BeWell University District Report: A Look at Quality, Values & Culture

NOVEMBER, 2022

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We greatly acknowledge the important contributions of the University District Organization, the University Area Commission, and the Neighborhood Design Center. We also greatly appreciate the support and work from the advisory committee Thank you to all our survey respondents for their answers, their insights, and their passionate discourse. Thank you to the participants in our guided discussions and focus groups for the valuable experiences and reflections.

PREPARED FOR University District Organization Spring 2022

ADVISORY GROUP Sharon Austin, Iuka Ravine Association Martin Butler, Executive Director of Neighborhood Services, Inc.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT ORGANIZATION

Dilnavaz Cama, Off-Campus and Commuter Student Engagement

Ellen Moore Griffin, President

Pasquale Grado, University Area Commission

Nora Gerber, Executive Director

Justice Harley, MOZAIC, Equitas Health

Jina Yu, Intern (guided discussion and focus groups qualitative data visualization)

Susan Keeny, NECKO Neighborhood

UNIVERSITY AREA COMMISSION Doreen Uhas-Sauer, President

PLANING TEAM Isabela Gould, Executive Director Kerry Reeds, Director, Urban Design & Planning Juliana Silveira, Senior Planner Carlos Iniguez, Planning Intern

2

Michael Kehlmeier, Dennison Place Civic Association Lanton Lee, University Kiwanis Club Paul Newkirk, Northwood Park, University Community Association board member Pastor Robey, 7th Avenue Community Missionary Baptist Church Karl Stevens, St. Stephens Episcopal Church, OSU Faith Council

Table of Contents SECTION 1

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 2

6 UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

7

Who Lives in the District

7

SECTION 3

12 WHAT WE LEARNED

13

Process & Schedule

13

Survey Results

16

Guided Discussion

34

Focus Groups

36

SECTION 4

38 PATHWAY TO ALL BE WELL

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

5

39 3

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary How do you define quality of life? Housing options and affordability?

Easy and safe access to places? Shared community gathering spaces? Mix and diversity of retail and services? Strong sense of community and neighborliness? Quality Schools? Feeling of safety?

Old North

DISTRICT 2

SoHud

Patterson Ave

Northwood Parkway

IV E R

iuka Ravine

16th Ave

The Ohio State University

NECKO

Peach District District

DISTRICT 4

RACKS

OLENT ANGY R

Indianola Indianola Forest

Woodruff Ave

A IL R OA D T

DISTRICT 1

C O N R A IL R

Turtle Turtle Park

Indianola Ave

The focus area of this survey was the University District bounded by 5th Avenue on the south, the Olentangy River on the west, the Glen Echo Ravine on the north, and the railroad tracks on the east. The area includes 13 neighborhoods and is home to The Ohio State University.

Glen Echo

Arcadia Ave

t High S

The University District Organization (UDO) together with the University Area Commission (UAC) conducted a community survey to learn what quality of life means for residents and visitors of the University District.

GLEN ECHO RAVINE

Indianola Indianola Terrace

DISTRICT 3 Weinland Park

Dennison Place Place && the Circles Circles 5th Ave

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT is a collection of 13 neighborhoods & home to The Ohio State University.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

5

Quality of Life in the University District

Housing

C o mm u

ighborhood

s

ni

ity un

Servi

afety ty S

ce

Ne

sportatio n

There is an understanding that they don’t work in isolation but rather in conjunction with each other, as illustrated in the top right diagram. In the same way, addressing issues related to any of these themes positively impact and help address the others, as illustrated in the bottom left diagram.

M o b i li t y & T

enities Am

n ra

The planning team structured the conversation with the community around six main themes as they influence and impact the quality of life: Housing, Mobility & Transportation, Community Safety, Community Character & Life, Community Services, and Neighborhood Amenities.

Co m

Co m

nity Cha mu r

te ac

m

r & Life

Housing

M o b i li t y & T n ra

ighborhood

enities Am

ni

ity un

Servi

afety ty S

ce

Ne

sportatio n C o mm u

s

Co m

nity Cha mu r

te ac

Co m

m

r & Life

6 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Within this structure and the critical support of the advisory group, community sentiment was gathered through a three-part approach: an online survey, a series of guided discussions, and four focus groups. While the almost five hundred survey respondents provided mostly tallied answers, the guided discussions and focus groups allowed more in-depth conversations.

The ten key takeaways summarize the high-level results and reflect the combined articulation of the community’s sentiment. Each statement captures a multitude of overlapping comments from the need to provide opportunities to connect, policy changes, as well as, physical improvements. They are presented on the following page in no particular order and will serve as a framework to inform and be further refined in a separate strategic plan.

10 Key Takeaways Embrace diversity and bridge cultural and social gaps in the district

Strengthen the sense of belonging and welcoming, including short-term residents

Create opportunities for neighbors to meet and engage in the community

Provide a suite of resources and development tools to homeowners and invested property owners

Work with landowners and developers to preserve architecture character and uniqueness of the many neighborhoods in the district

Provide the necessary infrastructure to strengthen walkability and pedestrian safety

Identify areas and work with community partners to address cleanliness and noise

Provide and connect the community to gathering and other recreational opportunities

Attract and retain local shops and services geared towards the diverse audience in the University District

Implement a holistic approach to community safety

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

7

SECTION 2 AT A GLANCE

Who lives in the University District

AD2 Patterson Ave

OSU

AC KS

16th Ave

IL ROAD TR

AD1

Woodruff Ave

CO NR AI L RA

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Arcadia Ave Indianola Ave

Columbus’ University District is one of the city’s most recognizable and visited communities. The district is characterized by the commonly attributed

GLEN ECHO RAVINE

t High S

Often, many Columbus residents believe that the University District is eponymous, comprised predominantly of university students and staff. A deeper look into the numbers reveals a more diverse community. This study analyzed the demographic data for the entire University District which contains four Area Districts: Area District 1 (Northeast AD1 Glen Echo/Iuka Ravine), Area District 2 (Northwest AD2 Tuttle Park and Old North), Area District 3 (Southeast AD3 Indianola/ Weinland Park), and Area District 4 (Southwest AD4 Dennison Place/Peach District) - see diagram on bottom right, not including campus. While specific trends apply across the entire University District, there are several unique qualities of each Area District. The term “district” is used to correspond to geographic quadrants of the University District with approximately the same population numbers, and each of these areas elect neighborhood representatives to serve on the University Area Commission. Many diverse neighborhoods (with different names) can be found within each “district.”

Basic demographics(2) do suggest that many students occupy this area—a median age of 22.4(2), per capita income of $23,766, 64% of the population between the ages of 15-24, and renters occupying 78.3% of all housing units. Low ages and low wages indeed suggest that students are the principal residents within the District.

IV E R

From college students and young professionals to longterm renters, longtime homeowners, and community patrons, the University District is home to a diverse collection of Columbus residents. This includes retired Battelle and OSU staff, especially those who are in single households and/or want to live close to university to take advantage of free tuition “Over 60” programs or cultural events.

demographics of a student population—lower median incomes and younger median ages from a rent-heavy market. According to population forecasts from Esri using Census data, there are a total of 35,899 residents in the University District living in 15,923 households (36% oneperson, 17% family, and 46% non-family households), and an average 2.13 persons per household compared to 2.39 in Columbus. As a reference, the City of Dublin has 49,328 residents in 16,819 households, while Upper Arlington has 36,800 residents in 13,627 households.

O LE N T ANGY R

This section gives a brief overview of the University District demographics. These results help to illustrate and better understand who lives in the district and their perception of this area. The primary tool for collecting socio-economic and demographic data is ESRI Business Analyst (2022), which relies on user-generated overlays and groupings of Census Tract geographies.

AD3 AD4 5th Ave

AREA DISTRICTS according to the University Area Commission (UAC).

9

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Yet, there are sizable populations apart from the students. 10.5% of the housing units in the University District are owner-occupied. There are 2,764 families in the University District, with an average family size of 2.55 persons. Families are especially abundant in AD3, where 14.6% of the population is under 18 years old.

These numbers still fall short of the rest of the city, where 22.3% of the population is under the age of 18. Still, AD3 has the highest school-age population percentage in the entire University District. While 10.4% of Columbus’ population is above 65 years old, only 2.5% of the University District falls into this category.

BY THE #’S

35,899 Population1

The University District is home to 973 businesses, almost entirely in the service sector (94%) concentrated between education institutions and libraries (43.3%) and health (21%). OSU alone registered 62,000 students enrolled and 39,000 full-time employees (2021-22). The daytime population increases to 66,215, with 25,231 residents staying within the District, indicating a substantial daily influx of people into the District.

