Page 1

I

A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT ANALYSIS LINDEN AREA OF CLEVELAND AVE.

Ohio

307.3

C734


..

Non-Circulating

BHT

I

111111 111111111 111111 111 1111111 1111111 1111111 I

.71

190 489 257 5

A

COMMERCIAL SUPPORT ANALYSIS LINDEN AREA OF CLEVELAND AVENUE COLUMBUS, OHIO

PREPARED FOR:

PUBLLIBRA IC OF RY COLUMBUS AND fRAt4KCOUN UN TY

City of Columbus Department of Development Columbus, Ohio 43215

PREPARED BY: Kenneth Danter & Company 4480 Refugee Road Columbus, Ohio 43227 (614) 866-9096

August

15,

1979


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. II.

OBJECTIVES

l

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

l

A. B. III. IV.

D.

18

CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATI ON SAMPLING AND INTERVIEWING VERIFICATION LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

18 20 21 22 23

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS SHOPPING PREFERENCES NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE MOBILITY ANALYSIS OF MODERN APARTMENTS-EMA AUTOMOBILES TABULATIONS MOBILITY TABULATIONS

24 27 34 34 36 43 48 49 121

INTERCEPT SURVEY

133

A. B.

134 137 138 139 139 140 141

C. D. E. F. G.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS SHOPPING SUPPORT CHARACTERISTICS COMMERCIAL ADEQUACY CHARACTERISTICS MOBILITY OF COMMERCIAL SUPPORT SUGGESTED COMMERCIAL CHANGES MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TABULATIONS

SURVEY OF STUDY AREA BUSINESSES

183

A. B.

183 189 193

c.

I

13 13

STUDY AREA EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA

TELEPHONE SURVEY A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.

VIII.

13

METHODOLOGY

c.

VII.

4

IDENTIFICATI ON OF AREAS

A. B.

VI.

2

CONCLUSIONS

A. B.

v.

l

CONSUMER ANALYSIS SURVEY OF BUSINESS

LOCAL BUSINESS MARKET INFLUENTIALS PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

l (

ii


r

I r t

June

15,

1979

Mr. N. Jack Huddle of Department Director, City of Columbus Boulevard 140 Marconi 43215 Ohio Columbus, Dear

Mr.

Develo pme n t

Huddle:

phase as the first t h i s re port to submit We are pleased in project and tec hn i c a l assistance of our management has been This report of Cle v ela nd Ave n ue. area the Linden the City between the ter ms of an agreement under prepared be will Addenda Company. & Danter h et n and Ken of Columbus within ces circumstan special by merited as report added to this place. the market The staff attention

of the De p ar tm e nt of and thank s for their

t o wo r k with It is our pleasure endea vor. such a creative Respectfull

y su bmitted

Kenne t h Dante r KD:dh

,

deserves

Development assistance. the

City

of

Columbus

special in


I.

OBJECTIVES This

report

sector

will

location

Eleventh

Avenue

of

justified,

A.

a more

plans

to

use

capture

Establish

the

from

Hudson

provision

of

detailed

will

provide

providing

exi sting

eff ects

fac i lities

retail

study

z at io n of

basis

f or

faciliti

the

es where

an d t he d eve lopment

(if

any)

expenditures.

on existing

revitali

market

facilities

and

a s th e anticipated the

retail

of regional

as well

to

space.

a dd i t i onal p r oj e cted

Street

the

additional

bu s ine s se s,

of

necessary

commercial

II.

for

th e business

of

Avenue

existing

effective

Determine

the

capabilities

information

expanding

needed B.

through This

development

the

on Cleveland

information.

of

identify

subregional area

competitive

potentials,

interface

upon

area.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE A.

CONSUMERANALYSIS There

are

portion

t wo primary

of

s u rvey. Ma rket

t h is

components

report,

The telephone Area

of

Effective

Market

Area

1.

commercial Residence respondents, to

of

(EMA) establishes

survey

area (see

the

telephone

survey

intercept

area

the

to

consumer survey

residences

consumer

shoppers

and in

136)

the

the

purchasing

establishes

map page

analysis intercept

Effective patterns.

and currently

The

refines served

the by

facilities. - A telephone at

point

survey of

o f approximately

residence,

determine: -1-

has

been

500 accomplished


a.

The Effective

b.

A refinement

c.

of

by the

The capture

of

d e xp e nd it u r es by stud y are a

a.

b.

The presence

c.

The ratio

B.

of and

businesses EMAs

secondary

extent

of

with

Commercial

strength

of

the

shopper

random

the

not

EMA

any particular

identified

Area

areas

specific

to specific

EMA and

Market

Effective

the

as related

the

within

area

establish: of

The refinement boundaries

c.

to

interveiwed

study

the

in

- 454 shoppers

Po in t of Purchase were

or

groups)

bu s ine ss 2.

be by firms

would

(Appli ca ti o n o f data

area

study

i n the

o f e xp e nditures

capture

improving

for

and c r iteria

The potential the

st u dy area

the

in

expend itu r es by

household

of househol

The loss businesses

e.

1970 census

the

in

cs

characteristi

demographic

established

businesses d.

Area

Market

study

area

SURVEY OF BUSINESS in

All

businesses

1.

specific

2 •.

Penetration Market

the

competitive potential

area

have profile within

been of the

Area

-2-

surveyed each

firm

Effective

to

determine:


3.

Individual

4.

Problems perceived

,long-range and

goals

attributes

by area

within

businessmen

-3-

and

objectives the

community

as


III.

CONCLUSIONS The Effective a state

Market

of

Mobility

"economic

patterns

stabilizing term

replaced

power

leave

to

the

the

income since

$9,063. the

of

the

1970.

A similar

real

l base.

Included

among these

as well

independently three

study

areas

that

study

area.

has

as

area

five

median

power

previously are

new and used stations.

retailers

planning

potentially

result

-4-

house-

EMA real

buying

inflation. only

for

1979.

minimal EMA was

However, 34.5%.

within

the

161 area

located Carfagna's

in

curthe

Cleve

Linden Meats,

Lawsons,and

Renzetti's

car

and

dealers Currently

a consolidation in

The

the

decreased

Route

Kitchen,

service

income

be identified

firms

Further,

shown

in

Road/State

firms

of

has

generally

class.

income

$9,281

can

Lombardo's

owned

will

households

The Morse

area.

Market,

spiral

the

are

on total

longer-

dissatisfaction

many lower

upward

flight"

several

They

of

buying

contains

Sanders,

in

the

and

of

economic

2.4% to

rently

Colonel

being

en ting

households levels

stress

1970

increased

"economic

commercia

a lower

area In

same period

as

repres

neighborhood.

continuing

of

This

income

greatest

additional

the

be typified

residents

characteristics

have created

median gains

express

income

due

that (higher

by residents

fixed

holds

in

indicate

residents) to

(EMA) can

flight."

influences

and desire

the

Area

their

moving

several

there

are

of

market

from

the


In

th e case

Kroger

on th e b asis.

Area.

Support

ranges

from

and

EMA.

Typically

larger,

less

these

While

employment, and

food

fast

national

not

have

management

is

to

of

the

reluctant

to make

indicated the

the

needs

plans

and

or

-5-

structure

firms

adJ'ust the

small an were

respondents

of

often

reflect

commitments. or

through"

relatively

businesses these

as

F.MA. of

consists

to accept

social

"passing

a particular

Typically,

an inability

demographic

of

be

the

and

services,

These

community.

among these

long-range

to

inclined

base

commercial

of uncertainty.

attitude

in

the

Interviews

entrepreneurs.

they

often

I

I I

pharmacy.

and

much needed

provided

such

chains

major

the

are

At

firms.

medium-size

from

by

characterized

best

is

a supermarket

of

part

an integral

The balance

area

restaurants,

facilities

a sensitivity

lack

study

base

commercial

end of the

upp er

EMA.

or no support

little

as having

the

of

sector

The commercial

the

outside

facilities

supporting

th e

households

affluent

more

with

households

affluent

of

supported

being

are

facilities

area

, study

Nor th ern

periphery

on the

located

facilities

or

area

Lights/Amos

The

the

s in

facilitie

support

of EMA residents

balance

proximity

area.

Lights/Amos

Northern

the

to

accessibility

EMA, but

the

to

30%, due primarily

20% to

only

only

by EMA residents

retailers

area

study

for

, not

. e Market Effec t iv

the

from

support

of direct

by evaluation

,

the

beyond

areas

of

consolidation

of

involved

be J¡usti'fied

a move can

X, such

and Super

firms

three

two of the

least

at

of

Often, to

mark

h c anges e

t

area.

I I


Attitudes in

stemmed

business

primarily

during

recent

with

conducting

Auto

dealers

and

to

communicate

clined and

future

interviews

with

related

shoppers leave

the

responded

largest

among

shoppers.

It

important

is

there

is

this

category

While this

note,

the

economic this

it

is

important

established.

in

the

EMA.

1.

Reduce

result base

of

be

task

is

of

affluent

out-migration a stabilizing

homeowners

-6-

to

shoppers

category

the

future

stabilize

of

the

the

the

now

A continuation

of

already

EMA. the of

"community residents

elderly

see

was the

the first

parameters

of

"community

be initiated

influence

households,

8% of

This

in

a sense

of

to

and businesses,

EMA.

the

that

Re-establishment the

."

outside

should

like

in decreasing

of

A program

providing more

will

from

and

residents

the

market

Residents

and

confidence

in

the

in-

that

and

is

vandalism.

especially

you

garages

task

patterns

scope

report,

of

priority

flight"

eroded

"auto

associated

indicate

residents

among both

lack

mobility

would

among residents

A high

"economic

seriously

or

and

findings

shoppers

of

problems

toward

well-accepted.

percent

dealers"

neighborhood.

were

"What businesses

a prevailing

established

not

and

the theft

Additionally,

Three

to

i.e.

attitudes

residents are

area,

downturn

as

facilities

negative

asked

"auto

second

service

area

area?"

as well

the

potential.

firms

were

in

auto

a substantial

years,

business

their

auto

from

at pride"

all

pride" levels

would:

currently in

the

area,

households,

i.e. and


Impact

2.

younger

vandalism, Gain

3.

in

residents

crime,

increased

an attempt

to

reduce

-I

and delinquency

support

and

loyalty

st udy

to

area

businesses Given

the

area,

further

Most

vulnerable

age in

existing

group this

erosion

(which group

resided

at

element

of

of

56 category

is

However,

the

could

Should

the

to

as

of

Stor e and

would

be imp o rt ant

a n d drug

store

be

f ou n d.

proximity

and

proposed

stores

and

their

the

EMA, it

in

the

to

drain

impractical

plans X Drug

to

Northern

the

-7-

anticipate

Many

the

below

also than

a major

in

over the

age near

center

in

group. leave

the

grocery is

found,

the

retail

firms

EMA of

existing

Lights/Amos

existing to

Store

a replacement

existing

•

the

by this

I f no replacement

Gi ven

is

providing

. over

longer

commercial

that

be reduced.

have

a major

Super

o f other

they

to move

in

p o te n t i a l f o r s urvi val

of

likely

a change

56 and

much

As a group,

e

expected

the

significantly

area.

not

area , it

potential

for

th

in

households)

thereby

the

th e loss

the

in

Additionally, a ddress

tly

effect

Kroger

ac co unt

p op ulation,

curren

future. area

s.

tr ends

b as e c a n be

ho u se holds

and

exi s ting

stability

nt

f o r 4 3% o f the

retired

the

economic

be those

household

their

displaceme

the

account

are

income

balance

of

would

average

the

residential

will

area

expenditures a supermarket

from

I

-1

-I I

1


and

drug

store

mercially ever,

comparable

intense there

is

and

sales, food

health

of

drug

which

support, aids

$1.3

24% of

facility

while

For

the

and

over

category, found

but for

creasing

sensitivity

ethnic

are

currently

supporting

the

the

power

comparable

$10.3

million

is

million

is

for

com-

area.

How-

the

EMA to

support

to

million

other

study in

$58.3

the

existing

annually

from

grocery

store

for

drug

these study

maj or

support

the

is

store

and

other

existing is

still

the

existing

Kroger

slightly

less

X

facility. in

significant.

Super

the

age

Similar

56

results

Kroger. could to

needs

factors

services

be managed

demographic

and economic

delivery"

in

store

X, penetration

new facilities

Offering

buying

14% support

Super

been

in

EMA residents

Ideally,

the

locate

in

support.

