growing through transit: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT

a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

Claudia Hasbun, John-Mark Palacios, & Chris RomanoFlorida Atlantic University

URP 6545: Urban Revitalization StrategySpring 2013 - Dr. Yanmei Li

Prepared For: Dr. Yanmei Li Florida Atlantic University URP 6545: Urban Revitalization Strategy

Prepared By: Claudia Hasbun, John-Mark Palacios, & Chris Romano Submitted On: April 30, 2013

Growing Through Transita plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

Foreword

The City of Fort Lauderdale is determined to become a multi-modal city that supports transit, walkability, and livability with reduced depen-dence on the automobile. Downtown Fort lau-derdale has long faced high levels of congestion but also high levels of use. It is an important destination in the city as well as containing many key parts of its roadway network and providing a central spine for the people who live and work in the area, and its potential for high density mixed uses creates an attractive real estate market . It has also been targeted for future premium transit service, and will thus act as a transit connection as well.

The corridor currently faces a major challenge in that it is unable to accommodate the amount of traffic that is demanded of it each day while being permanently limited in capacity. Widening is no longer feasible because there is no more right of way on which to expand. However, the growth of the area and the desires of the City to become a more livable and multi-modal place creates pres-sure for the determination of a vision and plan for growth that allows this area to grow into one that more closely matches the values of the City. The Florida East Coast Rail Line is now slated to host passenger rail, and downtown Fort Lauderdale will benefit greatly from a station as such a stop will enable the revitalization of the area through the introcution of mixed land uses, higher densi-ties, and other new high intensity development.

The path for this future development can be

achieved via the consideration of four guiding principles for future development, based on the area’s potential and existing conditions:

• Improve walkability and connectivity

• Celebrate the existing resources

• Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way

• Get People out of Their Cars

Each of these principles holds a key to the suc-cessful function of the corridor, ranging from eco-nomic competitiveness to transit supportiveness to walkability and livability.

Based on the guiding principles, conceptual cor-ridor and study area alternatives were developed that present a future that does not perpetuate the traditional auto-dependent development pattern that has prevailed in South Florida. Instead, it focuses on increasing local mobility and multi-modal travel. This scenario presents increases in connectivity and changes to the roadway network. It calls for an increase in development in focused activity centers while preserving the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The activity centers will be walkable and provide the densities and types of land uses that support transit and business.

The scenario presented calls for a land use and transportation pattern that is different from the current pattern that is occurring across South Florida. Because of this it will require coordina-

tion and communication between the City of Fort Lauderdale, developers, the community, Broward County, and the Florida Department of Transpor-tation to implement new policies and strategies that are innovative but essential for this area to become the type of livable place the City desires for it to be.

This plan is one step of many that will be nec-essary to transition into the livable future that is desired. The purpose of this plan is to inspire dis-cussion, debate, and innovation about the future, further solidify the vision, and incorporate it into future actions. It allows for adaption as needs and desires change, and will ultimately facilitate the transition of the corridor into a destination where we can all live, work, and play.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2Introduction 3 the context 3 thefloridaeastcoastrailroad 3 the purpose 3 the study area 4 the process 4Transit Oriented Development 6

What is Transit Oriented Development 7 background 7 guidelines 8 principles 10

Understanding the Context 12Context 13Who Lives There? 14How Do They Live? 15 Existing Land Use 15 Residential Land Uses 16 Housing Characteristics 17 Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Land Uses 19 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels 21 Population Density 23 Median Household Income and Zero-Car Households 24Where are they Going? 25 AreaProfile 25How are They Getting There? 26 Transit Network 26 Alternative Commuting Patterns 27 Roadway Network 28 Pedestrian Conditions 29 Parking 31What Does the Future Look Like? 32 Future Land Use 32 Future Plans 33 Future Transit Infrastructure 34Political Environment 35

Conclusions 38Strengths and Opportunities 39Guiding Principles 41

Future Scenarios 44Redevelopment Plan 45 Introduction 45 The Process 46Vision and Branding 47 The Vision 47 The Brand 47Site Plan 48Downtown Plan 53Scenario Evaluation 55Broward Boulevard Redevelopment Scenarios 57 Scenario A 58 Scenario B 59 Scenario C 60

Implementation 62Implementation Plan 63 Guidelines 63 Action Plan 64

Feasibility 66Feasibility Analysis 67 Introduction 67 Environmental Feasibility 67 Regulatory Feasibility 67 Market Feasibility 67 Financial Feasibility 67 Site Design 70 Conclusions 70

Works Cited 72Works Cited 73

Appendix 76Appendix 1: Building Area and Construction Cost Calculations 77Appendix 2: 20 Year Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis 79Appendix 3: 20 Year Amortization Plan 81

Figures

Figure 1: Study Area 13Figure 2: Context 13Figure 4: Residential Land Use 16Figure 5: Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Land Use 19Figure 6: Residential Land Use 21Figure 7: Population Per Acre 23Figure 8: Income and Car Ownership 24Figure9:AreaProfile 25Figure 10: Existing Transit Infrastructure 26Figure 11: Alternative Commuting Patterns 27Figure 12: Roadway Network 28Figure 13: Pedestrian Facilities 29Figure 14: Alternative Commuting Patterns 31Figure 15: Future Land Use 32Figure 16: Redevelopment and Planning Areas 33Figure 17: Alternative Commuting Patterns 34Figure 18: CRA Boundary 35Figure 19: DDA Boundary 36Figure 20: HOA Boundaries 36Figure 21: Improve Walkability and Connectivity 41Figure 22: Celebrate the Existing Resources 41Figure 23: Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way 42Figure 24: Get People Out of Their Cars 42Figure 25: Site Plan 50Figure 26: Conceptual Rendering 1 51Figure 27: Conceptual Rendering 2 51Figure 28: Conceptual Rendering 3 51Figure 29: Conceptual Rendering 4 51Figure 30: Conceptual Rendering 5 52Figure 31: Downtown Plan 53Figure 32: Cross Section Scenario A 58Figure 33: Cross Section Scenario B 59Figure 34: Cross Section Scenario C 60Figure 35: Green Roof in Chicago 67Figure 36: Site Plan Overlayed Over Existing Site 70

Tables and Charts

Table 1: Effects of Land Use on Transit 7Table 2: TOD Typology 9 Table 3: Guiding Principle Assessment 55Table 4: Sample Assessment 56Table 5: Implementation Plan 64Table 6: Building Usage and Area 69Table 7: Financial Strength Indicators 69

Chart 1: Age and Sex 14Chart 2: Educational Attainment 14Chart 3: Select Housing Characteristics 17

1 | GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT

GROWING THROUGH TRANSIT | 2

01Introduction


Introduction

the contextThe City of Fort Lauderdale is the largest munici-pality in Broward County, Florida, covering about 33 square miles in area. The City has many natural features, such as the Atlantic Ocean and the New River that cuts through the downtown. Another important physical aspect is the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC), which also divides the City into an east and west side. The City has a rich and long history, with its name coming from the fortifications built in the area by early settlers.

The City of Fort Lauderdale has long been plagued with issues of traffic congestion and an unfriendly pedestrian environment. The reason for this, at least in part, has to do with the spa-tially dispersed and auto dependent pattern of development popular in most of South Florida. As in much of the rest of the United States, devel-opment up until this point has consisted of strip malls, office parks, and separated residential land uses. The city has several distinct areas, includ-ing Downtown; the Beach; the 17th Street area; a commercial area to the Northwest; a retail and commercial center at the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Federal Highway; and others.

The transportation pattern in Fort Lauderdale is a product of the dispersed development pattern that it is plagued by. In almost every part of the city, the large blocks make it an annoyance to walk any distance. Parking lots and garages are plentiful and cheap, supporting the pattern of auto dependence. Congestion is rampant, and

the majority of the residential areas do not lie within walking distance of necessities such as grocery stores or luxuries such as dining, retail, and entertainment.

Those areas that are within walking distance of such amenities typically require pedestrians to walk in unfriendly conditions, such as along Sun-rise Boulevard where a narrow sidewalk abuts a high speed and heavily traveled roadway. Even bike lanes are quite narrow as a result of the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) promotion of using road shoulders greater than 3 feet wide as bike lanes. Biking in such con-strained conditions can be unpleasant and some-times dangerous. Recognizing that this pattern is not a sustainable way to continue development, the City of Fort Lauderdale has begun making plans that reflect a new, more walkable develop-ment pattern that mixes uses and favors multi-modal travel.

thefloridaeastcoastrailroadThe FEC has a rich history dating back to Henry M. Flagler, who developed the rail line by build-ing the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Halifax, and Indian River Railroads that would become, after several name changes, the Florida East Coast Railway in September of 1895 (FEC, 2011). West Palm Beach, Palm Beach, and, in 1896, Miami were founded around stops along the FEC. Between 1904 and 1912, the FEC was respon-sible for one of the greatest railroad engineering

and construction feats in the history of the U.S.: the Key West Extension, which opened on Jan-uary 22, 1912. By 1913, when Flagler died, the FEC connected the entire east coast of Florida from Jacksonville to Key West (FEC, 2011).

Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) was incorpo-rated in 1983 and became the holding company for the FEC and the real estate holdings which were managed by Flagler Development Com-pany. Today, FLagler Development Company is a separate operating company focusing on the commercial real estate market. FECI began operating independently of the St. Joe Company on October 9, 2000. On July 26, 2007, FECI was purchased with private equity funds managed by Fortress Investment Group (FEC, 2011).

Today, the FEC operates from its headquarters in Jacksonville, and it runs on almost the same route Henry Flagler developed. The FEC is not only one of America’s most exciting railroads, but it is now preparing for a major expansion with infrastructure projects underway at the Port of Miami and Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale.

the purposeAfter many years, passenger rail is being rees-tablished on the FEC. There are currently three studies underway for two different types of pas-senger rail on the FEC corridor. FDOT and Tri-Rail are studying a commuter rail connecting the downtowns of the tri-county area (Garcia, 2011) and FECI is developing inter-city passenger rail


with a planned station in Fort Lauderdale. The commuter rail system will connect Miami to Jupi-ter (FDOT, 2012), while the inter-city system will connect Miami to Orlando (“Fact Sheet,” 2013).

The purpose of this study will be to determine the potential for transit oriented development (TOD) to take place at the FEC stop in Downtown Fort Lauderdale. A plan will be developed that consid-ers the unique context of the area. This plan will act as a catalyst for redevelopment in the area; not only for the site but for the entire downtown.

The study will take a comprehensive, con-text-sensitive, and multi-modal approach to address the needs of the area. It will focus strongly on the redevelopment site but will also offer guidelines for the entire Downtown. It will focus on land use, transportation, and design solutions in order to develop an alternative future that will allow the area to become the lively and vibrant destination center that Fort Lauderdale desires. It will help Fort Lauderdale reach its goal of becoming a multi-modal city by elevating the focus on people and alternative modes of travel, such as walking, biking, and transit above the car.

the study areaThe study area is a 2.92 acre site that is currently home to the Government Center parking garage. It is in the heart of Downtown Fort Lauderdale and immediately adjacent to the FEC, but is also adjacent to Broward Boulevard, which the City aims to make a more pedestrian-friendly and

multi-modal area that is the pulse of downtown as opposed to the dividing void that it is today. It is located very close to many of the prime redevel-opment sites in the area, such as the near-vacant Riverfront and the Himmarshee district. By using this site, it also removes some parking from the area, which is necessary to create a multi-modal place and discourage car usage.

the processThe planning process is designed to allow for a full understanding of the problem in order to inform a context-sensitive solution that addresses all of the issues. The organization of the plan fol-lows this process and is divided into the following five sections:

1. Introduction: Describes the background and justification for the project.

2. Transit Oriented Development: Examines the concept of TOD and how it can be used to create the types of places that Downtown Fort Lauderdale desires to become. It also addresses some of the key issues for the success of TOD. The resulting definition is used to inform the contextual analysis as well as the future vision and implementation strat-egies.

3. Understanding the Context: Takes a detailed look at the existing and future conditions of the site, the study area, and the city aimed at revealing the strengths and weaknesses. It is

arranged in a way that aims to tell the story of the area and why it works the way that it does. Beginning with a description of who lives there, it considers how they live, where they are going, how they are getting there, and what the future looks like. By analyzing those issues, strengths and opportunity areas are uncovered and several guiding principles are developed.

4. Vision: Presents a vision for the future of the study area based on the evaluation of the strengths and areas for opportunities developed in the context section. The guiding principles developed in Section 2 are used to inform and develop the vision. The vision will be presented at two levels: the study area and the site. While the study area level will present an overall suggested pattern for development, the site level will present and evaluate a conceptual plan to be used as an example for future development.

5. Implementation: Details an action plan regarding the next steps to be taken to imple-ment the vision. This section is included in order to highlight clear steps to achieve the vision.

6. Feasibility: Evaluates the physical, economic, social, regulatory, market, and financial


02Transit Oriented Development


What is Transit Oriented Development

backgroundTransit-oriented development (TOD) is a popular planning concept and revitalization strategy that has arisen in response to the auto-dependent, sprawl-ridden, and segregated land use devel-opment patterns that have occurred in the United States since the 1950s. At its most basic, TOD simply means what it says: development oriented around transit. Currently, in order to be consid-ered TOD, development must include “a mix of housing, retail and/or commercial development, and amenities in a walkable neighborhood with high quality public transportation” (CTOD, 2012). However, as explained later, in order for TOD to work as a revitalization strategy, there is much more to it than that.

While TOD has a long history in the United States and abroad, it has recently been brought back to the forefront as a potential way to get people out of personal vehicles, back into higher density areas, and using transit as the most convenient form of travel. It is a revitalization strategy in that it aims to create (or redevelop) places that allow people to live, work, learn, and play all without the use of a vehicle. However, this strategy is also popular because the decreased use of the car creates positive benefits regarding the envi-ronment, public health, the economy, and other areas (CTOD, 2008).

