ReBuilding prosperous places in michigan views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation A CASE STUDY OF 11 MIDWEST CITIES

June 20, 2014 full report

Land Policy Institute

by project, including: project, for support this advisory provided workgroupthe that Research ( The great helpwithsurveyworkonthisstudy. MSU research thatledtothisproject. former S and BarrierstoPlacemaking,basedonthepilotanalysis. Places inMichigan:UnderstandingtheValuesof,Perceptionsof upon thepreviouscasestudyreport,BuildingProsperous at This researchandanalysiswaspreparedbythe Acknowledgements ResearchFormer Assistant, LPI, MSU Jonathan Dworin ResearchFormer Assistant, LPI, MSU Brianna Acker Research Assistant, LPI, MSU Bretz Lauren Michigan MSU Institute, MSU Extension; Professor at MSU; Associate Director, LPI; Co-Coordinator and of the Sustaining Community Prosperity Workgroup, Greening WarbachJohn AssociateSenior Director, LPI; Director, and Planning &Zoning Center, MSU Wyckoff Mark ResearchFormer Coordinator, LPI, MSU Borowy Tyler Informatics Coordinator,Former Support Decision and LPI, MSU Calnin Benjamin Associate Director Policy for Land Programs Operations, and Institute (LPI), Michigan State University (MSU) BethMary Graebert The Land Po Land The pecial recognitionisgivento M L ichigan

a I nstitute for nd D irector of P LP o S licy licy R) Teamatthe tate I n U l P LPI stitute would also like to acknowledge like would also stitute i ublic niversity ( cy cy , who envisioned and led the original , whoenvisionedandledtheoriginal I P ns olicy and L t and MSU D i t r. A u lso, Karen A P t desoji ). This report builds ). Thisreportbuilds olicy S e a ocial Research was a ocial Researchwasa t I A nstitute ( Michigan delaja, the delaja, the C lark from the lark fromthe L and LPI P olicy olicy ) ) St a t M the from possible was made by funding initiative This M e i i chigan chigan chigan chigan U „ „ „ „ niversi „ „ „ „ G Lansing, MI; Development Authority, Lansing, MI. Authority, Lansing, Development Michigan State Division, Housing Services Community J Lansing, MI; and O K E B MI; Haslett, oe Borgstrom, Borgstrom, oe S A rad merging athie Feldpausch, athie i p lbert lbert t s erations, ate sociation of Realtors. sociation G H a t M rmon, rmon, o y using using . W I s sues Michigan Association of Realtors, Michigan of Realtors, Association hite, hite, D D D i , Michigan Environmental Council, , Michigan Council, Environmental i rector of e Downtown and and rector of Downtown velopment P r S ivate enior Viceenior C S o ector nservation and and nservation A u P thority and the the and thority C r esident of esident o nsultant, ii full report ReBuilding p r o spe r o us places inmichigan Executive Summary

Smli p y defined, placemaking is about creating neighborhoods and communities where people want to live, work and play. In Michigan, more specifically, placemaking is about transforming neighborhoods and downtown areas that are auto-oriented, detached, stagnant places into pedestrian-oriented, connected vibrant places that will attract talented, knowledge workers and businesses. There have been several research efforts that have gathered information on just what it is that people want in their neighborhoods, downtowns and communities. Additionally, research has been conducted on why placemaking is so important, and what value it brings to a community. This report brings together much of the findings from these studies and digs even deeper into issues of demand and value.

imply defined, placemaking is about conducted on why placemaking is so important, creating neighborhoods and communities and what value it brings to a community. This Swhere people want to live, work and report brings together much of the findings from play. In Michigan, more specifically, placemaking these studies and digs even deeper into issues of is about transforming neighborhoods and demand and value. downtown areas that are auto-oriented, detached, The second phase of the Rebuilding Prosperous stagnant places into pedestrian-oriented, Places project sought to address two major connected, vibrant places that will attract questions related to placemaking: talented, knowledge workers and businesses. There have been several research efforts that 1. How do citizens view placemaking, have gathered information on just what it is that both in terms of what value it has for people want in their neighborhoods, downtowns their communities, and what types and communities. Additionally, research has been land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation iii iv development, aswell as

full report showed that amajority of peoplebelieve that between placemaking between placemaking there isaconnection ReBuilding p and quality oflife. The survey results I in having them close to their homes. close them to their having in people’s to appear affect did amenities these interest of quality and The type fairs. art and movie cinemas coffee shops, multiple with parks uses,libraries, sandwich shops, merchants, local independent stores, markets, farmers’ neighborhood grocery showedresults amajority of that people that believe neighborhood. The their in survey amenity that orrestaurant park) to have factored desire their into (such store, amenity of an agrocery or as quality what they to would have, whether and like the type neighborhoods or and have their communities, in development tool, they currently what amenities apositive as people economic viewed placemaking conducted whether to determine on scale anational were surveys conducted.two was The survey first and economic n o rder to address the first research question, research the first to address rder 2.

mixed-use developments? mixed-use space access walkability, to and as green places boast in such that characteristics housing by in pricesmeasured the change development aneighborhood, in as derive W within their neighborhoods? their within to have theyof like “placeamenities” r hat economic place-based value does o spe r o of their homes, including homes,of their including within walking distance of amenities variety a wide like would they that indicated Respondents of life. quality and placemaking between as well as development, economic and placemaking aconnection is there between us places inmichigan and and I M The second focused survey on households in preferences.of their understanding better should by this informed be areas, urban in of life toand improve the quality populations these tostrategies attract retain and placemaking growing, and large groups are Because demographic of these amenities. variety developments use, green access to a with mixed walkable, prefer highly actually and environments households, urban to more live in which are likely 34) non-white and households low-income and young people including demographics, (age to 25 certain are there that evidence the growing decisions homes. or to purchase rent their of the factors involved often is that people’s in neighborhood areas. urban feature in the even in Rapids) five in and conducted six in neighborhoods. The their waswant in survey about what amenities housing. use of from land aseparationand of other types suburban locations, lots, larger suburban parks peoplemany apreference and indicated for rural and crime, and traffic like somewith amenities, associated about perceived negative externalities respondents. suburban and among the rural particularly denser,busier in communities, consand of living ambivalence ageneral is there about the pros showed, survey national however,This that O A a i ; R dwest cities to gather valuable information k, Traversek, M ochester, a nitowoc, W A t M he same time, survey results support results survey he sametime, S i dwest, walkability is a preferred apreferred is dwest, walkability C e MN veral people concern veral expressed i ty, Kalamazoo, Flint and and Flint ty, Kalamazoo, M ; M i I L chigan cities ( chigan ) a . i dwest cities ( M kewood, S u i rvey results suggest that, suggest that, results rvey dwest residents urban OH L ; a a D nsing, Royalnsing, nd a I t i venport, s one M G M a ra dison dison a ny nd people in these 11 Midwest cities say that they distance. In addition, having multiple amenities prefer to walk to destinations that are within a within a half mile radius of a home, which would 15-minute walk of their home. The aesthetics and suggest walkability, did not show a consistently perceived safety of neighborhoods has an impact positive relationship to property price. In these on whether and how far people are willing to cities, having great neighbors and a high quality walk to reach destinations. Midwest respondents look and feel of a walk in the neighborhood were reported that their neighborhoods are fairly positively associated with price. These findings walkable for a number of amenities; a majority suggest that there are other aspects of place- of people could walk to a school, park, transit based characteristics besides close proximity that stop, grocery store, convenience store, retail could also affect home price, such as the quality store, entertainment venue or eating/drinking or affordability of that amenity. More research is establishment in 20 minutes or less. Finally, most needed to better understand the effects of place- homeowners rated the quality of their nearest based characteristics on home price. amenities, including grocery stores, parks, While this study does suggest support for restaurants, gas station/convenience stores and placemaking, and for certain place-based coffee shops, as high or very high quality. characteristics like walkability and green space, To address the second research question, a it is clear that there remains a need for education hedonic analysis of residential property prices about the benefits and process of effective was conducted to isolate the values of place- placemaking. When placemaking is done in a based characteristics. The results of the hedonic deliberate way, bringing all of the affected parties analysis suggest that the value of having a certain to the table to vision and plan, concerns about amenity near a house can have an impact on its possible negative externalities can be addressed property price; however, it does not appear that and allayed. The MIplace Partnership Initiative one type of amenity always has a positive value in is helping to educate and train the myriad every neighborhood, nor that other types always stakeholder groups in Michigan involved in have a negative value. Across the Midwest cities, placemaking at the local and regional level. It is close proximity to some amenities, like schools, also providing resources and technical assistance theatres, bookstores and gift shops, appeared to Michigan communities to plan and implement to be positively related to home sale price. placemaking projects, which in turn provides Proximity to other amenities, such as grocery models to other communities. Through these stores, restaurants, museums and department efforts, Michigan can achieve downtown—or stores, appeared to be negatively related to home urban core—places that have good function and sale price. These results are somewhat surprising form, generate social activity, evoke positive since a majority of people surveyed, at least at the feelings among residents and visitors, and attract national level, indicated a preference for grocery and retain the knowledge and creative resources stores, restaurants and museums within walking necessary to a thriving economy. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation v vi full report ReBuilding p r o spe r o us places inmichigan Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... iii

Part 1: Introduction...... 1 Pilot Study...... 2 Second Phase Study Objectives...... 4 Place Trends...... 6 Previous Research on Citizen Placemaking Perceptions...... 8 Previous Research on the Value of Place Characteristics...... 12 Report Outline...... 14

Part 2: National Placemaking Survey...... 15 Survey Process Description...... 16 Survey Results...... 16 Placemaking and Current Neighborhood/Community/Region Questions...... 17 Mobility Questions...... 19 Visual Preference Questions...... 21 Demographic Questions...... 31 Cross Tabulations...... 34 Placemaking and Economic Development...... 40 Discussion...... 41

Part 3: Midwest Placemaking Survey...... 43 Profile of Midwest Cities...... 44 Lansing, Michigan...... 44 Royal Oak, Michigan...... 45 Traverse City, Michigan...... 46 Flint, Michigan...... 47 Grand Rapids, Michigan...... 48 Kalamazoo, Michigan...... 49 Davenport, Iowa...... 50 Rochester, Minnesota...... 51 Lakewood, Ohio...... 52 Madison, Wisconsin...... 53 Manitowoc, Wisconsin...... 54 Survey Process Description...... 55 Survey Results...... 55 Housing/Property/Neighborhood/Community Characteristic Questions...... 56 Purchase/Rental Decision Factor Questions...... 58 Neighborhood Walkability Questions...... 62 Demographic Questions...... 64 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation vii viii full report ReBuilding p Part 9: References...... 163 9: Part Appendices...... 99 8: Part 7: Conclusion...... 95 Part Part 6: Recommendations...... 91 6: Part Part 5: Michigan’s Current Policies and Programs (MIplace Partnership Initiative)...... 87 Partnership (MIplace Programs and Policies Current Michigan’s 5: Part Analysis...... 71 Price Property 4: Midwest Part Part 3: (cont.) Survey MidwestPart Placemaking Table ofContents (cont.) 4. 4. 2. 5. 3. Take a 1. E P D D D 6. Regression C l d r a i i M acemaking Toolkit...... 88 acemaking C D P P D D scussion...... 85 scussion...... 68 oss Tabulations...... 66 oss ucation and Training...... 88 and ucation ta and and ta l o o e e i o M P P S S E C H H Walking, Quality of of Quality ace-Based ace-Based scover pulations) in the the in pulations) velop a a velop nduct Target fine Best fine ve Beyond Beyond ve u e l l n i e a ace ace e r parate parate ty ty rveyed rveyed tire tire alth and Walking...... 66 and alth ppiness...... 67 asurement and and asurement o D H M P spe E l i o M s ans...... 89 fferences...... 67 a H A listic Viewlistic of the timation...... 72 C rket...... 89 i C o n r H dwest dwest A o P w Form and D alysis and Results...... 74 and alysis N i o mprehensive “ mprehensive o ty ty e M ra e sthetics and and sthetics e mes mes us places inmichigan velopment...... 91 ctices for including arest arest i M D dwest Boundaries to to Boundaries dwest a a D taset taset D P rket a O l a taset taset A acemaking acemaking taset taset u m tcomes...... 89 A A enities...... 66 S n n o A S alysis foralysis and the Residential P A S alysis...... 80 ciability ciability a n l o n ace” ace” fety...... 66 alysis...... 74 cial, cial, alysis...... 81 P M r E ocess...... 93 P c e I e onomic and tric or or tric n U ople ( teract Function with to n derstand and and derstand E S e sp t of of t ecially ecially E M n vironmental vironmental e trics...... 92 M U C n o derrepresented derrepresented del del o mmercial mmercial P l C acemaking...... 91 re I m ate pacts of A P sp o sitive ects of P l acemaking..91 P l ace...... 93 Appendices A ppendix A: National Placemaking Survey Response Summary...... 99

Appendix B: Midwest Placemaking Survey Response Summary...... 117

Appendix C: Data Sources...... 130

Appendix D: NAICS Code Explanations...... 133

Appendix E: Descriptive Statistics...... 137

Appendix F: Separate City Analysis Results...... 142

Appendix G: Surveyed Home Analysis Results...... 159 List of Figures Figure 1: Community Planning Transect Zones...... 20

Figure 2: Grocery Shopping Neighborhood Preferences...... 22

Figure 3: Retail Shopping Neighborhood Preferences...... 24

Figure 4: Restaurant Neighborhood Preferences...... 25

Figure 5: Neighborhood Type Preferences...... 26

Figure 6: Bar/Restaurant/Entertainment Neighborhood Preferences...... 28

Figure 7: Park Neighborhood Preferences...... 29

Figure 8: Arts and Culture Neighborhood Preferences...... 31

Figure 9: National Placemaking Survey Respondent Zip Codes Map...... 32 & 112

Figure 10: Age by Current Transect...... 34

Figure 11: Age by Desired Transect...... 35

Figure 12: Race/Ethnicity by Transect...... 35

Figure 13: Income by Transect...... 36

Figure 14: Current Transect by Desired Transect (Rural, Suburban or Urban)...... 37 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation ix x full report ReBuilding p Table 2: Table 2: Table 5: Table 4: to Table 3: Relationship acemaking Table 1: L 18: Figure 17: Figure 16: Figure 15: Figure L Table ofContents (cont.) Table 7: Table 6: 21: Figure 19: Figure Figure 20: 20: Figure Table 8: “Transect” and What Zone Zone What and “Transect” Table 8: 22: Figure Table 10: Table 9: 23: Figure ist ofTables ist ofFigures P P I A S S S S C P P P H C n H l tatements about about tatements tatements about Your about tatements Your about tatements about tatements l l l l A m o ease ease M A A o ease ease ease ease H N ease ease H teraction Variable Variable teraction H r o H o mpared to Five Years Years Five to mpared w Would You g g r mpared to Five Years Years Five to mpared enity Variable Variable enity o e o o w Would You o i e by by e o ts and and ts e by Bar/Restaurant/ by e chigan and and chigan ighborhood Typed by by Typed ighborhood me and and me me me me and and me me Rental Rental me spe I I I I n n n n P A dicate Your dicate Your dicate Your dicate Your r u r C ts and and ts o rchase rchase N u us places inmichigan N lture by by lture e e ighborhood ighborhood ighborhood Rental Rental ighborhood M D S C P G e D C S i a l dwest dwest cision Factors...... 61 cision u a acemaking...... 99 e y Your e o lture...... 39 y Your L C tting around in Your in around tting L L Factors...... 59 cision L efficients for for efficients e e e e N o I vel ofvel L vel ofvel n vel ofvel vel ofvel efficients for for efficients e come...... 39 A o A ighborhood...... 100 E S cal cal g g tudy tudy N n C o?...... 101 P o?...... 102 L P tertainment...... 38 u e e o A A A u C A ighborhood, ople ople rrent Transect...... 37 rrent cal cal E rchase rchase g g g g o c C reement or reement of reement or mmunity...... 101 reement or onomic onomic i C E ties...... 44 L D o n i mmunity, ve in...... 101 ve E tire tire e D cision cision n e tire tire cision cision D M N O e D D i e D D velopment...... 18 M dwest dwest v S ighborhood...... 100 i i i i erall, is as a as is erall, tatements...... 62 sagreement with the Following the Following with sagreement sagreement with the Following the Following with sagreement sagreement with the Following the Following with sagreement sagreement with the Following the Following with sagreement i S dwest dwest O tatements...... 60 v erall, is as a as is erall, A n A alysis...... 77 n alysis...... 79 P l ace to P l ace to L i ve Today, as L i ve Today, as List of Tables (cont.) Table 11: Right Now, Do You Think that Economic Conditions in Your Region, as a Whole, are Getting Better, Getting Worse or Staying the Same?...... 102

Table 12: If You Were Able to Move Out of Your Current Home, Would You?...... 102

Table 13: If You Were Able to Move, What do You See as the Main Barriers to Moving for You?....103

Table 14: If You Were able to Move, Which Type of Home Would You Most Likely Choose?...... 102

Table 15: “Transect” and Types of Places Where People Want to Live Based on the Density of Buildings...... 103

Table 16: Which of the Following Life Changes Might Cause You to Consider Moving to a Different Zone? If So, Which Zone?...... 103

Table 17: As a Result of Higher Gas Prices, Would You Consider the Following Changes?...... 104

Table 18 a–c: Grocery Shopping...... 105

Table 19 a–c: Retail Shopping...... 106

Table 20 a–c: Restaurants...... 107

Table 21 a–c: Neighborhood Type...... 108

Table 22 a–c: Bars/Restaurants/Entertainment...... 109

Table 23 a–c: Parks...... 110

Table 24 a–c: Arts and Culture...... 111

Table 25: How Long Have You Lived in Your Current Address?...... 112

Table 26: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Current Residence?...... 113

Table 27: Are You a . . . ? (Resident Type)...... 113

Table 28: What is Your Age?...... 113

Table 29: Do You Most Closely Identify as Male or Female?...... 113

Table 30: What is Your Employment Status?...... 113

Table 31: What is Your Marital Status?...... 114

Table 32: How Many Children Under the Age of 17 Live in Your Household?...... 114 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation xi xii full report ReBuilding p Table 35: What Race(s) Represent the the Race(s) Represent What Table 35: Table 34: Table 39: Your of Range the is What Table 38: the is Table 37: What Table 36: Youres Table 33: L T Table 43: Table 42 a–c: Table 41: Table 40: Table 40: Table 46: Which of the Following Table 44: Table 45: Table 51 a–b: a–b: Table 51 Table 47: Table 52: Table 52: Table 49: Table 49: Table 54: Best Following the of Table Which 53: Table 50: Table 48: Table 48: ist ofTables (cont.) able ofContents (cont.) ( H ( G L D D H A D S P A S I I I P I You do in Your in You do P H P s s s n r o i i u l e l o o b u o o re Y a tuation at this this at tuation

sted Below if You Walked to Them?...... 118 to You Walked if Below sted There a a There There a a There ease ease ease ease o w w nerally nerally What Year Year What S ch as a Restaurant, Restaurant, a as ch o es Your es w w es Your es out rents and and rents rchase Your rchase w Would You Rate the o H H spe M meone in Your in meone S ou or o o a I w w H w w a I n fe do You Feel in this this in You Feel do fe n ny Years Years ny r o dicate Which of Best Represents the Following Your dicate M M S w o D S H C H p A a i a us places inmichigan e eaking, eaking, H dewalk in Front of Your of Front in dewalk o i L o ny Bedrooms and Bathrooms are in Your in are Bathrooms and Bedrooms ny C ny ny ty ty n dicated Bike Bike dicated me me usehold o i h y D ghest ghest H ng Wouldng it Take to N A ildren)?...... 114 H O M i H A d You Begin to to Youd Begin o H e l f o me...... 121 low for 24- for low ighborhood?...... 119 d e f- a a w mber ofmber Your ve Youve dress...... 117 S H H ve ve L treet treet M S o o H e A tore, tore, w usehold an an usehold vel of of vel u a n ch the Following Things Were Things ch the Following ve S M y of the Following ( Following the of y L L t P A O atements Best a a P i a M ved in this . . . ? ( ? . . . this in ved n ny H ne on Your on ne v N rking rking a E P D erall erall nual nual o rk or or rk o e d e e re than Justre than M ople in Your in ople ur ur ighborhood?...... 119 L ucation that You that ucation scribes Where You Where scribes H i i ve at this this at ve I O nutes Youto Walk are to Reach a Willing H o S L m O G usehold of p n o o H t migrant ( migrant - aces are are aces ok of Feel and aWalk Your in e usehold usehold her her S t from Yourt from o treet treet S me?...... 119 treet?...... 119 P D l N A I aces You aces e H m P scribes the scribes C d e A o a I mediate Family mediate ighborhood/ h dress?...... 117 N H n rking?...... 120 usehold ( usehold v eck eck come?...... 115 ailable at Your at ailable o i H spanic, spanic, t Born in the the in Born t H a G A ve ve M o r l H me to the l that that l ew ew A i ght Frequently Visit)?...... 119 Frequently ght o A t I C use?...... 118 tained?...... 115 n L U m h volved Your in a C eck eck p? tino or tino ount of Walking A i ty)...... 118 p ...... 120 C ply)?...... 120 U A H N u n l o rrent rrent e l that that l ited ited me?...... 120 arest arest S N p anish anish e S ighborhood?.....119 L A tates)?...... 114 P i D ving p l aces ply)?...... 114 e D D cision to e e stination scent?...114 List of Tables (cont.) Table 55: Please Indicate How Much the Following Statements Influenced Your Decision to Purchase Your Home...... 122

Table 56: How Would Your Rate the Quality of the Nearest . . . ?...... 122

Table 57: How Would You Rate the Quality of the Following Features of Your Home at the Time of Purchase?...... 123

Table 58: Since Buying Your Home, Have You Done Any Remodeling?...... 123

Table 59: If So, About How Much Did You Spend on All Remodeling Efforts?...... 123

Table 60: Before You Purchased Your Home, Were Energy-Efficiency Improvements Made?...... 123

Table 61: If So, Which Improvements Were Made (Check All that Apply)?...... 124

Table 62: Since Buying Your Home, Have You Made Any Energy-Efficiency Improvements? (Windows, Insulation, EnergyStar Appliances, Doors, Furnace, Solar Panels, etc.) (Improvements Could Have Been Done Yourself or through a Contractor, Hired Help, etc.)...... 124

Table 63: If So, Which Improvements Were Made (Check All that Apply)?...... 124

Table 64: How Much Does this Unit Cost per Month (Total Rent for the Entire Unit, Not including Fees or Utilities)?...... 125

Table 65: Is this Residence a . . . ? (Residence Type)...... 125

Table 66: How Many Total Separate Units are at this Address?...... 125

Table 67: Please Indicate the Degree to Which the Following Things Were Involved in Your Decision to Rent Your Home...... 125

Table 68: Please Indicate How Much the Following Statements Influenced Your Decision to Rent Your Home...... 126

Table 69: How Would Your Rate the Quality of the Nearest . . . ?...... 126

Table 70: How Old are You?...... 127

Table 71: Are You Male or Female?...... 127

Table 72: What is Your Highest Level of Education Completed?...... 127

Table 73: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Marital Status?...... 127

Table 74: How Many Adults (Age 18 or Older) Live in Your Home with You?...... 127 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation xiii xiv full report ReBuilding p Table 90: Regression Results for for Results Regression Table 90: for Results Regression Table 87: Table 89: Table 89: Table 86: Table 88: Regression Results for for Results Regression Table 88: Table 85: Table 85: for Results Regression Table 84: Table 83: Best Following the of Table 76: Which Table 82: Table 82: Best Following the of Which Table 78: Best w Following the of Which Table 77: Table 75: L T Table 80: Table 80: Table 81: What is Your is What Table 81: Table 79: ist ofTables (cont.) able ofContents (cont.) D H D D D G H D r a e o e e e e o ta ta scriptive scriptive o scriptive scriptive scriptive scriptive scriptive scriptive nerally nerally w w S spe M P o hy urces...... 130–132 a r ny sically sically o S p C us places inmichigan S S S S eaking, eaking, tatistics for the the for tatistics tatistics for for tatistics tatistics for for tatistics h A tatistics for for tatistics ildren ( ildren n H nual nual e althy are You?...... 129 are althy H H U E o M M S o n w w n u usehold usehold M tire tire M i der the der S i rveyed rveyed chigan chigan dwest dwest H u i i rveyed rveyed dwest dwest chigan chigan a E D M D D ppy Would You Would ppy n e e e i tire tire scribes Your Race?...... 128 scribes scribes Your scribes scribes Your scribes dwest...... 139–140 I C H A C n i g C o come?...... 129 i ties...... 154–157 H C ties...... 150–153 e 17) mes...... 161–162 M i o ties...... 146–149 i ties...... 142–145 mes...... 159–160 i dwest...... 137–138 C u rrently rrently P E S o m a litical Views?...... 128 litical y Youy are?...... 128 ployment ployment L i ve in Yourve in S tatus?...... 128 H o me with You?...... 127me with Part 1: Introduction

Ine ord r to embark on placemaking efforts in the most effective and efficient manner, it is important for state and community leaders to understand how the process works, what value it derives for the community, and how the different people and organizations involved view the process and their roles in it. These information needs are addressed, in part, throughout this report.

lacemaking is a term that is used to describe the process of creating Pspaces where people want to live and businesses want to locate, because they have a high quality of life, including a functional built environment, green areas and easy access to amenities. Communities in Michigan have become especially interested in this process as a way to achieve economic development, following a period of serious job loss, economic decline and outmigration of many people, including talented and skilled workers (Adelaja et al., 2009). Having attractive places that offer more choices in housing in helping to shape their community. It can and transportation; opportunities for improved involve traditional “top-down” methods of social interaction; more variety in entertainment, governance, as well as enabling and facilitating cultural offerings, green space and recreation; “bottom-up” resident empowerment. It often more diversity in ages, races, sexual orientation, involves a partnership of the public, nonprofit ethnicity and cultural heritage; and more business and private sectors. Placemaking projects vary in and entrepreneurial opportunities, is a draw for size, from smaller, “cosmetic” activities that can talented workers. In the New Economy, where be incremental and low cost, to larger, strategic talented workers go, economic prosperity follows. development or redevelopment undertakings. The latter can involve significant investments of In order to embark on placemaking efforts in the time and capital, and they are only successful, in most effective and efficient manner, it is important most cases, where there is a sturdy foundational for state and community leaders to understand infrastructure (e.g., schools, water and sewer, how the process works, what value it derives for police and fire, etc.) in the community. Where the community, and how the different people and resources are tight, placemaking needs to be organizations involved view the process and their done in a targeted fashion, directed at community roles in it. These information needs are addressed, centers, nodes and corridors in ways that reflect in part, throughout this report. community values, unique assets, emerging opportunities and future goals. Successful The process of placemaking varies from placemaking projects create places that are community to community, but it always requires alluring from both a physical (aesthetically engaging and empowering people to participate land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 1 2 full report ReBuilding p projects. investment for interconnected these synergistic and stages on about return the learning early in are to the success of placemaking, critical is whose institutions, funding activities. Financial placemaking policies could that help or hinder other and transportation zoning, planning, their change. that to address of auto-oriented, developers striving are suburban people-oriented places are that instead margins. profit and basedon market demand structures yet attractive. functional, are that (or places ways in building their and rebuilding) role important to play an designing groups has in etc. citizens, general and institutions academic organizations, nonprofit institutions, financial developers, government officials, local process, including involved the placemaking in stakeholdersThere many should that are be community. a to bring can measurable placemaking that benefits positively of evidence impacted. There growing is be publicand may also of acommunity health development health process. The environmental and planning the community in marginalized be others and who minorities may income families, forof low- life population, adiverse including of community. sense abetter creating empowerand citizens, developers project and financers. I revenues. tax raising base and the tax growing I a community’s economic global competitiveness. jobs, and strengthen talent it can attracting and clear. By are retaining placemaking through of life A fun)and standpoint. comfortable)pleasing and (functional social and t c n c n ecdotally, the benefits of an improved quality ecdotally, improved of an the quality benefits an increase the return on investment for the return increase an an improve a community’s fiscal health by health improvean acommunity’s fiscal N S i o nce the demand is rising for and urban rising is nce the demand r nprofit organizations are concernednprofit are organizations L o o spe I cal governments are evaluating evaluating governments are cal t c an provide a better quality quality provide abetter an r o us places inmichigan D I t c e velopers build E an engagean a ch of these ch of these engaged UDY The for needs information effectiveaddress placemaking. T to education underway and are Research efforts Pi createtoday and amore sustainable future. projects of life improve that placemaking quality implement tools, and can information successful stakeholdersthese together, working the right with for values desires the future. and their reflect projects placemaking that sure to play making in people. to talented welcoming more be communities surrounding to help their ways more involved becoming are identifying in otherand “anchor” (such institutions hospitals) as people and disabilities. with families low-income as such populations, disadvantaged done is ways in protect that placemaking that P Through the pilot phaseof the “Rebuilding boost the economy. people talented attract and retain and successfully activities that engage placemaking communities in that helpknowledge to ensure gaps will these stakeholder groups. Filling placemaking of perceptions the evaluate to and development M I L E M U website at www. released Building Building released for of itsand potential the enhancement endeavored comprehend to better placemaking the the through placemaking ( ( S n M e c ro n PDC stitute, in conjunctionstitute, in numerous with partners, SU l i ague to provide information and training about training to and provide information ague onomic chigan communities. communities. chigan SHDA iversity ( sperous o M M

S i ) i chigan chigan c S chigan chigan , the hool of LPI ) h t D M e to assess the value to assess of place-based as engagedas the MSU P velopment the and l A SU aces” study, the S P ss t ate l M ) anning, anning, ociation of Realtors (

C L P I e p H a ro nter for nd lace.org o sperous using using P I D o MI n licy licy M e M sign and and sign C p . The D i chigan chigan lace o a e I MSU P C mmunity and and mmunity rch 2012, n velopment M l i stitute ( aces in aces in tizens have aroletizens MSHDA i P chigan chigan a

rtnership rtnership L C S A M a t o ate ate c nd nstruction nstruction M A M ademic ademic L LPI M R PI i A and and P i chigan chigan chigan: chigan: ) also ) also u o u )

, the , the licy licy thority thority nicipal nicipal A l l of l of U nderstanding the Values of, Perceptions of and to live near parks for the recreation that they Barriers to Placemaking, a report that identifies provide, but are concerned about the perceived and evaluates barriers to and perceptions about negative aspects (e.g., traffic, crime, lighting, noise, placemaking among main stakeholders, the etc.) associated with living right next to them. economic value of place-based development and Similar “gray” results were found for properties its impact on property values in select Michigan that were within walking distance of schools, cities, and the relationship between place-based grocery stores, book stores and restaurants. There development and workforce housing (or affordable were many questions raised by these results that housing within close proximity to the workplace). suggest the need for further research into the relationship between place characteristics and The report summarizes survey responses of property prices. financial institutions, local units of government and developers in Michigan on their views of While placemaking is seen as being a desirable placemaking. Survey results show that: development and redevelopment platform for leveraging economic development and attracting „„ Many local officials felt that placemaking knowledge and talented workers, there can be efforts were often challenged by challenges associated with providing affordable complicated permitting, environmental housing to segments of the workforce. The report clean-up and developers’ concerns; also shared strategies and case studies of how „„ Several of the developers surveyed felt other cities have dealt with these challenges. For that it was very important for better more detailed information about the results of the information about placemaking’s pilot study, please see the first report. economic and quality-of-life benefits to Overall, the pilot report presents seven be made available to local governments, recommendations for further research, improved financial institutions, developers, realtors data collection and applying findings to other and citizens; and communities, including: „„ Many bankers agreed that placemaking 1. Ensuring that local and regional vision needs to be an important part of and assets, as well as the desires of strategies in Michigan to create high- target populations, be considered in impact economic activity attraction. the placemaking process; different An analysis of the relationship between communities value different amenities in characteristics of place-based development (such their neighborhoods. as walkability, access to green space and mixed- 2. Evaluating the effect that type or use development) and property values in three quality of amenities or businesses have Michigan cities (Lansing, Royal Oak and Traverse on property prices (e.g., it is possible City), which is one measure of economic impact, that the close proximity of a “big box” returned results that were not black and white. grocery store would affect property prices For instance, living within walking distance of a differently than a convenience store, but park, but not right next to it, had a positive impact on property values. It is possible that people like land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 3 4 full report ReBuilding p 7. 6. 5. 4. 3.

placemaking projects by identifying projects by identifying placemaking D developers and local officials. developers local and for bankers, of placemaking benefits the nuances and detailing program P benefits of placemaking. of benefits impacts the community-based to illustrate revenueeconomic tax impacts property and community into effects neighborhood C E metropolitan region. metropolitan broader a economic impacts within places outside of in prices property on development transportation enhancements. non-motorized and culture and arts commute methods, public spaces, efficiency, such energy as research, future placeand in characteristics initial analysis). were not the included in those types C ro x o o e r -risking the local environment for environment the local -risking nducting analysis that translates positive positive translates that analysis nducting nsidering other house, neighborhoodnsidering amining the impact of place-basedamining viding an education or training education an or training viding o spe r o us places inmichigan M i chigan and the and chigan presented in this report. this presented in the follow-up in expanded which is research, the pilotestablished in phasewas used and The citizens. methodology groups, particularly the perceptionsto understand of other stakeholder values (as the recommendations) in outlined and place-basedthat development on property has work the was impact understand neededto better valuesperceptions, and characteristic further pieces about of information interesting place the pilot studyWhile uncovered several M the including worked partners, again several with P he second phaseof the “Rebuilding I CO S others, to address the following research questions: research the following others, to address the and n t l e aces” study, the i chigan chigan 1.

n M d meet certain placemaking criteria. placemaking meet certain that developments for approval fast-track or permitting expedited providing and credits) or tax public programs, financing capital (such resources loan as assistance both in terms of what value terms for it in has both H S i

o chigan chigan P t w do citizens view placemaking, placemaking, view citizens w do ate h a H se o MSU A using using S ss t ociation of Realtors, as well as ociation as of Realtors, well as

udy L D a nd e velopment Obj P o licy licy e cti I n stitute A P v u ro thority thority e sperous s their communities, and what types and Traverse City, MI. This analysis was extended of “place amenities” they like to have to three additional Michigan cities (Kalamazoo, within their neighborhoods? Flint and Grand Rapids) and five Midwest cities (Davenport, IA; Rochester, MN; Lakewood, OH; 2. What economic value does place-based Madison, WI; and Manitowoc, WI). The reason development derive in a neighborhood, that Midwest cities were included in this phase as measured by the change in housing of the project was to get a better picture of how prices in places that have such place placemaking works in cities (similar in regional characteristics as walkability, access to characteristics to the Michigan case studies) green space and mixed-use developments? outside of the state, and to determine whether In order to address the first research question, there are any valuable lessons in their experience two surveys were conducted. One survey was for Michigan communities. The five Midwest cities sent to property owners, whose homes had sold were selected based on similarity in population between 2000 and 2012, in six Michigan cities size and other factors (such as presence of a large and five Midwest cities. Along with collecting university) to the Michigan cities. However, some additional information to enhance the property of these Midwest cities have higher household price analysis, this survey provided valuable incomes and are experiencing population growth information about what people in Midwest cities (as opposed to the decline in Michigan cities), with want in their neighborhoods. The second survey the hope that they provide examples for Michigan was conducted on a national scale, the purpose of communities to emulate. It is also helpful to assess which was to determine whether people viewed multiple cities in multiple states in order to better placemaking as a positive economic development understand how community values and unique tool, whether they were considering moving to a assets play into placemaking activities, as was cited new location (or making other lifestyle changes, in fourth recommendation from the first report. like walking more, to mitigate higher gas prices), This expansion on the hedonic analysis and whether the type or quality of an amenity also addresses some of the other research (such as a grocery store, restaurant or park) recommendations outlined in the first report. For factored into their desire to have that amenity in instance, through the use of surveying techniques, their neighborhood. Finally, since both surveys more information was collected on the quality included demographic questions, the results were of amenities within walking distance of the intended to illustrate differences in placemaking properties in the analysis. Also through the use perceptions between population groups. of surveys, better data about energy efficiency, The economic value of place-based development non-motorized transportation and other property is once again assessed through a hedonic analysis purchase/rental decision factors were included in (a method that, in lay terms, breaks down the the analysis. price of a home into the prices of its attributes) of Prior to conducting the surveys and property price residential property prices in neighborhoods with analyses, the study team reviewed current trends and without place-based amenities. The pilot study analysis was conducted in Lansing, Royal Oak land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 5 6 premiums per-square-

full report rental andsalesprice foot intheseplaces. development, which is demonstrated by for walkable urban ReBuilding p pent-up demand There is,infact, e walkable urban locations.walkable urban The of percent the pursuedevelopers to aggressively have started compete the economy, global in apartment rental the triggered market cause of the mortgage that meltdown market choices,alternative was the “primary for drivable suburban development, or lack of century, to development. walkable urban half estate development real dominated for the past the “drivablefrom suburban” approach, which has away for moving is demand environment the built L segments. population declining, or to growing important are that environment of aspects the built for demand certain the overall income of distributions make-up;demographic and the age, as ethnicity the in by trends driven being of households children. with factors, lifestyle such the numberby as internal factors, gas prices, and such rising as external by affected Those communities. are changes neighborhoods for and looking their are in r what people in changes to address opportunity important an offers communities acemaking CE P P perception placecitizen and value research. on previous literature as to place, related well as ven goes so far as to as sayven goes previous so far that demand l e l inberger (2012)inberger pointed out has market that a T r e o n G spe d re s at Recession.” fact, There in is, r L I any square-foot places. these in per- price premiums sales demonstrated and by rental is which development, urban pent-up for demand walkable n W o e inberger calls a model for amodel calls inberger us places inmichigan U A ashington, ashington, . m S . c ericans change, so does so does change, ericans C ity that wants to that ity U h n anges are also also are anges ited DC S t ates’ , w hich hich H e very close to the selected address. selected the to close very are amenities the where aplace indicating score a high L restaurants. and shopping schools, as such destinations, nearby and address (mostany residential) commonly Front company” impacts. price property its as well as of aneighborhood, walkability uses uses ore has become a useful tool for measuring the the for tool measuring auseful become ore has alk 1. G in Walkin region’s space apartment was new that built rental 1990s was only 12%; it 42% is today. Walk 1992) 10%from in place established takes in of sprawl,” 50%of the region’s development (up D A (from 5% to 9%). The non- 2005 to 2050. for most of the nation’s from population growth account will and size, triple in population will For the transformation. instance, to contributing the market demand are thespace, 1990s ( in up 19% from 70.5 or 50%of higher. new They contain office also the same percentage in 2050the samepercentage in (13%), and in 10in Realtors ( because a important, is 2008). populations of minority expansion This (47%)the minority by 2050 ( become groups.will Whites ethnic and racial more increase slowly other population than will plan to buy a home in the next three years, and and toplan buyyears, ahome three the next in they groups to that indicate other racial/ethnic (54%) for businesses,and compared 10 to roughlyfive in (68%) of houses prefer amix neighborhoods with A

o W m m e A cations are given a score between one and 100, with 100, with one and between ascore given are cations mographics trends in the in mographics trends , w ericans will almost double almost percentage their will ericans ericans and and ericans G A UP o hich was once considered the “poster child washich once child considered the “poster f S ogle maps to calculate the distances between between distances the calculate to maps ogle rican- c UP s , or those aWalk places with C N s ( a A ucasian families. families. ucasian L R A or “walkable urban places”) urban or “walkable the in A a S ) survey found) survey roughlyseven that m unched in 2007 by the “civic software software “civic 2007by the in unched f L e rican rican at, Walkscore.comat, erican families (72%) families erican and a tinos were more likely than were than moretinos likely A N m a ericans will be roughly roughly be will ericans H tional tional i U P spanic white spanic I a n n a ssel and and ssel ited A L ddition, ddition, L is a website that awebsite that is e ss a inberger, 2013). tino tino S I ociation of n t ates A S A C t c s o lanta, lanta, ore A ian ian hn, hn, L f a rican rican 1 of of tinos tinos they are more likely to prefer city living than other (2001–2009), young people (age 16 to 34) have been racial/ethnic groups (BRS, 2011). driving far less, delaying or foregoing getting a driver’s license, walking and biking more, and Nearly one in five Americans (19%) will be taking public transportation more often (Davis an immigrant in 2050, compared with one in and Dutzik, 2012). People are waiting until they eight (12%) in 2005 (Passel and Cohn, 2008). are older to get married; the average age for first Historically, immigrants have moved to areas marriages has climbed to 26.5 years for brides and where there is already an immigrant population, 28.7 years for grooms. More importantly, marriage particularly from their home country. Many rates hit a record low in 2009–2010; they are down immigrants live in sub-standard housing, because from 72% in 1960 to 51% today (Passel and Cohn, they have trouble getting landlords to take care 2008). Households with two parents and children of repairs (NYIC, 2010). Having high-quality have dropped from 40% of households in 1970 to urban places with access to good housing will be 20% in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). These important to attracting and retaining immigrants, demographic changes suggest the possible need for particularly the entrepreneurship-minded smaller living units for individuals and couples, as immigrants, who are shown to increase economic opposed to large families, and for alternatives to activity in the places where they choose to locate auto-centric neighborhoods. (Adelaja et al., 2009). Based on a national survey by Beldon, Russonello Placemaking is appealing to people of all age & Stewart, LLC (2011), those on both ends of the groups, in particular the Baby Boomers and the socio-economic scale (rich and poor) prefer Smart Millennials. As the Baby Boomer generation enters Growth communities, while the middle class the traditional retirement age, the nation’s elderly prefers the suburbs. The majority of low-income population will more than double in size from families (62%) spent more than one-third of 2005 to 2050 (Passel and Cohn, 2008). There is a their earnings on housing, surpassing a common trend toward senior development in downtown guideline for what is considered affordable areas for seniors who want convenient access to (AHS, 2011). Transportation costs make up a arts, shopping, museums, education, restaurants, large percentage of household expenses for low- employment, technology centers and good income and car-dependent societies. Compact healthcare systems (Nyren, 2011). development and greater transit access can help The “Creative Class,” of young, talented reduce household expenditures on transportation individuals in the STEM fields (science, costs (Benner and Pastor, 2012). Transit-oriented technology, engineering and mathematics), development, with housing along transportation prefers urban living with easy access to a variety corridors can be critical for providing “affordable of entertainment and recreation options (Adelaja living” opportunities. et al., 2009). In addition, younger people who are In addition to demographic changes, there are unmarried tend to prefer the convenience of dense, other emerging trends that are shifting market walkable communities. Over the last decade land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 7 8 full report ReBuilding p market for couples” and singles (Volk, 2013). detached are homes. dwellings couples, 62% and and singles are 72% of lotshousing ( stock on is smaller commute, of only 40% the nation’s detached commute over ahome lot onalonger alarger with choose a home lot ashorter with on asmaller current of people age under half 35), 30% of the less than attachedchoose an home to live in (including the 2011of respondents in as instance, For demand. changing needed to meet this neighborhoods. walkable compact, homes (forsmaller households) smaller more and preferenceshousing toward community and 6) and homeand declining; equity down-payment for requirements home buyers financing with financial institutions increasing 5) classes; lowerfrom Tighter home middle and households, toward morewealth away affluent homemake less affordable; buying 4) rates that poverty incomes increasing and Falling to of succeed poor aresult education; as 3) disadvantagedand groups who less prepared are students minority for particularly employment, locations;buy homes 2) exurban in the attractiveness to costs dampening energy include: These1) trends areas. Rising greenfield (and rather than homes) possibly smaller infill, in lots for smaller and more opportunities rental cause(2013) aneed will trends six that asserts M M L I C demand for demand environment. the built n a a u i i urie Volkurie (2013) only 20% of while that, asserts chigan has “a housing stock for families in a “a in has housing stockchigan for families children, with householdschigan families are rrently, there is a dearth of the type of housing of the type rrently, adearth is there ddition, while 60% of 60% respondents would while ddition, U . S r . h N o ousing stock is in attachedousing stock in is homes. e spe lson (2013) out, points 40% while r o us places inmichigan NA R s I t a N urvey wouldurvey ppears that that ppears e C lson, 2013). A L h r ag S thur anging anging h ging ging M ifting ifting i chigan chigan N e lson P G U all residents. all workers) fortalented of life quality ahigh with moredowntowns attractive places (especially to cities and to and make market demand this cities. increasing. is lifestyle sustainable supportand for a rising prices are fuel changing, are demographics are not provided, particularly in in not particularly are provided, presently that housing neighborhood and types for demand There agrowing is affordable living. optionshousing transportation and and entertainment, culture, and space, arts green mixed-use access neighborhoods to jobs, with of for the population walkable, looking are dense, and placeand on scale. anational characteristics preferences and placemaking towards attitudes audience was conducted toconsumer measure assessor data. city in collection not of information consistently available the permitted homes; survey and communities this more about information neighborhoods, their case-studythe 11 cities were asked to provide home 2012) 2000and the years between in recent homeowners (who their purchased above, the report employs First, surveys. two quality-of-life improvement tool. economic an as developmentplacemaking and the perceptionsto assess of toward residents price assessment and property characteristics the place to report uses surveys enhance This OUS P l r r . S owing segments segments owing a e . population population cema v i P l acemaking efforts are needed to meet are efforts acemaking k

Resea i n g g Pe A r r second to anational survey c c popula options and affordable living. housing andtransportation and culture, entertainment, to jobs,green space, arts neighborhoods withaccess dense, walkable, mixed-use G h e rowing segments ofthe p o t n C io n tion are lookingfor A i M ti s s m i z chigan chigan e entioned n The American Housing Survey (AHS), sponsored related (12%) and housing related, e.g., to by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban establish own household (40%). Development (HUD), is the most comprehensive „„ Seventy-one percent (71%) rated their national housing survey in the United States, present structure overall between eight detailing not only physical aspects of homes and 10 on a scale of one to 10 (one being and neighborhood but also consumer attitudes the worst, and 10 being the best). towards the built environment (AHS, 2013). Relevant highlights about housing structures from „„ Sixty-seven percent (67%) rated their the survey include: present neighborhood overall between eight and 10 on a scale of one to 10 (one „„ Thirty-two percent (32%) of homes have a being the worst, and 10 being the best). room for conducting business. „„ Main reasons for the choice of the present „„ Seventy-nine percent (79%) of homes have home included financial reasons (26%), a garage or carport. room layout/design (12%) and size (11%). „„ Forty-six percent (46%) of homes have a „„ Main reasons for the choice of the present working fireplace. neighborhood included convenience „„ Forty-two percent (42%) of homes have to job (14%), convenience to friends/ an Energy Star refrigerator (AHS, 2011). relatives (9%), house (8%), looks/design of neighborhood (7%) and good schools (6%). „„ Ninety-two percent (92%) of homes have a porch, deck, balcony or patio (AHS, 2013). „„ Seventy-nine percent (79%) of respondents reported that their health is Interesting findings about households from the very good to excellent (AHS, 2011). AHS survey include: Other surveys have been utilized to better „„ Thirty-one percent (31%) of households measure the qualitative aspects of neighborhood have children. and community perceptions related to “place.” „„ Sixty-six percent (66%) of housing units In 2011, Belden, Russonello & Stewart, LLC, are owner-occupied, while the remaining conducted a national community preference 34% are renter-occupied (AHS, 2011). survey for the National Association of Realtors to discover “what Americans are looking for when „ „ Twenty-seven (27%) of households have deciding where to live” (BRS, 2011), with a follow- three or more cars (AHS, 2013). up survey conducted in 2013. Similarly to 2011, a Other survey results that are relevant to the second survey in 2013 found that nearly 60% of questions and responses in the current study include: respondents prefer to live in a neighborhood with a mix of uses in easy walking distance, while 35% „„ Main reasons provided for leaving a prefer housing-only neighborhoods, where they previous residence included financial/ have to drive to other amenities. A large majority employment related (24%), family/personal land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 9 10 full report ReBuilding p kids (BRkids with women those and who married married are residents, rural town small are community mostgroups that prefer the conventional suburban graduates the age under of 45. The demographic A post-graduates,suburban are community over the conventionalwalkable community The most groups demographic that prefer the but alonger commute to work (57% to 36%). commute to work over yards houses larger with but yards ashorterprefers houses smaller with A I H all stages of life (up stages of life to 60% 66%). from points all six 42% from points six to 48%), people with and at of people variousa mix from income levels (up 42%up from points 11 2011 in to 53% 2013), in with (importance backgrounds rating ethnic and racial of people various amix from with community a in diversity,on living community including (7%) (BR new developmentsbuilding the countryside in (32%)communities much as priorities to higher new existing developmentsbuilding within (57%) communities existing improving see and public schools high-quality and (74%). privacy (86%), (80%) sidewalks/places to walk on living in a community that is “at is that the center of acommunity it in on living that the commute to work (65%) (BR (65%); trees mature ashort within being and established neighborhood older homes with and access toeasy the highway (68%); an in being (69%); the community in other places things and of walk easy an within priorities included being n c m l i so, 2013 respondents placed more importance gh priorities in choosing where choosing prioritiesgh in to live included ericans, college-educatedericans, college men and N the 2011omparing 2013 and BR A a m tional tional ericans are placing greater importance importance placing greater are ericans S S , 2 , 2011). r 013). o A ss spe ociation of Realtors noted r o us places inmichigan S , 2 013). S surveys, surveys, A m O ericans ericans t her high her high A f rican rican S S younger areas nationwide ( areas each of in themetropolitan residents 26 distinct arandom sample using features of at least adult 400 community and attachment community between with partnership Thecommunities. “ peoplewhat makes feel attached to their to seen. be to continue, butexpected to remains what extent is market demand in the shift arrangements, (community economy, local infrastructure), safety, basic services These than factors higher ranked openness/welcomenessofferings, aesthetics. and attachment: social of community drivers main three was conducted 2008 from to 2010. The study found the study,of included in the communities which statement, “For king. is me, car for privacy. may connected people’s be with priority high the 2011 in 80% from survey). preference This or (although apartment dropped number has this attached home, family townhouse, condosingle detached home, family opposed as a single to a butlifestyle, of evidence the “ for adesire is the convenience of awalkable There the change. about making uncertain are (BR replace mode of transportation” my my as main car to the majority of respondents alarge remains; mindset more compact neighborhoods, many housing and toward smaller market demand in of evidence ashift Though growing is there to 44%). 34%from important 2011 in (importance up than 10 rating points, all” u u rvey,” conducted Foundation by the in Knight used understand to better been rveys have also S , 2 NA 013). A R 2 m I ericans toward moreericans compact living n a G 013 (76%) survey prefer to live in i ven the stronger preferences of ddition, 57% agreed with the with 57% agreed ddition, G G S a a o llup, studied the relationship llup, the relationship studied llup, 2010). ul of the ul A C m N o D mmunity mmunity erican erican o e thing will will thing troit, A m D MI ericans ericans re , i am” s one walking. The study found that built environment features that appear to encourage walkability, such as wider sidewalks and more mixed-use development, actually led to more walkability among residents (Handy et al., 2005). This relationship is concurrent with the findings of Leslie et al. (2005), who noted that residents of more walkable neighborhoods rate attributes, such as residential density, land use mix and street connectivity consistently higher than residents of less walkable neighborhoods.

