Seeding an Eco-District - Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision by Flo Mettetal

SEEDING

AN ECO-DISTRICT PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK SOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Morgan Fett Marlena Hanlon Alexsandr Kanevskiy Florent Mettetal Ben Stacey

AS PART OF URP 507 - FUNDAMENTALS OF PLANNING PRACTICE - WINTER 2018

Note on maps: All maps in this document were created by Florent Mettetal & Ben Stacey in the period between 01.30.2018 and 04.23.2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In 1992, Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) was created with a mission to “improve the environment and strengthen the economy of Southwest Detroit [by] working together with residents, community organizations, government agencies, schools, business and industry to combat environmental issues including: air quality, blight, and incompatible land use.” Since then, they have served as a catalyst for initiatives that improve the environment and stimulate environmentally sound economic development, particularly supporting the neighborhood bound by Michigan Ave, Fort St, Scotten St and Livernois Ave. Building from SDEV’s legacy as a community leader, this plan was created to establish strategies to mobilize resources and prioritize projects in the next phase of transforming the area into a more livable Southwest Detroit. In collaboration with SDEV, a team of graduate students from the Taubman College of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Michigan created an inventory of existing community assets and conducted community engagement workshops to inform a spatial suitability analysis. The processes were then synthesized into community-supported, datadriven recommendations for a targeted approach. Method The process through which the plan was created wove together community knowledge with high resolution data and GIS analysis to identify and prioritize future SDEV projects in parks and gardens, green infrastructure and community art. First, the team conducted a ground inventory by customizing an app available through Loveland, called Site Control. Several factors were measured, and the factors which were integrated with GIS analysis included vacant parcels, presence of parks or gardens, and presence of community art. Second, this inventory was cross-referenced with spatial analysis databases and tools. Measures integrated into this stage included percent of impervious surface, tree canopy coverage, and validating which vacant parcels were owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA). Maps were generated which included this information, as well as landmark and infrastructure such as bus stops, schools and churches, etc. These maps became the foundation for the community engagement. Third, we undertook two sessions of community engagement. One was hosted at the local partner high school, Detroit Cristo Rey, and had a formal agenda with structured, sequential activities. The second was hosted at an ice cream shop on the main commercial corridor, W Vernor Highway. The original intent for this second event was as a youth-oriented event, but in practice, both events had a mixture of adults and youth. The second event featured the same activities, but participation was non-sequential, with different participants engaging different activities concurrently. The three activities asked participants to provide input into the maps we had already populated with our inventory and physical landscape information, engage in an “ideal community” visioning session, and to vote on location and project type priorities in the community. SDEV identiﬁed three major project types for our focus: gardens and parks, art, and green infrastructure.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conclusions Using input from the community sessions in combination with GIS-based suitability analysis, we have identified a recommended strategy for three main project types. The recommended strategies are: Green Links - for parks and community gardens High Visibility and Use - for murals, sculptures, and functional art Flood Management - for green infrastructure The underpinning logic for parks and gardens was to identify parcels owned by the DLBA, therefore available for acquisition, and which met other criteria that distributed green spaces throughout the target geography. These criteria included distance from other parks or gardens, proximity to schools, and low tree cover. This strategy is termed Green Links to represent a more connected and evenly distributed network of green space throughout the area. For community art, which includes murals, sculptures, and functional art (e.g., mosaic bus stop benches), the recommended strategy is High Visibility and Use. This reflects community input that art is ideally located where it is seen often near schools, churches, and along commercial corridors that residents travel through. The third project category, green infrastructure, was prioritized by both community and our spatial analysis in terms of flooding events and impervious surface coverage. The strategy for this project is Flood Management. We provide maps which identify highest flood risk through impervious surface at both parcel-level and by sector, to allow for different approaches to project implementation. As a matter of implementation, we recommend three tactics. One, SDEV asked us to consider a broad portfolio in our assessments and community engagement to help prioritize among projects and opportunities. However, once SDEV has identified a particular project on which it wants to move forward, it should focus on engaging community for input on the specifics of the project. Two, while SDEV is engaged in larger project planning, we recommend identifying readily accessible opportunities within the community, which require less intensive investment to edify. One example is enforcing the bike lanes on Livernois with fresh paint striping, soft-hit posts that are more comprehensive to increase compliance, and distributed tree planting to reinforce the bike boulevard already installed. Three, we recommend that SDEV identify community business partners for projects which can stack funding and function. Starting with businesses at corners, SDEV and its business partner can use multiple funding streams to transform a corner with stacked functions, such as flooding remediation, bike lane installation, crosswalk edification, pocket park and art installation. The enticement for the local business may be achieved through funding which supports facade and landscaping remodeling, and which continues to receive benefits through lowered water fees. Meanwhile, the entire community will benefit from the increased shared infrastructure. Supported by an iterative community engagement process, our spatial analysis and project strategies provide SDEV with a “map” to advance its green mission throughout its community. These strategies are responsive to the unique criteria of project categories, and have a cumulative impact through the implementation tactic of stacking which can quickly transform corners with both sustainable businesses and infrastructure.

iii

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENT FIGURES & TABLES

ii iv v

CONTEXT

VISION. GOALS. OBJECTIVES.

SITE INVENTORY

4 6 8

Site Characteristics Inventory of Existing Assets

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Case Study Insights Session Strategy Insights & Results

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Green Links: Parks and Gardens Site Priorities Community Input Methodology High Use and Visibility: Murals & Functional Art Site Priorities Community Input Methodology Flood Management: Green Infrastructure Site Priorities Community Input Methodology

IMPLEMENTATION Broad Implementation Strategies Implementation for a Hypothetical Site

10 10 11 13 15 16 20

27 27 28

CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

32 32 33

Table of Content Appendices A through E iv

FIGURES & TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1 2 2 6 7 8 10 12 18 19 20 25 26 28 28 28 29 29 29 29

FIgure 1: Project Area within Detroit FIgure 2: Project Area Boundaries FIgure 3: Aerial View of Clark Park FIgure 4: Private - Public Ownership and Zoning Maps FIgure 5: Murals in Southwest Detroit FIgure 6: Existing Assets Map - Parks, Gardens, Art FIgure 7: Community Input Sessions at Cristo Rey and La Fiesta FIgure 8: Community Input Sessions Locations & Pictures FIgure 9: Site Suitability Index - Parks and Gardens FIgure 10: Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned Parcels FIgure 11: Murals and Functional Art FIgure 12a: Impervious Surface Cover by Sector FIgure 12b: Impervious Surface Cover by Parcel FIgure 13: Example of DWSD’s Match Eligible Projects FIgure 14: Trafﬁc Calming Chicane Serving as Green Infrastructure FIgure 15: Roundabout as an Example of Stacked Functions FIgure 15: Roundabout as an Example of Stacked Functions FIgure 16: Bike Lane Protected by G.I. Chicane FIgure 17: Pocket Park with Planter Boxes FIgure 18: Identiﬁed Hypothetical Site on CVS Site on Campbell St & Junction St

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing Community Assets Table 2: Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned Vacant Parcels by Prioritization Score

Appendices: Table 3: Suitability Index DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels Table 4: Industrial Buffer DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels Table 5: School Buffer DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels

9 17

42 43 44

CONTEXT Southwest Detroit faces challenges common to many other parts of the city, as well as other cities in the nation’s Rust Belt - post-industrial decline has brought infrastructural, economic and environmental concerns. But Southwest has a history of turning these challenges into successes. While much of the area is zoned industrial, it is relatively dense compared to many parts of the city; there is a strong community presence; and it is home to devoted organizations seeking to improve the quality of life for residents. Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) has been working in the community for over a quarter-century, combating environmental issues through a number of avenues. Their many successes include infrastructure improvement plans around Bennett Elementary, yearly tire sweeps, and the Cadillac urban gardens on Merritt. Creating, ﬁxing or clearly delineating linkages between community assets is pivotal to the project of resilience. Southwest Detroit has a number of blighted and/or vacant properties, which present a challenge for environmental and economic resiliency.

