Placemaking Imagined by the Community
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 wol like to thank Je Tate, Stephanie Seibl, an the rest of the City of Abrn, 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 Abrn, there are many neighborhoos that each have their own niqe, contet-specic nees, ientity, an esires, specically in their relationship to the larger Abrn. For varios reasons – geographic, historic, or annexation – these neighborhoods lack a strong connection to the larger city of Abrn, an some lack a strong sense of connection to place an commnity within smaller sbcommunities within the city. Abrn is home to 8 sb-commnities ene by the city – West Hill, North Abrn, Lea Hill, Soth Abrn, the Platea, SE Abrn, an Lakelan. City of Abrn ocials feel as thogh North an Soth Abrn generally are stronger connecte to the central core of the city of Abrn, the remaining 5 communities are more disconnected from downtown Abrn, an lack a strong sense of commnity within them. Some of this isconnect is geographic, there are physical bonaries that separate certain sb-commnities from the rest of Abrn. Some of this has to o with resorces an opportnities, Abrn has less appealing shopping options than their neighbors in Kent and Covington. And some of this is by natre of anneation, Lea Hill was annee from Kent, an West Hill was annee from Feeral Way – perhaps creating a sense of confusion about neighborhood identity among resients. Or research, generally, spports these feelings from city ocials.
5
Project Our project centers around how to create a sense of place an connection to place, both within the contet of sbcommnities, an within the contet of the larger city of Abrn. Or work focses on rst getting an nerstaning for the reasons behind and currently feeling among residents throghot Abrn, thogh more specically those in neighborhoos that o not feel as connecte, srroning the concerns expressed by the city of Auburn. This comes from a belief that placemaking is most successful when driven by the commnity, an riven by those for whom these spaces are home (PPS). We then se this nerstaning, as otline later in or report, as a framewo rk for recommening specic solutions in order to create a strong sense of place and connection within these neighborhoos, 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 eible bt tailore specically to the contet of Abrn, bt 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 Abrn an city ocials, an for cltivating sb-commnity identity while creating a stronger connection to the city of Auburn. These recommenations are: Coee with Yor Local City Planner, Commnity Benets Program, Neighborhoo Matching Fn Epansion, Plaza Reesign, Vacant Spaces Program, Signage an Braning, an Mckleshoot Engagement. 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
This report is a presentation of research done by a team of Commnity, 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 Abrn, whether crrent resients feel a sense of connection to their assigne neighborhoo, an a
sense of connection to the larger City of Abrn, an what Abrn ocials 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 ientity, an a stronger connection to Auburn more generally.
8
METHODS
INITIAL RESEARCH
SURVEY
In order to put together a set of recommenations that best t the City of Abrn’s nees, 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 Abrn, an the City of Abrn more generally. You will see this choice reecte in or placemaking enition. In orer to o so, we complete a srvey and mapping exercise with Auburn residents. These exercises were aimed at getting a sense of current conceptions of Abrn an sb-commnities within the city, an crrent 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 fonation 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 sbcommnities, or at least the names an esignations of sb-commnity’s by the city, as well as the larger Abrn. These reslts conrme that resients ten to spend money and leisure time outside of Abrn. These reslts o not, thogh, 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 Abrn 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 ocials.
