66
Kristopher MariashLARC 7400 // Landscape TopicsAcademic Advisor: Anna ThurmayrDepartment of Landscape Architecture Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of Manitoba
Table of Contents:Introduction p. 1 Definitions p. 3Site Location & Context p. 9 The University of Manitoba Parking Lot Selection U-Lot Current Layout A Photographic Journey U-Lot Observations UManitoba Masterplan [2016]Outline of Criteria p. 25Spectulative Schema p. 29 One Foot Less A Head Start in Growth Walk Less. Pay More. Big Car. Little Car. Minimum Standards A Parkade in a Park Wayfinding Patchwork A Welcoming Passage (Central) A Welcoming Passage (Side) To the Shade!Conclusion p. 53Citations p. 57
1
Introduction The primary intention of this study is to critically examine potential schematic layouts of a selected parking lot at the University of Manitoba Fort Garry Campus. The U-Lot, located on the western edge of the Fort Garry Campus core, is the selected parking lot. The schematic layouts will range from practical to speculative (potentially absurd and impractical). The primary outcome I hope to achieve from this study is to generate different ideas of what parking lots could be. By doing a series of schematic layouts I will be able to visualize different parking situations and determine whether the schematic layout is practical or not practical. If the scheme is determined to be speculative and not practical, discussion as to why will be thought-provoking. The goal is to spur discussion through the schematic layouts and stimulate ideas to rethink “what a parking lot could be” in relation to the study area. The study area is the U-Lot parking lot at the University of Manitoba. By conducting this study, I hope to understand how different parking arrangements can effect different experiences (environmental, pedestrian, automobile, and cost consideration) of the selected parking lot, and distinguish which schematic layouts - if any - can improve the four identifed experiences of the selected parking lot.
2
3
Defi nitions & Visual DescriptionsThe purpose of this section is to define the main terms that will be frequently used throughout this study, as well as basic information in connection to parking lots and automobiles. Typical dimensions of parking components are observed. It should be noted, the definitions and typical dimensions are reflective within the context of Winnipeg, Manitoba standards. Definitions and typical dimensions may differ between different regions.
4
5
Parking LotThe primary aspect of this study pertains to parking lots, and consequently defining what a “parking lot” is would be beneficial. A parking lot is an area with the primary use to park automobiles. The area is generally consists of driving aisles and parking stalls. Individual parking stalls are clearly marked (typically painted lines within context of Winnipeg).
PavementPavement in this document refers to all hard-surface areas. This includes both permeable and impervious pavements. All the parking stalls and aisles in this document are designated as ‘pavement’, compared to the greenspaces which are designated as ‘non-pavement’.
Non-PavementNon-Pavement in this document refers to all soft surface areas. Non-Pavement excludes all parking stalls and aisles of the parking lot. In these areas it is possible to plant vegetation and environmentally conscious designs may be implemented in these areas.
Definitions & Visual Descriptions
Metered ParkingMetered parking refers to parking areas designated as pay by the hour. Machines are available to pay for timed parking, with the minimum of 2 hours to all day parking. A small section in U-Lot is allotted for metered parking.
Surface ParkingSurface parking lots are parking lots built directly on the land. Excluding the University Parkade, all parking lots at the Fort Garry Campus is surface parking.
Parkade (Structured Parking)A parkade is a multi-storey parking garage and may be above or below ground. Compared to surface parking, the cost to build and maintain a parkade is considerably higher. Parkades are generally suitable in denser development areas, where the demand for parking is higher, off-setting the cost of the parkade. The only parkade at the Fort Garry Campus is the University Parkade.
Accessible ParkingAccessible parking is a parking stall allotted for persons of disabilities. The accessible parking stall must be a minimum of 10 feet in width; and located within 200 (61m) feet of a building. If a parking lot consists of between 501-1000 standard stalls, a minimum of 2 percent of parking stalls shall be allotted to accessible parking stalls (200/2006, pp.129-130)
6
Permeable SurfacesA permeable surface is a surface that promotes infiltration of rainwater into the ground. Most softscapes (non-pavement) surfaces are permeable. Additionally, permeable surfaces are possible with porous pavements. The main categories of porous pavements are: porous aggregate, porous turf, plastic geocells, open-joint paving blocks, open-cell paving grids, porous concrete, porous asphalt, soft porous surfacing, and decks (Ferguson, B.K., 2005).
Impervious SurfacesAn impervious surface is a surface that prevents the infiltration of rainwater into the ground resulting in rainwater to segregate in areas lacking slope; or drain in stormwater systems if properly sloped. Most hard surfaces are impervious (Ferguson, B.K., 2005).
Fig. 2.1.1 Diagram of an impervious surfaceScale NTS.
Fig. 2.1.2 Diagram of a permeable surfaceScale NTS.
Rainwater
Rainwater
Infiltration
Runoff
Student ParkingStudent Parking are areas of parking reserved for university students that have purchased a yearly parking pass. The current parking lots allotted for student parking are: U-Lot, Q-Lot, I-Lot, Y-Lot, W-Lot, and ACE-Lot. The focus of this document is on the U-Lot. Additionially, some lots are dedicated for staff parking.
Green Infrastructure Within the areas designated as non-pavement areas, green infrastrcuture designs may be incorperated. Green infrastructure refers to designs that involves consideration for stormwater management, urban heat island effects, and clean water and soil, etc. Examples of green infrastructure designs are: bioswales, permeable pavements, urban forests, green roofs/ walls, etc. Green infrastructure promotes the health of the ecological, economical, and social health of a place.
7
Definitions & Visual DescriptionsDimensions of AutomobilesSize of automobiles in Canada are typically determined by the interior volume of cars or by the gross weight of light trucks. The size of automobiles are typically not defined by length, width, and height. Natural Resources Canada (2016) classifies automobiles as:
Car Class Interior Volume Two-seater nullMinicompact less than 2,405 L (85 cu. ft.) Subcompact 2,405-2,830 L (85-99) cu. ft.)Compact 2,830-3,115 L (100-109 cu. ft.)Mid-size 3,115-3,400 L (110-119 cu. ft.)Full-size 3,400 (120 cu. ft.) or moreStation Wagon Small less than 3,680 L (130 cu. ft.) Mid-Size 3,680-4,530 L (130-159 cu. ft.)
Light Trucks Type Gross Weight Pickup truck Small less than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb.) Standard 2,722-3,856 kg (6,000-8,500 lb.)Sport utility vehicle Small less than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb.) Standard 2,722-3,856 kg (6,000-8,500 lb.)Minivan less then 3,856 kg (8,500 lb.) Van Cargo less then 3,856 kg (8,500 lb.) Passenger less then 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) Special Purpose Vehicle less then 3,856 kg (8,500 lb.)