15,923 Households1

How does the University District’s racial composition compare to the City of Columbus? 73.6% of University District residents are White, while 10.3% are Black.

The Esri Diversity Index, which measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different racial or ethnic group, is 49.3. According to new data from the 2020 US Census, 57.4% of Columbus residents are White, while 29.2% are Black. The District is home to a larger proportion of Asian residents within its population (10.8%) than the city as a whole (5.9%).

2.13

Avg. Household Size1

47%

The University District has divergent housing market characteristics depending on location in the neighborhood. One of the main concerns for the University District, both through this report and anecdotally, is housing affordability. As a regional housing shortage begins to influence the area, concerns about being priced out are more prevalent for old and new residents. Two metrics shed light on these concerns: Housing Affordability Index (HAI) and Wealth Index (WI). The HAI measures the ability of a typical resident to purchase an existing home in an area, while the WI is compiled from a number of indicators of affluence including average household income and average net worth. The University District (not includign campus) performs lower than the national average: 45% lower HAI and 71% lower WI. Within the District, 41% of income is spent on mortgages, over the 30% line that suggests a mortgage or rent burden. Anything above 30% indicates a risk of foreclosure and not making payments, a rule of thumb for the mortgage industry.

Living in nonfamily households1

22.4

Median Age2

$31,357 Median Household Income1

The University District, historically (c. 1840-1970), developed and evolved into enclaves and patterns which are still visible today in housing stock, affordability, demographics, income levels, institutions, health issues, and opportunities for its residents, all of which affect perceptions of “quality of life.” Historic factors included: annexation of small independent towns; acquisition of farmland developed over three generations by the same Neil family; settlements of distinct ethnic groups; early streetcar line development used by developers to mandate restrictive deeds on lots (separate from redlining and mortgage restrictions), creating color lines by streets which prohibited African American and Italian residents; Civil War era railroads spurring industrial zones (later toxic brownfield) belts; flood plain and swamp areas along the Olentangy River, township and city squabbles; extreme

78%

Renter Occupied1

Notes:

10 | at a glance

1

- Data does not include OSU Campus

2

- Data includes OSU Campus

//HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS [2020-2027] LEGEND

% growth 2010-2020

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 1

4%

35,899

AREA DISTRICT 3

13%

11,668

AREA DISTRICT 1

1%

11,470

AREA DISTRICT 2

2%

AREA DISTRICT 4 1

-3%

37,366

11,859 11,788

7,866 7,135

7,389 6,581 2020

2021

2022

2027

//HOME VALUE 1 AD3 is household costburdened and AD4 is severely cost-burdened

Median Home Value Percent of Income for Mortgage 20% 10% 0% <$50,000

$150,000

$27% $168

35% $245

$250,000

$245

41%

$750,000

$400,000

$424

$286

$1,000,000 +

78%

55%

//HOUSING: YEAR BUILT New development is the past two decades is concentrated in Area District 3

Most housing stock was built prior to the 1940s

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

<1939

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

1950-59

1970-79

1990-99

> 2010

11

housing shortages after World War II and the GI bill; unintended consequences of gentrification and rapid growth of institutions; and differing interpretations and expectations of mission statements.

87,526

A further look shows the different factors that create these affordability fears in Area District 3. The median home value of owner-occupied units in Columbus is $160,000. In AD3, the median home value is nearly twofold higher at $286,000. This figure, along with AD3’s median household income of $27,595, drops the HAI to 43% lower than the national average. Within AD3, there has been an increase in homes built within the last ten years, likely driving up median home prices. More than 50% of these homes are valued at over $250,000. Coupled with a 13% population growth in just the previous decade, the highest in any four district areas, there is increasing pressure on the housing market in this area.

Day-time Population2

59,513

Homes are valued at much higher prices in AD4, with a median home value of $424,000. This area offers a collection of historic buildings like the Victorian homes at Dennison Place and South Campus, many valued at over $400,000. The median household income of $28,465 drives the HAI to 59% lower than the national average, the lowest of the Area Districts.

Workers2

1,029

Even though Area Districts 1 and 2 have lower median home values and higher median incomes than AD3 and AD4, the HAI values are still lower than the national average: 22% less in AD1 and 27% less in AD2. Traditional housing assistance program criterion is based on a fixed percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).

At less than 80% of the AMI, households are considered low-income. At less than 50%, households are considered very low-income, and at less than 30%, they are considered extremely low-income. Columbus’s housing incentive policy criteria for affordable housing in the community reinvestment areas, including Weiland Park, is 80% of the AMI. For the Columbus metropolitan area, the one-person low-income limit is $46,950. The highest median household income among the four University District subdivisions is $37,272 (AD1).

Total Businesses2

62,000 OSU registered students

Lastly, Esri’s CrimeRisk Index sheds light on the sensitive topic of safety. Applied Geographic Solutions developed this index to describe the likelihood of various incidents normalized to a national average of 100. Further, it is simplified on a 1 to 5 scale, from “not a concern” (1) to “strong concern” (5). The University District’s overall crime risk scored 4, higher than the City of Columbus (1) and falling under “somewhat a concern.” Assault (1) is the lowest likely crime, lower than the national average. Robberies (5) and motor vehicle thefts (5) are of “strong concern.”

According to this metric, these two types of incidents present the most significant concern for the entire University District.

39,000 OSU full-time employees

74%

The data presented in this section focused on major themes discussed during the outreach process. Their intent was to open the dialogue about the quality of life in the University District as the Be Well survey invited this dynamic and diverse community to share their thoughts, concerns, and values to help build a pathway to all be well. In the following sections, we’ll hear what they said and how they feel about the District.

White Alone2

Notes:

12 | at a glance

1

- Data does not include OSU Campus

2

- Data includes OSU Campus

//HOUSING: OWNERSHIP1 100%

11%

±14% Vacant

78%

Renter

AD2 and AD3 have the highest vacancy rate

LEGEND UNIVERSITY DISTRICT AREA DISTRICT 1

±80%

AREA DISTRICT 2

AD3 and AD4 have similar percentage of renter occupancy

AREA DISTRICT 3 AREA DISTRICT 4

14.4% 0%

11%

Owner

//COMMUTE 2

35% of workers do not use a car to commute

AD1 has the highest ownership percentage

//RACE & ETHNICITY 2 13%

AD2 largest % of Asian pop.

16%

6.6%

AD3 largest % of Black pop.

Took Public Transportation

80%

AD1 largest % of White pop.

25.4% Walked to Work

4%

University District

74%

10%

11%

5%

White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Other

Bike to Work

//COMMUNITY SAFETY 2 Robbery and motor vehicle theft are the two leading incidents, R - ROBBERY V - MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT driving the total crime up T - TOTAL CRIME

52.8% Drove Alone to Work

5.2% Carpooled

TRAVEL TIME TO WORK 2 >35 min

10%

20%

25-30 min 20-25 min 15-19 min 10-14 min <10 min

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

NOT A CONCERN

STRONG CONCERN

13

SECTION 3 WHAT WE LEARNED

Process & Schedule

The survey results present several community reflections and recommendations on many critical aspects of life in the University District. These contribute to defining and assessing the quality of life for this area. The primary goal of this study was to learn what “quality of life” means for residents and visitors of the University District. This study helps to identify areas of need and understand what is or is not working well as well help to determine shared community values and assess the cultural assets of the University District. Long-term, the survey results could be used to inform broader community dialogue with OSU, the City, and other major partners, offering evidence of community feelings to guide priorities, strategies, and actions. Community feedback gives the necessary information to base future recommendations and investments to improve the quality of life in the University District.

FALL/SPRING 2021

The constant flux of students, new residents attracted by recent developments, and long-term residents have witnessed and experienced some characteristics of their lives change. For residents, has life improved in the District? For visitors, is it an inviting environment?

Better understanding these perceptions helps to inform decision-makers, community partners, and community members where to allocate resources and efforts to create a more vital University District.

PHASE 1 Survey, branding, graphic, and web development

SUMMER 2022

Quality of life is often an evaluation or perception of one’s living conditions, meaning different things for different people. Yet, they are all impacted by factors outside of their control. The built environment, social services, community relationships, and social conditions affect one’s satisfaction levels. The University District has experienced tremendous change over the past ten years as it continues to grow and previously vacant properties are redeveloped.

PHASE 3

PHASE 2 Public engagement, survey dissemination and guided discussion

Focus groups, survey results analysis, report drafting

PROJECT SCHEDULE showing the seven months process divided in three phases.