In looking at both our mapping and srveying together, it is clear that there is a disconnect between Auburn residents living in sb-commnities, the owntown, an city ocials We found that Auburn residents do not identify with their assigned neighborhoos, an o not ientify with owntown Abrn. There is, thogh, 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 nings, we have create a list of recommendations to improve the sense of place within the sb-commnities and entire community of Auburn. These recommenations are: Coee with Yor Local City Planner, Commnity Benets Program, Neighborhoo Matching Fn Epansion, Plaza Reesign, Vacant Spaces Program, Signage an Braning, an Muckleshoot Engagement. Implementing these recommendations will facilitate a stronger connection to place within smaller neighborhoos, 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 commnity of Abrn. From there, Phase 2 and 2 and 3 represent more long-term, thogh still manageable, placemaking steps. Our recommendations for engaging with the Muckleshoot fall into an on-going category, thogh all these projects shol be on-going, becase 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 thoroghly the enition of placemaking. Across the sorces that we analyze we fon that placemaking is a concept in urban planning that has to do with community involvement. Some research has been one that arges that most placemaking projects fall short and are unsuccessful. In The Agile City for instance, athor James Rssell 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 enition was chosen by or team after completing a literatre review becase it centers the commnity, an grons placemaking as a process that is collaborative, an interacts with the physical, the cltral, an the social. We believe that placemaking, in orer to be sccessfl, nees to center the concerns of whom the programs and plans are for an aect most irectly. This enition informs or own process with or srvey an mapping eercise, an list of recommenations. The vales of commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic soltions are threas 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 maimize share vale. Placemaking facilitates creative patterns of se, paying particlar attention to the physical, cltral, an social ientities that ene a place and support its ongoing evolution. Placemaking shol be commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic.” ~ Project for Pblic Spaces
THE SURVEY
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Or srvey consiste of fteen qestions, all crafte to engage with resients in an open an conversational manner, an to facilitate responses that were honest an natral (See Appeni A for fll srvey). 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 Abrn, Soth Abrn, owntown Abrn, an West Hill. Lea Hill was the most represente neighborhoo, thogh several people respone with ‘Abrn’ an i not provie a more specie neighborhoo, potentially indicated a lack of understanding of assigned neighborhood boundaries.
they like to spen time in. Most responents i, thogh, note that they prefer getting their communications from the city online. We aske resients what some of the rst wors that come to mind when they of Auburn are. These responses are telling in terms of crrent conceptions of Abrn, an potential space for increase placemaking eorts. Most sentiments abot feelings of the state of Auburn centered around feelings that the city is qiet an peacefl, that there is a lot of trac an congestion, that there is a lot of perceive crime an rg se, and that there is incoming change in demographics – some resients felt that these changes were goo, while others, mostly oler Abrn resients, were not okay with this change. Those who lived in Downtown Auburn focused most on these changes.
The srvey provie an opportnity to get open-ene an opinion-base responses from the resients of Abrn. These questions provided insight on whether residents feel a connection to Abrn, an to the ir sb-commnity, as well as information abot 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 Abrn. Several responents eplaine that this was because they did not interact with or spend time in Auburn. 70% of participants did consider themselves to be part of Abrn, thogh are mapping eercise reslts provie important nuanced to the depth of this connection. When proviing eplanations, 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
Or responents from Lakelan focse on iversity, while also mentioning how parts of Auburn were unsafe. Most of the complaints abot trac an congestion came from Lea Hill Residents. Lea Hill residents also frequently mentioned families an kis, as well as Green River College.
15
Many people commute for work or run errands in ne ighboring commnities, sch as Kent, an Feeral Way. However, signicant assets within Abrn incle the otlet collection, Fre Meyer, an Safeway. Aitionally, we hear that resients appreciate the amount of parks in the city and they enjoy spening time at commnity centers, sch 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 neighborhoos ene by the city, specically 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 accrately match the neighborhoos recognize by the city. This eercise also, like the srvey, focse in part of where resients spen money, as well as freqent rotes of travel.
The mapping eercise was concte at several ierent locations within Abrn, in orer to ge t a variety of responses. For locations were selecte; Fre Meyer in owntown Abrn, Goowill, Lea Hill Park, an Les Gove Park. These l ocations are ientie on the map below. Two potential ftre sites for srveying incle the Starbcks at the Outlet Commons and Mill Pond Park. They were areas sggeste by city ocials to the Abrn Connectivity team.
Ocial City of Abrn Neighborhoo Map
Mapping Eercise View from Google Maps
The following gres are maps of the City of Abrn. On the left is the map provie 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 orer to get an iea of the resients’ perceptions, withot being inence by the ocial, city-recognize neighborhoos.
