Catalytic Development Jane Jacobs: Two models of urban development - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
catalytic development jane jacobs two models of urban
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Catalytic Development Jane Jacobs: Two models of urban development - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 21, 2022 432 likes •760 views

Catalytic Development Jane Jacobs: Two models of urban development gradual money cataclysmic money Complex Monolithic Diverse Institutional Incremental Sudden Inclusive Eminent domain Pre-WWII Urban

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Catalytic Development

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Jane Jacobs: Two models of urban development “gradual money”

  • Complex
  • Diverse
  • Incremental
  • Inclusive

“cataclysmic money”

  • Monolithic
  • Institutional
  • Sudden
  • Eminent domain
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Pre-WWII Urban

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Post-WWII Sub-urban

slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Employment

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Patient Equity

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Integration

slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Downtown Detroit Bedrock Detroit

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Between 2010 and 2015:

Residential vacancy 10.4%

*While increasing in Wayne County as a whole by 11.4% in the same time period

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Between 2010 and 2015:

Office vacancy 6.5%

*<1% difference between downtown Detroit and Wayne County by 2015

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Downtown Chattanooga

River City Company

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Between 1990 and 2015:

Residential population 53%

*Hamilton County grew 22% in the same time period

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Between 2007 and 2016:

Retail vacancy 8%

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Between 2007 and 2016:

Retail rents 72%

*Average retail rent per square foot in Hamilton County fell during the same time period

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Downtown Cincinnati

Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Between 2000 and 2015:

Median for- sale home $ 319%

*While increasing in Hamilton County as a whole by 27% in the same time period

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Between 2000 and 2015:

Retail rent Per sq. ft. 107%

*Now outperforming average retail rents in Hamilton County by 37%

slide-22
SLIDE 22

South Lake Union Vulcan Inc

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Between 2000 and 2015:

Residential density 92%

*While increasing in King County as a whole by 18% in the same time period

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Between 2000 and 2015:

10 million

  • sq. ft. of

new office

*This is 29% of all of the inventory added in all of King County during this time period

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Cambridge

Forest City

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Between 1980 and 2010:

884 units 25 p/acre 22% affordable

*The Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville area average density is only 12 p/acre; Local inclusionary zoning requires 20% FAR for affordable units

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Between 1980 and 2010:

1.7 million

  • sq. ft. of

commercial

*Two of the top 10 payers of personal property tax in Cambridge are UP tenants; $11 million in property tax revenue/year = >$400K/acre, citywide average is <$90K/acre

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Downtown Phoenix

Arizona State University

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Between 2000 and 2010:

Downtown Phoenix 9%

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Between 2010 and 2015:

Downtown Phoenix 17%

*The equivalent of 6% growth from 2000 baseline

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Between 2006 and 2016:

Commercial Rents 27%

*Commercial rents declined in Maricopa County as a whole in the same time period

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Panel Discussion

  • 1. “Down and out”
  • 2. Mission-driven
  • 3. Inclusive vision
  • 4. Leveraging assets
  • 5. Land control
  • 6. Phasing
  • 7. Quality
  • 8. Public sector co-investor
  • 9. Foster opportunity

10.Be mobility advocates 11.Doing well while doing good 12.Place management