Also using a survey, Gebel et al. (2009) found that there was a general agreement between actual and perceived walkability; however, adults who were less educated, had lower incomes, were overweight or who were less physically active (as a means of transportation) generally misperceived their leadership and elected officials and education high walkable neighborhoods as low walkable. systems. This does not suggest that things like Van Dyck et al. (2011) found that walkability jobs and housing aren’t important; meeting basic and residential density were negatively related needs is a prerequisite to staying in a community. to neighborhood satisfaction, however this can However, forming an emotional connection with be attributed to the perception that higher the community requires form and sociability, as density is associated with a negative effect on the noted above. environment and safety. Finally, GfK Research (2013) found that though many Americans believe Researchers also found a significant correlation walking can improve/maintain their health, help between community attachment and economic them lose weight, prevent heart disease, reduce growth. In addition, they discovered that what stress/anxiety and combat depression, they attaches residents to their communities doesn’t don’t walk more partly because they don’t live in change much from place to place and that residents’ neighborhoods where they can walk to services, perceptions of their community were more shops, school and work (GfK, 2013). important to attachment than their age, ethnicity, work status or other demographic characteristics. Each of the surveys summarized above that was conducted prior to the fall of 2012 informed Other surveys have been conducted related to the development of the survey instruments for people’s perceptions of walkability. Handy et this project. al. (2005) used a survey to supplement physical aspects of a community with perspectives of neighborhood quality, attractiveness, safety and accessibility to assess influence factors for land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 11 12 full report ReBuilding p V t places,” or Walk 2009). $3,000 homeand in increase values ( property type ( type property on the value, depending property commercial L S S between Walkbetween S of the property. distance walking venues, within culture and blue and arts and green amenities, stores, businesses, such grocery as amenities, the presence as of hedonic certain analysis this ( of transport” connected,a safe, accessible pleasant and mode available as readily is to which walking extent “the is Walkability prior in literature. extensively place-based development, studied been it and has component important an is of Walkability feasible. where simultaneously, them impacts of place elements by analyzing evaluate the more comprehensive synergistic and economic impact to study standpoint. seeks This an from to toand assess measure difficult are elements these activity; aesthetics,and social and design street form community relationships, and P etc. amenities, use development, green street design, physical mixed- transit, walkability, attributes as of separatebenefits such place elements, including abounds on the economic research study does, this as comprehensive of placemaking analysis an few very previous haveWhile OUS studies included as P concentrations of employment,anchor as well as a ypical market, an increase of one increase Walk market, an point in ypical rea that are regionally significant (places with (places with significant regionally are that rea t c c l e a r ace-based and development includes building also udies haveudies shown apositive relationship ore is associated with anywhere between a$500 between anywhere ore with associated is ore is associated with a1% ore in with associated is toincrease 9% inberger (2012)inberger found urban “walkable that e l u v e i I n

of C h r

icago, o P Resea A l spe P S a b UP c i eley, 2005). vo Fisher, and 2011). ce ore and property price. ore property and IL r s , in the Washington,, in o C , a1 r us places inmichigan c h 0-point increase in Walk0-point in increase h a r o a I n t i cte t s included in s included in h e r

C i stics o rtright, rtright, I DC n a , S H 2012). accessibility to transit in Boston, in to transit accessibility prices and positive property between relationship and (Frank pollution forpromise levels air regional reducing show walkability increased and communities 2006; et al., (Frank to improvedhealth personal positivelya formcan contribute of transportation capital neighborhood as and Walking walkability. social of life, a positive quality between relationship For instance, ofphysical place. characteristics functional and not is Walkability of the only measure the I others ( among benefits, environmental and social health, to These walkability. benefits include economic, economic in performance Walk in 112% higher are rents ( involvement neighbors their with relationships and participation, by social political expressed as mixed-use neighborhoods have more social-capital ( issue this to working neighborhoods address are bytempered lower equity, social though particular over drivablerentals ( suburban areas drivable of suburban the region.Walk areas versus the average price of $222 foot square per in study shows in that suburban areas. of housing in rest of the metropolitanregion.The average price the have homethan 71% higher are prices that sale centers) or universities medical like institutions, i improvement in street design quality can add can quality improvement street design in n n a L L a a e e llis et al., 2004; et al., 2008). Bassett et al., llis DC mpshire residents, Rogers residents, (2011) etmpshire al. found also yden et al., 2011).yden et al., of Through asurvey inberger, 2013). ddition toddition economic numerous value, are there also have a75% also on space premium office I n L A i tman, 2010).tman, walkable, in Residents living t lanta, lanta, E n DC D gelke, 2005).gelke, i ao and Ferriera (2010)ao Ferriera and found a O Walk GA n t L he downside, thehe stronger downside, , o L ndon, UP e inberger (2013)inberger found that A s i t lanta Walk lanta s $398 foot, square per U UP K , an achievable, an s t MA han in drivable in han C . L A o e UP N mpact inberger, n other e w w s i UP s s an average of 5.2% to residential prices (CABE, and quality of life. Form is the arrangement of the 2007). Mixed-use development has been shown to built environment (buildings, structures, streets result in higher office rent premiums (Minadeo, and other objects) and space (public and private). 2009) and higher tax returns to local government It includes urban design features, such as mass, (Minicozzi, 2012). Furthermore, Smart Growth height, setback, relationship to public right-of- America (SGA) identified three major fiscal way, door and window openings, etc. Having good benefits of smart growth development, which is form that is attractive and aesthetically pleasing founded on similar principles to placemaking: can mean the difference in effective placemaking projects. For instance, Mouzon (2012) asserts 1. Saves an average of 38% on up-front costs that the “Walk Appeal” of a street, including for new construction of roads, sewers, view changes, street enclosure and shelter, can water lines and other infrastructure; largely influence how far a person is willing to 2. Saves municipalities an average of 10% on walk in their neighborhood or community. Good police, ambulance and fire service costs; and form can also impact property prices; Konecny (2005) found that homes located in neighborhoods 3. Produces, on an average per-acre basis, 10 with a New Urbanist-style urban form (walkable times more tax revenue than conventional neighborhoods containing a range of housing and suburban development (SGA, 2013). job types) in Sacramento, CA, sell for a 4.25% Another characteristic of place that has been shown premium compared to homes located in a typical to have positive economic benefits is green space. suburban neighborhood. There are numerous place, social and economic According to the Project for Public Spaces benefits of vegetation, urban trees and urban parks. (2009), successful placemaking is associated Crompton (2005) found that the economic impact with sociability. Sociability encompasses civic of a park is about 20% on an abutting or fronting engagement, social networks, community pride, property in the United States. Another study a welcoming atmosphere, diversity, etc. These showed that a 10% increase in the cover within 100 elements can be hard to quantify from a place- meters of a property increased the sale price by an based development perspective, and therefore average of $1,371 (Sander et al., 2010). Burden (2008) difficult to value from an economic perspective. stated that streets with trees versus comparable Close proximity to social venues or events can be streets without trees relate a $15,000–$25,000 used as a proxy for sociability, or social activity can increase in home or business value. In Baltimore, be measured through surveys. One social aspect of MD, a 10% increase in tree canopy was associated places that has been measured and assessed from with a roughly 12% decrease in crime (Troy et al., a property price perspective is safety. For instance, 2012). Nature in urban areas is a source of positive Troy and Grove (2008) discovered that proximity feelings and beneficial services, which fulfills to a park in Baltimore, MD, is positively valued important immaterial and non-consumptive human by the housing market where the crime rates are needs (Chiesura, 2004). below a certain threshold, but negatively valued Place “form” is also a key component in place- where above that threshold. based development that can affect economic value land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 13 14 full report ReBuilding p pedestrian/bike injuries; and 4) and injuries; pedestrian/bike asthma) and rates (like disease health, mental in the physical, form and sociability aspects ofthe aspects physical, form sociability and P responses. apparent the survey in are metrics some of other these placemaking the secondmeasures groupof economics, metrics, 2013). mainly hedonic analysis the current While socio-economicand status ( education of building, measurements relationship 3) rates help that on to show investment; areturn vacancy values retail and property like measures a space, how when; and 2) 1) activities, including: or impact, of placemaking for metrics several theoutlined value, evaluating Katie and lberberg D the from agroupof researchers with san S u re e U P partment of partment vious studies have somevious studies assessed values of u s e and e and blic S i H A r e alth/ c o tivity – metrics on –metrics who tivity using is spe U r H ban ban e r althy althy o S us places inmichigan t udies and and udies L E i L ving –improvements ving S c o i onomic –proxy lberberg and and lberberg rah (2013),rah along S o P cial cial l anning, anning, MI C T a pital – L o rah, rah, P discussed. reported and results with described, people’sto assess perceptions preferences and is report. of this the remainder There five in major are parts Re their synergistic effects. synergistic their comprehend the impact of elements and these but to done be workplacemaking, to fully remains P description of presented is in price analysis The pricethe hedonic analysis. property property neighborhoodand which feed characteristics, into on to questions responses reporting about home recommendations based on study findings in in recommendations basedon study findings empowering and placemaking at policiesenabling and aimed a a rt 3focusesrt on the rt 5.rt conclusions The with report ends policy and p o r I n t P O a rt 2, the national placemaking survey survey placemaking 2, the national rt ut M M i l chigan communities is provided in provided is in communities chigan i chigan’s existing state programs statechigan’s programs existing i n e M i dwest placemaking survey,dwest placemaking P a rt 4.rt A brief brief P a rt 6. rt Part 2: National Placemaking Survey

Thp e pur ose of the National Placemaking Survey was to gain a better understanding of how homeowners, renters and other individuals nationwide view placemaking, changes in their housing/ transportation/employment needs, and their perceived barriers to having their needs fulfilled. Based on the previous literature, the research team’s hypothesis was that many people, including particular population segments (such as 25- to 34-year-olds and seniors) prefer to live in neighborhoods that are walkable and have a wide variety of uses (residential, retail, recreation, etc.).

he purpose of the National Placemaking prefer to live. Finally, respondents were expected Survey was to gain a better understanding to have different views about which amenities Tof how homeowners, renters and other they wanted in their neighborhood based on the individuals nationwide view placemaking, type and quality of those amenities, as depicted in changes in their housing/transportation/ the visual portion of the survey. employment needs and their perceived barriers to Similar surveys have been conducted previously having their needs fulfilled. Based on the previous that ask questions about neighborhood literature, the research team’s initial hypothesis preferences. This survey was unique in that was that many people, including particular it made a connection between “place” and population segments (such as 25- to 34-year-olds the economy, and it included pictures to help and seniors) prefer to live in neighborhoods that respondents visualize the neighborhood options are walkable and have a wide variety of uses and indicate their preferences. This was also (residential, retail, recreation, etc.). The team a nationwide survey, whereas other visual also hypothesized that certain changes, like the preference surveys have been conducted on a more current economic downturn and higher gas prices, localized basis. affect people’s decisions about where they would land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 15 16 full report ReBuilding p purpose of the survey, “placemaking” is defined as: defined is of the survey,purpose “placemaking” For the instrument. of the survey at the beginning which was provided acommonwith definition, of and understanding ageneral to assess rder to it start about was important beliefs placemaking, I Surv S M the workgroup of stakeholders consisting (from collaboration asmall in with team research was developed byThe instrument the survey Surv time commitment through through commitment time length/ and testedbeta for understandability consultant).a placemaking The was survey format the from question the survey advice in received expert also others).and The was approved survey by the representatives the from groupof stakeholders (including asmall using different demographic groups. demographic different by of responses abreakdown and responses survey The section next includes abasic assessment of the atpoints the 95% level of confidence. plus is error or 1.67sampling minus percentage through S I A C the of 3,431 which was responses, representative of asample quotas, including size team the research company. to meet responses guaranteed Qualtrics development survey online an bybuilt Qualtrics, enabled of adults survey nationwide apanel using The and n o n t u ss o ate stitutional Review Board. The research team team The Reviewstitutional Board. research i rveys were completed from uncil, the uncil, chigan chigan ociation of M U S N o . H i S a chigan chigan cial Research. cial tional tional . p o e e using using N y P y opulation in terms of raceopulation income. and terms in E o r n vember 12, 2012. of The margin Res C o vironmental vironmental P A ro o D M spe l ss acemaking acemaking mmunity mmunity MSU e i velopment ociation of Realtors, the chigan, chigan, u cess r l o ts

I us places inmichigan n stitute for M P E D C u c S i S o chigan chigan onomic blic u A u e uncil, the uncil, rvey wasrvey aweb- rvey rvey u O sc thority and and thority c P tober 5, 2012, o r M P licy licy S D i u e o pti nse ofnse blic e nkey, M velopment A ss i o chigan chigan P ociates, ociates, o n P licy licy MSU l ace

These elements include: elements These for designed are use enjoyment and by people. which characteristics, development place-based of alist provided with Respondents were also ‘sense of place.’” or character identifiable of people, an has that and range to awide appealing is of uses,that avariety with space creates afunctional uniquely that community, or neighborhood a within improvement of aplace, “. .The targeted surrounding where respondents including: live, surrounding the area to describe definitions outlined also study,For of this the purpose the survey „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ and otherand foot-based connections); shopping); and or entertainment near playgrounds, etc.). playgrounds, G courtyards, etc.); and P etc.);transportation, public biking, (walking, choices A clubs, alleys, etc.);bowling (museums,opportunities galleries, A markets,etc.);festivals, farmers’ engagement (outdoor community seating, O P M e u r re l p i destrian-orientation (sidewalks, paths, paths, (sidewalks, destrian-orientation ternative transportation transportation ternative ts, cultural and other entertainment other and entertainment cultural ts, blic spaces (squares, plazas, xed uses (diverse options above for living portunities for social activity and and for activity social portunities en/open spaces (parks, trails, en/open trails, spaces (parks, ‘sense ofplace.’” identifiable character or people, andthat hasan to awiderange of uses, that isappealing space withavariety of creates afunctional community, that uniquely within aneighborhoodor improvement ofplace, “. .The targeted PLACEMAKING

„„ “Neighborhood:” Places within a Placemaking and Current Neighborhood/ 10-minute walk of the home. Community/Region Questions Based on the definition of placemaking that was „„ “Local Community:” Places within a provided in the survey, respondents were asked to 30-minute walk, a 10-minute bike/public react to the following statements: “Incorporating transportation ride, or a 5-minute drive of placemaking in our local community will. . . the home. „„ Increase economic activity.” „„ “Region:” All of the communities within a 45-minute bike/public transportation ride „„ Improve opportunities for jobs.” or a 30-minute drive of the home. „„ Improve the quality of life.” These definitions help to ensure that respondents „„ Positively affect home prices.” have a basic understanding of the concepts and terms that were used in the survey and that there „„ Enhance the sense of was not a lot of room for interpretation that could community belonging.” cause invalid responses due to misunderstanding. „„ Attract new people to our community.” The survey was broken into four main components: Between 70%–77% of respondents agree (strongly 1. Questions about people’s neighborhoods, or somewhat) that placemaking will have positive communities and regions, including their economic impacts; around 20% responded views on economic well-being and the neutrally on this point, while only a small importance of placemaking. percentage (around 3%) appeared to be unsure (see Table 1). There was strongest agreement with 2. Questions about people’s mobility and the statement that incorporating placemaking interest in moving, particularly between in a community would improve the quality of rural, suburban and urban places. life. There appeared to be a clear understanding 3. Visual preference questions about that placemaking is connected to economic what types of amenities (e.g. grocery development. This finding supports growing stores, parks and arts & cultural evidence from the literature showing the positive opportunities) people want in their relationship between having a good “place” and neighborhoods and communities. succeeding economically (Adelaja et al., 2012).

4. Demographic questions to help us Respondents were then asked a series of questions better understand who responded to the about their neighborhoods, defined as the survey, and whether responses differed area within a 10-minute walk of their home. A between groups. majority of respondents agreed that there are many places to go (for working, eating, shopping, Responses to questions in each section are drinking, entertainment, recreation, etc.) in their summarized below. A complete reporting of all neighborhood (56%) and that the neighborhood responses is provided in Appendix A on page 99. has a mix of residential, retail and commercial uses (61%). At the same time, 53% of respondents land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 17 18 full report ReBuilding p responded neutrally. (28%) statement, 23% while this with disagreed recent economic recession.” Twenty-eight percent neighborhood stable, have remained despite the the statement:with “ Forty-two (42%) percent of respondents agreed for engagement. social opportunities may not significant them afford comfortableand places to however, live; they attractive diverse, fairly neighborhoods are their basis. These people suggest that responses feel most neighbors name on of their afirst knowing neighborhood, only 44% and their reportedin for activities opportunities many social are there (70%).smelling (63%), appealing visually quiet (71%) clean- and (57%), diverse neighborhoodtheir ethnically is income levels.” that They to tended agree also “ somewhat (66%) agreed the statement: with A (37%)lack of sidewalks rates (17%). crime high and (29%), neighborhood, suchplaces their traffic as in to different to walking them were other barriers to walk. wentthe neighborhoodfrequently in too far are the places that indicated wherealso they most Source: Table Placemaking 1: M community belonging. of sense the Enhance Attract new people to our community. to our people new Attract P Improve the quality of life. quality the Improve Community will. . will. Community Local Our in Placemaking Statement 1: Incorporating Improve opportunities for jobs. Increase economic activity. majority of respondents strongly (22%) or o y n sitively affect home prices. home affect sitively eighborhood people has different from L and S o me respondents also agreed that there there that agreed me respondents also r P olic o spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. H o r wever, only 32% that agreed o P ro us places inmichigan perty values in my values in perty R el ationship to Economic Development Strongly Agree 33% 33% 32% 7 37% 37% 35% 41% Somewhat Somewhat Agree closely followed level, with of that the community place to live. placebetter to 12% live it and indicated aworse is it about is 31% while the same, it indicated a is meetsthat most (74%). needs of their (40%), (63%) parking easy shopping grocery and (50%), reliable/convenient public transportation (42%),opportunities or bike paths/trails lanes cultural and theyhome, that had arts agreed many or a5-minute ride, from transportation drive a10-minute a30-minute walk, bike/publicwithin community, the area as which was defined When asked questions about local their worse. 24% and better getting getting they that said are have stayed they that 30%are said while the same, home,from 47% felt the economic that conditions public or a30-minute ride transportation drive a45-minuteof within the communities bike/ all as which the region, defined is past. Within neighborhood, and relativeto the community economic region, the current conditions their in respondents wereFinally, asked survey to assess price of gasoline. rising habits of the aresult as driving their had changed community. of (56%) job opportunities surrounding their in lack ageneral indicated they also other hand, 40% 6 16% 36% 37% 37% 37% A Disagree Agree or or Agree t Neither he community level,he 56% community that indicated I C n a 19% 19% 18% 18% 21% o nditions at the neighborhood level ddition, 57% agreed that they that 57% agreed ddition, Somewhat Somewhat Disagree 4% 4% 4% 6% 3% 5% Disagree Strongly O 2% 2% %2% 2% %2% 2% 2% %3% 3% n t he Unsure 3% 3% 3% 56% choosing “about the same,” 34% choosing where people live based on National Survey “better” and 10% choosing “worse.” the density of buildings (see Response: “As I get Figure 1). In the survey, the older, I want to be Mobility Questions following transect diagram closer to everything.” In the next section of questions, people were was provided and people were asked in which first asked whether they would move out of their transect they would like most to live (i.e., they current home, if they are able. Forty-five percent could only select one transect): (45%) of respondents said “yes,” while 36% said “no” and 19% are not sure. When asked what type „„ Rural Zone (T2): The home is on large of living situation they would choose, if they were piece of land with few or no other houses to move, a majority of respondents (69%) selected within sight; single family home ownership, followed by „„ Suburban Zone (T3): The home is on a condominium/apartment ownership (12%), single medium to large piece of land with other family rental (9%) and multi-family rental (8%). houses nearby; Among those respondents who selected “Other” for this question, they indicated living situations, „„ General Urban Zone (T4): The home is such as senior living/retirement homes, mobile on a small to medium piece of land with homes, RV/motor homes and student dormitories. other houses and businesses nearby;

When asked about barriers to moving to a new „„ Urban Center Zone/Small Town (T5): The location, respondents cited financial reasons for home is on a small piece of land with a fair not being able to move, including affordability of amount of commercial and residential/ other areas (31%), moving costs that are too high commercial mixed use nearby; or (24%), inability to sell the current home (19%), being under water in a current mortgage (11%) or „„ Urban Core Zone (T6): The home the inability to secure a loan (10%). Others noted is downtown with a mix of offices, difficulties associated with employment, such apartments and shops. as not being able to find a job elsewhere (12%). The natural zone (T1) was not listed as an option Many respondents who provided open-ended since this area does not provide residential or responses under the “Other” option indicated that commercial building. the biggest barrier to moving was finding another home or neighborhood that they would like as well A plurality of respondents (39%) indicated that as their current home or that can provide them they would most like to live in the suburban zone with the types of amenities (such as good schools, (T3), followed by the rural zone (T2) at 28%, the convenience, transportation, etc.) to which they’ve general urban zone (T4) at 21%, urban center zone 2 grown accustomed. Other important barriers to (T5) at 8% and the urban core zone (T6) at 4%. moving were the need for special amenities related When asked why they selected these zones, those to physical disabilities and the need to stay close respondents who selected the T2 zone indicated to family members to provide care. 2. Eighteen percent (18%) of respondents indicated that they currently live in a rural zone (T2), while 36% Community Planners often use the concept of indicated that they live in the suburban zone (T3), 30% in the general urban zone (T4), 10% in the urban center the “transect” to talk about the types of places zone (T5) and 5% in the urban core zone (T6). land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 19 20 in thegeneral urbanzone, full report because ithasconvenient R lower cost oflivingand esponse: “Iw less-stressed lifestyle.” if needed,leadingto a services andability to manage withoutacar ReBuilding p Source: Figure Community 1: Planning Transect Zones change options included: options change or more were to of occur. changes these The life onewould if want to transect move to adifferent whether and changes or not life they different more space. worlds, i.e., convenient with access to amenities feel give suburban the of best them both areas respondents who selected they T3that indicated N N Adapted by Sandy Sorlien from a diagram by DPZ &Company. by DPZ adiagram from Sorlien by Sandy Adapted e ational Survey xt, respondents were askedxt, to consider „ „ „ „ ant to live G G ra ra r duating from college; from duating school; high from duating o spe r o us places inmichigan vitality of city life. Those oflife. city vitality the conveniencelike and T5 T6 and they that said who selected zones T4, Respondents areas. rural byof afforded safety space feeling and green privacy, quiet, recreation, theythat prefer the space, getting anewgetting job, loss of job going and back to center or urban core urban urban, a general area, people that reasons cited for to move wanting to out moving retirement. and children children, having married, were getting area would cause or to them suburban move to arural The people that reasons most indicated often „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ G G “ H O Re D D L N E o e i t ew job; ew e o a m vorce; ss of job; tirement; and/or tirement; her (please specify). ath of spouse; tting married; tting ving children; ving ing backing to college; pty pty N e st” ( C h ildren move out);ildren A m ong the college were the biggest reasons. Respondents asked whether they had these options in their also indicated wanting to move to an urban neighborhood (within a 10-minute walk of area, because of retirement, the death of spouse the home); whether they wanted them in their and children moving out, although to a lesser neighborhood, why or why not; and whether degree than those choosing a suburban or rural they wanted them in their local community area. Other noted life changes that might cause (within a 30-minute walk, a 10-minute bike/ respondents to make a move between transects public transportation ride or a 5-minute drive included health-related reasons, financial from the home). improvements/challenges, family-related reasons, Grocery Shopping loss of their home or starting a business. Survey respondents were provided with the Finally, this section of the survey asked whether following options for grocery shopping: rising gas prices have caused respondents to „„ Big Box Store (a large National Survey change any of their driving-related habits or store with groceries, Response: “I do living situations. Some respondents indicated not want the traffic pharmacy, clothes, that they have actually adopted a change with [a big box store] automotive, etc.); respect to moving closer to work or school (15%), would bring.” taking public transportation (16%), biking or „„ Neighborhood Grocery Store (a medium- walking (22%), carpooling (12%), buying a more sized store for daily/weekly food shopping); fuel-efficient vehicle (16%) and downsizing their home to reduce household expenses (12%). Many „„ Convenience Store (a small store with respondents had also considered adopting these limited grocery items); changes, but there were still several people for „„ Specialty Market (a small store with whom rising gas prices had not caused them to specialty products, such as meat, organics adopt or consider adopting a change; for instance, or international foods); and 63% of respondents had not considered moving closer to work or school, 60% had not considered „„ Farmers’ Market (an indoor or outdoor carpooling, and 59% had not considered taking space with many vendors and a variety public transportation. of foods).

Visual Preference Questions About 71% of the people surveyed said that they In the next set of questions, respondents were have either a neighborhood grocery or convenience asked to consider the types of buildings or store within their neighborhood. Roughly half spaces that they would like to have in their indicated that they have a big box store (49%), neighborhood. In seven categories of places, specialty market (49%) or farmers’ market (57%) in including Grocery Shopping, Retail Shopping, their neighborhood. Of these options, the grocery Restaurants, Neighborhood Type, Bars/ shopping choices that received the most “yes” Restaurants/Entertainment, Parks and Arts responses about wanting them in the neighborhood and Culture, different options were provided, were neighborhood grocery store (72%) and with brief descriptions and example pictures farmers’ markets (69%). See Figure 2 for an located in Appendix A on page 99. People were illustration of these responses. In most cases, people land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 21 22 full report in walking distance.” small grocery store convenience ofa N ReBuilding p like to have the ational Survey R esponse: “I Figure 2: Grocery Shopping Neighborhood Preferences big box stores somewhere community their in people they that would indicated prefer to have them. with associated the traffic not like lower prices offered by big box stores, but they did peoplethat the convenience, and like variety neighborhood, options indicated responses their in When asked why or they not did did want these distance. walking market to would havea farmers’ one like within of peopleplurality (46%) who don’t have currently have don’t them to want seem them. want to keep those who and them, don’t already shoppingwho have options grocery these already Source: 40% 70% 60% 50% 80% 30% 20% 10% 0% r Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure o Big Box Store spe 47% to them, butto them, some people raised close by they so that could walk or conveniencegroceries stores towould have neighborhood like people that Responses indicated where they to could them. drive r o 33% us places inmichigan Neighborhood Grocery Store 72% H o wever, a 16% S e veral veral Convenience 55% Yes Store S O expensive. expensive. tooconcerns about being them “foodies,” but were there some options attractive are and to because they provide new food stores,stores. They specialty liked convenience of appeal visual concerns about and the safety convenience stores. of gas stations attached to big box stores and markets citedstores most farmers’ and frequently. economy,the local big box with stores, specialty store optionsof grocery these would good be for markets. farmers’ near parking finding with people noted difficulty of healthy, the access to fresh, foods; some local neighborhood, because their markets in farmers’ e t 26% veral respondents indicated that they think all all they that respondents think indicated veral hers the noted convenience they that like No S e veral peopleveral want 53% Specialty Market U n iversity, 2014. iversity, 23% 69% Farmers’ Market 18% from localfarmers.” ability to purchase products andthe for thefreshness of farmers’ market] would want [a R N esponse: “I ational Survey

2010 P eople were more inclined to say that they want malls, and that they are a National Survey these options within their local community, rather good place to go for exercise Response: “Independent than right in their neighborhood; for instance, and for kids to hang out, Local Merchant stores 69% indicated that they want a big box store particularly in the winter. are always fun to go within their community, while only 47% wanted However, they don’t like into. You can find one in their neighborhood. the traffic or crowds and great buys and things would rather drive to malls. that aren’t available Retail Shopping They also noted that the anywhere else.” Survey respondents were provided with the interior mall in their community has a lot of empty following options for retail shopping: store fronts. Similar comments were made about „„ Interior Mall (several shops within a large strip malls; some respondents noted that there are indoor space, with ample parking); already many strip malls in their community, and that the stores have trouble surviving there and „ „ Strip Mall/Plaza (a few connected shops eventually they look run-down. People commented with ample parking); that parking and traffic associated with any type „„ Outlet Mall (several connected shops with of mall can be unappealing. Some noted that discount goods in an outdoor setting); outlet malls have better prices, but that sometimes means lower quality products as well. „„ Lifestyle Center (several connected shops mixed with restaurants, bars, theatres and Many respondents were not quite sure what residential/commercial space above); and a lifestyle center is. Some people felt that they would be good for the local economy and bring a „„ Independent Local Merchants (small retail variety of businesses and cultural experiences into shops with limited parking in front). one location, but others felt that they would be expensive places to shop. Respondents indicated Sixty-two percent (62%) of people surveyed that having local independent merchants in have local merchants within a 10-minute walk their neighborhood not only added to the local of their home. Fewer have strip malls (56%) or economy, but created a sense of community pride interior malls (39%) and only about a quarter and character, and promoted the neighborhood. of people specified that they have outlet malls Some people felt that whether they liked local (26%) or lifestyle centers (26%). People selected merchants in their neighborhood would depend independent local merchants overwhelmingly on what kind of products or services they sold. as the type of retail that they would most want to have in their neighborhood (67%), followed by People seemed to have mixed feelings about strip mall/plazas (51%). More respondents said whether they wanted outlet malls or lifestyle “no” (than “yes”) to interior malls (45%), outlet centers in their broader community. In fact, a malls (48%) or lifestyle centers (39%) in their significant number of respondents were not sure neighborhoods (see Figure 3). whether they would want a lifestyle center in their neighborhood (28%) or community (25%), possibly When asked why they did or did not want these because they are less familiar with this type of options in their neighborhood, people said that retail shopping (which was defined in the survey as they like the variety and convenience of interior land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 23 24 full report ReBuilding p option categories: option neighborhood six their for all within restaurant A Restaurants home.5-minute of their drive 10-minute bike/public or a ride transportation (73%)merchants a a30-minute walk, within (60%) malls/plazas strip local independent and (51%), they tothat would have malls interior like above”). space theatersresidential/commercial and bars, “several connected restaurants, shopswith mixed Figure 3: majority of people they responded that had a „ „ „ Source: 60% 40% 50% 30% 20% 70% „ „ „ 10% 0% A locally-owned or achain) (66%); Thru (72%); Thru S S F P majority of respondents indicated i u l ast Food Restaurant with ast Food Restaurant with t-down a Restaurant in aza/ r burban Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure o spe M Interior Mall 39% a R ll (53%);ll S r i o t-down Restaurant (could be e 45% us places inmichigan tail Shopping Neighborhood Preferences Mall/Plaza 51% S Strip t rip rip D 34% r M ive a ll/

Yes ultMl Lifestyle Outlet Mall 34% the responses werethe “yes.” responses (see 4). Figure categories, For amajority of all of respondents to havethe desire close them by The presence roughly follows of restaurants these efficiency of fast food drive thrus, but some of thrus, efficiency fast fooddon’t drive the convenience they that liked and expressed neighborhood,options people many their in When asked why or they not did did want these have them. currently (59%) than restaurants sit-down downtown (64%), neighborhood sandwich shops (68%) and (49%). sit-down mall/plaza/mall astrip in restaurants for have thetrue sameis and them, already than of people (62%) wanted fast food restaurants 48% „ „ „ No „ „ „ H o D N (61%); chain) C wever, more people want coffee shops o ow e ffee ighborhood 33% ntown ntown Center S h U op (could locally-owned be or a 39% n iversity, 2014. iversity, S i t-down Restaurant (56%).t-down Restaurant S a A ndwich smaller percentage smaller Local Merchants Independent 67% S 20% h op (61%); and Figure 4: Restaurant Neighborhood Preferences

80%

70% 68% 65% 64% 60% 62% 59%

50% 49%

40%

30% 34% 27% 27% 24% 24% 20% 21%

10%

0% Fast Food/ Suburban Strip Mall Coee Shop Neighborhood Downtown DriveThru Sit-Down Sit-Down Sandwich Shop Sit-Down Yes No Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

National Survey like the traffic that they looks expensive and that their town was too small Response: “I think the create or unhealthy foods. to support such a restaurant. local coffee shop is a Suburban sit-down and Several people indicated that their community great place for social strip mall restaurants was too small to support different kinds of interactions and adds were viewed as family restaurants, while others felt value to a neighborhood.” friendly and nice for National Survey that they could help draw occasional meals; there were differing opinions Response: “[It] people to the community about the benefits of co-locating restaurants with would be nice to and boost the economy. shopping (as in a strip mall). Coffee shops were have an option within They also wanted a variety noted for their convenience to stop in and grab walking distance for of eating options close by. A a nice dinner out.” a cup of coffee, but also for their attractiveness few respondents noted that restaurants are good as a social gathering spot. People indicated that places for social gatherings, so it’s nice to have sandwich shops were good for a quick, sometimes them in the neighborhood. healthy, meal—a nice break from fast food. With respect to downtown sit-down restaurants, Not surprisingly, a majority of respondents want many people liked the combination of eating to have all six restaurant types within their establishments and other downtown businesses, broader community, with neighborhood sandwich the ability to eat outside (in good weather) and shops (76%) and suburban sit-down restaurants the contribution to the local economy. Others (74%) receiving the most positive responses. expressed concern that the restaurant pictured land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 25 26 full report ReBuilding p Figure 5: Neighborhood Type Preferences type: neighborhood for options following S Neighborhood Type Source: suburban lots large neighborhoods (55%) with and open space with (48%), areas theythat have rural homes, of their moredistance people indicated a 10-minuterespondents have walking within I 60% n t 40% 50% 30% 20% 70% u 10% 0% rvey respondents were provided with the respondents werervey provided with erms of the types of neighborhoods survey that of the types erms „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure Rural Area with farmland, forestland, etc.); N S A M D S R H (three stories or less); and three stories).three Open Space ized ized u b ural ural 56% ow e i i r burban gh-Rise Building (greater than than (greater gh-Rise Building ighborhood with ove Retail/ and xed-use Building with Residential Residential xed-use with Building o ntown Townhomes with with Townhomes ntown spe L A 28% o re ts; a with a with N r o e ighborhood with us places inmichigan O 56% Large Lots Suburban C p o en en S mmercial Below mmercial m 28% S all- to all- p ace (such as Medium-Sized Lots M S L m a e rge dium- all all 65% Small- to

L L ot o 22% ts; s; Yes was (75%). those lower do who already than a10-minute (65%)medium-sized lots walk within to to would have small- neighborhoods like with percentage of people who they that indicated (56%) have (see them already 5). than Figure The options nearby. consistent These are responses people had these who they that already indicated 21%,and respectively—than the percentage of was lower—29%, rises high and buildings 33% of people who wanted townhomes, mixed-use but neighborhood theurban percentage types, “no” suburban and and to the neighborhood types moreonly did respondents say to “yes” the rural (23%).buildings below (36%) retail/commercial and or high-rise above residential with mixed-use buildings lots (31%), small with townhomes downtown lotssized (75%) than to medium- small- with neighborhoods M o re people wanted rural areas with open space with areas re people wanted rural Townhomes Downtown 29% No 53% U n iversity, 2014. iversity, 33% Mixed-Use Building 46% income brackets.” arrangements for different have avariety ofliving “It isnecessary to N ational Survey 21% High-Rise Building 61% N o t R esponse: with the answers to the question about where (i.e., A greater percentage of respondents would like to in which transect) people would most like to live. have these neighborhood types in their community, as opposed to their neighborhood, for all categories. When asked why they did or did not want these Forty percent (40%) would like to have mixed-use options in their neighborhood, answers mirrored buildings in their broader community, while 35% the reasons given for the question related to would like to have townhomes and 25% would like choosing to live in certain transects. People in to have high-rise buildings. However, the overall rural areas liked the space and privacy afforded by pattern holds; that is, the rural and suburban larger lots. Among those who preferred suburban neighborhood types received more “yes” than “no” areas, many like the mix of large, green spaces responses, while the urban types received more with the ability to drive to a downtown area “no” than “yes” responses in terms of preferences fairly quickly. People who liked small- to medium- for the local community. sized lots note the affordability, old-fashioned charm and sociability of these neighborhoods. Bars/Restaurants/Entertainment Respondents noted that townhomes look Survey respondents were provided with the expensive, don’t have enough green space and following options for bars/restaurants/entertainment: would lead to crowding and crime. Some people „„ Bar in an Isolated Building (with ample felt that mixed-use buildings in downtown areas parking, could be locally-owned or a chain); can be attractive, enhance the local economy and add to tax revenue and create walkability; „„ Bar in a Strip Mall/ National Survey however, many respondents felt that a mix of Plaza/Mall (with Response: “I would uses was not right for their neighborhood and want a bar in a strip ample parking, could mall/plaza/mall only if worried that it would be too noisy, congested and be locally-owned or public transportation expensive. A few respondents indicated that they a chain); is readily available.” like high rises, because they take up less space and provide affordable rental opportunities. Many „„ Downtown or Neighborhood Casual people did not like them due to concerns about Bar (with limited parking, but access to lack of privacy, crime and blocking views of the public transportation); surrounding area. „„ Downtown Upscale Bar (with Some respondents from urban areas noted that limited parking, but access to public large lots do not belong in cities and vice versa; transportation); and rural respondents did not think that townhomes „„ Downtown Nightclub with Live Music or high rises belong in their area. This point may (with limited parking, but access to seem obvious, but despite the contradiction, public transportation). many people want the convenience of a city without the congestion. Less than half of the people surveyed indicated that they have any of the bar/restaurant/ National Survey Response: “Small- entertainment options provided above; bars to medium-sized lots make for a in isolated buildings (41%) and downtown or friendly neighborhood.” neighborhood casual bars (46%) were most prevalent. There were more “no” than “yes” land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 27 28 less adrive-to place.” full report also besafer ifitwas better inamulti-use bars, butitwould fit more awalk-to and R esponse: “[I]lo building. Itwould ReBuilding p N ational Survey Figure 6: Bar/ where oneto get to drive has the fear to and them placescontradiction in bars wanting between neighborhoods. There their want a is in them noise and therefore, don’t and, driving drunk crime, they with that associate bars indicated neighborhood,options respondents many their in When asked why or they not did did want these upscale bars. versus “have”“want” question was the downtown to the responses morewere affirmative slightly (see 6). Figure The only category for which there neighborhood their of in bars any of kinds these to the questionanswers about whether they want Source: 60% 40% 50% 30% 20% 10% 0% r ve o Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure Isolated Building spe 30% P a good time and walk home walk and a good time ablethe ideaof being to have neighborhood their liked in restaurants/entertainment for goers bar was noted. other of modes transportation The need for driving. of drunk Bar in Bar r Neighborhood Preferences Neighborhood e o ople who wanted bars/ us places inmichigan 53% R Mall/Plaza/Mall es Bar inStripBar 30% taurant/Entertainment taurant/Entertainment 55% Yes Downtown Casual Bar 39% S categories. categories. neighborhood five versus for their was higher all choices the community restaurant/entertainment in The percentage of people who wanted bar/ these the expense. bar, due acasual to nightclub than less frequently theyindicated would go and/or upscalebar to an except people that types, bar comments between in There few were very differences afterward. following options for parks: for options following Parks level. at “no” responses the community than or neighborhood bar—received more casual “yes” u rvey respondents were provided with the respondents werervey provided with 46% „ „ „ „ No swimming, etc.);swimming, concerts, walking, playgrounds,as eating, S etc.); swimming, biking, walking, S u u H burban burban o wever, only one category—downtown category—downtown one only wever, Upscale Bar Downtown 31% U P P n a a iversity, 2014. iversity, 53% rk with rk with rk with M S p u ecific ecific Downtown 28% Nightclub ltiple U 56% U s s e (such as es (suches „„ Urban Park with Specific Use (such as Respondents appeared to prefer National Survey walking, biking, swimming, etc.); suburban parks with single Response: “An urban or multiple uses to any kind park would be a good „„ Urban Park with Multiple Uses (such as of urban park (see Figure 7). place for different playgrounds, eating, walking, concerts, People seemed to be less sure people to get festivals, swimming, etc.); and about wanting urban parks together and be able „„ Urban Pocket Park (small green space with multiple uses (41% “yes,” to have fun together.” with few uses, such as gardening, sitting, 41% “no” and 18% “not sure”) and urban pocket viewing art, etc.). parks (37% “yes,” 42% “no” and 21% “not sure”), possibly because they are less familiar with these The parks that are most often cited as being types of spaces. In most cases, people who have within a 10-minute walk of respondents homes these park options already want to keep them, were suburban parks with multiple uses (70%) and those who don’t already have them don’t want and suburban parks with a specific use (58%). them. However, a plurality of people who don’t Urban parks with a specific use were present in currently have a suburban park with a specific use 47% of respondents’ neighborhoods, while urban (50%) or a suburban park with multiple uses (45%) parks with multiple uses and urban pocket parks would like to have one within walking distance. were only present in 34% and 27% of respondents’ neighborhoods, respectively.

