The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCowan and Church-Investigating Neighborhood Character in the Northeast Neighborhood of Bozeman MTInvestigatingNeighborhood Character In the Northeast Neighborhood of Bozeman, MT Dr. Susanne Cowan, Dr. Sarah P. Church, Brennan Radulski, Ryen Dalvit, Kip Giddings, Jack Rosenthal, & Joe Peoria 2022 Copyright August 2022 Montana State University School of Architecture Image copyrights are held by their respective creators. School of Architecture PO Box 173760 Bozeman, MT 59717-3760 arch.montana.edu architect@montana.edu Introduction.................................... Research Methods......................... Demographics................................ Home Sizes & Styles...................... Social Infrastructure...................... Neighborhood Perceptions.......... Synthesis and Application............ Appendix......................................... Table of Contents Investigating Neighborhood Character in the Northeast Neighborhood of Bozeman, MT 2 22 36 54 102 132 156 166 e following pages introduce the research project and team members involved in the process. Introduction Project Abstract....................................... About the Neighborhood....................... Meet the Team......................................... Neighborhood History............................. Settlement Patterns................................ Zoning........................................................ History of Planning.................................. Perceived Challenges.............................. 4 6 8 12 14 16 18 19 Project Abstract is study examines the changes occurring in the built environment and in the social character of the Northeast neighborhood of Bozeman. is project was initiated at the request of the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) whose members are concerned that growth is negatively impacting the unique character, aff ordability, and informal social interactions of their neighborhood. Working with the city of Bozeman and NENA, this project aims to document the existing character of the neighborhood and social, economic, and architectural changes as perceived by residents who participated in this research. Between Spring 2020 and Summer 2022, faculty and students from three MSU departments conducted and analyzed a physical inventory of the built environment, a survey, the PhotoVoicesNE report, and interviews of residents. e data collected here may be used by the city of Bozeman and NENA to develop neighborhood planning tools. 4 5 and increased 173% to $692,275 in 2022. is is part of an increase in housing costs across the rest of the city. In the city of Bozeman, the average home value has increased from $351,465.17 in 2015 to $703,577 in 2022. According to Zumper Rent Research, median rents have increased 149% during the same period and jumped from $737/month to $1,833/month for a 1-bedroom apartment. Tax assessments show that for many homes in the Northeast neighborhood, the land is more valuable than the small historic homes built on the land. is has led recent homebuyers to demolish or extensively renovate historic homes. e new buildings often maximize zoning code allowances, leading to much larger and more expensive homes, which are less aff ordable to local workers. ese larger homes also have smaller yards which may be decreasing the culture of informal social interactions in front yards and back alleyways. ese recent changes have spurred conversation between Northeast neighborhood residents and city staff about how to preserve the character of the neighborhood in the face of social, economic, and physical changes. Welcome About the Neighborhood e NENA website states the neighborhood extends from North Broadway Avenue on the east, North Grand Avenue on the west, Mendenhall Street on the south and Oak Street on the north. Historically the north side of Bozeman was known for its working-class character with smaller less elaborate homes and lower income residents than South of Main Street. is area is a desirable place to live due to its proximity to the downtown area and walking distance to restaurants, coff ee shops, and parks. e Northeast neighborhood is described in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle as “a place where up-and- coming companies mix with small homes sporting not-so- secret gardens, and where Bozeman’s artistic talents are on full display” (Williams, 2004). While walking through the neighborhood, one can see quaint homes and boisterously decorated sheds and alleyways. Residents garden, sit on the porch, and children play in yards. e mix of industrial buildings, commercial spaces, artist’s studios, and open spaces provide variety to the otherwise residential area. e neighborhood fosters community and its residents hold a strong sense of pride for their unique homes and the funky local character. e Northeast neighborhood is a fast-growing community in Bozeman, MT. As new residents from around the country move into the area, there are increasing housing demand and development pressures. In the past decade, the Northeast neighborhood has seen an increase in home values and land costs. According to Zillow Research, the typical home value in the northeast area of Bozeman in 2015 was $253,284 Source: PhotoVoices NE, P. 16, 17, 23, 24 6 to the Northeast Neighborhood 7 is research project was a collaborative eff ort between Montana State University (MSU), the city of Bozeman staff , and the NENA VisionNE working group. It involved an inventory of all the homes in the neighborhood, a survey and interviews with residents, and analysis of local zoning and development policies. At MSU this project involved faculty and students from the Architecture, Earth Sciences, and Land Resources and Environmental Sciences departments. Independent study students created data gathering tools and analyzed the existing data from the city and NENA. Faculty also coordinated service learning projects with students in several courses to develop project goals, identify precedents from other cities, and collect and analyze data. After receiving an Outreach and Engagement Seed Grant from MSU, the team hired several Research Assistants to complete data collection and analyze the data. Classes Involved Architecture 452 - Research Methods Architecture 523- Issues in City Planning Environmental Science 492 - Independent Research Geography 365- Geographical Planning Geography 490R - Independent Study Geography 520 - Land Use Planning Meet the Team 8 S arah Ros e n b ergDr. Susanne Cowan (School of Architecture, MSU), as an architectural historian, has developed tools for the architecture inventory. She applied her training in participatory design to co-develop the survey and interview protocols. She oversaw the creation of this report combining the work of the various collaborators. Dr. Sarah P. Church (Department of Earth Sciences, MSU), as a planner, has expertise in social science methodology, stakeholder engagement, and land use policy. She co-developed the inventory, the survey, and interview protocols. She helped guide analysis and outputs for the project. Nicholas Fox (Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, MSU) used his knowledge of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to help develop the inventory and mapping tools to gather and analyze the physical data. Dani Hess (City of Bozeman), as the Community Engagement Coordinator, has worked to coordinate the relationship between the city, MSU, and NENA. She provided guidance on neighborhood engagement approaches. Phillipe Gonzales (City of Bozeman), as the Historic Preservation Specialist, gave feedback on the physical inventory and on how this data can be applied in city policies. Sarah Rosenberg (City of Bozeman), as an Associate Planner, provided feedback on how the research from this project could be applied to the creation and implementation of city policies and plans.Dr. S u s a nne Co w a nDr. S a r a h P. Ch u r c hN ic h o las Fox Dani He s s P hillipe Go n z ales9 Research Assistant, Qualitative Analysis Independent Study Student, PhotovoicesNE analysis Independent Study Student, ArcGIS Survey 123 coding Research Assistant, Inventory Data Collection, Analysis, and Qualitative Analysis Research Assistant, Inventory Data Collection and Analysis Research Assistant, Data Visualiztion and Graphic DesignBrennan Raduls k i J o e P eoria K y l i e Moore Jack Ros e n thalKip Gidd i n g sRyen Da l v it10 11 Neighborhood History Bozeman began as an agricultural community with the opening of the Bozeman trail, a subtrail of the Oregon trail. e Northeast neighborhood developed after the arrival of the railroad in 1883. In anticipation of growth, the Northern Paciﬁ c plotted streets near the rails, followed by other residential plots connecting downtown to the new railway. Bozeman, especially the Northeast neighborhood, became an important hub for processing and transporting agricultural goods, and Nelson Story created one of the largest mills in Montana. e creation of the land grant Agricultural College of the State of Montana in 1893 brought additional growth to the town. While the panic of 1893 slowed development, most blocks in the neighborhood had some Victorian style construction by 1900. Building continued in the 1910s and 20s as the area became solidly working class, and contractors built homes for themselves in the bungalow style. In the 1940s after World War II, the nationwide housing shortage spurred further growth and inﬁ lled many of the blocks with Minimalist Traditional homes aff ordable to the average worker. In the 1960s, simple one- and two-story apartment complexes added diversity to the housing stock. 12 Photo Credit: (DHM Design, Bozeman's Northeast Neighborhood 2018) By the 1980s, downtown historic neighborhoods had become less desirable as suburban homes on the outskirts became more popular. Many historic neighborhoods across the United States faced decline as their aged structures required expensive renovations. Development in the Northeast neighborhood picked up in the early 2000s and after the housing recovery in 2013. Historic buildings have been modeled into contemporary commercial spaces. New inﬁ ll mixed-use and multi-family inﬁ ll developments have appeared along the border with downtown, and on vacant industrial properties in the northeast quadrant. Recent years have also seen increasing numbers of tear-downs or extensive renovations and additions, consequentially adding more height and lot coverage to the residential blocks in the neighborhood. New local businesses have made the area a popular recreation destination for locals, and made the neighborhood even more appealing to buyers and visitors. 13 Settlement Patterns Much of the diverse architectural character of the neighborhood stems from its original development patterns. Part of the variety dates back to the subdivision process; the neighborhood was plotted as part of eight separate additions, each with a slightly diff erent block pattern. While the most common pattern is a longer north-south block with a central alley, this is far from consistent across the neighborhood. Some blocks are square or irregular shaped. Not every block includes an alley, and some blocks are oriented with homes on the east-west street. On most blocks, the majority of the houses are single family detached homes with an occasional duplex or apartment building. e architectural diversity on the blocks originated from slow development. e boom bust cycle of growth, and the fact that the area was less attractive to higher income groups at the turn of the century means that the area inﬁ lled gradually, with homes built over 60 or more years rather than one or two decades. A Sanborn map to the right shows how parts of the block were built out by 1927, while the other lots are empty. is pattern was irregular, and created some blocks with empty lots between Victorian homes. Some of these lots were later inﬁ lled with Craftsman houses by the 1930s, and Minimalist Traditional and Ranch homes were added by the 1960s. e new pattern of tear downs and inﬁ ll development continues to reinforce this variety, creating blocks with homes built over an 130 year period. 14 Courtesy of Proquest Sanborn Maps of Montana Sanborn Insurance Map, Bozeman, 1927 15 Zoning e R-2 zoning district is intended as a moderate density residential district. e R-2 district, which covers most of the southeast portion of the neighborhood, allows for development in the form of one and two households. e maximum lot coverage is 40%. Depending on roof pitch the maximum height is 24 to 36 feet. e R-3 zoning district, which covers a large part of the southwest quadrant, is intended to serve medium density residential areas with development of one to ﬁ ve household structures. e maximum lot coverage is 40%. Depending on roof pitch, the maximum height is 32 to 42 feet. e R-4 high density residential zoning district, covering most of the northwest quadrant of the neighborhood, is intended to promote high-density development by allowing a multitude of housing types and services which include single and multi- household dwellings and the ability to use households as an offi ce for a secondary use. e maximum lot coverage is 50%. Depending on roof pitch, the maximum height is 34 to 44 feet. us far, there is very little high density development in this zone of the neighborhood. However, this area may be attractive to redevelopment opportunities over time. e Northeast Historic Mixed-use District (NEHMU), located in the northeast quadrant, aims to “provide recognition of an area that has developed with a blend of uses not commonly seen under typical zoning requirements.” Zoning here allows up to 50 feet building height and 40% to 100% lot coverage, which has attracted taller and larger development to the area. e M-1 zoning district, located to the east of the neighborhood, is speciﬁ ed as a light manufacturing district. is manufacturing district is focused on providing wholesale trade, storage/warehousing, trucking/transportation terminals, and other light manufacturing facilities. ‘Light’ manufacturing is industrial manufacturing that does not have major negative eff ects on the surrounding residential development. e B-3 downtown business district on the southern border of the neighborhood encourages pedestrian oriented development on the lower level. It allows up to 70 feet building height and up to 100% lot coverage. is area is undergoing signiﬁ cant development with taller, denser housing, mixed-use development, hotels, and other commercial development. Overall, the range of zoning allows ﬂ exibility for increased density and walkability. While this ﬂ exibility, especially near the B-3 zone, makes the neighborhood vulnerable to changes in neighborhood charcater, it also allows for inﬁ ll development which can support concentrated rather than sprawling development in the Bozeman area (City of Bozeman 2021, Sec. 38.300 and 38.320). Zoning within the Northeast neighborhood and surrounding residential areas is diverse and allows for areas of manufacturing, high and medium density residential, commercial and retail uses. 16 Zoning Districts as Defi ned by the City of Bozeman Community Develompent Viewer 17 History of Planning in the Northeast Neighborhood In 1984, the city of Bozeman conducted a historic inventory, following national trends to use historic districts to protect and revitalize older residential areas. ey formed two historic districts in the Northeast neighborhood: the Bozeman Brewery and the North Tracy districts. However, very few homes were included in the Northside districts, because they were built after 1940, or they had been renovated so that they did not ﬁ t historic standards. In 1991, the city created the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), which though less strict than a historic district, created protection for most of the residential areas near downtown. In 1993, the city created the Story Mill Historic District which protected the iconic mills and railroad buildings just outside the neighborhood. In 2012, the city began to work with residents to consider creating another historic district. Residents were concerned it could negatively impact their home values and their freedom to renovate (Ricker 2012). While additional eff orts at a historic inventory were conducted by MSU in 2017, no additional district has been created. Together these preservation and conversation projects helped to protect and celebrate historic buildings in the area. Preservation e Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) formed in the early 2000s to organize neighbors around the proposed changes in the area. In 2000, NENA started hosting the Parade of Sheds to celebrate the alleyway culture of the neighborhood. NENA has aimed to maintain the aff ordability and funky character of the area. NENA formed the VisionNE working group to work closely with developers and the city tracking new development. NENA remains a locus of community organizing to engage citizens in issues facing the Northeast neighborhood. Organization In 2005, a portion of the neighborhood covering most of the northeast quadrant was declared “blighted” to allow the city to establish an Urban Renewal District. is new classiﬁ cation allows the city to use government funds and a Tax Increment Financing District to invest in infrastructure in the area, including streets and sewers (City of Bozeman GIS 2017). is was controversial because of the negative connotation of the word “blight,” and because it occurred as part of a speciﬁ c proposed development project (Easterling 2005). Renewal did spur new inﬁ ll development, which slowed during the Great Recession 2007-2012. Renewal Starting in 2013, the neighborhood entered another boom cycle. is new development caused concerns about a change in physical, economic and social character. In 2017, local developer inkTank worked with the city and MSU to bring a Regional and Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) from the American Institute of Architects to conduct a participatory study of future development in the neighborhood (AIA 2017). In 2019, the city hired consultants to study updates to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), with new guidelines for how to address the diff erences in the downtown and the areas to north and south (Bendon Adams 2019). In 2021-2 the city has been working on revision of the B-3 distirct zoning to address transitions with adjacent residential areas. Together these studies have highlighted the need to protect neighborhood character including aff ordability, as the area faces growth and gentriﬁ cation. Infi ll Devlopment 18 Perceived Challenges in the Northeast Neighborhood • Aging and decay of historic buildings • Demolition of “tear down” properties for larger inﬁ ll development • Construction or renovation of homes in “incompatible” Contemporary style • Loss of vernacular aesthetics of sheds, alley art, and self-build construction • Densiﬁ cation of the B-3 zone adjacent to downtown • Transition from industrial to Commercial and Mixed Use in the Northeast Historic Mixed Use District (NEHMU) Perceived Change in Architectural Character • Part-time residents and short-term rentals may lead to less community connections • New residents may be less connected to local traditions and social norms • Decline in social infrastructure undermining casual neighboring in yards • Fear of long-term residents moving due to economic pressures and loss of culture Perceived Change in Social Character • Small aging homes being purchased and torn down • Construction of larger more expensive homes • Increasing home ownership and rental costs not aff ordable to local working families • Increase in higher income groups such as out-of-state retirees, part-time residents, and investors Perceived Change in Economic Character Based on data from this project, and informal discussions with NENA VisionNE working group, the following challenges have been identiﬁ ed. 19 “More wealth does not equal more happiness. It takes people for that!” -PhotoVoicesNE, p. 9 is research project combines qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the current state of the built environment, and how residents perceive the changes to that environment. Project Context........................................ Neighborhood Inventory........................ PhotoVoicesNE........................................ Surveys ..................................................... Interviews................................................. Qualitative Coding................................... Limitations................................................ 24 26 28 30 30 31 32 Research Methods 24 Project Context is project includes quantitative and qualitative research including: an inventory of the architectural qualities of 767 homes, analysis of the PhotoVoicesNE photos and comments, a survey of 143 residents, and interviews with 9 residents. is project began in Spring 2020 when a member of the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) requested help from MSU with analyzing the results of the PhotoVoicesNE project. Over the Summer of 2020, the VisionNE working group discussed how to use the PhotoVoicesNE ﬁ ndings to advocate for changes to the development process which would protect neighborhood character. In Fall 2020, students at MSU helped to analyze precedents from other cities and Bozeman’s local code to see how NENA and the city could proceed in local planning. Feedback from city staff identiﬁ ed the need for more quantitative data collection. is study received approval from Montana State University’s Institutional Review Board (SC031221-EX). Data collection for this project began in November 2020 with a survey sent to residents. e inventory began in February 2021. Analysis of the data was completed in July 2022. Together these data describe the state of the physical and social character of the neighborhood in 2021 and 2022 and the opportunities and constraints it faces. 2555252252525525552525252552525525255525252525252522525252522555252252525252525255252252252225552525525255525252525555252525225522252222252255525555555555522255522522252552555552225252222525525 Bozeman Brewery Historic District Commercial Space 26 Neighborhood Inventory e physical data about the neighborhood’s settlement patterns and architectural character were gathered in a neighborhood inventory. A total of 767 inventoried residential structures makes up the dataset used for the analysis of the Northeast neighborhood. Commercial and business buildings were typically excluded from data collection unless they were a part of a residential block or mixed-use building. e development of the inventory began in Fall 2020 when Dr. Cowan’s Architecture 525 graduate class applied precedents from others cities to brainstorm approaches for an updated NCOD that would better protect architectural character. ey worked with NENA’s VisionNE group, city staff , and Dr. Church to identify data that needed to be gathered and developed and to test some initial inventory questions. e research team reﬁ ned these questions to include questions about the number of stories, the style, the materials, the colors, porches, decks, garages, carports, landscaping, and fences. Questions were answered regarding the front and the back of the property. Altogether, the survey included dozens of multiple choice questions for each home. Nicholas Fox and Kylie Moore created an ArcGIS Survey 123 tool that could be used as smartphone app to answer questions and collect the GPS location and photographs. Data collection started in Spring 2021 and was conducted by approximately 60 undergraduate students from Dr. Church’s Geography 365 class and Dr. Cowan’s Architecture 452 class. Each student surveyed approximately 6 homes, covering blocks in about half the neighborhood. From Summer 2021 until Spring 2022, Research Assistants, Kip Giddings and Jack Rosenthal completed the data collection. After most of the inventory data was collected, several NENA members conducted spot checks of the inventory on three separate blocks. Dr. Cowan also spot checked the question about the style of the homes. She then compared the categorization to the date of construction listed in Montana Cadastral. e inventory data was adjusted based on these checks, as described later in the Limitations page. Since collection was conducted by various parties in the ﬁ eld, housing locations that were entered in Survey123 had to be matched with their residential structure and respective city parcel. Giddings and Rosenthal connected this data to GIS maps and created initial maps for several of the questions. ey went through several rounds of mapping and tested multiple variables to identify correlations between style and other visual characteristics, such as number of stories or presence of decks. e ﬁ nal maps are included in this report. 27 Looking into the front yard of a home in the Neighborhood Inventory Report. 28 PhotoVoicesNE Research Method Introduction PhotoVoicesNE is a qualitative research approach used to encourage people to use photos to express their point of view as part of community engagement. PhotoVoicesNE was a community art project implemented by NENA in the summer of 2019. rough the project, NENA sought to document perceptions of the Northeast neighborhood. PhotoVoicesNE participants were recruited through a NENA newsletter article, inviting neighborhood residents to take photos of elements of the neighborhood that they enjoyed or wished to celebrate. Over 80 photos and voices (captions) were submitted and then compiled by NENA. e exhibit was publically displayed at a community art installation in August 2019. During the course of the exhibit, neighbors were invited to view the photos and associated captions and add their own comments related to the selected photos; over 425 people attended the event. e photos and captions, as well as the comments on the photos written by visitors during the course of the exhibit, were then compiled and saved into a report. Top: Story Mill at Sunset Bottom: ‘Bright Colors = Happy Neighborhood!” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 11, 19 29 In Fall 2019, a NENA member reached out to MSU for help in analyzing the data from the PhotoVoicesNE report. In Spring 2020, students in Architecture 452 made an initial attempt to identify themes. In Fall 2020 as part of an independent study project, Joe Peoria advised by Dr. Church conducted an analysis of themes in the photos, captions, and comments to understand what people loved and feared in the neighborhood. To develop these themes, the team developed an initial coding framework, where a categorical label or code was created for each new idea presented in the coding captions. Once the initial coding process was completed, they presented codes and demonstrative examples to members of NENA. Following NENA’s feedback, they added additional codes based upon elements they found important, but which were not included in the initial coding framework that included eight overarching codes (community and people; community A Northeast neighborhood resident enjoys a local beer. Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 16 design; community identity; future concerns; location and interconnectedness; neighborhood uniqueness) and 28 subcodes. Additional analysis entailed documentation of how the values in the PhotoVoicesNE aligned with the objectives of city of Bozeman plans and ordinances. e PhotoVoicesNE report (NENA 2019) and the analysis resport (Peoria and Church 2019) are both available online. Images, captions and analysis from both reports are included in this document. A young Northeast neighborhood resident rides her bike on a trail. Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 16 30 Surveys To build upon the survey data, the research team conducted a series of interviews with residents in the Northeast neighborhood. Dr. Cowan and the students in Architecture Research Methods (Arch 452) at MSU developed the interview guide used to conduct the semi-structured interviews with residents. e guide included questions that asked residents about the length of time that they had been living in the neighborhood and living in Montana; their general perceptions of neighborhood, changes to neighborhood, and their neighborhood community; how public and private spaces are used; and their perceptions of NENA. Interview volunteers were recruited through the NENA listserv and Facebook page and chosen based on availability and geography, with interviewees chosen from all four quadrants of the neighborhood. ese diverse local residents varied in tenure from 1 to 45 years of residence in the neighborhood and included residents of both historic and new homes. In addition to developing the interview guide, the ARCH 452 class at MSU conducted the semi-structured interviews with 9 residents in-person or over Zoom due to COVID-19 health precautions. e students then transcribed the resulting audio by hand or with artiﬁ cial intelligence software. e research team developed an online survey to measure residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards the neighborhood and the changes taking place there. Most of the questions were multiple choice and several included the option to choose all the answers that apply. ere were also several open-ended questions which asked about how residents would describe the neighborhood, their general attitudes towards neighborhood change, what residents think should stay the same in the neighborhood for the future, problems or concerns residents had about the neighborhood, and their attitudes towards elected offi cials and government employees’ responsiveness. e research team distributed the online survey to the residents through Qualtrics. ey advertised the survey to residents through a NENA newsletter that was delivered in physical copies to residents’ homes and by email to the NENA listserv. It was also advertised on the NENA Facebook page, Nextdoor, and snowball sampling via text messaging. e survey remained open from November 2020 to April 2021. A total of 143 people completed the survey. Once the survey closed, researchers at MSU compiled the data into Microsoft Excel. Students in Arch 452 helped to analyze the quantitative results. To analyze the open-ended survey questions, Research Assistant Brennan Radulski used inductive coding to identify themes that arose from the data and attempted to answer each survey question. Portions of this analysis are included in this report. e full survey results and the full list of survey questions are available online (Cowan and Church 2020). Interviews 31 After completing transcriptions of the interviews, MSU researchers Brennan Radulski and Jack Rosenthal analyzed them using two rounds of thematic coding. In the ﬁ rst round, Radulski used inductive coding to identify themes that arose from the transcribed data. After identifying broad themes in the ﬁ rst round, the MSU research team reﬁ ned the qualitative categories for the ﬁ nal framework. ey focused on both community character and physical design including: residents’ interactions with each other and where interactions happen; interviewees’ attitudes towards neighborhood change; and interviewees’ attitudes towards NENA and city government. During the second round, after ﬁ nalizing the framework, all interviews were coded. Portions of this analysis are included in the report. is process was also used to code open-ended survey questions. e full text of the qualitative analysis and the interview protocols are available online (Radulski et. al. 2022). Qualitative Coding 32 Limitations Data collection for this project aimed to be as thorough, accurate, and inclusive as possible within logistical and time constraints. In analyzing the results, the research team became aware of certain gaps in the data. In terms of conducting the survey, the team used convenience and snowball sampling techniques which used the social network related to NENA. is may have overrepresented Northeast neighborhood residents who are active in NENA, which is not necessarily representative of the larger population of the Northeast neighborhood. Compared to census data for the district, our survey overrepresented homeowners, long- term residents, women, and residents aged between 55-64. Renters make up approximately half of the neighborhood population but only account for 4% of survey responses. Adults under 35 were also signiﬁ cantly underrepresented. While our survey did not ask about income, it was assumed that these underrepresented groups may also have a lower income than the respondents. Nationally, these groups are often underrepresented in community engagement eff orts. Dr. Cowan and her Arch 523 graduate students developed some new approaches to solicit more young adult renters in future planning outreach. Future outreach should target these groups for feedback and ensure that policy implementation addresses their speciﬁ c needs, desires, and vulnerabilities. e service learning methodology of this project created some challenges for data collection, particularly in the Inventory. is inventory included around 60 students answering dozens of questions about 767 homes. e number of students involved, the quantity of data they collected, and the subjective nature of some of the questions resulted in some data that was left out, incorrect, or unclear. To check the data, we asked several community members to conduct spot checks of three blocks and compared the results from the two inventories. While most objective categories (like number of stories, presence of porch etc.) were fairly consistent, data from some categories like barriers/fences showed gaps in the student work. For that reason, the team has chosen not to use data from the barriers/fences questions. One of the most challenging and subjective questions in the inventory was categorizing the style of each home. Dr. Cowan spot checked this question and found that the data was incorrect for many homes, especially when considering their construction dates as listed in Montana Cadastral. Dr. Cowan then collected this data again from every home to ensure that she had applied her historic knowledge and consistent principles in categorization. During the second round of the inventory, Dr. Cowan also noticed that 18 residential structures, about 2% of homes, had been accidentally skipped in the initial inventory. Due to time constraints, those structures did not receive a full inventory analysis; they are included in style data, but may be missing from maps and other categories. Overall, the project aimed to identify and resolve any data collection issues to ensure an accurate report that can be utilized by the city in future policy decisions. Additionally, please note that data collected from Northeast neigborhood residents reﬂ ect a subset of the populations, and as noted above, are not generalizable to the entire neighborhood. 33 Story Mill on a warm spring morning “My neighborhood :)” -PhotoVoicesNE, p. 11 e demographics of the Northeast neighborhood are changing. is section examines Census data to chart those changes. It also describes which residents participated in the survey for this project and how they compare to the neighborhood as a whole. Census Tracts and Neighborhood Quadrants............. Population........................................................................ Median Household Income............................................ Home Index Value........................................................... Population by Age and Sex........................................... Residence Status............................................................ Time Spent in the Neighborhood................................. Summary Comparison of Census and Survey Data.... Neighborhood Participation.......................................... 38 39 40 41 42 44 46 47 48 Demographics e green, orange, and yellow areas represent census block groups while the area in blue represents the boundary of the Northeast neighborhood. e Census blocks, though larger than the neighborhood quadrants, represent the Northeast neighborhood fairly well. e northern quadrants have the biggest diff erence between the Census block groups in area covered and the number of households included. Comparison Between Census Block Groups & Survey Respondents by Quadrant Block Group 1, Census Tract 6 Block Group 4, Census Tract 7.01 Block Group 1, Census Tract 7.01 NENA Survey Quadrants Census Tracts and Neighborhood Quadrants 38 Population e data on this page compares the number of people in each census block group to the number of people from each quadrant who responded to the survey. It also compares number the number of households in each census block to the number of properties in the inventory. e data show that the southwest quadrant has the largest number of households and properties of all the quadrants, with 39% of properties in the inventory and 37% of households in the American Community Survey (ACS). e southeast quadrant is close behind with 35% of properties in the inventory and 33% of households in the ACS. e two northern quadrants have signiﬁ cantly less properties and households, especially the northeast quadrant. e NENA survey respondents represent a mix of geographic areas in the neighborhood. Of the 130 survey respondents who shared which quadrant they lived in, about one-third each resided in the southwest and southeast quadrants. Another third was from the two northern quadrants combined. ese survey respondents closely represent the larger neighborhood demographics in which 37% of residents in the southwest quadrant and 33% reside in the southeast quadrant. 