Transforming these into community gardens, pocket parks and green infrastructure sites can help to create much-needed connections between organizations and people. In this project, we support SDEV’s mission to continue “serving as a catalyst and resource for initiatives to improve the environment and stimulate environmentallysound economic development”.

Figure 1: Project Area within Detroit

Ultimately, our guiding question for analysis is: What is the most effective strategic framework for prioritizing projects that will improve the quality of life for residents?

CONTEXT Michigan Ave

Sco

ct Jun

The spatial area of focus - bound by Fort, Livernois, Michigan and Scotten, home to 11,616 residents -required a thorough mapping of community assets, both naturebased and man-made, to develop a strategic extension of SDEV’s plan. We recognized that Identifying potential linkages among these assets will form the basis for SDEV’s iterative strategy, leveraging existing works to inform a prioritized list of prospective green infrastructure, parks, gardens and community art projects. There is more opportunity for inventory and identiﬁcation.

tten

ion

Ave

i rno

Live

Cla

a rk P

e s Av

r Hw

no Ver

For

t St

Parks Publicly Owned Land Privately Owned Land

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles

Figure 2: Project Area Boundaries Parks

Publicly Owned Land Privately Owned Land

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles

Based on Southwest Detroit’s unique context, as well as SDEV’s organizational goals and challenges, our project: •

Create an inventory of the physical and social assets and challenges in the proposed area that include vacant lots, green infrastructure, community organizations and transportation linkages.

•

Develops a decision-making strategy that synthesizes asset inventories, community input and contextual challenges and constraints in order to prioritize future projects and use of resources

Figure 3: Aerial View of Clark Park

VISION. GOALS. OBJECTIVES

VISION Our strategic plan will serve as a baseline and to provide SDEV guidance in achieving the longterm goals of creating an Eco-District within Southwest Detroit.

GOALS A range of goals are accomplished through this report including: 1. Establish a baseline for existing green assets and artwork within the community. 2. Provide guidance for project prioritization based upon community knowledge and spatial data to enhance decision-making. 3. Align project opportunities with community and data based prioritization. 4. Reduce vacant lots through increased green space and green infrastructure projects.

OBJECTIVES The measurable objectives this project puts forth are the following: a. Provide inventory of existing assets by way of ground survey, community workshops, inhouse knowledge (SDEV), and publicly available data including: canopy cover, impervious surface, public parks, community gardens, functional art, murals, schools, churches, trafďŹ c patterns, zoning, vacancies and Detroit Land Bank Authority owned parcels. The inventory will list all parks, community gardens, murals and functional art assets delivered in the form of an Asset Map and Asset Table. b. Establish community-based priorities for siting green space projects (pocket parks and gardens), identifying speciďŹ c parcels of vacant parcels owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority. Create a prioritized list of individual DLBA owned-vacant parcels. c. Provide guidelines and recommendations for prioritizing sites of future art projects (murals and functional art), supported by community input and spatial data. d. Provide guidelines and recommendations for prioritizing siting of future green infrastructure projects (murals and functional art), supported by community input and spatial data.

SITE INVENTORY SDEV’s work over the past 20 years has had a major impact on the community, and this report compiles the ﬁrst comprehensive inventory of the neighborhood’s assets. These assets are deﬁned as existing features and SDEV led and other community projects. This section provides a detailed site inventory, establishing a baseline for the suitability analysis and recommend future strategies which follow. To complete this mapped inventory, high resolution data (parcel level) was compiled from publicly available sources, an on-the-ground survey (LOVELAND Technologies), SDEV’s in-house knowledge, and community engagement workshops.

SITE SURVEY The site survey conducted by the University of Michigan team was performed using LOVELAND Technologies’ survey tool, which is well-suited for surveying properties with location-based data and imagery. This aided in the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. The entire study area was surveyed by 5 UM team members (see Appendix A), each assigned a unique area. The survey results integrated in the assSets map and suitability analysis included: vacant lots, art (murals and functional), parks and community gardens.

LOVELAND was founded in Detroit in 2009. It was started as a cartographic experiment, known as Motor City Mapping and evolving to its current name: Loveland Technologies, amateur surveyors knocked on doors to gather info on Detroit homeowners, compared their observations with public records. The current LOVELAND app is for looking up and surveying properties with location-based data and imagery. With a subscription to site control one can develop a customized parcel survey and conduct it on the ﬁeld using the app. This is the tool used for the purpose of this project.

IN-HOUSE KNOWLEDGE SDEV staff populated maps to identify its projects and ﬁll gaps from the Loveland survey. This included a list of gardens/parks, murals and functional art and green infrastructure (see Appendix B).

DETROIT OPEN DATA PORTAL AND OTHER PUBLIC SOURCES Provided the foundation of data used in this analysis at the parcel level. Parcel level data included: Parcel ID number, Address, Owner, Taxpayer, Zoning, Owner, Sale Date, Last Sale Price, Land Value, Taxable Value, Property Class, Total Acreage, Frontage, Depth, Square Footage, Longitude and Latitude. With this information, the analysis provides descriptive details necessary for SDEV assess parcels for future projects. Critical information is provided in tables in the suitability analysis section (e.g. priority parcels for Parks and Gardens).

SITE INVENTORY LIST OF LAYERS USED IN ANALYSIS Detroit Zoning (Detroit Open Data Portal). The 2017 Zoning District of every parcel in the City of Detroit. Understanding land use is essential, especially in the context of green infrastructure implementation where industrial and commercial land-use will dictate priority.

Detroit Churches (Detroit Open Data Portal). List organizations that offer religious services in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Data table includes the name and address of contacts and religious afﬁliation. Data may not reﬂect recent closures or openings since 2011.

Detroit Parks (Detroit Open Data Portal). Municipal parks and landmark features for the City of Detroit updated in 2015. Includes golf courses, City Airport and civic plazas. Does not include all school parks, unless they are maintained by Detroit Parks and Rec. Some parks in the ﬁle may have been “abandoned” and are not maintained in the database any longer.

Detroit Schools (Detroit Open Data Portal). All K-12 schools within the city of Detroit in 2015 which will serve as our institution basis for this project.

Detroit Tree Canopy (South East Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG 2012). The tree canopy area for every parcel within the study area.

Detroit Impervious Surface (SEMCOG, 2012). The impervious surface for every parcel within the study area.

Buildings Land Cover (SEMCOG). The buildings data layer represents the digital footprint of each building in Southeast Michigan, as of April 2015, along with associated attributes of each building. The building footprints were originally compiled using heads-up digitizing of 2010 aerial photography, and then attributed with additional information on their location and physical characteristics using a variety of sources.

Traffic Volumes (SEMCOG 2015). Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for each federal funding eligible road. AADT values are derived from traffic counts and may be observed, interpolated or default values.

SITE INVENTORY

Site Characteristics Southwest Detroit embodies characteristics that are appreciably different from many neighborhoods in the city. Land use character in the area is distinguished by two salient types: the large presence of industrially-zoned land and the existence of dense residential housing stock. The following characteristics are the main criteria identiďŹ ed by our team to derive suitability analysis for the neighborhood.

LAND USE of the owner status in the neighborhood can be observed in the map below, showing the public v. private distribution of parcels. While the area features a high residential density and high rate of private ownership, the subcategories which follow within the private ownership group are of importance in the prioritization of future project process.

