Chicago Infill Housing

S U C C E S S F U L II N
N FF II L
LLL D
DEEV
VEEL
LOO PP M
MEEN
NTT
11
C O N C L U S I O N
Many real-estate professionals view the reuse of existing buildings and sites as an
important component of development. One reason is that sprawling development
cannot continue forever. Even in a nation of our size, there is a limit to how much
land we can consume without permanently compromising our air and water quality.
Just as significantly, more citizens are dissatisfied with the consequences of sprawl,
especially long commutes to work, traffic congestion, faceless new communities, and
decaying older ones left behind.
Economic factors indicate more cause for optimism. Financial institutions are
beginning to understand mixed-use infill projects. As a result, they are more open to
making loans to such projects. In addition, on-line discount sales are threatening the
profits of the big-box stores that line suburban strips. Real-estate experts predict this
will lead to declining demand for sprawling retail development and a dramatic op-
portunity to revive older shopping districts and neighborhoods.
From inner cities to inner suburbs to Main Streets, citizens and public officials
can plan carefully for successful infill development. They can begin by reassessing
their resources, building a vision among residents, lining up financial incentives, im-
proving infrastructure, and creating guidelines to ensure excellent design. These are
proven strategies that will result in healthier communities everywhere.
89 89
SUCCESSFUL INFILL DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX: CASE STUDIES
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
The City of Chicago has promoted site reuse and infill development aggres-
sively over the past decade. City officials—with the strong involvement of Mayor
Richard Daley—have tackled the barriers to brownfield reuse, combined creative
financing and technical assistance packages to advance new industrial and commer-
cial activity, and worked to capitalize on the city’s competitive advantages and its
neighborhoods.
Infill was key to Chicago’s resurgence in the 1990s. Two approaches character-
ize the city’s efforts:
• industrial reuse via planned industrial districts; and

• infill housing.
INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND ITS ROLE IN INFILL
Chicago, recognizing the role that industry plays in its economic history, has
promoted the redevelopment of heavy manufacturing facilities into industrial dis-
tricts with production facilities that are appropriate to their surroundings and acces-
sible to community residents who work in them. Through its zoning program of
planned manufacturing districts, the city is making sure that industrial, commercial,
and residential land uses are integrated in compatible ways. Industrial park redevel-
opment, in fact, has been the focus of much of the city’s brownfield efforts, and a key
element in the city’s site reuse strategies.
To support these efforts, Chicago has established tax increment financing (TIF)
districts that overlay most of its planned industrial districts, secured a $54-million
HUD Section 108 loan guarantee (to be repaid through sales or lease of sites in the
industrial parks), and invested $950,000 received as a supplemental environmental
project (SEP) through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The city also chan-
nels traditional economic development project resources, such as low interest loans
and tax incentives, to sites in the planned industrial districts.
90
INFILL EXAMPLES
The West Pullman Business Park is a 160-acre site on Chicago’s far south side
that consists of numerous parcels historically used for industrial activities. The park
is largely abandoned or unused, although several existing manufacturers—including
Ingersoll, U.S. Gear, and Buddig Meats—serve as anchors to the upgraded park. The
city currently is acquiring parcels within the park and assembling them into larger
tracts more suitable for contemporary industrial operations. Some of this acquisition
is being facilitated by creative use of nuisance ordinances and demolition liens, which
allow the city to gain title more quickly. As the city obtains site control, the proper-
ties are tested and cleaned—sometimes by the city itself and sometimes in coopera-
tion with private interests holding title. A pilot grant from the U.S. Department of
Transportation also is part of the funding package that is being used to assist with
cleanup and demolition of unstable structures at West Pullman Park that had been
damaged badly by fire.
West Pullman is 15 miles from downtown Chicago and has good infrastructure
already in place, including direct access to Interstate 57. The city is investing $20
million in the area to upgrade that infrastructure, including street improvements and
buffers for the surrounding residential area. The city also is addressing the commu-
nity concern about through truck traffic by closing off streets with landscaped cul-
de-sacs and constructing new street access on the opposite side of the park away
from the community. The West Pullman area is surrounded by a strong, stable resi-
dential neighborhood, able to provide an excellent labor pool for companies locating
there. Public transportation and METRA commuter rail serve the area.
By the end of 1999, Chicago was nearing completion of several five- to 20-acre
sites within the park for industrial redevelopment, and had issued a Request for
Proposals seeking new developers and users.
The city also is promoting the reuse of the 17-acre 445 N. Sacramento indus-
trial tract to meet several important infill and environmental goals. This tract is lo-
cated in a largely minority, low- and moderate-income area that needs jobs and new
economic activity. The city’s Department of Environment is in receivership of the site,
which was the former home of an illegal rock crushing and salvage operation. Chi-
cago shut it down in 1996 through enforcement action, and the owner subsequently
declared bankruptcy.
91
To jumpstart the reuse process, the city began hauling away debris in February
1998. By the time removal is completed, the city will have removed some 300,000
cubic yards of concrete and asphalt and 250,000 cubic yards of construction and
demolition debris, including soil, wood, scrap metals, and plaster. The city has sub-
mitted a site investigation report to the state and expects to receive a “no further
remediation” letter for the site’s front four acres.
The tract is divided into two sites. The front four acres will feature the rehabili-
tation of an existing 34,000-square-foot, 1960s building in a way that incorporates
green building technologies. The American Institute of Architects’ Committee on the
Environment spearheaded the design effort with support from the U.S. Department
of Energy and the Chicago Environmental Fund.
The building will incorporate a number of energy-efficiency innovations that
will reduce significantly the need for electric and gas consumption, and for a variety
of both business and personal transportation uses. This project, with its important
emissions reductions, will serve as an excellent model of sustainable development for
areas grappling with the twin challenges of promoting industrial and commercial
infill and of reducing air quality problems.
The building will feature:
• rooftop photovoltaic cells for power;

• a superinsulated building shell that includes high-performance windows;
• high-quality, dimmable fluorescent lighting;
• high-efficiency HVAC;
• light colored roofing and paving; and
• innovative system recycling efforts, including use of heat from the greenhouse
in other portions of the building, and rainwater collection and reuse.
In addition, the site will feature native landscaping, and the building will offer
secure bike racks and showers for cyclists, in order to encourage alternative commut-
ing methods. The site is within a block of bus and rapid transit service.
The building rehab and retrofit will cost $5.3 million, including $4.1 million for
construction, demolition and renovation, and $658,000 for design. Project funding
came from several sources, including the city, which used Section 108 loan and EPA
92
showcase city grant funds for site assessment and cleanup. Commonwealth Edison
supported the actual building rehabilitation with its settlement funds (available through
utility deregulation agreements with the state).
When the rehab is completed by January 2001, the Chicago Solar/Spire Corpo-
ration, which will produce and install photovoltaic modules and systems, will move
into the facility, bringing 100 new jobs in manufacturing and supporting industries
with it. Chicago Greencorp will launch its Community Greening and Landscape Train-
ing Headquarters operation there, which will include a workshop, training garden,
and greenhouse, literally restoring “green” to an inner-city area that had seen de-
cades of contamination and neglect.
The North end of the back 13 acres, once the site has been cleared and cleaned,
will be used by the Lakewood Fans company for business expansion. This expansion
will retain 650 jobs and create 60 new ones in a low- and moderate-income area with
good access to public transportation.
Finally, the Kinzie Industrial Corridor is another industrial infill focus. Lo-
cated one mile west of Chicago’s Loop and stretching for about six blocks along Lake
Street, the corridor has direct access to three Interstate highways and also sits adja-
cent to the Chicago El and bus lines. After World War II, the west side area was a
thriving industrial hub that brought employment opportunities to area residents and
supported considerable commercial activity. Now, the area must deal with the results
of decades of decline; the corridor took a severe hit during the 1968 riots and has
struggled since as properties were abandoned and residents fled.
Chicago is making a major commitment to bringing good jobs and quality,
affordable residential tracts back to the west side—a strategy that includes revitaliz-
ing the Kinzie Industrial Corridor area. A key element of that strategy includes ac-
quiring former manufacturing parcels that adjoin sites the city already owns — usu-
ally taken for back taxes. Ultimately, the city would like to assemble a 70-acre tract
that could be used to meet modern manufacturing needs.
The city is using $4 million of its Section 108 funding for infill-related activities
in the Kinzie corridor area—for site acquisition, site preparation, and environmental
testing. The city is planning significant infrastructure improvements, such as street
improvements and enhanced site access; officials also will include street and alley
93
closures as needed to accommodate manufacturers’ acreage needs. A planned

