CASE D5:Greening Dayton's Vacant Lots--Chapter 5

University Row 5- 1

Chapter 5: University Row

I. Introduction

II. Project Background

III. Neighborhood Background

IV. Walking Audit

V. Abandoned Lot Description

VI. Creative Solution/Intervention

VII. Discussion

University Row 5- 2

I. Introduction This project is focusing on University Row neighborhood in Dayton, Ohio and the redevelopment of a vacant lot located within this neighborhood. We researched the historical background of this neighborhood and its current demographics and GIS data before going to explore it ourselves. During our visit we used a walking audit that we designed to tell us more about the neighborhood and the character of the community. Once we chose our vacant lot, which is located on Academy Place we began to come up with alternative ideas that would maximize this lots use for the community. Our final conclusion is the design of a community garden in which all the members of University Row can work together in gardening and enjoy the benefits of a beautiful garden within their community.

Map 5.1-2 Location of University Row II. Project Background Each teammate brought a unique skill to the table and utilized it at some point during our project. Katie Jackson listed creativity and writing as her skills since she is an English major and is accustom to writing long detailed papers. Yinuo Wei listed research and writing and creative as her skills. Kaili Liu listed technical skills and creating presentations as her skills. We came to know each other through the survey of inventory skills and knowledge and several discussions we set up in class to create groups. Also, we know each other through other courses. As each our members have different skills and interests we decided to work together and combine our skills and interests. Management of the Project

University Row 5- 3

We mainly met once per week and also communicate through email and phones. Face-to-Face meeting times were to accomplish work and review all work together before submission. As shown in Table 5.2 below, the responsibility of each phase was managed in such a manner that we all contributed in a way that combined our talents and skills to produce a well rounded more efficient result. Communication Plan Writing the communication plan proved to be very helpful in that it helped us think about how we would be working together to produce a successful project. It forced us to spell out how we would be communicating and the consequences of someone not pulling their weight. As the responsibility column shows in Table 5.2 we successfully communicated to divide the project up individually, while still meeting to make sure our efforts We did not have any serious communication problems and worked together well. (See Index for Communication Plan) Limitations We think our group did a good job in collaboration our skills and dividing up our work. The limitation in our group is that we are not good at making decisions. So that, when our first choice of the vacant lot turned out not suitable for our project, we were faced with the problem of deciding the land to work on and find the best plan for the vacant lot. In order to deal with this limitation we tried weighing out the pros and cons of each decision and talking about it as a group. Table 5.2

Phase Deliverable Responsibility

Collection of data related to Dayton

Maps of Dayton (demographic, housing, & abandoned/delinquent property)

We worked individually to learn about the history of the development of Dayton. Our class worked together to find the existing problems in Dayton.

Selection of Neighborhood (Generate options, select neighborhood)

The background information (history, demographic data, housing prices, current situation, latest news) and maps about the demographic info of the Neighborhoods in Dayton.

We worked individually to research the history and demographic information about University Row.

Development of Neighborhood Walking Audit

Maps of the vacant lots & properties (tax delinquency, nuisance properties, lots owned by the government, lots maintained by the city) in University Row. Walking audit form

We worked together to plan our purpose, route of visiting and what we should focus on when we are visiting the site.

On-site Visit Walking audit form completed Sketch of the vacant lots Pictures of neighborhood & vacant lot

We worked together to walk through the vacant lot and talk with residents around the vacant lot to know the background information about the lot.

