Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 112


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 111
A-1 APPENDIX A Trends In Mixed-Use Development MXD has become a popular way for developers to offer sev- ings containing different businesses, then in small shopping eral different types of building products within a single devel- centers, and then in larger shopping centers. Employment opment under the current land use zoning system. However, was still concentrated in downtowns initially, but then grad- MXD has not always been implemented in its existing forms. ually began appearing in industrial areas or parks (indus- try), or free-standing buildings or parks (office). Restaurants were located at high-traffic locations, usually free standing. The Brief Background same occurred with entertainment buildings (mostly single- In earlier times when the transportation system did not yet screen cinemas). Hotels were located in downtowns, but motels have mechanized technologies, convenient walking or (horse) were located along main arteries and highways. riding distances limited how far the necessary goods and ser- As developers found that there was indeed interaction vices could be from residential and work locations. In urban between some land uses that they could capitalize from and areas, convenience services and goods had to be within a few cities realized that several uses could be mixed to the benefit blocks of home. Support business services and goods had to be rather than detriment to public health, safety, and welfare, close to other businesses. Employment and housing locations MXD began to reappear. At first, it was difficult to mix some had to be close to each other. This led to the close proximity of uses because zoning ordinances were oriented to separating complementary uses, often in the same or adjacent blocks. different uses and protecting several of these uses. Zoning Many businesses were operated by their owners who lived on variances and special-use permits were required as exceptions the upper floors of the building housing their business. to zoning ordinances. As successful experiences occurred, zoning ordinances were modified to permit additional uses in However, this led to some undesirable living conditions. some zoning categories and developers proposed mixes under Unhealthy and unattractive industries and housing often co- individually negotiated PUDs. As more success evolved, more existed next to each other in an era when noise, air quality, and latitude was permitted, both in zoning ordinances and in waste handling were nowhere near to what they are today. In zoning application practice. Today most zoning ordinances an effort to separate noxious industry from housing and cre- still give preference to single-use development. However, MXD ate better and healthier urban environments, cities adopted is commonly approved and many zoning ordinances have land use zoning. This became viable as transportation became one or more mixed-use categories that permit certain mixes much better and made it possible for employees to live much of land use. farther from work places. This began with horse drawn and electric trolley suburbs and became popular after the auto- mobile became commonly available to most families. By the Modern Mixed-Use Development period immediately following World War II, outlying areas of Currently MXD is found in two primary forms: central cities and separately incorporated suburban munici- palities that could provide more protected and pristine envi- a traditional building type resembling a district of different ronments had become very popular for residence locations. land uses (such as neighborhood centers) that reemerged With the changes in residence preferences and widespread in the latter half of the 20th century after having been availability of private motor vehicles came changes in other undermined by the: developments. Retail was provided first at or near major inter- widespread adoption and implementation of single-use sections, initially in small combinations of separate build- zoning, and

OCR for page 111
A-2 post World War II rush to the suburbs that entailed not ects of the 1960s was their residential orientation, their rela- only lower densities, but also a development template that tive openness to surrounding areas, and their design according separated uses such as shopping malls, subdivisions, and to architectural principles of the international style, which office parks; and was not good at creating attractive people places. mixed-use centers, often developed on a single inter- connected site, that contain several uses that may or may not The 1970s: Megastructures be fully interactive. This largely suburban building model became the norm for developers and was ingrained in local The number of mixed-use projects expanded rapidly from zoning and building codes intended to protect suburban only 23 in the 1950s and 1960s, to 65 begun in the 1970s, and homeowners from some of the noxious uses found in cities. over 100 in the 1980s, according to an ULI survey. In the 1970s, many of these projects became enclosed and internally focused, a result of the growing popularity of enclosed shopping malls, Early Examples the growing problems in central cities, and the interest in defen- MXD initially re-emerged as downtown revitalization sible space. One of the most influential suburban mixed-use projects beginning in the 1950s with projects such as: projects of the time was the Houston Galleria, which was planned around a central shopping center in one of the most Penn Center in Philadelphia (1954) an office, hotel, and affluent communities in the region at the time. The three com- retail project developed according to a master plan by the mercial elements--office, retail, and hotel, became the most city planning commission, and implemented by several popular mix of land uses in projects developed in the 1970s developers; and 