Developing the Small, Mixed-Use Urban Project:

A Contribution to Neighborhood Revitalization

Jacqueline Morrissette Olivier

Bachelor of Arts, Wellesley College 1982
Wellesley, Massachusetts

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREES
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE AND MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
AT THE
MASSACHUSEITS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, June 1988

.0
Signature of the author Jacqueline Morrissette Olivier
Department of Architecture, 13 May 1988
\ I U

Certified b$c Lawrence S. Bacow

Associate Professor Of Law and Environmental Policy
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by William Hubbard

Assistant Professor of Architecture Chairman,
Department Committee on Graduate Students

Accepted by Michael Wheeler

Chairman - Interdepartmental Degree Program in
()Jacqueline Morrissette Olivier 1988
The Author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to distribute
Real Estate Development
publicly copies of this thesis document in whole or in part

JUN - 398
UBRARES
FdotCh
2
 3
Developing the Small, Mixed-Use Urban Project:
A Contribution to Neighborhood Revitalization
by
Jacqueline Morrissette Olivier

Submitted to the Department of Architecture on 13, May 1988

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Architecture and Master of Science in Real Estate
Development

Abstract

Through out many cities in America, urban neighborhoods are characterized by the diminished vitality and extensive
deterioration of their overall landscape. The consequences of modern city planning, architectural design and real estate development
through out the past thirty years have abrogated much of the cohesive and diverse pattern of the historic urban fabric. Today, many
urban areas suffer from the endless repetition of single use structures. Others suffer from the devastating neglect of little or no investment
activity at all.

The intention of this thesis is to investigate the development feasibility of the small, mixed-use project. Mixed-use is a building
prototype combining various uses in one structure and is typified in the appealing character of many older American and European
cities. The assertion made is quite simple; if it worked then why can't it work now? The particular focus of the inquiry concentrates
on poor urban neighborhoods though the prototype is relevant in other urban areas. Requisite to the formulation of the project isthe
aim to responsibly support and stimulate community revitalization.

It is concluded that the feasibility for small mixed-use development exists though many problems remain. Design on small sites
as small as one half acre is difficult but possible. Such locations are suitable particularly where they sit at major intersections between
residential and commercial districts. Economically the prototype remains weak; the development risks are great. Substantial
investigation to identify the most beneficial instruments for obtaining equity, reducing development costs and increasing the revenues
is required for projects of this kind. Nevertheless, the small mixed-use holds an important role in the future development of the urban
landscape. The prototype promises to offer a considerable contribution to the increased health and revitalization of many urban
communities.

Thesis Supervisor: Lawrence S. Bacow

Title: Associate Professor of Law and Environmental Policy
4
 5

Acknowledgements

I'd like to express my gratitude to the numerous people who assisted me in

this endeavor.

Thank you Dennis Frenchman and Michael Buckley, my thesis committee.

Your individual talents and perspectives were insightful.

Thank you Larry Bacow, my advisor. I am grateful for the encouragement

and guidance.

Thank you Susan, Peter, and Ross for responding to my impromptu requests
for desk crits.

Most of all, thank you Mark, for your patience and endless support.

It's been a long road.

6
 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Abstract 3

Acknowledgements 5

Preface 9

Introduction: Framing the Problem 10

Section I: The Determinants: Urban Design and 18

Community Revitalization

Section II: The Design Proposal 26

Section III: The Financial Analysis 64

Section IV: A Summary 80

Bibliography 87
8
 9

Preface

The motivation for this thesis relates directly to my urban roots. Growing up
on the southside of Chicago has instilled me with a compassion and concern for urban
environments, particularly as they relate to minorities and the poor.

I sincerely believe that this country has a long way to go before it recognizes that
the disaffection and under utilization of a major segment of the population deprives us
all. We are deprived of the benefit of our most precious commodity- human resources.
The idea for this investigation started out as a campaign for the disaffected. It naturally
evolved into a topic about design and development which embodied the focus of
community revitalization.

What I hope I have accomplished is a contribution to the argument that seem-

ingly disparate goals can accomplish the same aim, namely that for profit development
can achieve the same agenda objectives as the non-profit developer. What I know I have
accomplished is a better understanding of the complex interaction and often conflicting
roles between developer, designer and community resident. I have a personal stake in
all three roles and to that I am proud.
10

INTRODUCTION:
FRAMING THE PROBLEM
 11

THE THESIS
The focus of this work is to examine and formulate a prototype for the
development of small, mixed-use projects within urban neighborhoods. Specifically
the thesis concentrates on neighborhoods that are typically overlooked, abused or
neglected by the development process in the United States. Yet the prototype is
applicable to any urban context. The contention is that architectural form and the
activity of real estate development can together influence both the physical framework
of neighborhoods and the community's social and economic well being. This thesis
investigates the potential for the small, mixed-use prototype as a vehicle for increasing
the quality of life viewed from three perspectives:

1) Responding to the urbanenvironment by repairing the scarred physical fabric

of the inner city,
2) Promoting community development and revitalization - for its incumbent
residents by discouraging abandonment and encouraging middle class reinvest-
ment, and;
3) Attracting investment from the private sector.

Stated another way, the inquiry endeavors to discern to what extent a small
mixed-use project exhibits the potential to offer financial returns while positively
addressing a community's sometimes desperate need for physical upgrading and broad-
based community development. Central to the achievement of these aims is the strength
of the small mixed-use prototype and its financial viability. This thesis assesses the
extent to which private investment from local banks, businesses, and developers, many
of whom are actively working to affect positive change, can assist in the process.
The Greek Agora,
Zeidler, p.')
12

WHY MIXED-USE
Mixed-use is the integration of multiple uses within one building or group of
buildings -retail, office, and residential, in any combination. The building prototype has
long historical roots and serves as a fitting model for adaptation in the inner city. Mixed-
use addresses two fundamental needs of the community - housing and commercial
services. In addition, integrating commercial and residential uses supports quality urban
design. The diversity of commercial and residential uses and architectural forms brings
to the streetscape added life and vibrancy . The natural surveillance of people coming
and going at different hours (office, retail, housing) maximizes utility and provides
security for the area.

URBAN DESIGN AND 1950'S ZONING

Prior to the evolution of early zoning, the integration of diverse uses and building
types was commonplace in America's developing cities. It was not unusual to find
storefronts with residential apartments situated above, typically that of the store owner
with one or more tenants. After the turn of the century, prompted by the dangers of the
late 19th century overcrowded industrial streetscape (here in the U.S. and abroad), cities
developed building codes and zoning legislation for the health and well being of its
11~~ residents. Throughout the 20th century planning boards designated specific physical
areas within the city and tended to restrict them to specific uses. Residential areas were
largely isolated from commercial areas, which in turn were distinguished from industrial
and manufacturing sites.

Within the last quarter of a century however, city planning and zoning laws have
come full circle and have readapted the integration of commercial and residential uses
within one building or within a described area. Public agencies gave credence to the
Patterns of Association,
Zeidler, p.17 argument developers promoted, that the development of mixed-use brought the advan-
 13

tages of liveliness and synergy to a location. The benefits enhanced both the aesthetic
Yesterda
and financial success of the project and were shared between the developer and the city.

Mixed-use development enhanced the quality of life in many urban areas and
seemed to be at least one solution to the dark and empty downtown street which became
Living and Wor*ig in7 r/re Smoke,
deserted after 5pm when the office crowd left for the suburbs. The large projects of
Boston's Copley Place and Chicago's Watertower Place are just two examples of
today's successful mixed-use development. Both encompass large numbers ofresiden-
tial units, commercial (retail and office) and usually several hotels within one complex.
Livmg rn theSbturbs-working i, r/ie Smoke
Yet, despite the successes of the large mixed-use, rarely has the prototype been
adapted for use at the smaller urban scale, especially in older neighborhoods. Instead,
antiquated zoning laws of the 1950's remain in place and developers continue to pursue
the building of single use projects. Furthermore, many developers remain convinced
that building large single use projects isthe only formula for making money in the real
estate business. The net effect on urban areas has been the destruction of a once multi- tvfn&brkn 7nteSunlat fwav -
varied fabric of building types containing a lively mix of uses.
Poster of Garden City,
Zeidler, p.14
In the past, urban diversity and vitality was derived from the variety of uses
within a given area. The continued pattern of developing apartment buildings and
office buildings as separate uses has inadvertently destroyed the character and integrity "The isolated building prototypes developed by
modern architecture - such as the apartment tower,
of many urban neighborhoods. The symbiosis attained through the interaction of
the office tower, the shopping centre or the one-
various functions has been lost. One of the aims of this thesis is to demonstrate that family house - may fulfill their internal demands,
urban developments do not have to be restricted to single function structures in order however thoughtlessly pushed together, they cannot
create a coherent city.... Modern city districts of such
to be profitable.
single - use buildings lack the complexity and life
involvement that "old" city spaces still
offer." (D
14

In addition to the community and urban design benefits that the mixed-use offers
is the opportunity for the developer to offset many financial and market risks. Cross
market development, provides a method of diversification and mitigates the impacts of
individual market fluctuations. Often the market does not warrant the construction of
an entire office building, or housing project. Small scaled mixed-use development
provides a vehicle for addressing downsized housing and office demand accordingly.
Furthermore, infrastructure costs can be amortized more favorably than single function
buildings and when necessary cross subsidizing between uses is possible.

