Mixed Use Development Case Study - fairview village

A Community of History and Vision

Fairview Village

Mixed-use Development Case Study Urban Development Mixed Use - Professsor Will Macht Jackie Davis Alina Prassas Dan Davis

Project Initiation In 1993 Holt & Haugh contracted to buy land (zoned industrial) from a high tech company. 6 months later a 3 day charrette engaging 74 stakeholders was initiated, and produced a regulation plan, zoning code, architecture guidelines and vision for mixed use, walkable neighborhood.

The Town Center area (Fairview Village) is a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with a range of residential uses as well as service commercial, office and institutional uses. The “village concept� is based on the adopted Fairview Village Comprehensive Plan, 1994 (amended in 1996), whereby zoning and development standards in this neo-traditional enclave are different than more traditional city zoning standards.

Developer Profile/ Development Team Developers: Holt & Haugh developers are an award winning development firm. They were committed to establishing and respecting common values with all the decision-makers throughout the Fairview Village development process. They decided that the following themes were important:

•Keeping the established trees and narrow roads. This leaves space for sidewalks.

•Keeping schools smaller and tied to local neighborhoods. This brings neighborhoods closer together.

•Keeping the community walkable, with the town center no more than a five-minute’s walk from most of the houses. This meant that neighborhood density had to be high.

•Fostering an economically diverse population by offering a variety of housing options from apartments to single-family houses to rowhouses.

•Economic sustainability with a well-supported mainstreet of local businesses

Master Plan: Lennertz Coyle & Associates Architect: Sienna Architecture, Lennertz Coyle & Group Mackenzie

Site Selection and Control The 95-acre site is bounded on the north by N.E. Halsey Street, N.E. Glisan Street to the south, and N.E. 223rd Avenue to the east. The western edge of the property is defined by N.E. 207th Avenue connector that provides direct access to Fairview Village from Interstate 84 (Exit 14).

“The plan is an organic grid type, influenced by the natural bend of Fairview Creek through the lower third of the site. The plan is organized around Market Street, which extends from the commercial corner at the north to the civic center at the south, Fairview City Hall and Community Park. Public buildings (a post office, library, church and day-care center) are located at prominent sites throughout the village. Small parks are located at two-minute walking intervals. The street plan and sections are intended to maximize terminated and deflected views, defining a sequence of public outdoor rooms that make the Village a desirable place to stroll.”

http://www.fairviewvillage.com/main.html

COLU

Blu

RIVER

MBIA

Sal

mo

ree n C

k

e Lake

Interlachen Planning Area

Fair

view Lake

TROUTDALE N UNIO

IC PACIF

ee

r

Fairview C

ROAD RAIL

k

GRESHAM WOOD VILLAGE

84

k

ie

w

Cr

ee

Fa

ir

v

NOTE: 1. Interlachen Planning area is outside Fairview City limits and under the jurisdiction of Multnomah County.

GRESHAM

0

500

1,000

Feet 2,000

COMMERCIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARKS

Wetland (SEC & Riparian) Creeks

PUBLIC

Water Features

RESIDENTIAL (LOW DENSITY)

City Limits

RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY) RIVER ORIENTED VILLAGE

Railroad

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN November 12, 2007

Market Analysis Goal/Claim - “a place that has the potential to set new norms for how children are raised, for empowering teenagers to be independent, and for fostering a healthy, supportive environment where the elderly can thrive.”

Population - In 2000 the median age in the city was 30.1 years old. This compares with a median age of 34.9 in Multnomah County and of 36.3 years in the state. The median age in Fairview will continue to increase with the aging of the “baby boomers” and the national increase in longevity. In 1990 the age groups with the highest numbers were ages 25 to 44 (33.5%), and ages 5 to 17 (18%) who are children of the baby boomers. By 2000 the age group with the highest numbers was still age 25 –44 (33.7%). In 1990 those with the lowest numbers were ages 55 to 59 and over age 85. In 2000 the lowest numbers were ages over 75.

Household - The average number of persons per household in the City of Fairview in 1990 was 2.58. Although that number has been declining nationwide, in 2000 the average number of persons per household in Fairview increased to 2.67.

Household CompositionIn 1990, married couple families made up 20.1% of the 893 households in Fairview, versus households living alone at 8.2%.

In 2000, married couple families made up 49.9% of the households in Fairview, Non-family households in Fairview increased from 10.3% in 1990 to 31.6% in 2000 Single Family Houses went for $140,000 - $360,000 Town homes & Rowhouses $140,000-$296,000

Economic Analysis (based on BOE) (we can’t find reliable information for this section, how should we approach it?)

City of Fairview Economic Development Strategy Mission: To attract and retain family wage jobs, clean industry, and businesses that serve local needs and accommodate Fairview’s diverse population.

  

Goals:

Market Fairview as a business friendly community through actions that will allow the city to compete and succeed in a regional economy.

Provide development ready sites and sites attractive to development through inter-departmental and inter-agency collaboration.

Create an environment in which the city government is a business ally and resource.

