Suburban Tissue Analysis & Retrofitability

Home , Urban morphology

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY CREATING A CATALOGUE AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR POTENTIAL RETROFIT SITES

ARMAN TOLENTINO SCHOOL OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SPRING 2011

ADVISOR: RICHARD DAGENHART

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 5

INTRODUCTION 7

LITERATURE REVIEW 11

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25

ANALYSIS 29

CONCLUSION 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY 42 4 TOLENTINO ABSTRACT

In their book, Retrofitting Suburbia, Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson argue that the big project for the next 50 years will be the redesign and redevelopment of existing suburban properties – particularly shopping malls, big box stores, and office parks – into more sustainable, walkable places. In addition to providing case studies of suburban retrofit projects, Dunham-Jones and Williamson discuss the concept of suburban tissues, a term coined by Brenda Case Scheer to describe the shapes and patterns of the different streets and parcels of the suburbs. Scheer says that suburban tissues range from small- scale single-family residential parcels connected by winding streets to large-scale commercial properties connected by busy arterial roads. This understanding of suburban tissue is important because it pro- vides a clearer picture of the dynamics of the built environment of the suburbs, where different tissues change at different rates and scales. According to Scheer, the smaller-scale parcels of single-family subdivisions undergo subtle changes over short periods of time, while the larger-scale parcels of shopping malls undergo major changes but over longer periods of time. The purpose of this applied research paper is to utilize Scheer’s concept of suburban tissue to create a cataloging and scoring system for potential retrofit site areas. To demonstrate this scoring system, I selected three areas in the Metro Atlanta region to serve as examples of typical shopping mall sites conducive to retrofitability. I then catego- rized the tissues of each site area and applied a scoring system based on the argument that large-scale sites offer the greatest potential for the large-scale change necessary to redevelop a site into a more sustainable, compact, mixed-use community.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 5 6 TOLENTINO INTRODUCTION

While there has been a recent trend towards redesigning and redeveloping suburban properties into sustainable, compact, walkable places, there has been a lack of systematic ways to determine which properties have the greatest potential for redevelopment. The purpose of this applied research paper is provide developers, architects, planners and urban designers with a standardized cataloging and scoring system to help determine which sites have the highest potential for the large-scale change necessary for suburban retrofit projects. In order to create a standardized cataloging and scoring system based on the analysis of suburban properties, it is first necessary to understand the physical form and shape of cities, a concept known as urban morphology. Brenda Case Scheer, an architect and planner who specializes in the study of urban morphology, has come up with a new way of looking at the physical form of suburbs. While architects and urban morphologists of the past, such as Gianfranco Caniggia and M.R.G. Conzen, break down the built environment into the elemental forms of buildings, lots and streets, Scheer goes a step further and identifies the elemental parts of the site, superstructure, infill, buildings and objects (Conzen 1960). According to Scheer, these elemental parts come together to form the basic shapes of the city: the grid, the strip and the master planned community, with the latter two forming 1-1 Brenda Case Scheer classifies the built environment of the suburbs into the shapes of the suburbs. The suburbs, according to Scheer, can three distinct tissues: static (top), elastic (middle) and campus (bottom). in turn be broken down into three distinct “tissues” that change over time at different rates and at different scales. She labels these tissues as static, elastic, and campus tissue. According to Scheer, static tissue is comprised of relatively small parcels similar in size that undergo slight changes due to the restrictive nature of the multitude of owners

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 7 INTRODUCTION

resistant to change, as well as the strong relationship between building and parcel (Scheer 2001). Elastic tissue is comprised of parcels that vary in size and shape and that are found along suburban arterial roads. These tissues change rapidly over short periods of time due to change in ownership and change in market conditions. The third tissue, campus tissue, is comprised of large parcels with multiple buildings owned by a single entity, such as a university campus or an apartment community. Campus tissue changes infrequently due to the difficulty in obtaining ownership of such a large parcel and difficulty in initiating change at such a large scale. However, suburban retrofit redevelopment projects have typically utilized campus tissues, such as large shopping mall sites, by converting acres of underutilized asphalt into an urban block structure with a mix of uses and relatively higher densities compared to nearby commercial and residential properties. This type of transformation serves as a premise to my proposal. By utilizing this type of tissue classification, I have come up with a scoring system that analyzes potential retrofit sites based upon their physical make-up of static, elastic and campus tissue. The purpose of this paper is first to provide an overview and analysis of urban morphology and the concept of suburban tissues, then to provide a thorough breakdown of a possible scoring system based on the concept of suburban tissues. Finally, I hope to apply this scoring system to potential retrofit sites in the Metro Atlanta region. The overall goal is to create a scoring system that can be used as a tool for developers, planners, architects and urban designers in order to identify potential redevelopment sites in the suburbs.