The mapping exercise consisted of several components: •
•
A total of 28 srveys 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 concting the eercise, the maps were compile an reviewe. When organizing the ata visally, we fon a istinct, varying egree in the spatial conception of the northeastern neighborhoos. The gre to the right is an overlay of the Northeast “qarant” of the city. The qarant was determined by using Highway 18 and Highway 167 as geographic eges to elineate each qarant, in conjnction with the wide and varying degree of the spatial conception of this area in Auburn. The darker blue areas indicate that multiple participants ientie that area as a part of their neighborhoo. The most niqe overlaps occr in the Abrn-esignate “downtown” area. One responent ientie their neighborhoo beyon the Highway 18 ege, while simltaneosly encompassing the downtown core. In ftre testing, it wol be interesting to take note of the rigidity of the surrounding highways acting as edges.
An overlay composite map of downtown, North Abrn, an Lea Hill neighborhoo responses as ientie by responents.
20
critically through the current governmental boundaries of neighborhood names.
Smmary statistics of the eercise provie telling insights regarding how Auburn residents identify their neighborhoods. 14% of participants were able to correctly ientify a neighborhoo in Abrn, not necessarily their own. Frthermore, only 9% were able to ientify 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 sre”, etc.
It also became apparent that the residents tend to more often ientify with smaller regions within the larger ene neighborhoods. Their perceptions of their neighborhoods often incle jst several blocks srroning their homes, or even just the residences themselves. These responses indicate that the resients view their neighborhoos as signicantly smaller an more inslar, compare to the perceptions of the city.
This mapping eercise prove to be a very eective tool for determining how Auburn residents view their neighborhoods. A very small portion of the responents were able to ene their neighborhoos as ene by the city.
It appears as though the city divides the Auburn neighborhoods base on large topographical featres, sch as Green River or Highway 18. However, the resients ientify them on a mch smaller scale, base on close proimity to their homes. Overall, it appears that there is a gap between how the city an the resients ene neighborhoos, an a presence of neighborhoo names that are well-known by the city, bt not necessarily by the community members. This is an area that we recommend further research on.
While concting the eercise, many participants ha iclty 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, resients that o not identify with the downtown area could be lacking a point of reference within the city of Abrn, thogh we sggest that is speaks to a larger issue of residents not identifying with their assigned neighborhood names or spatial boundaries. This is a very important ning, an perhaps case 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 ientity with the neighborhoos otline by city ocials. The varying sizes of each neighborhoo as otline by the responents 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 ientity is a signicant barrier in placemaking. In orer to allow resients to feel a sense of ownership an belonging in their commnities, we propose seven sggestions an recommenations to city ocials to engage, activate, and connect with the residents in Auburn.
24
RECOMMENDATION LIST SHORT-RANGE PLANNING
PHASE 1 Coee with Yor Local City Planner PHASE 2 Commnity Benets Program Neighborhood Matching Fund Plaza Reesign
MID-RANGE PLANNING
PHASE 3 Vacant Spaces Storefront Program Signage an Braning ON-GOING Muckleshoot Engagement LONG-RANGE PLANNING
25
PHAS PH ASE E ON ONE E
26
This program is simple, bt it is imperative to the sccess 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 aron a city of Abrn ocial – we are sggesting rban planners, bt this col be etene to other city sta – visiting a coee shop or pblic gathering place in each sb-commnity once a month or once every other, on the same ay of the week. A planner wol sit in the coee shop for two hors, at least, an serve as an open resorce to community members. Community members are able to come with qestions, with feeback an with ieas, an share them with their planner, eectively creating a connection between city sta an those who planning ecisions aect, while also proviing space for city ocials to solicit feeback abot new ieas in an nstrctre, open, an comfortable setting. This program centers aron city ocials, specically planners, be in commnities reglarly, meeting commnity members where they are at, an emonstrating to commnity members that the city is trly listening to t heir concerns, an is there for them.
SHORT-RANGE | QUICK | EASY Reglar “oce hors” hoste by city planners an commnity engagement ocials at coee shops or commnity locations throghot each sb-commnity in Abrn once a month to create a genuine connection between connection between community members an government ocials. Throghot srveying an completing of mapping eercise, it became clear that Auburn residents have strong opinions abot their commnities, bt o not necessarily have the space to share them, in an accessible way, with city ocials. It also became clear that there is a gap between city perception of sb-commnity’s, an commnity-members’ perceptions. It seems that commnity members have ieas, an have opinions but that these opinions never make it to city of Abrn oces, an to ecision makers. It also is clear that there are resorces for Abrn resients, bt that these resources may not be currently leveraged to make successful an vibrant places. Coee with Yor Local City Planner is a simple way to bridge these gaps.
