Osman Dadi Work Samples - FXFOWLE and Regional Plan Association

OSMAN DADIurban planning architecture 2014

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

2

Client: The JBG Companies 02.2013 - 09.2013Reston, Virginia

The Reston Executive Center converts a 1980s suburban office park into a mixed use retail center; it is situated near the Dulles Toll Road in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area, adjacent to the future Washington Metro Silver Line. The new line is supported by dense transit oriented development policies; as the property lies within the catchment area of the future Reston Town Center station, owners JBG Companies tasked the FXFOWLE team to create a phased mixed use center supporting up to 2.4 million square feet in development, a fourfold increase from the existing 600,000 square feet.

PROCESS

Resolving the planning of this project was extremely challenging due to a number of constraints. Notably, the client desired to maintain the existing buildings on site, which were designed in a suburban, inefficient manner in the middle of the property. Preserving these buildings require adding the additional development density on the outskirts of the property while simultaneously developing

an internal road network. The presence of utility corridors, a new tunnel easement under the Toll Road, inflexibility of moving site entries, and power lines along a regional rail trail on the north side dramatically limited the scope of development. Accommodating required parking per county ratios required serious consideration with the diversity of new development being proposed.

Our solution came after numerous explorations of schemes and their variations, and meetings and conversations with the client. The development ultimately creates one large new, signature office building on site on the southeast corner of the lot, a prominent location facing the metro station, Toll Road, and downtown Washington. Three new residential towers are added to increase the site FAR to 3, or 1.8 million square feet. Two residential buildings are to be placed in the location of a to-be-demolished parking garage. The project includes ground level retail in addition to a pedestrianized road network. Parking garages are integrated into the buildings, while including ground level retail space.

I contributed to the development of site wide planning, schemes, transportation, and parking integration strategies. Within a team, I advanced dozens of schemes with the project managers, lead designers, and clients to determine the best approachs to the goals.

Reston Executive Center

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

15 MAY 2013

11016.000 2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10

POWERLINE EASEMENT

SEWER EASEMENT

WEST PARKING GARAGE

746 spaces

1

2

4

12

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

LIMITED EXISTING ACCESS AND RELOCATION OPPORTUNITY

FUTURE RETAINING WALLS AND DEPRESSED TUNNEL ROADWAY

CURRENT PARKING RATIO 3.24/1000 SF

PROXIMITY TO HIGH TENSION POWERLINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AND METRO

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO TRAIL AND RESTON TOWN CENTER

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO EXISTING PARK

CONNECTION TO DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST

FUTURE VEHICULAR TUNNEL TO SOUTH OF DULLES TOLL ROAD

POTENTIAL NEW STREET TO BE SHARED WITH WEST PROPERTY

FOCAL POINT OF ACTIVITY AND VISIBILITY

PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED

OFFICE TO BE REPLACED IN FUTURE PHASE

OPPORTUNITIES

CONSTRAINTS

8

9

9

8

EAST PARKING GARAGE

601 spaces

NORTHWEST SURFACE ZONE100 spaces

NORTHEAST SURFACE ZONE47 spaces

CENTRAL SURFACE ZONE

63 spaces

SOUTHEAST SURFACE ZONE

88 spaces

COURTYARD SURFACE ZONE

29 spaces

SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

3

CONTRIBUTIONS

Many iterations of phased schematic master plans and strategies for a new mixed use center in a 1980s era suburban office complex, including plans and 3D.

Management of all area, parking, and zoning tabulations with proposed design.

Raise development square footage from 600,000 sf to 1.8 million SF for an initial target FAR increase of 3, and eventually FAR 4 (2.4 million SF) in a later phase.

Project design succesfully achieves goal to preserve three existing buildings and one parking garage, while developing four new mixed use towers on a very difficult and highly constrained site.

Create a retail and building configuration to build an urban node in the new phased development.

Management of weekly client presentations, including plans, 3D views, graphics, and area tabulations for constantly changing client goals and desires.

Develop parking strategies, internal road and garage configurations integrated within proposed buildings.

Configure project to Metrorail Silver Line station.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 PREFERRED SCHEME


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


PREFERRED SCHEME - AERIAL VIEW TO SOUTHWEST


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


PREFERRED SCHEME - VIEW FROM METRO STATION


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


SCALE 1=100

PREFERRED SCHEMEBUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL UNITS

OFFICE 1 38,090 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,600 117,200 125,800

OFFICE 3 25,920 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 3400** 458,300 461,700

RESIDENTIAL 1 0 358,080 358,080 350

RESIDENTIAL 2 14,400 255,362 269,762 252

RESIDENTIAL 3 32000** 358,000 390,000 356

TOTAL : 87,010 971,442 853,260 1,947,112 602**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

DEMAND CAPACITY

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): 1,487 1,465APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%): 1,207 1,227

PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN


6 SEPTEMBER 2013



OFFICE 1 38,090 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,600 117,200 125,800

OFFICE 3 25,920 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 3400** 458,300 461,700

RESIDENTIAL 1 0 358,080 358,080 350

RESIDENTIAL 2 14,400 255,362 269,762 252

RESIDENTIAL 3 32000** 358,000 390,000 356


DEMAND CAPACITY


SCALE 1=300

30015075

PREFERRED SCHEME - CONTEXT PLAN


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


SCALE 1=100


OFFICE 1 38,090 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,600 117,200 125,800

OFFICE 3 25,920 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 3400** 458,300 461,700

RESIDENTIAL 1 0 358,080 358,080 350

RESIDENTIAL 2 14,400 255,362 269,762 252

RESIDENTIAL 3 32000** 358,000 390,000 356


DEMAND CAPACITY


PREFERRED SCHEME - GROUND FLOOR PLAN


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


SCALE 1=100

PREFERRED - GARAGE FLOOR PLAN

Aerial view to the SW. Roof Plan.

Garage Plan (Upper levels).

Ground Floor Plan.

Context plan.

View NW from Dulles Toll Road

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

4


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


SCALE 1=100


OFFICE 1 38,090 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,600 117,200 125,800

OFFICE 3 25,920 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 3400** 458,300 461,700

RESIDENTIAL 1 0 358,080 358,080 350

RESIDENTIAL 2 14,400 255,362 269,762 252

RESIDENTIAL 3 32000** 358,000 390,000 356


DEMAND CAPACITY


PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, TWO RESIDENTIAL PADS


10 MAY 2013


SCHEME 1B - ROOF PLAN

RESTONEXECUTIVECENTERSUMMARYDRAFT

SCHEME 1ABUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1-1 13,430 423,637 0 437,067

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 11,930 198,480 0 210,410

RESIDENTIAL 2 25,300 396,440 0 421,740

TOTAL : 145,630 1,018,557 701,885 1,866,072APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1BBUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1 25,400 408,640 0 434,040

RESIDENTIAL 2-1 13,490 401,290 0 414,780

RESIDENTIAL 2-2 6,800 213,900 0 220,700


SCHEME 1CBUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1 25,400 359,540 0 384,940

RESIDENTIAL 2 13,490 457,940 0 471,430

RESIDENTIAL 3 6,800 267,860 0 274,660



10 MAY 2013


SCHEME 1B - PERSPECTIVE


10 MAY 2013




10 MAY 2013




10 MAY 2013



The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

5


6 SEPTEMBER 2013


SCALE 1=100


OFFICE 1 38,090 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,600 117,200 125,800

OFFICE 3 25,920 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 3400** 458,300 461,700

RESIDENTIAL 1 0 358,080 358,080 350

RESIDENTIAL 2 14,400 255,362 269,762 252

RESIDENTIAL 3 32000** 358,000 390,000 356


DEMAND CAPACITY


PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLANRESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER10 MAY 2013


SCHEME 1C - ROOF PLAN

RESTONEXECUTIVECENTERSUMMARYDRAFT

SCHEME 1ABUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1-1 13,430 423,637 0 437,067

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 11,930 198,480 0 210,410

RESIDENTIAL 2 25,300 396,440 0 421,740


SCHEME 1BBUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1 25,400 408,640 0 434,040

RESIDENTIAL 2-1 13,490 401,290 0 414,780

RESIDENTIAL 2-2 6,800 213,900 0 220,700


SCHEME 1CBUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TOTAL

OFFICE 1 38,090 0 163,210 201,300

OFFICE 2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775

OFFICE 3 25,920 0 114,550 140,470

OFFICE 4 22,260 0 307,050 329,310

RESIDENTIAL 1 25,400 359,540 0 384,940

RESIDENTIAL 2 13,490 457,940 0 471,430

RESIDENTIAL 3 6,800 267,860 0 274,660



10 MAY 2013


SCHEME 1C - PERSPECTIVE


10 MAY 2013



MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, THREE RESIDENTIAL PADS


10 MAY 2013




10 MAY 2013



The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

6

AUGUST 22, 2013

SCHEME 1A

SCHEME 1B

SCHEME 2

SCHEME 3

Context Plan. 3D Model View from Metro Station. 3D Model View to Southwest.

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

7

Roof Plan.Typical Plan.Ground Floor Plan.

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

8

Client: The Walton Group02.2013 09.2013Prince Georges County, MD

This project handled two separate issues concurrently: the relocation of a major government agency from downtown headquarters to a new site in the Westphalia community in Prince Georges County, MD, as well as a subsequent redevelopment of the original site in downtown Washington, DC.

Our client on this project, Walton, has proposed the relocation of a Major Government Agency on a 45+ acre site on the outskirts of Washington, DC, as part of the redevelopment of a major plot of land termed Westphalia. Though this city has yet to be built, the Agency is being lured as an anchor of the proposed development.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Initial four site strategies and corresponding rendered plans and 3D models.