6.23
ft (1
.90
m)
5.2
ft (1
.58
m)
13.12 ft (4.00 m) 15.85 ft (4.83 m)
6.8
ft (2
.08
m)
5.35
ft (1
.63
m)
Fig. 2.2.1 Diagram of Small Car dimensions Scale 1:100
Fig. 2.2.2 Diagram of Standard Car dimensions Scale 1:100
8
The City of Winnipeg Parking Standards
Accessible DimensionsAccessible parking stall dimensions for downtown Winnipeg, as stated in Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law 100/2004.
U-Lot DimensionsCurrent dimensions of the parking stalls in U-Lot at the Fort Garry Campus. Note: displayed for comparison and not a standard.
Standard DimensionsStandard parking stall dimensions for downtown Winnipeg, as stated in Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law 100/2004.
Small DimensionsSmall parking stall dimensions for downtown Winnipeg. The number of small parking stalls cannot exceed up to 30% of total parking stalls, as stated in Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law 100/2004.
14 ft (4.27 m)
18 ft (5.48m)
8 ft
(2.4
4 m
)8
ft (2
.44
m)
9 ft
(2.7
5 m
)10
ft (3
.05
m)
18 ft (5.48 m)
20 ft (6.10m)
144 ft2 (13.4 m2)
162 ft2 (15.0 m2)
200 ft2 (18.6 m2)
112 ft2 (10.4 m2)
Fig. 2.3.1-4 Parking Dimensions Comparison Scale 1:100
9
Site Location & Context The purpose of this section is to provide background information in connection to the University of Manitoba and the selected parking lot (U-Lot) within the Fort Garry campus. Factual information as well as personal observations will be documented.
10
11
The University of Manitoba
The University of ManitobaThe University of Manitoba was established in 1877, with the Fort Garry Campus established in the early 1900s. The campus was built on agricultural lands 13 kilometers south of downtown Winnipeg. Today the campus is surrounded by suburban development. The Fort Garry Campus is composed of approximately 690 acres of land. The boundaries of the campus is defined by the Red River to the east and Pembina Highway to the west. The north boundary was the Southwood golf course (120 acres), which was purchased by the university in 2011, with the aspiration to develop the lands. The south boundary of the campus is the Fort Garry neighbourhood. The current student enrollment at the university is approximately 30,000 students, as well as 8,700 faculty and staff members (University of Manitoba, 2016a). It shall be noted that the enrollment and faculty/staff figures is represented between the Fort Garry campus and the Bannatyne campus, although majority of the students and faculty/staff members are concentrated at the Fort Garry campus. With a large mobile population, ease of transportation of getting onto and off campus is a must. The primary focus of the study is concerned with parking lots within the Fort Garry campus. Fig. 3.1 Main parking lots at the Fort Garry Campus,
The University of Manitoba. The U-Lot is outlined. Scale 1:7500
U-Lot
Investor Group Field
Southwood Lands
Smartpark
U-LU-LU LU-LU LU LU-LLLLLLU-LLLLLLLLU-LU-LLLLLLLLotototoototoototototooooototoooooooo
InvnvnvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvInvvvvInvvvvvvnvvvvvvnvvvvvnvvvvvvI vvvvvvvvvvestestestestesteeesesteestestesteesesteststestestesteesesteststesttesteestesttestee teeeestesteste te te tor or or or or ororooror or ororooroooorororroooorr GroGroroGroGroGroGroGrooroGrorGroroG oGroroGroG oGr uuuupupupupupppuuupppuuupppuuuppppupuppppupppupppppppppppp FiFiiFFiFFieFieFiFieFieFFieFFieieFieFieFieFiFFiFieFFiFiFieFieFiFFFiFieFiFFFFiFieFieFiFiFFiFiFFiFFFFFiFFFiFiiFiFFiF lddldldl
SouSouSouSouSouSouSouSouSouSouuSouSouSouSouSouSouSSouSououSouSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoSSSS thwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwthwththwhwthwwthwhwwh oodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoodoododoooodooddd LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLandsndsndsndsndsndsndsndsndsndsndsnndndsdsdsdsndsdsdnddsds
SmaSmaSmaSmaSmaSmaSmaSmSmaSmaSmaSmaSmamaSmaSmaSmaSmaSmamamaSmaSmaSmaSmaSmSmaSmaSmamSSmaSSmaSmaSmaSmSmaSmaSSSSmaSmSmSmSmaSmaSmaSSSSmSmammSmSmmSmamaaSmmmaSmSmSmm rtrrtprtprrttprtprtptptprtprtrtprtrtprtrtprttprtrtptptptptptptpttprtprtprtppttptprrtptprrtpppprtppppppppparkkarkrkrkkkkkarkarkarkarkarkarkkarkarkarkarkrkarkarkarkrkkarkarkarkkka ka kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
U-LotIn
vesto
rʼsGr
oup
Field
Southwood Lands
12
Red River
Red River
Q-Lot
AdministrationBuilding
Max BellCentre
P-LotParkade
A-Lot
LRes
ACW
B-Lot
ACE
AC
CTC
Y-Lot
W-Lot
E-Lot
G-Lot
G-LotF-Lot
D-Lot
S-Lot
J-Lot
ALC
LegendMain Parking Lots U-Lot (Selected Parking Lot)
I-Lot
L-Lot
B-Lot
13
Parking Lot Selection
U-Lot SelectionThe majority of the parking lots within the Fort Garry campus are composed of large impervious asphalt wastelands, with very little relief or remnants of vegetation. The sea of asphalt during the day is dotted with hundreds of different types of vehicles, and during the night is an open sea of abandonment. Transecting across the parking lots during the winter, the unforgiving frigid temperatures chills the vulnerable; adversely, transecting across the parking lots during the summer, the blast of sunrays scorches the susceptible. Although the preceding statements are eccentric, it helps illustrates the inadequacy of the ongoing experiential condition within the parking lots. The number of parking stalls available within the Fort Garry Campus is approximately 6,650 stalls (University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016a), including 42 acres of surface parking lots (University of Manitoba Physical Plant, 2016). However, the university’s Office of Sustainability is currently conducting a revised count of the available parking stalls. The university’s Parking Services is an ancillary department of the university that is responsible for overseeing all parking related concerns. The Parking Service states “[t]he mission of Parking Services is to meet our
community’s transportation needs by providing environmentally sustainable, innovative and professionally-managed parking and transportation options” (University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016a).
