual assessment survey technique was
administered to emerging professionals. The survey design allowed for an easy collection of
data from individuals currently displaced in different geographical locations. Future researchers
will be able to use this collected data to solve communication issues between the disciplines,
creating greater efficiency through the planning and design process.
Participants
This study’s research participants were students and former students in the School of
Planning, Design, and Construction (Landscape Architecture, Urban Panning, Interior Design,
and Construction Management) at Michigan State University. Students from the Eli Broad
School of Business were invited to participate in the study, but did not provide sufficient
29

response. These stakeholder groups were selected because of their future role as definers and
makers of public space. The surveys were sent to undergraduate and graduate students
currently enrolled in their final academic year of study in their respective major, recently
graduated students from the four undergraduate majors, and recently graduated students from
the three graduate majors at the School of Planning Design and Construction. This study group
embodied a well-rounded set of stakeholders representing design and analytical backgrounds
of multiple scales.
Instrument
Although previous literature has expanded quite substantially over the past ten years on
place-making efforts, research pertaining to perceptions of stakeholders has been minimal. In
order to understand how each stakeholder identified place-making attributes, and answer this
study’s questions, new survey methods were needed. This study compares the preferences of
emerging professionals in planning, and design using a visual assessment survey technique. It
uses a mechanism developed by a prominent place-making organization, Project for Public
Spaces (PPS), as a vehicle for the design process. Using the Place Diagram as a reference for
place-making attributes, the survey was able to test identification trends of stakeholder groups
relating to 10 sets of before and after images.
Survey Preparation
A crucial piece of the survey was creating a set of before and after images that
represent place-making standards and attributes relating to the PPS Place Diagram. Each image
had to represent the four place-making attributes, and as many place-making characteristics as
30

possible. This allows for a greater chance that any given participant responding to the survey
questions have the opportunity to identify any attribute.
Google SketchUp was used to create a model of an existing site. Next, the site was
retrofitted with place-making standards and implementation techniques pulled from the
Project for Public Spaces diagram. Before and after images were taken at various scales and
perspectives to allow the participants to view a site from multiple perspectives and angles to
allow them to identify various physical differences and provoke an array of emotional
responses.
Each site is retrofitted with different characteristics and key attributes. A general
program is created for all three sites, but implemented according to the environment and
design applicable for each site. A functional use diagram (FUD) was created for each site based
off of PPS’s Place Diagram. Each FUD represents a range of possible program elements that are
applied to each design.
Site Selection
Selecting a serviceable site for place-making enhancement and before and after imaging
was an important part of creating a successful visual analysis survey. The following three sites
were selected for range of different public spaces in an urban environment. The locations
needed to provide an array of existing characteristics and environments to allow for variety of
place-making implementation techniques that still covered a strong proportion of
characteristics and attributes. The range of urban environments could trigger different
responses from individuals. This non-repeating setting provided a greater chance for
31

participants to respond to a diverse set of characteristics rather than the same entity from an
altered perspective of the same space.
Three overall sites were selected in Saginaw, MI, partially due the lead investigators
familiarity with the city and surrounding landscape. This Mid-Michigan city has a population
51,508 (Census 2010), and has witnessed decline in population by approximately 10,000
people, a 16.7% decrease over the last ten years, and approximately 26% over the last twenty
years (Census 2010). The percentage of decrease is more than twenty-seven times the
percentage decrease of the state of Michigan as a whole (Census 2010). The population
decrease may be attributed with the closing of local auto manufacturers in the area over the
past twenty years, and quite possibly the crime increase, which has chased many residents to
the township, and turned a historical Victorian part of Saginaw into local disparity.
Image Description
All three of the sites selected are in the Central Business District of Saginaw. The first
site is an existing parking lot along the Saginaw River. This space currently facilitates parking for
the surrounding businesses downtown. Unfortunately, many of the businesses are either closed
or employ less people, decreasing the overall efficiency and use of the parking lot. The
redevelopment of this site is a 1,050 foot extension of the existing Saginaw Riverwalk to the
south. The site is redesigned in three separate sections.

32

Figure 1: Site 1 - Proposed Saginaw Riverwalk Extension- For interpretation of the references
to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this
thesis.

The four images taken from this site emphasize different environments created along
the Riverwalk. The first image is an overview of the southern portion. It is a very active space.
The main focus of this place includes a marine museum housed inside the bow of an old
freighter ship that also serves as an outdoor restaurant and snack bar. Next to the freighter, a
boardwalk leads to the water’s edge. Across the recreation trail, a playground and open park
area allows for community interaction. This image accentuates the activities available and the
land use difference from the before image. Survey participants can see characteristics within
these gathering spaces that encourage “Social”, “Uses and Activities”, “Access and Linkages”,
and “Comfort and Image” attributes.
The second image set is taken in the same area, but at a different perspective. This
allows participants to witness the same space in more detail. This tests if stakeholders respond
33

differently to different scales of the same environment. This image focuses on the café space
with the ship in background, and people walking the recreation trail in the foreground.
The third image set from the Riverwalk extension is taken farther north. This is the
second section of this site. This space exhibits natural features of the Riverwalk. This proposed
white pine forest is a sharp contrast from the existing parking lot in the before image. A small
wetland area with an array of wildlife further emphasizes the importance of the “Comfort and
Image” attributes for this location. Contrastingly, one may also notice that the recreation trail
splits off at this point. Because of this, “Access and Linkages” is another accentuated attribute.
Likewise, it isn’t improbable to notice the opportunity for “Sociability” attributes like
community interaction, or “Activities and Uses” by people on the trail.
The fourth and final image set of this Saginaw Riverwalk Extension highlights a historic
replica of a lumber town, which pays homage to the White Pine tree harvesting in this area that
turned Saginaw from a small village to one of the biggest cities in the state. This area places an
emphasis on “Uses and Activities” characteristics. It offers a place for community engagement
and creates a historical atmosphere, relating to the “Sociability” and “Comfort and Image” of
place-making.
The second location for development is a current pocket-park along the Washington
Ave., a main thoroughfare in downtown Saginaw. It is positioned between two prominent
buildings, the 13 story Citizens Bank building and historic Temple Theatre. The existing park
doesn’t offer much more than a small central plaza in the intersection of two sidewalks

34

stemming from the main road. Three images were taken to visually explain the three main
spaces of the redevelopment of this plaza.
Figure 2: Site 2 – Existing Morely Plaza

The first image is an aerial perspective of the east side of the plaza. The added water
tower is perhaps the most visible change to this site, due to its size and color. The tower is a
symbolic fixture to this place, representing the blue collar, rustic nature of this city. This entity
should pull an array different identification factors from stakeholders due to its enormity. In
addition, one may notice the central access of this plaza leading directly to the center of the
plaza allowing for better “Access and Linkages” to public space and transportation
opportunities. Also, access to businesses on either side of plaza was created in order to allow
people to enter these buildings without having to enter the streetscape. Plenty of “Uses and
Activities” and “Sociability” opportunities are available in the public gather spaces on either
side of the middle pathway.
35

