GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT
a plan for transit oriented development
in downtown fort lauderdale
Claudia Hasbun, John-Mark Palacios, & Chris Romano
Florida Atlantic University
URP 6545: Urban Revitalization Strategy
Spring 2013 - Dr. Yanmei Li

Prepared For: Dr. Yanmei Li
Florida Atlantic University
URP 6545: Urban Revitalization Strategy
Prepared By: Claudia Hasbun, John-Mark Palacios, & Chris Romano
Submitted On: April 30, 2013
Growing Through Transit
a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

Foreword
The City of Fort Lauderdale is determined to
become a multi-modal city that supports transit,
walkability, and livability with reduced depen-dence
on the automobile. Downtown Fort lau-derdale
has long faced high levels of congestion
but also high levels of use. It is an important
destination in the city as well as containing many
key parts of its roadway network and providing a
central spine for the people who live and work in
the area, and its potential for high density mixed
uses creates an attractive real estate market . It
has also been targeted for future premium transit
service, and will thus act as a transit connection
as well.
The corridor currently faces a major challenge in
that it is unable to accommodate the amount of
traffic that is demanded of it each day while being
permanently limited in capacity. Widening is no
longer feasible because there is no more right of
way on which to expand. However, the growth of
the area and the desires of the City to become a
more livable and multi-modal place creates pres-sure
for the determination of a vision and plan for
growth that allows this area to grow into one that
more closely matches the values of the City. The
Florida East Coast Rail Line is now slated to host
passenger rail, and downtown Fort Lauderdale
will benefit greatly from a station as such a stop
will enable the revitalization of the area through
the introcution of mixed land uses, higher densi-ties,
and other new high intensity development.
The path for this future development can be
achieved via the consideration of four guiding
principles for future development, based on the
area’s potential and existing conditions:
• Improve walkability and connectivity
• Celebrate the existing resources
• Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way
• Get People out of Their Cars
Each of these principles holds a key to the suc-cessful
function of the corridor, ranging from eco-nomic
competitiveness to transit supportiveness
to walkability and livability.
Based on the guiding principles, conceptual cor-ridor
and study area alternatives were developed
that present a future that does not perpetuate the
traditional auto-dependent development pattern
that has prevailed in South Florida. Instead, it
focuses on increasing local mobility and multi-modal
travel. This scenario presents increases
in connectivity and changes to the roadway
network. It calls for an increase in development
in focused activity centers while preserving the
character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The
activity centers will be walkable and provide the
densities and types of land uses that support
transit and business.
The scenario presented calls for a land use and
transportation pattern that is different from the
current pattern that is occurring across South
Florida. Because of this it will require coordina-tion
and communication between the City of Fort
Lauderdale, developers, the community, Broward
County, and the Florida Department of Transpor-tation
to implement new policies and strategies
that are innovative but essential for this area to
become the type of livable place the City desires
for it to be.
This plan is one step of many that will be nec-essary
to transition into the livable future that is
desired. The purpose of this plan is to inspire dis-cussion,
debate, and innovation about the future,
further solidify the vision, and incorporate it into
future actions. It allows for adaption as needs and
desires change, and will ultimately facilitate the
transition of the corridor into a destination where
we can all live, work, and play.

Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Introduction 3
the context 3
the florida east coast railroad 3
the purpose 3
the study area 4
the process 4
Transit Oriented Development 6
What is Transit Oriented
Development 7
background 7
guidelines 8
principles 10
Understanding the Context 12
Context 13
Who Lives There? 14
How Do They Live? 15
Existing Land Use 15
Residential Land Uses 16
Housing Characteristics 17
Commercial / Industrial /
Institutional Land Uses 19
Vacant and Underutilized
Parcels 21
Population Density 23
Median Household Income
and Zero-Car Households 24
Where are they Going? 25
Area Profile 25
How are They Getting There? 26
Transit Network 26
Alternative Commuting
Patterns 27
Roadway Network 28
Pedestrian Conditions 29
Parking 31
What Does the Future Look Like? 32
Future Land Use 32
Future Plans 33
Future Transit Infrastructure 34
Political Environment 35
Conclusions 38
Strengths and Opportunities 39
Guiding Principles 41
Future Scenarios 44
Redevelopment Plan 45
Introduction 45
The Process 46
Vision and Branding 47
The Vision 47
The Brand 47
Site Plan 48
Downtown Plan 53
Scenario Evaluation 55
Broward Boulevard Redevelopment
Scenarios 57
Scenario A 58
Scenario B 59
Scenario C 60
Implementation 62
Implementation Plan 63
Guidelines 63
Action Plan 64
Feasibility 66
Feasibility Analysis 67
Introduction 67
Environmental Feasibility 67
Regulatory Feasibility 67
Market Feasibility 67
Financial Feasibility 67
Site Design 70
Conclusions 70
Works Cited 72
Works Cited 73
Appendix 76
Appendix 1: Building Area and
Construction Cost Calculations 77
Appendix 2: 20 Year Pro Forma
Cash Flow Analysis 79
Appendix 3: 20 Year Amortization
Plan 81

Figures
Figure 1: Study Area 13
Figure 2: Context 13
Figure 4: Residential Land Use 16
Figure 5: Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional Land Use 19
Figure 6: Residential Land Use 21
Figure 7: Population Per Acre 23
Figure 8: Income and Car Ownership 24
Figure 9: Area Profile 25
Figure 10: Existing Transit
Infrastructure 26
Figure 11: Alternative Commuting
Patterns 27
Figure 12: Roadway Network 28
Figure 13: Pedestrian Facilities 29
Patterns 31
Figure 15: Future Land Use 32
Figure 16: Redevelopment and
Planning Areas 33
Patterns 34
Figure 18: CRA Boundary 35
Figure 19: DDA Boundary 36
Figure 20: HOA Boundaries 36
Figure 21: Improve Walkability and
Connectivity 41
Figure 22: Celebrate the Existing
Resources 41
Figure 23: Densify in an
Accessible and Affordable Way 42
Figure 24: Get People Out of
Their Cars 42
Figure 25: Site Plan 50
Figure 26: Conceptual Rendering 1 51
Figure 31: Downtown Plan 53
Figure 32: Cross Section Scenario A 58
Figure 33: Cross Section Scenario B 59
Figure 34: Cross Section Scenario C 60
Figure 35: Green Roof in Chicago 67
Figure 36: Site Plan Overlayed
Over Existing Site 70
Tables and Charts
Table 1: Effects of Land Use on
Transit 7
Table 2: TOD Typology 9
Table 3: Guiding Principle
Assessment 55
Table 4: Sample Assessment 56
Table 5: Implementation Plan 64
Table 6: Building Usage and Area 69
Table 7: Financial Strength Indicators 69
Chart 1: Age and Sex 14
Chart 2: Educational Attainment 14
Chart 3: Select Housing
Characteristics 17

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT | 2
Introduction 01

3 | GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT
Introduction
the context
The City of Fort Lauderdale is the largest munici-pality
in Broward County, Florida, covering about
33 square miles in area. The City has many
natural features, such as the Atlantic Ocean and
the New River that cuts through the downtown.
Another important physical aspect is the Florida
East Coast Railway (FEC), which also divides the
City into an east and west side. The City has a
rich and long history, with its name coming from
the fortifications built in the area by early settlers.
The City of Fort Lauderdale has long been
plagued with issues of traffic congestion and an
unfriendly pedestrian environment. The reason
for this, at least in part, has to do with the spa-tially
dispersed and auto dependent pattern of
development popular in most of South Florida. As
in much of the rest of the United States, devel-opment
up until this point has consisted of strip
malls, office parks, and separated residential land
uses. The city has several distinct areas, includ-ing
Downtown; the Beach; the 17th Street area;
a commercial area to the Northwest; a retail and
commercial center at the intersection of Sunrise
Boulevard and Federal Highway; and others.
The transportation pattern in Fort Lauderdale is
a product of the dispersed development pattern
that it is plagued by. In almost every part of the
city, the large blocks make it an annoyance to
walk any distance. Parking lots and garages are
plentiful and cheap, supporting the pattern of
auto dependence. Congestion is rampant, and
the majority of the residential areas do not lie
within walking distance of necessities such as
grocery stores or luxuries such as dining, retail,
and entertainment.
Those areas that are within walking distance of
such amenities typically require pedestrians to
walk in unfriendly conditions, such as along Sun-rise
Boulevard where a narrow sidewalk abuts a
high speed and heavily traveled roadway. Even
bike lanes are quite narrow as a result of the
Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT)
promotion of using road shoulders greater than
3 feet wide as bike lanes. Biking in such con-strained
conditions can be unpleasant and some-times
dangerous. Recognizing that this pattern is
not a sustainable way to continue development,
the City of Fort Lauderdale has begun making
plans that reflect a new, more walkable develop-ment
pattern that mixes uses and favors multi-modal
travel.
the florida east coast railroad
The FEC has a rich history dating back to Henry
M. Flagler, who developed the rail line by build-ing
the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Halifax, and
Indian River Railroads that would become, after
several name changes, the Florida East Coast
Railway in September of 1895 (FEC, 2011). West
Palm Beach, Palm Beach, and, in 1896, Miami
were founded around stops along the FEC.
Between 1904 and 1912, the FEC was respon-sible
for one of the greatest railroad engineering
and construction feats in the history of the U.S.:
the Key West Extension, which opened on Jan-uary
22, 1912. By 1913, when Flagler died, the
FEC connected the entire east coast of Florida
from Jacksonville to Key West (FEC, 2011).
Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) was incorpo-rated
in 1983 and became the holding company
for the FEC and the real estate holdings which
were managed by Flagler Development Com-pany.
Today, FLagler Development Company
is a separate operating company focusing on
the commercial real estate market. FECI began
operating independently of the St. Joe Company
on October 9, 2000. On July 26, 2007, FECI was
purchased with private equity funds managed by
Fortress Investment Group (FEC, 2011).
Today, the FEC operates from its headquarters
in Jacksonville, and it runs on almost the same
route Henry Flagler developed. The FEC is not
only one of America’s most exciting railroads, but
it is now preparing for a major expansion with
infrastructure projects underway at the Port of
Miami and Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale.
the purpose
After many years, passenger rail is being rees-tablished
on the FEC. There are currently three
studies underway for two different types of pas-senger
rail on the FEC corridor. FDOT and Tri-
Rail are studying a commuter rail connecting the
downtowns of the tri-county area (Garcia, 2011)
and FECI is developing inter-city passenger rail

with a planned station in Fort Lauderdale. The
commuter rail system will connect Miami to Jupi-ter
(FDOT, 2012), while the inter-city system will
connect Miami to Orlando (“Fact Sheet,” 2013).
The purpose of this study will be to determine the
potential for transit oriented development (TOD)
to take place at the FEC stop in Downtown Fort
Lauderdale. A plan will be developed that consid-ers
the unique context of the area. This plan will
act as a catalyst for redevelopment in the area;
not only for the site but for the entire downtown.
The study will take a comprehensive, con-text-
sensitive, and multi-modal approach to
address the needs of the area. It will focus
strongly on the redevelopment site but will also
offer guidelines for the entire Downtown. It will
focus on land use, transportation, and design
solutions in order to develop an alternative future
that will allow the area to become the lively and
vibrant destination center that Fort Lauderdale
desires. It will help Fort Lauderdale reach its goal
of becoming a multi-modal city by elevating the
focus on people and alternative modes of travel,
such as walking, biking, and transit above the car.
the study area
The study area is a 2.92 acre site that is currently
home to the Government Center parking garage.
It is in the heart of Downtown Fort Lauderdale
and immediately adjacent to the FEC, but is also
adjacent to Broward Boulevard, which the City
aims to make a more pedestrian-friendly and
multi-modal area that is the pulse of downtown as
opposed to the dividing void that it is today. It is
located very close to many of the prime redevel-opment
sites in the area, such as the near-vacant
Riverfront and the Himmarshee district. By using
this site, it also removes some parking from the
area, which is necessary to create a multi-modal
place and discourage car usage.
the process
The planning process is designed to allow for
a full understanding of the problem in order to
inform a context-sensitive solution that addresses
all of the issues. The organization of the plan fol-lows
this process and is divided into the following
five sections:
1. Introduction: Describes the background and
justification for the project.
2. Transit Oriented Development: Examines
the concept of TOD and how it can be used
to create the types of places that Downtown
Fort Lauderdale desires to become. It also
addresses some of the key issues for the
success of TOD. The resulting definition is
used to inform the contextual analysis as well
as the future vision and implementation strat-egies.
3. Understanding the Context: Takes a detailed
look at the existing and future conditions of
the site, the study area, and the city aimed at
revealing the strengths and weaknesses. It is
arranged in a way that aims to tell the story
of the area and why it works the way that it
does. Beginning with a description of who
lives there, it considers how they live, where
they are going, how they are getting there,
and what the future looks like. By analyzing
those issues, strengths and opportunity areas
are uncovered and several guiding principles
are developed.
4. Vision: Presents a vision for the future of
the study area based on the evaluation of
the strengths and areas for opportunities
developed in the context section. The guiding
principles developed in Section 2 are used
to inform and develop the vision. The vision
will be presented at two levels: the study
area and the site. While the study area level
will present an overall suggested pattern for
development, the site level will present and
evaluate a conceptual plan to be used as an
example for future development.
5. Implementation: Details an action plan
regarding the next steps to be taken to imple-ment
the vision. This section is included in
order to highlight clear steps to achieve the
vision.
6. Feasibility: Evaluates the physical, economic,
social, regulatory, market, and financial

