Page 1

urban planning • architecture • 2014

OSMAN DADI


Reston Executive Center Client: The JBG Companies 02.2013 - 09.2013 Reston, Virginia

an internal road network. The presence of utility corridors, a new tunnel easement under the Toll Road, inflexibility of moving site entries, and power lines along a regional rail trail on the north side dramatically limited the scope of development. Accommodating required parking per county ratios required serious consideration with the diversity of new development being proposed. Our solution came after numerous explorations of schemes and their variations, and meetings and conversations with the client. The development ultimately creates one large new, signature office building on site on the southeast corner of the lot, a prominent location facing the metro station, Toll Road, and downtown Washington. Three new residential towers are added to increase the site FAR to 3, or 1.8 million square feet. Two residential buildings are to be placed in the location of a to-be-demolished parking garage. The project includes ground level retail in addition to a pedestrianized road network. Parking garages are integrated into the buildings, while including ground level retail space. I contributed to the development of site wide planning, schemes, transportation, and parking integration strategies. Within a team, I advanced dozens of schemes with the project managers, lead designers, and clients to determine the best approachs to the goals.

The Reston Executive Center converts a 1980’s suburban office park into a mixed use retail center; it is situated near the Dulles Toll Road in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area, adjacent to the future Washington Metro Silver Line. The new line is supported by dense transit oriented development policies; as the property lies within the catchment area of the future Reston Town Center station, owners JBG Companies tasked the FXFOWLE team to create a phased mixed use center supporting up to 2.4 million square feet in development, a fourfold increase from the existing 600,000 square feet.

PROCESS Resolving the planning of this project was extremely challenging due to a number of constraints. Notably, the client desired to maintain the existing buildings on site, which were designed in a suburban, inefficient manner in the middle of the property. Preserving these buildings require adding the additional development density on the outskirts of the property while simultaneously developing

4

POWERLINE EASEMENT

NORTHEAST SURFACE ZONE 47 spaces

NORTHWEST SURFACE ZONE 100 spaces

CENTRAL SURFACE ZONE 63 spaces

WEST PARKING GARAGE 746 spaces

EAST PARKING GARAGE 601 spaces

8

OPPORTUNITIES 3 6

9

COURTYARD SURFACE ZONE 29 spaces

4

OSMAN DADI • 2014

2

1

2

1

SOUTHEAST SURFACE ZONE 88 spaces

2 7

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AND METRO POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO TRAIL AND RESTON TOWN CENTER

3

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO EXISTING PARK

4

CONNECTION TO DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST

5

FUTURE VEHICULAR TUNNEL TO SOUTH OF DULLES TOLL ROAD

6

POTENTIAL NEW STREET TO BE SHARED WITH WEST PROPERTY

7

FOCAL POINT OF ACTIVITY AND VISIBILITY

8

PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED

9

OFFICE TO BE REPLACED IN FUTURE PHASE

CONSTRAINTS

SEWER EASEMENT

5

SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

1 2

1

LIMITED EXISTING ACCESS AND RELOCATION OPPORTUNITY

2

FUTURE RETAINING WALLS AND DEPRESSED TUNNEL ROADWAY

3

CURRENT PARKING RATIO 3.24/1000 SF

4

PROXIMITY TO HIGH TENSION POWERLINE 15 MAY 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10


CONTRIBUTIONS

PREFERRED SCHEME

• Many iterations of phased schematic master plans and strategies for a new mixed use center in a 1980’s era suburban office complex, including plans and 3D. • Management of all area, parking, and zoning tabulations with proposed design. • Raise development square footage from 600,000 sf to 1.8 million SF for an initial target FAR increase of 3, and eventually FAR 4 (2.4 million SF) in a later phase. • Project design succesfully achieves goal to preserve three existing buildings and one parking garage, while developing four new mixed use towers on a very difficult and highly constrained site. • Create a retail and building configuration to build an urban node in the new phased development. • Management of weekly client presentations, including plans, 3D views, graphics, and area tabulations for constantly changing client goals and desires. • Develop parking strategies, internal road and garage configurations integrated within proposed buildings. • Configure project to Metrorail Silver Line station.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 PREFERRED SCHEME

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL

1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

75’ 150’

300’

SCALE 1”=300’

PREFERRED SCHEME - CONTEXT PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Context plan.

13008.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

13

PREFERRED SCHEME BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL

1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED SCHEME - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Ground Floor Plan.

13008.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 14

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED - GARAGE FLOOR PLAN PREFERRED SCHEME - VIEW FROM METRO STATION

View NW from Dulles Toll Road

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 13008.000

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Garage Plan (Upper levels).

13008.000 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 20

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

15

PREFERRED SCHEME BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED SCHEME - AERIAL VIEW TO SOUTHWEST

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Aerial view to the SW. 13008.000

PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 19

Roof Plan. 13008.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

12

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

3


38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 13,430 11,930 25,300 145,630

0 0 0 0 423,637 198,480 396,440

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 RESIDENTIAL 2-2

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 408,640 401,290 213,900

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 359,540 457,940 267,860

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 384,940 471,430 274,660

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1-1 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 RESIDENTIAL 2

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

TOTAL : 1,018,557 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, TWO RESIDENTIAL PADS PREFERRED SCHEME

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 421,740

1,866,072

SCHEME 1B

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

RESIDENTIAL

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

350 252 356

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

853,260

UNITS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

TOTAL : 1,023,830 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

1,866,375

SCHEME 1C

TOTAL : 1,085,340 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1B - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

1,927,885

SCALE 1”=100’

10 MAY 2013 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

13008.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 25

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

OSMAN DADI • 2014

SCHEME 1B -1B PERSPECTIVE SCHEME - PERSPECTIVE

12

10 MAY 102013 MAY 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000 11016.000

4

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL LLP RIGHTS 28 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, | ALLRESERVED RIGHTS RESERVED 28

The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.


