I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this project is to collect a cross section of thoughts and opinions from area residents and business owners who live or work on or near the Train Avenue corridor with an emphasis on current and future conditions to include a possible connection to the Towpath Trail. To do this, we developed a set of questions and surveys for the residents and business owners, created comment cards, and prepared a residents-only mapping exercise, to host two separate focus group sessions. Using these tools, we were able to ascertain the assets and issues facing the area according to the two different groups, and to gauge responsiveness to future development.

The focus group sessions yielded a great deal of information, which was then culled to determine general trends and opinions. The consensus was that Train Avenue is in need of help – any and every kind of help. It is seen as a dumping ground for area residents in the view of the business owners and residents think business owners do not care for their properties well enough. Residents and business owners alike felt that the area is unsafe on many levels due to lack of lighting, accumulated trash and debris, indigent people, poor road conditions, overgrown foliage and drainage problems. Additionally, business owners felt that additional security measures should be taken by the city and police to protect their business interests. Residents believed that any efforts made should first be directed towards the neighborhoods. While both residents and business owners thought that the Towpath extension was a good idea, they felt that there were more important issues that should addressed first, though they also acknowledged that this development would likely serve as a catalyst for the community. Everyone also agreed that Train Avenue has been neglected for far too long, and needs to be addressed in the near future.

II. Objective

Our objective was to plan and facilitate focus group sessions to determine the responsiveness of residents and business owners in the Clark-Metro, Stockyards, and Tremont areas to gain an understanding of how the Train Avenue corridor is perceived currently and what the future could hold, including a proposed extension of the Towpath Trail.

III. Literature Review & Methodology

We used two principle reference sources in designing our approach for using focus groups for the Train Avenue corridor. One, covering the techniques and processes to establish consensus, was used with both groups. It consisted of three chapters 1, 2, and 3 from Suskind’s book The Consensus Building Handbook[1]. The second, Mental Maps[2], which details the use and analysis of maps, was used strictly for the residential stakeholder group.

We used a consensus approach to establish the issues and concerns of both residential and commercial stakeholders because we felt that that approach was consistent with both the size of the groups and the relative lack of recent information about the desires of the neighborhood for Train Avenue. We did not want to turn either meeting into a confrontational situation where one group would win and another would lose. This was especially pertinent since we recognized quite clearly that our role was to develop ideas for the Train Avenue Corridor, and that we had no ability to move directly to implementing whatever strategies were agreed upon. The consensus approach allowed us to be forthright with the participants in the focus groups allowing them to provide information that would be included with a wide variety of other data, while not promising anything on our parts other than our best efforts.

This approach appeared to work quite well, in that both groups were more than willing to share their concerns and ideas about both the present status and possible future of the corridor. However, while in general we took a consensus approach to the focus group process, there were points at which we had to alter the basic approach to meet our own needs. Perhaps the most critical of these was that we did not have control over the persons who were participating in the focus groups. In the case of the businesses owners, we encountered significant difficulties in contacting them, or more exactly, in getting them to respond to messages left for them. As a result, the local community development corporations (CDCs), Clark-Metro and Stockyards, ended up having to make the contacts. While the resulting meeting provided good information, we cannot know for sure if this group was representative of all twenty-five or so business owners along Train Avenue, or if there was something about this group that made them uncommonly responsive to the CDCs and our issues.

In the case of the residents, the names of individuals to contact were given to us by the three CDC’s (Clark-Metro, Stockyards, and Tremont West). Ideally, in designing a focus group to use in a consensus establishing process, we would have had the time to determine these individuals for ourselves. Given the short timeframe we had to design and conduct these groups, we used what we could readily obtain, and that came from the CDCs.

