DOCSLIB.ORG

I © Copyright 2017 Annegret Helene Nautsch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I © Copyright 2017 Annegret Helene Nautsch © Copyright 2017 Annegret Helene Nautsch i Exploring Walkability: a Spatial Analysis of Vibrancy in New Holly, a New Urbanist Community in south Seattle, WA Annegret Helene Nautsch A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning University of Washington 2017 Committee: Robert Mugerauer Rachel Berney Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Urban Design and Planning ii University of Washington Abstract Exploring Walkability: a Spatial Analysis of Vibrancy in New Holly, a New Urbanist Community in south Seattle, WA Annegret Helene Nautsch Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Bob Mugerauer, PhD Urban Design & Planning Walkability is a notion that crosses multiple fields of study including planning, real estate, and public health. Social cohesion and community ideals are equated to walkable areas. For this thesis, walkability is defined as a two-part phenomenon: accessibility and vibrancy. This thesis focuses primarily on the vibrancy half of this definition. Vibrancy refers to the intangibles of walkability, mainly the social assets associated with walkability. Walkability is a key part of the New Urbanism design movement, which aims create to livable and walkable communities. Across the United States, many redevelopment plans have used New Urbanist design guidelines to revitalize distressed public housing. To examine the vibrancy part of walkability, observations and behavioral mapping were completed in New Holly, a mixed-income housing site in south Seattle. This data was then analyzed using a four-part iii vibrancy framework developed through a thorough literature review. With this vibrancy analysis, New Holly is given a relative vibrancy rating. Specific barriers to vibrancy, common to all four vibrancy factors, are identified. Finally, possible interventions are discussed and further research opportunities are recognized. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Walkability: A Part of New Urbanism .......................................................................... 12 1.2 Vibrancy: A Four-Factor Component of Walkability .................................................... 14 1.3 Document Overview ..................................................................................................... 14 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Walking and Walkability............................................................................................... 18 2.2 New Urbanism .............................................................................................................. 27 2.3 Public Housing and Walking ........................................................................................ 31 2.4 Hope VI.......................................................................................................................... 35 Research Methods and Methodology ...................................................................... 38 3.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 38 3.2 Site Visits ...................................................................................................................... 42 3.3 Study Site...................................................................................................................... 43 Findings ...................................................................................................................... 46 4.1 Area Context ................................................................................................................. 46 4.2 Observations of Study Site .......................................................................................... 50 4.3 Observations of Human Behavior ............................................................................... 59 4.3.1 Quantitative Findings ........................................................................................... 59 v 4.3.2 Qualitative Findings ............................................................................................. 66 Discussion: Vibrancy in new Holly ............................................................................ 69 5.1 Connectivity and Linkage ............................................................................................ 72 5.2 Dispersal and Variety of Amenities ............................................................................. 80 5.3 Community Identity/Cohesion..................................................................................... 86 5.4 Property/Space Pride .................................................................................................. 94 5.5 Overall Vibrancy in New Holly ...................................................................................... 99 Recommendations and Conclusion ...................................................................... 