Citation
Railroad development planning

Material Information

Title:
Railroad development planning
Creator:
Kepmer, M. S.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Urban planning

Notes

Abstract:
With the decline of passenger rail service many cities are looking for ways to redevelop and make use of abandoned and under utilized railroad stations and land. There are two main reasons such redevelopment is taking place. First, redevelopment is a valid way of preserving historical railroad structures and maintaining a connection with the past of the city. The second reason for redevelopment in many cities ia that railroad stations and land are located within or adjacent to the Central Business District and are extremely valuable properties for development. In August, 1981, The Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the development of an 18.5 acre tract of land in Lower Downtown Denver which includes Denver's Union Station. It was the intent of this report to investiga~e past railroad redevelopments in order to determine if any patterns of programming become evident and if so, to develop a planning program which could be applied to proposed development at Denver Union Station. Evaluation would then be performed on the resulting development plan to test the program. Research began with analysis of 14 different railroad redevelopment projects ranging in scope from converting the 3,750 square foot Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Station in Lincoln, Nebraska into a branch bank, to the development of air rights over 83 acres of railroad yards on the edge of Chicago's Loop. A Department of Transportation study and an article by the Urban Land Institute indicated the positions of those respective organizations towards planning railroad redevelopment.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
i - v llidf
Ulfl7DD <31,7=1775
IRAIL10AP
REDEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
ft
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
MPCD 790 FALL 1981 M. S. KEMPER
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING ^ AURARfA LIBRARY


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Table of Contents 1
List of Figures 11
Executive Summary 111
I. Introduction 1
II. Program Hypothesis 2
A. Theories and case studies from literature
1. Little Rock, Arkansas 7
2. San Juan Capistrano, California 8
3. New London, Connecticut 10
4. Stamford, Connecticut 12
5. Savannah, Georgia 12
6. Chicago, Illinois 15
7. Ann Arbor, Michigan 19
8. Duluth, Minnesota 21
9. Minneapolis, Minnesota 23
10. Lincoln, Nebraska 2?
11. Newark, New Jersey 29
12. Cincinnati, Ohio 30
13. Providence, Rhode Island 32
14. Ogden, Utah 33
B. Program Hypothesis 37
C. Evaluation Criteria 44
III. Denver Union Terminal Project 46
IV. Development Alternatives 76
V. Alternative Evaluation 86
VI. Importance of Findings to Literature 87
VII. Importance of Findings to Downtown Denver
Development
Bibliography vi
A+P LD 1190 A78 1981 K45 Kemper, M. S.
Railroad redevelopment p1ann ing


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page No.
Redevelopment Projects
1. Little Rock/San Juan Capistrano 9
2. New London 11
3. Savannah 14
4. Chicago 17
5. Chicago 18
6. Ann Arbor 20
7. Duluth 22
8. Minneapolis 26
9. Lincoln 28
10. Ogden 34
11. Redevelopment Comparison 35
12. Redevelopment Comparison 36
13. Development Costs 48
Denver Conditions
14. General Land Use Patterns 49
15. Land Use and Density 50
16. Circulation 51
17. Pedestrian Links 52
18. Topographic Features/Floodplaln 53
19. Zoning Designations 59
20. Major Arterials AM 60
21. Major Arterials PM 61
22. Access to Lower Downtown 62
23. Bus iioutes 63
24. Walking Distances 64
25. Bike Paths 65
26. Projected Employment 66
27. Public Facilities 67
28. Denver Landmarks 68
29. Building Identiflcatlon 69
30. Major Hotels 70
31. Residential Buildings 71
32. Major Department Stores 72
33. Site Section 73
3^. Site Section 74
35. Skyline 75
Development Alternatives
36. Alternative Onei Low Rise 77
37. Alternative Two* Mid Rise 78
38. Alternative Threei High Rise 79
39. Alternative Four* High Rise/High Intensity 80
40. Birds Eye Vlewi Alternative Four 81


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the decline of passenger rail service many cities are looking for ways to redevelop and make use of abandoned and under utilized railroad stations and land. There are two main reasons such redevelopment is taking place. First, redevelopment is a valid way of preserving historical railroad structures and maintaining a connection with the past of the city. The second reason for redevelopment in many cities is that railroad stations and land are located within or adjacent to the Central Business District and are extremely valuable properties for development.
In August, 1981# The Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the development of an 18.5 acre tract of land in Lower Downtown Denver which Includes Denver's Union Station.
It was the Intent of this report to investigate past railroad redevelopments in order to determine if any patterns of programming become evident and if so, to develop a planning program which could be applied to proposed development at Denver Union Station. Evaluation would then be performed on the resulting development plan to test the program.
Research began with analysis of 14 different railroad redevelopment projects ranging in scope from converting the 3,750 square foot Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Station in Lincoln, Nebraska into a branch bank, to the development of air rights over 83 acres of railroad yards on the edge of Chicago's Loop. A Department of Transportation study and an article by the Urban Land Institute indicated the positions of those respective organizations towards planning railroad redevelopment.
The Department of Transporfcatlon has identified the following nine components for planning a successful railroad station reuses
1. Adaptive Reuse Processt An explanation of the new uses for the station and how and why they were chosen.
2. Historical and Architectural Descriptions A description of the architectural composition and the station* history.
3. Rehabilitation and Design Analysiss An evaluation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken.
4. Market and Economic Analysiss Local conditions which affected the selection of the new uses.
5. Funding Strategy and Alternativess What financing techniques were used and what alternative methods were available.
6. Transportation Componentss A discussion of available transportation services plus what changes are required.
7. Urban Revltalizationi An evaluation of the project as a catalyst for further revitalization in the area.


8. Community Involvement! The Involvement of local citizens and the local government In response to the project.
9. Other Preservation Considerations! Other factors which may be Influential on the acceptance or rejection of the project.
Among problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation were the difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the Inability of some projects to generate revenue sufficient to cover operating costs, and the inability of some to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking.
The Urban Land Institute addressed the questions of what type of facilities are likely to locate in intercity rail station areas and how can specific cities plan for the development associated with rail station improvements. Basically, the Urban Land Institute said the development was dependent on the city type (major regional center, satellite cities, independent markets) and the local market (weak, strong, unproved). The basic land uses considered werei offices, hotels, retailing, exhibition hall/conventlon center, and parking.
Based on the above information, a program was developed for Denvers Union Station. Attempts to quantify important criteria proved difficult except for either positive or negative Impacts. The result was the development of a redevelopment guide versus a redevelopment program. Based on this guide and the existing conditions In Denver, development alternatives were prepared. Three basic alternatives were prepared based on the same program but different scales. A low-rise, mld-rlse, and high-rise solution were explored and as a result of their evaluations, a high rise/hlgh intensity solution was also prepared.
Evaluations of each development alternative were prepared based on previously stated criteria. Good and bad features of each solution were discussed In relation to Denver. Results indicated that a higher intensity use should be explored than was previously considered desirable.
The basic Importance of the study In relation to the existing literature was the discovery that no deflnatlve theory exists as a program for planning railroad redevelopment. What does exist can be prepared as a guide for the direction redevelopment should take. The literature provides numerous criteria which affect the success of railroad rehabilitation projects and when developed as a guide, these criteria can give early indications of a projects' success of failure and what redevelopments have taken place in similar situations.
The relationship of the study to development in Lower Downtown Denver is important in that it indicates a project of higher scale and higher density may be feasible/desirable than


previously thought. The redevelopment guide allows one to compare a proposed project with results obtained In similar conditions and make assumptions as to the projects viability.


INTRODUCTION


INTRODUCTION
Abandoned, and underutilized railroad stations and railroad yards have become focal points, In urban planning, for revltal-lzatlon/redevelopment projects in many cities. In August, 1981, the Denver Union Terminal Railway Company solicited development proposals for the 18.5 acre tract of land In Denver which Includes Union Station,
It 1b the intent of this report to Investigate other railroad redevelopment projects in order to determine what programming patterns, if any, emerge as constants in planning for such redevelopment. When a program has been determined, a test case, using the Denver Union Terminal, will be prepared to evaluate the project.
This report is organized into seven sections, the first of' which is this Introduction. Section II is concerned with the program hypothesis. It Includes research into specific projects as well as publications by the Department of Transportation and the Urban Land Institute on railroad redevelopment planning.
A sample program will be established along with criteria for evaluating any projects developed.
The specific factors applicable to the Denver Union Station project will be discussed in Section III with supporting graphic
Section IV consists of development alternatives for Denver Union Station, consistent with the generated program and local conditions. Evaluations of the alternatives follows in Section V, including comments on how well the alternatives matched the program.
The findings and their impacts on both the researched literature and Denver downtown development are discussed in Sections VI and VII respectively.


PROGRAM
HYPOTHESIS


PROGRAM HYPOTHESIS
theories
The United States Department of Transportation and the Urban Land Institute have been involved with railroad redevelopment planning for a number of years. In Recycling Historic Railroad Stations the Department of Transportation reviews eight railroad station redevelopment projects and evaluates each according to major components for planning a successful railroad station reuse.
The nine oomponenrts are i
1. Adaptive Reuse Process - an explanation of the new uses of the station, why they were selected, and how the project was carried out. (This import of this for redevelopment planning is to be sure the new use(s) is compatible with the area and station before attempting the project.)
2. Historical and Architectural Description - a description of the architectural composition and a discussion of the stations history and development. (A knowledge of the stations history and development is important so that decisions affecting the strueture/character of the building can be carefully weighed during the programming design.)
3. Rehabilitation and Design Analysis - an evaluation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken during the reuse process to adapt the station to Its new uses.
(Realization that certian design treatments and construction techniques can be harmful and/or not applicable to the existing situation.)
4. Market and Economic Analysis - local market and economic conditions which affected the selection of the new uses along with a discussion of rehabilitation and operating costs, (A detailed market analysis is important both to Insure project feaslblllty/success and also to help with financing.)
5. Funding Strategy and Alternatives - which financing techniques were used, what alternative financing methods were available, and the prospects for future federal funding for future aspects of the rehabilitation process. (In cases of a static or depressed economic situation, knowledge of financing alternatives and potential public funding can
help assure the success of the project.)
6. Transportation Components - a discussion of the existing transportation services avallabla at the station and the future development potential including the development of lntermodal transportation facilities. (This component appears to be one of the most Important of all. Poor access (pedestrian, auto, mass transit) can kill an


successful project while good circulation patterns can enhance a mldeocre project and make It highly successful.
7. Urban Revitalization - an evaluation of the project as a catalyst for other public and private Improvements In the area, and of secondary impacts or benefits on housing, retail, employment, and environment in the area. (A successful project tends to encourage surrounding development and redevelopment of a station In an area of existing growth and preservation Is generally successful.)
8. Community Involvement - a discussion of the involvement of local citizens (private groups) in response to the project and the local governments role in implementing the project or coordination of programs with the development plan of
the station. (Approval by local citizen groups and favorable local government opinion can assist in project success.)
9. other Preservation Considerations - other factors which may
or may not have contributed to the projeots sucoess, Including the need for state or local legeslatlon, Incentives for private development of the project, energy conservation measures and provisions for the access of the handicapped. (Delays while waiting for necessary legislation or Inability to meet accessibility requirements can cause the failure of a renovation project. This Is especially true where public funds are involved.)
While all nine components, as listed by the Department of Transportation are valid considerations for railroad redevelopment planning, some have seemed to have more impact on the success of a project than others. The transportatlon/clrculation component, the reuse selected, and a combination of the market/ economic conditions with revitalization effects In the area seem to be the most important for project success. Among the major problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation study werei difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the Inability of some projects to generate adequate Income to cover operating expenses, and the inability of some projects to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking.
The Urban Land Institute(ULI) was asked by the Federal Railroad Administration(FRA), upon the creation of the Northeast Corridor Improvement ProJect(NECIP) in 1976, to address the following two questionsi (1) what types of land uses/facilitles are likely to locate in Intercity rail station areas and, (2) how can specific cities plan for the development associated to rail and station improvements? In order to answer those questions the Urban Land Institute conducted interviews with persons associated with the real estate location process and reviewed literature and research on transportation and business locations. Also, the ULI conducted a review In depth of a weak real estate market (Newark, New Jersey) a strong marketplace (Stamford, Connecticut) and an unproved market area (Providence, Rhode Island) in order to respond to the second question.


Each station area was recognized as having its own advantages and disadvantages which would Influence its development potential. However, the ULI felt it was possible to identify common elements to station sites which must be considered in assessing the appropriate use patterns.
In the Northeast Corrldor(NEC) rail passenger stations are generally located in downtown areas. Firms continue to locate in downtown areas because of amenities available, such as efficient transportation, proximity to clients and service firms, and the presence of hotels, restaurants, etc. However, In poor markets the amenities of downtown may not be enough to overoome the Increased costs of looatlng downtown.
Two basic competitive relationships are associated with downtown environments. The first Is competition which occurs between downtowns Manhattan and Stamford or Newark for example.
The second competitive situation exists between downtowns and suburban locations - such as the case of Denver.
Isolation of the rail station from the vigorous downtown market usually hinders station development. Stations In Baltimore and Washington D.C. for example, are located quite a distance from CBD areas and lack In a vibrant, growing enviroment . Station development potential can not be viewed separate from local market conditions. The attraction of a rail station area cannot be viewed In Isolation from local market conditions. While certain uses appear appropriate for a station area, they will not appear In the face of a poor market.
The attractiveness of rail station areas for development greatly depends upon the physical conditions of surrounding structures and the nature ox their uses. Traditionally, rail stations create situations not conductive to first class uses such as office space of retailing (noise, barriers, unsight-lyness, etc.). Some cities have overcome the negative aspects of a rail station environment by a predominance of other activities (air rights developments and high quality developments.)
Improvements to a rail system are more likely to result in changes around the station than in the station itself. Identifying appropriate uses for the station area must include an analysis of how different uses enhance or Interfere with rail operation and other land uses. As an example, while parking garages or lots provide the auto access essential for station operation and commercial development, ill-designed parking can repel commercial activity by creating a sterile and dangerous environment.
|.xv
In studying the Northeast Corridor the UU categorized cities Into three traditional types«
Major Regional Centers - The historical, financial, administrative, and cultural centers of their region. Major banka, financial companies, government offices, universities, and utility companies as well as headquarters of major industrial and service firms tend to locate here.


'• - 1 •
Satellite Cities - Cities close to major regional centers, to permit commuting and/or easy business travel.
Independent Markets - Smaller cities which serve a small regional market and are toofar from major regional centers to become satellite cities.
The Urban Land Institute examined potential development In the station areas of each of the three categories of cities. The analysis concentrated on activity within a quarter mile radius around the station. The major land uses Investigated werei office, hotels, retaining, exhibition hall/conventlon center, and parking.
The most appropriate use around station areas was determined to be office spaoe. Offices probably offer the best support to rail stations in terms of passenger patronage and improvement of rail station areas. Only parking might provide greater support but its economic and tax multiplier benefit to the city and station area would be minimal. Headquarters and corporate offices are most likely In major retail centers. Satellite cities may attract corporate headquarters under certain conditions. Major retail centers are logical locations for service firms which depend on headquarters and government agencies for clients. Eventually, when a critical mass of clients establish In satellite cities, major service firms will establish permanent offices In satellite cities. Backroom office firms (accountants, etc.) have generally chosen satellite cities for a location because of cheaper costs while Improved data communication systems have allowed them to maintain contacts with clients in major regional centers. Major regional centers are prime locations for government offices. Satellite and independent markets should be attractive to backroom operations connected with many state and federal operations.
Hotels rely on four groups of travelers for patronage.
For downtown hotels, the major market Is the business traveler who Is visiting nearby offices or other facilities. A second major source of business Is conventioneers. Transients comprise a third market but not a significant one for downtown hotels.
The fourth type of business is resorts or entertainment. Rail location will be favorable only If businessed and/or government offices are all ready looated there. A hotel isolated from business destinations would survive only in an extremely tight market as a hotel of last resort.
Central place theory states that speciality retailing dependent on the entire regional market will locate in the center of a region to be most accessible to all customers. Retailing feasibility for the rail station area depends upon atmosphere in the area and accessibility by several transportation modes. Satellite cities would operate as above but independent market stations would have little retailing potential beyond that related to traveler needs and essential services.


If a market exists for an exhibition hall/convention center, the rail station should be considered as a potential location because of the attributes of the station in relation to access.
Parking should be designed and located so that it does not inhibit development potential in the future. Structured parking can form a barrier between the station and surrounding developable parcels of land. The optimal approach would be to provide parking within adjacent commercial or other structures, if possible. Parking garages could be built to accomodate future air rights development on either public or private property.
It is important, at this time, to recognize a basic difference among the stations analyzed. The projects reviewed by the Department of Transportation Involved stations which were either abandoned or underutilized by the railroads while those under discussion by the ULI were highly used transportation facilities located in the northeast United States. It is expected that this difference highly affects the types of uses which would be successful.
The following pages contain brief reviews of fourteen different railroad redevelopment projects. Two charts follow comparing certain aspects of the projects which are felt to be Important in railroad redevelopment planning.


The 100,000 square foot Little Hock Union Station was built In 1921 to replace an earlier station which burned down In 1920.
The adaptive reuse Is the result of two separate efforts; the first begun In 1972, and the second In 1977, which Is still In progress. The early efforts were under the direction of a local architectural firm but the later work was without benefit of an architect. The present developers relied on engineers and contractors drawings for changes. As a result there was a lack of coordination and no master plan was developed for the proposed renovation.
The station has been renovated Into restaurants and offices and also serves as the local Amtrak station.
Financing caused major problems in the development but were overcome although construction proceeded at a slower rate than desired..
Little Rock Station Is located approximately one-half mile from the State Capital grounds and one mile from the Central Business District of the city, however due to topography and street configuration the station appears remote from both areas. Bus service is within walking distance but because of the configuration people are more likely to use taxis.
Parking is also a problem with this development in that location, not quantity Is poor.
The project has had some positive impact on revitalizing the surrounding neighborhood and helped boost the local commercial market for other small shops in the area.
This project shows the problems encountered when visual connection and circulation between the project and existing activity centers is poor. It also shows the need for advanced detailed planning and the effects of the lack of planning.


Constructed In 1894, the San Ju&n Capistrano Depot was recycled In 1975 Into a restaurant, gift shop, and train station. The success of the restaurant Is based on three factorsi 1) the location Is Ideal (heart of a tourist area); 2) the operation Is well managed and closely supervised; 3) and a design concept which utilized the hlstorlo buildings contrasted with new modem construction. The station platform connects to railroad cars, which forms part of the restaurant, and maintains the railroad character of the area.
Rail service continues to the station, and Is expanding, with Information provided by restaurant personnel since Amtrak operated no facilities on site.
The new use If the depot Includes a 150 seat restaurant, a 130 seat lounge, patio and party facilities, and a gift shop.
To accomodate these uses the depot was combined with nine period railroad cars to form the entire complex. The Image of two trains Is provided along the station platform, which serves as the circulation corridor.
The renovation, one of the first in the city, served as a major impetus for further revitalization in the area and a major local attraction.
There has been considerable interest In the business community In revitalization in the area around the Mission San Juan Capistrano. When asked why this is needed, the answer Is that it is "in defense".
The Capistrano Depot Is located approximately 600 feet from the main commercial and retail area of the city. The success of the revitalization has created an incentive for the city to fund two development studies on parking and circulation In the downtown.
This project has been extremely successful both economically and in a preservation sense.


SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Floor plan showing existing depot and freight house, new platform and railcars.


The New London Union Station built in 1886 was scheduled for demolition in the early 1970's. As a result, a local non-profit group was formed in 1973 to push for the preservation and adaptive reuse of what was considered a nationally significant building (listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1971). A preservation architect was hired with the intent of finding a new use which would save the station.
The feasibility study clearly Justified the eoonomlc viability of renovating the station as a multi-use facility. The study (which was subsequently executed) Included maintaining Amtrak rail facilities while developing additional areas for rental Income that would Justify restoration of the entire building.
Studies indicated a market for a good restaurant in the downtown area and also a requirement for additional office space.
When no developers come forward in response to the studies, the preservation group requested the architect to act as developer, which he did.
Redevelopment occured along the lines of the original study, but over a longer time frame than expected as a result of financing difficulties,
Amtrak's commitment to the station was a major factor in the projects success. It created the basis for developing an lntermodal transportation center at the site.
The revitalization of Union Station has stimulated new office building and other reliabilltatlon in the general neighborhood. It is a focal point of the revitalized portion of the CBD. The restaurant has brought an influx of people and retail business to the area and is regarded as an excellent attraction. Union Station has set an example of successful adaptive reuse which changed the opinion of the city government from desiring demolition (for a period of 13 years) to desiring additional renovation in the area.
to


The development of the Stamford, Connecticut Station takes place In a very healthy economy. In the last decade 5»5 million square feet of office space has been constructed with another 7 million square feet planned for construction by 1985.
In this case the Urban Land Institute was asked to focus on appropriate land uses In the station area, linkages with the rail station, and means of mitigating growing traffic congestion.
Improvements to the Stamford Station total $48 million and will Include a new station built over the tracks, a 800 car parking garage, and lntermodal transportation services.
The station Is located In the southern oortion of the city, separated from the central business district by railroad tracks and the Connecticut Tumplde.
Reviewing the market and location, ULI recommended that mixed uses should be encouraged In the railroad area. The most appropriate uses would be complementary to the existing office area north of the tracks, yet would not generate excess traffic.
The ULI team viewed the tracks and turnpike as a buffer not a barrier which could provide benefits to the city (protecting residential neighborhoods and minimizing traffic loads).


V
In 197** the Chamber of Commerce In Savannah, Georgia began the renovation of the 100 year old (187*0 Central of Georgia Passenger Station Into a new visitors center for the city.
The tourist Industry underwent a dramatic Increase In the early 1970's and the Chamber wanted a building with adequate parking In a location close to major highway access to the city. The Passenger Depot met these criteria and was envisioned by the Chamber of Commerce as an Impetus to upgrade the commercial area in which It was located.
The city of Savannah Independently acquired and developed an adjacent parking lot which Is partially utilized by the visitors center. It was largely due to the willingness of the Mayor and the City Council to lease the building under reasonable terms that the projeot was achieved.
The new visitors center houses an Information booth, exhibit area, lounge, and small theatre with offices and a board room for the Chamber on the second floor.
The railroad station has been credited with stabilizing the western edge of the Savannah Historic District and has stimulated Interest In nearby restoration projects.