The theory behind TOD is that by building a loca-tion with a mix of uses, walkable streets, and a variety of housing options, along with policies

and incentives to stimulate that development, redevelopment will occur that will get people out of the SOV due to the ease of walking and the use of transit in order to allow them to live, work, play, and learn without the use of a car. In fact, research has shown that developing in a form that encourages walking and the use of transit can reduce auto trips by as much as 18% and can produce similar increases in transit ridership, walking and biking (FTA, 2006). Table 1 rep-resents the impacts that can be realized through developing as TOD, as described by the FTA (2006). This lifestyle is thought to appeal to sev-eral groups, such as Generation-Xers and emp-ty-nesters (Cervero, 2004).

Additionally, with the average nationwide travel time on the rise, it is thought that TOD will encourage people to live near their workplace or at least allow them to take transit to work and other activities, thus leaving more time for leisurely activities and an improved quality of life (Cervero, 2004). The benefits of TOD (when implemented properly) include expanded housing and mobility choices, wider access to opportu-nities, improved environmental performance, infrastructure cost savings, support of healthy life-styles, strengthened transit, and reduced green-house gas emissions (CTOD, 2009).

“Research has shown that developing in a form that encourages walking and the use of transit can reduce auto trips by as much as 18% and can produce similar increases in transit ridership, walking and biking”

-Federal Transit Administration

Land Use Impact on Transit Availability of Convenience Services Mix of Land Use Accessibility of Services Areas Perceived as Safe Aesthetically Pleasing Environment

3.7% increase in transit 3.5% increase in transit 3.3% increase in transit 1.8% increase in transit 4.1% increase in transit

Table 1: Effects of Land Use on Transit


guidelinesAs stated before, TOD typically consists of either developers or governments (or both) working to create environments that include a rich mix of uses and are walkable. They support walkability by encouraging the proper densities and creating a street network that is interconnected for ease of use. Typically, 300-400’ blocks tend to be the most flexible because they allow pedestrians to walk one side of the block in about one minute and a half but are also wide enough to encourage retail development (Cherry & Nagle, 2009). Inten-sities with a floor area ratio of between 2.0 to 3.0 typically are supportive of this development, but they can be much higher if the area is a down-town area (Cherry & Nagle, 2009).

There is one very important geographic constraint regarding TOD: it really only works within a one-half mile radius of the transit stop. A multitude of studies have proven that this is the distance that people will comfortably walk to a transit station, even with the proper mix of uses and pleasant environments (FTA, 2006; ULI, 2004; & Barnett, 2003).

Transit happens to work best when supporting high-density, low-income, minority populations (ULI, 2004). Therefore, it stands to reason that TOD would work best in those types of areas. However, this presents a conundrum, as TODs typically have higher housing values (unless strategies are used to retain affordable housing). There are several factors that favor TOD when

found in conjunction with each other. These include growing transit ridership; increased transit funding; a strong market for in-town living; and the growing desire for place-based living (ULI, 2004). Therefore, in areas where TOD is cre-ated around existing transit stations, there is the potential for displacement as well as revitaliza-tion. However, if those factors are not met, then TOD may not be a catalyst for revitalization.

A mix of uses is also a key aspect of the strategy. The core area around the transit station should integrate all uses (retail, housing, office, residen-tial, and open space), and the area should have a defined presence. Horizontal mixed use (espe-cially with one to two story buildings) do not fit in the core area – they have neither a high enough intensity nor are they supportive of the proper mix of uses. In fact, the more integrated and varied the land uses are in the core, the more walkable and inviting it is considered.

In general, there are six different areas that TOD may develop in. The first of these is the Urban Downtown. This area was once the employment center, but is now becoming the cultural and entertainment center. Typically it is a transfer point for various modes of transit, and it might have different districts with different uses. The Urban Neighborhood is typically comprised of a set of historic neighborhoods that surround Downtown. They are mixed use areas and were built on an extension of the downtown grid. Often, these areas are already developed in a way that

TOD targets (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).

As we move into the suburbs, the Suburban Town Center is an area that is developing. It is becoming an employment center (a new change in recent years), and TOD can help these sub-urban employment centers develop into 24-hour areas. The Suburban Neighborhood typically allows for some densification near the stop but will mostly remain residential and single family in nature. The Neighborhood Transit Zone is a tran-sit stop (as opposed to a development) that has limited neighborhood retail or office in an area that is largely residential. Finally, the Commuter Town is a freestanding community outside of the urbanized area and is provided with rail or bus commuter service to the downtown core. It can develop with a mixed-use center of its own, but will typically only support peak hour service (Ditt-mar & Ohland, 2004).

Regarding the mix of uses in the entire TOD, a balance of uses or a more residential-driven combination tend to work the best (Cherry & Nagle, 2009). Table 4 on the next page sug-gests a several factors regarding what should be implemented based on the geographic areas discussed previously. The information provided in this table was adapted from Dittmar & Ohland (2004).

It must be kept in mind, however, that these recommendations should not be treated as a one-size-fits all concept. They are contextual and should reflect the character (and/or the vision) of


the area. Additionally, TOD is not meant to force people to live in a certain way. Instead, it should provide a wide range of options that allow for people to choose how they want to live. Single family and multifamily uses should be present in order for the areas to be successful (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).

Revitalization through Transit-‐Oriented Development

16

It must be kept in mind, however, that these recommendations should not be

treated as a one-size-fits all concept. They are contextual and should reflect the

character (and/or the vision) of the area. Additionally, TOD is not meant to force

people to live in a certain way. Instead, it should provide a wide range of options that

allows for people to choose how they want to live. Single family and multifamily uses

should be present in order for the areas to be successful (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). 5

Obviously, another key aspect of TOD is the transit service. It needs to be

frequent, high quality, and reliable. The system also needs to go to where people

need/want to go. This may change over time, and should be flexible to the needs of the

community (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004).

5 (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004)

Table 4: TOD Typology5

Table 2: TOD Typology


on transit. It is important to include a mix of incomes to ensure a vibrant and successful community.

10. Engage in corporate attention: Major employ-ers can play a role in encouraging transit usage. They can develop on transit lines or encourage employees to take transit.

principlesAs stated before, the how of TOD is very flexible. It varies by state and even by local government. That being said, there are some important con-siderations regarding things to remember when developing around transit. In order to address this, the Urban Land Institute offers ten principles for successful development around transit that are essentially repeated in much of the literature, as follows (ULI, 2004):

1. Make it better with a vision: The vision should be developed in collaboration with the com-munity so that they support the direction of the project. It should be grounded in reality and flexible while also providing an end goal.

2. Apply the power of partnerships: These should rely on the powers of each partner. The public agency can resolve agency con-flicts, while the private developers understand the market.

3. Think development when thinking about tran-sit: The public sector should understand the needs of the private developers and should help to support them. By creating positive relationships, the process goes easier in the end.

4. Get the parking right: Parking has to be just right – too much and transit will not be attrac-tive; too little and people will not be able to get to the development to make it successful.

5. Build a place, not a project: The station

should foster community activity and be somewhere people want to be, not just another node along the line.

6. Make retail development market-driven, not transit driven: In most markets, proximity to transit is not a major consideration for retail. Therefore, the decision of how much retail to develop should be based on an understand-ing of the market, not on the fact that a transit station will be there.

7. Mix uses, but not necessarily in the same place: A good mix of uses creates an excit-ing and interesting place. However, it is also possible to mix uses between stations, using transit as the connecting factor (if the transit system is easy and convenient enough). This enables someone to live at one station, work at another, and go to a movie at another. This is not to say that each station would be single use, but it may not necessarily be a full downtown either.

8. Make buses a great idea: Buses are typically the cheapest and most widely available form of transit. It is helpful to diversity the bus rider market to those other than the poor. This can be done though bus rapid transit and other quality features as well as marketing and education.

9. Encourage every price point to live around transit: Developers should understand the market for people who will use transit. Often it is younger people and those dependent


03Understanding the Context


As stated before, the study area focuses on the Government Center Parking Garage in Downtown Fort Lauderdale and the areas within immediate walking distance of it (Figure 1). The site includes six par-cels, all owned by Broward County, with a total area of 2.90 acres and a value (including improvements) of $43,220,440.

Because this problem is part of a larger contextual issue, the study area will be generally defined as Downtown Fort Lauderdale and the surrounding neighborhoods. For the purposes of this analysis, three Census Tracts will be considered. They were chosen because they generally include the people that will be living near and using this site. The study area will be compared to the City as a whole in order to pro-vide a unit for comparison. The Census Tracts to be studied are:

1. Census Tract 4162. Census Tract 4253. Census Tract 426

When appropriate, the Census Tracts are compared to the City as a whole, as shown in Figure 2. The following section is meant to tell the story of how the land is being used, how people are living, how the transportation system is being used, and where there area is headed.

Context

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 1: Study Area

£¤1

OC

EAN

DR

7

84

£¤441

£¤1

1A

ATLA

NTI

C O

CEA

N

FED

ER

AL

HW

Y

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FORT LAUDERDALEEXECUTIVE AIRPORT

870

816

838

842

736

£¤1

FORT LAUDERDALE

OAKLAND PARK

HOLLYWOOD

LAUDERHILL

WILTON MANORS

LAUDERDALE LAKES

DANIA BEACH

DAVIE

POMPANO BEACH

PLANTATION

LAUDERDALE BY THE SEA

SEA RANCH LAKES

LAZY LAKE

MARGATE

416 425

426

§̈¦95

§̈¦595

0 1.50.75Miles

Figure 2: Context

1/4 Mile1/2 Mile

3/4 Mile


According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Fort Lauderdale has an estimated population of 166,712. The study area has a pop-ulation of around 17,750, effectively comprising 11 percent of the City’s total population. Chart 1 shows the population by age and gender in the study area.

Clearly, the study area maintains a generally younger population. The largest age group in the study area is between 25 and 29, followed closely by those age 30 to 34. This suggests that young professionals may live in the area, however it also suggests that there is great potential for the

desire for alternative form of mobility and thus the need for the implementation of measures to keep people in the area.

This age group happens to be the group that downtowns have been recently attracting. This age group also tends to be the group that is look-ing for more livable, walkable environments with close access to the amenities that a downtown is typically able to produce.

Chart 2 shows that the educational attainment in the area is moderate, with the majority of the pop-ulation having at least attended college, which is on target with the City as a whole. However,

31% of the population in the study area holds a bachelor’s degree of higher. Comparatively, only 24% of people city-wide have achieved that level of education.

Judging by the age groups and somewhat high levels of education, this area seems to be attract-ing young professionals. As stated before, that is the age group that has been recently attracted to Downtown areas, however at the education levels presented, it is also the group that tends to be comprised of choice riders of public transpor-tation. This means that it is necessary to provide incentives for them to use transit.

Who Lives There?

Chart 1: Age and Sex

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2007-2012 5 Year Estimates

Chart 2: Educational Attainment


How Do They Live?

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 3: Existing Land Use

RecreationCommercialIndustrial InstitutionalSingle Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialVacant

Existing Land UseThe land use pattern in the study area is some-what typical for any downtown area developed following a suburban, auto-oriented pattern. As can be seen in Figure 3, the area is somewhat built out with the exception of a few vacant par-cels. It is comprised of mostly commercial and government uses, as you would expect for a downtown area that has not typically supported residential uses for quite some time. More employment land uses follow the major roads of Broward Boulevard, Andrews Avenue, and Fed-eral Highway. Industrial uses follow the FEC rail line.

Residential uses typically exist as single family homes on smaller lots in neighborhoods sur-rounding Downtown. The exception to this is the multifamily development to the northwest of the study area. What makes this area interesting is that there are very few residential developments downtown.

The following series of maps display the individ-ual land uses to better show the patterns of land use in the corridor. Additionally, images of typical land uses are included.

Data Source: University of Florida Geoplan Center, 2012

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Single Family ResidentialMulti-Family Residential

Figure 4: Residential Land Use

Residential Land UsesThe residential land uses in the area, as stated before, are somewhat lacking near the study area. In fact, there are almost no residential uses within 1/4 mile of the site. When expanded to 1/2 mile of the site, more come into play, but most are on the North side of Broward Boulevard, which is a large arterial that acts as a barrier.

TOD requires a strong residential population to support the transit use. Additionally, the associ-ated retail and other uses can only be supported by a residential population. Therefore, it is clear that the development of residential land uses will be important for the success of this project.


£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


Housing CharacteristicsAccording to the US Census Bureau, there are 9,444 housing units in the study area. However, the units are just under 30% vacant, which is very high. The study area has a homeowner vacancy rate of 6%, which is higher than the City’s 4.2%. That being said, the rental vacancy rate of 10% is lower than the City’s 11.9%.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the average gross rent in the study area is $1,102 per month, or just above the City’s Average of $1,038. This suggests that the area is as afford-able as the rest of the City. However, this is a falsely low number, because the average rent in the Census Tract that includes Downtown, where the majority of the people using the TOD will be coming from, is $1,603. This is extremely high in comparison to the City.

The average monthly costs for homeowners with a mortgage is $2,522, which is also higher than the City-wide average of $2,175 per month. Once again, this is misleading because the aver-age for those in Downtown is $3,279. For those homeowners without a mortgage, the home owner-costs are much lower than the city-wide average at $647 per month in the study area ver-sus $746 City-wide. The average home values in the area are higher than in the rest of the City, at $304,200 ($441,200 in the Census Tract contain-ing Downtown) versus he City’s $291,600, which may also explain the higher costs.