Actions: 6 Focus Areas 1. Business Recruitment

2. Business Retention/Expansion

3. Existing Conditions Analysis

 Continue outreach through local efforts and business leads from Business Oregon.

 Maintain ongoing communication and outreach with existing businesses.

 Inventory sites, buildings, & businesses.

 Focus recruitment efforts on traded-sector businesses.

 Provide information and resources to existing businesses.

 Manage the Columbia Cascade Enterprise Zone.

 Research programs to help small businesses grow.

 Update visions for target areas of the city.

 Design and administer a survey to determine how the city can better serve the existing business community.

 Review existing practices to identify barriers to development.

4. Marketing

5. Regional Participation

6. Data Tracking/Information Collection

 Develop and maintain web-based marketing materials.

 Collaborate with economic development agencies & organizations.

 Track economic indicators (e.g. employment trends, industry clusters, wages, demographics).

 Develop print materials.

 Advocate for improving Fairview’s competitive edge through collaboration with government agencies (i.e. legislative matters, transportation priorities).

 Track existing and new federal, state, and regional funding programs and business assistance programs.

 Maintain a presence at the “regional table” through involvement in economic development committees and events.

 Collect information about other areas of business inquiry (e.g. demographics, workforce, housing, education, transportation, tax structure).

 Use programs and tools to improve marketability of industrial and commercial properties.

 Contribute to regional marketing efforts.

Development program 136 detached single family units 50-60 accessory units 14 townhouses 110 rowhouses 26 duplexes 252 apartments 154,400 sqft of retail 176,200 sqft of office space 40,000 sqft of public building 4.5 acres of natural open space 3.5 acres of formal parks 13.5 net units per acre

 Identify if existing regulations support economic development goals.  Assess if existing infrastructure meets the needs of desired developments.

Public Private Agreements Because Fairview Village is an expansion of an existing community, we knew that we needed to engage the public and key decision makers in creating a consensus-based Village plan.

More than 75 stakeholders participated in our three-day design workshop, a “charrette”, conducted by Bill Lennertz, that produced a regulating plan, zoning code, and architectural guidelines Per the Fairview Comprehensive plan of 2004, The city of Fairview is committed towards integrating the Fairview Village development into its community fabric.

•Transportation improvements were set in motion to connect the village to surrounding areas by means of public transit and bicycle/pedestrian use • City of Fairview moved their city hall to the center of the Village •The city’s commitment to move their city hall to the center of the Village was a critical piece of the public/private partnership that made Fairview Village possible.

Design Development and Analysis The Village multi-use zoning allows a mix of retail, business, and residential activity “For inspiration, we looked at notable historic garden suburbs -- Mariemont in Cincinnati, Shaker Heights in Cleveland, and Country Club District in Kansas City -- famous for blending residences with neighborhood shops. We also looked to established Portland neighborhoods such as Eastmoreland and Ladd’s Addition, where mainstreet shops wrap around residential blocks, and where real estate values have zoomed well beyond the general marketplace.”

“Fairview Village is about making connections. It’s about mixing houses and apartments of assorted sizes and prices to bridge the divide of age and economic status. It’s about designing “third places” for informal socializing, where individuals can connect with the larger community.

And, it’s about creating physical connections; mixing houses with shops, churches, and government buildings to which residents can easily walk; and, constructing a network of continuous walkways and streets so residents can easily reach other parts of the Village.”

“Fairview residents also have a selection of different mobility options. One of our main goals is to get people out of their cars and back on the streets.”

“Another component of community is strong identification with specific neighborhoods. Each Village neighborhood has a pocket park located within a two-minute walk of every home. The parks are designed to bring people together. “ “The sense of community is further strengthened by diversity of age and socioeconomics. Like older towns that accommodate the full range of the population’s needs, Fairview Village offers a broad variety of housing choices -- single family homes, rowhouses, townhomes, flats above garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, and senior living opportunities.”

Project Financing During the ‘90’s the area owned by Tektronics for a future high tech park was sold because of changing conditions in the electronics industry. Much of that area was donated for a school site and a wetlands park. However, 80 acres were sold to serve as the new town center for Fairview. The developer (Holt & Haugh) began an ambitious program of building the first privately financed neo-traditional development in Oregon called Fairview Village.

Project Financial Partners: Centennial Bank Washington Mutual Key Bank of Oregon US Bank

Marketing and Sales/Leasing From our site visit we noticed an abundance of unoccupied retail space, and occasional single-family unit vacancy. (we can’t find reliable information for this section, how should we approach it?)

Target market, capture and absorption Housing variables of price, density, and mix are primarily determined by economic forces because most housing is produced for profit. The attractiveness of the community to new residents, the income level of the community and housing prices are the major factors that affect the quantity of housing demand. The regional demand, based on the regional economy and population growth, has a larger influence on housing prices than the demand in one individual city.

Provided a range of densities ranging from 5-30 dwelling units per acre, to promote an efficient use of the land and a variety of housing choices • Catering to a wide variety of users • Apartments: younger demographic, • Condos • Rowhouses • Single Family Detached • Live/ Work: Small business owners

Critique and Evaluation Residential/Open Space • There was a wide variety of housing options including apartments, row houses, live/work residences, single-family detached, and town homes. This caters to many different demographics and housing needs.