LARGE AND SMALL SCALED MIXED-USE: A COMPARISON

Though the benefits of developing mixed-use projects have proven their advan-
tage for large projects, many of the benefits have reduced applicability to the develop-
ment of the small mixed-use. Because the economies of scale are not achieved in smaller
projects the advantages of economic cross support, market diversification, integrated
mechanical systems, and the amortization of infrastructure costs are reduced proportion-
ately.

Nevertheless, an inducement to build small scaled mixed-use remains. Many

urban neighborhood sites cannot adequately support a density of housing as a single use
comparable to combined density of a commercial and residential mix. Moreover, the
"Mixed-use offers the promise of synergy - where one demand for commercial services is expanded with the creation of housing. Small mixed-
use type contributes economically to the support of use both creates and captures that demand. 0
another....the market support for one project compo-
nent can become the support for
another....Opportunities are created for cost sharing Another important consideration to the development of small mixed-use are the
of integrated mechanical systems, primary architec-
tural spaces, building finishes, and property manage- problems associated with multiple uses which are not offset by the large returns typical
ment." o of larger projects. The requirements for the separation of access, service, and mechanical
services not only creates a formidable task of fitting everything in, but often requires their
 15

duplication for each use. Whereas in a residential building one elevator core may be
required, in the mixed-use they must be provided separately for the office and residential
spaces. Small mixed-use projects must juggle these design constraints efficiently within
small sites and within small budgets. Inherent in the task of identifying the potential of
the small mixed-use is to determine whether or not the prototype is economically
feasible when lacking the benefits of the larger project context.

THE ORGANIZATION
The body of this thesis is divided into sections that correspond to three main
components examined: the question of community development and neighborhood
revitalization, how they influence the design of small mixed-use, and the financial
implications thereby created. Section 1 sorts through the maze of issues related to
community revitalization and relates them to the development of small mixed-use.
Section 2 demonstrates a design concept and outlines the issues that influenced it.
Section 3 examines and interprets the financial implications of cost and marketing
constraints and Section 4 takes a critical assessment of the small mixed-use prototype's
strengths and weaknesses identified in the proposed project scenario.

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Organized within an iterative process, the methodology for conducting the
inquiry entailed formulating a test project on a site located in Boston's Roxbury/South
End The site was chosen for its simulation of most of the typical locational conditions Ludwig Richter
"The Old Multiuse building combining the
for such a project. It is an assemblage of vacant lots and abandoned buildings in a workplace and living into one structure.
blighted urban renewal area of the city. The neighborhood is one of transition -bordered Zeidler, p.97.
on one side by a largely gentrified historical district and by a lower and middle class
black community on the other.

Urban design issues were overlaid onto the site context and alternative building
16

diagrams studied. A design concept was then developed with the aim of establishing a
sense of community both within the larger neighborhood and within the project
community itself. Available cost and market information maintained the direction of the
design formulation and programing within a practical context. In the end, an assessment
was made to understand the implications of findings and derive generalities with respect
to small mixed-use development.
 17

NOTES:

1. Eberhard H.Zeidler, Multi-Use Architecture in the Urban Context,

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York, 1983 , p. 97.

2. Michael P. Buckley, "Five Principales for Mixed-Use Planning," Council on

Urban Economics Development, February 1988.

3. Michael P. Buckley, "Urban Specialty Retail: Potentials and Limitations for

Supporting Real Estate Values," National League of Cities.
18

SECTION I:
COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
THROUGH REINVESTMENT
 19

Vacant lots and abandoned buildings are a commonplace phenomenon in urban "The psychological health of the city is as important

cityscapes. They are scars in a community, eyesores that fester and breed destruction, as Its economic health. Without a strong city self-
image, economic development rarely succeeds" (
refuges for garbage, stripped automobiles, and abandoned buildings. Rebuilding in
vacant lots and abandoned buildings removes the blight that plagues many inner city
communities. Renovation and new construction rejuvenates and may encourage
reinvestment by its current resident.

THE ARGUMENT FOR INCREASED INVESTMENT

Not only is the repair of the deteriorated physical streetscape an important first
step to neighborhood revitalization, but increased and directed reinvestment are also
critical factors to achieving that end. Outside investment is often needed to spur on the
revitalization process. Problematic in many poor communities is historical disinvest-
ment and abandonment, most frequently by absentee property owners - outside
investors. Ironically, those same communities, frequent targets for gentrification, are
too often the victims of the resultant displacement that follows increased investment
activities. Caught between the irresponsibility of neglect by outside investment on one
hand, and the over zealousness of its increased investment activity on the other, many
neighborhood advocates have fought to restrict the level of outside investment in their
neighborhoods altogether.

GENTRIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD UPGRADING

Amidst the controversy and debate surrounding the issues of neighborhood
revitalization and gentrification, the argument holds that substantive and desirable
neighborhood revitalization is attained when sustained and ongoing reinvestment is
achieved, i.e., when people buy into the future of the community by living and working
there, and when the benefits of appreciation are shared by the larger community. O
20

"gentritlcation is...the resettlement of professional
and upper middle class home owners In city
neighborhoods .... The 'gentry' create a neighborhood
ambience and a style that reflect upper middle class
tastes and values; their taste and values supplant those
of the lower-income population that dominated the
area before revitalization." (j
Gentrification is often characterized as the "invasion" of outsiders into a community.
Typical of the gentrification process is the total lack- of consideration for the
neighborhood's current residents. Hostilities often arise as the incumbent residents
attempt to thwart the effects of displacement. " (T)hose threatened with displacement
have begun to develop 'countermovements'in defense of their neighborhoods....in hope
of preserving their current life-styles and preventing 'elite' invasions and intrusions into
'their neighborhoods." (

Yet, invasion and conflict between classes and racial groups is not a necessary
part of the revitalization process. Gentrification and upgrading may coexist and often do.
Within upgrading neighborhoods it is possible for "spot gentrification" to occur.
Alternatively, in some gentrification neighborhoods, the fringes may be upgraded by the
incumbent residents.@ This proposal for the development of small mixed-use is
predicated on a balance between the influx of new residents and upgrading by
incumbents.

Where revitalization occurs through increased investment in stable but aging

moderate income or working poor neighborhoods, the incidence of displacement is less
extensive. Home ownership is an important factor. Incumbent residents who are
Homeownership "... may be the only way families will homeowners derive direct benefits from the increased value of their homes. "...Inspired
have a chance to save. Also, homeowners are more by the process going on around them, they (the incumbents) decide to stay in the
stable, more community-minded; the psychology of
the homeowner would be conducive to a more attrac-
neighborhood and fix-up their own homes..." OThe promotion of individual home
tive community for all, including renters, whether ownership opportunities plays a vital, albeit limited, role in community revitalization.
low-income or middle class...." ( Homeownership inspires loyalty, establishes a position of "turf control" for the resident,
and provides a mechanism for sharing the benefits of appreciation.
 21

Encouraging neighborhood revitalization through home ownership and local

business reinvestment is a strategy underlying the development of small mixed-use.
Actively seeking a means for providing commercial space to local businesses is another
positive response to mitigate the negative effects of gentrification. "' In mostcases,' 'the
gentrification of housing is accompanied by a collateral gentrification of local retail
areas whereby seedy or marginal stores give way to an assortment of more stylish es-
tablishments....." Furthermore, retail businesses are labor intensive. Mixed-use
development offers the development of jobs and the expansion of business opportuni-
ties.
ivyZ40
Lii a C-N
THE BENEFITS OF MIDDLE CLASS REINVESTMENT
The prospects for a combination of gentrification and neighborhood upgrading
within the context of small mixed-use development are likely for several reasons. To
the extent that the projects are attractive to minority upper middle class reinvestment,
many of the characteristics of gentrification become less emphasized. Typically the
minority investor will have personal ties to the community having either grown up there
or having extended family which continues to live there. Their contribution to increased
investment distills many of the negative attributes of taking over acommunity. Creating
attractive alternatives for moving back to "the old neighborhood" will find its appeal
in many within the minority middle-upper class. Too often life in the suburbs brings
with it feelings of alienation and isolation.

Reinvestment of the minority middle class in urban neighborhoods is just that

- reinvestment, and is not really outside investment. Increased investment of this
growing middle class benefits the larger community by vesting and realigning their
interests in them directly. "Giving back to the community" takes on real meaning by
being a part of it. Having a stake in its future, induces the funneling of new found
resources back into the community.9 Still, like their majority upper-middle class
 22
"Those who argue that the significance of gentrifi-
cation has been overstated are correct in asserting
that central cities and many older neighborhoods
continue to be threatened by abondonment and
decline." (D
Gateways offer "opportunities to reclaim, reinforce,
and enhance (a) neighborhood's image and that of the
entire community" 0
counterparts, considerations of the quality of investment, design, and amenities are im-
portant locational factors for both living and business.
As a practical matter, the influence of a single small scaled development on a
community's revitalization is limited at best. Though the project can act as a catalyst for
further development efforts, realistically, the first hurdle that it must cross over is
convincing its market of the mixed-use concept. Expanding the notion of measuring
appreciation beyond the narrow concept of financial return will aid in the task of
marketing the project to residents, tenants, and investors. The strength of the proposed
small mixed-use lies more in the benefits of living and working within it, than in
opportunism and quick financial return.
LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The locational considerations of developing in inner city neighborhoods bear
directly on the success of the project, both to the strength of attracting a market and to
the extent that the development contributes to the revitalization of the larger community.
Utilizing "gateways" to a neighborhood as targeted locations for revitalizing develop-
ment efforts is advantageous in two respects.
Gateways, as neighborhood edges located along major transportation routes, are
transition areas between neighborhoods and relatively speaking, provide strong loca-
tions for both commercial and residential uses. Gateways attract or discourage both
community residents and outsiders by determining its image. Pioneering development
in underutilized neighborhoods creates a more positive image for the community from
the outside'identifying gateway locations increases the likelihood for market attraction
and enhances overall character of the community.
 23

The following section explores the design strategies for reclaiming a specific
site, repairing the physical landscape and creating a fuctional and attractive integration
of commercial and residential uses. The aspects of urban design responsiveness and
the change to promote responsible and well intentioned community revitalization are
assimilated into the design process.

