DOCSLIB.ORG

Cooper-Grant / Central Waterfront

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: A COOPER-GRANT/CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the residents, workers, business and institutional representatives, and stakeholders of the Cooper-Grant neighborhood, Downtown and the Central Waterfront area. Your invaluable insight, time and continued commitment to improve the neighborhood for all has helped make this Plan Update possible. STAKEHOLDER MEETING PARTICIPANTS INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS Andrew Bush, Cooper Health Cynthia Primas, IDEA Center Shaneka Boucher Nick Cangelosi, The Michaels Group Katherine Puccio, EMR Nick Cangelosi Stephen Dottavi, EMR Dana Redd, CEO Rowan University/ Erin Crean Caren Fishman, Executive Director, Rutgers-Camden Board of Directors Raymond Lamboy Camden Special Services District Michael Venuto, DRPA Engineering Sgt. Dekel Levy Greg Gamble, Rutgers University Curt Voss, Live Nation Nichelle Pace Raymond Lamboy, LAEDA Steven Weinstein, Rowan University Dana Redd Barbara Lazzaro, NJ Transit Dr. Edward Williams, City of Camden Sonia Rivera Perez Government and Community Relations Department of Planning Scott Schreiber Sgt. Dekel Levy, Camden County Jennifer Young, Verizon Nyeema Watson Police Department Vince Nicoletti, Adventure Aquarium COOPER-GRANT COOPER’S FERRY PLANNING TEAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PARTNERSHIP _INTERFACE STUDIO Jonathan Latko, President Joseph Myers, Vice President & COO Scott Page Bryon Yoder, Treasurer Brian Bauerle, Vice President Stacey Chen Benjamin Saracco, Volunteer Maria G. Gonzalez Rausell Jessica Franzini, Executive Director of CHLI Ben Bryant Maggie Loesch CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: A COOPER-GRANT/CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 About the Plan Update Cooper-Grant/Central Waterfront Study Area PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 3 WHAT HAS CHANGED: 2015 TO 2020 5 Demographic Data Update Changes in the Built Environment Progress Report UPDATED PRIORITIES 22 Resident Priority Action Strategies Neighborhood Improvements IMPLEMENTATION 25 Best Practices and Precedents Implementation Matrix APPENDIX 46 INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE PLAN UPDATE In July 2015, Cooper-Grant and Central stakeholders shared their vision for Cooper- The 2015 Connecting Communities Plan Waterfront residents and community Grant and the Central Waterfront Area, and continues to be the guiding document members developed Connecting identified which recommendations should in which this update is rooted. Hence, Communities: A Neighborhood Action Plan be prioritized for implementation. Since then, the purpose of the present update is for Cooper-Grant/Central Waterfront. the study area has seen important changes, not to revisit the full planning process, particularly in Downtown and along the but to create an action plan for The 2015 Plan, which was driven by Waterfront. Many of these have happened implementation by understanding how residents and supported by stakeholders, within the vision of the 2015 Neighborhood priorities have changed since 2015, and set recommendations to improve quality Plan. taking stock of these changes to advance of life conditions for residents, employees, 2015 recommendations to the next phase. and visitors, and to guide neighborhood Building on the 2015 planning process, revitalization in the next 5 to 10 years. These the 2020 Plan Update has identified the The updated priorities and the input recommendations were focused across continued need to create an ecosystem collected during this planning process four areas: economic development, healthy that is supportive of small businesses will serve as the basis for securing neighborhoods, resiliency and open space, and mixed-income housing for implementation funds through several and circulation. sustainable growth. These will serve as funding opportunities including, but not guiding areas to build equity, and advance limited to, the NJDCA’s Neighborhood Throughout a year-long planning and the recommendations included in the 2015 Revitalization Tax Credit (NRTC) program. public engagement process, neighbors and plan and the updated strategies herein. 