WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK - Amazon S3...of the park users that were surveyed come from the boroughs of New York City. But it is also a destination for visitors from other parts of the

WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation

By:Project for Public Spaces

For:The Washington Square Park Council

FINAL REPORT December 1, 2005

Washington Square Park: A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation Page 2 of 18

IntroductionWashington Square Park is one of the best known and best-loved destinations in New York City. And as a neighborhood park and civic gathering place, it may be one of the great public spaces in the world.

Anyone who visits the park and who looks at how people use it can confirm in just a few minutes that it has nearly all of the key attributes of a great public space. These attributes, first identified in the research of William Whyte’s Street Life Project (and later refined and expanded upon through PPS’s work) are: people engaged in a wide range of activities and uses; diversity of ages and gender; people in groups as well as alone; most of the parts of the park are used (there few empty or unused areas) and; that people use the park at all different times of day, week and even during different weather conditions. It’s success can also be measured by other indicators such as the amount of affection that is being displayed, it’s overall comfort and feeling of being safe, the level of stewardship, and the way that people engage in different activities at very close range and interact with each other easily.

Washington Square Park has a unique and very special “vibe” which is tied closely to it’s spontaneous music scene, and to the park’s longstanding use as a performance and protest space. Park users say that this is the park’s most important attribute and its supporting activities must be preserved and enhanced at all costs. Residents, performers, and regular visitors care deeply about this park and its history, spontaneity, function as a gathering space and magnet for activity, and are a tremendous asset to this park as well. Much of this report focuses on these two aspects: people and culture, and how the park can be improved to support both.

BackgroundProject for Public Spaces (PPS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating and sustaining public places that build communities. PPS provides technical assistance, education, and research through programs in parks, plazas and central squares; buildings and civic architecture; transportation; and public markets. Since 1975, PPS has worked in over 1,500 communities in the United States and around the world, helping people to grow their public spaces into vital community places.

In the early summer of 2005, the Washington Square Park Council asked PPS to conduct an analysis of how Washington Square Park was being used in terms of how people were using different parts of the park and how well the current park design and amenities supports people’s activities. The analyses included both an online and intercept survey of people in the park, systematic observations and pedestrian counts at entrances.


In early August, PPS’s observers mapped park use on one weekend and two weekdays, noting number of people using the park, which parts of the park were used by different types of people, what activities they engaged in, the level of use of entrances, and use of the park by time of day. PPS also conducted informal observations, recorded the condition of amenities in the park, surveyed a sample of 150 people in the park and posted the survey on-line, to which 38 people have responded. The results of the study were presented to the Council and later, to the neighborhood as part of a workshop. In general, the analysis was designed to better understand the primary uses of the park and the perceived needs of park users. The effort did not poll people on their perceptions or opinions about the proposed redesign of the park. Rather, the surveys were designed to give people an opportunity to talk about what was important to them about the park, and to identify uses and activities that could potentially be incorporated into the future design. The Council also hoped to increase community involvement in the park and elicit ideas for programming.

In addition to the observations and surveys, PPS facilitated a placemaking workshop for approximately 50 stakeholders, including representatives from New York University, the Parks Department, Community Board 2, major interest groups such as the petanque, chess, and scrabble groups, musicians, playground and dog run advocates, among others. The participants watched a powerpoint presentation that included the results of the analysis and then went out to the park and evaluated sections of it, using PPS’s Place Performance Evaluation Game. A full description of the feedback from the workshop can be found in the Appendix.

The workshop was a good beginning and a step in moving forward constructively but there is still a way to go to evolve the proposed plan so that it represents the knowledge and data that has been gathered. The trust and open-mindedness that the group showed to the process and their willingness to look at the whole park needs to be built upon. People revealed a deep understanding and expertise about the park and also an interest in and ability to listen to the ideas of others. There were many positive ideas that were generated. And the group also began to outline a meaningful role for a possible partnership organization going forward. They had many suggestions for increasing the management presence in the park and filling the current “stewardship” void. They came up with a series of small upgrades to different parts of the park that could take place right away, or in the spring, that are not dependent on the redesign or on the commencement of Parks’ Phase I plan. And finally the workshop reinforced several design and management-related issues that should be addressed. Some are in response to the current proposed plan, others are not being considered but should be.

General Perceptions The survey and workshop elicited some interesting perceptions of the park in terms of what people care about and what they want to preserve, and confirmed PPS’s initial impressions that Washington Square Park is a successful and thriving place that must be understood if the proposed redesign is to be successful.

o What people like about the park are other people. The majority of people surveyed said that what they liked best about the park was the people and diversity of people it attracted.

o People like the current park and its character. While people see the need for upgrades of certain current facilities and amenities (pavement, bathrooms, etc.), they like the park the way it is.

o Use of the park overall is very good—if not extraordinary. All quadrants of park are well used, although some more than others. The intensity of use focuses on the center fountain area as the day progresses and into the evening, although the center is intensely used throughout the day. The side areas are less used than the center overall, and generally accommodate quieter, less people-intensive uses, save for the playgrounds and the chess area, which anchor the park with consistent, heavy use.

o People stay in the park, they don’t simply pass through. The majority of survey respondents reported staying an hour or more and a full one-third stays from one to three hours. In addition, a large percentage of park users come to the park by themselves, yet they spend a significant amount of time. This is a very healthy indicator of variety of uses and activities and their ability to engage people.

o The park is a true destination. Many people come to Washington Square Park from around the city and the region, and they come to the park on a regular basis – daily or weekly. Tourists from around the country and the world add to this daily use as well. Again this speaks to the attractiveness of the park as a destination, and the variety of uses that make it comfortable yet enticing for repeated visits.


Current Use Where park users live The park is used primarily by people from the surrounding neighborhood and from New York City. Nearly one third of the survey respondents come from the surrounding neighborhood in Manhattan. Overall three quarters of the park users that were surveyed come from the boroughs of New York City. But it is also a destination for visitors from other parts of the country and the world. By being both a local park and a tourist destination, people who use it have both with an opportunity to “see and feel NYC life in action,” as one respondent wrote. This gives the park a very special alchemy—it is at once a local and international destination.

Where are you from?

Bronx

CAUpstate NY

MA

International

ILWA

OR

NV

Long Island

NJ

Queens

Manhattan (other) Brooklyn

Surrounding Neighborhoods

Figure 1: Survey question: "Where are you from?"

How long people stay People stay in the park, they don’t simply pass through. Nearly half of survey respondents reported staying an hour or more and a full one third stays from one to three hours. In addition, a large percentage of park users who stay in the park for a long time, come here by themselves, indicating that the park is a comfortable place to be even when alone. The length of time that people spend in the park shows that the park is “deep” in terms of providing both a variety of uses and activities that engage people. In parks that are “shallow or thin” people only stay a short time or simply walk through and do not stay.

Figure 2: Survey question: "How long do you plan to stay in the park?"


Use of the park over the course of a day The type of use in the park also changes over the course of the day. Morning and afternoons tend to be quieter with use more distributed throughout the park, while evenings are more social and focused on the center of the park (as shown in Figures 3, 4 & 5). On the weekends, use increases as the day goes on; during the week, it peaks in the afternoon (Figure 8).

