Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Meeting the Growing Demand for
Downtown Living

A Pilot Program
PLAN IT FORWARD
Southern New England APA conference
Octobe...
Presenters
 CT Main Street Center
John Simone, President & CEO
 Susan Westa, AICP, Community Engagement Director


 Ci...
Partnership for Success

Connecticut Main Street Center

&
Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
The Problem

Connecticut’s downtown properties
are needlessly under-utilized and under-valued.
The Problem & Opportunity
Vacant Buildings Cost Communities
$222,340/year/vacant space
Reduced property value, property ta...
Comparison
Asheville Big Box vs. Downtown Mixed-Use Development
The Opportunity
Forbes article, Downtowns: What’s Behind
America’s Most Surprising Real Estate Boom
“…this demographic (be...
The Challenge

Mixed-use/mixed-income
development
has become a lost art form.
Mixed-Use Real Estate Planning

A Pilot Program

Consultant Team

William Crosskey, Crosskey Architects
Lou Trajcevski, Ne...
3 Pilot Communities
 Torrington
 Waterbury
 Middletown
Community Engagement
Community Liaisons
Advisory Team
Community Meetings

What’s right for your town?
Program
 Downtown Development Audit
 Model Building Analysis
 Assistance to Property Owners
Program
 Urban Design Audit
Program
 Downtown Management Assistance
Lessons Learned
 After 60+ years of single-use, car-oriented
development, mixed-use development is a lost art
form
 Impe...
Lessons Learned
Small, mixed-use development are some of the
hardest real estate deals to accomplish because:
 Older buil...
Lessons Learned
 Many state and federal resources are only available to
larger projects than a typical downtown building ...
Findings

Findings in Torrington, Waterbury & Middletown

 Land use regulations promote redevelopment
 Parking is always...
Middletown
Model Building
Model Building
Owner: The Amato Family
Location: 418-426 Main Street
• Across the street from the owners’
w...
Lessons Learned
Sample Financial Pro Forma
Sources
Historic Tax Credits
First Mortgage
Seller Financing
Additional Funds Needed
Total sour...
Financial Impediments
 Most state and federal programs that incentivize
housing development are only for affordable housi...
Addressing the “Gap”
 Federal historic tax credits – many downtown projects are too
small-scale
 Subordinated loan provi...
Assistance to Property Owners
Assistance to Property Owners
 Property owners should develop a team including:






A real estate development cons...
The Challenge
It takes a community to successfully redevelop
under-utilized downtown properties
It’s a risk with great rew...
Downtown Torrington
Downtown Development Audit
 Torrington’s zoning regulations support upper
story redevelopment for residential use & do no...
Model Building Analysis
Owner: Torrington Downtown Partners
Location: 11-21 Main Street
Redevelopment Plan: 16 units from ...
Assistance to Property Owners
 Torrington Downtown Partners
A unique partnership of local businessmen - with
construction...
Urban Design Audit
 Improve pedestrian &
bicycle linkages
 Increase safety at
intersections-traffic calming
 Increase o...
Downtown Management Assistance
Outcomes
There is now a better understanding of what the next steps
need to be, and a greater appreciation of the importan...
Photo by Dave Sousa

Photo by Dave Sousa

Urban Design Audit

Downtown Waterbury, CT

Photo by Dave Sousa
Photo by Dave So...
P = Peripheral Connectivity

E = Enclosure & Engagement

P1
P2
P3
P4

E1
E2
E3
E4

Connectivity to Surrounding Districts
P...
4
Review Results
with Community

1
Identify Assets
with the
Community

2

3

Assess

Score

Each Street & Block
for 16 Ind...
P3
Parking

P2 - Pedestrian
& Bicycle
Linkages
P1 Connectivity to
Surrounding
Districts

D4 - Density of
Buildings &
Peopl...
Criteria:

P1
Connectivity to
Surrounding
Districts

• Access to the CBD is free of barriers that restrict or inhibit mobi...
Criteria:

P1
Connectivity to
Surrounding
Districts

• Access to the CBD is free of barriers that restrict or inhibit mobi...
Criteria:

P2
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Linkages

Protected and continuous bicycle and pedestrian routes (or greenways) or
on-s...
Criteria:

