State of the

Eastside

November 2014

Eastside Planning CouncilJody Werzinske - ChairJoe Mingle - Co-ChairMary Anglim - TreasurerAlison AhlgrimTyphanny GreeneMatt CovertVictoria FaustPhin Hanson - Data Analyst

This report was produced through a contract with the City of Madison for a program entitled, “Building Neighborhood Capacity.” The primary deliverable for this contract for the 2013-2014 contract period is this document, the State of the Eastside Report.

Eastside Planning Council (EPC), formerly East Isthmus Neighborhood Planning Council, is a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Board meetings are open to the public and occur on the third Wednesday of every month at 6:30pm at East Madison Community Center.

Jody Werzinske, ChairEastside Planning CouncilWebsite: www.madisoneastside.orgEmail: info@madisoneastside.org

Lorri Wendorf-CorriganNeighborhood Services CoordinatorCity of MadisonEmail: lwendorf-corrigan@cityofmadison.comPhone: (608) 261-9121

Table of Contents

IntroductionEastside AreaEastside EngagementEastside Neighborhoods, Assets, ChallengesDemographics of the EastsideSummaryRacial and Ethnic GroupsAgePoverty and IncomeUnemploymentPublic HealthHousing Stock and Affordability on the EastsideAge of Housing UnitsHousing TenureHousing AffordabilityAccess to Multimodal TransportationCase Study: Bus Route Coverage from Truax NeighborhoodWalkabilityFood AccessibilityFood Deserts Community GardensGrocery Store AccessSNAP ParticipationFarmers markets and gardens coverageEconomic and Neighborhood DevelopmentMadison Redevelopment and Infill AreasCorridor and Transportation PlanningCase Study: Changing the Development DynamicParticipatory ReinvestmentTax Increment FinancingThe FutureTables and Appendices

4 ______5 ______6 ______7 ______10 _____10 _____11 _____11 _____12 _____12 _____13 _____14 _____14 _____15 _____16 _____17 _____18 _____19 _____20 _____20 _____20 _____21 _____21 _____22 _____23 _____23 _____24 _____25 _____25 _____26 _____27 _____28 _____

4

Introduction What is the current State of the Eastside? A physically large, economically and demographically diverse region, Madison’s Eastside is changing rapidly. It is simultaneously a testing ground for an emerging “housing first” strategy on dealing with homelessness, and a living laboratory for the gentrification and other side effects of a dynamic 21st-Century regional economy that helped create those issues in the first place. It features some of the most and least walkable and bikeable environments in the city. It has community gardens, biking and walking paths, and swaths of parkland to encourage healthy lifestyles, but it is also home to worryingly disparate health outcomes and access to healthy food.

Mindful of these changes and the region’s importance, the City of Madison has asked the Eastside Planning Council (EPC), a nonprofit dedicated to strengthening the East Madison community by supporting neighborhood-based organizations and facilitating community-driven planning and action, to prepare the 2014 State of the Eastside Report. This is an appropriate and timely moment for such a summation as we look forward towards a more resilient and equitable future.

Four key themes guide our analysis of this period:• Major changes to key corridors: From East Washington Ave, to Cottage Grove Road, to Stoughton Road,

reinvestment and corridor planning is changing the face of our community.• Unique Opportunities: There are still large stretches of East Washington, and other areas on the

Eastside, that provide unique opportunities for future development.• Key Challenges: As development unfolds, we need to be vigilant and ensure good decisions that

support greater equity and sustainable land use.• Change is Coming: Planning efforts already underway, including those around Bus Rapid Transit,

Highway 51 redevelopment and the Yahara River Corridor, highlight the need to ensure effective citizen engagement at this time.

We support a vision of equitable development on the Eastside. Achieving this vision will require many things including:

1. Strengthening and organizing human and social capital2. Supporting local business startups and encouraging entrepreneurialism3. Creating more “third places” to encourage more neighborly interaction4. Promoting neighborhood re-investment to make it affordable to live in neighborhoods with high

quality of life.

5

Madison Eastside AreaThe Eastside Planning Council (EPC) conducted four different community meetings from May to July 2014 to gain input from residents on key issues they see in their neighborhoods. In these meetings several different neighborhoods were grouped together and put into four distinct “regions” spanning multiple neighborhoods west of Stoughton Rd. All neighborhoods East of Stoughton Rd. decided not to participate in these meetings and were thus excluded from these four regions.

Figure 1: Regions and Neighborhoods Madison Eastside 2014

Madison Eastside NeighborhoodsThe Eastside of Madison consists of many different neighborhoods, with unique identities and character. For example, the Marquette and Capitol Neighborhoods are characterized by high population density, renter-oriented housing units and a high level of walkability to neighborhood businesses. In contrast, neighborhoods such as Hawthorne and Emerson East have a lower population density, higher rates of home ownership, and have a much lower degree of walkability than the previously mentioned near-Eastside neighborhoods.

Our analysis is geared towards the Census Block Group level, which is designed to replicate the scale of the neighborhood.

6

Eastside EngagementAs part of our contract to produce a State of the Eastside Report, EPC has held five public meetings designed to engage stakeholders and residents across the region around the key questions outlined at the beginning of this report. Residents of four distinct regions, defined by neighborhoods that are connected by geography, educational institutions, and corridors, provided EPC with important input regarding their neighborhoods, including what they see as strengths and weaknesses when compared to other areas of Madison. Some of the topics that neighborhood residents elaborated on include local businesses, transportation, housing, food options, transportation and affordability.

Neighborhood ChallengesNeighborhood residents were also asked to describe features of their neighborhood that they see as having a negative impact on their quality of life, and that have potential to be improved. The world cloud below indicates what these residents mentioned, with larger words being the highest frequency.

Neighborhood AssetsAt each neighborhood meeting, area residents were asked to describe qualities of their neighborhood that they considered to positively impact their quality of life in their neighborhood. The word cloud shows what residents described, with larger words being the highest frequency.

MethodologyEach public meeting began by asking residents and stakeholders in attendance to free-list assets and challenges facing their neighborhoods. Input on the aforementioned subject areas was collected via “World Cafe-” style rotating discussions. EPC board members led discussions at different tables, and participants switched tables every ten minutes until everyone had received an opportunity to weigh in on each subject. At the end of each meeting, attendees gathered together in a large group again and discussed past, present, and hoped-for community gathering places.

EPC board members digitized the notes from each meeting, and this input was coded for the purposes of this report.

7

Region 1: Carpenter-Ridgeway, Hawthorne and Truax

Eastside Madison NeighborhoodsOur engagement efforts focused on the eleven neighborhoods of Madison’s Eastside between the Capitol and US Highway 51 to the east. The following maps help introduce each region or grouping of neighborhoods according to land use.