University Row 5- 4

Solutions Compiled list of solutions Created sketch of future for lot on Created map

Revisited site for further inspection as group. Brainstormed and narrowed down alternatives. Developed solution plans and ideas

III. Neighborhood Background Why did we choose this neighborhood? We chose University Row for many different reasons. First of all, the location of the University Row is interesting. It is surrounded by the Five Oaks, Southern Dayton View, Santa Clara, and Mount Vernon which have many vacant houses. However, the rate of vacant houses in the University Row is much lower; it is only about 3% to 7%. Another reason is that most of the houses in University Row have a mortgage or a loan; we are interested in how this relates to the neighborhood and what it means for the people and the community. Last but not least, 50% of the residents in University Row are African American. We are curious about the public infrastructures and social resources in this area. Also the location of this neighborhood is interesting in that it is completely residential yet still near a high traffic street, Salam Ave, which can open up many opportunities for the area. University Row also has a significant historical background and is full of old historic homes. This factor drew us to this neighborhood, as we would like to preserve its historical importance and keep the neighborhood and maintain its unique character. History of neighborhood University Row and Dayton View Triangle are together known as Upper Dayton View. It was settled in the late 19th to 20th century. Many citizens came to this area because they suffered the flood during the year of 1913 and they wanted to move to high ground and a safe area. By developing farmland at the northern edge of the city, Upper Dayton View’s streets, homes and gardens offered a park-like escape from the movement of the old city center. Many businessmen and professionals from the Jewish community moved to Upper Dayton View after the 1913 flood. Because of discriminatory real estate regulations their only option of upscale home living was University Row. The first synagogue in the neighborhood, Temple Israel, was built in 1925. Many soon followed making University Row a diverse and culturally unique place to live. African Americans came to Upper Dayton View around 1960s to 1970s. The community tried to discourage ‘white flight’ and took great pride in the diversity of age, ethnicity, religion, educational background and economic level, which characterized their neighborhoods. The United Theological Seminary is just outside of University Row and has a close history with the neighborhood (University Row and Dayton View Triangle). The land, 274 acres was bought in 1911 by Rev. J.E. Fout. He kept 35 acres for the seminary, established building restrictions on the rest of the land and sold it to a real estate development company. This contributed to the growth of residential district of the Dayton View Triangle. By October 1923 the first three buildings of the seminary were built and occupied (United Theological Seminary). Salem Ave, which is the street that borders University Ave to the right, is registered on the National Register of Historic Places. Just below University Ave is the farmhouse (built in 1832) of James Oliver Arnold who helped establish the style and layout of the area. He “envisioned a grand neighborhood of broad, tree-lined (elm trees) streets graced with large, impressive homes set back comfortably from the street” (Preservation Dayton Inc). There are several historical houses and buildings in this neighborhood. The Grace United Methodist Church is one of them, being built in 1919 and styled after English Gothic church architecture. Another significant historical house is the Traxler Mansion (42 Yale Avenue) built in the Chateaueseque style in 1911. There are many other homes listed in the historic district in University Row, giving this neighborhood much historical significance (Preservation Dayton).

University Row 5- 5

Demographics The population of University Row neighborhood in 2000 was 1282. The ratio between male and female was 0.98:1. The median household income was $74,482, which was much higher than Dayton City’s median household income: $31,811 in 2000. Also, the median home value $124,950, which was higher than the city’s median home value at $93, 380. The crime index of the neighborhood was 6, 858 which as same as Dayton City’s crime index, but it was much higher than national average crime index of 3,302. Moreover, the pollution index of University Row neighborhood was 11,539,300, which was the same as Dayton City’s average pollution index. According to the Dayton Census Summary Report of 2010 there was a 14% decrease in population at University Row. Vacant housing units rose from 36 units in 2000 to 76 units in 2010 as seen in Table 5.3-1 below. This is even more interesting considering the housing units decreased from a total of 530 in 2000 to 525 in 2010. As seen in Table 5.3-2 below University Row is pretty evenly dispersed in ages, which we thought would be important when considering alternative solutions for our lot. Table 5.3-1 Housing Units of University Row from 2010 Decennial Census Summary Total Occupied Vacant Owner

Occupied Renter Occupied

2000 530 494 36 406 88 2010 525 449 76 316 133 Table 5.3-2 Age of University Row Residence from 2010 Neighborhood Planning District

