781453

research-article2018
JPEXXX10.1177/0739456X18781453Journal of Planning Education and ResearchMehta and Bosson

Research-Based Article

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Revisiting Lively Streets: Social

1­–13
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Interactions in Public Space sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X18781453
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18781453
jper.sagepub.com

Vikas Mehta1 and Jennifer K. Bosson2

Abstract
Given the investment in streets, it is imperative for planners and urban designers to determine what makes streets social
places. Defining street liveliness as stationary social behavior and duration of stay, we present an empirical longitudinal study
extending previous research findings. Using observations and visual surveys, regression analysis and factor analysis, we study
liveliness and determine its correlation with street characteristics. Extending prior findings, we ask, what changes in street
characteristics over time predict increases in liveliness? Complementing previous results, we found liveliness was significantly
predicted by increases in commercial seating, public seating, block variety, independent businesses, and community-gathering
places.

Keywords
lively and vibrant streets, neighborhood business district, commercial streets, public space, urban design, longitudinal study

The Street: A Reviving Public Space
In more than one way, this is a good time for cities. Currently,
there is a renewed interest in urban living. Although prefer-
ence for suburban living has not waned in the West (particu-
larly in North America), and is gaining popularity around
the world, many groups including millennials and empty-
nesters, deem city living desirable (APA 2014; Frey 2014;
Moos 2014; Myers 2016). There is an indubitable momen-
tum in the revitalization of the center-city and in other areas
within the urban core of cities. There is a clear revival of
urbanity with an emphasis on urban form and resurgence of
mixed-use places, and investment in urban infrastructure
such as urban transportation, public space, smart technol-
ogy, and so on. There is an increasing trend of a café culture
especially with the younger urban population and the retir-
ees who are returning to city life with the means to consume
and be in public space (Heath 2016; Massis 2015). The
renewed interest in the revitalization of downtowns and
main streets across North America for the purpose of com-
merce, neighborhood identity, and social interaction is testi-
mony to this. Those not choosing to live in the urban core
and yet looking for a lifestyle that offers amenities within
easy reach are opting for small town–type urban villages—
mixed-use neighborhoods with a center that accommodates
shopping, entertainment, some workspace, community-ori-
ented uses, and the associated public space. Even suburbs
are beginning to urbanize to retain their younger population
or attract new ones (Leinberger and Rodriguez 2016; NAR
and PSU 2015; Cortright 2014; Ehrenhalt 2013; Nelson
2013; Handy et al. 2008).
As a part of this revival, streets are beginning to get the
attention they deserve. Since the publication of several works
reminding us (again) of the importance of cities (Chakrabarti
2013; Ehrenhalt 2013; Glaeser 2011; Owen 2010), public
spaces and streets (Dover and Messengale 2013; Greenberg
2009; Hou 2010; Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht 2009;
Low and Smith 2006; Mehta 2007, 2013; Shaftoe 2008;
Shiffman et al. 2012), many streets in cities around the world,
particularly in North America, have been transformed sig-
nificantly in several ways to make them more pedestrian-
oriented people places. Most notably, miles of New York
City streets have been tamed in favor of the peripatetic—
local and tourist alike—and the physical environment has
been drastically altered. Given the focus on streets and the
investment in modifying existing streets or creating new
ones, it is imperative for planners, urban designers, and pol-
icy makers to determine the environmental characteristics
that create affordances for social behavior. This what we aim
to find, particularly in the context of retail streets in neigh-
borhood business districts.
Initial submission, May 2016; revised submissions, July 2017, January 2018;
final acceptance, May 2018
1
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
2
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Vikas Mehta, PhD, School of Planning, College of Design, Architecture,
Art, and Planning, University of Cincinnati, 6104 Alms, PO Box 210016,
Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.
Email: vikas.mehta@uc.edu
2 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
This article is a sequel to the original research conducted
in 2005 and published in 2007 (Mehta) in the Journal of
Planning Education and Research (this journal) and is best
read in conjunction with that article. The main goal for this
article is to conduct a longitudinal inquiry and extend the
findings of the previously conducted research on three
streets. In order to do so, we replicate the methods used in the
original study (Time 1) to conduct this study (Time 2). We
examine how the environmental changes on three neighbor-
hood commercial streets—Massachusetts Ave. in Cambridge,
Harvard Street in Brookline, and Elm Street in Somerville—
correlate with lingering and social behavior on the streets.
The original study used a cross-sectional design and cor-
relational methods to examine which specific features of
streets—such as public seating, personalization of store-
fronts, and shading—correlated positively with the street
liveliness (Mehta 2007). The findings revealed that each of
five different social, land use, and physical aspects of streets
independently predicted increases in street liveliness. While
this suggests that these features have a positive impact on
people’s attraction to streets, the correlational nature of the
data leave questions about causation unanswered. For
instance, streets with more seating may cause increases in
liveliness, or alternatively, livelier streets may compel store
owners to provide more seating. Moreover, it is possible that
some unmeasured third variable, such as the desirability of
the location or the economic means of local residents, drives
the association between street features and liveliness. In
sum, the cross-sectional, correlational methods of the previ-
ous research limit the conclusions that can be drawn from its
findings.
The issue of causality is important, however, when con-
sidering the implications of this work for urban design and
planning. To know whether planned changes to street fea-
tures will effectively produce desired increases in street live-
liness, it is essential to examine the association between
street features and liveliness using longitudinal measures. A
longitudinal design allows for assessment of changes in key
variables over time. In doing so, it can determine not only
how street features correlate with street liveliness but how
changes over time in street features predict increases in street
liveliness. This design allows for greater confidence regard-
ing the direction of causation between street features and
liveliness.
Thus, the goals of this study are to (1) replicate the cross-
sectional associations examined in 2005 using Time 2 data
(collected 8 years after the first study), and (2) extend the
prior study by examining whether changes over time in street
features predict increases (or decreases) in street liveliness at
Time 2.
Changes in Urban Public Space
Although, as discussed earlier, there is clearly an increasing
desire for urban living in the twenty-first century, the two
time periods when the streets were studied, 2005 and 2013,
also happen to be fall before and after the economic reces-
sion of 2007–2010, and 2013 is close to the peak of the mil-
lennial generation concentrating in center cities (Myers
2016). During this time, most US cities have seen an increase
in the millennial population that has made cities younger,
increased the tax base, supported economic growth, and
added to urban vitality (Cortright 2014; Frey 2014; Moos
2014). During the years separating the Time 1 and Time 2
studies, there has been a heightened awareness of the value
of public space. At the global scale, the social and political
uprisings in the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street
movement have drawn attention to the civic and political sig-
nificance of public space. At the smaller and more local
scale, many more groups have been identifying, claiming,
and making space public in locations and in ways unexplored
in the past. The increasing prevalence of social media has
enabled and strengthened cyberspace as the virtual public
space for effortless and instant contacts and exchange that
transcends the dichotomy of local-global space. Once
thought of as the nemesis of physical public space, cyber-
space, through its ability of instant and perpetual connectiv-
ity and information sharing, is now in numerous ways aiding
the activation, use, and appropriation of physical public
space. In these new ways, public space has gained legiti-
macy, appropriately, not only as space but also as an act and
event. Cities have embraced the new processes of tactical
urbanism in creating and celebrating a more tactile, agile,
and temporary urbanism that results from an increasing
array of stakeholders involved in the visioning and making
of people places. In the context of public spaces such as
streets, this has translated into a growing desire for public
life, albeit consumptive, visible in increasing street side
cafes, restaurants, and also other pop-up destinations and
the rethinking of the street as a friendlier place for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
Environmental Change
Eight years is a short time in the life of a street. At the macro
level, the three streets fundamentally remain unchanged—
there were no modifications to the rights of way, vehicle
lanes or sidewalks, no street closures or any traffic pattern
modifications. The three case studies contexts—two cities
and one town—all steadily grew in population by just below
2 to just below 4 percent (US Census 2000 and 2010).
However, much has changed at the micro level. New busi-
nesses have replaced old ones and some of these are the new
“third places” in the neighborhood; on one street, the build-
ing occupying an entire block has been replaced by a new
one; some building façades have been substantially modi-
fied at the street level; trees have matured some, creating a
larger shade canopy; one municipality has added new
benches for public seating on sidewalks, another has relo-
cated some; in one case a new business brought commercial
Mehta and Bosson 3

