Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kim Plazas-Public-Life-Study Report 2016.06.21 FullSize
Kim Plazas-Public-Life-Study Report 2016.06.21 FullSize
PUBLIC LIFE
STUDY
Stella Kim
UC Berkeley | Master of City Planning, 2016
San Francisco Planning Department1
San Francisco Plazas Public Life Study
Author Acknowledgements
Stella Kim This report would have not been possible without the continuous
support and guidance from Robin Abad Ocubillo, Ilaria Salvadori,
Master of City Planning Candidate, 2016 and Neil Hrushowy from the Planning Department, and valuable
Department of City and Regional Planning feedback from Peter Bosselmann, Elizabeth Macdonald, and Karen
UC Berkeley Chapple throughout its development; thank you. Id also like to
thank the designers and stewards of these spaces who graciously
Program Assistant, Pavement to Parks shared documents/insight on these plazas and their work on them,
San Francisco Planning Department and the team of volunteers for their time and efforts in conducting
Public Life Surveys:
Client Report prepared for San Francisco Planning Department and
submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Vincent Agoe Alison Ecker Patricia Mou
of Master of City Planning in the Department of City and Regional Alex Caldwell Justin Fung Henry Pan
Planning at the University of California, Berkeley. Report presented Annie Choi Dan Gillette Lee Reis
at the Planning Department on June 10, 2016 as part of the Genise Choy Robin Huey Paul Sohn
Pavement to Parks Research Lab series: http://pavementtoparks. Abigail Cochran Audrey Koh Gene Stroman
org/research-project/san-francisco-plazas-public-life-study/. Colette Dells Xinyu Liang
Elizabeth Macdonald
Professor of City and Regional Planning
UC Berkeley
This study seeks to understand how plazas function in San Francisco. What is life like in
plazas? Who uses them? How much are they used, and when? How do people spend
time in plazas? Are there significant differences in usage or users across plazas? How
do they compare in context and design? I conducted a thorough public life survey of
six plazas in San Francisco, exploring how and by whom they are used. This report
outlines the main findings from the survey with supporting analysis, organized under
the lens of four parameters I believe are most fundamental in great public spaces:
The report ends with policy and design recommendations for the City of San
Francisco and other public space creators/designers to consider for improving these
spaces or for future spaces.
Mint Plaza
5 Crowhurst Lennard, Suzanne H., International Making Cities Livable LLC, The Public Realm
3 San Francisco Administrative Code, Sec. 94.1
4 San Francisco Planning Department, Public Space Stewardship Guide Glossary, http:// and the Good City
6 San Francisco Planning Department, Public Space Stewardship Guide Glossary, http://
publicspacestewardship.org/?page_id=126 publicspacestewardship.org/?page_id=126
7 San Francisco Administrative Code, Sec. 94.1
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria,
http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
These parameters are based on prior public space studies/practices and the Citys Of the six plazas, Annie Street Plaza and Jane Warner Plaza are Pavement to Parks
goals to improve livability and the public realm for its people. These measures are plaza projects. As stated above, the program has collected public life data on these
by no means exhaustive of what makes a great plaza, but provide a way to study the two plazas as well as Mechanics Monument Plaza, creating an opportunity for the
success of city spaces. program to assess these spaces over time.
BA
BAY ST LU
M
RC
BU
AD
S
AV
ER
E
O
D ST
LOMBAR
BATTER
AY
BROADW
FILL MO
Y ST
VAN NES
NIA ST
CALIFOR
RE
BUSH ST
ST
DIVISAD
S
AVE / 10
GOUGH
GEARY ST
ERO ST
ST
ST
T
KE
3R
GEARY BLVD
LS N S AR
D
M
ST
OM T
ST
FO SIO
4T
IS
HAYES ST
H
M
ST
ST
FULTON
FELL ST OAK ST
3RD ST
ST
T
KE
LINCOLN WAY
AR
M
17TH ST
VALENCIA ST
CASTRO ST
MISSION ST
DOLORES ST
CESAR CHAVEZ ST
understand more information about users and their perceptions of the public space.
