Case Study: Sustainable Community Planning: Kansas City's Empowerment Project by Susan Jackson, Metropolitan Energy Center |
|
|
by Susan Jackson Community Organization: Metropolitan Energy Center (MEC) Project Coordinator: Susan Jackson PURPOSE OF ORGANIZATION The MEC was founded in 1981 with the mission of assisting people in the Kansas City region to manage and control their energy usage. By the early 1990s, the Center had evolved to a comprehensive organization working to achieve the sustainable, efficient, environmentally sound and economical use of energy in the area. The MEC has been involved in sustainable community planning since the summer of 1994, beginning with the Pattonsburg, Missouri project, an effort to rebuild a flooded out town in a sustainable fashion. Out of the involvement with Pattonsburg and a four year history of environmentally sound transportation planning, stemmed the Energy Center’s current focus on planning with urban neighborhoods. CAMPAIGN SUMMARY Most activity in sustainable community planning involves new communities, with little activity in older, existing neighborhoods. The MEC believes that it is possible to take the same principles and processes used in new towns and work with urban neighborhoods, empowering residents to get involved in planning and decision-making in their community. The MEC initiated a sustainable community planning process with three distinct neighborhoods in metropolitan Kansas City: Countryside, Tri-Neighborhood/Blenheim Square, and Washington Wheatley. The planning areas included an older, moderate-income neighborhood in the central city and two low-income, predominantly minority neighborhoods in the urban core. THE PLANNING PROCESS Project History Before embarking on the Kansas City neighborhood planning process, an ad hoc planning committee was formed to advise the program development and implementation. The group was composed of architects, planners, transit providers, city representatives, downtown business interests, developers, a representative from the MPO, and AmeriCorps members. In the winter of 1994, the MEC sent information on sustainable communities to 38 Kansas City, Missouri neighborhood organizations notifying them of the possibility to participate in a planning project and inviting them to come to one of two informational sessions. Twelve neighborhoods responded to the letter and then completed a questionnaire which the planning committee used to select neighborhoods for the project. Selection criteria included the predicted involvement, potential or existing sustainable community indicators, and evidence of neighborhood activity. MEC initiated a sustainable community planning process with three of these neighborhoods. Obtaining Resident Support The most important part of any successful community planning process is strong neighborhood participation. The MEC relies heavily on neighborhood leadership to promote the process and meetings with the residents through direct mailings, door to door flyers, and neighborhood newsletters. In addition, area newspapers and various organizational newsletters help publicize planning meetings. The MEC is also fortunate to have the assistance of AmeriCorps, the national service program that awards educational stipends to volunteers who commit to a year of community service. AmeriCorps members have promoted the efforts in the participating neighborhoods through door to door canvassing and using the MEC home energy services as an organizing tool. The MEC has also organized high profile service projects with the neighborhoods as a way to attract support and promote the planning process. For example, in one neighborhood, MEC helped coordinate a neighborhood clean up and recycling project, followed by an Earth Day Fair in a local park. Visioning Each neighborhood planning process begins with a visioning session. At this interactive session, neighborhood residents identify the community’s treasures, limitations, and visions for the future. Strong attendance is essential to ensure that the results accurately represent the neighborhood. The results are used as a foundation and guide for the planning process. After a brief introduction to the concept and principles of sustainable communities, residents are divided into groups of approximately 10 people. The small number ensures ample opportunity for everyone to participate and engage in dialogue. At least three hours are needed to complete the visioning process. Each group has a neutral facilitator to record the information, ensure participation, and keep the process moving. Ideally, the facilitator should be well versed in the principles of sustainable communities. The groups spend time brainstorming lists of three distinct elements in their community: 1. Treasures – what makes their neighborhood unique or special, why they live there, what they like; 2. Limitations and problems – what are barriers and obstacles to improvements; and 3. Visions and dreams – what they would like to see in/for their neighborhood. After each component of the visioning session, the residents are given a limited number of self-adhesive colored dots to select the items they feel are the most important. Residents can weight their vote