The West End-Equal Speak by kofi boone

Manpreet Kaur Environmental Social Equity Case Study SOUTH WEST CENTRAL DURHAM QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECT NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING REVITALIZATION CONTEXT The West End neighborhood is the oldest and largest of Durham’s neighborhoods. The name for the neighborhood is very appropriate because it was the most west part of Durham for a period of time. Since its development the neighborhood has been racially divided, this was due to segregation and physical elements of the land. The topography is hilly, composed of ravines and gullies which is difficult to build on. In general, the area’s landscape was composed of cornfields, swamp land, and pine forests. Despite the landscape conditions, a African American population began to grow in West End in the 1870s. The community built churches, schools and businesses. Quite a few of the residents were notable businessmen in Durham, such as Richard Fitzgerald, who was Durham’s leading brick maker and later delved into real estate and banking. In the early 1900s West End grew exponentially as a result of the tobacco industry. Single family homes were owner occupied by merchants and trades people. Rental housing was occupied by tobacco factory laborers as well as businessmen and merchants. Rentals were built by private investors or by the tobacco industry. By the 1930s, West End and Lyon Park (an adjacent neighborhood) were reaching full capacity. Commercial and industrial uses increased through the establishment of auto repair shops, small stores and a diversity of home design began to include bungalows. After a long period of growth, a number of factors began to lead to the decline of the West End neighborhood. Highway 147 in the 70s divided the neighborhood and downtown into two distinct areas and further divided social relations amongst the black and white community in Durham and continues to having last impacts to this day. Also, investors began purchasing homes for rental property causing a migration of families out of the inner city. Low income residents, typically the elderly and young unemployed individuals, and absentee landlords led to deteriorated housing conditions. Additionally, Duke University purchased rental housing in the west most area of West End to develop apartment complexes (Open Durham). As a result of the construction of the highway and investors or private entities buying out properties in the neighborhood, changes in physical quality and historical/cultural quality of the neighborhood have been changed significantly. Those that were relocated out of the neighborhood have found it hard to come back into the neighborhood as a result of increased land/home prices. Another impact these changes has created is a sense of disengagement and lack of communication amongst short and long term residents. The Southwest Central Durham (SWCD) Quality of Life Project (QOL) was created in 2001 to represent the six neighborhoods around Duke University. The Quality of Life

Project defines equity as “improving the quality of life of residents through housing, economic development, celebrations and traditions, empower community members and bridge relationships between community, Duke, other organizations.” Of the six neighborhoods, West End is composed of three of these neighborhoods: Burch Avenue, West End, and Lyon Park. It is in these three neighborhoods that a majority of the Quality of Life and Self-Help land bank properties were purchased and developed. Additionally these neighborhoods were intended for investment by various stakeholders, such as Duke University’s Office of Community Affairs, Durham’s Community Development Department, and local nonprofit affordable housing developers. Providing affordable housing was one of the main issues the community desired to tackle. Prior to housing efforts, homes were properties where liquor sales and illegal gambling took place (Revitalization Plan). Housing is a basic need for all humans, it can inspire individuals to change their lifestyles. In addressing housing, QOL aimed to promote good rental practices, creation of wealth through ownership, empowering community, preserving and rehabilitation of historically valuable housing. It was important for QOL to recognize and capitalize on resources as they were made available, the first of which was to identify stockholders and their interests in the initiative. Support was provided by Duke University, who was interested in creating a more appealing gateway from highway 147 through W Chapel Hill St into the university campus. Chapel Hill St travels through the predominantly African American neighborhoods. In order to provide affordable housing a land bank model was created. Duke University provided a low interest loan to Self Help so that it could buy vacant properties in SWCD. Additionally, Duke also provided an operating grant to Self Help to purchase properties. Self Help purchases properties of vacant homes from private sellers which are then held in the land bank until they are sold to one of the three nonprofit affordable housing developers. These nonprofits are Durham Community Land Trustees, Habitat for Humanity of Durham, and Self Help Community Development Corporation. The affordability and homeownership restrictions that need to be provided by developers is at least 15 years. The developer proposes plans for properties that is to be approved by the QOL Allocation Committee, those plans are then reviewed and eventually sold to the developer. The money is then recycled back to the land bank and the property is redeveloped and sold/rented. In 2012, about 99 properties were developed for housing in the West End. The designer’s role in this process was to provide plans for homes, community planning, and developing initiatives for open spaces, as well as organizing and implementing a charrettes. In the process QOL also created a Housing Action Committee that advocates improvements by analyzing current housing and planning for future development. It also provides education and training on law and rights to residents and landlords. Through the initiative twenty homes were built by 2007. For ten years, between 1990 and 2010 there was a balance between owner and renter occupied housing in Durham Burch Avenue saw an increase in owner occupied with a majority of renter occupied. Lyon Park gently increased in owner occupied with a majority of renter occupied. West