Fig 3.2 U-Lot dimensions outline, Fort Garry CampusScale 1:2500
978
ft (2
98m
)
384 ft (117m)
178 ft (54.3m)
35 ft (10.7m)
98 ft (29.9m)
90 ft (27.4m)
353,723 ft2 (32,862 m2)
14
Fig 3.3 U-Lot aerial image, Fort Garry CampusScale 1:2000
Rh Road
Welcome
Centre
University Crescent
Dafoe Road
Chancellor Matheson Road
Investorʼs Group Field
15
Fig. 3.4 Aisles width and parking dimensions of typical parking stalls of U-Lot. Scale 1.300
18 ft(5.5m)
28 ft(8.53m)
18 ft(5.5m)
18 ft(5.5m)
18 ft(5.5m)
9 ft(2.75m)
9 ft(2.75m)
Parking Stalls:
1,067 stallsPavement (m2):
32,862 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
0 m2
ContextThe parking lot of focus, is the U-Lot parking lot at the Fort Garry campus of the University of Manitoba. The intention for the selection of the U-Lot is, I am notably familiar with the space from being a patron of the parking lot for several years, both as a motorist and a pedestrian. The U-Lot, is uniformly rectangular, with the exception of the space allotted to the University of Manitoba’s Welcome Center building on the south-east edge, near the intersection of University Crescent and Dafoe Road. The dimensions of the current impervious pavement layout is approximately 117 meters by 298 meters. The long side, 298 meters, confines parallel along Chancellor Matheson Road and Dafoe Road; and the short side, 117 meters, confines parallel along University Crescent and Rh Way. The current layout of the parking lot yields
1,067 parking spaces. The parking spaces are divided amongst six aisles, parallel of Chancellor Matheson and Dafoe roads. The principle participants that use the parking spaces in U-Lot, are generally students of the university. Students desiring to park his or her automobile in U-Lot must purchase a parking pass. The aisle bordering the intersection of Chancellor Matheson and University Crescent is restricted to daily paid parking.
U-Lot Current Layout
16
Rh Road
WelcomeCentre
Dafoe Road
Chancellor Matheson Road
Investorʼs Group Field
Current Layout of U-Lot
University CrescentLegendPavement
Fig. 3.5 Plan of “U-Lot Current Layout.” Scale 1:2000Parking stalls
17
A Photographic Journey
A Photographic JourneyWhen transecting across U-Lot, the current infrastructure quality of the parking lot is noticeably well-worn from years of service. The following is a photographic journey across U-Lot recognizing the characteristic qualities of U-Lot.
Fig. 3.6.1 Metered parking area of U-Lot.
Fig. 3.6.5 Unoccupied parking stalls looking towards Rh Road.
Fig. 3.6.7 Unoccupied parking stalls of U-Lot. Fig. 3.6.8 Snow piles on the western side of U-Lot.
Fig. 3.6.10 The odd metal electrical post. Fig. 3.6.11 Stop sign at an intersection within U-Lot.
Fig. 3.6.4 Electrical component within U-Lot.
11
1
4 5
7 8
10
18
Fig. 3.6.2 Welcome Centre of the University of Manitoba.
Fig. 3.6.3 Sign secured in cylindrical concrete block.
Fig. 3.6.6 Wooden electrical posts outline the parking stalls.
Fig. 3.6.9 Driveway from Rh Road to U-Lot.
Fig. 3.6.12 Fence bordering the metered park-ing area of U-Lot.
Fig. 3.7 Photograph location areas Scale 1:500012
2 3
6
9
1
2
3
45
67
8 9
10
11
12
19
Soil ConditionsThe prevailing soil type found typically 2 meters underneath the topsoil at the Fort Garry campus is CH type clays. The clay is inorganic, highly plastic, hard to sift, damp, and brown in colour. The clay becomes softer below 10.7 meters (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2010). The infiltration of rainwater through the soil is significantly deferred once the rainwater reaches the clay. The appropriateness of incorporating permeable pavements may be remanded, as once the rainwater reaches the clay the infiltration decreases. Although, the use of perforated drain pipes will nevertheless be effective. Rainwater will properly infiltrate through the softer soils, and once the rainwater reaches the clay it will permeate into the perforated drain pipes and flow into the city’s stormwater infrastructure.
ObservationsThe first segment of U-Lot was constructed in the 1970s with the second segment was built at a later time. The age of the parking lot is relevant through the deterioration of the pavement, evident by the uneven and cracked surface. The parking lot is dotted with patchworks of asphalt coats. The wooden electrical outlet posts are notched and outworn, and in some instances obliterated - perchance knocked down by heavy equipment during snow removal or careless motorists. The chain-link fence distinguishing the student parking zone and the metered parking zone is rusted and serrated. The stop signs that dot the intersections in the parking lot are secured in cylindrical concrete blocks and may be displaced and/or reoriented. During times of rainfall, the rainwater segregates on the surface of the parking lot. The slope of the parking lot is inadequate and the number of storm drains are insufficient. In more evident depressed sections of the parking lot, segregation of rainwater may last for days. Vegetation is lacking throughout the expanse of the parking lot, with the only relief of vegetation along the periphery of the parking lot. Trees line along the northern edge of the parking lot, parallel with Chancellor Matheson Road.
U-Lot Observations
20
Fig. 3.9 Walking Diagram from Inves-tor’s Group Field Scale 1:5000
Fig. 3.8 Walking Diagram from the univserity Scale 1:5000
Walking DistanceThe walking distance is considered from two points of origin, from the campus at the corner of Chancellor Matheson and University Crescent (entrance of Frank Kennedy Centre) and from the Investor’s Group Field (entrance closest to the parking lot). From the campus, to reach the far end of the parking will take approximately 4 minutes; from the stadium to reach the other side of the parking lot will take approximately 2 minutes. Calculations are based on walking 100 meters every minute. Waiting to cross the street will be additional time.
3 minutes 2 minutes
1 minute
4 minutes
2 minutes
1 minute
3 minutes
Stadium EventsDuring an event at the Investor’s Group Field, even with a parking pass, students are not permitted to park at U-Lot. The U-Lot is reserved for attendees for events held at the stadium, in which a parking fee must be paid or a season pass may be purchased. Students must evacuate the parking lot 90 minutes prior to any stadium event. Students with a parking pass may park at another student reserved parking lot (University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016a).