P2
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Linkages

Protected and continuous bicycle and pedestrian routes (or greenways) or
on-s...
Criteria:

P3
Parking

Source of Image: City of Waterbury

• On-street parking should:
• Be provided along both sides of a...
Criteria:

P3
Parking

• On-street parking should:
• Be provided along both sides of all streets, wherever possible.
• Sho...
Criteria: District has convenient, • Para-transit service;

P4
Access to Transit

robust and frequent:
• Local bus service...
Criteria: District has convenient, • Para-transit service;

P4
Access to Transit

robust and frequent:
• Local bus service...
parking lots close to street;
• Buildings closely spaced with
• Buildings at least 2 stories tall
consistent gap between b...
parking lots close to street;
• Buildings closely spaced with
• Buildings at least 2 stories tall
consistent gap between b...
Criteria:

E2
Direct & Welcome
Visitors

Welcoming details include:
• Directory maps and Directional
signs;

• Visitor inf...
• Visitor info centers;

Criteria:

E2
Direct & Welcome
Visitors

Welcoming details include:
• Directory maps and Directio...
Criteria:

E3
Overhead
Enclosure

• · Street trees are spaced evenly along the edge of street at intervals
that do not exc...
Criteria:

E3
Overhead
Enclosure

• Street trees are spaced evenly along the edge of street at intervals that
do not excee...
Criteria: Public art and

E4
Engagement

monuments should be:
• Unique and engaging;
• Frequent and unexpected;

• Allow p...
Criteria: Public art and

E4
Engagement

monuments should be:
• Unique and engaging;
• Frequent and unexpected;

• Allow p...
Criteria:

S1
Safe Street
Crossings

Safety features for pedestrians
include:
• Highly visible crosswalks;
• Pedestrian co...
• Tight curb radii;

Criteria:

S1
Safe Street
Crossings

Safety features for pedestrians
include:
• Highly visible crossw...
Criteria: Sidewalks should be:

S2
Continuous, Wide
Sidewalks

• Continuous with few disruptions by driveways or wide curb...
Criteria: Sidewalks should be:

S2
Continuous, Wide
Sidewalks

• Continuous with few disruptions by driveways or wide curb...
Criteria:

S3
Short Block
Lengths

• Maximum block length is 200 ft. by 600 ft.
• Optimal intersection density (which is a...
Criteria:

S3
Short Block
Lengths

• Maximum block length is 200 ft. by 600 ft.
• Optimal intersection density (which is a...
Criteria: Each segment of the street should have:

S4
Security

Source of Images: Flickr

• Adequate street lighting;
• Fr...
Criteria: Each segment of the street should have:

S4
Security

• Adequate street lighting;
• Frequent sources of ambient ...
Criteria: Diverse, mixed-use

D1
Diversity of Uses/
Income

Source of Image: Christopher Leinberger,
The George Washington...
Criteria: Diverse, mixed-use

D1
Diversity of Uses/
Income

districts should possess:
• Retail uses predominant on the
gro...
Criteria: Design coherence exists

D2
Design Coherence

Source of Image: City of Waterbury

• Well-scaled & tasteful signa...
Criteria: Design coherence exists

D2
Design Coherence

• Well-scaled & tasteful signage;
when buildings possess:
• Intere...
Criteria: Landmarks include:

D3
Distinctive
Buildings & Civic
Spaces

• Historic structures;
• Iconic buildings of statew...
Criteria: Landmarks include:

D3
Distinctive
Buildings & Civic
Spaces

• Historic structures;
• Iconic buildings of statew...
Criteria:

D4 - Density of
Buildings & People

• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of all buildings on a block should be in range tha...
Criteria:

D4 - Density of
Buildings & People

• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of all buildings on a block should be in range tha...
Questions & Answers

A Pilot Program
DiscussionDiscussion:
 What’s your community’s
experience with
downtown revitalization?
 Issues?