NOTES:

1. Michael P. Buckley, "Urban Specialty Retail: Potentials and Limitations for

Supporting Real Estate Values," National League of Cities.

2. Leo A. Lekai, "An Examination of Gentrification," Real Estate Finance Journal,

Spring 1988.

3. Michael H. Lang, Gentrification and Urban Decline: Strategies for America's

Older Cities. "Those low-income residents who are adversely affected simply do
not matter in the face of the overwhelming majority of the population that can be
said to benefit."

4. Phillip L. Clay, Neighborhood Renewal, Lexington Books - D.C. Heath and

Company, Lexington, Ma., 1979.

5. Leon A. Lekai, "An Examination of Gentrification," Real Estate Finance

Journal, Spring 1988.

6. Clay, ob.cit. p.6-7.

Incumbent upgrading is the physical change of an area with little or no social
change. Typically, upgrading occurs in stable middle class or working poor neigh-
24
I

7. Ibid.

8. Stewart E. Perry, Building a Model Black Community: The Roxbury Action

Program, Center for Community Economic Development, Cambridge, Ma., 1978
p. 3 1

9. Jeffrey R. Henig, Gentrification in Adams Morgan: Political and Commercial

Consequences of Neighborhood Change, G.W. Washington Studies, No. 9, 1982.

10. Clay, ob.cit.,

"Community improvements were made in virtually all gentrification areas. The
improvements vary, depending on the type of community and the city. Improve-
ments include the installation of gas lights and brick sidewalks, the planting of trees,
general clean-up and street resurfacing. The city is often responsible for some of
these changes, but the credit for initiating the efforts belongs to the
newcomers ....Neighborhood...organizations emerged as quickly as gentrification
took off and began to fulfill several functions: boosting the neighborhood, serving as
a gatekeeper along with or instead of realtors, sponsoring social activities, and
dealing with institutions and city governments for desired community improvements
and assistance."

11. Leon A. Lekai, "An Examination of Gentrification," Real Estate Finance Jour-
nal, Spring 1988.

12 Regional/Urban Design Assistance Teams, South End/Lower Roxbury, 9-12

May 1980, p. 39 .

13. Ibid.
25
26

SECTION II:
THE DESIGN PROPOSAL
 27

THE PROPOSED SITE

The location for the proposed project is an assemblage of several vacant lots in
the Roxbury\South End section of Boston, approximately two miles from the central
business district. A corner parcel located at the intersection of two major thoroughfares,
Massachusetts Avenue and Washington Streets, the site area of roughly one half acre
is situated between two disparate residential neighborhoods, and alongside a traditional
but largely abandoned commercial district. The current zoning is B-2, local
commercial and the allowable floor area ratio is two.

Massachusetts Avenue is a heavily travelled thoroughfare which carries traffic

across town from Dorchester to Cambridge, Mass. It also serves as a connector to
Interstate 93, located three blocks away from the site in the southeasterly direction.
Washington Street has historically been a major commercial corridor (in Roxbury and
the South End) and an important transportation spine connecting downtown Boston to
its southern suburbs.

The site was chosen because it serves as a transition into the Roxbury
community . It is a gateway between two highly contrasting neighborhoods. The South
End is a neighborhood, that has evolved from a 1800's "fashionable place to live" for
K1~'
Boston's upper society until the area lost favor to the nearby Back Bay and became a
rooming house district for immigrants during the turn of the century. During the 1940's,
50's and 60's, the neighborhood deteriorated into a blighted inner city slum whose poor
and minority residents endured the well intentioned but destructive efforts Urban
Renewal and finally fell victim to the displacement of gentrification. The South End
is now a largely affluent community enjoying the benefits of its close proximity to
downtown and its designation as an architectural historic district.
28

In contrast, Roxbury has remained a largely deteriorated community. Suffering

from the effects of disinvestment, the devalorized community was once a healthy
suburban community of Boston. In the wake of mounting community efforts to effect
community revitalization and physical upgrading, the site seemed an appropriate
location to test the small mixed-use prototype.

THE OVERLAYS - URBAN DESIGN

When considering the urban design aspects of the problem two major criteria
were considered important to the success of the project's goals:

1) Repairing the Torn Urban Fabric, and

2) Creating Physical Links to the Existing Context

Examining the existing neighborhood context revealed extensive broken

remnants of a formerly distinct block pattern - characterized by a grid of residential
streets and commercial thoroughfares. Typical of zoning patterns formulated during
the last decades commercial avenues were distinctly delineated from the residential
D=C3InT
1E streets. Alleys maintained a clean separation between the uses and provided access to
the backyards of the residential.

Several options were formulated as possible methods of mending the torn

streetscape consistent with those identified in the neighborhood context. Making
physical connections and relating directly to the existing fabric was the second criteria
for the design of the project - a "neighborhood outreach." In so far as the project was
able to weave itself into the existing fabric , it became stronger. It furthered the aim of
creating neighborhood cohesion.
 29

Unfortunately marketing problems are anticipated by connecting the shared

ED -
green space to the yards of the neighboring residents. Issues of security and the
problems of neighboring eyesores could potentially detract from the efforts to create
strength and marketability for the project. The problem of sensitively addressing the
neighborhood context is a problem which faces new development within an inner city
context. Imaginative site design will in most cases render workable solutions that
resolve the conflict. Devising such solutions is critical to the long term value of the area.
Additionally, the project's tenants, desire to "fit in" to the surrounding context and not
be identified as disruptive and dissimilar to their neighbors.

Option C was chosen for its ability to not only complete the block form but to
tie the block together around the collection of backyard spaces. The design objective
of the project was to test the limit to which its presence could benefit the immediate
community. In their current state, the individual backyard spaces were vastly
underutilized . Option C provided the impetus for not recreating them in the proposed
project.

Similarly, it became apparent that collectively the rear spaces could provide a
much greater amenity, not only to the residences of the mixed-use, but to the block as
a whole. Pleasant outdoor spaces are a premium in most urban areas. Enhancing the
quality of outdoor space was linked as a parallel goal within the objective of repairing
the built space. The design sought to create a visual connection between the individual
yards connected along a spinal path. Special design emphasis would be placed at the
culmination of the path with a large outdoor space provided within the court of the
mixed-use project.
"What goes on in neighborhood s affects basic dy-
namics and attitudes, rendering substantial
changes in a neighborhood possible. This process
can create new equilibrium even in areas where
large, well-financed, and well-orchestrated inter-
ventions have been unable to stimulate change in
the past....". D
30

Project Context
 ... ...||....
!..!.
I7ik7177g i.

z
 V
0
to
rm
-
C
I~I ~I I 111
I
r.
0
NOW:
................
.i
.I
Li
. . . ........
Cu
K-
 33

Solutions for Re-Establishing the Block Pattern

NMI*

L.~ .L J
...

Option A: Replacement Option B: Single - Use Tower Option C: Interior Court

34

The Overlay - Creating Community

Much of neighborhood revitalization depends on the level of commitment to and
satisfaction with the neighborhood by its incumbent residents and residents to be. Pivital
to the success of the project is the marketability of the housing which is dependent upon
the total concept for the project as a whole. The successful small mixed-use must
neccessarily offer an appealing concept and image for living and working and meet the
functional requirements of its different uses.

According to Peggy Wireman, the author of Urban Neighborhoods, Networks,

and Families, commitment and satisfaction to one's neighborhood are determined by
several factors. G
(ED, 1) The condition of the social fabric, ie., the relationships between residents in
the neighborhood;
2) Neighborhood and housing conditions;
3) The perception of/sense of community which effects the levels of loyalty and
emotional commitment;
4) Identity and image;
5) The incidence of home ownership which correlates to the resident's desire to
improve and maintain the community's condition.

In recognition of these identified factors: social fabric, housing conditions, sense

of community, identity, and home ownership; the design of the mixed-use project
attempts to integrate these important elements and provide a framework for their
continued sustenance. The establishment of shared spaces and community facilities
balanced with the provision of private territory provide the framework for a positive
social fabric. The size of the project, fifteen to twenty units, strives to create a scale that
relates individuals to one another as neighbors who can identify one another as belong-
 35

ing to the same community. Attention to the design/articulation of the building(s) and
unit sizes support the establishment of individual identity - of the home, and of the
project community.
Responding to two levels of community governed the design of the project. The
The "extension of the privately controlled domain of
the tenants to their doorstep, window sill, or small yard
gives Increased opportunities for personalization
and....create pride in one's home and can be extended to
a sense of belonging and community." (

first level of community was derived from within the project while the second extended
to the level of the block. Enhancing the sense of community within the project offered
obvious benefits - a sense of security and belongingness. Aligning the internal
community of the project with a larger, external community would potentially further
the aim of community development and neighborhood cohesion.

