{"id":55,"date":"2025-07-28T19:51:34","date_gmt":"2025-07-28T19:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/?post_type=chapter&p=55"},"modified":"2025-10-19T11:08:33","modified_gmt":"2025-10-19T11:08:33","slug":"55","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/chapter\/55\/","title":{"rendered":"Community Engagement & Feedback That Shaped the Project"},"content":{"raw":"From the very beginning, the Van Aken District redevelopment was designed with community input. This reflects a \u201cplacemaking\u201d approach rather than top-down planning. Shaker Heights actively sought residents\u2019 ideas and feedback through a multi-phase engagement process:\r\n\r\nVisioning in the Strategic Plan (2000)<\/em>\r\n\r\nThousands of residents participated in the city\u2019s Strategic Investment Plan process, identifying the Warrensville\/Van Aken area as a priority for change. This early engagement meant the concept of a new downtown had grassroots support from the beginning.\r\n\r\nPublic Meetings for the TOD Plan (2007\u20132008)<\/em>\r\n\r\nAs the city developed its Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) plan, it held well-attended public meetings to gather input on what the community wanted for the site. Residents expressed a desire for a mix of uses and a pedestrian-friendly environment. In response, the 2008 plan included public spaces, walkability features, and multi-modal access. This feedback also helped justify the city\u2019s decision to pursue TOD rather than another conventional shopping center.\r\n\r\nVan Aken Connections Plan Workshops (2016)<\/em>\r\n\r\nPerhaps the most intensive engagement came as Phase 1 was taking shape. In March 2016, the city launched the \u201cVan Aken Connections\u201d placemaking plan and invited residents to help co-design aspects of the district. Nearly 100 residents participated in a community workshop in June of that year. The workshops featured stations on topics like transportation, gateways, signage, and public space. Facilitators from the city and RMS guided participants through hands-on exercises\u2014for example, mapping preferred bike routes and placing red-dot stickers on the amenities they valued most. The results were clear: people wanted green space, unique local shops, public art, bike infrastructure, and a development that \u201cfeels Shaker.\u201d\r\n\r\nThis feedback led directly to design decisions. The plan added a half-acre central park with lawn and trees in response to calls for green space. The emphasis on independent and locally businesses shaped the leasing strategy. Even details such as bike racks and a multi-use path were added because of resident input prioritizing bike-friendliness. \u201cIt helps direct what we spend money on and try to build,\u201d said planning director Joyce Braverman, noting that community ideas helped guide how the city allocated funds for surrounding infrastructure.\r\n\r\nOngoing Dialogue & Communication<\/em>\r\n\r\nThe city kept residents informed throughout the process in other ways as well. Through newsletters like \u201cVan Aken On Track\u201d and regular forums, officials addressed concerns such as construction disruptions and traffic. While there was frustration when construction extended beyond its original timeline (from summer 2018 to spring 2019), the city communicated delays and managed expectations. After the district opened, the city continued outreach by hosting \u201cChat with the Mayor\u201d events in the Market Hall, for example, to collect ongoing feedback. Community input also shaped Phase 2 planning. When residents raised concerns about traffic from new apartments, the city responded with traffic studies and shared data showing only minimal increases. This helped to maintain public trust.\r\n\r\nThe community\u2019s desire of a \u201ctrue Shaker Heights identity\u201d clearly shaped the final outcome. Residents wanted the district to feel iconic, green, and unique. With its public art and one-of-a-kind local businesses, the Van Aken District reflects those wishes.\r\n\r\nThe district\u2019s landscaping also reflects Shaker Heights\u2019 identity. Designers used native plants that grow naturally in Northeast Ohio to create a look that feels authentic and welcoming. These plants need less water, support local wildlife (especially pollinators), and reinforce the district\u2019s green, place-based character.\r\n\r\nIn 2019, the project earned the American Planning Association\u2019s National Planning Achievement Award for Public Outreach (Gold), largely because of the city\u2019s transparent and inclusive 15-year engagement process. The community didn\u2019t just approve of the project. They co-authored it. As one participant put it, \u201cWe\u2019ve been waiting a long time for this.\u201d\r\n
\r\n\r\nDiscussion Questions<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhat does it mean for a project to \u201cfeel Shaker,\u201d and how can planners translate abstract community values into physical design choices?\r\n\r\nDo you think community members should have as much influence as they did in this case? Why or why not?\r\n\r\nHow might this case be different if the city hadn\u2019t solicited public feedback?\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