0-17 18-34 35-54 55-64 65+ # % # % # % # % # %

2000 389 29 226 17 449 33 139 10 140 10 2012 311 27 202 18 289 25 186 16 165 14

University Row 5- 6

Map 5.3-2 Population of University Row

University Row 5- 7

Map 5.3-4 Tax Delinquent Properties in University Row

University Row 5- 8

Map 5.3-5 Total Properties Location in University Row

University Row 5- 9

IV. Walking Audit Development of Audit To create our walking audit we looked at several examples from published books and previous students. We examined their questions and structure and then based ours on this while adjusting questions to fit our particular neighborhood. First we reviewed the example handout Dr. Housel presented us with from Richard Jackson’s book “Designing Healthy Communities.” From these questions we chose ones that related to green space, vacant lots, character or community of the neighborhood as well as possible problems or issues we might be able to detect while conducting our walking audit. There were other questions we found to be valuable to our project, yet we removed from our walking audit as we realized that they proved to be difficult to answer completely solely based on what we observed while walking. For example questions like “Does your community provide access to parks and recreation facilities?” or “ Is there a public library?” as well as specifics about the commercial buildings or churches are all important to our survey of the neighborhood, but are difficult to answer entirely by just walking down a few streets and call for more of an overall examination of the neighborhood. We researched what facilities were close by so that we would have a better feel of the neighborhood before our visit. We tried to incorporate questions that we thought would help us better understand this neighborhood and the community character as well as its physical benefits and limitations. Another walking audit we reviewed was a walking audit from a previous student of Dr. Housel’s. Since this audit was designed for this project we found this to be very helpful especially in envisioning what we wanted to focus on for our neighborhood. Not only did we find the questions helpful, but also we created a structure similar to this one for our walking audit. We designed the audit to allow us to quickly answer the questions and include additional comments as needed. We selected and reviewed the questions together and then compiled them into an excel document. Once we visited University Row and began to complete the walking audits we realized some of the questions were not as applicable or useful as we previously thought. The structure of the audit worked perfectly fine for our visit, but could still be improved by condensing it to only one or two pages and use check boxes in addition to the large blanks for quick responses as we discovered many times additional comments were not necessary. These minor adjustments would not have changed our results, but rather would have made our visit more efficient and quick. On-Site Visit Once we arrived at University Row we drove through out the neighborhood to get a general sense of the community and how the neighborhood was structured. First we drove down Salam Ave, which is a high traffic area, and noted the businesses and churches that line this road and border University Row. We continued to drive around the border of our neighborhood until we made it to the end of University Row, which is the spot of the first vacant lot we were looking at. It used to be an elementary school, but was torn down in 2008 and only an empty grassy lot remains. Next we drove to the Community Center that is West of our neighborhood to see what kind of facilities it had to offer. Once we had completed our driving survey of the neighborhood we began completing our walking audits. We chose to complete them together as a group for several reasons but mostly for better accuracy. Considering we were new to the neighborhood we did not want to get lost and wanted to remain as safe as possible. Also we realized that each group member has a different opinion and perspective that they might be useful when taking a careful and detailed observation of the neighborhood. We chose Kumler Ave, Cory Drive and Princeton Drive, as they seemed to be central major streets in the neighborhood. After completing the walking audits we visited the park to get an idea of what kind of community green space University Row already had. The park was on a hill and contained a pathway a few benches and a gazebo, but was mostly green space. One of the limitations or problems we encountered during our visit was that we realized during our walking audit that the character or condition of the street could change, making our answers more

University Row 5- 10

convoluted. (Kumler). Overall our visit was a success, yet later we realized we could have been a little more organized, specifically with our pictures. Creating a log for the time, place, and weather etc of the pictures would have came in handy later.

h

Map 5.4-1 Walking Audit Routes in University Row

Figure 1


Physical Features of Neighborhood University Row is full of beautiful, unique, historic homes that define its character. There are a few churches that border the neighborhood towards the east along Salam Ave as seen in Figure 5.4-1 above and one that is actually in the center of University Row, on Kumler Ave called Faith Temple. As a whole the neighborhood does not suffer too much from vacant unkempt houses, although the surrounding neighborhoods do. The sidewalks and streets were in good condition. Some houses, although occupied, looked a bit worn and in need of repair, but were not in horrible condition. As mentioned, to the West is the Northwest Recreation Center, a park towards the east and a large vacant lot at the very south end of University Row. Salam Ave is a high traffic street towards the East and Cornell towards the North had a heavier flow of traffic than the other residential streets.