 Solutions?
www.ctmainstreet.org

Connecticut Main Street Center
c/o CL&P PO Box 270
Hartford CT 06141
860-280-2337
info@ctmainstreet....
SNEAPA 2013 Thursday c2 1_45 meeting the growing demand
SNEAPA 2013 Thursday c2 1_45 meeting the growing demand
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

SNEAPA 2013 Thursday c2 1_45 meeting the growing demand

318

Published on

Meeting the Growing Demand for Downtown Living

Published in: Real Estate, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
318
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Come Home to Downtown Pilot Program is designed to explore downtown redevelopment issues in depth and to develop new strategies to respond to changing demographics and market dynamics within Connecticut’s downtowns. We expect that the results of this program will bring new models for mixed use development and redevelopment to CT communities.
  • Overview of bios
  • Comments by CT Housing Finance AuthorityCMSC / CHFA Partnership: Why this program is importantCHFA is supporting activities that assist with the redevelopment of mixed-use real estate into downtown housing opportunities, while also furthering responsible growth and economic & community development strategies.CHFA approached CMSC about creating this program with the intention of facilitating viable, interesting housing opportunities while creating downtown neighborhoods.CHFA believes that redeveloped mixed use buildings will especially appeal to Young Professionals and Empty Nesters who want to live in vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods where they don’t have to rely on a car
  • The NeedIn today’s climate of fiscal challenges, municipalities need to grow, but to grow sustainablyThis means both finding ways to increase the tax base and reduce costs, while ensuring we maintain our quality of life and the quality of our environment for generations to comeFor these reasons, many municipal leaders are beginning to focus their plans for growth on their existing downtowns and neighborhood commercial districts, where the infrastructure is already in place and development can enhance an already walkable, mixed-use environment, with choices for housing and transportation reducing our reliance on the car and fossil fuel.The return on investment for a municipality that directs its growth to walkable, compact, mixed-use, amenity-rich, transit-accessible neighborhoods is phenomenal.
  • Vacant Buildings Cost CommunitiesPeople living downtown enhance the local enconomy
  • Ashville, North CarolinaA picturesque mountain city with a population of 83,000 that draws tourists from all over the worldDowntown is a major draw – and a major driver in helping the city overcome budgetary challengesA typical acre of mixed-use downtown Ashville yields $360,000 more in tax revenue to city government than an acre of strip malls or big box stores.
  • Probably heard about this growing interest in living downtown, especially from baby boomers and their children. Recent article…….
  • The Challenge:Despite all the benefits of focusing growth in downtowns and that there is a strong demand for this kind of growth, this kind of mixed-use/mixed-income development has become a lost art form after 60+ years of single-use, car-oriented development.It is even more challenging in downtown, where there are multiple property owners and uses that all need to be coordinated and integrated. An effective downtown management program is essential for building the needed capacity, expertise and consensus.Our original hypothesis was: the three largest impediments to mixed-use development are:An unsupportive regulatory environmentLack of financing optionsThe perception that density leads to blight, overcrowding and loss in valueToday we’re going to let you know what we found out in three CT towns.With this pilot program we plan to address and begin to conquer these impediments. The goals of the Come Home to Downtown program are:To provide public and private champions and partners with strategic tools to allow them to create or enhance a strong downtown management program; To set the stage, through regulatory reform, technical assistance and the creation of financial tools, to attract developers and “mom and pop” building owners to redevelop vacant or underutilized buildings with a mix of uses and housing choices; andTo design, implement and measure outcomes of projects that can be replicated in other communities across Connecticut