1 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: A COOPER-GRANT/CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE THE STUDY AREA .The study area for the Cooper-Grant/Central Waterfront 2015 Plan is bounded by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge and I-676 to the north, Martin Luther King Boulevard and Atlantic Ave as south edges, 3rd Street on the east, and the Delaware River on the west. The study area corresponds to census tract 6103 and a portion of census tract 6104. Even though the Cooper-Grant/Central Waterfront area has seen unprecedented growth, the study area boundaries for the Plan Update remain the same as in 2015. From new open space and recreation opportunities, to residential, commercial and mixed use development along the waterfront that have brought new users and residents to the area, these projects will continue to change the neighborhood and the City of Camden’s landscape in the foreseeable future. INTRODUCTION 2 PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Over a period of 8 weeks, neighborhood A phone number was made available developed office space on the Waterfront residents and stakeholders were invited to to those who wished to take the survey that are major employment hubs in the take part in the public engagement process over the phone in English or in Spanish. neighborhood. to identify significant improvements in the › Over 700 flyers distributed throughout neighborhood and inform changes in the Cooper-Grant with information to take Considering that this is a resident-informed priorities identified in 2015. the survey. plan, primary focus has been given to priorities identified by residents while › Print and digital advertising through Given that the purpose of this update is to indicating where these priorities matched Facebook, email lists and yard signs develop an action plan for implementation those selected by workers. located in high visibility locations. of the 2015 Connecting Communities Plan, the public engagement process was › 9 stakeholder and resident interviews. focused on verifying and updating goals › 2 online stakeholder meetings. and recommendations with the public, and interviewing key stakeholders that would A total of 392 participants completed the take part in the plan’s implementation. online survey; 284 (72%) worked in the study area, 65 (17%) lived or lived and worked in The outreach process included: the study area, and 43 (11%) did not live nor › 392 online and paper surveys work in the study area. completed. The higher number of workers in survey › 340 paper surveys distributed in responses is consistent with the presence of residential areas, including Royal Court major anchor institutions in the study area, and the Riverview and Mickle Towers. as well as Downtown Camden and recently 3 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: A COOPER-GRANT/CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE Given the restrictions to carry out in-person engagement due to COVID-19, the public outreach process and marketing of the survey were done through print media, digital and social media platforms: [left] Flyer distributed throughout the neighborhood. Neighborhood residents were encouraged to take the survey for the opportunity to win a gift card from Market St Pizzeria, a new restaurant on the ground floor of the recently renovated Victor Lofts. [upper right] Two stakeholder meetings were held via video conference calls. The purpose of these meetings was to identify progress made on the 2015 Plan strategies, review results from the public engagement process and discuss specific action steps and partners for implementation. PLANNING PROCESS 4 WHAT HAS CHANGED: 2015 TO 2020 › The Cooper-Grant and Central › Although overall poverty has Waterfront area has been experiencing decreased by 23% since 2015, 3 out a decline in population, from 2,263 of 10 people, and 3 out of 10 senior in 2015 to 2,151 in 2018, a decrease residents over 65, still live below the of 5%.. Similarly, the City of Camden poverty line. as a whole saw a 3% decrease in its › Education and employment indicators population in the same time period. have seen some improvement over › While median house values have the past 5 years: According to the decreased 5%, the monthly median 2018 American Census Survey, gross rent for the neighborhood has neighborhood residents have seen increased from $888 in 2015 to $1095 their average household income in 2018. This represents a 23% rent double, from $15,000 in 2015 to increase in the study area, compared $32,000 in 2018. to a 3% increase in the City of Camden. › Unemployment in the study area has › In terms of housing, roughly 2 out of 10 decreased by 3%, and more than 1,200 study area residents are homeowners, new jobs have been generated (a 36% while 8 out of 10 rent their homes. growth since 2015). However, 91% of This trend has not changed new jobs receive higher incomes (over significantly since 2015. $40,000 per year), compared to 4% One notable difference, however, is of jobs earning between $15,000 and that almost half (46%) of all family $40,000 per year, and 5% earning less households in the neighborhood own than $15,000 per year. their home, compared to only 10% of non-family households.. 5 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: A COOPER-GRANT/CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE › The population of college-age students (18-24 years old) declined by DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES 12%, and the number of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher decreased (Values show percent change between 2015 and 2018) by 13% compared
Recommended publications
  • 2018 Complete Streets Case Study Camden, New Jersey