Figure 5.4-2 N Broadway St & Harvard Blvd intersection & Grace United Methodist Church 2/29/12


Figure 5.4-3 University Row 2/29/12 Reflection After visiting University Row we felt more confident about our neighborhood and the community. Seeing the layout and getting a feel for the character of the whole community helped us to take the next steps in envisioning an alternative for our lot that would be beneficial specifically to this community. Since we knew that University Row was full of historic homes and had only a few vacancies it turned out to be what we expected, but visiting and doing the walking audits helped us visualize the neighborhood and understand it better.

Figure 5.4-4 Vacant Homes 2/29/12


V. Abandoned Lot Description Lot Choice Choosing a vacant lot proved to be a difficult process for our group. Initially we chose the large empty lot towards the Southern end of University Row that use to be an elementary school. After speaking with the priority board and Dr. Housel we weighed our options and felt like this lot was not what we wanted for our project. It is owned by Dayton Schools and according to the priority board member, this lot was not characteristic of University Row neighborhood. The lot is very large and was not easily accessible for residents. We felt that it would prove to be difficult to

create something sustainable and economically beneficial for this entire lot that also fit into the character of this neighborhood. Therefore we chose two other lots that we found to be more suitable. We were leaning towards one until we went back to our neighborhood and examined them both. One was located on the corner of Princeton Dr. and Kumler Ave. It contained a few trees, but ultimately we felt that this lot was too small and too close to the

Figure 5.5-1 Vacant Lot Facing Towards Vancouver Dr 3/31/12

Figure 5.5-2 Vacant Lot University Row Facing Towards Academy Place 3/31/12


surrounding residential homes to serve a largely beneficial purpose to the neighborhood. The second parcel is located on Academy Place and is significantly larger. There are a couple bushes on the lot while the rest is open green space. We liked the size and location of this lot. Although it is not as central as the other, it is a lot more accessible and gives more privacy to the neighboring homes. It is open and mostly flat and receives lots of direct sunlight We talked with the owner of the parcel, who lives in the house directly next to it and he was very interested in our project and informed us he’s actually has thought about the lot being used for community purposes.

Map 5.5-3: Abandoned Lots in University Row


Adjacent Lot use The lots surrounding this one are all residential homes,

Connection of lot to neighborhood The lot connects Academy Place and Vancouver Dr and is therefore more accessible from both sides and this connects more of the neighborhood together. While this location may not be as ideally central as we might like, it is still easily walkable from anywhere in University Row. The other park is almost in the exact opposite corner of the neighborhood making it evenly spaced out and reaching people who were previously further away

Figure 5.5-4 Vacant Lot; Neighboring House/Owner 3/31/12

Figure 5.5-5 Vacant Lot 3/31/12


from any community public space within the neighborhood.

Map 5.5-6 The Vacant Lot and its Adjacent View


VI. Creative Solution/Intervention The solution process was not too difficult because it was easy to eliminate many alternatives based on the practical use and implementation in University Row. We each produced ten solutions we thought would be beneficial to the community. Quickly, we ruled out extravagant ones that usually required too much funding or were impractical to fit this particular lot and neighborhood. We tried to steer away from solutions that had some sort of structure, except the greenhouse, because we felt that it would not be a good fit since it is in the middle of a residential area and would cost significantly more than other solutions. Next we chose to focus on what would be sustainable and practical that the community would support. Since there is a recreation center nearby we ruled out all courts and decided against some version of a park since there is a playground at the community center. Also, we felt that since there are homes nearby, we wanted something that had minimal noise pollution and would not disturb those living next to the lot and ensure their privacy as well. Thus we decided on a community garden where all of University Row could partake in growing produce. The structure we envisioned would have mixed plants with herbs, fruits and vegetables as well as a pathway with a decorative elements that add to the character of University Row.