Volunteers approached users to collect responses and administered the surveys STREET NAME ADDRESS RANGE
MALE
verbally. Volunteers communicated that respondents may skip any questions DIRECTION
OF TRAVEL*
and that their responses will remain anonymous. A maximum of five surveys were ODD SIDE OF STREET EVEN SIDE OF STREET
FEMALE
DATE WEEKDAY WEEKEND
collected per shift at each plaza. Shifts with few users constrained how many surveys
were conducted. The survey captured data on respondents travel to the plaza, 15 YEARS OLD
frequency and reason for visit, spending behavior, who people accompany, next
NAME AND UNDER
destination, satisfaction with physical conditions and social opportunities, and OVER 65
YEARS OLD
basic demographic information. The survey ends with two open-ended questions to WEATHER CONDITION
RUNNING/
JOGGING
understand users favorite qualities and places in the city. Overall, 78 responses were SKATEBOARDS,
collected, as shown in more detail in Table 4 below. 60% of respondents were males, TEMPERATURE
ROLLERBLADES,
ETC.
and overall median age was 31 years old. WHEELCHAIR/
SPECIAL NEEDS
TIME IN TIME OUT
MALE
SAMPLE STREET BLOCK
Age Range: 18-79 DIRECTION
Median Age: 41 OF TRAVEL*
FEMALE
McCoppin Hub Plaza 15 Gender: 3 Females, 3 Males, 2 Other or No
Response 15 YEARS OLD
AND UNDER
Age Range: 20-45
Median Age: 33 OVER 65
YEARS OLD
Linden Alley 18 Gender: 8 Females, 10 Males COUNTER-
Age Range: 24-70 TRAFFIC
Median Age: 31
ON SIDEWALK
Mint Plaza 8 Gender: 7 Females, 12 Males
Age Range: 22-77 NO HELMET
SCREENLINE: COUNT PEDESTRIANS AND BIKES
Median Age: 35 CROSSING THIS LINE
A - ON FOOT E - CARSHARE A E A E A E A E A E
B - BY BIKE F - CAR B F B F B F B F B F
C - TRANSIT G - OTHER C G C G C G C G C G
D - TAXI D D D D D
L
R
RA
HE
ER E
S)
LL I L
TU
OT
ED
T(
RO B
)
CT
AL
ED
ST M O
UL
PE
AN
IX
NG
CE
M
SE
EB ON
G
G
AN NG
JE
OR
-F
IS
/C
BY
ON HIN
IN
VI
NI
S -
CI
OV
/ D ATI
ON
OB
I
IR LIC
IN
S
NK
DE
AY
C
EA
ER
D
CE
OL
D
D
RI
G
C
N
LI
I
PR
OL
MODES?
C
IE
OL
H
UB
AT
IN
,
RI
PL
OR
IO
EX
-L
UB
IC
FE
IT
S
AN
M
CE
DL
/D
T
S
-W
-P
W
AR
HA
S
EN
NG
NG
-P
-I
AL
3
DE
M
NG
CA
AR
G
ON
AR
ER
AN
LC
OR
E
IN
LE
NG
YE
TR
G
=2
M
G
DR
IC
P
E/
DI
DI
ER
XI
AL
IN
PI
HE
YE
M
YE
IN
RS
IN
OU
CO
OK
NH
SI G
E
IN
OP
YS
RF
EC
AN
AN
EE
LK
TO
W
IN
TI
IR
M A - FASTER C - RECREATION A C A C A C A C A C
IL
5
AL
TT
IN
M
TT
TT
+
1
TT
PE
CO
EA
AC
GR
SM
CH
UR
PA
PA
PH
TA
PE
PE
FE
EL
SL
65
LY
IN
ST
ST
10
LI
1
M
SI
SI
1 1 # BIKES ON
RACKS HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO
2 2
ARRIVE?
3 3
13 13
14 14
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR
# MOTO/
15 15
M SCOOT-
ERS
YOUR VISIT?