38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 408,640 401,290 213,900

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 359,540 457,940 267,860

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 384,940 471,430 274,660

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 RESIDENTIAL 2-2

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

TOTAL : 1,023,830 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, THREE RESIDENTIAL PADS PREFERRED SCHEME

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

1,866,375

SCHEME 1C

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

RESIDENTIAL

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

350 252 356

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

853,260

UNITS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCHEME 1C - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

TOTAL : 1,085,340 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

1,927,885

SCALE 1”=100’

10 MAY 2013 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 29

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SCHEME SCHEME 1C - 1C PERSPECTIVE - PERSPECTIVE

10 MAY 102013 MAY 2013

RESTON RESTON EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE CENTER CENTER 11016.000 11016.000

12

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

11016.000

13008.000

©2013 FXFOWLE ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL LLP RIGHTS | ALL RESERVED RIGHTS RESERVED 32 32

The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.

5


AUGUST 22, 2013

SCHEME 1A

SCHEME 1B

SCHEME 2

OSMAN DADI • 2014

6

SCHEME 3

Context Plan.

3D Model View from Metro Station.

3D Model View to Southwest.


Typical Plan.

Roof Plan.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

Ground Floor Plan.

7


Major Government Agency Westphalia Development CONTRIBUTIONS

Client: The Walton Group 02.2013 – 09.2013 Prince George’s County, MD This project handled two separate issues concurrently: the relocation of a major government agency from downtown headquarters to a new site in the Westphalia community in Prince George’s County, MD, as well as a subsequent redevelopment of the original site in downtown Washington, DC. Our client on this project, Walton, has proposed the relocation of a Major Government Agency on a 45+ acre site on the outskirts of Washington, DC, as part of the redevelopment of a major plot of land termed Westphalia. Though this city has yet to be built, the Agency is being lured as an anchor of the proposed development.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

M metro

SE JOINT BA

S ANDREW

PEN NSYL VANIA AV E

SUIT

D LAN

Y PKW

WESTPHALIA

AERIAL VIEW

The Westphalia development is located on a greenfield site near Andrews Air Force Base southeast of Washington, DC.

F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

• Initial four site strategies and corresponding rendered plans and 3D models. • Refine site context and diagrams • Application of schemes to updated client desires. • Revision of rendered plans and corresponding renderings for final site. • Security diagrams and program review. • Development and management of client presentations.

PROCESS The FXFOWLE team presents a series of proposals to demonstrate what such a relocation would look like and how it might be situated, initially beginning with an assessment of four general building typologies and then reducing these to two based on client input - the preferred Linear Landscape, and an alternative Linked Compound. These schemes and their materials were adjusted to a site that changed to better fit the nature of the anchor role in the development. The Linear Landscape is most ideal for its style of building, being best situated to the final layout of the site, and having the best security arrangements. Security concerns were of utmost importance with determining the viability of this project. The Linked Compound scheme has one major advantage over it’s counterpart: an ability to be phased into the development building by building. 3

and

Suitl

and

Suitl

and

Suitl

y Pkw

y Pkw

y Pkw

WETLANDS

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I. SITE

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE 51 ACRES

OSMAN DADI • 2014

MARCH 4, 2013

MAY 22, 2013

JULY 23, 2013

This series of diagrams summarizes site changes through the course of designing the project, as specified by client The Walton Group. The development site is shifted to be anchored with the remaining walkable commercial sector in the community.

8 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SITE LOCATION


P

LINKED COMPOUND

P

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

i

i

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I.

300’

F.B.I.

220’

300’

220’

The May 22 linked compound scheme includes two security access points and an internal road into major facilities. Buildings can be built in phases.

i

VISITOR CENTER

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

LINEAR LANDSCAPE

P

P

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

SECURED PERIMETER

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

013 SCHEMES

RECREATION GREEN

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

i

8

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P

P

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I.

300’

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

220’

80’

F.B.I. SITE

i

F.B.I.

300’

The May 22 linear landscape scheme comprises of two main buildings and a parking garage connected via an access spine. This scheme was preferred by the client. PROGRAM LEGEND

P

SURFACE PARKING

PROGRAM LEGEND P

STRUCTURED PARKING

i

VISITOR CENTER

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERYSURFACE

P

PARKING

300’

PSECURED STRUCTURED PERIMETER PARKING

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

i

F.B.I. VISITOR CENTER

F.B,I. HQ

GREEN

MECHANICAL ROOF PLANT

CAMPUS RECREATION GREEN GREEN LOADING/REMOTE

DELIVERY

300’ N

0

LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

200 feet

SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

400

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

TURED NG

LINEAR LANDSCAPE

P

SECURED PERIMETE

9


P

P

P

P

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER 80’

i

F.B.I. SITE

80’

i

F.B.I.

F.B.I. SITE

300’

F.B.I.

300’

