Final project final draft

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study
LA 241/CP 241 - Research Methods in Environmental Design
Prof Peter Bosselmann
Fall 2008
December 18, 2008
Rachel Edmonds
Erin Machell
Brendan Stewart

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study
Rachel Edmonds, MCP ‘06/MLA ‘09
Erin Machell, MCP ‘10
Brendan Stewart, MLA ‘09
LA 241/CP 241 - Research Methods in Environmental Design
Prof Peter Bosselmann
Fall 2008
December 18, 2008

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Literature review: High rise living and sense of community 1
1.2 Literature review: Community gardens as social spaces 3
2 Research Design
2.1 Our research hypothesis is 4
2.2 Definitions 4
2.3 Variables 5
2.4 Site selection 6
2.5 Study Design 6
3 Site Characteristics
3.1 Geographic context 6
3.2 Historic context 7
3.3 Proposed changes 7
3.4 Previous studies 8
3.5 Current design and layout 8
3.6 Demographics 10
4 Measurements and Observations
4.1 General observations of the open space 12
4.2 On-site interviews 12
4.3 Picture series tests: facial recognition and exterior views 14
4.4 Behavior mapping and observations 17
5 Research Instrument
5.1 Development of a questionnaire 19
5.2 Questionnaire distribution and response 19
5.3 Questionnaire results 20
5.4 Three key findings 20
5.5 Questionnaire map analysis 21
5.6 General findings 22
5.7 Use of and Value for open space and its features 22
5.8 The community garden 23
5.9 Farmer’s Market 24
Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyi

5.10 Social impacts of open space use and afﬁnity 24
5.11 Spending time outdoors 25
5.12 Spending time in the garden or market 26
5.13 Paths by the community garden 27
5.14 Analyzing the impact of resident’s ﬂoor height 28
5.15 Other mitigating factors: age, tenure, student status 29
6 Critique of the study 29
7 References 31
8 Appendix A - Behavior observation maps 32
9 Appendix B - The Questionnaire 43
10 Appendix C - Questionnaire Analysis 52
Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyii

List of Tables and Figures
Fig 1 Jan Gehl Study
Fig 2 Dogs in Park Merced
Fig 3 City Context
Fig 4 Layout of Park Merced
Fig 5 Proposed changes
Fig 6 Sinuous lines in the landscape
Fig 7 former ‘big view’
Fig 8 new colors
Fig 9 building entrances
Fig 10 Juan Bautista Community Garden
Fig 11 Playground
Fig 12 Farmer’s Market
Fig 13 Stability: Number of years ago householder
moved in
Fig 14 Age distribution in Park Merced
Fig 15 On site interviews
Fig 16 Park Merced residents reﬂect on the presence
of the CG
Fig 17 Looking at the fog catcher instrument
Fig 18 Looking in while walking by
Fig 19 Exterior views
Fig 20 Facial Recognition
Fig 21 Friday morning commute
Fig 22 Friday morning open space use
Fig 23 Saturday morning errand patterns
Fig 24 Sunday morning open space use
Fig 25 Questionnaire distribution diagram
Fig 26 Reminders
Fig 27 Commute home
Fig 28 Non-commute path
Fig 29 Stars and Circles
Fig 30 Responses to question 4
Fig 31 Responses to question 12
Fig 32 Sense of connectedness to people vs. # of
people socialized with
Fig 33 Sense of connectedness to people vs. # time
spent outdoors
Fig 34 Adjectives by amount of time spent outside
Fig 35 Social characteristics of FM and CG
Fig 36 Adjectives by time spent in CG
Fig 37 Adjectives by time spent at FM
Fig 38 Floor people live on vs. # of neighbors they
socialize with
Fig 39 Age demographics of respondants
Park Merced Towers and Open Space Studyiii

Park Merced Towers and Open Space Study1
1 Introduction
At the outset of this semester, all three members of our
research team, Erin Machell, Rachel Edmonds and
Brendan Stewart, were interested in conducting a ‘sense
of community’ study. The three of us also approached the
class with a specific interest in studying the well-documented
social capital building capacity of community gardens.
Brendan was working concurrently on his MLA thesis
about the livability of high-rise neighborhoods in Toronto,
and pitched the idea to Erin and Rachel that it would be
interesting to investigate the commonly held bias that the
sense of community among residents who live in high-rise
buildings tends to be low. One variable that has received
little attention in the studies that support this bias, however, is
the role that the design of open spaces surrounding high-rise
buildings plays in the health of the local sense of community.
All other things being equal, would the sense of community
within a typical ‘tower in the park’ neighborhood – with
the large lawns, coercive fencing and vast parking lots
characteristic of this typology - be different from a high-
rise living environment that included a more intentionally
designed landscape that included elements known to
facilitate social interaction?
After discussing several potential study neighborhoods, it
was discovered that the Park Merced neighborhood in San
Francisco included a cluster of high-rise buildings set in a
historically significant Tommy Church landscape and that
the open space recently saw the addition of a community
garden and a weekly farmers market. Rather than
measuring the local sense of community and comparing it
to another neighborhood with a different landscape, it was
decided to focus our energies within the Park Merced tower
neighborhood. In general, we set out to better understand
whether there was a relationship between open space
and the local sense of community. Before getting into the
specifics of our study design, the following section reviews
the literature that we drew upon in developing our research
question.
1.1 Literature review
High Rise Living and Sense of Community
One of the 253 ‘patterns’ presented in the influential
planning and design book A Pattern Language: Towns,
Buildings, Construction, is pattern number 21: ‘Four Story
Limit’. This pattern suggests that tall buildings:
“…are not cheaper, they do not help create
open space, they destroy the townscape,
they destroy social life, they promote crime,
they make life difficult for children, they are
expensive to maintain, they wreck the open
spaces near them, and they damage light
and air and view. …[T]hey aren’t very sensible,
[and] empirical evidence shows that they can
actually damage people’s minds and feelings”
(Alexander et al., 1977, p.115).
This indictment, which is directed at tall residential and
office buildings, is clearly cut and dry: buildings taller than
four stories are bad, and that’s that. That said, some of the
research on the social and psychological effects of living
in high-rises does paint a similar picture to that portrayed
in the passage above1
, but considering the complex set
of variables one has to control when studying such an
environment – differing variables having to do with the
buildings surroundings or the characteristics of the buildings
inhabitants - it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to
draw broadly generalizable conclusions connecting findings
to building form alone (Gifford, 2007 pg 14).
1 For a contemporary, critical review of global research conduct-
ed on the social and psychological consequences of living in tall build-
ings, see Gifford, 2007

The literature does suggest, though, that the sense of
community among residents of high-rise buildings is generally
poorer than that among residents of neighborhoods
composed of single-family dwelling. This literature measures
sense of community in two principle ways. First, residents of
high-rises tend to have lower quality and less dependable
relationships with their neighbors - more acquaintances but
fewer friends (Gifford, 2007). Second, high-rise residents
generally exhibit a lower level of ‘pro-social’ behavior: “rates
of helping others are lower in high-rise buildings” (Gifford,
2007, p. 13).
A formal reason for the generally lower quality of social
relationships observed in the literature is offered by
Cooper-Marcus and Hogue, who point out that unlike
the environment of the single family home, the high-rise
apartment lacks the semi-private ‘transition spaces’ – like a
yard, a porch or a driveway – that would enable residents
to feel comfortable enough to “make an initial contact with
an adjacent or passing neighbor” (1976, p. 255). Lobbies,
elevators, and corridors approximate this type of space, but
tend to be perceived as anonymous and un-neighborly,
and lead to interaction of shorter duration (Becker, 1974,
p. 180). Michelson helps to further explain the relationship
between neighborly anonymity and the ‘sociofugal’2
nature
of indoor space, by referring to the “lack of areas.. where
people can naturally interact without having to excuse
themselves to others for remaining in a particular place.
Even people desiring social contact do not normally want to
appear ‘forward’ or strange in areas of a building where the
norms do not support socially acceptable forms of loitering”
(1977, p. 51). In other words, the shared perception of such
spaces is that they are impersonal, anonymous and un-
neighborly, and this creates a social norm that says that
2 Hester (2006, p.32-33) deﬁnes ‘sociofugal’ space as space that
provides solitude; as designed space that discourages social contact and
communication. On the other hand, ‘sociopetal’ space facilitates social
contact, internal identity and control.
prolonged interaction in such a place feels awkward.
Despite the generally lower levels of social interaction
observed repeatedly in the literature, Gifford states that
“most social interaction occurs among residents of the
same ﬂoor” (2007, p.10; Ginsberg & Churchman, 1985).
Finding comfort and identifying with a smaller group size is
perhaps related to the sheer volume of people living in one
residence, and a fear associated with strangers living so
close by (Gifford, 2007, p.3). Cooper-Marcus and Hogue
suggest that “the fewer the [number of] people sharing an
entrance way or corridor, the more likely they are to be able
to recognize and greet one another, and the less likely they
are to perceive their environment as anonymous and un-
neighborly” (1976, p. 256).
Lower levels of ‘pro social’ behavior in high rises versus
comparable low rises have been measured in several studies
(Bickman et al., 1973; Wilcox & Holahan, 1976; Husaini et al.,
1990). Gifford makes the connection between low levels
of interaction and low levels of caring, by arguing that the
‘sociofugal’ nature of most high-rise environments “supports
anonymity and depersonalization of one’s neighbors…
[leading to] greater privacy and freedom from unwanted
social interaction.. [as well as] less intimate social interaction
and less caring about anonymous others” (2007, p. 13). The
low levels of social interaction that result from this sociofugal
organization of space “can lead to withdrawal, which can
lead to loss of community and social support” (Gifford, 2007,
p. 13).
In practical terms, the generally lower rates of social
interaction and lower levels of caring that result can mean
that something as simple as being able to depend on a
neighbor to borrow eggs is less likely to occur. Poor ‘sense
of community’ weakens social support and the ability to
depend on one’s neighbors.
Alexander et al, (1977) believe that social and psychological