The redevelopment of 83 acres of obsolete railroad yards at the edge of Chicago is Loop, Illinois Center, Is an air rights project of such complexity that the master plan Is only an open-ended development strategy to link all buildings and facilities via a three-layer circulation system.
The first phase of building Is now being completed with two more phases to be completed within the next 15 years.
At present, One and Two Illinois Center, buildings by the office of Mlel Van Der Rohe, The Standard Oil of Indiana Headquarters by Edward Durell Stone, The Chicago Hyatt House, and an 800 unit condominium on Lake Shore Drive constitute phase I of the projecc.
The Illinois Central Railroad had first contemplated air rights development over the parcel as early as 1929* The first development built over the yards, the Prudential Building, occured In the early 1950's. In the early 196o*s, Outer Drive East, a 900 unit apartment building was built on air rights but neither of these buildings was thought to be part of any large scale development.
When the railroad first sought to sale these air rights the city sued claiming the railroad had the right only to the use of the land and not to the air rights. The Supreme Court of Illinois gave the air rights to the railroad and by the mil 1960's, three separate developers held options for air rights over various pieces of land. The city officials began work on a set of guidelines In order to have some form of planned development versus a piecemeal approach.
According to a city statute a Plan Development Ordinance had to be approved by the City Council and the Department of Planning and Development.before development could take place. The city worked closely with various developers and their architects on the guidelines and the resulting ordinance was generally acceptable to all parties concerned, The ordinance sets up maximum land coverage, maximum square footage of specific types of uses, the distribution of thses uses throughout the site, and outlines the responsibilities of the various parties Involved for public improvements. ,
The master plan for the 83 acre site was developed as a Joint effort of the remaining two developers and the city. The master plan exists as generalized land use and maximum square footage diagrams. Due to the nature of the development, lease agreements for land acquisition, fluid the time spam of development an alternative to predetermined development was chosen by the firm of Solomon, Cordwell and Buenz Inc. and the Office of Mies Van Der Rohe, Joint planners. Development was broken Into three phases to correspond realistically to the construction of on-slte utilities and necessary access roads.


The master plan was conceived as a three-layer circulation network connecting all development. The lowest level(ground) Is a truck and service llnkj the Intermediate level Is for through trafflcj the upper level Is for local access Into the project.
The railroad Is responsible for construction of the on-grade service level, the city Is responsible for the Intermediate street level, and the developers are responsible for the local access.
Inserted Into the Intermediate level Is a pedestrian walkway along which most retail development would take place. This level also connects Into building lobbies, suburban commuter station at the edge of the site, and Into a proposed subway extension.In the middle of the site. The remainder of the three levels - where no access roads exist - will be parking, accessible from both the Intermediate and upper levels. The only portion that exists so far Is that which is located under buildings which have been built.
The developers see a potential for a mix of uses that goes beyond the resldentlal/commerclal/office relationship. They hope to draw people from other parts of the city by encouraging cultural and recreational development In the area. Only recreational portions were originally planned.
This project is on a larger one than most reviewed and shows planning on a large scale which allows for changes In market demands over a period of time. Being on such a large scale the planners were content to establish parameters for the development, without specific areas required or located on the site.


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENTS
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCD 790 FALL 1901
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M S KEMPER


The Michigan Central Railroad Depot built in 1886 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan was recycled by a private developer into a successful sea food restaurant. The Depot also continues to provide service for Amtrak.
The building contains 13*750 square feet with a net floor area of 8,000 square feet. It was redeveloped at a cost of $1*357*000 or an average cost of $100 per square foot. The cost of new restaurant construction was averaging $60 to $70 per square foot.
The station is located outside of the central community and university areas of town but remains economically viable in that it attracts a clientele willing to travel farther in less trafficked areas for occasional "special event" activities. The factor stresses that only certain types of uses can function in a relatively inconvenient location.
This project clearly shows that proposed uses for a station must be oarefully analyzed for their market demand in the given location to determine if the project is viable.
One of the major problems with this projeot was a lack of parking on site. It was solved by Joint procurement of new parking by the developer and Amtrak. It is interertlng to note that parking is generally a major problem with railroad station rehabilitation no matter the scale since the stations were built before the oil, rubber, tire explosion and there was no need for parking.
The Joint use of the station offers opportunities and constraints. It offers Increased exposure for both but there are conflicts in parking requirements. Even with this conflict additional transportation modes (bus service) have been recommended to Increase usage at the station, (also increasing parking requirements)


N

STQfUOt
ANEA
1 ■» /


KITCHEN
~IL._
DMNG AREA
0
Floor plan after Phase II of development.
ANN ARBOR
J
O


From 1973 to 1977 eight city and regional cultural groups acted as developers and transformed the I892 Duluth Union Depot Into a County Heritage and Arts Center. The facility Includes museum and exhibition space In the original depot, a transportation museum In a new tralnshed behind the depot, and a theater/ performing arts center In a new addition to the west of the depot.
The station reuse has had a significant Impact on revitalizing that particular area of downtown Duluth and has helped expand the tourist Industry. There have been several renovations In the area since the project Including a new library and hotel.
The site is close to local bus routes and Amtrak service has started up adjacent to the site.
The Duluth Union Depot Is located on the edge of the Duluth central business district which Is Important for the function* served by the present facility, which are dependent on the general accessibility of the site. For most facilities there Isn’t a better site In Duluth to be located.


DULUTH
RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENTS
UNIVERSITY OP COLORADO AT D1NVIR 7S* PALL 1SR1
COLLI OB OP INVIRONIMNTAL OS
M S KR
=J


The Depot Park Development Team is one of a group of developers who submitted proposals for the development of the 10 acre Milwaukee Road Depot In Minneapolis.
This group of developers expressed concern for a development proposal which would take advantage of the nature of existing structure and site. As states "Its location between the burgeoning Central Business District, the Industry Square Rlverfrant, and the new stadium make It a corridor through which we may begin to rediscover the Mississippi and the birthplace of Minneapolis," There are some obvious similarities with the situation In Denver which will be discussed In more detail later.
Among the desires of the developers was to preserve the existing structures} return the depot to an active use which reflects the culture and lifestyle of the Minneapolis community} to integrate the development Into a 24 hour city} and to encourage and stimulate redevelopment in the surrounding area.
The property is highly accessible, located at the intersection of two major downtown arteries, one of which Is also a major bus route. A new bus transfer facility is plannes for construction across the street which will include a 1200 car parking garage.
There Is the desire to create new markets by bringing stadium visitors into downtown before and after games, drawing office tenants back into the city from suburbs, and creating a commercial core and public amenity that will generate new sources of tourist traffic.
The preliminary program for the 10 acre Phase I site Includes the followingi
Housing! 200 condominium units aimed for "second generation"
condominium buyers, empty nester couples, professionals and downtown oriented retired persons.
Unit Min
600-640 sf 740-780sf
900-940 sf (standard)
960-1000 sf (split)
1200-1250 sf (standard)
1400-1600 sf (penthouse)
15# studio 25# 1 bedroom 20# 1 bedroom/den 20# 1 bedroom/den 10# 2 bedroom 10# 2 bedroom/den
Concept! Maximize views of river and city. Connected to rest of development to take advantage of facilities in entire development.
Est. Costi $25,000,000
r


Commercial Officei 400,00 square feet to be constructed In one or two stages of 150,000 to 200,000 square feet each.
Concepti Two tower complex to allow for both large
and small tenants with river and city views. Offices Integrated with shops, restaurants, and amenities of lndoor/outdoor park and hotel meeting room facilities,
Est. Cost» $38,000,000
Hotel1 250 rooms with conference facilities and restaurants.
Market Is expected to be commercial travelers, tourists, sports spectators and participants, convention/group visitors desiring lodging near business contacts, entertainment and sports facilities. Local business users of meeting and party rooms are a secondary market.
Conoepti A luxury hotel for travelers desiring
proximity to the central business district. Meeting rooms and conference facilities to attract small and medium conferences amid can also be used for private parties. Three restaurants are to be Included In the facilities.
Est. Costi $21,000,000
Health and Recreational Facilities« 30,000 square feet to Include
1/8 mile running track) 8-lane swimming pool) raquet-ball and handball courts) exercise facilitiesj steam/ suana facilities) and a pro shop.
Concept) An Integral part of Depot Park to serve
both the housing component and office tenants with availability to hotel guests on a day to day basis.
Est. Cost) $3,250,000
Retail) Approximately 100,000 square feet of retail and restaurants to serve metropolitan area residents and visitors, office workers In the central business district, downtown residents, sports spectators, and hotel guests.
Concept) The retall/restaurant component will represent at one time t the primary public entrance to the facilities, a destination entertainment -shopping area, a gathering plaoe,.,and the connecting link between elements of the development. Six sltdown restaurants (formal to casual) and 30 specialty food kiosks are plannee to occupy approximately one half of the available area. Twenty to twenty-five specialty retail stores with 10-12 convenience stores are to be Included in facilities provided.
Est. Cost) $10,000,000


Parkings A preliminary determination of 1600 spaces based on the following breakdown!
Housing! 1 space/unlt (200)
Offlcei 2 spaces/1000 af of leaslble area (690)
Hoteli 1 space/3 rooms (84)
Health Cl 0
-Retail! 4 spaces/1000 sf of leasable area (400) Warehsei 2 spaces/1000 sf of leasable area (160)
1534
Parking to be in two major clusters! one to be near condominiums and the other near the hotel and offices.
Est. Costi #15,000,000
The design concept for Depot Park Phase I evolves around the creation of an lndoor/outdoor urban park. The two acre park will be the key feature and integrating element of Depot Park. The park will be surrounded by renovated historic structures and new structures providing the facilities previously mentioned. The historic portion of the development will serve as the “front door" of the project both because of location and to set the flavor of the development. The greatest density of retail establishments will be occurlng in the historic structures. Energy efficiency will be a major ooncern both in renovation and new construction.
The new 250 room luxury hotel will be a seven story low-rise to maintain area height characteristics and be constructed with materials similar to those used in the historic area.
The two office towers will have sloped roofs and be stepped back at their bases to create a common scale with that of the existing depot, etc.
The twenty-two story condominiums will be designed to reflect the form and verticality of nearby mills.
The proposed Depot Park Development shows a mix of uses for economic vitality while making good use of existing facilities to establish a character (theme) to make an exciting "place" of continued Interest.


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENTS
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPC0 7SS FALL 1SS1
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M S KEMPER


In 1969, the Chicago, Hock Island and Pacific Depot, in Lincoln, Nebraska, was recycled into a branch bank. This project was an early adaptive reuse project initiated by the bank presidents' interest in the building and Nebraska banking laws which required branch banks to be within a certain distance of main offices. The Depot was one of the few available buildings within range which appeared suitable for the banks use.
When banking laws were changed, removing the distance requirements, the bank desired to locate in a better market, and placed the building up for sale.
The project was an early adaptive reuse in the region and has received extensive publicity and recognition. It had major lmpaots on surrounding commercial properties which have been upgraded and Improved.
Many interior changes were made to the building which may* be attributed to the facts that the original use (railroad station) and the new use (bank) call for different spaces which may be Incompatible and that the conversion took place in 1969, when many current preservation techniques were Just being formulated.
The Depot is located adjacent to the poorest economic section of Lincoln (generally east of the station). The commercial businesses surrounding the railroad station have apparently benefited from the rehabilitation and conversion to a branch bank. Merchants have indicated the station has Increased the sense of identity of the neighborhood. The rehabilitation has also provided a sense of Identity to the bank itself.


TRACKS
LI NCOLN
FENCE
Site plan.
Floor plan.
DRIVE-UP BANKING FACILITY
4


Renovation of Newark's Pennsylvania Station la viewed by local citizens as an essential part of the revitalization of downtown Newark, The station has become the transportation hub of Newark, serving as the main terminal for Amtrak and Conrail service Intercity and lntraclty bus service, the city subway, and airport transfer services.
The station la located approximately two blocks from a main commercial area. The city has long recommended development of a spine from the station to the commercial area. A hotel/ office park development across the street from the station Is the first evidence of the development of this spine.
The land available for development between Penn Station and the CBD is approximately equal to 22 acres.
A non-profit organization whose objective Is to encourage development In the area requested assistance from the Urban Land Institute to develop marketing and development strategy issues related to the land.
The ULI technical assistance team concluded that office development offered the greatest potential In the station area. The team also felt that retail and hotel development was feasible In the station area but the extent of such development Is dependent on the success of attracting new office development.
Image problems of security and appearance in downtown Newark threaten the success of any new development. Marketing campaigns were devised to show how these problems would be overcome.
Since an estimated $20 million in investments Is expected the ULI team recommended the station be operated as a real estate project, not as a railroad station. The retail operations should pay market rents and the Income should be used to maintain the station.


The Cincinnati Union Terminal was constructed in 1933 and has been the focus of repeated development proposals since falling into disuse in the 1960*8. In 1972 the 450 foot long grand arrival and departure concourse, at the rear of the rotunda, was demolished to make way for a rail alignment which never took place. In 1973 the building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
New York architects Hardy Holeman Pfeiffer Associates focused on adaptive reuse proposals in the early 1970*s for the station and finally proposed an arts school and transit office development which was not adopted.
As late as November, 1977. the fate of the building was up in the air. However, in August, 1980 the Union Terminal reopened with a new use - a shopping mall.
The developer, The Joseph Skilken Organization, looked for a concept for redevelopment, toying with sun "OZ" type recreational environment, but finally choosing a faneull hall rjtall idea.
The development program calls for renovating the existing building for 400,000 square feet of retail space and 55.000 square feet of office space. The existing building has nine levels with 115.5^5 square feet on the main level and 10 acres of land, all outside the downtown core.
A $1.75 million federal grant (UDAG) plus a $1 a year building lease from the city for 30 years aided in the #20 million renovation. The developer also obtained property tax abatement on capital improvements above the #16,000 annual tax paid now. Revenues are expected to be in the range of #50 million.
Phase I of the development as now completed includes 155.000 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet of office space. The renovation designed by the architects, Schofield and Schofield of Columbus, Ohio, required a new mechanical system into all parts of the building, installing a new electrical system, and bringing the building into compliance with building codes.
The developer lacked a major ingredient of a commercial enterprise - location. The station is located outside of the Central Business District, somewhat remote from the downtown of "Fountain Square". To compensate for this the developer only charges #3*50 per square foot instead of the normal #15 per square foot. A theme of 1890's railroading has been adopted throughout the project for signage and graphics.
A major problem in the project has been stated that the


design of the shops does not respond to the architecture of the building. However, the project appears well liked by the public and is widely used.
The location proved to be a major factor in the project determination because of the economic factors imposed. Rental rates had to be low, which Influenced those uses which could be considered economical. Since the site was outside of the Central Business Dlstrict/Fountain Square area it could not make use of the multitude of downtown facilities for support of a more intense mixed use development.


The development project In Providence, Rhode Island Is concerned with the development of 60 acres of land between the CBD and Union Station and the restoration of Providence's Union Station (the current Amtrak station) upon relocation of elevated tracks running through the site.
The Capital Center Project, proposed for the site, has 3.5 million square feet of planned office space for the next 20 years.
Upon reviewing the plans and time frame the ULI recommended single ownership control (by the Capital Center Commission) to maintain the plan over the years.
Special design considerations were recognized as being needed because of the historic nature of the State House, Union Station, and the central business district.
Project planners established development criteria which were of a general nature. The Urban Land Institute agreed that fundamental guidelines are essential and should not be compromised. It believes that the best design product will come from an imaginative developer and designer that are given a certain degree of freedom and flexibility.
Excessive standards established to guide development may in effect, act to suppress creativity. Flexibility is needed to attract top-notch developers and designers.


The renovation of Ogden Union Terminal was undertaken by local citizens groups and predicated on the city’s Interest In acquiring the building for use as a civic center. The renovation wark has been carried out under the direction of a non-proglt organization.
The revitalization project has converted the three building complex Into a multiple cultural and civic center. two museums, a train station, and railroad offices.
Union Station Is located on the western edge of the Ogden Central Business Distriot and the edge of the former "red light" district. The site Is highly accessible from all points of the city.
At the time of review the project was not complete so reinvestment in surrounding commercial buildings had not taken place. The station has. however, focused attention on the historic importance and development potential of the area. The city has recently completed a revitalization plan for the area and undertaken a study for a new hotel and convention center in the Immediate area. A new In town shopping mall was planned within four blocks of the station.


program hypothesis
Reviewing the railroad redevelopment projects, both successful and unsuccessful, and the studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportafcion and the Urban Land Institute leads to certain conclusions about railroad redevelopment planning. Certain factors are considered to be highly Influential upon the success or failure of a potential railroad development.
The following list is an attempt to define those major factors.
RELATION TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - One of the most important factors In railroad redevelopment planning is the relationship of the railroad site to the cities' CBD. It is apparent from the studies that a location within or immediately adjacent to the CBD positively affects the prospects for a successful redevelopment while a location remote from (or with poor access within) the CBD requires extra preparation and diligence in planning, design and execution. A remote location has to generate its own market while development within the CBD can take advantage of the existing market draw. The development in a remote location almost must be a one of a kind so as to draw business while this is not as important in a CBD location (the one of a kind is even more successful in the CBD).
CITY SIZE r> It is obvious that the larger the city, the more resources are available both for developing a project and for supporting the final results. In comparing the reviewed projects, the potentials and results in the larger cities for funding availability and economic support are much greater.
SITE SIZE - As obvious as city size, the size of the site available for redevelopment is a major determining factor in potential uses. If the site is limited to the building itself then uses whioh could beneficially occupy the railroad station are limited. If additional space, other than the building, is available then redevelopment possibilities are expanded and the chances for mixed use projects increase.
BUILDING SIZE - When limited to redeveloping only the railroad station, the size of the building takes on tremendous import.
The smaller buildings are limited to one use which hurts financing possibilities, and limits potential uses for the building. The larger buildings can have mixed use redevelopment which have greater chances for success (with built in flexibility) by allowing more response to the market and market changes.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PATTERNS - Efficient transportation systems which service the redevelopment parcel can almost insure success while inefficient systems can harm what would normally be a good location (Little Rock Union Station).


INTERSTATE ROAD SYSTEM - Locations near interstate highways can take advantage of passing motorists for business. Essentially the Impact of interstates is to Increase the market area of the development and provide good access to the sites.
ARTERIAL STREETS - The pattern of arterial streets seems more important to the site than the distance from interstates. A good interstate/poor arterial scenario seems more negative than a poor lnterstate/good arterial. The reason is that arterial streets are the main method of access for automobiles.
LOCAL BUS - A site which is located along an intracity bus route has the added benefits of bus riders as potential users.
A local bus route increases market area and is another Important access form.
RAILROADS - Active passenger railroad service to the site is an added bonus. Out of town rail service lets the site serve as a focal/entry point with specialized serveces, while in town commuter rail service can take advantage of the high number of people passing through the site.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - Good access from other nearby activity centers increases the viability of a site. This of course implies there are methods for pedestrians to arrive in the area and that there are other activity centers nearby.
PARKING - A factor of major Importance is parking. Adequate parking must be provided (can be shared) in a way not to hinder access to the site or to other nearby facilities.
OTHER FACTORS - Other major factors in railroad redevelopment planning are local market economy (depressed vs. upswing) and the local community*s/governments attitude toward preservation redevelopment. The first is obvious in importance. The second is Important as a Judgement factor in determining the scope of a project.
On the following page is an attempt to quantify the above factors into a program for railroad redevelopment planning.
This program is based on the previously mentioned research done on railroad stations.
•%>


program components
Relation to CBDi
Withini Almost any land use applicable. Offices and support facilities for offices desirable. (4- factor)
Adjacenti Most any land use compatible with CBD. Can act as focal point, (+ factor)
Remote* Special land uses/actlvlties to serve as a regional activity. (- factor)
City Size*
<50,000* Usually single use activity (restaurants, shops, etc.)
50.000- 100,000* One to two uses In building (restaurants,
offices, museums, visitors centers)
100.000- 500,000* Multi-use facilities (offices, retail/
commercial oenters, recreation)
>500,000* Multiple use/multlple facilities (office buildings, hotels, commercial centers, maos transit facilities, government centers, convention centers, recreation)
Site Size*
<1 acre* Single use of two small size facilities
1-5 acres* Multiple use/facillty (office, residential, commercial) 5-10 acres* Multiple use/facillty (combination of uses -office, commercial, residential)
>10 acres* High Intensity uses - multiple structures with many facilities (commercial, offices, hotels, convention, government, etc.) large scale development
Building Size*
<5000 sf» Single u^e (office retail) ,
5000-10000* One or two uses (office, retail, visitor center)
10.000- 25,000* One or multiple small uses (office, retail,
museum)
25.000- 50,000* Multiple uses (office, retail)
>50,000* Multiple uses (retail, office, specialty, museums, etc.)
Transportation/Circulatlon *
Interstate* Good* + factor (increase development)
Bad* - factor (limit development)
Arterial* Good* ♦ factor (increase development)
Bad* - factor (limit development)
Local bus* On Route*♦ factor (Increase development)
Off Route*- factor (limit development)
Railroads* Yes* 4 factor (increase development)
No* no weighting ♦ or -
Pedestrian Access* Good* + factor (increase development,
promote pedestrian activity) Bad* - factor (limit development)
Parking* Good* + factor (increase development, promote shared
parking use)
Bad* - factor (Increase parking assets)


Otheri Economyj Goodi increase development size and quality
Poori many market studies required - difficult to finance
Local Govti Preservation mindedi + factor
Non-preservationi increase public relations
to educate community


The attempt to quantify the Information obtained from existing literature into a planning program for redeveloping railroad stations/yards has not proven to be as specific as previously hoped. What is possible, as indicated by the previous program is a guide to planning the redevelopment. Instead of a program whiclT states what facilities, and what amounts of development should occur, it is possible to prepare a guide for evaluating the potentials of specific development types. The guide can provide indications as to the type and scope of development based on existing conditions, and can Influence the direction of redevelopment either up or down (intensive or limited).
The next page is an example of the guide applied to the Denver Union Station Development.


Relation to CBDi
Adjacent* Land uses compatible with CBD. Focal point or edge.
City Slzei
>500,000: Multiple uso/multlpls structure facilities (office buildings, hotels, commercial centers, transit facilities, government centers, convention centers, recreation)
Site Sizei
10 acres* Multiple use/multlple structure.
Building Size*
50,0001 Multiple uscj within building or large scale single use development.
Transportatlon/Clrculatlon*
Interstate! Fair - a slightly positive Influence Arterial Streetsi Fair - positive factor Intercity Busi Poor - not really within walking distance slightly negative factor
Local Busi Excellentj within walking distance of major terminal point and on bus route - positive factor. Railroadsi Good/bad - location of passenger service but
also mainline freight location. Slightly negative factor, c Auto Access* Fair ~ Arterials nearby but one way streets and viaducts are difficult for access. Neutral Bus Passenger* Excellent - within walking distance of major bus terminal. Positive factor.
Pedestrian Access* Good - nearby pedestrian mall. Within 15 minutes of majority of CBD. Positive factor.
Parking* Poor - parking a problem in area and must be Included in project.
Overall Evaluation* Location, city size, indicate high intensity mixed use project while other factors indicate positive attitude and probable success.
The following development figures for the Denver project
are based on mixes and types observed in the research and in
particular, the proposed project in Minneapolis.