LEAD

FACILITATE

GUIDE

UDO UAC

NDC

Advisory Group

Community Survey

Guided Discussion

Focus Groups

COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE

Stakeholders Civic associations in the University District OSU – Office of Student Life; Administration & Planning University Community Business Association/

ENGAGE

Target Population

Owners

Students

Landlords/property owners

Retirees

Nonprofit organizations

Young professionals

Churches

Minority groups

City of Columbus, neighborhood liaisons

Visitors

Families with children

Employees Non-student public

PROJECT ORGANOGRAM displaying relationship of who was involved, their roles, and planned activities.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

15

Engagement & Outreach Process The Be/Well was a public engagement process and survey designed to take the pulse on the quality of life within the University District. This seven-months process included the following tasks within three distinct phases: •

Phase 1 – Project kick-off including survey, branding, graphic, and website development.

•

Phase 2 - General public engagement, survey dissemination, and guided discussions.

•

Phase 3 – Focus groups, engagement, survey results analysis, and draft report.

The University District Organization (UDO) and University Area Commission (UAC) led this community outreach effort, facilitated by the Neighborhood Design Center (NDC) and guided by an Advisory Group. Before issuing the Be/Well survey, the UDO and UAC established an Advisory Group comprised of 11 community members to provide advice on how to engage residents in the University District Area throughout this process. They shared their expertise with the planning team and were vital in developing the survey. This group met four times throughout the engagement process to review content, approach strategies, and give feedback on the survey questions.

These meetings were vital in finding ways to fully engage residents in sharing their thoughts on what quality of life means in the district. The composition of the Committee included members of The Ohio State University, local civic groups, and the local church community. The commitment of the Advisory Group was instrumental to the success of this effort.

Types of engagement The engagement approach included an online survey, guided discussions, and focus group meetings as shown in the following calendar. To reach as many residents as possible, the planning team distributed 200 flyers and 1,500 postcards through USPS service Every

16 | what we learned

Door Direct Mail (EDDM). Materials were placed at local businesses, shared via email campaigns, and promoted on social platforms.

ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE Online Survey: • October 2021-February 2022 Guided Discussion: • During the month of November 2021 Focus Groups: • Area District 1: February 24th, 2022 • Area District 2: February 17th, 2022 • Area District 3: February 15th, 2022 • Area District 4: February 22th, 2022

Survey Methodology The survey consisted of 23 questions grouped in three sections – 1) About You, 2) Civic Groups, and 3) Quality of Life. The About You section included questions about the demographics of respondents. The Civic Groups section intended to learn about their knowledge and involvement with the local civic organizations.

The Quality of Life section was centered around six main themes – housing, transportation, and mobility, neighborhood amenities, community character & life, community services, and safety. Questions were a combination of multiple-choice, rating, and open-ended.

Survey respondents were able to communicate priorities and values. Some of these include: •

Value in the University District location, the historic architecture, and its diversity.

•

An expressed need to improve safety, adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and a better mix of retail and services.

•

A need for growth and reinvestment committed to allowing the University District area to remain diverse and inclusive, bringing long-term residents, newcomers, and students invested in building one single community.

6 MAIN THEMES

BY THE #’S ±

500

survey responses

Housing

4 focus groups Mobility & Transportation Neighborhood Amenities

Community Character & Life

Community Services

Community Safety UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

stakeholders engaged

65

+

20

+ guided

12

discussions months process

6 main themes 1,500

postcards distributed

5 UAC meetings 17

Survey Results Who Responded to the Survey The survey acquired nearly 500 responses, mostly from people in the University District, but also from other Columbus areas residents and students’ parents. Most respondents indicated that they live in University District neighborhoods, with Old North topping the list, followed

by Glen Echo, SoHud, Weinland Park, and Dennison Place.

The age representation is well-distributed. The most represented age group was 25-34 with 21%, and the least represented age group, but not by a large margin being >65 with 12.5%. White respondents were the largest group (81%). In comparison, the second-largest group preferred not to identify their race or ethnicity with 9% — Black and Hispanic were next with 6% and 4%, respectively, which is representative of the overall district demographics.

Indeed, most survey respondents were residents (57%), where 65% of those residents were homeowners, and 30% were renters. The next largest respondent group was students (24%), followed by employees of The Ohio State University (23%). Of the residents, lifelong residents were most represented. Only 13% have lived in the district for fewer than two years.

18 | what we learned

“I want more neighborhood and community building, more resources for neighbors in need so we can keep this awesome place diverse and friendly to all (...)”

±

500

Responses

TOP 5 COMMUNITIES 1. Old North (51) 2. Weinland Park (32) 3. SoHud (26)

//RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DISTRICT Homeowners Residents Tops the List

65%

homeowner

97%

//HOW MANY YEARS HAVE LIVED IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT Lifelong Residents Tops the List

30% 5% 0.4% renter

57% RESIDENTS OSU students

4. Glen Echo (25) 5. Dennison Place (23)

other landlord

30%

24% Student

22%

23% OSU Employee

19%

13%

18% Frequent Visitor

15%

Owner/ 10% 10 % Business Employee

6% Church Member 3% Other

<2

5-10

10-20

> 20

//RACE/ETHNICITY

//AGE GROUP 25-34 Age Group Tops the List With 25%

14%

43%

40%

< 25

25-45

> 45

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

2-5

81% White 3%

10% Other

White Tops the List

9% Rather Not Respond 6% Black 19

TOWNHOMES

Housing Aspects of Housing in the University District Respondents rated aspects of housing in the University District related to affordability, diversity of housing options, quality and upkeep of existing housing stock, and quality of new development.

THE CIRCLES HOME

Survey respondents generally rated overall aspects of housing as average in the University District. Housing affordability is a hot topic, and even though 49% rated it as average, there was a clear divide, with a split between those considering it below average and above average. They also consider that the area offers a range of housing types and price points, with 45% rating as average and another 33% above average.

These results reflect the larger context of the regional housing crisis we face. The job creation to housing ratio is 2.5/1 below the desired 2.5/1.5, putting pressure on the market. As the second most segregated region in the country, this particularly affects the black and most vulnerable population.

DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY

There is a concern with the quality and upkeep of existing housing stock given the high percentage of rental property in the University District, with 49% considering it below average and only 7% rating it as above average. The quality of new development was divided and somewhat of a concern, with ratings of 44% average, 30% below average, and 20% above average.

For the entire pool of respondents, most (71%) say that rent increases have not affected their ability to live in the University District. There were 3.4% of respondents who shared that they are unhoused. Noted that by the time this survey was closed, some long-term rental residents experienced up to 45% rent increase and reported having to relocate.

20 | what we learned

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

//RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF HOUSING IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. Below Average

Average

Above Average

Not Applicable

Affordability

27%

49%

21%

4%

Affordability is a hot topic

Diverse Housing Options

18%

45%

33%

4%

Somewhat offers a range of housing types and price points

Quality and Upkeep of Existing Housing Stock

49%

40%

7%

4%

Quality of New Housing Development

30%

44%

20%

6%

//HAVE RENT INCREASES AFFECTED YOUR ABILITY TO LIVE IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT?

Concerns with maintenance of existing and quality of new housing stock

//PLEASE SELECT WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CURRENT LIVING CONDITION?

29% YES 71% NO

of respondents

3.4% are unhoused

(11% are renters)

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

21

BUS STOP AT HALE HALL

Mobility & Transportation Aspects of Mobility and Transportation at the University District Mobility and transportation encompass a friendly environment for walking, a safe cycling network, availability of local public transit, manageable travel by car, and easy access to places. In rating these aspects of mobility and transportation, respondents used a scale from awful, bad, unsure, good, or amazing (see an expanded meaning on the next page). Overall, respondents consider they have easy access and can mostly get to places using different transportation modes, with over 60% rating as good or amazing.

PROTECTED BIKE LANE

COGO BIKE SHARE STATION

Walkability was rated the highest, with over 65% rated as good or amazing. The safe cycling network had the most significant divide, with 26% unsure and 24% good, and the largest not applicable rate (15%). There is generally good local public transit (30.4%) and travel by car (33%), but there is clear room for increasing the public transportation network and improving navigation in and out of the district.

These results indicate that the district is a walkable and accessible area, but some areas are better served than others. The district is on the right path with the existing infrastructure. Investing in better maintenance and expansion of multi-modal infrastructure would enable this area to serve as an active transportation zone.

22 | what we learned

PROTECTED BIKE LANES

//RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. >65% rated walkability and easy access to places as good and amazing

Awful

Bad

Unsure/ Average

Good

Amazing

Not Applicable

Walkability (friendly environment to walking)

6%

7.2%

19%

41%

26%

1%

Safe cycling network

10%

18%

26%

24%

7%

15%

Local public transit

9%

11%

25%

30%

15%

11%

Travel by car (traffic congestion)

5%

17%

27%

34%

14%

4%

Easy access to places you need or visit often

5%

10% 10 %

24%

33%

27%

1%

(5) Amazing — I can get anywhere I need/want!

