MUJ 113 Discovering Diversity Downtown: Questioning Phoenix Craig A. Talmage, Rosemarie Dombrowski, Mikulas Pstross, C. Bjørn Peterson, and Richard C. Knopf Abstract Applied community learning experiences for university students are promising endeavors in downtown urban environments. Past research is applied to help better comprehend a community engagement initiative conducted in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. The initiative aimed to illuminate the socio-cultural diversity of the downtown area utilizing storytelling methods. The initiative leveraged three broad questions: Where is downtown, what is downtown, and who is downtown? Lessons learned from the initiative, its processes, and outcomes are showcased and reviewed. Downtown is resurrection. The re-birth of the cool, the now. The happening, happening again. For the first time . . . from memory . . . from the sense of living the eternal moment. (Jack Evans, poet [Dombrowski and Talmage 2014, 3]) Like the mythical phoenix, downtown urban areas have both risen and descended over the years, but still downtowns remain the vital epicenters of today’s communities (Speck 2012). It is no wonder then that many of our colleges and universities are housed in some way or another in downtown areas because of their value (Emenhiser 2012). While these downtowns may be relatively small in comparison to the entire urban area, they considerably contribute to the health of the entire urban or metropolitan area (Sisko et al. 2014). Thus, intuitively, we know that urban downtowns have value, but we need better measures of that value (Mahoney et al. 2014). Those measurements can be complex, because these public spaces do not only have economic or physical value, but socio-cultural value as well (Madden 2014; Ward 2007). Applied community learning experiences may be quintessential tools for discovering value in urban downtown communities. In light of these notions, this paper explores socio-cultural value in the heart of an urban downtown area through an applied community learning experience, which involved university students, faculty, and community members. The experience was spurred from a grant-funded initiative that sought to illuminate the stories of socio-cultural diversity in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. A Brief Introduction to Downtown Phoenix The entire city of Phoenix consists of an estimated 1.6 million residents and is the fifth most populated city in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; World Population Review 2014); however, less than 2 percent of its residents live in its downtown area. The entire Phoenix metropolitan area is comprised of a population of 4.3 million 114 persons, making it the thirteenth largest metropolitan area in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; World Population Review 2014); thus, just slightly more than 0.5 percent of the metro-area’s population is found in the capital city’s nucleus. In many ways, downtown Phoenix might epitomize the consequences of urban sprawl (Speck 2012), but as one downtown university professor comments, “It’s starting to change, I see very real change” (Waltz 2014). Ten years ago, downtown Phoenix rarely would see activity outside of traditional work hours unless there was an event at one of the two professional sports venues, or at one of its museums or theatres (Hilton 2013; Poore 2011). The area had somewhat of an indefinite artist community, and it was without a light rail system, university campus, and thriving city nightlife (Hilton 2013). In 2006, Arizona State University opened a satellite campus in downtown Phoenix, which in the beginning drew more than a thousand students into the area (Hilton 2013); now the campus and its programs have 11,500 students enrolled (Arizona State University 2014a). The development of what would become a higher education district was coupled with the revitalization of arts districts and the emergence of boutique lodging and nightlife venues (i.e., bars, restaurants, and a bowling alley). A light rail system was built in the area, which connected downtown Phoenix to uptown and midtown Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe, where ASU’s original campus resides (Hall 2008). What was once a blighted and high-crime region of the city now appears to be a vivacious place to visit, live, and work (E. Scott 2012; Waltz 2014). At least in the city center, much of the once noticeable blight has begun to evaporate since the introduction of Arizona State University (Hilton 2013) and because of the hard work of local artists and community leaders (Stein, Eigo, and Kahler 2014). Grants of up to $100,000 have been employed in the area to “put vacant, blighted properties to use and support the local arts economy” (Gersema 2012). Now, the downtown area hosts art walks, pub-crawls, farmers markets, and food trucks (Hilton 2013). The issue of blight has been targeted by many in higher education, and through creative place-making, universities have helped transform areas with blight (Grossman and Roy 2014). Many institutions have sought to become more socially embedded in their communities as a response to their ivory tower images (Arizona State University 2014b; Hall 2008). Hall (2008) writes, “The idea is that a campus should become a vital part of the city and its downtown, sharing its challenges and helping it build a sustainable future through useful research and teaching.” The presence of a campus, however, does not guarantee vitality; engagement with and dialogue between university students, faculty, and community members through applied community learning experiences are essential for healthy partnerships. Thus, what follows is a discussion of the importance of applied community learning experiences and a discussion of one of the first applied projects of its kind in downtown Phoenix. However, the applied community learning experience is presented knowing that the actual number of these kinds of experiences in the area is unknown; an accurate portrait of downtown development through university-community partnerships remains needed. 115 Applied Community Learning Experiences “Where you went to college matters less to your work life and well-being after graduation than how you went college.” (Brandon Busteed [Gallup Business Journal, 2014]) Applied community learning experiences for college and university students are essential to their future success in their work and personal lives (Busteed 2014). A recent study by Gallup found that experiential and deep learning, including semester or longer projects, are key to students’ success in their personal and work lives after graduation (Busteed 2014). Consistently, Weingarten (2014) suggests that modern- instruction requires richness and depth in student learning experiences. Thus, it is important that “students combine academic study with some form of direct, practical involvement, usually with a community close to the university” (Bednarz et al. 2008, 87), which may include an urban downtown area. Many colleges and universities foster applied- or service-learning experiences for their students, where students fulfill their coursework through activities in communities that help fulfill community needs. These activities serve to help students acquire important skills and knowledge that will help them in their work and community lives outside of their college and university and/or after they graduate. “Service-learning and other outreach activities give students firsthand opportunities to apply what they are learning in their disciplinary studies outside the academic setting, thus promoting leadership, character development, cultural and community understanding, and self-discovery” (Garber et al. 2010, 78). Applied learning helps better the civic skills, the connectedness to the university, and the retention of our students (Roy 2014). If the goal is to enable college and university students to apply their skills and knowledge in their own communities, then the strategies used to teach them should relate to their own life experiences (Grossman and Roy 2014). Syracuse, New York Mayor Stephanie Miner highlights this vital sensitivity: “We deposit all of our societal problems into our school buildings along with our children, and say to educators, teach them” (Mahoney et al. 2014); thus, how we teach matters (Busteed 2014). Faculty members, therefore, play a key role in facilitating successful applied learning experiences in communities for students. First, faculty perceptions of civic engagement and service-learning appear to influence participation in those activities (Hiraesave and Kauffman 2014). These experiences also may be more inclined to help build strong personal connections between faculty members and students. Second, Busteed (2014) noted that emotional support shown for students—in particular, professors that instill an excitement about learning in their students and professors that care about their students—are significant to students’ success in their personal and work lives after graduation. In relation to both students and faculty, institutional commitment to applied learning is a necessity (Hiraesave and Kauffman 2014). 