DENVER UNION STATION
Development Figures
Site Slzei 18.38 acres * 8OO.632.8sf
Building Size 1 Gross 1?4,OOOsf
Net 130.OOOsf
Present Zoning1 B-7 FAR * 2, with premiums total not to exceed 4
1-2 FAR - Unlimited
Assumptionsi Zoning may be changed to PUD or something similar to B-7 or E-5.
Building Floor Area Calculations!
Wtlh B-5 FAR 10 ♦ premiums = 8,006,328sf
With B-? FAR 2 up to 4 * 1,601,265.6 - 3.202,532.2sf
For Development! Assume FAR 5 * 4,003.l64sf
For Comparison! One United Bank Center â–  1,200,OOOsf * 52 stories Potential Usesi For Denver at same % breakdown as Depot Park
Depot Park Denver %
Offices 400,000 1,720,000 43
Hotel (250) 166,000 (1084) 720,000 18
Commercial/retall 100,000 440,000 11
Recreation (Health club) 30,000 120,000 3
Housing (200) 235,000 (850) 1,000,000 25
Parking (1600) 542,000 (3500) 1,190,000 N/A
Transit Facility ? •m mm
Bldg Total 931.000 4,000,000 100
Above figures equal maximum expected.
Assuming density near Depot Park the follwoing figures appear a reasonable assumption for development analysis!
Offices
Hotel (450)
Commercial/re tal1 Reoreatlon/health club Housing (350)
Parking (1750)
Transit Total
700,000
298,800
175.000
52,500
411,250
612,500
30,000
Equals FAR of 2.1 (present B-7 before premiums)


evaluation criteria
Certain criteria must be established in order to evaluate both the actual development and the development program in the specific situations. The following lost of criteria will be used to Judge the results of the Denver Union Terminal development. Slight modifications to the list would allow it to be used for other projects.
Economic/Market Demand«
1. Does the development respond to existing economlc/market conditions or does it attempt to force a new or unneeded use?
2. Does the project have a good chance of generating enough income for operations and profit? Does it support Itself?
Political Acceptabilityi
1. Does the development conform to existing planning and zoning proposals?
2. Is the local government ameanable to the development proposal?
3. Does the project require revision of codes or plans?
4. Do surrounding neighborhood, merchants. Industries welcome or oppose the development?
5. Does the project enhance the identity or "sense” of a place?
Is it looked on as beneficial to the neighborhood?
6. Does the project increase the tax base and provide additional employment?
7. Does the development require expenditures by the local government? Region Considerationsi
1. Does the development respond to regional demands for different land uses?
2. Is the development in agreement with regional development goals?
Transportation!
1. Does the development take advantage of transportation systems or is it hindered by them?
2. Can the project act as a node for transportation systems?
3. Are major modifications required to the transportation network?


State Governmenti
1. Does the development meet all state goals* plans, and regulations?
Federal Governmenti
1. Do federal regulations (air, water) Impact on the project? Are all requirements met?
2. Are federal funds required for the project?
Design Considerations!
1. Does the development make use of existing buildings, neighborhoods?
2. Is the project In conflict or harmony with existing neighborhood (style, land uses)?
3. Are good features of area emphasized?
4. Is efficient use of land and neighborhood a goal of the project?
Otheri
1. Gut feeli Is project beneficial or detrimental to city, neighborhood, or area?
2. Is the project a plus to the city, a place to be pointed out with pride?


DENVER
EXISTING CONDITIONS


DENVER EXISTING CONDITIONS
In August 1981, the Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the redevelopment of an 18.4 acre tract of land which Includes Denver's Union Station.
The center portion and extreme outer portions of the wings were constructed In 1914 and the taller portions of the wings near the center of the building were constructed In 1880. The building contains approximately 1?4,000 square feet with a net rentable area of approximately 130,000 square feet Including basements*
The request for proposal Indicates a willingness to consider almost any concepts. The plan developed for evaluation Is fairly conventional, as can be seen In a later description.
Both the Denver Planning Office and the Denver Partnership have studied and prepared guidelines for development In the lower downtown Denver area.
The Denver Planning Office has said, In Policies for the Development of Downtown Denver and Adjacent Areas, the redevelopment of1 the lower downtown area should encourage tfie preservation and Improvement of older structures and existing uses and attraot and accomodate new retail, office, and residential uses. Lower downtown should be held intact as It becomes bordered by new construction, to retain Its distinctiveness and attraction to Investors and businesses. Also stated was that attention should be given to Union Station as a future focus for thj district. It is also highly desired to influence the construction of new residential units In the area. There Is a desire to limit the expansion of the CBD so as to maintain its vitality.
The Denver Partnership has made available a publication of lower downtown development strategies for the 20 blook B-7 area.
The following assumptions were made for different development scenarios established by the Denver Partnershipi
1. The existing character of the lower downtown is unique to the Denver area, and should be considered as an identifiable place separate In scale from the rest of downtown.
2. Parking for the overall district must be adequate to satisfy market needs and Investor requirements.
3. In order to maintain support of land owners and the development community, the development scenarios must provide a reasonable economic return.


4. Residential development Is a key Ingredient to the long term success of the Lower Downtown District. The goal Is to provide approximately 1000-1500 units In addition to those already under construction.
The chart on the next page shows estimated costs and revenues in the lower downtown area.
The scenarios established by the Denver Partnership are as follows!
Scenario Ai Preservation and Infill. Scenario A attempts to preserve the existing street facade and scale of the district, while at the same time offering the potential for Infill development on all sites.
Scenario Bi Controlled New Development. This scenario assumes that larger parcel aquisltlons will occur with resulting larger scale buildings. In order to control this development pressure and prevent building owners from having to sell their buildings, scenario B Introduces the concept of Transfer of Developer Rights (TDR). Developers would be able to Increase their floor area ratios by purchasing unused development rights from owners In the area. Scenario Bl (The Dispersed Model) presumes that development can occur anywhere within the district while Scenario B2 (The Zone Model) takes the position that the existing character of Lower Downtown can only accept development In certain areas and should be restricted to those areas.
Scenario Ci Market Development. This scenario assumes that parcel acquisitions will continue except for those parcels where historic structures, buildings eligible for tax benefits, and those over four stories are located. Special incentives for residential development must be Included along with provisions for protecting street frontage where parking garages cover 75% of the site.
Other development Issues include a coordinated transportation plan, pedestrian/street Improvements, and provisions of open space within the district.
The following graphics are used to show existing conditions affecting the Denver Union Station redevelopment.


DEVELOPMENT $
COSTS (Including hard and soft costs):
Land — Averages $200 per s.f. including buildings
Parking — $20 per s.f. above grade
23 per s.f. below office or residential 30 per s.f. below grade
Rehab — Ranges between $40-70 per s.f.
New
Construction — Ranges between $60-90 per s.f.
REVENUES (Net income):
Parking
Office
Retail
Residential
— Estimated at $140 per stall per month, which equals $7.00 per day for 20 days (Pro forma uses $125 net)
— $20-24 per s.f. for rehab
$24-28 per s.f. for new construction
— $16-22 per s.f.
— $130-175 per s.f. sales price as a condominium. In order to evaluate pro formas, profit from sales have been translated into income on a ten year basis at 15%).
rRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING I?
lEDEVELOPM ENT-COST S
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
MFCD 7E» FALL 1SS1
COLLEQE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DBSMN
M S KEMPER
-.... -...../


4


\
'railroad REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 15
LAND USE & DENSITY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
«W»CD 7SO FALL 1««1
COLLEOE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMON
M • KBMfSR


I
i
I
MM

_f/s-
TRANSIT TRANSFER POINTS
INTERNAL TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN SHUTTLE SERVICE
J TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSFER POINTS
y\ MAJOR TRAFFIC -3 C-ARTERIALS
-----SERVING PERIPHERAL
PARKING FACILITIES

/----------------------------------\
RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 16
CMGULMMM
UMtVinaiTV OF COLONADO AT DFNVI-K 7«H* FALL 1*61
COLLCOC OF CNVIRONMBNTAL DCIMN
M S KF ******
KJ


(----) MAJOR DOWNTOWN
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
llll INTENSIVE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM WITHIN FUNCTIONAL AREAS
PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES BETWEEN MAJOR FUNCTIONAL AREAS
SECONDARY PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES BETWEEN ACTIVITY CENTERS
PEDESTRIAN GATEWAYS TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS
f ...............""N
RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 17
PEDESTRIAN LINKS
UNIVERSITY OP COLORADO AT DENVER
RPC# TH PALL 1SS1
COLLEGE OP ENVIRONMENTAL DIIMN
M S KSMfMER
______________________________✓


GENERAL PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF ZONE DISTRICTS CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
The following paragraphs explain the purpose and general description of the various zone districts contained within the Denver Zoning Ordinance. The regulations of these zone districts are changed from time to time, and a person desiring to learn the latest provisions of these regulations should contact the Department of Zoning Administration.
This explanation has been prepared by the Zoning Review Section of the Denver Planning Office.
SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, RURAL DENSITY. Minimum of one acre of land required for each housing unit. Home occupations are prohibited. Density =
1 dwelling unit/acre.
SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, SUBURBAN DENSITY. Minimum of 12,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit. Home occupations are prohibited. Density =3.6 dwelling units/acre.
ATTACHED OR CLUSTERED SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Development Plan must be approved by City Council. Home occupations are prohibited. Minimum of 7,500 square feet of land area required for each dwelling unit. Density =
5.8 dwelling units/acre.
SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Foster Family Care and Day Care allowed as home occupations by permit. Minimum of 6,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit. Density =7.3 dwelling units/acre.
SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Same as R-0 except that home occupations and room-renting to one or two persons are allowed upon application and issuance of a permit. Density =7.3 dwelling units/acre.
MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Typically duplexes and triplexes. Home occupations are allowed by permit only. Minimum of 6,000 square feet required for each duplex structure with an additional 3,000 square feet required for every unit over 2. Density = 14.5 housing units/acre.
MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS, MEDIUM DENSITY. 2,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit unless a unified site plan is submitted under the Planned Building Group (PBG) provisions. In which case, 1,500 square feet of land is required for each unit. Home occupations are allowed by permit. Density »
21.8 housing units/acre (29 housing units/acre under PBG).
HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT. This district is intended to encourage new residential development in older, developed areas. Building size is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Maximum lot coverage is 40%.
HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT. Building size is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 3 times the site area. This zone should not be used as a buffer zone. Maximum density is not specified and is detdrmined by the size of the units and the factors mentioned above.


HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT, Building size is controlled by limited bulk standards, off street parking and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 3 times the site area. Maximum density is not specified and is determined by the size of the individual units and the factors mentioned above.
VERY HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT AND OFFICE DISTRICT. The purpose of this district is to provide a location for very high density apartment and intensive office development. Building size is controlled by limited bulk standards, off street parking and open space requirements. Allows hotel or motel uses and limited accessory retail shopping. Building floor area cannot exceed 4 times the site area.
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. Allows hospitals, colleges, schools, churches and other institutional uses. Maximum lot coverage is 60% of zone lot. Building height is controlled by bulk standards.
LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT. This district provides office space for services related to dental and medical care and for office-type services, either for the residents of nearby residential areas, or are characterized by a low volume of direct daily customer contact. The volume of vehicular traffic is usually low. This district is located away from main arterial highways, characteristically is small in size and is situated near major hospitals or between large business areas and residential areas. The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions, limited by standards designed to protect the abutting or surrounding residential districts. To these ends, the regulations establish standards comparable to the standards for low-density residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining the low concentration of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Building height controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area.
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. This district provides the retailing of commodities classed as "convenience goods", and the furnishing of certain personal services, to satisfy the daily and weekly household or personal needs of the residents of surrounding residential neighborhoods. The volume of pedestrian traffic in proportion to automobile traffic entering the district is much higher than in other retail business districts. This district is located on collector streets, characteristically is small, almost always is entirely surrounded by residential districts and is located at a convenient walking distance from the surrounding residential districts it is designed to serve. The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions, limited by standards designed to protect the abutting and surrounding residential districts. To these ends, the regulations establish standards comparable to the standards for low-density residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining the relatively low concentration of vehicular traffic as compared to other retail business districts. Building height controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area.


-3 SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT, This district is primarily to provide the re-
tailing of most commodities and the furnishing of certain personal services, satisfying all household and personal needs of the residents of abutting residential communities. The volume of pedes-trian traffic in proportion to automobile traffic entering the district is relatively low. This dis-^ trict is usually located on major arterial streets at or near the intersection with another major arterial street so that It is accessible from all directions, characteristically is large, almost always is entirely surrounded by residential districts and is located at a convenient driving distance from the residential districts it is designed to serve. The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions, limited by standards designed to protect the abutting or surrounding residential districts. To these ends, the regulations establish standards comparable to the standards for low density residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining as low a concentration of vehicular traffic as is compatible with the functioning of the district. Building height is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area.
-4 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. This district is intended to provide for and
encourage appropriate commercial uses between adjacent arterial streets, which are normally transit routes, and abutting residential districts. Commercial uses include a wide variety of consumer and business services and retail establishments that serve other business activities, and local transit-dependent residents within the district as well as citywide residents. The regulations allow a moderate intensity of use and concentration for the purpose of achieving compatibility between the wide variety of uses permitted in the district. The limitations imposed on the district are designed to protect the integrity and character of adjacent residential districts. Use of mass transit is encouraged by lessening off street parking requirements for residential use. Building height is not controlled. Building floor area cannot exceed twice the site aree.
I-A-1 ARTERIAL OFFICE AND APARTMENT USE DISTRICT. Allows banks, offices, hospitals,
clinics, institutions, churches, apartments and office service uses. Requires 100 feet of arterial street frontage. Maximum lot coverage is 30%. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. Maximum residential density is unspecified and is determine by the size of units and the factors mentioned above.
Arterial setback areas are required for landscaping.
â– -A-2 ARTERIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. This district is intended as a tourist oriented
zone, allowing only hotels, motels and restaurants with automobile service stations. Requires 100 feet of arterial street frontage. Zone lot coverage not to exceed 30%. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. Front setback areas are required for landscaping.
-A-3 ARTERIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. This district is designed to accom-
modate those uses which are oriented toward the motorist and residents of nearby neighborhoods but which uses are not normally part of shopping centers. Included among such uses are bowling alleys, theaters, night clubs, drive-in restaurants and services stations. Setback areas are required for landscaping. Ground coverage by buildings cannot exceed 30% of the site. Building height is controlled by bulk standards.


AUTO SALES AND SERVICE DISTRICT. This district provides an area designed particularly for the special needs and characteristics of auto sales and service activities. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the establishment of this district in concentrated centers rather than in a linear arrangement along arterials. Ground coverage by structures cannot exceed 60% of the site area. Building height is controlled by bulk standards.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Permits business, office and light industrial uses along with residential and educational uses. Maximum floor area cannot exceed 10 times the site area, plus floor area premiums for the development of plazas, arcades, atriums, etc. No off Street parking is required. Building height is not controlled by bulk standards.
BUSINESS RESTORATION ZONE. This district is intended to preserve and improves older structures which are architecturally and/or historically significant. This district allows light industrial, general retail, wholesale, services, offices and high density residential uses. Additional floor area is allowed with the development of residential units, underground parking or open space areas. Building floor areas cannot exceed 2 times the site area. However, with premiums the floor area can be increased to 4 times the site area. Building height not controlled by bulk standards.
INTENSIVE GENERAL BUSINESS/VERY-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. This district, primarily for activity centers, provides the concentration of retailing, personal and business services, residential, and cultural uses at a necessary intensity to efficiently be served by mass transit facilities. This very intense district is designed to serve the entire metropolitan area as an alternative to urban sprawl. Significant levels of intense employment and commercial activity, high volumes of pedestrian traffic, mass transit facilities, and a relatively compact geographical area are characterises of this district.
The regulations are designed to permit a highly concentrated, intensive development of the enumerated facilities, limited by standards designed to provide light and air for street exposures of buildings in the district and to protect the district itself from over-intensive development of land coverage and over-congestion as related to the ultimate capacity of common public facilities which serve the entire district. Building floor area cannot exceed 4 times the area of the site. Building height not controlled by bulk standards.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTI. A transitional district between intensive industrial and residential districts. Allows limited manufacturing, wholesale and retail activities, offices and motels. Building height is controlled by bulk plane standards and setback requirements for buildings.
Floor area cannot exceed 50% of the site area.
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Allows many manufacturing, warehousing and wholesaling activities, along with limited retail and service uses for the benefit of the area employees. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Generally no setback requirements.


HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Allows all manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling and mineral extraction activities. Limited retail and service uses for the benefit of area employees are permitted. No limitations on the size or location of buildings. This district should not be located adjacent to residential or business zones.
OPEN USE DISTRICT. Allows airports, recreational uses, parks, cemeteries, reservoirs, and other open uses including a limited number of public and semi-public activities housed in buildings. Setback requirements apply to the location of buildings.
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. Allows large tracts of open land utilized primarily for agricultural or ranching activities.
OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT. Allows parking lots and structures.
Bulk and setback regulations apply to buildings. This zone is intended to provide needed business parking without the expansion of the business zone, i.e., a buffer between business and residential uses. Requires visual barriers adjacent to residential uses.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. P.U.D. is a form of development characterized by a uAified site design for clustering buildings and providing common open space, density increases, and a mix of building types and land uses. It permits the planning of a project and the calculation of densities over the entire development area, rather than on an individual lot-by-lot basis. It also refers to a process, mainly revolving around site-plan review, in which city agencies and neighborhood residents have considerable involvement in determining the nature of the development. It includes aspects of both subdivision and zoning regulation and is administered through the rezoning process.
Any P.U.D. is in effect a specific zone district for a specific area, including specific regulations written by the applicant and when approved by City Council, enforced by the City. It allows maximum flexibility during the planning stage and maximum assurance that exactly what is proposed will be developed as proposed.


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 20
TRAFFIC ARTERIES A.M.I
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
| MPCO 790 FALL 1981
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M 8 KEMPER


'railroad redevelopment PLANNING 2^
TRAFFIC ARTERIES RM.
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
MPCD 700 FALL 1081
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DE8IGN
M 8 KEMPER J


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
University of Colorado College of Environmental Design
MPCD 790 Fall 1981 M. S. Kemper


With the decline of passenger rail service many cities are looking for ways to redevelop and make use of abandoned and under utilized railroad stations and land. There are two main reasons such redevelopment is taking place. First, redevelopment is a valid way of preserving historical railroad structures and maintaining a connection with the past of the city. The second reason for redevelopment in many cities is that railroad stations and land are located within or adjacent to the Central Business District and are extremely valuable properties for development.
In August, 1981, The Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the development of an 18,5 acre tract of land in Lower Downtown Denver which includes Denver's Union Station.
It was the intent of this report to investigate past railroad redevelopments in order to determine if any patterns of programming become evident and if so, to develop a planning program which could be applied to proposed development at Denver Union Station. Evaluation would then be performed on the resulting development plan to test the program.
Research began with analysis of 14 different railroad redevelopment projects ranging in scope from converting the 3,750 square foot Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Station in Lincoln, Nebraska into a branch bank, to the development of air rights over 83 acres of railroad yards on the edge of Chicago's Loop. A Department of Transportation study and an article by the Urban Land Institute indicated the positions of those respective organizations towards planning railroad redevelopment.
The Department of Transportation has identified the following nine components for planning a successful railroad station reuse»
1. Adaptive Reuse Process 1 An explanation of the new uses for the station and how and why they were chosen,
2. Historical and Architectural Description! A description of the architectural composition and the station* history.
3. Rehabilitation and Design Analysis! An evaluation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken.
4. Market and Economic Analysis! Local conditions which affected the selection of the new uses.
5. Funding Strategy and Alternatives! What financing techniques were used and what alternative methods were available.
6. Transportation Components! A discussion of available transportation services plus what changes are required.
7. Urban Revitalization! An evaluation of the project as a catalyst for further revitalization in the area.


8. Community Involvementi The involvement of local citizens and the local government In response to the project.
9. Other Preservation Considerationsj Other factors which may be influential on the acceptance or rejection of the project.
Among problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation were the difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the inability of some projects to generate revenue sufficient to cover operating costs, and the inability of some to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking.
The Urban Land Institute addressed the questions of what type of facilities are likely to locate in intercity rail station areas and how can specific cities plan for the development associated with rail station improvements. Basically, the Urban Land Institute said the development was dependent on the city type (major regional center, satellite cities, independent markets) and the local market (weak, strong, unproved). The basic land uses considered werei offices, hotels, retailing, exhibition hall/convention center, and parking.
Based on the above information, a program was developed for Denvers Union Station. Attempts to quantify important criteria proved difficult except for either positive or negative impacts. The result was the development of a redevelopment guide versus a redevelopment program. Based on this guide and the existing conditions in Denver, development alternatives were prepared. Three basic alternatives were prepared based on the same program but different scales. A low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise solution were explored and as a result of their evaluations, a high rise/high intensity solution was also prepared.
Evaluations of each development alternative were prepared based on previously stated criteria. Good and bad features of each solution were discussed in relation to Denver. Results indicated that a higher intensity use should be explored than was previously considered desirable.
The basic importance of the study in relation to the existing literature was the discovery that no deflnative theory exists as a program for planning railroad redevelopment. What does exist can be prepared as a guide for the direction redevelopment should take. The literature provides numerous criteria which affect the success of railroad rehabilitation projects and when developed as a guide, these criteria can give early indications of a projects' success of failure and what redevelopments have taken place in similar situations.
The relationship of the study to development in Lower Downtown Denver is important in that it indicates a project of higher scale and higher density may be feasible/desirable than


previously thought. The redevelopment guide allows one to compare a proposed project with results obtained in similar conditions and make assumptions as to the projects viability.


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 23
BUS ROUTES
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
MPCD 790 FALL 198 1
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DE8IQN
M 8 KEMPER


/
RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 24
WALKING DISTANCE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
MPCD 700 FALL 1061
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M 8 KEMPER
\M L


rRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 30*
MAJOt HOTELS
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
MPCD 790 FALL 1981
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DE8IGN
M 8 KEMPER


rRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3?
EESIDENCIAL BLDGS.

