Top Banner

Glendale Report

Jan 21, 2018



Thomas Cushing
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
  2. 2. The Glendale-Mountain View CLC and its Neighborhood: An Exploratory Report Under the direction of Dr. Joanna P. Ganning, this project was completed by the students en- rolled in Urban and Environmental Economics (CMP 3400) in Spring 2015: Thamer Almansour, Samuel Ball, Justin Banks, Xiaokun Chen, Georgie Corkery, Patrick Hart Cromp- ton, Thomas Cushing, Gustavo Da Silva, Christy Dahlberg, Emily Day, Nicolas Deseelhorst, Laura- ann Drury, Blake Frautschi, Stephen Hanamaikai, Clint Harper, Julie Henry, Kate Johnson, Taylor Kafentzis, Nanyu Li, Steven Lizzarago, Miho Maruyama, Kaylee Milliner, Amber Mortensen, Josh Naylor, Xiaoyang Niu, Roman Permyakov, Shaokun Zhao, Ethan Ray, Sydney Rich, Zachary Small- wood, Carlie Teague, Taylor Thompson, Christopher Turner, Emily Van Allen Dr. Joanna P. Ganning Executive Director, Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah Assistant Professor, City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah Keri Taddie Coordinator, Glendale Mountain View Community Learning Center Dr. Sarah Munro Research Director and Partnership Manager, University Neighborhood Partners Cynthia Holz Associate Director, Utah Community Learning Centers University of Utah, Department of City and Metropolitan Planning 375 South 1530 East Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 581-8255 University Neighborhood Partners (UNP) 1060 South 900 West Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (801) 972-3596 Glendale Mountain View Community Learning Center 1380 South Navajo St Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 (801) 974-8315
  3. 3. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 SOCIAL EQUITY 9 ACCESSIBILITY 23 CONCLUSION 35 WORKS CITED 36 Employment 10 Housing 12 Education 18 Health 20 Demographics 21 The Neighborhood 24 Transportation 26 Walkability 28 Social Resources 32 Accessibility 34
  4. 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an analysis of the Salt Lake City neighborhood of Glendale and the relationship between the neighborhood and the Community Learning Center. The Communi- ty Learning Center (CLC) is located directly in between Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary School, both of which are part of the Salt Lake City School District. The center is located on the west side of Salt Lake City and is considered to be in the heart of the Glendale neighborhood. The Glendale neighborhood consists of two zip codes, 84116 and 84104, within Salt Lake City. A majority of the 84116 population lives north of I-80 between 500 West and the Salt Lake City International Airport. Working in collaboration with University Neighborhood Partners and the CLC, our class was asked to assist the CLC in establishing an understanding of their service users, and the role the CLC services might be playing in the Glendale neighborhood. To accomplish that aim, we present both contextual, secondary data on the Glendale neighborhood, and primary, survey data we collected regarding service use and needs. In presenting these data, we demonstrate the connections between the services of the CLC and the residents who benefit from those ser- vices, synthesized along two themes: social equity and accessibility. These themes draw directly from the material studied as part of our course, and relate clearly to practical frameworks which educators and planning practitioners might pursue while extending the work of the CLC. The main goals of the CLC are: To increase student achievement To increase adult education To build relationships between the school and community To remove barriers to education To increase parent engagement within the schools To transform the relationship community has with higher education To create accessible educational opportunities To provide programs and services that ultimately lead to a healthier community Through our analysis of social equity, we found that while Glendale enjoys a wonderfully diverse profile, in both race and ethnicity, it also faces a number of challenges. Perhaps most pressingly, housing affordability is problematic. There is an absolute deficit of affordable hous- ing units for renter households, and while the average value of an owner-occupied housing unit is lower in Glendale than in the whole of Salt Lake City, incomes are lower as well, and thus housing affordability is not ensured by the lower costs. Moreover, the average rental rate in Glendale actually surpassed that of the city, despite being situated in a lower income area. The pressure caused by the affordability challenge results in housing instability, especially among renter households, and especially among households with lower educational attainment levels. Our analysis of accessibility reveals that community members value active transporta- tion, with children accessing school via walking at a rate substantially higher than the national average. To facilitate this active transportation, the neighborhood has many crosswalks, side- walks, and access to the Jordan River Parkway. However, our analysis of walkability also reveals specific urban design issues that could be improved, and that vary from street to street through 1
  5. 5. 2 the neighborhood. Beyond walkability, one of ten survey respondents lacks access to a private vehicle, likely resulting in substantially higher investments of time to access work, shopping, and other everyday services. For these people, bus service exists, connecting to larger regional transit services, and service is consistent, if infrequent. Access to CLC services appears critical for neighborhood success, and this is true especially for its health clinic. Over half of survey respon- dents use the CLC clinic as their primary place of health care access. In conclusion, we believe that while much additional research is needed to fully under- stand the role of the CLC in family and neighborhood success, we feel that we can confidently conclude several points. First, housing affordability and stability represent serious concerns for academic success and neighborhood success in Glendale, and this is particularly true among more vulnerable populations. Second, while many features of neighborhood accessibility are strong, urban design interventions could help at strategic locations, as could improvement to the frequency of public transit routes. Access to CLC services is critical, especially for health care. The implications of other CLC services, especially for public cost savings and family and neighbor- hood success, can only be speculated about given the data collected through our survey, though we believe these discoveries should be pursued both for the CLC and for other community lead- ers. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  7. 7. When Glendale was first developed in the mid-twentieth century, it was a built as a typical suburban community. Half of all homes in Glendale were built between 1940 and 1950, and seventy percent of homes were built before 1960 (West Salt Lake, 6). The vast majority of these homes are single family dwellings. However, as the great trifecta of suburbanization continued (highway development, home mortgage interest deduction, and division of school districts), more middle class residents began leaving the neighborhood for other communities across the valley. Interstates made it easier to live farther away from jobs downtown, larger and more spacious homes were built in other areas of the metropolitan area, and school districts in other municipalities were considered better than the more urban Salt Lake City district. But as the middle class white population left Glendale, blight did not take its place. Instead, a diverse group of immigrants from around the world took advantage of Glendales location and affordable cost of living. The influx of new residents has helped keep the population stable, rather than a large decrease as seen in many blighted communities (West Salt Lake, 6). People across the valley believe that Glendale is the typical poor ghetto. This notion is wrong because Glendale is so much more than that; its a neighborhood made up of hard working people who have created a vibrant, growing, and diverse neighborhood. The Community Learning Center in Glendale A Community Learning Center is a philosophy, a place, and a set of partnerships between a school and other community resources. The community learning center model builds on the core instructional program of a school by adding educational and life skill enrichment for the entire family and removing barriers to learning by providing necessary social services. Salt Lake Education Foundation The Community Learning Center (CLC) in INTRODUCTION 4
  8. 8. Glendale works with the community, Glendale Middle School, Mountain View Elementary School, and their families. The goal of the CLC is to develop and improve five specific services: Quality education Personal development Family support Community development Family and community engagement The CLC serves as a resource to the community to help children meet difficult academic standards, coordinate health and social services, and engage other local community members. They focus on strengthening the surrounding community, early childhood development, adult education, health programs, and other services for families in Glendale. The CLC is a $4.4 million dollar project that opened in early 2013. The Salt Lake City School District provided $3.5 million; the remaining funds came from Salt Lake City and private donations. The CLC is one of over 70 school-based community centers across the nation that has received a grant. It will prepare kids for kindergarten, alleviate crowded classrooms, and help the children address health concerns. The CLC partners with many organizations in the Salt Lake Valley including: Education Pathways Coordinator, Mommies and Me, Dreamkeepers, Papas in Accion/Dads in Action, Latinos in Action, and the University Neighborhood Partners. These partnerships offer services that help kids and their families be involved in the community, keep the community engaged, and offer a wide array of services for everyone. The CLC offers programs such as early childhood, youth enrichment activities, youth academic support, youth social emotional support, youth leadership, adult education, adult enrichment, adult leadership, civic engagement, health and wellness education, and family support. This project developed out of the relationship between the CLC and University Neighborhood Partners (UNP). Of immediate concern to the CLC has been their need to enrollment and participation data for CLC services. Also pressing but of secondary priority, the CLC voiced the need to consider how they could measure the impact of their work not only on their students success, but on family and neighborhood success as well. While our class could not accommodate all of the CLCs research needs in the few short weeks we had together, we could help to establish a portion of itnamely, data describing service users, and the scope of 5
  9. 9. neighborhood issues that impact the success of the CLC, such as physical accessibility of the site, housing instability, and health. Who We Are and What We Did We are a group of students studying Urban and Environmental Economics through the College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Utah. Working together with the CLC and UNP staff to assess the socioeconomic status of the Glendale neighborhood, we analyzed factors related to social equity and accessibility. In order to determine which services were being used most often at the CLC, we partnered with the CLC and UNP to conduct a Glendale Neighborhood Information (GNI) survey, which asked what services community members utilized and how often they used them, among other information. The GNI survey was conducted at the CLC, Mountain View Elementary School, and Glendale Middle School when classes were being taught and at the CLC and during the hours parents were dropping off and picking up their children. It was written in both English and Spanish to facilitate greater participation among community members. As the GNI surveys were distributed, we were impressed by the sense of community at the CLC. It seemed that staff members not only knew community members by name, but also knew about their children, their jobs, and some of their struggles. This sense of community created an atmosphere of trust wherein this potentially sensitive data could be collected. This report will include the data collected on housing affordability, employment, housing characteristics, crime statistics, walkability, air quality, and modes of transportation. After conducting the GNI Survey and compiling the data, some interesting observations concerning social equity and accessibility to social and health services within the community came to light. In presenting these findings, the important role the CLC plays within the neighborhoods of Glendale and Mountain View quickly comes to the fore. The faculty and staff did an amazing job welcoming and assisting us into their center. We owe especial thanks to Sarah Munro Ph.D., research director and partnership manager at the University Neighborhood Partners, who helped us connect with the CLC. Additional thanks to Keri Taddie, the Coordinator of the Glendale/Mountain View CLC, Jennifer Mayer- Glenn, the assistant principal at Mountain View Elementary, Cynthia Holz the District Community Learning Center Coordinator, and many other wonderful faculty and staff INTRODUCTION 6