Figure 3: Activity mapping showed that the park becomes more social over the course of the day

Figure 4: Observed activity at 1pm. Activity is distributed throughout most of the park.

Figure 5: Observed activity at 8:30pm. Activity is more focused around the fountain ring.

Light Use Heavy Use

Use of the park by gender The park attracts high levels of women (41%) , which, is a good indicator of the level of comfort of a place as women are generally more particular than men about the quality of the public spaces that they use. Men and women also use slightly different parts of the park; see “How different parts of the park are used,” below.

Females41%

Males59%

Figure 6: Gender breakdown of park users, from activity mapping

Arch

Chess

Playground Scrabble

Holley Fountain

Dog Run

Petanque

TeenPlaza

Arch

Chess

Playground Scrabble

Holley Fountain

Dog Run

Petanque

TeenPlaza


What people do in the park The activities that occur in the park vary according to weekday versus weekend. During the week, the park is a refuge for students, office workers, parents, and other regulars who socialize, eat, and visit the playgrounds and dog runs. On the weekends, there is much more of a focus on performances and the users include more visitors (from near and far) versus people from the surrounding neighborhoods. While small-scale, impromptu performances happen throughout the week, on the weekends the center of the park becomes a major performance venue (200 people watching a magic show). Apart from socializing, watching performances was the most frequently observed activity on the weekend. As the day progresses, the type of use also changes, from more quiet activities during the day to more social activities in the evening (see Figure 3, above).

Park activities, weekday vs. weekend

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Quiet Relaxation

Grass / Game

Playing / Playground

Reading / Writing / Drawing

Playing Chess / Boardgame

Watching Chess / Boardgame

Eat / Picnic

Performing

Watching Performance

Socializing

Sunbathing

Sleeping

Group / Tour

Buying from Vendor

Dog Run

People Watching

Act

ivity

% of park users

Weekday Weekend

Figure 7: Activity mapping showed that there is much more of a focus on performances on the weekends than during the week.

Use over the course of the day

0100

200300400

500600700

800900

8:00am 10:30am 1:00pm 3:30pm 6:00pm 8:30pm

Time of day

Num

ber

of p

eopl

e ob

serv

ed

WeekendWeekday

Figure 8: Daily park use: weekend vs. weekday. On the weekend, park use increases into the evening.


How different parts of the park are used Activities in the park were recorded on a plan and then the data was entered into the computer using a matrix that broke the park down into 95 different areas. From this data, different areas of the park can be analyzed in terms of the number of people who are using each particular area at different times, the type of person (age, sex) and what activity is occurring in that location. We found that all areas of the park are used, although some more than others. For example, the center area around the fountain is used throughout the day, with the intensity of use focusing here as the day progresses. The park paths are very popular for quieter activities such as sitting, eating, reading, and talking; and the benches along them can accommodate many people. The edges of the park are less used overall than the center or the internal paths, and generally accommodate quieter, less people-intensive uses, save for the playgrounds and the chess area.

Gender distribution is fairly even throughout the park, with the exception of two “gender magnets,” the chess area for men, and the playgrounds for women (although both playgrounds attract a large number of men as well). The outer paths also attract a higher percentage of men than women.

Figure 9: Distribution of men throughout the park. Figure 10: Distribution of women throughout the park. Women tend to use the outer edges of the park less than men do.

In addition to thinking about Washington Square Park as one place, we tried to get a deeper understanding of the many sub “places” within it, (e.g., dog runs, petanque courts, stage, playgrounds, chess area, area around the regular dhosa vendor, fountain area, quiet sitting areas, etc.). By looking at these individual places, we found that the park accommodates an amazingly wide range and seemingly incongruous number of activities (and people) at the same time, in very close quarters, and they seem to co-exist well.

From the mapping of activities that we conducted in the park, we learned that some of the areas are well used while others are underperforming or are not used, some places are so well used that additional amenities could be added to accommodate additional use, some places (such as quieter areas near entrances) could be made more comfortable with the addition of a different type of amenity (e.g. benches rather than picnic tables), and some areas are isolated which impacts their potential use (e.g. area behind the park buildings). The diagrams below show some of this information.

Arch

Chess

Playground Scrabble

Holley Fountain

Dog Run

Petanque

TeenPlaza

Arch

Chess

Playground Scrabble

Holley Fountain

Dog Run

Petanque

TeenPlaza


Figure 11: Overview of the park, with areas of detail highlighted

Figure 12:

In the northwest corner, the picnic tables are heavily used (mainly for scrabble), but the areas without tables see almost no use.

(composite of multiple days & times shown)

Figure 13:

The stage and the central section of Teen Plaza are used very little. The petanque court is very popular, but could be better connected to the rest of the park.

(composite of multiple days & times shown)

Figure 14:

In the southeast entrance corner, the round seating areas are pleasant, but the seating in the center is somewhat awkward – often resulting in only one or two people using each area. (recording from a single point in time)

The evaluation also indicated that the park is flexible in some areas and inflexible in other areas. The park’s ability to adapt to and support a huge variety of public events and interactions, from hundreds of people to handfuls, all in the same space, is one of its hallmarks, and a unique characteristic that was reinforced by our behavior mapping. However, many of the park’s perimeter areas, especially those around the outer entrances are rigid spaces that can be dominated by one person or one small group and do not foster flexible activity.

In addition, the park’s central fountain area has its own inner and outer layer where the inner fountain, and the retaining wall around it, are highly functional and work extremely well to support a myriad of activities and interactions at once. However, the areas surrounding the fountain ring, such as the park buildings, stage/petanque court, and playground do not create a supportive edge for this activity.


What people like best about the park In general, when polled about what they liked about the park, people tended to refer to the park’s characteristics and ambience, not to specific park amenities (the playground, the chess area, the fountain, the dog run), although we know from direct observation that these amenities are the park’s anchors and are very heavily used and loved.

What do you like best about the park?

0102030405060

People

/ dive

rsity

/ atm

osphe

re

Music

/ perf

ormers

/ ente

rtaine

rs

Proxim

ity(ho

me/work

/NYU)

Trees / l

ands

capin

g

Relaxin

g / qu

iet/ la

id ba

ck

Activit

ies/ va

riety

Park its

elf

Founta

in

History

Green sp

ace

Dog ru

n

Openn

ess /

open s

pace

Shade

Chess

Bench

es SunSafe

ty

Acces

sibility

/ Fen

celes

s

Playgrou

nd

# of

resp

onse

s

Figure 15: Survey question: "What do you like best about the park?"


Assets/Skills Inventory PPS conducted a rudimentary asset/skills inventory as part of the intercept surveys. We asked participants what skills they would like to learn, and what things they did especially well. The results show that there is an opportunity for the park to serve as a venue for sharing these skills.

What skills would you like to learn? What do you do especially well?