The target area in Southwest Detroit features a heavy proportion of industrially-zoned land, but in a city that usually features a lot of vacant residential-zoned parcels, it boasts a dense residential stock. There are commercial corridors on the edges of the area on Michigan Ave and Fort St, as well as within its core on W Vernor Hwy and Junction St. A broad overview

In General: Yellow - Residential ; Red - Business ; Purple - Industrial

Cla

k Par

ark rk P

rk Cla

Figure 4: Private - Public Ownership Map (left) and Zoning Map for Area (right) (Source - Detroit Open Data)

SITE INVENTORY

Q U I C F K A C T S

The area features approximately

Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned

46%

30%

10%

residential

industrial

businesses

Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned

parcels

vacant parcels

Institutions

Commercial

Parcel Size

These include centers of social, academic or other type of activity in the neighborhood, e.g. Cristo Rey High School, The Most Holy Redeemer Church, Clark Park. Implementing projects near institutions will increase project impact and establish visible linkages throughout these entities.

The commercial parcels along Vernor Hwy and Junction St are important for two categories of projects that SDEV has help implement in the past: creation of green infrastructure in usually highly impervious commercial lots and the beautiﬁcation of the neighborhood through murals on the facade commercial structures.

Parcels size is an important metric in two regards: some projects require less space and in this dense residential neighborhood, pocket parks can ﬁnd a niche on small isolated parcels within the housing stock. However, several adjacent parcels may be opportunities for bigger space intensive needs (parks, recreation facilities) and are therefore better suited for such opportunities.

Green Space and Art Assets The inventory map and tables include community assets related to SDEV projects such as city parks, pocket parks, community gardens, murals, functional art and trees. The listed assets (see Table 1) in combination with the inventory map (Figure 3), provides establish strong visuals for what exists in the area and will create a foundation from which to build momentum. The Vernor corridor boasts an array of murals (Figure 5). The two larger parks include Clark Park and St. Hedwig Playﬁeld.

Figure 5: Murals in Southwest Detroit From Left to Right:4114 W. Vernor Hwy - 3041 W. Vernor Highway, 6000 Vernor Hwy, Detroit, Michigan 7

SITE INVENTORY

Inventory of Existing Assets

Figure 6: Existing Assets Map - Parks, Gardens, Art (Sources: Detroit Open Data, UofM Site Survey) 8

SITE INVENTORY

Type Address Parcel area (sq. ft) Parcel area (acres) Zoning Depth (ft) Frontage Mural 4340 W VERNOR 4287 0.098 B4 108 40 Mural 4125 W VERNOR 2515 0.058 B4 110 23 Mural 5894 W VERNOR 5156 0.118 B4 124 42 Mural 4735 CHRISTIANCY 2464 0.057 R2 40 41 Mural 4119 W VERNOR 3304 0.076 B4 110 30 Mural 5662 W VERNOR 3714 0.085 B4 124 30 Mural 4433 W VERNOR 5650 0.13 B4 134 42 Mural 1601 CLARK 31936 0.733 R2 160 200 Mural 6000 W VERNOR 4692 0.108 B4 100 47 Mural 4804 W VERNOR 9124 0.209 B4 152 60 Mural 2636 JUNCTION 3716 0.085 M4 120 31 Mural 4600 MERRITT 334765 7.685 M4 0 0 Garden 5667 MCMILLAN 3093 0.071 R2 124 25 Garden 1474 MCKINSTRY 4792 0.11 R2 160 30 Garden 2477 JUNCTION 2640 0.061 B4 80 33 Garden 4236 BRANDON 3900 0.09 M4 130 30 Garden 2900 JUNCTION 587011 13.476 M4 0 0 Garden 1482 MCKINSTRY 7971 0.183 R2 160 50 Garden 4230 BRANDON 3920 0.09 M4 130 30 Garden 6020 MCMILLAN 4487 0.103 R2 75 60 Garden 4018 TOLEDO 1525 0.035 M4 67 23 Garden 4400 W VERNOR 9743 0.224 B4 97 100 Garden 4010 TOLEDO 1133 0.026 M4 67 17 Garden 4002 TOLEDO 1133 0.026 M4 67 17 Garden 1553 CAMPBELL 3964 0.091 R2 0 0 Garden 4601 MERRITT 36416 0.836 M3 101 360 Garden 2600 JUNCTION 18600 0.427 M4 120 155 Garden 4008 TOLEDO 1176 0.027 M4 67 17 Garden 2105 CAVALRY 4487 0.103 R2 75 60 Garden 5817 ELDRED 2309 0.053 R2 0 0 Garden 4000 TOLEDO 1525 0.035 M4 67 23 Garden 4016 TOLEDO 1176 0.027 M4 67 17 Garden 2801 JUNCTION 19333 0.444 M4 0 0 Garden 5619 PLUMER 1122 0.026 B4 33 34 Garden 2435 JUNCTION 7542 0.173 B4 114 66 Garden 1238 MILITARY 72324 1.66 R2 147 492 Funct. Art 5667 MCMILLAN 3093 0.071 R2 124 25 Funct. Art 4248 BRANDON 3900 0.09 M4 130 30 Table 1: Existing Community Assets Table

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Case Study Insights The case study used to inform our community engagement stems from Community Development Advocates of Detroit (CDAD). It is an active organization in Detroit that focuses on engagement in planning and policy. It is currently working with Chadsey-Condon, a neighborhood in Southwest Detroit that is adjacent to SDEV’s target area. We draw from CDAD’s approach to community engagement and identify three key strengths to apply to our own community engagement:

Our first session, held at Detroit Cristo Rey High School, involved a more formal itinerary, separating input components into 3 clear segments: participatory mapping, community visioning, and identifying preferred project locations and characteristics. Our second session, located at La Fiesta Ice Cream, was more fluid. Participants filtered in freely over the course of our session, simultaneously adding data to maps, identifying ideal locations, and listing preferred project characteristics.

1. Continuity. We used several techniques which are already established among participants in order to minimize the learning curve for our sequence of activities. This enabled participants to more fully focus on the value of their input, rather than experience confusion over what tasks involved.

Both sessions elucidated some of the preferences and frameworks residents used when thinking about where to locate certain projects. This data was incorporated into the components we selected for our suitability analysis. The following sections discuss the key components of our community input sessions, and the results are incorporated into our later discussion of recommendations and strategies.

2. Intergenerational involvement. Like CDAD, we held separate events intended to include an all-ages community and youth-centric community. We adopted this tactic to ensure that younger voices were not lost, giving ample permission to youth participants to focus on issues of primary importance to them, without compromise. 3. Creative, rather than critical. An approach to reducing conﬂict among stakeholders is to avoid delving immediately into tactics, but ﬁrst establishing resonance with shared criteria and objectives. Therefore, for the nascent meetings, we adopted a CDAD activity of using play items - Playdough, blocks, glitter, etc. - to build an “ideal community” with physical features and social characteristics. This activity helps build rapport among participants while capturing essential data about shared priorities. Community engagement focused around two input sessions held on March 31st and April 3rd. Five community members attended the March 31st meeting, while twenty-two residents attended the April 3rd meeting. Both meetings involved the same components of: participatory mapping, ideal community visioning, identifying project location preferences, and listing preferred project characteristics.

Figure 7: Community Input Sessions at Cristo Rey (top) & La Fiesta Ice Cream (bottom) 10

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Session Strategy conﬂict by focusing on criteria, rather than tactics. It helps participants gain consensus on desired goals by shifting the perspective from problem solving to co-creating. The question is, “How do you see the community which best reﬂects your wants and needs?”