  • That’s how it all got started.Put together a consultant to help us address these issuesJust finished the 1st year and beginning year 2??
  • Three towns were chosenSubmitted Letter of Interest October 2012Select communities asked to conduct a downtown tour with proposed project leaders. Chosen based on a set of criteria – most importantly – communities with a strong likelihood of success – supportive staff and leadership, already working downtown, and appropriate building (some communities didn’t have)
  • In each town designated Liaisons and Advisory Teams (diverse group of downtown stakeholders) – met and provided local guidance and input throughout the processCommunity meetings designed to share preliminary results and get community feedbackUnderstood this process work differently in each town and worked with them to find out “What’s right for your town?” Found each community had recently done some visioning and consensus building around downtown in relation to other planning and related effortsCMSC understood that if involve the communityin the process, then they are more likely to understand and support future downtown revitalization efforts.
  • John & Marty will talk about in more detailDevelopment Audit: Made recommendations to assist municipalities in their efforts to encourage redevelopment. We/project consultant/Bill Crosskey analyzed:Regulatory environment and land use controls – Zoning & PermittingExisting/potential planning and redevelopment tools and incentivesdesign guidelines, tax incentives & other financial resourcesModel Building Analysis CMSC select representative examples of mixed use buildings typically found in Connecticut. Recommended how the buildings can be physically redeveloped to accommodate housing on upper floors and commercial uses on ground floors.These Model Building Analyses will not only help the owners of the selected properties, but are intended to be replicable in any town with a similar building type.Assistance to Property ownersMany downtown property owners do not have experience with this type of redevelopment and need support and guidance on all aspects of the redevelopment process, from planning & design, to construction & financing, to marketing and managing rental property.
  • Urban Design Audit: An attractive and inviting environment draws customers to local business, helps property owners generate income, and improves the quality of life for the entire community. The design audit:Identified downtown assets and liabilities related to architecture, pedestrian scale, and community identity
  • Down town Management AssistanceWhat is right for each downtown – one had a designated MS program, another BID and another working with City Economic Development office
  • Municipalities must partner and work with others to make this happenWe heard from people interested in living DT given the right situationProperty owners need lots of help with make this happen
  • Municipalities must partner and work with others to make this happenWe heard from people interested in living DT given the right situationProperty owners need lots of help with make this happen
  • Municipalities must partner and work with others to make this happenWe heard from people interested in living DT given the right situationProperty owners need lots of help with make this happen
  • John Simone begins hereLU regs promote mixed use development as of rightParking an issue even if not required in regsWide variety of experience among property owners – but none had experience with DT mixed use developmentSignificant financial issues – still working with towns to address gap
  • Focus on MiddletownProperty & Owners most typical – found throughout the state
  • Amato’s - great local business family – committed to DT MiddletownModel - 2 buildings together – long & narrowGot great feedback at public meeting about interest in this style of market rate housing DT
  • 4 - long, large, loft-style apartments – windows in front and back2 small studio units
  • JS
  • Found…….
  • Options….
  • Property owners need assistance throughout development process and after to manage & market property
  • Develop a TeamProperty Owner workshops
  • Context & some history
  • Maybe mention some other things they’ve done – gallariesBut still looking for assistance developing upper floors
  • Some recommendations – Dave will talk about more
  • CMSC working with City’s Economic Development OfficeOngoing marketing and branding campaign – It’s Happening Here
  • Transcript of "SNEAPA 2013 Thursday c2 1_45 meeting the growing demand"

