Do Central Business District Redevelopment Investments Have a Positive Influence on Surrounding Neighborhoods?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Do Central Business District Redevelopment Investments Have a Positive Influence on Surrounding Neighborhoods? Amy M. Fauria July 2008 Do Central Business District Redevelopment Investments Have a Positive Influence on Surrounding Neighborhoods? A Planning Report Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning San José State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban Planning by Amy M. Fauria July 2008 © 2008 Amy M. Fauria ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Table of Contents List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………… v List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………. vi Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………… vii Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………… 1 Background Research Question Relevance Methods Report Structure Chapter 2: History of the Central District ………………………………………. 11 Chapter Overview The Central District through the 1940’s Early Renewal Efforts in the Central District: The 1950’s and 60’s Chapter 3: Redevelopment Under the 1969 Plan ………………………………. 17 Chapter Overview The Central District Urban Renewal Plan of 1969 Redevelopment: 1970 through 1989 Redevelopment: 1990 through 2006 Development of the Activity Areas City Center Chinatown Victorian Row / Old Oakland Uptown Retail Center The Central District at the End of 2006 Chapter 4: Existing Research on Property Values and Redevelopment ..…….. 35 Chapter Overview Effect of Access to Amenities on Property Values Public Intervention and the Finding of Blight Effect of Redevelopment on Property Values Conclusions iii Chapter 5: Empirical Analysis of Property Value Trends ……………………. 45 Chapter Overview Testable Hypothesis Choosing a Property Value Analysis Method Summary of Data Hedonic Regression Model Specification Regression Results Models 1.1 and 2.1: Properties within 1-mile of redevelopment activities Models 1.2 and 2.2: Properties between 1 and 1.5-miles of redevelopment activities Models 1.3 and 2.3: Properties between 1.5 and 2-miles of redevelopment activities Conclusions Chapter 6: Conclusions ……………………………………………………………. 63 Redevelopment and Spill-over Effects Study Findings Study Limitations Policy Implications Potential for Future Studies Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………….. 69 Appendix …………………………………………………………………………… 75 A.1. Constant spending factors for Oakland Redevelopment Agency fiscal years A.2. City of Oakland Redevelopment Area nominal spending by project area, July 1989 through July 2007 A.3. Supplemental notes and source information to figures 3.2 and 3.3 A.4. Constant spending factors for single family home sales during study period A.5. Regression results for Model 1, 1992 through 2000 A.6. Regression results for Model 2, 2001 through 2006 iv List of Figures 1.1. Relationship between San Francisco Bay Area’s three largest cities ………... 2 1.2. Redevelopment Project Areas in the City of Oakland, 1990 and 2006 ………………………………………………………………………...... 5 2.1. Oakland Central District and its neighborhoods in 2006 …………………..... 14 3.1. Oakland Central District Redevelopment Project and Activity Areas, 1969 and 1989 ………………………………………………………... 19 3.2. Cumulative parcel-level redevelopment (by primary development function) in the Central District, 1970 through 1989 ………………………... 20 3.3. Cumulative parcel-level redevelopment (by primary development function) in the Central District, 1990 through 2006 ………………………... 23 3.4. Redevelopment Agency Vision for the City Center, 1973 …………………... 25 3.5a. City Center site map, 2007 …………………………………………………... 26 3.5b. City Square Plaza ……………………………………………………………. 26 3.5c. Preservation Park …………………………………………………………….. 26 3.5d. Rendering: future CityWalk condos ……..…………………………………... 26 3.6a. Chinatown Activity Area vision, 1973 – looking up Broadway …………….. 27 3.6b. Chinatown Activity Area vision, 1973 – looking west from Webster ………. 27 3.7 Chinatown Activity Area, 2007 ……………………………………………… 28 3.8a. Commercial services in the Old Oakland Activity Area, 2007 ……………… 29 3.8b. Renovated historic commercial building on block adjacent to Old Oakland ………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.9a. Uptown Oakland, in construction in 2006 …………………………………… 31 3.9b. Paramount Theatre, built 1931, restored 1973 ………………………………. 31 3.9c. Sears department store, built 1929, restored 1996 …………………………... 31 3.9d. Rotunda building interior, built 1912, restored 2001 ………………………... 31 3.9e. Fox Theatre, built 1928, restoration in progress in 2006 ……………………. 31 5.1. Half-mile proximity boundaries from Central District redevelopment activities, 1992-2000 and 2001-2006 ……………………….. 51 v 5.2a. Location of BART stations and popular neighborhood commercial corridors in and around the study area ………………………………………. 54 5.2b. Distribution of commercial and office services in and around the study area …………………………………………………………………….. 