Placemaking Imagined by the Community

April 4, 2019 | Author: Mel Torres | Category: Community, Survey Methodology, Perception, Geography, Science
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

CEP 460...

Description

CITY OF AUBURN PLACEMAKING IMAGINED BY THE COMMUNITY

AUT 2016

A project coordinated by the University of Washington Livable City Year, the City of Auburn, and Community, Environment, and Planning

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was completed for the University of Washington Livable City Year and the City of Auburn. This project was assigned to us in the course CEP 460: Pl anning in Context with Instructors Branden Born and Rachel Berney. We wol like to thank Je Tate, Stephanie Seibl, an the rest of the City of Abrn, an also the Livable City Year team for making this project possible. Thank yo, Auburn Placemaking Team

PLACEMAKING TEAM

CONTENTS

4

INTRODUCTION Context & Purpose

Within the city of Abrn, there are many neighborhoos that each have their own niqe, contet-specic nees, ientity, an esires, specically in their relationship to the larger Abrn. For varios reasons – geographic, historic, or annexation – these neighborhoods lack a strong connection to the larger city of Abrn, an some lack a strong sense of connection to place an commnity within smaller sbcommunities within the city. Abrn is home to 8 sb-commnities ene by the city – West Hill, North Abrn, Lea Hill, Soth Abrn, the Platea, SE Abrn, an Lakelan. City of Abrn ocials feel as thogh North an Soth Abrn generally are stronger connecte to the central core of the city of Abrn, the remaining 5 communities are more disconnected from downtown Abrn, an lack a strong sense of commnity within them. Some of this isconnect is geographic, there are physical bonaries that separate certain sb-commnities from the rest of Abrn. Some of this has to o with resorces an opportnities, Abrn has less appealing shopping options than their neighbors in Kent and Covington. And some of this is by natre of anneation, Lea Hill was annee from Kent, an West Hill was annee from Feeral Way – perhaps creating a sense of confusion about neighborhood identity among resients. Or research, generally, spports these feelings from city ocials.

5

Project Our project centers around how to create a sense of place an connection to place, both within the contet of sbcommnities, an within the contet of the larger city of Abrn. Or work focses on rst getting an nerstaning for the reasons behind and currently feeling among residents throghot Abrn, thogh more specically those in neighborhoos that o not feel as connecte, srroning the concerns expressed by the city of Auburn. This comes from a belief that placemaking is most successful when driven by the commnity, an riven by those for whom these spaces are home (PPS). We then se this nerstaning, as otline later in or report, as a framewo rk for recommening specic solutions in order to create a strong sense of place and connection within these neighborhoos, an also a stronger connection to the city of Auburn. Our recommendations are intentionally diverse and varied in focus – we did this to ensure that we were providing a broad range of recommendations that are eible bt tailore specically to the contet of Abrn, bt they all center on a key concern of centering community members in the process of placemaking. These recommendations provide a foundation for strengthening relationships and support systems between residents of Abrn an city ocials, an for cltivating sb-commnity identity while creating a stronger connection to the city of Auburn. These recommenations are: Coee with Yor Local City Planner, Commnity Benets Program, Neighborhoo Matching Fn Epansion, Plaza Reesign, Vacant Spaces Program, Signage an Braning, an Mckleshoot Engagement. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

This report is a presentation of research done by a team of Commnity, Environment an Planning students at the University of Washington as part of the City of Auburn Livable City Year Program. This research centers around the question of sense of place in Abrn, whether crrent resients feel a sense of connection to their assigne neighborhoo, an a

sense of connection to the larger City of Abrn, an what Abrn ocials can do to facilitate a stronger sense of connection. This research is applied to a set of placemaking recommendations put together for the City of Auburn to better create a sense of individual community ientity, an a stronger connection to Auburn more generally.

8

METHODS

INITIAL RESEARCH

SURVEY

In order to put together a set of recommenations that best t the City of Abrn’s nees, we chose to center our process around an understanding of community sentiment and feedback in regards to their spatial and emotional connection to their neighborhoods within Abrn, an the City of Abrn more generally. You will see this choice reecte in or placemaking enition. In orer to o so, we complete a srvey and mapping exercise with Auburn residents. These exercises were aimed at getting a sense of current conceptions of Abrn an sb-commnities within the city, an crrent conceptions of spatial location in terms of neighborhoods.

We began this process with a literature review to assess best practices in survey and mapping techniques within the sphere of planning. We took these best practices, an se them as a fonation for constructing survey questions and our mapping exercise to best allow for open responses that focused on sense of place, an perceive neighborhoo boundaries.

We then completed our survey and mapping exercise – collecting 49 surveys and 28 mapping exercises. These results showe a lack of connection to sbcommnities, or at least the names an esignations of sb-commnity’s by the city, as well as the larger Abrn. These reslts conrme that resients ten to spend money and leisure time outside of Abrn. These reslts o not, thogh, show a lack of interest and desire for engagement on the part of residents. It became clear while surveying that Auburn residents have an interest in making Abrn a more cohesive, an livable, place.

9

 OF FINDINGS SUMMARY OF SUMMARY In looking at both our mapping and surveying together, it is clear that there is a disconnect  between Auburn residents living in sub-communities, the downtown, and city ocials.

In looking at both our mapping and srveying together, it is clear that there is a disconnect between Auburn residents living in sb-commnities, the owntown, an city ocials We found that Auburn residents do not identify with their assigned neighborhoos, an o not ientify with owntown Abrn. There is, thogh, a esire for a livable city, a esire for a strong sense of place, an a esire for a connection to downtown and to the city government.

From these nings, we have create a list of recommendations to improve the sense of place within the sb-commnities and entire community of Auburn. These recommenations are: Coee with Yor Local City Planner, Commnity Benets Program, Neighborhoo Matching Fn Epansion, Plaza Reesign, Vacant Spaces Program, Signage an Braning, an Muckleshoot Engagement. Implementing these recommendations will facilitate a stronger connection to place within smaller neighborhoos, an a stronger connection to the City of Auburn among residents.

10

Our recommendations are split into four phases,, beginning with phase 1, an one phases on-going phase. Phase 1 represents 1 represents initial steps at creating a sense of place within the commnity of Abrn. From there, Phase 2 and 2 and 3 represent more long-term, thogh still manageable, placemaking steps. Our recommendations for engaging with the Muckleshoot fall into an on-going category, thogh all these projects shol be on-going, becase this relationship is one that should be continued throughout all of these processes.

 is Placemaking? What is What COMMuNITY-dRIVEN | INCLuSIVE | dYNAMIC | CONTExT-SPECIFIC

To better understand the types of recommendations that we needed to make with the City of Auburn we researched thoroghly the enition of placemaking. Across the sorces that we analyze we fon that placemaking is a concept in urban planning that has to do with community involvement. Some research has been one that arges that most placemaking projects fall short and are unsuccessful. In The Agile City for instance, athor James Rssell escribes how planners can avoid typical placemaking pitfalls by paying attention to existing and surrounding elements in order to produce solutions that have the most potential for sustainability.

This enition was chosen by or team after completing a literatre review becase it centers the commnity, an grons placemaking as a process that is collaborative, an interacts with the physical, the cltral, an the social. We believe that placemaking, in orer to be sccessfl, nees to center the concerns of whom the programs and plans are for an aect most irectly. This enition informs or own process with or srvey an mapping eercise, an list of recommenations. The vales of commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic soltions are threas that inform and run through all of the recommendations outlined below.