PARKED
16 16
A - LIVE NEARBY E - SHOPPING A E A E A E A E A E
17 17
B - WORK NEARBY F - DINING B F B F B F B F B F
18 18 C - PASSING THRU G - ENTERTAINMENT C G C G C G C G C G
# CARS
19 19 C PARKED D - ERRAND H - MEET FRIENDS D H D H D H D H D H
20 20
26 26
HOW MUCH DO YOU TYPICALLY
27 27
SPEND WHEN VISITING _______?
# TRUCKS
28 28
T PARKED
A - $0 D - $20 T0 40 A D A D A D A D A D
29 29 B - $10 OR LESS E - $40 TO $60 B E B E B E B E B E
30 30 C - $10 T0 $20 F - $60 OR MORE C F C F C F C F C F
TOTALS
V2015A
ROBIN.ABAD@SFGOV.ORG
V2014A
ROBIN.ABAD@SFGOV.ORG
Survey Instrument for Plaza Stationary Activity Scans Survey Instrument for Plaza User Intercept Survey
Developed by San Francisco Planning Department Developed by San Francisco Planning Department
ST
RKET
MA
VALENCIA ST
17TH ST
CASTRO ST
LINDEN ALLEY
Source: Winslow Architecture & Design
GOUGH ST
LINDEN ST
BATTERY ST
MINT ST
MISSION ST
ANNIE STREET
Residential
Office
Mixed, with Residential
Mixed, without Residential
Retail/Entertainment
Open Space/Public
Visitor/Hotel Services
Cultural, Institutional, Educational
PDR (Production, Distribution, Repair)
Medical
Vacant or Missing Data
FINDINGS
Peak usages occurred weekday afternoons for
downtown plazas, and weekend afternoons for
neighborhood plazas. peak usage:
weekday
daytime
Mint Plaza served the most users, by volume.
Since plazas differ in size, an analysis of usage per peak usage: Number of Users
1,000 sq. ft. reveals that Linden Annie Street Plaza weekend
daytime Mint Plaza had the
and Linden Alley were the most lively. They drew
most users, by pure
large volumes of users for their size. These three
plazas are deemed the most highly used of this
volume, both weekday
residential
office
+41%
increase in
residential
pedestrian volumes
on weekends
Pedestrian Volume Differences from Weekday to Land Use Within 1/4-mi. of Plazas
Weekend Data Source: San Francisco Planning Department
Total volumes over 12-2 PM, 5-7 PM
Numbers of Users, per 1,000 Square Feet
A closer look by plaza reveals that downtown plazas had heavier weekday use,
and neighborhood plazas had heavier weekend use. More users visited the
downtown setting plazas (Mechanics Monument, Annie, and Mint) on weekdays than
on weekends. On the other hand, neighborhood setting plazas (Linden, McCoppin,
Jane Warner) had relatively low weekday use compared to downtown plazas, but
became very popular on the weekends.
Specifically, Jane Warner Plaza and Linden Alley saw 163% and 200% increases
in number of users respectively on the weekends, and Mechanics Monument
Plaza saw a 63% decrease on the weekends. At Jane Warner Plaza, movable seating
was only available on the weekend during the study period, which explains the large
difference between weekday and weekend use. For Mechanics Monument Plaza, the
opposite is true: there is no movable seating on the weekends. It does, however, User Volumes, Hourly, Aggregated
have fixed seating options on concrete block seats and the steps surrounding the
monument.
By sheer volume, Mint Plaza had the most users on both weekdays and weekends.
As shown previously on pages 28-29, Linden Alley and Annie Street Plaza had the
most users per 1,000 sq. ft. of plaza space, respectively, at the general weekday
and weekend peak of 12-1 PM. On a weekday, Jane Warner Plaza had the lowest
density of user, and on a weekend, Mint Plaza.
34% decrease
For pedestrians, overall weekday volumes were slightly higher than weekend
volumes, and daytime/evening volumes were about the same. For cyclists, weekday
volumes were also higher, with the most cyclists present on weekday evenings.
A closer look at the pedestrian volumes by plaza reveals a richer story that
relates context and is similar to plaza usage trends: Downtown is more of a
weekday destination, while neighborhood areas function more as weekend
destinations. On a weekday, pedestrians were concentrated near the downtown
plazas (Mechanics Monument, Annie, and Mint). These areas saw a decrease in
pedestrians on the weekend, while the plazas located in more of a neighborhood
setting (Linden, McCoppin, Jane Warner) saw an increase.