Figure 1.  Some examples of changes in street characteristics from 2005 (before) to 2013 (after).
Photographs courtesy of Vikas Mehta.

seating on the sidewalk with barricades; in some cases,
other street furniture such as newspaper and magazine boxes
have been removed or relocated; several trash cans have
been replaced with ones with new technology (see Figure
1). All these changes do not amount to fundamental changes
in the perception of the street as a vibrant, lively, and social
space of the neighborhood. However, these physical and
land use modifications have altered micro-scale characteris-
tics of the street—precisely the conditions we are interested
in for this study. As a result of these changes, some places on
the streets now provide more affordances for social behavior
and interaction while others have reduced or diminished
their significance for social behavior.
Streets as Social Public Spaces
Current urban design and planning literature is replete with the
work on the urban street. Since the publication of the Time 1
findings (Mehta 2007), there has been a steady stream of
research on street design and planning, particularly as it is
related to pedestrian experience (Ewing and Handy 2009; Dover
and Messengale 2013; McCann 2013; Jones, Al-Shaheen, and
4 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Dunse 2016). Although there is a general agreement that streets
must be seen as places and not just as paths of movement, most
of the research does not directly and specifically address the
street as a social place of gathering and interaction. Thus, in this
longitudinal study we stress on the aspect of the street qualities
that make them successful places for gathering and social
behavior.
Research Questions
As a longitudinal inquiry, this research addresses the same
questions as the 2005 study published in 2007 (Mehta). First,
research question 1 asks: “What microscale physical charac-
teristics and uses predict stationary and social activities on
neighborhood commercial streets?” Research question 2
asks, “Are microscale physical characteristics of streets
reducible to a smaller number of underlying dimensions (or
factors)?” Finally, the current study asks research question 3,
that extends the findings from prior work: “What changes in
street characteristics over time predict increases in
liveliness?”
Methods
We will not dwell upon the methodology since this research
followed the same procedures of the previous one conducted
in 2005 (called Time 1) and published in 2007. In this sec-
tion, we briefly describe the research methods and proce-
dures (for a detailed description, please see Mehta 2007).
The Study Areas
Replicating the Time 1 study, we employed a multiple-method
survey strategy involving a variety of techniques to collect
data on the behavior of residents, workers, and visitors on
three neighborhood commercial streets in the Boston metro-
politan area: Massachusetts Avenue in the Central Square
neighborhood in the City of Cambridge (2010 population:
105, 162), Harvard Street in the Coolidge Corner neighbor-
hood in the Town of Brookline (2010 population: 58,732),
and Elm Street in the Davis Square neighborhood in the City
of Somerville (2010 population: 78,901). Central Square,
Coolidge Corner, and Davis Square are predominantly resi-
dential neighborhoods, with most of their daily commercial,
cultural, entertainment, and other needs and amenities catered
for by the businesses and other uses on the neighborhoods’
commercial streets. All three streets studied are the major
commercial streets in the neighborhoods, with the primary
transit (“T”) stops located on or adjacent to these streets. All
three are old streets that are pedestrian-friendly, comprising
mostly older building stock ranging from one- to four-story
buildings with only a few new buildings constructed in the
last fifty years. Almost all buildings are built to the sidewalk,
leaving no setbacks. All three neighborhood commercial
streets have a combination of small independently owned
local businesses and national chain stores. Although the three
streets are similar, there are subtle differences in form and
character, as would be expected. The three neighborhood
commercial streets were selected to provide an adequate sam-
ple size for the study.
Selection of Street Characteristics
For this study, we used the same eleven street characteristics
(independent variables) as in the Time 1 study. These charac-
teristics were identified by conducting an extensive literature
review followed by extensive direct observations at the three
study areas to map user behavior, supplemented with field
notes, photographs, and short videos. These observations
provided a body of empirical information on the aspects of
the street environment that contributed to retaining people on
neighborhood commercial streets and supporting social
behavior. While the literature covered many aspects of the
environment, observations of user behavior showed direct
engagement and interest with only certain aspects of the
environment. Observations pointed to eleven characteristics
that were the most important in making the users’ experience
comfortable, interesting, and meaningful in using the street
environment and engaging in stationary, sustained, and lin-
gering activities as well as social interaction.
As was done for Time 1, we collected data on nineteen
blocks on these three streets. The blocks were further divided
into seventy-eight block segments of approximately fifty to
sixty feet in length. These are referred to as “blocks” and
“block segments,” respectively. Structured visual surveys
and behavioral observations provided data that are analyzed
using quantitative methods.
Observation Period
Data were collected in the summer and fall of 2013 (called
Time 2) using walk-by observations and structured direct
observations on weekdays and weekends on days with tem-
peratures between 55°F and 85°F. As in the Time 1 study,
observations were carried out between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm
and blocks and block segments were surveyed randomly.
Observations Techniques
As in the Time 1 study, we were interested in stationary
activities on the street rather than pedestrian flows. Walk-by
observations were used to record stationary, sustained, lin-