End saw a small increase in owner occupied with a majority of renter occupied. Since 2007, 140 properties were acquired for the land bank. 110 of those properties were developed, of which 87 were homeownership and 10 were new rental properties. Aside from housing, a plan for open space and future economic development was created through the Green Initiative. An extension of the neighborhood plan, the initiative focuses on strengthening social networks, enhancing local economic capacity, and improving quality of life. In March 2005, the creek behind the housing development was in desperate need of clean up. Duke Community Affairs, the Facilities Management Department (FMD), and Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association volunteers worked together to clean it. Aside from this effort many undeveloped lots are used for illegal activity and dumping, mature trees are dying but not being replaced, additionally sidewalks are in poor condition and not landscaped (Revitalization Plan). As with many communities undergoing similar development there is tension between neighborhood revitalization and looming gentrification in West End. Development in the neighborhood have made prices increase which begs the question of how to improve communities without driving out the present population. These are the concerns the West End community is facing. The possibilities of the community undergoing gentrification are causing leadership to begin evaluation of the initiative and its results.

REFERENCES

Open Durham. Contributing Structure. 2013. <http://www.opendurham.org>. QoL SWCD Neighborhood Plan Revitalization Plan Burch Avenue Lyon Park West End Webb-Bledsoe, Mayme. Personal Interview. 27 October 2015.

EQUAL SPEAK TOOLKIT

Introduction Content

Introduction

01: Identify and Clarify

02: Community Engagement

03: Generate Outcomes

04: Evaluation and Synthesis

Discussion

Introduction Contributors

This toolkit is a product of the course, Environmental Social Equity and Design offered through the Landscape Architecture Department at the College of Design at North Carolina State University. The course focused on trends affecting environmental and human health in the built environment with an emphasis on emerging issues in Durham, North Carolina. The class was established in response to increasing student awareness and experiences with the principles of environmental justice and social equity in the context of design and community engagement. This toolkit is a demonstration of an equitable process that groups can undertake when addressing these emerging issues.

MANPREET KAUR

BRIANA OUTLAW

BETH FARAGAN

COREY DODD

RU HSU

RESIDENTS OF WEST END/LYON PARK

Introduction What is Community Engagement?

WHAT IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT? Community engagement is a process of relationship building through collaboration towards a common goal. Engagement allows residents to work together in order to build up trust and develop mutual appreciation of each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s respective cultures, which improves the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to solve problems. Through ongoing conversation, community members build consensus and collective vision for preservation and productive change.

Introduction Why a toolkit?

WHY A TOOLKIT? The use of a toolkit allows for a process to be replicated to generate results that are reliable and appropriate for the community. The goal is to provide tools in order for everyone’s voice to be heard. Individuals can visualize the process and contribute to its effectiveness and efficiency. Figuratively speaking, the community members will be kept “on the same page” throughout each step or phase.

Who can use the toolkit?

• Anyone that is interested and/or understands the need for positive change initiated by key stakeholders • Anyone desiring to understand the value of their neighborhood • Anyone who desires a deeper understanding of the historical and social significance of their neighborhood • Those who hold aspirations for the neighborhood It is important that all cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups that wish to engage are represented.

When to use the toolkit?

• When the community want/needs to gauge and establish the common visions of the neighborhood

How to use the toolkit?

• The toolkit has some flexibility, however, major phases must be followed in the order given. In addition, the toolkit is to be used as a guide; it is not definitive. • It is recommended to have a facilitator. The facilitator may be an individual within the community or someone outside of it that will assist in the communication, activities, and coordinations.

Introduction What are the goals of the toolkit?

WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF THE TOOLKIT? This toolkit does not offer solutions, but it offers a process and techniques to reach a suitable solution appropriate for the situation at hand and the community. This toolkit contains tips that can guide the community through the process of reaching consensus and establishing a common vision on issues within the community. It provides techniques for transformational change and long term engagement. It will help build on the efforts of Durhamsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lyon Park and West End neighborhoods by introducing community engagement methods that can continue to improve public spaces in the community and lead to cohesiveness amongst all community members.

Introduction The Three Principles of Engagement

THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF ENGAGEMENT Engagement as Appreciation

Through civil group discussions, cultural events, and gatherings to which all community members are invited to attend; residents will gain an appreciation for their fellow neighbors who differ in culture, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. This appreciation creates a sense of understanding - an understanding that human nature is the glue, serving as the commonality amongst all. Through understanding, respect, and trust are produced. With respect and trust in hand and heart, productive collaboration can take place and consensus can be reached in making vital community decisions.

Engagement as Knowledge

Long-term engagement demonstrated by consistent participation in community initiatives, the inherent value of the community becomes evident. Once this value is realized (a knowledge base which builds the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity) it can be used as a catalyst in support of future change or as support for sustained management of the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources and history.

Engagement as Stewardship

Personal attachment and a sense of responsibility is generated in each community member when one has cultivated appreciation and knowledge of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s community through participation in all decisions that affect them. As newfound community stewards, the likelihood of sustained engagement is increased.

Introduction Equal Speak Process

Identify and Establish Phase One

IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH Identify Issues

• Identifying the issues aids all participants in understanding what is happening within the community and the direction for future change • Consider economic, social, and environmental factors to better define issues • Seek out individuals or groups for issues they perceive in their community through small discussion groups

Identify Location

• In many situations, people have their own perception of a community’s boundaries. Identifying the community boundary contributes to a better understanding of who the stakeholders are and where the issue is occurring. • Consider the conditions and surrounding context of those boundaries and how they may be impacting the issues within the community

Identify and Establish Phase One

Identify Stakeholders

• In community engagement, understanding the stakeholders is key. Knowing your stakeholders will help to understand the community’s aspirations, similarities and differences among participants, and it will also help to strengthen the relationship between participants in the community • A central concept to social equity is ensuring the voices of all impacted entities are heard. These individuals or groups need to be at the discussion table from the very beginning, at the initial information meetings • How do we know who to include in the conversation? A useful tool in identifying groups who hold the highest level of influence is a Power Map. The exercise of writing (categorizing) and drawing connections between all relevant people and groups can reveal those who should be included in decision making processes that may have otherwise been forgotten • A Power Map may not remain consistent throughout the problem solving process. It is useful to begin this process among the leadership group and then share it with stakeholders to provide opportunities to revise the Power Map. Maintaining a Power Map as a living document will help to include all relevant stakeholders throughout the process

Establish Focus

• It is imperative to identify the key issue, that which the community is working towards building an agreement • Although there will be various factors impacting issues, clarification of the issue will help prioritize what the community can do or how the community will benefit, which will lead to resolving other factors within the neighborhood • Zooming in on a particular user group or location can help to focus an issue. Is the concern an economic, social, or environmental one? Is it centered in a particular neighborhood, a particular group of people? • Develop a chart that looks at the positive and negative qualities of investigating each of the issues. These questions can help weigh the pros and cons of addressing an issue, focusing which issues are of most concern and those that can be addressed later. • Investigate the relationships between issues. Do issues impact each other or share a root cause? Investigating underlying causes can inform better judgement on the most efficient efforts with the greatest impact.

Establish Mission and Goals

• Establishing a mission helps to create commitment and encourages personal investment within stakeholders for seeing the issue to its final stages. • Establish short and long term goals that are attainable and consider the need for funding, training, soft and hard skills, and/or professional input. • When establishing the scale of the goals consider the following questions: Who are these goals reaching? Is there a physical impact the goals are attempting to accomplish? What are the non-physical, socially oriented goals? How long will it take to reach all of the individuals of the targeted group? How long will it take to bring about the change desired in the space? • Create a phasing strategy to reach large goals. • Establish methods of evaluation and benchmarks to help achieve goals. · Ensure goals that can be implemented or phased. Consider the available resources required for the implementation. · When setting goals also consider how their outcome can be a stepping stone for resolving other issues. · Consider the relationship between present goals and Quality of Life Project’s goals.

Community Engagement Phase Two

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ILD VALUE BU

RE V

IVE

RS L PE PECT EA

Engagement Community Participation

• The team needs to communicate importance of community participation and how it serves as a subsection of engagement. Many times those from outside of the community are not aware of the dynamics and issues of that locale - the residents are the experts of the place in which they live. • Evaluate the commitment and skill level of participants so that meetings and other events are most efficient in moving forward toward goals. Some members may not be able to help after a particular stage in the process depending on their experience or knowledge of the issue/community. • There are various ways to reach out to community members. Different cultures and generations will need to be contacted in various ways. Fliers, phone calls, or door to door communication may be more effective for an older generation, whereas social media, emails, or block parties may reach younger members more effectively. Translators may need to be contacted if there are individuals that do not speak English. It is vital to consult the community’s lead representative/liaison as to how to proceed in contacting community members. They serve as the gatekeeper between those initiating the engagement process and those being asked to participate.

Community Engagement Phase Two

Interactive Workshops

• Workshops create an environment of activity where all participants are engaged in activities working towards a common goal. Gathering stakeholders in one location allows for conversation and relationship building among those who have different points of view. Workshops also create environments that allow for the sharing of stories, memories, and values among stakeholders. Design Games · Traditional community meetings can lead to confrontation where only the voices of the most outspoken are heard. This toolkit encourages the use of Design Games or individual and group activities where the opinions and decisions of all participants are included. · Social, Environmental, Economical - Why these components? These components were chosen because they represent key themes already established by the community through their Quality of Life Neighborhood Plan. In addition, these components are representative of the essential factors to take into consideration while working towards creating a sustainable environment. · Mapping Sacred Places · To understand the spaces in which community members place the most value. · Uncover the method of transportation and overlap of transportation modes and routes utilized by community members. · Develop intergenerational perspective through identification of historical sacred places once occupied by older generations and newly constructed destinations that hold significance for younger generations. ·Time Flies, Money Talks · To understand the hierarchical importance of concrete and abstract aspects of community members’ lifestyles. · Provides insight into which aspects of life community members hold as most valuable. · Identifies differences between ideals/values and an individual’s available resources. · Power Map · To understand the “Players” influential involved in the cause and resolution of an issue. · To understand the contributions and “Roles” that individuals or groups play in the success or failure of addressing an issue.

Digital Workshops

D CAPACIT Y UIL

• The greatest difficulty in organization of workshops is getting involvedment from all stakeholder groups. Differences in time schedules, childcare, and capacity for travel can all hinder attendance to a workshop. Opportunities for input online is a promising area.

Interviews and Discussions

• Interviews and discussions create opportunities for discovering valuable information not gathered in workshop environments. This activity could lead to stakeholders revealing information that they may not feel comfortable revealing during group activities. • Results from interviews and discussions should be documented and shared with the group with or without names.

Generate Outcomes Phase Three

GENERATE OUTCOMES Understand Communities Perspectives

• Gain awareness of participant’s perception of the factors that cause and influence issues

Understand Community Interests

• Establish commonalities between the needs and desires of community members

Capacity Building is the result of stakeholders

• Realize inherent value of community and use it as leverage to support future initiatives

Jumpstarts Formation of Initiatives and Builds Consensus

• With ideas flowing, community members begin creating methodologies for future initiatives and are able to reach decisions

Creation of Prototype

• Utilize various forms of media such as public works of art, informative wayfinding devices, and objects that support place-making (branding of neighborhood) to represent the physical

Synthesis and Evaluation Phase Four

SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION The goal of the synthesis is to turn abstract ideas into concrete devices used to support sustained engagement. Devices can include, but are not limited to places (ie: parks, community centers, gardens), products (ie: informative wayfinding and signage), and events.

Synthesis Process

• Data is simplified, categorized, and opportunities for further investigation may be identified • Identification of devices that will be most relevant and successful in service to their community The goal of the evaluation is to provide the chance to address the appropriateness of the evaluation process as it pertains to the situation/community at hand.

Evaluation Process

• Comparison of newly generated ideas to established benchmarks of phase one • Comparison of pros and cons of proposed devices • Comparison of goals to available resources At the conclusion of Synthesis and Evaluation phase, we recommend returning to Community Engagement with the newfound knowledge and resources developed in phase 3 and 4. Maintaining communication with community members throughout the process improves the quality of and reduces opposition to final outcomes.

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

DISCUSSION The student group developed community activities and held small workshop to investigate the cause of disengagement amongst West End community residents.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;I used to shop here, at the curve [on Kent and Morehead] where the pool room was, grocery store, shoe shop... everything.â&#x20AC;? -long term resident

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

Activities

Mapping Sacred Places

The purpose of this activity was to investigate if disengagement in the community is influenced by: · A lack of shared places · A result in a difference of values · A result of the two factors above or neither The book, Ecological Democracy, mentions that a community needs gathering places in comfortable walking distance and include, but are not limited to, open spaces, retail stores, and other neighborhood amenities. Gathering places provide opportunity for community members to participate in shared activities and develop values in order to create centeredness. The mapping activity measured: ·The overlap of life activities in places · The overlap of transportation routes · The influence of a particular transportation mode on centeredness and engagement amongst community residents · Whether community residents have shared places that they collectively value Result and Discussion Due to the limited number of interviewees, the results might not be effective enough to offer a definite answer. However, it offers hints to see what might be needed to investigate more. Overlap of life activities in places · Relax: Duke Gardens is a place where the most people spend their leisure time · Shop/Eat: Many people choose Durham Co-op Market and Food Lion Supermarket to shop · Meet: First Calvary Baptist Church is a meeting point for the residents

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

The quantity and the distribution of the participant-identified places will illustrate if the community has enough shared places and value. Overall, the most overlapped area is the section near Durham Co-op Market on West Chapel Hill Street (Figure 01). Other areas identified by multiple participants include First Calvary Baptist Church, Duke Gardens, and Food Lion Supermarket. Although it is difficult to make a conclusion because of the small number of interviewees and the time of activities was not measured, the results show that the residents visit shared places. These identified places can be used as focal points in future community initiatives and outreach. The next step is to survey more residents and to analyze the quantity and scatteredness of the overlapped areas to assess if a lack of overlapped activities impacts levels of disengagement. Overlap of transportation routes Quality social interaction often happens not in official meeting places, but on neighborhood streets and front porches. As streets become the realm of cars, it can be difficult to maintain a sense of community connectivity. Since driving routes do not offer opportunities for social interaction, the overlap of driving routes will not be discussed in this section. The overlapped walking routes show that Kent Street has the most potential for people to meet. It is within proximity of several neighborhood amenities: a supermarket, a church, and a senior center. This suggests that a street with a variety of neighborhood amenities encourages people to walk and this enhances the opportunity for people to meet and interact. The results show that only one interviewee’s mode of transportation was biking. More data is required to show if there is a need to provide more amenities in a concentrated area or if improvement to infrastructure that improves walkability and bikeability will attract users. Transportation Mode No matter how much the transit routes overlap, people still lose opportunities to meet on the street. The resulting map implies that many residents use cars for primary transit within the community. People travel by car to reach destinations that are ten minutes walking distance. Why is this so? Is it due to a safety issue? Lack of interesting features along the route that encourage walking? Identifying the influences of walkablitity is the next step increasing social interaction on the street. Places of Collective Value The results indicate that residents’ significant places are various and scattered. This raises questions as to whether or not the community is lacking shared places that residents value collectively. To draw a conclusion, the responses of more residents is needed.

“This whole area used to function, [it had] a bevy of things to do... very demeaning thing where it’s only storefronts now.” -long term resident

Discussion Quotes

“Need a place to meet, [to] run into each other.” “My husband walks the dog...you have to get out at a certain time in order to meet others, maybe there should be a walking club.” “[There is] nothing ‘day to day’ close by.” “I moved here because of the history and the culture of each neighborhood.” “[It seems] people are nervous, everyone’s busy [in regards to getting together]” -short term resident

Sacred Places

Discussion Sacred Places

legend routes walk bike car

places place where you relax/play place where you shop/eat significant/memorable place

place where meet friends/family/organization

Figure 01 : Mapping Sacred Places Results

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

Time Flies and Money Talks

During this activity, participants distributed “time” and “money” dollars among several topics relating to daily life. They first distributed them according to how they spend their resources now. Then, they distributed the same amount again imagining they had twice the money and twice the time. In the second half of the exercise, several participants quickly placed dollars in one category and then more carefully distributed the rest of the dollars. The results show each participant distributed their dollars in a very similar way between the first and second rounds. It appears that when choosing to distribute resources, even when given twice the time and money, participants distributed their resources along to the same priorities. While this results confirms that the activity captures the priorities of the participants, it did not capture on which topics participants most want to spend more resources. When repeating the exercise, we would recommend reducing the amount of “dollars” provided during the second round. Given half as much “time” and “money,” results would better capture the category where participants want to place more resources first. During both phases of the activity, the topics with the highest median contributions were My Organizations, My Community, and Myself. We repeated the activity with one “new resident” and found those three areas are the areas of the greatest difference. With such as a small sample size, it would not be helpful to draw specific conclusions on similarities and differences. The result does point to an important issue: there is likely a central difference in priorities between long-term and new residents. This activity may be very helpful in discerning these underlying similarities and differences in order to better focus community initiatives and outreach. The areas in which participants wish they could spend more money may be opportunities for community organizations. If community initiatives are organized and advertised as a way to leverage resources towards issues that community members value, community members may be more willing to contribute their time and money. When community member are saying “If I had another 30 hours to give, I would want to spend it in this way,” organizations can focus efforts in those areas so that the united one hour of efforts from thirty people will lead to projects and results that community members care about and will want to contribute to in the future.

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

This activity is currently designed to gather information on personal values. The topics on which participants spend their time and money can be changed for the needs of a new project. For example, if the Quality of Life Leadership is considering some new initiatives, they may name the topics to relate to those initiatives. This activity gauges community interest and willingness to contribute to new initiatives. This information will inform the organization to work towards projects that residents value and will receive enough community support to see through to completion. The main limitation of the community engagement was the number and demographic of community members engaged. We were able to record the responses of six residents, of which a majority were long term residents. Only one “new” resident was present. This reiterates the importance of utilizing various methods of communication to contact residents depending on their demographics. Workshop activities were created based on the concept of Design Games, developed by Henry Sanoff. The goal was to gather information from residents in a way that was fun and provoked conversation

Workshop Conversation

Long Term Residents Responses:

“I would like to get involved in the neighborhood, no type of interaction except ‘hello, how are you?” “When you’re retired, you have more money than time.” “ I don’t spend enough time taking care of myself.” “Double up on involvement with organizations. Some way of helping people identify things in communities that are glossed over, for example sending kinds to prison straight from school.” New Resident Responses: “There is a listserve email, but mostly includes residents of West Chapel Hill Street.” “There seems to be sense of fatigue in long term residents in trying to integrate new residents.”

Discussion Time Flies & Money Talks

How much time and money do you currently spend on....?

With more time and money, how much more would you spend on....? Making Money

My Home

My Neighborhood

Myself

My Friends and Family

My Organizations Figure 02 : Time Flies and Money Talks Results

Sacred Place Equal Speak Toolkit

Disclaimer

As previously stated, the toolkit is not intended to serve as a definitive answer to all community issues. The intention is to adjust it as necessary to best fit the community. The most obvious adjustment is the choice of workshops and design games deemed necessary in yielding qualitative results.

Discussion Equal Speak Toolkit

Dictionary Stakeholder: Individuals or groups who represent an interest in the successful or failed outcome of addressing an issue. They have interests that may affect the way an issue is addressed and influence the objectives and outcome of addressing an issue. It is important to know and understand the different types of stakeholders within the process of addressing issues within an community. These stakeholders range from individual community members, local business, local developers, political agencies, and institutions (ie: educational and religious) Design Games: Gaming that is an approach to problem solving that engages a real life situation compressed in time so that the essential characteristics of the problem are open to examination. (Reference Design Games, Sanoff) Benchmarks: Standards that are established to evaluate appropriate outcomes Long Term Residents: resident for more than five years Short Term Residents: resident for five years or less

Environmental Social Equity in Design LAR 582.002 3 Credit hours Instructor: Kofi Boone, Associate Professor Thursday 5-7:45pm Leazar Hall Rm. 310 Pre-requisites: None (please contact the instructor for details)

DURHAM PROJECT BRIEFS Name:

Chickenbone Park

Contact: Â Tom Dawson, Urban designer Planning Department, City of Durham 101 City Hall Plaza, Ground Floor Durham, NC 27701 P 919-560-4137, ext. 28224 F 919-560-4641 thomas.dawson@DurhamNC.gov Interests in this project: Rapid downtown development in downtown Durham is displacing vital downtown open space and their users. Chickenbone Park, a former building site, has been appropriated as a downtown open space. It is currently one of the few places where black residents and others gather and recreate and is the location of an urban ministryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s free lunch program. However, the desire for an outdoor eating area from an adjacent restaurant may produce a conflict between existing users and new users. How could this conflict be addressed? And how can it inform an approach to sustaining democratic space?

What do we need in order to better understand the issue?:

What can we contribute to the project?:

General availability of the contact to work on the project: (Note specific days and two (2) hour blocks of time)

DURHAM PROJECT BRIEFS Name:

Street Economies (working with “Joe”)

Contact: Randy Hester, Center for Ecological Democracy rthester@frontier.com Interests in this project: Rapid downtown development in downtown Durham is displacing vital downtown open space and their users. A number of people are engaged in “street economies”; work outside of the mainstream economy but of service to downtown residents and users. “Joe”, an ex-con who now earns a living washing cars downtown, is an example of an urban entrepreneur engaged in the street economy. How does he view downtown? How does he use downtown? Solicit clients? What affordances might help him grow his business? And what lessons can be learned that could apply to others working in downtown public spaces?

What do we need in order to better understand the issue?:

What can we contribute to the project?:

General availability of the contact to work on the project: (Note specific days and two (2) hour blocks of time)

DURHAM PROJECT BRIEFS Name:

The Bull City Connector

Contact: Â Tia Hall, Cultural Alchemist SpiritHouse Inc 318 Blackwell St. Suite 105 Durham, NC 27701 P.O. Box 61865 Durham NC 27715 Phone (919) 408-7584 Email- Tia@spirithouse-nc.org Interests in this project: Rapid downtown development in downtown Durham is displacing vital downtown open space and their users. This includes the routes and stops of public transportation. Recently, Durhamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s free circulator, The Bull City Connector, was rerouted removing a stop at the Durham transit station and the direct transfer to other city routes. Although the city justified the change based on efficiency and ridership, the route change seems to have impacted access to the connector. Namely, transit-dependent low-income people of color that depended on transfers from the station may be disenfranchised. How has the rerouting affected people? Are there other issues in addition to improved efficiency and ridership impacting the route?

What do we need in order to better understand the issue?:

What can we contribute to the project?:

General availability of the contact to work on the project: (Note specific days and two (2) hour blocks of time)

DURHAM PROJECT BRIEFS Name:

Urban Alchemy workshop

Contact: Tia Hall, Cultural Alchemist SpiritHouse Inc 318 Blackwell St. Suite 105 Durham, NC 27701 P.O. Box 61865 Durham NC 27715 Phone (919) 408-7584 Email- Tia@spirithouse-nc.org Interests in this project: Rapid downtown development in downtown Durham is displacing vital downtown open space and their users. Development is perceived to be uneven and is focusing on downtown and neighborhoods serving well educated and higher income residents. In some cases, the pattern of development mirrors areas defined previously through exercises like “redlining” (a process where mortgage companies selected areas they would provide loans, and areas they would not; these areas reflect race and income prejudice). How can people be encouraged to explore the city, develop their awareness of uneven development, and communicate alternative strategies? This project works with an upcoming community workshop.

What do we need in order to better understand the issue?:

What can we contribute to the project?:

General availability of the contact to work on the project: (Note specific days and two (2) hour blocks of time)

DURHAM PROJECT BRIEFS Name:

The West End

Contact: Â Barbara Lau

balau@duke.edu Director, Pauli Murray Project www.paulimurrayproject.org 919/613-6167 Mayme Webb-Bledsoe mayme.webb@duke.edu Interests in this project: Numerous strategies have been used to balance the pressures of development and the need for preservation of historic neighborhoods and institutions. The work of Duke faculty, students, and community residents in the West End provide a comprehensive example of strategies used to achieve this balance. How have their approaches worked? How do you assess their effectiveness? And can assessment help to identify the need for new strategies for bringing together existing and new residents?

What do we need in order to better understand the issue?:

What can we contribute to the project?:

General availability of the contact to work on the project: (Note specific days and two (2) hour blocks of time)

Durham Field Study 1 Itinerary Saturday September 12, 2015 10am-3pm Park in American Tobacco Campus Parking Deck (free) Meet at American Tobacco Campus at “The Mushroom Man”/ Mellow Mushroom Restaurant

10:00am Tia Hall, Cultural Alchemist, Spirithouse Inc. American Tobacco Campus 318 Blackwell St., Durham, NC 27701 Issues: Transportation equity: Impacts of city bus route changes Landscape/Land use equity: Impacts of American Tobacco Trail planning 11:30am Thomas Dawson, Urban Designer, City of Durham Randy Hester, Center for Ecological Democracy 201 North Mangum St. Durham, NC 27701 Issues: Landscape/Land use equity: Downtown growth and Chickenbone Park Economic equity: Downtown street economies Lunch

(Location TBD)

Optional $12-$15

2pm

Barbara Lau, Director, The Pauli Murray Project Mayme Webb-Bledsoe Lyons Park Community Center 1309 Halley St; Durham, NC 27707 Issues: Landscape/Land use equity: Interpreting local history