UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

PREPARING FOR A FUTURE OF GROWTH

INTRODUCTION
The University District has long been known as a dynamic neighborhood defined by various institutions, community groups, and physical forms. As the neighborhood looks ahead to the future, planning will be vital to ensure that livability, economic growth, vibrancy, and social services remain integral aspects of the community. This report outlines evaluations, strategies, and recommendations that will help the neighborhood anticipate, accommodate, and realize future growth that is expected to augment the importance of the University District as a major urban center in Seattle. Given the presence of the University of Washington (UW) and the large student population in the University District, the resulting character of the neighborhood is largely transitory in nature. Because of this fluctuating population, a stable, long-term community is difficult to develop. Despite this challenge, change and growth can become positive defining points for the community. Our evaluation of the 1998 University District neighborhood plan found a strong community-driven emphasis on accommodating the future growth predicted for the urban center over the next two decades. Our project carries forward these goals through analyses and recommendations of neighborhood improvements in the three topical areas - mobility, sustainability, and development. The specific considerations for each of these areas aided us in ident ifying a cohesive community vision of growth in the neighborhoods urban hub. The development of this report consisted of the employment of various methodologies-- evaluation of the University District neighborhood plan, reaching out with community stakeholders and members, and performing a demographics analysis (see Appendix: Project Website). Other topic-specific methods were also used to assist in our understanding and evaluation of neighborhood issues, concerns, and goals (see Appendix: Community Products). We hope that the vision outlined in this report continues to iterate positive progress and development for the University District to ensure that a future of growth for the neighborhood can be vibrant and sustainable.

MOBILITY IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Focus The Mobility team primarily focused on the area around the future light rail station along Brooklyn Ave NE that will be built to serve the University District community. The addition of this station will result in significant changes in mobility, accessibility, and will influence how people interact with their surroundings. The station, along with other developments in the neighborhood, will provide new transportation options within the community. Our team considered the station area as the focus for our data collection, analysis, and recommendation. The light-rail station will be the centerpiece of future transportation where planning and investment is most critical, and a place that will benefit the University community and the surrounding neighborhood. Various community members expressed Brooklyn Stations role as a significant component for considering future planning. As the station is constructed, the increased demands for neighborhood growth can be leveraged to improve upon the strengths and remedy the weaknesses of the University District community. Community representatives indicated that the connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders at the station are important components to consider, along with short-term issues, like construction impacts. Methods We collected information from mental maps, walkability surveys, and social observations that were conducted in the district (see Appendix: Project Website). Our team also met with community representatives and other stakeholders with a vested interest in the future of the University District. Our purpose was to understand the neighborhoods concerns, challenges, visions, and goals from various parties, like members of the University District Chamber of Commerce, University Bookstore, the UW, and the City of Seattle. We also considered University students to be important stakeholders, due to unique experiences and perspectives in regards to mobility issues in the neighborhood. Findings: Evaluation of Current Conditions Current Conditions-- Walkability Our data collection and findings indicated a variety of ways that people move around in the University District. Our mental maps were more likely to display north-south corridors than east-west streets likely because of the north-south orientation of the urban neighborhood. A key finding showed that east-west streets offer less connectivity since they are often staggered near Roosevelt. The busiest east-west street in the neighborhood, NE 45th Street was labeled on all of the mental maps. Though 43 rd Street corridor was labeled on several maps as well, we would expect the streets prominence to increase once the light rail station opens. Connections to campus were also important, with the skybridge at Schmitz Hall being a path commonly labeled by students.

