Lathrop Homes Riverworks Survey Response Percentages

Transcription

1 Percntage of respondants to each Valuation Lathrop Homes Riverworks Survey Response Percentages 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Historic Buildings : Rehab more than 50% of the existing buildings/ retaining historical aspects of the buildings Public Open Space: Enhance original Jens Jensen designed "Great Lawn" Connections - Clybourn: No new streets Connections- Damen: Add three (3) new streets Streetscape: Create midblock pedestrian crossing on Location of Community Facilities: Location center of site Neighborhood Retail: Walkable "Main Street" shops along the street Building Heights: Create a tower at the North and South end of site Parking: Generally inside of or on top of building 1 Disagree 30.9% 14.4% 39.3% 34.0% 24.4% 19.0% 21.0% 70.7% 21.7% 2 8.6% 12.6% 14.5% 13.7% 7.5% 13.8% 8.6% 7.6% 6.6% % 21.4% 13.6% 15.6% 16.0% 31.9% 16.2% 9.8% 17.0% % 17.7% 11.2% 18.9% 23.0% 19.5% 26.2% 7.6% 28.3% 5 Agree 27.7% 34.0% 21.5% 17.9% 29.1% 15.7% 28.1% 4.4% 26.4% Average Score

2 Percentage of respondants to each Valuation Lathrop Homes Gateways Survey Response Percentages 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Historic Buildings: Rehab more than 50% of existing buildings with additions Public Open Spaces: Create new midway public park Connections - Clybourn: Add one new street Connections - Damen: Add one new street Streetscape: Add a median along Location of Community Facilities: At the end of the midway park Neighborhood Retail: Shops organized around a central "town square" Building Heights: Create tower at South end of site Parking: Generally on streets 1 Disagree 27.3% 13.5% 23.7% 27.1% 36.7% 19.0% 23.3% 60.0% 41.7% % 14.0% 11.4% 9.5% 13.0% 14.6% 14.6% 7.4% 17.1% % 23.0% 31.8% 30.0% 19.8% 37.1% 19.9% 14.4% 24.2% % 30.0% 19.9% 18.6% 15.0% 21.5% 26.7% 12.1% 7.1% 5 Agree 16.7% 19.5% 13.3% 14.8% 15.5% 7.8% 15.5% 6.0% 10.0% Average Score

3 3

4 Percentage of Respondants to each valuation Lathrop Homes Open House Page 2 Survey Response Percentages 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1. Increase connectivity the surrounding neighborhood 2. Enhance access to the site and to the river, including new ammenities 3. Create new pedestrian and bicycle connections 4. Provide options for transit and reduced auto dependency 5. Make buildings energy efficient 6. Include new retail development on the site 7. Find a new use for the power house building 8. Improve the amount of public open space 9. Improve the river's edge South of Parkway 1 Unimportant 9.8% 6.9% 3.3% 6.1% 3.7% 22.4% 13.8% 5.7% 4.3% % 7.9% 8.4% 3.3% 7.4% 21.5% 15.8% 7.6% 7.1% % 13.9% 17.2% 14.1% 19.8% 24.3% 28.6% 21.8% 17.1% % 31.0% 35.3% 28.2% 30.4% 16.4% 21.7% 30.3% 33.3% 5 Essential 31.8% 40.3% 35.8% 48.4% 38.7% 15.4% 20.2% 34.6% 38.1% Average Score

5 November 2012 Lathrop Open House Survey Data Summary Design Concept Scoring Design Category Historic Buildings Riverworks Rehab more than 50% of existing buildings. Gateways Greenscapes Rehab more than All new buildings. Avg. St. Dev. 50% of existing Avg. St. Dev. Avg. St. Dev. buildings with additions. Public Open Spaces Connections: Clybourn Connections: Damen Streetscape Location of Community Facilities Neighborhood Retail Building Heights Convenience Parking Create 5 acre riverside park. Enhance original Jens Jensen Create new midway public park. designed "Great Lawn" No new streets. Add one new street. Add three new streets Add one new street Create a mid-block Add a median along pedestrian crossing. on Center of the site. At the end of the midway park Walkable "Main Street" shops along the street Create a tower at north and south end of site Shops organized around a central "town square" Create a tower at south end of site Generally inside of Generally on or on top of streets. buildings Add three new streets. Add two new streets Add street parking and bike lanes along Along the river Small shopping center with parking lots in front All buildings midrise and low-rise, comparable to 1.33 Lathrop Elderly Generally in parking lots Based on 258 total surveys received. Not all survey questions were answered. The most answered questions for the three concepts are as follows: Riverworks is Building Heights (225 responses), Gateways is Historic (216 responses), and Greenscapes is Historic (216 responses). Averages are a weighted average of responses that range from 1 through 5 with a '1' representing the greatest dislike and '5' representing the greatest like. Standard deviations were calculated based on the calculated Mean of the responses that range from 1 through 5 Items highlighted in green received the highest average score for a given Design Category. 5

6 November 2012 Lathrop Open House Survey Data Summary Common Elements Scoring Design Category Average Score Standard Deviation Number of Responses 1. Increase connectivity with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Enhance access into the site and to the river, including new amenities. 3. Create new pedestrian and bicycle connections Provide options for transit and reduced auto dependency. 5. Make buildings energy-efficient. 6. Include new retail development on the site. 7. Find a new use for the Power House building. 8. Improve the amount and quality of public open space. 9. Improve the river's edge south of Parkway Based on 258 total surveys received. Averages are weighted averages of responses that range from 1 through 5 with a '1' representing unimportant and '5' representing essential. Standard deviations were calculated based on the calculated Mean of the responses that range from 1 through 5 6