In terms of time of day, there seems to be an overall healthy mix of daytime &
evening foot traffic. There were more pedestrians in evening hours than daytime
hours on weekdays at all plazas, except Mechanics Monument Plaza. This only holds
true for the weekend at Linden Alley and Jane Warner, while other plazas had higher
afternoon volumes, suggesting that the Castro and Hayes Valley are popular as
weekend evening destinations.
Cyclist Total Volumes, Aggregated Pedestrian Total Volumes, Aggregated
Female
Female
Male
Male
Unlike the above land uses, the remaining categories tend to have a single type of
user and therefore were not analyzed as being destination or amenity-oriented. A
mix of residential uses surrounding public spaces may be important to usage,
since this implies that there is a community that may use the space and keep eyes on
the street, but the relationship is not as clear. For example, McCoppin Hub Plaza
is surrounded by 47% Residential or Mixed with Residential use, but constantly
had lower user volumes than Mechanics Monument Plaza with lower residential use.
41%
of land use
33%
of land use
30%
of land use
destination/amenity destination/amenity destination/amenity
-oriented -oriented -oriented
MINT PLAZA ANNIE STREET MECHANICS
PLAZA MONUMENT PLAZA
Most survey
FINDINGS respondents live in
San Francisco, or
Plazas serve many local residents. 77% of the 78 total survey respondents are at least in the Bay
San Francisco residents. Mechanics Monument Plaza had the lowest proportion; Area
survey users here included a few tourists from afar (Texas and Italy).
68% 52%
blocks. Plaza users were fairly representative of the proportion of children and
elderly in the surrounding neighborhoods, and can be found more so in the plazas
than on adjacent blocks. 6% of plaza users were under 16 years old, just under the
77%
LIVE IN WALKED OR BIKED ARRIVED IN LESS
8% in the neighborhood. 10% of plaza users were over 65 years old, compared to SAN FRANCISCO TO PLAZA THAN 10 MINUTES
14% in the neighborhood.
Females
Plazas Plazas
Females are
significantly
Males
underrepresented
in plazas
VS. VS.
Adjacent Blocks Adjacent Blocks
Neighborhood* San Francisco Neighborhood* San Francisco
to Plazas to Plazas
By plaza, Jane Warner Plaza and Linden Alley have the highest proportions of
frequent users , followed by Annie Street Plaza and Mint Plaza. Mechanics Monument
Plaza and McCoppin Hub have lower proportions of frequent users than the overall
figure of 50%.
The Downtown plazas have more users who came from work, while the neighborhood
plazas have more users who live nearby. Linden Alley had a particularly large
proportion of users who came for leisure.
Public spaces are unique for their social opportunities, allowing people to see
and meet others outside their usual social avenues; sociability of a place can be
assessed through observing how many people are talking to each other or people
watching, and are in pairs or groups.
FINDINGS
While seating opportunities vary by plaza,
the most used and lively plazas tend to have
higher proportions of people sitting. The
number of sitters is important because they are
people who choose to stay and use the plaza for
some period. Jane Warner Plaza did not have any
movable seating during weekday observation
periods, and McCoppin Hub has fixed, isolated
seating opportunities.
A job interview observed at Mint Plaza
Plazas are mainly used for talking to others,
accounting for 37% of observed activities across
plazas, followed by eating/drinking (18%) and
people watching (14%).
The most used plazas tend to have higher
Over half of users came in pairs and groups, suggesting that plazas are social proportions of sitters, i.e. people who choose
destinations. Jane Warner Plaza, Linden Alley, and Mint Plaza had particularly high to stay for some period
proportions of grouped users.
While the sample sizes per plaza are small, ratings can still suggest what could
be improved by design or management for each space, and considerations for
future public spaces to better meet user needs.