39 $40,968 $56,818 $84,375 Median Household Income (In 2020 Infl ation Adjusted Dollars) When comparing the median household income data from the 2020 ACS, it becomes apparent that Block Group 1 Census Tract 7.01, which aligns with the southeast quadrant, has a signiﬁ cantly higher average household income than the other two census block groups. It’s important to note that this block group includes e Village Downtown, a high end residential development that is separate from the Northeast neighborhood. e inclusion of this development is likely skewing the average household income for the block group. According to the 2020 ACS, the median household income for the City of Bozeman is $59,695. NENA household median income is lower than the rest of the city, except in the southeast quadrant. 40 Home Index Value Comparison Zillow Home Research (2009-2022) e Zillow home index measures the typical home value for a geographic area. It only includes middle tier homes for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. e home index value of homes throughout the northeast section of Bozeman, the city of Bozeman, and the United States have increased between 2015 and 2020 with a steep increase between 2020 and 2021. e index value of a home in the city of Bozeman is on average $142,809 more expensive than that of a home in the U.S. While home values in the northeast section of Bozeman averaged approximately $8,267 lower than the city of Bozeman between 2009 and 2015, northeast area homes over the last 7 years have averaged $66,109 above that of the city (Zillow Research 2021). $66,109 Between 2015 and 2022, the home value index in NENA averaged above that of the City of Bozeman. 2022 Home Index Val- ues for the Northeast area of Bozeman are approximately $171,579 above that of the United States. $692,275 06/30/2022 $648,084 06/30/2022 $354,165 06/30/2022 41 Population by Age e neighborhood houses a variety of age groups, but is older than the rest of the city of Bozeman with a median age of between 33 to 44, compared to 27.8 for the city. e survey covers a wide range of age groups, but most respondents are between 35 and 64. By comparison to the Census, the survey data that was collected shows an overrepresentation of people aged 55-64 years. 31% of responses came from people aged 55-64. However, the American Community Survey shows that 26% of adults in the neighborhood are over 55. is survey also underrepresents adults 34 and under. e American Community Survey shows that 46% of the survey responses are from adults 18-34, while this group makes up 4% of survey respondents. Comparison Between 2020 Census and NENA Survey Data 42 Sex by Age e neighborhood has a slightly higher population of females than the city as a whole, which only has 47% female. Females were also more likely to respond to the survey. e survey shows that while 52% of the neighborhood is female, 61% of survey respondents were female. Overall, the survey responses overrepresent females, particularly those aged 55-64, and underrepresents males. Based on the Northeast Neighborhood Survey Data Census Data, Bozeman Census Data, Northeast Neighborhood 43 Survey Data 52% 61% 47% Residence Status of Survey Respondents I own a home/condo that I occupy I own a home/condo that I rent out as a landlord I rent a home/condo/apartment I run a business I am the landlord of a commercial property I have no relationship with NENA Other 65.28% 10.42% 4.17% 8.33% 4.17% 2.08% 5.56% 85% 2%4%3% *6% other Detached Home DuplexMulti-FamilyADU NENA Survey: Within the Northeast neighborhood of Bozeman, MT: (check all that apply) NENA Survey: If you live in the Northeast neighborhood, what type of home do you live in? 44 Based on ACS 2020 5 year estimates, about half the neighborhood are owners and about half are renters. People who live in the southeast quadrant are more likely to own their own home than to rent it. Meanwhile, the southwest and northern quadrants are more likely to rent than to own. e majority of NENA survey respondents, 65%, were homeowners living in the Northeast neighborhood. Of the residents who responded, 85% live in single family dwellings. All homeowners reported this was their primary residence. e survey does not appear to represent second home-owners or part-time residents. Only 7 respondents (4%) were renters. is underrepresents the renter population. are local owner-occupiers. of survey respondents65%NENA Survey:4%of survey respondents rent the home they live in. American Community Survey (ACS): are local owner-occupiers. of ACS respondents54% 46%of ACS respondents rent the home they live in. 45 While the largest group of respondents were those living in the neighborhood over 20 years, there was good representation of demographic groups with a variety of tenure lengths including newer residents. e research team does not have demographic data with which to compare our responses on tenure length. 46 Time Spent In the North East Neighborhood NENA Survey: How long have you lived, worked, owned property, and/or run a business in the NENA neighborhood?Number of Responses Summary Comparison of Census and Survey Data Overall the data collected by the inventory and survey represent a diversity of groups in the neighbrohood. Survey respondents are more likely to be late middle age, female, homeowners, who have lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years than the general population. As an exploratory study, the survey data represents the perceptions of a subset of the Northeast neighborhood population. 47 identify as55-64 years of age have lived in NENA for20+ years 33% 34% 61%identify as female 52% female 38.2 years Survey Data for the Northeast Neighborhood ACS Median Age, Sex by Age 2020 Data for the Northeast Neighborhood NENA Survey: In the past three years, which of the following ways have you participated in the North East Neighborhood (check all that apply): 48 Number of RespondentsType of Involvement NENA Meetings, Public Meetings, and Written Comments were the most commmon methods of neighborhood particpation. “Bless the ongoing brainstorm that NENA has become.” Source: PhotoVoices NE, p. 21 e Northeast neighborhood is an active community with a well organized neighborhood association. NENA’s email list includes over 200 members and their Facebook page includes 116 followers out of over 700 households in the neighborhoods. Like most organizations there are a handful of leaders in the community, and a larger group which participates less frequently, and many who are not involved at all. NENA meets twice a year, and publishes newsletters twice a year. NENA is active in city-wide planning discussions, meet frequently with developers, and organize several social events each year like the Parade of Sheds. While not all NENA members participate in all events, 82% of survey respondents participated in some type of organized event. In April 2017 the Architecture Institute of America, Montana State Univetsity, and THINKTANK Design Group collaborated to host the Regional and Urban Design Assistance Team (RUDAT). is weekend long event gathered community input from charettes to guide the future development of the Northeast neighborhood. is was one of many opporuntiries to weigh in on the Cottonwood and Ida project. Neighborhood Participation 49 (AIA Communities by Design 2017) 50 In this project we have aimed to engage residents who have a variety of levels of participation in neighborhood organizing. While our recruiting methods attracted many survey respondents who were already active in NENA, 19% of the respondents somewhat or strongly disagree that they are active NENA members, showing that we did successfully include a diversity of residents who are, and are not, actively engaged with NENA. e images to the left show community involvement in a series of R/UDAT workshops held in April of 2017. of survey respondents somewhat or strongly agree that they are involved and participate in the North East neighborhood. 56% NENA Survey: “I am involved and participate in the Northeast neighborhood.” (Check all that apply) Number of Respondents 51 “Each house is unique. If you live here, you can express your uniqueness.” -PhotoVoicesNE, p. 11 Introduction 56 58 70 72 80 82 84 88 94 96 98 In the following pages, we evaluate data from the neighborhood inventory in terms of home size, style, and other physical attributes. By evaluating home characteristics, the research team determined speciﬁ c qualities that contribute to Northeast neighborhood character, which are discussed in the following pages. Home Inventory................................................... Home Styles ............................................ Colors and Materials of Homes.............. Quadrants................................................. Historic Districts...................................... Aging Structures ..................................... Perceptions of Styles ............................. Height of Homes...................................... Footprint and Parcel Size....................... Density....................................................... Accessory Dwelling Units....................... Sizes & Styles 56 Inventory Introduction e Northeast neighborhood of Bozeman has historic lineage dating back to the late 19th century that shaped its settlement patterns. However, lately it is experiencing an ongoing increase in development pressures leading to renovations and new development in Contemporary styles. To preserve the character that has existed within the neighborhood, property and housing data is required to determine if and how the Northeast neighborhood’s character is unique. We sought to highlight what attributes of the neighborhood currently make up its overall character. To achieve this, individual residential structures (and their yards, sidewalks, and alleys) were analyzed across the whole neighborhood to document the kinds of housing that comprise the bulk of the neighborhood. Utilizing data collected in classes by students at MSU and additional data collection from two student researchers, a Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to summarize and analyze the overall character trends of the neighborhood. e trends identiﬁ ed in these maps and statistics can be used by the city to shape future zoning, zoning overlays, or other planning strategies targeting neighborhood character. Developers may also want to keep these trends in mind as they develop their designs for new inﬁ ll housing. A total of 767 inventoried residential structures make up the dataset used for this analysis. Of these properties, 749 received full inventories, while 18 additional properties that were initially overlooked are included only in the style data. Commercial and business areas of the neighborhood were typically excluded from data collection unless a part of a residential block or mixed-use building. 57 Front facade of an older historic home in the Northeast neighborhood Multifamily housing and business development in the Northeast neighborhood 58 Home Styles Inventory Results Housing styles vary greatly throughout the Northeast neighborhood. In any block in the neighborhood, it is not uncommon to have a Victorian house next to a Minimalist Traditional style house or a historic Craftsman house. However, even with this variability, there are clear patterns throughout the Northeast neighborhood. ese patterns are typically present throughout individual blocks or pairs of blocks. Variability is present everywhere in the neighborhood, but that variability is interrupted by clustering of certain housing types. e three most common housing styles by count are: Minimalist Traditional (22%), Victorian (18%), and Other Historical (15%). e neighborhood dates back to the Victorian period and has many houses built in the Victorian, Craftsman, and Other Historical styles from before 1930. However, the area grew slowly and has many inﬁ ll Minimalist Traditional and Ranch homes ranging from the 1930s to 1960s. Beginning in 1990, Contemporary and Neo-traditional homes have become more common, mostly through renovations or tear downs of older homes. Today, these homes make up 14% and 6% of the neighborhood, respectively. In the pages below, we describe and quantify these housing styles in chronological order and discuss house style patterns by quadrant and district. 59 From Left to Right: 1) Minimalist Traditional 2) Victorian 3) Other Historical Housing StyleCount 60 Victorian 18% Victorian houses, which date back to before World War I, are the oldest and second most common house style in the neighborhood. e most elaborate of the Victorian homes are built in the Queen Anne style, such as the 3 story Julius Lehrkind Mansion from 1898, which includes a turret and a wrap-around porch. e more common style of pre-war homes are built in the Vernacular style, often with a front gable and side wing, vertical windows, and ornate details in the eave brackets and porch railings. (Lehrkind Mansion Bed and Breakfast - Bozeman, MT) 61 In the Northeast neighborhood, 68% of Victorian homes are 2 story while 30% are more modest 1 story homes. Porches are present on the front of 60% of Victorians in the neighborhood. With regard to cladding, 75% of these homes have wood-style siding, while 14% are predominantly brick. While light neutral colors are the most common for these Victorian homes (40%), quite a few are decorated in warm or bright color pallets (30%), like the polychrome pallets used in the “painted ladies” in other cities since in the 1960s. 62 Craftsman 8% Craftsman houses are the second oldest housing style. While common in the two historic districts, they are less common in area as a whole, with only 58 identiﬁ ed in the neighborhood boundary. Built from 1905 to 1930, these 1 and 2 story homes are known for their low gabled or pyramid shaped roofs and their use of wood-style siding and shingles for cladding. ey sometimes use brick or stone detailing for the foundations and external chimneys, though this is less common in the Northeast neighborhood by comparison to higher income areas. While most Craftsman homes in the neighborhood are neutral colors (38%), earth tones are also common (23%). Craftsman homes are known for their generous porches that leave ample room for seating. In the neighborhood, 82% of Craftsman homes have porches. 63 Log Cabin 3% e inventory identiﬁ ed 21 log cabins mostly built between 1900 and 1960 spread throughout the neighborhood. ese detached homes are modest in size, with 62% having a single story. Most cabins have a simple gabled roof, but a few have been renovated to create larger 2 story homes. Less than half of the cabins have porches (38%). ese homes showcase the logs and 76% maintain an earth-tone pallet, with a few outliers painted in bright colors. 64 Minimalist Traditional 22% e most common style home in the neighborhood is the minimalist traditional design. ese homes, built primarily between the 1930s to 1950s, have design details that mimic older historic architecture, stripped down to accommodate the budgets of the average family. ese homes are often small, one story detached homes clad in wood-style siding. ey have hipped or gabled roofs and an asymmetrical covered stoop. In the neighborhood, 84% of minimalist homes are one story. While usable porches were not common at the time of construction, 14% have been updated with porches. While many minimalist homes are painted in neutral colors (47%), some showcase bright and warm color pallets (19%) to give them a contemporary and quirky appearance. 65 Ranch 5% Built starting in the 1930s into the contemporary period, the ranch style homes have a wide front façade, a low roof line, horizontal picture windows, and asymmetrical entrance. e ranch house is a less common home type in the area, with only 37 identiﬁ ed in the neighborhood. ey tend to be located on the end of blocks on the east-west streets like Peach, Aspen, and Cottonwood. For homes located on the interior of a block on a north-south street, the narrow lots have limited the typical broad façade, or have forced them to be oriented sideways with the front door along the side of the property. In the Northeast neighborhood, 92% of the identiﬁ ed ranch homes were single story and 89% had wood- style siding. Unlike most of the homes in the area that have detached garages in the back alleys, 54% of ranch homes had a front facing garage and/or carport. 66 Other Historical 15% e third most common category is the other historical homes. is category is intentionally broad to include the diverse types of homes built before 1950 that might not ﬁ t easily within the Victorian, Craftsman, Log, Minimalist, or Ranch categories. is includes a variety of types of homes such as 19th century single-story, front-gable workers cottages; a 1910 larger 2-story symmetrical colonial-style I-house; several 1920s pyramid roof homes with small porches; and many others that cannot be easily categorized. While some homes in this category have been heavily remodeled, their age and historic forms still add to the overall character of the neighborhood. 67 Most the homes classiﬁ ed as “other” were built or underwent major renovations between 1950 and 1990. is group includes many of the apartments and condominiums built during this period. It also includes single family homes that don’t easily ﬁ t within the minimalist or ranch categories, some unique architect designed homes, and some historic homes with such dramatic renovations that they were not easily recognizable as historic. Other Styles 10% 68 Neotraditional 6% Neotraditional homes have been built or renovated since 1990 with inspiration from historic architecture such as Victorian and Craftsman styles. ese homes tend to have gabled roofs and side wings, overhanging eaves, traditional window types, and other period details. ese homes mostly have occupiable porches (64%). Neotraditional homes are mostly clad in wood siding (83%) and are painted in a wide range of color pallets. ey are less likely than contemporary style homes to use metal siding, with only 4% using metal as a primary material, and 17% using it in anywhere in the design. While the 47 identiﬁ ed examples of Neotraditional homes are a small percentage of the overall housing stock, they are a growing category as designers aim to ﬁ t new construction to the neighborhood character. is style is more common among detached homes than multifamily buildings, with 85% of the examples being single family residences. 69 4. Contemporary homes are becoming more common in the neighborhood. is study categorizes homes as Contemporary if they have been built or signiﬁ cantly remodeled since 1990 and are clearly distinguishable from historic homes. e style of these homes vary from modern shapes with ﬂ at rooves to simpliﬁ ed versions of historic forms with steep roof pitches, tight eaves, and small front stoops. Contemporary homes tend to have larger footprints and are taller than historic homes. 40% are three stories or more, compared to less than 1% of other styles. 