Sports 17 24% Language 10 14%

Music 9 13% Art/Painting 7 10% Gardening 6 8.5%

Chess 4 5.7% Computer 2 2.9%

Writing 2 2.9% Lectures 2 2.9%

Juggle 2 2.9% Knitting 2 2.9%

Photography 2 2.9% Acting 1 1.4%

Magic tricks 1 1.4% Pottery 1 1.4%

Theatre 1 1.4%

Art 11 17%Sports 9 14%Language 6 9%Photography 5 8%Table Games 3 5%Landscaping 3 5%Writing 3 5%Reading/story telling 3 5%Music 3 5%Animals 3 5%Business/finance 2 3%History of park 2 3%Street theatre 2 3%Architecture 2 3%Cooking 1 1.5%Dental Care 1 1.5%Filmmaking 1 1.5%Jogging 1 1.5%Knitting 1 1.5%Religion 1 1.5%Babysitting 1 1.5%

Table 1: Skills inventory


Pedestrians entering and exiting the park Pedestrian counts at all of the park’s entrances show that the park’s surroundings directly affect the way in which people approach it. The busiest entrances are those that are nearest to the most active uses: 5th

Avenue, 6th Avenue, Broadway, NYU, and 3rd Street.

Figure 16: Washington Square Park in context. The entrances nearest to the busiest street activities were the most used. (Note, these

observations were taken during summer, when NYU is not in session)


3. Characteristics of Great Parks and how Washington Square measures up

Identity and Image: Washington Square Park has a very strong identity and image as a gathering place, performance space, and refuge. When we asked people “What do you like best about Washington Square Park,” the most common answer (nearly a quarter of all respondents) was “the people” (or “the atmosphere” or “the diversity”). The park has the unique ability to provide a common venue for people from all social, economic and racial backgrounds. One observer noted that “apart from the subway, this is the only place in the city where this really happens.” Other people noted the “eclectic nature,” “people watching,” “freedom,” its “magnetic social activity.” Above all, people cherish the “feel” of the park, and this feel is created by the diversity of people who use it.

“It works beautifully for a great variety of people -- residents, tourists, families, couples, singles. It's informal and comfortable”

“ [I love the "live and let live" attitude and the spontaneous music and theatre that erupts all around you as you traverse the park.

Safety and Security: park users rarely noted safety as a concern. Most people felt the presence of “undesirables” and drug dealers, but the vibrant and heavy positive use going on around them tends to marginalize this negative activity, or at least make people feel relatively comfortable around it. As evidence of this, small children can be found in the park, with their parents, late at night (9pm) – in the fountain and even in unlit playgrounds.

Rate the Safety of the Park Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Figure 17: Survey question: "Rate the safety of the park: Most respondents rated the park “Good” or “Excellent” in terms of safety.

Amenities: although Washington Square Park has hundreds of activities going on at any time, the amenities to support those activities are somewhat limited. For example, food choices are poor, and existing vendors are not available during many hours when the park is well used (e.g. each morning and evening). In addition, the public bathrooms and water fountains are in bad shape, and many, many regular park users either never use them, or don’t even know they exist.

According to the ratings on the survey of park users, many of the existing park amenities such as waste receptacles, drinking fountains, lighting, benches, tables, etc. all could be improved.

o The drinking fountains, which are frequently out of order, were poorly rated. Many survey respondents didn’t even know they existed.


o The restrooms fared similarly, most respondents were not aware of them or had never used them. Negative activity dominates here, especially at night and despite their proximity to park administration buildings and the dog run, the restrooms are probably the least safe part of the park.

o The lack of varied food options was frequently cited by workshop participants, many of whom thought that a coffee vendor, small snack vendor, or kiosk would be appropriate in several parts of the park. Indeed the current food vending in the park is mostly hot dogs and ice cream vendors who pack up precisely at 8pm in the summer, just when the activity in the park is beginning to build. The very popular dhosa vendor is an exception to this rule.

o Most workshop participants noted the poor location and number of waste receptacles within the park.

o Lighting was noted frequently by workshop participants as inadequate, and not appropriate to the parks character.

o There is very little in the way of signage both informational and wayfinding, that directs people to various places around the park or a map showing where these exterior destinations are. Workshop participants frequently mentioned the need for more informational and historic signage.

o Paving: Workshop participants also noted the poor condition of the park’s pavement. This issue is also linked closely to drainage, which was also a source of concern for participants. However, most survey respondents ranked the paths and paved areas as good, or even excellent, indicating that they did not feel the condition of the paved areas had any bearing on their enjoyment of the park.

o Seating was judged by survey respondents to be good to excellent. However, proving the PPS maxim “you can never have enough seating” virtually every workshop group suggested that seating in the park could be improved. Some even suggested that certain areas (e.g. the northwest corner) were “underutilized,” meaning more people could/should use this space but there is not adequate seating provided. More picnic tables in the NW and NE corner of the park were specifically suggested. Several groups suggested moveable chairs and tables for different areas—including the stage/teen plaza area which could accommodate them in conjunction with a coffee/snack vendor (which was also suggested by another workshop group). One group even mentioned seating for the perimeter of the fountain.

o Lawns: Many respondents suggested that lawns and sitting areas could be improved. People said that they wanted the lawns to be greener and more lush. The eastern lawns are shadier and not as large or in good shape whereas the western lawns are larger and brighter and therefore better used, especially the lawn between the dog run and the park buildings. Lawns are also not accessible, and workshop participants suggested ways to make them more so.

o Plantings: Workshop participants frequently mentioned better planters and plantings especially around the entrances and focal points.

Seasonal strategy: the park does not have a strong plan for accommodating and encouraging winter use. The best parks are well used at all times of the year. And while we do not have usage data on Washington Square Park in the winter, we know it is not as well used then. In the future, winter events could attract people in colder months.

Diverse funding sources: a plan for funding future improvements or management activities (once the capital improvements have been made) has not been developed. While it is advantageous for a park to draw its funding from both public and private sources, each park needs to be evaluated individually in terms of the type of improvements that are needed both short and long term and in terms of the management that is required. Sometimes, earned income, in the form of concession revenues and sponsorship of events, grants, donations, volunteers, and public funding all can support a park to be a lively, active, well-managed destination. The diversity of funding allows for no single group to dominate the discussion of park control. However, the city should always set park policy (hours, etc.) and enforce it.


The inner and outer park: the edges of Washington Square Park are not as successful as the park itself.The best parks are linked both physically and psychically to the organizations, institutions and activities that surround it. And although Washington Square Park supports a wide variety of uses, it could be connected to its edges in a more substantive way. For example, when people drive on the streets surrounding Washington Square Park, they should feel like they are driving through a park environment.. People walking in the area should feel like they are entering the vicinity of the park much further away than they do now.

In the future, a broader park district with traffic calmed streets around the park, improved intersections and park entrances that are planned so that they are clearly visible and attractive from a distance should all be considered as part of the improvements to the park. People should clearly see the park and feel its influence both from across the street and from at least a block away.

Management: Today Washington Square Park functions in a very successful state of lightly-managed chaos and this needs to be carefully considered and respected in thinking about the parks management program in the future. Many, if not most events and activities in the park are impromptu, if not totally spontaneous. It is this spontaneity that many users find attractive and exciting about the park, and one of its most cherished qualities. Therefore, any attempt to manage the park must be done with a light touch—to reinforce the park’s existing character and atmosphere—instead of stifling it with regulations.

