The Issues Survey for Bloomingdale and Neighboring Communities

 The Neighborhood

The area known today as Bloomingdale began as a rural suburb of Washington, DC as it was originally conceived by Pierre L’Enfant. It lay just outside the bounds of one of the District’s earliest suburbs, Ledroit Park, which was established in 1877. The Bloomingdale area was considered the “country,” and was part of a region inhabited by large estates, orchards, light industrial buildings and other commercial properties. Its earliest use was as a train yard and major route into the city.

It wasn’t until the end of the 19^th century that residential builders began to trickle into the area. Much to their dismay, it was also about this time that the Eckington Mill, one of DC’s two large flour mills, was built by Silas Daish on the corner of what is now  3rd Street and Florida Avenue, NW. The area seemed destined to become an industrial parkway, but less than a century later plans began to change.

The Civil War brought an onslaught of workers and former slaves to Washington, creating a demand for more housing. Developers swarmed to the “country” and began building. Roads were paved and the trolley lines were extended beyond the city’s original boundary lines.

One of the first signs of this growth was the Rhode Island Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, built at the corner of  Rhode Island Avenue and 1st Street, NW in 1902. Two years before that, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, built a house for himself at 2122 1st Street, NW in 1900. Eleven homes were built alongside the church on  Rhode Island Avenue in 1903. The surrounding blocks were developed soon after by local builders, including Harry Wardman and S. H. Meyers. In order to accommodate all of the new residents, the Gage School was constructed on the 2000 block of  2nd Street, NW, in 1904.

As a part of a citywide beautification project in 1901, green space was added to the area in the form of what became the McMillan Park and McMillan Reservoir. Both the reservoir and sand filtration site were named for Senator James McMillan, who championed the project.

Similar, smaller neighborhoods popped up in the area and were eventually subsumed by LaDroit Park, and the Bloomingdale neighborhood, which was officially named in the early 1930’s. Today, the Bloomingdale includes the area bounded by 3rd Street, NW and North Capitol Street to the West and East, and Michigan Avenue, NW and Florida Avenue, NW to the North and South (Figure 1).

 Although its residents are predominately Black, the neighborhood is becoming increasingly diverse. This is demonstrated in the demographic data from the most recent Census (2002). Table 1 outlines the representation of each race/ethnicity group among Bloomingdale residents in 1990 and 2000. In that 10-year period, the percentage of white residents decreased by 12.9% and black residents decreased by 1.9%. The percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by 70.5% and those self-described as “Other” or “Two or More Races” increased by 33.3%. The percentages of American Indian/Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander residents remained below one percent. Table 1 also offers the 1990 and 2000 statistics for Ward 5 and for the city, as a whole.

 Table 1. Percentage of Neighborhood, Ward, and City Residents by Race/Ethnicity

 The Census data also underscores the neighborhood’s diversity in resident age (Table 2). Middle aged residents, those between 35 and 54 years of age, make up the largest portion of the Bloomingdale population (35.1%). Youth, those under 18, make up the second largest group, 21.2%. See Figure 2 for more information.

Figure 2.  Percentage of Bloomingdale Residents by Age Group.

Additionally, the Census 2002 defined the median household income for Bloomingdale as $41,735 and the per capita income as $21, 571. This is compared to a median household income of $34,437 for Ward 5 and $40,127 for Washington, DC. The per capita income was $19,173 for Ward 5, and $28, 659 for Washington, DC.

Recently, residents and others who work or attend church in Bloomingdale and the surrounding area were surveyed to gauge opinions and concerns about the current state and future of the neighborhood. A description of the survey and the results are reported below.

 
The Survey

The Issues Survey for Bloomingdale and Neighboring Communities was issued and sponsored by the Bloomingdale Civic Association, Inc. (BCA). The survey includes 20 items, both open-ended and multiple choices.

 The first item is an open-ended question that asks respondents to describe their vision for the community in the next five years. The second section includes 12 items that ask respondents to rate the importance of 10 major community issues (e.g., crime, housing, economic development, and community relations) on a scale of 1 to 4. Space for comments was provided with each item. The last two items in the section had the same format, but invited the respondents to define the issue themselves.

The third section of the survey was made up of seven demographic questions. These included gender, age, and race or ethnicity. They also included specific neighborhood of residence (e.g., Bloomingdale, Eckington, Bates, or other neighborhood within or outside of ANC 5C), years in neighborhood, and role or affiliation within ANC 5C (e.g., resident, business or agency affiliate, or churchgoer). A final demographics question asked for specific affiliation and contact information.

The Results

 Respondent Demographics

Figure 3.  Percentage of survey respondents by race/ethnicity and gender.

The survey was completed and returned by 118 persons who live, work or worship in the Bloomingdale area. The largest composite demographic group among the respondents was middle-aged, black females (22%). The second largest was young adult, white males (15%).

Black females of all ages represented 34% of the respondents, while white males of all ages represented 24%. These groups outnumbered all other race-gender combinations. However, when considering race irrespective of gender and age, whites (43%) and blacks (42%) were nearly equally well-represented. See Figures 3, 4, and 5 for more details on race, gender, and age group representation.

Figure 4.  Count of survey respondents by race/ethnicity and gender.