Chart 3 shows that, when broken down to show housing costs as a percentage of income, the study area is about as affordable than the City as a whole, especially for those with a mortgage and for those who are renting. As a general rule of thumb, no more than 30 percent of income should be spent on housing (Gebhardt, 2006). That being said, there are still a significant num-ber of people spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

This analysis suggests that the rental prices in study area are somewhat unfordable to the popu-lation. This may be a case of people buying more than they can afford, or it may still be left over from the housing market crash. Regardless, it is clear that there is a lack of affordable housing within the study area. It is important to note that even though the prices are higher in the Down-town Census Tract, the costs as compared to household income are generally accurate across all Census Tracts.

Chart 3: Select Housing Characteristics

Less than 20.0 percent

20.0 to 24.9percent

25.0 to 29.9percent

30.0 to 34.9percent

35.0 percent or more

Notcomputed

Study Area 20% 6% 4% 3% 14% 0%Fort Lauderdale 49% 10% 7% 6% 30% 3%


15.0 to 19.9percent

20.0 to 24.9percent

25.0 to 29.9percent

30.0 to 34.9 percent

35.0percent or more

Notcomputed

Study Area 44% 4% 11% 8% 6% 28% 0%Fort Lauderdale 44% 12% 8% 6% 5% 25% 2%


15.0 to 19.9percent

20.0 to 24.9percent

25.0 to 29.9percent

30.0 to 34.9 percent

35.0percent or more

Notcomputed

Study Area 12% 16% 12% 8% 11% 42% 6%Fort Lauderdale 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 48% 6%

Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income (GRAPI)

Selected Monthly Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI) With a Mortgage

Selected Monthly Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI) Without a Mortgage



Houses in Tract 426 tend to be well kept, single family homes on smaller lots with attractive landscaping.

The picture represents a typical street in Tract 416. While there are side-walks, there is a lack of landscaping and upkeep.

There are several low income housing projects in Census Tract 416. This is an example of new construction affordable housing in the tract.

This street in Tract 426 represents a typical section. Homes are spaced closely and mature landscaping is prevalent.

This is an example of the high rise, high income multi-family housing in Downtown Fort Lauderdale.

New multifamily housing is being built alongside older single family housing to the north of Downtown in Census Tract 425.

Image Source: Google Maps, 2013


CommercialIndustrial Institutional

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 5: Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Land Use

Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Land UsesThese land uses are generally typical for a downtown area that acts as a major employment center. Clearly, there is a larger concentration to the south of Broward Boulevard than to the north, however the whole area works together as an employment center. The employment land uses outside of the immediate downtown area follow the major corridors and act as a buffer to the resi-dential land uses that generally lie behind them.

The commercial uses, however, do not include the support services necessary to support a res-idential population. They include mostly restau-rants and bars, without the necessary grocery stores or markets. The main commercial destina-tions within a 1/4 mile radius of the site include the Himmarshee District (a nightlife district) and Las Olas Boulevard, which contains a mixture of restaurants, bars, and high end retail.

Institutional land uses are generally dispersed throughout the study area as opposed to concen-trated in one place. The institutional land uses in Downtown tend to be governmental in nature, with government center located on the opposite side of Broward Boulevard from the site.

The industrial areas provide employment desti-nations. The are generally concentrated to the northwest of the study area and north along the FEC line. It will be important to consider connec-tions to all employment destinations.


£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


Las Olas Boulevard is a popular location for shopping, dining, and entrain-ment that features quaint shops and walkable streets.

Downtown has many governmental uses, such as the Federal Courthouse Building on Broward Boulevard and NE 3rd Avenue.

The Government Center Building is located across the street from the site, but turns its back to it and does not even include many windows on the first floor, much less active uses.

Commercial high rises are typical in the downtown area. They do nothing to activate the street, but provide plenty of office space for growth.

Many of the industrial land uses can be found in Census Tract 416. This is a typical example of the area: auto oriented and desolate.

This picture shows an example of the industrial land use along Broward Boulevard. It does not activate the street.



Vacant ParcelsUnderutilized Parcels

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 6: Vacant and Underutilized Parcels

Vacant and Underutilized ParcelsFigure 6 clearly shows that there is an abun-dance of vacant and underutilized parcels in the area. Underutilized parcels reflect those in which the value of the improvements on the land (such as the building) are worth 40% or less of the total value of the property as assessed by the tax appraiser. Much of the residential sites to the south fall into the underutilized category, which may be because the land values are quickly increasing due to proximity to downtown, but new homes have not been built on them.

Underutilized uses in the study area include the Riverfront development that is a largely vacant retail area immediately adjacent to the site to the south, several vacant properties, and several large parking lots. Notice that the study area is not considered underutilized. However, the abun-dance of parking in downtown makes transit less likely to be used, and therefore removing parking for higher intensity uses will provide a better use than the current use.

The abundance of vacant parcels in the study area allows for the potential redevelopment. These parcels will be essential to consider when looking at potential options for redevelopment that can support the transit uses.


£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


Riverfront was once a destination. It is now mostly vacant, although it is still kept up. It is ripe for redevelopment.

There are several completely vacant lots surrounding Downtown like this one on Federal between 2nd Ave and 2nd Court.

There are also several large vacant lots on the South side of Downtown in the area to the south of the river.

Many vacant lots around Downtown are used for surface parking. Seeing as there is an abundance of parking, this is unnecessary and therefore these lots provide opportunities for redevelopment.

This empty lot on Las Olas Boulevard was finally landscaped and now is used for an outdoor space for festivals and other events in the area.

There are still a few vacant lots along the river as well. This lot actually fronts the river walk.



NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Population DensityAs can be seen, the population in the study area is actually quite dense. The Downtown area has greater than 12 people per acre, which can sustain transit usage. However, this figure is somewhat misleading, because the majority of the housing providing that density is located in the far north or south of the Census Tract, which is mostly not in walking distance of the potential FEC station. Therefore, as stated before, it will be important to ensure that housing is a core compo-nent of the TOD to boost ridership.

<55 - 7 >7 - 10>10 - 12>12

Figure 7: Population Per AcreData Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2007-2012 5 Year Estimates

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

<$30,000>$30,000 - $45,000>$45,000 - $60,000>$60,000 - $75,000>$75,000

Figure 8: Income and Car Ownership

5 Zero-Car HouseholdsMedian Household Income by Census Tract


Median Household Income and Zero-Car HouseholdsThere are clearly a wide variety of income levels represented within walking distance of the study area, with the higher incomes of downtown jux-taposed with the low income areas immediately adjacent to the northwest. More specifically, the income levels in the study area are as follows, according to the US Census Bureau (2012):

• Census Tract 416: $23,771• Census Tract 425: $69,110• Census tract 426: $64,653In comparison, the median household income in the City of Fort Lauderdale is $50,502. The income levels are high enough to support new development, however they do point out the need for more affordable housing in the surrounding areas.

Figure 8 shows that the area directly to the North-west of the study area is a lower income area that has a high concentration of zero-car households, meaning that it most likely has a highly transit dependent population. By building TOD, it allows for the creation of jobs as well as an efficient transit systems that expands the network of jobs accessible to the population.

There are also many zero-car households in each Census Tract, which suggests that the population may already be open to using public transporta-tion.

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


Where are they Going?

AreaProfileThe employment areas in the city are clustered in the downtown and in the northeast area. Because of this, Downtown makes an ideal location for a rail stop to increase accessibility to people that may live outside of the downtown area and commute in. That being said, it is important to also consider transit connections to other areas in the city to ensure that the TOD can be used by more than just people working or living Downtown. This enables it to have more than one use and expands those uses to a broader population, ensuring success for the TOD.

It is important to facilitate multi-modal access to the major employment centers that are identified in this map to pro-vide access and connectivity to jobs.

£¤1

OC

EAN

DR

7

84

£¤441

£¤1

1A

ATLA

NTI

C O

CEA

N

FED

ER

AL

HW

YFORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FORT LAUDERDALEEXECUTIVE AIRPORT

NW

31S

T AV

E

S O

CEA

N B

LVD

SW

12TH AV

E

S C

YP

RE

SS

RD

SW 42ND STS

DIX

IE H

WY

W

S P

OM

PAN

O P

KY

SW 4

0TH

AVE

LYO

NS R

D S

MCNAB RD

OAKLAND PARK BLVD

AN

DR

EW

S A

VE

BAY

VIE

W D

R

DAVIE BLVDPETERS RD

FED

ERAL

HW

Y

62ND ST

6TH

AV

E

19TH ST

6TH ST

26TH ST

4TH

AV

E

56TH ST

BAILEY RD

21S

T AV

E

17TH STS AND

REW

S AVE

LAS OLAS BLVD

COMMERCIAL BLVD

13TH ST

S O

CE

AN

BLV

D

ATLA

NTI

C B

LVD

3RD

AV

E

18TH

AV

E

SW 34TH ST

24TH ST

45TH ST

4TH

AV

E

9TH

AV

E

31S

T AV

E

7TH

AV

E

SUNRISE BLVD

27TH

AV

E

WIL

TON

DR

23R

D A

VE

BROWARD BLVD

20TH

AVE

870

816

838

842

736

£¤1FORT LAUDERDALE

OAKLAND PARK

HOLLYWOOD

LAUDERHILL

WILTON MANORS

LAUDERDALE LAKES

DAVIE

DANIA BEACH

POMPANO BEACH

PLANTATION

LAUDERDALE BY THE SEA

SEA RANCH LAKES

LAZY LAKE

MARGATE

§̈¦95

§̈¦595

0 1.50.75Miles

Figure9:AreaProfile

<100100 - 499500 - 9991,000 - 1,9992,000 - 4,000>4,000

LegendJobs Per Census Block

100 - 1,9992,000 - 3,999 4,000 - 7,9998,000 - 16,000>16,000

Jobs Per Square Mile

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer Housing Dynamics, 2013


40

9 22

60

50

20

101

10

11

1

30

81

31

14

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

6

1

Transit NetworkAs can be seen in Figure 10, the study area is located within close proximity (across the street, in fact) from a bus transit hub. The service is provided by Broward County Transit (BCT), with the exception of the Sun Trolley which is provided by the City of Fort Lauderdale. The routes in the area provide service in each direction. Each route operates on 30- to 45- minute headways, which are slightly longer than desirable.

While a judgment cannot be made about the Sun Trolley because it operates on a wave and ride basis, the transit routes are heavily used, as shown by the daily boardings and alightings. The major stop within the area is on the opposite side of Broward Boulevard form the proposed FEC station, however there are several other highly used stops along the corridor.

This location provides an excellent reason to improve connectivity across Broward Boulevard, in accordance with the City’s wishes. By creating such a connection using a combination of TOD and traffic calming strategies, it will be possible to create a regional transit hub that is also a desti-nation and a livable, memorable place.

The existing transit is all bus transit, however, and that is not the most attractive form of transit for choice riders. While they may not be opposed to connecting to a bus after riding the train, it is unlikely that they would choose a bus over a car for their entire trip.

26 - 100101 - 200201 - 300301 - 500>500

Daily Boardings + Alightings

BCT Route 10BCT Route 20 BCT Route 36 BCT Route 50BCT Route 101Sun Trolley Route

Transit Routes

Figure 10: Existing Transit Infrastructure

Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale GIS, 2013

How are They Getting There?

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


Alternative Commuting PatternsIn general, people in the study area travel by car, as can be seen in Figure 11. Even at the highest, the study area does not reach one person per acre using transit.

However, when considering the people walking to work per acre, a different story emerges. What is surprising is that the area that is low income does not have very many people walking to work. However, the Downtown Census Tract and those to the east have many people walking to work. Presumably, there may be a large population of unemployed people in the low income Census Tract to the northwest which is where there are less people walking to work.

Regardless, this suggests that people are not traveling very far to work. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 64.6% of the population is travel-ing less than 10 miles to work. Of the remainder, 19.1% travel between 10 and 24 miles to work, 5.6% travel 25 to 50 miles to work, and 10.7% travel greater than 50 miles to work.

These patterns suggest that people are open to taking alternative modes of transportation if they are more efficient and effective than driving, and therefore public transportation has the opportu-nity to take hold here. This is especially true for those traveling less than 24 miles to work.

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 11: Alternative Commuting Patterns

1 Person Walking to Work

1 Person Taking Transit to Work


£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Roadway NetworkFigure 12 shows the existing roadway network. The study area is adjacent to Broward Boulevard to the north and is close to Andrews Avenue to the west. It is clear that the area has a grid sys-tem, but in the Downtown area that grid has been widened and blocks have been broken. While this may have been done for the construction of larger buildings, it has created very long blocks.

Another thing that is important to note about the roads is the number of lanes. Broward Boulevard has six lanes with a left turn lane. This makes it a very wide road that is hard to cross. Based on discussions with city staff, we have discovered that the City wishes to narrow Broward Boule-vard, but FDOT does not agree.

US1 is similarly large, with a total of eight lanes at the intersection of Broward Boulevard and US1. Many of the other roads are between two and four lanes, and therefore are less daunting for

pedestrians and bikers. Figure 12: Roadway Network

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


shopping, dining, nightlife, and entertainment. Himmarshee Street contains a nightlife district immediately to the west of the TOD site, and for about two blocks is similar in condition to Las Olas boulevard regarding the pedestrian condi-tions.

There is also a river walk along the river, and it has wide sidewalks and nice landscaping. It connects to Las Olas Boulevard in certain areas as well as cultural amenities such as historic

areas and the Broward Center for the Performing Arts. However, in most cases, buildings turn their backs to it and there is not good connectivity to it throughout the downtown area. Instead of celebrating the resource and drawing people to it, many people do not know it exists until they stumble upon it.