The second image set is an overhead perspective that focuses on the central plaza of
this site. This allows for a better view of characteristics like, the materials used in the gathering
space, plants used in the planters, and other identifiable “Comfort and Image” attributes.
The third and final image set for this site is taken from the water, viewing the
boardwalk, pier, and boater access space. This area expresses identifiable characteristics that
relate to all of the place-making attributes. The pier and boardwalk are gathering spaces that
relate to “Sociability” and “Uses and Activities” attributes. Alternatively, the docks and water
access relate to the “Access and Linkages” and “Comfort and Images” attributes.
The third and final location that was developed is the existing public entrance and
parking lot for the Dow Event Center in Downtown Saginaw. Architecturally re-developed over
the past ten years the, the Dow Event Center has become one of the top attractions in the city.
Additionally the streetscape along Johnson St. was refurbished. The space in between these
two pieces is the focus of this design.
Figure 3: Site 3 – Existing Dow Events Center

36

The first image set is taken in the east third of this site. Image nine is positioned to look
west, towards the main entrance of the event center. People may quickly be attracted to the
amount of water that is being retained in this urban space. The idea is to capture rain from the
roof of the buildings and naturally filtrate the water through a three step retention process
before it is sent to the Saginaw River located a just a block away. Although “Comfort and
Image” is the main attribute of the site, the process isn’t exactly communicated to the survey
participant. Therefore, attributes identified still have a chance to be expressed as “Uses and
Activities”, “Access and Linkages”, or “Sociability”.
The second image set is located in the center of the site. This is the commons area and
entrance to the Dow Event Center. It is probably the least transformed image set of the three.
Participants may identify “Access and Linkages” due to the accentuated entrance area and
connection to outdoor attractions on either side. In contrast, the “Sociability” aspects of
creating an open public gathering space may connect with some of the survey participants.
The final image set is located on the western edge of the designed site. Image set ten is
first person perspective of a very active public space comprised of games and private shaded
areas. Additionally, in the background, and extended open space allows for a flexible
entertainment area used for larger venues like farmers markets, tent sales, and winter skating
rinks. Many of the survey participants are expected to identify “Sociability” and “Uses and
Activities” attributes for this image set. Although, it would possible for participants to primarily
identify “Comfort and Image” attributes within some of the public spaces and game areas.

37

Survey Description
The survey consists of two main sections. The first explores the socioeconomics of the
participant. It asks the participant to voluntarily provide information based on age, race,
education, and future career placement. The second section allows participants to identify
three physical changes and three emotional responses from each of the before and after image
sets for each of the ten image locations. The cross analysis between the stakeholder group’s
responses is the basis of the main goal for this study; determining which attributes of placemaking are preferred by emerging professionals.
The survey provides an identification number that is linked to the answers during the
analysis. The survey was originally administered to students and former students once in May
of 2013, and again in September of 2013.
Coding
The data collection process began in October of 2013. Upon receiving the data, all
responses from both sections of the survey were numerically coded for analysis in SPSS.
Participant’s identification of characteristics from the Physical Difference and Emotional
Responses portions of the survey were nominally coded as place-making attributes of the Place
Diagram. Each open ended response was coded as a “Non-respondent” (00), “Sociability” (1),
“Uses and Activities” (2), “Access and Linkages” (3), or “Comfort and Image” (4) attribute.

38

It is postulated by the investigators of this study that the first response by the
participant constitutes as a first instinct. In the Physical Differences and Emotional Response
portions of the survey, only the first response is used for analysis.
Cross Tabulations
The data was imported into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data
analysis. A cross tabulations test was used to compare data sets and seek for significant
differences.
Cross tabulation is a data processing procedure used to compare at least one set of data
with another. In this case, this method is used to create contingency tables that compare each
stakeholder’s identification of place-making attributes among other stakeholder’s side by side.
Only two stakeholder groups are compared at a time. Cross tabulation data processing is
administered for each of the ten image sets.
Coinciding, Pearson Chi-Square testing was assessed to the cross tabulated data. This is
an assessment of two types of comparisons; goodness of fit and test of independence.
Goodness of fit looks at distribution differences between frequency and theoretical. The test of
independence looks at two variables that are independent. Together it tests whether the cross
tabulated data between stakeholders can be “ascribed to chance or to some underlying law”
(Websters, 2010). The Pearson Chi-Square determines whether or not the data is considered
significantly different. For this study, a data set is considered significantly different if Pearson
Chi-Square was .05 or lower.

39

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION
The following chapter focuses on the data collected from the survey, and is split into 2
sections. The first section explains demographic information gathered from survey participants.
There are also answers from questions asked about their current educational placement and
future employment goals. The second section of this chapter explores data from visual analysis
portion of the survey. The data is split into two separate response groups, physical differences,
and emotional response.
Demographic Data
This study collected various demographic data thru the administered survey to explore
trends relating to the diversity of backgrounds that make up the disciplines involved in placemaking practice. The data includes gender, age, race, and current college major. Information
was also collected on the current educational status of participants to explore possible trends
relating to the progressing educational background of students.
There were 21 (n=60) males and 39 (n=60) females that responded to this survey (Table
1).
Table 1: Gender

Valid

Male
Female
Total

Frequency
21
39
60

Percent
35.0
65.0
100.0

Valid Percent
35.0
65.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
35.0
100.0

This study also explored the age of the responding population (n=60). There were four
18 year old, four 19 year old, eight 20 year old, fifteen 21 year old, and twenty-nine 22 year or
40

older survey respondents. The largest collection of responding participants at 48.3% was either
22 years of age or older. Ages 18 and 19 were the lowest responding groups of participants,
each at 6.7% (Table 2).
Table 2: Age

Valid

18
19
20
21
22+
Total

Frequency
4
4
8
15
29
60

Percent
6.7
6.7
13.3
25.0
48.3
100.0

Valid Percent
6.7
6.7
13.3
25.0
48.3
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
6.7
13.3
26.7
51.7
100.0

This study also explored racial and ethnic backgrounds of the participants. There were
only three responding ethnic backgrounds. There were 7 Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 African
American, and 52 White/Caucasian survey respondents (Table 3).
Table 3: Race-Ethnicity

Valid

Asian/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
White/Caucasian
Total

Frequency
7
1
52
60

Percent
11.7
1.7
86.7
100.0

Valid Percent
11.7
1.7
86.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
11.7
13.3
100.0

Exploring the quantities of respondents from each major within the School of Planning,
Design, and Construction was an integral piece of the survey design. A total of 19 Landscape
Architecture, 18 Urban Planning, 13 Interior Design, and 10 Construction Management students
participated in the survey. The highest responding majors, Landscape Architecture, and Urban
41

Planning, made up 61.7% (37) of the responding population. At 53.4% (32), primarily design
based majors represented the majority of the survey population (Table 4).
Table 4: Major

Valid

Landscape Architect
Urban Planning
Interior Design
Construction Management
Total

Frequency
19
18
13
10
60

Percent
31.7
30.0
21.7
16.7
100.0

Valid Percent
31.7
30.0
21.7
16.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
31.7
61.7
83.3
100.0

Data based on educational status of participants was collected. There 14 nonresponding participants, 28 responding current undergrad students, 11 responding current
graduate students, 3 responding recent bachelor graduates, and 4 responding recent masters
graduate students. Current undergraduate students encompass 60.9% (28) of the responding
participants. Most of the responding participants were current students, at 84.8% (39) (Table
5).