The mental mapping process was used only with the residential stakeholders. It might have had value for the commercial stakeholders as well if any of them had been retail merchants, but all were sellers of goods and services to the industrial sector. The mapping process involves giving people the opportunity to express what is significant to them in their neighborhood through drawing. The logic underlying the process is that people will draw things that they might not remember to talk about, which asked about their overall perception of a neighborhood. They may show routes or destinations that are so commonplace to them that they do not think to talk about them when asked about strengths or weaknesses in a neighborhood, or how they get from point A to B, or where certain activities are undertaken or avoided. As predicted by the writers of Mental Maps, the residents showed very distinctive pictures of the areas perceived as important and unimportant around Train Avenue.

IV. Findings

Survey Results

The residents and business owners were given a quick survey to complete while waiting for the session to begin that asked questions about basic demographics and general feelings about what were the strengths and weaknesses of the neighborhood. These questions were asked to get a snapshot of the attendees and to identify whether their backgrounds are representative of the community as a whole. Incidentally, comment cards were provided at both meetings for those who may have had more to express but did not get the chance to state their thought. No comment cards were completed at either meeting.

Business Focus Group

Business Survey Results

Below is a sample survey received from one of the four business owners in attendance at the focus group session:

A summary of the demographic information from the resident survey is described below:

On average, most business owners have been located along Train Avenue for many years. Involved business areas are vehicle impounding and towing, plastic injection molding, steel warehousing and light manufacturing, and trucking and rigging. The average number of years that they have owned the business and that the business has been in the neighborhood are 34.0 and 31.5 years, respectively. None live within the immediate area. Three respondents indicated that their businesses were not dependent on the local customer base and one noted that his was.

The following responses were given to the bolded questions. Note: any comments appearing in quotation marks throughout this paper are direct statements made by attendees.

“Why have you kept your business in this area?”

“Easily accessible to freeways for towing in the city”
“Expensive to move”
“Convenient”
“Convenient”

“Why is this area a good place for you to do business?”

“Centrally located for city towing”
“It is not”

“What impediments are there to maintaining your business in this area?”

“High security!”
“Security”
“Trash on streets”

In general, it is felt by the business owners that the location along Train Avenue is good, but the security and trash are not. Some expressed a desire to leave the area, but have not due to the strain of relocation.

Summary of Business Focus Group Minutes

Train Avenue Corridor

When the meeting opened, there were three business owners present: John Decker, who runs a custom steel supply firm on Train (on the west end of the street) that provides mostly steel ductwork for heating and air conditioning; Judy Horak, who runs a towing company on the east end of Train Avenue; and Laszlo Horvath, who runs a plastic injection molding company on the west end of Train. Approximately ten minutes into the meeting Roy Lang joined the group, who owns a trucking company on the west end of Train. In all cases, these were businesses that had been long established on Train Ave, with the present owner/operators having acquired the businesses in place. Decker bought his business from others within his family, while the others bought their business from previous operators.

The questions written for the business group focused on the Train Avenue Corridor. The following questions were developed, but were asked in a slightly different order and did deviate from the script; however, for clarity, responses are placed under the question that fits best.

1. If you had the opportunity to redevelop Train Avenue from a clean slate yet with the present transportation system intact, including the railroad tracks, I-90, etc., what would you put there?

When asked about what might be a good use for the area, Lang volunteered that the city could use another truck stop; maybe that would be a good idea for the neighborhood. It might invite crime, but it would be built on a clean slate for the area.

2. If the infrastructure consisted of a natural stream and bike path [an extension of the Towpath Trail], what impact would this have on businesses along Train Avenue?

None of the business owners were aware of the history of the stream and did not seem to have much of an opinion on it. They did think that day-lighting Walworth Run and extending the Towpath Trail through Train Avenue would cause any harm, nor be of any real benefit to their businesses.

3. Do you think a recreation area can safely co-exist with the type of traffic and businesses that are on Train regularly?

The business owners did not feel that there would be any problems.

4. What do you think are the best reasons for businesses to be located along Train Avenue? Near the Flats? Near I-90? Cheap land?

