A ULI ADVISORY SERVICES WORKSHOP REPORT
Barriers and Incentives to Transit-Oriented Development
Prince George’s County, Prince William County, and the District of Columbia
JULY 22–24, 2003 W ASHINGTON, D.C.
Urban Land $ Institute Barriers and Incentives to Transit-Oriented Development
Prince George’s County, Prince William County, and the District of Columbia
Sponsored by the Greater Washington Smart Growth Alliance
July 22–24, 2003 Washington, D.C. A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report
ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 About ULI–the Urban Land Institute
LI–the Urban Land Institute is a non- sionals represented include developers, builders, profit research and education organization property owners, investors, architects, public offi- that promotes responsible leadership in cials, planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, U the use of land in order to enhance the attorneys, engineers, financiers, academicians, total environment. students, and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the experience of its members. It is through member The Institute maintains a membership represent- involvement and information resources that ULI ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors a has been able to set standards of excellence in de- wide variety of educational programs and forums velopment practice. The Institute has long been to encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar- recognized as one of America’s most respected ing of experience. ULI initiates research that and widely quoted sources of objective informa- anticipates emerging land use trends and issues tion on urban planning, growth, and development. and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and pub- This Advisory Services workshop report is in- lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate tended to further the objectives of the Institute information on land use and development. and to make authoritative information generally available to those seeking knowledge in the field Established in 1936, the Institute today has more of urban land use. than 18,000 members and associates from nearly 70 countries, representing the entire spectrum of Richard M. Rosan the land use and development disciplines. Profes- President
©2003 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited.
2 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report About ULI Programs
Advisory Services each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stake- The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Program is holders in the project under consideration, par- to bring the finest expertise in the real estate ticipants in ULI’s workshops are able to make field to bear on complex land use planning and accurate assessments of a sponsor’s issues and to development projects, programs, and policies. provide recommendations in a compressed Since 1947, this program has assembled well over amount of time. 400 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land use management Community Outreach strategies, evaluation of development potential, The Urban Land Institute’s Community Outreach growth management, community revitalization, Program provides strategic, technical, and policy brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, assistance; identifies, researches, and advances provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and emerging land use policy issues; and shares best asset management strategies, among other mat- policy and practice examples with ULI district ters. A wide variety of public, private, and non- councils and other regional and state organiza- profit organizations have contracted for ULI’s tions. The goal of the Community Outreach Pro- Advisory Services. gram is to create a two-way linkage of informa- Each team is composed of highly qualified profes- tion, research, and programs between ULI’s sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They policy and practice department and state, local, are chosen for their knowledge of the topic and and regional governments and organizations, par- screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI teams ticularly the ULI district councils. are interdisciplinary and typically include several developers, a landscape architect, a planner, a The Community Outreach Program is involved market analyst, a finance expert, and others with in a number of state and regional initiatives to the niche expertise needed to address a given advance ULI’s mission of promoting responsible project. ULI teams provide a holistic look at de- leadership in the use of land in order to enhance velopment problems. Each team is chaired by a the total environment. In each of these collabo- respected ULI member with previous Advisory rative efforts, the Community Outreach Program Services experience. is working to build a consensus around solutions to challenging land use and development issues The agenda for a two-day workshop is intensive. by involving a broad range of stakeholder inter- It includes a full day of moderated discussion with ests, conducting relevant and timely research, key community representatives followed by an and sharing best practices. Advisory Services evening spent formulating recommendations. On Workshops are often used as a tool to bring the the second day, the panel offers its findings and knowledge and expertise of ULI members to conclusions to the sponsor. A written summary is bear on local land use issues and policies. The prepared and published. recommendations developed by workshop panels Because the sponsoring entities are responsible can then become the basis for ongoing implemen- for significant preparation before the panel’s visit, tation efforts involving both the public and pri- including sending extensive briefing materials to vate sectors.
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 3 ULI Project Staff Mary Konsoulis ULI Consultant Rachelle L. Levitt Alexandria, Virginia Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Publisher Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Marta V. Goldsmith Vice President, Land Use Policy Duke Johns Manuscript Editor Mary Beth Corrigan Vice President, Advisory Services Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Suzanne D. Cartwright Director, Community Outreach Martha Loomis Desktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics Meghan Welsch Associate, Advisory Services Diann Stanley-Austin Director, Publishing Operations Jason Bell Coordinator, Advisory Services
4 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report About the Smart Growth Alliance
he Greater Washington Smart Growth •respect and conserve significant environmen- Alliance (SGA) is a collaborative partner- tal, cultural, and recreational resources in a ship of civic, environmental, business, and variety of ways. T development organizations committed to It pursues these goals through specific activities the promotion of quality of life and smart growth including educational and outreach programs in the Washington region. The Smart Growth about smart growth; collecting and disseminating Alliance partners are the Urban Land Institute information about the impact of growth and Washington District Council, the Coalition for development trends; identifying barriers and Smarter Growth, the Greater Washington Board incentives; promoting land conservation; develop- of Trade, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and ing strategies to encourage regional smart growth the Metropolitan Washington Builders’ Council. policies; and developing and implementing a Each of these organizations provides financial recognition program for proposed development support to the SGA. projects that incorporate smart growth character- The SGA mission is guided by four overarching istics. goals: This Advisory Workshop panel report is produced • enhance regional cooperation; as part of SGA’s educational function to advance knowledge about issues and policies that affect • encourage mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit- smart growth practices in the region. oriented development projects; David Flanagan •promote housing and transportation choices for Chair a range of incomes throughout the region, par- Smart Growth Alliance ticularly as infill; and
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 5 Acknowledgments
he Smart Growth Alliance gratefully • Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation acknowledges the financial support of the • Clayton Fund following contributors that provided fund- T ing for this project as well as for the ongo- • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ing work of the SGA: •Chesapeake Bay Trust • Prince Charitable Trust
6 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report Contents
ULI Panel and Participants 8 Foreword: Workshop Scope and Panel Assignment 10 Background Information 12 Panel Recommendations 17 Conclusion 28 About the Panel 29
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 7 ULI Panel and Participants
Panel Chair Local Jurisdictions Marilee A. Utter District of Columbia Citiventure Associates, LLC Andrew Altman Denver, Colorado Director, Office of Planning Panel Members Karina Ricks, AICP Neighborhood Planning Coordinator Prince George’s County Team Shelley Poticha Prince George’s County Reconnecting America Iris Boswell Center for Transit-Oriented Development Special Assistant to the County Executive Oakland, California Steve Gilbert Jack Wierzenski Principal Counsel to the County Council Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas, Texas Joe James President and CEO Ruth A. Wuorenma Neighborhood Capital Company Economic Development Corporation Chicago, Illinois Fern V. Piret, PhD Prince William County Team Planning Director Leigh Ferguson Michael Petrenko, AICP LMF Holdings, LLC Deputy Planning Director Albuquerque, New Mexico Al Dobbins, AICP Gary O. A. Molyneaux King County International Airport Chief, Community Planning Division Seattle, Washington Dominic J. Motta Rebecca Zimmerman Chief, Countywide Planning Division Design Workshop, Inc. Faroll Hamer Denver, Colorado Chief, Development Review Division District of Columbia Team John N. Funk III, AICP Marta Borsanyi Planning Supervisor The Concord Group Newport Beach, California Strategic Planning Section, Community Planning Division Fernando Costa City of Fort Worth Thomas D. Tyson, AICP Fort Worth, Texas Master Planner Strategic Planning Section, Community Planning Kenneth H. Hughes Division Kenneth H. Hughes Interests, Inc. Dallas, Texas
8 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report Harold E. Foster, AICP, AAG KSI Services Planner Coordinator Edward (Eddie) Byrne Strategic Planning Section, Community Planning Vice President Division Madison Retail Group Brenda J. Iraola, ASLA Armond Spikell Planner Coordinator Principal Strategic Planning Section, Community Planning Division Mayhood Company David Mayhood Craig Rovelstad President Planner Coordinator, Community Planning Division Metropolis Development Faramarz Mokhtari Stewart (Chip) Newell Planner Coordinator, Countywide Planning Division President Prince William County Mid-City Urban Stephen K. Griffith, AICP Vicki Davis Director of Planning President Nimet R. Alaily Piedmont Environmental Council Deputy Director of Planning Chris Miller Raymond E. Utz, AICP President Chief, Long-Range Planning Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Pat Thomas, AICP Commission Potomac Communities Planner Tim Roseboom Transportation Operations Planner Private, Public, and Nonprofit Sector Virginia Railway Express Participants Peter Sklannik, Jr. Chief Operating Officer Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. John A. Lally, Esq. Dale Zehner Assistant Chief Operating Officer Bay Area Economics Anita Morrison Tamara Ashby Principal Project Coordinator Board of Trade Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Al Eisenberg Office of Property Development and Management Vice President for Government Affairs Denton U. Kent Managing Director Coalition for Smarter Growth Stewart Schwartz Alvin R. McNeal Executive Director Manager, Property Planning and Development Hazel Land Companies, Inc. Washington Regional Network for Livable Robert M. Wulff Communities Executive Vice President Cheryl Cort Executive Director Holladay Corporation Rita Bamberger Vice President
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 9 Foreword: Workshop Scope and Panel Assignment
he Greater Washington Smart Growth Alli- panel of national experts in real estate, land use ance (SGA) recognizes that, within targeted planning, and transit-oriented development. These growth areas around the country, there experts addressed issues raised through the back- T exists a range of barriers to smart growth ground research and questions posed by the se- development, including public opposition, site lected jurisdictions regarding their efforts to en- constraints, infrastructure deficits, regulatory courage TOD. After touring TOD projects in each hurdles, and financing complications. In an ef- jurisdiction, meeting with community representa- fort to overcome these development barriers, tives, and deliberating among themselves to reach communities are revising regulations and insti- consensus, the panelists presented their recom- tuting incentives to make smart growth projects mendations to the jurisdictions, the SGA, and easier to develop. other stakeholders at the conclusion of the work- shop. This report presents the panel’s findings in A number of communities in the Washington re- written form. gion also are contemplating or have begun similar efforts. The SGA has undertaken to examine these In order to guide discussions effectively, the panel efforts in order to gain a broader understanding reviewed TOD on a regional basis and then con- of the incentives that stimulate smart growth, the sidered specific questions posed by each jurisdic- barriers that impede smart growth, and the op- tion. These questions reflect the different transit portunities to encourage better practices both in profiles, planning frameworks, and market condi- these communities and elsewhere in the region. tions for TOD in each of the jurisdictions.