streetscaping project along Lake Street will make the site more attractive from the
adjacent El line, as well as provide an aesthetic buffer for nearby commercial and
residential areas. The corridor lies within a federal empowerment zone, state enter-
prise zone, and a Chicago tax increment financing district—all of which carry invest-
ment incentives t0 be marketed to prospective new site users.
The city already has had takers for three sites within the Kinzie corridor. Two
are from existing operations that have committed to stay in the area. As part of its
operational expansion and modernization, Standard Equipment will use 14,000 square
feet at the corner of Lake and Damen Streets for a truck and Zamboni maintenance
facility (with the latter serving the nearby United Center Arena). The $1.5-million
investment will provide ten new jobs. Clearwater Fisheries, a new occupant in the
corridor, will construct a 31,000 square foot building at Lake and Western streets for
seafood processing and distribution. Clearwater’s $6.5-million investment will create
between 30 and 55 new jobs. Finally, the Northern Greenhouse will expand its exist-
ing wholesale landscaping business onto an adjoining parcel, at Wood and Wolcott
streets, providing 40 new jobs.
INFILL HOUSING
Chicago has focused most of its infill efforts on industrial activities; the city notes
that the average investment needed to prepare sites for industrial reuse is between $1
and $2 per square foot, while residential site reuse may command between $7 and
$15 per square foot. Since the market for residential development in Chicago is strong,
the city’s strategy on infill housing has been more one of establishing and nurturing
the climate that invites private investment—doing things like promptly responding to
permit and zoning requests, targeting regular city services (like street repair and side-
walk improvements) to infill areas, and carrying out new initiatives in emerging infill
housing areas. To this end, the city has installed several miles of new street median
plantings in west-side and south-side areas where new infill housing is being con-
structed.
In addition, the city has accelerated its rate of open-space acquisition and restora-
tion, an important factor in the attractiveness of downtown living. The new Museum
Campus Park opened in June 1998, and the northbound lanes of Lake Shore Drive
94
were moved westward, away from Lake Michigan, to create a green-space connec-
tion between the lake and the Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and Adler Planetarium.
Under construction now is the new Lakefront Millennium Park, a 16.5-acre, $150-
million city investment to cover railroad tracks that separate part of downtown from
the lakefront; this park will include a new bandshell and entertainment space.
Like a growing number of cities around the country, Chicago is enjoying a residential
renaissance in downtown and near-downtown areas. A 1998 Brookings Institution
study projected that Chicago will see a 32 percent increase in downtown residents
during the next decade. Another study, by Applied Real Estate Analysis, Inc., found
that the number of households in the downtown area increased by nearly 15 percent
from 1990 to 1997. Loft-style condominiums, developed in emptied older office build-
ings within the Loop, are attracting a combination of buyers—young professionals
interested in making their first home in the city, and empty nesters from the suburbs
interested in moving back.
These infill trends that began with the conversion of Printers’ Row lofts in the mid-
1980s will continue into the future, as evidenced by the following developments:
• In the South Loop area, condo construction is spreading through an area that
was abandoned for decades. The area’s showcase project, begun in late 1998, is
an $800-million community of residences, stores, offices, and a hotel, located
near Michigan Avenue and Roosevelt Road.
• Far South Loop developments, mostly on derelict former industrial sites from
Roosevelt to Cermak Roads, have proliferated over the past five years. They
include half-million-dollar homes in several developments, such as Dearborn
Park, Dearborn Station, Dearborn Mews, and Central Station—the latter now
the neighborhood of Mayor Daley.
• Chicago’s Chinatown has seen a building boom over the past five years, as
former rail yards are being reclaimed for new townhouses, shops, and stores
with easy access to public transportation. The city, for instance, converted an
abandoned parcel into a riverfront park, which opened in late 1999.
• On the city’s West Side, renovation of the El’s Green Line and the construction
of the United Center have provided the impetus for new housing development—
95
some near the Kinzie Industrial Corridor area described above. Hundreds of
townhomes and apartments, designed for a mix of incomes, have been built,
mostly on land that had stood empty since the 1960s.
• The Homan Square project, also on the west side at Roosevelt Road and Homan
Avenue, brought more than 100 market-rate (about $70,000) town houses to
the area. Built on the site of the Sears’ former distribution warehouse, the devel-
opment has attracted a Walgreens drug store, a bank, and a cinema. With the
city’s support, the former Sears Administration Building has been converted
into a small-business incubator.
• A significant investment by Oprah Winfrey, in her Harpo Studios near the de-
clining Randolph and Washington areas just west of Chicago’s Loop, has sparked
considerable private activity to the neighborhood. Loft conversions are attract-
ing new residents; a new condominium development sold more than 75 percent
of available units before construction was completed. Commercial activity, such
as restaurants and shops, is increasing. And the city is working to preserve the
area’s traditional restaurant supply and food service business.
By the end of the 1980s, nearly 30,000 new housing units were made available
in central city Chicago. A critical factor contributing to this growth was the accom-
panying increase in downtown and near-downtown areas of basic commercial and
service operations—ranging from grocery stores to dry cleaners. Under development
southeast of the Loop, for instance, is the Grand Pier project, a 1.5-million-square-
foot, multi-use development that will focus on stores serving the growing residential
population. Already, the developer has gained commitments from a Dominicks su-
permarket and a movie complex.
96
DALLAS, TEXAS
Physically, Dallas is a relatively young city. Much of its development is postwar,
and many of its downtown historic structures were demolished prior to interest in
historic preservation. Until recently, Dallas has had little housing development down-
town and thus has missed out on the region’s booming housing development market.
Between 1990 and 1998, the region’s population expanding by almost 17 percent or
686,000 people. The City of Dallas, however, captured only 6.5 percent of this growth.
Another telltale sign of the city’s failure to compete with its suburbs is the avail-
ability of office space. Downtown office vacancy rates still hover around 30 percent,
despite the addition of 500,000 new jobs to the region. Vacancy rates in downtown
Ft. Worth, by comparison, are 30 percent lower at 19 percent, and suburban office
markets throughout the metroplex are much tighter.
The results of these economic and development dynamics for the City of Dallas
can be summarized as follows:
• There has been a great deal of “churning” in the downtown office market. As
new office space around the region that had been built or started during the
early 1980s boom years came on line, the market for Class A office space moved
away from downtown to occupy new space. As downtown rents dropped, the
market for Class B and C space moved up, leaving many older office buildings
empty. In addition, major retail buildings were vacant as downtown retailers
following workers and residents to other locations.
• Tracts of vacant land exist in parts of the city because many parcels were cleared
during the boom years and never redeveloped. It is not uncommon in Dallas for
owners to simply clear land to avoid taxes.
• South Dallas, home to a large percentage of the city’s poor, continues to suffer
the effects of the late 1980s recession. Unemployment hovers around 10 per-
cent, and the area is dramatically under-served by retail and other public and
private services.
• Infrastructure quality suffers from delayed maintenance during the late 1980s
and early 1990s when city resources were stretched thin and many infrastruc-
ture needs were put off.
97
• Finally, the shape and location of new growth has created a clear challenge to
Dallas to redefine its role in the region. The locus of growth in recent years has
moved away from the city. To ensure a prosperous future, Dallas needs to rede-
fine itself to compete more successfully for a reasonable share of the metroplex’s
prosperity.
Also affecting the way Dallas approaches its infill development opportunities
are brownfields, severe flood events, social service needs, open space/park redevelop-
ment needs, transportation improvements, and intense regional competition.
DALLAS’ RESPONSE
During the late 1980s recession, city leaders viewed the sudden glut of down-
town office space and abundance of vacant land as a major opportunity to recast
Dallas as a 24-hour city with a vibrant downtown-residential element. The City Council
in 1994 adopted the Dallas Plan. The long-range strategic plan is the product of a
private nonprofit organization by the same name, formed by a partnership with the
city, and hundreds of community groups representing businesses and residents. This
30-year master plan sets forth six major strategic initiatives, each of which addresses
an element of infill development:
Core Assets. Preserve and build on the unique assets that make Dallas a desirable
place to live.
Neighborhoods. Preserve, strengthen, and revitalize the foundation of community.
Economic Development. Leverage resources to attract new business and support

expansion of existing business.
The Center City. Transform the Center City into a dynamic urban area, with a vari-
ety of business, cultural, entertainment, and living choices.
The Southern Sector. Strengthen Southern Dallas as an economically competitive