Currently,

have

to

new facilities

The EMA generates

retail a~d

areas sufficient

a supermarket facility.

to

drug

area.

-8-

reflect

characteristics

of

EMA residents.

among

respondents

stores

would

to

outside retain

more

including "Price over

the

an in-

study

age area.

EMA expenditures

and 65


of Following

is

a distribution

of

EMA residents.

expenditures

DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES EFFECTIVE MARKETAREA RESIDENTS 1979 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS $101.6 $ 58.3 $ 10.3 $ 1.3 $ 3.0 $ 1.8 $ 0.9 $ 0.9 $ 1.0

Total Effective Buying Income Total Retail Expenditures Grocery Store and other Foods Drug Store and other Health Aids Apparel Women's & Girl's Men's & Boy's Apparel Footwear Major Household Appliances Furniture A strategy

of

consolidation

be initiated. tributed

Super

Currently, throughout

locateQ

in the

length

immediate

area

X facilities

benefit of

Twenty-fourth and

commercia

the

A consolidation

image

of commercial

of of

from

facilities

Street increase

the

l facilities the

would

study

the

the

for

disOnly

area. Kroger

convenience Cleveland

enhance

potential

should are

existing

related

into

area

facilities

the

and factors.

of

center

EMA expendi-

The conso lidation point

for

commercial

area.

area

would

not

site,

but

would

the

I I

I

tures.

focal

stores

I

Avenue/

shopping

capture

those

• •I

area

of commercial improvements Improving only also

by businesses

facilities to

the

create

the

serve

to

and

-9-

aesthetic

appearance

a mored

· esirable, demonstrate

residents.

would

provide

quality of

the and

a of

the

commercial competitive

a commitment

to

I


Further, to

the

develop l.

it

is

our

Cleveland

opinion

Avenue

area

a comprehensive A primary area

that

impact

of

businesses

be encouraged

marketing

plan.

is

extend

objective

of

those

to

study

area

committed

to

the

organize

and

relatively

businesses

small

into

the

entire

EMA. The intercept

survey

of

businesses

study

Avenue

area north

east

to

only

about

58.3%

Conrail 21% of

all

, only

entire of

aimed

expenditures small

mail

can

businesses

located

free

EMA residents,

area

the

are

effect

expensive

viable

would

promote

in

area,

and their

price,

delivery.

- 10 -

and special

for

into

Because

a program the

area.

on the

Neighborhood all

for

A marketing

firms.

be employed.

study

penetration

less

for

accounted

interviewed.

involved,

Avenue

accounts

EMA population

area

Seventeenth

accounts

in

retail

market

Hamilton

but

a substantial

and circulars Such

to

have

area

vehicles.

This

extending

by study

advertising

direct

shoppers

at

EMA would

relatively of

all

from

EMA population

the

primary

from

and

interviewed

79% of

25.8% of

strategy

tracks. the

the

extending

Avenue

shoppers

The remaining

defined

as

to Cordell

the

of

clearly

of

the capture

the

methods newspapers,

advertising the

variety

of

convenience

services

such

as


ss the strengths and asse . perations and strucweaknesses of competitive chain° appropriately. Such ture their operating concepts . pri 'c e points, credit factors as merchandise lines, l d b e reviewed. Buye r policy, and customer service shou F o r example , ¡ and market profiles shou l d b e a nalyzed.

2.

Neighborhood

the

retailers

EMA contains

elderly,

lower

four

households

work

closely

identify based

must

a rela t i v e l y lar ge pr opo r t i o n of re s i¡ den t s .

income has

no automobile.

wit h ar e a social

op timum market o n p ro viding

Further,

such

A drug

service

areas

o ne of

organizat

and develop

services

store

as

eve r y might

i ons

to

a business

delivery

and

th i rd

part y b i lling. 3.

A mark e t ing to

s upport

pride with in

marketable.

With

the

to

the

Such

EMA residents

a function

as

a promotion

community

aesthetic

pride

exception

the

successfully

quality

be enhanced

of

services in

encourage

of

would

effort

communi ty

be consis

discussed

ten t

ea r l ier

t hi s section.

more

firms

should

businesses

an overall

should

related

local

a nd l oyalty.

Add i t i ona l ly, nucleus

program

in

study

auto

in

of

order

dealers, it

appears

area

have

the

ability,

-11-

area

and many of

area,

Additional

condensed

to make

the

compete.

the

that

business

the

and are

es

auto

some estab

desire,

exceptions

commercial

li she d

cap i tal

those


transient

businesses

the

area

study

hand of

stores,

these

existence 90-day in

and

businesse at

there

the

s , it

area

study

in

Du e to

time .

the of

does

not

to

-12-

seco nd

i.e.,

transient

nature

those

in

the

course

of

of

the area

total

nature.

suffer

further base

any

businesses

may be replaced

similar

and

in

record

over

study

commercial survival

ar e a, the

10% or more

businesses

for

s im i lar

i s d i ff i cult

a sufficient

components

any

including

area

o f e conom i c conditions

etc .

as many as

transient

remains

necessary

in

an y o n e point

an y similar

providing

found

game rooms,

pe r iod,

by other

symptomatic

However, decline,

possessing

revitalization

th e .


IV.

IDENTIFICATION

A.

I I I

OF AREAS

STUDY AREA The Study

Area

refers

Cleveland

Avenue

to

cornmercia· 1 sector

the

between

of

Aven u e a nd Hudson

Eleventh

u u

Street. is.

It and B.

within

this

intercept

area

survey

that were

both

b usi · n e ss

the

sur v e y

c o n ducted.

I

EFFECTICE MARKETAREA (EMA)

The Effective Penn

Market

Cen tra l Ra i lroad

west,

Fif t h Avenue

Agle r Road on the

Interstate

Joyce

on the

Seven t e e n t h Avenue

The e n t i re

and

to

Woodl a nd Av e n ues

in

Are a (EMA) was established

east

and Mock Road) north

telephone

on the

(with

(with

survey

south,

Joyce

an east/west and Weber

a jog

at

the

71 on the

Route

Avenue

as

jog Road

among

at

and

Westerville

was conducted

and

Road). residences

I

th e EMA.

Th e ar e a west and Hudson boundary Ohio

of

Interstate

Street

being

State

71 between

actually largely

Ex~osition

comprises

used

for

Center.

Eleventh much of

Avenue the

manufacturing This

area

and

contains

I

western

J

the few

~

residences. The EMA contains (1970

base)

I I I I

and

all,

or

part

an estimated

'

of

1970

twelv

e census

population

of

35,522

-1 3-

I

tracts people

• :


in

11,205

households.

characteristics found

in

Section

with

A comparison those

VI.

-14-

of our

of current

1970

demographic

study

may be


'

..

·...\ ..JPOWnL

EFFECTIVE MARKET Jlll-U.. .~,d


.__.---··--·--·-

,,.----ii

/

----~-

-

EFFECTIVE MARKETAREA

ff .to ;

·-----, ..·

t. -- .... :-·····'-; ,

... ·I ...........

l

: \ _.......... .......,r··"7

--·,1 . .-- ...

I

17.10

xi

: 71.to

rL~ .... --··~r·..i--·, o

~:

I

r •1

., E,. ..: -..,...

!f 11•11-,- •o'

j -·····7;-_10 --··· "- • ~ -- ........

....I , '

..." ...."' '

; ~ .. • I

.

TI .JO

I

, • .to

e~

'15.10

I I

I

7390 J

I

7'.21

I

I

.·-' ~-· 1• .10

----

,1~· .,

' I

_,, :.·

-..~7 .

'

·, · n .,2. \ ··1· .

-16-

jj

~ -~919()

:~ . ...

I !e. I

I

..

~ tl.12

, tl.11 ~\.

I ..

I

i

~

'l :1

~

a


I

SC

. =! l l

TTT

,,

~

EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA STUDY AREA ( A - B)

-17-


V.

METHODOLOGY In the

development

available were to

information

established

the

project.

procedures A.

of

were

the

approach

to

this

was

analyzed

and

for

gathering

field

The

following

conceptual

study

then

all

the

perimeters

information

relative

and

implemen

tation

established.

CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1.

Basic

to

this

Effective

study

Market

Area

and development. market

areas

freeways,

is

hood or

EMA is

by natural

in area.

major

Boundaries (1)

demographic

analysis

and

field

analysts.

tions

of

the

Each EMA becomes for

measurement

Effective on the

and

Market scope

considered. be substantially

comprising (3)

a separate

Areas nature

For

example, larger

store.

-18-

this the

of

of

the

rivers, a marked

of

a neighbor-

report,

(2)

a basis

potential. in

size

facility

that

of

a

observa-

forming

a supermarket than

adjacent

personal

may vary

and

from

determined

market,

analysis

analysis

as

makeup been

the

area

arteries,or

have

by applying

to

such

socioeconomic

data

of

separated

barriers

or

the

application

(EMA) approach

Each

railroads

difference

the

depending being EMA would

a convenience


2.

The c a pture

factor,

percentage

(the

o

f expenditures

lar geographic . a parti c u . (wher e applicable) location area}, for any particular gener ated luro e of b u siness was computed by dividing the v o h EMA) , b y the to t al by a specific geographic are a (t e area . s in that expenditures for those go od captured

3.

by the

Basic

to

the

tures

data

in

facility

s tu d y was rat h er

t han

e nable s u s t o compare

ca ti on s of

this

rather

s up po rt 4.

St o re

than

f household This

data.

geographic in

Retail

can

a measure

of

subsequent

appli-

data,

especially

be a measure

of

i-

approach

rate

sales

areas,

expend

specific

of

geographic

or de mand. e x penditures

tota l numb er Buy ing

Income

sec u rity, Income. expenditures Effective

the

data.

fo r s ma l l geographic s upply

sales

. locations

ca ptur e o f specific

0

t he use

are

determined

of households (gross

etc.)

to

Total

retail are

Buying

by the

income arrive

less at

as

household taxes,

an area

expenditures

computed

by multiplying

the Effective

social Effective

and

a percentage

Buying

specific of

category the

Income.

-19-

•


5.

B.

facilities.

no existing

with

but

consideration

EMAs under

to

be applied

to

reference

of

frame

a particular

within

identified

factor

capture

a potential

estub]ished

analysis

The resulting

SAMPLING AND INTERVIE WING

1.

Survey

Telephone

north,

Joyce

and

Fifth

Avenue

on

identified

were

area

A random

Directory.

and

generated

Eight

basis.

of

545

reduced

to

4 9 9 intervie

guid e from

were

9 was

1 to

on that

selected

r e spondents

interviews

ws we re ws .

n i n ma j or

informatio

trained

specially

were

P.M.

Monday

male

and

The

conduc te d;

c onduct

through

t a bulat

io n points

e d b et ween

Saturday

howeve r , this

46 int er vi e ws not

hous e h o l d , or

per

incom e , p o pula t ion

6:00

n umber

intervie

A total

All

Haines

v ie wers

inter

Criss-Cross

i n the

potential

s tu dy

the

project.

this

lac k ed

Route

s within

addresse

appropriate

with

Streets

east,

on the

Interstate

and

south

on the

Road

Agler

Avenue

Woodland the

and

west .

71 on the

for

by We b er

(EMA) bounded

Area

Market

Effective

the

in

initiated

was

Interviewing

or

we re

A.M. to

Sunday. Both

female

respondents

-20-

were

as

illegible.

10:00 noon

such

used

included.

5:00

and

P.M.

was


2.

Inter?ept There

Survey

were

four

s t u d y area

major

(Kroger-Super

Mr. B : s Carryout, and Cleveland

balanced C.

by time

th e

& Economy Cleaners, f Hudson street intersection°

traffic

o f t h e study

areas

.f . din ie

identi

Teck

Interviewers

Avenue).

A fifth

by eac h ·

to randomly

cover

Interv1 ·ewers

area.

allotted

were

generated

was utilized

interviewer

centers

X,

and the

on relative

based

traffic

a

were

ll

remaining

further

of day and day of week.

VERIFICATION In a project suppliers,

requiring checks

- Eighty

percent

by telephone personal - Coding

verified - Keypunch and then and

o f all

intervi

telephone

for

ews were

must

be made.

interviews

verified

of response

could

be verified.

in

manner,

handwriting

Coding

was

and horizontally.

horizontally,

repunched for

this

of

observation.

involved

In

verified

percent

by direct

project.

and

were Fifty

by personnel

was 100% verified,

response

employees

this

vertically

checked

of

observation.

was accomplished

intent

number

and verifications

or personal

interviewing and

a large

errors

outside

then

verified

and

reverified.

within accepted

corrected.

-21-

the

tabulat1.

ranges

was

vertically Data ·

was

on program

deleted

or

I


LEVEL

rand~

the s

to

Apri~

1979

sa::ipling,

telephone

survey.

the

means

95% o~ those

standard phone

sample

means

contained

of

the

-22-

this

ence

a normal

within

report.

plus

the

repeated

with

mean established

within

from

established

approximate

the

select

a 95% confid

Therefore,

mean s occurring

deviations survey

would

to

we assign

experience,

various

the

.ev -el

~:ch

field

total,

EMA household

employed

procedure

selection

and

ple.

the

versus

size

u on sample

Based

~~

distribution, or minus

by the

tele-

two


VI.

TELEPHONE SURVEY A total

of 499 residents

interviewed · is

utilizing

in this

1.

2.

Demographic

characteristics

age and per

household

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. 3.

of the

.

Market

n survey

si·x bas1·c

v.

portion

Shopping

Effective

a 38-questio

· Section out 1·1ne d in

included

in the

areas

Arca

were

The methodology

. of

surve y are

study: such

income

as Population

of the

per

household,

respondent

Preferences

Grocery Drug Store Department Store Discount Store Shopping Center Clothing Store Shoe Store Beauty Shop Financial Institution

Major

problems

as perceived

by Effective

Market

respondents

would

Area

residents 4.

Businesses

or

move into

or

5.

Mobility

6.

Automobile

Most

questions

household tabulations

leave

which

the

Effective

Market

like

to

see

Area

Characterisitcs ownership

were

size,

services

and

characteristics

cross

tabulated

income.

of dependent

against

In add't·1 ion, variables.

-23 -

age th ere

of are

head

of

selected

household cross

1


A.

DEMOGRAPHICCHARACTERISTICS 1.

Income Based

on the

April

income

per

$9,281

annually

incomes

under

excess

of

1979

household

in

with $7,000

$20,000

telephone the

survey,the

Effective

36% of

all

Market

respondent

annually.

median

Only

Area

s having

9% had

incomes

annually.

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOMES 1979 Under

$7,000

36%

$7,000-$9,999

19%

$10,000-$14,999

20%

$15,000-$19,999

17%

$20,000-$24,999

4%

$25,000

and

over

5% 100%

Median

income

by age

group

AGE GROUP Under

is

as

follows: MEDIAN INCOME

25

$10,999

26-35

$14,249

36-45

$14,047

46-55

$12,499

56-65

$ 7,865

65 and

over

Under

TOTAL

-24-

$9,281

is

$7,000

in


In

1970

the

present

median

1970.

Based

median

income

a 34.5%

2.

median

loss

It

should

of

report

income

in

represents on the of

the

only

Consumer

$9,281

in

of purchasi

a se

food

stam ps , or hous i ng adds

a nd,

thu s , t he overall

subsidi to

rep r esents

sin ce 1 970.

$9 ,2 81 represents

Nonc ash

sinc e

Ind ex, t he cur r ent

t he EMA act ua l ly

ng power

be note d t h at e d i n c ome.

a 2.4% incre Price

The

$9 ,0 6 3 ¡

EMA was

the

median

e s such

total

income

as of

food, the

area

median.

Me di a n Age Me di a n age only for

7 % under 2 0 % of

There

were

h ouse h old 2 . 92. This in

of

the

head

of

age

26.

The over

household

members

compares

was

age

51.6

years

65 category

with

accounted

population.

499 households

Median

1970.

the

age with

surveyed

yielding

A distribution

a total

a population

among the 23.9

with

years of

-25-

entire in age

per

sample

of

1,458

household

was

the

Effective

groups

is

as

33.7

of years.

Market follows:

Area


DISTRIBUTI ON OF AGE

YEAR

1979 EMA

EMA

1970 FRANKLIN COUNTY

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 2 0-24 25-3 4 35- 44 45 -5 4 55-59 60-64 54 - 74 75 and over

5.5% 6.9% 10.3% 11.5% 6.7% 10.6% 11.5% 12.1% 5.1% 6.6% 9.2% 4.0%

10.1% 11.3% 11.6% 8.9% 8.2% 13.1% 10.8% 10.6% 4.2% 3.5% 4.9% 2.7%

8.9% 9.9% 10.2% 9.7% 10.3% 13.8% 11.6% 10.5% 4.0% 3.4% 4.7% 2.9%

-

Total Median 3.

100.0% 33.7

Population

Per

Household

Population

per

household

Market

'Area

was 2.9.

of

100.0% 23 .9

respondents

A distribution

is

100.0% 25.7

in

the

as

follows:

Effective

POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD

1979 EMA

EMA

1970 FRANKLIN COUNTY

One Two Three/Four Five or more

17.0% 32.5% 32.5% 18.0%

15.5% 27.6% 33.3% 23.6%

17.7% 29.1% 33.5% 19.7%

100.0% 2.9

100.0% 3.4

100.0% 2.7

Total Median Population 1970

was

per 3.4

in

household the

for

EMA and

the 2.7

-26-

Effective in Franklin

Market County.

Area

in


B.

-I

SHOPPING PREFERENCES 1.

I

Supermarkets

support.

shopping

of

were

heart

of

of

edge

on the

located

There

of

Forty-three

percent

supermarket

exclusively.

shop

supermarkets

EMA and have

all

respondents

there

Total

impact

of

shop

at

their

EMA supermarket

attracts

that

shop

at

various

50% of

their

exclusively

supermarkets EXCLUSIVE SHOPPERS

is

42% of mentioned

shoppers

as

exclusively.

respondents

including

support

there

stores

The remaining

supermarket

patronizing

Of shoppers 40% shop

supermarket

that

Lights/Amos

of

capture

questionnaire

the

down reveals

figure

Northern

an average

exclusively.

shoppers

usual

their

shop

exclusively.

The leading

exclusively. its

support

a combined

this at

shopping

two EMA supermarkets,

the

in

the

Breaking

respondents

all

are

supermarkets

The additional

and

respondents

follows:

OCCASIONAL SHOPPERS

TOTAL

EMA supermarkets

16%

7%

23%

Lights/Amos Northern supermarkets

42%

11%

53%

19%

9%

28%

Perimeter

I

for

combine

they

EMA and

EMA residents.

18% from

38% of

th at liS t ed

two supermarkets

the

1

EMA supermarket

the

42% of

capture

support.

the

16% of

only

the

in

located

are

to

combine

are~

Center

Shopping

Lights/Amos

Northern

the

in

Super markets

supermarkets

-27-

that


A.

Exclusive

Shoppers

telephone

survey

one

supermarket.

Occasional

Shoppers

only B.

one

with

15.2%

only

averaged

in

supermarkets

supporting

remainder

of

times

per

two or more

shopping

21.8%

the

than

often

more

slightly

shopping

the

residents Residents

week. Lights/Amos

Northern

the

shop

EMA supermarkets

supporting

EMA residents

Generally,

re spondents

supermarkets.

various

patronize

these

Rather,

exclusively.

supermarket

shop

do not

they

that

the

in

responding

- Persons

indicating

survey

telephone

patronize

they

that

indicating

the

in

responding

- Persons

two or more

times

per

area week .

PERCENT SHOPPING MORE THAN ONCE PER WEEK 21.8%

EMA supermarkets

Perimeter Other

s

supermarket

Lights/Amos

Northern

1 5 .2% 25.0%

supermarkets

18.2%

supermarkets

18.2%

Total Following

a summary

is

supermarket

of

by demographic

support

makeup: EMA POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD

NORTHERN LIGHTS AMOS AREA

PERIMETER

OTHER

TOTAL

3.1

2.7

2 .8

3.1

2 .9

49.0

55.7

56.0

48.0

51.6

MEDIAN IN COME $8,713

$8,932

MEDIAN AGE

EMA Su pe rmarket o f s lightly

lower

support income.

is

$7,999

generated -28-

by la rger,

$ 1 0,416 younger

$9,281 families


2.

Drug

Store

. Th irty-one located stores Am ong

13.5%

, percen t o f EMA residents within

in

the

have

Northern

Lights/Amos

Following

are

the

residents

by location

in

demographic

This

elsewhere.

shopping

stores.

characteri

stics·

preferre

d d r ug

their

of

38% •

for

stores, d EMA ru 9

the

regularly

'dents drug

area

drug

orting.

supp a accounted

filled

among resi

stores

s are

shopping

. · prescriptions 13.8%

'dents

Lights/Amo

regularly

their

with

EMA resi

EMA.

Northern

resi 'd enst

compares at

the

d drug

supporte

EMA

of

store.

LOCATION OF DRUG STORE NORTHERN LIGHTS OTHER TOTAL AMOS AREA EMA AVERAGE POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN AGE MEDIAN INCOME

EMA drug

store

households, lower

of

income

likely

to

more

affluent

3.

stores for

2.6

2.9

49.8

50.6

55.0

51.6

$8,957

$10,108

$8,695

$9,281

is

typical

age

levels

.

generated composition,

Older,

less

facilities

resident

by generally

in

s support

and

affluent the

larger

with

slightly

residents

"other"

facilities

are

category in

the

while Northern

area.

Department Northland

2.9

support

support

Lights/Amos

3.3

Store area

most

department

frequently

26% and Northern

stores shopped.

Lights

accounted

for

Downtown

stores

facilities -29-

for

14%.

46% of

the

accounted

I 1


The

primary

factors

in

selecting

a particular

merchandise,

15%;

department

I

store

were

quality

by selection, 10%,

10%,

14%. and

By household of

the

credit

the

significant

Lights of

average

stores

population

By age

of

head

preference

for

figure

19% for

was

the

department

per

1 2 3 4

of

by

the

larger

house

by

3.2 2.7 2.7 3.1

Sample

2.9

household,

downtown 31% for

remainder. store

the

significant

preference

household store

by respondents

that

compared

preference

Total analysis

of

s.

preference

group

is

as

of

reflect

the

over

age

65.

average

of

an

median

age

by

follows:

1 - NL

46.5 57.0 52.8 51.1

2 - DT 3 - N

4 - N Sample

favoring total

with

is

MEDIAN AGE

department

respondents

factor

facilities

A distribution

Dept Dept Dept Dept

closely

were

was

NL DT N N

-

STORE

group,

price

AVERAGE POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD

Total

an

closely

follows:

Dept Dept Dept Dept

In

and

difference

department

STORE

This

followed

9%, respectively.

Northern

as

Convenience,

size,

A comparison is

of

Effective

-30-

51.6 store the

preference

Northern Market

by

Lights Area

income stores

figures

while


respondents a lower

median

f avored

are of

favoring

median

downtown

income.

Northland

by families incomes

department

with

by store

area

higher

stores

stO res

department

A distribution

income s .

p reference

is

a s fo l lows:

MEDIAN INCOME

STORE Dept 1 - NL Dep t 2 - DT Dept 3 - N Dept 4 - N

$ 8,9 9 8 $ 7,68 1 $ 9,730

Total

$

$ 1 1,446

Sample

I n summar y , Northern

Lights

by younger

with

residents

have

9 , 280

department

stores

larger

households

stores

are

are and

s u ppo rt e d lowe r inco me

le v els . Northland

area

resi ,dents

representative

but

with

Older,

4.

department

higher less

affluent

department

Discount

Store

the

are

combine In

residents

(Disc to

1 and

capture

a demographic

are

larger

age

characteristics.

EMA in

age

and

by

household

size

are

inclined

to

prefer

I I

stores.

two discount

EMA.

the

supported

incomes.

downtown

There

of

typically

stores Disc

4 on the

24% of

of

on the tables)

perimeter These

of facilities

EMA support.

comparison,

households

located

I I

residents slightly

-31-

lower

support1.'ng incomes

EMA and

faci

with

l i t ie 1 lower

1


AVERAGE POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN AGE MEDIAN INCOME 5.

TOTAL

OTHER

EMA 3.3

3.0

2.9

47.8

48.9

51.6

$10,908

$9,281

$8,888

Center

Shopping

shopping

center

serving

preferring

that

facility.

respondents

52% of all

EMA with

the

dominant

most

the

was by far

Center

Shopping

Northland

with

was second

Lights

Northern

33%. and

"Proximity" in

near.ly

in

Larger of

to

reference

with

households

of

56.0

are

years

having

older,

slightly

with

compared

and

Northland

center.

among

Northland.