We then asked what was good about the area everyone stressed proximity to downtown and proximity to the freeways (both I-90 and I-71). Apparently this is well known, as speeding is a problem at night on Train. Several of the business owners talked about auto accidents in the neighborhood. Horvath talked about hiring people from the neighborhood, but then illustrated his problems with that by commenting on how one year he had an average of around 30 employees, but had to send out over 200 W-2’s at the end of the year.

5. Other than road improvements, what would make Train Avenue work better for you?

An early comment was the need to make the street area completely uninhabitable. My sense was that all the members of the group were somewhat surprised by that remark, but it turned out to mean something different than what we thought. Apparently there are a significant number of persons who live in the woods that border Train Ave. They build shacks back in the woods, especially during the summer time when the vegetation prevents the shacks from being seen. There is a major concern about this group of people.

This led to a discussion of ongoing quality of life problems on the street. Decker reported ongoing issues of finding various paraphernalia in the area of his loading docks. He also reported that his company had to install a gate over the garage doors to attempt to prevent break-ins. His firm also reported ongoing problems with dumping of various items on the street: tires and cars being a particular problem, but other issues revolving around the dumping of dead animals and occasionally, humans. Decker also reported having five 50-gallon drums of paint dropped on his property on one occasion, which resulted in an asked-for visit by the EPA to help determine the contents. Other attendees reported similar problems, with the city’s contribution being from non-existent to anti-constructive.

Lang commented on the impact the street was having on the suspensions of his trucks and how that was affecting his earnings.

6. What are the worst aspects [other than the condition of the road] about Train Avenue?

Horak reported significant problems with her council person (Cintron). She stressed that he was interested in businesses on W. 25th and Fulton and did not care a great deal about any other parts of the ward. She had approached his office about taking action concerning absentee landlords/property owners, and had been told that “if she would get all the names, maybe we can do something about it.”

She also stressed that the city would enforce laws/regulations concerning property appearance when the owners were known, but when the offensive property was the city’s, nothing ever was done (this was especially true concerning graffiti -- she came back to that point a couple of times).

Decker also pointed out that another area that had diminished visual appeal was the area on the north side of the train tracks that is owned by the city and used by CPP as a storage and service depot.

Lang returned to the issue of trash. Apparently, the situation is such that in many cases people living in the houses that back on to Train will just take their trash out to the back porch/door and throw it down the hill/into the woods. Horak remembered that in one case as a result of a remodeling project, toilets were thrown downhill into the woods. That provoked the city sufficiently to come, remove them, and cite the offending party. Lang proposed making higher/tougher curbs to help discourage trash dumping. Horak stressed that the trash problem primarily arose from the residents of the area.

A particular concern among the buildings is a “see-through” building across the street from Lang’s trucking company. The first floor is rented out for storage, but on the upper floors, the windows are out.

There was also a general sense that the area is continuing to deteriorate. We asked if vandalism, etc. had decreased as the Flats declined as an entertainment venue. The response was that, to the contrary, it had increased.

Lang also pointed out that he had reviewed the Sheriff’s office list of sex offenders, and had noted that there was one “on practically every block” in the neighborhood. That led him to wonder if there was a high concentration of criminals of other types as well. The other owners seemed to feel that they would expect that to be the case, although no one was sure due to a lack of data.

7. Is there anything that can be done in the areas surrounding the Train Avenue corridor that can make the area more successful? Do you have any specific ideas about how this can happen?

We then returned to the main business theme, which was getting the road repaired, at least on a temporary basis. In addition to that, Horak noted the need to resolve the sewer problems, which she felt had been increased after the railroads rebuilt the 30^th Street bridge. She wondered if they had damaged the sewers in that project.

Professor Kellogg and Katharyne Marcus stressed the importance of forming a business owners group to meet the councilmen representing the area. Horak didn’t feel that Cintron would be agreeable or helpful on any project, but the others appeared to feel that Zone might be of assistance.

We asked if there was any particular type of business needed in the area, a “focal-type” of business, or rather if just more activity was need. The response was clearly just more activity, it really didn’t matter what kind, just more eyes on the street.