The walkability surveys also gave us insight into what residents of the University District were concerned about in the neighborhood, considering that walkability is the foundation of neighborhood mobility and a major goal of the neighborhood as outlined in the 1998 neighborhood plan. Some of the major concerns that community members expressed in the survey were that drivers did not yield to pedestrians when crossing streets, construction (particularly of the new residence halls) was disruptive to walkability, and that the overall condition and aes thetics of sidewalks in the district were a deterrent to walking. Current Conditions-- Transit Following the opening of the Brooklyn light rail station, a restructure of bus service in the University District is anticipated to eliminate duplicative transit services as well as optimize intermodal connections with the station. We evaluated the current state of public transportation in the neighborhood and have provided recommendations below to promote the accommodation of future growth with long-term mobility strategies. Several key observations were made regarding the current state of transit service: Strong connections with destinations to the north and south . Because of Seattles restricted geography, north-south longitudinal corridors help facilitate transit mobility to neighborhoods like Downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill to the south as well as Roosevelt and Northgate to the north. Poor connections to east-west destinations , like Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford, and Laurelhurst are challenges commonly cited by community members. Limited east-west latitudinal corridors that intersect with the neighborhood both constrain transit service and restrict geographic access to other neighborhoods. Poor transit reliability along major arterial corridors is often blamed for compromising the quality of transit service, particularly to the east and west. Because of high levels of peak congestion within the neighborhood, buses are often stuck in traffic and may sometimes back up into intersections and crosswalks, negatively impacting pedestrian and bicycle mobility, concerns that were iterated in our walkability surveys. A high level of pedestrian-bicycle-bus interactions can be observed within the University District because of the large volumes of buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians along major thoroughfares, particularly during peak hours. One persisting challenge is ensuring reliable high-quality transit service while also maintaining a safe and comfortable pedestrian-bicycle environment. Anticipated Construction Impacts During the environmental and engineering process, Sound Transit selected a two-entry single-mezzanine design option for Brooklyn Station due to a shorter construction timeline, lower construction impacts/risks, and lower costs. Despite increased pedestrian circulation and visibility for the station in the long term, several impacts will occur from the short-term construction period: Restricted access and mobility for area residents and employees (in particular, patrons of the Manor Apartments and the UW Tower) due to the closure of Brooklyn Ave NE and portions of NE 43rd Street for construction and staging purposes.

 Noise impacts that may result from ongoing tunneling of the light rail tunnels, excavation of the station box, and construction of the station structure. Impacts on health and visual environment are possible as the constant movement of trucks and construction vehicles in and out of the area may result in dust and exhaust emissions potentially harmful to pedestrians and bicyclists. Analysis/Recommendations Listed below are both short-term (i.e., construction impacts & mobility restrictions) and long-term recommendations (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections) that may help guide the facilitation and improvement of mobility to, from, and within the neighborhood. To analyze and consider the findings of our team, we first considered relevant discussions that we had with community members about their concerns and aspirations for the University District. Short-Term Recommendations: Mitigation of Construction Impacts Because of the extensive period of construction anticipated for the light rail station, a number of ongoing impacts to the neighborhood in the short-term will require mitigation strategies and measures to optimize local mobility. Listed below are a few recommendations that may help guide these strategies: Work with Sound Transit and other stakeholders to maintain critical pathways during construction. Outreach strategies may also be employed to inform community members about alternative routes and paths. We recommend leveraging information networks to maintain high awareness of mobility impacts among neighborhood residents and patrons. Mitigate noise impacts by encouraging various noise-reduction measures like the implementation of sound walls. Mitigate negative interactions between pedestrians/bicyclists and construction traffic through physical separation measures or encouraging alternative paths that may offer safer routes for the former. Long-Term Recommendations: Pedestrian Connections One of our first considerations was looking at reconfiguring NE 43 rd Street as the gateway to campus once the Brooklyn Station is opened. Aaron Hoard, Deputy Director for Regional Affairs at the UW, and Louise Little, a representative of the University Bookstore, both iterated the importance of NE 43 rd Street as a connecting access point for the neighborhood, particularly between the UW campus, University Bookstore, and the future light rail station. Because of its closer connection to campus via a quieter residential street, the station entrance at NE 43 rd and Brooklyn is anticipated to be the preferred exit for students and visitors to the University. We recommend removing the existing ~20 parking spaces on the street (excluding no-parking areas and load/unload) and replacing them with increased pedestrian/public space and a shared street. By tearing out curbs and bringing in space for caf seating, public seating, and a plaza, the street can adopt a more pedestrian-oriented character while still maintaining