Fig 1 - Jan Gehl Study
problems are directly attributable to high-rise building form.
To them, the explanation is simple:
“high-rise living takes people away from the
ground, and away from the casual, everyday
society that occurs on the sidewalks and
streets and on the gardens and porches.
It leaves them alone in their apartments.
The decision to go out for some public life
becomes formal and awkward; and unless
there is some specific task which brings people
out in the world, the tendency is to stay home,
alone” (116).
Alexander believes that a threshold exists at four stories:
that residents of buildings under this limit do not suffer from
the negative social and psychological consequences
attributable to living in tall buildings. The authors state that
“at three or four stories, one can still walk
comfortably down to the street, and from a
window you can still feel part of the street
scene: you can see details in the street – the
people, their faces, foliage, shops. From
three stories you can yell out, and catch the
attention of someone below. Above four
stories these connections break down. The
visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene
below as if it were a game, from which they
are completely detached. The connection
to the ground and to the fabric of the town
becomes tenuous; the building becomes a
world of its own” (1977, p.118).
Jan Gehl, in his book ‘Life between buildings’ (1971),
speculates about this threshold idea six years before
Alexander’s book. From the ground, he photographs the
face of a friend standing on a
balcony on each floor. Moving
up, the facial features become
difficult to discern, and the
potential for recognition is
lost. Gehl’s test finds that the
threshold at which the facial
features of a friend become
unrecognizable occurs
around the 4th
floor (fig 1). We
replicated Gehl’s study, and
had similar conclusions. We
also added an additional layer,
which was to test whether a
threshold existed where views
of the landscape switched
from views of the open spaces
surrounding the tower bases, to
regional views. Our findings are
presented in the measurements
and observations section of this
document.
1.2 Literature review
Community gardens as
social spaces
Laura Lawson chronicles
the history of community
gardening in the US in her
book ‘City Bountiful: a Century
of Community Gardening in
America’, and discusses the
various benefits that community
gardens (CG)s have been seen
to confer to the people that
occupy them (2005). Lawson

provides a good summary of these benefits by quoting
the ‘American Community Gardening Association’ vision
statement, that says:
“Our vision is that community gardening is a
resource used to build community, foster social
and environmental justice, eliminate hunger,
empower communities, break down racial
and ethnic barriers, provide adequate health
and nutrition, reduce crime, improve housing,
promote and enhance education, and
otherwise create sustainable communities”
(Lawson, 2005, p.239).
The myriad benefits that CGs have been documented to
confer in a sometimes anecdotal way, have also become
the subject of focused and rigorous research from a range
of disciplines. Hancock (2001) looks at the capacity of CGs
to build ‘social capital’, and Glover et. al (2005) studies the
correlation between voluntary affiliation with a CG and
the creation of democratic citizens. Shinew et. al (2004)
look at CGs in urban St. Louis, Missouri as leisure spaces
where positive interaction occurs between inter-racial
groups (namely black and white). In an earlier publication,
Lawson describes how the Berkeley Youth Alternatives
Community Garden Patch has become a ‘community
open space’ where “residents who tend the gardens”
represent “diverse social and ethnic groups” but that the
garden “brings together people who may not normally
interact” (Lawson,1995). While the role(s) that CGs play
are many, and vary with the specific characteristics of the
neighborhoods in which they are located, in general, the
literature suggests that they tend to be places where people
get to know each other and spend time together.
2 Research Design
This research study we conducted attempted to evaluate
the relationship between open space and related amenities
and their ability to foster a sense of community.
2.1 Our research hypothesis is:
In a residential tower neighborhood, there will be a greater
sense of community associated with shared open space
amenities, such as a community garden, when residents
have 1) a visual connection from their dwelling units; 2)
an awareness of such amenities; and 3) opportunities to
interact along their commute or recreational routes.
In contrast, when residents do not have a visual connection
or opportunity for interaction, the sense of community
associated with shared open space will be weaker.
2.2 Definitions:
Sense of community:
A ‘sense of community’ entails: 1) knowing neighbors; 2)
being aware of social patterns and interactions around
you and a sense of where you fit into them; 3) a sense of
belonging; 4) security and safety 5) shared identity and
sense of ownership/stewardship 6) having the perception of
shared values or interests.
Awareness:
The word ‘awareness’ entails: Having special or certain
knowledge from a first hand source, either one’s own
experience of having heard about it from others.

Fig 2 - Dogs in Park Merced
2.3 Variables
Several things aside from open space amenities were
identified as independent variables that could contribute
to the sense of community at the Park Merced meadow
towers. In our questionnaire and other measurements, we
attempted to control for these variables.
Relationships that persist outside of housing is a variable
unrelated to open space that may contribute to an
enhanced sense of community. For example, tower
residents in Park Merced might have friendships that
came about through outside things, like working together,
attending the same church, or taking transit together
etc. If this is the case, we can’t attribute reported sense of
community to qualities of Park Merced we are testing.
Proximity to mass transit or existence of neighborhood
carpools may be a source of sense of community. Carpools
and waiting at transit stops translates to daily, regular,
scheduled contact with neighbors who may not otherwise
share much in common. Given the distance of Park Merced
from downtown San Francisco (more than 7 miles), we
assumed that carpools and transit use is a major way people
commute to their jobs. Waiting for an M-line train going
downtown on weekday mornings with the same group of
people can engender a sense of shared experience. A
carpool arrangement between neighbors might entail
members having semi-regular phone contact, creating
opportunities for more significant associations.
Presence of dogs in households is a variable independent
of open space amenities that can contribute to the sense
of community at Park Merced (fig. 2). Although dog owners
tend to be intensive users of open space, the particular
issues of pet ownership creates regular, predictable places
and moments where owners can meet each other and
have ease of conversation over shared interests and
concerns related to their pets.
Sense of community can be facilitated between households
where there are children present who attend Montessori
or other nearby schools. Children have ways of breaking
the regular social barriers that can exist between adults.
Parents whose children socialize together at school or at the
playground have reasons to meet and interact.
Other community amenities that may engender a sense of
community with use:
Saturday morning farmer’s market
Gym facilities on each building’s ground floor
Movie theater at Park Merced concierge
Parking garages
Tennis courts
Montessori school
Playgrounds

Fig 3 - City Context
2.4 Site Selection
The site we chose to study is a 9-acre portion of the Park
Merced development, located in Southwest San Francisco.
On this site are a total of 608 studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom,
and 3-bedroom rental apartments in four towers. Each 13-
story tower has 152 units. The residential density at our site is
68 dwelling units per acre.
The site is surrounded many 2-story garden apartments
and several other tower apartment buildings, all managed
by the Park Merced Management Corporation. To the
north is San Francisco State University’s campus. The
Stonestown Galleria is a shopping mall located northeast
of Park Merced. The 19th
Avenue corridor establishes the
eastern boundary of the overall Park Merced development.
Brotherhood Way establishes the southern boundary. To the
west is the Harding Park Golf Course and Lake Merced. The
Pacific Ocean is 1.3 miles west of our site.
2.5 Study Design
Our team devised a research study that included a period
of time for site observations, measurements and mapping.
During this period, we interviewed residents we encountered
at open space amenities at Park Merced. In the course of
carrying out these steps, we began developing a written
questionnaire that tested other elements of our hypothesis
that are more difficult to observe first hand. In particular, this
meant trying to get a sense of how residents perceive the
sense of community at Park Merced’s towers.
3 Site Characteristics
3.1 Geographic context
Park Merced is located in the southwest corner of San
Francisco (fig 2). It is located to the south of San Francisco
State University, to the east of the regionally significant Lake
Merced, and is connected to downtown by the Muni metro
‘m’ line (fig 3).

Fig 4 - Layout of
Park Merced
Fig 5 - Proposed changes
3.2 Historic context
Park Merced was built in the 1940’s by the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company to meet the low to mid-income
housing demands created by the families of WWII veterans.
The neighborhood was laid out in the beaux-arts style,
in partnership between the architect Leonard Schultze
& Associates and the landscape architecture office of
Thomas Church, with Robert Royston as project landscape
architect. Radial streets set up long visual axes and define
unique wedge shaped blocks built with garden apartments
with shared central courtyards. These blocks separate the
vehicular form the pedestrian realms – an expression of
the American garden city ideas of the time. Each of the
courtyards is different, and because they have been so
well maintained over the years, they are considered by
landscape historians today to be a significant showcase of
the sinuous modern landscape design style pioneered by
Church (Weinstein, 2008). Moving through the courtyards
reveals a sequence of spaces from communal gardens, to
shared laundry facility to parking facility, all concealed from
the street. The other housing type in the neighborhood, built
in the early 1950’s, is a series of eleven 12-storey modern
apartment towers (Weinstein, 2008). The four towers in our
study (fig. 4) are arranged along a long linear pedestrian
meadow. All of the apartments, whether in high or low-rise
buildings, are rental units.
3.3 Proposed Changes
The current owner, Parkmerced Investors, plans to
revitalize the neighborhood by demolishing the garden
apartments and building a new mix of housing types. A
large controversy surrounds these plans, with one side
fighting to preserve the neighborhood for the sake of the
historic significance of the Tommy Church landscape
design, and the other side arguing that the original design

