1 / 32

Case Study #3: The Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan

Case Study #3: The Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan. 64 acre site Planning began in middle 90s Demolition of elevated freeway began in late 2001; completed in early 2003. Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Negative aspects of the existing spur: “over-designed”

foy
Télécharger la présentation

Case Study #3: The Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case Study #3: The Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan • 64 acre site • Planning began in middle 90s • Demolition of elevated freeway began in late 2001; completed in early 2003

  2. Park East Freeway Corridor Redevelopment Plan • Negative aspects of the existing spur: • “over-designed” • Elevated freeway • 3 lanes of traffic in both directions • Auto access to downtown/neighborhoods was limited to only two exits (like the sparse hierarchy) • Both a real and symbolic barrier separating downtown from the newly revitalizing neighborhoods to the north • Freeway spur “blighted” 64 acres of land, artificially depressing land values, not the “best and highest” use • Dominant land use adjacent to the spur was surface parking lots

  3. THE PLAN 1. Tear down the spur, and then… 2. Rebuild the street grid • Multiple routes into downtown and neighborhood 3. Construct pedestrian scale and monumental boulevard as “gateway” to downtown where the spur once existed 4. Free-up 64 acres of developable real estate 5. Re-weave the fabric of downtown into the fabric of the neighborhoods creating the unified urban texture 6. Develop the land, Increase the tax base 7. Capitalize on the emerging downtown housing boom 8. Create three “urban districts” each with it’s own identity 9. Re-weave the River back into the fabric of the city, increase access to it, and elevate it to a natural and public amenity.

  4. 1. Rebuild the street grid

  5. Construct ped-scale “gateway” to downtown

  6. 3. Free-up 64 acres of developable real estate

  7. 4. “Re-weave” urban fabric of downtown into surrounding neighborhoods. (development will increase the tax base)

  8. “Re-weaving” implies mixed use

  9. 5. Create 3 “districts”; each with its own identity

  10. McKinley District: Corporate/hotel Higher density Still mixed use

  11. Upper Water: lower-rise and nearly exclusively residential

  12. 6: “re-weave” the river back into the city

  13. Controversial Elements of the Plan • The Pro-Freeway Constituency • Loss of quick access • Loss of parking lots • The anti-gentrification Constituency • Housing activists • Community groups • Brewer’s Hill • Harambee

  14. Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) • Affordable Housing Provision • “union wage” Provision • Minority contractors provision • Pros/Cons

More Related