Final Linear Landscape program and security diagram (below). PROGRAM LEGEND

P

SURFACE PARKING

P

STRUCTURED PARKING

i

VISITOR CENTER

1 1 SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) an pedestrian fence 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) anintegrated integrated pedestrian fenceand and LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLAN includes an integrated pedestrian fence and anti-ram barrier system. includes an integrated anti-ram barrier system. pedestrian fence and F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA PROGRAM LEGEND anti-ram barrier system. anti-ram barrier system. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 22 ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY 20 AUGUST 2013 2must P from VISITOR ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY SURFACE STRUCTURED be 2must ZONE FOR feet MAIN FBI the FACILITY be300+ 300+ feet from thesecured securedperimeter perimeter CENTER PARKING PARKING must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should 30’ clear zone building mustinclude be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building should include 30’ clear zone around building should include 30’ clear zone around building FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 33 ZONE ZONE FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS ZONE FOR feet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 3must be from and ZONE FORfeet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS be80+ 80+ fromthe theproperty propertyline line and 3must must be 80+ perimeter. feet from the property and within secured LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLANline must be 80+perimeter. feet from the property line and within secured within secured perimeter. F.B.I. WESTPHALIA within secured perimeter. 44AT PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 4 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 20 AUGUST 4 2013 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 55 MECHANICAL MECHANICALPLANT PLANTZONE ZONE 5should MECHANICAL PLANT ZONE be close the 5should MECHANICAL ZONE belocated locatedPLANT closeto to themain mainFBI FBIfacility facility should be located close to the main FBI facility should be located close to the main FBI facility 66 LOADING LOADINGAND ANDREMOTE REMOTEDELIVERY DELIVERYZONE ZONE 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE be the perimeter line 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE belocated located thesecured secured perimeter line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCENTER located at theCHECKPOINT secured perimeter line 77 VISITOR’S AND VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT 7the VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’s and 7theVISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’scheckpoint checkpoint andscreening screeningarea area the be visitor’s checkpoint and screening area must located at perimeter line thebe visitor’s checkpoint and screening must located atthe thesecured secured perimeterarea line must be located at the secured perimeter line must bePARKING located atAREA the secured perimeter line 88 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S PARKING AREA 8must VISITOR’S PARKING AREA be outside the 8must VISITOR’S PARKING belocated located outsideAREA thesecured securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 99 VEHICLE SCREENING AREA VEHICLE SCREENING AREA 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA be outside secured 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA belocated located outsidethe the securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 10 10 SECURITY SECURITYCHECKPOINT CHECKPOINT 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT be at 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT belocated located atthe thesecured securedperimeter perimeterline line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCHECKPOINT located at theREJECTION secured perimeter line 1111 SECURITY SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTIONLANE LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 12 PROPERTYLINE LINE 12 PROPERTY 12 PROPERTY LINE 12 PROPERTY LINE

i

P

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

200

400

feet

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

66

6 6

55

5 5

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

F.B.I.

44 4 4

22 1

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

GREEN ROOF

CAMPUS GREEN

11

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

11

11

F.B,I. HQ

2 2

33

200

400

feet

11111 1 11 11 99 9 9 10 10 10 10

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

11

3 3

1

88 77 8 7 8 7

99 10 10 9 10 1111 9 10 11 11

12 12 12 12

LINEAR LANDSCAPE --SECURITY LINEAR LANDSCAPE SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS LINEAR LANDSCAPE F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA LINEAR LANDSCAPE--SECURITY SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA

WALTON II LLC F.B.I. ATMARYLAND WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013

OSMAN DADI • 2014

10

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12

Rendering of the preferred Linear Landscape concept.


P

P

P

P

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER 80’

F.B.I. SITE 80’

i

F.B.I.

i

F.B.I. SITE

300’

F.B.I.

300’

Final Linked Compound program and security diagram (below). PROGRAM LEGEND

P

SURFACE PARKING

P

STRUCTURED PARKING

i

VISITOR CENTER

1 1 SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) an pedestrian fence 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) anintegrated integrated pedestrian fenceand and LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN includes an integrated pedestrian fence and anti-ram barrier system. includes an integrated anti-ram barrier system. pedestrian fence and PROGRAM LEGEND F.B.I.barrier AT WESTPHALIA anti-ram system. anti-ram barrier system. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 22 ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY 2must 20 AUGUST 2013 P from VISITOR ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY SURFACE STRUCTURED be 2must ZONE FOR feet MAIN FBI the FACILITY be300+ 300+ feet from thesecured securedperimeter perimeter CENTER PARKING PARKING must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building should include 30’ clear zone around building should include 30’ clear zone around building FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 33 ZONE ZONE FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS ZONE FOR feet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 3must be from and ZONE FORfeet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS be80+ 80+ fromthe theproperty propertyline line and 3must must be 80+ perimeter. feet from the property and within secured LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN line must be 80+perimeter. feet from the property line and within secured within secured perimeter. within secured perimeter. F.B.I. WESTPHALIA 44AT PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 4 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 20 AUGUST 4 2013 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 55 MECHANICAL MECHANICALPLANT PLANTZONE ZONE 5should MECHANICAL PLANT ZONE be located close to the 5should MECHANICAL ZONE be locatedPLANT close to themain mainFBI FBIfacility facility should be located close to the main FBI facility should be located close to the main FBI facility 66 LOADING LOADINGAND ANDREMOTE REMOTEDELIVERY DELIVERYZONE ZONE 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE be the perimeter line 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE belocated located thesecured secured perimeter line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCENTER located AND at theCHECKPOINT secured perimeter line 77 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT 7the VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’s and 7theVISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’scheckpoint checkpoint andscreening screeningarea area the be visitor’s checkpoint and screening area must located at perimeter line thebe visitor’s checkpoint and screening must located atthe thesecured secured perimeterarea line must be located at the secured perimeter line must bePARKING located atAREA the secured perimeter line 88 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S PARKING AREA 8must VISITOR’S PARKING AREA be outside the 8must VISITOR’S PARKING belocated located outsideAREA thesecured securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 99 VEHICLE SCREENING AREA VEHICLE SCREENING AREA 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA be outside secured 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA belocated located outsidethe the securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 10 10 SECURITY SECURITYCHECKPOINT CHECKPOINT 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT be at 10 must belocated located atthe thesecured securedperimeter perimeterline line SECURITY CHECKPOINT must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCHECKPOINT located at theREJECTION secured perimeter line 1111 SECURITY SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTIONLANE LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 12 PROPERTYLINE LINE 12 PROPERTY 12 PROPERTY LINE 12 PROPERTY LINE

i

P

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

200

400

feet

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

66

6

55 6

5

5

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

F.B.I.

44 4 4

22 1

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

GREEN ROOF

CAMPUS GREEN

14

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

11

11

F.B,I. HQ

2

2

333 3

200

400

feet

11111 1111 99 99 10 10 1010

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

14

1

1

10

88 77 8 7 11 9

99 10 10 9 10 1111 7 11

12 12 12 12

8

LINEAR LANDSCAPE --SECURITY LINEAR LANDSCAPE SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS LINEAR LANDSCAPE F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA LINEAR COMPOUND--SECURITY SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA

2

20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013

Rendering of the Linked Compound alternative.