11

PLACEMAKING DEFINED “Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maimize share vale. Placemaking facilitates creative patterns of se, paying particlar attention to the physical, cltral, an social ientities that ene a place and support its ongoing evolution. Placemaking shol be commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic.” ~ Project for Pblic Spaces

THE SURVEY

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Or srvey consiste of fteen qestions, all crafte to engage with resients in an open an conversational manner, an to facilitate responses that were honest an natral (See Appeni A for fll srvey). Questions included: •







What neighborhood do you live in?  Do you consider yourself a part of Auburn?  When you are not at work, school, or home, how and where do you spend most of your time?  Do you shop, run errands, or eat out in Auburn? If yes, what neighborhood(s) do you y ou go to? 

14

 + Analysis Results + Results

49 responses were collected between the teams. The survey was conducted throughout the city and therefore a variety of neighborhoods were represented. We spoke with residents of Lea Hill, Lakelan, North Abrn, Soth Abrn, owntown Abrn, an West Hill. Lea Hill was the most represente neighborhoo, thogh several people respone with ‘Abrn’ an i not provie a more specie neighborhoo, potentially indicated a lack of understanding of assigned neighborhood boundaries.

they like to spen time in. Most responents i, thogh, note that they prefer getting their communications from the city online. We aske resients what some of the  rst wors that come to mind when they of Auburn are. These responses are telling in terms of crrent conceptions of Abrn, an potential space for increase placemaking eorts. Most sentiments abot feelings of the state of Auburn centered around feelings that the city is qiet an peacefl, that there is a lot of trac an congestion, that there is a lot of perceive crime an rg se, and that there is incoming change in demographics – some resients felt that these changes were goo, while others, mostly oler Abrn resients, were not okay with this change. Those who lived in Downtown Auburn focused most on these changes.

The srvey provie an opportnity to get open-ene an opinion-base responses from the resients of Abrn. These questions provided insight on whether residents feel a connection to Abrn, an to the ir sb-commnity, as well as information abot where they spen their money, an their feelings about the current state of Auburn. 27% of participants said that they do not consider themselve s to be part of Abrn. Several responents eplaine that this was because they did not interact with or spend time in Auburn. 70% of participants did consider themselves to be part of Abrn, thogh are mapping eercise reslts provie important nuanced to the depth of this connection. When proviing eplanations, many state that this was e to the fact that they live, work, or atten school in the city. 25% of respondents said that Downtown Auburn was a neighborhood

Or responents from Lakelan focse on iversity, while also mentioning how parts of Auburn were unsafe. Most of the complaints abot trac an congestion came from Lea Hill Residents. Lea Hill residents also frequently mentioned families an kis, as well as Green River College.

15

Many people commute for work or run errands in ne ighboring commnities, sch as Kent, an Feeral Way. However, signicant assets within Abrn incle the otlet collection, Fre Meyer, an Safeway. Aitionally, we hear that resients appreciate the amount of parks in the city and they enjoy spening time at commnity centers, sch as the library. The survey provided valuable insights on the perceptions and opinions regarding the city from the perspectives of residents. An additional mapping exercise was conducted in order to provide more tangible information on where they perceive their neighborhoods to be.

16

MAPPING

 the Exercise Conducting the Conducting

In order to determine if Auburn residents identify with the neighborhoos ene by the city, specically i n a spatial sense, a mapping exercise was conducted. The intent of conducting this exercise within the community was to determine how the residents identify their neighborhoods and to see if those responses accrately match the neighborhoos recognize by the city. This eercise also, like the srvey, focse in part of where resients spen money, as well as freqent rotes of travel.

The mapping eercise was concte at several ierent locations within Abrn, in orer to ge t a variety of responses. For locations were selecte; Fre Meyer in owntown Abrn, Goowill, Lea Hill Park, an Les Gove Park. These l ocations are ientie on the map below. Two potential ftre sites for srveying incle the Starbcks at the Outlet Commons and Mill Pond Park. They were areas sggeste by city ocials to the Abrn Connectivity team.

Ocial City of Abrn Neighborhoo Map

Mapping Eercise View from Google Maps

The following gres are maps of the City of Abrn. On the left is the map provie by the city that depicts the designated Auburn neighborhoods. On the right is the map that was provided to participants in the exercise on which they outlined their own neighborhood. This map intentionally did not include the Auburn boundaries in orer to get an iea of the resients’ perceptions, withot being inence by the ocial, city-recognize neighborhoos.

The mapping exercise consisted of several components: •



A total of 28 srveys were analyze for this project.



19

Outlining their neighborhood on a map of Auburn Determining where they run errands Identifying frequently traveled routes

 Analysis Mapping Analysis Mapping

After concting the eercise, the maps were compile an reviewe. When organizing the ata visally, we fon a istinct, varying egree in the spatial conception of the northeastern neighborhoos. The gre to the right is an overlay of the Northeast “qarant” of the city. The qarant was determined by using Highway 18 and Highway 167 as geographic eges to elineate each qarant, in conjnction with the wide and varying degree of the spatial conception of this area in Auburn. The darker blue areas indicate that multiple participants ientie that area as a part of their neighborhoo. The most niqe overlaps occr in the Abrn-esignate “downtown” area. One responent ientie their neighborhoo beyon the Highway 18 ege, while simltaneosly encompassing the downtown core. In ftre testing, it wol be interesting to take note of the rigidity of the surrounding highways acting as edges.

An overlay composite map of downtown, North Abrn, an Lea Hill neighborhoo responses as ientie by responents.

20

critically through the current governmental boundaries of neighborhood names.

Smmary statistics of the eercise provie telling insights regarding how Auburn residents identify their neighborhoods. 14% of participants were able to correctly ientify a neighborhoo in Abrn, not necessarily their own. Frthermore, only 9% were able to ientify their own neighborhood the same way the City of Auburn would identif y them as. 32% of the participants were unable to name or identify any neighborhood within the city. Responses were left nanswere or left with “N/A”, “Not sre”, etc.

It also became apparent that the residents tend to more often ientify with smaller regions within the larger ene neighborhoods. Their perceptions of their neighborhoods often incle jst several blocks srroning their homes, or even just the residences themselves. These responses indicate that the resients view their neighborhoos as signicantly smaller an more inslar, compare to the perceptions of the city.

This mapping eercise prove to be a very eective tool for determining how Auburn residents view their neighborhoods. A very small portion of the responents were able to ene their neighborhoos as ene by the city.

It appears as though the city divides the Auburn neighborhoods base on large topographical featres, sch as Green River or Highway 18. However, the resients ientify them on a mch smaller scale, base on close proimity to their homes. Overall, it appears that there is a gap between how the city an the resients ene neighborhoos, an a presence of neighborhoo names that are well-known by the city, bt not necessarily by the community members. This is an area that we recommend further research on.