Fig 6 - Sinuous lines in the landscape
– with its overall low densities, single uses, and its resource
intensive landscape - is not sustainable enough to justify
its preservation in the 21st
century. (Weinstein, 2008). The
vision presented by Parkmerced Investors (fig. 5), to be
implemented over a 15-20 year time horizon, is grounded
in concepts of sustainable development. Interestingly, the
only existing buildings that are proposed to be salvaged are
the tower buildings, including the four that we look at in this
study, however the open spaces surrounding the buildings
are to be changed. In place of the garden apartments
is a mix of rental and owner housing, ranging in height
from two stories to heights similar to those of the existing
towers, but the average being four stories (http://www.
parkmercedvision.com/housing/index.html).
In addition to raising the overall density of the
neighborhood, the plan would see the inclusion of
neighborhood retail amenities and community facilities,
would bring the Muni metro light rail line into the heart of the
neighborhood at Juan Bautista Circle, provides an extensive
bike and pedestrian circulation network, and includes the
provision of renewable energy generation (http://www.
parkmercedvision.com/plans/index.html).
3.4 Previous studies
The Park Merced neighborhood has received considerable
attention from UC Berkeley students in recent years,
although it has not to our knowledge been the subject of
a study in LA/CP 241 – Research Methods in Environmental
Design. Thomas Kronemeyer studied the neighborhood
in his 1996 MLA/MCP thesis entitled: “Living in a Diagram:
a case study on the neighborhood form of Parkmerced”,
and students investigated how the landscape might be
re-designed in light of proposed changes in the Thomas
Church design competition held in January 2008.
3.5 Current Design and Layout
When viewed from the air, the strong octagonal geometry
of the 1940’s layout plan of the Park Merced becomes
extremely visible. Interestingly, while the road network and
architecture are informed by a rigid and largely symmetrical
geometry, much of the landscape stands in juxtaposition,
with sinuous and often asymmetrical lines defining form (fig.
6). Much of the original design remains intact today, with
several notable exceptions. First, a long visual axis that is
defined by the four towers of our study used to continue
through the meadow to Juan Bautista circle. Today the
Montessori school and the Juan Bautista Community
Garden interrupt this big view (fig. 7). Second, the garden
apartments have recently been painted a variety of warm
earth tones (fig. 8), but originally, all of the architecture
was finished in a subdued palette of whites and grays. The
original intent was to bring the landscape to the foreground,
and the colors today detract from this once strong contrast.

Fig 7 - former ‘big view’ Fig 8 - new colors
Fig 9 - building entrances
The four towers that we studied
are 12 stories tall, with 152
units each. Each tower has
a main front entrance facing
the street, and a secondary
entrance facing onto the
meadow (ﬁg. 9). The central
meadow is long and linear,
and is deﬁned by a curvilinear
path that traces its perimeter,
with small entrance courtyards
sitting on the meadow side at
the base of each building. At
the east end of the meadow

is the Juan Bautista community garden (fig. 10), which was
established by 2004. There is a small playground at the base
of the southwestern tower (fig. 11), and a weekly farmer’s
market sets up on an asphalt pad at the base of the north
western most tower (fig. 12). Residents of the towers park in
angled street parking adjacent to building entrances, or in a
large underground parking lot to the west of the meadow.
3.6 Demographics:
The most recent demographic data for Park Merced comes
from the 2000 US Census, which is somewhat problematic
since Park Merced is currently going through changes and
actively trying to recruit new residents. These data indicate
that Park Merced residents are a primarily lower-income
group, and composed of a wide age-range of people
Fig 10 - Juan Bautista Community Garden Fig 11 - Playground
Fig 12 - Farmer’s Market

Source:
U.S.
Census
Bureau,
2000 Census
of Population
and Housing,
SF3, Table H38
g
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
of Population and Housing, SF1, Table P12
including families with children, elderly people, and young
adults. Many Park Merced residents have lived in their
current apartment for a great many years. Though most own
a vehicle, residents are likely to use alternate methods of
transit for commuting, such as carpooling and public transit.
Block-level data, which include the central tower
apartments as well as a large number of garden
apartments, indicate that many Park Merced residents have
a long history of living at Park Merced (ﬁg. 13), and that:3
• The average per capita income is $27,400 (in 2000 dollars)
• Median household income is $47,000 (in 2000 dollars)
• 9% of households live below the poverty line
• 85% of households have a vehicle available
• 36% drive to work
• 36% take public transit
• 12% carpool
Block level data, which includes only a handful of garden
apartments in addition to the central towers, indicate a
wide age distribution, with professional-aged adults as the
most-represented age group (ﬁg. 14). These data also show
that:4
• 50% of households are family households and 50% are
nonfamily
• 21% of households have children
Anecdotally, it was clear from site visits that many residents
of the towers are students, who walk to nearby SF State
University for school.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3,
Table P30, P35, P52, P82, P85, P87, H44.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF1,
Table P21, P35.
Fig 13 - Stability: Number of years ago householder moved in
Fig 14 - Age Distribution in Park Merced

4 Measurements and Observations
To test the hypothesis, the research team spent several
weeks in late September and early October observing
patterns, conducting behavior mapping and on-site
informal interviews with residents. Also, with an interest to
test ideas gathered in our literature review, the team also
carried out on-site facial recognition photography exercises
that simulated the experience of one’s capacity to both
1) recognize neighbors in the open space from every floor in
the towers and 2) assess from what floors views outside are
characterized as “regional” or “local”.
4.1 General observations of the open space
Our site has several features in the open space that facilitate
user activity. First, the central turf meadow is lined with a
circuitous perimeter pathway. This pathway is heavily used
due to the fact that the turf tends to be persistently damp.
Second, the community garden on the eastern edge of
the site attracts periodic use from both tower residents and
those residing in the garden apartments. Third, the Park
Merced Community Farmer’s Market, located at the site’s
western boundary at Arballo and Serrano, attracts heavy
use on Saturday mornings from 10am to 2pm. The Farmer’s
Market was in operation each weekend during the time that
our fieldwork was conducted and that our questionnaire
was distributed. Lastly, a playground nearby the Farmer’s
Market attracts use by children and parents.
4.2 On-site interviews
On Saturday, September 13, our team conducted an
informal interview with an elderly Russian couple (fig. 15) that
was in the community garden tending to sweet pea shoots.
The couple lived in the garden apartments and had used
the community garden for about two years. They admitted
to visiting the plot a few times each week together. They
indicated that the garden was popular among older people
like themselves at Park Merced.
During the midmorning hours of Saturday, October 11, team
members conducted informal interviews with two residents
working in the community garden. These interviews each
lasted about ten minutes and provided comments that
helped shape our understanding of the garden’s users and
typical patterns (fig. 16). Both of these interviews were with
adult women in their 50s. One was a habitual user of the
garden who lived on the 7th
floor of a tower; the other, a
Russian woman who worked in early childhood education,
knew a couple with a plot in the garden and dropped by
periodically to tend to their plants and vegetables.
We also took note of other people using the garden without
Fig 15 - On-site interviews in the community garden

“The garden is a way to keep tabs
on neighbors. I learned about an
elderly woman’s surgery when
I noticed she and her husband
hadn’t made it out to the garden
for several weeks. I saw him on
the elevator one day and he filled
me in.”
“My friends have a plot in the
garden. Every so often I walk
through here to look at it and
tend to it.”
Russian woman, 50 years old, preschool teacher
“My wife and I have gardened
here for two years; we’ve lived
here for 12 years. We come by
a few times each week.”
Elderly Russian man, 75 years old
Woman, 50 years old, treasurer fo garden committee
”Lots of folks who
aren’t gardeners
use the commu-
nity garden during
early afternoons on
weekdays. Young
mothers with stroll-
ers and grandpar-
ents with grand-
children stop by.”
“The community
garden and farm-
er’s market are
big draws, almost
all organic and
cheaper, suits the
community’s needs
and values.”
“The gardeners
who have been
here for a while
tend to know what
grows best in this
dificult microcli-
mate. They give
advice to new-
comers.”
interviewing them. Twice we observed a parent with a
stroller sitting in the garden on the benches that remain in
the sun. We observed two young male adults enter the
garden and investigate the Fog Catcher instrument (fig. 17).
We observed elderly people in the garden looking at roses.
We also observed many people stopping to pause while
walking on the paths that go past the garden or pointing it
out to a friend as they passed by (fig. 18).
During these interviews, it was brought to our attention
that the Park Merced management had much to do with
the level of amenities offered in the tower open space in
Fig 16 - Park Merced residents reflect on the presence
of the community garden
Fig 17 - Looking at the fog catcher instrument
Fig 18 - Looking in while walking by

recent years. By 2004, the community garden was built
at the western edge of our site, a project spearheaded
by a small group of Park Merced residents (an individual,
“MK”, was identified by an interviewee) and supported
by management. The Park Merced Farmer’s Market
was established in recent years by the management
and is run by a private enterprise, the California Farmer’s
Market Association (http://www.cafarmersmkts.com/).
It operates from mid-May to late December. One
interviewee indicated that residents were appreciative of
these investments in the open space, but simultaneously
mentioned that people were uneasy with the proposed
redevelopment plans for Park Merced (see 3.3 Proposed
Changes section).
4.3 Picture series tests
Facial recognition and Exterior Views
Our site measurements included a replication of Jan Gehl’s
threshold study to determine limitations for facial recognition
(see 1.1 Literature Review). We also tested whether a
threshold existed where views from tower floors tended to be
dominated by regional views (ocean, hills, etc) versus open
spaces surrounding the tower bases (meadow, garden,
playgrounds, etc.). Each photo series was accomplished by
having one person take photos from the exterior balconies
of the fire escapes on the northwestern tower.
For the regional versus local view series (fig. 19), a picture
was taken at eye level from each floor looking outward.
It was later determined that local views tend to overtake
regional views at floor 5 at the Park Merced towers. With
this information, we planned to formulate a question on
our survey that would ask residents to verify our findings.
Reflecting on our hypothesis, we anticipated that residents
who live at or below floor 5 would report the ability to visually
connect to the open space and activities below their units,
as well as having a greater affinity to socially connect to
others in these spaces given that degree of visual familiarity.
For the facial recognition series (fig. 20), a picture was taken
from each fire escape balcony looking down at a subject
(Brendan) on a lawn area at the base of the tower. The
photos were taken at a focal length of 70mm from each
floor looking down at the subject, approximating the range
of the human eye. The results of the exercise illustrated to us
that a threshold for recognizing people at ground level exists
at the fourth floor (the towers’ actual 5th
floor).