8 TOLENTINO SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 9 10 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

To understand the concept of suburban tissue, it is first neces- 2-1 Traditional and Modernist Urban Space: Figure ground diagrams of Parma and Saint-Die (source: Rowe and Koetter, sary to understand the concept of urban morphology, or the study of 1978, pp. 62-3) the physical form of cities over time. According to Matthew Carmona, et al., there are essentially two main types of urban form: ‘traditional’ and ‘modernist,’ with the former consisting of urban blocks that define and enclose space, and the latter consisting of free-standing ‘pavilion’ buildings in landscape settings (2003). Within both of these forms, according to M.R.G. Conzen, there are several key elements: land uses, building structures, plot patterns and street patterns, with each exhibiting different degrees of stability (1960). Buildings, particularly the land uses they accommodate, are the least resilient elements. Plot pat-

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 11 LITERATURE REVIEW

terns, although more enduring, change over times as individual plots are subdivided or amalgamated. Street patterns are the most enduring elements because of ownership structures and the difficulties of organizing and implementing large-scale change, although changes do happen during times of war, natural disasters or comprehensive redevelopment. Together, according to Gianfranco Caniggia, these four elements combine to form patterns with similar characteristics and congruencies, patterns known as ‘urban tissues’ (Carmona 2003). In the book, Urban Forms: The Death and Life of the Urban Block, Philippe Panerai, et al. devote a chapter to the discussion of what constitutes urban tissue. According to the authors, the notion of “tissue” evokes ideas of interweaving and connections between parts

2-2 The street as the basic building element of the urban tissue. Rue Daguerre, Paris, beginning of the 19th century. (source: Panerai, et al., 2004, pp 160)

12 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

that together have a capacity for adaptation. Overall, it implies a pro- cess of transformations. When this notion of tissue is applied to the city, it can be thought of as the “superimposition of several structures acting at different scales, but which appears as a system with linkages in each part of the city (Panerai, et al. 2004).” It is in effect the culmina- tion of three logical systems:

1) The logic of roads: movement and distribution 2) The logic of plot subdivisions: where private and public initiatives take place

3) The logic of buildings: containing different activities

2-3 Row housing as an element producing tissues. Bath, row houses, beginning of the 19th century (source: Panerai, et al., 2004, pp 160)

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 13 LITERATURE REVIEW

The authors argue that old cities ensure the coherence of this tissue. For example, streets do not exist without the buildings that define them; buildings are on plots that form the framework of their evolution; and spaces have status, which determine legal responsibilities and uses. Overall, there is a system in place that is legible and allows for modification, evolution, and a mixture of activities. Most importantly, this system enables the ease of everyday life, characterized by the redeeming qualities of “proximity, mixture and the unexpected.” Ulti- mately, to understand urban tissue, the authors argue that notions of function, use and category must be discarded. Instead, those involved with the design of cities should first define a set of morphological rules which in turn can provide a stable basis on which urban tissue - the lots, blocks and streets - can be progressively built (Panerai, et al. 2004). Brenda Case Scheer, an urban morphologist and dean of the College of Architecture & Planning at the University of Utah, also pro- vides her insight on what constitutes “urban tissue.” According to Scheer, the term “urban tissue” is used predominantly by urban morphologists to describe the arrangement of lots, blocks, and streets, or the demarcation of the owned space of the city. Sometimes it is referred to as “urban fabric.” She says that urban tissue has a very important role in the design and evolution of cities. She remarks that “buildings and even building types are rather ephemeral, but the urban tissue – streets and lots – is persistent. Street rights-of-way and property lines will endure for centuries, while buildings come and go” (Scheer 47). Scheer adds that property boundaries make up an underlying web, or game board, upon which all urban action takes place.

