Norton Commons, Clifton, and Social Equity : a Neighborhood, Inter-Neighborhood, and Regional Comparison of New Urbanism and “Old” Urbanism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2017 Norton Commons, Clifton, and social equity : a neighborhood, inter-neighborhood, and regional comparison of new urbanism and “old” urbanism. Aaron J. Stephenson University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Stephenson, Aaron J., "Norton Commons, Clifton, and social equity : a neighborhood, inter-neighborhood, and regional comparison of new urbanism and “old” urbanism." (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2875. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2875 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTON COMMONS, CLIFTON, AND SOCIAL EQUITY: A NEIGHBORHOOD, INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REGIONAL COMPARISON OF NEW URBANISM AND “OLD” URBANISM By Aaron Stephenson B.A., University of Kentucky, 2007 M.A., Spalding University, 2012 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Urban and Public Affairs Department of Urban and Public Affairs University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2017 NORTON COMMONS, CLIFTON, AND SOCIAL EQUITY: A NEIGHBORHOOD, INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REGIONAL COMPARISON OF NEW URBANISM AND “OLD” URBANISM By Aaron Stephenson B.A., University of Kentucky, 2007 M.A., Spalding University, 2012 A Dissertation Approved On August 18, 2017 by the following Dissertation Committee: __________________________________ Dissertation Co-director: David Imbroscio __________________________________ Dissertation Co- Director: Cynthia Negrey __________________________________ Committee Member: David Simpson __________________________________ Committee Member: Jasmine Farrier ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation co-chair, Dr. David Imbroscio, for his role in the completion of this dissertation and his role in the program in general. It has been Dr.Imbroscio’s teaching which has most shaped my interest in urban social equity and his progressive localist views have had a significant influence upon the strategies proposed in this dissertation. Additionally, his patience as this dissertation has undergone many overhauls is greatly appreciated. My co-chair, Dr. Cynthia Negrey, has been an enormous help methodologically, both in refining technical aspects of the study and in spotting more efficient and complete ways of measuring social equity. The remainder of the committee, Dr. David Simpson and Dr. Jasmine Farrier, have shown great flexibility in meeting considering the shifting timetable of the study. They have also provided an additional layer of constructive criticism and offered wonderful input during the prospectus defense, which is reflected in this dissertation. As Department Chair, Dr. Simpson has gone above and beyond to make certain that I have access to departmental resources in completing my research. There are additional faculty and students I want to thank as well as expressing my appreciation with the Department of Urban and Public Affairs in its entirety. Professor Carrie Donald, my supervising professor for Graduate Research Assistant duties, did an excellent job in terms of broadening the scope of my academic experience. While my first love is urban studies, doing research in labor law has opened up further iii opportunities. Additionally, Professor Donald became a great friend over the years. Unfortunately, Professor Donald passed away only a couple of weeks after the completion of my work with her. She will be greatly missed. While all of the students from the Department of Urban and Public Affairs have been wonderful, I particularly want to thank Craig Barham, Wes Grooms, and Emmanuel Frimpong Boamah. Whether it be recharging over lunch and conversation, fighting through the foreign language of statistics, working to increase student engagement, or having brainstorming sessions about various research possibilities, it has been great knowing that they have been there for me. Finally, I would like to thank my family for the role they have played over the years as I worked to complete my doctorate. My father and stepmother, Robert and Kathy Stephenson, have provided a nice respite from my work life through our casual family dinner and game nights. They have shown a sincere interest in getting to know what I have been up to in my work while providing me with the opportunity to engage in spirited debates with compassionate conservatives regarding politics and policy. My partner, Audrey Chen, the love of my life for the past decade, has been supportive throughout the different stages of this process and has taken a great interest in the subject matter despite being outside of the field. She has also generously agreed to lend her editing experience to my cause by editing a portion of this dissertation and providing valuable editing advice. Last but not least, I want to thank my mother, Donna Chandler, who is one of my biggest fans. She has been a bedrock of unconditional love and emotional support my entire life. Regardless of how busy life can get, she is always there to encourage and cheer me on every step of the way. iv ABSTRACT NORTON COMMONS, CLIFTON, AND SOCIAL EQUITY: A NEIGHBORHOOD, INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REGIONAL COMPARISON OF NEW URBANISM AND “OLD” URBANISM Aaron Stephenson August 18, 2017 This dissertation examines two paradigms aimed at restoring urban vitality-- grassroots neighborhood revitalization and New Urbanism. New Urbanism is comprised of progressive goals, but unfortunately the relevant literature suggests that these goals have not been achieved. As such, this study focuses upon the degree to which each of these paradigms, New Urbanism and grassroots revitalization, may impact social equity on a spatial level. This dissertation explores this through a comprehensive micro-level comparison of two neighborhoods in Louisville, Kentucky- Clifton and Norton Commons. Clifton is an activist urban neighborhood that has been revitalized in recent decades, to become one of Louisville’s most vibrant urban neighborhoods. Norton Commons is in many ways the prototypical New Urban community, in terms of affluence, suburban location, and density. This dissertation focuses upon spatial social equity specifically as it relates to providing access to daily essentials for people of all income groups. Previous research on New Urbanism’s relationship with spatial social equity can be pieced together looking at things such as housing costs, location within metropolitan areas, and to some extent, business presence. This research is important because of its complete synthesis v of all elements of spatial social equity, and the resulting findings. The findings ultimately question New Urbanism’s ability to address spatial social equity, given its weak performances in the following areas: access to affordable housing, consumer goods access, access to employment, and transit-orientation. This opens the question as to whether New Urbanism’s ideas about spatial social equity might be better achieved by fundamentally different strategies, such as grassroots urbanism. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...iv Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….vi List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...xii List of Figures…..……………………………………………………………………...xiv I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1 II. Background Information on Louisville, Clifton and Norton Commons……………………………………………………………………….…12 Louisville…………………………………………………………………………..…....12 Clifton………………………………………………………………………………...…18 Norton Commons…………...………………………………………………………......26 III. Literature Review…………………………………...……...................…….…...34 New Urbanism and Re-creating Urbanism from Scratch: What does it do for the People?.........................................................................................................................35 Alternatives: Fixing the City through Grassroots Efforts…………………………….....44 IV. Methodology…………………………………………………………...………...56 Primary Research Questions………………….………………………………………......56 Relevant Ahwahnee Principles………………………………………………............…...57 Neighborhood -to-Neighborhood Comparison.……………………………..……….…...59 Potential Inter-neighborhood Contributions……………………………...………….…...66 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS--CONTINUED Regional Comparison…………………………………………………………………...70 Data Collection/Sources…………………………………………………………….…..75 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………….…..77 Benefits of Research………………………………………………………………….....78 Limitations of Research……………………………………………………………..…..79 IRB Considerations………………………………………………………………….….79 V. Neighborhood Comparison of Social Equity Indicators for Clifton and Norton Commons……………………………………………....…80 Central Importance Indicators……………………………………………………….….81 High Importance Indicators………………………………………………………….….84 Medium Importance Indicators………………………………………………………....87 Low Importance Indicators……………………………………………………………..98 Industry Types by Neighborhood…………………………………………………...…101