{Had-'6 _.

lllllllllllilll'llllllllllllllllllllllilllglfllllll "

3 1293 01841 6

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVERFRONT PARK PLANNING MODEL WITH
APPLICATION TO ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

presented by
Nik I. Ab.Rahman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph - D . degree in

 

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

    

Major profe 501'

Date 2137/9?
/ /

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVERFRONT PARK PLANNING MODEL WITH

APPLICATION TO ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

By

Nik I. Ab.Rahman

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Resources

1 997

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT OF RIVERFRONT PARK PLANNING MODEL WITH
APPLICATION TO ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
By

Nik I. Ab.Rahman

Riverfront was once an important part of early civilization. Many cities
grew and prospered in commerce, industry and transport along the major rivers.
The early movement of people and materials was dependent upon water as
transportation. However, with the decline of traditional industry located near these
waterfronts due to increased dependence on technology, large areas of riverfront
were lefi underutilized. These riverfi'onts have, in recent years, been developed
into separate entities for the benefit of the people. Some riverfronts have become
residential, cultural, educational, commercial and recreational areas. They were
developed based on the needs and expectation of the developers, designers and the
public. Although each location has its own unique characteristics, a common
planning model focussing on recreational riverfront development could provide a
valuable resource to the developers, designers and the publics.

The model developed is contextual in approach, meaning it can be applied
to different sociopolitical contexts and ideologies by asking: who plans for whom
and with what ideas in mind. It is comprised of two phases, each phase divided

into sequential components. Phase I has five components: project origination,

project initiation, design vision, feasibility study and project acceptance. This phase
provides a general overview only of the components. The study focussed on Phase
II, which is the main part of the model, and the components are detailed with
particular consideration to riverfront park planning. This phase has two parts.

The first part is directed toward pre-design preparation and includes five
components-base map preparation, site inventory, site analysis, program survey
and synthesis. The second part details design development with six components--
design concept, design development, preliminary design, master plan,
implementation and formal evaluation.

There are two sub-problems, applications of the model to gain some
insights into the various components. The first application was directed toward
selected aspects Of the model, using the Lansing, Michigan, Riverfront Park as the
study area. Park users and nonpark users were surveyed by interview and
observation as related to adjacent facilities and accessibility, park usage and
preference for design elements.

The second subproblem studied Islamic perspectives. Quotations fi'om the
Koran and the Hadith, designs of historic parks of the Muslim world, and the
views and opinions of the Muslim community of Greater Lansing were analyzed.
Alternative modifications of design elements to meet the needs and Obligations of
the Islamic community in riverfront park planning and design were set forth. This,
hopefiilly, will contribute to a better understanding of different religious values and

requirements of the users in the Islamic community.

Copyright by
NIK I. ABRAHMAN
1997

In loving memory of my mother and father, for their love and sacrifice

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank God Almighty, for showing me the straight path as He has shown others.

I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor and committee Chair, Dr. Betty
van der Smissen, for her encouragement, assistance and support throughout my years at
Michigan State University. Her guidance, patience and understanding has made this
dissertation possible. I also express appreciation to Dr. James Bristor, a committee
member, who gave a me a lot of advice and encouragement, especially during my early
years at Michigan State University; to Professor Gaylan Rasmussen, a committee member,
who helped me with the design of the planning model; and to Dr. Jon Burley, a committee
member, who suggested that I make a comparison study between the planning model and
the perspective’s of the Muslim community.

My appreciation and gratitude also goes to the academic and administrative staff at
Michigan State University, especially in the Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources, for their sincere contributions and assistance in making my learning process a
rewarding experience. I will come to cherish their impact on my life as the years go by.

To my wife and children, for their love, sacrifice and patience throughout our life
together in East Lansing, Michigan.

Last but not least, to Mara Institute of Technology (ITM), Malaysia and the
people and government of Malaysia for sponsoring my studies at Michigan State
University. Their contribution has helped me to achieve my dreams of gaining more

knowledge and will pave the way for my contribution to fellow mankind.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ................................ 1
Planning Opportunities for Riverfront ................................................... 4
Benefits of Riverfront Park ............................................................... 6
The Rationale for the Riverfront Park Planning Model .................................... 9
Design elements ............................................................................. 11
Users’ Need ................................................................................. 12
Accessibility ................................................................................. 12
Linkage ....................................................................................... 13
Perspectives on Religious and Cultural Values ......................................... 14
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 15
Delimitations ................................................................................ 15
Definitions ................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................ 17
Riverfront Park Development ................................................................. 17
Historical Development .................................................................... l8
Redevelopment of the Riverfront ......................................................... 20
Functional Changes ........................................................................ 21
Comprehensive Planning Issues ............................................................... 22
Citizens’ participation and action ..................................................... 23
Management strategy ................................................................... 24
Conflict among users ................................................................... 24
Adjacent facilities within the riverfi'ont ............................................... 25
Environmental Design Research .............................................................. 26
The Preference for Nature in the Urban Environment ..................................... 28

vii

CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES .................................................................................

Development of the Riverfront Park Planning Model ................... ‘ ..................
Applicationof Selected Aspects of the Model to Lansing Riverfront Park .............
Study Population and Sampling ..........................................................
Instrumentation .............................................................................
Interview schedules .....................................................................
Observation form .......................................................................
Collection of Data ..........................................................................
Interview of park users .................................................................
Interview of nonpark users ............................................................
Selection of interviewees ..............................................................
Observations ............................................................................
Training interviewers/observers ......................................................
Analysis of Data ............................................................................
Profile of the respondents .............................................................
Park activity use .........................................................................
Park design elements ...................................................................
Adjacent facility ........................................................................
Planning perspectives ..................................................................
Islamic Perspective and Riverfront Park Design ...........................................
Koran and Hadith ...........................................................................
Historic Park Design .......................................................................
Perception of the Muslim Community ...................................................
‘ Synthesis of Perceptions for Model Modifications .....................................

CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVERFRONT PLANNING MODEL .......................

PHASE I. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT ................................................

Project Origination .............................................................................
Public Sector Approach ...................................................................
Public Ownership and Private Funding ..................................................
Public and Private Ownership ............................................................

Project Initiation ................................................................................

Design Vision ...................................................................................

Feasibility Study ................................................................................

Project Acceptance .............................................................................

viii

3O

30
31
31
32
32
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
40

41

42

42
42

45
46
48

PHASE II. THE DESIGN PROCESS ......................................................
PART A: PRE-DESIGN ......................................................................
Base Map Preparation .........................................................................
Climate .......................................................................................
Physical Nature of Surface and Subsurface ............................................
Sofls .......................................................................................
Geologic features .......................................................................
Hydrologic features .....................................................................
Topographical features .................................................................
Ecological Structure and Organic Grth ..............................................
Flora ......................................................................................
Fauna .....................................................................................

Land Use ....................................................................................
Control and restrictions ................................................................
Adjacent land uses ......................................................................

Air quality ...............................................................................
Accoustical factors .....................................................................
Services and public utilities ............................................................
Infi'astructure requirements ............................................................
Circulation and access ..................................................................

Site Analysis ....................................................................................
Accessibility .................................................................................
River Corridor ..............................................................................
River (water) ............................................................................
lOO-foot buffer ..........................................................................

Linkages .....................................................................................
Adjacent Land Use .........................................................................

Program Survey .................................................................................
Synthesis .........................................................................................

PART B: THE FINAL DESIGN ............................................................
Design Concept .................................................................................
Theme ........................................................................................
Image .........................................................................................
Character ....................................................................................
Function .....................................................................................
Design Development ...........................................................................
Quality of environment ................................................................
Efiicient circulation system ............................................................
Consistent design character ............................................................
Economic stability ......................................................................

ix

49
50
50
54
54
55
55
56
58

6 l
6 l
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
63

65

67
72
73
74

75
75
77
77
78
78
80
8O
81
81
82

Safety .................................................................................... 82

Functional land use relationship ...................................................... 83
Design Development Elements ........................................................... 83
Water ..................................................................................... 84
Plants ..................................................................................... 85
Corridors ................................................................................. 88
Space ..................................................................................... 89
Building forms ........................................................................... 91
Parking ................................................................................... 91
Visual resources ........................................................................ 92
Preliminary Design ............................................................................. 94
Preliminary Design Presentation and Revision .......................................... 96
Master Plan ...................................................................................... 97
Implementation ................................................................................. 100
Formal Evaluation .............................................................................. 100
CHAPTER 5
APPLICATION OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE MODEL TO LANSING
RIVERFRONT PARK ........................................................................ 102
The Profile of Park User and Nonpark Users ............................................... 102
Demographics ............................................................................... 103
Travel to the Park and Adjacent Facilities ............................................... 105
Visits to the Park ............................................................................ 105
Park Users’ Activity ........................................................................... 106
Involvement in Activities by Ethnicity .................................................... 108
Observations of Park Users’ Behavior by Time of Day ............................... 109
Early morning (7-9 am.) ............................................................... 112
Mid-morning (9-1 am.) ................................................................ 112
Lunchtime (11 a.m— p.m.) ............................................................. 113
Mid-afiernoon (3-5 pm.) .............................................................. 113
Early evening (5-7 pm.) ............................................................... 113
Weekends ................................................................................ 114
Weather conditions ..................................................................... 114
Design Elements ................................................................................ l 15
Gender ....................................................................................... 117
Ethnic Groups .............................................................................. 117
Preference for Design Elements Based on Observation ............................... 117
Facilities in the Vicinity of the Park (Accessibility, Linkages) ............................ 119
Nonpark Users .............................................................................. 1 19
Park Users ................................................................................... 120

X

Planning Implications .......................................................................... 121

Park User Activity (Usage) ............................................................... 121
Design Elements ............................................................................ 123
Adjacent Facilities .......................................................................... 124
CHAPTER 6
ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE AND RIVERFRONT PARK DESIGN .................... 125
Cultural Differences and Riverfront Park Design .......................................... 125
Islamic Perspectives ............................................................................ 129
Koran and the Hadith ...................................................................... 131
Water element ........................................................................... 133
Pathways and public thoroughfares .................................................. 13 5
Historical Precedents of the Islamic Parks .............................................. 135
The pavilion ............................................................................. 137
Opinions of the Muslim community of Greater Lansing .............................. 138
Separation of gender ................................................................... 138
Role of design elements ............................................................... 139
Restrictions and prohibitions in the park ............................................ 144
Modifications of Design Elements from Islamic Perspectives ........................ 145
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ......................................................... 147
Summary of Procedures ....................................................................... 147
Summary of Findings ........................................................................... 148
Conclusions ..................................................................................... 151
Discussions and Implications (Commentary) ............................................... 152
Riverfiont Park Planning Model .......................................................... 152
Design compatibility .................................................................... 153
Accessibility theory ..................................................................... 154
Visual focal point ....................................................................... 154
Accomodating Islamic Values in Park Design .......................................... 155
Recommendations for Further Study .................................................... 156

APPENDICES ................................................................................. 1 5 8

A DESCRIPTION OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK ............................. 158
B. MAP OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK .......................................... 164
C. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PARK USERS ..................................... 165
D. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR NONPARK USERS .............................. 169
E. OBSERVATION RECORDING FOR PARK USERS ............................... 171
F. OBSERVED ACTIVITIES OF PARK .................................................. 174
G. PREFERENCES FOR DESIGN ELEMENTS AMONG THE ETHNIC

GROUPS .................................................................................... 175
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 177

xii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Background Characteristics of Park Users and Nonpark Users ....................... 104
2. Mode of Transportation and Distance Away ........................................... 105
3. Visits to the Park ............................................................................ 106
4. Activities of Park Users (Interviewed) .................................................... 107
5. Reasons Came to the Park (Interviewed) and Observed Behavior in the Park. . . .. 108
6. Involvement in Park Activities by Ethnicity ............................................. 109
7. Behavior Observed at Difi‘erent Times from 7 am. to 7 pm ......................... 110
8. Design Element Preferences of Park User (Interviewed) of Park Elements ........ 116
9. Preferences for Design Elementss Among Ethnic Groups ............................ 118
10. Nonpark Users Visits to Adjacent Facilities ............................................ 120
11. Preferences of Park Users for Facilitaties in the Vicinity of the Park .............. 121
12. Preferences for Design Elements Among Ethnic Groups ............................ 173

xiii

lJt

LIST OF FIGURES

. Riverfront Park Planning Model-Phase 1. Development of the Project ............
. Phase II. The Design Process .............................................................
Profile of Riverfont .........................................................................
Linkages Associated with the Lansing Riverfront Park ...............................
. Frequency of Park Users by Time Blocks ................................................

. Riverfi'ont Park Planning Model ..........................................................

xiv

43

51

65

69

111

150

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Nearly all major cities in North America are located on or near a water body of
some type and were developed around either ports or river crossings, which became the
focus of commerce, industry and transport (W renn, 1983). The early movement of
materials and people was primarily dependent upon water transportation. Areas with
good harbors were favorite sites for early development and settlement. They provided
security and accessibility for gaining a foothold on uncharted land. However, the rapid
decline of traditional industry in 1960, together with technological change, released large
areas of land along these water areas for redevelopment.

The shift away fiom major manufacturing in many of the American cities along the
river left a pattern of underutilized land uses (Breen & Rigby, 1992). This has made it
possible to reuse waterside locations to promote urban regeneration (Falk, 1993). These
rivers, streams, and waterfi'onts are often edges to communities, lining and bordering them
with the splendor of water, long a powerful need and attraction for all species (Torre,
1989). There seems to be a compulsive desire for people to reach open water, whether in
the form of ocean shore, a bay, a lake, or the banks of rivers in the cities. It is the lure of

water, its sparkle, its reflection, its endless movement and change, that captures man's

imagination and provides a variety of opportunities from business to recreation, from
active to passive activities. These water arteries, while sustaining life, create a unique
environment and way of life at their edges; and, thus provide great opportunity for
planning and development in the urban areas (Breen & Rigby, 1994). The transformation
of urban riverfronts in America over the last 30 years, since the mid-19603, has
contributed to, and often has played the major role in, ongoing efforts to restore the
centers of the cities to economic and social health (Breen and Rigby, 1994).

Some of these cities have recognized that the provision of additional open space
and recreation areas along the riverfront would serve residents as well as tourists (Sasaki,
1980). Some examples of riverfront investments are as follows:

1. ”The District" was created in Rock Island, Illinois, where restaurants and
nightspots have prospered in an area that was moribund as late as 1985.
2. Milwaukee completed a riverwalk through the city center to help spark activity.
3. Newark waterfront is the site of the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, part of a
cultural district where a Renaissance Network organization is at work.
4. In Cleveland, there are major new investments and dynamism, including The Flats
nightlife district along the Cuyahoga River.
5. A Harbor Center is envisioned in Buffalo, with a major aquarium to draw over a
million people.
6. Car-loving Texans are flocking to San Antonio's Riverwalk for social gathering,
festivals, or appreciating the riverfront design; it also attracts conventioneers to the
city.

7. The Detroit's Hart Plaza was designed as a festival space on the river.

8. The Chicago River was developed into a continuous system of open space with
public accessibility and beautification along the downtown portion of the river.

Riverfront views and easy access to the waterside for recreation and relaxation are
eagerly sought amenities in cities everywhere (Schaffer, 1992). The riverfront
development embodies the historic alteration of land and water uses along the edge of
thousand of cities, large and small throughout the world (Leccese, 1996). Some buildings
are designed as access to attract more people to the park. Some of these developments
help people realize the important role of riverfronts not only in the city’s history but also
in the restoration of the cities and river corridors to places of prominence.

River corridors in highly industrialized cities, where major waterways have served
transportation and related industrial functions, have been almost totally altered from their
natural state. What was once calm and dynamic, profoundly symbolic in religion and
literature, has undergone cycles of change over the decades. In less industrialized cities,
river corridors have been altered, but not obliterated fi'om the landscape. A few cities are
beginning the redevelopment that incorporates the buildings and structures in the vicinity
with the open spaces and amenities in the riverfront areas. Some are successful, while
others have failed to capitalize on the area’s locational advantages for economic potential,
for both recreation and industrial redevelopment. Perhaps a planning guide (model) which

systematically approaches development would enhance the likelihood of success.

Planning Opportunities for Riverfront

One of the outcomes of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is the
availability of many planning opportunities for the development of a riverfront that will
help to balance the needs of environmentally sensitive areas with waterside public access,
open spaces, housing and commercial activities. Some principles of planning with respect
to the environment are as follows:

1. Building of parks and open spaces with diversified activities within easy

reach of the community.

2. Promoting use of the water for recreational activities, such as swimming,

fishing and boating in clean waters.

3. Preserving or creating panoramic water views of great beauty.

4. Restoring and caring for natural habitats.

5. Providing for community living in safe and attractive surroundings.

6. Preserving the historical aspects of the riverfi'ont through balancing the needs

for modern amenities and preservation .

7. Creating better accessibility between riverfront park and nearby buildings or

landmarks to attract more people to the park.

8. Insuring quality public spaces at the water edge by establishing design

guidelines.

9. Providing development and control for floodways and floodplains.

The development of riverfront parks began in earnest in the 193 Os, after rail
transportation largely replaced water transportation in major cities in America. The
revitalization process took place from New York to New Orleans, based on the desire to
work, play, and live at the water's edge. The resurgence of the riverfi'ont appreciation and
development had gone even further than the original precedents of revitalization. In the
late 1950's, the system of inland harbor began to disintegrate (Hall, 1991). Passenger
traffic rapidly disappeared after the arrival of the first generation of transcontinental jet
aircraft and passenger train. The harbor terminals became obsolete. Almost
simultaneously, fieight was containerized, and ports migrated to estuary sites with plenty
of land. Several fishing areas along the rivers were abandoned and tankers were unloaded
at the seaport and the goods were transported inland by rail or truck. In the 1970's, the
recession brought about another change in the riverfi'ont activities. Outmoded buildings
along the rivers were closed or new buildings were relocated to greenfield sites.

However, the scene was not all negative. At the same time there was a big change
in outlook for leisure activities and waterfront living. Many of the water edges are being
utilized to provide a more full life experience for all people, as well as to educate them
about their environment and the ecological and economic systems (Torre, 1989). A
detailed assessment of existing physical conditions, environmental issues, and patterns of
market support was undertaken in many cities (Breen & Rigby, 1992). Thus, as a
waterfront site became available, competition increased for the redevelopment of at least
some of the most advantageous locations, both from land-based concerns such as housing,
hotels and restaurants, convention centers, sports stadium, and shopping complexes, as

well as from riverine interests, like marinas and water-based recreation facilities (I-Iayuth,

1988). This represents what has been called the "return to the waterfront", the use of
abandoned waterfront for other uses. However, there were many problems ranging from
physical and financial to political. Some of the sites were not feasible because of special
environmental characteristics and financial constraints. The political aspect was quite
dificult to overcome as many groups had different views regarding development. Some
riverfront workers wanted to return to the old economy; some community activists wanted
to see non-profit uses, such as parks and community centers.

At the same time some developers were interested in maximizing commercial
potential. For example, in Baltimore, one group opposed the development of harborplace
into the festival marketplace (W renn, 1983). There is great competition for the
redevelopment of the locations, both from land-based concerns (housing, restaurants,
and shopping complexes) and from water-based interests (marinas, recreation, and water-
based facilities). In such competition, soundness of development planning is critical to
success, and if recreation is to optimize its opportunities, it would seem that a planning

guide, such as a riverfront park planning model, would be essential.

Benefits of Riverfront Parks

One of the selling points for a riverfront park are the social, recreation,
community development, economic, and environmental benefits (Haster & Kimura, 1990,
Rutledge, 1992, Zotti, 1990). Riverfront parks allow the people to explore the city’s
natural environment and to enjoy the intense urban character of its built environment--
its dramatic Skylines, graceful architecture, handsomely designed parks, and sleek

bridgesuand cultural richness of its ethnic neighborhoods.

The parks offer many recreational benefits, such as trails and places to enjoy the
sun, the breeze and riverfront views or to relax and experience nature. They also act as a
natural bufl‘er between different land uses, e. g., separating residential and commercial
areas, or highways and residential neighborhoods. Where significant green mass is
provided, riverfront parks can help sustain the biological diversity of plant and animal
habitats; their trees and vegetation can refresh the air and even filter runoff into streams
and rivers.

One of the most important benefits offered by the river corridor is the social
benefits (Luymes & Tamrninga, 1995). Social benefits may include recreation and nature
opportunities for urban residents, as well as routes for non-consumptive transportation
modes, such as walking and cycling. Usually these efforts start with annual waterfi'ont
festivals and fairs, drawing thousands to experience the magic of lights and water, and
people enjoying themselves. Towns and cities have used their water edges in strikingly
difi’erent ways. For example, the river or lake cutting through a city provides
opportunities for vista, a view of what lies ahead, drawing people to the water edge. In
other places, conscious development of water boundaries has offered panoramic scenes,
recreational facilities, and comfortable resting places for urban inhabitants.

These open spaces along the riverfront can be converted to recreational use linking
parks, nature preserves, cultural features, or historical sites with each other and populated
areas (Schmertz, 1970, Little, 1990). The Detroit’s Hart Plaza was designed as a festival
space on the river ( Carr et a1, 1992). Other localities are also attempting to capture the
remaining “ urban wilds”, unbuilt wetlands and other areas, that can become nature

reserves, opened to walkers and wildlife. In a few cities, efforts are being made to link

such areas with town trails for jogging and cycling enthusiasts (Goodbey, 1979). Most of
these planning and research efforts are based on the needs and expectations of the people
along the riverfront and its vicinity. The research is usually conducted to find a suitable
design environment conducive to a particular area or cultural behavior of the users.

Riverfi'ont parks can ofi'er modest economic benefits, e.g., raising the value of
property adjacent to once idle land and spurring small private businesses including food
establishments and other services connected with water-based recreation . They also can
expand transportation options by offering a more flexible and environmentally sound
means of travel to work or other destinations. Views to and along the water add to the
economic value of development and to the quality of life of the riverfront park.

They can serve to connect neighborhood to neighborhood, city to suburb and one
zone to another, ofl’ering a new kind of public place, bringing together the young and old,
rich and poor, and people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Riverfront parks create oases of quiet green space easily accessible to workers and
visitors alike and provide a park-like setting that affords restorative and contemplative
values of the river and as a refuge fiom the urban environment. To realize the benefits
and address the issues of riverfront parks requires an insightful riverfront planning model,

which could give guidance to designers and the public alike.

The Rationale for the Riverfront Park Planning Model

Each city has it own unique riverfront park design. However, there are some
common design models that should be provided for the benefit of the community.
Therefore, a planning model for the riverfi'ont park is needed for several reasons. First,
riverfi'ont park design varies fi'om city to city depending on the type of development
desired, the opportunity available, and the need for such development. Each city has its
own uniqueness in the design approach, but a fundamental element is citizen involvement.
By having a model as a guideline, these cities will appropriately and systematically provide
opportunity for the public to participate at the grass-roots level (Breen & Rigby, 1992).
The public represents different strata of the society, but possesses minimum information
on the design process for a riverfront park. In smaller communities, there exist the
possibilities that the cities don't have all the planning, technical, and financial capabilities.
A model could help the citizens to focus on their priorities, needs and preferences for the
park. Their aesthetic and cultural values would then have a greater influence on the
riverfi'ont project. It also helps to promote communication, cooperation and coordination
between all concerned with community development.

Second, the developer who would finance the project would find the riverfront
park model to be usefirl in firlfilling the needs of the park users and at the same time would
be able to set their priority based on their financial capability. They can provide the
designers with clear goals on the development and devise ways to achieve them. With a

better vision via a model which provides basic sequences, the developer can improve the

10

physical environment of the community and make it more responsive, functional, beautiful,
safe, exciting, and efiicient.

Third, many park designers may not be familiar with other techniques in their
approach to riverfront park designing. They would apply their design based on the
demand set by the elected officials or by developers who hired them. These designers
should find a helpful resource in a planning model directed toward a riverfront park. It
also sets out a riverfi'ont park design process which communities can adapt to fit their
own needs and situation and which brings together, in one place, the variety of nformation
needed to make it happen.

Finally, the model can provide a certain measure of effectiveness or performance
standards which reflect the values of the people. These values can play an important role
in the planning and decision process for the provision of leisure opportunities and can be
justified by social, economic, political and environmental benefits. In all cases, the
emphasis is on professional practice guided by public participation that works or has the
potential to be applied to different or unique situations with a reasonable expectation of
success.

Therefore, the emerging emphasis of the riverfront park planning model to be
developed is a blend of environmental design, social science and public administration. An
expanded model may include fiscal planning, and marketing strategies. The riverfront
planning model involves building a process for arriving at planning decisions, formulating
the needs of the park users and a guidelines for park designers to develop the plan.

As cities evolve in the changing demographics, it is wise to consider the planning

and design of parks as impacted by different cultures and beliefs. The firture planning

11

should take into consideration the cultural differences, the behavior of people and their
cultural perspectives, and the ability of buildings or landmarks within the park vicinity to
attract people to the park. These factors determine the nature of the design components
of the riverfront park. There are three critical components—the design elements, users’

needs, and accessibility and linkages.

Design elements

Design elements are natural or man-made resource structures and facilities that are
used or appreciated by the park users. The natural design elements are water and planting
materials, while the man-made resources are pavement, seating structures and picnic table,
buildings and water fountains. These elements play an important role in attracting the
users. For example, Open grassy areas can be used for concerts, games or picnic areas,
Opportunities for these open spaces to be converted into eating places, people watching or
simply to sit and relax are available for a successful function of the park. The presence of
pathways along the river enable the walker, joggers and bikers to use them according
to their needs and to appreciate a scenic view at the same time. The presence of these
elements that cater to special events and festivities enhance the development of the
riverfi'ont parks. Strategically located and well thought out plans that effectively respond
to theme, image, character, water resources and function will bring about a successful
design of the riverfront park. Because of the foregoing inferences of riverfront park
development, it is desirable to set forth some guidelines for designers to enable them to

better organize the design process and function for a specific development.

12

How successful the waterfront planning is will depend on the establishment of
realistic and predictable standards for the configuration, use, design and management of
the design elements. Over the years, other issues such as maintenance, management and

enforcement of public access requirements will assume greater importance.

Users' Needs

The users‘ needs in designing a riverfi'ont park should be given considerable thought to
insure high quality public spaces at the water edge. The needs of the users are varied based
on their preferences for the types of activities in which they are involved. Some may be
involved in rigorous recreation activities, such as boating, water skiing and swimming,
while others may prefer passive activities, such as picnicking, fishing, walking, etc.
Therefore, planners are encouraged to provide a variety of recreation opportunities to

meet these varied needs of the park users.

Accessibility

Another major component of the riverfront park should be accessibility between
the riverfront park and the building and the structures within the vicinity (Breen and
Rigby, 1996). Public access to the riverfi'ont is important in bringing the users to the park
and in enhancing the riverfi'ont image. The river may or may not be seen fiom the road.
However, the presence of buildings and structures, such as public buildings, sports arena,

convention centers or work places, can act as linkages for the people to use the buildings

l3

and come to the park. For example, the facade, entrances or exits of these places provide
opportunities for vista and panoramic views of the riverfront park. These linkages are
vital factors in the planning of the riverfi'ont park and can provide successful function for

expanding public use and enjoyment of the riverfront.

Linkage

Linkage is defined as a connector or combination of several connectors of variable
length joining an intersection of a node or several nodes. Linkage can occur in the form of
open space or a pathway that connects one part of the park with another. Conscious
development of water boundaries has offered pathways with panoramic scenes,
recreational facilities, and comfortable resting places for urban inhabitants. Open spaces
along the river can be utilized for recreational use, providing parks, nature preserves,
cultural features, or historic sites. (Sasaki, 1980; Little, 1990).