The purpose of our engagement strategy is multifaceted: To present residents in a target area with composite inventory and assessment information for additions and deletions. This creates an opportunity for residents to pool collective knowledge, leveraging the resources our team has put together while retaining value in local expertise. The question is, “Is this how you recognize your community, and if not, in what ways should the documentation (maps) be changed?”

To facilitate a process through which residents identify community priorities for action. After drafting initial maps from our inventory, residents see a snapshot of the larger target area in a visual, connected way. From that, participant residents can begin to assess where they feel resources should be applied ﬁrst. The question is, “What areas, spatially, and what areas, functionally, are most important to you?”

To engage participants in a creative, participatory “play” session, during which residents imagine what their ideal community looks like, within our given set of resources and guiding goals. This is effective because it engages multi-modal expression (kinesthetic, visual, verbal, etc.) and reduces

Sessions Activities Participatory Mapping: Participants were presented with maps of the site that included streets, parks, and institutions. They were asked to indicate areas of interest: ﬂood-prone areas, vacant lots, parks or gardens, common routes they use, unmarked institutions or community art works, and where they live.

Identifying project location and characteristics: Participants were then given a ﬁnite number of colored stickers which corresponded to different development projects. For example, on one map, red represented pocket parks, blue represented trees, and green represented gardens. After participants indicated an area they would like to see a particular project, they then noted their reasoning for selecting that location. Pre-identiﬁed categories were available—such as proximity to institutions, commonly-used routes, or presence of a vacant lot—however, space was made available for participants to list additional characteristics.

Ideal Community Visioning: Groups brainstormed features of a great community. To the extent that those ideas were infrastructure features (as opposed to qualities, like “low crime”), there was an assortment of clay, legos, and other craft items on each table for construction of these ideas. Facilitators took notes on the discussion while groups shared their “villages” with each other. Given the location and layout of our second community engagement session, this activity was featured in our ﬁrst session, while the discussion of an “ideal” community was more conversational and one-on-one between participants and facilitators during the second session. 11

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

C R I S T O R E Y

± Clark Parks Park Publicly Owned Land Privately Owned Land

sta Fie am La re C Ice

0.2

0.4 Miles

Parks

H ey oR

0.1

Publicly Owned Land Privately Owned Land

L A F I E S T A Figure 8: Community Input Sessions Locations & Additional Pictures 12

0.1

0.2

0.4 Miles

500ft

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Insights & Results Our community input sessions provided both broad community goals and specific insights to inform our subsequent suitability analyses. The foundational questions driving input sessions were answered as follows: “Is this how you recognize your community, and if not, in what ways should the documentation (maps) be changed?” Generally, residents affirmed our existing inventory and maps. Any identified additions were incorporated into our map layers in our suitability analysis. “How do you see the community which best reflects your wants and needs?” Participants envisioned walkable neighborhoods, with a mix of uses including gardens, housing, a rec center, shopping, and libraries and cafes to study and gather in. “What areas, spatially, and what areas, functionally, are most important to you?” Participants identified a number of locations for the various project types within the categories of art, green infrastructure, and parks and gardens. The sites and functionalities they addressed varied by project type and were each reflected in their respective suitability analyses.

Main insights from session activities:

Community members often referenced community institutions, such as schools or churches, when recommending all types of project sites. They saw those institutions, especially schools, as ideal sources for outreach, volunteer engagement, and areas that most residents frequent. Our subsequent analysis would need to keep local institutions in mind. One student mentioned that he would like to see more art around his school, especially locations visible from within the school. Murals, he said, could vastly enhance students’ views.

Community members also focused on commonly-used, higher-trafﬁc corridors when talking about various projects. They wanted to see murals, parks, or infrastructure along their daily routes.

One participant suggested that bus stops would be an ideal location for functional art, while another wanted to see more murals along the Vernor corridor because they regularly walked along it.

Residents offered relatively fewer opinions on green infrastructure, with the majority agreeing that ﬂood management and tree planting were ideal projects. One resident advocated strongly for improving the Livernois corridor, especially by planting trees. She mentioned its industrial aesthetics and conditions were a detriment to residents.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT After conducting two community sessions, we gathered qualitative spatial information, which included common routes; unidentified parks; vacant lots or art; preferred locations for projects; and preferred characteristics and categories when choosing where to locate projects. This specific information can be seen in the community input maps located in Appendix B. Community input on where and why residents chose specific project locations informed what data we included in our recommendations. This data translated to selecting specific layers to incorporate into our site suitability analysis. Additionally, further data--from our visioning activity, location mapping, and individual conversations with participants--revealed broad community preferences and specific opportunities for implementation. These insights are briefly mentioned above but are also further discussed within our Recommended Strategies.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES The main objective of this report is to explore strategies for siting future SDEV projects. To accomplish this, priorities identiﬁed during the community engagement process are interwoven with spatial data in the following analyses. The maps contained in this section illustrate this combination of inputs; they provide a spatial explanation of the recommendations and strategies.

Building from our inventory, community input, and suitability analysis we present a comprehensive strategic framework outlining how SDEV can approach and implement future projects. We separate these steps among three main types of projects:

In this analysis, spatial data analyzed focuses on attributes related to green space, impervious space, land use, travel, and community values. Parcel level data ownership, lot size, areas of interest, and physical characteristics are analyzed to determine what is possible in the implementation of an Eco-District in Southwest Detroit. Among other data sources and tools, we include high impervious surface percentage, low tree coverage, Euclidean distance from parks and institutions, as well as known pedestrian passages, e.g. Safe Routes to School. Community engagement sessions provide invaluable knowledge on the micro level, which informs our choices of variables for the suitability analysis (i.e. distance from schools) and preferred or recommended locations. Participatory mapping informs site suitability recommendations by ﬁlling in any gaps in our own mapping; this process has helped prioritize and locate future projects for SDEV. In the following sections, we itemize each strategy and discuss its mapping approach.

Beautify and engage through Murals and Functional Art

Create communal spaces and greening through Parks and Gardens

Address stormwater management and implement carbon-neutral or-reducing infrastructure in Green Infrastructure We recognize the unique character of each of these three types of projects and preempt this issue by tailoring our approaches to their constraints and demands. For Parks and Gardens, we recommend a “Green Links” approach that emphasizes building near existing community institutions, as supported in our in-house survey and community input sessions, as well as in areas untouched by green space. For Murals and Functional Art, we recommend a similar strategy “HighVisibility and Use” approach. This category of project is necessarily limited to spaces with vertical walls and/or high visibility. For Green Infrastructure, we recommend “Flood Management” through ranking areas of high impermeability. Further implementation adopts a series of priorities, focusing on ﬁlling the gaps between extant infrastructure projects and institutions while also targeting pedestrian pathways noted in the community input. Projects that buffer residential districts from industrial districts are additionally added to the priorities.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Green Links: Parks and Gardens Our recommendation for parks and gardens projects is to pursue a Green Links strategy. This strategy prioritizes locating green spaces closer to community institutions, such as schools, as well as creating new linkages between existing green spaces by installing parks and gardens in areas that have a low canopy coverage and high rate of impervious surface.

These variables include: 1. Tree canopy cover Parcels farthest from trees are valued higher 2. Proximity to institutions Areas near community institutions (schools and churches) are scored higher 3. Proximity to existing parks and gardens Areas farther from existing parks and garden are scored higher

The strength of this approach is that it places an emphasis on linkages between institutions and green spaces - they constitute new linkages, by deﬁnition, because distance from existing parks and gardens is considered when creating the index. By seeking out spaces with low canopy coverage and high impervious surface percentage, this approach creates new linkages, rather than reinforcing existing ones. Large swaths of Southwest and, more speciﬁcally, the focus area are still in need of green islands that can serve to connect disjointed parks and gardens. This approach can correct breaks in regional continuity, albeit success will be judged differently than if strengthening existing linkages.