From the very beginning, the Van Aken District redevelopment was designed with community input. This reflects a \u201cplacemaking\u201d approach rather than top-down planning. Shaker Heights actively sought residents\u2019 ideas and feedback through a multi-phase engagement process:<\/p>\n

Visioning in the Strategic Plan (2000)<\/em><\/p>\n

Thousands of residents participated in the city\u2019s Strategic Investment Plan process, identifying the Warrensville\/Van Aken area as a priority for change. This early engagement meant the concept of a new downtown had grassroots support from the beginning.<\/p>\n

Public Meetings for the TOD Plan (2007\u20132008)<\/em><\/p>\n

As the city developed its Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) plan, it held well-attended public meetings to gather input on what the community wanted for the site. Residents expressed a desire for a mix of uses and a pedestrian-friendly environment. In response, the 2008 plan included public spaces, walkability features, and multi-modal access. This feedback also helped justify the city\u2019s decision to pursue TOD rather than another conventional shopping center.<\/p>\n

Van Aken Connections Plan Workshops (2016)<\/em><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most intensive engagement came as Phase 1 was taking shape. In March 2016, the city launched the \u201cVan Aken Connections\u201d placemaking plan and invited residents to help co-design aspects of the district. Nearly 100 residents participated in a community workshop in June of that year. The workshops featured stations on topics like transportation, gateways, signage, and public space. Facilitators from the city and RMS guided participants through hands-on exercises\u2014for example, mapping preferred bike routes and placing red-dot stickers on the amenities they valued most. The results were clear: people wanted green space, unique local shops, public art, bike infrastructure, and a development that \u201cfeels Shaker.\u201d<\/p>\n

This feedback led directly to design decisions. The plan added a half-acre central park with lawn and trees in response to calls for green space. The emphasis on independent and locally businesses shaped the leasing strategy. Even details such as bike racks and a multi-use path were added because of resident input prioritizing bike-friendliness. \u201cIt helps direct what we spend money on and try to build,\u201d said planning director Joyce Braverman, noting that community ideas helped guide how the city allocated funds for surrounding infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Ongoing Dialogue & Communication<\/em><\/p>\n

The city kept residents informed throughout the process in other ways as well. Through newsletters like \u201cVan Aken On Track\u201d and regular forums, officials addressed concerns such as construction disruptions and traffic. While there was frustration when construction extended beyond its original timeline (from summer 2018 to spring 2019), the city communicated delays and managed expectations. After the district opened, the city continued outreach by hosting \u201cChat with the Mayor\u201d events in the Market Hall, for example, to collect ongoing feedback. Community input also shaped Phase 2 planning. When residents raised concerns about traffic from new apartments, the city responded with traffic studies and shared data showing only minimal increases. This helped to maintain public trust.<\/p>\n

The community\u2019s desire of a \u201ctrue Shaker Heights identity\u201d clearly shaped the final outcome. Residents wanted the district to feel iconic, green, and unique. With its public art and one-of-a-kind local businesses, the Van Aken District reflects those wishes.<\/p>\n

The district\u2019s landscaping also reflects Shaker Heights\u2019 identity. Designers used native plants that grow naturally in Northeast Ohio to create a look that feels authentic and welcoming. These plants need less water, support local wildlife (especially pollinators), and reinforce the district\u2019s green, place-based character.<\/p>\n

In 2019, the project earned the American Planning Association\u2019s National Planning Achievement Award for Public Outreach (Gold), largely because of the city\u2019s transparent and inclusive 15-year engagement process. The community didn\u2019t just approve of the project. They co-authored it. As one participant put it, \u201cWe\u2019ve been waiting a long time for this.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Discussion Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

What does it mean for a project to \u201cfeel Shaker,\u201d and how can planners translate abstract community values into physical design choices?<\/p>\n

Do you think community members should have as much influence as they did in this case? Why or why not?<\/p>\n

How might this case be different if the city hadn\u2019t solicited public feedback?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":406,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-55","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":71,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/406"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55\/revisions\/247"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/71"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=55"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=55"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/vanaken\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=55"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}