gering, and social activities on the nineteen blocks on the
three streets. The author slowly walked past the complete
length of each block in the study area and recorded the total
number of stationary people encountered, their locations, the
activities they were engaged in, and their postures. People
passing by or entering a premise without stopping were not
recorded in the walk-by observations. There were three bus
stops at three blocks in the study areas. Many people came to
Mehta and Bosson 5
the bus stop only to take the bus rather than engage in the
businesses or activities on the street. Hence, people waiting
for a bus were not recorded in the observations. Each person
was represented by a dot on the coding sheet. People who
were engaged in an activity as a dyad, triad, and so on were
circled on the coding sheet to indicate that they were in a
group. Sitting, standing, and lying or sleeping were recorded
as variable postures. Apparent age, gender, activities, and
postures were coded for ease of recording. Apparent age was
recorded under four categories—children, teenagers, adults
(approximately twenty to sixty years), and older adults
(approximately above sixty years). Activities were recorded
under various categories and were described in detail where
required.
To capture the duration of stay, structured direct observa-
tions were conducted to observe all the seventy-eight block
segments for fifteen minutes. The author located himself at a
discreet vantage point for maximum visibility of activity at
each of the block segments for fifteen minutes. People just
passing by or entering a premise without stopping were not
included in the observations. As in the walk-by observations,
people waiting at bus stops were not recorded. Activities
were recorded in detail on observation sheets containing
plans and elevations of each fifty- to sixty-foot-long block
segment and were supplemented with extensive field notes.
Persons interacting with each other or engaged in a common
activity were indicated on the observation sheets as a group.
Structured direct fifteen-minute observations of activities
were conducted four times each on weekdays and weekends
at each block segment.
Deviation from Time 1 Procedure
The Time 2 study conducted in summer and fall of 2013
exactly followed the methods, procedures, and protocols as
the Time 1 study except for two procedures. These two pro-
cedures were modified to increase the efficiency of the
research. First, during the Time 2 study, the direct fifteen-
minute observations were conducted four times each on
weekdays and weekends at each block segment instead of
seven during the Time 1 study. Learning from the previous
study (Time 1), we gathered that by conducting observations
at these four times, we could adequately capture the patterns
of duration of stay. Second, in the Time 1 study, two of the
eleven street characteristics (degree of personalization of the
storefront and degree of permeability of the street front) were
rated by four urban designers (two women and two men),
including the author, by independently rating these two sub-
jective characteristics by visiting all the block segments at
the study areas, and a mean score was calculated. In the Time
1 study, the interrater reliability was very good, as evidenced
by intraclass correlation coefficients of .86 and .87 for rat-
ings of personalization and permeability, respectively. Based
on this reliability, only the author rated these two street char-
acteristics in the Time 2 study.
Measures and Data Analysis Strategies
Following the same protocols as in the Time 1 study, we cal-
culated the Liveliness Index (dependent variable) using the
data collected for the Time 2 study from walk-by and direct
observations for each of the seventy-eight block segments.1
The Liveliness Index captures stationary, lingering, and
social activities on the street. We used the same eleven char-
acteristics of the street environment as the independent vari-
ables that were identified based on the literature review and
the observations conducted by one of the authors in the Time
1 study (see Table 1). In tests of research question 1, we sub-
mitted the eleven street characteristics, measured at Time 2,
to a simultaneous multiple regression analysis predicting the
Liveliness Index. Next, testing research question 2, we con-
ducted a factor analysis using a principal components method
to understand the distinct factors that contribute to liveliness
of the street. Finally, we used a simultaneous multiple regres-
sion analysis, regressing the Time 2 Liveliness Index onto
change scores for the eleven street characteristics, to test
research question 3.
Findings
Stationary and Lingering Activities
Observations and pedestrian counts on weekdays and week-
ends showed that, similar to the Time 1 study, all of the nine-
teen blocks in the three study areas were used as concourses
for pedestrian movement but the walk-by observations
revealed that some parts of the street were better able to sup-
port stationary, lingering, and sustained activities.
Using the walk-by technique, we recorded 2,790 persons
(as compared to 3,242 in Time 1) engaged in some kind of
stationary activity on all the 78 block segments on 19 blocks in
the three study areas (see Figures 2–4). More than half of the
stationary activities were found on blocks 1, 14, 17, and 18
(1,402 [50.25 percent] of 2,790 persons). Further, block 1
exhibited the highest number of stationary activities through-
out the day. That is, 516 (18.5 percent) of all 2,790 people
engaged in stationary activities recorded in the walk-by obser-
vations on weekdays and weekends were on block 1. In addi-
tion, 238 (8.5 percent) of all the 2,790 people engaged in
stationary activities on all the 78 observation block segments
on the 19 blocks were located on block segment 59, followed
by 176 (6.3 percent) on block segment 2, 171 (6.1 percent) on
block segment 65, 144 (5.1 percent) on block segment 70, 124
(4.4 percent) on block segment 1, 87 (3.1 percent) on block
segment 52, 80 (2.9 percent) on block segment 30, and 67 (2.4
percent) each on block segments 23 and 68 (see Figure 5).
Social Activities
Walk-bys on weekdays and weekends showed that two-thirds
of the people engaged in stationary and lingering activities in
6 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)