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCD 700 FALL 1001
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M 8 KEMPER
'll


rRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3?
DEPARTMENT STO1ES
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER 8 MPCD 780 FALL 1081
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M 8 KEMPER


rRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 33^
SHE SECTIONS
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
MPCD 790 FALL 1981 M 8 KEMPER
1


DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES


DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The development plan alternatives on the following pages are based on the scenario figures expressed In Section II. Alternatives I, II and III are based on a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 2il. Alternative IV Is a development plan based on a Floor Area Ratio of 5«1 as described at the end of Section II.
Alternative I Is a Mlow rise11 plan, developed with the concept of maintaining the vertical scale of the area, as much as possible, while providing an economical project.
A mid-rise concept, Alternative II, represents the Idea of a more vertical solution with more open space at lower levels.
The high rise solution allows Increased open space with a more vertical solution.
A more Intense development, In density and vertlcallty.
Is represented by Alternative IV.


ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION


ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Based on the evaluation criteria stated in Section II,
the following evaluations have been made for the four alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE Ii A LOW RISE SOLUTION
Economlc/Market Demandi The uses planned for this development respond to market demands. Considering the lan values in the area, low rise solutions are generally considered uneconomical and this type of solution would probably not be acceptable to the property owners or developers without some form of additional compensation for keeping the development scale low (such as higher development rights elsewhere).
Project economics should be self-supporting but higher development would return more profits.
Political Acceptabilityi Rezonlng is required for any use other than industrials in all portions of the site except for the terminal building itself. The land uses and scale are supported by expressed development desires. The local government should be amenable to a project which does not tend to coerce a high rise solution into the B-7 area. Surrounding merchants should support this solution which is not in conflict with the area. A low rise solution helps to stabilize the land values and economies in the area.
Region Considerations» In general the uses indicated are in support of regional goals. The development could be easily integrated with a mass translt/light rail development.
Transportation! The scale of development makes use of existing transportation networks without overloading them.
State Government! The project does not appear to be in conflict with any state programs. Provision of residents within the downtown area should have some reduction on commuter trafflo and can serve as an example for future residential development projects•
Federal Government! No federal funds are required and the project should be in agreement with pollution goals.
Design Considerationsi The scale of this development supports the identity of the neighborhood. The land uses are not in conflict with existing land uses in the B-7 area. There would probably be problems with the nearby railroad yards (noise and air pollution).
Summary! While in agreement with the scale of the neighborhood, this development is probably least likely for developers to pursue because of return usually expected from such high land values.


ALTERNATIVE III A MID RISE SOLUTION
Economlc/Market Demandi As with alternatives I and III, this solution responds favorably to local economic/market demands.
A mid-rise solution would allow greater densities or, as in this oase, the same densities can be provided with more open space.
Political Acceptabilityi Approval for a mid-rise solution would be harder to obtain, possibly, than a low-rise but a mid-rise development could be incorporated in the area without destroying the character of the neighborhood.
Zoning would need to be changed along with any height limitations that exist for the area. A mid-rise solution would have mor visibility and identity than a low-rise solution and help in providing identity to the entire area.
Transportation! It takes advantage of existing networks while not overloading them.
Region Considerations! As with Alternative I, this solution would support regional development goals such as a regional transit facility.
State Government! This project does not appear to be in conflict with any state regulations or goals.
Federal Government! Provision of in-town residential units would be a step in the right direction for reducing auto traffic (air pollution). Coordination with mass transit also would be a well received idea.
Design Considerationsi Careful step backs and terracing would be required in order to maintain the character of the street facade of the area. Additional open space could be well utilized for recreational purposes. Integrating the taller mid-rise structures into the area successfully takes additional efforts from the earliest development stages.
Summary! A solution slightly more accepatable to the developers which begins to show the potentials of the site.
ALTERNATIVE IIIi A HIGH RISE SOLUTION
Economic/Market Demandi This development is in response to local conditions and recognizes the impact of local land values. This type of development Is more in keeping with developments in areas of similar values. Income generated should prove sufficient for operating costs and generous profit.
Political Acceptabilityi A high-rise development is presently not in keeping with local planning officials. They believe that such a project will force similar development in the B-7 ayea;-since it would be between^the station and the CBD. Height and zoning changes would be required plus possibly density/bulk


limits. The scale of the development would be highly visible and should have a great sense of Identity. Controls of development in B-7 would be required to maintain the scale there.
Regional Considerations! A high-rise solution could act as a gateway into downtown and a definition of the downtown area.
State Government* This type of development should be in agreement with state goals.
Federal Government* As previously stated, a development of this scale which supports mass transit and provides in-town residential units should be in agreement with Federal goals and regulations.
Design Considerations* While not in keeping with the scale of the immediate surroundings, a high-rise solution should be able to be integrated in the area without adversely affeeting it. The increased open space could be used for community activities.
Summery* A hlgh-rir>e solution could provide a border to the downtown, a definite edge versus a melting away of the downtown. It could provide a node of activity which would support the B-7 area and help turn the downtown into a 2^-hour area. This solution suggests the possibilities of a hlgh-rlse/hlgh density solution in relation to a lower downtown area of special significance, with growth controls.
ALTERNATIVE IV* A HIGH RISE/HIGH DENSITY SOLUTION
Economlc/Market Demnnd* Thir? development is the most market oriented solution of the alternatives. The Increased floor square footage provided plus the high-rise structures recognize the value of the land. Phasing would allow for changes in the market. It should provide tremendous support for the lower cowntown area while growth controls could be adopted to maintain the character of B-7.
Political Acceptability* Of all the alternatives Investigated, this particular concept is most likely to meet with opposition. Many zoning, planning, and height limits would have to be changed. 3trong controls would have to be adopted in order to maintain the scale and character of the B-7 area. It should help provide a sense of identity to the area and be highly visible.
Region Considerations* A high Intensity development could easily act as a node, for transit systems. It could provide a greater number of residential units in-town and support existing commercial areas.


Transportation! A high intensity development such as this would actively support a mass transit system. Some revisions in the transportation network might be required to support the high density uses.
State Government! This solution changes projections of employment in the area and at the same time Increases downtown housing.
Federal Government! The Increased numbers of housing would help decrease commuter traffic as previously mentioned.
Design Considerationsi The higher densities would require
careful design work to mitigate the effects of scale change between the new development and the existing B-7 zone. This is the solution which seems to be recommended by the programming guide. However this evaluation shows many problems that are associated with this type of solution. The ~cala is extremely different from that of the surrounding area but could, under certain circumstances, be of benefit.
Summary! This solution, recommended by the guide, has much
ambiguity. There are many problems (probably the most) with achieving this solution. The high rise/'hlgh intensity solution could define an edge to downtown Denver. It could be a gateway or wall to the city. Problems would arise with attempted infill projects in the B-7 area of a scale similar to this. However, the large scale of this project could provide much support for the B-7 area.


IMPORTANCE TO LITERATURE


The Importance of the findings In reference to the literature Is In the fact that little definatlve theory exists In literature which can be directly applied to planning railroad redevelopment. What exists can best be described as a guide for the direction redevelopment should take. So much depends on the actual conditions at the place under consideration for redevelopment that to have a specific theory or program for planning the redevelopment seems almost Impossible.
The major link between railroad projects Is that quite often they are located on mass transit corridors which can be an added benefit for consideration. Otherwise, normal urban planning practices apply.
The guide developed would be most useful In the early stages of redevelopment for considering what direction It should take. The guide still needs extensive refining In that some programs developed, such as Denver, end up In projects which are hard to establish.
Obviously there Is a need a need for further development criteria, which have not been obvious In the literature.


IMPORTANCE TO DENVER


The importance of the findings in relation to Downtown Denver development is that they indicate careful consideration should he given by officials into development of a higher density or scale than previously considered.
If controls can be equitably placed on the B-7 area, a hlgh-rise/high intensity use might be highly desired on the Union Terminal property.
There would be difficulties to overcome with linkages, scale and transportation but if accomplished the development could be a national showplace, such as what has happened on Boston's South Shore Development.
Personal preference is for a project of less intensity than that developed as a result of the program. A mid rise development of high densities would seem to be very desirable even though the developed program indicates the high- rise/ high-density solution.
Weighting may need to be given to local conditions so that they are of more importance in the guide.
There needs to be a conscious evaluation of the benefits and problems of the types of developments before one particular type is locked in.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Byrne, Robert M. and Baker, Elizabeth D., Rallstatlon Improvements and Development Opportunitiest A Look at the Northeast Corridor, Urban Land, Sep, 1981.
Denver Partnership Inc,, Denver Lower Downtown Development Strategies, Oct. 1981.
Denver Planning Office, Downtown Travel and Parking. 1981,
Denver Planning Office, Public Facilities Inventory. Jan., 198I.
Denver Planning Office-Downtown Denver Inc,, Downtown Denver Development Plan.
Denver Planning Office-Downtown Denver Inc., Policies for the Development of Downtown Denver and Adjacent Areas. Augt 197l, Revised Jan. 19*^
Depot Park Development Company, Depot Park. Sep, 1981*
Hale, Jonathan, SIC Transit, Architectural Forua.Nov. 1973.
LeMassen, Robert A., All off at Denver. Trains Magazine, June 1970.
Liebman, Williams Ellis, Architects and Planners, Housing Development Strategies Denveri The 80*s. Denver Housing Authority, April 1980.
Mayor'8 Downtown Housing Planning Team, Downtown Housing Policy.
198l. --------------------------------------------- -----------
Pfeiffer, Norman, Right Side of the Tracks. Architectural Forum, Nov. 1973. “ ..........
Progressive Architecture, Cash on the Line. Cincinnati Union Station, Nov. 1980. "
Progressive Architecture, Marshalling the Yards. Chicago Redevelopment, March 1973.
Von Stroh, Gordon E., What Denver can do to Encourage Downtown Housing, Denver Urban observatory, 19^9.
Webber, Margo B. and McGinley,,Paul J., Recycling Historic
Railroad Stations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov* 1978..


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCD 700 FALL 1981
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMON
M 8 KEMPER



NEW LONDON
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
OPEN K BELOS
FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE
SECOND FLOOR


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF COLORAOO AT DENVER MPCD 790 FALL 1981
COLLEQE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMON
M 8 KEMPER
_____________________________/


m
Map of downtown Savannah showing station at gateway
to city.
SAVANNAH


\
WACKER OR
SO.
WATER ST
LAKE ST J
X
o
2
RANDOLPH
I
EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY
I
m
<
¥■
X
I
o
K
>
Z
Ik
o
M
9
â– I
O
u
«
s
.... SITE BOUNDARY
---- EASEMENT FOR SUBWAY
HSi reserved for arcade level park and esplanade I I apartments, hotel, office, retail
lliilfl APARTMENTS. OFFICE. RETAIL AND SERVICE lliilll OFFICE. RETAIL AND SERVICE fc-Xxi APARTMENTS. RETAIL AND SERVICE iMI VACATED RIGHTS OF WAY Wk EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY &&& PROPOSED RIGHTS OF WAY PUBLIC UTILITIES
EXISTING BUILDING
I
CHICAGO
ii
KCMMEN


LOWER LEVEL


RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DSNVIR MPCD 790 FALL 1SS1
COLLeae OF invirommmtal dimsm
M 8 KEMPER
____________________________>


•ecowc fux»
OGDEN
City Master Plan for revitalizatior


KC.
( RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
REDEVELOPMENTS
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DSNVER UPCD 790 FALL 1SS1
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DC MSN
M 8 KEMPER
_____________________________/


•eCONC FVOO* PC AM
PI AST FLOOfl PC AM
!
OGDEN
City Master Plan for revitalizatic


g & vR % * 1* T? *— •H 3 t rn I 1 \ %- S'* i-i O z
1 g? 5 nr r £ -0 -3 is ? I> S c >? ■gi z f z f m r o ' S 5 ; zx: 58$ *§ 1 Bg i t> -TT > * § -ft tn l 1 r n $ n P •Sn 8 0 _z "Pr p Q > V r p-' 2= Z ip K 71 T* VA > H U> — r\ E £ z R 0 £ 0 ?0 r> 7- g 5 > a
8 59 I 3 #5§p9 s n la o £ U> —i\ ~ n ft * W £ Is s I § 1 1 > g O Z r* ~c I i 1 7 H- In in -j tr R P ^ £ 1 n f> 2 VI /-N 5 £ j» v/> -11 7: Pr s £ | ? > z z is iN r» gs j? * £ 5 & s s 3J
^ 1 ^ ^ ill ■3 V g £ g m a ^ *1] TJ ii5 *g! 1 is > § 1 1 R r» g 5 TA % m c H 8 n« r fit Z -f o> SI 58 § 7: t-i 3 rs CP 5 & -n Z «-i nt & s g § ?s z 5 rn ^ § > 91 c. Z 0 z u-/
RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
II
REDEVELOPMENT COMPARISON
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCO 700 FALL 1981
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DE8IQN
M 8 KEMPER
FALL 1981


UTTlt ROCK. UNION STATION 6ANJ/JAVJ cAffe* TKAliO DEPOT NPAi 10UC0N , UNION *>TBTtCM STAMFORD, STATION CEN 4E01
arr/wrt imtE RDOC, arxansas SAN JUAN CAfi^>- traho, CA NEW LCNDGkI, CONNECTICUT STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 6AY
cm 6K 31,650 11
KZIAVGU lO CBO (OUT SIDE- 1UT0UE&T AREA WlTHlU 'WITHIN F
^ITt *I2£ U(X u/i »/J 15 ACRES
punD*^ s«e \6f U,fe*jJsF 22, C&A0 5f n/a 1
BUU>**5 AAt up C t9z0 €>T (IP*) 9*5 (\806) n/a lcJ7
MATiOUM «E4«T«C 1976 History: oist. 19 71 n/a
louise kestaurjuT, office TRAtu RESTAURANT, 4ifT tvtof. TRMNS RESTAUEANTj Office, TRAINS internal transfer, fa: YISV
reject cost f> UOP,,<&&!>, OKCOIKTIOU
couorncws
WT^KSWE FAIR EXCELLENT 4ax> EXCELLENT RXC1
UHfXViL STREETS FAUR EXCELLENT t\CO0 excellent Exa
wtekoty eos FAIR FAIR. EXCELLENT EXCELLENT 4a
local eos f AIK F'AlK. excellent EXCELLENT OCX
RAliS5C*fcf’> fAiK 4ccd FAIR. EXCELLENT NON
auto A^CCSS 4CCO excellent EXCELLENT 400
PUS f&SSe>42X* Took EXCELLENT excellent 4oo
fTPC3T«6W ACCC^b p«a^ EXCELLENT f AIR. FAIR 4CDC
paiuoM^ FAIR. 4ooq 42?D 440P F?30f
fimfsf- coMpnowe* NO MAJOR. IMPLEMENTS ARE PtANNEQ conti nuep 4RD*jth Tourist 1VU7UST tV EXpecTED STATION Success RETAIL fBCfREEP "Roject Fieciin
COMMCMT5: N. fox street ORIENTATION tilklDER6 access/ V^C^UTV EXCELLENT StTE, ECONOMICALLY SOUND reuse has EE&U HIGHLY Successful EXPECT El? tt? GENERATE MUCH REC>E\/* eiopMENT WW AND -A Acce^ Q5NTRS succes


H ? V* .1— > gS 1 z: —T m 1 r> S rn z 1 R r» 5 n« r
if 5 1 2 r m VO ■ ?■ (5 ? f S z Til O 3 ?a o 13 5 gga s § SI 2 A 2 & § r —l 8 —n ► tk u> w IA 2 2 Q 7^J <= " n Is ft —i 2 3 ro 1 >Jk -n M m 3 rn r* 0) SSj ;<5 a |S i S g ! 6 I ^
1 1
Sr 0 5 1 \ i.l -J ■< z: B ss ^ 35 ° jf§ | Kjti > 1 1 F i* z: H n > 71 m § J= m t -H £ £ m z -» -n > A -n £ i 4 -J I <4 Tl (? (> fc 71 0! I 5 iS p t>. ffl SP I a 8 R A d z o rn C 7J <3 z
fRAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING
12
REDEVELOPMENT COMPARISON
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCD 700 FALL 1081
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
M 8 KEMPER
S'


«Ul*CfcO 6TMTOR1 CEffcT PARK (PfjOfDeAL) CWKA40, RXK ISLAND + PAClflC FtNNSjlYANlA STATION ciucmNAH UNVON TBXNMNAL PRCN UMlO
cm/suTt NLlNNFtfCU^, MINNESOTA l\NCOul, NEBW6XA NEWARK. MEW JERSEY ONONNATl, OHIO FfcV RHCC
city 6&e aW/<^ \&bj SMjCmti 2:
KEIATWIO c©0 within BAD adjacent REMATTE. AC
f»rrt *ize. V<2> ACRES 0 ACRES 10 ACRES 6
PlHttn>OA M|I Sf N/I f
PUltDIM^ AAC fe4 (les?) ©a Cveas) n/i 4«> Gsss) K
MAliOWAL fX4t6T«S 1ES 1911 n/l \915 H
wxose Hotel, offices,, REbipENTiN. j K6C BANK, gcmmesdal Off ICE, HOTEL RETAIL SHCTflNA MALL, Off ICES W< MERC
r^ojecr co^t -$ iWdxDUHtoflfi ^(mbWP Zfy&UPjCUUt) U
OfcCUlRTiou fjk:^5
ex^iuiA cowcrnoM^
IMTtKSTME EXCELLENT utb EXCELLENT FAIR. 400
ARTERIAL STREETS EKCE.LLE.MT fAlK. EXCELLENT FAIR exct
UUEROTY BOS 4000 M/I excellent f»R Ni
LOtAL PUS EXCELLENT m\i EXCELLENT FAIR 40!
RAILROAD u/x NONE EXCELLENT NONE excE
AUTO REES'S EXCELLENT fA\R EXCELLENT FAIR 400
pu$ r*^Ae*k« EXCELLENT Nlr EXCELLENT EXCELLENT n/
fEPR3T«AM tXJ^O 6PX) u/t fA\R. BAD 40
fARtOW^ EXCELLENT fECR. 4 fUTURE LOWPHloa* FBdfwed PRCOECT okJ NO CH4N0ES EXPECTED- fftfOSED PEVElOpfAENT fbE AN fWfeElT Of FEOe'JElOpMBTT. PLANNED- DEYBL 401 DEL NEW L
EXCELLENT
SITE.- EXCELLENT SITE. WF1LL
LOMMCAJT5* SHOWKs rtOML/ 4x0 site. CDULD BE DEVBlCfED ftoE SUCCESS. NOW fee. SALE. BAD LOCATION.. H&K QUALITY DEVELOPMENT EXPECTED. fEDC LOCATION TO OTHER ACTV\;n\ES WMCH GOULD pEOSIDE SOfT^T- NO Sfl PLANS DEV E1C 4UIDEI


Full Text

PAGE 1

JlILANNllN
PAGE 2

TABLE 0 F CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Figures Executive summ•ry I. Introduction II. Program Hypothesis III. IV. v. VI. VII. A. Theories and case studies from literature 1. Little Rock, Arkansas 2. San Juan Capistrano, California 3. New London, Connecticut 4. Stamford, Connecticut 5. Savannah, Georgia 6. Chicago, Illinois 7. Ann Arbor, Michigan 8. Duluth, Minnesota 9. Minneapolis, Minnesota 10. Lincoln, Nebraska 11. Newark, New Jersey 12. Cincinnati, Ohio 13. Providence, Rhode Island 14. Ogden, Utah B. Program Hypothesis c. Evaluation Criteria Denver Union Terminal Project Development Alternatives Alternative Evaluation of Findings to Literature Importance of Findings to Downtown Denver Development Bibliography Page No. i ii iii 1 2 7 8 10 12 12 15 19 21 23 27 29 JO 32 33 37 44 46 76 86 8? vi A+P LD 1190 A78 1981 K45 Kemper, M. s. Railroad redevelopment planning

PAGE 3

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Redevelopment Projects 1. Little Rock/San Juan Capistrano 2. New London ). Savannah 4. Chicago 5. Chicago 6. Ann Arbor 7. Duluth 8. Minneapolis 9. Lincoln 10. Ogden 11. Redevelopment Comparison 12. Redevelopment Comparison 1). Development Costs Denver Conditions 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. )0. )1. )2. )). )4. )5. General Land Use Patterns Land Use and Density Circulation Pedestrian Links Topographic Features/Floodplain Zoning Designations Major Arterials AM Major Arterials PM Access to Lower Downtown Bus Walking Distances Bike Paths Projected Employment Public Facilities Denver Landmarks Building Identification Major Hotels Residential Buildings Major Department Stores Site Section Site Section Skyline Development Alternatives )6. Alternative Onea Low Rise )7. Alternative Twoa Mid Rise )8. Alternative Threea High Rise )9. Alternative Foura High Rise/H1gh 40. Birds Eye Viewa Alternative Four Page No. 9 11 14 17 18 20 22 26 28 )4 35 )6 48 49 50 51 52 53 59 60 61 62 6) 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 Intensity 80 81

PAGE 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the decline of passenger rail service many cities are looking for ways to redevelop and make use of abandoned and under utilized railroad stations and land. There are two main reasons such redevelopment is taking place. First, redevelopment is a valid way of preserving historical railroad structures and maintaining a connection with the past of the city. The second reason for redevelopment in many cities ia that railroad stations and land are located within or adjacent to the Central Business District and are extremely valuable properties for development. In August, 1981, The Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the development of an 18.5 acre tract of land in Lower Downtown Denver which includes Denver's Union Station. It was the intent of this report to past railroad redevelopments in order to determine if any patterns of programming become evident and if so, to develop a planning program which could be applied to proposed development at Denver Union Station. Evaluation would then be performed on the resulting development plan to test the program. Research began with analysis of 14 different railroad redevelopment projects ranging in scope from converting the 3,750 square foot Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Station in Lincoln, Nebraska into a branch bank, to the development of air rights over 83 acres of railroad yards on the edge of Chicago's Loop. A Department of Transportation study and an article by the Urban Land Institute indicated the positions of those respective organizations towards planning railroad redevelopment. The Department of has identifidd the following nine components for planning a successful railroad station reusea 1. Adaptive Reuse Procesaa An explanation of the new uses for the station and how and why they were chosen, 2. Historical and Architectural Descriptiona A description of the architectural composition and the station& history. 3. Rehabilitation and Design Analysisa An evaluation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken. 4. Market and Economic Analysis• Local conditions which affected the selection of the new uses. 5. Funding Strategy and Alternatives• What financing techniques were used and what alternative methods were available. 6. Transportation Componentsa A discussion of available transportation services plus what changes are required. 7. Urban Revitalization• An evaluation of the project as a catalyst for further revitalization in the area.