  10. 10. members. This could not have been done without your help and we were honored to offer our time and skills. 7
  11. 11. SOCIAL EQUITY 2 9
  12. 12. Survey respondents predominantly work in the professional or service industries, which make up more than half of the total (Figure 1). More than a quarter of Glendale residents work in industrial or manual jobs. Out of the respondents, roughly 5% are unemployed. While this rate is higher than the Utah unemployment rate, it is lower than the US figure from March 2015. Income and job opportunities for Glendale are also different when compared to Salt Lake City. Figure 2 displays the distribution of residents by industry of employment in Glendale, while Figure 3 exhibits the same information for Salt Lake City. These figures show that Glendale residents are more often employed in Manufacturing and Transportation and Warehousing than are workers citywide, but are less often employed in Social Assistance and Healthcare. The following are the most common fields of employment for Glendale residents: Manufacturing Wholesale trade Transportation and Warehousing Administrative and Waste management services Government and Government enter prises As will be shown and discussed at length in the following section, households in Glendale, both owner and renter households, earn slightly less than do households citywide. EMPLOYMENT Figure 1 Occupation *GNI Survey, 2015 10
  13. 13. Figure 2 Figure 3 *U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 *U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 11
  14. 14. In Glendale, 63% of people rent and 37% own houses/dwelling units. Out of the people who have lived in their current neighborhood for 10+ years, 52% own and 48% rent their house/dwelling unit and out of the people who have lived in their current neighborhood for less than one year, 12.5% own and 87.5% rent their house/dwelling unit. Among owner-occupied housing units, the median housing value in Glendale is lower than the citywide housing value (Figure 4). According to the CLC staff, the lower housing costs appear to be attracting young families to the neighborhood. In Glendale, people who rent are more likely to have moved within the past three years than people who own. Of the people who rent, 59% have moved zero times in the past 3 years and of the people who own, 63% have moved zero times in the past three years. Additionally, the motivating factors for a move appear to be different among owners and renters (Tables 1 and 2). Of the people who own, the leading motivation for a past move was proximity to work (23%). Among renters, more than half of people pointed to unaffordable costs as the motivation for their move (53%). This suggests that affordable housing programs could substantially improve housing stability for CLC users. HOUSING Reason for Moving Bought a House Down Sizing Lost/Changed Job Closer to Family/Friends Closer to Job Costs too High Wanted Safer Area Reason for Moving Bad Landlord/Property Bankruptcy Lost/Changed Job Closer to Family/Friends Closer to Job Rent too High Wanted Safer Area % 17.60% 5.90% 5.90% 11.80% 23.50% 17.60% 17.60% % 8.80% 2.90% 14.70% 8.80% 5.90% 52.90% 5.90% Owner Occupied Property Table 1 Table 2 Renter Occupied Property *GNI Survey, Spring 2015 *GNI Survey, Spring 2015 Figure 4 Housing Values 12 *American Community Survey, 2013
  15. 15. Map 2 Map 1 Salt Lake City Percentage of Home Owners Salt Lake City Percentage of Renters 13
  16. 16. The need for affordable rental housing is substantiated by analyzing the rental hous- ing affordability gap. Table 3 portrays findings based upon the Renter Housing Affordability Gap Analysis. Linear interpolation methods were used to estimate the number of renter households that fall into one of six income brackets in the area. Then, the maximum pos- sible income of each income bracket was used to calculate the maximum affordable rent for households (column 2 of Table 3). Using addi- tional American Community Survey data, the estimated number of available housing units were compared to the number of people with- in each income bracket who need to occupy them. The final column of Table 2 reports the surplus or deficit of affordable housing units available to households in each income brack- et. Using data from the American Com- munity Survey we calculated that the median household income for renter households in Glendale was $27,676, lower than the $30,137 estimate given for renters citywide in Table B25119 of the same database. It appears to be the case that higher percentages of monthly income goes towards housing for residents of Glendale than those of Salt Lake City (Figure 5). From this, it can be assumed that residents of Glendale have less available income to spend on services other than housing. It also can be assumed that Glendale residents have less affordable housing options because otherwise, they most likely would not spend as much of their income on housing. This is showcased in column 5 of Table 3. There is a deficit of 1,374 units at a reasonable price for residents whose incomes less than $22,139. Therefore, approx- imately 47% of renter households earning less than $22,139 are unable to find affordable housing within the neighborhood. Table 3 Renter Housing Affordability Gap Analysis HOUSING 14 *American Community Survey, 2009-2013 5-year data, Tables B25118 and B25056
  17. 17. Figure 5 Figure 6 Household Income Bracket Gross Rent 15 *American Community Survey, 2013 *American Community Survey, 2013
  18. 18. The concern regarding rental affordability is reflected also in Figure 6. This figure shows that the rental costs mode and median are higher in Glendale than in Salt Lake City as a whole. Considering that household incomes of renters are lower in Glendale than in the city as a whole, this figure evokes additional concerns about affordability for renters in Glendale. As Figure 7 then shows, there is a stronger afford- ability challenge among households in Glen- dale than elsewhere in Salt Lake City. Figure 7 Percentage of Residents Paying More Than 30% of Income on Housing HOUSING 16 *American Community Survey, 2013