Table 1.  All Considered Characteristics of the Street Environment.

Street Characteristic Description Unit

Variety of goods and Variety was based on the type of businesses and other public uses at the street Number for every
services on the block level, which were open during normal business hours on the block. Only public 100 feet block
uses, as described above, were included in determining variety. A block that had length
two banks, a restaurant, a coffee shop, a fast food restaurant, a hair salon, and a
video store would result in a score of six for that block. The two banks would
only count as contributing one to the score of variety. This score for the block
was then used as a score of variety for each block segment on that block.
Number of independent All independently owned or small local chain stores at the street level on the Number
businesses on the block block segment were included. Again, only public uses, as described above, were
segment included in determining the score for independent businesses.
Degree of permeability of All businesses and uses (public or private) at the street level were individually Likert-type scale
street front on the block rated. The degree of permeability was determined by rating how well the rating from 1 to 10
segment activities inside the buildings were visible or could be sensed by sound or smell
from the street. The scores for all businesses or uses within a block segment
were aggregated and a mean calculated.
Degree of personalization All businesses and uses (public or private) at the street level were individually Likert-type scale
of storefront on the block rated. The degree of personalization was determined by rating how the rating from 1 to 10
segment interface of the business with the street (building façade, entrances, shop-
windows) was embellished with personal touches such as displays, decorations,
signs, banners, planters, flowerboxes, and other wares. The scores for all
businesses or uses within a block segment were aggregated and a mean
calculated.
Number of community As expected, people were seen to frequent certain businesses more and spend Number
places on the block more time at these businesses than others. Observations showed that these
segment were places where people would come to meet neighbors, friends, and
even strangers. In this study, these included coffee shops, a bookshop, bars,
restaurants, a deli, an ice-cream shop, and a convenience store.
Percentage articulation of Articulation of building façade measured how much of it was articulated and Percentage
street front on the block punctuated with nooks, corners, alcoves, small setbacks, steps, and ledges at the converted to score
segment street level. It was calculated as a percentage for each block segment, and the from 1 to 10
percentage was converted to a score.
Number of public Public or noncommercial seating included benches and chairs that were provided Number
(noncommercial) seating by a public agency where people could sit at the sidewalk or street without
on the block segment having to pay for any goods or services. It was calculated as number of seats for
each block segment.
Number of commercial Commercial seats were outdoor seating opportunities provided by private Number
seating (chairs) on the businesses usually in the form of chairs. Usually, only patrons of these
block segment businesses were permitted to use these seats. It was calculated as number of
seats for each block segment.
Average sidewalk width on The average sidewalk width on the block segment was measured in feet. Dimension in feet
the block segment
Percentage shade and Shade and shelter at the street was provided by tree canopies, awnings, Percentage
shelter from trees and overhangs, canopies, and other shading devices. It was measured as a percentage converted to score
canopies on block segment of area on the sidewalk that was under shade at each block segment. The from 1 to 10
percentage was converted to a score.
Number of other street All objects (other than chairs, tables, benches, and other seating) that users of the Number
furniture and physical street could sit or lean on, such as tree trunks, poles, parking meters, bicycle
artifacts on block segment racks, newspaper-dispensing boxes, integral seating as ledges, railings, and so on,
were counted at each block segment.

the three study areas were engaged in some kind of social
activity (1,855 [66.5 percent] of 2,790 persons). In addition,
316 (24.3 percent) of all 1,855 people engaged in social activ-
ities on weekdays and weekends were on block 1. Further,
161 (8.7 percent) people were engaged in some sort of social
activity on the street on block segment 59, 144 (7.8 percent)
on block segment 65, 118 (6.4 percent) on block segment 70,
116 (6.3 percent) on block segment 2, 82 (4.4 percent) on
block segment 1, 63 (3.4 percent) on block segment 52, and
58 (3.1 percent) on block segment 23. There was a strong
relationship between the locations with stationary activities
and locations with stationary social activities. Results of these
Mehta and Bosson 7

Figure 2.  Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on five blocks on Massachusetts
Ave. at Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Data from thirty walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening.
Note: Each black dot represents a person.