101 6.1 Further Research ...................................................................................................... 101 6.2 Walkability in New Holly ............................................................................................ 101 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix A: Figure Ground of Study Area ................................................................................ 115 Appendix B: Composite Map of Adults .................................................................................... 116 Appendix C: Composite Map of Elderly .................................................................................... 117 Appendix D: Composite Map of Children ................................................................................. 118 Appendix E: Composite Map of Commuters from Light Rail .................................................. 119 Appendix F: Composite Map of Observed interactions .......................................................... 120 Appendix G: Composite Map of Hispanic/Latino Persons ..................................................... 121 Appendix H: Composite Map of Asian Persons ....................................................................... 122 Appendix I: Composite Map of White Persons ........................................................................ 123 vi Appendix J: Composite Map of African American/Black Persons.......................................... 124 Appendix K: Composite Map of Other Race/ethnicity ............................................................ 125 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Two components of walkability .................................................................... 13 Figure 1.2. Vibrancy rating template. ............................................................................. 15 Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework of the literature review. ......................................... 17 Figure 2.2. Walkability construct for this thesis............................................................. 24 Figure 3.1. Study Route of New Holly. ............................................................................ 41 Figure 3.2. Site visit days. ............................................................................................... 42 Figure 3.3. Context Map. ................................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.1. Funding for New Holly (Seattle.gov 2017). ................................................. 47 Figure 4.2. Chief Sealth Trail ........................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.3. Empty lot on north side of the study area. (source: Author) ...................... 49 Figure 4.4. A clear divide in housing when comparing structure footprints. ............... 51 Figure 4.5. Houses along 39th Ave S (source: Author) ................................................. 52 Figure 4.6. New Urbanist style porches along 39th Ave S (source: Author). ............... 53 Figure 4.7. Study area houses not along 39th Ave S (source: Author). ....................... 54 Figure 4.8. Alley between 39th Ave S and Rockery Dr S (source: Author). .................. 54 Figure 4.9. Fire hydrant in sidewalk, creating a path obstruction (source: Author). ... 56 Figure 4.10. Play structure on southern end of Central Park area (source: Author). .. 57 Figure 4.11. Public transit access around study site .................................................... 58 Figure 5.1. Conceptual Framework. ............................................................................... 70 Figure 5.2. Small, paved play area within study area (source: Author). ....................... 74 Figure 5.3. Study site assets related to Connectivity/Linkage. .................................... 78 Figure 5.4. Green space locations in the neighborhood. .............................................. 82 Figure 5.5. Amenities and destinations in neighborhood. ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location
    New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location City Light 8307 Utility Relocation due to This project will relocate, replace 23,979 SR 99 / Battery St. Alaskan Way Tunnel and and protect City Light facilities Seawall Project affected by the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall with a new seawall and transportation facility. *Amounts in thousands of dollars 2007-2012 Proposed Capital Improvement Program -921- New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location Fleets & Facilities A1GM101 Animal Shelter 600 square feet of expanded 250 2061 15th Ave. W customer service space. A34200-2 Civic Center Plan - Seattle This project will provide for 0 600 4th Ave. Municipal Tower, Airport renovation of 750,000 square feet Way Center, and Other of office space within Seattle Projects Municipal Tower, 18,000 square feet of retail space at the new City