Transit-Oriented and Joint Development: Case Studies and Legal Issues (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 23-33
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
The PDC has been the primary public agency responsible for redevelopment in the Pearl District. The PDC's budget is distributed among three primary departments: Development Assistance, Economic Development, and Housing.
|
From page 24... ...
The central importance of the City/Hoyt agreement to the Pearl District's success is summarized by the city this way: The Agreement tied development densities to public improvements with the minimum required housing density increased incrementally from 15 to 87 units per acre when the Lovejoy Viaduct was deconstructed, to 109 units/acre when the streetcar construction commenced and 131 units/acre when the first neighborhood park was built. The developer has stated that without the Streetcar and the accessibility it provides, these densities would not have been possible.
|
From page 25... ...
The tax abatement is significant: one condo owner in the Pearl District reported that his annual property taxes were only $163 as opposed to $2,700, the normal annual property tax.262 Penthouse condos valued at $599,000 would enjoy a discount of almost $6,000 annually.263 B Oakland's Fruitvale Transit Village Fruitvale Case Study Highlights • Type of TOD/TJD: Nonprofit-initiated development around heavy rail station in a blighted inner-city.
|
From page 26... ...
(LISC) $4,000,000 Land Proceeds $517,025 Total City of Oakland $16,697,337 Total Equity $2,786,210 DOT/BART Interest/Miscellaneous Metropolitan Transportation Commission $47,121 Interest/Other $643,707 FTA Child Development Center $2,300,000 Additional Bond Funds Interest/Misc.
|
From page 27... ...
27 Fruitvale Transit Village Total Uses of Funds, Phase I Predevelopment Hard Construction Cost Staff and Overhead $645,985 Off-Site $1,291,931 Contract Services $389,286 Building Structure $27,793,806 Total Predevelopment $1,035,271 General Contractor Fees $1,095,138 Construction Contingency $1,679,789 Soft Cost Bond Requirements $144,935 Acquisition Cost $1,764 Tenant Improvements $2,341,680 Architecture and Engineering $2,819,787 Plaza Improvements $1,800,000 Permits, Fees, and Taxes $773,218 Public Art $24,185 Development Staff/Operating $2,840,686 Total Hard Construction Costs $36,171,464 Utility Hookups $600,000 Environmental Remediation $188,680 Interest and Fees Legal, Insurance, and Other $744,031 Construction Interest $2,671,049 Contingency $630,144 City Section 108 $150,000 Bike Facility Soft Cost $262,968 NCBDC $76,285 Total Soft Costs $8,861,278 Unity Council $172,868 Bond Issuance Cost $790,490 Bridge Loans Reserves and Lease-up $323,600 Unity Council Bridge Loan $911,830 Total Interest and Fees $4,184,292 NCBDC $750,000 Total Bridge Loans $1,661,830 TOTALS Predevelopment $1,035,271 Hard Construction Cost $36,171,464 Soft Cost $8,861,278 Interest and Fees $4,184,292 Bridge Loans $1,661,830 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $51,914,135 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $1,942,738 Source: Unity Council -- http://www.unitycouncil.org/download/fv_overview.doc
|
From page 28... ...
. 272 Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Transit Oriented Development Policy, adopted July 14, 2005.
|
From page 29... ...
29 Against this tide, the Bethel New Life Community Development Corporation has, over the past 25 years, helped to create more than $100 million dollars in direct community investment and more than 1,000 housing units, and has placed over 5,000 people in jobs. In the past, Bethel's focus had been concentrated on advocacy.
|
From page 30... ...
• Key Elements to Success: Municipal leadership in planning, zoning, land assembly, and development marketing. Plano is characterized by a traditional town center.
|
From page 31... ...
After the third year, the ground lease was adjusted based on the net operating income generated by the development. Eastside Village I was completed in 2002, almost a year before rail service.
|
From page 32... ...
From May 2003 to May 2006, ridership numbers for Plano grew, but perhaps DART and the city of Plano should have provided more commuter parking in Eastside Village. On the other hand, planners shifted commuter parking to nearby stations at Parker Road.
|
From page 33... ...
Competi 285 Jan Wells & John Renne, Alan M Voorhees Transportation Center, Implementation of the Assessment Tool: Assessing the Impacts of the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative (2004)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.