The purpose of this Advisory Services workshop The panel first addressed the following general was to explore the barriers and incentives to a question, and then addressed specific issues of particular principle of smart growth—transit- concern to each jurisdiction. oriented development (TOD)—in three jurisdic- tions in the Washington region: Prince George’s Given the different market positions, transit pro- County, Maryland; Prince William County, Vir- files, and regulatory environments in each of the ginia; and the District of Columbia. The first phase three model jurisdictions, what are the most im- of work was the creation of a briefing book, which portant barriers to transit-oriented development summarized existing barriers and incentives in the in each, and how can these barriers be addressed selected jurisdictions and included specific TOD using incentives and other tools to effectively en- questions submitted by the jurisdictions for the courage the implementation of TOD projects? panel members. The contents of the briefing book were derived from document review and inter- Prince George’s County views with planning staff in the participating jur- isdictions; developers; the Washington Metro- Countywide Questions politan Area Transit Authority (WMATA); the How should the county finance land assembly Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Com- and parking districts, especially given the county’s mission (PRTC); the Virginia Railway Express TRIM amendment, a statute that limits property (VRE); and the Washington Regional Network tax increases? for Livable Communities, a nonprofit organization. Given the understanding that the county should For the second phase, the SGA sponsored a two- make the process more predictable and certain, day ULI Advisory Services workshop involving a what are the three most critical measures that
10 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report the county has to take in order to make TOD an District of Columbia attractive investment? “East of the River” Development Environmental Concerns What are the major obstacles preventing devel- Several Metrorail stations in the county are in or opment at Metrorail stations located east of the near a floodplain. Is it realistic to assume devel- Anacostia River, an area of the District that has opment in a floodplain? Are there examples else- long suffered from underinvestment? where of successful TOD in a floodplain? Are there significant opportunities that could Prince William County attract private investment to this area? TOD at Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Stations How can the public sector support the private sector in bringing the first strong TOD project Is TOD really suitable at existing VRE stations? into the area to catalyze additional development? If it is, what would be an appropriate TOD model for these locations in terms of density and mix of Infill Zoning uses that would optimize land use potential? What zoning or development strategy would per- mit higher-density multifamily housing (moderate- Would TOD provide an adequate incentive to en- sized apartment houses or condominiums) on lots courage people to use commuter rail instead of that are available for redevelopment within tran- adding to the county’s traffic problems? sit areas without creating the unintended conse- If TOD is not currently appropriate at existing VRE quences of encouraging land speculation or demo- station areas but may be in the future, how can the lition of existing viable housing stock? county best reserve land for that future use? Attracting Regional Retail If TOD is not appropriate given the existing level How can the city create effective TOD projects of transit service, what transit or transportation with retail that will take optimum advantage of enhancements (e.g., expanded VRE service, bus the site? rapid transit, improved commuter bus links, more Is regional retail the highest and best use for or less parking) should be implemented to make transit areas? TOD work?
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 11 Background Information
he briefing book prepared for the panelists diverse population and has attracted a substan- provided extensive background information tial number of middle- and upper-income African on each jurisdiction’s objectives for TOD, American households. T existing development conditions, and tools Thirteen Metrorail stations serve Prince George’s available to encourage TOD. On-site interviews County. All are located inside the Capital Beltway. between SGA staff and representatives from the Two additional stations are expected to open in jurisdictions’ planning and related agencies added 2004. One of these new stations, located at Largo depth to this information. The staff also met with Town Center, is just outside the Beltway. Two development, marketing, and environmental ex- Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) sta- perts familiar with the jurisdictions. This back- tions are located at the Green Line’s Greenbelt ground report provided important insights for and College Park Metro stations. the panelists. During the workshop, the panelists divided into three teams to conduct follow-up on- The county also is served by Metrobus, the re- site interviews with planning, transportation, and gional bus system, which maintains 36 routes in economic development staff in each jurisdiction, the county, serving approximately 64,000 passen- and they participated in roundtable discussions gers per year. The Maryland Mass Transit Ad- with developers, market experts, and citizen ac- ministration provides MARC rail service and tivists on TOD challenges and opportunities in commuter bus service, along with most of the each jurisdiction. long-distance rail feeder and commuter bus ser- vice to the Greenbelt, Branch Avenue, and New The following summary profiles the current TOD Carrollton Metro stations. The Prince George’s situation in each jurisdiction. It includes informa- County Department of Public Works and Trans- tion about the Washington Metropolitan Area Tran- portation runs a local and short-distance rail sit Authority (WMATA), a major landowner at feeder bus service, known as “The Bus,” with 14 Metrorail stations, and outlines concerns expressed routes serving about 11,000 passengers a year. by developers working in the jurisdictions. Prince George’s County has acknowledged the im- Prince George’s County portance of transit to the county’s future growth in its General Plan, which was adopted in 2002. Prince George’s County is located along the Balti- This plan focuses on growth and redevelopment more-Washington corridor—on the northeast bor- in designated centers and corridors, which largely der of the District of Columbia and approximately coincide with areas served by transit. Using this 35 miles south of Baltimore. Until recent decades, designation, the county strives to encourage a the 500-square-mile county was largely rural, known mix of uses at medium to high density in these for both tobacco and horse farms. In the late 19th areas, promote pedestrian and transit-oriented and early 20th centuries, suburban towns grew design, and foster “transit-supportive” develop- along the county’s border with the District, pro- ment, all while ensuring compatibility with exist- viding homes for many government workers. Over ing neighborhoods. the course of the 20th century, federal employers such as NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and The county’s zoning code supports the General the Internal Revenue Service moved to the county. Plan and TOD through transit district overlay Today, the county continues to suburbanize, pri- zones (TDOZ). In use since 1988, these overlays marily through residential development. It has a are designed to encourage certain types of intense
12 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report development near Metro stations. A TDOZ imple- perceive the county as a low-end market, despite ments a transit district development plan (TDDP) the presence of higher-income households. This is created for a station area, setting specific require- attributed, in part, to racial and class bias and to ments for both the development parcels and the developers’ lack of experience with higher-end district. As part of the TDOZ process, the devel- minority households. oper must submit a detailed site plan conforming to the requirements of the TDDP. The Planning A more tangible barrier is the issue of economic Board retains the power of final approval over development goals often overriding the county’s the site plan. So far, transit districts have been de- stated TOD vision. The county’s leadership ac- fined and TDOZ applied at four stations: Hyatts- tively solicits commercial development, and the ville, College Park, New Carrollton, and Prince TDOZ process is often “watered down” to attract George’s Plaza. such development.
Statewide legislation has affected the county’s Prince William County TOD activities. A negative example is the TRIM amendment, a state statute passed in June 1984 Prince William County is located 35 miles south- that limits increases in local property taxes. This west of Washington, D.C. Once largely rural, the revenue constraint limits the county’s ability to county has experienced rapid suburbanization assemble land and to package it as a development over the last 25 years, with its population grow- incentive. A positive statewide effort is Maryland’s ing by 90 percent since 1980. Many of its resi- Neighborhood Conservation and Smart Growth dents work for the federal government either as Initiative, passed in 1997. A component of this civil servants or as military personnel. The 348- legislation—Priority Funding Areas—requires that square-mile jurisdiction also is home to Quantico state funding for new projects in designated areas Marine Base and the Potomac Mills regional retail in existing communities, industrial areas, or planned center. Private investment is concentrated in resi- growth areas receive priority over projects in un- dential development; currently, there is little to developed areas. Prince George’s County and its no market for large-scale office development. General Plan comply with this state legislation through a Priority Funding Areas Program. The Prince William is served by six Virginia Railway program gives the highest funding priority to Express (VRE) commuter rail stations, regional projects in the county’s “Developed Tier” area bus service (OmniRide), and intracounty bus ser- inside the Beltway. vice (OmniLink). Metrorail does not extend into the county. Metro’s long-term plans, however, The federal government is trying to locate major note the potential to extend service from the facilities near public transit to encourage more Franconia-Springfield station along the I-95 cor- nonautomobile commuting by its employees. ridor into the county’s southern portion. Service Prince George’s County has two federal office could also extend from Vienna into the northern buildings located near Metro stations: the Food part of the county along I-66. and Drug Administration’s building near the Col- lege Park station and the Internal Revenue Ser- The VRE stations in Prince William County are vice’s building near the New Carrollton station. commuter rail stations with a limited number of However, even with these catalysts, the county trains running toward Washington in the morning has not been able to generate significant devel- and returning from the city in the evening. The oper interest in mixed-use or residential develop- stations are located primarily in residential areas. ment near these sites. Essentially, they remain There is little to no activity at these stations in office parks adjacent to transit. off-peak hours.