Figure 7: Park Neighborhood Preferences

80% 77% 70% 73%

60% 57% 50%

40% 41% 41% 42% 37% 30% 29%

20% 17% 16% 10%

0% Suburban Suburban Urban Park with Urban Park with Urban Pocket Park with Park with Specific Use Multiple Uses Park Specific Use Multiple Uses Yes No Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 29 30

full report “Museums would N adults aswell.” ational Survey children and ReBuilding p be great for R esponse: neighborhood. (70%)a library (51%) amovie and cinema their in A Arts and Culture and Arts five categories level. at the community all in “no” responses number of than “yes” greater buttoward were suburban there a park types, bias ageneral neighborhood. There was still their wanted in them than community their in they tothat would have of parks like each type A neighborhood. the or abreak eat lunch, beauty totake for and adding work, to displaytheir for artists workerslocal to pocket urban would parks that good be places for would agood be thing. pads, concerts, festivals picnics, and close by, options many with for splash activities, including crime. and trash attract crowds, areas urban in parks concerns that suburban in parks areas. by afforded larger opportunities recreational and the space, scenery like theythat generally neighborhood, optionsthese people their in said When asked why or they not did did want majority they of that respondents have indicated larger percentage of respondents indicated larger „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ A A M P plays, etc. held); are ballets, operas,

e r r u r rforming rforming t Fair/Festival. t t seum (history, science, children’s, etc.); „ and culture: and options the following with for arts „ S M o u „ „ spe u M rvey respondents werervey provided seum/ S o M L t st not respondents did have a i ill others felt that having parks parks others felt having that ill r brary; o A o vie vie G r us places inmichigan ts ts A allery; and allery; C S few respondents noted C inema; o e me respondents raised me respondents raised nter/Theatre (where A resources. borrowing and researching books,socializing, reading the internet, accessing out including the usesversatile of libraries, neighborhood,options people many their in pointed When asked why or they not did did want these museums/galleries (seewas art 8). Figure only category received that more “no” responses centers/theatres (46%) museums and (44%). The arts to “yes” said performing of respondent also (56%) (55%). fairs/festivals art and for (73%), libraries the affirmative movie cinemas neighborhood, amajority of respondents replied in venues their culture in and of arts types these When asked about whether they would want neighborhoods. (56%) their in (69%), (73%) museum/gallery art fair/festival or art center/theatre (65%), arts performing museum majority of votes, “yes” except for museums/ art centers). (as arts often of the performing case in they and to would go too expensive to be traffic, to support it, they wouldtoo small create too much was community neighborhood their their that said in amenities to have culture and one of arts these The people who not they that did indicated want and educatingengaging children. good for would especially be amenities cultural and close to arts these living that indicated often Respondents artists. local supporting and tourists attracting opportunities, cultural learning were noted for providing galleries museums art and entertainment. inexpensive place where the whole could go for family relatively t he community level, all categories received level, a he all community M P o sense ofcommunity.” culture for allandgivinga providing activities and centers ofthecommunity schools, have become the and it,alongwiththe “We have agreat library N e vies were seen as a a as were seen vies rforming arts centers, centers, arts rforming ational Survey A plurality plurality R esponse:

Figure 8: Arts and Culture Neighborhood Preferences

80%

70% 73%

60%

56% 55% 50% 46% 44% 40% 42% 39% 40% 37% 30% 33% 32%

20% 18% 10%

0% Library Movie Cinema Performing Arts Museum Art Art Fair/Festival Center/Theater Museum/Gallery

Yes No Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. galleries, which had 50% affirmative, 34% were single family renters, and 7% were owners negative and 17% uncertain responses. of a condominium or apartment. Other write-in responses included mobile homes, senior living/ Demographic Questions retirement homes, RV/motor homes and student Respondents were also asked a series of dormitories. The survey sample had slightly more demographic questions to help determine whether home owners (71%) than the national average certain segments of the population responded (66%), according to the American Housing Survey differently than other segments. The first question (AHS, 2011). requested the zip code of the respondent’s home (see Figure 9 for a map of these zip code locations). Fifty-eight percent (58%) of people who answered the survey were homeowners, with their name When asked how long they have lived in their on the mortgage. Twenty-eight percent (28%) current residence, 60% of respondents indicated were renters, with their name on the lease/sub- their length of residence was 10 years or less. lease. Five percent (5%) indicated that they were Twenty-one percent (21%) have lived in their living with family, relatives or friends and paying homes for between 11–20 years, while 19% have rent, while 6% were living rent-free with family, lived in their homes for more than 20 years. relatives or friends. There were several “Other” In terms of current residence, a majority of people responses for people who owned their homes (64%) said that they are single family home outright (no mortgage), which was inadvertently owners. Seventeen percent (17%) were multi- omitted as an option on the survey. Other family renters (apartment, duplex, etc.), while 10% land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 31 32 full report ReBuilding p following age brackets: I housing. free and own adormitory, in rent-to- included living responses Source: Figure 9: National Placemaking Survey the gender. female skewed gender distributionslightly is This toward n t erms of age, respondents were spliterms the into „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure E A F F T T wenty-five- to 34-years-old: 18%; orty-six- to 55-years-old: 22%; ifty-six- to 65-years-old: 18%; and i hirty-five- to 45-years-old: 19%; g ghteen- to 24-years-old: 9%; r e 65 or older: 14%. o spe S u r R rvey respondents werervey 41% o e us places inmichigan spondent Zip Codes Map they are married, while 25% are single (never single 25% are while married, they are Fifty-two (52%) percent of respondents that said disability. short-term and included self-employed, intern freelancer/consultant, not for looking work (1%). or part-time full- working (2%) or unemployed and (9%), disabled (6%), (3%), students full-time students (10%),makers unemployed but for looking work time. 13% and work 17% retired while are part-full-time, employed currently they that are indicated surveyed (38%) percent Thirty-eight of the individuals female and 49% are male ( male 49% and female are the 59% and in female; male O t her people home they responded that are U n iversity, 2014. iversity, U O . t U S her write-in responses her write-in responses . . S C . p e nsus Bureau, 2012). opulation, 51% are been married), 12% are divorced, 6% are part of an responses included attainment of a high school unmarried couple and 4% are widowed. diploma/GED (19%), a Master’s degree (11%), trade school certification (8%), some high school There are no children in the households of 66% (2%) and a PhD/terminal degree (2%). In the U.S. of the respondents. The remaining households population age 25 or older, 28% completed high have one child (17%), two children (12%), three school, 21% completed some college, 8% have an children (4%), four children (1%) or five or more Associate’s degree, 18% have a Bachelor’s degree (1%) children. and 11% have a graduate or professional degree When asked whether their household has more (ACS, 2012). than just immediate family (parents and children), Finally, Qualtrics applied a filter to ensure that the 84% said “no.” Fifteen percent (15%) said “yes,” survey sample would have an annual household and 1% were “not sure.” income breakdown similar to that of the United Eighty-seven percent (87%) of households surveyed States population. The survey respondents do not have an immigrant (e.g., not born in the reported being in the following income brackets: United States) living there, but 13% do. This „„ Less than $10,000: 6% proportion is representative of the U.S. population, 12% of which were immigrants in 2005 (Passel and „„ $10,000–$24,999: 14% Cohn, 2008). „„ $25,000–$49,999: 28% Qualtrics applied a filter to ensure that the survey „„ $50,000–$74,999: 24% sample would have a racial make-up similar to the U.S. population. Seventy percent (70%) of „„ $75,000–$99,999: 14% the respondents indicated that they are white/ Caucasian, 18% are black/African American, „„ More than $100,000: 14% 9% are Asian, 4% are American Indian/Alaska During 2009, the U.S. population exhibited the Native and 1% are Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific following income level breakdown: Islander. “Other” responses included Arab, Filipino, Hispanic/Latino (although this option „„ Less than $15,000: 13% was provided in the next question regarding „„ $15,000–$24,999: 12% ethnicity), and mixed race (although respondents had the option of selecting all races that were „„ $25,000–$49,999: 25% represented in their family). „„ $50,000–$74,999: 18% Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents indicated „„ $75,000–$99,999: 12% that they are of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish descent, while 84% are not. „„ More than $100,000: 20%

In terms of educational attainment, 31% said they Finally, respondents were asked to indicate in have completed some college and 26% said they which zone they currently live, again using the have achieved a Bachelor’s degree. The remaining transect diagram. Eighteen percent (18%) of land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 33 34 full report ReBuilding p Figure Age 10: by Current Transect areas. urban to more live in are likely age of the 18 to (part 34 younger that appears respondents, particularly (see 10–13). Figures race income and were demographics examined suburban (T3) (T2). areas or rural (T4, urban to more live in are likely T5 T6), and groups demographic whether certain determine C or amenities. torespect questions about place characteristics way with more acertain to answer or less likely geographic breakdowns) demographic and were groups of peoplewhether (including certain SS The were used responses to determine survey Cr core the5% urban zone in (T6). zone (T4), center zone the 10%urban in (T5) and the suburban zone (T3), urban the general 30% in zone (T2), 36% they that live in indicated while arural they that respondents live in indicated ro Source: 60% o 40% 50% 30% 20% 70% ss tabulations to were of calculated responses 10% 0% T Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure a r Age 18to 24 b 9% o u spe l 28% a tio r I 63% n t o us places inmichigan n erms of age groups, iterms M s g 5t 4Age 35 to 45 Age 25to 34 i llennial llennial 12% 32% S 55% G p ecifically, age,ecifically, e G neration), e nerally, ua Suburban Rural 15% 39% 46% s P M brackets (age 56 to 65 older). and 35 to 55), for again the older to rise but begins for age brackets the middle falls (age area urban or an to The suburban live in desire transects. to choose the T4–T6likely the rural than transects totransects. more urban want to live in likely young that prior people, research particularly supports finding This areas. suburban or rural the older respondents show atendency to live in old and older. and old 55 for bracket, people declines then and 56-years- the age in 46 to peaks areas rural to live in desire areas. urban in as the suburbs to live in likely as toappear almost be 45) (age people and careers their late in 56 to 65) bracket where people (age may have children 35 to suburban The tomore live in areas. age likely however, groupare survey Baby this Boomers in hown in Figure 11, people 11, Figure agehown in 18 more to are 34 e i rhaps more importantly, younger people are llennials, are more likely to live in urban areas; areas; urban to more live in are likely llennials, Age 46to 55 23% 35% Urban 42% U n iversity, 2014. iversity, Age 56to 65 21% 38% 41% C Age 65 and 25% o nversely, the Older 44% 30% A s Figure 11: Age by Desired Transect

45%

43% 42% 42% 40% 41% 41% 39% 39%

37% 35% 36%

32% 32%

30% 30% 29% 29% 27% 25% 26%

20% 20%

15% 14% 28%

10%

5%

0% Age 18 to 24 Age 25 to 34 Age 35 to 45 Age 46 to 55 Age 56 to 65 Age 65 and Older Rural Suburban Urban Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Figure 12: Race/Ethnicity by Transect

70%

60% 60%

53% 54% 50% 51%

43% 41% 40% 40% 38% 38% 37%

33% 30% 31% 29% 31% 27%

21% 20% 20% 18% 19%

10% 11% 7% 0% Black/African Asian Hawaiian/ American White/ Other Hispanic/Latino American Pacific Islander Indian Caucasian Rural Suburban Urban Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 35 36 full report ReBuilding p population. Respondents of the White/ than areas urban to live in I non- than areas urban to more live in are descent likely A shows 12 Black/ Figure that Figure 13: Income by Transect S (transect zones). locations geographic and groups demographic There these between to appears arelationship be the suburbslive in or areas. urban people suggests that data more who money earn costs. compact reduces This transportation living could due be occurrence toThis the fact more that wealthy respondents. and class middle than areas urban to more appear live in likely income families shows 13 lower- respondentsFigure from that Figure 14).Figure The for samewas true people currently selected the T2 zone preferenceareas (see their as peoplesurprisingly, rural who live in currently they wouldtransect not prefer to live in; n u s dian and other and race more respondents are likely dian Source: rvey respondents were also asked which respondents werervey also ian, ian, 60% 40% 50% 30% 20% 10% H 0% i H spanic/ a waiian/ Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure r 14% Less than o $10,000 L spe a 32% tinos. P a r 54% cific cific o us places inmichigan I s lander, lander, A 19% $10,000– H $24,999 f rican rican i spanic/ 28% A 54% A m m erican erican C L erican, erican, a a ucasian ucasian tino tino ua Suburban Rural $25,000– 19% $49,000 33% 48% simply askedeach to option assess separately. over theneighborhood others; they were type respondents werethat not asked to select one (45%) neighborhood. their in (40%)rises they lots that want said large also townhomes (44%), mixed-use (42%) high and core people (T6) who they that wanted said options. tothe theyselect more “denser” are likely Thethe other closer transects. to the core (T6), people neighborhoods than in their in buildings high-rise and townhomes, mixed-use buildings (T4,transects T5 T6) and to more want are likely 15, people Figure urban shown as in in instance, preference Forthe responses. survey’s visual over into carries of people transects the urban in to preferences related finding interesting This asuburban (T3),in area the given choice. (around 32%, on average) would prefer to live still preference for zones, urban though of many them T6and zones) to more a indicate were also likely T3, who in preference. selected their T3 as living H P e o ople living in urban areas (including T4, areas urban in ople living T5 wever, roughlythe samepercentage of urban $50,000– 19% $74,999 40% Urban 42% U n iversity, 2014. iversity, 20% $75,000– $99,999 41% 40% I t s hould noted be More than 17% $100,000 44% 39% Figure 14: Current Transect by Desired Transect (Rural, Suburban or Urban)

70%

60% 59%

55% 53% 53% 50%

44% 40% 37%

33% 30% 27% 24% 24% 23% 20% 19% 18% 17% 14% 10%

0% Current T2 Current T3 Current T4 Current T5 Current T6 Rural Suburban Urban Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Figure 15: Neighborhood Type by Current Transect

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Rural Area Large Lots Small/ Townhomes Mixed Use High Rise Medium Lots Current T2 Current T3 Current T4 Current T5 Current T6 Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 37 38 full report ReBuilding p Figure 16: Age by Bar/ and rural transects. rural and the suburban to more live in respondents are likely zones older and transect the urban to live in young more that respondentsshowing are likely to the related findings likely are These trends (see well as 17). opportunities Figure cultural and to more saythey were to “yes” arts also likely older age groups (seethan 16). Figure neighborhood their in abar say to “yes” having youngerinstance, age groups were to more likely questions. preferenceneighborhood, basedon the visual they their that wanted in the amenities regarding the separate age differently groups answered lookedThe analysis at next whether people of amenities. culture and arts and to parks wanturban bars, likely more slightly also respondents are transect ban U r Source: 40% 50% 30% 20% 45% 35% 25% 10% 15% 5% S r o o me differences were noted. Forme differences spe Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure Age 18to 24 r Isolated Bar o us places inmichigan Age 25to 34 Mall Bar H o wever, Age 35 to 45 R e Casual Bar Downtown staurant/Entertainment I cinemas over museums and art galleries. galleries. over museumscinemas art and movie and of libraries perceived affordability (see 18). Figure the These could reflect results over others opportunities cultural and some arts income brackets were to more choose likely show peopleResponses also that the lower in location (e.g., zone) transect group. demographic and geographic preferences, current and visual and to questionsresponses about place characteristics brackets. income thoseneighborhood people the higher than in their in opportunities cultural and want arts these $10,000 $10,000 and to $24,999 income brackets people that the less than in likelihood greater the is graph illustrates this that thing interesting t a Age 46to 55 ppears that there are relationships between the the between relationships are there that ppears Upscale Bar Downtown Age 56to 65 U n iversity, 2014. iversity, Nightclub Age 65 and Older A n other Figure 17: Age by Arts and Culture 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

5% Age 18 to 24 Age 25 to 34 Age 35 to 45 Age 46 to 55 Age 56 to 65 Age 65 and Older Movie Performing Library Museum Art Gallery Art Fair Cinema Arts Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Figure 18: Arts and Culture by Income

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

5% Library Movie Performing Museum Art Art Fair Cinema Arts Gallery Less than $10,000– $25,000– $50,000– $75,000– More than $10,0000 $24,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $100,000 Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 39 40 full report ReBuilding p E five ago: years neighborhood place abetter is to live now than O say they to that would move. like placefelt worse their was that getting to tended to move. The people converse true; who was also to tended say better not theygetting that did want region were and neighborhood, community N or better region worse. were getting their in ago, whether and they felt economic conditions orbetter worse five years places to live than neighborhood were their community that and person wanted to move whether with they felt to the questionresponses about whether the cross tabulations between were calculated economicattributes and well-being. First, place-based between relationship the potential to assess analysis The an section next describes CEMA P c l f t o t surprisingly, peoplet surprisingly, who felt their that a o he people who they said felt their that „ „ „ „ „ n „ „ „ „ „ omic neighborhood, because of high crime rates. neighborhood, crime because of high their in itthat to too is dangerous walk diverse. ethnically is neighborhood recreation, etc.).entertainment, working, eating, shopping, drinking, neighborhood places many to has go (for uses. commercial and retail residential, of neighborhood amix their that has appealing. visually is neighborhood their F S S S S i e e e ifty-nine percent (59%) percent ifty-nine disagreed xty-six percent (66%) percent xty-six their that agreed venty percent (70%) percent venty their that agreed venty-one (71%) percent agreed venty-four (74%) percent that agreed r k o D i n spe e g g v a r e n l o o d us places inmichigan p

m e n t O O O years ago:years place abetter is five to live nowcommunity than five ago: years neighborhood aworse is place to live now than years ago:years aworse is community place five to live now than f t f t f t he people who they said felt their that he people who they said felt their that he people who they said felt their that „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ F F F F S experiences within their local community. local their within experiences cultural and for opportunities many arts are community. local their in or bike paths/trails lanes are there S aworse is community placetheir to live). (compared to 63% of people who that said community local at stores their in shopping most do grocery can of their E neighborhood to walk. too far are places they most go their frequently to in activities. social for opportunities neighborhood many their that has economic recession. stable,had remained despite the neighborhood their values in property community is reliable and convenient. and reliable is community their in public transportation/transit i i ifty-seven percent (57%)ifty-seven percent there that agreed ifty-six percent (56%) percent ifty-six the that agreed (56%) percent ifty-six that agreed ifty-three percent (53%) percent ifty-three that agreed i xty-two (62%) percent that agreed (63%) percent xty-three disagreed ghty-one (81%) percent they that agreed „„ Sixty-nine percent (69%) agreed that (particularly walkable amenities and mixed there is a lack of job opportunities in their use) into their neighborhoods received more local community. ambivalent responses.

Despite the relationship between the presence One important thing to note when evaluating or absence of place-based characteristics and a responses is the proportion of people indicating person’s belief about changes in the neighborhood that they live in rural (18% in T2), suburban (36% and community living conditions, the relationship in T3) and urban areas (45% in T4, T5 and T6 of place-based characteristics to the choice of combined). Granted, the answers to questions whether to move is less clear. For instance, of about the location of the home within the T2 to the people who agreed that their neighborhood T6 transect zones are subjective, and the transect is visually appealing, 44% said that they would zones do not follow U.S. Census urban/rural not move and 37% said that they would move. delineations (i.e., “urban” is defined as those However, of the people who agreed that their communities with more than 50,000 people, neighborhood has a mix of residential, retail and “urban clusters” with 2,500–50,000 to people, and commercial uses, only 35% said that they would “rural” with less than 2,500 people). However, the not move, while 46% said that they would move. fact that nearly 70% of the current U.S. population lives in places that are considered urban, and only Discussion 10% and 20% live in urban cluster and rural areas The responses from the national placemaking respectively, suggests that the survey sample may survey provide many interesting findings about be skewed toward rural and suburban areas, thus people’s views of placemaking and the place potentially skewing the responses. amenities that they want in their neighborhood, community and region. Some of these findings are While the method of posing the question about new, some support prior research about place- housing location preference differed between the based characteristics, and some are contradictory. National Association of Realtors 2011 and 2013 Community Preference Surveys and this survey, With respect to the perceived economic impacts the respondents in this study seemed to lean of placemaking, a majority of respondents agreed more toward living in places with mostly housing that there is a positive relationship, stating that (the rural and suburban transects), as opposed to including placemaking in their community places with a mix of housing, offices and retail. would improve economic activity, jobs, quality of About 67% of respondents selected T2 and T3, life, home prices and sense of community. Only while only 33% selected zones T4 to T6. In the a small percentage of respondents disagreed 2013 NAR survey, nearly 60% of respondents with these statements. Based on the definition prefer to live in a neighborhood with a mix of of placemaking that was provided, one might uses in easy walking distance, while 40% prefer expect that people would welcome place-based housing only neighborhoods, where they have to development (such as mixed-use, walkability, drive to other amenities. arts and culture, etc.) in their neighborhoods and communities in order to improve their economy It was clear that certain population segments are and quality of life. However, answers to questions more likely to live in urban settings, including about incorporating place characteristics young people, minority households and low- land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 41 42 full report ReBuilding p though were some more amenities susceptible to impact had an on people’samenities preferences, of some neighborhood quality and the type that preference questions showFinally, the visual did homes closer to work. smaller into moving for notdo impetuses to appear large people be for people, many difficult they life made certainly gas prices have rising and the economic downturn home While their to reduce expenses. downsizing 57% of respondents have not yet considered more of paying aresult as formoving gas. 63% they that have indicated not yet considered they that said have considered so. doing theythat have moved closer to work 22% and D preference responses. visual which suburbanand could account areas, for their anyway, rural to more live in are seniors likely group survey this in distance; walking within to choose aneighborhood more with amenities (ageseniors 65 older) and not do more seem likely based on to samequestions, these responses distance. walking within opportunities, cultural and arts and bars including amenities, they tothat wouldof have avariety like preference questions to appear do suggest The of young responses people to the visual adverse lifestyle. on effects their would density have uses and mixed walkability, increasing feel that and enjoy lifestyle their areas I the given choice. setting, asuburban in or rural zones in T4,living T5 T6 and to would live like would to some suggest seem that people currently cross tabulation transect preferred and the current preference The to their indicate there. be of results not does necessarily settings urban presence in income households. t w u e to rising gas prices, 15% of respondents said e to rising as also apparent people that also as who rural live in r o spe r I o t s us places inmichigan hould noted be their that H A S o g i wever, milarly milarly ain, ain, I busier, more neighborhoods. vibrant denser, yet live in and ready cars to give up their not are suburban and areas, rural live in currently show people, those many who that particularly not are involved known). belief that in also Results have what and other changed factors may be (though to which neighborhood the degree features were viewed deteriorating characteristics as these improved those the lacking past fivewhile in years, development were viewed having characteristics as place-based with communities and neighborhoods on neighborhood preferences well. as of to appeared have parks influence usability alarge and size The aspects. type, social and affordability for convenience, their types restaurant different to one’s close proximity in residence, people liked preferred were restaurants generally While disliked. to universally whereasappeared be responses; bars stores, for was noted people’sgrocery instance, in phenomenon. this of appearance and The type access to a variety of amenities. ofaccess amenities. to avariety developments mixed-usewalkable, green and with groups of people are there that who prefer highly exist and should and addressed. be exist still expenses encourage noise higher and crime, economic well-being, concernsabout how it might improves placemaking that understanding an n g eneral, results support the growing evidence evidence support the results growing eneral, I n s everal cases, cases, everal D e spite Part 3: Midwest Placemaking Survey

In the second phase of the study, the hedonic property analysis was expanded to include three additional Michigan cities, as well as five cities in the Midwest. In order to enhance the data that was provided by assessor offices in each of the 11 cities, surveys were sent to homes that sold between 2000 and 2012 to collect information on additional house, property, neighborhood and place-based characteristics, including structural attributes (where this information was not reported in assessor data), quality of home features, energy efficiency, quality of amenities within walking distance, rental prices and home purchase/rent influence factors.

ased on the results of the pilot study, The first step in this expanded analysis was to several recommendations were made select the cities that would be studied. Cities of Bregarding future research, including Flint, Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids were chosen suggestions to: to represent different regions of Michigan, and to provide a range of communities from those that 1. Examine the impact of place-based are becoming vibrant, attractive cities to those characteristics on property prices in that are experiencing decline and abandonment. places outside of Michigan. Similarly, cities in other Midwest states were 2. Evaluate the effect that the type or selected with three objectives in mind: quality of amenities or businesses have on 1. Cities that are similar in size (in terms of property prices. population and land area/density), ethnic 3. Consider other house, neighborhood diversity and regional importance to the and place-based characteristics in future case studies in Michigan. property price analyses. 2. Cities that have experienced either Therefore, in the second phase of the study, the population decline (like Michigan cities) hedonic property price analysis was expanded to or population growth (which suggests include three additional Michigan cities, as well as that they are attractive places). five cities in the Midwest. In order to enhance the 3. Cities that have had some experience data that was provided by assessor offices in each with placemaking activities. of the 11 cities, surveys were sent to homes that sold between 2000 and 2012 to collect information For instance, Madison, WI, was selected, because on additional house, property, neighborhood it had a similar population size and density in and place-based characteristics, including 2010 to that of Grand Rapids. Both cities are part structural attributes (where this information was of a larger metropolitan region and have a major not reported in assessor data), quality of home college in them. However, while Grand Rapids features, energy efficiency, quality of amenities population shrank from 2000–2010 by almost within walking distance, rental prices and home 5%, the City of Madison grew in population by purchase/rent influence factors. more than 12%. Madison also has a higher median household income ($53,958) than Grand Rapids land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 43 44 full report ReBuilding p cities provided is below. and and Source: Figure Michigan 19: Midwest and Study Cities I Kalamazoo. the pilot Flint, and phase, included and 19 showsFigure the locations of the compete places like with help it to activitiesspace these will amenities; green and restaurant entertainment, cultural, arts, many with downtown, atmospherevibrant their in a have activities creating that been of placemaking years, technology, science biotech and life fields. public spaces jobs and for the young in talent numerous opportunities, entertainment various placea vibrant awalkable downtown, to with live, for well-paying jobs. Finally, ($39,070), perhaps opportunities better suggesting A ; R M M ochester, G a i dwest cities in this study.dwest this cities in Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure nitowoc, W ra L nd Rapids has been involvednd Rapids been has avariety in a r nsing, Traversensing, M o i MN spe dwest cities included ; r I L . o a A kewood, us places inmichigan description of the selected M G a C ra dison. M i ty, Royal nd Rapids and a OH dison is known as as known is dison M ; a i M chigan cities chigan D nd i a O chigan chigan venport, M a I k, from from k, n re a dison dison cent cent average household income of $37,128, jobs the in center. amajor With insurance becoming an and abio-economy estate sectors,real nourishing and its finance entrepreneurs, boosting growing city, C C O people per square mile ( people mile square per it apopulation of 3,163 density giving miles, square a population of 464,036) of 36 area aland and E apopulation of thehas of 113,996 (part The capitol of city the state of FI MichiganLansing, P are the are L U S y a a r i e n n ty range from technical to professional ( technical from range ty stem and st nsing nsing nsus Bureau, 2010). The ce typified as a traditional manufacturing manufacturing atraditional as ce typified iversity ( o L L a a nsing has made strides in attracting and and attracting in strides made has nsing l S nsing nsing t C e ate of

o of mmunity mmunity M M U M n c SU M iversity, 2014. iversity, L M e a tropolitan tropolitan i ) ( i ren- dwest chigan, chigan, in neighboring neighboring in C G o re U llege, llege, ater . M S C C S . i i C t ty’s employers largest i chigan chigan atistical atistical ties S L M e p nsus Bureau, 2012). a i arrow arrow nsing (formerlynsing chigan, chigan, E a S st t A ate H L L re a L e a nsing- a, with with a, alth alth a U nsing), nsing nsing . S . I ngham Regional Medical Center) and General Motors. Lansing has a Walk Score of 47, meaning it is considered “Car Dependent,” where most errands require a car; it is “somewhat bikable” (Walk Score, 2013).

Lansing is home to:

„„ The Lansing City Market, an 11,000 square-foot building on the Grand River that houses more than 30 local businesses;

„„ The Lansing River Trail, 13 miles of paved trail along the Grand River and the Red Cedar River between MSU in East Lansing and Dietrich Park in northern Lansing, with year-round use for non- motorized vehicles and a number of special events;

„„ The Accident Fund Insurance Company of America, which moved its national headquarters to the old Board of Water „„ Many mixed-use developments, including and Light Ottawa Street Station power the Stadium District, a mixed-use, plant, transforming a long-abandoned walkable, transit-accessible, ecofriendly brownfield site into a LEED Gold facility on a brownfield site built to certified building; stimulate job creation and private investment, promote the area and inspire „„ The Center for New Enterprise the entire neighborhood to revitalize. Opportunity, or NEO Center, an 8,600 square-foot, LEED certified business Royal Oak, Michigan incubator with space for 21 businesses, Royal Oak is an inner-ring suburb of Detroit with conference rooms, a workout facility and a population of 58,410 and a median household office space; income of $62,453 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Covering an area of 11.8 square miles, the City has „„ Peckham, Inc., which provides job a population density of 4,956 people per square training and employment opportunities mile. Royal Oak is both the second wealthiest and for the disabled in a LEED certified second densest of the case study cities. Known for 250,000 square-foot warehouse; its shopping, dining and nightlife, the City also „„ The Ingham County Land Bank, which has numerous place-based characteristics that has purchased, maintained, renovated are attractive to young professionals and families. and resold hundreds of blighted Twenty-one percent (21%) of the City’s population properties, revitalized neighborhoods and is between the ages of 24 and 34. It attracts many put properties back on tax rolls; and knowledge workers; the largest employers in Royal land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 45 46 full report ReBuilding p Royal accomplished on foot (Walk “ most notably “ fairs, art and galleries art theatres, several with culture and for known to arts its commitment also Royal food concerts. exhibitions, and arts festival with preservation. Royal natural and planting since1976year ofto tree its aresult commitment as the from of the distinction “Tree earned has and “ technology businesses. information and computer-related numerous C (a supplier and of designer components), metal Beaumont William k are O S C o a o i nsumers nsumers ty of Trees,”ty because of its of multitude flora, mewhat Walkable,” be can where some errands „ O „ O a a D support Royal from T E A E E Brownfield TaxBrownfield a$1.25 million piece utilizing of land, N k has aWalkk has k is homek is to: c m n he 71,000 square-foot,he 71,000 $20 million e l a r ley, by built onomic onomic velopment velopment tertainment on apractically unusabletertainment E tional tional agine agine o n A ergy and and ergy spe r ts, Beats and and Beats ts, A M r D r o bor o e vie Theatre and Bowling Theatrevie Bowling and velopment velopment S A us places inmichigan I P D t h c u D a ore of 59, it is meaning C T thority. ul ul a as been nicknamed the the nicknamed been as E re y Foundation every H , i G S dit from the from dit O E o c n addition to l ore, 2013). spital, spital, a a antz of antz ts,” aweekend-long k’s C o D rp., and and rp., o M wntown wntown E C e m i O taldyne taldyne ty ty M agine agine a USA k is k is i chigan chigan ”

The Traverse people per square mile ( people mile square per it apopulation of 1,791 density giving miles, square populated study case city, Traverse approximately 12% 2000to from 2010. The least Traverse Traverse City, Michigan income $44,542. is The of area population of 14,911 household the median and with considerably population in over the past 10 years, the northwestern regionin of P e ninsula. The Traverseninsula. „ „ „ G „ „ „ ra A the it included is in transit; mass and biking the Transportation in 1997,in door to next the Royal sculpture, created bysculpture, floor and office space office and onfloor the floor. fourth on the third units floor,ground residential on the retail and fitness restaurants, with P T T C nd Traverse l he Barbara he recently established recently i aza, homeaza, of the ty is nestled is onty C C M C i i ty’s overall master plan. plan. master ty’s overall incorporates and walking, safer ty i a ty area is the is country’s largest area ty in in N o A C rth rth . o H U unty’s population growing unty’s population growing C P L l . a i S an that seeks to make to make seeks that an ty region has grown grown region has ty o llman llman G S . fts, a mixed-use fts, center t C ra ar ar M M e C nd Traverse Bay nsus Bureau, 2012). N D i i a ty coversty 11.8 chigan’s o M rshall Fredericks Fredericks rshall re n- C am fountain/ am e M morial morial i ty has a has ty o O torized torized a L k library. o wer producer of tart cherries, in addition to being one of the centers of wine production in the Midwest. Famous for its summer and winter tourism, its annual Cherry Festival and numerous recreational activities, much of the Traverse City economy is tourism-based; however, it has recently begun to diversify the economy with the presence of life- sciences and technology companies. Traverse City has a Walk Score of 98, meaning it is considered a “Walker’s Paradise,” where daily errands do not require a car (Walk Score, 2013).

Traverse City is home to:

„„ The 630 Lofts, a five-story, Historic former eight-acre Traverse City Ironworks Preservation Project with 39 low-income Iron Foundry that was vacant for 15 years, residential apartments, several garden- creating an urban setting for homes, level retail shops and a common area, restaurants and offices with views of developed using low-income housing and Grand Traverse Bay. State historic tax credits. Flint, Michigan „„ A mixed-use Brownfield Redevelopment Flint has a population of 100,515, an area of 33.6 Project with a retail outlet, food square miles, and a population density of 3,008 production facility and new residential people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). spaces, created by the Michigan-based The birthplace of General Motors, Flint was once firm Cherry Republic. one of the nation’s most important industrial cities. Now, however, Flint has lost more than 22% „„ The Villages at Grand Traverse Commons, of its population since 2000 and almost half of its a former mental hospital transformed into population since 1970 as a result of disinvestment, a mixed-use building with 63 businesses deindustrialization and population moving to the and 60 residential suites, including suburbs. Median household income is $26,339. affordable housing with rents ranging from With large amounts of vacant industrial space $450–$759 monthly; it is one of the largest and widely available tax incentives, the City has examples of historic preservation and attempted to diversify its economy in recent years, mixed-use redevelopment in the nation. attracting healthcare and life sciences industries using former auto assembly sites for offices. The „„ Harbour View Centre, a $6 million City’s largest employer still remains General Brownfield Redevelopment Project on a Motors, although the auto industry’s collapse former coal gasification site, transformed played a large role in its 9.6% unemployment into a four-story, mixed-use building rate. Flint has a Walk Score of 48, meaning it is across the street from Grand Traverse Bay. considered “Car Dependent,” where most errands „„ River’s Edge, a five-story, Brownfield require a car (Walk Score, 2013).

Redevelopment Project on the site of the land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 47 48 full report ReBuilding p Flint is home is Flint to: „ „ „ „ „ „ eastern and and eastern stores middle- and gift addition to adeli, in art and cheese,wine baked goods, produce, meat, poultry,featuring breads, months, up to has 50 outside vendors warmer during and, the building inside since 2002 home is and to 30 vendors revitalization under been has market that Jazz Festival. Flint a venue for the long-running events, like as interest community garnered park has of steppedseries water attractions, this a on with sides River of both the Flint housing forwith 550 the from students center mixed-use, living-learning art, state-of-the- a into Flint downtown redevelopment of avacant hotel in U U T T T he Flint Farmers he Farmers Flint he Riverbank Flint Residencehe Riverfront n n r iversity and iversity of o spe r o M M us places inmichigan e M xican groceries. groceries. xican i chigan-Flint, Kettering chigan-Flint, Kettering o M tt tt a P C rket, ayear-round a o rk, awell-situated mmunity mmunity H a ll, the ll, C o llege. colleges, including colleges, including Rapids home is private to several religious and C C maintains its maintains Rapids aWalk has manufacturing. center for furniture manufacturer centersuper chain economy, home is of regional to the headquarters downtown locatedis the well-known in state-of-the-art with building The facilities. center campuses of of the gives 44.6 area land miles total square state. this study from case city the largest West in city the largest With apopulation of 190,411, Grand Rapids, Michigan health scienceThehealth facilities. $39,070is ( household its and median income mile, square C S S C S S Kendall Kendall t t p c i o o e ate ate ty apopulation of 4,289ty density people per huler Books and artan artan nter medical education building, a $90 million a$90 educationnter medical million building, llege and Kuyper Kuyper llege and llege, „ U U „ n n C S C C manufacturing site for manufacturing site was that oncebrownfield akey development space. green and riverfront expansion, institutional with development economic place-based for would visions use potential two the site use of the sitefuture not is but yet known, up the subsurfaceclean groundwater; the vegetation natural to utilizing effort the site ofcurrently a is and of the 20th century the bulk during iversity iversity, Ferris t o o h ores and independent bookstoreores independent and U llege of rnerstone evy in the in evy G N . S ra G A o . nd Rapids, ahub of world-class ra C rthwood rthwood l ticor/ C e nd Rapids the campus in nsus Bureau, 2012). o A M A M S llege of C r c q u e U t and t and ore it of is 54, meaning A H o uinas uinas ijer, the consumer goods sic, it and anational llege, as well as satellite satellite as well as llege, n m S o M iversity, t le, a130-acre vacant U way, food distributor ate i n chigan, as well as as well as chigan, H D C iversity, C e u M U G o sign. Thesign. i man man P llege, llege, ty has a diverse adiverse has ty n ra e G h dical dical iversity the and G nd Rapids is yto-remediation e neral neral ra M G G C ce Bible e ra G M a ra dicine dicine lvin lvin ra M nd M i nd Valley le in le in nd i I o chigan chigan t S tors s e cchia cchia “ Somewhat Walkable,” where some errands can be accomplished on foot; it also has a Bikescore of 50, meaning it is considered somewhat bikable (Walk Score, 2013).

Grand Rapids is home to:

„„ Calder Plaza, an open square adjoining the City and County buildings that host large community events; it houses the public sculpture “La Grand Vitesse” by Alexander Calder.

„„ Division Park Avenue, an $11 million project by Brookstone Capital to renovate two previously vacant structures into modern, energy-efficient apartments intended for low- to middle-income tenants; the project is LEED certified and preserved many historical features of the original buildings. „„ The Gallery, a LEED certified redevelopment of a vacant parking ramp „„ The Martineau Project, a $10.6 million, into 56 apartments, 2,700 square feet four-building rehabilitation project in the of retail space and 250 public parking historic Heartside/Arena district that will spaces; it is also the new home of the result in 23 apartments for low-income Urban Institute for Contemporary Arts, artists, as well as 12,410 square feet of which features a 200-seat film theater, commercial space for galleries, studios, a a performing arts theater and multiple café and a catering business. studios and event spaces.

„„ The 38 Commerce, a LEED certified „„ ArtPrize, a placemaking activity that brings mixed-used development with 35 thousands of artists and art enthusiasts to apartments, eight condos, 30,000 square downtown Grand Rapids for the world’s feet of commercial and office space and a biggest art competition each year. parking deck for up to 350 cars. Kalamazoo, Michigan „„ The Grand Rapids Urban Market, a $27 With a population of 75,092, Kalamazoo is the million, 3.5-acre indoor-outdoor market largest city in the Southwest Region of Michigan that recently received a $5.7 million in and is situated half-way between the large Detroit grants to clean the land and remove and Chicago metropolitan areas. The City covers dilapidated buildings; the mixed-use 24.7 square miles of land, giving it a population development combines local food density of 3,042 people per square mile. The production, retail, farmers’ markets and City has a median household income of $31,189

nutrition education. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 49 50 full report ReBuilding p Kalamazoo is home is to: Kalamazoo accomplished on foot (Walk “ aWalkhas Westernand college in atyears any public or community university fee costsof mandatory for tuitionand four ascholarship for providedis with up to 100% resident graduate of Kalamazoo the prestigious and Kalamazoo Kalamazoo, in P C M pharmaceutical companies pharmaceutical M The employers Borgess largest are the area in numerouscompanies and sciences firms. life breweries, of two the nation’s flavoring leading economy,boasts adiverse home is local to three instruments. and windmills automobilesas paper, cigars, buggies, and stoves, such industries, on manufacturing was reliant nsus Bureau, 2012). ( S U ro o o e i . llege, among other smaller universities, every every universities, amongllege, other smaller chigan chigan S dical dical mewhat Walkable,” be can where some errands mise”). „ . C „ e T and retail at the ground-level. retail and space office abank, upscale apartments, with complex Kalamazoo, downtown in a $24.5 eight-story, million mixed-use C M U he e H r nter Bronson and S n i i o chigan (known as the “Kalamazoo the “Kalamazoo as (known chigan c E iversity, four which has campuses storically, the economy of the M ore of 51, meaning it considered is ore of 51, meaning x spe change ( change i chigan chigan r o us places inmichigan U P n h oenix oenix iversity. Kalamazoo iversity. Kalamazoo P H N f S M o izer and and izer c o me to Western ore, 2013). e w, the P thodist thodist P u ro blic perties), P C S e i H c rrigo rrigo ty ty hools o C spital, spital, i ty ty Davenport, Iowa Davenport, to the headquarters of to the headquarters L is $45,237is ( household The median miles. income of the a population of 1,610 density people square per it of giving 62.8 area atotal and miles, square study city, the interstateand border. The case least dense I A o , cated between D „ „ „ „ a „ „ „ „ venport sits on the people area. to the downtown events 150,000 around year, per attracting placegathering which holds about 50 for 18- to 24-year-olds. (at 30% of income) aresidents available housing subsidized as well as bathrooms, and facilities laundry counseling, short-term housing, job housing and for area 35 by years offering Kalamazoo toassistance at-risk youth the in Valley nearby Western to the link space; adirect it has service first-floor office/ and restaurant retail, 20,000 and units sq. ofapartment ft. the-art Rave movie 18 theatre, residential a14-screen with state-of-Kalamazoo, development of downtown the heart in Kalamazoo Kalamazoo space ongreen the roof. above units and 16arcade, residential spaces onfloor, 10 an retail interior to 15 spaces on the ground retail perimeter 11 with retail, mixed-use and apartments schoolRetrofit of aformer into charter K T P A e he r alamazoo alamazoo D regrine regrine U cadia cadia a . A S venport has apopulationvenport has of 101,363 . r C k C C o e S C mmunity mmunity nsus Bureau, 2012). re e P h rvices for Youthrvices provided has l ek Festival ek C C icago, aza, a $2.4 million Brownfield a$2.4 Brownfield aza, million o o L llege and Kalamazoo Kalamazoo llege and mmons, amixed-use e e M M E IL i i n C chigan chigan ssissippi River , a terprises, a daily adaily terprises, ol nd P lege. l ace, a community ace, acommunity D U e s n I t i iversity, M s home o ines, ines, C i ty ty 135-years-old that was converted into an apartment complex with 24 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, an interior courtyard and a rooftop garden; the building is designed to have retail businesses on the main floor and professional offices on the upper floors.

„„ The Crescent Lofts, which is the anchor for the crescent Warehouse Revitalization District, an area once housing Davenport’s newspaper publisher and Von Maur, a department industrial trade along the Mississippi store. Manufacturing is the City’s largest River; the building is serviced by “The employment sector. Nearby John Deere and Rock Loop” shuttle and provides convenient Island Arsenal, the largest government-owned access to local foods and produce at weapons manufacturing arsenal in the United Davenport’s Historic City Market just States, also provide numerous jobs to the City. ¾ mile away, as well as entrances to the Davenport is known for its affordable housing, low longest bike path in the state. crime rates and relatively low unemployment rate. Rochester, Minnesota Davenport has a Walk Score of 46, meaning it is Home of the world-renowned Mayo Clinic medical considered “Car Dependent,” where most errands center, Rochester is the largest City in Minnesota require a car (Walk Score, 2013). outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Davenport is home to: Metropolitan Statistical Area, with a population of 108,992. Rochester has a population density „„ Hilltop Campus Village, the area between of 1,999 people per square mile and a median the campuses of Palmer College of household income of $63,490 (U.S. Census Bureau, Chiropractic and St. Ambrose University, 2012), making it the wealthiest case study city. The which has seen renovation of more than 50 City has also experienced the greatest percentage buildings and has had $4.6 million invested of population growth of all case study cities, in rehabilitation; it has educational, cultural and religious institutions, which make it a walking and biking destination for students, residents and visitors.

„„ The Hotel Blackhawk, a nearly 100-year- old Davenport hotel in the vibrant downtown area, close to the RiverCenter, that was renovated through a public- private investment.

„„ Forrest Block Apartments, a 36,000 square-foot building more than land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 51 52 full report ReBuilding p a Walk unemployment the country. rates in Rochester has rate of 4.5%, one has Rochester of the lowest also centers.unemployment With an manufacturing campus, one of the company’s most important home is centers and medical to by the thousand of thethree area’s employed are residents 2000–2010, over and 1990–2010. 50%from Thirty- its populationincreasing by 24% more than from D C million visitors each year. million Rochester home is to: (Walk l e inic, the inic, pendent,” where most errands require a car pendent,” acar require where most errands „ „ „ „ „ „ M S S c and one-,and three-bedroom and two- studios furnished community), Rochester for the health-consciousgroceries (offering aselection organic of fresh, P M T P P this neighborhood. this by businesses and residents of initiated project the visioning was handling; decorations murals, refuse and lighting, Rochester,downtown landscaping, using Broadway 1st and of block the 300 the alley between in place friendly cleaner, more pedestrian focusing asafer, on creating charrette and the downtown Rochester Rochester fashion show, of the the guidance under afall and performances theatrical and market, noontime the music summer like year-round with programmed is events, a c ore, 2013). yo e e ro ore of 36, meaning it considered is “ ore of 36, meaning he e C ople’s Food r ace tropolitan tropolitan menade, arenovatedmenade, public near plaza i o C A ty has other healthcare providers and and providers other healthcare has ty l spe l P inic, which draws more than two whichtwo draws moreinic, than ley Visioning l aza and the First and aza r D o ow us places inmichigan M C ntown ntown o a -op on level the ground I rket A n a v M M enue ddition toddition the a P e I A yo l B eting, a design adesign eting, ace, home to The l M liance. S S C t ’ W i s Rochester l reet inic, which inic, n M C a a yo r L (Walk accomplished be can where some on foot errands it considered is “ 68, meaning the agebetween 34. of and 25 young professionals, 20% of the shops. and restaurants bars, with districts commercial popular and structures housing for of residential known is array its wide in nearby in the C square mile. The median household The median mile. square income for the people or just 9,284 in 5.5 miles, square people per studycase city, Lakewood, Ohio Lakewood, and and L a a i ty is $43,958 is ty ( kewood West situated is directly of kewood home is to: C S „ „ i o ty’s employer, largest work residents many and „ „ uth of S c and several adjacent several and mixed-use buildings. units efficient energy with loft buildings, projectuse, residential by Forest lakefront parks in in parks lakefront public pavilions, athletic fields, askatepublic fields, athletic pavilions, R L E downtown area. downtown walkable to and the efficient energy is the building parking; underground with the upper levels, in along apartments ore, 2013). C a n ockport ockport l kewood terprises, which six-story includes two terprises, eveland. eveland. L a L ke U a . kewood apopulation has of 51,385 S E . S r C P L ie. The most populated densely q a e a uare, a three-part, mixed- athree-part, uare, rk, one of the largest nsus Bureau, 2012). kewood aWalk has E O S sp L o h a mewhat Walkable,” io, featuring several several io, featuring C ecially attractive to ecially kewood i ty’s population is C l H eveland eveland L o C S spital is spital is a c kewood i ty ty ore of park, an outdoor swimming pool and a live concert stage; the park’s lakefront promenade offers a view of Downtown Cleveland and an all-purpose trail that circles the park.

„„ Rosewood Place, formerly a vacant used car lot, but now a 56,000 sq. ft. mixed- use development with retail space with 11 luxury town homes, 13 lofts and office space; the development is energy efficient and centrally located.