2.91
FINDINGS 4.26
Users are generally satisfied with plazas, with all category responses ranging from
3.5-4.5, except for protection from weather. Aggregated perceptions on protection
from weather are low mostly due to Jane Warner Plaza and Mechanics Monument
Plaza. These plazas are the most exposed to environmental elements, with their
location on Market St, open edges, and lack of vertical features.
Compared to prior data for Jane Warner and Mechanics Monument Plaza from
2014, user satisfaction for cleanliness and protection from weather noticeably
decreased at both plazas. In addition, users are less satisfied with maintenance at User Satisfaction by Plaza Light blue cells = Higher than overall average
Jane Warner Plaza, and ease of socializing at Mechanics Monument Plaza. Protec-
No. of Mainte- Safety from tion from Ease of
Responses Cleanliness nance Vehicles Weather Socializing
Compared to prior data for Annie Street Plaza from May 2015, user satisfaction Jane Warner Plaza 9 2.67 2.78 3.89 1.22 3.44
with ease of socializing increased for responses in July 2015. Linden Alley 18 4.22 4.22 3.44 2.61 3.56
McCoppin Hub Plaza 8 4.33 4.50 4.57 4.43 4.29
Well-used and well-perceived spaces, such as Mint and Annie Street Plaza, tend to Mint Plaza 19 4.21 4.37 4.42 3.89 3.58
have stewards on site to upkeep the space; a diverse set of seating; and regularly Annie Street Plaza 15 4.20 4.40 4.80 3.07 4.13
scheduled events. Mint Plaza also features food trucks and coffee kiosks on site. Mechanics Monument Plaza 9 3.63 4.13 4.88 1.50 3.13
Overall Average, Category 78 3.97 4.13 4.26 2.91 3.68
These recommendations are further discussed in the following sections, with the
best example from the evaluated plazas.
In Planning
Sit on a bench, sit in the shade, sit in the sun, sit together, sit alone... The choices are endless at Mint Plaza!
Consider the edge conditions to gauge comfort and user volumes. Design
strategies on the edges can influence plaza usage. Since plazas rated low for
protection from weather, plazas should be located with at least some enclosed edges
to protect against extreme weather conditions. Pedestrian volumes and trends on
adjacent blocks are good indicators of how much and when a plaza may be used.
A great example: Annie Street Plaza
Select sites with immediate nearby amenities and destinations. Livelier plazas
seem to have more retail/commercial, mixed use, and open spaces directly around
the space. Active storefronts adjacent to provide eyes on the street and foot traffic.
A great example: Linden Alley
Kids Club event at Annie Street Plaza, June 13, 2015. Photo by Gene Stroman.
The analysis of Public Life survey data and secondary research reveal that the studied
plazas generally meet the reports four parameters of great plazas:
Well-used and lively: Especially high usage at Mint Plaza, Linden Alley, and Annie
Street Plaza
Draw users of the local community: Many San Francisco residents, but some
segments of population underrepresented
Support various uses, especially social opporunities: Many uses and pairs/groups
observed but could be improved with different features or programming
Jane Warner Plaza
Positively perceived by their users: Users generally report being satisfied with