(4) Good — I can mostly get to places!

(3) Unsure — I get to some places but not others!

(2) Bad — I have a hard time getting to places!

(1) Awful — I can never get to places!

(N/A) Does not apply to me

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

23

15TH & HIGH PLAZA

Neighborhood Amenities Aspects of Neighborhood Amenities in the University District

WEINLAND PARK

Under neighborhood amenities, respondents rated neighborhood parks, shared gathering spaces, recreational opportunities, access to trails, retail shops, restaurants and bars, services, and the mix of retail and services.

Most of the amenities surveyed were rated good and indicated that there are enough quality options.

However, community spaces, recreational opportunities, and the mix of retail and services were the lowest-rated amenities, with more than 50% of respondents rating these as unsure or below.

OLD NORTH MIX OF USES

These results indicate an uneven distribution or offering of these amenities in the district and its audience.

Interestingly, even though retail and services were rated high, 50% rated as good or amazing, it lacks a mix and diversity of offerings, with over 50% rating as unsure to awful.

OLENTANGY RIVER TRAIL

24 | what we learned

//RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. Community spaces, recreational opportunities, and mix of retail and services were the lowest-rated amenities

Awful

Bad

Unsure/ Average

Good

Amazing

Not Applicable

Neighborhood Parks

11%

18%

29%

29%

26%

8%

Shared community gathering spaces

12%

24%

29%

24%

5%

6%

Other recreational opportunities

11%

21%

31%

24%

6%

8%

Access to Trails

11%

19%

24%

26%

14%

6%

Retail shops or stores

5%

13%

28%

39%

13%

2%

Restaurants and/or bars

2%

10%

22%

37%

27%

3%

Services (bank, fitness, salons, etc.)

4%

14%

27%

35%

16%

4%

Mix and diversity of retail and services

6%

16%

32%

29%

15%

3%

(5) Amazing — I love the quality and options!

(4) Good — There are enough quality and options (3) Unsure — I don’t necessarily find quality and options (2) Bad — I have a hard time finding quality and options (1) Awful — I can never find quality and options!

(N/A) Does not apply to me

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

25

ART BOX AT HIGH ST & 9TH

Community Character & Life Aspects of Community Character & Life in the University District

NEWPORT MUSIC HALL

In community character and life, respondents looked at architecture, the presence of community art, live music and cultural events, sports events, neighborliness, a sense of community, nightlife, restaurants and dining options.

Perceptions of tangible and intangible community assets are generally good. Home to the Ohio Stadium (Horseshoe), and a regional draw, the district is known for its nightlife, food and drink establishments, and sports events, with over 50% rating these as good and amazing.

GATEWAY PLAZA

Neighborliness and sense of community were a split ranging from good to bad. Both rated mostly as unsure (31% and 27% respectively), signaling it could be better.

In summary, results indicate an interesting perspective that the community offers activities for different lifestyles, yet feels disconnected from intangible measures of belonging and connectedness.

4TH STREET FARMS

26 | what we learned

//RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER & LIFE IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. Neighborliness and Sense of Community are a split ranging from good to bad

>50% rated sports events, night life, and eating & dining good and amazing

Awful

Bad

Unsure/ Average

Good

Amazing

Not Applicable

Architecture

8%

14%

27%

34%

15%

2%

Presence of Community Art

8%

21%

33%

25%

10%

3%

Live music & Cultural Events

8%

19%

26%

29%

14%

5%

Sports Events

5%

11%

17%

27%

28%

13%

Neighborliness

9%

19%

31%

19%

11%

11%

Sense of Community

13%

23%

27%

22%

12%

4%

Nightlife

5%

11%

20%

33%

23%

9%

Restaurants/Eating & Dining

3%

10%

24%

37%

23%

3%

(5) Amazing — I love it!

(4) Good — I usually like it (3) Unsure — I kind of like it but could be better (2) Bad — There’s a lot of work to do (1) Awful — I don’t like it at all!

(N/A) Does not apply to me

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

27

COMMUNITY CRIME PATROL (CCP)

Community Services Aspects of Community Services in the University District

CLEAN-UP DAY

Aspects of community services included quality of schools, street character, sidewalk conditions, availability of on-street and public parking, noise, cleanliness, and feeling of safety.

Overall ratings indicate all ranges from average to bad.

The high percentage of not applicable responses to the quality of schools reflects the median age (23.2)1 for this area and the college student population. Street character was a close split ranging from good (24%), average (29%), and bad (27%), and reflects attitudes based where respondents are in the district. Parking is an increasing concern across the district, with a 48% rating of bad and awful combined. A targeted parking study would inform the gap between perception and actual demand for parking.

GRAHAM ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL

Cleanliness, safety, noise, and sidewalk conditions are the top concerns, and in general rated over 50% as bad and awful. The ratings indicate an uneven quality of these services provided throughout the district, with some areas better served than others. Identifying and locating the problem spots is a reasonable next step to addressing perceived issues.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT STEWARDS

28 | what we learned

//RATE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT. Cleanliness, safety, noise, and sidewalk conditions are the top concerns

Awful

Bad

Unsure/ Average

Good

Amazing

Not Applicable

Quality Schools

11%

19%

23%

13%

8%

26%

Street Character (Trees, Furniture, Lighting, Etc.)

14%

27%

29%

24%

6%

1%

Sidewalk Conditions

19%

36%

27%

14%

4%

1%

Availability Of OnStreet And Public Parking

21%

27%

26%

16%

5%

5%

Noise

19%

31%

28%

15%

5%

3%

Cleanliness

26%

33%

24%

12%

4%

1%

Feeling Of Safety

27%

27%

26%

15%

4%

1%

(5) Amazing — I love it/extremely satisfied with it!

(4) Good — I am usually satisfied with the level/quality (3) Unsure — I am kind of satisfied but could be better (2) Bad — There’s a lot of work to do (1) Awful — I am extremely unsatisfied!

(N/A) Does not apply to me

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

29

Safety Aspects of Safety in the University District The survey separately asked what would improve safety and what is missing in the University District. There was an overlap in the responses, indicating that what is missing in the district would help address safety issues and concerns. These three groups combine and categorize the overall community sentiment: • • •

Infrastructure Improvements, Neighborhood Development, and Community Safety

Infrastructure improvements Walkability and multimodal transportation safety were the most frequently mentioned responses. While the University District is walkable, its current infrastructure makes active transportation unsafe. Many call for conversion of 4th and Summit to two-way traffic to alleviate excessive speeding. Slower vehicle traffic, more crosswalks, and multimodal infrastructure improve safety. Respondents call for garbage control, as excessive trash makes the area feel unsafe.

Infrastructure improvements can enhance pedestrian friendliness. Among the most critical priorities was a high demand for pedestrian-friendly amenities: •

Street furnishing including benches, lighting, transit shelters, crosswalks, and lower speed limits.

•

More neighborhood green and informal gathering spaces.

•

The primary infrastructure cited was lighting to address excessive dark areas, especially during winter when it gets dark earlier.

30 | what we learned

“I would like to have more lighting in the Northern and Southern parts of the University District (...)”

“Stronger community ties, fewer transitory residents and more long-term or permanent residents of various ages would allow for relationships to form & be preserved (...)”

“A neighborhood watch would be nice, especially if it is a partnership with safety authorities. More police presence would lessen crime, but I worry about the tension and issues that could arise from more police being in this district (...) ”

FINDINGS

— OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS —

INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS » Improved lighting

» More protected crosswalks

» Sidewalk improvement and maintenance

» Litter and garbage control

» Two-way conversion (e.g. along 4th St. and Summit St.)

» Street furnishing

» Slower vehicle traffic

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT » Support and attract local businesses

» Representative community leadership

» Affordable and diversity of housing options

» Resources for families and individuals

» Community centers and public spaces

COMMUNITY SAFETY » Neighborhood block watch

» Pedestrian safety

» Code enforcement equity

» Strategic police presence

» Landlord/property group accountability

• Time of the day, such as night and early morning • Location, such as touring alleys

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

31

SUMMARY

— CAMPUS SAFETY SURVEY —

Neighborhood Development A safe neighborhood is taken care of and invested in. Another layer of recommendations called for more neighborhood amenities and destinations. These included more gathering spaces, local businesses, parks, places to sit, community centers, public spaces, destinations at various hours, and representative community leadership. The district is missing affordable and middle housing, other than detached single-family and mid-rise. Respondents want resources for families and individuals to attract more long-term residents and businesses.

The maintenance of the district’s character is missing.

Respondents expressed displeasure with new, modern developments that ignore the University District’s tradition. Respondents were dissatisfied with their local representation. Many wanted more than appearances from city officials, while some called for their replacement. Respondents wanted more involvement from community development partnerships with outside influence groups (e.g., Ohio State University, WOSU).