What’s Missing? What are your assets? What are your challenges?Coffee shops Sense of community Airport noiseLive music Transportation downtown Undesirable businessesOutdoor gazebo Affordable housing Traffic on East WashRestaurants Schools Traffic on Fair Oaks

Garden space No place for teensTrails Speeding on E WashAccess Clinic Speeding on WrightCabs Speeding on Fair OaksMadison College Madison CollegeCommunity Center CrimeHy-Vee New housing

Bike paths crossing arterials

8

Region 2: Marquette, Tenney-Lapham, Capitol Neighborhoods

What are your challenges?Affordable housingHomeless and transient populationEconomic developmentSchools and librariesCrimeRedevelopment of commercial districts

Green space

Region 3: Eastmorland

Gathering Places What’s Missing?Coffee shop RestaurantsRestaurant Meeting spaceRestaurant Community centerPlayground Place for teensPlayground MultimediaPark shelterPark shelterMeeting houseLibraryTavernTavernTavernTavern

Meeting house

Eastside residents on housing: “This area has modest houses but high property taxes due to gentrification”“Many retired people and low-middle income”“Interested in Section 8 – What would it take to fund everyone who needs it?”“Section 42 – offers different levels of affordability depending on income.” “60-unit on Rethke could offer amenities to neighbors, e.g. community space.”“Once you are in your home, how do you stay there?”“How can we keep the diversity in our neighborhood?”

9

Region 4: SASY, Eken Park, Emerson-East, Worthington Park, Triangle**Note: The Triangle area, between Worthington Park and SASY, is attempting to incorporate as a new Eastside neighborhood

Parks, Bikes, and Green SpaceThe northern shore of Lake Monona features nearly continuous access to high-quality public parks and bike paths. The central East Washington corridor and portions of the Eastmorland and Hawthorne neighborhoods have sparser access to these amenities.

What are your assets?What are your challenges?

Library Green spacePublic Health office Water qualityNeighborhood Associations Vacant propertiesVoter turnout Salvation Army

Water accessBike paths crossing arterials

Access to public officials Affordable housing

Access to police officersHomeless and transient population

Entertainment and nightlife

Employment opportunities

DiversityAffordable housingSchoolsUnique businesses

ParksFestivalsGarver siteVoight Farm siteSalvation ArmyMentoring PositivesCommunity CenterLearning opportunitiesBiking and walkingNeighborhood Resource Team

Eastside Residents on Opportunities for Social Interaction“Think of ways to foster connections with other neighborhood associations at neighborhood level”“Festivals – provide discounted booth space to N.A.s.”“School Events – Kid-Friendly events (Include Kids)”

10

Demographics of the EastsideMadison’s Eastside is home to a diverse range of people, characterized by differing racial and ethnic groups, age cohorts, income levels and employment statuses. The following maps and tables provide a snapshot of these demographic characteristics among Eastside residents, indicating where key differences in these demographic categories lie.

SummaryData on Neighborhood Risk Factors was collected by CARPC in 2013, based on a study conducted by Knoxville, Tennessee in which neighborhoods in need of increased social services were identified. The large table below summarizes the salient demographic risk factors at the Block Group level across the Eastside. Block groups that exceed a threshold determined by the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission in a particular category are highlighted in pink, and the number of thresholds exceeded can be found to the far right in the table. In general, the Eastside performs well in English proficiency, education level, and ratio of children to adults. However, it remains a region with large disparities in many other factors, including single-parent households, percent non-white, rent burden, unemployment, and SNAP benefit eligibility. The geographic patterns of these factors are explored at length below.

Neighborhood GEOIDGEOIDBlock Group Total Population 2010

% of Populatio

n non-white

% Below Poverty Le

vel

% Limite

d English

proficnecy

% of HHs w

ith no vehicle

% of Single Parent H

Hs

% of rent-b

urdened HHs

% Education less

than HS

Percen

t:- Under 1

8 years

Percen

t Unemploye

d

Percent S

NAP Recepients

Threshold Count

Race + Pover

ty thres

holds m

et

Capitol Neighborhoods 5Block Group 2, Tract 17.05 1641 14.6% 39.1% 1.0% 27.1% 0.0% 47.9% 6.3% 1.5% 1.0% 11.8% 3 1Capitol Neighborhoods 5Block Group 3, Tract 17.05 1611 16.8% 37.4% 0.0% 40.6% 0.0% 41.8% 2.5% 1.4% 1.6% 4.8% 3 1Tenney-Lapham 5Block Group 1, Tract 18.02 1463 10.8% 17.6% 0.0% 11.0% 2.4% 17.6% 3.1% 13.1% 5.9% 3.2% 0 0Tenney-Lapham 5Block Group 2, Tract 18.02 1321 16.0% 23.4% 0.9% 10.5% 0.0% 19.1% 0.0% 6.5% 4.9% 9.0% 0 0Tenney-Lapham 5Block Group 1, Tract 18.04 1373 12.3% 23.4% 0.0% 11.8% 45.1% 32.3% 1.1% 8.7% 8.9% 8.8% 1 0Sherman 5Block Group 2, Tract 18.04 1953 31.5% 9.3% 1.6% 22.0% 26.7% 22.5% 3.6% 13.9% 7.8% 16.6% 3 0Marquette 5Block Group 1, Tract 19 1120 9.5% 5.6% 0.0% 10.1% 23.0% 0.0% 2.7% 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0Marquette 5Block Group 2, Tract 19 1180 7.2% 18.0% 0.0% 5.9% 34.8% 29.7% 3.2% 16.7% 8.1% 4.4% 1 0Marquette 5Block Group 3, Tract 19 1391 10.5% 22.3% 0.0% 20.7% 10.0% 37.5% 0.0% 5.0% 4.8% 6.9% 1 0Marquette 5Block Group 4, Tract 19 1234 16.5% 20.8% 0.0% 18.8% 43.0% 34.1% 0.0% 12.3% 6.0% 9.2% 1 0SASY 5Block Group 5, Tract 19 1189 14.1% 12.7% 0.0% 14.2% 34.8% 15.5% 0.0% 11.4% 15.8% 16.3% 2 0Worthington Park 5Block Group 1, Tract 20 1301 46.4% 43.2% 2.3% 19.7% 51.2% 35.2% 18.7% 28.9% 13.3% 28.8% 6 2SASY 5Block Group 2, Tract 20 1207 13.5% 4.8% 0.0% 14.5% 15.1% 6.1% 1.3% 15.0% 5.2% 7.1% 0 0SASY 5Block Group 3, Tract 20 1577 7.6% 2.9% 0.0% 6.8% 14.0% 11.4% 3.5% 17.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0 0SASY 5Block Group 4, Tract 20 1790 14.0% 10.2% 0.5% 7.3% 6.9% 9.5% 6.1% 18.1% 12.1% 3.0% 1 0Eken Park 5Block Group 1, Tract 21 1465 23.6% 13.3% 0.0% 20.7% 16.1% 24.0% 5.9% 15.4% 4.7% 14.8% 1 0Eken Park 5Block Group 2, Tract 21 1135 19.8% 16.9% 0.0% 17.8% 31.7% 25.3% 1.3% 13.7% 11.1% 21.6% 3 0Emerson East 5Block Group 3, Tract 21 1208 15.0% 34.1% 3.0% 20.8% 51.6% 34.5% 2.3% 16.6% 7.1% 25.1% 4 1Emerson East 5Block Group 4, Tract 21 1042 17.5% 21.2% 2.9% 8.4% 8.8% 9.5% 0.3% 16.0% 5.2% 18.5% 1 0Truax 5Block Group 1, Tract 25 1009 39.8% 49.2% 4.8% 15.9% 53.8% 31.6% 11.9% 23.3% 10.6% 47.0% 5 2Carpenter-Ridgeway 5Block Group 2, Tract 25 726 37.2% 13.8% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 19.5% 6.8% 16.0% 11.6% 15.5% 2 1Hawthorne 5Block Group 1, Tract 26.01 1035 32.4% 22.0% 5.6% 11.9% 26.3% 0.0% 8.9% 21.5% 15.2% 22.6% 4 0Hawthorne 5Block Group 2, Tract 26.01 774 32.3% 11.2% 13.9% 22.4% 24.8% 59.9% 16.5% 18.1% 8.2% 17.3% 5 0Bluff Acres 5Block Group 1, Tract 26.02 1988 30.9% 11.3% 1.5% 7.7% 26.0% 20.8% 7.3% 18.6% 11.0% 20.1% 3 0Westchester Gardens 5Block Group 2, Tract 26.02 1640 33.7% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 31.2% 23.9% 0.0% 25.4% 1.9% 10.7% 2 1Westchester Gardens 5Block Group 3, Tract 26.02 1948 34.4% 9.0% 5.9% 13.6% 10.1% 18.9% 7.8% 17.8% 8.1% 6.8% 2 1Ridgewood 5Block Group 1, Tract 26.03 2828 37.7% 2.4% 8.8% 2.1% 8.5% 6.6% 9.2% 26.2% 3.5% 6.4% 2 1Burke Heights 5Block Group 2, Tract 26.03 2421 40.6% 12.5% 2.7% 9.5% 26.0% 30.7% 11.8% 22.7% 8.5% 25.7% 3 1Eastmorland 5Block Group 1, Tract 27 941 10.5% 10.0% 3.5% 0.0% 21.0% 57.4% 6.0% 16.7% 5.5% 0.0% 1 0Eastmorland 5Block Group 2, Tract 27 1148 10.4% 2.0% 0.0% 2.1% 9.3% 21.8% 2.9% 17.2% 6.2% 2.8% 0 0Eastmorland 5Block Group 3, Tract 27 1077 10.3% 10.0% 1.8% 9.4% 36.3% 40.8% 4.6% 14.9% 18.2% 3.3% 3 0Heritage Heights 5Block Group 1, Tract 30.01 1130 13.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 4.2% 12.8% 1.1% 22.4% 3.9% 6.3% 0 0Heritage Heights 5Block Group 2, Tract 30.01 1040 7.1% 6.9% 1.7% 2.6% 3.2% 0.0% 4.3% 18.5% 5.4% 3.7% 0 0Heritage Heights 5Block Group 3, Tract 30.01 1087 18.5% 2.9% 0.0% 11.4% 11.6% 38.6% 2.3% 23.6% 7.6% 9.1% 0 0Rolling Meadows 5Block Group 4, Tract 30.01 977 33.2% 7.3% 7.8% 8.1% 6.6% 27.0% 9.3% 22.2% 2.2% 4.7% 2 1Rolling Meadows 5Block Group 5, Tract 30.01 900 9.9% 3.7% 0.7% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0% 3.8% 17.7% 3.6% 9.1% 0 0Hiestand 5Block Group 1, Tract 30.02 1964 49.4% 14.6% 2.6% 10.7% 45.1% 27.5% 10.6% 28.1% 4.3% 19.2% 3 1Hiestand