Refine site context and diagrams Application of schemes to updated client desires. Revision of rendered plans and corresponding renderings for final site.

Security diagrams and program review. Development and management of client presentations.

PROCESS

The FXFOWLE team presents a series of proposals to demonstrate what such a relocation would look like and how it might be situated, initially beginning with an assessment of four general building typologies and then reducing these to two based on client input - the preferred Linear Landscape, and an alternative Linked Compound. These schemes and their materials were adjusted to a site that changed to better fit the nature of the anchor role in the development.

The Linear Landscape is most ideal for its style of building, being best situated to the final layout of the site, and having the best security arrangements. Security concerns were of utmost importance with determining the viability of this project.

The Linked Compound scheme has one major advantage over its counterpart: an ability to be phased into the development building by building.

2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED20 AUGUST 2013

F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIAWALTON MARYLAND II LLC

Mmetro

WASHINGTON, D.C.

WESTPHALIA

JOINT BASE A

NDREWS

SUITLAN

D PKWY

PE

NN

SY

LVA

NIA

AV

E

AERIAL VIEW

3



SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SITE LOCATION

Suitland Pkwy

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITEWETLANDS

Suitland Pkwy


F.B.I. SITE

Suitland Pkwy


F.B.I. SITE51 ACRES

6

MAY 22, 2013 JULY 23, 2013MARCH 4, 2013

Major Government Agency Westphalia Development

This series of diagrams summarizes site changes through the course of designing the project, as specified by client The Walton Group. The development site is shifted to be anchored with the remaining walkable commercial sector in the community.

The Westphalia development is located on a greenfield site near Andrews Air Force Base southeast of Washington, DC.

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

9



P

i

F.B.I.

P

300 220

F.B.I. SITE

WESTPHALIATOWN CENTER

SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT

LOADING/REMOTEDELIVERY

SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN

RECREATIONGREENP i 300 F.B.I.

P

220

P P

F.B.I.300

i


F.B.I. SITE

LINEAR LANDSCAPE LINKED COMPOUND

8



P

i

F.B.I.

P

300 220

F.B.I. SITE


SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

220

P P

F.B.I.300

i


F.B.I. SITE

LINEAR LANDSCAPE LINKED COMPOUND

8



LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN

N0 200 400

feet

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

P

i F.B.I.

P

300

80

F.B.I. SITE


14

The May 22 linear landscape scheme comprises of two main buildings and a parking garage connected via an access spine. This scheme was preferred by the client.

The May 22 linked compound scheme includes two security access points and an internal road into major facilities. Buildings can be built in phases.

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

10



LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLAN

N0 200 400

feet

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

P

i

F.B.I.

P

300

80

F.B.I. SITE


11



LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SECURITY NOTES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

1

2

3

4

5

SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE)includes an integrated pedestrian fence and anti-ram barrier system.

SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE

VISITORS CENTER AND CHECKPOINTthe visitors checkpoint and screening area must be located at the secured perimeter line

ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITYmust be 300+ feet from the secured perimeter should include 30 clear zone around building

ZONE FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGSmust be 80+ feet from the property line and within secured perimeter.

VEHICLE SCREENING AREAmust be located outside the secured perimeter

SECURITY CHECKPOINTmust be located at the secured perimeter line

PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE

MECHANICAL PLANT ZONEshould be located close to the main FBI facility

VISITORS PARKING AREAmust be located outside the secured perimeter

LOADING AND REMOTE DELIVERY ZONEmust be located at the secured perimeter line

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9

12



LINEAR LANDSCAPE - VIEW TO NORTH

13



LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLAN

N0 200 400

feet

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

P

i

F.B.I.

P

300

80

F.B.I. SITE


11




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9

12

Rendering of the preferred Linear Landscape concept.

Final Linear Landscape program and security diagram (below).

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

11




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9

12




N0 200 400

feet

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

P

i F.B.I.

P

300

80

F.B.I. SITE


14



LINEAR COMPOUND - SECURITY NOTES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

810

10

4

11

11

7

1

9

15



LINEAR COMPOUND - VIEW TO NORTH

16




N0 200 400

feet

PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTUREDPARKING

VISITORCENTER

MECHANICALPLANT


SECUREDPERIMETER

SECURITYCHECKPOINT

F.B,I. HQ GREENROOF

CAMPUSGREEN


P

P

i F.B.I.

P

300

80

F.B.I. SITE


14




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9




1

2

3

4

5












5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPERTY LINE12

1

2

3

12

56

9

8 10

10

4

11

11

7

1

9

12

Rendering of the Linked Compound alternative.

Final Linked Compound program and security diagram (below).