1980s. The development has become the core of what has Charles Center in Baltimore (1957) a private, nonprofit become the dominant suburban center in the region. Other notable projects in this period were the IDS center in Min- corporation formed to manage downtown redevelopment neapolis, the Illinois Center in Chicago, the Embarcadero under contract to the city. The project includes office, retail, Center in San Francisco, and the former World Trade Center residential, and hotel facilities, as well as a live theater and in New York. Although great attention was given to architec- extensive pedestrian plazas; and ture and interior spaces, the projects were increasingly isolated Prudential Center in Boston (1959) a privately financed fortresses, cut off from the surrounding city. While a finan- project in a downtown renewal area containing two office cially successful commercial formula had been found, vastly towers, four commercial/retail buildings, apartment build- expanding the number of such projects, the residential com- ings and a civic center. ponent had largely disappeared. Some of the early projects outside downtowns were close in suburbs. Two examples were: The 1980s: Greater Openness Development of mixed-use projects in the 1980s became Century City in Los Angeles (1961) one of the first large smaller scale, more open, more suburban, and more residen- scale, office oriented suburban mixed-use centers in the U.S., tial. Projects were developed on much smaller scales, evidence built on a former movie studio lot, and presently housing of the concept's continuing evolution and greater acceptance many entertainment business headquarters; and of mixed-use projects in smaller scale and more suburban Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia outside Washington, environments. Residential uses were found in half of the proj- D.C. (1964) this private project includes apartments, office ects surveyed by ULI, a sharp rebound from the 19 percent of space, retail, hotels, movie theaters, and recreational facilities, the 1970s. The emphasis in planning and design moved from and became a stop on the Washington subway in the 1970s. the buildings to the setting, and greater attention to streetscapes and urban design. The design style shifted to more of post- The 1960s also saw the first major mixed-use office tower, modern and historicist themes, greater openness and sensi- the John Hancock Building in Chicago, which opened in 1969. tivity to the total environment, greater use of historic rehabil- Different floors have different uses, beginning at the bottom itation, and more infusion of entertainment and cultural with retail and commercial, parking, office, and topped off uses. Notable projects of the period include: with residential. The mixed-use projects of the 1960s pio- neered the concept of dramatic interior spaces--large atri- Miami Lakes Town Center part of a large scale planned ums and gallerias--in modern buildings. A notable example community, driven by the developers' belief that every is Peachtree Center in Atlanta, where the atrium and other town needs a hub where people can gather to eat, shop, design concepts incorporated into the Atlanta Hyatt Regency and socialize; Hotel were emulated in many projects throughout the coun- The Atlanta Galleria numerous high-rise office buildings try and the world. Among the hallmarks of the mixed-use proj- and a hotel/retail complex are arranged around a park;

OCR for page 111
A-3 Janns Court a small mixed use building with cinema, retail, around a commuter rail station; Mockingbird station in Dal- office, and residential uses that helped in the revitalization las; Lindbergh City Center in Atlanta; and numerous devel- of the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica; and opments adjacent to Washington, D.C.'s Metro rail station, Princeton Forrestal Village office, retail, and hotel uses especially in Montgomery and Arlington counties. While tran- around a main street in a suburban office park. sit was an essential part of most new urbanist thinking, most of the early mixed-use developments were significant by its Recent Trends: Town Centers absence. This appears to be finally changing. and New Urbanism Trends and Outlook The movement among planners and architects toward a new urbanism or traditional neighborhood design philoso- MXDs have become an accepted development product, phy began to have an impact on developers in the 1990s. Two and will possibly expand as designers, developers, and lenders of the most noted projects in the 1990s were Reston Town develop greater familiarity and facility with creating these proj- Center in Reston, Virginia, and Mizner Park in Boca Raton, ects. They will continue to evolve, as they have in the past. The Florida. They served as suburban models of creating higher near term outlook, however, allows for forecasting how upcom- density and vibrant urban places in the suburbs. Reston Town ing developments will look. Center was built on one of the last remaining undeveloped parcels in the new town of Reston, Virginia. It was an 85-acre Forecast (34 hectare) mixed-use center located in a 460-acre town dis- trict identified in the original 1962 master plan. At the opening Main Street Theme in 1990, there were two office towers, a Hyatt Regency Hotel, The main street element is expected to continue as a central a cinema, and retail space in the configuration of a main street theme, as projects will possibly be arranged around pedestrian town center, surrounded by structured parking. Later addi- friendly streets, blocks, and squares. Projects will continue to tions included more office space, significant amounts of high be porous, creating pedestrian appeal even as they complicate density housing, and more open space, creating perhaps the the collection of traffic and parking data. largest such town center built to date. The streetscape plan recalls European shopping streets and