Hall, and renovation of more than 276,000 square feet of work space and evidence storage at Airport Way Center. A1FL303 Emergency Community This project will create several 0 Various Locations Disaster Supplies emergency community disaster caches stocked with emergency shelter supplies for about 1,000 people each. A1FL302 Emergency Fire This project will fund hardened 0 Various Locations Suppression Water Supply hydrants to be installed at several reservoirs and at water storage tanks; several dry hydrants will be placed into fresh and salt-water sources. A1FL301 Emergency Operations This project will fund a new 0 300 5th Ave. Center 16,684-square-foot facility - approximately 9,200 square feet larger than the existing Emergency Operations Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Mt. Baker Transit Oriented Development Site 3109 & 3111 Rainier Ave S, Seattle, Wa 98144 Offering Memorandum
    MT. BAKER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SITE 3109 & 3111 RAINIER AVE S, SEATTLE, WA 98144 OFFERING MEMORANDUM SEATTLE CBD (2.5 MILES) MT. BAKER LIGHT RAIL STATION 3109 RAINIER AVE S 3111 RAINIER MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY FRANKLIN AVE S PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE HIGH SCHOOL RAINIER AVE S JON BOCKMAN TAYLOR NUCCITELLI 1218 Third Avenue VINCE VONADA P// 206.456.2560 P// 206.787.9049 Suite 2200 P// 206.718.0047 [email protected] [email protected] Seattle, WA 98101 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS // INVESTMENT SUMMARY PAGE// 3 // SITE OVERVIEW PAGE// 4 // DEVELOPMENT PLANS PAGE// 7 // MARKET OVERVIEW PAGE// 11 // DEMOGRAPHICS PAGE// 13 2 // MT. BAKER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SITE THE OFFERING ORION Commercial Partners is excited to offer for sale the Mt. Baker Transit Oriented Development Site, located at 3109 & 3111 Rainier Ave S in Seattle, WA. With the property’s close proximity to the Sound Transit Station and Interstate 90 makes it an ideal location. Located in the heart of Rainier Valley’s gentrification, a short distance to Downtown Seattle, high traffic counts, and flexible zoning makes this site a perfect redevelopment opportunity. 3109 & 3111 RAINIER AVE S, Address INVESTMENT SEATTLE, WA 98144 $1,799,000 3109 Rainier Ave S SUMMARY Offering Price $3,638,332 $1,839,332 3111 Rainier Ave S Price Per Square Foot (Land) $187.00 1,134 SF 3109 Rainier Ave S Building(s) Size 3,354 SF 2,220 SF 3111 Rainier Ave S 9,612 SF 3109 Rainier Ave S Total Land Area 19,448 SF 9,836 SF 3111 Rainier Ave S 505830-0125 3109 Rainier Ave S Parcel Numbers 505830-0135 3111 Rainier Ave S Zoning SM-NR-85 Year Built// 1978// 1984 3109 Rainier Ave S Remodeled 1961// 1980 3111 Rainier Ave S 3 // MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Othello Urban Design Framework
    OTHELLO TOWN CENTER Urban Design Framework October 2011 CONTENTS CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................... 4 Othello Town Center – The Vision .............................................................5 Othello Town Center - Today .....................................................................7 Achieving the Vision .................................................................................8 Recommendations............................................................................ 10 Land Use and Built Form .........................................................................10 Circulation ..............................................................................................13 Streetscape Concepts for the Town Center ..............................................15 Open Space and Gateways......................................................................17 Sustainable Strategies ............................................................................22 Implementation ............................................................................... 23 Zoning ....................................................................................................23 Sustainable Development .......................................................................23 Analyses Requested by City Council ........................................................25 Other Implementation Resources ...........................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • (BTA) V Capital Levy Program Draft Non-Project SEPA Checklist