While concting the eercise, many participants ha iclty identifying their neighborhoods on the map. It was common for the participants to look over the map for a few minutes before being able to identify their best approximation of where their neighborhood is located. This could potentially result from a lack of connection to the owntown area, resients that o not identify with the downtown area could be lacking a point of reference within the city of Abrn, thogh we sggest that is speaks to a larger issue of residents not identifying with their assigned neighborhood names or spatial boundaries. This is a very important ning, an perhaps case for thinking

21

Capable of matching their neighborhood name and location within the designated City of Auburn boundaries

Capable of naming a neighborhood with the same names as given by the City of Auburn

23

DEFINING THE PROBLEM Overall awareness of the names or spatial conception of the neighborhoods in Auburn is very low amongst its residents. The residents are unable to match their neighborhoo ientity with the neighborhoos otline by city ocials. The varying sizes of each neighborhoo as otline by the responents reveals an interesting concept: there is no consistent conception of space in terms of neighborhood area relative to city-esignate areas. The lack of neighborhoo ientity is a signicant barrier in placemaking. In orer to allow resients to feel a sense of ownership an belonging in their commnities, we propose seven sggestions an recommenations to city ocials to engage, activate, and connect with the residents in Auburn.

24

RECOMMENDATION LIST SHORT-RANGE PLANNING

PHASE 1 Coee with Yor Local City Planner PHASE 2 Commnity Benets Program Neighborhood Matching Fund Plaza Reesign

MID-RANGE PLANNING

PHASE 3 Vacant Spaces Storefront Program Signage an Braning ON-GOING Muckleshoot Engagement LONG-RANGE PLANNING

25

PHAS PH ASE E ON ONE E

26

This program is simple, bt it is imperative to the sccess of creating a connected sense of Auburn and a strong sense of place within communities.

COFFEE WITH YOUR LOCAL CITY PLANNER

This program is centere aron a city of Abrn ocial – we are sggesting rban planners, bt this col be etene to other city sta – visiting a coee shop or pblic gathering place in each sb-commnity once a month or once every other, on the same ay of the week. A planner wol sit in the coee shop for two hors, at least, an serve as an open resorce to community members. Community members are able to come with qestions, with feeback an with ieas, an share them with their planner, eectively creating a connection between city sta an those who planning ecisions aect, while also proviing space for city ocials to solicit feeback abot new ieas in an nstrctre, open, an comfortable setting. This program centers aron city ocials, specically planners, be in commnities reglarly, meeting commnity members where they are at, an emonstrating to commnity members that the city is trly listening to t heir concerns, an is there for them.

SHORT-RANGE | QUICK | EASY Reglar “oce hors” hoste by city planners an commnity engagement ocials at coee shops or commnity locations throghot each sb-commnity in Abrn once a month to create a genuine connection between connection between community members an government ocials. Throghot srveying an completing of mapping eercise, it became clear that Auburn residents have strong opinions abot their commnities, bt o not necessarily have the space to share them, in an accessible way, with city ocials. It also became clear that there is a gap between city perception of sb-commnity’s, an commnity-members’ perceptions. It seems that commnity members have ieas, an have opinions but that these opinions never make it to city of Abrn oces, an to ecision makers. It also is clear that there are resorces for Abrn resients, bt that these resources may not be currently leveraged to make successful an vibrant places. Coee with Yor Local City Planner is a simple way to bridge these gaps.

Locations of Coee with Yor City Planner shol be poste pblicly on the City of Abrns Facebook an Twitter fee, bt also sprea wiely throghot neighborhoo organizations surrounding the location of each session. Keeping these sessions on the same ay, on a monthly or bi-monthly basis creates an expectation and will bring awareness as the program goes on. Following through on each intended date is imperative to ensure trust among community members.

27

PHAS PH ASE E TW TWO O

28

COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM MID-RANGE | ECONOMY BOOSTER

A local card or app that incentivizes shopping at local businesses will stimulate business and business evelopment in owntown Abrn, creating a tie to the core of the city, an keeping money in Auburn.

 By creating a rewars system for spening locally, more money will stay in the community. According to supportland. com, local bsinesses can “Recycle mch of their revene (abot 3 more than national chains) back into the local economy… Help to sustain walkable town centers which rece sprawl, car se, habitat loss, an polltion…Give commnities a one-of-a-kin, istinctive character an have a broad range of product choices… Create more jobs locally an, in some sectors, provie better wages an benets than chains o.”

Base pon srvey reslts an the mapping eercise, it became clear that many residents shop outside of the City of Abrn. People wol go to Covington, Kent, or Feeral Way to do their shopping. Auburn is not considered a place to shop or by foo. Strengthening the local economy is in the interests of the city an all of it’s resients. Some cities have programs to help strengthen to local bsinesses. Strong local economies and businesses can help create more robust and busy hubs in cities. This helps lead to a sense of ownership and pride in one’s community.

Robust economies and city centers are important parts of strong commnities, an this iea col help to raw people and their spending back into the city and neighborhoods.

29

PLAZA REDESIGN DOWNTOWN ACTIVATION

This suggestion centers around the activation of public space to create more engaging and memorable experiences. The following analysis will focs specically on the plaza otsie of City Hall, bt the concepts col be etene to any open space or park in the city.

The Project for Pblic Spaces, an online resorce on placemaking, emphasizes the importance of well-esigne pblic plazas an parks. They arge that, “a great rban park is a safety valve for the city, in which people living in ense rban areas can n breathing room. While a poorly planne or maintaine park can a place of fear an anger, ths repelling people, bsiness, an investment. A great sqare, on the other han, can be a sorce of civic prie, an it can help citizens feel better connecte to their cltral an political instittions.” Maimizing the potential of Abrn’s open spaces will be a critical step in creating a sense of connection to the City of Auburn among residents spread throughout the sb-commnities, an creating a sense of ecitement abot downtown Auburn as a central hub.

Srveying Abrn resients abot their perception of the downtown area revealed two key issues that could be solved by strategic pblic space esign. The rst common response from residents was that they felt there was a lack of fun and entertaining activities to do in downtown Auburn. We also found that most participants could not identify a central location or image that was representative of downtown Abrn. The open plaza space otsie of Ci ty Hall presents an opportunity to create a memorable and engaging space that can serve as a central gathering point and key representation of downtown Auburn.

30

The Power of 10 Theory

(Project for Pblic Spaces, 2009)

“The Power of 10”, a placemaking theory abot cltivating ecitement abot pblic spaces, theorizes that a sccessflly designed city will have 10 general locations for people to spen time in, 10 specic places in each location for them to go, an 10 activities in each place for them to engage in. All of these spaces shol be engaging, ynamic, an well-esigne. Applying “The Power of 10” to the contet of the City of Abrn provides a way to think through how to best stimulate a

ynamic an active owntown core, an create connection to sb-commnities throghot the city. Within the contet of this specic recommenation, the general location wol be owntown Abrn, the specic place wol be the plaza irectly otsie of city hall, an the plaza wol therefore nee to be lle with at least 10 engaging activities.

31

Recommendations

In order to successfully activate this plaza in line with “The Power of 10” we suggest adding these activities as rst steps: Dynamic Seating Visuals Interactive Activities + Entertainment •





32

(The Alley Project, n..)

(daring Ieas, n..)