For further analysis, Detroit Land Bank Authority-owned parcels are identified and itemized. This should allow SDEV to prioritize project sites that are ready to be leveraged in the short-term. The site suitability analysis for all three categories takes into consideration these DLBA-owned properties. COMMUNITY INPUT During both community sessions, most residents indicated a desire to see more parks and gardens around community institutions and in areas that were largely untouched by green space. Some residents mentioned that they wanted to see more green space in Southwest overall, and that it seemed logical to focus on underutilized areas. Additionally, another respondent discussed the benefits of developing green spaces close to institutions; he had volunteered in community gardens in the past and noted that finding residents to participate in the maintenance of gardens or access the produce was a challenge. By installing gardens closer to institutions, especially schools, SDEV will have increased visibility in the community and more potential for partnerships, volunteering and programming.

As indicated on the site suitability index below (Figure 9), our recommendation is that SDEV pursue investment in new parks and gardens along and around the Vernor commercial corridor, as well as along the northeastern edge of the area of focus, i.e. heading west on Michigan from the Michigan/Scotten intersection. Additionally, we recommend pursuing Detroit Land Bank Authority parcels -indicated in the ﬁgures and tables in the implementation section- as SDEV will have an increased opportunity to acquire those parcels for use. SITE PRIORITIES The suitability index for Parks and Gardens weighs three variables to produce a map highlighting areas with the most potential for new parks and gardens (See Figure 9). 16

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Green Links: Parks and Gardens

METHODOLOGY Based on the feedback provided at the community engagement workshops, site suitability for parks gardens integrated three factors: proximity to schools and churches, distance from nearest (city maintained) parks, and distance to tree cover. Each parcel was analyzed and scored for each of these factors, with score for the most suitable location for a new community park or garden as 100. Total scores are reﬂected in the map below with red being most suitable.

and low grades to the ones already close to them. This will push for a prioritization of park projects in areas where green space is lacking. Being able to homogenize the availability of close-by green space and signiﬁcantly reduce the distance to one is essential and should be reﬂected in the recommended framework. Refer to Appendix C for full map.

Tree Canopy

Detroit Land Bank Authority-owned Parcels present an opportunity for SDEV or other partners to gain ownership of land parcels. Using the ground survey, identiﬁed vacant lots were cross-referenceSd with DLBA-owned parcel. These DLBA-owned and vacant parcels may be more easily acquired and may allow for assemblages. They may be highly prioritized due to greater feasibility for future project implementation. Below is a map of DLBAowned and DLBA-owned-vacant parcels. Enlarged maps can be found in Appendix C. The DLBA-owned-vacant parcels are listed in the table below in rank of suitability as reﬂected in Figure 9.

Identifying Opportunities for New Parks and Gardens Projects:

The use of the tree canopy layer is important to gauge the overall distribution of trees in the area and could inﬂuence future greening projects undertaken by SDEV. Distance from parcel centroids to trees was the metric used to establish the scoring. While percent of tree coverage on parcels was considered as a metric, it revealed some non-representative trends, especially with small parcels scoring very high because of their small overall area with respect to a tree canopy area. Refer to Appendix C for full map. Distance to Institutions

Address

Euclidean distance to aforementioned surveyed institutions is used. Parcels closest to institutions have a higher score. Refer to Appendix C for full map.

2161 Scotten 1609 Lansing 1633 Lansing 5666 Amherst 1408 Lansing

Distance to Parks As a push towards demonstrating the commitment to green, community-driven development, we believe that the proximity to green space is an important criterion when establishing priority across a range of projects. Here, we employ a “ﬁlling the gaps” approach. Thus the distance to parks or green space will be scored on a model giving higher scores for parcels furthest away from those spaces

Score 93.3 86.7 80.0 73.3 73.3

Area (ft²) 3,227 4,008 4,182 3,136 5,745

Table 2: Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned Vacant Parcel Ranked by Prioritization Score (full table in Appendix D)

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Green Links: Parks and Gardens

Figure 9: Site Suitability Index - Parks and Gardens 18

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Green Links: Parks and Gardens

Figure 10: Detroit Land Bank Authority Owned Parcels (Detroit Open Data, Loveland Technologies) 19

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

High Visibility and Use: Murals and Functional Art Our recommendation for murals and functional art projects is to pursue a High Visibility and Use strategy. This approach emphasizes building off of existing assets and structures and focusing on high visibility and high-use locations. Community input reﬂects a desire to locate art projects in areas that people regularly use, indicating key routes and institutions as anchor points for selecting desired locations.

trafﬁc areas and commercial corridors often intersect, which makes this approach particularly valuable with regard to functional art, which might often take the form of seating or bus refuges. The third factor -locating murals and functional art near institutions- further builds on the preferences and strengths of the community. Again, several community members stated speciﬁcally that they would like to see functional art near schools and churches.

As illustrated on the map below, we have identified some ideal locations for murals and functional art, suggesting relatively broad locations in order to offer flexibility for determining specific sites: along Junction, between W Vernor Hwy and Toledo St; along W Vernor Hwy, between Junction St and Livernois Ave; and in the southeast corner of the site, close to the intersection of Clark St and Fort St.

COMMUNITY INPUT One of the most salient factors in selecting sites for murals and functional art was location along routes commonly taken by residents. Many participants mentioned a desire to place functional art close to bus stops, on their way to/from school, or along the roads they most commonly drive.

SITE PRIORITIES

Additionally, some residents discussed the wish to see art within the views of institutions they regularly attend. For example, one student suggested painting murals on a wall of his high school campus; he said that it would improve a view he has to see every day. Another student sitting nearby reafﬁrmed this preference.

This category incorporates some characteristics that are difficult to integrate into mapping -e.g. requisite building heights, vertical walls, and a critical mass of passers-by. To best accommodate this issue, we propose three different factors for SDEV to consider when locating murals and functional art: 1. Commercial zones 2. High traffic routes 3. Proximity to institutions The first factor is intuitive insofar as buildings with the requisite height for murals will likely be zoned for commercial use, considering that Southwest’s residential zones are primarily single-family. Commercial zones will also have more foot traffic with shoppers. Highlighting high traffic routes reflects participants’ preferences to locate art along bus routes, businesses, and popular thoroughfares. Bus stops, high 20

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

High Visibility and Use: Murals and Functional Art

METHODOLOGY deter vandalism. Unlike the site suitability analysis for parks and gardens, the methodology for this section does not create an index based on overlapping layers with scores assigned on an arbitrary scale. Because of the feasibility limitations of murals and functional art - for example, suitable locations are limited to vertical walls of certain height - and also the greater freedom allowed in terms of project completion - for example, SDEV does not need to purchase buildings in order to sanction murals - the decided best course of recommendation is to provide a map citing the desired characteristics and allow SDEV to choose their implementation actions from thereon.

Our analysis involves mapping data regarding zoning, schools, high-volume, corridors, and viaducts. This allows SDEV to visually identify key areas of interest, where many of those characteristics intersect. The following layers are discussed in detail: 1. Zoning Business districts are highlighted in orange borders. Not only does this provide information on buildings that are more likely to accommodate large murals, but it highlights areas with higher traffic and community use. 2. Schools Community engagement participants identified schools as ideal, high-visibility locations for murals and ideal community partners for creating and installing art projects. Proximity to schools is highlighted through the blue radii on the map. 3. Corridors High-volume corridors are ideal areas of focus, because they are both high-visibility and highuse. Different traffic volumes are illustrated on the map. 4. Viaducts These structures were identified by SDEV as being frequently tagged. Thus they offer the opportunity for artistic murals to beautify and

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

High Visibility and Use: Murals and Functional Art

Figure 11: Murals and Functional Art 22

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Flood Management: Green Infrastructure COMMUNITY INPUT

Our recommendation for green infrastructure is to pursue a Flood Management strategy. Stormwater management poses one of the key challenges to Southwest Detroit. Given the variety of projects that can be used to address this challenge, we have provided a prioritization framework to identify key areas while allowing for a flexibility of projects and funding streams. Community input reflected a desire to address flooding, specifically in common routes in the area. We’ve addressed this by dividing up the site into sectors according to key roads and infrastructure, measuring their impervious surface coverage, and ranking them accordingly. By using this approach, we can highlight priority areas to focus infrastructure funding on, allowing for some flexibility around types of infrastructure-cisterns, rain gardens, etc. We recommend first focusing on sectors 3 and 13 (in Figure 12 below).