55Block Group 2, Tract 30.02 1768 31.1% 24.1% 1.7% 9.9% 36.7% 29.6% 13.2% 21.2% 6.7% 19.5% 3 0Mean, Dane County BGs 17.9% 12.8% 1.7% 8.1% 12.9% 20.5% 5.6% 20.7% 5.7% 7.6%Standard Deviation 15.1% 17.3% 3.3% 12.2% 12.5% 18.9% 6.5% 8.3% 4.2% 8.8%Standard Dev. + Mean Value Dane County 33.0% 30.1% 5.0% 20.3% 25.4% 39.4% 12.1% 29.0% 9.8% 16.4%Mean, Madison BGs 25.0% 14.1% 2.6% 8.6% 12.2% 23.7% 6.1% 19.2% 6.0%Standard Deviation Madison 16.5% 13.4% 4.1% 9.0% 9.2% 19.0% 7.2% 7.5% 4.8%Standard Dev. + Mean Value Madison 41.5% 27.6% 6.7% 17.6% 21.4% 42.7% 13.3% 26.7% 10.8%Mean, Eastside BGs 21.8% 15.7% 2.0% 11.9% 21.1% 24.2% 5.3% 16.9% 7.0% 12.1%Standard Deviation Eastside 12.1% 11.9% 3.0% 8.4% 16.2% 14.9% 4.7% 6.4% 4.2% 9.7%Standard Dev. + Mean Value Eastside 34.0% 27.6% 5.0% 20.3% 37.3% 39.1% 9.9% 23.2% 11.3% 21.7%

11

Age GroupsLooking at the geographic distribution of age on the Eastside, there seems to be a defined pattern. The Capitol Neighborhoods, Tenney-Lapham and the Marquette neighborhoods are home to a large number of young adults (particularly the Capitol Neighborhoods) at a very high density. Most of the other neighborhoods on the Eastside have a relatively even distribution of age groups, but in general, eastside households have more children on average the closer one gets to Stoughton Road and the Interstate and the further one gets from Downtown.

Racial and Ethnic GroupsThe racial demographics in the City of Madison are rapidly shifting towards a higher percentage of non-white residents. This trend is evident on the Eastside, particularly in areas further from the Capitol. Currently, about 23% of the Eastside is non-white, higher than the Dane County average. Overall, Worthington Park is home to the highest percentage of nonwhite residents (46 percent), with Truax (40 percent) the second highest.

12

UnemploymentThis figure indicates unemployment by Census Block Group on the Eastside. Areas of highest unemployment include a portion of the Marquette neighborhood, with 15.8%, and the Eastmorland neighborhood, with 18.9% unemployment, the highest of all Census Bock Groups on the Eastside. Overall, the highest levels of unemployment tend to be concentrated near the central Eastside adjacent to the E. Washington Avenue and Stoughton Road intersections. In contrast, unemployment tends to be lowest in the near Eastside neighborhoods nearest to the Capitol, adjacent to Williamson Street and Atwood Avenue.

Poverty and IncomeThis figure indicates the percent of the population below the poverty level by Block Group on the Eastside. Areas of the highest percentage of residents living below the poverty line include the Truax neighborhood, with 49.2% of all residents living below the poverty line, as well as the Worthington Park neighborhood, with 43.2% of all residents living below the poverty line. In addition, the two Capitol Neighborhoods block groups in the EPC area have about 39% of its residents living below the poverty level, but it should be noted that these groups include many college students. The lowest poverty levels tend to be concentrated around Atwood Avenue on the near Eastside, as well as east of Stoughton Road.

13

Public HealthPublic health data were acquired from a study conducted by UW-Madison, known by the acronym PHINEX. In this study, patient data was collected from individuals in Dane County, and was coded to a specific census block group, with the patients’ names and other unique identifiers removed. This data shows the percent of individuals with asthma, percent of children under 18 considered obese, and the percent of adults over 18 with type two diabetes. A look at the distribution of these ailments shows a pattern of very low prevalence in the Capitol Neighborhoods, Marquette, Tenney-Lapham, and SASY neighborhoods, while a pattern of higher prevalence is seen in the Truax, Worthington Park, and Hawthorne neighborhoods across all three ailments.