Community Safety Most respondents agree that improved patrolling by a neighborhood or block watch is favorable and that only increasing police presence can be detrimental to safety.

Respondents desire better code enforcement, especially for landlords and rental properties. Enforcement inequity cites minor infractions but allows landlords and property groups to operate without adequately maintaining their properties.

HIGHLIGHTS OSU Task Force on Community Service and Well-being

» People feel safer oncampus regardless » of race » Primary safety concern: • Crime against people • Sexual assault/rape • Crime against property

» Top 3 recommendations: • Increase quality of life in the district* • Increased police presence • Infrastructure changes

Findings on this theme were similar to what the OSU Task Force on Community Service and Well-being reported on their Campus Safety Survey. * Catalyst for the BeWell project to understand what quality of life means and how to improve it for those in the university district.

32 | what we learned

“Need better code-enforcement for sidewalks and for trash”

“Support of new independent small businesses as opposed to corporate chains, preservation of existing historic structures (...), partnership with neighboring communities such as Linden and Weinland Park”

“I think Columbus in general, but especially the University District, has become more diverse. [...] There’s more and more authentic Indian food, Asian food, African food… and it’s not just these big corporate chains. That’s one of my favorite parts that creates a positive experience for me. I think the university district could capitalize on the growing diversity in the area.[...] I would like to see more of that but not just in food. I don’t think this is in the district, but Crafted Culture is a black-owned brewery and that’s awesome. We could use more Hispanic-clubs, African-clubs, Asian-clubs. More culture in bars and clubs would be incredible.”

“General cleanliness would help.

Trash often blocks sidewalks forcing pedestrians into the street and the accumulation of trash gives the appearance of a neighborhood susceptible to crime.”

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

33

//TOP 5 POSITIVE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE THE DISTRICT Environment conducive to diversity and inclusion

59% DIVERSE Quality of Life The survey asked respondents to indicate whether they fully considered, partially considered, or did not consider the University District a place to conduct certain activities. Most believe that the district is a place to live, work, and play/visit, with each of those questions receiving at least 64% approval. However, 51.5% do not believe that the district is a place to raise children, while only 22% agree that it is. Similarly, 57% say that the district is not a place to retire, while only 20.3% say it is. While the University District is perceived to be an excellent place to live at certain stages of life, many disagree that it is somewhere to age in place or raise a family.

The University District is most certainly a destination; 66.8% are likely to recommend visiting. While many consider the University District a place to live, only 41.3% likely recommend living in the district. Similarly, only 45.7% are likely to recommend working or starting a business in the district. 33.8% remained neutral on this question.

In two separate questions, respondents selected from a list of positive and negative words as many as they considered applied to describe the University District.

Of the positive words, the University District was most described as “Diverse,” “Fun,” and “Progressive” (59%, 46%, and 41%, respectively). Of the negative words, the most used was “Dirty”, “Dangerous”, and “Expensive” (51%, 39%, 35%, respectively). It is worth noting that 17% of respondents said that none of the positive words described the district, and 11% marked that none of the negative words applied.

34 | what we learned

46% FUN 41% PROGRESSIVE 37% ACCEPTING 31% CREATIVE

//TOP 5 WORDS NEGATIVE USED TO DESCRIBE THE DISTRICT “Dirty” stands out as the second most used word overall to describe the district

51% DIRTY 39% DANGEROUS 35% EXPENSIVE 29% OVERCROWDED 26% STRESSFUL

//PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU CONSIDER THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT A ...

Yes

Partially

No

Place to Live

69%

19%

12%

Place to Work

65%

23%

12%

Place to Play/Visit

66%

23%

11%

Place to Raise Children

21%

27%

52%

Place to Retire

20%

23%

57%

Consider a place to live/work/play

Not necessarily a family friendly environment

//HOW LIKELY (OR UNLIKELY) WOULD YOU… Unlikely

Neutral

Likely

Live

24%

33%

43%

Work/ Start a Business

19%

34%

47%

Play/Visit

12%

20%

68%

Live in the Next 5 Years

31%

27%

42%

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Recommend as a Place to Live, Work & Play

35

Guided Discussions Aiming to reach people typically left out of the outreach process, throughout November 2021, members of the Advisory Group were asked to reach out to their individual networks and conduct informal conversations about the quality of life in the University District. The representation of this group allowed the planning team to reach residents across age groups and a range of social-economic classes in the district.

The critical input gathered during these advisory groupled conversations is summarized in five identified main topics:

Though the majority of survey-respondents were white, as expected given the University District’s demographics, several residents expressed priority of diversity and inclusion within the guided discussions and focus groups portions of this process. In one-o-one interviews, many POC residents expressed concern in regards to the lack of diversity, lack of awareness of diversity-related issues, inequitable opportunities for people of color, and desire for the University District to capitalize on and celebrate its growing diversity.

5. Community & Economic Development

These informative discussions were grounded in the following guiding questions and themes:

1.

2. Housing 3. Green & Public Spaces 4. Community & Sense of Place

Almost thirty people participated in individual and group discussion. The community sentiment was recorded on each of these topics: 1.

Mobility & Transportation

•

Reported the overall walkability in the University District is good.

•

Daytime feels different than nighttime, and the district’s sense of place could benefit from improvements to minimize crime and increase traffic safety, including better lighting, reduce curb cuts, expanded bike infrastructure, more crosswalks, and signals.

•

Acknowledge biking is relatively safe, especially with bike lanes like on Summit Street, adding that protected bike lanes are positive for both cyclists and motorists.

•

Complaints about access to public transit and the perception that access to parking is an issue.

GUIDING QUESTIONS •

What do you like/works well in the University District?

•

What do you dislike/does not work well in the University District?

•

How to improve quality of life in the University District?

GUIDING THEMES

Mobility & Transportation

•

Affordable and diverse housing products

•

The mix of local shops and services

2. Housing

•

Local public transit, safe bike network, and walkability

•

•

Shared community and gathering spaces

36 | what we learned

Expressed the need to expand and diversify the housing, offering for a broader market share, considering affordable, workforce, students, market rate, etc.

•

Existing housing is limited to either students or the upscale/luxury market.

3. Green & Public Spaces •

Indicated a significant need for public and open spaces such as parks, plazas, and gathering areas that would benefit walkability and the sense of place.

•

It would also increase safety and sense of place with more seating areas for meeting with friends and taking a break from a walk.

4. Community & Sense of Place •

Registered the desire to maintain the character of its built environment by acknowledging, elevating, and amplifying the uniqueness of each of its thirteen neighborhoods.

•

Instead of looking like any other place in town, new development should compliment and not undermine or be detrimental to those characteristics.

5. Community & Economic Development •

The overall sentiment indicates that there needs to be a balance between the vibrancy and vitality brought by new developments and all it entails and the existing socio-economic dynamic of the area.

•

The district could benefit from partnerships with different stakeholders to bridge this gap and build trust to create a stronger community supporting local initiatives, minorities, and businesses.

The next pages shows a graphic visualization of the qualitative findings.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

37

“(...) The more people move into the neighborhood the more our reliance on driving is causing problems (...) Shifting people into taking the bus or walking or riding a bike makes our neighborhood safer, quieter, healthier, and can only happen if the bus is quick, convenient, and comfortable, and cycling is safe”

“Making environment more conducive to people being out and about (i.e., not only improved walkability but also a better mix of places to walk to – convenience stores & other retail shops, parks, gardens, etc.)”

“I would love to see more parks and play spaces for children. I also would like to see slower traffics and more crossing areas on some of the major streets”

38 | what we learned

“An overall negative is that there’s not a lot of people that look like me. It’s predominantly middle-to-high socioeconomic students that are White.

It would be nice to see more people who look like me. The university itself feels safe, but the surrounding neighborhoods… How are we addressing safety? And I don’t just mean more police necessarily. I mean, how are we building the community in the surrounding areas?

Whether it’s employment or places that are relational spaces. The farther out you get, it’s liquor shops and smoke shops more than coffee shops. Same goes for the mental health stuff. Is there a place for that for the whole community?”

FINDINGS

— GUIDED DISCUSSIONS —

TOPICS

Topics from guided discussions (17 Individual & group conversations)

1

Safety / crime

2

Transportation / parking Green space / park / public spaces

2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Diversity / cultural events Housing Cleanliness Local art Accessibility Development Food / restaurants Community Walkability Cost of living Proximity to activities Small business

1 = Eleven mentions ; 2 = seven mentions ; 3 = six mentions ; 4 = less than six mentions

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

39

FINDINGS

— GUIDED DISCUSSIONS —

NOTABLE PLACES Glen Echo Ravine

Glen Echo Park

Arcadia Ave

Safety / Crime Transportation / Parking Green Space / Parks, etc.