21
Revenue & ExpensesRevenue is primary generated through the sale of annual parking passes, as well as from metered parking. Additionally, individual term parking passes are sold. Summer passes may be bought per month bases or the complete duration from May 1st to August 31st. The exact finances are not publicly available, as the Parking Services is an ancillary service of the university. A rough estimate
*http://umanitoba.ca/campus/parking/rates.html (accessed 21 November 2016)
**http://umanitoba.ca/campus/parking/visitor/(accessed 21 November 2016)
Student Parking Rate (2016-17)
$560.03*Summer Monthly Parking
$~80*
Parking Per Hour (minimum 2 hours)
$1.75**Daily Maximum
$10.75**
U-Lot Observations
Fig 3.10 Parking pass and parking pay per use areas
from the sale of student parking passes (September 1st to April 30th passes) would be $ 539,308.89. The estimate is determined by calculating the number of available student parking stalls (963 parking stalls) and multiplying the cost of a student parking pass. Theoretically, all students will never park at the same time at U-Lot, therefore more parking passes may be sold then spots available. The calculation does not include metered parking
22
Snow RemovalThe university’s Physical Plant is responsible for snow removal, street and sidewalk sweeping, and maintenance of the university’s physical infrastructure. The Physical Plant is responsible for clearing the campus’s 42 acres of parking lot surfaces and 20 kilometers of sidewalks and roads. (University of Manitoba Physical Plant, 2016). After a heavy snowfall, crews work to clear snow from the surfaces of the parking lots. Typically, the snow is pushed by heavy equipment and accumulated into large snow piles in allotted areas within the parking lots. The snow piles are loaded and trucked to the university’s snow disposal area.
Climatic ConditionsWinnipeg’s climate is classified as ‘Dfb’ under the Köppen-Geiger classification system. The climate of Winnipeg is described as “a humid continental climate with severe winters, no dry season, warm summers and strong seasonality” (ClimaTemps, 2016). During the winter months the average snowfall is 110.6cm and throughout the year the average precipitation is 513.7mm (Statistics Canada, 2007). Winnipeg experiences a significant average monthly temperature difference of 38.1 °C.
revenue and summer parking revenue estimates. Additionally revenue is generated by issuing of parking tickets due to parking infractions. Typical expenses would include the cost of maintenance (repairs, snow clearing, etc.), electricity to the power outlets, campus shuttle bus, and parking enforcement officers.
23
UManitoba Masterplan [2016]
U-Lot in Visionary The U-Lot in the University of Manitoba: Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan is displayed as an area with considerable development. U-Lot is divided into three segments in which includes mixed-use development. Six residential towers, potentially up to 20 storeys high, are imagined. The towers will located on top of three to five storey commercial podiums. The plan ignores the existing infrastructure that currently exists, including the university’s Welcome Centre. It can be argued that financial benefits involved in the visionary development will significant outweigh the cost of the demolition of the Welcome Centre.
Visonary MasterplanThe University of Manitoba Visionary (re)Generation is a document to help guide and design development coherently within the University of Manitoba (Fort Garry Campus) in the foreseeable future. The document provides a framework to help form the campus into a walkable, accessible, and connected campus. Planning policies frameworks are suggested for: enhancing future building character and massing, enhancing landscape infrastructure, enhancing transportation to and from campus and enhancing circulation in the campus, enhancing the campus’s heritage conservation, and enhancing the campus’s energy and sustainable water managements. The implementation of the framework strategies would be in phases, dependent on growth pressures, university needs, city influences, and funding resources (2016, p.116). Fig 3.11 Rendition of Visionary re(Generation)
Masterplan [2016]Scale NTS
24
re(Generation) Vision of U-LotRh Road
Dafoe Road
Chancellor Matheson Road
Investorʼs Group Field
University CrescentLegend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig 3.12 Plan of “(re)Gen-eration Vision of U-Lot.” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
Conceptual High-RiseMax. 20 Floors
Conceptual High-RiseMax. 20 Floors
Proposed High-RiseMax. 20 Floors
Proposed High-RiseMax. 20 Floors
Conceptual High-Rise Max.
20 Floors
Conceptual Low-RiseM
ax. 3-5 Floors
Conceptual Low-RiseMax. 3-5 Floors
Conceptual Low-RiseM
ax. 3-5 Floors
Conceptual Low-RiseM
ax. 3-5 FloorsConceptual Low-Rise
Max. 3-5 Floors Conceptual Low-Rise
Max. 3-5 Floors
25
experience criteria for schemaA series of schematic layouts will be devised, that will explore different parking arrangement solutions in relation to the U-Lot parking lot at the Fort Garry campus. Four predetermined experience criteria will be identified, and for each schematic scheme it will be determined which experience criteria will be satisfied. The four experience criteria include: environment-friendly experience, pedestrian-friendly experience, automobile-friendly experience, or cost-factor. Each experience criteria will be discussed in further detail per each schematic layout.
26
27
Environmental experienceThe environment experince recognizes the increased capacity for providing greenspaces within the parking lot. To determine the environmental-friendly adaption, an improvement of non-pavement areas is considerated. The non-pavement areas provide relief from the pavement areas, and may encourage planting of trees and incorperate stormwater management projects.
Pedestrian experienceThe pedestrian experience recognizes the experiential quality from the perspective of pedestrians within the parking lot. To determine the pedestrian experience, two suggested considerations may be explored. First, does the pedestrian feel protected and/or feel safe from the automobile traffic in the parking lot. Second, does the pedestrian feel protected from the weather elements in the parking lot.
Experience Criteria
Substantial consideration and improvement for the environmental experience.
Negligible consideration and improvement for the environmental experience.
Substantial consideration and improvement for the pedestrian experience.
Negligible consideration and improvement for the pedestrian experience.
Minimum Intervention(s)
Degrees of InterventionsEach schematic layout will be characterized by the extent of work required to implement the interventions associated with each schematic layout.
Minimum Intervention(s)The scope of work to develop the schematic layout is minimal in connection to the current layout.
28
Automobile experienceThe automobile experience recognizes the experiential quality from the perspective of motorists within the parking lot. To determine the automobile experience, the accessibility and practicality of movement and ease of parking is considered. Additionally, the flow of the traffic is considered. Raised mediums between the parking stalls would prevent traffic from cutting through the parking stalls.
Cost factorThe cost factor is based on two primary considerations in connection to the parking lot – the ability to generate revenue and consideration of the cost of replacing and building new infrastructure. Through the sales of parking passes and metered parking, the parking lot generates revenue. If the number of parking stalls decrease, the number of potential available spots decrease, therefore potential revenue decreases. constructing the structure would be beneficial.
Substantial consideration and improvement for the automobile experience.
Negligible consideration and improvement for the automobile experience.
Substantial consideration and improvement for the cost factor.
Negligible consideration and improvement for the cost factor.
Moderate Intervention(s)
Maximum Intervention(s)
Moderate Intervention(s)The scope of work to develop the schematic layout requires more work but not a major overhaul in connection to the current layout.
Maximum Intervention(s)The scope of work to develop the schematic layout requires a major overall in connection to the current layout.
