Historical Background & Critical Points Timeline
|
Princeton: Creating a
|
|
Population
1980 2015 % Change Race/ethnicity, 2014 (%) White Black Other Poverty (%) 1980 2014a % Change Median household income 1980b 2014 % Change |
Princeton
8,976 8,644 -3.8% 89.5% 4.2% 6.3% 11.3 13.6 +20.4% $38,350 $41,242 -1.6% |
Gibson County
33,156 33,775 1.9% 95.1% 1.7% 3.2% 9.8 11.1 +21.4% $44,902 $48,176 11.4% |
Indiana
5,490,224 6,619,680 +20.6% 84.4% 9.1% 6.5% 9.7 15.5 +59.8% $47,974 $48,737 +1.6% |
Source: 1970 Census of Population, PC(1)-C1 "General Social and Economic Characteristics", table 182. 1980 Census of Population, PC80-1-C1 "General Social and Economic Characteristics", table 245.U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 Summary Files 1 and 3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey Table S1702. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts, 2013. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits. STATS Indiana, using data from Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.
a. Poverty figures for 2014 were the most recent data estimations from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 2010-2014 Table S1701 estimations provided for the specific geographic area.
b. The Median Household dollar amounts reported for 1980 are values that have been converted to constant 2014 dollars according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, available at www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
a. Poverty figures for 2014 were the most recent data estimations from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 2010-2014 Table S1701 estimations provided for the specific geographic area.
b. The Median Household dollar amounts reported for 1980 are values that have been converted to constant 2014 dollars according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, available at www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
Neighborhood Stability and Quality of Life
Over the past three decades, Princeton faced concerns related to aging housing and building stock. Of the current 3,907 housing units, over 70% were built prior to 1980. The average housing unit is over 60 years old. Princeton also has many older and historic homes. Many of the homes were built prior to 1939 indicating a percentage of households and neighborhoods in Princeton must deal with the costs of maintenance and repair of aging infrastructure as well as the necessity to adjust structures to fit the needs of contemporary life. Moreover, Princeton’s officials were concerned with quality of living for it residents, especially its senior populations. City stakeholders wanted to provide its aging population an opportunity to remain within the community. Additionally, the declining population was of concern to community leaders, as individuals and families choose to locate or relocate to cities and towns outside of the Princeton. City leaders saw the need to improve overall quality of life for its residents to attract new residents and retain the existing residents.
“Generally as far as overall quality of life, we had a little drop on our population. We have about 8,600. It’s been relatively stable throughout the years. A lot of people moved to communities south of here. But at some point in time, they will be overloaded and then sewer, water, infrastructure rates are going to go up. So, we are trying to get people to move to Princeton to live here.”
“…..But part of the problem that I saw happening was that it was a great place to work but not much of a great place to live because of the infrastructure and the quality of life you could offer people in the way of the arts and recreation were kind of lost…”
Over the past three decades, Princeton faced concerns related to aging housing and building stock. Of the current 3,907 housing units, over 70% were built prior to 1980. The average housing unit is over 60 years old. Princeton also has many older and historic homes. Many of the homes were built prior to 1939 indicating a percentage of households and neighborhoods in Princeton must deal with the costs of maintenance and repair of aging infrastructure as well as the necessity to adjust structures to fit the needs of contemporary life. Moreover, Princeton’s officials were concerned with quality of living for it residents, especially its senior populations. City stakeholders wanted to provide its aging population an opportunity to remain within the community. Additionally, the declining population was of concern to community leaders, as individuals and families choose to locate or relocate to cities and towns outside of the Princeton. City leaders saw the need to improve overall quality of life for its residents to attract new residents and retain the existing residents.
“Generally as far as overall quality of life, we had a little drop on our population. We have about 8,600. It’s been relatively stable throughout the years. A lot of people moved to communities south of here. But at some point in time, they will be overloaded and then sewer, water, infrastructure rates are going to go up. So, we are trying to get people to move to Princeton to live here.”
“…..But part of the problem that I saw happening was that it was a great place to work but not much of a great place to live because of the infrastructure and the quality of life you could offer people in the way of the arts and recreation were kind of lost…”
Community Economic Development
Beyond the past three decades Princeton experienced rural decline. Princeton faced challenges of business attraction and retention. Many of its major industries left the city and area between the 1960s and 1980s. Due to aging buildings and infrastructure, companies were not locating in the downtown and overall quality of life in was deteriorating. Outside these challenges, City officials wanted to help support and build on economic opportunities of its large world class corporations. The city is home to large world class corporations, such as Toyota and OnSite Occupational Health and Safety which bring many visitors and economic opportunities to the area.
Over the years, the city’s elected officials and community stakeholders have taken steps towards downtown planning and revitalization. For instance, city leaders have acquired a vacant bank to turn back into productive use, constructed pocket parks on the courthouse square, and replaced old infrastructure such as sidewalks. These improvements have sparked other private investments in the downtown resulting in decreases in the city downtown business vacancy rates from 50% to 10%. However, due the limited funding and resources, their efforts resulted in small-scale and step-by-step improvements. Despite their efforts, there remained a significant amount of investment needed the downtown commercial corridor.
“I’ve just seen Princeton come close to, a couple of times, becoming a ghost town and some of our major industries left in the 60s, 70s, and 80s…..and the economic base of the community was shaken.”
“Where there were once people in the downtown, on a regular basis in the middle of the day there is almost nobody on the streets. The streets are almost completely vacant. I mean almost nobody walking around. That is very frightening to see.”
“Prior to the Stellar program we were taking baby steps to try to implement the master plans that had been developed, but it was going to be a very long road and a very slow process….And very incremental improvements, but not the really taking leaps to move the community or the downtown area forward.”
Beyond the past three decades Princeton experienced rural decline. Princeton faced challenges of business attraction and retention. Many of its major industries left the city and area between the 1960s and 1980s. Due to aging buildings and infrastructure, companies were not locating in the downtown and overall quality of life in was deteriorating. Outside these challenges, City officials wanted to help support and build on economic opportunities of its large world class corporations. The city is home to large world class corporations, such as Toyota and OnSite Occupational Health and Safety which bring many visitors and economic opportunities to the area.
Over the years, the city’s elected officials and community stakeholders have taken steps towards downtown planning and revitalization. For instance, city leaders have acquired a vacant bank to turn back into productive use, constructed pocket parks on the courthouse square, and replaced old infrastructure such as sidewalks. These improvements have sparked other private investments in the downtown resulting in decreases in the city downtown business vacancy rates from 50% to 10%. However, due the limited funding and resources, their efforts resulted in small-scale and step-by-step improvements. Despite their efforts, there remained a significant amount of investment needed the downtown commercial corridor.
“I’ve just seen Princeton come close to, a couple of times, becoming a ghost town and some of our major industries left in the 60s, 70s, and 80s…..and the economic base of the community was shaken.”
“Where there were once people in the downtown, on a regular basis in the middle of the day there is almost nobody on the streets. The streets are almost completely vacant. I mean almost nobody walking around. That is very frightening to see.”
“Prior to the Stellar program we were taking baby steps to try to implement the master plans that had been developed, but it was going to be a very long road and a very slow process….And very incremental improvements, but not the really taking leaps to move the community or the downtown area forward.”