public squares as well as such American prototypes as Country Club Plaza in Kansas Welcoming the Big Box City. The main street is narrow with parking allowed to slow The financial success of the big box retailers is expected to traffic and make pedestrians more comfortable. At the ground continue, despite their conventional formats, which are abhor- level, a variety of retail street fronts were accommodated to rent to most new urbanist designers. They have started to adapt create a vibrant pedestrian experience. their concepts to more urban and street front applications, Mizner Park used a very different mix, with much greater and out parcels are being created in some town centers allow- residential presence, although the same attention to design ing them to be part of the financial success, but slightly out of and public spaces as in Reston Town Center, to create a new the way, and perhaps largely unrelated to the rest of the center. town center for Boca Raton. The first phase included four mixed-use buildings surrounding a two block long public Flexible Opportunities for Offices park, and containing 156,000 sq ft (15,000 square meters) of specialty retail space with six restaurants and an eight-plex While the office market has been weak in much of the U.S., cinema, 106,000 sq ft (985,000 square meters) of office space, as well as Europe and Asia, mixed-use centers will be attractive 136 apartments over the stores, a performing arts amphithe- to many office users looking for a quality of life experience. It ater, a museum, and structured parking. The projects' care- will be important to maintain flexibility, with limited office ful attention to urban design and sense of place has created an buildings incorporated into mixed-use center plans, and, as around the clock activity that helps enliven the city's down- with big boxes, other opportunities on adjacent parcels. town core. The central space contains two public streets enhanced with pavers and a plaza, and offering on street Mixed-Use Opportunities in Obsolete Malls parking in front of the stores. This period also saw the development or expansion of Conventional shopping malls, as with big box retailers, are transit projects in the South and West, offering an opportu- stereotypes of suburban sprawl--isolated, single-use develop- nity to include transit in mixed-use centers. Some of the early ments that stand apart from their surrounding neighborhoods, examples included Orenco Station in Hillsborough, Oregon, oriented inwardly to vast climate-controlled shopping arcades, and Cascade Station near the Portland International Airport, with a physical presence characterized by monolithic, over- both served by Portland's MAX light rail line; the Arlington scaled, and blank architectural forms, and surrounded by Town Square, a redevelopment in Arlington Heights, Illinois, a sea of parking. Fortunately, as shopping mall developers rush

OCR for page 111
A-4 to refresh the mall format and redevelop obsolete mall sites, keting advantage in a highly competitive business sector that there is a tremendous opportunity to think big, expand the field is battling Internet sales for the retail dollar. Not only will of vision, and break the mall's island syndrome. This will take many major regional retail centers be remade or replaced, advantage of the extensive amount of developable land in but the form of separate stores and smaller centers will also urban locations, and often involve opening up the street grid to continue to change. Convenience and price seem to be domi- adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, many communities will nating this sector, leading to high visibility, larger stores with seize the opportunity to use the mall as the core of a redevelop- narrower ranges of merchandise (i.e., big box store approach ment district, adding significant amounts of adjacent housing. extending to larger versions of stores that have been tradition- ally smaller, such as jewelry). This development approach in its mixed-use version would include complementary outparcel Life Style Centers: A Moving Target development with other retail and restaurants. A hot trend in retailing that adds to the mix has been the development of what are commonly called life style centers. Office These tend to include highly branded retailers able to move out of conventional malls as well as nationally recognized retailers. Office space will continue to be included in many free The other hallmarks of such centers are generally an open-air standing and business district mixed-use developments as setting, greater attention to architectural design, and a cluster- well as suburban commercial concentrations. This space may ing of restaurants, all adding to a festive atmosphere for shop- be located in multi-use buildings or as separate buildings pers. Their growing popularity has resulted in the term being either integrated into or adjacent to the other types of devel- highjacked by other centers missing some of these compo- opment listed below. nents. For the sake of this study, however, it is important to recognize that life style centers can be part of a MXD or a standalone project. Residential The new urbanist approach of integrating convenience From Mixed-Use Developments retail and some restaurants into compact residential develop- to Mixed-Use Districts ments should continue, especially in downtown and midtown (the central portion of a city or urban area that is outside the The growing appreciation for mixed-use projects has created CBD but has higher densities than suburban or general urban a constituency for a broader appreciation for going beyond and may include an outlying business district) infill and re- individual developments to larger planned districts, and a development areas and new commercial centers. There will philosophy of planning increasingly known as placemaking. likely also be more medium- and large-scale developments Such mixed-use