Certain intangible factors may also be affecting At the urging of the county’s board of supervi- TOD in the county, according to a perception sors, TOD concepts have been included in the lat- voiced by Prince George’s County planning staff. est version of the Comprehensive Plan update, The planners believe that developers generally which was approved by the board on June 24,
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 13 2003. The Comprehensive Plan update contains a tation in Congress, yet the city’s budget and many new classification called the Mass Transit Node significant legislative decisions must receive Con- for the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map. As a re- gressional approval. sult of this effort, TOD definitions, policies, and processes are in the earliest stages of development There are 39 Metrorail stations in the District of in Prince William County. TOD density needs to Columbia, with an additional station under con- be defined, as well as located and implemented struction on the Red Line at New York Avenue, through zoning and incentives. Tempering the N.E. Approximately three-fourths of these sta- process is the fact that there is no track record of tions are underground. The city is well served higher-density development in the county and a by bus lines and includes stops for the VRE and concern that adding density at commuter rail sta- MARC commuter trains, which terminate at tions would not encourage rail use, but rather add Union Station. to the county’s growing traffic problems. At the same time, there is growing development pres- Transit and zoning are seen by the city as play- sure to increase densities near VRE stations, es- ing a role in achieving the mayor’s goal of in- pecially at those stations located near the Poto- creasing the city’s population. Residential areas in mac River, where high-rise development would Washington, D.C., are largely zoned for low- to have views of the water. moderate-density development (generally single- family housing in detached, duplex, or rowhouse A significant impediment to local control of devel- developments). The city would like to increase opment—and one unique to Virginia among the housing choices and residential density, particu- three jurisdictions examined for this report—is larly in focused nodes around transit (within the Commonwealth of Virginia’s adherence to a 1,000 to 2,500 feet). 19th-century legal precedent known as Dillon’s Rule, which constrains the power of local jurisdic- The city also hopes to use TOD to encourage re- tions. Unless a power has been explicitly granted investment in neighborhoods, and will seek strong by the state legislature, the Virginia Supreme pedestrian connections, bicycle access, and good Court usually does not allow a local jurisdiction to design as part of a TOD package. City planners use that power. This restriction can affect seem- recognize that a successful TOD strategy will re- ingly mundane activities like leasing municipal quire density to maximize land use potential, in- land—for example, a parking lot—to a developer. crease transit ridership, reduce air pollution, and It also affects a jurisdiction’s ability to raise rev- recoup investment made in the transit system. enue or create improvement districts. The city does not have a separate TOD entitle- District of Columbia ment process. It has chosen to use existing reg- ulatory tools such as neighborhood overlay dis- The District of Columbia is the urbanized center tricts and zoning changes to encourage TOD. of a growing region. Historically, the city devel- Such zoning changes could include restricting oped along its transit routes, and its residents auto-oriented uses, including drive-through banks have traditionally made extensive use of public and fast-food establishments, in TOD areas. The transportation. This tradition continues today. city also hopes to define design overlay districts The District also is a city of economic contrasts, with minimum densities, similar to those used in with most of its wealth and development concen- Portland, Oregon. First, however, it must deter- trated in its western half. mine whether it has the statutory authority to The District of Columbia has a mayor and city use this type of tool, and it must consider how the council form of government. However, because of tool might affect the market. The city also can use its unique status as the nation’s capital, the Dis- the planned unit development (PUD) process and trict is subject to oversight from the federal gov- special exceptions to provide design review of ernment. Its citizens do not have voting represen- projects in station areas.
14 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report The District’s Comprehensive Plan acknowledges in 56 approved projects across the system. Forty- TOD planning concepts in its section on land use. one percent of these projects have occurred since The plan encourages new residential development 1999, owing in large part to increased market de- and, in particular, “supports incentives” for hous- mand. WMATA has also placed greater emphasis ing and commercial development east of the Ana- recently on its joint development program, re- costia River. It sees Metro station areas as critical vising policies and guidelines to take advantage locations for new growth and outlines policies and of developer interest in station area development development objectives for this development. and the economic and ridership incentives af- forded by TOD. In 2002, WMATA changed its However, the city’s economic development goals joint development policy to add TOD to its exist- and TOD goals often conflict. Suburban-style de- ing goals of increasing ridership, using joint de- velopment is accepted into transit areas, even if velopment to generate revenue for the system, that development undermines the city’s TOD and helping jurisdictions recapture some of their goals for the area. One example reflects the Dis- investment in the transit system. About 10 per- trict’s goal to attract more regional (“big box”) cent of WMATA’s ridership is attributable to joint retail: the city was recently able to attract a development projects. Home Depot store to the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station area, but in retrospect, the city In a joint development relationship, WMATA will planning office does not believe that the finished consider proposals for lease, sale, or a lease/sale project makes optimum use of the site’s develop- combination. However, WMATA prefers to retain ment potential. control of its property and will often make a site available to the developer on a long-term lease Washington Metropolitan Area Transit basis. This arrangement allows WMATA to bene- Authority (WMATA) fit from the land’s appreciation in value and gives it flexibility as a fee owner to negotiate parking. On December 9, 1969, ground was broken for the WMATA will occasionally sell its property if there Washington region’s long-awaited Metrorail sys- are political reasons to do so or if the developer tem, a project that would eventually bring rail makes a very strong case—for example, the de- transit service to Washington and its Maryland sire to build residential condominiums in juris- and Virginia suburbs. Metro’s first 4.5-mile seg- dictions (such as Virginia) that do not allow this ment opened downtown in 1976. The full 103-mile type of development on leased land. system was completed in January 2001. WMATA has used its physical assets—which in- The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Au- clude parking spaces near stations—to obtain thority (WMATA), which operates both the Metro- bonds from the Federal Transit Administration rail and Metrobus systems serving the Wash- (FTA). WMATA has interpreted these bond ington metropolitan region, is governed by a agreements to mean that joint development 12-member board of directors with members projects must replace these spaces on a one-to- from each of the participating jurisdictions—the one basis with no interruption of service. This District of Columbia; Prince George’s and Mont- interpretation has meant that developers could gomery counties in Maryland; and Arlington and not reduce the number of parking spaces pro- Fairfax counties and the city of Alexandria in vided at a site and would have to replace surface Virginia. Each jurisdiction invested in the con- lots with structured parking. Developers also struction of the system and continues to provide had to pay for temporary station parking dur- financial support. ing construction. WMATA believed this policy In 1976, in an effort to generate revenue for the was necessary to meet its bond requirements system and provide a return on investment for with the FTA. Over the years, however, it became the jurisdictions, WMATA instituted a joint devel- clear that these restrictions were a barrier to opment program for its property. Since its incep- development at the stations. In 2002, WMATA’s tion, the joint development program has resulted board of directors revised the policy. Replace-
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 15 ment parking is still required on a one-to-one • Individual jurisdictions are inconsistent in what basis, but there is now some room for discretion they expect from TOD and tend to look at TOD on the part of the Board. on a project-by-project basis. Political support for TOD tends to fall away in the presence of Developers’ Concerns community opposition. Interviews were conducted with a number of de- • Jurisdictions need to develop clear policies and velopers with experience working in the various incentives for TOD. They need to encourage a jurisdictions. Their observations provided insight reasonable mix of uses that are appropriate to into some of the more significant hurdles they face. the station area, streamline the development Many of their concerns centered on a lack of con- process, and reduce barriers to more tradi- sistent actions and clear goals from the jurisdictions tional neighborhood design. to guide developers. The developers also saw a • Zoning near transit stations should allow need for more incentives in the form of density higher-density development. considerations. WMATA’s approach to joint de- velopment also was singled out as a barrier. • WMATA’s approach to land development often Through these interviews, the following barriers creates unreasonable burdens for developers. were identified. While the agency needs to maximize return on its property, it also needs to work with devel- • The lack of regional coordination and consis- opers as true partners and encourage the cre- tency regarding TOD makes the process diffi- ation of well-planned, transit-oriented commu- cult for developers and reduces the potential nities on its property. for TOD across the region. Transit crosses po- litical boundaries; jurisdictions need to appre- ciate the development implications of this fact and work cooperatively to maximize TOD opportunities.