    1. 1. Meeting the Growing Demand for Downtown Living A Pilot Program PLAN IT FORWARD Southern New England APA conference October 17, 2013
    2. 2. Presenters  CT Main Street Center John Simone, President & CEO  Susan Westa, AICP, Community Engagement Director   City of Torrington  Martin Connor, AICP, City Planner  CDM Smith  David Sousa, ASLA, AICP, Senior Planner/Landscape Architect
    3. 3. Partnership for Success Connecticut Main Street Center & Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
    4. 4. The Problem Connecticut’s downtown properties are needlessly under-utilized and under-valued.
    5. 5. The Problem & Opportunity Vacant Buildings Cost Communities $222,340/year/vacant space Reduced property value, property tax, sales tax, utilities, professional services, and workers’ pay Upper-story Residential Units Benefit Local Economy Annual downtown impact/unit = $20-39K Main Street Iowa Economic Development Study, Donovan Rypkeyma
    6. 6. Comparison Asheville Big Box vs. Downtown Mixed-Use Development
    7. 7. The Opportunity Forbes article, Downtowns: What’s Behind America’s Most Surprising Real Estate Boom “…this demographic (between 25 & 34) grew 26% from 2000 to 2010 in major cities’ downtowns… Or twice as fast as it did in those cities’ overall metro areas”
    8. 8. The Challenge Mixed-use/mixed-income development has become a lost art form.
    9. 9. Mixed-Use Real Estate Planning A Pilot Program Consultant Team William Crosskey, Crosskey Architects Lou Trajcevski, Newcastle Housing Ventures David Sousa, CDM Smith
    10. 10. 3 Pilot Communities  Torrington  Waterbury  Middletown
    11. 11. Community Engagement Community Liaisons Advisory Team Community Meetings What’s right for your town?
    12. 12. Program  Downtown Development Audit  Model Building Analysis  Assistance to Property Owners
    13. 13. Program  Urban Design Audit
    14. 14. Program  Downtown Management Assistance
    15. 15. Lessons Learned  After 60+ years of single-use, car-oriented development, mixed-use development is a lost art form  Impediments include:  Unsupportive regulatory environment  Lack of readily available financing  Misguided perception that density leads to blight, congestion and loss of value
    16. 16. Lessons Learned Small, mixed-use development are some of the hardest real estate deals to accomplish because:  Older building gut rehabilitation (most costly)  In complex downtown settings  It requires well-integrated public-private partnerships
    17. 17. Lessons Learned  Many state and federal resources are only available to larger projects than a typical downtown building in CT  Community meetings supported the assumption that there is a growing interest in living downtown  Education & technical assistance programs are needed to prepare property owners for redevelopment & property management
    18. 18. Findings Findings in Torrington, Waterbury & Middletown  Land use regulations promote redevelopment  Parking is always an issue  Downtown property owners are not developers or even landlords  The financial gap for redevelopment is significant  A mechanism is not available to address the gap
    19. 19. Middletown
    20. 20. Model Building Model Building Owner: The Amato Family Location: 418-426 Main Street • Across the street from the owners’ well-known and long-established shop, Amato’s Toy and Hobby Redevelopment Plan: 6 units • 4 large loft-style apartments & 2 smaller apartments in the back
    21. 21. Lessons Learned
    22. 22. Sample Financial Pro Forma Sources Historic Tax Credits First Mortgage Seller Financing Additional Funds Needed Total sources $ 207,700 $ 400,000 $ 292,500 $ 396,900 $ 1,297,100 Uses Construction Costs Site Acquisition Total Uses $ 972,100 $ 325,000 $1,297,100
    23. 23. Financial Impediments  Most state and federal programs that incentivize housing development are only for affordable housing and only municipalities or non-profit entities are eligible  In these communities, mixed-use develop projects are high risk, even if privately owned  Market and affordable rental rates are often the same in downtowns, making market rate apartment financing difficult
    24. 24. Addressing the “Gap”  Federal historic tax credits – many downtown projects are too small-scale  Subordinated loan provided by a municipality - Lynchburg, Virginia, example  Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - potential to expand CT program – Maine, example  Commercial and Industrial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) - financing for energy upgrades  Tax abatement – potential to expand local programs  Incentives for city workers to live downtown - municipalities in some states providing - Live Where You Work
    25. 25. Assistance to Property Owners
    26. 26. Assistance to Property Owners  Property owners should develop a team including:      A real estate development consultant A preservation architect A general contractor A property management professional A real estate professional - to help market apartments  Property owner networks offer workshops on how to be a good landlord, screen tenants and manage property