Typically one's identity of community is limited to and is strongest within a

localized area -the block on which one lives. Many examples can be found in the models
of neighborhood associations which are often organized around one to two block
intervals. The design of the larger outdoor space would not in and of itself guarantee
the creation of a social community between the new residents and the existing. Yet, it
could provide a catalyst for the clean up for the adjacent backyards as well the creation
of an block organization to control and maintain the common space between them. Over
time relationships based on cooperation, mutual interests and efforts can foster a united
community.

THE MARKETING OVERLAY: TENANT PROFILES AND THEIR NEEDS

In addition to the urban design and community development objectives, prag-
matic marketing considerations were significant influences to understanding the design
requirements for the project. The marketplace was identified and their locational
criteria outlined for each use.
36

Residential

* middle to upper income

* small families, singles, empty-nesters

The residential component of the small mixed-use caters to a broad cross section
of the population. Principally the appeal is strongest in the young and affluent segment
of the market. Between the ages of 25 to 40, they are an expanding market of the upper
middle class minority population. They have the option of living in the suburbs and are
attracted to the conveniences of living in the city. Typically, they desire to live close to
work, may operate their own small business or professional service, or may be thinking
of doing so in the near future. They are attracted to the idea of living in a "neighborhood"
- like where they grew up, and where a sense of community and identity is apparent.

Having available income to invest, they are attracted to the opportunities of

buying their own place to live. Yet they insist on a quality and exciting environment and
seek to avoid the maintenance of a single family home. Whether they are a single female
living alone, or a married couple security is an important consideration particularly as
it relates to travelling home from work late at night, and the safety of children playing
outside.0

Another potential market base is the empty nester seeking urban living with low
maintenance and high security. As life long residents of the city, this segment is wary
of large apartments and condominium buildings and relocation to the suburbs. Supple-
mentary to the desire to attract the middle income it is hoped that several below market
units can be provided, particularly to the elderly or single parent family. Integrating
incomes within a small residential project is often difficult but not impossible. Attaining
diversity within the housing component establishes a balanced community. Further-
 37

more, ages spanning the range from child to mature adult within a neighborhood offer
stability, provide role models and resources for the young and inspiration for the older
adult.

Office

* small professional service companies

* shared office space for small start-up businesses
* HMO

Small professional offices, particularly those with local clientele, are ideal for
tenants to occupy the office space within the project. Their space requirements are such
that the class B space will adequately meet their functional business requirements. If
possible, leasing a portion of the space through a shared office tenant is desirable method
of providing incubator space to start-up companies. It is one which emphasizes the
increased utility of shared amenities and services.

A Health Maintenance Organization is targeted as the principal large tenant. Its

presence within the project would not only add stability to the revenue generated from
the building, but would make accessible quality medical service and benefit the larger
community.
38
"It is well recognized that urban retail provides an
additional level of security. The 'eyes on the street'
experience of many commercial areas is In fact a very
old and well established phenomenon. You can count
on commercial tenants to police the sidewalk in front
of their shop better than anyone else."@
Retail
convenience/drug store
sit-down restaurant
deli/ice cream
local cleaner/shoe repair
local clothing retailer
furniture store
music/video store
copy store
bookstore/office supply/card store
beauty/barber shop
art gallery
dance studio
The careful selection of neighborhood convenience retailers in the ground floor
space can enhance the value of both the residential and office components of the project.
Their presence not only offers convenience to the residents and tenants within the mixed-
use, but to the surrounding community. Additionally, ground floor retail enlivens the
streetscape environment. Community or cultural related tenants, as a local art gallery,
will bring amenities into the community by providing them sought after spaces.
Market support will be derived from the nearby community and, with the given
density, is sufficient to insure the profitable operation of the retail component. The
design of the retail, the use of signage and lighting, will add a heightened identity for the
individual retailers, as well as increased security. Packaging an appropriate selection of
one or more attractive retail uses (restaurant), may create a community destination
center, analogous to the concept of specialty retail.
 39

DAYCARE
Providing daycare within the project addresses an important need for the
targeted residential and office markets as well as the community outside. Additionally,
the inclusion of daycare space relates back to and reinforces the sense of community.
Daycare can be run as family care by a resident living in the adjacent unit to the allocated
space. Alternatively, the residential and commercial tenants may organize with other
community residents and operate the daycare as a cooperative whereby parents succes-
sively spend half days with their children in school.

THE PROPOSED PROGRAM

Section of Parisian walk-up apartment
The proposed program entails the new construction of 72,000 gsf on a 21,927 Zeidler, p.12
square foot parcel. The distribution of residential, office, retail, and daycare in the
following leaseable square footages.

Retail 9,400

Office 19,788

Residential 23,351 townhouse units

12 penthouse units
Daycare 7

Parking 1,800 (28 stalls)

One level of underground parking was included to preserve the quality and use
of the outdoor space. It was determined that the zoning requirement for parking was
impractical and outdated, with respect to both the commercial and residential uses. A
40

zoning variance will be needed. For marketing and functional reasons, the program pro-
portions a higher parking ratio (1 car/unit versus the zoned .7/unit) than presently
required. Conversely, parking provided for the commercial uses is less than the
mandated amount.

The rationale behind the decision to alter the parking ratios was based on the
notion that both the retail and office uses demand little or no actual parking because of
the pedestrian nature of the localized trade area. It can be reasonably argued that the
provided parking will adequately meet the needs of the commercial tenants themselves,
and that the available parking on the street will meet the demand from the commercial
clientele. A higher ratio of parking to residential units is more suitable and attractive to
the targeted market. Additionally, a portion of the parking spaces can be shared between
the commercial tenants, who require daytime use, and the residential tenants, who largely
require nighttime and weekend parking.

The central open space provided in the building design is the crux of the project
concept. The 8,000 available square footage exceeds the required 150 square feet per
unit mandated by the zoning. Supplementary to the ground plane open area is the
inclusion of private decks for the residential. Provisions were made to utilized the deck
created by the access to the underground garage as a terrace for commercial use (outdoor
eating for a restaurant) along the Mass. Ave. edge ,and a patio area for the internal court.

While the inclusion of the court area may act as a catalyst for the revitalization
of the adjacent backyards in the block, the success of the quality of the space within the
project is not dependent upon the fulfillment of that goal. If necessary, the property line
of the site can be screened by planting in a manner that further enhances the quality of
the outdoor area.
 41

THE LOCATION OF USES ON THE SITE

Washington Street was identified as the most appropriate retail location, in part
because of the frontage it afforded (180 linear ft) and because of its tradition as a of retail
corridor. West Springfield was clearly the primary residential identity and was
determined as the most appropriate location for the main entrance to the residential
above the commercial. Additionally, because the block along that street edge was
foreshortened by the destruction of the townhouse pattern, the decision was made to
locate the entrance of the parking along Massachusetts Avenue.

Subsequently, Massachusetts Avenue was chosen as a suitable identity for the

office component of the project, the entrance of which was located adjacent to the garage
entrance. By and large the office was the least sensitive of the three uses to location on
the site. Nevertheless an attractive image is required to attain market appeal to the
location. The line of the opening to the garage was pulled back from the street so as not
to detract from either the office entrance or the neighboring residential. Additional
townhouses were continued along Massachusetts Ave.to complete the line of existing
housing on the block. Similar to the traditional use of alleys separated the residential
from the commercial, the garage entrance achieved the same function. Onan roan)

Through the clear separation of entrances for each use, well established and
distinct identities could be constructed. Market appeal would then be further enhanced
for each use. The office component of the project would exhibit the quality of an office
building for its tenants. Likewise the residential component maintained the identity of
a residential building and the retail, unhindered by breaks in its facade, would read as
a cohesive commercial strip.
42

THE LOCATION OF USES WITHIN THE BUILDING

The functional requirement of retail limited its location within the first two levels
of the building. The need for easy pedestrian accessibility and visibility necessitated the
designation of the ground floor area for retail.
In contrast, the private and territorial nature of residential space makes higher
demands for levels above the ground floor plane. Depending on the quality of views
attainable, generally, residential increases its bid as its height in the building increases
provided that elevator service is available. Thus housing units were place at the upper
WrA-
PFFIct portion of the building along Washington Street, at heights exceeding the adjacent
. OFricr townhouses along West Springfield Street and Massachusetts Avenue.

The additional height not only created added value to the housing (views were
created to downtown Boston, the Christian Science Center, John Hancock building, as
well as other notable buildings along the Boylston Street retail district) but also
reinforced the taller street edge along Washington Street. The location of the units along
the southeasterly edge of the site gave opportunities for quality light and ventilation.

Continuing the townhouse configuration for the remainder of the residential

cNVVW raised the first level of housing one half level, along West Springfield Street, and one full
level, along Massachusetts Avenue, above grade. Daycare was placed at the ground floor
at Mass Ave because of its requirement for direct outdoor access and to make it more
easily identifiable to the larger community.

The office component of the program was relatively insensitive to its location
within the building, as compared to the other uses. Accordingly, the office space was
used as served as a buffer which neutralized the potential conflict between the retail and
residential uses.
 43

CIRCULATION AND ACCESS

Reasonable efforts were made to simplify the circulation for each use so as to
maintain reasonable efficiencies within the building. Notwithstanding the requirement
to maximize rentable floor area, the design remained sensitive to need for interesting
circulation corridors. When possible, the circulation was moved to the outside edge of
the building and related to directly to the experience of the courtyard area. Addition-
ally, direct access from each use to the parking and service area was identified as
necessary functional requirement.