16 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report Panel Recommendations
hile each jurisdiction is unique in the comfortable, convenient, and reliable transit to particular challenges and opportuni- get where they need to go. ties it faces to achieve TOD, the panel Improve Communication and Collaboration for W observed that certain common issues Successful TOD were shared by all the jurisdictions. Based on Without these two elements, regional develop- these common issues, the panel members were ment and TOD do not work. In the Washington able to reach some general observations and make some general recommendations about TOD metropolitan region, a number of organizations that are applicable to the region as a whole. Re- such as the Smart Growth Alliance, the Washing- sponding to these shared issues in positive ways ton Board of Trade, and the Council of Govern- can hold the key to successful regional develop- ments play a role in furthering regional commu- ment and TOD. nication. Critical to the communication process, however, are the local jurisdictions and their re- General Recommendations lationship to their neighborhoods, businesses, chambers of commerce, and community groups. Do Not Count on Transit to Create a Market for Making TOD possible requires developing a com- Development munity consensus around TOD growth and devel- TOD is an important component in a community’s opment goals and objectives, and then moving tool kit to achieve regional growth management forward in an efficient and effective process to goals and objectives. However, it is not a “silver realize them. bullet” for economic and other problems faced by jurisdictions. TOD operates in and is supported Through its discussions with members of the com- by a multimodal transit and land use environment, munity in all three jurisdictions, the panel came but TOD and transit do not by themselves create to believe that communication at all levels in the a successful market. The reverse is true: the mar- Washington region needs to be improved. At the ket creates opportunities for TOD. regional level, jurisdictions do not have an effec- tive way to consider common problems affecting Use TOD to Help Achieve Regional Growth Goals their ability to undertake TOD or to share ideas TOD can be used to help address the regional about solutions. Information gathering is ad hoc: jobs/housing balance and to encourage economic jurisdictions will visit projects in neighboring and community development. It can function as jurisdictions for insights and inspiration, but no a key component of regional transportation and regionwide vision for TOD exists. traffic management programs and can be a basic element of a regional mobility program by helping Communication also needs to be improved within to move people to jobs, schools, and recreation. each jurisdiction. Agencies tasked with economic TOD also permits a balance of development types development and planning often do not share the supporting local and regional goals. These devel- same goals about TOD, resulting in projects that opment goals are far-ranging: from affordable and do not achieve the full potential offered by TOD. high-end housing to offering access both to up- Poor communication also hampers jurisdictions’ scale commercial retail and to basic services such relationships with developers, who want clarity as daycare and the post office. Studies have shown regarding the goals and implementation process that regardless of economic status, people use for TOD.
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 17 Poor communication with communities also im- allows an opportunity to involve the public in de- pairs jurisdictions’ ability to achieve TOD. Often, velopment of the plans. a community does not understand what TOD can offer or the range of ways it can be achieved. The design of TOD projects needs to receive as More must be done to create a grass-roots con- much consideration as density. Clustered devel- stituency for TOD and to include the community opment and neotraditional architecture near in the planning process. The District of Columbia transit is not necessarily TOD: there needs to be offers one example of a way to work toward this connectivity within the development, with the goal. It has created a booklet, Trans-Formation: surrounding community, and most important, Recreating Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Cen- with the transit service. The mix of uses and how ters in Washington, D.C.: A Design Handbook for they will function also must be considered. Neighborhood Residents, which teaches local citi- Jurisdictions need to be more concerned about zens about the basics of TOD and good design. It creating “good places.” Inviting and attractive is used in conjunction with community outreach pedestrianways need to be part of the develop- programs such as workshops. ment. Office and commercial uses near transit Political Leaders Need to Support TOD should respond to that proximity in their site Cities and counties govern the critical path for plans rather than rely on suburban development development. Jurisdictions create and adopt the models. The mix of uses also is an important con- vision and the resulting land use pattern. Good sideration. Too often, a project’s housing compo- planning and good development, however, need nent is built but the planned commercial uses fail a champion for the vision. A champion has to be to materialize. Office uses also must be carefully found in both the public and private sectors. chosen to encourage participation in the commu- Without a champion, the TOD vision will languish nity. Government offices, for example, often do and die or become merely another mixed-use de- not serve as catalysts for other development; they velopment. Champions can be an entire planning tend to function as isolated units, with a work- department, a county executive, a councilperson, force whose daily needs are met within the build- or members of the private sector. ing. Several examples of this phenomenon are already built in the region, such as the Internal All the jurisdictions believed that more needed to Revenue Service building at the New Carrolton be done to assure political support for TOD. While station in Prince George’s County. many politicians recognize the value of TOD in theory, their support may ebb in the face of con- One project still in the design phase is the Dis- stituent opposition or competing priorities. This is trict’s new employment services building at the reflected in the tendency to allow TOD standards Minnesota Avenue station. While providing a to be disregarded in the pursuit of economic de- pedestrian link to the station, the site plan as velopment goals. Local leaders need to stand be- designed offers little opportunity for mixed uses hind established TOD policies and encourage or other economic catalysts for the neighborhood. agencies to cooperate in order to achieve TOD The panel encourages the District government goals. They also should encourage programs to to consider revising the design to one that would educate the community about TOD. better meet the city’s TOD goals for place making and for integrating transit and the adjacent office Jurisdictions Should Focus Less on Developing development into the surrounding community. Parcels and More on Creating “Good Places” The key to creating successful TOD projects is Make a Commitment to the TOD Vision, Set station area planning, rather than planning by Priorities, Carry Them Through to Completion parcel or project. Planning for an entire district After a TOD proposal makes its way through the surrounding a transit site will optimize the devel- planning process, it bumps up against the entitle- opment benefits offered by transit, provide devel- ment process. Often, it is at this point that proj- opers with a level of predictability, and help sta- ects are compromised as they go through zoning ble areas cope with development pressure. It also and permitting—sidewalks are negotiated away,
18 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report pedestrian links are reduced, parking standards West Hyattsville Station Study, which shows are changed—and the resulting product is far dif- an interest on the part of the county in work- ferent from the vision. ing collaboratively with local jurisdictions to develop a TOD plan. The study also recognizes All three jurisdictions are eager to pursue TOD. the importance of district-oriented development To be most successful, each needs to focus its time, —approaching the area around a transit station energy, and resources on one or more key stations as a district that can have a life of its own, as and set priorities based on their TOD goals, the opposed to project-oriented planning. tools available to encourage TOD, and an assess- ment of market reality. A priority station can then Prince George’s County is moving forward ag- be selected for focused planning and support that gressively with its TOD efforts at a perfect time: will effectively encourage development. Success TOD is more widely understood and acceptable at these priority stations can then serve as a today than it was even five years ago. Now, a model for how subsequent station areas could be nationwide track record of projects exists that successfully developed. can provide examples of successful place making around transit stations. (Once such example is For those jurisdictions served by Metrorail, the Mockingbird Station on the light-rail line in Dal- panel found that there tends to be an overreliance las; this project brought a new, more urban level on WMATA’s initiative to drive TOD implemen- of development through its mix of housing, enter- tation efforts. WMATA does not control enough tainment, and commercial uses.) These examples land to shape an entire transit area. These juris- can be used to help build confidence among the dictions need to plan for WMATA land as part of a county’s constituencies and stakeholders that larger transit area and work with all landowners, TOD projects are achievable. They also give the including WMATA, to achieve a TOD district. county access to best-practices models and tools. Prince George’s County has the opportunity to Recommendations for Each become a national leader in the development of Jurisdiction TOD practices because of the amount of land and capacity for growth at its Metro stations. Prince George’s County The Prince George’s County panel team met with The panel found that the county’s administration staff from the National Capital Park and Plan- recognizes the potential for TOD to generate eco- ning Commission for a tour of the West Hyattsville, nomic development and to improve the quality of Prince George’s Plaza, and College Park stations. life for its citizens. The panel examined how the The tour was followed by a question-and-answer county could realize this potential. The overarch- session with planning, transportation, and eco- ing idea was “focus”—the county needs to focus nomic development staff. on the basics to create workable incentives that can attract the attention of the development From the background information provided and community. Specific recommendations include on-site observation, the panel members concluded the following: that Prince George’s County is a special place with a number of core assets: Build on Core Assets to Create a TOD Strategy
• The county has two critical assets that many The county should continue with its forward- jurisdictions across the country would envy: looking activities and long-range thinking to take Metro access and developable land. advantage of the current positive climate for TOD. The West Hyattsville Station Study showed that • The county is willing to undertake activities the county could establish collaborative working that express a new sense of direction related relationships with local jurisdictions and focus on to TOD. An example is the Prince George’s district-oriented planning. The county should use County General Plan, which reflects forward- this model at other stations it determines are looking, long-range thinking. Another is the appropriate for this level of investment.