Issues around specific places in the park

The Central Fountain The fountain (including the surrounding “ring”) is the heart and soul of the park, and the hub of its social life. It is an area that supports activities of varying scale and character, and on almost any day, one can find people reading quietly having group conversations, sunbathing and people-watching, and watching performances. The specific design elements effectively support the many activities that happen here.

The fountain and fountain steps People linger along the outside rim of the fountain with groups of friends, or sit in the center basking in the sun or people-watching. The fountain itself supports many types of stance – sitting on the top, facing in, facing out, leaning on the outside, sitting on the inside steps, dipping toes in the water. Although technically they’re not supposed to, children use the fountain all the time in the summer.

The wall and outer ring The sitwall that forms the outer ring around the fountain is one of the most versatile park amenities we’ve ever seen. The configuration of the space allows for a “social triangulation” – a flexible way for people in groups of varying sizes to use the space in several ways simultaneously. These spaces are also some of the most popular performing spaces in the park, especially in the evenings.


Some specifics on why the outer ring works:

There are multiple seating options and possibilities for different orientations.The sitwalls that make up the tree pits are configured such that they provide a tremendous number of possible seating orientations. Facing away from the fountain is a short sitwall that younger and older people often use. And that same wall, facing the other direction, affords the opportunity to perch on top of, lean against, or sit with legs dangling. The sitwalls directly adjacent to the trees provide a lower seating surface that faces the fountain. People also frequently sit on the bricks that cover the tree pits, leaning against the trees, stretched out, or cross-legged in groups. Apart from levels and types of seating, these seating areas are very flexible socially. The “nook” portion (the inward-facing angle where the two levels of walls meet) can be a place for a small conversation, or can support a group of musicians facing each other with a crowd that is watching them. This is a valuable protected space in the midst of the busiest part of the park.

The levels are key to the functioning of the space. The path surrounding the sitwall ring is substantially higher than the adjacent part of the inner fountain area, creating a level dynamic here that serves several important functions:

Better and more lines of sight for viewing into the fountain area enable more people to view any performance that might be happening.A perceived visual focus on the fountain area that enables people sitting in the outer ring of benches to watch and vicariously enjoy the activity around the fountain.An acoustic space, projecting sound out towards the center, and containing it (somewhat) within the park.A theatre space that can expand into the main plaza as necessary to accommodate crowds.

The overall size of the plaza is appropriate for the functions that occur there. The current size of the plaza is just big enough to provide sufficient distance between groups of performers. This allows for several simultaneous performances, adding to the variety of activity in the area. For seating, the sitwall provides a semi-social area that is close enough to feel the energy of the center while being protected and somewhat private.

Areas adjacent to the fountain ring. The area outside of the fountain ring (beyond the tree pits) is an important connection and link between the center and the park area around it. However, currently this does not function as it should. For example, the playground is surrounded by two fences and is cut off from being at least visually a part of the center. The location of the large dog run between the center and park buildings blocks access to the buildings and precludes their potential public use.

Playgrounds. The playgrounds are a major park anchor, attracting steady and heavy use throughout the day, especially the larger playground east of the arch. But both playgrounds have some issues in common. For example parents said that neither is comfortable for them to use due to the lack of shade, amenities and lack of connections to the surrounding park area. Workshop participants noted that the smaller “tot lot” lacks amenities and signage around it, and that this area could be significantly upgraded to help offset the high fence and segregation of the playground itself, for example by integrating the picnic area and lawn nearby so parents felt comfortable letting their children run on the lawn.


The larger playground was noted as having a “tired” look and needing new equipment. However more major issues related to the design were also brought up and discussed at the workshop. First, the double fence around the playground was thought to be counter-productive. The group that looked at the NE quadrant of the park suggested removing the inner fence and allowing the children to run on the grass hillside facing the fountain. More importantly however, is the idea that the playground is not integrated with the life and activity of the park itself. The participants suggested somehow bringing the musicians from the park into the playground to play for the kids. Temporary shade structures for the summer months, such as umbrellas or canopies were suggested. Another idea would be to move the playground to the park perimeter so that the area around the fountain could be more flexible.

Games areas. Members of the chess, petanque, and scrabble groups were at the workshop and provided valuable insight into how these areas functioned and how they could be improved. For example, there was a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of both other users and the players themselves in “opening up” their activities and allowing outsiders to watch, learn, try, play and interact with the players. People suggested lessons, equipment rental and other ideas to bring these activities out of their “boxes.” In particular, the petanque players feel isolated on their raised platform and said that they would greatly benefit from a more visible and interactive on-grade location. Scrabble players said they did not like the concrete walls behind their seating area, and would prefer a more open and transparent arrangement. This came as a great surprise to many, who assumed the Scrabble players preferred the protection the walls gave them.

Dog runs. We did not specifically study the interior and functioning of the dog runs themselves, however we did interview dog owners and dog run users, and observed activity in and around the dog runs themselves, much as we did with the playgrounds. The dog runs serve an important purpose as anchors in the park, attracting users through all hours and weather. Dog owners are in many cases the “eyes and ears” of the park, and they do the park a great service. A specific study of the dog runs themselves would have to be performed to note upgrades to the dog runs and how they function both for the dogs and their owners.

Park perimeter – the sidewalks and streets outside the park. Our observations indicated that the perimeter of the park is underused, and undervalued. Many, many people are walking by and around the park and enjoying it vicariously. However, the perimeter of the park, including the streets, are not being incorporated into this plan. Sidewalks around the park could be extended, and Washington Square North, South, East and West could be seriously traffic-calmed, with multiple stop signs, crosswalks, textured paving and other treatments that would minimize the impact of cars on the park perimeter, but more importantly would bring the edge uses into the park, and allow for the neighborhood to become part of the park.

Buildings. The park buildings at the south end have great potential. However, as they are now, they and the park vehicles that are parked around them are major obstacles to activity and do not support the park, although they house major park equipment and personnel. People suggested giving park workers parking permits to park on the street and keeping cars out of the park altogether. They also suggested upgrading the facilities, and staffing them to keep them clean and safe. They could be used for a variety of activities ranging from park management to better restrooms, to storage for games, a small café kiosk and for sharing information and developing park programs related to skills identified in the survey

Ideas for short-term upgrades Workshop participants brainstormed short-term fixes that would help make the park more enjoyable without major new funding. Many of these upgrades could make portions of the park more usable and enjoyable during the Phase I redesign, when a large portion of the park, including the central fountain, will be off limits. Some of these ideas might require a private partner to execute.

Physical improvements More picnic tables in NW quadrant. Remove chicken wire, caution tape and police barriers in favor of more contextual (or no) fencing. More waste receptacles in every section of the park.