116 These learning experiences can transform into formal partnerships with a community, a community organization, or community members (Pstross et al. 2013). University– community partnerships help students connect theory and practice (Wilson 2004). They also help universities stay grounded in their communities, thus, answering Ernest Lynton’s (1983) call to “rethink our conception of the university as a detached and isolated institution” (53). Powell (2014) implores that both neighborhoods with universities and universities in neighborhoods need to consider diversity in their work together: Neighborhoods are home to diverse groups of residents who share a common place, but not the same degree of attachment to that place or the same sense of community. Despite the increased interest in university–community relations, there is relatively little empirical research on intergroup relations in campus- adjacent neighborhoods (108). Thus, the intentional integration of the university into the community and vice versa is key to joint visioning and development, especially in urban downtown areas (Waltz 2014). Community members, however, still do not necessarily experience the same benefits as members of the university (Blouin and Perry 2009; Lear and Sánchez 2013). Blouin and Perry (2009) write, “The benefits to students are well documented, but the value to the community is less clear” (133). Benefits to the community need to be thoroughly assessed and well documented; they should not be implied or assumed (Lear and Sánchez, 2013). Therefore, sustainable university-community partnerships are founded in reciprocity and trust. Stakeholders from both arenas need to collaborate as partners, and both partners need to seek ways to leverage each other’s strengths in community engagement work. Furthermore, an ongoing commitment to the partnership must be established (Davidson et al. 2010; Holland and Gelmon 2003; Lear and Sánchez 2013). Thus, a key question must be kept in mind as community developer Richard Knopf notes: “How can we become incredibly integrated to actually reflect the vision of the community, instead of the vision of [the university]?” (Waltz 2014). Portraits of Our Universities and Communities Integration requires self-awareness, which may be more like portraiture than cartography. Barbara Holland (2014) emphasizes that we—university personnel who work to enhance community engagement—need a reasonably accurate portrait of the activity at our institutions. Efforts have been made through the use of technological resources (e.g., Community Engagement Collaboratory) to create and capture these images making up our universities (Holland 2014), yet the same efforts need to be made in the larger communities that our universities serve. Often our universities and communities seem as diverse as what we might see in a Jackson Pollack painting. Where to start or what to focus on seem to stress our minds as we seek to construct more accurate portraits of our institutions and communities. Holland (2014) notes that measurement may be one of the biggest deterrents of engagement, including the need to track different perspectives in our community 117 engagement work. Thus, broad strokes are needed on the canvas to reveal the true diversity of our communities, our universities, and all the interwoven pieces between them. Applied community learning experiences can be one of the paintbrushes we use for discovery and, perhaps even, development. The “We Are Downtown” Initiative Sit down with a good book, open your mind to experience something new, and use the experience to go out and change your own community. (Alex Stevenson, university student, [2014]) In the interest of integration and engagement, an initiative was proposed to Arizona State University’s Office of Academic Excellence through Diversity. This initiative was accepted and was carried out through an applied community learning experience in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, that utilized university students, faculty, and community members. The aim was to highlight the stories of socio-cultural diversity in the downtown area through efforts initiated by university students and staff. The We Are Downtown initiative began as a small grant-funded project. The purpose of the grant offered by the Academic Excellence through Diversity office at Arizona State University was written as such: To provide our university community including students, faculty, staff, and local communities, with opportunities to explore and discuss together current and cutting-edge scholarly topics and issues, including but not limited to behavioral, societal, cultural, historical, scientific, and political perspectives, that advance an understanding of access, excellence, and inclusion from interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives. The goal of this program is to elevate the university dialogue across disciplines in order to educate our students and provide critical insights into the multidisciplinary opportunities and challenges in working with our diverse peoples and communities in the 21st century. (Diaz 2013, 1) Proposal responses were required to contain multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary methods. They were particularly encouraged to offer at least one community event to exhibit the university’s commitment to diversity and commitment to working with underserved professional and neighborhood communities. The parameters, though broad and somewhat ill defined, had great promise for the team. The multidisciplinary We Are Downtown team engaged students and faculty from three university schools: 1) the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, 2) the School of Community Resources and Development, and 3) the School of Letters and Sciences. They provided the following response: The We Are Downtown project seeks to amplify storytelling in and of the diverse communities in downtown Phoenix. This effort will strengthen relationships between schools, faculty, and students at ASU’s downtown Phoenix campus and 118 individuals and private and public sector organizations in downtown. The many expressions of this story will be showcased in a summit that weaves connections between ASU and the downtown communities, and offers the opportunity for the community to discover its soul. (Knopf et al. 2013, 2) After formation, the multidisciplinary team grew to include other schools even after the grant was funded. The team was motivated to discover the diverse downtown story through an applied community learning experience, which was to conduct both traditional and nontraditional community-based research. Undergraduate students in a senior-level tourism development and management course held at the university’s downtown Phoenix campus were the primary surveyors for the more conventional research portions of the first phase of this initiative. However, the diverse downtown story was chronicled not only through traditional survey methods, but also through a student- directed documentary film and sourced poems, writings, and photographs from university students and downtown community members. Stories were assumed to contain the rich details of diversity desired. Specifically regarding Phoenix, Yoohyun Jung (2014) writes: People interact with things or other people, creating stories and leaving traces of those stories as memories in the minds of other people or the physical space of places they go. Those bits and pieces accumulate in the pockets of this city, giving the people an experience more special than all the rest. Thus, the team’s methods aimed to elucidate a portrait of downtown Phoenix through stories of diversity. The Essential Questions Downtown is the celebration of the city’s non-concealment of our very selves. (Michael Bartelt, university student and poet, [Dombrowski and Talmage 2014, 6]) An open process was agreed upon to paint the portrait of downtown Phoenix from its diverse perspectives and through its stories of diversity. Lees (2003) expresses the basic philosophy of this kind of process: Urban revitalization initiatives must embrace diversity—cultural and economic, as well as functional and spatial. This diversity of different ‘diversities’ is often under-theorized, as are the benefits of, and relationships among, social and cultural diversity, economic diversification, mixed-use and multi-purpose zoning, political pluralism, and democratic public space. It is my contention that this ambivalence is not simply a smokescreen for vested commercial interests, but also provides opportunities for expressing alternative visions of what diversity and the city itself should be. (613) 119 The team established the