and desirable place to work.
The Trinity River Corridor. Protect and develop the Trinity River Corridor to be-
come Dallas’ new front yard—a nature park and a recreational and economic asset.
Since adoption of the Dallas Plan, a number of important partnerships have over-
98
come obstacles. For instance, the Trinity River Corridor project—a billion-dollar
infrastructure redevelopment effort among federal officials, state and local govern-
ment, residents, and businesses—is addressing flooding issues and transportation needs,
and it will provide some environmental restoration and development of much-needed
recreational space within city limits.
The Central Business District (CBD) was particularly hard hit by the recession.
Between 1990 and 1995, CBD tenants abandoned more than 3.5 million square feet
of office space, catapulting vacancy rates to nearly 40 percent. The In-town Housing
Program, run by the Department of Planning and Development, encourages market-
rate development within a one-mile radius of the CBD, or affordable housing any-
where in the city. City leaders commissioned survey research in 1993 that indicated
potential demand within Dallas County for 24,000 downtown residential units, with
much higher regional demand likely. The major focus is to stimulate private develop-
ment of 5,350 mixed-income residential units.
Affordable housing is required in all city-supported projects. Projects receiving
HUD funds must set aside 20 percent of the units for households earning 80 percent
or less of the Dallas-area median income for households of equivalent size. Where
HUD funds are not involved, the portion of the project that must be reserved as
affordable housing varies from 12 percent to 20 percent, depending on the level of
the city’s participation.
Historic buildings remaining in the CBD are seen as a rare cultural asset, and
virtually all of them are being converted to residential use. Over 2,000 residential
units have been completed, are under construction, or have been announced in the
CBD, and almost all are in historic structures.
Large-scale conversions of historic properties are a study of the difficulties infill
projects face. For instance, redevelopment of the Kirby building, a 17-story office
and commercial building dating to 1913, required approval from both the National
Park Service and the state’s historic commission. Disagreement over appropriate ga-
rage construction standards added months and cost to the construction project. In-
frastructure upgrades for older structures also can pose barriers, as was the case in
the conversion of the Santa Fe Terminal project. Conversion of this warehouse to
157 loft apartments also required an unanticipated $50,000 repair to the under-
ground storm drainage system.
99
Almost $2 billion has been invested in downtown real estate in the past two
years, and virtually every major office building has changed hands in that time pe-
riod. While many factors ignite interest in downtown, not the least of which is the
expense and dearth of suburban office space, the In-town Housing Program has played
an important leadership role.
THE STATE-THOMAS DISTRICT
Private investment is a vital component of the city’s infill strategy. One of the
first major private investments was in a neighborhood known as the State-Thomas
District, an area of vacant land with a few disconnected structures and uses just
beyond the central business district. As city leaders recognized that housing down-
town was indispensable for a revitalized center city, the city worked with a developer
on the State-Thomas Planned Unit Development (PUD) to achieve the following goals:
• Residential use was to be dominant, while compatible uses would provide ser-
vices;
• Existing streets were to be maintained but improved, with traffic calming de-
vices;
• Destination uses were discouraged to keep traffic and parking demands man-
ageable;
• Mixing and layering of uses was encouraged;
• Parking was to be in a secondary position to enhance streetscape architectural
continuity; and
• Investment in the public domain was quite high; for instance, large street trees,
excellent lighting, and textured sidewalks were planned.
After the State-Thomas PUD obtained approvals in 1986, it took a year to put
together the project’s financing. Post Properties, a real-estate investment trust (REIT)
experienced with downtown redevelopment, is the primary developer and investor in
the State-Thomas neighborhood. Though privately driven, State-Thomas has been a
public-private partnership. In addition to approving the State-Thomas PUD, the city
created a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for the neighborhood, and it sup-
ported all the public space improvements, even at the high cost planned.
100
THE TRINITY RIVER PROJECT
Dallas was born on the Trinity River and has grown up around it. The river
runs through the heart of the city, from the northwest corner, past downtown and
southeast to the county line. Early in the city’s history, the Trinity was an important
element of the economy, but over time, has been relegated to a flooding concern. The
Trinity now flows through much of the city between levees, which have received
more attention than the river channel itself.
The Trinity River Project is a major infrastructure investment program that will
address flood threats from the river, enhance an environmental asset for the city, and
redevelop several major roads in the corridor. A combination of five separate efforts,
the Trinity River Project is an investment of
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT: over $1 billion in federal, state, and local dol-

lars that will transform the city’s river corri-
Project Element Cost (in millions)
dor. The project is not without controversy,
Dallas Floodway Extension $127.0
but voters approved the bond referendum in
Trinity Lakes 31.5
November 1998 that will provide $246 mil-
Trinity Transportation 825.0
lion for the project.
Great Trinity Forest 41.8
While the Trinity was not considered an
Elm Fork Levee 60.0
important resource, residents and businesses
TOTAL 1,085.3
are beginning to see its potential as a greenway
coursing through Dallas instead of as a
waterbody that needs little except flood management. Explosive urban development
in the Trinity watershed over several decades has both increased water volume and
decreased water quality. The initial response, as in most cities, was to separate the
built and natural environments by engineering the river channel to prevent flooding
and by building the city to minimize the waterway’s presence.
In the early 1990s, however, flooding was still an issue in Dallas, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers was contemplating additional investments in the levee sys-
tem. At the same time, the state highway agency was planning to redevelop a set of
major highway intersections near downtown, known as the “mixmaster.” As it be-
came apparent that funding, scheduling, and design needed to be better coordinated,
101
civic leaders conceptualized a comprehensive Trinity effort to incorporate the river as

a central environmental and community asset. An important outcome is that the
Trinity increasingly is seen as a shared asset of the community and a force that brings
divergent populations closer together.
In 1994, the City Council formed the Trinity River Corridor Citizens Commit-
tee (TRCCC), and Mayors Steve Bartlett and then Ron Kirk supported the work and
the recommendations of the Committee. The TRCCC developed a vision for what
the corridor should mean to Dallas and the role the Trinity River will play in making
Dallas a “world class” city. With the referendum approval in 1998, the vision of the
Trinity River Corridor created by this process takes its place as official policy that
will guide development and restoration on the river for the next two decades.
Most of the project funding will improve transportation and flood control struc-
tures, including an entirely new highway segment, an unusual project in a downtown
area. The Trinity Parkway will handle traffic while the “mixmaster”—the intersec-
tion of two major highways downtown—is being rebuilt over the course of 15 years
to provide additional access to downtown. Proponents of these highway projects
note that air quality improvements are anticipated as a result of relieving some of the
current intense congestion. In addition to automobile access, rail access has been
dramatically improved via the growing Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system.
Environmental goals have been given a more prominent role as the project has
evolved. The state legislature in 1989 created the Trinity River State Park, a 200-foot
strip on each side of the Trinity River, with a total park area of 1,200 acres. The
Great Trinity Forest is a relatively young forested area (approximately 1,000 acres)
in a floodplain of the Trinity River just southeast of downtown. Much of it and the
surrounding area are in public ownership, but it is not currently managed as a park.
A master plan, presented by the TRCCC to the City Council in 1997, envisions 6,000
acres of parkland that will protect both the river and the forest. It will have an exten-
sive trail system, 20-25 miles of equestrian lanes, a multi-purpose park center, and
numerous other amenities to make the park an environmental and educational asset
to Dallas. It will cap landfills and create a large meadow for passive recreation uses.
When city officials talk about the Trinity River Project, they tend to highlight the
park since it has captured the imagination of residents, developers, and businesses.
102
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (DART)
While the Trinity River Project contains enormous highway investments, Dallas
has retained its interest in a balanced transportation network. The DART system was
created in 1983, and received dedication of some sales tax revenue to begin transit
operations in 1984. It is now a multifaceted transit agency that combines light rail,
commuter rail, HOV lanes, and bus service. DART’s ridership has exceeded expecta-
tions since light-rail operations began, and the agency won the 1997 Outstanding
Achievement Award from the American Public Transit Association.
When the current capital projects program is complete, DART’s miles of light
rail will increase from 20 to 60, its commuter rail miles from 10 to 40, and its HOV
lane miles from 18 to 100. The bus system, serving 137 routes with a fleet of 800
buses, is fully integrated into the rail system.
DART receives some of the credit for spurring and supporting center-city in-
vestment. According to DART, most office relocations in the central business district
are within walking distance of a DART station, as are several historic buildings un-
dergoing conversion to loft apartments. DART is credited with supporting the $150
million investment by Adams Mark Hotels to convert a hotel and office complex
across from the Pearl Station into the largest convention facility in Texas. The devel-
opment features 1,900 guest rooms and almost 300,000 square feet of meeting and
exhibit space. In addition, the city is working with DART to open a new public
library near the Hampton Station, and the Dallas Zoo’s attendance has increased 25
percent since the opening of a DART station. Clearly, weaving DART facilities into
Dallas’ transportation complex is helping to create infrastructure that is of great
value to investors, developers, residents, and tourists.
DART also is credited with a significant mixed-use, transit-oriented develop-
ment project underway adjacent to the Mockingbird Station. A 50-year old brick
warehouse is being redeveloped into lofts with ground floor specialty retail and res-
taurants. The 6.75-acre site also will include a 500,000-square-foot office tower.
Additional retail, hotel, and conference centers also are planned for the site. Kenneth
Hughes, a Dallas developer, noted that the project would not have proceeded with-
out the DART station and that projects associated with the DART system will enjoy
a distinct advantage over other similar projects.
103
I N F SI U
L LC CS ET SRS AF TU EL G II NE FS I L L D E V E L O P M E N T
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
In October 1995, Dallas and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency en-

tered into a cooperative agreement to initiate a brownfield program that would fa-
cilitate the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property. Dallas has lever-
aged $109 million in private investment in seven substantial redevelopment projects
and $1.9 million in additional federal support for the program.
The Dallas Brownfields Program (DBP) is an important element of the city’s
infill development efforts. There is a great deal of vacant land, particularly in South
Dallas, and contamination is often one of several obstacles to redevelopment. In its
first three years in operation, the DBP has played an important problem-solving role
in moving complex development projects forward. According to Ann Grimes, an
analyst with the DBP, the city has worked hard on education and outreach. Since
most brownfield sites are privately owned, communication with property owners
and developers has been an important element of their success. Grimes and Marilyn
Avinger, also with the DBP, work to resolve impasses that often stall challenging
projects.
An excellent example of this approach was the Centennial Plaza Addition. The
site had been used for a municipal landfill from 1951 to 1964 and later hosted a
cement company. In addition to the landfill, it contained several under- and above-
ground storage tanks. The site’s current owner was eligible to participate in the Texas’
Voluntary Cleanup Program and planned to develop a 15-acre portion of the site for
restaurant, hotel, and office/warehouse use. In addition to property costs, the private
owner invested in infrastructure, environmental research, and cleanup costs.
A Schlotzsky’s Deli franchise purchased one of the restaurant sites, but the com-
pany reached an impasse with the city over landscaping requirements. The state-
approved closure plan for the landfill included planting guidelines, and Schlotzsky’s
had been unable to procure the appropriate landscaping stock. DBP staff quickly
convened a meeting to reach a compromise but still meet the requirements of the
landfill closure regulations. The project proceeded as planned. The DBP has become
an integrative force in the city government. For example, it worked closely with the
Department of Public Works on the Trinity River Project to remediate two closed
landfills and plan for future uses for those sites.
104
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
A key issue for Dallas, which is competing in a burgeoning region, is job creation and
retention. The city’s economic development initiatives, which include the Dallas Brown-
fields Program outlined above, are quite diverse, ranging from small business incuba-
tors to tax abatement policies. The following list provides a snapshot of the eco-
nomic development net cast by the city.
Business Retention and Expansion Services—Professional business development co-