Experiment with a new coffee vendor in the SE quadrant of the park. Take down the railing around the stage area. Canopies or umbrellas in the playgrounds. Upgrade plantings at all entrances (except arch, where plantings are good) Allow petanque equipment rental from Park building. Advertise this around S perimeter of park. Install several kiosks advertising park events, park website, tours, and history. Logical locations include

four park corners, Garibaldi and Holly Plazas (select two initial locations). Pay for bathroom attendants. Get temporary or self-cleaning bathroom for playground Establish Scrabble, Chess and Petanque mentoring/teaching/demonstration/rental programs. Create a WSP website, provide information on park events, history, etc. link to kiosks in park. Better seating, information, amenities, shade and food near focal points such as the tot lot, Holly statue,

dog runs, Scrabble and chess areas. Move vehicles out of buildings area, remove parking lot. Give park workers permits to park on street, in

area.

Programming/Management Opportunities There were many instances where people had programming and maintenance suggestions that would be appropriate for a private partner/management organization. These ideas included (some of these have been mentioned above):

Upgrade plantings and planters at entrances and around focal points (members of the community or local partners could “adopt” these planters.

Monitor/set up/break down movable tables and chairs Arrange for more variety of food in the park, including a coffee vendor Negotiate bathroom access at adjacent NYU buildings, for parents and children using the playground

(affinity group cards?) Sanction and create orientation and informational signage for the park to link park to history, surrounding

neighborhood, and inform users of appropriate use of various amenities (dog runs, tot lot, etc.) Work with musicians to create program for children in or near playground Work with local art programs to have temporary installations in park, especially during less active times of

year (winter). Establish community gardening program with local groups.

Many of these ideas could be done in the short term others are long term. In the long term, a well-managed partnership organization could potentially mobilize the community into a force for positive activity, maintenance and stewardship in the park above and beyond what they already accomplish in their individual affinity groups. In fact, simply bringing together all the different affinity groups (chess, petanque, musicians, dog owners, parents, etc.) from time to time as in the workshop could be an effective way to build stronger ties among the different park stewards and leverage each of their interests and investments to better the park as a whole.

WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation

APPENDICES

1. Research methodology 2. Sample survey forms & activity maps 3. Survey and activity mapping data 4. Description of Placemaking Workshop & summary of workshop responses 5. History of Washington Square Park (contributed by Luther Harris, author of Around

Washington Square: An Illustrated History of Greenwich Village, 2003).

By:Project for Public Spaces

For:The Washington Square Park Council

December 1, 2005

Washington Square Park: A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation Appendix 1 – Research Methodology Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1: Research Methodology

A study of existing conditions in the Park was undertaken in which observations of the use of the park were made at different times and park users’ opinions, perceptions, and suggestions for improvements were elicited. Techniques consisted of:

• Survey of park users to determine perceptions, sensitivities and solutions to issues such as safety and security, programs and activities, and maintenance and appearance of the Park. 141 intercept surveys were conducted in the park, whereby PPS staffers approached park users randomly. An online survey, distributed by the Washington Square Park Council, solicited an additional 34 responses.

• On site observations to study and map user behavior on three separate days and analyze how the park is currently being used at different times of day. Behavior mapping observations were performed by 8 staffers on one weekday and two weekend days.1

Photographic documentation of existing conditions in the Park, including open spaces, landscape features, popular uses and activities, etc.

A public workshop to learn what areas and features were best liked, brainstorm ideas for improvement, and outline specific potential actions. PPS presented a slide show illustrating place-making examples from other cities to begin the brainstorming process.

1 “Weekend day” data is a combination of data collected Saturday, July 30th (6:00pm – 8:30pm) and Sunday, July 31 (8:00am – 3:30pm). This data was recorded over 2 days for scheduling reasons.

Washington Square Park User Survey

Hi! The Washington Square Park Council (WSPC) is conducting a survey to find out how people feel about the Park and what ideas they may have about it; what they like best about it and how it might be improved. Please help us by participating in this survey.

1. On average, how often do you use Washington Square Park? (please circle one)1.1. Every day 1.3 Two or three times a month 1.5 Never 1.2. Two or three times a week 1.4 Two or three times a year

2. When you use Washington Square Park, what do you do here? (check all that apply)Today Usually Today Usually Today Usually

2.1. Walk/stroll2.2. Use park as shortcut 2.3. Jog/Speedwalk2.4. Walk dog 2.5. Visit dog run 2.6. Visit Playgrounds 2.7. Meet friends/socialize 2.8. Picnic/eat 2.9. Read

2.10. Sit/relax2.11. Enjoy nature 2.12. Watch performers 2.13. People-watch 2.14. Sunbathe 2.15. Play chess 2.16. Watch chess-players 2.17. Play scrabble, checkers

or other board game

2.18. Play Frisbee / ball 2.19. Skateboard/rollerblade2.20. Sledding in winter 2.21. Play other sports (specify)

__________________ 2.22. Events / Classes (specify)

__________________ 2.23 Other (specify)

_________________

3. How long do you plan to stay today? (circle one)3.1. One hour or less 3.2. 1-3 hours 3.3. 3-6 hours 3.4. 6 hours or more

4. Who do you usually go to the park with? (circle one)4.1. With my kids/family 4.2. I come by myself 4.3. With my husband/wife/friend

4.4. With an organized group (which one ________________)

4.5. With a group of friends

4.6. With a sports team 4.7. Other (specify)

__________________________

5. Please rate the park by the following issues: (Circle one for each issue)5.1. General Cleanliness Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.2. Condition of paths and paved areas Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.3. Condition of grass Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes: 5.4. Condition of flowers and landscaping Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.5. General condition of park Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes: 5.6. Condition of restrooms Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.7. Condition of drinking fountains Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.8. Condition of playgrounds Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.9. Condition of dog-runs Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.10. Condition of benches Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.11. Entrances Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.12. Lighting Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:5.13. Safety Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Notes:

6. What do you like best about Washington Square Park?

7. What improvements would you make to Washington Square Park to make it even more enjoyable?

Date/Time: Location: Weather: Taken by:

8. What activities or events in Washington Square Park do you like best? (Be as specific as possible).

9. What additional events would you like to see happen?

10. Think about what you do especially well: is there anything you would be willing to teach others, if you had the opportunity?

11. Name any skills you would like to learn, if possible:

12. If you would like to get involved, may we contact you in the future?If so, please give us your name and contact (address, telephone number, and/or email) in the space below. WSPC Mailing List?

13. General Comments?

We need some information about you in order to get a better idea of who might be interested in using the park:

Gender: Female Male

Age: Under 18 18 to 34 35 to 50 51 to 65 Over 65

So we know roughly what neighborhood you live in, please write in your zip code: _______

Thank you!

Return this survey to the person who gave it to you, or mail it to: WSP Survey

Project for Public Spaces 700 Broadway, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10003

Behavior M

apping - Data C

ollection Form

Group #

Seniors (65 +)

Adults (31-64)

Young Adults (19-30)

Teens (13-18)

Children (6-12)

Infants (0-5)

Dog (woof!)

Lie123456789101112131415

Park work / maintenance

Age / G

ender

Washington Square Park O

bservation times: 8:00am

10:30am 1:00pm

3:30pm 6:00pm

8:30pm

Sit

Lean

Notes (details or activities not listed

above)

Shade?