29
speculative schemaThe purpose of this section is to illustrate a series of schematic layouts portraying practical to speculative parking lot layouts. The introduction of each scheme explains the main ambitions and intentions that informed the layout of the particular schematic layout. Supporting diagrams, if necessary, will explain the scheme in further detail. Each scheme will be critically discussed to determine if the scheme is practical or speculative. The number of parking stalls, total pavement area, and total non-pavement area will be determined per each schematic layout. The schemes range from simple interventions to massive overhauls of the U-Lot parking lot. The intent of this section is to encourage discussion as to “what a parking lot could be” in relation to the study area.
30
31
Parking Stalls:
1,222 stallsPavement (m2):
32,862 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
0 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of ‘One Foot Less’ is reducing the width of the parking stalls by one foot. By reducing the parking stalls by one foot, the question is, how many new parking stalls can be created? The current typical width of parking stalls in the U-Lot is 9 feet, and the width will be reduced to 8 feet. Eight feet is the current width of the parking stalls within the Active Living Center parking lot, as well as the minimum width of a parking stall identified by the Winnipeg Zoning by-law 200/2006. The additional number of new parking stalls may enable the sale of more parking passes and therefore potentially increase the collection of revenue. Represented as a minimum intervention, the actual implementation will be much more difficult. At each parking stall there is an electrical outlet plug, therefore the electrical outlets will have to be rearranged to accommodate the new layout. This concern could be addressed to all the following schemes. The new layout can occupy 1,222 parking stalls, an increase of 155 (2,071 square meters) parking stalls. Alternatively, the space gained can be implemented for new greenspaces for a total area of 2,074 square meters.
One Foot Less9 ft (2.75m
)8 ft (2.44m
)
18 ft (5.5m)
ConclusionThe cost factor in this scheme will be beneficial, due to the increase of parking stalls. The automobile experience will remain standard, although a bit more condense. The pedestrian and environmental experience is neglected. Although, if the additional parking stalls are converted into greenspace, both the pedestrian and environmental experience may be improved.
Fig. 5.1.1 Diagram of proposed parking dimensions.
32
Minimum Intervention(s)
Fig. 5.1.2 Plan of “One Foot Less” Scale 1:2000
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
“One Foot Less” [Existing Layout]
Parking stalls
33
Parking Stalls:
975 stallsPavement (m2):
31,477 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
1,385 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “A Head Start in Growth” is planting deciduous trees in accordance to the UManitonba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The planting will be implemented on the existing parking lot layout, although the locations of the tree plantings will be thoughtful of tree locations of the masterplan. The parking stalls located where a tree is indicated in the masterplan will be converted into non-pavement areas. The non-pavement areas will have deciduous trees planted. Two parking stalls will be allotted per tree, equating to 30.1 m2 (324 ft2). The area allotted to the tree should be significant to encourage healthy growth of the trees. The areas designated for tree plantings will have the pavement base completely removed, and replaced with new soil. Additionally, low barriers walls around the non-pavement area may be considered. The barriers will prevent any machinery hitting the trees or preventing salt for melting ice contaminating the soil. Ideally, the trees will be planted immediately. When U-Lot becomes developed in the future, the trees will have a head start in growth. The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate.
A Head Start In Growth
ConclusionThe reduction of available parking stalls will have a negative effect on the cost factor. Additionally, the current parking stalls could decrease in size (as per “One Foot Less”). The pedestrian experience remains the same throughout most of the parking lot, although improves along the northern edge of the parking lot. The automobile factor remains relatively the same, with the exception of improved shade around the non-pavement areas. The environmental experience is improved with the new allotting of non-pavement and planting of trees.
34
Fig. 5.2.1 Plan of “A Head Start in Growth” Scale 1:2000
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
“A Head Start In Growth” [Existing Layout]
Moderate Intervention(s)
Parking stalls
Tree
35
Parking Stalls:
938 stallsPavement (m2):
31,500m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
1,362 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “Walk Less. Pay More.” is U-Lot is divided into three segments. The segments are representative of the proposed form displayed in the UManitonba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The different segments, based on distance away from the campus core, charges different parking rates. The parking stalls in closest segment to the campus is the most expensive; the parking stalls in the middle segment are moderate cost; and the parking stalls in furthest segment is the cheapest. Depending on the distance an individual is willing to walk, or depending on how much an individual is willing the pay will determine where the individual may park. The different parking rates may encourage a more active livelihood as students may prefer to park further away to save money. Ethical concerns may be an issue, such as does the parking convention by different rates segments the population (less well-off versus well-off students). The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate.
ConclusionThe reduction of the available parking spaces will have a negative effect on the cost factor, although by charging more in the most expensive segment may make up the lost revenue. The pedestrian experience remains the same throughout most of the parking lot, although improves along the northern edge of the parking lot. The automobile experience remain relatively the same, but in accordance to the visionary masterplan there will be two south-north aisles. The environmental experience is improved with the new allocation of non-pavement areas and planting of trees.
Walk Less. Pay More.
$ cheapest$$ moderate$$$ expensive
36
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.3.1 Plan of “Walk Less. Pay More.” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
Moderate Intervention(s)
“Walk Less. Pay More.“ [Visionary Layout]
Visionary building
37
Big Car. Little Car.
Parking Stalls:
1,051 stallsPavement (m2):
31,015 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
1,847 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “Big Car. Small Car.” is larger automobiles are allotted to parking stalls further from the campus, and smaller automobiles are allotted parking stalls closer to the campus. The schematic layout includes: 361 small lots, 664 standard lots, and 26 accessible lots. The number of small parking stalls cannot exceed up to 30% of total parking stalls, as stated in Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law 100/2004. In this scheme, more than 30% of parking stalls are allotted as small parking stalls, therefore adjustments should be made. Although, it can be argued by creating more small size parking stalls, it could potential force the use of small automobiles. By reducing the number of standard parking spots available, it may force motorists to purchase smaller automobiles. Alternatively, the arrangement of small and standard parking stalls can alternate throughout the parking lot, instead of location all the smaller parking stalls closer to the campus. The tree plantings are considerate of the UManitoba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate.
ConclusionThe number of parking stalls remain relatively the same compared to the current layout of the parking lot, therefore potential revenue remains comparable. The environmental experience is improved with the addition of new non-pavement areas and planting of new trees. The pedestrian experience remains relatively the same, with the exception of the northern edge of the parking lot. The automobile experience remains relatively the same, although segmentation between smaller and larger automobiles may be an issue.