Finally, these business owners (somewhat surprisingly) did not feel that there were an unusual or high number of toxic waste problems in the corridor.

Professor Kellogg summarized, pointing out the need for looking at Train Avenue as a whole, rather than 2 wards, 3 CDC’s, etc. And that we were committed to working with the various CDC’s to try and make sure that it was looked at comprehensively.

Resident Focus Group

Resident Survey Results

Below is a sample survey received from one of the nine residents in attendance at the focus group session:

A summary of the demographic information from the resident survey is described below:

The majority of the attendees were long-time residents of the neighborhood, though only one was native, and owned their homes. The average age was 48 years-old, though the range was from 32 to 76. Nearly half have family in the neighborhood, and only one has children under the age of eighteen living with them. Two respondents work within the neighborhood, and another two work in the City of Cleveland. Only one person works outside of these two areas.

Additionally, the attendees were asked to list three good things about their neighborhood and three things that they would like to see changes. In response to “Please list three great things about your neighborhood,” comments fell within the four general areas of central location to city and amenities, close to main arteries of transportation, the built environment, and quality of life.

Central location to city and amenities:

“Close to facilities”
“Centralized location”

Close to main arteries of transportation:

“Convenient to freeways and main streets”
“Close to transportation”
“Close to highway”

The built environment:

“Old Victorian houses”
“Old churches”
“Wonderful old architecture”

Quality of life:

“Quiet”
“Diversity”
“Stockyards Redevelopment Corporation”
“Great neighbors”
“Good friends”

*One survey’s assets section was intentionally left blank

There appears to be many good aspects to living in the neighborhood, but location is key. Respondents rank the area’s proximity to downtown and transportation as an asset. Additionally, the people and physical surroundings are also listed as high points of the neighborhood.

In response to the question “What are the three things that you would like to see changed in your neighborhood?” the following comments were given:

Train Avenue cleanliness

“Dumping on Train Avenue”
“Chuck Holes filled more [than] once a decade”

General cleanliness

“Clean alleys and Train Avenue”
“Better yard care”
“Better maintenance”
“Clean-up”
“Less blight”

Safety and security

“Crime”
“Housing inspections”
“More safety programs”
“Less drugs and dealers”
“Close trouble bars”
“More street lights”

Quality of life

“A video store”
“Graduation of young people”
“More block clubs”

*One survey’s issues section was intentionally left blank

Again, the comments could be segregated into four broad areas: Train Avenue cleanliness, general cleanliness, safety and security, and quality of life. There is a general consensus that Train Avenue and the neighborhood in general need to be better maintained through enforcement of ordinances and homeowner responsibility. Safety and security also accounted for many comments, ranging from a need for improved lighting to removing criminal elements from the neighborhood. Additionally, attendees would like to see quality of life issues such as amenities and resident participation.

Map Analysis

As indicated earlier in this document, we requested the participants in the residential stakeholders’ meeting to take part in a map drawing/ highlighting exercise. The point of this was to determine how the members of the group actually saw and used the various assets and streets in the neighborhood.

On three of the seven maps the participants produced, Train Avenue was actually specifically pointed out and commented upon. A more detailed review of those maps indicated that one person discussed/showed driving to downtown everyday down Train Avenue. This person showed a detailed familiarity with Train Avenue and its condition and concerns later on during the discussion. A second person took a particular section of Train, from approximately West 46^th to West 30^th Streets and marked it as an unsafe area, a place that that person would not feel comfortable in. The third person highlighted a short part of Train Avenue at its far western end, but did not say anything about whether the highlighting was intended to indicate something good, or bad, or indifferent.

Most of the maps, (5 out of 7) stressed how long-term residents viewed neighborhood, principally in comparison to the historical neighborhood. An emphasis was placed on what used to be in some of the empty or converted buildings (breweries and slaughterhouses).