Locations of Coee with Yor City Planner shol be poste pblicly on the City of Abrns Facebook an Twitter fee, bt also sprea wiely throghot 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 Abrn, creating a tie to the core of the city, an keeping money in Auburn.
By creating a rewars system for spening locally, more money will stay in the community. According to supportland. com, local bsinesses can “Recycle mch of their revene (abot 3 more than national chains) back into the local economy… Help to sustain walkable town centers which rece sprawl, car se, habitat loss, an polltion…Give commnities a one-of-a-kin, istinctive character an have a broad range of product choices… Create more jobs locally an, in some sectors, provie better wages an benets than chains o.”
Base pon srvey reslts an the mapping eercise, it became clear that many residents shop outside of the City of Abrn. People wol go to Covington, Kent, or Feeral Way to do their shopping. Auburn is not considered a place to shop or by foo. Strengthening the local economy is in the interests of the city an all of it’s resients. Some cities have programs to help strengthen to local bsinesses. 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 commnities, an this iea col 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 focs specically on the plaza otsie of City Hall, bt the concepts col be etene to any open space or park in the city.
The Project for Pblic Spaces, an online resorce on placemaking, emphasizes the importance of well-esigne pblic plazas an parks. They arge 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, ths repelling people, bsiness, an investment. A great sqare, on the other han, can be a sorce of civic prie, an it can help citizens feel better connecte to their cltral an political instittions.” Maimizing the potential of Abrn’s open spaces will be a critical step in creating a sense of connection to the City of Auburn among residents spread throughout the sb-commnities, an creating a sense of ecitement abot downtown Auburn as a central hub.
Srveying Abrn resients abot their perception of the downtown area revealed two key issues that could be solved by strategic pblic 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 Abrn. The open plaza space otsie 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 Pblic Spaces, 2009)
“The Power of 10”, a placemaking theory abot cltivating ecitement abot pblic spaces, theorizes that a sccessflly designed city will have 10 general locations for people to spen time in, 10 specic places in each location for them to go, an 10 activities in each place for them to engage in. All of these spaces shol be engaging, ynamic, an well-esigne. Applying “The Power of 10” to the contet of the City of Abrn provides a way to think through how to best stimulate a
ynamic an active owntown core, an create connection to sb-commnities throghot the city. Within the contet of this specic recommenation, the general location wol be owntown Abrn, the specic place wol be the plaza irectly otsie of city hall, an the plaza wol 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 Ieas, n..)
These activities can range from etravagant to simple, an do not necessarily need to entail large budgets or massive reesigns. 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 alreay qite sccessfl. The large entrance is inviting and points towards the City Hall. The concrete ground is clean, at, an bright. The grass terraces provie tetre,
color, an a place to sit an play. Some possible aitions to the plaza that we sggest are a life-size game, brightly-colore an moveable seating, a small stage, an foo trcks. These are basic, bt serve as easy, rst steps to better creating ecitement abot coming to owntown Abrn, spening time in owntown Abrn, an even spening 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 resients into the plaza, bt crrently fail to create a dynamic and inviting atmosphere within the space, an there are crrently 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 tres wol 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 tre for the city. The nighttime hangout space could also encourage people to spend more of their evenings downtown which would increase local restarant an store trac. 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 eample 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 Vancover.
moveable chairs allow sers to cstomize their environment and the bright colors wol attract them to the plaza an create a memorable impression. The Project for Pblic Spaces bilings on this in their own sties, an fon that seats are the best design choice when compared to benches because they are comfortable, inepensive, an arrangeable. Aing mch more seating, that is colorfl, comfortable, an movable is key to activating this plaza.
GAMES A life-size game wol 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 pt in as well. To the right, we have eamples of an otoor library, chess, an others.