Transit Oriented Development 02

What is Transit Oriented Development
background
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a popular
planning concept and revitalization strategy that
has arisen in response to the auto-dependent,
sprawl-ridden, and segregated land use devel-opment
patterns that have occurred in the United
States since the 1950s. At its most basic, TOD
simply means what it says: development oriented
around transit. Currently, in order to be consid-ered
TOD, development must include “a mix of
housing, retail and/or commercial development,
and amenities in a walkable neighborhood with
high quality public transportation” (CTOD, 2012).
However, as explained later, in order for TOD to
work as a revitalization strategy, there is much
more to it than that.
While TOD has a long history in the United States
and abroad, it has recently been brought back
to the forefront as a potential way to get people
out of personal vehicles, back into higher density
areas, and using transit as the most convenient
form of travel. It is a revitalization strategy in that
it aims to create (or redevelop) places that allow
people to live, work, learn, and play all without
the use of a vehicle. However, this strategy is
also popular because the decreased use of the
car creates positive benefits regarding the envi-ronment,
public health, the economy, and other
areas (CTOD, 2008).
The theory behind TOD is that by building a loca-tion
with a mix of uses, walkable streets, and a
variety of housing options, along with policies
and incentives to stimulate that development,
redevelopment will occur that will get people out
of the SOV due to the ease of walking and the
use of transit in order to allow them to live, work,
play, and learn without the use of a car. In fact,
research has shown that developing in a form
that encourages walking and the use of transit
can reduce auto trips by as much as 18% and
can produce similar increases in transit ridership,
walking and biking (FTA, 2006). Table 1 rep-resents
the impacts that can be realized through
developing as TOD, as described by the FTA
(2006). This lifestyle is thought to appeal to sev-eral
groups, such as Generation-Xers and emp-ty-
nesters (Cervero, 2004).
Additionally, with the average nationwide travel
time on the rise, it is thought that TOD will
encourage people to live near their workplace
or at least allow them to take transit to work
and other activities, thus leaving more time for
leisurely activities and an improved quality of
life (Cervero, 2004). The benefits of TOD (when
implemented properly) include expanded housing
and mobility choices, wider access to opportu-nities,
improved environmental performance,
infrastructure cost savings, support of healthy life-styles,
strengthened transit, and reduced green-house
gas emissions (CTOD, 2009).
“Research has shown
that developing in a
form that encourages
walking and the use of
transit can reduce auto
trips by as much as
18% and can produce
similar increases in
transit ridership, walking
and biking”
-Federal Transit
Administration
Land Use Impact on Transit
Availability of Convenience Services
Mix of Land Use
Accessibility of Services
Areas Perceived as Safe
Aesthetically Pleasing Environment
3.7% increase in transit
Table 1: Effects of Land Use on Transit

guidelines
As stated before, TOD typically consists of either
developers or governments (or both) working to
create environments that include a rich mix of
uses and are walkable. They support walkability
by encouraging the proper densities and creating
a street network that is interconnected for ease
of use. Typically, 300-400’ blocks tend to be the
most flexible because they allow pedestrians to
walk one side of the block in about one minute
and a half but are also wide enough to encourage
retail development (Cherry & Nagle, 2009). Inten-sities
with a floor area ratio of between 2.0 to 3.0
typically are supportive of this development, but
they can be much higher if the area is a down-town
area (Cherry & Nagle, 2009).
There is one very important geographic constraint
regarding TOD: it really only works within a one-half
mile radius of the transit stop. A multitude of
studies have proven that this is the distance that
people will comfortably walk to a transit station,
even with the proper mix of uses and pleasant
environments (FTA, 2006; ULI, 2004; & Barnett,
2003).
Transit happens to work best when supporting
high-density, low-income, minority populations
(ULI, 2004). Therefore, it stands to reason that
TOD would work best in those types of areas.
However, this presents a conundrum, as TODs
typically have higher housing values (unless
strategies are used to retain affordable housing).
There are several factors that favor TOD when
found in conjunction with each other. These
include growing transit ridership; increased transit
funding; a strong market for in-town living; and
the growing desire for place-based living (ULI,
2004). Therefore, in areas where TOD is cre-ated
around existing transit stations, there is the
potential for displacement as well as revitaliza-tion.
However, if those factors are not met, then
TOD may not be a catalyst for revitalization.
A mix of uses is also a key aspect of the strategy.
The core area around the transit station should
integrate all uses (retail, housing, office, residen-tial,
and open space), and the area should have
a defined presence. Horizontal mixed use (espe-cially
with one to two story buildings) do not fit in
the core area – they have neither a high enough
intensity nor are they supportive of the proper mix
of uses. In fact, the more integrated and varied
the land uses are in the core, the more walkable
and inviting it is considered.
In general, there are six different areas that TOD
may develop in. The first of these is the Urban
Downtown. This area was once the employment
center, but is now becoming the cultural and
entertainment center. Typically it is a transfer
point for various modes of transit, and it might
have different districts with different uses. The
Urban Neighborhood is typically comprised of
a set of historic neighborhoods that surround
Downtown. They are mixed use areas and were
built on an extension of the downtown grid. Often,
these areas are already developed in a way that
TOD targets (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).
As we move into the suburbs, the Suburban
Town Center is an area that is developing. It is
becoming an employment center (a new change
in recent years), and TOD can help these sub-urban
employment centers develop into 24-hour
areas. The Suburban Neighborhood typically
allows for some densification near the stop but
will mostly remain residential and single family in
nature. The Neighborhood Transit Zone is a tran-sit
stop (as opposed to a development) that has
limited neighborhood retail or office in an area
that is largely residential. Finally, the Commuter
Town is a freestanding community outside of the
urbanized area and is provided with rail or bus
commuter service to the downtown core. It can
develop with a mixed-use center of its own, but
will typically only support peak hour service (Ditt-mar
& Ohland, 2004).
Regarding the mix of uses in the entire TOD,
a balance of uses or a more residential-driven
combination tend to work the best (Cherry &
Nagle, 2009). Table 4 on the next page sug-gests
a several factors regarding what should
be implemented based on the geographic areas
discussed previously. The information provided
in this table was adapted from Dittmar & Ohland
(2004).
It must be kept in mind, however, that these
recommendations should not be treated as a
one-size-fits all concept. They are contextual and
should reflect the character (and/or the vision) of

the area. Additionally, TOD is not meant to force
people to live in a certain way. Instead, it should
provide a wide range of options that allow for
people to choose how they want to live. Single
family and multifamily uses should be present in
order for the areas to be successful (Dittmar &
Ohland, 2004).
It must be kept in mind, however, that these recommendations should not be
treated as a one-size-fits all concept. They are contextual and should reflect the
Table 4: TOD Typology5
Table 2: TOD Typology

on transit. It is important to include a mix of
incomes to ensure a vibrant and successful
community.
10. Engage in corporate attention: Major employ-ers
can play a role in encouraging transit
usage. They can develop on transit lines or
encourage employees to take transit.
principles
As stated before, the how of TOD is very flexible.
It varies by state and even by local government.
That being said, there are some important con-siderations
regarding things to remember when
developing around transit. In order to address
this, the Urban Land Institute offers ten principles
for successful development around transit that
are essentially repeated in much of the literature,
as follows (ULI, 2004):
1. Make it better with a vision: The vision should
be developed in collaboration with the com-munity
so that they support the direction of
the project. It should be grounded in reality
and flexible while also providing an end goal.
2. Apply the power of partnerships: These
should rely on the powers of each partner.
The public agency can resolve agency con-flicts,
while the private developers understand
the market.
3. Think development when thinking about tran-sit:
The public sector should understand the
needs of the private developers and should
help to support them. By creating positive
relationships, the process goes easier in the
end.
4. Get the parking right: Parking has to be just
right – too much and transit will not be attrac-tive;
too little and people will not be able to
get to the development to make it successful.
5. Build a place, not a project: The station
should foster community activity and be
somewhere people want to be, not just
another node along the line.
6. Make retail development market-driven, not
transit driven: In most markets, proximity to
transit is not a major consideration for retail.
Therefore, the decision of how much retail to
develop should be based on an understand-ing
of the market, not on the fact that a transit
station will be there.
7. Mix uses, but not necessarily in the same
place: A good mix of uses creates an excit-ing
and interesting place. However, it is also
possible to mix uses between stations, using
transit as the connecting factor (if the transit
system is easy and convenient enough). This
enables someone to live at one station, work
at another, and go to a movie at another.
This is not to say that each station would be
single use, but it may not necessarily be a full
downtown either.
8. Make buses a great idea: Buses are typically
the cheapest and most widely available form
of transit. It is helpful to diversity the bus rider
market to those other than the poor. This can
be done though bus rapid transit and other
quality features as well as marketing and
education.
9. Encourage every price point to live around
transit: Developers should understand the
market for people who will use transit. Often
it is younger people and those dependent

Understanding the Context 03

As stated before, the study area focuses on the Government Center
Parking Garage in Downtown Fort Lauderdale and the areas within
immediate walking distance of it (Figure 1). The site includes six par-cels,
all owned by Broward County, with a total area of 2.90 acres and
a value (including improvements) of $43,220,440.
Because this problem is part of a larger contextual issue, the study
area will be generally defined as Downtown Fort Lauderdale and the
surrounding neighborhoods. For the purposes of this analysis, three
Census Tracts will be considered. They were chosen because they
generally include the people that will be living near and using this site.
The study area will be compared to the City as a whole in order to pro-vide
a unit for comparison. The Census Tracts to be studied are:
1. Census Tract 416
2. Census Tract 425
3. Census Tract 426
When appropriate, the Census Tracts are compared to the City as a
whole, as shown in Figure 2. The following section is meant to tell the
story of how the land is being used, how people are living, how the
transportation system is being used, and where there area is headed.
Context
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 1: Study Area
£¤1
OCEAN DR
7
84
£¤441
£¤1
1A
ATLANTIC OCEAN
FEDERAL HWY
FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FORT LAUDERDALE
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
870
816
838
842
736
£¤1
FORT LAUDERDALE
OAKLAND PARK
HOLLYWOOD
LAUDERHILL
WILTON MANORS
LAUDERDALE LAKES
DANIA BEACH
DAVIE
POMPANO BEACH
PLANTATION
LAUDERDALE
BY THE SEA
SEA RANCH
LAKES
LAZY LAKE
MARGATE
416 425
426
§¨¦95
§¨¦595
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
Figure 2: Context
1/4 Mile
1/2 Mile
3/4 Mile

According to the United States Census Bureau,
the City of Fort Lauderdale has an estimated
population of 166,712. The study area has a pop-ulation
of around 17,750, effectively comprising
11 percent of the City’s total population. Chart 1
shows the population by age and gender in the
study area.
Clearly, the study area maintains a generally
younger population. The largest age group in the
study area is between 25 and 29, followed closely
by those age 30 to 34. This suggests that young
professionals may live in the area, however it
also suggests that there is great potential for the
desire for alternative form of mobility and thus the
need for the implementation of measures to keep
people in the area.
This age group happens to be the group that
downtowns have been recently attracting. This
age group also tends to be the group that is look-ing
for more livable, walkable environments with
close access to the amenities that a downtown is
typically able to produce.
Chart 2 shows that the educational attainment in
the area is moderate, with the majority of the pop-ulation
having at least attended college, which
is on target with the City as a whole. However,
31% of the population in the study area holds a
bachelor’s degree of higher. Comparatively, only
24% of people city-wide have achieved that level
of education.
Judging by the age groups and somewhat high
levels of education, this area seems to be attract-ing
young professionals. As stated before, that
is the age group that has been recently attracted
to Downtown areas, however at the education
levels presented, it is also the group that tends to
be comprised of choice riders of public transpor-tation.
This means that it is necessary to provide
incentives for them to use transit.
Who Lives There?
Chart 1: Age and Sex
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2007-2012 5 Year Estimates
Chart 2: Educational Attainment

How Do They Live?
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 3: Existing Land Use
Recreation
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Vacant
Existing Land Use
The land use pattern in the study area is some-what
typical for any downtown area developed
following a suburban, auto-oriented pattern. As
can be seen in Figure 3, the area is somewhat
built out with the exception of a few vacant par-cels.
It is comprised of mostly commercial and
government uses, as you would expect for a
downtown area that has not typically supported
residential uses for quite some time. More
employment land uses follow the major roads of
Broward Boulevard, Andrews Avenue, and Fed-eral
Highway. Industrial uses follow the FEC rail
line.
Residential uses typically exist as single family
homes on smaller lots in neighborhoods sur-rounding
Downtown. The exception to this is the
multifamily development to the northwest of the
study area. What makes this area interesting is
that there are very few residential developments
downtown.
The following series of maps display the individ-ual
land uses to better show the patterns of land
use in the corridor. Additionally, images of typical
land uses are included.
Data Source: University of Florida Geoplan Center, 2012
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 4: Residential Land Use
Residential Land Uses
The residential land uses in the area, as stated
before, are somewhat lacking near the study
area. In fact, there are almost no residential uses
within 1/4 mile of the site. When expanded to 1/2
mile of the site, more come into play, but most are
on the North side of Broward Boulevard, which is
a large arterial that acts as a barrier.
TOD requires a strong residential population to
support the transit use. Additionally, the associ-ated
retail and other uses can only be supported
by a residential population. Therefore, it is clear
that the development of residential land uses will
be important for the success of this project.
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Housing Characteristics
According to the US Census Bureau, there are
9,444 housing units in the study area. However,
the units are just under 30% vacant, which is very
high. The study area has a homeowner vacancy
rate of 6%, which is higher than the City’s 4.2%.
That being said, the rental vacancy rate of 10% is
lower than the City’s 11.9%.
According to the United States Census Bureau,
the average gross rent in the study area is $1,102
per month, or just above the City’s Average of
$1,038. This suggests that the area is as afford-able
as the rest of the City. However, this is a
falsely low number, because the average rent in
the Census Tract that includes Downtown, where
the majority of the people using the TOD will be
coming from, is $1,603. This is extremely high in
comparison to the City.
The average monthly costs for homeowners
with a mortgage is $2,522, which is also higher
than the City-wide average of $2,175 per month.
Once again, this is misleading because the aver-age
for those in Downtown is $3,279. For those
homeowners without a mortgage, the home
owner-costs are much lower than the city-wide
average at $647 per month in the study area ver-sus
$746 City-wide. The average home values in
the area are higher than in the rest of the City, at
$304,200 ($441,200 in the Census Tract contain-ing
Downtown) versus he City’s $291,600, which
may also explain the higher costs.
Chart 3 shows that, when broken down to show
housing costs as a percentage of income, the
study area is about as affordable than the City
as a whole, especially for those with a mortgage
and for those who are renting. As a general rule
of thumb, no more than 30 percent of income
should be spent on housing (Gebhardt, 2006).
That being said, there are still a significant num-ber
of people spending more than 30% of their
income on housing costs.
This analysis suggests that the rental prices in
study area are somewhat unfordable to the popu-lation.
This may be a case of people buying more
than they can afford, or it may still be left over
from the housing market crash. Regardless, it
is clear that there is a lack of affordable housing
within the study area. It is important to note that
even though the prices are higher in the Down-town
Census Tract, the costs as compared to
household income are generally accurate across
all Census Tracts.
Chart 3: Select Housing Characteristics
Less than
20.0 percent
20.0 to
24.9
percent
25.0 to
29.9
percent
30.0 to
34.9
percent
35.0 percent
or more
Not
computed
Study Area 20% 6% 4% 3% 14% 0%
Fort Lauderdale 49% 10% 7% 6% 30% 3%
Less than
15.0 percent
15.0 to
19.9
percent
20.0 to
24.9
percent
25.0 to
29.9
percent
30.0 to 34.9
percent
35.0
percent or
more
Not
computed
Study Area 44% 4% 11% 8% 6% 28% 0%
Fort Lauderdale 44% 12% 8% 6% 5% 25% 2%
Less than
15.0 percent
15.0 to
19.9
percent
20.0 to
24.9
percent
25.0 to
29.9
percent
30.0 to 34.9
percent
35.0
percent or
more
Not
computed
Study Area 12% 16% 12% 8% 11% 42% 6%
Fort Lauderdale 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 48% 6%
Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income (GRAPI)
Selected Monthly Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI)
With a Mortgage
Selected Monthly Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI) Without
a Mortgage

Houses in Tract 426 tend to be well kept, single family homes on smaller
lots with attractive landscaping.
The picture represents a typical street in Tract 416. While there are side-walks,
there is a lack of landscaping and upkeep.
There are several low income housing projects in Census Tract 416. This is
an example of new construction affordable housing in the tract.
This street in Tract 426 represents a typical section. Homes are spaced
closely and mature landscaping is prevalent.
This is an example of the high rise, high income multi-family housing in
Downtown Fort Lauderdale.
New multifamily housing is being built alongside older single family housing
to the north of Downtown in Census Tract 425.
Image Source: Google Maps, 2013

Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 5: Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional Land Use
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional
Land Uses
These land uses are generally typical for a
downtown area that acts as a major employment
center. Clearly, there is a larger concentration to
the south of Broward Boulevard than to the north,
however the whole area works together as an
employment center. The employment land uses
outside of the immediate downtown area follow
the major corridors and act as a buffer to the resi-dential
land uses that generally lie behind them.
The commercial uses, however, do not include
the support services necessary to support a res-idential
population. They include mostly restau-rants
and bars, without the necessary grocery
stores or markets. The main commercial destina-tions
within a 1/4 mile radius of the site include
the Himmarshee District (a nightlife district) and
Las Olas Boulevard, which contains a mixture of
restaurants, bars, and high end retail.
Institutional land uses are generally dispersed
throughout the study area as opposed to concen-trated
in one place. The institutional land uses
in Downtown tend to be governmental in nature,
with government center located on the opposite
side of Broward Boulevard from the site.
The industrial areas provide employment desti-nations.
The are generally concentrated to the
northwest of the study area and north along the
FEC line. It will be important to consider connec-tions
to all employment destinations.
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Las Olas Boulevard is a popular location for shopping, dining, and entrain-ment
that features quaint shops and walkable streets.
Downtown has many governmental uses, such as the Federal Courthouse
Building on Broward Boulevard and NE 3rd Avenue.
The Government Center Building is located across the street from the site,
but turns its back to it and does not even include many windows on the first
floor, much less active uses.
Commercial high rises are typical in the downtown area. They do nothing to
activate the street, but provide plenty of office space for growth.
Many of the industrial land uses can be found in Census Tract 416. This is a
typical example of the area: auto oriented and desolate.
This picture shows an example of the industrial land use along Broward
Boulevard. It does not activate the street.