Also, when drawing their neighborhoods, the individuals drew them very tightly, i.e., within a very limited space of their residence. The idea of Clark-Metro, or Stockyards, or Tremont as a neighborhood was significantly more inclusive than indicated by these residents. Their idea of a neighborhood was an area of twenty blocks or so, or an area of approximately four blocks by five blocks.

While nothing in the map analysis indicates potential problems with any plan to redevelop Train Avenue, the lack of clear definition of what Train is now in the mapping exercise, the lack of inclusion of Train in many of the neighborhood drawings, and the very limited understanding of neighborhood as indicated by the neighborhood boundaries drawn by the participants may present significant hurdles to building support for (or perhaps more exactly, preventing objections to) any redevelopment on Train. No one seemed to care a great deal about it, one way or the other.

Summary of Resident Focus Group Responses

The questions developed for the residential group focused on two distinct topics: the Train Avenue Corridor and Assets/Weaknesses. Questions were organized and asked in the order in which they appear below.

Train Avenue Corridor

1. When you think of the Train Avenue corridor, what images come to mind?

“Garbage heap”
“Dead bodies”
“Unkempt – particularly by the city”
“Short-cut between the neighborhood and downtown”
“Spooky at night”
“Today was the first time I was on it”

The general impression of Train Avenue was not favorable. Residents repeatedly commented that Train has always been a run-down area that has historically been used as a garbage dump.

2. Does Train Avenue have any impact on your neighborhood?

“Not a whole lot of truck traffic down there”

In general, residents felt that Train Avenue did not contribute to the neighborhood in any great way.

3. Do you use Train Avenue? How, when and why?

“First time I drove it was on accident”

Three of the attendees drive Train regularly. Other comments made indicate that Train has always been a “bad” area largely because of the industry that is located there, and 30 years ago the area was used for drag racing. Dumping of trash is a large problem and is part of the “urban legend” of Train Ave. Many felt that the lack of proper lighting contributes to the dumping and safety issues.

4. Have you ever visited the towpath trail or the Cleveland Metroparks?

About half have used the Towpath.Do you think residents would use an extension of the towpath?

“Wonderful”

There was a very favorable response to the idea of the Towpath Trail extension. It was commented on that it could be the area’s East Boulevard (University Circle area).

5. What do you think about “day lighting” the Walworth Run?

“Anytime you light up an area, it gives people a good, positive feeling.” (Eric?)

They think that the business owners do not maintain their properties and this is a large part of the problem – this is a strong sentiment. The area is “tired” and “run-down,” with major problem areas of graffiti, garbage, and weeds. Graffiti goes where people are not.

I. Assets/Weaknesses

6. What is the greatest geographic asset of the neighborhood? (Ex. Proximity to downtown, Metro Hospital, the Cuyahoga Valley, etc.)

“Get anywhere with the least amount of trouble.”

Transportation and location are seen to be the greatest asset. They noted that they could get downtown very easily and that other amenities were close by. A comment was made specifically about Tremont that it was well located, but because of this there are problems, including speeding and its use as a shortcut by outsiders.

7. Is there anything you feel your neighborhood lacks? (Ex. Soccer field, baseball diamond, shopping opportunities, etc.)

There were comments made that the area lacked many basic amenities like restaurants and green space.

8. Where do you do most of your shopping? (Differentiate between grocery and general retail.)

Grocery Stores:

32^nd and Clark
Tops
West Side Market
Dave’s

Restaurants:

Great Lakes Brewing Company

In the immediate area, there are no restaurants except for Mom’s and City Grille, which many felt was not a good establishment. They would like to see more amenities in the neighborhood.

9. Have you visited anywhere that had attributes that you would like to have here? Explain.

One man lived outside of San Francisco for a couple of years and commented that in comparison, Cleveland does not have the income to do “creative” redevelopment and there is not such a pressing need to live close to downtown because commuting time is not prohibitive. Following this remark, another attendee stated that the average Blue Collar worker doesn’t want yuppie stuff, which include some of the more “creative” projects with “panache.”