Pedestrian ConditionsAs stated before, there is a somewhat fine grid regarding the road network. Speck & Associates (2013) analyzed the walkability of Downtown an determined that the current pedestrian network is comprised of areas that are currently walkable and those that need work, as can be seen in Fig-ure 13.

It should be noted that the majority of the roads in the area do have sidewalks, and those that do not are typically designed with narrow lanes for slow traffic, and thus people are able to walk on them. However, the high speeds on many roads such as Broward Boulevard, Andrews Avenue, SE 3rd Avenue, and Federal Highway present some very undesirable conditions for walking. Additionally, in areas that front these roads, it is typical to find wide setbacks that further add to the poor pedestrian conditions.

Because of the width of Broward Boulevard, it is very common to find people jaywalking and using the median as a resting point. There are long signal cycles which makes crossing at crosswalks time consuming. Therefore, people tend to cross in the middle of the block when they find a break in traffic.

There are exceptions to these statements. Las Olas Boulevard, for example, is narrow and is fronted by active uses. It has slow moving traffic, lush landscaping, and wide sidewalks. It is one of the premier destinations in Fort Lauderdale for

Figure 13: Pedestrian Facilities Source: Speck, 2013


Broward Boulevard is a wide road with unfriendly streets. While it has side-walks, they are not buffered from the congestion and high speeds on the road.

The river walk offers a pleasant place to walk along the river downtown, but it is closed off from the rest of the downtown area and the uses adjacent to it do not include many active spaces on the ground floor.

Las Olas Boulevard provides the ideal pedestrian area, with narrow streets, slow moving traffic, and attractive landscaping. It also includes active ground floor uses such as sidewalk cafes and shops.

It is not uncommon for pedestrians to jaywalk due to the wide blocks and long wait times caused by lengthy signal times.

The Himmarshee District, immediately west of the site, also provides active uses for approximately two blocks. It is a popular destination for nightlife.

While sidewalks are widely prevalent, in some cases they are very narrow and immediately adjacent to the street.



ParkingAs can be seen in Figure 14, there is an abun-dance of parking within close proximity to the study area, including at the study area itself. Much of this parking is in the form of parking structures that are largely underutilized, with many spots and even entire floors remaining largely empty on a daily basis. The price of park-ing is low in most areas as well. In many cases, it is around $1.50 per hour or less.

Downtown Fort Lauderdale is over-served by parking, which is a problem. When there is too much parking, people are encouraged to drive because it is always easy to find parking. Addi-tionally, the parking is somewhat inexpensive, further encouraging people to drive. In order to make transit more desirable, it will be necessary to limit parking and to make the parking that does exist more expensive.

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1


Public Parking

Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale GIS, 2013

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


What Does the Future Look Like?

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

EVA

HT4 W

S

YW

H LA

RE

DEF

S

EVA

SW

ER

DN

A S

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Figure 15: Future Land Use

AgriculturalCommercialIndustrial InstitutionalSingle Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialVacant


Future Land UseFigure 15 shows the Future Land Use Map. It is largely unchanged from the existing land use map, showing that the City is not currently prepar-ing for any major changes in the area. It can be reasonably assumed that the vacant properties in the area will be redeveloped as either residential, commercial, or possibly even mixed use.

The lack of change in the Future Land Use Map might be explained by the lack of development interest in South Florida over the last several years due to the economic downturn.

The City of Fort Lauderdale is very active in liva-bility planning. In its comprehensive plan, dated 2008, it delineates target areas for economic and community redevelopment as well as a desire to shift away from roadway improvements for the car to create a more multi-modal environment.

Sites have been selected as potential mixed use, multi-modal mobility hubs in the Broward County 2035 Long Range Transportation. Other plans supporting multi-modal mobility and livability include the Downtown Transit/Pedestrian Master plan, the Wave Streetcar planning efforts, the Broward Complete Streets Guidelines, and many others. A sampling of these plans can be seen in Figure 16 on the following page.

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


£¤1

OC

EAN

DR

7

84

£¤441

£¤1

1A

FED

ER

AL

HW

Y

ATLA

NTI

C O

CE

AN

NW

31

S O

CEA

N B

LVD

TH AV

ES

CY

PR

E

RAV

EN

SW

OO

D R

D

S D

IXIE

HW

AN

O P

KY

E PERIM

ETER RD

MCNAB RD

OAKLAND PARK BLVD

AN

DR

EW

S A

VE

BAY

VIE

W D

R

DAVIE BLVDFE

DER

AL H

WY

62ND ST

6TH

AV

E

19TH ST

6TH ST

26TH ST

4TH

AV

E

56TH ST

LEY RD

21S

T AV

E

17TH STS AND

REW

S AVE

LAS OLAS BLVD

COMMERCIAL BLVD

13TH ST

ATLA

NTI

C B

LVD

3RD

AV

E

18TH

AV

E

SW 34TH ST

24TH ST

45TH ST

4TH

AV

E

9TH

AV

E

31S

T AV

E

7TH

AV

ESUNRISE BLVD

27TH

AV

E

WIL

TON

DR

23R

D A

VE

BROWARD BLVD

20TH

AV

E

870

816

838

842

736

§̈¦95

§̈¦595

Future Land Use0 1 20.5

Miles

Downtown Master Plan: Creates a frame-work to activate streets and improve connec-tivity to create a vibrant mixed use downtown using a combination of land use, transporta-tion, environmental, and design improvements. Historical character is to be maintained while fostering and even promoting new devel-opment.

Northeast Community Redevelopment Area: This area has had some major improvements. The Northwest/Progresso/Flagler Heights Implementation Plan presents an urban design and implementation plan guiding potential streetscapes and redevelopment. As part of this plan, the CRA is acquiring parcels to transform Sistrunk Boulevard into a mixed-use commercial corridor. Additionally, planned redevelopment has already begun to occur in Flagler Heights.

North US1 Urban Design Plan: US1 is in a transition stage from com-mercial oriented, high-speed arterial to a mixed-use urban roadway. The plan is meant to ensure that development along US1 is coherent. Residential character is to be upheld while eco-nomic viability of the corridor is sus-tained. Improvements are intended to transform the corridor into a pedestrian friendly, mixed-use environment with a mix of regional and local destinations.

South Andrews Ave Master Plan: South Andrews Avenue pres-ents a critical connection between Downtown and the airport. The Master Plan pres-ents a framework to transform it from an under utilized corri-dor into a dense and vibrant urban area that will serve both local and regional needs. The main components use the existing street grid as a basis for the recommended multi-modal, land use, and economic improvements to create a highly livable area.

Central Beach Master Plan:As stated previously, Fort Lauderdale has a major natural asset: its location on the Atlantic Ocean. This has defined its identity for many years. The Master Plan aims to ensure cohesive development to capi-talize on that asset along the Central Beach area by helping to create a coherent identity while preserving historically significant features. Additionally, the plan aims to create greater connectivity between the Cen-tral Beach and the mainland of Fort Lauderdale via multi-modal means.

Figure 16: Redevelopment and Planning Areas

Source: City of Fort Lauderdale, 2007





Future Plans


Future Transit InfrastructureAs can be seen in figure 17, there are some new future transit opportunities that are coming in to play in the area. The Wave Streetcar will be passing the proposed FEC station and TOD on the east side, providing additional connections to downtown Fort Lauderdale. The Wave also provides a connection to some of the higher den-sity housing areas to the north and south of the site. There are three Wave stops within 1/4 mile walking distance of the proposed FEC TOD, and 5 within 1/2 mile. This makes it an ideal location for TOD, as it will be accessible to other areas. Additionally, it will allow people coming from other areas to transfer to the Wave if their destination is outside of the walking radius of the FEC TOD.

NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1


NW 6TH ST

E LAS OLAS BLVD

SE

3R

D A

VE

NW

7TH

AV

E

NE

3RD

AVE

E BROWARD BLVD

SW

4TH

AV

E

S F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

S A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E

W BROWARD BLVD

N A

ND

RE

WS

AV

E N F

ED

ER

AL

HW

Y

SW 2ND ST

N V

ICTO

RIA

PAR

K R

D

SE 2ND ST

1

Proposed FEC StopFuture Wave StopFEC Passenger Rail LineThe Wave Streetcar Route

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


With 180 cities and three counties in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach metropolitan area, the political environment is a bit chaotic and disorganized. While this is one metropolitan area, planning efforts are split along county lines. For example, transportation planning is performed by a different Metropolitan Planning Organization for each county.

Within Broward County, the Metropolitan Plan-ning Organization faces frequent battles as each city fights for its own agenda rather than the regional picture (Christensen, 2010). A few regional planning agencies exist, but they have very little power and often function more as con-sultants working on projects rather than as bodies of elected officials. Examples of such agencies are the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Southeast Florida Transportation Council.

Since the scope of the transit projects that will be connecting to downtown Fort Lauderdale cover the entire metropolitan area, regional planning and policy efforts will influence transit oriented development here. Several players influence regional policy. Federal agencies such as the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), including its branches of the Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Agency (FTA); the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set policy and provide potential funding sources. The state also sets rel-evant laws, policies, and rules that direct planning

efforts. Agencies representing the state that have a say in this area include the Florida Department of Transportation District 4, the South Florida Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the State Historic Preservation Office.

Locally, political agencies include the Broward County Commission as well as the Broward County School Board, who would have input on new residential units. Broward County also owns property in the area, including the Government Center and the site where this study is focused, the parking garage next to it.

The City of Fort Lauderdale would have a say in development, with guidelines stemming from the comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, appli-cable policies, and any development approvals. Based on recent discussions with the City, it is

attempting to become more progressive with measures to increase multi-modal mobility. How-ever, the County and FDOT are less progres-sive, and wish to enhance the area for cars. An example of this conflict is FDOT’s proposed con-struction of express lanes on Broward Boulevard versus the City’s desire to narrow Broward Boule-vard to make it more pedestrian friendly.

Below the city level is the Fort Lauderdale Com-munity Redevelopment Agency, which covers the area north of Broward Blvd and to the west beyond I-95 (City of Fort Lauderdale CRA, 2013). Refer to Figure 18 for the CRA boundary.

More on the east side, extending to both the north and south and including the site of this study’s focus, is the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Refer to Figure 19 for the DDA Boundary.

Political Environment

Sistrunk BlvdSistrunk Blvd

Broward BlvdBroward Blvd

Sunrise BlvdSunrise Blvd

FLAGLER VILLAGEFLAGLER VILLAGE

LINCOLN PARKLINCOLN PARK

SWEETING ESTATESSWEETING ESTATES DORSEY RIVERBENDDORSEY RIVERBEND

MIDTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICTMIDTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT

RIVERBEND CORPORATE PARKRIVERBEND CORPORATE PARK

7TH AVE DEVELOPMENT SITE7TH AVE DEVELOPMENT SITENW 6TH ST

NW 10TH ST

N SBI95

N U

S1N

US 1

NW 5TH ST

W SUNRISE BLVD

NW

7TH AVE

NW

5TH AVE

W BROWARD BLVD

NW

27TH AVE

N N

BI95

NW

7TH TER

W SISTRUNK BLVD

S US1

S US 1

N AN

DR

EWS AVE

NE 6TH

AVE

NW

3RD

AVE

NW

8TH AVE

NW 13TH ST

S SB

I95

NE 3R

D AVE

W

NE 6TH ST

NE 4TH ST

S N

BI95

NW 14TH CT

NE 3RD ST

NE 2ND ST

SE 6TH ST

NE 13TH ST

NE 10TH ST

NW

9TH AVE

NE 1ST ST

NE 7TH ST

N FED

ERAL H

WY

I 95

RAM

P

NE 5TH

AVE

NW 22ND RD

NW 11TH PL

NW

17TH AVE

N NEW RIVER

NE FLAGLE

R DR

NE 4TH

AVE

NE 5TH

TER

E NEW RIVER

NW 12TH ST

NW 10TH PL

SE 6TH AVE

NE 12TH ST

SE 2ND ST

NW 8TH ST

NE 5TH ST

E SUNRISE BLVD

NE 9TH

AVE

NE 8TH

AVE

NE 7TH

AVE

NW

1ST AVE

SW 11TH

AVE

SW 21ST TER

NE 2N

D AVE

E LAS OLAS BLVD

NE 10TH

AVEN

E 11TH AVE

SW 24TH

AVE

NE 11TH ST

E BROWARD BLVD

W NEW R

IVER

NW

23RD

AVE

SW 27TH

AVE

SW 18TH

AVE

NW

15TH AVE

NW

6TH AVE

NW

11TH AVE

NW

10TH TER

NW

10TH AVE

NE 1ST AVE

SW 5TH PL

NW

14TH W

AY

S AND

REW

S AVE

NW 11TH STNW 11TH CT

NW 9TH TER

SW 7TH

AVE

NW 2ND ST

SW 20TH

AVE

NW 7TH ST

N I95 SB

NW 3RD ST

SW 12TH

AVE

NW 3RD CT

SE 4TH ST

SE 5TH CT

SE 2ND CT

CHATEAU PARK DR

SW 4TH ST

SE 6TH CT

NW

24TH AVE

NW

19TH AVE

NW 13TH CT

SW 5TH ST

SW 5TH CT

NW 7TH PL

SW 14TH

AVE

NW 8TH PL

SE 1ST AVE

NW 6TH CT

SW 8

TH A

VE

NW 9TH ST

NW 5TH CT

NW 1ST ST

SW 4TH CT

NE 9TH ST

SW 4TH

AVE

PROGRESSO DR

SW 21ST W

AY

NW

20TH AVE

SW 1ST AVE

NW 4TH ST

NW 14TH ST

NW

21ST AVE

NW

16TH TER

SW 19TH

AVE

NW

16TH AVE

NW

15TH TER

NW

24TH TER

NW

13TH AVE

NW

27TH TER

NW

14TH AVE

NW

12TH AVENW 7TH CT

NW

21ST TER

N RIO VISTA BLVD

NW 8TH CT

SW 2ND ST

NW 6TH PL

SW 2N

D AVE

S DIXIE CT

SW 3R

D AVE

SE 5TH AVE

NW 9TH CT

SW 25TH

TERSW

25TH AVE

SUN

SET MH

P

NW 4TH PL

NW

23RD

TER

NW

18TH AVE

SW 26TH

AVE

NW 12TH CT

SW 22N

D AVE

NE 13TH CT

SW 5TH

AVE

S NEW RIVER

NW 9TH LN

SW 1ST ST

SW 2ND CT

SW 6TH ST

SE 1ST ST

NW

14TH TER

SW 22N

D TER

NW

4TH AVE

NW 4TH CT

NW

2ND

AVE

SW 1

0TH

AVE

NW 13TH PL

NW

13TH TER

SW 27TH

TER

W LAS OLAS BLVD

NW 9TH PL

SW 13TH

AVE

NW

27TH W

AY

NW 13TH CT

NW 4TH ST

SW 4TH CT

NW

6TH AVE

NW

10TH AVE

I 95

RAM

P

NE 3R

D AVE

SW 3R

D AVE

NW 7TH ST

N N

BI95

NW 2ND ST

NW 1ST ST

SW 2

2ND

AVE

NW

14TH AVE

NE 11TH ST

NW 8TH ST

SW 6TH ST

NE FLAGLE

R DR

NE 7TH

AVE

NW 14TH ST

I 95 RAM

P

NW

1ST AVE

NE 5TH ST

SW 1ST ST SE 2ND ST

NW 11TH CT

NW 14TH ST

NW

24T

H A

VENW 13TH CT

NE 10TH

AVE

NW 2ND ST

NW

20TH AVE

NE 8TH

AVE

I 95

RAM

PNW 11TH ST

NE 7TH

AVE

NW 12TH CT

NW 11TH ST

SW 5TH PL

NW 6TH CT

NW

18TH AVE

NW 13TH ST

NW 9TH ST

NW 3RD CT

NE 5TH

AVE

NW 14TH CT

NW

15TH AVE

SE 4TH ST

NW

19TH AVE

NW 3RD ST

NW 13TH ST

NE 4TH

AVE

NE 6TH

AVENW 12TH ST

NW 11TH CT

SW 1ST AVE

NW 13TH CT

SE 6TH CT

NW

18TH AVE

0 1,500 3,000750 FeetProjects on P:\CRA\arcgis\cra_properties_zone.mxd

Plot date: 01/19/2006

LegendStreetsCRA Boundary

Figure 18: CRA Boundary

Data Source: CRA Project Areas, 2006


Fort Lauderdale is comprised of many neigh-borhoods—many of which have organized into Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and have actively sought to influence the development pat-terns in their city. Within ¼ mile of the site are five different HOAs:

• Downtown Fort Lauderdale (includes prop-erty area)

• Sailboat bend

• Progresso Village• City View• Flagler VillageWithin a ¾ mile radius, the following HOAs would likely want to provide input into Transit Oriented Development in this area:

• Dorsey-Riverbend• Victoria Park• Beverly Heights

• Tarpon River• Rio VistaFigure 20 shows all the nearby HOA boundaries.

Rock Island Community Development

TwinlakesNeighborhood

Assoc.

Central Beach

Alliance

Downtown Fort Lauderdale

Civic Assoc.

Port Royale Master Assoc.

Melrose Park

Lauderdale Manors HOA

Coral Ridge Country Club Estate

Coral Ridge Association Inc.

Edgewood Civic Assoc.

Victoria Park Civic Assoc.

HarbordaleCivic Assoc.

South Middle River Civic

Assoc.

Imperial Point Assoc.

Central Beach

Alliance

River Oaks Civic Assoc.

Melrose Manors HOA

Rio Vista Civic Assoc.

Harbor Beach HOA

Riverland Civic

Assoc.

Croissant Park Civic

Assoc.

Poinsettia Heights Civic Assoc.

Dorsey-Riverbend HOA

Poinciana Park Civic

Assoc.

Sunset Civic Assoc.

Riverside Park Residents

Assoc.

Coral Ridge Isles Assoc.

Tarpon River Civic Assoc.

Lauderdale Isles

Riverland Village

Knoll Ridge HOA

Middle River

TerraceAssoc.

Chula Vista

Sailboat Bend Civic Assoc.

Durrs Homeowners Assoc.

Lake Ridge Residents Assoc.

Dillard Park HOA

Landings Residential

Assoc.

Shady Banks Civic Assoc.

Flamingo Park Civic Assoc.

Flagler VillageCivic Assoc

Lake Aire Palm View HOA

Seven Isles Homeowners

Assoc.

River Run Civic Assoc.

Bay Colony HOA

Colee Hammock

HOA

Progresso Village

Galt Mile Community

Assoc.

Palm Aire Village (WEST)

Palm-Aire Village HOA (EAST)

Las Olas Isles Homeowners

Assoc.

Bal Harbour

HOA

Sunrise Intracoastal HOA

Harbour Inlet Assoc.

Boulevard Park Isles HOA

Dolphin Isles HOA

Bermuda Riviera Assoc.

Lauderdale Harbours Assoc.

Nurmi Isles Homeowners

Assoc.

Lauderdale West Assoc.

Lauderdale Beach HOA

Hendricks and Venice Isles

Harbour Isles of Fort Lauderdale

Beverly Heights

Riviera Isles Improvement

Assoc.

Birch Park Finger Streets.

Assoc.

Coral Shores

Civic Assoc.

Sunrise Key Civic Association

North Golf

EstatesHOA

Idlewyld ImprovementAssoc.

River Garden Sweeting Estate

Home Beautiful

Park Civic Assoc.

Lake Estates

Improvement Assoc.

Golden Heights Neighborhood

Bay Colony Club Condominium

Lofts of Palm Aire Village

Harbor Drive Assoc.

Navarro Isle Assoc.

Breakwater Surf Homes

Laudergate Isles Civic

Assoc.

Riverland Manors

HOA

Oak River Homeowners

Assoc.

River Landings

Riverland Woods

City View Townhomes

Assoc.

LewisLanding

Park

HarbordalePark

SouthMiddle

River Park

LauraWardPlaza

Sara HornGreenway

CoralRidgePark

SecretarySchool Park

Cortez PassiveTriangle Park

GoreBetzPark

CanineBeach

Oceanside Lot

Twin LakesNorth Park

MortonActivityCenter

DottieMancini

Park

Palm AireVillage

Park

ImperialPoint

Entranceway

FortLauderdale

Stadium

LandingsEntranceway

FloranadaPark

WarblerWetlands

BayviewPark

BeachCommunity

Center

VistaPark

WillinghamPark

FortLauderdaleHigh School

BassPark

BennettElementary

School

SunriseMiddle

School Pool

LauderdaleVillas

EntrancewayLauderdaleManors Park

MiddleRiver

Terrace

DillardHigh

SchoolJack andHarrie t

Kaye Park

George W.English

Park

WarfieldPark

Joseph C.Carter Park

GreenfieldPark

PurplePicklePark

LincolnPark

ProvidentPark

SweetingPark

AnnieBeckPark

North ForkSchool Park

VirginiaShuman Young

Elementary School

Victoria ParkStranahan

Park

HimmarsheeCanalsEsplanade

ParkGuthrie-Blake

ParkTownsend

Park

HuizengaPlaza

ColeeHammock

ParkFrancis L.

AbreauPlace

Major W MLauderdale

Park Fort LauderdaleAquatic Complex

D.C. AlexanderPark

Fort LauderdalePublic Beach

& Park

RiversidePark

StranahanHigh School Florence Hardy

Park & SouthsideCultural Center

WestwoodHeightsSchool

WestwoodTraingle

Park

Virginia S.Young Park

RiverlandPark

RiverlandElementary

HectorPark

TarponCove Park

TarponRiverPark

CliffLakePark

ShirleySmallPark

BennesonPark

15th StreetBoat Basin

HarbordaleSchool

SunsetPark

HorttPark

FlamingoPark Croissant

Park

PoincianaPark

BryantPeneyPark

RogersMiddleSchool

Floyd HullStadium

SnyderPark

IdlewyldPark

Bayview Dr.Canal Ends

HolidayPark

WelcomePark

Dr. ElizabethHays Civic Park

PalmAirePark

WalkerPark

SmokerPark

Sailboat BendPreserve Park

Esterre DavisWright Park

CoontieHatcheeLandings

North ForkRiverfront

Park

AnnHerman

Park

Bill KeithPreserve

PeterFeldman

Park

RiverlandWoods Park

LockhartStadium

MizellCenter

OsswaldPark

Las OlasMarina

MarshallPoint

New RiverMiddleSchool

MerleFoggPark

Cypress CreekSand PinePreserve

LittleLincoln

Park

Sunland ParkElementary

NorthsideElementary

StephenFoster

Elementary

WilliamDandyMiddle

DolphinIslesPark

Ann MurrayGreenway

Cooley'sLanding Marine

Facility

BubierPark

RiverwalkLinear Park Stranahan

LandingPark

LoggerheadPark

MillsPondPark

Mills Pond ParkConservation Site

EarlLifshey

Park

SistrunkPark

City of Fort Lauderdale:Neighborhood Associat ions /

Plot Date: 4/30/2012Projects in GIS1: P:\CI_Standard_Maps\ArcGIS\neighborhood_association_map_11x17.mxd

LegendStreets

City Limits

City of Fort Lauderdale Parks

0 4,0002,000 Feet

Figure 19: DDA Boundary

Data Source: Fort Lauderdale DDA, 2006

Figure 20: HOA Boundaries

Data Source: City of Fort Lauderdale, 2012


04Conclusions


Based on the existing conditions analysis, sev-eral strengths and opportunity areas have been identified that will be used to develop the guiding principles that will serve as the basis for the final master plan for the site and the study area.

First of all, the entire site is owned by the County, with the exception of one small parcel that is owned by the City. This is a major strength, because it provides the opportunity to redevelop the site without purchasing any additional land.

The population is generally young and educated, and their income levels are diverse. This type of population is generally supportive of transit oriented development. A review of the other conditions for TOD, such as the prevalence of households without a car and people who already choose to walk to work, further proves the desire and openness to multi-modal transportation and TOD. Considering the redevelopment plans, almost all of them also promote multi-modal transportation and the creation of mixed use cen-ters.

Furthermore, the downtown already serves as a built up commercial district that attracts people from all around the region. Other major attractors in the area include the Himmarshee District and Las Olas, which provide retail and entertainment. This is a major key necessary for a TOD to be successful, as it provides a potential ridership base to draw from.

The downtown fronts a river, which presents a

great development opportunity. There is a river walk, but there is not much connecting it to the rest of the downtown. The development pattern has somewhat turned its back to the river in some areas, but there is the potential to make it a major focus of development if redevelopment is done properly.

The existing and future public transportation sys-tems are also strong. The site is located across the street from a major public transportation hub. Additionally, the future transportation improve-ments include investments in rail, such as the Wave Streetcar and the FEC commuter rail line. Rail transit options are more likely to attract choice riders (those that are not forced to ride transit due to financial or other circumstances), and the existing conditions analysis has shown that the population in the area is generally com-prised of people more likely to be choice riders.

That being said, there are many issues that need to be overcome to create a successful TOD. First of all, while there is housing surrounding the downtown area, there is not enough housing within ¼ mile of the study area. While the down-town Census Tract has a population density of over 12 people per acre (although that number may be slightly higher in the traditionally recog-nized downtown due to the high rise condo units), it needs to be increased significantly to provide the population base necessary to support an Urban Downtown TOD (as stated before, this requires something closer to 60 people per acre).

“The prevalence of households without a car and people who already choose to walk to work further proves the desire and openness to multi-modal transportation and transit oriented development.”

Strengths and Opportunities


Along those lines, the necessary services to sup-port a high residential population are not present in the area. The retail areas do not include things like grocery stores or markets and are typically not intense enough to support a large residential population, and this need must be addressed if the population density is to be increased and auto usage and dependency is to be decreased.

Additionally, the housing in the area is extremely expensive. According to the census data pre-sented in the analysis, this is not a major issue for the population currently living there, as in general it is not unaffordable to them. However, if the support services necessary to support a large residential population are to be expanded, many retail and service jobs will be created. Retail and service jobs do not pay high enough to allow the employees to live in the area at the current prices. In order to create an area that does not depend on the automobile, it will be necessary to address the need for workforce level housing so that those working in the retail and service indus-tries will be able to afford to live within walking distance of their jobs.

The area is also very auto-oriented. There is an abundance of parking and it is not expensive, which encourages people to drive as opposed to taking alternative modes of transportation to the area. Even within the downtown area, it is not uncommon for people to drive from one side to the other as opposed to walking or taking the free circulator. It will be important to avoid increasing

the parking supply, or possibly even decrease and concentrate it, if a TOD is to be successful. This may be possible through relaxing parking requirements and relying on shared parking.

There are also several major roads running through downtown that are wide and act as bar-riers to pedestrian mobility. The most significant of these is Broward Boulevard, which borders the site on one side and acts as a barrier between the proposed TOD and the mobility hub across the street. However, by addressing the road in the future plans, it is possibly to use the connec-tion between the study area and the mobility hub to make that section of Broward Boulevard more pedestrian friendly and less focused on the per-sonal automobile.