Fig 19 - Exterior Views

Fig 20 - Facial Recognition

4.4 Behavior mapping and observations
Our on-site measurements and observations included
behavior mapping of commute and recreation paths on a
Friday and Saturday morning, as well as a Sunday afternoon
(fig. 21 - 24). The behavior mapping allowed us to test an
aspect of our hypothesis to see whether tower residents’
commuting paths included a significant number of routes
past the community garden and farmer’s market and other
open space amenities.
In mapping commute paths, we observed residents leaving
and entering one building on the meadow, the northeast
tower, which is adjacent to the community garden and is
the closest tower to major transit connections. We recorded
the observations on a foggy, chilly Friday morning starting at
7:30 AM and ending at 8:30 AM. Two team members were
stationed at the north and south building entrances. The
third team member roved through the open space to track
morning open space users. All of our behavior observation
maps that we produced, and the annotation language that
we developed, can be referred to in appendix A.
In mapping weekend morning recreational and errand
patterns, we visited the towers on a sunny and cool Saturday
morning, starting at 9:30 AM and ending at 10:30AM. One
person was stationed in the meadow near the community
garden’s west entrance. From this vantage point, it was
relatively easy to observe the entirety of movement along
the meadow open space. Observations of this activity from
afar were not difficult to record due to the fact that many
residents carry large orange shopping bags back and forth
from their units to the Park Merced Farmer’s Market. These
bags are provided free of charge to customers visiting the
market.
Analysis of behavior mapping of weekday morning
commute paths outside one of the towers shows that there is
Fig 21 - Friday morning commute
Fig 22 - Friday morning open opace use

an overall northerly movement of students and adults going
toward the SFSU campus and to major transit connections
(M-Ocean View on 19th
Ave. and Font Blvd. bus stops).
We observed that residents of this tower tend to take the
shortest routes in the morning to these destinations, which
means that the building’s south entrance is not utilized very
much. Many residents also head to their parked vehicles on
Serrano Drive as they depart in the morning; this movement
pattern intensiﬁes use of the tower’s north entrance.
During the same weekday morning, we also recorded
general open space use. We observed a number of people
using the meadow path system as an exercise route.
Assuming that these patterns are representative of the rest
of the week, we can say that residents do regularly walk by
many of the open space amenities this study looks at. We
also observed that the north entrances of the south towers
were used by people moving in a northerly direction towards
SFSU or the MUNI rail and bus stops.
Analysis of weekend morning recreational and errand
patterns along the meadow shows that use of the meadow-
facing entrances have a greater volume of use than
on weekdays. As people in the towers head towards
the Farmer’s Market, they also tend to take the shortest
routes, and these routes traverse the meadow. Overall, on
Saturday mornings when weather conditions are favorable,
the number of people walking past the meadow open
space amenities is steady, frequent, and greater in volume
than on weekday mornings. On weekend mornings when
weather conditions are not favorable, open space use
tends to be less active and more static, with residents using
amenities such as the playground and community garden.
Fig 23 - Saturday morning errand patterns
Fig 24 - Sunday morning open space use

5 Research Instrument
5.1 Development of a Questionnaire:
In order to test our hypothesis we created a questionnaire to
distribute to residents of the central Park Merced towers. The
questionnaire was informed by our site visits, observations
and other background investigations, and it formed the
primary source of data for evaluating our hypothesis. Since
our hypothesis suggests a link between awareness of and
interaction with open space features on the one hand, and
a sense of community on the other, we needed to design a
questionnaire that would give us information about both of
these areas, so that we could try to discover and relationship
between them. It was also important to us to include a map
question, so as to gain data from the residents that was
visual and more emic in nature.
On the subject of open space, we tried to get at peoples’
use, perceptions, and feelings about open space, asking
questions about the time people spent outdoors in particular
places or doing particular things, asking open-ended
and qualitative questions about peoples’ open space
perceptions, and asking them to indicate any open space
areas that were special to them on a map. We also tried
to understand peoples’ passive interaction with the open
space through questions asking about views from residents’
windows, about where they observed other residents, and
asking them to identify their customary walking routes on the
map.
Questions about sense of community were more
challenging, as this is a difficult concept to define and
to measure. Based in part on our definition of sense of
community, we attempted to measure this concept by
asking a variety of questions about our respondents’ social
interactions and activities with their neighbors,5
including
5 Throughout this report, the term “neighbor” is indicates anyone
who lives in the neighborhood, not merely next-door-neighbors.
number of neighbors respondents recognize and socialize
with, what they do with them, how often and where.
We also asked about respondents’ general sense of
connectedness to people, their sense of responsibility for
shared space, and we asked them to circle areas in the
open space that they considered to be social spaces on a
map.
In addition to these core areas of inquiry, we also asked
general questions about living in Park Merced, including an
open-ended question about what people liked or would
miss about living there if they moved away. Finally, we asked
demographic and lifestyle questions (e.g. age, student
status, presence of dogs or children) that would help us to
analyze and sort the data.
The final questionnaire is seven pages long and is composed
of 29 questions and a set of map activities. The questions
are composed of multiple-choice, scaled, and a few open-
ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire is included in
Appendix B.
5.2 Questionnaire distribution and response:
The process for distributing our questionnaire required us to
gain entry to the towers. This was easily accomplished, as
residents and staff habitually prop open entries that face
the road to facilitate moves, deliveries and maintenance.
We assembled 152 questionnaires that would go to two
of the four towers. On November 8, we delivered these
questionnaires to all units on every other floor of these two
buildings (fig. 25), sliding the folded letters underneath
hallway doors or wedging them into the doorframe. We left
questionnaires on floors 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (the first level of
the building is called the Lobby, so floor 1 is actually on the
second level).

The response rate to our questionnaire was low in the
weeks following. Two weeks after the delivery date, only 10
questionnaires had been returned. On November 22, the
team returned to Park Merced and distributed neon orange
reminder cards (fig. 26) to the units we left questionnaires
at. The result of this intervention was favorable; we received
an additional 5 questionnaires in the following days. With
n=152, our final response rate was just over 10%.
5.3 Questionnaire results
Having received only 15 questionnaires back from Park
Merced tower residents, our ability to analyze the data for
patterns was unfortunately limited. Our analysis is therefore
anecdotal, alongside the anecdotal information we have
from our observations and conversations with residents.
In addition, the small number of questionnaire responses
precluded our ability to analyze the way peoples’ visual
access to the garden or market from their apartment
windows affected their interaction with the garden, market,
or with other residents. There were simply too few people
with such views.
Nonetheless, some intriguing patterns appeared in the
data we received. The caveat must be given up front that
these patterns may be due to statistical drift rather than real
relationships, due to the small number of surveys. However,
the patterns were intriguing enough to warrant further study
at a future time.
5.4 Three key findings
• The shared open space in Park Merced is highly
valued and heavily used by Park Merced tower
residents, who express their affinity in a variety of
different ways throughout the questionnaire. This is
unusual in a towers-in-the-park apartment design.
• The community garden and the farmer’s market
each play different roles in terms of creating a sense
of community in Park Merced.
• There are differences in the reported social behavior
between residents of the lower floors (below the 6th
Fig 25 - Questionnaire distribution diagram
Fig 26 - Reminders

floor) and upper floors (above the 6th
floor). There is no
reported difference in relationship to or use of open
space.
The remainder of this section will analyze responses to
various questions on the questionnaire that support these
findings. Spreadsheets with the responses to all questions,
with tallies and averages are available in Appendix C, as are
various data-group comparison tables.
5.5 Questionnaire Map Analysis
Residents were given a map of the towers and the meadow
(see Appendix B) and were asked to draw a solid line
with an arrow to indicate the route that they take when
commuting home, a dashed line with an arrow to indicate
the route that they commonly take when not commuting,
to place a star over locations in the open space that are
particularly special or important to them, and to draw circles
around places that they frequently encounter or meet
other residents. Figure 27 is a consolidated diagram of the
commute paths of questionnaire respondents, figure 28
shows non-commute routes, and figure 29 shows the stars
and the circles. Upon analysis, several interesting patterns
emerge.
For one, nearly all of the non-commute walking routes
choose to walk in and round the pedestrian only ‘backyard’
side of the towers, rather than choosing to walk along
roads of the ‘front yard’. Also, people tend to walk along
the existing circuitous paths, particularly when walking for
leisure (non-commute). Perhaps the most interesting finding
from analyzing the questionnaire maps is drawn from figure
29 that illustrates the consolidated stars and circles. The
meadow and Juan Bautista Circle, both large park-like
open spaces rated the highest on both measures. The
farmers market and the community garden were chosen an
Fig 27 - Commute home
Fig 28 - Non -commute path
Fig 29 - Stars and Circles