important vehicle access to neighborhood businesses, services, and institutions. Bollards, trees, or other landscaping elements along the street may also help calm traffic and maintain a comfortable and safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists (see Appendix: Project Website Other Products). We further recommend alleyway reactivation and improvement as another important component of improving mobility in the University District. Many community members expressed the potential for these spaces, notably Patty Whistler, a neighborhood activist, who referred to European streets and alleyways and their ability to foster a dynamic vibrant street-life, the likes of which neighborhood infrastructure in the University District could support. Alleyways effectively provide a secondary, more pedestrian-scaled street grid in much of the neighborhood, but due to their condition, safety, and care, they are often unused or unpalatable to pedestrians. Based off of recommendations outlined in the UW Green Futures Labs Seattle Int egrated Alleyway Handbook (see Appendix: Project Website Reports and Files) basic improvements may include naming alleys to show identity, adding lighting for safety, removing or consolidating dumpsters and other clutter, and bringing in furniture and public seating. The handbook includes numerous other recommendations that could be considered for implementation in the University District. We would also encourage a strong sight line to campus, where an installation of welcoming signage, (like the big W on 17th Ave NE) and an engaging street pathway would draw people in to the park-like setting. As tourists and visitors enter from the station, we want to make sure that the university campus is a clear part of the community, and a gatehouse/visitor center and bright sign at the 43 rd Street entrance will be more engaging than the existing retaining walls and constrictions. Having retail shops along 43 rd Street along with potential development of the University Book Stores parking lot, the street can be made more active up to campus. Long-Term Recommendations: Bicycle Connections Another consideration that is important for the station area will be bicycle access and parking. With limited bike storage on trains and buses, it will be integral to provide facilities for bicyclists to access and use the st ation without the need to transport their bicycles. We recommend working with Sound Transit to implement a bicycle parking area with sufficient capacity to facilitate high volumes of intermodal bike-rail connections. To monitor the success and use of bicycle parking area, we also recommend employing future indicators, like tracking bicycle volumes around the station area. In 2010, 8% of trips to the University were made on bicycle 1, a number that has been steadily increasing2 with greater potential to do so even more in the future when regional access is available via the light rail station. While Sound Transit may already be considering the addition of bicycle parking transit oriented development (TOD) projects around the station, a bicycle parking facility on other existing undeveloped lots (i.e., UW Tower, former IHOP property, construction staging areas, etc.) will help provide additional capacity as demand increases in the future).

1 2

2010 UW Commuter Services U-Pass Profile 2010 UW Commuter Services Bike Rack Utilization Report

Long-Term Recommendations: Transit Connections To ensure that long-term regional access is optimized, strong local intermodal connections within and without the University District are necessary. Because specific transit service concepts are still largely unplanned, these recommendations are intended to guide the discussion of long-term intermodal transit on a broader level: Encourage King County Metro to develop strong east-west transit connections along the NE 45th St corridor to allow cross-town riders from neighborhoods like Fremont, Wallingford, University Village, and Laurelhurst to connect with light rail at Brooklyn Station. Work with the Seattle Department of Transportation to improve transit reliability within key corridors (15th Ave NE, NE 45th St, NE Pacific St, etc.) to ensure that local and connecting bus ser vice is a reliable and attractive transportation option for neighborhood riders. Promote the consolidation of service within high-frequency transit corridors (i.e., University Way NE, 15th Ave NE, etc.) to allow for the preservation of other streets for non-motorized characters and uses (e.g., maintaining Brooklyn Ave NE as a green street). Work with local transportation partners to reduce transfer penalties for riders connecting from local bus service to rail. This may include locating bus stops along NE 45th closer to Brooklyn Station or access points along the street grid, and improving wayfinding and signage for north-south connections. Encourage the leveraging of intermodal connections as a way to activate the hub around Brooklyn Station (i.e., street vendors, performers, etc.) while still maintaining strong business and economic development along existing areas, like the Ave.

SUSTAINABILITY: FOOD ACCESS IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Focus Guided by a request from the University District Chamber of Commerce to consider food systems, the Sustainability Group chose to explore food access in the neighborhood. We examined availability of food through markets, gardens, and grocery stores and also analyzed the quality of these food outlets. This audit allowed us to understand what currently exists in the neighborhood and to identify gaps in both availability and diversity of food in making recommendations to the neighborhood. We believe that a variety of fresh food options -- excluding restaurants and locations not selling fresh produce -- in good distribution contributes to social sustainability and therefore is important. While the neighborhood plan of 1998 did not consider food systems, we conducted our fieldwork with the knowledge that construction of the light rail stop will bring as many as 12,300 people through the area, putting a strain on existing food sources. With current major grocery outlets clustered within the same area and other outletsincluding P-patches and small marketsbeing largely insufficient, we conducted our work and formulated our recommendations in hopes of helping the University District accommodate a large influx of people over the next two decades by improving availability and diversity of food sources. Furthermore, with the construction of several new student housing units west of campus, there will be a significantly increased steady population requiring regular access to food sources while living in the area with the least food options. Methods The Sustainability group performed an audit of existing food outlets, assessed the quality and diversity of these sources, identified vacant lots for potential future sources, and analyzed this information to develop recommendations for the neighborhood to move forward and improve food systems in the University District. We used the collection of mental maps as a spatial foundation of where food outlets are perceived to exist. To conduct the audit we developed a system to rate the type of food source. We focused on food outlets (groce ry stores, markets, gardens) that offered fresh produce options and explored the nearby mobility options to further illuminate the accessibility of these locations. We also reached out to University of Washington Masters of Urban Planning (MUP) studio students in the Food Desert group for data that might be helpful for evaluating the food options in the District. We used data received from the MUP students and mapped all of the food outlets, while also incorporating our own understandings about walkability. Our findings are described in the following section. Findings From the audit we gleaned information regarding type of food outlet, location, hours of operation, and nearby transportation options for the main grocery stores, markets, and P-patches in the area, as illustrated in Table 1. Our findings, illustrated in Figure 1, signal a lack of options in the southwest quadrant of the University District.

Census data reflects the largest concentration of students lies south of 45 th and west of 15th, which corresponds directly to what we identified as a small scale food desert. There are several major grocery outlets that mainly serve residents of the University District. This includes two Safeways, a QFC, and a Trader Joes. In terms of qu antity, these outlets provide an adequate amount of food-however, they are not local options nor are they evenly distributed throughout the neighborhood. There are also several notable fresh food sources in the neighborhood. This includes two P-patches in the University District that lie on opposite ends of the neighborhood and provide substantial fresh food opportunity. However these plots are extremely insufficient to meet the present and anticipated needs of the neighborhood. The University District Farmers Market is a renowned market in Seattle offering local produce every Saturday. Although the Farmers Market is an outstanding fresh food source, it is steeply priced and only open five hours per week, making it inaccessible for those who cannot afford the prices, or are unable to get to the market during its open hours. We chose not to focus on food sources that lacked fresh produce. After some research, we learned of plans to build and incorporate a food cooperative into the new west campus student residential area that is currently under development. Analysis/Recommendations From our fieldwork, we found that the most pressing problem with food systems in the University District is a lack of distribution and diversity of options. While there are four major grocery outlets in the neighborhood, they are clustered in two locations that leave the southwest corner of the neighborhood largely under-served. We recommend the University District community consider specialty shops (butchers, cheese shops, produce stands, etc.) when developing retail spaces along University Way NE, 15th Ave NE, NE 45th St, and Brooklyn Ave NE. We also recommend a major food outlet with an emphasis on local and organic options be developed in the southwest quadrant to reach the underserved population in this area. The Mercer Hall dormitory that is set to be demolished and redeveloped would be a feasible location for this, particularly given its proximity to the Burke-Gilman trail. Because food access is also largely contingent on travel within the neighborhood, capitalizing on transportation improvements outlined in the Mobility recommendations may also help facilitate the ability of community members to access these food resources. In particular, the reactivation of north-south pedestrian alleyway corridors may improve access to the southwest quadrant.

Table 1: Audit of existing food resources

Store QFC Safeway (Brooklyn) Hours of Operation Bus Routes Bike Routes Bikeable Summary/Notes The largest food market in University District, and it has a very wide variety of food; it seems that people can get everything they need from the QFC at UV.

25, 65, 75, 68, 24 hours / 7 days 372

30, 70, 71, 72, 6:00am 2:00am Many college students shop there and alcohol is a 73, 74, 83, 542, Bikeable Everyday very common purchase for people. 556 6:00am 1:00am Safeway (UV) 25, 65,75 Bikeable Everyday 8:00am 44, 66, 67, 79, On Roosevelt Many options of organic food; the majority of Trader Joes 10:00pm 133, 167, 197, Way NE customers are non-student. Everyday 205, 984 7:00am It is a relatively small market, and fresh fruits and 11:00pm (Mon. veggies for sale in the market are no more than 15 Fri.) 66, 67, 73, 79, On Roosevelt Trinity Market options. Bus stops are relatively far from the 8:00am 355 Way NE market; people need to walk 100 meters to reach 11:00pm the market. (Sat. Sun.) 30, 48, 70, 71, Most food are locally grown and labeled as organic, Farmers 9:00am 2:00pm 72, 73, 74, 83, Bikeable and relatively expensive. Primary categories are Market Saturday 542, 556 vegetables, fruits, and dairy products. Size: 5900 sq ft Established: 1991, expanded 2002 Number of Plots: 37 Plot size/s: 100 sq ft 30, 48, 70, 71, P-Patch Average length of waitlist: 52 Year-round 72, 73, 74, 83, Bikeable (Univ. Height) Average Wait: 2 years 542, 556 Ownership of Land: University Heights Community Center & Seattle Parks Dept People can grow any vegetables, small fruits, flowers or herbs (no invasives). Size: 14,400 Established: 1976 Number of plots: 48 Average length of waitlist: 97 Average wait: 2 years Ownership of land: METRO People can grow any vegetables, small fruits, flowers or herbs (no invasives).

P-Patch (4009 8th Ave. NE)

Year-round

30, 31, 49, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 83

Bikeable

Figure 1. Map of neighborhood food options

DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT

Methods and Focus The focus of the Development Group was to examine current development plans and assess how effectively they address community concerns. In addition, recommendations for further development that addresses community concerns are listed below. Our research focused primarily around gathering opinions from community members and principles from the neighborhood plan. Many of the priorities were based off of concerns and visions from community members representing the University of Washington, local businesses, and neighborhood activists. We also examined current plans for developments in the area by looking at proposals and reaching out to respective developers. The two developments we focused on were the AvalonBay development and the joi nt University of Washington and Childrens Hospital workforce housing development (see Figure 2). In-field methodologies were also employed, which included walking around a two block radius of the future light rail station area and visually examining the area from the top of UW Tower to identify potential areas for further development. Current Development Plans & Recommendations AvalonBay Development The AvalonBay development will be a mixed-use project with 374 apartments ranging from studios to 1 and 2 bedrooms. While the prices are not currently set on units, Derek Bottles, an AvalonBay representative, explained that, at current market prices, the studio units would cost from $1050- $1200, one bedrooms would have costs from $1,322-$1,515 and two bedrooms from $1750 to $2050. The development will be located between 11th &12th Avenues NE and NE 45th & 47th Streets. The development is being split into two towers of seven stories each with an alleyway in between. With various community members expressing a need for increased density around the light rail station, we believe that AvalonBay successfully achieves community development goals. With increased density, the development also helps to support the University District as a transportation crossroads by providing the demand necessary to support the new light-rail station. We also heard concerns about maintaining a more diverse, long-term, year-round neighborhood population beyond the student market. According to Bottles, AvalonBays target demographic is primarily young professionals and post-graduates. These marketing efforts may help lure in residents with a greater potential investment in the community, as opposed to students who tend to demonstrate less commitment to the neighborhood due to their transient nature. Unfortunately, the AvalonBay development falls short of addressing the need for multi-family housing or for mixed-income populations, concerns repeatedly iterated by community members.

The issues has been raised multiple times that there is a need for both more open green space as well as public athletic facilities of some sort. AvalonBay addresses both of these for its future residents. It has plans for a private gym and courtyard. Unfortunately this doesnt benefit those in the community who arent resident s. Depending on how well retail space is used on the ground floor of this development, it carries the potential to foster an active pedestrian-friendly street. However, numerous community members expressed concerns for what types of business activities could be appropriate in the area. Rebecca Barnes, the University of Washington Architect, explained her desire to keep existing businesses and services along University Way, like restaurants and coffee shops. The mixed-use AvalonBay development could have anywhere from 3,600-11,000 square feet of retail space, split between two buildings, with the largest possible single retail space being around 7,000 square feet. Because of limited space and the developments transit -oriented nature, AvalonBays retail s paces may be more suited for on-the-go types of stores. This could include services such as dry cleaners, shoe repair, a small grocery store, or other amenities catered toward both residents and commuters. In addition to providing housing stock to fuel demand, AvalonBay may further increase light rail usage by adding value and convenience to the surrounding area through this provision of businesses and services. While current retail uses have not yet been decided, Bottles anticipates that a restaurant may likely use the ground-level space in the future. We recommend continued evaluation of potential uses with ongoing discussion between developers, community members, businesses, and other neighborhood stakeholders to ensure a community-driven development effort. Future business activity around AvalonBay and the station area should also complement existing business activity along University Way to encourage a vibrant economic district in the neighborhood core. Overall the AvalonBay project does a good job of increasing density near the light rail and encouraging a more year-round population. At the same time it does not seem to support much more diversity in the area, as the intended residents are young professionals, but not families or people with lower incomes. The presence of a development with many outward facing windows (as opposed to being mostly parking now) could also bode well for safety in the area, providing many more eyes on the street that could be effective if proper lighting is provided. University of Washington/Childrens Hospital Workforce Housing The second future development of note is a joint University of Washington and Childrens Hospital workforce housing plan. This will be located between NE 47th & 45th Streets and 11 th Ave NE & Roosevelt Way NE. Although no formal plans have been established, Barnes estimates that there will be about 200 units and that the building will be about 7 stories high. Currently, it is unknown whether the development will have single or mixed uses. The housing will be occupied by mixed income groups; however, as its target renters would range from people with 50% of the median income of the area to those who could afford market rate units. Apartments will vary from studios to 3 bedrooms, with first pre ference of renters being University of Washington and Childrens hospital staff.