Direct physical access to the court area was limited to the residential compo-
nents, including both the penthouse units above the commercial spaces and the
townhouse units. Residential tenants were provided access directly from their units as
well as from the street through the main residential entrance. Access to the court area
by residents from the remainder of the block is possible along the existing path and
would be secured at either end with a locked gate.

The resulting design of the project illustrates that it is possible to achieve an

integration of multiple uses on a small urban site. Moreover, with skilled and artful
design and development, the resulting architecture can be quite startling. Each space
within the design can offer the appropriate identity, functional and aesthetic space for
its different functions and individual occupants to utilize and enjoy. The small mixed-
use can provide well serving incubators for small communities, both within the project
and for the immediate community at large.

NOTES:

1. Phillip L. Clay, Neighborhood Renewal, Lexington Books - D.C. Heath and

Company, Lexington, Ma., 1979, p. 6 .
44

2. Peggy Wireman, Urban Neighborhoods. Networks, and Families, Lexington

Books - D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Ma. , 1984, p. 42.

3. Joan Goody and John Clancy, "Need for Variety and Personalization," Essays on Social
Housing, Progressive Architecture, July, 1984.

4. Clay, ob.cit.
"The revival of middle-class interest in the city as a place to live has been attributed
to a major reversal in the attitudes and values of young people. Observers point to
youth's great interest in self-actualization and their even greater desire to express their
life-style in their consumer choices, including housing, sugges that young professional
consumers seek the most in custom for their dollars.... four primary factors may help
explain the demonstrated willingness and desire of young consumers to buy and
renovate older houses in the city: 1) the diversity of the city, 2) its convenience for
those working in the city, 3) its position as the center of adult-oriented activities, such
as theaters, restaurants, and sports events, and 4) the opportunities it offers for good,
even stylish, housing at bargain prices."

5. Michael P. Buckley, "Urban Speciality Retail: Potentials and Limitations for

Supporting Real Estate Values," National League of Cities.
45
46

CHART A
MIXING USES WITHIN A SINGLE BUILDING:
FUNCTIONAL ISSUES
 47

Concerns from the Residential Perspective How to mitigate

* The existence of commercial uses below and immediately
along side the housing brings up issues of smells and noise from
the operations of those businesses, from people who tend to
congregate/loiter outside. Noise pollution relates to the possible
problem of security of entrances and open spaces (both shared
ground space and decks) and parking.
* Disallow commercial uses that usually attract loitering teen-
agers or others (video arcades, pizza joints, liquor stores, record
stores, fast food establishments, 24 hr convenience stores)
Isolate noisy/smelly businesses away from residential as much
as possible. Isolate/protect residential entrances from commer-
cial areas as well as residential openspaces/decks and parking.

* The existence of noisy neighbors, because of the close prox- * Adequate attention to soundproofing within the units and
imity of living may be a problem. Noise levels may be in- between them. Use sound absorbing materials in the interior
creased because of the central outdoor space. court as much as possible.

* The creation of a central open area (internal park) frames the

design potential for residents to bring their cars to the building
entrance(s) for short term drop-off and pick-up. The green
space gives residents a place to let their children play outdoors
under the supervision of the parent in the unit nearby, and/or
the community at-large. The open space can be easily "policed"
by the residents. Daycare within the building eases the parents'
task of dropping off/picking up their children when going to
and from work. On the other hand, the large open space allows
little/no outdoor privacy for individual residents.
48
* Garbage maintenance is a problem, more so than in other
buildings because of the establishment of the interior park
(the building has two "frontyards"). Additionally, should
some residents fail to adequately maintain their own open
space areas as well as the public spaces, everyone suffers.
* Formulate a resident run management organization (a "coopera-
tive" between the condominium and retailers/office associations)
to further the development objective of creating and fostering a
sense of community within the residents and encouraging long
term investment in the building (and therefore, in the larger com-
munity).
 49

Concerns from the Commercial Tenant Perspective

* Office tenants may find themselves uncomfortably located * Provide adequate ventilation systems.
above smelly retailers. On the other hand they may enjoy
having quick access to lunch, as well as the serenity of looking
out into the interior park and underground parking with direct
elevator access, not to mention the convenience of working
close to home.

* Shared office spaces lower the effective costs to the office * Minimized common spaces (through efficient planning)
tenants. reduces overall maintenance costs while providing for attrac-
tively designed and usable public areas (higher per square foot
expenditures).

* Retailers are forced to service their stores from the front. * Shelter and isolate garbage collection areas from the
Garbage disposal and maintenance may be awkward and hard to open space.
conceal from the other uses.
50

CHART B
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR
THE SMALL MIXED-USE
 51

Repairing/Mending the Tom Urban Fabric

* Filling in the missing teeth - replacing abandoned buildings
* Completing the block prototype - building on vacant sites

Making the Sum Greater than the Parts

* Aggregating small, individual outdoor spaces to provide a large green
space - connected to and including the neighboring residents
* Creating economies of scale - for underground parking

Creating a Community Within the Project

* Sharing spaces, interior and exterior, when possible
* Orienting residential and commercial spaces toward them - to claim as
part of their territory, to police

Providing the functions of Neighborhood

* Spatial and Personal Identification
* Security and attractive, safe places for children to grow up.

Creating a Community With the Immediate Neighborhood

* Physically connecting/relating to the existing surrounding uses to enhance
their value - a kind of urban outreach
* Connecting the shared green space to the yards of the neighboring
residents
52

CHART C
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE AND
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
 53

RESIDENTIAL

Quality of Construction and Design

* Insulation from noise between units, and within the unit
* Level of craftsmanship in the details

Privacy
* From neighbors - hearing and seeing them
* Within the unit - from the kids and noisy activities within the apartment.

Management and Upkeep

* Overall appearance of the units from outside
* The attentiveness of neighbors to maintain the appearance of the building
and the outdoor spaces - the general belief is that renters lack the appropriate
attentiveness.

Sense of Open Space

* What people can see from their windows - it relieves the enclosed feelings
of the density of the housing

The Size of the Development

* It's much easier to create a good small high density project than to create a
large one. One important factor affecting the resident's perception is how many
and how often he/she sees the other residents at one time. Another factor is to
what extent individual residents recognize the other residents in the project.
54

Security
* Of the individual units from burglary, the entrance from loiterers, the
parking area from vandals, the open space area from all criminal elements.

Parking
* Security from vandals, weather, and movement to and from the parking
area.

OFFICE

Competitive and Reasonable Rent Levels

Quality of Design and Space Flexibility

* For the arrangement/rearrangement of workers' spaces and offices.
* Expansion/Contraction possibilities
* Pleasant and supportive environment

Operating Expenses
* Efficient HVAC systems
* Minimize heating and cooling costs

Location
* Accessibility and image for and to customers, clients, patients, etc.
* Proximity to public transportation and highways
 55

RETAIL

Demographics
* Spendable dollars available within the trade area - breadth and depth of the
market

Location and Visibility

* Traffic counts
* Visibility from the street from both cars and pedestrians The store must be
accessible - convenient to get to.
* Stores like to be near other stores (depending on the type of retailer they
are).

Window Frontage and Signage

* 12, 15 to 20 feet is generally adequate for the mid-sized retailer.
* Signage should be highly visible and appealing

Store Depth
* 50 - 60 feet is typical - allows for store service area and storage.

Common Area Expenses

* Common areas should be minimized or utilized so as to promote increased
sales for the retailers.
56

DESIGN SCHEMATIC
57
58

Basement Plan
 59

Ground Floor Plan

60

Office Plan

[[ L

f -

0 g

U U U g

B a m g g
 61

Penthouse Floor Plan

62

Section Looking South

 63

Section Looking North

64

SECTION III:
THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
 65

THE ASSESSMENT

Pro forma analysis indicates that the proposed scenario for the small mixed-use
has economic potential but that substantial examination of its components is necessary
to make the prototype truly viable. Admittedly the decision to develop the project within
marginal locations sets up a difficult hurdle to test the strength of the prototype. Yet,
in spite of the relatively high revenues projected and one year absorption the ten year
holding period for the project is forecasted to be lean. It is envisioned that the
development will increase the land value in the immediate area and act as a stimulus for
increased investment. Nevertheless, the extent to which the project proves viable
depends almost entirely on the the anticipated long term appreciation (future capital
gain) of the development.

With a zoned FAR of 2, the project does not support itself. At FAR 3, the
numbers begin to offer returns worth examining further, provided that the residential
component is sold as market rate condominiums. Even then the project remains a
"skinny deal." Up-front equity requirements are high (in excess of a half of a million
dollars) and result from the limitations imposed by financing the development soft costs
and land acquisition (see exhibit 2).

The construction debt is limited by the amount of the permanent or takeout loan
which in turn is a function of the lender's debt coverage ratio (DCR). In considering
the project risks a DCR of 1.18 was used in the pro forma. The project exhibits a return
on cost of ten percent during the first four years. 0 Lenders in the Boston area report
that most single use properties return eighteen percent. ® Assuming a five percent
inflation rate, modest cash flows are spun off through out the entire ten year holding
period. (see exhibits 3 and 4)
66

Based on the market assumptions residential condominium provides the greatest

return to the project. Current market value of the condo units targets the project to upper
income levels exclusively. 1400 sf units selling for $190/sf require an annual household
income of approximately $85,004? The attempt to provide larger units is constrained
by the upper middle class market's ability to afford the unit and is reflected in the design.