equal number of times as locations in the open space that
hold significant importance to people (places of personal
significance), but these two landscape elements scored
very differently in terms of how frequently people encounter
or meet other residents (a measure of social interaction).
The farmers market was chosen as often for both measures,
but the community garden was very infrequently chosen as
a socially important place. These findings complement a
similar trend that emerged through an analysis of responses
to questionnaire questions. Another important finding that
came out of the circles and stars map, was that building
entrances were frequently chosen as socially important
places, which is something that we had not anticipated and
that was not largely factored in to our questionnaire design.
5.6 General Findings
Our survey respondents generally seem fairly happy with
living in Park Merced, calling the place friendly, comfortable,
safe, well maintained and attractive (question 3). Residents
rated Park Merced an average of 4 on a five-point scale
for each of these adjectives. Affinity for open space stood
out in the general questions about Park Merced at the
beginning of the survey, reflected in both reasons residents
moved to Park Merced, and things they would miss when
they left (questions 2 and 4). Social characteristics were less
prominent in the responses to both of these questions.
The most commonly used open space features are the
meadow (11 people), the farmer’s market (9 people), the
community garden (8 people) and Juan Bautista Circle (7
people). Favorite open-space activities include people
watching, going for walks, and sitting outside doing work or
reading. The most valued features, (chosen from a list), are
open spaces and lawns, trees, views, and the paths that run
around and through the open spaces (questions 7, 6 and
13).
5.7 Use of and Value for Open Space and its Features
The open space in Park Merced is heavily used, and it
is highly valued in striking ways, which is surprising in a
residential tower situation. Respondents expressed the
importance of the open space to them repeatedly
throughout the survey. To begin with, 5 out of the 15
respondents report spending more than four hours outdoors
in Park Merced each week, while only one respondent
reported spending less than one hour outdoors each week
(question 5).
Fig 30 - Question 4: In general what would you miss
about Park Merced if you were to move away?

Another striking result came from question 4 (fig. 30), an
open-ended question that asked residents what they
would miss if they moved away from Park Merced. Seven
out of 15 respondents mentioned open space features of
some kind. This was second in frequency only to practical
considerations, mentioned by eight people. Only four
people gave socially-oriented responses. All responses
can be seen in figure 3 (most respondents listed more
than one attribute). Two thirds of all respondents either
report spending more than four hours per week outside, or
spontaneously say they would miss open-space features if
they move away.
In addition, when prompted to choose adjectives that
describe the open space around the towers in question 12,
the responses where overwhelmingly positive (fig. 31 - the
size of the word represents frequency of responses.)
We also asked residents in an open-ended way to tell us
what they like best about the shared open space (question
9). Some of the responses included:
“Feeling of spaciousness, fresh air, views, green grass,
shrubs, trees, centers of social interaction between
residents.”
“It’s a good amount of space between buildings; open
spaces give the community an earthy vibe.”
“I like that it is peaceful and allows me to recreate with
nature.”6
All of this is striking and unusual for tower-in-the-park
buildings, and suggest the possibility of further study in order
to understand the design elements that make this open
space so welcoming and successful.
5.8 The Community Garden
We know anecdotally that the garden is valued by those
that use it, as well as by some that don’t, from informal onsite
interviews. For example, one woman, the treasurer of the
garden committee, told us that:
“Lots of folks who aren’t gardeners use the community
garden during early afternoons on weekdays. Young
mothers with strollers and grandparents with grandchildren
stop by.”
The questionnaires confirmed this description, showing
that the community garden is used and valued by many
respondents, and not only by those that garden. Of the
fifteen respondents, 1 person has a plot in the garden, 2
people spend time gardening, 2 say the garden influenced
their decision to move to Park Merced, 3 placed a star on
6 When asked in the next question what they liked least, virtually
the only responses were wet/soggy grass, and dog-owners that don’t
clean up after their dogs.Fig 31 - Responses to question 12

the community garden on their map, 7 say they spend time
in the garden sometimes and one person spends time there
frequently (questions 29, 7, 2, 8). Overall, nine respondents
indicated some kind of positive association with the garden.
However, the community garden barely registered
when respondents were asked to choose their top three
open space features from a list of 8 (question 13). While
the garden is used and valued by a large number of
respondents, it was only ranked highly amongst all open-
space features by one person—and not the person with
the garden plot! Though the garden draws from all of Park
Merced and not only the towers, it is important to note that
the garden is in high demand. There is a waiting list for plots,
and a Park Merced spokesperson said that Park Merced is
planning to create more plots.
5.9 Farmer’s Market
The farmer’s market was not only highly valued, but was
chosen by three respondents as their favorite of all open
space features (question 13). Three respondents said the
market influenced their decision to move to Park Merced,
4 starred the market on their map, and 7 people report
spending time at the market. Only three people did not
express one of these positive associations with the market
(questions 2, 7).
5.10 Social Impacts of Open Space Use and Affinity
It is clear that the open space is highly valued by most of our
respondents, and the farmer’s market and the community
garden in particular are used and valued by many of them.
More difficult to determine is the social effects of these
spaces.
Neighborhood social inclination and activity did not show
up particularly strongly in the questionnaires responses.
As mentioned earlier, only three people spontaneously
mentioned social attributes as aspects of Park Merced that
they would miss if they moved away (question 4). When
asked how important it was to them to socialize with their
neighbors, the most common response was “somewhat
important”, followed by a tie between “not important” and
“important” (only one person chose “very important” as a
response) (question 15). On a five point scale from “not at
all connected to people” to “very connected to people,”
respondents said that living in Park Merced made them feel
an average of a 3.5—just above neutral, though the range
of responses varied from 2.5 – 5 (question 16). Interestingly,
we discovered that respondents’ sense of connectedness to
other people from living in Park Merced bore no discernable
relationship to the number of neighbors they knew or
socialized with (fig. 32).
In order to assess the way that open space uses affected
Fig 32 - Sense of Connectedness to People vs. # of People
socialized with

social feelings and behaviors, we divided the respondents
into groups in the following ways: those that spend more
or less than two hours per week outside, those that do or
don’t spend time in the community garden, and those that
do or don’t spend time at the farmer’s market (questions
5, 7). These seemed like the best proxies available for the
questions we were asking in our hypothesis. We compared
the groups to see if any social or other patterns emerged.
5.11 Spending time outdoors
The questionnaires showed some limited evidence of
outdoor social activity: 5 respondents reported having met
neighbors through outdoor activities, 6 respondents said they
regularly had casual conversations with neighbors outside,
and 2 regularly took part in group activities or sports outside
(questions 21, 20).
What was most intriguing though, was a striking relationship
between the amount of time that respondents spend
outside, and the degree to which they report feel
connected to others (ﬁg. 33)(questions 5, 16). However, not
only was there no corresponding relationship between time
residents spend outside and the number of people they
socialize with (question 17), there was an inverse relationship.
The group that spends more time outside reports socializing
with an average of 3.75 people, while the group that spends
less time outside socializes with 6 people on average!
Respondents that spent more time outside were more
likely to know residents from other buildings however, and
they were more likely to express a sense of responsibility for
the shared open space (questions 18, 14). In addition, the
group that spent more time outside was more likely to apply
adjectives like beautiful, communal, friendly, open, social
and welcoming, many of these social adjectives, to the
open space (ﬁg. 34)(question 12).
Fig 33 - Sense of Connectedness to People vs. # Time Spent
Outdoors
Fig 34 - Adjectives by amount of time spent outside

5.12 Spending Time in the Garden or Market
The social results from spending time in the garden or the
market are somewhat mixed. We found that in general, it
was different people that were drawn to the market vs. the
garden, and that they were drawn to it for different reasons.
They both seemed to have a role to play in forming a sense
of community, but in distinct ways.
We know anecdotally through informal interviews that
the garden has a social role to play for the relatively
small number of residents that garden in it, ranging from
keeping tabs on neighbors, to stopping by to check on a
friend’s garden plot. (see section 4.2). Nonetheless, it seems
signiﬁcant that while only two people report spending time
gardening, fully half of the respondents report spending
some time in the garden (questions 7, 6). Three respondents
report having met neighbors in the garden, 3 tend to
encounter their neighbors there, and 9 report observing their
neighbors in the garden (questions 21, 19, 9) .
The farmer’s market was the second-most popular place
to spend time amongst survey respondents (question 7).
Of the 9 residents that report spending time there, 7 report
encountering their neighbors at the market, and 3 report
having met neighbors there (questions 19, 21).
In order to compare social characteristics across
respondents that do or don’t spend time at the market or
garden, we took 4 social questions with responses that ﬁt on
a relative scale (desire for social interaction, # of neighbors
respondent says hello to, # of neighbors respondent
socializes with and general sense of connectedness to
people in Park Merced—questions 15, 17, 16), calibrated the
scales, (we put all of them on a 100-point scale, since the
questions responses were on different scales) and graphed
them.
Fig 35 - Social characteristics of FM and CG