ordinators help find solutions to problems with city services and help businesses
access beneficial city programs.
One-stop Permitting Center—Staff help businesses understand the city development

code and expedite permits, licenses, and other requirements.
Bill J. Priest Institute Business Incubator—The Business Incubation Center has 30,000
square feet of space available to young companies for up to four years. The Center
also provides business management services.
Business Assistance Centers—These five centers are housed in community organiza-

tions and assist new business with research and start-up services.
Public-Private Partnership Program—Gap financing is provided to diverse develop-

ment projects, including:
• temporary tax abatement

• sales-tax exemptions in enterprise zones
• infrastructure cost participation
• development fee rebates
• right-of-way abandonment rebates and credits
• public improvement districts
• tax increment financing
• high-impact project mitigation
• target industries projects
• nonconforming projects
Loan Programs and Financing—The Southern Dallas Development Corporation of-

fers the City of Dallas several financing programs, including:
• SBA 504 loans

• Community Development Business Loan
105
• Southern Dallas Development Fund

• Investment Zone Loans
• Citywide SBA Micro Loans
Neighborhood Renaissance Partnership Program—The effort provides grant funds

for business facade improvements, infrastructure, and housing rehabilitation.
Business Parks—Six industrial parks are targeted for business attraction and expan-
sion in the City of Dallas. The City of Dallas Business Development Corporation
administers the program in the six facilities.
Job Training Programs—Business services coordinators will facilitate a relationship

with the Texas Smart Jobs program, which provides matching grants for eligible jobs
paying a minimum of $8 per hour.
CONCLUSION
Infill development is proceeding in Dallas, and a multitude of public programs,
private investments, and community efforts have created a positive framework for
the city’s revitalization. Much remains to be done, of course, and effective implemen-
tation of numerous programs will determine whether investments really become rel-
evant to South and West Dallas, the city’s poorest sections. While most observers
believe the downtown has reached a critical mass of residential use to support retail
and other services, public and private investment must continue to solidify this growth.
Dallas already is seeing the fruits of its labor in a revitalized downtown and the
approved Trinity River Project. Connecting the many elements of the Dallas “infill
development strategy” has been the commitment of city leaders. Key city depart-
ments—Public Works, Housing, and Economic Development—have made revitaliza-
tion a priority at the highest level. Former Mayor Steve Bartlett and current Mayor
Ron Kirk have recognized the opportunity to make the city a competitive force in this
fast-growing region.
The Dallas Plan has been an important coordinating document, in part because
its action orientation gave it a unique currency among comprehensive plans. Yet it
took the shear force of will, as well as the resources and leadership of the mayor’s
office, to make many of these ideas a reality.
106
DENVER, COLORADO
The Denver metropolitan area, comprising the city and 49 municipalities, is
trying to balance a booming economy with environmental and social needs. While
the region attracted 161,000 people from 1990 through 1996, the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) estimates another 770,000 will arrive by the
year 2020, pushing the metropolitan head count to 3 million. Current land use stands
at just over 500 square miles, yet the pressure to develop is staggering, and the de-
mand for housing outstrips supply significantly.
Even in this boiling real estate economy, infill development is challenging, and
two key strategies are important to success in the Denver metro area:
• revitalization of downtown, and

• creation/protection of smaller urban centers around the region.
THE DOWNTOWN BOOM
When prospective developers approach the Downtown Denver Partnership’s

(DDP’s) Annie Warhover for tips on marketable properties in the city’s core, she
invites them to browse “the book.” Warhover takes pride in this three-ring binder
that encourages infill development and provides a market profile of mothballed build-
ings. The book contains beautiful photographs of elaborately detailed turn-of-the-
century buildings, most still in good shape.
When DDP compiled the book in 1992, it profiled 60 structures, complete with
information about floor layouts, amenities, and needs assessments. Today, only 20 of
those buildings stand empty, evidence of both the Partnership’s aggressive marketing
of the sites and the good times that Denver’s economy is finally enjoying after the
devastating recession of the late 1980s. DDP itself purchased and redeveloped one of
the buildings in order to gain firsthand experience with the obstacles confronting the
renovation of older buildings that may be subject to stringent new building codes and
historic preservation requirements. Armed with that experience, DDP has been able
to provide valuable technical assistance and advice to prospective developers of down-
town projects.
DDP is working to implement the City Council’s new Downtown Area Plan, the
result of a planning process begun in the late 1980s following the collapse of the
107
economy and real estate market. The business alliance enables Denver to compete for
investment with the surrounding—and booming—suburbs. DDP’s growth and evo-
lution have been tracked by the Urban Land Institute and International Downtown
Association, which credit its structure and mission with the ability to chart successful
development strategies for the city while maintaining flexibility to change course.
Warhover acknowledges that DDP’s most important role is that of advocate,
both for recruitment and retention of downtown jobs. DDP tries to convince the
business community nationally and regionally that Denver is the regional business
center in Rocky Mountain region, pooling the economic energy for cities and towns
reaching to Wyoming, South Dakota, or Kansas.
DDP’s vision is to transform Denver from the western cow town of the 1970s
and the oil-rich boom town of the 1980s to a regional cultural, entertainment, and
sports mecca for the millennium. The city’s recent roster of development successes
includes:
• Coors Field (for the Colorado Rockies) in LoDo

• Pepsi Center (Denver Nuggets)
• Elitch’s Amusement Park
• Denver Aquarium
• Children’s Museum
• Denver Center for the Performing Arts
• Museum of the West
• a vastly expanded and renovated Central Library
Many of these projects have spurred investment in surround-

ing neighborhoods. Six months after construction of the Coors
Field baseball stadium, for instance, nearly 22 restaurants Denver has achieved
and shops had opened along and around Blake Street. a major advantage in
While the city has achieved a major advantage in having secured this tourist/ having secured a
entertainment/sports triumvirate of development projects, it faces an uphill battle on triumvirate of tourism,
additional infill development. One challenge comes from suburban office parks, which entertainment, sports,
are wildly successful, especially with the growing number of high-tech companies in and other development
the region. Denver also faces cutthroat competition for retail from the suburban projects.
counties, whose budgets are based on the retail sales tax and so are constantly en-
gaged in predatory practices to lure retail into their jurisdictions.
108
METRO VISION 2020 GOALS PLANNING IN THE REGION
• Limit urban development to within a The Downtown Denver Partnership is both the beneficiary and
700-square-mile area around the metro the victim of extensive strategic planning undertaken by the city in
Denver area, a 165-acre expansion over an effort to stave off financial disaster. While the DDP grew out of
current land use. the need to revitalize the downtown and ramp up the local economy,
• Preserve open space through a regional the competing urban centers surrounding Denver also benefitted
system that protects resources and pro- from an amalgam of growth management imperatives.
vides recreational opportunities. Though Colorado has no state statute requiring counties to
• Allow freestanding communities (e.g., participate in growth management strategies, Governor Roy Romer
Boulder, Longmont, Brighton, and in 1996 launched the Smart Growth Initiative in order to counter
Castle Rock) to retain their individual sprawl and attract infill development on a region-by-region scale.
character rather than become absorbed One of the first groups to answer the governor’s challenge was the
into the general urban area. Center for Regional and Neighborhood Action, a relatively new
• Develop a balanced, multi-modal trans- nonprofit organization headed up by John Parr, who for ten years
portation system, including rapid tran- directed the National Civic League; former Jefferson County com-
sit, buses, regional beltways, and bike missioner Peter Kenney; and Katherine Archuletta, an aide to former
and pedestrian systems. Mayor of Denver and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico
• Encourage communities to create urban Peña. CRNA, which is fluent in the principles of town planning,
centers as a way to promote walkability, runs interference among stakeholders, builds coalitions, and teaches
reduce auto dependence, and make mediation skills—important activities that local government offi-
more compact land uses attractive and cials either don’t or can’t do well.
efficient.
CRNA led the Denver Regional Council of Governments through a
• Ensure environmental quality, with spe-
needs assessment and priority-setting process, resulting in the Metro
cific attention to the region’s air pollu- Vision 2020 Plan. This plan, based strongly on the input of envi-
tion problems, as well as reduce im-
ronmentalists and businesses, outlines means to reinvest in existing
pacts on water supplies through an in-
communities.
tegrated regional watershed protection
The Metro Vision 2020 Plan, completed in 1997, is the blueprint
plan.
for growth management around which other discussions revolve.
Source: Metro Vision 2020 Plan, Denver
Though adherence to its principles and goals is entirely voluntary,
Regional Council of Governments, 1997.
the plan presents a fairly comprehensive cataloguing and account-
ing of what the region’s 49 municipalities stand to lose and gain
depending on their approaches to growth issues.
109
TRANSPORTATION: LINKING LIVES IN THE WEST
Ridding Denver of its ‘Brown Cloud’
The regulatory forces behind strengthening urban centers were