Housing Food / Restaurants Proximity to Activities Small Business Staples (Outside Themes)

Evolved

Indianola Ave

UDF

DISTRICT 2

Patterson Ave

(with brown water)

Positive Mostly Positive Neutral Mostly Negative Negative Maynard Park

CVS

DISTRICT Iuka 1 Park

Woodruff Ave

Conrail Railro

Olentangy River

Panera

Housing

Target

t High S

DISTRICT 4

ad Tracks

Cielo

Gateway

DISTRICT 3 Housing

(with clear water)

Kroger

The Bottleshop

CAPTION LEAD IN Caption description

5th Ave

University District areas, businesses, and institutions mentioned by name.

40 | what we learned

FINDINGS

— GUIDED DISCUSSIONS —

POSITIVES LESS MENTIONS

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

KEY

MORE MENTIONS

Walkable Historic buildings Aesthetically pleasing Restaurant (lots of options) Places to get away / nature Youth organizations Local art Small businesses Proximity (osu + clintonville + downtown) Lots of events Convenience Job opportunities Diversity Some free parking Coffeeshops Voting locations

Summaries of the 17 guided conversations were parsed for key ideas.

KEY KEY KEY Above is a list of constructive suggestions regarding the University District.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

41

FINDINGS

— GUIDED DISCUSSIONS —

NEGATIVES LESS MENTIONS

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

MORE MENTIONS

“The word average comes to mind” Parking is very difficult Late night parties / drunk people Unfair equity / lack of opportunities Cost of housing / people forced out Road conditions (potholes, ice in winter) Garbage on the streets & alleys Safety concerns at night (insufficient lighting) New development (“out of place” ; “ugly”) Property management groups Traffic accidents Homeless population(“are we doing enough?)

Construction Corporate feel “Public transportation is a hassle” Scooters / bikes on the street Traffic during events Crime

Summaries of the 17 guided conversations were parsed for key ideas.

CAPTION LEAD IN Caption description

Above is a list of constructive suggestions regarding the University District.

42 | what we learned

FINDINGS

— GUIDED DISCUSSIONS —

GROUPING MENTIONS + POSITIVES

- NEGATIVES

^ SUGGESTIONS

PHYSICAL STRUCTURES SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD + Historic Buildings + Aesthetically Pleasing – New Development (“out of place” ; “ugly”) – Construction – Garbage on the Streets & Alleys – Property Management Groups ^ Improved Housing (quality and/or price) ^ Tighter Property Standards – More Art / Beautification

LIVING IN DENSITY + Lots of Events + Proximity (OSU + Clintonville + Downtown) + Convenience – Traffic During Events – Late Night Parties / Drunk People – Crime

+ Diversity + Youth Organizations + Job Opportunities – Cost of Housing / People Forced Out – Unfair equity / lack of opportunities – Homeless Population (“Are we doing enough?)

– “The word average comes to mind” ^Access to Resources for Non-Students (Students have access to indoor gyms, medcal services, counseling services, community gathering spaces, etc.) ^ Better Communication between Districts ^ Connecting Students to Non-Students ^ Promotion of Events (website with info) ^ Events that aren’t Food or Drink-related

LOVE OF PARKS / NATURE + Places to get away / Nature

WALKABILITY + Walkable – Safety Concerns at Night (insufficient lighting)

TRANSPORTATION + Some Free Parking – Road Conditions (potholes, ice in winter) – Scooters / Bikes on the Street – Traffic Accidents – “Public transportation is a hassle” – Parking is Very Difficult ^ Better Streets ^ One-Way Streets into Two-Way Streets ^ More Parking (free for residents & visitors)

KEY

–Tree Sanctuary / Parks / Green Spaces

LOVE OF LOCAL + Local Art + Small Businesses + Coffeeshops – Corporate Feel ^“Less Chain, More Character”

EATING + Restaurant (lots of options) ^ Healthier Food / Quality Groceries ^ Ethnic-specific Food, Bars, and Clubs ^ Food for Families / Dine-In Restaurants

KEY KEY KEY Correlations between positives, negatives, and suggestions mentioned.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

43

Northwest (AD1) Patterson Ave.

Woodruff Ave.

Indianola Ave.

Arcadia Ave.

Northeast (AD2) 16th Ave.

Throughout February 2022, the planning team held four focus group meetings that were planned to take place in each of the four area districts. Considering the CoVID-19 pandemic and an untimely spike in infection rate, meetings moved from in-person to virtual over the zoom platform. Formed by invited community members, these were small, facilitated meetings for residents and business owners from within those neighborhoods to gather place-specific feedback. More than 65 attendees participated in these area districts’ gatherings. A realtime web-based survey via zoom poll asked questions centered around the partial response to the online BeWell survey.

A summary of the key takeaways indicates that the universal concern relates to infrastructure improvements for pedestrian and cyclist mobility. It correlates to safety and neighborliness, as all groups value how walking and community spaces can bring neighbors together.

Also, all recognize that policing is not the answer to better safety but that improvements to infrastructure and community-based approaches work better. In all meetings, affordability was brought up when discussing housing quality and conditions, especially in Area District 3. New development classified as affordable (80% of AMI) is not the reality in this area. Coupled with the rise in property value and as a result in property taxes, it could price people out of the neighborhoods, urging the City to implement policies to control and provide stability. Additionally, all expressed a desire for better communication and coordination from the University.

The highlights per area district are as follows: AREA DISTRICT 1 • Neighborliness is key for this group. It’s what keeps them in the neighborhood • Concerned about pedestrian/bike infrastructure and

44 | what we learned

•

.

High St

Focus Groups

Southwest (AD4)

Southeast (AD3)

Zoom poll did not capture Area District 3 responses would like to see more crosswalks/traffic calming and sidewalk improvement Recognize the value of green spaces and want improvements to existing ones

AREA DISTRICT 2 • Often more concerned about their current living condition • Would like to see home improvement programs • Improve district walkability with better mobility and amenities AREA DISTRICT 3 • Housing upkeep and affordability are the strongest concern • There is a disconnect between the long term residents of this community and the market demand created by the University’s presence • The landlords are not invested in the community, lapsing on property and sidewalk upkeep • Concerns about community spaces and safe places for their kids AREA DISTRICT 4 • Continue to foster and increase the sense of community and neighborliness • Complaints about the increase in noise and nuisance as the area experiences growth • Sidewalk improvements and traffic calming are important • Call for landlords to be better property managers and take care of their properties • Concern about the affordability of new housing units The graphics on the next page show the poll results.

The next pages show a graphic visualization of the qualitative findings.

Housing

Community Character & Life

EXISTING HOUSING UPKEEP vs. NEW HOUSING QUALITY

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT...

Neighborliness

Overall quality of new development is improving.

Not Neighborly

There is an overall sense of neighborliness within all 3 districts. But less so in AD1

Somewhat

Very Neighborly

Sense of Community

decreasing

same

improving

Lacking

Some

Community Services

Mobility & Transportation WALKABILITY

Strong

Southwest AD4 noted the strongest sense of community followed by AD2

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT...

Sidewalk Maintenance and Improvements

Cleanliness

University District vs. Area District UD AD1 UD AD2 UD AD4

More Walkable same

Public Transportation

Overall concern with cleanliness Not Clean

Somewhat Clean

Clean

Bike Infrastructure Less Walkable

Noise Public Transportation

Roadway Maintenance and Improvements

Not Quiet

Somewhat Quiet

Quiet

Safety

Neighborhood Amenities AVAILABILITY & OFFERING OF...

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT...