61% have visible roof decks. 41% have porches. Contemporary homes often use a collage of materials, with three or more cladding types, including industrial materials. ey are more likely than historic homes to use metal siding for cladding with 34% using it as the primary cladding material, and 70% using it somewhere on the facade. Contemporary 14% 70 Colors & Materials of Homes Overall, homes are most often decorated in neutral colors and earth tones. Wood and wood-style siding are the most dominant materials amidst all styles, and wood shingles often decorate Craftsman and Victorian homes. Metal siding is found more in contemporary construction. According to the data, there is a diverse color and material palette in the neighborhood which helps to give it a unique and eclectic character. Colors of Homes in the Inventory 71 Materials of Homes in the Inventory 72 e Northeast quadrant, north of Peach and East of Rouse, was plotted in 1880s as the Northern Paciﬁ c Addition with the arrival of the railway. It is the most industrial portion of the neighborhood with the least residential properties (48 total). More than half of the land in this area is set aside for industrial or commercial uses, especially on the eastern side bordered by the railroad and on Wallace Avenue. Residences are present on 8 of the 15 blocks, mostly to the west side. While historic homes are clustered along Rouse, the 700 block of Wallace, the 400 block of Aspen, and the 400 block of East Peach, most blocks have a mix of styles which would not contribute to a historic district. e 500 block of Cottonwood is composed of all new 2 and 3 story detached homes, primarily in the Contemporary style. In marked contrast to the rest of the neighborhood, these homes max out their zoning allowances with garages at the back, obscuring the small back yards from view. e zoning in the Northeast Historic Mixed Use District (NEHMU) makes this area particularly ﬂ exible for inﬁ ll development that breaks from historic norms, allowing larger and taller buildings. Two new contemporary multi-family complexes of three stories have been built on the 600 block of Cottonwood, and several other new mixed-use projects have been proposed in the area. ese developments are mostly upscale and often quite expensive. While this allows for additional density in the quadrant, it does not help with aff ordability. Neither do the relatively few numbers of ADUs in this quadrant, which have been limited in the past due to lack of alleys. Northeast Quadrant Aerial View, NE Quadrant Quadrants 73 Northeast Quadrant Housing Structure Inventory by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal N Rouse AveN Rouse AveE Aspen StreetE Aspen Street E Tamarack StreetE Tamarack Street E Cottonwood StreetE Cottonwood Street 74 e Southeast quadrant was built as part of the Babcock and Davis Addition in the 1880s between Mendenhall and Peach, and Rouse and Broadway. e area has a diverse street grid pattern with the main roads running north-south along Rouse, Perkins Place, Church, Plum and Broadway, while east-west streets Friendly, Davis, and Lamme interrupt the grid. Some areas have north-south alleys, others go east-west, or have none at all. e architectural mix is fairly close to that of the overall neighborhood. ere are pockets of Victorian and Craftsman homes on Church and Wallace streets. e 400 blocks of Ida, Brady and Wallace are mostly Minimalist Traditional homes. Contemporary homes while scattered throughout the quadrant, are also clustered along the downtown edge on Mendenhall, and near the intersection of Ida and Peach. Only a few larger and denser inﬁ ll developments are present in this group, and the quadrant remains primarily detached homes. In 2012 the city considered making a historic district in this area encompassing 115 homes on Church and Wallace. In 1984 only 21% of these homes were considered intact enough to be contributing to the historic character. In 2011, due to repairs that restored historic forms and materials, 75% were considered to contribute. Residents debated about the impact of the district on renovations and home values, and as of yet no application has been ﬁ led and there is no historic district in this quadrant (Ricker 2012). Southeast Quadrant Aerial View, SE Quadrant 75 Southeast Quadrant Housing Structure Inventory by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal E Mendenhall StE Mendenhall StN Rouse AveN Rouse Ave 76 e Southwest quadrant of the neighborhood, from Grand to Rouse and Mendenhall to Peach, was platted between in the 1880s until 1891 in Beall’s First, Second and ird Additions. Small sections near downtown are part of Tracy’s Second and ird Additions. e urban pattern consists of longer north south blocks, most of which have alleys, some only cutting through a portion of the block. is area has slightly more Victorian homes than others areas (23%), especially in clusters in the North Tracy Historic District and on Grand, Black, and Bozeman. ere are also several Victorians on Lamme and Bealle near the downtown where the blocks are changing in character due to denser development in the B-3 zoning boundary. is quadrant also has slightly more Contemporary style homes than other quadrants, in large part due to new development near downtown off of Beall Street. e replacement of the mobile home park on the 400 block of Wilson with 3-story contemporary townhouses with ADUs also changes the scale and style, though the porches and use of the alley somewhat follow local patterns. On Montana Avenue, the smaller and less historic aging homes are being replaced through tear downs with larger contemporary structures. Overall, the Southwest quadrant has patches of historic character, and could possibly house another historic district, especially along North Bozeman Ave; however the edges on Montana, Rouse, Beall, Lamme, and Wilson are less cohesive and facing strong development pressures. Southwest Quadrant Aerial View, SW Quadrant 77 Southwest Quadrant Housing Structure Inventory by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal N Rouse AveN Rouse AveN Rouse AveN Rouse AveE Lamme StE Lamme StE Lamme StE Lamme St E Short StE Short StW Short StW Short St W Beall StW Beall St W Villard StW Villard St 78 e Northwest quadrant of the neighborhood, in the Imes Addition, has the most regular street grid composed of 14 square blocks with about six homes on each side with a central alley way. e Centennial Park, Bozeman Senior Social Center, Bozeman Public Works, and County Fairgrounds interrupt the street grid, making this one of the smaller and more isolated parts of the neighborhood with only 155 homes. Slower to be built than the other quadrants, this area has more midcentury homes than the rest of the neighborhood. Minimalist traditional homes account for 36% of the properties, compared to 22% in the neighborhood as a whole. Ranches make up 14% and are more common on the ends of blocks on the east-west streets like Aspen, Cottonwood, and Peach. Few homes are from before World War I, with only 7% of homes built in the Victorian style, compared to 18% in the neighborhood as a whole. While this area has some new development scattered around, there is not a concentration of Contemporary homes on any particular block. Besides the Bridger Heights complex at the far northwest side of the quadrant, there are not many large multifamily buildings in the quadrant, and it retains its single family pattern. Northwest Quadrant Aerial View, NW Quadrant 79 Northwest Quadrant Housing Structure Inventory by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 80 Bozeman Brewery e other two are the Henry Lehrkind house, a Shingle Style Victorian home from 1908, and the Edwin Lehrkind house, a Craftman bungalow from 1912 (National Registry 1987, Bozeman Brewery). All three homes are in good condition. e rest of the block has inﬁ lled with Log Cabins and Other Historic homes which support the district. New housing on the adjacent block serve as some of the largest single family homes in the neighborhood, with several 2 and 3 story Contemporary homes maxing out their lots and contrasting with the historical buildings. e Bozeman Brewery was listed as a National Historic District in 1987 after a citywide inventory in 1984. It included 5 buildings, including 3 homes, and 2 industrial buildings built between 1895 and 1925 by the Lehrkind family as part of their Bozeman Brewery business. e Lehrkind Brewery Bottling Plant remains as a local commercial space, while the Bozeman Brewery was demolished as part of a redevelopment project, which damaged its Italianate façade (Schattauer 2014). e Brewery site may soon be redeveloped. e Wallace commercial district and the nearby Industrial areas make this one of the areas most likely to change in upcoming years. is inventory project documented the three homes in the district, all located on the 700 block of Wallace. is included the Julius Lehrkind Mansion, a 3 story Queen Anne Victorian with a wraparound porch from 1898 that now serves as a hotel. Left: Edwin Lehrkind house Right: Julius Lehrkind Mansion (Lehrkind Mansion Bed and Breakfast - Bozeman, MT) Lehrkind Brewery Bottling Plant Historic Districts 81 e North Tracy Historic District was registered in 1987. While most the historic districts created around that time are located south of Main street, this two and a half block area on the 300-500 blocks of North Tracy, from Beall to Peach, was protected because it was identiﬁ ed to be the “most signiﬁ cant concentration of historic residential architecture north of main street” (National Registry 1987, Tracy, 2). is area ﬁ rst developed in 1885, but only two houses were built before the panic of 1893. As a result, most of the homes were built after 1900. Within this district were 21 contributing houses and 8 neutral or non-contributing houses. Of the contributing homes, 11 were classiﬁ ed as bungalows and 10 as vernacular style or Queen Anne. Many of the bungalow homes were built by carpenters for their own use, reﬂ ecting the working class character of the north side. All the contributing structures remain intact and the district retains its historic character. However, the inventory showed that 11 of the 29 buildings in this district showed signs of aging or damage. Per the inventory, this district includes 6 Victorians, 10 Craftsmans, 2 Minimalists, 10 Other Historical, and 1 Other style. After the inventory was completed, one non-contributing home was torn down and rebuilt in a neotraditional style, mimicking the craftsman bungalow style that is common on the block. North Tracy Avenue 82 Aging and/or Damaged Structures irty-seven percent of the residences in the neighborhood showed signs of damage or aging. e 281 structures that showed signs of damage or aging were not conﬁ ned to particular areas of the neighborhood. Aside from a handful of newly developed blocks, most blocks had one or more houses that showed signs of damage or aging. Very few homes were in such bad shape as to be uninhabitable. Some of these aging homes were repaired, demolished, or replaced during the year in which the inventory was conducted. e remaining 62% of the inventoried structures did not have any visual signs of damage or aging. In terms of repairs or renovations of the neighborhood, only 15% (114 of the structures) had visible or recent signs of renovation, repairs, or new construction at the time of collection. e majority of these visible signs in the neighborhood were found on the western side of Rouse. Speciﬁ cally, blocks that were adjacent to Grand Ave had multiple structures under renovation, repairs, or construction. Only 25 structures on the east side of Rouse had visible signs of construction or renovation. 37% 83 Inventory of Aging vs Not Aging Structure Inventory Overlaid with Bozeman Historic Districts. Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 84 Perceptions of Style e neighbors express the importance of the historic character of the neighborhood in their feedback. One interviewee says, “ e uniqueness of the homes, you don’t really see architecture like this in any of the other parts of town.” In PhotovoicesNE, one resident says, “It would be a shame for the NE neighborhood to lose all of its historical charm.” In the Bozeman Strategic Plan, the city also expresses interest in preserving historic character, particularly in the face of change, aiming to “promote continued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures relative to ongoing inﬁ ll and redevelopment” (City of Bozeman 2018, 6). Scale of buildings, speciﬁ cally the desire to keep new construction and remodels small and at the same scale as the other buildings in the neighborhood, was mentioned many times by residents. One quote from PhotovoicesNE states, “Scale: Houses are built over many years...however, they harmonize because they have pitched roofs and are relatively modest in scale.” is theme is present in the City’s Community Plan as well, which states, “Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small ﬂ oor plans, especially through mechanisms such as density bonuses” (Bozeman Planning Board 2020, 30). A multi-unit development selected for PhotoVoicesNE reporting Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 24 85 e neighbors also value diversity of architecture. is is demonstrated by the fact that one community member photographed an ordinary low-rise apartment complex for the PhotovoicesNE project. ey note, “ is image is of a very modest multi-unit development. It was chosen as an example of the housing diversity that exists in our neighborhood.” is desire for diversity in housing stock is one shared by the city in the community plan, which states, “Housing type diversity within neighborhoods helps ensure community beneﬁ ts are available to households of diff erent size, income, and age” (Bozeman Planning Board 2020, 27). 86 Attitudes toward Historic Versus New Homes Survey results show that preserving the historic character of the neighborhood is important to many residents. At least 90 respondents out of the 143 marked “historic homes” and/or “historic industrial buildings” as some of the aspects they liked most in the Northeast neighborhood. Only 21 respondents said that new buildings were one of the aspects they enjoyed the most. is distinction shows the ambivalence that the residents feel toward new development. While both new and long-term residents appreciate historic architecture, newer residents who have lived in the Northeast neighborhood 10 years or less are more likely to enjoy newer buildings by comparison to long-term residents. Top: A Contemporary home that utilizes vertical wood siding and metal paneling. Bottom: A Craftsman style home that utilizes wood siding and a shingled roof. 87 NENA Survey: What do you like most about your neighborhood? NENA Survey: How long have you lived, worked, owned property, and/or run a business in the NENA neighborhood? ; What do you like most about your neighborhood? 88 Height of Homes One of the biggest changes in the character of the neighborhood is the increasing height of domestic architecture. In the neighborhood, 47% of the houses stand one story tall, while 46% stand two stories tall. Only 49 houses (7%) are three stories tall or more. Of these taller homes, nearly all are new construction. Of Contemporary homes, 40% are 3 stories or more, while only 1% of other styles are that tall. Even Neo-traditional homes, which are also recently built, rarely reach 3 stories (4%). Contemporary homes, which are becoming more common, tower over lower minimalist traditional and historical homes, especially along the border with downtown and in the Northeast quarter of the neighborhood. Although zoning codes do include form and intensity standards like building height limitations, the codes do not dictate that the height follow the pattern of the block or adjacent homes. As more tear down inﬁ ll homes and multifamily homes are built, maxing out zoning standards, they challenge existing height norms. Top: Three Story Contemporary Home Bottom: Single Story Historical Home 89 Inventory of the Number of Stories of all Properties Overall, home size in the neighborhood is split evenly between 1 and 2 story structures, with the reamining 7% of the physical inventory at 3 stories. While 1 story homes dominate the Minimalist Traditional, Ranch and Log Cabin styles, 2 story homes are more common for Victorians, Neo-traditional, and Contemporary styles. Considering Contemporary homes are the most common category of new construction, it can be argued that home sizes are increasing vertically. According to the inventory, home sizes are split evenly betwen 1 and 2-story homes. Newer, contemporary homes are more likely to be 3+ story construction. 7% 47% 46% 90 Inventory of Number of Stories for Residential Buildings Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal is map of the number of stories in neighborhood housing shows the increase in heights in or near the B-3 Zoning border with many residences of three or more stories. Even in the R-3 area just north of the B-3, many homes are two stories. Also within the B-3 border are about two dozen historical homes, many of which are one or two stories that may be negatively aff ected by the taller buildings on their blocks from current or future development. 91 Inventory of Housing Structures with 3 or More Stories by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal In looking at the diff erences in height versus home style, it becomes evident that Contemporary homes are much more likely to exceed two stories than their older counterparts. Only a few Victorian and Craftsman homes are 3 or more stories, while newer Neotraditonal, Contemporary, and Other style homes are more likely to reach this height. 92 Historic Homes & Number of Stories e inventory shows that historic homes, including the categories of Craftsman, Minimalist Traditional, Ranch House and Other Historical, are predominantly 1 and 2 story homes. 93 Newer Homes & Number of Stories Contemporary68% Neotraditional32% 40%3-Story 54%2-Story 6%1-Story 9%1-Story 87%2-Story 4% 3-Story e inventory shows that newer homes, which include the categories of Contemporary and Neotraditional, are predominantly 2 and 3 story homes. e inventory reveals that within new construction, homes are being built taller. 