Vacant Parcels
Underutilized Parcels
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 6: Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
Figure 6 clearly shows that there is an abun-dance
of vacant and underutilized parcels in the
area. Underutilized parcels reflect those in which
the value of the improvements on the land (such
as the building) are worth 40% or less of the
total value of the property as assessed by the
tax appraiser. Much of the residential sites to the
south fall into the underutilized category, which
may be because the land values are quickly
increasing due to proximity to downtown, but new
homes have not been built on them.
Underutilized uses in the study area include the
Riverfront development that is a largely vacant
retail area immediately adjacent to the site to the
south, several vacant properties, and several
large parking lots. Notice that the study area is
not considered underutilized. However, the abun-dance
of parking in downtown makes transit less
likely to be used, and therefore removing parking
for higher intensity uses will provide a better use
than the current use.
The abundance of vacant parcels in the study
area allows for the potential redevelopment.
These parcels will be essential to consider when
looking at potential options for redevelopment
that can support the transit uses.
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Riverfront was once a destination. It is now mostly vacant, although it is still
kept up. It is ripe for redevelopment.
There are several completely vacant lots surrounding Downtown like this
one on Federal between 2nd Ave and 2nd Court.
There are also several large vacant lots on the South side of Downtown in
the area to the south of the river.
Many vacant lots around Downtown are used for surface parking. Seeing as
there is an abundance of parking, this is unnecessary and therefore these
lots provide opportunities for redevelopment.
This empty lot on Las Olas Boulevard was finally landscaped and now is
used for an outdoor space for festivals and other events in the area.
There are still a few vacant lots along the river as well. This lot actually
fronts the river walk.

NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Population Density
As can be seen, the population in the study area
is actually quite dense. The Downtown area
has greater than 12 people per acre, which can
sustain transit usage. However, this figure is
somewhat misleading, because the majority of
the housing providing that density is located in
the far north or south of the Census Tract, which
is mostly not in walking distance of the potential
FEC station. Therefore, as stated before, it will be
important to ensure that housing is a core compo-nent
of the TOD to boost ridership.
<5
5 - 7
>7 - 10
>10 - 12
>12
Figure 7: Population Per Acre
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
<$30,000
>$30,000 - $45,000
>$45,000 - $60,000
>$60,000 - $75,000
>$75,000
Figure 8: Income and Car Ownership
5 Zero-Car Households
Median Household Income by
Census Tract
Median Household Income and Zero-
Car Households
There are clearly a wide variety of income levels
represented within walking distance of the study
area, with the higher incomes of downtown jux-taposed
with the low income areas immediately
adjacent to the northwest. More specifically, the
income levels in the study area are as follows,
according to the US Census Bureau (2012):
• Census Tract 416: $23,771
• Census Tract 425: $69,110
• Census tract 426: $64,653
In comparison, the median household income
in the City of Fort Lauderdale is $50,502. The
income levels are high enough to support new
development, however they do point out the need
for more affordable housing in the surrounding
areas.
Figure 8 shows that the area directly to the North-west
of the study area is a lower income area that
has a high concentration of zero-car households,
meaning that it most likely has a highly transit
dependent population. By building TOD, it allows
for the creation of jobs as well as an efficient
transit systems that expands the network of jobs
accessible to the population.
There are also many zero-car households in each
Census Tract, which suggests that the population
may already be open to using public transporta-tion.
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Where are they Going?
Area Profile
The employment areas in the city are clustered in the
downtown and in the northeast area. Because of this,
Downtown makes an ideal location for a rail stop to
increase accessibility to people that may live outside of
the downtown area and commute in. That being said, it
is important to also consider transit connections to other
areas in the city to ensure that the TOD can be used by
more than just people working or living Downtown. This
enables it to have more than one use and expands those
uses to a broader population, ensuring success for the
TOD.
It is important to facilitate multi-modal access to the major
employment centers that are identified in this map to pro-vide
access and connectivity to jobs.
£¤1
OCEAN DR
7
84
£¤441
£¤1
1A
ATLANTIC OCEAN
FEDERAL HWY
FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FORT LAUDERDALE
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
NW 31ST AVE
S OCEAN BLVD
SW 12TH AVE
S CYPRESS RD
SW 42ND ST
S DIXIE HWY W
S POMPANO PKY
40TH AVE
LYONS RD S
MCNAB RD
OAKLAND PARK BLVD
ANDREWS AVE
BAYVIEW DR
DAVIE BLVD PETERS RD
FEDERAL HWY
62ND ST
6TH AVE
19T H ST
6TH ST
26TH ST
4TH AVE
56TH ST
BAILEY RD
21ST AVE
17TH ST
S ANDREWS AVE
LAS OLAS BLVD
COMMERCIAL BLVD
13TH ST
S OCEAN BLVD
ATLANTIC BLVD
3RD AVE
18TH AVE
SW 34TH ST
24TH ST
45TH ST
4TH AVE
9TH AVE
31ST AVE
7TH AVE
SUNRISE BLVD
27TH AVE
WILTON DR
23RD AVE
BROWARD BLVD
20TH AVE
870
816
838
842
736
£¤1 FORT LAUDERDALE
OAKLAND PARK
HOLLYWOOD
LAUDERHILL
WILTON MANORS
LAUDERDALE LAKES
DAVIE
DANIA BEACH
POMPANO BEACH
PLANTATION
LAUDERDALE
BY THE SEA
SEA RANCH
LAKES
LAZY LAKE
MARGATE
§¨¦95
§¨¦595
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
Figure 9: Area Profile
<100
100 - 499
500 - 999
1,000 - 1,999
2,000 - 4,000
>4,000
Legend
Jobs Per Census Block
100 - 1,999
2,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 7,999
8,000 - 16,000
>16,000
Jobs Per Square Mile
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal
Employer Housing Dynamics, 2013

40
9 22
60
50
20
101
10
11
1
30
81
31
14
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
6
1
Transit Network
As can be seen in Figure 10, the study area is
located within close proximity (across the street,
in fact) from a bus transit hub. The service is
provided by Broward County Transit (BCT), with
the exception of the Sun Trolley which is provided
by the City of Fort Lauderdale. The routes in the
area provide service in each direction. Each route
operates on 30- to 45- minute headways, which
are slightly longer than desirable.
While a judgment cannot be made about the
Sun Trolley because it operates on a wave and
ride basis, the transit routes are heavily used, as
shown by the daily boardings and alightings. The
major stop within the area is on the opposite side
of Broward Boulevard form the proposed FEC
station, however there are several other highly
used stops along the corridor.
This location provides an excellent reason to
improve connectivity across Broward Boulevard,
in accordance with the City’s wishes. By creating
such a connection using a combination of TOD
and traffic calming strategies, it will be possible to
create a regional transit hub that is also a desti-nation
and a livable, memorable place.
The existing transit is all bus transit, however,
and that is not the most attractive form of transit
for choice riders. While they may not be opposed
to connecting to a bus after riding the train, it is
unlikely that they would choose a bus over a car
for their entire trip.
26 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 300
301 - 500
>500
Daily Boardings +
Alightings
BCT Route 10
BCT Route 20
BCT Route 36
BCT Route 50
BCT Route 101
Sun Trolley Route
Transit Routes
Figure 10: Existing Transit Infrastructure
Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale GIS, 2013
How are They Getting There?
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Alternative Commuting Patterns
In general, people in the study area travel by car,
as can be seen in Figure 11. Even at the highest,
the study area does not reach one person per
acre using transit.
However, when considering the people walking
to work per acre, a different story emerges. What
is surprising is that the area that is low income
does not have very many people walking to work.
However, the Downtown Census Tract and those
to the east have many people walking to work.
Presumably, there may be a large population of
unemployed people in the low income Census
Tract to the northwest which is where there are
less people walking to work.
Regardless, this suggests that people are not
traveling very far to work. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, 64.6% of the population is travel-ing
less than 10 miles to work. Of the remainder,
19.1% travel between 10 and 24 miles to work,
5.6% travel 25 to 50 miles to work, and 10.7%
travel greater than 50 miles to work.
These patterns suggest that people are open to
taking alternative modes of transportation if they
are more efficient and effective than driving, and
therefore public transportation has the opportu-nity
to take hold here. This is especially true for
those traveling less than 24 miles to work.
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 11: Alternative Commuting Patterns
1 Person Walking to Work
1 Person Taking Transit to Work
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Roadway Network
Figure 12 shows the existing roadway network.
The study area is adjacent to Broward Boulevard
to the north and is close to Andrews Avenue to
the west. It is clear that the area has a grid sys-tem,
but in the Downtown area that grid has been
widened and blocks have been broken. While
this may have been done for the construction of
larger buildings, it has created very long blocks.
Another thing that is important to note about the
roads is the number of lanes. Broward Boulevard
has six lanes with a left turn lane. This makes it
a very wide road that is hard to cross. Based on
discussions with city staff, we have discovered
that the City wishes to narrow Broward Boule-vard,
but FDOT does not agree.
US1 is similarly large, with a total of eight lanes at
the intersection of Broward Boulevard and US1.
Many of the other roads are between two and
four lanes, and therefore are less daunting for
pedestrians and bikers. Figure 12: Roadway Network
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

shopping, dining, nightlife, and entertainment.
Himmarshee Street contains a nightlife district
immediately to the west of the TOD site, and for
about two blocks is similar in condition to Las
Olas boulevard regarding the pedestrian condi-tions.
There is also a river walk along the river, and
it has wide sidewalks and nice landscaping. It
connects to Las Olas Boulevard in certain areas
as well as cultural amenities such as historic
areas and the Broward Center for the Performing
Arts. However, in most cases, buildings turn their
backs to it and there is not good connectivity
to it throughout the downtown area. Instead of
celebrating the resource and drawing people to
it, many people do not know it exists until they
stumble upon it.
Pedestrian Conditions
As stated before, there is a somewhat fine grid
regarding the road network. Speck & Associates
(2013) analyzed the walkability of Downtown an
determined that the current pedestrian network
is comprised of areas that are currently walkable
and those that need work, as can be seen in Fig-ure
13.
It should be noted that the majority of the roads
in the area do have sidewalks, and those that do
not are typically designed with narrow lanes for
slow traffic, and thus people are able to walk on
them. However, the high speeds on many roads
such as Broward Boulevard, Andrews Avenue,
SE 3rd Avenue, and Federal Highway present
some very undesirable conditions for walking.
Additionally, in areas that front these roads, it is
typical to find wide setbacks that further add to
the poor pedestrian conditions.
Because of the width of Broward Boulevard, it is
very common to find people jaywalking and using
the median as a resting point. There are long
signal cycles which makes crossing at crosswalks
time consuming. Therefore, people tend to cross
in the middle of the block when they find a break
in traffic.
There are exceptions to these statements. Las
Olas Boulevard, for example, is narrow and is
fronted by active uses. It has slow moving traffic,
lush landscaping, and wide sidewalks. It is one
of the premier destinations in Fort Lauderdale for
Figure 13: Pedestrian Facilities Source: Speck, 2013

Broward Boulevard is a wide road with unfriendly streets. While it has side-walks,
they are not buffered from the congestion and high speeds on the
road.
The river walk offers a pleasant place to walk along the river downtown, but
it is closed off from the rest of the downtown area and the uses adjacent to
it do not include many active spaces on the ground floor.
Las Olas Boulevard provides the ideal pedestrian area, with narrow streets,
slow moving traffic, and attractive landscaping. It also includes active
ground floor uses such as sidewalk cafes and shops.
It is not uncommon for pedestrians to jaywalk due to the wide blocks and
long wait times caused by lengthy signal times.
The Himmarshee District, immediately west of the site, also provides active
uses for approximately two blocks. It is a popular destination for nightlife.
While sidewalks are widely prevalent, in some cases they are very narrow
and immediately adjacent to the street.

Parking
As can be seen in Figure 14, there is an abun-dance
of parking within close proximity to the
study area, including at the study area itself.
Much of this parking is in the form of parking
structures that are largely underutilized, with
many spots and even entire floors remaining
largely empty on a daily basis. The price of park-ing
is low in most areas as well. In many cases, it
is around $1.50 per hour or less.
Downtown Fort Lauderdale is over-served by
parking, which is a problem. When there is too
much parking, people are encouraged to drive
because it is always easy to find parking. Addi-tionally,
the parking is somewhat inexpensive,
further encouraging people to drive. In order to
make transit more desirable, it will be necessary
to limit parking and to make the parking that does
exist more expensive.
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Public Parking
Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale GIS, 2013
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

What Does the Future Look Like?
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
EVA HT4 WS
YWH LAREDEF S
EVA SWERDNA S
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Figure 15: Future Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Vacant
Future Land Use
Figure 15 shows the Future Land Use Map. It
is largely unchanged from the existing land use
map, showing that the City is not currently prepar-ing
for any major changes in the area. It can be
reasonably assumed that the vacant properties in
the area will be redeveloped as either residential,
commercial, or possibly even mixed use.
The lack of change in the Future Land Use Map
might be explained by the lack of development
interest in South Florida over the last several
years due to the economic downturn.
The City of Fort Lauderdale is very active in liva-bility
planning. In its comprehensive plan, dated
2008, it delineates target areas for economic and
community redevelopment as well as a desire to
shift away from roadway improvements for the
car to create a more multi-modal environment.
Sites have been selected as potential mixed use,
multi-modal mobility hubs in the Broward County
2035 Long Range Transportation. Other plans
supporting multi-modal mobility and livability
include the Downtown Transit/Pedestrian Master
plan, the Wave Streetcar planning efforts, the
Broward Complete Streets Guidelines, and many
others. A sampling of these plans can be seen in
Figure 16 on the following page.
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