    Buildings, Technology, Academics/Athletics (BTA) V Capital Levy Program Draft Non-Project SEPA Checklist Seattle Public Schools is committed to making its online information accessible and usable to all people, regardless of ability or technology. Meeting web accessibility guidelines and standards is an ongoing process that we are consistently working to improve. While Seattle Public Schools endeavors to only post documents optimized for accessibility, due to the nature and complexity of some documents, an accessible version of the document may not be available. In these limited circumstances, the District will provide equally effective alternate access. For questions and more information about this document, please contact the following: Rebecca Asencio Planning Manager, Capital Projects and Planning [email protected] While the BTA V Capital Levy Program Draft State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Non-Project Checklist is accessible and ADA compliant, the attached figures and appendices which support the checklist contain complex material that are not accessible. The following is a description of what is contained in the figures and appendices: Figure 1 – District Map Figure 1 is a map of the Seattle Public School District that shows the locations of all schools. The schools that are discussed in the non-project SEPA checklist are highlighted in yellow on the map. Appendix A –Transportation Technical Report for the BTA V Programmatic SEPA Checklist Appendix A consists of the Transportation Technical Report for the BTA V Capital Levy Program that was prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. The report describes the affected environment and potential transportation-related impacts that may occur with projects included in the BTA V Capital Levy Program.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Master Plan Update
    2019 KUBOTA GARDEN MASTER PLAN UPDATE KUBOTA GARDEN 2019 MASTER PLAN UPDATE for Seattle Department of Parks & Recreation A and the Kubota Garden Foundation B C D by Jones & Jones Architects + Landscape Architects + Planners 105 South Main Street, Suite 300 E F G Seattle, Washington 98104 Cover Photo Credits: Hoshide Wanzer A. KGF Photo #339 (1976) B. Jones & Jones (2018) C. Jones & Jones (2018) D. KGF Photo #19 (1959) E. KGF Photo #259 (1962) Architects 206 624 5702 F. Jones & Jones (2018) G. Jones & Jones (2018) www.jonesandjones.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 4 I. INTRODUCTION. .. .6 VI. PREFERRED CONCEPT . .. .. .. .. ..40 SUPPORT FOR THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE . .5 Need for a Master Plan Update Guiding Principles Garden Mission History: Fujitaro Kubota's Life, Inspiration, and Garden Style History: Setting the Period of Significance II. PLANNING PROCESS . .10 Necklace of Ponds Kyōryoku - Collective Effort Japanese Garden Seeking Input The Mountainside Opportunities & Issues Visitor Experience III. HISTORY OF KUBOTA GARDEN. .12 Visitor Amenities Kubota Family Wayfinding and Visitor Circulation Hierarchy Kubota Gardening Company Visitor Center Post World War II Garden Improvements Transitioning from Garden to Park IV. SITE ANALYSIS. 16 VII. IMPLEMENTATION . 65 Neighborhood Context Phasing & Implementation Visitation Staffing Mapes Creek & Natural Areas Garden Arrival APPENDIX (Separate Document) The Garden Garden History Resources Events & Programming Workshops Summary Maintenance Area Open House(s) Summary V. GARDEN NEED . .36
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Baker View NEWS of the MOUNT BAKER COMMUNITY CLUB ISSUE 239, MAY 2014 2811 Mt
    The Mount Baker View NEWS OF THE MOUNT BAKER COMMUNITY CLUB ISSUE 239, MAY 2014 2811 Mt. Rainier Drive S. | www.mountbaker.org | 206.722.7209 RIDE MOUNT BAKER WITH A BIKE ROAD TRIP By Rebecca Laszlo, MBCC neighbor I am an avid biker and love finding interesting and scenic routes near my Mount Baker home. I have mapped out a dozen or so routes in and around the neighborhood that are worth sharing. The routes suggested in this ar- ticle are ideal for local exploring. Some zigzag along Mount Baker’s many ridges while some stick to the flats to avoid sweaty exertions (unless you want to push hard). They include a combination of regional trails without cars, quiet neighborhood streets likely to have just a few cars, and wide streets where cars can give you space. Continued on page 10 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD The MBCC Communications Committee recently sent out 150 welcome packets to our newest Mount Baker residents. We introduced ourselves, highlighted the many activities at the Clubhouse and told them a little about our 100-year legacy in the community. To neighbors old and new, we invite you all to stop by the Clubhouse to say hello! Come meet the staff and learn about all the fun ways you and your family can get involved in our community activities. Clubhouse Office Hours Tuesday – Thursday: 12:00 PM – 5:00 PM Friday: 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM More ways to get information about upcoming events Visit our website www.mountbaker.org Get email alerts by contacting [email protected] Like The Mount Baker Comunity Club on Facebook Rebecca Laszlo Join the MBCC community bulletin board at www.NextDoor.com performing rigorous fact checking on the A special thank you to the local businesses who offered route to UW.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Parks and Recreation New Or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj
    Department of Parks and Recreation New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj. ID Project Title Capacity 2014* Location K730145 12th Avenue Square Park This project will add 7,332 0 12th AVE/E James CT Development - 2008 Parks square foot of pedestrian friendly Levy (formerly East James space to Seattle Parks. Court) K733239-02 12th Avenue Square Park This project will provide a small 0 564 12th AVE Development - Pro Parks urban park. (Formerly 12th Avenue Park) K730138 Bell Street Park Boulevard This project will provide 17,000 0 Bell ST Development square feet of pedestrian and environmentally-friendly amenities such as swales, natural landscaping, and benches. K73484 Belltown Neighborhood This project will provide 0 2407 1st Ave Center approximately 6,000 square feet of leased space on an ongoing basis to accommodate community gatherings in the Belltown area. K730144 Bitter Lake Reservoir Park This project will add nearly three 0 Linden AVE N/N 143rd ST Renovation acres of open space and park amenities to the City's park and recreation resources. K730031 Community Food Gardens and This project adds community 0 Citywide P-Patches gardens and P-Patches to afford more opportunities to the public for growing food locally. K732424 Crew Quarters Replacement This project adds space to house 75 6500 Sand Point WAY NE (Magnuson Park) landscape crew staff and volunteers for the ongoing care of Magnuson Park. This crew quarters facility will improve service efficiency, reduce travel time, fuel usage, and other costs. K730139 Donations- Green Space This project will acquire various 0 Citywide new properties. K730148 East John Street Open Space This project adds green, 0 Summit AVE E/E John ST Development environmentally sensitive improvements in an existing park.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Official Statement Dated
    SALE DATE: MARCH 11, 2010 SALE TIME: 2010A BONDS, 7:30 A.M., PACIFIC TIME 2010B BONDS, 8:30 A.M., PACIFIC TIME PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED MARCH 2, 2010 RATINGS: (Applied for) Fitch: ___ Moody’s: ___ New Issue Standard & Poor’s: ___ Book-Entry Only (See “Other Bond Information—Ratings” herein.) In the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2010A Bonds is not excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing federal law and assuming compliance with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that must be satisfied subsequent to the issue date of the Bonds, interest on the 2010B Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals. However, while interest on the 2010B Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the 2010B Bonds received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the 2010B Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax, and interest on the 2010B Bonds received by foreign corporations with United States branches may be subject to a foreign branch profits tax. Receipt of interest on the 2010B Bonds may have other federal tax consequences for certain taxpayers. See “Legal and Tax Information” herein. ntiallyin this form.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Transportation Plan Appendix a Regional Bicycle Network Maps
    Active Transportation Plan Appendix A Regional Bicycle Network Maps and Gap List Regional Bicycle Network Development Map Series KEY by SMART Corridors West Snohomish 2 East Snohomish 2 East Snohomish 1 West Snohomish 1 North Eastside Kitsap NW King King 1 NE King 1 SW Eastside South Kitsap King 1 King 2 and Vashon Island SE King 1 SW West King 2 SE King 2 Pierce 1 West Pierce 2 East Pierce 1 East Pierce 2 H T E 204TH 7 2 4 204TH 04T 8 H B K PINE PC-44-b 0 E NELSON A KT-3 T L 1 H D H - D Y Y S T ELLISPORT O E 1 E E N R G L 1 O E 3 N N E 1 B V 2 T N R W D D E 1 I U I N A I N T S S R E C S E K T L M L Y E L S E U G L Y E I L 220 TH N L H W O A K 1 H 60 TH M V D K T C N T 6 2 O T N 6 6 H C - E H G T A 1 C T 4 O E Y S 0 4 1 P O 9 D E T 232ND - D R R d S H R 1 PC U C -44-d T 3 ²³ P PC I -44- 7 c C 1 0 S H 6 144TH 1 S 1 I G H O Y L T L D R E 8 B L M S 1 A L T Highline 1 N H A H Kent DesMoines P&R T V P H G 4 I H T A Community College SR 3 5 02 C L T R N N H L 4 *# E S W T - O 9 T 8 4 C R T 1 128TH 4 S O K 1 E M C - N R CREVISTO a O L C D L I D H O H T C 4 K H K T 3 WO T ODHILL C S 1 6 1 O 2 3 1 C S 1 A A S I L 112TH E L U P H B S D N T R T 0 I N E 7 L 2 H N R L E 2 G E O 1 I P M M N H R S Y A S EHMEL Y O E C 100TH A E W R I K H C M L N C S O A L A B A B H M A A J U Y OLSON V V T P V I R E U W A N LRT 272nd Station T H H HALL C B H N T A 6 E D M 92ND C 94TH 8 B C N U u S 2 J s A h 8 HN C E UG m I R VA C H Y H a T C SOU E n ²³ K H C S T H T r A H R a A 6 L T i R l 8 E 1 Talehquah Ferry Terminal L 6 B A 6 O D 6 SE R H O ROSEDALE E V S R I I K
    [Show full text]
  • An Update to the 1993 Parks Complan