Based on the assessments of the Neighborhood Risk Factor study and others, there is strong correlation between the neighborhoods that have more socioeconomic risk factors and those with higher rates of these health challenges. Additionally, because rates of asthma1, obesity2, and Type II diabetes3 are influenced by factors in the environment, communities seeking better quality of life for a everyone must address the link between socioeconomically at-risk populations and increased rates of preventable diseases.

1. Wong GW, von Mutius E, Douwes J, Pearce N. “Environmental determinants associated with the development of asthma in childhood.” International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2006 Mar;10(3):242-51.2. Brantley PJ1, Myers VH, Roy HJ. “Environmental and lifestyle influences on obesity.” Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society. 2005 Jan;157 Spec No 1:S19-27.3. Sladek, Robert, et al. “A genome-wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes.” Nature. 2007 Feb; 445, 881-885

Above left: Adult diabetes rateAbove right: Asthma rateLeft: Child obesity rate

14

Housing Stock and Affordability on the EastsideHousing, especially housing affordability, is a key issue for many residents living on the Eastside. The following figures and accompanying explanations will look in depth at the age of current housing stock, owner versus renter occupied housing, and the affordability of housing units.

Age of Housing UnitsThere is a clear pattern of housing unit distribution on the Eastside of Madison with regards to age. There is a significant quantity and density of housing units built in 1949 or before in the Capitol Neighborhoods, Tenney-Lapham, Marquette, SASY, Emerson-East and Eken Park, with the Capitol Neighborhoods containing the highest density of these units. Further east in the SASY and Eken Park neighborhoods, there is a relatively even distribution of units built before 1949, and units built between 1950 and 1979, indicating a lower average age of the housing stock.

Further east, in neighborhoods such as Hawthorne and Eastmorland, the average age of the housing stock shifts, and the majority of the housing units are seen to be built between 1950 and 1979. East of Stoughton Road, the trend of newer housing units continues, with the majority of the housing stock in the Ridgewood neighborhood, for example, built in 1980 or after.

Alongside the high density of older housing in the Capitol Neighborhoods and Tenney-Lapham, there also has been a recent uptick in new construction, resulting in an increasing number of units built in the year 2000 or later. With more new development to potentially follow in the Marquette neighborhood, more and more newer housing units could appear in future versions of this map. The dichotomous further aging of current housing stock and rapid introduction of new units, primarily (though not exclusively) in multi-unit, mixed-use developments, defines the big picture of housing on Madison’s Eastside.

15

Housing TenureA look at renter versus owner-occupied housing on the Eastside of Madison shows several distinct patterns. The student-dominated Capitol Neighborhoods has a very high density of renter-occupied households, while the neighboring Tenney-Lapham, Marquette, SASY and Eken Park neighborhoods have a relatively even mix of renter and owner occupied housing units, with SASY and Eken Park containing slightly more owner occupied units. West of Stoughton Rd, the neighborhoods with the highest density of owner occupied units are Eastmorland and Emerson-East, both with a relatively high percentage of single family homes. East of Stoughton Rd, owner occupancy continues to be more prevalent, particularly in the Heritage Heights neighborhood, although the Hiestand neighborhood contains a relatively even distribution of renters versus owners.

16

Housing AffordabilityHousing affordability on the Eastside can be understood in several different ways. For the affordability of single family homes, the average assessed value of this type of home in each Eastside neighborhood is shown, with Capitol Neighborhoods, SASY, Tenney-Lapham and Marquette all having average values above $200,000, all located on the near-Eastside, adjacent to downtown. Further east, the average value of single family homes tends to decline, with the Truax and Hawthorne neighborhoods containing the lowest assessed home value, each around $130,000.

The percentage of rent burdened households in each census block group approximates rental unit affordability in each Eastside neighborhood. Unlike other maps, there is no clear geographic pattern, as there seems to be considerable variation amongst block groups and even within neighborhoods. The neighborhood containing the highest percentage of rent burdened households is the Worthington Park neighborhood, while portions of the Capitol Neighborhoods and Eastmorland also have large numbers of rent burdened households.

The annual housing costs map shows the total dollar amount spent by the household at the area median income on all housing costs, including both renters and owners. In general, housing costs seem to be higher for households making the area median income east of Stoughton Rd, as well as in the SASY, Marquette and Tenney-Lapham neighborhoods.

17

Access to Multimodal TransportationAccessibility to the transportation infrastructure is another significant issue facing residents of the Eastside of Madison. The area’s major arterials and highways serve as dividing lines between aldermanic districts, neighborhoods, and census tracts. In coming years, transportation and corridor planning will have to balance the needs of neighbors, commuters, and visitors to create a transportation system that provides extensive mode choice to as many people as possible.The maps of automobiles per household and households with no vehicle availability show a clear trend: fewer households have a vehicle in the near Eastside, particularly in the Capitol Neighborhoods, Tenney-Lapham and Marquette, with a corresponding lower number of vehicles per household. However, these neighborhoods are often considered very walkable and bikeable and have good access to Madison Metro bus routes, resulting in a higher-than-average number of households making a choice not to own a vehicle and having a high percentage of transit commuters.

However, in the Eken Park and Hawthorne neighborhoods, more isolated from the rest of the city and with fewer amenities, there is also a relatively high percentage of residents with no vehicles available, creating more of a potential issue regarding transportation accessibility and affordability. As a general trend, automobile ownership increases east of Stoughton Road and towards the interstate, resulting in a lower percentage of transit commuters.

The map at right shows transportation costs as a percent of annual income. This has an obvious relationship with autos per household--the farther one lives from work, shopping, and services, the more cars are needed, which drives up transportation costs dramatically. Two of the Eastside’s most at-risk neighborhoods, Hawthorne and Truax, are far enough from needed destinations to necessitate high transportation costs to households, but the maps above show low personal vehicle availability.

18

Case Study: Bus Route Coverage from Truax NeighborhoodTo get a snapshot of how Madison Metro might serve an Eastside resident, bus coverage from the Truax neighborhood was analyzed using Google Maps by showing the travel time and the amount of transfers needed to travel to three distinct destinations in the City of Madison.

The trip from Truax to the Capitol Square (below), at this snapshot in time, takes 13 minutes by car and 23 minutes, nearly double the time, by bus.

If a resident of the Truax neighborhood with limited or no access to a vehicle had a dental care appointment on the far West side of Madison (below), the trip is very lengthy and complicated. Depending on the time of day, a bus trip ranges from more than 1.5 hours to more than 2 hours and could involve up to two transfers. In contrast, with a personal vehicle, this trip takes only 28 minutes. When transfers and cross-town trips are involved, riding the bus can take 3 to 4 times longer than driving for the same trip.

The trip from Truax to Woodmans grocery store, located nearby on the Eastside, can also be quite complicated and more lengthy than necessary at times. The Truax neighborhood is served by the 34 bus route, which goes south towards the east transfer point and adjacent to Woodmans in 14 minutes, but this route runs every 60 minutes and does not run after 5:15pm. If a Truax resident would like to go to Woodmans when the 34 is not operating, the trip becomes more complicated, involving two or even three transfers. Having to take this route could result in a 35-minute bus ride for a Truax resident, causing significant accessibility problems to someone with no vehicle looking to get affordable food.

