Site Analysis 101, Include Pedestrians/Cyclists
Developers, architects, engineers and politicians in the St. Louis region must collectively assume that 100% of the population drives their own private vehicle on 100% of their daily trips. They must, how else can you explain what passes for new development in the region? Only development that will remain more than a mile from the nearest structure need not worry about pedestrian access to the site. Anything closer than 1/4 mile should assume that some users will approach by a mode other private automobile.
One of my first classes in architecture school, in the mid-1980s, was site analysis. I still have my text from that class; Site Analysis: Diagramming Information for Architectural Design by Edward T. White, 1983. Note that the Americans with Disabilities Act did not become law until 1990.
“We should always remember that a site is never inert but is an ongoing set of very active networks that are intertwined in a complex relationship.”
White suggests a “consequence triangle” as “a convenient model for understanding the network of contextual causes and effects and how they relate to other aspects and issues of our project.” The triangle includes the building, users and context.
The factors White listed to consider, collect data on, and to diagram, are:
- Location
- Neighborhood Context – 3-4 blocks adjacent to site, existing & projected uses
- Size and Zoning – dimensional aspects of site, current and projected zoning trends
- Legal
- Natural Physical Features
- Man-Made Features
- Circulation – pedestrian & vehicular movement — quoted below.
- Utilities
- Sensory
- Human and Cultural
- Climate
Neighborhood Context:
Presents the immediate surroundings of the site for perhaps three to four blocks beyond the site boundary. This may be extended further to an important factor or because of the scale of the project. Map may show existing and projected uses, buildings, zoning and any other conditions that may have an impact on our project.
Size and Zoning:
Documents all the dimensional aspects of the site including boundaries, location and dimensions of easements and present zoning classification with all its dimensional implications (setbacks, height restrictions, parking formulas, allowed uses, etc.) and buildable area (land available for the project after all setbacks have been subtracted). Analysis should also document the present and projected zoning trends, plans by the city transportation department to widen roads (change rights of way) and any further trend that might affect our project in the future.
Circulation:
Presents all vehicular and pedestrian movement patterns on and around the site. Data includes duration and peak loads for surrounding vehicular traffic and pedestrian movement, bus stops, site access edges, traffic generators, service truck access and intermittent traffic (parades, fire truck routes, concerts at nearby auditorium). Traffic analysis should include future projections insofar as they can be made.
Clearly some of the above are dated — seldom do cities increase the width of the public right of way these days. In places with modern zoning (not St. Louis), the urban site will have build-to lines rather than setbacks, minimum heights rather than maximums, bike parking requirements and so on. The circulation part is still valid. Vehicles include bicycles and motor scooters. Pedestrians include the able-bodied as well as those with disabilities (physical, sight, hearing, etc). The pedestrian part is what is so clearly overlooked by the professionals designing many recent projects.
They may say nobody walks in the area of their project yet a bus stop is on the edge of the site. If you have a bus stop within a 1/4 mile you’ve got pedestrians. I’ve been so many places in our region where it seems like nobody walks at all but if you stick around long enough pedestrians begin to come from all directions. They gather and shortly a bus appears, picking them up and dropping off others. Those that just left the bus go in all directions.
It is not just about bus stops either. Unless you are isolated in the middle of nowhere you have others around you.  Most will choose to drive to their destination but given the choice some will choose to walk (or bike). Designing places in such a way that a car is mandatory is just not how I was educated. These concepts are freshman level but forgotten by many.  We need to remind them to consider all means of accessing sites.
– Steve Patterson
Money talks. “Developers, architects, engineers and politicians in the St. Louis region . . . collectively assume that 100% of the population drives their own private vehicle on 100% of their daily trips”, because the hard reality is that, in most locations, at least 95%-99% DO! These are business decisions. It takes money to add pedestrian and cycling amenities, especially outside of the established central business districts. If spending an extra $100,000 on concrete means that you’ll attract two more customers each day who spend $20 each (while you’re making a 5% profit), the payback/break-even point is 136 years. If you can attract 50 more each day (instead of two), the payback becomes 5½ years. Plus, even if you do nothing, the vast majority of the minority will still find their ways across your acres of parking, so why even bother?!
Do what a business owner does – crunch the numbers. If the pedestrians or cyclists are spending less than those who drive, it impacts the equation. If the topography is not urban and/or relatively flat, it impacts the equation. If there aren’t any connections off site, it impacts the equation. If basic observations about the actual number of pedestrians or cyclists passing by (we’re not Portland or Boulder or Davis or parts of Chicago, after all) show few, it impacts the equation. Is it “fair” or “right”? It all depends on one’s perspective. If you want to be profitable, money talks. If you want special accomodations, as a distinct minority, either one’s heart or the law talks.
Cycling and pedestrian-friendly cities have gotten that way through intense, continuing public efforts to change both infrastructure and attitudes. It holds all the “usual suspects” to higher standards AND they’re areas where demand for investment is higher than national averages. Businesses are willing to invest more in their projects because they expect to generate more in revenues. We’re neither – we don’t have the standards and we don’t have the retailers competing to come into town (IKEA? Staples? WalMart [in the city]?)! Can we and should we incrementally increase our “standards”? YES! Even Louisvile is doing just that, but unlike us, they’ve merged their city and county so that they don’t have the same kamikaze suburban development efforts that we see around here. And yes, it’s a chicken-or-egg question – without the infrastructure for and better attitudes toward non-automotive travel, the status quo will continue . . .
Major developers and retailers do do significant research before choosing to move forward. One extreme example involves WalMart in Ohio, where they provided hitching posts for their Amish customers (http://www.labelscar.com/retail-news/wal-mart-amish). I doubt there was some arcane local parking ratio for buggies; WalMart did this out of pure greed, to attract a significantly-large-enough-to-matter group of customers. And even in more “normal” areas, analysis is ongoing: http://retailtrafficmag.com/development/siteselection/0915-retailers-site-selection-practices/index.html
I’ll repeat one thing I glossed over in my first response – “Plus, even if you do nothing, the vast majority of the minority will still find their ways across your acres of parking, so why even bother?!” The minority of shoppers who choose not to drive, to wherever and for whatever reason(s), continue to shop in way too many places that do not recognize their value. The customer adapts and rewards “bad behavior” by spending their money. There is no real disincentive to the retailer for being pedestrian-unfriendly. The most effective persuasion is voting with our wallets, followed by contacting the businesses directly (and not just bitching on blogs). Retailers aren’t altruistic, they’re greedy; they’re in it to make money, not friends. So while there are many valid, academic and/or real reasons for doing things “better”, apparently boycotting places that don’t isn’t a major part of the equation . . .
Form-based zoning would take care of all of that.