54 5.3a. Proportion of households living below the poverty level in and around the study area, by 2000 census tract …………………………………. 55 5.3b. Distribution of industrial operations and location of heavy rail right-of-way in and around the study area …………………………………… 55 List of Tables 1.1. City of Oakland Redevelopment Agency spending by project area, July 1989 through July 2007 ……………………………………………….. 7 3.1. Distribution of redeveloped parcels by primary function ………………….. 22 5.1. Available dataset of single-family homes sold between 1990 and 2006 within two-miles of the Central District Redevelopment Project Area boundary ……………………………………………………… 49 5.2. Final sample-set for study period 1, 1992 through 2000 ………………….... 53 5.3. Final sample-set for study period 2, 2001 through 2006 …………………… 53 5.4 Variables included in other hedonic models for single-family homes ………………………………………………………………………. 57 5.5 Description of independent variables included in the final models ………... 58 5.6 Regression results for study variables measuring the impact of proximity to Central District redevelopment activities …………………….. 60 vi Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Shishir Mathur, Assistant Professor at San José State University. Dr. Mathur was my faculty advisor on this project and provided me with invaluable support and feedback from the beginning to the end. This project would not have been possible at the depth and quality that was achieved without Dr. Mathur’s help. I would also like to thank CD-DATA for allowing me to use the Alameda County Assessor’s data that enabled this analysis. vii Chapter 1 Introduction Background Oakland, California, along with many other large, aging cities in the United States has been struggling to find a successful recipe to improve both its image and the quality of life for residents. Oakland is the third largest city in the Bay Area with an estimated population of almost 400,000 in 2006.1 The city serves as the transportation and industrial hub of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, a role it has played throughout the twentieth century.2 This function was initially encouraged by the terminus of the transcontinental railroad in Oakland’s Central Business District, or CBD, when the railroad was completed in 1869; the role was further spurred by Oakland’s need to find its own identity in the shadow of San Francisco.3 Oakland’s bay-front location has also proven key to its blue-collar, industrial economy by supporting the development and continual growth of a world-class shipping port. In 2006, the Port of Oakland was the fourth largest cargo container port in the U.S.,4 enabling both regional and international importing and exporting, as well as local manufacturing. Despite the importance of Oakland within the region, it has taken a backseat to San Francisco and San José5 and has not been a true destination of visitors or new residents to the Bay Area for decades. San Francisco is still easily the headliner of the area, maintaining its position as the regional financial center and a popular tourist destination. San José, on the other hand, grew in regional importance from the 1950’s through 1990’s; developing around a high-tech economy and astronomical suburban development, it has now become widely known as the “Capitol of Silicon Valley.” Figure 1.1 illustrates the regional relationship between San Francisco, San José, and Oakland. 1 United States Census Bureau, American FactFinder: 2006 American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights, <http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en> [September 2, 2007]. 2 Marilynn S. Johnson, The Second Gold Rush: Oakland and the East Bay in World War II (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), 13. 3 Beth Bagwell, Oakland: The Story of a City (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1982), 57. 4 George Raine, “A Sea Change in Shipping: 50 Years Ago Container Ships Altered the World,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 5, 2006, <http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2006/Container- ShipsMcLean5feb06.htm> [May 12, 2007]. 5 U.S. Census, American FactFinder. San Francisco 2006 population estimated at 744,041; San José 2006 population estimated at 916,220. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Figure 1.1. Relationship among San Francisco Bay Area’s three largest cities Sources: Map developed by report author using data acquired and adapted from the City of Oakland, Community and Economic Development Agency, Central District Redevelopment Project Area Map, <http://www.business2oakland.com/main/centraldistrict.htm#OfficeCommercialMap> [October 26, 2007]; Metropolitan Transportation Center, Maps and Data, <http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/GIS/data.htm> [October 26, 2007]. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction In the first half of the twentieth