19

WalkabilityAs the feedback from neighbors during the public engagement process demonstrates, many areas of the Eastside do not offer people the ability to walk to destinations, either because of barriers to movement or because of a lack of suitable destinations within walking distance (or perhaps both). The map below shows Walk Scores across the Eastside. Walk Score measures how many destinations of various types are located within walking distance of a given location, and in this map, walkable areas are colored green, while less walkable areas trend toward red.

The map demonstrates that Downtown, the Williamson Street area, and the Atwood Avenue corridor offer more to pedestrians, due in part to the density of small local businesses, a mix of restaurants, shops, and necessary services, and their proximity to relatively dense housing. Once again, we see pockets of less walkability (and thus a greater need for other transportation infrastructure and greater isolation) in familiar areas: Hawthorne, Eastmorland, Carpenter-Ridgeway, and Truax.

As the Eastside becomes more diverse and as big changes come to the corridors that define it, improving public spaces for the benefit of pedestrians and bicyclists is essential. This includes both creating more destinations for people to walk TO and making the public environment a better pedestrian experience for all.

Good corridors should include moderate density to offer pedestrians and bicyclists many destinations within easy reach and also provide a good balance and easy integration of different modes of transportation.

Source: Walk Score and 1000 Friends of Wisconsin

Source: Arizona State University

20

Food AccessibilityAccess to affordable, healthy and fresh food is an important concern for residents of the Eastside. The following maps and tables focus on food deserts, population living adjacent to full-service grocery stores and the percent of residents receiving food stamps in each block group.

Food DesertsThis map measures access to food options on the Eastside, with green an area with good access to all types of food options, orange a “food swamp” with good access to fast food restaurants and other unhealthy options but poorer access to grocery stores carrying healthy food options. Areas in red have poor access to all types of food options, with particularly poor access to grocery stores providing fresh, affordable and healthy food.

While there are areas of food desert in the far northeast of the Eastside, the region as a whole fares better than other areas of the city. However, there are also areas of food swamp in the Eken Park, Emerson East, Worthington Park, Eastmorland, and Ridgewood neighborhoods. Overall, access to food on the Eastside is relatively good, with a lack of food deserts when compared to the north and south sides of Madison.

Community GardensCommunity gardens serve not just to build social ties and provide access to nature in the city; they also are an important source of fresh food for low-income people1. The gardens were also mentioned as a neighborhood asset by Truax, Carpenter-Ridgeway, and Hawthorne residents during a regional meeting,

which illustrates their additional value as a neighborhood gathering place.

The Eastside currently has at least 573 community garden plots, though they are concentrated in two large gardens. The community garden program, facilitated by the Community Action Coalition for 30 years, is being taken over by a public-private partnership between the City of Madison, Dane County, and the nonprofit Community Groundworks.

151

151

151

18

14

14

14

12

18

12

51

39

90

Madison’s food desertsThis preliminary map shows food deserts, areas in Madison without a grocery store, and food swamps, areas swamped with convenience stores and fast-food outlets.

The Cap TimesSOURCE: Public Health Madison and Dane County |

LakeMendota

LakeMonona

LakeWaubesa

Food desert

Food swamp

Good food access

BELTLINE

1. Public Health Madison Dane County. http://www.publichealthmdc.com/documents/CommGardensOpps201403.pdf

Source: City of Madison Planning and Economic Dev.

21

SNAP ParticipationThis map indicates the percent of each block group that receives SNAP benefits, formerly known as food stamps. A geographical pattern indicates residents of the Capitol Neighborhoods, Marquette, SASY and Eastmorland have the lowest percent of recipients amongst their residents. In contrast, the Emerson-East, Eken Park, Hawthorne, and Truax neighborhoods contain the highest percentage of food stamp recipients, with Truax seeing the highest overall. East of Stoughton Road, there does not seem to be a clear geographic pattern of food stamp distribution.

Grocery Store ProximityThis map indicates the location of all full-service grocery stores, general food stores, and convenience stores located on the Eastside. A half mile buffer was placed around these stores to determine the population living in close proximity or walking distance to these stores, and how accessible they are without a vehicle.

The Starkweather Creek corridor is home to many residents not within walking distance of food. This includes portions of the SASY, Eastmorland, Carpenter-Ridgeway, Worthington Park, and Hawthorne neighborhoods. Farther east, between Stoughton Road and the Interstate, large swaths of these more suburban-style neighborhoods are not within reasonable walking distance of a retail food outlet.

The table below shows the most accessible grocery stores to be the Jenifer Street Market and the Willy Street Co-Op East, due to location in the SASY and Marquette neighborhoods containing higher population density, making them easier destinations to walk to. However, the Copps grocery store located in Eken Park is less accessible to residents without a vehicle, with only 1,800 people living within a half mile, and poor street access, making it much more difficult for residents to walk to this store.

Population Within 1/2 Mile of Full-Service Grocery Stores

Name Address Population in 1/2 Mile

Aldi 3925 Lien Road 914

Copps Food Center 2502 Shopko Drive 1,856

HyVee 3801 East Washington Avenue 1,445

Jenifer Street Market 2038 Jenifer Street 5,020

La Hispana Grocery 4512 Washington Avenue #3 1,852

Willy Street Co-op East 1221 Williamson Street 4,601

Woodman’s Food Market 3817 Milwaukee Street 2,008

Source: CARPC

22

Farmers MarketsThis map shows farmers markets and community gardens on the Eastside. It also differentiates these organizations by number of vendors and number of plots.

The downtown farmers markets are a draw for residents across the city, but smaller neighborhood markets are virtually nonexistent. As previously discussed, ommunity gardens are more widespread, with vast differences in number of plots. When compared to the map of grocery stores, the Starkweather Creek corridor, which fares poorly in terms of proximity to retail food outlets, is much better served by community gardens.

23

Economic and Neighborhood DevelopmentRecently, and throughout the coming years, the Eastside of Madison has been home to both small, neighborhood-scale and large, city-scale economic development projects. These projects will bring change to many neighborhoods, and will play a major role in shaping future land use. This report will highlight select project, and detail how they will fit into the landscape of the Eastside.

City of Madison Redevelopment and Infill AreasThe City of Madison has identified a number of areas with good potential for infill redevelopment on the Eastside. While a number of these sites have already seen redevelopment, a number of areas remain un- or under-developed.

Village of Shorewood Hills

Village of Maple Bluff

Village of Waunakee

Village of McFarland

City of Monona

City of Middleton

City of Fitchburg

Lake Mendota

Lake Monona

Lake Waubesa

Lake Wingra

City of Verona

VOLUME II MAP 2-5

C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N

PotentialRedevelopment

& Infill Areas

City of Madison Department of Planning & Development, Planning UnitData Source:

City of Madison

0 1 2

Miles

City of MadisonJanuary 2006

Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

*These areas are conceptual only. See NeighborhoodPlans or Special Area Plans for more detailedrecommendations.

April

20,

200

6 1

0:30

am

Potential Transit Oriented Development Areas*

Potential Redevelopmentand Infill Areas*

City of Madison

Other Cities and Villages

Corridor and Transportation PlansCorridor planning is important because it addresses some of the major challenges to equitable development on the Eastside. As the East Washington corridor reinvestment gathers steam, residents, businesses, and local officials attempt to remake a commuter corridor as the backbone of a new “place,” the Capitol East employment district. Similar efforts are now underway on Cottage Grove Road, a busy commuter corridor that links far east neighborhoods with the central city, and Atwood Avenue will undergo major reconstruction and improvement of public spaces.