by placing all dots on one item or they can spread the dots around. Through the visioning process, which is intended to be relaxing and enjoyable, it is possible to identify assets, problems, and aspirations that are common among neighbors. In addition, as the residents share information and ideas, it can be an empowering and eye-opening experience. Another value of the visioning session is that it can serve as a "one time only" participation tool; all residents can play an important role in the planning process without being obligated to continue active participation. Prioritizing Results Results from the visioning process are compiled and presented to residents at the next community gathering or by mail. Often, it is easy to prioritize the most important issues to the community by the number of votes received. However, there may be a need to clarify and refine some of the information collected before moving on the next stages. This can be done by a vote or through open dialogue among residents. Research & Information Gathering The information and ideas developed at the visioning sessions set a foundation for the planning, but the information itself is not a plan. The residents should understand all of the options and choices which exist for their neighborhood in terms of each of the priority areas and issues. MEC assists the neighborhood in this task as follows:
Hands On Planning Hands-on planning is essential for clarity and meaningful participation. Many outreach tools exist to give community members this participatory experience. The MEC has used mapping as a major involvement tool. In one session, residents applied their ideas and new information in visual form at specific locations throughout the neighborhood using large maps with small icons, markers, and colored dots. This experience is often a turning point for the neighborhood whose planning activities increase dramatically afterwards. Another example of creative planning is a pathway study with neighborhood kids led by community police officers on bicycles. The information, including where the kids travel in the area and the dangerous zones, are mapped for use in creating safe pedestrian and bicycle corridors. Creating physical models is yet another way in which residents can get involved in community planning. "Box City" is one hands-on planning tool that allows residents to think about what their neighborhood could be and to put those creative ideas into concrete expression using everyday recyclables like cereal and detergent boxes, and construction paper, markers, and glue. Early Successes Early successes are important to keep residents motivated and away from the mentality of "all planning and no action." It is best to let the residents identify issues and solutions which can be addressed immediately with some success. Neighborhood committees, with appropriate assistance, can get these short-term projects underway while the long-term planning continues. Examples of some of these early successes in the planning process include a tree trimming and yard work project in one neighborhood and the development of a neighborhood "parking ticket" to deter illegal university student parking on residential streets. Guidelines Community planning is a mix of good ideas, creative techniques, patience, and good organization. Following are ten recommendations for a more successful community planning process, based on the experience in Kansas City. 1. Include graphics and visuals – maps, drawings, diagrams, slides, videos; 2. Incorporate hands-on planning activities; 3. Plan activities that lead to early successes; 4. Create a clear vision statement soon after the visioning session – it will help to maintain a focus on community sustainability, even while primarily working on one issue; 5. Involve local planning officials and other government agencies, the MPO, and transit agencies, early in the process; 6. Identify experts in the fields of interest and secure their support; 7. Ensure strong neighborhood leadership; 8. Make sure residents always maintain ownership and direction of the process; 9. Keep the process flexible and free of stringent guidelines and time constraints; and 10. Offer incentives for each meeting – refreshments, drawings for local gift certificates, energy efficient light bulbs, etc. COUNTRYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD Description Countryside is an older, middle income neighborhood in the central city of Kansas City, Missouri. It is approximately one-half mile in area with 600 households. The median family income is $50,000 and it is 82% owner-occupied. The neighborhood is bound by two busy streets, and is adjacent to a large city park. It is also home to small green areas, two schools and is close to the region’s historic shopping district, the Country Club Plaza. Despite its economic stability and strong sense of community, the Countryside neighborhood has concerns about its future, prompting residents to get involved in the planning project. Neighborhood concerns include children’s safety due to speeding and through traffic, increasing crime, and an awareness of the decay occurring in neighboring communities. The Countryside neighborhood was chosen for the planning