External connectors to riverfront parks, both vehicular and pedestrian, are key
factors in the planning of a riverfront park as they are important to the successfirl
functioning of the open spaces along the parks and to expanding public use and
enjoyment of the waterfront (Peepre, 1984; Schaffer, 1993). Other localities in their
riverfront park development also are attempting to capture remaining “wild lands”, unbuilt
wetlands and other areas that can become nature reserves, opened to walkers and wildlife.
In a few cities efi’orts are being made to connect such areas with town trails for jogging

and cycling enthusiasts (Goodbey, 1979).

l4

Proximity is measured in terms of physical or perceived distance. Even if a park is
in fact only minutes away, if the distance seems substantial, the setting is pragrnatically far
away. Thus, a park that requires crossing a major highway with no traffic light in sight is

appropriately considered far away (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

Perspectives on Religious and Cultural Values

One of the important aspects of the riverfront park planning model is its ability to
meet the diversity in today’s society. Park users may difi‘er in their beliefs and culture and
thus difi’er in their use of the park, including being attached to the park.. Thus, it would be
desirable to assess just how their beliefs may suggest modifications of a general planning
model for a riverfront park.

As prevalent and important as recreation and riverfi'ont park development may be,
there appears to be a paucity of planning guideline specific thereto. Although each city
has its own unique riverfront, there are some common planning principles, which
formulated into a planning model, could provide considerable benefit to a community.
Many park designers are not familiar with riverfront park design guidelines, and such a
model could provide a valuable source to them.In developing a model, there should be
some application to a particular setting to gain further insight into the various design
elements. The Riverfront Park at Lansing, Michigan, is a local government/municipal park

suitable for such applications of selected aspects of the model.

15

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to develop a riverfront park planning model with
consideration for Islamic perspectives. To obtain greater insight into the model, there
were two subproblems of application.

Subproblem one focussed upon application of selected aspects of the model to
Lansing, Michigan, Riverfi'ont Park; more specifically, the aspects of park usage, design
elements, and accessibility. One hypothesis was tested: that there is no difference between
males and female on their preference for the design elements in the Lansing Riverfront
Park.

The second subproblem was directed toward the determination of Islamic
perspectives as related to the design process for riverfi'ont park planning. [Note: This
particular religious belief was selected because of the investigator’s Islamic background

and his exposure to the planning and design criteria of the Western world].

Delimitations

The first sub-problem is delimited in application to one setting--Lansing, Michigan,
Riverfront Park, which is bordered by the City Market, the Grand River, the Lansing
Lugnut Stadium, the Senior Center and the Lansing Center. The study population is
comprised of the park users and nonpark users in the park and in the vicinity of the park.

(see Appendix A for brief description of park and map)

16

For the second subproblem, the Islamic culture respondent is delimited to the
Muslim community in the Greater Lansing Area. It includes international students at
Michigan State University (MSU) campus and their spouses and American Muslim

permanent residents from countries in the Middle East, Asia and Afiica.

Definitions

The terms used for the model are defined when discussed for the model in Chapter

4 and similarly, terms used in the two subproblems are defined in their respective chapters.

Since the review of literature is integrally involved in the development of the
model, this study is organized so that Chapter 2 is a supplementary review of literature,
Chapter 3 procedures, Chapter 4 development of the model, Chapter 5 subproblem one of
the application to Lansing Riverfi'ont Park, Chapter 6 Islamic perspective and riverfront

park design, and Chapter 7 summary and conclusions.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The focus of this study is on the development of a riverfi'ont park planning model
with application of selected aspects to the Lansing Riverfront Park and modifications to
the model suggested by the Islamic perspective. Pertinent literature used in the
development of the model is in Chapter 4 and the review of literature as related to
religious culture is included in Chapter 6. This chapter is a supplementary review of
literature and has the following sections: riverfi'ont park development, which is historical
in nature, comprehensive planning issues, environmental design research, and preference

for nature in the urban environment.

Riverfront Park Development

This section provides commentary supplemental to Chapter 1 and is in the
subsections, historical development, redevelopment of the riverfront, and functional

changes.

17

18

Historical Development

Until the development of the railroad, North American cities had to rely on the
inland waterways for their commercial and transportation activities (Wrenn, 1983). This
resulted in increased specialization of urban riverfronts. Cincinnati and St. Louis are
examples of how cities prospered as a result of the presence of riverfionts. However,
several riverfi'onts also historically suffered from a lack of vision and management in their
adaptations to successive demands for new functions. At the turn of the century, several
cities had developed riverfi'ont areas into parkland and recreation areas. The motivation
for these developments varied, but, mainly it was to stabilize the shoreline, improve
drainage and flooding conditions, and enhance urban recreational opportunities (Breen and
Rigby, 1994).

A report by Frederick Law Olmstead in 1910 for the improvement of the riverfront
for the City of Pittsburgh offered the opportunity to relieve the traffic congestion from the
main thoroughfare where passenger travel was most dense (Torre, 198 9). At the same
time, he predicted that the riverfront would add to the comeliness of the city itself, the
health and happiness of the people, and their loyalty and local pride. What he did not
anticipate was the future blossoming of festival market places and riverwalks that would
add a new dimension to retail, commercial and water-related activities.

Some of the riverfront edges were developed into linear parks and greenways.

The parks and greenways ofien were designed around a monument or historical site. This
has been carried to the extreme in Washington, DC, where over 80 percent of the

Potomac and Anacostia shorelines combined is under the jurisdiction of the National Park

19

Service (National Capital Planning Commission, 1972). The 1901 plan for Washington
devoted much attention to the banks of the Potomac. It set the pattern for waterfi'ont
parks and green spaces.

More typical is St. Louis, where in 1934, the decision was made to move forward
with the Jefferson National Memorial and the levee cleared from Eads Bridge to Polar
street as far west as Third Street. In 1964, this became the site of Eero Saarinen's famous
Arch and a 91-acre park built entirely by the federal government. Chicago ofi'ers another
striking example. When Bumham presented his plan for the city in 1909, considerable
public support existed for his proposal to develop the lakefront as a greenway park. He
depicted a new shoreline of beaches, lagoons, islands, harbors, and cultural facilities, in a
vision that shaped much of the subsequent development. Today, nearly 24 miles of the
city's shoreline consists of public parks and beaches.

In Charles Little's book (1990), entitled Greenways for America, be
defined greenway as a linear, open space established along either a natural corridor, such
as a riverfront, stream valley or ridgeline, or overland along a railroad right of way
converted into recreational use, a canal, a scenic road or other route. Often considered
the "lungs of the city”, many greenways were developed along the river corridors,
providing close to home recreation opportunities and fostering a sense of place so
important to city residents. The formulation of National Environment and Protection Act
(NEPA) in early 1970 had accelerated the development of greenbelts or greenways along
the urban areas. This is in line with the government policy to stimulate a healthy living
environment among the citizens. At the turn of the 90’s, some urban riverfronts

incorporated the greenways concept given prominence by the President's Commission on

20

America Outdoors (1987). Greenways provide people with access to open spaces close to
where they live, and link together the rural and urban spaces in the American landscape,
threading through cities and countryside, like a giant circulating system (W almsley, 1995).
Several cities, including Boston, Baltimore, Seattle and Philadelphia, have already

accomplished major transformations.

Redevelopment of the Riverfiont

Riverfront redevelopment began with effective reuse in the 1970's, accelerated in

the 1980's and is projected to continue unabated into the 1990’s (Breen & Rigby, 1994).

Many cities are commissioning planning studies to reclaim old industrial waterfronts for
public access and use (Baschak & Brown, 1995). As patterns of uses changed, so has the
nature of the development that is being sought. Many cities are commissioning planning
studies to reclaim old industrial waterfronts for public access and use (Baschak & Brown,
1995). In North America, it is claimed that virtually every riverfront city has had some
degrees of revitalization, even when there was minimal previous waterfront activity (Hall,
1991). Almost every North American riverfront city has taken steps to rediscover and
reuse its riverfiont zone (Hall, 1993). This interest has been stimulated by: (a) the
availability of large, underutilized land areas in the heart of cities; (b) the tremendous urge
in the service sector of the economy; and (c) the near-magnetic relationship between the

waterfront and people (Sarnperi, 1986).

21

Complex and multifaceted, current riverfi'ont development is attributed to several
factors, including:
- technological changes during post-World War II, which led to abandonment and
deterioration of thousands of acres of industrial land along the waterfronts
- flood inundation projects to tame the fast flowing rivers
- heightened environmental interest and water cleanup
- consistent pressure to redevelop central city areas
- federal urban renewal and related assistance

- tying in to larger projects as part of an overall recreation resource

Functional Changes

The development of riverfronts poses great challenges to the city authorities and
designers. The present responsibility of designers primarily lies in finding new functions
for old forms (infrastructure, warehouses etc.) and in redeveloping riverfront areas in
spatial, firnctional and visual harmony with the city. The challenge in the design of the
riverfront has to be found in the renewal, based on the manipulation of the special
character of the place. The new water-oriented design must look toward a specific
physical structure, the quality of the public space, streets and plazas, matching local
custom, use and taste. It is, after all, the users who have to feel at home along the renewed

riverfront.

22

Initially, the revitalization was done through the opening of the riverfront
physically through public parks, as in New Orleans (1965), San Antonio (1929), Chicago
(1930), and Fisherman's Wharf and Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco (1963). Because
of their scale, they involved a wide variety of land uses and activities--commercial, retail,
residential, and leisure (Hall, 1991). As a result of these developments several dramatic
improvements were made to several riverfi'onts and public open space increased in several
places. Two prominent examples are the San Antonio riverfront and the Historic Arkansas
Riverwalk Project (HARP). Both riverfront developments were designed for flood
control and to create a riverwalk. Other cities are reclaiming old industrial riverfi'onts for
public access and use and developing riverfront parks, complete with both recreation and
business opportunities (Daley, 1990, Baschak and Brown, 1995). Food courts and
twenty-four-hour eating and drinking areas add vitality and life to the riverfront parks.
Riverfront parks also serve a variety of active and passive recreation needs, including

access to and along the waterfiont.

Comprehensive Planning Issues

Several issues have been raised in the development of comprehensive plans for
riverfronts (National Park Service, 1995). The issues encompass four factors which
are discussed in subsequent subsections.
1. Citizen participation and action for a corridor-wide vision for the river.
2. A consistent and comprehensive management strategy for the riverfront to anticipate

the changing needs of the users.

23

3. The elimination or reduction in the potential conflicts among uses.
4. The presence of adjacent facilities within the riverfront that entice the people to

use the riverfi'ont.

Citizens’ Participation and Action

The process of changing the riverfront image has utilized the feedback of the
citizens in determining the corridor vision for the river. In recent years, public awareness
and appreciation of the rivers in the country is at an all-time high (Daley, 1990). For
example, a riverfront protection ordinance was passed by the Chicago City Council in
1983 to protect the riverfi'ont and encourage development of the river as an amenity. A
society called “The Friends of the Chicago River “ was formed to reverse the neglect, stop
the abuse, and foster the development of the river and its banks.

In another example, the White River Park Commission of Indianapolis considered
several suggestions fiom the citizens to assist them in the development of the riverfi'ont
park. The interest to develop the riverfront into parks and recreation amenities were
generated after changes in the original functions and infrastructure of the riverfront were
made. Solicitations for public input and involvement were requested to provide feedback
to the local planning commission for ideas and solutions in the interest of the public. In
most cases, the public agreed to transform the once bustling riverfront into recreation
amenities and greenways to be enjoyed by the public (Daley, 1990, Brown, 1980). The
feedback by citizens has been supported by local planning commissions and the national

committee on outdoor recreation.

24

Management Strategy.

In some situations, development of a riverfiont park is done by addressing the

following management questions:

1. What types of activities or firnctions are suitable for the riverfront?

2. Which uses mix well together?

3. Which uses need separating from each other?

4. Can public access through nearby building or landmark successfirlly lead the
public to the riverfi'ont?

5. What type of users are targeted for the park?

These questions help to eliminate any discrepancies when redeveloping the
riverfi'ont. The management strategy seeks to maximize public access to the water for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The plan uses strategically located public open
space to link public riverfront destination, maintain access to the water, and structure
development in an environmentally sensitive manner. In part, this is accomplished by

enhancing existing stream corridors to meet the new development needs.
Conflict Among Users

As use of the river and adjacent land in the corridors grows, there is increasing
potential for conflict among uses. Some river corridors include many outstanding vistas,

areas of scenic beauty, and tranquil places in the midst of a great urban area. These scenic

25

and aesthetic resources could be adversely afl‘ected by extensive development,
incompatible design, high speed roads, and poor land use practices. Degradation of the
natural shoreline appearance can be caused by unregulated development, erosion, adjacent
roads and other land use activities.

Direct loss of natural habitat, especially aquatic habitat, has occurred because of
competing interests and uses, such as recreation and commercial development. The
impact of land and water use policies and open space acquisition for economic activities in
the corridor is a major concern of some communities and members of the metro area
business community. Recreational activities have had adverse effects on the ecology of
rivers and streams by affecting both wildlife and their habitats (Ellis & Shutes, 1993).
Liddle & Scorgie (1980) found that swimming, canoeing, boating and angling all have a
tendency to clash significantly with wildlife conservation. In addition, the perceived desire
of the public for intensively managed river corridors is in direct opposition to nature

conservation objectives.
Adjacent Facilities within the Riverfront

The presence of several facilities within the vicinity of the riverfi'ont can provide
the site with added attraction and “personality”. They can provide opportunities to
connect the site with the rest of the downtown and establish access for people to enter the
riverfront area and enjoy the beautiful scenery. Harmony can be established between these

buildings and structures with the existing riverfront. People inside these buildings and

26

structures, or people approaching them, can be offered the choice of either staying inside

them or taking a step farther into the riverfront area.

Environmental Design Research

Environmental design research uses evaluation of the environment to investigate
the effectiveness and firnctionality of the design and the cultural perception of the users in
response to environment. It is part of an ongoing process in which the environmental
design research provides information feedback on the actual use of the facility (Zeisel,
1975)

Zube et a] (1975) provide three methods in assessing people’s response through
the observing patterns of use in outdoor environment, such as parks, streets, plazas and
pedestrian malls. The first describes the assessment using 100 slides to establish
preference for landscape environment. The second method is evaluating appraisal, which
determine the value and quality of a landscape against an established standard of
comparison. Preferential judgements, which express subjective responses to specific
landscapes, is the third method. None of the work done included a survey of users to
determine how well the landscape is working.

Rutledge (1981) combined user observation and survey methods to evaluate the
responses of the public to the design program goals of downtown Chicago's First National
Bank. Eighty users were interviewed with brief open-ended questions to solicit their views
on the firnction of the plaza's open space. Observations of users were done by following a

person through the plaza and taking 35 mm slides every 15 minutes. Rutledge concluded

27

that user-oriented studies provide factual information not available from the design critic
approach and are more quantitative than that provided for in a generalization of findings of
similar spaces provided by Cooper & Marans (1974) and Zeisel (1975).

Barker's (1968) "behavior setting" measures the fi'equencies of the people and their
interaction with the physical environment by observing when behaviors are occurring, the
dominant activity occurring, and who is in the setting according to sex, age, race and role.

Miles, et a1 (1977) used both observers and time lapse camera to record the users'
behavior around the Seattle Plaza for intensive analysis. The study found that users'
behaviors were determined by external factors, such as weather, time of day, types of
seating arrangement, circulation patterns, and the existence of outside environments, such
as buildings, transportation network, and parking spaces within the plaza's vicinity.

In addition, a number of studies have looked at the ways in which people use urban
parks (Gehl 1987; Whyte, 1988) without analyzing the use patterns in conceptual terms
which recognize the intermediate role of environmental perception and cognitive
processing between environmental stimuli and behavioral response. An adequate
appreciation of the users' behaviors can be analyzed based on a systematic empirical
evaluation of collected data. Direct observation, interview, and film techniques can be
used to gather information in a systematic manner about the different age groups, their
activities, problems, and conflicts that occur in urban parks.

Whyte’s study helps to understand how an existing park is actually used and what
its problems and potential are before any redesign or improvements are made. The survey
of related literature covers the areas of the preference for nature, effects of the design

elements.

28

The Preference for Nature in the Urban Environment

Stino in her 1983 study of 103 residents of Madinat Nasr, a community near Cairo,
investigated the preference for different urban spaces in Egypt (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).
She used 42 photographs representing seven spatial environments for the residents to rate
them (on a scale of 1 to 10). They also answered 16 verbal questions on plant materials
(preference, care, park use), about the neighborhood (use patterns, sense of privacy and
safety), and about people (family structure, and neighborhood characteristics). She found
that the most preferred scenes were those (a) characterized by trees, shrubs,
and/or water", (b) in which the space was well defined; and (c) that offered opportunities
for diverse activities. The least preferred were crowded environment and not orderly
arrangement of spaces.

Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) investigated the public input in early design phases for a
vest pocket park in downtown Ann Arbor, Michigan. Twenty-four photographs of
simulated park environments were shown and the participants were asked to rate them on
a scale of 1 to 10. The results showed that participants who worked in the area were
more positive in their ratings. They saw the park as a lunchtime shelter and a pleasant rest
station while running errands. For the nearby residential participants, the park was viewed
with ”some trepidation". The fear of undesirable elements hiding behind vegetation and

man-made elements were interpreted with some reservations.

29

In many societies, parks invite people into the public space through designs that
evoke natural qualities. Some societies feel that the natural environment offers respite
from overly complex, chaotic simulation in everyday life spaces (Altman and Wohlwill,
1983). Others suggest that natural environments are valued because they heighten the
individual's sense of control, competency and esteem (Ladd, 1978: Lewis, 1973). Or, it
may be that people turn to nature simply for diversity. Fueled by the need to investigate,
people are lured by nature's promise for information (Kaplan, 1977). In other societies,
they idealize nature, tamed, cultivated, and predictable, based on the romantic images
borrowed fiom eighteenth-century English parks and estates (Smardon, 1989). Such
parks are not seen as part of the usual necessities of life, although they can be important
for their restorative qualities (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). A basic assumption of human
ecology is that people, given a choice, will demonstrate a preference for environments
that maximize their ability to survive and thrive and are supportive of health and life

processes (Luymes & Tamminga, 1995).

CHAPTER 3

PROCEDURES

The primary focus of this study was the development of a riverfront park planning
model with two subproblems, application of selected aspects to the Lansing Riverfront
Park and application related to the Islamic perspective. This chapter addresses first the
procedures for the development of the riverfront park planning model. The second part
describes the procedures for subproblem 1, the application of selected aspects of the
model to the Lansing Riverfi'ont, while part three focuses on subproblem 2, the Islamic

perspective in riverfront park planning and design.

Development of the Riverfront Park Planning Model

There were essentially two steps in the development of the model. First, the
model was built upon a basic planning model used broadly in the planning field. Second,
in order to direct the model toward riverfront park planning, information regarding
riverfront parks and planning riverfront areas was garnered from the literature and
ascertained from city riverfront plans. This information regarding riverfronts was

specifically inserted into the model at appropriate stages of the process.

30

31

The model is presented in two phases—Phase I, The Development of the Project,
and Phase II, The Design Process. Phase I is contextual in approach and provides a
general overview only of the components, specifically, project origination, project
initiation, design vision, feasibility study and project acceptance. The emphasis of the
study was on Phase II, where the components of the design process are detailed and
involved many planning principles. While the basic planning process was utilized, each
component was developed in terms of a riverfront park. The components of Phase 11
include base map preparation, site inventory, site analysis, program survey, synthesis,
design concept, design development, preliminary design, master plan, implementation, and
formal evaluation. The first five components concern pre-design, while the last six

addressed final design.

Application of Selected Aspects of the Model to Lansing Riverfront Park

The data for application of selected aspects of the model to the Lansing Riverfront
Park were obtained through a limited survey of park users and nonpark users. Thus,
survey procedures are set forth: study population and sampling, instrumentation,

collection of data, and analysis of data.

Study Population and Sampling

The study population included individuals within or adjacent to the Riverfiont

Park, Lansing, Michigan in Fall 1997. It was divided into two groups, i.e., park users and

32

nonpark users. Only those persons 15 years or older were included. The racial
composition was comprised of Caucasians, Afiican Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans, Asian Americans and others.

Three incidental samples were taken - park users who were interviewed, park
users who were observed, and nonpark users. Each sample had 100 persons. They were
selected by the interviewer or observer according to defined procedures (see Collection of
Data, page 34). Park users or the on-site samples were people who happened to be in the
park at the various times during the day the observers and the interviewers were
scheduled. Nonpark users or the off-site sample were people who were found in the park
vicinity, but were not inside the park boundary. Park vicinity included areas and buildings
located around the Lansing Riverfront Park which are physically and visually accessible to

the park (see map in Appendix B).

Instrumentation

Data were collected using two techniques, interview and direct observation. The
park users were both observed and interviewed, while the nonpark users were interviewed
at several nodes outside the park. Different interview schedules for the park users and
nonpark users and an observation form for park users were designed. The selected aspects
of the model to be applied included accessibility and linkages, design elements, and park
usage.

Interview schedules. (See Appendices C and D). Both interview schedules

recorded demographics (age, race and gender) and obtained background information on

33

distance away respondents lived or how far they had come and frequency of visit. Related
to accessibility and linkage, users and nonpark users were asked about going to the
adjacent facilities and the park, respectively. The mode of transportation to the park and
the place of entrance to the park also were determined for the park user. As far as
opinions regarding design elements, park users were asked about the various areas and
specific features of the park. Park users also were asked about their activities in the park,
that is, their present activity, their favorite activity, and their purpose in coming to the
park.

The interview schedule was designed to take no longer than ten minutes, because it
was assumed that both park users and nonpark users would not want to take any more
time fiom their visit, whether in the park or adjacent facility, for the interview.

Observation form. As an indirect means of arriving at park users’ response, a
systematic way of looking at activity in the park was desired, one that might reveal not
only the relative coincidence between the designer’s assumptions and actual usage, but
also to other contentions in respect to nonpark users who were not anticipated in the
initial design. Therefore, behavioral mapping and observation were adapted to meet these
needs. As for means of application, movie and video instruments were ruled out because
of their expense; a paper and pencil recording technique, therefore, had to be designed.
On the observation form (see Appendix E), individuals were identified as to gender,
estimated age category and race. Weather also was recorded. The location of the
individual being observed and the type of activity in which the individual was engaged
were mapped (see Collection of Data for more detail). Additional field notes were made

on the form to provide firrther insights (see Appendix E ).

34

Collection of Data

Separate procedures were developed for interviews with park users and nonpark
users, as well as for observation of park users. Data were collected daily from 7 am. to 7
pm. for three weeks, from October 10 to October 30, 1997.

Interview of park users. For the interview in the park, the park was divided into
sectors. The interviewers were stationed in the grassed area adjacent to Lansing
Community College (Sector A); in the amphitheater, at the river's edge, the pedestrian
bridge joining both sides of the park, the boardwalk along the water edge (Sector B); the
children playground near the City Market, the entrance to Lansing Center and the newly
completed riverwalk (Sector C). (see Appendix B map).

Two interviewers were instructed to interview four persons each during an hour, at
which time the interviewers would switch tasks with two behavior observers, also located
in the same area, who would interview another four persons each in the second hour of the
2-hour time period, while the initial interviewers then observed the park users in the same
area. It was a quasi-interview in that after a brief introduction the interview schedule was
handed to the person, who responded by writing answers to the questions. There was
opportunity to ask questions if the respondent was not clear on what was being asked.

Interview of nonpark users. For the nonpark users, they were interviewed at the
bus stop, the Lansing Community College and along Grand Avenue for Sector A. For
Sector B the interviews were conducted at the parking lot adjacent to the Saginaw Street

Bridge, the shopping lot areas parallel to Cedar Street and the occupants of the Riverfront

35

Tower. Interviews also were conducted in the City Market, the Lansing Center, and the
Lugnut Stadium in Sector C (see map in Appendix B).

Selection of interviewees. Each interview schedule indicated type of person to be
selected by the interviewer for an interview. The designation included race, age group,
and gender. Interviewers were flee to select any person in their area who fit the
designation. They were given one hour to complete four interviews and could do them in
any order at any time.

Observations. Observers took the position of a detached and unobtrusive observer,
as defined by Zeisel (1981). The observers were stationed in a discreet location within the
park, but were able to record the behavior of the park users in their sectors. They
recorded all the activities by the park users within their sectors (see sector map, Appendix
B). Since the entire park and its vicinity could not be viewed from a single location, a
regular sequence of observation for each sector was instituted. The length of each
observation period varied from 10 minutes at low use periods to 15 minutes at peak use
and included mapping of movement flows into and out of the park and between different
sectors of the park. The minimum ten-minute length of observation periods of dynamic use
was chosen to allow these observations to be efficiently undertaken between static use
observation periods. There were twelve periods of mapping between 7:00 am. and 7:00
pm. The observers recorded the behavior of the park users on the sector map. Each
action or activity was recorded into a broad behavior category; e.g., walking, conversing,
looking, etc. (see Appendix E for recording symbols). Although the coding scheme

should be as complete as possible, it was impossible to anticipate all the behaviors that

36

would be encountered. When the observers encountered a behavior not found in the
coding scheme, they described it in detail and how to code it was decided later.

On the date of an observation, the observers recorded the time, temperature and
weather conditions. The observers first recorded all behaviors involving motion (e. g.
walking, biking, jogging etc.). When this was complete, the observers, recorded all
stationary individuals within a sector. For each individual, the observers recorded
behavioral information. Although this was usually a simple code, there were occasions
when simultaneous behaviors; those not mutually exclusive, resulted in as many as five
codes per individual. The most common simultaneous behavior was couples strolling hand
in hand and talking. The observers recorded the estimated age, gender, observed race,
number in group, and whether the person was in the shade or not. Data on sector
physical characteristics (grass, pavement, seating position, etc.) also were recorded.

Time schedules. The interviewers and observers were stationed in a specific
location in the park fi'om 7 am. to 7 pm. every day from October 10th until October
30th, 1997 . There were three rainy days during the period and the interviewers/ observers
took shelter under the bridge and in the Lansing Center.

Training interviewers/observers. Four persons were employed as both observers
and interviewers for the same day but at different times in the park and within the park
vicinity. They were used everyday for two hours by rotation at different locations. Each
person received written instructions and a sample interview schedule and observation
forms two weeks prior to the collection of data. They then went through a structured 45
minute training session in early September. The interview was designed to take no longer

than 10 minutes and the interviewers practiced this in order for the actual on-site

37

interviews not to take more time. A pilot test was conducted with the interviewers in the
third week of September 1997, in order to test and refine observation and mapping
techniques. The interviewers introduced themselves and gave a brief description of the

study purpose before asking the participants to fill out the survey.

Analysis of Data

The data were analyzed based on four dimensions—the profile of the respondents,
park user activity, the park design elements, and adjacent facility linkages (accessibility).

Profile of the respondents. Profile for park users and nonpark users were
constructed using percentages. for the characteristics gender, age, and ethnicity, as well as
mode of travel to the park, distance fiom the park, and visits to adjacent facilities. The
profile of the observed park users, in addition to percentages was described narratively ,
for the characteristics gender, observed ethnicity and estimated age category and their
travel movement from one sector to another and the activities in which they were engaged.

Park activity use. Percentages of participation or different activities in the park
and the reasons for coming to the park were calculated for the interviewed park users by
gender, age, and ethnic background, and then rank ordered. Using chi-square, differences
between males and females were determined for activities. While there are statistical
techniques for small numbers, it was deemed that the low number in non-Caucasian group
and the great disparity between them and the Caucasian group rendered statistical
applications inappropriate. The observation data also were presented by percentages of

activity involvement and contrasted with the interviewed park users’ data. The nature of

38

activity participation by time of weekdays and weekends was described narratively using
the observation field notes. The percentage of nonpark users who had personally visited
the was park determined.

Park design elements. The park users’ preferences for the design elements were
described by percentage based on gender and ethnicity. The use of the design elements in
the park by the park users was noted on the observation form as well as in the interview.
The preference of park users towards these elements was analayzed by percentages for
gender and ethnicity.

Adjacent facility. The frequency of visits and the length of visits by nonpark
users to the various adjacent facilities were specified by percentages. The preferences of
park users for the adjacent facilities, in terms of where they were going that day and where
they had previously been, were determined by comparison made among facilities by
percentages.

Planning perspectives. The purpose of this limited survey of Lansing Michigan,
Riverfront Park was to gain insight into the planning model, specifically as related to
usage, design elements and adjacent facilities as linkages. Following the foregoing

analyses, perspective as related to the riverfront planning model were set forth.

Islamic Perspective and Riverfront Park Design

Determination of the Islamic perspective as related to riverfront park design was

based on the Koran and Hadith, historical precedents of the Islamic park and perception of

39

the Muslim community in the Greater Lansing, Michigan. A review of literature on

the cultural differences and riverfront park design provided a context for this subproblem.

Koran and Hadith

Verses of the Koran and the Hadith, which relate to park and garden design, were
identified. Quotations were interpolated into guidelines for Islamic modification to the

model for riverfront park planning and design.

Historic Park Design

Published articles by various authors and analysis of historical gardens on the
Islamic version of park design from the beginning of Islamic civilization until the present

were reviewed for insights for model modifications.

Perceptions of the Muslim Community

Greater Lansing, Michigan, has a community of 400 Muslims. It includes Muslim
students studying at Michigan State University and American Muslim permanent residents
working and living in Greater Lansing. Men were interviewed at the Islamic Center, on
the MSU campus, at Islamic study circles, and in their homes. Twelve women were

interviewed by a woman fiiend of the investigator and eight other women were

40

interviewed by their respective husbands. Altogether 80 men and 20 women were
interviewed at these places.
Six questions were used to stimulate discussions to determine their perceptions of
various elements of the park planning model, as well as the use of a park.
1. What are the types of design elements that you would prefer in a park in your
country/Islamic country?
2. What are the type of design elements that you would prefer/do not prefer in a park in

the United States?

3. What design element is most important to be present in a riverfront park?

4. Does the park in Lansing or other places in the United States meet your needs to
recreate?

5. With whom do you prefer to go to the park in Lansing and other places in the United
States?

6. During your visit to the park do you usually visit the park only or visit other location

near the park?

Synthesis of Perceptions for Model Modifications

Based on the three sources of information, modifications to the basic model were

suggested as a guideline for Islamic park design and planning.

CHAPTER 4

DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVERFRONT PLANNING MODEL

This chapter sets forth a riverfront planning model as one of the approaches to
riverfi'ont park development. The primary objective of the model is to provide a useful,
working document for planners, designers, developers and citizens interested in riverfi'ont
parks. The model is basically contextual in approach. In other words, this model can
relate or be applied to different sociopolitical contexts and ideologies, by asking: Who
plans for whom with what ideas in mind? These ideas can be expanded to encompass and
accommodate the various groups of park users.

The model is composed of two phases—Phase I, The Development of the Project,
and Phase H, The Design Process. Only an overview of Phase I is set forth, that is, a
general description of the components. The focus of the study is on Phase II, and the
components of the design process are detailed. While the basic planning process is
utilized, each component is developed in terms of a riverfront park, that is, the basic
process is applied to the riverfront. This chapter presents the components of each phase.
To illustrate selected aspects of the components, the Lansing, Michigan, Riverfront Park is

used (see Appendix A for a description of the Park).

41

42

PHASE 1. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT

Phase I has five components: project origination, project initiation, design vision,

feasibility study, and project acceptance (see Figurel).

Project Origination

The idea of initiating the project can originate from one of three management
approaches: the public sector, public ownership and private financing, or public and

private ownership.

Public Sector Approach

This approach is solely initiated by the public without collaboration with the
private sector. Upon insistence from a neighborhood, an individual, the business
community, or a politician, a city agrees to provide a riverfront park or renovate an
existing one. Parameters for the design are formalized, often with public and designer
input and involvement, and public money is allocated. Once built, the park is put under

the management of the local municipal parks department.

 

 

 

 

FEASIBILITY
STUDY

 

 

PROJECT
ACCEPTANCE

 

 

Figure 1. Riverfront Park Planning Model-- Phase 1. Development of the Project

44

Public Ownership and Private Funding

In this approach, the public sector maintains ownership and responsibility for the
park, but co-ventures with the private sector for development or redevelopment through
traditional firndraising programs, donations, benefactors, etc. Once complete, the park is
fully under public sector management, although the private sector may continue to be
involved through special fundraisers for various programs or improvements, or through

concessions or sponsorships that provide supplemental revenue.

Public and Private Ownership

The third approach, which could be called the market-oriented civic model, is
newer and more controversial; it relies on a long-term partnership between the public and
private sectors for park development and management. Using mechanisms, such as a
nonprofit development corporation or a business improvement district (BID), it brings
together private sector responsiveness to market needs, tax incentives, dedicated taxes
from surrounding property owners, private donations, better accountability to user needs,
and revenue-producing functions to provide for the improvement and management of the
riverfront park.

Project Initiation

Project initiation is the next component in the development of the riverfront area,

regardless of which management approach is used. Usually the initiation step is based on

45

the financial and political objectives and support. The purpose is to create a plan that will
effectively respond to the unique development opportunity and produce a viable project.
This is often done through a request for planning (RFP). Some design companies may
come forward with several proposals and input based on their technical competence,
expertise and/or interest to be incorporated into a long-range visionary design for the
riverfiont park. The public is informed by providing extensive media coverage to as many
people as possible, inviting them to give their thoughts, ideas, and opinions and to
collaborate on the project proposal. During this stage, through public participation and
interaction with the designers, all the information on the project proposal is considered to
shape the riverfront development alternatives and achieve a design vision for the benefit of
the community.

Design Vision

Basically, visionary design is an agreement between the client and the designer,
indicating what an area should be in the firture. The agreement can encompass the
purposes of recreation, historic place, work place, and residential, commercial and cultural
settings. It delineates broad objectives, concepts, policies, and management strategies that
generally guide more specific decisions where an unusual condition exists. This visionary
design also is based on public and designer inputs.

Public input or citizens’ participation may be obtained through news coverage, public
questionnaires, public hearings, and focus groups.
0 News coverage of all meetings; project briefs, priorities, and policies should be

reported in the local news media through newspapers and television. Newsletters can

46

be issued. The public should be invited from the beginning to attend the planning
sessions.

0 A questionnaire may be sent out to the constituency to gauge the support of the public
in the planning process.

0 Public hearings should be conducted and input included in the final draft plan.

0 Focus group meetings of various interest groups or people that are going to be
afi'ected by the project should be held.

The designers, either retained or pre—RFP (request for proposal), can contribute
their expertise during the public input. As visionaries, communicators and implementers,
they listen, interview, question, suggest, and answer questions to help form a consensus
for making a decision on the design vision. In summary, this component establishes a
mutual understanding and agreement between the client and the designer of their prime
objectives and goals. On reaching a consensus, a feasibility study is conducted to finalize

the scope of the project.

Feasibility Study

A feasibility study is the next component in the riverfront planning process. The
purpose of the feasibility study is to determine the demand for and location of a potential
development by evaluating the social, environmental and economic aspects influencing
development of the riverfront park, as well as which type of riverfront park is best suited
for the area (Rubeinstein, 1992, EDAW, 1986 ). The social aspect covers the culture and

social practices of the local population. Part of the social aspect determines the

47

enhancement of the area in terms of the market potential for residential, commercial or
other uses in the area adjacent to the riverfi'ont corridor. The environmental aspect
concerns the impact of the park and the adjacent land use on the environment, positive and
negative. Any environmental impact is determined by on-site investigations. The
economic aspect studies the estimates of cost benefit ratio of having a riverfi'ont park in
the area. Conditions in the site area that are historically sound, economically feasible,
environmentally stable, and socially acceptable are discussed.

Two firnctions of a feasibility study are 1) assessing the demand for the riverfi'ont park
based on national, state and city guidelines and on the available recreational resources of
the area; and 2) surveying all available sites along the riverfront and identifying the
preferred site for potential acquisition.

The demand characteristics are obtained through the use of data compiled by the
area’s city or state authorities and discussions with local residents. A discussion of the
mission and objectives of the riverfront park and its appropriateness establishes the basic
parameters for the study. From this information, the needs for a riverfront park are
assessed by asking the following questions:

What are the needs of the community?

What is the target group for this park?

Will the community support the project, or is the project redundant?

What are the short and long range objectives of establishing the park?

Who are the users and what are their demands and needs?

What is the economic status of the area and community?

48

The process of selecting a site occurs through the application of various criteria.
In the first level of analysis the entire land area around a proposed site is evaluated, based
on operational and logistical factors essential to managing a riverfront park. After
eliminating sites that do not satisfy the feasibility study, a second level of study is applied
that evaluates the intrinsic qualities and attributes of the remaining site areas. The criteria
in this regard relate to the resource potential (or environmental character) of each site
area.

From this study several goals for the establishment of the project are firrther defined.
This is to insure that the objectives and goals of the project are in line with the need to
develop the area based on the request for planning initiated by the source in the project
origination.

Project Acceptance

After the feasibility study has detemrined that the area is feasible for development
and before the design process begins, the client (the public, private/public partnership, or
the public ownership/private financing) and the designer should come to an agreement on
the scope and significance of the project. This is normally done through a request for
planning (RFP) where both parties will present their agenda. At the first meeting between
the two parties, the general needs and requirements of the clients are discussed and the
designer presents the type and scope of services offered. An example of the scope of

services offered by a designer is as follows:

49

0 To provide recommendations regarding overall riverfront planning options and policies

0 To identify and select recreation opportunities for the park users, maximizing the
quality of experience, and to provide guidelines for future planning.

0 To integrate the riverfront development plan with the surrounding land use plans,
adjacent areas and infiastructure.

Ifthe terms of each party are agreeable to the other, then the designer prepares for
the client a written proposal detailing the scope of services, products, and cost of the
services to be undertaken. If the client agrees to the proposal, both parties sign the
proposal or written contract. It is always advisable, no matter what the size of the project
or scope of the work, to have the agreement in writing to avoid misunderstandings or legal

problems at a later date (Booth, 1990).

PHASE H: THE DESIGN PROCESS

The design process is an universal planning approach that incorporates a number of
components that respond to the users’ or clients’ needs, while respecting the integrity of
the site. The process involves a sequence of logical, organized steps to create a design
solution, appropriately suited to the circumstances of the design based on the site and the
client’s needs and vision. This process assists in determining the best use of the land for
the client by studying alternative solutions, and also serves as a basis for explaining and
defending the design solution to the client. The design process encompasses eleven
components: the first five (base map preparation, site inventory, site analysis, program

survey, and synthesis). Part A, represent the pre-design work; whereas the last six (design

50

concept, design development, preliminary design, master plan, implementation, and formal

evaluation), Part B result in the final design for the area. (see Figure 2).

PART A: PRE-DESIGN

In this pre—design stage, five components are involved. They are base map
preparation, site inventory, site analysis, program survey, and synthesis. Most of the work

done during this part is ground work carried out in the project area.

Base Map Preparation

Before any information on the study area is compiled, a land survey should be
verified to establish objective baseline information related to the site. Normally, the
information required for the base map is supplied by the client. If such information is
not available, a professional property or topographic on-site survey must be conducted or
aerial photography produced or both. A site visit to the area is essential to base map
preparation to familiarize with the present project area. Ifbudget and time allow, the map
preparation may be best accomplished by an interdisciplinary team collecting information.

This step involves search, accumulation, and field checking of land-based
information. USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map with a scale of 125,000 for the area
shouldbe obtained as it has basic information, such as the location of buildings (except in
urban areas), the bodies of water, elevations, contour lines, roads, rail lines, political

boundaries, and some woodlands (Steiner, 1991). Wetland or recharge area information

51

FORMAL BASE MAP
EVALUATION PREPARATION
IMPLEMENTATION
SITE
INVENTORY

MASTER PART A. PRE -DESIGN
PLAN
PART B. FINAL DESIGN $

PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
PROGRAM
DESIGN SURVEY
DE P

VELOMENT

 

Figure 2. Phase II. The Design Process

52

also can be included. The map of the study area needs to be placed in a regional context,
because people who read a planning report often come from outside the area described.

A good base map is important for planning the design elements and for examining
spatial relationships. It also can help in analyzing alternative solutions, illustrating design
concepts, and determining the design criteria. Usually a base map contains a location plan,
a specific project area plan and a site context plan. A location plan has a scale of
1:25,000, showing the position of the site with the place names, topographic features, land
uses and communication systems. The exact geographic position of the site
relative to the surrounding areas (urban, suburban, regional, etc.) is designated on the
map. The project area plan is an outline about height, paths, tracks, roadways, and

buildings within and immediately adjacent to the site. The scale is usually 1:500 or 1:1250,

depending on the complexity of the site. Property lines with bearings and distances must
be shown. This involves a property survey, which is a legal document that identifies the
exact location, length, and angle of each of the property lines, the easements and liens and
other restrictions on the property, the rights of way and setback lines, applicable zoning,
adjacent property owners, and the location by dimension of all structures and other
constructed features. Aside from surveys, other types of written resources may be
available. The site context plan should contain the topography (the lie of the land) on the
site and elevation or contours. Location of true north and graphic representation of solar
orientation showing the sun’s position at sunrise, sunset, and of movement through the
day, as well as variations in rise and set of the sun due to latitude and period of the

equinox (solar angle), are depicted.

53

In most situations, the project is to comply with the zoning laws and natural
restraints on site use, such as flooding or ecologically unstable areas. Computer generated
maps, aerial photographs and location of utility line maps are all excellent sources of
information.

In addition to the base map information, it is important to carry out a site inventory
to identify the significant natural resources and conditions along the river. The purpose of
the site inventory is for the designer to take stock of the lay of the land to evaluate and
determine the site's character, problems and potentials. This is to enable the design of the
site to be specifically tailored to fit and adapt to the conditions of the given site. The
purpose then is to identify the character of the site that will indicate how the design
proposal can best be suited to the existing site conditions in a manner that takes advantage
of the site's positive aspects, while simultaneously eliminating or minimizing its negative
aspects.

Site inventorying involves a biophysical assessment of the living and non-living
natural resources within the site (Al Duerr, 1994). The objective of the biophysical
assessment is to establish a framework for decision-making with respect to long-term
park planning. This assessment can be undertaken by the design consultant, in association
with a multi-disciplinary research team of geologists, geomorphologists, hydrologists,
plant and animal ecologists, and other technical specialists. Each resource may have
unique historical significance and is useful for present day patterns of uses, activities,
linkages, and interactions. The site inventory documents the opportunities and limitations
of the study area for various types and intensities of activities and serves as the basic

fiarnework for preliminary design decisions.

54

The site inventory embodies four aspects: climate, physical nature of surface and

subsurface, ecological structure and organic growth, and existing land use.

Climate

Overall macroclimate conditions, including solar orientation, patterns of sun and
shade, prevailing winds, temperature, humidity, and rainfall, must be recognized as a site
factor. Macroclimate is measured at about two meters above the ground and is affected by
physical conditions, such as mountains, ocean currents, prevailing winds and latitudes
(Steiner, 1991). The specific microclimatic conditions of the site, such as wind, rain,
humidity, temperature, heat, frost and snow, and quality of light, also must be
inventoried. Any changes in the design of the study area will cause changes in the
microclimate and in turn will affect the users (Pielke and Avissar, 1990). Geological and
climatic negative factors, too, must be determined, that is, possible natural disasters, such
as seismological disturbances, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, mudslides, dust storms,
forest fires, etc. By careful site planning and design it is possible to create very local
climates where people can be screened from the worst extremes of an area's climate and

encouraged to use the outdoor areas associated with buildings.

Physical Nature of Surface and Subsurface

The physical nature of the surface and subsurface must be inventoried to

determine suitability for land uses. The physical characteristics inventory includes the soils

55

and geological, hydrologic, and topographic features. Usually these characteristics are
separately mapped.

Soils. Soil is a natural three-dimensional element on the surface of the earth that is
capable of supporting building structures, roads and pathways, vegetation and other
infi'astructures required for the development of the riverfi'ont park. Soil suitability for land
uses, such as absorption fields for septic tanks, sewage lagoons, streets and parking,
dwellings with basements, pond or reservoir areas, and recreation facilities, such as sport
fields, playgrounds, campsites, and golf fairways, must be determined. A soil survey is
necessary to make available all of the specific information about each kind of soil that is
significant to its use and behavior. Many of the counties in the United States have
published soil surveys classifying each soil and providing soil properties significant to site
planning (Rubeinstein, 1996).

Soil tests. Soil tests should be conducted prior to construction of facilities. Soil
pH, its alkalinity or salinity, and the depth of the water table are valuable in determining
suitability for land uses. The height of the water table determines the location of the
building and other features. For example, if the water table is too high, project cost will
increase as increased waterproofing, pumping and the use of pilings become necessary. If
the water table is too low, problems of water supply and cost may occur.

Geologic features—bedrock and surficial. The geologic process in the area affects
the site, formation, and type of bedrock below the surface of the soil. The site planner may
consult with a soils engineer to facilitate interpretation of the borings. This is to determine
any tectonic movement and surficial process of the earth surface through rockfalls,

landslides, mudflows and soil creep. The US. Geological Survey provides engineering and

56

geology maps of many areas showing various characteristics, such as distribution and
thickness of rock formations, terrain, slope, and slope stability. Data for the United States
are available fi'om the US. Conservation Service on (a) depth to bedrock, (b) seasonal
water table, permeability, shrink-swell potential, (c) vegetation, drainage, permeability,
and water table; ((1) frost susceptibility; (e) suitability for foundation; (f) earthquake
stability (g) excavation characteristics; and (h) suitability for subgrade fill or borrow and
compaction. The Service has physiography-geomorphology, relief, and topographical
maps. These landform features influence the design features, particularly if the site is
irregular. The presence of alluvial sand will determine drainage and adaptability to design
modifications.

Hydrologic features. Hydrologic features are important in determining the location
and pattern of drainage, erosion, watershed, water table, soil absorption, etc. River
hydrology is of considerable importance to the riverfi'ont park system and may impose
serious limitations in certain sections of the riverfront park due to flooding, high water
levels or erosion of banks. An understanding of the water level and river flow
characteristics for use in analyzing the site area can be obtained by studying the hydrologic
and water resources information in the area. Aquifers are water-bearing strata of rock,
gravel, or sand in which groundwater is stored and should be protected from uses, such as
septic systems that may pollute the aquifer.

A hydrologic map indicates the location of groundwater and surface water within
the study area. All water bodies--rivers, streams, drainage channels, floodplains, aquifers,
or wetlandsumust be inventoried and analyzed for their opportunities and constraints

(Rubeinstein, 1996). The map is based on the drainage, floodplains and limnology of the

57

area. Drainage basins or watersheds are morphological units of surface water. A
floodplain is the general and temporary condition of a partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas from overflow of streams, rivers or other inland water. Ideally,
the riverfront park should be within a lOO-year floodplain boundary for it to be able to
withstand flooding and still be maintained. Limnology is the study of fresh waters in all
their physical, chemical, geological, and biological aspects (Odum, 1971). There are two
broad types of fi'eshwater habitats: standing water habitats (lakes, ponds, swamps, or
bogs) and running water habitats (springs, streams, or rivers). For purposes of
hydrological inventory and analysis, the chemical and biological aspects of aquatic
ecosystems and the type of freshwater habitats are recorded. It also is important for site
planning purposes to know the location of all the still water.

The location of lakes, ponds and the wetlands that are within the project area need
to be identified and detailed information on their water quality, wildlife value, recreational
value, permanence, and condition of their edges recorded. There are many possible ways
of treating still water and wetlands, ranging from drainage (with mitigation) to
conservation.

The site planner also needs to identify the water catchment and retention areas that
feed the site's surface water. This preliminary survey should indicate the position of all
water courses containing the running water within the site context, as well as dry valleys.
Samples should be taken to establish water quality and the ability of the stream to cope
with pollution. The amount of foreign material held in suspension in the water (soil, bits of
vegetation, pollutants) influences a water body's ability to cope with pollution and remain

self-cleansing. The impact of contaminants also is influenced by whether the water is slow

58

and sluggish or fast and bubbling over rocks and pebbles. In the latter situation, additional
oxygen is incorporated into the water and this makes a substantial difference to a stream's
ability to remain self-cleansing. Water quality information at the site should be collected to
ensure that the development of the site plan is based on a full understanding of any
problems associated with water quality. Where water is found to be contaminated, it
would not be wise to suggest the development of a scheme involving the use of water for
recreation.

All proposed intrusions into the river edge should be reviewed by the various
authorities, such as the State Departments of Parks and Recreation and the Fish and
Wildlife. Examples of intrusions into the river edge are surface water runofl’, floodways,
and groundwater. These features must be inventoried and analyzed for their opportunities
and constraints. Hydrologic features have a bearing on relating activities to the land and
are of primary importance in developing a system for site drainage that may make use of
existing watershed drainage patterns. Floodplains also must be studied carefiilly for 25, 50
and loo-year storm levels to see if all development should be excluded or if a land use,
such as recreation fields, which would receive little damage by flooding may be located on
the floodplain. Many storm systems are designed for these three levels. These capacities
are critical.

Topographical features. Topographical characteristics are defined as surficial
geology and soils factors that may influence the water feature, trail planning, site use, etc.
The strengths and limitations of the site should be identified. The strengths should be
enhanced and limitations should be mitigated through design measures to overcome

inherent soil instability or poor drainage. Much site planning is done on the best available

59

information about the topography rather than absolute accurate plans (Untermann, 1973).
Many projects, particularly those not involving the building structures, never need finite
information about the level changes. It is part of the site planner's task to advise the client
on the suitable level of contour information so as not to lead to unnecessary expenditure.

Even when the details about the topography are available, it is essential to walk
over the site with a copy of the base plan and check if it records all the breaks of slope. A break
of slope occurs when the land is suddenly steeper between two planes. The location and
grade of these level changes are important in developing ideas for the sites. Generally, a
gentle rolling site is easier to develop for the riverfront park than steep slopes. The
topography of the site is analyzed in terms of excessively steep or unstable slopes (greater
than 15 to 20 percent), which place a constraint on development, and extremely flat areas
(0 to 2 percent slope), which could present a problem with drainage.

Topography also provides opportunities and constraints in terms of desirable and
undesirable views within the site, panoramic vistas from high points of the site to the
surrounding areas, and views of the site from outside the site. Views (good and bad)
require an understanding of visual design principles relating to shape, focal point, visual
force, scale, diversity, unity and the spirit of place. Assess the landform and other visual
aspects of the site and adjacent land use with these design principles in mind. Visit
prominent viewpoints from which the site is visible and take photographs, which are useful

for developing the landscape design.

60

Ecological Structure and Organic Growth

Ecological structure and organic grth are the existence of natural habitats that
constitute the living organism in the study area. They are defined by locations, types,
character and availability of these organisms. They can be divided into flora and fauna.
The inventory should include the identification of vegetation masses, wildlife habitats, and
fisheries habitats along floodplain boundaries. This is to assist in drawing the detail of
landscaping and a wildlife sanctuary. Awareness of these ecological structures influence
future plans and material in the study area.

Flora. An inventory of existing vegetation, including the location of significant
specimen trees, on the site by type, size, habitat and condition, is necessary. Delineation
and protection of sensitive habitats might be required if endangered or sensitive flora are
located in or adjacent to the site. Information on species of plant life--trees, shrubs, herbs,
and grasses- helps to identify the type of plants needed for the landscape design of the
site.

Native plants enhance the park character and help to reestablish a natural riverfiont
landscape. The designer should recognize the existence of natural plant communities as an
opportunity for a diverse recreational experience. Certain areas along the riverfi'ont may
require future replanting or rehabilitation work. Existing plant communities must be
evaluated carefiIlly before development takes place (Rubeinstein, 1996). Trees take a long
time to reach maturity and preserving vegetation can be most important to the overall
design of a project and to its economy, since many trees would not have to be purchased

and subsequently require many years to reach maturity. Note the name, size and location

61

of large existing trees 34 feet or more in diameter. Observe their form, branch structure,
foliage color, texture and condition. If a site is heavily wooded, a carefially planned
thinning of the trees may open potential vistas. The plant ecology must be studied to find
which trees or shrubs are native and which varieties may be added for wind protection,
shade, buffer zones, screens or backdrops.

Fauna. Wildlife is an important factor to consider, especially when planning sites
for riverfront parks and other recreation areas. Since fishing and appreciating the presence
of wildlife are major recreational activities, choosing the specific location for such
activities is necessary. Wildlife also adds color, form, and movement to the landscape.
Existing wooded areas inhabited by wildlife may be preserved as parkland, along with
residential wooded subdivisions. Terrestrial wildlife specific to the study area should be
well documented. Anecdotal notes should be made of the diversity of terrestrial and avian
species that inhabit or frequent the area. Any plans for the recreation pathways or trails
should respect known habitat sites, and yet provide opportunities for observation of
wildlife where possible. Designated nature interpretation sites may be enhanced with
provision of artificial habitat or interpretive signage and brochures. The sites can be water

or land-oriented.

Land Use

The land use inventory is comprised of several factors that exist on the land within

the project location and any adjacent areas that may have an influence on the riverfront

park development: land use controls and restrictions within the project area, adjacent land

62

uses, the air quality and acoustics, services and public utilities, infi'astructure requirements,
and circulation and access.

Control and restrictions. The public and private controls and restrictions on the
project area land need to be taken into consideration. Any zoning classification, set backs,
easements, rights of way and liens should be identified. Air and mineral rights also should
be considered.

Adjacent land uses The uses of the adjoining land, such as the following, may
exert influence on the site development.

(1) Streets, highways, service alleys, pedestrian walks, transportation systems, etc.,
that are located near the project area and which can function as traffic generators,
barriers, links, etc.

(2) Urban, commercial, industrial, residential, and natural areas normally help to shape
the development in the project area. Compatibility is often a key factor in devising
the plan for the area.

(3) Adjacent architecture and space forms reflect the image of the facade of the
project area. Any outstanding forms of architecture or open space within the
boundary should be noted and recorded.

Air quality. The quality of air is important in providing a conducive environment
for future park users. There should be recognition of the existence of any noxious
pollutants, smog, smoke, dust, chemicals, odors, etc. Pollution can originate fi'om the
water or the atmosphere. Each source of air quality needs to be dealt with in the proper

way in designing the recreation area.

63

Acoustical factors. The presence of negative noise and sound within the project
area and the adjacent land areas has an impact on the planning of the project area. Any
noise and sounds emanating fi'om trains, ongoing construction or heavy industries nearby,
etc., should be noted and recorded. The impact could be hazardous in the long run and
may need mitigating factors to reduce them.

Services and public utilities. This inventory deals with the determination of
location, availability, and local capacity of services and utilities, such as trash and garbage
disposal, construction areas, service delivery access, and potable and agricultural irrigation
water, electrical power (above and below ground), natural gas lines, sewer systems
(sanitary, storrnwater), and communications lines (telephone, TV, etc). All these services
and public utilities require important infrastructure backups or suppliers for the project
area.

Infi'astructure requirements There is a need to gather baseline data to prepare the
infrastructure requirements for the pathways, building structures, parking, benches,
bridges, entrances, exits and sanitary sewers. The four aspects of site inventory (previous
sections) may aid in identifying their locations.