People watching

Dog run

Quiet relaxation

Stand

Buying from vendor

Group / Tour

Sleeping

Sunbathing

Socializing

Watching Performance

Performing

Eat / Picnic

Section:

Weather:

Observer:

Finish Time:

StanceA

ctivities

Date:

Start tim

e:

Watching chess / board game

Playing chess / board game

Reading / Writing / Drawing

Playing / Playground

Grass / Game

MF

FM

FM

FM

FM

FM

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

S

QU

AR

E

NO

RT

H

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

S

QU

AR

E

SO

UT

H

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

S

QU

AR

E

NO

RT

H

WA

SH

IN

GT

ON

S

QU

AR

E

SO

UT

H

Washington Square Park: A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation Appendix 3 – Survey and activity mapping data Page 1 of 23

Appendix 3: Survey and Activity Mapping Data Activity Mapping Results Activity maps were generated by dividing the park into 95 locations and recording use data at each location. Maps show relative density of use, based on the approximate sizes of each location. 1 Locations:

Mapped results: 1. Overall Use

Relatively Light Use Relatively Heavy Use

1 “Time” maps (section 2) were generated using a common gradient scale, in order to compare overall use between maps. In every other map, gradient groupings were generated automatically, in order to better highlight differences between locations within that map.


2. Time a. 8:00 am


b. 10:30 am



c. 1:00 pm


d. 3:30 pm



e. 6:00 pm


f. 8:30pm



Gender g. Men


h. Women



3. Age a. Infants (Ages 0-5)


b. Children (Ages 6-12)



c. Teenagers (Ages 13-18)


d. Young Adults (Ages 19-30)



e. Adults (Ages 31-64)


f. Seniors (Ages 65+)



4. Activities a. Reading & Relaxing


b. Socializing



c. Performing

Relatively Light Use Relatively Heavy Use Survey Results Below are the aggregated results from intercept surveys of park users. Online survey data is not included in these results, since those respondents were self-selected. Online survey open-ended responses were used anecdotally.

1. On average, how often do you use Washington Square Park?

8.2%

15.6%

10.7%

26.2%

39.3%

Never

2 - 3 times a year

2 - 3 times a month

2 - 3 times a w eek

Every day


2. When you use Washington Square Park, what do you do here?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dog Run

Dog Walk

Playground

Watch Chess / Boardgame

Play Chess / Boardgame

Watch Performance

Eat / Picnic

People Watch

Socialize

Sunbathe

Read

Sit & Relax

Enjoy Nature

Walk / Stroll

Use Park as a Shortcut

What do you usually do here? What are you here to do today?

3. How long do you plan to stay today?

5.0%

4.3%

34.0%56.7%

6 hours or more

3-6 hours

1-3 hoursOne hour or less


4. Who do you usually go to the park with?

7.8%

16.3%

63.8%

12.1%

With a group of frie

With my husband/w ife

I come by myself

With my kids/family

5. Please rate the park by the following issues:

a. General Cleanliness

2.1%

7.9%

28.6%

52.1%

9.3%

Don't Know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

With a group of friends


b. Condition of paths & paved areas

.7%

12.9%

30.9%48.9%

6.5%

Don't know

Poor

FairGood

Excellent

c. Condition of grass

6.4%

10.0%

34.3%

42.9%

6.4%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent


d. Condition of flowers and landscaping

8.6%

6.4%

22.9%

43.6%

18.6%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

e. General condition of park

3.7%

5.1%

21.3%

57.4%

12.5%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent


f. Condition of restrooms

64.3%

18.6%

12.1%

5.0%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

g. Condition of drinking fountains

62.1%10.7%

13.6%

12.1%

1.4%

Don't knowPoor

Fair

Good

Excellent


h. Condition of playgrounds

56.4%

1.4%

4.3%

28.6%

9.3%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

i. Condition of dog-runs

50.7%

2.9%

7.9%

31.4%

7.1%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent


j. Condition of benches

4.3%

3.6%

19.6%

61.6%

10.9%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

k. Entrances

3.7%

.7%

6.7%

70.4%

18.5%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent


l. Lighting

33.8%

3.7%

11.0%

39.0%

12.5%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

m. Safety

7.5%

2.2%

11.9%

64.2%

14.2%

Don't know

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent


6. What do you like best about the park?

People/diversity 42Music/performers/entertainer/artists/theatre 24Park itself 14Proximity (home/work/NYU) 12Fountain 12Trees 10Relaxing 9Atmosphere 8Activities 8Location 7History 7Green Space 7Quiet/Laid back 6Dog-run 6Openness/Open Space 6Variety 5Shade 5Landscaping 5Chess 4Benches 4Sun 3Safety 3Events 3Playground 2Convenience 2Arch 2Accessibility 2Socializing 1Scenic 1Fenceless 1Entrances 1Community Feeling 1Bathrooms 1


7. What improvements would you make to Washington Square Park to make it even more enjoyable?

Maintenance/pavement/bathrooms/fix benches 43No changes 28Landscape 25Homeless issue/drug dealers 13Amenities (tables, benches, trash, lights) 12Safety/police 8Concerts/entertainment 7Sport activities 6Food 5More fountains/water feature 3Dog run 3Play area 2Aesthetic improvements 2Keep fountain working 2Less music 2No gates 1Wireless Internet 1Bathroom at playground 1Adjust water sprinkler 1More modern 1Community garden 1People’s behavior 1More family oriented 1

8. What activities or events in Washington Square Park do you like best?

Music/performers/theatre 75Play/watch games 7People watching 7Sitting & relaxing 5Reading 4Festival/special events 4NYU graduation 3Dog run 3Entertainers 2Everyday things 2Movies 2Socializing 1Political speakers 1Playgrounds 1Sunbathing 1


9. What additional events would you like to see happen?

Music/entertainment/theatre/performances 45Nothing - there is enough 15Summer festival 4Art 3Food 3Movies 3Sports 2Events 2Culture 2Community garden 1Kid activity 1Police 1Political protest 1Involve public-activities 1Carnival 1

10. Think about what you do especially well: is there anything you would be willing to teach others, if you had the opportunity?

Art 11Sports 9Language 6Photography 5Table games 3Landscaping 3Writing 3Reading/story telling 3Music 3Animals 3Business/finance 2History of park 2Street theatre 2Architecture 2Cooking 1Dental care 1Filmmaking 1Jogging 1Knitting 1Religion 1Babysitting 1


11. Name any skills you would like to learn, if possible:

Sports 17Language 10Music 9Art/Painting 7Gardening 6Chess 4Computer 2Writing 2Lectures 2Juggle 2Knitting 2Photography 2Acting 1Magic tricks 1Pottery 1

12. Gender of respondents:

46.8%

53.2%

Male

Female


13. Age of respondents:

7.9%

15.0%

26.4%

48.6%

2.1%over 65

51 to 65

35 to 50

18 to 34

under 18

14. Home zip/state of respondents:

Where are you from?