imposed by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). In
1995, the state set a cap on the Denver region’s allowable emissions
under the 1990 CAA Amendments. Since city and regional air pollu-
tion problems are directly related to mobile source (car and truck)
emissions, officials are trying to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Unfortunately, the region’s VMT has increased 14 percent faster than
population growth—a phenomenon typical of sprawl development.
In 1999, VMT was almost 49 million miles a year, and is expected to
increase to 73 million miles a year by 2020 if aggressive growth
management steps are not taken.
In Denver’s case these numbers pose an especially urgent prob-
lem because of the unique geographical restraints on the region’s
ability to disperse air pollution. The “inversion effect,” resulting from
the city’s altitude, emissions level, and proximity to the Rocky Mountain range, gives
rise to the ubiquitous “brown cloud” of noxious contaminants that some public
health officials attribute to the city’s high asthma rates and other respiratory prob-
lems among children, the elderly, and those with suppressed immune systems. Thirty
miles northwest of the city, Boulder is now beginning to generate its own brown
cloud, especially during rush hour and on hot summer days.
110
Pushing for Transportation Options
Governor Romer’s Smart Growth Initiative focused largely on the need to re-
duce congestion through transit and highway investments. Noting the public’s per-
ception that traffic was out of control, a Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation took
90 days to paint a picture of the transportation needs facing Metro Denver. The
panel, composed of environmentalists, local officials, and business leaders, initially
identified the massive budget increases needed to reduce the area’s traffic congestion
and smog. Stakeholders, however, quickly sought to change the focus from transpor-
tation investments and the divisive issue of “sprawl” to the more unifying message of
improving the quality of life for Denver area residents. A diverse coalition then pro-
moted a “Guide the Ride” referendum—calling for a small increase in the Regional
Transportation District sales tax in order to pay for expanded commuter rail and bus
transit systems—but voters, largely in auto-dependent suburbs, rejected the referen-
dum. CRNA rallied after the defeat and sought to expand its coalition by linking
transportation-transit funding with infill development and senior citizen needs.
Infill Challenges & Opportunities
Denver is unique in that it still has numerous large parcels of land available for
development or redevelopment. With the closing of the Lowry Air Force Base, for
example, the city has an additional opportunity within its boundary. The Lowry
Redevelopment Authority pitches the project as a “vital new center of education,
employment, recreation, and gracious neighborhood living—all within a self-con-
tained urban community in the heart of metropolitan Denver.” Though the develop-
ment will not be completed until 2004, some residents began moving in April 1998.
Lowry features mixed-use development, integrating office retail and commercial space
with education and training centers, as well as plenty of housing. Twelve percent of
the housing is being set aside for low-income families.
Infill Housing Strategy
Housing is a key element of Denver’s infill strategy. The DDP and the City of
Denver in 1992 formed the Center City Housing Support Office which sought to be
111
DDP believes Denver needs
20,000 units of housing in
the downtown area to
make it a livable and
pedestrian-friendly city.
a “one-stop” shop for developers seeking information and permits.

DDP believes Denver needs 20,000 units of housing in the downtown area make
it a livable and pedestrian-friendly city. The count has reached 4,000 and is climbing;
another 1,700 units of housing are under construction, solely from private funding.
In LoDo, the Central Platte Valley, and the Golden Triangle, old lofts and ware-
houses are being converted rapidly to housing, and in 2000 are selling for as much as
$250 per square foot.
112
MANCHESTER, VERMONT
Early in 1998, an editorial in the Rutland, Vermont, Sunday newspaper railed
against sprawling commercial development and reminded readers that “tourists come
to Vermont to indulge the memory of livable communities.” The reality of “livable
communities” is evident but uneven across the state, despite a vocal commitment by
many Vermonters to preserve the small-town way of life. In Vermont, many residents
regard the loss of an acre of farmland or the closing of the local hardware store more
a sign of civic failure than of the casualties of a changing economy.
Manchester, a town of barely 4,000 nestled in the foothills of the Green Moun-
tain National Forest in southwestern Vermont, wants to maintain a balance between
a thriving downtown and open lands. It is a gold coast tourist town, having grown
up around the ski industry since the 1940s and subsequently nurtured a popular
summer resort-town atmosphere centered around arts and music. Part-time residents,
retirees, and wealthy out-of-state benefactors have donated considerably to the town’s
cultural and educational infrastructure, adding a skating rink, performing arts cen-
ter, and library.
In recent years, the town also has attracted factory outlet stores. Like the towns
of Kittery and Freeport, Maine, national brand name retailers and discount outlets
have flocked to Manchester’s historic downtown, bringing jobs but also attracting
tourists and traffic. At the same time, local residents now must travel half an hour to
Bennington or Rutland to shop at department stores that can no longer afford down-
town Manchester rents.
The proliferation of Manchester’s stores sector generates passionate debate about
the future of the town’s growth. While opinions exist at either extreme—abolishing
outlets altogether or allowing them even greater latitude to expand—most residents
want to discourage continued proliferation of outlet stores. When the town commis-
sioned a study of its commercial zone build-out potential in 1993, many town resi-
dents were shocked to learn that existing zoning ordinances and regulations would
allow even further expansion of the town’s outlets, making Manchester one of the
state’s largest retail centers. Residents and town leaders subsequently began to take a
hard look at how the town’s regulatory authority can be used to help diversify the
economy, offer more affordable housing, and preserve Manchester’s streetscape for
pedestrians—residents and tourists alike.
113
MANCHESTER AT A GLANCE
Manchester’s situation is instructive because a backbone of its economy—brand-

name retail outlets—runs directly counter to the vision held by many of the residents
of how a small Vermont town ought to look and function. The 1997 Town Plan
targeted consumerism as one of the biggest threats to the town’s survival: “Manches-
ter clearly sees the need to guard against threats to our quality of life which stem
from retailing trends. Our entire society is debating the effects of consumerism in
general, and two phenomena which have worldwide implications for cultural ho-
mogenization: big-box retailing and name-brand retailing of goods and services.”
Vermont has been one of the more vocal and organized states against allowing
big-box stores such as Wal-Mart and Kmart inside its borders, criticizing the impacts
these retailers have on local businesses and the environment. Yet it is precisely the
presence of retail outlets—including such national brands as Osh Kosh, J. Crew, and
The Gap—that keep the tourists coming after ski season. Manchester’s infill develop-
ment strategy, therefore, is to diversify the town’s retail economy in order to provide
residents with livable-wage jobs, educational opportunity, and affordable housing.
Like many New England communities, Manchester’s economy was hit hard by
the recession, the energy crisis, and regional disinvestment from the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s. Reinvestment in the late-1980s was spurred by the upsurge in tourism
and recreational activities, and it brought an influx of wealthy retirees, many of whom
hailed from out of state. These newcomers have been generous contributors to both
educational and recreational facilities in Manchester, helping to maintain the city’s
outward image as a well-heeled small town.
In recent times, however, longtime residents have voiced conflicting feelings about
Manchester’s identity, trying to reconcile the realities of being a service-based economy
centered around tourism with a strong desire to preserve the small-town New En-
gland experience. In past planning and visioning exercises, residents have raised such
intangible but persistent themes as loss of civility, lack of familiarity with one’s neigh-
bors and business leaders, and the lack of high-quality educational and employment
opportunities for Manchester’s youth.
Although the town continues to ride high on the upscale retail outlet wave and
the jobs and sales tax revenue it provides, Planning Commission Chairman Bill Drunsic
noted in October 1998 the need to prepare for the eventual wind-down of that par-
114
ticular retail sector. In the meantime, the city is on a mission to limit traffic in the
core; reduce curb cuts to make a friendlier, pedestrian-oriented environment; and
invest in services and amenities that benefit residents and visitors alike.
BUILDING BLOCKS OF AN INFILL PLAN
Residents and town leaders have been engaged in a planning process for at least
the past five years to restore a sense of balance to the town’s physical, economic, and
aesthetic character. A 1996 vision statement pressed for an infill development strat-
egy that would diversify the economy and provide affordable housing.
Town Planning Director Lee Krohn identifies several regulatory aids that en-
courage infill. A 30-year-old law, for instance, restricts commercial and retail devel-
opment to the downtown core, favoring high densities downtown and residential
and open space on the periphery. The town’s sewer and water system accommodates
this land-use pattern. Also in place is a design review process that subjects all new
development proposals to high-quality design and construction standards, including
harmony with predominant architectural styles, character, and historical attributes.
This design review process also applies to standards for signage and lighting, which
often can spell the difference between tasteful and tacky tourist destinations.
In addition to these tools, Krohn notes that the town recently adopted a “goal-
based regulatory” strategy to give it latitude with certain zoning requirements in
order to design a livable, pedestrian-friendly community. For example, the use of
conditional-use criteria allows the city to reject a project if it fails to mitigate off-site
problems such as traffic circulation. This approach evolved in response to the Build-
Out Analysis which criticized the existing regulatory structure, but it also reminded
residents that many zoning ordinances are adopted “with an imperfect understand-
ing as to how their rules will shape development. Often the development that does
occur under these rules is not what they want to see.” For example, current code aids
the proliferation of retail outlets often because those stores have been able to con-
form to the “footprint size limit” imposed on the properties, where alternative uses—
such as hardware, variety or department stores—have been blocked from locating
downtown. With this in mind, the planning committee reviews projects as much on
the basis of how they look and feel, as on how they function. Using a goal-based
115
regulatory approach to zoning and permitting, the town has the authority to empha-
size and value the impact of a project’s aesthetics and function in a community.
Town planners want to extend the goal-based regulatory approach to the com-
mercial core and to support mixed-use development as means to preserve the city’s
character. In addition, the transportation plan recommends breaking up the commer-
cial core into five subareas and applying appropriate design, site, sign, and use crite-
ria to them. The further use of overlay districts will help the town delineate various
use areas, ranging from the intensively developed commercial district, to the open
space districts designated for forests and recreational uses. The town also uses over-
lay districts to protect wetlands and address flood control.
In this context, the town is pursuing three primary goals to restore its balance:
reduce traffic congestion; increase affordable housing units; and diversify commer-
cial and retail activity downtown.
PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION
Town officials recently have completed two major transportation studies to