districts will possibly open up much greater with relatively conventional PUD layouts that will contain a possibilities, since they vastly broaden the supply of proper- mix of uses (mainly residential), some intended to be comple- ties and developers able to build single-use residential, retail, mentary and some more to provide developers with a product or office projects, within a district circumscribed with a street mix but not necessarily true synergistic mixed uses. and lot structure, development targets, and possibly financ- ing. While a mixed-use project requires an especially sophis- ticated developer, a mixed-use district, whether planned by Hotels a master developer or a city, can create many development Some hotels will be developed as parts of mixed-use devel- parcels suitable for single-use development, but in support of opments in business districts, in downtown, midtown, and a broader mixed-use district. Studying the travel patterns for suburban locations. Some will be built without food service such a district will require a data survey plan that acknowl- but will have adjacent independent restaurants that can pro- edges the possibility for a one-stop experience, and significant vide lunch and dinner meals independent of the hotels. Some internal capture of travel. The following is a concise review of hotels will be tied to major office developments but less fre- the future trends anticipated for the primary components of quently to retail and very rarely to residential developments. mixed-use developments, subject to local market demand. Restaurants Future Trends Restaurants will continue to make good outparcel develop- Retail ment since they need exterior exposure and convenient park- Retailers and retail developers will continue to explore ing. Restaurants will also continue to be integrated into some innovative ways to merchandise products to achieve a mar- developments but will normally not make up a significant per-

OCR for page 111
A-5 centage of total floor area. Restaurant types will also continue ings and activities, and development economics will limit uses to be very sensitive to the demographics of their immediate in these developments. surrounding market areas as well as pass-by traffic character- istics. Outparcel restaurants may or may not be synergistic Development Trends in Mixed-Use Projects with adjacent retail development; they will serve local market demand and often be synergistic with other types of adjacent Interviews by the research team with several developers, development. planners, and local officials revealed that mixed-use projects are being commonly developed in several scales, in several types of venues, and in several types as shown in Table A-1. The Entertainment scales and venues lists are typical of those mentioned. The types Theater, nightclub, bowling alleys, and similar types of enter- listed in the third column were the most commonly men- tainment are largely most active on evenings and weekends, tioned, but other examples were occasionally discussed. The current three land uses most commonly included in although there are specific and unfortunately unpredictable MXD are retail (in almost all MXDs as either the primary or exceptions. Most will continue to seek locations where parking a secondary use and virtually always including restaurants), can be shared with daytime uses (e.g., retail, office). Some will residential, and office. Entertainment, in the form of movie continue to be used to draw patrons past retail space to try to theaters, and hotels are occasionally included, and usually increase retail business volumes. Combinations of entertain- make up a small percentage of the square footage. ment with hotels are expected to be infrequent since the synergy has not proven to occur frequently. Combinations with restau- rants will still occur. Major, single use entertainment develop- Synergy Among Uses ments such as theme parks will continue to attract outparcel A hypothesis of this research was that synergy among all development including hotels, restaurants, and retail, depend- uses is key to both internal trip capture and development ing on the type of entertainment facility. profitability. However, virtually all MXD developers, archi- tects, and planners said that market demand drives almost all Other decisions regarding development components and synergy influences only location--and that within only some larger True mixed-use developments, especially those in business retail-dominated developments. or town centers, may include just about any types of develop- It was widely agreed that residential cannot be provided in ment that meets local market demand. In addition to the above enough quantity to financially support ground floor retail uses, these could include government offices and services (e.g., unless residential is very large and retail is small and conven- post offices), entertainment, and other civic/community facil- ience oriented. In addition, developers and retail tenants are ities. Only market demand, imagination, compatibility of build- reluctant to have first floor lobbies occupy significant frontage Table A-1. Most commonly mentioned MXD types. Types (mainly combinations of Scales Venues retail,1 office, residential) 1. Small part block development 1. Infill midtown or suburban sites 1. Retail with small office or 2. Full block 23 story with 2. Redevelopment or upgrading of residential components ground floor retail existing developments (usually 2. Retail with small (usually 2nd 3. Modified shopping center with older shopping centers) floor) office component and mixed uses side-by-side or split 3. Initial components of larger possibly also upstairs residential on multiple levels development (said to be less component 4. Multiple block town center possibly viable) 3. Side-by-side combinations of 5. Full MXD with retail and major 4. Later component of larger retail with residential and/or office components developments as town center office (usually 14 blocks) 4. Major office or residential with There was no discussion of large 5. Major commercial component ground floor retail districts or major midtown or of larger development on a 5. Big box retail with smaller retail suburban activity centers as being single block or "superblock" and upstairs residential and/or trendy in either current or projected office MXD. 6. Major retail, with entertainment to draw more patrons through retail, plus some office and (usually) side-by-side residential 1 All references to retail in this summary include restaurants as a major component. Virtually all current MXDs of any size have a major percentage of restaurants.