Bronx

CAUpstate NY

MA

International

ILWA

OR

NV

Long Island

NJ

Queens

Manhattan (other) Brooklyn

Surrounding Neighborhoods

Washington Square Park: A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation Appendix 4 – Description of Placemaking Workshop & summary of workshop responses Page 1 of 6

Appendix 4: Description of Placemaking Workshop & summary of workshop responses Placemaking Game Washington Square Park Workshop October 22nd, 2005 Place Evaluation Workshop Description The Washington Square Park Council held a place evaluation and placemaking workshop to help shape the future and generate a community vision for Washington Square Park on Saturday, October 15, 2005 from 10:00am – 2:00 pm, facilitated by PPS. The goal of the workshop was to create a common vision for the uses and activities in the park which could then be used to give direction to the design. This hands-on, participatory exercise included a Powerpoint presentation on successful parks around the world to serve as a catalyst for brainstorming, and an on-site evaluation of discrete areas within the park. Participants used a simple place evaluation method to first assess current activities and amenities, and then generate ideas for programmatic and physical improvements. Over 50 participants from community groups, the Parks Department, residential associations, and local institutions went out into the park together to identify the problems and opportunities of different spaces and share their ideas for improvement both in the short and long-term. Participants were divided randomly into five groups. Four groups each took one corner section of the park, and one group was assigned to the central fountain area. The groups were then given specific focal points to study and evaluate. The teams were asked to answer several questions about the site including what they liked most, what short-term low-cost changes could make an impact right away, what long-term changes they would propose, and what partners could help effect these changes. Placemaking sites:


Participants’ Place Game Reporting GROUP 1 Scrabble Area Like Best Large open entrance

Easy transit Ice-cream cart Low fence creates sense of openness Community and safety

Short-Term Improvements Space is underutilized More tables Better maintenance and garbage cans Remove chicken wire Fix pavement and seats

Long-Term Improvements Entrance to lawn to replace part of wall

Local Partnership An open ‘scrabble challenging’ program by good players for non-pros intimidated by the pros

Holly Plaza Like Best Openness

Seating Historical Statue Small un-amplified entertainment

Short-Term Improvements Uniform, and bigger garbage cans with recycle option Better historical signage Planting at perimeter

Long-Term Improvements Better lighting Fix pavement Defined entrance to lawns and maintenance

Toddler playground area, lawn Like Best Simplicity of playground

Playground fence (same or different?) Path from Holly Statue to Arch (different opinion) Size of lawn

Short-Term Improvements Fix water fountain Playground sign to indicate its for toddlers

Long-Term Improvements Better maintained lawn Picnic and kids run on lawn Sand within playground? New play equipment Improved paving Improve lighting


GROUP 2 Playground, North-East entrance, Lawn, Garibaldi Statue (Access: access to bus is missing; Safety: yes – although concern in playground; Maintenance: tired looking, leveled more, more management presence/signage; Comfort & Image: more places and variety needed to sit) Like Best Trees and Shade

Children play People (sitting, walking, socializing) Sports activity Nature Garden Space around playground Playground is set apart yet you have activity around you Simple and elegant Quiet sitting area at the northern part

Short-Term Improvements Wires in trees to avoid dirt of the birds Reseeded lawn Secure edge of playground on south-side for kids Shade canopy or umbrellas in playground Plantings, flowers Replace chicken wire Installation art/displays Children’s programs (e.g. Music) Friendly signage/map of park showing where you are (all over park)friendly signage to remind people to care for the park

Long-Term Improvements Pavement repair (ongoing; think about a segment type pavement that can be replaced easily ; e.g. octagonal pavement) New playground equipment especially plastic pieces Additional seating (benches and other) Bathroom in playground Better way of containing sand; evaluate use of sand Create a larger area around play area by incorporating grass (bigger) NYU could offer bathroom access Think about benches out of recycled plastic pieces

Partners NYU Washington Square Association and Council Musicians for children’s program

Interview Tall trees Not clean, felt dirty Homeless and vagrants are discomforting Low maintenance plants Play area is a backyard


GROUP 3 Stage, Petanque (Access: poor; Comfort & Image: 2.3; Uses: split decision – sometimes active sometimes not; Sociability: split) Like Best View, elevation

Seating Possibility of quiet Plantings and Trees Public stage Big space

Short-Term Improvements Add café Movable chairs/tables Coffee cart; food cart Rent petanque equipment Improve lighting Clean it up

Long-Term Improvements Keep elevation Remove fence around of stage Add steps leading up to stage Heat lamps for winter café Improve entry points – access from street into courts Re-surface performance space – interesting paving Make petanque FUN to watch Light it up at night

Partners Coffee – Oren’s Food cart – Mario Batali Petanque Association Community Theatres – Joyce IFC center Target – public arts programs (they sponsor arts in Madison Sq. Park)

South East Entrance Like Best Shade

Access/Short-cuts Quiet Plants/Landscaping/Flowers Design & Layout (nooks, open spaces, etc.) Close to NYU Safe

Short-Term Improvements Fix broken railings/Fences (remove caution tape) Better usage/maintenance of lawn spaces More flower plantings More seating/tables – better use of spaces Nicer looking gates Better food vendors, coffee vendors Small group usage

Long-Term Improvements More art installations Nice pavement (no asphalt)


Fix water fountain Better, more visible signage More modest barriers around green spaces Maintenance of lawn spaces – get rid of overhead wires Better benches with tables – better placement

Interviews ‘the people, the people, the people’ Less NYU Benches are uncomfortable It’s a microcosm of NYC; bathrooms are seedy; get rid of drug dealers

Local Partnerships Gardening - Volunteers, Morton Williams and community gardening organizations Artists – Exhibits/Installations (temporary and permanent NYU Gallery is across street) Historian – Tours & Expertise Website – History/Events/Calendar

GROUP 4 Chess Area; Dog Run; Bathrooms; Rundown Playgrounds (3 Hills) Like Best Variety of activities in the area

Dog run, chess area, sunbathing lawn Like the view all away across the park from South entrance trees art installations – light shades and chess pieces

Short-Term Improvements resurface 3 hills with private money more ground cover for dog-run less fencing (no chicken wire) new/better trash cans (all the same and placed better) park staff need to park on the street (have permits for them) new plantings for SW entrance change planter around Holy Statue rat control (no compost pile of green waste) bathroom attendant Kiosk/Bathroom – 1 Building; inviting positive foot traffic to area; Traffic around bathroom

Long-Term Improvements Improve (move?) parks building so that area can be opened up and used by more people; move buildings underground Large playground for 8-13 years old at least 9000 sq. ft. Resurface 3 hills and maintain them Make Holly Circle smaller and expand lawns (but don’t shrink paths) Improve bathrooms – cleaner, more privacy inside (currently are unsafe) Improve the lighting

Interviews Alive space Everything Remove drug dealers


Better and earlier lighting in evening Kids remember using playgrounds

Local Partnership Local public/private schools – gardens in park, bird houses LMNOP – Lower Manhattan Organization for Parks & Playgrounds (have money to resurface 3 hills) Washington Square Dog Run Association Private Business – possible Café/kiosks

GROUP 5 Arch Don’t like Asphalt paving (bad !)