Comments were made that other cities like Philadelphia have vibrant downtowns that never went away, but Cleveland’s downtown has decayed. The Central Market was always packed and now with Jacob’s Field, the area is dead. Development from the 1990s was false because all efforts were focused on the ballpark and Gund arena, etc, and not the Euclid Corridor and the shops; it was redeveloped for the sports fan suburbanite. They forgot about “Average Joe Clevelander.” There are also parking issues in the city.

Additional comments that were made include that the focus should be on Denison, Store, and Clark instead of the Towpath and other development schemes. They want to see work done on the neighborhoods. They do not think that Train Ave. should be the focus. In order to utilize the towpath, the main streets need to be fixed up for access.

10. Do you think Train Avenue can succeed as an area for recreation or are there too many physical barriers?

Trash must be cleaned up to encourage growth. One attendee told an anecdote about her son, who is stationed in the Navy at Norfolk, where they are not even allowed to litter a cigarette butt, with the result being that it keeps things much cleaner and the city is nicer for it, not like “back home” in Cleveland. Again, they reiterated that better lighting would be necessary to fix up the area.

11. Do you have a preference regarding new homes or restored older (historic) homes?

a. If new housing was added to the neighborhood, what type would you like to see developed? (Ex. Doubles, apartments, luxury condos, single family homes, etc.)

“Affordable housing shouldn’t start at $300,000.”

They responded that some houses should be restored, but that others cannot be saved; it is a house-by-house issue. One large problem to fixing up old houses is that a “1905 house must comply with 2004 codes.” Single and double houses were favored, along with some cluster and senior housing.

The general feeling is that apartments should be included sparingly, if at all. One man thought that maybe 6-10 unit buildings would be good. There were previous comments that renters were not good for the neighborhood because properties are not kept up as well. Overall, housing must fit with the neighborhood in size and design.

12. What should be done with the vacant foundry site?

a. What should be done with the building near the West 25^th Street bridge?

Foundry:

“We don’t have enough green space.”

Green space or a ballpark would be a good use, but they must be maintained by somebody. One respondent suggested demolishing bad houses and merging parcels to create lots with more land. There was some agreement that if the Towpath extension was created and maintained, it would serve as a catalyst for more development.

Whose responsibility is it to keep Train Avenue clean?

There needs to be tougher enforcement by police, but there is an understanding that this is difficult due to budget problems, etc. They cite lack of code enforcement as a major contributing factor.

About redeveloping Train Avenue or the surrounding area:

“Too many studies, no action.”
“The street that time forgot.”
“Too many renters.”
“Expect landlord to come and clean it up, but most live out in the suburbs or out-of-town.”

They’ve heard “gossip” over the years that something will be done, but it never is. There is a feeling that there is a trash mentality in the neighborhood and this is evidenced by people littering in their own yards. There needs to be more organization of and by the people like in Detroit-Shoreway.

Dr. Kellogg, Question 1– “Is the trash pick up good by the city?”

They are collecting, but they are selective about when they pick up. Tremont sponsors trash cans. Block clubs are instrumental in such efforts, and they are aware of federal grant money that is available, which allows for “champagne dreams when you’re only on a beer budget.”

Dr. Kellogg, Question 2 – “Jobs in the neighborhood? Do you work in the neighborhood?”

Young people have no skills and no transportation. More industry would be good if it were closer to the neighborhood. Additionally, drugs are a problem with young men (some ladies, too) on the street corners. There is a “vicious cycle” of lack of education and drug selling.

Overall, the resident focus group meeting went very well. Many good comments came out of the discussion and it was determined from the survey, mapping exercise, and responses to questions that there was a strong desire to see development in the area. Though they liked the idea of the Towpath Extension through the Train Corridor, they did not indicate that this would be the ideal situation. Instead, they were more concerned with everyday concerns, such as repaving the road and correcting drainage problems along Train Avenue, installing better lighting, and toughening enforcement of ordinances in order to improve illegal dumping and the appearance of the area.