Circulation and access. A circulation map overlay shows how the riverfi'ont can be
reached by pedestrians, by autos, and by other modes of transportation. The overlay is a

tool that helps to illustrate the flow of movement of the park users along the riverfront.

64

Site Analysis

For each aspect of the foregoing site inventory, the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threat (SWOT) are analyzed in the component, site analysis, although
various types of analysis are conducted throughout the stages of the design process. The
analysis may reveal issues that could impose constraints on or provide opportunities for
the development of the riverfront park. For the purpose of the planning model, site
analysis addresses four aspects--accessibility, river corridor, linkages, and adjacent land

use.

Accessibility

Public access to the riverfront is important in bringing users to the park via land
and water and also in enhancing the riverfront image (Breen and Rigby, 1986). The
riverfront park may or may not be seen from the road. This is where accessibility related
to visual, physical and cultural factors play a role in riverfront park planning. Visual
accessibility brings together the views of the river and the land to the potential park users.
The physical access is the pathway that connects the river with structures, such as public
buildings, sports arena, convention centers or work places, located in or adjacent to the
park. Cultural features are the presence of historical artifacts or archaeological sites.
This accessibility factor should be planned to induce the people to move fi'om these
cultural places to the riverfiont park. The facade, entrances or exits of these places,

should provide access to the park and the opportunity for vista and panoramic views of

65

the riverfront. These access points form the start of the connectors that lead to nodes of
development or simply provide vistas to view the riverfront park (Peepre, 1984, Schaffer,

1993).
River Corridor

The river corridor is the land area located on both sides of the river edge and
includes the river (see Figure 3). This corridor is for the use of the public activities. As an
amenity, the river can be enjoyed fiom this corridor for aesthetic value, water surface
sports (swimming, diving, water skiing, sailing, motor boating) and contemplation. Since
this is the centrality of the park, a variety of activities should be properly planned and
designed to meet the needs of the park users. Some of the land area next to the river is
narrower at certain points. Further, it would be worth studying the possibility of having
recreation in the river itself. The provision of floating structures for fishing and for
touching the water with full safety precautions should be considered. All planning of river

recreation activities must be compatible with the results of the site survey, a function

/ Adjacent

Visual Corridor Land Use 00 ft Buff Water 100 ft Buffer Land Use

performed in the design process.

  
 
 

Adjacent

 

 

'ver corridor

 

Secondary Seconda

 

Figure 3. Profile of Riverfront

River (water). This is the central component of the riverfront. It is the appeal of
spending leisure time on water that is attracting the people to any riverfi'ont park. Much
of the attraction of the water lies in opportunities to observe nature and to engage in
recreation. Whether for fishing, swimming or quiet contemplation, and in spite of barriers,
the park users gravitate toward whatever water body is available. The recreational
activities to be planned depend on the depth and width of the water. Consideration must
be given to any conflict that may occur among the various recreational activities (Breen
and Rigby, 1986).

100-foot buffer. The loo-foot buffer is the area between the river edge and the
adjacent land. This corridor is the hub of activity within the riverfront park. The open
space found within this corridor should be integrated with the view of the river and the
areas beyond. The concept is to unify all the three sectors (water, 100-foot buffer and the
adjacent land use) to form a single entity. Within the 100-foot buffer, public access to the
river for pedestrians and bikers should be maximized, but access to motorists limited. It is
here that open spaces are linked to the riverfi'ont destination, access to the water is
maintained, and development is structured in an environmentally sensitive manner. In
part, this is accomplished by preserving and enhancing the river corridor. Whenever the
riverfi'ont is made available through cutting open the barrier and making it physically
accessible to the public through existing natural or man-made facilities, the desire to be
near it is made apparent. Therefore, any facilities, such as residential, commercial, historic,
or ofiice buildings, located adjacent to the riverfront should reflect, celebrate or embrace

the water body. In certain locations throughout the world, several pervasive architectural

67

styles tend to obliterate the riverfi'ont. This may result in the riverfiont being obscured
fi'om the public view so that it loses its unique character and identity. On the other hand,
there are projects that do fit congenially and enhance their character with the riverfront
image. A good example is the Paseo del Rio in San Antonio, Texas, where the buildings

and riverfi'ont complement each other.

Linkages

A linkage is a combination of nodes and connectors joining one space to another.
It may be visual or physical in nature. Linkages can be found within, across, or outside the
primary river corridor. They may be continuous linear corridors along the water's edge
for hiking, strolling or cycling that connect larger open areas, such as parks or any
building structure located close to the park. Linkage is one of the important criteria in the
development of the riverfi'ont park. The public needs connectors for walking, sitting,
running and biking, as well as nodes for sitting, running, playing, fishing and boating of all
kinds, fiom canoes to power boats. Public access also may be a connector joining the
river with a node (building structures) located near the river and beyond. Connectors take
people to the park. Most often they are a street that ends at a node (small pier or small
sitting area). Nodes may be recreational hubs that capitalize on a riverfront location or
where direct access is not possible, whereas vistas or visual corridors provides a broad
panoramic view over the water or a more fleeting glimpse of open sky and water fiom a

street or a public way.

68

The street network, which also is considered a connector to the riverfi'ont park,
can help or hinder access to the park. Streets along the riverfront sometimes provide
continuous riverfi'ont access and sometimes prevent it. Streets perpendicular to the
shoreline provide access from various points. Streets that terminate at the riverfi'ont
present opportunities for point access or scenic overlooks. To plan for the extension and
enhancement of the public riverfi'ont, it is important to understand its distribution, its
relation to population density, the locations of water-related recreational activities, and the
problems and opportunities associated with waterfront access in each location. Linkages
in the context of the Lansing Riverfront Park, for example, are both the connectors and
the facilities (nodes) within the park vicinity. In the park itself, the bridges, pathways and
skywalk connect the park with the Lugnut Stadium, City Market, Lansing Community
College (LCC), and the Senior Center (see Figure 4).

In a broad sense, Carr, et al (1992) and Lynch (1960) use the term linkage to mean
link or tie one area to another at a larger scale. They gave examples how one community
was joined to another community or a community joined to another site through several
connectors, such as pathways, roads and highways. Gunn (1970) used linkages to connect
historical sites, archaeological sites or other interesting sites with local residential areas
that were being developed for tourism. In this study, linkage is defined as small scale
connectors joining one or more nodes to bring people to the area. In a riverfront park, a
pathway or entrance road provides access from the downtown or building structures to
the park. The ability to join the riverfront park and its vicinity is conceptualized in terms
of three major types of linkage-- physical linkage, symbolic linkage and visual linkage

(Carr, et a1 1992).

69

 

Downtown

 

 

 

Parldng Structure C Nodes

 

 
 
   

Senior Center

 

City Market

I Lugnut Stadium

Figure 4. Linkages Associated with the Lansing Riverfi'ont Park

  

Lansing Center

Physical linkages should be made available to the public to enable them to enter the
park. Strong physical and symbolic linkages to the park are critical. Sometimes the
predominance of automobiles on residential streets can be seen as a barrier in residential
areas. Sometimes access to the park is limited by the presence of gates or other barriers,
such as dense vegetation that tends to camouflage the entrance of the park. Also, the
linkages should be well connected to paths of circulation, such as the connection of a
plaza or a small park to adjacent sidewalks (Whyte, 1980). Before renovations, the lack
of connections from one side of New York's Bryant Park to another and the failure of its
paths to connect were viewed as serious obstacles to its use. The extent of physical
linkages determines the degree of use of parks; therefore, physical linkage plays an

important role in the patronage of parks.

70

Visual linkage helps to connect one space to another without the actual physical
movement between the places. The question to ask is: can potential users easily see into
the space fiom the outside, so that they know that it is a public space where they can enter
safely and will be welcome? Clear visibility seems to be particularly important in
judgments of the safety of a space. In many large cities, the public's perception that a
space is fi'ee of drug dealers, muggers, and other persons who threaten users is an
important consideration for its use.

Symbolic linkage involves the presence of cues, in the form of people or design
elements, such as hedges, picnic tables, benches, and playground, suggesting who is and
who is not welcome in the space. Various non-human factors also are related to social
symbolism. The location of shops and vendors signals the publicness of a space and the
type of people welcome there, as do simple affordable eating places and shops suggest
that management of parks welcome the public. These three types of linkages portray a
strong or ambiguous picture of the park and play an important role in bringing the people
into the park.

For a park to be meaningful and for the linkages to contribute to its existence, a
number of requirements must be met. First, the linkages must be "legible", borrowing the
term fi'om Lynch's analyses (Lynch, 1963). Legibility is the ability of the space to
communicate to the potential park users what is possible in the park, once they are inside.
In order for a park to be legible, it must have recognizable cues that are understood by
potential users, cues that conununicate what kind of place it is and whether they are

welcome. The space "would invite the eye and ear to greater attention and participation"

71

(Lynch, 1963 page 125). Although every space does not invite all potential users within
the area to participate, it should be expected to attract many.

Second, in order for the people to see some positive meaning in a park, the
linkages must be able to evoke patterns of memories and experiences that create bonds
with the park. If potential park users see possibilities of those bonds and affiliations, their
attractions to the park are enhanced. This can happen in two ways (Lynch, 1960). The
space may provide clarity and significance to the potential users in the park to explore the
park, and the linkage may provide an aura of mystery connected with coherence of the
park location. A vital aspect of linkages is the human fascination with following a path
(Searns, 1995). This is especially true if the linkage incorporates a sense of change, even
mystery, and new experiences; view perspectives are revealed sequentially along the way.
These qualities explicitly convey to the potential park users a sense that additional visual
information can be gained by entering the park and exploring it. The need of the park for
luring or giving cues to the potential park users can be met by the linkages (Kaplan, 1982).

Third, for an environment such as a riverfront park to achieve cohesiveness and
coherence, the parts need to relate (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). Ground textures that
provide continuity and the repetition of elements play a role. Lynch's concept of legibility,
first introduced in the urban domain, is an important characteristic of linkage. One might
view linkage as a connector that ties the park elements together as one continues to make
one's way through it. This can be further designed as spatial realization. How activity
nodes on and ofl’ the site are related is another important component of linkages. There is
a possibility that linkages can lead to some strong positive consequences by providing

connections between the park and the adjacent facilities.

72

Fourth, though size of park may not be important in the context of linkage,
proximity seems to be essential (Garvin et a1, 1997). People need green open spaces to go
to. When they are close they use them; but, if the greens are more than three minutes
away, the distance overwhelms the need (Garvin et a1, 1997). Proximity, fiom this
perspective, is measured in minutes, minutes spent on foot as opposed to in a car or on a

bicycle.

Adjacent Land Use

Adjacent land uses are parcels of land which are located next to the 100-foot
buffer (Figure 3, page 65). It is not part of the project area, but it can provide a visual
impact on the riverfront and vice versa. Its location helps to either enhance or degrade
the views of the riverfront. During the stage of site analysis in the design process, this area
should be investigated for its potential complementary contribution to the riverfiont park.
The presence of attractive historical and cultural sites adjacent to the park would enhance
the riverfront park. For example, in San Antonio, Texas, while the Riverwalk is a major
attraction in the downtown area, other nearby attractions, such as the Alamo, the Spanish
Governor’s Place, and several traditional churches, are accessible to the tourist visiting the
Riverwalk.

All these characteristics discussed in the site analysis are crucial parts of the design
process. Site analysis provides the designer with the opportunity to assess these

characteristics for further planning formulation and shaping the firture development.

73

Program Survey

Park and open space needs, preferences and priorities are developed in the
program survey. The survey can be conducted simultaneously with the foregoing
components—base map preparation, site inventory, and site analysis. It is the compilation
of information to develop a programmatic guide for the design process. It identifies the
needs and wants of the community. Information on recreation resources and the types of
recreation programs available can be obtained fi'om the public, the recreation and park
department, the private sector, and the adjacent neighborhoods. These groups also may be
made aware of the opportunities and constraints that exist in the study area so that their
needs and expectations are reasonable and achievable. In this regard, the program survey
may reflect a broad range of past recreational experiences, places and events. These may
include: riverwalk, concerts, children activities (playground, ball park), family outings
(picnics, performances), and specialized activities (roller blading, fishing, studying).

The program survey can be conducted by using a questionnaire to find out the
recreation needs and wants of the local population. A successful program is based on
the population projection, ethnic backgrounds, and availability of recreation facilities.
Survey research techniques also can be used to assess the recreation needs for special
populations, identify major problems and potentials, describe public opinions, and project
future participation in recreation activities. Various survey methods can be used: mail
questionnaires, personal interviews, telephone interviews, and field observations.

Once the desired program has been established, the next step is to identify the

recreation opportunities that are available on the site and to match these with the desired

74

program. The next component of the design process, which is synthesis, then brings

together the background data, program desires, site resources, and site limitations.

Synthesis

Synthesis is bringing together the needs, issues, requirements, constraints and
opportunities to match the park users' needs as expressed in the program survey with the
resources of the site. It is the concept formation of the total design. This is the
recognition of the preceding research and analytical phases by their synthesis into an
embryonic and operational concept that basically accommodates all the requirement of the
program in a preliminary design study. It is an interpretation and articulation of these
factors into a design that fits the site without seriously altering firnctional relationships. It
involves creative thinking and critical evaluation. The designer should be able to identify
areas which are appropriate to the design intent and need, and organize the elements in a
way to either complement each other or to achieve coherence and cohesiveness. In other
word synthesis examines the match between user needs and site supply (Leung, 1989).
The match can work in both directions, finding the appropriate site specific use, and
finding appropriate use for the site. To aid in the synthesis of the site, the following
questions need to be raised in order to deveIOp a design criteria for the riverfront (Good &
Goodwin, 1990).

How are the riverfront land and water areas used today, and who uses them?
Who will be the waterfront users of the future?
What is the character and scale of the human-built environment?

What are the traffic circulation patterns and problems?

75

Where are barriers to physical access?

How can desired quality and cleanliness be preserved or improved?

What opportunities are available fi'om the adjacent facilities to draw the people
into the park?

These brainstorming questions lead to the formulation of a design concept.

PART B: THE FINAL DESIGN

Phase II, Part B is the final design stage of the design process in the development
of the riverfront model. It is comprised of six components--design concept, design
development, preliminary design, master plan, implementation and formal evaluation. This
is the stage that transforms the area into virtual reality as envisioned in Phase I of the
project. It is a direct involvement of the designer in projecting a design plan that

encompasses the needs of the client. The final design stage begins with a design concept.

Design Concept

A design concept is a direct outgrowth and elaboration of the functional
relationship between the design proposal and the components of Phase II, Part A of the
design process (base map preparation, site inventory, analysis, program survey and
synthesis) of the riverfiont park. The objective of the design concept is to conceive an idea
for arriving at a schematic plan. The schematic plan is not a highly polished plan or set of

detailed drawings but rather an interim statement of planning and design decisions based

76

on the pre-design stage. Basically, a design concept is derived by answering the following
questions:

What sort of activities are suitable for the riverfront?

Which uses mix well together?

Which uses need separating fi'om each other?

Can public access and linkages work on the riverfront park?

What are the potential conflicts of uses in the near future?
What are the recommended safety features for the users?

Are there adequate right of way for maintenance and emergency vehicles?
Normally the design concept can be perceived in the form of several bubble
diagrams. Probably the most versatile and basic device for abstraction, the bubble diagram

is usefirl in a variety of ways. The diagrams may be models of physical space, objects in
space, program requirements, activities or existing conditions. The main utility of this form
of abstraction is the representation of relationship between a set of elements and the
relative ease of manipulating these elements. These diagrams are meant to indicate the
relationship between one space to another or between one section with another. The
bigger the bubble, the more important is the subdivision. For example, an area

designated for open play is drawn bigger than the area allocated for amphitheater.
Overlapping bubbles indicate major and minor area relationships. The main utility of this
form of abstraction is the smooth arrangement of the proposed design elements. These
conceptual spaces are meant to provide alternatives to the design concept of the riverfront
park model. All these alternatives are evaluated and the best alternative among the

solutions is selected for the preliminary design. The designer is free to change the diagram

77

elements (lOCation, size of area, and types of facilities) in whatever manner needed to
strengthen the design concept. The principles of theme, image, character and function

should be taken into consideration (Planck, 1988).

A successfirl theme rests on how the designer projects the cultural and
historical aspects of the park. It is important to associate and identify the park with its
previous usage. This is a factor that attracts the park users and gives them the impetus to
be near the water. It also invokes a response to the park and whether the romantic aspect
of the park's presence will or will not be realized. The choice of a successfirl theme
controls firture spatial analysis, scale, meaning and the forms to be added. For example,
the Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC, provides a link to the historic waterway
system, with barges still towed by mules. Along the Chicago Lakeshore Drive, the park
landscape is softened by the pastoral waterfront edge depicting the previous usage of the
area. And, in Boston there is the construction of the l6-acre park that is reminiscent of

the Naval Shipyard in Boston.

Image

The image of the park will largely be based on its shape, color, texture,

arrangement and sensory quality. This will give the park users clues to its identity and

78

structure. Therefore, every park needs to have a different theme and image to be unique.

Research should provide the theme and assemblage of materials should create the image.

Character

Another key principle in riverfront park development is character, as is
reflected on a city's riverfi'ont. Although it is hard to define, but readily identified by
everyone, a riverfront's character is the collection of experiences--sights, sounds, and
smellsuthat help distinguish Detroit’s riverfront from say, San Antonio or St. Petersburg,
or Chicago from New York. Each setting has its own unique visual character. It is
determined by the presence of varied physical elements composing the riverfront and by
the viewers’ response to these elements (Blair, 1980). The geographic location of these
riverfi'onts is another fundamental variable distinguishing one riverfront from another
(Wrenn, 1983). It defines a multitude of environmental characteristics related to water,
land, and climate (see site inventory), and influences the physical form and cultural

heritage of an urban waterfront.

Function

For a riverfront park to be successful, it should be able to function at various levels
of user activities and experiences. From the access point and circulation to adequate
parking capacity, to ease and comfort of users’ movement and overall experiences, all

functions must be in sequence, as well as meet capacities on peak activity days.

79

Accessibility to a riverfront park is determined by travel time, distance and comfort
(Wrenn, 1983). In theory, the proximity of riverfront parks to downtown areas would
make them highly accessible; however, in certain cities the construction of stnrctures,
bridges and highways could result in the parks being easy to get near, but difficult to get
into. Physical barriers, therefore, are the most imposing obstacles restricting riverfront
park access.

Contributing to the characteristics or feel of a riverfront is, in many cities, the use
of the land adjoining the riverfront. The different types of land use reflect the
characteristics of the riverfi'ont. Would San Antonio be better off as a whole if the
riverfront was populated with high economic uses, such as hotels and condominiums,
more sophisticated restaurants and shops, an aquarium or museum, or if it placed more
emphasis on a riverfront park with a for a wide variety of public recreation? The answer,
however, rests on whatever the city wants its theme or image to be. Three distinct
development patterns characterize cities located along the riverfronts. Cities, such as
Portland and St. Louis, are bisected by a medium-sized river and urban development takes
place on both sides of the water. Toronto is representative of cities located on the Great
Lakes or a major river; the urban shoreline marks one edge of the city and development
occurs farther inland. The third urban form is exhibited by cities like Pittsburgh, located at
the confluence of two or more rivers and the shoreline wraps around much of the city. At
the same time, several restrictions due to the topographical variations or physical barriers,

such as railroad yards or highways, may impede the development of these riverfi'onts.

80

When the design concept has been formulated, the next component is the
development of the design elements. This is the component where the design concept

begins to be transformed with the real elements.

Design Development

Design development takes the site synthesis and the design concept and begins the
process of formulating the preliminary design (next component). It relies on the
designer’s visual thinking as a means of arriving at the overall image of the project.

From this visual thought the design is then transformed into a lifelike drawing that
combines together the landscape elements, building setbacks, and basic controls that
provide direction to the client. It insures a long-term development consistent with the
type, quality, image, and density of improvements with the adjacent areas (downtown,
residential neighborhood, industrial vicinity or other built up areas). A quality design is
required for a unified environment between the proposed and existing elements in the
riverfront park and its surrounding areas. Any unique qualities found in the riverfront area
provide special opportunities for enhancing the development. A typical design
development has several objectives.

Quality of environment. Maximize opportunities to create a riverfront
environment that contributes to health, safety, and general welfare of the area and
enhances the value of properties within and adjacent to the area. This can be achieved by

eliminating unsightly, substandard, and obsolete uses, and remove buildings and structures

81

which cannot be rehabilitated and which detract from the aesthetic appearance and

economic welfare of the riverfront.

Eflicient circulation system. Create a pedestrian-oriented system that improves
access, reduces dependence on the automobile, and encourages travel on foot, by bike and
other means. These connectors should be strategically placed to optimize the
interconnectiveness between the adjacent area and the riverfront. This in turn creates
more public awareness of the riverfront park.

Consistent design character. Coordinate architectural designs to increase functional
and visual consistency. Also, allow for the revitilization of older buildings that are
structurally sound to foster a vernacular character to the area. Encourage the
redevelopment of the underutilized, vacant, and cleared properties through application of
design guidelines and covenants, conditions and restrictions, or other means. This can be
done by the following:

o Assemble land in the riverfront area into firnctionally compatible parcels with respect
to shape and size, for disposition and redevelopment in accordance with contemporary
development needs, standards and character.

0 Establish landscape designs that help provide for human comfort within the local
climate and promote integration and preservation of mature vegetation .

o Incorporate water features into the overall design of the riverfront park. These
features can be subtle or dramatic, but they should be designed with water

conservation in mind.

82

0 Foster the creation of landscape design which establishes the ”sense of place" by
reflecting the unique characteristics of the area, particularly in the design of entrances,
bridges, pathways, and landscape features.

0 Employ appropriate landscape design to enhance the river as one of the dominant
elements of the park and to establish a sense of continuity along the river's edge as
well as linkages with adjacent areas of the downtown area.

0 Create a flexible public open space system of entrances, pathways, and bridges that
ties the area together as a whole and enhances the canal bank.

0 Place nodes (places of attractions) strategically within the park, such as pedestrian
bridges, kiosks, pavilions, lights, etc., to maintain a high level of activity. They should
be designed to create a "sense of place".

0 Promote major and minor gateways or entrances at specific entry points to create clear
orientation to the downtown and waterfront areas.

Complementary to the foregoing objectives are additional criteria: economic
stability, safety, and functional land use relationship.

Economic stability. Insure economic vitality with intensified and diverse activities.
Hotels, restaurants, shops, museums and conference centers are facilities that attract
visitors and residents alike. To be successful in maintaining the vitality and longevity of
the riverfront park, these economic incentives are necessary and should be a part of the
design development.

Safety. Nurture a hospitable and safe environment for the park users. This
increases visitation and usage of the park, making it more viable for them. The factors to

be considered in realizing this criterion are the design of adequate lighting fixtures, visible

83

surveillance points, and adequate emergency systems, such as telephones and emergency
access.

Functional land use relationship. This criterion promotes entry into the riverfi'ont
park at designated gateways with signature land uses and distinctive design. This guides
the park users to a better image of initial impression of the riverfront entrance. A cohesive
relationship among the various land uses in the area and its vicinity can be created by
promoting concentration and consolidation of compatible uses and mitigating problems of
compatibility. This can be done by focussing on the development of public Open spaces. A
convergent area into these public open spaces should be designed to draw visitors to

explore the entire riverfront.

These development objectives and criteria provide the guidelines for the elements
in the design development stage. They are applied in the design process to help shape the

future plan of the riverfront park.

Design Development Elements

Design development elements may be man-made or natural components of the
landscape (Booth, 1987). Although each of these elements represents a special aspect of
design, they impinge on each other. Their function is to promote human participation and
activity in order to achieve the riverfront design intent. The true strength of the model
emerges fiom the way in which the diverse elements work to reinforce each other in
reaching the identified objectives stated in the foregoing component. They should

promote users’ accessibility and reflect spatial relationships which stimulate and attract the

84

users into the area. A strong visual identity should, therefore, be created that gives the
area a high quality appearance.

To reach the true potential of the riverfront park development, these elements
should be incorporated into the design: water, plants, linkages, spaces, building forms,
parking areas, and visual resources. Information on features, such as playground
equipment, walls and fences, lighting and seating structures, can be obtained fiom
architectural standards published by firms that sell and promote these products. The key is
to maintain a visual harmony.

Water. The water element itself provides a major recreational resource for fishing,
swimming and canoeing enthusiasts. In general, the larger the dimensions of the water
body, the greater the range of potential water-related uses. Water bodies attract three
broad categories of users (Easton, 1988):

l. Water-dependent users. These users prefer a waterfi'ont which can
be used for small boat marinas, swimming, boating, fishing or other water dependent
recreational activities.

2. Water-related users. These users benefit from the use of water for
commercial purposes, such as dock sites, marina slips, bike crossings, trail bridges and
other water transportation purposes.

3. Water-enhanced users. These users are attracted to the park as a result of
waterfi'ont amenities, such as waterfront parks, restaurants, retail and office developments.
Users patronize these places for their water-related attractiveness. They provide the basis

for an authentic and enjoyable experience.

85

Every effort must be made to take advantage of river views, from the standpoint of
a user looking out from within the park and looking in toward the park from a distance.
Therefore, the designer should take full advantage of the attractions offered by the water
edge. For example, the open spaces which meet the water are special places. These open
spaces, comprised of walkways, outdoor leisure and seating areas, effectively serve their
purposes only if they are both interesting and inviting. An undulating walkway that follows
the water edge or reaches out over the water and back on the edge is more dramatic and
exciting than a straight walkway across the riverfront. When an individual moves along a
meandering walkway, the views of the water and the design elements in the area change
with each turn of the path. In effect, the person is "pulled along" by the expectation of
seeing something new or different.

Furthermore, a promenade along the water edge can be enhanced by providing a
variety of public spaces to encourage the park users to walk laterally through the
riverfront. These public spaces along the promenade may be a wide paved area where
people can sit and enjoy looking across the water, or a large landscaped area for outdoor
concerts and other cultural activities.

Plants. Plant materials are an important natural and physical element in the design
and management of the 100-foot river corridor. They provide shade, bank stabilization,
erosion control, wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge, and water filtration, as well as minimize
the visual impact of development, frame views, and provide pleasure. Plants should be
maintained and enhanced to provide a natural appearance, passageways for wildlife
movement and natural screening for development. Specific details of plant firnction can be

obtained from Plants/People/ and Environmental Quality by Robinette (1972).

86

Along the 100-foot river corridor, several plant species are recommended. All
must be water tolerant. Among the most aesthetic plant forms is the weeping type. It has
predominantly pendulous or downward-arching branches. Weeping willow (Salix
babylonica), weeping beech (F agus sylvatica pendula), and cranberry cotoneaster
(Cotoneaster apiculata) are all weeping plant forms. These species are suitable along the
water edge. In a design, they can lead the eye toward the ground, a firnction that may be
employed after the eye has been carried upward with ascending forms. Weeping plant
forms also may be used at the water edge to reflect the undulating form and to symbolize
the fluid quality of the water.

Rare and unique plants, plant communities, and habitats for animals and wildlife
should be conserved. Natural and semi-natural plant groupings that are native to
the area should be maintained, if possible, by creating naturalistic plant communities which
eventually form suitable habitats for the locally native wildlife.

Plants sometimes may be perceived as threatening places and may give cover
for antisocial behavior and crime. On the other hand, in areas like the riverbanks,
woodland plantings are recommended to provide scenery that emphasizes natural
environment. This is done through informal designs of mixing trees with shrubs and
ground covers, based on organic forms that offer maximum opportunity for recreation,
amenity and escape from the pressures of urban life. Therefore, careful design and species
choice are essential to maximize the plant use and, at the same time, not provide sanctuary
for bad elements of society which create fear among the park users.