Community Spaces

Safety

Available

Somewhat

Not Available

Recreational Opportunities

Available

Somewhat

Not Safe

Mix of Retail & Services

Somewhat a Good Mix

... but the least mix of retail and services Just the Right Mix

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Infrastructure Improvements

Northwest is better served of community spaces and recreational opportunities

Not Available

Southwest area feels quieter

Somewhat Safe

Stronger support for either a community base approach or infrastructure improvements

Safe

Community Based Approach

Policing

45

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN HOUSING Top 4 common mentions between all focus groups

1

Housing is not affordable

2

Quality of housing is increasing

3

Unresponsive/unsatisfactory landlords Want down-payment assistance

3

4

Skeptical of new development People have been displaced Want more landlord responsibility

-

Prices rise while quality of housing remains the same Quality of housing is decreasing Houses are good quality Want better city regulations Want subsidized, affordable housing Want more renter responsibility

-

Houses are poor quality New development is pushing landlords off campus Historical district zoning Balancing student-renter needs & renter-resident needs

4 4

1 = eleven mentions ; 2 = seven mentions ; 3 = five mentions ; 4 = three mentions

46 | what we learned

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN MOBILITY & TRANSPORTATION Top 4 common mentions between all focus groups

1

Poor condition of sidewalks (issue with walkability)

2

Many options within walking distance Want better infrastructure (walking / biking)

2

3

Want snow / ice removal (issue with walkability) Want more streetlights

4

Frequent traffic accidents (issue with walkability)

-

Trash / smells / litter (issues with walkability) Bike lane viewed positively and/or used regularly Bike lane viewed negatively More parking needed People don’t abide by traffic rules

-

More bike lanes Insufficient traffic signage (e.G. On summit) Walkability between amenities Suggestion: pedestrian bridges over high street Accessibility concerns

-

Want connection between walkability + public transportation Want better public transit Safety concerns with parking lots Insufficient set-back between sidewalk and road Want more speed limit signs Overgrown shrubs (issue with walkability) Frequent traffic accidents (issue with driving) Want lowered speed limits (i.E. Successful results with lane ave)

3

1 = eight mentions ; 2 = six mentions ; 3 = five mentions ; 4 = four mentions

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

47

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES Top 4 Common Mentions Between All Focus Groups

1

Want More Parks Want Community Gathering Spaces

2

Want a Mix of Businesses

3

Iuka Ravine Tuttle Park Want Practical, Affordable Amenities

1

3 3 4 4 4

Glen Echo Ravine Olentangy Trail Want “Third Space” (e.g. Coffee Houses)

Retail at Summit & Hudson Vacancy Spots (e.g. Near Tompkins & Summit) Lots of OSU events Maynard Park Olentangy River Community Gardens Function like Pocket Parks Want More Advertising of Existing Parks Repurposing Existing Buildings Want Flexible Amenities Want More Parks & Recreation (budget) Want More Racial Representation in Discussions

1 = five mentions ; 2 = four mentions ; 3 = three mentions ; 4 = two mentions

48 | what we learned

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN COMMUNITY CHARACTER & LIFE Top 3 Common Mentions Between All Focus Groups

1 1 1

Want a Sense of Community Sense of Neighborhood Varies (Year-to-Year) Owner-occupied vs. Renter for Upkeep (Pattern: Owner-Occupied = More Upkeep & Renter = Less Upkeep)

1 1 1

Neighbors are Neighborly Long-term residents = More Neighborly Red Solo Cup Culture

2

Sense of Neighborhood Different Types of People

3

Different Types of Housing

2

1 = three mentions ; 2 = two mentions ; 3 = one mention

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

49

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN COMMUNITY SERVICES Top 3 Common Mentions Between All Focus Groups

1

Issues with Pet-owners (Not Picking Up Dog Poop)

2

Some Community Clean-Up Some Community Beautification Issues with Bulk Furniture in Alleys OSU Move-Out week (Excess Trash & Furniture)

2 2 2 3 3 3

Unaware of Move-In / Move-Out Events Issues with Noise Concern with CPD Helicopter Patrols

1 = three mentions ; 2 = two mentions ; 3 = one mention

50 | what we learned

FINDINGS — FOCUS GROUPS —

TOPICS IN SAFETY Top 4 Common Mentions Between All Focus Groups

1

No Longer/Not Feeling Safe at Night

2

Columbus Police + Social Workers Partnering for Mental Health Crises Want Holistic Approaches to Safety

2

(Not Just Better Lighting)

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Crime Rates have Gotten Higher Crime Rates have Gotten Lower Mental Health Training for Police “I feel safe and secure” Bring Safety Initiatives Back More Frequent Trash Pick-Up Needed More Recycling Bins Needed

1 = three mentions ; 2 = two mentions ; 3 = one mention

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

51

Prioritization Exercise ighborhood

Ne

ity un

Servi

afety ty S

ce

ni

Co m

te ac

m

r & Life

M o b i li t y & T

ighborhood

enities Am

n ra C o mm u

s

ni

ity un

Servi

afety ty S

ce

Ne

sportatio n

Co

te ac

Co m r & Life

m

52 | what we learned

sportatio n

Housing

nity Cha mu r

Area District 3: August 4th, 2022 Area District 2: August 6th, 2022 Area District 4: August 9th, 2022 Area District 1: August 16th, 2022 University Area Commission: September 16th, 2022

Co

m

• • • • •

n ra

Meetings Schedule:

C o mm u

s

nity Cha mu r

The planning team conducted one last round of meetings. Attendees were invited to participate in a final interactive presentation. This was an opportunity to help prioritize the six guiding themes on how they impact their quality of life in the district. It was also an opportunity to rank the ten key takeaways on their level of importance in receiving investments. Lastly, participants were given an open-ended prompt to discuss any priorities that were missed by the ten takeaways. A total of 59 University District members participated in the Prioritization Exercise. Each Area District met at the Neighborhood Design Center office in a hybrid meeting. A combined meeting occurred during the monthly University Area Commission meeting at the Northwood High Building. Another exercise was conducted with the advisory group. These results are described on the next page.

M o b i li t y & T

enities Am

m

The six themes structuring this survey are interconnected. Investments focused on any one theme will have a ripple effect on the others, as illustrated in the diagrams to the right. The information presented on the next page is the ten key takeaways after collecting, compiling, and analyzing all responses and discussions from all the different types of engagements during the entire planning process. These brief statements are a high-level summary of the community sentiment that carries a wealth of insight beneath them. As key takeaways, they help to create a framework that can utilize the survey results to inform and strategize toward a better quality of life for the community.

Housing

10 Key Takeaways Embrace diversity and bridge cultural and social gaps in the district

Strengthen the sense of belonging and welcoming, including short-term residents

Create opportunities for neighbors to meet and engage in the community

Provide a suite of resources and development tools to homeowners and invested property owners

Work with landowners and developers to preserve architecture character and uniqueness of the many neighborhoods in the district

Provide the necessary infrastructure to strengthen walkability and pedestrian safety

Identify areas and work with community partners to address cleanliness and noise

Provide and connect the community to gathering and other recreational opportunities

Attract and retain local shops and services geared towards the diverse audience in the University District

Implement a holistic approach to community safety

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

53

//RANK THEMES AS THEY IMPACT QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACT

Commu ty Safety ni

sporta ran

tio

ob

n

i lit y & T

s H o u in g

M

nities

Commu

ni ty Servi

rhood A bo

me

Neigh

s ce

Co m m ity Cha

ife

un cter & L ra

FINDINGS

— PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE —

SUMMARY What priorities are missing?

» Schools and amenities for school-age residents » Public Infrastructure:

• Street trees • Sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting • Parks

» Dignified affordable housing options » Noise control and cleanliness 54 | what we learned

Regarding the six themes that influence quality of life, respondents ranked Housing the highest with a mean score of 4.2 out of 5. This was followed by Community Safety (4.1) and Mobility & Transportation (3.8). Neighborhood Amenities was ranked as having the lowest impact on quality of life with an average score of 2.8.

Without a doubt, the highest ranked priority of the ten takeaways is “Provide the necessary infrastructure to strengthen walkability and pedestrian safety” with an average score of 7.78 out of 10. “Implement a holistic approach to community safety” follows up with a 7.12 average score. The rest of the ten takeaways fall around an average of 6.24. “Provide and connect the community to gathering and other recreational opportunities” is the lowest priority, with an average score of 4.88.

An analysis of open-ended responses was conducted for anything that was indicated as a Missing Priority. Many of these are similar to or fall within the six themes of quality of life mentioned earlier. For example, “housing” was the most frequently mentioned priority with 11 mentions, while “affordable” was mentioned another 5 times. There is a need for more public infrastructure, especially for children. Among the top ten most mentioned words are “school”, “children”, and “age”. Another highly mentioned topic is the inclusion of neighborhood amenities such as street trees, trash receptacles, parks, and lighting.

It becomes clear that mobility and safety are high priorities and lead to better quality of life outcomes for University District residents. These work in tandem with interventions related to walkability, equitable mobility, and reductions in traffic violence.

Affordable housing is also at the forefront of University District priorities. Respondents are also concerned about improved public infrastructure, cleanliness and noise, and developing a strong sense of community.

//PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS FROM LOW (01) TO HIGH (10) Embrace diversity and bridge cultural and social gaps in the district

“Treescape, internet connectivity, and affordable housing”

DIVERSITY

6.6

Strengthen the sense of belonging and welcoming, including short-term residents

BELONGING

“genuinely affordable housing not the “affordable” housing standards”

6.4

Create opportunities for neighbors to meet and engage in the community

NEIGHBORS

“Promoting our new educational opportunities for school age children.”

6.1

Provide a suite of resources and development tools to homeowners and invested property owners

HOUSING TOOLKIT

5.8

Work with landowners and developers to preserve architecture character and uniqueness of the many neighborhoods in the district

“Schools are a major issue. Often, families with small children either move when their kids reach school age or send them to private schools.”

CHARACTER

6.1

Provide the necessary infrastructure to strengthen walkability and pedestrian safety

NON-MOTORIZED MOBILITY

7.8

Identify areas and work with community partners to address cleanliness and noise

NOISE & CLEANLINESS

6.4

Provide and connect the community to gathering and other recreational opportunities

THIRD PLACES

4.9

Attract and retain local shops and services geared towards the diverse audience in the University District

LOCAL BUSINESSES

6.3

Implement a holistic approach to community safety

SAFETY

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

7.1

55

SECTION 4 PATHWAY TO ALL BE WELL

Next Steps “If one can tolerate a certain untidiness in the environment the vitality that you get is good for stability”

Denise Scott Brown

This effort of uncovering what quality of life means for the University District community was centered around their level of satisfaction, access, perception, and overall feeling of belonging as it relates to the six main themes of this survey – housing, mobility & transportation, neighborhood amenities, community character & life, community services, and community safety. What we learned is that the University District community is an eclectic cultural hub for Columbus. All its occupants, stable and transient alike, create an environment that invites diverse opportunities for living, growing, and bonding. It’s no surprise that increasing population and investment comes to this area and it is not immune to local and broader issues.

University District residents know that a walkable and multimodal neighborhood supports a safer and stronger community. While community safety is on most minds, desired solutions frequently point to addressing responsible property owners supplemented by a community block watch. What does better community development look like to the respondents? Gathering spaces, resources for families and individuals, and accountability from outside representatives and partners lead to better neighborliness and better outcomes for all.

The responses, opinions, and recommendations from the community members are vital for guiding policy and partnerships both in the near and long-term future.

Their concerns must be earnestly addressed. Their hopes must be brought to reality. For the quality of life to improve, stakeholders must take a multifaceted approach to not only attending to these issues but resolving them.

Often, there is a misunderstanding of the community’s composition. Namely, the District may be fragmented by the unstable student population and the long-term residents. Perceptions of the area differ and are often influenced by the other group. A collaborative effort is required for the District to achieve the goals referenced in this report.

The next three items are intended to continue this conversation: » “Know Your Neighbors” Case Study » Preliminary Initiative Ideas » Suggested Next Steps

This effort was just a first step in assessing and learning from residents and visitors to identify common values to strengthen the uniqueness of each neighborhood as it comes together to form a single community.

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

57

“Know Your Neighbor” Case Study Recently featured in the community newspaper The Land, which serves the Cleveland neighborhoods, this case study provides some pause for thought. There are lessons to learn in addressing some of the wellknown divides between the University Circle and the communities around it. The planning team suggested that OSU invites the students who formed it to share their experiences.

Preliminary Initiative Ideas The graphic visualization shows a high level initiative ideas. These are responding to the negatives, positives, and suggestions originated from the guided discussion.

But also applies to what we heard during the focus groups and open-ended questions responses. The topics covered includes: » Physical structures » Living in density » Walkability » Transportation » Sense of Neighborhood » Love of Parks and Nature » Love of Local » Eating Suggested Next Steps Looking forward to ensure the conversation about quality of life in the University District continues, the planning team suggests three sets of next steps. Immediate next steps focus on disseminating the survey responses and incorporating the ten key takeaways in the UDO Strategic Plan. The intermediate next steps focus on identifying local leadership and creating participatory opportunities to improve each area district. Lastly, the long-term vision is to foster and strengthen relationships to build one single University District.

58 | what we learned

KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS Glenville Neighborhood Exhibition. Photo: Delaney Jones.

KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS Cleveland, OH There is a disconnect between students at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) and adjacent Glenville and East Cleveland residents. Often, perceptions of an unsafe environment prompt CWRU students to avoid engaging with the nearby community.

When encouraged to stay within the “Case Bubble,” students miss opportunities to be part of their neighbors’ local businesses and culture. Community activist and student Delaney Jones sought to dismantle the divide.

Jones created a student-led initiative at CWRU called Know Your Neighbors. The organization seeks to build community and develop positive relationships between CWRU and its neighbors. The organization hopes to make positive changes in campus culture, race relations, safety, networking, and neighborliness.

Breaking down stereotypes is the way to diminish the effects of the Case Bubble and introduce the transient student community to the surrounding long-term residents.

The effort is a partnership between the organization and the Office of Local Government and Community Relations at CWRU. There, they receive guidance and support for various events. These include dialogue series, inviting residents to guest lecture in their areas of expertise, developing a buddy system between students and residents, and social media initiatives. Internally,

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Know Your Neighbors is working to create a task force to guide CWRU student representatives on how to communicate with students about the neighborhood.

This effort attacks the negative perceptions of adjacent communities that were often passed on from representatives like orientation leaders and tour guides.

Know Your Neighbors isn’t alone. The student advocacy has further moved the university to act on its approaches to improved community relations. The East Cleveland Partnership, led by CWRU and University Circle institutions, set out redevelopment efforts to secure appropriate neighborhood rehabilitation funds.

Other community networks have been spurred into more action. The CWRU Community Innovation Network offers community-building training to local residents.

A Neighborhood Advocacy Council with stipends for community members was established.

While Know Your Neighbors is just getting started, Delaney Jones’ efforts are making tremendous progress toward erasing the stereotypes that divide people on either side of the rail bridge between East 120th and East 118th Streets. Instead, Know Your Neighbors will soon build bridges to connect students and neighbors.

Together, these efforts can improve the community for all.

59

PRELIMINARY

INITIATIVE IDEAS

Initiative Ideas Inspired by the Positives, Negatives, and Suggestions Mentioned.

PHYSICAL STRUCTURES SENSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD + Historic Buildings + Aesthetically Pleasing – New Development (“out of place” ; “ugly”) – Construction – Garbage on the Streets & Alleys – Property Management Groups ^ Improved Housing (quality and/or price) ^ Tighter Property Standards – More Art / Beautification

COMMUNITY ART BY COMMUNITY ARTISTS ORGANIZED BEAUTIFICATION

LIVING IN DENSITY + Lots of Events + Proximity (OSU + Clintonville + Downtown) + Convenience – Traffic During Events – Late Night Parties / Drunk People – Crime

PREPARING & RECOVERING FROM EVENTS CONNECTING RESIDENTS TO HELP

+ Diversity + Youth Organizations + Job Opportunities – Cost of Housing / People Forced Out – Unfair equity / lack of opportunities – Homeless Population (“Are we doing enough?)

– “The word average comes to mind” ^Access to Resources for Non-Students (Students have access to indoor gyms, medical services, counseling services, community gathering spaces, etc.) ^ Better Communication between Districts ^ Connecting Students to Non-Students ^ Promotion of Events (website with info) ^ Events that aren’t Food or Drink-related

ACCESS TO JOBS & RECREATION CREATING COMMUNITY PROMOTING EVENTS

LOVE OF PARKS / NATURE + Places to get away / Nature –Tree Sanctuary / Parks / Green Spaces

PROMOTING PARKS & GREEN SPACES MAINTAINING / PROTECTING

WALKABILITY + Walkable – Safety Concerns at Night (insufficient lighting)

ATTENTION TO MAINTENANCE

TRANSPORTATION + Some Free Parking – Road Conditions (potholes, ice in winter) – Scooters / Bikes on the Street – Traffic Accidents – “Public transportation is a hassle” – Parking is Very Difficult ^ Better Streets ^ One-Way Streets into Two-Way Streets ^ More Parking (free for residents & visitors)

ADDRESSING ROAD SAFETY ADDRESSING PARKING

LOVE OF LOCAL + Local Art + Small Businesses + Coffee shops – Corporate Feel ^“Less Chain, More Character”

SUPPORTING LOCAL CREATIVELY

EATING + Restaurant (lots of options) ^ Healthier Food / Quality Groceries ^ Ethnic-specific Food, Bars, and Clubs ^ Food for Families / Dine-In Restaurants

SUPPORTING MINORITY BUSINESSES QUALITY TIME SHARING QUALITY FOOD

Ideas for Initiatives based on the positives, negatives, and suggestions mentioned.

60 | what we learned

SUGGESTED

NEXT STEPS

Immediate / Intermediate / Long-Term

Immediate Next Steps Disseminate report findings Translate findings into infographics and/or sharable deck UDO Strategic Plan

Intermediate Steps Create participatory design opportunities Identify community leaders for each of the 4 area districts Identify projects to pursue from findings

Long-Term Vision Build relationships to bring all four area district together to form a one single university district Empower each district to start and maintain projects for improvement

UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

61