There is also a significant amount of underuti-lized units and vacant properties. This is both a weakness and an opportunity. Those areas offer the opportunity for redevelopment that can be catalyzed by the development of this TOD, and with the proper guidance they can be developed in a way that supports a pedestrian friendly area. A major area for redevelopment is the Riverfront area immediately adjacent to the south of the site. It offers the opportunity for expanded hous-ing, retail, and other opportunities that could be mutually beneficial to our TOD site.


1. Improve Walkability and Connectivity

The pedestrian environment should be elevated to the most important mobility consideration. Through a combi-nation of streetscaping, traffic calming, the provision of pedestrian amenities, and other measures to increase connectivity, it will be possible to create a more pedes-trian friendly environment. Careful consideration of rede-velopment should be given to ensure that ground floor uses activate the space and get people walking through

the area.

Guiding Principles

2. Celebrate the Existing Resources

Redevelopment efforts in the downtown should focus on the existing resources, such as the river, the river walk, the cultural and historical resources, the greenspace, and the thriving retail/dining/entertainment areas. Streets and buildings should be oriented towards the river so as to draw people there. Active uses should be developed

along the river.

Top: Figure 21: Improve Walkability and Connectivity. Bottom: Figure 22: Celebrate the Existing Resources


3. Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way

The development of new, high density housing should be encouraged in order to support the TOD and rail line. At the same time, that housing should be affordable to the people who will live in the area. New uses that support the residential population should be encouraged, such as the development of grocery stores and other essential services. By including housing that is affordable to both the higher income population and the lower income pop-ulation, people will be able to afford to work where they

live no matter what their income level is.

4. Get People Out of Their Cars

There is an abundance of inexpensive parking and roads are designed to move vehicles through as fast as pos-sible. Major roads should be redesigned to slow traffic, and new parking should be avoided. Instead, shared parking should be encouraged to take full advantage of the existing parking and to ensure that it is being uti-lized properly. Multi-modal transportation connections between the TOD and the rest of downtown should be developed to ensure that people can utilize the area

without a personal vehicle.

Top: Figure 23: Densify in an Affordable and Accessible Way. Bottom: Figure 24: Get People out of their Cars.


04Future Scenarios


Redevelopment Plan

Introduction

This next step, the Redevelopment Plan, pres-ents the vision, goals, objectives, and the imple-mentation strategies - described as metrics - for a successful plan. These metrics are intended to provide general direction for the redevelopment of the Station Area. This plan’s intent is to further define the overall vision, densities, land uses, transportation, site layout, site design, parking strategies, circulation, urban form, open space, and implementation tools based on the unique features of the specific station under scrutiny.

The Fort Lauderdale downtown, and more spe-cifically the study area that has been selected, has been considered a declining area and this proposal aims to revitalize the area by fostering the development of new tax revenue and reduc-ing governmental service costs through TOD. Although the primary goal of any transit system investment is to improve mobility, the economic and fiscal impact is of equal importance.

Since this TOD embraces mixed-uses and afford-ability, it will not only promote economic and fiscal impacts but also will promote social and equity improvements. The implication of activities involv-ing construction, operation, and maintenance of a transit system creates jobs, spending, and tax revenues. New transportation infrastructure typically leads to new development and redevel-opment activity, introducing shifts in development patterns and governmental service costs. Fur-thermore, this plan aims to lead that redevelop-

ment towards the vision presented in this plan.

Regarding housing, the importance of support-ing affordability for the housing component is to create a sustainable environment in the area that supports the ability for people to afford to live where they work and reduce the need for (and dependence on) the automobile. Local and regional competitiveness will also improve, thus affecting the location decisions of individuals and businesses and generate an environment that is supportive and encouraging of sustainable growth.

This section will focus on two levels of detail regarding the future of Fort Lauderdale. The first level will consider the specific site being con-sidered for redevelopment, as this is the level that the developer has the maximum amount of control over. In this case, either the County could redevelop the site itself, or it could sell the land to a private developer. If the latter scenario is chose, the County and the City should ensure that the proper policies are in place to foster the development desired. At this scale, it is possible to consider issues such as the amount and type of housing provided, the amount and type of commercial provided, how the station fits with the development, and other specific details.

The second level is less specific but none-the-less necessary in order to create a development that addresses the guiding principles presented in the previous section. The point of this level is to ensure that the area in its entirety is developed

in a way that is supportive of multimodal transpor-tation, including the densities and intensities that are necessary to support transit. This level will focus on the area that is within walking distance of the TOD (1/4 mile radius, as presented in the previous section).

Additionally, several cross sections will be pre-sented for Broward Boulevard. This road is con-sidered because it borders the study area and presents a major void between the TOD and the development on the north side of Broward Boule-vard. That being said, these scenarios may also be considered for other major roads in the study area, such as Federal Highway and Andrews Avenue. Each of these cross sections presents a narrowing of the actual through lanes in order to provide better access for pedestrians and bicy-clists. Two of them present scenarios in which fixed transit lanes are present, and one simply narrows the road.

Each of these strategies will be evaluated against the guiding principles as well as the goals and metrics that support them, as detailed in this sec-tion. The methodology behind these analyses will also be explained.


The process

This redevelopment plan is the roadmap of a redevelopment process, and identifies and focuses on only a section of the Fort Lauderdale downtown. This plan aims to regenerate the evo-lution of the downtown area. The organization of the plan follows that process and is divided into the following five sections:

1. Vision: Lays out an overall vision for the future of the study area, which is based on the existing analysis section and the guiding principles. The vision highlights the strengths and opportunities of the area and is com-pared to the goals, objectives, and metrics to determine how well they align with the vision.

2. Branding: Determines the physical and per-ceived image that the study area and the sta-tion aims to portray to the environment. Also, it is important to recognize the need to create this image as a reflection of the area.

3. Goals, Objectives, and Metrics: Delineates a program to follow for implementation of the vision. Describes options that should be embraced and implemented in order to sup-port the ideal situation for redevelopment of the study area and the site.

4. Implementation: Details an action plan regarding the steps to be taken to implement the vision. This section is included in order to highlight clear steps to achieve the vision.


As stated by the Urban Land Institute, TODs are “better with a vision.” A vision consists of a simple but powerful statement that recognizes the past, present, and future of an area and is created to move forward a concrete ideal for an area or region. In this plan, this concrete ideal is sup-ported by guiding principles, which are:

1. Improve Walkability and Connectivity

2. Celebrate the Existing Resources

3. Densify in an Accessible and Affordable Way

4. Get People Out of Their Cars

Based on these principles, the redevelopment plan’s vision statement is:

“The Broward Boulevard FEC station transit oriented development will encourage an urban environment that improves pedestrian mobility, promotes multi-modal investment, and supports economic sustainability for existing and future growth in Fort Lauderdale.”

Brand strategy has been defined as the how, what, when, and to whom you plan on communi-cating your product or service. Having a clear and concise brand strategy leads to stronger overall brand equity, how people feel about or perceive your services, how much they are willing to pay, and how much they are willing to use it (Smit, 2011). There are many aspects related to brand-ing, including the importance of visual form, the feel of the space, the attractiveness, and how this strategy can become a catalyst for other related areas to flourish.

Branding strategy recommends targeting indus-tries, developing physical characteristics, and linking cultural opportunities with strategies that may situate the site in a way that allows it to inspire innovation and diversity in development and population so that the surrounding area can feed off of this energy to inspire overall change. “These strategies focus on the idea of the city being both a muse and a blank canvas, inviting innovators to raise their own bar” (North Star, 2013).

Logos may be developed using a fresh, modern color palette that does not rely on stereotypical City colors. Brand narrative should spark a con-nection between this city of sharp contrasts and

Vision and Branding

The BrandThe Vision

“The Broward Boule-vard FEC Station transit oriented development will encourage a mul-timodal environment that improves pedes-trian mobility, promotes multi-modal investment, and supports economic sustainability for exist-ing and future growth in Fort Lauderdale.”


the people who might make it their own.

For these reasons is very important that stake-holders be part of the process. It is recommended that information gathering with key stakeholders including the mayor, the city manager, the visitors and convention bureau, the economic develop-ment agency, the business improvement districts, the business owners, and the cultural institution leaders take place before deciding the branding of the station.

The following recommendations should be imple-mented to develop a successful brand:

• Commuters must be given a reason to stop at Broward Boulevard Station (BBS), and doing so must be made clear and easy.

• BBS should be branded as distinct from other stations along the corridor and provide multi-ple entrance points.

• Redesigned intersections and new lighting, street furniture, paving, and bus shelters, are needed.

• The Boulevard facing the station would ben-efit from a more distinctive look along its length.

• Signage guidelines would help; for example, at the proposed apartment building on top of the station and across it.

• A pedestrian-friendly streetscape with a more relevant retail mix is needed.

• Art and signage may be used at the station entrances that reveal the historical and cul-tural aspects of the area.

• The branding logo and narrative of the station must be placed at strategic locations, such as train wagons, other stations, and multiple

media sources to promote the station.

“Branding recommends targeting industries,

physical characteris-tics, and linking cul-

tural opportunities with strategies that may sit-

uate the site in a way that allows it to inspire innovation and diver-

sity in development and population so that the surrounding area can

feed off of this energy to inspire overall change.”


The drawing to the right displays both an axono-metric portrayal of the study area redevelopment as well as a cross section of the building that will sit on the site itself. The site plan presented here is not necessarily an exact representation of the development that will occur, but rather it is an example of the development that can occur based on the guiding principles and using the pol-icies recommended later in this section. As stated before, it can be developed either by the County or a private developer, which may also have an impact on the final site design.

As can be seen in Figures 25-30, the site will be developed as two adjacent buildings with a small alley street between them that leads to the rail line. This road would be used as access for a kiss and ride location.

Streetscaping, including the planting of trees on the sides of the road and in the median, will be implemented in order to create a better pedes-trian environment. There is a small pedestrian plaza that is included in the northeast corner of the site that will provide a place for people to meet and socialize outside. The one crosswalk that is shown is repaved with stamped concrete that is painted to look like brick, which both increases the visibility for drivers as well as the attractiveness for pedestrians.

The two buildings will contain a variety of uses. The cross section shows an example of what the building to the north might contain. The building to the south will contain the actual train station,

however there will also be pedestrian access from any direction.

Regarding the actual buildings to be built on the site, a conceptual plan has been drawn up for each one. As per the zoning codes, the buildings will be developed to the maximum developable height of 190’, and will each contain fifteen floors. The building to the south will contain the actual transit station as well as ground floor retail. This will take up the first three floors, and will contain uses such as neighborhood serving retail, bars, and restaurants. The next five floors will act as a buffer between the higher intensity transit uses below and the residential floors above. These four floors will contain two floors of parking for the residences as well as grocery stores and three floors of office and commercial space. Finally, the top seven floors will contain high density residen-tial rental units.

The building to the north is broken up a bit differ-ently. The first two floors will contain retail uses. A grocery store is proposed for the area, as there is not currently one in walking distance and it will be supported by both the residences in the building as well as the new ones that will later be built in the area. The next five floors will contain a buffer of office uses, and finally the top eight floors will contain residential rental apartments. This building will contain the lobby as well as the amenities for the residential units, and there will be a connection between the two buildings so that residents in the south building do not have to

go outside to get to the amenities.

In order to ensure that the housing is affordable (especially to those working in the area) 15% of the units will be reserved for very low incomes (those making 50% or less of the area median income, or AMI), 25% will be reserved for low incomes (50-80% of the AMI), 20% will be reserved for workforce level housing (80-120% of the AMI), and the remaining 40% will be market rate.

The retail units in both buildings will face the streets that surround them in order to create an interesting and diverse pedestrian environment to encourage people to walk. An extra 10 feet of sidewalk will be dedicated from the building’s developers in order to provide space for sidewalk cafes and other uses.

Notice that parking for the transit station is not included. This is because the transit station is a downtown station and as such, should not encourage people to drive to it. The major modes of access to this station are to be walking and biking.

Site Plan


Figure 25: Site Plan


Figure 26: Conceptual Rendering 1


Figure 28: Conceptual Rendering 3 Figure 29: Conceptual Rendering 4


The illustrative plan to the right shows a potential future scenario for Fort Lauderdale based on redevelopment around the Broward Boulevard FEC Station. As can be seen, the street network has changed somewhat. The City has always been arranged in a grid pattern, and the new net-work builds upon that by connecting streets that were not connected previously. This will happen through the development process as buildings are redeveloped.

The sidewalk network is also enhanced. Any-where that there is a sidewalk, streetscaping will occur. This will happen in the form of the addition of street trees and sidewalk furniture and the encouragement of developers to create sidewalk cafes (which requires dedicating some ground space for extra sidewalk; typically about 10 to 15 feet). Also, cross walks are added. Each cross-walk is to be repaved with stamped concrete and painted to look like brick. This will raise visibility of crosswalks for drivers while at the same time creating a more attractive pedestrian space.

The land uses changes to include much more mixed use and residential uses. In some areas, such as Riverfront, buildings are redeveloped to encourage a different scale that allows for better walkability due to more options for pedes-trian crossings between them. Buildings in this scenario also are arranged to front the street as opposed to inner courtyards. By building in this manner, pedestrians are encouraged to walk along the street and enjoy the active uses that

are presented to them.

Due to the increased amount of high density residential, there will be enough density to sup-port the creation of new restaurants and bars to develop an environment that is the “24 hour” downtown that keeps people in it and actively using it all the time.

Several new parks are created and existing parks are preserved. Many of these directly front or lead towards the river, and the street network is somewhat modified to ensure greater connectivity to the river. Therefore, the existing resources that the city has until now failed to capitalize on are becoming a new focal point for activity.