Shade trees and low maintenance plant materials should be planted near the water

to form a unique community known as riverside or riparian association. This is for

87

maintaining the ecological relationships of the plants and their natural enviromnents
preferred by urban park users. The species and planting conditions should be based on the
local weather and climate of the area. Trees with thin foliage should be placed close
together; trees with heavy foliage should be placed farther apart. Some variety in tree
species is desirable. The planting of fiuit trees in the area is debatable. While they can
provide a source of joy for some people and wildlife, there is a high cost in maintaining the
area. Small persistent fi'uit is good for wildlife preservation. Tall trees should be placed at
points with high visibility to signal the presence of a walkway to attract passersby. Care
should be taken, however, that tall trees do not completely obscure views of the water.

In designing landscaping, the following four guidelines should be observed:
A. All public open spaces along the river, including walkways, parks, and plazas, should
have a minimum landscape of twenty percent. The existing vegetation should be
preserved, and the plant species selected suitable for riverine conditions.
B. Vegetation should be planted in the ground rather than in planters to provide adequate
root space. prlanters must be used, they should be as large as possible, particularly for
trees. The vegetation can be selectively pruned to improve views of the river and to
open key scenic vistas, but the pruning should not alter the character or massing of the
vegetation. All riverside land should be graded to direct storm runoff to the
sewer system or suitable storm water retention areas, not into the river. A one percent
slope away from the river should be provided.
C. To permit moisture and oxygen to reach roots, the ground surface around trees should

be kept in a natural state. If paving is necessary, paving blocks set in sand, which permits

88

moisture to seep into the ground, are strongly preferred over slab concrete or other
impermeable surfaces.

D. Plants selected for riverside landscaping should be able to tolerate the drying effects of
strong wind, airborne salts and intermittent natural light. Trees should be chosen for year-
round interest-spring flowers, summer foliage, bright fall colors, and an attractive shape,
bark, berries, or other features in winter. Trees native to the riverbank are preferred for
planting in the ground along the river.

Corridors. The presence of connectors and nodes to the riverfront park are an
important design development element in attracting people. Connectors could be in the
form of surrounding roads, walkways, pathways or entrances to the parks. The connection
between these linkages and the parks determines the success of the park design. The
presence of visually attractive features along the way help to attract the crowd. The
meandering pathways emphasize differing heights of contour and increase the users’
appreciation of the riverfront park. The form of these connectors determines the type of
experience to which the users are exposed. A straight connector presents a quick walk
through the park with little excitement. A curvilinear type of connector is designed in such
a way as to insure that the park user experiences more than the pleasure of passing
through. Nodes are centers of activity into which one can enter. These connectors and
nodes may involve the movement of people and goods.

The surrounding roads should be studied to decide the placement for the main
entrance, side entrance and exit for the park. Consideration must be given to circulation
within and from car parking areas (directions, footways, lighting, safety from trafiic).

Within the park the users require access to the park facilities over relatively short periods

89

of time, while joggers and bikers usually prefer longer routes to enhance their

experience and pace. Therefore, planning for connectors must take into consideration the
difl‘erent needs of the park users. The close proximity of the facilities to the connectors
allow the facilities to be used more often not only on weekends but also on weekdays after
work.

Space. Space in this context is an element basically formed by the relationship
between the riverfront area and the users who perceive it. Sight, size, location, boundary
definition and function of the space intended usually determine this relationship. Where the
exterior space along the riverfront is more open, the designers may plan for the users to
use it for promenading, looking into the horizon, picnicking (passive activities) or for
jogging, biking, or games (active activities). In other words, the exterior space can be
transformed into a negative or positive space. A positive space is centripetal in its outlook
created by human activities within its boundary, whereas a negative space is a centrifugal
space extending to infinity with no activities inside the framework. This is based on the
type of designers planning the exterior space, i.e., architects or landscape architects.
Architects usually design space by delimiting into three planes, a wall, a ground and a
ceiling. Landscape architects design space based on the natural elements to be transformed
into a garden or open space. The standard guideline is about one-third of the acreage in
the riverfront park should be for open space (Hastert and Kimura, 1989).

At other times the users create open space in an unintended way.

Examples of spaces along the riverfront being used in makeshift manner are amusement,

sports, exhibition, festivals, sleeping, speakers corner, annual celebrations and other

special events. The same space, however, can be perceived differently according to
changes in the weather, i.e. during rain, wind and sunshine ( Ashihara, 1970). The
design of recreational (active, passive, social and cultural) activities also can be influenced
by the population distribution in terms of families, singles, youths and office occupants.

Within the open space, pathways are designed for easy access from one facility to
another. The open space should be comfortable and convenient, have some sense of
aesthetic order and continuity, be safe and feel safe. A grassed ridge of high ground with
trees providing topographic variety, and also as a reference point, could be incorporated
into the design. The users could sit comfortably on the grass. The nearby areas would be
suitable for picnic areas, tables and benches; shade trees would be welcome. Such
development looks and feels as though it is designed for people. Other more level open
areas are suitable for informal games of softball, football, fiisbee, etc. Overall, there should
be a variety of open space areas, ranging from paved areas suitable for intensive and
fiequent public use, level areas for informal play, and sloped or terraced turf areas for
passive lounging, sunning, and river viewing.

A vista is a component of open space. It may be natural or a completely man-
made view (Rubeinstein, 1996). It has a dominant focal point or terminus that is strongly
emphasized and is framed and balanced by minor elements forming masses to enclose the
vista and screen out conflicting objects from its composition. The open space or line of
sight of the vista is a strongly directional element leading the observer toward the focal
point for closer observation. Any vista that is in existence or incorporated into the design

development should enhance the views in the park.

91

Building forms. The location of building forms, another of the design development
elements, along the riverfiont can enhance or detract fi'om a visual corridor. Buildings set
back from the riverfront and riverfi'ont yards provide a greater sense of openness and
expanded visual access along the shoreline. Design guidelines also are required for
locating floating structures and other in-water and over-water structures so they do not
block visual corridors unnecessarily. Development over the water, for example, on piers,
can have a substantial efi‘ect on views along the riverfront, either by adding interests to a
featureless area by blocking a scenic view. Regulations to establish height, setback, yard
and public access areas are necessary for new in-water and over-water development.

Any new development along the riverfront park should be designed as a part of the
park. The orientation and massing of buildings, the location of buildings and their entries,
the treatment of parking areas and open spaces, and the setback and treatment along the
river edge are all critical in their effect on the park. Building massing should create
corridors of open space which link the surrounding city to the river. Buildings should
orient to the river so that they will supplement the design intent. All the buildings will not
have a view of the river, but they should not appear to have turned their backs to the
river. Where possible, the main pedestrian entrances to the buildings should face the river,
capitalizing on the river setting.

Parking. Parking area is an essential element, but needs to be well designed. Large
blocks of parking space, either surface or structured, should not impede movement
between the river park and downtown. Parking should be visually buffered and provide
through pedestrian corridors as connectors between the city and the river. Buildings and

parking should be setback from the river edge a minimum of 50 to 100 feet, preferably 100

92

feet or more. These setbacks insure the river‘s strong presence within the surrounding
development and help to maintain the top of bank riverwalks within a continuous
greenbelt. Parking along the river is strongly discouraged for several reasons. The harsh
lighting and stark architecture of a parking structure are unattractive and difficult to
disguise. The utilitarian character of parking structures and lots detracts from the natural
image of the park. And, the parking draws few people to the riverfront and contributes
little to the vitality of the river. It can easily add pollutants to the water. The parking lot
should be attractively landscaped, using trees or shrubbery to screen cars from the river
edge. Landscaping also should be provided along portions of the parking lot abutting the
streets. Landscaping should be adequately maintained. Several parking lots are preferable
to one large one. Curvilinear parking areas are preferred to long straight lots.

Visual resources. Visual resources, an important element of design development,
are considered a primary biophysical feature of the riverfront park. The planning process
identifies sites where the visual character is unique or worthy of protection. Positive and
negative attributes along the riverfront should be noted, analyzed, and incorporated into
the design (Smardon et a1, 1986). The design should recommend enhancing visual quality
with appropriate plantings or other measures. To determine the scenic views or make
scenic assessment of the area, there are three methods: expert opinion, the predictive
approach, and the economic approach.

The expert approach is based on the opinions and judgment of specially trained
professionals who assess scenic quality in terms of landscape principles, such as color,

form, texture, harmony and diversity. The implicit assumption is that the judgment of the

93

experts represent the values of the public at large. The major criticism of this approach is
that the public does not necessarily share the viewpoints of the experts, because each
individual's reaction to the landscape is based on personal experience and a unique set of
socio-cultural values (F abos, 1990).

In the predictive approach, a representative sampling of the general public is asked
to rate the scenic quality of landscape through a paired comparison of pictures. From the
results of the ratings, the indications of perceived aesthetic qualities are calculated, and
regression analysis is used to developed an equation of predicted aesthetic quality.

The economic approach is less fi'equently used. This approach requires an
economic quantification of aesthetic resources, and assumes that such resources add
monetary value to a place. One of the procedures developed to determine the economic
value of visual amenity resources is based on a "travel cost estimate of demand" (F abos,
et a1, 1975). Greater demand as a result of visual quality increases the value of such
resources.

The designer should be able to provide an environment that encourages the
creation of various types of activities. People learn how to use the spaces. The
environment, therefore, should be an interactive attraction, an environment that people can
get involved with and not observe. Some parts of the river could be turned into a bubbling
water source, a series of still reflective pools, or roaring water that entices people to sit
close by or jump into it. Public health codes should be consulted. For the land area,
design elements, such as the planting materials and man-made building forms, could be
interspersed to provide a festive atmosphere. At the same time, the design elements must

be integrated into the surrounding context. There should be some ingenuity in creating

94

well-balanced and attractive landscapes and the environment as a whole. These activities
commonly provide for the refreshment of the body and mind. The design framework of
these features should remain flexible and respond to changing conditions for the future.

Sensitivity to aspects, such as scale, massing, materials, texture, color, contextual
appropriateness and orientation, is extremely important in the creation of a riverfront park
that not only complements but also integrates with the broad fabric of the urban design.
The vitality planned for this area, combined with its location, helps to tie together the
various design development elements in the park.

All of the design development elements are brought together by the designer’s

intent and are projected for the next component, the preliminary design.

Preliminary Design

The preliminary design is basically the designer's initial ideas to be incorporated
into the master plan. The structural components of the preliminary design, such as river
corridor accessibility, linkage patterns, and the impact on the park users, are established.
The following are concepts in a preliminary design solution acceptable to riverfi'ont parks:
0 Visually connect the park to adjacent walkways and public streets to enhance the

perception of safety; avoid high plantings, walls, or other visual barriers that create
unsafe blind spots.
0 Separate people from their vehicles by locating parking areas well removed fiom the

water edge.

95

Encourage activities in and adjacent to the park that extend the times people are using
the facility legitimately-active use discourages vandalism.

The water edge is where the action is—keep it open to everyone, not just special user
group, such as boaters, fishers, or children. Public recreational smallcraft moorage
should be considered to share the water edge with walkers, joggers, bikers, and others
who want to sit and watch these activities.

A basic design guideline for this component is to identify the thematic context of

the riverfi'ont image in coherence with the integral concept of the area, be it urban or rural.

The designer and the client should, therefore, meet to discuss and evaluate the functional

efi‘ectiveness, efficiency and design uniqueness (Rasmussen, 1978). Using a

series of drawings, it lays down a preliminary design solution of the riverfront

park in accordance with uniform codes and standards . The preliminary design plan

can be prepared using a number of presentation media. Emphasis is not on the completed

drawings, but on interpretation of the third dimension of the design.

A scale model representing the development of the area. This model depicts the
general landscape plan in a three-dimensional form.

A series of schematic drawings, showing the perspective rendering of the development
of the area. It consists of the general landscape plan, section drawing, perspectives
and the design development of the sectional area.

A computer-generated drawing of the development of the area can be produced using
computer-aided design (CAD) and landscape computer-aided design (LANDCAD).

All these presentation media are aesthetically appropriate and functional to the

designer’s intent and purpose for the development of the area. A number of preliminary

96

design alternatives may be presented if the designer has either evolved several equally
desirable relationship diagrams or discovered that a single diagram can be fitted to the site
in a variety of ways. These solutions include long range recommendations for land use
development, traflic circulation, parking and urban design.

This preliminary design solution requires the nearly simultaneous development of
all aspects of a three-dimensional design into a coordinated whole. This can include the
plan, sections, elevation, structural and other basic systems, materials, landscape and site

use, character and quality of form, primary furnishings and equipment, etc.

Preliminary Design Presentation and Revision

In the communication (presentation) phase, the designer presents the preliminary
design to the clients and public. Communication tools and techniques vary with the type
of project, but may include drawings, models, photographs, and visual simulation
diagrams, computer graphics, and other forms of simulation that are appropriate. The
main concern is to clearly communicate the design intent of the solution so as to allow the
clients or users to understand, evaluate, and criticize the preliminary design. Once again,
public input is solicited. Resource specialists in fields that are significant to the project
also are invited to participate in the presentation to offer their expertise and to provide
comments and suggestions.

During the review sessions, the designer explains his solution, while the public
poses a question here and there, mulling over the ideas generated by the graphic media.

This presentation allows the clients to see the design solution in total for the first time.

97

Any criticism or feedback is incorporated into the design revisions as refinement of the
original concept. Any ideas that may have been overlooked during the preliminary design
are considered and other design features that may not be suitable for implementation or
not meeting the needs of the clients and the public are eliminated. Back at the drawing
board, the revision may incorporate the most promising elements into the final design or

master plan.

Master Plan

A master plan is a specific set of documents with written specifications for
developing all aspects of the site. It is the culmination of an intensive design effort to
provide the optimum opportunities in developing the riverfront park, while respecting the
development capabilities of the site. The refined design solution is included in the master
plan for submission to the client. It is a comprehensive document drawn to scale that
looks systematically at the entire project area. The master plan is a response to the
biophysical, cultural, and financial constraints and opportunities discussed in the previous
components. It focuses on the long term enhancement of the riverine environment. It
proposes the establishment of a park system that recommends uses and associated facilities
appropriate for the park. The plan may propose, over the long term, changes in use or
rehabilitation of areas previously used for non-park purposes. The focus of the master
plan, therefore, is to provide a resource to assist the client in preparing and implementing

the best possible, comprehensive long range plan and long term enhancement of the

98

riverfront environment. The plan translates agreed upon public objectives into a physical
depiction of structures, vegetation, walkways and riverfront area within the park.

It should be a reasonable balance between the preservation and protection of
natural resources and the use and enjoyment of the river corridor by the users. To achieve
this objective, the master plan should have the following characteristics:

0 visionary with creative concepts and innovative solutions, but also realistic and
achievable.

o comprehensive, long-range and provide continuity through implementation of the plan,
thus enhancing public reliance on the plan.

0 assurance of a logical, orderly and achievable phasing of improvement in a manner that
minimizes social, environmental and economic disruption.

0 an integrated whole, with each aspect relating to others and responding to the current
and firture needs of the park users.

0 well-balanced, giving carefirl assessment to the relative importance of recreation,
preservation, historical and residential components.

0 effective, having an implementing strategy that defines criteria and mechanisms for
achieving the plan's objectives.

The master plan specifies development and design conditions by organizing the
relationship of the various design development elements within and adjacent to the site. It
reveals the riverfi'ont by providing for access by people either at points to the river itself or
along its bank, by creating water features along it which create the river's presence, and
by developing open spaces so that people can gather along its bank and enjoy the rare

resource of the natural river in a vital urban area. The park plan includes the riverwalk and

99

reestablishes vegetation within the water edge so that the river’s presence as a greenway is
not lost and its resource as an oasis for people is enhanced. Therefore, the overall purpose
of the master plan is to provide both passive and active recreation, lunchtime gathering,
picnics and large events, as well as a variety of water features, children's play areas, and
the continuous riverwalk.

The master plan is comprised of several documents to emphasize each design
specification. A planting plan specifies the composition, including species identification,
of the plant community along the water edge, lOO-foot corridor and beyond. A circulation
plan projects a hierarchy of scale and locations of circulation areas, such as pathways, bike
trails, parking lots, river crossings; types of paving materials are recommended. The site
development plan gives the location of site features, such as playgrounds, seating areas
and picnic tables, building structures of amphitheaters, bridges, boardwalks etc., and other
adjacent infrastructures. The written specifications are part of the completed package of
the tender documents. All these plans serve as guidelines for the production of
construction documents that will enable the contractor to bid for and implement the
project on-site. The bidding process is normally exercised through tender and the bidder
or contractor who presents the most reasonable and acceptable bid to the contracting
committee is be awarded the project. The ultimate success of the master plan hinges on

the implementation of the project.

100

Implementation

Implementation of the project on-site is carried out by the contractor based on the
construction documents. These documents may include “shop drawings”. These are
drawings in progress when bids are solicited. During this stage, the designer or
representative is in the project area to supervise and insure the proper construction of the
project. Any changes or discrepancies (change orders) between the construction
document and work on-site have to be approved in writing by the designer or his
representative. This is to monitor the smooth implementation of the project and to insure
that the project is constructed as proposed and to monitor construction costs. Bonds are

required by the client to protect economic interests during construction.

Formal Evaluation

The process of formal evaluation takes place in several phases and to different
degrees: immediate, ongoing and periodic (Rasmussen, 1978). Immediate evaluation
begins after the completion of construction by comparing objectives with results. Ongoing
evaluation takes place through daily maintenance and cost records. Periodic evaluation
normally takes place every three, five or seven years for differing objectives. For example,
the first year evaluation is based on inspection and bond release. If the construction work
meets the design specification, firll payment of the construction cost is paid to the
contractor. The third year evaluation is based on the usage of all the facilities in the

riverfi'ont park. This evaluation reveals whether those facilities in the park are underused,

101

overused or misused. The results of the evaluation provide a good guideline for
improving the facilities. An example of a fifth year evaluation is the survey of the users’
opinions. Designers or the client can use community meetings, written surveys, and
individual interviews to find out the opinion of the park users. It provides important
feedback that helps to revise or redevelop the project to meet future expectation or
improve the existing situation.

The evaluation process can be focussed on any stage of the planning model to
analyze the effectiveness of the designer’s work. An awareness of use-preference and
satisfaction survey enables the designer to gauge the success of the park and make plans
for future improvement. Areas of concern to be aware of during the evaluation exercise
include the following:

0 Destruction of environmental assets and values.
0 Traffic congestions/conflicts among the park users
0 Deteriorating quality of open space due to congestion and overlapping of activities

0 Poor maintenance

Although this evaluation may sound negative in its outlook, it actually considers
the satisfaction of the client and the park users—the ultimate measure of the design’s
success. It involves, administrators, managers, the design team, users and operators of the
site, and focuses on questions, such as “What works?”; What doesn’t work?”; and “If we
could do it all over again, what would we do differently?” Lessons learned fi'om this
evaluation can help prevent a problem from being repeated in firture projects and can

highlight aspects of design that are successfully implemented.

CHAPTER 5

APPLICATION OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE MODEL

TO LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

This study focuses on the development of a riverfront park planning model (see
Chapter 4) with application to selected aspects of the Lansing Riverfront Park and with
consideration of the Islamic perspective toward riverfront parks (see Chapter 6). A
description of the Lansing Riverfront Park with an insight into its design goals and
principles is in Appendix A.

This chapter sets forth the results of a very limited survey of 200 Lansing
Riverfront Park users (100 interviewed and 100 observed) and 100 nonpark users to better
understand the planning model concepts of usage, design elements, and accessibility and
linkages. The results are presented in four sections: (i) profile of the park users and
nonpark users, (ii) park users’activity, (iii) design elements, and (iv) facilities in the vicinity

of the park.

The Profile of Park Users and Nonpark Users

The park users and nonpark users are profiled in terms of demographics, travel to

the park and adjacent facilities, and visits to the park.

102

103

Demographics

Nearly two-thirds of the park users interviewed were males, while the nonpark
users were about equally divided between males and females. Caucasian was the
dominant ethnic group (approximately three-fourths) among both the park users and
nonpark users. Slightly more than one-third of the park users were in the age range 30-
39 years, while there were considerably less persons in this age range among nonpark
users, who, except for this category, had two-thirds distributed between the ages of 20
and 59. (See Table 1)

There was a difference in age between male and female park users. The age
group with the most individuals interviewed for both genders was 30 to 39 years, and they
had equal percentages in the category 20 to 29 years. However, the percentages were
reversed for the older age categories, with more women in the younger group (40 to 49)

and more men in the older group (50 to 59) (see Table l).

104

Table 1. Background Characteristics of Park Users and Nonpark Users

(in percent)

 

 

Characteristics Users Nonpark Users
Male Female Total Total
=63) (N=37) (N=lOO) (N=IOO)
GENDER
Male 63 51
Female 37 49
AGE
1 5-19 1 3 8 l l l I
20-29 1 6 l 6 1 6 29
30-39 32 41 35 13
40-49 14 22 17 22
50-59 22 8 17 20
60-70 3 5 4 5
ETHNICITY
Caucasian 77 72
Afiican American 8 12
Native American 4 5
Asian American 4 4
Hispanic American 4 4
Other 3 3

 

105

Travel to the Park and Adajcent Facilities

More than one-half of the park users walked to the park, which might be
expected since nearly one-half of the park users lived within four blocks of the
park. Nonpark users, however, came a greater distance to their respective

adjacent facilities. (see Table 2)

Table 2. Mode of Transportation and Distance Away (in percent)

 

 

 

Mode of Transportation Distance from Park Distance Away
Park Users (N=100) Park Users (N=100) Nonpark Users (N=100)
Walk 57 1-2 blocks 7 1-2 blocks 9
Drive 22 2-4 blocks 38 2-4 blocks 15
Cycle 11 1-2 miles 23 1-2 miles 22
Bus 10 5-10 miles 23 5-10 miles 32
> 10 miles 9 > 10 miles 22
Visits to the Park

Slightly more than one-third of the visitors were weekly park users, while
only five percent of the park users were first timers. Of the nonpark users,
slightly less than three-fourths had visited the park.(see Table 3) The reasons
given by those who had not visited the park were (a) do not have time to come to

the park, (b) only attending a function or exhibition, (c) did not know that the

park existed, or (d) going to school.

106

Table 3. Visits to the Park (in percent)

 

 

Visits Park Users Nonpark Users
(N=100) (N=100)

FREQUENCY OF VISIT
First Time 5 -
Couple Times 17 -
Weekly 36 -
Other 42 -
VISITED PARK
Yes - 72
No - 28

 

Park Users’ Activity

More than one-half of the park users were involved in walking, which also they
said was their favorite activity. While sitting was the activity with the second greatest
percent engagement, only five percent indicated this was their favorite activity. About an
equal percentage of park users were engaged in cycling as in sitting. There was a
comparable percent stating that cycling was their favorite activity, but people watching
was said to be a most favorite activity, rather than sitting; but then, perhaps it is people
watching while sitting. The season and weather may have been factors in picnicking

being listed as a favorite activity, but for which no park or use was recorded. (see Table 4)

107

See later subsections on involvement by ethnicity and Observations by time for a more

detailed description of participation.

Table 4. Activities of Park Users (Interviewed) (in percent)

 

 

Activity Engaged in Today Most Favorite
(N=100) (N=100)

Walking 57 36

Sitting 21 5

Cycle 17 18

People watching 5 l7

Picnicking 11

Playground activities

Sleeping

Other 11

 

Within the walking category, the observers noted that almost one-half of
the walking was purposeful, perhaps indicating people were walking to the work
place or walking for exercise. Further, most users who were not walking, biking,
or jogging were sitting. While sitting they also were observed as eating, drinking,
smoking or reading. The majority of the people were sitting on the benches
provided, although about one-fourth of the total were sitting on the lawn or on the
boardwalk, under the bridge, on the river edge, or in their cars.

There were some differences between stated reasons given by park users

interviewed and the observed behavior of the park users. Many interviewed park

108

users provided more reasons for coming to the park. This was particularly true as to
“relaxation”. Observers considered sitting as relaxation. Noteworthy is that ten percent
of the park users were observed eating, but only one percent interviewed said they had

come to do so; however, the interviewed and observed park users were not the same

people. (see Table 5)

Table 5. Reasons Came to the Park (Interviewed) and Observed Behavior in the Park
(in percent) *

 

 

Activity Reason came to the Park Behavior Observed
(N=100) (N=100)
Relax 44 20
Recreate 21 20
Meet a fiiend 10 -
Study 4 8
Eat 1 10
Stop 0 -
Other 20 42

 

*Multiple response, but not all responded to question

Involvement in Activities by Ethnicity

Caucasians, representing approximately three-fourths of the interviewed park
users, were involved in active recreation (cycling, walking, jogging), while the non-
Caucasians were involved in more passive activities (sitting, reading). Based on the
observations of the park users’ activities, it was noted that involvement was similar to
those interviewed--nearly two-thirds of the joggers, walkers, and bikers were Caucasians.

They jogged the entire length of the trail during the evening, while during the lunch hour

109

they just walked along Sectors B and C (between Senior Center and Lansing Center and
back, see map in Appendix B). The majority of Afiican Americans, Hispanics, and Asians
were observed in passive activities, such as sitting on benches, looking at the water,
feeding the ducks, and drinking. One or two Afiican Americans and the Native Americans

were sleeping in the park during the morning hours. (see Table 6)

Table 6. Involvement in Park Activities by Ethnicity (in percent)

 

 

Activity C“ AA NA HA AS 0
Cycling 80 10 2 8

Walking 75 21 3 1

Jogging 63 23

Reading 20 30 20 20 5 5
Sitting 10 45 4O 5 5

 

" C= Caucasian (N=77), AA= Afiican American (N=8), NA= Native American (N=4),
HA== Hispanic American (N=4), AS= Asian American (N=4) and O= Other (N=3).
Percent does not add to 100 as multiple responses.

Observations of Park Users’ Behavior by Time of Day

The most striking finding was the diversity of activity in the park. The people
were observed engaging in 45 different activities (see Appendix F). The most frequent
behavior was walking, followed, in rank order, by biking, jogging, conversing and eating

(see Table 7).

110

Table 7. Behavior Observed at Different Times from 7 am. to 7 pm. (frequency)

 

 

 

Behavior“ 7-9 9-1 1 1 1-1 1-3 3 -5 5-7
Walking 54 22 78 14 45 89
Biking 12 18 14 12 10 25
Jogging 12 4 34 3 8 22
Conversing 0 8 12 6 8 44
Eating/drinking 5 10 25 12 9 10
Sitting 4 12 10 8 14 20
Playing 0 15 18 2 6 20
Reading 0 7 l4 5 3 8
Feeding ducks 0 4 6 3 4 12
Skating 0 3 4 4 2 15
Looking O 2 6 1 4 9
Photography 0 0 4 2 O 3
Sleeping 0 4 2 2 o 0
Time blocks total 87 109 227 74 1 13 277

 

" Multiple response, additional activities with few participants
Based on week days and weekends, there were marked differences on total
use throughout the day and across the week. (see Table 7) The 5-7 pm. time block had
the most users, and the early afternoon the least (see FigureS). Commentary, using
the observation recordings (see Appendix E), points up the differences and
similarities in the six time blocks: 7-9 am, 9-11 am, 11 am. -1 pm, 1-3 pm,
3-5 pm. and 5-7 pm. The designating of office workers, going to school, et al
are the determination of the observer based upon the location, dress, and manner

of the person being observed. (For location and directions references, see map,

Appendix B).

300 -

250 ..