Figure 3.  Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on six blocks on Harvard Street at
Coolidge Corner in Brookline, Massachusetts. Data from thirty walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening.
Note: Each black dot represents a person.

Figure 4.  Behavioral map of people engaged in some stationary activity on weekdays and weekends on eight blocks on Elm Street at
Davis Corner in Somerville, Massachusetts. Data from thirty walk-bys on each block spread throughout the day and evening.
Note: Each black dot represents a person.

observations showed that parts of these neighborhood com- 23, 30, 44, 52, and 56 also had a large number of people but
mercial streets that were able to support stationary activities they spent very little time on the street (mostly 15 seconds to
were better able to afford social activities. less than a minute).

Duration of Stay Important Environmental

The greatest number of people who spent the maximum
Characteristics of Street and Liveliness
amount of time on the street were on block segments 2, 70, A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to test
65, and 59 (see Figure 6). Other block segments, such as 11, research question 1 (What street characteristics predict street
8 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)

Figure 5.  Number of people engaged in stationary and social activities on weekdays and weekends on seventy-eight block segments on
nineteen blocks in three towns/cities in the Boston metropolitan area. Data from thirty walk-bys on each block spread throughout the
day and evening.

Figure 6.  Duration of stay of people in stationary and social activities on weekdays and weekends on seventy-eight block segments
on nineteen blocks in the three study areas. Data from fourteen observations of fifteen minutes each at each block segment spread
throughout the day and evening.

liveliness?) A model predicting Time 2 Liveliness from the
eleven characteristics (measured at Time 2) showed that these
variables together explained 91 percent of the variance in
liveliness across all the 78 different block segments on three
neighborhood commercial streets (adjusted R2 = .89, F[11,
66] = 57.10, p < .001). Table 2 shows the output of this analy-
sis. Of the eleven predictors, five were significantly, posi-
tively related to Time 2 street liveliness (see Table 2):
commercial seating, public seating, community gathering
places, personalization, and block variety. Permeability was a
marginally significantly negative predictor of liveliness, and
no other predictors approached significance. Note that of the
five street features that emerged as statistically significant,
unique predictors of liveliness at Time 2, four of these repli-
cated the findings from the prior study (commercial seating,
public seating, community gathering places, and personaliza-
tion). One street feature that predicted liveliness at Time 1
(sidewalk width) was not significant at Time 2, while variety
of businesses on the block predicted Time 2 (but not Time 1)
liveliness.
Next, we used factor analysis to test research question 2
(Are street features reducible to a smaller number of underly-
ing dimensions)? We submitted the eleven Time 2 character-
istics to a principal components analysis with Varimax
rotation and Kaiser normalization. Extracting components
with eigenvalues over 0.75, as was done for the Time 1 data,
Mehta and Bosson 9

Table 2.  Multiple Regression Output, Predicting Liveliness Index from Eleven Street Characteristics.

Predictor Variable B SE β t p
  1. Commercial Seating* (0.25) 0.22 (0.02) 0.02 (0.55) 0.72 (9.28) 15.24 (<.001) <.001
  2. Community Places* (1.08) 1.27 (0.23) 0.19 (0.24) 0.28 (4.66) 6.69 (<.001) <.001
  3. Public Seating* (0.21) 0.21 (0.05) 0.06 (0.27) 0.17 (4.59) 3.59 (<.001) <.01
  4. Personalization* (0.24) 0.29 (0.08) 0.09 (0.27) 0.25 (3.03) 3.39 (<.01) <.01
  5. Variety of Businesses (0.09) 0.22 (0.10) 0.10 (0.06) 0.12 (0.92) 2.23 (.37) <.05
  6. Permeability (–0.03) –0.14 (0.07) 0.07 (–0.03) –0.12 (–0.39) –1.90 (.69) .06
  7. Sidewalk Width* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02) 0.02 (0.15) 0.10 (2.09) 1.55 (.04) .13
  8. Independent Stores (–0.10) –0.15 (0.11) 0.11 (–0.07) –0.08 (–0.96) –1.37 (.34) .18
  9. Shade Provided (0.06) –0.02 (0.04) 0.04 (0.10) –0.03 (1.54) –0.65 (.13) .52
10. Furniture on Sidewalk (–0.10) 0.03 (0.05) 0.06 (–0.13) 0.03 (–1.95) 0.54 (.06) .59
11. Articulation of Façade (0.08) –0.01 (0.05) 0.05 (0.09) –0.01 (1.49) –0.10 (.14) .92

Note: Values in parentheses are associated with the regression results from the Time 1 study.
*Statistically significant predictor of Liveliness at Time 1 (Mehta 2007).