PAGE 6

8. Community Involvementa The involvement of local citizens and the local government in response to the project. 9. Other Preservation Considerations• Other factors which may be influential on the acceptance or rejection of the project. Among problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation were the difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the inability of some projects to generate revenue sufficient to cover operating costs, and the inability of some to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking. The Urban Land Institute addressed the questions of what type of facilities are likely to locate in intercity rail station areas and how can specific cities plan for the development associated with rail station improvements. Basically, the Urban Land Institute said the development was dependent on the city type (major regional center, satellite cities, independent markets) and the local market (weak, strong, unproved). basic land uses considered werea offices, hotels, retailing, exhibition hall/convention center, and parking. Based on the above information, a program was developed for Denvers Union Station. Attempts to quantify important criteria proved difficult except for either positive or negative impacts. The result was the development of a redevelopment guide versus a redevelopment program. Based on this guide and the existing conditions in Denver, development alternatives were prepared. Three basic alternatives were prepared based on the same program but different scales. A low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise solution were explored and as a result or their evaluations, a high rise/high intensity solution was also prepared. Evaluations of each development alternative were prepared based on previously stated criteria. Good and bad features of each solution were discussed in relation to Denver. Results indicated that a higher intensity use should be explored than was previously considered desiraule. The basic importance of the study in relation to the existing literature was the discovery that no definative theory exists as a program for planning railroad redevelopment. What does exist can be prepared as a guide for the direction redevelopment should take. The literature provides numerous criteria which affect the success of railroad rehabilitation projects and when developed. as a guide, these criteria can give early indications ot a projects• success of failure and what redevelopments have taken place in similar situations. The relationship of the study to development in Lower Downtown Denver is important in that it indicates a project of higher scale and higher density may be than

PAGE 7

previously thought, The redevelopment guide allows one to compare a proposed project with results obtained in similar conditions and make assumptions as to the projects viability,

PAGE 8

INTR . ODUCTION

PAGE 9

INTRODUCTION Abandoned and underutilized railroad stations and railroad yards have become focal points, in urban planning, for revitalization/redevelopment projects in many cities. In August, 1981, the Denver Union Terminal Railway Company solicited development proposals tor the 18.5 acre tract of land in Denver which includes Union Station. It is the intent of this report to investigate other railroad redevelopment projects in order to determine what programming patterns, it any, emerge as constants in planning for such redevelopment. When a program has been determined, a test case, using the Denver Union Terminal, will be prepared to evaluate the project. This report is organized into seven sections, the first or which is this Introduction. Section II is concerned with the program hypothesis. It includes research into specific projects as well as publications by the Department of Transportation and the Urban Land Institute on railroad redevelopment planning. A sample program will be e•tablished along with criteria for evaluating any projects developed. The specific factors applicable to th' Denver Union Station project will be discussed 1n Section III with supporting graphics. Section IV consists ot development alternatives for Denver Union Station, consistent with the generated program and local conditions. Evaluations of the alternatives follows in Section v, including comments on how well the alternatives matched the program. The findings and their impacts on both the researched literature and Denver downtown development are discussed in Sections VI and VII

PAGE 10

PROGRAM HYPOTHESIS

PAGE 11

PROGRAM HYPOTHESIS theories The United States Department of Transportation and the Urban Land Institute have been involved with railroad redevelopment planning for a number of years. In Recycling Historic Railroad Stations the Department of TransPQrtation reviews eight railroad station redevelopment projects and evaluates each according to major componen t s for planning a successful railroad station reuse • . The ... ooJDponel'l't.a area 1. Adaptive Reuse Process -an explanation of the new uses of the station, why they were selected, and how the project was carried out. (Th1a import of this for redevelopment planning is to be sure the new use(s) is compatible with the area and station before attempting the project.) 2. Historical and Architectural Description -a description ot the architectural composition and a discussion of the stations history and development, (A knowledge of the stations history and development is important so that decisions affecting the of the building can be carefully weighed.during the programming design,) J, Rehabilitation and Design Analysis -an evaluation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken during the reuse process to adapt the station to ita new uses. (Realization that oertian design treatments and construction techniques can be harmful and/or not applicable to the existing situation,) 4, Market and Economic Analysis -local market and economic conditions which affected the selection of the new uses along with a discussion of rehabilitation and operating costs, (A detailed market analysis is important both t o insure project feasibility/success and also to help financing. ) 5. Funding Strategy and Alternatives -which financing techniques were used, what alternative financing methods were available, and the prospects for future federal funding tor future aspects or the rehabilitation process. ( I n cases of a statio or depressed economic situation, knowledge of financing alternatives and potential public funding help assure or the project.) : 6. Transportation Components -a of the transportation services availabl at the station and the future development potential including t h e 4evelopment of intermodal transportation facilities, (This component appears to be one of the most important of all. Poor access auto, mass transit) can killan

PAGE 12

successful project while good circulation patterns can enhance a mideocre project and make it highly successful. 7. Urban Revitalization -an evaluation of the project as a catalyst for other public and private improvements in the area, and of secondary impacts or benefits on housing, retail, employment, and environment in the area. (A successful project tends to encourage surrounding development and redevelopment or a station in an area of existing growth and p reservation is generally successful.) B. Community Involvement -a discussion of the involvement of local citizens (private groups) in response to the project and the local governments role in implementing the project or coordination of programs with the development plan or the station. (Approval by local citizen groups and favoraple local government opinion can assist in project success.) 9. Other Preservation Considerations -other factors which may or may not have contributed to the projects success, including the need tor state or local legeslation, incentives for private development of the project, energy conservation measures and provisions for the access of the handicapped. (Delays while waiting tor necessary legislation or inability to meet accessibility requirements can cause the failure of a renovation project. This is especially true where public funds are involved.) While all nine components, as listed by the Department of Transportation are valid considerations for railroad redevelopment planning, some have seemed to have more impact on the success of a project than others. The transportation/circulation component, the reuse selected, and a combination of the market/ economic conditions with revitalization effects in the area seem to be the mqst for pruject success. Among the major problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation study werea difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the inability of some projects to generate adequate income to cover operating expenses, and the il .. &bili t;,' ot some projects to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking. The Urban Institute(ULI) was asked by the Federal Railroad Administration(PRA), upon the creation of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Froject(NECIP) in 1976, to address the following two questionsa (1) what types of land uses/facilities are likely to locate intercity rail station areas and, (2) how can specific cities plan tor the development associated to rail and station improvements? In order to those questions the Urban Land Institute conducted interviews with persons associated with the real estate location process and reviewed literature and research on transportation and business locations. Also,, the .ULI conducted a review in depth of a weak real estate market (Newark, New Jersey) a strong marketplace (Stamford, Connecticut) and an unproved market area (Providence, Rhode Island) in order to respond to the second question.

PAGE 13

Each station,.area was recognized as haTing ita own advantages and disadvantages which would influence its development potential. However, the ULI felt it was possible to identify common elements to station e1tes which must be considered in assesaing the appropriate use patterns. In the Northeast Corridor(NEC) rail passenger stations are generally loc&ted in downtown areas. Firms continue to locate in downtown areas because of amenities available, such as efficient transportation, proximity to clients and service firma, and the presence of hotels, restaurants, etc. However, in poor markets the amenities or downtown may not be enough to overcome the increased costs o r locating downtown. Two pasic competitive relationships are associated with downtown environments. The first is competition which occurs between downtowns Manhattan and Stamford or Newark for example. The second competitive situation exists between downtowns and suburban locations such as the case or Denver. Isolation of the rail station from the vigorous downtown market usually hinders station development. Stations 1n Baltimore and Washington D.C. for example, are located quite a distance from CBD areas and lack in a vibrant, growing enviroment • Station development potential can not be viewed separate from local market conditions, The attraction of a rail station area cannot be viewed in isolation from local market conditions. While certain -uses appear appropriate for a station area, they will not appear in the face or a poor market. The attractiveness of rail station areas tor development greatly depends upon the physical conditions of surrounding structures and the nature oi their Traditionally, rail stations create situations not conductive to first class uses such as space of retailing (noise, barriers, unsight1 llness, etc.)., Some cities have overcome the negative aspects or a rail.st•tion environment by a predominance or other activitte• '(air rights developments and high quality developments.) to a rail syste• are more likely to result in changes aroUnd the station than 1n the station itself. Identify ing appropriate uses for the station area must include an analysis of how different uses enhance or interfere With rail operation and other. land uses. As an example, while parking garages or lots provide the auto access essential for station operation and developmemt, ill-des1gned park1ng can repel activity by creating a sterile and dangerous environment. , r In studying the Northeast Corridor the ULI categorized cities into traditional typesa . I Ma or Re ional Centers The historical, financial, administrative, and cu tura centers of their region. Major banka, financial • ' I companiesr offices, universities, and utility . companies aawell as headquarter• ot major industrial and service firms tend to locate here,

PAGE 14

' Satellite Cilies Cities close to major regional centers, to permit commu ing and/or easy business travel. Independent Markets Smaller cities which serve a small regional market and are too tar rrom major regional centers to become satellite cities. The Urban Land Institute examined potential development , in the station areas or each or the three categories or cities. The analysis .concentrated on act1v1ty w1thin a quarter mile radius around the station. The major land uses investigated werea office, hotels, retaining, exhibition hall/convention center, and parking. The most appropriate use around station areas was determined to be office space. Offices probably offer the best support to rail stations in terms of passenger patronage and improvement of rail station areas. Only parking might provide greater support but economic and tax multiplier benefit to the city and station area would be minimal. and corporate offices are most likely in major retail centers. Satellite cities may attract corporate headquarters under certain conditions. Major retail centers are logical tor service firms which depend on headquarters and government agencies tor clients. Eventually, when a critical mass of clients establish in satellite cities, majDr service firms wtll establish permanent offices in satellite cities. Backroom office firms (accountants, etc.) have generally chosen satellite cities for a location because of cheaper costs wh11& improved data communication systems have allowed them to maintain contacts with clients in major regional centers. Major regional centers are prime locations for government offices. Satellite and ' independent.markets should be attractive to backroom operations connected wi t , h many state and federal operations. ' . Hotels rely on four groups of travelers for patronage. . For downtown .hotels, the major market is the business traveler who is viait1ng nearby ottioes or other facilities. A second major source 'or business 1s conventioneers. Transients compri'e a third but not a aignificant one for downtown hotels. The fourth type of business is resorts or entertainment. Rail location. will be favorable onl y if businessed and/or government offices are all ready located there. A hotel isolated from business. dest.inations would survive only in an extremely tight market as a hotel of last resort. Central-place theory states that speciality dependent the entire regional market will locate in the center of a region to be most to all customers. Retailing feasibility tor the rail station area depends upon atmosphere in the area and accessibility by everal transportation modes. Satellite cities would operate as above but independent market stations would have little retailing potential beyond that related to traveler needs and essential services.

PAGE 15

If a market exists for an exhibition hall/convention center, the rail station should be considered as a potential location because of the attributes of the station in relation to access. Parking should be designed and located so that it does not inhibit development potential in the future. Structured parking can form a barrier between the station and surrounding parcels of land. The optimal approach would be to provide parking within adjacent commercial or other structures, if possible. Parking garages could be built to accomodate future air development on either public or private property. It is important, at this time, to recognize a basic difference among the stations analyzed. The projects reviewed by the Department of Transportation involved stations which were either abandoned or underutilized by the railroads while those under discussion by the ULI were highly used transportation facilities located in the northeast United States. It 1s expected that th1s difference highly affects the types of uses which would be successful. The following pages contain brief reviews or fourteen different railroad redevelopment projects. Two charts follow comparing certain aspects of the projects which are felt to be important in railroad redevelopment planning.

PAGE 16

The 100,000 square foot Little Rock Union Station was built in 1921 to replace an earlier station which burned down in 1920. The adaptive reuse is the result of two separate effortsa the first begun in 1972, and the second in 1977, which is still in progress. The early efforts were under the direction of a local architectural firm but the later work was without benefit of an architect. The present developers relied on engineers and contractors drawings for changes. As a result there was a laek of coordination and no master plan was developed for the propoaed renovation. The station has been renovated into reataurants and and also serves as the local Amtrak station. Financing caused major problems in the development but were overcome although construction proceeded at a slower r:ate than des4.re4 •• Little Rock Station is located approximately one-half mile from the State Capital grounds and one mile from the Central Business District of the city, however due to topography and street configuration the station appears remote from both areas. Bus service is within walking distance but because of configuration people are more likely to use taxis. Parking is also a problem with this development in that location, not quantity is poor. The project has had some positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood and helped boost the market for other small shops in the area. This project shows the problems encountered wnen visual connection and circulation between the project and existing activity centers is poor. It also shows the need for advanced detailed planning and the effects of the lack of planning.

PAGE 17

Constructed 1n 1894, the San Juan Capistrano Depot was recycled 1n 1975 1nto a restaurant, 81ft shop, and train station. The success of the restaurant 1e based on three factorsa 1) the location 1s 1deal (heart of a tourist area)r 2) the operation 1s well managed and closel y supervieeda J) and a design concept which utilized the historic b uildings contrasted w1th new modern construction. The station plat f o r m connects to railroad cars, which forms part of the r e s taurant, and maintains t he railroad character of the area. Ra11 service continues to the station, and 1s expanding, w1th information provided by restaurant personnel since Amtrak operated no facilities on s1te. The new use if the depot includes a 150 seat restaurant, a 130 seat lounge, patio and party facilities, and a gift shop. To accomodate these uses the depot was combined with nine period railroad cars to form t h e entire comp lex. The image of two trains is provided along the station platform, which s,ervea as the circulation co rridor. The renovation, one of the first 1n the city, served as a major impetus for furthe r revitalization in,the area and a ,major local attraction • .. There has been considerable interest 1n the business community 1n revitalization in t he area around the M1ss1on San Juan Capistrano. When asked why this is needed, the answer is that it 1s 11in defense". The Capistrano Depot is located approximately 600 feet from the ma1n commercia l and retail area of the city. T he success of the revitalization has c reated an incentive for the c1ty to fund two devel opment .on anrt e1rculr.tio n 1n . the downtown. ' This project has been extremely successful both economically and 1n a preservation sense.

PAGE 18

I • = ... a • ! ,. 0 . .,. n 0 .. • 0 • a ... . 0 0 • -4 0 .. z < .. a n 0 ,. ,. • : 0 .,. • z < a 0 z • . : -4 • • ,. ,. g • • I i • • ; t=g 2J m c m < m ,.. 0 ., m z -t ., i LITTLE l=tOCK Map of station area. SAN JUAN RAILROAD TRACKS l .. COI"KTAIL LOUNGE-WINE SHO P Floor plan showing existing depot and freight house, new platform and railcars.

PAGE 19

The New London Union Station built in 1886 waa scheduled for demolition in the early 1970's, As a result, a local non-profit group was formed in 1973 to push for the preservation and adaptive reuse of what was considered a nationally building (listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1971). A preservation architect was hired with the intent of findiQg a new use which would save the station. The feasibility study clearly justified the economic viability of renovating the station as a multi-use facility. The study (which was subsequently executed) included maintaining Amtrak rail facilities while developing additional areas for rental income that would justify restoration of the entire building. Studies indicated a market for a good restaurant in the downtown area and also a requirement for additional office space, When no developers come forward in response to the studies, the preservation group requested the architect to act as developer, which he did. occured along the lines of the original study, but over a longer time frame than expected as a result of finaning difficulties. Amtrak's commitment to the station was a major factor in the projects success. It created the basis for developing an intermodal transportation center at the site. The revitalization of Union Station has stimulated new office building and other in the general neighborhoQd. It is a focal point of the revitalized portion of the CBD. The restaurant has brought an influx of people and retail business to the area and is regarded as an excellent attraction. Union 'station has set an example of successful adaptive reuse which changed the opinion of the city government from desiring demolition (for a period of 13 years) to desiring additional renovation in the area. lO

PAGE 20

The development of the Stamford, Connecticut Station takes place in a very healthy economy. In the last decade 5.5 million square feet of office apace has been constructed with another 7 million square feet planned for construction by 1985. In this case the Urban Land Institute was asked to focus on appropriate land uses in the station area, linkages with the rail station, and means of mitigating growing traffic congeation. Improvements to the Stamford Station total $48 million and will include a new station built over the tracks, a 800 car parking garage, and intermodal transportation services. The station is located in the southern 90rtion of the city, separated from the central business district by railroad tracks and the Connecticut Turnpide. Reviewing the market and location, ULI recommended that mixed uses should be encouraged in the railroad area. The most appropriate uses would be complementary to the existing office area north of the tracks, yet would not generate excess traffic. The ULI team viewed the tracks and turnpike as a buffer not a barrier which could provid e benefits to the city (protecting residential neighborhoods and minimizing traffic loads).

PAGE 21

In 1974 the Chamber or Commerce in Savannah, Georgia began the renovation of the 100 year old (1874) Central of Georgia Passenger Station into a new visitors center for the city. The tourist industry underwent a dramatic increase in the early 1970's and the Chamber wanted a building with adequate parking in a +ocation close to major highway access to the city. The Passenger Depot met these criteria and was envisioned by the Chamber ot Commerce as an impetus to upgrade the commercial area 1n which it was located. The city of Savannah independently acquired and developed an adjacent parking lot which is partially utilized by visitors center. It was largely due to the willingness of the Mayor and the City Council to lease the building under reasonable terms that project was achieved. The new visitors center houses an information booth, exhibit area, lounge, and small theatre with offices and a board, room for the Chamber on the second floor. The railroad station has been credited with stabilizing the western edge of the Savannah Historic District and has stimulated interest in nearby restoration projects.

PAGE 22

The redevelopment of 8J acres of obsolete railroad yards at the edge of Chicagoas Loop, Illinois Center, is an air rights project of such complexity that the master plan is only an open-ended development strategy to link all buildings and facilities via a three-layer circulation syetem. The first phase of building is now being completed with two more phases to be completed within the next 15 years. At present, One and Two Illinois Center, buildings by the office of Miel Van Der Rohe, T.he Standard Oil of Indiana Headquarters by Edward Durell Stone, The Chicago Hyatt House, and an 800 unit condominium on Lake Shore Drive constitute phase I of the projec,. The Illinois Central Railroad had first contemplated air rights development over the parcel as early as 1929. The first development built over the yards, the Prudential Building, occured in the early 1950's. In the early 1960's, outer Drive East, a 900 unit apartment building was built on air rights but neither of these buildings was thought to be part or any large scale development. When the railroad first sought to sale these air rights the city sued claiming the railroad had the right only to the use of the land and not to the air rights. The Supreme Court of Illinois gave the air rights to the railroad and by the mil 1960's, three separate held options for air rights over various pieces of The city officials began work on a set of guidelines in order to have some form of planned development versus a approach. According to a qity statute a Plan Development Ordinance had to be approved by the City Council and the Department of Planning and Development.before development could take place. The city worked closely with various developers and their architects on the guidelines and the resulting ordinance was generally acceptable to all parties concerned. The ordinance sets land coverage, maximum square footage of specific types of uses, the distribution ot thses uses throusnout the site, and outlines the responsibilities of the various parties involved for public improvements. The master plan for the 83 acre site was developed as a joint effort of the remaining two developers and. the city. The master plan exists as generalized land use and maximum square footage diagrams. Due to the nature of the lease agreements for land acquisition, and the time span of development an alternative to predetermined development was chosen by the firm of Solomon, Cardwell and Buenz Inc. and the Office of Mies Van Der Rohe, joint planners. Development was broken into three phases to correspond realistically to the construction of on-site utilities and necessary access roads.

PAGE 23

) ' : •, master plan was conceived as a three-layer circulation network connecting all development. The lowest level(ground) is a truck and service 11nka the intermediate level 1a tor through traffica the upper level is for local access into thelproject. The railroad is responsible tor construction or the on-grade service level, the city is responsible for the intermediate street level, and the developers are responsible for the local aceesa. , Inserted into the intermediate level is. a walkway along which most retail development would take place. This level also connects into building lobbies, suburban commuter station at the edge of the site, and into a proposed subway extension.in the1middle or the site. The remainder or the tnree levels -where no access roads exist will be parking, accessible from both the intermediate and upper levels. The only portion that exists so far is that which is located under buildings which have been built. i I The developers see a potential for a mix of uses that goes beyond the residential/oommerclal/offlce They hope to draw people from other parts of the city by encouraging cultural and recreational development ln the area. Only recreational portio.ns were originally planned. This project is on a larger one than moat reviewed and shows planning on a large scale which allows for changes in market demands over a period of time. Being on such a large, scale the planners were content to parameters tor the development, specific areas required or lopated on the site.

PAGE 24

""RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING :; UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER MPCD 790 FALL 1081 ... COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN M S KEMPER \1

PAGE 25

The Central Railroad Depot built in 1886 and located in Ann 4rbor, Mich1aen was recyoled by a private developer into a successful sea food restaurant. The Depot also to provide service for Amtrak. The building contains lJ,?SO square feet with a net floor area ot 8,000 square feet. It was redeveloped at a cost ot $l,J5?,000 or an average oost of $100 per square foot. The cost ot new restaurant -construction was averaging $60 to $70 per square foot. The station is located outside of the central and univeFsity areas of town but remains economically viable in that it attracts a clientele willing to travel farther in less trafficked areas tor occasional "special event" The factor stresses that only certain types of uses can in a relatively inconvenient location. This project clearly shows that proposed uses tor a station must be carefully analyzed tor their market demand in the given location .to determine it the projec: t 1s v1a:ble. One of the problems with this project was a lack of parking on site. It was solved by joint procurement of new parking by the developer and Amtrak. It is t ( note that parking is a major problem with railroad station rehabilitation no the scale since the stations were built before the oil, rubber, tire explosion and there was no need for parking. joint use of the station offers and. constraints. It offers increased exposure tor both but there are conflicts in parking requirements. Even with this conflict additional transportatio n modes (bus service) have been recommended to increase usage at the station. (also increasing parking requirements)

PAGE 26

I I . : .., a • ! .. 0 . ,. ,. n ,. 0 ... ,. • 0 • a .. ,.. " 0 ,.. .... " • z • a n 0 ,. ,. • • • 0 ,. • z c I 0 z • . : .. . ,.. ,. g i i (XJ 0 (XJ 2J ;; (XJ 'V m ..... o .... == ...... ,). ' . CJ {;[ _...75 -=z5 DEPOT ST . ---/ I I I I I I / I Site plan showing station and new parking areas. DINING AREA ____,.---,_ _ .... DINING AREA KITCHEN -. Floor plan ?fter Phase II of development • ANN Alli:JOll

PAGE 27

From 1973 to 1977 eight city and regional cultural groups acted as developers and transformed the 1892 Duluth Union Depot into a County and Arts Center. The facility includes museum and exhibition space in the original depot. a transportation museum in a new trainshed behind the depot. and a theater/ performing arts center in a new addition to the west of depot. The station reuse has had a significant impact on revitalizing that particular area of downtown Duluth and has helped expand the tourist industry. There have been several renovations in the area since the project including a new library and hotel. The site is close to local bus routes and Amtrak service has started up adjacent to the site. The Duluth Union Depot is located on the edge of the Duluth central business district which is important tor the tunctiona served by the present facility, which are depib•ut on the general accessibility of the site. For most facilities there 1sn•t a better a1te 1n Duluth to be located. , t l

PAGE 28

J)ULUTH HOW TO GET TO THE MUSEUM LOCATED AT THE DEPOT , CORNER OF 5th AVENUE WEST & MICHIGAN STREET DULUTH Map showing regional h i ghway access. AD REDEVELOP IHit ... nY OP COLORADO AT DaNVaR ..aa 7... I'ALL , •• , ::e ::> w en ::> ::e z 0 s a: 0 n. en z <( a: ... I w J Wl: z ... f f 7 COLLaH OP aNVIROtl .. ltTAL Dll .... .........