STAGE
FOOd VENdORS
The installation of a stage would provide another source of entertainment downtown as well as present an opportnity for local artists, speakers, and cultural groups to perform for their commnity. Throghot 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 trcks in the plaza wol 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 Fn, an making a few small changes to increase accessibility, serves as a way to create sbcommnity ientity an connection to Abrn, by spporting gron-p placemaking projects.
creating a strong sense of neighborhood identity and Auburn ientity, ths ensring the sccess of these projects. Abrn oes crrently have a Neighborhoo Matching Grant (NMG), but we suggest further expanding this to a Neighborhood Matching Fn (NMF) to better sprea awareness of the grant itself, an create more accessibility for applicants. Abrn’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 Abrn an resients, creating a stronger sense of connection within commnities, 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 neighborhoos of Abrn. The size of NMF projects can range from small commnity 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 gron-p commnity le projects in neighborhoods that currently do not feel as strong of a connection to their commnity an to Abrn eectively creates place while also creating a connection between government and residents.
This, thogh, oes not mean that there is not ecitement around creating a stronger and more exciting City of Auburn among residents. While speaking with residents of Auburn throgh or srveying an mapping, we fon that resients have ideas about where they want to see Auburn move in the ftre, projects they wol like to see happen, an projects that they wol like to complete on their own, bt perhaps do not have the resources to do so. By providing spport for these inivial an commnity 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 throgh spaces throgh art an pop-p bsinesses to create a lively an active owntown Abrn, an facilitate small business creation and growth in vacant spaces.
There are crrently many vacant spaces in owntown Abrn, especially lining the main owntown core on East Main Street. This program provies a way to make se of these spaces, an facilitate small, locally-owne an operate bsiness development in downtown Auburn. This is important for two reasons. First, it begins to raw in crrent spening that is leake to neighboring areas, keeping money in Abrn. This has been highlighte as a key concern for Abrn ocials, an, in speaking with resients, is something that resients of Auburn are also concerned about. A project of this sort also provies a way to activate empty strips of gron oor retail space in new developments along East Main and throughout downtown Auburn.
In escribing the fonation for this project, the city of Abrn epresse a nee for an “Abrn-wie commnity ientity”. Creating a strong sense of a niqe owntown core is imperative to creating an Abrn-wie ientity. In orer to eectively raw resients to owntown an to create a connection to Abrn, the city of Abrn nees to provie an eperience that is niqe, an ierent 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 shol be sorce eclsively, if not primarily, from resients from Abrn, 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 Abrn is alreay in part, being activate throgh art, an this program provides a way to build on that to create a thriving owntown core that is inclsive, commnity-riving, an dynamic. 40
FOUR CORE SUGGESTIONS TO ACTIVATE VACANT SPACES
A STOREFRONT ART PROGRAM that ses vacant storefronts, or ner- 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 bsinesses crrently attempting to get o the gron. 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 stio, gallery, or store.
FOUR CORE SUGGESTIONS TO ACTIVATE VACANT SPACES
COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE SPACE These spaces, once cleane p, shol be se as a site for commnity gatherings. This brings city government to the commnity, thogh only in the owntown core, an to a more eible an engaging space. These storefronts can also be used to supply space to community grops an organizations to meet. This is something that shol be bilt into contracting with artists, storefronts, an bsinesses. FURTHER EXPANSION This EXPANSION This project ts into a larger potential for arts to be at the core of downtown Auburn’s identity. Programs throghot the unite States, eplaine in more epth below in the otline case sties, emonstrate that art within owntown settings, brings resients to owntown spaces to engage with the place that they call home. This builds on a trend we already see happening in Abrn – East Main is line with pblic art, an there is already a storefront show in front of the City of Auburn oce biling. With this program, there is space for contining on with an artist survey of needs that gets at core concerns among the arts commnity in Abrn, an serves as a way to tailor this recommenation to specic nees 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 commnity, 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 cltivating a mtally benecial working relationship