address what residents feel is out-of-control congestion exacerbated by tourism-re-
lated traffic. In 1994, they participated in a regional study on traffic and transporta-
tion planning for all of Bennington County; and in 1996 the town selectmen adopted
a local transportation plan, which was seen as a blueprint for action. The plan called
for a shift away from auto-focused transportation planning and toward a vision of
downtown livability and functionality in which pedestrians feel comfortable.
One initiative on the pedestrian safety front has been to limit the number of
curb cuts along streets in the downtown grid. Curb cuts generally pose a pedestrian
safety concern because of the high volume of delivery trucks and cars turning in and
out of them. This is a real problem in Manchester’s outlet shopping district, and one
that pits residents against tourists (or shoppers against nonshoppers).
The historic street grid also provides too much parking beside buildings, and
town officials believe it needs to be reduced to enhance the sidewalk environment. In
response, Manchester is developing well-lit shared parking behind buildings. Eventu-
ally, as the commercial core becomes host to a broader mix of uses, demand for
parking will vary throughout a 24-hour period, rather than be concentrated in the
peak shopping hours of the typical work day.
116
HOUSING
The shortage of affordable housing is severe in Manchester. This shortage is

exacerbated by the state’s big retiree population, rising second-home ownership, a
large low-income population (24 percent of the population is Medicaid-eligible), and
limitations on building because of land-use restrictions. The town in 1989 assessed
its housing needs and found that fully 25 percent of the local housing stock (as of
1986) was second homes. At the same time, the median sales price of housing was
close to twice what the median of residents could afford, which contributed in part to
a 180 percent jump in mobile homes between 1980 and 1990.
Mixed-use development is the primary approach used to reintroduce housing
downtown, with the hope of building live-work units and providing low-income
units above commercial and retail space. Where housing is integrated in a mixed-use
project, the town will consider removing density requirements.
COMMERCIAL CORE
One of Manchester’s innovative (and controversial) tactics to achieve a more

balanced mix of business downtown is a proposal to categorize commercial estab-
lishments based upon their clientele and their provided product or service. For ex-
ample, the proposal offers three categories of commercial activity: those providing
“everyday” products and services of value to the resident community; those provid-
ing higher-end products, but which are locally owned and not found to foster the
intense consumer activity associated with the outlet shopping; and those that are
“dependent upon nonresident, visitor, and tourist traffic attracted to Manchester,
and/or whose promotion of national brand names diminishes the uniqueness of what
Manchester has to offer tourists and other visitors.” Companies in the latter category
would be subject to permitting constraints to enable the town to achieve its other
goals of traffic management, affordable housing, and economic development.
Manchester is a town in flux, holding on tenaciously to the benefits of small-
town living, while confronting the need to offer its residents economic opportunity.
At the very detailed level of reorganizing traffic and parking in the downtown,
Manchester wants to restore richer human interactions on its streets while bringing
into balance the heavy consumer culture that has dominated its identity.
117
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Orange County, sandwiched between San Diego and Los Angeles in
the heart of Southern California, expects its population to soar by
25 percent over the next two decades, and it will have to support 3.2 DEVELOPMENT IN A SENSITIVE
million people by 2020. According to researchers at California State ECOSYSTEM
University at Fullerton, the county’s 935,000 housing units will need
Pressure on Orange County’s natural re-
to increase to 1,155,000 to accommodate this growth.
source base has been a driving force be-
Orange County is an extreme example of the modern, car-de-
hind its embrace of “smart growth” devel-
pendent built environment. The county’s 31 smaller municipalities,
opment principles. The county boasts dra-
some of which incorporated in the 1800s, exist in loose affiliation
matic variation in landscape, with sensi-
and lack an established urban center that is the defining element of
tive coastal areas, chaparral and dry
many metropolitan regions. While there are historic employment cen-
grasslands, mountain ranges, and foothill
ters such as Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Santa Ana, there is no “down-
canyons. Development pressure on these
town.” It appears to be 100 percent suburbia, dominated by strip
diverse ecosystems is uneven, yet exten-
malls, highways, gated subdivisions, and general sprawl. The county’s
sive oceanfront development and erosion
development challenges mirror those of other suburban and exurban
pose risks of habitat destruction and
areas that are capturing the lion’s share of growth and development.
flooding.
Air quality poses another challenge.
INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY While Pacific breezes maintain high air
Orange County’s older developed areas are small and scattered quality along the coast, inland areas are
throughout its northern and western reaches. Growth is occurring in typically degraded. Like many states, Cali-
undeveloped areas within the county where land is less expensive fornia faces its steepest challenge in lim-
and service levels are improving. Many of the municipalities that iting emissions from mobile sources, in-
experienced tremendous growth in the 1950s are having difficulty cluding automobiles and trucks. Unfortu-
competing with new growth centers. nately, Southern California is witnessing
The county’s infill development challenge is best understood as the fastest growing vehicle-miles-traveled
an exercise in managing neighborhood succession, according to Rick (VMT) rate in the country. The region, built
Cole, city manager of Azusa and a longtime observer of growth and on automobile transportation, now con-
development in California. Even as small downtown areas compete fronts the attendant congestion and air
for residents and businesses to maintain the tax base, they face obso- quality problems.
lescence as retail moves to regional malls and other large shopping
venues. In Orange County, as elsewhere in California, the intense
118
pressure to maintain a strong commercial tax base drives municipal economic devel-
opment efforts.
In addition to these competitive pressures, municipalities must meet a 20-per-
cent affordable housing set-aside requirement to qualify for tax increment financing
(TIF). As a result of the amended California Redevelopment Act that was intended to
reverse the trend of building more lucrative commercial projects at the expense of
housing stock, municipalities cannot access any TIF revenues unless affordable hous-
ing is actually built. On the positive side, the new requirement has generated interest
in building mixed-use projects that incorporate commercial space as well as housing
for a variety of income levels. The City of Brea provides an excellent example of such
infill development.
BREA
Located at the county’s northeastern corner, Brea and surrounding cities are
affected directly by the movement of residents—and jobs—to the “inland empire”
counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, where land and housing are less expensive.
Brea leaders responded by focusing their redevelopment efforts on the community’s
downtown, the historic hub of an active oil economy.
The city, whose name means “tar” in Spanish, began losing retail and commer-
cial businesses in 1974 when the 57 Freeway was completed just east of downtown.
Abandonment of aging housing stock followed, until vacant buildings dominated the
once thriving area. Into the 1980s, downtown Brea hosted numerous vacant struc-
tures originally built for oil field workers. Most of these houses were in poor condi-
tion; indeed, some had never been tied into the city sewer system and were still served
by aging septic systems. The city initiated several condemnation proceedings, ulti-
mately assembling and clearing 55 acres of land.
City leaders in 1972 formed the Brea Redevelopment Agency (BRA) to speed
revitalization of the older commercial area. While the 57 Freeway continued to drain
economic activity away from downtown, it also updated and improved access to the
area. In 1977, the agency completed its first project, the Brea Mall near downtown.
Expanded and upgraded since then, the mall has become the region’s second largest,
generating $350 million in sales annually.
119
In October 1989, the City Council hosted

a charrette to create a downtown master plan
that would reflect the community’s vision of
a new city center. The charrette was broad
in scope, designed to elicit comments on both
the role, location, and design elements of
downtown. The result of this exercise was a
vision document that articulated the
community’s goals and values and created a
framework for master planning and devel-
opment.
The charrette process revealed several opinions and find-

ings. In particular, residents felt that:
• Downtown should be the community’s symbolic fo-

cal point.
• High-quality design and development are needed.
• Downtown should appeal to Breans of all ages and
backgrounds.
• Downtown should be linked visually and function-
ally to the Brea Mall and the Civic Center.
• The plan should highlight historic preservation, in-
cluding the city’s oil industry heritage.
• Downtown should be a 24-hour destination.
• Diverse housing options should be provided down-
town.
The ideas and choices
• Traffic facilities should not carve up downtown ac-
articulated during the charrette
tivities, but vehicular traffic must be well served.
allowed a resource team to
The ideas and choices articulated during the charrette,
follow up with a conceptual plan
along with the few existing site constraints, allowed a re-
that included renderings of
source team to follow up with a conceptual plan that in-
village-style development.
120
cluded renderings of village-style development. Charrette

