Connecting Dots and Comments

Over 110 people attended the Westwood Coalition’s June 12, 2014 community meeting. Some attendees left after the presentation portion and only fifteen people handed in comment sheets that night. However, more responses have come in via email and the website. An accompanying document provides more detail.

A preliminary glance at the comments and the dots demonstrates that Option 1, No Build, is undesirable. Options 3 and 5 got high marks. Option 3 has a low number of negative votes*, as indicated by the 0-1 and 1-2 columns. Option 5 has more negative votes than Option 3 but not by many. Both Options 3 and 5 have comparable numbers of positive votes, as suggested by the 3-4 and 4-5 columns. While we will continue to assess this input, it seems to indicate the compelling vision expressed by these options and attendees’ interest in significant change in the business district.

Note that Options 1 and 6 received twice as many negative votes as any other option (as defined by the two left hand columns, 0-1 and 1-2). Option 6 has 100 more votes than any other option, suggesting voting anomalies. The exceptionally high number of positive votes, completely out of line with the total possible votes that option could have received, supports this judgment even if exaggerated to some extent as others were. Voting irregularities, as witnessed by a number of people, included pooling stickers amongst attendees, putting multiple stickers in a section, and ignoring the criteria. Any reasonable person would point to this as a bold and crude attempt to sway the vote.

Setting aside Option 6 for a moment, given the voting anomalies, and averaging Options 1-5, there was an average of 330 votes per board. Each person was given six dots per board (36 in all), suggesting that 55 people cast votes. We understand that this is not accurate but it provides a baseline. Now consider Option 6: 436 votes were cast, a 31% increase over the other options, suggesting that 72 people voted. There are 272 votes on Option 6 just for columns 0-4. Remaining consistent with the experience of the other boards (330 votes each), the column labeled 4-5 would have gotten only 58 votes, not the actual 164 dots. Suffice to say, the voting irregularities on Option 6 must be considered in context and with the narrative remarks that are submitted.

Further, an analysis of all comments received to date demonstrates strong interest in Options 4, 3, and 5, in descending order, and limited support for Options 6, 1, and 2, in descending order, when considering respondents’ stated preferences in emails, on comment sheets, and via the website.

What remains is very significant community interest in a Westwood Square and a dramatic change at that. The Coalition will need to review this report and the community comments before making a recommendation, but shortening the list to two or three options is fairly straightforward and the subject of discussion at an upcoming Coalition meeting. Please see the accompanying document for more detail.

*“Votes” is used in this document to indicate meeting attendees’ assessment via dots on a criteria chart but should not be construed as a firm vote since the Coalition continues to receive comments and gather analysis. Also, “voting” irregularities skewed this process and, thus, it must be taken with a grain of salt.

Advertisements

April 16: Current State, Necessary Conditions, Impact

As announced previously, the Westwood Coalition invites residents to a community meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at Westwood Town Hall. We will take a look at the current state of the historic business district and the conditions necessary for vitality and development. With presenters Elizabeth Bartley (School of Planning, University of Cincinnati) and Kathleen Norris (managing principal, Urban Fast Forward), we’ll look at the historic business district’s current and potential community and economic activity, the importance of place, the promise of public-private partnerships, and moving from here to there.

Also, note that in late May, the Coalition will host a community meeting focused exclusively on gathering community comments on the Westwood Square as the feasibility study moves forward. Watch for that announcement shortly!

New code prohibits bad development

Any zoning code (form-based or conventional) has restrictions of Use that must be fair and legal. For example, it is not legal to allow some retail uses while not allowing others. If a community wants to allow high-end retailers in its business district, its code must also allow second-tier retailers. What a form-based code does, that conventional codes usually do not do, is set restrictions based on form, building type and frontage type (such as building placement, front door placement, storefront requirements, etc.). It was these requirements – embedded in Cincinnati’s form-based code – that kept a poorly designed, second-tier, discount store from moving into one of Cincinnati’s neighborhoods recently.

Bad development that has occurred in some of Cincinnati’s neighborhoods in the past is now prohibited under the new form-based code. We have too many neighborhood business districts where the “front” of a building was built as a windowless concrete block wall or where a building was set back from the street by a quarter acre of asphalt parking. These developments have a detrimental impact on the welfare of the neighborhood – not because of the uses within them but because of the form the buildings took.

Jeff Raser, principal, Glaserworks Architecture & Urban Design
on cincinnati.com
Read the full article at http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/04/04/new-code-prohibits-bad-development/7331569/

April 16 Community Meeting

The Coalition invites you to a community meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at Westwood Town Hall Hold the date! We will provide a quick update on developments like the Westwood Square feasibility study and the Mayor’s support for revitalization. Then we’ll launch right into a look at the current state of the historic business district and the conditions necessary for vitality and development. With presenters Elizabeth Bartley (School of Planning, University of Cincinnati) and Kathleen Norris (managing principal, Urban Fast Forward), we’ll look at the historic business district’s current and potential community and economic activity, the importance of place, the promise of public-private partnerships, and moving from here to there.

See you on April 16th.

Library Display: What is the Potential for the Westwood Business District?

display panelDon’t worry if you missed the meeting on July 27.  We have the official display at the Westwood branch library. Come in and fill out a survey and we will be sure it is forwarded to the City to incorporate into our data. It’s not too late to make your voice heard!  You can also click here for our Westwood Survey.  After completing it, please drop it off at the library or scan and email it to revitalizewestwood@gmail.com.

The Schedule for our July 27 Community Meeting

Here’s the basic itinerary for the community meeting that the Westwood Coalition is hosting on Saturday, July 27, 2013 from 9 am – 12 noon at Westwood United Methodist Church:

First, and importantly, we will have water and coffee.  Feel free to bring a snack if you’ll need sustenance besides our dialogue.

Second, yes, it really is three hours long.  Can’t stay that long?  Come for a while.  We will get the most out of the conversation if you stay for the full session, of course.

There will be a short questionnaire and exhibit materials for you upon your arrival.  We’ll start the program with a welcome and outline for the day with Coalition facilitator Mary Jenkins.  Then we’ll have a short presentation by Cameron Ross of the city’s Planning department, about the research done to date and the context for Westwood’s business district revitalization effort. Next, we’ll break up into small, facilitated groups for focused discussion about aspects of the historic business district and its potential.  We’ll end with some closing remarks about the process and date for the next community meeting.  That’s it.  It’s a lot to ask our neighbors to come to a three hour meeting but we expect it to include meaningful information sharing and dialogue.  We thank you for considering attendance.  Bring a friend!