Because the new development plan focuses more on the creation of an environment that actu-ally is pleasant to traverse on foot, people are less likely to use their cars. The TOD will specifi-cally encourage this because it will allow people to travel to downtown Fort Lauderdale without a car. There is also much less structured parking. In general, parking structures are closer to the edges of downtown so as not to interrupt the active on street uses. Additionally, by putting the parking on the outskirts of the area, it encourages people to walk through it as opposed to driving.

Transit strategies are also introduced. Bus rapid transit is suggested along Broward Boulevard, which will connect to the TOD allowing for a com-prehensive multimodal transportation strategy.

Downtown Plan

Vehicular Strategies Main route for through traffic

Transit Strategies FEC Passenger Rail Rapid Bus

Pedestrian and Bicycling Strategies Enhanced sidewalk Enhance pedestrian crosswalks

Land Use Strategies Park/Recreation Institutional Commercial Mixed Use High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Parking Garage

Figure 31: Downtown Plan


Several corridor-wide goals were developed that relate to the guiding principles. Then, a set of performance metrics was developed to accu-rately assess how well each scenario achieves the four guiding principles. This table should be used to evaluate any proposed development in the downtown area to ensure that the proper form of development is achieved and perpetuated after the initial development of the Broward Boulevard Station TOD. This ensures that the downtown will be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the

vision presented previously.

The goals aim to create a more livable and sus-tainable multimodal environment that builds upon the successes of the TOD and the implemen-tation of rapid transit as presented in this plan. These goals include promoting multimodal mobil-ity, or the development of Fort Lauderdale into a city that can support rail and rapid bus transit as well as pedestrian mobility; improving the urban environment by creating a 24 hour downtown

with active uses at all hours of the day that draw people to it; and encouraging economic sustain-ability by providing affordable housing, encourag-ing local commerce, and activating the existing resources in ways that will bring economic activity into the area.

As can be seen in Table 3, each metric relates to one of the guiding principles discussed in this plan. Each should be considered separately and comprehensively in order to better understand

1 2 3 4Walkability/Connectivity Celebrate Resources Density/Affordability Against Car Dependecy

Encourage redevelpment along FEC Number of redevelopment application along FEC

Connect additional through streets Block spacing Provide bike sharing stations Number of stations and station capacity Enhance Sidewalks Minimun width of sidewalks Enhance Crosswalks Distintive pavers and patterns along crosswlak Reduce parking lots and garages # of parking spaces Attractiveness of transit to choice riders Fequency, services, and amenities Provide residential units within walking distance of transit

# of units within 1/4 mile

Provide ground level commercial activity Linear feet of active street frontage Provide additional public space with art and inviting design

Square footage of area of public space

Improve the historic character # of active historic places Improve pedestrian access and connective Ridership level Provide affordable housing # of units within 1/4 mile w/cost no more than 50% of

the local median HH income

Provide workforce housing # of units within 1/4 mile w/cost no more than 120% of the local median HH income

Promote public/private partnerships # of contracts and agreements Encourage local commerce Grants and loans for local chamber of commerce Support local commercial affordability # of locally owned businesses Provide cultural and entertainment venues # of events/activities per year Activate riverwalk # of events/activities per year

Guiding Principle Addressed

PromoteMulti-ModalMobility

Improvethe Urban Environment

EncourageEcomonicSustainability

Goal Objective Metric

Table 3: Guiding Principle Assessment

Scenario Evaluation


how a proposed development achieves the over-all vision.

There is not a set “target number” for each of these categories. That is done purposefully, as the city must determine what is right for it. Each development will be slightly different, which will create the kind of diversity and unique character that leads to successful places. If a prescriptive number were to be developed, it could result in a form of development that is largely homogeneous

and therefore not interesting to be in.

This chart can also be used to evaluate the city overall every five years to determine how well it is meeting the vision and to evaluate where opportunities and issues lie regarding that prog-ress. While an individual building may meet all of these categories, one building does not change the entire city. Therefore, evaluating the city as a whole in addition to each development proposal will be a key factor in the success of the city cre-

ating a multimodal and transit oriented place.

A sample assessment using the guiding princi-ples can be seen in Table 4, where the site plan is evaluated. The site plan addresses each objec-tive, although they are stated differently than in table 3. This is OK, as it encourages diversity in development.

1 2 3 4Walkability/Connectivity Celebrate Resources Density/Affordability Against Car Dependecy

Encourage redevelpment along FEC Propose 50 dwelling units per acre Connect additional through streets Open up street to connect from west to east traffic Provide bike sharing stations Propose two bike stations for 15 bikes each Enhance Sidewalks Repave of all four sidewalks and create two more

within the site

Enhance Crosswalks Propose a new crosswalk along Brickell Avenue Reduce parking lots and garages Redevelop existing garage to incorporate a grocery

store, retail, and residential units

Attractiveness of transit to choice riders Create a new train station inside proposed building Provide residential units within walking distance of transit

100 % of units are within 1/4 mile from transit station

Provide ground level commercial activity Broward Boulevard, Brickell Avenue, and station frontage are activated by retail/commercial spaces

Provide additional public space with art and inviting design

Propose two plazas total of 15,000 sq ft of public space

Improve the historic character Preserve and restore historic structures Improve pedestrian access and connectivity Provide new scrossings and sidewalks, streetscape

sidewalks, and activate ground level uses

Provide affordable housing 40% of DU are targeting affordable levels Provide workforce housing 20% of DU are targeting workforce levels Promote public/private partnerships Project is a partnership with private developers, City

of Fort Lauderdale and non-profit organizations

Encourage local commerce Retail spaces at ground varies in size from 1,000 sq ft to 10,000 sq ft

Support local commercial affordability Smaller space and spaces within historic structures preserved for lower rent spaces

Provide cultural and entertainment venues Train station space supports cultural and entertainment events

Activate riverwalk Train station brings riders to the area that may discover riverwalk and new uses front the riverwalk

PromoteMulti-ModalMobility

Improvethe Urban Environment

EncourageEcomonicSustainability

Guiding Principle Addressed

Objective Project ProgramGoal

Table 4: Sample Assessment


Broward Boulevard Redevelopment Scenarios

It is important to note that none of these goals involve making major improvements for the auto-mobile. This is because the use of the single occupant vehicle (SOV) is being discouraged. The SOV is not a sustainable form of trans-portation and it creates congestion in the area. Broward Boulevard is one of the most auto-de-pendent and congested arterials in the area. Because of this, it acts as a void in the area that is hard to cross.

In order to address this, several cross sections for proposed development have been created, as shown on the following three pages. While these scenarios are specifically designed for Broward Boulevard, they may also be applied to any major arterial in the area. Some of these include Fed-eral Highway, Andrews Avenue, Sunrise Boule-vard, and Davie Boulevard. There are three basic ideas being proposed, and two of these include improvements that would allow for a bus rapid transit (BRT) system to be created.

BRT service typically runs more frequently than other types of bus service in a dedicated right-of-way and operates in a manner similar to rail service. It is, however, much cheaper than rail service and features things like enhanced sta-tions, off-vehicle ticketing, off-board fare collec-tion, transit signal priority (TSP), branding, and streetscaping. BRT light has some but not all of the features of BRT. Typically, they give up things like dedicated right-of-way, transit signal priority, and enhanced stations. This causes a decrease

in the quality and level of service, but is some-times required due to political, funding, or physi-cal design issues (FDOT, 2011).

Regarding dedicated bus lanes, there are sev-eral types. Bus only lanes allow, as the name suggests, only buses. They can be located on the inside or outside lane, and each has differ-ent advantages and disadvantages. For areas without an extremely high level of bus activity (or under the standard 100 buses per hour sug-gested by Demery & Higgins, 2005), it may make sense to share bus lanes with cars in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this plan, two of those ways are important. The first is high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which allow any vehicle car-rying two or more people to use the lane. These can be located on the inside lanes, and if buses are given access to TSP, the lanes can operate very closely (in speed) to dedicated lanes. How-ever, they do limit the ability to make left turns.

Another type of transit lane is the business access transit (BAT) lane. The BAT lane is located on the outside of the road and typically has several restrictions. It allows buses and bikes at all times, and can be restricted to only buses and bikes during peak hours. During the rest of the day, cars turning right at the next intersection or turning right into a business driveway are also allowed to use the lane. This form of transit lane does not restrict left turns in the same way that the center HOV lanes do and allows for a more flexible roadway system. However, they also are

less efficient, as buses can be stalled by right turning vehicles. Admittedly, they may also have less capacity for throughput.

The City should think hard about how it wants to connect the passenger rail system to its transit system. A BRT system could provide similar ser-vice to rail at a much lower cost, and the devel-opments proposed in this plan could create the residential and commercial densities necessary to support that type of service. However, it does require the dedication of a lane in order to work properly and therefore somewhat of a higher cost initially than continuing as is.


Scenario AScenario A considers a cross section that nar-rows the road but does not provide designated transit lanes. One lane in each direction is removed, and on street parking and bike lanes are included. The sidewalk is wide, however it would still be necessary for developers to ded-icate about 10 feet more of sidewalk to create sidewalk cafes.

The speed limit remains around 35 miles per hour (MPH), and that provides for a pleasant walking and biking environment. The narrowed lanes pro-vide reassurance that the speeds in these lanes will remain calm and slow. Additionally, a large, landscaped median is included that provides for an attractive pedestrian refuge.

According to the Broward County MPO’s 2030 LRTP, express bus service will be included in the

transit system on Broward Boulevard, but there are currently no plans to dedicate lanes to it and this scenario does not call for it. This scenario also impacts the turning movements little, as it allows for left turns. Because of this, it would probably encounter the least amount of political resistance, but provide the least benefit as well.

Figure 32 Cross Section Scenario A


Scenario BScenario B considers an alternative cross section that includes a variety of improvements. In this scenario, left turn lanes were removed and the inside lanes in either direction were converted to HOV lanes. These lanes support BRT with TSP as well as HOV with two or more persons.

The median has been converted into a transit shelter with a tree lined promenade that supports bicycles and pedestrians. The pedestrian cross-ings have been replaced with stamped concrete

to make them more visible, and streetscaping has been implemented to provide shade to pedestri-ans.

This plan also provides for on street parking. However, that parking can be converted to through lanes during peak hours so as to keep three lanes of traffic moving through the area when it is needed, while servicing the need for parking and keeping streets calm when it is not.

The speeds here would be 35 MPH or less, as in scenario A. The narrow lanes would also be used

to keep traffic calm.

While it is not visible in this cross section, this scenario will eventually be coupled with the denser development pattern presented in the plan for downtown. Businesses will be encour-aged to front the street and will be encouraged to develop active ground floor uses and add another ten foot of sidewalk in front of the building face that can support sidewalk cafes and other uses.

Figure 33: Cross Section Scenario B


Scenario CScenario C presents a cross section in which BAT lanes and TSP are introduced to the corridor. However, left turn lanes remain open in this sce-nario as well.

In this scenario, there are medians to provide pedestrian refuges, but they are not as wide as in the other scenarios. One downfall of this form is that it may encourage speeding more due to the wider expanse of unfettered roadway.

This scenario may have less throughput due to the removal of the HOV lane. That reduction is offset by the ability to make left turns, creating higher capacity for vehicles to exit the corridor and disperse through the surrounding neighbor-hoods. It is also offset by the right turn access in the BAT lanes and the reduction in weave cre-ated by the separated left turn lanes. Bicycles are accommodated in the BAT lanes and pedestrian crosswalks are again made more prevalent and attractive via the use of stamped asphalt.

As in Scenario B, the denser mixed use develop-ment pattern is encouraged, thus supporting the higher levels of transit use needed to justify BRT. Businesses will once again be encouraged to front the street and will be encouraged to develop active uses on their first floor. As part of this, they will be encouraged to add another ten foot of sidewalk in front of the building face that can sup-port sidewalk cafes and other uses.

Figure 34: Cross Section Scenario C


05Implementation


Implementation Plan

Guidelines

Given that the guiding principles create a framework for the study area and this has been reflected in the site proposal, this section demonstrates an action plan for the entire study area that is meant to provide guidance to deci-sion makers, investors, and stakeholders when regarding future growth.

That being said, there are some key assumptions that inform the implementation of this plan that have been uncovered throughout the process of the creation of this plan. These assumptions are the fundamental ideas that ensure that the form of development in the city takes the approach that builds the kind of environment that the plan is aiming to create. These principles are laid out as follows.

The need to think beyond the car

The car has taken over open, public, and civic spaces and car culture has conditioned people to drive distances that they would otherwise walk. Because of this, people are less likely to engage in basic human experiences that come with the interaction encouraged by walking and congre-gating in public spaces. As we have become more and more accustomed to accommodating the car, we have created high speed roadways that accommodate the car better than people.

There are several other issues with this thinking

and way of developing. First, cars do not bring economic activity, people do. Cars also do not need to move - people need to move. Therefore, we have a need to reverse the thinking of car first and people second to push a greater focus on people.

The need to promote transit

Transit, on the other hand, can move people much more efficiently than the SOV. Transit uses its space to accommodate people rather than the car, as many more people can be transported by bus or train than by car.

Transit is also better for the economy and for the environment. Because transit carries more peo-ple, its use reduces the amount of people on the road and therefore results in lower fewer emis-sions and other harmful and toxic environmental effects. Additionally, transit brings in revenues and provides jobs for the operators.

The need for higher densities

High residential and employment densities can have a number of positive effects. First of all, greater numbers of people support higher levels and greater types of transit. Higher densities are also needed to support commercial activities and are one element needed to provide the basis of vibrant and successful downtown. They also sup-port other things necessary to successful down-towns such as cultural and entertainment venues.

Density also has another, more abstract effect. Higher densities support diversity. Diversity fos-ters innovation by bringing people from different backgrounds together. Innovation is the key to success in many urban environments, as it is what makes a place unique and desirable.