14 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

Because of this, all proposals, except for regulation, require either the consent of property owners or the acquisition of property. Scheer’s overview of urban tissue expands upon Conzen’s concept of urban form stability, which she says is lacking in the model developed by Caniggia. She argues that Caniggia’s model relies on the concept of a nested hierarchy, or a hierarchy defined by physical scale. For example, Cannigia’s model is based on the logic that a building is smaller than a lot, which is smaller than a block, which is smaller than a district, which is smaller than a region, and so on (Scheer 2001). This model, Scheer says, emphasizes building type as the defining element of urban form, presupposing a strong relationship between basic building types and lots, blocks and streets. However, in the suburbs, urban form usually depends much less on individual building types because the building-lot-street relationship is much weaker (Scheer 2001).

The Spatio-Temporal Model To better understand the relationship among basic urban form components in the suburbs, Scheer turns to a model that ecological scientists use when studying complex ecosystems – the spatio-temporal model (2001). In this model, components are organized by rate of change, a concept first mentioned by Conzen but later emphasized by Scheer. She argues that as cities grow and change, their physical components also grow and change at different rates. For example, the site of cities – landforms and bodies of water – change on a geological time scale (over millions of years), streets are very persistent (lasting thousands of years), buildings are relatively short-lived (100 to 300- year life spans), and objects such as trees and road signs normally

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 15 LITERATURE REVIEW

Urban Morphology Urban Morphology Ecological Morphology

Nested Hierarchy Model Spatio-Temporal Model

Urban Form Urban Form Tree Form

Buildings Lots Streets Site Infill Objects Forests Leaves

Basic Components Superstructure Buildings Trees Urban Form Components

The Grid The Strip The MPC Blocks Districts Regions Shapes of the City

Larger Components

Elastic Static Campus Suburban Tissues

2-4 Nested Hierarchy vs. Spatio-Temporal have an even shorter endurance (less than 100 years). Within each Model: Urban morphologists explain urban form either through a “nested hierachy model” (left) that organizes urban tissues based on component are bundles of characteristics that can also have different their physical scale, or a “spatio-temporal” model” (right) that organizes urban tissues rates of change. Streets, for example, can have paving that changes based on their permanence and rate of change. The latter model is used by ecologi- frequently while the right-of-way may endure for a very long time. cal scientists when studying complex ecosystems. Using this spatio-temporal model, as seen in Figure 2-4, Scheer identifies the five basic components of urban form: site, paths (or streets), plots, buildings and objects, with paths and plots divided into two classes: superstructure (large-grain and pre-urban) and infill (fine- grain and post-urban). These five components can be thought of as a progression of layers representing a hierarchy of expected rates of change from the most slow (site) to the most ephemeral (objects). The more slowly a layer changes, the more it conditions layers that change more quickly. For example, the endurance of the site makes it an enor- mous constraint on the location and distribution of streets and parcels,

16 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW THE URBAN CORE THE SUBURBS

THE ORIGINAL GRID SUBSEQUENT GRIDS THE STRIP THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

which in turn help determine the location and distribution of buildings, 2-5 Shapes of the City: The city can be thought of as a series of shapes that have ac- creted over time. These are the original grid, which in turn determine the location and distribution of objects. subsequent grids, the strip and the master planned community. Together they form what These five urban components then combine to form the basic we know of as the urban core and the suburbs. shapes of the city: the grid, the strip, and the master planned community, with the strip and master planned community forming the basic shapes of the suburbs. The original grid, as seen in Figure 2-5, was the predominant form of development prior to the “automobile era” and consisted of a gridded system of streets that combined to form the “Speculator City.” This capitalistic idea called for dividing up land into lots and streets and selling the lots to the highest bidder. One of the best known examples is the 1811 Commissioner’s Plan of New York. The strip appeared during the “automobile era” and is still the domi- nant form of development today. Instead of being laid out, the strip is actually constructed along paths that were at one time used to access

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 17 LITERATURE REVIEW

distant farm fields that eventually converted into commercial uses. Be- cause the strip is not actually laid out by a planner or architect, there is an overall lack of block and lot order. The master planned community is the most recent phenomenon in which entire developments are laid out at one time and built in a relatively short period of time. Instead of appearing along the strip, these master planned communities are hid- den from the strip, tucked away to avoid the strip’s supposed traffic and chaos. However, this mentality has led to the lack of connections between master planned communities and the strip, resulting in a self- fulfilling prophesy of even more traffic and more chaos. Together, the strip and the master planned community form the basic shapes of the suburbs, which Scheer says have three generaliz- able types of tissues: static tissue, campus tissue, and elastic tissue.

