PLACEMAKING FOR SOCIALLY RESILIENT SITE DESIGN by ABIGAIL R. GLASTETTER A ...

201 Pages·2015·8.84 MB·English

PLACEMAKING FOR SOCIALLY RESILIENT SITE DESIGN

by

ABIGAIL R. GLASTETTER

A THESIS

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning
College of Architecture, Planning & Design

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Manhattan, Kansas

2015

Approved by:

Major Professor
Major Professor Mary Catherine (Katie) Kingery-Page
Copyright
2015 Abigail R. Glastetter. Kansas State University, Manhattan KS.
All Rights Reserved
Major Professor:
Mary Catherine (Katie) Kingery-Page, Associate Professor
Committee Members:
Blake Belanger, Associate Professor
Jessica Falcone, Associate Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture, Regional and Community Planning
College of Architecture, Planning and Design
Kansas State University
abstract
Placemaking for Socially Resilient Site Design is a project determining the most successful site use and organization.
focused on clarifying and characterizing social resilience. The ethnographic research allowed me to inventory
This project used ethnographic methods to answer the and document user’s most desirable site needs and
question: what qualities of place affect the downtown programming through the stakeholder design charrette and
community’s desires for a temporary landscape in Wichita, individual interviews.
Kansas? Through literature review this project further
defined what social resilience meant at the site scale. Social In November 2014 the Wichita Downtown Development
resilience was operationalized as social systems ability to Cooperation requested our team as a partner in developing
maintain function while promoting social trust, reciprocity, a temporary landscape for downtown Wichita, Kansas. The
collaboration, and character between networks of varying site was already selected with the intention of becoming
scales (Putnam 1995). Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park. Funding for this project was
awarded to the WDDC in the form of a $146,025 grant from
Literature review provided the foundational knowledge the Knight Foundation.
on creative placemaking, a design strategy used to
improve community prosperity through a sense of place Using an iterative community feedback process with five
and imageability (Artscape 2014). Place is determined ethnographic interviews, I reevaluated the WDDC’s initial
by a user’s surroundings, and more importantly the Pop-Up Park plan resulting from a community charrette.
memory of social engagement on site (Fleming 2007). Recurring themes from interviews were identity crisis of
Creative placemaking design strategies are valuable downtown, outdoor preference, lack of residential amenities,
and specific to location. Therefore, it was imperative I negative perception of active and public transit, downtown
incorporated ethnographic research methods to answer lifestyle, Wichita as a place for families, and lack of
my focus question. Ethnographic research investigates nighttime activation. Using the recurring interview themes, I
cultural patterns and themes expressed or observed by a proposed a plan conducive to social resilience.
community (LeCompte et al. 1991). This form of research
is unconventional for the typical site design process in
landscape architecture. However, it proved to be effective in
g
for
n
Socially Resilient Site Design
i
k
a
m
e
c
a
l
p
AAbbbbyy GGllaasstteetttteerr
MMaasstteerr’’ss PPrroojjeecctt aanndd RReeppoorrtt
P L A C E M A K I N G