Table 3.  Percentage of Variance of Four Factors: Varimax
Rotation with Kaiser Normalization.
Factor Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative Percentage
1 3.54 32.17 32.17
2 2.44 22.17 54.34
3 1.02 9.28 63.62
4 1.01 9.14 72.76
yielded four components that, combined, explained more
than 72 percent of the variance (see Table 3). Table 4 shows
the street characteristics that loaded on each factor.
The four factors are very similar to the factors that
emerged in the original study, with a few small differences.
Factor 1, consisting of personalization, permeability, block
variety, and number of independent stores, is identical to the
first factor emerging in the 2005 study. This factor is a com-
bination of characteristics of the street that are affected by
businesses and land uses and explains 32.17 percent of the
variance (see Table 3). We call this factor business-generated
qualities. The four characteristics that loaded onto this fac-
tor, that comprise business-generated qualities, suggest that
the variety in the businesses on the street and the number of
independently owned stores are important characteristics
that determine the first aspect of the street to support liveli-
ness. The personalization of the street fronts of the busi-
nesses by means of decoration, signs, plants, and so on, as
well as the ability of a store to be permeable to the street are
also important characteristics that make up this first aspect
(see Table 4). These characteristics are largely the result of
the initiative of the business owner, but may depend on the
design of the buildings and the policies in place.
Factor 2 is a combination of various physical aspects of
the street and explains 22.17 percent of the variance (see
Table 3). Four characteristics loaded onto this factor, includ-
ing articulation, shade, sidewalk width, and other artifacts
and furniture (see Table 4). We call this factor physical/
environmental qualities. The width of the sidewalk, and
other artifacts and street furniture, are street improvements
that are usually provided by public authorities. Shade on the
sidewalk may be a result of trees provided by a public author-
ity but also includes awnings, canopies, retractable umbrel-
las, and so on provided by the businesses. The articulation of
the building façade is a characteristic that is determined by
the architecture of the building. Note that in 2005 (Time 1)
findings, public seating loaded onto this factor, whereas in
this study, public seating loads by itself on factor 4 (see
below).
Factor 3 represents the seating provided on the street by
businesses in the form of movable chairs, and a community-
gathering place. Together, these aspects explain 9.28 percent
of the total variance (see Tables 3 and 4). It is perhaps not
surprising that business-provided seating combines with
community places to create a factor that supports liveliness
on the street. We call this factor social qualities. Businesses
that provided opportunities for people (especially neighbor-
hood residents) to gather were likely to become the commu-
nity’s gathering places. Note, however, that in the 2005 study
(Mehta 2007), each of these two street features loaded by
itself onto a separate factor. Finally, factor 4, which we call
public sitting spaces, is mainly a function of the seating pro-
vided by public authorities primarily in the form of benches
on the street, and it explains about 9 percent of the total vari-
ance (see Tables 3 and 4).
To confirm that these factors reflect meaningful underly-
ing dimensions, we submitted the four factor scores to a
simultaneous multiple regression analysis predicting Time 2
liveliness. Together, they explained 81.9 percent of the vari-
ance in the Time 2 Liveliness Index across all seventy-eight
block segments on the three neighborhood commercial
streets (adjusted R2 = .81, F[4, 73] = 82.38, p < .001).
Supporting the importance of community gathering places
for promoting liveliness, factor 3, social qualities, had the
strongest positive association with the liveliness of the street
10 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Table 4.  Details of Factor Analysis Showing the Weightings of Each Characteristic: Principal Components Analysis Using Varimax
Rotation with Kaiser Normalization.
 
Street Characteristics 
  Commercial seating provided by businesses
  Seating provided by public authorities
  Personalization and signs on the street front
  Articulation of the building façade
  Shade provided by trees, canopies, overhangs
  Width of the sidewalk
  Permeability at the street front
  Variety of businesses on the block
  Other artifacts and furniture on the sidewalk
  Number of independent stores
  Number of community places
(β = 0.79, t[73] = 15.87, p < .001). The next strongest posi-
tive predictor of liveliness was factor 2, physical/environ-
mental qualities (β = 0.33, t[73] = 6.69, p < .001), consisting
of shade, sidewalk width, and other physical aspects of
streets. Factor 1, business-generated qualities (β = 0.22,
t[73] = 4.35, p < .001), and factor 4, public sitting spaces (β
= 0.19, t[73] = 3.74, p < .001), were also significantly posi-
tively related to street liveliness. Thus, whereas the prior
multiple regression analysis showed that only five of the
eleven microscale features independently predicted liveli-
ness, these results reveal that each of the eleven street fea-
tures reflects an important underlying dimension that
significantly predicts liveliness. This factor approach broad-
ens the applicability of the findings because planners and
urban designers wishing to promote street liveliness, but
unable to manipulate specific microscale street characteris-
tics, could instead focus attention on alternate ways of
manipulating the broader street qualities.
Predicting Increases in Liveliness from
Changes in Street Characteristics
Research question 3 asks, “What changes in street charac-
teristics over time contributed the most to increases in liveli-
ness?” To answer this, we examined changes across time in
the street characteristics, and used these to predict Time 2
liveliness (while controlling for Time 1 liveliness). To the
extent that increases (or decreases) in specific street charac-
teristics predicted unique variance in changing liveliness,
we can be somewhat confident that these street characteris-
tics bear an impact—positive or negative—on the liveliness
of streets.
To do this, we first created eleven difference scores by
subtracting Time 1 values from Time 2 values for each of the
eleven street characteristics. All but one of these characteris-
tics (sidewalk width) showed at least some change across
Factors
1 2 3 4
.846  
.876
.826  
.589  
.787  
.656  
.667  
.800  
.858  
.806  
.589  
time; because sidewalk width did not change, we did not
consider it further. We then conducted a simultaneous multi-
ple regression analysis predicting Time 2 liveliness from
Time 1 liveliness (entered on step 1), and the 10 street aspect
difference scores as predictors (entered on step 2). Not sur-
prisingly, Time 1 liveliness was a strong predictor, account-
ing for 51 percent of the variance in Time 2 liveliness
(adjusted R2 = .51, F[1, 76] = 79.87, p < .001). Beyond Time
1 liveliness, the ten street feature difference scores as a group
accounted for significant additional variance in Time 2 live-
liness (R2 change = .40, F change[10, 66] = 28.45, p < .001).
Table 5 shows the output of the regression analysis. As
shown in Table 5, when controlling for variance in Time 2
liveliness that is accounted for by Time 1 liveliness, Time 2
liveliness was significantly and uniquely predicted by
increases in commercial seating, increases in community
gathering places, increases in public seating, increases in
block variety, and increases in independent uses. None of the
other street aspect change scores was significantly related to
Time 2 liveliness when Time 1 liveliness was controlled.
Note that the microscale features whose changes predicted
increases in liveliness all mapped onto factors 1, 3, and 4 in
the factor analysis. Even though factor 2 (physical/environ-
mental qualities) was strongly predictive of Time 2 liveliness
when examined cross-sectionally, increases in these street
features do not appear to correspond with increases in street
liveliness. Instead, street liveliness increases when the social
qualities (factor 3) of the street are enhanced by way of
increases in commercial seating and community gathering
places; when variety of stores and number of independent
stores on the block increases (factor 1); and when public seat-
ing increases (factor 4). Note also that changes in the street
features over which business owners have some control—
such as personalization, permeability, shade (in the form of
awnings), or furniture on streets—were largely nonsignificant
predictors of Time 2 liveliness. That said, increases in
Mehta and Bosson 11

