The Role of Space in Defining Character

The Role of Space in Defining Character and the economic and social benefits of space

National APA Conference Los Angeles, California April 13-17, 2012 presented by:

Bret C. Keast, AICP | Kendig Keast Collaborative Greg Flisram, AICP, CEcD | City of Green Bay

Steve Jensen, AICP | Steve Jensen Consulting

1.25 CM credit - APA

1.25 PDH credit - ASLA

SPACE | POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE

CHARACTER | GREEN SPACE

What is community character, how is it defined and measured, and how may it be applied in our own communities?

What’s the differences between positive and negative space and the role they have in determining character?

What must we do differently to achieve improved and deliberate character outcomes?

Is there an attributable economic value for space and if so, how is it best leveraged as an integral part of development or redevelopment?

How has space been used in different contexts to transform development character?

OVERVIEW | WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

Character is:

• “the distinctive identity of a particular place that results from the interaction of many factors – built form, landscape, history, people, and their activities.”

- New Zealand Ministry for the Environment

• “the sum of all the attributes and assets that make a community unique, and that establish a sense of place for its residents.”

- Norwalk, Ohio Comprehensive Plan

CHARACTER | A NEBULOUS TERM

California Government Code, Section 51082. A county or city may require a deed or other instrument described in subdivision (d) of Section 51075 to contain any such restrictions, conditions or covenants as are necessary or desirable to maintain the natural or scenic character of the land or to prevent any activity, use or action which could impair the open-space character of the land.

Illinois, Sec. 5-12001 The County Board shall have the power… b. to prohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of such districts, respectively.

Indiana, Sec. 603 The plan commission and the legislative body shall pay reasonable regard to: (1) the comprehensive plan; (2) current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district;

CHARACTER | A COMMONLY CITED TERM

CHARACTER | GEORGIA DCA REQUIREMENT

Georgia now requires the use of character versus “conventional land use planning.”

- Techniques and Guidance for Delineating and Implementing Character Areas,

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

CHARACTER | GEORGIA DEFINITION

The character of developed areas can be explained by looking at several typical characteristics, including:

• Site and configuration of lots; • Site design features, such as degree and location of landscaping, parking,

driveways, accessory structures, storm water facilities, and other features;

• Street design; • Intensity of development; • Building location, dimensions, and orientation; • Types and quantities of natural features; • Location, extent, and type of civic buildings and public spaces; and • Interactions among uses within the area.

Suburban Neighborhood

Perimeter Center

Auto-Urban Suburban

Suburb

an N

eig

hborh

ood

CHARACTER | APPLIED

POSITIVE SPACE | VS. NEGATIVE SPACE

Positive and negative space play important roles in defining the character of development. • Positive space refers to

the built environment. • Negative space is the

space around and between buildings. It is most evident when the space itself is interesting and becomes the subject of a development.

NEGATIVE SPACE | RURAL

Natural Rural

NEGATIVE SPACE | SUBURBAN

Vegetated Street Environs Neighborhood Park

NEGATIVE SPACE | URBAN

Pedestrian Precinct Urban Green

Community character:

describes a continuum from rural to urban, in which the relative balance of various elements (e.g., buildings, vehicular use areas, and “green” open spaces) changes along the continuum.

This continuum relates to a relative scale of development intensities, stretching across a spectrum from undisturbed natural settings to the most intensely developed urban centers.

CHARACTER | DEFINED

MISCONCEPTION | LAND USE

Urban Character Auto-Urban Character

MISCONCEPTION | LOT SIZE OR DENSITY

Density % Open Space Character

3.49 0%

Auto-Urban

1.96 45%

Suburban

MISCONCEPTION | SETBACKS

Zoning Front setback Lot width

R-2 20’ 70’

R-1 25’ 70’

MISCONCEPTION | FRONTAGE

Enclosed space Pedestrian streetscape On-street parking

Urban Character • Architecturally enclosed space • Structured / on-street parking • Public, hotel, and office anchors

Auto-Urban Character • Semi-enclosed space • Perimeter surface parking • Big box anchors

MISCONCEPTION | FRONTAGE

Urban Character • Architecturally enclosed streetscape • Structured / on-street parking • Vast public space

Auto-Urban Character • Unenclosed space • Predominant surface parking • Independent building sites