The results in ﬁgure 35 illustrate the different social functions
played by farmer’s market and the community garden.
Desire for social interaction is strong in farmer’s market
attendees, but not garden-dwellers. Garden-dwellers have
fewer social contacts over all, and market-dwellers a greater
number (although market-dwellers don’t seem to actually
socialize with a greater number of people than non-market
dwellers.) This corroborates the analysis of the garden
and market as social vs. meaningful places in section 5.5.
Additionally, Figures 36 and 37 show that market- and
garden-users emphasize different sets of social adjectives
when they describe Park Merced’s shared open space in a
general way.
Most striking of all, however, is the fact that across all groups,
the sense of connection to people is reported as identical.
Garden-dwellers socialize with fewer people than non-
garden dwellers (and than market-dwellers), but feel just as
great a sense of connection as those who do. The converse
is true as well. Those that don’t spend time in the garden,
or don’t spend time at the market, feel equally connected
as those that do. People seem to meet their social needs in
different ways. This particular aspect seems like rich fodder
for further study.
5.13 Paths by the community garden
As stated earlier, the limited number of questionnaires
made it impossible for us to do any kind of analysis related
to windows overlooking the garden or market. However,
we were able to do an extremely limited analysis of those
residents that indicated on in the map activity that they
have a regular walking path that goes by the community
garden. We found that the six respondents with paths that
went directly by the garden were more likely to spend time
in the garden, more likely to encounter neighbors through
the garden, more likely to meet others through the garden,
Fig 36 - Adjectives by time spent in CG
Fig 37 - Adjectives by time spent at FM

and more likely to people watch (questions 7, 19, 21, 6). They
were also more likely to go for walks, more likely to take part
in outdoor activities or sports, and more likely to value the
open-space paths (questions 6, 13).
5.14 Analyzing the Impact of Resident’s Floor Height7
We also found interesting results when comparing
questionnaire results from respondents that lived on different
floors. Specifically, we compared residents that lived below
the sixth floor to those that lived above the sixth floor. We
excluded sixth-floor residents, the floor at which we had
determined a threshold exists, a threshold where facial
details disappear and regional views become significant,
through observations on our site visits. We found that in
general, living on higher floors had an impact on social
indicators and connection to open space, but not on use or
appreciation of open space.
7 Floor heights are given here in the traditional American system
(ground floor is the 1st
floor), for the sake of generalizability. Park Merced’s
floors were numbered in the European system, where the ground floor is
the lobby, and the first floor is actually on the building’s second level.)
Residents who live on the upper floors claim to socialize with
fewer people (see chart 10), know fewer people in other
buildings, and have less desire for social interaction with
their neighbors, than do people who live on lower floors
(questions 17, 18, 15). Upper-floor residents also identified
fewer open-space features on their maps, and indicated
a lower sense of responsibility for the open space (question
14).8
However, upper-floor residents report spending as
much time outside as do lower-floor residents, and they are
equally as likely to appreciate and value open space and
individual open space features, and to have met people
through open-space activities, as well (questions 5, 21, etc).
All of this is consistent with Christopher Alexander’s four-story
limit thesis, although in our case we found the “limit” at the
fifth floor.
Curiously enough, upper-floor residents were actually
much more likely to spend time in the community garden
than were lower-floor residents, and everyone who reports
encounters neighbors or having met neighbors at the
garden lives on an upper floor (questions 7, 19, 21). This is
a particularly odd anomaly, and a deeply confounding
factor. The social patterns we observed in the garden
could really be reflecting the social patterns of upper-floor
residents, or vice verse (of course, this sort of problem is really
present in all of our analysis, because of the small number of
questionnaires).
8 On a five-point scale where one is “don’t feel responsible” and
five is “feel responsible,” lower floors gave an average response of 4.5,
while upper floors gave an average of 3.7
Fig 38 - Floor people live on vs. # of neighbors they socialize with

5.15 Other Mitigating Factors: Age, Tenure, Student Status
Other mitigating factors to take into account include age,
student-status and tenure (questions 23, 25, 1). For example,
we had a wide age-range of respondents, ranging from 18
– 70, with some representation of all age ranges—though
quite different than the age demographics suggested by
the census (see figure 39). Different age groups had very
different social habits. Younger people reported socializing
with more people than did mid-age adults, and people
over 65 socialized with by far the most people (question 17).
Tenure also plays a role. Socializing with neighbors is more
important to long-term residents, and long-term residents
report socializing with many more people than do shorter-
term residents (questions 15, 17). In addition, the five students
who responded had markedly different lifestyles in terms
of social characteristics and open space usage than did
non-students, and were less engaged with the place or
people in it by most measures. If we had a great deal more
questionnaires, it would be useful to analyze them by age
group, and omit students altogether (or at least analyze
them separately). However, only 1 questionnaire respondent
had a child at home, and no one had dogs (questions 28,
26). These are confounding social factors that we did not
Fig 39 - Age demographics of respondants
6 Critique of the study
The hypothesis being tested in this study is
In a residential tower neighborhood, there will be a
greater sense of community associated with shared
open space amenities, such as a community garden,
when residents have: 1) a visual connection from their
dwelling units; 2) an awareness of such amenities;
and 3) opportunities to interact along their commute
or recreational routes.
In contrast, when residents do not have a visual
connection or opportunity for interaction, the sense
of community associated with shared open space will
be weaker.
Given that the response rate to the questionnaire was low,
it is not possible to determine whether the key findings that
emerged from the hypothesis (restated above) were in fact
trends or simply anomalies. Even had we received 100% of
our questionnaires back, it would have been challenging to
conclude that the presence of elements like a community
garden or farmer’s market is a cause for the sense of
community in a tower setting. That said we are confident
that our findings provide an interesting variety of qualitative
conclusions that have the potential to reveal even more in a
future sense of community study at this Park Merced site.

In terms of the wording of our hypothesis, we simply took on
too much; it was difficult to account for all three sub-points
of sense of community (visual connection, awareness, and
opportunity to interact). It may have been more effective to
test for only one of these sub-points of the hypothesis rather
than all three.
In terms of the methodology of our questionnaire, we may
have benefited from doing both a mail-in questionnaire AND
an on-site survey that could have been a shorter version of
our original questionnaire. This on-site survey could have
been administered on a Saturday when the Park Merced
Farmer’s Market was in progress. Aside from that, given
the fact that the questionnaire was eight pages in length
(including a cover letter), we may have benefited from
limiting it to fewer pages. Fewer pages may have made
the questionnaire less daunting to complete, especially for
residents that may not read or speak English with adequate
fluency. Also, upping our n to more than 152 may have
been another way to get more respondents.
The way the questions were specifically worded in the
questionnaire also presented problems in getting at what we
hoped to learn from Park Merced tower residents. In other
words, only after completing our analysis did we realize that
many of our questions failed to comprehensively interrogate
the stated hypothesis. Rather, our questions tested for social
attributes and use of space.
Lastly, our approach to learning about sense of community
around the towers neglected to address the imminent
changes proposed for Park Merced by developers. These
changes will alter the landscape and add high-rise density
by removing most of the garden apartments, among other
things. It follows that these future changes are having an
impact on the sense of community at Park Merced today.
Through informal interviews on-site we gathered that
residents are fairly cognizant about these changes, but our
questionnaire did not directly solicit opinions from residents
about how this is impacting the sense of community at the
meadow towers. In that, we missed an opportunity.

7 References
Alexander, . 1977. A pattern language. New York.
Becker, Franklin, D, and Lawrence Friedburg P. 1974. Design
for living: The residents’ view of multi-family housing.
Ithaca: New York Center for Urban Development
Research.
Bickman, L., A. Tegar, T. Gabriele, C. McLaughlin, M. Berger,
and E. Sunaday. 1973. Dormitory density and helping
behavior. Environment and Behavior 5, : 465-90.
Cooper Marcus, Clare, and Lindsay Hogue. 1977. Design
guidelines for high-rise family housing. In Human
response to tall buildings. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross.
Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life between buildings: Using public space.
Trans. Jo Koch. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gifford, Robert. 2007. The consequences of living in high-rise
buildings. Architectural Science Review 50, (1) (Mar.): 2-
17.
Ginsberg, Y., and A. Churchman. 1985. The pattern and
meaning of neighbor relations in high-rise housing in
israel. Human Ecology 13, : 467-85.
Glover, Troy, D, Kimberly Shinew J, and Diana Parry C.
2005. Association, sociability, and civic culture: The
democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure
Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 27, (1): 75-92.
Hancock, Trevor. 2001. People, partnerships and human
progress: Building community capital. Health Promotion
International 16, (3): 275-80.
Hester, Randolph T. 2006. Design for ecological democracy.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Husaini, B.,A, R. Castor S, R. Whitten-Stovall, and S. Moore T.
1990. An evaluation of a therapeutic health program for
the elderly. Journal of Health and Social Policy 2, : 67-85.
Kronemeyer, Thomas Albert. 1996. Living in a diagram : A
case study on the neighborhood form of parkmerced,
san francisco, CA.
Lawson, Laura J. 2005. City bountiful a century of community
gardening in america. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lawson, Laura. 1995. A garden grows a community. Places
9, (3): 47.
Michelson, William M. 1977. Environmental choice, human
behavior, and residential satisfaction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Parkmerced Resident’s Organization. Facts about YOUR
neighborhood. San Francisco: Parkmerced Resident’s
Organization, .
Shinew, Kimberly, J, Troy Glover D, and Diana Parry C.
2004. Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial
interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal
of Leisure Research 36, (3): 336-55.
Weinstein, Dave. 2008. Parkmerced: Symbol of future or the
past? San Francisco Chronicle, May 3, 2008, 2008.
Wilcox, B., L, and C. Holahan J. 1976. Social ecology of the
megadorm in university student housing. Journal of
Educational Psychology 68, : 453-8.

Appendix A
Behavior observation maps

Appendix B
The Questionnaire

*The orange text indicates codes used to record questionnaire responses for analysis. This
text was not present on the surveys given to respondents.
The first section asks you some general questions about your experience living in Park Merced.
1. How long have you lived in your unit in Park Merced?
_____ less than one year
_____ 1 – 2 years
_____ 2 – 5 years
_____ more than five years
(if more than five, please state how
many years)

2. What factors influenced your decision to live in the Park Merced towers? (please mark all that
apply)
_____ great views
_____ proximity to transit
_____ affordability
_____ proximity to work/school
_____ open space/lawns
_____ farmer’s market
_____ community garden
_____ good sense of community
_____ peacefulness
_____ attractiveness
_____ near natural spaces
_____ other ___________________

3. Do you find Park Merced to be . . . (please circle the appropriate number in each category)
friendly
comfortable
safe
well maintained
attractive

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

unfriendly
uncomfortable
unsafe
poorly maintained
unattractive

4. In general, what would you miss about Park Merced if you were to move away?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1)
(2)
(4)
(3)

In the second section you will be asked about how you use the open space around the Park Merced
towers.