qualities of plaza, except for protection from weather
DIRECTION
OF TRAVEL*
ODD SIDE OF STREET EVEN SIDE OF STREET
FEMALE
54
MECHANICS PLAZA
ACTIVITY MAPPING
(NOT A TIMED ACTIVITY)
INPUT DATA AT: TINYURL.COM/SF-PLAZA-ACT-MAP
YOUR NAME
DATE
ER
E
RA
S)
IL
TH
)
TU
T(
R)
O
ED
AL
D
L
OB
LE
CT
M
IX
PE
AN
G
G
CE
NG
SE
OL
SE
CU
OR
ON
JE
R
NG
-F
F
IN
VI
IN
/
VI
NI
CI
BY
B
TI
ST
C
D
S
IN
HI
C
R
D
-M
ON
O
A
D
C
I
G
DE
NK
AY
EA
RI
LI
CE
OL
ED
H
(
L
,
I
XE
R
PR
ON
OL
IN
EC
OL
PL
AT
IT
S
IR I
E
EB
UB
M
O
DR
AN
TI
NI
S
C
AN
W
DL
W
EF
/
G
RS
-I
-
G
N
A
3
R
P
-P
/D
AL
N
NG
NG
CA
E
G
RM
A
E-
RO
G
ER
I
A
IN
/D
G
RE
G
P
M
IN
R
G
IC
=2
T
YE
DI
DI
IN
E
SO
M
N
D
E
HA
IN
AL
PL
YE
S
FO
EP
YE
N
W
5
IN
OX
R
L
T
TE
CO
OK
IL
TI
IN
IR
N
O
R
M
EC
E
+
T
I N CHA B L
T
AN
A
1
T
A
T
RO
T
OM
HY
AL
T
W
PE
EA
T
M
FE
PA
G
PE
EL
CH
PE
P
C
AC
SM
IN
SL
PA
UR
LI
1
65
SI G
10
SI
( TIN
S
ST
L Y HEL P U
SI
GENDER AGE POSTURE GROUP ACTIVITIES OTHER ACTIVITIES NUISANCES
1 1 # BIKES ON
RACKS
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
# BIKES ON
OTHER
6 6 FIXTURES
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10 # EMPTY
BIKE RACKS
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
# MOTO/
M SCOOT-
15 15 ERS
PARKED
16 16
17 17
18 18
# CARS
19 19 C PARKED
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23 # VANS
V PARKED
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
# TRUCKS
28 28
T PARKED
29 29
30 30
TOTALS
V2015A
ROBIN.ABAD@SFGOV.ORG
San Francisco Plazas Public Life Study
55
PLAZA USER STREET NAME SURVEYOR NAME
INTERCEPT SURVEY
ADDRESS RANGE SIDE OF STREET SHEET NO OF TOTALSHEETS
(I.E. 400S)
NOTES ODD
EVEN
DATE DAY OF WEEK TIME IN TIME OUT
WEEKDAY
INPUT DATA AT: TINYURL.COM/SF-PED-INTERCEPT
WEEKEND
RESPONDENT 1 RESPONDENT 2 RESPONDENT 3 RESPONDENT 4 RESPONDENT 5
HOW DID YOU GET TO ________
TODAY?
A - ON FOOT E - CARSHARE A E A E A E A E A E
B - BY BIKE F - CAR B F B F B F B F B F
C - TRANSIT G - OTHER C G C G C G C G C G
D - TAXI D D D D D
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THOSE
MODES?
A - FASTER C - RECREATION A C A C A C A C A C
B - CHEAPER D - AVOID PARKING B D B D B D B D B D
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO
ARRIVE?
A - 5 MINS C - 10-30 MINS A C A C A C A C A C
B - 5-10 MINS D - 30 MINS B D B D B D B D B D
HOW OFTEN DO YOU VISIT?
A - ONCE A DAY E - SEVERAL TIMES A E A E A E A E A E
B - ONCE A DAY+ PER MONTH B B B B B
C - ONCE A WEEK F - VERY RARELY C F C F C F C F C F
D - ONCE A WEEK + G - FIRST TIME D G D G D G D G D G
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR
YOUR VISIT?
A - LIVE NEARBY E - SHOPPING A E A E A E A E A E
CITY
ZIPCODE
INTERSECTION
HOW MUCH DO YOU TYPICALLY
SPEND WHEN VISITING _______?
A - $0 D - $20 T0 40 A D A D A D A D A D
B - $10 OR LESS E - $40 TO $60 B E B E B E B E B E
C - $10 T0 $20 F - $60 OR MORE C F C F C F C F C F
V2014A
ROBIN.ABAD@SFGOV.ORG
56
RESPONDENT 1 RESPONDENT 2 RESPONDENT 3 RESPONDENT 4 RESPONDENT 5
PLAZA CLEANLINESS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
PLAZA MAINTENANCE 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
A FAMILY MEMBER? O S N O S N O S N O S N O S N
WHAT IS YOUR
M / F / OTHER M / F / OTHER M / F / OTHER M / F / OTHER M / F / OTHER
GENDER IDENTITY?
WHAT IS YOUR ETHNIC IDENTITY?