Simultaneously, the City of Madison is busy gathering public input on community-wide transportation issues for the Transportation Master Plan. Integrating redevelopment opportunities with corridor and transportation planning efforts is crucial to improving the quality of life, economic condition, and human capital of the entire Eastside. EPC is committed to advocating for more equitable transportation infrastructure, better access to green space, and innovative programs and enterprises that improve community health and wellbeing.

24

Major development is underway that will affect the economy, daily life, and the environment on Madison’s Eastside.

Left: Royster Corners in the Eastmorland neighborhood (City of Madison)Below Left: Union Corners at the corner of Milwaukee Street and East Washington Ave (Gorman Co.)Below Right: Continued reinvestment and development along East Washington (Gebhardt Dev.)

Case Study: Changing the Development DynamicThe Union Corners development saw a change in how developers and neighborhoods interact. A collaborative process developed where discussion is encouraged.

This process started out with the formation of a steering committee representing the four neighborhoods, SASY, Emerson East, Ekin Park and Worthington Park. This committee started by listing what areas of the development needed to be changed as well as what elements to keep. The committee then prioritized the list.

Next the committee met with the developer. First it was established that the neighborhoods are a customer as well. This lead to a dialogue about the different design elements, design changes. The end result is a development that the neighborhoods support. The developer is now including this process in other developments around the US. The steering committee will be activated as needed when input is needed for plans on specific parts of the development.

Other neighborhoods have asked about how to start this process other east side developments and EPC will be considering formalizing this process in 2015 for all development on the east side.

7. Proposed Site Plan

Union Corners Mixed Use Development- Madison, WI

25

Participatory ReinvestmentThe Yahara River corridor on Madison’s isthmus has been the subject of an involved planning process. As the preferred site for the new public market district, the intersection of East Washington Avenue and the Yahara River has attracted considerable attention to not only the infill opportunities but also the elements of green space and green infrastructure that the surrounding neighborhoods enjoy.

Part of that planning process has included a series of public workshops to guide the priorities of the corridor reinvestment. Input from those workshops is summarized in the figure below. This level of attention should be paid to every major public investment in public space.

Tax Increment FinancingThe City of Madison still has several open Tax Increment Districts (TIDs) in the Eastside. While TIF is a somewhat controversial tool for promoting development and reinvestment, if properly and thoughtfully deployed, it could substantially encourage economic development in specific areas. The Eastside’s TIDs are visible in the map at right.

RU

TLE

DG

E S

T

N FEW ST

E J

OH

NS

ON

ST

SHER

MAN

AVE

E W

AS

HIN

GTO

N A

VE

E M

AIN

ST

S BALDWIN ST

S DICKINSON ST

N BALDWIN ST

WIL

LIA

MS

ON

ST

S FEW ST

FORDEM AVE

YAHA

RA P

L

E W

ILS

ON

ST

JEN

IFE

R S

T

MO

RR

ISO

N S

T

WIN

NEBAG

O ST

S FIRST ST

HEL

ENA

ST

WALTON PL

EAS

TWO

OD

DR

RIVERSIDE DR

MARSTON AVE

N FIRST ST

Sherman Ave

S THORNTON AVE

Paget Road

SIDNEY ST

CLEMONS AVE

E G

OR

HA

M S

T

N DICKINSON ST

E M

IFFLIN S

T

E D

AYTO

N S

T

N THORNTON AVE

ATWO

OD

AVE

SPA

IGH

T S

T

JEAN ST

Fuller Drive

MERRY ST

ELI

ZAB

ETH

ST

E J

OH

NS

ON

ST

(NB

)

N SECOND ST

BUELL ST

DE

WE

Y C

T

SHERMAN TERFuller Court

E J

OH

NS

ON

ST

(SB

)

ROGERS ST

NO

RTH

ER

N C

T

CANTWELL CTC

UR

TIS

CT

RUSSELL ST

ORTON CT

SPARKLE CT

MO

RR

ISO

N C

T

E M

AIN

ST

RUSSELL ST

SPA

IGH

T S

T

ROGERS ST

E M

IFFL

IN S

T

N THORNTON AVE

ELI

ZAB

ETH

ST

JEN

IFE

R S

T

E D

AYTO

N S

T

RUSSELL ST

RUSSELL ST

[

Yahara River Corridor Conceptual StudyComment Summary - Public Meeting September 25, 201311/7/2013

0 100 200 300 400 500 60050Feet

1 inch = 200 feet

Legend

Add Stop Sign (3)

More opportunitiesfor a variety of accessto parkway and water

More playgroundequipment-splash park

Better bike accessfrom south of parkway

to east of parkwayat Johnson

Need Sign:“Dead End”

on Daytonresidential

2-4

Mix of rentaland owner-

occupied

Marling Lumbersite or similar near

East Wash - restaurant/ some reason to linger

East Wash - consider more height

than 4 stories

State’s plan to put a storage facility on the parkway is not a good

use of this beautifullocation

Maybe a publicmarket here instead

of storage facility

canoe rental &parkway water access

Sony terraced buildings - condos?/

Landbank sony?City acquire for Park/Arts/

Investigate/trade withCity Services

site

Build bridge for underpass (2)

Continue Mi�inas bike path to

parkway (2)

Better useremove

Add bike path/underpass (4)

Canoe launch

Connect Central Parkto Yahara Parkway

Redevelopmentintegrate w/

Burr Jones

Integrate intopublic use and

water useImprove athletic

facilities

DangerousIntersection

Canoe, kayak rentals,terraces, places to eat

Need to replan grading,erosion, city trucks

drive here

Prevent City trucks fromdriving here - erosion

Places to moots/pop the question

Plants under waterwashed out from

�ooding around shoresof river - at Tenney also

More space for crittersespecially turtles

Grass is a shallow rootedgroundcover - does nothold soil in a dynamic

environment

Natural barriers

Concerns aboutdam breach

Concerns about locks/wings of locks

Areas to swimaway from boats

Keep the night sky/stars (2)

Bio Retention @Burr Jones & many

places alongparkway

Concern aboutmassing of

buildings/project

Reduction (rather than increase) of impervious

surfaces to improve takeup of rainfall and

reduce runo�

Entry into waterfront

4 stories are too high3-4 story buildingswill translate to 4

story “wall” becausedevelopers will want

to maximize theirpro�ts

Commercial

Increased green spacealong river to promote

biodiversity and providefood and habitat for wild-

life (birds, turtles, smallmammals)

MarlingGood neighborshelp keep cost of

living down(contractors)

More canoe access

Paving more ofparkway area could

increase �ooding

Care taken with howdevelopment interfaceswith parkway - don’t use

parkway as their front yard

Flooding

Vines

Slow Tra�c

State’s buildingshould not be taller than four

stories

Too many drivewaysand parking proposed

these should not beplaced along River

nor Thorntonshould be set wellback from river &

bike/pedestrian path

Care w/interface w/bike/ped path

Flood1993 & 2007

100 years �ood plainnot accurate over state’s

area available for development

Use and expansion ofprivate property adjacent

to parkApex �asco tried to

encroach on parkway

Add more stories tobuilding where

Tandem Press was for more density

Parking lot and green areabehind old Sony building

on Sherman becomes parkarea and ped bridge

across river

Walkway on entire eastside of river

Bring back more marsh!Maybe at Burr Jones

Nature-appreciatingdining/cafe or other

people attractingbusinesses needed alongthe river on both sides of

East Wash to make safer at night

Public kayak & canoerentals that schools can

use for transportation(maybe crew boats or

Venice-style metro- boats

Redevelopment statearchive facility (not

highest and best use

Greenspace use should be exemplary

More buildingslike this

greenbelt connectivitylake to lake bikepath

connectionsWhat if HSR underpass?