OCR for page 111
A-6 in a retail block. Developers claimed that with two exceptions, small percentage. Tertiary uses make up small percentages in residential units within a MXD with office usually do not lead all but the large developments. to many residents working within the development. The two exceptions are when (1) the office space is live-work type Site Layout and Synergy space (combined live-work units or small boutique office units that are directed to serve the type of residential tenant Although there are exceptions, the trend in MXDs appears in the building--not many of these) and (2) when there are to be following two basic forms: very large quantities of dwelling units that house the types of employees that work in a large quantity of office or other town center with ground floor retail facing the street and on-site businesses. residential and/or office on upper levels. These may include There was more concern about synergy among retail ten- one or multiple blocks. Larger developments may have other ants, and the concern was expressed more by the retail tenants uses such as a theater or hotel; and rather than developers. Some major retailers have experienced mixed-use off-street development using a pedestrian- their shoppers commonly patronizing specific other retailers, oriented spine or block-type layout (somewhat resembling so they want to be near those retailers. At the same time, they a modified shopping center layout) with buildings facing feel their patrons do not want to be near other retailers so they or backing up to parking fields. will either avoid some developments or require a location away from the less desirable retailer. Developers try to accom- There are also combinations of the above with one or more modate those preferences, sometimes varying rental rates or internal streets flanked by small and sometimes large uses plus other lease arrangements accordingly. larger buildings (e.g., big box retailers) facing their own park- Entertainment, primarily large multi-screen movie theaters, ing fields. Sometimes some parking is provided below ground is sought out in MXDs with major retail components. They or on upper levels. are located strategically to draw patrons past retail stores. Different land uses may be integrated or side-by-side. The This is viewed as adding value for retailers and rent poten- developers, architects, and planners addressed the question tial for the developers. Major synergy is believed to exist in of which arrangement is best; there is no clear answer as to such developments. which works best for developers. Many reasons were given as Office is considered to have little synergy with other uses advantages or disadvantages for each approach. The reasons other than directly supportive service retail. As with residential, included ownership, structural requirements and costs, park- office is not viewed as being able to be the almost sole sup- ing requirements (tenant or city), tenant or buyer preference, port of internal retail space. Restaurants, if properly selected, developer experience, timing and phasing of development, can benefit from some synergy but all need to be able to draw market demand, and developer or tenant risk were all given as from the entire local area market. Hotels may also be found reasons one way or the other. It appears that both integrated in some MXDs. Again, hotels are included if market demand and side-by-side approaches will continue to be widely used. exists in the area and are rarely included based primarily on demand generated internal to the development. Parking versus Connectivity or Integration Selecting Uses MXDs with large retailers (big box or department store) As mentioned previously, each land use included by a devel- often are shaped by the parking preferences of the major retail- oper must normally stand on its own based on area market ers. Some are willing to be in a fully shared parking situation. demand. Hence, for estimating internal trip capture, compet- Others will only locate where their full complement of park- ing opportunities should be considered if developers' prac- ing is directly adjacent to (and sometimes right in front of) tices are felt to be valid. their store. Some may even buy their building pad and the land Interviews with developers yielded no set formula for select- that is designated as their parking (traditional major shopping ing the component land uses. Developers tend to include the center practice by some department store companies). Since uses (and often tenants or tenant types) that they have most those retailers are often the key to the development's success, experience with, although several mentioned that the mar- tenant parking requirements play a big role in site layouts. ket has been causing them to mix (more) uses than they had In developments having big box retailers, the strong trend included before. The vast majority of MXDs known to the is to have them face or back up to their parking. This is most research team have a primary use. The primary use has nor- frequently accomplished in one of two ways: mally been retail, but sometimes has been either office or residential. traditional shopping center style; or Secondary uses are included in a full range of percentages provide a front door entrance to a town center street but of square footage from almost equal to the primary use to a very line the front of the building with smaller stores; place park-