18 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

2-6 Static tissues form a consistent pattern and are characterized by relatively small lots that are about the same size. They also contain a major structure directly related to the tissue.

Static Tissue According to Scheer, static tissues are characteristically more ordered than other tissues, forming a consistent pattern. Most urban grids and all planned single-family subdivisions are examples of static tissue (Figure 2-6). These tissues have lots and streets that were planned together, surveyed around the same time, and built on within a period of roughly 10 to 20 years. The lot sizes are relatively small and about the same size. Most importantly, according to Scheer, the lots usually contain a major structure of a type congruent with the plan of the tissue. In other words, the tissue itself was originally expected to accommodate this type of structure, and subsequent changes have been accommodated within the basic module of the tissue (Scheer 2010). Because of highly protected property ownership, static tissue is a very stable and persistent element of urban form. The relatively small

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 19 LITERATURE REVIEW

lot sizes indicate a divided form of ownership and management that resists wholesale change by lot aggregations. In addition, zoning regulation tend to protect these forms from further subdivision. Also, the rapid build out of static tissues tends to favor a very consistent building type, which tends to stabilize the area. For example, redevelopment that is inconsistent with the existing urban fabric is discouraged because it is less marketable and has a chilling effect on surrounding property values (Scheer 2010). According to Scheer, static tissues are the most stable element of urban form. Although they allow change to happen, they do so only in small increments that are somewhat consistent with the original types, leading to a consistency that is self-reinforcing.

20 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

2-7 Campus tissue, such as the apartment complex pictured above, is characterized by a large tract of land owned by a single entity. There tends to be more than one building and a lack of connectivity to surrounding tissues, aside from the limited number of entrances.

Campus Tissue Campus tissue, along with elastic tissue which will be discussed in the next section, reached a zenith in the 20th century, according to Scheer. This tissue is characterized by a large tract of land with multiple buildings, owned by a single entity. Examples are apartment complexes (Figure 2-7), universities, airports, large hospitals, industrial parks, and shopping centers (Scheer 2010). According to Scheer, the defining characteristic of campus tissue is that the lot is not subdivided when new buildings are added or changed. Additionally, campus tissues contain more than one significant building and usually have an in- ternal circulation system of roads and paths that connect the buildings. In general, they are somewhat physically isolated from nearby tissues because most of the time there is no network of streets that connect to the outside, except at limited entrances.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 21 LITERATURE REVIEW

22 TOLENTINO LITERATURE REVIEW

2-7 Elastic tissue is the least stable of the three tissues because of the general lack of order due to the variety of lot sizes and lack of a street network.

