Cluster-based Meeting Public Feedback Summary | January-March 2011

8/3/2019 Cluster-based Meeting Public Feedback Summary | January-March 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cluster-based-meeting-public-feedback-summary-january-march-2011 1/30

PHASE II PUBLIC FEEDBACK

OVERVIEW | MAY 2011



Overview

1,630Participants

11DWP Meetings



Overview

QUESTIONS SUB-CATEGORIES

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



Overview



Overview

55-74

55-74

18-34

35-54 &

55-7435-54

THE AGE RANGE

SHOWN IS THE MOST

REPRESENTED RANGE

FROM EACH CLUSTER

55-74 years

35-54 & 55-74 years35-54 years18-34 years

NOTE: A high number of respondents did not choose an

age category; this map represents only respondents who

chose an age category.

MOST

REPRESENTED

AGE RANGE

35-54 &55-74



Overview

THE RACE SHOWN IS THE MOST

REPRESENTED RACE FROM EACH CLUSTER

Caucasian

Black / African American

Black /

African American

Caucasian

•HISPANIC/LATINORESPONDENTS

WERE MOST REPRSENTED IN CLUSTER 5

• THOSE WHO CHOSE “OTHER” WERE

MOST REPRESENTED IN CLUSTER 4

Caucasian



Overview

Caucasian

Caucasian

2

2

10

7

14

11

1

9

15

20

2

2

3

33

18

20

1

7

2

137

83

152

12

14

10

52

146

155

17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Blank [26]

17 or under [24]

18-34 [245]

35-54 [281]

55-74 [360]

75 or older [32]

•Black/African American [394]

•Hispanic/Latino [47]

• No race selected [36]

• Arab American [21] • Other [77]

• Caucasian [393]

O L D E R

Y O U N G E R



NEIGHBORHOOD ASSETS



Neighborhood Assets

851524

Park,

recreation area

or center,natural feature,

open space

34%



Neighborhood Assets



Neighborhood Assets

Community

Centers &

Nonprofits

. . . coffee shops,

retail, commerce

. . . greenways,open space

Community centers,nonprofits

Restaurants,bars . . . Schools, museums,

libraries, galleries

Parks . . .

Religious . . .

Food access,

gardens

. . . institutions

THIS MAP SHOWS GENERAL TRENDS

IN RESPONDENTS’ FAVORITE TYPES

OF NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATIONS

ACROSS THE CITY



Neighborhood Assets

58%1.5 times

25%



NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY



Neighborhood Activity

>525435

Community

organizations

15%




NOTE: LARGER FONTS INDICATE THAT MORE RESPONDENTS MENTIONED A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION OR PROJECT.



28%


24%

3.6 times



DWP NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT



DWP Neighborhood Impact

NOTE: LARGER FONTS INDICATE THAT MORE RESPONDENTS MENTIONED A PARTICULAR T YPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEM/IMPROVEMENT.




IM

PR

O V

E

Quality of life,

general

development11%

Jobs,

commerce

10%

Safety

10%

City services,

neighborhood

presence

10%

Parks, open space,

recreation opportunities

8%

Alternate transportation

7%

Housing,

infill

6%

Appearance,

cleanliness, blight

5%

Collaboration (e.g. w/

neighborhood orgs)5%

Community

organizing

5%

Education, training

4%

Density, land use

4%

Food access, urban ag

4%

Environment,

public health

3%

Repopulation

2%

Cultural amenities

2%

Building reuse, historic

preservation

2%

Programming

2%




RED

UC

E

Vacancy

45%

Blight

19%

Crime

19%

Pollution

5%

Foreclosures,

homelessness5%

Undesirable businesses

3% Tax burden

2%

Misguided development

1%

General/Other

1%



2.1 times

16%

15%


1.6 times



FUTURE DETROIT



Future Detroit

NOTE: LARGER FONTS INDICATE THAT MORE RESPONDENTS MENTIONED A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DETROIT.



Future Detroit

IM

PR

O V

E

Appearance,

cleanliness,beauty

16%

Public & non-

motorized

transportation

12%

Jobs, commerce

11%

Education, training

8%Other 7%

City services,

administration

7%

Safety

6%

Parks, greenways,

recreation

6%

Diversity

5%

Environment

4%

Community

organizations

4%

Food access, urban ag

4%

Land use, density

4%Housing

3% Cultural amenities

3%



RED

UC

E

Crime23%

Vacancy,

abandonment

20%

Blight13%

City incentives,

corruption, tax burden

12%

Population, footprint

10%

Pollution

8%

Foreclosures, absentee

landlords

5%

Undesirable businesses

4%

Distrust, generally

2% Auto dependency

2%Illiteracy

1%



Future Detroit

BUILD A MORE

ATTRACTIVE CITY

FOR THESE POPULATIONS:

DETROIT COULD

LOOK LIKE . . .

NOTE: LARGER FONTS INDICATE THAT MORE RESPONDENTS

MENTIONED A PARTICULAR COMPARISON CITY / POPULATIONS.



Future Detroit

3.6 times17%

11% 1.4 times



THE DETROIT WORKS PROJECT

PROCESS



DWP Process

Civic

engagement

35%

Presentation,

agenda

13%

Communication

11%

Keypoint®

(clickers)

10%

Project

purpose

10%

Collaboration

8%

Other

8%

Audience

questions5%

175



DWP Process

Civic Engagement• Dialogue and discussion

• Engage wider population

Presentation & Agenda•

Best practices, success stories• City staff representation

Communication• Transparency

• Web interface, access, updates

Keypoint® Clickers• Quality/neutrality of questions, choices

156 SUGGESTED

IMPROVEMENTS

Project Purpose• Clarify DWP message, vision, mission

Collaboration• Engage neighborhood organizations, CDCs

Audience questions• Quality of City’s response

• Respond directly to all

Cluster-based Meeting Public Feedback Summary | January-March 2011

Documents

Transcript of Cluster-based Meeting Public Feedback Summary | January-March 2011