Fenkell Commercial Corridor Study

Transcription

1 Fenkell Commercial Corridor Study April 25, 2014 Michigan State University Planning Practicum Christian Savona Marguerite Novak Aaron Dawson Ken Hall Dawn Ceballos Andre Dompierre

2 Project Introduction The Client, Project Goal, Site Location, Area History, Neighborhood Character

3 The Client Brightmoor Alliance Established in 2000 Collection of about 50 nonprofit organizations Main focus: Organize its resources to help restore the neighborhood so that it is not only functional and livable, but also vibrant and attractive

4 Project Goal Recommend compatible, phased-growth commercial redevelopment for Fenkell Avenue between Burt & Dacosta Streets Source: Google Maps

5 Site Location State of Michigan City of Detroit Source: ESRI Source: ESRI

6 Site Location Brightmoor Neighborhood Fenkell Corridor Focus Area Source: ESRI Source: ESRI

7 Area History Neighborhood developed in 1921 Annexed to Detroit in ) Fenkell Avenue: Brightmoor s commercial corridor Main thoroughfare connecting to major highways 1) Source: All other images) Source: Practicum Team

8 Neighborhood Character Past Present 1) Source: Google Maps 1) Source: All other images) Source: Practicum Team

9 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (S.W.O.T.) Analysis

10 STRENGTHS Gompers Elementary Brightmoor Community Center Source: Poor infrastructure High vacancy rates Source: Practicum Team WEAKNESSES

11 OPPORTUNITIES Urban agriculture Local grassroots art Source: Source: Practicum Team Further decline of commercial corridor Source: Google Maps THREATS

12 Socioeconomic Profile Total Population, Racial Composition, Household Income, Educational Attainment, Employment Status, Summary

13 Fenkell Corridor Focus Area Census Tracts Source: ESRI

14 Fenkell Corridor Focus Area Total Population Brightmoor Detroit Michigan ,815 34, ,270 9,938, ,742 23, ,777 9,883,640 %Δ -41% -31% -25% -1% Sources: 2000, 2010 U.S. Census

15 Racial Composition Fenkell Corridor Focus Area 2.9% 6.7% Brightmoor 3.3% 9.8% 90.4% 86.9% White Alone Black or African American Alone Other Race 6.2% Detroit 11.6% White Alone Black or African American Alone Other Race 6.7% Michigan 14.0% 82.2% 79.3% White Alone Black or African American Alone Other Race White Alone Black or African American Alone Other Race Source: ACS Year Estimate

16 2.2% 3.5% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 7.0% 2.6% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 6.2% 3.2% 1.6% 1.1% 0.6% 7.3% 4.1% 3.7% 3.0% Percent of Total Households 11.3% 9.0% 17.8% 20.4% 16.6% 12.9% 14.3% 13.2% 20.4% 19.7% 17.1% 14.7% 18.7% 11.9% 38.6% 39.4% 54.6% Household Income Distribution Fenkell Corridor Focus Area Brightmoor Detroit Michigan Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 Source: ACS Year Estimate

17 4.1% 1.5% 0.5% 7.7% 2.7% 0.6% 7.4% 3.7% 1.3% 2.7% 11.3% 15.7% 7.2% Percent of Population 21.0% 22.8% 26.3% 31.2% 34.1% 33.4% 32.7% 32.2% 30.7% 32.4% 36.8% 40.0% Educational Attainment, People 25 and Older 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Fenkell Corridor Area Brightmoor Detroit Michigan Less Than High School Some college Master's degree High School Graduate (includes equivalency) Bachelor's degree Professional school / Doctorate degree Source: ACS Year Estimate

18 7.8% 18.0% 17.2% 14.8% Percentage of Total Population 36.0% 40.9% 39.0% 54.0% 53.8% 54.4% 58.2% 62.3% 70.0% Employment Status 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Fenkell Corridor Area Brightmoor Detroit Michigan In Labor Force Employed Unemployed Source: ACS Year Estimate

19 Socioeconomic Summary Highest percentage of total population loss at 41% Largest racial group: African American at just over 90% Nearly 55% of household earn less than $20,000 annually Approximately 4% of residents earn Bachelor s degrees 26% of residents did not receive a high school diploma Highest current unemployment: 18%

20 Market Analysis Current Industry Profile, Industry Surpluses & Leakages

21 Current Industry Profile 24.40% 14.90% 4.60% 56.10% Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Services Other Source: 2012 ESRI Business Segment Concentration

22 Industry Surpluses & Leakages Surpluses Convenience stores Gas stations Liquor stores Leakages: Grocery stores Source: Practicum Team Lawn / garden equipment and supplies stores Used merchandise stores

23 Parcel Inventory Assessment Assessment Tool, Findings, Parcel Inventory

24 Assessment Tool Example Vacant Parcel Score Criteria General Parcel Condition Extreme and obvious environmental concerns, significant large debris, extreme brush growth, requires significant remediation (heavy equipment, specialized labor) Obvious but correctable environmental concerns, considerable debris, tall unkempt brush growth, requires considerable remediation (dedicated human labor) Minor environmental concerns, light debris or litter, intermittently maintained vegetation, requires light remediation (minor human labor) No environmental concerns, no debris or significant litter, well maintained vegetation, requires little or no remediation (ready for development)

25 Assessment Tool Parcel Score 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to to 18 Lot requires large landowner and government investments to be considered for economic development. Lot generally in poor condition, requires significant landowner and government investment to be considered for economic development. Lot in serviceable condition, needs minor landowner and government investment to be considered for economic development. Lot in good condition, prime development potential. Requires little to no investment for economic development.

26 Assessment Tool Structure Score 0 to 4 Completely unserviceable, recommend deconstruction. 5 to 9 Structure requires significant investment to be serviceable. 10 to to 18 Structure requires little to moderate investment to be serviceable. Structure is ready to be utilized as is. No investment required.

27 Findings Vacant Parcel Condition

28 Findings Vacant Structure Condition

29 Parcel Inventory Vacant Structure Not Structure In Total Parcel In Use Use Parcels Group 1 3 (8.3%) 17 (47%) 16 (44%) 36 Group 2 7 (23.3%) 8 (26.7%) 15 (50%) 30 Group 3 3 (12%) 6 (24%) 16 (64%) 25 Group 4 14 (60.8%) 2 (8.7%) 7 (30.4%) 23 Group 5 24 (82.8%) 4 (13.8%) 1 (3.4%) 29 Group 6 16 (57.1%) 10 (35.7%) 2 (7.1%) 28

30

31

32 General Corridor Recommendations 1 Year, 1-3 Years, 3-5 Years

33 General Corridor Recommendations Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost Non-structural blight removal Major façade improvements Assisting local businesses Minor façade improvements (paint/signage) for existing businesses in use with advertisement Minor or 1 Year Inform community of development on corridor Update existing bus signage Notify possible developers of structures ready for business targeted sidewalk improvements based on walking audit results

34 Sidewalk Example Source: Google Maps Source:

35 General Corridor Recommendations Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost Inform community of development on Clear alleyways of debris and/or Demolition/ Structural blight corridor blight removal 1-3 Years Gateways to direct traffic into corridor Supplement current businesses with advertising, signage, and Community land acquisition general improvements

36 Gateway Example Source: Google Maps Source:

37 General Corridor Recommendations Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost 3-5 Years Inform community of development on corridor Present possible developers with parcel inventory data, funding sources, and economic analysis data Pedestrian safety signage/lighting Major sidewalk improvements focusing on total reconstruction Development of industries: Building materials and supply dealers, lawn and garden equipment and supplies, health and personal care, used merchandise, grocery/specialty food stores

38 Sidewalk Lighting Example Source: Google Maps Source:

39 Acknowledgements Joe Rashid, Kirk Mayes Brightmoor Alliance & Brightmoor Community Members Dr. Zenia Kotval Dr. Rex LaMore Michigan State University

40 Questions?