94 e Northeast neighborhood historically has had mostly single family homes covering less than half the lot area with relatively large open front and backyards. e perimeters of residential structures are typically less than half the size or smaller than their respective parcel perimeter. Most structures are detached single-family homes (85%) with relatively large open front and backyards. Recently renovated or newly constructed structures have a higher structure to parcel ratio than their older counterparts. One notable example is the block of townhomes on Lamme and Beall streets. Other notable structures are the townhouses on North Willson Ave. e change in footprint size and the increase in dense multifamily properties is changing the character of the neighborhood. Footprint and Parcel Size Newly constructed townhouses and townhomes 95 Footprint vs. Parcel Size Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 96 Density While most homes built before 1960 were single family or duplexes, the area has a pattern of multifamily housing dating back about 60 years. e neighborhood has 54 properties with 3 or more units, 20 of which were built before 1990. ese older multifamily complexes from the 1960s to 1980s are usually one to two stories, built on one or two lots, with narrow front facades, and doors opening up onto a walkway along the side of the lots. ey are built in a simple style, often with a gabled roof, wood-style siding, and minimal details. Newer multifamily housing buildings are often taller, with three or more stories, and use more diverse architectural styles and materials. Multifamily housing provides diversity to the housing stock, meeting the needs of smaller family sizes and lower income households. In combination with the ADU properties, this multifamily housing adds density to the neighborhood, allowing more people to live near downtown in a walkable neighborhood, and thus cutting down on suburban sprawl. 97 Inventory of Multi-Family Housing & ADUs Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 98 One of the characteristic settlement patterns in the Northeast neighborhood is the presence of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), identiﬁ ed on 14% of properties. Commonly known as In-Law Units or Granny Flats, Bozeman Community Development deﬁ nes ADUs as “accessory structures to an existing residence that is the principal dwelling(s). ADUs can be either detached or attached and have separate rules to that of a principal dwelling” (Bozeman Community Development). Currently, there are less than 107 parcels that have ADUs out of 747 properties. Most of these ADUs are built on alleys, which until recently had been a zoning requirement for building a ADU. e fact that the Northeast neighborhood has a pattern of alleys, with 66% of homes accessible by alley, has made this housing type easier to build there than in other neighborhoods without alleys. e adjacent map shows the distribution of ADUs across the Northeast neighborhood. Most ADUs are small 1-story separate structures in the rear of the property or smaller second-story structures atop the property’s main garage in the rear of the property. ADUs are more common in areas with alleys, particularly in the northwest quadrant. ey are less common in the northeast quadrant. Besides alley access, there is no pattern by block as to where ADUs have been added to historic properties. During initial data collection, we expected to see a correlation between newly constructed or renovated modern homes and having an ADU present. To the contrary, we found little to no relation between tall newly built structures and the presence Accessory Dwelling Units Example of an Above-Garage ADU in the Northeast neighborhood of an ADU. One exception is a new development on Wilson, which has provided an ADU above each garage. Otherwise, the properties that have ADUs present share few commonalities with each other. ADUs were found on properties from small footprint single story Minimalist Traditional houses all the way to Contemporary multi-story homes. In November of 2021, the City Commission voted to relax ADU regulations by allowing 600 square foot structures to be used for long-term rentals. ese regulations also removed the requirement to have an off -street parking space and allow ADUs to have access to a sidewalk or adjacent right-of-way, rather than the previous alleyway requirement. is relaxation of the rules may make it even easier to build more ADUS in more areas of the neighborhood in the future. ese ADUs can provide useful hidden density and variety in housing types, allowing more people to live near downtown in smaller, less expensive homes. ey can also be a source of income for homeowners. 99 $'83UHVHQWRQ3URSHUW\ 5HVLGHQWLDO6WUXFWXUHV 1HLJKERUKRRG%RXQGDU\ 0LOHV k “ADUs are an important element to address our housing/rentals shortage” (PhotoVoicesNE, p. 10).Inventory of ADU Presence Prepared by Jack Rosenthal & Kipton Giddings “All neighborhoods were once new. If only the newly developing areas had the freedom & foresight you all enjoy!” -PhotoVoices NE, p. 24 is section examines how Northeast neighborhood residents use social spaces, including yards, porches, sidewalks, alleys, parks, and commercial spaces. Surveys and interviews indicated that community interaction was a key element of the Northeast neighborhood that they want to preserve. One way to do so is by protecting the presence and use of existing social spaces, and encouraging new development to reinforce and augment existing patterns of social infrastructure. Social Favorite Attributes of the Neighborhood......... Location and Interconnectedness..................... Dog Owners and Long-Term Residents............ Local Businesses................................................... Public Art............................................................... Neighborhood Socializing................................... Social Spaces........................................................ Yards....................................................................... Gardens.................................................................. Porches.................................................................. Decks...................................................................... Sheds...................................................................... Alleyways............................................................... 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 Infrastructure NENA Survey: What do you like most about your Neighborhood? (Check all that Apply)Respondents104 The majority of respondents identifi ed walkability, access to Downtown, and access to trails when asked about their favorite parts of the neigborhood. According to survey respondents, connectivity as a whole becomes a key piece of Northeast neighborhood character. New development should ensure continued ease of access and walkability to both trails and local businesses. “I am thrilled that there are safe ways for me to walk or bike to the awesome new Story Mill Park from the Northeast Neighborhood. Parks and trails help to keep a community livable even as we grow. Access to nature in such close proximity to our downtown contributes to overall physical and mental well-being and is essential to quality of life.” Source: PhotoVoices NE, p. 5 Favorite Attributes of the Neighborhood Location & Interconnectedness In the survey, interview, and PhotoVoicesNE responces, residents expressed appreciation for the walkability and bikeability of the Northeast neighborhood. In particular, residents appreciated being close to downtown. One interviewee said, “We were just more drawn to being downtown. e walkability that we have down here is great.” Residents also appreciated the connectedness to open space. One PhotoVoicesNE participant stated, “I like the gentle transition this part of the neighborhood makes into open spaces to our north and east, and the ease with which we can walk or pedal our way out there.” is ability to walk and cycle around is also seen in the goals of the city: “Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, inﬁ ll, density, connected trails A young Northeast neighborhood resident rides her bike on a trail. Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 16 and parks, and walkable neighborhoods” (City of Bozeman, 2018, 6). Beyond a general sense of bikeability, however, we discovered participants to be particularly passionate about the connectivity of recreation opportunities to each other and the creation of a trail network: “Really important to connect trails!” is desire is seen repeatedly throughout city documents: “Increase connectivity between parks and neighborhoods through continued trail and sidewalk development. Prioritize closing gaps within the network” (Bozeman Planning Board, 2020, 29). 106 Parks Over half of survey respondents indicated that access to parks were one of the things they liked most about their neighborhood. Interviewees also valued the proximity of parks to their homes. One interviewee said: “We eventually had two kids, and we had a park next door, which was quite wonderful.” Interviewees also discussed parks as a place for interaction in the neighborhood. ese interactions are seemingly catalyzed through recreational events that take place at parks or through dog walking. Two interviewees described how parks are used for kids’ activities, such as kickball and basketball. “A lot of my friends have had kids now, so we host kickball games over at the park.” “ e kids around here, my grandchildren, the boys go just right down here to Beall Park to play basketball. It’s just right across the way...A lot of the young adults used to go down there to play basketball, and probably still do… for years I used to go over there in my 60’s and my early 70’s and shoot baskets. A lot of the young guys would come out and shoot baskets. ere’s a lot of neighborhood people that spend time in that park over there with their little kids. ey’ve got playthings and that sort of thing... at’s a cool, common place because it’s so centrally located and is so handy.” Young child at Beall Park Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 13 107 While social infrastructure described in this section such as sidewalks, alleys, parks, porches, and yards support social interaction, other factors also impact the level of community. e presence of long-term residents and dog walkers increase social use of these spaces, thus increasing overall social interaction. Interviewees drew attention to the importance of long-term residents versus more temporary residents. One interviewee pointed out they don’t interact with transitory residents in a meaningful way because they view them as independent from the Northeast neighborhood and felt they haven’t exhibited a sense of community: “With people who don’t live in the neighborhood, who have no sense of community, and they’re transient, a lot of them, who only come in the summertime or for skiing. We aren’t going to be discussing garden techniques with them.” One group of people that many interviewees seemed to interact with frequently were dog owners/walkers. e frequent interactions with this group of residents in the neighborhood often happened in dog parks, sidewalks, and other public areas in the neighborhood. For example, one interviewee discussed how they interact with their neighbors many times a week in-part because they go to the dog park together: “I have several neighbors that I would see several times a week within a couple blocks because we go to the dog park together or we just hang out and talk…” Dog Owners & Long-Term Residents Two Year old Hadley on a Summer Walk 108 Another interviewee described how going out onto the general street and sidewalks serves as a catalyst for interaction, due to people walking with their dogs: “I may not be best friends, but I know the majority of my neighbors on my street and some of the surrounding streets as well just from going out and walking the dogs, right? You stop, you say hi to your neighbors. You strike up a conversation.” Other interviewees also discussed how dogs served as a catalyst for interactions with residents in the neighborhood. is one interviewee described how their dogs have been subjects for establishing relationships with neighbors: “ ere’s a couple down there that I have the same kind of dogs that we do. So that was an immediate attraction for me. And they’re very nice, very pleasant, have never done anything with the neighborhood. And they’ve been here for three years... I’m always pleasant to them...I hate to say this, but I know the dogs’ names, I sometimes forget the humans’ names.” is discussion from interviewees about the types of people they interact with reinforces the fact that social infrastracture can’t necessarily be approached as a “build it and they will come” approach. is infrastrucature only works if people use it, and if the neighborhood is still occupied by residents who are not short-term residents, and who go out into social spaces and meet neighbors. “We have always had [type of dog] which I know there’s a lot more of them now, we’ve had them for 30 years. But back then there weren’t that many and as I’d walk a dog around you tend to meet people come out and say this is a [type of dog] ...you end up talking to them about dogs and you see him once or twice and pretty soon you know their name and you know who their kids are and their dogs... I get to see a lot of people that way.” Four Year old Nandi on a trail near home 109 e Northeast neighborhood has historically been working- class with a unique mixture of residences, commerce, and industry. In the past, this neighborhood was perceived as blighted, but as of late it has become a desirable place to both live and own a business. e proximity to the downtown area and local businesses makes this area very walkable, and has become something that attracts many residents to the neighborhood. e area is home to breweries, cafes, artist studios, and light manufacturing. Most the businesses are locally owned, contributing to the strength of the local economy and the unique sense of place. Local Businesses “Walkability” “Local” “Proximity” Service Businesses in the neighborhood: Beth MacFawn Landscape Design, Inc. Bozeman Brewing Company Bozeman Montana Vacation Rentals Bridger Pilates Engine 8, Inc. Gangbusters Pottery by Ryan Mitchell Jereco Studios Live from the Divide Mountains Walking Brewery New Age Artisans Oula Bozeman Rendezvous Food Truck Spruce and Honey Waxing Parlor Theory Hair Salon Treeline Coffee Roasters Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Urbaine Home Vickie’s Pierogies Wild Crumb Yogamotion Academy ...and many more!110 Wild Crumb Bakery, PhotoVoicesNE, p. 24 Live from the Divide Music Venue PhotoVoicesNE, p. 27 Rendezvous Food Truck PhotoVoicesNE, p. 23 “I see the Bridgers in the distance, the historic Misco Mill and Bon-Ton buildings, thriving locally owned, small businesses like Alter Cycles, Wild Crumb and Treeline Coff ee, and I am grateful that I am a resident of the Northeast Neighborhood.” 111 “…But also, we really enjoyed, I’m going to say the hipness if you will, of the neighborhood. It has a charm and appeal that really spoke to us. We enjoyed...the artsy ﬂ air kind of grittiness.” When asked about the qualities of the neighborhood they like the most, 66 of survey respondents (4.43%) indicated public art as their favorite characteristic. Interviewees also indicated that the neighborhood’s attractiveness in part stemmed from the overall artistic nature and charm of the neighborhood: Public Art Neighbors percieve art as a contributor to the eclectic and unique aspects of the neighborhood. is notion was further conﬁ rmed in PhotoVoicesNE. In reference to the sandhill crane sculpture in Story Mill Park, one participant claimed: “Playful creative expression is one of the ﬁ nest traits of human nature.” “Incredible public art is icing on the cake!” “The Defender” Sandhill Crane Sculpture by Stephen Fairfi eld In the photo on the next page, one PhotoVoicesNE participant valued public art on the side of a building, claiming that: In all three research methods (survey, interview, and PhotoVoices), public art emerged as a trending theme that contributes heavily to neighborhood and social character. 112 Artwork on display Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 20 A dog stands in front of a sled dog painting in an alleyway. Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 12 “Expression of individuality is critical for NENA.” -Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 27 113 of Respondents 79%One of the key reasons people love living in the Northeast neighborhood is that they know their neighbors and engage in frequent informal interactions. Survey and PhotoVoicesNE data suggest there are many block parties and other various opportunities for neighbors to get together throughout the course of the year. Future growth should celebrate neighborhood connectivity and allow for continued opportunities for engagement. know more than 25% of their neighbors on the block by name and most are likely get together at least once every few months. A block party get- together, hosted in the middle of winter PhotoVoicesNE, p. 27 Neighborhood Socializing 114 NENA Survey: In a typical 12 month period, approximately how often do you have get-togethers with neighbors?Less than 25%21%25-50%35%51-75%19%More than 75%38% NENA Survey: Approximately how many of your neighbors on your block do you know by name and/or by sight? 115 Source: MSU School of Architecture Students Alex Fife, Kayla Johnson, & Colin Habeck Research shows that the design of the physical environment can shape the level of neighborliness (Wilkerson et al. 2012). e social spaces in the Northeast neighborhood encourage frequent happenstance encounters between neighbors. According to the NENA survey, front facing public and semi- public spaces like sidewalks, front yards, and front porches were the most common locations for social engagement with neighbors. Back facing spaces like backyards and alleyways were next most common. Social Spaces e following pages explore semi-private social spaces like yards, gardens, and porches as social spaces. 116 According to survey participants, sidewalks are the most common location of engagement. NENA Survey: Where do you usually engage with your neighbors? (check all that apply) 117 Yards Ground level yards allow for happenstance social interactions, especially in semi-public front yards. Yards, both front and back, also serve as places where residents can interact with each other, particularly if residents have gardens or porches in their yard. Furniture in the yard also facilitated use and thus social interaction. Of Northeast neighborhoood properties, 20% had furniture in the front yard and 38% had furniture in the backyard. Yards are important to residents. We have seen and heard from community members that people enjoy being outside in the fresh air and children enjoy playing outside with other kids in the neighborhood. One interviewee noted that yards with gardens bring people together in the neighborhood by giving something for residents to interact over: “I think that backyards and the gardens contribute to the community...we are always checking out each other’s tomatoes and ﬂ ower beds, and getting advice from each other. at keeps us outside.” New houses added to the neighborhood are often built with rooftop decks instead of yards. is practice cuts off the opportunity to spend time in semi-public spaces. We heard from VisionNE members who believe it is possible to inﬁ ll lots while saving space for yards and gardens. Backyard Party, Source: PhotoVoicesNE p.17 118 119 Neighbors spoke positively about the gardens within the neighborhood. ey viewed both public and private gardens as catalysts for social interaction. We are told that people in the neighborhood share experiences through gardening such as sharing produce, advice, and bounty. Several interviewees commented on the value of having vegetation in the neighborhood. One said, “I think that one of the most positive aspects [of the neighborhood] is that we have yards, gardens, mature trees, and vegetation.” Another said, “Let’s get this going and growing.” Gardens “This garden makes a beautiful addition to our neighborhood. Recently, many of our neighbors have been converting their yards to gardens like this, increasing pollinator habitat and often using less water than regular lawns. Yards like this one are an important aspect of our neighborhood, one that I hope we will see more of in the future.” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 14 120 “A picture of our community garden next to city hall. It’s a place where people can come together to visit and grow vegetables and get to know neighbors.” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 11 “I love to see people growing food in their yards. It uses less water than a grass lawn, is beautiful, and feeds families.” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 14 “This place is a haven & gift for those of us without growing space. More of these because the waitlist is always so long!” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 15 “One of the joys of this neighborhood is peering over unique fences into lush backyard gardens. Fences and gardens are magnets for community. Neighbors talk and share garden tips and news.” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 15 121 Porches 40% of the homes in the Northeast neighborhood have porches that are large enough for 2 people to occupy. Front porches are a key part of the character of the Northeast neighborhood, endemic to many of its historic styles. Porches are present in similar percentages in all four quadrants. ey are more common in Vicotrian, Craftsman, and Neotradtional style homes. Porches are least common in Minimalist Traditional and Ranch homes. 41% of Contemporary homes include porches; while this is not as high as the older historic homes, it matches the frequency of the rest of the neighborhood. As a practice, occupying the porch places eyes on the street and encoruages casual interactions creating lively energy on the block (Brown, Burton, and Sweany 1998; Wison-Doenges 2001). In the neighborhood survey, 49% of respondents said they met with neighbors on their porches. Interviews show that porches are an important part of the life style of the neighborhood. “.. is porch and front yard are kind of like the deck of a ship. Because we can sit out there and all the neighbors walk by and [Neighbor name] brings her little... baby by and we visit from our front porch.” Regarding porches, one interviewee explained that their porch is a place to watch and interact with passing neighbors. Another interviewee noted that they intentionally built a patio in their front yard to interact with other neighbors. “I will say that we personally built the patio in the front of our home because we wanted to have more interactions with our neighbors.” A Bench Located on the Front Porch of a Victorian Home 122 Covered Front Porch Entry Trends Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 123 By comparison to yards and porches, roof decks are remote and far more private. As roof decks replace yards and porches as the typical open space designed into newer homes, some residents expressed concern that neighboring behaviors may decrease, eroding community. In the map to the right, we compare the style of home to the presence of a roof deck. e majority of houses in the neighborhood do not have roof decks. e houses that have roof decks are most often in the Contemporary style. Roof decks are not a part of the historic character of the neighborhood, but have been becoming more common in recent years. Only 11% of homes have front roof decks, and 10% have back roof decks. Only 16% of all homes have any roof decks visible. However, 61% of Contemporary homes have either a front or back roof deck, or both. Most the front roof decks in the neighborhood are on Contemporary and Neo-traditional homes, with 86% of front roof decks belonging to these styles. Back roof decks are distributed across more style groups since they can be integrated more easily into historic homes without changing the stylistic character of the front facade. Decks R o o fD e c k s in allHomes Con temporar y H omesRoof Deck No Roof Deck 124 Roof Deck Presence by Style Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 125 e celebratory presence of sheds facing onto the alleyways is a key part of the identity of the neighborhood, which distinguishes it from other historic downtown neighborhoods. Just under 37% (281) of the inventoried structures in the neighborhood had visible sheds present on the property at the time of collection. Distribution of sheds was seemingly equal across the neighborhood, with no obvious trends or clustering of sheds in any particular section of the neighborhood. e most common type of sheds were small backyard structures in the corner of the properties. A handful of houses had sheds either attached to a garage or greenhouse. Sheds were almost always in the rear portion of the property, near, or adjacent to the alleyway if an alleyway was present. Some properties have multiple sheds. Some sheds were painted with murals or celebrated in other ways. Contemporary homes had fewer sheds, showing a trend where the residents of newer homes are less likely to participate in this neighbrohood tradition. Sheds 37% e Parade of Sheds, an annual NENA celebration taking place in the summer, features a walking/biking parade around the neighborhood. Beginning at the Historic Depot climbing boulder, the parade travels through the neighborhood and features various neighborhood icons, such as ‘treehouse platform,’ ‘license plate exhibit,’ several graffi ti art scenes. e parade is ﬁ lled with costumes, pets, instruments, and “other oddities” (NENA 2021). e parade has been taking place in September for over twenty as a humble alternative, poking fun at the more elite architecture tours at the Parade of Homes and its multi-million dollar homes. Instead the Parade of Sheds celebrates the funky underbelly of the neighborhood and it’s working class history and vernacular aesthetics (Becker 2007). Visible Shed on the side of a Craftsman Home 126 Inventory of Backyard Sheds Prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack Rosenthal 127 Most of the neighborhood have alleyways as part of their physical settlement pattern. e Northwest quadrant has the most consistent alleyway access, while the eastern part of the neighborhood has more irregular alleyway planning. Inventory of Alleyway Access Prepared by Jack Rosenthal & Kipton Giddings 128 Alleyways Alleys are an important settlement pattern in the neighborhood serving not only as access to rear garages and parking areas, but also as social infrastructure. ese alleyways house the sheds that the neighborhood is proud of, and has historically been the location of ADUs. Alleys allow socializing with neighbors in back yards, increasing the community connections of the area. Multiple interviewees cited alleyways as places where they walk in the neighborhood and encounter neighbors. One interviewee described how walking through alleys in the summer is interesting for them and allows them to interact with other people in the neighborhood: “We walk a lot in the summertime. Particularly we take the alleys in the north part of town here because you see a lot of interesting things. A lot of people have greenhouses and stuff in their backyard. So, you see them. e alleyways are a way [to interact] ... we often chat and say ‘How’s it going? What’s going on?’ Ya know, ‘How’s your garden going off ?’ People chat with you and stuff . ey’re kind of thoroughfares for socialization in the summertime.” Over half of survey respondents marked “alleys” as one of the things they liked most about the neighborhood, making it the sixth most common answer. However, 34% of homes do not have access to an alleyway. is suggests that alleyways, then, are utilized by more than the occupants of the homes that are adjacent to them, and are likely used in their walkability and connectivity to downtown and local trails. 129 “All are present in the modest homes, the beautiful gardens, its outdoor spaces, the variety of paint colors and the way neighbors connect with and care for neighbors.” -PhotoVoicesNE, p. 21 is research project not only looked at the phsycial spaces of the neighborhood, but how residents perceive the area and experience the changes taking place there. Comments from residents in the PhotoVoicesNE project, the survey, and the interviews highlighted the perceived opportunities and challnges that face the northeast neighborhood. Neighborhood Perception of the Neighborhood.......... Perception of Neighborhood Change... Maintaining the Status Quo................... Neighborhood Concerns......................... Challenges and Acceptance of Infi ll..... Economic Changes.................................. Short Term Rentals.................................. Challenges with Traffi c and Parking..... Challenges with Public Offi cials............ Perceptions of NENA.............................. 134 136 138 140 142 144 145 146 148 152 Perceptions Perception of the Northeast Neighborhood Generally, both the survey respondents and interviewees had positive perceptions of the Northeast neighborhood in terms of community character and physical design. We asked survey respondents to provide one word to describe the Northeast neighborhood to understand their general perceptions of the neighborhood. e following is a list of words used at least twice to describe the neighborhood, and how many people used them: eclectic (21), funky (9), quiet (6), unique (5), home (4), character (3), community (3), convenience (3), neighborly (3), quaint (3), quirky (3), walkable (3), awesome (2), comfortable (2), cozy (2), friendly (2), gentrifying (2), historic (2), mixed (2), neighborhood (2), peaceful (2), and precious (2). A host of other words were referenced once to describe the neighborhood (Radulski et. al 2022). “Eclectic” Interviewees also echoed the words described by survey respondents, providing more context to residents’ general perceptions of the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. “…But also we really enjoyed, I’m going to say the hipness if you will, of the neighborhood. It has a charm and appeal that really spoke to us. We enjoyed... kind of the artsy ﬂ air kind of grittiness.” ey also commented positively on the family friendly and multigenerational nature of the neighborhood when discussing the community character of the Northeast neighborhood. 134 Interviewees noted that the neighborhood in the past had been a good place to raise families and that the neighborhood is multigenerational. One interviewee above discussed the multigenerational nature of the neighborhood. Another described how their friends wanted to move to the neighborhood to start families because it seemed family- friendly: “So many of my friends in in their 20s...really wanted to invest in and stay in a place that they knew that they wanted to raise their families in and the Northeast neighborhood was a place...they could do that.” Multi- Generational ese descriptions imply that the neighborhood can be characterized by its family friendly nature, as well as a diverse population of residents in terms of age. ese characteristics contribute to a prevalent theme that multiple interviewees discussed, which is the sense of community within the neighborhood. One interviewee described how this sense of community comes from the neighborhood being the right size for encountering the same people repeatedly. “…Most everything in this neighborhood is human sized.... it’s not collected human size, but family human sized.... before last year, it was fun to...[eat] my breakfast and watch people walk their kids to school...I see the same people walking their dogs every day. And...I don’t necessarily know their names, but I know who they are, where they live, likely. So it gives me a sense of community.” “…First of all, [it’s] multi-generational. We have a good friend on the corner who is 92 years old. We have a couple that lives two houses down, and they have a baby who is two years old. So, from 2 to 92, and everything in between.” Family-Friendly Diverse Age Range Familiar Faces Walkability to Downtown Unique and Eclectic Key Takeaways Perception of Neighborhood Change Survey Results Residents expressed ambivalent views of neighborhood change. We asked survey respondents to indicate how they felt about the change happening in the neighborhood on a Likert scale of 1-5, where they could indicate that they felt very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, very negative, or neither positive nor negative about the change. Most respondents perceived change as either “somewhat positive” or “somewhat negative” with few neutral or extreme answers. is shows a divide in the neighborhood. ere are clear distinctions in these attitudes based on how long the survey respondents have lived in the neighborhood. e majority of newer residents, who have lived in the area for less than 5 years, expressed a “somewhat positive” perception of change. While there is not a binary divide, the longer the residents have lived in the neighborhood, the more likely they are to have a negative perception of change. Interviewees also commented on similar changes to the neighborhood, including changes related to community character, an increased cost of living and gentriﬁ cation of the neighborhood, inﬁ ll and its impacts to the neighborhood’s physical design, and parking and traffi c issues. Relating to community character, interviewees discussed how changes to the physical nature of the neighborhood negatively impact which neighbors they interact with and how they interact with neighbors. ey speciﬁ cally cite the increase in condos and million-dollar homes that replace smaller homes within the neighborhood as a mechanism for changing their interactions with neighborhood residents. One interviewee puts this into perspective, saying that the condos/million-dollar homes detract from the neighborhood whereas the little homes allow interactions with other residents: “ ose are condos. ey’re four- story condos, and they all sold for a million dollars...what they replaced were probably four or ﬁ ve little houses up there on those lots. If you go out there on this street, you’ll see on this side of the street two little houses that are across the street from those giant buildings. And those are typically the sorts of houses they’d replace. And so that’s detracted a little bit from the neighborhood because those little houses with little yards with people we’d normally wave to and all that sort of stuff .” Graphics courtesy of MSU School of Architecture students Grace Brooks, Caitlyn Eckberg, & Shannon Payne 136 137 Maintaining the Status Quo We asked survey respondents what they would like to stay the same about the Northeast neighborhood and what problems or concerns they had about the neighborhood that they would like to see addressed. Regarding what respondents would like to stay the same, in order of most frequently discussed to least frequently discussed, survey respondents cited community character (55), neighborhood aesthetics (42), housing options (34), neighborhood walkability (14), access to businesses (9), aff ordability (7), parking and traffi c (7), access to the outdoors (4), the mixed-used nature of the neighborhood (3), the mixed-income or economic diversity of the neighborhood (2), low inﬁ ll and balanced growth (3), and decreased development in the neighborhood (2) (Radulski et. al 2022). Front Porch Rocking Chairs Access to Businesses - Treeline Coffee Roasters 138 Treemap: Aspects of Neighborhood to Preserve NENA Survey: “What would you like to stay the same in the North East Neighborhood?” “Ease of parking and low noise levels.” "Modest, quiet, friendly, yards, gardens, mature trees/foliage, unpretentious homes" " e quirky character especially of the older buildings." "I like the businesses that are here now, especially working artists...” "Low density" "Access to trails" "Walkable, human- scaled neighborhood with aff ordable locally owned businesses" "Variety of housing options (i.e., apartments!) of varying size and varying cost." " e sense of community. I want the new people in the neighborhood to say hello when they walk by. I want them to pick up a piece of trash if they see it. I want them to get involved. " "Aff ordability, funkiness, individual spirit" "No new housing. Leave Idaho Pole alone." “Mixed use” 139 Regarding what problems or concerns respondents had about the neighborhood that they would like to see addressed, the majority of respondents identiﬁ ed parking and traffi c in the neighborhood as a problem they would like to see addressed (56). In descending order, respondents also identiﬁ ed aff ordability (21), architecture mismatch (19), new development (16), neighborhood preservation (9), public facilities, utilities and infrastructure (8), walkability (8), retaining current residents (7), inﬁ ll and general growth (7), noise from trains and traffi c (6), zoning (5), new residents (4), and a lack of grocery stores in the neighborhood (2) as other problems in the neighborhood that they would like to see addressed (Radulski et. al 2022). Neighborhood Concerns 140 One-11 Residential Development New Construction for the Wildlands Residential Development Project Treemap: Concerns About the Neighborhood NENA Survey: “What is a problem or concern you would like to see addressed in the North East Neighborhood?” Infi ll & General Growth Grocery New Developments New Residents Neighborhood Preservation Traffi c and Parking Architecture Mismatch Public Facilities, Utilities, Infrastructure Walkability Noise Zoning Affordability Retaining Residents "Drivers going waaay too fast and not understanding uncontrolled intersections." " reat of changing zoning, planning stretching the rules." "Overly, extreme large homes being built that doesn’t ﬁ t the neighborhood at all. Blocking views and sun from folks who lived there for years." "Better bike/ped infrastructure." "Lack of curb and gutter, discontinuous sidewalk, lack of storm drain facilities." "Construction noise and traffi c which is currently allowed 7 days/week, from dawn until 8pm, I think." "Housing aff ordability. When I moved into my home my neighbors were teachers, police offi cers, and nonproﬁ t staff like me. at isn’t possible anymore." "Protect access to light for gardens & solar installations." "Rapid development and gentriﬁ cation. I have concerns about the Idaho pole property and whether developers will take care in dealing with the hazardous materials." "Rapid growth needs to consider impacts on existing residents." "Major developments that are pushing more longtime residents out of the neighborhood." "...I don’t want to see NE/Bozeman become an empty and overpriced telluride - REAL people live here!" "I would love to see a local grocery move into the neighborhood." 