.00
Current Undergraduate
Student
Current Graduate
Student
Recent Bachelor
Graduate

Table 5: Educational Status
Frequenc
Valid
y
Percent Percent
14
23.3
23.3

Cumulative Percent
23.3

28

46.7

46.7

70.0

11

18.3

18.3

88.3

3

5.0

5.0

93.3

42

Table 5 (cont’d)
Recent Masters Graduate
Total

4

6.7

6.7

60

100.0

100.0

100.0

Data analysis included cross-tabulation to compare identification trends between
different majors in planning, design, and construction fields. Each major was compared to the
other three majors. For each set of images, the first of three responses pertaining to the
physical difference and emotional response questions were selected for data collection and
further analyzing. Pearson Chi-Square is used to determine significant differences. A difference
of .05 or less is considered a significant difference. Analysis is run for each section of the survey
which addresses physical and emotional evaluations of the images. When comparing
preferences of place-making attributes selected by the SPDC majors, significant differences are
found. Each of the following sections highlights significant differences among the collected data
through Pearson Chi-Square frequency testing. There are 11 data sets that were considered
significantly different. These data sets are bolded in the summary table (Tables 6 and 7). It shall
be noted that some data is limited, due to the volume of question respondents.
Table 6: Physical Difference Pearson Chi-Square Summery
Data Set

Im
age

LA & CM LA & ID LA & UP CM & ID CM & UP ID & UP
1

.027

.509

.413

43

.382

.387

.977

Table 6 (cont’d)
2

.011

.897

.428

.055

.117

.498

3

.018

.355

.320

.055

.238

.347

4

.081

.865

.670

.198

.360

.747

5

.054

.535

.122

.112

.178

.657

6

.132

.418

.563

.379

.414

.924

7

.145

.967

.034

.165

.038

.051

8

.251

.502

.671

.220

.521

.527

9

.036

.496

.355

.039

.347

.268

10 .236

.991

.789

.416

.472

.859

Table 7: Emotional Response Pearson Chi-Square Summery
Data Set

Image Number

LA & CM LA & ID LA & UP CM & ID CM & UP ID & UP
1

.012

.693

.120

.104

.193

.507

2

.009

.869

.047

.051

.215

.224

3

.016

.736

.106

.094

.550

.440

4

.200

.732

.800

.231

.586

.788

5

.249

.198

.066

.260

.178

.918

44

Table 7 (cont’d)
6

.418

.959

.780

.577

.647

.877

7

.076

.496

.596

.445

.374

.990

8

.218

.322

.391

.605

.734

.899

9

.227

.514

.541

.175

.373

.105

10 .105

.726

.386

.384

.587

.941

There are 120 total data sets and 60 data sets for each of the Physical Differences and
Emotional Response sections. The Physical Difference section features 7 significantly different
data sets. The 7 sets are comprised of 4 different stakeholder combinations. There are 4 LA and
CM, 1 LA and UP, 1 CM and ID, and 1 CM, and UP combinations. The Emotional Response
section features 4 significantly different data sets. The 4 sets are comprised of 2 different
stakeholder combinations. There 3 LA and CM, and 1 LA and UP combinations.

45

Physical Differences

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 4)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.027 level (Table 8).
A total of 17 (n=19) LA’s and a total of 4 (n=10) CM’s answered this question (Table 9).
Answering Construction Management students identified “Uses and Activities” 75% (3) of the
time. While LA’s identified “sociability” and “access and linkages” 64.7% (10) of the time, CM’s
identified the same attributes at only 25.0% (1) of the time (Table 9).
Figure 4: Site 1 - Image 1

46

Table 8: Image 1 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
10.979
4
.027

Table 9: Image 1 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Major_Res
Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
Total
Img1Resp1
.00
10.5% (2)
60.0% (6)
27.6% (8)
Sociability
Uses and Activities
Access and Linkages
Comfort and Image

31.6% (6)
21.1% (4)
26.3% (5)
10.5% (2)
100.0% (19)

Total

10.0% (1)
30.0% (3)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
100.0% (10)

24.1% (7)
24.1% (7)
17.2% (5)
6.9% (2)
100% (29)

Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 10).
Table 10: Image 1 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

More people

The boat

People

There was no physical or human activity in the
before image

Increased greenery

Playground

Usable spaces for people

The before is just open and unused space

The Boat being used as a functional building
Populated

47

Table 10 (cont’d)
There is a ship in the after picture
View of the water is blocked, but by something
interesting
People
The boat
Single leaner axis changed to circular pattern
Community interests incorporated
There are people in the second image
People
Playground
Ship
Pedestrian walks and spaces

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 5)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.011 level (Table 11).
A total of 16 LA’s and a total of 2 CM’s answered this question (Table 12). The majority
of LA’s and CM’s identified “Uses and Activities” as the primary place-making attribute in this
image. LA’s identified this attribute 31.3% (5) of the time, while CM’s identified it 100.0% (2) of

48

the time. In this instance, for the data set to be perfectly balanced, the answering LA’s would
had to have identify each attribute of place-making 4 times. “Sociability” and “Comfort and
Image” attributes accomplished this, while “Uses and Activities” was identified 5 times and
“Access and Linkages” was selected 3 times (Table 12).
Figure 5: Site 1 – Image 2

Table 11: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
13.019
4
.011
Table 12: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Major_Res
Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
Total
Img2Res1

.00

15.8% (3)
49

80.0% (8)

37.9% (11)

Table 12 (cont’d)
Sociability
Uses and Activities
Access and Linkages
Comfort and Image
Total

21.1% (4)
26.3% (5)
15.8% (3)
21.1% (4)
100.0% (19)

0.0% (0)
20.0% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
100.0% (10)

13.8% (4)
24.1% (7)
10.3% (3)
13.8% (4)
100% (29)

Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 13).

Table 13: Image 2 Physical Differences Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management
LA’s

CM’s

more people

No activity in the foreground for the before image

People

Dining Venue

Dynamic
more people
public eating area
addition of a destination
the colors are warmer in the after image
creation of spaces
Trees
Bridge
ground material changes
Inviting

50

Table 13 (cont’d)
the first is a blacktop wasteland, nice
view tho
People
People
Ship
People

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 6)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.018 level (Table 14).
A total of 16 LA’s and a total of 2 CM’s answered this question (Table 15). “Comfort and
Image” was the attribute overwhelmingly identified by both groups. Of answering respondents,
LA’s identified this attribute 68.8% (11) of the time. CM’s answered selected this “Comfort and
Image” 100.0% (2) of the time. This attribute was selected by 72% of answering participants.
“Sociability” and “Access and Linkages” were attributes selected only by LA’s and 11% (2) of the
time by answering participants (Table 15).

51

Figure 6: Site 1 – Image 3

Table 14: Image 3 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
11.852
4
.018
Table 15: Image 3 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Major_Res
Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
Total
Img3Res1
.00
15.8% (3)
80.0% (8)
37.9% (11)
Sociability
5.2% (1)
0.0% (0)
3.4% (1)
Uses and Activities
15.8% (3)
0.0% (0)
10.3% (3)
Access and Linkages
5.2% (1)
0.0% (0)
3.4% (1)
Comfort and Image
57.9% (11)
20.0% (2)
44.8% (13)
Total
100.0% (19)
100.0% (10)
100% (29)
Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 16).