38
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.4.1 Plan of “Big Car. Little Car.” Scale 1:2000
“Big Car. Little Car” Schematic Layout
Parking stalls
Tree
Moderate Intervention(s)
Visionary building
39
Minimum Standards
Parking Stalls:
903 stallsPavement (m2):
30,310 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
2,552 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “Minimum Standards” is representative of 45 degree angle parking standards implemented by the City of Winnipeg. The dimensions of the parking stalls must equal 28 feet (the dimensions used are 10 feet wide and 18 long). Depending on the angle degree of the parking stalls, the aisle width fluctuates (the angle use is 45 degrees and an aisle width of 12 feet). Angle parking is suitable for one-direction aisles. Planting trees along the south and north edges prevents future development, where the middle is suitable for development. Developing more schemes with different parking stall angles will be of an interest to compare, noting the different parking stall counts. The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate. This scheme is inconsiderate of the UManitonba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. Although, future development is possible in a different form.
ConclusionAngle parking is not as efficient as parallel parking, as seen from the decrease of 164 parking stalls. The number of lost parking stalls reduces revenue potential. Excluding the south and north non-pavement edges, the pedestrian experience does not improve greatly. The addition of non-pavement areas and new trees improves the environmental experience. The one direction of the aisles may result in confusion for motorists; the direction of traffic flow must be clearly indicated. Compared to the existing automobile experience, the automobile in this scheme may be arguable reduced (but is debatable).
40
“Minimum Standards” [Existing Layout]
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.5.1 Plan of “Minimum Standards” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
Moderate Intervention(s)
Traffic direction
41
A Parkade in a Park
Parking Stalls:
935* stallsPavement (m2):
17,889 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
14,973 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “A Parkade in a Park” is to reduce the amount of surface parking by constructing a new parkade. This intervention will be the most cost intensive; although the cost could be offset with future development, as well as the value of new greenspace. The parkade could act as a podium for potential residential towers as proposed in UManitonba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The parkade illustrated here could potential contain 226 automobiles per floor (2 floors, 452 stalls; 3 floors, 678 stalls; 4 floors, 904 stalls). Traffic will enter the parkade from the east opening and exit from the west opening. Additionally, a portion of the current parking surface may be implemented as parking runoff. The surface parking lot is expected to be used less, therefore the implementation of gravel lawns or other permeable pavements may be incorporated. Accessible parking is located by the Welcome Center. Tree plantings are minimal and located potentially where no new development may occur. The park area, while may be developed, would be more beneficial to remain as a park. The park, located at the corner of Chancellor Matheson and University Crescent provides visibility to passersby. The scope of work required to implement
*Note: based on a parkade with three floors; additional floors will increase the amount of parking stalls by 226 stalls.
this scheme would be considered maximum. This scheme is partially considerate of the UManitoba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The current parkade layout may be difficult to build above or beside, although different parkade arrangements or layouts may be more beneficial for future development.
ConclusionThe pedestrian experience will be improved with the addition of a new park and protection of weather elements once inside the parkade. The environment experience will be significantly improved with the incorporation of a large park. The automobile experience will be improved as the automobiles will be sheltered from the weather. The cost factor will be a significant disadvantage, but may be offset by beneficial components.
42
Maximum Intervention(s)
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.6.1 Plan of “A Parkade in a Park” Scale 1:2000
“A Parkade in a Park” [Visionary Layout]
Parking stalls
Tree
Entra
nce
Exit
Slope floor plate for access between floors
PARKADE
RUNOFF PARKING
PARK
43
Wayfinding Patchwork
Parking Stalls:
1,096 stallsPavement (m2):
31,223 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
1,639 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “Wayfinding Patchwork” is creating different parking stalls areas that alternate different orientations in each segment. Each parking segment is marked by non-pavement borders. Each segment has a different size dimensions and an individual entrance/exist from the roads. Trees are displayed in non-pavement areas in areas that would be open spaces in accordance to the UManitoba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. The scheme is open to future development on site. The different orientations is to help remember where someone is parked within the parking lot. Each segment may be individually marked or have unique characteristics. The concept is if the motorist remembers the orientation he or she parked, and when relocating the automobile, wayfinding will be easier to remembering where he or she parked. The parking stall sizes are 8 feet by 18 feet, resulting in an increase of parking stalls. The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate. This scheme is considerate of the UManitoba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan.
ConclusionThe pedestrian experience remains relatively the same as compared to the current state of U-Lot, despite the improved wayfinding. The parking lot is still mostly a large pavement surface, with an addition of some non-pavement areas. The environmental experience does not improve significantly, but is an improvement. The increase of parking stalls increases the amount of potential revenue, therefore benefiting the cost factor. The segments result in confined parking areas. If a segment is full of parked cars, an individual must exit the parking segment and enter a new parking segment, additionally the scheme incorporates many dead-end aisles which decreases the driving experience. The scheme is not automobile friendly.
44
Moderate Intervention(s)
“Wayfinding Patchwork” [Visionary Layout]
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.7.1 Plan of “Wayfinding Patchwork” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
Visionary building
45
A Welcoming Passage (Central)
Parking Stalls:
840 stallsPavement (m2):
30,788 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
2,074 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “A Welcoming Passage (Central)” is creating a central corridor in the interior of the parking lot for pedestrian usage. Bays of 30 parking stalls each are attach to the main pedestrian corridor. Each bay may be numbered or uniquely identified to improve the ease of navigating throughout the parking lot. The main pedestrian corridor leads towards the campus and disperses into a small park. Along the main pedestrian corridor benches and/or picnic tables may be implemented as places to rest or wait. The design of the parking stalls and width of the aisles are generous in this proposal. Alternatively, the aisles width can be reduced and an additional bay of parking can be added (60 additional parking stalls). The width of the parking stalls may also be reduced to 8 feet. The scope of work required to implement this scheme would be considered moderate.
ConclusionThe main disadventage is the number of parking stalls decrease significantly, therefore the cost factor is neglicated. The pedestrian experience is significantly improved with the new corroidor passage. The environmental experience is improved with considerable addition of non-pavement areas.
*Note: if aisle width is descreased, an additional parking bay may be included, resulting in a total of 900 parking stalls.
Fig. 5.8.1 Detail plan of corridor intersection. Scale 1:350
The parking stall dimensions and aisles width are generous, although the aisles dead-end along the interior side of the bay can negatively impact the automobile experience.