These activities can range from etravagant to simple, an do not necessarily need to entail large budgets or massive reesigns. They can be something to o, something to look at, or somewhere to sit – there is possibility for simple changes that t into the framework of The Power of 10. The general esign of the plaza is alreay qite sccessfl. The large entrance is inviting and points towards the City Hall. The concrete ground is clean, at, an bright. The grass terraces provie tetre,

color, an a place to sit an play. Some possible aitions to the plaza that we sggest are a life-size game, brightly-colore an moveable seating, a small stage, an foo trcks. These are basic, bt serve as easy, rst steps to better creating ecitement abot coming to owntown Abrn, spening time in owntown Abrn, an even spening money in downtown Auburn.

33

dYNAMIC SEATING Within this plaza, there are a few black metal benches and tables at the edge of the space. These seating options, as well as the bench seating along the grass terraces, are a way to get resients into the plaza, bt crrently fail to create a dynamic and inviting atmosphere within the space, an there are crrently not enough of them to create a welcoming environment. Within placemaking research, there is a strong emphasis across scholars and practitioners that movable and brightly colored seating brings activity to public spaces. The

VISuALS + LIGHTING Installing attractive light and heating tres wol allow the plaza to be se at night and during colder times of the year. Activating the space at all times helps to create a more central gathering spot, becoming a stronger placemaking tre for the city. The nighttime hangout space could also encourage people to spend more of their evenings downtown which would increase local restarant an store trac. The lighting could create a stronger sense of safety as many residents voiced concerns about lack of lighting in our surveys. The picture

above is an eample from Plaza e Cesar Chavez in San Jose which se large heated cubes and string lights to create a welcoming environment at night. To the right, is an alley activation on Granville Islan, B.C. in Vancover.

moveable chairs allow sers to cstomize their environment and the bright colors wol attract them to the plaza an create a memorable impression. The Project for Pblic Spaces bilings on this in their own sties, an fon that seats are the best design choice when compared to benches because they are comfortable, inepensive, an arrangeable. Aing mch more seating, that is colorfl, comfortable, an movable is key to activating this plaza.

GAMES  A life-size game wol be an entertaining and unique way for people to engage with their community members. A game like this would appeal to guests of all ages and create activity in and excitement about downtown Auburn. The type of game could rotate every few months to provide variety and encourage people to come back often. In conjunction with a life-size game, smaller games can be pt in as well. To the right, we have eamples of an otoor library, chess, an others.

STAGE

FOOd VENdORS

The installation of a stage would provide another source of entertainment downtown as well as present an opportnity for local artists, speakers, and cultural groups to perform for their commnity. Throghot the ay, local artists could play music which would create a lively atmosphere throughout the downtown area. Larger events or shows could also be planned to draw more people to the plaza an owntown area.

Food trucks are rapidly gaining popularity and an entire culture of fans has arisen in which people can follow their favorite trucks from place to place. In our surveys there was an overwhelming amount of responses voicing concern about a lack of food options in Auburn. Having food trcks in the plaza wol combat this problem while also encouraging people to spend time walking around downtown.

NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING FUND COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP | ENGAGEMENT | PARTICIPATION Expanding the Neighborhood Matching Grant  Grant  to a Neighborhoo Matching Fn, an making a few small changes to increase accessibility, serves as a way to create sbcommnity ientity an connection to Abrn, by spporting gron-p placemaking projects.

creating a strong sense of neighborhood identity and Auburn ientity, ths ensring the sccess of these projects. Abrn oes crrently have a Neighborhoo Matching Grant (NMG), but we suggest further expanding this to a Neighborhood Matching Fn (NMF) to better sprea awareness of the grant itself, an create more accessibility for applicants. Abrn’s Neighborhoo Matching Grant (NMG) is very similar to a NMF, but this expansion would bridge the gap between residents who want to complete these projects an the City, who has the resources to make them a reality. This would also create a better connection between the City of Abrn an resients, creating a stronger sense of connection within commnities, and to the larger Auburn.

Through our surveying we found that about half the population feels attached to Auburn while the other half does not. An even smaller percentage felt that the City of Auburn was meeting their community needs. Many of them felt like they had to either look elsewhere or just opted out of participation in the city all together. This leads to the issue of neighborhood identity; in our mapping exercise 32% of the individuals surveyed were able to identify a neighborhood in Auburn. Only about 9% of those same individuals we re able to identify their own neighborhood in conjunction with the city’s assigned boundaries. This absence of neighborhood identity can be a major reason why so many people in Auburn feel disconnected from the larger community.

A NMF would present an opportunity for community members to fund their own projects within their designated neighborhoos of Abrn. The size of NMF projects can range from small commnity events like street clean-ps to larger, heavier projects like community gardens. NMF projects are capable of creating a deep sense of community in a way that city’s themselves often cannot. This is because a NMF places the power of urban design and community building directly into the hands of community members themselves. Nobody knows a neighborhood better than the people that actually inhabit them. Prioritizing gron-p commnity le projects in neighborhoods that currently do not feel as strong of a connection to their commnity an to Abrn eectively creates place while also creating a connection between government and residents.

This, thogh, oes not mean that there is not ecitement around creating a stronger and more exciting City of Auburn among residents. While speaking with residents of Auburn throgh or srveying an mapping, we fon that resients have ideas about where they want to see Auburn move in the ftre, projects they wol like to see happen, an projects that they wol like to complete on their own, bt perhaps do not have the resources to do so. By providing spport for these inivial an commnity projects, the City of Auburn can successfully center community voices in 36

THERE ARE SIX WAYS

that we would like to suggest that the NMG be expanded:

37

THERE ARE SIX WAYS

that we would like to suggest that the NMG be expanded:

38

PHASE THREE

39

VACANT SPACES STOREFRONT PROGRAM REVITALIZATION | CREATIVE PLACEMAKING

Activating vacant spaces throgh spaces throgh art an pop-p bsinesses to create a lively an active owntown Abrn, an facilitate small business creation and growth in vacant spaces.

There are crrently many vacant spaces in owntown Abrn, especially lining the main owntown core on East Main Street. This program provies a way to make se of these spaces, an facilitate small, locally-owne an operate bsiness development in downtown Auburn. This is important for two reasons. First, it begins to raw in crrent spening that is leake to neighboring areas, keeping money in Abrn. This has been highlighte as a key concern for Abrn ocials, an, in speaking with resients, is something that resients of Auburn are also concerned about. A project of this sort also provies a way to activate empty strips of gron oor retail space in new developments along East Main and throughout downtown Auburn.

In escribing the fonation for this project, the city of Abrn epresse a nee for an “Abrn-wie commnity ientity”. Creating a strong sense of a niqe owntown core is imperative to creating an Abrn-wie ientity. In orer to eectively raw resients to owntown an to create a connection to Abrn, the city of Abrn nees to provie an eperience that is niqe, an ierent from the retail cores that exist in surrounding areas. This recommendation provides an innovative and dynamic way to create a unique sense of place in downtown Auburn.

This program also provides another opportunity for the city of Auburn to support local residents. Calls for artists for this program, an proposals for pop-ps shol be sorce eclsively, if not primarily, from resients from Abrn, with special attention made to engage neighborhoods outside of the central core that are not currently connected to Auburn.

This recommendation builds on the current public art lining East Main, an the storefront art space in front of the City of Auburn building on East Main. It is clear that downtown Abrn is alreay in part, being activate  throgh art, an this program provides a way to build on that to create a thriving owntown core that is inclsive, commnity-riving, an dynamic. 40

FOUR CORE SUGGESTIONS TO ACTIVATE VACANT SPACES

A STOREFRONT ART PROGRAM that ses vacant storefronts, or ner- or n-tilize storefronts, cleans them, an ses them as a venue to showcase local artists and their work.