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

WALTON II LLC F.B.I. ATMARYLAND WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013 WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

11


Major Government Agency Downtown Redevelopment CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS

D STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

LIGHT GRAD ACCE FUNC E RETASS TO BE IL/ TIO NS LE HOTE LOW VELS L

E STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

2 FLOORS

11th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

Walton has asked FXFOWLE to study the best means with which to redevelop the existing downtown site of the Major Government Agency. Our team used the opportunities in the area—a highly visible and prominent location with a broad mix of uses nearby—to create a series of several alternative types of development. The client desired a target of approximately 2.4 million square feet of rentable space through a broad range of uses— office, retail, residential, and hotel functions, as well as public outdoor space.

• In a team, handle the creation and development of proposals and initial strategies for the downtown site. • Modify context and base maps. • Create client and planning staff presentations. • Work through many planning studies of 1.8 to 2.2 million SF multi-building developments. • Adjust and refine schemes according to client desires, including rendered plans, sections, area calculations, and 3D models. • Develop the final Piazza proposal. 11th STREET N.W.

Client: The Walton Group 02.2013 – 09.2013 Washington, DC

The preferred scheme, dubbed the “Piazza,” combines all desired elements: eight buildings, with a two building residential and two hotel mix; a pedestrian D Street; a passageway from SW to NE, and strong square footage.

D STREET N.W.

D STREET N.W.

D STREET N.W.

60’ OFFSET FROM LIGHT ACCESS - EXTENT OF BELOW GRADE PROGRAM

PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

UE

GALLERIA 2.18 MIL. SF 1.44 MIL. SF OFFICE 262,546 SF RESIDENTIAL 262,546 SF HOTEL 214,293 SF RETAIL

CENTRAL SQUARE 2.16 MIL. SF

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

D STREET N.W.

1.54 MIL. SF OFFICE 195,720 SF RESIDENTIAL 283,044 SF HOTEL 138,957 SF RETAIL

BUILDING 7 HOTEL 16 FLOORS

IA A VEN

UE

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

ELLIPSE 2.17 MIL. SF

1.62 BUILDING MIL. SF7OFFICE 190,642 SF RESIDENTIAL HOTEL 16 FLOORS 207,990 SF HOTEL 161,277 SF RETAIL (127,755 SF BELOW GRADE)

SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

PIAZZA 2.18 MIL. SF

LVA N

N.W .

E STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

E STREET N.W.

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

PEN

NSY

LVA N

N.W .

9th STREET N.W.

UE

10th STREET N.W.

IA A VEN

8th STREET N.W.

PEN

NSY

8th STREET N.W. 11th STREET N.W.

PEN

D STREET N.W.

1.62 MIL. SF OFFICE BUILDING 7 184,930 SF RESIDENTIAL HOTEL 16 FLOORS 209,856 SF HOTEL 153,788 SF RETAIL (112,875 SF BELOW GRADE)

N 100 FT

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE Summary of May 22, 2013 schemes, showing an array of strategies. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

PEN

NN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIORPEWRITTEN CONSENT. S

NSY

IA A VEN

UE

OSMAN DADI • 2014

12

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALLPRIGHTS RESERVED EN

NSY

YLV AN

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

N.W .

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

N.W .

GALLERIA - 1.98 MIL. SF

PIAZZA - 1.95 MIL. SF

CORRIDOR - 1.91 MIL. SF

1.16 MIL. SF OFFICE 242,957 SF RESIDENTIAL 299,790 SF HOTEL 281,694 SF RETAIL 15,742 SF GALLERIA**

1.23 MIL. SF OFFICE 198,607 SF RESIDENTIAL 322,360 SF HOTEL 232,039 SF RETAIL 28,813 SF GALLERIA**

1.22 MIL. SF OFFICE 187,447 SF RESIDENTIAL 288,075 SF HOTEL 218,706 SF RETAIL 15,742 SF GALLERIA**

SUMMARY OF JULY 23, 2013 SCHEMES Summary of July 23, 2013 schemes, implementing a “new” D street. F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE

N 100 FT

WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The following pages are a summary of the August 20, 2013 schemes, showcasing a complete D Street and engaging public spaces.

N.W .

N.W .


8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

9th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

1.43 MIL. SF OFFICE 403,500 SF RESIDENTIAL 198,750 SF HOTEL 191,500 SF RETAIL

10th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

PIAZZA (CONSENSUS) 2.22 MIL. SF

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT. 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

D STREET N.W.

NOTES: DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

N.W .

PIAZZA CONSENSUS SCHEME F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

N PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

20 AUGUST 2013

©

BUILDING 1

100 FT

BUILDING 2 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 3 BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6 BUILDING 7

The final Piazza includes five office and two residential buildings, places the hotel (7) at the prominent southwest corner of the site, and creates a complete street, courtyard and pedestrian passageway.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

BUILDING 8

13


1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF

8th STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

BUILDING 4

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

BUILDING 5 BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT. 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF 1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

LINEAR GALLERIA. PEN

NSY

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) N 2.01 MIL. SF 1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 1002013 FT E STREET N.W. PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL IA A VEN

UE

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

11th STREET N.W.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

SYLVANIA AVE LAND II LLC

LVA N

8th STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) 2.01 MIL. SF

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES:

NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

N

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL

ANGLE GALLERIA. PEN

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

NSY

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) N 1.97 MIL. SF 1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 1002013 FT E STREET N.W. PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL IA A VEN

UE

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

OSMAN DADI • 2014

14

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5 BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

N

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1

ASSUMPTIONS:

100 FT 1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 323,,750 SF HOTEL 185,750 SF RETAIL ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) 1.97 MIL. SF

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES:

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

323,,750 SF HOTEL 185,750 SF RETAIL

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

9th STREET N.W.

SYLVANIA AVE LAND II LLC

LVA N

8th STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

STREET N.W.

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

E STREET N.W.

ARC GALLERIA. PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

N.W .