for
Socially Resilient Site Design:
A study focused on further defining social resilience at the
site scale through an ethnographic investigation.
Abigail Glastetter Master’s of Landscape Architecture Professor Mary Katherine Kingery-Page Spring 2015
Lunch at the Glass Market, Copenhagen, Denmark (author 2014)
VI
Table of contents
List of Figures VII
Acknowledgments XI
1. Introduction & Background 1
2. Literature Review 15
3. Methods 37
4. Findings 61
5. Conclusions 141
6. Appendices 155
Appendix A: Literature Review, Ecological Resilience
Appendix B: Literature Review, Sustainable Urbanism
Appendix C: Literature Review Summary Table
Appendix D: Example of Interview Notes
VII
List of Figures
1. Introduction & Background
Figure 1.1: Project Outline Diagram (author 2015) Figure 4.4: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park Proposed Drainage
Plan (author 2015)
3. Methods Figure 4.5: Sketch produced during the stakeholder design
charette diagramming programming opportunties, constraints, and
Figure 3.1: Project methods outline (author 2015)
imageable elements (WDDC and K-State 2015)
Figure 3.2: Existing Site, facing Northwest from Southern
Figure 4.6: Group 1 schematic site design plan for Douglas
boundary (author 2015)
Avenue Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 3.5: Existing Site, facing North from Southern
Figure 4.7: Group 2 schematic site design plan for Douglas
boundary (author 2015)
Avenue Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 3.3: Existing Site, facing Southeast from Northern
Figure 4.8: Group 3 schematic site design plan for Douglas
boundary (author 2015)
Avenue Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 3.4: Existing Site, facing West from Eastern boundary
Figure 4.9: Group 2 concept sketch of site furnishings (WDDC
(author 2015)
2015)
Figure 3.6: Site inventory and observation diagram (author
Figure 4.10: Group 2 concept sketch of standing height tree
2015)
planter (WDDC 2015)
Figure 3.7: Stakeholder design charrette site briefing (author
Figure 4.11: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park stakeholder design
2015)
charrette reflection site design (Mercado and Glastetter 2015)
Figure 3.10: Stakeholder design charrette individual
Figure 4.12: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park phase I collaborative
discussion session (author 2015)
site design (author 2015)
Figure 3.8: Stakeholder design charrette site tour (author
Figure 4.13: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park phase I site section
2015)
(author 2015)
Figure 3.9: Stakeholder design charrette group design
Figure 4.14: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park standing height tree
presentation (author 2015)
planter (author 2015)
Figure 4.15: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park phase II collaborative
4. Findings site design (Mercado 2015)
Figure 4.16: Vegetated dry basin diagram (author 2015)
Figure 4.1: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park site in proximity to
Figure 4.17: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park phase III collaborative
other attractions in downtown WIchita, Kansas (author 2015)
site design (author 2015)
Figure 4.2: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park Site existing
Figure 4.18: Cement and hackberry bench site detail (Second
pedestrian traffic count (author 2015)
year landscape architecture students 2015)
Figure 4.3: Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park Proposed
Figure 4.19: Tree planter with seating at base site detail (Second
Circulation Plan (author 2015)
year landscape architecture students 2015)
VIII
Figure 4.20: Metal standing height tree planter site detail Figure 4.36: Phase I Section from an Iconic Front Yard cutting
(Second year landscape architecture students 2015) through site east to west (author 2015)
Figure 4.21: Wooden bench with steel frame site detail (Second Figure 4.37: Phase I Section from an Iconic Front Yard cutting
year landscape architecture students 2015) through site north to south (author 2015)
Figure 4.22: Noting and coding example from interview analysis Figure 4.38: Phase II site plan for an Iconic Front Yard (author
(author 2015) 2015)
Figure 4.23: Analysis photomontage in reflection of Walt’s Figure 4.39: Aerial perspective of an Iconic Front Yard (author
ethnographic interview (author 2015) 2015)
Figure 4.24: Analysis photomontage in reflection of Nikki’s Figure 4.40: WDDC’s proposed site plan for Douglas Avenue
ethnographic interview (author 2015) Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 4.25: Analysis photomontage in reflection of Heccubus Figure 4.41: WDDC’s proposed site furnishing details for
and Succubaes’ ethnographic interview (author 2015) Douglas Avenue Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 4.26: Analysis photomontage in reflection of Katherine’s Figure 4.42: WDDC’s proposed site elements for Douglas
ethnographic interview (author 2015) Avenue Pop-Up Park (WDDC 2015)
Figure 4.27: Analysis photomontage in reflection of Pablo’s Figure 4.43: Downtown identity represented at an Iconic
ethnographic interview (author 2015) Front Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.28: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front Figure 4.44: Improvements to downtown residential
Yard (author 2015) amenities at an Iconic Front Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.30: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front Figure 4.45: Preferred outdoor spaces at an Iconic Front
Yard (author,2015) Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.32: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front Figure 4.46: Improvements to downtown active and public
Yard (author 2015) transit infrastructure at an Iconic Front Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.29: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front
Yard (author 2015) 6. Appendices
Figure 4.31: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front
Figure 6.1: Literature review summary
Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.33: Conceptual process drawing for an Iconic Front
Yard (author 2015)
Figure 4.34: Conceptual photomontage for an Iconic Front Yard
(author 2015)
Figure 4.35: Phase I site plan for an Iconic Front Yard (author
2015)
IX
Touring the Market, Copenhagen, Denmark (author 2014)
X