A POP-UP PROGRAM  PROGRAM  that helps facilitate business development in downtown Auburn by providing support to bsinesses crrently attempting to get o the gron. The storefronts program can serve as a precipice to this – artists that rst begin in a storefront can then take over the space completely as a stio, gallery, or store.

FOUR CORE SUGGESTIONS TO ACTIVATE VACANT SPACES

COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE  SPACE   These spaces, once cleane p, shol be se as a site for commnity gatherings. This brings city government to the commnity, thogh only in the owntown core, an to a more eible an engaging space. These storefronts can also be used to supply space to community grops an organizations to meet. This is something that shol be bilt into contracting with artists, storefronts, an bsinesses. FURTHER EXPANSION This EXPANSION This project ts into a larger potential for arts to be at the core of downtown Auburn’s identity. Programs throghot the unite States, eplaine in more epth below in the otline case sties, emonstrate that art within owntown settings, brings resients to owntown spaces to engage with the place that they call home. This builds on a trend we already see happening in Abrn – East Main is line with pblic art, an there is already a storefront show in front of the City of Auburn oce biling. With this program, there is space for contining on with an artist survey of needs that gets at core concerns among the arts commnity in Abrn, an serves as a way to tailor this recommenation to specic nees within the city. This program has potential to be expanded to encompass live/work arts space in downtown Auburn as well. There is also space for a larger mural within downtown Auburn that signals that this is an arts commnity, an ties in to the storefronts program.

42

NEXT STEPS FOR STEPS FOR VACANT SPACES

These suggestions involve multiple steps. They will involve, as a preliminary assessment:





An inventory of current spaces



Working with space owners to create contracts an agreements to se the space, an cltivating a mtally benecial working relationship



Cleaning empty storefronts



Calls for Artists and marketing about the program





43

Organizing a honorarim for artists an contract period and logistics Ensring that the space has insrance, the city has liability insrance, the bsiness owner has liability ensre, an recommening that the artist has liability insurance Developing a structure for next steps

CASE STudY

 | NEW HAVEN, CT PROJECT STOREFRONTS STOREFRONTS |

within Auburn. They negotiated with key stakeholders and property owners to use retail spaces for an initial 90 days as part of the program.

New Haven, Connectict is home to 125,000 resients, 11,000 of which are stents. The historic city center of New Haven nerwent reevelopment in the 1980s, bringing with it 311 apartments an gron oor retail. The resiential components of this owntown evelopment were sccessfl, bt retail components were not as mch so. Specically in the contet of New Haven, the national recessional in the late 2000s exacerbated what was already a “sluggish local economy” an left an increase nmber of empty storefronts throghot the city (National Enowment for the Arts). New Haven ientie that the rst step at revitalizing the area was increasing foot trac an making the city more active. The problem of empty storefronts is one that we see in Auburn. The steps taken by New Haven to activate the area should be used as a framework for creating Auburn’s own storefront program. In response to these concerns, New Haven’s department of Arts, Cltre, an Torism (dACT) create Project Storefronts, a program that lls empty retail spaces with with galleries, stios an arts-relate oces, “creating low-bget ways for entrepreners to test bsiness plans in real conition”. This project was evelope in collaboration with the Oce of Economic development, an an organization that provie small bsiness conseling an scal spport, something that, in the ftre, wol be a goo recommenation f or partnership

Within the report to the NEA the describe this process: “They undertook outreach to property owners and negotiated with them for eisting an new retail spaces, an for rece or in-kin services. Once they selecte entrepreners from a pool of applicants, dACT provie aministrative an logi stical spport to evelop their retail spaces, helping them to procre insurance and navigate legal issues. To promote the program throghot the commnity an city, dACT organize several events, incling a citywie open stios program, an arts festival, an an ehibition.” Project Storerfronts has great sccess. Margaret Boell, Art Consltant for dACT, highlights the commnity engagement element of this program. She sai, “One of the wonerfl ‘sie eects’ of or program was the sense of commnity we create in the spaces we inhabite” (NEA). Combining the Storefronts program with an art walk program calle “First Friay on the 9,” “not only provie artists an other relative entrepreners with critical bsiness an retail eperience, bt our locations became a ‘hang out’ space in the best sense of the phrase” (NEA). 44

CASE STudY

Takeaways for Auburn: Work with key stakeholders and property owners early on in the process to create a collaborative an mtally benecial relationship. Pair the storefronts program with a reglar, potentially monthly art walk. Consier taking on a non-prot partner that can assist with bsiness spport an scal sponsorship.

45

CASE STudY

 | CHATTANOOGA, TN OPEN SPACES PROJECT PROJECT |

Chattanooga is home to 176,588 resients an both the university of Tennessee an Tennessee State university. Chattanooga faced a similar concern we see now in the city of Abrn, aron how to create a sense of ientity within the City Center. The goal of this program was to cultivate an ientity aron the city center, an continally engage community members throughout the process.

“Level 2- Moerate Level Interactive an Light Animation: 17 storefronts 1. Bget: $1,000-$2,000 (incles materials & compensation) 2. Interactive for each passerby- e. peal-powere animation, projection, linkable social meia, msical interaction 3. All media forms welcome 4. Provide examples for changeability if applicable 5. Preexisting works allowed

The Open Spaces Project allows more space for more permanent or more involved installations within storefronts. They split their application cycles into three levels – High Level Interactive, Moerate Level Interactive, an display Art – each with ierent levels of bgets, High Level being the largest. display Art, an Moerate Level Interactive are most adaptable to the context of Auburn. They describe these levels as follows:

Level 3- display Art: 17 storefronts 1. Bget: $400 (stipen) 2. Original still art, lighting, moele reprpose material, sclptre, lighting, 3-d printe material, igital 3. Non-traitional materials are encorage 4. Preeisting works allowe”

46

CASE STudY

Takeaways for Auburn: Paying artists for their time is essential Partnerships with otsie non-prots an fonations, throgh grant, spport the feasibility and longevity of this project Creating an online presence and interactive map online for these projects is key to the success of this project and cultivating excitement that then will bring people to the area.

47

CASE STudY

 | SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION ART IN STOREFRONTS STOREFRONTS |

The San Francisco Arts Commission pt together a FAQ report to better ai organizations an government looking to implement their own storefronts program. Their report highlights that it is of ten iclt to get property owners to participate, the importance of creating a mtally benecial relationship with property owners, an the necessity of insrance.

48

CASE STudY

Takeaways for Auburn: Cleaning up storefronts for owners is key in creating a mtally benecial relationship. Storefronts programs often lea to rentals for property owners and declines in vandalism. Property owns should carry general liability insrance, thogh cities can se their own self insurance policy to cover the art. Artist should be advised to get their own insurance. Honorariums for artists are essential to ensure that artists are getting paid for their work. Priority should be given to artists who live and work in the community.