three essential questions to guide the applied community learning experience: 1) where is downtown Phoenix; 2) what is downtown Phoenix; and 3) who is downtown Phoenix? The team then reached out to community members, university students, and others to discover the variety of possible answers these questions. More specifically, the undergraduate students, who conducted the more formal research efforts, were asked to reflect upon their own answers to these questions. Where Is Downtown? Before surveying the community, the undergraduate students were asked in-class to respond by drawing on a paper map, “Where is downtown Phoenix?” The map pictured a geographic area that spanned three miles north and south and four miles east and west. The students drew their perceived boundaries of the downtown area on the paper map. The undergraduate students then went to their local friends, fellow students, family members, downtown residents, workers, and passersby on the street with maps of the general downtown area. They asked the participants to draw an outline of downtown Phoenix’s boundaries. The maps collected were synthesized and organized by two undergraduate students not enrolled in the senior-level tourism development and management course to elucidate possible themes. As to be expected, definitions varied between individuals. Out of the more than three hundred maps collected, four common responses emerged from the collection of answers. These responses are found in Figure 1. Figure 1. Four Common Representations of Answers to “Where Is Downtown?” Survey 120 The discovery of where was furthered through an open house event hosted by the university at its downtown Phoenix campus. At the event, the We Are Downtown team asked more than sixty visitors to indicate on a map projected on a wall to answer the following questions by using sticky notes: • Where is the heart of downtown Phoenix? (represented by hearts) • Where do you go in downtown Phoenix? (represented by people) • Where do you avoid in downtown Phoenix? (represented by exclamations) • Where is your favorite part of or place in downtown Phoenix? (represented by flags) • Where do you live in downtown Phoenix? (represented by houses) The team using Google’s map engine then captured the answers online, which are depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2. The Notable Places of Downtown Phoenix Also to be expected, the heart of downtown Phoenix seemed to yield consistent answers within a dense area of the map. The heart was found within the Downtown Phoenix 121 Business Improvement District’s boundaries, which helps corroborate this portion of the project’s findings (Downtown Phoenix Partnership Inc. 2014; Hilton 2013). The center or heart included many of the individuals’ favorite places and places where they usually go. Through informal conversations with event visitors, places individuals went and favored were noted to include sports arenas, restaurants, bars, historic neighborhoods, the university, and museums. The places that were avoided were noted as government agency buildings, abandoned areas with a lot of blight, and the local city jail. Finally, the few persons who indicated that they lived in downtown did not live near the perceived heart or center, but still emphasized that they lived downtown. The undergraduate students then were divided into eleven teams and were asked to speak with additional residents, workers, and passersby in downtown Phoenix. Ten of the teams of three to six students focused on the different official, unofficial, and overlapping districts of downtown Phoenix. These districts are depicted in Figure 3. The districts were based on City of Phoenix development plans (City of Phoenix 2014b) and historic neighborhood districts (City of Phoenix 2014a; Historic Phoenix Real Estate 2014). Finally, one team specifically focused on elucidating the university’s downtown Phoenix campus’ assets. Figure 3. Downtown Phoenix’s Overlapping Districts What Is Downtown? Two sub-questions were deemed necessary to better understand what is downtown: 1) What is a downtown?, and 2) What is our downtown? Before surveying the community, the undergraduate students were asked in-class to reflect on and respond to the following question, “What is a downtown?” Following this reflection, these students ascertained the appropriate human subjects training certifications before surveying and having informal conversations with downtown community members 122 and fellow university students around the question, “What is our downtown?” Meanwhile, other students and faculty involved in the initiative gathered poems and photos from community artists and fellow students around these two questions as well. What is a downtown? The undergraduate students generated, in-class, their own definitions of downtown and downtown spaces before data collection in the community began. Their definitions had both positive and negative connotations. The following are excerpts (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014) of their definitions of what is a downtown: A place of hustle and bustle . . . a place of business and a place where everyone can have fun. (13) Where everything happens. (13) An area within a major city that has places to go, things to do. (13) Rich with culture and has an abundance of shops and businesses. (13) A place that takes bits and pieces of surrounding environments in order to create its own unique experiences. (13) A place where the community goes to get together and enjoy sports and other events. (13) A city area that has a different vibe . . .not a suburb or a rural area. (14) Where events and activities take place for locals and tourists. (14) An urban community. (14) The heart of the city. (14) Oldest area of the city. (15) A corporate culture filled with monotonous jobs and daily activities. (15) Traffic and expensive parking. (15) Tall buildings, narrow streets, not very convenient for cars. (15) Common themes appeared to include a central location, a place for the community (in general), government, businesses, and tourism. The more negative themes centered on parking and traffic. These definitions likely were influenced by the students’ 123 definitions of and personal experiences in downtown Phoenix, which was examined using the question, “What is our downtown?” What is our downtown? Then, the undergraduate students along with the help of faculty members also forayed into the downtown Phoenix area exploring the question, “What is our downtown?” Statements and poems were sourced from local downtown Phoenix residents and stakeholders. The following are excerpts (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014) of their reveries of what their downtown is: Downtown is the possibility of art for everybody.—Elizabeth McNeil, poet (17) Downtown has a key word that stands out . . .”own.”—Leah Marche, poet, writer, and community member (17) Walt Whitman would say it contains multitudes. I’d say it’s won my heart.—RD, poet, co-founder/host of the Phoenix Poetry Series, university lecturer (18) My downtown is the blood that runs through my veins, it is a transfusion for a new Phoenix—Mike Pfister, co-founder of CollabX, musician, and university instructor (19) I chose to live downtown because I want to be centrally located and live in a culturally diverse neighborhood.—Downtown resident (17) I live downtown because it is where my family has lived all my life.— Downtown resident (18) Downtown is becoming more diverse. Before it was just businessmen and corporate industry, but now that [the university] has brought a student presence to the area, more people are attracted to living downtown. With the addition of the convention center, [the university] downtown, and places such as Cityscape, there is a more diverse community within the downtown Phoenix area.—Downtown business owner (17) Downtown allows me to express who I am through my work. It allows me to contribute to the urban and hip feel, the new vision of the downtown area.— Downtown business owner (17) I see the future for Phoenix being very bright. I have worked downtown for many years and have watched it develop for the better in so many ways.