process primarily because the neighborhood leaders showed great interest and aggressively pursued the opportunity and secondly, because the changing dynamics of their transportation system revealed potential for a transit planning focus. Participation A general introduction to the project was presented to approximately 100 residents at the neighborhood’s annual meeting. Following the meeting, a visioning session was held with more than 50 residents at a neighborhood school. Subsequent sessions have been attended by 20-50 people, with some new residents at each. In addition to residents, each meeting has been well attended by city employees and at least one architect who served as a resource. Participation in the early parts of the process was generated by door to door flyers delivered by AmeriCorps members, newsletter excerpts, and the six person neighborhood board of directors. Later notification also included direct mailings and phone calls. As an ongoing coordination and accountability measure, MEC staff attended monthly neighborhood board meetings to discuss the direction of the project and how the planning sessions should be organized. Planning Sessions The visioning session, facilitated by a local architect, laid the foundation for the planning project. Parks, diversity of architectural style, and their central location to services, shopping, and cultural activities were some of the highest ranked community treasures, while crime, street lighting, traffic flow and the public school system were the main limitations noted. While the residents quickly identified treasures and limitations, they had difficulty articulating visions and dreams for the neighborhood. Once they began, however, some unique and exciting ideas were suggested. Examples include reconfiguring traffic patterns throughout the neighborhood, adding historical pedestrian lights, adding mini-buses with more frequent routes, and even burying utility lines. The second meeting gave residents a chance to discuss and refine the results of the first session. Three groups were created in which issues of lighting, crime, traffic, education, business improvements, and zoning were discussed. Building upon the identified treasures, limitations and visions, several information and planning sessions were organized to focus on transportation and traffic flow, crime prevention, and lighting. The first of these dealt with the identification of troublesome intersections and traffic-related problems, including parking and truck noise. In addition, the residents were introduced to the ideas of traffic calming. Two city traffic engineers, the city councilwoman for the neighborhood, and a city planner were on hand at a few sessions to listen to concerns and respond to questions. Community Mapping One of the most productive planning sessions, out of which many of the ongoing neighborhood planning pursuits arose, was a community mapping activity. The residents were given small paper icons to place on the map identifying various physical and natural improvements such as: traffic islands, speed bumps, diverters and other calming devices; signs; pedestrian and street lights; trees and flowers; park benches; and bus shelters. The mapping activity presented an opportunity for residents to visually experiment with the ideas they had been exploring during the preceding planning sessions. The maps identified locations for new landscaping and amenities, laid out a plan for new pedestrian street lights, and redesigned traffic flow through the strategic placement of signs, street closings, and other traffic calming measures. The maps also included notes about improvements to the existing shopping area. The traffic calming ideas identified by residents participating in the planning process created quite a lot of discussion and debate in the neighborhood. By means of a door to door petition effort where residents can sign on to each alternative, the neighborhood is currently in the process of trying to come to a decision as to which options to pursue. Results A. Traffic Flow/Transportation Some of the successes in the area of traffic and transportation are:
B. Neighborhood Lighting Through the hands-on mapping activity, the residents drafted a pedestrian lighting plan to create safer walking areas within the neighborhood, while enhancing the atmosphere and design of the neighborhood. In addition, one participant in the process mapped out the trees in the neighborhood which need to be trimmed to improve the quality of light from the street fixtures. He is also leading the effort in the organization of a volunteer tree trimming project. C. "Parking Tickets" To alleviate a student parking problem in the neighborhood, the residents decided to create makeshift "parking tickets" that could be placed on the windshields of those cars which were illegally parked. The tickets, which notified the driver of the parking violations, were distributed to the residents throughout the neighborhood. The parking tickets are currently in use, but no assessment has yet been made as to their effectiveness. Problems & Lessons Learned A number of issues and incidents have impeded the progress of the project at various points throughout the last year.
