National Academies Press: OpenBook

Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (2011)

Chapter: Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development

« Previous: References
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Trends In Mixed-Use Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 118

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Appendix B - Land Use Classification System »
Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments explores an improved methodology to estimate how many internal trips will be generated in mixed-use developments—trips for which both the origin and destination are within the development.

The methodology estimates morning and afternoon peak–period trips to and from six specific land use categories: office, retail, restaurant, residential, cinema, and hotel. The research team analyzed existing data from prior surveys and collected new data at three mixed-use development sites. The resulting methodology is incorporated into a spreadsheet model, which is available online for download.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!