    2018 Complete Streets Case Study Camden, New Jersey

    2018 Complete Streets Case Study Camden, New Jersey Prepared by: Prepared for: The New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center New JerseyThe Complete New Jersey Streets CaseDepartment Study: Camden City| 1 at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey of Transportation About This report was written by Charles Brown, MPA, James Sinclair, Lisa Cintron, and Sam Salvesen of the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC) at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. The Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC) is a national leader in the research and development of innovative transportation policy. Located within the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, VTC has the full array of resources from a major research university on transportation issues of regional and national significance. The New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center (BPRC) assists public officials, transportation and health professionals, and the public in creating a safer and more accessible walking and bicycling environment through primary research, education, and dissemination of information about best practices in policy and design. The Center is supported by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) through funds provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 33 Livingston Avenue, Fourth Floor New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend special thanks to Valeria Galarza, Meishka L. Mitchell, Kathy Cullen, and Linda Schneider, of Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, for their invaluable insight into the history and implementation of Complete Streets in the City of Camden.
  • South Jersey Port Corporation $75,740,000

    South Jersey Port Corporation $75,740,000

    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 of an NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry Only Ratings: See “RATINGS” herein. SOUTH JERSEY PORT CORPORATION $75,740,000* MARINE TERMINAL REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS Consisting of $58,990,000* MARINE TERMINAL REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012 Q and $16,750,000* MARINE TERMINAL REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012 R (AMT) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: January 1, as shown on the inside front cover The $58,990,000* Marine Terminal Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 Q (the “Series 2012 Q Bonds”) and $16,750,000* Marine Terminal Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 R (AMT) (the “Series 2012 R Bonds” and, together with the Series 2012 Q Bonds, the “Series 2012 Bonds”), will be issued as fully registered bonds without coupons and, when issued, will be registered in the name of and held by Cede & Co., as nominee for the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York. DTC will act as securities depository for the Series 2012 Bonds. Purchases of beneficial interests in the Series 2012 Bonds will be made in book-entry form in denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their beneficial interests in the Series 2012 Bonds. For as long as DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., is the registered owner of the Series 2012 Bonds, all payments of principal or sinking fund cial Statement constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation installments of and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds are payable by U.S. Bank National Association, Morristown, New Jersey, as registrar and paying agent (the “Registrar and Paying Agent”) to DTC.
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS

    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS

    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
  • State of New Jersey E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE T ASK F ORCE

    State of New Jersey E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE T ASK F ORCE

    State of New Jersey E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE T ASK F ORCE Acknowledgements The Environmental Justice Task Force would like to acknowledge all of the community members who spoke with and wrote to the State Environmental Justice Task Force and NJDEP’s Environmental Justice Program to provide input in the development of this report and action plan, including the City of Camden, the Honorable Mayor Gwendolyn A. Faison, Mr. Charles Lyons, Ms. Lula Williams, Monsignor Michael Doyle and the Heart of Camden, Ms. Olga Pomar, Ms. Barbara Pfeiffer, Mr. Marc Cadwell, Ms. Phyllis Holmes, Dr. Shirley Peterson, Mr. Roy Jones, Ms. Linda Selby, Ms. Jane Nagocki, Camden Churches Organized for People (CCOP), the Environmental Justice Advisory Council and a host of others that are committed to improving the quality of life and the health of residents and workers in Camden’s Waterfront South neighborhood. Environmental Justice Task Force Agencies and other Governmental Agencies: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services New Jersey Department of Education New Jersey Department of Community Affairs New Jersey Department of Transportation New Jersey Division of Law and Public Safety New Jersey Economic Development Authority Economic Recovery Board Camden Redevelopment Authority City of Camden Camden County Health Department Environmental Justice Advisory Council Valorie Caffee, Chairperson Betty Kearns, First Vice Chairperson Ana Baptista Dawn Breeden Theodore Carrington Colandus “Kelly” Francis Avery Grant Michelle Garcia Kim Gaddy Juanita Joyner Donald McCloskey Frederic Martin The Environmental Justice Task Force would especially like to thank all agency staff who provided contributions to this report.
  • NJDEP-Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project-Final