1002013 FT PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13,

N


1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF

2. PIAZZA 2.00 MIL. SF

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

8th STREET N.W.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1.31 MIL. SF OFFICE 169,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 338,250 SF HOTEL 175,520 SF RETAIL

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2

ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 4 GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

BUILDING 3

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR BUILDING 5 HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

NOTES:

NOTES:

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

D STREET N.W.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

2. PIAZZA 2.00 MIL. SF

PIAZZA SCHEME.

1.31 MIL. SF OFFICE 169,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 338,250 SF HOTEL 175,520 SF RETAIL

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) PARKING: 2.01 MIL. SF 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE

PEN

NSY

3A. ELLIPSE (WITH D STREET) N 1.97 MIL. SF 1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT E STREET N.W.TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST PRESENTED 13, 2013 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL

ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013 PENNSYLVANIA AVE GROUNDPARKING: FLOOR HEIGHT MARYLAND II LLC VARIES WITH GRADEBELOW CHANGE. 3 FLOORS GRADE

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOVARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. FLOOR HEIGHT.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION FLOOR-TO-FLOOR APPLIES 11’-6” THROUGHOUT HEIGHT. ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

334,500 SF HOTEL 167,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE BUILDING 1 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

9th STREET N.W.

578,414 NET SF

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 1,653 CARS* 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. ASSUMPTIONS:

N.W .

8th STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

UE

306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL ASSUMPTIONS:

3

LVA N

IA A VEN

1.29SF MIL. SF OFFICE 578,414 NET 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 1,653 CARS*

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS* BUILDING 2 ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 5

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. RESTRICTION SURVEY 160’ HEIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR MORE APPLIES THROUGHOUT ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE AND LOCATION. CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN 3B. ELLIPSE CALCULATION OF OVERALL (NO DAREA. STREET)

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

2.02 MIL. SF 1.32 MIL. SF OFFICE 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL N 317,250 SF HOTEL 100 FT 182,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE

ELLIPSE SCHEME WITH D STREET. PEN

NSY

IA A VEN

1.27SF MIL. SF OFFICE 578,414 NET 195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 1,653 CARS*

UE

323,,750 SF HOTEL ASSUMPTIONS: 185,750 SF RETAIL

ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013 FLOOR HEIGHT PENNSYLVANIA AVE GROUNDPARKING: MARYLAND II LLC VARIES WITH GRADEBELOW CHANGE. 3 FLOORS GRADE

th STREET N.W.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FLOOR HEIGHT ASSUME GROUND 9’-6” FLOOR-TOVARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. FLOOR HEIGHT.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION FLOOR-TO-FLOOR APPLIES 11’-6” THROUGHOUT HEIGHT. ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

317,250 SF HOTEL 182,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE BUILDING 1 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

LVA N

3B. ELLIPSE (NO D STREET) N 2.02 MIL. SF 1.32 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT E STREET N.W.TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST PRESENTED 13, 2013 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

8th STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) PARKING: 1.97 MIL. SF 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE

ASSUMPTIONS:

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS* ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 5

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. RESTRICTION SURVEY 160’ HEIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR MORE APPLIES THROUGHOUT ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE AND LOCATION.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN 3A. ELLIPSE CALCULATION OF OVERALL (WITHAREA. D STREET)

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

N

1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL 334,500 SF HOTEL 167,250 SF RETAIL ©201325,500 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTSOFFICE RESERVED SF BASEMENT

ASSUMPTIONS: ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 4

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

FLOOR HEIGHT.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE NOTES: BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING DRAWING INFORMATION AREA NOT INCLUDED IN ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA. IS REQUIRED FOR MORE

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 2

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS NOTES: ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TO-

1.97 MIL. SF

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

578,414 NET SF

BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE NOTES: BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING DRAWING INFORMATION AREA NOT INCLUDED IN ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA. IS REQUIRED FOR MORE

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 1,653 CARS* 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

BUILDING 4

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES: ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TO-

3

BUILDING 3

ELLIPSE SCHEME WITHOUT D STREET. PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

UE

N.W .

100 FT PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

N

15


“La Central” Mixed Use Development CONTRIBUTIONS

Client: Related Companies, Hudson Companies 05.2013 - 07.2013 Bronx, New York, NY

• Develop and present as a team a 1.2 million SF, five building proposal through developers Related and Hudson for mixed use affordable housing in the Bronx. • Maintain constantly changing plans and 3D models, and created presentations for client meetings. • All zoning plans and sections to address key issues such as setbacks, sky exposure planes, and frontage considerations. • Plans, sections, and layout studies of the YMCA, an anchor tenant of the proposed development, directly with a representative. • Final deliverables for architectural submission, including rendered elevations and base drawings.

La Central is a five building, 1.2 million square foot developer’s RFP through the New York Department of Housing and Public Development. Our proposal creates a sense of community within the development, and encompasses residential market rate and affordable housing, a YMCA gym, rooftop urban farming, a major internal public-private park, community centers, and a urban science telescope feature. The design encompasses a distinction between internal and external La CENTRAL architectural expressions, a blocking structure, and a tower feature with key massing strategies. 6/28/2013 NUMBER OF FLOORS

RETAIL sf/floor

RESIDENTIAL

total

sf/floor

SUPPORTIVE

total

sf/floor

PARKING/SERVICE

total

sf/floor

YMCA/COMMUNITY

total

sf/floor

total

BUILDING A Roof Level 11-12 Level 10 Level 9 Level 8 Level 3-7 Level 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 13

20,267

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,267 0 20,267

2,000 14,440 18,328 19,141 22,423 23,024 23,024 3,061 8,658

2,000 28,880 18,328 19,141 22,423 115,120 23,024 3,061 8,658 240,635

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,686

1,686 0 1,686

837 20,758 27,311

0 0 0 0 0 0 837 20,758 27,311 48,906

TOTAL

311,494

Parcel B total

311,494

BUILDING B Roof Level 12-13 Level 11 10 Level 9 Level 3-8 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

2 1 1 1 6 1 1

24,793

13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,793 0 24,793

2,000 15,112 23,461 24,539 27,549 29,033 14,658 12,934 9,120

2,000 30,224 23,461 24,539 27,549 174,198 14,658 12,934 9,120 318,684

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,341 31,947

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,341 31,947 35,288

TOTAL

378,765

BUILDING C Roof Level 10-13 Level 2-9 Ground Cellar Subtotal

0 0 0 0 0 0

4 8 1 13

1,000 10,887 12,397 3,757 6,199

1,000 43,548 99,176 3,757 6,199 153,680

0 0 0 0 0 0

8,640 0 0

TOTAL

0 0 0 8,640 0 8,640

162,320

BUILDING D Roof 9 Level 3-8 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 1 1 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,000 7,386 10,040 3,133 5,026

1,000 7,386 60,239 0 3,133 5,026 76,784

10,040 6,902 0 0

0 0 0 10,040 6,902 0 16,942

TOTAL

93,726

Parcel A1 Total

634,811

Building E

OSMAN DADI • 2014

16

Roof 20-25 Levels 15-19 Levels 13-14 Levels 11-12 Level 10 Levels 4-9 Levels 2-3 Ground Cellar Subtotal

6 5 2 2 1 6 2 1 25

2,003

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,003 0 2,003

1,000 4,790 6,946 9,452 8,970 8,880 11,277 11,159 3,438 7,667

1,000 28,740 34,730 18,904 17,940 8,880 67,662 22,318 3,438 7,667 211,279

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,893 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,893 0 9,893

TOTAL

223,171

Parcel A2 Total

223,171

TOTAL PROPOSED Subtotal

47,063

924,278

TOTAL

76,784

36,974

84,381

1,169,480

AREA SUMMARY


A

D B

C

E

The “La Central� affordable housing development consists of five buildings (A through E) with a mix of different uses.

The planned development summary (shown left) is strategized concurrent to the defining urban design strategies: creating a community node within the development similar to garden apartments in the Bronx, buildings that include inner and outer personalities wrapping over and around each building, and varied heights and setbacks to break down the streetscape to a human scale.

17


OSMAN DADI • 2014

18


This series of Building A plans shows (clockwise from top left): the basement, ground floor, penthouse, and typical residental level. BUILDING A - 2ND FLOOR PLAN

La CENTRAL

BUILDING A - 11TH-12TH FLOOR PLAN

1”=30’

LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

Zoning sections (left) show compliance with New York City laws.

La CENTRAL

1”=30’ LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

The zoning site plan conveys compliance with zoning regulations in this portion of New York City, including lot coverage and setbacks.

19


Interview/RFP Package Development FXFOWLE project flow included submissions for RFPs, in which I produced a variety of presentation materials.

SEAPORT CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY Client: ARCADIS 08.2013

WEST 29TH STREET STUDY Client: Douglaston Companies 09.2013 • Developed base maps and graphics for a Douglaston Companies development proposal near Hudson Yards.

• Developed presentation materials, including a detailed 48”x36” base map of lower Manhattan, case studies, and graphic materials for Arcadis-led interview with the New York Economic Development Corporation. 1,278’

377’

364’

9th AVENUE

10th AVENUE

11th AVENUE

12th AVENUE

305’

West-East section and height study for West 29th Street Study. 1,278’

515’

North-South section and height study for West 29th Street Study.

23rd STREET

24th STREET

25th STREET

26th STREET

27th STREET

28th STREET

29th STREET

30th STREET

31ST STREET

32nd STREET

33rd STREET

OSMAN DADI • 2014

20

34th STREET

210’


ST .J AM

ES

PL AC E

n River H u dso

B

ST R C PE

IDG

IP SL

BR

K

E

B

T

R O O YN KL

ET RE ST

E G

ID

E

R

N

B

ET RE ST T H OR UT AP SO SE

LA

EE

EN

N TTA HA

PE A

RL

E

N MA

C A PL

EE T

ER N G A W

REET

T ER

IVE

FDR DR

R ST

ON LT FU

N MA

ID

STREET

ET

INE ST

O

EK

ET RE ST

A

ET CLINTON STRE

RUTGERS STRE

PIKE STREET

ET MARKET STRE

ER CATH

R

BE

HN

JO

M

CHERRY

A W R

R ST

PIE

LL

15

T EE

W

E

IV

DR

11 TE RM

BROA

L A IN

D STRE

t

s Ea

ET

NY

ET STRE HALL WHITE

r

R

ET

R

FD

PIE

RE ST

R ST

M LIA

IL

T

EE

R

E AT W

ve Ri

AD LIP

HE

L

NNE

TU RY

E ATT

NB

OKLY

BRO

Base Map created for EDC Seaport City Feasibility Study, 48x36” W

W

7

W

EE

W

CO L

N

TU

NN

R

W

(F U EX TU TE RE NS IO N)

W

AV E

W

10 N

A

C

DIU

W

IN

W

W A LK

W

E UT IN M 5-

W

W W

W

W Base Map created for Douglaston West 29th 22 Street Study.

26

W W

20

W 21

ST

C

W

E

25

24 ST

Q

R

35 ST

ST

1

2

PE ST NN AT IO N

3

B N 32

ST

ST

ST

1

ST

IC

ST

27 ST

3 N

AS

A PIERS

2

7

ST

W ST

1

41 ST

ST

MA SQ DISO GA UAR N RD E EN

ST

ST

ST

ER

CHELSE

28

29

30

31

ST

37 ST

ST

AM

EL PA SEA RK

33

ST

ST

6A VE

RA

G

E LI N HI GH

CH

TH E

C WA HELS TE EA PA RSID RK E

34

S

TE WA RMIN RE AL HO US E

E W

8A VE

ST A LE RRE HIG TT H

W

36

46

39 ST

HE

ISO

9A VE

ED

38

42

43

W ST

ST

7A VE

11

W

FT

7 7

40

R

YA RD S

AV E

DS ON

AV

W DY E

RI VE

AV E

12

HU DS ON

W

EL

HU

W

E

LIN

GR

Hu

CO N

C

ROADW AY

JA CO CO JAV B K NV ITS . CE ENT NT IO ER N

NW AY

dso

nR

A

44

45

Q

D R

F

M

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

ive

r

(P R ST OP AT OS IO N) ED

47 ST

21


Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan 12.2011 - 03.2012 The Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan is a two year project that was finished during my term at Regional Plan Association. My primary task was designing and publishing the final master plan document, including creating maps from synthesized GIS data and developing the optimal presentation for the county and its constituents. The Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use study was implemented by the Orange County Planning Department to identify key priorities for creating integrated solutions for transportation and land use within the northeastern portion of Orange County. The multi-modal plan for transportation was intended to identify strategies for enhancing mobility while preserving quality of life.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