Mullins propertyproposed for

redevelopmentshould respect

river

Boat rentalopportunity

Too much motorboat tra�c already?

Keep at 4-storyStepback to 6 story?

Keep at 4-storyStepback to 6 story?

Widen greenway, city purchase land if necessary

Increase river frontage

Opportunity for“pure nature” butdi�cult to access

New development, ifresidential should not

be monolithic, full block developments.

Deep stepbacks.Respect scale ofneighborhood.

Building facades facingparkway should be

sympathetic to prairiearchitecture

-uni�es/honors-historic vs new stylerespectful to history

facades material

Fiore - opportunityfor grocery store &

neighborhood servingbusiness or

railroad station!

Improvements toBurr Jones band shell

Canoe, kayak launch

Relocate Sparkle &increase greenspace

Commercial Opp-ortunity for food

Bikepath -enhance

connection

East Johnson 2015reconstruct with

bike lanes

Multi-modal (2) orrailroad station

Primitive Pathwalk/run along

entire east shore

Outdoor seating(along river)

Commercial 1st �oor 2nd Floor In�nity Poolfacing river and south

west. (wild idea)Note: Solar exposure

Huge developmentpotential in Fiore.

Great views to riverand capitol

Proposing StateArchives and NativeAmerican archives.

Best use for this?

Maintain dog access along parkway

No safe routeto school

Mixed-use

Properties adjacent to park-open space on river

will becomes just asvaluable as lake properties

Dance clubrestaurant optional

development intriangle parcel

Add Stop Sign

Think aboutstepped

architecture tooptimize solar

exposure ofpublic gatheringspace intended

Continue to protect landscapealong River as National Registry

per the Yahara Parkway plan

Wet most ofthe time

Dog Park?

On land across from thebike path away from the

river enhance publicgathering. Interact withshops. Commercial 1st�oor level and connect

across river.

Need residential &small business (entre-prenuers) rather than

large industrial...residents more likely to take a stake in the area

Outdoor seatingkids activities

Population density is going to increase

immensely. Dedicatingmore open park wouldhelp with population

Mixed-use spaceCommercial at 1st �oorSingle story stepping upto 3-4 stories from riverfrontage to Dickinson

Maximum solarroof potential

Redevelop City Garage

Redevelop Sony

Burr Jones -enhance/playground

TID the RiverParkway Area

Work with State onaccess at archive bldg

Soften shoreline get rid of hardscapes

Visual & physical appealto actual water with accessPiers/docks/picnic tables

Ped bridgeTenney Park

to East

ActivateRailroad

Street

Ped/Bike LinkageFirst to Dickinson

Removecul-de-sac

Transportation

Category (Box Outline Color)

Land Use

Parks and Open Space

Opportunities

Concerns

Major ThemesPed/bike connections for safety and better access to parkway

Better access to river

Redevelopment along the parkway should be designed with respect to the parkway

Redevelopment of under-utilized areas

Enhance existing amenities in parks and parkway

Type (Text Color)

26

The FutureThis report reveals an Eastside that is dynamic, increasingly diverse, and rife with opportunity for neighborhood and corridor reinvestment, both large and small. The main challenges are that the opportunities are not available to all, that risk factors disproportionately affect areas that are already more isolated, and that big issues and opportunities often affect multiple, layered actors at once and challenge traditional structures and relationships.

Local officials and communities are embarking upon a series of important efforts that will have a significant impact on the Eastside as they develop.

Comprehensive Planning: The City of Madison is undertaking revisions to its comprehensive plan, which was last adopted in 2006. These revisions will allow the public to provide input on what should and should not go where, where to focus public investment, and more.

Economic Development Strategy: The City’s economic development team is beginning the process of creating a new big-picture economic strategy.

27

Transportation Master Plan: The “Madison in Motion” planning effort is underway and provides the Eastside an opportunity to improve access to multimodal transportation for everyone. For example, public input workshops have included the ability to comment on and indicate preference for various design concepts (right) for Milwaukee Street, one of the Eastside’s primary arterials.

Stoughton Road: Local communities, the State of Wisconsin, and the federal government all have a stake in what happens on Stoughton Road. Long a vast expanse of asphalt serving as the de facto line separating Near East from Far Eastside Madison, this corridor (below) is at the beginning of a long process that will have major implications for quality of life, human capital, and economic development on the Eastside.

Neighborhood Risk FactorsThese “at risk” neighborhoods were determined by determining the mean of each of the demographic data collected at the County level, and adding one standard deviation to that mean to get a “threshold.” Any value of each indicator at the Census Block Group level exceeding the “threshold” is color coded red and is combined to get a total of amount of thresholds exceeded in each neighborhood.

Appendices

TablesThe following tables contain the background data used in the production of the maps and graphics and the analyses therein.

Total Population by Racial and Ethnic Origin

Block Group Neighborhood Total White Black AsianNative American Other

Two or More

Hispanic or Latino

Block Group 2, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,641 1,402 45 67 4 6 39 78Block Group 3, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,611 1,341 52 83 2 0 47 86Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,463 1,305 46 34 4 2 24 48Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,321 1,110 102 21 4 6 26 52Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.04 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,373 1,204 30 32 3 5 29 70Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.04 Emerson East NA 1,953 1,337 227 145 17 4 55 168Block Group 1, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,120 1,014 8 23 5 3 14 53Block Group 2, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,180 1,095 12 19 2 3 20 29Block Group 3, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,391 1,245 39 26 7 2 42 30Block Group 4, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,234 1,030 83 25 4 5 36 51Block Group 5, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,189 1,021 49 19 8 5 33 54Block Group 1, Census Tract 20 Worthington NA 1,301 697 356 75 3 2 31 137Block Group 2, Census Tract 20 Eastmorland CA 1,207 1,044 50 26 7 2 34 44Block Group 3, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,577 1,457 20 18 8 2 33 39

Maps, Graphs, and FiguresAll maps, graphs, and figures in this report were produced by Phin Hanson and/or the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission, unless otherwise noted.

