Stellar Indiana
  • Overview
  • Agenda
  • Methodology
  • Creating Stellar
    • State Agency Partners
    • Stellar Program Goals
    • The Stellar Process
    • Stellar Community Partners
  • 2017 Annual Report
Picture
Historical Background & Critical Points Timeline

1813- 1814
Attracted by the vast, rich farmlands in southwestern Indiana and access to the Ohio River, many pioneers settled the Indiana Territory (Knox County) in the 1800s.  The move of the territorial capital east from Vincennes to Corydon in 1813 sparked the creation of Gibson County. Gibson had previously been part of the vast Knox County which covered all the land of southwestern Indiana, bordered by the Wabash and Ohio Rivers. By early 1814, settlers to this area were asking for a “seat of justice,” or county seat. By drawing of lots, commissioners decided to name the town after Captain William Prince, one of four commissioners at the time In 1814  Princeton was elected as the seat of government for Gibson County.
 
1818
As the capital of Gibson County, Princeton was settled in 1818. 
 
1840- 1870
Wabash and Erie Canal was constructed opening commerce to the east and connecting ports along the Ohio River, providing a means of reaching distant markets with goods from Princeton. With the development of canal commerce, Princeton continued to grow and incorporated as a city in 1862.
 
1870-
1910
The development of rail transportation (e.g., Evansville and Terre Haute Railroad) and the construction of the Princeton Depot in 1875, spelled doom for the canal system. The railroad brought an economic bang to Princeton’s industry as the Southern Railway Shops, Heinz  Tomato plant, and the Princeton Coal Mine were constructed on the edge of town in 1892. Princeton experienced rapid growth in the 1900s.  Transportation innovations, such as interurbans and the automobile, helped to trigger further development in the area. Hansen corporation located to Princeton in 1907. 

1960-
1970
Through the 1960s Princeton had grown to a population of 7,906 residents.  However, between 1960 and 1970, Princeton’s population decline by 6%.    
 
1970-
1980
The city experienced substantial growth (+20%) when its population peaked at 8,976 residents. As families began to favor small-town rural life, rather than buying older homes like those in inner-city or suburban neighborhoods, the city continued to thrive.  Businesses, particularly small neighborhood retail shops, began to open.
 
1980-
1990
However, the period between 1980 and 1990, the city’s population shifted as residents migrated away from rural cities and townships.  Depopulation in the city equated to a 9.5% loss. 
 
1990-
2000
With “Rural Resurgence” new industries emerge. New opportunities for reinvestment emerged as new industries relocated to Princeton. Toyota Manufacturing Motor Incorporated (TMMI) announced in late 1995 that it would be building suppliers also built plants in or near Princeton to minimize shipping and logistical expenses. Additionally, many service businesses located in town to satisfy the needs of the employees, many of whom would be relocating to the Princeton area from elsewhere and by 2000 Toyota significantly increased production at the plant.
 
2000-
2010
Toyota’s investment in Princeton sparked further economic opportunities.  Many Toyota suppliers have facilities between the plant site and the city. All of these facilities were either built or converted from other uses to furnish supplies, part and services to TMMI.  In addition, Princeton completes both its comprehensive (2009)  and downtown revitalization (2010) planning efforts. Princeton makes an attempt to apply for the Indiana Stellar Communities program, but is not chosen as one of the two awardees.
 
2011-
2012
City renewal is in progress.  To address issues of housing and quality of life, Princeton completes a housing strategic needs assessment as well as a parks and recreation master plan. In addition,  Princeton makes a second attempt to apply for the Indiana Stellar Communities Program. The city is awarded the Indiana Stellar Communities Program Designation in 2012, which creates an opportunity for the city to address its challenges and seek out reinvestment opportunities in its downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods. 
   

Princeton: Creating a 
World-class Community!


Population

The City of Princeton experienced steady growth until 1980 when the city’s population peaked at 8,976 residents.   Despite its continued growth, the city has experienced periods of population decline, between 1940 and 1950 and then again between 1980 and 2000.  Recent population data indicate a slight decrease in the city’s population since 1980 (3.8%).   This is a contrast to overall county and state population trends, which show population increases.  For instance, Gibson County experienced population growth (1.9%), while the state’s population increased by 20.6%. 

Historically, Princeton has remained a predominantly White community (95.4 % in 1980 and 89.5% in 2014). Recent trends indicate Princeton experienced a change in its racial/ethnic configuration. The 2014 American Community Survey estimates showed of Princeton’s total population, 4.2% were categorized as African-American, while the remaining 6.3% were categorized as Other Races. This trend is expected to remain fairly constant. 


Poverty

Over the past three decades Princeton experienced decline in the percentage of persons living in poverty. The percentage of persons living below the poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 1980 to 13.6% by 2014*. This is an increase of approximately 20.4%.  In comparison to recent (2014) Gibson County (11.1%) and the state of Indiana (15.5%) estimates, Princeton has a higher percentage of its persons living below the poverty line*.  

*Data Correction:  The erratum in percentage of individuals below poverty: Corrected and republished May 23, 2014.

Income

Princeton’s median household income decreased to some extent throughout the past 30 years -1.6%). Most recent data esti­mates demonstrate Princeton’s median household income is $41,242. This is approximately $7,000 less than the median household income of Gibson County ($48,176) and the overall state estimates respectively (Indiana $48,737).  

Princeton: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Decline

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.

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…”    

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.”    
Note

This website is continuously under construction as research is ongoing.

Feedback

Click here to submit website feedback.
Research Team

JoAnna L. Mitchell-Brown, PhD
Principal Investigator

Callie Napier
Research Assistant

Jay Hein
President of Sagamore Institute
Prepared For

A  Collaboration of
Picture
Picture
Picture
Prepared By

Picture