„„ The Gordon Square Arts District, which Bike Score of 66 and a Transit Score of 37, meaning houses three unique theatres within a it is somewhat bikable and has some public two-minute walk of each other within transportation (Walk Score, 2013). Lakewood’s art district and offers independent films, musicals, theatre and Madison is home to: dance productions. „„ Wisconsin State Capitol, which is Madison, Wisconsin situated in a square in the center of The capitol of Wisconsin, Madison is the largest downtown Madison, serving as a case study city in terms of both population and major intersection in town and a public geographic size, with a population of 240,323 and space where people can meet and enjoy a land area of 76.8 square miles. Its population recreational activities. density is 3,138 people per square mile, and its „„ The East Campus Gateway, a broad, median household income is $53,958 (U.S. Census seven-block pedestrian-oriented Bureau, 2012). Madison has also experienced the corridor, including private developments, greatest total population growth of the case study university buildings and two public cities, increasing by 25,155 people from 2000–2010, gathering places, which serves as a “front and 41,947 people from 1990–2010. The City, perhaps door” to the University of Wisconsin- best known for being home of the University Madison; the 2.45 million-square-foot of Wisconsin(UW)-Madison, is also a hub for project houses an outdoor mall, a 12-story numerous technical, biotech, and life-science firms mixed-use building with 350 rental and has attracted numerous young professionals. apartments, 120,000 square feet of retail The largest employers in the City are the Wisconsin space and numerous academic buildings, State Government and the UW-Madison, in on Lake Mendota. addition to the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, one of four major hospitals in the „„ Museum Mile, a corridor with art, city. Madison has a Walk Score of 55, meaning it children’s and history museums that is considered “Somewhat Walkable,” where some stretches from the capitol to the UW- errands can be accomplished on foot; it also has a Madison campus. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 53 54 full report ReBuilding p (Walk Walk beaches along access 11 and 14parks, lake/river with parks of of surrounding amenities natural The museums,wineries. to and several theatres on mostly for the its tourism, M D C square mile ( mile square apopulation of 1,894 has and density people per populated, sector.employed the manufacturing in the householdcompanies. The median income for M home is and industries of the Wisconsin maritime M amenities. tourism and features population of 33,383 for known is and its natural L Manitowoc, Wisconsin o o e a a a S cated on pendent,” where most errands require a car pendent,” acar require where most errands unty lend 245 tounty themselves more than miles L nitowoc home is to: ritime ritime numerous with associated nitowoc been has t C „ a ate-funded five major snowmobile trails, i ke ty is $42,579 is ty of the the bulk and „ S S c c M ore it considered ofis 44, “ meaning M T runs along runs that seven-mile long trail recreational ore, 2013). M he i a r M chigan amenities, but home amenities, also is chigan L nitowoc Two and W Rivers, u o a M U a seum and several ship-building ship-building several seum and ke L nitowoc 17.63 is of land miles square spe . a S a riners Trail, a hard-surfaced, ahard-surfaced, Trail, riners . ke M C r i e M L chigan, chigan, nsus Bureau, 2012). Known o a i ke us places inmichigan chigan. chigan. M C i M i chigan and connects and chigan ty heavily relies relies heavily ty a M nitowoc a has H a M nitowoc a has i storically, a nitowoc C S p i I ty is is ty . arsely arsely C a r quality of life and economic benefits of creating economic and of of creating life benefits quality developers other and stakeholder groups about the leaders, among city recognition is there that projects for listed placemaking each show city car-dependent. very The example still others are while of walkable havedowntowns, them very efforts. placemaking flavor will that circumstances it’s they that each have clear and assets unique study, placemaking yet this cities included in the 11 between similarities There many are company population and closures loss. of the automobile industry,decline manufacturing „ „ „ „ M opportunities and annual events. annual and opportunities educational exhibits, art traveling and local center, featuring civic art community downtown mansion near century housed a19th in connections easierwaterway and access. bicyclestreet conversions,and pedestrian by one-way connectivity using downtown of the increase and infrastructure of existing maximization assets, unique downtown linking growth, for smart downtown image built upon built image downtown the a community’s and port, riverfront T T M a he Rahr Westhe Rahr he 2009 ny of them have been hard hit byny hit the of have them hard been a nitowoc with the lakefront, the thenitowoc lakefront, with M M a ster a nitowoc and serves as a a as nitowoc serves and A r P t l an, with avision with an, M u seum, whichseum, is M S o a me nitowoc’s more walkable, mixed-use, green spaces. Public- the importance of numerous factors in owner’s private partnerships are often needed to get these and renter’s decisions to buy/rent their home. A projects, many of which take place on abandoned few of those factors included being close to parks, and contaminated sites, off the ground; there are dining and shopping opportunities, schools and roles for philanthropists, private investors and jobs. Other questions asked how walkable the government entities in identifying the capital respondent’s neighborhood is, how often he/she necessary to embrace placemaking. Not all projects walks, and the quality of nearby parks, stores, are big developments; there are many “Lighter, cafes and restaurants. To conclude the survey, Quicker, Cheaper” activities taking place in each respondents answered questions about their city (PPS, 2011). Finally, placemaking projects that socio-economic status, happiness, healthiness and capitalize on each city’s major assets, from being basic demographic qualifiers. located on the lakeshore to having significant Having obtained property records from the anchor institutions with employment opportunities assessor’s office in each city, it was possible to join to housing a large arts and cultural community. survey responses to parcel records. These records Svur ey Process Description contain information regarding sale price, year and I nvitations to take an online survey were mailed to month, along with structural attributes, such as households in these 11 study cities who purchased the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, square a home between the years 2000 and 2012. Letters footage, and other essential real estate-based data. were directed to the current resident of the home, These structural data are included in the hedonic including home owners and/or renters. A random property price analysis (described in the next sample was drawn from each city proportional to section) to control for their effect on the sale price. the total number of sold houses among all cities. Svyur e Results The mailing included a letter explaining the study The survey was broken into four main components: and the importance of their participation. The letter also included a small magnet as a token of 1. Questions about housing and property appreciation and, upon completion of the survey, characteristics along with neighborhood the opportunity to win a $100 gift card from and community features. Amazon.com (entry was voluntary). 2. Questions about the importance of The survey was available online for about six numerous factors in owner’s and renter’s weeks from August 29–October 15, 2012. By the decisions to buy/rent their home. close date, 2,049 people had responded, with 1,997 completing the survey. The margin of sampling 3. Questions about how walkable the error is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points at the respondent’s neighborhood is, how often 95% level of confidence. he/she walks and the quality of nearby parks, stores, cafes and restaurants. The survey asked owners and renters questions about housing and property characteristics along 4. Demographic questions to help us with neighborhood and community features. better understand who responded to the Focusing on the neighborhood and community survey, and whether responses differed features, the survey’s primary aim was to gauge between groups. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 55 56 full report ReBuilding p in the survey move the survey in more between frequently people it many on that appears results, these only 2% and years, for one year. less than Based 16% years, six for 11–15 13% years, for one to three 21% years, 15 for seven to 10 for 19% years, four to for city current more their they than hadin lived for years. 15 more than for one year, less than only 2% and there hadlived forhad there lived 11–15 4% years, hadthere lived 25% for hadthere lived 10% oneyears, to three 29% for there hadlived while seven to 10 years, neighborhood their for in lived four years, to six of respondents (30%) they that had indicated neighborhood current city. and their in The question next asked how long they hadlived forhad at lived the property 20 more years. than years. five to 10 8% for and hadthere lived years, 11–20 forthere one to four 44% years, for hadthere lived home for one 37% year, less than while had lived their they that respondents hadin lived indicated at the property. living Fivebeen of percent how long was useddata to determine they had home.they moved current The their into response Respondents which were year asked in the year situation. living aunique having or at duethe property to not either analysis living and were excludedresponses the results from but not did the property. own The remaining butthe property not did or live there, there lived O 7%invitation were renters. was while received, where at resided and the the property survey N Community Characteristic Questions Housing/Property/Neighborhood/ provided is in responses below. summarized Responses to questions each section in are t i nety-two of percent respondents owned her responses includedher people responses who owned N o ne of they the that respondents indicated r o spe r A o complete reporting of all complete of all reporting us places inmichigan A plurality (29%) plurality that said A p pendix Bon page 117.pendix

A plurality plurality A P I I between cities. they have moved than acity neighborhoods within 3% didn’t havespaces. any driveway parking 37% spaces,while had two 12% hadone space and driveway, their orspaces more in had three parking spaces. Forty-three (43%) percent they that said or more 12% and didn’t have any garage parking garage, 29% had one their in space, 8% hadthree spaces theyrespondents parking that said had two a: had they ofpercentages that respondents indicated (with anon-response rate of 19%). 36% had none, while bathroom, 3% and had two Forty-one (41%) percent of homes had one also half bathrooms. or more 10% had three while full bathrooms, 35% and bathroom, full had two full only 1% and five bedrooms, had one bedroom. had four3% 19% had bedrooms, bedrooms, two had 19% home bedrooms, their that hadthree Fifty-one (51%) percent of respondents indicated the assessor’s from eachattainable city. in office for home, wastheir that not particularly data n t n t e l ople were asked then about of the features most half (48%)most half of the homes surveyed had one erms of parking at the property, of parking 47%erms of erms of other homeerms the following features, „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ F F F P P D G o a inished basement: 29%;inished 52%; ireplace: ront porch: 62%; e arage: 88%;arage: rtially finished basement: 37%; finished and/or rtially ol: 3%. ol: ck (backyard): 61%; Respondents were also asked whether their city allowed for 24-hour on-street parking. Sixty-five percent (65%) indicated that it was allowed, 26% indicated that it was not, and 9% were “not sure.” When asked whether they had a sidewalk in front of their home, 84% of respondents said “yes,” and 16% said “no.” On the other side, 93% said that they did not have a dedicated bike lane on their street, while 7% said they do and 1% were “not sure.”

Next, homeowners were asked to rate the quality of certain home features at the time of purchase, including bedrooms, roof, siding, kitchen, thermostats. A few homes had solar panels or windows, garage, bathrooms, doors, appliances, geothermal installed. basement, landscaping and insulation R-value. The quality of these features is often considered The next question asked whether, since buying in home appraisals at the time of sale and can the home, the homeowner had made any energy- influence purchase price. The quality of the efficiency improvements (such as windows, bedrooms, roofs and siding rated relatively high, insulation, Energy Star appliances, doors, furnace, while the insulation R-value, landscaping and solar panels, etc.). Improvements could have been basements received lower ratings. do-it-yourself or through a contractor or hired help. Seventy-six percent (76%) said that they had Following the purchase of the home, 78% of made energy efficiency updates, while 23% had homeowners indicated that they have done some not. The most common updates were installing remodeling, while 22% said that they had not. Energy Star appliances (64%), insulation (46%) Thirty percent (30%) said that they had spent and new windows (38%). $5,000–$10,000 on remodeling, 23% estimated that they had spent $10,001–$20,000, and 20% had Homeowners were asked to rate the quality of the spent less than $5,000. Only 15% of homeowners nearest amenities to their home, including parks, had spent more than $30,000 to fix up their home. grocery stores, gas stations/convenience stores, bars, restaurants/cafes and coffee shops. Overall, Before purchasing their home, 38% of homeowners most amenities were rated as being high quality. indicated that energy efficiency improvements Seventy-four percent (74%) of respondents rated had been made, while 43% said that they had grocery stores as a four or five, with responses not and 19% were “not sure.” For homes where ranging from 1–5, with one being “very poor improvements had been made, they were most quality” and five being “very high quality.” Parks likely to be installation of more energy efficient were rated at 69%, restaurants at 66%, gas station/ windows (58%), furnace (41%) or insulation (38%). convenience stores at 60% and coffee shops at Energy efficient appliances, water heaters, doors 59%. On the other hand, bars were rated at four or and weather stripping were also installed. Other five 43% of the time, and at one or two 12% of the energy efficiency updates included low-flow time; 27% of respondents didn’t know or weren’t toilets/showerheads, lighting and programmable land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 57 58 full report ReBuilding p the benefits of being close to lakes and trails, trails, and close to lakes of being the benefits diversity/balance. racial neighbors to the with incomerelationships and close-knit the to walkability/bikability its from ranging reasons for of different avariety they that loveindicated neighborhoods, their about neighborhoods or their homes. they information felt wasany additional relevant respondents wereFinally, asked survey to provide four or afive. of coffee shops (48%) (47%) bars and a either as quality.” high “very five and being poor quality” “very being 1–5, from ranging one responses a five, with with station/convenience stores (52%) afour either as or (63%),restaurants stores (61%) grocery gas and of (64%), parks of renters rated the quality half restaurants/cafesbars, coffee and shops. stores, gas stations/conveniencegrocery stores, home, parks, to their including amenities nearest of the askedRenters to rate were also the quality or more. units six 5% and with units 11% one 11% four units, with unit, with three with 16% with address, at their units separate rental (50%)percent were there of two that renters said Fifty apartment. townhouse only 4% an and in home, or aduplex, 12% acondominium in 7% in (73%)percent family asingle in living of renters are $2,000rent more month. per than $500 month. per 27% paid $1,001–$2,000, 4% and paid less than $500–$1,000paid between monthly while rent, in S (excludingfor unit the entire fees utilities). and question about how much they pay monthly rent in the survey. included a For the survey instance, Renters were asked some questions unique on home. their how of closestsure the bar to to rate the quality i xty-eight percent (68%) percent xty-eight they that indicated L e r ss than half of renters rated the quality of renters rated the quality half ss than o spe N o re r o spondents indicated paying spondents paying indicated us places inmichigan S e veral respondents notedveral S e venty-three M a O ny people v er er H H street parking, historic significance and street lights. and significance historic street parking, involved the home in decision purchase were on- The factors were that least cited often being as footage architecture/style, square of yard. size and gaverespondents also afour orto the five rating others complained aboutwhile the Figure 21 illustrates the percentage of responses 21 illustrates Figure much.” “very five and being “not atone all” being Response options one from ranged to five, with home. the decision their to purchase influenced askedand to how indicate much those factors statements about home their or neighborhood (75% 70%, and respectively). (design,interior layout) number and of bedrooms (with of four arating or five) were for the home The factors received that the most positive responses to questions. these responses the survey illustrates much.” “very 20 five and being Figure “not at all” one from one to five, with being ranging responses home, the decisionin their to purchase with neighborhood and wereproperty features involved Purchase/Rental Decision Factor Questions safety. and walkability amenities, questions about neighborhood quality, nearby some from of the results support explain and prices. These open-ended helped to responses stable neighborhoodtheir home had experienced value sincethe recession some that and saying home their that had lost respondents indicating of neighborhoods some was noted, often with (through to them chosen another school to drive district they have distance, walking to aschool within poor they child quality, could so while send their schools community wereused that to and be it less neighborhood safe than their that being winters. winters. o o meowners were asked about how much certain meowners were then given a series of meowners were aseries given then S S o c me respondents expressed concerns me respondents expressed hools of C h oice). The affordability A ro und half of of und half M i dwest Figure 20: Home Purchase Decision Factors

Historic Significance 57% 17% 9%12% 4%

Number of Bathrooms 11% 17% 28% 29% 15%

Architecture (or Style) 9% 14% 25% 31% 22%

Interior (Design, Layout) 3%5% 17% 36% 39%

Public School Quality 36% 16% 17% 18% 13%

Nearby Parks and 13% 15% 27% 26% 19% Recreation Areas

Convenience Stores 29% 24% 24% 16% 8% Close By

Shade Trees 17% 19% 27% 25% 13%

Road Quality 22% 29% 31% 14% 3%

Total Square Feet 4% 12% 33% 37% 14%

Street Lights 34% 28% 25% 10% 3%

Number of Bedrooms 2% 7% 21% 39% 31%

Size of Yard 9% 14% 28% 30% 20%

Grocery Stores 13% 19% 29% 27% 11% Close By

Property Taxes 18% 23% 36% 17% 6%

O-Street Parking 24% 12% 19% 23% 21%

Retail Shopping Stores 19% 20% 29% 22% 9% Close By

Income/Investment 23% 18% 25% 22% 12% Potential

On-Street Parking 52% 22% 17% 7% 2%

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 (Not at All) 2 3 4 5 (Very Much) Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 59 60 full report ReBuilding p efficient home. efficient energy an having and the city in opportunities access to public employment many transportation, on respondents’ decisions purchase were great respondent. to the to nearby many important places are that close to able ajob,being being and to walk/bike safety, short commute home time, affordability, fiveand ratings) to were neighborhood related statements (i.e., received those that the most four each factor.for within ratings these The top Source: Figure Neighborhood and Home 21: Purchase Neighborhood are A‘ordable Employment Opportunities Fresh andHealthy Foods Majority ofMyShopping I Have aGoodAccess to to PublicTransportation I amAbleto Walk/Bike to Many Nearby Places Job orSchoolisShort Great Neighbors Live I amCloseto MyJob Sense ofCommunity in theNeighborhood Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure Commuting Time to I Have Great Access I amAbleto Doa The Neighborhod There isaStrong r Energy Ecient There are Many S o t Homes inMy atements with the least influence theatements least influence with The Homeis spe r is Safe Decision Statements o us places inmichigan 0 3% 10% 10% 4% 13% 13% 14% 15% 18% 9%4% 26% 15% 7%10% 14% 13% 8% 20% 43% 1 (Notat All) 17% 17% 14% 24% 14% 24% 17% 20% 27% 28% I o characteristic highlighted in the statement. in highlighted characteristic the home ornot neighborhood specifically of the statements,asked to rate the influence were involved one decision, with being their in factors to which certain to the indicate degree decision home. to rent their They asked were first questions about Renters their were asked similar factor. influence to ratethey important may it less be an likely as was about not home true their or neighborhood, t i ther words, if the respondent words, feltther statement if that 37% 40% 18% s important to notes important people that were 23% 27% 2 32% 20% 3 29% U 32% 37% n iversity, 2014. iversity, 26% 60% 22% 4 31% 28% 26% 26% 5 (Very Much) 17% 80% 41% 36% 21% 19% 33% 30% 11% 26% 21% 20% 19% 17% 9% 8% I 8% n 100% “not at all” and five being “very much.” Figure 22 respectively. The factors with the lowest ratings illustrates the survey responses to these questions. were historical significance (10%), road quality Similarly to the responses for homeowners, (12%) and public schools (17%). bedrooms, interior (design, layout) and yard space Renters were also asked how much certain were the top factors for renters, receiving the statements influenced their decision to rent most four and five ratings at 75%, 61% and 53% Figure 22: Home Rental Decision Factors

Public Schools 65% 9%9% 11% 6%

Nearby Parks and 14% 16% 30% 23% 17% Recreation Areas

Shade Trees 27% 26% 19% 19% 9%

Road Quality 32% 29% 26% 9% 3%

Architecture (or Style) 22% 22% 22% 24% 10%

Number of Bedrooms 1% 9% 15% 36% 39%

Number of Bathrooms 18% 20% 23% 23% 15%

Grocery Stores 11% 22% 28% 25% 14% Close By

Retail Shopping 22% 25% 23% 19% 11% Stores Close By

On-Street Parking 41% 24% 16% 13% 7% Availability

Number of Private 32% 13% 25% 20% 10% O -Street Parking Spaces

Interior (Design, Layout) 7% 11% 20% 35% 26%

Convenience Stores 22% 27% 24% 19% 8% Close By

Street Lights 36% 20% 18% 19% 7%

Historic Significance 59% 19% 12% 8% 2%

Yard Space 9% 16% 22% 24% 29%

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 (Not at All) 2 3 4 5 (Very Much)

Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 61 62 full report ReBuilding p Source: Figure 23: Neighborhood and Home nearby places (54%). The statements the with stores (57%) to many to walk/bike the ability and they could amajority of do shopping nearby in rated the statements that highly respondents also (59%) close behind. in coming to job or school (61%) close to ajob being and it afourrating or five), short commute with top statement for renters (with 67% of respondents O each factor. forof responses within ratings these the percentage home. 23 illustrates their Figure Homes inMyNeighborhood Employment Opportunities n I amAbleto DoaMajority Fresh andHealthy Foods ce again, neighborhood out came ce again, safety the as to PublicTransportation of MyShoppingNearby I amAbleto Walk/Bike to Many Nearby Places I Have GoodAccess to Job orSchoolisShort Great Neighbors Live Sense ofCommunity in theNeighborhood Commuting Time to I Have Great Access Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure The Neighborhood There isaStrong Energy e cient r There are Many are A‚ordable o The Homeis spe I amClose to MyJob is Safe r o Decision Statements us places inmichigan 0 6% 14% 13% 14% 13% M 17% 19% 6% 22% o 21% re than half of half re than 6%10% 32% 35% 9% 10% 20% 16% 17% 21% 15% 22% 23% 1 (Notat All) 18% 13% 25% 29% 15% listed below if you to them?” below if They walked listed were it to get take your from home to places the nearest Respondents were asked:“ Questions Walkability Neighborhood whether or not statements. they were true of the statements, withoutinfluence specifying noted respondents were that asked to rate the (8%). the city in opportunities (4%) of employment many the availability and lowest efficiency to were energy related ratings 40% 32% 16% 22% 24% 20% 24% 23% 2 20% U 9% 41% n 36% iversity, 2014. iversity, 60% 26% 3 30% 22% 19% R 21% 27% 4 e A 21% ntal b out how long would I 41% t s 80% 5 (Very Much) 36% 18% 34% hould again be be hould again 16% 16% 23% 26% 21% 20% 18% 15% 10% 8% 4% 100% given the choices: a) one to five minutes, b) six to (such as a bar) within 20 minutes. For eating and 10 minutes, c) 11–20 minutes, d) 21–30 minutes, d) drinking establishments, 79% indicated that they more than 30 minutes, and e) too far/not practical could walk to a sit-down restaurant or a fast-food to walk. A plurality of respondents (40%) restaurant within 20 minutes. indicated that it would not be practical to walk The next question asked respondents to rate to their job, because it is too far from their home. the overall look and feel of a walk in their Aggregating across choices, 32% said that they neighborhood, on a scale of one to five, with could walk to work in 20 minutes or less, while one being very low quality and five being very 29% said that it would take more than 20 minutes. high quality. Forty percent (40%) rated their Twenty-seven percent (27%) of survey respondents neighborhood walk as very high quality (five), indicated that it would not be practical to walk with 38% rating it a four and 16% rating it a three. to their university or college, while 41% said that Respondents were also asked how safe they feel the walk would be 20 minutes or less and 32% in their neighborhood. Seventy-five percent (75%) indicated that the walk would be more than 20 said that they feel “very safe” or “extremely safe,” minutes. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of people said 21% said that they feel “moderately safe,” 4% feel that they could walk to the nearest elementary, “slightly safe” and 1% feels “not at all safe.” middle or high school in 20 minutes or less, The survey also included questions on people’s including 38% who said it would be a walk of five walking habits. They were asked: “Which of the minutes or less; only 8% said that it would take following statements best describes the amount more than 20 minutes. of walking you do in your neighborhood?” Ninety-five percent (95%) indicated that they Responses included: lived within a 20-minute walk to a transit stop, „„ I walk all the time: 23%; with 63% living within five minutes. Ninety-three percent (93%) indicated that they lived within a „„ I walk very often: 36%; 20-minute walk to a park, with 55% living within five minutes. „„ I tend to walk a bit, but not too much: 27%;

In the shopping category, 73% of respondents „„ I do not walk very often: 11%; and indicated that they live within a 20-minute walk „„ I never walk and prefer to drive: 3%. of a supermarket or grocery store, while 21% said that it would take more than 20 minutes to walk It should be noted that this question did not to a store. However, 91% said that it would take specify whether the walking in question was to 20 minutes or less to walk to a convenience store, reach a destination, so the responses likely reflect with 39% saying that it would take five minutes walking habits for recreational purposes as well. or less. Sixty-two percent (62%) said that they The next question asked: “Generally speaking, could walk to a retail store (clothing, book/music, how many minutes are you willing to walk to boutique, etc.) in 20 minutes or less. reach a destination (such as a restaurant, store, Seventy-six percent (76%) of respondents said park, or other places you might frequently visit)?” that they could walk to an entertainment venue Responses included: land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 63 64 full report ReBuilding p I in the country and 5%on and afarm. were raised the country in 11% town, were raised asmall 26% in were raised acity, in theraised suburbs, 28% in were raised (30%) percent Thirty they that were indicated where up. they grew described best that type Respondents were asked to select the community Demographic Questions following age brackets: ( bracket of percentages people 20 or years older general theThe younger groupwas markedly survey than n t U . S erms of age, respondents were spliterms the into „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ . C „ „ „ „ „ e to five minutes: 7%; „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ e U nsus Bureau, 2010): T T T F T T T E S E S O A F F T T . i i wenty-six to 30 minutes: 8%; and wenty-one tominutes: 25 7%; wenty-five- 34-year-olds: 19%; 34-year-olds: wenty-five- 24-year-olds: 10%; to wenty- wenty-five- to 34-year-olds: 33%; 34-year-olds: to wenty-five- orty-five- 54-year-olds: 20%; 54-year-olds: orty-five- orty-six- to 55-year-olds: 16%; ifty-six- to 65-year-olds: 14%; and S i l hirty minutes or minutes longer: 5%. hirty hirty-five- 44-year-olds: 18%; 44-year-olds: hirty-five- hirty-five- to 45-year-olds: 31%; g n xteen to 20xteen minutes: 23%; x to 10 minutes: 21%; even minutes: to 29%; 15 ghteen- to 24-year-olds: 2%; r . p e 66 or older: 5%. o opulation, age the following with spe r o us places inmichigan D A compared to the was high, diploma. educational attainment This a having theythat have aBachelor’s 28% with degree, Forty-one (41%) percent of respondents indicated dwest Region as defined by the by the defined as Region dwest M I he the contains Bureau 3. female and 49% male ( 49% and female male representative of the gender distributionfairly is This female. S indicated that one that indicated adult (age 18 or older) in lived 1% they were Fifty-one widowed. (51%) percent and 6%divorced, a domestic were in partnership 23% 10% while wereare single, were married, ( degree 10% and have agraduatedegree or professional have an school, 22%high had completed some college, 9% population over the age of 25, 31% had completed I D n n t u

a ss T o diana, diana, i rvey respondents were54%rvey and 46% male kota and Wisconsin. and kota ssouri, ssouri, ctoral degree and 10% having a high school ahigh 10% and having ctoral degree erms of marital status,of 60% respondents of marital erms ociate’s/professional a having 9% degree, „ „ M „ „ i A A I F A M o N CS ss ifty-six- 64-year-olds: 16%; and 64-year-olds: ifty-six- wa, Kansas, Kansas, wa, g e a e 65 or older: 18%. ociate’s 18% have degree, aBachelor’s braska, braska, ster’s degree, 12% having an an ster’s 12% having degree, , 2 012). M i N N dwest region. o U o M rth-central states of states rth-central rth rth U . S i chigan, chigan, . . p S D . opulation, which 51% is a C kota, kota, e nsus Bureau, 2010). M 3 O i dwest he I nnesota, nnesota, h n t io, U S . S o M I . uth l C linois, linois, i e nsus the home with them, 21% said two and 20% said „„ $40,001–50,000: 10%; none. This question could have been confusing to „„ $50,001–80,000: 29%; respondents who weren’t sure whether to count themselves among the number of adults. „„ $80,001–100,000: 16%; and

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of households that „„ More than $100,000: 27%. responded had no children (age 17 or younger) living in the home. Sixteen percent (16%) had two This household income breakdown was not children and 15% had one child living in the home. representative of the Midwest population, where: Only 6% had three or more children. „„ Less than $20,000: 19%;

In terms of employment, 73% of respondents said „„ $20,000–29,999: 11%; they were employed full-time, while 10% were employed part-time. Eight percent (8%) were „„ $30,000–39,999: 11%; retired, 4% were unemployed and not seeking „„ $40,000–49,999: 9%; employment, 3% were unemployed and currently sought employment and 2% were students. „„ $50,000–74,999: 19%;

When asked about race, 94% indicated that they are „„ $75,000–99,999: 12%; and Caucasian. Other the remaining respondents, 2% are „„ $100,000 or More: 19%. Black/African American, 2% are Asian, 2% are mixed race and 1% indicated that they are of Hispanic, There is some concern that the higher household Latino or Spanish descent. This racial breakdown incomes of survey respondents could skew the was not as diverse as the Midwest average, where responses, making them less representative of the 82% are Caucasian, 10% are Black/African American, populations in the 11 Midwest cities. The same 3% are Asian, 2% are some other race and 2% are two skewness concerns are present for age, educational or more races (ACS, 2012). Nearly 5% of households attainment and race. With online surveys, the in the Midwest are Hispanic or Latino origin (U.S. sample size is less random, because people self- Census Bureau, 2010). select to participate; there is some evidence that younger, more educated, wealthier individuals are In terms of political views, 15% identified more likely to respond to an internet-based survey. themselves as being very liberal, 32% as liberal, 33% as moderate/independent, 17% as conservative Finally, survey takers were asked about their and 3% as very conservative. overall happiness and physical health. Fifty-seven percent (57%) said that they are “very happy,” The survey respondents reported being in the while 26% are “moderately happy,” 14% are following household income brackets: “extremely happy,” 2% are “slightly happy” and 1% „„ $20,000 or less: 4%; are “not at all happy.” Similarly, 51% said that they are “very healthy,” 32% are “moderately healthy,” „„ $20,001–30,000: 6%; 12% are “extremely healthy,” 4% are “slightly „„ $30,001–40,000: 8%; healthy” and 1% are “not at all healthy.” land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 65 66 full report ReBuilding p of people who they safe that said feel not at all of the time. or often all very neighborhood they their that said walk safe in of people who they responded that feel extremely more they often walk. safe. felt the neighborhood that to extremely was very also quality neighborhood high their very as in of people who rated the look feel and of awalk how they often walk. neighborhood, how and their safe they felt, with way people rated the look in feel and of awalk whether the was between there arelationship C Safety and Aesthetics Walking, categories, apparent. butother amenity it still is notThese are strong relationships for as some of the or often never theyvery notthat do walk. walk people said who poor also rated very the park as 59% of of the time; those or often all very they walk that said high very park as nearest of their quality safe. at all poor,”or “very to not they that said feel slightly one, park as nearest ofwho their rated the quality neighborhood. their safe in to they extremely that said feel very high,” on of one ascale five,park or as to “very five the people nearest of who their rated the quality habits safety. and Forwalking 84% of instance, way people their and closest rated amenities, their whether the was there between arelationship C Amenities of Nearest Quality questions. characteristics torespect home, neighborhood place-based and way with acertain to answer or less likely groups of peoplewhether were more certain SS The were used responses to determine survey Cr ro ro o ss tabulations were calculated to determine ss tabulations to were determine calculated ss tabulations were calculated to determine ss tabulations to were determine calculated I t d T oes appear that the safer people the safer that appear oes the feel, S a r i b milarly, 71% of people who rated the o u O spe l n t a tio r he other hand, 74%he other hand, of people o N S us places inmichigan n i i nety-three (93%) percent xty-eight percent (68%) percent xty-eight s C o nversely, 55% I H U very often or all of the time. of the time. or often all very they that walk healthy indicated extremely are four (74%) percent of people who they that said Walking and Health the samedistance. to walk willing safe (rated extremely be five), 27% of people were aneighborhoodminutes; whereas, in perceived to 16–20 to walk only 15% of people were willing safe (rated perceived to is not be that at all one), or often neververy walk. they not that said do low walk very as also walk who rated the look feel and of aneighborhood 68% of of the time; people or often all very walk they that indicated neighborhood high very as who rated their the look in feel and of awalk neighborhood. Finally, their 72% in of peoplewalk or often never theyvery not that do indicated walk purchase their home. their purchase (at of four arating to five) decision to their in werenearby involved recreation and parks areas healthy that said to extremely be who claimed factors;home influence 58% purchase of people ablethe amount they that are walk. conditions by health people tomany limited are farther. to walk willingness The forsame distance. holds and true safety of five), the to walk 26% of people were willing (rated walk whereas, for five out ahigh-quality 16–20 to walk 12% of people minutes; were willing (rateda low-quality walk one out of five), only For for farther. instance, to walk awillingness in they do not walk often or they often not never do walk walk. that healthy indicated not they that said are at all physical overall health. their and to walk how between relationship people often professed t a n e alth also appeared to be related to tosome related appeared be also alth surprisingly, there appeared to a appeared be there surprisingly, lso appears that a higher quality walk results results walk quality ahigher that appears lso S i xty-seven (67%) percent C I n a o nversely, 78% who eighborhood O f c S ourse, ourse, e venty- of extremely healthy individuals indicated that City Differences the statement “I am able to walk/bike to many There were some clear differences between cities nearby places that are important to me,” had a among responses to certain questions about place. strong influence (a rating of four to five) on their These responses provide some insights into what home purchase decision. Fifty-eight percent residents like about their cities, and what they (58%) of extremely healthy people also said that would like to see changed. The following are the having access to fresh and healthy foods strongly strongest city differences: influenced the decision to buy their home. „„ While 34% of overall survey respondents Happiness rated the quality of the nearest park as Of the people who said that they are extremely very high, people in Lakewood, OH, and happy, 88% indicated that they feel very or Traverse City, MI, ranked their parks even extremely safe in their neighborhood. Seventy higher, at 56% and 53% respectively. percent (70%) of these extremely happy „„ The quality of the nearest restaurant respondents said that they walk often or all of the received very high marks from 33% of time. Sixty-one percent (61%) of extremely happy survey respondents on average, but 49% individuals indicated that the statement “I am of Royal Oak, MI, respondents rated their able to walk/bike to many nearby places that are restaurants as very high, while only 11% in important to me,” had a strong influence (a rating Flint, MI, and 19% in Lansing, MI, reported of four to five) on their home purchase decision. very high quality restaurants nearby. Fifty-six percent (56%) of people who claimed to be extremely happy said that the statement, „„ Lakewood, OH, respondents were “There is a strong sense of community,” had a more likely to indicate that they have strong influence on their home buying decision as elementary, middle or high schools well. Finally, 86% of extremely happy people also within a one- to five-minute walk of their indicated that they were very to extremely healthy. home, with 56% of responses, as opposed to the survey average of 38%. On the other side, nearly 20% of Rochester, MN, land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 67 68 full report ReBuilding p „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ M 6% forquestion. this school, compared average to the survey (or 30 minutes than too far) to to walk it that said residents would more take W R MI O A I M (38% compared to 63% average). survey five-minute of apublic walk stop transit one- to say they to that livelikely within average);survey however, they were less of apark (74%walk compared to 55% aone- they tothat live within five-minute walk very often, if ever. if often, very walk they that respondents don’t indicated (compared to average). 6% survey neighborhood was low low to very quality their look in feel and ofoverall awalk average 93% and in neighborhood (compared to 75% on their safe in tofelt extremely very or30 minutes too long, 25% of Rochester, would restaurant moredown take than to asit- walking respondents that said average). survey 12% (comparedthe closest entertainment to (or 30 minutes than too far) to to walk it that would more22% take indicating (compared to 14% average) survey and store to the closest retail to walk far it that would too be 29% indicating retail, and walkable entertainment neighborhoods contained their feel that n F t espondents from espondents from n a o N r hile less than 10% of the overall survey survey 10% of the overall less than hile , o re Royal he same time, 25%the that he said sametime, lint, lint, , re o verage, 14% almost of survey nly 4% of residents responded this 4%nly of responded residents this spe sidents responded this way.sidents responded this MI r , o o O us places inmichigan a nly 25% ofnly respondents k, k, MI L M a , re nsing, nsing, a nitowoc, W sidents indicated I n T raverse MI , d id not I C ) . i ty, cars. cars. neighborhoods these that cater to suggesting spaces (92%) 24-hour and on-street (65%), parking garage (88%), one or more driveway parking house a their that respondents has indicated many With to respect housing structures, place. of characteristics views on the their as well as communities, and to people’s housing, current neighborhoods related relationships and trends interesting minor and major arterial streets. major and minor arterial based development on bike collector, as lanes houses to located, place- not is are important as onof bike low-volume lanes where streets, many bikable. walkable than more neighborhoods these suggests that are result this street; on bikea dedicated lane their home, 95%their while they not that said do have front they of that haveindicated in asidewalk energy efficiency upgrades, including installing homes, 76% and they that have indicated made their into moving after done some remodeling E S the closest grocery store, gas and restaurant park, the closest grocery of of homeowners renters rated and the quality and Federal windows. P for data the detailed toddition providing the pricehedonic analysis, property I D I incentivemay have for an been retrofitting. frame, the study time prices during energy rising as to homeowners credits for well as upgrades, these n a n t e l n iscussio acemaking acemaking venty-eight (78%) percent of households had ergy ergy erms of neighborhood amajority erms amenities, E i ghty-four (84%) percent of respondents S this infrequently. this way, in while MI t ar appliances, insulation and new and appliances, insulation ar , m n S u ore than 31%ore than of respondents walk rvey also identified some identified also rvey L S H t a ate programs offering tax tax offering ate programs nsing and Flint, both in in both Flint, and nsing o wever, the presence M i dwest station/convenience store at a high or very high about the need for affordable Homeowners and level. Bars were viewed as being of lower quality transportation and housing renters, when asked to by both groups, and less than half of renters felt and good jobs. It could be rate the influence of that the nearest coffee shop was high quality. that these factors are just certain neighborhood not as important to people and community features The factors that were cited most often for being as safety, affordability and on their purchase involved in home purchase decisions were the walkability. However, and rental decisions, home interior, number of bedrooms, architectural the wording of the illustrated in a series of style, square footage and size of yard. Interestingly, question is important to statements, put safety, on-street parking, historic significance and street commute time, afford consider in interpreting lights were cited the least often. It is possible that ability and walkability the results. For instance, on-street parking was less important, because 88% at the top of their lists. if respondents disagreed of homes have garages, and 92% have driveway with the statement, “I have great access to public parking. Historic significance is often linked to transportation,” they would be less likely to choose the unique character of the neighborhood and it as an influential factor. In other words, this is a sense of community, and street lights are viewed measure of reality, not necessarily desirability. as important for safety (or at least the perception of safety). In terms of walking preferences, 59% of respondents indicated that they walk often or While renters noted the same top factors that all of the time. More than half of those surveyed were involved in their decision to rent a given (57%) prefer to walk to destinations that are less home, they were less likely to choose road quality than 15 minutes away, with the remaining 43% and public school quality as important issues. In willing to walk to places that are farther away. this survey, renters are less likely to have garages Among those surveyed, the older age brackets and ranked availability of on- and off-street appear slightly more likely to walk often (age 40 parking as lower factors as well, so it is possible to 64) and slightly more willing to walk farther that they have fewer cars and care less about road distances than their younger counterparts (age quality than homeowners (although this was not 50 and older). Younger people (age 18 to 34, in a major factor for them, either). Renters were also particular) prefer to walk to destinations that are more likely than homeowners to be single and to less than 20 minutes away. not have any children, which could explain the lower ranking of public school quality. There appears to be a relationship between the quality of nearby amenities and people’s Homeowners and renters, when asked to rate the perceptions of safety, as well as the amount of influence of certain neighborhood and community walking that they do. In addition, of the people features on their purchase and rental decisions, willing to walk longer distances (in particular illustrated in a series of statements, put safety, 16–20 minutes), twice as many people rated the commute time, affordability and walkability at look and feel as very high, and the perceived safety the top of their lists. The least influential factors as extremely high. This finding is consistent with were access to public transportation, employment prior literature showing that the quality of the opportunities and energy efficiency. These responses may seem strange given what the literature says land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 69 70 full report ReBuilding p i often, if at all. if often, tocontributing residents’ less tendency to walk often. often. contribute to the fact less they that tend to walk which may there, to walk entertainment and the group. neighborhoods. Respondents Rochester,studies. from Walkof the highest close restaurants by.and These cities have two MI M M from Royalfrom safer. For respondents feeling and instance, walk quality ahigher having home, as of their well as distance walking more within amenities having as Finally, some viewed residents citiesby are their home.decision their to purchase among the factors were that involved their in of community sense and walkability to list likely were and more apreferenceindicated for walking home decisions. purchase factors their in influence as nearby destinations, or bike to to walk the ability and opportunities such access as to nearby recreational and parks healthy neighborhood to tended list features, also features. walkability neighborhood and preferences walking each to other, tosome appear related be also H habits (e.g.,walking people’s influences environment surrounding ndicated that they have high-quality parks parks ndicated they that have high-quality e a a alth and happiness ratings, while related to related happiness and while ratings, alth , re nitowoc, W nitowoc have lowest the two Walk port being too far away stores too far retail from being port A l so, feeling unsafe in Flint, Flint, in unsafe so, feeling H A e r O althier people claim to walk more to and walk peoplealthier claim l o ternatively, respondents in a k and Traversek and spe I I , re n terestingly, Rochester and r port feeling very safe in their their safe in very feeling port S M o c us places inmichigan ores among the 11 case ores among case the 11 o uzon, 2012). H a ppier individuals also also ppier individuals C i ty, in both MI , m MN S c L ay be ores of a , a MI nsing, nsing, nd , or less. 20 in establishment minutes or eating/drinking venueconvenience store, store, entertainment retail store,to stop, aschool, transit park, grocery majority of people (though could not walk all) walkable for fairly are a anumber of amenities; neighborhoods Respondents their reported that evaluatedsection).be the next in preferences home tend to drive prices, which will the economy and of life residents’ (as quality home pleasing (form)aesthetically to important are more communities and walkable (functional) and neighborhoods make that efforts placemaking happiness. and torelationship health Therefore, apositive has also to Walking reach destinations. to walk whether how and people far willing are impact ofsafety neighborhoods an on has home.or rent their The aesthetics perceived and involved is that people’s in decisions to purchase home.of one is their Walkability of the factors a15-minute walk within are that destinations who and cities often who to prefer walk to walk I or university/college. it that said would to work impractical be to walk few people many and very bike dedicated lanes; front porches; spaces, but plentythan of parking people-oriented.than There more are garages eleventhese cities may more be auto-oriented neighborhoods in somethat of aspects existing to create more livable walkable, neighborhoods. cities these in efforts for placemaking opportunity n g eneral, there are many people many 11 are these there in eneral, A t he same time, survey results suggest results survey he sametime, C o nsequently, an is there Part 4: Midwest Property Price Analysis

Ths i analysis builds upon previous hedonic property price analyses in the literature, including traditional structural and locational attributes, while adding certain place-based elements. Specifically, the variables of greatest interest are measurements of the amenities that exist within walking distance (estimated at one-half mile) of a home. Amenities include green spaces (such as parks or outdoor recreational opportunities), Schools, shopping (including retail, grocery, pharmacies, department stores, clothing stores, book/ music stores and liquor stores), entertainment (such as amusement parks, restaurants, bars and spectator sports) and arts and culture (including theaters, art dealers and performing arts centers).

sing the 11 Midwest cities as case study examples, this analysis seeks to assess Uthe value of place-based features (such as walkability, mixed-use and access to green space) using the hedonic property price method, which prescribes that the value (or price) of a house is based on its structural and locational attributes. Structural attributes include such things as the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, square footage, porches, garages and siding, etc. Locational attributes often include nearby parks, schools, forests and water features. In hedonic property price regression analysis, the structural and This analysis builds upon previous hedonic locational features are regressed on the sale price of property price analyses in the literature, including the home to, in effect, break down that price into traditional structural and locational attributes, its component prices (the price of each attribute). while adding certain place-based elements. The regression coefficients that are estimated from Specifically, the variables of greatest interest are the hedonic analysis represent the component measurements of the amenities that exist within (often referred to as implicit or marginal) prices of walking distance (estimated at one-half mile) housing attributes. Coefficients that are significant of a home. Amenities include green spaces (such and positive suggest a positive relationship between as parks or outdoor recreational opportunities), that home attribute and its sale price; vice versa for schools, shopping (including retail, grocery, coefficients that are significant and negative.4 pharmacies, department stores, clothing stores,

4. For a more detailed description of the Hedonic Property book/music stores and liquor stores), entertainment Price Method, please see the LPI report Building Prosperous (such as amusement parks, restaurants, bars and Places in Michigan: Understanding the Values of, Perceptions of and Barriers to Placemaking: http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/ spectator sports) and arts and culture (including modules.php?name=Documents&op=viewlive&sp_id=2083. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 71 72 full report ReBuilding p I A o 2000 and 2012.2000 and homes for year price sale sale sold and all between each contained of information cities. the 11 This coefficients are interpreted as percentages. as interpreted are coefficients model distribution ofThe the data. resulting log, which producesits natural amore normal price. The price sale variable into was transformed variable” of torelationship each sale “independent “dependent variable,” because tests the the model the as it known is variables were regressed; locational and of the homewhich all structural methods for development included is in data and their sources include: sources their and data data). These (primary collected surveys through geographic systems) information variables and (such resources were createdexisting using as (secondaryresources data), variables that information existing from variables pulled A includeThe many used foranalysis data this D forstudy. this specifically of effect variables calculated unique potential some new providing about information while the consistent previous are variables that with studies, for coefficients traditional returns that model The objective aregression to is build of the analysis centers). arts performing and dealers theaters, art n n page 130. full list of the variables and the data sources or or of sources the variablesdata and list full at formation was in collected assessor offices from 4. 3. 2. 1.

a C S P N H n t l h e o ace-Based Features. d ructural and and ructural r ighborhood ighborhood aracteristics; and aracteristics; me E o spe s S S timatio a a le le price the is variable against r P o r ice and us places inmichigan S P o ro cio- n perty Features; perty S E a c le Year; onomic onomic A p pendix pendix C

housing market collapse of 2009. to isolate housing the market fluctuations, like were 2000–2004. from dropped observations cities 2005, forback than so all all base year. how compared prices changed to the explained of each the coefficient year that which means “dummy as variables,” the model included in avariable.as The the home that year sold included was also neighborhoods within each city and between between each and city neighborhoods within between how why and prices differ property economic helped to show characteristics kept. were the number of bedrooms, with correlated footage, square and bathrooms which were often cities. The number of all including the model from consistently across cities, it had to dropped be was the not number of bedrooms provided like study avariablethe case cities. For if instance, the was assessors’ not offices consistent across provided by was the information that model attributes of the home forstructural this torelationship the home price. sale whetherand they had apositive or negative price, marginal had asignificant features these whether the explained regression variables in presence of apool. The of these coefficients basement, and finished presence of apartially basement, of aback presence of deck, afinished of presence afireplace, of afront porch, presence footage of the house, presence of agarage, presence the number square ofof bathrooms, bedrooms, home, such the variables number as including of features the property and on the structural information contains The also assessor data were 2005. compared to prices in sale I O nc n e of the challenges associated with the with associated e of the challenges luding data about neighborhood socio- neighborhood about data luding O n e of the cities did not include sales farther e of not the cities did farther include sales I n t I his model, all sales from 2006–2012 from sales all model, his n cluding this information helped information this cluding S a le were years cities. Such variables as percent vacancy (how was available within a half-mile radius of the home. many nearby properties were vacant), racial The measurements of several of these features were diversity (indicating whether the racial make- calculated using GIS, which allowed the inclusion up of the neighborhood was homogeneous of many variables that are not traditionally or heterogeneous), educational attainment available in public databases. (percentage of people in the neighborhood who Additional variables were added to test the had obtained a high school, Bachelor’s, Associate’s, synergistic effect of having more than one type of Master’s, PhD or other terminal degree), median amenity within walking distance of a home. For household income and percent poverty (how instance, an “interaction variable” was created to many households in the neighborhood fell below identify whether a home had both a restaurant the poverty line) were all readily available or and a school within a half-mile radius of their transformable from U.S. Census data at the tract, home. The coefficient of this variable can then block or block group level. The socio-economic be compared to the coefficients of the singular variables utilized in the model were included to amenity variables (in this case, the restaurant control for neighborhood conditions. variable and the school variable) to identify any co- One type of variable that represented place-based location effects. features was the distance to certain amenities, Finally, other place-based development variables specifically to a city’s downtown, lakes and rivers. were drawn from the results of the Midwest The proximity of homes to these features was Placemaking Survey, described in the previous tested at 50 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet and 200 feet to section. Variables were created based on the determine the distance at which these features following survey questions and tested in the model: began to be associated with property price changes. 1. How would you rate the overall look and Another type of variable that represented feel of a walk in your neighborhood? place-based development was the proximity to amenities, including parks, outdoor recreational 2. How safe do you feel in this neighborhood? opportunities, schools, retail, grocery, pharmacies, department stores, clothing stores, book/music 3. Is there a sidewalk in front of your home? stores, liquor stores, amusement parks, restaurants, 4. Is there a dedicated bike lane on your street? bars , spectator sports venues, theatres, art dealers and performing arts centers. Data on the location 5. How would you rate the quality of the of these amenities was drawn from land use spatial nearest park, grocery store, gas station/ data layers and Esri Business Analyst, which convenience store, bar, restaurant or café included the location of businesses across the and coffee shop? country in different industrial classifications based 6. Before you purchased your home, were any on North American Industry Classification System energy-efficiency improvements made? (NAICS) codes. An explanation of the various NAICS codes used in this analysis is provided 7. Please indicate the degree to which the in Appendix D on page 133. The variables for the following things were involved in your model indicate how many of each type of amenity decision to purchase your home: land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 73 74 full report ReBuilding p 8.

blic schools. a. b. c. m. l. k. j. i. h. e. d. n. d. c. b. a. home: your purchase your decisionstatements to influenced q. p. g. f. P o.

l

ease indicate how indicate ease much the following r o P N G N H I spaces. parking O C A S Ro R N shopping at nearby stores. to me. important places are that I I half-bathrooms. N Y T S T I am able to walk/bike to nearby many able am to walk/bike am able am to amajority of do my close to am my job. n h t otal square feet. square otal ard space.ard u he neighborhood is safe. is neighborhood he etails shopping storesetails close by. are spe o r ro e n u u u i reet lights. reet terior (design, layout). (design, terior ade trees. chitecture (orchitecture style). storic significance. storic ad quality. ad nvenience stores close by. are arby parks and recreationarby and parks areas. -street parking availability. -street parking mber ofmber bedrooms. mber ofmber private off-street mber of bathrooms and ofmber bathrooms cery stores close by. are cery r o us places inmichigan

resulting number of cases was 51,112 properties properties was number of 51,112 cases resulting (e.g.,outliers 50,000 feet), more square than the obvious exhibited orand were errors extreme $1,000; or feet; bathrooms had zero square than A Entire Midwest Dataset Analysis SSIO based on subsets dataset: of the larger r analyses, regression study includedThis three Re f ter filtering out sold that properties for filtering ter less g 3. 2. 1.

e S S coefficients across study thecoefficients case area. cities to compare theinto individual butanalysis, was the dataset broken down the first from the samemodel utilized E completed were surveys received. included only home for sales which of 2005–2012.cities over period the time home each of in the 11 sales included all l. k. j. i. h. e. g. f. u

e

n

parate rveyed tire tire is short.is affordable. are C T T T H transportation. public opportunities in this city. this in opportunities G I I the neighborhood. the healthy foods. healthy n have good and access to fresh have access to great he home efficient. energy is employment many here are ofhere community. astrong is sense o re o M An mmuting time to job time ormmuting school mes in my neighborhood neighborhood my in mes at neighbors live in C i H dwest i a ty ty o mes l D y a sis D taset: This analysis analysis This taset: D a a taset: This analysis analysis This taset:

taset: This analysis analysis This taset: a n d

Resu

l

t s throughout Davenport, IA; Flint, Grand Rapids, poverty proportion at the neighborhood scale and Kalamazoo, Lansing, Royal Oak and Traverse City, property price at the individual house level. MI; Rochester, MN; Lakewood, OH; and Madison For each percentage increase in people age 25 or and Manitowoc, WI. older with an associate’s degree or higher, home The adjusted R-squared for the model was 0.596, prices were 0.9% higher, all else remaining equal. meaning that close to 60% of the variance of the Two green amenity features were included in this natural log of sale price was explained by the model: Proximity to rivers and lakes. Instead of independent variables. measuring a linear distance, a dummy variable Variables used to predict in a typical hedonic was used to indicate if a home was located within pricing analysis were used in this model. Due to 200 feet of a river or lake. The coefficients were the limitations associated with collecting data positive and significant. Houses within 200 feet across multiple cities, the number of structural, of a river sold for 3.8% more, ceteris paribus, and socio-economic and neighborhood variables are houses within 200 feet of a lake sold for 30.5% not as prevalent as in previous studies. This data more than those that were not. circumstance likely resulted in a lower adjusted The year of sale and city in which the sale R-squared value than might typically be seen in occurred were used to control for market and this type of analysis. regional differences. The years 2006 through 2012 The number of bathrooms and square footage were analyzed, with all coefficients compared of the house were used to control for structural to the year 2005. With the coefficients for 2006 attributes of the house. All else being equal, and 2007 being insignificant, the subsequent five each additional bathroom was associated with a years (2008–2012) were significant and negative, marginal sale price of 12.8%. The coefficient on indicating that home prices were declining from the 100-square footage variable was positive and 2008 onward. All else equal, houses sold for 3% significant, indicating that each additional 100 less in 2008; 6.2% less in 2009; 6.7% less in 2010; square feet of floor space was associated with 3.5% less in 2011; and 11.6% less in 2012 than they a 1.8% higher home price. These coefficients for did in 2005. The coefficients closely mirror the structural variables were consistent with previous national recession. However, the difference in hedonic studies.