49

SIGNAGE & BRANDING CREATIVE PLACEMAKING | OWNERSHIP

the exercise tasked the participants with identifying their neighborhood by name. An analysis of the mapping exercise revealed that there is not a cohesive spatial neighborhood ientity in any of the srveye areas, specically those who live in the North Abrn, downtown, an Lea Hill neighborhoods. Though there is not enough evidence to suggest that residents more closely identify with housing evelopment sb-commnities, there is a wie breath of literatre sggesting that intentional, cohesive neighborhoo braning has positive eects in commnity placemaking.

Strengthening neighborhoo ientity can be achieve throgh the implementation of a strategic signage program. This recommenation is base on the se of sb-commnity braning as a metho of neighborhoo ienticatio n an smallscale placemaking. Residents living in Auburn can potentially eperience a variety of conicting neighborhoo ientities. The city of Auburn is primarily a mixture of suburban and rural areas, with an rbanize owntown core. The sbrban areas on the otskirts of the city have ample hosing evelopments, avertising small sb-commnities sch as Hazel View, Vintage Hills, Montain View, Viewrige, an more. Resients driving through or past these neighborhoods are immediately welcome with a large sign inicating the name of the sbcommnity, as name by evelopers. However, there is little inication for the neighborhoo bonaries as ientie by the City of Auburn. The potential discrepancies in spatial neighborhood identity due to the various messages relayed by the built environment infrastructure (i.e. with housing development signage or with the lack of neighborhood ientication as otline by the City of Abrn) provie the framework in which our mapping exercise operated within.

Or recommenation for an intentional, cohesive neighborhood branding and signage program will help reinforce topographic edges between neighborhoods through a commnity-base an neighborhoo-specic evelopment framework. This will aid in the creation of environmental legibility. Environmental legibility, as escribe by Kevin Lynch, is the etent in which resients are able to recognize parts of a city (1960). Signage as wayning tools has the opportnity to aid residents in their spatial orientation and e nvironmental legibility by creating landmarks and geographic frames of reference (Arthr & Passini, 1992).

The mapping exercise was created in order to understand the residents’ perspective on the spatial conception of their neighborhoods and how it compares to the neighborhood bonaries as ientie by the City of Abrn. Frthermore,

Each of the signage suggestions below follow the core concept of a cohesive signage program rooted in the core tenants of placemaking: commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic. 50

CASE STudY

COLLABORATIVE BRANdING Collaborative braning tilizes both creative placemaking and community engagement as tools. Creative placemaking through signage is not limited to physical signs; signage can be extrapolated to the arts sector to include local, commnity-specic art pieces as landmarks. Landmarks play a key role in placemaking and fostering neighborhood ientity (Arthr & Passini, 1992). Signage as a channel for creative placemaking allows for a break in the spatial and cognitive dissonance in terms of place; creative signs allow for better community

ownership an involvement, creating a stronger neighborhood identity.

merely to provide equivalent visibility when using the same uppercase letter height” (p. 10).

and type of signage could vary drastically surrounding the highway as opposed to a slower, arterial roa. Visibility testing would need to be completed in order to aress the ierences in spee an visibility.

Collaborative art can easily be integrated into signage and landmarks. By building connections between artists/community members an the city, the perceive involvement of city ocials in the wellbeing of its residents is further established.

FHWA GuIdELINES A potential barrier to implementing a creative neighborhood signage program is the possibility of the signs not being in compliance with the City of Auburn or Feeral Highway Aministration (FHA) design guidelines. The FHA states that all signs on public roads must be written in Stanar Alphabet typeface (Garvey, 2007). Only two eceptions have been made as of 2007; these were granted for contrast highway signs and National Park Service signs, after completing an evaluation of their level of visibility. However, “[t]he criterion for alternative typefaces on wayning signs is less stringent than for highway signs, being

A case-sty complete by the Floria Department of Transportation for the implementation of the Futura typeface in Miami Beach, Floria was mainly focse on testing visibility from a driver’s perspective. This testing could prove to be benecial if the City of Abrn had intended to change the typeface to appease to a more aesthetically unique signage implementation for each neighborhood. With Highway 18 proving to be a freqently travele rote, the size

The general guidelines provided by the FHA can also be applied to signs downtown. The City of Auburn currently has design guidelines for the downtown core; those guidelines could be used in conjunction with creative and collaborative placemaking strategies, while also emphasizing local lanmarks an peestrian-ization.

CASE STudY

| SAN FRANCISCO, CA SIGN HIERARCHY HIERARCHY|

The City of San Francisco ses a streetscape signag e hierarchy in orer to help ai placemaking eorts. The hierarchy, from most prominent and central to least prominent and more common, is as follows: Gateway Markers (neighborhoo or istrict entry elements) Interpretive Signs directional/Wayning Signs Stanar Street an Transit Signs

is not imposing a false image on the neighborhood. In order to be eective, it is sggeste that gateway signs “be locate at ene entry points to a istrict or a neighborhoo, or transitions from one neighborhood or district to another. They may also be appropriate at areas where a freeway becomes a srface roa, or where there are other signicant changes to the roaway, lan se, or biling form (for eample, where a major roaway becomes a qiet resiential street)” (n..).

Site contet plays an essential role in the evelopment an esign of streetscape signage. Gateways, or neighborhoo entry elements, play a istinct role in placemaking e to its prominent natre. To ensre eective placemaking strategies, the gateway mst foster a commnity image, not create it. Through creative placemaking and completing outreach with local artists and community members – through a call for artists, commnity meetings, etc. – it is ensre that the city

Neighborhood orientation signs operate as placemaking markers an wayning signs. By clearly stating the name of the neighborhoo, proviing geographic contet of the neighborhoo, an inicating a list of estinations, the neighborhood orientation signs help anchor the spatial conception of each neighborhoo, while also promoting walkability an in trn, promoting the local economy.









52

CASE STudY

| PORT ANGELES, WA CULTURAL COMPETENCY COMPETENCY|

The City of San Francisco ses a streetscape signag e hierarchy in orer to help ai placemaking eorts. The hierarchy, from most prominent and central to least prominent and more common, is as follows: Gateway Markers (neighborhoo or istrict entry elements) Interpretive Signs directional/Wayning Signs Stanar Street an Transit Signs

is not imposing a false image on the neighborhood. In order to be eective, it is sggeste that gateway signs “be locate at ene entry points to a istrict or a neighborhoo, or transitions from one neighborhood or district to another. They may also be appropriate at areas where a freeway becomes a srface roa, or where there are other signicant changes to the roaway, lan se, or biling form (for eample, where a major roaway becomes a qiet resiential street)” (n..).

Site contet plays an essential role in the evelopment an esign of streetscape signage. Gateways, or neighborhoo entry elements, play a istinct role in placemaking e to its prominent natre. To ensre eective placemaking strategies, the gateway mst foster a commnity image, not create it. Through creative placemaking and completing outreach with local artists and community members – through a call for artists, commnity meetings, etc. – it is ensre that the city

Neighborhood orientation signs operate as placemaking markers an wayning signs. By clearly stating the name of the neighborhoo, proviing geographic contet of the neighborhoo, an inicating a list of estinations, the neighborhood orientation signs help anchor the spatial conception of each neighborhoo, while also promoting walkability an in trn, promoting the local economy.