CHARACTER | SPACE

CHARACTER | SPACE

Urban Character • Architecturally enclosed • Pedestrian precinct • Paved

Suburban Character • Borrowed space • Village green • Landscape surfaces and masses

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

CHARACTER | VS. USE

CHARACTER | SPECTRUM

CHARACTER | SPACE

Green Brown

Grey

Impervious surfaces • Parking/loading areas • Streets, alleys, and sidewalks • Hardscape areas • Storage and display areas

Pervious treatments • Natural spaces • Parks, greens, and greenways • Landscape surface (yards/courts) • Vegetative cover and volume

Built environment • Building coverage and bulk • Building enclosure/separation • Site placement

Positive Space

Negative Space

CHARACTER | SPACE

RURAL SUB-URBAN URBAN

CHARACTER | MEASURES AND METRICS


Natural Agriculture Countryside Estate Suburban Auto-Urban Urban Urban Core

RELATIVE BALANCE OF GREEN SPACE, GREY SPACE, AND BROWN SPACE




4.0

12.0

20.0

28.0

YIELD CURVE

NEEDED TO DISTINGUISH

CHARACTER



0%

OPEN SPACE CURVE

80%

CHARACTER | MEASURES & METRICS

50%

100%


CHARACTER


CHARACTER

Measures/Metrics Rural Suburban Urban

Green Spaces

Visual

Predominant Predominant (with buildings) Secondary

Buildings Insignificant/infrequent Secondary (with open space) Predominant

Grey Spaces Insignificant/nominal Secondary Predominant/Significant

% Open Space

Dimensions

90 - 96% 0 – 50%+ 12 – 25%

Lot size 40 ac. – 0.5 ac. 1 ac. – 5,000 sf. 7,500 – 2,500 sf.

Lot width 800’ – 75’ 175’ – 50’ 75’ – 25’

Impervious cover

Yield

1.0 – 2.15% 15 – 26% 34 – 63%

Density, gross 0.025 – 0.16 0.84 – 2.80 3.20 – 19.00

Density, net 0.025 – 4.00 0.84 – 5.75 4.00 – 28.00+


Source: Defining and Measuring Community Character, Zoning Practice, December 2010

CHARACTER | SUBURBAN




1.0

6.0

OPEN SPACE

PAVEMENT

BUILDINGS &

STRUCTURES

OPEN SPACE

PAVEMENT BUILDINGS &

STRUCTURES

ESTATE

SUBURBAN

50%

35% GROSS DENSITY

NET DENSITY

% OPEN SPACE DENSITY



1.0

6.0 50%

35% GROSS DENSITY

NET DENSITY

% OPEN SPACE DENSITY


Lot Size Open Space

Gross Density

Net Density

1 acre 0% 0.836 0.836

12,500 sf. 35% 1.728 2.658

8,000 sf. 40% 2.234 3.723

5,000 sf. 50% 2.880 5.760

0%

Land use plans should set forth the intended future character of development rather than its use or general density

• Land use inventory should be based on measurable characteristics of development with the similarities/differences as the basis of coding

• Land use districts must be clearly defined and well articulated • Seek one-to-one relationship between land use and zoning districts

CHARACTER | LAND USE PLANNING

Land Use/Zoning District Option Lot Size Open Space Density

Suburban

Single Family 20,000 sf. 5% 1.57

Cluster 1 15,000 sf. 25% 1.67

Cluster 2 10,000 sf. 35% 2.00

Planned 6,000 sf. 50% 2.50

Urban

Single Family 6,000 sf. 15% 4.20

Cluster 5,000 sf. 25% 4.50

Planned Mixed 30% 4.70

CHARACTER | INVENTORY

CHARACTER | INVENTORY

Repurpose and restructure districts Required minimum OSR, factoring drainage, park dedication, and bufferyards

as minimum thresholds Increase OSR with offsetting lot sizes and housing types to reclaim and/or