Figure 5.6-1 Sketch of Community Garden


Figure 5.6-2 First Sketch of Community Garden


VII. Discussion Our walking audit worked pretty well in this project. We got a chance to know the current situation of vacant lots in a neighborhood and have an observation about the lots. It helps us a lot in making new plans for the lot because we can see what the neighborhood needs and how we can change the lot to serve the neighborhood better. Also, as we get a chance to talk to the person who owns the lot, it helps us to know more about the background information of the lot and collecting ideas from different persons. The 5-minute presentations in the class also help us to know what other groups do and what are the ideas we can borrow from other people. We love the idea to communicate with people doing similar projects, because it can inspire me a lot and learn from each other is an important component of the project. Additionally, Dr. Housel provides us several chances to talk to the expertise in this area. As we get a chance to talk them, we can make our plan to be more professional and implementable.

The limitation about the project is that we did not get a lot of chances to do some case studies. The solution we create to the vacant lot depends on our own thoughts, observations and suggestions from experts. We didn’t get a chance to see what the successful cases are. Additionally, although we get the chance we talk to the professional planners and communicate with the priority board executives, we are still stopping at the point of putting our imagination on to paper. We didn’t get the chances to see how a plan can be implemented and what the professional processes of redeveloping the vacant lots.


Appendixes: Appendix A: Communication Plan

1. Communication Plan is as follows:

a. Skills of each member:

i. Katie Jackson- Creative, Research

ii. Yinuo Wei- Creative, Presentation

iii. Kaili Liu- Technical skills, Presentation

We will divide the work up equally according to the skills each member has.

b. We will communicate through: Email, texts/calls, & class to arrange (at least) one

group meeting per week.

c. Problems & Solutions

i. Data collecting problem- Ask prof where we might be able to find additional

resources to collect more data. Check multiple libraries & online resources.

ii. Unable to find enough information about community- Talk to

residence/community; take a trip to neighborhood to have a better picture

of community.

iii. When a group member encounters a problem they will first talk with other

members and if no solution is found then the group will meet with Dr.

Housel.

d. Face-to-Face meeting times will be to accomplish work and review all work together

before submission. We will meet regularly on Mondays and as needed throughout

the week.

e. To properly deal with members who are not completely work in a timely fashion, we

plan to:

i. Have group due dates that are well in advanced before the due date in class,

so that we are able to review our work and turn it in in a timely fashion.

ii. Directly address members who are slacking

iii. Divide work up equally

iv. If a work load is too much for a member, they should contact the other group

members asap and inform them they are having trouble getting the work

done.

1. Ask group members for help or to take some of the work

2. Be able to be flexible and help group members who need it

3. If a member is particularly stressed one week the other member’s

can take on more work, but the group member must make it up the

following weeks and contribute more.


Appendix B: Walking Audit Checklist: Sidewalks and Streets

Date: April 5, 2011

Time of day: 5:30 pm

Light conditions: Sunny

You are: Male

Name of street and walking area studied: 5th Street from Huffman to Wayne

Length of study area: 1.53 miles

Description: Mixed use

Portion of 5th Street Walking and safety

Huffman to Samuel (Noah) Samuel to Terry (Nick)

Terry to Dutuoit (Nick and Noah)

Dutoit to Keowee (Nick and Noah)

Keowee to Wayne (Nick and Noah)

1. Is there a sidewalk? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. If you answered 'No' where are people walking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3. Is the sidewalk continuous? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Is there a sidewalk on both sides of the street Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. Estimate the sidewalk width ___ feet 4 4 5 5 4

6. Is this wide enough? No Yes Yes Yes Yes

7. Condition of sidewalk Heavy tripping hazards Uneven but ok Smooth Smooth Smooth 8. Is the surface OK for a person in a wheelchair, with a walker, or pushing a stroller? No No Yes Yes Yes