— Downtown worker (19) These excerpts reflect the types of conversations the undergraduate students and the entire We Are Downtown team held with local community members. The what of 124 downtown Phoenix appears to be fluid and dynamic, and diversity is only one part of the story. The outlook appears positive for future efforts for development, student engagement, and further discovery of diversity and inclusion in downtown Phoenix and amongst its many stakeholders. Who Is Downtown? Downtown is a place where all different peoples, cultures, and communities can come together. (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014, 40) A city’s soul lies in the diversity that embraces cultures of all origin. (Jung 2014) For development, it is crucial that appropriate leverage points for positive change are found (where). It is also necessary that community needs and assets be elucidated and the desired changes for development be agreed upon (what). But, it is equally important to consider who will be leading development efforts, who will be affected by any changes, who has a say in proposed and implemented changes, and who resides within or makes up the membership of a particular community (Mahoney et al. 2014; Talmage 2014). Thus, community-wide data collection is core to our work (Mahoney et al. 2014). To answer the question, “Who is downtown?,” both traditional and nontraditional methods were used. A doctoral student examined U.S. Census data bounded in the vicinity of downtown Phoenix to explore the sub-question, “Who is downtown Phoenix?” Other university faculty and students on the We Are Downtown team then utilized nontraditional methods, such as artistic and community-involved efforts, to address a second sub-question, “Who are downtown Phoenix’s stakeholders?” Who is Downtown Phoenix? Phoenix, you’ve given me all, and now I’m something. (Dombrowski 2012) The doctoral student was able to capture the demographics of the downtown vicinity using the American FactFinder search and data collection utility provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Census tracts (CTs) were deemed as the best geographic unit for analyses because they did not overextend outside the designated urban downtown area like zip codes did. The census data revealed a useful portrait of the downtown area. Census data summaries are provided below and in Tables 1 through 7 as examples of the kinds of information that can be accessed and analyzed by students in their applied community learning experiences. Eleven census tracts—CT(s) 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132.01, 1132.02, 1132.03, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143.01, 1143.02—were included in the demographic investigation for this initiative (U.S. Census Bureau 2008–2012). These census tracts encompassed the same geographic area pictured in the where portion of this initiative; thus, these assessed tracts spanned three miles north and south and four miles east and west. Selected 125 social, economic, housing, and individual background characteristics were downloaded and explored from the U.S. Census Bureau. The social make up of downtown Phoenix consists of around 9,109 households and more than 22,000 persons. Average household sizes amongst the eleven census tracts ranged from 1.23 to 3.71 persons, and the average family size ranged from 2.40 to 4.65 persons. Single persons (more without children than with) make up the majority of households (just over 70 percent). There also appear to be more adult men than women in the area. The educational attainment of individuals appears almost to be divided into three equal categories: 1) residents without a high school education, 2) residents with a high school education, and 3) residents with a college degree or higher. Table 1 illustrates social characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1. The Social Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Total Percent Margin Error Social Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Total Households 9,109 - 1,142 12.54% Families 4,339 47.63% 1,020 23.51% Families with Children 2,301 25.26% 874 37.98% Married Couples 2,151 23.61% 834 38.77% Married Couples with Children 896 9.84% 594 66.29% Single Fathers 583 6.40% 429 73.58% Single Fathers with Children 286 3.14% 321 112.24% Single Mothers 1,605 17.62% 762 47.48% Single Mothers with Children 1,119 12.28% 697 62.29% Nonfamilies 4,770 52.37% 1,091 22.87% Singles (living alone) 3,949 43.35% 1,002 25.37% Singles (65 and older) 834 9.16% 374 44.84% Households with Children 2,607 28.62% 897 34.41% Households (65 and older) 1,590 17.46% 552 34.72% Total Population in Households 22,167 – 4,077 18.39% Householder 9,109 41.09% 1,142 12.54% Spouse 2,144 9.67% 829 38.67% Children 6,672 30.10% 2,133 31.97% Other Relatives 1,975 8.91% 1,333 67.49% Nonrelatives 2,267 10.23% 1,204 53.11% 126 Unmarried Partner 900 4.06% 614 68.22% Total Persons (15 and older) 20,426 92.15% 4,416 21.62% Men 11,857 53.49% 2,603 21.95% Women 8,569 38.66% 1,813 21.16% Never Married 11,124 50.18% 3,844 34.56% Married (not separated) 5,101 23.01% 1,862 36.50% Separated 672 3.03% 698 103.87% Widowed 803 3.62% 716 89.17% Divorced 2,726 12.30% 1,428 52.38% Grandparents with Children 88 0.40% 81 92.05% Responsible for Grandchildren 54 0.24% 73 135.19% Total Persons (25 and older) 16,251 73.31% 2,877 17.70% Less than 9th Grade Education 3,277 14.78% 1,429 43.61% 9th to 12th Grade Education (no diploma) 2,044 9.22% 986 48.24% High School Diploma or Equivalent 4,635 20.91% 1,509 32.56% Some College (no degree) 2,698 12.17% 1,021 37.84% Associate’s Degree 746 3.37% 600 80.43% Bachelor’s Degree 1,879 8.48% 942 50.13% Graduate or Professional Degree 972 4.38% 557 57.30% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. The economic characteristics of downtown residents show that from the just more than 20,000 population of persons 16 and older that there are slightly less than 10,000 persons in the civilian labor force. The unemployment rate for residents in the labor force is 13.28 percent. Most workers drive their automobiles alone to work (62.10 percent); however, around a third of workers walk, take public transportation, carpool to work, or utilize other means (i.e., bicycle). Also, around 30 percent of residents in downtown Phoenix are without a vehicle to drive. The average commute time for workers ranges from 16.8 minutes to 28.2 minutes amongst the eleven census tracts. Management, business, science, and arts occupations appear most prevalent, and the largest industry for employment is the educational services, and health care and social assistance industry. Almost 80 percent of workers are privately employed, but almost 14 127 percent of earners are employed by a government agency. Around 6 percent of workers are self-employed, and around 2 percent of workers work from home in the area. The median household income ranged from $15,767 to $39,046 amongst the eleven census tracts, while the mean household income ranged from $20,854 to $58,509. The percentage of all families whose income in the past twelve months was below the poverty level ranged from 13.0 percent to 63.3 percent (for all families) and 20.9 percent to 67.3 percent (for all people). Around 23 percent of residents received food stamps or SNAP benefits. Additionally, 30 percent of residents indicated they did not have health insurance, and it appears that 19 percent of children in the area were also without health insurance. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate these selected economic characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 2. The Worker Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Total Percent Margin Error Economic Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Population (16 and older) 20,088 – 3,319 16.52% In Civilian Labor Force 9,915 49.36% 2,192 22.11% Employed 8,598 86.72% 2,058 23.94% Unemployed 1,317 13.28% 930 70.62% In Armed Forces Labor Force 10 0.05% 152 1520.00% Not in Labor Force 10,163 50.59% 2,800 27.55% Total Commuters (16 and older) 8,419 – 2,072 24.61% Drive Automobile (alone) 5,228 62.10% 1,586 30.34% Drive Automobile (carpool) 804 9.55% 591 73.51% Public Transportation (not taxicab) 649 7.71% 647 99.69% Walkers 631 7.49% 444 70.36% Other Means 649 7.71% 584 89.98% Work at Home 458 2.28% 413 90.17% Civilians Employed (16 and older) 8,598 – 2,058 23.94% Management, Business, Science, and Arts Occupations 2,838 33.01% 1,023 36.05% Service Occupations 1,975 22.97% 1,052 53.27% Sales and Office Occupations 1,985 23.09% 1,059 53.35% Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations 895 10.41% 690 77.09% 128 Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations 905 10.53% 599 66.19% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining Industry 115 1.34% 239 207.83% Construction Industry 530 6.16% 472 89.06% Manufacturing Industry 596 6.93% 480 80.54% Wholesome Trade Industry 140 1.63% 206 147.14% Retail Trade Industry 866 10.07% 667 77.02% Information Industry 328 3.81% 375 114.33% Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities Industry 308 3.58% 348 112.99% Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Industry 623 7.25% 504 80.90% Professional, Scientific and Management, and Administrative and Waste Management Industry 1,233 14.34% 689 55.88% Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance Industry 1,632 18.98% 719 44.06% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services Industry 1,209 14.06% 810 67.00% Other Services Except Public Administration Industry 551 6.41% 462 83.85% Public Administration Industry 467 5.43% 423 90.58% Private Wage and Salary Workers 6,836 79.51% 1,906 27.88% Government Workers 1,183 13.76% 655 55.37% Self-Employed Workers (unincorporated) 547 6.36% 468 85.56% Unpaid Family Workers 32 0.37% 168 525.00% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. 