Table 5.  Multiple Regression Output, Predicting Time 2 Liveliness Index from Time 1 Liveliness, and Changes in Ten Street
Characteristics.

Predictor Variable B SE β t p
Step 1
Time 1 Liveliness Index 0.88 0.10 0.72 8.94 <.001
Step 2
  1. Time 1 Liveliness Index 0.80 0.05 0.65 15.75 <.001
  2. Commercial Seating Diff. 0.18 0.02 0.46 10.44 <.001
  3. Community Places Diff. 1.59 0.42 0.16 3.81 <.001
  4. Public Seating Diff. 0.15 0.06 0.12 2.69 <.01
  5. Personalization Diff. −0.10 0.27 −0.05 −0.37 .71
  6. Variety of Businesses Diff. 0.59 0.25 0.12 2.39 <.05
  7. Permeability Diff. 0.11 0.32 0.04 0.34 .74
  8. Independent Stores Diff. 0.54 0.24 0.11 2.29 <.05
  9. Shade Provided Diff. 0.14 0.09 0.07 1.62 .11
10. Furniture on Sidewalk Diff. −0.08 0.10 −0.03 −0.73 .47
11. Articulation of Façade Diff. 0.01 0.14 0.003 0.06 .95

business-provided seating was one of the strongest predictors

of increased street liveliness at Time 2.