53

MOVING FORWARD 54

MUCKLESHOOT ENGAGEMENT BRIDGING COMMUNITIES | FOSTERING RELATIONSHIPS

Incling the Mckleshoot Tribe in placemaking eorts in a respectful respectful   way creates a more inclusive framework for placemaking in Abrn, an is essential to successful placemaking eforts. In early iscssions, Je Tate mentione that the City was looking for opportunities to create a connection with their neighbors, the Mckleshoot Tribe. We agree that this is an important part of fostering a stronger community with a sense of place and identity. A set of placemaking recommendations would be incomplete without focusing on cultivating better relationships with the Muckleshoot tribe. In order to achieve this, we recommen for actions that fall in line with or other recommenations, an have been mentione throghot this report:

55

PLAZA REDESIGN

SIGNAGE & BRANDING

The rst iea goes along with or sggestion for the plaza reesign. Within the plaza, we sggest the inclsion of a central landmark to honor the history of Auburn. We suggest a call to Muckleshoot artists to design a central landmark to be placed in the square. A Native art piece pays respect to the history of the peoples who have inhabited these lands for thousands of year and helps to bridge the current gap between the City of Abrn an the Mckleshoot tribe, by showing the cities’ recognition of their neighborhoos, an creating a space for honoring native culture. This bond with our indigenous neighbors is vital to creating the conditions for a resilient and respectful community and sense of place.

Putting native names for streets and neighborhoods along with their crrent names wol recognize the rich history of Auburn and work to include Muckleshoot residents in placemaking eorts. Port Angeles, Washington sccessflly implemente a project of this sort – recognizing the Klallam people who have live there for over 10,000 years. This is fantastic way to cultivate a stronger sense that Natives are recognize an part of the commnity.

EVENT PROTOCOL

COLLABORATION

We recommend having Muckleshoot Elders involved in the opening ceremonies of City parades and events to welcome people to the land. There are understandable tensions that exist due to the history between the Tribe and the people who settled these lands. These tensions can be healed by building a collaborative relationship with Tribal elders. There are many tribes that compose the Mckleshoot, an more that se to inhabit the Abrn Valley, an this wol be a wonerfl way to pay homage to those whose ancestors lived on this land going back thosans of years, an better make Abrn a space of inclusion.

Our last idea would be to constantly seek collaboration with the Tribe in everything if possible. It is vital in the future to work together with all neighbors in Auburn.

56

CONCLUSION

57

FINAL WORDS

These placemaking recommenations reect a process that balance the city of Abrn’s concerns an esires, and those of residents of Auburn. Through our survey and mapping eercise, we conrme that there is a isconnect between resients of Abrn, an the city of Abrn, in part because residents do not connect to or spend time in owntown Abrn, an in part becase they o not connect to their assigne neighborhoo, both by name an spatially. Thogh varie, these recommenation vales are fone in a collaborative process, that centers inclsivity an weaves together both innovative and straightforward patterns of se. As these recommenations are commnity-riven an contet-specic we know that when pt into ialoge, engagement and action these recommendations will facilitate the ongoing evolution of Auburn. By continuing to center commnity in the placemaking process, Abrn can create a sense of nication throghot the city, while also being minfl an honoring contet-specic sb-commnity ientity. These recommenations are jst the rst step in the process of becoming “More than Yo Can Imagine.”

58

WORKS CITED Moncler, T. (2005). The Klallam Langage Program (Rep.). denton, Tx: university of North Teas Press. “Open Spaces Program Overview.” Open Spaces. Web. 10 The Project for Pblic Spaces. “The Power of 10 : Applying Placemaking at Every Scale - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “The Lighter, Qicker, Cheaper Transformation of Pblic Spaces - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “Eqitable Placemaking: Not the Ens bt the Means - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “A dIY Gie to Placemaking in Yor Neighborhoo - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “What is Placemaking - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. “Project Storefronts New Haven.” Project Storefronts New Haven. Web. Rssell, James S. “Placemaking Is Mainly Bogs.” Jamessrssell. net. 8 Apr. 2015. Web. “San Francisco Better Streets”. Signage. Web.

IMAGES

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: Survey

  n   r   u    b   u    A   r   o    f   s   n   o    i    t   s   e   u    Q   y   e   v   r   u    S    0    6    4    P    E    C

   ?   n    i   e   v    i    l   u   o   y   o    d    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n    t   a    h    W  .    1

  n   a    C       n   r   u    b   u    A    f   o    k   n    i    h    t   u   o   y   n   ?   e   s    h   t    h   w   g    d   u   o   n   h    i    t   m  r   r   u   u   o   o   y   y   e   o   r    t   u    t   e   p   m  a   c   o   t   c   a    t    h   a   t    h   s    t   s   e   g   s   n   a   r    i    h   h    t    t   p   r   s   r   o    i    f   s   e   d   r    h    t   o    f   w   o   e   e   i   v   m   f   o   e   s   m   e   r   e   a   v    t    i   a   g    h   u   o    W  y  .    2

   ?    t   o   n   y    h   w   r   o   y    h    W    ?   n   r   u    b   u    A    f   o    t   r   a   p    f    l   e   s   r   u   o   y   r   e    d    i   s   n   o   c   u   o   y   o    D  .    3

   ?    t   a    h    t    t   u   o    b   a   e   r   o   m   y   a   s   u   o   y   n   a    C    ?   y    t    i    t   n   e    d    i    d   e    i    f    i   n   u   a   s   a    h   n   r   u    b   u    A    t   a    h    t    l   e   e    f   u   o   y   o    D  .    4

   ?   e   m    i    t   r   u   o   y    d   n   e   p   s   u   o   y   o    d   e   r   e    h   w    d   n   a   w   o    h  ,   e   m   o    h   r   o  ,    l   o   o    h   c   s  ,    k   r   o   w    t   a    t   o   n   e   r   a   u   o   y   n   e    h    W  .    5

  o   g   u   o   y   o    d    )   s    (    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n    t   a    h   w  ,   s   e   y    f    I    ?   n   r   u    b   u    A   n    i    t   u   o    t   a   e   r   o  ,   s    d   n   a   r   r   e   n   u   r  ,   p   o    h   s   u   o   y   o   ?    D   t   o  .    6

   ?   y    h    W    ?   e   s   u   u   o   y   o    d   n   o    i    t   a    t   r   o   p   s   n   a   r    t    f   o   s   e   p   y    t    t   a    h    W  .    7

   ?   r   e    h    t   o   n   a   o    t    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n   e   n   o   m   o   r    f    t   e   g   o    t   y   s   a   e    t    i   s    I  .    8

   ?   n   r   u    b   u    A   n   w   o    t   n   w   o    d   o    t    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n   r   u   o   y   m   o   r    f    t   e   g   o    t   y   s   a   e    t    i   s    I  .    9

   ?   s    t   n   e   v   e   e    d    i   w     n   r   u    b   u    A    d   e   r   o   s   n   o   p   s   y    t    i   c   n    i   e    t   a   p    i   c    i    t   r   a   p   u   o   y   o    d   n   e    t    f   o   w   o    H  .    0    1

   ?   s    t   n   e   v   e   e   s   o    h    t    t   u   o    b   a   n   o    i    t   a   m   r   o    f   n    i    t   e   g   u   o   y   o    d   w   o    H  .    1    1

APPENDIX A (continued)