sponsors have succeeded largely in recasting Brea as its citi-
zens had envisioned, despite a punishing recession in the early
1990s. Residential construction and rehabilitation, as well
as new commercial and institutional buildings, have been
completed and occupied. While more development is on the
horizon, downtown is already alive with new activity that is
well-integrated with the existing neighborhood and commer-
cial uses.
Much of the residential element has been structured
around the city’s affordable housing program, known as
“Housing Breans.” Created in 1993, the Housing Breans
Advisory Board, with five members from a cross-section of
the city, promotes affordable housing opportunities. The city’s
motivation to build affordable housing is threefold. First, eco-
nomic development is protected in some ways if the workforce
can find housing in the area. Southern California’s hot digi-
Residential construction
tal economy has pushed housing prices skyward and the workforce further and fur-
and rehabilitation, as well
ther from the core. Economic trends here and elsewhere show that business eventu-
as new commercial and
ally follows the workers, often making for an empty downtown. Second, affordable
institutional buildings,
housing is key to maintaining a balanced community that includes young people,
have been completed and
retirees on fixed incomes, and middle-class families with specific housing needs. Third,
occupied.
the diversity of downtown is vastly enhanced by mixed-use development that incor-
porates affordable housing.
The city has seen more than 400 new units of affordable housing constructed
since 1981—a combination of new single-family homes and condominiums, rehabili-
tated apartments, and homes developed by Habitat for Humanity. Strong public in-
volvement required developers to meet affordability standards with various types of
subsidies and gap financing. The city also provided assistance directly to renters and
homebuyers through a senior subsidy program, a homebuyer assistance program,
rehab loans and mortgage credit certificates.
121
In addition to the new construction, the Brea Redevelopment Agency has un-
dertaken rehab projects to serve very low-income families. The most ambitious ex-
ample is the South Walnut Apartment Complex, located close to downtown, that
was converted from five deteriorated and overcrowded apartment complexes with
multiple owners to a nicely rehabilitated, and now well-managed, 51-unit apartment
complex. The city, at the request of a task force of tenants and neighbors, acquired
the property and funded relocation for all residents. Through a competitive bidding
process, La Habra Neighborhood Housing Services was selected to rehab and then
manage the property. La Habra put together a financing package that included tax
credits, federal HOME grants, Affordable Housing Program grants from the San
Francisco Home Loan Bank, as well as below-market interest mortgages from public
and private lenders. The $4-million project is complete and occupied by very low-
income tenants. In addition to a clean and safe environment, the complex provides a
community center with computer facilities, onsite tutoring, and other services for
tenants.
Brea’s revitalization efforts are notable on several fronts and instructive to other
municipalities across Orange County. First, the early and consistent involvement of
the public through the downtown charrette and follow-up events was important to
forge a vision that could guide difficult choices throughout the redevelopment. Sec-
ond, inclusion of a strong housing program helped create a dynamic downtown that
is accessible to low- and moderate-income families as well as those who can afford a
more expensive location. Third, Brea’s redevelopment staff has leveraged success-
fully the human and financial resources of several partners.
122
PORTLAND, OREGON
Portland’s infill efforts are characterized by significant public and private efforts.
Local officials and community stakeholders have worked together to increase the
number of new infill projects, expand the amount of open space and public places,
and promote more productive use of existing commercial and industrial centers. Good
planning has become a key element in the city’s efforts.
Portland, which pioneered the “urban growth boundary” concept to help limit
unnecessary and unplanned sprawl, is now 90 percent built out. Faced with tremen-
dous growth pressures —the city anticipates an additional 500,000 residents by 2020—
many of the city’s activities now focus on infill. Such efforts include plugging in the
remaining small spots, and working to remediate and restore previously-used sites
for new uses. The city views infill development as a key element in its efforts to
reduce the level of capital investment needed for adequate transportation and utility
services, and to lower the cost of city services.
Much of the city’s infill effort has a residential component to it, and Portland
has brought a considerable number of housing units to older downtown and near
downtown areas. Portland’s central city area is the target of a residential “live where
you work” ethic, and several creative alternative housing projects are underway in
the central city area. In addition, city officials are endeavoring to address concerns
over affordable housing, particularly affordable housing near employment opportu-
nities—concerns that grow more critical as market forces and growth pressures push
the price of housing upward. Portland is now one of the nation’s most expensive
communities in terms of housing costs, and the city is exploring ways to encourage
affordable housing while promoting infill development. These activities include re-
placement ordinances that can preserve existing affordable housing; inclusionary
zoning, which would require a certain percentage of affordable units to be built along
with new market-rate housing; and density bonuses, which would enable developers
to build more housing at greater densities if they meet an affordable housing quota.
Portland has tallied some significant successes with infill housing projects, but
city planners have recognized that more than housing is needed to make a viable
urban community; accordingly, they are promoting mixed-use infill development to
complement the housing. Retail outlets, such as the Adidas store in the enterprise
123
community area, have provided both needed services and jobs for local residents.
Museums and cultural attractions, such as the Oregon Science and Industry Mu-
seum—built on a brownfield—can attract tourists and residents alike.
The extensive and intensive community visioning process undertaken for the
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard transportation project articulated several guiding
principles for infill, which characterize most of the activities currently underway in
Portland. They include:
• Encourage an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly environment that

features trees, wide sidewalks, and appropriate and safe design for specific ar-
eas—those for cars, pedestrians, or residents.
• Promote the development of commercial nodes that serve neighborhoods, within

easy walking distance (3/4 of a mile) of residences and a variety of economic
activity (including job-generating light industry), also within easy walking or
transit distance of the places that people live.
• Stimulate the presence of distinctive “gateways” to neighborhoods that include

street plantings and distinctive architectural treatments.
• Provide appropriate parking options that support adjacent commercial areas

while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
MIXED USE IN ACTION — EXAMPLES FROM PORTLAND
The North Macadam area, near downtown and adjoining the Willamette River
and other residential neighborhoods, is a 145-acre, mostly-vacant tract that includes
a former steel fabrication plant, a barge construction operation, and several other
industrial sites. All in all, five major property owners are located in the North Mac-
adam area, and they plan to redevelop the properties themselves. So far, they have
created a street grid for the area, and they intend it to be amenable to pedestrians,
bicyclists, mass transit, and cars alike. Property owners also have sought zoning
changes, away from industrial uses, to reinforce the street plan they have devised.
As part of their effort, owners have encouraged the city to analyze transporta-
tion needs for the area, consistent with the mixed-use, commercial-residential vision
they have mapped out. This analysis is examining the area’s capacity, developing
124
options for expanding and improving access portals, exploring various transit mixes
(including an extension of Portland’s light-rail system), and considering new transit
alternatives such as a streetcar line through the area.
Construction is underway to launch new site uses that eventually will include
1,725 units of mixed-income and affordable housing (about 65 percent as rental
units), and 1.5 million square feet of commercial and office space—a $460-million
investment that is expected to generate 8,000 new jobs. In addition, Portland plans
to extend the Waterfront Park through this site, preserving open space and creating
increased access to the Willamette River. One of the property owners in North Mac-
adam, the Zeidel family, is working with the Oregon Health Services University to
establish a Center for Womens’ Health on that site.
The Belmont Dairy is a mixed-use, infill development on the 2.5-acre site of a

former dairy processing plant, first operated in 1910 and located along a transit line
less than two miles from downtown Portland. The first phase, completed in late
1996, cost $14 million and was financed through four different public loans (includ-
ing an Oregon transit oriented development/CMAQ loan), low-income housing tax
credits, and conventional bank loans. Some 66 of the 85 apartments are dedicated to
low-income families, with rents ranging from $472 to $566 per month; the remain-
ing apartments are market rate, with rents up to $1,300 per month for lofts. All units
were leased within three months of completion, and gross residential and commer-
cial unit income from the project is nearly 10 percent higher than projected.
Developers saved about half of the original 80,000-square foot dairy, recycled
more than 2,200 tons of wood, concrete, and metal debris (saving $166,000 in the
process), and incorporated energy efficient building standards into the construction
process. This phase also includes 26,000 square feet of retail space, including a Zupan’s
specialty grocery store, hair salon, restaurant, card and gift shop, and toy store.
The second phase, completed in January 1999, cost $5.5 million to construct. It
features 30 owner-occupied town houses, ranging in size from 1,325 to 1,700 square
feet, and costing between $189,000 and $267,000. Nearly all houses have been sold.
The grounds include a landscaped courtyard and garages hidden from the street.
Phase three of the project began in 2000 and is expected to cost $2.5 million.
This phase will focus on “live-work” units—22 units expected to rent for between
125
$600 and $1,500 per month—for artists, Internet business owners, and other profes-
sionals who will work out of their homes.
The River District contains more than 100 acres of contaminated, underused
Burlington Northern railyards and other industrial operations. Portland officials cur-
rently are working with several private partners to clean up these sites and build a
high-density, urban community located near the central business district. The River
District project will consist of four discrete elements: Union Station/Old Town; Ter-
minal One; the Pearl District; and Tanner Creek Basin/Park.
The planned development will feature 5,000 new housing units; the city is re-
quiring that at least one-third of them be targeted to low- and moderate-income
families. In spite of this requirement, the only public subsidies needed by the devel-
opers were a tax abatement and the availability of low-income housing tax credits
for the 199-unit Pearl Court complex within the River District. In fact, the develop-
ers also are paying for nearly $2.5 million in new public improvements in the Pearl
District portion, along NW 11th and 12th Avenues and NW Hoyt and Johnson
Streets—ornamental street lights, new sidewalks, and street trees to enhance the ur-
ban neighborhood feel of the area. River District housing is also taking advantage of
identified demographic shifts evident in Portland and other cities, namely, the grow-
ing interest that young singles and empty nesters have in living in the central city. The
developer thought it would take 24 months to fill the complex; yet it was almost fully
occupied in 13 months.
The renewed River District also will feature 1.2 million square feet of office
space, and 300,000 square feet of retail. A privately-financed, $4-million classical
Chinese garden is being designed for the Union Station/Old Town area.
The Albina Corner project is located on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, the
main street of several inner-city neighborhoods that form the core of Portland’s fed-
erally designated enterprise community. Albina Corner is a mixed-use project on
three-quarters of an acre that includes 48 units of low-income housing built over
12,000 square feet of commercial space, including a child care center. It has become
a real “gateway” project for the Albina community, and is one of the first transit-
oriented developments completed outside of Portland’s downtown area, being adja-
cent to a bus line and near a major light-rail station.
126
At the time of acquisition, the site housed an old car lot, a car wash, and a
small, vacant office building that dated back to the 1920s. The project was made
possible in large part because of a zoning change approved in 1993 by the city’s
planning commission. Facing serious deterioration of the existing commercial strip
along King Boulevard, the neighborhood urged adoption of the Albina Community
Plan, which allowed for high-density housing and mixed-use development—includ-
ing apartments over ground-floor retail shops.
Albina Corner features a number of innovations that make it an excellent ex-
ample of a practical infill effort with important community benefits. For instance, it
uses shared parking to reduce the number of spaces required; skeptical lenders were
convinced that this would work only when they were shown photos indicating that
apartment parking lots remained virtually empty during the work day. The building
was set back two feet from the allowable boundary to widen the sidewalks at its
corner location and invite pedestrian traffic. A central courtyard has been built over
the first floor shops, open to the sky; the three floors of residential units are located
around it. The courtyard has trees, a fountain, built-in seating, and enough room for
children to play.
The first-floor commercial enterprises—including a bank, coffee shop, and art
gallery—support the project, covering much of the maintenance costs, while provid-
ing residents on the upper floors, especially senior citizens, with handy access to
banking and other services.
The $4.4-million Albina Corner project was financed through a complex com-
bination of 11 different public and private construction and takeout loans from banks
and other sources. Low-income housing tax credits also were used. Funding to ini-
tiate the project came in the form of a $100,000 grant from the Oregon housing trust
fund. With minimal advertising, the apartments were leased within six weeks, well
ahead of schedule, and 90 percent of the commercial space was leased prior to con-
struction.
127
Glossary
Brownfields: Abandoned or under-used industrial or commercial sites where redevel-
opment is complicated by real or perceived contamination.
Density: 1) The number of residences per acre; 2) population by the acre or square
mile. Also referred to as gross density (the density of all land areas with a site or
municipality, including nonresidential land) or net density (the density of residential
land only). Density can be carefully designed to be extremely livable. Well-designed
density is a critical component of successful infill.
Density bonus: A reward to a developer who provides a community benefit such as
affordable housing or open space. The bonus is permission to build additional square
footage or more units than zoning would otherwise allow.
Excellent design: Not merely the design of a building; but the design of all elements
vital to the creation of healthy communities, from the shop sign to the regional tran-
sit system.
Exclusionary zoning: Zoning that restricts lot sizes uniformly, usually to one or two-
acre parcels per single-family house. Exclusionary zoning allows only one type of
housing to be built. It encourages the development of large land parcels, often con-
sisting of high-priced homes, usually at densities too low to support transit or neigh-
borhood retail.
Greenfields: Natural or agricultural lands often threatened by conventional develop-