provide bonus density

CHARACTER | ZONING

Lot Size Open Space Ratio Gross Density Notes

8,000

0.0% 3.71 Assuming no required open space

10.2% 3.33 Park requirement based on 7 acres/1,000 persons

0.38 Net density loss by meeting parkland dedication requirement

16.7% 3.10 Density assuming parkland dedication and 6.5% for detention

0.61 Net density loss to meet parkland and detention requirements

Alternatives Single Family Townhome Patio Apartment

8,000

15.0% 3.90 80% 20% 0% 0%

20.0% 4.25 70% 30% 0% 0%

25.0% 4.42 70% 15% 0% 15%

30.0% 4.70 70% 15% 0% 20%

Repurpose and restructure districts

Emphasize lot width over depth Use building/impervious cover or FARs to control spacing/scale Use a housing palette to permit all dwelling units types with

dimensional standards to control density and character

CHARACTER | ZONING

Single-Family and Single-Family Cluster Lot and Building Standards

Zoning District

and Development Type

Minimum Maximum

Lot Area

(sf.)

Regulatory

Lot Width1

(ft.)

Front

Setback (ft.)

Interior Lot

Side Setback

Single / Total (ft.)

Street Side

Setback

(ft.)

Rear

Setback

(ft.)

Height

(ft.)

Building

Coverage

Ratio (%)

Single Family Detached 75,000 190 75 20 / 50 20 75 30 15%

Single Family Cluster 35,000 130 50 15 / 40 20 60 30 15%


Single Family Cluster 6,000 60 20 5 / 12 20 20 30 40%


Single Family 4,000 40 10 5 / 10 15 20 30 50%

• Provide economic incentive (via bonuses) for the preservation of environmental resources and open space

• Better environmental sustainability through use of development options with increasing open space without yield loss

• Mandate clustering for Suburban development with requirements for mixed housing, which help achieve necessary densities

• Disallow or make conventional development a conditional use

• Push Auto-Urban development to either an Urban or Suburban character through provisions of space

CHARACTER | GENERALLY



Greg Flisram, AICP, CEcD | City of Green Bay

• Does it stimulate redevelopment?

• Does it command a price premium?

• Does it pay for itself?

• Does it “sell”?

• Does it hold its value?

VALUE | DETERMINATIONS

• Public vs. Quasi-Public

• Urban vs. Suburban

• Designed vs. Natural

• Passive vs. Active

SPACE | DIFFERENT TYPES

• Distance

• Size

• Maintenance

• Activity levels (safety & “defensibility”)

• Urban density

• “Quality of surrounding neighborhood”

VALUE | PREMIUM DEPENDS ON:

• Size matters in suburbia

• Design matters in cities (safety, refuge, artfulness)

• Distance & views important

• Urban space more valued than suburban (scarcity)

• Moderate activity better than high/low

• New urban communities tend to command higher prices per square foot, absorb faster, and maintain value**

VALUE | GENERALLY

VALUE | DISTANCE

CASE STUDY | Milwaukee Riverwalk


“Beerline B” (upper) Section


“Third Ward” (lower) Section


“Third Ward” (lower) Section

CASE STUDY | Green Bay “CityDeck”




CASE STUDY | Houston Discovery Green

CASE STUDY | Houston Discovery Green

CASE STUDY | The High Line NYC

CASE STUDY | The High Line NYC

CASE STUDY | Chicago Millennium Park



Steve Jensen, RLA, AICP | Steven Jensen Consulting

• Public open space as a transformative tool

• Omaha’s experience

- Downtown

- Riverfront

- Midtown Crossing

OMAHA | Public open space

• Omaha, Nebraska - Founded in 1854

- Located

o East edge of Nebraska

o West bank Missouri River

- Gateway to western settlement

- Omaha/C.B. - eastern terminus transcontinental railroad – 1862

- Ecosystem

o Rolling grassland

o Few trees

Omaha 1868

OMAHA | History

• Omaha open space history

- Public open space vital

o Tree planting

- Omaha City plat – 1854

o Jefferson Square

o Capital Square

o Washington Square

o Central Park

Omaha 1854

OMAHA | History

• Omaha park history

- Park Board – 1889

- Park & boulevard plan – 1889 – 1894

o HWS Cleveland

o Series of interconnected parks

o Selected high points and streamside locations

o Patterned after his work in Minneapolis – St. Paul

Omaha 1923

OMAHA | History

Omaha Downtown / Riverfront 1974 – 2012

Mid-Town Crossing 2006 – 2012

OMAHA | Case studies

OMAHA | Downtown Master Plan, 1974


OMAHA | Gene Leahy Mall/Heartland Park

Gene Leahy Mall / Heartland Park – Spin-off Development • World Herald Building • Central Park Plaza • State Office Building • Landmark Center