  19. 19. When families have to move, children have to move. This often results in children having to change schools. In the survey we found that of the renters who had changed schools because of a move, 18% were renters and 12% were owners. Of the people owning, 100% made 1 school change in the last 3 years. Sixty percent of renters made 1 school change and 27% made 2 school changes in the last 3 years. Assistant principal at Mountain View Elementary, Jennifer Mayer-Glenn, stated that students who move more than once every three years are less likely to find success in their academic career. Taking all of this information into consideration, the theme of vulnerability is apparent. When a family is renting they are more vulnerable to relocation, possibly moving away from the CLC or the schools their children are attending. This move would reduce their access to all of the services provided by the CLC and possibly force their children to change schools, increasing their childrens risk of falling behind academically. These vulnerabilities are apparent in Glendale with both high percentages of people renting and high mobility rates. According to Figure 8, roughly half of all residents in the neighborhood have lived there for less than five years. As discussed previously, there are several reasons that the Glendale residents move in including job changes, family access, and affordability. According to the survey, people who have lived in Glendale for more than ten years are more likely to own their homes, to have finished high school, and to be employed in a professional or service job. Residents who have lived in the area for three to five years are less likely to have completed high school, more likely to rent their place of residence, and have a relatively equal chance of having a job in any field. People who have lived in Glendale for one to two years are more likely to have attended some college than other groups, more likely to rent their residence, and are more likely to work in a professional or services job. Residents who have lived in the neighborhood for less than one year are also more likely to have not completed high school, more likely to rent their home, and are also more likely to work in a professional or services position. Figure 8 Time Residing in Current Neighborhood 17 *GNI Survey, 2015
  20. 20. EDUCATION Figure 9 shows educational attainment among residents in Glendale with students attending a local school or who utilize the services at the CLC. Of the respondents, almost half didnt complete high school. With almost half of the respondents having not completed high school it is essential that the schools and the CLC provide positive educational experiences to the children to encourage them to stay in school and continue learning throughout their lives. Educational attainment levels vary widely by occupation in Glendale. In the survey, three different types of professions were provided: service; professional; and, manual. According to the U.S. Census Bureau service jobs include warehouse, retail, and transportation positions (Investopedia, 2010). Basically, these workers produce services rather than products. Professional jobs are usually higher paying positions that often result long-term career potential. Manual labor jobs are labor intensive, like construction workers. Of respondents, a majority of service workers didnt finish high school and a majority of professional workers and manual workers did finish high school. Many parents in Glendale value education for their children and want them to succeed. The opportunity costs of not graduating high school are lost future earnings, as has been well-established by scholars nationally. Figures 10-12 show the educational attainment levels of workers in Glendale. Education Level Professional Workers Manual Labor Workers Service Workers Figure 9 Figure 11 Figure 10 Figure 11 18 *GNI Survey, 2015
  21. 21. Most children in Glendale attend local schools (Figure 13). Sixty percent of children attend Mountain View Elementary School and 32% attend Glendale Middle School. Otherwise, only 8% are going to non-local schools. This shows children in Glendale have opportunities to attend local schools and receive primary education. Individuals Who Have Children Attending Local Schools Figure 13 19 *GNI Survey, 2015 Image Courtesy Utah Education Assoication
  22. 22. HEALTH Glendale residents have numerous health concerns in their families, the biggest health concern being dental (Figure 14). It is not clear why dental is the biggest concern. There are numerous variables that can play into dental issues, such as poor nutrition, poor dental hygiene, and lack of access to dental care. Glendale residents are also concerned with nutrition within their families. This could mean lack of access to good foods from lack of grocery stores in the area, or it could be that families arent able to afford healthy foods. Even though Glendale isnt a food desert according to the USDA Food Desert Atlas, the lack of multiple stores might result in a smaller selection or lesser quality of the food being provided. Perhaps as corollaries to their concerns regarding nutrition, Obesity and Virus/Flu are also of concern among Glendale families. Not having nutritional foods to eat increases a familys susceptibility to getting the flu or a virus and also increases the chances of becoming obese. It is worth noting that we anticipated finding that asthma would be leading health concern, due to the fact that locally collected air quality data (unavailable to us) has suggested that the air quality in our study area is worse than the average Salt Lake City air quality statistics, and due to the neighborhoods proximity to freeways. Had we found this, it would have signaled an environmentally- created health carrier to accessing CLC services. That we did not find this is surprising and encouraging. When residents of Glendale need medical attention many of them utilize the services available at the CLC (Picture 2), however, the CLC is not equipped to handle broken bones, cancer, or pregnancy, all of which are health concerns for resident of Glendale. Family Health ConcernsFigure 14 20 *GNI Survey, 2015
  23. 23. DEMOGRAPHICS Glendale is a diverse neighborhood within Salt Lake City. The CLC welcomes residents representing many different languages and cultures including 54% from Mexico, 17% from the United States, 4% from Burma, Somalia, and Guatemala, and 3% from El Salvador. The CLC also accommodates a broad range of ages. All ages are welcome to utilize the same spaces and interact with one another. Of those who participated in the survey, 56.3% were between the ages of 25-39 and 31% between the ages of 40-54 (Figure 15). Children were not represented in these numbers because the survey wasnt distributed to them. Glendales diversity has created a lively neighborhood where people of different backgrounds and cultures interact. In the last 50 years, the population has gradually changed from a majority white middle class neighborhood to a more diverse district with vibrant Latino, Sudanese, Ethiopian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Pacific Islander communities. Even though the immigrant population is large and growing, Glendale also has a backbone of longtime residents and middle-income earners who provide stability for newcomers and foster neighborhood programs aimed at building a larger middle class, (Smart, 2013). This diversity is evident in the CLC, with many residents learning about their neighbors cultures, particularly through the exchange of recipes and food. With a combination of stable middle class residents and a dynamic, youthful immigrant populace, Glendale is creating a united, mixed-income neighborhood. 84104 84116 84119 84123 84044 84404 84020 84102 84109 84095 84115 84129 84118 84120 107 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SLC SLC West Valley SLC Magna Ogden Draper SLC SLC South Jordan SLC SLC SLC West Valley 81.68% 4.58% 3.05% 2.29% 1.53% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% Zip Code Individuals City %Respondent Zip Code Analysis Figure 16 The GNI Survey found that 81.6% of community members that took the GNI Survey live within zip code 84104. Individuals surveyed included those who use CLC services, who have children that attend the adjacent schools, or both (Figure 16). 21 Age of Those Surveyed Figure 15 *GNI Survey, 2015 *GNI Survey, 2015
  25. 25. THE NEIGHBORHOOD Accessibility is defined as the degree to which a service is available to a person, as well as the manner in which the built environment affects that persons available services. The built environment includes all methods of transportation, such as sidewalks, streets, crosswalks, and bike lanes. The greater the variety of pathways a person has, the better accessibility they have to the services being provided. Once residents have a connectivity, they are able to take advantage of services that are offered within their transportation network. These services include education for all ages, health care of all specialties, and career development for the workforce. Those who have the best access to these services have been shown to achieve greater success economically over their lifetimes. Similarly, if a neighborhood has increased accessibility, then the community has more opportunity to succeed economically; making accessibility an ever-important issue. 24 Map 3
  26. 26. Accessibility of a neighborhood is measured by the experience, ease and convenience of traveling to daily needs and services. This is typically calculated by exploring urban design. Urban design is the physical arrangement of buildings and streets in the neighborhood. Accessibility is also analyzed by examining existing transportation infrastructure, such as bike lanes and public transit. The combination of urban design and transportation infrastructure influence personal travel behavior for accessing daily needs and services. Through site visits, general research, community survey data, and a walkability audit, the Urban & Environmental Economics students at the University of Utah have found that the neighborhoods surrounding the CLC have reasonable access to opportunities and jobs outside of Glendale via infrequent, but consistent bus service that connects residents to regional transit. Locally, there is a high demand for safe, walkable and bicycle-friendly streets. Much of the infrastructure needed to create such streets already exists. However, a majority of families would greatly benefit from an increased number of thoughtfully-designed crosswalks, more bike lanes, and remedies for specific barriers to walkability. 25
  27. 27. TRANSPORTATION Glendale has an educational cluster which includes classes provided by the CLC, Glendale Middle School, and Mountain View Elementary School. The community has a grocery store, small shopping center, dual immersion academy, and a public library. There is ample access to parks and green space and the unique recreational opportunity offered by the Jordan River Parkway. Within a mile buffer of the CLC, there are multiple bus stops that provide locals with regional access to services and jobs outside of the community, namely routes 509, 516 and 513. Route 509 and Route 516 provide the most service with buses running every thirty minutes on weekdays covering the morning and evening commutes. Hourly service is offered on Saturdays. These bus routes provide locals with access to Downtown West Valley Central Station, Salt Lake Central Station, Courthouse Station where TRAX lines converge, and Central Pointe Station, a hub for many bus lines and the S Line Street Car. Route 513, the Industrial Business Park Shuttle, provides the least service to the community. This bus route attempts to cover morning and evening commutes, there are two pick-up times in the morning and two drop-off times in the evening. The route reaches many industrial business parks and runs between the Salt Lake Central Station and the West Valley Central Station. Overall, the regional access provided for the community by bus is fair. The route schedules are infrequent, but the hours of service and number of routes are better than many neighborhoods at a similar distance from downtown. These routes connect to regional transportation hubs and help families reach jobs and services. Although schedules are infrequent, individuals can use these routes to access the nearby TRAX, Frontrunner, and Streetcar lines, which allows them to travel out of the community to meet their needs. In every community, there are individuals who have their access severely limited because they are excluded from the dominant, most convenient mode of Transporation to School Figure 18 Car Ownership ComparisonFigure 19 26 *GNI Survey, 2015 *American Community Survey, 2013