22

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS • Final document layout, editing, and design • Final map development • Graphic Design • Creating graphic renditions of the results of the project’s GIS analysis. In creating the final document, I utilized RPA’s report methodology. As the plan is rather lengthy, our team found it important to break the monotony of the text with frequent photographs that conveyed the context of the conditions described. Additionally, the flow of the text is highly important, and tables, charts, and maps were thus placed accordingly. As the study website was developed using black and orange as key colors, the report utilizes the same theme. The maps within the report were developed to tie together content in a graphic manifestation, and thus followed the same graphic language. I sought specifically to highlight relevant information by using bright, bold colors for the subject of the maps, while using soft, gray tones and transparencies to soften the context. Thus, roads networks are shown in gray throughout all maps; the study area and municipal boundaries are shown as well, though the coloring is muted such that the most important information stands out.

A typical page from the Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan Report.


D. Evaluation of Travel Demand Model Results Intersection Analysis A set of 18 traffic analysis locations was selected for assessing the potential effects of the proposed development scenarios (see Figure 4-8). These locations were selected based upon input from Study Area stakeholders and the Study Team’s own observations and professional judgment. These 18 intersections represent key locations along important corridors and a select number of locations within the Villages. They are considered to be a representative set of locations at which the effects of the land use scenarios could be assessed, potential roadway improvement packages outlined, and broad findings generalized for the Study Area as a whole. They do not reflect the only locations that could be affected. The 18 intersections are: • Route 17K and Route 211/Union Street

Traffic Analysis Locations Figure 4-8: Traffic Analysis Locations in the Newburgh Study Area

Measuring Congestion

• Route 17K and Route 747 • Route 17K and Rock Cut Road • Route 17K and Route 300 • Route 17K/Broadway and Route 9W/ Robinson Avenue • Route 207 and Route 747 • Route 207 and Breunig Road • Route 207 and Route 300 • Route 208 and Route 52/Main Street • Route 208 and Neelytown Road/I-84 Ramps • Route 300 and Route 52 • Route 300 and Route 94 (Vails Gate) • Route 300 and Route 32 • Route 9W and Fostertown Road • Route 9W and Route 32 • Route 9W and Forge Hill Road • Route 94 and Jackson Avenue

The travel demand model produced outputs of volumes of new traffic and a “volume to capacity” (“v/c”) ratio at each of the 18 intersections. Net change

Table 4-7: 2010 Existing and 2035 Forecast Volumes and V/C Ratios Intersection Volumes Intersection Exist. BAU SGA SGB 1 NY 17K & Union St/Route 211 1,414 1,565 1,601 1,561 2 NY 17K & NY 208 2,260 2,762 2,788 2,765 3 NY 17K & NY 747 1,939 2,519 2,591 2,671 4 NY 17K & Rock Cut Rd 1,769 1,792 1,839 1,794 5 NY 17K & NY 300 3,668 4,062 4,125 3,956 6 NY 17K & Robinson/US 9W 2,235 2,445 2,324 2,439 7 NY 207 & NY 747 1,477 2,361 2,321 2,315 8 NY 207 & Breunig Rd 1,361 2,557 2,187 2,115 9 NY 207 & NY 300 3,025 3,137 3,172 3,196 10 NY 208 & Main St/NY 52 1,270 1,629 1,737 1,735 11A NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,587 2,253 2,213 2,214 11B NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,594 2,450 2,413 2,363 12 NY 300 & NY 52 2,522 2,756 2,738 2,703 13 NY 300 & NY 94 2,540 2,637 2,642 2,745 14 NY 32 & NY 300 1,793 2,565 2,483 2,340 15 US 9W & Fostertown Rd 2,012 2,264 2,285 2,192 16 US 9W & NY 32 2,719 3,047 3,043 3,003 17 US 9W & Forge Hill Rd 2,292 3,225 3,327 3,481 18 NY 94 & Jackson Ave 1,215 2,024 2,077 2,020 Notes:

72

in traffic volume is one indicator that improvements may be necessary at a location. The v/c ratio, as it is referred to, is another key metric for traffic engineers to identify locations where new volumes would cause additional congestion. The theoretical maximum capacity Volume-Capacity Ratio Exist. BAU SGA 0.87 0.97 0.99 0.57 0.70 0.71 0.48 0.62 0.64 0.97 0.98 1.01 0.88 0.98 0.99 0.75 0.82 0.78 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.46 0.86 0.73 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.64 0.82 0.88 0.59 0.83 0.82 0.52 0.80 0.79 0.96 1.05 1.05 0.98 1.02 1.02 0.63 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.99 1.00 0.67 0.76 0.76 0.58 0.81 0.84 0.51 0.85 0.87

BAU = Business as Usual; SGA = Smart Growth A; SGB = Smart Growth B.

Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study

SGB 0.96 0.70 0.65 0.99 0.95 0.82 0.91 0.71 0.95 0.88 0.82 0.77 1.03 1.06 0.82 0.96 0.75 0.87 0.85

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

• Route 17K and Route 208 (Scotts Corner)

23


The Greater Newburgh Study Area.