•
Cleaning empty storefronts
•
Calls for Artists and marketing about the program
•
•
43
Organizing a honorarim for artists an contract period and logistics Ensring that the space has insrance, the city has liability insrance, the bsiness owner has liability ensre, an recommening 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, Connectict is home to 125,000 resients, 11,000 of which are stents. The historic city center of New Haven nerwent reevelopment in the 1980s, bringing with it 311 apartments an gron oor retail. The resiential components of this owntown evelopment were sccessfl, bt retail components were not as mch so. Specically in the contet of New Haven, the national recessional in the late 2000s exacerbated what was already a “sluggish local economy” an left an increase nmber of empty storefronts throghot the city (National Enowment for the Arts). New Haven ientie that the rst step at revitalizing the area was increasing foot trac 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, Cltre, an Torism (dACT) create Project Storefronts, a program that lls empty retail spaces with with galleries, stios an arts-relate oces, “creating low-bget ways for entrepreners to test bsiness plans in real conition”. This project was evelope in collaboration with the Oce of Economic development, an an organization that provie small bsiness conseling an scal spport, something that, in the ftre, wol be a goo recommenation f or partnership
Within the report to the NEA the describe this process: “They undertook outreach to property owners and negotiated with them for eisting an new retail spaces, an for rece or in-kin services. Once they selecte entrepreners from a pool of applicants, dACT provie aministrative an logi stical spport to evelop their retail spaces, helping them to procre insurance and navigate legal issues. To promote the program throghot the commnity an city, dACT organize several events, incling a citywie open stios program, an arts festival, an an ehibition.” Project Storerfronts has great sccess. Margaret Boell, Art Consltant for dACT, highlights the commnity engagement element of this program. She sai, “One of the wonerfl ‘sie eects’ of or program was the sense of commnity we create in the spaces we inhabite” (NEA). Combining the Storefronts program with an art walk program calle “First Friay on the 9,” “not only provie artists an other relative entrepreners with critical bsiness an retail eperience, bt 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 mtally benecial relationship. Pair the storefronts program with a reglar, potentially monthly art walk. Consier taking on a non-prot partner that can assist with bsiness spport an scal sponsorship.
45
CASE STudY
| CHATTANOOGA, TN OPEN SPACES PROJECT PROJECT |
Chattanooga is home to 176,588 resients an both the university of Tennessee an Tennessee State university. Chattanooga faced a similar concern we see now in the city of Abrn, aron how to create a sense of ientity within the City Center. The goal of this program was to cultivate an ientity aron the city center, an continally engage community members throughout the process.
“Level 2- Moerate Level Interactive an Light Animation: 17 storefronts 1. Bget: $1,000-$2,000 (incles materials & compensation) 2. Interactive for each passerby- e. peal-powere animation, projection, linkable social meia, msical 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, Moerate Level Interactive, an display Art – each with ierent levels of bgets, High Level being the largest. display Art, an Moerate Level Interactive are most adaptable to the context of Auburn. They describe these levels as follows:
Level 3- display Art: 17 storefronts 1. Bget: $400 (stipen) 2. Original still art, lighting, moele reprpose material, sclptre, lighting, 3-d printe material, igital 3. Non-traitional materials are encorage 4. Preeisting works allowe”
46
CASE STudY
Takeaways for Auburn: Paying artists for their time is essential Partnerships with otsie non-prots an fonations, throgh grant, spport 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 pt 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 iclt to get property owners to participate, the importance of creating a mtally benecial relationship with property owners, an the necessity of insrance.
48
CASE STudY
Takeaways for Auburn: Cleaning up storefronts for owners is key in creating a mtally benecial relationship. Storefronts programs often lea to rentals for property owners and declines in vandalism. Property owns should carry general liability insrance, thogh 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 ientity in any of the srveye areas, specically those who live in the North Abrn, downtown, an Lea Hill neighborhoods. Though there is not enough evidence to suggest that residents more closely identify with housing evelopment sb-commnities, there is a wie breath of literatre sggesting that intentional, cohesive neighborhoo braning has positive eects in commnity placemaking.