141 Residents expressed concern that new inﬁ ll has been changing the character of the neighborhood. In the survey, this included the groups of responses related to architecture mismatch, zoning, and neighborhood preservation. Interviewees also expressed concerns about neighborhood inﬁ ll as impacting the physical design of the neighborhood. Some interviewees had very negative attitudes towards neighborhood inﬁ ll. For example, one interviewee discussed the new congestion seen in the Northeast neighborhood, comparing it to where they lived in Seattle: “It’s like Seattle followed us. And one of the things we didn’t like about out there was how congested it was. And that’s what we’re seeing here. And that’s how I feel the Northeast neighborhood is going, is towards congestion.” Another interviewee had a negative attitude about inﬁ ll in the neighborhood, describing how inﬁ ll impacts the charm and livability of the neighborhood by taking away space that could be used for kids to play in or maintain a garden: “I get quite unhappy with the city’s desire to inﬁ ll because the charm of this neighborhood and the livability of this neighborhood is the yards...I think that house should have a space where either kids can go out and play safely or you can have a garden.” Challenges with Infi ll Some interviewees disliked the physical design of the inﬁ ll. For example, one interviewee discussed how the newer inﬁ ll doesn’t match the other buildings in the neighborhood: “And they’re not attractive...they don’t ﬁ t the neighborhood. I’m just thinking of one over on North Wilson, that’s duplexes and I can’t remember what they’re charging for them but they’re humongous. And they block out everything. You can’t see what’s behind.” 142 “As long as houses aren’t too tall to cover the sunset . . .” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 19 Contrary to these negative attitudes towards inﬁ ll and how it impacts the physical design of the Northeast neighborhood, some interviewees acknowledged that inﬁ ll happens because density is needed to prevent sprawl in Gallatin County. For example, one interviewee discussed the need for appropriate inﬁ ll and commented on how the current inﬁ ll in the neighborhood doesn’t support high-density living: “...we talked about inﬁ ll in the city, right, that we need to have space for more people to live in our city...I understand we will both sprawl and we will ﬁ ll in the existing city. ere’s no doubt about that. But can you really call it inﬁ ll when you take down a house where a family of four or ﬁ ve could live happily and build a huge three-story setback to setback where two people are not going to live?” is shows that while there is some tolerance for larger buildings, this is not considered useful human density; particularly if they are targeted at small wealthy households of part-time residents rather than priced for local working families. Another interviewee acknowledged the need for inﬁ ll as well, also citing the need to mitigate sprawl: “Sometimes when I’m shaking my ﬁ sts and being like you know you know I’m not a NIMBY, right? Like not in my backyard and [my partner is] like, ‘Well listen man, you can either...put in density or we’re going to have sprawl, right?’ And those are basically your only options so you have to have some density to mitigate some of the sprawl.” Accepting Infi ll 143 Some of the concerns mentioned in the survey are aff ordability and resident retention, both outcomes of the economic changes taking place in the neighborhood. Interviewees also mentioned the increased cost of living in the neighborhood and the related process of gentriﬁ cation. ey attribute this change to development. One interviewee described how low- income residents are forced out of the neighborhood through gentriﬁ cation: “Well, when it comes to the new houses that are coming up, the biggest diff erence...and therefore also changing the whole demographic, and I think what I call gentriﬁ cation... is that they [new houses] are so big, that the very few houses that are being built that are [small]…” Another interviewee says the neighborhood became “the hip urban place…and then people wanted to move and then that drove up rents.” Other interviewees did not explicitly reference gentriﬁ cation, but did discuss the rising cost of living. One interviewee described how it’s diffi cult to make ends meet today compared to when they ﬁ rst moved there: “I had housing. I had a ski pass. I had extra money.... I had a goal and I was trying to get to it but people can’t do that anymore... ey don’t make the money they need to rent a house here or rent a room in a house even.” Source: PhotoVoicesNE, p. 9 Economic Changes 144 Short Term Rentals Another economic and social challenge in the neighborhood is the impact of short term rentals, which bring outsiders to the area and raise rents. Many cities are facing this problem and using short term rental policies to try to control where and how short terms rentals are managed. In 2017, the city of Bozeman adopted its Short Term Rentals (STR) ordinance which required registration of units, and created zones for diff erent types of uses. Type 1 short term rentals by a cohabitating primary resident are allowed in all zones of the neighborhood. Type 2 vacation rentals by absent primary residents are allowed in the R-3 and R-4 zones of the neighborhood. Full time vacation rentals are only allowed in the B-3 zone of the neighborhood. is zoning protects homes in most residential areas from full time short term rentals, encouraging more long term rentals in these areas. In 2021 and 2022, 23 short term rentals were registered with the city from the Northeast neighborhood. Not all landlords follow the rules; searches of AirBNB and VRBO showed about double that number of short term rentals listed than those registered with the city. Some interviewees noted that changes to the neighborhood, such as the increase in vacation rental homes, impact the community character of the neighborhood. In the quote featured above, one interviewee discussed how these rentals impact the neighborhood quality, implying that vacation rentals disrupt the community character that is well-liked by residents. Residents also noted that investment properties, sometimes used for short term rentals or only used part of the year, created empty streets with less social interaction. One interviewee noted, “What I ﬁ nd worrying is the idea that there are there are empty buildings in the neighborhood... they are going to turn into literally black holes at nighttime, you know, through much of the year.” Here, empty homes means less people walking to the mailbox, sitting on the porch, and chatting in the alleys. Even the lack of lights make the neighborhood less inviting. “…I was kind of surprised a couple of years ago, when I realized how many of the single-family homes were in fact being rented as vacation rentals. at worried me because again, what I value about here is the neighborhood quality. And, you know, if you have people using your neighborhood as a hotel, it's something entirely diff erent…” 145 Challenges with Traffi c & Parking Another concern raised by residents was an increase in traffi c and a shortage of parking, especially as the area densiﬁ es. Interviewees discussed their attitudes related to changes in parking and traffi c in the neighborhood. Generally, interviewees discussed these issues negatively, as they perceived parking and traffi c issues to impact the safety of the neighborhood and create inconveniences for themselves and other residents. For example, one interviewee described how traffi c moves through the neighborhood in a way that’s too fast and getting worse: “Mendenhall is closed, and Bozeman is closed down by Dave’s Sushi, so everyone’s using Black. And in the morning, you wake up and it sounds like just a road race, just people ﬂ ying down and they are going too fast. So, I’ve only seen that worsening. Because every time it’s been brought up about doing something about the intersections, we have what we call Bozeman roulette...sometimes there’s a yield sign, sometimes it’s shut your eyes and go as fast as you can through...” Another interviewee commented on how alleys have become new routes for traffi c to use to avoid major roads in the neighborhood, implying that it impacts how they regularly use alleys because they have to now consider traffi c: “[on alleys] ... we used to never have to worry about traffi c and this was somebody who lived there and now it is almost becoming a rear out for people who don’t want to drive down Wallace…” Several interviewees complain that the city is not requiring new developments to build enough parking. One resident complained that there is not “adequate parking in these high rises” leading to “people parking all over the neighborhood.” Some residents acknowledge this issue is temporary due to construction. 146 Challenges with Public Offi cials One concerning trend was a distrust or frustration with public offi cials. We asked survey respondents how much they agree with the following statement: “When people in the Northeast neighborhood try to create positive community change, Bozeman elected offi cials and government employees are usually responsive.” On a Likert scale the largest group of respondents, 39% expressed a neutral response. e remainder are relatively equally split between agree and disagree. Another question gave the respondents a chance to elaborate on the reason for their answer, which 30% answered. While many respondents to the follow up question (22) did not participate frequently enough to have interaction with public offfi cials, half of the remaining written responses (21) characterized public offi cials as “not supportive”. e rest portrayed public offi cials as “partially supportive” (11) or “supportive” (10). Respondents also indicted that they perceived elected offi cials and government employees as being agenda driven, economics driven, lacking transparency, policy adhering, impacted by the planning process, and elitist (Radulski, et. al, 2022). Attitudes towards government employees and elected offi cials Northeast neighborhood members engage in a planning workshop in 2017. Source: R/UDAT, p. 3 148 NENA Survey: When people in the North East Neighborhood try to create positive community change, Bozeman elected offi cials and government employees are usually responsive. 39%of survey respondents expressed a neutral attitude with the responsiveness of Bozeman elected offi cials and government employees. 149 Some residents expressed gratitude to the city for representing their interests, for example the PhotoVoicesNE participant who thanked the city for Story Mill Park on the next page. Nonetheless, many interviewees echoed and elaborated on concerns about city government decision makers and their lack of representation of neighborhood interests. Some concerns about decision-makers were echoed and elaborated on by interviewees, highlighting perceived lack of representation of neighborhood interests by city government. Some interviewees were skeptical of the city approach to managing growth in the neighborhood, although some interviewees acknowledged the diffi culty of managing growth in the broader Bozeman community. Others argued that because public offi cials weren’t members of the neighborhood community, they did not understand or represent their needs. For example, one interviewee described how elected offi cials and government employees are making uninformed decisions about their neighborhood: “ e one thing I’m fairly certain of is that there is nobody on the City Commission that lives in my neighborhood. And they’re making decisions based on things that have nothing to do with them...It’s not that they don’t care. But I think they’re going for expediency and to make money.” Another described how these decision-makers are hypocritical in making decisions about the Northeast neighborhood by comparing the properties where most residents live in the neighborhood to the properties in which elected government offi cials live. In doing so, they illustrated how far-removed decision-makers are from their neighborhood: “…they want us to feel bad about living in a house like this on a lot that’s exactly one quarter of an acre. Because their attitude is ‘you can put four houses in that area there’. And it’s like, wait a minute, we have a yard. And so you always Representation wonder if you should feel guilty because you’re able to aff ord that lot. Or because you have it because of white privilege. Or what level of guilt should we all have for having nice properties in the neighborhood. I don’t feel guilty at all about it...So, we did drive up and found where the commissioners live on a map and thought ‘well let’s just take a look at these people who want to sunder our neighborhoods and pack ‘em full of high density buildings’. And by God they all have huge houses, much bigger than this one. But they don’t have any big, crazy buildings around them or anything.” Also related to this attitude of viewing elected offi cials and government employees as outsiders, one interviewee commented that these decision-makers didn’t seem to be representing their neighborhood. Instead, they felt these decision-makers were representing individuals who weren’t part of their neighborhood or even part of Bozeman more than they were representing the neighborhood...once again illustrating how interviewees felt elected offi cials and government employees were removed from the neighborhood: “…You know, sometimes it seems like...they’re representing the people who haven’t moved here yet. I think the people who elected them are the people they should be representing.” is once again illustrates how interviewees felt elected offi cials and government employees were removed from the neighborhood. Some residents threatened to replace elected offi cials who did not adequately represent their interests regarding new development, as stated in this PhotoVoicesNE quote on the next page. 150 “No more buildings like Black & Olive - this is a small western town...Might need some different city commissioners; Mid/high rise apartments do not neighborhoods make...” Source: PhotoVoicesNE p. 15-16 Another theme that emerged in interviews was a frustration with a lack of action. Some interviewees discussed how they would attend city meetings to bring up issues with growth in the neighborhood and be kept waiting for a response. One interviewee described how they attended a city meeting and initially felt heard by elected offi cials and government employees when speaking up about issues in the neighborhood, but then continued to see those issues persist: “I think we all we go to neighborhood meetings, and we go to sometimes City Commission meetings and discuss these things. And you’ll always get a little bit of a feel that the City Commission recognized that maybe this is not what we want for the Northeast neighborhood of Bozeman. But then another year passes by and old houses come down into more monster houses.” Another interviewee echoed this experience of expecting elected government offi cials to address neighborhood change and failing to see them do so: “…if it’s going to change, if the city will ﬁ nally hear us and be like..., maybe it’s okay to say no to those big, big houses... I guess I don’t really see it happening, I really thought the mayor address would put the foot down.” “So grateful for the new Story Mill Park!..Thanks to the city and Maddy Pope!” Source: PhotoVoicesNE p. 5-6 Some interviewees acknowledged the diffi culty of managing change in their neighborhood that elected offi cials and government employees are tasked with managing. One interviewee noted that Bozeman in general is experiencing so much change and described how it’s diffi cult for decision-makers to keep up with the change: “…I think that Bozeman is just inundated with so much change that it’s really hard for them to focus on one neighborhood and there’s other ones that might have more… it’s just hard with their city timelines and their staff to be able to keep up with the rapid change and prioritizing the North side in comparison to all the other pressures.” Waiting for Action 151 Neighborhood participants had fairly active participation in the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) and think the organization represents them well to the city. Of survey respondents, 56% somewhat or strongly agreed they participated in NENA and 59% attended at least one meeting in the past three years. 