50-

Ill

 

 

7-9 9-11 11-1 1-3 3-5
am am pm pm pm
Time blocks

Figure 5. Frequency of Park Users by Time Blocks

112

Early morning (7-9 am). Early morning was a quiet time in the park. The
majority of the people were ofiice workers on their way to work. The office workers
parked their cars in the City Market’s parking lot and walked through the park on their
way to the office in downtown Lansing. The majority of them were adult Caucasian
males. Other workers who used the bus as their transportation were seen coming from
Cedar Street going across the bridge in the park to get to the bus stop or to downtown
Lansing. The majority of them were African American and Hispanic adult males. Only
after 8:30 am. were recreational users (walkers, joggers or bikers) seen in the park. The
majority of them were adult Caucasian males and females in the age range 20-30 years.
Their routes were usually from Sector A to Sector B and vice versa. Around 9 o’clock,
students coming from Cedar Street were seen going across the bridge to Lansing
Community College (LCC). Most of them walked alone; however, there were several
couples going to school during this period.

Mid-morning (9-11 am). Most of the people in the park were LCC students
going to school and walkers, joggers and bikers using the length of the river trail. There
also were some workers employed on the second shift. A few female residents fi'om the
Senior Center walking in pairs could be seen during this period. They usually used a short
stretch of the park for strolling and walking. Some of the bikers exited through the City
Market, especially during Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, when the Market
was open to the public. The activity in the park was more diverse during this period. Park
users were reading, sitting, feeding the ducks, and roller skating. Many people took time

to walk to the river edge or pause on the jetty and boardwalk for a short while before

113

heading to their next destination. Although males still dominated in number, more females
were seen during this period. Also, some children appeared with their parents during this
time.

Lunchtime (11a.m.-1 p.m.). During this period, the riverfi'ont park was used for its
recreational purpose. Many office workers walked, jogged, or relaxed on the benches.
More women were seen during this period, either walking in pairs or singles. Some were
seen strolling with their companions while engaging in conversation. Most of them were
Caucasians, whose ages ranged 25-45 years. They were found mostly in Sectors B and C,
while Sector A was comprised mostly of LCC students going to classes or workers going
through the park to catch a bus or walk to work. However, not many of the park users
during this time were using the park for eating lunch, although it was lunchtime.

Mid-aftemoon (3-5 pm). Life in the park seemed a bit slower and lazier. In fact,
this period was the lowest attendance in the park (see Figure 6). Many LCC students
seemed to be using the park on their way home. Their pace was a little slower and a few
were seen pausing, stopping on the bridge and looking around. A most noticeable
difference was that nobody from the Senior Center came out of their building. One or two
people with children were seen feeding the ducks.

Early evening (5-7 pm). The office workers were using the park to go to their
vehicles or going home. Most of the workers who parked their cars did not pause in the
park. Some of the workers who used the buses stopped along the river edge or sat on the
benches before continuing their journey home. However, increased activity in the park was
observed during this period: strolling, walking, jogging, feeding the ducks, fishing and

sitting along the water edge, roller blading and biking. More families with children were

114

seen during this time. Some people brought their dogs to accompany them in their stroll.
The ethnicity was more diverse, including Afiican Americans, Hispanics, Asian American
and others. The joggers and bikers traveled the entire length of the park, continuing into
the rest of the river trail, while the strollers turned around after a short distance. More
elderly people could be seen during this period. A number of homeless people were
lingering around their favorite spots, i.e., around picnic tables and near the water edge.
Weekends. During the weekends the trend changed slightly. The peak period
occurred between mid-morning and early evening. Use declined during the early morning
and mid-aftemoon. No lunch time activity occurred during the afternoon. More people
were using the park facilities for recreation, rather than just passing through as during the
weekdays. The users spent a longer time in the park and life seemed to be a bit slower and
lazier.
Weather conditions. The observers recorded temperature (warm, hot,
cold, chilly), cloud cover (clear, hazy, cloudy, etc.) and precipitation. During this
time of the year (October), temperature and precipitation appeared to influence
the participation of the recreational users. Whenever the weather got cold or
rained, not as many people were observed in the park. The only exceptions were
the office workers who parked their cars in the vicinity and the people who used
the buses to go to work. The joggers, walkers and bikers were rarely seen during
inclement weather. During the observation period (three weeks), there were
three days of rain and the only people who used the park, aside from the office
workers, were individuals in their warm clothes walking along the entire length of

Sectors B and C (see map, Appendix B). The residents living in the Senior Center came

115

out only when the weather was warm, windy or cool. The homeless usually did
not wander around as much during the wet weather. Their favorite areas were near
the children’s playground in Sector C, where they could be sheltered from the rain.
Since Sector C is the most wooded area of the three sectors, most of the homeless
were seen lingering around this area during the cold weather. During cold and
wet weather, the pace of movement seemed to be a bit faster. No children were
seen at all during the wet days. Only a few people came out towards the evening ‘
during the three rainy days.

A study on how leisure behavior was organized in terms of temporal frames of
reference was conducted by Scott (1997) at Cleveland Metroparks. He found that there
were significant relationships between the characteristics of park users and when they
visited. The activities of the park users were found to be associated with the time of the
day, day of the week, and season of the year. He also found that men outnumbered
women as park users, Afiican Americans were only one—tenth of the park users during fall,
older people outnumbered younger ones as park users, and morning park users preferred
active activities, while afternoon and evening park users preferred passive activities. The
findings of this study are generally consistent with the foregoing results from Scott’s

investigation.

116

Design Elements

Design elements are an integral component in riverfront planning; therefore,
preferences of park users in general for the elements, as well as differences between males
and females and among ethnic groups, were assessed by interview. Design elements
included were the waterfront, boardwalk, lawn area, under trees, the bridge, sitting area,
and the playground. Preferences inferred fiom observed use are described in the last
subsection.

When the park users were asked about their preferences on the design elements in
the park, about four-fifth preferred the waterfront and about one-half the boardwalk and
bridge. Approximately one-third indicated a preference for the lawn and under the trees.
They could have multiple responses. (see Table 8)

Table 8. Design Element Preferences of Park Users (Interviewed)
(in percent)

 

 

Design Females Males Total P-value
Elements (N=3 7)‘ (N=63) (N=100)

Waterfiont 35 47 82 0.01 190
Boardwalk 24 34 55 0.28646
Bridge 1 1 34 45 0.01866
Lawn area 16 20 36 0.24750
Under trees 10 7 34 0.04079
Sitting area 26 -
Playground 13 -

 

*Multiple responses for design element preference

117

Gender

Nearly one-half of the males and slightly more than one-third of the females
preferred the water; about one-third of the males also preferred the boardwalk and bridge,
while one-fourth of the females preferred the boardwalk, but only approximately one-tenth
the bridge. The differences between males and females for their preference of waterfront,

bridge, and under trees were statistically significant.(see Table 8)

Ethnic Groups

Percentages of the various ethnic groups preferring the different design elements
varied somewhat element to element. More than three-fourths of the Caucasians preferred
each of the elements. To be noted for the Afiican-Americans, three-fourth or more
preferred water and the bridge, but only one-fourth or less the boardwalk, lawn and under
trees. However, caution must be used in interpreting the data comparatively because of

the very low number of non-Caucasians. (see Table 9 and Appendix G, Table 12)

Preference for Design Elements Based on Observation

Park use was distributed unevenly throughout the park; that is, some areas were

highly patronized, while others were sparingly used. The lawn area was used sparingly

during the early morning and afternoon hours. Only during the evening did the patronage

118

Table 9. Preference for Design Elements Among Ethnic Groups (in percent)‘

 

 

Ethnicity Water Boardwalk Bridge Lawn Under Tree
Caucasian (N=72) 93 83 76 94 83
Afiican American (N=12) 75 25 83 12 17
Native American (N=5) 60 60 40 60 40
Asian American (N=3) 75 50 25 25 75
Hispanic American (N=3) 50 50 25 50 33
Other (N=3) 67 33 33 67 67

 

" Multiple responses

of the area increase. The pavement area was used by the greatest number of park users.
This is reasonable as it was an access to other places, that is, part of the river trail for
people to pass through on their journey or as a path to go to work. As for the lawn, the
grass areas and the plant communities, the people might enjoy seeing them from a
distance. It might be conjectured that certain locations in the park may provide distinctive
views. The area closer to the water edge was the second most used area. Children with
their parents were often near the water edge, either feeding bread crumbs to the ducks or
walking along the boardwalk. The water edge also was well used. People spent more time
along the water edge than along the pavement per square foot. This also appeared to be
one of the favorite places for the homeless in the park. They lingered around the water or

sat facing the water for several periods of time. The outer edge of the park was the least

119

used, although certain portions of the outer edge were used for exit and entrance. The
restraining portion of the outer edges were not used as much by the park users.

It was observed that females tended to be more purposeful when approaching the
elements, while males tend to spend more time around the elements. Males were more
often seen lingering around the waterfront, bridge and boardwalk. Interestingly, these
elements were located close to the water edge. Females tended to be closer to the

waterfront, trees, and lawn area, but not the bridge and boardwalk.

Facilities in the Vicinity of the Park (Accessibility, Linkages)

One of the considerations in planning are the facilities adjacent to the park. Do
they serve as an enticement to entering the park and do the park users utilize them. Both
the park users and nonpark users interviewed were asked about whether adjacent facilities

serve as connectors to the park.

Nonpark Users

Of nonpark users interviewed at the adjacent facilities, about one-fourth were at
the Lansing Center and one-fifth at each Lansing Community College (LCC) and the City
Market. The remainder were interviewed at the other adjacent facilities. The purpose of
their visit to the respective community facility reflected the firnction of the facility itself, as

might be expected. The number of times each visited that facility and how long spent or

120

expected to spend the day of the interview also were indicative of the nature of the facility.

(see Table 10)

Table 10. Nonpark Users’ Visits to Adjacent Facilities (in percent)

 

Visit Bus Lugnut Lansing City Senior LCC
Stop Stadium Center Market Center _

 

 

FREQUENCY
OF VISIT

Once a year - 3 18 5 - 4
3-4 times a year 2 3 5 6 l 10
Weekly 1 1 - 4 - 1
Monthly 3 5 2 5 2 5
LENGTH

OF VISIT

10-15 min 8 - - - - 2
15-30 min 1 2 - - 1 9
An hour 1 8 4 - 5 6
Other - 3 22 10 14 4

Park Users

Some facilities located within the park vicinity may be preferred more than others
by park users. Preference was inferred by where the user was going that day or had been.

There were varying degrees of preference for the facilities adjacent to the park by the park

121

users. City Market and Lansing Community College were two facilities within the vicinity
of the park that were more preferred than the other three. This is not surprising as it was
observed that some workers parked their cars at the City Market to go to work, while

many students used the park as a shortcut to go to LCC. (see Table 11).

Table 11. Preferences of Park Users for Facilities in the Vicinity of the Park (in percent)

 

 

(N=100)*

Facility Where going Where have been
City Market 36 17
Lansing Community Center 30 17
Restaurants 28 -
Lugnut Stadium 27 10
Lansing Center 14 8
Bus Stop - 8

 

"' Multiple responses

Planning Implications

This limited survey of park users and nonpark users at Lansing Riverfront Park

was undertaken for what insights might be gained for the riverfi'ont park planning model.

There were three aspects assessed, usage, design elements, and accessibility (linkages).

Park User Activity (Usage)

The primary users of the park were people who worked downtown and

lived within a radius of two miles from the park. However, the location of the park

122

apparently resulted in a dichotomy in use at this season of the year, as a route
connecting their home or parking and their work or school and as a place to
exercise, especially walking, jogging, and cycling. To have the park used as a
thoroughfare for workers and students gives special planning concerns, especially
safety and interference with persons who do want to use the park for its recreation
opportunities.

Another usage which has implications for planning is that of the nearby
residents. The park users who lived in the adjacent facilities, such as the Senior Center
or Riverfront Tower, were less likely to use the park for sitting or eating. It might
logically be anticipated that these persons would use the park to a greater extent.

The question is why don’t they. They may have their own reasons. Conflict of use and
safety might be two of them. For fragile elderly persons, a park with too much 1
active activity, such as bike riding or jogging, may be difficult for them to tolerate and,
thus, may reduce park use by this group. The ability to check the entrance visually before
entering parks is a requirement for many people.

When park users were asked regarding suggestions for improvements to
the park, nine mentioned security, especially at the north end of the park; six
would like to have the restrooms open; five would like to see improvement in the
water quality, and four desired food vendors; and four would like the bikers and
skaters to Slow down. Thirty people did not give any suggestions, while three
preferred to keep the park as it is.

While the park served different ethnic groups, each group derived different

123

satisfactions fi'om the park, as evidenced by the nature of the activities in which they
were engaged. However, the very low percentage of non-Caucasian was a cause for
concern. This lack of participation seems to be common in many other parks . Further

studies on the design of the park system may give some insight to ethnicity and park user.

Design Elements

Not every aspect of the design elements in a park is perfect. The location of
Juniperus chinensis in front of the City Market obstructed the view to the river and also
almost hid the children playground. It was observed that this has resulted in the place
becoming a natural shelter for the homeless to sit or hide their belongings. The toilet
facilities next to the playground is locked most of the time and appeared to cause
considerable inconvenience to the park users.

Conflict in design intent is beginning to be felt. Elderly walkers and joggers
fi'equently complained about the bikers rushing past them without Slowing them. In turn,
the bikers were complaining about walkers and joggers who moved in pairs without
giving way to them. Then there was the problem of roller bladers using the pathways,
posing new problems for bikers, joggers and walkers. It seems the existing pathways that
were earlier designed for leisurely walking has now created fiiction among its users. A
solution might be for the pathway to be widened to meet the different user needs and thus
educing conflict. There could also be separation of pathways for walkers and joggers
fiom bikers by a combination of topography and vegetation . Allocation of special area

for roller bladers would diversify the activities in the park , as well as conflict of use.

124

Design elements in the park impacted men and women differently. Women
seemed more secure when the spaces in the park were open, relatively free of shrubs, and
with unobstructed horizontal sight lines. Perhaps studies should be done on gender ,
design element, preferencesand greater consideration given to safety perceptions in park

design.

Adjacent Facilities

Designers are faced with the task of designing a riverfront park that is tied into the
facilities adjacent to it. There should be a collective, unifying framework between the park
and the linkages. The previous process of riverfront planning that treats buildings or
linkages as isolated objects within the area and not as part of the larger fabric of the
riverfront park should be reviewed. Instead of the normal two-dimensional relationship of
land use plans between these linkages and the riverfront, a third dimension of human
behavioral patterns between the park and these linkages should be considered for an
acculturation of design relationships. The proposed riverfront park planning modeled is
centered on the concept of accessibility as an essential part in the planning model, favoring
the spatially connected public environment over the master planning of objects in the park.
The accessibility concept, especially in the design of entrances and path ways provides

exceptional opportunities to attract more people to the park.

CHAPTER 6

ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE AND RIVERFRONT PARK DESIGN

This study focuses upon development of a riverfront park planning model with a
subproblem giving special consideration to the Islamic religious aspects. The first section
in this chapter provides a brief overview of perspectives and differences of culture and
religious belief as related to the park environment. Then, the perspectives of Islamic
culture are discussed based on the Koran and the Hadith, historical precedents of the
Islamic park, and opinions of the Muslim community in Greater Lansing, Michigan. The

programming guidelines of a riverfront park to accommodate the Muslims are considered.

Cultural Differences and Riverfront Park Design

People from different cultures have differing ideas about what constitutes a
satisfactory environment for a riverfront park. Some design decisions may be appropriate
to certain cultural groups, but could result in alienation of users from other cultures. This
could lead to the park being underused or vandalized. The park designer has the difficult
problem that the park may have to fulfill a variety of park users’ expectations across

numerous cultures. Insights on how people from various cultures may react to a new

125

126

environment (e.g., riverfront park) are often available by interviewing cultural groups and
observing behavior in user settings.

Studies of environmental perception and preference have indicated that preference
for natural settings is remarkably consistent across the general American population
(Zube, 1984). Yet, variations occur among people of different demographic, ethnic and
cultural backgrounds, and areas of expertise. Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) stated that
people’s preference for nature, like trees and snowflakes, differ fi'om each other. They
“see the world” or base their perception and preference through conceptually different
eyes and bring diverse backgrounds to any new experience. Their cultural and religious
background sometimes plays an important part in their perception of the world. Given this
unique diversity of the cultural and religious background, it is just wonderful to find strong
and pervasive consistencies in the way people interpret and use the design elements, such
as plants, pavement, water and man-made and natural structures, found in riverfront parks.
The sensitivity to these elements has been substantiated in several studies (Schroeder,
1988). From the perspective of different cultures, the studies of preference have
suggested that there is a high degree of homogeneity in those of similar cultural
backgrounds (Zube, 1984; Yang & Terry, 1992). lube and his students based their
conclusion on a study of Australian students and American landscape architecture
students, using photographs of Australian landscapes (lube and Mills, 1976). Others have
reported consistent preferences when comparing Americans with Scottish respondents
(Shafer & Tooby, 1973) or Swedes (Ulrich, 1983).

Generalizations applicable to other cultures based on the American perception may

not apply (Rapoport, 1977). Western theory may be accepted differently in non-Westem

127

contexts. For example, very different behavior is expected in public and private areas and
difi‘erent cultures behave differently (Rapoport, 1969). Today's living environment is
more complex than previous environments (Louwerse, 1993). The responses to spatial
domains are different as they are designed to meet the different requirements and needs of
the people. While the predominant number of investigations have focussed upon cultural
difi‘erences in architectural settings (Kasmar, 1970), the fundamental investigatory process
seems applicable to riverfront park and urban design environments (Rapoport, 1977).
Various cues, including design elements within the urban settings, often establish character
and group identity, either directly or through ritual. This is the result of different beliefs
concerning environmental styles or approaches. These relationships between behavior and
meaning can be analyzed through the latent and symbolic aspects of activities and by
analyzing reactions to the design elements to identify the behavior status or preference. In
other words, the urban park environment can be viewed as a form of non-verbal
communication; users need to read the environmental setting so that they may respond to
the setting to achieve their immediate objectives (relaxation, conversation, travel to a
destination etc.)

Apart fi'om differences among the cultural aspects of response to the
riverfi'ont parks, there are differences due to origin of users, whether they are from Asia,
Europe or Afiica. These are based on their response to the ecological conditions and
the influence of horticulture (Ettinghausen, 1976). For example, without much shade and
lack of intricate garden design, famous in the development of Muslim arts and aesthetics,

the park is less appealing to the people.

128

The major factor accounting for differences is familiarity (Kaplan &

Kaplan, 1989). Familiarity is the product of experience, and experience comes in
difi‘erent forms. One gains such familiarity from many circumstances, such as where one
lives, where one has visited, what one has studied, and the cultural and religious norms
of one's group.

However, few studies focus on the preferences, similarities and differences
between the Eastern and Western influences (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Yang (1988)
studied preferences related to non-Westem design elements in the landscape of Korean
students and American tourists. Three landscape elements (water, vegetation, and rock)
were examined, as well as spatial layout. Both Korean and American participants
preferred the Japanese landscapes, as well as landscape styles distinct from their own
cultures. Also, water was highly preferred and rock far less favored by both groups.
However, there were some differences as to arrangement of landscape elements between
the Korean students and the American tourists.

Cultural differences appear not only in the organization of society but also
in the physical environment, such as home design and house form, public buildings, and
urban planning. For example, house form is not only the simple result of physical forces
or any single causal factor, but also the consequences of a whole range of socio-cultural

factors seen in their broadest terms (Rapoport, 1969).

129

Islamic Perspectives

Muslims are people who profess Islam as their religion and believe in oneness of
God. Their daily lives are based on their belief in the Koran and the teachings of Prophet
Mohamed, peace be upon him (p.b.u.h.). For the Muslims, the nature of design is taken
seriously. Several verses in the Koran address design, especially interface between nature
and man-made elements. "The nature of design mentioned in the Koran is determined by
three principles: orderliness, purposiveness and subservience" (F aruqi, 1980, page 84,).
Islam holds that design should be in complete order, benefit mankind and not lead him
astray by indulging in activities considered immoral. All God's creations are to be
subservient to man and he can design these creations as he pleases, not only for his
survival but also for pleasure. There are certain limitations, of course. One is the
responsibility in design by which no part of the element will be destroyed, abused, or used
except for the fulfillment of man’s highest moral values. In the West, the urban park is
designed more for active recreation, whereas in the Islamic environment, the park is more
for a passive and private place (Brookes, 1987). It is designed more for the delight of the
seated, contemplative person.

Such a difference in creation lies at the heart of Islamic thought, where it is more
often an exercise in the mind's eye than the visible extravaganza. It is a paradigm of
religious, cultural and social life (Al-Sedairy & May, 1980). The design of the park is
more for the visual interaction of space, shape and surfaces. However, where the mixing

of two cultures is unavoidable, as in the case of people from the Middle East and Asia

130

who either migrate or come to study in America, they tend to live in two divergent
cultures with contrasting behavior codes and perceptions (Horrocks and Kolinsky, 1996).
At work or school, Western culture preference tends to dominate, while within
their own group they conform to their cultural norms. This is especially true of the new
students and the older generation of immigrants whose cultural identity is built around
their religion. Hence, they perceive and respond to design elements fiom the perspective
of the culture in which they were brought up, which is different from the perception of the
Western culture. However, this perspective tends to change as the younger generation of
students and their children begin to be assimilated into the WeStem culture. Cultural
changes in the form of artistic expression, such as music, film and literature, are clearly
visible, creating cultural synthesis (Horrocks and Kolinsky, 1996). This synthesis is,
however, always characterized by a key discrepancy: the uneven weight of the cultures
which are brought together. According to Horrocks and Kolinsky, culture itself may be
regarded as an expression of a power struggle. It is believed that the cultural influence in
international terms are impacted by the most powerful societies which themselves
constitute the center in a center-periphery constellation (Wallerstein, 1990). Societies
near or at the periphery, in the first instance, usually have no other option but to base their
activities, whether positively or negatively, on the cultural models and standard of the
center. Only rarely do their leaders or spokespersons succeed in attracting attention to
themselves or, even less, in kindling a more profound interest in their own societies or
cultures. Hence, there is a tendency for the Eastern culture to succumb to the culture of

the West, despite cultural difl’erences.

131

The impact of Islam may reflect its perspective of the use of parks amenities.
Karakasoglu (1996) suggested that Islam, being a religious identity for the Western
culture, may feature strongly in their opinions on certain values. According to
Karakasoglu, a distinctive religious identity may have both positive and negative effects.
On the one hand, religious differences tend to promote different views fi'om each other,
while the positive aspect may stabilize the influence both morally and psychologically,
making it an acceptable norm for both cultures.

For the design of a riverfront park to be based on Islamic perspectives, it
is important to consider the existing social-religious norms and the environment from
which the Muslim community originated. Insights can be obtained from the Koran (the
Holy Book) and the Hadith (authentic sayings of Prophet Mohamed, p.b.u.h.), from
historical parks of the yesteryears, and fi'om personal interviews with the Muslim

community in Greater Lansing, Michigan.

Koran and the Hadith

The Koran dictates how Muslims should live their lives; it outlines a series of laws
circumscribing what they may and may not do. It mentions Paradise or heaven, which is
the garden or park, as the reward for the faithful. The Koran describes Paradise in
general terms, leaving to the imagination of the faithful to ponder and for the designer to
create on earth similar to that in heaven. The Koran emphasizes the prominent delights
which await the believer there. The Paradise shall be "abounding in ranches . . . therein

fountains of running water... .. therein of every fiuit two kinds" (Sura or Verse 42:12).

132

Several Suras are found in the Koran describing the Paradise. The most detailed

description is found in Sura 76 in literal translation:

Surely the pious shall drink of a cup,
whose mixture is camphor,
A fountain where drink the servants of God,
Making it to gush plenteously. . ..
and recompensed them for their patience with a garden,
and silk; therein they shall recline upon couches therein
they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold
near them shall be its shades,
and its clusters hang meekly down
and there shall be passed around them
vessels of silver, and goblets of crystal,
crystal of silver that they have measured very exactly.
And therein they shall be given to drink a cup
whose mixture is ginger,
Therein a fountain whose name is Salsabil.
Immortal youths shall go about them;
When thou seest them thou supposest them
sacttered pearls, When thou seest them
thou seest bliss and a great kingdom.
Upon them shall be green garments of silk
And brocade; they are adorned with Bracelets of silver,
and their Lord shall Give them a pure draught...

In Sura Ar-Rahman (55) Paradise was described as:

And besides these shall be two gardens,
green green pastures, therein two fountains of gushing water
therein mm, and palm trees, and pomegranates.
One of the most important features of these gardens and parks is the
environment created by the design elements in it. The Koran describes the

environment as being pleasantly Shady and comfortable in which no one is

afl‘ected by the bunting heat of the sun or the cold of the night. This is partly

133

due to the presence of the shade and water as its ideal elements and the fountains,
which psychologically and physically provide the soothing and cooling effect.
Drinking fountains (Salsabil) were an architectural feature of Islamic parks during
the glory of Islamic renaissance.

The fountains and liquids of lovely taste are matched by the rivers:

"Gardens underneath which rivers flow" is the most frequently used expression for the
reward the faithful have to expect; the expression is mentioned more than 30
times in the Koran. The most famous detailed description of the presence of rivers in
Paradise is in Sura 47:
This is the similitude of Paradise
Which the godfearing have been promised:
Therein are rivers of water unstalling,
rivers of milk unchanging in flavour,
and rivers of wine- a delight to the drinkers
rivers, too, of honey purified, and
therein for them is every hit
and forgiveness from their Lord ......

Water element. The water element is described in the Koran as the vital source of
life. The word water occurs 60 times, rivers over 50, and the sea over 40. Many of the
descriptions of water are related with its Creator.

Do they not see how
We drive the rain to the barren land and
bring forth therewith crops of which

their cattle eat and by themselves?
Have they no eyes to see with? ( (32:27).

134

Though water is not described in detail in its existence to Paradise, several
verses describe it as a complement to the other elements to produce benefit to man

and beast.

It is He who sends down water from the sky
and with it We bring forth the
buds of every plant. From these
we bring forth green foliage fi'om which we bring the
thick clustered grain, palm trees laden with
clusters of dates within rich, vineyards and
olive groves and pomegranates
which are alike and different. Look upon their fruits and
upon its ripening, surely in this
there signs for the true believers created by God.(6:99).

Several other verses about water hinted to man to look, observe, think and
contemplate.
We opened the gates of Heaven

with pouring water and caused the earth to gush
forth with springs" (54:11).

On numerous occasion, verses end with:

In this there are signs for people who think/ who hear/who have sense.
Can they not see,
will they not give thanks? (66:42).
Water is specified as one of the four main rivers of Paradise with tastes of water,
milk, wine and purified honey. The idea of the four rivers which flow through Paradise
may have helped later park designers to conceive canals as they flow through the gardens

of Iran, Mughal India and Moorish Spain.

Thus, within this concept, Paradise is a clear indication as to what the garden

135

should contain: fruit trees, water and rich pavilions; and, it is intended as a place for
pleasure and cool enjoyment. The Koran’s description of the heavenly parks is rather
consistent and gives a vivid impression of greenery, gushing fountains, rivers, delicious
food and beauty , which designers should try to recreate on earth.

Pathways and public thoroughfares. Prophet Mohamed (p.b.u.h.) in one of his
sayings commented on the behavior of people in public places.

Do not stare, nor bother passers by, respond to greetings,
prevent harm, and give hand to the needy.
The pathway's objective is to permit free easy airflow,

sunlight and the passage of movement (40:22).

This implies publics spaces, be they in the park or elsewhere for different types of use,
should be organized to achieve harmony among its users. In the riverfiont park planning
context, there should be different pathways for pedestrians and strollers, skaters, bikers
and vehicles to reduce conflict among the users. The arrangement of design elements in
the park, such as building structures, plants, and topography, should aid in smooth traffic

flow and minimize impediments.