Strengthening neighborhoo ientity can be achieve throgh the implementation of a strategic signage program. This recommenation is base on the se of sb-commnity braning as a metho of neighborhoo ienticatio n an smallscale placemaking. Residents living in Auburn can potentially eperience a variety of conicting neighborhoo ientities. The city of Auburn is primarily a mixture of suburban and rural areas, with an rbanize owntown core. The sbrban areas on the otskirts of the city have ample hosing evelopments, avertising small sb-commnities sch as Hazel View, Vintage Hills, Montain View, Viewrige, an more. Resients driving through or past these neighborhoods are immediately welcome with a large sign inicating the name of the sbcommnity, as name by evelopers. However, there is little inication for the neighborhoo bonaries as ientie 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 ientication as otline by the City of Abrn) provie the framework in which our mapping exercise operated within.
Or recommenation for an intentional, cohesive neighborhood branding and signage program will help reinforce topographic edges between neighborhoods through a commnity-base an neighborhoo-specic evelopment framework. This will aid in the creation of environmental legibility. Environmental legibility, as escribe by Kevin Lynch, is the etent in which resients are able to recognize parts of a city (1960). Signage as wayning tools has the opportnity to aid residents in their spatial orientation and e nvironmental legibility by creating landmarks and geographic frames of reference (Arthr & 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 bonaries as ientie by the City of Abrn. Frthermore,
Each of the signage suggestions below follow the core concept of a cohesive signage program rooted in the core tenants of placemaking: commnity-riven, inclsive, ynamic, an contet-specic. 50
CASE STudY
COLLABORATIVE BRANdING Collaborative braning 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, commnity-specic art pieces as landmarks. Landmarks play a key role in placemaking and fostering neighborhood ientity (Arthr & 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 aress the ierences 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 ocials 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 Feeral Highway Aministration (FHA) design guidelines. The FHA states that all signs on public roads must be written in Stanar Alphabet typeface (Garvey, 2007). Only two eceptions 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 wayning signs is less stringent than for highway signs, being
A case-sty complete by the Floria Department of Transportation for the implementation of the Futura typeface in Miami Beach, Floria was mainly focse on testing visibility from a driver’s perspective. This testing could prove to be benecial if the City of Abrn 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 freqently travele rote, 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 lanmarks an peestrian-ization.
CASE STudY
| SAN FRANCISCO, CA SIGN HIERARCHY HIERARCHY|
The City of San Francisco ses a streetscape signag e hierarchy in orer to help ai placemaking eorts. 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/Wayning Signs Stanar Street an Transit Signs
is not imposing a false image on the neighborhood. In order to be eective, it is sggeste that gateway signs “be locate at ene 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 srface roa, or where there are other signicant changes to the roaway, lan se, or biling form (for eample, where a major roaway becomes a qiet resiential street)” (n..).
Site contet 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 natre. To ensre eective placemaking strategies, the gateway mst foster a commnity image, not create it. Through creative placemaking and completing outreach with local artists and community members – through a call for artists, commnity meetings, etc. – it is ensre that the city
Neighborhood orientation signs operate as placemaking markers an wayning signs. By clearly stating the name of the neighborhoo, proviing geographic contet of the neighborhoo, an inicating a list of estinations, the neighborhood orientation signs help anchor the spatial conception of each neighborhoo, while also promoting walkability an in trn, 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 orer to help ai placemaking eorts. 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/Wayning Signs Stanar Street an Transit Signs
is not imposing a false image on the neighborhood. In order to be eective, it is sggeste that gateway signs “be locate at ene 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 srface roa, or where there are other signicant changes to the roaway, lan se, or biling form (for eample, where a major roaway becomes a qiet resiential street)” (n..).
Site contet 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 natre. To ensre eective placemaking strategies, the gateway mst foster a commnity image, not create it. Through creative placemaking and completing outreach with local artists and community members – through a call for artists, commnity meetings, etc. – it is ensre that the city
Neighborhood orientation signs operate as placemaking markers an wayning signs. By clearly stating the name of the neighborhoo, proviing geographic contet of the neighborhoo, an inicating a list of estinations, the neighborhood orientation signs help anchor the spatial conception of each neighborhoo, while also promoting walkability an in trn, promoting the local economy.