Future Plans As the neighborhood board begins to take a more active role in the implementation of projects, the Energy Center is becoming less involved. In addition to documentation of all the planning sessions, maps, resources, and other planning information, a neighborhood traffic calming guide was created to assist Countryside in their continued planning activities. The guide includes basic information and descriptions on traffic calming, architectural renderings of various devices, a list of resources, as well as site specific alternatives drawn by an architect for the intersections of concern in Countryside. Both the Energy Center and the neighborhood recognize that implementation of the community visions will require a long term effort and time. The Center will continue to serve as a resource for the neighborhood throughout their implementation process. TRI-NEIGHBORHOOD/ BLENHEIM SQUARE Description Tri-Neighborhood/Blenheim Square is a low-income neighborhood located in the inner city of Kansas City, Missouri. It contains approximately 700 households and is 86% African-American. The median family income is $15,000 and 60% owner-occupied. The neighborhood is surrounded by boulevards, contains a school and a large hospital, and is close to a new roadway currently under construction. The neighborhood residents have real concerns about the neighborhood’s future including employment, increasing numbers of vacant homes and lots, and crime. Tri-Neighborhood/Blenheim Square was selected for the Sustainable Community Planning Project due to: new development resulting from a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) project; the small size of the area; and its proximity to a new roadway. Participation/Planning A general introduction to the project and slide presentation was made to approximately 25 residents at a monthly neighborhood meeting. Subsequent meetings, monthly neighborhood meetings included, were not well attended, with only 5-10 residents. To generate neighborhood interest in the project, AmeriCorps Members distributed flyers to each household in the neighborhood and spoke individually with 10-15% of the residents. The project organizers also tried to generate interest by offering weatherization services, publishing articles in the area newsletter, and recruitment efforts by a few active residents. The Energy Center and the Neighborhood Association also organized community service projects in an effort to attract more participation in the process both before and after the initial visioning session. Unfortunately, many residents in this neighborhood were somewhat resistant and unreceptive to the project. The Center attributes this to a number of factors. First, the number of non-neighborhood individuals involved in drawing support outnumbered the number of neighborhood residents involved, possibly fueling apprehension. Second, the goals and description of the planning project may not have been clear to residents. Finally, later evaluation indicated that many of the residents had confused the TIF redevelopment project with the Center’s planning process and believed they were already involved. At the initial visioning session, only seven neighborhood residents were in attendance. Rather than try to begin a visioning process with so few people, the meeting was used as a grassroots organizing session. After a brief discussion of what the project hoped to accomplish, the residents discussed why they came to the meeting and how to obtain better support and participation from the rest of the neighborhood. It was decided that doing another small project in the neighborhood with visible results could generate more trust and support among the residents. A clean-up and yard work project was scheduled for two blocks of the neighborhood. The clean-up/yard maintenance project was a success in terms of visible results, yet the participation level was still very low. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts by the Energy Center, AmeriCorps, and a few active residents, neighborhood participation never increased. For this reason, the planning activities in the neighborhood ceased. Results/Successes Although the planning portion of the project never got underway, the small successes are worth mentioning.
Problems & Lessons Learned The lack of participation and the inability to generate community interest were the biggest obstacles during the project. This problem illustrated the need for a clear and precise message for the sustainable community planning program and a larger, stronger core of neighborhood support in the beginning stages of the program to lend credibility and enhance participation. Future Plans If a particular issue can be identified by the neighborhood leadership which would benefit and bring together the neighborhood, the Energy Center will utilize their resources to assist in development of the project. Weatherization services continue in the area, keeping the lines of communication open, but no current plans exist. WASHINGTON WHEATLEY NEIGHBORHOOD Description The Washington Wheatley Neighborhood is a large low-income, predominantly minority neighborhood located at the heart of the urban core. The population is primarily elderly and the neighborhood has a high percentage of vacant lots and homes. However, the area does contain a number of parks, schools, and new development projects. Major concerns of residents in this neighborhood include the large number of vacant lots and buildings, care of the elderly, growing crime and drug problems with area youth, and trash dumping. These problems coupled with a recognition of the neighborhood’s many assets prompted the neighborhood leadership to get involved in sustainable community planning and environmental protection. Project Objectives The sustainability focus of this project is somewhat different due to the fact that the area already possesses a fairly comprehensive planning document developed by the city a number of years earlier. The objectives included: providing weatherization and energy education services; providing residents with environmental information, resources and skills; and involving residents in transportation planning and decisions which create a more transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly environment, thereby reducing vehicular air pollution. Participation The Energy Center worked with the Neighborhood Improvement Association staff, the local community development corporation, and two residents hired part time as organizers through an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant. Participation at individual meetings and trainings ranged from 5-40 people, while event participation and involvement in energy services was much higher, well over 100. Participation was generated by individual recruitment by neighborhood leaders, flyer distribution by AmeriCorps members, notices in the local newspaper, and direct mailings to weatherization recipients. Education and Initial Meetings Throughout the initial phase of the project, meetings have included a general project presentation, identification of environmental and neighborhood issues, energy efficiency workshops, introduction to the Internet, and lead abatement training. In addition, to involve more residents, provide direct services, and distribute a wide array of information, a large event was planned for and with the neighborhood. The event consisted of a large neighborhood clean up and recycling project followed by an Environmental Fair. At the fair, over 20 environmental and community improvement organizations distributed information to residents. Sustainable Community Planning -- "Box City" Planning Project Box City is a hands-on planning tool created by the Center for Understanding the Built Environment that allows residents to think about what their neighborhood could be and to put those ideas into concrete expression through the use of everyday recyclables like cereal boxes and detergent boxes, and construction paper, markers, and glue. The intent of the plan is to guide the development of an identified corridor and ensure that future development is sustainable and in accordance with neighborhood wishes. The Box City concept was applied in the Washington Wheatley neighborhood to empower residents to redesign a dilapidated corridor into a pedestrian friendly, service-providing, and attractive area. A nine block corridor on the major commercial street, Prospect, was selected. It was selected because: it is part of Kansas City’s Enterprise Zone; new development exists nearby; and two intersections are part of a demonstration project of the City, the Housing and Urban Development agency, and the Department of Transportation. The Box City planning project involved a number of partners in addition to the neighborhood association, residents, and the Energy Center. Participating organizations included: the Community Development Corporation; Citizen Housing Information Council; Center for Understanding the Built Environment; and the Department of Energy’s Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development. Process The Box City process began with a basic information session which included a slide presentation on sustainable and pedestrian oriented communities. The bulk of this first session was devoted to a visioning process which was used as a foundation and guide for the rest of the planning project. In subsequent sessions, residents, MEC staff, AmeriCorps members, EPA staff, and American Institute of Architects’ members created a "Box City" model of the corridor. The final session began with a presentation by national sustainability expert, Hakim Yamini of TLC Consultants in Atlanta. Following Yamini’s presentation, residents broke into teams to redesign the existing Prospect street model. The teams, which each focused on a different issue, worked diligently for two hours and then presented their ideas to the whole group, placing their new constructions on the model. Ideas included a shuttle bus, a community center, a professional building, a government services center, an ice cream parlor, a community vegetable and flower garden, and a medical clinic. The presentation of each item was followed by discussion of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of each proposal. Some modifications to this original plan were made during follow up sessions in response to vacant lots and buildings not initially addressed, and on the premise that two of the intersections were early targets for change and should therefore be more fully developed. Overall, more than 80 people participated in the Box City planning project. The neighborhood and the Energy Center are documenting the entire plan on paper and film, and working with a local architecture firm to prepare schematic designs and implementation steps for the two targeted intersections in the corridor. Local and national experts were involved in the process, but what resulted from Box City were plans and designs for Prospect Avenue that originated from the community – designs and plans providing needed services to the neighborhood, encouraging transit and pedestrian activity, improving the character of the area, and enhancing a sense of community. Problems & Lessons Learned Adequate participation was the major problem. However, possibly as a result of months of activities, including the neighborhood clean up, environmental fair, and home weatherization, community participation did increase as the project progressed and ultimately the planning process enjoyed a fairly high attendance. Future Plans The neighborhood association and the community development corporation will present the model, drawings, and plan to city council in an effort to influence the city government’s initiatives in the community. The neighborhood will work with the community development corporation in a continuous effort to achieve the elements in the plan. The results from the "Box City" planning activities may be used to write proposals and grant requests to include specific projects in the area’s long range transportation plan, and to secure federal transportation funds from the enhancements program. CONTACT INFORMATION Peter Dreyfuss
|