ignite lakeland 2014 survey summary

IGNITE LAKELAND SURVEY SUMMARY

CRAFTING A VISION

FOR DOWNTOWN

LAKELAND

Using online data collection

Board & Committee revised instrument

Validated Questions

Consistent Response scales

Goal: Match City Values Study

Data Collection – July/August 2014

2

GATHERING INPUT

IGNITE Lakeland 2014

20 multiple-choice/Likert-type scales

1 – 5 response scale (As bad as. . . The best anywhere)

3 classification variables

Multiple opportunities for subjective

responses

3

SURVEY INSTRUMENT


902 survey participants

>200 did not complete the full

survey

> 3,200 open-ended comments

Several significant common themes

4

RESPONSE RATES


1. Relatively high level of engagement, diverse

and mostly representative of the population

2. 7 of 14 Factors associated with successful

downtowns rated “Better than Most”

3. 5 Factors rated “OK, not bad, not good”

4. Only 2 factors rated “Bad, but there are worse”

5. No “Best Anywhere” or “Worst Anywhere”

6. Missing elements focus on retail, activities,

parking and walkability/bikeability

5

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS


AGE of RESPONDENTS

6

Under 25 4%

25 - 34 yrs 22%

35 - 44 yrs 25%

45 - 54 yrs 23%

55 - 64 yrs 17%

65 or older 9%

Under 25 25 - 34 yrs 35 - 44 yrs 45 - 54 yrs 55 - 64 yrs 65 or older


RESPONDENTS’ GENDER

7

Female, 61.2%

Male, 38.6%

Female Male


WORK or LIVE THERE?

8

Live in Downtown,

8.3%

Work in Downtown,

24.4%

Both Live & Work, 5.5%

Only Visit or Shop, 56.1%

Other, 5.6%

Live in Downtown Work in Downtown Both Live & Work

Only Visit or Shop Other


HOW OFTEN VISIT?

9

Once a week, 41.5% Once per

month, 37.6%

Several times per year, 16.8%

Once or twice per year, 4.1%

Other, 7.2%

Once a week Once per month Several times per year

Once or twice per year Other


WALKABILITY

10

0.0%20.0%

40.0%60.0%

80.0%

Bad as can be, 0.0%

Bad, but there are worse,

1.9%

Not bad, not good, OK,

26.2%

Good, better than most,

66.6%

Best Anywhere,

5.3%


SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES

11

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Bad as can be, 0.3%


4.1%


36.5%


54.5%

Best Anywhere,

4.6%


ATTRACT YOUNG TALENT

12

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

Bad as can be, 3.3%


17.0%


46.8%


30.0%

Best Anywhere,

2.9%


DISTINCTIVENESS

13

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Not at all, 3.0%

Not very, 12.4%

Neither or not, 16.9%

Somewhat, 51.4%

Very Distinctive,

16.3%


NEW PLACES to EXPLORE?

14

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Bad as can be, 4.3%


22.4%


51.0%


20.1%

Best Anywhere,

2.2%


VARIETY of PLACES

15

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

No Variety, 3.0%

Not much Variety, 12.4%

Average Variety, 16.9%

Some, but could be

better, 51.4%

Great Amounts of Variety,

16.3%


EQUITABLE PROVISION

16

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

As Bad as can be

Bad, but there are worse places

Not bad, not good, just OK

Good, better than most places

The best anywhere

Resources Services Mobility

Retail Oppty Employment Parks/greenspace

Public amenities Hardships Nuisances

LEGIBILITY?

17

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Bad as can be, 1.3%


7.5%


32.7%


53.5%

Best Anywhere,

5.1%


RELATED NEIGHBORHOODS

18

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

No viable linkages, 7.3%

A few linkages, 43.9%

Average , 26.3%

Good number of linkages,

17.4%

Impressive number, 5.1%


HOUSING MKT is STRONG

19

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%

Not at all True, 19.5%

False, getting better, 35.0%

Not sure, 22.5%

Somewhat True, 17.3%

Definitely True, 5.7%


CLEANLINESS

20

0.0%20.0%

40.0%60.0%

80.0%

Bad as can be, 0.1%


4.4%


14.2%


69.9%

Best Anywhere,

11.3%


PERSONAL SECURITY

21

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Bad as can be, 0.7%


8.9%


27.4%


56.1%

Best Anywhere,

6.9%


REGIONAL ACCESSABILITY

22

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

Bad as can be, 3.7%


16.3%


43.0%


33.0%

Best Anywhere,

3.8%


CULTURAL DIVERSITY

23

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

Bad as can be, 3.2%


16.8%


48.2%


28.7%

Best Anywhere,

3.1%


CULTURAL INTERACTION

24

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%

Bad as can be, 3.2%


15.9%


51.5%


27.2%

Best Anywhere,

2.2%


25

RANK DIMENSION OF GREAT DOWNTOWNS Score Comments

1 Cleanliness 3.88 28

2 Walkability 3.75 75

3 Distinctiveness 3.66 77

4 Personal Security 3.59 60

5 Social Interaction 3.59 69

6 Legibility 3.53 52

7 Variety 3.32 38

8 Accessibility 3.17 58

9 Young Talent 3.12 76

10 Cultural Diversity 3.12 38

11 Cultural Interact 3.09 27

12 New Experiences 2.93 64 13 Relate to Surroundings 2.69 73

14 Diverse & Strong Housing Market 2.55 56

Missing Elements (1,191 comments)

26

Count Q. 20: List any missing elements that you believe are

necessary for the success of Downtown Lakeland

270 Need more retail, more specialty shops, greater variety

of retail, clothing stores, grocery stores, etc.

76 Retail comments were specific to restaurants

115 Need more events, activities, concerts, food trucks, etc.

Especially family-friendly activities

101 Parking, more of it available, for Free, longer-term, etc.

53 Walkability, public transportation, bicycle-friendly


Measureable Outcomes (935 comments)

27

Count

Q. 21: In your opinion, what do you believe should be the

top 3 measureable outcomes for programs initiated by

Ignite Lakeland over the next 2 years?

173 The number and type of businesses

139 The number of events and/or the number of people

attending events

92 The number and/or type of residential units

53 The level of safety (i.e, absence of crime)


IGNITE LAKELAND 2014

Citizen Vision Survey

QUESTIONS

&

Discussion

ignite lakeland 2014 survey summary

Real Estate

downtown lakeland

downtown work

live work

worse places

variety of places

survey instrument

average variety

survey participants