129 Table 3. The Income and Health Insurance Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Total Percent Margin Error Economic Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Total Households 9,109 – 1,142 12.54% Less than $10,000 1,995 21.90% 909 45.56% $10,000 to $14,999 1,192 13.09% 644 54.03% $15,000 to $24,999 1,713 18.81% 824 48.10% $25,000 to $34,999 987 10.84% 596 60.39% $35,000 to $49,999 1,017 11.16% 594 58.41% $50,000 to $74,999 830 9.11% 567 68.31% $75,000 to $99,999 556 6.10% 404 72.66% $100,000 to $149,999 584 6.41% 423 72.43% $150,000 to $199,999 154 1.69% 246 159.74% $200,000 or more 81 0.89% 178 219.75% Receiving Employment Earnings 6,340 69.60% 1,187 18.72% Drawing Social Security 1,970 21.63% 716 36.35% Drawing Retirement Income 556 6.10% 387 69.60% Drawing on Supplemental Security 662 7.27% 432 65.26% Receiving Cash Public Assistance 414 4.54% 339 81.88% Receiving Food Stamps and/or SNAP Benefits 2,130 23.38% 413 19.39% Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 23,924 – 4,543 18.99% With Health Insurance Coverage 16,755 70.03% 3,552 21.20% With Private Health Insurance 7,625 31.87% 2,142 28.09% With Public Health Insurance 10,260 42.89% 3,084 30.06% No Health Insurance 7,169 29.97% 3,065 42.75% Population of Children (under 18) 5,991 25.04% 599 10.00% Children with No Health Insurance 1,153 19.25% 1,259 109.19% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. 130 There appears to be around 11,501 housing units available in downtown Phoenix, and 79 percent of these units are occupied. Only 26 percent of those are owner-occupied, while 74 percent are renter-occupied. The homeowner vacancy rate ranges from 0.0 percent to 26.6 percent and the rental vacancy rate ranges from 0.0 percent to 29.9 percent amongst the eleven census tracts. The median monthly owner costs $979 to $2,140 for those with a mortgage and $324 to $710 for those without a mortgage. The median gross rent costs ranges from $573 to $769 amongst the eleven census tracts. The average household size of owner occupied units ranges from 1.32 to 4.55, and the average household size of renter-occupied units ranges from 1.21 to 3.21. Finally, the majority of residents appear to have moved into their current unit starting in the year 2000 or later. Regarding the actual units, the median housing values range from $76,600 to $300,000 amongst the eleven census tracts. The largest proportion of dwellings are multi- housing, consisting of more than twenty units. By proportion, most dwellings appear to have been built after the year 2000 or before the year 1940. The median room size ranges from 2.8 to 4.6 rooms, and most homes contain at least one or two bedrooms. Finally, some housing units lack heat, lack complete plumbing systems, lack complete kitchen facilities, and are without telephone service. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate these selected housing characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 4. The Housing Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Total Percent Margin Error Housing Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Total Housing Units 11,501 – 817 7.10% Occupied Housing Units 9,109 79.20% 1,142 12.54% Vacant Housing Units 2,392 20.80% 936 39.13% Owner-Occupied 2,380 20.69% 778 32.69% With a Mortgage 1,701 14.79% 704 41.39% Without a Mortgage 679 5.90% 445 65.54% Renter-Occupied 6,729 58.51% 1,189 17.67% 1-Unit Detached Dwelling 4,030 35.04% 866 21.49% 1-Unit Attached Dwelling 513 4.46% 435 84.80% 2-Units 1,043 9.07% 639 61.27% 3 or 4-Units 1,341 11.66% 749 55.85% 5 to 9 Units 778 6.76% 571 73.39% 10 to 19 Units 929 8.08% 550 59.20% 20 or more Units 2,762 24.02% 611 22.12% 131 Mobile Home 105 0.91% 223 212.38% Built 2010 or later 150 1.30% 245 163.33% Built 2000 to 2009 2,474 21.51% 852 34.44% Built 1990 to 1999 1,115 9.69% 601 53.90% Built 1980 to 1989 780 6.78% 492 63.08% Built 1970 to 1979 663 5.76% 500 75.41% Built 1960 to 1969 1,162 10.10% 690 59.38% Built 1950 to 1959 1,257 10.93% 734 58.39% Built 1940 to 1949 1,082 9.41% 614 56.75% Built 1939 or earlier 2,818 24.50% 413 14.66% 1 Room 1,488 12.94% 777 52.22% 2 Rooms 873 7.59% 486 55.67% 3 Rooms 2,826 24.57% 950 33.62% 4 Rooms 2,944 25.60% 1,011 34.34% 5 Rooms 1,815 15.78% 800 44.08% 6 Rooms 677 5.89% 487 71.94% 7 Rooms 369 3.21% 328 88.89% 8 Rooms 311 2.70% 291 93.57% 9 Rooms or more 198 1.72% 255 128.79% No Bedroom 1,572 13.67% 781 49.68% 1 Bedroom 3,598 31.28% 1,006 27.96% 2 Bedrooms 3,626 31.53% 1,045 28.82% 3 Bedrooms 2,061 17.92% 797 38.67% 4 Bedrooms 493 4.29% 398 80.73% 5 or more Bedrooms 151 1.31% 234 154.97% No Heat 159 1.38% 223 140.25% Lack of Complete Plumbing 60 0.52% 194 323.33% Lack of Complete Kitchen 194 1.69% 249 128.35% No Telephone Service 920 8.00% 595 64.67% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. 132 Table 5. Occupant Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Total Percent Margin Error Occupant Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Occupied Housing Units 9,109 – 1,142 12.54% No Vehicles Available 2,718 29.84% 949 34.92% 1 Vehicle Available 3,954 43.41% 1,109 28.05% 2 Vehicles Available 1,916 21.03% 767 40.03% 3 or more Vehicles Available 521 5.72% 384 73.70% Moved in 2010 or later 2,049 22.49% 833 40.65% Moved in 2000 to 2009 5,387 59.14% 1,223 22.70% Moved in 1990 to 1999 678 7.44% 437 64.45% Moved in 1980 to 1989 549 6.03% 415 75.59% Moved in 1970 to 1979 266 2.92% 269 101.13% Moved in 1969 or earlier 180 1.98% 231 128.33% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. Downtown Phoenix residents range in age from 24.4 to 40.6 years of age amongst the eleven census tracts. Based on frequency, most residents appear to be between twenty to fifty-four years of age. Around 10 percent of the population is 62 or older, and less than a quarter of the population is younger than eighteen. Again, there are more men than women by proportion in the area. Finally, the largest racial background observed is White, followed by Hispanic/Latino, Black or African American, and other races. Tables 6 and 7 outline the age and sex and racial/ethnic characteristics, respectively. Table 6. Age and Sex Characteristics of Downtown Phoenix Residents Total Percent Margin Error Resident Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Total Population 25,572 – 4,660 18.22% Male 14,206 55.55% 3,061 21.55% Female 11,366 44.45% 2,715 23.89% Under 5 years 1,586 6.20% 909 57.31% 5 to 9 years 2,162 5.72% 1,339 73.70% 10 to 14 years 1,398 5.47% 845 60.44% 15 to 19 years 1,591 6.22% 978 61.47% 133 20 to 24 years 2,584 10.10% 1,311 50.74% 25 to 34 years 4,939 19.31% 1,762 35.68% 35 to 44 years 3,836 15.00% 1,310 34.15% 45 to 54 years 3,313 12.96% 1,238 37.37% 55 to 59 years 1,075 4.20% 681 63.35% 60 to 64 years 1,099 4.30% 721 65.61% 65 to 74 years 1,347 5.27% 669 49.67% 75 to 84 years 427 1.67% 269 63.00% 85 years and older 215 0.84% 300 139.53% 18 years and older 19,580 76.57% 3,247 16.58% 21 years and older 18,227 71.28% 3,051 16.74% 62 years and older 2,594 10.14% 969 37.36% 65 years and older 1,989 7.78% 793 39.87% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. Table 7. Racial Backgrounds of Downtown Phoenix Residents Total Percent Margin Error Resident Characteristic Number of Total of Error* Percent* Total Population 25,572 – 4,660 18.22% One Race 25,295 98.92% 4,641 18.35% Two or More Races 277 1.08% 332 119.86% White 20,366 79.64% 4,398 21.59% Black and African American 3,165 5.72% 1,687 73.70% American Indian and Alaska Native 739 2.89% 789 106.77% Asian 354 1.38% 415 117.23% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 22 0.09% 162 736.36% Some Other Race 1,214 4.75% 964 79.41% Hispanic or Latino 14,701 57.49% 3,955 26.90% *Margin of Errors and Error Percentages are based on a summation of the 11 census tracts’ error values. 134 Who are Downtown Phoenix’s Stakeholders? We—the poets and artists and scholars—live in the heart of you, and your complex network of chambers and arteries and valves are our fodder.—RD (Dombrowski 2012) It’s not what the city has to offer, but what you have to offer to the city.