OCR for page 111
A-7 ing at the rear with a prominent entrance from that side. demand for particular uses, (3) requirements of specific ten- Teaser parking (parallel or angle) is placed on the street in ants or land use types, and (4) city requirements. This applies front of the store to make parking look convenient and to land uses, tenants, and shared parking. available, but most is behind the store or in an adjacent well During discussions of MXD considerations at a 2006 Urban marked garage. Land Institute conference on placemaking, not one single devel- oper or city official mentioned traffic impacts or access require- Developers are more concerned with having each land use ments as an influence on major development decisions. They component work on its own than with providing internal con- did mention the necessity to provide good access and to meet nectivity. Few uses have internal building connections as their applicable traffic impact requirements, but reducing trip gen- primary access because they all must serve area demand rather eration was not mentioned as a primary concern or influenc- than just internal building demand. On the other hand, devel- ing factor. On the other hand, shared parking was frequently opers want the building entrances to be convenient to each mentioned as an important ingredient for making a develop- other. Relative to internal trip capture, driving trips to most ment viable because of parking costs (land consumption or uses will consist of finding a parking place then walking to the garage spaces) and/or space limitations. primary and other destinations--that is, park once and walk Some developers were aware of and use ULI's Shared Park- to other destinations. The exception to that is the large MXD ing report, but most reported tenant or local requirements containing big box retail that may be laid out so driving to a override the numbers provided in the report (1). Where shared second retailer may be necessary due to the distances between parking is used (to some extent in most MXDs), proper access major tenants. and location to make sharing work seems to be employed. This is required to sell the sharing to tenants and purchasers. There- Walking Distance: Planner/Architect fore, in considering internal trip capture, site layout and walk- Recommendations versus Developer Experience ing distances must be considered. The mere mixing of uses on Several planners and architects spoke of 1/4 mile and even a site or in an area will not provide a true characterization of longer acceptable walking distances. However, several devel- the possible sharing of parking or how internal circulation opers reported that acceptable walking distances for their occurs between component buildings. developments range from 600 to 1,000 ft. There were no hard data reported or referenced, but some cited tenant preferences Transit-Oriented Development or requirements, which are likely influenced either by tenant surveys or their own or lenders' risk considerations. As expected, there was only limited discussion and experi- Consideration of internal trip capture should consider ence with TOD. Much was conceptual due to limited actual walking distance between the major uses and probably should development experience by most participants. However, what consider the developer range of acceptable distances since came through very clearly relative to development trends was they are possibly influenced by actual common experience that all component uses and spaces must stand on their own rather than high ends of acceptable ranges. Alternatively, the in the market. Proximity to transit may provide an addition second method would be to conduct user surveys in a variety to demand, but it is not considered sufficient to support devel- of MXDs to establish acceptable walking distances. opment on its own. As a result, current developer thinking is that the TOD should respond to local market demand near the site and provide close and convenient access to transit. Shared Parking and Internal Trip Capture Building entrances facing transit station entrances as well as Shared parking is a feature of virtually all current MXDs. close proximity were suggested as key features. The extent of sharing depends on the uses, tenants, and lay- Transit serving tenant uses in TODs are primarily office and out. In current practice, the amount of spaces provided is residential, and those can be significant only if the adjacent driven by tenant preferences first, then perceived risk (devel- transit serves connecting destinations for those uses. Hence, opers or lenders), local requirements, and finally actual esti- mode split estimates need to consider not only local transit mated demand. proximity, but also the extent of service and the destinations Tenant requirements must be met for the developer to served. TCRP Report 128 describes research on TODs for secure a lease or purchase. Some tenants are flexible and some similar types of considerations as were being examined by are not. The location and market influence tenant flexibility. NCHRP Project 8-51. That project included an assessment of For example, tenants are possibly more flexible in Manhattan trip generating characteristics of residential TODs. Data col- than in a peripheral greenfield site. How badly a tenant wants lected in that project were limited to only external cordon to locate in the particular site may also drive flexibility. counts. That project found that TODs did result in lower vehi- Hence, in developing a site, the developer needs to assess cle trip generation than what is reflected in the ITE Trip Gen- (1) what is necessary for the financial pro forma, (2) market eration report, so mode split should be considered (2).