Elastic Tissue Elastic tissue, according to Scheer, is the least stable of the three tissues. It typically forms along arterial roads and has a rapid change rate compared to the other tissues. It is characterized by a great variety of lot sizes, many different building types in close proximity, and general lack of street networks. Scheer remarks that elastic tissues “pose a great many problems since they are so fundamentally disordered” (Scheer 2010). For example, lots tend to range from very large to very small, with little semblance of a pattern since they are cre- ated by subdivision of individual farm fields or aggregation of small pre- urban roadside houses, without the establishment of a street network. In effect, development depends heavily on a single arterial road, resulting in high traffic. Lastly, highly varied lot sizes lead to a wide variety of building types that are not only inconsistent with each other but also have no logical orientation or relationship to the lot and street.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 23 24 TOLENTINO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this paper, I apply the concepts of urban morphology and 3-1 The Walk Score is the first large-scale, public access walkability index. The scoring system ranks communities nationwide based suburban tissue to potential redevelopment sites in the Metro Atlanta on how many businesses, parks, theaters, schools and other common destinations are region, hoping to create a catalogue and scoring system to help iden- within walking distance of any given starting point. tify sites that are more likely than others to undergo redevelopment. Similar to the “Walk Score” (Figure 3-1), the purpose of the “Retrofit- ability Score” is to provide a color-coded easy to read scoring system based not on walkability, but on permanence of urban form types. The underlying argument for this scoring methodology is that tissues that are small and resistant to change (static tissue) are unlikely to be retrofitted while tissues that are large and with single owners (campus tissue) are more likely to be retrofitted. Because elastic tissues are prone to frequent change, they too contribute to retrofitability, but with campus tissues exhibiting the greatest level of retrofitability.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 25 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology is divided into two parts. The first part involves site selection and cataloging in which I define the study areas and analyze their physical form. For the purposes of this paper, I limit the study areas to shopping mall parcels and surrounding parcels, located in three different types of suburbs: inner-ring suburb, outer-ring suburb, and urban fringe suburb. Each area consists of a circular area with one-half mile in radius (2,640 feet) centered on the shopping mall. Within these one-half mile radius study areas, I identify and catalogue the three different types of suburban tissue: static, campus, and elastic tissue. The second part involves the scoring system in which I calcu- late the total possible score for each tissue within a study area. These scores, with highest scores for campus tissue, second-highest scores for elastic tissue, and lowest scores for static tissue, are weighted according to the relative proportion a particular tissue has within a site. These weighted scores are then added together to come up with the “Retrofitability Score” for a potential retrofit site. To establish “retrofitability,” I apply weights to each of the different suburban tissues based on the potential scale of change. Because static tissue consists of areas with small lots, multiple owners and rigid order, I label this tissue as having the potential for “very small-scale” change and therefore having “very low” retrofitability. Because elastic tissue has varied lot sizes, multiple owners and no particular order, I label this tissue as having the potential for “small-scale” change and therefore having “moderate” retrofitability. And finally, because campus tissue consists of areas with large lots, one owner and flexible order, I label this tissue as having the potential for “large-scale” change and

26 TOLENTINO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3-2 The Retrofitability Scorecard consists Base Score: Static 1.0 Elastic 2.0 Campus 3.0 of three main parts: the base score, the aver- Average lot size: 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 age lot size score, and the average lot cov- 0.5 or more 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 erage score. After adjusting for each tissue’s “area weight,” or proportion of a particular 1 - 10 acres 2.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 study area the tissue makes up, the points are 10 or more 3.0 10 - 20 acres 3.0 added to result in the “Retrofitability Score.” 20 or more 4.0 Average lot coverage: 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 Total Possible Points: 5.0 8.0 10.0 Area-Weighted Factor: X X X Area-Weighted Score: RETROFITABILTY SCORE: therefore having “very high” retrofitability. The scorecard, as seen in Figure 3-2, consists of three main parts. The first part is the base score for each tissue: 1.0 for static tissue, 2.0 for elastic tissue and 3.0 for campus tissue. The second part takes into account factors that impact retrofitability. In this case, I take into consideration two major factors: average lot size and average lot coverage. The larger the average lot size for a particular tissue, the higher its score. Similarly, the smaller the average lot coverage, the higher its score. This is based on the underlying argument that larger lots with relatively small amount of development are more conducive to redevelopment. The third part takes into account the area-weight for each tissue, or the proportion of a total scoring area a particular tissue takes up. The total score from the first two parts is multiplied by the area-weighted factor from the third part, and these area-weighted scores are added up to come up with the final retrofitability score. I apply my retrofitability score to three potential retrofit sites located in three different types of suburban areas: inner-ring suburb, outer-ring suburb, and urban fringe suburb.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 27 28 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

GA-400

I-75 I-85

s le I-285

mi Ansley Mall .0 I-20 3 Atlanta I-285 I-20

I-85 I-75

STUDY AREA 1: ANSLEY MALL Ansley Mall is located on 18 acres of land just three miles north- east of downtown Atlanta. It is an open-air mall with anchor stores such as CVS Pharmacy and Publix. It also has numerous commercial units that are vacant. The key features of the mall are its proximity to the proposed BeltLine corridor, making it a potential location for a BeltLine light-rail station. It also is located in a densely-populated single-family neighborhood and at the intersection of two major thor- oughfares, Monroe Drive and Piedmont Road.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 29 ANALYSIS