The project exhibits less strength as rental housing. Despite secondary financing
at the project's onset, returns in the rental scenario remain below 11% (IRR) and 8%as
a return on cost. (see exhibit 7). Unless the project utilizes available housing subsidies
the units, if made rental, will necessarily and exclusively be marketed to upper income
levels. A rental scenario is least desirable in this project not only because of the
unattractive returns it offers but also because it is inconsistent with the assumption that
homeownership opportunities are better for the project and the efforts toward community
revitalization.

THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE RISKS

Any of the given assumptions for the project are subject to error in estimation.
Yet, most pose no more difficulty of prediction than in most development projects. All
the assumptions made were relatively modest. (see exhibit 5) Within the given range
of market and cost information obtained, the more conservative number was used. The
pro forma is very sensitive to assumptions about lease-up and sales rates. Small changes
in these assumptions greatly influence the financial return. Given the unusual nature of
the project and the fickleness of the residential marketin this location, a strong marketing
and leasing program are essential. the major risks in this deal relate to marketing and
lease-up.

Construction costs were based on available estimates for Boston. The numbers
assumed no unusual site conditions and accounted for a sufficient budget to afford
 67

innovative architectural design and quality construction given the need for attractive
housing and efficient coordination of mechanical and fire safety systems. The costs of
one level of underground parking were also included. (see exhibit 6)

Comparables on the revenues were difficult to ascertain for assessing appropri-

ate market rates for this project. Pioneering projects are plagued with this difficulty and
as such, similar difficulties will be confronted by projects in similarly underutilized
locations. Current depressed neighboring rates were inappropriate for the proposed
development. On the other hand they could not be completely dismissed. To the extent
that current commercial spaces were renting well below the proforma projection of $18/
sf, a substantial increase of sales revenues had to be justified by the commercial tenant
to relocate into new space. A sustainable argument for commercial relocation would
in most instances be easy to make, yet would be limited by the tenants' own estimation
and available capital.

Maintaining local businesses through relocation works as an objective consis-

tent with the efforts toward community revitalization only in so far as doing so could
be justified financially. By and large, "outside" commercial tenants would lease the
commercial space in the project. Attracting new commercial tenants into the area
would require rent levels less than those quoted in stronger, proven locations. Accord-
ingly, conservative rent estimates were made while striving not to undercut the potential
revenue stream.

FURTHER ANALYSIS
Several alternative strategies and possible adjustments to the proposed scenario
were briefly examined to strengthen the viability of the project.
68

Creating Office Condominiums

Creating condominiums in the office space theoretically shifts the difficulty of
obtaining permanent financing on the commercial space. In reality, most businesses will
be dissuaded by the financial commitment of purchasing their commercial space.
Additionally, the potential sales will be limited to the financial strength of the companies,
most of which will be small or start-up. The implications are that the available market
will be reduced substantially (fewer tenants will qualify for financing). Even if
acceptable sales levels could be achieved, long term appreciation benefits would be lost.

Increasing the FAR

Adding one to two more floors in the project will increase the net leasable area
of either office or residential . The per square foot costs of the additional floor area will
be less than the proposed area provided that the total building height remains under
seventy feet. G

Increasing the Density of Housing

Providing additional penthouses on the fourth and fifth floors in a double loaded
corridor scheme creates smaller units, more of them and a higher per square foot sales
revenue. Smaller units may be more marketable if, on a per unit basis, they are less
expensive. Twenty units at 990 sf will sell at $188,100/unit ($190/sf) and requires an
annual household income of roughly $60,0000 The current scenario assumes seven
penthouse units at 1400 sf. At the smaller unit size the projected $190/sf sales rate
becomes more reliable, the assumed absorption period of one year more probable.
Additionally, more units reduces the per unit cost of providing an elevator as well as
reducing the owner maintenance costs.
 69

Subsidizing the Land Costs

Acquiring the land at nominal or no cost reduces the equity requirement and
enhances the project return . Without acquisi tion costs, the rental scenario equity
requirement drops 8 % from$1.9 to $1.7 million. Similarly, the condominium equity
requirement falls 4% from $683,000 to $653,000. Project internal rate of returns
increase from 11% and 18% to 13% and 23% respectively.

Obtaining vacant properties held by local agencies is possible in many city

neighborhoods. If so, the inclusion of a specific number of subsidized housing units may
be required in exchange. Alternatively, obtaining land control as a partnership interest
contribution in exchange for a stated return at project completion or ongoing ownership
interest in the property may have its advantages.

Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is a possible alternative for the project provided that subject
buildings can be acquired at minimal cost -completely gutting the building is in almost
every case a requirement. Design costs as well as budgeted contingencies for
construction will be increased. Additionally, underground parking, unless already
provided in the existing building, will be impractical.

Nevertheless, some available sites will have an existing structure that may be
worth preserving and incorporating into the new construction. In some cases it may be
possible to preserve the exterior (front facade) of the existing building when it would
be architecturally aesthetic and beneficial from a marketing standpoint to do so. Facade
preservation is expensive and may be appropriate only in locations where market
demand is strong. Facade preservation, of a notable church or schoolhouse, may,
however, reinforce the positive images (and institutions) of a community and can be
rationalized from that perspective.
70

Summary
As shown, in depth analysis of the outlined alternatives as well as others is
required to completely understand the full financial picture of the small mixed-use.
Making the prototype viable is possible through either an increase in revenues or by
reducing the cost of the development. For increasing project revenues augmenting
project density is the most prudent solution. Inflating market assumptions on revenue
streams only compromises the project's market attractiveness. On the other hand,
increasing the density too far endangers the aim of creating a viable community within
the residential component.

Development cost reducing measures exist in land subsidies and property tax
abatements. Mortgage interest rate subsidies, investment tax credits and other strategies
are available instruments which may increase the likelihood of a successful mixed-use
project. Additionally, raising capital through syndication may prove feasible. An
analysis of these and the after tax benefits will be a decisive factor in the final
determination of the project's true economic strength.

Notes
1. In the rental scenario the return on cost is calculated a t 8%during the first stabilized
year.

2. Some lenders may be willing to accept a higher risk because of the community
revitalization objectives of the project.

3. Assuming 90% financing at 10% interest, 30 yr. fixed, and mortgage payments at 30%
of gross income.
 71

4. "Outside" is interpreted to mean new business and/or local businesses from other
parts of the city. Further analysis may reveal methods fro subsidizing or "incubating"
marginal businesses through coordinated support systems of business associations and
the like.

5.Building heights beyond seventy feetrequire increasedconstruction expenditures for

the inclusion of automatic fire suppression equipment.

6. $60,000 annual income is calculated based on 90% financing, 10% fixed rate
amortized over 30 years and assumes a maximum mortgage payment at 30% of gross
income.
72

Exhibits
 73

THE DEVELOPMENT

Site Area
sf : 21 , 927
acres: 0.50

2on i rig 8-2

Floor Area Ratio CFAR) 2.8

Existing Structures (CGSF) 6, 400

Total New Building GLA 60,139

Total New Building GFA 61,320

Parking Area Provided 10,800

# st alls 29
Parking Required per zoning
Comm.mercial 39
Residential 13

THE DESIGN SCHEME

CGLA) (GFA)

Building Footprint 13,686 62%

Open Space 8, 2-11 38W-4

EF:FF IC I ENCY
ALLOCATION OF USES RATIOS

Retail 9,100 100%

Of f ice 19,7 88 23,280 33%,

Residontial 23, 351 26, 840 39%-.

12 TH units
? PH units

1,1800 1 , 800 1007

Park i ng
29 sta l1l:s 5,800 10 , 800

TOT AL BUILDING 60, 139 72, 1.20

exhibit 1
74

FINANCIAL SUMMARiY

Rental. Condom i ni um

N^s--elopmenit Cost-. s $6, a37 -49.,2 $6,837K, 4192

Amount F i nanced
F irst Mortgage 4 , 6.97"-, 05S1 2, 693. 993
Second MortgagQ 700 , 000 0

Rof inanci AMount 5, 271, 357 0

Year of Refirance 6

Ns;t Proceeds of Condo

Sales (with parking) 0 3,692,987

Projectr Value Sale 8,612, 061 5,352, 342

Cap Rate 10% 10%

Not.+- Proceeds C] Sal e 5, 281 ,?I1 2,898, 649

Equity Required 1, 872, 205 683, 749

NPV Cash Flow 243, 832 613, 359

I RR 11% 18%
Return on Project Cost
Cztabi l ized yaar ) 8% 10i

exhibit 2
 75

LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS (GLA)

ANNUAL INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS LEASING EXPENSES

Retail Rents 5P
Ofmierc. L. r . I.
Office Rents 5
Residential Rents 7% Res ide'ntial / 1 g..r P
Condominimum Sales OFF i c: Rol] lover/GLAH P $10.00
5%
Parking Rents 5I
Operating Expenses 5%

Lease Rollover Rate

Retai1 301% OPERATING E:-'.PENSE
Office 501%
Resident ial Com..mffielrc i a 1 Rsi donnt-i a l.
R.E. Ta:s. 1.70 1..70
I nsi:5uranc:-e 0.8-4 0.814
Cap Rate 1%0%
Discount Rate 1% o. 00
Retai1l 0.85
Absorption Rate 50%
Off i.: 0.85 0.00
P.iei-s i d n t i a I 0. 00 0. 10
~.
Daycare 0. 10
CONSTRUCTION COSTS Ma inten-.ance/Repa ir !r 0.42 Q. 42
Replacemntt Reserve 0. 14 2. 80
Shell Finish Adm i n i strat i .. 0 1 0.014