V. Discussion

Since its earliest days, the valley in which Train Avenue runs has long been viewed as a dumping ground. When the stockyards were in operation years ago, the refuse from the slaughterhouse was dumped into the valley where a stream, Walworth Run, ran directly into the Cuyahoga River. Over time, the stream was channeled underground and a road paved over the existing stream. Transportation infrastructure is important to the history and future of the corridor. Prior to the railroads, the Erie Canal moved goods to the south of Cleveland near the banks of the Cuyahoga River. There are railroad tracks running immediately north of Train Avenue still in use today. Today residents and business owners cite the proximity to downtown and the freeway system as an asset to Train Avenue. Due to the valley’s rather hidden location, it became a heavily industrialized area. There were a number of breweries, as well as a variety of other enterprises located along the Train Avenue corridor. While many of the businesses are gone, there are a handful of businesses still in operation amidst a multitude of abandoned properties. Business owners and residents admit that the area is a dumping ground- a place where speed limits are broken and an overall unsafe place to be at night. While the blame for the areas condition varies, both groups agree that the area can, and should be, cleaned up.

The results of the surveys and responses to the focus group questions indicate that there is a much more positive feeling about Train Avenue and the neighborhood at-large among the residents compared to the business owners. Though the residents will be the first to admit that there are many problems and issues that face this area, they have not forgotten the assets of their neighborhoods and their colorful history. There is still a sentiment, at least among the attendees of the resident focus group, that this area has potential and that it is worth being helped through any future redevelopment.

The business owners came to the session with a different focus and mindset than the residents. They are rightfully concerned with making a profit from their business investments, and some seem to be experiencing factors that are cutting into this, such as crime, illegal dumping and road conditions that impact their vehicles. They feel that they have been forgotten along Train Avenue, and that they are not getting adequate protection or support from their respective city council members.

For any development to be possible along Train Avenue, it would be necessary to align the viewpoints and needs of both the residents and business owners. They have some opposing thoughts, an example of which is that the residents feel that the businesses do not do a good enough job of keeping their facilities clean and tidy, and the business owners complain that the residents of the area dump on their property, but there is also a great deal of common ground. Both groups indicate that Train Avenue needs to be cleaned up, whether through basic road improvements, the extension of the Towpath Trail, or through simple actions like adding more lighting and police protection, along with litter control. An alliance could be created by working with both groups to produce a unified voice that could exert more pressure on decision makers and draw more attention to the needs of the Clark-Metro, Stockyards, and Tremont areas, benefiting them all and visitors in the end.

The idea of opening up the stream and building a multi-purpose trail connecting to the Towpath was well received by business owners and residents alike. There were some reservations about it amongst both groups, though. Business owners questioned the feasibility of the idea due to physical constraints. For example, the business owners felt that certain locations along the corridor between the road and railroad tracks were simply too narrow to contain a trail. While everyone thought the idea of the Towpath Trail extension was a good idea, none felt it was a first priority. More immediate concerns include getting the road repaired and improving the lighting for safety reasons. Residents in particular felt that there were more pressing issues to address first. Residents were not as optimistic as the business owners with regard to the possibility of the trail acting as a neighborhood revitalization catalyst. Yet when asked about where children in the area went to play, the residents claimed there were no places for them to go. The only green space one individual could mention was her own backyard. Another said that children just played in the streets. That all the city pools are now closed in the summer was another complaint; simply 'nothing is left'. While we were preparing for our meeting, children were playing hide-and-go-seek in the church parking lot but were shooed away because the children did not “understand the liability” they created by playing there. The vacant foundry site off West 25^th Street was suggested as a future place for a playground or park. A playground and green spaces are clearly needed to improve this community’s quality of life.

