|
|
|
Team D: |
|
Jake Baker, Sara Byrnes, Katharyne Marcus &
Marc South |
|
|
|
|
Executive Summary |
|
Objective |
|
Literature Review & Methodology |
|
Findings |
|
Discussion |
|
Conclusion |
|
Appendices |
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this project was to determine the
opinions of area residents and business owners along Train Avenue about the
proposed extension of the Towpath Trail through the Train Avenue Corridor |
|
|
|
Findings: |
|
Train Avenue is in need of help – any and every
kind of help |
|
All feel that the area is unsafe on many levels
due to lack of lighting, accumulated trash and debris, indigent people,
poor road conditions, and drainage problems |
|
Business owners want additional security and
enforcement by city and police |
|
Residents want a focus on the neighborhoods |
|
Towpath extension is a good idea, but other
issues should be addressed first |
|
Train Avenue has been neglected for far too
long, and needs to be addressed |
|
|
|
|
Our objective was to plan and host 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
We used two principle reference sources in
designing our approach to the use of focus groups for the Train Avenue
corridor. |
|
|
|
Susskind, L., et al, The Consensus Building
Handbook, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publishing Company, 1999. |
|
Used for techniques and processes to establish
consensus |
|
|
|
Gould, Peter and White, Rodney, Mental Maps, New
York, Routledge Publishing Company, 1993. |
|
Used strictly for the residential group for the
use and analysis of maps |
|
|
|
|
We first developed a set of questions each for
the residents and business owners, along with surveys, comment cards, and a
residents-only mapping exercise, and then hosted separate focus group
sessions. |
|
|
|
Using these tools, we were able to ascertain the
assets and issues facing the area according to the different groups, and to
gauge responsiveness to future development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business Owners |
|
Survey Results |
|
Responses to Questions |
|
Residents |
|
Survey Results |
|
Mapping Exercise |
|
Responses to Questions |
|
|
|
|
Attendees were given a quick survey to complete
after signing in and prior to the start of the meeting. Through this tool we gauged: |
|
Basic demographic information, such as
owner/renter status and length of occupancy |
|
Some of the assets and issues of the area |
|
|
|
|
Examples of survey questions: |
|
Address or closest intersection |
|
Type of business |
|
Is the customer base in the area |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses to the following questions: |
|
“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” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The questions written for the business group
focused on the Train Avenue Corridor |
|
|
|
Assets: |
|
Good location for their businesses; proximity to
downtown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issues: |
|
Safety issues |
|
People living in woods |
|
Abandoned property |
|
Illegal dumping |
|
Lack of enforcement; double standards |
|
Lack of support from councilperson |
|
|
|
|
Other: |
|
None were aware of Walworth Run |
|
Vague knowledge of the Towpath Trail |
|
Felt that a Trail extension would not impact
their businesses |
|
No clear idea or strong feelings on what to
develop along Train |
|
Strongly desire road and sewer repairs |
|
|
|
|
Examples of survey questions: |
|
Address or closest intersection |
|
Length of occupancy |
|
Age |
|
Work location |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses to the question, “Please list three
great things about your neighborhood,” fell into four general categories: |
|
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” |
|
The built environment |
|
“Old Victorian houses” |
|
“Wonderful old architecture” |
|
Quality of life |
|
“Diversity” |
|
“Great neighbors” |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses to the question, “What are the three
things that you would like to see changed in your neighborhood?”: |
|
Train Avenue cleanliness |
|
“Dumping on Train Avenue” |
|
“Chuck Holes filled more [than] once a decade” |
|
General cleanliness |
|
“Clean alleys and Train Avenue” |
|
“Better maintenance” |
|
Safety and security |
|
“Crime” |
|
“More safety programs” |
|
Quality of life |
|
“A video store” |
|
“More block clubs” |
|
|
|
|
The resident focus group was asked to draw their
neighborhoods in a Mental Mapping exercise. The point was to determine how the members of the group
actually saw and used the various assets and streets in the neighborhood |
|
Three of the seven maps specifically pointed out
and commented upon Train Avenue |
|
Five out of seven stressed how long-term
residents viewed neighborhood. On
these, noted were what some of the empty or converted buildings had been
(breweries and slaughterhouses) |
|
When drawing their neighborhoods, the
individuals drew them very tightly, i.e., within a very limited space of
their residence |
|
Very little green space was noted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The questions developed for the residential
group focused on two distinct topics: the Train Avenue Corridor and
Assets/Weaknesses |
|
|
|
Assets: |
|
Location and proximity to downtown |
|
Good neighbors |
|
Old architecture |
|
|
|
|
Issues: |
|
Train has always been run-down and has
historically been used as a garbage dump |
|
Trash |
|
Crime and drugs |
|
Area lacks many basic amenities like restaurants
and green space |
|
Lack of enforcement of ordinances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other: |
|
Three of the attendees drive Train regularly |
|
About half have used the Towpath. |
|
“Affordable housing shouldn’t start at
$300,000.” |
|
Green space or a ballpark would be a good use,
but they must be maintained by somebody |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
Dumping and trash is a major issue |
|
The road and drainage needs to be repaired |
|
Abandonment of properties and disrepair brings
the entire area down |
|
|
|
|
There is a much more positive feeling about
Train Avenue and the neighborhood at-large among the residents compared to
the business owners |
|
Business owners have a focus on short-term
actions like road repairs |
|
Residents are more focused on what the
neighborhood used to be and what it should be |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Business Question List |
|
Resident Question List |
|
Business Owner Sign-in Sheet |
|
Resident Sign-in Sheet |
|
|
|
|
Train Avenue Corridor |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
Do you think a recreation area can safely
co-exist with the type of traffic and businesses that are on Train
regularly? |
|
What do you think are the best reasons for
businesses to be located along Train Avenue? Near the Flats? Near I-90?
Cheap land? |
|
Other than road improvements, what would make
Train Avenue work better for you? |
|
What are the worst aspects [other than the
condition of the road] about Train Avenue? |
|
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? |
|
Discuss where the results of this meeting will
go – Dr. Kellogg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Train Avenue Corridor |
|
When you think of the Train Avenue corridor,
what images come to mind? |
|
Does Train Avenue have any impact on your
neighborhood? |
|
Do you use Train Avenue? How, when and why? |
|
Have you ever visited the towpath trail or the
Cleveland Metroparks? |
|
Do you think residents would use an extension of
the towpath? |
|
What do you think about “day lighting” the
Walworth Run? |
|
Assets/Weaknesses |
|
What is the greatest geographic asset of the
neighborhood? (Ex. Proximity to downtown, Metro Hospital, the Cuyahoga
Valley, etc.) |
|
Is there anything you feel your neighborhood
lacks? (Ex. Soccer field, baseball
diamond, shopping opportunities, etc.) |
|
Where do you do most of your shopping? (Differentiate between grocery and
general retail.) |
|
Have you visited anywhere that had attributes
that you would like to have here?
Explain. |
|
Do you think Train Avenue can succeed as an area
for recreation or are there too many physical barriers? |
|
Do you have a preference regarding new homes or
restored older (historic) homes? |
|
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.) |
|
What should be done with the vacant foundry
site? |
|
What should be done with the building near the
West 25th Street bridge? |
|
|
|
|