    plan 2000seattle’s parks & recreation An Update to the 1993 Parks complan revised draftmay 2000 may 2000 may revised revised draft draft revised draft revised revised draft draft Kenneth R. Bounds Superintendent Kevin B. Stoops Manager, Major Projects and Planning Cheryl Eastberg Capital Improvement Planner Kate Kaehny Neighborhood Assistance Planner Alix Ogden Neighborhood Assistance Planner 2 Seattle’s Parks & Recreation introduction vision statement Mission Statement ................................................................... 3 revised revised draft draft revised draft Seattle’s Parks & Recreation— revised revised draft draft Into the Twenty-First Century ................................................... 4 policy statement may 2000 may Introduction ............................................................................... 7 figure 1 The Seattle Parks & Recreation System ......................... 9 figure 2 Seattle Neighborhood Sectors ....................................... 10 Fundamental Responsibilities ................................................. 11 Policy Statement—Partner for Recreation Development of Park & Recreation Facilities ...... 13 Management & Maintenance of Parks Facilities ................................................. 17 Recreation Programs ............................................ 20 Policy Statement—Steward of Park Resources Acquisitions & Development ............................... 24 Park Management & Environmental Stewardship ................................. 29 Environmental Education....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oasis Greenways: a New Model of Urban Park and Bikeway Within Constrained Street Rights-Of-Way
    Oasis Greenways: A New Model of Urban Park and Bikeway within Constrained Street Rights-of-Way A Thesis Presented by Tomas Arvydas Bertulis to The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering in the field of Transportation Engineering Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts May 2013 ABSTRACT Parks and greenways can offer many benefits to urban communities in many areas including recreational, public health, and increased land value. This research examines the approach of using only the right-of-way (ROW) of publicly owned streets to transform pavement into a new paradigm for a linear park. The needs of the linear park include it being continuous, green, and shared space, which involves ultra low motor vehicle speeds and volumes. This park is called an “Oasis Greenway,” which is a long series of interconnected low-speed, low-volume, shared-space, vegetated linear parks created from an assembly of residential streets. To meet the objectives, an Oasis Greenway has to address traffic demands and spatial constraints while connecting to a greater greenway network. Using a calibrated trip generation ratio, this research develops a model by incorporating speed control, volume control, road user dynamic envelops, connections across high-volume roads, and enough greenspace to emulate a parklike environment. Using this model, residential streets can be converted into linear parks, potentially creating a usable network of Oasis Greenways and greenspaces. The criteria and thresholds developed in this thesis can be applied to cities across the country to increase greenspace and give more opportunities for walking, biking, and recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Check Transcript of Rainier Beach Questionnaire Responses
    Status Check Transcript of Rainier Beach Questionnaire Responses The Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1999 and includes the Rainier Beach Residential Urban Village. The map shows the neighborhood plan and urban village boundaries. In 2009, the City began preparing Status Reports for 24 neighborhood plans. This document contains the responses to an on-line questionnaire that asked the questions listed below. The chart shows the number of people who responded. 240 responses 100 80 60 40 20 0 lived here owned a regularly worked attended business visited school Urban Village less than 5 years 5 to 10 years more than 10 years Neighborhood Plan Boundary Question 1: How has your neighborhood changed in the last decade since the plan was adopted (or since you’ve been there)? Question 2: What changes or aspects of your neighborhood are you... most pleased about? most dissatisfied about? Question 3: Please describe how well your Neighborhood Plan vision and key strategies are being achieved. Are they still the priorities? Question 4: The Status Reports should focus more on... they should focus less on... Are there important gaps in the Status Reports? PLEASE NOTE: statistical sampling was not used for the on-line questionnaire; responses do not necessarily represent the community as a whole. Rainie R BeaCh aeRial map RainieR BeaCh 3 Question 1: how has Q1:your how neighborhood has your neighborhood changed changed? in the last decade since the plan was adopted (or since you’ve been there)? new housing, light rail!, the new library, not sure that it is Only major change since we’ve lived here has been any safer...still lots of crime, maybe a bit better.
    [Show full text]