  28. 28. transportation. Age, disability status, and low incomes often play a role in private vehicle access and use. These individuals use sidewalks, bike lanes, and public transportation to access their everyday needs. These are the most basic methods of travel and carry residents of all socioeconomic status, age, and ability to the places that they work, live, learn, and play. To understand how people within Glendale access daily needs and services, the GNI Survey included questions on where community members live, transportation and access to education. The GNI Survey deduced that 9.7% of respondents do not have access to a vehicle (Figure 17). In comparison, in Salt Lake City, 12.4% of people do not have a vehicle available for use. Although the community has a better rate of vehicle access than Salt Lake City as a whole, it is important to note that individuals within the 12.4% may be able to choose to not own a vehicle being that walking and biking is easy within the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. This is very different individuals who may not have the means to own a vehicle or may have to share one vehicle between family members. Access No Access 112 12 90.3% 9.7% Vehicle Access Individuals % Access to Vehicle Figure 17 27 *GNI Survey, 2015
  29. 29. WALKABILITYInterestingly, when community members were asked which mode of transportation their children used to access school, nearly 30% re- ported that their child or children walk or bike to school. This finding exceeds the national average of students who walk or bike to school by 16% (NHTS, 4).* (Figure #: Figure Heading) The high percentage of stu- dents walking and biking to school indicates that the community has a high demand for safe streets that encourage walking and biking. Efforts to increase acces- sibility on the local level will directly benefit fami- lies because the majority of the families that use CLC services and have children who attend Mountain View Elemen- tary and Glendale Mid- dle School, live nearby. Therefore, they would benefit greatly from new bike lanes, crosswalks, and bicycle parking. The vast majority of streets in this community have well-maintained sidewalks. There are a great number of ramps throughout Glendale that comply with the Americans with Dis- abilities Act (ADA), especially at street intersections. Many blocks within the neighborhood are small enough to encourage connectivity and walkability. Some blocks within the neighborhoods are very large, resulting in fewer crosswalks and connections to nearby streets. However, the crosswalks that exist are in strategic locations along the main roads includ- 28 Map 4
  30. 30. Bike lanes are provided on California Avenue and Indiana Avenue. Many of the residential streets have to potential to be bicycle-friendly, but do not have designated bike lanes. Additions of designated bike lanes could increase accessibility to the educational cluster. Bike lanes along Van Buren Avenue and Cheyenne Street could provide neighborhoods to the west and south of the CLC with more convenient access to the site. New bike lanes along 1300 South, Montgomery Street, and Glendale Drive could facilitate more connectivity to neighborhoods north of the CLC. Lastly, an additional bike lane along Andrew Avenue could connect to the Jordan River Trail and provide neighborhoods east of the river greater access to the CLC and schools. Urban design characteristics that contribute to walkability were measured by a walkability audit. The audit was performed following the procedures within the Measuring Urban Design Field Manual. These procedures involve determining street segments to be evaluated, walking along those streets, and taking notes of the presence or absence of a variety of urban design features. 29
  31. 31. WALKABILITYThe field guide divides these characteristics into five categories: Imageability: Quality of a place that makes it distinct, recognizable and memorable Enclosure: The degree to which streets, and other public spaces, are visually defined by buildings, walls trees, and other vertical elements Human Scale: The size, texture, and articulation of physical elements that match the size and proportions of humans, and correspond to the speed at which humans walk Transparency: The degree to which people can see or perceive what lies beyond the edge of a street or other public space and, more specifically, the degree to which people can see or perceive human activity beyond the edge of a street or other public space Complexity: The visual richness of a place, specifically the numbers and kinds of buildings, architectural diversity and ornamentation, landscape elements, street furniture, signage, and human activity This data is then compiled and scored using the field manual. Four street segments were analyzed using this evaluation (Figure 20). These segments were selected due to their diverse use (residential and commercial) and proximity to the CLC. All assessments are compared with other streets within the Glendale neighborhood. California Ave (Concord - Stewert) Imageability - Characteristics that contribute to a higher score include the number of non-rectangular buildings, presence of outdoor dining, and people. Enclosure Enclosure scored low due to the wide open spaces present, and the lack of enclosing features, such as buildings on sidewalk fronts serving as an enclosing street wall. Human Scale Human score scaled well when compared to the rest of the neighborhood due to the presence of commercial buildings with street level windows within 10 feet of the sidewalk. Transparency Transparency scored slightly higher than other streets within this area due to the presence of commercial buildings with street level windows within 10 feet of the sidewalk that implied human activity beyond the street edge. Complexity Complexity scored high in this area due to the presence of outdoor dining and visible street art. Glendale (Dale - Navajo) Imageability Imageability scored low due to the lack of any parks, plazas, historic buildings, and the presence of outdoor dining. Enclosure Enclosure scored low due to the wide open spaces present, and the lack of enclosing features, such as buildings on sidewalk fronts serving as an enclosing street wall. Human Scale Human scale scored low due to low building heights, zero windows at street level within 10 feet of the sidewalk, and low numbers of street furniture. Transparency - Transparency scored low due to low building heights, zero windows at street level within 10 feet of the sidewalk and little diversity in street uses. Complexity Complexity scored low due to a lack of outdoor dining, street art, the presence of people, few building and accent colors, and overall total of buildings. 30