Historical Precedents of the Islamic Parks

The design of early Islamic parks was based on the Koran and the influence fi'om
the established civilizations like Persia and Mesopotamia, providing the design elements

did not contradict the Koran. For example, the Persian park design was absorbed by Islam

136

and continued to be developed without interruption. This resulted in a combination of the
beauty of the Persian gardens and the centrality of water of the Islamic perspective. These
concepts complement each other and can be seen in the historical design of the Islamic
parks found in Iraq, Spain, India and Iran (Brookes, 1990, Lehrrnan, 1987, Macdougal &
Ettinghausen, 1976 and Tabbaa, 1996).

Most of these places encompassed cities with palaces and great gardens of
astounding size and various design elements within a park system. The palaces were
intersected by channels and dotted with fountains within a large park. The entrances to
these parks were well defined and designed with munificence to symbolize the power and
the sense of arrival. One of the prominent features of the parks was the presence of the
quartered canal, originating fiom one or several fountains in the middle of the garden.
This design was the emulation of the Paradise mentioned in the Koran, where four rivers
of difl‘erent taste flow underneath and where the fountain (Salsabil) provides the flow of
water to be enjoyed physically and spiritually. Apart fiom emulating the Paradise, the
water element was used to provide the much needed irrigation to grow fi'uit trees and
other plants to support life in the world. Usually the water originated from the mountains
and was channeled to the parks, either through surface water, such as rivers, streams and
canals, or underground flow to be released as pools, fountains or small gushes at
intermittent interval in the palaces and mosques for the purpose of decoration, cooling
efl’ect and cleansing. The water canal or succession of pools gave a sense of motion and
provided the linkage from one place to another, such as from interior to exterior space and

fiom a higher ground to lower ground. The pathways were of a straight line, well laid out

137

following the water canal. These pathways were linked with shade trees throughout the
route (Jellicoe, 1995).

It was said by the court poets of those times that every part of the royal
park and garden was in some way a similitude of Paradise (Brookes, 1990). To them, the
beauty of the park, and indeed of the whole creation, was held to be a reflection of God.
Also fi'equently mentioned were the abundant fi'uit trees in the Paradise park and the
rich pavilions set among them, wherein the owners of the park and their fiiends might
relax.

The pavilion. The pavilions of the Islamic park were usually located in places of
high elevation, overlooking the garden or a body of water for the purpose of
contemplation and appreciation of the beauty of God's creation. The pavilions also were
designed as places for formal sitting for discussion and meetings. The rest of the park
was open space, where the park users would sit on the grass, under the shade of trees or

close to the water features.

138

Opinions of the Muslim Community of Greater Lansing.

One hundred members of the Muslim community in Greater Lansing, Michigan,
were interviewed. Their opinions on the design of parks programmed for Islamic use
varied, depending on the location of their country of origin and culture, specifically,
their observance of Koran's interpretation of the Paradise and their own cultural
practices in the Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Their opinions were
categorized into those related to separation of gender, design elements, and
restrictions and prohibitions.

Separation of gender. Twenty percent of the interviewees from the Middle East
stated that they were reluctant to bring their wives to most of the public parks in
America.They felt that the parks in United States are too Open and with little privacy,
where everyone can see each other, especially the opposite sex. For them, separation
between men and women in the park is of utmost importance. It was suggested that the
park could be divided into two sections, one for women only and another for men only.
Another planning consideration could be separation between families and single
individuals. For families, there could be separate facilities provided for each family within
the same area, but located at a distance from each other. One respondent suggested that
separate entrances facing in opposite directions for men and women should be designed.
This could be done by having a common parking area located at the park entrance with the
river providing the physical divider for separate men’s and women’s sections of the park.
Another alternative suggested was to have the women’s section of the park elevated

slightly higher than the men's section. There would still be the two separate entrances for

139

men and women within the same park, but there would be a division or enclosure for the
women. Where this is not possible, one respondent suggested that the usage of the
common park be alternated on certain days for men only and on other days for women
only. Separation of gender also could be done by the physical design of the park, such as
a wall, hedge enclosure, or mounding or depression of the terrain with a distance between
men’s and women's sections to be at 300 feet or at a distance where people are not able to
identify the face.

One of the common Islamic practices concerns the privacy of women when they
are outside of their homes. Therefore, there is a need to coordinate private and public
spaces in order to guarantee women's private domains throughout the built environment,
especially in the public areas. In Asian societies the private domain of women also is
respected, but the regulation of the design model may not be as stringent as in the Middle
East society. In general, Muslims from many countries in Asia and certain countries in the
Middle East stated that they are not restricted to separation of gender when patronizing
public parks in their respective countries. Many of those who were interviewed agreed
that some restrictions on what is considered permissible in park design in the West needed
to be reviewed when applying the same principle in their countries. Also, they suggested
that certain aspects of design principles could be added to the parks in America to meet
their needs.

Role of design elements. The entrance to the park Should be well designed to
create a sense of welcome and also to regulate the movement of people in the park. This
single entrance should be more formal than casual, in contrast to the parks in the United

States where the entrances are almost everywhere and anywhere. Many respondents

140

suggested that a formal enclosure of the whole park should be considered. It could be
made by a high wall or vegetation to provide both security and privacy to the park users.

The pathways should be designed for separation of users, including walkers,
joggers, bikers and skaters. As the respondents preferred to use the park with their
families, this suggestion is very practical for safety and harmony among the users. The
pathway also should be well lit at night to provide safety and security for the park users.

Trees planted in the park could function as a source of fragrance, a barrier between
genders, a marker of territorial space, and shade against the sun. Local plant species were
preferred by the community, as they were more familiar with them. If possible, the plants
should have sweet-scented flowers to add a pleasant aroma to the park. Respondents
preferred to enjoy the flowers and considered them to be part of the park design. For
them, the plants should be designed to engage all the senses of sound, smell, taste, sight,
and touch; for example, the murmur of pine trees, the sweet smell of flowering lilacs in the
evening, and the crisp taste of film trees planted at random. Forty percent of the
respondents preferred to have more green in the color of the leaves. They do not mind
some combination of seasonal color, but it should be low key in prominence. Sixty percent
of the respondents preferred to have plants that emitted fragrances to better enabled them
to enjoy the sweet smell as a feeling of being in Paradise.

The combination of trees and shrubs should provide a natural separation
between genders in the park and, at the same time, provide an enclosure for a family
group. This can be achieved by making the park a continuous spatial unit with
strongly defined boundaries, through which a form of separation or enclosure is naturally

in place.

141

The respondents also preferred to have shade trees with shrub enclosure to serve
as a place for family picnics. Everyone preferred to sit down in a circle under the trees
for eating and relaxation, instead of having picnic tables or benches. Sitting under the
trees is very comfortable for Muslims with families. It is an unwritten rule that when one
shade tree is occupied by one group, another group or people will not come any closer, as
it will be considered as prying or invading the first group's territorial space. It also is
considered a common sense norm of space use by individuals or groups. Where benches
and picnic tables are to be provided, the designer should think of accommodating an
extended family group of at least five people, rather than for a single group of two or three
people.

Then there is a stress for privacy, communality, security and territorial space in the
park. These requirements are some of the behavioral needs of park users that influence
the spatial patterns in the context of design principles. While separation of activities and
structures for men and women should be provided, the major emphasis of the Muslim
community is on family outings, with individual needs secondary. The emphasis on a
family-oriented park was indicated by the respondents with eighty percent preferring to
come to the park with their immediate family or extended family, subject to the park
having facilities with a conducive atmosphere for the family. The family is the foundation
of Islamic society. The peace and security offered by a stable family unit is greatly valued
and seen as essential for the spiritual grth of its members. Therefore, park designers
need to think of a family-oriented park as being the main priority in Muslim society and

environment. Islam is a religion based on the closeness and cohesiveness of the family

142

unit, and it is only appropriate that any park design concept should be based on bringing
the family together. Hence, the composition of the park design should encompass the
desire to create an environment for the whole family.

An environment for the whole family could be interpreted in the form of
activities for children and their parents together. Seventy percent of the respondents
mentioned the need for a playground in the park. They also preferred that play activities
for older children and teenagers, such as court games (soccer, basketball), be made
available. Activities for adults, such as jogging, biking, walking and strolling, were
suggested; but, they should be organized with the immediate family involved in these
activities together. The standard dress for participating in these activities should conform
to the Islamic regulation where both males and females should wear loose fitting clothes,
but at the same time be suitable for such activities. According to the Koran, men and
women are equal before God, but rights and roles of men and women are complementary
and collaborative. Both men and women are expected to dress in a way that is simple,
modest and dignified at all times and in all places.

Ninety percent of the interviewees would like to see flowing water in the Islamic
park. This is in agreement with the verse in the Koran that states flowing water is cleaner
than stagnant water of limited volume (Sura 19:36). Since the Muslims pray five times a
day, the water element is important in the design of the park, as they need the water to
take ablution when performing their prayers. The water element also is preferred for
passive activity, such as contemplating, fishing, boating, and touching the water. The
riverfiont should not be designed for swimming, but more as a public place for enjoying

the views. The water element could be designed in various forms, such as canals,

143

streams, fountains, waterfalls or water jets. The water element in the form of a river offers
opportunities to observe nature and be involved in passive recreation, such as boating and
fishing.

Fountains are the most popular water element mentioned by the respondents.
Water fountains have the sense of touch, taste and sound, which is attractive to people of
different ages. A fountain is safe for the children to touch, convenient for cleansing
before prayer and drinking purposes, and representative of the gushing fountains of
Paradise mentioned in the Koran. Furthermore, water fountains can be creatively
designed to reflect the cultural and social aspect of the local environment. For example,
fountains can be created fiom local artifacts, such as pottery, palm trees, handicrafts
and traditional tools of the peOple.

An important facility that should be included in a park design is the praying
shelter. Although Muslims could perform their prayers almost anywhere in the open, a
formal prayer shelter is preferred. This helps to remind them of their five daily
obligations to God Almighty, wherever they are on this earth. During those five times
the people direct their whole attention away from the horizontal dimension, their
worldly affairs, onto the vertical dimension, which points to the eternal center. The
location of this prayer shelter should, therefore, be in the center of the park; the
ground orientation of the shelter should be facing Mecca. The prayer shelter is a
constant reminder to the human being of who we are and indeed, why we are.

Restrictions and prohibitions in the park. The presence of washroom facilities are
greatly appreciated by the Muslim community. However, in keeping with the cultural

separation of gender, they would prefer for the women’s and men’s washrooms to be sited

144

at locations separate from each other and not adjacent to one another. The ideal location
would be equidistant from major facilities where members of the family would be able to
see each other, but yet maintain the distance between the opposite sex.

Any sculpture or man-made objects that portray human beings or animals
in the area should be prohibited. This is very offensive to the Muslim community because
it is against the teaching of Islam to try to imitate what God has created. The main reason
for this prohibition is the tendency for some people to worship these structures
instead of God. Such worship comes in many forms—contemplating in front of the
sculptures, taking of photographs, idolizing the sculpture or praying near it. This is
considered by the Muslims to be one of the great sins. However, any sculpture that does
not represent any form of life is encouraged. Examples would be a sculpture of a water
fountain flowing fi'om natural topography and made from local materials used as
handicraft or traditional artistry.

The presence of animals should be restricted in the park. This is especially for
animals that tend to dispose their droppings everywhere. This is considered unclean and
turns Muslims away from the park. However, other animals, such as farm animals, would

be welcome, but they should be placed in an animal enclosure for petting purposes.

In terms of the scheduling of program activities in the park, the Muslim
community suggested that these activities should not be in conflict with the prayer times.
They preferred to participate in these activities in between their five daily prayer times.
This way they felt that they could enjoy these activities better without feeling guilty for
failing to fulfill their obligation to God. Without such activity scheduling, a Muslim is

required to stop participation in activity and pray at the designated time.

145

Modifications of Design Elements from Islamic Perspectives

In the present century, any plans for an Islamic park should reflect Islamic social,
cultural and religious values and customs, while recognizing the community's
demanding geographic traits (Vollmer, 1981). The Islamic influence dictates
the provision of two amenities in a park: (1) a family area for use by parents with their
children; and (2) an area for singles, individuals without family. This is common in Middle
Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. In other countries
where the Muslim population is living together with non Muslims, slight modifications
should be made to accommodate people of other religions, where separation of gender is
not emphasized. However, the needs of the Muslims users should be taken into

consideration.

The design of the riverfront park planning model for the Muslims should be based ,
on three sources: the: Koran and Hadith, historical precedents of Islamic parks, and the
perspective of the Muslims. The objectives would be to design the park as a reflection of
Paradise of which every Muslim should be striving for in the hereafter. Any resemblance
of the Paradise in the design of the park would be a form of respect to the Creator and a
sense of nearness to Him. The designer should be sensitive to the needs of the Muslims
for the beauty of the place, the sense of privacy, territoriality and communality, and
respect for their religious beliefs and cultural upbringing.

Because religion and state are inseparable, certain relatively uniform controls
govern the Muslim concept of park planning and design. There are some variations

regionally in the rigor with which the requirements of the Koran are observed, as there are

146

also in details of design, due to the Muslims’ capacity for adapting to local customs and
conditions; but, certain characteristics are consistent. Therefore, the modifications of
design elements in the park to meet these requirements are encouraged. The prayer
house, the vitally important center of life to the Muslims, should be centrally located in the
park. The use of plants, water, space and other man-made structures should be creatively
designed and sited to meet the aesthetic, symbolic and religious obligations of the park
users. The provision of amenities for families and single individuals is recommended.
Praying facilities and water for cleaning and ablution should be adequately provided in the
park. Any restrictions and prohibitions described in the Koran should be noted and
adhered to. As long as the design concept does not contradict the Islamic religious beliefs,

the designers are encouraged to apply their skills for the benefit of the park users.

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The focus of this study was to develop a riverfront park planning model, with
application of selected aspects to the Lansing, Michigan, Riverfront Park and with some
insights to the Islamic perspective of park planning and design. This chapter provides a
summary and conclusion in five sections: summary of procedures, summary of findings,

conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study.

Summary of Procedures

The procedures were set forth for the development of the riverfront park planning
model and the two subproblems. There were essentially two steps in the development of
the model. First, a basic planning model was adapted to a riverfront park planning
process, then based on literature review, study of riverfront plans, landscape architecture
principles, and logical reasoning, each of the components of the planning process was
augmented with riverfront park specific planning information and directives.

For subproblem one, to obtain further insights into selected aspects of the model,
specifically accessibility and linkages, design elements, and park usage, a limited survey of
park users and adjacent nonpark users at Riverfront Park, Lansing, Michigan, was

conducted. The sample included 200 park users (100 interviewed, 100 observed) and

147

148

100 nOnpark users (interviewed). Interviews and observations were conducted from 7
am. to 7 pm. each day for three weeks, October 10 to 31. Separate interview schedules
were developed for the park users and nonpark users. Observations were recorded using
a map of the area divided into sectors and using symbols for different behaviors. Field
notes provided descriptive data. Frequencies were converted to percentages and chi
square applied, as appropriate, to ascertain differences between park users and nonpark
users. Daily observations were reported by narrative description. Age, gender and ethnic
background were characteristics used in cross-analysis of park usage (activities),
preferences related to design elements, and accessibility of the park in terms of the linkage
of adjacent facilities, such as a community college, city market, a baseball stadium, a
senior citizen center and a city center.

Islamic perspectives on the riverfront park design was the thrust of the second
subproblem. Perspectives were determined from three sources: verses from the Koran and
the Hadith which related to park and garden design, design of historic Islamic gardens
(parks), and interviews with 100 Muslims from the Greater Lansing area in Michigan. A
review of literature on cultural differences and riverfiont parks provided a context for this

subproblem.

Summary of Findings

A model for riverfront park planning was developed, using as a fi'amework, a basic
planning process. The model is composed of two phases—phase 1, development of the

project, and phase II, the design process (see Figure 5). Phase I is comprised of five

149

components, each carried out in sequence: project origination, project initiation, design
vision, feasibility study, and project acceptance. Phase II is divided into two parts. The
first part, representing the pre-design work, has five components: base map preparation,
site inventory, site analysis, program survey and synthesis. The program survey
component is to be carried out concurrently with the first three sequential components.
Then, the program and site information are synthesized. The six sequential components
(design concept, design development, preliminary design, master plan, implementation,
and formal evaluation) of the second part result in the design of the project area. Each of
the components is detailed as related to riverfront park planning principles and guidelines.
The subproblem of application to Lansing Riverfront Park provided information on
usage, design elements, and accessibility. The activities most engaged in by park users
were walking, biking, and jogging; however, because of location, the park was found to be
used dominantly as a connector between home/parking and office, school, or other
destination. Relating to the hypothesis that there is no difference between males and
females on their preference for the design elements in the Lansing Riverfront Park, it was
found that there is a difference in preference on bridge, waterfront and under the trees
elements, but no difference for the elements of boardwalk and lawn. Thus, the hypothesis
was partially accepted. Except for being located near the park, the adjacent facilities did
not appear to have an impact on park use. The only exception was the City Market, which
may be due to the type of business (food and groceries). The lack of non-Caucasians in

the park restricted ethnic background comparisons.

150

Phase I. Development pf the Project

 

PROJECT ORIGINATION '

V
PROJECT INITIATION

V
DESIGN VISION

L
FEASIBILITY STUDY

V

PROJECT ACCEPTANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase II. The Design Process

FORMAL BASE MAP
EVALUATION PREPARATION
IMPLEMENTATION

MASTER PART A. PRE DESIGN
PLAN

PART B. FINAL DESIGN

PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
PROGRAM
DESIGN SURVEY
DEVELOPMENT

Figure 6. Riverfront Park Planning Model

 

151

The second subproblem involved the teachings and perspective of Islam with
regard to the planning requirements for a riverfront park. Water is the central element in
the design of a riverfront park. The verses from the Koran and the Hadith (authentic
saying of prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him), historical park design, and opinions of
the Muslim community in Greater Lansing, Michigan, testify to the importance of water.
Separation of gender and consideration for families and singles are factors when designing
the Islamic park. Proper design can help to realize this. Also, Islam prohibits sculpture of
any living things, as it could lead to worshipping of idols. Further, the presence of animals
in the park is discouraged, but petting animals is allowed as long as they are kept in

enclosures.

Conclusions

The model developed for riverfront park planning is functional and can provide
insights to the developers and designers for the benefit of the users. It can serve as a
guideline for any riverfront park planning. It addresses the function and use of design
elements in enticing the people to come to the park, thereby making the riverfront park
more attractive and appealing to the users. Specific modifications of the functions and use

of the design elements to meet the religious needs of the Muslims are necessary.

152

Discussion and Implications (Commentary)

The commentary is divided into discussion and implications related to the

riverfront park planning model and from the Islamic perspective.

Riverfront Park Planning Model

Two phases of the riverfront park planning model have been discussed and
described in detail in Chapter 4. However, caution is suggested when applying this model.
The model is not an end in itself, but serves as a guideline for designers interested in
riverfront parks. The application of this model should respect the unique character of each
site and demonstrate an understanding of the highest and best use of the facility. Factors,
such as diversity of cultural heritage, origin of the city, and significance of the features,
such as natural beauty, firnction and historical aspect, should be highlighted in the design
aspect of the project. The public interest must typically be carefully balanced with those
of the private developer/operator. A creative planning of the riverfront by carefirlly
blending the natural and historical riches with high quality private development at suitable
sites along the river corridor is important in the revitilization or enhancement of an area.
A successful riverfront planning model depends on more than an island of green space
marooned in the concrete jungle of the urban form. Its success emerges fi'om a rigorous
design process. The design considerations identify relationships with the surrounding
areas, with accessibility to the adjacent properties and the presence of features or design

elements that attract the park users.

153

A riverfront park planning model should be partially defined by the characteristics
of its constituencies. In the subproblem of this study, there were three types of primary
users, the first constituency: nearby residents (e. g., Senior Center), persons going to and
fi'om work or school (e. g., Lansing Center, Lansing Community College, City Market,
Oflices), and recreational users (e. g., the park, Lugnut Stadium). The second
constituency is a secondary group of people comprised of different ethnic groups who
occasionally go to the riverfront to enjoy the views and participate in the activities in the
park. They may have no direct involvement with the park, but are conscious of the design
elements and the way the park is designed based on their cultural perception. The third
constituency is the people of adjacent facilities.

In order for the riverfront park to be successfirl, it is imperative that an efficient
interface be provided between the users in the park and the linkages. In doing so, some
richness and variety to a riverfront park can be reunited and revitilized. This can be done
by using design compatibility, accessibility theory and visual focal point.

Design compatibility. Design compatibility is the ability of the linkages to
complement their existence with the riverfront park through building orientation, building
design, and opportunities for public access. For example, the City Market, the Senior
Center, LCC, the Lansing Center, and the Lugnut Stadium should be considered an object
building within the park. Views and accessibility should be redesigned to be more open
- toward the park. It is essential that potential uses of these linkages be considered in the
riverfi'ont park design and development decisions. Therefore, along with land use and
circulation in the riverfront park, the visual design and contextual factors of the linkages

must also be studied in structuring the riverfront park. The linkages should be viewed as

154

part of a total planning model so they not only are visually unified and coherent but also
play a functional role of dispersing the people throughout the park. They contribute to the
image of the riverfiont park.

Accessibility theory. This theory is derived from “lines” connecting one element to
another. These lines are formed by pedestrian pathways, bike routes or the river itself that
physically connect the park with the adjacent buildings and structures. This theory tries to
organize a system of connections, or a network, establishing the structure for accessibility.
This network can be a directional flow of movement (pedestrian pathways and riparian
greenways), an organizational axis (central kiosk, amphitheater), axial link or a building
edge (restaurant, promenade) . It serves as an indication of a system of access between the
park and the structure that are connected to one another. This theory is to be considered
when studying the location of the Site and its relation to the adjacent linkages. Ifthe
relationship between the park and the linkages need strengthening, addition of pathways,
improvement of building facade or changes in the park environment may be proposed.
Accessibility is simply the “glue” that ties or connects the park with the linkages. It is a
composition in which all layers of activity, such as movement and flow patterns between
the park and the linkages, are articulated with one another.

Visual focal point. The use of structural elements between the pathways in the
park and the linkages can serve as a strong visual terminal. The structure can frame the
views of the linkages with the riverine elements and environment in the park. The
entrance to these linkages should be given special structural and roof treatment in ways

that can enhance its relationship with the riverfront park.

155

Each of these considerations has its own value, but the Optimum is one that draws
on all three, giving meaning to the planning model, organizing the links between the park
components and the linkages, and meeting the users’ needs. Good designers will do all

they can to relate the park they design to their surroundings.

Accommodating Islamic Values in Park Design

For the Muslims, the nature of design is taken seriously based on several Koranic
verses that address the design interface between God’s creation and man-made elements.
This interface is determined by three principles: orderliness, purposiveness and
subservience to God. These principles uphold the rule that the design Should be in
complete order, benefit mankind and not lead him astray by indulging in activities
considered immoral, such as idolizing man-made elements and endangering the safety of
others, especially women. Certain restrictions and prohibitions, such as the use of human
Seulpture and the presence of animals that are considered unclean. The next factor would
be an understanding of the diversity in culture and its influence in various Muslim regions
and dominance. The network of close personal and family relationship, the protection of
women, the separation between genders, and distinction between families and singles are
some important cultural issues when planning a park to meet the spiritual needs of the
Muslim population.

The use of design elements, such as vegetation (hedges), topography (elevation),

and natural and man-made physical barriers (river, depression), provides the design

156

solution to the foregoing factors. The alternate use of the park by men and women on

separate days is another example that meets the requirement of the Muslim park users.

Recommendations for Further Study

There are several ways in which research could be expanded. The first is to
conduct a full scale study, at least for six months, to assess the patterns of behavior of the
park users and nonpark users. This will give indepth information on the behavior and
preferences in a riverfront park. An expanded and intensive study of the park during
summer could be more representative of the use of Lansing Riverfront Park. A
comparison study among several urban riverfront parks in Michigan or other location
could be conducted to have a more balanced ethnic representation of the respondents and
the design elements. Some of the questions for such survey could be revised to refer more
directly to the concept of linkages and accessibility in the park.

Where a large Muslim population can be found within a park vicinity, a study on
their perspectives of the park could be compared with the American views. This will help
the researcher to understand the Similarities and differences in values between two
cultures. A demonstration design of a riverfi‘ont park that considers the views of these two
cultures and beliefs could be proposed. The infusion of a design concept that respects and
incorporates the two religious affiliates could lead to a harmonious and reflective universal
riverfront plan. On a larger scale, other cultures and beliefs with their variety and diversity

can provide a cosmopolitan effect to the riverfront park model.

157

Other cultures to be considered within the concept of the riverfront park planning
model are the dual image of Buddhism (Ying and Yang), the composite image of Hindus
(good over evil), the sacred and taboo environment of the American Indians and the
Chinese’ earth orientation of garden design based from the art of Feng Shui. Application

of the model to these cultures would add to its diverse global design.

APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

DESCRIPTION OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

The Louis Adado Riverfront Park is located in the City of Lansing, the Capital of
Michigan, which has a population of about 200,000. It is located close to downtown
Lansing and may be described as an urban center within the metropolitan context. The city
has a large manufacturing and service base for employment. To enhance the aging
downtown community, the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department has provided the
city with a special urban amenity, the riverfi'ont park.

Initial plans for Lansing riverfront renewal began in 1921. Planning engineer
Harland Bartholomew proposed the development as a recreational resource in the city
master plan. In 1971, the City of Lansing created the Waterfront Development Board to
oversee the orderly and continuous development of Lansing’s riverfiont. Implementation
became possible in 197 5 when the City received firnds from the US. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Title I grant program to prepare a master plan for the
riverfront park, as well as to acquire land and implement a portion of the plan. The
Riverfront Development Committee, comprised of members from city citizen boards,
including the Planning Commission, Water Board, Park Commission, and Redevelopment
Board, worked with city administrators, who retained the firm of O'Boyle, Rohrer and
Associates, Inc. as the project planner and designer. The mandate was to design and
construct the park for operation by July 1976, in time for the nation’s bicentennial
celebration. The Lansing Riverfront Park was designed to serve as a major activity area in
Lansing. Every summer various recreational activities are organized by the City’s

Department of Parks and Recreation to provide for the people’s recreation and

158

159

relaxation. Because of its strategic location as a downtown public place, there is a priority

for understanding how they are being used.
Park Site Analysis

The Riverfront Park is an approximately 1 .5-mile linear park running along both
banks of the Grand River, connecting the central business districts of Lansing and East
Lansing. The park comprises a Lansing urban renewal district which replaced old,
decaying industrial buildings and vacated railroad tracks formerly located in the flood plain
of the river. The downtown portion of the park is located along two blocks extending
fi'om the Saginaw Street bridge one-half block on the east side. (See map)

Lansing’s central business district lies one block west of the park’s west riverbank.
North Grand Avenue, a major six-lane arterial, borders the park on its western edge.
Across Grand Avenue and closest to the park is the Lansing Community College (LCC).
To the north lies land acquired for a linear park and a walking path which will eventually
connect to the East Lansing commercial district. The area east of the river from the City
Market to the Lansing Center underwent a $2 million facelift in September 1995. The
newly renovated area is bounded by the Board of Water and Light and the Radisson Hotel
on the western side. On the eastern side it is bounded by the Lansing Center, the Lugnuts
Stadium and the City Market. The renovated area features a large gazebo, an amphitheater
and a place to dock boats. The city’s River Trail which runs the length of the eastern part

of the park will be widened and stretched across the river.