£¤1
OCEAN DR
7
84
£¤441
£¤1
1A
FEDERAL HWY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
NW S OCEAN BLVD
AVE
S CYPRE
RAVENSWOOD RD
S DIXIE HW
ANO PKY
E PERIMETER RD
MCNAB RD
OAKLAND PARK BLVD
ANDREWS AVE
BAYVIEW DR
DAVIE BLVD
FEDERAL HWY
62ND ST
6TH AVE
19TH ST
6TH ST
26TH ST
4TH AVE
56TH ST
LEY RD
21ST AVE
17TH ST
S ANDREWS AVE
LAS OLAS BLVD
COMMERCIAL BLVD
13TH ST
ATLANTIC BLVD
3RD AVE
18TH AVE
SW 34TH ST
24TH ST
45TH ST
4TH AVE
9TH AVE
31ST AVE
7TH AVE
SUNRISE BLVD
27TH AVE
WILTON DR
23RD AVE
BROWARD BLVD
20TH AVE
870
816
838
842
736
§¨¦95
§¨¦595
Future Land Use
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Downtown Master
Plan: Creates a frame-work
to activate streets
and improve connec-tivity
to create a vibrant
mixed use downtown
using a combination of
land use, transporta-tion,
environmental, and
design improvements.
Historical character is
to be maintained while
fostering and even
promoting new devel-opment.
Northeast Community Redevelopment
Area:
This area has had some major improvements.
The Northwest/Progresso/Flagler Heights
Implementation Plan presents an urban design
and implementation plan guiding potential
streetscapes and redevelopment. As part of this
plan, the CRA is acquiring parcels to transform
Sistrunk Boulevard into a mixed-use commercial
corridor. Additionally, planned redevelopment has
already begun to occur in Flagler Heights.
North US1 Urban Design Plan:
US1 is in a transition stage from com-mercial
oriented, high-speed arterial to
a mixed-use urban roadway. The plan
is meant to ensure that development
along US1 is coherent. Residential
character is to be upheld while eco-nomic
viability of the corridor is sus-tained.
Improvements are intended to
transform the corridor into a pedestrian
friendly, mixed-use environment with a
mix of regional and local destinations.
South Andrews Ave
Master Plan:
South Andrews Avenue pres-ents
a critical connection
between Downtown and the
airport. The Master Plan pres-ents
a framework to transform
it from an under utilized corri-dor
into a dense and vibrant
urban area that will serve both
local and regional needs. The
main components use the
existing street grid as a basis
for the recommended multi-modal,
land use, and economic
improvements to create a
highly livable area.
Central Beach Master Plan:
As stated previously, Fort Lauderdale has a major
natural asset: its location on the Atlantic Ocean. This
has defined its identity for many years. The Master
Plan aims to ensure cohesive development to capi-talize
on that asset along the Central Beach area by
helping to create a coherent identity while preserving
historically significant features. Additionally, the plan
aims to create greater connectivity between the Cen-tral
Beach and the mainland of Fort Lauderdale via
multi-modal means.
Figure 16: Redevelopment and Planning Areas
Source: City of Fort Lauderdale, 2007
Future Plans

Future Transit Infrastructure
As can be seen in figure 17, there are some new
future transit opportunities that are coming in
to play in the area. The Wave Streetcar will be
passing the proposed FEC station and TOD on
the east side, providing additional connections
to downtown Fort Lauderdale. The Wave also
provides a connection to some of the higher den-sity
housing areas to the north and south of the
site. There are three Wave stops within 1/4 mile
walking distance of the proposed FEC TOD, and
5 within 1/2 mile. This makes it an ideal location
for TOD, as it will be accessible to other areas.
Additionally, it will allow people coming from other
areas to transfer to the Wave if their destination is
outside of the walking radius of the FEC TOD.
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
NW 6TH ST
E LAS OLAS BLVD
SE 3RD AVE
NW 7TH AVE
NE 3RD AVE
E BROWARD BLVD
SW 4TH AVE
S FEDERAL HWY
S ANDREWS AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
N ANDREWS AVE
N FEDERAL HWY
SW 2ND ST
N VICTORIA PARK RD
SE 2ND ST
1
Proposed FEC Stop
Future Wave Stop
FEC Passenger Rail Line
The Wave Streetcar Route
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

With 180 cities and three counties in the Miami-
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach metropolitan
area, the political environment is a bit chaotic and
disorganized. While this is one metropolitan area,
planning efforts are split along county lines. For
example, transportation planning is performed by
a different Metropolitan Planning Organization for
each county.
Within Broward County, the Metropolitan Plan-ning
Organization faces frequent battles as
each city fights for its own agenda rather than
the regional picture (Christensen, 2010). A few
regional planning agencies exist, but they have
very little power and often function more as con-sultants
working on projects rather than as bodies
of elected officials. Examples of such agencies
are the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and the Southeast Florida Transportation Council.
Since the scope of the transit projects that will be
connecting to downtown Fort Lauderdale cover
the entire metropolitan area, regional planning
and policy efforts will influence transit oriented
development here. Several players influence
regional policy. Federal agencies such as the US
Department of Transportation (USDOT), including
its branches of the Federal Highway Adminis-tration
(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Agency
(FTA); the department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) set policy and provide
potential funding sources. The state also sets rel-evant
laws, policies, and rules that direct planning
efforts. Agencies representing the state that have
a say in this area include the Florida Department
of Transportation District 4, the South Florida
Water Management District, the Department of
Environmental Protection, and the State Historic
Preservation Office.
Locally, political agencies include the Broward
County Commission as well as the Broward
County School Board, who would have input on
new residential units. Broward County also owns
property in the area, including the Government
Center and the site where this study is focused,
the parking garage next to it.
The City of Fort Lauderdale would have a say in
development, with guidelines stemming from the
comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, appli-cable
policies, and any development approvals.
Based on recent discussions with the City, it is
attempting to become more progressive with
measures to increase multi-modal mobility. How-ever,
the County and FDOT are less progres-sive,
and wish to enhance the area for cars. An
example of this conflict is FDOT’s proposed con-struction
of express lanes on Broward Boulevard
versus the City’s desire to narrow Broward Boule-vard
to make it more pedestrian friendly.
Below the city level is the Fort Lauderdale Com-munity
Redevelopment Agency, which covers
the area north of Broward Blvd and to the west
beyond I-95 (City of Fort Lauderdale CRA, 2013).
Refer to Figure 18 for the CRA boundary.
More on the east side, extending to both the
north and south and including the site of this
study’s focus, is the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA). Refer to Figure 19 for the DDA
Boundary.
Political Environment
Sistrunk Blvd
Broward Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
FLAGLER VILLAGE
LINCOLN PARK
SWEETING ESTATES DORSEY RIVERBEND
MIDTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT
RIVERBEND CORPORATE PARK
7TH AVE DEVELOPMENT SITE
NW 6TH ST
NW 10TH ST
N SBI95
N US1 N US 1
NW 5TH ST
W SUNRISE BLVD
NW 7TH AVE
NW 5TH AVE
W BROWARD BLVD
NW 27TH AVE
N NBI95
NW 7TH TER
W SISTRUNK BLVD
S US1 S US 1
N ANDREWS AVE
NE 6TH AVE
NW 3RD AVE
NW 8TH AVE
NW 13TH ST
S SBI95
NE 3RD AVE
W
NE 6TH ST
NE 4TH ST
S NBI95
NW 14TH CT
NE 3RD ST
NE 2ND ST
NE 13TH ST
NE 10TH ST
NW 9TH AVE
NE 1ST ST
NE 7TH ST
N FEDERAL HWY
I 95 RAMP
NE 5TH AVE
NW 22ND RD
NW 11TH PL
NW 17TH AVE
N NEW RIVER
NE FLAGLER DR
NE 4TH AVE
NE 5TH TER
E NEW RIVER
NW 12TH ST
NW 10TH PL
SE NE 12TH ST
SE 2ND ST
NW 8TH ST
NE 5TH ST
E SUNRISE BLVD
NE 9TH AVE
NE 8TH AVE
NE 7TH AVE
NW 1ST AVE
SW 11TH AVE
SW 21ST NE 2ND AVE
E LAS OLAS BLVD
NE 10TH AVE
NE 11TH AVE
SW 24TH AVE
NE 11TH ST
E BROWARD BLVD
NEW RIVER
NW 23RD AVE
SW 27TH AVE
SW 18TH AVE
NW 15TH AVE
NW 6TH AVE
NW 11TH AVE
NW 10TH TER
NW 10TH AVE
NE 1ST AVE
NW 14TH WAY
S ANDREWS NW 11TH ST
NW 11TH CT
NW 9TH TER
SW 7TH AVE
NW 2ND ST
SW 20TH AVE
NW 7TH ST
N I95 SB
NW 3RD ST
SW 12TH AVE
NW 3RD CT
SE 4TH ST
SE 5TH CT
SE 2ND CT
CHATEAU PARK DR
SW 4TH ST
NW 24TH AVE
NW 19TH AVE
NW 13TH CT
SW 5TH ST
NW 7TH PL
SW 14TH AVE
NW 8TH PL
SE 1ST AVE
NW 6TH CT
SW 8TH AVE
NW 9TH ST
NW 5TH CT
NW 1ST ST
SW 4TH CT
NE 9TH ST
SW 4TH AVE
PROGRESSO DR
SW 21ST WAY
NW 20TH AVE
SW 1ST AVE
NW 4TH ST
NW 14TH ST
NW 21ST AVE
NW 16TH TER
SW 19TH AVE
NW 16TH AVE
NW 15TH TER
NW 24TH TER
NW 13TH AVE
NW 27TH TER
NW 14TH AVE
NW 12TH AVENW 7TH CT
NW 21ST TER
N RIO VISTA BLVD
NW 8TH CT
SW 2ND ST
NW 6TH PL
SW 2ND AVE
S DIXIE CT
SW 3RD AVE
SE 5TH NW 9TH CT
SW 25TH SW 25TH SUNSET MHP
NW 4TH PL
NW 23RD TER
NW 18TH AVE
SW 26TH AVE
NW 12TH CT
SW 22ND NE 13TH CT
SW 5TH AVE
NW 9TH LN
SW 1ST ST
SW 2ND CT
SE 1ST ST
NW 14TH TER
SW NW 4TH AVE
NW 4TH CT
NW 2ND AVE
10TH AVE
NW 13TH PL
NW 13TH TER
SW 27TH TER
W LAS OLAS BLVD
NW 9TH PL
SW 13TH AVE
NW 27TH WAY
NW 13TH CT
NW 4TH ST
SW 4TH CT
NW 6TH AVE
NW 10TH AVE
I 95 RAMP
NE 3RD AVE
SW 3RD NW 7TH ST
N NBI95
NW 2ND ST
NW 1ST ST
SW 22ND AVE
NW 14TH AVE
NE 11TH ST
NW 8TH ST
NE FLAGLER DR
NE 7TH AVE
NW 14TH ST
NW 1ST AVE
NE 5TH ST
SW 1ST ST
SE 2ND ST
NW 11TH CT
NW 14TH ST
NW 24TH AVE
NW 13TH CT
NE 10TH AVE
NW 2ND ST
NW 20TH AVE
NE 8TH AVE
I 95 RAMP
NW 11TH ST
NE 7TH AVE
NW 12TH CT
NW 11TH ST
PL
NW 6TH CT
NW 18TH AVE
NW 13TH ST
NW 9TH ST
NW 3RD CT
NE 5TH AVE
NW 14TH CT
NW 15TH AVE
SE 4TH ST
NW 19TH AVE
NW 3RD ST
NW 13TH ST
NE 4TH AVE
NE 6TH AVE
NW 12TH ST
NW 11TH CT
SW 1ST NW 13TH CT
NW 18TH AVE
Legend
Streets
CRA Boundary
Figure 18: CRA Boundary
Data Source: CRA Project Areas, 2006

Fort Lauderdale is comprised of many neigh-borhoods—
many of which have organized into
Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and have
actively sought to influence the development pat-terns
in their city. Within ¼ mile of the site are five
different HOAs:
• Downtown Fort Lauderdale (includes prop-erty
area)
• Sailboat bend
• Progresso Village
• City View
• Flagler Village
Within a ¾ mile radius, the following HOAs would
likely want to provide input into Transit Oriented
Development in this area:
• Dorsey-Riverbend
• Victoria Park
• Beverly Heights
• Tarpon River
• Rio Vista
Figure 20 shows all the nearby HOA boundaries.
Rock Island
Community
Development
Twinlakes
Neighborhood
Assoc.
Central
Beach
Alliance
Downtown
Fort Lauderdale
Civic Assoc.
Melrose Park
Lauderdale
Manors HOA
Coral Ridge
Country Club Estate
Coral Ridge
Association Inc.
Edgewood
Civic Assoc.
Victoria Park
Civic Assoc.
Harbordale
Civic Assoc.
South
Middle
River
Civic
Assoc.
Central
Beach
Alliance
River Oaks
Civic Assoc.
Melrose
Manors HOA
Rio Vista Civic Assoc.
Harbor
Beach
HOA
Riverland
Civic
Assoc.
Croissant
Park Civic
Assoc.
Poinsettia Heights
Civic Assoc.
Dorsey-Riverbend HOA
Poinciana
Park Civic
Assoc.
Sunset Civic
Assoc.
Riverside Park
Residents
Assoc.
Tarpon River
Civic Assoc.
Lauderdale Isles
Riverland
Village
Ridge
HOA
Middle
River
Terrace
Assoc.
Chula
Vista
Sailboat Bend
Civic Assoc.
Durrs Homeowners
Assoc.
Lake Ridge
Residents Assoc.
Dillard
Park
HOA
Residential
Assoc.
Shady Banks
Civic Assoc.
Flamingo Park
Civic Assoc.
Flagler
Village
Civic
Assoc
Lake Aire Palm View HOA
Seven Isles
Homeowners
Assoc.
River Run
Civic Assoc.
Colee
Hammock
HOA
Progresso
Village
Galt Mile
Community
Assoc.
Las Olas Isles
Homeowners
Assoc.
Bal
Harbour
HOA
Sunrise
Intracoastal HOA
Harbour Inlet
Assoc.
Dolphin
Isles
HOA
Bermuda
Riviera
Assoc.
Lauderdale
Harbours Assoc.
Nurmi Isles
Homeowners
Assoc.
Lauderdale West Assoc.
Lauderdale
Beach
HOA
Hendricks and
Venice Isles
Harbour Isles
of Fort Lauderdale
Beverly
Heights
Riviera Isles
Improvement
Assoc.
Birch Park
Finger Streets.
Assoc.
Coral
Shores
Civic Assoc.
Sunrise Key
Civic Association
North
Golf
Estates
HOA
Idlewyld Improvement
Assoc.
River Garden
Sweeting Estate
Home
Beautiful
Park Civic
Assoc.
Golden Heights
Neighborhood
Harbor Drive
Assoc.
Navarro Isle
Assoc.
Breakwater
Surf Homes
Laudergate
Isles Civic
Assoc.
Riverland
Manors
HOA
Oak River
Homeowners
Assoc.
River
Landings
Riverland
Woods
City View
Townhomes
Assoc.
Lewis
Landing
Park
Harbordale
Park
South
Middle
River Park
Laura
Ward
Plaza
Sara Horn
Greenway
Coral
Ridge
Park
Secretary
School Park
Cortez Passive
Triangle Park
Gore
Betz
Park
Canine
Beach
Oceanside Lot
Twin Lakes
North Park
Morton
Activity
Center
Park
Warbler
Wetlands
Bayview
Park
Beach
Community
Center
Vista
Park
Willingham
Park
Fort
Lauderdale
High School
Bass
Park
Bennett
Elementary
School
Sunrise
Middle
School Pool
Lauderdale
Villas
Lauderdale Entranceway
Manors Park
Middle
River
Terrace
Dillard
High
School
Jack and
Harriet
Kaye Park
George W.
English
Park
Warfield
Park
Joseph C.
Carter Park
Greenfield
Park
Purple
Pickle
Park
Lincoln
Park
Provident
Park
Sweeting
Park
Annie
Beck
Park
North Fork
School Park
Virginia
Shuman Young
Elementary School
Victoria
Stranahan Park
Park
Himmarshee
Esplanade Canals
Park
Guthrie-Blake
Park
Townsend
Park
Huizenga
Plaza
Colee
Hammock
Park
Francis L.
Abreau
Place
Major WM
Lauderdale
Park Fort Lauderdale
Aquatic Complex
D.C. Alexander
Park
Fort Lauderdale
Public Beach
& Park
Riverside
Park
Stranahan
High School Florence Hardy
Park & Southside
Cultural Center
Westwood
Heights
School
Westwood
Traingle
Park
Virginia S.
Young Park
Riverland
Park
Riverland
Elementary
Hector
Park
Tarpon
Cove Park
Tarpon
River
Park
Cliff
Lake
Park
Shirley
Small
Park
Benneson
Park
15th Street
Boat Basin
Harbordale
School
Sunset
Park
Hortt
Park
Flamingo
Park Croissant
Park
Poinciana
Park
Bryant
Peney
Park
Rogers
Middle
School
Floyd Hull
Stadium
Snyder
Park
Idlewyld
Park
Bayview Dr.
Canal Ends
Holiday
Park
Welcome
Park
Dr. Elizabeth
Hays Civic Park
Walker
Park
Smoker
Park
Sailboat Bend
Preserve Park
Esterre Davis
Wright Park
Coontie
Hatchee
Landings
North Fork
Riverfront
Park
Ann
Herman
Park
Bill Keith
Preserve
Peter
Feldman
Park
Riverland
Woods Park
Mizell
Center
Osswald
Park
Las Olas
Marina
Marshall
Point
New River
Middle
School
Merle
Fogg
Park
Little
Lincoln
Park
Sunland Park
Elementary
Northside
Elementary
Stephen
Foster
Elementary
William
Dandy
Middle
Dolphin
Isles
Park
Ann Murray
Greenway
Cooley's
Landing Marine
Facility
Bubier
Park
Riverwalk
Linear Park Stranahan
Landing
Park
Loggerhead
Park
Mills
Pond
Park
Mills Pond Park
Conservation Site
Earl
Lifshey
Park
Sistrunk
Park
City of Fort Lauderdale:
Neighborhood Associations /
Legend
Streets
City Limits
City of Fort Lauderdale Parks
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Figure 19: DDA Boundary
Data Source: Fort Lauderdale DDA, 2006
Figure 20: HOA Boundaries
Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale, 2012