52

Table 16: Image 3 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

People in second

Before – very interesting vista

Pond

Garden

Usable Space
More trees
Lighthouse
Habitat
The image looks barren and cold; the
second is full and lively
Return of wildlife and natural spaces
Water
The after has wildlife habitat
Circulation pattern changes
Is that a lighthouse in the second image?
Cool
Color
Plantings
Wetland
Wildlife

53

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning (Figure 7)
The Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning student’s identification of place-making
attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.034 level (Table 17).
A total of 10 (n=19) LA’s and a total of 9 (n=18) UP’s answered this question (Table 18).
UP students acknowledged “access and linkages” 33.3% (6) of the time, as only 5.3% (1) of the
LA students selected “access and linkages”. Additionally, 0% (0) of respondents from either
major selected a “sociability” attribute as their first physical response for this image. Also, LA’s
were the only population, at 26.3% (5), that acknowledged a “comfort and image” attribute as a
primary response to the question (Table 18).
Figure 7: Site 2 – Image 7

54

Table 17: Image 7 Pearson Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
Pearson Chi-Square

Value
8.694a

Df
3

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
.034

Table 18: Image 7 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning

Img7Res1

.00
Sociability
Uses and Activities
Access and Linkages
Comfort and Image

Total

Major_Res
Landscape
Architecture
Urban Planning
47.4% (9)
50.0 (9)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
21.1% (4)
16.7% (3)
5.3% (1)
33.3% (6)
26.3% (5)
100.0% (19)

0.0% (0)
100.0% (18)

Total
48.6% (18)
0.0% (0)
18.9% (7)
18.9% (7)
13.5% (5)
100% (37)

Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 19).
Table 19: Image 7 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Urban Design
Landscape Architecture

Urban Planning

More activity by the water

Activity

Pier

the pier and docks

Color pallet

The walkway

Reduction of lawn for docks

Boat parking

Wood

Pier/dock area

Boardwalk in the after

Pavilion

Brown

Board Walk

Better use of space

Pier

Pier
Water and boat use

55

Majors: Construction Management and Urban Planning (Figure 7)
The Construction Management and Urban Planning student’s identification of placemaking attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.038 level (Table 20).
A total of 9 UP’s and a total of 1 CM answered this question (Table 21). All 9 of the
responding UP’s identified “Uses and Activities” or “Access and Linkages” as the primary
physical difference for this image. The majority of the responding UP’s identified the attribute
“Access and Linkages”, at 66.7%. The only responding CM identified “Comfort and Image” as
the primary physical difference for this image (Table 21).
Figure 7: Site 2 – Image 7

56

Table 20: Image 7 Pearson Chi-Square for Urban Planning and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
8.400a

Pearson Chi-Square

3

.038

Table 21: Image 7 Cross tabulation for Urban Planning and Construction Management
Major_Res
Construction
Urban Planning Management
Total
Img7Res1
.00
50.0% (9)
90.0% (9)
64.3% (18)
Sociability
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
Uses and Activities
16.7% (3)
0.0% (0)
10.7% (3)
Access and Linkages
33.3% (6)
0.0% (0)
21.4% (6)
Comfort and Image
0.0% (0)
10% (1)
3.6% (1)
Total
100.0%(18)
100.0% (10)
100% (28)

Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 22).
Table 22: Physical Differences for Urban Planning and Construction Management
Urban Planning

Construction Management

Activity

Color of building changed in the after

The pier and docks
The walkway
Boat parking
Pier/dock area
Pavilion
Board Walk

57

Table 22 (cont’d)
Pier

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 8)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.036 level (Table 23).
A total of 11 LA’s and a total of 1 CM answered this question (Table 24). The majority of
participating LA’s selected “Uses and Activities” as the attribute they primarily identified, at
54.5% (6). CM’s selected this 0.0% (0) of the time. CM’s identified “Access and Linkages”
100.0% (0) of the time. This was the only attribute that went un-identified by LA’s for this image
(Table 24).
Figure 8: Site 3 – Image 9

58

Table 23: Image 9 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
10.253
4
.036
Table 24: Image 9 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Major_Res
Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
Total
Img9Res1
.00
42.1% (8)
90.0% (9)
58.6% (17)
Sociability
10.5% (2)
0.0% (0)
6.9% (2)
Uses and Activities
31.6% (6)
0.0% (0)
20.7% (6)
Access and Linkages
0.0% (0)
10.0% (1)
3.4% (1)
Comfort and Image
15.8% (3)
0.0% (0)
10.3% (3)
Total
100.0% (19)
100.0% (10)
100% (29)
Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 25).

Table 25: Image 9 Physical Differences for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

Spaces

Color of a pedestrian walk around circular
building changed

Flagpoles
Plantings
Vertical elements
Water feature coming of roof? Sweet
The flag
Looks more put together

59

Table 25 (cont’d)
International representation
Creation of a welcome center
Pond
The water fall
More colorful

Majors: Interior Design and Construction Management (Figure 8)
The Interior Design and Construction management student’s identification of placemaking attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.039 level (Table 26).
A total of 7 ID’s and a total of 1 CM answered this question (Table 27). All of the ID’s
identified either “Uses and Activities” or “Comfort and Image”, while 100.0% (1) of CM’s
selected “Access and Linkages” as the primary attribute identified. “Sociability” was the only
attribute not identified by either of the participants from the selected majors (Table 27).

60

Figure 8: Site 3 – Image 9

Table 26: Image 9 Chi Square for Interior Design and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
8.351a
3
.039
Table 27: Image 9 Cross tabulation for Interior Design and Construction Management
Major_Res
Construction
Interior Design Management
Total
Img9Res1 .00
46.2% (6)
90.0% (9)
65.2% (15)
Sociability
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
Uses and Activities
23.1% (3)
0.0% (0)
13.0% (3)
Access and Linkages
0.0% (0)
10.0% (1)
4.3% (1)
Comfort and Image
30.8% (4)
0.0% (0)
17.4% (4)
Total
100.0% (13)
100.0% (10)
100% (23)

61

Respondents were asked to specify physical differences noticed between before and
after images (Table 28).
Table 28: Image 9 Physical Differences for Interior Design and Construction Management
Interior Design

Construction Management

Flags

Color of a pedestrian walk around circular building
changed

Colorful
Plants and walkways
Landscapes
Water incorporated into landscape
Flag poles
Developed

Emotional Responses

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 4)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction Management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.012 level (Table 29).
A total of 17 LA’s and a total of 3 CM’s answered this question (Table 30). While “Access
and Linkages” was the most identified emotional response by participating LA’s, at 41.2% (7),
CM’s was least identified as a primary emotional response, at 0.0% (0). “Uses and Activities”

62

was the only attribute not identified as an emotional response by CM participants. “Uses and
Activities” and “Comfort and Image” was identified by LA’s 76.5% of the time by LA’s (Table 30).
Figure 4: Site 1 – Image 1

Table 29: Image 1 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
12.788
4
.012

Table 30: Image 1 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Major_Res
Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
Total
ImgRes1a
.00
10.5% (2)
70.0% (7)
31.0% (9)
Sociability
15.8% (3)
10.0% (1)
13.8% (4)
Uses and Activities
36.8% (7)
0.0% (0)
24.1% (7)
Access and Linkages
5.2% (1)
10.0% (1)
6.9% (2)

63

Table 31 (cont’d)
Comfort and Image
Total

31.6% (6)
100.0% (19)

10.0% (1)
100.0% (10)

24.1% (7)
100% (29)

Respondents were asked to specify emotional responses triggered by the before and
after images (Table 31).
Table 31: Imagine 1 Emotional Responses for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

Unwelcome

the before is quiet and serene and enjoyable –
peace of mind

Boat is out of scale and seems out of place

Crowded

Hopeful

Happy

Excited
Excitement
Interest
The first image seems cold
Increased safety/security
Impact
Disappointment (huge boat there)
The active is a more active scene
More inviting
Did you extend the land over the waterfront?
Anxiety from how crowded the after looks
64

Table 31 (cont’d)
Happy
Welcoming
Comfort

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 5)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction Management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.009 level (Table 32).
A total of 15 LA’s and a total of 2 CM’s answered this question (Table 33). Although
“Uses and Activities” was the most identified emotional response by participating LA’s, at 46.7%
(7), CM’s identified it as a primary emotional response at 0.0% (0) of the time. “Access and
Linkages” was the only attribute not identified as an emotional response by LA participants, but
was identified 50.0% (1) of the time (Table 33).

65

Figure 5: Site 1 – Image 2

Table 32: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
13.508
4
.009

Table 33: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Construction
Management
Major_Res

Img2Res1a

Total

.00
Sociability
Uses and Activities
Access and Linkages
Comfort and Image

Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
21.1% (4)
80.0% (8)
15.8% (3)
0.0% (0)
36.8% (7)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
10.0% (1)
26.3% (5)
10.0% (1)
100.0% (19)
100.0% (10)

66

Total
41.4% (12)
10.3% (3)
24.1% (7)
3.4% (1)
20.7% (6)
100% (29)

Respondents were asked to specify emotional responses triggered by the before and
after images (Table 34).
Table 34: Image 2 Emotional Responses Landscape Architecture and Construction Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

cold to warm

Crowded

boat negates view

At peace

Vivacity
Fresh
Invited
cold to warm
Vibrancy
Fun
Warth
Less empty
Relief from shade and green grass
Bored from lack of anything from
before

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning (Figure 5)
The Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning student’s identification of place-making
attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.047 level (Table 35).

67

A total of 15 LA’s and a total of 9 UP’s answered this question (Table 36). The majority of
participating LA’s identified “Uses and Activities” as a primary emotional response, at 46.7% (7).
Similarly, the majority of UP’s identified the same attribute, at 66.7%. While 20.0% (3) of LA’s
selected “Sociability” as a primary emotional response, UP’s selected this 0.0% (0) of the time.
While participating UP’s selected “Access and Linkages” 22.2% (2) of the time, LA’s selected in
0.0% (0) of the time (Table 36).
Figure 5: Site 1 – Image 2

Table 35: Image 2 Chi-Square for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square

9.647a

68

4

.047

Table 36: Image 2 Cross tabulation for Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
Major_Res
Landscape
Urban
Architecture
Planning
Total
Img2Res1a
.00
21% (4)
50.0% (9)
35.1% (13)
Sociability
15.8% (3)
0.0% (0)
8.1% (3)
Uses and Activities
36.8% (7)
33.3% (6)
35.1% (13)
Access and Linkages
0.0% (0)
11.1% (2)
5.4% (2)
Comfort and Image
26.3% (5)
5.6% (1)
16.2% (6)
Total
100.0% (19)
100.0% (18)
100% (37)
Respondents were asked to specify emotional responses triggered by the before and
after images (Table 37).
Table 37: Emotional Responses Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
Landscape Architecture

Urban Planning

cold to warm

Pleased that the space is not a parking
lot

boat negates view

Excited

Vivacity

Alive

Fresh

Optimistic

Invited

Fun place to be

cold to warm

Excitement

Vibrancy

Before is car oriented

Fun

Engaged

Warmth

Interesting

Less empty

69

Table 37 (cont’d)
Relief from shade and green grass
Bored from lack of anything from
before
Light hearted
Sense of community

Majors: Landscape Architecture and Construction Management (Figure 6)
The Landscape Architecture and Construction Management student’s identification of
place-making attributes is significantly different for this image at a 0.016 level (Table 38).
A total of 16 LA’s and a total of 2 UP’s answered this question (Table 39) “Comfort and
Image” was the most identified emotional response by participating LA’s, at 43.8% (7). CM’s
identified it as a primary emotional response at 50.0% (1) of the time. Although 31.3% (5) of
LA’s identified “Uses and Activities” as a primary emotional response, CM’s identified the
response 0.0% (0) of the time. Additionally, the majority of participants identified either “Uses
and Activities” or “Comfort and Image” as a primary emotional response, at 72.0% (13) (Table
39).

70

Figure 6: Site 1 – Image 3

Table 38: Image 3 Chi-Square for Landscape architecture and Construction Management
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square

12.150a

4

.016

Table 39: Image 3 Cross tabulation for Landscape architecture and Construction
Management
Major_Res

Img3Res1a

Total

.00
Sociability
Uses and Activities
Access and Linkages
Comfort and Image

Landscape
Construction
Architecture Management
15.8% (3)
80.0% (8)
15.8% (3)
10.0% (1)
26.3% (5)
0.0% (0)
5.3% (1)
0.0% (0)
36.8% (7)
10.0% (1)
100.0% (19)
100.0% (10)

71

Total
37.9% (11)
13.8% (4)
17.2% (5)
3.4% (1)
27.6% (8)
100% (29)

Respondents were asked to specify emotional responses triggered by the before and
after images (Table 40).
Table 40: Image 3 Emotional Responses for Landscape architecture and Construction
Management
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

Sad in the first

Sad

Pond is nice and provides interactive water

More natural

Rustic
Activated
Relaxed
Active
The first image gives more of an empty
feeling
Sense of mystery
Serene
Busy
More enjoyable in the latter picture
Secluded in the second
Distaste of the neon colors
Happy
Welcomed
Intrigued

72

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The following chapter focuses on analyzing the data received from the survey. Trends
that are formed from evaluating cross-tabulated response sets are used to answer various
questions formed prior to the study. The discussion for this section also relates statistical data
to qualitative responses received by participants that viewed each set of before and after
images in the survey. This process focuses on the data sets deemed significantly different
according to Pearson’s Chi-Square.
There are eleven cross-tabulated data sets that are considered significantly different.
Seven data sets are represented from the physical differences portion of the survey, while four
data sets are represented from the emotional response portion. The following sections
evaluate trends discovered through the analytical and qualitative data received from the
survey. The discussion will conclude by considering important trends and discoveries that
present themselves after collecting the information. Other thoughts and future implications will
also be mentioned.
Physical Differences

The data sets that were considered significantly different found CM’s to be involved in
five of the seven scenarios. The LA’s were also involved in five of the seven scenarios. In four
out of seven data sets, attributes identified by LA’s and CM’s were significantly different. The
attributes that UP’s and ID’s identified were only significantly different from other majors once.
The multiple occurrences of LA’s and CM’s being deemed significantly different may be

73

attributed to the amount of participants in the survey. According to the survey results, 19 LA’s
and 10 CM’s took the survey, but only a portion of them responded to the actual questions. In
the data sets that LA’s and CM’s identified place-making attributes significantly different, an
average of 15 LA’s and 1.8 CM’s actually provided a response. This lack in actual response rate
from CM’s may be due to respondent fatigue. Due to the data collection process, the Pearson
Chi-Square testing considered the amount of non-responding participants for each data set.
Through further evaluation, a partial correlation between amounts of non-responding
participants in cross-tabulated data sets and Pearson Chi-Square figures can be found (Table
41). Therefore, it shall be noted that this information is limited.
Table 41: Responding Participant and Chi-Square Correlation for Physical Differences
Identification
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

Image Participants Responding %

Participants Responding %

%
Dif.

Chi-Square
Significant
Dif.