PAGE 29

The Depot Park Development Team is one of a group of developers who submitted proposals for the development of the 10 acre Milwaukee Road Depot 1n Minneapolis. This group of developers expressed concern for a development proposal which would take advantage of the nature of existing structure and site. As states "Its location between the burgeoning Central Business District, the Industry Square Riverfrant, and the new stadium make it a corridor throqgh which we may begin to rediscover the Mississippi and birthplace of Minneapolis." There are some obvious similarities with the situation in Denver which will be discussed in more detail later. Among the desires of the developers was to preserve the existing structuresa return the depot to an active use which reflects the culture and lifestyle of the Minneapolis community• to integrate the development into a 24 hour citYI and to and stimulate redevelopment in the surrounding area. The property is highly accessible, located at the intersection of two major downtown arteries, one of which is also a major bus route. A new bus transfer facility is plannes for construction across the street which will include a 1200 car parking garage. T.here is the desire to create new markets by bringing stadium visitors into downtown before and after games, drawing office tenants back the city suburbs, and creating a commercial core $nd public amenity that will generate new sources ot tourist traffic. The preliminary program for the 10 aere Phase I site includes the followinga Housinga 200 condominium units aimed for "second generation" condominium buyers, empty nester couples, professiQnals and downtown oriented retired persons. Unit Mixa 15% studio 25% 1 bedroom 20% 1 bedroom/den 20% 1 bedroom/den 10% 2 bedroom 10% 2 bedroom/den 6oo-64o sf 740-780af 900-940 sf (standard) 960-1000 sf (split) 1200-1250 sf (stand•rd) 1400-1600 sf (penthou•e) Concepta Maximize views of river and oity. Connected to rest or development to take advantage of facilities in entire development. Eat. Costa #25,000,000

PAGE 30

Commercial Officea 400,00 square feet to be constructed in one or two stages of 150,000 to 200,000 square feet each . Concepta Two tower complex to allow for both large and small tenants with river and city views. Offices integrated with shopa, restaurants, and amenities of indoor/outdoor park and hotel meeting facilities. Est. Costa $J8,000,000 Hotela 250 rooms with conference facilities and restaurants. Market is expected to be commercial travelers, tourists, sports spectators and participants, convention/group visitors desiring lodging near business contacts, entertainment and sports facilities. Local business users of meeting and party rooms are a secondary market. Concepta A luxury hotel for travelers desiring proximity to the central business district. Meeting rooms and conference facilities to attract small and medium conferences and can also be used for private parties. Three restaurants are to be included in the facilities. Est. Costa $21,000,000 Health and Recreational Facilitiesa JO,OOO feet to include 1/8 mile running trackJ 8-lane swimming poolJ: raquetball and handball eourtsa exercise facilitie&J steam/ suana racilitiesa and a pro shop. Concepta An integral part of Depot Park to serve both the housing component and office tenants with availability to hotel guests on a day to day basis. Est. Costa $3,250,000 Retail• Approximate!i 100,000 square feet of retail and restaurants to serve metropolitan area residents and visitors, office workers in the central business district, downtown residents, sports spect tors, and hotel guests. Concepta The retail/restaurant component represent at one timea the primary public ta the facilities, a destination entertainment sMpping are•• a ,gathet'lftgL .plaot, :...and the connecting link betw en element• or the development. Six sitdown r staurants (formal to casual) and JO specialty food kiosks are plannes to occupy approximately one halt ot the available area. Twenty to twenty-fiTe specialty retail stores: with. 10-12 convenience stores are to be included 1n facilities provided. Est. Costa $10,000,000

PAGE 31

Parking a A preliminary determination or 1600 spaces based on the following breakdowna Housing a 1 space/unit . otticea 2 spaces/1000 af or leaa1ble area Hotela 1 space/J rooms Health Cl 0 4 spaces/1000 sf of leasable area Warehsea 2 spaoes/1000 at of leasable area (200) ( 690) (84) ( 400) !160) 334 Parking to be in two major condominiums and the other clustersa one to be near near the hotel and offices. Est. Costa $15,000,000 The design concept for Depot Park Phase I evolves around the creation of an indoor/outdoor urban park. The two acre park.will be the key feature and integrating element of Depot Park. park will be by renovated structures and new structures providing the facilities previously mentioned. The historic portion of the development will serve as the "front door" of the project both because of location and to set the flavor of the development, The greatest density of retail establishments will be occuring in the historic structures. Energy will be a major concern both 111 renovation and. new const:TUction. The new 250 room luxury hotel will be a seven story low rise to maintain area height characteristics and be constructed with materials similar to those used in the historic area. The two office towers will have sloped roofs and be stepped back at their bases to create a common scale with that of the existing depot, etc. The twenty-two story condominiums will be designed , the form and verticality of nearby mills. The proposed Depot Park Development shows a mix of.uses for economic vitality while making good use of existing facilities to establish a character (theme) to make an exciting "place" of continued interest.

PAGE 32

OAD REDEVELOPMENT PLA NING 8 utiiVIIR81TY Of COLORADO AT DENVER 7... IJALL 1e81 COLLEGI OP ENVIRONIIIIINTAL Dll81GN M 8 KilliN.

PAGE 33

In 1969, the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Depot, in Lincoln, Nebraska, was recycled into a branch bank. This project was an early adaptive reuse project initiated by the bank presidents• interest in the building and Nebraska banking laws which required branch banks to be within a certain distance of main offices. The Depot waa one of the few available buildings within range wh1oh appeared suitable for the banks use. When banking laws were changed, removing the distance requirements, the bank desired to locate in a better market, and placed the building up for sale. The project was an early adaptive reuse in the region and has received extensive publicity and recognition. It had major impacts on surrounding commercial properties which have been upgraded and improved. Many interior changes were made to the building which may• be attributed to the facts that the original use (railroad station) and the new use (bank) call for different spaces which may be incompatible and that the conversion took place in 1969, when many current preservation techniques were just being formulated. The Depot is located adjacent to the poorest economic section of Lincoln (generally east of the station). The commercial businesses surrounding the railroad station have apparently benefited from the rehabilitation and conversion to a branch bank. Merchants have indicated the station has increased the sense of identity ot the neighborhood. The rehabilitation has also provided a sense of identity to the bank itself.

PAGE 34

., ! I . : ... • ,. • .. • • .. • • .. -c 0 .. n 0 0 :II ,. 0 0 ,. .. 0 .. z < .. :II n 0 • 0 • 0 .. • z < i 0 z a . : .. . ,. Jll D • • I i • z ?a (XJ 21 0 (XJ 0 < f?:J r .... 'V U) TRACKS, TENANT Site plan. LINCOLN TENANT SPACE Floor plan. * BANK ....-........() 0 10 20 40 TELLERS' AREA BANK LOBBY DRIVE-UP BANKING FACILITY I

PAGE 35

Renovation of Newark's Pennsylvania Station is viewed by local citizens as an essential part of the revitalization of downtown Newark. The station has become the transportation hub of Newark, serving as the main terminal for Amtrak and Conrail service intercity and intracity bus service, the city subway, and airport transfer services. The station is located approximately two blocks from a main commercial area. The city has long recommended development of a spine from the station to the commercial area. A hotel/ office park development across the street from the station is the first evidence of the development of this spine. The land available for development between Penn Station and the CBD is approximately equal to 22 acres. A non-profit organization whose objective is to encourage development in the area requested assistance from the Urban Land Institute to develop marketing and development strategy issues related to the land. The ULI technical assistance team concluded that office development offered the greatest potential in the station area. The team also felt that retail and hotel development was feasible in the station area but the extent of such development is dependent on the, success of attracting new office development. Image problems of security and appearance in downtown Newark threaten the success of any new development. Marketing campaigns were devised to show how these problems would be overcome. Since an estimated $20 million in investments is expected the ULI team recommended the station be operated as a real estate project, not as a railroad station. The retail operations should pay market rents and the income should be used to maintain the station.

PAGE 36

The Cincinnati Union Terminal was constructed in l9JJ and has been the focus of repeated development proposals since falling into disuse in the 1960's. In 1972 the 450 foot long grand arrival and departure concourse, at the rear of the rotunda, was demolished to make way for a rail alignment which never took place. In 1973 the building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. New York architects Hardy Holeman Pfeiffer Associates focused on adaptive reuse proposals in the early 1970's for the station and proposed an arts school and transit office development which was not adopted. As late as November, 1977, the fate of the building was up in the air. However, in August, 1980 the Union Terminal reopened with a new use -a shopping mall. The developer, The Joseph Skilken Organization, looked tor a concept for redevelopment, toying with an "OZ" type recreational environment, but finally choosing a faneuil hall rJtail idea. The development program calls tor renovating the building for 400,000 square feet of retail space and 55,000 square feet of office space. The existing building has nine levels with 115,545 square feet on the main level and 10 acres of land, all outside the downtown core. A $1.75 million federal grant (UDAG) plus a $1 a year building lease from the city for JO years aided in the $20 million renovation. The developer also obtained property tax abatement on capital improvements above the $16,000 annual tax paid now. Revenues are expected to be in the range of $50 million. Phase I of the development as now completed includes 155,000 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet of office space. The renovation designed by the archltects, Schofield and Schofield of Columbus, Ohio, required a new mechanical system into all parts of the building, installing a new electrical system, and bringing the building into compliance with codes. The developer lacked a major ingredient of a commercial enterprise -location. The station is located outside of the Central Business District, somewhat remote from the downtown of "Fountain Square". To compensate for this the developer only charges $).50 per square foot instead of the normal $15 per square foot. A theme of 1890's railroading has been adopted throughout the project tor signage and graphics, A major problem in the project has been stated that the

PAGE 37

design or the shops does not respond to the architecture or the building. However, the project appears well liked by the public and is widely used. The location proved to be a major factor in the project determination because of the economic factors imposed. Rental rates had to be low, which influenced those uses which could be considered economical. Since the site was outside or the Central Business District/Fountain Square area it could not make use or the multitude of downtown facilities for support of a more intense mixed use development.

PAGE 38

The development project in Providence, Rhode Island is concerned with the development of 60 acres of land between the CBD and Union Station and the restoration of Providence's Union Station (the current Amtrak station) upon relocation of elevated tracks running through the site. The Capital Center Project, proposed for the site, has 3.5 million square feet of planned office space for the next 20 years. Upon reviewing the plans and time frame the ULI recommended single ownership control (by the Capital Center Commission) to maintain the plan over the years. Special design considerations were recognized as be.ing needed because of the historic nature or the State House, Union Station, and the central business district. Project planners established development criteria which were of a general nature. The Urban Land Institute agreed that fundamental guidelines are essential and should not be compromised. It believes that the best design product will come from an imaginative developer and designer that are giTen a certain degree or freedo m and flexibility. Excessive standards established to guide development may in effect, act to suppress creativity, Flexibility is needed to attract top-notch developers and designers.

PAGE 39

The renovation or Ogden Union Terminal was undertaken by local citizens groups and predicated on the city's interest in acquiring the building for use as a civic center. The renovation wark has been carried out under the direction or a non-progit organization. The revitalization project has converted the three building complex into a multiple cultural and civic center, two museums, a train station, and railroad offices. Union Station is located on the western edge of the Ogdep Central Business District and the edge of the former "red light" district. The site is highly accessible from all points of the city. At the time of review the project was not complete so reinvestment in surrounding commercial buildings had not taken place. The station has, however, focused attention on the historic importance and development potential of the area. The city has recently completed a revitalization plan for the area and undertaken a study for a new hotel and convention center in the immediate area. A new in town shopping mall was planned within four blocks of the station.

PAGE 40

program hypothesis Reviewing the railroad redevelopment projects, both successful and unsuccessful, and the studies done by the u.s. Department of Transportation and the Urban Land Institute leads to certain conclusions about railroad redevelopment planning. Certain factors are cona1dered to be highly influential upon the success or failure of a potential railroad development. The following list is an attempt to define those aajor factors. RELATION TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT One of the most important factors in railroad redevelopment planning is the relationship of the railroad site to the cities' CBD. It is apparent from the that a location within or immediately adjacent to the CBD positively affects the prospects for a successful redevelopment while a location remote from (or with poor access within) the CBD requires extra preparation and diligence in planning, design and execution, A remote location has to generate its own market while development with1n the CBD can take advantage of .the existing market draw. The development 1n a remote lo. cat1.on almost must be a one of a kind so as to draw business while this is not as important in a CBD location (the one or • kind .. is even more successful in the CBD). CITY SIZE It is obvious that the larger the city, the more resources are available both for developing a project and for supporting the final results. In comparing the reviewed projects, the potentials and results in the larger cities for funding availability and economic support are much greater. SITE SIZE As obvious as city size, the size ot the site available.for redevelopment is a &ajor determining factor in potential uses. If the site 1s limited to the building then uses which could beneficially occupy the railroad station are limited. It additional space, other than the building, is available then redevelopment possibilities are expanded and the chances for mixed use projects increase. BUILDING SIZE -When limited to redeveloping only the railroad station, the size or the building takes on tremendous import. The smaller buildings are limited to one use which hurts financing possibilities, and limits potential uses for the building. . The larger buildings can have mixed use redevelopment which have gr.eater chances for success (with built in by allowing more response to the market and market changes. TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION PATTERNS Efficient transportation systems which service the redeve opment parcel can almost insure success while inefficient systems can harm what would normally be a good location (Little Rock Un1on Stat1on). 21

PAGE 41

INTERSTATE ROAD SYSTEM -Locations near interstate highways can take advantage of passing motorists for business. Essentially the impact of interstates is to increase the market area of the development and provide good access to the sites. ARTERIAL STREETS The pattern of arterial streets seems more important to the site than the distance from interstates. A good interstate/poor arterial scenario seems more negative than a poor interstate/good arterial. The reason is that arterial streets are the main method of access for automobiles. LOCAL BUS -A site which is located along an intracity bus route has the added benefits or bus riders as potential users. A local bus route increases market area and is another important access form. RAILROADS Active passenger railroad service to the site is an added bonus. out of town rail service lets the site serve as a focal/entry point with specialized serveces, while in town commuter rail service can take advantage of the high number or people passing through the site. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Good access from other nearby activity centers increases the viability or a site. This or course implies there are methods for pedestrians to arrive in the area and that there.are other activity centers nearby. PARKING -A factor of major importance is parking. Adequate parking must .. be provided (can be shared) in a way not to hinder access to the site or to other nearby facilities. OTHER FACTORS Other major factors in railroad redevelorent planning are local market economy (depressed ve. upswing and the local community•s/governments attitude toward preservation redevelopment. The first is obvious in importance. The second is important as . a judgement factor in determining the scope of a project.: On the following page is an attempt to quantify the above. factors into a program tor redevelopment planning. This program is based on the previously mentioned research done on railroad stations.

PAGE 42

program components Relation to CBDa Withina Almost any land use applicable. Offices and support facilities for offices desirable. (+ factor) Adjacenta Most any land uae compatible with CBD. Can act as focal point. (+ factor) Hemotea Special land uses/activities to serve as a regional activity. (-factor) City Sizea <50,000a Uaually singla use activity (restaurants, shops, etc.) 50,000-lOO,OOOa One to two uses in (restaurants, offices, museums, visitors centers) l00,000-500,000a Multi-use f oilities (offices, retail/ commercial centers, recreation) )500,000a Multiple use/multiple facilities (office buildings, hotels, commercial centers, mass transit facilities, iovernment centers, convention centers, recreation) Site Sizea <1 acrea Single use of two small size facilities 1-5 acresa Multiple use/facility (office, residential, commercial) 5-10 acresa Multiple use/facility (combination of uses office, commercial, residential) >10 acresa High intensity uses -multiple structures with (commercial, hotels, convention, government, etc.) large scale development Building'sizea <5000 eta (office retaill , 5000-lOOOOa One or two uses (office, retail, visitor center) l0,000-25,000a One or multiple small uses (office, retail, museum) 25,000-SO.OOOa Multiple uses {office, retail) >50,000a Multiple uses (retail, office, specialty, museums, etc.) Transportation/Circulation a Gooda + factor (increase development) Bada factor (limit development) Arteriala Gooda + factor (increase development) , Bada -factor (limit development) busa on:Routea+ factor (increase development) Ott Boutea-factor (limit development) Railroadsa Yesa + factor (increase development) No a no we1sht1ng + or ... Pedestrian Accessa Gooda + factor {increase development, promote pedestrian activitJ) Bada -factor (limit development) Park1nga Goo4a + factor (increase development, promote shared parking use) Baa -factor (increase parking assets)

PAGE 43

Other• Economya Goodt increase development size and quality Poora many market studies required difficult to finance Loca1 Govta Preservation mindeda + tactor Non-preservationa increase public relations to educate

PAGE 44

The attempt to quantify the information obtained from existing literature into a planning program for redeveloping railroad stations/yards has not proven to be as specific aq previously hoped,. What is possible, as indicated by the prevl,ous program 1s gui to planning the redevelopment. Instead of a program wh c s a es what facilities, and what amounts of development should occur, it is possible to prepare a guide for evaluating the potentials of specific development types. The gu1de can provide indications as to the type and scope of development based on existing conditions, and can influence the direction of redevelopment either up or down (intensive or limited). The next page is an example of the guide applied to the Denver Union Station Development.

PAGE 45

Relation to CBDa Adjacenta Lan4 uses compatible with CBD. Focal point or edge, City Sizea >500,000: Multiple structure facilities (office buildings, hotels, commercial centers, transit facilities, government centers, convention centers, recreation) Site Sizea 10 t\Cresa Multiple structure. Building Sizea 50,000 a t -:ultiple uscu within building or large scale single use development. Transportation/Circulation a Interstatea Fair -a slightly positive influence Arterial Streetsa Fair -positive factor Intercity Busa Poor -not really within walking distance slightly negative factor Local Busa Excellenta within walking distance of major terminal point and on hus route -positive factor. Railroadsa Good/bad -location of passenger service but also mainline freight location. Slightly negative factor. :r:. Ji.'alr .... arter1:ala :pearby and viaducts are difficult for access, Neutral Bus Passengera Excellent within walking distance of major bus terminal. P o<ive factor. Pedestrian A.ccessa Good -nearby pedestrian mall. Within 15 minutes of major! of CBD, Positive factor. Parkinga Poor -parking a problem in area and must be included in project, Overall Evaluation• Location, city size, indicate high intensity mixed use project while other factors indicate positive attitude and probable success. The following development figures for the Denver project are based on mixe s and types observed in the research and in particular, the proposed project in Minneapolis.

PAGE 46

DENVER UNION STATION Development Figures Site Sizea 18.)8 acres • 800,6J2.8sf Building Sizea Gross 174,ooosr Net lJO,OOOsf Present Zoning• B-7 FAR • 2, with premiums total not to exceed 4 I-2 FAR Unlimited Assumptionsa Zoning may be changed to PUD or something similar to l3-7 or B-.5. Building Floor Area Calculationsa Wtih B-.5 FAR 10 + premiums = 8,oo6,J28sf With B-7 FAR 2 up to 4 • 1,601,265.6 J,202,5)2.2sf Por Development• Assume FAR 5 • 4,00J,l64sf For Comparisona One Unl.ted Bank Center • l,200,000st -= 52 stories Potential Uses• For Denver at same % breakdown as Depot Park Depot Park Denver % Offices 400,000 1,720,000 4J. Hotel (250) 166,000 ( 1084) 720,000 18 Commercial/retail 100,000 440,000 11 Recreation (Health club) JO,OOO 120,000 J Housing (200) 2)5,000 (850) 1,000,000 25 Parking (1600) 542,000 (3500) 1,190,000 N/A Transit Facility .. _ .. _ .. __ ? Bldg Total 9)1,000 4,000,000 100 Above figures equal maximum expected. Assuming density near Depot Park the tollwoing figures appear a rt4SOnable assumption tor development analyaisa Oftices Hotel (450) Commercial/retail Recreation/health club Housing (350) Parking (1750) Transit Total 700,000 298,800 175,000 52,500 411,250 612,500 )08000 2,2 0,636 sf Equals PAR of 2.1 (present B-7 before premiums)

PAGE 47

evaluation criteria Certain criteria must be established in order to evaluate both the actual development and the development program in the specific situations. The following lost of criteria will be used to judge the results or the Denver Union Terminal development. Slight modifications to the list would allow it to be used for other projects. Economic/Market Demand• 1. Does the development respond to existing economic/market conditions or does it attempt to force a new or unneeded use? 2. Does the project have a good chance of generating enough income for operations and profit? Does it support itself?' Political Acceptability• 1. Does the development conform to existing planning and zoning proposals? 2. Is the local government ameanable to the development proposal? J. Does the project require revision of codes or plans? 4. Do surrounding neighborhood, merchants, industries welcome or oppose the development? 5. Does the project enhance the identity or "sense" of a place? Is it on as beneficial to the neighborhood? 6. Does the project increase the tax base and provide additional 7. Does the development require expenditures by the local government? Region Considerations• 1. Does the development respond to regional demands for different land uses? 2. Is the development in agreement with regional development goals? .Transportation • 1. Does the development take advantage of transportation systems or is it hindered b y them? 2. Can the project act as a node for transportation systems? ). Are major modifications required to the transportation network?

PAGE 48

State Governmenta 1. Does the development meet all state goals, plans, and regulations? Federal Governmenta 1. Do federal regulations (air, water) impact on the project? Are all requirements met? 2. Are federal funds required for the project? Design Considerationsa 1. Does the development make use of existing buildings, neighborhoods? 2. Is the project in conflict or harmony with existing neighborhood (style, land uses)? J. Are good features of area emphasized? 4. Is efficient use of land and neighborhood a goRl of the project? Other a 1. Gut feela Is project beneficial or detrimental to city, neighborhood, or area? 2. Is the project a plus to the city, a place to be pointed out with pride?

PAGE 49

DENVER EXISTING CONDITIONS

PAGE 50

DENVER EXISTING CONDITIONS In August 1981, the Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the redevelopment of an 18.4 acre tract of land which includes Denver's Union Station. The center portion and extreme outer portions of the wings were constructed in 1914 and the taller portions of the wings near the center of the building were constructed in 1880. The building contains approximately 174,000 square feet with a net rentable area of approximately 130,000 square feet including basements. The request for proposal indicates a willingness to consider almost any concepts. The plan developed for evaluation is fairly conventional, as can be seen in a later description. Both. the Denver Planning Office and the Denver Partnership have studied and prepared guidelines for development in the lower downtown Denver area. The Denver Planning Office has said, in Policies for the Develo ment of Downtown Denver and Ad acent Areas, the redevelopment o e ower owntown area s ou encourage t e preservation and improvement of older structures and existing uses and attract and accomodate new retail, office, and residential uses. Lower downtown should be held intact as it becomes bordered by new construction, to retain its distinctiveness and attraction to investors and businesses. Also stated was that attention should be given to Union Station as a future focus for thJ district. It I is also highly desired to influence the construction of new residential units in the area. There is a desire to limit the of the CBD so as to maintain its vitality. The Denver Partnership has made available a publication of lower downtown development strategies for the 20 block B-7 area. The folloWing assumptions were made for different development scenarios established by the Denver Partnership• 1. The existing character of the lower downtown is unique to the Denver area, and should be considered as an identifiable place separate in scale from the rest of downtown. 2. Parking for the overall district must be adequate to satisfy market needs and investor requirements. ). In order to maintain support of land owners and the development community, the development scenarios must provide a reasonable economic return.

PAGE 51

4. Residential development is a key ingredient to the long term success of the Lower Downtown District. The goal is to provide approximately 1000-1500 units in addition to those already under construction. The chart on the next page shows estimated costs and revenues in the lower downtown area. The scenarios established by the Denver Partnership are as follows• ' Scenario A• Preservation and Infill. Scenario A attempts to preserve the existing street facade and scale of the district, while at the same time offering the potential for infill development on all sites. Scenario B• Controlled New Development. This scenario assumes that larger parcel aquisitions will occur with resulting larger scale buildings. In order to control this development pressure and prevent building owners from having to sell their buildings, scenario B . introduces the concept of Transfer of Developer Rights (TDR). Developers would be able to increase their floor area ratios by purchasing unused development rights from owners in the area. Scenario Bl (The Dispersed Model) presumes that development can occur anywhere within the district while Scenario B2 (The Zone Model) takes the position that the existing character of Lower Downtown can only accept development in certain areas and should be restricted to those areas. Scenario Ca Market Development. This scenario assumes that parcel acquisitions will continue except for those parcels where historic structures, buildings eligible for tax benefits, and those over four stories are located. Special incentives for residential development must be included along with provisions for protecting street frontage where parking garages cover 75% of the site. Other development issues include a coordinated transportation plan, pedestrian/street improvements, and provisions of open space within the district. The following graphics are used to show existing conditions affecting the Denver Union Station redevelopment.

PAGE 52

J)EVELOI:>MEN T --------------COSTS (Including hard and soft costs): Land Parkin
PAGE 53

... \ .. ' .... _.;. I , ' ,. .. ' -/ .) ... ' . ' / ( -" ,/ .. _, / . tiWII .msm Cllllllltlll/llllllllill / .. "' '• w ' ' ' . . ............ .. __J ,)o.. . ) ' 'I I ; CIVIC Clllfl PHIIC/ UI!Uilllll ( . "'' . . . , \ ' ' I . ' '=' : ...... '" . 1 , ' .. • ' . . ' ' ... ..... un ttl :''''' \ ,,,h i , . . . , 1 •Ill • •1,! 14 UtiiV.II8tTY OP COLORADO AT DENY•II .... 7 ... PALL 1ea1 COLLG OP .NVtAONII.NTAL D ..... ........

PAGE 54

... ...... ..•' " . • l IIPIIII IUII! IIIll ) UIIU u ... RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT """ 15 UIUVIIIetT'Y OP COLORADO AT DINYIII .... ,... PA L L , •• , .... COLLI81 OP INVIIIONMINTAL DI ... N ..

PAGE 55

TRANSIT TRANSFER POINTS INTIRNAL TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN SHUTTLE SERVICE &HtiV.II8tTY OP COLORADO AT D!NYEIIt ?... PALL tea1 TRANSIT ACCESS TO TRANSFER POINTS A MAJOR TRAFFIC t ARTERIALS S RVING PERIPHERAL PARKING FACILITIES 16 COLL •• OP .NYIIIIONM.MTAL D. M ........ I:;.. I

PAGE 56

c=) MAJOR DOWNTOWN FUNCTIONAL AREAS Ill I INTENSIVE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM WITHIN FUNCTIONAL AREAS PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES BETWEEN MAJOR FUNCTIONAL I L ! SECONDARY PEDESTRIAN BETWEEN ACTIVITY CENTERS PEDESTRIAN f;ATEWAYS TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS 17 UIHVIR81TY OP COLORADO AT DRNVRR COLLRGI OP INVIRONIIIMTAL DIUGM .ca ,.... PALL 'te81 M 8 KaMNa

PAGE 57

GENERAL PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF ZONE DISTRICTS CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER The following paragraphs explain the purpose and general description of the various zone districts contained within the Denver Zoning Ordinance. The regulations of these zone districts are changed from time to time, and a person desiring to learn the latest provisions of these regulations should contact the Department of Zoning Administration. This explanation has been prepared by the Zoning Review Section of the Denver Planning Office. 2 SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, RURAL DENSITY. Minimum of one acre of land required for each housing unit. Home occupations are prohibited. Density • 1 dwelling unit/acre. SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, SUBURBAN DENSITY. Minimum of 12,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit. Home occupations are prohibited. Density • 3.6 dwelling units/acre. ATTACHED OR CLUSTERED SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Development Plan must be approved by City Council. Home occupations are prohibited. Minimum of 7,500 square feet of land area required for each dwelling unit. Density • 5.8 dwelling units/acre. SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Foster Family Care and Day Care allowed as home occupations by permit. Minimum of 6,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit. Density= 7.3 dwelling units/acre. SINGLE UNIT DETACHED DWELLINGS, L0W DENSITY. as R-0 except that home occupations and room-renting to one or two persons are allowed upcn application and issuance of a permit. D ensity • 7.3 dwelling units/acre. MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS, LOW DENSITY. Typically duplexeq and tr.jplexes. Home occupations are allowed by permit only. Minimum of 6,000 square feet required for each duplex structure with an additional 3,000 square feet required for every unit over 2. Density = 14.5 housing units/acre. -A MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS, MEDIUM DENSITY. 2,000 square feet of land required for each dwelling unit unless a unified site plan is submitted under the Planned Building Group (PBG) provisions. In which case, 1,500 square feet of land is required for each unit. Home occupations are allowed by permit. Density -2L8 hous 'ing units/acre (29 housing units/acre under PBG). X HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT. This district is intended to encourage new residential development in older, developed areas. Building size is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Maximum lot coverage is 40%. HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT. Building size is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 3 times the site area. This zone should not be used as a buffer zone. Maximum density is not specified and is detdrmined by the size of the units and the factors mentioned above.

PAGE 58

HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT,_Building size is controlled by limited bulk standards, off street parking and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed 3 times the site area. Maximum density is not specified and is determined by the size of the individual units and the factors mentioned above. VERY HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT AND OFFICE DISTRICT. The purpose of this district is to provide a location for very high density apartment and intensive office development. Building size is controlled by limited bulk standards, off street parking and open space requirements. Allows hotel or motel uses and limited accessory retail shopping. Building floor area cannot exceed 4 times the site area. INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. Allows hospitals, colleges, schools, churches and other institutional uses. Maximum lot coverage is 60% of zone lot. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT. This district provides office space for services related to dental and medical care and for office-type services, either for the residents of nearby residential areas, or are characterized by a low volume of direct daily customer contact. The volume of vehicular traffic is usually low. This district is located away from main arterial highways, characteristj cally small in size and is situated near naj or hospitals or between large business areas and residential areas. The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions, limited by standards designed to protect the abutting or surrounding residential districts. To Lhese ends, regulations establish standards comparable to the standards for low-density residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining the low concentration of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Building height controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. This district provides the retailing of commodities classed as "convenience goods", and the furnishing of certain personal services, to satisfy the daily and weekly household or personal needs of the residents of surrounding residential neighborhoods. The volume of pedestrian traffic in proportion to automobile traffic entering the district is much higher than in other retail business districts. This district is located on collector streets, characteristica:ly is small, almost always is entirely surrounded by residential districts and is located at a convenient walking distance from the surrounding residential districts it is designed to serve. The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions, limited by standards designed to protect the abutting and surrounding residential districts. To these ends, the regulations establish standards comparable to the standards for low-density residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining the relatively low concentration of vehicular traffic as compared to other retail business districts. Building height controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area.

PAGE 59

-3 -4 1-A-1 .-A-2 SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT, This is primarilr to provide the tailing of most commodities and the of certain services, satisfying all household and personal needs of the residents of abutting residential communities. The volume of pedestrian traffic in proportion to automobile traffic entering the district is relatively low, This dis, trict is usually located on major arterial streets at or near the section with another major arterial street so that it is accessible from all directions, characteristically is large, almost always is entirely surrounded by residential districts and is located at a convenient driving distance from the residential districts it is designed to serve, The regulations are designed to permit development of the enumerated functions. limited by standards designed to protect the aButting or surrounding residential districts. To these ends, the regulations estaBlish standards parable to the standards for low d e nsity residential districts, resulting in similar building bulk and retaining as low a concentration of vehicular traffic as is compatible with the functioni ng of the district. Building height is controlled by bulk standards and open space requirements. Building floor area cannot exceed the site area. GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT . This district is intended to provide for and encourage appropriate commercial uses between adjacent arterial streets, which are normally transit routes, and abutting residential districts. Commercial uses include a wide variety of coneumer and business services and retail establishments that serve other business activities, and local transit-dependent residents within the district as well as citywide residents. The regulations allow a moderate intensity of use and concentration for the purpose of achieving compatibility between the wide variety of uses permitted i n the district. The limitations imposed on the district are designed to protect the integrity and character of adjacent residential districts. Use of mass transit is encouraged by lessening off street parking requirements for residential use. Building height is not controlled. Building floor area cannot exceed twice the site ARTERIAL OFFICE AND APARTMENT USE DISTRICT. Allows banks, offices, hospitals, clinics, institutions, churches, apartments and office service uses. Requires 100 feet of arterial street frontage. Maximum lot coverage is 30%. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. Maximum residential density is unspecified and is determine by the size of units and the factors mentioned above. Arterial setback areas are required for landscaping . ARTERIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. This district is intended as a tourist oriented zone, allowing only hotels, motels and restaurants with autom ob ile service stations. Requires 100 feet of arterial street frontage. Zone lot coverage not to exceed 30%. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. Front setback areas are required for landscaping. -A-3 ARTERIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. This district is designed to accommodate those uses which are oriented toward the motorist and residents of nearby neighborhoods but which uses are not normally part of shopping centers. Included among such uses are bowling alleys, theaters, night clubs, drive-in restaurants and services stations. Setback areas are required for landscaping. Ground coverage by buildings cannot exceed 307. o f the site. Building height is controlled by bulk standards.

PAGE 60

B-A-4 B-5 -7 -8 -0 AUTO SALES AND SERVICE DISTRICT . This district provides an area designed particularly for the special needs and characteristics of auto sales and service activities. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the establishment of this district in concentrated centers rather than in a linear arrangement along arterials. Ground coverage by structures cannot exceed 60% of the site area. Building height is controlled by bulk standards. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Permits business, office and light industrial uses along with residential and educational uses. Maximum floor area cannot exceed 10 times the site area, plus floor area premiums for the development of plazas, arcades, atriums, etc. No off street parking is required. Building height is not controlled by bul k standards. BUSINESS RESTORATION ZONE. This district is intended to preserve and improves older structures which are architecturally and/or historically significant. This district allows light industrial, general retail, wholesale, services, offices and high density residential uses. Additional floor area is allowed with the development of residential units, underground parking or open space areas. Building floor areas cannot exceed 2 times the site area. However, with premiums the floor area can be increased to 4 times the site area. Building height no t controlled by 1Julk standards. INTENSIVE GENERAL BUSINESS/VERY-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. !his district, primarily for activity centers, provides the concentration of retailing, personal and business services, residential, and cultural uses at a necessary intensity to efficiently be served by mass transit facilities. This very intense district is designed to serve the entire metropolitan area as an alternative to urban sprawl. Significant levels of intense employment and commercial activity, high volumes of pedestrian traffic, mass transit facilities, end a relatively compact geographical area are characterises of this district. The regulations are designed to permit a highly concentrated, intensive development of the enumerated facilities, limited by standards designed to provide light and air for street exposures of buildings in the district and to protect the district itself from over-intensive development of land and as relateJ to the ultimate capacity of common public facilities which serve the entire district. Building floor area cannot exceed 4 times the area o f the site. Building height not controlled by bulk standards. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT! . A transitional district between intensive industrial and residential districts. Allows limited manufacturing, wholesale and retail activities, offices and motels. Building height is controlled by bulk plane standards and setback requirements for buildings. Floor area cannot exceed SOi. of the site area. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Allows many manufacturing, warehousing and wholesaling activities, along with limited retail and service uses for the benefit of the area employees. Building floor area cannot exceed 2 times the site area. Generally no setback requirements.

PAGE 61

-2 -1 0-2 '-1 ' . U.D. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Allows all manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling and mineral extraction activities. Limited retail and service!uses for the benefit of area employees are permitted. No limitations on the size or location of buildings. This district should not be located adjacent to residential or business zones. OPEN USE DISTRICT. Allows airports, recreational uses, parks, cemeteries, reservoirs, and other open uses including a limited number of public and semi-public activities housed in buildings. Setback requirements apply to the location of buildings. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. Allows large tracts of open land utilized primarily for agricultural or ranching activities. OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT. Allows parking lots and structures. Bulk and setback regulations apply to buildings. This zone is intended to provide needed business parking without the expansion of the business zor..e, i.e., a buffer betweE.n busines3 and re3iJer.tial uses. Requires visual barriers adjacent to residential uses. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. P.U.D. is a form of development characterized by a unified site design for clustering buildings and providtng common open space, density increases, and a mix of building types and land uses. It permits the planning of a project and the calculation of densities over the entire development area, rather than on an individual lot-by-lot basis. It also refers to a process, mainly revolving around site-plan review, in which city agencies and neighborhood residents have considerable involvement in determining the nature of the development. It includes aspects of both subdivision and zoning regulation and is administered through the rezoning process. Any P.U.D. is in effect a specific zone district for a specific area, including specific regulations written by the applicant and when approved by City Council, enforced by the City. It allows maximum flexibility during the planning stage and maximum assurance that exactly what is proposed will be developed as proposed . . -

PAGE 62

"'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIVI!RSITV OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF I!NVIRONMENTAL DI!SIGN .._ MPCD 780 FALL 1881 M 8 KI!MPI!R

PAGE 63

r RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 2 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MPCD 710 FALL 1181 M 8 KEMPER

PAGE 64

RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING University of Colorado MPCD 790 Fall 1981 College ot Environmental Design. M. s. Kemper

PAGE 65

Wit h the decline of passenger rail service many cities are looking for ways to redevelop and make use of abandoned and under utilized railroad stations and land, There are two main reasons such redevelopment is taking place. First, redevel opment is a valid way of preserving historical railroa d structures and maintaining a connection with the past of the city. The second reason for redevelopment in many cities is that railroad stations and land are locate d within or adjacent t o the Central Business District and are extremely valuable properties for development. In August, 1981, The Denver Union Terminal Railway Company requested proposals for the development of an 18.5 acre tract of land in Lower Downtown Denver which includes Denver's Union Station. It was the intent of this report to past railroad redevelopments in order to determine if any patterns of programming become evident and if so, t o develop a planning program which could be applied to proposed development at Denver Union Station. Evaluation would then be performed on the resulting development plan to test the program. Research began with analysis of 14 different railroad redevelopment projects ranging in scope from converting the J,?SO square foot Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific St tion in Lincoln, Nebraska into a branch bank, to the d velopment o f air rights over 83 acres of railroad yards on the edge of Chicago's Loop. A Department of Transportation study and an article by the Urban Land Institute indicated the positions of those respective organizations towards planning railroad reaevelopment. The Department of Transportation has identified the following nine components for planning a successful railroad station reusea 1. Adaptive Reuse Process• An explanation of the new uses for the station and how and why they were chosen. 2. Historical and Architectural Descriptiona A description of the architectural composition and the statio ,.history. ). Rehabilitation and Design Anilysisa An e valuation of the preservation and design treatments undertaken. 4. Market and Economic Analysisa Local conditions which affected the selection of the new uses. s. Funding Strategy and Alternativesa What financing techniques were used and what alternative methods were available. 6. Transportation Componentst A discussion of aTailable transportation services plus what changes are required. 7 . Urban Revital1zationa An evaluation of the project as a catalyst for further revitalization in the area.

PAGE 66

a. community Involvement• The involvement of local citizens and the local government in response to the project, Other Preservation Considerationsa Other factors which may be influential on the acceptance or rejection ot the project. Among problems uncovered by the Department of Transportation were the difficulty of obtaining reasonable financing, the inability of some projects to generate revenue sufficient to cover operating costs, and the inability of some to design and accomodate transportation needs, especially parking. The Urban Land Institute addressed the questions of what type of facilities are likely to locate in intercity rail station areas and how can specific cities plan for the development associated with rail station improvements, Basically, the Urban Land Institute said the development was dependent on the city type (major regional center, satellite cities, independent markets) and the local market (weak, strong, unproved). The basic land uses considered werea offices, hotels, retailing, exhibition hall/convention center, and parking. Based on the above information, a program was developed f o r Denvers Union Station. Attempts to quantify important criteria proved difficult except for either positive or negative impacts. The result was the development of a redevelopment guide versus a redevelopment program. Based on this guide and the existing conditions in Denver, development alternatives were prepared, Three basic alternatives were prepared based on the same program but different scales. A low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise solution were explored and as a result of their evaluations• a high rise/high intensity solution was also prepared. Evaluations of each development alternative were prepared based on previously stated criteria. Good and bad features ot each solution were discussed in relation to Denver. Results indicated that a higher intensity use should be e xplored than was previously considered desirable, The basic importance of the study in relation to the existing literature was the discovery that no definative theory exists as a program for planning railroad redevelopment. What does exist can be prepa red a a guide for the direction redevelo pment should take. The literature provides numerous criteria which affect the success of railroad rehabilitation projects and when developed as a guide, these criteria can give early indications of a projects• success of failure and what redevelopments have taken place in similar situations. The relationship of the study to development in Lower Downtown Denver is important in that it indicates a project of higher scale and higher density may be feasible/desirable than

PAGE 67

. I previously thought. The redevelopment guide allows one to compare a proposed project with results obtained in similar conditions and make assumptions as to the projects viability • . I

PAGE 68

,. RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 23-., UNIYI!R81TY OF COLORADO AT DI!NYER ... IIPCD 780 FALL 1881 COLLEGE OF I!NVU.ONMI!NTAL DI!810N M a KIMPIR .....

PAGE 69

'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIVI!RIITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF I!NVIRONMENTAL DI!IION MPCD 780 PALL 1811 M 8 KIMPI!R

PAGE 70

"RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MPCD 710 FALL 1181 M 8 KEMPI!R

PAGE 71

""RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3 UNIYaRIITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEltON MPCD 710 FALL 1111 M 8 KEMPI!II -,,

PAGE 72

,..RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIVeRSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGe OF ENVIRONMENTAL DI!SIQN ..._ MPCD 780 PALL 1811 M 8 KI!MPI!R

PAGE 73

'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3 3""" UNIVI!RSITY OF'COLORADO AT DENVER .... MPCD 780 PALL 1881

PAGE 74

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

PAGE 75

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The development plan alternatives on the following pages are based on the scenario figures expressed in Section II. Alternatives I, II and III are based on a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 211. Alternative IV is a development plan based on a Floor Area Ratio of 5al as described at the end of Section II. Alternative I is a "low rise" plan, developed with the concept of maintaining the vertical scale of the area, as much as possible, while providing an economical project. A mid-rise concept, Alternative II, represents the idea of a more vertical solution with more open space at lower levels. The high rise solution allows increased open space with a more vertical solution. A more intense development, in density and verticality, is represented by Alternt.tive IV.

PAGE 76

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

PAGE 77

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation criteria stated in Section II, the following evaluations have been made for the four alternatives. ALTERNATIVE I 1 A LOW RISE SOLUTION Economic/Market Demand• The uses planned for this development respond to market demands. Considering the lan values in the area, low rise aolutions are generally cons"ered uneconomical and this type of solution would probably not be acceptable to the property owners or developers without some form of additional compensation for keeping the development scale low (such as higher rights elsewhere). Project economics should be self-supporting but higher development would return more profits. Political Acceptability• Rezoning is required for any use other than in all portions of the site except for the terminal building itself. The land uses and scale are supported by expressed development desires. The local government should be amenable to a project which does not tend to coerce a high rise solution into the B-7 area. surrounding merchants should support aolution which is not in conflict with the area. A low rise solution helps to stabilize the land values and economies in the area. Region Considerations• In general the uses indicated are in support of regional goals8 development could be easily integrated with a mass transit/light rail development. Transportation• The scale of development make• use of existing transportation networks without overloading them. State Government• The project does not appear to be in conflict with any state programs. Provision of residents within the downtown area should have some reduction on commuter traffic and can serve as an example for future residential development projects. Federal Government• No federal funds are required and the project.shoul d be in agreement with pollution goals. Design Considerations• The seale of this 4e.elopment supports the identity of the neighborhood. The land uses are not in conflict with existing land usee in the B-7 area. There would probably be problems with the nearby railroad yards (noise and air pollution). Summary• While in agreement with the seale or the neighborhood, this development is probably least likely for developers to pursue because or return usually expected from such hish land values.