Conclusions 04

Based on the existing conditions analysis, sev-eral
strengths and opportunity areas have been
identified that will be used to develop the guiding
principles that will serve as the basis for the final
master plan for the site and the study area.
First of all, the entire site is owned by the County,
with the exception of one small parcel that is
owned by the City. This is a major strength,
because it provides the opportunity to redevelop
the site without purchasing any additional land.
The population is generally young and educated,
and their income levels are diverse. This type
of population is generally supportive of transit
oriented development. A review of the other
conditions for TOD, such as the prevalence of
households without a car and people who already
choose to walk to work, further proves the desire
and openness to multi-modal transportation and
TOD. Considering the redevelopment plans,
almost all of them also promote multi-modal
transportation and the creation of mixed use cen-ters.
Furthermore, the downtown already serves as a
built up commercial district that attracts people
from all around the region. Other major attractors
in the area include the Himmarshee District and
Las Olas, which provide retail and entertainment.
This is a major key necessary for a TOD to be
successful, as it provides a potential ridership
base to draw from.
The downtown fronts a river, which presents a
great development opportunity. There is a river
walk, but there is not much connecting it to the
rest of the downtown. The development pattern
has somewhat turned its back to the river in some
areas, but there is the potential to make it a major
focus of development if redevelopment is done
properly.
The existing and future public transportation sys-tems
are also strong. The site is located across
the street from a major public transportation hub.
Additionally, the future transportation improve-ments
include investments in rail, such as the
Wave Streetcar and the FEC commuter rail line.
Rail transit options are more likely to attract
choice riders (those that are not forced to ride
transit due to financial or other circumstances),
and the existing conditions analysis has shown
that the population in the area is generally com-prised
of people more likely to be choice riders.
That being said, there are many issues that need
to be overcome to create a successful TOD.
First of all, while there is housing surrounding
the downtown area, there is not enough housing
within ¼ mile of the study area. While the down-town
Census Tract has a population density of
over 12 people per acre (although that number
may be slightly higher in the traditionally recog-nized
downtown due to the high rise condo units),
it needs to be increased significantly to provide
the population base necessary to support an
Urban Downtown TOD (as stated before, this
requires something closer to 60 people per acre).
“The prevalence of
households without a
car and people who
already choose to
walk to work further
proves the desire and
openness to multi-modal
transportation
and transit oriented
development.”
Strengths and Opportunities

Along those lines, the necessary services to sup-port
a high residential population are not present
in the area. The retail areas do not include things
like grocery stores or markets and are typically
not intense enough to support a large residential
population, and this need must be addressed if
the population density is to be increased and auto
usage and dependency is to be decreased.
Additionally, the housing in the area is extremely
expensive. According to the census data pre-sented
in the analysis, this is not a major issue
for the population currently living there, as in
general it is not unaffordable to them. However, if
the support services necessary to support a large
residential population are to be expanded, many
retail and service jobs will be created. Retail and
service jobs do not pay high enough to allow
the employees to live in the area at the current
prices. In order to create an area that does not
depend on the automobile, it will be necessary to
address the need for workforce level housing so
that those working in the retail and service indus-tries
will be able to afford to live within walking
distance of their jobs.
The area is also very auto-oriented. There is an
abundance of parking and it is not expensive,
which encourages people to drive as opposed to
taking alternative modes of transportation to the
area. Even within the downtown area, it is not
uncommon for people to drive from one side to
the other as opposed to walking or taking the free
circulator. It will be important to avoid increasing
the parking supply, or possibly even decrease
and concentrate it, if a TOD is to be successful.
This may be possible through relaxing parking
requirements and relying on shared parking.
There are also several major roads running
through downtown that are wide and act as bar-riers
to pedestrian mobility. The most significant
of these is Broward Boulevard, which borders the
site on one side and acts as a barrier between
the proposed TOD and the mobility hub across
the street. However, by addressing the road in
the future plans, it is possibly to use the connec-tion
between the study area and the mobility hub
to make that section of Broward Boulevard more
pedestrian friendly and less focused on the per-sonal
automobile.
There is also a significant amount of underuti-lized
units and vacant properties. This is both a
weakness and an opportunity. Those areas offer
the opportunity for redevelopment that can be
catalyzed by the development of this TOD, and
with the proper guidance they can be developed
in a way that supports a pedestrian friendly area.
A major area for redevelopment is the Riverfront
area immediately adjacent to the south of the
site. It offers the opportunity for expanded hous-ing,
retail, and other opportunities that could be
mutually beneficial to our TOD site.

1. Improve Walkability and Connectivity
The pedestrian environment should be elevated to the
most important mobility consideration. Through a combi-nation
of streetscaping, traffic calming, the provision of
pedestrian amenities, and other measures to increase
connectivity, it will be possible to create a more pedes-trian
friendly environment. Careful consideration of rede-velopment
should be given to ensure that ground floor
uses activate the space and get people walking through
the area.
Guiding Principles
2. Celebrate the Existing Resources
Redevelopment efforts in the downtown should focus on
the existing resources, such as the river, the river walk,
the cultural and historical resources, the greenspace,
and the thriving retail/dining/entertainment areas. Streets
and buildings should be oriented towards the river so as
to draw people there. Active uses should be developed
along the river.
Top: Figure 21: Improve Walkability and Connectivity. Bottom: Figure 22: Celebrate the Existing Resources

3. Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way
The development of new, high density housing should be
encouraged in order to support the TOD and rail line. At
the same time, that housing should be affordable to the
people who will live in the area. New uses that support
the residential population should be encouraged, such
as the development of grocery stores and other essential
services. By including housing that is affordable to both
the higher income population and the lower income pop-ulation,
people will be able to afford to work where they
live no matter what their income level is.
4. Get People Out of Their Cars
There is an abundance of inexpensive parking and roads
are designed to move vehicles through as fast as pos-sible.
Major roads should be redesigned to slow traffic,
and new parking should be avoided. Instead, shared
parking should be encouraged to take full advantage
of the existing parking and to ensure that it is being uti-lized
properly. Multi-modal transportation connections
between the TOD and the rest of downtown should be
developed to ensure that people can utilize the area
without a personal vehicle.
Top: Figure 23: Densify in an Affordable and Accessible Way. Bottom: Figure 24: Get People out of their Cars.

Future Scenarios 04

Redevelopment Plan
Introduction
This next step, the Redevelopment Plan, pres-ents
the vision, goals, objectives, and the imple-mentation
strategies - described as metrics - for
a successful plan. These metrics are intended to
provide general direction for the redevelopment
of the Station Area. This plan’s intent is to further
define the overall vision, densities, land uses,
transportation, site layout, site design, parking
strategies, circulation, urban form, open space,
and implementation tools based on the unique
features of the specific station under scrutiny.
The Fort Lauderdale downtown, and more spe-cifically
the study area that has been selected,
has been considered a declining area and this
proposal aims to revitalize the area by fostering
the development of new tax revenue and reduc-ing
governmental service costs through TOD.
Although the primary goal of any transit system
investment is to improve mobility, the economic
and fiscal impact is of equal importance.
Since this TOD embraces mixed-uses and afford-ability,
it will not only promote economic and fiscal
impacts but also will promote social and equity
improvements. The implication of activities involv-ing
construction, operation, and maintenance
of a transit system creates jobs, spending, and
tax revenues. New transportation infrastructure
typically leads to new development and redevel-opment
activity, introducing shifts in development
patterns and governmental service costs. Fur-thermore,
this plan aims to lead that redevelop-ment
towards the vision presented in this plan.
Regarding housing, the importance of support-ing
affordability for the housing component is
to create a sustainable environment in the area
that supports the ability for people to afford to
live where they work and reduce the need for
(and dependence on) the automobile. Local and
regional competitiveness will also improve, thus
affecting the location decisions of individuals and
businesses and generate an environment that
is supportive and encouraging of sustainable
growth.
This section will focus on two levels of detail
regarding the future of Fort Lauderdale. The first
level will consider the specific site being con-sidered
for redevelopment, as this is the level
that the developer has the maximum amount of
control over. In this case, either the County could
redevelop the site itself, or it could sell the land
to a private developer. If the latter scenario is
chose, the County and the City should ensure
that the proper policies are in place to foster the
development desired. At this scale, it is possible
to consider issues such as the amount and type
of housing provided, the amount and type of
commercial provided, how the station fits with the
development, and other specific details.
The second level is less specific but none-the-less
necessary in order to create a development
that addresses the guiding principles presented
in the previous section. The point of this level is
to ensure that the area in its entirety is developed
in a way that is supportive of multimodal transpor-tation,
including the densities and intensities that
are necessary to support transit. This level will
focus on the area that is within walking distance
of the TOD (1/4 mile radius, as presented in the
previous section).
Additionally, several cross sections will be pre-sented
for Broward Boulevard. This road is con-sidered
because it borders the study area and
presents a major void between the TOD and the
development on the north side of Broward Boule-vard.
That being said, these scenarios may also
be considered for other major roads in the study
area, such as Federal Highway and Andrews
Avenue. Each of these cross sections presents a
narrowing of the actual through lanes in order to
provide better access for pedestrians and bicy-clists.
Two of them present scenarios in which
fixed transit lanes are present, and one simply
narrows the road.
Each of these strategies will be evaluated against
the guiding principles as well as the goals and
metrics that support them, as detailed in this sec-tion.
The methodology behind these analyses will
also be explained.

The process
This redevelopment plan is the roadmap of
a redevelopment process, and identifies and
focuses on only a section of the Fort Lauderdale
downtown. This plan aims to regenerate the evo-lution
of the downtown area. The organization of
the plan follows that process and is divided into
the following five sections:
1. Vision: Lays out an overall vision for the
future of the study area, which is based on
the existing analysis section and the guiding
principles. The vision highlights the strengths
and opportunities of the area and is com-pared
to the goals, objectives, and metrics to
determine how well they align with the vision.
2. Branding: Determines the physical and per-ceived
image that the study area and the sta-tion
aims to portray to the environment. Also,
it is important to recognize the need to create
this image as a reflection of the area.
3. Goals, Objectives, and Metrics: Delineates
a program to follow for implementation of
the vision. Describes options that should be
embraced and implemented in order to sup-port
the ideal situation for redevelopment of
the study area and the site.
4. Implementation: Details an action plan
regarding the steps to be taken to implement
the vision. This section is included in order to
highlight clear steps to achieve the vision.

As stated by the Urban Land Institute, TODs are
“better with a vision.” A vision consists of a simple
but powerful statement that recognizes the past,
present, and future of an area and is created
to move forward a concrete ideal for an area or
region. In this plan, this concrete ideal is sup-ported
by guiding principles, which are:
1. Improve Walkability and Connectivity
2. Celebrate the Existing Resources
3. Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way
4. Get People Out of Their Cars
Based on these principles, the redevelopment
plan’s vision statement is:
“The Broward Boulevard FEC station transit
oriented development will encourage an urban
environment that improves pedestrian mobility,
promotes multi-modal investment, and supports
economic sustainability for existing and future
growth in Fort Lauderdale.”
Brand strategy has been defined as the how,
what, when, and to whom you plan on communi-cating
your product or service. Having a clear and
concise brand strategy leads to stronger overall
brand equity, how people feel about or perceive
your services, how much they are willing to pay,
and how much they are willing to use it (Smit,
2011). There are many aspects related to brand-ing,
including the importance of visual form, the
feel of the space, the attractiveness, and how this
strategy can become a catalyst for other related
areas to flourish.
Branding strategy recommends targeting indus-tries,
developing physical characteristics, and
linking cultural opportunities with strategies that
may situate the site in a way that allows it to
inspire innovation and diversity in development
and population so that the surrounding area can
feed off of this energy to inspire overall change.
“These strategies focus on the idea of the city
being both a muse and a blank canvas, inviting
innovators to raise their own bar” (North Star,
2013).
Logos may be developed using a fresh, modern
color palette that does not rely on stereotypical
City colors. Brand narrative should spark a con-nection
between this city of sharp contrasts and
Vision and Branding
The Vision The Brand
“The Broward Boule-vard
FEC Station transit
oriented development
will encourage a mul-timodal
environment
that improves pedes-trian
mobility, promotes
multi-modal investment,
and supports economic
sustainability for exist-ing
and future growth in
Fort Lauderdale.”

the people who might make it their own.
For these reasons is very important that stake-holders
be part of the process. It is recommended
that information gathering with key stakeholders
including the mayor, the city manager, the visitors
and convention bureau, the economic develop-ment
agency, the business improvement districts,
the business owners, and the cultural institution
leaders take place before deciding the branding
of the station.
The following recommendations should be imple-mented
to develop a successful brand:
• Commuters must be given a reason to stop at
Broward Boulevard Station (BBS), and doing
so must be made clear and easy.
• BBS should be branded as distinct from other
stations along the corridor and provide multi-ple
entrance points.
• Redesigned intersections and new lighting,
street furniture, paving, and bus shelters, are
needed.
• The Boulevard facing the station would ben-efit
from a more distinctive look along its
length.
• Signage guidelines would help; for example,
at the proposed apartment building on top of
the station and across it.
• A pedestrian-friendly streetscape with a more
relevant retail mix is needed.
• Art and signage may be used at the station
entrances that reveal the historical and cul-tural
aspects of the area.
• The branding logo and narrative of the station
must be placed at strategic locations, such
as train wagons, other stations, and multiple
media sources to promote the station.
“Branding recommends
targeting industries,
physical characteris-tics,
and linking cul-tural
opportunities with
strategies that may sit-uate
the site in a way
that allows it to inspire
innovation and diver-sity
in development and
population so that the
surrounding area can
feed off of this energy to
inspire overall change.”