1

19

17

89.5 10

4

40.0 49.5 .027

2

19

16

84.2 10

2

20.0 64.4 .011

3

19

16

84.2 10

2

20.0 64.4 .018

9

19

11

57.9 10

1

10.0 47.9 .036

Although the information from the CM and LA data sets are limited, common themes
can still be derived from the responses. In data sets that found CM’s and LA’s identify placemaking attributes significantly different, it is observed that CM’s tend to identify physical
changes specifically with the built environment. This group focuses on things like the
74

“walkway”, “garden”, or “dining venue”, tending to delineate spaces as if they serve as uses in
separate rooms. Alternatively, LA’s often identify intangible elements in the images. For
example, responses like “community interests incorporated”, “addition of a destination”, and
“habitat” infers that the education of LA’s may inspire them to look beyond a design and assess
future implications such as events, public gatherings, and other environmental effects. This
variance in attribute identification is a prime example of how different disciplines can view the
same environment in different ways.
Image set 7 was the only data set that found a significant difference in the attributes
that LA’s and UP’s identified physically different. Although the waterfront access was a main
focus for both majors, LA’s and UP’s tended to focus on it for different reasons. LA’s mentioned
the water, or activities near the water, 6 out of 10 (60%) times, but identified attributes “Uses
and Activities” and “Comfort and Image” a total of 9 out of 10 times. The UP’s mentioned the
water or activities near the water 5 out of 9 (55.6%) times, but identified “Access and Linkages”
6 out of 9 (66.7%) times. The difference in attribute identification between the LA’s and UP’s
could be attributed to each majors educational focus.
Although LA’s focus on a range of planning and design scales, they have a tendency to
work with smaller site design scale than UP’s, which are educated on a range of larger scales,
from community, to city and regional mapping, utilizing skills in programs like GIS. This
encourages identification of detailed attributes like “Uses and Activities” and “Comfort and
Image” by LA’s. They tend to focus at a smaller, site designing scale. Larger scale implications
like “Access and Linkages” to other areas, in some cases not even visible in this image, are

75

identified by UP’s. For this image, it seems as if the scale is causing the significant difference in
identification of place-making attributes. Due to the perspective used for Image 7, it is one of
the only survey images that allows the participant to respond to small scale design (the
waterfront), and still have a view of the entire site. This allows for the participant to observe
the environment that they choose, and furthermore allows them to identify attributes that they
are most familiar with. One may infer that this is another example of different disciplines
viewing the same image in a completely different manner. This type of identification behavior is
also exemplified in the following Emotional Response section.
The data set representing image nine found attributes identified by CM’s to be
significantly different than LA’s and ID’s, at levels of .036 and .039 respectively. Responding
CM’s identified the attribute “Access and Linkages” 100% of the time, while LA’s and ID’s
identified “Access and Linkages” 0% of the time. Interestingly, this is the only time in the
selected data that CM’s identified “Access and Linkages” as a physical difference. The focus of
respondents was primarily on the plaza in front of the welcome center, and the color change of
material used within the plaza. Additionally, this was the first time in the selected data that the
LA’s didn’t identify “Access and Linkages” as a primary physical change. Responding LA’s are
mostly concerned with the functionality of spaces and the connection with natural aspects
towards the top of the image.
The ID’s identified only two attributes groups, “Uses and Activities” and “Comfort and
Image”. Like LA’s, many ID’s identified natural elements in the image as primary physical
changes, but overall were more concerned with public space. Much of the focus was on the

76

exterior of the public space. It could be inferred that this is due to the interior design
educational focus of gauging the human scale to a place, and being able to discern symbolic
walls to not only an enclosed, indoor environment, but also outdoor space. This can viewed as
crucial finding within the data. The ID’s tendency to identify and explore keys attributes of
spaces within a place exemplifies the importance of cross disciplinary interaction in placemaking practice. Although interior design is a profession majorly based off of practice
performed indoors, their skills and educational experience allows them to adapt to
environments outsides of their typical confines. This type of work related ability is crucial to
place-making, as well as any type of urban development.

Emotional Responses

The data sets that were considered significantly different found LA’s to be involved in all
of the four scenarios. The CM’s were also involved in three of the four scenarios. In three out of
four data sets, attributes identified by LA’s and CM’s were significantly different. Like the
previous observation from the Physical Differences section, the data sets showed that a partial
correlation between amounts of non-responding participants in cross-tabulated data sets and
Pearson Chi-Square figures can be found (Table 42). Therefore, it shall be noted that this
information is limited.

77

Table 42: Responding Participants and Chi-Square Correlation for Emotional Response
Identification
Landscape Architecture

Construction Management

Image Participants Responding %

Participants Responding %

%
Dif.

Chi-Square
Significant
Dif.

1

19

17

89.5 10

3

30.0 59.5 .012

2

19

15

78.9 10

2

20.0 58.9 .009

3

19

16

84.2 10

2

20.0 64.2 .016

Still, trends and common themes involving LA’s and CM’s, in data sets that found
emotional response attributes to be significantly different, do exist. The CM’s did not identify
“Uses and Activities” as an attribute referred to through an emotional response for any of the
selected data sets. In the three data sets that LA’s and CM’s are considered significantly
different, LA’s identify the attribute “Uses and Activities” more than any other attribute. This
could be due to the flexibility of workable environments for a typical design student. The LA’s
are observing the details of a designed site, using key emotional responses like “vivacity”,
“active”, while citing things like “the boat”, and “pond”. This shows that LA’s are identifying
destinations and details of a site that are crucial pieces to creating a sense of place.
Alternatively, the CM’s identified “Comfort and Image” more than any other attribute in
the selected data sets. As mentioned in the previous sections, it can be inferred that CM’s are
delineating certain spaces in an image like rooms of a house or building. They are identifying
key attributes within these rooms through emotional response to the images. The CM’s

78

described emotions as “crowded” or “at peace” more than once, gauging the feeling of
“comfortability”, or lack thereof within these spaces. Their attention has a tendency to remain
at small and detailed scale.
This could also have to do with the type of image that is being observed by the
participant. Two of the three images within the data set that, LA’s and CM’s identify attributes
significantly different through emotional response, are taken at a ground level perspective. The
primary environment that is observable is right in front of you. This creates a perceived smaller
scale for the viewer. This further promotes the behavior of CM’s to identify detailed
characteristics of the image. Attention to detail is certainly an important piece to place-making.
Specific elements can often be overlooked from all perspectives of planning, design, and
implementation. The CM’s tendency to focus on these detailed attributes is very important to
the cross-disciplinary element of urban design.
The only other major that identified attributes significantly different were the UP’s. They
identified attributes in image 2 significantly different than the LA’s, at a .047 level. Like the LA’s,
the UP’s identified “Uses and Activities” more than any other attribute. In addition, UP’s
identified “Access and Linkages” as attributes referred to by emotional response twice, while
LA’s didn’t identify “Access and Linkages” at all in this data set. Although the scale of the
environment in this image is small, and the view is from a ground level, UP’s still tend to
identify attributes like they have been educated. They have a tenancy to identify important
“Uses and Activities” as one would identify attractions on a map. Their responses include
comments like “fun place to be”, “engaging” and “exciting”. Finally, they have a tendency to

79

delineate ways to get there, identifying the attribute “Access and Linkages”. This large scale
mind set and type of behavior would explain the lack of emotional response and identification
of “Sociability” and “Comfort and Image”, attributes typically identified in a small scale
environment.
Conversely, the LA’s emotional responses identified “Comfort and Image” as primary
attribute in this data set. This observation can be derived from the same conclusion previously
mentioned. The LA’s have a keen sense of detail in design in the small scale. These differences
in attribute identification play a strong role in deeming the LA’s and the UP’s significantly
different.
Overall Observations