38% of survey respondents attended the Parade of Sheds. Generally, NENA was seen as a positive neighborhood organization that helped residents learn more about changes to the neighborhood and advocated for the residents during public meetings with government employees and elected offi cials. One interviewee described how NENA serves as an organization that brings neighborhood residents together to help vision for the future of the neighborhood: “NENA... it’s a Neighborhood Association, so it’s a voice for how the general consensus of the neighborhood is. ey’re not there to necessarily be like anti- development, or anti this, they’re there to be a collective informant and to bring everyone together to have a conversation about how NENA Perceptions of NENA should move forward with its collective voice in terms of making recommendations in terms of how to grow and develop and what we want the neighborhood to look like…” Echoing this sentiment, another interviewee described how NENA represents residents’ values: “I think NENA... has been very, very mature, and very kind and gentle with the Council [City Commission]… I think NENA is trying to be political, and it’s doing a good job... the photograph exhibit, and all of that was very gentle way to kind of let people know that we value what is so I don’t think there’s overt tension. I think the values, that the Council of espouses are very diff erent than I think the values a lot of people who live here.” 152 Finally, an interviewee who is involved in neighborhood organizing discussed how they work with NENA to preserve the neighborhood for current and future residents. ey highlight how NENA shares goals with themselves: “People look to us to do that and so we would get that done and the people in NENA are also just as adamant about it as we are. So, when we get together, yes, protect the neighborhood character, protect the parking, protect against the incursion of big development that destroys the sense of community that we have and we’ve enjoyed all these years. And I don’t think about it as something that I’m doing just for myself, I’m going to croak pretty soon, but I think about preserving it for young people.” “These photos depict what I think are NENA values of “These photos depict what I think are NENA values of creativity, variety, infi ll, and non-conformity. (Both of creativity, variety, infi ll, and non-conformity. (Both of the new parcels created were “too small” by default the new parcels created were “too small” by default City standards; however, they were plenty big for the City standards; however, they were plenty big for the structures, setbacks, and yards.) I hope that the NCOD structures, setbacks, and yards.) I hope that the NCOD and Design Standards continue to preserve— or even and Design Standards continue to preserve— or even enhance—the opportunities for projects like this.enhance—the opportunities for projects like this. Source: PhotoVoicesNE p. 8Source: PhotoVoicesNE p. 8 “I like how the homeowners plant ﬂ owers and put their swing out by the trail for people to stop, relax, and enjoy some time there if they wish to because it’s important to do that in our day.” -PhotoVoices NE, p. 16 158 160 is section includes the themes that emerged from the research. It includes ideas about next steps to take to protect neighborhood character in the face of change.Emerging Themes................................................ Next Potential Steps............................................ Synthesis & Application 158 Emerging Themes 1. Mixed Opinions Regarding Density and Infi ll Some participants voiced staunch opposition to an increase in housing density in the Northeast neighborhood, citing concerns that density would threaten historic character, the neighborhood’s sense of community, and the viewshed of the Bridger Range and Story Hills. Others, however, believed density and inﬁ ll were essential to maintain housing aff ordability and curbing sprawl. 2. Not Anti-Development, but Pro-Neighborhood Character We found throughout this research that participants did not oppose development on principle and supported new construction that was compatible with existing neighborhood design and character. For example, the new buildings that were showcased in the PhotoVoicesNE project were all built to the same scale as existing buildings, took styling cues from historic architecture, and most of them were built on vacant land rather than necessitating the demolition of an existing building. e following are key themes that emerged from the PhotoVoicesNE project, the NENA survey, and the interviews conducted as part of this research project. Our research showed that Northeast neighborhood residents who participated in the project value neighborhood character, mixed-uses, aff ordability, and neighborhood interaction; they are more ambivalent about density and inﬁ ll. 159 5. Value Mixed-Use Including Industry and Small Businesses e Northeast neighborhood has historically been a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, and participants supported perpetuation of industrial and commercial land use in the Northeast neighborhood. 3. Value Social Interaction Participants expressed that daily informal interaction with neighbors is a key aspect of living in the Northeast neighborhood. is is supported by porches, yards, alleyways, sidewalks, and parks. Participants want to make sure that changes to the neighborhood do not undermine social connections. 4. Value Affordability Rising prices are a major concern of the participants, both in retaining existing residents, and attracting local families in the future. Participants value a variety of housing types to meet the need for aff ordability. 160 Potential Next Steps e data presented in this report overall suggest that the people who participated in this research are concerned that their neighborhood character is eroding. It is clear from the survey and interview results that the urban form of the neighborhood impacts how neighborhood residents interact with each other and use private and public space, which also impacts the more general community character. We recognize that measuring neighborhood character is diffi cult. We highlight the following ideas the city of Bozeman could consider for next steps if considering neighborhood character is desired. e examples provided have not been vetted, they are simply idea generators. 161 e city could consider utilizing neighborhood plans throughout Bozeman that enable new and changing development to either ﬁ t with existing settlement plans or alleviate abrupt transitions between lots and blocks. Many Western US cities have utilized this approach (e.g., Billings, MT A; Boise, ID; Denver, CO; Salt Lake City, UT A). 1. Utilize small-scale neighborhood plans to refl ect neighborhood values and character. To support the neighborhood, the city could ﬁ nd ways to preserve the neighborhood’s urban form. One approach could be the use of zoning or a points system to incentivize developers to match the character of the neighborhood, as well as considering grants to preserve small-scale historical homes and buildings (Peoria and Church 2020, 25-26). 2. Incentivize development that protects the current urban form of the Northeast neighborhood. 162 Many of the complaints we saw in our data surrounded new development seeming out of scale with the existing development pattern. is includes lot coverage, lot setbacks, and height. Primarily, concerns arose with new developments that took up all allowable lot coverage and allowable heights that may then have adverse eff ects on neighboring homes. Some cities have utilized complicated height standards for inﬁ ll development (e.g., Salt Lake City, UT B) or a series of inﬁ ll standards that include ﬂ oor area ratios, height, and more (e.g., Coeur d’Alene, ID). 3. Explore ways to ensure new development is in scale with the existing neighborhood. New contemporary homes in the Northeast neighborhood tend to have a larger footprint and utilize private outdoor space (i.e., roof decks) rather than semi-private outdoor space (i.e., front porches) as compared with earlier home typologies. e people who participated in this research tend to think this privatization of space also reduces sociability of the neighborhood, which was a key aspect of this neighborhood’s character. us, if sociability is desired, requirements or incentives to incorporate semi-private social spaces in new inﬁ ll development may be warranted (e.g., Tampa Bay Times 2019). 4. Consider ways to ensure semi-private social spaces continue to be a cornerstone of the Northeast neighborhood. 163 e city should ﬁ nd ways to support new development while keeping the cost of living low for current and future residents. As many respondents and interviewees described, the past cost of living of their neighborhood has allowed for the neighborhood to host people of diverse ages and incomes, which contributes to the community character of the neighborhood. e city is well aware of the aff ordable housing crisis. e city’s housing code audit revealed several avenues to reduce housing costs and implement more housing units. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are one approach to aff ordable inﬁ ll housing that could be utilized (see Villa n.d. for ADU funding and support resources). Although development is necessary to allow Bozeman to adapt to a growing population, preventing a rising cost of living for current residents must also be managed for to protect the Northeast neighborhood character. 5. Support new development while keeping the cost of living low for current and future residents. We suggest that the city further involve the community in neighborhood growth and development planning. Our research put voice to an underlying feeling of distrust with elected offi cials and government employees. is concern is important to recognize, as whatever the city attempts to implement may be met with skepticism. e city has a robust neighborhoods program and has implemented Engage Bozeman, which help with transparency and visibility of planning processes. e city of Bozeman could explore codifying neighborhood associations as being informed or having a decision-making voice in development (e.g., Albuquerque, NM; Anne Arbor, MI; Madison WI; New Orleans, LA; Oregon City, OR; Portland, OR) implementing neighborhood representation through the Council system (e.g., Billings, MT B; Missoula, MT; Salt Lake City, UT C), and/or simply providing multiple ways for the public to interact with the development process. 6. Further involve the community in neighborhood growth and development planning. “NENA = Freedom to be creative!” -PhotoVoicesNE, p. 10 Appendix Special Acknowledgements................... Works Referenced................................... Image Credits........................................... 168 170 175 168 Special Acknowledgements ank you to MSU for funding this project through the Outreach and Engagement Grant and the Community Engaged and Transformational Scholarship (CATS) partnership with the city of Bozeman. ank you to Susan Gallagher at the Community Engaged and Transformational Scholarship (CATS) program for helping to create partnerships with the city of Bozeman and for attending student presentations of work in progress. ank you to Nicholas Fox and Kylie Moore, who created the GIS mapping and Survey123 Inventory. ank you also to the city of Bozeman staff who helped to consult on this project including Chris Saunders, Dani Hess, Phillipe Gonzales and Sarah Rosenburg. Finally, we would like to thank the NENA Vision NE working group who have helped to conceive of and frame this project, publicize it to the Northeast neighborhood residents, and give feedback on MSU faculty and student work in progress. While many people were involved, we would like to speciﬁ cally thank Amy Kelley Hoitsma, Cathy Costakis, Karen Filipovich. Reno Walsh, and Suzanne Held. 170 Works Referenced AIA Communities by Design. 2017. A Vision for the Northeast Neighborhood: Bozeman, MT R/UDAT Report. Bozeman: AIA Communities by Design. https://wwwbozemanrudat com Albuquerque, NM. Pre-submittal Neighborhood Meeting Requirement in the IDO. https://www.cabq govplanning/urban-design-development/neighborhoodmeetingrequirement-inthe integrated-development-ordinance Ann Arbor, MI. Neighborhood Associations. https://www.a2gov.org/departmentsplanning/Pages neighborhoodAssociations.aspx Becker, Michael. 2007. “Northeast Neighborhood Hosts Parade of Sheds.” Bozeman Chronicle, September 14, 2007. Bendon Adams and Orion Planning and Design. 2019. City of Bozeman Final NCOD Policy Direction. Bozeman: City of Bozeman. Bendon Adams and Orion Planning and Design. 2019. Policy Recommendations for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Bozeman: City of Bozeman. Billings, MT A. Community and Neighborhood Plans. https://ci.billingsmt.us/843/Community NeighborhoodPlans Billings, MT B. City Council Members. https://ci.billings.mt.us/159/CityCouncil-Members Boise, ID. Neighborhood and Master Plans. https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning-and-development-services planning-and-zoning/comprehensive-planning/plans/ Bozeman Community Development. N.D. Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessed July 15, 2022. https://www.bozeman.nethomeshowpublisheddocument/8447/637242014567930000 Bozeman Planning Board. 2020. Bozeman MT 2020 Community Plan. Bozeman: City of Bozeman. Accessed July 20, 2022. https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1074/637552816180100000 Brown, Barbra B., John R. Burton, and Anne L. Sweany. 1998. “Neighbors, Households, and Front Porches: New Urbanist Community Tool, or Just Nostalgia.” Environment and Behavior 30 (5): 579-600. City of Bozeman. 2018. Bozeman Strategic Plan. Bozeman: City of Bozeman. https://strategic-plan-bozeman.opendata.arcgis.com 172 City of Bozeman GIS (2017). Bozeman urban renewal districts. Accessed July 20, 222. https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=3320https://www.bozeman net/home/shopublisheddocument/1074/637552816180100000 Coeur d’Alene, ID. Inﬁ ll Overlay Districts: Access here: https://www.cdaid.org/Files/Planning Inﬁ llStandards.pdf “Community Development Viewer.” Bozeman Geographic Information System . City of Bozeman, 2022. https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=planning. Cowan, Susanne and Sarah P. Church. 2020. NENA Neighborhood Survey: Qualtrics Default Report. Bozeman: Montana State University. https://www.montana.edu/northeast neighborhood/reports.html Denver, CO. Neighborhood Planning. https://www.denvergov.org/Government Agencies-Departments-Offi ces/Agencies-Departments-Offi ces-Directory Community-Planning-and-Development/Planning/Neighborhood-Planning Easterling, Camden, 2005. “What’s blight got to do with it? Urban renewal district formation moves forward amid diff ering opinions,” Bozeman Chronicle, October 1, 2005. Giddings, Kipton, Jack Rosenthal, Sarah P. Church. 2021. Northeast Neighborhood Inventory Report. Bozeman: People Places Lab, Montana State University. Madison, WI. 2005. Participating in the Development Process: A Best Practices Guide for Developers, Neighborhoods, and Policymakers. Access here: https://www cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning/documents/best-practices-guide.pdf Montana Cadastral. Accessed June 24, 2022. http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/ Missoula, MT. City Council. Access here: https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/314/City-Council New Orleans, LA. Chapter 15. e Community Participation Program. https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/d0af18ad-651d-4536-92bd-3ef02dfe5935 Vol-3-Ch-15-Neighborhood-Participation-Program/ National Register of Historic Places. 1987. Bozeman Brewery Historic District, Bozeman, MT. National Register of Historic Places. 1987. North Tracy Ave Historic District, Bozeman, MT, 246A951. 173 Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA). 2019. PhotoVoicesNE: A Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) Community Art Project and an Act of Democracy. Bozeman: Northeast Neighborhood Association. Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA). 2021. Parade of Sheds. https://www nenabozeman.org/blog/2021/08/2021-parade-of-sheds Oregon City, OR. Neighborhood Associations. https://www.orcity.orgcommunity/neighborhood associations Peoria, Joseph D., Church, Sarah P. 2020. Integrating Neighborhood Voice intoPolicies, Plans, and Regulations: A Synthesis of Bozeman’s Northeast Neighborhood Vision and City Policy. Bozeman: Montana State University. https://www.montana.edu northeast-neighborhood/reports.html Portland, OR. 3.96.030 Neighborhood Associations. https://www.portland.govcode/3/96#toc- 3-96-030-neighborhood-associations- Radulski, Brennan, Jack Rosenthal, Susanne Cowan, and Sarah P. Church. (2022). Northeast Neighborhood Resident Open-ended Survey Questions and Interviews Results: Understanding Resident Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Neighborhood Change and Planning Stakeholders in Bozeman, MT. Bozeman: People Places Lab, Montana State University. https://www.montana.edu/northeast-neighborhood/reports.html Ricker, Amanda, 2012. “History in the making: Northeast neighborhood may qualify for historic district” Bozeman Daily Chronicle. April 22, 2012. Salt Lake City, UT A. Master Plans. https://www.slc.gov/planning/2018/03/22neighborhood plans/ Salt Lake City, UT B. 21A.34.120: YCI Yalecrest Compatible Inﬁ ll Overlay District. https:/ codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/saltlakecityut/latest/saltlakecity_ut/0-0 0-67061 Salt Lake City, UT C. City Council. About Us. Access here: https://www.slc.gov/council about-us/ Schattauer, Erin. 2014. “Bozeman sets clock on brewery wall; engineer recommends demolition.” Bozeman Chronicle, Jan 28, 2014. Tampa Bay Times. 2019. Opinion: Tampa’s push to promote the porch. Editorial. https://www tampabay.com/opinion/2019/10/04/tampas-push-to-promotethe-porch-editorial/ 174 U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Average Gross Rent. Prepared by Social Explorer. (accessed Jul 09 11:16:03 EST 2022). U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Household Income (in 2020 Inﬂ ation Adjusted Dollars). Prepared by Social Explorer. (accessed Jul 09 11:16:03 EST 2022). U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Households by Household Type. Prepared by Social Explorer. (accessed Jul 09 11:16:03 EST 2022). U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Population Density (per Square Mile). Prepared by Social Explorer. (accessed Jul 09 11:16:03 EST 2022). U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Quickfacts: Bozeman. (accessed July 9, 2022.) https://www.census gov/quickfacts/geo/chart/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Sex by Age. Prepared by Social Explorer. (accessed Jul 09 11:16:03 EST 2022). Villa. n.d. ADU Aid Programs Across the U.S. Access here: https://villahomes.com/blog/adu aid-programs/ Wilkerson, Amy, Nichole E. Carlson, Irene H. Yen, and Yvonne L. Michael. 2012. “Neighborhood Physical Features and Relationships with Neighbors: Does Positive Physical Environment Increase Neighborliness?” Environment and Behavior 44 (5): 595-615. Williams, Walt. 2004. “Bozeman’s funkiest neighborhood: Revitalization of NE neighborhood going strong.” Bozeman Chronicle, November 13, 2004. Wilson-Doenges, Georjeanna. 2001. “Push and Pull Forces Away from Front Porch Use.” Environment and Behavior 33 (2): 264-278. Zillow Research. (2021). Housing Data. Zillow Research. March 25,2021 (accessed June 29, 2022). https://www.zillow.com/research/data/ Zumper. (2022). Average rent in Bozeman, MT and cost information. Zumper (accessed June 29, 2022). https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/bozeman-mt 175 Image Credits Most images in this report are taken by the team members or the MSU students as part of the inventory, or are from the PhotoVoicesNE project report. We have used a few images from other reports on the Northeast neighborhood which are credited below. AIA R/UDAT Team (2017). A vision for the Northeast Neighborhood [PDF document] https://www.bozemanrudat.com/s/Bozeman-FINAL-Report-42417_optimized.pdf DHM Design. (2018). Bozeman’s Northeast Neighborhood. Issuu. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://issuu.com/dhm_design/docs/bozeman_northeast_neighborhood_ issu 176 School of Architecture | PO Box 173760 | Bozeman, MT 59717-3760 arch.montana.edu | architect@montana.edu