  32. 32. For further comparison, the following are the scores on the high end for street segments near City Creek Center. Improved urban design principles, including an emphasis on walkability and bike- friendliness could drastically change the accessibility for people in this neighborhood to their services. It could also improve the health of the residents who would be moving more and driving less. Through the physical environment, citizens are connected to the places where they can live, play, learn, and work. Accessibility includes the ability to connect with the services that will improve the health and status of the residents. These services are greatly needed and highly used by the residents of the area Street Segment California Ave (Concord - Stewert) California Ave (100W - Concord St) Glendale (Navajo - 1300S) Glendale (Dale - Navajo) Imageability 5.91 5.37 3.46 3.25 Enclosure 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.89 Human Scale 2.37 2.06 1.98 2.02 Transparency 1.95 1.76 1.82 1.98 Complexity 6.14 4.53 4.61 4.51 Total 17.26 14.54 12.76 12.65 Glendale Walkability AnalysisFigure 20 Street Segment Near City Creek Imageability 8.37 Enclosure 2.1 Human Scale 3.2 Transparency 3.76 Complexity 11.09 Total 28.52 City Creek Walkability AnalysisFigure 21 California Ave. from 1100W to Concord St. Glendale Dr. from Dale St. to Navajo St. 31 Images Courtesy Google Maps
  33. 33. SOCIAL RESOURCES As discussed earlier, the neighborhoods of Glendale and Mountain View are both areas of low income and refugee placement. This raises some interesting questions about accessibility in social and service context. What is the role of the Community Learning Center in addressing accessibility issues, and its importance in the community as a whole in meeting the needs of community members? Specifically in an accessibility context, which services were most utilized by the community and what that usage said about resource access in the surrounding neighborhoods. Access to social resources such as health care, education, and career development tools are crucial to low income and refugee placement neighborhoods. These groups are often the most vulnerable members of society from both a social and financial standpoint. These services can help improve the quality of life of the residents of Glendale and Mountain View by increasing their education level, improving their health, and giving them the skills they need to advance or expand their career paths. In order to determine which services were being used most often at the Community Learning Center, we conducted the GNI survey which among other things, asked what services community members utilized and how often they used them. This was conducted at the Community Learning Center and the adjacent middle and elementary schools at classes being taught at the CLC and during the hours parents were dropping off and picking up their children. The survey was written in both English and Spanish to facilitate greater participation among community members. As we handed out these surveys, we were impressed by the sense of community at the CLC. It seemed that staff members not only knew community members by name, but also knew about their children, their jobs, and some of their struggles. This sense of community created an atmosphere of trust wherein this potentially sensitive data could be collected. After conducting the survey and compiling the data, we are able to make some interesting Where Do People Go for Health Concerns Average Usage of CLC Services Figure 22 Figure 23 32 *GNI Survey, 2015 *GNI Survey, 2015
  34. 34. observations concerning accessibility to social and health services within the community. In presenting our findings, we hope to illustrate the important role which the Community Learning Center plays within the neighborhoods of Glendale and Mountain View. Addressing first the category of health access, we wanted to see where people were going for their primary health care. Among the people surveyed over half (57.4%) relied mainly upon the local clinic at the Community Learning Center. The reasoning for this statistic becomes clearer when looking at a map of health care facilities within the neighborhood. We can see that the CLCs clinic is the only health care facility within the relative center of the neighborhood with other facilities being located around the peripheries. In addition to over half of those surveyed relying on the Community Learning Center for their health care, another interesting statistic was that only 3.5% of the survey takers relied on the emergency room for their health care. The reason that this is interesting is because of recent media claims that emergency room services are abused and overwhelmed by patients who may lack access to more traditional delivery systems for health care services. Our survey results suggest that the CLC Clinic plays a significant role in service provision in the neighborhood. While the suggestion is speculative, it stands to reason that the CLC Clinic may help to reduce ER dependence for non- emergency medical care. CLC services touch the vast majority of lives among those surveyed; 75% said they access a CLC service (social, health, or otherwise) at least once a month. The most used programs at the CLC are Adult Education, Youth Enrichment, Health and Wellness Education, Health and Wellness Services, and Early Childhood Programs. This sheds light on the role that Community Learning Center plays in providing services to the neighborhood. Education and health seem to be the most important services available to community members whereas services focused on leadership and civic engagement are less popular, and might be a lower priority to those who go to the CLC. 33