7 Unit Summary The comments concerning the 1600 Unit density were almost entirely in opposition. The majority of concern was with traffic, deviation from the unit RFQ outline, and the effects of this level of density. 1. Sample Negative Comments: This is too dense for the area, unless there is more walkable area and public transportation. You seem to be proposing a car-oriented community and this neighborhood can't support it. Feel like this has been a bait and switch situation from what was originally discussed with the community. This is double the original density. Density is a high issue. Traffic is a huge issue. My understanding is that there were 3 plans posted online. I would like the 1st one proposed which had more outdoor space and approx 1300 occupants. OUTRAGEOUS. We don't need density I would want as much open green and river space as possible, but not at the expense of constructing small # of high rise buildings. I would want # of units reduced as much as possible. No one in Roscoe Village wants that high density + especially are anti-tall-towers so if we must have them, concentrate both market towers in the peninsula where no one sees it. I think 1600 units is way too many. The RFQ was for 1200 units. Please consider minimizing the retail and going for lower density. Way too much!! This is already a very congested, high-traffic area, and you want to double it?? CHA finally tore down the highrise projects, and now you're proposing bringing this back? Highrises don't fit into the neighborhood. 2. Sample Positive Comments: Density is good and important for sustainability. Since 1600 is +/- 75% more than current, it might work. Cars will be a necessity to most residents so I think the population should not exceed Our traffic will ruin the area. It s a lot of units which I feel is great. Unfortunately, there aren't enough affordable/public housing units to meet the demand that exists. 3. Sample Misc. Comments: I am concerned about classroom sizes. I believe it is a reasonable depiction of our community. You should have a specialist panel including: education I think there should be fewer public housing. All the residents who are already there to stay. You will never sell the other units if this is so high in volume of public housing. 7

8 2. Unit Mix 50%/25%/25% Summary Comments concerning the proposed Unit Mix greatly varied. Many people supported the proposed mix if the overall density was reduced from 1600 units, many called for an adherence to the 1/3-1/3-1/3 mix, while some voiced strong opinions for more Public Housing or more Market Rate Housing. Many people expressed an interest in understanding if the proposed mix has worked well in other cities. 1. Sample Comments approving mix but seeking density decrease: I'm ok with the mix, we just need fewer total units. This kind of unit split seems fair and provides current residents the opportunity to live in a nonsegregated environment. The unit mix brings a much needed change to the community. The percentage is ok, with lower number of units overall. 2. Sample Comments Favoring Greater Subsidized Housing in future plans: These proposed ratios are very disappointing as it is a considerable drop from the expected 33% public, 33% affordable ratios. There should be no market rate housing. The area already has a # of condo buildings and other market development. There is a need to provide more affordable housing in the area. This is not enough public housing. I believe Lathrop should be all public and affordable housing. This is a high income neighborhood. We do not need more market-rate units here! Why should my tax money (in the forms of TIF, etc.) go for that? 3. Sample Comments Favoring Market Rate in future plans: Yes Market Rate!!! Thank you for insisting on including market rate units. They add stability to an otherwise transient population (section 8) I believe this is a very good ratio. The best case scenario would include as many for sale units as possible rather than rental. No public housing-the area will return to the crime ridden area it was before. 4. Sample Misc. Comments: If you must keep 400 public, others will have to be reduced. I like the mix of all three categories but will not stand for 1600 total. How about 400 public, 200 affordable and 200 market rate units more than enough. It saddens me. Too much of Lathrop's original purpose is being given over to market forces. Again, I understand it's important for financial feasibility, but I wish it were otherwise. I like a mix, however you need a proposal to keep this sustainable. Peter Holstein proposal for Cabrini was good, but it has not been sustained. The area gentrifies and low-income folks are now forced out or segregated. 8

9 3. Other Comments Summary We received 172 responses in the "Other Comments Area. A few main themes with representative ideas are sampled below. 1. Thoughts on Density LCP must give up their pursuit of density. Totally opposed to any development that increases the number of units by 800. No high rise buildings. Maintain the existing character at the neighborhood with low rise structures. 2. Thoughts on Preservation All three concepts would destroy a beautiful development that has been set aside for 75 years for low income families. This should be preserved. I'm really angry with what you are proposing to do to this site that everyone supports as is. Rehab it and lease it up. Not happy. Need to bulldoze buildings! Create new streets and mix market single family and public housing. You can't save everything - and how important is it historically any way? 3. Thoughts on Open House details Very good- well presented and organized Excellent job, well presented + use of fly-overs very effective. I did not like the color scheme used to designate the different structures. The colors used to designate the existing, new and residential high rise were too much alike making the site drawings difficult to interpret. Scale models with distinctive colors would have been better. Would have been better to see all in one room to compare. 4. School related comments Where are the schools? Jahn is finally being turned around by families in the immediate area, and is only able to improve one Lathrop became vacant. One existing elementary school cannot handle the school-aged population that would be represented by the 1600 units I need more info on how schools and traffic in the surrounding area are affected. Alcott High School is in dire need of bigger facility in its quest to become one of the top College Prep HS's in the city. Work with CPS to expand existing site or build new school within Lathrop! 5. Misc. Ideas More resources for counseling for residents - domestic violence, literature writing, dancing, senior activities I did not see the Boys & Girls Club or the Mary Crane center on any of the 3 scenarios You should have a specialist panel including: education, transportation, construction imprint impact on community. I reject all 3 scenarios for all the reasons indicated on this survey. I ask for a true community process to give Lathrop residents past and present a stronger voice in the plans. We need a METRA & Ravenswoood! This was needed prior to adding all these new units and the increased pressure on our roads (main) in this neighborhood. The workshop sessions that were supposed to happen should not have been abandoned. 9