Block Group 4, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,790 1,539 102 26 3 2 36 82Block Group 1, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 1,465 1,119 143 40 1 2 56 104Block Group 2, Census Tract 21 Eken Park NA 1,135 910 90 17 5 4 33 76Block Group 3, Census Tract 21 Emerson East NA 1,208 1,027 62 11 6 4 39 59Block Group 4, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 1,042 860 69 23 2 0 22 66Block Group 1, Census Tract 25 Truax NA 1,009 607 155 88 5 5 59 90Block Group 2, Census Tract 25 Carpenter-Ridgeway NA 726 456 93 29 3 3 14 128Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 1,035 700 87 37 4 0 41 166Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 774 524 90 29 2 4 25 100Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.02 s. of Portage Rd. 1,988 1,373 192 140 7 1 70 205Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.02 Westchester Gardens NA 1,640 1,087 125 91 5 1 41 290Block Group 3, Census Tract 26.02 Clarendon Hills HA 1,948 1,277 188 109 10 5 43 316Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,828 1,763 305 393 9 5 86 267Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,421 1,439 440 147 14 5 142 234Block Group 1, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 941 842 17 5 8 0 33 36Block Group 2, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,148 1,029 33 11 4 0 14 57Block Group 3, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,077 966 31 15 1 1 17 46Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,130 980 42 15 1 1 28 63Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,040 966 16 22 1 0 7 28Block Group 3, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,087 886 78 31 3 1 44 44Block Group 4, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 977 653 100 11 5 0 18 190Block Group 5, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 900 811 20 3 0 0 11 55Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 1,964 993 332 71 3 8 64 493Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 1,768 1,218 244 65 6 0 87 148All Block Groups Madison East Side 52,602 40,327 4,173 2,042 186 99 1,493 4,282Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2010

Non-White Population

Block Group Neighborhood Total PopulationNon-White

% Non-White

Block Group 2, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,641 239 15%Block Group 3, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,611 270 17%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,463 158 11%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,321 211 16%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.04 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,373 169 12%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.04 Emerson East NA 1,953 616 32%Block Group 1, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,120 106 9%Block Group 2, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,180 85 7%Block Group 3, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,391 146 10%Block Group 4, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,234 204 17%Block Group 5, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,189 168 14%Block Group 1, Census Tract 20 Worthington NA 1,301 604 46%Block Group 2, Census Tract 20 Eastmorland CA 1,207 163 14%Block Group 3, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,577 120 8%Block Group 4, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,790 251 14%Block Group 1, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 1,465 346 24%Block Group 2, Census Tract 21 Eken Park NA 1,135 225 20%Block Group 3, Census Tract 21 Emerson East NA 1,208 181 15%Block Group 4, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 1,042 182 17%Block Group 1, Census Tract 25 Truax NA 1,009 402 40%Block Group 2, Census Tract 25 Carpenter-Ridgeway NA 726 270 37%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 1,035 335 32%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 774 250 32%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.02 s. of Portage Rd. 1,988 615 31%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.02 Westchester Gardens NA 1,640 553 34%Block Group 3, Census Tract 26.02 Clarendon Hills HA 1,948 671 34%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,828 1,065 38%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,421 982 41%Block Group 1, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 941 99 11%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,148 119 10%Block Group 3, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,077 111 10%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,130 150 13%Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,040 74 7%Block Group 3, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,087 201 18%Block Group 4, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 977 324 33%Block Group 5, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 900 89 10%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 1,964 971 49%All Block Groups Madison East Side 50,834 11,725 23%Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2010

Low Income Population

Block Group Neighborhood Total PopulationLow In-come

% Low In-come

Block Group 2, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,345 526 39%Block Group 3, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 1,469 549 37%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,571 277 18%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,275 298 23%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.04 Tenney-Lapham NA 1,536 359 23%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.04 Emerson East NA 1,766 165 9%Block Group 1, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,027 58 6%Block Group 2, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,180 212 18%Block Group 3, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,341 299 22%Block Group 4, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,127 234 21%Block Group 5, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 1,302 166 13%Block Group 1, Census Tract 20 Eken Park NA 1,352 584 43%Block Group 2, Census Tract 20 Eastmorland CA 1,114 54 5%Block Group 3, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,567 45 3%Block Group 4, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 1,851 188 10%Block Group 1, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 1,488 198 13%Block Group 2, Census Tract 21 Eken Park NA 1,471 249 17%

Block Group 3, Census Tract 21 Emerson East NA 1,125 384 34%Block Group 4, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 859 182 21%Block Group 1, Census Tract 25 Hawthorne NA 1,072 527 49%Block Group 2, Census Tract 25 Carpenter-Ridgeway NA 593 82 14%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 1,069 235 22%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 650 73 11%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.02 s. of Portage Rd. 2,247 255 11%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.02 Westchester Gardens NA 1,134 85 7%Block Group 3, Census Tract 26.02 Clarendon Hills HA 1,971 178 9%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,992 73 2%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 2,032 253 12%Block Group 1, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,004 100 10%Block Group 2, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 1,174 23 2%Block Group 3, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 947 95 10%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,060 0 0%Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,020 70 7%Block Group 3, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 1,252 36 3%Block Group 4, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 872 64 7%Block Group 5, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 750 28 4%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 1,584 231 15%Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 1,653 398 24%All Block Groups Madison East Side 50,842 7,833 15%Source: American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, 2008-12

Owner and Renter Occupied Housing UnitsBlock Group Neighborhood Owner Occupied Units Owner Occupied % Renter Occupied Units Renter Occupied %Block Group 2, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 24 3% 835 97%Block Group 3, Census Tract 17.05 Capitol Neighborhoods 60 6% 864 94%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 285 38% 459 62%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.02 Tenney-Lapham NA 182 30% 430 70%Block Group 1, Census Tract 18.04 Tenney-Lapham NA 235 28% 595 72%Block Group 2, Census Tract 18.04 Emerson East NA 204 19% 863 81%Block Group 1, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 307 60% 208 40%Block Group 2, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 278 46% 330 54%Block Group 3, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 217 26% 624 74%Block Group 4, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 225 33% 449 67%Block Group 5, Census Tract 19 Marquette NA 193 25% 569 75%Block Group 1, Census Tract 20 Worthington NA 205 37% 344 63%Block Group 2, Census Tract 20 Eastmorland CA 373 67% 180 33%Block Group 3, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 419 59% 289 41%Block Group 4, Census Tract 20 SASY NA 622 59% 440 41%Block Group 1, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 374 56% 288 44%Block Group 2, Census Tract 21 Eken Park NA 382 52% 359 48%Block Group 3, Census Tract 21 Emerson East NA 359 57% 267 43%Block Group 4, Census Tract 21 Sherman NA 242 55% 201 45%Block Group 1, Census Tract 25 Truax NA 299 56% 237 44%Block Group 2, Census Tract 25 Carpenter-Ridgeway NA 121 38% 195 62%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 279 66% 142 34%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.01 Hawthorne NA 143 43% 192 57%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.02 s. of Portage Rd. 177 18% 831 82%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.02 Westchester Gardens NA 393 78% 113 22%Block Group 3, Census Tract 26.02 Clarendon Hills HA 544 60% 366 40%Block Group 1, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 648 56% 512 44%Block Group 2, Census Tract 26.03 Ridgewood NA 308 32% 642 68%Block Group 1, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 286 71% 115 29%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 435 71% 174 29%Block Group 3, Census Tract 27 Eastmorland CA 388 76% 125 24%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 390 91% 39 9%Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 347 99% 5 1%Block Group 3, Census Tract 30.01 Heritage Heights CA 353 72% 140 28%Block Group 4, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 323 90% 37 10%Block Group 5, Census Tract 30.01 Rolling Meadows NA 319 90% 34 10%Block Group 1, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 173 25% 509 75%Block Group 2, Census Tract 30.02 Hiestand NA 176 22% 624 78%All Block Groups Madison East Side 11,288 45% 13,626 55%Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2008-12