Implications for Design and Policy

Some of the findings in this study, as with some of the ones
in the previous study, reiterate and confirm past research
findings. For example, the presence of seating has been
known as an important correlate of stationary behavior since
the landmark work of Whyte (1980, 28), who famously said,
“people tend to sit most where there are places to sit.” Other
aspects of the environment, particularly physical characteris-
tics such as shade on the street, sidewalk width, articulation
of building facades, and other street furniture and artifacts
have also been associated, either through empirical research
or anecdotally, with creating streets that support social
behaviors. The same can be said for variety of businesses on
the block and permeability of building facades. Lessor stud-
ied and mentioned are independent businesses and commu-
nity places in their contribution to or correlation with social
behaviors on the street. This is the main contribution of this Figure 7.  Important characteristics of the neighborhood
commercial street.
longitudinal study: that the three aspects—physical, land-
use, and social—that emerged from the findings are critical
in achieving a quality of neighborhood commercial street tolerance and acceptance of levels of social interaction and
that is conducive to stationary, lingering, and social activities perceptual stimuli, especially among people of different gen-
(see Figure 7). der, race, and class (Hall 1966; Rapoport 1987, 1990).
Similar to the limitations of the previous study, the find- Climatic variables alone may render certain locations hostile
ings of this research are most applicable to dense urban to social interaction outdoors. For these reasons, and to test,
neighborhoods that have similar characteristics as these three validate, and broaden the findings of this study, it would be
in the Boston metropolitan area, or urban neighborhoods that useful to repeat the study on commercial streets in neighbor-
may be planned to accommodate similar patterns of use. hoods in other towns and cities and in different cultures.
There are likely to be cultural differences in preferences Recently, of the many efforts in remaking and claiming
regarding the use of neighborhood commercial streets or the street, the “complete streets” concept and movement has
similar environmental settings with a different ethnic and captured the attention of planners, designers, communities,
racial mix, and this is likely to alter the patterns of use of and policy-makers striving to improve the livability of neigh-
these places. Different cultures have different thresholds for borhoods and cities. Per the National Complete Streets
12 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Coalition, complete streets policies “direct decision-makers
to consistently fund, plan, design and construct community
streets to accommodate all anticipated users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, motorists and
freight vehicles.”2 These physical improvements to make the
street a better place for the pedestrian, often by claiming
space from the vehicular domain, are welcome gestures.
However, the complete streets approach largely focuses on
the physical characteristics of the street and continues to
reinforce the myopic reading and understanding of the street
as a conduit for movement where mobility is still the sacred
objective, making travelers the main beneficiaries. As a com-
plete street, regulated for movement, albeit more equitable
across various modes, the street continues to be read and
understood only as a path and not a place. Predominantly
addressing mobility and other physical aspects is insufficient
as it disregards other social, political, and economic roles of
the street. History shows that the street has the structure and
capacity to be a complex public space—an interchange for
access, travel, commerce, leisure, sociability, and survival.
The findings from this study suggest that policy makers,
planners, and urban designers need to be sensitive to the fact
that people tend to choose settings that are meaningful to them
as places of the community and that offer comfort and plea-
sure through various amenities and micro-scale physical fea-
tures: elements that are extremely significant to the users of
the environment. Hence the planning, design and management
of neighborhood commercial streets must be shaped by poli-
cies that together take into consideration the social, physical,
and use aspects of the street. As we get more urbanized, the
streets that are a part of the network of public space and offer
opportunities for serving day-to-day needs close to home will
become more important in creating livable neighborhoods.
Neighborhood commercial streets are not just public open
spaces; they are in fact open public spaces where a diversity of
people, actions, and identities—what Davis (1990, 231) calls
“democratic admixture”—are represented. Sociable and lively
streets have the ability to make our neighborhoods and cities
become more community-centered and civic-minded, healthy,
inclusive, and ultimately more livable and sustainable.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Partial financial support for research from the School of Architecture
and Community Design, University of South Florida.
Notes
1. The Liveliness Index was determined for each of the 78 block
segments by calculating (1) the number of people engaged in
some stationary and sustained activity at the setting, 2) the
number of people in groups of two or more engaged in some
social activity, and 3) their duration of stay.
2. “The Best Complete Street Policies of 2012,” National
Complete Streets Coalition, April 2013, http://www.smart-
growthamerica.org/documents/cs-2012-policy-analysis.pdf.
References
APA (American Planning Association). 2014. Investing in Place
for Economic Growth and Competitiveness. Washington, DC:
American Planning Association.
Chakrabarti, V. 2013. A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an
Urban America. New York: Metropolis Books.
Cortright, J. 2014. The Young and Restless and the Nation’s Cities. City
Observatory. http://cityobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/10/YNR-Report-Final.pdf.
Davis, M. 1990. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los
Angeles. London: Verso.
Dover, V., and J. Messengale. 2013. Street Design: The Secret to
Great Cities and Towns. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ehrenhalt, A. 2013. The Great Inversion and the Future of the
American City. New York: Vintage.
Ewing, R., and S. Handy. 2009. “Measuring the Unmeasurable:
Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of
Urban Design 14 (1): 65–84.
Frey, W. H. 2014. Diversity Explosion: How New Racial
Demographics Are Remaking America. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention
Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier.
New York: Penguin Books.
Greenberg, K. 2009. “Public Space: Lost and Found.” In Rites of
Way: The Politics and Poetics of Public Space, edited by M.
Kingwell and P. Turmel, 29–41. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Hall, E. T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension (1969 ed.). Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Handy, S., J. Sallis, D. Weber, E. Maibach, and M. Hollander.
2008. “Is Support for Traditionally Designed Communities
Growing? Evidence from Two National Surveys.” Journal of
the American Planning Association 74 (2): 209–21.
Heath, T. 2016. “Look How Much Coffee Millennials Are
Drinking.” Washington Post, October 31, 2016.
Hou, J. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the
Remaking of Contemporary Cities. London: Routledge.
Jones, C., Q. Al-Shaheen, and N. Dunse. 2016. “Anatomy of a
Successful High Street Shopping Centre.” Journal of Urban
Design 21 (4): 495–511.
Leinberger, C., and M. Rodriguez. 2016. Foot Traffic Ahead:
Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros. Washington,
DC: George Washington University Center for Real Estate &
Urban Analysis.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and R. Ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks:
Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Low, S., and N. Smith. 2006. The Politics of Public Space. New
York: Routledge.
Massis, A. 2015. “Think Outside the Office: Why Coffee Houses
Are the Millennials’ New Business Meeting Spot.” http://
Mehta and Bosson 13
www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-massis/why-coffee-houses-
are-the-millennials-new-business-meeting-spot_b_6437770.
html (accessed January 25, 2018).
McCann, B. 2013. Completing Our Streets: The Transition to Safe and
Inclusive Transportation Networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mehta, V. 2007. “Lively Streets: Determining Environmental
Characteristics to Support Social Behavior.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 27 (2): 165–87.
Mehta, V. 2013. The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space.
London: Routledge.
Moos, M. 2014. “‘Generationed’ Space: Societal Restructuring and
Young Adults’ Changing Location Patterns.” The Canadian
Geographer 58:11–33.
Myers, D. 2016. “Peak Millennials: Three Reinforcing Cycles That
Amplify the Rise and Fall of Urban Concentration by Millennials.”
Housing Policy Debate. doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1165722.
NAR and PSU (National Association of Realtors, & Portland State
University). 2015. Community & Transportation Preferences
Survey: U.S. Metro Areas, 2015. Washington, DC: National
Association of Realtors.
Nelson, A. C. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Owen, D. 2010. Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living
Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New
York: Riverhead Books.
Rapoport, A. 1987. “Pedestrian Street Use: Culture and Perception.”
In Public Streets for Public Use, edited by A.V. Moudon. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Rapoport, A. 1990. History and Precedent in Environmental
Design. New York: Plenum.
Shaftoe, H. 2008. Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective
Public Places. London: Routledge.
Shiffman, R., R. Bell, L. Brown, and L. Elizabeth. 2012.
Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of Assembly and the
Occupation of Public Space. Oakland, CA: New Village
Press.
Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Author Biographies
Vikas Mehta is an associate professor of urbanism, Fruth/
Gemini Chair, and Ohio Eminent Scholar of Urban/
Environmental Design at the University of Cincinnati. His work
focuses on the role of design and planning in creating a more
responsive, equitable, supportive, and communicative
environment.
Jennifer K. Bosson is a professor of psychology at the University
of South Florida.