Residents of Bloomingdale proper represented 64% of respondents. Another 29% was made up of residents of neighboring communities, such as Eckington, Edgewood, Stronghold, Bates, Hanover, or Truxton Circle. The remaining seven percent of the respondents worked at a business or agency, or attended a church in the Bloomingdale area, but lived in a neighborhood outside of ANC 5C.
See Figure 6 for more information.

Of the Bloomingdale residents (n=68), the majority (63%) had lived in the neighborhood for less than 6 years. Sixteen percent had lived in Bloomingdale for 6-10 years, 6% lived in the neighborhood for 10-20 years and 12% for more than 20 years. Of the residents who had lived in the neighborhood for less than 6 years, 65% were white and 77% were 20-39 years old. Of those who had lived in the neighborhood for 6 or more years, the majority were black (67%) and 72% were 40-59 years old.

 Community Issues

 Table 1. Community Issues and Level of Importance.

Crime was the first issue mentioned on the survey. It was defined as “enforcement, deterrence and police enforcement.” This was also the issue with the highest percentage of respondents rating it as a highly important issue (82.1%). See Table 1 for more details. Based on the mean importance rating of 1.32, this was the most important issue.

 Comments about crime mainly dealt with solutions to the crime issue, which most saw as increased police presence and patrolling throughout the area. Several comments also dealt with the relationship between crime and neighborhood development (i.e., economic development and gentrification). Respondents said that the crime problem would deter development by scaring away potential residents and business owners, but that crime would be deterred by increased development. Comments also suggested that residents were concerned with recent criminal activities, specifically robberies of Windows Café.

Economic development, the second issue, included an increase in number of business types and in the size of businesses. With 58.0% of respondents rating this issue as having “high” importance and with a mean rating of 1.57, this was the second most important. Comments regarding this issue confirmed that it was important, and that more businesses and a variety of businesses needed to be attracted to the area. Most comments suggested that smaller businesses, with the exception of liquor stores, were more desirable than larger business and would add more character and a “neighborhood feel.”

The third issue mentioned was education and youth development. This was the fifth most important issue, with a mean importance rating of 1.74. Nevertheless, a couple of commentaries felt that it wasn’t an issue that the community could address, and was instead a District government issue. Suggestions for dealing with this issue included increasing and improving schools and youth programs, improving recreation centers, and adding mentorship and education programs for adults.

Community beautification was another issue mentioned. This was the fourth most important issue (mean = 1.85). Residents wanted sidewalks bricked and/or widened to accommodate wheelchairs, landscaping for common areas, and litter removal and prevention increased. Commentaries also suggested that this was either not an issue or was best handled by individuals maintaining their own property. Specific locations, such as Brentwood Road and the McMillan property, were noted as particular concerns. The addition of bike lanes was also suggested.

The fifth issue on the survey was animal welfare and control. This issue brought lots of comments about problems with rats and feral cats. The need for owners to take care of dog waste was also mentioned by a number of times. Suggestions for a dog park and spaying and neutering programs were also brought up. Despite the many comments, this issue was rated as the least important, with a mean importance of 2.38.

The next issue listed was health and wellness. This issue was described as including “youth, seniors, recreation, disabled persons, community health facilities, and dietary options.” This issue also received a low importance rating, the third lowest (mean = 2.09). Suggestions for dealing with this issue included increasing the number of health care facilities, healthy dining options and health education programming, such as health fairs. One resident also said that this was a city government issue rather than a neighborhood issue.

Next, came the issues of housing. Most commentaries dealt with the need to maintain a balance of housing options for residents of all income levels. Other housing concerns included the over-prevalence of condominium conversions and derelict properties, the lack of parking, and the need to regulate renovation projects. Commentaries disagreed on whether historical property or district designations were positive or negative. This issue also drew a lot of comments, but a relatively modest importance rating, with a mean of only 1.89.

City services were the eighth issue noted on the survey. This was the third most important issue. Its mean importance rating was 1.62 and 55.3% of the respondents considered it an issue of “high” importance. Rodent control and flooding problems dominated the comments. Other related issues raised included trash pick-up, lighting, traffic patterns and signage, and city landscaping.

Community relations was said to include “Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender, Faith Based Organizations, Social Service Agencies, etc.” The mean importance rating of this issue was 2.35, making it the second lowest rater issue. There were very few comments on the issue. A couple of residents noted that it wasn’t a problem. One resident, however, felt that non-residents (e.g., suburban residents who attended local churches) should be given little or no say in neighborhood decision making. There was also a suggestion that community bulletin board be added.

The last issue listed was community transformation, which was described as gentrification. With an importance rating of 1.92, this qualified as an issue of moderate importance. The consensus seemed to be that gentrification could be a good thing, but needed to be handled responsibly so that current residents were able to retain their property and development was regulated. There were also calls for educational and financial assistance programs to make this possible. A community forum was also suggested.

The Future

The residents of Bloomingdale and other concerned parties seemed to have some very real concerns. They had strong opinions on the issues mentioned in the survey. They had a lot to say about how to define the issues and how fix them. There did however seem to be agreement that the neighborhood was worth saving.

Respondents’ visions for Bloomingdale in the next five years were pretty clear, and for the most part unanimous. They anticipated that it would be a safer place with less crime. A cleaner place. A friendlier place for the community and families. A more diverse place. A place with more businesses, and retail and dining options. One resident put it best:

“A pedestrian friendly, culturally mixed, commercially revitalized community that serves as home for old, new, and recent homeowners. A community that works along [with] churches and businesses in the area.”