— Michael Bartelt (Waltz 2014) We need to recognize the psyches and personalities of our urban communities (Mahoney et al. 2014; Ward 2007). Both students and faculty recognized this notion as they reflected on this applied community learning experience. The team reflected in their chapbook, “Demographics alone do not provide us with the tools we need to understand diversity, but the real question is, ‘Who gets to decide what is diversity for our downtown?’” (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014, 41). This question might also be phrased, “Who wants to decide what diversity is for our downtown?” Consistently, McCann (2002) writes, “A major concern . . . in recent decades has been to analyze how and in whose interests local space economies are produced and reproduced” (385). Thus, the posture assumed by the We Are Downtown team and the students involved in the applied community learning experience was that everyone deserves a say in the future of downtown Phoenix (Waltz 2014). One graduate student commented, “Everyone has something at stake with downtown’s success” (Waltz 2014). Because of the aforementioned assumption and the large scale involved, the initiative and the team were left with a conundrum. The team reflected their posture in their chapbook: In our quest to better understand the diversity of downtown, what we discovered was that the more possible it seemed, the more impossible it became. And so what we discovered was merely the paradox of discovery—the impossibility of identifying diversity amongst diversity . . . Ultimately, in order to discover the answer to who is downtown, you must first ask, who are you? (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014, 41) The initiative needed to be retooled and reinvigorated not only through self- and team- reflection but also through further conversations with downtown stakeholders in and about the downtown community. Both reflection and change appeared crucial to the success of future applied community learning experiences. The Chapbook and the Community Showcase Events make cities exciting. Everyday spaces can be successfully inviting.— Jeff Speck (2014) Two mediums served as tangible products created from the applied community learning experience: 1) a documentary film; and 2) a chapbook. The answers to the broad essential questions posed by the team and the students were compiled into a 135 fifty-page chapbook. An electronic version was made available online on the university’s website (Dombrowski and Talmage 2014). Two hundred printed copies were distributed at a community showcase in May 2014. The community showcase was held at a local film bar, which had an auditorium where patrons would be able to view movies. The location was chosen, because the bar fell within the found heart of the community and because the We Are Documentary (Waltz 2014) was going to be unveiled at the event. Doors opened for the event at 5:00 p.m. on a Monday in May 2014. The event was publicized through press releases, emails, word-of-mouth from local community leaders, university channels, websites, and social media. Over one hundred and fifty university and community members were in attendance at the event. Each attendee received a chapbook, and a few of them received extras to pass on to others. Two showings were offered for the documentary. The showings were followed by a Q&A with the university student documentarian and the rest of the We Are Downtown team that were in attendance. Of those in attendance, only ten persons were a part of the initiative’s team. Lessons Learned Downtown is still the beating heart of Phoenix.—We Are Downtown initiative facilitator and graduate student (Waltz 2014) Mediums The applied community learning experience despite its scale and limitations appeared to be a successful endeavor for students, faculty, and community members. The team found film to be a great medium for community conversations. The gathering to screen the film allowed diversity not only to be talked about and/or heard, but diversity also was seen by looking each other in the eyes and listening to each other’s conversations and comments during the Q&A session. This is consistent with previous uses of film in and outside of classrooms to discuss community and social issues (Lawler 2014). Film as a gathering mechanism in research initiatives also helps answers Lynton’s (1983) call to “reexamine the ways in which we disseminate the results of our work” (23). In general, critical analyses of media portrayals of downtown areas and lifestyles by students are useful learning experiences (Liu and Blomley 2013). The chapbook also was noted as a useful takeaway. There were no chapbooks left after the event ended. Community and university members and leaders alike asked if they could take extra copies to their friends, family members, co-workers, and others they knew had an interest in the success of downtown Phoenix. Notably, emails came in after the event wondering when the chapbook and documentary would both be available for viewing online. Within a couple of months, both were made available online. 136 Conversations Thus, the conversations and communication continued after the event. Intrigue was established. The broad essential questions utilized in this applied community learning experience helped catalyze the community conversations during and after the event (Pstross, Talmage, and Knopf, forthcoming). It was clear through conversations at the community event and reflections by the We Are Downtown team that the conversations held during the project did not sufficiently capture the entirety of diversity in downtown Phoenix. For example, urban planning information, such as physical diversity was missing. More work was still needed to discover diversity, such as mapping downtown assets (Kretzman and McKnight 1993), conducting psychogeography in the downtown area (Coverley 2012), and noting the urban area’s walkability (Speck 2012, 2014). Overall, the project served well to discover the downtown style; however, new urbanism is not only about style but also about design (Speck 2014). Motivations From the outset of the project, the We Are Downtown team realized that they were essentially working without funding. The funds from the small-grant were designated for some personnel costs and the costs associated with the event. Thus, proper motivation was essential for all those involved. Extrinsic motivators are useful but usually are not the best approach with long-term projects (Deci and Ryan 1985; Herzberg 1987; Sachau 2007). With no money, the students needed to be pushed to perform well in their roles aside from the motive to achieve a high grade in the class. Though anecdotal, the team noted that students who were able to participate (alone or in groups) autonomously and artistically contributed the most to this project. For example, the undergraduate students that decided to take pictures (for extra credit in the course) tended to be more excited about their project and more detailed and thorough in their work. Not surprisingly, autonomy and interesting work are key to successful individual engagement in the workplace (Herzberg 1987; Sachau 2007). The graduate students and faculty involved were initially extrinsically intrigued by this applied community learning experience because it would help them develop professionally (i.e., potential publications) and make new connections within the downtown Phoenix community. Their motivations appeared to shift to more intrinsic motives as they began to become intrinsically interested in the idea of diversity and how to suitably conduct community research with undergraduate students and without a great deal of financial capital. The applied community learning experience moved these graduate students and faculty to remain involved as the university-community initiative looked towards its future. 137 Stimulating Interest in the Interim After this first applied community learning experience finished, a few members of the We Are Downtown team stayed formally engaged in the community. For example, one doctoral student interviewed downtown community leaders and members about meaning-making in downtown. This helped stimulate interest in the initiative over the summer; meanwhile, overall, it was on a summer hiatus. But in the following fall semester, the team realized that time was not on their side. A great deal of public relations effort seemed to be needed to keep community stakeholders interested. Communication went out to those previously involved to keep them titillated until the formal processes for the next phase of the initiative were designed and implemented in the spring semester. Taking It a Step Further We must embrace change, because with change means opportunity.— Chancellor Syverud (2014, 2) Changes were made to initiative by the team, so that future applied community learning experiences might succeed. The team realized there would likely be transitions in university and community leadership. The team also noted that any future applied community learning experiences needed to be even more locally adapted. Local adaptation is necessary for authentic partnerships between communities and universities in community research efforts (Mahoney et al. 2014). What was clearer after the first portion of this initiative is that a more pinpointed approach is needed for exploring diversity and for connecting university and community members and leaders. For example, recent conversations led by graduate students and faculty with community-based association leaders have shown that there is still a large disconnect between associations in the area. Students and faculty through applied community learning experiences can access important community entry points that might be used for future assessments and to catalyze future conversations amongst area stakeholders. Table 8 contains a list of eighteen possible entry points to discover diversity and inclusion in an urban downtown area. 138 Table 8. Entry Points for Exploring Diversity and Inclusion in Downtown Areas 1 City Personnel 10 Educational Institution Leaders, Workers, and Students 2 Safety/Emergency Services Personnel 11 Nonprofit Leaders, Workers, and Clients 3 Faith-Based Association Leaders 12 Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Workers and Users 4 Cultural/Arts Leaders and Creators 13 Mass Media Personnel (i.e. Journalists and Publishers) 5 Community-Based Association Leaders 14 Underground Media Personnel 6 Political Association Leaders 15 Grassroots Leaders and Members 7 Tourism Leaders and Workers 16 Ethnic-Based Group Leaders and Members 8 Big Business Leaders and Workers 17 Public Service Leaders and Workers 9 Small Business Leaders and Workers 18 Public Transportation Workers and Users The theme for the next implementation of the initiative and its future applied community learning experiences has been changed to focus not only on diversity but now to explore the importance of inclusion and/or inclusiveness in the downtown Phoenix story. The aim is to connect those disconnected to help strengthen the bonds between those already working together and to build bridges between those not yet connected in the downtown area. Consistently, Richard Gaurasci (2014) notes that university-community partnership and engagement is an essential building block for an intercultural and interracial democratic society. Conclusion Downtown Phoenix is ubiquitous; it’s where we meet, and it’s where create, but then we take what we create elsewhere, and so that mean’s downtown Phoenix is everywhere.—RD (Waltz 2014) There is much more to this mural than context and what meets the eye.—Alex Stevenson (2014) The applied community learning experience sought to discover what diversity is in the context of downtown Phoenix, Arizona. As with most endeavors, the experience left students and faculty members with more questions and opportunities than answers and action plans. Academic initiatives, even those embedded in the community, seem more predisposed to this style, whilst local governments tackle searches for comprehensive solutions (Mahoney et al. 2014). University initiatives like the one previously described can act as powerful experiences that motivate our faculty members, current students, and even alumni to continue to stay connected to and civically involved with our universities and our communities 139 (Busteed 2014). Thus, it may be more important in our community engagement work to focus on how and why the work is carried out rather than what was reported (Busteed 2014; Primavera 1999). Finally, universities and communities together must recognize that “in the ecology of knowledge in modern society, efforts to enhance the utilization of knowledge are every bit as essential and as challenging as activities toward the creation of knowledge” (Lynton 1991, 3). Communities thrive on diversity (Florida 2005; Speck 2012). Creative class expert, Richard Florida (2005), notes that both diverse places and diverse people attract talent (like students) to a city. He states, “Talented people are attracted to locations that have a high degree of demographic diversity and are distinguished by a high degree of openness and relatively low barriers to entry” (100). Allen Scott (2010) proclaims, “The city is a powerful fountainhead of creativity,” (115) and diversity appears necessary to the city’s success. University faculty and students need to be a part of conversations regarding diversity, and applied community learning experiences can help start and sustain the dialogue between both community and university members regarding the subject. Urban downtown cores must recognize that “people will be moving back to the city,” and ask, “Will they be moving back to your city or to someone else’s?” (Speck 2012, 23). Diversity appears to be a fundamental part of any city’s answer (Florida 2005). The hope is that the answers that spring forth from our downtown urban communities resemble how Patrick Stump sings about his city: “This city is my city. / And I love it, yeah I love it. / I was born and raised here. / I got it made here. / And if I have my way, I’m gonna stay” (Stump 2011). If sung in unison (metaphorically) by both universities and communities, together our downtown urban cores may be revitalized, and our talented faculty, students, and community members will stay and thrive. References Arizona State University. 2014a. “ASU’s Downtown Phoenix Campus.” http://newamericanuniversity.asu.edu/. Arizona State University. 2014b. “A New American University.” http://campus.asu.edu/downtown. Bednarz, Sarah Witham, Brian Chalkley, Stephen Fletcher, Iain Hay, Erena LeHeron, Audrey Mohan, and Julie Trafford. 2008. “Community Engagement for Student Learning in Geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32 (1): 87–100. Blouin, David D., and Evelyn M. Perry. 2009. “Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve? Community-Based Organizations’ Perspectives on Service Learning.” Teaching Sociology 37 (2): 120–135. Busteed, Brandon. 2014. “The Biggest Blown Opportunity in Higher Ed.” Gallup Business Journal, October 9. Retrieved from http://businessjournal.gallup.com. 140 City of Phoenix. 2014a. Historic Preservation Residential Districts. https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Pages/historicmapshpres.aspx. City of Phoenix. 2014b. Central City Village Planning Committee. https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/pz/central-city-village-planning-committee. Coverley, Merlin. 2012. Psychogeography. Harpenden, UK: Oldcastle Books. Davidson, William S., Jodi Peterson, Sean Hankins, and Maureen Winslow. 2010. “Engaged Research in a University Setting: Results and Reflections on Three Decades of a Partnership to Improve Juvenile Justice.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 14 (3): 49–67. Diaz, Marisol. 2013. Proposal Guidelines: Academic Excellence through Diversity Program. Office of the Executive Vice President and University Provost and the Committee for Campus Inclusion. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University. Unpublished correspondence, last modified August 24, 2013. Adobe Acrobat PDF file. Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self- Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. Dombrowski, Rosemarie. 2012. “A Love Letter to Phoenix.” The Huffington Post, December 26. Retrieved from http://huffingtonpost.com. Dombrowski, Rosemarie, and Craig A. Talmage. 2014. We Are Downtown: You Are Downtown, I Am Downtown. Chapbook, Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University’s Partnership for Community Development. Available online at http://scrd.asu.edu/pcd. Downtown Phoenix Partnership Inc. 2014. About the Downtown Phoenix Partnership. http://www.downtownphoenix.com/about/partnership. Emenhiser, Nicholas I. 2012. “How Colleges are Reviving Downtown.” CEOs for Cities. Retrieved from http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/how-colleges-are-reviving-downtown. Florida, Richard L. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Garber, Mel, W. Dennis Epps, Matt Bishop, and Sue Chapman. 2010. “The Archway Partnership: A Higher Education Outreach Platform for Community Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 14 (3): 69–81. Gaurasci, Richard. 2014. “CUMU Presidential Address.” Presidential address at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). 141 Gersema, Emily. 2012. “$100K to Fund Art in Phoenix’s Blighted Areas.” The Arizona Republic, July 19. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2012/07/17/ 20120717 grant-fund-art-phoenix-blighted-areas-roosevelt.html#ixzz3G9gIrzQX. Grossman, Divina, and Matthew Roy. 2014. “The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Experience: Transforming Individuals and Communities through Engaged Education.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Hall, John Stuart. 2008. “Universities and Downtowns: Phoenix’s Big Breakthrough.” Citiwire.net, November 28. http://citiwire.net/columns/universities-and-downtowns- phoenixs-big-breakthrough/. Herzberg, Frederick I. 1987. “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” Harvard Business Review 65 (5): 109–120, including a retrospective commentary (reprint from 1968). Hilton, Spud. 2013. “Once-Sleepy Phoenix Perks Up.” San Francisco Gate, January 13. http://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/Once-sleepy-Phoenix-perks-up-4186799.php. Hiraesave, Suchitra, and Stephen Kauffman. 2014. “Faculty Participation in Civic Engagement and Service Learning Activities: Correlates and Consequences.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Historic Phoenix Real Estate. 2014. “Historic Districts.” Accessed Oct. 11. http://historicphoenix.com/. Holland, Barbara. 2014. “Capturing Data and Measuring the Impacts of Community Engagement.” Special session at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Holland, Barbara A., and Sherril B. Gelmon. 2003. “The State of the ‘Engaged Campus’: What Have We Learned about Building and Sustaining University– Community Partnerships?” In Introduction to Service-Learning Toolkit: Readings and Resources for Faculty (2nd ed.). Providence: Campus Compact, 195–98. Jung, Yoohyun. 2014. “Where is the Soul of Phoenix?” The Arizona Republic, July 12. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/01/soul- phoenix/18285573/. Knopf, Richard, Daniel Schugerensky, Rosemarie Dombrowski, Ariel Rodriguez, Craig Talmage, Bjørn Peterson, and Mikulas Pstross. 2013. “Proposal Response: The We Are Downtown Project.” Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University’s Partnership for Community Development. Unpublished correspondence, last modified September 30, 2013. Adobe Acrobat PDF file. 142 Kretzmann, John P., and John L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out. A Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Lawler, Peter. 2014. “Engaging College Students with Individuals with Disabilities through a Community Film Festival.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (Oct.). Lear, Darcy W., and Alejandro Sánchez. (2013). “Sustained Engagement with a Single Community Partner.” Hispania 96 (2): 238–251. Lees, Loretta. 2003. “The Ambivalence of Diversity and the Politics of Urban Renaissance: The Case of Youth in Downtown Portland, Maine.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (3): 613–634. Liu, Sikee and Nicholas Blomley. 2013. “Making News and Making Space: Framing Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 57 (2): 119–132. Lynton, Ernest. 1991. “The Mission of Metropolitan Universities in the Utilization of Knowledge: A Policy Analysis” (1991). New England Resource Center for Higher Education Publications. Paper 8. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nerche_pubs/8. Lynton, Ernest A. 1983. “A Crisis of Purpose Reexamining the Role of the University.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 15 (7): 18–53. Madden, David J. 2014. “Neighborhood as Spatial Project: Making the Urban Order on the Downtown Brooklyn Waterfront.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 471–497. Mahoney, Joanie, Stephanie Miner, Mary Anne Schmitt-Carey, Peter Dunn, Rob Simpson, and Virginia Carmody. 2014. “Literacy, Education Reform, and Urban Revitalization.” Panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (Oct.). McCann, Eugene J. 2002. “The Cultural Politics of Local Economic Development: Meaning-Making, Place-Making, and the Urban Policy Process.” Geoforum 33 (3): 385–398. Poore, Carol Ann. 2011. “Downtown Phoenix Rising: A Case Study of Two Organizations Building Social Capital for Urban Core Revitalization.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Powell, K. H. 2014. “In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: An Ethnographic Study of Neighborhood Relations.” Qualitative Social Work 13 (1): 108–126. 143 Primavera, Judy. 1999. “The Unintended Consequences of Volunteerism: Positive Outcomes for Those Who Serve.” Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 18 (1–2): 125–140. Pstross, Mikulas, Craig A. Talmage, and Richard C. Knopf. Forthcoming. “A Story about Storytelling: Enhancement of Community Participation through Catalytic Storytelling.” Community Development: The Journal of the Community Development Society. Pstross, Mikulas, Heekyung Sung, Marco Mendoza, Craig A. Talmage, and Richard C. Knopf. 2013. “Creating Community Abundance through Service Learning.” Workshop presented at the Arizona Summit on Volunteerism and Service-Learning. Phoenix, AZ (December). Roy, Matthew. 2014. “Measuring the Impact of Service Learning on Student Retention and Civic Skills.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Sachau, Daniel A. 2007. “Resurrecting the Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement.” Human Resource Development Review 6 (4): 377–393. Scott, Allen J. 2010. “Cultural Economy and the Creative Field of the City.” Geografiska Annaler: series B, Human Geography 92 (2): 115–130. Scott, Eugene. 2012. “Some Crime Numbers Drop in Downtown Phoenix Over Decade.” The Arizona Republic, July 23. http://www.azcentral.com/community/ phoenix/articles/20120723phoenix-crime-numbers-drop-downtown.html. Sisko, Joe, Jeff Speck, Michael Stanton, and Merike Treier. 2014. “Towards a More Walkable Syracuse.” Panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America One Step at a Time. New York, NY: Farar, Straus and Giroux. Speck, Jeff. 2014. “Towards a More Walkable Syracuse.” Keynote address at the Annual Meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, Syracuse, NY (October). Stein, Morris A., Tim Eigo, and Catrina Kahler. 2014. “There’s More to Downtown than ASU.” The Arizona Republic, July 12. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ op-ed/2014/07/12/theres-more-to-downtown-phoenix-than-asu/12542503/. Stevenson, Alex. 2014. “The Mural as an Art Form in Downtown Phoenix.” Write On Downtown 8: 109–110. 144 Stump, Patrick. 2011. “This City.” On Soul Punk [Digital Audio]. New York City, NY: Island Records. Syverud, Kent. 2014. Chancellor’s Message. Syracuse University Magazine 31(1): 2. Talmage, C. A. 2014. “Development.” In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-being Research, edited by A. C. Michalos, pp. 1601–1604. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008–2012. Selected Social Characteristics, Economic Characteristics, Selected Housing Characteristics, and Demographic and Housing Estimates [Data]. 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Quick Facts: Phoenix [Data].” 2013 American Community Survey Estimates. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/0455000.html. Waltz, Adam. 2014. We Are Downtown [Video file], May 12. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHJOzwR_Uv0. Ward, Kevin. 2007. “Creating a Personality for Downtown”: Business Improvement Districts in Milwaukee. Urban Geography 28 (8): 781–808. Weingarten, Randi. 2014. “Engaging Hands and Minds.” American Educator 38 (3): 1. Wilson, David. 2004. “Key Features of Successful University-Community Partnerships.” In New Directions in Civic Engagement: University Avenue Meets Main Street, edited by K. Ferraiolo, pp. 17–23. Charlottesville, VA: Pew Partnership for Civic Change. World Population Review. 2014. “Phoenix Population 2014.” Cities. Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/phoenix-population/. Author Information Craig Talmage, PhD, served as the grant-writer and co-facilitator of the We Are Downtown initiative. He shepherded the traditional social scientific approaches described in this paper. Rosemarie Dombrowski, PhD, served as the co-facilitator of the We Are Downtown initiative. She shepherded the artistic approaches described in this paper. Richard Knopf , PhD, served as the grant manager and primary advisor of the We Are Downtown initiative. He directs the Partnership for Community Development at Arizona State University. 145 Mikulas Pstross and Bjørn Peterson served as support staff for this initiative and assisted with getting it off the ground. They assisted in establishing the research protocols and interpreting project findings. Craig Talmage Partnership for Community Development Arizona State University, Mail Code 4020 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 550 Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685 E-mail: ctalmage@asu.edu Telephone: 602-496-0550 Fax: 602-496-0953 Rosemarie Dombrowski College of Letters and Sciences Arizona State University, Mail Code 0320 411 N. Central Ave., UCENT 360C Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685 E-mail: Rosemarie.Dombrowski@asu.edu Telephone: 602-496-0633 Richard C. Knopf Partnership for Community Development Arizona State University, Mail Code 4020 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 550 Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685 E-mail: Richard.Knopf@asu.edu Telephone: 602-496-0550; Fax: 602-496-0953 Mikulas Pstross Partnership for Community Development Arizona State University, Mail Code 4020 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 550 Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685 E-mail: mpstross@asu.edu Telephone: 602-496-0550; Fax: 602-496-0953 C. Bjørn Peterson Partnership for Community Development Arizona State University, Mail Code 4020 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 550 Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685 E-mail: C.Bjorn.Peterson@asu.edu Telephone: 602-496-0550; Fax: 602-496-0953 146