Stormwater management was a topic with which participants had strong anecdotal resonance, but were less confident with choosing ideal project locations, although many marked areas of known flooding. Not surprisingly, many of the areas identified are edges between industrial and residential zones, and occur particularly in viaducts during heavy storms. This input reinforces the strategy to seek data on areas with the highest impervious surface coverage in order to best prioritize locations.

SITE PRIORITIES Site prioritization for green infrastructure focuses on individual parcels as well as larger site sectors. In doing so, we provide a ﬂexible approach to pursuing green infrastructure projects. For example, given the opportunity for commercial partnerships on infrastructure through Motor City Match, we identify single parcels (thus, potential partnerships) that are most in need of stormwater management infrastructure, but we also offer a sectorbased approach to stormwater management that does not depend on the partnership of a single parcel or business. We have calculated the average impervious surface coverage for each individual parcel and neighborhood sector and to provide a rank of most to least impervious surface coverage. This identiﬁes which sectors and parcels require more urgent attention for mitigation and management due to high impermeability.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Flood Management: Green Infrastructure:

METHODOLOGY For some practitioners, green infrastructure refers speciﬁcally to a set of deﬁnitions and descriptions, provided at length in Appendix E, which focus on water management. For the mapping, we have focused on the water management aspect through:

Impervious Coverage by Sector

Impervious Coverage by Parcel

We divide the site into 13 sectors, delineated by natural road or other infrastructure breaks in the landscape. The percentage of impervious surface is then calculated using impervious surface layer data and divided by the total area of each sector. This shows the coverage of impervious surface per sector, enabling us to rank them and identify which sectors require attention for mitigation of runoff due to high impermeability. There is a limitation in this approach: although the average coverage may score high or low, each sector may have individual parcels with 100% impervious surface or other factors which may require prioritization over the larger sectors.

At the parcel level, we divided the impervious surface layer by parcel area to calculate the percent of impermeability. We then divided impermeability percentages into even increments of 20%, ranking individual parcels by those five groups. Limitation of data did not permit for a full assessment of site topography and watershed features. These would help identify where flood water mitigation is most required. However, residents did contribute this information in our community engagement, and future sessions with increasing participation will lead to refining location-specific knowledge.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Flood Management: Green Infrastructure:

Figure 12a: Impervious Surface Coverage by Sector 25

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Flood Management: Green Infrastructure:

Figure 12b: Impervious Surface Coverage by Parcels 26

IMPLEMENTATION provide a template with components which could be used at each stage. The scope for our community inquiry was broad and openended, intentionally. As SDEV chooses speciﬁc projects for focus, iterative community engagement should be used to collect input for those particular proposals.

Concurrent with this team’s project, SDEV pursued technical assistance for designation as an Eco-District in the target area. One of the fundamental goals cited in that application centered around stormwater management: this has been a goal under our project’s purview as well, although only one of a portfolio of potential projects. Therefore, in the recommendations for implementation tactics, we create synergy among the different components: site suitability by GIS analysis, location and project preference by community input, clearly identiﬁed funding streams, and larger district goals which tie into regional projects underway or in planning.

2. Identify readily accessible opportunities within the community Work on smaller wins while planning bigger mobilizations. There are several areas within the target zone that might be considered “low hanging fruit” in terms of resources needed to show a change. For example, the Livernois edge already has protected bike lane striping in place, although it’s faded and compliance with its painted delineations is poor. Refreshing the paint and installing sparsely spaced soft-hit posts to signal how parking should differ along this road edifies infrastructure investments already made, but with enough renewal to make a difference. This is also a great road to use for tree planting, because it has very low canopy and it’s such a major Southwest thoroughfare that greening the road will be a significant step toward lowering carbon emissions and heat island effect, while also slowing traffic by creating the appearance of a narrowed streets.

Our implementation recommendations offer two main approaches: 1. Broad implementation strategies to focus on moving forward. 2. Conceptualization for a hypothetical sitespeciﬁc project implementation.

Broad Implementation Strategies 1. Focus on engaging community for each speciﬁc project

3. Stack funding and function

SDEV has demonstrated its success in the Formation stage for an Eco-District: it has strong internal, organizational-level leadership and collaborates in a substantive, de facto steering-group approach with several pivotal partners. While establishing, growing and maintaining the network is an ongoing process, SDEV has clearly entered the Roadmap stage. The pre-existing Merritt Street Improvement Plan, Detroit planning documents, and this plan are all contributors to the emerging roadmap, particularly as applied to identifying which projects meet the strategies we have outlined. In this project, we provided two forms of the art of hosting in community engagement, intended to

In order to maximize input and clarity, we recommend breaking community input into sessions speciﬁc to functional projects. However, in terms of implementation, we recommend stacking functions on a site, when possible, leveraging multiple streams of funding for the transformative purpose. In the immediate, not everyone will value every SDEV endeavor equally. But currently there is a great opportunity to achieve SDEV’s EcoDistrict goals by joining them with other community goals. For example, Detroit currently has two pro-business grants, Motor City Match and Motor City Re-store. Match offers up to $100,000 in matching funds for 27

IMPLEMENTATION either business costs or commercial property buildouts. Re-store is a smaller matching grant of up to $50,000 for neighborhood businesses to improve their facades, signage and exterior lighting, parking lot repairs, and landscaping, storm water drainage, and other green improvements. By partnering with organizations such as SWBA, the most high-profile businesses can consolidate efforts for grants and funding through either of these two programs and combine it with DWSD’s match program for stormwater management. While this directly results in stormwater management for the business parcel, it also has residual benefits through reduced infrastructure fees for the business and collateral benefits to the community by building-in green infrastructure along the streetscape. As an implementation approach, identifying businesses most interested in undertaking these renovations and assisting with the multi-pronged grant process could allow SDEV’s goals to move quickly along major corridors like Vernor or Michigan.

Figure 15: Roundabout as an Example of Stacked Functions

Implementation for a Hypothetical Site A good site example for this type of implementation is at the CVS on Campbell and Junction St (see Figure 18). Prioritizing green infrastructure due to the high impervious surface, a business partner here could use the match grants to install a bump-out constructed as a bioswale (Figure 14). This already serves both business and community: it serves the community by creating a visual impression (and real benefit) of a greenway, and it can also house art. If constructed thoughtfully, a bike lane can be integrated into the design (Figure 16), costing the business nothing but adding value to the community’s infrastructure. Additionally, other funding, such as Safe Routes to School (SRTS), can be applied to support the cost, thus stacking funding as well as function. Likewise, the business partner may use match grants for landscaping on the perimeter of the lot, enhancing the stormwater management effect while also creating a de facto pocket park for the pedestrian walkway. These two small infrastructure components, therefore, serve to: • calm traffic • support biking alternatives with maximum cyclist safety (supporting, also, SRTS) • reduce stormwater flooding • filter contaminants from captured run-off • reduce CO2 with plants • support pollinators (based on type of plants used) or other ecological niches • add characteristics of a greenway to the adjacent pedestrian path • beautify the area

Figure 13: Example of DWSD’s Match Eligible Projects

Figure 14: Trafﬁc Calming Chicane Serving as Green Infrastructure 28

IMPLEMENTATION These types of physical solutions are also relatively inexpensive, while creating a signiﬁcant change in the landscape. This change acts as a profound psychological signal to residents, communicating renewal and change; by inspiring the community through smaller projects with visual splash and layered function, more community is drawn to the participation and engagement cycles/opportunities. This tactic also allows for maximum funding solicitation, since one project can be “branded” a number of ways.