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 19 Use Floodplains and Wetlands as Open-Space Assets hire consultants to facilitate a “visioning” exercise or to provide detailed economic analysis on a par- Floodplains and wetlands near Metro stations cel level basis. All property owners need to un- should be considered assets rather than liabilities. derstand their role and their stake in the overall They can be used to incorporate attractive open plan. The work that Prince George’s County has space, natural beauty, and recreation into districts done with the state and outside consultants at that also satisfy the demand for mixed-use, higher- West Hyattsville provides an excellent model of density transit villages. A natural environment predevelopment work that could result in public that encourages access to passive and active rec- ownership of important parcels or in a joint plan- reation can complement the higher densities of ning district as described below. The panel under- TOD, which may be a concern for some commu- stands that this can be an expensive process, and nity residents. The county should consider creat- thus stresses that focusing on one or two station ing a design standard for all Prince George’s sta- areas is necessary. tions to shape a naturalist framework that could be highly attractive to a broad range of residents, Explore the Creation of a Joint Planning District developers, and stakeholders. with WMATA and Other Station Area Landowners
Promote Land Assembly The jurisdiction can achieve the benefits of a uni- fied station planning area process without public With the exception of zoning, land assembly is purchase of land by creating a formal joint plan- probably the most potent tool that a jurisdiction ning district. The county should explore the possi- can use to promote transit-oriented development. bility of creating such a district at one or two sta- Preassembled land is much more attractive to tion areas, such as West Hyattsville, where the developers because it can reduce predevelop- initial work of identifying market-ready develop- ment costs and facilitate projects of a larger scale. ment scenarios has already been done. With the Greater scale and reduced costs are important to agreement of property owners, land in this dis- a developer for a number of reasons. For exam- trict can be planned and zoned concurrently to ple, structured parking is costly to build, and if reflect a cohesive TOD vision. The panel recom- it is provided by the developer, the TOD project mends that the county be flexible on the bound- must be of sufficient scale to carry the parking aries of the joint planning area to include those facility expense. Mixed-use TOD projects are also property owners who are willing to cooperate— more expensive to build than conventional devel- this group may change as the benefits of joint opment, and the additional risk that banks have planning become more apparent. Once entitle- attached to this type of development means that financing costs are higher. Scale is also fundamen- ments are in place, each landowner would then be tally important to the creation of a sense of place; ready to pursue expeditiously development that a building alone is not enough to create a village matches the community’s goals as market condi- or a district. tions allow.
Land assembly frequently is a difficult and time- This planning strategy requires patience and flex- consuming task. This does not mean, however, ibility on the part of landowners and would need that a jurisdiction’s only option is outright pur- to be negotiated, perhaps including a commitment chase of property. Often, the most important step of public investment in amenities such as street- that a local jurisdiction can take is to convene the scapes and parking areas to enhance property val- stakeholders, including the transit operator and ues. At this point, the county may be in a position the property owners, and to facilitate the devel- to consider using its eminent domain powers to opment of a common vision for the station area. If deal with recalcitrant landowners if necessary. property owners understand the economic bene- Consolidate Parking fits of developing their properties under a unified plan, they are much more likely to work with the WMATA’s one-to-one parking replacement policy county on land assembly. It may be necessary to has long proved to be a disincentive to develop-
20 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report ment. This policy requires the replacement of all point person, the one-stop-shopping person, who Metro parking spaces displaced by development, would answer any questions developers and the which means that developers must assume the community might have about TOD. This person added financial burden of creating structured would have a deep working knowledge of land parking for both their project and Metro. The planning, finance, real estate, the development panel suggests that WMATA and the county con- process, and rail station design and operation, as sider a method used by Dallas Area Rapid Transit well as be politically knowledgeable. He or she (DART): examine parking needs at the stations would have the responsibility to focus all depart- and determine whether parking can be reduced ments of county government on development or removed from certain stations and relocated to around station areas, would market the station others. The net number of parking spaces would areas to the private sector, and would educate the remain the same in the system while freeing up community about TOD. This high-level county land for development at appropriate stations. official also would make sure that any plans for Broaden the Range of Available Financing Tools development integrated the station into the com- munity and created a true sense of place. Mont- Use tax increment financing districts and tax gomery County, Maryland, has used this strategy abatements to attract development. The county effectively in Silver Spring and is now employing also should pursue federal transportation funds, it in Wheaton. such as those available through the Congestion Focus Energies and Resources on One or Two Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Stations Program and the Transportation Enhancement Program, particularly for pedestrian and access To achieve successful development, the TOD czar improvements. This process does require a long and the county need to focus investment—funding lead time but can be worthwhile, providing fund- for public infrastructure ranging from roads to ing for needed public improvements in station schools—at one or two select stations. This focused areas and demonstrating to developers a strong attention can produce the first TOD success that regional commitment to these areas. will be the catalyst for others. Maximize the Leverage of the County’s Capital Improvements Program Prince William County
The county should view its capital improvements Leigh Ferguson, Gary Molyneaux, and Rebecca program as a strategic tool for TOD. It should Zimmerman composed the Prince William team. focus these funds on one priority TOD station They met with representatives of the county’s area—particularly for street and pedestrian im- planning and transportation departments at the provements, open-space acquisition, or the cre- development office for the Belmont Bay commu- ation of schools, parks, or libraries. Such public nity, then toured the Woodbridge/Belmont Bay investments can be significant incentives for and Rippon VRE stations. The tour was preceded developers. by a general overview of the transportation and Cut through Red Tape: Revamp the Development growth issues in the county, delivered by the plan- Process and Create a TOD “Czar” ning staff, and concluded with a discussion of plan- ning efforts, especially along the Route 1 corridor. TOD projects are, by their nature, complicated to market, finance, and regulate. The county needs Unlike the other jurisdictions, Prince William to find ways of expediting the part of the process County is served by commuter rail but not Metro. in which it plays a critical role: the regulatory pro- The limited but well-used service provided by cess. One important step would be to appoint a VRE is hampered by the fact that private freight development executive for TOD in Prince George’s lines own the tracks, which are used heavily by County. This TOD “czar” would function as the both them and Amtrak. This situation creates
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 21 unusual challenges for the county’s efforts to plan Take Advantage of Unique Features for TOD in for and promote TOD. Prince William County—Focus on Residential
Based on information provided in the background Prince William County has commuter rail and report and through on-site observation and inter- bus, but not Metrorail. Coupled with this condi- views, the panel found some tremendous strengths tion is the county’s proven market for diverse in Prince William County that can provide the types of residential development, which already basis for building development opportunities: appears attracted to the VRE transit areas. How- ever, the county does not have the market for the • The county is clearly forward-looking. It is still high-density office and commercial uses normally in a position to control and guide growth and found around a TOD site. The panel suggests that has taken the initiative by starting to plan for the county focus on locating a diverse and rela- long-term growth in county transit nodes. tively dense residential base at the stations. In • VRE and the bus systems are working in Prince the long term, this residential density will likely William County; they are getting people out of attract future office and commercial development cars, an important criterion for successful TOD. to the station areas. This long-term use should be The county has the opportunity to be precedent- recognized in plans for the TOD sites. setting in defining what TOD means for com- Plan for TOD Today: Provide Leadership, Set Priori- muter rail-based locations. ties, Solicit Community Input
• The county is willing to create a vision for the The county needs to define a TOD vision that future. There is an opportunity to focus on ten- works for the specific conditions found in Prince and 20-year horizons as the time frame for the William County. It should determine the realistic TOD vision, as well as a long-term 50-year opportunities for the station areas and proceed horizon. (Another local jurisdiction that has with planning efforts focused on one or two select embraced this approach with success is Arling- areas to create successful TOD examples. These ton County, Virginia. When Metro was still in can then serve as catalysts for change at other the early stages of development, the county locations. The planning process should be in developed a plan that would take advantage of depth and include identifying parcels and uses. the economic and development opportunities Zoning categories should be created that allow for provided by the system. It guided the location densities appropriate to the county’s TOD vision of stations in its jurisdiction, developed plan- for each station and for the corridors as a whole. ning and zoning to support denser development, and stood by its transit-related planning choices At the same time, the county needs to create an over the ensuing decades.) educated constituency that understands the is- sues, benefits, and limits of TOD. The community • Because each station location is so different, the can then be engaged as active contributors to a county has an outstanding opportunity to cre- realistic visioning and planning process. This edu- ate regional and station area plans that respond cation and planning process will not be achieved to the particular conditions at each station. overnight, however, and should be initiated soon, • The planning staff is well versed in TOD. The before proposed development projects start to staff should begin now to educate the general make their way to the public. The county can be- community about TOD—as it pertains to Prince gin this process by developing materials that ex- William County—before TOD proposals start plain TOD in accessible language and graphics. It to come before the public. can organize workshops in the communities most likely to experience TOD proposals in the near The panel’s specific recommendations for the term, and develop press kits for distribution to county are: the local media and community groups.