    27. 27. The Challenge It takes a community to successfully redevelop under-utilized downtown properties It’s a risk with great rewards for the entire community and therefore worth the community’s investment of time and resources
    28. 28. Downtown Torrington
    29. 29. Downtown Development Audit  Torrington’s zoning regulations support upper story redevelopment for residential use & do not require parking  Regulations for new or infill development do not reflect downtown conditions
    30. 30. Model Building Analysis Owner: Torrington Downtown Partners Location: 11-21 Main Street Redevelopment Plan: 16 units from 8 units
    31. 31. Assistance to Property Owners  Torrington Downtown Partners A unique partnership of local businessmen - with construction experience but not developers  Purchased 9 downtown buildings  Invited residents and stakeholders to participate 
    32. 32. Urban Design Audit  Improve pedestrian & bicycle linkages  Increase safety at intersections-traffic calming  Increase on-street parking  Install outdoor art to encourage street activity & make downtown more attractive  Improve & coordinate wayfinding signage
    33. 33. Downtown Management Assistance
    34. 34. Outcomes There is now a better understanding of what the next steps need to be, and a greater appreciation of the importance of the public-private partnership that is necessary to overcome the challenges and achieve reuse of these properties. Rose Ponte Torrington’s Director of Economic Development
    35. 35. Photo by Dave Sousa Photo by Dave Sousa Urban Design Audit Downtown Waterbury, CT Photo by Dave Sousa Photo by Dave Sousa
    36. 36. P = Peripheral Connectivity E = Enclosure & Engagement P1 P2 P3 P4 E1 E2 E3 E4 Connectivity to Surrounding Districts Pedestrian & Bicycle Linkages Parking Access to Transit D = Diversity & Design D1 D2 D3 D4 Strong Edges Direct & Welcome Visitors Overhead Enclosure Engagement S = Safety and Security S1 Diversity of Uses & Income S2 Design Coherence Distinctive Buildings & Civic Spaces S3 S4 Density of Buildings & People Safe Street Crossings Continuous, Wide Sidewalks Short Block Lengths Security ©2013 CDM Smith Inc. All rights reserve.
    37. 37. 4 Review Results with Community 1 Identify Assets with the Community 2 3 Assess Score Each Street & Block for 16 Indicators Using Established Criteria & Metrics ©2013 CDM Smith Inc. All rights reserve.
    38. 38. P3 Parking P2 - Pedestrian & Bicycle Linkages P1 Connectivity to Surrounding Districts D4 - Density of Buildings & People D3 - Distinctive Buildings & Civic Spaces D2 – Design Coherence P4 - Access to Transit E1 Strong Edges E2 - Direct & Welcome Visitors E3 - Overhead Enclosure P E Peripheral Connectivity Enclosure & Engagement E4 Engagement W.A.L.Q . Design & Land Use Safety & Security D S D1 – Diversity of Uses/ Income S4 Security S1 - Safe Street Crossings S2 – Continuous, Wide Sidewalks S3- Short Block Lengths
    39. 39. Criteria: P1 Connectivity to Surrounding Districts • Access to the CBD is free of barriers that restrict or inhibit mobility (e.g. highways, one-way streets, and rivers). • Surrounding land uses complement the CBD and support walkability.
    40. 40. Criteria: P1 Connectivity to Surrounding Districts • Access to the CBD is free of barriers that restrict or inhibit mobility (e.g. highways, one-way streets, and rivers). • Surrounding land uses complement the CBD and support walkability. Source of Image: Google Earth Factors for low score: Score = 1.0 • • I-84, Rt. 8 and river act as barriers between CBD & neighborhoods Many one-way streets in CBD restrict access to businesses.
    41. 41. Criteria: P2 Pedestrian & Bicycle Linkages Protected and continuous bicycle and pedestrian routes (or greenways) or on-street bike lanes are provided from the CBD to surrounding neighborhoods. Sources of Images: Waterbury Development Corp. and Alta
    42. 42. Criteria: P2 Pedestrian & Bicycle Linkages Protected and continuous bicycle and pedestrian routes (or greenways) or on-street bike lanes are provided from the CBD to surrounding neighborhoods. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for low score: Score = 1.0 • Numerous wide street with speeding traffic; • Lack of bicycle lanes in or near CBD
    43. 43. Criteria: P3 Parking Source of Image: City of Waterbury • On-street parking should: • Be provided along both sides of all streets, wherever possible. • Should encourage short-term parking and discourage long-term parking.
    44. 44. Criteria: P3 Parking • On-street parking should: • Be provided along both sides of all streets, wherever possible. • Should encourage short-term parking and discourage long-term parking. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for neutral score: Score = 1.8 • On-street parking, while available, could be more extensive. • Low or no minimum parking requirement for new uses is good for CBD.