   ?   s    t   n   e   v   e   e   s   o    h    t    t   u   o    b   a   n   o    i    t   a   m   r   o    f   n    i    t   e   g   o    t   e    k    i    l   u   o   y    d    l   u   o   w   w   o    H  .    2    1

   ?   e   e   s   y    l    t   n   e   r   r   u   c    t    ’   n   o    d   u   o   y    t   a    h    t   n   r   u    b   u    A   n    i   e   e   s   o    t   e    k    i    l    d    l   u   o   w   u   o   y   s   g   n    i    h    t    3   e   r   a    t   a    h    W  .    3    1

   ?   y    h   w    d   n   a  ,    h   c    i    h    W    ?   n    i   e   m    i    t    d   n   e   p   s   o    t   e    k    i    l   u   o   y    t   a    h    t   s    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n   e   r   e    h    t   e   r    A  .    4    1

   ?   y    h   w    d   n   a  ,    h   c    i    h    W    ?   n    i   e   m    i    t    d   n   e   p   s   o    t   e    k    i    l    t    ’   n   o    d   u   o   y    t   a    h    t   s    d   o   o    h   r   o    b    h   g    i   e   n   e   r   e    h    t   e   r    A  .    5    1

  s   n   o    i    t   s   e   u    Q   c    i    h   p   a   r   g   o   m   e D

   0    7   e   v   o    b   a  ,    0    7      1   e    6   s  ,   u    0   o    6    h     r    1   u    5   o  ,    ?   y    0   t   y   n    5    i    i   -    t    1   n   n    4   e   e   r  ,    d    d    0   i    l    i   c    4    i   -   n    h   c    1   h    3   t   e  ,   e   r    0   d   e    3    h    ?   -   n   n   t    1   a   r   e    2   e   u   r  ,    b   A    0   c   u   ?   a   A    2   -   r   e   r    0   u   i   z    1   o   n   i   s   :   y   d   d   e   e   l   g   e   i   v   n   i   n   l   o   a   f   u   h   e   r   e   s   e   d   o   y   u   g   u   e   o   a   o   v   h   r   y   a   r   u   d   h   u   o   l   o   y   u   g   y   n   o   s   s    i   w   l   o   i    t    t   a   w   w   a    h   o   o   h    W   H   H   W  .  .  .  .    1   2   3   4

APPENDIX B: Mapping Exercise

  e   s    i   c   r   e   x    E   g   n    i   p   p   a    M

  :   s   n   o    i    t   s   e   u    Q   :   n   c    i   e   r    h    d   p    l    i   a   r    h   g    C   o   m   e    D   e   s   e    h    t   :   r   y   e    t    i    t   :   w   n   n   s   e   r   n   u    d   b   a    i   u   e   c    i    A   :   s   e   n   a   z   n   i    h   e    t    i   s    l   e   d   d   p  ,   e   l    d   g   v   o   n   l    i    h   n   a    i    l   e    l    i   :   e   s   r   s   w   e   c   a   u   a   o   g   e   e   r    A   R   Y   H   a  .  .  .  .   u   1    2   3   4   o   y    f    I

   ?   e   m   o    h   r   u   o   y   m   o   r    f    d   n   a   o    t    l    d   e   o   v   o   a   r    h   r    t   o   o    t    b    h   l   y   g   t    i   e   n   n   e   r   u   u   q   e   o   f   r   y    f    t   o   s   o   s   e   m    i   r   e   a   k    d   t   a   n   u   u   ?   o   o   e   r    b   y   e   e   s   h    t   e   t    h   t    t   e   e   u   n   o   r   g    i    l   u    t   e   u   h   o   o   t   y   y   o   e   f    i    d   s    t   a   n   w   e   e   o    l    P   d    I    H  .  .  .    1   2   3

APPENDIX B: Mapping Exercise

  :   s   n   o    i    t   s   e   u    Q   :   n   c    i   e   r    h    d   p    l    i   a   r    h   g    C   o   m   e    D   e   s   e    h    t   :   r   y   e    t    i    t   :   w   n   n   s   e   r   n   u    d   b   a    i   u   e   c    i    A   :   s   e   n   a   z   n   i    h   e    t    i   s    l   e   d   d   p  ,   e   l    d   g   v   o   n   l    i    h   n   a    i    l   e    l    i   :   e   s   r   s   w   e   c   a   u   a   o   g   e   e   r    A   R   Y   H   a  .  .  .  .   u   5    6   7   8   o   y    f    I

APPENDIX C1: Composite Mapping Data (NE Quadrant)

APPENDIX C2: Composite Mapping Data (SE Quadrant)

APPENDIX C3: Composite Mapping Data

APPENDIX C4: Composite Mapping Data

APPENDIX C5: Composite Mapping Data (NE Quadrant)

APPENDIX D: Mapping Data

APPENDIX E: SWOT Analysis Problem: Fining a balance between nifying “One Abrn” Problem: Fining an recognizing an reinforcing inivial neighborhoo identity.





Strengths (What are or major internal strengths?) Strengths (What Current existing infrastructure for events that bring residents together Existing downtown/town center layout Seems to be an increase in small local bsinesses in Auburn downtown that are gaining popularity Eisting Soner train infrastrctre locate in owntown Auburn Progressive team of city of Auburn employees who are ecite abot this work, an open to feeback











Perhaps there is a disconnect between city of Auburn branding and community vision City of Auburn website is not necessarily transparent or accountable City of Auburn planning and engagement meetings are not happening on residents turf and are not currently working to eliminate barriers to attendance Lack of community member inclusion in discussions to soltionize problems (e.g. Soth Abrn)

Opportunities (What eternal opportnities o we have?) Millennial populations general trend to live in high density environments Space for more bsinesses Population is young Eisting Soner train infrastrctre locate in owntown Auburn Potential for relationship with Muckleshoot tribe to build on social capital Current community structure that could be bridged together to strengthen “One Abrn” (while still honoring an keeping inivial commnity ientity strong!) Opportunity to foster relationship between people who are eperiencing homelessness an other commnitymembers Potential to leverage social media to build community connections with the City of Auburn and to combine this eort with physical promotion of events an meetings Potential to engage community members in conversations about addressing problems facing Auburn











Weaknesses (What are or major internal weaknesses?) Weaknesses (What Lack of interface between between city ocials an resients throghot all Abrn neighborhoos, especially those that the city believes to be less connected Lack of awareness of existing community connections on the part of the city Topography and geography – landscape is compartmentalize an oes not necessarily connect to existing infrastructure Lack of existing businesses in Auburn that bring in business Lack of existing transportation infrastructure for getting around the city of Auburn and moving through neighborhoos to owntown (bike lanes, peestrian paths, etc.) Lack of relationship with Muckleshoot tribe Lack of a plan for addressing homelessness in the city of Auburn



























74

APPENDIX E (continued) Threats (What major eternal threats o we have?) Threats (What New wave of outside development and whether the City of Auburn has much of a say in this Auburn residents are spending money in other communities outside of Auburn – businesses outside of Abrn (economy of Feeral Way an Kent) Millennial populations general trend to live in high density environments High nemployment rate (twice the national average) (King Conty Metro) Lack of eisting transportation infrastructure for getting around the city of Auburn and moving through neighborhoods to downtown City of Auburn is operating externally from Muckleshoot tribe Facing growing homelessness in Auburn Dependence on cars as primary form of transportation •















75

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF