Cep 303 fieldreport4

Â

University District South of NE 43rd Street

Field Report 4: University District Team CEP 303 - Marty Curry and Branden Born - May 23, 2011 Lauren Applewood, Maddie Beeders, Tiffany Chao, Drew Collins, Chris Gandy, Garett Gerlach, Sherwin Lee, Kavvon Mahboobzadeh, Rachel McCaffrey, Hanna McFall, Devin Meyers, Marie Okamura, Mahta Seyed Ahmadnia, Molly Thornton, Zetian Xu, Frank Zhang

Â

Table of Contents Introduction Part A: Neighborhood Plan Summary Neighborhood Plan Goals and Policies Part B: Community Organizations in the University District Community Center Organizations Religious Organizations Food Organizations Commerce Institutions Part C: Demographics Part D: Outreach University District Project Areas and Community Involvement Changes in Vision Where We are Now Appendix A: Neighborhood Plan Area Map Appendix B: 2004 Factsheet Appendix C: Adoption Matrix Appendix D: NE 45th Street Station Area Planning Appendix E: Station Area Plan Appendix F: Community Organizations in the University District* Appendix G: Demographic Maps*

*appendices compiled by our team.

Introduction For the past eight weeks, our team has been working on developing a comprehensive perspective of planning in the University District. In this field report, we demonstrate our view of the types of planning that are happening in the University District and what the University District has to tell us. This information will serve as the basis for our final report and recommendations.

Part A: Neighborhood Plan Summary The University Community Urban Center (UCUC) has three large zones according to the Neighborhood Plan Area Map [Appendix A] -- the University Campus, Ravenna and University Northwest. Within these zones, there are six different neighborhoods: the Southwest quadrant, th​ lower Brooklyn, Northern Tier, University-Gardens Mixed Use Core, The Ave/15​ Ave NE

Corridor and Ravenna Urban Village.

The initial plan for UCUC was written in 1998, which laid out several plans and goals for updating the appearance and functionality of the University Urban Center. This 20-year plan has the following characteristics: it takes an innovative, grassroots approach to planning, centers development in existing neighborhoods and finally, it aims to increase pedestrian friendliness and safety. Through guided outreach, technical planning, and community engagement, the plan reached a broad set of recommendations for the UCUC. Its vision statement summarizes the founding principles of the plan: for the UCUC to be inviting, offer a wide range of quality housing, be a vital and progressive economic area, serve as a hub, and to seek active partnership with the University of Washington.

Since the plan in 1998, and even before its completion, many concrete steps to fulfill recommendations named in the plan have taken place. Notably, “The Ave Project” which

focused on widening sidewalks and introducing public art to University Way was completed in 2003. In the same year, the University of Washington’s Master Plan was also approved. The University Heights building and grounds were successfully acquired and improved, giving a home to the Farmers Market and other community resources. One million dollars was also secured to create a new park within the UCUC, and the Ravenna Creek Daylighting project was completed. For other achievements, refer to the 2004 Factsheet [Appendix B].

Neighborhood Plan Goals and Policies The following section is a summary of the goals and policies within the plan that are especially critical and relevant to the scope of our projects. For the complete list and descriptions, please refer to the UCUC Neighborhood Plan located on the DON website (​ http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans/university/​ ).

Overall Goals and Policies critical to our project: A: Development ●

Policy A-2.2 through 2.5: Ravenna UV improvements

Brief summary for the Ravenna Urban Village neighborhood: The major concern for this area is linkages and connections. It has very few N-S as well as E-W streets, atypical of the grid pattern of Seattle and its neighboring University Urban Center. The connectivity concern includes pedestrians, traffic congestion and safety issues. Projects in this area have focused on improving pedestrian mobility along Blakeley Area (funds have been secured for this), streetscaping to improve mobility and drainage, and rezoning for taller building heights. Other priorities are retaining green open space, including preserving a green belt on the west of the Burke-Gilman (Ravenna Woods) and restoring a small segment of the watershed that historically drained into Union Bay (Ravenna Creek Daylighting project). P-patches are in high demand in the

neighborhood, and expansions are being considered. In terms of commercial interests, as the University Village Shopping Center has grown into a regional draw, some basic goods and services essential to the neighborhood have been lost. The community and U-Village have agreed to undertake a master plan to review the needs of the local residents. Some additional proposed actions are to increase friendliness to transit, adding Blakeley Crescent as a neighborhood park, preserving small-scale housing, increasing affordable housing and designating Green Streets. Many sites for the above-mentioned goals have been proposed. ●

Goal A-3: Support long-term commercial development to maintain the UCUC’s diverse economic base

●

Policy A-3.1 Accommodate new knowledge-base, industries that have a positive impact on their neighbors.

●

Policy A-3.2 Create a vital mixed-use commercial/residential center with master planned development, integrating open space and pedestrian connections.

●

Policy A-3.3 Encourage redevelopment that supports and derives benefit from public transportation systems, including bus and rail transit.

●

Policy​ A-3.4 Explore innovative parking measures such as a joint-use policy, ​ off-site parking, and parking structures.

In terms of residential neighborhoods: ●

Policy A-4.4 Establish a vibrant, cohesive, mixed-use neighborhood between NE 43rd Street, NE 50th Street, Brooklyn Avenue NE, and Roosevelt Avenue NE.

●

Policy A-4.5 Strengthen and enhance the mid-rise residential neighborhood rd​ south of NE 43​ Street between Roosevelt Avenue NE and Brooklyn Avenue

NE.

With respect to UW, Goal A-5 says: Accommodate University of Washington growth in a way that benefits the Community as well.

Policy​ A-5.3 Encourage University-related commercial development such as ​

●

“technology transfer” and institute knowledge-based incubator businesses where such uses are of benefit to the university and the community. Focus such uses along Roosevelt Avenue NE south of NE 50th and in the University Gardens core, between the freeway and Brooklyn Avenue NE, NE 50th Street, and NE 43rd Street.

Goal A-7 says “Support home-based businesses”

●

B: Transportation ●

Policy B-2.2 Preserve the capacity of the principal arterial streets necessary to accommodate projected growth in the UCUC and protect residential streets from the effects of through traffic

●

Goal B-3: “Allow for parking at levels necessary to sustain the economic viability and vitality of the UCUC, while discouraging commuting by single-occupant vehicles and the use of UCUC parking facilities by commuters using transit to travel to other destinations.”

●

Policy B-5.1 Ensure that the community, City, Metro, RTA, and the eventual Monorail PDA work together to design an integrated transportation system with positive impacts on existing uses and long-term redevelopment opportunities.

Figure below is from the original plan, detailing proposed transportation-related improvements in the University District.

C: Housing Main aim of UC housing plan is to “provide housing affordable to those projected to live here and to attract middle-class, family-oriented owner housing. Housing goals have been set to provide residential opportunities for those who work in the neighborhood.”

D: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Urban Design Features Existing problem: “The University Community currently has a sizable open space deficit according to Seattle Comprehensive Plan standards and is lacking in many recreation facilities.”

Highest priorities that are outstanding are: 1.

Enhancement of the slopes and shorelines between the University and I-5 bridges

2.

Utilize a variety of methods to acquire additional and much needed open space ●

Policy D-1.1 Pursue the Comprehensive Plan goal of development of 12.25 to 14.3 acres of new parks and P-patches.

●

Policy D-2.1 through 2.6 address individual quadrants’ open space needs and recommendations based on the Comprehensive Plan. [Please refer.]

3.

Partnership between the community and the University in the design of areas along and near the campus/community edge. A partnership between the YMCA, Seattle Parks Department, University Heights Center, and the community might also satisfy the need for a recreation center. ●

Policy D-5.1 Work with the University on the campus edge and shoreline improvements in the upcoming campus master plan.

●

Goal D-7 Develop an indoor, multiple use sports and recreational facility.

Others include: ●

Goal D-3 Improve the pedestrian and bicycle connections from neighborhoods to parks and recreational resources

●

Goal D-4 Enhance gateways into the University Community, especially at NE 50th Street at Roosevelt Avenue NE, NE 50th Street at University Way NE, 11th Avenue NE at NE th​ 41st Street, 25th Avenue NE at NE 55th Street, NE 45th Street at 25​ Avenue NE, and

Roosevelt Avenue NE at NE 42nd Street. “Gateways” means visual enhancements, such as improved landscaping, signage, artwork, or other feature, that signify the entries into the community.

Â

Below is a figure from the original plan detailing recommendations pertaining to this section.

The next four sections are Arts and Cultural Activities [E], Social Services [F], Public Safety [G] and Community Coordination, Communication, and Participation in Decision Making for Plan Implementation and Redevelopment activities [H] respectively. They are all very important and relevant, and are worth further study and implementation. However, for the scopes of the projects undertaken by the University District Group currently, these sections are not summarized.

In the 2004 Priority Report and 2005 Priority Update, the tasks of top priority related to University Heights are housing and social services in the U-District. They are not directly related to any of our particular project focus, and there will not be reviewed or included in this report.

However, they should be considered first in future CEP 303 classes working with UCUC. To refer to them, visit ​ h​ ttp://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/PriorityReports/2004/​ .

According to the UCUC Approval and Adoption Matrix produced in 1998 as a response to the UCUC Neighborhood Plan, many achievements have already been recorded. Two general th​ actions were Seattle Public Utilities’ initiation of the NE 50​ Street master controller project

doing street and lighting improvements, and a UW Architecture and Urban Planning studio which provided a photographic record of the Southwest Quadrant area with analysis of key open space and design issues. The latter, especially, is highly valuable to our projects and should be located. Section III of this document lists longer-term considerations for the U-District, amongst which include increasing bike parking areas [B23], developing design guidelines to protect the Burke-Gilman Trail [D36], and conducting analysis of all arterials within this urban center to create a UCUC Transportation Plan [I1]. For other micro-neighborhood specific implementations and executive responses, refer to Section I of the document in Appendix C. Some of the most pertinent activities in this Section are listed below.

Southwest Quadrant: D7 - Create a small park at the 7th Ave NE street end at Lake Union, perhaps with environmental restoration, hand-held boat launch, and a small seating area. [High Priority] D8 - Improve NE 42nd and 43rd streets from I-5 to the campus as green streets. [H.P.​ ] Lower Brooklyn: Development of an overall conceptual design is currently underway along NE 43rd St. with a one-block demonstration project to improve the pedestrian link between the Ave and the campus on NE 43rd St. [Underway in 1998] D13 - Support UW efforts to construct a contiguous waterfront trail extending from Montlake Bridge to University Bridge. [H.P.] D26 - Improve Brooklyn Ave. NE as a green street and signed bicycle route for Ravenna Blvd to

the water.

D33 - Unify the area between NE 40th and 41st Sts./Brooklyn Ave. NE and 15th Ave. NE. Develop small open spaces and improve streets as parcels are redeveloped.

University Gardens Mixed-Use Core B11 - Upper UCUC East-West on NE 47th St. Establish an east-west bicycle street between 8th nd​ Ave. NE and 22​ Ave. NE with signage linking it to other bicycle streets.

B17 - Transit Staging. Provide adequate (preferably off-street) staging facilities to serve transit demand. Pursue mixed use transit staging facility between 11th and 12th

Aves. NE and

NE 45th and 47th streets.

D24 - Partner with KC/Metro to develop open space in association with KC/Metro’s bus staging/parking structure, etc. ​ Refer to document for full list.

Another set of documents is also of high value to neighborhood-level work, and that is the Station Area Planning (SAP) documents produced by Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The two SAPs done for Light Rail stations in the U-District are for the UW station and rd​ th​ the NE 43​ /45​ Street Brooklyn station. The decision has since been made for a single-entrance rd​ th​ station underground between 43​ and 45​ streets. According to the Brooklyn SAP, the station

area will have 84 parcels and nearly 19 acres of land available for development opportunities, although all of the parcels will be small. This figure includes vacant and underused parcels. The document recommends three potential development strategies: increased density, improved pedestrian connections, and limitations on parking. Interestingly, the SAP also included an alternative analysis for the intersection of Campus Parkway and Brooklyn as a station. Refer to Appendix D for the complete plan.

The following drawings are from the University District Concept-Level Recommendation for the

Â

Link Light Rail project on Brooklyn. The brochure is attached as Appendix E.

Â

Part B: Community Organizations in the University District The University District is a dynamic and vibrant community that contains a variety of community organizations. These organizations play an important role in sustaining the community through direct and indirect interactions. These interactions are organized through higher education, networking, business interests, community events, and tourism. The different kinds of organizations that are presented in the University District are community centers, religious organizations, commerce, sustainability related organizations, food-centered

Â

organizations, and institutions. These organizations share one common result, they bring people together. Despite their own interests, each organization has an interest in keeping the University District sustained and thriving.

Community Center Organizations Local community organizations such as the University Heights Community Center, YMCA Family, and the Roosevelt Neighborhood Alliance are diverse groups that seek to benefit individuals of various ages and interests. These organizations have multiple purposes; they offer workshops, a variety of educational classes, seasonal programs, civic meetings, exhibitions, and play a role in preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the neighborhood. They offer unique contributions to the communities and the individuals that represent this district.

Religious Organizations There are a number of religious organizations present in the University District. They provide services to the U-District and elsewhere in hopes of helping those in need and advocating the community’s problems. There are different church organizations that work as coalitions to share resources and build a stronger sense of community. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are just a few representative religious organizations within the neighborhood of University District.

Food Organizations There are a number of food organizations in the University District. While there are a number of restaurants that offer diverse and vibrant food in the University District neighborhood, the main focus of this category is food organizations that aims to engage in the community and not just for business interests. Exemplary organizations are the University Food

Bank and the University District Farmers Market, each being a great contribution to the neighborhood by serving the needs of a diverse population from the University District, as well as attracting people from surrounding neighborhoods. Organizations such as Seattle Tilth play an important role in providing education, services, and resources to a wider audience. The presence of the two P-Patches in this District also demonstrate the neighborhoods’ participation in a sustainable food system.

Commerce Businesses within the range of University District also have a very significant role. The Chamber of Commerce, University Bookstore, and Farmers Market are categorized within ‘commerce’. They each offer a series of important contributions to this neighborhood. The Chamber of Commerce is a large organization that function with members with various businesses. The Chamber of Commerce has a board of directors that consists of individuals from various business backgrounds. The University Bookstore located on University Way primarily serves students of University of Washington who purchase their textbooks and school supplies there. It also attracts students and non-student customers by providing recreational/interest books, clothing apparel/accessories, technology tools, and a place to dine. The Farmers Market is a commercial source of produce and goods, therefore categorized as a business organization as well as community center.

Institutions The University of Washington is a large institution that offers various academic programs, degrees, research, and skill-building opportunities relevant to the challenges of our the times. The mission of the University is to serve students with experiences that are

Â

intellectual and varied. The University encourages students to explore beyond what is taught in classrooms by providing resources for students to study abroad or join organizations such as the Peace Corps.

Within this diverse University, there are exemplary institutional affiliations that make a significant impact on the University District community. These institutional organizations include the UW Farm, and Community, Environment, & Planning [CEP], an undergraduate Interdisciplinary Major. The UW Farm has come to be a very community-involved Registered Student Organization on the UW campus and has begun working with Seattle Tilth and the Center for Urban Horticulture. The CEP program, on the other hand, allows students within the major to explore their personal interests, their manner of involvement within the UW community, and with the greater Seattle community as a whole. Community involvement is exemplified through classwork, internships and Senior Project themes of CEP students.

Refer to Appendix F for a full list of organizations and their descriptions.

Part C: Demographics The University District is an outlier among its neighbors in many of the categories that our group studied. The district has the highest non-white populations north of the Ship Canal, with Census block groups that are less than 30% white. The largest non-white population in the University District are people of Asian decent, who are most highly concentrated west of campus - between 15th and 7th Avenues, south of NE 50th, and 45th Street. Hispanic/Latino, Black, Native American, and other races are represented in the district, but not significantly. Most of the racial diversity within the district lies within the urban center boundary.

Population density in the neighborhood is higher than the city's average of around 7300

Â

persons per square mile. In addition to high density inside the urban center boundary, there is significant density extending out toward Green Lake and Wallingford. Notable is the lower densities to the south in the Montlake neighborhood, and to the north-east and east. Two spots north of campus are missing data.

Two seemingly intertwined indicators of the University and its students are the incomes in the district and the age of its residents. The University District is certainly the youngest neighborhood in the study area, with most areas south of NE 55th Street having more than 75% of their populations under the age of 30. Per capita income in the district is significantly lower than its neighbors with incomes within the urban center boundary being almost solidly in our lowest classification. Per capita income is hard to quantify for students, which likely leads to skewed data.

Housing stock in the district is predominantly rental, which is over 85%, and the rental distribution seems to follow the density in our study area. Northern neighborhoods that were identified on our Lynch Maps as University Park and Lower Roosevelt are areas with more owner-occupied homes, but neither area is any more than 60% owner-occupied. The housing stock in the district is quite polarized by age, with areas within the urban center boundary being predominantly newer (1950+), and areas outside being older.

The data is from the American Communities Survey (2005-2009) and the 2010 Census. See Appendix G for maps our team made illustrating this data.

Part D: Outreach The University District Group is approaching Mobility, Development, and Sustainability in the neighborhood through varied approaches based in community needs as asserted by individual community members and garnered from other neighborhood resources. Our team

Â

has benefited from contact with Rebecca Barnes, Patty Whistler and the initial panel of stakeholders that we had the opportunity to meet with in class. We are also in contact with Flip Wood, and attempting to meet with business leaders.

U-District Project Areas & Community Involvement Mobility The topic of mobility is community-driven by the dynamic decision-making processes currently involving the light rail station. Seattle is taking a major step in the realm of transportation and the communities slated to receive stations along the route are especially impacted, including the U-District. Besides the light rail station, there are many other types of developments pending. In talks with community members, (Rebecca Barnes, Patty Whistler, Flip Wood) there has been much excitement about the new station, but also concerns over construction impacts. Based on these interactions, the mobility team will focus on the impacts that the station construction will have, and produce design guidelines for the changing transportation network that the station will create. What will NE 43rd Street look like more pedestrianized? How can we make alleyways more inviting and pedestrianized? How best can buses and trains interface at the station?

Development The Development team is focusing on two developments that are being planned near the light rail station and will be assessing how effective they will be in meeting neighborhood goals.

These goals come from the neighborhood plan, light-rail planning, and the voices of community members. One of the developments is the proposed mixed-use development AvalonBay. We will examine this plan to explore how this site works towards the community goal of a vibrant commercial district (neighborhood plan). It also supports a goal of increased density near the

light rail station as mentioned by Rebecca Barnes and in community meetings. Secondly, we are following up with Rebecca Barnes to learn more about a potential development that she mentioned to us, involving a Children’s Hospital and the University of Washington.

The Development team will contribute hypothetical development plans that address components missing from these proposed developments. These needs include the possibility of residential development on top of the new light rail station that differs from AvalonBay’s offerings. This could provide an interesting approach to transit oriented development.

Additionally, there is community desire for more open space (neighborhood plan) and recreational sports facilities (Patty Whistler) that interests the Development team, and is pertinent to the work of the Sustainability team. Patty Whistler informed us of a million dollars in parks money the neighborhood has yet to find use for, and Flip Wood talked about the plans for a four acre park on the Lake Union waterfront where the Bryant Building is currently situated.

Sustainability A community that calls for open space and needs more appropriate food opportunities converges to inform sustainability proposals for the U-District. The Sustainability team is looking at vacant lots that could be transformed for food access and production, as well as smaller opportunities for growing, even in alleyways as inspired by Patty Whistler’s ideas for more atmospheric pathways.

These open spaces as sustainable solutions result from the Sustainability team’s research on the U-District’s food system. Food access has only entered the buzz of conversation in U-District planning in the past couple of years and has not been formalized in a neighborhood plan. Louise Little of the University Book Store raised concerns about groceries particularly in regard to the neighborhood’s biggest grocery store, Safeway, being a place to buy little more than

“beer and yogurt,” demonstrating a question of appropriate food access in the area. We are doing an inventory of the current options for consuming (groceries and markets) and producing food in the neighborhood and seeking community solutions to provide better access.

Changes in Vision The focus of the Mobility team has developed from a broad look at the light rail station destined for Brooklyn into a study of mitigating construction effects and the mechanisms for interfacing eventual light rail into our other myriad transportation systems. By moving our thinking from the nuts and bolts of the light rail project to its effects on the surrounding community, we have specified our focus. Considering the implementation of the light rail station on the future of the entire U-District influenced our change in focus. The Development team has

shifted from an initial focus on potential alleyway development in the University District. We did not see as much community interest in them as we had expected and shifted our goals to reflect concerns about broader development plans. In contrast to expanding focuses for development and mobility, the Sustainability team has had to continue scoping down our focus.

The term sustainability is expansive, but the current neighborhood concerns related to it are fairly specific. We explored concerns about green streets, stormwater run-off, waste management, and energy sources. Green streets seem to be a hot topic, but the concept was not well suited for the interests and abilities of our team. Instead we chose food systems because of our group’s curiosity on the subject as well as its applicability to not only “greening” the neighborhood, but also fitting in with issues of mobility and development.

Where We Are Now The Mobility team’s research incorporates walkability studies, community maps,

Â

meetings with community members, and social observations. The data we have collected informs us about the way people think and move within the University District.

So far, it appears as though the University District is a lively and incredibly diverse place that houses a variety of micro-areas that all have a different feel to them. In addition to the behemoth of the University, the U-District includes a vibrant business district, and several well-utilized modes of transportation. Community members are sometimes at odds with the high-turnover student residential population, which is no surprise. This opens up an important question to us- ‘How to mediate the gap in community investment between students and long-term residents?’ when considering the needs of the community.

Development research up to this point has focused on seeking out community concerns and opinion, examining development plans, reading over documents such as the Neighborhood plan, and researching the impact of development projects similar to the solutions we would like to propose (such as implementation of transit-oriented planning in urban areas). We are not sure yet how effective these developments will be in bringing a more diverse population to the University District (community members talked about more families and year round residents) and we need to further examine who this development will attract.

We recognize bias in some of our data due to our limited experience using some of these methods; yet expect to have a strong final piece due to our recognition of our limitations.

The research for Sustainability regarding food access thus far includes an audit of available grocery stores/markets, their accessibility in terms of open hours, walkability and bikeability and a list of available vacant lots for potential use as urban agriculture sites. We will also take note of current P-patches and gardens. We are continuing with demographic research using the census as well as research into solutions for food access and urban agriculture elsewhere. Our work will tie together the meaning of food access in the U-District to food

Â

sustainability in the urban sphere, as well as issues of mobility, and the community benefits of access to a healthy food system.