Executive Summary of Thesis by Meghan Sharp

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Starting Small: Grassroots Tools for Revitalizing Detroit’s Neighborhoods Thesis project by Meghan Sharp, MLA, UC Berkeley 2011 The world is urbanizing at an unprecedented rate, in large part due to the industrialization of developing nations. And yet many cities are shrinking, particularly in areas of the world that led the industrial revolution. In 2009—when the United Nations announced that over half the world’s population now lives in urban areas—some 370 cities continued their steady population decline, including 59 in the U.S. Shrinking cities often are characterized by ongoing de-densification within otherwise steadily growing regions. The population remaining in shrinking cities typically experiences higher rates of poverty and unemployment than its suburban neighbors, while the city government is left with a weak housing market and insufficient fiscal resources with which to tackle its problems. The shrinking city phenomenon poses a new challenge to urban designers and planners (not to mention policymakers), who are accustomed to approaching cities on the premise of growth, with the ability to leverage large amounts of private and public investment to influence and shape urban revitalization. It prompts such questions as: What does revitalization look like when it is not driven by growth? What is the appropriate scale and typology of urban design intervention in this environment? How do we build on and connect grassroots revitalization efforts to each other and to larger redevelopment projects? THE PROPOSITION This graduate thesis project builds on these questions, asking specifically: In what ways could small-scale, incremental urban design interventions help revitalize neighborhoods in shrinking cities? Small-scale interventions—those that are implemented at the level of the parcel, street or corner—may be made incrementally, building upon each other over time, rather than trying to address the entire problem at once. Such interventions are less expensive than large-scale intervention, making them more feasible in impoverished and weak-market communities. They are also more sensitive to the needs and desires of existing neighborhood residents. Further, their scale and typology are in line with what an individual, a small business, or a non-profit organization can accomplish with limited expertise and resources. The anticipated

outcome is stabilization of the neighborhood, which will entice existing residents not only to stay put but also to invest in their homes and neighborhood. The project comprised three stages: background research, site selection and analysis, and planning and design. In the first stage, I grounded myself in the theory and practice of neighborhood revitalization and the ways in which urban design contributes to its success, developing a “toolbox” of small-scale design strategies. In the second stage, I used an overlay method and data on vacancy and demographics to select as my site Westwood Park, a neighborhood in the Brightmoor area of northeast Detroit. I then conducted further analysis of the neighborhood’s context, history and existing conditions. Finally, I developed a proposal for intervention in Westwood Park that centers on engaging the community in transforming its vacant land. These interventions will catalyze the development of sense of community and place attachment, while improving quality of life and economic conditions in the neighborhood. THE SITE Westwood Park is a 15-block neighborhood situated in northeast Detroit at the edge of the Brightmoor neighborhoods, which are among the most blighted in the city. It is just west of the Grandmont-Rosedale neighborhoods, which have remained relatively stable and vibrant (p. 3-4). Prior to the 1990s Westwood Park looked a lot like most other areas of Brightmoor, with increasing levels of vacancy, crime and de-densification (p. 5). Beginning in the 90s, however, a local CDC worked with residents to facilitate construction and rehabilitation of over 90 homes in the neighborhood (p. 6). The infusion of investment in the neighborhood led to a decrease in crime and blight and increase in home values. Unfortunately, the neighborhood has not fared well through the recent financial crisis and is again experiencing decline. In addition to analyzing neighborhood conditions such as sidewalks, streetlights, and street trees, I conducted a parcel-by-parcel survey to identify the status and condition of vacant houses and vacant lots in the neighborhood (p. 7) as well as inhabited homes (p. 8). Site analysis confirmed what I suspected based on my site selection process: Westwood

Park is at a tipping point. I began my site analysis based on Google imagery dated 2009 and visited the site in March 2011. In those two years, vacancy and blight had made a marked advance. Anecdotal evidence from neighborhood residents confirmed that this is the case. Vacancy begets vacancy; left untended, it spreads. Although there is a lot of vacant space in Westwood Park, there are no public places beside the street; the neighborhood lacks park facilities where children can play close to home or residents can casually encounter one another. One resident I spoke with indicated that there is an interest among some residents in re-invigorating the neighborhood’s block clubs. However residents are wary of inviting their neighbors—who are often strangers—into their homes. The neighborhood needs a neutral meeting ground, a place where residents can interact informally on their own terms. It also needs a cause to rally around. Vacant land in Westwood Park presents an opportunity to remedy both these problems. A STRATEGY & A CATALYST The proposal for Westwood Park has several components. First, I developed a typology of vacant land in the neighborhood. Then, for each type of vacant land (p. 9), I assessed the suitability of infill housing and various vacant land reuse tools identified in my research—stabilization, side yard expansion, parks and open spaces, and productive use. I prioritized the tools based on the opportunities and constraints posed by both the type of vacant land and the type of intervention. The result is a matrix that indicates the preferred order in which the land reuse tools would be applied to each type of vacant land (p. 10). For example, for a single vacant lot on a corner, the ideal intervention is to build a new house. Given that infill is not likely to occur, the next best intervention is to make a small pocket park on the lot, capitalizing on the accessibility of the corner location. If resources are not available for a park, the adjoining neighbor could take ownership of the property. In the event that the owner is not able or does not want to obtain the property, the vacant lot should be stabilized until another use becomes feasible. The second component of the proposal is a strategic framework (p. 11) that proposes the preferred form of intervention for each vacant house and lot in the neighborhood. Here, the prioritized typology of interventions was applied to the specific conditions of vacancy within Westwood Park. To determine the preferred form of intervention for each vacant parcel, I considered the parcel’s context in the neighborhood and block, its size, existing conditions and features, and ownership. The strategic framework illustrates what I believe to be the preferred intervention for vacant land

throughout Westwood Park. It also recommends specific improvements that could be made to the public realm, first in priority areas and then elsewhere, should resources become available (p. 12). The strategic framework for Westwood Park focuses on the neighborhood’s vacant land. Vacancy is the most influential factor in Westwood Park’s physical environment; it must be addressed, quickly, before it begins to impact adjacent homes. But the framework is not just a plan to address vacancy. As my earlier research demonstrated, each intervention made on vacant land has a powerful impact in terms of stabilizing property values, improving quality of life, building sense of community, and cultivating place attachment. Thus, each intervention recommended by the strategic framework has a small but powerful impact, and each intervention builds upon the next until, over time, the neighborhood is transformed. Finally, I propose that the CDC working in Westwood Park engage residents in a participatory design-build project focused on a shared concern: the roadblock at Evergreen Road and Kendall Street, as well as an adjacent vacant lot (p. 13). Currently, the roadblock is an approximately 10-foot mound overgrown with vegetation that traps trash and debris. While effective at reducing crime, it’s an eyesore. It also poses a hazard for pedestrians, creating opportunity for crime. Further, with 30,000 cars passing by daily, the roadblock has a high level of visibility for both residents and passers-by. Through a participatory process, residents of Westwood Park would be engaged in a dialogue about how the roadblock could be redesigned to solve the functional problems it poses, while creating an amenity for the neighborhood. For example, the site could be re-imagined as a pocket park, with low maintenance grass and shade trees, as well as picnic tables and perhaps a play structure. Residents would then work together to raise funds, prepare the site and construct the design. Together they would deconstruct the abandoned house on the vacant lot adjacent to the roadblock. Together they would shape paths through the park, plant trees and shrubs, and install benches. Simply by participating in the design-build process, residents will build social capital and enhance their sense of community. By investing their time and energy in the redesign of the roadblock, they will cultivate further place attachment. And by creating something beautiful and enjoyable out of a problem area in their community, they will be empowered and emboldened to take further action to improve the neighborhood.

STOEPEL #1 PARK

DETROIT C.B.D. CANADA

1/ 8-

E DI RA

ACACIA

ROSEDALE BAPTIST CHURCH

GRANDMONTROSEDALE

M IL

VETAL K-8 SCHOOL

OLD REDFORD

US DI

SMITH HOMES PUBLIC HOUSING

1/ 4M ile

WESTWOOD

WeStWOOd PArk In cIty cOntext

MINOCK

6-MI

AUBURN

3-MI

PLAINVIEW

1-MI

EVERGREEN

LYNDON

BRIGHTMOOR

KENDALL

CITY LIMITS

STOUT PARK

WESTWOOD PARK SCHOOLCRAFT 0

1/4 mi

1/2 mi

1 mi

CITY MISSION

Westwood Park is situated in northeast Detroit at the edge of the Brightmoor neighborhoods, which are widely considered the most blighted in the city, and the Grandmont-Rosedale neighborhoods, which have remained relatively stable and vibrant.

I-96

church Site boundaries

0’

200’

1/8-MI

200 ft

1/8 mi

1/4-MI 1/4 mi

PERCENT OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING PERCENT OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP

PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT POPULATION BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP CHANGE

BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OF CITYWIDE DATA RATE owner occupation RANGESOF REPRESENT QUINTILES OF CITYWIDE DATA

BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP Percent Population RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OF Change CITYWIDE DATA RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OF CITYWIDE DATA

Zero block Population by census group, 2000-2008 Zero Population -3.55% to 98.56% -3.55% to 98.56% (most stable/growing) (most stable city) stable/growing) -3.55% to quintile 98.56%in(most -9.41% to -3.56% -9.41% to -3.56% -9.41% to -3.56% -13.52% to -9.42% 5 -13.52% t -9.42% -13.52% to -9.42% 4 3 -18.74% to -13.53% 2 -18.74% to -13.53% -18.74% to -13.53% 1 -100% to -18.75 (least stable) -100% -18.75 (least stable) -100% to to -18.75%

Zero block population by census group, 2009 Zero population 75.86% - 100% (quintile w/most 75.86% – 100% (quintile w/most owne 75.86% – 100% (quintile w/most owne owner occupants) 61.69% – 75.85% 61.69% – 75.85% 61.69% - 75.85% 51.71% – 61.86% 5 51.71% – 61.86% 51.75% - 61.86% 4 3 40.30% – 51.70% 2 40.30% – 51.70% 40.30% - 51.70% 1 0% – 40.29% (least owner occupation 0%- 40.29% – 40.29% (least owner occupation 0% (quintile w/tewest

(least stable quintile in city)

owner occupants)

Site Boundaries

200 ft

1/8 mi

1/4 mi

200 ft

1/8 mi

1/4 mi

1-4 UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CENSUSDATA BLOCK G RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OFBY CITYWIDE res. unit vacancy RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES RATE OF CITYWIDE DATA

Percent RES. PARCELS PERCENT OFOF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS W/ HOUSING STRUCTURE WITH HOUSING STRUCTURE PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS W/ HOUSING 1-4 UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP STRUCTURE PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS W/ HOUSING 1-4 UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP STRUCTURE RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OF CITYWIDE DATA by census block group, 2009

Zero housing structures surveyed by census block group, 2009 Zero housing structures surveyed 0% 0%- 7.02% – 7.02% (quartile with fewest vaca (quartile with fewest vacancies) 0% – 7.02% (quartile with fewest vaca 7.03% – 12.5% 7.03% - 12.50% 7.03% – 12.5% 12.51% – 19.55% 12.51% - 19.55% 12.51% – 19.55% 19.56% – 60.06% (most vacancies) 19.56% - 60.06% 19.56% – 60.06% (most vacancies)

RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OFBY CITYWIDE 1-4 UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CENSUSDATA BLOCK GROUP 96.31 - 100% RANGES REPRESENT QUINTILES OF CITYWIDE DATAvacant parcels) 96.31% – 100% (quintile w/fewest (quintile fewest(quintile vacant parcels) 96.31%with – 100% w/fewest vacant parcels)

96.31% (quintile w/fewest vacant parcels) 89.44% – 100% 96.30%

5 4 3 2 1

RESIDENTIAL UNIT VACANCY RATE RESIDENTIAL UNIT VACANCY RATE 1-4 UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BY CENSUS BLOCK G

89.44% - 96.30% 89.44% – 96.30%

76.31% 89.44% – 89.43% 96.30%

76.31% - 89.43% 76.31% – 89.43%

76.31% 57.34% – 89.43% 76.30%

57.34% - 76.39% 57.34% – 76.30%

(quartile with most vacancies)

1.71% 57.34%– –57.33% 76.30%(quintile w/most vacant parcels) 1.71% - 57.33% 1.71% – 57.33% (quintile w/most vacant parcels) 1.71% –than 57.33% (quintile w/most vacant parcels) (quintile most vacant parcels) Fewerwith 100 parcels surveyed Fewer than 100 parcels surveyed Fewer than 100 parcels surveyed Fewer than 100 parcels surveyed 4 3 2 1 0

200 ft

1/8 mi

1/4 mi

200 ft

1/8 mi

1/4 mi

Westwood Park is a buffer between stability to the east and decline to the west and a middle ground in terms of population change, vacancy and owner occupation. 4

Building Footprints, c. 1969

Building Footprints, 2011

Commercial properties excluded due to data limitations.

The de-densification of Westwood Park is pronounced in a comparison of current parcel and building footprint patterns to those from 1969. The decrease is due to the demolition of derelict homes and the construction of newer homes on larger parcels.

Parcels, c. 1969

Boundaries & PARcEls, c. 2008 0

100’

200’

400’

1/8 mi

Solid lines indicate the extends of land held by a common owner. Dashed lines indicate the parcels within each holding.

YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION

ORIGINAL 1920s-1930s SFR

1940s-1950s SFR

YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 1990s: HABITAT/CDC INFILL SFR

1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-2011 Not known Unimproved or not residential

Westwood Park was platted in the 1920s and constructed over the next three decades, after which it began to decline. In 1989 a local CDC began working with residents and has since facilitated construction or renovation of over 90 homes in the neighborhood.

100’

200’

400’

1/8 mi

MAINTAINED NOT MAINTAINED

CLAIMED

GOOD/FAIR POOR/DEMOLLISH

POSSIBLY VACANT

DISINVESTMENT / VACANCY

100’

200’

400’

1/8 mi

Vacancy is concentrated in the southeast area of the neighborhood and has made a marked advance in the last five years. 7

FEW SIGNS OF INVESTMENT

composite: investment/Disinvestment

MANY SIGNS OF INVESTMENT

SOME SIGNS OF INVESTMENT

INVESTMENT / ATTACHMENT

100’

200’

400’

1/8 mi

100’

200’

400’

1/8 mi

Investment is concentrated in the center-west area of the neighborhood, where the local CDC has facilitated construction and renovation of over 90 homes. 8

BLO

-BL

LOT

typology of vacant land in westwood park ORIGINAL CONDITION

ID-

BLO

ID-

• • •

2M CK

LOT

• • • • 3+

ID-

BLO

• • • •

OTS

NER

LOT

• • • •

LOT

RNE

R LO

ILL

TS INF

• • • •

F EINX SE

NE U TIV SCIO PADNU LOT EXRO P

OTS

IO INPNFRE

SI IALLN EINXFP

PSEPXRLO

I INPINFOF

neighborhood large scale prevents use from becoming a nuisance

ILL

S IN

S INFIL

FILL

LOT

L PESRXPO

K PAR 2at COleast 1/4-acre OOD RNE RH frontage at least street R LO105-foot HBO L G I T L I S NNEF limited accessibility to I

LOT

-BL

NER

INF

0.2 acres 210-foot street frontage high level of accessibility to neighborhood 1 C could be a nuisance use USE or OR IVE neighbors NER concernCTfor privacy U

MID

L S INFIL

LOT

NER

LOT

NER

-BL

0.1 acres 175-foot street frontage high level of accessibility to 3+ neighborhood ID- could be a nuisance or • Muse BLO CK concern for neighbor privacy

MID

NER

LOT

0.2 USE 1 C acres VE OR street frontage I T 70-foot NER UC LOT PROD limited accessibility to neighborhood use could be a nuisance or privacy concern for neighbors

LOT

• • •

3+ BLO

BLO

LOT

OTS INFILL

NSI OTS EXFPIALL IN

ID-

neighborhood use could be a nuisance or privacy concern for neighbor

BLO

2M CK

-BL

LOT

M0.1 ID- acres BLO CK street frontage 35-foot LOT S limited accessibility to

•

MID

OTS INFILL

BLO

PRESENT CONDITION 2M

-BL

RNE

EU TIVN CIO S U N LOT O AD EPXR P

L ET TS IPNOFCILK

R LO

F PINNREO

PAR

NEXEI

at least 1/4-acre at least 245-foot street frontage high level of accessibility to neighborhood ARK 2C D P from OR scale prevents O large use NER O RH LOT a nuisance becoming LHBO

IPNNOFF I

S EFIIGL NIN

K PAARRK OODD P O RH O BO RH GIGHHBO I E NNE

PPRRO

StrAteGIc FrAMeWOrk

LeGend Maintain vacant House for Future residence Temporary Intervention on Vacant Lot / Priority for Inﬁll Adjacent Landowner Acquires or Maintains vacant Lot vacant Lot converted to Open Space/recreational Use vacant Lot converted to Productive Use Priority Area for Public realm Improvements

0’ 100’ 200’

400’

1/8-MI

RN,

MIN

RN,

MIN

TSC

E STRE

TSC

E STRE

PUbLIc reALM StrAteGIeS GreenWAy treAtMent •

PLA

•

INV

PLA

IEW

INV

, AU

IEW

BUR

, AU

APE APE TSC Y EETSC Y E E STR NWA STR NWA E E GRE GRE

LYNN, M LYRNN, M DOINO DOINO N S CK N S CK TRE TRE ET ET

• • • •

Install additional street lights, at a maximum distance of 150 feet on center Plant street trees every 15 feet, where missing trim older trees to improve lines of sight Paint bike lanes on road Install prominent signs announcing greenway and park create a neighborhood gateway on the vacant land at the corner of Lyndon and evergreen

PedeStrIAn treAtMent • •

PLA

INV

PLA

IEW

, AU

• •

INV

IEW

, AU BLUYRN BLUYN ND, M ON ACRND, M O A INOSTRAC INNOSTCRAC CKEET IA CKEET IA & &

KEN

APEY APEY TESNCWA EETESNCWA E E STGR RE STGR RE T T TREE D STREE S D RE RE SHA SHA

Install additional street lights, at a maximum distance of 150 feet on center Plant street tree every 35 feet, where missing trim older trees to improve lines of sight Once vacant lots are stabilized or improved, replace derelict sidewalks.

SHAred Street treAtMent • • •

LYN

ACLYN AC AD AC I N S CIO N TRE A & SKTERE A & KE ET NEDT ND ALL ALL

GRE

A ENW

AY T NW TREET E REE E T S GR RED S RED SHA SHA

• • •

Paint the street to create a visual distinction that the street is a pedestrian space Install additional street lights on existing utility poles, at a maximum distance of 150 feet on center Plant street tree every 35 feet, where missing trim older trees to improve lines of sight clean untended alleys, particularly along the sidewalks replace all derelict sidewalks.

tHe cAtALySt

PLAInvIeW

everGreen

VIEW FROM EVERGREEN VIEW FROM EVERGREEN kendALL

ROAD BLOCK AT ACACIA AcAcIA