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

12

Client: The Walton Group 02.2013 09.2013Washington, DC

Walton has asked FXFOWLE to study the best means with which to redevelop the existing downtown site of the Major Government Agency. Our team used the opportunities in the areaa highly visible and prominent location with a broad mix of uses nearbyto create a series of several alternative types of development. The client desired a target of approximately 2.4 million square feet of rentable space through a broad range of usesoffice, retail, residential, and hotel functions, as well as public outdoor space.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS

In a team, handle the creation and development of proposals and initial strategies for the downtown site.

Modify context and base maps. Create client and planning staff presentations. Work through many planning studies of 1.8 to 2.2 million SF multi-building developments.

Adjust and refine schemes according to client desires, including rendered plans, sections, area calculations, and 3D models.

Develop the final Piazza proposal.

The preferred scheme, dubbed the Piazza, combines all desired elements: eight buildings, with a two building residential and two hotel mix; a pedestrian D Street; a passageway from SW to NE, and strong square footage.


F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVEWALTON MARYLAND II LLC

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

N

100 FTSUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.

9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

LIGHT ACCESS TO BELOW

GRADE RETAIL/HOTEL

FUNCTIONS LEVELS

60 OFFSET FROM LIGHT ACCESS - EXTENT OF BELOW GRADE PROGRAM

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

2 FLOORS

GALLERIA2.18 MIL. SF1.44 MIL. SF OFFICE262,546 SF RESIDENTIAL262,546 SF HOTEL 214,293 SF RETAIL

CENTRAL SQUARE2.16 MIL. SF1.54 MIL. SF OFFICE195,720 SF RESIDENTIAL283,044 SF HOTEL 138,957 SF RETAIL

PIAZZA2.18 MIL. SF1.62 MIL. SF OFFICE190,642 SF RESIDENTIAL207,990 SF HOTEL 161,277 SF RETAIL(127,755 SF BELOW GRADE)

ELLIPSE2.17 MIL. SF1.62 MIL. SF OFFICE184,930 SF RESIDENTIAL209,856 SF HOTEL 153,788 SF RETAIL(112,875 SF BELOW GRADE)




D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

N

100 FTSUMMARY OF JULY 23, 2013 SCHEMES

BUILDING 1OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 2OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 3RESID.

15 FLOORS

BUILDING 4OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 5OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 6OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 1OFFICE

12 FLOORSBUILDING 2

OFFICE12 FLOORS

BUILDING 3RESID.

15 FLOORSBUILDING 4OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 5OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 6OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 7HOTEL

16 FLOORS

BUILDING 1OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 2OFFICE

12 FLOORS BUILDING 3RESID.

15 FLOORS

BUILDING 4OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 5OFFICE

13 FLOORS

BUILDING 6OFFICE

12 FLOORS

BUILDING 7HOTEL

16 FLOORS

BUILDING 7HOTEL

16 FLOORS

GALLERIA - 1.98 MIL. SF1.16 MIL. SF OFFICE242,957 SF RESIDENTIAL299,790 SF HOTEL 281,694 SF RETAIL15,742 SF GALLERIA**

PIAZZA - 1.95 MIL. SF1.23 MIL. SF OFFICE198,607 SF RESIDENTIAL322,360 SF HOTEL 232,039 SF RETAIL28,813 SF GALLERIA**

CORRIDOR - 1.91 MIL. SF1.22 MIL. SF OFFICE187,447 SF RESIDENTIAL288,075 SF HOTEL 218,706 SF RETAIL15,742 SF GALLERIA**

Major Government Agency Downtown Redevelopment

LINEAR GALLERIA SCHEME

Summary of May 22, 2013 schemes, showing an array of strategies.

Summary of July 23, 2013 schemes, implementing a new D street.

The following pages are a summary of the August 20, 2013 schemes, showcasing a complete D Street and engaging public spaces.

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

13




N

100 FT

PIAZZA (CONSENSUS)2.22 MIL. SF1.43 MIL. SF OFFICE403,500 SF RESIDENTIAL198,750 SF HOTEL 191,500 SF RETAIL

PARKING:3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

ASSUMPTIONS:

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11-6 FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9-8 FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

160 HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

NOTES:

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

PIAZZA CONSENSUS SCHEME




N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7

BUILDING 8




N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.


The final Piazza includes five office and two residential buildings, places the hotel (7) at the prominent southwest corner of the site, and creates a complete street, courtyard and pedestrian passageway.

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

14




N

100 FT

1A. GALLERIA(LINEAR)2.07 MIL. SF1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013






ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE)2.01 MIL. SF1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.







ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

1C. GALLERIA (ARC)1.97 MIL. SF1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL323,,750 SF HOTEL 185,750 SF RETAIL


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:









ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7

LINEAR GALLERIA.

ANGLE GALLERIA.

ARC GALLERIA.




N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.





N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.