46
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Moderate Intervention(s)
Fig. 5.8.2 Plan of “A Welcoming Passage (Central)” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
“A Welcoming Passage (Central)” [Existing Layout]
47
A Welcoming Passage (Side)
Parking Stalls:
1,113 stallsPavement (m2):
28,931 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
3,931 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “A Welcoming Passage (Side)” is creating a main pedestrian corridor along the northern side of the parking lot. The scheme is familiar to “A Welcoming Passage (Central)”. The parking lot is divided into 15 bays. The bays create a sense of enclosure. Each bay feeds into a main pedestrian corridor on the north side of the parking lot. The corridor leads to the campus. Along the main pedestrian corridor benches and/or picnic tables, may be implemented. Each bay may be numbered or uniquely identified to improve the ease of navigating throughout the parking lot. Tree plantings are minimal and located only to the north side of the parking lot where no new development may occur. Compared to “A Welcoming Passage (Central)” scheme, the bays are considerable longer and may be too large for comfort. The parking stall sizes are 8 feet by 18 feet. Accessible parking is located by the Welcome Center.
ConclusionThe pedestrian experience of the scheme improves significantly, as an individual will feel more comfortable within the smaller bays of the parking lot, as well as on the main pedestrian corridor. The environmental experience is improved with considerable addition of non-pavement areas. An increase in the number of available parking stalls increases the amount of potential revenue, therefore improving the cost factor. Individual parking stalls and the width of the aisles are reduced to the minimal standard, as well as dead end of the aisles along the north side of the bay can negatively impact the automobile experience.
48
Moderate Intervention(s)
“A Welcoming Passage (Side)” [Existing Layout]
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Fig. 5.9.1 Plan of “A Welcoming Passage (Side)” Scale 1:2000
Parking stalls
Tree
49
To the Shade!
Parking Stalls:
871 stallsPavement (m2):
29,595 m2
Non-Pavement (m2):
3,267 m2
Intervention & ObjectiveThe main intervention of “To the Shade!” is increasingly amplifying the space dedicated to non-pavement areas (with an increase of vegetation) the further away from the campus core. The parking stalls closest to the campus are a bare pavement surface with no tree protection; and gradually the further an individual travels there is an increase of deciduous trees. The east half of the parking lot contains the original six aisles, compared to the west side of the parking lot now has 5 aisles. The reduction of one aisles is to allot more space to non-pavement areas. When the deciduous trees become mature throughout the years, the foliage during the summer would protect the automobiles from the sunlight, hence after a long day of parking the interior of the automobile will be cooler. During the winter, the foliage will fall from the trees, providing an increase of sunlight exposure, hence keeping the automobile warmer. Additionally, the increase of vegetation will reduce the urban heat island effect. The east side of the parking will be ideally develop, hence the lack of tree plantings. The highly planted area is expected to remain a parking lot. Two schematic alternatives are shown on the following pages.
ConclusionThe pedestrain and environmental experience in the more barren side of the parking will remain unchanged, although the experience within the vegetated side will be improved. The automobile experience will also be improved in the more vegetated areas as the automobile is partly more protected from the weather conditions. The number of parking stalls will decreased, as more space is alloted for non-pavement areas, therefore the cost factor is reduced.
Fig. 5.10.1 Diagram of shade by trees Scale NTS
50
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Moderate Intervention(s)
Parking stalls
Tree
Fig. 5.10.2 Plan of “To the Shade!” Scale 1:2000
“To the Shade!” [Existing Layout]
51
To the Shade! (Alternatives)
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Parking stalls
Tree
Fig. 5.10.3 Plan of “To the Shade! Alternative One” Scale 1:2000
“To the Shade!” Alternative One [Visionary Layout]
52
Legend
Non-Pavement
Pavement
Parking stalls
Tree
Fig. 5.10.4 Plan of “To the Shade! Alternative Two” Scale 1:2000
“To the Shade!” Alternative Two [Welcome Centre Removed]
Visionary building
53
conclusionsThe purpose of this section is to conclude the results and findings that were revealed in the series of schematic layouts for U-Lot parking lot. Other notes of interest and potential paths for further investigation is discussed.
54
55
ConclusionThe number of schematic layouts of different parking arrangements, even given within the context of a selected parking lot (the U-Lot at the Fort Garry campus), could ultimately be infinite. While working on individual schemes, every design decision had to be critical determined, although many other design decisions could have been as equally justifiable. Ultimately, every schematic layout can continuously be rearranged, altered, scraped, and so on. Combinations of different schemes may be hybridized, and if more time is allotted, hybrids of the finalized rendered schematic layouts would be of interest to further study. To limit the scope of work to practical time constraints, each schematic layout was delineate by a main ambition and intention that informed the design. For example in the “One Foot Less” schematic layout, the main intention was to reduce the parking stall width to eight feet from nine feet. One variation out of many potential design solutions was given. Imposing the main intention of each schematic design onto different parking lots within different contexts would be of interest for further investigation to determine the practicality of each intervention. Throughout this exercise of developing schematic layouts, the first initial stage involved sketching out rough schemes by hand; followed by a more accurate rendition of the scheme. Many sketches in the initial stage did not make it to the rendition stage, but these rejected schemes did help to flow the idea and reinforce the main question “what a parking lot
could be” in relation to the study area. The sketches that did make it to final rendition still could be continuously revised and altered. The final rendition of the schemes enabled the individual schematic layout to be develop more carefully, and allowing to extract information such as total number of parking stalls, total pavement area, and total non-pavement area per each schematic layout. Each schematic layout is vaguely detailed as the purpose of this study was to explore different parking lot arrangements. The concept was to discover which parking lot schemes potentially functioned as a parking lot and additionally challenges the four predetermined experience criteria considerations. The study helped pan out the different possibilities of layouts, although there is considerably more to be considered with further investigation. Many additional issues have not been specifically addressed in this study, including lighting and safety within the parking lots. The areas that are allotted as non-pavement areas may include a large number of environmentally conscious designs, including: green infrastructures, stormwater management techniques, permeable pavements, bio-swales, etc. By not directly stating any particular green infrastructure design solutions, it allows the possibilities of different design solutions to remain open. It will be of interest to further study which possible green infrastructures are possible given in the context of each schematic layout. For example, what green infrastructure as possible within
56
a smaller area compared to a larger area? The four experience criteria - the environmental-friendly, the pedestrian-friendly, the automobile-friendly, and cost factor – have been determined before any schematic designs have been studied. After the completion of a schematic design, the schematic design was evaluated for each experience criteria. Certain criteria for particular schematics design were easy to determine, as opposed, some criteria was difficult to determine. The automobile-experience, after some consideration, could have been eliminated as a criteria. The recognition involved that the automobile-experience remain relative the same throughout each scheme. Perhaps, more emphasis should have been placed on the pedestrian and environmental experiences with each schematic design. The schematic layout that personally stood out to me is the “To the Shade” layout. The schematic layout had positive outcomes in three of the four experience criteria considerations, although the loss of revenue within the revenue criteria is debatable. The schematic layout displayed a considerable improvement of both the pedestrian and environmental experiences. The layout of the U-Lot remained relatively unchanged from the current state but with the implementation of new trees. Two additional schematic layouts of “To the Shade” were rendered to further explore more possibilities of the scheme’s main ambitions and intentions. Further exploration and
deeper study would be of interest for continuing studies. Other points of interest to further study would include exploring different methods of outlining individual parking stalls. Typically in Manitoba, each parking stall is outlined with paint. In the case of U-Lot, the parking stall is marked by numbered wooden electrical outlets. What other methods are possible to marked individual parking stalls? Another point of interested would be understanding the result of when greatly reducing the number of parking stalls available and encouraging the use of public transportation. What would become of U-Lot (as well as all other parking lots) at the Fort Garry Campus? Stated in the introduction of this study, “the primary outcome I hope to achieve from this study is to generate different ideas of what parking lots could be in relation to the Fort Garry Campus. By doing a series of schematic layouts I am able to visualize different situations and determine whether the schematic layout is practical or not practical. The study did in fact, helped me visualize different parking lot situations, the study helped induce where further study should be focused. Although, the schematic layouts of different parking arrangements could ultimately be infinite and this study could further continue, the study accomplishes the goal of rethinking “what a parking lot could be” in regards to U-Lot at the Fort Garry campus.
57
citations
58
59
Citations:
AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2010. Geotechnical investigation project 85 LDS outfall University of Manioba. Winnipeg, Manitoba: AMEC Earth & Environmental.
ClimaTemps, 2016. Winnipeg, Manitoba climate & temperature. [online] Available at: <http://www.winnipeg.climatemps.com/> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law 2004. 2004 SI No. 100/2004. Winnipeg.
Ferguson, B., 2005. Porous pavements: integrative studies in water management and land development. Boca Raton, Fla.: Taylor & Francis.
McCluskey, J., 1987. Parking: a handbook of environmental design. London: E. & F. N. Spon.
Natural Resources Canada, 2016. 2016 Fuel consumption guide. [online] Available at: <http:// umanitoba.ca/campus/parking/rates.html> [Accessed 13 December 2016].
Statistics Canada, 2007. Weather conditions in capital and major cities (precipitation). [online] Available at: < http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/phys08a-eng. htm> [Accessed 16 December 2016].
University of Manitoba Campus Planning Office, 2016. Southwood lands. [online] Available at: <http:// umanitoba.ca/admin/campus_planning_office/southwood_interim.html> [Accessed 13 December 2016].
University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016. Parking rates – students and staff. [online] Available at: <http://umanitoba.ca/campus/parking/rates.html> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016.Visitor / casual parking. [online] Available at: <http:// umanitoba.ca/campus/parking/visitor/> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
University of Manitoba Parking Services, 2016a. Investors Group Field – event day information. [online] Available at: <http://umanitoba.ca/parking/igf.html> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
University of Manitoba Physical Plant, 2016. General maintenance and miscellaneous services. [online] Available at: <http://umanitoba.ca/campus/physical_plant/gensvcs/379.html> [Accessed 16 December 2016].
University of Manitoba, 2016a. About the University of Manitoba. [online] Available at: <http:// umanitoba.ca/about/> [Accessed 16 December 2016].
University of Manitoba, 2016b. University of Manitoba: visionary (re)generation masterplan [pdf] Available at: <http://www.visionaryregeneration.com/media/160520_WEB_Master_Plan.pdf> [Accessed 20 October 2016].
Urban Land Institute, 2000. The dimensions of parking. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Winnipeg Zoning By-law 2008. 2008 SI No. 200/2006. Winnipeg.
Figure 2.2.2Mariash, K., 2016. standard car dimensions [digital illustration].
Figure 2.3.1Mariash, K., 2016. Accessible parking stall dimensions [digital illustration].
Figure 2.3.2Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot parking stall dimensions [digital illustration].
Image Citations:
Figure 2.1.1Mariash, K., 2016. Permeable surface diagram [digital illustration].
Figure 2.1.2Mariash, K., 2016. Impervious surface diagram [digital illustration].
Figure 2.2.1Mariash, K., 2016. Small car dimensions [digital illustration].
60
Figure 5.3.1Mariash, K., 2016. Walk less pay more schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.4.1Mariash, K., 2016. Big car small car schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.5.1Mariash, K., 2016. Minimum standards schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.6.1Mariash, K., 2016. A parkade in a park schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.7.1Mariash, K., 2016. Wayfinding patchwork schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.8.1Mariash, K., 2016. Diagram of detail of a welcoming passage. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.8.2Mariash, K., 2016. A welcoming passage - central - schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.9.1Mariash, K., 2016. A welcoming passage - side - schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.7.1Mariash, K., 2016. Shade tree diagram. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.7.2Mariash, K., 2016. To the shade schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.7.2Mariash, K., 2016. To the shade schematic layout plan alternative one. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.7.2Mariash, K., 2016. To the shade schematic layout plan alternative two. [digital illustration].
Figure 2.3.3Mariash, K., 2016. Standard parking stall dimensions [digital illustration].
Figure 2.3.4Mariash, K., 2016. Small parking stall dimensions [digital illustration].
Figure 3.1Google Earth, 2015. University of Manitoba Fort Garry Campus 49O48’33.09” N 97O08’03.61W, elevation 234M. [online] Available through: <http://www.google.com/earth/index/html> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
Figure 3.2Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot dimensions. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.3Google Earth, 2015. U-Lot at Fort Garry Campus 49O48’20.088” N 97O08’29.81W, elevation 233M. [online] Available through: <http://www.google.com/earth/index/html> [Accessed 21 November 2016].
Figure 3.4Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot aisles and parking stall dimensions. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.5Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot current layout. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.6.1 to 3.6.12Mariash, K., 2016. A photographic tour of U-lot series. [digital photograph].
Figure 3.7 Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot photograph locations. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.8Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot walking from campus. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.9Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot walking from Investor’s Group Field. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.10 Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot student parking and metered parking. [digital illustration].
Figure 3.11 University of Manitoba, 2016. Rendition of University of Manitoba: visionary (re)generation masterplan [photograph]. (University of Manitoba, 2016b. University of Manitoba: visionary (re)generation masterplan [pdf], pp.26-27. Available at: <http://www.visionaryregeneration.com/media/160520_WEB_Master_Plan.pdf> [Accessed 20 October 2016].)
Figure 3.12 Mariash, K., 2016. U-Lot Visionary re(Generation). [digital illustration].
Figure 5.1.1Mariash, K., 2016. Parking lot dimensions comparison proposal. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.1.2Mariash, K., 2016. One foot less schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
Figure 5.2.1Mariash, K., 2016. A head start in growth schematic layout plan. [digital illustration].
61
62
63