ment.
Inclusionary zoning: Zoning that allows for varied density within a development site.
Inclusionary zoning can result in a broad mix of housing, from rental apartments to
owner-occupied homes.
New Urbanism: New Urbanism is a national movement that views disinvestment in

central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and in-
come, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the
erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated challenge.
New Urbanism stands for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns
within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into
communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural
environments, and the preservation of our built legacy. (From Charter of the New
Urbanism, McGraw-Hill, 1999)
128
Mixed-use development: In the best sense, mixed-use development combines hous-

ing, shopping, workplaces, civic functions, and open space in one walkable neigh-
borhood; preferably connected to an existing urban area and served by transit.
REIT: Real-Estate Investment Trust.
Smart Growth: A blanket term for the congruent movements to channel new growth
into existing communities and build new subdivisions as compact neighborhoods as
a means of curtailing sprawl and its effects.
Sprawl: A term that describes the low-density, isolated, automobile-dependent devel-

opment patterns common in suburban communities.
Successful infill development: Successful infill development makes cities and towns
more livable while conserving natural resources at the periphery of the metropolis. It
replaces the need for sprawl by drawing development away from natural areas and
farmland and concentrating economic growth in existing urban areas.
TND: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND): A newly built neighborhood that

is designed to include many of the necessities of life within a five-minute walk. To
make the neighborhood affordable to a wide range of incomes, a variety of housing
types are included, from single-family homes to accessory apartments, live-work,
and apartments above storefronts. TNDs have a fine-grained street network to mini-
mize walking distances, plentiful civic space, and housing that faces the street. Many
TNDs use back alleys for garage and utility access.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): A mixed-use community within an average

2,000-foot walking distance to a transit stop and core commercial area. TODs mix
residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a walkable environment,
making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot,
or car.
Unsuccessful infill development: Single-use projects with negative effects that far
outweigh their economic or social benefits. Unsuccessful infill disrupts neighbor-
hoods, historic districts, or natural environments; creates traffic congestion and air
pollution while failing to provide alternatives to driving; contributes less than its
share to the local economy; or otherwise detracts from the vitality of an existing
community. Examples can include poorly designed or located residential subdivi-
sions, big-box stores, sports stadiums, or office parks.
129
Reading list
A Better Place To Live: Reshaping the American Suburb
by Philip Langdon. Harper Perennial, 1995.
Better Models for Chain Drugstores

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1999.
Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development

by the Center for Livable Communities. Local Government Commission, 1995.
Charter of the New Urbanism

by the Congress for the New Urbanism. Editors: Leccese and McCormick, McGraw-Hill, 1999.
City: Rediscovering the Center

by William H. Whyte. Anchor Books, 1990.
Common Place: Toward Neighborhood and Regional Design

by Douglas Kelbaugh. University of Washington Press, 1997.
Density by Design: New Directions in Residential Development

by Steven Fader. Urban Land Institute, 2000.
Designing the City: A Guide for Advocates and Public Officials

by Adele Fleet Bacow. Island Press, 1995.
Emerging Trends in Real Estate 1999
Jonathan D. Miller, editor. PriceWaterhouseCoopers 1999.
How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A Fledgling Citizen Movement Expands
by David Bollier. Essential Books, 1998.
Infill Housing: Opportunities and Strategies for Inner-City Neighborhoods
by Diane R. Suchman. Urban Land Institute Working Paper 653. Urban Land Institute, 1998.
Suburban Nation
by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. North Point Press, 2000.
The Emerging Social Metropolis: Successful Planning Initiatives in Five New World
Metropolitan Regions
by Phil Heywood. Pergamon Press, 1997.
The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape
by James Howard Kunstler. Simon & Schuster, 1994.
The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream
by Peter Calthorpe. Princeton Architectural Press, 1993.
The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community
by Peter Katz. McGraw-Hill, 1994.
The Wealth of Cities: Revitalizing the Centers of American Life

by John Norquist. Perseus, 1999.
130

Chicago Infill Housing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago Infill Housing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago Infill Housing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S U C C E S S F U L II N

APPENDIX: CASE STUDIES

• industrial reuse via planned industrial districts; and

INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND ITS ROLE IN INFILL

The building will feature:

• rooftop photovoltaic cells for power;

closures as needed to accommodate manufacturers’ acreage needs. A planned

Neighborhoods. Preserve, strengthen, and revitalize the foundation of community.

Economic Development. Leverage resources to attract new business and support

The Southern Sector. Strengthen Southern Dallas as an economically competitive

THE STATE-THOMAS DISTRICT

THE TRINITY RIVER PROJECT

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT: over $1 billion in federal, state, and local dol-

civic leaders conceptualized a comprehensive Trinity effort to incorporate the river as

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (DART)

In October 1995, Dallas and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency en-

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Business Retention and Expansion Services—Professional business development co-

One-stop Permitting Center—Staff help businesses understand the city development

Business Assistance Centers—These five centers are housed in community organiza-

Public-Private Partnership Program—Gap financing is provided to diverse develop-

• temporary tax abatement

Loan Programs and Financing—The Southern Dallas Development Corporation of-

• SBA 504 loans

• Southern Dallas Development Fund

Neighborhood Renaissance Partnership Program—The effort provides grant funds

Job Training Programs—Business services coordinators will facilitate a relationship

• revitalization of downtown, and

THE DOWNTOWN BOOM

When prospective developers approach the Downtown Denver Partnership’s

• Coors Field (for the Colorado Rockies) in LoDo

Many of these projects have spurred investment in surround-

entertainment/sports triumvirate of development projects, it faces an uphill battle on triumvirate of tourism,

METRO VISION 2020 GOALS PLANNING IN THE REGION

TRANSPORTATION: LINKING LIVES IN THE WEST

Ridding Denver of its ‘Brown Cloud’

The regulatory forces behind strengthening urban centers were

Pushing for Transportation Options

Infill Challenges & Opportunities

Infill Housing Strategy

DDP believes Denver needs

20,000 units of housing in

the downtown area to

make it a livable and

a “one-stop” shop for developers seeking information and permits.

Manchester’s situation is instructive because a backbone of its economy—brand-

BUILDING BLOCKS OF AN INFILL PLAN

PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION

Town officials recently have completed two major transportation studies to

The shortage of affordable housing is severe in Manchester. This shortage is

One of Manchester’s innovative (and controversial) tactics to achieve a more

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

In October 1989, the City Council hosted

The charrette process revealed several opinions and find-

• Downtown should be the community’s symbolic fo-

cluded renderings of village-style development. Charrette

• Encourage an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly environment that

• Promote the development of commercial nodes that serve neighborhoods, within

• Stimulate the presence of distinctive “gateways” to neighborhoods that include

• Provide appropriate parking options that support adjacent commercial areas