N

100 FT

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




15






ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7






ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7






ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT

2. PIAZZA2.00 MIL. SF1.31 MIL. SF OFFICE169,000 SF RESIDENTIAL338,250 SF HOTEL 175,520 SF RETAIL


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.





N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT

3A. ELLIPSE(WITH D STREET)1.97 MIL. SF1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL334,500 SF HOTEL 167,250 SF RETAIL25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.







ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

3B. ELLIPSE(NO D STREET)2.02 MIL. SF1.32 MIL. SF OFFICE201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL317,250 SF HOTEL 182,250 SF RETAIL25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE


ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:









ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




BUILDING 2

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5BUILDING 6

BUILDING 7




N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.





N

100 FT

D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:




ELLIPSE SCHEME WITHOUT D STREET.

ELLIPSE SCHEME WITH D STREET.

PIAZZA SCHEME.




N

100 FT



ASSUMPTIONS:





NOTES:



D STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.


9th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

10th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

11th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.

8th

ST

RE

ET

N.W

.


OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

16

Client: Related Companies, Hudson Companies05.2013 - 07.2013Bronx, New York, NY

La Central is a five building, 1.2 million square foot developers RFP through the New York Department of Housing and Public Development. Our proposal creates a sense of community within the development, and encompasses residential market rate and affordable housing, a YMCA gym, rooftop urban farming, a major internal public-private park, community centers, and a urban science telescope feature. The design encompasses a distinction between internal and external architectural expressions, a blocking structure, and a tower feature with key massing strategies.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Develop and present as a team a 1.2 million SF, five building proposal through developers Related and Hudson for mixed use affordable housing in the Bronx.

Maintain constantly changing plans and 3D models, and created presentations for client meetings.

All zoning plans and sections to address key issues such as setbacks, sky exposure planes, and frontage considerations.

Plans, sections, and layout studies of the YMCA, an anchor tenant of the proposed development, directly with a representative.

Final deliverables for architectural submission, including rendered elevations and base drawings.

LA CENTRAL BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013La CENTRAL

AREA SUMMARY

6/28/2013

La CENTRAL

BUILDING ARoof 0 2,000 2,000 0 0

Level 11-12 2 0 14,440 28,880 0 0

Level 10 1 0 18,328 18,328 0 0

Level 9 1 0 19,141 19,141 0 0

Level 8 1 0 22,423 22,423 0 0

Level 3-7 5 0 23,024 115,120 0 0

Level 2 1 0 23,024 23,024 0 837 837

Ground 1 20,267 20,267 3,061 3,061 0 1,686 1,686 20,758 20,758Cellar 1 0 8,658 8,658 0 0 27,311 27,311

Subtotal 13 20,267 240,635 0 1,686 48,906

TOTAL 311,494

Parcel B total 311,494

BUILDING BRoof 0 2,000 2,000 0 0

Level 12-13 2 0 15,112 30,224 0 0

Level 11 1 0 23,461 23,461 0 0

10 1 0 24,539 24,539 0 0

Level 9 1 0 27,549 27,549 0 0

Level 3-8 6 0 29,033 174,198 0 0

2 1 0 14,658 14,658 0 0

Ground 1 24,793 24,793 12,934 12,934 0 3,341 3,341 0Cellar 0 9,120 9,120 0 31,947 31,947 0

Subtotal 13 24,793 318,684 0 35,288 0

TOTAL 378,765

BUILDING CRoof 0 1,000 1,000 0 0

Level 10-13 4 0 10,887 43,548 0 0

Level 2-9 8 0 12,397 99,176 0 0

Ground 1 0 3,757 3,757 0 8,640 8,640Cellar 0 6,199 6,199 0 0 0

Subtotal 13 0 153,680 0 0 8,640

TOTAL 162,320

BUILDING DRoof 0 0 1,000 1,000 0

9 1 0 0 7,386 7,386 0

Level 3-8 6 0 0 10,040 60,239 0

2 1 0 0 0 10,040 10,040

Ground 1 0 0 3,133 3,133 6,902 6,902Cellar 0 0 5,026 5,026 0 0

Subtotal 9 0 0 76,784 0 16,942

TOTAL 93,726

Parcel A1 Total 634,811

Building ERoof 0 1,000 1,000 0 0

20-25 6 0 4,790 28,740 0 0

Levels 15-19 5 0 6,946 34,730 0 0

Levels 13-14 2 0 9,452 18,904 0 0

Levels 11-12 2 0 8,970 17,940 0 0

Level 10 1 0 8,880 8,880 0 0

Levels 4-9 6 0 11,277 67,662 0 0

Levels 2-3 2 0 11,159 22,318 0 0

Ground 1 2,003 2,003 3,438 3,438 0 9,893 9,893Cellar 0 7,667 7,667 0 0 0

Subtotal 25 2,003 211,279 0 0 9,893

TOTAL 223,171

Parcel A2 Total 223,171

TOTAL PROPOSEDSubtotal 36,974

TOTAL

sf/floor

NUMBER OF

FLOORS

RETAIL PARKING/SERVICE

sf/floor total

6/28/2013

924,27847,063 76,784

SUPPORTIVE

sf/floor total

RESIDENTIAL

total sf/floor total

YMCA/COMMUNITY

sf/floor total

84,3811,169,480

La Central Mixed Use Development

17

The planned development summary (shown left) is strategized concurrent to the defining urban design strategies: creating a community node within the development similar to garden apartments in the Bronx, buildings that include inner and outer personalities wrapping over and around each building, and varied heights and setbacks to break down the streetscape to a human scale.