    NJDEP-Camden Waterfront South Air Toxics Pilot Project-Final

    CAMDEN WATERFRONT SOUTH AIR TOXICS PILOT PROJECT August 2005 Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell NJ Department of Environmental Protection CAMDEN WATERFRONT SOUTH AIR TOXICS PILOT PROJECT Final Report August 2005 Prepared by: NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality PO Box 027 Trenton, NJ 08625 With Assistance from the NJDEP Camden Air Toxics Workgroup, NJ Dept. of Health & Senior Services, Camden County Health Dept., and the Camden Community Advisory Committee With Support from US Environmental Protection Agency, Community Assessment and Risk Reduction Initiatives Grant Project Manager: Joann Held TABLE OF CONTENTS ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENTS………………………………………………………………… 2 ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………….. 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 7 1.1 WHY WATERFRONT SOUTH?………………………………………………… 8 1.2 ESTABLISHING A DEP WORKGROUP……………………………………….. 9 1.3 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE…………………………………….. 9 1.4 FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS…………………………………….… 10 2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS……………………………………………………………… 13 2.1 STEP 1: EMISSIONS INVENTORY……….……………………………………13 2.1.1 BASIC STEPS……………………………………………………………. 13 2.1.2 FACILITIES LIST……………………………………………………….. 15 2.2 STEP 2: DISPERSION MODELING……………………………………………. 17 2.2.1 BASIC STEPS…………………………………………………………… 17 2.2.2 ITERATIVE PROCESS…………………………………………………. 19 2.2.3 MODEL RESULTS……………………………………………………… 20 2.2.4 COMPARISON TO F.W. WINTER NATA PREDICTIONS…………… 20 2.2.5 SOURCES NOT MODELED……………………………………………. 21 2.3 STEP 3: RISK ASSESSMENT………………………………………………….. 23 2.3.1 BASIC STEPS…………………………………………………………….24 2.3.2 FACILITIES OF INTEREST……………………………………………. 29 2.3.3 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT………………………………………… 38 2.4 STEP 4: AMBIENT AIR MONITORING………………………………………. 40 2.4.1 FINE PARTICULATES………………………………………………….. 40 2.4.2 BUCKET BRIGADE…………………………………………………….. 43 2.4.3 CANISTER AND OPEN-PATH SAMPLES AT CCMUA……………… 48 2.5 STEP 5: RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES…………………………………… 50 2.5.1 STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS………………… 51 2.5.2 TRUCK EMISSION REDUCTIONS…………………………………….
  • Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment

    Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2010 From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment Jayne O. Spector University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Spector, Jayne O., "From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment" (2010). Theses (Historic Preservation). 150. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/150 Suggested Citation: Spector, Jayne O. (2010). "From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment." (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/150 For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment Abstract The outcomes of preserving and incorporating industrial building fabric and related infrastructure, such as railways, docks and cranes, in redeveloped waterfront sites have yet to be fully understood by planners, preservationists, public administrators or developers. Case studies of Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia/ Camden, Dublin, Glasgow, examine the industrial history, redevelopment planning and approach to preservation and adaptive reuse in each locale. The effects of contested industrial histories,
  • Maritime Commerce in Greater Philadelphia

    Maritime Commerce in Greater Philadelphia

    MARITIME COMMERCE IN GREATER PHILADELPHIA Assessing Industry Trends and Growth Opportunities for Delaware River Ports July 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Maritime Commerce In Greater Philadelphia Executive Summary 3 Introduction and Project Partners 8 Section 1: Economic Impact Analysis 9 Section 2: Delaware River Port Descriptions & Key Competitors 12 Section 3: Global Trends and Implications for Delaware River Ports 24 Section 4: Strategies and Scenarios for Future Growth 31 Section 5: Conclusions and Key Recommendations 38 Appendices Appendix A: Glossary 40 Appendix B: History of the Delaware River Ports 42 Appendix C: Methodology for Economic Impact Analysis 46 Appendix D: Port-Reliant Employment 48 Appendix E: Excerpts from Expert Panel Discussions 49 Appendix F: Port Profiles 55 Appendix G: Additional Data 57 Appendix H: Delaware River Port Maps 62 Appendix I: End Notes 75 Appendix J: Resources 76 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary For more than 300 years, the from origin to final destination. supports 12,121 jobs and $772 mil- Delaware River has served as a key ⇒ Implications for Delaware lion in labor income, generating $2.4 commercial highway for the region. River Ports. The region has ca- billion in economic output. While Greater Philadelphia’s mari- pacity to accommodate growth, The port industry’s regional job time roots remain, rapid globalization but its ports must collaborate to base is relatively small, but those jobs and technological advances are driv- develop a comprehensive plan generate higher than average income ing an industry-wide transformation that addresses existing con- and output per job. Regional direct that has impacted the role that Dela- straints and rationally allocates jobs represent an average annual in- ware River ports play in the larger cargo based on competitive ad- come (including fringe benefits) of economy.
  • Evaluating Urban Odor with Field Olfactometry in Camden, NJ

    Evaluating Urban Odor with Field Olfactometry in Camden, NJ

    Rowan University Rowan Digital Works School of Earth & Environment Faculty Scholarship School of Earth & Environment 8-19-2019 Evaluating Urban Odor with Field Olfactometry in Camden, NJ Jennifer L. Kitson Rowan University, [email protected] Monica Leiva Zachary Christman Rowan University, [email protected] Pamela Dalton Follow this and additional works at: https://rdw.rowan.edu/see_facpub Part of the Geography Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Kitson, Jennifer ; Leiva, Monica ; Christman, Zachary ; & Dalton, Pamela. (2019). Evaluating Urban Odor with Field Olfactometry in Camden, NJ. Urban science, Vol.3 (3), p.93. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Earth & Environment at Rowan Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Earth & Environment Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Rowan Digital Works. Article Evaluating Urban Odor with Field Olfactometry in Camden, NJ Jennifer Kitson 1,*, Monica Leiva 1, Zachary Christman 1 and Pamela Dalton 2 1 Department of Geography, Planning, & Sustainability, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA 2 Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-856-256-4817 Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 15 August 2019; Published: 18 August 2019 Abstract: Odor annoyance negatively impacts residents of communities adjacent to persistent nuisance industries. These residents, often with a high percentage of minority or otherwise marginalized residents, experience subjective and objective impacts on health and well-being; yet, reliable methods for quantifying and categorizing odors have been elusive. Field olfactometry is integral to the study of odor annoyance experienced by communities as it includes both qualitative (human perception) and quantitative (intensity measurement) dimensions of human odor experience and has been employed by municipalities in the U.S.
  • The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers Painting a Mural at Pyne Poynt Park

    The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers Painting a Mural at Pyne Poynt Park

    The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers painting a mural at Pyne Poynt Park. © COURTESY OF THE CAMDEN COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT; FRONT COVER, TOP: Opening of the Cooper’s Poynt Family School Green Schoolyard. © ELYSE LEYENBERGER FOR THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND; BOTTOM: “City Invincible” art installation created by various local artists as part of the Connect the Lots initiative. © COURTESY OF COOPER’S FERRY PARTNERSHIP; BACK COVER: A young boy blows a wish on a dandelion. © HANNAH LOZANO The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. Printed on 100% recycled paper. tpl.org © 2020 The Trust for Public Land ii THE CAMDEN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction to the City of Camden ............................................................................................. 5 Section 2: The Camden Parks Plan Approach ............................................................................................ 11 Section 3: Mapping Results ........................................................................................................................... 15 Section 4: Community Engagement Summary .......................................................................................... 37 Section 5: Implementation
  • Camden, New Jersey Acknowledgements