Figure 16: Bike Lane Protected by G.I. Chicane

Figure 17: Pocket Park with Planter Boxes

Figure 18: Identiﬁed Hypothetical Site on CVS Site on Campbell St & Junction St

CONCLUSION SDEV has a long history of improving the lives of Southwest Detroit’s residents through its initiatives. It has a variety of project opportunities to pursue moving forward, which presents the need for a strategic framework to prioritize projects. Through engagement with the community and mapbased analysis of SDEV’s site, we have identiﬁed the following three main strategies:

Green Links - Parks and Gardens

High Visibility and Use - Murals and Functional Art Flood Management - Green Infrastructure Moreover, we have recommended three broad implementation strategies: incorporating community engagement into each project; identifying readily accessible opportunities when selecting potential projects; and stacking funding and function. Our hope is that these insights will provide a guiding framework for SDEV moving forward , reinforcing their push to become an Eco-D neighborhood. That achievement would certainly bolster their existing assets and bring forth opportunities to address the community concerns of stormwater management, achieving the desired community green vision under the Eco-D priorities of equity, climate protection and resilience. Finally, we trust that providing the detailed cartographic and chart elements in the report and in the appendices, in addition to digital versions of those will facilitate Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision’s implementation of targeted projects in in the future.

APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: Meet the Team APPENDIX B: Community Engagement Feedback APPENDIX C: Site Suitability Maps APPENDIX D: Strategies Priority Parcel Tables APPENDIX E: Basic Green Infrastructure DeямБnitions

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: The Team

Reach us at: sdev-urp507@umich.edu

Morgan Fett Master Candidate of Urban and Regional Planning (2018). Master

of Sociology (2015). Morgan’s experience combines community development with intensive social science research. She earned a master’s degree in Sociology from the University of Chicago, where she studied mixed methods research analysis of urban planning and policy. She conducted research with Urban Innovation Analysis, identifying services and amenities within Chicago neighborhoods and conducting program evaluation for Theaster Gates and the Rebuild Foundation. Prior to her graduate studies, she worked for the Build Institute in Detroit as program manager of the Pilot Program, which assisted entrepreneurs in developing small businesses. She also conducted community research and outreach for the James and Grace Lee Boggs School. She co-designed and led asset-based community development projects in Honduras, which included clean water infrastructure, community gardening, permaculture projects, and agricultural S programs. On this project, Morgan’s primary responsibilities will involve assisting with asset mapping and community input sessions.

Marlena Hanlon Dual Masters Candidate of Community Organizing and Social Policy (2017), and Urban Planning (2018). Master of Law equivalent (2013). Marlena blends decades of professional expertise, informed by robust academic credentials and formal training in mixed methods, into private and public sectors into high performing social projects. For example, as Deputy Vice President with PMI’s San Francisco-Bay Area Chapter, she developed the first comprehensive green chapter and sustainability program. A non-traditional project manager, her analyst-through-design-to-implementation background resulted in professional certification in project management, human resources, fraud examination, education, real estate, mortgage lending, and several human services modalities. Certified in Permaculture Design and active in the sustainability community, she has implemented projects in water harvesting, permaculture, greenway design and sustainable infrastructure. She additionally was a construction project manager for multiple green renovation projects, including SFR, commercial and multi-family properties. On this project, she shares a project leadership and supports both community engagement and identifying green infrastructure opportunities.

APPENDICES

Alexsandr Kanevskiy Master Candidate of Urban and Regional Planning (2019). Alexsandr has a varied background in education, data analysis, and writing. He has worked as a middle- and high-school teacher in San Antonio, Texas and Detroit, Michigan, teaching mathematics. More recently, he has worked with the literacy-based nonprofit 826michigan, helping to coordinate their afterschool program and organizing school field trips, while concurrently working with the mobile app development firm Incipia as a data consultant. There he was tasked with helping to create predictive models, performing quantitative analysis on largely unstructured datasets, and minimizing cost-per-download. Alexsandr has also spent some time in the sphere of liberal arts, serving as an interim associate editor of the Wayne State Literary Review. Currently, he is working with the University of Michigan to develop a robust system of local governmental accountability regarding vulnerable Great Lakes shorelands. His role on this project will be to assist with asset mapping and developing community engagement frameworks. Florent Mettetal Master Candidate of Urban and Regional Planning (2019).

His planning studies revolve around physical design which is a direct continuation of the structural and transportation concentrations of his previously acquired civil engineering bachelors from McGill University in Montréal. He has prior research experiences in seismic retroﬁts of at-risk structures in urban environments, as well as in transportation delivery methods and their impact on surrounding social welfare. He has extensive experience working in large teams from previous internships in logistics and project management for Mercedes and Bosch, respectively. Currently, Florent is also heavily involved in the University of Michigan athletics department as a student manager for the women’s soccer team. On this project, Florent’s main task will be to conduct part of the inventory, assist with mapping of green infrastructure assets and propose new green infrastructure designs for identiﬁed areas featuring potential.

Ben Stacey Dual Masters Candidate of Sustainable Systems & Urban and

Regional Planning (2019). Ben is a researcher on the Urban Energy Justice Lab where he focuses energy efficiency in the residential sector, analyzing policy and programs which impact low-income communities. He has also crafted a case study on stormwater management strategies for green vs. grey stormwater, partnering with the Washtenaw County Team Members Water Resource Commissioner’s Office. Ben also works with the Nashville Metropolitan Planning Office on sustainable transportation systems, where he utilizes EPA emissions modeling to project impacts resulting from the city’s $5 billion of infrastructure changes in the next 25 years with a focus on social equity. Prior to pursuing his graduate degrees at the University of Michigan, Ben served as a US Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines for three years. There, Ben collaborated with local stakeholder groups on projects to restore coastal ecosystems and build local capacity. On this project, Ben’s primary responsibility is the mapping of existing assets (eg. green infrastructure) contained in the project’s geographic scope.

APPENDICES

Appendix B: SDEV House Knowlege Maps

SDEV In-House Knowlege Input Maps (Past projects: murals, parks, art, green infrastructure, also key partners...)