Even with the limited information available, this development provides promising potential to address some of the community concerns that the AvalonBay development fails to. Some potentials include: Attracting a much more diverse range of residents to the area, as it provides for a wide range of incomes. Increasing density and possible usage of the incoming light-rail station. Density will also help strengthen the neighborhood tax base. Depending on actual implementation plans, the development could help fulfill a general desire for more families in the area. Workforces for both the University and Childrens Hospital could easily benefit from housing suitable to their families nearby their places of employment. Hypothetical Developments In addition to examining current plans for development we decided to provide a few suggestions for some hypothetical projects (see Figure 3). One idea we recommend is development above the actual light rail transit station. This could hopefully include mixed-use complexes that incorporate commercial office space and mixedincome residential housing. Current development plans for the AvalonBay project, while addressing the need to create a more stable, year-long residential neighborhood, do not address the University Districts need for mixed income and diverse housing. Proposed development above the transit station could address this need with housing complexes directed towards a mixed-income group. The mixed use of having connected commercial office spaces will further encourage transit oriented development ideals, and also promotes the University District as a location for potential businesses and commerce. If this is to be done there also need to be preparations made with the light rail station construction so that it can handle a TOD structure above. We would also recommend development of the parking lot between Brooklyn Avenue and University Way. We considered a small park for this area but thought that given its proximity to light rail, this space may be better suited to more development with uses such as a fitness/athletic center, food market, and housing. Regardless of the specific uses, this space could be well utilized in a variety of ways that could take advantage of its proximity to the future light rail station.

Figure 2. Locations of future AvalonBay development, future joint development with UW and Children's Hospital, and potential area for future development

Figure 3. A hypothetical development at a parking lot on Brooklyn Ave NE. Parking lot that currently exists still retains half of its original size with the mixed use facility in place.

CONCLUSION
The University District is experiencing changes in a number of areas that all require different groups of expertise and care to plan for. Yet despite the multiplicity of changes from mobility options, to grocery availability, to housing opportunities, the nature of a neighborhood means that these issues are connected in various ways. Decisions for the future are best made by cultivating designs for both individual areas and interests as well as by considering a holistic lens of the University District as a neighborhood and community. No neighborhood stren gth or weakness is experienced in isolation. Throughout this project, our work has been strengthened by looking for interconnections. The Mobility research took into consideration business affects, walkability affects, among the issues involved in constructing a light rail station. The Development team considered housing developments in relationship to the preferences and needs of the neighborhoods current residents and encouraged integration of transit -oriented design. And the Sustainability teams focus on food reflects a need that permeates all designs, including development and light rail station, as grocery and food needs are an issue for all people in all parts of the neighborhood, at home, at work, and in transit. A summary of some key recommendations from our research include: The necessity to develop strong partnerships with private and public entities, particularly with impending light rail transit and subsequent private investment in the neighborhood. Strong access via pedestrian, bicycle, and bus to Brooklyn Station will help foster a successful and vibrant neighborhood. Considerations of geographic equity among all populations and groups within the neighborhood to ensure that services (i.e., food, health, civic, etc.) are available evenly across space. Fresh food, in particular, is an amenity that should be accessible throughout the University District. Leveraging economic opportunities with rapid transit to promote compact development that accommodates future growth while also fostering a healthy business environment between current and future businesses. Continued outreach and support among all community actors and stakeholders, including neighborhood businesses, UW students, staff and faculty, and various other groups. We believe that the focusing and refocusing at different scales make for a strong picture of the University District. The recommendations outlined in this report reiterate community goals and a vision for a future of growth in the neighborhood. By ensuring that peoples, groups, and infrastructures are balanced within a well-maintained physical environment, the University District community has a promising opportunity to set the stage for the next 100 years as one of the city s most important urban centers.

APPENDIX: PROJECT WEBSITE

Because of the large volumes of documents and files created during this project, we have made all of our appendices available through a public website: https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/drewcoll/22283/136760. By allowing access from community members and the general public to this material, we hope that the process of project development will be open and transparent. The following documents are available on the website: Mental Maps Lynch Map Walkability Surveys Neighborhood Photos Reports and Files o Project Reports & Presentations o Reference Files Other Products o Demographics Analysis o Report figures/graphics Acknowledgements

APPENDIX: COMMUNITY PRODUCTS

Summary of Team-Generated Mental Maps Our group collected fourteen mental maps. Of the fourteen group members who completed the maps, four live outside the University District and the rest reside within the neighborhood. Most of the maps included the persons home and some part of the UW campus; nonetheless, our interpretations of the University District were broad. While most people included the University of Washington campus typically as an area enclosed by a line and the areas north and west of campus, a few did not draw campus proper as it exists east of 15th. A few of the maps included more detailed drawings of UW with far less detail in the surrounding neighborhood. As we determined similarities between the mental maps, we agreed that if an element was going to qualify as a node, path, etc., it needed to be included on at least three individual mental maps. Edges The agreed upon edges were I-5 to the west, Portage Bay or the Burke Gilman to the south, 45th or a parallel street to the north, and the border of the UW campus or University Village to the east. I5 was the most commonly agreed upon edge while the east side edges of the mental maps were less clear. The linear nature of I-5 seemed to provide a clear boundary whereas the topography on the east side of campus interferes with the grid pattern and provides confusion as to where the eastern edge actually exists. In this area of uncertainty, there was a reliance on the east boundary of campus as being the edge of the mental maps but this was not street specific. The north end was similarly confusing and though the most common north edge was 45th, there was a greater range of answers. However, this edge was more commonly noted with an actual street name (i.e. 45th, 50th, 52nd) and 45th was the most common. Landmarks The most prominent landmarks were Drumheller Fountain and Suzzallo Library. Less commonly noted landmarks were the Intramural Activities Center, UW Tower, University Heights School and Denny Hall. University Village was drawn on six maps as either a blurry edge or not necessarily included as much as indicated as existing just off the page. The landmarks indicated on our mental maps were campus elements, which is indicative of our demographic as students. The only non-UW affiliated landmark was the University Heights School (noted by three people). We imagine that when we collect mental maps from non-student residents of the University District these landmarks will change. We would expect them to be less centered on the university and include more libraries, churches, banks, and schools. Nodes Nodes were mostly food themed, as either grocery or dining facilities and other common nodes were student-gathering areas. The most prominent nodes were the farmers market, Red Square, the Quad, the UW Bookstore, Gould Hall, Safeway, and last but not least, Jack in the Box. Jack in the Box just made the cut and w as included less for its existence as a dining facility as much as a point of avoidance and center of drug deals and other

sketchy activities. This was the only element most obviously associated with a certain emotional feeling. Although other elements may be associated with certain emotions Paths The most common paths were University Way NE ( the Ave), 15th Ave NE, and NE 45th St, and less common but still notable paths were Roosevelt Way NE and Brooklyn Ave NE. Three people included transportation options, two for transit and one for personal automobile use. We struggled with identifying nodes as junctions between major paths. Because 45th, 15th, the Ave, and Brooklyn were all popular paths, this would make an entire stretch of 45th a node, which we did not feel was represented by the mental maps. Districts While students did not separate the neighborhood into small districts in our mental maps, clear spatial environments were apparent within each map that showed the extent to which the neighborhood was used by each person. Summary of Community Generated Mental Maps From mental mapping, we saw that the north-south corridors were more likely to be labeled than east-west streets; this is likely due to the north-south orientation of the urban neighborhood. Another issue might be that east-west streets offer less connectivity since they are often staggered near Roosevelt. The busiest east -west street in the neighborhood, NE 45th Street, was labeled on all of the mental maps. The 43rd Street corridor was labeled on many maps too, but we would expect this to change when the light rail station opens at the end of 43rd street. Connections to campus are important, with the sky-bridge at Schmitz Hall being a path commonly labeled by University students. In addition, according to mental mapping, there are several major grocery outlets that mainly serve residents of the University District. These include two Safeways, a QFC, and a Trader Joes. The m aps primarily gave insight on how residents/commuters use pathways (relative to the individual) while spending their time in the University District. Lynch Design Map Ideas for the Lynch Map were initially collected on one large map; later, the ideas were digitized by a smaller group. For the most part there wasnt too much difficulty in identifying the different characteristics of UW campus. Nonetheless, there was some disagreement on what elements were relevant for the rest of the University District. Edges Identifying the edges was a fairly simple process because of the existing boundaries already in place. One example of this would be Interstate 5 to the west, Portgate Bay to the south, Lake Washington to the east, and Ravenna Ravine as a physical edge to the north. The micro-edges were a little more difficult to identify. For example, finding the precise separation between Roosevelt and the University District was unclear, as the two neighborhoods seam together. We decided that Ravenna was a good separating edge for the two, as it is usually considered the

boundary. The steep hillside to the east of campus was also identified as another micro-edge that makes University Village feel separate from the University District. Furthermore, the retaining wall on 15th Ave NE is also a micro edge that acts as a barrier between the University and the rest of the community. Landmarks Finding agreeable landmarks off the UW campus was a bit of a challenge, but we came to a few definitive conclusions over which were the most important to our map. The UW Medical Center, Husky Stadium, Drumheller Fountain, Red square, the George Washington statue, Ship Canal Bridge, UW Tower, Deca Hotel, and Scarecrow Video were places that we felt were memorable icons in the University -District. Upon studying the mental maps from community members, the contrast between what our ideas of neighborhood landmarks are and those perceived by the community should be thought-provoking. Nodes Nodes that we thought were worth identifying centered mostly around the UW, but several constituted some community and transit sites were as well. On campus they consist of major services (the hospital and athletic facilities) and academic areas (the Liberal Arts Quadrangle [AKA, the Quad] and Red Square). W e also identified event-specific nodes that draw large numbers of people on occasion, like tailgating sites around Husky Stadium. Outside of the University campus, the intersection of NE 47th Street & 17th Ave NE is recognized as a central node along Greek Row. Transit nodes include Campus Parkway, NE 45th & the Ave, and NE 41st & the Ave. Some overarching community nodes are University Heights, the University Playfield, and Trader Joes. Paths The major paths that we identified were University Way NE, NE 45th Street, NE 50th Street, Montlake Boulevard, the Burke-Gilman Trail, Rainier Vista, and NE Pacific Street. We had many minor paths as well, but they mostly were characterized by their function as access routes between the University District and the UW campus. Districts The districts that we identified were the Medical district, Athletics district, the University of Washington campus, Northlake neighborhood, West Edge residential area, the Ave commercial strip, Greek System, University Village, and University Park neighborhood. We came to these conclusions based on the other Lynchian characteristics we already identified, and the building types and uses in each of these districts. The boundaries were largely drawn by what we felt were areas with a cohesive and significant identity to the University District. Thus, many areas were not specifically identified as a district and can instead be characterized as infill. Summary of Community Walkability Surveys The walkability surveys gave us insight into what residents of the University District were concerned about in the neighborhood, considering that walkability is the foundation of neighborhood mobility and a major goal of the neighborhood as outlined in the 1998 neighborhood plan. Some of the major concerns of community members

expressed in the survey were that drivers did not yield to pedestrians when crossing streets, construction (particularly of the new residence halls) was disruptive to walkability, and that the overall condi tion and aesthetics of sidewalks in the district were a deterrent to walking. Social Observation Map Summary The University District group focused on social behavior relating to food systems, transportation relating to the proposed areas for the light rail, and development in alley ways. The map makes note of various destinations that people arrive at. The most used/common destinations are grocery stores, these include: Safeway on Brooklyn and 50th, QFC in University Village, Trader Joes on Roosevelt, and Trinity Market on Roosevelt Way. Major nodes on the map are related primarily to campus; nodes at the Sky Bridge by Henry Art Gallery, Law School, and the NW corner of campus. Used space is very diverse, but mainly in the areas between Roosevelt and The Ave. Private space is focused everywhere besides campus area, the extended campus onto NE Campus Parkway, Montlake/45th Street Area headed East, The Ave/Brooklyn Area (going North-South), University Village, and the large bulk of space between NE 45th and 50th Streets headed West of Brooklyn towards Interstate 5. Spaces that are neutral in use are focused on Brooklyn Ave, which is used to bypass traffic. Negative Space is found to be centered primarily from Brooklyn Avenue to Roosevelt Way between NE 43rd Street and NE 47th Street. Positive space is focused primarily in the areas around SW Campus up through The Ave. Major walkable areas include The Ave, NE 43rd Street from campus to Roosevelt Way, NE 45th Street from Campus to Roosevelt Way, NE 50th Street from The Greek System to Roosevelt Way, and the entire Burke Gillman Trail. Positive space, as many planners have made note of, is primarily focused to citizen activity and walkability. In areas where walkability is poor, the quality of activity goes down.