    45. 45. Criteria: District has convenient, • Para-transit service; P4 Access to Transit robust and frequent: • Local bus service; • Intercity bus service; • Commuter train or trolley; • Taxi service; • Zip Car (or other shared auto). Source of Image: City of Waterbury
    46. 46. Criteria: District has convenient, • Para-transit service; P4 Access to Transit robust and frequent: • Local bus service; • Intercity bus service; • Commuter train or trolley; • Taxi service; • Zip Car (or other shared auto). Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.0 • Robust bus network; • Commuter train service to NYC
    47. 47. parking lots close to street; • Buildings closely spaced with • Buildings at least 2 stories tall consistent gap between buildings; (optimal height & spacing varies); • Avoid parking garages fronting on • Buildings set at the back of walk. the street; • Avoid vacant sites or surface Criteria: E1 Strong Edges Image Created by CDM Smith
    48. 48. parking lots close to street; • Buildings closely spaced with • Buildings at least 2 stories tall consistent gap between buildings; (optimal height & spacing varies); • Avoid parking garages fronting on • Buildings set at the back of walk. the street; • Avoid vacant sites or surface Criteria: E1 Strong Edges Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.2 • Many streets have impressive street walls • However, ,any gaps exist.
    49. 49. Criteria: E2 Direct & Welcome Visitors Welcoming details include: • Directory maps and Directional signs; • Visitor info centers; • Attractive banners; • Attractive gateways; • Informative, current websites. Photos by Dave Sousa Source of Image: City of Waterbury
    50. 50. • Visitor info centers; Criteria: E2 Direct & Welcome Visitors Welcoming details include: • Directory maps and Directional signs; • Attractive banners; • Attractive gateways; • Informative, current websites. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for low score: Score = 1.0 • City provides only modest levels of interesting and engaging features and promotional materials
    51. 51. Criteria: E3 Overhead Enclosure • · Street trees are spaced evenly along the edge of street at intervals that do not exceed 75 feet. • · Street trees are healthy and of sufficient size to create shade and a canopy that is greater than 10 feet in diameter. Photo by Dave Sousa Source of Image: Dan Burden, Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities
    52. 52. Criteria: E3 Overhead Enclosure • Street trees are spaced evenly along the edge of street at intervals that do not exceed 75 feet. • Street trees are healthy and of sufficient size to create shade and a canopy that is greater than 10 feet in diameter. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for low score: Score = 1.4 • Many street lack street trees; • Where trees are provided, spacing is poor.
    53. 53. Criteria: Public art and E4 Engagement monuments should be: • Unique and engaging; • Frequent and unexpected; • Allow people to associate a place with its culture and history; • Showcased on public and private sites.
    54. 54. Criteria: Public art and E4 Engagement monuments should be: • Unique and engaging; • Frequent and unexpected; • Allow people to associate a place with its culture and history; • Showcased on public and private sites. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.0 • Downtown possesses an enviable number of impressive, historic and notable statues, monuments and murals.
    55. 55. Criteria: S1 Safe Street Crossings Safety features for pedestrians include: • Highly visible crosswalks; • Pedestrian countdown signals; • Tight curb radii; • • • • Narrow traffic lane; Ped refuge islands; Curb extensions (or bulb-outs); Speed tables. Image Created by CDM Smith Photo by Dave Sousa
    56. 56. • Tight curb radii; Criteria: S1 Safe Street Crossings Safety features for pedestrians include: • Highly visible crosswalks; • Pedestrian countdown signals; • • • • Narrow traffic lane; Ped refuge islands; Curb extensions (or bulb-outs); Speed tables. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for neutral score: Score = 1.8 Streets are not pedestrian friendly due to high traffic volumes, wide vehicle lanes, high vehicle speeds, and minimal pedestrian countermeasures.
    57. 57. Criteria: Sidewalks should be: S2 Continuous, Wide Sidewalks • Continuous with few disruptions by driveways or wide curb-cuts • Hazard-free (free of cracks, heaves or potholes) • Wide enough to permit three people to walk side-by-side
    58. 58. Criteria: Sidewalks should be: S2 Continuous, Wide Sidewalks • Continuous with few disruptions by driveways or wide curb-cuts • Hazard-free (free of cracks, heaves or potholes) • Wide enough to permit three people to walk side-by-side Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.3 • Sidewalks are quite functional and attractive; • However, City should provide better sidewalks between neighborhoods and downtown.
    59. 59. Criteria: S3 Short Block Lengths • Maximum block length is 200 ft. by 600 ft. • Optimal intersection density (which is a function of block length) is over 200 intersections per square mile. Source of Image: City of Waterbury
