PHASE II PUBLIC FEEDBACK OVERVIEW | MAY 2011

Overview

DWP Meetings

11

1,630
Participants

Overview

QUESTIONS

SUB-CATEGORIES

Overview

Overview

55-74 35-54
THE AGE RANGE SHOWN IS THE MOST REPRESENTED RANGE FROM EACH CLUSTER
NOTE: A high number of respondents did not choose an age category; this map represents only respondents who chose an age category.

35-54 & 55-74

35-54 & 55-74

18-34

55-74

18-34 years 35-54 years 35-54 & 55-74 years 55-74 years

MOST REPRESENTED AGE RANGE

Overview

Black / African American

Caucasian

Caucasian
HISPANIC/LATINO RESPONDENTS WERE MOST REPRSENTED IN CLUSTER 5 THOSE WHO CHOSE OTHER WERE MOST REPRESENTED IN CLUSTER 4

THE RACE SHOWN IS THE MOST REPRESENTED RACE FROM EACH CLUSTER

Black / African American Caucasian

Overview

YOUNGER OLDER

75 or older [32]

2 1

12

17

55-74 [360] 11 20 20 35-54 [281] 14 15 18

152
83

155
146

18-34 [245] 10 9 17 or under [24]

33
7 3

137
2 10

52

Caucasian 2
2 1 2

Blank [26]

7 Caucasian

14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Arab American [21] No race selected [36] Hispanic/Latino [47]

Other [77] Caucasian [393] Black/African American [394]

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSETS

Neighborhood Assets

Park, recreation area or center, natural feature, open space 34%

524 851

Neighborhood Assets

Neighborhood Assets

Parks . . . Food access, gardens . . . institutions

Restaurants, bars . . .

Schools, museums, libraries, galleries

Community centers, nonprofits

. . . coffee shops, retail, commerce Religious . . .

. . . greenways, open space

Community Centers & THIS MAP SHOWS GENERAL TRENDS Nonprofits IN RESPONDENTS FAVORITE TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATIONS ACROSS THE CITY

Neighborhood Assets

58%

25%

1.5 times

NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY

Neighborhood Activity

Community organizations 15%

435

>525

Neighborhood Activity

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

Neighborhood Activity

28%

24%
3.6 times

DWP NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT

DWP Neighborhood Impact

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

I M P R O V E

DWP Neighborhood Impact

Building reuse, historic Programming Quality of life, preservation 2% general 2% Repopulation Environment, development 2% public health 11% 3% Cultural amenities 2% Food access, urban ag 4% Density, land use 4% Education, training 4% Community organizing 5%

Jobs, commerce 10%

Safety 10%
City services, neighborhood presence 10%

Collaboration (e.g. w/ neighborhood orgs) 5% Appearance, cleanliness, blight 5% Housing, infill 6% Alternate transportation 7%

Parks, open space, recreation opportunities 8%

DWP Neighborhood Impact

Undesirable businesses 3%

Foreclosures, homelessness 5% Pollution 5%

Misguided development 1% Tax burden 2%

General/Other 1%

Crime 19%

Vacancy 45%

Blight 19%

R E D U C E

DWP Neighborhood Impact

2.1 times

16%
1.6 times

15%

FUTURE DETROIT

Future Detroit

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

I M P R O V E

Future Detroit
Land use, density 4%
Food access, urban ag 4% Community organizations 4% Environment 4%

Housing Cultural amenities 3% 3%

Appearance, cleanliness, beauty 16%

Diversity 5%

Public & nonmotorized transportation 12%

Parks, greenways, recreation 6%

Jobs, commerce 11%

Safety 6% City services, administration 7%

Other 7%

Education, training 8%

Distrust, generally 2% Undesirable businesses 4% Foreclosures, absentee landlords 5%

Auto dependency Illiteracy 2% 1%

Crime 23%

Pollution 8%

Population, footprint 10%

Vacancy, abandonment 20%

City incentives, corruption, tax burden 12% Blight 13%

R E D U C E

Future Detroit

DETROIT COULD LOOK LIKE . . . BUILD A MORE ATTRACTIVE CITY FOR THESE POPULATIONS:

NOTE: LARGER FONTS INDICATE THAT MORE RESPONDENTS MENTIONED A PARTICULAR COMPARISON CITY / POPULATIONS.

Future Detroit

3.6 times 17%

11%
1.4 times

THE DETROIT WORKS PROJECT PROCESS

DWP Process
Audience questions 5% Other 8% Collaboration 8% Project purpose 10%

Civic engagement 35%

175

Keypoint (clickers) 10% Communication

11%

Presentation, agenda 13%

DWP Process

156 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

Presentation & Agenda
Best practices, success stories City staff representation

Civic Engagement
Dialogue and discussion Engage wider population

Keypoint Clickers
Quality/neutrality of questions, choices

Communication
Transparency Web interface, access, updates

Collaboration
Engage neighborhood organizations, CDCs

Project Purpose
Clarify DWP message, vision, mission

Audience questions
Quality of Citys response Respond directly to all