The drawing to the right displays both an axono-metric
portrayal of the study area redevelopment
as well as a cross section of the building that
will sit on the site itself. The site plan presented
here is not necessarily an exact representation
of the development that will occur, but rather it is
an example of the development that can occur
based on the guiding principles and using the pol-icies
recommended later in this section. As stated
before, it can be developed either by the County
or a private developer, which may also have an
impact on the final site design.
As can be seen in Figures 25-30, the site will be
developed as two adjacent buildings with a small
alley street between them that leads to the rail
line. This road would be used as access for a kiss
and ride location.
Streetscaping, including the planting of trees on
the sides of the road and in the median, will be
implemented in order to create a better pedes-trian
environment. There is a small pedestrian
plaza that is included in the northeast corner of
the site that will provide a place for people to
meet and socialize outside. The one crosswalk
that is shown is repaved with stamped concrete
that is painted to look like brick, which both
increases the visibility for drivers as well as the
attractiveness for pedestrians.
The two buildings will contain a variety of uses.
The cross section shows an example of what the
building to the north might contain. The building
to the south will contain the actual train station,
however there will also be pedestrian access
from any direction.
Regarding the actual buildings to be built on the
site, a conceptual plan has been drawn up for
each one. As per the zoning codes, the buildings
will be developed to the maximum developable
height of 190’, and will each contain fifteen floors.
The building to the south will contain the actual
transit station as well as ground floor retail. This
will take up the first three floors, and will contain
uses such as neighborhood serving retail, bars,
and restaurants. The next five floors will act as a
buffer between the higher intensity transit uses
below and the residential floors above. These
four floors will contain two floors of parking for the
residences as well as grocery stores and three
floors of office and commercial space. Finally, the
top seven floors will contain high density residen-tial
rental units.
The building to the north is broken up a bit differ-ently.
The first two floors will contain retail uses.
A grocery store is proposed for the area, as there
is not currently one in walking distance and it
will be supported by both the residences in the
building as well as the new ones that will later be
built in the area. The next five floors will contain
a buffer of office uses, and finally the top eight
floors will contain residential rental apartments.
This building will contain the lobby as well as the
amenities for the residential units, and there will
be a connection between the two buildings so
that residents in the south building do not have to
go outside to get to the amenities.
In order to ensure that the housing is affordable
(especially to those working in the area) 15% of
the units will be reserved for very low incomes
(those making 50% or less of the area median
income, or AMI), 25% will be reserved for low
incomes (50-80% of the AMI), 20% will be
reserved for workforce level housing (80-120% of
the AMI), and the remaining 40% will be market
rate.
The retail units in both buildings will face the
streets that surround them in order to create an
interesting and diverse pedestrian environment
to encourage people to walk. An extra 10 feet
of sidewalk will be dedicated from the building’s
developers in order to provide space for sidewalk
cafes and other uses.
Notice that parking for the transit station is not
included. This is because the transit station is
a downtown station and as such, should not
encourage people to drive to it. The major modes
of access to this station are to be walking and
biking.
Site Plan

Figure 25: Site Plan

Figure 26: Conceptual Rendering 1
Figure 28: Conceptual Rendering 3 Figure 29: Conceptual Rendering 4

The illustrative plan to the right shows a potential
future scenario for Fort Lauderdale based on
redevelopment around the Broward Boulevard
FEC Station. As can be seen, the street network
has changed somewhat. The City has always
been arranged in a grid pattern, and the new net-work
builds upon that by connecting streets that
were not connected previously. This will happen
through the development process as buildings
are redeveloped.
The sidewalk network is also enhanced. Any-where
that there is a sidewalk, streetscaping will
occur. This will happen in the form of the addition
of street trees and sidewalk furniture and the
encouragement of developers to create sidewalk
cafes (which requires dedicating some ground
space for extra sidewalk; typically about 10 to 15
feet). Also, cross walks are added. Each cross-walk
is to be repaved with stamped concrete and
painted to look like brick. This will raise visibility
of crosswalks for drivers while at the same time
creating a more attractive pedestrian space.
The land uses changes to include much more
mixed use and residential uses. In some areas,
such as Riverfront, buildings are redeveloped
to encourage a different scale that allows for
better walkability due to more options for pedes-trian
crossings between them. Buildings in this
scenario also are arranged to front the street as
opposed to inner courtyards. By building in this
manner, pedestrians are encouraged to walk
along the street and enjoy the active uses that
are presented to them.
Due to the increased amount of high density
residential, there will be enough density to sup-port
the creation of new restaurants and bars
to develop an environment that is the “24 hour”
downtown that keeps people in it and actively
using it all the time.
Several new parks are created and existing parks
are preserved. Many of these directly front or
lead towards the river, and the street network is
somewhat modified to ensure greater connectivity
to the river. Therefore, the existing resources that
the city has until now failed to capitalize on are
becoming a new focal point for activity.
Because the new development plan focuses
more on the creation of an environment that actu-ally
is pleasant to traverse on foot, people are
less likely to use their cars. The TOD will specifi-cally
encourage this because it will allow people
to travel to downtown Fort Lauderdale without a
car. There is also much less structured parking.
In general, parking structures are closer to the
edges of downtown so as not to interrupt the
active on street uses. Additionally, by putting the
parking on the outskirts of the area, it encourages
people to walk through it as opposed to driving.
Transit strategies are also introduced. Bus rapid
transit is suggested along Broward Boulevard,
which will connect to the TOD allowing for a com-prehensive
multimodal transportation strategy.
Downtown Plan
Vehicular Strategies
Main route for through traffic
Transit Strategies
FEC Passenger Rail
Rapid Bus
Pedestrian and Bicycling Strategies
Enhanced sidewalk
Enhance pedestrian crosswalks
Land Use Strategies
Park/Recreation
Institutional
Commercial
Mixed Use
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Parking Garage
Figure 31: Downtown Plan

Several corridor-wide goals were developed
that relate to the guiding principles. Then, a set
of performance metrics was developed to accu-rately
assess how well each scenario achieves
the four guiding principles. This table should be
used to evaluate any proposed development in
the downtown area to ensure that the proper form
of development is achieved and perpetuated after
the initial development of the Broward Boulevard
Station TOD. This ensures that the downtown will
be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the
vision presented previously.
The goals aim to create a more livable and sus-tainable
multimodal environment that builds upon
the successes of the TOD and the implemen-tation
of rapid transit as presented in this plan.
These goals include promoting multimodal mobil-ity,
or the development of Fort Lauderdale into a
city that can support rail and rapid bus transit as
well as pedestrian mobility; improving the urban
environment by creating a 24 hour downtown
with active uses at all hours of the day that draw
people to it; and encouraging economic sustain-ability
by providing affordable housing, encourag-ing
local commerce, and activating the existing
resources in ways that will bring economic activity
into the area.
As can be seen in Table 3, each metric relates
to one of the guiding principles discussed in this
plan. Each should be considered separately and
comprehensively in order to better understand
1 2 3 4
Walkability/Connectivity Celebrate Resources Density/Affordability Against Car Dependecy
Encourage redevelpment along FEC Number of redevelopment application along FEC   
Connect additional through streets Block spacing  
Provide bike sharing stations Number of stations and station capacity   
Enhance Sidewalks Minimun width of sidewalks 
Enhance Crosswalks Distintive pavers and patterns along crosswlak  
Reduce parking lots and garages # of parking spaces  
Attractiveness of transit to choice riders Fequency, services, and amenities  
Provide residential units within walking
distance of transit
# of units within 1/4 mile   
Provide ground level commercial activity Linear feet of active street frontage    
Provide additional public space with art and
inviting design
Square footage of area of public space  
Improve the historic character # of active historic places 
Improve pedestrian access and connective Ridership level 
Provide affordable housing # of units within 1/4 mile w/cost no more than 50% of
the local median HH income
 
Provide workforce housing # of units within 1/4 mile w/cost no more than 120%
of the local median HH income
 
Promote public/private partnerships # of contracts and agreements  
Encourage local commerce Grants and loans for local chamber of commerce 
Support local commercial affordability # of locally owned businesses 
Provide cultural and entertainment venues # of events/activities per year   
Activate riverwalk # of events/activities per year  
Guiding Principle Addressed
Promote
Multi-Modal
Mobility
Improve
the Urban
Environment
Encourage
Ecomonic
Sustainability
Goal Objective Metric
Table 3: Guiding Principle Assessment
Scenario Evaluation

how a proposed development achieves the over-all
vision.
There is not a set “target number” for each of
these categories. That is done purposefully, as
the city must determine what is right for it. Each
development will be slightly different, which will
create the kind of diversity and unique character
that leads to successful places. If a prescriptive
number were to be developed, it could result in a
form of development that is largely homogeneous
and therefore not interesting to be in.
This chart can also be used to evaluate the city
overall every five years to determine how well
it is meeting the vision and to evaluate where
opportunities and issues lie regarding that prog-ress.
While an individual building may meet all of
these categories, one building does not change
the entire city. Therefore, evaluating the city as a
whole in addition to each development proposal
will be a key factor in the success of the city cre-ating
a multimodal and transit oriented place.
A sample assessment using the guiding princi-ples
can be seen in Table 4, where the site plan
is evaluated. The site plan addresses each objec-tive,
although they are stated differently than in
table 3. This is OK, as it encourages diversity in
development.
1 2 3 4
Walkability/Connectivity Celebrate Resources Density/Affordability Against Car Dependecy
Encourage redevelpment along FEC Propose 50 dwelling units per acre   
Connect additional through streets Open up street to connect from west to east traffic  
Provide bike sharing stations Propose two bike stations for 15 bikes each   
Enhance Sidewalks Repave of all four sidewalks and create two more
within the site

Enhance Crosswalks Propose a new crosswalk along Brickell Avenue  
Reduce parking lots and garages Redevelop existing garage to incorporate a grocery
store, retail, and residential units
 
Attractiveness of transit to choice riders Create a new train station inside proposed building  
Provide residential units within walking
distance of transit
100 % of units are within 1/4 mile from transit station   
Provide ground level commercial activity Broward Boulevard, Brickell Avenue, and station
frontage are activated by retail/commercial spaces
   
Provide additional public space with art and
inviting design
Propose two plazas total of 15,000 sq ft of public
space
 
Improve the historic character Preserve and restore historic structures 
Improve pedestrian access and connectivity Provide new scrossings and sidewalks, streetscape
sidewalks, and activate ground level uses 
Provide affordable housing 40% of DU are targeting affordable levels  
Provide workforce housing 20% of DU are targeting workforce levels  
Promote public/private partnerships Project is a partnership with private developers, City
of Fort Lauderdale and non-profit organizations
 
Encourage local commerce Retail spaces at ground varies in size from 1,000 sq
ft to 10,000 sq ft

Support local commercial affordability Smaller space and spaces within historic structures
preserved for lower rent spaces

Provide cultural and entertainment venues Train station space supports cultural and
entertainment events
  
Activate riverwalk Train station brings riders to the area that may
discover riverwalk and new uses front the riverwalk   
Promote
Multi-Modal
Mobility
Improve
the Urban
Environment
Encourage
Ecomonic
Sustainability
Guiding Principle Addressed
Goal Objective Project Program
Table 4: Sample Assessment

Broward Boulevard Redevelopment Scenarios
It is important to note that none of these goals
involve making major improvements for the auto-mobile.
This is because the use of the single
occupant vehicle (SOV) is being discouraged.
The SOV is not a sustainable form of trans-portation
and it creates congestion in the area.
Broward Boulevard is one of the most auto-de-pendent
and congested arterials in the area.
Because of this, it acts as a void in the area that
is hard to cross.
In order to address this, several cross sections
for proposed development have been created, as
shown on the following three pages. While these
scenarios are specifically designed for Broward
Boulevard, they may also be applied to any major
arterial in the area. Some of these include Fed-eral
Highway, Andrews Avenue, Sunrise Boule-vard,
and Davie Boulevard. There are three basic
ideas being proposed, and two of these include
improvements that would allow for a bus rapid
transit (BRT) system to be created.
BRT service typically runs more frequently than
other types of bus service in a dedicated right-of-
way and operates in a manner similar to rail
service. It is, however, much cheaper than rail
service and features things like enhanced sta-tions,
off-vehicle ticketing, off-board fare collec-tion,
transit signal priority (TSP), branding, and
streetscaping. BRT light has some but not all of
the features of BRT. Typically, they give up things
like dedicated right-of-way, transit signal priority,
and enhanced stations. This causes a decrease
in the quality and level of service, but is some-times
required due to political, funding, or physi-cal
design issues (FDOT, 2011).
Regarding dedicated bus lanes, there are sev-eral
types. Bus only lanes allow, as the name
suggests, only buses. They can be located on
the inside or outside lane, and each has differ-ent
advantages and disadvantages. For areas
without an extremely high level of bus activity
(or under the standard 100 buses per hour sug-gested
by Demery & Higgins, 2005), it may make
sense to share bus lanes with cars in a variety of
ways. For the purposes of this plan, two of those
ways are important. The first is high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes, which allow any vehicle car-rying
two or more people to use the lane. These
can be located on the inside lanes, and if buses
are given access to TSP, the lanes can operate
very closely (in speed) to dedicated lanes. How-ever,
they do limit the ability to make left turns.
Another type of transit lane is the business
access transit (BAT) lane. The BAT lane is
located on the outside of the road and typically
has several restrictions. It allows buses and bikes
at all times, and can be restricted to only buses
and bikes during peak hours. During the rest of
the day, cars turning right at the next intersection
or turning right into a business driveway are also
allowed to use the lane. This form of transit lane
does not restrict left turns in the same way that
the center HOV lanes do and allows for a more
flexible roadway system. However, they also are
less efficient, as buses can be stalled by right
turning vehicles. Admittedly, they may also have
less capacity for throughput.
The City should think hard about how it wants to
connect the passenger rail system to its transit
system. A BRT system could provide similar ser-vice
to rail at a much lower cost, and the devel-opments
proposed in this plan could create the
residential and commercial densities necessary
to support that type of service. However, it does
require the dedication of a lane in order to work
properly and therefore somewhat of a higher cost
initially than continuing as is.

Scenario A
Scenario A considers a cross section that nar-rows
the road but does not provide designated
transit lanes. One lane in each direction is
removed, and on street parking and bike lanes
are included. The sidewalk is wide, however it
would still be necessary for developers to ded-icate
about 10 feet more of sidewalk to create
sidewalk cafes.
The speed limit remains around 35 miles per hour
(MPH), and that provides for a pleasant walking
and biking environment. The narrowed lanes pro-vide
reassurance that the speeds in these lanes
will remain calm and slow. Additionally, a large,
landscaped median is included that provides for
an attractive pedestrian refuge.
According to the Broward County MPO’s 2030
LRTP, express bus service will be included in the
transit system on Broward Boulevard, but there
are currently no plans to dedicate lanes to it and
this scenario does not call for it. This scenario
also impacts the turning movements little, as it
allows for left turns. Because of this, it would
probably encounter the least amount of political
resistance, but provide the least benefit as well.
Figure 32 Cross Section Scenario A

Scenario B
Scenario B considers an alternative cross section
that includes a variety of improvements. In this
scenario, left turn lanes were removed and the
inside lanes in either direction were converted to
HOV lanes. These lanes support BRT with TSP
as well as HOV with two or more persons.
The median has been converted into a transit
shelter with a tree lined promenade that supports
bicycles and pedestrians. The pedestrian cross-ings
have been replaced with stamped concrete
to make them more visible, and streetscaping has
been implemented to provide shade to pedestri-ans.
This plan also provides for on street parking.
However, that parking can be converted to
through lanes during peak hours so as to keep
three lanes of traffic moving through the area
when it is needed, while servicing the need for
parking and keeping streets calm when it is not.
The speeds here would be 35 MPH or less, as in
scenario A. The narrow lanes would also be used
to keep traffic calm.
While it is not visible in this cross section, this
scenario will eventually be coupled with the
denser development pattern presented in the
plan for downtown. Businesses will be encour-aged
to front the street and will be encouraged to
develop active ground floor uses and add another
ten foot of sidewalk in front of the building face
that can support sidewalk cafes and other uses.
Figure 33: Cross Section Scenario B