The La Central affordable housing development consists of five buildings (A through E) with a mix of different uses.

A

C

BD

E

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

18

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

19

Zoning sections (left) show compliance with New York City laws.

The zoning site plan conveys compliance with zoning regulations in this portion of New York City, including lot coverage and setbacks.

This series of Building A plans shows (clockwise from top left): the basement, ground floor, penthouse, and typical residental level.LA CENTRAL BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013La CENTRAL

1=30BUILDING A - 2ND FLOOR PLAN

LA CENTRAL BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013La CENTRAL

1=30BUILDING A - 11TH-12TH FLOOR PLAN

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

20

FXFOWLE project flow included submissions for RFPs, in which I produced a variety of presentation materials.

WEST 29TH STREET STUDY

Client: Douglaston Companies09.2013

Developed base maps and graphics for a Douglaston Companies development proposal near Hudson Yards.

SEAPORT CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY

Client: ARCADIS 08.2013

Developed presentation materials, including a detailed 48x36 base map of lower Manhattan, case studies, and graphic materials for Arcadis-led interview with the New York Economic Development Corporation.

11th

AV

EN

UE

12th

AV

EN

UE

10th

AV

EN

UE

9th

AV

EN

UE

1,278

377364

305

1,278

210

515

30

th S

TR

EE

T

31S

T S

TR

EE

T

32n

d S

TR

EE

T

33

rd S

TR

EE

T

34

th S

TR

EE

T

29

th S

TR

EE

T

28

th S

TR

EE

T

27th

ST

RE

ET

26

th S

TR

EE

T

25

th S

TR

EE

T

24

th S

TR

EE

T

23

rd S

TR

EE

T

West-East section and height study for West 29th Street Study.

North-South section and height study for West 29th Street Study.

Interview/RFP Package Development

FXFO

WLE

ARCHITEC

TS

21

8 A

VE

7 A

VE

6 A

VE

9 A

VE

10 A

VE

11 A

VE

12 A

VE

W 34 ST

W 39 ST

W 35 ST

W 33 ST

W 32 ST

W 36 ST

W 37 ST

W 40 ST

W 38 ST

W 26 ST

W 41 ST

W 24 ST

W 42 ST

W 25 ST

W 23 ST

W 43 ST

BR

OA

DW

AY

W 44 ST

W 22 ST

W 45 ST

W 21 ST

W 46 ST

W 20 ST

DY

ER

AV

W 19 ST

W 47 ST

W 31 ST

W 18 ST

LINCOLN TUNNEL

W 29 ST

W 28 ST

W 30 ST

W 27 ST

AV

E O

F T

HE A

MER

ICA

S

Huds

on R

iver

1

1

23

BD

F MN QR

NR

A

7

7

CE

CE

(FUTURE EXTENSION)

7

AC

E

12

37

NQ

R

(PROPOSED

STATION)

TH

E H

IGH

LIN

E

5-MI

NUTE

WALK

ING

RA

DIU

S

PENN STATION

STARRETT

LEHIGH

CHELSEAWATERSIDE

PARK

CHELSEAPARK

MADISONSQUARE

GARDEN

JACOB K.JAVITS

CONVENTIONCENTER

HU

DSO

N R

IVER

GR

EEN

WAY

CHELSEA PIERS

HUDSON YARDS

CON EDISON

TERMINALWAREHOUSE

BR

OA

D S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

M STR

EET

WALL STREET

MAIDEN LANE

JOHN STR

EETFU

LTON

STR

EET

BEEK

MA

N S

TR

EET

PEC

K S

LIP

BROO

KLYN BRID

GE

CA

TH

ER

INE

ST

RE

ET

BR

OO

KLY

N B

AT

TE

RY

TU

NN

EL

ROBERT W

AGNER PLA

CE

MA

RK

ET

ST

RE

ET

FDR DRIVE

MA

NH

ATTA

N B

RID

GE

PIK

E S

TR

EE

T

RU

TG

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

CL

INTO

N S

TR

EE

T

WH

ITE

HA

LL

ST

RE

ET

NY

HELIPA

D

SOUTH

STREET

SEAPO

RT

PIER 11 TER

MIN

AL

PIER 15

WAT

ER S

TREE

T

FDR

DRIV

E

CHERRY STREET

PEARL

STR

EET

ST. J

AM

ES P

LACE

East R

iver

Hud

son

Rive

r

Base Map created for EDC Seaport City Feasibility Study, 48x36

Base Map created for Douglaston West 29th Street Study.