    60. 60. Criteria: S3 Short Block Lengths • Maximum block length is 200 ft. by 600 ft. • Optimal intersection density (which is a function of block length) is over 200 intersections per square mile. Image Created by CDM Smith Factors for relatively good score: Score = 2.0 • The intersection density of downtown is 190 per sq. mi., which is close to the optimal density of 200 intersections per sq. mi.
    61. 61. Criteria: Each segment of the street should have: S4 Security Source of Images: Flickr • Adequate street lighting; • Frequent sources of ambient light from adjacent buildings; • No blind alleys or areas where criminals could lurk (e.g. walls, hedges).
    62. 62. Criteria: Each segment of the street should have: S4 Security • Adequate street lighting; • Frequent sources of ambient light from adjacent buildings; • No blind alleys or areas where criminals could lurk (e.g. walls, hedges). Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for neutral score: Score = 1.9 • Street lighting is not consistently adequate; • Street activity is low during evening hours.
    63. 63. Criteria: Diverse, mixed-use D1 Diversity of Uses/ Income Source of Image: Christopher Leinberger, The George Washington University School of Business districts should possess: • Retail uses predominant on the ground floor; • Supportive office or residential uses on upper floors; • Uses on the periphery of CBD must complement or support downtown; • Few vacant buildings; • Few industrial buildings, warehouses, drive-through restaurants, auto repair stations or windowless buildings.
    64. 64. Criteria: Diverse, mixed-use D1 Diversity of Uses/ Income districts should possess: • Retail uses predominant on the ground floor; • Supportive office or residential uses on upper floors; • Uses on the periphery of CBD must complement or support downtown; • Few vacant buildings; • Few industrial buildings, warehouses, drive-through restaurants, auto repair stations or windowless buildings. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for low score: Score = 1.5 • Numerous vacant storefronts or underutilized space; • Few downtown residents/ limited downtown housing.
    65. 65. Criteria: Design coherence exists D2 Design Coherence Source of Image: City of Waterbury • Well-scaled & tasteful signage; when buildings possess: • Interesting adornments • A human scale & good (e.g. awnings, lighting); proportions; • Prominent and ornate entrances; • A vernacular architectural style. • Warm, natural materials;
    66. 66. Criteria: Design coherence exists D2 Design Coherence • Well-scaled & tasteful signage; when buildings possess: • Interesting adornments • A human scale & good (e.g. awnings, lighting); proportions; • Prominent and ornate entrances; • A vernacular architectural style. • Warm, natural materials; Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.1 • Residents value their historic downtown & understand the importance of design in place-making.
    67. 67. Criteria: Landmarks include: D3 Distinctive Buildings & Civic Spaces • Historic structures; • Iconic buildings of statewide import; • Public squares or parks; • Prominent gateway buildings (esp. those that provide a terminal view).
    68. 68. Criteria: Landmarks include: D3 Distinctive Buildings & Civic Spaces • Historic structures; • Iconic buildings of statewide import; • Public squares or parks; • Prominent gateway buildings (esp. those that provide a terminal view). Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for excellent score: Score = 3.0 • Waterbury possesses a traditional downtown with strong historic landmarks, majestic churches, numerous stately civic buildings & many institutions.
    69. 69. Criteria: D4 - Density of Buildings & People • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of all buildings on a block should be in range that correlate with desired density of the specific urban transect. • Blocks that contain buildings with insufficient mass and/or buildings with excessive surface parking areas score low.
    70. 70. Criteria: D4 - Density of Buildings & People • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of all buildings on a block should be in range that correlate with desired density of the specific urban transect. • Blocks that contain buildings with insufficient mass and/or buildings with excessive surface parking areas score low. Photo by Dave Sousa Factors for good score: Score = 2.7 • • Many streets have tall and sizable buildings. However, there are many lots are vacant lots or are parking lots that could accommodate new development.
    71. 71. Questions & Answers A Pilot Program
    72. 72. DiscussionDiscussion:  What’s your community’s experience with downtown revitalization?  Issues?  Solutions?
    73. 73. www.ctmainstreet.org Connecticut Main Street Center c/o CL&P PO Box 270 Hartford CT 06141 860-280-2337 info@ctmainstreet.org
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×