160

The trail will create a wide walking area that can be used by groups at the Lansing Center,
or for people to gather and listen to bands in the gazebo, for people to ride bikes or just
take in views of the river. The project creates a promenade along the Grand River from
the Radisson Hotel to the new baseball (Lugnuts) stadium and takes care of a little-used
parcel of ground near the Lansing Center as well. The promenade will have wrought iron
railings and old-fashioned light posts and will connect the Riverfront Park with Wentworth
Park to the south. Adjacent to the park on the eastern side and north of the City Market
are townhouses and a high-rise for the elderly.

The park, in the words of a city brochure, would be “essentially a linear, urban,
soft, green space designed for individuals, as well as groups of people and spontaneous
recreation as well as planned events” (Plan for Development of Lansing’s Waterfront,
1974). Robert O'Boyle, project architect, stated that the city wanted to demonstrate
something Significant happening downtown and bring people to the downtown area. The

revitalized park would be a demonstration to potential developers that downtown is vital.

Design Goals
The following goals were laid out by the park administrators and the project
designers.
1. The park should make a positive statement about the downtown by changing old
industrial land to a revitalized riverfront area.
2. The park should Stimulate economic growth in the downtown by bringing people into

the area.

161

3. The park should demonstrate to developers that downtown is alive and an attractive
place in which to invest.

4. The park Should connect the commercial areas of Lansing and East Lansing through a
pedestrian circulation system.

5. The park should be a soft green area, providing relief fi'om the urban center.

6. The park is designed to attract people who live and work in the downtown area, as well
as encourage people fiom outside the central business district to come join the
downtown experience.

7. The park is intended as a riverfront amenity for the City.

8. The park should provide for a number of users and activities, including lunch hour
visitors, LCC students, evening strollers and all-day joggers, and special events and
festivals.

The park’s major activities include: two places for performance, the Salt Shed and
the Sun Bowl amphitheater; a riverwalk which connects the two bridges as well as
provides visitors an opportunity to directly experience the water. Adjacent to the City
Market is a paved area for both parking and vendor space. A railroad bridge converted
into a pedestrian bridge connects the two sides of the park. The park area across the Street
fi'om LCC is reserved for active unstructured play. Along both Sides of the riverbank is the
lawn area for relaxation, sitting, a jogging path and a children’s play area. Tennis courts

and a sculpture area are also located close to the riverbank.

162

Park Activities

The park is very long in length and several of its parts are separated physically by
road bridges. Some of the park areas are located away fiom mainstream activities. The
portion of the park that is located within the main activity area and close to the main
entrance to the park is the study area. It is the most heavily patronized area and at the
interface of several distinct events and neighborhoods.

The Riverfront Park caters to a series of events and activities in the warm months,
from late April through September. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, the
marketplace is open and contributes to the liveliness of the park area. According to the
event planners, the best attended activities in the park are the Fourth of July Ethnic
Festival and the Labor Day Riverfest. On other days individuals and families fi'equent the
park to be involved in activities of their own. During the night time a number of homeless
people come to sleep in the park and frequently are warned off by the police. The major
activity areas are indicated and analyzed to locate as many elements of the park as possible
for the purpose of this study.

The elements are identified as follows: two places for performances,

(1) the Salt Shed and (2) the Sun Bowl amphitheater; (3) a riverwalk which connects the
two bridges as well as provides visitors and opportunity to directly experience the water;
(4) a paved area for exhibition and vendor space which is an extension of the existing
market area; (5) the railroad bridge---a pedestrian bridge restored as a sculptured element
(6) a lawn area for relaxation, sitting, and watching the river; (8) a picnic area (9) a
children’s play area; (10) a sculpture area with seating; (11) a jogging path (12) tennis

courts and platform tennis facilities and (13) the Red Cedar River.

163

People’s Place

A major goal in the Lansing Riverfront Park was to change the character of the
existing area. One of the objectives was to turn the riverfront fi'om its existing decaying
condition to an active public place. Critical to the justification was the need to attract
people to the downtown area. The park therefore was designed to become a “people-
place” for the existing downtown and to enliven the area by attracting people additional to

those who normally come downtown.

Diversity of Users’ Experience and Activities

In the Lansing Riverfront Park the water was the most important element mentioned
in a study by Beebe (1984). People said they liked water, or they liked the views of the
water and boats on the water. The river is the unifying element of the park. The City of
Lansing has taken advantage of the river by organizing the annual riverfest and other
activities that are related to the water, such as boating, riverwalk, picnics, contemplating
and the location of the City Market, residential area and retail center. There is a possibility

that in the near firture the theme of spending leisure time on the water will be realized.

APPENDIX B

MAP OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

 

164

MAP OF LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

C)

 

 

   
   

   
     
 

LU GNUT STADIUM
CEDAR STREET
[4 ' m; (w—
CITY MARKET“

 

SENIOR CENTER

 
 
 
  
  

\-,._., .'——

INA: CENTER

 

 
  

           

\
. w- 4, 3. ,. . \c. ,\ '7‘ J: l , _
.44 4'3?» .. 4:.
THE GRAND RIVER " ”fie,"

THE GRAND RIVER

SHIAWASEE STREET

    

an.
10 20 50 100

 

LANSING RIVERFRONT PARK

 

 

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE OF PARK USERS

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PARK USERS

Interviewer : Sector:

 

 

Time: Weather

 

 

A. Interviewee is ( ) male ( ) female
B. Age group ( ) 15-19 years ( )20-29 years ( )30-39 years
( ) 40-49 years ( ) 50-59 years ( ) 60 years and above
C. Race ( ) Caucasian ( )Afiican- American ( ) Asian ( )Native American

( )Hispanic( )Other

 

 

1. By what mode of transportation did you come to the park ?
a. ( ) bus
b. ( ) walking
c. ( ) cycling
d. ( ) driving, where did you park?

 

Any problem with parking?
If yes what kind of problem?
a. ( ) hard to find
b. ( ) too far
c. ( ) not enough parking spaces
d. ( ) expensive
e. ( ) other

 

 

2. How far did you come?
a. ( ) 1-2 blocks away (1. ( ) 5-10 miles
b. ( ) 2-4 blocks e. ( ) more than 10 miles
c. ( ) 1-2 miles

What is your zip code?

 

165

166

3. From where do you usually enter the park?
) parking lot at City Market

) entrance in front of LCC

) the senior citizen center

) the baseball stadium

) the Lansing Center

) the bus stop at Grand Ave

) other

9° no .o-o .c‘P
AAAAAAA

 

4. Is this is your first visit to the park or how frequently does you come?
a. ( ) first time
b. ( ) couple of times
c. ( ) weekly
d. ( ) other

 

5. What is your purpose of coming to the park or why did you come to the park today?
a. ) to relax

. ( ) meet a fiiend

) to recreate

) Stop by

) study

) eat

) other

4° cm 9.0 0‘
AAAAA

 

6. What type of activities are you participating in the park today? You can (X)

more than once

) strolling
)J'ossins

) sitting

) people watching
) Playing

) cycling

) eating

) reading

) other

=- P‘tp no .a-P 9‘s»
AAAAAAAAA

 

167

7. What other areas in the park have you been to or will you be going today?

- have been to -will be going to

a. ( ) none 3. ( ) none

b. ( ) amphitheater b. ( ) amphitheater

c. ( ) river's edge c ( ) river's edge

d. ( ) vendor stalls d. ( ) vendor stalls

e. ( ) lawn area e. ( ) lawn area

f. ( ) children's play area f. ( ) children's play area
g. ( ) picnic tables g. ( ) picnic tables

1 ( ) benches I. ( ) benches

j. ( ) other j. ( ) other

 

 

8. Either today or at other times, which are most your favorite activity at the park ?

a. ) cycling

b. ( ) court games

c. ( )picnicking

d. ( ) playground activities
e. ( ) walking/jogging

f. ( ) people watching

8. ( ) sleeping

h. ( ) other, please specify

 

9. What are your favorite places in the park? You can (X) more than once.
) Waterfront area

) playground area

) amphitheater

) tennis court

) bridge

) lawn area

) under the trees

) seating area

) Children's playground
) Boardwalk

T .— P‘QO no 9.9 9‘?
AAAAAAAAAA

168

10. What features in the park do you like ? (You can mark 1-5, l-being the best,
5 being the least). Of these features, which do you like best?

E

Features
a. ( ) trees
b. ( ) walkways
.( ) nature trails/bike trails
.( ) water
.( ) play areas
.( ) benches
.( ) boardwalk
.( ) grass area
.( ) paved area
.( ) other

VVVVVVVVVV

"" 5" gm 9",“ Duo
AAAAAAAAAA

 

11. What recommendation do you have to make the park more enjoyable for you?

 

12. What other places adjacent to the park have you visited today or will be visiting?
a. ( )Lugnut stadium

) City Market

) Restaurant nearby

) Lansing Center

) Lansing Community College

) Senior Citizens Center

) other

) none

 

P‘CP no 9.0 .cr.
AAAAAAA

13. Do you ever visit these places and come to the park or go there then to the park?
a. ( ) visit these places and come to the park
b. ( ) come to the park and visit those places
c. ( ) both ways

END OF INTERVIEW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR NONPARK USERS

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR NONPARK USERS

Interviewer : Sector:

 

Time: Weather

 

 

A. Interviewee is ( ) male ( ) female
B. Age group ( ) 15-19 years ( )20-29 years ( ) 30-39 years

( )40—49 years ( ) 50-59 years ( ) 60 years and above
C. Race ( ) Caucasian ( ) Afiican- American ( ) Asian

( )Native American ( )Hispanic ( )Other

 

 

1. How far is your work place or residence from the Riverfi'ont Park ?
Work place is
a. _ blocks
b. _ miles

What is your zip code

2. How often do you come to this location?
a.( )Once or twiceayear
b. ( ) Three to five times a year
c. ( ) weekly
d. ( ) monthly
e. ( ) other

 

3. What is the purpose of your visit to this location today? (You may check more
than one)
a. ( ) Shopping
b. ( ) Watching an event
c. ( ) Visiting and exhibition

( ) Parking

( ) Visiting fiiends /relatives

( ) Watching a game

. ( ) Going to school
( ) Visiting the Riverfront Park
( ) To recreate
( ) Other

 

169

170

j. ( )To recreate
k.( ) Other

 

4. During your past visits, at what time do you usually come (you may check more
than one):

) at lunch time

) in the morning

) in the afternoon

) in the evening

) on a weekday

) on the weekend

) during an event

) when there is no event

) no past visit

*an no 9.0 9'"
AAAAAAAAA

5. How long do you think you will be spending here today?
a. ( ) 10- 15 minutes
b. ( ) 15-30 minutes
c. ( ) an hour
d. ( ) other

 

6. Have you ever visited Lansing Riverfi'ont Park?
a. ( )Iers, go to question b. ( ) If No, go to question 8

7. Iers, what was the purpose of your visit to the park?
. ( ) To relax after watching the game at the stadium
. ( ) To meet a friend
. ( ) To eat and drink
. ( ) To have lunch
. ( ) To study

( ) To wait for a fiiend
- (

) Other (specify)

8. If no, why have you not visited the Lansing Riverfront Park?

"500.0 0"”

on

 

 

 

9. What are your suggestions for the park so that it can serve you better?

 

 

END OF INTERVIEW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

APPENDIX E

OBSERVATION RECORDING FOR PARK USERS

OBSERVATION RECORDING FOR PARK USERS

 

 

 

 

 

Observation No. Sector : Location:

Date: Time Period:

Weather is

a. ( ) cloudy b. ( ) partly cloudy c. ( ) sunny/bright
d. ( ) mild (below 60 ) e. ( ) warm (60 to 80) f. ( ) hot
Observer :

 

 

Location of people and activities in which engaged—{field notes)
During this 60 minute period, using the symbols locate the position
of the people on the attached sector map, what each is doing, and
length of time in sector. '

Type of activity and estimate of length of time engaged (summary)
(make notations along the line)

 

a. eating

 

b. sitting and talking

 

c. sitting alone

 

d. standing around

 

e. children playing

 

f. ball playing, fiisbee tossing

 

s- jogging

 

h. walking, strolling

 

I. gazing at the water

 

j. touching the water

 

k. watching entertainment

 

l . fishing

 

1T1.

 

 

171

172

Characteristics of people

Record by marks the number of people in the sector during this time period which had the
following characteristics:
Total
AGE: below 7 (non-school)
7-15 (elementary school)
15-19 (high school)
20-39 (young adult)
40-59 ( middle adult)
60 & over 90 (older adult)
GENDER: Female
Male

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

RACE: Caucasian
Afiican American
Hispanic
Asian
Other (what)

TOTAL COUNT OF PEOPLE DURING THE TIME PERIOD (estimate)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments relating to things that may have affected use, unusual happenings:

BEHAVIORS
Standing 1
Sitting &
Walking "
Jogging M
Lying _
Watching <
Eating @
Talking "
Playing H
Reading >
Sleeping Z
Exhibit *"‘
Fishing ?
Biking #
Other
DIRECTIONS
‘—

——>

173

OBSERVATION SYMBOLS

ETHNICITY OF USERS

CAUCASIAN - C
AFRICAN AMERICAN- B
HISPANIC- H

NATIVE AMERICAN- N
ASIAN AMERICAN- A
OTHER

 

GENDER O - FEMALE

AGE

N- Non school
H- High school
Y- Young adult
M- Middle age
L- Older adult

APPENDIX F

OBSERVED ACTIVITIES OF PARK USERS

Active

walking
jogging
running
sprinting

biking
roller Skating
roller blading

playing football
playing tennis
jumping
exercising
strolling

pushing stroller
flying kite

Passive

listening to walkrnan

briefing

singing

Praying
photographing
reading

talking

eating

people watching
staring at people
standing

kissing

holding hands
resting on a bike
sleeping

sitting on benches
Sitting on lawn
sitting under tree
Sitting in a vehicle

174

OB SERVED ACTIVITIES OF PARK USERS

Water-related

fishing

feeding ducks
boating

sitting on bridge

Deviant Behavior

foraging the dumpster
collecting cans
exposing themselves
urinating

begging

hiding in shrubs
Shouting

APPENDIX G

PREFERENCES FOR DESIGN ELEMENTS AMONG ETHNIC GROUPS

Table 12. Preferences for Design Elements Among Ethnic Groups (fi'equencies)

 

 

ELEMENTS YES N 0 TOTAL P-VALUE
WATER

Caucasian 65 7 72 8.2 E-12
Afiican American 9 3 12 0.08326
Native American 3 2 5 0.6547
Asian American 3 1 4 0.3 173 1
BOARDWALK

Caucasian 69 12 72 1.58E-08
Afiican American 3 9 12 0.08326
Native American 3 2 5 0.65474
Asian American 1 3 4 0.3 173 1
Hispanic American 3 l 4 0.3 173 1
Other 1 2 3 0.56374
BRIDGE

Caucasian 55 27 72 0.000466
Afiican American 0 2 12 0.067893
Native American 2 3 5 0.654723
Asian American 1 3 4 0.317313
Hispanic American 1 2 3 0.563743
UNDER TREE

Caucasian 68 4 72 4.6E-l4
Afiican American 2 10 12 0.02092
Native American 1 3 4 0.31731
Asian American 3 2 5 0.65472
Hispanic American 2 1 3 0.5637
Other 2 1 3 0.5637

continued

175

Table 12, Continued

LAWN

Caucasian
Afiican American
Native American
Asian American
Other

NwNNO

176

12
10

72
12

1.5E-08
0.02092
0.65472
0.31731
0.5637

 

Caucasian N = 72 Afiican-American = 12 Native American = 5 Asian American =4

Hispanic=3 Other3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, L., & Dove, L., 1989. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment:
A Guide to Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource Conservation. National Institute
for the Urban Wildlife. Washington, DC.

Adams L., Dove, L., & Leedy, D., 1984. Public Attitudes Toward Urban Wetlands From
Storrnwater Control and Wildlife Enhancement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12: 299-303.

Ahern, J., 1991. Planning for an Extensive Open Space System: Linking Landscape
Structure and Function. Landscape Urban Planning. 21: 131-145.

Altman, I., 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey.

Altman, I., & Wohiwill, J.F., 1983. Behavior and The Natural Environment. Plenum
Press, New York.

Al Duerr, 1994. Architecture Design Process. Belknap Press, New York

Al-Sedairy, S., & May, L., 1980. Landscape Architecture in Saudi Arabia. Ministry of
Interior Housing Project, Saudi Arabia.

Ashihara, Y., 1983. The Aesthetic T ownscape. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Barker, R., 1968. Assessment through Observation. Freeman, New York.

Baschak, L., & Brown, R., 1995. An Ecological Framework for the Planning, Design and
Management of Urban River Greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 211-225.

Baud-Bovy, K., & Larsen, H., 1977. The Aesthetics of Elements. Wiley, New York.

Beebe, K., 1984. An Evaluation of Three Urban Riverfiont Parks: Lessons for Designers.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Blair, W., 1980. Visual Resource Management. Environmental Comment. 24: 123-127.

Booth, N., 1990. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design. Waveland Press
Inc., Dekalb, IL.

177

178

Breen, A., & Rigby, D., 1994. Waterfionts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. McGraw-Hill
Inc., New York.

Breen, A., & Rigby, D., 1996. The New Waterfront. McGraw Hill Inc., New York.

Brookes, J., 1987. Gardens of Paradise: The History and design of the Great Islamic
Gardens. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York.

Brolin, B., & Zeisel J., 1968. Mass Housing: Social Research and Design, Architectural
Forum. 1: 129-134.

Brown, B., 1980. The Indiana White River Park Project. City of Indianapolis, IN.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., Stone, A.M., 1992. Public Space. Cambridge
University Press, New York.

Cherulnik, P., 1993. Applications of Environment-Behavior Research. Cambridge
University Press, New York.

Chidister, M., 1986. The Effects of Context on the Use of Urban Plazas. Landscape
Journal. 5: 115-127.

City of Toronto, Department of Parks and Recreation, 1987. A Comparison of Five Inner
City Parks: Implications for Planning. Unpublished Report. City of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada

Cooper, S., & Marans, R., 19774. Environmental Design Research. Saunders,
Philadelphia.

Cranz, G., 1980. Women in Urban Parks. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society. 5: 120-125.

Daley, R., 1990. Chicago River North Branch Riverwalk. City of Chicago, IL.

Easton, G., 1988. Economics of Waterfront Development in Smaller Communities. In
Goodwin, R., Editor, Watetfiont Revitalization. The Land Institute, Washington, DC.

EDAW, 1986. Shenandoah River State Park Feasibility Study. City of Alexandria, VA.

Ellis, J., & Shutes, R., 1993. Urban Rivers: Ecological Impact and Management. In
Reeves, J., Editor, Urban Waterside Regeneration. Ellis Horwood, New York.

179

Ettinghausen, R., & Macdougal, L., 1976. The Islamic Garden. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington DC. ‘

Fabos, J ., Kim, E., Gross, M., 1991. River Corridors: Present Opportunities for
Computer-A ided Landscape Planning. Massachusetts Agricultural and Experimental
Station, Amherst, MA.

Falk, N., 1993. Waterside Renaissance: A Step by Step Approach. In Reeves, 1., Editor,
Urban Waterside Regeneration. Ellis Horwood, New York.

Faruqi, I., 1981. Social and Natural Sciences: The Islamic Perspective. Hodder &
Stoughton, London.

Fog, G., 1986. A Site Design Process. National Recreation and Park Association,
Alexander, VA.

Freedman, J., 1975. Crowding and Behavior. The Viking Press, New York.

Garvin, A, 1997. Urban Parks and Open Space. ULI-The Urban Land Institute,
Washington, DC.

Gehl, J ., 1987. The Life Between Buildings. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York.

Gobster, P., 1995. Perception and Use of A Metropolitan Greenway System for
Recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 401-413.

Gold, 8., 1974. Deviant Behavior in Urban Parks. Journal of Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation. November/December 45 (9): 23-28.

Goodbey, B., 1979. Towards New Perceptions of the Environment: Using the Town Trail.
In Appleyard, D., Editor, The Conservation of European Cities. MIT Press, Cambridge

Hall, P., 1991. Waterfronts: A New Urban Frontier. University of California, Berkeley.

Hall, P., 1993. Waterfi'onts: A New Urban Frontier. In Bruttosemo, R., Editor,
Waterfronts, International Center on Cities, Venice, Italy.

Hargreaves Associates, 1989. Guadelupe River Park Master Plan. City of San Jose, CA.

Hastert, K., & Kimura, L., 1990. Honolulu Waterfiont Master Plan. City of Honolulu,
HI.

180

Hayuth, Y., 1988. Changes on the Waterfront: A Model-Based Approach. In Hoyle, B.,
Pinder, D., & Hussain., M., Editors, Revitalizing the Waterfront. International Dimension
of Dockland Redevelopment. Belhaven Press, London.

Hersberger, R., 1968. A Study of Meaning and Architecture. Man and His Environment
.Newsletter. University of Newcastle, England.

Hodge, S., 1995. Creating and Managing Woodlands Around Towns. I-IMSO Publication
Center, London.

Horrocks, D., & Kolinsky, T., 1996. Turkish Culture in German Society Today. Berghahn
Press, New York.

Hoyer, S., 1993. Modern Park Design: Recent Trends. Thoth Publishers, Amsterdam.
Jacobs, J ., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, London.

Joarder, S., & Neill, J., 1978. The Subtle Differences in Configuration of Small Public
Spaces. Landscape Architecture. 68: 487-491.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge University Press,
New York.

Karakasoglu, S., 1996. Clash of Culture. In Horrocks, D. & Kolinsky. T., Editors, Turkish
Culture in German Society Today. Berghahn Press, New York.

Kasmar, R. , 1970. Forest Resource Management: Decision Making Principles and
Lessons. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Kent, R., Elliott, L., & Cynthia L., 1995. Scenic Routes and Protecting Natural and
Cultural Landscape Feature: A Greenway Skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33:
341-355.

Klancnik, F., 1991. Planning and Determining Feasibility for Private and Public Waterfi'ont
Development. In Long, B., & Roy, J., J., Editors, Waterfront Development. Ann Arbor,
MI.

Koran.

Knox, P., 1988. The Design Professions and the Built Environment. Nichols Publishing
Company, New York.

181

Ladd, F ., 1978. City Kids in the Absence of Legitimate Adventure. In Kaplan, R., &
Kaplan, 8., Editors Humanscape: Environments for People. Duxbury Press, Mass.

Lansing, J., and Marans R., 1969. Evaluation of Neighborhoods. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners. March. 6: 45-47

Lang, J., 1994. Urban Design: The American Experience. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New
York.

Lang, J., 1988. Understanding Normative Theories of Architecture. Environment and
Behavior. 20: 601-602.

Lang, J., 1987. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in
Environmental Design. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York.

Lecsese, M., 1996. In the San Antonio Mode. Landscape Architecture. 86: 42-47.
Lehrman, J ., 1980. Earthly Paradise. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Leung, H., 1989. Land Use Planning Made Plain. Ronald Frye and Company, Kingston,
Canada.

Lewis, G, 1973. People-Plant Interaction: A New Horticulture Perspective, American
Horticulture. 5261: 18-25.

Liddle, M., & Scorgie, G., 1980. Recreation Ecology: Impact of Outdoor Recreation.
Chapman Hall, New York.

Little, C., 1990. Greenways for America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Louwerse, D., 1993. Modern Park Design: Recent Trends. T hoth Publishers, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.

Love, K., Madden, K., 1982. User Analysis: An Approach to Park Planning and
Management. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, DC.

Luymes, D., 1992. An Analysis of Human Use Patterns in Urban Parks: A Cognitive
Approach. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Guelph, Toronto.

Luymes, D., and Tamminga, K., 1995. Integrating Public Safety and Use into Planning
Urban Greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 391-400.

Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

182

Miles, D., Cook, R., Roberts, C., 1977. Plazasfor People. Italian Art and Landscape
Foundation, New York.

More, T., 1985. Central City Parks: A Behavioral Perspective. School of Natural
Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

National Park Service, 1995. Mississippi River Corridor. Conservation Foundation,
Washington, DC.

Odum, E., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Orsini, D. 1990. Mitigating Fear in the Lands cape: Recommendations for Enhancing
User ’3 Perceptions of Safety of Urban Parks. Unpublished M.L.A. Integrative Project,
University of Guelph.

Peepre, A., 1984. Rivetfiont Park and Trail System Master Plan. City of Vancouver,
Canada.

Pielke, R., & Avissar, R., 1990. Influence of Landscape Structure on Local and Regional
Climate. In Miller, T. Editor, Landscape Ecology. McGraw Hill, New York.

Rapoport, A., 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Pergamon Press, New York.
Rapoport, A., 1969. House Farm and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Clifi‘s, NJ.

Rasmussen, G., 1978. Site Development Process. Michigan State University, Cooperative
Extension Service, East Lansing.

Ready, KR, 1981. A Spatial Analysis of Recreation Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behavior
Related to the Grand River in Lansing, Michigan. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.

Rutledge, A., 1981. A VisualApproach to Park Design. Gardland Press, New York.
Rutledge, A., 1976. Looking Beyond the Applause. Landscape Architecture. 66: 55-59.
Rutledge, S., 1992. Riverfront Strategic Policy Plan. Belheiser, New Orleans, LA.

Saniperi, S., 1986. Getting it Started: The Public Sector. In Breen, A. & Rigby, D.,
Editors, Waterfront Planning and Development. New York University Press, New York.

Sasaki A., 1980. Charleston Waterfiont Park City of Charleston, Watertown, MA.

183

Schafl‘er, R., 1993. A Greenway Plan for New York City. Department of City Planning
New York, NY.

Scott, D., 1997. Exploring Time Patterns in People’s Use of a Metropolitan Park District.
Leisure Sciences, 19: 259-174.

Seams, R., 1995. The Evolution of Greenways as an Adaptive Urban Landscape Form.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 6 5-80.

Seymour, W., 1969. Small Urban Spaces. New York University Press, New York.
Smardon, R., 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Steiner, F., 1991. The Living Landscape. McGraw Hill, Inc. New York.

Tabba, Y., 1992. The Medieval Islamic Garden: Typology and Hydraulics. In Garden
History, Issues, Approaches and Methods, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, Washington, DC.

Taylor, J., Zube, E., Sell, J., (1987) Landscape Assessment and Perception Research
Methods. In Bechtel, R., Marans, R., & Michelson, W., Editors, Methods in
Environmental and Behavioral Research, Van Nostrand Rheinhold Company Inc, New
York.

Torre, L., 1989. Waterfi'ont Development. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York.
Trancik, R., 1986. Finding Lost Space. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York.

Unterrnann, R., 1973. Principles and Practices of Grading, Drainage, and Road
Alignment. Reston Publishing Company, VA.

Wallerstein, K., 1990. Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth Century
Paradigm. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Walmsley, A, 1995. Greenways and the Making of Urban Form. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 33: 81-127.

Wekerle, G., 1991. Planning Safer Parks for Women. Landscape Architectural Review 12:
5-6.

Wrenn, D., 1983. Urban Wateifiont Development. The Urban Land Institute,
Washington, DC.

184

Whyte, W., 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Conservation Foundation.
Washington, DC.

Whyte, W., 1988. Rediscovering City Center. Doubleday, New York.

Zeisel, J., 1981. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment. Conservation Foundation,
Washington DC.

Zotti, E., 1990. Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines. Chicago Planning Commission,
Chicago IL.

Zube, E., 1984. Theme in Landscape Assessment Theory. Landscape Joumal, 3: 104-
110.

Zube, E., & Mills, L., 1976. Cross-cultural Explorations in Landscape Perception. In
Zube, E., Editor, Studies in Landscape Perception. Institute of Man and Environment.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

"Illlllllllllllllllllllll“