22 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report The county should not merely apply standards The type and amount of transit service must be and plans that may have been successful in other matched to fit the market. Doing so assures that jurisdictions. The TOD solution in Prince William commuter rail and bus systems will not be over- County can be informed by these best practices capitalized but rather phased in a way that will and models, but must be tailored to the county’s stay one step ahead of market demand. It is also special needs and conditions. important to identify and anticipate future tran- sit corridors and stations, thus allowing the county Plan for TOD Long Term flexibility in the choice of transportation tech- nologies to employ in the future, whether heavy As part of its planning process to identify the or light rail or some type of bus rapid transit. most appropriate stations for near-term TOD development, the county also will identify station Understand That Every Transit Trip Begins and area locations where it is not yet time for TOD. Ends with a Pedestrian Trip The county can prepare for the time when TOD A key element in successful TOD is the pedestrian is suitable at these locations by reserving land for infrastructure. Prince William County should con- future transit-related mixed-use development. sider creating design standards and guidelines that As with current TOD locations, these long-term require legitimate pedestrian access from develop- locations should undergo an in-depth, community- ments within a defined distance from a station. The based planning process. The process would iden- county should also be mindful of the importance tify parcels appropriate for high-density residen- of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure throughout tial uses as well as for future commercial and the county and especially in the vicinity of transit office uses. These sites could be proffered by a service. developer for long-term development or be placed Do Not Limit the TOD Vision to the Immediate into a land bank arrangement, which would be Station Area less costly to the developer. The county or a sepa- rate nondevelopment entity could hold the land. If TOD opportunities are limited in the immedi- (Signs on the property should make irrefutably ate vicinity of a VRE station, the county should clear to the public that this is land reserved for expand the scope of the vision. The Woodbridge future development and not a permanent park station presents a good example. Topography, area or open space.) tracks, and existing development constrain the immediate site. Across from the tracks, however, Focus on the “T” in TOD lies an aging shopping mall. That site is anchored not only by the VRE station but also by Route 1, If the transit is not right, TOD does not exist. TOD a major thoroughfare. Interstate 95 and a park- works in a multimodal environment—commuter and-ride station for bus and a commuter “slug rail, bus transit, surface roads, and highways. The line” are located near the mall site. These existing county should not overlook the assets that other dynamics create legitimate opportunities for rede- modes besides rail may bring to a site. It is also velopment of the site. The panel believes this mall important that land use decisions work to pro- site would be a good candidate for a station area mote ridership. planning process; it holds strong potential in to- day’s market for redevelopment as a mixed-use Transit-oriented development at commuter rail urban village with strong linkages to both high- stations in Prince William County must recognize ways and transit. the operational characteristics of commuter tran- sit service. VRE’s commuter rail shares tracks Reevaluate the Proffer System with 100 or more freight trains and Amtrak pas- The proffer system in Virginia—which is used to senger trains per day. Residential development create density opportunities for developers— located near this type of transportation is likely actually serves to create an imbalance of uses in a to require certain kinds of setbacks and special mixed-use project. Typically, an economic impact design considerations to mitigate for noise and analysis is done during the rezoning process. The vibration. analysis rewards the developer for creating more
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 23 office and commercial opportunities but penalizes definition of station area or any coordinated sta- it for creating housing because residential devel- tion area planning. “Station area” should include opment has a higher cost/impact ratio for the land owned by WMATA and private owners as community. Developers frequently propose sig- well as the city. The city needs to initiate a de- nificantly more office space than the market will tailed joint planning effort that involves all the accommodate in order to build enough housing to parties—WMATA, the city, and private owners— meet market demand. A reality gap thus occurs: to achieve its TOD goals. the housing gets built first, and the office space may be built in later phases or not at all. The Develop a Strategy to Achieve a Shared TOD Vision panel suggests that, particularly in the case of and Station Area Plans TOD, this methodology should be revisited and A TOD strategy can be developed that meets both brought more into line with the economic reality the city’s goal of more housing choices and resi- that applies to the residential and office markets dential density around stations and WMATA’s in Prince William County. need for greater ridership. The strategy should encourage neighborhoods’ investment in the pro- District of Columbia cess, increase pedestrian access to stations, and Members of the District of Columbia team toured create zoning that will produce desired densities the Anacostia, Rhode Island Avenue, Minnesota within a one-quarter-mile walk of the station. Avenue, Union Station, and Potomac Avenue The panel proposes a strategy that embraces a Metro stations and then met with staff from the yearlong planning program at each station, start- city’s planning and economic development agen- ing with a visioning process. Visioning would in- cies in the planning department’s offices. volve all stakeholders, including local residents, Panel members drew upon the background infor- and, in addition to the city’s residential goals and mation provided to them and their on-site visits WMATA’s ridership goals, would articulate the to develop their observations and recommenda- goal of putting land back on the tax rolls through tions. These recommendations touch on more gen- transit-oriented development. eral issues of timing and an expanded vision for areawide planning, and focus on the more specific Development of a station area planning program issues and the questions posed by the city. The would follow the visioning process. It should be “east-of-the-river” response required a more in- conducted by nationally recognized planning and depth review of challenges and opportunities at development experts under contract with the these stations. Following are the panel’s recom- planning department in order to stimulate fresh mendations: viewpoints and to draw upon knowledge of best practices and working examples from across the Build on Momentum nation. The results should be station area plans The mayor and city council are to be commended that are community driven and with overlay zon- for articulating a compelling and practical vision ing districts specific to each station based upon for TOD. Now is the time for the city to imple- these plans. A single “one-size-fits-all” planning ment that vision by acting on the current eco- and zoning overlay will not meet the individual nomic boom in the Washington metropolitan area. requirements of such a broad range of stations Planning, economic, and development objectives and conditions. should support the city’s TOD concept and vice Discourage Speculative Demolition during the versa. The panel believes there needs to be a Planning Process comprehensive TOD strategy for the city and for the Metro system as a whole. Few landlords are developers, and they tend to Establish Station Area Planning make decisions about the sale and disposition of their property based on narrow economic criteria. There has been much discussion about TOD in the Building moratoriums are one unpopular regula- city, but the panel was unable to discern a clear tory tool that cities sometimes use to prevent
24 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report landowners from making self-serving or short- Depot and Giant Food stores were desirable addi- sighted decisions while area planning efforts are tions to the station area, their suburban site plans underway. An alternative incentive-based ap- do not add density or facilitate the necessary pe- proach to discourage speculative demolition of destrian environment next to the stations. The otherwise viable properties would be to reduce ad design of these store sites reflects a missed op- valorem taxes to land value only at targeted, pri- portunity to create retail that would respond to vately held improved sites until the final land use its proximity to transit. is determined. Because this tax benefit would not be transferable, it could deter premature demoli- Overcoming Challenges and Optimizing Opportuni- tion and inappropriate development. However, this ties “East of the River” step should be taken selectively, based on the his- Station areas east of the Anacostia River have toric or other value of a targeted property to the particular socioeconomic and physical character- overall community. istics that offer challenges, but they also present Create a Zoning Structure for TOD significant opportunities for TOD.
There is no substitute for having the proper zon- The challenges include the following: ing structure in place. Many communities have • Market. These typically are low-income mar- found that mixed-use zoning is not a strong kets that do not naturally attract developer in- enough tool to achieve pedestrian-friendly, transit- terest. The lack of density, critical mass, and oriented places. The panel recommends that the activity centers do not make the neighborhoods city implement a station area zoning structure attractive to developers and reduce the sta- that explicitly supports TOD. The use of density tions’ development potential. minimums as well as maximums should be consid- ered. Performance zoning is another approach • Safety perception. The lack of neighborhood that has merit. By placing less emphasis on spe- cleanup and self-policing makes Washington’s cifying uses and more emphasis on how a station Southeast neighborhoods appear to be unsafe area looks and functions, performance zoning, and not inviting for walking after dark. Street combined with design guidelines, has the flexibil- lighting, signage, bicycle patrols, neighborhood ity to accommodate changing market conditions watches, and vandal-proof police boxes do not over time. exist.
Use Market Analysis to Develop a Retail Strategy • Physical barriers to the river. For all the sta- tions examined, the riverfront, which would Retail is an appropriate goal for station areas. normally be a significant asset, is inaccessible However, determining the mix of retail should be to adjacent development because of highways based on an understanding of demand. The panel or the Metro itself. strongly suggests that, as part of the visioning process at each station site, a retail “gap” analysis • Incompatible land uses. Current nearby uses be conducted to identify the retail categories most do not generate ridership. Where one would likely to succeed or fail because of the existing expect to see residential density, there are depth of demand and competition. With this infor- instead strip commercial centers and derelict, mation in hand, the tenant mix can be identified automobile-oriented neighborhood uses. There and targeted efforts made to attract tenants with is no critical mass of activity that could be gen- a strong chance to be successful. erated by cohesive and compact retail.
Attracting retail to a site does not mean that the • Poor pedestrian environment. The Anacostia distinctive nature and opportunities of a station station area in particular is compromised by site should be lost to the “need/want” sensibilities the design of the street system and the pre- of the targeted retailers. The Rhode Island Ave- dominance of vehicular traffic. The street sys- nue station offers a good example. While the Home tem was laid out without respect to station
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 25 needs or opportunities and should be revised; jurisdictions. This would create an incentive to the station’s location prevents adequate pedes- buy locally. The Minnesota Avenue station would trian circulation. be a good first candidate for use of these tools. The area also presents several significant oppor- Don’t Rely on Government Office Buildings tunities: While well intentioned, locating government • There is considerable buying power in the office buildings to these east-of-the-river station neighborhoods that is currently going else- areas is not likely to provide a sufficient catalyst where, especially across the borders into Mary- for other development. Studies have shown that land and Virginia. This consumer demand could regional government office workers do not make be captured by neighborhood-responsive retail extensive use of neighborhood services. Most of and services at the stations. their needs are met within their building. A gov- ernment office building becomes an island, whose • Undeveloped and underdeveloped land, partic- commuters move between Metro or the parking ularly around the Minnesota Avenue and Ana- garage and their office building without venturing costia stations, provides the site potential for into the neighborhood during their free time. De- new development, particularly of housing and sign also plays a role, and the city’s planned De- neighborhood services, and, to a secondary partment of Employment Services building at the degree, of office space. Minnesota Avenue station offers an example of a • There is a potentially receptive market for site plan that does not optimize its location near improved housing stock and a pedestrian- Metro. While a pedestrian link is provided to the friendly environment. station, the placement of the office buildings as shown on the site plan will prevent a cohesive • The addition of senior/independent-living mixed-use vision for station-adjacent land. The housing would appeal to older, neighborhood- location and design of this building should be oriented residents who would more readily use revisited so that scarce public resources are not safe and attractive public space and could cre- squandered on a building that will not become the ate a natural “neighborhood watch.” expected economic catalyst to the neighborhood’s economy. • There are observable revitalization and private reinvestment efforts currently taking place in some areas of the neighborhoods. Recommendations for the Smart Growth Alliance The panel’s recommendations to meet these chal- lenges and take advantage of these opportunities The issues facing Prince George’s County, Prince are as follows: William County, and the District of Columbia clearly illustrate the potential for TOD to enhance Public Investment Is Essential the region’s economic growth and quality of life. To achieve successful TOD, each of the stations The Smart Growth Alliance—as a collaborative east of the Anacostia will require substantial in- partnership among leading development and con- vestment and incentives by the public sector as servation interests—can and should play an well as proactive improvements by the city, important role in realizing that potential. WMATA, and the federal government. Among In particular, the panel recommends that the SGA these would be cleaning up the station area devel- focus its attention on three critical functions: opment sites, providing public landscape improve- ments, installing environmental lighting, increas- The SGA should educate the community, local of- ing security, and creating tax increment financing ficials, and developers about the characteristics (TIF) districts. The city could also institute sales and benefits of transit-oriented development. As tax abatement in designated areas to bring the has been learned in the Washington metropolitan District’s tax burden in line with that of adjacent region and in communities across the nation, TOD
26 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report tends to be most successful where all interested logue, and there does not appear to be another parties are well informed and able to work to- organization in the region with the capacity and gether on the basis of common understanding. credibility to do so. ULI’s research and outreach activities can serve as a valuable resource to the SGA in this regard. The SGA should continue its program of recog- nizing development proposals that exemplify The SGA should host a regular dialogue among the principles of smart growth. As more people the region’s local governments and transit agen- come to appreciate the value of TOD, the SGA’s cies to foster communication, coordination, and thoughtful endorsement will give local officials collaboration in order to reach a regional vision and citizens the assurance that the recognized of transit-oriented development. The panel believes projects are generally well conceived. that the SGA and its member organizations have the ability and the credibility to facilitate this dia-
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 27 Conclusion
he Advisory Services panel addressed three • better public education about the benefits and very different jurisdictions, each trying to limits of TOD; and use TOD to maximize the economic and •a clear, focused vision for TOD. T transportation opportunities afforded by rail-based transit. A general question across the The issue that seemed most problematic was the jurisdictions was how to use TOD effectively and creation of incentives for TOD. The panel empha- appropriately for their needs. sized that TOD cannot create a market; hence the need for jurisdictions to rigorously examine their The panel determined that, while each jurisdic- transit stations and to determine which were most tion had unique challenges, they also shared some likely to be successful in terms of the TOD goals basic needs that should be addressed while work- set by the jurisdiction. Once these priority sta- ing to achieve their TOD goals. These included tions are selected, a community-based station the need for: area planning process can be initiated. With that • better communication at all levels within and plan firmly in place, a jurisdiction can then choose across jurisdictions, and with the public; from a range of regulatory, financial, and infra- structure incentives to attract developers. • stronger leadership supporting TOD; •a commitment to place making and uses that support TOD;
28 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report About the Panel
Marilee A. Utter cal public policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School. Her professional affiliations include the Counselor Panel Chair of Real Estate designation and membership in the Denver, Colorado Urban Land Institute, CU Real Estate Center, and Marilee A. Utter is president of Citiventure As- the Congress for New Urbanism. She serves on the sociates, LLC, a Denver-based real estate devel- boards of several community organizations, in- opment and consulting firm specializing in transit- cluding the Metropolitan State College of Denver oriented development, urban infill, and public/ Foundation and the Center for the Visual Arts. private transactions. Areas of particular expertise include mixed-use projects, bus- and rail-anchored Marta Borsanyi developments, large-scale master planning, reuse Newport Beach, California of historic buildings, and recapture of environ- mentally impacted sites. Marta Borsanyi is a principal of the Concord Group, a real estate advisory firm with offices in north- Utter’s extensive background in both public and ern and southern California and Las Vegas, private real estate has led to nationally published Nevada. The Concord Group provides vital stra- articles and numerous engagements focused on tegic advice for land use issues and development. innovative approaches to community redevelop- ment and urban issues. Projects of note include Borsanyi has expertise in market, economic, and leading the Development around Transit efforts financial analyses associated with existing prop- on the T-Rex project and over 25 other sites in erties as well as development opportunities. She the Denver region; redeveloping a failed regional holds a graduate degree in economics from the mall, Cinderella City, into a 1 million-square- University of Budapest and a master’s degree in foot, mixed-use, transit-oriented town center; re- business administration from the University of developing a 350,000-square-foot historic down- California, Irvine. town department store, the Denver Dry Goods Building, into housing, retail, and office space; Borsanyi has extensive experience in the evalua- and master planning and zoning for 65 acres in tion of both residential and nonresidential proper- Denver’s Central Platte Valley, transforming an ties. She has participated in numerous projects in urban railyard into the region’s premier com- which the objective has been to identify the high- mercial, residential, and recreational district. est and best mix of uses from extremely large to quite small properties. Her approach to value max- Previously, Utter was transit-oriented develop- imization has had broad appeal to her developer ment specialist for the Regional Transportation clients, as well as to public entities interested in District (Denver); regional vice president for Tril- identifying specific development scenarios. lium Corporation, a real estate development com- pany; director of asset management for the city A consultant for 19 years, Borsanyi was head of and county of Denver; and vice president of Wells marketing services at the Mission Viejo Company, Fargo Bank. where her responsibilities included strategic plan- ning, feasibility and acquisition studies, economic She holds a BA in mathematics and French from and financial analyses, consumer and advertising Colorado Women’s College, an MBA from UCLA’s research, new product development, and mer- Anderson School, and a certificate in state and lo- chandising of ongoing and new program offerings.