There were some common themes that can be derived from evaluating both the
Physical Difference section and the Emotional Response section side by side. Interestingly, the
LA’s identify attributes significantly different in nine of the eleven cross-tabulated significantly
different data sets. They identify attributes significantly different than CM’s seven times and
UP’s two times out of the possible eleven.
Additionally, themes are discovered when evaluating both the Physical Difference
section and Emotional Response section side by side, in respect to each image set. Three image
sets from both sections share relative cross-tabulated stakeholder groups that are considered
significantly different. In image sets one, two, and three, both physical and emotional data sets
consider LA’s and CM’s identification of place-making attributes significantly different. This

80

correlation is a strong testimonial to the strength of the difference in attribute identification
among LA’s and CM’s for these three image sets and overall identification of place-making
attributes.
The ID’s are the only stakeholders that LA’s don’t identify place-making attributes
significantly different. This trend is understandable. Although there are moments of cross
disciplinary education opportunities for all students in SPDC, common themes among each
major occur. All majors typically have basic understand of the other majors within SPDC. That
being said, the LA’s and ID’s come from a design oriented education, while UP’s and CM’s
experience an education based on analytical situations. The data supports this statement. Out
of the 11 data sets that find a significant difference in the identification of place-making
attributes between two stakeholder groups, 10 of them are comprised of one design based
major and one analytically based major.
This theme is may not be random occurrence. The School of Planning, Design, and
Construction holds the majority of its classes within the 1st and 3rd stories of the same building
on campus, Human Ecology. Each floor has been remodeled within the last five years to provide
the best educational opportunity to each major. For example, design studios are located on
floors 1 and 3, specifically for Interior Design and Landscape Architecture students. While the
2nd floor offers two large computer labs for Urban Planning and Construction Management
majors. It was only within the last year that essential computer programs became universal
throughout most of the MSU computer labs.

81

The more dedicated each floor has become to each major, the more segregation among
the four majors has occurred. This lack of integration may come as a concern to proponents of
cross-disciplinary interaction. Additionally, this may have lead to like minded identification of
attributes in this study. Like minded individuals that come from the same major are not working
with individuals and other faculty from other majors within SPDC. Therefore, from an
educational standpoint, these students rely on what they see, hear, and experience in their
classrooms.
Conclusively, when the educational backgrounds of each of these selected majors is
expressed through the students representing these majors, correlations in the data relating to
the significant difference of attribute identification between design based majors and
analytically based majors is comprehensible.
Surprisingly, one of the stakeholder combinations not once considered significantly
different in place-making attribute identification was the UP’s and ID’s. One may observe
educational backgrounds and see that UP’s tend work at a much larger scale than ID’s. Also, ID’s
tend to be very design oriented, while UP’s tend to be analytical in practice. This typically infers
a difference in attribute identification. On the contrary, ID’s often can be analytical in material
organization and application. The ID’s often concern themselves with population and
demographics models when pursuing a certain type of lifestyle to design interiors. Perhaps this
correlation of planning factors contributes to the agreement of attribute identification between
UP’s and ID’s.

82

Perhaps the most puzzling outcome from analyzing the data is the trend of LA’s
identifying place-making attributes significantly different than other stakeholder groups this
often. The LA’s are typically considered a very well rounded stakeholder group. They specialize
in design, but are expected to understand engineering, architecture, and planning principles
and philosophy. One may think that LA’s should identify insignificantly with the other three
stakeholder groups quite regularly. The reasoning for the high rate of significantly different
attribute identification among LA’s may be exemplified in Image Set 2 in the Physical
Differences section. While CM’s select the attribute “Uses and Activities” 100% of the time, LA’s
identify a relatively balanced amount of responses for each attribute. The LA’s highest attribute
identification among responding participants is 5 (31.3%), while the lowest is 3 (18.8%). This
type of attribute identification distribution is not uncommon.
In fact, out of the 9 instances that LA’s identify place-making attributes significantly
different than another stakeholder, there are only three instances that LA’s didn’t identify every
attribute at least once. The overall distribution keeps the percentage of identified attributes
lower, while other stakeholders have a tendency to identify a specific attribute the majority of
the time. The LA’s are being considered significantly different from other stakeholder groups
statistically, but are identifying attributes at relatively comparable rates. This explains the
reasoning behind the amount of significantly different instances for LA’s, and also demonstrates
the range of attribute identification derived from prior experiences and educational
background.

83

Similar statements can be made for the attribute identification between CM’s and UP’s.
Although they work at completely different scales, both stakeholder groups tend to be
analytical in nature. They have an understanding for how things work in an urban environment,
but don’t surround themselves in a design world like LA’s and ID’s. Despite the limited data, one
can see the true difference between the design-based stakeholders and the planning and
management stakeholders in images two and nine. They are the only two images that feature
two separate cross-tabulated data sets that are considered to be significantly different. In the
Emotional Response section, Image set 2 features stakeholder combinations LA’s and UP’s, and
LA’s and CM’s, that identify place-making attributes significantly different. In the Physical
Differences section, Image set 9 features stakeholder combinations LA’s and CM’s, and ID’s and
CM’s, that identify place-making attributes significantly different. These two significantly
different data sets exemplify the negative correlation between design based stakeholders and
planning and management stakeholders.
Conclusion

The data collected from the survey offered answers to the core question of this study:
What are the emerging professionals’ preferences of place-making attributes?
Base on information attained from the significantly different data sets, we can infer the
following conclusions. The LA’s tend to be a very well rounded stakeholder group. Their
involvement with multiple scales of planning and design allow them to identify a range
attributes, despite the perspective or size of environment. Therefore, the LA’s don’t
significantly express an overbearing tendency to identify a certain attribute of place-making.
84

Overall, it is observed that LA’s identify intangible elements, especially in smaller scale site
design settings. The non-physical aspects of an image, like community involvement, and pride
are often identified.
These findings suggest that LA’s could play a crucial role in relating to the public sector.
Their understanding of the social aspect of a space, and intangible connection to “place” can
relate well to the human environment. This is extremely important, especially as the trend of
community involvement and neighborhood empowerment becomes a focus of place-making.
The data suggests that the UP’s have a tendency to be mindful of the big picture, often
responding with characteristics or attributes outside of the visible image. Their concern with
“Access and Linkages” is understandable. Furthermore, they tend to relate this to another
attribute, “Uses and Activities”. As previously mentioned, it seems as if they are connecting
points of interest to one another.
When evaluating physical differences and emotional response together for each
stakeholder, it is observed that UP’s are concerned with “how you get there”? And “what will
you do there”? Alternatively, the three other stakeholders tend to consider “things to do” in
the space. This slightly different approach to identifying a space again exemplifies the
educational tendencies of each major. The UP’s assess the site or design on a larger scale than
is visible, while the other groups tend to be concerned with what is in front of them.
The role of UP’s, according to these findings, relates well to a top-down approach to
place-making. They are able to assess how certain changes affect others in an organizational
manner. Focusing on attributes “Access and Linkages” and “Uses and Activities” are things that
85

UP’s already do from an educational standpoint. This large scale application is crucial to identify
places that can benefit from increased “sense of place”, and place-making implementations
When determining the ID’s preference in attribute identification, assumptions are
limited due to the lack of data provided. The ID’s identification of place-making attributes was
considered significantly different 1 out of the 60 possible data sets. Although, that one image
yielded 100% identification of attributes “Uses and Activities” and “Comfort and Image”. The
attributes identified, and spatial characteristics described relate well to their profession. The
scale of the space tends to be high priority in attribute identification.
Although data was limited, CM’s had more responses than ID’s in significantly different
data sets. Overall, the CM’s attribute identification was well balanced, but their attribute
identification was physically based. The majority of responses related to the environment that
was in the foreground. Additionally, the responses were very detailed. The lack of data made it
difficult to fully understand their tendencies in attribute identification.
That being said, It seems that both ID’s and CM’s can be utilized specifically at the site
design scale of place-making. This is hypothesized from the word responses attained from the
participants. Both stakeholders have a tendency to express detail in the images. The
combination the ID’s and CM’s spatial awareness is key component of creating a true “sense of
place”.
Other secondary questions were also answered. Will the stakeholders identify the same
attributes in the same environment as other key stakeholders?