24


Open Space Protected Land Agricultural Commercial Industrial Civic Uses Residential 1 unit/acre or less Residential 1 to 4 units/acre Residential 4+ units/acre Figure 4-2: Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

potential housing units or the amount of commercial square feet that can be built on it under current zoning, accounting for ecological constraints and parking needs. Depending on the commercial establishment type allowed in each zone (e.g. industrial, retail), the potential square footage of each commercially zoned prop-

It is important to note that the buildout methodology does not make any specific accommodation for provision of water supply or wastewater treatment infrastructure. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that adequate water supply and wastewater treatment is either available or would be made available to

essential pieces of infrastructure but could not address these challenges within the scope of this study. A build-out can be unconstrained by time or population and economic conditions (i.e. what amount of development would occur based simply on what the zoning permits) or constrained by a time factor or other socio-economic factor (i.e.

25


REMAKING THE SAN FRANCISCO PENNINSULA CORRIDOR WITH A BICYCLE EXPRESSWAY By Osman Dadi, Research Associate, RPA January 12, 2012

OSMAN DADI • 2014

26

Accommodating high-speed rail trains in the San Francisco peninsula has been a contentious topic because of potential noise and visual impacts on the surrounding communities. Recently, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced its support for a “blended approach” that would utilize the existing Caltrain corridor. But what if a solution could be found that ensures grade separation between trains and automobiles while also opening up dramatically enhanced commuting options for bicyclists? This proposition allows another incredible opportunity for the Peninsula that would benefit all communities: integrating a grade-separated bicycle expressway into that new infrastructure. The benefits of a separated cycle expressway are many: just as cars on interstate highways are able to travel faster, without stopping for traffic lights, and thus also in a safer means, an expressway for cyclists would allow bicyclists to do the same. The new route would pass over main roads, eliminating vehicular conflicts and allowing fast travel times. Exits spaced out at quarter or half mile intervals would connect into the existing on street bicycle corridors, creating a network between them. The route would allow bicyclists to bypass some of the busiest arterial roads, reducing conflicts with automobiles and hereby helping automobile traffic move faster, while making the experience safer for cyclists and drivers alike. Just as I-280 and US-101 act as the primary automobile highways along the Peninsula, and Caltrain the primary rail corridor, a bicycle expressway would fill a similar role for bicycles. It would provide a new, direct, and fast grade separated route for workers utilizing bicycling and transit as their primary means of commuting, as well as a dedicated route for recreational bicyclists. The San Francisco peninsula is known for many things, among them a workforce driven by innovative ideas (especially in Silicon Valley), great weather nearly all year round, a culture that largely embraces healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles, and strong support for biking. The bicycle network of the Bay Area, while quite extensive, is simultaneously also quite disconnected. Particularly in the central Peninsula, there are few dedicated off street bicycle corridors, and routes on streets are frequently disconnected to each other. Thus, there is presently no direct means for a bicyclist to traverse many portions of the Peninsula without mixing into automobile traffic, itself a dangerous proposition given the high speed nature of main routes like El Camino Real or the Expressways around San Jose.

Simultaneously, the existing peninsula Caltrain corridor is slated for a much needed change. The present line has not been significantly upgraded for several decades, but has been planned for large scale electrification for many years. When the California High Speed Rail plan was announced between San Francisco and Los Angeles, an opportunity arose to couple that electrification project with a broader reconstruction that also accommodates high speed rail service by expanding, electrifying, and grade separating the corridor. The configuration of the new route, though still undecided, will likely be elevated on an embankment, elevated on a structure, or (if communities along the route are willing to help fund it) trenched. The benefits of grade separation and electrification alone are enormous: eliminating grade crossings allow faster train speeds, eliminate noise pollution from train horns, and electrification removes diesel fumes and noise. Additionally, automobile conflicts with trains are eliminated, also making it safer and faster for drivers to cross the railway. Ideally, a new bicycle route would be directly integrated into the new Caltrain system, making it extremely easy and efficient to bring your bicycle onto a train, thus extending the reach of that transit system. As a hypothetical example, two cars on the north side of each train (the direction of travel is irrelevant) could be designated bicycle cars, and feature extra room for bicycle storage. Where on current trains bringing bicycles on board requires you to carry them up train stairs and through the carriage doors, this process would be dramatically simplified with level boarding. The northern part of each platform would be designated bicycle loading zones, similar to how we have zones for boarding people with wheelchairs; these would in turn connect directly into the expressway. Thus, a train rider could complete a journey to destinations that are beyond convenient walking and bus distances by connecting to the cycle expressway at the station and biking the remaining distance safely. A critic might ask: how much more would such an addition cost? Do we really need to add a bicycle expressway?  Adding a new easement would cost more, yes, but the benefits would be equally numerous. Considering that a rebuilt corridor is already slated to cost several billion dollars (regardless of whether HSR is adopted), adding a bicycle route would add only a small fraction to the grand total, yet would provide a dramatically new and fast means to traverse the Peninsula. A new route would dramatically extend the reach of the Caltrain network, providing another means for transit riders to access locations out of walking distance from stations. Since the region is going to rebuild the Peninsula rail corridor anyway, it should be built completely and properly, with the greatest needs of the metropolis factored in. If a bike sharing network is ever introduced in the Bay Area, it would likely make extensive use of the new cycle expressway. The peninsula has unfortunately become the most


even for the next century. Adding a route would benefit the Peninsula tremendously, helping add to the vibrant discourse of ideas that frequently stem from this portion of the country.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

contentious area for accommodating the planned California High Speed Rail line. The debate has largely failed to recognize the incredible potential of reconstruction to change mobility options in that entire region. Failure to integrate biking into this critical piece of infrastructure would mean that the entire Peninsula will miss an opportunity to add new travel means - or anything similar--to the region for decades, possibly

27


CONTACT OSMAN DADI Phone: (240) 449-9428 Email: osman.dadi@gmail.com

CURRENT ADDRESS 82 Farm Lake Crescent Road Chappaqua, NY 10514

Osman Dadi Work Samples - FXFOWLE and Regional Plan Association  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you