ANSLEY MALL TISSUE ANALYSIS

STATIC TISSUE ELASTIC TISSUE CAMPUS TISSUE Avg. Lot Size: 0.3 Acres Avg. Lot Size: 2.0 Acres Avg. Lot Size: 12.0 Acres Avg. Lot Coverage: 19% Avg. Lot Coverage: 20% Avg. Lot Coverage: 18.5% Proportion of Site: 58% Proportion of Site: 10% Proportion of Site: 22%

ANSLEY MALL ANSLEY MALL SCORECARD Base Score: Static 1.0 Elastic 2.0 Campus 3.0 Average lot size: 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0.5 or more 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 10 or more 3.0 10 - 20 acres 3.0 20 or more 4.0 Average lot coverage: 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 Total Possible Points: 3.0 6.0 8.0 Area-Weighted Factor: X 0.6 X 0.1 X 0.2 Area-Weighted Score: 1.7 0.6 1.8 RETROFITABILTY SCORE: 4.1

30 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

Based on tissue analysis, I found that the majority of the Ansley Mall study area (58 percent) is static tissue, with about an equal proportion of campus tissue (22 percent) and elastic tissue (20 percent).

Based on these numbers, I calculated the retrofitability score of the Ansley Mall study area to be 4.1. Based on a scale of 1 – 10, with 0.0 – 2.5 being “Very Low Retrofitability,” 2.5 – 5.0 being “Moderate Retrofitability,” 5.0 – 7.5 being “High Retrofitability,” and 7.5 – 10 being “Very High Retrofitability,” the score for Ansley Mall can be classified as “Moderate Retrofitability.”

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 31 32 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

GA-400 Perimeter Pointe

I-75 I-85

e l i

1 I-285

I-20 Atlanta I-285 I-20

I-85 I-75

STUDY AREA 2: PERIMETER POINTE SHOPPING CENTER Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center is located on 28 acres of land 12 miles north of downtown Atlanta in the city of Sandy Springs, GA. It is laid out as a typical shopping center with stores fronting acres of surface parking lots. Some of the anchor stores include LA Fitness, Office Depot, Sports Authority and Regal Cinemas. The key features of the mall are its proximity to the MARTA Sandy Springs Metro Station and Georgia State Road 400.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 33 ANALYSIS

PERIMETER POINTE SHOPPING CENTER TISSUE ANALYSIS

STATIC TISSUE ELASTIC TISSUE CAMPUS TISSUE Avg. Lot Size: 0.6 Acres Avg. Lot Size: 0.9 Acres Avg. Lot Size: 25 Acres Avg. Lot Coverage: 14% Avg. Lot Coverage: 12% Avg. Lot Coverage: 23% Proportion of Site: 7% Proportion of Site: 3% Proportion of Site: 82%

PEACHTREE SHOPPING CENTER PERIMETER POINTE SHOPPING CENTER SCORECARD Base Score: Static 1.0 Elastic 2.0 Campus 3.0 Average lot size: 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0.5 or more 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 10 or more 3.0 10 - 20 acres 3.0 20 or more 4.0 Average lot coverage: 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 Total Possible Points: 4.0 5.0 9.0 Area-Weighted Factor: X 0.07 X 0.03 X 0.82 Area-Weighted Score: 0.28 0.15 7.40 RETROFITABILTY SCORE: 7.8

34 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

Based on tissue analysis, I found that a large majority of the Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center study area (82 percent) is campus tissue, with very little static and campus tissue. Most of the surrounding areas of the site consist of office parks, apartment complexes, and other large lots containing shopping centers. The resulting retrofitability score was 7.8, which can be classified as “Very High Retrofitability.”

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 35 36 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

GA-400

I-75 I-85

I-285

I-20 Atlanta I-285 I-20 s e il m .2 15

Union Station

I-85 I-75

STUDY AREA 3: UNION STATION MALL Union Station Mall is located on 83 acres of land 15 miles south- west of downtown Atlanta in the city of Union City, GA. It is the largest of the three malls that I studied and also the one with the most vacan- cies. Some of the key features of the indoor mall are its proximity to Hartsfield Jackson International Airport and Interstate 85.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 37 ANALYSIS

UNION STATION MALL TISSUE ANALYSIS

STATIC TISSUE ELASTIC TISSUE CAMPUS TISSUE Avg. Lot Size: 0.0 Avg. Lot Size: 1 Acre Avg. Lot Size: 26 Acres Avg. Lot Coverage: 0.0 Avg. Lot Coverage: 16% Avg. Lot Coverage: 17% Proportion of Site: 0% Proportion of Site: 43% Proportion of Site: 60%