For each additional percentage increase in poverty in the Census tract, home prices were 0.1% higher. This result suggests that impoverished neighborhoods actually have higher property prices, which is counter intuitive; it is possible that the bias in the survey respondents toward wealthier individuals had an impact on this variable. One possible explanation is that the geographic area of analysis (Census tract) is too large to accurately assess the relationship between land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 75 76 full report ReBuilding p M I coefficients showed that: showed coefficients for aboutsell the sameprice. houses in similar that except for significant, the study cities. forof metropolitan population area, land and terms in because size, it close is to the median city.were compared to this the coefficients that meaning the model, from the model. included in was also The which occurred the sale in city (compared to 2005 prices). 2012 into one again year, dipped heavily then I 2011 between coefficients 2012 and interesting. is t i t w N s not clear why a similar house Rochester, in s not why clear asimilar ould appear that homeould that appear prices improved over , w „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ ould sell for less than a similar house in for asimilar ould less sell than H H H 14.8% less; more; and 49.3% more than 10.9% more; 10.9% H 56.2% more; 56.2% 5.4% less; 14.8% more; more, paribus (or ceteris equal); else all H H H H H o o o o o o o o o r uses in Traverseuses in Royal uses in uses in uses in Flint, uses in uses in uses in uses in uses in Rochester,uses in uses in uses in Kalamazoo, uses in o spe A l l of the coefficients werel of the coefficients r G D M M o a ra a venport, a L L us places inmichigan nitowoc, W L nd Rapids, dison, W dison, a a a kewood and kewood, MI nsing, nsing, O L a a L C , s k, k, nsing. D a i nsing was selected, nsing old for 30.2% less; ty, u IA MI MN MI mmy variable MI I , s MI , s , s OH MI , w I old for 9.1% , s , s old for old for 41.9% , s , s , s , suggesting , suggesting L old for old for as excludedas old for old for a old for nsing nsing

foot house in else remaining equal. equal. remaining else a3.3%was with associated lower price, all sale mile ahalf store within to agrocery proximity the home to the home’s price. sale For example, of mile place-based ahalf within characteristic of the relationship the presence of that reflect The analysis values the statistical from coefficient variable coefficients. of amenity one or more. Table sign and the degree 2indicates 1) including: were 2) and calculated, Zero dummies mile. ahalf within to five 4) and present five amenities more than 1) including: Zero,dummies, 2) one to two, 3) three between the variation towas increase calculated variable dummy additional an restaurants, and mile. ahalf within amenity 3) and mile; a half 2) mile; a half to within indicate:1) of the amenity instances Zero in in foot Rochester square price per in $56.89, is while the other cities’ average house The sizes. average (3,217 feet) square was in quite abit bigger than the average dataset, house Rochester this in in size average ($104,458). Rochester ($183,023) the than higher is than one amenity.than interaction the presence variables noting of more (walkablemile distance) of the as house, well as ahalf within amenities presence of specified The included the variables target formodel this homes availablelarger are at comparable prices. for the Rochester less in market simply because A L L a a d nsing (1,216nsing feet) square fact, in bigger than and, nsing, A L ditional statistics on the city data are available statistics are on data the city ditional a p nsing, it’snsing, $85.90. Therefore, a1,200 square pendix Fon page 142.pendix MI , w L O a hen the average housing price in n nsing, ceteris paribus, could sell paribus, could sell ceteris nsing, e instance of the amenity within within of the amenity e instance M D I O n t u o n mmy variables were created re than one of the instance re than C e explanation could be that, could that, be e explanation he of only two parks, case o nversely, the presence of a I n t he of bars case L a nsing nsing Table 2: Amenity Variable Coefficients for Entire Midwest Analysis

Interpreted Description Coefficient 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile -3.3% Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile -4.5% 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile -1.8% 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile -1.7% 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 6.4% Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 3.2% 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile -1.4% 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile -1.4% 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile -1.4% 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 5.7% 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile -11.4% 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 4.5% Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -2.7% 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile -1.9% Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 8.7% 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile -3.5% 1 Supplemental Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile -5% Source: Land Policy institute, Michigan State University, 2014. bookstore within a half mile was associated with includes proximity to shopping, but proximity a 4.5% higher sale price, all else equal. to grocery stores and department stores all showed negative relationships to property price Some of the regression results for these amenities in this model. Also, other cultural venues, like support prior literature and studies. For instance, museums, showed up as negative or insignificant a school within a half mile of a home was found relationships in the model. to have a positive significant relationship to that home’s sale price, which supports findings from It was also interesting to compare the results previous hedonic analyses that suggest school of the hedonic analysis to the results from the quality is related to property price (although the National and Midwest Placemaking Surveys. variable in this model only refers to location, not For instance, a majority of respondents from the quality). In addition, Walk Score, which is based national survey indicated that they did not want on proximity of a home to several amenities, a bar located within walking distance of their including cultural venues like theatres, showed a home; here, bars have an insignificant relationship positive relationship to sale price (Cortright, 2009; to home price. On the other hand, a majority of Pivo and Fisher, 2011). However, Walk Score also respondents said that they would like to have land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 77 78 full report ReBuilding p as one mile apart in opposite in the from apart oneas directions mile of the home, much as be mile effect, they in could, ahalf within is whetherindicate each amenity to each other; because the variables dummy only located next were not right amenities necessarily amenities. these factors the interactions and own on of their were that positive or amenities between negative There not did relationship to appear aclear be reported in coefficients (withcoefficients the remaining of selected sign interaction and variablethe degree zero. be Tableinteraction variable will 3indicates value for variable either zero, is the value for the for the interaction variable one is well. as I store a½mile). one and museumgrocery within of the values for variables two (i.e., these one one wasand createdthe product using florist showsthat store the presence of one both grocery of amenity. one For avariable type than instance, to the indicate presence the model ofused in more of ahome. Therefore, interaction variables were awalkable distance within of amenities the mix O distance. walking wanted within restaurants they that people indicated survey the national in price; most property and to restaurants proximity between relationship the negative, significant A stores home department and between price. sale seemed consistent the negative with relationship shopping home, nearby their which but not malls, majority of want respondents to did have retail for store the hedonic type analysis. grocery here, but could the data not broken be into down store may have effect of grocery an the type again, up came variables’ negative; coefficients once shopping close home, bygrocery their these and f t surprising result in the hedonic analysis was the hedonic analysis in result surprising n he value for variablesone, is both the value e of theelements most of place important is r A o p pendix pendix spe I t s r hould noted be the two that o E us places inmichigan on page 137). I f t A he

S O price was expected. negative marginal a When activities two don’t well, to mix seem to price. relationship sale anegativein significant co-located bar institutionresulted areligious with to price. sale related were negatively own, on their amenities, these despite the fact seemed appealing, that experience for convenience or amore robust entertainment because the co-locationsense, of activities these price. These interactions made positive marginal locatedstore ahouse near aflorist and hada pricesale of the home. to relationship the had apositive significant and or center) fitness alley abowling (like facility multiple or abar and recreational restaurants For the co-location sense. intuitive instance, of own. own. have positive on amenities both their coefficients haveintuitively apositive relationship, since of ahome mile would ahalf bookstore within aschool a and For having instance, to explain. interaction proved to be unimportant in the model. interaction in proved to unimportant be thus, apositive impact on housing value, but this woulda theatre and, create apositive experience multiple near having restaurants that expect might one instance, For importance. and/or significance even show lack because of of the model, their up in had apositive not to price relationship sale did noted interactions to that have one expect might negative to price. relationship sale P to be an important distinction in the in distinction important to an be which proved merchants, local independent and malls between not did model distinguish this mall); oreach strip other (as mall interior an in two next or right located the samebuilding in home. o l t acemaking acemaking me of interaction these made relationships her interaction relationships were difficult her interaction were relationships difficult H C o o wever, this interaction had a significant, wever, interaction had asignificant, this nversely, could be amenities the two S ur vey. O n t A l so, having a grocery a grocery so, having he other hand, having a having he other hand, I t s hould also be be hould also N a tional tional Table 3: Interaction Variable Coefficients for Entire Midwest Analysis

Interpreted Description Coefficient 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile -2.7% 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile -3.1% Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 3.1% 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 4.1% 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 3.4% 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile -8.2% 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -11.3% 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -6% Multiple Schools and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile -9.2% 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 2.5% 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -3.3% Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -5.1% 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile -13.7% 1 Supporting Grocery Store and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile Not Significant 1 Supporting Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 7.1% Source: Land Policy institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

These unclear findings could result from a number and their interactions, it was possible that the of circumstances. First, there could be some relationships were not linear. For instance, selection bias in the model, because only sold living within 200 feet of a restaurant might have homes are included as observations. This selection a negative significant impact on sale price, but is not random; for instance, the fact that many living 500 feet away from a restaurant could have people had a difficult time selling their homes a positive significant impact. Furthermore, that following the housing market crisis in 2008-2009 relationship could lessen the farther away from the would suggest a possible bias in the data. Second, home the restaurant was located. Walk Score, for there could be endogeneity of the target variables; instance, was based on an algorithm that assumes that is, there are other factors affecting the location the relationship between sale price and nearby and co-location of these amenities that are not amenities was not linear. Further research is included in the model. Another potential challenge needed to better understand these relationships. would be correlation between the target amenity It should be noted that these results were variables, but a statistical correlation test of the unique to this model and can not necessarily coefficients did not return any problematic results. be generalized beyond this group of cities, and Finally, while the relationship of the proximity to certainly not beyond the Midwest. It has already a home was significant for a number of amenities been mentioned that Midwest cities have had land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 79 80 full report ReBuilding p population change. population housing between prices and suggested alink pattern This outmigration. an cities experienced stable the other six while populations well, as Traverse 2010,and at rates of 1%, 12% 24% and respectively. 2000 between population growth experienced all I (Traverseperiod relatively steady housing prices over the seven-year 2012. prices in property Two in decline cities had M ( O Royal and Kalamazoo S for coefficients. across analysis comparability city impacts for each separately. city method This allows price the hedonicused when property assessing waswas also used for analysis dataset the entire the samevariables, that The including samemodel, Analysis Dataset City Separate provided in were foranalysis the coefficients regression this Tables the variable statistics descriptive with and section. the next in examined be will (and interactions) amenity cities, which between prices of amenities the marginal in differences to appeared be there elements. Furthermore, economicthe potential impact of place-based should to not broadly represent purported be to 11 it was limited Because design. to apedestrian-oriented design auto-oriented an from moving time a difficult 2005 2012 and ( housing in prices between trend declining a of the cities experienced For six instance, hedonic variables. to respect the traditional with n D o H terestingly, N me differences between cities were between apparent me differences a ) venport, ) , while three cities saw housing three prices climb , while , although C i r ty and and ty A IA o p D spe pendix pendix ; M a L M venport, a C a nsing, Flint, Flint, nsing, M a i dison did experience a experience did dison r M ty, dison, W dison, a o i nitowoc had relatively dwest cities, this analysis analysis dwest cities, this MI O us places inmichigan E on page 137. a ; a k, k, M nd a MI I dison and Rochester and dison ; a M G ; a nd Rochester, ra a nd nitowoc, W nd Rapids, L a kewood, I ) . M H U price. had apositive to relationship sale all mile a half one shop book store one within more and gift than one oneorganizations, store, theatre, department one other recreation facility, one/multiple religious one morerestaurants, school, than one museum, proximity to lakes was positive and significant for was positive to lakes significant and proximity for of the city significant and to was rivers only positive close proximity model, dataset the entire to pricerelationship sale in feet had apositive, of the property significant positive for and coefficients city. every significant associate’s were variables with or higher degree footage of percent the population and an with for its housing, reflected in higher prices.for higher its in housing, reflected demand agrowing was experiencing downtown, for known walkable its vibrant, well is that a city price. These support the results ideathat of ahome mile to added the property ahalf within multiple for bars and having restaurants instance, interaction variables were positive significant; and coefficients. significant h half mile and sale price. sale The and mile half a within amenities of between the relationship terms the cities between in differences illustrated cities. three these forvariable in coefficients this could contributepoor water quality to the negative or having potential along ariver, flood greater dam a relationship. For having this instance, affect can such feature, ariver, as of anatural the quality values. property on water increases tend living to that believe was somewhatresult counter-intuitive, people as in feet had astrong negative of actually ariver impact S o ad the most amenity variables with positive, variablesad with the most amenity n o a me coefficients from the regression analysis the analysis regression from me coefficients L wever, while having a river or lake within 200 within or ariver wever, lake having while surprisingly, the number of bathrooms, square thesurprisingly, number square of bathrooms, dison and Rochester, and dison a kewood, A d ditionally, marginal prices for several ditionally, marginal OH P , and Traverse, and re vious research has shown that shown that has vious research H MN a ving three to five three ving C . B M i ty of ty eing within 200 within eing a C dison, W dison, i ty, M MI a dison, W dison, . T M I . his his C a dison, dison, l ose ose I , D ifferences in amenity impacts between cities Surveyed Homes Dataset Analysis also could suggest that communities value Surveys were sent to home buyers in the 11 cities amenities differently. For instance, proximity to examined in this study. Information collected department stores had a negative relationship to from the surveys was combined with assessor’s property price in Davenport, Grand Rapids and data to analyze how home buyer perceptions and Rochester, but a positive relationship to property preferences related to home prices. The online price in Lansing and Madison, WI. These results survey returned 2,008 usable responses. After may suggest that people in Lansing, MI, and filtering out properties with obvious outliers (e.g., Madison like to have department stores within properties that sold for less than $1,000) or with walking distance, while people in Davenport, IA; missing data for target variables, the resulting Grand Rapids, MI; and Rochester, MN, prefer number of observations in the model was 1,682 to drive to these stores. It was also important properties throughout the 11 cities. Only home to note that some large amenities (such as a golf owner responses were included in this analysis, course or mall) may be near lots of properties because there was not enough renter observations in the analysis, and the quality of that specific to create a similar model regressing hedonic amenity could have had a sizable impact on that characteristics on rental prices. aggregate amenity’s marginal price. The values of The adjusted R-squared for the model was 0.657, residents and significant amenities that serve as meaning that close to 66% of the variance of the assets (or potentially as disamenities, if they are natural log of sale price was explained by the of poor quality) can have a major impact on the independent variables. effectiveness of placemaking efforts, as well as property prices. Assessor’s data was supplemented with survey responses on structural attributes of the home. Tables with the variable descriptive statistics and Surveys made it possible to include such features the regression coefficients for this analysis are as porches, basements, garages and others, as provided in Appendix F on page 142. Differences in well as bedrooms, where they were not available the marginal prices of proximity to amenities can in assessor’s data consistently across cities. In be noted across cities in these regression tables. many cases, the survey responses provided more In the final regression analysis, an attempt is accurate data. For instance, thousands of the made to determine whether perceptions of observations in the original assessor dataset amenities and amenity quality, rather than the showed that the house had zero bedrooms; these mere presence of amenity types within a half mile, observations were removed from the analysis. have an impact on property prices in the eleven As previous hedonic analyses have shown, Midwest cities. This analysis was smaller, because structural variables, such as the number of it incorporates responses from the Midwest bathrooms and square footage had a positive, placemaking survey, and therefore narrows significant relationship to property price. An the dataset to that group of homes from which additional bathroom added 6.2% to the property’s completed surveys were received. price, and an additional 10 square feet of space added 2.5%. The presence of a garage, fireplace, land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 81 82 full report ReBuilding p around 2007.around prices peaking sale 2000, with in than were higher forcoefficients 2002 2011 through showed prices 2000, from 2001 was different not statistically were compared to prices. 2000sale While to price. the sale related The the house that year sold was significantly price. to relationship property have asignificant 200 feet not did the presence ofwhile within ariver a33.3%was with associated price, property higher 200 feetThe of the home presence within of alake at the rates poverty between difference the scale explained have lower prices, but property once could be again neighborhoods tend to poverty higher as unexpected was result This equal. by else 0.2%,was higher all 1% households in increase poverty, price in property for model; a this price in torelationship property but positive, significant hadasmall line poverty the surrounding The equal. portion of the population in remaining pricethe sale of ahome else was 0.5% higher,all for population 1% was, every this larger significant; associate’s was positive or higher and degree of the population the in I of agood community.neighborhoods sense with welcoming,friendly house with the sidewalk, near associate the presence of front porches, of the in proponents placemaking price, and property have porchesthat can apositive to relationship equal. else price, all 10% level, subtracting 2.7% the property from atof the aporch was negative significant and 11.4%, 12.4% 6.4% and respectively. The presence prices of 14.2%, marginal level, with significance had positive atbasement the 5% coefficients also finished basement partially and finished n t erms of neighborhood erms attributes, the percentage C e nsus tractlevel. prices at and the property r o E v spe idence of the housing market crisis C e nsus tract was that below the r P o re us places inmichigan C vious literature has shown has vious literature A e nsus tract with an an nsus tract with l l years in the model the model in l years one indicated a high level of influence related to related levelone of influence ahigh indicated were converted three to zero.through Thus, a four or five, it was re-coded to one; one answers variables.dummy When arespondent answered to questions these responses were converted to much”). “very five and being “not at all” The were asked on aone-to-five (with scale one being home.decision their to purchase These questions their rate influenced whetherfeatures specific Two questions on asked the subject the survey to was lower in Rochester in than possibly, because the average foot square price per would sell for less than a similar house in for asimilar would less sell than O sample size. previous asmaller perhaps due model, to having the in than model this in significant statistically were relative to this were relativeto this the coefficients that meaning the model, from the model. included in was also The which occurred the sale in city positive, for coefficients 2009–2011. years of 2008 was apparent the lower, in though still n ce again, it ahouse that appears Rochesterce again, in „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ more; and more; 38.8% 34.3% more than 29.4% less; H H H H 8.5% less; H H o o o o o o uses in Traverseuses in Royal uses in uses in Flint, Flint, uses in uses in Rochester,uses in uses in uses in Kalamazoo, uses in S i gnificant coefficients showed coefficients that: gnificant M C a i ty. Fewer were coefficients L dison, W dison, a MI nsing, nsing, O L a a C , s k, k, nsing. i old for 25.2% less; ty, MI MN L MI MI I a MI , s , s nsing. , w , s , s old for old for 38.5% , s old for old for as excludedas old for L

a nsing, nsing, the question on the survey, and a zero indicated questions were converted to dummy variables. the opposite (including a low level of influence, When a respondent answered four or five, it or no influence). When entered into the hedonic was re-coded to one; answers one through three regression, it was possible to answer the question: were converted to zero. Thus, a one indicated a Do people pay more or live in higher priced perception of the neighborhood being very to homes when they feel that specific place- and extremely safe, and a zero indicated the opposite community-based features are influential? (including moderately safe to not at all safe). When entered into the hedonic regression, it was All influence factors were tested separately and possible to answer the question: Do people pay together in the model. In the final model, variables more or live in higher priced homes when they were reduced to those that were either the most feel that the neighborhood is very to extremely influential factors, based on survey responses, and/ safe? This variable did not have a significant or had significant coefficients. relationship to sale price in the model. Another question in the survey asked people about The survey asked some questions for which the quality of different close-by amenities, and answers could be related. For instance, the the look and feel of a walk in their neighborhood. influence of the ability to walk and bike to nearby These questions were asked on a one-to-five scale places was somewhat correlated with the look (with one being “very poor quality” and five and feel of a walk in the neighborhood. There was being “very high quality”). The responses to these also significant correlation between each of the questions were converted to dummy variables. responses about the quality of the closest amenity; When a respondent answered four or five, it this result could be because there was an actual was re-coded to one; answers one through three relationship between quality of amenities (i.e., in a were converted to zero. Thus, a one indicated a nice neighborhood, all of the amenities tend to be high level of quality related to the question on of better quality), or due to survey bias (i.e., people the survey, and a zero indicated the opposite tend to rate most options on one end of the quality (including neutral to very poor quality). When scale or the other). Because of these relationships, entered into the hedonic regression, it was only one variable among similar variable types was possible to answer the question: Do people pay included in the model. more or live in higher-priced homes when they feel that the nearest amenities to their home were of The results showed that the strong influence of high quality, or that the look and feel of a walk in street lighting had a negative relationship to sale their neighborhood is high quality? price; that is, if the homeowner stated that the presence of street lighting had a strong influence Since safety was one of the biggest influence on their decision to purchase the home, the home factors for home purchase decisions, a variable had a 5.5% lower sale price, all else equal. While on the perceived safety of the neighborhood was street lighting has been linked to perceptions about included. This question was asked on a one-to- safety, this result could suggest that people do not five scale (with one being “not at all safe” and five like bright lights coming through their windows being “extremely safe”). The responses to these land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 83 84 full report ReBuilding p S P community attachment ( community elements for were important openness and factor the from This to appears support findings home their purchase paid 4.2% equal. else more, all factor decision to their in influential nearby an as acheaper house, find well. as hopefully peoplewhile for looking affordable housing would aprofit when resold, up turn and fixed be can that look generally forpotential lower priced homes ahome to purchase looking are for its income sincepeople was intuitive who finding This decision paid 4.3% 7.6% and less, respectively. factors home their purchase in strong influence affordable housingthe neighborhood in were of of ahomepotential the availability and Respondents who the investment that indicated finding was somewhat consistent astudyfinding by with a3.3% price. This with associated property higher was at influence the 10% level; this significant had apositive price, to relationship property recreation of and parks The strong influence or school nearby and shopping not did show of home interior,influence commute to job the in property fronting impact of apark was about 20% or abutting on an C D can add to aproperty’scan value ( consistent found prior that with studies trees for canopy. ahouse agreen with was result This to pay more people that suggesting were willing equal, else a6.6% price, all sale with higher was associated of shadetrees The strong influence respondent that indicated e survey neighborhood not did have street lights. he/she moved home because to their their partly at night. o e ro e ople who cited the presence neighbors of great ul of the ul spite being cited as important factors,spite cited important as the being mpton (2005), which found the economic that O n r C o o mmunity research that welcomeness that research mmunity spe r o us places inmichigan U G n a ited llup, 2010). S a S nder et al., 2008). etnder al., t ates. a H I I not have bike adedicated lane. homes front, 93% in had asidewalk of homes did for 84% of While of either characteristics. these of variability was there notthat degree alarge could due result be This to the factcoefficient. model. front of the in homebike lane the were tested in Finally, the presence dedicated and of asidewalk the model. to pricerelationship sale in coefficient. significant not did neighborhood, show also their a in safe indication one that to felt extremely very to relationships home price. sale significant between the model’sbetween variables. independent by bias and/or affected be survey relationships toadded home cities. 11 these prices in the neighborhood look in feel of and awalk quality ahigh- as neighbors, well as great having and trees recreation, of and parks shade the strong influence positive to price relationship the sale of ahome; by resident perceptions to appeared have a it would, theoretically, costs. reduce utility have apositivemight impact on price, because sale improvements the home in made before its sale to appear related. be safety about the perceived look and feel of and awalk section, responses results thestated survey in had a negative marginal price. had anegative marginal efforts, placemaking in ofof community sense measure the presence important of aporch, an price. sale a strong association with commute nearby and shopping, not did register home hometheir decision, purchase like interior, few factors to people that important cited being as t w n s ddition, the perceptionddition, of safety, the is that o wever, this variable did not have a significant wever, not variable did have this asignificant ummary, someummary, elements of place measured as as hypothesized that having energy efficiency efficiency energy having that hypothesized as N e ither variable returned a significant asignificant ither variable returned H o wever, was as previously S o me results couldme results I n a H ddition, ddition, o wever, a I n Tables with the variable descriptive statistics and interaction of two negative amenities resulted in the regression coefficients for this analysis are a positive coefficient. These results could be the provided in Appendix G on page 159. product of statistical errors in the model, or could suggest that there are other relevant, untested Discussion aspects of these amenities other than their This section provides a brief summary of the location within a half mile radius of a home. They interesting findings from the three hedonic could also suggest that placemaking is not a clear- property price models. cut process, whereby co-locating a certain mix of One proxy for place in this analysis was measured amenities within a walkable neighborhood will, in by the presence of certain amenities within a half- isolation, stimulate higher property prices. mile (walkable distance) of a home. The proximity Proximity of amenities appears to be related to of some amenities, including one or more schools, home sale price in different ways between the 11 a theatre company/dinner theatre, a bookstore or Midwest cities, suggesting that community values more than one gift/novelty/souvenir store, had a or amenity positive relationship to the sale price of a home. Proximity of amenities appears quality vary from However, the proximity of several other amenities, to be related to home sale price community to in different ways between the 11 including one or more grocery stores, one or more community, and Midwest cities, suggesting that restaurants, a museum, a recreational facility, more possibly from community values or amenity than one religious organization, a department neighborhood to quality vary from community to store, more than one bookstore, a clothing store, neighborhood. It community, and possibly from a florist or a supplemental grocery store, had a was discovered neighborhood to neighborhood. negative relationship to property price. In some that in Madison, WI, a city with a growing cases, these results were consistent with previous population, had more positive coefficients for close literature that suggests schools are often a positive amenities than any of the other cities in the analysis. factor for home buyers, while a department store may be viewed as less desirable. However, the Using survey responses in the hedonic analysis finding that the presence of multiple restaurants allows for the evaluation of residents’ perceptions, was a negative factor seemed surprising given as opposed to physical locations measured by survey responses that showed people’s desire to spatial data. This distinction was important as have them close by. a home may be located close by a park, but the resident could not walk there due to obstacles like The impact of the presence of different amenities traffic or fences. In this property price analysis, became less clear when measured together some elements of place as measured by resident through interaction variables. While one might perceptions, like parks and recreation, shade trees expect having two amenities with a positive and having great neighbors, appeared to have a marginal property price within a half mile of a positive relationship to sale price. A high-quality home to have a positive, perhaps larger coefficient, look and feel of a walk in the neighborhood also this result was not borne by the model. In many added to home prices in these 11 cities. However, cases, the interaction of two positive amenities place-based elements, such as porches, short resulted in a negative coefficient, while the land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 85 86 full report ReBuilding p additional information about information additional the co-location of aliquoras store). could provide analysis This (such aschool) as the absence and of another (such the presence of onevariables indicating amenity of interaction tothe coefficients measure analysis could dataset include an on this research Further amenities. other with interacted when compared across of ahome distance (one mile)walking varies half within amenities price of certain the marginal and result, had the expected amenities prices, not all property by measured as increased benefits, placethat have elements positive can economic support the results hypothesis these While 8.7% prices (by property 10.3%, and respectively). Walk I from different not statistically a Walk 36%),prices (by nor for than Flint, not did trend hold prices. This forproperty true and Traverse L M Walk city between was se, the connection per the hedonic analysis A positive price. sale association with commutes nearby and shopping, not a did register A a n i , a nsing (47),nsing included Royal dwest cities with a higher Walkdwest ahigher cities with other interesting finding, although of not part finding, other interesting M nd L MI S a a c dison, W dison, nsing (48),nsing lower property but significantly M S ores (46 44, and respectively), but higher C , w c a ore of 68, but were prices that property i nitowoc, W r ty, hich had a slightly higher Walk higher had aslightly hich o MI spe I (98), (55), to appeared have high also r S o c ores and property prices. ores property and us places inmichigan G I M L , h ra a i kewood, ad slightly lowerad slightly dwest cities or when nd Rapids, O L a k, k, a nsing. nsing. MI OH S c (59), MI ore than ore than , which had D (54), a venport, S c ore M A M phenomenon. this capture for could feet500 possibly instance, a½mile, and door. next right them without having amenities of certain distance walking to within be like suggested people that been it has amenities; would positive negative with and amenities coefficients. general, more sustainable places. sustainable more general, young more talent, viable in economically and to more morebe appealing pedestrian-oriented, to downtowns their to transform communities within policies programs and placemaking current The section of next overview abrief provides activities. placemaking embrace economic on forinformation the potential benefit based development would provide additional evaluationThis cities of for model place- of mayapparent. more arelationship be readily the walkable, presence already are cities that in the impact of place prices elements on property By analyzing auto- pedestrian-oriented. than to scale. perhaps and international, on anational, analysis hedonic would asimilar toof be perform research line this The step most for important furthering housing. with uses preferences (or of certain for lack thereof) amix it would suggest some wereeffect significant, n e i M dwest cities, in particular dwest particular cities, in other analysis could assess the could “donut assess other analysis effect” of asuring the presence of amenities between between the presence of amenities asuring i dwest they cities that tend is to more be O M n e problem with limiting the analysis the analysis e problem limiting with i chigan that seek to help seek that chigan O f c M ourse, if the donut if ourse, i chigan cities, to chigan M i chigan chigan Part 5: Michigan’s Current Policies and Programs (MIplace Partnership Initiative)

Ot u of the work of the sense of place council and the Interdepartmental Collaboration Committee came an initiative called the MIplace Partnership, which was created to provide education and training, tools and technical assistance with regional and local plans to Michigan communities. The goal of the MIplace Partnership Initiative is to create more jobs, attract and retain talented workers, and raise incomes, at least in part, through targeted local and regional placemaking activities; thereby restoring prosperity in Michigan.

at the local and regional level with some education, training, tools and technical assistance to affect placemaking in Michigan communities.

The Michigan Sense of Place Council was formed by the Michigan Municipal League (MML) and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), to bring together a diverse group of public, private and non-profit leaders to promote principles and practices that create attractive places to live, work and play, as well as encourage strategic activities that lead to retention and attraction of talent. This Council has worked diligently to coordinate State resources around n the first phase of this study, it was discovered “place-based” community investment, to support that there was a lack of understanding among regional planning, and to gather evidence of the Iseveral key stakeholder groups, including positive impacts of placemaking. The partnership developers and lending institutions, about of these stakeholder groups has been very placemaking. In addition, a 2012 survey by LPI important to the infusion of placemaking into and MSU’s Institute for Public Policy and Social policies and programs around the state and, in Research revealed that only 1.4% of Michigan’s particular, in the state government. population was “very familiar” with the term In an address in 2011, “placemaking” and another 13.1% were “somewhat In an address in 2011, Michigan Governor familiar” with the term. The surveys that LPI Michigan Governor Rick Rick Snyder stated, conducted showed that many local government Snyder stated, “I don’t “I don’t separate officials, developers, financial institution separate place making from placemaking representatives and the general public believe in economic development. from economic the positive economic impact of placemaking, They are intertwined.” development. They though the process, methods and logistics are less This commitment are intertwined.” clear. These findings suggest the need for some to place-based development has permeated state-level outlooks and actions over the

intervention by state leaders to provide stakeholders land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 87 88 full report ReBuilding p I loan and technical assistance decisions assistance based technical loan and to guide of criteria changes. acemaking without statutory or rules placemaking local to assist could that modified be loanand programs anumber of existing identified has CEMA The P ( P past few years. M innovative approaches. The consistent and balanced, through challenges agencies complex toof address the different expertise the varied harnesses that managers Transportation; the Technology, Regulatory and D development and placemaking. and development economic engaged entities among between in and O I A P M P assistance with regional and local plans to plans local and regional with assistance tools technical and education training, and the restoring prosperity in in prosperity restoring activities; thereby placemaking regional and targeted local through incomes, at part, least in workers, talented attract raise retain and and partners, consists of programs. the following partners, U I CC nt n I l a a l u CC e n u acemaking acemaking itiative, led by i i rtnership rtnership whichrtnership, was created to provide velopment; velopment; thority; and the and thority; chigan chigan chigan communities. The communities. goal ofchigan the erdepartmental erdepartmental a t of the work of the iversity the and ICC include fostering and promoting and include fostering collaboration ICC ) , agroupof came an initiative called the called initiative an came

P I n a D l r k e M I o ddition, the groupestablishedddition, aset partments of partments n i P n E a itiative to is create more jobs, spe a I n nagement &Budget; Treasury; rtnership rtnership g T g t sp A MSHDA vironmental Quality; Quality; vironmental S f fairs; fairs; t r MSHDA S C MML ate agency and directors arked the creation of a o M t o o ate agencies in making grant, grant, ate agencies making in o llaboration llaboration i P us places inmichigan S chigan chigan M lk a e N rtnership rtnership serving as major as serving nse ofnse with with i at S chigan. The chigan. A i u t . T ICC ural Resources; Resources; ural g bcommittee of the bcommittee riculture and Rural Rural and riculture he objectives of the L M P a members include l nd Bank nd Bank ace C i chigan chigan S o S u mmittee mmittee t MI C bcommittee bcommittee ate grant ate grant MI L o MI uncil and and uncil p i censing censing lace p S p t lace ate lace The website about includes information what also the asearchable database at provided in are programs, assistance technical and resources financial both including programs, principles. These existing studies, newsstudies, events. and publications available online, placemaking studies, research offer, placemaking M of 2013. 2013; another 1,200 and were targeted for the rest July between 2012 1, the curriculum June and 30, the 100 level). hoursto (about six one hour for each module at (about hours module per six at level) the 300 down 36 hours from modules varies six fortime all 200 level; –100 introductory and level). Teaching practitioner level; –300 stakeholder interested – 2,200 slides) levels available is (teacher/ at three (more module series the nation. six This than ever developed in anywhere on placemaking rolled out comprehensive the first curriculum 2013,ring the CATIO D E to commitment on local this curriculum.this The curriculum includes: through agencies on placemaking were trained du u i chigan downtowns and neighborhoods and have downtowns to chigan MI „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ p M lace initiative website:lace initiative www. M and M M M M I M n o volvement; and volvement; o o o o o o re than 300 staff within six major six within staff 300 re than dule 4: Form dule 2: dule 1: dule 6: dule 5: dule 3: n C A

on a b n MI out 3,800 people to were exposed nections; d P C A E N p e T c p o lace partners created and lace partners ople, e onomics of llaborative plied ighborhoods, r a S P t i P rategic l n anning and Regulation; and anning P l aces and i l ng M acemaking. i chigan case case chigan P P P l u ace; l acemaking acemaking blic S M P t l reets acemaking; I p lace.org

S t ate . Trainings will continue to be offered by the „„ Specific action plan, and/or conceptual MIplace partnerships over the next two years design related to a selected project; and to interested stakeholder groups. Classes will „„ Final report document that recaps be taught by the 120 individuals who have methodology, relevant findings, potential been trained in the instruction of placemaking barriers to success and suggestions for curriculum. A guidebook synthesizing the leveraging resources and partnerships. curriculum is being prepared by the MSU Land Policy Institute in Spring 2014. P klaCEMar et P laceMarket is a marketplace of successful, P laCEplans completed placemaking projects that enhance the Through “PlacePlans,” the Michigan Municipal stability of a community and the quality of life League and MSU School of Planning, Design and within it through physical improvements, as well Construction (SPDC) are assisting communities as social and entrepreneurial activities, which in planning a specific, high-impact, place-based create a sense of place. These are scalable solutions project to spark momentum for long-term that include step-by-step guides, supporting success. Activities include cataloguing assets; materials and documentation. PlaceMarket also setting strategic priorities; integrating place- serves as a network of place makers on the ground, based development within master plans and doing the work. other formalized strategies; selecting technical expertise for preparing specific studies, materials, The Michigan Municipal League and other designs and plans (such as a downtown members of the Sense of Place Council have residential market study; a design charrette for a created more than 37 PlaceMarket case studies of key public space; or a multi-modal transportation placemaking in action at the local level in Michigan, plan), executing public engagement strategies and which are all available at the MIplace website. implementing on-the-ground projects. In the current phase of the MIplace initiative, the In the first phase that took place from July 2012 number and range of PlaceMarket case studies through August 2013, MML and MSU completed will be expanded. four PlacePlans to demonstrate how planning can be used to identify and prepare for local Mmeeasure nt and Outcomes placemaking implementation efforts. In the I n order to assess the progress of the MIplace current phase that started September 2013 and initiative, various metrics are under development will wrap up at the end of August 2014, products to document work completed and its impact, will include eight PlacePlans; four by MML and its including surveys of people participating in consultant team, and four by faculty and students a training, and those using various tools and at MSU’s SPDC. For each community project, the technical assistance resources. The LPI will final product to the community will include a: analyze participant data from training programs using the curriculum and feed data into the „„ Catalogue of place-based assets and a metrics analysis for the Initiative. The LPI and comprehensive list of key stakeholders; MSU Extension Greening Michigan Institute have created a follow-up survey instrument and process „„ Prioritization of potential place projects; land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 89 90 full report ReBuilding p “what” and “how” of placemaking; toolkits and and toolkits “how” and “what” of placemaking; key and stakeholders about officials and the staff of education/training approach goal encompasses broad this to achieving activities. The mostplacemaking effective in create incomes jobs, restore and raise prosperity The well. process as this into feed results afew will and months earlier training to sendattendedthe to that persons M MI i chigan through targeted local and regional regional and targeted local through chigan p lace r o P a spe rtnership rtnership r o S us places inmichigan t ate and local governmentate local and I n itiative seeks toitiative seeks P l acemaking acemaking through the support and guidance of the the support guidance and through of arelativelyshort time, period in change physical significant to make marshaled be will of private and local in resources regional, action plans. project local engagement;local specific and improvements; forplans targetedplacemaking strategic action local stakeholders; and regional and for assistance officials local technical direct S u P bcommittee and the and bcommittee l ace C o uncil, uncil, A significant amount of significant ICC

P MI l acemaking acemaking p lace I n itiative. P a S rtnership rtnership t M ate, S i chigan chigan e nse nse Part 6: Recommendations

Based on the results of this placemaking Study, the following recommendations for further research, outreach and implementation are proposed.

ased on the results of this placemaking characteristics of place, largely based on study, the following recommendations secondary data and people’s perceptions Bfor further research, outreach and of existing infrastructure. While an implementation are proposed. attempt was made to better understand the “quality” aspect of place-based 1. Move beyond Midwest characteristics through the Midwest boundaries to understand Placemaking Survey, the data reflects and model placemaking: subjective perceptions, rather than a N aturally, a study performed for Michigan consistent, objective assessment. The began with research phases in the state results instigate more questions. Is and the broader Midwest region. However, the grocery store around the corner given the understanding that this state, a “Mom and Pop” or big box store? as the birthplace of the automobile, is How many people use this park on the predisposed to auto-orientated community weekend? Would parents feel safe letting design, it would seem to be beneficial to their children cross the street at this extend the analysis outside of Michigan intersection? Further analysis with on- and the Midwest to assess the economic the-ground data collection about form value of place-based characteristics in more and sociability characteristics of place, pedestrian-oriented locations. While there and their interaction with function, could is general concern that successful models create a more robust model and permit from other places won’t be applicable to the further investigation of the value of Michigan urban areas, there are ways to place-based development. adapt place-based development techniques to cooler weather climates. If people, 3. Take a holistic view of particularly young knowledge workers, the social, economic and are attracted to places like Chicago, IL; environmental impacts of Minneapolis, MN; Portland, OR; and placemaking: This study begins Seattle, WA, weather will not deter them to evaluate some of the local economic from coming to Michigan cities with the impacts of place-based development, right urban atmosphere. but property price effects are simply one measure of the benefits of placemaking. 2. DiSCOver how form and Other studies have assessed the impacts sociability interact with of place-based characteristics, or the function to create positive products of placemaking. For instance, place-based development: O ne Leinberger’s WalkUp studies include limitation of the property price study measures of social equity in walkable was its main focus on the functional land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 91 92 full report ReBuilding p 4.

m “ and real impacts should real and measured. be other these potential value of placemaking, comprehensive atruly of view obtain the To households. low-income or workforce developments not are affordable that for Michigan in first consequences. negative have can unintended, program, any other policy or like placemaking, civic processes.Furthermore, and business for governmental, improving just its have creations, can benefits not process ofthe actual placemaking, and and contributes Walk to ahigher of aproperty distance walking within store the presence of agrocery instance, of aphysical For address. the walkability (weighted for importance) to measure locations of destinations of avariety on data and algorithms proprietary some limitations. Walksome limitations. of place-based development, but it has measure aggregate the existing best G E success: placemaking categoriesthe following of for metrics U places.urban The D pl c i r e et ven the finding of this study that of this ven the finding r onomic, onomic, ban ban v o a S LPI r e o ce spe l cial cial i S cs o t report on Building Prosperous Places udies and and udies ” , placemaking efforts can lead to can efforts , placemaking p r : C P met ore probably is Walk o a u a pital ( blic blic us places inmichigan

A com r s w H i MI S c P c MI e as mentionedas the in

l p alth/ o T anning suggests suggests anning U r ’s T r s e , 2013). S D e & set h H c e ore uses e partment of partment e althy althy n A

S c s of I c tivity, n a i ore. v L

e ddition, ddition, i

ving ving data, the data, Walk of the accessibility system, with scoring collection.data basedon and existing the internet, ( the spectrum, measure. not afull about; proxy, excellent it an really is but of what place-baseda part development is only comprises walkability Furthermore, efficacy of placemaking efforts. placemaking of efficacy used be to then evaluate can metrics the metrics. These and place benchmarks Walk safety, public etc. safety, While traffic, amenities, connectivity, form, pedestrian of of aspects place, such aesthetics, as to collect objective on data avariety a162-itemis audit used be tool can that I weather conditions ( of water bodies or inclement barriers, topography,traffic, walking natural and crime from safety street design, block length, width, sidewalk width, account such for street as other things, Walk or other place values. walkability enhance may not destinations these consistently negativelybe price, to property related stores sometimes can presence of grocery MI I MI , w ) t S S S ould be beneficial to establishing to establishing ould beneficial be o c c c ore the thoroughness and of the through attainable ore readily is ore is limited in its ability to its ability in ore limited is M IMI e asure Built Built asure requires intensive primary intensive primary requires I r D vine vine e veloping in-between an O C n t M a i E 2010). et al., rr he other end of the nnesota nnesota n vironments vironments I n ventory GIS

for creating more diverse, welcoming, economically competitive places. Target market analyses can help communities to be more informed about what growing population segments want to see in their neighborhoods and communities, aiding in the effective implementation of place- based economic development.