  35. 35. ACCESSIBILITY Finally, it is interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of survey takers were females, and between the ages of 25-39. This helps us understand the demographic of those coming to the Community Learning Center. It also tells us that the CLC and its services, including adult education and health care, seem most accessible to women; there may thus be opportuni- ties to expand service provision to male community members who may have different barriers to access. It seems that the Community Learning Center gives good access to resources to the surrounding neighborhoods, and not only can help those community members improve their health, but also their education. From our survey data, we can see that it is an integral part of the community whose presence increases access to health and social services for everyone living in the neighborhood. The CLC offers opportunities for positive externalities to occur as community members engage in its services, in particular the education classes. Educating those living within the neighborhood can affect those who do not attend class through informal methods of knowl- edge exchange. People who use CLC services are able to become more familiar with language, culture, and health and are able to spread this knowledge to other community members to increase the education level of the neighborhood as a whole. With the analysis of accessibility in the Glendale and Mountain View neighborhoods, the idea of connecting people to services is obviously vital to their wellbeing. The built environment features buildings and infrastructure that networks residents with their places of work, schools, and services. There is a limited amount of non-automobile transport options for them, even though 1 in 10 people do not have access to a car. Urban design analysis helped to uncover the reasons for these transportation issues, and shed light on the strengths of the neighborhood. Its clear that the services offered by the Community Learning Center, including health care, education, and social connections are much loved and highly used. They offer accessibility to aspects of life that are uncommon for people who are transitioning to the American life, or simply have limited means. The beneficial externalities, including integration of people into the neighborhood and culture as a whole, have had a remarkable impact on the residents. Hopeful- ly, these services and infrastructure will grow and improve to impact more and more people in need. 34
  36. 36. CONCLUSION 4 35
  37. 37. CONCLUSION Since the doors opened in 2013, the CLC has been a vital part of the Glendale commu- nity by providing members of the community with services that go far beyond the classroom with a number of activities for both children and adults. The community that frequents the CLC is a diverse one. It is made up largely of ethnic minorities with a large number of native Spanish speakers from numerous countries and a fairly large refugee population from Bur- ma and Somalia. In many ways the Glendale communi- ty could be considered a typical blue-collar American neighborhood. Unfortunately, like many American blue-collar neighborhoods there are economic disparities within the com- munity. As mentioned in earlier text, a large percentage of Glendale residents generally live in a lower socioeconomic level compared to Salt Lake City. Housing affordability is problem- atic, likely resulting in high household mobility. Health care access is provided through a vari- ety of sources, the CLC being a one of the main sources, unlike more affluent areas where res- idents might more commonly rely on tradition- al doctors offices. Though data could not be provisioned, the poor air quality in Glendale, worse than Salt Lake Citys, is problematic for the health of sensitive populations. Such disparities result in steeper barri- ers to resources that might lead to neighbor- hood and household success. One such exam- ple is housing mobility, which leads to children changing schools more often than experts believe is beneficial. As was noted earlier, the main reasons why people in this communi- ty move out are economic and employment reasons. Roughly half of the residents of these neighborhoods have lived in the area for less than five years. This forces children to relocate and move away from important resources such as the CLC. The CLC strives to provide residents with access to resources that all households, regardless of economic background, require for success and well-being. Thus, accessibility to the CLC is critical. While studying Glendale, it was discovered that certain urban design fea- tures increased the walkability of the neighbor- hood. This was confirmed when it was discov- ered that nearly 30% of the children either bike or walk to the CLC. Additionally, its important to emphasize that 10% of those that were surveyed do not have access to an automobile. This makes public transportation an important issue to those that visit the CLC from further distances. Outside the CLC there are many ame- nities for the people of Glendale within walk- ing distance, including other nearby schools, a library, and recreation opportunities at the Jordan River Parkway. However, due to infre- quent bus routes and a lack of connectivity to TRAX and Frontrunner, public transportation is a desired amenity. A few improvements to accessibility would greatly improve the overall health of the neighborhood, while also benefit- ing the CLC. In closing, the analysis of the socioeco- nomic condition of the neighborhood and the use of CLC services leads to the conclusion that the CLC is an immeasurable asset to the com- munity. It is a safe haven for some of the most marginalized groups in our society. The CLC is a place of education, recreation, and cultural exchange. Most importantly, for the women and children who make up an overwhelm- ing majority of those who attend the CLCs programs, it is a part of their everyday lives. Through this research it has become clear how important the CLC is to this community and to the State of Utah. 36
  38. 38. WORKS CITEDMaps by Stephen Hanamaikai, Photos by Ethan Ray Investopedia. Service Sector Definition. 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 May 2015. Ganning, Joanna P. Housing Gap Analysis. 2015. Salt Lake City. 02 May 2015 Salt Lake City Planning Commission, comp. West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. (1994): (page 6)t Salt Lake City Documents. City of Salt Lake, 21 Mar. 1995. Web. 01 May 2015. Smart, Christopher. Indiana Avenue the Changing Face of Salt Lake Citys West Side. Salt Lake Tribune. MediaNews Group, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 01 May 2015. United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table B25118. Web. 3 May 2015. . United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table B25056. Web. 3 May 2015. . United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table DP03. Web. 3 May 2015. . United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table S2401. Web. 3 May 2015. United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table S2301. Web. 3 May 2015. . United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table B08013. Web. 4 May 2015. . United States Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, Table B08141. Web. 4 May 2015. . Utah Transit Authority. 2014. Web. 4 May 2015. . 37