Like Best Openness

Safety Arch is lovely

Short-Term Improvements Benches at side of arch Orientation Map Light seating (tables and chairs)

Long-Term Improvements Pavement (porous, grass pavers, gravel, clay)

Fountain Like Best Good activity level

Performance spaces (fountain & plaza)

Short-Term Improvements Repair everything Remove asphalt from steps Improve drainage

Long-Term Improvements Move fountain (1) Raise Center Plaza (2) Keep layout (all others) Drainage for trees and paving Make fountain dance (lighting and fountain shows) 19thcentury lighting in proposed plan (1) HC access from south New urns and plantings (1) Survey of 2:

Interview Energy leave it alone like the amphitheater like music allow drums County

Washington Square Park: A User Analysis and Place Performance Evaluation Appendix 5 – History of Washington Square Park (contributed by Luther Harris) Page 1 of 3

Appendix 5: History of Washington Square Park Bibliography:

Folpe, Emily. (2002). It Happened On Washington Square. In print.

Harris, Luther S. (2003). Around Washington Square: An Illustrated History of Greenwich Village. In print.

Weber, Bruce. Homage to the Square: Picturing Washington Square, 1890-1965.

Out of print. Available at the GVSHP library. Washington Square Park History Contributed by Luther Harris, author of Around Washington Square: An Illustrated History of Greenwich Village, 2003. Washington Square has long served as a neighborhood green. On its opening in 1828 the Evening Post announced that the landscaping of the square was nearly finished:

Workmen are busily employed in putting a handsome [wood] fence around this spacious public square, by far the largest of any in this city. And laborers are busy in leveling and preparing the ground to be laid down to green turf, with most ground for walks around the margin and across it from each extremity. When this work is completed and proper shade trees and shrubbery are beautifully set out over the whole square, it will afford a most delightful morning promenade. The improvements already made for the streets bordering upon it, and those in contemplation, will add to its beauty.

With ailanthus trees planted along the walks, this was the background for Henry James’s Washington Square set in a patrician neighborhood of the 1840s.

The square received a decorative iron fence and a central fountain, as the locale became increasingly posh through the 1850s. However, the city’s burgeoning growth brought an influx of immigrants to the southern region of the district and the city fathers began clamoring for a central traffic artery, which meant connecting Fifth Avenue to downtown streets via a route through the square. By the late 1860s, a community of French immigrants was firmly established immediately south of the square and the city ordered a redesign of the square to provide a roadway through it. In 1869 the square was redesigned under Frederick Law Olmsted’s naturalistic design theory by his associates, civil engineer Montgomery Alexander Kellogg and horticulturist Ignaz Anton Pilat. Fences and design formality were out of style. The square gained curvilinear pathways and plazas, and the fountain, in place, fit nicely as the middle element, off-center from Fifth Avenue, in the plan for three asymmetric main plazas. A roadway through the square flowed around the fountain connecting Fifth Avenue to three southern streets for maximum traffic flexibility. In the 1880s two statues were installed in the square--Giuseppe Garibaldi and Alexander Holley--in expanded plazas, respectively, east and west of the fountain. The fountain might have been shifted in 1889-90 when Stanford White designed the marble arch. However, White sited the arch in collaboration with Calvert Vaux and Samuel Parsons,


Jr., (who were respectively the city’s Landscape Architect and Superintendent of Plantings) and it was not intended to align the arch with the fountain. The eccentric arrangement of the fountain and arch soon became the square’s signature ensemble and an icon of New York. With the bicycle craze in the 1890s, the city built a slightly raised concrete platform with a bluestone curb around the fountain. This 55-foot-deep fountain plaza provided a defined gathering place and its low height--just a few inches--deterred the intrusion of bicycles, carts, and carriages. Thus began the square’s expanding role as a theater and tourist mecca. By the 1890s an Italian immigrant community had established itself south of the square and their restaurants and those of the French offered cheap but delicious food and wine for a growing coterie of bohemians. Low-priced rents in the quarter provided housing for the group whose numbers swelled as the wealthy departed for uptown abodes. In the pre-WWI years bohemians, among them many artists, writers, and playwrights, opened their own quaint eateries capturing citywide attention and an explosive influx of tourists. By 1918 the Fifth Avenue Coach Company was even running a regular column titled “Bohemian Excursions” in its complimentary magazine, From a Fifth Avenue Bus, which it distributed to an annual ridership numbering over one million. It was the square’s circular platform around the fountain on which the folksingers gathered after WWII followed by the Beats and anti-war and civil-rights protesters. Jane Jacobs dubbed it a “theater in the round” in her seminal 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities in which she said of neighborhood parks: “the finest centers are stage settings for people.” In the later 1960s Jacobs became involved with the square’s redesign following the closing of the square to traffic. The roadway branch to Sullivan Street had been closed in 1946 and with the total elimination of traffic an additional 1.3 acres of asphalt had to be reclaimed for park use. Jacobs’ friendship with Mayor Robert Wagner Jr., which had been instrumental in eliminating the traffic, became key in transferring control of the redesign from the Parks Department, headed by Newbold Morris, who was Robert Moses’s successor and ally, to a team of nine local architects. The team, led by landscape architect Robert B. Nichols, celebrated the famous gathering space by designing a grand plaza, or stage, in the freed-up space around the fountain. By creating a shallow sunken plaza and surrounding it with a low rim abutment, seating would be provided and the stage would be better defined and protected from the square’s users on bicycles, skateboards, roller-blades, and roller scooters. Nichols modeled the new plaza on Central Parks’ centerpiece, Calver Vaux’s Bethesda Terrace, and the Washington Square fountain plaza is both larger and more popular than its sister space in Central Park. The Nichols team added playgrounds, seating plazas, and a music podium creating a common ground for both neighborhood residents and visitors. Commenting on the team design when it was unveiled in 1964, New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable called it a “Triumph in Designing for Local Needs” and

Instead of moving the off-center fountain in line with the arch, as called for in the Parks Department plan—a pointless and expensive procedure to all who do not consider axial symmetry the ultimate objective of landscape design—the local architects redesigned the area around the fountain with a sitting wall, decorative pavement and connecting podium to improve its popular social uses. (New York Times, October 28, 1964)


By the 1980s the crowds and performers around the fountain attracted the attention of NYU Professor Richard Schechner, authority on performance spaces, who commenced a four-year study of the square. In the resulting 1990 book Drawing a Circle in the Square the study analyzed this fountain phenomenon. Over a four-year period using time-lapse photography, the study observed the gathering and dispersing of crowds among the fountain, statues, pathways, and abutments. Visitors numbered some 19,000 on a typical summer day. The photographs point out the high degree of order created by the performers and the asymmetric design of the square. Professor Schechner named this marvel the Fountain Theater. In 2005 the Village ranks second only to Central Park as a desirable destination for tourists, with the square as its main draw.

With its character firmly established as a combination village green, theater, and tourist mecca, Washington Square has become a magnificently successful and unique place among the world’s public spaces.

Documents

WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK - Amazon S3...of the park users that were surveyed come from the boroughs of New York City. But it is also a destination for visitors from other parts of the