Scenario C
Scenario C presents a cross section in which
BAT lanes and TSP are introduced to the corridor.
However, left turn lanes remain open in this sce-nario
as well.
In this scenario, there are medians to provide
pedestrian refuges, but they are not as wide as in
the other scenarios. One downfall of this form is
that it may encourage speeding more due to the
wider expanse of unfettered roadway.
This scenario may have less throughput due to
the removal of the HOV lane. That reduction is
offset by the ability to make left turns, creating
higher capacity for vehicles to exit the corridor
and disperse through the surrounding neighbor-hoods.
It is also offset by the right turn access in
the BAT lanes and the reduction in weave cre-ated
by the separated left turn lanes. Bicycles are
accommodated in the BAT lanes and pedestrian
crosswalks are again made more prevalent and
attractive via the use of stamped asphalt.
As in Scenario B, the denser mixed use develop-ment
pattern is encouraged, thus supporting the
higher levels of transit use needed to justify BRT.
Businesses will once again be encouraged to
front the street and will be encouraged to develop
active uses on their first floor. As part of this, they
will be encouraged to add another ten foot of
sidewalk in front of the building face that can sup-port
sidewalk cafes and other uses.
Figure 34: Cross Section Scenario C

Implementation 05

Implementation Plan
Guidelines
Given that the guiding principles create a
framework for the study area and this has
been reflected in the site proposal, this section
demonstrates an action plan for the entire study
area that is meant to provide guidance to deci-sion
makers, investors, and stakeholders when
regarding future growth.
That being said, there are some key assumptions
that inform the implementation of this plan that
have been uncovered throughout the process of
the creation of this plan. These assumptions are
the fundamental ideas that ensure that the form
of development in the city takes the approach
that builds the kind of environment that the plan
is aiming to create. These principles are laid out
as follows.
The need to think beyond the car
The car has taken over open, public, and civic
spaces and car culture has conditioned people to
drive distances that they would otherwise walk.
Because of this, people are less likely to engage
in basic human experiences that come with the
interaction encouraged by walking and congre-gating
in public spaces. As we have become
more and more accustomed to accommodating
the car, we have created high speed roadways
that accommodate the car better than people.
There are several other issues with this thinking
and way of developing. First, cars do not bring
economic activity, people do. Cars also do not
need to move - people need to move. Therefore,
we have a need to reverse the thinking of car first
and people second to push a greater focus on
people.
The need to promote transit
Transit, on the other hand, can move people
much more efficiently than the SOV. Transit uses
its space to accommodate people rather than the
car, as many more people can be transported by
bus or train than by car.
Transit is also better for the economy and for the
environment. Because transit carries more peo-ple,
its use reduces the amount of people on the
road and therefore results in lower fewer emis-sions
and other harmful and toxic environmental
effects. Additionally, transit brings in revenues
and provides jobs for the operators.
The need for higher densities
High residential and employment densities can
have a number of positive effects. First of all,
greater numbers of people support higher levels
and greater types of transit. Higher densities are
also needed to support commercial activities and
are one element needed to provide the basis of
vibrant and successful downtown. They also sup-port
other things necessary to successful down-towns
such as cultural and entertainment venues.
Density also has another, more abstract effect.
Higher densities support diversity. Diversity fos-ters
innovation by bringing people from different
backgrounds together. Innovation is the key to
success in many urban environments, as it is
what makes a place unique and desirable.
There is more than just land use
The initiatives that support the TOD permit the
city to move forward from simply developing
uses to creating places. In order to do this, it is
necessary to understand that design regulations
are as important as other regulations; they phys-ically
affect our environment and our responses
to it. This statement reflects a holistic approach
that involves transportation, public/open space,
and uses that work together to create a sense of
place that is otherwise unlikely to develop.

Action Plan
Table 5 lists a set of strategies and corresponding
action items that can be used as a basis for the
implementation of the plan. These action items
are to be initial guidelines that the city should
complete at a minimum in order to achieve the
vision outlined previously. That being said, there
may be more initiatives that develop over time, so
this should be considered somewhat of a “living
document” that can change as the needs of the
population change and new practices are devel-oped.
In addition to these strategies, processes and
mechanisms have been suggested for the imple-mentation
of each item. This part of the plan is
meant to help guide the city in figuring out how
to complete each action item. Finally, each item
has been prioritized regarding its importance
as determined in reviewing them in the context
of the previous sections. Based on the priority
assigned to each action item, a timing plan has
been developed to explain when each action item
should be completed.
Strategy Action Items Process/Mechanism Timing
Acquire easements to place bus shelter out of the sidewalk Growth Management 1
Improve bus shelters Capital Improvement Plan 2
Coordinate plans and agencies for the new train station Growth Management 1
Broward Boulevard redesign Roadway Design 1
New local thoroughfare Roadway Design 2
Widen sidewalks Capital Improvement Plan 1
Identify new bus stops to support train connections New study 3
Landscape new and existing medians (Trees and shrubs) Capital Improvement Plan 1
Require public plazas for future train stations Development review 0
Coordinate cultural programming On-going process 0
Coordinate entertainment programming On-going process 0
Increase police patroling Safety program 0
Implement signage and lighting at existing and new parks New study 2
Façade of building facing main streets needs to be activated Development review 1
No parking or driveway facing main streets Development review 1
Public entrances need to be celebrated Development review 1
Buildings facing main streets must contain mixed uses Development review 1
Minimum densities and affordability cannot be waived Development review 1
Multimodal
Transportation
Strategies
Open/Public Space
Strategies
Design Strategies
Table 5: Implementation Plan
Timing Legend:
O = Ongoing work | 1 = Immediate (within the next year) | 2 = Short-term (within the next two years) | 3 = Mid-term (within the next five years)

Feasibility 06

Introduction
Broward Boulevard Station, like a smaller ver-sion
of Grand Central Station in New York or
Union Station in Chicago, would not be complete
without integrated retail and a diversity of uses
that keep the area vibrant and active twenty-four
hours a day. The proposal in this plan would cre-ate
a station in the County-owned site on the east
side of the Florida East Coast railroad tracks.
This station will consist of two buildings and a
new street for improved pedestrian access and
connectivity.
Physical Feasibility
The surrounding physical features have been
discussed extensively in this report. The current
site is a parking garage. The key physical feature
required to make the Broward Boulevard Station
possible is the provision of transit on the FEC rail
line. Currently, the FEC only provides freight ser-vice
on this line, but plans are in the works to add
two types of passenger rail service. All Aboard
Florida proposes to provide the first privately
operated intercity passenger rail in the U.S. in
50 years, connecting Orlando with West Palm
Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. This service
proposal has been put forward by the FEC, and
is currently scheduled to begin in 2015 (Chardy,
2013). On the local level, the Florida Department
of Transportation and Tri-Rail have both been
pursuing separate plans for intracity passen-ger
rail on the FEC (Garcia, 2011). An attempt
is underway to reconcile the two plans, with a
Memorandum of Understanding currently being
prepared by the Southeast Florida Transportation
Council that will ask all parties to work with the
South Florida East Coast Corridor study team in
the completion of the project development phase
(“4/22/13 SEFTC Agenda Package,” 2013).
The project development phase is expected to
take no longer than two years, as the most recent
federal transportation bill, MAP 21, set a limit on
the maximum time a project can spend in the
project development phase. With another two
years for engineering and two years for construc-tion,
intra-city passenger rail can be expected to
start around 2020. This project can and should
move forward in a similar time frame, so that the
station would open in 2020 not only for service,
but also for retail, residential, and office space.
As an alternative, this project may be developed
in phases, with the first phase to open in 2015
with the opening of the All Aboard Florida passen-ger
rail line, and the additional phases to open
by 2020 when FEC rail service is added. For the
purposes of this report, the feasibility analysis
will be performed as if the project is being con-structed
and opened in one phase. The dollars
and amounts used are today’s dollars, so they
are likely to be more applicable for a project with
a 2015 opening date.
Social Feasibility
The millennial generation wants to live in more
urban areas (El Nasser, 2012), and the aging
baby boomer population needs the services
offered in higher density, low maintenance living
environments more than they need the three
bedroom house in the suburbs. Clearly the social
desire is there for living in an urban environment
with the amenities and transportation this type
of development offers. One of the biggest issues
is affordability, with much of the existing hous-ing
stock out of the price range of middle class
households. This project seeks to address this
by reserving 60% of the housing units for house-holds
ranging from low income to middle income,
workforce housing.
Environmental Feasibility
Currently, the site is developed. Since the use is
a parking garage, almost all of the area is imper-vious
except for a small buffer of grass adjacent
to Broward Boulevard and some street trees on
the sidewalk. The proposed project would have
Feasibility Analysis
Figure 35: Green Roof in Chicago

approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of open space, which
would include pervious as well as impervious
area, plus additional trees. Since the roof will not
be a parking garage like the current structure,
there will also be opportunities to provide more
pervious area in the form of a green roof. See
Figure 30 on the previous page for an example of
a green roof in Chicago.
Every effort will be made to preserve environ-mental
sustainability. While the team does not
currently have a LEED professional on board, the
higher construction costs of LEED buildings were
incorporated into the estimates for this construc-tion
(“DCD LEED® & Sustainable Square Foot
Cost Guide,” 2012).
Regulatory Feasibility
This area is in Fort Lauderdale’s Downtown
Regional Activity Center (RAC), which offers
more flexibility with regards to building height
and mixed use. There should be no issue with
that aspect. The biggest challenge, however, is
that the comprehensive plan only permits 5,100
dwelling units total within the RAC. The city code
requires a special approval process to permit
additional residential units, which subjects the
developer to additional criteria. This process is
spelled out in Fort Lauderdale’s municipal code
section 47-13.20 (“Code of Ordinances,” 2012).
Achieving support of the local political leaders will
be crucial to getting this project approved.
Market Feasibility
Broward County began a campaign last year to
brand and market their parking garage, which is
primarily used for employee parking but is also
open to the public. They created an attractive
logo and retooled the name as the “GG” (Wall-man
2012). Perhaps this sort of marketing effort
did bring in additional parking revenue at the
expense of other area parking lots, but parking
itself is not an attractor to draw additional peo-ple
downtown—retail, commercial, restaurant,
and entertainment venues are an attractor. This
project seeks to do exactly that, in a way that no
parking garage could ever do.
There are several other residential units pro-posed
for the area in the near future. Approxi-mately
3,050 rental units are being proposed or
in progress for downtown Fort Lauderdale, which
indicates that the market is strong for residen-tial
rental units in urban areas (Zalewski, 2012).
This should not satiate the demand, however.
Downtown Miami had a surplus of condos being
completed just as the area’s real estate market
crashed, and the entire inventory is expected to
be gone by early 2014. While these were sold as
condos, most of the units were bought by inves-tors
and rented out, capitalizing on the growing
market for rental units in downtown areas (Bran-nigan,
2012). This trend can be expected to con-tinue
in downtown Fort Lauderdale, especially in
a transit-oriented development with a quick con-nection
to downtown Miami.
Financial Feasibility
A pro forma financial analysis has been per-formed
for the project (see Appendix 1 for the
detailed analysis). As the buildings will be well
served by transit, parking should not be very
important. Refer to Table 6 for the building usage
for each floor.
The project is projected to cost just under $200
million. The project is expected to be funded with
the developer contributing $40 million, a Federal
Transit Administration grant of $30 million paying
for the station construction, the land value of $9
million contributing to equity, and a bank loan
of $120.5 million covering the remainder of the
costs.
First year After Tax Cash Flow (ATCF) is
expected to be $145,253, with the highest ATCF
in a 20 year period expected to be over $1 million
in the 8th year of operation. Other key financial
indicators calculated from the pro forma cash flow
analysis can be found in Table 7. These have
been calculated using the standard formulas.
Refer to Appendix 1 for notes on any assump-tions
used.
The project is feasible with the private fund-ing
combined with the FTA grant that Broward
County Transit or the South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority would need to pursue.
Because of the very narrow profit margin, it may
not be attractive to many developers, though. It
will be able to provide additional affordable and

Table 6: Building Usage and Area Table 7: Financial Strength Indicators
North BuildinFootprint 26,700 sq. ft. Notes Funding
Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Developer's equity $40,000,000
Residential 8 213,600 171,000
assumed 80% to
exclude halls,
walls,
maintenance Land value $ 8,919,300
Office 5 133,500 107,000
assumed 80% Total equity $48,919,300
Retail 2 53,400 48,000 assumed 90%
Gross area: 15 400,500 326,000 FTA Grant (for sta $ 30,000,000
Bank Loan $120,507,200
South BuildinFootprint 55,700 sq. ft. from site plan Interest rate 7%
Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Term 20 yrs.
Residential 7 389,900 312,000 assumed 80% Points 0
Office 3 167,100 134,000
assumed 80%
Parking 2 111,400 Lease rates $/sq.ft./yr. Rentable sq. ft. Gross rent/yr.
Retail/Transit 3 167,100 100,000
assumed 60% due
to transit station Residential $16 483000 $7,728,000
Gross Area: 15 835,500 546,000 Office $18 241000 $4,338,000
Retail $20 148000 $2,960,000
Totals sq. ft.
Construction
cost / sq.ft. Total cost Check to ensure RAC zoning code is met
Residential 603,500 $165 $99,577,500 Units (avg. 1000 sOpen space requAt grade open space
Office 300,600 $165 $49,599,000 483 48,300 19,320.0
Retail 220,500 $190 $41,895,000 Rental rates based on current market values. Sources:
Parking 111,400 $75 $8,355,000
Total 1,236,000 $199,426,500
Construction cost sources:
Source: Parrish, L. (2013).
Broward County Property
Appraiser. Retrieved April 23,
2013, from http://199.27.243.5/
DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide. (2012, November).
Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.html
RSMeans Square Foot Cost Estimates. (2013). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from
http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/
Fort Lauderdale, FL Market Trends. (2012, September). Retrieved April 27, 2013, from
http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/HttpHandlers/Chart/MarketTrends.ashx?city=
Fort‐Lauderdale&state=Florida&#
Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom in
downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami
Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-

workforce housing if additional subsidies were
offered, plus it might become more attractive to
more developers.
Site Design
Figure 31 shows a basic site layout for the proj-ect,
overlayed over an aerial of the existing site.
Conclusions
Since the project will bring in a profit for the
developer over a period of 20 years, the project
is feasible. Since transit is typically subsidized
with federal grants, the development proposal
incorporates grant funding to build the transit
station portion of the project. This would be done
through a public-private partnership (PPP). Addi-tional
PPPs and other incentives offered by local
government would make the development more
attractive, and help offset the unpredictability of
the market. The project should provide a good
opportunity for people to live and work near tran-sit
and near downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Figure 36: Site Plan Overlayed Over Existing Site
£¤1
0 0.25 0.5
MilesI

Works Cited 07

4/22/13 SEFTC Agenda Package. (2013, April 22). Southeast Florida
Transportation Council. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.seftc.org/
system/agendas/101/original/042213%20SEFTC%20Agenda%20Package_
FINAL.pdf
Brannigan, M. (2012, August 2). Downtown Miami condo sales, prices up
- Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23,
2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/02/2928193/downtown-miami-
condo-sales-prices.html
Cervero, R. e. (2004). Transit-Oriented Development in the United States:
Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Cooperative
Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
Chardy, A. (2013, March 18). Miami-Orlando train service on track to roll
in 2015. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.
miamiherald.com/2013/03/18/3293733/all-aboard-florida-on-track-for.html
Cherry, N., & Nagle, K. (2009). Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of
Sustainable Urban Districts. Washington, DC: Planning Press.
Christensen, D. (2010, September 15). Whistleblower probes expose
bad blood behind county, MPO split. Broward Bulldog. Retrieved March
17, 2013, from http://www.browardbulldog.org/2010/09/whistleblower-probesexpose-
bad-blood-behind-county-mpo-split/
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2003). South Andrews Avenue Master Plan. Fort
Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2007). Fort Lauderdale: Building A Livable
Downtown. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). City of Fort Lauderdale Comprehensive
Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). North US1 Urban Design Plan. Fort
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). Northwest/Progresso/Flagler Heights
Implementation Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2009). Draft Central Beach Master Plan. Fort
City of Fort Lauderdale - Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) - About
Us. (2013). Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/
cra/aboutus.htm
City of Fort Lauderdale: Neighborhood Associations. (2012, April 30).
Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://gis.fortlauderdale.gov/PDFs/ITS/
Neighborhood%20Associations%20%2811x17%29%20-%20Fort%20
Lauderdale.pdf
City of Fort Lauderdale. (2013). City of Fort Lauderdale GIS Data
Extraction. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from City of Fort Lauderdale: http://
gis.fortlauderdale.gov/DataExtraction/
Code of Ordinances City of Fort Lauderdale, FL. (2012, December 4).
Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://search.municode.com/html/10787/
index.html
CRA Project Areas. (2006, January 19). Retrieved March 19, 2013, from
http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/cra/plans/maps.htm
CTOD. (2008). Capturing the Value of Transit. Washington, DC: Center for
Transit Oriented Development.
CTOD. (2009). Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability
with Location Efficiency. Washington, DC: Center for Transit-Oriented
Development.
CTOD. (2012). Families and Transit-Oriented Development: Creating
Complete Communities for All. Center for Transit-Oriented Development.
Washington, DC: Center for Transit-Oriented Development.
Works Cited

DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide.
(2012, November). Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://
www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.html
Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in
Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
El Nasser, H. (2012, December 4). American cities fighting to keep
Millennials from moving to suburbs. USA Today. Retrieved January 29,
2013, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/03/
american-cities-to-millennials-dont-leave-us/1744357/
Fact Sheet. (2013). All Aboard Florida. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from
http://www.allaboardflorida.com/fact-sheet
FDOT (2011). State Road 50 Multi-Modal Corridor Study. Orlando, FL:
Florida Department of Transportation.
FDOT. (2012). South Florida East Coast Corridor. Retrieved March 17,
2013, from http://www.sfeccstudy.com/background.html
FEC. (2011). History. Retrieved on March 3, 2013, from Florida East Coast
Railway: http://www.fecrwy.com/about/history
FTA. (2006). Building Livable Communities with Transit: Planning,
Developing, and Implementing Community-Sensitive Transit. Washington,
DC: Federal Transit Association.
Garcia, T. (2011, October 29). Tri-Rail to Run FEC service by 2015. Transit
Miami. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.transitmiami.com/sfrta/
tri-rail-to-run-fec-service-by-2015-fdot-district-6-secretary-lone-no-vote
Google Maps. (2012). [Street view]. Retrieved from https://maps.google.
com/
North Star. (2013). Downtown Branding Study. Retrieved
from North Star: http://www.northstarideas.com/community/
CommunityBrandingDowntownNewOrleans.htm
Smit, A. J. (2011). The Influence of District Visual Quality on Location
Decisions of Creative Entrepreneurs. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 167-184.
Speck, Jeff. (2013). Fort Lauderdale Downtown Walkability Analysis. Fort
Lauderdale, Florida: Speck & Associates
ULI. (2004). Developing Around Transit: Streategues and Solutions that
Work. Washington, DC: ULI - the Urban Land Institute.
University of Florida GeoPlan Center. (2012, December 10). Generalized
Land Use Derived from 2012 Parcels - FDOT District 4. Retrieved
January 27, 2013, from Florida GeoDatabase Library: http://www.fgdl.org/
metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 - 2011, Detailed
Tables; generated by Chris Romano; using American FactFinder; http://
factfinder.census.gov/home; January 20, 2013
U.S. Census Bureau; Longitudinal Employer Housing Dynamics Program;
generated by Chris Romano; using Census OnTheMap; http://onthemap.
ces.census.gov/; January 20, 2013
Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom
in downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com.
The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.
com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-construction.html

Appendix 08

Appendix 1: Building Area and Construction Cost Calculations
North BuildinFootprint 26,700 sq. ft. Notes Funding
Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Developer's equity $40,000,000
Residential 8 213,600 171,000
assumed 80% to
exclude halls,
walls,
maintenance Land value $ 8,919,300
Office 5 133,500 107,000
assumed 80% Total equity $48,919,300
Retail 2 53,400 48,000 assumed 90%
Gross area: 15 400,500 326,000 FTA Grant (for sta $ 30,000,000
Bank Loan $120,507,200
South BuildinFootprint 55,700 sq. ft. from site plan Interest rate 7%
Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Term 20 yrs.
Residential 7 389,900 312,000 assumed 80% Points 0
Office 3 167,100 134,000
assumed 80%
Parking 2 111,400 Lease rates $/sq.ft./yr. Rentable sq. ft. Gross rent/yr.
Retail/Transit 3 167,100 100,000
assumed 60% due
to transit station Residential $16 483000 $7,728,000
Gross Area: 15 835,500 546,000 Office $18 241000 $4,338,000
Retail $20 148000 $2,960,000
Totals sq. ft.
Construction
cost / sq.ft. Total cost Check to ensure RAC zoning code is met
Residential 603,500 $165 $99,577,500 Units (avg. 1000 sOpen space requAt grade open space
Office 300,600 $165 $49,599,000 483 48,300 19,320.0
Retail 220,500 $190 $41,895,000 Rental rates based on current market values. Sources:
Parking 111,400 $75 $8,355,000
Total 1,236,000 $199,426,500
Construction cost sources:
Source: Parrish, L. (2013).
Broward County Property
Appraiser. Retrieved April 23,
2013, from http://199.27.243.5/
DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide. (2012, November).
Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.html
RSMeans Square Foot Cost Estimates. (2013). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from
http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/
Fort Lauderdale, FL Market Trends. (2012, September). Retrieved April 27, 2013, from
http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/HttpHandlers/Chart/MarketTrends.ashx?city=
Fort‐Lauderdale&state=Florida&#
Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom in
downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami
Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Estimated gross rent $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000
Estimated vacancy 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15%
Net rent $ 11,720,280 $ 11,870,540 $ 12,020,800 $ 12,171,060 $ 12,321,320 $ 12,471,580 $ 12,621,840 $ 12,772,100 $ 12,772,100 $ 12,772,100
Other income $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Effective Gross
Income $ 11,720,280 $ 11,870,540 $ 12,020,800 $ 12,171,060 $ 12,321,320 $ 12,471,580 $ 12,621,840 $ 12,772,100 $ 12,772,100 $ 12,772,100
Operating expenses $ 200,000
Assumed at
0.1% of
construction
costs, going
up by 0.01%
each year $ 250,000 $ 260,000 $ 280,000 $ 300,000 $ 320,000 $ 340,000 $ 360,000 $ 380,000 $ 400,000
Net Operating Income $ 11,520,280 $ 11,620,540 $ 11,760,800 $ 11,891,060 $ 12,021,320 $ 12,151,580 $ 12,281,840 $ 12,412,100 $ 12,392,100 $ 12,372,100
Debt service $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027
Cash Flow Before
Taxes (BTCF) $ 145,253 $ 245,513 $ 385,773 $ 516,033 $ 646,293 $ 776,553 $ 906,813 $ 1,037,073 $ 1,017,073 $ 997,073
Mortgage principal
repaid $ 2,939,523 $ 3,145,290 $ 3,365,460 $ 3,601,042 $ 3,853,115 $ 4,122,833 $ 4,411,432 $ 4,720,232 $ 5,050,648 $ 5,404,193
Depreciation $ 5,113,500
equal
amounts / 39
yrs $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500
Amortization points $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Leasing Commissions $ 820,420
7%, for 3
years $ 830,938 $ 841,456 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Tenant Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Taxable Income $ (2,994,396) $ (2,799,148) $ (2,589,496) $ (1,512,458) $ (1,260,385) $ (990,667) $ (702,068) $ (393,268) $ (62,852) $ 290,693
Taxes $ -
Assumed
20% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,139
After Tax Cash Flow
(ATCF) $ 145,253 $ 245,513 $ 385,773 $ 516,033 $ 646,293 $ 776,553 $ 906,813 $ 1,037,073 $ 1,017,073 $ 938,934
Loan to Value Ratio 0.590 0.588 0.587 0.586 0.585 0.584 0.582 0.581 0.579 0.577
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.013 1.022 1.034 1.045 1.057 1.068 1.080 1.091 1.089 1.088
Breakeven Point 0.770 0.774 0.774 0.776 0.777 0.778 0.780 0.781 0.782 0.784
Expense Ratio 0.017 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.030 0.031
Cash Equity $ 81,858,823 $ 85,004,113 $ 88,369,573 $ 91,970,615 $ 95,823,731 $ 99,946,564 $ 104,357,996 $ 109,078,227 $ 114,128,876 $ 119,533,069
Cash on Cash 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.008
After Tax Return on
Equity 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.008
Return on Asset 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062
Value $ 164,575,428.57 $ 166,007,714.29 $ 168,011,428.57 $ 169,872,285.71 $ 171,733,142.86 $ 173,594,000.00 $ 175,454,857.14 $ 177,315,714.29 $ 177,030,000.00 $ 176,744,285.71
Appendix 2: 20 Year Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis

Year
Estimated gross rent
Estimated vacancy
Net rent
Other income
Effective Gross
Income
Operating expenses
Net Operating Income
Debt service
Cash Flow Before
Taxes (BTCF)
Mortgage principal
repaid
Depreciation
Amortization points
Leasing Commissions
Tenant Improvements
Taxable Income
Taxes
After Tax Cash Flow
(ATCF)
Loan to Value Ratio
Debt Coverage Ratio
Breakeven Point
Expense Ratio
Cash Equity
Cash on Cash
After Tax Return on
Equity
Return on Asset
Value
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
$15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000
15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%
$ 12,772,100 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 12,772,100 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 12,922,360 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620 $ 13,072,620
$ 420,000 $ 440,000 $ 460,000 $ 480,000 $ 500,000 $ 520,000 $ 540,000 $ 560,000 $ 580,000 $ 600,000
$ 12,352,100 $ 12,482,360 $ 12,462,360 $ 12,442,360 $ 12,422,360 $ 12,552,620 $ 12,532,620 $ 12,512,620 $ 12,492,620 $ 12,472,620
$ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 11,375,027 $ 10,630,867
$ 977,073 $ 1,107,333 $ 1,087,333 $ 1,067,333 $ 1,047,333 $ 1,177,593 $ 1,157,593 $ 1,137,593 $ 1,117,593 $ 1,841,753
$ 5,782,487 $ 6,187,261 $ 6,620,369 $ 7,083,795 $ 7,579,661 $ 8,110,237 $ 8,677,954 $ 9,285,411 $ 9,935,389 $ 9,886,706
$ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500 $ 5,113,500
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 668,987 $ 1,073,761 $ 1,506,869 $ 1,970,295 $ 2,466,161 $ 2,996,737 $ 3,564,454 $ 4,171,911 $ 4,821,889 $ 4,773,206
$ 133,797 $ 214,752 $ 301,374 $ 394,059 $ 493,232 $ 599,347 $ 712,891 $ 834,382 $ 964,378 $ 954,641
$ 843,275 $ 892,581 $ 785,959 $ 673,274 $ 554,101 $ 578,245 $ 444,702 $ 303,211 $ 153,215 $ 887,112
0.575 0.573 0.571 0.569 0.566 0.564 0.561 0.558 0.554 0.555
1.086 1.097 1.096 1.094 1.092 1.104 1.102 1.100 1.098 1.173
0.785 0.786 0.788 0.789 0.790 0.792 0.793 0.794 0.796 0.747
0.033 0.034 0.036 0.037 0.039 0.040 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.046
$ 125,315,556 $ 131,502,817 $ 138,123,187 $ 145,206,982 $ 152,786,643 $ 160,896,880 $ 169,574,834 $ 178,860,244 $ 188,795,633 $ 198,682,339
0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.009
0.007 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.004
0.062 0.063 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063
$ 176,458,571.43 $ 178,319,428.57 $ 178,033,714.29 $ 177,748,000.00 $ 177,462,285.71 $ 179,323,142.86 $ 179,037,428.57 $ 178,751,714.29 $ 178,466,000.00 $ 178,180,285.71

Appendix 3: 20 Year Amortization Plan
Loan Amortization Schedule
Loan amount $120,507,200 Scheduled payment $ 11,375,027.18
Annual interest rate 7.00 % Scheduled number of payments 20
Loan period in years 20 Actual number of payments 20
Number of payments per year 1 (see note below) Total early payments $ -
Start date of loan 1/1/15 Total interest $ 106,993,343.62
Optional extra payments
Lender name:
Pmt.
No.
Payment Date Beginning Balance
Scheduled
Payment
Extra Payment Total Payment Principal Interest Ending Balance Cumulative Interest
1 1/1/16 $ 120,507,200.00 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 2,939,523.18 $ 8,435,504.00 $ 117,567,676.82 $ 8,435,504.00
2 1/1/17 $ 117,567,676.82 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 3,145,289.80 $ 8,229,737.38 $ 114,422,387.02 $ 16,665,241.38
3 1/1/18 $ 114,422,387.02 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 3,365,460.09 $ 8,009,567.09 $ 111,056,926.92 $ 24,674,808.47
4 1/1/19 $ 111,056,926.92 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 3,601,042.30 $ 7,773,984.88 $ 107,455,884.63 $ 32,448,793.35
5 1/1/20 $ 107,455,884.63 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 3,853,115.26 $ 7,521,911.92 $ 103,602,769.37 $ 39,970,705.28
6 1/1/21 $ 103,602,769.37 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 4,122,833.33 $ 7,252,193.86 $ 99,479,936.05 $ 47,222,899.13
7 1/1/22 $ 99,479,936.05 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 4,411,431.66 $ 6,963,595.52 $ 95,068,504.39 $ 54,186,494.66
8 1/1/23 $ 95,068,504.39 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 4,720,231.87 $ 6,654,795.31 $ 90,348,272.51 $ 60,841,289.96
9 1/1/24 $ 90,348,272.51 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 5,050,648.11 $ 6,324,379.08 $ 85,297,624.41 $ 67,165,669.04
10 1/1/25 $ 85,297,624.41 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 5,404,193.47 $ 5,970,833.71 $ 79,893,430.94 $ 73,136,502.75
11 1/1/26 $ 79,893,430.94 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 5,782,487.02 $ 5,592,540.17 $ 74,110,943.92 $ 78,729,042.91
12 1/1/27 $ 74,110,943.92 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 6,187,261.11 $ 5,187,766.07 $ 67,923,682.81 $ 83,916,808.99
13 1/1/28 $ 67,923,682.81 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 6,620,369.38 $ 4,754,657.80 $ 61,303,313.43 $ 88,671,466.79
14 1/1/29 $ 61,303,313.43 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 7,083,795.24 $ 4,291,231.94 $ 54,219,518.19 $ 92,962,698.73
15 1/1/30 $ 54,219,518.19 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 7,579,660.91 $ 3,795,366.27 $ 46,639,857.28 $ 96,758,065.00
16 1/1/31 $ 46,639,857.28 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 8,110,237.17 $ 3,264,790.01 $ 38,529,620.11 $ 100,022,855.01
17 1/1/32 $ 38,529,620.11 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 8,677,953.77 $ 2,697,073.41 $ 29,851,666.34 $ 102,719,928.42
18 1/1/33 $ 29,851,666.34 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 9,285,410.54 $ 2,089,616.64 $ 20,566,255.80 $ 104,809,545.06
19 1/1/34 $ 20,566,255.80 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 11,375,027.18 $ 9,935,389.28 $ 1,439,637.91 $ 10,630,866.52 $ 106,249,182.97
20 1/1/35 $ 10,630,866.52 $ 11,375,027.18 $ - $ 10,630,866.52 $ 9,886,705.87 $ 744,160.66 $ - $ 106,993,343.62
Enter values Loan summary

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

More from John-Mark Palacios

Recently uploaded

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale