Station Area Plan Pilot Project

[Spokes]

Not about this site in particular, but relevant none the less

Transit-oriented development requires more than transit and development

Kaid Benfield
Director, Smart Growth Program, Washington, DC
Posted January 25, 2010

I attend a lot of meetings and read a lot of documents and policy language using the phrase “transit-oriented development,” frequently shortened to its acronym “TOD.” Most of us in the world of smart growth and urbanism love the concept, designed to make it more convenient for more people to use public transportation.

But I have come to believe that many of us are also misusing the phrase and, in the process, failing to be sufficiently ambitious in our advocacy. Example: a coalition NRDC belongs to has been working on proposals to define high-priority development locations, in order to fashion supportive policy. TOD is proposed as one of the categories, and defined in the latest draft by the proximity of the location to transit service. Fair enough; LEED for Neighborhood Development does the same thing, giving credit points for development that is within ¼ mile walking distance of bus transit service or within ½ mile walking distance of rail transit service.

But I would argue that we have really defined only transit-served development locations. The design process of orienting the development to transit requires more. For instance, there must be adequate density and a walkable environment; the densest, most walkable portions of the development should be placed closest to the transit stop; commercial and mixed-use buildings should also be close to the stop, with their primary entrances highly accessible to transit passengers, to facilitate multi-purpose trips; buildings and public spaces should be designed to make the area around the transit station or stop feel inviting, comfortable, and secure; design should make it easy for transit and bicycle transfers and vehicle drop-offs; single-family residences may be placed a bit farther away; and so forth. While placing development near transit is good, orienting the development to the transit is better, and more effective for creating a sustainable, well-functioning community.

Now, I’m not a designer, and I’ve already told you about as much as I really know about what makes TOD work. But, fortunately, you needn’t be constrained by my limited expertise: A large number of resources are available to flesh out the topic.

For example, you can consult the handy and informative Station Area Planning Manual prepared in 2007 by Reconnecting America for the San Francisco Bay Area. The 36-page manual provides design and policy guidance for seven types of transit stations from city and suburban centers to neighborhoods to corridors. (Paragraph bite: “In order to create a station area that encourages transit use and TOD, the public space around stations must be inviting and usable. A successful public space is easy to walk through, is comfortable to sit and visit, and has attractive features such as water fountains and public art. Great public spaces often include retail . . .”) I was recently reminded of the publication by an interesting post concerning parks and public spaces near transit, written by Ben Welle on the Trust for Public Land’s City Parks Blog.

To cite just a couple of the many additional publications available, Minnesota’s Metropolitan Council, serving the Twin Cities region, has produced a Guide for Transit Oriented Development that is excellent as a shorter, less technical overview (Sample caption: “Attractive pedestrian environment, with street-facing buildings and a network of pedestrian-scaled streets connecting the transit stop or station with the TOD’s commercial, civic and residential areas.”). One of the better PowerPoint presentations I have seen on the subject was prepared by PB Placemaking for a transit corridor in the City of North Las Vegas (“TOD planning principles: greater density than community average; a mix of uses; quality pedestrian environment; a defined center”).

Straying for a moment from the subject at hand to venture into the world of personal pet peeves, I have to say that I find myself one of a dying breed in my love of and insistence upon precise, descriptive language. That’s a tempting but dangerous rant for me to begin here, so I won’t, but let’s just say that it isn’t by accident that I found my way to law school back in the day. And I offer TOD as exhibit A for my case that thinking carefully about why we use particular phrases and words can make a difference, and in this case an improvement, in thinking about how to improve our communities.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kb...opment_re.html

[bcwessel]

Five keys to successful retail in a transit-oriented development
Robert Steutville | New Urban Network | 23 March 2011 | LINK

From Fruitvale’s experience, Pace has found “there are at least five factors that lead to successful retail anywhere, but in particular at a TOD.” He identifies them as follows:

1. Location: “Retail needs to be where people are, unless you are building a megamall with box/department store/grocery store draws,” Pace says. “In a parking-restricted, walkable urban area, retail needs to be located near job centers, transit centers, or dense housing. Preferably all three. The Fruitvale Transit Village is in a good location.”

2. Density: “Retail needs to be supported by either dense housing or dense jobs (dense being relative to the amount of retail being installed), preferably both. While the dense housing piece is taking time here (for macroeconomic reasons), we’ve been very successful at filling the Village with people working, going to school, visiting community centers, or receiving community services. We have probably over 500 jobs on site, and thousands of people receive services here every month. Retail is a complement to the health, financial, and educational services people get at Fruitvale Village. High school kids eat a lot.”

Don’t build too much

3. Don’t build too much retail too soon: “Everyone wants a lot of retail for the jobs, the sales tax, the small business opportunities. Retail doesn’t exist in a vacuum, however, but in the context of the center and the neighborhood. If you build too much, you’re either going to have vacant space or under-performing tenants, or both. Like parking, build less retail space than you think you need. Better to have too much demand than too much supply in a tight urban envelope.”

4. Mix retail and services: “We evolved from a pure retail strategy on the ground floor to one with a mix of traditional retail and community and professional services. For example, we have a State Farm insurance office, and our children’s counseling clinic and high school both have ground-floor facilities as well as second-floor facilities. Altogether, almost 25 percent of the ground-floor retail is being used for non-traditional uses and an expansion of the community services presence on the second floor.”

5. Recruit quality retailers: “Our first crop of retailers included some home runs and a lot of strikes. Fifty percent of our original (2004) ground-floor tenants are still here and thriving. Twenty-five percent of our ground-floor tenants are expanded community services. Twenty-five percent are new retail tenants since 2006-2007. Our well-documented early problems in 2004-2006 were with warm bodies we had signed up in 2004 who weren’t necessarily ready to operate a successful small business in a new mixed-use project. Unfortunately it takes a long time and a lot of money to work through or work out nonperforming or perpetually underperforming retail tenants. You can’t just wish them away. Finding the right tenants at the right price for a brand-new mixed-use center at a TOD involves a lot of guesswork. Our initial guesswork wasn’t as good on retail as on residential and community services, and it took us a couple of years to work through it.”

“Put those factors together at a TOD, and you’ll have a thriving mixed-use component to complement your other uses,” Pace says.