A squat brick building sits at the corner of High Street and West Northwood Avenue. In a cluttered room on the second floor, a familiar sign rests on the floor. Neon tubing against a green wooden background spells out "Larry's."
The sign once marked the entrance to a bar at 2040 N. High St. In December, Larry's closed to make way for Señor Buckeye's, which quickly became the Sloppy Donkey Sports Saloon.
The changing sign is a reminder that the bar, like the neighborhood that surrounds it, is a place in search of an identity.
This month, The Lantern has looked at some of the issues that the University District's predominantly student population faces: crime, graffiti, panhandling, garbage and lousy housing.
The density of students living in the area is a major driver of these problems, but it's not the only cause.
Today, in the last of a three-part series examining the University District, The Lantern examines its lack of a cohesive neighborhood identity.
'A collection of neighborhoods'
At the heart of the issue is the fragmentation of the district.
"The reason this area has been challenged with branding itself is because we are not a neighborhood," said architect Pasquale Grado, the executive director of the University Community Business Association. "We are a collection of neighborhoods."
Home to about 48,000 people representing almost 80 nationalities, the district includes several established neighborhoods.
Unlike these neighborhoods, though, the predominantly student-populated core off-campus area is lacking its own identity, University Area Commission President Ian MacConnell said in an e-mail.
"Where there is a stronger identity, there is generally higher homeownership and with that comes stability and higher community standards," he said.
Although other neighborhoods in the district have clear borders, the core area's boundaries are roughly defined by the University Area Commission as High Street, Indianola Avenue, East Seventh Avenue and East 17th Avenue, MacConnell said.
The area's population is dense and transient.
In the 1960s, the core area was zoned to allow a population density "that would exceed everything else in the entire city," Grado said.
Because of the prevalence of student renters, the core area's population is much more transient than the surrounding neighborhoods. The values of the properties in the area are based on rent income rather than the traditional property values used for owner-occupied homes, Grado said.
'A disposable neighborhood'
The lack of identity in the predominantly student-populated core area "reduces a student's sense of place in the community, allowing for lower standards, which in turn leads to a decline in quality of life across the district," MacConnell said.
There are real consequences for a neighborhood that lacks a unifying identity.
"One of the challenges in the past has been a feeling by too many people, including the folks who lived in the neighborhood, that it was kind of a disposable neighborhood," said Steve Sterrett, the community relations director for Campus Partners, a nonprofit organization created by Ohio State in 1995 to improve the neighborhoods around the university.
Residents felt that the district "was a place you could come and people didn't care too much about litter, they didn't care too much about graffiti, it just was the way it was," Sterrett said.
Treating the district poorly doesn't go unnoticed, Sterrett said.
"It also sends a signal to criminals and others that this is a neighborhood where it's easy pickings - people don't really care, they're not paying attention, and this is a place where you can come and do things that you wouldn't get away with in other neighborhoods," he said.
Failure to act can cause small problems to snowball, MacConnell said.
"The more graffiti and litter you see on the streets, the less safe people feel, the less they feel like they can do something about it," he said. "This leads to an overwhelming sense that these quality of life challenges are insurmountable, but they are not."
These problems are primarily a result of a lack of clear community standards, MacConnell said.
"If we unify behind a set of standards that say we will not accept trashed housing stock, or littered streets, then we will work together to change it," he said.
The process for working toward change in the core area begins with addressing the need for an identity.
"Once the details of the area identity have been worked out, a clear set of community standards needs to be created and adopted, along with a sustainable educational or informational program for students," MacConnell said.
Creating an identity
It appears that creating an identity is the keystone to solving many of the University District's problems.
The question then becomes: how to create an identity?
It's a problem that has been the focus of serious attention for almost 20 years. In 1990, Pasquale Grado and several others wrote "Proposals for Change," a planning document that identified many of the issues facing the district, and recommended solutions. The document was presented to OSU President E. Gordon Gee during his first tenure at the university.
The section of "Proposals for Change" dealing with developing a sense of community made four recommendations, calling for:
• The creation of an "Office of Off-Campus Housing" to train resident advisers for the off-campus area. While there are no resident advisers off campus, the Office of Off-Campus Student Services offers resources for help with housing, roommates, landlords and commuting, among other services.
• The Lantern to take an increased role in covering the off-campus community.
• OSU to develop a community education program to make students aware of their surroundings.
• A formal branding of the district. Much like the distinctive arches over the Short North, "Proposals for Change" recommended that the entrances to the district be marked with gateways to clearly define the district's boundaries and create a cohesive look to the area.
To create a unified look for the district would require significant investments of capital improvements money and planning time. The latter was largely fulfilled in 2002, when Grado, then-UAC president Ron Hupman and many others produced another document, "University/High Street Development & Design Guidelines."
The document detailed ways to achieve a unified look along High Street. These included guidelines for storefronts (set at the same distance from the street to create a unified "streetwall"), store signs (simple in design and consistent with the surrounding buildings) and parking lots (behind buildings rather than in front).
The document was designed to direct any investment into the district into projects that would create a brand for the area.
"I think [investment] is what will drive the University District and really make it a neighborhood," said former USG President Peter Koltak. "Now it's more just a collection of people living together."
'Open to change'
Koltak cited the South Campus Gateway as an example of how investment can revitalize High Street. The Gateway, which became a Special Improvement District at the urging of Campus Partners, has enjoyed a turnaround because of nearly 10 years worth of planning and $150 million in investment.
A minority of property owners wouldn't sign on to make the section of High Street adjacent to campus into a Special Improvement District. Becoming part of a Special Improvement District would mean an increase in city services and an increased property tax contribution.
"There were several key property owners that just didn't feel there was a need for additional services along High Street," Sterrett said.
Along with the unwillingness of a few property owners, students' apathy for their surroundings has stunted the development of the district.
"Apparent lack of responsibility and respect for the community where students live while attending The Ohio State University is a precipitating factor in the deterioration of the University District with the highest density of student residents," according to a planning document produced by Campus Partners in 1996.
Some say the answer is community service. The Campus Partners document cited community service as a way to foster a stronger sense of ownership of the district in student residents.
"Students are younger and they're more open to change and they're really open to helping out," said Tom Wildman, the UAC Code Enforcement and Safety Committee chair. "You give a fraternity house the opportunity to show civic pride, and they will come out in numbers. Because everyone has that ability knowing that change is important and doing the right thing is important."
Students have to initiate the change, Wildman said.
"It's better to have someone from within their own group turn around and say, 'Hey, let's start doing this,' " he said. "Ohio State and other schools can put the money toward it and help the city, but you also gotta be able to have the people that are of the same age category to help out."
Students can also encourage growth in the district by being vocal, Koltak said.
"Keep the pressure on the university as they develop the housing plan," he said. "Every time the housing plan gets brought up, the university needs to hear the question: 'Alright, fine, this is great, but what are you doing to invest in off-campus?' "
Students should also make their thoughts known to Campus Partners and groups such as the University Community Business Association, Koltak said.
"There are good people in these places who want to help, but being able to say, 'Students are with you on this one' gives them a lot of ammo," he said.
Like Sterrett and Grado, Koltak said that the University District has made progress.
"I think that in the long term, things are moving in the right direction."
Claire Racine and Catrina Otonoga contributed to this article.
Dan McKeever can be reached at mckeever.16@osu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!