5. How much time do you spend outdoors in Park Merced each week?
_____ none
_____ less than 1 hour per week
_____ 1 – 2 hours per week
_____ 2 – 4 hours per week
_____ more than four hours/ week

6. How often do you engage in the following activities outdoors?
jogging
walking your dog
people watching
sports or other activities with friends
sitting and reading/doing work
going for walks
gardening
taking children to the playground
taking children elsewhere.
     (please specify where)_____________________
never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______

7. How often do you spend time in the following places?
“The Meadow” central lawn     never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
farmer’s market      never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
community garden       never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
playground       never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
Juan Bautista Circle      never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
other          never/rarely______             sometimes ______                 often______
         (please specify where)____________________

8. Where do you observe other Park Merced residents spending time? (please mark all that apply)

_____ “The Meadow” central lawn
_____ playground
_____ Juan Bautista Circle
_____ other (please specify) _____________
(1)(2) (3)
(1)(2)(3)
(1)
(3)
(2) (5)
(4)

The third section will ask you how you feel about the open space around the Park Merced towers.

9. What do you like best about the open space around the tower buildings? ______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. What do you like least about the open space around the tower buildings? ___________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. Describe the things that stand out in the view from your window (without going to your
window to check!) ___________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Which of the following adjectives best describe the open space around the Park Merced
towers? (please circle all that apply)

barren
beautiful
busy
comfortable
communal
friendly
green
impersonal
isolated
lifeless
littered
lively
lonely
maintained
open
ordinary
peaceful
social
soggy
lush
ugly
uncomfortable
unique
welcoming

13. Of the following features, choose the three that you value most (please rank order those
that you choose, with “1” being your favorite and “3” your least favorite.)
_____ trees
_____ Juan Bautista circle
_____ large lawn/open spaces
_____ views from your apartment
_____ paths
_____ playgrounds

Why does number 1 have the greatest value to you?  _____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. To what degree do you feel a sense of responsibility for the open space around the tower
buildings? (e.g. picking up litter, reporting vandalism, etc.) (please place an X on the following
scale)

feel               don’t feel
responsible              responsible
5         4.5   4    3.5      3      2.5          2            1.5   1

The fourth section will ask about your relationships with other residents in Park Merced.

15. How important is it to you to know or interact with the people that live in your neighborhood?
_____ very important
_____ important
_____ somewhat important
_____ not important

16. Living in the Park Merced towers generally makes me feel . . . (please place an X on the
following scale)
       very connected                                very disconnected
       to people                                  from people

17. How many neighbors or other residents of Park Merced do you . . . . (please place an X on
the following scales)
             0             3              6              9              12 or more
. . . . recognize?
             0             3              6              9              12 or more
. . . . say hello to?
             0             3              6              9              12 or more
. . . . socialize with?

18. Do the neighbors and other residents that you say hello to live: (please mark all that apply)
_____ on your floor?
_____ in your building?
_____ in other tower buildings?
_____ in other parts of Park Merced?
19. Where do you tend to encounter your neighbors and other residents of Park Merced?
(please mark all that apply)
_____ elevator
_____ hallway
_____ lawn space/ “The Meadow”
_____ on the street
_____ playgrounds
_____ transit station/stop
_____ parking garage

5       4.5           4          3.532.5 2         1.5   1
      1.5       4.5      7.5       11.5
     1.5      4.5      7.5       11.5
     1.5       4.5      7.5       11.5
(3)
(4)
(1)
(2)

Section four, continued:
20. How often do you have the following interactions with your neighbors or other residents
of Park Merced? (please mark an X on the following scales)

greeting your neighbors as you pass
them by indoors
greeting your neighbors as you pass
them by outdoors
longer casual conversations indoors
longer casual conversations outdoors
doing activities together outdoors

indoor parties or get‐togethers
attending meetings or doing activities
together within Park Merced
attending meetings or doing activities
together outside of Park Merced
other (please specify) _____________________

21. How did you meet the neighbors or other residents of Park Merced that you know?
(please mark all that apply)
_____ haven’t met any
_____ while moving in
_____ due to an emergency
_____ at the farmer’s market
_____ through the community garden
_____ through children’s friends, or
daycare/babysitting
_____ introduced self or through neighbor
_____ due to neighborhood concerns (eg crime or
political issues)
_____ through outdoor activities or time spent
outdoors
_____ through walking my dog
_____ other (Please specify) ______________

22. Can you think of an event, group, organization or activity that brought/brings this
neighborhood together as a community?
If so, what? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you involved? (please circle)   yes  /  no
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
every
day
never or
rarely
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

11.522.534.544.55

In order to help us evaluate your responses, the final section will ask a few questions about yourself
and your habits. Your answers will help us evaluate our responses.

23. List the age of each member of your household:
Person 1 age:  __________
Person 2 age:  __________
Person 3 age:  __________
Person 4 age:  __________
Person 5 age:  __________
Person 6 age:  __________

24. What type of apartment do you live in?

_____  studio
_____ 1 bedroom
_____ 2 bedroom
_____ 3 bedroom

25. Are you a student? (please circle)    yes  /  no

26. Do you own a dog? (please circle)    yes  /  no
27. How do you get to work or school?
_____ single automobile
_____ carpool
_____ mass transit
_____ auto and mass transit
_____ bike
_____ bike and mass transit
_____ walk
_____ work at home
_____ retired/don’t work

28. If you have children, do you walk them to school? (please circle)      yes  /  no  /  no children

29. Do you have a plot in the community garden? (please circle)              yes  /  no
Thank you so much for taking the time to fill out our survey!

If you would be interested in being contacted for follow‐up questions, please email us at
parkmercedresearch@gmail.com with your name and phone number. (Your survey responses will remain
anonymous).
If you have any comments or questions for us, or anything you would like to add, we welcome your feedback at the
email address above. In addition, we would love to see your impressions of the open space around your building,
and so we invite you to email to us a digital photograph or two, either of the view from your window or of the
outdoor features you value most in your neighborhood (with a label and brief explanation). Such photographs
would be very helpful, but they are entirely optional.

Appendix C
Questionnaire Analysis

Quest
ion 5
# if more
than five
years
great
views
prox to
transit affordability
prox to
work/
school
open
space/
lawns
farmer's
market
community
garden
sense of
community
peaceful-
ness
attractive
ness
near
natural
spaces other Friendly comfortable safe
well
maintained attractive jogging
walking
dog
people-
watching
sports/
activities
sitting
and
reading/
doing
work
going
for
walks
1 EV110 E 11 K 3.5 x x x 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 ER105 E 3 E 0.5 easy to move in 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 3
3 ES111 E 5 L 35 x x x x x x 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 2 2
4 ES106 E 5 F 0.5 x x x x x x x x 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3
5 ET103 E 7 C 35 x x x x x x x x x 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 3
6 RV105 R 11 E 3.5 x x x x x x 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 3
7 RV111 R 11 L 3.5 x x 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 2
8 RQ107 R 1 G 0.5 x 3 3 2 2 3 5 2 1 3 2 3 3
9 ET110 E 7 K 35 x x x x x x x 5 5 4 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 3
10 ES108 E 5 H x 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 1 1 2 1
11 ER102 E 3 B 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x
Lake Merced, golf
courses, low crime rate,
high visibility patrols by
sf state univ police dpt
and private secrity 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3
12 RR111 R 3 L 15 x x x 3 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 2
13 RQ105 R 1 E 22 x x x x x x x x 4 4 4 4 4
14 RS106 R 5 F 18 x x x x 4 4 3 3 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 3
15 RR106 R 3 F 27 x 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
15.5 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 57 60 60 57 54 18 14 29 18 25 34
7 7 7 7 8 7 9 3 2 2 7 8 9 2 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
average value 2.2143 26.7143 4.1429 4.0714286 4 4 4.07143 3.86 1.2857 1 2.07143 1.28571 1.78571 2.429
# of answers recorded for
the question
Sum of values
Question 2Question 1 Question 3 Question 6
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt.

1 EV110 E 11 K
2 ER105 E 3 E
3 ES111 E 5 L
4 ES106 E 5 F
5 ET103 E 7 C
6 RV105 R 11 E
7 RV111 R 11 L
8 RQ107 R 1 G
9 ET110 E 7 K
10 ES108 E 5 H
11 ER102 E 3 B
12 RR111 R 3 L
13 RQ105 R 1 E
14 RS106 R 5 F
15 RR106 R 3 F
average value
the question
Sum of values
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt. gardening
taking
children
to play-
ground
taking
children
elsewhere (where?) meadow
farmer's
market
community
garden
play-
ground
Juan
Bautista
Circle Other Meadow
farmer's
market
community
garden
play-
ground
Juan
Bautista
circle other barren beautiful busy comfortable communal friendly green impersonal isolated lifeless litered
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 nowhere x
1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 x x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 x x x x x x
2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 x x x x x x x
2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 x x x x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x x
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3
3
(walkin
g
paths) x x x x x open spaces x x x x x x
1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1
walking to and
from homes on
the street x
x x x x x
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 x x x x
1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
catchin
g bus x x x x x
16 15 14 0 26 25 23 17 23 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 14 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 11 10 9 6 9 3 1 8 2 7 6 9 14 2 0 0 0
#DIV/0! 1.0714 1 1.85714 1.7857 1.642857 1.214 1.6429 0.857
Question 8Question 7