9. Sidewalk obstructions Poles, gravel Overgrown Clear Clear Clear

10. Driveways and alleys Few cross Few Few Few Few 11. Are drivers aware of pedestrians when entering/exiting driveways? Few Few Few Few Few

Portion of 5th Street

User Comfort and Security





1. How far away is traffic? Some separation Some separation Some separation Some separation Some separation 2. How are pedestrians separated from traffic? None None Light poles 50% Shoulder Poles, 20% shoulder

3. Noise level Tolerable Tolerable Tolerable Tolerable Tolerable

4. Are there places to sit? No No Few Few No

5. Is the sidewalk shaded? No Few Few Few No



Destinations and Connectivity





1. How frequent are crosswalks? Far Far Nearby Nearby Far 2. Are there midblock crossings? No No No Marked, School Few 3. Is bicycle parking provided? No No No No No

4. Are there transit stops? No No Yes (1) Infrequent No

5. Wayfinding? No No Yes (1) Yes (1) No 6. Is this a walkable neighborhood? No Yes Yes Yes Yes


Aesthetics





1. Cleanliness Neglected, trash Some trash, graffiti Some trash Clean Area abandoned 2. Maintenance of properties Few neglected Few neglected Few neglected Good Few neglected

3. Buildings are mostly Next to sidewalk Next to sidewalk Next to sidewalk Setback Next to sidewalk

4. Green space and nature None Some Some Lots Park 5. Visual texture and character Boring Boring

Something new (pizza and violin shop) Interesting Boring

6. Would you walk here again? No No Yes Yes No

6. Is the sidewalk lighted? No No Street light Street light Street light 7.What personal safety concerns do you have in this area? Traffic speed

Traffic speed, vacant buildings Traffic speed Traffic speed, loitering Speed

8. I would allow an unescorted child to walk in this neighborhood? No No Yes Yes No 12. Do you notice other pedestrians? Few Few Many Many None


Appendix C Walking Audit

Street Name: Kumler Princeton Cory

Parks & Green Space

Are there any parks? No Nearby; Rec Center; Playground no

Describe the natural landscape? Level but not flat

Houses higher than sidewalk; On slope

Community

Are there any commercial buildings Faith Temple Church

One on corner of Salem No

What services do they offer? Family Practice; Looks vacant

Are there other pedestrians? Yes Yes Yes

Are there children? Yes small children Yes groups of youth Yes teenagers

Elderly? Adults Adult no

Families? Yes man with small child no yes

Is there a church/temple? Yes no At corner of Salem

Condition/Health

Clean/debris free? Yes Some Debris No

Crowded? No No houses close, but enough room

No dense, not crowded

Conditions of the houses? good Most look nice; some a little worn and old Good

Condition of the facilities/buildings? Good

one on corner--vacant?

Condition of streets/sidewalks/roads? Good Good Good

Abandoned sites? No No No

Underutilized areas? Yes open spaces? No Vacant lot where school was

Are there vacant areas? Yes No Yes

Are they well kept? Yes

Does it support plant life? Yes

Character?

Noise Level? low Quiet low

Connectivity

Sidewalks on both sides of street? Yes Yes Yes

Continuous sidewalks? Yes Yes Yes

Street activity? Low Some Low

Congestion? No-more on Cornell None No


High-Traffic? On Salem, but not Princeton No

Available public transit? No Not this street No

Bike lanes? Bike Route No; Bike Route near by No

Able to park in street? yes both sides Yes Yes one side

off street parking? yes Yes Yes

Final Comments:

Open Spaces between house/church other random open spaces between houses; No gardens--lack of greenery; 1st half coming from the North was in good condition but further down the street it worsened. More vacancies, debris, overgorwn shrubbery and plant life, shabby houses that are unkept, one burned down.


Appendix D Poster:

Documents

CASE D5:Greening Dayton's Vacant Lots--Chapter 5