6. DeFIne best practices for including people (especially underrepresented populations) in the placemaking process: Once again, placemaking is about creating spaces with a high quality of life that is attractive to people and businesses. In order to do so, placemaking efforts need to engage and empower people to participate in helping 5.uct Cond target market to shape their community. Some groups, analysis for the residential such as low-income households, LGBTQ and commercial aspects (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or of place: It is important to include questioning) individuals, minorities, existing community residents and persons with disabilities, immigrants and businesses in placemaking activities; students, tend to be underrepresented their values, ideas and goals for the places in community planning processes. where they live and work are important to Communities that engage in placemaking preserving and enhancing quality of life. need a set of best practices for ensuring However, with so many demographic and that underrepresented populations are economic changes at play in Michigan, the included. Activities like easily accessible nation and the world, it is also critical to charrettes, online/social media surveys understand the values, ideas and goals of and “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” projects other people and businesses that currently can help to engage people from a variety of don’t reside in these communities, backgrounds in the placemaking process. especially those that we want to attract land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 93 94 full report ReBuilding p r o spe r o us places inmichigan Part 7: Conclusion

At the national level, people believe that there is a connection between placemaking and economic development, as well as between placemaking and quality of life. Their perceptions about whether their neighborhood and community are batter places to live now than five years ago appears to be associated with place-based characteristics, such as visual appeal, mixed-use, shopping, social activities, bike lanes or paths/trails, arts and culture experiences and public transportation. People stated that they want a variety of amenities within a 10-minute walk of their home, including neighborhood grocery stores, farmers’ markets, independent local merchants, sandwich shops, coffee shops, parks with multiple uses, libraries, movie cinemas and art fairs. These findings are consistent with past studies that sought to understand what people want in their neighborhoods, like the National Association of Realtors’ Consumer Preference Survey.

he second phase of the Rebuilding At the national level, people believe that there is a Prosperous Places project sought to address connection between placemaking and economic Ttwo major questions related to placemaking: development, as well as between placemaking and quality of life. Their perceptions about whether 1. How do citizens view placemaking, their neighborhood and community are better both in terms of what value it has for places to live now than five years ago appears to their communities and what types be associated with place-based characteristics, of “place amenities” they like to have such as visual appeal, mixed-use, shopping, social within their neighborhoods? activities, bike lanes or paths/trails, arts and 2. What economic value does place-based culture experiences and public transportation. development derive in a neighborhood, as People stated that they want a variety of measured by the change in housing prices amenities within a 10-minute walk of their home, in places that boast such characteristics including neighborhood grocery stores, farmers’ as walkability, access to green space and markets, independent local merchants, sandwich mixed-use developments? shops, coffee shops, parks with multiple uses, libraries, movie cinemas and art fairs. These land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 95 96 full report ReBuilding p neighborhoods, like the neighborhoods, like sought what to understand people their want in consistent that past are studies with findings I C H exist and should and addressed. be exist still expenses encourage noise higher and crime, economic well-being, concernsabout how it might improves placemaking that understanding an but community. somewhere their in else distance, walking malls) and within bars (like people crime, prefer amenities not to have certain and traffic like some with associated amenities, preferences.these noted also some transects urban respondents from suburban and skewedbe respondents, toward rural use housing.of from land Though may the survey lots, suburban aseparation and parks of other types suburbanpreference and forlocations, larger rural suburban respondents. and among the rural particularly communities, denser,busier in the pros cons and of living Realtors’ preferred neighborhoodpreferred feature. processes. placemaking and planning they that have access to assuming revitalization, downtown in to influential be likely are desires their growing, and large groupsdemographic are home. of their Because distance these walking venues within cultural and arts and restaurants older age groups tothan wantentertainment, bars, Young of amenities. variety people more are likely developmentsmixed-use, green access to a with groups of peopleare walkable, who prefer highly there that evidence supportResults the growing whether areas, byurban choice or necessity. income households, to more live in are likely (age to 25 34), non-white households low- and n t e o rtain demographics, including young people including demographics, rtain wever, ambivalence ageneral is there about he M i dwest, walkability was noted a as dwest, walkability C o r nsumer nsumer o spe D r u P o e to the negative externalities e to the negative externalities re us places inmichigan M ference N a a ny people a indicated tional tional S I u t i A rvey. ss s one of the ociation of D e spite I N their home.their of a15-minute walk within are that destinations toas reach destinations) to prefer and to walk (most often walk for likely recreation, well as of off- these on-street and in parking away.far garagesplenty There many and are work would impractical, because be it was too to most peopleimportant, walking that said ashort commute was viewedhaving as time, important. quality. high very convenience stores coffee and or shops, high as stores, gas station/ restaurants, parks, grocery including amenities, nearest of their quality orminutes less. 20 in establishment venue or eating/drinking convenience store, store, entertainment retail store, to stop, aschool, transit park, walk grocery amajority ofa number people of amenities; could walkable for fairly neighborhoods are their that happiness, well. as showed apositive and to relationship health safety. did as to reach destinations, walk Walking to on whether how and people far willing are impact ofperceived safety neighborhoods an has 20 away. minutes less than The aesthetics and are that topreference destinations to walk Younger people (age 18 to 34) astronger exhibited younger their counterparts. than distances farther (age to walk 40to 64) more willing slightly and often brackets to more walk likely slightly appear 11 these in homes. orto purchase rent their factors involved often is that people’s in decisions neighborhoods, which suggests auto-orientation. auto-orientation. suggests which neighborhoods, of employment the opportunities. availability and efficiency energy home were significance, historic the decision to affect or to purchase likely rent a n a o t all place-basedt all attributes were viewed as ddition, while being close to one’s being while ddition, job or M A A i m dwest they cities that indicated m ong the factors were that least ong the older those surveyed, age M o M st homeowners rated the i dwest respondents reported M a ny people M i dwest H istoric preservation, energy efficiency and job to residential housing a commercial prices opportunities have been notes as important (Cortright, 2009; Leinberger, 2013). components of placemaking. The marginal price of proximity to a certain Just as there appear to be some mixed preferences amenity does not appear to be the same across for place-based attributes based on survey the 11 Midwest cities. This result could mean responses, the connection between place features that people in one city value being able to walk and economic value (specifically, property prices) to that amenity, while people in another city in the 11 Midwest cities varied as well. The results don’t. It could also be the result of “noise” or of the hedonic analysis suggested that the value of omissions in the models; that is, the amenity’s having a certain amenity near a house could have other characteristics or other features of the an impact on its property price; however, it does neighborhood are making it difficult to measure not appear that one type of amenity always had a the impact of amenity proximity. positive value in every neighborhood, while other It is likely that there are other aspects of the amenity types always had a negative value. besides close proximity that could also affect Across the Midwest cities, close proximity to home price, such as the quality or affordability of some amenities, like schools, theatres, bookstores that amenity. It is also likely that the relationship and gift shops, appeared to be positively related between amenity proximity and home sale price to home sale price. However, proximity to other was not linear; that is, having the amenity abutting amenities, like grocery stores, restaurants, the property could have a negative marginal price, museums and department stores, appeared while being a little farther down the block could to be negatively related to home sale price. have a positive marginal impact. Further research These results were somewhat surprising since is needed to discover what other neighborhood a majority of people surveyed, at least at the elements related to placemaking, such as quality national level, indicated a preference for grocery of amenities, form (streetscape, aesthetics, etc.) stores, restaurants and museums within walking and affordability, are related to property prices. A distance. Furthermore, having two amenities better understanding of the nature of the proximity with a positive marginal price within a half relationship is also needed. A more detailed analysis, mile of a home did not necessarily have a greater, with primary data collection of both quantitative positive marginal price than those amenities and qualitative information, should be conducted on independently. In fact, in most cases, the effect of a national scale. two positive amenities within a half mile had a The hedonic model that utilized perception-based negative marginal price. Conversely, having two data (from the Midwest survey), as opposed amenities with negative marginal prices within a to physical locations measured by spatial data, half mile sometimes had a positive relationship to returned mixed results as well. Some elements home sale price. Again, these results are confusing, of place-based development, like parks and because having multiple amenities within a half recreation, shade trees and having great neighbors, mile suggests true walkability, which was a noted appear to have a positive relationship to sale preference among Midwest survey respondents price. A high-quality look and feel of a walk in the and has also been shown to be positively related land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 97 98 placemaking concepts

full report activities, particularly It isclearthat people and capacity to carry quality oflife intheir understanding about there isstill agapin out theseactivities. recognize thevalue ReBuilding p development and communities, but of placemaking not to price have relationship sale across aclear does amenities to single closethat proximity environment; built people-oriented, to opposed M the in areas); particularly areas, downtown that low-density development isolated and residential uses, of separation (including development and “sprawl” design toward community mindset a people many suggest that results maintain certain perceptions of citizen and placemaking, on the placevalue of place-based trends, elements support previous literature findings these While minimized. be can negativethese externalities to the table parties affected to plan, vision and of the way, done all is adeliberate in bringing congestion. general and lack of affordability crime, more is there traffic, where environment an neighborhoods, creating on impacts negative have can development the decision one’s to purchase home. factors in notedprice, despite influential as being not apositivedid sale register association with porches,as short commutes nearby and shopping, cities. toneighborhood added home 11 these also prices in to economic i dwest, still exemplify an auto-oriented, an as exemplify dwest, still H o wever, other place-based elements, such r o spe r H residents, that more that residents, compact suburban and among rural general mindset, particularly activities. a these There also is out capacityand to carry concepts placemaking about agap understanding in still butcommunities, is there their in of life quality and development economic activities, particularly to the value of placemaking I t i o o wever, when placemaking placemaking when wever, us places inmichigan s clear that people recognize people that s clear recognize MI H feelings amongvisitors. and residents feelings core, places have that good form evoke and positive states must or urban have downtown, functional isolation by afforded low neighborhoods. density would prefer to have the space, privacy and available are to people of life, who quality high a suburban and with many Rural communities, implement these strategies. to assistance technical and resources providing level and regional atand the local placemaking in stakeholder the myriad groups involved train and The placemaking. in interested communities to assistance toolsof resources, technical and provision and logisticsofand placemaking; to as the benefits leaders, stakeholders citizens and continued educationof placemaking; of community investigation benefits the into quantifiable further warrant prices. Theseproperty circumstances neighborhood, atto respect higher least with awalkable within ofrecipe amenities for amix not is there that and yetgeographic areas; a“magic” play and, most importantly, stay. activities—places where people want to work live, more and diversity; business entrepreneurial and human space; more greater offerings; green recreational and cultural entertainment, in variety foropportunities interaction; improved more social more choices housing transportation; in and to helpachieve communities these can efforts for to and residents attract young talent. of life totargeted strategies improve the quality in centers, particularly thriving economy,thriving knowledge to a creative and necessary resources the competitiveto globally be aggregating in o p wever, existing downtowns and major and downtowns urban wever, existing lace P a rtnership rtnership M i I chigan and other and chigan n M itiative helping is to educate i chigan, are in need of in are chigan, P M l acemaking acemaking I i n o dwest rder rder Part 8: Appendices Appi end x A: National Placemaking Survey Response summary Definitions „„ Alternative transportation For the purpose of this survey, “placemaking” is choices (walking, biking, public defined as: . . . The targeted improvement of a place, transportation, etc.); within a neighborhood or community, that uniquely „„ Public spaces (squares, plazas, creates a functional space with a variety of uses, that courtyards, etc.); is appealing to a wide range of people and that has an identifiable character, or “sense of place.” „„ Green/open spaces (parks, trails, playgrounds, etc.) Placemaking typically include elements that are designed for use and enjoyment by people. These For the purpose of this study, please consider elements include: the following definitions to describe the area surrounding where survey respondents live: „„ Mixed uses (diverse options for living above or near entertainment and shopping); „„ “Neighborhood”: Places within a 10-minute walk of your home. „„ Pedestrian-orientation (sidewalks, paths and other foot-based connections); „„ “Local Community”: Places within a 30-minute walk, a 10-minute bike/public „„ Opportunities for social activity and transportation ride, or a five-minute drive engagement (outdoor seating, community of your home. festivals, farmers’ markets, etc.); „„ “Region”: All of the communities within a „„ Arts, cultural and other entertainment 45-minute bike/public transportation ride opportunities (museums, galleries, or a 30-minute drive of your home. bowling alleys, clubs, etc.); Questions about Your Neighborhood, Community and Region

Table 4: Please Indicate Your Level of Agreement or Disagreement with the Following Statements about Placemaking

Statement 1: Incorporating Neither Placemaking into Our Local Strongly Somewhat Agree or Somewhat Strongly Community Will . . . Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Increase economic activity. 32% 40% 18% 5% 2% 3% Improve opportunities for jobs. 33% 37% 19% 6% 3% 3% Improve the quality of life. 41% 36% 16% 3% 2% 2% Positively affect home prices. 33% 37% 21% 4% 2% 3% Enhance the sense of community belonging. 37% 37% 18% 4% 2% 2% Attract new people to our community. 35% 37% 19% 4% 2% 3%

Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 99 100 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 6: Please Indicate Table 5: Please Indicate Source: my neighborhood are too far to walk. far too are my neighborhood to in go frequently Imost places The frequently go in my neighborhood. Imost places to the walk to time enough not is There My neighborhood is quiet. visually appealing. is neighborhood My activities. social for opportunities many has neighborhood My basis. afirst-name on neighbors of my many I know community. of the rest the from isolated too is neighborhood My levels. income different from people has neighborhood My diverse. ethnically is neighborhood My of visitors. alot attracts My neighborhood uses. commercial and retail residential, of amix has neighborhood My etc.) my in neighborhood. recreation, entertainment, drinking, shopping, eating, (for working, go to places many are There recent economic recession. economic recent the despite stable, have remained P air. clean-smelling has neighborhood My Statement 3: Answer rates. crime of high because my in neighborhood, walk to dangerous too is It of traffic. because neighborhood, my in to walk hard is It Statement 2: Answer due to lack of sidewalks. to lack due my in neighborhood to walk hard is It r operty values in my neighborhood my in neighborhood values operty L L and and r P P Following Statements about Getting around in Following Statements about olic o olic spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r o us places inmichigan

Y Y o o Strongly Strongly Agree ur Level of Agreement or Disagreement with the ur Level of Agreement or Disagreement with the Agree 30% 22% 22% 25% 32% 10% 14% 15% 3 23% 13% 25% 25% 27% 8% 18% 18% 12% 7% Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Agree Agree 44% 29% 38% 38% 28% 22% 35% 41% 15% 34% 28% Y 25% 10% 19% 31% 17% ou Disagree or Agree Neither r Neighborhood Disagree Agree or or Agree Neither 22% 23% 19% 19% 1 21% 21% 21% 15% 17% 17% 17% 22% 10% 14% 14% 2 12% 12% 15% 12% Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Disagree 27% 10% 18% 16% 21% 22% 13% 18% 16% 16% 14% 11% 15% 9% 7% Y ou Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly r Neighborhood 30% 20% 34% 23% 47% 32% 19% 18% 14% 12% 17% 17% 11% 4% 4% 6% 5% Unsure Unsure 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Table 7: Please Indicate Your Level of Agreement or Disagreement with the Following Statements about Your Local Community

Neither Strongly Somewhat Agree or Somewhat Strongly Statement 4: Answer Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure There are many opportunities for arts and cultural experiences within my local community. 14% 28% 17% 20% 20% 2% There is a lack of job opportunities in my local community. 25% 31% 21% 14% 6% 3% I can do most of my grocery shopping at stores in my local community. 42% 32% 10% 7% 8% 1% It is difficult to find parking in local community shopping areas. 7% 12% 16% 25% 38% 2% I have changed my driving habits, as a result of the rising price of gasoline. 27% 30% 20% 11% 11% 1% There are bike lanes or paths/trails in my local community. 21% 29% 13% 14% 21% 3% Public transportation/transit in my community is reliable and convenient. 18% 22% 18% 13% 24% 5% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 8: “Transect” and What Zone People Live In Community Planners often use the concept of the “transect” to talk about the types of places where people live based on the density of buildings. Using the transect diagram on page 20 as a guide, do you live in a . . .?

Question 5: Zone Percent T2: Rural 18% T3: Suburban 36% T4: General Urban 30% T5: Urban Center/Small Town 10% T6: Urban Core 5% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 9: How Would You Say Your Neighborhood, Overall, is as a Place to Live Today, as Compared to Five Years Ago?

Question 6: Answer Percent Getting Better 34% Getting Worse 10% Staying the Same 56% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 101 102 full report ReBuilding p ReBuilding p Source: option. one than more to choose able were respondents Survey *Note: Table 13: If State University, 2014. Source: they may moving. face in or anyneighborhood, challenges and region, community setto anew of next questions moving This home, respondents about asked in survey interest their Moving about Questions to aNew Location Michigan State University, 2014. Source: Five Place to Live Today as Compared to Local Community, Table How 10: Would Current Would Home, Able to Move Table 12: If Staying the Same the Staying G N Other P elsewhere. options of transportation alack is There to live. Iwant where ahouse afford I can’t aloan. get I can’t elsewhere. ajob I (or find my can’t spouse) etc.). van, moving costs, (e.g., closing high too are costs Moving worth. is house the than my mortgage on I owe more my house. sell I can’t Question 10: Answer N N Yes Question 9: Answer G Question 7: Answer e e et on ot o rsonal reasons (divorce, family, health, etc.). (divorce, health, family, reasons rsonal tting Worse ting ting Sure e L L L Y and and and B e et ars Ago? r r P P P ter olic olic olic o o Moving for for Moving spe spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, Michigan y Institute, Y Y o o r r u Were to Move, What Do u Were o o O us places in michigan us places in michigan Percent u Percent t of 56% 31% 12% O 45% 36% 19% Y v Y o erall, is as a Y o Y u?* o ur ur o u Say u? Y o ur ur Y ght Now, Do Economic Conditions in Table 11: Getting Worse or Staying the Same? as aWhole, are Getting Better, Michigan State University, 2014. Source: o G Staying the Same the Staying G Question 8: Answer e et u See as theu See Main Barriers to tting Worse ting ting Percent L and 20% 24% 10% B 19% 18% 31% 12% 11% 8% 5% et P ter R olic i y Institute, Percent 30% 47% 24% Y Y o o u Think that ur R eg ion, ion, Table 14: If You Were Able to Move, Which Type of Home Would You Most Likely Choose?

Question 11: Answer Percent Single family home ownership. 69% Condominium/apartment ownership. 12% Single family rental. 9% Multi-family (apartment, duplex, condo) rental. 8% Other 2% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 15: “Transect” and Types of Places Where People Want to Live Based on the Density of Buildings* Community Planners often use the concept of the “transect” to talk about the types of places where people live based on the density of buildings. Using the transect diagram on page 20 as a guide, in which zone would you most want to live?

Question 12: Zone Percent T2: Rural 28% T3: Suburban 39% T4: General Urban 21% T5: Urban Center/Small Town 8% T6: Urban Core 4% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 16: Which of the Following Life Changes Might Cause You to Consider Moving to a Different Zone? If So, Which Zone?*

General Urban Urban Would Not Rural Suburban Urban Center Core Not Applicable Question 14: Answer (T2) (T3) (T4) (T5) (T6) Move Unsure to Me Graduating from high school 6% 9% 7% 5% 3% 7% 3% 65% Graduating from college 4% 11% 8% 7% 4% 6% 4% 63% Going back to college 3% 9% 11% 9% 4% 9% 6% 56% Getting married 6% 15% 10% 7% 3% 6% 6% 55% Having children 7% 17% 9% 5% 3% 6% 4% 57% “Empty nest” (children move out). 12% 19% 11% 6% 4% 10% 6% 40% New job 8% 17% 17% 13% 9% 7% 11% 35% Loss of job 6% 12% 12% 7% 5% 10% 14% 42% Divorce 5% 10% 9% 7% 4% 8% 11% 51% Death of spouse 7% 12% 10% 6% 5% 9% 12% 45% Retirement 16% 20% 11% 6% 3% 10% 10% 33% Other 4% 6% 6% 4% 2% 4% 10% 66% *Note: Survey respondents were able to choose more than one option. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 103 104 full report ReBuilding p Table 17: a As Source: Downsizing my home to reduce household expenses Carpooling transportation Taking public B B Moving closer to work or school or to work closer Moving Question 15: Answer ik u ying a more fuel efficient vehicle efficient fuel amore ying ing or walking L and r P olic o Following Changes? spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r o R us places in michigan e sult of Higher Prices, Gas Would Adopted Have Have 22% 16% 16% 12% 12% 15% Considering Adopting 28% 47% 22% 24% 27% 31% Y o u Consider the Option to to Option Consider Not an an Not 60% 59% 63% 37% 57% 51% Questions about Place Preferences in Your „„ There are too many/not enough people. Neighborhood/Community „„ It is too noisy/quiet. This set of questions asked survey respondents to consider the types of buildings or spaces that „„ There is (not) enough parking/ they would like to have in their neighborhood. „„ It is expensive/affordable. They were also asked to tell us why they would „„ It is (not) convenient. like the specified building or space in their neighborhood, or why not. Examples could include that the place looks like:

Tables 18a–c: Grocery Shopping

Question 16a: Do You Have an Option Like This in Question 16b: Would You Your Neighborhood? Want an Option Like This in Not Your Neighborhood? Yes No Sure L arge store with groceries, pharmacy, clothes, Big Box Store 47% 33% 20% automotive, etc. Neighborhood Grocery Store 72% 16% 12% Yes No Convenience Store 55% 26% 19% Big Box Store 49% 51% Specialty Market 53% 23% 23% Medium-sized store for daily/ weekly food shopping Farmers’ Market 69% 18% 14% Yes No Neighborhood Question 16c: Do You Want This Grocery Store 71% 29% Option in Your Local Community?* Yes No Small store with limited Big Box Store 69% 31% grocery items Neighborhood Grocery Store 84% 16% Convenience Store 68% 32% Yes No Specialty Market 71% 29% Convenience Store 71% 29% Farmers’ Market Small store with specialty 81% 19% products, such as meat, * Note: A “Not Sure” response option was inadvertently not organics, or international foods provided for this question.

Yes No Specialty Market 49% 51% Indoor or outdoor space with many vendors and a variety of foods

Yes No Farmers’ Market 57% 43% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 105 106 full report ReBuilding p Source: Tables 19a–c: Like This in Your Neighborhood? Your in Neighborhood? This Like You Option 17a: Do an Have Question L L Strip Mall/ oc i Independent festyle Center Interior Mall Outlet Mall Outlet al Merchants L and r P P olic o la za spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r limited parking in front in parking limited with shops retail Small space above residential/commercial bars, theaters, and withmixed restaurants, shops connected Several setting outdoor an in goods discount with shops connected Several with ample parking shops A few connected ample parking large indoor space, with a within shops Several R o e us places inmichigan tail Shopping 56% 39% 62% 26% 26% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 44% 38% 74% 74% 61% N N N N N o o o o o Option in Your Local Community? Community? Your in Local Option 17c: You Do This Want Question Your Neighborhood? in This Like Option an Want Question 17b: Would You Outlet Mall Outlet Strip Mall/ Interior Mall Interior Mall L Independent Strip Mall/ Independent Mall Outlet L i i festyle Center festyle Center P P la la L L za za oc oc al Merchants al Merchants 34% 39% 67% Yes 33% 51% 60% 43% 39% Yes 73% 51% 8 18% 48% 20% 34% 45% 39% No 42% 36% 26% 35% No 16% Sure Not Not 28% 16% 15% 13% Sure Not Not 25% 16% 14% 14% 11% Tables 20a–c: Restaurants

Question 18a: Do You Have an Option Question 18b: Would You Like This in Your Neighborhood? Want an Option Like This in Not Your Neighborhood? Yes No Sure Fast food restaurant with drive thru Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 62% 27% 11% Yes No Suburban Sit-Down Restaurant 65% 24% 11% Fast Food Restaurant Sit-Down Restaurant in a Strip with Drive Thru 72% 28% Mall/Plaza/Mall 49% 34% 17% Could be locally-owned or Coffee Shop 64% 24% 12% a chain Neighborhood Sandwich Shop 68% 21% 11%

Yes No Downtown Sit-Down Restaurant 59% 27% 14% Suburban Sit- 66% 34% Down Restaurant Question 18c: Do You Want This Not Sit-down restaurant in a Option in Your Local Community? Yes No Sure strip mall/plaza/mall Fast Food Restaurant with Yes No Drive Thru 72% 18% 9% Sit-Down Restaurant in Suburban Sit-Down Restaurant 74% 17% 9% a Strip Mall/Plaza/Mall 53% 47% Sit-Down Restaurant in a Strip Could be locally-owned or Mall/Plaza/Mall 59% 26% 14% a chain Coffee Shop 71% 19% 10% Neighborhood Sandwich Shop 76% 15% 9% Yes No Downtown Sit-Down Restaurant 69% 20% 12% Coffee Shop 61% 39% N eighborhood sandwich shop

Yes No Neighborhood Sandwich Shop 61% 39% Downtown sit- down restaurant

Yes No Downtown Sit- Down Restaurant 56% 44% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 107 108 full report ReBuilding p Source: Tables Neighborhood 21a–c: Type Like This in Your Neighborhood? Your in Neighborhood? This Like You Option Do an Have 19a: Question N N Mixed-Use Commercial below H Small- to Medium- above and Townhomes with with Townhomes e e with i R gh- ighborhood with ighborhood with u Open Space Downtown Downtown L Small Sized Sized ral Area with with Area ral Suburban a L R R and rge rge ise esidential esidential r L L P L B B o o olic R ots o ui u ts ts e ilding spe lding tail/ y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r o eater than than eater three stories G less or stories Three small lots with townhomes Downtown lots sized ighborhood with to medium- small- N lots large neighborhood with Suburban etc. forestland, Such as farmland, us places inmichigan e r 48% 36% 23% 5 45% 55% 5 25% 75% 31% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

64% 69% 52% 77% N N N N N N o o o o o o R N Suburban Your in Neighborhood? This Like Option You an Would Want 19b: Question Medium-Sized Downtown Townhomes with Small Small with Downtown Townhomes and Mixed-Use H Medium-Sized N Suburban and Mixed-Use R Community? Your Local in Option You Do This Want 19c: Question Small with Townhomes Downtown H u u i e i e gh- gh- ral Area with Open Space Open with Area ral ighborhood with Small- to Small- with ighborhood ral Area with Open Space Open with Area ral ighborhood with Small- to Small- with ighborhood R R R R e e L tail/Commercial below ise tail/Commercial below ise o ts N B N B B B ui ui e e u u ighborhood with ighborhood with lding lding ilding with with ilding ilding with with ilding L L o o ts ts R R e e sidential above above sidential sidential above above sidential L L a a rge rge L o L L ts o o ts ts 40% 60% 29% 56% 56% 65% 33% 69% Yes 25% Yes 35% 1 61% 21% 61% 46% 28% 28% 22% 48% 53% 59% 42% 26% 5 15% 25% No No 21% Sure Sure Not Not Not Not 19% 18% 16% 10% 21% 12% 17% 18% 16% 14% 17% Tables 22a–c: Bars/Restaurants/Entertainment

Question 20a: Do You Have an Option Like This in Question 20b: Would You Want an Not Your Neighborhood? Option Like This in Your Neighborhood? Yes No Sure With ample parking, could be Bar in Isolated Building 30% 53% 17% locally-owned or a chain Bar in Strip Mall/Plaza/Mall 30% 55% 16% Yes No Downtown or Neighborhood Casual Bar 39% 46% 14% Bar in Downtown Upscale Bar 31% 53% 16% Isolated Building 41% 59% Downtown Nightclub with Live Music 28% 56% 15% With ample parking, could be locally-owned or a chain Question 20c: Do You Want This Option Not Yes No in Your Local Community? Yes No Sure Bar in Strip Mall/ Bar in Isolated Building 38% 45% 17% Plaza/Mall 38% 62% Bar in Strip Mall/Plaza/Mall 37% 46% 16% With limited parking, but access Downtown or Neighborhood Casual Bar 45% 40% 15% to public transportation Downtown Upscale Bar 37% 46% 17% Yes No Downtown Nightclub with Live Music 35% 50% 15% Downtown or Neighborhood Casual Bar 46% 54% With limited parking, but access to public transportation

Yes No Downtown Upscale Bar 30% 70% With limited parking, but access to public transportation

Yes No Downtown Nightclub with Live Music 30% 70% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 109 110 full report ReBuilding p Source: Tables Parks 23a–c: This in Your Neighborhood? Your in Neighborhood? This Like You Option Do an Have 21a: Question Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Urban Multiple Uses Multiple Uses Specific Use Specific Use L and P P P oc a a P P r P ket rk with with rk with rk ark with ark with olic o spe P y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. a rk r o viewing art, etc. art, viewing sitting, gardening, as such few uses, with Small green space etc. swimming, festivals, concerts, eating, walking, Such as playgrounds, etc. swimming, biking, walking, as Such etc. swimming, concerts, walking, playgrounds, eating, as Such etc. swimming, biking, walking, as Such us places inmichigan 70% 34% 58% 47% 27% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 30% 66% 42% 53% 73% N N N N N o o o o o Urban Urban Urban Urban Suburban Urban Urban Suburban Suburban Community? Your Local in Option You Do This Want 21c: Question Urban Urban Suburban Your in Neighborhood? This Like Option You an Would Want 21b: Question Suburban Suburban P P P P P P oc oc ark with Multiple Uses a a ark with Multiple Uses rk with Specific Use Specific with rk Use Specific with rk P P P P ket ket ark with Multiple Uses ark with Multiple Uses a a rk with Specific Use Specific with rk rk with Specific Use Specific with rk P P a a rk rk 37% 77% 57% 73% Yes 48% 1 41% 41% 42% 62% Yes 77% 81% 29% 42% 16% No 17% 25% 37% 37% No 14% 12% Sure Not Not Sure 10% 18% 14% 21% 20% Not Not 16% 14% 7% 9% 7% Tables 24a–c: Arts and Culture

Question 22a: Do You Have an Option Like Question 22b: Would You This in Your Neighborhood? Want an Option Like This in Not Your Neighborhood? Yes No Sure L ibrary Library 73% 18% 9% Movie Cinema 56% 33% 11% Yes No Performing Arts Center/Theater 46% 37% 16% Library 70% 30% Museum 44% 39% 16% Movie Cinema Art Museum/Gallery 40% 42% 18% Art Fair/Festival 55% 32% 14%

Yes No Question 22c: Do You Want This Not Movie Cinema 51% 49% Option in Your Local Community? Yes No* Sure Where plays, operas, Library 83% 11% 6% ballets, etc. are held Movie Cinema 68% 22% 10% Yes No Performing Arts Center/Theater 57% 28% 16% Performing Arts Center/Theater 35% 65% Museum 55% 30% 15% History, science, Art Museum/Gallery 50% 34% 17% children’s, etc. Art Fair/Festival 63% 24% 13% Yes No Museum 31% 69% Art museum/gallery

Yes No Art Museum/ Gallery 27% 73% Art Fair/Festival

Yes No Art Fair/Festival 44% 56% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 111 112 full report ReBuilding p University, 2014. Source: Table 25: How Long Have Source: Figure 9: National Placemaking Survey Demographic Questions zip code?” zip your is “What about survey national the in 23 to Question responses the 9represents Figure L Question 24: Answer 21 to 30 Years to 30 21 toYears 20 11 Years8 to 10 5 to 7Years 3 to 4Years 1 to 2Years More than 50 Years 50 than More 41 Years to 50 Years to 40 31 e ss than One Year One than ss L and Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State State Michigan Institute, Policy Land by the created Figure r r P olic o o spe spe y Institute, MichiganState r r R o o e us places in michigan us places inmichigan Count spondent Zip Codes Map* 500 496 326 235 397 381 197 713 46 67 Percent 10% 21% 12% 15% 15% 11% 6% 2% 7% 1% Y o u Lived in Y o ur Current Address? U n iversity, 2014. iversity, Table 26: Which of the Following Best Describes Your Current Residence?

Question 25: Answer Percent Single Family Home Ownership 64% Condominium/Apartment Ownership 7% Single Family Rental 10% Multi-Family (Apartment, Duplex, Condo) Rental 17% Other 3% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Table 27: Are You a . . . ? (Resident Type)

Question 26: Answer Percent Homeowner (Name is on Mortgage). 58% Renter (Name is on a Lease/Sub-Lease). 28% Living with Family, Relatives or Friends (Paying Rent; Name is Not on the Lease). 5% Living with Family, Relatives or Friends (Not Paying Rent; Name is Not on the Lease). 6% Other. 2% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 28: What is Your Age? Table 29: Do You Most Closely Identify as Male or Female? Question 27: Answer Percent 18- to 24-Years-Old 9% Question 28: Answer Percent 25- to 34-Years-Old 18% Male 41% 35- to 45-Years-Old 19% Female 59% 46- to 55-Years-Old 22% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. 56- to 65-Years-Old 18% More than 65-Years-Old 14% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 30: What is Your Employment Status?

Question 29: Answer Percent Employed Full-Time 38% Employed Part-Time 13% Full-Time Student 3% Student and Working Full- or Part-Time 2% Retired 17% Unemployed, Looking for Work 9% Unemployed, Not Looking for Work 1% Homemaker 10% Disabled 6%

Other 1% land policy institute Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 113 114 full report ReBuilding p the People in (Check All that Apply)?* Michigan State University, 2014. Source: Source: *Note: Table 35: What Family (Parents and Children)? Have More than Immediate Just Table 33: Does University, 2014. Source: Table What is 31: Other White/Caucasian American Indian/Alaska N Asian N N Yes Question 32: Answer B Question 34: Answer(s) Couple Unmarried of an Member Widow/Widower Divorced Married Single, Question 30: Answer la a ot o tive ck/African American Sure R L esponden L L and H and and N a e waiian/Other ver P r P P olic olic olic o B ts were ableto choose more thanoneoption. spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, y Institute, MichiganState e en Married r Y o o us places inmichigan Y R P Percent N ur Household ur Household ac o ac Y a ur Household ur Household ific Islander tive 84% o 15% e(s) 1% ur Maritalur Status? Percent R e 52% 25% 12% present 4% 6% Percent 70% 18% 9% 4% 6% 1% State University, 2014. Source: Latino or Spanish Descent? of Table 36: Are Born in the Household Immigrant an (Not Table 34: in Is Someone State University, 2014. Source: State University, 2014. Source: Y U Table 32: How Many Children N Yes Question 35: Answer N N Yes Question 33: Answer 5 or More 5 or 4 3 2 1 N Question 31: Answer o n o ot o on Y ur Household? ur der theder Age of 17 Live in Sure e o L L L ur Household of Hispanic, and and and P P P olic olic olic y Institute, Michigan y Institute, Michigan y Institute, Michigan U n Y ited States)? o Percent Percent Percent u or Any Member 87% 84% 13% 66% 16% 0% 12% 17% 4% 1% 1% Y o ur ur Table 37: What is the Highest Level of Table 38: What is the Range of Education that You Have Attained? Your Annual Household Income?

Question 36: Answer Percent Question 37: Answer Percent Some High School 2% Less than $10,000 6% High School Diploma or GED 19% $10,000–$24,999 14% Some College 31% $25,000–$49,999 28% Trade School Certification 8% $50,000–$74,999 24% Bachelor’s Degree 26% $75,000–$99,999 14% Master’s Degree 11% More than $100,000 14% PhD of Other Terminal Degree 2% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 115 116 full report ReBuilding p r o spe r o us places inmichigan Appi end x B: Midwest Survey Responses The first question in this survey asked the respondent to indicate resident status. This survey included questions for both homeowners and renters to answer and, then, featured questions specific to homeowners and questions specific to renters.

Table 39: Please Indicate Which of the Following Best Represents Your Current Living Situation at this Address

Statement 1: Answer Count Percent I am the owner and live here. 1,879 92% I rent this home and live here. 140 7% I do not live here. 5 0% Other 20 1% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

All Respondents The following questions were asked of all respondents, including homeowners and renters. Some questions and responses that were unique to homeowners or renters are presented below.

Table 40: In What Year Did You Begin to Live at this Address?

Question 2: Answer Percent Less than 1 Year Ago 5% 1 to 2 Years Ago 18% 3 to 4 Years Ago 19% 5 to 7 Years Ago 26% 8 to 10 Years Ago 18% 11 to 20 Years Ago 8% 21 to 30 Years Ago 0% 31 to 40 Years Ago 0% 41 to 50 Years Ago 0% More than 50 Years Ago 0% No Response 5% Note: Data was used to calculate how many years the respondent lived in the residence. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 117 118 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 43: About How Long Would it Take to Get from Source: Tables 42a–c: How Many Bedrooms Bathrooms and are in Table 41: How Many Source: Entertainment ( Dining (Fast Food) (Fast Dining (Sit-Down)Dining Supermarket/ R Convenience Store P P N School (University, College or Trade or School) College (University, School Your Your Question 5: Answer N More 6 or 5 4 3 2 1 Bedrooms Question 4a: City Answer Question 3: N ark u e e o e tail Store (Clothing, Store (Clothing, tail blic Transitblic Stop arest Elementary, Middle or ighborhood R e J L L sponse o L and and and b r P P P olic olic o olic Nearest Places Listed Below if G spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. Percent y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r B ocery a Less than Less than r, r 19% 19% 51% 1 Year 1 0% V o 3% 7% 1% e us places inmichigan B nue) o 4% 2% ok/Music, ok/Music, 1 to 3 Years 4 to 6 Years 7 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 15 to 11 Years 10 7to 6Years 4to 3Years 1 to Y H N More 4 or 3 2 1 0 Full Bathrooms Question 4b: i e gh School o ars Have R B e o 25% sponse 13% utique, etc.) utique, Y Percent o 30% 19% u Lived in this .?(Neighborhood/City) 48% 35% Minutes 0% 9% 7% 1% 1 to 5 5 1 to 39% 38% 63% 5 25% 25% 25% 55% 27% 19% 13% 8% 8% Y o Minutes 6 to 10 10 6 to N More 3 or 2 1 0 Half Bathrooms Question 4c: u Walked to Them? 29% o 21% R 28% 28% 26% 26% 22% 24% 33% 10% 31% 13% e sponse Minutes 11 to 20 20 to 11 20% 28% 26% 26% 24% 27% 19% 19% 14% 12% 8% 10% 16% Y Percent o Minutes 21 to 30 30 to 21 ur Home tour Home the 36% 19% 41% More than than More 0% 3% 15 Years 15 Y 16% 14% 12% 12% 12% 15% 11% 4% 2% 5% 5% o ur House? 29% 2% Minutes More More 31 or or 31 17% 17% 0% 9% %2% 2% %5% 5% 5% 5% %3% 3% 7% 1% Practical Too Far/ Too Not Not 40% 27% 14% 4% 6% 2% 2% 7% Table 44: How Would You Rate Table 45: How Safe do You the Overall Look and Feel of a Feel in this Neighborhood?

Walk in Your Neighborhood? Question 7: Answer Percent Question 6: Answer Percent Extremely Safe 23% 1 (Very Low Quality) 2% Very Safe 52% 2 4% Moderately Safe 21% 3 16% Slightly Safe 4% 4 38% Not at All Safe 1% 5 (Very High Quality) 40% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Not Practical/I Don’t Walk 0% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 46: Which of the Following Statements Best Describes the Amount of Walking You Do in Your Neighborhood?

Question 8: Answer Percent I walk all the time. 23% I walk very often. 36% I tend to walk a bit, but not too much. 27% I do not walk very often. 11% Not practical/I do not walk. 3% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 47: Generally Speaking, How Table 48: Is There a Sidewalk Many Minutes are You Willing to in Front of Your Home?

Walk to Reach a Destination (such Question 10: Answer Percent as a Restaurant, Store, Park or Other Yes 84% Places You Might Frequently Visit)? No 16% Not Sure 0% Question 9: Answer Percent Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan 1 to 5 Minutes 7% State University, 2014. 6 to 10 Minutes 21% 11 to 15 Minutes 29% Table 49: Is There a 16 to 20 Minutes 23% Dedicated Bike Lane 21 to 25 Minutes 7% on Your Street? 26 to 30 Minutes 8% Question 11: Answer Percent 30 Minutes or Longer 5% Yes 7% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. No 93% Not Sure 1% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 119 120 full report ReBuilding p University, 2014. Source: than oneoption. *Note: the Following (Check All that Apply)?* Table 52: Does Michigan State University, 2014. Source: O City Allow for 24-Hour Table Does 50: N N Yes Percent Question 12: Answer P P Finished ( Deck Percent G Question 14: Answer Front Front Fireplace ool a a ot o n rtially Finished rage Sure -Street Parking? R P L L esponden B and and o a rch B ckyard) a r P P sement olic olic o spe ts were ableto choosemore y Institute, MichiganState y Institute, B r as o ement us places in michigan Y Y o o ur Home Haveur Home Any of ur ur 65% 26% 9% 88% 29% 62% 52% 37% 61% 3% S Tables 51a–b: How Many Source: 3 or More 3 or N 2 1 0 Percent In the Garage Question 13a: paces are Available at o R e sponse L and P olic y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. 29% 47% 12% 4% 8% State University, 2014. Source: Where Following Describes Best Table 53: Which of the Farm Country Suburbs Small Town City Percent Question 15: Answer N More 3 or 2 1 0 Driveway In Question 13b: L o and R Y e O Y o P sponse olic o ur Home? ff-Street Parking u Grew y Institute, Michigan Percent 43% 37% 12% U 4% 3% 30% 28% 26% p 11% 5% ? ? Homeowners The following responses for questions 16–25 were unique to homeowners from the Midwest survey.

Table 54: Please Indicate How Much the Following Things Were Involved in Your Decision to Purchase Your Home.

1 (Not 5 (Very Question 16: Answer at All) 2 3 4 Much) Public School Quality 36% 16% 17% 18% 13% Nearby Parks and Recreation Areas 13% 15% 27% 26% 19% Grocery Stores are Close by 13% 19% 29% 27% 11% Retail Shopping Stores are Close by 19% 20% 29% 22% 9% Convenience Stores are Close by 29% 24% 24% 16% 8% Street Lights 34% 28% 25% 10% 3% Shade Trees 17% 19% 27% 25% 13% Road Quality 22% 29% 31% 14% 3% On-Street Parking 52% 22% 17% 7% 2% Off-Street Parking 24% 12% 19% 23% 21% Architecture (or Style) 9% 14% 25% 31% 22% Interior (Design, Layout) 2% 5% 17% 36% 39% Historic Significance 57% 17% 12% 9% 4% Income/Investment Potential 23% 18% 25% 22% 12% Number of Bedrooms 2% 7% 21% 39% 31% Number of Bathrooms 11% 17% 28% 29% 15% Total Square Feet 4% 12% 33% 37% 14% Size of Yard 9% 14% 28% 30% 20% Property Taxes 18% 23% 36% 17% 6% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 121 122 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 56: How Would Table 55: Please Indicate How the Much Following Statements Source: I am able to do a majority of my shopping at nearby stores. atnearby of my shopping amajority to do able I am to me. important are that places nearby to many to walk/bike able I am Commuting time to job or school is short. is school or to job time Commuting G safe. is neighborhood The There are many employment opportunities in this city. this in opportunities employment many are There to my job. close I am H of community. sense astrong is There foods. healthy and to fresh access I have good Statement 17: Answer I have great access to public transportation. to public access I have great efficient. energy is home The P Question 18: Answer G R B G Coffee Shop Coffee ark estaurant or Cafe or estaurant a o r a r eat neighbors live in the neighborhood. the live in neighbors eat ocery Store r s Station/Convenience Store s Station/Convenience mes in my neighborhood are affordable. are my in neighborhood mes L L and and r P P olic o olic Influenced spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r o us places inmichigan Y o Y Quality) 1 (Very ur Decision to Purchase o Poor Poor u 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% R a te the Quality of the Nearest .? 4% 8% 8% 6% 5% 5% 4 3 2 20% 28% 22% 15% 17% 17% 38% 26% 3 33% 33% 35% 35% 21% (Very (Very High) 34% 39% 22% 2 2% 22% 33% 5 at All) at 1 (Not 1 (Not Not Sure 43% 26% 10% 10% 10% 18% 14% Know/ 12% 15% 13% Y Don’t 4% 3% o 20% 27% ur Home ur Home 2% 5% 5% 20% 20% 24% 14% 14% 13% 17% 17% 4 3 2 9% 4% 8% 7% 8 28% 28% 26% 23% 24% 32% 27% 27% 18% 14% 15% 17% 17% 29% 26% 26% 22% 32% 37% 37% 19% 31% 21% 11% 5 (Very 5 (Very Much) 30% 20% 36% 26% 33% 19% 41% 21% 17% 9% 8% 8% Table 57: How Would You Rate the Quality of the Following Features of Your Home at the Time of Purchase?

1 (Very 5 (Very Not Low High Applicable/ Question 19: Answer Quality) 2 3 4 Quality) Don’t Know Roof 6% 14% 25% 32% 21% 1% Windows 12% 19% 28% 24% 17% 0% Doors 6% 18% 37% 27% 11% 0% Siding 5% 12% 30% 31% 16% 6% Insulation R-Value (Quality of Insulation) 13% 20% 28% 19% 11% 9% Appliances 11% 19% 32% 24% 11% 4% Garage 7% 14% 29% 27% 14% 9% Kitchen 8% 18% 32% 27% 15% 0% Bedrooms 2% 7% 35% 41% 16% 0% Bathrooms 6% 17% 38% 27% 12% 0% Basement 8% 19% 31% 24% 11% 7% Landscaping 11% 23% 34% 22% 10% 1% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 58: Since Buying Table 59: If So, About How Your Home, Have You Much Did You Spend on All Done Any Remodeling? Remodeling Efforts?

Question 20: Answer Percent Question 21: Answer Percent Yes 78% Less than $5,000 20% No 22% $5,000–$10,000 30% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan $10,001–$20,000 23% State University, 2014. $20,001–$30,000 11% More than $30,000 15% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 60: Before You Purchased Your Home, Were Energy- Efficiency Improvements Made?

Question 22: Answer Percent Yes 38% No 43% Not Sure 19% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 123 124 full report ReBuilding p University, 2014. Source: one option. *Note: (Check All that Apply)?* Improvements Were Made Table 63: If So, Which University, 2014. Source: one option. * Note: (Check All that Apply)?* Improvements Were Made Table If So, which 61: Other Other Weather Stripping Solar Water Efficient More Furnace Efficient More Doors Efficient More EnergyStar Appliances Insulation Added Installed Windows Efficient More Question 25: Answer Other Weather Stripping Solar Water Efficient More Furnace Efficient More Doors Efficient More EnergyStar Appliances Insulation Added Installed Windows Efficient More Question 23: Answer R R P P L L esponden esponden a a and and nels nels r P P olic olic o spe ts were ableto choose more than y Institute, MichiganState y Institute, MichiganState ts were ableto choosemore than r o H H us places in michigan e e ater ater Percent Percent 46% 64% 38% 36% 35% 35% 18% 31% 58% 38% 35% 41% 31% 1% 17% 17% 9% 1% State University, 2014. Source: Contractor, Hired Help, etc.) Done Been Have Could (Improvements etc.) Furnace,Doors, Solar Panels, Insulation, EnergyStar Appliances, Efficiency Improvements? (Windows, Have Table 62: Since Buying N N Yes Percent Question 24: Answer ot o Sure L and Y o P u Made Anyu Made Energy- olic y Institute, Michigan Y o urself or through a 23% 76% 1% Y o ur Home, ur Home, 125 Renters The following responses for questions 26–31 were unique to renters from the Midwest survey.