Main Library • Burlington Building • Greenhouse Building • Riley Building • ConAgra Campus • Harriman Dispatch Center


North

OMAHA | Riverfront Redevelopment Plan

Project Financing

• $84 Million – Riverfront Bonds

• Revenue Sources

- State Cigarette tax

- Sewer Use fees

- PMNRD / Douglas County - Miller Park contribution

- Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

- Land sales & Lease revenue

- Property & Sales taxes

OMAHA | Riverfront redevelopment



Resulting Development - $200+ M.

• Rick’s Boatyard – $2.5 M.

• National Park Service – $13.5 M. ($1.5 M. TIF)

• Pedestrian Bridge – $23+ M.

• Riverfront Place – $70+/- M. ($7.8 M. TIF)

• Gallup Campus – $80 M. ($5.5 M TIF)

• INS Building – $11 M. ($1.8 M. TIF)


• Public / Private Investments – $510 M.

• CenturyLink (Qwest) Center Project Financing - $293 M. – Public / Private Project

o $218 M. – City / $75 M. – Private

• Hilton Hotel Project Financing

- $77 M. – City – Non-profit Corporation

• T. D. Ameritrade Ballpark Financing

- $140 M – Public / Private / Revenue o $59 M. – City / $43+ – Private / $38 M. – Revenue

OMAHA | Riverfront Redevelopment Plan

OMAHA | North Downtown Redevelopment



Resulting Development – $96+ M.

• Tip-Top Building – $17 M. ($1.8 M. TIF)

• Holiday Inn – $15.7 M. ($2.5 M. TIF)

• Fairfield Inn – $12 M. ($1.8 M. TIF)

• Homewood Suites – $15.4 M. ($2.3 M. TIF)

• Hampton Inn – $13 M. ($1.9 M. TIF)

• Saddle Creek Records – $6.6 M. ($1.3 M. TIF)

• U. P. Child Care Center – $5 M.

• 22 Floors – $ 3.9 ($ .5 M. TIF)

• 9INES – $ 5.1 M ($ .6 M. TIF)

• Zestos – $ 2.5 M. ($ .6 M. TIF)





Charles & Charlotte

Turner House

Curtis Turner Park &

Turner Boulevard

OMAHA | Midtown Crossing at Turner Park

Charles & Charlotte

Turner House

Curtis Turner Park &

Turner Boulevard



Turner Park 2005 – Looking West toward

Mutual of Omaha

Turner Park 2005 – Mutual of Omaha

on the left



Turner Park 2005 – Mutual of Omaha

on the left


Turner Park 2005 – Mutual of Omaha on the left








Midtown Crossing Statistics

• Mutual of Omaha / ECI Investments

• 15-acre development

• Seven buildings

- 220,000 s. f. commercial space

- 500 condominium / apartments units

- 2,200 parking stalls

- 132 room Element Hotel

• Total development cost - $300 M

• Incentives: TIF ‐ $37.4 M, Infrastructure ‐ $3.4 M


Midtown Crossing Statistics 2006 – 2011

• Property Valuations

- Omaha = 12% decrease

- 1, 2, 3 blocks from MTC = 12%, 28%, 25% increase

• Building Permits

- Omaha = 30% increase

- Midtown = 90% increase

• Permit Value

- Omaha = 13% decline

- Midtown = 435% increase

• MTC payments = 7.2% annual rate-of-return on public investment







Urban Village Development 2008 – 2012

• Housing units

- 300 +/-

• Investment

- $30 M +/-

• Apartments & single-family rehabilitation

• Landlords pushing for stricter code enforcement

• Chamber of Commerce funding development studies


Public Plaza




Since 2000 – Omaha’s Public/Private

Open Space Investments =

$1.4 Billion

Thank you


Bret C. Keast, AICP | Kendig Keast Collaborative

Greg Flisram, AICP, CEcD | City of Green Bay EDC


Thank you


Bret C. Keast, AICP | Kendig Keast Collaborative

Greg Flisram, AICP, CEcD | City of Green Bay EDC


Documents

The Role of Space in Defining Character