Retail 60.00 15.00 TOTAL OPER AT I NG EXPENS.-ES $1.91 $5. 90

Office 60.00 20.00
Residential 60.00 30.00
Daycare 60.00 10.00

REVENUES

(rate) CGLA) (total)

Retail (triple net) 18.00 9,'400 169,200

Office gross
w/4.8'4 stop) 17.50 19,788 3A6,290
Residential
Rental 17.00 23,351 396,9641
Condominiums 190.00 23,351 4, 436, 652
Other - Day/eldercare 8.00 1,800 1.,1400

Parking/stall
Rental 720.00 29 20,880
Condominium 20,000.00 15 300,000
Condo/Lease 720.00 114 10,080 exhibit 3
76

I
DEVELOPMENT COST BUDGET' Percentages

ACQUISITION
Land per acre 0
$ 100, 000 $50, 407 0. 7?4%
Eluildinag /sf G
$10. 00 256,000 3. 71~
TOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS $306, 4-0? '1.18~
HARD COSTS .G FA)
Demo li t ion 0
$7.50 48,000 0.70O
Construc t ion
Retail 705,000 10. 31%;-
Office 1,792,560 26. 22%
Residertial 2,310,92-4 33. 80%
Daycare 126,000 1.04%
Landscaping 3
$10.00 329.610 '1.62%
Underground Parking @
$25 270,000 3. 95%
TOTAL HARD COSTS $5,582,121 81.64
SOFT COSTS
Arch and Eng 0
6% 334, 927 A. 90%
Legal and Acc't I
Permits I
Insurance I
R.E. Taxes I
2. 45%
Development Fee
(incl marketing/leasing)
8 1-16, 570 6. 53%

TOTAL SOFT COSTS $918,961 13.88%

DEVELOPMENT COSTS $6,837,492 100. O0P

EALL FIGURES REPRESENT 1988 VALUES]

exhibit 4
 77

FINANCING ASSLIMPTIONS

CONSTRUCT ION LOAN

Annual lInteo-rst rate 11.00%

Point.: 2. 00%
Term C'.month-s)
Const-ruct.ion Perriod 15
Condo Absorption Pe.riod
Amort i zat i on Intrst Only
Avg amount outst.anding 50
RENTAL CONDO
L1vr 1opment Cost $6, H-37, 192 -
x LTV 0 80. 0 90. 001%

Cal.1cult~Construction Principal $5,A69,,4 X $6, 15a, ?3

Calo.cula ted Construction Pe-riod Loan Cost. ,185, 462 546, 115
Calcula;ted Construction Loan Amount $5,,955, 156 $6,699, 887
Actua l Contruct i on Loan Amount. $5, 9?,051 )'- $6, 699,887
Act.ual Construction Principal 4,,965,287

Absorption Period Inte.rest 195,881

Urf i nanced Dve l opment Costs $1, 872., 205 $683,'7-19

x The actua1 loan is the sm 1allcr amount be'twero calculate-d

permanent financing ard LTV of dv.elopment ocsts.

PERMANENT FINANCING - RENTAL

PERMANENT FINANCING - CONDOMINIUM

Construction Loan Amount $6,699,887

First Second Refinanced
Loan Amount Net Proceeds from Condo Sales
$4,697.0 51 $700,000 $5,271,357
Debt Service Units (3.992,987)
$498.2 60 $86,901 $606,336
Interest Rate Parking (300,0003)
10. 00% 12.00% 11.00OO
Points 2. 00% 2.00; 2.OO
Term 10 5 10
Amortization Loan Amount $2, 693,993
30 0 30
DCR Debt Service $285, 777
1 . 18 1.00 1.15 Interest Rate 10. 00%
Points 200%
Term 10
Amortization 30
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.18

exhibit 5
78

10 YEAR PRO FORMA

RENTAL SCENARIO

YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11

Grosz Income
Retail 0 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 215,947 215,947 215.947 215,947 215,947 275,609
Office 0 346,290 346,290 346,290 346,290 346.290 441,964 411,964 441,964 411,961 411,964 564,070
Residential 0 396,964 424,751 454,484 486,297 520,338 556.762 595,735 637,437 682,05? 729,901 780,88?
Daycare, 0 11,400 14,400 14.400 14,400 14,400 18,378 18.378 18.378 18,378 18,370 23,456

Total base Revenues so $926,854 $954,641 5984,374 $1,016,187 $1,050,228 $1,233,051 $1,272,024 51,313,726 $1,358,346 $1,406,090 S1,644,022
Parking Revenues 0 20,980 21.924 23,020 24,1?1 25.380 26,649 27,981 29,380 30,949 32,392 34.011

GROSS REVENUES 50 5947.734 $976,565 S1,007,394 51,040.359 $1,075,609 $1,259,700 $1,300.005 51,343,106 $1.389.195 $1,438,482 $1,678.034
Vacancy I
50Z 0 (473,967)
52 0 0 C48,828) (50,370) (52,018) (53.780) (62,985) (65,000) (67,155) C69,460) (71,924) (93,902)

NET REVENUES 50O $473,867 $927,737 595?,024 $988,341 $1.021,828 $1.196,715 S1,235,005 $1,275,951 51,319,736 $1,366.558 51.594,132
Operating Expenses 0 (145,425) (282,852) (320.,220) (296.939) C304.514) (403,926) (424j122) C445,328) (467,595) (490,975) C599,052)
hanagenent 0
62 0 C28,432) C55,664) C57.421) (59.300) (61.310) C71.803) C?4.100) C76,557) C79,184) (81,993) C95,648)
Leasing/Rental Expenses
Conmercial C92,799) (22,029) C35,983)
Residential C23,918) C1,274) (1,363) C1,459) (1,561) (1,670) C1,797) (1.912) C2,046) C2,189) (2,343)

NET OPERATING INCOME s0 5193,404 $587.946 5578.019 S630.643 $654,443 5697.296 5734,995 S752,153 $770,910 $791,400 S861,206

Debt service
First hortgage 0 (498,260) (498,260) C498.260) C498,260) C498,260) (606.336) C606,336) C606,336) C606,336) C606,336)
Second hortgage 0 C66,90 1) (66,901) (06.901) C6. 901) C96,901) 0 0 0 0 0
Office Lease Rollover Exp 0 0 0 0 0 C120,262) 0 0 0 0 (153,489)

CASH FLOW AFTER DEBT 0 (401,757) 2,786 C7.141) 15.483 C50,979) 90,950 128,659 145,8 1? 164,575 31,576

Initial Investment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
! Unfinanced Bev Costs (1,972.205)
Mlortgage Points 0 C79,94 1) 0 0 0 0 (105,427) 0 0 0 0
Proceeds fron Refinance 0 5.397,051 0 0 0 0 5,271.357 0 0 0 0
Proceeds fron Sale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.612,061
Payback of Loan balance 0 (5,397,051) 0 0 0 0 (1,651,350) 0 0 0 C3,103.561)
Costs of Sale I
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C259.362)

CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES (1,872,205) (481,698) 2,796 (7,141) 45,483 C50.979) 605.530 128,659 145,017 164,575 5,201,714

HPV OF CASH FLOM 243,832

I RR 11.33X

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 7,269,256

RETURN ON PROJECT COST 82 82 92 92 10 10 102 112 112

exhibit 6
 79

10 YEAR PRO FORMA

RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SCENARIO

YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11
Gross Income
Retail 0 169.200 169,200 169,200 169,200 169,200 215,947 215,947? 215,917 215,947 215,917 275,609
Office 0 316,290 316,290 346,290 346,290 346,290 141.961 111,961 411,961 141,964 111,964 561,070
Residential 0 1,136,652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daycare - 0 14,400 14,400 11. 100 11,400 11,400 18,378 18,379 19.,379 18.378 18,378 23,156
Total Base Revenues $0 $1,966,542 $529,990 $529,890 $529,890 $529,890 $676,299 $676,29 $676,299 $676,209 $676,289 $863,135
Parking Revenues 0 310,090 10,581 11,113 11,669 12.252 12,865 13,508 11,191 14,893 15,637 16,419
GROSS REVENUES $0 5,276,622 540,174 $541,003 $511,559 $542,112 $689,151 $689,797 $690,172 $691,182 $691,926 $979,551
Vacancy 2
0 (263,278)
52 0 0 (27,021) (27,050) (27,078) (27,107) (34,158) (31,490) (31,521) (34,559) (31,596) (3,978)
513,-50 -513,9 5------ -515,-35 --5-,69- --------
-655,3-7 -655,9-9 65,62 ----- ---
NET REVENUES so 5,013,311 513,150 $513,953 $511,181 $515,035 $651,696 $655,307 $655,919 $656,623 $657,330 $935.577

Operating Expenses O (76,540) (145,427) (145,127) (145,427) (115.427) (167,929) (167,929) (167,929) (167,929) (167,929) (211,321)
Management 0
0 (16,602) (30,807) (30,837) (30,969) (30,902) (39,292) (39,318) (39.357) (39,397) (39,110) (50,135)
Condo Sale Expenses 6
102 (413,665)
Leasing/Rental Expenses (92,788) (22,029) (35,883)
NET OPERATING INCOME s0 $1,383,749 $337,217 $337,689 $338,185 $338,706 $125,156 $118,060 $148,663 $119,296 $419,961 $535,231

Debt service
Rbsorp Period Interest 0 (195,881)
First Mortgage 0 0 (285.777) (285.777) (295,777) (295,777) (285,777) (285,777) (285,777) (285,777) (285.777)
Second Mortgage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Office Lease Rollover
Tenant Rllowance 0 0 0 0 0 (120,262) 0 0 0 0 (153.488)
-51,4-- $51,912 -52,-09 C$-7,333 -139,6-- -1-2,23 13---- -------- $--------
CASH FLOW AFTER DEBT S0 $3,997,867 $51,110 $51,912 $52,409 ($67,333) $139,690 $162,283 $162,896 $163,520 $10,696

Initial Investnent
Unfinanced Dev Costs (683,719) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mortgage Points 0 0 (53,880) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proceeds fron Refinance 0 0 2,693,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proceeds fron Sale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,352,342
Payback on Loan Balance 0 (3,897,867)(2,912,020) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2,303,819)
Costs of Sale @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(160,570)

CASH FLOW BEFORE TAXES ($683,719) $0 (120,167) $51,912 $52,109 (67,333) $139,680 $162,283 $162,886 $163,520 $2,898,649

NPV OF CASH FLOW $613,359

IRR 17.92P

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $3,495,770

RETURN ON PROJECT COST 107 102 102 102 12? 132 132 13% 13%

exhibit 7
80

SECTION IV:
A SUMMARY
 81

An Overview

A myriad of issues were raised during the process of this research. For some
problems solutions were found. For others the surfaces were barely scratched. Within
five categories of the development process: design, construction, marketing, leasing and
finance, recurrent questions are brought up with each small mixed-use project. The
following paragraphs summarize the pertinent points.