PAGE 78

ALTEBNATIVE II a A MID RISE SOLUTION Economic/Market Demanda As with alte_rnatives I and III, this solution responds favorably to local economic/market demands. A mid-rise solution would allow greater densities or, as in this case, tne same densities can be provided with more open space. Political Acceptability• Approval for a mid-rise solution would be harder to obtain, possibly, than a low-rise but a mid-ris. e development could be incorporated in the area without destroying the character or the neighborhood. Zoning would need to be changed along with any height limitations that exist for the area. A mid-rise solution would have mor visibility and identity than a low-rise solution and help in providing identity to the entire area. Transportation• It takes advantage or existing networks while not overloading them. Region Considerations& As with A!ternative I, this solution would support regional development goals such as a regional transit. facility. State This does appear to be in conflict with any state regulations or goals. Federal Governmenta Provision of in-town residential units would be a step in the right direction for reducing auto traffic (air pollution}. Coordination with mass also would be a well received idea. Design Considerations• Careful step backs and terracing would be required in order to the character of the street facade or the area. Additional open space could be well utilized for recreational pUrposes. Integrating the taller structures into the area successfully takes add1tional errorta rroa the earliest development stages. A solution slightly more accepatable to the developers which to show the potentials or the site. ALTERNATIVE III a A. HIGH RISE SOLUTION Economic/Market Demanda This development is in response to lopal conditions and recognizes the impact ot local land values. This type of development is more in keeping with developments in areas or similar values. Income generated should prove sufficient for operating costs and generous Political Acceptabilitya A high-rise development is presently not in keeping with local planning officials. They beli•ve that such a project will force similar development in the B-7 ...... q-ea . .... atn()e Us . would be: 'be•ween . ;the .statioll and zoning changes would be required plus possibly dena1tJ/bulk

PAGE 79

limits. The scale of the development would be highly visible. and should have a great sense of identity. Controls of development in B-7 would be required to maintain the scale there. Regional Considerations• A high-rise solution could act as a gateway into downtown and a definition of the downtown area. State Governmenta This type of development should be in agreement wi .th state goals • Federal Government• As previously stated, a development of this scale which aupports mass transit and provides in-town residential units should be in agreement with Federal goals and regulations. Design Considerations• While not in keeping with the scale or the immediate surroundings, a high-rise solution should be able to be integrated in the area without adversely affceting it. The increased open space could be used for community activities. ' Summary• A solutio n could proviie a downtown, a definite edge versus a melting away of the downtown. It could provide a node of would support the B-7 area and help turn the downtown into a 24hour area. This solution suggests the possibilities of a in to a lower downtown area of special significance, with growth controls. ALTERNATIVE IV a A HIGH RISE/HIGH DENSITY SOLUTION Economic/Market De.lllE\lld a Thin C' . ..,velopment is t .h.., most 'llarket oriented solution of the alternatives. The increased floor square footage provided plus the high-rise structures recognize the value of the land. Phasing would allow for changes in the It should provide tremendous support for the1 lower eowntown area while growth controls could be . adopted. to maintain the character of B-7. Political Acceptabilitya Of all the alternatives investigated, this particular concept is most likely to meet th opposition. Many zoning, planning, and height limits woul d have to be Strong controls would have to be adopted in order to maintain the seale and character of the B-7 area. It should provide a sense of identity to the area and be highly visible. Region Considerations& A high intensity development could act as. a node, for transit systems. It could provide a greater number of residential units in-town support existing commercial areas. easily '

PAGE 80

Transportation• A high intensity development such as this would actively support a mass transit system. Some revisions in the transportation network might be to support the high density uses. State Governmenta This solution changes projections of employment in the area and at the same time increases downtown housing. Federal Government• The increased numbers ot housing would help decrease commuter traffic aa previously mentioned. Design Considerations• The higher densities would require careful design work to mitigate the effects ot scale change between the new development and the existing B-7 zoue. This is the solution which seems to be recommended by the programming guide. However this evaluation shows many problema that:.,:are. associated with this type ot solution. The is extremely different from that of the surrounding area but could, under certain circumstances, be ot benefit. Summarya This solution, recommended by the guide, has much ambiguity. There are many problems (probably the most) with achieving this solution. Tl,e hlgh rise/high :l.ntensi ty solution could define an edge to downtown Denver. It could be a gateway or wall to the city. Problems would arise with attempted infill projects in the B-7 area ot a scale similar to this. However, the large scale ot this project could provide much support tor the B-7 area .

PAGE 81

IMPORTANCE TO LITERATURE

PAGE 82

The importance or the findings in reference to the literature is in the fact that little detinative theory exists in literature which can be directly applied to planning railroad redevelopment. What exists can best be described as a guide tor the direction redevelopment should take. So much depends on the actual conditions at the place under consideration for redevelopment that to have a specific theory or program for planning the redevelopment seems almost impossible. The major link between railroad is that quite often they are located on mass transit corridors which can be an added benefit tor consideration. Otherwise, nQrmal urban practices apply. The guide developed would be most useful in the early stages of for what direction it should take. The guide still needs extensive refining in that some programs developed, such as Denver, end up in which are hard to establish. Obviously themis a need a need for further deveiopment criteria, which have not been obvious in the literature. . 0 ... ' ;

PAGE 83

IMPORTANCE TO DENVER

PAGE 84

The importance of the findings in relation to Downtown Denver development is that they indicate careful consideration should be given by officials into development of a higher density or scale than previously considered. It controls can be equitably placed on the B-7 area, a high-rise/high intensity use might be highly desired on the Union Terminal property. There would be difficulties to overcome with linkages, scale and transportation but if accomplished the development could be a national showplace, such as what has happened on Boston's South Shore Development. Personal preference is for a project of less intensity than that developed as a result of the program. A mid rise development of high densities would seem to be very desirable even though the developed program indicates the highrise/ high-density solution. Weighting may need to be given to local conditions so that they are of more importar1ce in thE: guide. There.needs to be a conscious evaluation of the benefits and problema of the types of developments before one particular type is locked 1n.

PAGE 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PAGE 86

BIBUOGRAPHY Byrne, Robert M. and Baker, Elizabeth D., Railstation Imtrove ments and Development Opportunitiesa A Look at the Nor heast Corridor, Urban Land, Sep. 1981. Denver Partnership Inc., Development Strategies, Oct. 1981. Denver Planning Office, Downtown Travel and Parking, 1981. Denver Planning Office, Public Facilities InventorY,, Jan., 1981. Denver Planning Office-Downtown Denver Inc,, Vowntown Denver Development Plan. Denver Planning Office-Downtown Denver Inc., Policies for the Development of Downtown Denver and Adjacent Aug, 1971, Revised Jan. 19,6. -' Depot Park Development Company, Depot Park, Sep, 1981. Hale, Jonathan, SIC Transit, '-97J. ------LeMassen, Robert A., All off at Denver, Trains Magaz1.ne, June 19?0. Liebman, Williams Ellis, Architects and Housing Development Strategies Denver• The 8o•s, Den•er Authority, April 1980. Mayor's Downtown Housing Planning Team, Dowpto!2 Policy, 1981. Pfeiffer, Norman, Right Side of the Tracks, Arch1teQtural Forua, Nov, 19?J, Progressive Architecture, Cash on the Line, Cino1nnati Union Station, Nov, 1 9 80, Progressive Architecture, Marshalling the Yarq•, Chtoago Redevelopment, March 1973. Von Stroh, Gordon E., What Denver can do to Encourage Downtown Housing, Denve r Ur ban observatory, 1979. Webber, Margo B, and McGinley, .Paul J,, Recycl1nf&H1stot1c Railroad Stations, U.s. Departmen;t lilt Tranapor tlori, Nov, .. t97.8 ..

PAGE 87

0 DODO i r RAILROAD REDEVELOPME T PLANNING UNIYERIITY OF COLORADO AT D•NYI!R MPCD 710 -... FALL 1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L ____ _________________ J 2"" COLLI!GI! OF aNYIRONMNTAL D ..... M S KI!MNR

PAGE 88

S ITE PLAN () NEW LONilON LEVEL PLAN FIRST FlOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE SECOND FLOOR ./ OPN J0 BELO \ / I I : :

PAGE 89

"RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIVER81TV OF COLORADO AT DRNVRR IIPCD 780 \.. FALL 18a1 c: I f 0 COLLI!Ga OF RNVIR0-'AL DR .... II 8 KRIIPIIR

PAGE 90

Map of downtown Savannah showing station at gateway to city. SAVANNAH

PAGE 91

EX I ST ! G w > <( RIG HTS OF WAY SITE BOUNDARY EASEME FOR SUBWA Y RESERVED FOR ARCADE LEVEL PARK AND ESPLANADE D APAR TMENTS. HOTEL . OFFlCE . RETA I L IIIIHI APARTME s . OFFICE. RET A IL AND SERVICE liiiiiJ OFFICE , RET AIL AND SERVICE [ill] APAR TMENTS . RETAIL AND SERVICE e VACATED RIGHTS OF WAY a EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY m PROPO SED R I GHTS OF WAY PUBLIC UTILITIES BUILDING CHICAGO , l{) " z -z z c( ..1 CL 1z U.l Q. 0 ... 1&1 > Ill a: c c( 0 a: .... c( a: \... I • I • • II • • c .. • • I 0 c > • • ... 0 ., Cl • 0 u CJJ z c • > • • d A .. c 0 G c • c • 0 0 CJ c ... II. 0 > t 0 • G c .... Ill f > z • , ,

PAGE 92

w > a: < 0 J 0 > WA CKE R DR. 00 1 0 > WATER ST ...J m 0 ...J w u.. LAKE ST < RANDOLPH ST i ......... l STAGE 1 UPPER LEV E L w a: > 0 < J WA CKER DR 00 ] WA TER STJ LAKE ST J l RANDO LPH ST . RANDOLPl I STAGE 2 INTER MEDIATE LEVEL UJ rr > < 0 ] : ""] W ATER ST ci-. 0 > ...J m 0 R. UJ . . .. > l-:::::::> < RA NOOLPH ST N STAGE 3 LOWER LEVE L 0 600' LAN D U S PLAH

PAGE 93

J .. c:: ::1 ..... 0 :::> en rt PI rt ..... 0 I\.) l11 rt ::r en rt (!) rt p. ..... Ul rt t1 ..... 0 rt . () 'RAILROAD REDEVELO ENT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DIIIVIR "-.. IIPC,D 780 FALL 1ea1 COLLBQI Gf INVIIIO ...... TAL Dl ... II 8 KIMNR

PAGE 94

,.A I L itOAD TIUC"S '"""""' OGilEN . : -' / r 1--0 /'\ "" 'l: ! 'il!.l '!I •:; :;: ZONE 1 FOR USE5 THAT REJ..ATE 10 UNION STAT ION .. fill:. 0 • 32 \.r) City Master Plan for revitalizatior

PAGE 95

'o I _.., I • I • " .I • c I a 0 I ,. z • 0 • 0 ., .I .I 0 () " z 0J z z c( -I z Q. f Unio n Station/25th Street district. .... z w a. c 0 • .... ,. z • > ID .. Ill c c 0 ID ... w > c • c • II: 0 ... .I .I Q 0 .I () c c( u. u. 0 0 ,. a: .. 0 • Cll -I c .... ., Q c( ,. u z ... a: ::. :1 ....IIIII

PAGE 96

I I ,.A ILit OAD TIUoCI( S --OGilEN -/ ' f--. . ---i/' /'\,_ I : ; ;;;,,1111111111 '111111 Ill Z ONE l F OR USCS THAT 10 UNION &TAT I CN City Master Plan for revitalizatic

PAGE 97

:7f RA\li".C>W YAt'DS M Cfil"TUL \t \.l --, SIAiiOt-.1 P'f.ft'f t;l:fOT AN.t-t DJ\.li\\+J r_ z c:J ., IL • a .. ., a " \Ll\NO\? M t.l-1 Mlt.l ; I J tli.tt/J IC/4,st.l ... • ' i c .. z a ' Ill ' a , , z N./l NIt:. fB1Cbtt1J sf 48/lXJtP?f 1814) 9S ( \f>eb) z 0 c > z .. "' 0 11.1 c:J N/t>. t>\$f. Cff\CE$1 \.IT, CUt1lJZC If/(/; N./l. \ 1 351J rk.kp t==:3 11.1 ... ... 0 u n 4a>D t4/l EXC!!L \.E 1-l I T " z Q -z a:ca.Lt:m TA)I.I 'i 4a:x:> c.,a:;o 4C:W fAIR. ew t\axl z < _.. a.. z 1z w :i FA q(QX) 4atJ fC't. Mbt-1 y t:.7fANS lO] -F="UTllf.E ----Aee eos , t"(.E 0 u \ 1 NOT A. ICWM Af..IO i'UU.! f\'\'17\CAL BECAOSEct= C0"-11 l': \ D EO TO .... a.. 0 c ., _.. > z w Ill > Q .. w c Q 0 a .. w > c • c • a: 0 .. ... ... c 0 ... u c < "' "' 0 0 a: !: c e • _.. a: ... 11.1 Q < > u -z A. ... a: a

PAGE 98

UTile Ra:K. cAf!S-l.l>UQJtJ I 'S'ttlMfbtO, Cal DJLKQM) UNION i Ai\a.l \Rb\.10 DE.fOT '::>ihl\00 l\nLE J\.lAI-J CAf'IS-'SA'/ TRAHO, C.A C.O}.JIJ EC\ICUT 'm 1\ KLll10N lO (..80 oJiSIOe. -{l\\-\1)..1 f ).l( l \l {t l-l/t • ., .. I)Nq (j(f.(/) f lit ex/{/) 2'2 I cfrhl> Sf I l5dll.D-..Q ( 1921) ( lfFJ.4) N/A I G 1 OIST. 1\ )J{ A fT OffK:E.1. 1Rb.\NS fll: . *' "St:P,dil 'l riCS fAIR El-A MIJC t\ rEVE\1-5CONO \f\?'\!j,l\i'f ...

PAGE 99

-k:E. oet.l \J lJt.llGl """1111 tl::) r z a:"""''l1 (\J " ... -.. • s ... Ill a I >IJJJD \JtM\ COLO!tb.DO w (..'7,c:4 I l _, ' c • • i z s ' ... ci.LT E04E. ' s ' z 0 ,C(E:S N.(f. \8,"5 ecp, z Ill I ""' 0 fijJ Ill " Ill \e,11 '/f-5 _, .. _, ct:>M-C\\1\e., CULWUL ctR-1 l J"' 3\}56\ 0 (,) l I < l Et-11 t\000 fA \..::, ' " z g -z qQ)D f'a?r{ fA\"-4Q:)0 \3 f'i'Q.\a::\, . ------\0 k:)t-1. f"\C. 1\lM-4'1 DE'l El.Cf'M ali et-n HA-s reo f.NJ'f:.E z < _. Q. z 1z w :IE : D. : o c ... i.J > z w ... a . > ! W c c 0 Q ... w c • a: • a: 0 ... _, 0 _, c _, (,) c < ""' ""' 0 0 > a: t 0 ., • ...I a: .... .., Q (,) -z A. ,._a: :) 2

PAGE 100

,.. t:t:ft1r PAm<_ litX:K D ILKQN) ( \'TDf'O'OAL) -4-':>TA11Q..l AL Ut410 L \ 1--1 c.ou.l1 Cl ftt)"'' ijt'N 01'"\10 'ITY A,SJ ,(/,(1 r::tii.P; ct:f.t(jJ 2 KLA110N 10 .80 'JJ eAO AOJtLEJ.tf AC !JI!f. \$ ACt' '2.,(/(j:(/), wxt> 'lt/J,(jt/J{J) tJx:/J(j; rACtOKS U/A 'E"CE\..LEN\ fAlR, {,..()') AetUW.. fA\K PiCELLE:NI C...a>O N/I fU'" t-l.i IA:AI 60'_, !:XC Ell El-..11 N\I EX.CELLSJ1' 40. I NOt-..! E. t:XC.E 6IJTO t:l(Ceu..a.l1' fAIR C.. CO' EXCEU.SlT C.. a:;() t-.1/l: Bh.D f'A'U'I"'i4 4WD 4Q:)0 4a: fU1'UU. It Of= ---f'IUU ec.1 __ J E. X Jj;Q. __ -----------E'tCE;U.Em _ _ _ -----fo_e_tL\.l --___!! -srre.. 11-lf!Ll. \-tOW K141+ I.CCil\\0\..l fa. SALe. Of \J"E.I.OfMalT TO <:ZlULD BE. t..a.A1 \Qt-l. t:xn=ctlffi. OE\JE D l::\1 t=l_t:ft=D COULD L\UIDEl ...

PAGE 101

'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING '1r (())It(()) CG It lHI Y = IF lL (()) (()) JD) n ILA ITN 18 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN M S KEMPER ...J

PAGE 103

1"1 0 REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING Z({))NllN G ]D)l&llGNA\lrll({))N UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT D•NYaR COLLI!QI! OF aNYIRONIIaNTAL DI!81QN II a KaliNA

PAGE 105

LJ I I lj 11 Ill JJ l U / I I J-.. I ll I I) li u --------... -. Y L:JC7" JJ lb r-n rc[r-o:-> J a8 C)J 1 o a fl 'LO l Ill! h K t 1 . ] _ _ t . _JJ L 1 111r r:l E r l:nll I I jQJ11j I OJ_::] DlJ rJI cg: UliULJ L OJ . I _ _ o _ . J ll 1 : co _ _ OJJ ._ _ J L=--1 _ . 1 etc ? riTPo 1 r=o r[JJ][] qJ:o -m]/11 c=J [1 tkt.j]JJ O__j u _ J:lJ:o L . __ O:;D __ _j J O:=J [!J_J v ... I : : c l 1 1 ll [PmliJ:[Jj/1 1/l l !l fQ_ ! ] l D? P r RAII:.ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING JD)(Q)WNJr(Q)WN ACCCCI& UNIV!RBITY OF COLORADO AT DINVIR '-..._ MPCD 700 FALL 1881 ..., cowewo 11'4\\Wa'is 2 2 AU4VS\ \C)6\ COLLI!OI! OF INVIIIONM.NTAL o•etON M S KEMPER.

PAGE 106

l

PAGE 107

RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DeNYea MPCD 780 FALL 1ea1 D 26 I (/X/X/) Z S:t t;4Jaj) > St/Jl>> tH:o. COLLI!GI! OP INYIAONMINTAL DI81GN _, ... " .......

PAGE 109

'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING lBS IT OCIE Jl AT IHI UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DeNVe• FALL 1881 3;

PAGE 111

.""'ll a c I I • • • • Q -_, . : . • • 0 I • • • 0 • • • _, _, 0 () c • > • • Q .. c ... 0 • Q : c _, c _, 0 c ; .. u 0 t: 0 • • c ... : a -u a jL 2 b1

PAGE 113

CJ z -z z < < ...1 Q. 1z w z a. < 0 ...1 w > w Q w a: c a • D c . 0 • D • c • 0 _, c 0 ... u "' 0 > 0 ; • II: .... : Q u z .. !:) a ...... b6

PAGE 115

LB J L 1 l o G'U n'\Ci b!-1 r RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING I 1 . J --, !:__-_ -.:. -:::.::::=..__.:.; -=:::...29-, JEUJll IL ]D) llN G ll ]D) I& N11ll IF ll (C A1r ll N UNIVERSITY O F COLORADO A T DENVER "" MPCD 710 FALL 1181 COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN M 8 K EMPER

PAGE 117

-J .,... v .. n: qDt-l 4lENAAM iR EM)..\1 .... M-' r RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING SllflE lE(QfllNS UNIVIIIIITY OF COLORADO AT DINVIII \... IIPCD 780 FALL 1881 C/1 34.., COLLI!GI OF INVNIO-MTAL ..... II 8 KIIINit

PAGE 118

, 0 nc C?...,.....,. s .-., D D. on C1C"lJ""1Cl = n 6...d}Jln [b n n no non • a D= no D= J P Jl • !4f'l..1 n p , Clca on C?C'? on

PAGE 119

CAL\ fOCI-1!.).; "--EL\0\J coorq ...................................... ........ .......... .... .................... REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING JKYILITNJE
PAGE 121

1-Si. J r 1 I w \.....--I g '!!' U\ 3 ::--;:. >:\.',. : > • ;:) . . i . . >' .-4 ;:;;;q-o !!: T1l ""'1J 7-:> n I -r r RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 3 6"" &JLJr (())NJE JL(()) W IR\ IT JE UNIVIAaiTV OF COLQ.ItADO AT Dlll COLLICN OP IIIVIA0tllla.'r,.._ Dl8 .. J 'MPCD 780 FALL 1881 II 8 KIIINII

PAGE 122

l l ( AWD
PAGE 123

-J lltl l -n l J 1 t , lSl I[ ,..-., ........ c::J f-< :2! "" ' i ' c:..ut: --------------------r RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 37""' AlL1rEIP&NAtTIVI& tW(Q) M IT ll)) I& UNIVI!RSITY OF COLQib\DO AT DINYI. COLLIM OP INYUIC*M •• .,A .t.. Dla .. MPCD 1 \... PALL 1ee1 II a kiiiPIR

PAGE 124

I I c;\"4 I SlA.\o-1 COl.l\iG(tt:D TD { . { \ u 1--

PAGE 125

J I J J CJ z -z z c( ..1 Q. 1z w 1 1'--I-J I ( """'1 ] :._ ' I I I ,__ I I '-""'1 'I 0. 0 • • • w • • > A .. w .. • c • Q .. 0 w A = ... a: c 0 ' .. Q 0 < u "' 0 0 a: ... 0 ..I • • IE ,_ < .. a > u a: z ... :::. a

PAGE 126

......___.._...........-...-....... -. f1P'/tOE5 rCff k:'!: RISE.. S ( lO{EL ( I •-;:::::: o _ : . & --[f0}]6 .... I {Y x'Q@ ' V<: r--[ !"' .1-A L . . 1 !1 I ..J :::,.. '--LT\E.1'All ,-l r--"1i-[ ' '-;::: \__ r-.._ ,..,....--.... ...._ r rr-'1 1-1--n ..... r;: lV'rC. J [_ ['-rr --[ n iii B u "--"-...

PAGE 127

..... 'u 5 q 0l l_ I I m I I 1 1 I I I E I IV f--l r .. . . . --\}\ I> m -I .>.:: .:..: < ::< . :::::. •• • • 0 m '0 c g " m z:.. -1 m j; I .$' U\ "Z: I -4 '!'\1 (j\ (11 > ?") 7'i. :>< '7--'RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 39.., A\JL1rl&IF&NA\1riTVI& W(Q)IDIF& IHillCGIHI llN'lrl&Nll'lrY UNIVERSITY OF COLO.RADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN <::P a \. MPCD 790 FALL 1881 . M 8 KEMPER

PAGE 128

l [[ l ,...J [ I t t l I ..... ........ II lL

PAGE 129

RAILROAD REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING 40 &JL JF(()) llJ EYE UNIV•RaiTY Of! COLORADO AT 8111VIR COLLI81 OF 111-il'tAL ..... IIPCD 780 ;ALL 1a IIi 8 KIIIIPIR