UNION STATION MALL UNION STATION MALL SCORECARD Base Score: Static 1.0 Elastic 2.0 Campus 3.0 Average lot size: 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0 - 0.5 acres 0.0 0.5 or more 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 0.5 - 1 acres 1.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 1 - 10 acres 2.0 10 or more 3.0 10 - 20 acres 3.0 20 or more 4.0 Average lot coverage: 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 50% or more 0.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 25 - 50% 1.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 10 - 25% 2.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 0 - 10% 3.0 Total Possible Points: 1.0 5.0 9.0 Area-Weighted Factor: X 0.00 X 2.20 X 0.42 Area-Weighted Score: 0.0 2.2 3.8 RETROFITABILTY SCORE: 6.0

38 TOLENTINO ANALYSIS

Based on tissue analysis, I found that a majority of the scoring area (60 percent) around the site is campus tissue, with a significant amount of elastic tissue (43 percent). Based on these numbers, the

Union Station Mall site had a retrofitability score of 6.0, which translates as “High Retrofitability.”

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 39 ANALYSIS

TISSUE ANALYSIS: THREE STUDY AREAS

ANSLEY MALL PERIMETER POINTE SHOPPING CENTER UNION STATION MALL Retrofitability Score: 4.1 Retrofitability Score: 7.8 Retrofitability Score: 6.0 “Moderate Retrofitability” “Very High Retrofitability” “High Retrofitability” Mostly Static Tissue Mostly Campus Tissue Mostly Campus & Elastic Tissue

Of the three study areas, Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center had the highest retrofitability score due to the significant amount of campus tissue surrounding the site. Union Station Mall had the second highest retrofitability score because of the significant amount of both campus and elastic tissue. Ansley Mall had the lowest retrofitability score relative to the other two sites because of the significant amount of static

tissue surrounding the site. However, it is important to point out that these scores are based on the potential scale of change for a given site, not potential success rate. If one were to analyze the potential success rate for a given site, Ansley Mall would obviously have a very high score due to its proximity to a high number of potential users. In other words, Ansley Mall would have the critical mass necessary to support a successful suburban retrofit.

40 TOLENTINO CONCLUSION

Based on Scheer’s tissue analysis, it is possible to come up with a scoring system to evaluate the likelihood of an area to undergo the physical change necessary for a suburban retrofit. However, my scoring system was limited because it only took into account two factors that affect the retrofitability of the three tissues: average lot size and average lot coverage. Other factors that I could have taken into account are property values, availability of public subsidies, age of buildings, and buildable vs. unbuildable land. Furthermore, my type of scoring system deals strictly with the potential scale of change for a given site, not the potential success rate for a given site. To analyze potential success rate, I would have taken into consideration factors such as number of potential users within walking distance, proximity to transit, percent reduction in vehicle-miles-traveled, and connectivity of surrounding neighborhoods, among others. Overall, I believe my scoring system has the potential to provide planners, city officials and developers with a useful baseline guide when deciding which areas have the potential for the greatest amount of change and therefore the greatest amount of suburban retrofit redevelopment.

SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Taner, O., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public Places Urban Spaces. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1960), Alnwick: a study in town plan analysis, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), 27, 1-122.

Dunham-Jones, E., & Williamson, J. (2009). Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Moudon, A. (1986). Built for Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Panerai, P. et al. (2004). Urban Forms: The Death and Life of the Urban Block. Woburn, MA: Architectural Press.

Scheer, B. (2001). The Anatomy of Sprawl. Places: A Forum of Environmental Design, 14, 26-37.

Scheer, B. (2007). “The Shape of the City: the Future of Master Plans.” Planning: the American Planning Association. July 2007.

Scheer, B. & Stanilov, K. (2002) “The Radial Street as a Timeline: a study of the transformation of elastic tissues.” Suburban Form: An International Perspective. 101-122. London and New York: Routledge.

Scheer, B. (2010). The Evolution of Urban Form. Chicago, IL: The American Planning Association.

42 TOLENTINO SUBURBAN TISSUE ANALYSIS & RETROFITABILITY 43