    Camden, New Jersey Acknowledgements

    published by the Trust for Public Land A Final Report to the Ford Foundation Winter 2004 the Role of Parks and Greenspace in Redevelopment Camden, New Jersey Acknowledgements TPL staff would like to thank the staff of the Camden Children’s Garden, Tom Knoche of Camden Greenways, Inc., and Ayo Ayorinde and Dwaine Williams from the city for their hours spent on site visits and tours of the city. Their time and knowledge were most appreciated and helpful to our process. Thanks also go the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, The Reinvestment Fund, the State Department of the Environment, Hopeworks, Camden County, Camden City Bureau of Parks, and Camden County Improvement Authority for sharing data layers to help with our understanding and analysis of city and county geography. Mission Statement The Trust for Public Land conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. Photos throughout this document are by Kathy Blaha, Trust for Public Land Table of Contents Acknowledgements . .inside cover Introduction . .3 Methodology . .4 Observations and Overview . .6 Stakeholder Analysis . .6 GIS Analysis . .8 Parks Analysis . .9 Conservation Finance Analysis . .12 Local Funding Options . .12 State Funding Options . .14 Federal Funding Options . .15 Recommendations . .17 A Strategy for the Public Sector . .17 A Strategy for Private Partnerships . .20 A Clean Water Strategy . .21 A Project-Based Strategy . .23 Conclusion . .25 Appendices . .26 A. List of Interviews . .26 B. Attributes for GIS Database . .26 C-1. Playgrounds per 1000 Residents . .27 C-2. Parkland as a Percentage of City Area .
  • The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers Painting a Mural at Pyne Poynt Park

    The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers Painting a Mural at Pyne Poynt Park

    The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 Volunteers painting a mural at Pyne Poynt Park. © COURTESY OF THE CAMDEN COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT; FRONT COVER, TOP: Opening of the Cooper’s Poynt Family School Green Schoolyard. © ELYSE LEYENBERGER FOR THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND; BOTTOM: “City Invincible” art installation created by various local artists as part of the Connect the Lots initiative. © COURTESY OF COOPER’S FERRY PARTNERSHIP; BACK COVER: A young boy blows a wish on a dandelion. © HANNAH LOZANO The Camden Parks and Open Space Plan 2020 The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. Printed on 100% recycled paper. tpl.org © 2020 The Trust for Public Land ii THE CAMDEN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction to the City of Camden ............................................................................................. 5 Section 2: The Camden Parks Plan Approach ............................................................................................ 11 Section 3: Mapping Results ........................................................................................................................... 15 Section 4: Community Engagement Summary .......................................................................................... 37 Section 5: Implementation
  • 2010 Annual Report

    2010 Annual Report

    HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF THE CIT Y OF CAMDEN Celebrating Our Neighborhoods 2010 Deborah Person-Polk Chairwoman ANNUAL REPORT Maria Marquez, Ph.D. HACC Board of Commissioners Executive Director MESSAGE FROM CAMDEN MAYOR DANA L. REDD Dear Friends, Colleagues and Stakeholders: Every successful urban core has a distinctive heartbeat—a set of forces that drive its vitality and, in doing so, create a unique identity. Through the 1950’s and into the early part of the 1960’s, Camden’s heartbeat could be traced directly to large manufacturers and industry that dominated the city. Since that time, however, the city has been working to define a new identity. There is good reason to believe that this definition is coming into focus for the City of Camden. Without a doubt, at the heart of Camden’s growth is the resurgence of the City’s neighborhoods. These neighborhoods and our residents are the lifeblood of the City. Much of this resurgence is focused around the rehabilitation and redevelopment of Camden’s housing stock. Over the past ten Years, in excess of 4,000 new residential units have been constructed or rehabilitated. Along with the Camden Housing Authority and other partners, the City is reinvesting in ten target neighborhoods as a part of the NSP2 Program. The NSP2 projects in Liberty Park and Centerville have not only physically transformed those communities but have also empowered it residents. The same is happening throughout the City, in Cramer Hill (Nuevo Vida Phase 1 & 2), Parkside (Park Blvd Phase 3 & 4), Cooper Plaza and Lanning Square (Cooper Hill Housing) not to mention South Camden, Gateway, among others.