This paper, which was presented at the 5th Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, discusses the cultural performance of a recently established greenway in Irvine, one of America's few New Towns. While there are many studies focusing on the biotic and abiotic performance of greenways, very few studies have focused on the cultural performance of linear parks and greenways. Borrowing a definition of cultural performance from Ahern (2007) this post occupancy evaluation used user-behaviour and physical activities observations conducted over the course of a week to illustrate successes and drawbacks in the design of the Jeffrey Open Space in terms of social life, physical health and identity promotion

1. Landscape infrastructure and the retrofitting of
sustainability into suburban communities
Irvine, California’s
Jeffrey Open Space Trail
Deni Ruggeri, PhD Associate Professor and Head of Section
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial planning
5th Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning
30.6.2016

2. THE IRVINE RANCH
22 Miles / 35 Kilometers Long
9 Miles / 14.5 Kilometers Wide
90,000 Acres / 37,636 Hectares
187 Square Miles / 484 Square Kilometers
1950s

3. 1960s
- college town
- 100,000 people
- Monocentric
- walkable
(superblock)
- automobile oriented
- agricultural greenbelt

4. Newport Center/Fashion Island
SpectrumIrvine
Business
District
Irvine Marketplace
University Center
1980s
- commercial town
- 250,000 people
- polycentric
- walkable
(superblock)
- automobile oriented
- Nature preserve to
the north and south

5. 1990s
NCCP nature preserve

6. 2000s
University Ave greenway retrofit

7. 2000s
3.5 mi
5,6 km

8. 2007

9. • Planning begun in 2001, phase 2 completed 2007
by SWA group
• Greenway entirely open in 2016
• 3,5 miles (5.6 km) long, 300’ avg. width (100m)
• The result of a participatory process
• Dual trail system 11 ft. (3,3 m) multi-modal, 6 ft. (1,8m )
wide “soft” pedestrian trail)
• Grade separated crossings (underpasses and
overpasses)
• Native landscaping with lawn areas (meadows)
• Vegetated dry creek
• Historical timeline and art installations
Jeffrey Open Space Trail- facts

10. Retail Site
Town
center/shopping
Affordable
housing
Affordable
housing
Community center
Apartments
Townhomes
Townhomes
Detention
area
Townhomes
Townhomes
Townhomes

11. • Quantitative analysis (SOPARC)
• 1 week, 3*30 min. randomly sampled data
collection sessions 8am-6pm, Jan 2016
• Data collection template
– simplified plan of each sub-area
– symbols indicating the gender and direction of travels
of users
– weather/wind conditions
– a two-minute traffic count/noise levels (in decibels)
– types and intensity of possible users’ activities
– predominant user group (adults, children, seniors)
POE |
Methodology_1

12. • Qualitative analysis (Cooper Marcus & Francis
1997)
• Participant observation
– Question 1: Who is there?
– Question 2: What are they doing?
– Question 3: Where are they?
– Question 4: How does the space feel as a user?
– Question 5: How does the place ‘work’ as a user?
– Question 6: What changes may be suggested to
improve its design?
POE |
Methodology_2

13. POE |
Observations sites

14. POE |
Observations @ peak times

15. POE |
Observations @ off peak times

16. Abiotic Biotic Cultural
Surface:groundwater
interactions
Habitat for generalist
species
Direct experience of
natural ecosystems
Soil development process Habitat for specialist
species
Physical recreation
Maintenance of
hydrological regime(s)
Movement routes and
corridors
Experience and
interpretation of cultural
history
Accommodation of
disturbance regime(s)
Maintenance of
disturbance and
successional regimes
Provide a sense of
solitude and inspiration
Buffering of nutrient cycling Biomass producti Opportunities for healthy
social interactions
Sequestration of carbon
and (greenhouse gasses)
Provision of genetic
reserves
Stimulus of
artistic/abstract
expression(s)
Modification and buffering
of climatic extremes
Support of flora/fauna
interactions
Environmental education
POE |
evaluative framework Ahern, J. (2007)

17. • JOST was designed for small gatherings (no sports)
• Nearby schools, community center, apartments
contribute to a steady flow of users
– On weekends, users are equally divided between
men and women, young and old.
– On weekdays, women tend to be less numerous
– Mothers with strollers prefer mornings
– Senior citizens visit the park in small groups on sunny
afternoons
– Children and teenagers dwell in the park on
weekdays and after school
– Dog walkers use it for small periods at all times
Findings | opportunities for
healthy social interactions

21. • JOST is a unique resource for Irvine residents’ health
– 1 in 2 perform mild to high intensity physical activities
(speed walking, running, biking, or skating)
• Trails afford varied health-promoting activities
– The 11’ wide, grade-separated concrete trail is heavily
used for biking and fast running
– The 6 ’foot-wide decomposed granite trail is popular
amongst seniors and slow runners, walkers
• Trash cans, water fountains, a public restroom area, bike
racks and lighting contribute to comfort and perceived
safety
• Small meadows and lawn areas show little to no use
Findings | physical
recreation/experience of
nature/biophilia

25. • The need for identity emerged as a key goal in
the participatory planning process
– Link to Olmstedian/Picturesque tradition
– Use of native plant palette
• identity markers celebrate Irvine’s rich history
• JOST’s ‘identity’ elements remain background
features
• Plant identification signage fails to attract users
• Albeit lightly used—identity features generate
healthy place identity, attachment and pride
Findings | interpretation of cultural
history/artistic expression

28. michellefosterphoto.com
.
Thank you
Deni.Ruggeri@nmbu.no