1 EV110 E 11 K
2 ER105 E 3 E
3 ES111 E 5 L
4 ES106 E 5 F
5 ET103 E 7 C
6 RV105 R 11 E
7 RV111 R 11 L
8 RQ107 R 1 G
9 ET110 E 7 K
10 ES108 E 5 H
11 ER102 E 3 B
12 RR111 R 3 L
13 RQ105 R 1 E
14 RS106 R 5 F
15 RR106 R 3 F
average value
the question
Sum of values
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt.
Question
14
Question
15
Question
16
lively lonely maintained open ordinary peaceful social soggy lush ugly uncomfortable unique welcoming trees
Juan
Bautista
circle
lawn/o
pen
spaces views
community
garden
farmer's
market paths
play-
grounds recognize
say
hello
to
socialize
with
on
your
floor
in your
building
x x 2 1 3 1.5 1 2.5 7.5 4.5 1.5 x
x x x x x x 3 2 1 3.5 3 4.5 12 9 7.5 x x
x 3 2 1 4 3 3.5 10.5 12 1.5 x
x x x x 2 1 3 3.5 2 2.5 4.5 10.5 1.5 x
x x x x 2 1 3 3.5 2 3.5 10.5 10.5 4.5 x x
x x x 3 2 1 4.5 1 3.5 7.5 10.5 1.5 x x
x x 1 2 3 4 2 3 9 3 3 x x
x x x x x x 1 3
2 (view
from
roof) 3.5 2 4 9 6 6 x
x x x x x x x x 2 1 3 5 4 5 12 12 6 x x
x x x 3 2 1 3.5 2 3.5 4.5 10.5 0 x
x x x x x x x x 1 2 3 5 2 4 12 12 3 x x
x x x 1 2 3 4.5 4 4 12 12 12 x x
x 1 2 3 4.5 3 3.5 7.5 7.5 4.5 x x
x x x 1 3 2 4 1 3.5 10.5 10.5 7.5 x x
x x x 1 2 3 4.5 2 2.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 x
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5 26 12 3 3 16 6 59 34 53 139.5 141 70.5 0 0
2 0 11 10 2 11 4 3 2 0 1 3 8 9 2 14 8 1 3 6 2 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 15
1.889 2.5 1.857 1.5 3 1 2.67 3 3.93333 2.26667 3.53333 9.3 9.4 4.7
QueQuestion 13aQuestion 12 Question 17

1 EV110 E 11 K
2 ER105 E 3 E
3 ES111 E 5 L
4 ES106 E 5 F
5 ET103 E 7 C
6 RV105 R 11 E
7 RV111 R 11 L
8 RQ107 R 1 G
9 ET110 E 7 K
10 ES108 E 5 H
11 ER102 E 3 B
12 RR111 R 3 L
13 RQ105 R 1 E
14 RS106 R 5 F
15 RR106 R 3 F
average value
the question
Sum of values
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt.
in other
buildings
in other
parts of
park
merced elevator hallway
community
garden meadow street
farmer's
market
play-
grounds
transit
stop
parking
garage other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Other
frequency
other
description
haven't
met any
while
moving
in
due to
emergency
farmer's
market
community
garden
children's
friends
introduced
self
x x 2.5 2.5 x
x x x 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 x x
x x x x x x stores 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 x x
x 4.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 x x
x x x x x x x 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 x x
x x x x x x 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 x x x
x x 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 x
x x x x x x x SFSU 1 2 2 3 4 3.5 1.5 1.5
x x x x x x x x x x x
laundry room
is #1 spot 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 3 x x
x
lobby outside
entrance 4.5 3 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 x
x x x x x x x x
Park merced
grocery store
(Plaza Fine
Foods) 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 x
x x x x xx x x 4.5 4.5 4 4 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 x
x mail 2.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
laundry
room x
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 45.5 35.5 33.5 21 19 16.5 18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 4 15 12 3 8 9 7 1 5 2 6 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 0 1 0 4 0 3 3 1 11
3.5 3.3 2.7 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.5
Question 21estion 18 Question 19 Question 20

1 EV110 E 11 K
2 ER105 E 3 E
3 ES111 E 5 L
4 ES106 E 5 F
5 ET103 E 7 C
6 RV105 R 11 E
7 RV111 R 11 L
8 RQ107 R 1 G
9 ET110 E 7 K
10 ES108 E 5 H
11 ER102 E 3 B
12 RR111 R 3 L
13 RQ105 R 1 E
14 RS106 R 5 F
15 RR106 R 3 F
average value
the question
Sum of values
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt.
Question
24
neighbor
hood
concerns
outdoor
activities
walking
dog Other
Name/what
it is Involved
Not
involved 0 - 10 11 - 17 18 - 25 25 - 64 65 +
age of
respo
ndent
# of
bedrooms student
non-
student
dog
owner
not dog
owner
single
auto carpool transit
auto +
transit bike
bike +
transit walk
don't
commute other
walk
kids to
school
don't
walk
kids to
school
PRO
(organization
) x 2 65 1 x x x
Farmer's
market, hay
ride x 3 1 40 2 x x x
x 2 x x x x x
2 23 1 x x x
x
PRO (Park
Merced
Residents
Organization x 2 65 2 x x x x x
1 2 40 2 x x x x
1 40 studio x x x x
x
The garage
sale shindig
and pumpkin
patch x 1 23 1 x x x
x x
Cleanup and
Tree planting x 2 65 2 x x x
Farmer's
market is
Park Merced-
sponsored.
Activities like
Harvest Fair
and Arbor
Day x 2 23 2 x x x x
x 3 1 40 2 x x x
1 1 1 23 2 x x x x x
2 x x x x
x x 1 65 1 x x x
laundry
Welfare of
Park Merced x 1 65 1 x x x
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 6 8 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 5 0 1 7 4 3 0 1 7 5 5 15 5 10 0 15 4 0 6 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 2
0 1 1.857 1.2 1.6 1.533333
QuestionQuestion 26Question 25 Question 27Question 22 Question 23

1 EV110 E 11 K
2 ER105 E 3 E
3 ES111 E 5 L
4 ES106 E 5 F
5 ET103 E 7 C
6 RV105 R 11 E
7 RV111 R 11 L
8 RQ107 R 1 G
9 ET110 E 7 K
10 ES108 E 5 H
11 ER102 E 3 B
12 RR111 R 3 L
13 RQ105 R 1 E
14 RS106 R 5 F
15 RR106 R 3 F
average value
the question
Sum of values
Surv
ey
numb
er Code
Tow
er
Floo
r Apt.
no
children
comm
garden
plot no plot garden star
no garden
star market star
no market
star
path by
garden
no path by
garden
x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x
yes
(sunflower
experiment
) x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 1 14 4 11 4 11 6 9
Map garden star map market star map path by garden28 Question 29

Question 9 Question 10 Question 13b
apartment
characterist
ics
Social
characterist
ics
Open space
characteristics
practical
consideratio
ns
Emotional/qualit
y of life reasons View
features in
immediate
viscinity
far away
features
indetermina
te distance
1 EV110 E 11 J wood floors
2 ER105 E 3 E young people peaceful great views lots of lawns
grass is
always wet lake trees view is peaceful, nice
3 ES111 E 5 K friends spacious and well maintained often windy farmer's market
ocean, golf
course relaxing, interesting view
4 ES106 E 5 F farmer's market
proximity to
school
I like that it is peaceful and
allows me to re-connect with
nature
it feels a little
too man-
made, not
natural
enough townhouses rest of city trees it reminds me of home
5 ET103 E 7 C Retirees rent control not being closed-in feeling
dog walkers
not using
pooper-
scoopers
golf club, lake
merced,
ocean craft not being closed-in feeling
6 RV105 R 11 E open space
proximity to
transit Ocean view lawns nothing ocean
7 RV111 R 11 K
trees, lawn, open
space fresh air, sunshine, plants
construction
work,
painting
the other building,
lawn, community
garden
air. View and trees take years
to grow so big and tall
8 RQ107 R 1 G
people I've
met
convenience
walking to and
from school
it's a good amount of space
between buildings; open spaces
give the community an earthy
vibe
the sludge
and mud in
the middle of
it all
the townhouses:
boring!
I like trees, if I could I would
live off the land and trees get
that vibe
9 ET110 E 7 J
My home for so
long
It is like a village in San
Francisco nothing people I like to watch people
10 ES108 E 5 H
open space/lawns
and trees, proximity
to lake merced parking
Having an area like that outside
my door while in an urban
setting nothing
street below, people
walking trees
I have valued and used other
farmer's markets in other
areas where I have lived and
I think it is fortunate to have
a quality market so close
11 ER102 E 3 B
open green areas,
trees rent control
the entire Park
Merced
neighborhood, low
traffic, fresh air,
quitness, low crime
rate, proximity to
public transit
Feeling of spaciousness, fresh
air, views, green grass, shrubs,
trees, centers of social
interaction between residents nothing green grass
distant views,
sky, weather trees
Feeling of spaciousness,
green flora, fresh (high O2
levels and low pollution)
12 RR111 R 3 L
Good
maintenance,
solid
constructed
home cheap rent It's good for kids to play on
The dog
poop, the
muddy lawns
other buildings,
community garden BART trees
I like the convenience of the
market and wish we had more
markets
13 RQ105 R 1 E
hundred-year big
trees, stretch of
green grass fields
14 RS106 R 5 F open space/lawns green grass
15 RR106 R 3 F convenience fresh air dog poop SFSU
Peaceful-don't cut down any
more!
2 4 7 8 3 13 12 8 8 5 11
Number of answers for each
question or category
TowerCode
Survey
number
Question 11
Apt.Floor
Qustion 4

Final project final draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Final project final draft

Similar to Final project final draft (20)

Final project final draft