SDEV Clean Neighborhood Initiative Map

APPENDICES

APPENDIX B: Community Engagement Feedback Maps provided for Community Engagement Sessions:

Blank Input Map

APPENDICES

APPENDIX B: Community Engagement Feedback Raw Data Maps - desired locations for new projects

APPENDICES

APPENDIX B: Community Engagement Feedback

Raw Data - reasons for locations

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: Site Suitability Maps Index Layer Maps Optimization: Trees

Optimization: Distance to nearest Park

Distance: Nearest Park

Distance: Nearest Tree

Southwest Detroit Parcels

Distance (ft) 0 - 500 501 - 775 776 - 1000 1001 - 1300 1301 - 2650

0.25

Distance (ft) 0 - 10 11 - 25

0.5 Miles

26 - 50 51 - 75

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

76 - 600

0.25

0.5 Miles

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: Site Suitability Maps DLBA Owned Vacant Parcels Maps

¯ 0

0.05

0.1 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., Cumulative Score: Parks and Gardens

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster

NL, Ordnance Survey, Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Priority DLBA: NW Esri Corner

0.05

0.1 Miles

Cumulative Score: Parks and Gardens Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster

NL, Ordnance Survey, Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Priority DLBA: NW Corner E Esri

¯ 0

0.05

0.1 Miles

0.15 Miles

Cumulative Score: Parks and Gardens

Cumulative Parks and Gardens Sources: Esri, Score: HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

Priority DLBA: SE Corner

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Priority DLBA: SW Corner Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

¯ 0

0.075

Meritt Street: Vacant Lots Vacant: Detroit LBA

0.075

Vacant

0.15 Miles

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: Site Suitability Maps Industrial & School Buffers with DLBA Owned Parcels

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: Strategies Priority Parcel Tables Table 3: Suitability Index DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels Address 2161 Scotten 1609 Lansing 1633 Lansing 5666 Amherst 1408 Lansing 1209 Junction 4601 Brandon 4620 Porter 1597 Lansing 1413 Mckinstry 1585 Lansing 1414 Lansing 1205 Military 2068 Ferdinand 1401 Mckinstry 2027 Junction 1149 Campbell 1566 Mckinstry 4612 Porter 1050 Campbell 1260 Lansing 2356 Manson 2360 Manson 2390 Manson 1574 Mckinstry 1578 Mckinstry 4639 Plumer 1137 Junction 1100 Lansing 1106 Lansing 2526 Campbell 2324 Manson 1502 Dragoon 2540 Campbell 2350 Manson 1312 Dragoon 1037 Lansing 1316 Dragoon 2381 Manson 2371 Manson

Score 93.3 86.7 80 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 66.7 66.7 60 60 60 60 60 53.3 53.3 53.3 53.3 53.3 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 40 40 40 40 40 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 26.7 20

Institution (ft.) 409 397 282 933 455 1118 1149 332 455 290 514 433 449 782 321 673 548 596 365 875 518 1223 1250 1388 626 661 1487 1153 835 816 1798 1099 953 1730 1196 806 1215 826 1287 1243

Park(ft.) 574 817 810 1130 462 1256 562 364 771 317 726 434 204 1167 364 260 744 325 387 1077 539 243 213 63 326 326 246 1339 693 693 354 382 326 399 273 312 900 312 180 208

Trees(ft.) 153 73 46 85 71 98 63 47 51 34 26 37 63 3 41 5 15 35 3 13 16 66 76 70 32 35 0 4 14 0 59 32 28 42 37 0 6 0 18 6

Area (ft2) 3,227 4,008 4,182 3,136 5,745 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 66.7 66.7 60 60 60 60 60 53.3 53.3 53.3 53.3 53.3 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 40 40 40 40 40 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 26.7 20

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: Strategies Priority Parcel Tables Table 4: Industrial Buffer DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels Address 2526 Campbell 2540 Campbell 4639 Plumer 4601 Brandon 2390 Manson 2161 Scotten 2371 Manson 2381 Manson 2360 Manson 2354 Campbell 2356 Manson 2350 Manson 2340 Manson 2324 Manson 2068 Ferdinand 1037 Lansing 1050 Campbell 5666 Amherst 2027 Junction 1100 Lansing 1137 Junction 1106 Lansing 1149 Campbell 1502 Dragoon 1209 Junction 1316 Dragoon 1312 Dragoon 1205 Military 1633 Lansing 1260 Lansing 1609 Lansing 1578 Mckinstry 1401 Mckinstry 4620 Porter 4612 Porter 1408 Lansing 1597 Lansing 1574 Mckinstry 1414 Lansing 1566 Mckinstry 1413 Mckinstry 1585 Lansing

Distance to Industrial (ft.) 18 18 19 60 213 215 235 235 363 378 393 423 453 457 551 918 1054 1138 1162 1258 1280 1288 1383 1398 1474 1561 1587 1593 1649 1707 1767 1799 1810 1811 1813 1814 1824 1839 1854 1869 1873 1883

Area (ft2) 3746 3790 3630 4257 4500 3227 6750 6750 4500 3572 4500 4500 4487 3354 4182 8404 4408 3136 3746 4207 2875 4182 4356 8640 3746 4400 4400 9007 4182 6687 4008 6403 1999 1635 1634 5745 4182 4792 4216 4792 4182 4182

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: Strategies Priority Parcel Tables Table 5: School Buffer DLBA Vacant Ranked Parcels Address 1401 Mckinstry 1413 Mckinstry 4620 Porter 4612 Porter 1260 Lansing 1408 Lansing 1414 Lansing 2027 Junction 2068 Ferdinand 1106 Lansing 1100 Lansing 1633 Lansing 1566 Mckinstry 1574 Mckinstry 1578 Mckinstry 1609 Lansing 1597 Lansing 1585 Lansing 2161 Scotten 2324 Manson 4601 Brandon 2340 Manson 1037 Lansing 2350 Manson 2356 Manson 2371 Manson 2360 Manson 2381 Manson 2390 Manson 2354 Campbell 4639 Plumer 1502 Dragoon 1209 Junction 1316 Dragoon 2540 Campbell 1312 Dragoon 1137 Junction 1149 Campbell 2526 Campbell 5666 Amherst 1205 Military 1050 Campbell

Distance to Industrial (ft.) 408 414 473 523 567 571 572 700 720 753 773 776 817 823 830 883 937 957 1050 1055 1083 1124 1145 1151 1179 1205 1207 1249 1347 1379 1425 1532 1554 1704 1711 1722 1755 1778 1779 1844 1962 2037

Area (ft2) 1999 4182 1635 1634 6687 5745 4216 3746 4182 4182 4207 4182 4792 4792 6403 4008 4182 4182 3227 3354 4257 4487 8404 4500 4500 6750 4500 6750 4500 3572 3630 8640 3746 4400 3790 4400 2875 4356 3746 3136 9007 4408

APPENDICES

APPENDIX E: Basic Green Infrastructure Definitions Green Infrastructure Definitions for Stormwater Management: Cisterns and rain barrels are watertight receptacles designed to catch and store stormwater off of roofs and other impervious surfaces. Cisterns are often larger than rain barrels and can be located underground, at ground level, or on an elevated stand. Rain barrels are connected to the existing downspout of a roof and reuse the stormwater for watering plants and other landscaping uses. Retention basins holds water and thus reduces peak runoff rates associated with storms which decreases flood damage. Retention basins are continuously filled with some volume of water and this volume fluctuates based on rain events. Constructed wetlands are considered retention basins. They are engineered, heavily vegetated areas that can remove runoff pollutants though vegetative uptake and slowly infiltrating stormwater through the soil. Detention basins are ordinarily dry and hold water only during storm events, slowly releasing it to the environment. Bioswales (ex. of detention pond) are lWWong channels along roads or parking lots that slow, store, infiltrate, and treat stormwater flows. They typically have less vegetation than rain gardens, and therefore, require less maintenance. Rain gardens (ex. of detention pond) are shallow, vegetated basins that are frequently installed adjacent to impermeable surfaces such as roads, sidewalks and parking lots. A runoff inlet allows the stormwater to pool in the rain garden and thein either slowly infiltrate into the ground or be absorbed by the vegetation. Permeable pavements are paved surfaces with pores that infiltrate and store rainwater on-site. They are made of penetrable surfaces like porous concrete, porous asphalt, or interlocking pavers. Typically, these are installed in parking lots or sidewalks where traffic volumes are light to moderate and where the load-bearing requirements are less than heavily-trafficked car areas. Green roofs are roofs with growing media, vegetation and or stormwater collection basins that allow for rainfall infiltration and evapotranspiration. They alleviate street runoff, reduce impervious surface area, provide natural insulation and have aesthetic benefits.