OCR for page 111
A-8 Bottom Line For Transportation Planners Developers are the ones who create MXDs. Their financial The previous developer considerations and principles shape results depend on designing the developments correctly, which MXDs. They are also important for transportation planners to means they need to have a solid understanding about how be able to understand how MXDs are normally to be designed such developments work. While developers seldom have the and how users think they will use such developments. Based on type of data transportation professionals seek, their experi- the previous findings, the following are additional considera- ences and considerations are valuable to help gain an under- tions related to internal trip capture. standing about how MXDs work. For internal trip capture, competing opportunities should be considered if developers' practices are felt to be valid. For Developers Relative to internal trip capture, driving trips to most uses From the developer perspective, the following appear to be will consist of finding a parking place then walking to the the prevailing developer combined bottom lines. primary and other destinations--that is, park once and walk to other locations. The exception to that are the MXDs con- All development projects must make money; financial con- taining big box retail that may be designed so that driving to siderations drive decisions for MXD. a second retailer may be necessary due to the distance from Developers build what sells in the particular location within one entrance to the next. the particular market. Therefore, in considering internal trip capture, site layout Market demand drives almost all decisions regarding devel- and walking distances must be considered. The mere opment components and synergy influences only location-- mixing of uses on a site or in an area will not provide a and that most frequently within only larger retail-dominated true characterization of the possible sharing of parking developments. Primary market demand for specific land uses or how internal circulation occurs between component is generated external to the development; any internally buildings. generated increment can be helpful but it cannot be the pri- Transit serving tenant uses apparently make up insignif- mary source for a successful significant project component. icant percentages of TODs other than office and residen- Retail (including restaurants), residential, and office are tial, and those are significant only if the adjacent transit the primary, secondary and tertiary uses in MXDs. Movie serves connecting destinations for those uses. Hence, mode theaters are used to draw potential retail patrons past store split estimates need to consider not only local transit prox- fronts. Hotels are sometimes included in response to area imity, but also the extent of service and the destinations market demand. served. Developers cater to tenant risk limitations. Developers pursue projects they are comfortable with and Conclusions are within their risk limitations. Developers follow popular trends that sell successfully. Trip capture estimation should be able to cover all of the Tenant/purchaser requirements and preferences drive land use combinations expected to develop with some fre- project and parking layouts once the design concept is quency. However, it is clear from the information in this chap- established. ter that the primary uses in today's and foreseeable MXDs are Developers will adjust their projects to meet agency require- retail, restaurant, residential and office. Available resources ments if the remainder of the project is strong; otherwise should be concentrated on those uses, but any procedures they will go somewhere else if their formula for financial developed should be adaptable to all common land uses. success cannot be met. Through their own surveys and tenant/purchaser accep- References tance, developers consider walking distances between desti- 1. Shared Parking, 2nd edition, Urban Land Institute, Washington, nations are acceptable up to a maximum of 600 to 1,000 ft. D.C., 2005. Internal trip capture is not a significant normal developer 2. Arrington, G.B., and Cervero, Robert. TCRP Report 128: Effects of concern, but shared parking is; consideration of traffic TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Transportation Research impacts is a requirement but does not drive the project. Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.