Design and Construction

"A nutriment is defined as that substance whose
Essential to the successful adaptation of the small, mixed-use development was intake and use sustains life: promoting growth,
the careful and full understanding of both its physical form, the relationship of uses, the replacing loss and providing energy. As such,
housing may reasonably be considered as much a
extent to which they can be overlapped and the benefits/detriments that can be derived. nutriment to the human diet as food; consequently
it may prove fruitful to evaluate the creation, use
The questions faced with the design of each project are: What drives the building and displacement of housing through analogies
concept? How well do the uses relate to one another? Are the functional requirements from the comestible diet." (D

adequately met to insure the lease-up and successful operation of the commercial
components? How well does the design distinguish the different functions and how well
does the project create appealing image and identities for each? In addition, how does
the project relate to its context, the larger environment - the community outside?

Balancing the quality of construction and craftsmanship with economy is of par-

ticular importance to the success of the project - selling the residential units. The per-
tinent issues to address include: To what extent is the risk of shoddy subcontractor work
mitigated through the design of the architectural detailing and selection of materials?
Additionally, to what extent is the task of operation and maintenance made easier or
more complicated?
82

Marketing/Leasing
As the design of the project related directly to marketing and leasing additional
factors are folded into the process. Marketing is the key to the success of the any
development project but is dependent upon the building's functionality and quality ofthe
architectural design. Factors to consider in the marketing of the project include: How
well has the design of small mixed-use addressed the issues of security, convenience, and
service? How well does the project support the emotional needs of its occupants, both
residential and commercial? Do the different uses coexist harmoniously and is there a
synergy created between them?

The marketing effort for the project must necessarily be aggressive and well
tailored. Directed and thorough attempts will be needed to fully identify the market
demographics. The concept for small mixed-use is largely untested and its target market
is not entirely understood. Who exactly is this so-called minority middle and upper class
market? What do they want in housing, in working, in living, in location, and in return
on their investment? What specifically are their alternatives, i.e., the competition? What
is being offered and at what prices? Understanding the nature of the market can be elusive
and requires, in part, anticipating market demand that is currently not well researched.

The creation of townhouse units allows residents the flexibility of integrating

small businesses within the home or of purchasing the entire townhouse to rent out the
bottom for extra income (though rental units within the project may bring additional
marketing and management problems). The project as a whole supports the option of
working in or near the home. Additionally, the design of duplex units allows for the
creation of interior spaces which appear larger, provide privacy for bedroom and
workspaces within the unit, particulary attractive and functional for families with kids
or residents with the desire to work at home.
 83

Financing
Bankability was the stated goal and a necessary part of the definition and
understanding of the small, mixed-use project. The prototype exhibits the potential for
financial viability. Yet, several questions remain unanswered in this investigation.
What kind of institutions will finance such a project and to what extent can "local"
private monies be raised? How might the project accommodate different forms of
ownership and investment -forms which promote the growth of local businesses (versus
national conglomerates) and which promote ownership opportunities for community
residents?

CONCLUSION

Numerous stipulations were made in formulating the building program and in

developing the pro forma. Inherent in the concept of the small mixed-use is the
requirement that no one use predominate within the project. By definition mixed-use
presumes the integration and careful balance of multiple uses. Accordingly, great care
was taken to restrain the prototype from evolving into a housing project with a modicum
of retail and/or office attached at the bottom floors or vice versa.

An additional overlay onto the investigation and central to the theme of the
design was the promotion of community revitalization and the creation of community
within the residential component of the project. It was presumed that the requirement
would restrain the number of units within a range estimated as roughly equivalent to the
size of a (low density) block or less (20 - 30). The retail component was derived from
the available area within the first and possibly second floors. The need to provide
parking underground determined the depth of the building facing Washington Street.
84

Finally, the office component was determined by the compromise between providing
sufficient area to sustain an office building quality and identity, remaining pragmatic
about the limits of market demand, and maintaining the integrity of the mixed-use
concept.

Locationally, the project is best suited at the intersections of residential and

commercial districts. Parcels at major intersections are requirements for the commercial
components. "Gateways" into the community are highly recommended for stimulating
community revitalization. Sites as small as one half acre proved to be sufficient and as
such, make available many locational choices. For this study an assemblage of three
abandoned parcels were utilized. Small vacant parcels are commonplace in many urban
areas.

The project design illustrates the concept of organizing the uses around a main
feature, in this case a central outdoor space. The commercial spaces were oriented
outward to the major streets, while the residential focused internally to the court. The
design of the landscape was constructed to add a valuable amenity for the residents and
enhanced the quality of outdoor area for the adjacent housing. Adequate and well
protected parking met issues of security and enhanced the market appeal. Additionally,
it provided a mechanism for submerging the service and trash removal requirements out
of view while increasing project revenues.

In the final analysis, the concept for mixed-use holds great promise. Its prototype
is suitable for a range of urban locations and exhibits the potential to be utilized as a
vehicle for catalyzing community revitalization. Though seemingly limited to upper
income markets, numerous financing, and development cost saving strategies are
available to afford moderate for sale and rental housing and commercial space. The
limitations of this research did not allow extensive examination of them. Deriving
 85

workable solutions for the architectural design of the project may be an easier task
than it is to create viable projects at this scale. The capability exists forprivately initiated
development supported through public-private partnerships structures, business coali-
tions and lending consortiums for investing capital and underwriting debt.

Confronting the developerof the small mixed-use, particularly in poor inner city
neighborhoods is a challenging task. Yet, the potential rewards, both financial and
social, indicate that profitable real estate development efforts need not conflict with or
be insensitive to the desire to build vibrant and attractive urban environments which
provide the sustenance for strong communities and healthy living neighborhoods.

Notes:

1. John G. Mascioni, The Role of Social Needs of the Urban Poor in Determining
Performance Standards for Housing, p.10.
86
 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Buckley, Michael P., "Five Principles For Mixed-Use PLanning," Council on Urban
Economics Development, February 1988.

2. Buckley, Michael P., "Urban Specialty Retail: Potentials and Limitations for
Supporting Real Estate Values," National League of Cities.

3. Clay, Phillip L., Neighborhood Renewal. Lexington Books - D.C. Heath and
Company, Lexington, Ma., 1979.

4. Goody, Joan and John Clancy, "Need for Variety and Personalization," Essays on
Social Housing, Progressive Architecture, July 1984.

5. Henig, Jeffrey R., Gentrification in Adams Morgan: Political and Commercial

Consequences of Neighborhood Change, Center for Washington Area Studies, George
Washington University, No.9, 1982.

6. Lekai, Leon A., "An Examination of Gentrification," Real Estate Finance Journal,
Spring 1988.

7. Lang, Michael H., Gentrification andUrban Decline: Strategies for America's Older
Cities,

8. Lemann, Nicholas, "Origins of the Underclass," The Atlantic, June 1986.

9. Mascioni, John G., The Role of Social Needs of the Urban Poor in Determining
88

Performance Standards for Housing, Office Of Urban Technology and Research - The
Department of Housing and Urban Development, June 1968.

10. McAleavey, David, ed., Evidence of Community: Writing From the Jenny McKean
Moore Workshops at George Washington University, Center for George Washington
Studies, George Washington University, No. 11, June 1984.

11. Morey, James L. and Mel Epstein, Housing Development - A Tool for Community
Economic Development in Low Income Areas, Center for Community Economic
Development, Cambridge, Ma., 1971.

12. Perry, Stewart E., Building a Model Black Community: The Roxbury Action
Program, Center for Community Economic Development, Cambridge, Ma., 1978.

13. Regional/Urban Design Assistance Teams, South End/Lower Roxbury, 9-12 May
1980.

14. Wireman, Peggy, Urban Neighborhoods. Networks, and Families, Lexington Books
- D.C. Heath and Compnay, Lexington, Ma., 1984.

15. Witherspoon, Robert E., Jon P. Abbett, Robert M. Gladstone, Mixed-Use Develop-
ments: New Ways of Land Use, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1976.

16. Zeidler, Eberhard H., Multi-Use Architecture in the Urban Context, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, New York, 1983.