•
•
•
•
53
MOVING FORWARD 54
MUCKLESHOOT ENGAGEMENT BRIDGING COMMUNITIES | FOSTERING RELATIONSHIPS
Incling the Mckleshoot Tribe in placemaking eorts in a respectful respectful way creates a more inclusive framework for placemaking in Abrn, an is essential to successful placemaking eforts. In early iscssions, Je Tate mentione that the City was looking for opportunities to create a connection with their neighbors, the Mckleshoot 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 for actions that fall in line with or other recommenations, an have been mentione throghot this report:
55
PLAZA REDESIGN
SIGNAGE & BRANDING
The rst iea goes along with or sggestion for the plaza reesign. Within the plaza, we sggest the inclsion 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 Abrn an the Mckleshoot tribe, by showing the cities’ recognition of their neighborhoos, 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 crrent names wol recognize the rich history of Auburn and work to include Muckleshoot residents in placemaking eorts. Port Angeles, Washington sccessflly 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 commnity.
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 Mckleshoot, an more that se to inhabit the Abrn Valley, an this wol be a wonerfl way to pay homage to those whose ancestors lived on this land going back thosans of years, an better make Abrn 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 recommenations reect a process that balance the city of Abrn’s concerns an esires, and those of residents of Auburn. Through our survey and mapping eercise, we conrme that there is a isconnect between resients of Abrn, an the city of Abrn, in part because residents do not connect to or spend time in owntown Abrn, an in part becase they o not connect to their assigne neighborhoo, both by name an spatially. Thogh varie, these recommenation vales are fone in a collaborative process, that centers inclsivity an weaves together both innovative and straightforward patterns of se. As these recommenations are commnity-riven an contet-specic we know that when pt into ialoge, engagement and action these recommendations will facilitate the ongoing evolution of Auburn. By continuing to center commnity in the placemaking process, Abrn can create a sense of nication throghot the city, while also being minfl an honoring contet-specic sb-commnity ientity. These recommenations are jst the rst step in the process of becoming “More than Yo Can Imagine.”
58
WORKS CITED Moncler, T. (2005). The Klallam Langage Program (Rep.). denton, Tx: university of North Teas Press. “Open Spaces Program Overview.” Open Spaces. Web. 10 The Project for Pblic Spaces. “The Power of 10 : Applying Placemaking at Every Scale - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “The Lighter, Qicker, Cheaper Transformation of Pblic Spaces - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “Eqitable Placemaking: Not the Ens bt the Means - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “A dIY Gie to Placemaking in Yor Neighborhoo - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. The Project for Pblic Spaces. “What is Placemaking - Project for Pblic Spaces.” Project for Pblic Spaces. Web. “Project Storefronts New Haven.” Project Storefronts New Haven. Web. Rssell, James S. “Placemaking Is Mainly Bogs.” Jamessrssell. 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: Fining a balance between nifying “One Abrn” Problem: Fining an recognizing an reinforcing inivial neighborhoo identity.
•
•
Strengths (What are or 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 bsinesses in Auburn downtown that are gaining popularity Eisting Soner train infrastrctre locate in owntown Auburn Progressive team of city of Auburn employees who are ecite abot this work, an open to feeback
•
•
•
•
•
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 soltionize problems (e.g. Soth Abrn)
Opportunities (What eternal opportnities o we have?) Millennial populations general trend to live in high density environments Space for more bsinesses Population is young Eisting Soner train infrastrctre 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 Abrn” (while still honoring an keeping inivial commnity ientity strong!) Opportunity to foster relationship between people who are eperiencing homelessness an other commnitymembers Potential to leverage social media to build community connections with the City of Auburn and to combine this eort with physical promotion of events an meetings Potential to engage community members in conversations about addressing problems facing Auburn
•
•
•
•
•
Weaknesses (What are or major internal weaknesses?) Weaknesses (What Lack of interface between between city ocials an resients throghot all Abrn neighborhoos, 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 neighborhoos to owntown (bike lanes, peestrian 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 eternal 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 Abrn (economy of Feeral Way an Kent) Millennial populations general trend to live in high density environments High nemployment rate (twice the national average) (King Conty Metro) Lack of eisting 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