HL - HISPANIC OR LATINO
HL NHL HL NHL HL NHL HL NHL HL NHL
NHL - NON-HISPANIC
W - WHITE A - ASIAN W A W A W A W A W A
B - BLACK N - NATIVE AMERICAN B N B N B N B N B N
PI - NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC ISLD. PI PI PI PI PI
SE:T4. Sex
Total Population: 17,173 24,857 24,668 35,057 17,004 20,166 829,072
Male 11,007 64.1% 15,240 61.3% 13,575 55.0% 19,446 55.5% 8,702 51.2% 10,503 52.1% 421,516 50.8%
Female 6,166 35.9% 9,617 38.7% 11,093 45.0% 15,611 44.5% 8,302 48.8% 9,663 47.9% 407,556 49.2%
SE:T7. Age
Total Population: 17,173 24,857 24,668 35,057 17,004 20,166 829,072
Under 5 Years 509 3.0% 706 2.8% 550 2.2% 883 2.5% 712 4.2% 864 4.3% 37,434 4.5%
5 to 9 Years 259 1.5% 556 2.2% 592 2.4% 523 1.5% 332 2.0% 456 2.3% 29,906 3.6%
10 to 14 Years 254 1.5% 429 1.7% 403 1.6% 638 1.8% 238 1.4% 529 2.6% 26,894 3.2%
15 to 17 Years 176 1.0% 394 1.6% 548 2.2% 519 1.5% 62 0.4% 285 1.4% 16,954 2.0%
18 to 24 Years 680 4.0% 1,746 7.0% 2,210 9.0% 3,254 9.3% 1,024 6.0% 1,702 8.4% 70,547 8.5%
25 to 34 Years 3,947 23.0% 7,699 31.0% 7,202 29.2% 7,286 20.8% 4,528 26.6% 4,580 22.7% 180,924 21.8%
35 to 44 Years 3,671 21.4% 5,064 20.4% 4,086 16.6% 4,878 13.9% 3,533 20.8% 3,710 18.4% 135,652 16.4%
45 to 54 Years 3,470 20.2% 3,592 14.5% 3,075 12.5% 5,629 16.1% 1,937 11.4% 2,710 13.4% 113,614 13.7%
55 to 64 Years 2,189 12.8% 2,464 9.9% 2,777 11.3% 4,862 13.9% 2,075 12.2% 2,817 14.0% 101,074 12.2%
65 to 74 Years 1,014 5.9% 1,198 4.8% 1,594 6.5% 3,339 9.5% 1,010 5.9% 1,311 6.5% 59,435 7.2%
75 to 84 Years 708 4.1% 713 2.9% 1,251 5.1% 2,479 7.1% 1,053 6.2% 824 4.1% 37,946 4.6%
85 Years and over 296 1.7% 296 1.2% 380 1.5% 767 2.2% 500 2.9% 378 1.9% 18,692 2.3%
SE:T13. Race
Total Population: 17,173 24,857 24,668 35,057 17,004 20,166 829,072
White Alone 13,689 79.7% 14,720 59.2% 12,500 50.7% 13,378 38.2% 8,866 52.1% 8,405 41.7% 410,245 49.5%
Black or African American Alone 443 2.6% 2,794 11.2% 4,210 17.1% 3,361 9.6% 542 3.2% 395 2.0% 47,611 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 121 0.7% 203 0.8% 194 0.8% 289 0.8% 115 0.7% 145 0.7% 3,124 0.4%
Asian Alone 1,665 9.7% 3,840 15.5% 5,590 22.7% 13,956 39.8% 6,651 39.1% 10,190 50.5% 278,274 33.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
83 0.5% 172 0.7% 104 0.4% 75 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3,566 0.4%
Alone
Some Other Race Alone 587 3.4% 2,080 8.4% 1,014 4.1% 2,383 6.8% 472 2.8% 669 3.3% 49,540 6.0%
Two or More races 585 3.4% 1,048 4.2% 1,056 4.3% 1,615 4.6% 358 2.1% 362 1.8% 36,712 4.4%
Data Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimate, 2014 Survey
*Plaza Area data based on Census Tracts in which the centroid of the Tract falls within 1/2-mi of the plaza