86

The answer to this question is partially yes. Out of the 120 cross tabulated data sets, just
eleven of them were considered significantly different. There is an 83.3% success rate in
accordance with stakeholder identification. Of the six possible cross-tabulated combinations
between the four stakeholder groups, four were considered significantly different on any given
number of data sets. The two cross-tabulations that were not considered significantly different
for any data set were stakeholder combinations of LA’s and ID’s, and ID’s and UP’s.
The 100% agreement in attribute identification in the Physical Difference and Emotional
Response sections among LA’s and ID’s is understandable. Although these two stakeholder
groups work at different scales, both tend to have an eye for detail in design and visual
assessment of multiple environments. Both work hand in hand with the public realm, and are
accustomed to these types of space. It is encouraging to see the skills sets of the ID’s relate to
the outdoor environment. It confirms the importance of cross-disciplinary interaction, despite
the setting that certain disciplines are accustomed to working with.
Through data analysis, some future questions were formulated. It was explained in the
discussion portion of this study that there is a growing disconnect between the current majors
of SPDC. The lack of integration between curriculums may be a concern to faculty, students,
and emerging professionals. With The State of Michigan focusing on place-making as its
primary economic development plan of the future, it is important for emerging professionals
from MSU to be able to work in cross-disciplinary environments. Furthermore, the State of
Michigan is using the Place-making Initiative as way to develop urban areas that are attractive
to emerging professionals. They want retain the educational talent that comes from the state.

87

Therefore, this is concern not only held by those in SPDC, but statewide. This type of
educational environment could have major implications on the future economic and
development success in the State of Michigan.
The crucial interaction between the selected disciplines is already a well-known factor of
a successful urban core project, especially in place-making practice. The implications of this
study exploit the relationships between these four stakeholder groups. The data confirms that
there are differences in the identification of place-making attributes between these
stakeholders. Alternatively, the data also confirms that there is a strong covenant in attribute
identification among the same stakeholders. Five out of Six times, all four of the stakeholders
were insignificantly different in attribute identification. Additionally, three combinations of
stakeholders identified attribute insignificantly different 100% of the time. Those two
combinations were LA’s and ID’s and UP’s and ID’s.
This study has the potential to help a range of audiences in the place-making realm and
urban practice. Although much of the information obtained is limited due to participant
response rates, a portion of the findings uncover interrelations between Landscape
Architecture, Construction Management, Interior Design, and Urban Planning majors in the
School of Planning, Design, and Construction at Michigan State University. Future suggestions
and adaptations to the design of this study are crucial. The number of image sets used in the
survey to capture data was most likely too high. This almost certainly caused respondent
fatigue, as participant response rates declined as participants continued farther into the survey.
This presumably caused much of the data to be limited. It is suggested that future

88

implementations similar to this survey investigate a wider range of stakeholder groups,
including public and private sectors of the place-making realm.
First generation professionals dealing with the Michigan Place Making Initiative in their
early careers could see identification patterns much like the data shown in this study. Future
cross disciplinary understanding could increase project proficiency for place-making efforts
across the state. Their role in Michigan’s economic future is imperative to the success of many
of Michigan’s cities, towns, and villages. The information derived from this study will hopefully
be considered in future place-making work and studies.

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, April. "The role of history in place marketing: Can branding create a sense of place?"
Journal of Town & City Management 2 (2011): 75-83.
, Mark. Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London [u.a.:
Verso, 1995.
Bohl, Charles C. Place making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban villages.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2002.
Bonner, Kieran. "Understanding Placemaking: Economics, Politics and Everyday Life in the
Culture of Cities." Canadian Journal of Urban Research 11.1 (2002): 1-16.
Campo, Daniel, and Brent D. Ryan. "The Entertainment Zone: Unplanned Nightlife and the
Revitalization of the American Downtown." Journal of Urban Design 13 (2008): 291-315.
Cortright, Joe. “Walking the Walk: How walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities”. CEOs for
Cities. 2013.
Doherty, Patrick C., and Christopher B. Leinberger. "The Next Real Estate Boom: How Housing
Can Turn the Economy Around." The Washington Monthly 1 Nov. 2010.
Edwards, John D. "The Main Street Parking Initiative." Institute of Transportation Engineers.ITE
Journal 76.11 (2006): 30,32,37-38.
Filion, Pierre, Heidi Hoernig, Trudi Bunting, and Gary Sands. "The Successful Few: Healthy
Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions." Journal of the American Planning Association 70
(2004): 328-43.
Florida, Rick. “The Great Car Reset”. TheAtlantic.com 3 June, 2010.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/the-great-car-reset/57606/
Giddens, Anthony. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1990.
Griffiths, Ron. "Cultural Strategies and new modes of urban intervention." Cities 12 (1995): 25365.
Katz, Peter. Scully, Vincent. and Bressi, Todd. The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of
community. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
91

Leinberger, Christopher B. "The Next Slum." The Atlantic 1 Mar. 2008.
Leinberger, Christopher B. The option of urbanism: Investing in a new American dream.
Washington, DC: Island P, 2008.
Mapes, Jeff. Pedaling revolution: How cyclists are changing American cities. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State UP, 2009.
Markusen, Ann. and Gadwa, Anne. “Creative Place-making”. The Mayors Institute for City
Design. 2010.
Neff, Jack. "Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture?" Advertising Age 31 May
2010.
Place-making for Realtors: A Guide to Transform Public Spaces to Community Spaces. National
Association for Realtors, 2013.
Project for Public Spaces. 05 Dec. 2013 <http://www.pps.org/>.
Robertson, Kent A. "Downtown Retail Revitalization: A Review of American Downtown
Strategies." Planning Perspectives 12 (1997): 383-401.
Robertson, Kent A. "The Main Street Approach to Downtown Development: An Examination of
the Four Point System." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 21 (2004): 55-73.
Rogers, Richard George., and Mark Fisher. A new London. London: Penguin, 1992.
Rypkema, Donovan D. "The Importance of Downtown in the 21st Century." American Planning
Association.Journal of the American Planning Association 69.1 (2003): 9-15.
Sepe, Marichela. Planning and place in the city: Mapping place identity. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge, 2013.
Silberberg, Susan. “Places in the Making: How Place-making builds Places and Communities”
www.dusp.mit.edu. 2013. MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning
The Social life of small urban spaces. Prod. William Whyte. Municipal Art Society of New York,
1979.
Southwood, Boyden. A cultural strategy for Bristol. Bristol: Boyden Southwood Associates,
1992.
Speck, Jeff. Walkable city: How downtown can save America, one step at a time. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012.
92

White, Gil. Personal interview. 4 September, 2013.
Wycoff, Mark. and Heidel, Gary. Place-making and its Potential Effects on the Built
Environment. Huntington Club at Spartan Stadium. East Lansing, MI. October 25th, 2012.

93