Table 64: How Much Does This Table 65: Is This Residence a . . . ? Unit Cost per Month (Total Rent (Residence Type) for the Entire Unit, Not including Fees or Utilities)? Question 27: Answer Percent Single Family Home 73% Question 26: Answer Percent Duplex 12% Less than $500 4% Condominium or Townhouse 7% $500–$1,000 68% Apartment (More than 2 Units) 4% $1,001–$2,000 27% Other 4% More than $2,000 0% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 66: How Many Table 67: Please Indicate the Degree to Which the Following Total Separate Units are Things Were Involved in Your Decision to Rent Your Home. at this Address? 1 (Not 5 (Very Question 28: Answer Percent Statement 29: Answer at All) 2 3 4 Much) 1 11% Public Schools 65% 9% 9% 11% 6% 2 50% Nearby Parks and Recreation Areas 14% 16% 30% 23% 17% 3 16% Grocery Stores are Close by 11% 22% 28% 25% 14% 4 11% Retail Shopping Stores are Close by 22% 25% 23% 19% 11% 5 0% Convenience Stores are Close by 22% 27% 24% 19% 8% 6 or More 5% Street Lights 36% 20% 18% 19% 7% Don’t Know 8% Shade Trees 27% 26% 19% 19% 9% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan Road Quality 32% 29% 26% 9% 3% State University, 2014. On-Street Parking Availability 41% 24% 16% 13% 7% Number of Private Off-Street Parking Spaces 32% 13% 25% 20% 10% Architecture (or Style) 22% 22% 22% 24% 10% Interior (Design, Layout) 7% 11% 20% 35% 26% Historic Significance 59% 19% 12% 8% 2% Number of Bedrooms 1% 9% 15% 36% 39% Number of Bathrooms and Half-Bathrooms 18% 20% 23% 23% 15% Total Square Feet 7% 15% 37% 34% 8% Yard Space 9% 16% 22% 24% 29% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. landland policy policy institute institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 125 126 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 69: How Would Source: Table Please 68: Indicate How the Much Following Statements Question 31: Answer I have good access to fresh and healthy foods. healthy and to fresh access I have good safe. is neighborhood The stores. atnearby my shopping of amajority to do able I am to me. important are that places nearby to many to walk/bike able I am to my job. close I am G Statement 30: Answer G P There is a strong sense of community. sense astrong is There Coffee Shop Coffee R B G The home is energy efficient. energy is home The city. this in opportunities employment many are There Commuting time to job or school is short. is school or to job time Commuting transportation. to public access I have great H ark estaurant or Cafe or estaurant a o a r r ocery Store eat neighbors live in the neighborhood. the live in neighbors eat r s Station/Convenience Store s Station/Convenience mes in my neighborhood are affordable. are my in neighborhood mes L L and and r P P olic olic o Influenced spe y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r o us places in michigan Y o Y Quality) 1 (Very o ur Decision to Poor Poor u 3% 15% 5% 5% %5 5 25% 15% 5% 5% 1% 1% R a te the Quality of the Nearest .? 12% 8% 6% 7% 4 3 2 22% 24% 24% 14% 17% 29% 29% 24% 25% 33% 1 (Not 1 (Not R All) 22% 32% 35% at at 10% 19% 14% 14% 21% 13% 13% 17% %6% 6% e nt (Very (Very High) 30% 22% 23% 23% 37% 5 5% 35% 29% 22% 2 22% 22% 25% 5 10% 16% 16% 15% 17% Y 9% 6% 4 3 2 o ur Home. Not Sure 30% 26% 24% 24% 23% 32% Know/ 18% 21% 15% 13% Don’t 9% 26% 26% 10% 4% 4% 20% 20% 36% 23% 27% 19% 18% 16% 16% 41% 21% 21% Much) (Very (Very 20% 34% 36% 26% 23% 5 10% 18% 41% 21% 15% 4% 8% Demographic Questions The following responses were asked of all the Midwest survey respondents, including homeowners and renters..

Table 70: How Old are You? Table 71: Are You Male or Female? Question 32: Answer Percent 18- to 24-Years-Old 2% Question 33: Answer Percent 25- to 34-Years-Old 33% Male 46% 35- to 45-Years-Old 31% Female 54% 46- to 55-Years-Old 16% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. 56- to 65-Years-Old 14% More than 65-Years-Old 5% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 72: What is Your Highest Table 73: Which of the Following Level of Education Completed? Best Describes Your Marital Status?

Question 34: Answer Percent Question 35: Answer Percent Primary School 0% Single 23% High School 10% Married 60% Associates/Professional Degree 12% Widowed/Widower 1% Bachelor’s Degree 41% Domestic Partnership 6% Master’s Degree 28% Divorced 10% Doctorate 9% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014.

Table 74: How Many Adults Table 75: How Many Children (Age 18 or Older) Live in (Age 17 or Under) Currently Your Home with You? Live in Your Home with You?

Question 36: Answer Percent Question 37: Answer Percent 0 20% 0 59% 1 51% 1 15% 2 21% 2 16% 3 3% 3 4% 4 or More 1% 4 or More 2% No Response 4% No Response 4% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 127 128 full report ReBuilding p Y Following Describes Best Table 78: Which of the Table 77: Which of the Following Describes Best Source: Table 76: Which of the Following Describes Best Source: State University, 2014. Source: V Conservative Moderate/Independent L Percent V Question 40: Answer Two More or Other Some N Asian American Indian and Alaska H B White Question 39: Answer N N N N Employed Employed Full-Time Question 38: Answer o ib e e l i a o ot o o ack or African American African or ack spanic, spanic, ry Conservative ry ry tive ur Politicalur t Employed (because I’m aStudent) I’m (because t Employed t Employed ( t Employed t Employed (Currently Seeking Employment) Seeking (Currently t Employed eral Employed ( Employed L L L L i beral H and and and a L waiian and Other r P at P P P a olic olic o olic R ino or Spanish Origin Spanish or ino R rt-Time a spe a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. ce y Institute, Michigan ces R N e o tired) t Currently Seeking Employment) Seeking t Currently r V o us places inmichigan iews? P N ac a 32% 33% 15% 17% ific Islander tive 3% Percent 94% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% State University, 2014. Source: Percent Would Speaking, How Happy Table 79: Generally N Slightly V Moderately Extremely Percent Question 41: Answer e o ry ry 73% t at All t atAll 10% 4% 8% 2% 3% H L a and ppy H a H Y ppy H P a H olic o a ppy a ppy u Say ppy y Institute, Michigan Y Y o o ur ur Employmentur Status? Y o R u are? 26% 57% 14% 2% ac 1% e? Table 80: How Physically Table 81: What is Your Healthy Are You? Annual Household Income?

Question 42: Answer Percent Question 43: Answer Percent Extremely Healthy 12% $0–$20,000 4% Very Healthy 51% $20,001–$30,000 6% Moderately Healthy 32% $30.001–$40,000 8% Slightly Healthy 4% $40,001–$50,000 10% Not at All Healthy 1% $50,001–$80,000 29% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan $80,001–$100,000 16% State University, 2014. $100,000 or More 27% Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 129 130 full report ReBuilding p 4. Environmental Systems 3. Census2. U.S. 2000–2012. state, each for Office Assessor’s City 1. – * Table Data 82: Sources PENDI A 5. L Flint, MI Flint, % of Manitowoc, WI Manitowoc, WI Madison, L R IA Davenport, K G L R % of Feet Tens in of Square Footage Square Traverse City, MI City, Traverse # of 2012 in Sold 2011 in Sold 2010 in Sold 2009 in Sold 2008 in Sold 2007 in Sold 2006 in Sold 2005 in Sold 2004 in Sold 2003 in Sold 2002 in Sold 200 in Sold 2000 in Sold R L N Sale N isting of Data Sources: L L p a a a oc o alamazoo, MI i r at o d ver within 200 Feet 200 within ver a and and kewood, O feet 200 ke within nsing, MI nsing, yal Oak, MI Oak, yal nd Use/ nd ural ural hester, M B ata calculations were performed for this variable. this for performed were calculations ata P H H

P at rice o o R o useholds below below useholds or Degree Associate’s with useholds hrooms L a licy Institute, Michigan State University, East o pids, MI L g of Sale Year g of Sale r a 1 x C B o nd Cover Spatial Data (2012). Data Spatial Cover nd N H u reau, 2010 Census Data. spe : D r a o ta Variable us places inmichigan R e P search Institute, o Sour verty verty L i ne c es B u siness Analyst, 2012. H i gher L ans ing, MI,2012 Midwest Source* Data Data 3 3 2 Summed % with Associate’s Degrees or or Degrees Associate’s %with Summed 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P l acemaking Survey. Dummy for Distance to Distance for Dummy Dummy for Distance to Distance for Dummy Divided Square Feet by 100 Feet Square Divided Dummy for Sale Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy Year (0,1) Sale for Dummy N Dummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for Dummy Dummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for Dummy Dummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for Dummy (0,1) ID City for Dummy D D (0,1) ID City for Dummy (0,1) ID City for Dummy (0,1) ID City for Dummy Dummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for Dummy Dummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for Dummy at ummy for City ID (0,1) ID City for ummy (0,1) ID City for ummy ural ural Data Calculations L o g of Sales g of Sales – – – R L P i a ver (0,1)ver r ke (0,1) ice H i gher Table 82: Data Sources (cont.)

Data Variable Source* Data Calculations No Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 to 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Bars within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Schools within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Museums within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Performing Arts Theaters within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Hobby/Toy/Game Stores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Department Stores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Clothing Stores within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS No Florists within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 4 Dummy for Amenity Presence (0,1) Using GIS land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 131 132 full report ReBuilding p Table Data 82: Sources (cont.) 4. Environmental Systems 3. Census2. U.S. 2000–2012. state, each for Office Assessor’s City 1. * – 5. L Multiple Multiple 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Supplemental G Multiple Store and 1 Clothing Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Department 1 1 1 Multiple Multiple 1 1 1 Other 1 Other Mile a1/2 within 1Other and Schools Multiple 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Department 1 School and Multiple Multiple and 1 School 1 and 1 School R 1 to 2 3 to 5 1 Other 1 to 2 Multiple Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts 1 1 1 Supplemental 1 Supplemental N N isting of Data Sources: L L H H P B R G G e i o S o d a ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft and ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious e e o o o r r nd Use/ nd ocery Store and 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1Museum Store and ocery rforming Arts Theater and and Theater Arts rforming ligious Institution and 1 and Institution ligious okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore bby/Toy/ bby/Toy/ ata calculations were performed for this variable. this for performed were calculations ata upplemental upplemental

B R P R o e a R R R e licy Institute, Michigan State University, East staurants and and staurants rs and Multiple Multiple and rs G R R G e staurants and 1 or 2 1or and staurants e e creation and and creation e e i r L creation and 1 and creation creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation r ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft ocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious ligious Institutions and and Institutions ligious a B o nd Cover Spatial Data (2012). Data Spatial Cover nd u G G spe reau, 2010 Census Data. B a a G G G o me Store and Store and me me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r G ocery Store and ocery Store and ocery Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within ocery r r ocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Stores ocery o P B

Variable us places in michigan R e o e rforming rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B search Institute, o B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore R o B e okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore a creation rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs

B u siness Analyst, 2012. L ans ing, MI,2012 Midwest Source* Data Data 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 for Dummy Interaction 4 for Dummy Interaction 4 for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction for Dummy Interaction 4 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction 4 4 Interaction Dummy for for Dummy Interaction for Dummy Interaction 4 4 for Dummy Interaction 4 Amenity for Dummy for Dummy Interaction 4 4 4 Dummy for Amenity Amenity for Dummy 4 P l acemaking Survey. Data Calculations P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r esence of esence of esence of esence of esence of esence esence of esence esence of esence esence of esence of esence of esence of esence esence of esence of esence esence of esence of esence of esence of esence of esence P P r r esence (0,1) Using (0,1) Using esence esence (0,1) Using (0,1) Using esence B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th th Amenities (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th (0,1) Amenities th G G I I S S Appi end x D: North american industry classification system (NAICS) code Explanations Entertainment/Leisure Businesses 7112 — Spectator Sports This industry comprises 1) Sports teams or clubs primarily participating in live sporting events before a paying audience; 2) Establishments primarily engaged in operating racetracks; 3) Independent athletes engaged in participating in live sporting or racing events before a paying audience; 4) Owners of racing participants, such as cars, dogs and horses, primarily engaged in entering them in racing events or other spectator sports events; and 5) Establishments, such as sports trainers, primarily engaged in providing specialized services to support participants in sports events or competitions. The sports teams and clubs included in this industry may or may not operate their own arena, stadium or other facility for presenting their games or other spectator sports events.

7131 — Amusement Parks and Arcades This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating amusement parks and amusement arcades and parlors. Includes: Theme parks.

7139 — Other amusement and recreation services Includes: Golf courses, country clubs, skiing facilities, marinas, fitness and recreational sports centers, and bowling centers.

51213 — Motion Picture and Video Exhibition This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating motion picture theaters and/or exhibiting motion pictures or videos at film festivals, and so forth. Includes: Motion picture theaters and drive-in motion picture theaters.

7132 — Gambling Industries This industry group comprises establishments (except casino hotels) primarily engaged in operating gambling facilities, such as casinos, bingo halls and video gaming terminals, or in the provision of gambling services, such as lotteries and off-track betting. Casino hotels are classified in Industry 72112, Casino Hotels.

Cultural/Educational Businesses 71111 — Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters This industry comprises 1) Companies, groups or theaters primarily engaged in producing the following live theatrical presentations: Musicals; operas; plays; and comedy, improvisational, mime and puppet shows; and 2) Establishments, commonly known as dinner theaters, engaged in producing live theatrical productions and in providing food and beverages for consumption on the premises. Theater groups or companies may or may not operate their own theater or other facility for staging their shows. Includes: Comedy troupes, opera companies, live theatrical productions (except dance), theatrical stock or repertory companies and musical theater companies. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 133 134 full report ReBuilding p confectionary and nut and confectionary stores. Includes: of food. lines specialized retailing engaged in groupcomprisesprimarily establishments industry This 4452 Food —Specialty Stores normally arranged in separate departments. cosmetics,toiletries, photographic equipment, jewelry, goods. toys sporting and hardware, items, such paint, selected as and additional appliances home and furnishings; furniture, of range new the following a wide predominating: products no line one with merchandise retailing engaged in stores department primarily as comprises known establishments industry This Stores4521 —Department Includes: of food products. line ageneral retailing engaged in groupcomprises primarily establishments industry This Stores4451 —Grocery Grocery Stores Includes: or activities. promoting religion religious organized an administering such temples churches, as religious monasteries; and and/or 2) comprises 1) industry This 8131 —Religious Organizations galleries. art in sale retail works. art limited-edition and original retailing engaged in comprises primarily establishments industry This 45293 Dealers —Art parks. nature and gardens Zoos,botanical Includes: value. educational and/or preservation of exhibition cultural wonders objects, and of historical, sites natural and the in dustries I Historical Sites Similar Institutions —Museums, and 712 to other promoters. for theaters or stadiums, facilities other torelated rent operate arenas, the staff providing and managing operate; and they and/or that manage 2) facilities festivals, concerts and held in fairs, agricultural fairs, events, county such state as productions, fairs, events arts similar sports and live performing managing 1) engaged in comprisesprimarily establishments industry This Similar Events and Sports with —Promoters71131 Facilities of Arts, Performing n I n cluded in this industry are establishments primarily engaged in displaying works for of displaying art engaged in primarily establishments are industry this cluded in

M C S r u h e permarkets and convenience and permarkets stores. o urches, shrines, monasteries (except shrines, urches, schools), mosques temples. and synagogues, at markets, fish and seafood markets, fruit and vegetable and markets, fruit seafood stores, and at markets, bakedgoods markets,fish and spe M r u seums, seums, o us places inmichigan E H s tablishments primarily engaged in operating religious organizations, organizations, religious operating engaged in primarily tablishments i storical storical S i tes and and tes S i milar milar I n stitutions sub-sector engage the in E s O tablishments primarily engaged in engaged in primarily tablishments r ganizing, promoting, and/or ganizing, M e rchandise lines are are lines rchandise A p parel, parel, 446191 — Food (Health) Supplement Stores This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing food supplement products, such as vitamins, nutrition supplements and body enhancing supplements.

Restaurants 722511 — Full-Service Restaurants This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food services to patrons who order and are served while seated (i.e., waiter/waitress service) and pay after eating. These establishments may provide this type of food service to patrons in combination with selling alcoholic beverages, providing carry out services or presenting live non-theatrical entertainment.

722513 — Limited-Service Restaurants This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food services (except snack and non-alcoholic beverage bars) where patrons generally order or select items and pay before eating. Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out or delivered to the customer’s location. Some establishments in this industry may provide these food services in combination with selling alcoholic beverages. Includes: Delicatessen restaurants, pizza delivery shops, limited-service family restaurants, takeout eating places, fast-food restaurants, takeout sandwich shops and limited-service pizza parlors.

Bars 7224 — Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) This industry comprises establishments known as bars, taverns, nightclubs or drinking places primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption. These establishments may also provide limited food services.

Shopping 311811 — Retail Bakeries This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing bread and other bakery products not for immediate consumption made on the premises from flour, not from prepared dough.

4453 — Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing packaged alcoholic beverages, such as ale, beer, wine and liquor.

44611 — Pharmacies and Drug Stores This industry comprises establishments known as pharmacies and drug stores engaged in retailing prescription or nonprescription drugs and medicines.

448 — Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores I ndustries in the Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores subsector retail new clothing and clothing accessories merchandise from fixed point-of-sale locations. Establishments in this subsector have similar display equipment and staff that is knowledgeable regarding fashion trends and the proper match of styles, colors and combinations of clothing and accessories to the characteristics and tastes of the customer. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 135 136 full report ReBuilding p material of historical interest. interest. of historical material other and archival public material documents,photographs, audiovisual historical maps, audio material, accessible make store, generally and preserve to the user. research, acquire, These may establishments also educational of or needs their recreational research, characteristics) to meet the informational, required are as music) the use of such documents (recorded facilitating and of its physical regardless information form and collections of documents (e.g., newspapers maintaining engaged are in establishments and books,journals, These services. or archive library providing engaged in comprisesprimarily establishments industry This 51912 —Libraries Archives and other and periodicals. magazines new books,newspapers, retailing engaged in comprisesprimarily establishments industry This 4512 Stores —Book News and Dealers Books shops.shops gift and shops, card shops, Balloon greeting Includes: holiday and decorations seasonal curios. and cards, greeting souvenirs, novelty merchandise, new gifts, retailing engaged in comprises primarily establishments industry This Novelty453220 Souvenir —Gift, and Stores they sell. arrangements others.prepare from These purchased the plants potted usually and establishments arrangements floral cut flowers, retailing engaged in primarily florists as comprises known establishments industry This 45311 —Florists normally arranged in separate departments. cosmetics,toiletries, photographic equipment, jewelry, goods. toys sporting and hardware, items, such paint, selected as and additional appliances home and furnishings; furniture, of range new the following a wide predominating: products no line one with merchandise retailing engaged in stores department primarily as comprises known establishments industry This Stores4521 —Department Includes: or musicrepair, rental instruction. new these music products combination supplies; related in musical and instrument orwith retailing sheet new musical instruments, retailing engaged in comprisesprimarily establishments industry This Stores Supplies and 45114 Instruments —Musical supplies (exceptcraft needlecraft). new toys, hobby games and retailing engaged and in comprisesprimarily establishments industry This 45112 —Hobby, Toy Stores Game and stores; jewelry, and luggage leather and stores. goods Includes:

M M r u e o n’s stores; women’s clothing stores; stores; shoe clothing children’s infant’s clothing and sical instrument stores, sheet instrument musicsical stores piano and stores. spe r o us places in michigan A l l or portions of collections these may accessible be electronically. C h ristmas stores, novelty shops,ristmas shops, curio souvenir M e rchandise lines are are lines rchandise A p parel, parel, Appi end x E: Descriptive Statistics Table 83: Descriptive Statistics for the Entire Midwest

Description Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Sale Price $172,507.83 $129,172.44 $1000 $5,555,000 N atural Log of Sale Price 11.89 0.59 6.91 15.53 Sold in 2006 0.18 0.39 0 1 Sold in 2007 0.17 0.37 0 1 Sold in 2008 0.12 0.33 0 1 Sold in 2009 0.13 0.33 0 1 Sold in 2010 0.11 0.32 0 1 Sold in 2011 0.08 0.26 0 1 Sold in 2012 0.01 0.09 0 1 # of Bathrooms 2 0.91 1 10 Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 17.49 10.23 2.69 131.62 % of Households with Associate’s Degree or Higher 48.67% 18.10% 2.80% 93.40% % of Households Below Poverty Line 13.33% 11.07% 0.50% 92.40% River Within 200 Feet 0.01 0.09 0 1 Lake Within 200 Feet 0 0.05 0 1 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.22 0.41 0 1 Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.38 0 1 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.22 0.42 0 1 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.13 0.34 0 1 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.16 0.37 0 1 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 0.27 0.45 0 1 Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 0.11 0.32 0 1 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.26 0 1 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.19 0.40 0 1 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 0.23 0.42 0 1 Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.44 0.50 0 1 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.22 0 1 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.10 0.30 0 1 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.19 0 1 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.14 0.35 0 1 Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.58 0.49 0 1 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.16 0.37 0 1 Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.09 0.29 0 1 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.12 0.33 0 1 Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 137 138 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 83: Descriptive Statistics for the Entire Midwest (cont.) 1 1 Supplemental 1 Multiple Multiple 1 or 2 1 or 3 to 5 1 or 2 1 or 1 School and 1 and 1 School Multiple Schools and 1 Outdoor 1Outdoor and Schools Multiple Multiple and 1 School Multiple Multiple 1 Supplemental 1 Other Multiple Multiple Multiple Store and 1 Clothing Traverse City, MI City, Traverse L 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Other 1 G MI Flint, R 1 1 R K Davenport, IA Davenport, L Manitowoc, WI Manitowoc, WI Madison, a a P G G H R o oc alamazoo, MI r and nsing, MI nsing, kewood, O e yal Oak, MI Oak, yal e o r r ocery Store and 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1Museum Store and ocery rforming Arts Theater and 1 and Theater Arts rforming hester, M ligious Institution and 1 and Institution ligious bby/Toy/ R B L R R and e a R R e a staurants and 1 Other 1Other and staurants rs and Multiple Multiple and rs G R G R staurants and 1 or 2 1or and staurants e e pids, MI e e r i creation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation creation and 1 and creation r ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft ocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery P ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious ligious Institutions and 1 and Institutions ligious olic o N H G spe B a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. G G G o me Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department Store and me okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within ocery ocery Store ocery Store r o P B us places inmichigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B e o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore o B G Description okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore G G R a i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft H rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs R e r r ocery Store and ocery Store and o creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation e bby/Toy/ creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation B o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore G a me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me Mean 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 .10.46 0.31 0.19 0.15 0.15 0 .04 .17 Std. Dev. Std. 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.29 0.26 0.38 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.11 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 84: Regression Results for Entire Midwest

Description Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. 1 Supplemental Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.15 0.36 0 1 Constant $50,412.78 0.02*** 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.14 0 1 Sold in 2006 –– 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.12 0 1 Sold in 2007 –– Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.22 0 1 Sold in 2008 -3.05% 0.01*** 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.23 0 1 Sold in 2009 -6.20% 0.01*** 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.19 0 1 Sold in 2010 -6.67% 0.01*** 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.10 0.31 0 1 Sold in 2011 -3.54% 0.01*** 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.19 0 1 Sold in 2012 -11.57% 0.02*** 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.19 0.40 0 1 # of Bathrooms 12.75% 0*** Multiple Schools and 1 Outdoor Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.03 0.16 0 1 Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 1.82% 0*** 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.11 0 1 % of Households with Associate’s Degree or Higher 0.90% 0*** 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.15 0 1 % of Households Below Poverty Line 0.10% 0*** 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0 1 River Within 200 Feet 3.77% 0.02** Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.21 0 1 Lake Within 200 Feet 30.47% 0.03*** 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.10 0 1 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile -3.25% 0.01*** 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.10 0 1 Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile -4.50% 0.01*** 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.10 0 1 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile -1.78% 0.01*** 1 Supplemental Grocery Store Grocery Store and 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile -1.69% 0.01*** Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.10 0.30 0 1 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile –– 1 Supplemental Grocery Store Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.15 0 1 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 6.40% 0.01*** Lansing, MI 0.02 0.15 0 1 Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 3.15% 0.01*** Traverse City, MI 0.01 0.12 0 1 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile -1.39% 0.01* Royal Oak, MI 0.07 0.26 0 1 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile -1.39% 0.01** Flint, MI 0.05 0.22 0 1 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile –– Grand Rapids, MI 0.09 0.29 0 1 Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile -1.39% 0.01** Kalamazoo, MI 0.05 0.22 0 1 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 5.65% 0.01*** Davenport, IA 0.15 0.35 0 1 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile –– Rochester, MN 0.17 0.38 0 1 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile -11.40% 0.01*** Lakewood, OH 0.04 0.20 0 1 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 4.50% 0.01*** Madison, WI 0.31 0.46 0 1 Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -2.66% 0.01*** Manitowoc, WI 0.04 0.19 0 1 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile -1.88% 0.01*** Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 8.65% 0.01*** 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile -3.54% 0.01*** * Significant at the 0.10 confidence level. ** Significant at the 0.05 confidence level. *** Significant at the 0.01 confidence level. – This variable is not significant. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 139 140 full report ReBuilding p Table 84: 3 to 5 2 1 or Multiple 1 1 1 Supplemental 1 or 2 1 or 1 Other 1 Other 1Other and Schools Multiple Multiple and 1 School 1 and 1 School Multiple Multiple 1 Other 1 Other 1 1 Flint, MI Flint, R IA Davenport, K G R MI City, Traverse 1 Supplemental 1 Supplemental Multiple Store and 1 Clothing 1 L M Manitowoc, WI Manitowoc, P a G G R H oc o alamazoo, MI r adison, WI adison, and kewood, O e yal Oak, MI Oak, yal e o r r rforming Arts Theater and 1 and Theater Arts rforming 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1Museum Store and ocery hester, M ligious Institution and 1 and Institution ligious bby/Toy/ B R R R e a R R e a staurants and 1 Other 1Other and staurants rs and Multiple Multiple and rs G R staurants and 1 or 2 1or and staurants e e pids, MI e r creation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation creation and 1 and creation r ocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery ligious Institutions and 1 and Institutions ligious o N H G R spe B a G G G o me Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department Store and me eg okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store within a 1/2 Mile Mile a1/2 Store within ocery ocery Store and Multiple Multiple Store and ocery Multiple Store and ocery r ression o P B us places in michigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B e o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore o R B G okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore e R a H i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs e o R Variable Name creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation bby/Toy/ e B sults for Entire Midwest (cont.) o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore G G R a e i me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious Coeff. -30.23% -1 -13.67% 49.33% 14.80% 10.85% -9.24% -3.05% -5.07% -3.34% 56.21% -2.66% -5.35% -6.01% -11.31% 41.91% -8.15% 4.08% 9.09% 3.05% 4.79% 3.36% 2.53% 7.14% -4.97 – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.02* 0.02* 0.01* land policy institute views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 141 142 full report ReBuilding p Source: F: S I Table 85: Descriptive Statistics for Michigan Cities App ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft Mile a1/2 within 1 Florist Mile a1/2 within okstores Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Clothing Mile a1/2 within okstore Multiple 1 Mile bby/Toy/ a1/2 Store within 1 Department Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts 1 rforming 1 Mile a1/2 within creation Mile a1/2 within Institution ligious Multiple 1 1 Other Mile a1/2 within 1 Museum Mile a1/2 within rs Mile a1/2 within Schools Multiple Mile a1/2 within staurants Mile a1/2 within 1 School Mile a1/2 within staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Mile Multiple a1/2 Store within ocery 1 Feet 200 ke Within L useholds Feet 200 Within ver of Degree Associates with R useholds % of hrooms % of Feet Tens in of Square Footage Square # of 2012 in Sold 2011 in Sold 2010 in Sold 2009 in Sold 2008 in Sold g of Sale 2007 in Sold 2006 in Sold ural N Sale a B H P R G i at e e o o r e B P H H n B R at L rice R o o and e a d R e L G B R G e o x e o i r r P olic o G spe a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me e B p e r a P low o r r ice us places inmichigan a P te Variable Name o verty verty C i ty L i A ne n a l y sis H i gher

Resu l t s $ 104,457.79 Mean 22.47 31.68 11.46 0.06 .40.50 0.44 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 12.16 .604 0.23 0.44 0.26 .60.44 0.26 0.07 0.25 .504 .10.46 0.31 0.48 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.01 .104 0.38 0.46 0.31 0.16 0.16 .10.50 0.51 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.12 1.59 0.17 Lansing 0.11 % % 0 0 0 $49,639.68 Std. Dev. Std. 14.38 10.01 .002 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.48 .401 0.34 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.36 0.39 0.24 0.07 0.28 0.43 0.25 0.22 .513.90 5.05 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.37 .40.25 0.14 0.16 0.71 .30.10 0.13 % % 0 0 0 $192,166.19 Mean 46.63 12.30 Traverse City Traverse 12.03 0.04 0.09 0.08 .00.40 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.52 0.32 0.73 0.10 0.01 1.90 0.41 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 % % 0 0 $151,302.81 Std. Dev. Std. 8.23 3.53 0.40 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.49 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.28 0.43 0.82 0.42 0.42 5.88 0.47 0.10 0.19 0.18 % % 0 0 $177,691.15 Mean 54.67 6.51 12.63 .00.30 0.90 0.09 0.09 12.01 .004 .604 0.23 0.44 0.26 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.30 .004 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 .60.44 0.26 0.38 0.07 0.42 0.27 .10.46 0.31 0.21 .40.35 0.14 0.35 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.12 Royal Oak Royal 1.74 0.1 % % 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. $74,236.20 2.94 7.37 .403 0.48 0.36 0.44 0.49 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.75 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.18 4.31 0.13 % % 0 0 0 $68,424.08 Mean 26.42 25.25 10.99 0.06 0.09 0.08 .00.46 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.49 0.03 .604 0.25 0.48 0.36 0.58 0.24 0.07 11.78 0.93 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 1.52 0.11 % % 0 0 0 0 Flint $43,367.76 Std. Dev. Std. 10.40 13.85 0.40 .90.09 0.09 .002 0.46 0.29 0.50 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.02 .90.23 0.29 .60.68 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.43 0.23 0.22 0.22 .301 .50.21 0.35 0.14 0.33 0.27 0.77 5.55 0.31 0.18 0.12 % % 0 0 $131,431.46 Mean 39.51 17.87 Grand Rapids 14.01 0.04 .004 0.22 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.24 11.72 1.84 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.71 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 % % 0 0 0 0 $54,069.51 Std. Dev. Std. 14.30 12.02 4.64 0.03 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.37 0.47 0.76 0.41 0.19 0.18 .80.12 0.18 % % 0 0 $117,221.38 Mean 28.91 14.28 Kalamazoo 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.05 .80.33 0.88 11.53 0.29 0.24 .50.44 0.25 0.52 0.32 0.27 43 0.10 0.41 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 1.79 % 18.49% % 0 0 0 0 $69,607.88 Std. Dev. Std. 14.72 0.44 0.50 0.20 0.54 0.05 0.49 0.03 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.43 0.82 0.22 0.42 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.32 0.37 0.47 5.93 0.31 0.21 0.41 % 0 0 Lansing Traverse City Royal Oak Flint Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Variable Name Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Sale Price $104,457.79 $49,639.68 $192,166.19 $151,302.81 $177,691.15 $74,236.20 $68,424.08 $43,367.76 $131,431.46 $54,069.51 $117,221.38 $69,607.88 Natural Log of Sale Price 11.46 0.48 12.03 0.50 12.01 0.43 10.99 0.54 11.72 0.38 11.53 0.54 Sold in 2006 0.25 0.43 0.18 0.38 0.18 0.38 0.24 0.43 0.21 0.41 0.24 0.43 Sold in 2007 0.13 0.34 0.18 0.39 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.38 0.15 0.36 0.17 0.37 Sold in 2008 0.10 0.29 0.15 0.36 0.12 0.32 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.32 Sold in 2009 0.13 0.34 0.14 0.34 0.13 0.33 0.08 0.27 0.13 0.33 0.12 0.32 Sold in 2010 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.40 0.14 0.35 0.06 0.23 0.12 0.32 0.10 0.31 Sold in 2011 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sold in 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Bathrooms 1.59 0.71 1.90 0.82 1.74 0.75 1.52 0.77 1.84 0.76 1.79 0.82 Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 12.16 5.05 13.90 5.88 12.63 4.31 11.78 5.55 14.01 4.64 14.28 5.93 % of Households with Associates Degree of Higher 31.68% 14.38% 46.63% 8.23% 54.67% 7.37% 26.42% 13.85% 39.51% 14.30% 43% 18.49% % of Households Below Poverty Line 22.47% 10.01% 12.30% 3.53% 6.51% 2.94% 25.25% 10.40% 17.87% 12.02% 28.91% 14.72% River Within 200 Feet 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.10 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.07 0 0.05 Lake Within 200 Feet 0 0 0.03 0.18 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.03 0 0.03 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.31 0.46 0.38 0.49 0.42 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.25 0.43 0.32 0.47 Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile 0.16 0.37 0.13 0.34 0.1 0.32 0.30 0.46 0.19 0.39 0.18 0.39 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.26 0.44 0.09 0.29 0.27 0.44 0.36 0.48 0.24 0.43 0.25 0.44 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.16 0.36 0.41 0.49 0.21 0.41 0.18 0.38 0.16 0.36 0.17 0.37 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.12 0.32 0.23 0.42 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.33 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 0.35 0.48 0.31 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.29 0.46 0.41 0.49 Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 0.08 0.28 0.13 0.34 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.19 0.39 0.15 0.35 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.43 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.18 0.12 0.32 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.19 0.39 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.46 0.26 0.44 0.23 0.42 0.27 0.44 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 0.26 0.44 0.23 0.42 0.31 0.46 0.19 0.40 0.19 0.39 0.29 0.45 Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.51 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.38 0.49 0.58 0.49 0.71 0.45 0.52 0.50 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.13 0.10 0.29 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.20 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.34 0.18 0.38 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.29 0.19 0.39 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.21 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.11 0.32 0.08 0.28 0.09 0.28 0.07 0.26 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.29 Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.44 0.50 0.73 0.44 0.90 0.30 0.93 0.26 0.68 0.47 0.88 0.33 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.37 0.19 0.40 0.26 0.44 0.18 0.39 0.20 0.40 0.22 0.42 Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.22 0.10 0.30 0.13 0.33 0.09 0.29 0.23 0.42 0.05 0.22 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.06 0.24 0.32 0.47 0.09 0.28 0.12 0.33 0.14 0.35 0.21 0.41 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 143 144 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table 85: Descriptive Statistics for Michigan Cities (cont.) Multiple Multiple 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Supplemental bby/Toy/ Multiple Store and 1 Clothing 1 and Institutions ligious 1 and Theater Arts rforming 1 1 1 and creation 1 and Institution ligious Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation 1 1 Other 1 Other 1Other and Schools Multiple Multiple and rs Multiple and 1 School 2 1or and staurants 1 and 1 School 1Other and staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Multiple 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1 1Museum Store and ocery 1 1 Supplemental P H H R G G e o e o r r bby/Toy/ B R L R and e a R R e G G R R e e e e i r r ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft P ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious olic o G G a spe B a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me G G G o me Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department Store and me okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store and ocery Store and Mile a1/2 Store within ocery r o P B us places inmichigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile Mile a1/2 within okstores B e Variable Name o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore

o R B G okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore e R a i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs e creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation B o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore Mean 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.13 Lansing 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.09 0.08 0.20 .402 0.44 0.26 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.37 0.21 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.13 Mean Traverse City Traverse 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 .40.34 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.33 0.37 0.10 0.31 0.14 0.14 0.16 0 Mean 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Royal Oak Royal 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.28 0.43 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0 Mean 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 .10.46 0.31 0.12 0.17 0.11 0 0 0 Flint Std. Dev. Std. 0.06 0.09 .00.22 0.50 0.02 0.29 0.38 0.32 0.31 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0 Mean Grand Rapids 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.18 Std. Dev. Std. .90.04 0.09 0.20 0.29 0.38 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.42 0.37 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.17 Mean Kalamazoo 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 .60.48 0.36 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.11 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.26 0.07 0.23 0.22 0.33 0.27 0.31 0.21 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.17 Lansing Traverse City Royal Oak Flint Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Variable Name Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 Supplemental Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.16 0.37 0.12 0.33 0.10 0.30 0.17 0.38 0.18 0.38 0.11 0.31 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.34 0 0 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.20 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0 0.07 0 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.07 Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.04 0.19 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.06 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.09 0.28 0.12 0.32 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.26 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.31 0.05 0.22 0.09 0.29 0.06 0.24 0.05 0.23 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.26 0.16 0.37 0.06 0.24 0.31 0.46 0.18 0.38 0.12 0.33 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.25 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.21 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.22 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.13 0.34 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.43 0.45 0.50 0.22 0.42 0.36 0.48 Multiple Schools and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.18 0.08 0.27 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.07 0 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.14 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.19 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.19 0.02 0.13 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.19 0 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.03 0.17 Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.28 0.04 0.20 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.14 0 0.05 0 0 0.01 0.12 0 0.04 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0 0.05 0 0 0.01 0.08 0 0.06 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.18 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.17 0 0.05 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.09 0.29 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.22 0.11 0.31 0.16 0.37 0.05 0.21 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.13 0 0.05 0.02 0.15 0 0.02 0.09 0.29 0 0.05 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 145 146 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table Descriptive 86: Statistics for Midwest Cities Sold in 2006 in Sold ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft Mile a1/2 within 1 Florist Mile a1/2 within okstores Multiple Multiple bby/Toy/ Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts 1 rforming 1 Mile a1/2 within creation Mile a1/2 within Institution ligious Multiple 1 1 Other 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Clothing Mile a1/2 within okstore 1 Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Department Mile a1/2 within 1 Museum Mile a1/2 within rs Mile a1/2 within Schools Multiple Mile a1/2 within staurants Mile a1/2 within 1 School Mile a1/2 within staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Mile Multiple a1/2 Store within ocery 1 Feet 200 ke Within L useholds Feet 200 Within ver R % of hrooms # of 2012 in Sold 2011 in Sold 2010 in Sold g of Sale 2007 in Sold ural N Sale useholds with Associates Degree of Degree Associates with useholds % of Feet Tens in of Square Footage Square 2009 in Sold 2008 in Sold a H P R B G i at e e o o r B P H H B R at L rice R o o and e a R e L G B R G e o e o i r r P olic o G spe a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me B e r P low o r ice us places inmichigan P o Variable Name verty verty L i ne H i gher $ 128,094.98 Mean 35.83% Davenport, IA Davenport, 15.78% 0.09 0.08 14.18 .60.50 0.46 0.05 11.62 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.22 .504 0.29 0.48 0.35 .10.46 0.31 .40.34 0.14 .403 .40.34 0.14 0.35 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.78 0.11 0 0 $74,236.51 Std. Dev. Std. 14.92% 9.30% 0.54 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.22 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.35 5.86 0.32 0.37 0.27 0.76 0.41 0.18 0.17 0 0 $183,022.89 Mean 56.20% Rochester, MN 7.25% 32.17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.02 11.97 0.27 2.27 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.11 0 Std. Dev. Std. $110,711.31 12.39% 13.30 0.44 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.88 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.55 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.31 0.21 0.41 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.11 6% $132,319.85 Mean 44.32% 14.67% Lakewood, OH Lakewood, 11.64 0.09 0.09 0.09 .00.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 .40.48 0.64 0.99 18.12 0.58 .30.38 0.83 0.22 .50.48 0.35 0.27 0.01 .40.35 0.35 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.17 1.67 0.11 0 0 0 0 $112,503.02 Std. Dev. Std. 10.60% 8.09% 0.04 0.49 0.56 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.28 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.79 .00.17 0.10 0.10 0.31 6.71 0 0 0 $240,738.85 Mean 60.67% 10.97% Madison, WI Madison, 12.29 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.39 0.24 15.17 2.29 0.10 0.10 0.61 .104 .60.48 0.36 0.40 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0 0 $170,623.13 Std. Dev. Std. 15.22% 01%9.16% 10.17% 0.04 0.06 0.30 0.30 .401 0.35 0.14 0.34 0.49 0.49 6.30 0.29 0.36 .601 0.35 0.14 0.36 .60.21 0.36 .80.21 0.38 .802 0.40 0.20 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.31 .60.10 0.16 0.15 1 $117,221.69 Mean 28.45% Manitowoc, WI 14.87 0.40 0.02 0.38 11.57 0.22 .50.48 0.35 0.10 0.21 0.16 .40.34 0.14 0.16 0.18 1.68 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.11 0 0 0 $56,652.74 Std. Dev. Std. 7.90% 3.73% 0.30 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.37 5.38 0.74 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.13 0 0 Davenport, IA Rochester, MN Lakewood, OH Madison, WI Manitowoc, WI Variable Name Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Sale Price $128,094.98 $74,236.51 $183,022.89 $110,711.31 $132,319.85 $112,503.02 $240,738.85 $170,623.13 $117,221.69 $56,652.74 Natural Log of Sale Price 11.62 0.54 11.97 0.55 11.64 0.56 12.29 0.42 11.57 0.45 Sold in 2006 0.16 0.37 0.17 0.37 0.16 0.36 0.19 0.39 0.14 0.34 Sold in 2007 0.15 0.35 0.18 0.38 0.14 0.35 0.17 0.38 0.20 0.40 Sold in 2008 0.14 0.35 0.14 0.34 0.14 0.35 0.11 0.32 0.16 0.37 Sold in 2009 0.15 0.36 0.13 0.34 0.15 0.36 0.12 0.32 0.15 0.36 Sold in 2010 0.14 0.34 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.33 0.10 0.30 0.13 0.34 Sold in 2011 0.11 0.32 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.34 Sold in 2012 0 0 0.01 0.07 0 0 0.02 0.15 0 0 # of Bathrooms 1.78 0.76 2.27 0.88 1.67 0.79 2.29 1 1.68 0.74 Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 14.18 5.86 32.17 13.30 18.12 6.71 15.17 6.30 14.87 5.38 % of Households with Associates Degree of Higher 35.83% 14.92% 56.20% 12.39% 44.32% 10.60% 60.67% 15.22% 28.45% 7.90% % of Households Below Poverty Line 15.78% 9.30% 7.25% 6% 14.67% 8.09% 10.97% 10.17% 9.16% 3.73% River Within 200 Feet 0.03 0.17 0.01 0.11 0 0.04 0 0.04 0.02 0.13 Lake Within 200 Feet 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.05 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.23 0.42 0.12 0.33 0.20 0.40 0.16 0.36 0.21 0.41 Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.38 0.09 0.29 0.64 0.48 0.15 0.36 0.17 0.38 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.31 0.46 0.17 0.37 0.09 0.29 0.18 0.39 0.35 0.48 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.38 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.36 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.32 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.18 0.38 0.04 0.19 0.27 0.45 0.15 0.36 0.14 0.35 1 School within a 1/2 Mile 0.24 0.43 0.19 0.39 0.58 0.49 0.21 0.40 0.36 0.48 Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile 0.12 0.33 0.09 0.29 0.17 0.38 0.11 0.31 0.16 0.37 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.19 0.20 0.40 0.09 0.28 0.18 0.38 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.23 0.42 0.08 0.27 0.18 0.39 0.18 0.39 0.21 0.41 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 0.24 0.43 0.21 0.41 0.09 0.28 0.24 0.43 0.22 0.41 Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.46 0.50 0.27 0.44 0.83 0.38 0.39 0.49 0.38 0.49 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0.03 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.29 0.09 0.29 0 0 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.09 0.28 0.04 0.21 0.35 0.48 0.08 0.27 0.13 0.34 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.16 0 0 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.31 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.22 0.41 0.10 0.30 0.01 0.10 0.17 0.38 0.21 0.41 Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.35 0.48 0.29 0.45 0.99 0.10 0.61 0.49 0.40 0.49 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.38 0.10 0.30 0.22 0.42 0.13 0.34 0.14 0.35 Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.05 0.22 0.06 0.23 0.12 0.33 0.09 0.28 0.10 0.30 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.17 0.38 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.36 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.31 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 147 148 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table Descriptive 86: Statistics for Midwest Cities (cont.) Multiple Multiple 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Supplemental bby/Toy/ Multiple Store and 1 Clothing 1 and Institutions ligious 1 and Theater Arts rforming 1 1 1 and creation 1 and Institution ligious Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation 1 1 Other 1 Other 1Other and Schools Multiple Multiple and rs Multiple and 1 School 2 1or and staurants 1 and 1 School 2 1 or 3 to 5 staurants and 1 Other 1Other and staurants Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery 2 1 or Multiple 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1 1Museum Store and ocery 1 1 Supplemental 1 Supplemental P H H R G G e o e o r r bby/Toy/ B R L R and e a R R e G R R G e e e e i r r ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft P ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious olic o G G a spe B a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me G G G o me Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department Store and me okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store and ocery Store and ocery Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within ocery r o P B us places inmichigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B e Variable Name o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore

o R B G okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore e R a i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs e creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation B o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore Mean Davenport, IA Davenport, 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.11 Std. Dev. Std. 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.11 Mean Rochester, MN 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.24 0.28 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.13 Mean Lakewood, OH Lakewood, 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.58 0.24 0.07 0.43 0.47 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.04 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.26 0.07 0.43 0.32 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0 0 0 Mean Madison, WI Madison, 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.16 0 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. .40.06 0.04 0.05 .50.04 0.05 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.15 .50.12 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 Mean Manitowoc, WI 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.13 0 0 Std. Dev. Std. 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.33 0.10 0.21 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.17 0 0 Davenport, IA Rochester, MN Lakewood, OH Madison, WI Manitowoc, WI Variable Name Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 Supplemental Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.15 0.36 0.08 0.28 0.47 0.50 0.16 0.37 0.10 0.30 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile 0.03 0.16 0 0.05 0.04 0.21 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.17 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.14 0 0 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.14 0 0 Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile 0.09 0.28 0.04 0.19 0.11 0.32 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.16 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.08 0.28 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.21 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.26 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.10 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.12 0.32 0.02 0.14 0.24 0.43 0.08 0.28 0.07 0.26 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.18 0 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.12 0.33 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 0.11 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.58 0.49 0.16 0.36 0.13 0.34 Multiple Schools and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.17 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.09 0 0 0 0.05 0.04 0.20 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.09 0 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.26 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.07 0.26 0.02 0.15 0 0.03 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.23 Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 0.09 0.28 0.02 0.13 0 0 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.24 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.11 0 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.13 0 0 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 0.02 0.12 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.04 0.06 0.24 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.13 0 0.05 0.02 0.14 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.24 0.43 0.50 0.08 0.28 0.05 0.22 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.29 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.13 land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 149 150 full report ReBuilding p Source: significant. not is variable – This level. confidence 0.01 the at Significant *** level. confidence 0.05 the at Significant ** level. confidence 0.10 the at * Significant Table 87: Sold in 2006 in Sold (Constant) ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft Mile a1/2 within 1 Florist Mile a1/2 within okstores Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Clothing Mile a1/2 within okstore Multiple 1 Mile bby/Toy/ a1/2 Store within 1 Department Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts 1 rforming 1 Mile a1/2 within creation Mile a1/2 within Institution ligious Multiple 1 1 Other Mile a1/2 within 1 Museum Mile a1/2 within rs Mile a1/2 within Schools Multiple Mile a1/2 within staurants Mile a1/2 within 1 School Mile a1/2 within staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Mile Multiple a1/2 Store within ocery 1 Feet 200 ke Within L useholds Feet 200 Within ver of Degree Associates with R useholds % of hrooms % of Feet Tens in of Square Footage Square # of 2012 in Sold 2011 in Sold 2010 in Sold 2009 in Sold 2008 in Sold 2007 in Sold a G B H P R i e e o o r B H H B R at L R o o and e a R e G B R G e e o i r r P olic o G R spe a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. eg me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me B e r low ression o us places inmichigan P o verty verty Variable Name R L i ne e sults for Michigan Cities H i gher $51,947.08 Coeff. -56.92% -21.65% -6.39% -31.13% -8.33% -9.43% -6.76% 15.72% 0.90% .0 0.02*** 6.50% 6.50% 3.05% 7.90% -7.13% Lansing – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.06*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.15*** 0.04** 0.04** 0.03** 0.03** 0.03** 0.03** 0.08* 0*** 0*** $66,568.38 Coeff. -37.25% 20.92% Traverse City Traverse -11.04% 1.3 0.09* -15.13% 10.85% -9.79% 11.96% -9.15% 24.11% 0.70% 3.56% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.06*** 0.02*** 0.22*** 0.14*** 0.04** 0.04** 0.08** 0.05** 0.05* 0*** 0** $70,755.52 Coeff. -33.30% -32.36% -37.62% -4.40% -19.51% -3.44% -8.79% -2.86% 12.52% -2.47% 0.70% 4.39% Royal Oak Royal 3.15% 7.14% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.09*** 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** .2* 6.50% 0.02*** 0.01*** 0.02** 0.02** 0.01** 0.02* 0*** 0*** $48,921.86 Coeff. -33.03% -47.53% -10.42% -13.93% -23.51% -13.15% -4.78% -1.49% 0.30% 4.39% 7.90% 7.04% 6.61% 4.71% Flint – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.09*** 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.02** 0.03** 0.03** 0*** 0*** 0** $56,782.44 Coeff. -10.68% Grand Rapids 2.1 0.14** -26.51% -17.30% 20.92% 10.08% -4.69% -6.39% -6.95% -13.15% 14.34% -11.75% -9.24% -3.34% -2.66% -7.04% 0.40% 0.80% 2.74% 5.13% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01** 0*** 0*** **-.0 0*** -0.60% 0*** $56,953.05 Coeff. -10.42% -16.39% -20.31% -18.45% -21.49% -4.40% -17.72% -15.21% -6.67% 10.85% -5.07% -5.92% 14.22% -5.35% 0.80% -5.16% Kalamazoo 4.08% 8.44% -4.11% 4.19% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.06*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.01*** 0.02** 0.02** 0.02** 0.02** 0.03** 0.10** 0.02* 0*** 0*** Lansing Traverse City Royal Oak Flint Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. (Constant) $51,947.08 0.06*** $66,568.38 0.22*** $70,755.52 0.09*** $48,921.86 0.09*** $56,782.44 0.03*** $56,953.05 0.06*** Sold in 2006 –– –– -2.86% 0.02* -4.78% 0.02*** –– –– Sold in 2007 -6.39% 0.03** –– -8.79% 0.02*** -10.42% 0.02*** –– -4.11% 0.02** Sold in 2008 -7.13% 0.04** –– -19.51% 0.02*** -23.51% 0.03*** -6.95% 0.01*** -10.42% 0.02*** Sold in 2009 -21.65% 0.03*** -11.04% 0.05** -32.36% 0.02*** -33.03% 0.03*** -11.75% 0.01*** -15.21% 0.02*** Sold in 2010 -31.13% 0.04*** –– -33.30% 0.02*** -47.53% 0.03*** -17.30% 0.01*** -21.49% 0.03*** Sold in 2011 –– –– -37.62% 0.02*** –– –– –– Sold in 2012 –– –– –– –– –– –– # of Bathrooms 6.50% 0.02*** 11.96% 0.02*** 7.14% 0.01*** 6.61% 0.02*** 10.08% 0.01*** 8.44% 0.01*** Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 3.05% 0*** 3.56% 0*** 4.39% 0*** 4.39% 0*** 2.74% 0*** 4.19% 0*** % of Households with Associates Degree of Higher 0.90% 0*** 0.70% 0** 0.70% 0*** 0.30% 0** 0.80% 0*** 0.80% 0*** % of Households Below Poverty Line –– –– –– -1.49% 0*** 0.40% 0*** -0.60% 0*** River Within 200 Feet –– -37.25% 0.14*** –– –– –– –– Lake Within 200 Feet –– –– –– –– -26.51% 0.14** –– 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile -9.43% 0.03*** –– -2.47% 0.01** 7.04% 0.02*** -3.34% 0.01*** –– Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile -8.33% 0.04** –– –– –– -4.69% 0.02*** -5.92% 0.03** 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– -2.66% 0.01** -4.40% 0.02** 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– -6.39% 0.02*** -5.07% 0.02** 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile –– -15.13% 0.09* –– 7.90% 0.03** –– -20.31% 0.10** 1 School within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– –– –– Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile –– –– 12.52% 0.04*** -13.15% 0.04*** -7.04% 0.01*** –– 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– -13.93% 0.05*** –– 10.85% 0.03*** 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile –– 10.85% 0.04** –– –– -9.24% 0.02*** –– 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 7.90% 0.03** -9.15% 0.05* -3.44% 0.02** –– –– -5.35% 0.02** Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 6.50% 0.03** –– -4.40% 0.02*** 6.50% 0.03** –– -6.67% 0.03*** 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile -56.92% 0.15*** –– –– –– –– -16.39% 0.05*** 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile –– 24.11% 0.06*** 3.15% 0.02** –– 20.92% 0.02*** 14.22% 0.02*** 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 15.72% 0.08* –– –– –– -13.15% 0.04*** –– 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– 14.34% 0.04*** -18.45% 0.07*** Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -6.76% 0.03** –– –– –– -10.68% 0.02*** -17.72% 0.04*** 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile –– -9.79% 0.04** –– 4.71% 0.02** 5.13% 0.01*** -5.16% 0.02*** Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile –– 20.92% 0.08** –– –– –– –– 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– –– 4.08% 0.02* land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 151 152 full report ReBuilding p Source: significant. not is variable – This level. confidence 0.01 the at Significant *** level. confidence 0.05 the at Significant ** level. confidence 0.10 the at * Significant Table 87: ocery Store and 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1 1Museum Store and ocery 1 1 Supplemental 1 Supplemental 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Supplemental bby/Toy/ Multiple Store and 1 Clothing 1 and Institutions ligious 1 and Theater 1 Arts rforming 1 1 and creation 1 and Institution ligious Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation 1 1 Other 1 Other 1Other and Schools Multiple Multiple and rs Multiple and 1 School 2 1or and staurants 1 and 1 School 1Other and staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Multiple P G G H R e e o r r B R L R and e a R R e G R R e e e e r r P ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious olic o G R spe B a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. G G G o eg me Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department Store and me okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store in 1/2 Mile 1/2 Store in ocery ocery Store and Multiple Multiple Store and ocery ocery Store and r ression o P B us places inmichigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B e o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore o R B G Variable Name okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore e R a H i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation rs within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within rs e R o creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation bby/Toy/ e B sults for Michigan Cities (cont.) o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore G G a i me Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within me ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft Coeff. -50.88% -22.74% -16.39% 84.97% 71.60% -7.60% 9.42% Lansing – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.20*** 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.09** 0.12** 0.04* 0.05* Coeff. -38.98% -18.94% -30.51% Traverse City Traverse 21.53% 31.13% 31.13% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.08*** 0.10** 0.15** 0.28* 0.14* Coeff. -9.70% 9.31% Royal Oak Royal – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04** 0.05* Coeff. -15.72% -21.73% -8.79% 16.42% Flint – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.08*** 0.04** 0.06** Coeff. -16.97% Grand Rapids -20.15% -17.39% -11.49% -16.14% 19%0.03*** 21.90% 10.63% 12.08% 5.97% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03** Coeff. -16.89% 25.99% 22.02% -11.49% -11.66% -7.69% -7.32% Kalamazoo – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.07*** 0.03** 0.10** 0.05* 0.10* Lansing Traverse City Royal Oak Flint Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. 1 Supplemental Grocery Store in 1/2 Mile -7.60% 0.04* 21.53% 0.08*** –– –– –– -7.32% 0.03** 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– –– –– 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile 71.60% 0.20*** –– –– –– –– -16.89% 0.10* Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– 21.90% 0.03*** -11.66% 0.05*** 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– 5.97% 0.03** –– 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile -16.39% 0.09** –– –– –– 10.63% 0.03*** -7.69% 0.05* 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– -15.72% 0.04*** -16.14% 0.03*** 25.99% 0.10** 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– 16.42% 0.06** –– –– 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile 9.42% 0.05* –– –– –– –– –– Multiple Schools and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– –– -11.49% 0.05*** 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile -50.88% 0.18*** –– –– –– –– –– 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile –– 31.13% 0.14* 9.31% 0.05* –– –– –– 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile –– -38.98% 0.28* -9.70% 0.04** –– -11.49% 0.04*** –– Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile –– -30.51% 0.15** –– –– -20.15% 0.04*** 22.02% 0.07*** 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile 84.97% 0.19*** –– –– –– -16.97% 0.05*** –– 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– –– –– 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile -22.74% 0.12** –– –– -21.73% 0.08*** -17.39% 0.03*** –– 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile –– -18.94% 0.10** –– -8.79% 0.04** –– –– 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile –– –– –– –– 12.08% 0.03*** –– land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 153 154 full report ReBuilding p Source: significant. not is variable – This level. confidence 0.01 the at Significant *** level. confidence 0.05 the at Significant ** level. confidence 0.10 the at * Significant Table 88: Sold in 2010 in Sold 2009 in Sold 2008 in Sold 2007 in Sold 2006 in Sold (Constant) ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft Mile a1/2 within 1 Florist Mile a1/2 within okstores Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Clothing Mile a1/2 within okstore Multiple 1 Mile bby/Toy/ a1/2 Store within 1 Department Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts 1 rforming 1 Mile a1/2 within creation Mile a1/2 within Institution ligious Multiple 1 1 Other Mile a1/2 within 1 Museum Mile a1/2 within rs Mile a1/2 within Schools Multiple Mile a1/2 within staurants Mile a1/2 within 1 School Mile a1/2 within staurants 2 1 or Mile a1/2 within Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Mile Multiple a1/2 Store within ocery 1 Feet 200 ke Within L useholds Feet 200 Within ver of Degree Associates with R useholds % of hrooms % of Feet Tens in of Square Footage Square # of 2012 in Sold 2011 in Sold a B H P R G i e e o o r B H H B R at L R o o and e a R e G B R G e e o i r r P olic o G R spe a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within a 1/2 Mile a 1/2 Store within me eg B e r low ression o us places inmichigan P Variable Name o verty verty R L i ne e sults for Midwest Cities H i gher 4,2.00.02*** $48,629.20 Coeff. -19.67% Davenport, IA Davenport, -0.90% 22.88% -8.06% 40%0.02** -4.02% -11.93% -3.25% -8.15% 3.46% 2.94% 2.43% 5.65% 5.65% -6.11% 7.68% 7.36% 6.61% 1.01% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.01*** 0.01*** .1* 4.29% 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01** 0*** 0*** 0*** – – – – – – – – – – – – – – $58,570.29 Coeff. -10.24% -12.89% 25.99% Rochester, MN -6.20% -12.10% -15.21% -3.44% 16.53% 0.40% 0.40% 11.29% 6.08% 12.19% 9.64% 4.92% 3.77% 9.31% 1.51% – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.01*** 0.02** 0.02** 0.03** 0.07** 0.04* 0.02* 0*** 0*** 0*** – – – – – – – – – – – – – $162,916.63 Coeff. -24.80% -22.04% -23.97% -40.19% -10.68% -15.89% -26.21% -12.63% -31.27% -17.88% -0.90% -16.14% 18.06% Lakewood, OH Lakewood, -28.11% -8.24% .0 0*** 0.60% 5.44% 1.11% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.17*** 0.04** 0.27* 0*** **06%0*** 0.60% 0*** – – – – – – – – – – – – – – $73,938.32 Coeff. -10.24% -4.30% -6.48% -4.59% -9.79% 41.62% 10.74% -3.73% -11.13% 0.70% 8.98% 3.46% 2.94% 2.94% 2.94% 6.82% 8.33% 2.22% 5.65% 2.53% 7.68% Madison, WI Madison, 6.18% 1.92% 1.82% 3.15% 5.13% 2.12% 7.14% – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** .1* 76%0.03*** -7.60% 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0,01*** 0.01** 0.01** 0.05* 0.01* 0*** 0*** 0*** – – – $50,210.53 Coeff. Manitowoc, WI -10.86% -14.53% -15.63% -14.10% -8.06% -12.19% -8.24% -3.44% -5.82% -9.52% 0.90% 8.87% 3.67% -6.11% -17.88 4.71% 1.11% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.09*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.01*** 0.04** 0.02** 0.03** 0.03** 0.02* 0*** 0*** 0*** – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Davenport, IA Rochester, MN Lakewood, OH Madison, WI Manitowoc, WI Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. (Constant) $48,629.20 0.02*** $58,570.29 0.05*** $162,916.63 0.17*** $73,938.32 0.01*** $50,210.53 0.09*** Sold in 2006 – – – – – – 2.12% 0.01*** 4.71% 0.02** Sold in 2007 7.36% 0.01*** – – -8.24% 0.04** 2.94% 0.01*** – – Sold in 2008 6.61% 0.01*** 4.92% 0.02*** -28.11% 0.04*** 6.82% 0.01*** – – Sold in 2009 7.68% 0.01*** 3.77% 0.02** -24.80% 0.04*** 2.22% 0.01** – – Sold in 2010 5.65% 0.01*** 4.29% 0.02** -23.97% 0.04*** 6.18% 0.01*** – – Sold in 2011 – – 11.29% 0.02*** -31.27% 0.04*** 3.15% 0.01*** – – Sold in 2012 – – 16.53% 0.07** – – -11.13% 0.02*** – – # of Bathrooms 22.88% 0.01*** 9.64% 0.01*** 5.44% 0.02*** 5.65% 0*** 8.87% 0.01*** Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 2.43% 0*** 1.51% 0*** 1.11% 0*** 2.94% 0*** 3.67% 0*** % of Households with Associates Degree of Higher 1.01% 0*** 0.40% 0*** 0.60% 0*** 0.70% 0*** 0.90% 0*** % of Households Below Poverty Line -0.90% 0*** 0.40% 0*** -0.90% 0*** 0.60% 0*** 1.11% 0*** River Within 200 Feet – – – – -40.19% 0.27* 10.74% 0.05* – – Lake Within 200 Feet – – 25.99% 0.07*** – – 41.62% 0.04*** – – 1 Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile – – – – -15.89% 0.04*** -9.79% 0,01*** -12.19% 0.03*** Multiple Grocery Stores within a 1/2 Mile – – – – -22.04% 0.03*** -10.24% 0.01*** -6.11% 0.03** 1 or 2 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile – – – – – – – – -3.44% 0.02* 3 to 5 Restaurants within a 1/2 Mile 2.94% 0.01** – – – – 3.46% 0.01*** -10.86% 0.03*** 1 or 2 Bars within a 1/2 Mile – – -12.89% 0.05*** – – -6.48% 0.01*** – – 1 School within a 1/2 Mile – – 12.19% 0.02*** – – -4.59% 0.02*** -9.52% 0.03*** Multiple Schools within a 1/2 Mile -8.06% 0.02*** 9.31% 0.02*** 18.06% 0.04*** 7.14% 0.01*** -14.53% 0.03*** 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile – – – – – – 1.82% 0.01* – – 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile – – -10.24% 0.03*** – – 1.92% 0.01** – – 1 Religious Institution within a 1/2 Mile 3.46% 0.01*** – – -16.14% 0.06*** 2.53% 0.01*** – – Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile -6.11% 0.01*** -3.44% 0.02* -26.21% 0.05*** 2.94% 0.01*** -5.82% 0.03** 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile – – -6.20% 0.04* – – 8.33% 0.01*** – – 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within a 1/2 Mile -4.02% 0.02** – – -12.63% 0.03*** – – -8.06% 0.04** 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile -19.67% 0.02*** -15.21% 0.05*** – – 5.13% 0.02*** – – 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile 5.65% 0.02*** 6.08% 0.03** – – 7.68% 0.01*** -14.10% 0.04*** Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -11.93% 0.01*** – – – – -4.30% 0.01*** -17.88 0.04*** 1 Clothing Store within a 1/2 Mile -3.25% 0.01*** – – -10.68% 0.03*** -3.73% 0.01*** -7.60% 0.03*** Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile – – – – – – 8.98% 0.01*** -15.63% 0.05*** 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile -8.15% 0.02*** -12.10% 0.03*** -17.88% 0.06*** – – -8.24% 0.03*** land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 155 156 full report ReBuilding p Source: significant. not is variable – This level. confidence 0.01 the at Significant *** level. confidence 0.05 the at Significant ** level. confidence 0.10 the at * Significant Table 88: staurants and 1 or 2 1or and staurants 1Other and staurants Mile a1/2 within 1Florist and Stores ocery 3 to 5 2 1 or Multiple 1 Store and ocery Mile a1/2 within 1 1Museum Store and ocery 1 1 Supplemental Multiple Multiple 1 Supplemental Multiple 1 Supplemental Multiple Store and 1 Clothing bby/Toy/ Mile a1/2 Store within 1 Department 1 and Institutions ligious 1 and Theater Arts rforming 1 1 1 and creation 1 and Institution ligious Multiple Mile a1/2 Store within 1Department and creation 1 1 Other 1 Other 1Other and Schools Multiple Multiple and rs Multiple and 1 School 1 and 1 School 2 1 or P H H R G G e o e o r r bby/Toy/ R B L R and e a R R e R G G R e e e e i r r ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft P ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious olic o G G R a spe B a y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. me Store within 1/2 Mile 1/2 Store within me G G G o me Store and Store and me eg okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore r r r ocery Store within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 Store within ocery ocery Store and ocery Store and r ression o P B us places inmichigan e o R rforming Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Theater Arts rforming Variable Name okstores within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstores B e o ligious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Institutions ligious B okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore o R B G

okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore e R a i ft Shops within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within Shops ft creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation rs in 1/2 Mile 1/2 in rs e R creation within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within creation e B sults for Midwest Cities (cont.) o okstore within a 1/2 Mile a1/2 within okstore Coeff. 20.20% -12.45% Davenport, IA Davenport, -4.50% -11.66% -16.14% -11.22% -6.39% -4.59% 12.30% -8.97% 76%0.02*** -7.60% 13.77% 7.47% – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.05** 0.02** 0.02* – – – – – – Coeff. -28.54% -15.04% Rochester, MN 23.86% 38.82% 10.30% 14.80% 13.77% -7.87% – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.05** 0.05** – – – – – – – – – – – Coeff. Lakewood, OH Lakewood, 17.94% 37.16% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.09*** 0.10* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Coeff. -10.24% -8.52% -5.92% -6.01% 11.07% 25.11% .6 0.02* 3.46% 6.93% -6.11% 5.76% 11.18% Madison, WI Madison, – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.07*** 0.03** 0.05* – – – – – – – – Coeff. Manitowoc, WI -16.72% 16.30% 14.22% 19.24% 8.11% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.07*** 0.07** 0.04* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Davenport, IA Rochester, MN Lakewood, OH Madison, WI Manitowoc, WI Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. 1 Supplemental Grocery Store within a 1/2 Mile -11.22% 0.02*** – – – – – – – – 1 Grocery Store and 1 Museum within a 1/2 Mile – – – – – – 3.46% 0.02* – – 1 Grocery Store and 1 Performing Arts Theater within a 1/2 Mile -16.14% 0.05*** – – – – 5.76% 0.02*** – – Multiple Grocery Stores and 1 Florist within a 1/2 Mile – – 10.30% 0.05** – – 11.18% 0.02*** 19.24% 0.06*** 1 or 2 Restaurants and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile – – – – 17.94% 0.10* – – – – 3 to 5 Restaurants and 1 or 2 Bars in 1/2 Mile -6.39% 0.02*** – – – – 6.93% 0.02*** – – 1 or 2 Bars and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile -4.50% 0.02** 23.86% 0.06*** – – – – – – 1 School and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -12.45% 0.03*** -28.54% 0.04*** – – – – – – 1 School and Multiple Bookstores within a 1/2 Mile -7.60% 0.02*** -7.87% 0.03*** – – 11.07% 0.02*** 8.11% 0.04* Multiple Schools and 1 Other Recreation within a 1/2 Mile -8.97% 0.03*** 14.80% 0.05*** – – -10.24% 0.02*** – – 1 Other Recreation and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 20.20% 0.04*** – – – – – – – – 1 Other Recreation and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile – – 38.82% 0.06*** – – – – – – 1 Religious Institution and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -4.59% 0.02* – – – – -6.11% 0.02*** – – Multiple Religious Institutions and 1 Bookstore within a 1/2 Mile -11.66% 0.02*** – – – – -6.01% 0.02*** – – 1 Performing Arts Theater and 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store within 1/2 Mile – – – – – – – – – – 1 Hobby/Toy/Game Store and 1 Department Store within a 1/2 Mile 13.77% 0.04*** – – – – 25.11% 0.07*** 16.30% 0.06*** 1 Clothing Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile – – – – 37.16% 0.09*** -8.52% 0.05* 14.22% 0.07** 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Religious Institutions within a 1/2 Mile 7.47% 0.02*** -15.04% 0.04*** – – – – – – 1 Supplemental Grocery Store and Multiple Gift Shops within a 1/2 Mile 12.30% 0.05** 13.77% 0.05** – – -5.92% 0.03** -16.72% 0.07*** land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 157 158 full report ReBuilding p r o spe r o us places in michigan Appi end x g: surveyed homes analysis results Table 89: Descriptive Statistics for Surveyed Homes

Description Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Sold in 2000 0.05 0.21 0 1 Sold in 2001 0.05 0.22 0 1 Sold in 2002 0.07 0.26 0 1 Sold in 2003 0.08 0.28 0 1 Sold in 2004 0.10 0.30 0 1 Sold in 2005 0.11 0.32 0 1 Sold in 2006 0.11 0.31 0 1 Sold in 2007 0.10 0.29 0 1 Sold in 2008 0.09 0.28 0 1 Sold in 2009 0.11 0.31 0 1 Sold in 2010 0.09 0.29 0 1 Sold in 2011 0.04 0.19 0 1 Sold in 2012 0 0.03 0 1 # of Bathrooms 1.87 0.87 0 6 Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 16.19 8.74 2.69 72.12 % of Households Below Poverty Line 14.42% 10.84% 0.50% 77.30% % of Households with Associate’s Degree or Higher 47.79% 16.55% 8.70% 89.50% River Within 200 Feet 0.01 0.08 0 1 Lake Within 200 Feet 0 0.06 0 1 Influence of Parks and Recreation 0.45 0.50 0 1 Influence of Street Lighting 0.15 0.35 0 1 Influence of Shade Trees 0.37 0.48 0 1 Influence of Interior 0.75 0.43 0 1 Influence of Investment Potential 0.33 0.47 0 1 Influence of Having Great Neighbors Nearby 0.48 0.50 0 1 Influence of Affordable Housing in Neighborhood 0.62 0.49 0 1 Influence of Commute to Job or School 0.68 0.47 0 1 Influence of Nearby Shopping 0.51 0.50 0 1 Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 159 160 full report ReBuilding p Source: Table Descriptive 89: Statistics for Surveyed (cont.) Homes Manitowoc, WI Manitowoc, WI Madison, L Davenport, IA Davenport, MI Flint, R K G R Traverse City, MI City, Traverse L P B Energy Efficiency Improvements Made Sidewalk Sidewalk P P P P P P H a a e r r resence of re re re oc o alamazoo, MI i i r ke gh- esence of esence of Finished and kewood, O nsing, MI nsing, rceived Safety of Safety rceived yal Oak, MI Oak, yal sence ofDeck sence of sence ofFireplace sence hester, M L Q a L R and ne ne u a ality Walking pids, MI P P r r P esence at esence r olic P P G o esence at esence N H a o a spe rtially Finished rch rage y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. r N o B e H Description H us places inmichigan as ighborhood o o use ement use B as ement B e fore P urchase Mean 0.04 0.04 0 0.06 0.06 0.60 0 0.09 .00.50 0.50 .40.37 0.84 .60.48 0.36 .50.21 0.95 0.38 0.59 0.35 0.85 0.28 0.78 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 .06 .09 Std. Dev. Std. 0.20 .901 0 0.49 .901 0 0.49 .901 0 0.49 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.28 0.45 0.23 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.19 0.41 Min. 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Max. Table 90: Regression Results for Surveyed Homes

Variable Name Coeff. Std. Err. Constant $37,384.07 0.07*** Sold in 2001 –– Sold in 2002 9.09% 0.04** Sold in 2003 15.03% 0.04*** Sold in 2004 19.36% 0.04*** Sold in 2005 27.25% 0.04*** Sold in 2006 25.73% 0.04*** Sold in 2007 27.89% 0.04*** Sold in 2008 21.77% 0.04*** Sold in 2009 8.87% 0.04** Sold in 2010 14% 0.04*** Sold in 2011 15.37% 0.05*** Sold in 2012 –– # of Bathrooms 6.18% 0.01*** Square Footage in Tens of Square Feet 2.53% 0*** % of Households Below Poverty Line 0.20% 0* % of Households with Associates Degree or Higher 0.50% 0*** River Within 200 Feet –– Lake Within 200 Feet 38.82% 0.14** Influence of Parks and Recreation 3.25% 0.02* Influence of Street Lighting -5.54% 0.02** Influence of Shade Trees 6.61% 0.02*** Influence of Interior –– Influence of Investment Potential -4.30% 0.02*** Influence of Having Great Neighbors Nearby 4.19% 0.02*** Influence of Affordable Housing in Neighborhood -7.60% 0.02*** * Significant at the 0.10 confidence level. ** Significant at the 0.05 confidence level. *** Significant at the 0.01 confidence level. – This variable is not significant. Source: Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 161 162 full report ReBuilding p Table 90: Source: significant. not is variable – This level. confidence 0.01 the at Significant *** level. confidence 0.05 the at Significant ** level. confidence 0.10 the at * Significant Manitowoc, WI Manitowoc, M L R IA Davenport, K G MI Flint, R MI City, Traverse P B Sidewalk P P Energy Efficiency Improvements Made Made Improvements Efficiency Energy P P P P P Influence of Influence to of Commute Influence H a e r r re re re resence of u oc o alamazoo, MI i i r adison, WI adison, ke gh- esence of esence of Finished and kewood, O rceived Safety of neighborhood Safety rceived rchase yal Oak, MI Oak, yal sence ofDeck sence of sence ofFireplace sence hester, M L Q a L R and nd nd u a ality Walking pids, MI P P r r P esence at esence r olic P P G N o esence at esence N H a o a e R spe rtially Finished rch rage arby Shopping Shopping arby y Institute, MichiganState University, 2014. eg Variable Name r o ression B H us places inmichigan H as o o use ement J use o b or School b or B as R ement e sults for Surveyed (cont.) Homes B e fore fore Coeff. -2 38.54% -25.17% -25.17% 38.82% -8.52% 34.31% 14.22% -2.66% 11.40% 6.40% 12.41% 9.39% 8.11% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Std. Err. Std. 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.02* Part 9: References

A bley, S. 2005. “Walkability A merican Housing Survey (AHS). C erin, E., E. Leslie, L. du Toit, N. Scoping Paper.” Prepared by Abley 2011. “National Summary Data: Owen, and L.D. Frank. 2007. Transportation Consultants, American Housing Survey for the “Destinations that Matter: Christchurch, New Zealand. United States.” U.S. Department Associations with Walking Available at: http://levelofservice. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, for Transport.” Health & Place 13 com/walkability-research.pdf; Washington, DC. Available at: (3):713–724. accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.census.gov/housing/ ahs/data/national.html; accessed Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. Adelaja, A., T. Borowy, M. Gibson, B. February 19, 2014. 1997. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Calnin, M.B. Graebert, J. Warbach, Density, Diversity, and Design.” M. Wyckoff, Y. Hailu, C. Hurtt, Bassett, D., J. Pucher, R. Buehler, D. Transportation Research Part D: Transport K. Rustem, and J. Dworin. 2012. Thompson, and S. Crouter. 2008. and Environment 2 (3):199–219. Building Prosperous Places in Michigan: “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Understanding the Values of, Perceptions Rates in Europe, North America, Chiesura, A. 2004. “The Role of of, and Barriers to Placemaking. Land and Australia.” Journal of Physical Urban Parks for the Sustainable Policy Institute, Michigan State Activity and Health 5 (6):795–814. City.” Landscape and Urban Planning University, East Lansing, MI. 68 (1):129–138. Available at: http://www.landpolicy. Belden, Russonello & Stewart, LLC msu.edu/modules.php?name=Docu (BRS). 2011. “The 2011 Community Commission for Architecture ments&op=viewlive&sp_id=2083; Preference Survey: What and the Built Environment accessed February 19, 2014. Americans are Looking for When (CABE). 2007. “Paved with Deciding Where to Live.” Prepared Gold: The Real Value of Good Adelaja, A., Y.G. Hailu, and M. for the National Association of Street Design.” CABE, Angel, Abdulla. 2009. Chasing the Past Realtors, Chicago, IL. Available at: UK. Available at: http:// or Investing in Our Future. Land http://www.brspoll.com/uploads/ webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. Policy Institute, Michigan State files/2011%20Community%20 uk/20110118095356/http:/www. University, East Lansing, MI. Preference%20Survey.pdf; accessed cabe.org.uk/files/paved-with-gold- Available at: http://www.landpolicy. February 19, 2014. summary.pdf; accessed February msu.edu/modules.php?name=Doc 19, 2014. uments&op=viewlive&sp_id=988; Belden, Russonello & Stewart, LLC accessed February 19, 2014. (BRS). 2013. “Americans’ Views on Cortright, J. 2009. Walking the Their Communities, Housing, and Walk: How Walkability Raises Home American Community Survey (ACS). Transportation.” Prepared for the Values in U.S. Cities. Prepared by 2012. “Educational Attainment: Urban Land Institute, Washington, Impresa, Inc. for CEOs for Cities, 2012 American Community DC. Available at: http://www. Chicago, IL. Available at: http:// Survey One-Year Estimates.” brspoll.com/uploads/files/r-ULI%20 www.ceosforcities.org/research/ U.S. Department of Commerce, housing%202012%20for%20website. walking-the-walk/; accessed U.S. Census Bureau, American pdf; accessed February 19, 2014. February 19, 2014. Fact Finder, Washington, DC. Available at: http://factfinder2. Benner, C., and M. Pastor. 2012. Just Crompton, J.L. 2005. “The Impact census.gov/faces/tableservices/ Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in of Parks on Property Values: jsf/pages/productview. America’s Metropolitan Regions. New Empirical Evidence from the Past xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_ York, NY: Routledge. Two Decades in the United States.” S1501&prodType=table; accessed Managing Leisure 10 (4):203–218. February 19, 2014. Burden, D. 2008. “22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees.” Glatting Davis, B., T. Dutzik, and P. Baxandall American Housing Survey Jackson Kercher and Anglin, and 2012. Transportation and the New (AHS). 2013. “2011 Housing Walkable Communities, Inc. Generation: Why Young People are Profile: United States.” U.S. Available at: http://www.walkable. Driving Less and What it Means for Departments of Housing and org/assets/downloads/22%20 Transportation Policy. Frontier Urban Development, and Benefits%20of%20Urban%20 Group, Santa Barbara, CA; and U.S. Commerce; Washington, DC. Street%20Trees.pdf; accessed PIRG Education Fund, Boston, Available at: http://www.census. February 19, 2014. MA. Available at: http://www. gov/prod/2013pubs/ahs11-1.pdf; uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/ accessed February 19, 2014. Carr, L.J., S.I. Dunsiger, and B.H. Transportation%20%26%20the%20 Marcus. 2010. “Validation of Walk New%20Generation%20vUS_0.pdf; Score for Estimating Access to accessed February 19, 2014. Walkable Amenities.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 45 (14):1144–1148. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 163 164 full report ReBuilding p G Frank, Frank, , and J. Ferreira, Jr. 2010. J. Ferreira, , and ao, D 9: Part G Frank, Frank, G February 21, 2014. 21, February C fuQ health-benefits-survey/#sthash. walking-enough-to-realize- good-for-health-but-many-arent- americans-view-walking-as- kaiserpermanente.org/article/ Benefits: Survey Benefits: Walking Health Realize to Enough aren’t Many Health but for Good as by Kaiser by Kaiser Medicine Walkability.” Behavioral of Annals and C M Board Research Transportation the of Journal A M E O Built the and “Residential Walkable Walkable E accessed February 21, 2014. 21, February accessed J. Review Science Regional to org/sites/default/files/ http://www.soulofthecommunity. L C (1): 75–87. 72 Association Planning American the I A N H P “ W. 2006. and Bachman. Report_ Foundation, Foundation, M The John i f a e Americans View Walking View 2013.K. Americans n bel, K., K., bel, llup. 2010. Knight 2010.llup. Knight E o a nv m c o o A r e w e dex, and and dex, u a a thways from thways from ve Where Theyve Where A ea.” Transportation Research Record:ea.” tive Transportation, Body Body Transportation, tive . mmunity 2010: Why Why 2010: mmunity ncordance between between ncordance ighborhood Walkability and and Walkability ighborhood alth: alth: tters – tters . pirical pirical ssachusetts, ssachusetts, ltiple en. 2009.en. “ C N ironment on on ironment M i O A r 2174 (1):138–147. 2174 h L L y v b . P W apman, B. apman, . ailable at: http://share. at: ailable . jective jective O D D o 37(2):228–238. A A International International llution. V . S . I G , and , and , J.F. s P m P . a . B A S E sociations between between sociations r X A e l t pacts of the Built Built ofpacts the

R M aces and the the and aces nd James nd James N rmanente, rmanente, udy in the Boston, Boston, the udy in .dpuf auman, and and auman, o P i E Journal of of Journal r Quality.” A . C a S M r i R P C spe n ami, F ami, tional tional operty Values operty LL a L o . M vironment: vironment: o e E P llis, T. llis, rrelates of rrelates a E L asures of asures mmissioned mmissioned ; accessed ; accessed _ eferences (cont.)eferences . nd ub et n S 11-12-10_mh.pdf i S ve and Why ve and gelke. 2005. gelke. r o ropolitan ropolitan a lic lic S ul of the of the ul 28 (2):193–216. L U P elens, elens, L o O . e L . K P

s P O A H rspective. rspective. T us places inmichigan e to e to e . e v E N a M C ople ople C ealth: ealth: night night rceived rceived ailable at: at: ailable kland, kland, x _ . o a 2010_ N posure posure nway, ny M o n- a I t ss ss ;

L L L L Konecny, K. L , X. ndy, H e e e ey i February 21, 2014. 21, February vtpi.org/walkability.pdf C P D in of Walkability H O 2014. 21, February Walk gwu.edu/walkup/atlanta2013/ D S The aWalkableSprawl Builds Future Urban Wake-Up Poster The Atlanta: Call: Child of of Walkability of 47 (6):861–888. M the M S pdf http://business.gwu.edu/Walkup. Environment Research Part D: Transport and Washington, Washington, U D Thesis, S H N Built the between Places Walkable for Model Urban a National Wake-Up Nation’s Call –The as Capital 2014 21, February bank/2011/Konecny.pdf www.csus.edu/uld/thesis-project/ Traveland Behavior? “ 2005. a tman, T. tman, inberger, inberger, slie, slie, inberger, inberger, t a c o a C i a n ug o w o den, K. den, udy.” udy.” cramento, aj hool of Business, Washington, Washington, hool of Business, i fferent fferent licy licy vis, vis, nada. nada. chelbach. 2011. “ chelbach. rthern me Value: iversity iversity . ; accessed February 21, 2014. 21, February ; accessed en, en, P or or o. 2005. “Residents’ o. 2005. “Residents’ G A E u . The U v S e C CA rsuit of rsuit . I C ailable at: http://business. at: ailable orge Washington Washington orge , B. , B. A . Health &Place 11:227–236. P U n i _ or . B A A Review Affairs Urban ties.” stitute, Victoria, B Victoria, stitute, M n A N . C C D C v S . 2 iversity of of iversity or relation G t A auman, auman, S 10 (6):427–444. . e ailable at: http://www. at: ailable C . 2 a . a lanta2013.pdf , . B. 2013.B. WalkUP The . Victoria Transport Transport . Victoria v c ighborhoods: ighborhoods: B. 2012.B. e C elens, elens, Economic Value Economic 011. A lifornia.” T A a ailable at: http:// at: ailable hool of Business, hool of Business, orge Washington orge Washington DC 005. “ o, and o, and a H .

H lifornia.” G a e . ppiness in Ten in ppiness o O donic donic A E ldberg, and and ldberg, L N U U b v n . F D jectively jectively . ailable at: at: ailable P C n E r vironment vironment C C . ban Form and and Form ban C derstanding derstanding v a rank, rank, M ; accessed a o ransportation : The WalkUP: The idence from from idence lifornia, lifornia, P A usality usality ; accessed ; accessed M ffee, and and ffee, U ; accessed o e n A rceptions rceptions khtarian. khtarian. n a alysis in in alysis C

iversity iversity ster’s P N , G i lot lot . P

W . . G _ .

M M N M ssachusetts ssachusetts M N N February 21, 2014. 21, February accessed February 21, 2014. 21, February accessed planetizen.com/node/53922 ashx cdd/project/placemaking Communities Places and Builds How Placemaking ( February 21, 2014. 21, February development-outlook/ industry-sectors/seniors-housing- http://urbanland.uli.org/ at: , Magazine 2014. 21, February accessed thenyic.org/sites/default/files/ A Planetizen of P M Research/Research%20Reports/ www.naiop.org/~/media/Research/ H the Mixed-Use Development A + D H N Services Housing to Access and Housing O ( (3):391–415. &Practice 14 Theory of html originalgreen.org/blog/walk-appeal. 2012. e y ew Y o a i i M N lson, lson, nadeo, nadeo, nicozzi, J. 2012. “The nicozzi, r ren, R. 2011. “ R. ren, v v P uzon, uzon, e r e o Y i emiums/mixedusepricepremiums. A M ailable at: http://dusp.mit.edu/ at: ailable ailable at: http://www. at: ailable iginal iginal velopment velopment rndon, V rndon, Y l xed%20 usingBackgrounder_2010.pdf I . anning, anning, NAIOP T m A I ; accessed February 21, 2014. 21, February ; accessed i ; accessed February 21, 2014. 21, February ; accessed ork C Places in the Making: ). 2013. Making: Places the in A xed- v erica’s A ) v ailable at: http://www. at: ailable . S Promote Affordable Affordable Promote 2010. . ailable at: http://www. at: ailable . D N C . 2 G I , M . m U Y Price Premiums and F. and 2009. Premiums Price L . 2 r U R 012. “Walk 012. “Walk . A MI een Blog, July 24,een I o s migration migration a S C 013. “The Resettlement 013. “TheResettlement s S e . s y 4, 2011. esearch Foundation, c I e%20 A u O n , hool of D A T S burbs.” Planning N v stitute of Technology Technology of stitute u , e ev n ailable at: http:// at: ailable C Urban Land Land Urban tlook.” ew Y niors’ niors’ geles, geles, elopment.” a P mbridge, mbridge, r . ice%20 A P ork, ork, A A ; accessed ; accessed C S r r H CA v chitecture chitecture ppeal.” ppeal.” m oa epared for epared ; accessed accessed ; ailable ailable o art art using using lition lition . ; MA M a ; . th th

P assel, J.S., and D. Cohn. 2008. U.S. S ilberberg, S., and K. Lorah. 2013. Van Dyck, D., G. Cardon, B. Deforche, Population Projections: 2005–2050. Places in the Making: How Placemaking and I. De Bourdeaudhuij. 2011. Social & Demographic Trends, Pew Builds Places and Communities. “Do Adults Like Living in High- Research Center, Washington, Department of Urban Studies and Walkable Neighborhoods? DC. Available at: http://www. Planning, Massachusetts Institute Associations of Walkability pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us- of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Parameters with Neighborhood population-projections-2005-2050/; Available at: http://dusp.mit.edu/ Satisfaction and Possible Mediators.” accessed February 21, 2014. cdd/project/placemaking; accessed Health & Place 17 (4):971–977. February 21, 2014. Pivo, G., and J.D. Fisher. 2011. Volk, L. 2013. “Local Demographic “The Walkability Premium Smart Growth America (SGA). 2013. Trends Driving Development.” in Commercial Real Estate Building Better Budgets: A National Presented at the 27th Annual Investments.” Real Estate Economics Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart UM/ULI Real Estate Forum: 39 (2):185–219. Growth Development. Available at: Placemaking for Growth on http://www.smartgrowthamerica. November 20–21, 2013. Available Project for Public Spaces (PPS). org/building-better-budgets; at: http://umuliforum.com/pdfs/ 2011. “What Makes a Successful accessed February 21, 2014. presentations/2013/volk-local_ Place?” PPS, New York, NY. demographic_trends.pdf; accessed Available at: http://www.pps.org/ Troy, A., and J.M. Grove. 2008. February 21, 2014. articles/grplacefeat/; accessed “Property Values, Parks, and January 6, 2011. Crime: A Hedonic Analysis in Walk Score. 2012. “Walk Score Baltimore, MD.” Landscape and Methodology.” Walk Score, Seattle, Rogers, S.H., J.M. Halstead, K.H. Urban Planning 87:233–245. WA. Available at: http://www. Gardner, and C.H. Carlson. 2011. walkscore.com/methodology. “Examining Walkability and Troy, A., J.M. Grove, and J. O’Neil- shtml; accessed January 10, 2012. Social Capital as Indicators of Dunne. 2012. “The Relationship Quality of Life at the Municipal between Tree Canopy and Crime Walk Score. 2013. An Online Tool and Neighborhood Scales.” Applied Rates across an Urban-Rural for Calculating the Walkability of Research in Quality of Life 6 (2):201–213. Gradient in the Greater Baltimore an Address, Neighborhood or City. Region.” Landscape and Urban Walk Score, Seattle, WA. Available Sallis, J.F., L.D. Frank, B.E. Saelens, Planning 106 (3):262–270. at: http://www.walkscore.com. and M.K. Kraft. 2004. “Active Transportation and Physical U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Activity: Opportunities for “American Fact Finder.” Census, Collaboration on Transportation U.S. Department of Commerce, and Public Health Research.” Washington, DC. Available at: Transportation Research Part A: Policy http://factfinder2.census.gov/ and Practice 38 (4):249–268. faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml; accessed February 21, 2014. Sander, H., S. Polasky, and R. Haight. 2010. “The Value of Urban Tree U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Cover: A Hedonic Property Price “American Fact Finder.” Census, Model in Ramsey and Dakota U.S. Department of Commerce, Counties, Minnesota, USA.” Washington, DC. Available at: Ecological Times 69 (8):1646–1656. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml; accessed February 21, 2014. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 165 166 full report ReBuilding p www.landpolicy.msu.edu to the community. innovative solutions,delivers knowledge of experts avariety from transitioning and institutes across campus, as well as stakeholders acrossas outside institutes campus,and well as the university. The construction. construction. and design planning, beneficial of environmentally advances the understanding aboveand all, creativity, responsibility, of imbuespromotes social asense the appreciation relevance, of cultural leadership, through fostersadvances life the development economic family and of entrepreneurial The environment. goal of natural and built hool of construction and to create design asustainable outreachand the of towards integration planning, The School of the with nd licy Institute the in strategic growth regional The nd L ate chigan M worldwide education practical combining whoproblem with in interested are www.msu.edu solving. impact. university, reach global extraordinary and with outreach and for research years. 150 teaching, more than a i L S c a P MSU o P S r o t licy licy o P www.spdc.msu.edu P spe S l l U anning, Design and Construction c anning anning I hool of n n stitute was founded 2006 focuses outreach and and use, in to land onrelated research r iversity has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative through lives advancing knowledge been iversity has transforming and o us places inmichigan D P e l anning, anning, sign and and sign N e D w C e sign and and sign E o c nstruction will be known for education, known be leading research nstruction will onomy sustainable The and communities. SPDC C o nstruction, and collaborates with many faculty, many collaborates and nstruction, with centers is to is create knowledge communities, enriches that I MSU t s 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars s 17 degree-granting is known internationally as amajor as public internationally known is L a I n nd stitute is affiliated stitute affiliated is P o licy licy I n stitute The Full Report This full report is available for download online at www.landpolicy.msu.edu/RebuildingProsperousPlacesinMIReport. The summary report is also available for download online at www.landpolicy.msu.edu/RebuildingProsperousPlacesinMIReport/Summary.

Photos by Alan Light, pg. 51 top; iStock, pg. 52; Jeff Dawson, Lester Public Library, pg. 54; J. Stephen Conn, pg. 53; the Mayo Clinic, pg. 51 bottom; and the Michigan Municipal League, front cover and pgs. iii, 1, 4, 11, 15, 42, 44–47, 49–50, 57, 64, 67, 71, 75, 87, 90, 93 and 95. land policy institute

views and values of placemaking in michigan, the midwest and the nation 167 Land Policy Institute

L and Policy Institute Michigan State University 1405 S. Harrison Road 3rd Floor Manly Miles Building East Lansing, MI 48823

517.432.8800 517.432.8769 fax

www.landpolicy.msu.edu