Other quality of life issues include assessing the housing stock. When asked what type of new housing should potentially be built in the community, the residents seemed to be in agreement that the area needed affordable housing for blue-collar incomes, not new luxury townhouses or condos. The residents also appreciated the historic homes in their respective neighborhoods and felt that the homes should be renovated if possible. In addition, senior housing seemed to be a popular idea among the group, particularly ranch-style and cluster homes so that the elderly would not have to climb stairs. Some of the residents stressed that the area was primarily blue-collar, but there seemed to be a divide on this issue primarily with Ohio City and Tremont residents, especially when the group cited places that they liked outside of Cleveland.

Quality of life issues affect the business owners as well. For example, one business owner along Train Avenue stated that Monday mornings are the most interesting days on the street because you never know what you will face when they arrive to work. One business owner told of coming into work and finding over 150 tires dumped in his parking lot. The same individual stated that he found five 55-gallon drums of some unknown liquid on his property. After calling the Environmental Protection Agency and the Cleveland Fire Department for assistance, it was determined that the drums were full of old paint. The business owners claim that people in the neighborhood throw their rubbish beyond their backyards directly onto the properties below. The business owners are then the ones who get cited by the city for having trash on their lots. Alternatively, the residents near Train Avenue feel that the business owners along Train need to do more to keep up appearances.

Either through abandonment or neglect, the area looks dilapidated and unkempt according to both groups. What is particularly interesting is the fact that residents claim that business owners need to do more to keep their area clean, yet it is understood that if there is something that needs to be dumped, take it to Train Avenue, which contributes to the mess they feel business owners should be cleaning up. The dumping grounds image has become part of the "urban legend" surrounding Train Avenue. A resident stated that Train Avenue was “the street that time forgot.”

Residents and business owners alike noted the loss of business along Train Avenue. One of the business owners said they “used to employ forty-five people in their heyday, but today there are only eighteen.” Residents fondly remembered the number of breweries along Train Avenue and watching the beer being made and bottled as pleasant memories of childhood. Several of the business owners did not seem very positive about the future of their own businesses as a result of the economy in general. While Train Avenue was once a major source of employment for the surrounding community, it is now viewed as a pot-holed dumping ground in need of better lighting and a lot of help from the city.

VI. Conclusion

The results of the focus groups were generally positive and the benefits of the Towpath Trail extension appreciated, however there seemed to be consensus that it was not a priority. It was noted that for anything to be accomplished on Train Avenue the effort should be directed towards the north side of the corridor specifically where the most work needs to be done and also into the neighborhoods.

That said, the information gathered also indicates a strong desire on both the business owners and the residents behalf that the area could be improved as a way to bring a higher level of quality of life to their respective roles in the neighborhood. While Train Avenue was not the first thing that came to the mind’s of the residents as a priority redevelopment opportunity, the idea was really quite well received even though their direct benefit was not obvious. The optimism expressed at the residents’ focus group indicates that interest is there and it could be cultivated. Train Avenue, a known short cut to downtown with a high criminal incidence was not regarded as an area that would never contribute to the neighborhood, even though its contribution has been weak in years past. Recognizing this fact, the residents are an excellent resource for planning the future of Train Avenue.

The business owners along Train Avenue, though much more pessimistic about the condition of the area, offered a practical application to the future of the corridor through their day to day dealings. This intense relationship with place will add significant value to a planning process coupled with the dreams of residents who want to improve their neighborhood. There is clearly a relationship to be formed between the business owners and the residents, because there is currently a disconnect between the two. Future Train Avenue redevelopment could trigger a level of cooperation between business and neighborhood interests hat this area may not have experienced before. These focus groups, though held separately in this initial stage could be merged to start the relationship building process, which could produce an exciting redevelopment plan that makes Train Avenue viable again, something that both groups want to see happen.

VII. References

Susskind, L., et al, The Consensus Building Handbook, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publishing Company, 1999.

Gould, Peter and White, Rodney, Mental Maps, New York, Routledge Publishing Company, 1993

[1] Susskind, L., et al, The Consensus Building Handbook, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publishing Company, 1999.

[2] Gould, Peter and White, Rodney, Mental Maps, New York, Routledge Publishing Company, 1993.