22

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

12.2011 - 03.2012

The Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan is a two year project that was finished during my term at Regional Plan Association. My primary task was designing and publishing the final master plan document, including creating maps from synthesized GIS data and developing the optimal presentation for the county and its constituents.

The Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use study was implemented by the Orange County Planning Department to identify key priorities for creating integrated solutions for transportation and land use within the northeastern portion of Orange County. The multi-modal plan for transportation was intended to identify strategies for enhancing mobility while preserving quality of life.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS

Final document layout, editing, and design Final map development Graphic Design Creating graphic renditions of the results of the projects GIS analysis.

In creating the final document, I utilized RPAs report methodology. As the plan is rather lengthy, our team found it important to break the monotony of the text with frequent photographs that conveyed the context of the conditions described. Additionally, the flow of the text is highly important, and tables, charts, and maps were thus placed accordingly. As the study website was developed using black and orange as key colors, the report utilizes the same theme.

The maps within the report were developed to tie together content in a graphic manifestation, and thus followed the same graphic language. I sought specifically to highlight relevant information by using bright, bold colors for the subject of the maps, while using soft, gray tones and transparencies to soften the context. Thus, roads networks are shown in gray throughout all maps; the study area and municipal boundaries are shown as well, though the coloring is muted such that the most important information stands out.

A typical page from the Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan Report.

Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan

REG

IONAL

PLA

N ASS

OCIATION

23

Figure 4-8: Traffic Analysis Locations in the Newburgh Study Area

Table 4-7: 2010 Existing and 2035 Forecast Volumes and V/C Ratios

Intersection Volumes Volume-Capacity Ratio

Intersection Exist. BAU SGA SGB Exist. BAU SGA SGB

1 NY 17K & Union St/Route 211 1,414 1,565 1,601 1,561 0.87 0.97 0.99 0.96

2 NY 17K & NY 208 2,260 2,762 2,788 2,765 0.57 0.70 0.71 0.70

3 NY 17K & NY 747 1,939 2,519 2,591 2,671 0.48 0.62 0.64 0.65

4 NY 17K & Rock Cut Rd 1,769 1,792 1,839 1,794 0.97 0.98 1.01 0.99

5 NY 17K & NY 300 3,668 4,062 4,125 3,956 0.88 0.98 0.99 0.95

6 NY 17K & Robinson/US 9W 2,235 2,445 2,324 2,439 0.75 0.82 0.78 0.82

7 NY 207 & NY 747 1,477 2,361 2,321 2,315 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.91

8 NY 207 & Breunig Rd 1,361 2,557 2,187 2,115 0.46 0.86 0.73 0.71

9 NY 207 & NY 300 3,025 3,137 3,172 3,196 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.95

10 NY 208 & Main St/NY 52 1,270 1,629 1,737 1,735 0.64 0.82 0.88 0.88

11A NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,587 2,253 2,213 2,214 0.59 0.83 0.82 0.82

11B NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,594 2,450 2,413 2,363 0.52 0.80 0.79 0.77

12 NY 300 & NY 52 2,522 2,756 2,738 2,703 0.96 1.05 1.05 1.03

13 NY 300 & NY 94 2,540 2,637 2,642 2,745 0.98 1.02 1.02 1.06

14 NY 32 & NY 300 1,793 2,565 2,483 2,340 0.63 0.90 0.87 0.82

15 US 9W & Fostertown Rd 2,012 2,264 2,285 2,192 0.88 0.99 1.00 0.96

16 US 9W & NY 32 2,719 3,047 3,043 3,003 0.67 0.76 0.76 0.75

17 US 9W & Forge Hill Rd 2,292 3,225 3,327 3,481 0.58 0.81 0.84 0.87

18 NY 94 & Jackson Ave 1,215 2,024 2,077 2,020 0.51 0.85 0.87 0.85Notes: BAU = Business as Usual; SGA = Smart Growth A; SGB = Smart Growth B.

72 Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study

D. Evaluation of Travel Demand Model Results

Intersection AnalysisAsetof18trafficanalysislocationswasselectedforassessingthepotentialeffectsoftheproposeddevelopmentscenarios(seeFigure 4-8).TheselocationswereselectedbaseduponinputfromStudyAreastakeholdersandtheStudyTeamsownobservationsandprofessionaljudg-ment.These18intersectionsrepresentkeylocationsalongimportantcorridorsandaselectnumberoflocationswithintheVillages.Theyareconsideredtobearepresentativesetoflocationsatwhichtheeffectsofthelandusescenarioscouldbeassessed,potentialroadwayimprovementpackagesoutlined,andbroadfindingsgeneralizedfortheStudyAreaasawhole.Theydonotreflecttheonlylocationsthatcouldbeaffected.The18intersectionsare:

Route17KandRoute211/UnionStreet

Route17KandRoute208(ScottsCorner)

Route17KandRoute747

Route17KandRockCutRoad

Route17KandRoute300

Route17K/BroadwayandRoute9W/RobinsonAvenue

Route207andRoute747

Route207andBreunigRoad

Route207andRoute300

Route208andRoute52/MainStreet

Route208andNeelytownRoad/I-84Ramps

Route300andRoute52

Route300andRoute94(VailsGate)

Route300andRoute32

Route9WandFostertownRoad

Route9WandRoute32

Route9WandForgeHillRoad

Route94andJacksonAvenue

Measuring CongestionThetraveldemandmodelproducedoutputsofvolumesofnewtrafficandavolumetocapacity(v/c)ratioateachofthe18intersections.Netchange

intrafficvolumeisoneindicatorthatimprovementsmaybenecessaryatalocation.Thev/cratio,asitisreferredto,isanotherkeymetricfortrafficengi-neerstoidentifylocationswherenewvolumeswouldcauseadditionalconges-tion.Thetheoreticalmaximumcapacity

Traffic Analysis Locations

24

The Greater Newburgh Study Area.

25

Figure 4-2: Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

62 Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study

potentialhousingunitsortheamountofcommercialsquarefeetthatcanbebuiltonitundercurrentzoning,accountingforecologicalconstraintsandparkingneeds.Dependingonthecommercialestablishmenttypeallowedineachzone(e.g.industrial,retail),thepotentialsquarefootageofeachcommerciallyzonedprop-ertyismultipliedbyajobdensityfactorforthatcommercialestablishmenttypetogetapotentialnumberofjobsenabledoneachparcel.TheresultisanestimateofthetotalnumberofhouseholdsandjobsthatcouldbebuiltacrosstheentireStudyAreaundercurrentzoning.

Itisimportanttonotethatthebuild-outmethodologydoesnotmakeanyspecificaccommodationforprovisionofwatersupplyorwastewatertreatmentinfrastructure.Forthepurposesofthisanalysisitisassumedthatadequatewatersupplyandwastewatertreatmentiseitheravailableorwouldbemadeavailabletoaccommodatethatnewgrowth.Inthescenariosthatdoconstraindevelopmentbasedonfuturepopulation,prioritywasgiventothoseparcelsthatarewithinexistingwatersupplyorwastewatertreat-mentdistricts.ThestudyteamrecognizesthechallengesconfrontedbyOrangeCountycommunitiesinprovidingthese

essentialpiecesofinfrastructurebutcouldnotaddressthesechallengeswithinthescopeofthisstudy.

Abuild-outcanbeunconstrainedbytimeorpopulationandeconomiccondi-tions(i.e.whatamountofdevelopmentwouldoccurbasedsimplyonwhatthezoningpermits)orconstrainedbyatimefactororothersocio-economicfactor(i.e.howmuchdevelopmentwouldoccurtomeetprojectedpopulationforecasts).

TheUnconstrainedBuild-Outanalysisdemonstratesthecapacityfordevelopmentundercurrentzoning,buttellsusnothingaboutthefuturedemandforhousingunitsorcommercialspace.Thepopulationconstrainedbuild-outanalysisdemonstrateswheredevelopment

Open SpaceProtected LandAgriculturalCommercialIndustrialCivic UsesResidential 1 unit/acre or lessResidential 1 to 4 units/acreResidential 4+ units/acre

Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

26

OSM

AN DAD

I 2014

REMAKING THE SAN FRANCISCO PENNINSULA CORRIDOR WITH A BICYCLE EXPRESSWAY

By Osman Dadi, Research Associate, RPAJanuary 12, 2012

Accommodating high-speed rail trains in the San Francisco peninsula has been a contentious topic because of potential noise and visual impacts on the surrounding communities. Recently, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced its support for a blended approach that would utilize the existing Caltrain corridor. But what if a solution could be found that ensures grade separation between trains and automobiles while also opening up dramatically enhanced commuting options for bicyclists?

This proposition allows another incredible opportunity for the Peninsula that would benefit all communities: integrating a grade-separated bicycle expressway into that new infrastructure. The benefits of a separated cycle expressway are many: just as cars on interstate highways are able to travel faster, without stopping for traffic lights, and thus also in a safer means, an expressway for cyclists would allow bicyclists to do the same. The new route would pass over main roads, eliminating vehicular conflicts and allowing fast travel times. Exits spaced out at quarter or half mile intervals would c

Documents

Osman Dadi Work Samples - FXFOWLE and Regional Plan Association