• Majority of housing seemed to be occupied and well kept, though evidence of vacancies were present.

• Parks and green spaces were in good condition and well maintained as well as providing easy access to adjacent nature walks/hikes • In a few locations, the sidewalks seemed to overlooked or rather unfinished Commercial/Retail • The commercial aspects of the development were less than optimal • As a rough evaluation, probably only 75% of offered spaces were occupied • The retail profile was very limited, offering only niche•type shops which likely cater to a very small percentage of local residents (it is a mystery how these shops are still in business) • The other businesses seemed to remain in business solely by way of destination customers and do not require an active street scape and foot traffic for survival- these include chiropractic and orthodontic offices, and a pilates studio) • The remaining commercial spaces were offices which likely do not rely on any foot traffic for business either • An interesting observation regarding the lack of foot traffic is that there were no “engines” to provide the quantities needed for a healthy downtown- the development had no restaurants, bars, or entertainment of any kind. This suggests that residents most likely go elsewhere to find these things • Sadly, the busiest part of the whole development is the Target, which suggests that this superstore is too dominating and prevents smaller local businesses from surviving • Bally Total fitness nearby has gone out of business • The two prime corner lots on the main street leading into the development were vacant.

We wondered if perhaps they were left open for a business to build their own building, but no one ended up committing.

Initial Conclusions • The residential aspect of the development seems to be somewhat successful in that the units appear to be occupied, but there did not seem to be any cohesive sense of community • The parks and green spaces seemed successful and appreciated by the neighborhood- especially dog owners • The commercial/retail downtown element is a complete failure and reveals many flaws in the development plan • It appears that the development started strong with award recognition, ample marketing, and home sales/apartment rental, but took a turn for the worse when the downtown center did not flourish as expected • Perhaps a revamp of business type, and easier access to mass transit would help the development. Due to its location within the larger urban framework, density will be an issue for increasing foot traffic.

Critique and Evaluation The development from conception had good intentions of providing a diverse range of housing types.

However, the (comment from/depiction of) the neighborhood by Steven Crane - from the A Stanford Center on Longevity Discussion that Fairview was a perfect place to grow old in your home… proves to be a false one. The actual average population of the neighborhood are in their thirties. The neighborhood, while admirable in providing diversity in unit types and price range, does not actually appeal to that diverse of a group. It seems to have hit the mark of young professional with or without a family, that desires a calm, safe, comfortable home in a close driving proximity to the city. The development is praised for its sidewalk paths and walkability and integrated trail system, but when you go there, it is not really used the way it was intended.

The most it’s used for is walking your dog but not for a vibrant “neighborhood where you know all your neighbors.” Also, the prescribed 150,000 sf of Retail projected ended up fulfilling 133,000 sq.ft. of that with a TARGET. While it’s a nice idea to be able to walk to a store that has all your needs, it does not achieve the sort of commercial street or sense of community in a big box store like that. This could have possibly hindered the success of their main street (Village Street).

Critique and Evaluation Fairview Village has won the praise of the design and development community for its innovative planning and mixed use strategies; 2000 “Best in American Living Award” from Professional Builders Magazine & Natl.

Assc. of Home Builders as “Best Smart Growth Community in U.S.”, the 2000 Gold Nugget Award, the “Best in the West” Community Plan Under 100 Acres, from Builder Magazine, and the 1998 Governor’s Livability Award, State of Oregon. While I agree that it’s progressive zoning and master plan is a great step in the right direction, the implementation of the full range of amenities within the community failed. The retail core that Fairview Village was supposed to develop within the larger Town Center area is lackluster. With the inclusion of a big box retailer Target, a disconnect between project goals and reality occurred. The smaller retail stores leading to the town center have great potential, but a catalyst business is needed to energize the area, such as a cafe or restaurant. Most businesses appeared to be professional in nature, and did not rely on walk-up traffic; another sign that the density/ use of the village was much less robust than envisioned. The two large corner lots leading to the mixed use street are vacant, and are great opportunities for future dense retail/commercial development. The conservation of wetlands and connection to existing trails is a great amenity and one of the highlights of the village.

Overall Fairview Village is an improvement on traditional single-use suburban development, but due to its surrounding context that is primarily single-use residential, the density and energy needed to sustain the mixed use portions of the neighborhood is inadequate.

Works Cited http://www.fairviewvillage.com/story.html http://bettercities.net/article/holt-haugh-developers-fairview-village http://www.town-green.com/projects/FairviewVillage.pdf http://fairvieworegon.gov/ http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Practice_Theor_673.pdf http://longevity3.stanford.edu/crane/2012/02/06/planning-large-scale-communities-with-rick-holt-and-fairview-village/ http://djcoregon.com/news/2001/03/28/holt-haugh-named-as-smart-developer/ http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/article/PV/20130809/NEWS01/130809970 Smart Development Code Handbook - State of Oregon Governor’s Livability Award 1995 - 2000, library.state.or.us/repository/2010/201004221110154/index.

pdf‎