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 29 Before that, she was a member of the faculty at Leigh Ferguson the Graduate School of Management of the Uni- versity of California, Irvine, specializing in strate- Chattanooga, Tennessee gic planning and scenario analysis, and teaching in Leigh Ferguson has been president of LMF Hold- the areas of consultative processes and adminis- ings, LLC, since August 2002. His real estate trative problem solving and decision making. development and management company focuses on residential, commercial, and mixed-use com- She is an active member of the Urban Land Insti- munity development projects as a continuing part tute and a charter member of the advisory board of revitalizing Chattanooga’s inner city. From to the Center for Economic Research and Quar- 1999 to 2002, Ferguson was president of the terly Economic Forecast at Chapman University. Chattanooga-based Corker Group, Inc., where he A frequent speaker and panel member at indus- managed an approximately 2 million-square-foot try functions, Borsanyi also is a frequently quoted portfolio of office, commercial, and industrial expert on all kinds of land use issues. properties; supervised all leasing, administra- tive, maintenance, and financial operations; and Fernando Costa prepared monthly and annual business plans, budgets, and reports to owners. Fort Worth, Texas He was president of Chattanooga Neighborhood Fernando Costa serves as planning director for Enterprise, Inc., from 1991 to 1999, managing the city of Fort Worth. Before moving to Texas lending, development, financial, and property in 1998, he served for 11 years as planning direc- management functions for this nationally recog- tor for the city of Atlanta. He also served for 11 nized nonprofit housing company that functions as years with the Middle Georgia Area Planning and a FNMA and Freddie Mac seller-servicer, THDA Development Commission. He has extensive ex- lender, and low-income housing tax credit and con- perience in transportation and land use planning, ventionally financed rental property developer including the formulation of public policy to pro- and manager, handling $30 million in transactions annually. mote transit-oriented development. Ferguson was previously president and chairman Costa currently chairs the American Planning of John Laing Homes, Virginia, Inc., in Fairfax, Association’s City Planning and Management Virginia, from 1988 to 1991 and vice president of Division. He also chairs the Development Excel- development at Van Metre Company in Burke, lence Steering Committee for the North Central Virginia, from 1986 to 1988. Prior to that he Texas Council of Governments, which promotes served as the vice president, development, at smart growth in the Dallas/Fort Worth metro- Winkler Companies in Alexandria, Virginia. politan area. He is a past vice chair of the Plan- ning Accreditation Board, for which he continues Ferguson received his BS from the Baylor School to serve as a site visitor. He is the recipient of in Chattanooga. He also completed undergraduate awards from various organizations, including the studies at the University of North Carolina at Greater Fort Worth Builders Association, the Chapel Hill and graduate-level studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Fort Worth chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and Historic Fort Worth, Inc. Kenneth H. Hughes He received degrees in civil engineering and city Dallas, Texas planning from Georgia Institute of Technology and served as an officer in the U.S. Army Corps Since founding Kenneth H. Hughes Interests, of Engineers. He has previously served on ULI Inc., in 1983 and UC URBAN in 1996, Hughes panels for Kansas City, Missouri; Trenton, New has built developments encompassing more than Jersey; and Phoenix, Arizona. 1 million square feet of office and shopping center
30 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report space, both for his own investment portfolio as development at the King County International well as for third-party investors. The develop- Airport/Boeing Field. He currently serves on the ments reflect his companies’ focus since their King County, Washington, Transit-Oriented De- inception: developing, leasing, and managing spe- velopment Oversight Committee and on the cial projects in prime locations, particularly spe- county’s Strategic Planning Group, which guides cialty retail and urban mixed use. transportation investments supporting the coun- ty’s Smart Growth Initiative. Hughes has been involved in shopping center and mixed-use developments in Mexico City and He has served as director of Metrorail projects Guadalajara. He is the developing partner in for Fairfax County, Virginia. In that role he was Mockingbird Station, a large mixed-use project responsible for planning transit-oriented devel- in Dallas. The project is the first in Texas to be opment projects at the county’s six suburban sta- located directly atop a light-rail station. Other tions. As a consultant, he has been the project large mixed-use projects underway include SO7 manager for the Eastside Portland, Oregon, MAX (“South of Seventh”) in Fort Worth, Texas. This station area design and development program and will be a five-year, 25-acre downtown project with has managed the Westside MAX corridor project. rowhousing, retail and office space, and the city’s In metropolitan Seattle, Molyneaux was a princi- first high-rise condominium, all at the proposed pal author of Washington State’s High Capacity Seventh Street light-rail station to be completed Transportation Act and the Regional Transit Au- by 2005. thority Act. He has led station area design and Hughes attended the University of Texas at Aus- development programs for Snohomish County, tin School of Architecture and Southern Metho- the city of Everett, and the city of SeaTac. Moly- dist University Cox School of Business. He is a neaux has also served as the prime consultant for member of the Urban Land Institute and is a the city of Spokane’s light-rail system plan and member of the Policy and Practice Committee. In land use program. He served as a member of the the past, Hughes has served ULI as a trustee and national review panel selected to evaluate the as chairman of the ULI/ICSC Steering Commit- Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project. tee for the Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers Molyneaux has also served as a member of Gover- series. He has served as an adviser to Fabrikasa nor Gardener’s Task Force on the Financial Fu- in Caracas, Venezuela; Moliere 333 in Mexico City; ture of Washington State, Transportation Com- and Lensworth in Melbourne, Australia. In Hous- mittee, as well as on the Transportation Revenue ton, he served on the Costume Council of the Work Group established by Governor Lowry. He Houston Museum of Fine Arts. He also has been is a full member of the ULI and has participated a member of the board of directors of the Real Estate Council in Dallas and of the advisory in the Community Development Council, as well boards of the Cox School of Business and the as the Advisory Services Panel on the Revitaliza- Meadows School of the Arts, Southern Methodist tion of the University District Neighborhoods, University. He currently serves on the board of Ohio State University. the University of Texas at Austin School of Ar- Molyneaux is the immediate past president of the chitecture and is the sole benefactor of the Ken- Pratt Fine Arts Center and continues to chair its neth H. Hughes Teaching Excellence program at $25 million New Facilities Program. He recently the school. completed terms as a trustee for Cornish College of the Arts, Friends of the National Zoo, and Gary O. A. Molyneaux United Negro College Fund–Northwest Advisory Seattle, Washington Committee. Molyneaux is a frequent lecturer at universities and community and professional orga- Gary O. A. Molyneaux has more than 25 years of nizations. He received his MA from Southern Illi- transportation and high-capacity transit experi- nois University at Edwardsville and his PhD from ence. He is the manager of planning and program the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 31 Shelley Poticha and staff to implement TOD and maximize the interface between transit and mixed land use. Oakland, California He serves on the Rail-Volution Conference Steer- Shelley Poticha is head of Reconnecting Amer- ing Committee and is a member of the American ica’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development. In Institute of Certified Planners and the Institute this role she oversees the new center’s efforts to of Transportation Engineers. He received a bach- help bring TOD to scale as a nationally recognized elor of arts degree from the University of Minne- real estate product. She was previously the exec- sota and a master’s degree in urban and regional utive director of the Congress for the New Urban- planning from Texas A&M University. ism, where she guided its growth into a nation- wide coalition with a prominent voice in national Ruth A. Wuorenma debates on urban revitalization, growth policy, and sprawl, and forged alliances with major land Chicago, Illinois development interests, environmental and com- Ruth A. Wuorenma is founder and principal of munity organizations, and federal agencies. Po- Neighborhood Capital Company (NCC) and the ticha has also worked as a senior associate with Neighborhood Capital Institute (NCI), both of Calthorpe Associates and represented the Sur- which specialize in the application of market and face Transportation Policy Project in the San smart-growth strategies to urban neighborhoods Francisco Bay Area. in decline, but with NCI focusing on research and She lectures widely and has coauthored several advocacy. Currently, she is serving as development significant HUD publications, CNU’s Charter adviser to the city of Waukegan, Illinois, as it pre- of the New Urbanism, and The Next American pares a redevelopment master plan and financial Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the Ameri- implementation strategy for its 1,400-acre post- can Dream, with Peter Calthorpe. She serves on industrial lakefront on Lake Michigan and 400- the board of Smart Growth America. Poticha acre century-old downtown. Key parts of that holds a master’s degree in city planning from the master plan include an intermodal regional com- muter rail and bus station; a restored ecopark University of California at Berkeley and a bache- and moorlands system; and a regional commercial lor of arts from the University of California at marina district. Santa Cruz. Previously, Wuorenma was a managing director Jack Wierzenski for Mesirow Stein Real Estate, where she was hired to oversee that firm’s work on a variety of Dallas, Texas mixed-use, high-density, often transit-oriented Jack Wierzenski is the assistant vice president urban developments, including both market-rate for economic development and planning for Dallas projects and a public housing transformation con- tract. Prior to that, in working for Joseph Freed Area Rapid Transit (DART). He is responsible for Homes, she developed a variety of new construc- developing and maintaining long-range strategies tion and loft conversion market-rate products. to take advantage of economic development op- She began her career in Chicago as a real estate portunities around DART transit facilities. He attorney, specializing in land use and zoning. She represents the agency in initial contacts with the continued her career as a developer for the Mar- development community and facilitates appropri- riott Corporation in both the United States and ate transit-supportive development at light-rail Europe, working with all of Marriott’s hotel prod- stations. Wierzenski provides communication, edu- ucts, from full-service convention and resort ho- cation, and information on transit-oriented devel- tels to limited-service chains. opment, economic development, and quality of life issues and acts as a liaison between developers, Wuorenma is a member of the Urban Land Insti- member cities, and various DART departments tute, serving on its Affordable Housing Council
32 A ULI Advisory Services Workshop Report and the Chicago Local District Council Policy Com- involved with railyard redevelopment projects in mittee; Lambda Alpha International honorary so- Santa Fe, New Mexico; Las Vegas, Nevada; and ciety for land economics; and the National Hous- Denver, Colorado. ing Conference. Her board memberships include the University of Chicago Women’s Board and the She recently participated in the creation of a Com- Chicago College of Performing Arts of Roosevelt prehensive Sustainability Plan for the resort mu- University. She was named as one of “100 Women nicipality of Whistler, British Columbia. She is a Making a Difference” in Today’s Chicago Woman, frequent keynote speaker for a variety of confer- July 2001. She received her BS with honors from ences, including the 2002 Union of British Colum- the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, bia Municipalities Conference on Sustainability, and her JD from its College of Law. She is a li- the French Quarter (New Orleans) Business As- censed real estate broker in the state of Illinois sociation annual meeting, and the Brown Fields- and a member of the Illinois Bar. Gray Water Symposium hosted by the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Rebecca Zimmerman Zimmerman’s work has been published in Metrop- olis magazine, Landscape Architecture magazine, Denver, Colorado Urban Land, Planning, and a variety of local peri- Becky Zimmermann is an owner of Design Work- odicals. She holds an MBA from the University of shop and has extensive experience in community, Colorado and bachelor’s degrees in communication tourism, economic, and marketing-related consult- and business administration from Trinity Univer- ing and planning for major projects. She is cur- sity, San Antonio, Texas. She is a member of ULI, rently serving as the principal-in-charge of Design serving on the Recreation Development Council, Workshop’s role in the planning and rezoning of Program Committee, and Colorado District Coun- the Cherokee Denver, LLC, redevelopment of the cil Executive Committee, and is an instructor for Gates Rubber Factory, a 50-acre transit-oriented the ULI Real Estate School. development in Denver. Recently, she has been
Washington, D.C., July 22–24, 2003 33