42% prefer

shoppers

Lights

that

preferring

persons

52% prefer

households,

single-person

age

or more

three

56%

with

Northland,

shop

to

likely

households,

Among two-person

Northern

more

may be

of work.

home or place are

families

total is

response

"convenient"

home while

to

reference

in

always

the

68% of

"proximity"

the

Among respondents,

responses.

for

combining

center,

a shopping

selecting

factors

important

most

the

were

"convenience"

years

49.8

a median

among Northland

shoppers. 6.

Cloth~ng

Stores

EMA residents and

53% indicated

were

asked

where

a specific

-32-

they

usually

department

store

purchased (there

clothing were


four

department

st0 re

and

only

None of ¡ ¡the facility

Shoe

stores

designated and

between

Beauty

shoe

hair

EMA, the Shopping

overriding

t mentioned

neares Center.

criteria

"Selection''

for

accounted

"Selection"

for

stores

14 %¡

for

accounted

supporting

specific

of

37% of

accounted

accounted

2 6 and

e income

14 %-

for

in

the

for

for shoe

4 5,

the

from

total

response

17%.

20% and

14%,

respective

stores

were

generally

larger

households,

ly.

and

of

I I

EMA.

Shop

done

32% of

in

A total

women in

shop.

of

the

the

household

have

Characteristically, EMA by age

and

their

these

women

income.

Services of

savings

72% of and

EMA and

response

the

a beauty

representative

Financial

the

the

"quality"

Approximately

or

were

st ore.

clothing

the

Lights

accounted

th e ages

representativ

9.

Northern

a discount

Stores

Respondents

are

in

17%, respectively.

"Price"

a.

in

"quality"

Department and

were

17%, respectively.

19% and

12% listed

a specific

facilities

and

19% and

listed),

3% listed

being

"Price"

7.

stores

and

that

all

loan

respondents for

financial

facility

24% of

prefer services.

accounted

respondents

-33-

a particular

for

favoring

Only 18% as

of

the .. pecific

I I

bank one

is

within

total financial

I


institution.

"Proximity"

overriding C.

and

"convenience"

the

criteria.

NEIGHBORHOODPROBLEMS Respondents

were

asked

problems

in

29% have

"no opinion,"

recognize maining were The This Major

~heir

the

problem and

of

"street with

response

It

indication

existance

equal

"dogs"

considered

neighborhood.

response,

nearly

what ¡ they

significant

that

for

to

most

maintenance,"

dogs,"

stray

12%,

by age

only in

the

Of the

re-

and

EMA

"crime"

respectively.

dogs

to

barking

21% among single-person

problems

major

that

residents

problems.

from

be the

significant

substantial

13%, 12%, and

ranged

accounted

is

group

is

dogs.

h ouseholds. as

follows:

AGE GROUP

FIRST

PROBLEMS SECOND

THIRD

18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Over 65

Trash Crime Dogs Dogs Street Dogs

Crime Dogs Crime Trash Dogs Trash

Rundown Delinquents Street Maintenance Crime Trash / Crime Crime

SIGNIFICANT

Sign ificant

D.

were

problems

Maintenance

by income

are

as

follows:

INCOME GROUP

FIRST

SECOND

THIRD

Under $7,000 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $20,000 and over

Crime Dogs Crime Crime Street maintenance

Dogs Trash Dogs Dogs

Trash Crime Trash Rundown

Delinquents

Dogs

CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE Respondents come

into

were or

leave

asked

what

the

area.

businesses

-34-

they

would

like

to

see


Forty-one like

percent

to

see

10% of

and

two-person

less

the

"Resta

total

¡ts

and was

"o t her"

laundromat

The

responses: and

small

among

I

one

This

response

was

also

. h hig

among

responden

t s wi th

incomes

see

most

child

respondents

f o r 7%. c a re

l

and

Among

c e n t e r,

maj o r emp l oy e rs,

frequently

suggeS

t ions

r e creation

cab le

are a,

l i s te d business a ccounting

a c coun te d f or accounted

second-hand

all

TV,

facility'

a nd

on.

leav e the

category

com b ined

were

protecti

the

by 5% of

library,

"none " category

"other"

response

I

store"

category

police

to

I

would

stor e " accounted

t he highest

14.6%.

su g gested

, bank,

"Bars " were wanted

"Gr o ce ry

ov e r ag e 55 and

"d e pa r tmen t/ discount

security

.

t ed they

$ 1 0 , 000 annually.

u r ant " was

i n t he

res p on d en t s indica

ho us e ho lds,

responden than

all

no ' new businesses

for

among

of

for stores

retailers.

-35-

65% of

1 1 % and , pool

which

for

14% of

the

responses.

included

rooms,

adult

the

respon all

dent

respo The

followi book

stores,

ng

s

nse s .


E.

MOBILITY

EMA residents years

I I

have

(median).

present

at

Seventeen

address

less

By demographic of mobility

lived

than

their

present

percent

have

three

characteristics,

address lived

years. a distinctive

pattern

MEDIAN YEARS AT CURRENT RESIDENCE

HOUSEHOLD SIZE ONE TWO THREE/FOUR FIVE OR MORE

I

15+ 15.0 9.0 8.6 MEDIAN YEARS AT CURRENT RESIDENCE

AGE GROUP

26-35 36-45 46-55 56 AND OVER

6.3 9.2 10.3 15+ MEDIAN YEARS AT CURRENT RESIDENCE

INCOME RANGE UNDER $7,000 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $20,000 AND OVER

Typically,

and

residents time

with

are

living

in

one

very

low or

sixteen

percent

of

to

in

move

move

into

Only

4 % of

their

emerges.

r

longer

at

11.3

the

near

all

high

respondents

future.

planning

the

two-person

relatively

a single-family those

or

in

15.0 12.1 8.7 9.3 11.6 same house households,

to

-36-

over

age

65

incomes. indicated

they

Among these, home and

a significantly

68% planned

16% into

move intend

planned

to

to

an apartment. stay

in

the

EMA.


Following move

in

are the

characteristics

near

of

EMA residents

planning

to

future

BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE: POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD

PERCENT PLANNING TO MOVE-EMA

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION PLANNING ENTIRE TO MOVE-EMA SAMPLE-E~

ONE

17.6%

18.1%

17.0%

TWO

13.0%

25.3%

32.5%

THREE/FOUR

19.1%

37.4%

32.5%

FIVE OR MORE

17.8%

19.2%

18.0%

16.0%

100.0%

100.0%

TOTAL AVERAGE

2.9

3.0

BY AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD:

AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

PERCENT PLANNING TO MOVE FRANKLIN EMA COUNTY

25 AND UNDER

31.4%

33.7%

13.2%

7.0%

26 - 45

22.6%

19.2%

42.2%

31.0%

46 - 65

13.0%

8.6%

32.5%

41.4%

OVER 65

9.8%

7.8%

12.0%

20.4%

TOTAL

16.0%

16.7%

MEDIAN

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION PLANNING ENTIRE TO MOVE-EMA SAMPLE-EMA

100.0% 43.Q

-37-

100.0% 51.6


BY HOUSEHOLDINCOME: PERCENT PLANNING PLANNING TO TO MOVE-EMA MOVE-EMA

INCOME RANGE Under

~

I I

$7,000

ENTIRE SAMPLE-EMA

12.9%

27.7%

35.7%

$7,000-$9,999

18.1%

20.5%

18.8%

$10,000-$14,999

15.3%

18.1%

19.6%

$15,000-$19,999

17.6%

18.1%

17.0%

$20,000-$24,999

38.1%

9.6%

4.2%

$25,000

21.7%

6.0%

4.6%

16.0%

100.0%

100.0%

$10,500

$9,281

OVER

&

TOTAL MEDIAN Generally with

of

"economic further During

approximately the

years

of

compared

weakening past

2,454

regarding

mobility. from

13% higher household

years.

seems

likely

to

for

months,

interviews

with

Following interviews

the

larger

than

is

51.6

support

those

to move are

with

twelve

conducted

response

head

flight"

the

planning

.

incomes

The age 43.0

, respondents

the

in

commercial

Kenneth

Danter

Columbus

with

-38-

40)

younger,

the

continue

(page

EMA median •

substantially Thus

area is

interviews

families

continuation the

of

immediate

future,

base. & Company

has

residents a comparison within

of the

EMA.


FRANKLIN COUNTY

EMA

MEDIAN YEARS AT PRESENT ADDRESS PLAN TO MOVE IN -~EAR FUTURE

6.8 16.7%

11.3 16.0%

PLAN TO MOVE BY AGE GROUP OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

PERCENT

25 AND UNDER

31.4%

33.7%

26 - 45

22.6%

19.2%

46 -

65

13.0%

8.6%

OVER 65

9.8%

7.8%

TOTAL

16.0%

16.7%

MEDIAN

43.0

MEDIAN INCOME OF THOSE PLANNING TO MOVE

years

$10,500

- 39 -

32.4

years

$11,790


DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS PLANNING TO MOVE BY INCOME EFFECTIVE MARKET AREA AND FRANKLIN COUNTY

I NCOME

PLANNING TO MOVE PERCENT PLANNI NG PERCENT PLANNING TO MOVE- EMA TO MOVE-FRANKLIN COUNTY

12.9 %

18.0%

$7,000

18.1 % 17.4%

$10,000

$13,000

15.3%

18.5% $16,000

17.6% $19,000

$22,000

12.5%

38.1%

$25,000 21.7%

TOTAL AREA

*TO BE READ:

16.7%

16.0% 18.1% $7,000

of residents and

in

$10,000

-40-

are

the

EMA with

planning

to

income move.

between


Wi th in

the

north

area

of

17.9%

map} a total future

near

were

address.

Of the

out

of

their town.

with

they

16.0%

asked

for

total

sample,

previous

zip

The remainder

the

12%

43202

2%

43211*

were

Bala n ce of Area 1

2%

the

move

th e

in

EMA.

code

2 3% did

to

following

o f their not

pre v i o us

kn ow or

S e v en pe rc e nt d ist ri buted

as

d id

were

no t f r om

follows:

AREA 2 (NORTHEAST/SOUTHEAST)

6%

43219 Ba l an ce Area 2

Area

1

of 3%

Total

Area

AREA 4 (NORTHWEST)

3%

3

Total

3%

43 20 5

8%

4 3 206

2%

43215

4%

Area

5

Area

4

1%

SUMMARY

4 3 203

Area

5

I I I I 1

AREA 5 (CENTRAL)

of

9%

Area

3 8%

AREA 3 (SOUTH/SOUTHWEST)

Total

planned

Total 3%

Ba lance

zip

One on the

19*

432 24

Total

in

code.

AREA 1 (NORTH) * 43201

Area

indicated

compared

Respondents

remember

(designated

Are a 1

2%

Ar ea

2

Area

3

Area

4

Areas Out-of-Town

19%

DK/NA Total *EMA Location -41-

38 %

9% 3%

1%

I l I I

19%

7% 23 %

100 %

I I


-42-


A fJfJC•<·'a 1 tc.1bul cl Li on was

h

li:M/\ whooc

Jgi

the sample

of

res i dents

at

alao

into

their

36% previously

. . l iving

res pon d enst

of

was

fell

living

3 ~ears,

only

address

conducted

16% previously

this

in

of

EMA·

overall

.

,

Among less

residence in

in

respondents

category

than

EMA, a n d a mong

the

current

their

amount

the

current

resided

a substantial

jn

resided

at

among

resi' d e nc e ov e r 3 years This

t he EMA.

c u rre n t mob i lity

is

an

indication

within

th e

among

modern

EMA. F.

ANALYSIS OF MODERN APARTMENTS-EMA A s p e c i al apartm

s t udy

e nt s was

1978.

August containing were by

one-half

mile were

vacancies,

room at

of

the

28 market

and

units

2,340 Effec

tive

& Company

Danter

units.

Only

Market

in

were

surveyed

four

of

Area

twelve

as

these

projects

defined

projects

were

within

EMA. rate

units

a vacancy

ranged

rates

, 31 projects

One bedroom

had

vacancy

by ~enneth

an additional

2.5%.

from

units

rate

$120

10 projects)

(in

to

with

accounted

of

1.9%.

$155

per

for

Rents month

seven

38.6% for

with

of

one the

bedmedian

$135.

T~o bedroom a vacancy with

the

and

study

of

in

study;

base

that

a total

this

the

r e ntal

conducted In

directly

There

of

the

units rate

median

accounted

of at

3.0%.

for Rents

$163.

-43-

60.0% ranged

of

the

from

base $135

and to

had

$175


There

were

I

only

4 three

$175

per

renting

at

Subsidiz

ed units

vacancies

( 0 .â&#x20AC;˘ 4 %) â&#x20AC;˘

Following

is

ranges

from

bedroom

(none

vacant)

month.

accounted

a distribution that

units

for

of

study.

-44-

919 units

units,

with

vacancies,

four

and

rent


DISTRIBUTION OF

MARKET RATE MODERNAPARTMENT UNITS AND VACANCIES COLUMBUS, OHIO AUGUST 1978

UNITS NUMBER PERCENT

VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT

ONE BEDROOM

108

38. 6 %

2

1.9%

TWO BEDROOM

16 8

60 . 0 %

5

3.0%

1.4%

0

0.0%

7

2.5%

THREE BEDROOM

4

280

- 45-

100.0%


RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS ONE BEDROOMMARKET RATE UNITS COLUMBUS, OHIO AUGUST 1978

TOTAL UNITS NUMBER PE RCENT

NET RENT RANGE*·

VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT

$155

10

9.3 %

2

20.0%

$ 1 44

52

48 . 1 %

0

0.0%

$135

4

3.7%

0

0.0%

42

38.9%

0

0.0%

108

100.0%

2

1.9%

$120 - $130

RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS TWO BEDROOMMARKET RATE UNITS COLUMBUS, OHIO AUGUST 1978 $170-$175

74

44 . 0%

2

2.7%

$150-$165

82

48.8%

3

3.7%

$135-$145

12

7.2%

0

0.0%

168

100.0%

5

3.0%

0

0.0%

RENT AND VACANCY ANALYSIS THREE BEDROOMMARKET RATE UNITS COLUMBUS, OHIO AUGUST 1978 4

$175 *Includes

water

and

sewer

service

-46-

100.0% and

trash

removal


DISTRIBUTION OF MODERNAPARTMENTUNITS AND VACANCIES COLUMBUS, OHIO AUGUST 1978

SUBSIDIZED UNITS NUMBER PERCENT

VACANCIES NUMBER PERCENT

STUDIO

156

17.0%

0

0.0%

ONE BEDROOM

156

17.0%

0

0.0%

TWO BEDROOM

312

33.9%

4

1.3%

THREE BEDROOM

278

30.3%

0

0.0%

17

1.8%

0

0.0%

919

100.0%

4

0.4%

FOUR BEDROOM

-47-


G.

AUTOMOBILES

1

One of every

four

respondents

automobile.

This

figure

households $7,000

(51%),

income

group

the

is

over (44%).

-48-

does

not

highest

in

65 age

group

have the

a working single-person

(47%),

and under


H.

TABULATIONS

cross

Each

Co 1umn and row questions

categories

appear

The first

number

and column

The second This

tage.

labeled

at

extreme

the

poss ibl e r espo nses at

the

top

The extreme all

possible

of

the

right

proportion

the

row question

lef t of

the

table.

i n e ach the labele

as for

cell

pr opo rt ion d,

column of

compared

labeled,

the

appearing

row question

i s the

for

indicates

percentage

th e

is

matrix

.

r ow

d b y t he

categorize

the

que s ti o n as

respon ses

number

The third

ing

the

the

t h e table

of

who answ e red

ea ch cell

in

in d ica tes

column

possible

of

e t ion

row queS

left

extreme

th

are

and row la b el s .

percentage

various

while

cell

each

answers

appearing

number

the

answering

in

with

column

corresponding

table,

of respondents

count

questions

question

the

at

a column

appearing

frequency

actual

This

in

column

of the

top

the

at

appearing

labels

the

for

. categories

response

Coded

table

the

of

title.

survey

the

under

immediately

top

the

. d at

identifie

are

a matrix.

t d as

formate

been

has

table

tabulation

is

the

as

percen-

respondents with

the

they

are

row percentage. answer-

o f respondents

c ompa re d with

the

as

they

th e colu mn question

various are

labeled

t ab l e . column

categories

represents of

response,

-49-

. for totals question th whil bottom e extreme e

the

row


row represents categories bottom the in all

the of

row,

column

response.

then,

extreme

respondents

' lower for

totals

The extreme

represent

row and column the

question

the

right

respectively. cell

cross

-so-

is

the

tabulated

all

column

a one-dimensional

questions right

for

possible and

extreme

tabulation

for

The frequency questions.

first count

number of


AVENUEEMA CLEVELAND TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 DO YOUUSUALLYSHOP FOR GROCERIES? COLUMNS=Q1-WHERE ROWS=Q2-ISTHATTHE ONLYPLACE YOUSHOP FOR GROCERIESON A REGULARBASIS?

----- ----------MKT1 MKT2 MKT3 NL RT 3 AMOS

----- ------ ----- ----- -----------4 ----MKTS MKTb MKT7 MKT8 MKT CLEV

CLEV

MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

TOTAL

44%

35 16% 32%

26 12% 62%

29 13% 42%

2 1% 22%

15 7% 75%

15 7% 47%

4% 38%

41 19% 43%

216 100% 43%

NO

56 20% 55%

69 25% 64%

15 5% 36%

40 14% 58%

7 3% 78%

5 2% 25%

17 6% 53%

13 5% 62%

54 20% 56%

276 100% 55%

DK/NA

1 14% 1%

4 57% 4%

1 14% 2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 14% 1%

7 100% 1%

102

108

42 8% 100%

69

9

20

32

4%

6%

96 19% 100%

499 100% 100%

YES

TOTAL

45

21%

20%

22%

100%

100%

14%

2%

100%

100%

100%

100%

8

21 4% 100%


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 DO YOU USUALLYSHOP FOR GROCERIES? COLUMNS=Ql-WHERE OTHERSTORES DO YOU SHOP? ROWS=Q3-WHAT MKT1 MKT2 MKT3 NL RT 3 AMOS

MKT1 AMOS

1 2% 2%

22 46% 32%

9 19% 60%

MKT2 NL

24 44% 43%

1 2% 1%

2 4% 13%

39% 16%

35% 12%

-

MKT4 CLEV

4 12% 7%

13 38% 19%

-

MKT5 CLEV

4 27% 7%

3 20% 4%

-

MKTb OCK

-

-

1 20% 1%

5 19% 9%

9 35% 13%

MKT3 RT 3

MKT7 HUDSON

9

8

-

-

2 8% 13%

MKT 4 MKT5 MKTb MKT7 MKT8 CLEV CLEV MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

2

4% 5% 10 18% 25% 2

-

2 4% 40%

1 2% 6%

3 6% 23%

8 17% 15%

48 100% 17%

1 2% 14%

1 2% 20%

4 7% 24%

3 5% 23%

9 16% 17%

55 100% 20%

-

1

23 100% 8%

-

-

3

-

-

13% 18%

1 3% 2%

5 15% 71%

2 6% 40%

1 3% 6%

6 40% 15%

-

--

-

-

-

-

4 15% 10%

-

9% 5%

-

TOTAL

-

-52-

4% 2% 18% 11%

34 100% 12%

7% 8%

1 7% 2%

15 100% 5%

-

2 40% 12%

-

2 40% 4%

s

1 4% 20%

-

-

-

2 6% 15% 1

-

b

s 11\% 9%

100% 2% 26 100% 9%


CLEVELAND AVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 CONTINUED COLUMNS=Q1-WHERE DO YOUUSUALLYSHOP FOR GROCERIES? ROWS=Q3-WHAT OTHERSTORESDO YOUSHOP?

-----

----- -----

-----

MKT1 MKT2 MKT3 AMOS NL RT 3

MKT 8 MORSE OTHER

.18% 4%

-

4 24% 10%

8

15 22% 22%

5

7% 33%

1 16% 5%

-

69 25%100%

15 5% 100%

40 14% 100%

7 3% 100%

4

Sb

20% 100%

3

-~---

------

-----

-----

MKT4 MKT5 MKTb MKT7 MKT8 CLEV CLEV MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

24% 7% 12% 14%

TOTAL

-----

1 6% 14%

1 6% 20%

-

-

-

5

2% 100%

-

-

5

4 b% 31%

7% 29%

17 b% 100%

TOTAL MORETHAN 100% DUE TO MULTIPLE RESPONSE.

-53-

-

-

13 5%

100%

4 24% 7%

.TOTAL

17 100% b%

19 28% 24%

b? 100% 24%

54 20% 100%

27b 100% 100%


CLEVELAND AVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 ERE DO YOU USUALLY SHOP FOR GROCERIES? COLUMNS=Ql-WH OFTEN DO YOU SHOP AT YOURREGULARSTORE FOR GROCERYITEMS? ROWS=Q4-HOW

- - -- - -----

MKT 1 MKT2 MKT3 NL RT 3 AMOS

----- ----- -----

MKT4 MKT5 MKT6 MKT7 MKT8 CLEV CLEV MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

-----

----- ----- ------ ----- ----2 11% 22%

.1 b% 5%

-

-

-

4 5% 20%

33 12% 48%

7 3% 78%

11 4% 55%

14%

21 16% 30%

-

4 3% 20%

42 8% 100%

69. 14% .100%

9.

20 4% .100%

MORETHAN 3 TIMES PER WEEK

1 6% 1%

3 17% 3%

1 6% 2%

3 17%

2 OR 3 TIMES PER WEEK

15 21% 15%

13 18% 12%

8 11% 19%

.12 16% 17%

1 TIME PER WEEK

57 21% 56%

66 24% 61%

27 10% 64%

LESS THAN 1 TIME PER WEEK

29 22 % 28 %

26 20% 24%

b 5%

102 20% 1 00 %

108 22% 100%

TOTAL

----- -----

---- - ----- ----- ----- ------

4%

2% .100%

-54-

2 1.1% 6%

.1

6% 5%

----TOTAL

-----

4 22% 4%

.18 .100% 4%

14

73 .100% 15%

8% .19%

.1 1% 5%

],Cl%

18 7% Sb%

14 5% 67%

43 .lb% 45%

.10D.%

5% .19.%

5 4% 24%

35 27% 36%

132 .100.% 26%

32 6% ..100%

21 4% 100.%

9.6 19..% :100%

b

b

.15%

276 55%

49..9.. 10.0% .100%


CLEVELAND AVENUE EMA TELEPHONE SURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=Q1-WHEREDO YOU USUALLY SHOP FOR GROCERIES? ROWS=Q36-CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANYPEOPLE ARE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? MKT 1 MKT 2 AMOS NL

MKT 3 RT 3

MKT 4 MKT 5 CLEV CLEV

MKT 6 MKT 7 MKT 8 MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

TOTAL

ONE

1b 19% 16%

24 28% 22%

12 14% 29%

13 15% 19%

1 1% 11%

1 1% 5%

4 5% 13%

1 1% 5%

13 15% 14%

85 100% 17%

TWO

35 22% 35%

42 26% 39%

17 11% 40%

18 11% 26%

2 1% 22%

7 4% 35%

5 3% 16%

5 3% 24%

31 19% 32%

162 100% 32%

THREE/FOUR

36 22% 35%

28 17% 26%

9

6% 21%

22 14% 32%

2 1% 22%

5 3% 25%

16 10% 50%

10 6% 48%

34 21% 35%

162 100% 32%

15 17% 15%

14 16% 13%

4 4% 10%

16 18% 23%

4 4% 44%

7 8% 35%

7 8% 22%

5 6% 24%

18 20% 19%

90 100'% 18%

102 20% 100%

108 22% 100%

42 8% 100%

69 14% 100%

9

20 4% 100%

32 6% 100%

21 4% 100%

96 19% 100%

499 100% 100%

FIVE OR MORE

TOTAL

2% 100%

-55-


CLEVELAND AVENUE EMA TELEPHONE SURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=Q1-WHEREDO YOU USUALLY SHOP FOR GROCERIES? ROWS=Q37-WHATIS YOUR AGE?

----- ----- ----- ----MKT 1

MKT 2 AMOS NL

-----

-----

MKT 3 RT 3

MKT 4 CLEV

-----

----- ------

MKT 5 CLEV

MKT b

1 10% 1%

2 20% 2%

18-25

7 28% 7%

7 28% 6%

3 12% 7%

3%

-

15 21% 15%

7 10% 6%

4 6% 10%

12 17% 17%

8

36-45

46-5S

56-65

OVER 65

TOTAL

-

-----

MKT 8

MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----J, 4 1 1 40% 10% 10% 10% 6% 3% 5% 1%

LESS THAN18

26-35

MKT 7

----- -----

TOTAL

-----

10 ·100% 2%

-

-

1 4% 5%

5 20% 5%

25 100% 5%

1 1% 11%

3 4% 15%

4 6% 13%

10 14%

48%

15 21% 16%

71 100% 14%

10% 19%

9 11% 13%

3 4% 33%

2 2% '10%

9 11%

18

84

28%

4 5% 19%

21% 19%

100% 17%

17 19% 25%

3 3% 33%

5 6% 25%

2 2% 6%

4 4% 19%

24 27% 25%

90 100% 18%

b

5% 30%

10 9% 31%

-

17 15% 18%

117 100% 23%

l,

2

8%

-

-

21 25% 21%

10 12% 9%

15 17% 15%

18% 15%

4 4% 10%

26 23% 26%

31 27% 29%

10 9% 24%

15 13% 22%

2 2% 22%

17 17% 17%

35 34% 32%

13 13% 31%

10 10% 14%

-

4 4% 20%

6 6% 19%

1% 5%

16 16% 17%

102 100% 20%

102 20% 100%

108 22% 100%

42 8% 100%

69 14% 100%

9 2% 100%

20 4% 100%

32 6% 100%

21 4% 100%

96 19% 100%

499 100% 100%

16


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 E YOU USUALLYSHOP FOR GROCERIES? COLUMNS=Q1-WHERDO IS YOURINCOME? ROWS=Q38-WHAT MKT 1 MKT2 MKT 3 RT 3 NL AMOS

MKT 4 MKT5 · MKTb MKT 7 MKT 8 CLEV CLEV MOCKHUDSON MORSE OTHER

3 2% 33%

7 4% 35%

17 10% 53%

3 2% 14%

24 1lf% 25%

178 100% 36%

3 3% 15%

3 3% 9%

1 1% 5%

21 22% 22%

94 100% 19%

-

4 4% 13%

8

38%

28 29% 29%

98 100% 20%

6 7% 29%

17 20% 18%

85 100% 17%

1 5% 5%

3

14% 3%

21 100% 4%

-

2 9% 10%

3 13% 3%

23 100% 5%

32 6% 100%

21 4% 100%

96 19% 100%

499 100% 100%

UNDER$7,000

32 18% 32%

44 25% 41%

20 11% lf8%

28 16% 41%

$7,000$9,999

20 21% 20%

25 27% 23%

7 7% 17%

14 15% 20%

-

$10,000$1lf,999

21 21% 21%

1lf 1lf% 13%

6% 14%

14 1lf% 20%

3 3% 33%

$15,000$19,999

17 20% 17%

18 21% 17%

7 8% 17%

7 8% 10%

1 1% 11%

$20,000$24,999

3 14% 3%

3 14% 3%

-

-

4 19% 6%

5% 11%

14% 15%

14% 9%

$25,000$30 , 000

9 39% 9%

4 17% 4%

2 9% 5%

2 9% 3%

1 4% 11%

-

-

102 20% 100%

108 22% 100%

42 8% 100%

69 14% 100%

9 2% 100%

TOTAL

6

-

TOTAL

s

7 8% 35%

6% 16%

3

3

1

-

20 4% 100%

-57-

8%

.


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 197 9 COLUMNS=Q2-IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE YOU SHOP FOR GROCERIES ON A REGULAR BASI S? ROWS=Q36-CANYOU TELL ME HOWMANYPEOPLE ARE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD ? YES

---------

-----

NO DK/NA

TOTAL

-----

ONE

42 49% 19%

40 47% 14%

3 4% 43%

85 100% 17%

TWO

63 39% 29 %

95

59% 34%

4 3% 57%

162 100% 32%

75 46% 35%

87 54% 32%

36 40% 17%

54 60% 20%

216 43% 100%

276 55% 100%

THREE/FOUR

FIVE OR MORE TOTAL

-

-

7 1% 100%

162 100% 32% 90 100% 18% 499 100% 100%

-5 8-


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=Q2-ISTHAT THE ONLYPLACE YOU SHOP FOR GROCERIESON A REGULARBA~I~f ROWS=Q37-WHAT IS YOURAGE? YES

LESS THAN18

18-25

26-35

36-45

2

8

20% 1%

80%

10 40% 5%

15 60%

35 49% 16% 43 51% 20%

46-55

56-65

OVER 65

TOTAL

NO DK/NA

35 39% 16% 48

10 100%

3%

2% 25 100% 5%

5% 51%

71 100%

13%

14%

36

84

41 49%

100% 17%

15%

55

90

61%

100% 18%

20%

41% 22%

66 56% 24%

43 42%

54%

4 4%

20%

20%

57%

276 55% 100%

1%

216

43% 100%

TOTAL

55

3

3% 43%

7

100%

117 100% 23%

102 100% 20% 499 100% 100% -59-


CLEVELAND AVENUE EMA TELEPHONE SURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMN S=Q2-IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE YOU SHOP FOR GROCERIES ON A REGULAR BASIS? ROWS=Q38 - WHAT IS YOUR INCOME? YES

NO DK/NA

TOTAL

UNDER $7, 000

76 43% 35%

97 54% 35%

5 3% 71%

178 100% 36%

$7,000$9,999

31 33% 14%

61 65% 22%

2 2% 29%

94 100% 19%

$10,000$14,999

49 50% 23%

49 50% 18%

-

98 100% 20%

$15,000$19,999

37 44% 17%

48 56% 17%

85 100% 17%

20,00024,999

13 62% 6%

8 38% 3%

$25,000$30,000

10 43% 5%

13 57% 5%

-

TOTAL

216 43% 100%

276 55% 100%

7 1% 100%

499 100% 100%

-

21 100% 4% 23 100% 5%

-60-


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=Q4-HOW OFTEN DO YOU SHOP AT YOURREGULARSTORE FOR GROCERYITEMS? ROWS=Q36-CANYOU TELL ME HOWMANYPEOPLE ARE IN YOURHOUSEHOLD?

----- ------ ------

>3 2 OR 3 TIMES TIMES 1 TIME WEEK WEEK WEEK

-----

ONE

Tu/0

THREE/FOUR

FIVE OR MORE TOTAL

-

------ ------

<1

TIME WEEK

TOTAL

11 13% 15%

40 47% 14%

34 40% 26%

85 100% 17%

5 3% 28%

20 13% 27%

89

55% 32%

48 30% 36%

162 100% 32%

5 3% 28%

27 17% 37%

95 59% 34%

35 22% 27%

162 100% 32%

8 9% 44%

15 17% 21%

52

58% 19%

15 17% 11%

90 100% 18%

18 4% 100%

73 15% 100%

276 55% 100%

132

499 100% 100%

26% 100%


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUM NS=Q4-HOWOFTEN DO YOU SHOP AT YOURREGULARSTORE FOR GROCERYITEMS? ROWS=Q37-WHAT IS YOURAGE?

------ ----- -

-----

>3 2 OR 3 TIMES TIMES 1 TIME WEEK WEEK ldEEK ------------ --LESS THAN 18

1

10% 6% 18-25

-

-- -<1 TIME WEEK ----

----TOTAL

-----

1 10% 1%

5 50% 2%

3 30% 2%

10 100% 2%

4 16% 5%

10 40% 4%

11 44% 8%

25 100% 5%

26-35

3 4% 17%

7 10% 10%

44 62% 16%

17 24% 13%

71 100% 14%

36 - 45

3 4% 17%

15 18%

21%

44 52% 16%

22 26% 17%

84 100% 17%

46-55

5 6% 28%

15 17% 21%

49 54% 18%

21 23% 16%

90 100% 18%

56-65

3 3% 17%

17 15% 23%

69 59% 25%

28 24% 21%

117 100% 23%

OVER b5

3 3% 17%

14 14% 19%

55 54% 20%

30 29% 23%

102 100% 20%

73 276 15% 55% 100% 100%

132 26% 100%

499 100%

TOTAL

18 4% 100%

100%

-62-


CLEVELANDAVENUEEMA TELEPHONESURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=Q4-HOW OFTEN DO YOU SHOP AT YOURREGULARSTORE FOR GROCERYITEMS? ROWS=Q38-WHATIS YOURINCOME?

-----

----- - -- -- --

----

-----

-----

------ ------

----

-----

<1 >3 2 OR 3 TIMES TIMES 1 TIME TIME WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK

TOTAL

UNDER$7,000

8 5% 44%

22 13% 30%

90 51% 33%

58 32% 44%

178 100% 36%

$7,000$9 , 999

4 4% 22%

15 16% 21%

49 52% 18%

26 28% 20%

94 100% 19%

20 20% 27%

54 54% 19%

21 21% 16%

98 100% 20%

11 13% 15%

53 62% 19%

18 21% 14%

85 100% 17%

-

1 5% 1%

17 81% 6%

3 14% 2%

21 100% 4%

-

-

4 17% 5%

13 57% 5%

6 26% 5%

23 100% 5%

18 4% 100%

73 15% 100%

276 55% 100%

132 26% 100%

499 100% 100%

$10 , 000$1 4, 999 $15,0 00 $19, 999 $20,00 0$24,999 $25,000$30,000

TOTAL

3

3% 17% 3

4% 17%

-63-


CLEVELAND AVENUE EMA TELEPHONE SURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=QS-AT WHICH DRUG STORE DO YOU USUALLY SHOP? ROWS=Qb-WHY DO YOU USUALLY SHOP AT THAT DRUG STORE? DRUG 1 DRUG 2 DRUG 3 DRUG 4 DRUG 5 DRUG 7 CLEV NL AMOS NL LINDEN· NL

OTHER

DK/NA

TOTAL

23 18% 19%

16 12% 28%

16 12% 28%

30 23% 52%

3 2% 9%

9 7% 60%

31 24% 23%

1 1% 4%

129 100% 26%

CLOSE

63 39% 52%

13 8% 22%

17 11% 30%

13 8% 22%

15 9% 45%

1 1% 7%

36 23% 27%

2

1% 8%

160 100% 32%

CONV

20

8

10 13% 18%

7 9% 12%

11 14% 33%

2

3% 13%

19 25% 14%

4 20% 7%

1 5% 2%

1 5% 3%

-

6 30% 5%

b

3 4% 9%

3 4% 20%

33 43% 25% 7 19% 5%

21 57% 88%

37 100% 7%

132 26% 100%

24 5% 100%

499 100% 100%

PRICE

26% 16%

10% 14%

VARTY

2 10% 2%

6

30% 10%

OTHER

13 17% 11%

12 16% 21%

8% 11%

6 8% 10%

DK/NA

1 3% 1%

3 8% 5%

4 11% 7%

1 3% 2%

-

-

-

122 24% 100%

58 12% 100%

57 11% 100%

58 12% 100%

33 7% 100%

15 3% 100%

TOTAL

-

-64-

-

77 100% 15% 20 100% 4% 76 100% 15%


I l Vl I AND AVl NUL: [MA Tl l L PHONL URVLY AP1~1L 1'-179

l LINN

'fHL NL ANYTlllNG ABOUT THAT DRUG STORE THAT YOU DISLIKE?

----TOTAL

-----

4 19 84,0 %

N

PRI

2 1) 4,0 %

C

LO ATION

3 1,0 %

SERVICE

7 1,0%

OTHER

20 4,0%

DK/NA

30 6-0 %

TOTAL

499 100,0 %

- bS-


CLEVELAND AVENUE EMA TELEPHONE SURVEY APRIL 1979 COLUMNS=QS-AT WHICH DRUG STORE DO YOU USUALLY SHOP? ROWS=Q8-DO YOU HAVE YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS FILLED AT THAT STORE? DRUG 1 DRUG 2 DRUG 3 DRUG 4 DRUG 5 DRUG 7 CLEV NL AMOS NL LINDEN · NL

OTHER DK/NA

TOTAL

YES

102 26% 84%

47 12% 81%

46 12% 81%

48 12% 83%

28 7% 85%

11 3% 73%

110 28% 83%

3 1% 13%

395 100% 79%

NO

18 25% 15%

8 11% 14%

6 8% 11%

9 13% 16%

3 4% 9%

3 4% 20%

18 25% 14%

7 10% 29%

72 100% 14%

2 6% 2%

3

5 16% 9%

1 3% 2%

2 6% 6%

1 3% 7%

4

9% 5%

13% 3%

14 44% 58%

30 100% 6%

122 24% 100%

58 12% 100%

57 11% 100%

58 12% 100%

33 7% 100%

15 3% 100%

132 26% 100%

24 5% 100%

499 100% 100%

DK/NA

TOTAL

-66-


Vl l I.

SURVEY OF s¡runv l\Hl-:A BUSJ NESSJ-:S A.

LOCAL BUSI~S The survey to

of

businesses

facilitate

development

Cleveland

Avenue the

number

problems

associated

methods

or clientele

from

utilized

conducting

defined

of

initial

Inventory

in

contac

were

during

or proprietor the

of these

concerns

the

of study

attract

s h oppers

Area , and

, and / or

was

listed

in

the An attempt

Avenue. nine

businesses

were

at

when

of

the

a time

A business

consultants

card call

an d a ca llba c k attempted. remaining

Wholesale,

by a more they

ie s

area .

However,

c o ntacted

the

fac ilit

An additional

s se s sur v e y ed were

in which

coverage

contact.

All

business

to

v e Market

a n d se rvi ces

at

i. e . Retai l,

of

ea ch a tt e mpted

nature

all

with

in

goods , services

conducted

stratified

Effecti

was una v ai l a bl e .

concerning

rapport

identification

wees

t ever y listing.

businesses

format

points

of Busi n e ss e s elav e land

was made to

an open

business

intervie

t h e su b ject

71 businesses

closed

working

of employees,

by the

the

with

The mandatory

type

with

lacking

A total

busine

a good

of potential or

sixteen

of

and

utilized

identification

conducted

businesses.

included

area,

was

the and

was

owner message

left

at

Interviews

each

were

bu s inesses. categorized

Service, sp ec ific are

-183-

by general

Construction, identification

engaged.

etc. of

the

areas, then type

of

-


g,noral,

ln

cat,qorics

Ar a include

rehail,

construction, are

no financial of

In

stratification

the

~allowing

ceries all

It

Fast

food

the

o f the

used,

total the

total

note

study

Study

58%;

that

and

there

area,

nor

identification the

retail

retail

any

, exhaust

category,

and

businesses,

e dealers

list

food

26% of

7% of

carry-outs 10% of

retai

also

gro-

and

and

15% of

"other,"

the

yields

businesses,

carry-outs,

and

retail

restaurants

automobil

total,

to the

Within

18% of

Beverage

the

2%; service

specific

for

26% of

in

size.

breakdown.

b u sinesses.

o f t he

in

by more

for

localed

significant

substantial

businesses.

a nd 6 % of

is

institutions

accounted

account

businesses

38%; wholesale,

1%.

employers

of

l and

15 % of retail

of businesses

all 6%

retail

and

1 0%

classifie

d as

r e ta il. The s e rvice

category

c l as sifications, a nd 8% of all 37 % o f all serv ices, and p rivate the

tota l;

includes

laundry

and

12% of service social and o ther

yielded study

pertaining the

area

following employed

auto

service

and

7% of

the

including

all

not

and

number The

approximately

-184-

profes

limited

type

largest

. sixty

ga s stations, sional public

service

1 4% of and

s e rvice

businesses;

12% of

but

results.

15% of

businesses;

also

service

spec i fic

cleaners,

all

including

to

following

21% of

agencies,

and beau ti c i ans , 24 % of Questions

and dry

businesses;

service

the

a n d 7% of to

the

of

barbers

total.

employees

business

persons,

while

in

the several


businesses

were

owner-operated.

employees

per

respondent

employees

worked

was

Approximately

8.5.

on a part-time

inquiry

concerning

associated a wide

with range

the

of

problem

"theft,"

including

shoplifting

problem of

response

responses.

study

area

problems yielded

rate

and

respondents

breaking

associated

a

with

this

nd

The problem

response

respondents

indicated

entering.

"theft"

magnitude rate

was

was

for

2

was the

0% of

all

problem

"vandalism"

18%.

A total

of

9% of

encountered "Economic each

of

e

by the

related

Approaching

"vandalism."

was

all

responses.

prevalent

problem

P h

. int

business

The most

The

erceptions

respondents

conducting

of

11%

of

basis. '

The

number

d mean calcU l a t e

The

in

conducting

condition"

accounted

for

deterioration" "neglected responses. community difficulty understanding

of street Other and/or in

7% of

and

the

are

area,

total

individual

problems

business with

Area,

problem

and

for were,

among ¡ insurance, ¡ existing

ar ea

and

4% of the

"trash" "General

response.

automobiles"

accounted

pride

complying

Market

"abandoned each

noteworthy

I

Effective

the

repair"

obtaining

no problems

business.

in

the

that

all

lack

problem of

resi 'd ents, difficulty

building

I

a in

codes,

I j

and

I -185-


h

P 1

pt1on

white

business

Th

tinal

the

methods

of

residents

first

s ol e ly

first

the

the

Effective to

.

A full

concern

n to

Mar ket

attra

and chain indicate

store

, and

r el i ance

22% of

the

re li ed s ol e ly on reputation.

Yellow

page

h ea v il y u tiliz

group,

wi t h 11 % o f total

respondents used

post

cards

sales It

employing

b y only

by business

used

Gener al

in daily

be noted

that

the

l i sting

Other

s we re

and

flyer

also

s were

met ho d s e mploye d

in cluded

sendin

neigh borhood

newsp a pers, 9% of

re s po ndents

Handbills

s.

fir s t group

and

g informati

new spaper, radio

al l respondents

onal

pro moting

advertis

in g.

re plied

th at

e s , the

managers

they

ing .

seco nd grou p , f ranchises

indicated by the

city's

vehi cl e.

respondent

, advertising

no ad vertis

In the

the

first

this

6% of all

e s in

i n the

should

e d by the

two

oper ations.

d a heavy t otal

It

in to

o perations

ed

ct

Area.

thi s qu estion

single-owned

responses

l resentment

s s survey

businessme

franchise

group,

a racia

area.

busine

respondents

larger

on repu t ation

the area

small

of

study

in

in

being

s econ d being

Among the

in

by study

to p a rtition

gro up s , the

businessman

coverage

utilized from

useful

the

owners

point

atronage is

by one white

a hea vy reliance

and

on mass

chain d' me ia

stor

d a ver t i sing

i nitiated

fr a nchi s e s or home offices. te lev is i o n

res p ondents,

while

d t¡ ¡ a ver ising g

enera

l

by 16% of all

wa s utilized

radio

adverti

- 186-

s ing

was

utilized

by 12%.


/ ,rJf/JM/ /1 '/

CJl•

HW, 1111':t/,

, 1,1,

/Ll,hfllJ

/ /J.JIIJL

,.,,, ,,,, , 1 ,,~1.111uu:, I 'J / 'J

lllJMHLl'

I, l ·,J1 (,hl

,,

·1'f,

J.!.

l {J,;'l 'A I l,

GH0C JW I IW J•'/\LJ'l' FOOU

·;

J ()'f,

UJWlWACl~ CAJIUY-0U'I'

4

6'1,

AU' l'O lJE / \LI-!HS

4

6i

OTHEHS

1

] () 't

27

38 i

SEHVICF-;

L/~UlWPY

le IJRY CLg/iNEHG

/-iUTO SERVICE

6

si

J5

2 1ft

PPOFES~IOH / d, SEi'V 1CJ~

5

7%

SOCIAL SEl V ICE

5

7i

1

OTHEH&

JO

14 't

WHOLES / ~LE

2

3i

COUS 'l'HUCTI OU

]

TOTAL

-1 87-

I 41

58 %

22

3%

I

I

1i l

1%

71

100 %

J


I

B.

MARKET INFLUENTIALS Interviews (both and

conducted

in

the

of

throughout

market

by the

financing

to

community

the

as well

investment to

was also

discovered

the

favorable

study as

at

relating

leaders

covered

relating

new business

business

city)

influentials

information

business

and

the

factors

market

for

Additional the

EMA and

un favorable

perceived

among community

the

area

availability

reasonable

environmental

terms.

factors

during

as

surrounding

this

phase

of

interviewing. The results the

of

major

franchise

business

volume

vandalis~ Through the

interviews

interviews major

proximity

indicated no plans

to

that

even

move any

in

spite

in

the

ns of

of

some of

indicated

tha t

shoplifting,

though inner

in

ict

the

neighborhood

schools.

this

fact d at

r proximity grocery there city

-188-

were other to

office

subject

problem

experience

same

distr

significant

with

simila this

operatio

operating

only

facility

with

with

to

chain

the

problems

area

A spokesman

personnel

associated

than

store

manag ers

problems.

grocery that

with

favorable

with

of the

problems

Columbus

chain

and pilferage

only

greater

and

remains

was determined

the

conducted

was

of area,

the

it close

However,

indicated facilitie

to s in

be no the

schools.

chain's currently "neighborhood"

real

estat

{April/Jun store,

e department e 1979)

are

these

stores


di

t

t

I

111 I

11'1

111111I

llt I

IV

I h.i I

I l11

l\lt>Vt

I

I1

I

XI I

II I

w I I Ii 1111

I

l, I I

I"'· I.

wltl1 d

di

1, l,·t

Id<

l Iity

hc11

I 11Cli e l It C)11,,,

I CJC'ol I

to

"movi

11111ch.indiuin<J C..:dt

of

1111. II I udy

wit!,

,..;h,H JH ,"

.ring

o

lhc•ro

,1llhou<Jh

tl1o1l

•xp,wd 1nu

ifon•mt•11tion

th

ol

11<J

in

tJ

one•

l

lo

•d utor<•

t.hc>i

purlieu

h • c.. thn1c

Spok(•t:J11un for

al)

ln cJicd

bu1:Jnc•uo

,_ th<1

fJO

II

int

All

buuJn•

'l'h

P,a ·k

lllc!jor

1.h · rnt.JrkcL

in

f t.1i l

f ood

loo

t1

n•,

I 11d1CM t ion

I

to

r.Jr.(Ji..l ind i ca'lt!d while

that

luking

probl <.!ms such

as

prcljm.i.nary

wcro

those

plans

are

I I

no w

u 111c;,_.. h<'

Wd U

hd

t

•v,~lur.11,,cJ by

ahoulc.J

d Jn th

lnd 1c..:, ll <·d

tlJt .:

1

jn

Lw riot l'cl

sub),•o

l

t bt1l

c.1r. 1 ,1,

lh tt l

the

i;;

Lore

up o n l

not

1 U'J

s tudy

were f or

conduct

ov•ru ll c conomic

<.:u , r.1•va rd Luss J\t

th e e d.

condi ti ons.

o ( location,

l e a s L one

are

,

inst i tuti0

1

d

1 CJOod c l i o n Ls i n the

h<· l'.'G.:

t1

r:o

mark et

no f i nclnc ia l .i.ns ti tution

th< ro "1ny within

t

a rea

U PVP

d

l

ar e a

h as move d to

fun d ing

wn<' <,ri t.<.!r'.'iu.

llt1vt • dt ,~ I l with

t h«·y

I

t i rnt• whc_,rn l n LP rv i c ws

I I hu u i n('S

at

wi Lh a mj n ima.1 amount

l c•

001 11.:.incJ •n l II

tha t t h e

a.rca .

opc•rations

Wt.JU f tJvorub

1t H O i u tJVt1il ,Jblc • ,

c.J hat

l•d

alert!

drug

f1.1ci l j t:y waa aimed

J ar.

rt-1d1·

f inun c;L J i n at. i u li orw

•us •n lully nut

IOt.Jjor

.i

i ndicate

mun,HJC:n.l

One• Ot!k 1u nd

1ndi c,i

Il l .

tli11HIU

Uulh

cl i JI

I

"liv1

to

w1

'l

o 1,por t11n f 1 y"

11fl' /

th<• mCJrc• p ,,u o i n<J

,

I ,ttHJ

"'

,o,ir,,I

i,;;, • p1•

lltiV

ll

JI'

i I w,

111 ()ti.

u lli

1,o1111lcl

t ,II

11dVt1ll

'I'. r

I tJ

nf

I /11' i".',

J•'I I

"we,11

y

',,,,,·t•Jil

,•11t111d

I VI

Il l

'l1 V lo111d Av, 1 11111

Ill

111, l'lllllJlolny

ti

I ti

II

h.i I 11 h,\V I IIIJ

chi

I.

1llllptl

1vltw1

tnt, l

1

l

I

close

s

I

l


The nearest

proximily. three-quarters

of

financial

a mile

is approximately

institution

north

of

the

northern

study

area

bound-

ary. An interview social

was

service

underlying for

also

agency

social

It

youth

were

among

was

Joyce

'' very

and

the

that

po or."

feelings

from

the

e nts

All

pos i tive is

outside

principals

the

to

the

Major

are

, high

that

in

related

the

the for

area

concerning

in

and recent

of

area

apathy.

employers

are

in

short

supply

a deterioration

-190-

which

the of

for

Stephen's

though

its

funding.

mentioned

failure

in

need

They

opportunities

annually

years

revealed

St.

by limited

property,

tone

noted

even

problems

the

also

a definite that

few recreational

school

crime,

is

area,

mobility

of

schools

there

overall

merely

need

i nclud i ng recreation

indicated

Other

50% student

organizations

interviewed

z i ng the

oper ating

were

services

neutralized

school.

vandalism

streets

business

there

the

enforcement,

ss e d the

opp o r tunities

n e ighborhood

in

somewhat

were

He stre

agencies

principals

influence

indicated

youth

in

respond

services.

effectiveness

o f a major

Ave nu es . of

further

area , emphasi

Ho wever , plans

principals

a very

the

recreational

with

is

director

area .

o f a ca mp u s of 17th

the

subject

various

Meetings

social

with

in

the

indicated

th e con s truction at

in

problems

coordination

area.

conducted

for

by the

, lack

of

zoning

poor

lighting,

trash

of

many civic

and

may contribute

area. the

However, study

area.

those No


ated

indi

tment 011m1i In

summary,

within

the

conditions,

presentsa

the

area

in

i n dicate

area

a n d EMA.

study

i n t h e p a st

there

many of

is

t he area

larg e initial

they

which

respondents

attempts

cessful

among

to

located

were

n of

a recognitio

. p r oblems unsuc-

However , d u e t o several

Lo o rga n ize

a noti c e a ble businessmen barri

a social

felt

companies

respective

the

that

Al l

ws.

inLervie

d during

reveal

w re

r problems

turth

e r to

-191-

attitude and

a nd of residents.

revitalization.

f a ce

the

prevailing

disillusionment This,

then,


C.

Physical

Analysis

A survey

of

conducted

all

to

existing

determine

alternative

use

of

were

available

by location,

of its

structures

determine

accessibility

and

survey,

to

commercial

commercial

strip.

amount

surveyed

of

to

parking

needs

Vacant

parking

determine

commercial

for

space

and

The parking

the

was

potential

condition

spaces.

safety

buildings and

the

overall

were

parking

vacant

Avenue

present

off-street

From this

to

and

marketability

Cleveland

surveyed

commercial on and

current

the

buildings

All

commercial

the was

.

numbe r

judged

est abli

on

s hment .

by location

ca n be

established. There

were

imately

14,425

store

front

a former

square

feet

square

body

sites

feet

with

vacant

.

repair

feet

rated

eleven

former

and

one

found

one

be put facilit

y)

to

containing sites,

and

stations,

were

were one

care

was

center.

approximately

be available

Approximately use

appr ox -

six

was a day

to

inve st me nts.

could

gas

on condition were

capital

(in

were

shop,

(4 facilities)

minimal

facilities

Of these

three

were

(6 facilities)

375 square

c ommercial

feet.

locations,

auto

The eleven

use

eleven

with

some

found

in

2,050 for

immediate

12,000

square

renovation

and

a dilapidated

condition,

Existi

ng commercial

establishments

street

and off-street

parking

businesses

had

6 or

less

were and

off-street

-192-

it

surveyed

was k' paring

established spaces,

for

available that 71% of

on-

51% of all

all


t I \\

1

,

l \l'

\ }

l \ \

~" m

l l.

n

1

t

•\

t

.

r i ·

was

\ \!

r

w s found c

ssibilily

in.die

ls

don

thdt

h ours

of

n o sp

y was

b e safe

7 AM to

par k i ng was

also

j ud ge d on

acce ssibility

ac c e ss

parking

being

d e sir e able

rating

is

not

al ways

for

the

patro

a v aila

ns .

-193-

bl e and

of

the

could area. most

rating. had

4.1.

s are if

and

from

Cleve l a nd Av e nu e businesses

3. 1 a nd a s afe ty

I

area s e x ist.

i n th e immediate

t h e l eas t

'

ng

s urv e y e d,

j ud ge d on ho w sa f e ly

an d " 5 " b e ing

P ar ki~ ,

9 AM and

runni

not

ci f ie d pa r king

wa s un a vailable

o v er all

- i

on a nd off-

nd Av e nue.

d i n t h e al l e ys

wh i l e Cl e v e la n d Av e nu e bu si n esse

d Cce ss i bl e , par king i t may not

on Clevela

a s c a l e f ro m 1-5 , wit h "l"

r ti n g of that

6 combined

w s j u dg d o n e as e of Saf

r ting

hu

'l'h is

n g was

parking

jud

..ibl

u :n:

and

pdrki

~'billty v nu

I

1·k in

·s

han

1 ,

available

I

m

1 ind Av 'nu --.

u·jn

k in c spaces

i I ll t , •

t lJ t kin,

" u ,.,. r \HU m1

i

'l'h

\

d

t

'

,l

!

th\'

\ 1

1

' l

n : t,

t

l

!

m

l \\\

,.ll

an This

fairly it

is

availab

le ,


OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES PER FACILITY 50 or

PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE

PARKING SPACES NUMBER PERCENT

more

FACILITIES NUMBER PERCENT

159

24.9%

2

3.9%

40 -

49

40

6.3%

1

2.0%

30 -

39

60

9.4%

2

3.9%

20 -

29

121

19.0%

5

9.8%

15 -

19

50

7.8%

3

5.9%

10 -

14

91

14.3 %

8

15.7%

7 -

9

24

3.8%

3

5.9%

3 -

6

87

13.6%

18

35.3%

1 -

3

6

0.9%

3

5.9%

6

11.8%

51

100.0%

None 638

TOTAL

-194-

100.0%


SURVEY OF VACANT BUILDINGS *Condition may be required renovation - substantial A=Dilapidated may be required B=Some renovation may be required C=Minimal renovation ADDRESS

SQUARE FT.

TYPE USE

PARKING

COMMENTS

B

None on street in alley 3 behind

of 11th and On N.W. corner can be divided Cleveland; stores into 3 retail

A

on 6 cars parking - 3 on-street site

Boarded up gas of 12th corner Adjacent Shop

*CONDITION

1406 1408

100x70

1501

25xl5

1546

25x30

Possible retail, service retail

B

Vacant 2 on-street to site lot adjacent could be used for parking

20xl5

Retail

C

2 on-street creation Possible in rear of parking alley

40x30

Retail

B

2 on-street

or

B

6-8

or Retail Commercial

B

15 cars

or

B

6-8

1559

Retail Service

1691 1758

Retail

30x75

Retail Service

1905

cars

cars

In

to En and Out Body

line

of

4

S.E . corner on site on site on site

s.w. station and Cleveland

stores

17th

of

and Clev,

N.W. station and Cleveland

Boarded corner

up gas of 17th

Former garage

body shop--has space

Boarded corner

up gas of 23rd

s.w. station and Cleveland

-195-

- ----

....

-------···

SURVEY OF VACANT BUILDINGS CONTINUED ADDRESS

SQUARE FT.

TYPE USE

2028

20x20

Possible Retail could be converted to residence

2079

25x30

2163

20x30

PARKING

COMMENTS

C

None on site 3 on-street

Former

Retail

C

20 cars

Retail

C

2 on -street 3 in rear on alley

*CONDITION

-196-

on site

day care

center

Sanders Former Colonel Moved outlet Chicken to Oakland Park and Cleveland In

line

of

3 stores


61Jf"ll,'I

0J'

/1 I, Mii

(;t,W~TI•

ts•ll,I

• t,rJJ

v r11va

••11,1

l,IJ/W,

'/t1

l II'/ I 'i 11,,, 11111111!1,

1

111I

t

'11

I

iif.

,,

1474 14&5

,'I'

t

I

r

t,1

vYI

I

fl

I

,,,

t,1

I

I,

f

•,

/

I,

/

1 ::

/

,,

1494

/ 1 //

/•11

#-,

t)t/-',Tl•I,

I

li!Jt/

,'

,,

l8'

I

I .l,t

'".,

f

; I" /f!!J•I"!.

1

I

-.r, 0

1547

1550

0

I:

155£:

3

,,

..,

()

ee,: l .,..,..,

,:

I,

I I

.,,,

4

l,t

,1'/

I ; ,-f ;,

1

I,

'/

570

.,.,

rr

10

,I•~ ,r,~

~ ~

.,__,,_,t"'.E:s t

rI

() (j

'TF.2E1'

(,,

t 5f7

-:'1££":

!,

~

, ;

r,

,;.

ni

4

""W.::Z".::.,J..:r..11 I I

~

~

:I

27

,t

'

,.4

...

,t

~

(J

$

Ll

?

1

" "

1

,t l,

~~~

-~ L

-~-:£ . }; 1 ,;

~

.L

1;

' ,.

£

-~~,,

'

-~ U.

b

,,

,t

2

,t

,t

;:

";:

"

"

:I

"

"

7

-~~ I,.,. :, ; ,

" ~

- 7t.t.

~z.c

'l

.,, },~{

,!'

_1,

/

4

u::

-~-_7_ -

_./.,.1; I

,h '., I,+

'U

V,

.

.


SURVEY 0 I.COP. ,6"

' 'ft1 1DP. l'rtl CCJJ1MEkC1 I.I. HU] 1.r.;1111

I.!, , r,

-i11,

,wr ,,, 1-rtt ,, ,,

I,, £7"{

• cm

-f,,TRl,P.T

1937 1939 1941 1943

10

I,,

1958

8

5

1966

l

::

1975

I t,f

f.:t,'P.'11!1,I T, NIP. IJ, ' 1,,1'1 HIIJE!J

(;I.ill.JI., .'I',

1,.,t • ·, r·,in·J

C0r, 1<•n hf,.+ i,,>1,dt,'-J ,.,f :i&t'JJ'(A '

7

] 1,.,

;,

"Jr; r,;r.,r ,., r

:;,

:;,

r•,,r

l 04

J

1

r.,.,1f.1l',rr.,aT.1'b+ JJ,J r'Y.i r,'J

'diJ.~iJ

I/

Drl.l')

~t,.1r<•

1977

l!i

1986

3

4

;

3

1996

2

.:

2

5

2005

0

17

2

2

P'~S

2043

3

6

l

2

Pun~r<>l

.i'VA'C:!: r,.,r,i:cr.-r:n<~r

2052

9

25

?.

1

.V.<•(lL,::al

c<?nt<.lr with

2055

0

30

2

1

Fast

2078

0

6

3

2

2096 2100 2102

6

4

~

5

2091

0

10

3

3

2093

4

2

l

3

Dri·,e-thru

2110

6

23

2

l

Past

-1%-

Si:.?.VEY L...>P.ESS

or co '.J{Zf'.CIJ..L

TO IDE'?,TIF"i

ElJILD1t,GS

• ()!:-STP.EET

.,

OFF--S'.:'P.EET

..,ACCESSIBILITY

f<,,;,,;.

own parJ,-1ng le

r~staur;,int

parHng

Only off-stre(?t r-::ar all~y

in

food

fast

food restaurant

PhPYl':G

•z1-.FETI

01

CLE"/ELA!W AVE!IUE CO?:TWUED

C01.,JI.El;7's

4

4

3

4

2Hf:

~

2

3

4

Law offices

214~

0

.1.3

2

1

I>arr.

2-UI

0

a

2

3

2-65

,:

f,

4

3

2172

,:

1(,

l

2

2171;;

6

~

4

4

2215

3

5

4

4 2

,i

22..:2 2274

0

10

3

i

22<i0

0

4

3

2

3.1

,4.l

adjac

ng lot

O!f-9tr

lot

226',

-200-

r<,at<1urant

fr/,d

11 II II II II II II

OU J..;,u OFF-S7?.EET

.I-~

{

1

r,-:.ar <.111<,'./

off

~13!

2217

Jr l',.1f

r,-~r;,:ir, J

th<lrl .,,,,,.r;u;;tc

t parJdng

on alley

n

n

Slllbll

Used c:a.c lo

Off-stree

parl'.i119

12--car

parJdng

eerving

2260

lot

n r ar acroes

Yohr St.

Commercial Support Analysis, Linden Area 1979  

A Commercial Support Analysis of the Linden Area of Cleveland Avenue in 1979

Commercial Support Analysis, Linden Area 1979  

A Commercial Support Analysis of the Linden Area of Cleveland Avenue in 1979

Advertisement