There is more than just land use

The initiatives that support the TOD permit the city to move forward from simply developing uses to creating places. In order to do this, it is necessary to understand that design regulations are as important as other regulations; they phys-ically affect our environment and our responses to it. This statement reflects a holistic approach that involves transportation, public/open space, and uses that work together to create a sense of place that is otherwise unlikely to develop.


Action Plan

Table 5 lists a set of strategies and corresponding action items that can be used as a basis for the implementation of the plan. These action items are to be initial guidelines that the city should complete at a minimum in order to achieve the vision outlined previously. That being said, there may be more initiatives that develop over time, so

this should be considered somewhat of a “living document” that can change as the needs of the population change and new practices are devel-oped.

In addition to these strategies, processes and mechanisms have been suggested for the imple-mentation of each item. This part of the plan is meant to help guide the city in figuring out how

to complete each action item. Finally, each item has been prioritized regarding its importance as determined in reviewing them in the context of the previous sections. Based on the priority assigned to each action item, a timing plan has been developed to explain when each action item should be completed.

Strategy Action Items Process/Mechanism Timing Acquire easements to place bus shelter out of the sidewalk Growth Management 1Improve bus shelters Capital Improvement Plan 2Coordinate plans and agencies for the new train station Growth Management 1Broward Boulevard redesign Roadway Design 1New local thoroughfare Roadway Design 2Widen sidewalks Capital Improvement Plan 1Identify new bus stops to support train connections New study 3Landscape new and existing medians (Trees and shrubs) Capital Improvement Plan 1Require public plazas for future train stations Development review 0Coordinate cultural programming On-going process 0Coordinate entertainment programming On-going process 0Increase police patroling Safety program 0Implement signage and lighting at existing and new parks New study 2Façade of building facing main streets needs to be activated Development review 1No parking or driveway facing main streets Development review 1Public entrances need to be celebrated Development review 1Buildings facing main streets must contain mixed uses Development review 1Minimum densities and affordability cannot be waived Development review 1

MultimodalTransportation

Strategies

Open/Public Space Strategies

Design Strategies

Table 5: Implementation Plan

Timing Legend:

O = Ongoing work | 1 = Immediate (within the next year) | 2 = Short-term (within the next two years) | 3 = Mid-term (within the next five years)


06Feasibility


IntroductionBroward Boulevard Station, like a smaller ver-sion of Grand Central Station in New York or Union Station in Chicago, would not be complete without integrated retail and a diversity of uses that keep the area vibrant and active twenty-four hours a day. The proposal in this plan would cre-ate a station in the County-owned site on the east side of the Florida East Coast railroad tracks. This station will consist of two buildings and a new street for improved pedestrian access and connectivity.

Physical Feasibility

The surrounding physical features have been discussed extensively in this report. The current site is a parking garage. The key physical feature required to make the Broward Boulevard Station possible is the provision of transit on the FEC rail line. Currently, the FEC only provides freight ser-vice on this line, but plans are in the works to add two types of passenger rail service. All Aboard Florida proposes to provide the first privately operated intercity passenger rail in the U.S. in 50 years, connecting Orlando with West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. This service proposal has been put forward by the FEC, and is currently scheduled to begin in 2015 (Chardy, 2013). On the local level, the Florida Department of Transportation and Tri-Rail have both been pursuing separate plans for intracity passen-ger rail on the FEC (Garcia, 2011). An attempt is underway to reconcile the two plans, with a

Memorandum of Understanding currently being prepared by the Southeast Florida Transportation Council that will ask all parties to work with the South Florida East Coast Corridor study team in the completion of the project development phase (“4/22/13 SEFTC Agenda Package,” 2013).

The project development phase is expected to take no longer than two years, as the most recent federal transportation bill, MAP 21, set a limit on the maximum time a project can spend in the project development phase. With another two years for engineering and two years for construc-tion, intra-city passenger rail can be expected to start around 2020. This project can and should move forward in a similar time frame, so that the station would open in 2020 not only for service, but also for retail, residential, and office space.

As an alternative, this project may be developed in phases, with the first phase to open in 2015 with the opening of the All Aboard Florida passen-ger rail line, and the additional phases to open by 2020 when FEC rail service is added. For the purposes of this report, the feasibility analysis will be performed as if the project is being con-structed and opened in one phase. The dollars and amounts used are today’s dollars, so they are likely to be more applicable for a project with a 2015 opening date.

Social Feasibility

The millennial generation wants to live in more urban areas (El Nasser, 2012), and the aging

baby boomer population needs the services offered in higher density, low maintenance living environments more than they need the three bedroom house in the suburbs. Clearly the social desire is there for living in an urban environment with the amenities and transportation this type of development offers. One of the biggest issues is affordability, with much of the existing hous-ing stock out of the price range of middle class households. This project seeks to address this by reserving 60% of the housing units for house-holds ranging from low income to middle income, workforce housing.

Environmental FeasibilityCurrently, the site is developed. Since the use is a parking garage, almost all of the area is imper-vious except for a small buffer of grass adjacent to Broward Boulevard and some street trees on the sidewalk. The proposed project would have

Feasibility Analysis

Figure 35: Green Roof in Chicago


approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of open space, which would include pervious as well as impervious area, plus additional trees. Since the roof will not be a parking garage like the current structure, there will also be opportunities to provide more pervious area in the form of a green roof. See Figure 30 on the previous page for an example of a green roof in Chicago.

Every effort will be made to preserve environ-mental sustainability. While the team does not currently have a LEED professional on board, the higher construction costs of LEED buildings were incorporated into the estimates for this construc-tion (“DCD LEED® & Sustainable Square Foot Cost Guide,” 2012).

Regulatory FeasibilityThis area is in Fort Lauderdale’s Downtown Regional Activity Center (RAC), which offers more flexibility with regards to building height and mixed use. There should be no issue with that aspect. The biggest challenge, however, is that the comprehensive plan only permits 5,100 dwelling units total within the RAC. The city code requires a special approval process to permit additional residential units, which subjects the developer to additional criteria. This process is spelled out in Fort Lauderdale’s municipal code section 47-13.20 (“Code of Ordinances,” 2012). Achieving support of the local political leaders will be crucial to getting this project approved.

Market FeasibilityBroward County began a campaign last year to brand and market their parking garage, which is primarily used for employee parking but is also open to the public. They created an attractive logo and retooled the name as the “GG” (Wall-man 2012). Perhaps this sort of marketing effort did bring in additional parking revenue at the expense of other area parking lots, but parking itself is not an attractor to draw additional peo-ple downtown—retail, commercial, restaurant, and entertainment venues are an attractor. This project seeks to do exactly that, in a way that no parking garage could ever do.

There are several other residential units pro-posed for the area in the near future. Approxi-mately 3,050 rental units are being proposed or in progress for downtown Fort Lauderdale, which indicates that the market is strong for residen-tial rental units in urban areas (Zalewski, 2012). This should not satiate the demand, however. Downtown Miami had a surplus of condos being completed just as the area’s real estate market crashed, and the entire inventory is expected to be gone by early 2014. While these were sold as condos, most of the units were bought by inves-tors and rented out, capitalizing on the growing market for rental units in downtown areas (Bran-nigan, 2012). This trend can be expected to con-tinue in downtown Fort Lauderdale, especially in a transit-oriented development with a quick con-nection to downtown Miami.

Financial FeasibilityA pro forma financial analysis has been per-formed for the project (see Appendix 1 for the detailed analysis). As the buildings will be well served by transit, parking should not be very important. Refer to Table 6 for the building usage for each floor.

The project is projected to cost just under $200 million. The project is expected to be funded with the developer contributing $40 million, a Federal Transit Administration grant of $30 million paying for the station construction, the land value of $9 million contributing to equity, and a bank loan of $120.5 million covering the remainder of the costs.

First year After Tax Cash Flow (ATCF) is expected to be $145,253, with the highest ATCF in a 20 year period expected to be over $1 million in the 8th year of operation. Other key financial indicators calculated from the pro forma cash flow analysis can be found in Table 7. These have been calculated using the standard formulas. Refer to Appendix 1 for notes on any assump-tions used.

The project is feasible with the private fund-ing combined with the FTA grant that Broward County Transit or the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority would need to pursue. Because of the very narrow profit margin, it may not be attractive to many developers, though. It will be able to provide additional affordable and


Table 6: Building Usage and Area Table 7: Financial Strength Indicators

North BuildinFootprint 26,700 sq. ft. Notes Funding

Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Developer's equity $40,000,000

Residential 8 213,600 171,000

assumed 80% to exclude halls, walls, maintenance Land value 8,919,300$

Office 5 133,500 107,000 assumed 80% Total equity $48,919,300

Retail 2 53,400 48,000 assumed 90%Gross area: 15 400,500 326,000 FTA Grant (for sta 30,000,000$

Bank Loan $120,507,200

South BuildinFootprint 55,700 sq. ft. from site plan Interest rate 7%

Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Term 20 yrs.Residential 7 389,900 312,000 assumed 80% Points 0

Office 3 167,100 134,000

assumed 80%

Parking 2 111,400 Lease rates $/sq.ft./yr. Rentable sq. ft. Gross rent/yr.

Retail/Transit 3 167,100 100,000 assumed 60% due to transit station Residential $16 483000 $7,728,000

Gross Area: 15 835,500 546,000 Office $18 241000 $4,338,000Retail $20 148000 $2,960,000

Totals sq. ft.Construction cost / sq.ft. Total cost Check to ensure RAC zoning code is met

Residential 603,500 $165 $99,577,500 Units (avg. 1000 sOpen space requAt grade open spaceOffice 300,600 $165 $49,599,000 483 48,300 19,320.0 Retail 220,500 $190 $41,895,000 Rental rates based on current market values. Sources:Parking 111,400 $75 $8,355,000Total 1,236,000 $199,426,500Construction cost sources:

Source: Parrish, L. (2013). Broward County Property Appraiser. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://199.27.243.5/

DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide. (2012, November). Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.htmlRSMeans Square Foot Cost Estimates. (2013). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/

Fort Lauderdale, FL Market Trends. (2012, September). Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/HttpHandlers/Chart/MarketTrends.ashx?city=Fort‐Lauderdale&state=Florida&#

Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom in downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-


workforce housing if additional subsidies were offered, plus it might become more attractive to more developers.

Site DesignFigure 31 shows a basic site layout for the proj-ect, overlayed over an aerial of the existing site.

ConclusionsSince the project will bring in a profit for the developer over a period of 20 years, the project is feasible. Since transit is typically subsidized with federal grants, the development proposal incorporates grant funding to build the transit station portion of the project. This would be done through a public-private partnership (PPP). Addi-tional PPPs and other incentives offered by local government would make the development more attractive, and help offset the unpredictability of the market. The project should provide a good opportunity for people to live and work near tran-sit and near downtown Fort Lauderdale.

Figure 36: Site Plan Overlayed Over Existing Site

£¤1

0 0.50.25MilesI


07Works Cited


4/22/13 SEFTC Agenda Package. (2013, April 22). Southeast Florida Transportation Council. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.seftc.org/system/agendas/101/original/042213%20SEFTC%20Agenda%20Package_FINAL.pdf

Brannigan, M. (2012, August 2). Downtown Miami condo sales, prices up - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/02/2928193/downtown-miami-condo-sales-prices.html

Cervero, R. e. (2004). Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Chardy, A. (2013, March 18). Miami-Orlando train service on track to roll in 2015. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/18/3293733/all-aboard-florida-on-track-for.html

Cherry, N., & Nagle, K. (2009). Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. Washington, DC: Planning Press.

Christensen, D. (2010, September 15). Whistleblower probes expose bad blood behind county, MPO split. Broward Bulldog. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.browardbulldog.org/2010/09/whistleblower-probesexpose-bad-blood-behind-county-mpo-split/

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2003). South Andrews Avenue Master Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2007). Fort Lauderdale: Building A Livable Downtown. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). City of Fort Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). North US1 Urban Design Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2008). Northwest/Progresso/Flagler Heights Implementation Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2009). Draft Central Beach Master Plan. Fort Lauderdale: City of Fort Lauderdale.

City of Fort Lauderdale - Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) - About Us. (2013). Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/cra/aboutus.htm

City of Fort Lauderdale: Neighborhood Associations. (2012, April 30). Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://gis.fortlauderdale.gov/PDFs/ITS/Neighborhood%20Associations%20%2811x17%29%20-%20Fort%20Lauderdale.pdf

City of Fort Lauderdale. (2013). City of Fort Lauderdale GIS Data Extraction. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from City of Fort Lauderdale: http://gis.fortlauderdale.gov/DataExtraction/

Code of Ordinances City of Fort Lauderdale, FL. (2012, December 4). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://search.municode.com/html/10787/index.html

CRA Project Areas. (2006, January 19). Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/cra/plans/maps.htm

CTOD. (2008). Capturing the Value of Transit. Washington, DC: Center for Transit Oriented Development.

CTOD. (2009). Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability with Location Efficiency. Washington, DC: Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

CTOD. (2012). Families and Transit-Oriented Development: Creating Complete Communities for All. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

Works Cited


DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide. (2012, November). Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.html

Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.

El Nasser, H. (2012, December 4). American cities fighting to keep Millennials from moving to suburbs. USA Today. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/03/american-cities-to-millennials-dont-leave-us/1744357/

Fact Sheet. (2013). All Aboard Florida. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.allaboardflorida.com/fact-sheet

FDOT (2011). State Road 50 Multi-Modal Corridor Study. Orlando, FL: Florida Department of Transportation.

FDOT. (2012). South Florida East Coast Corridor. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.sfeccstudy.com/background.html

FEC. (2011). History. Retrieved on March 3, 2013, from Florida East Coast Railway: http://www.fecrwy.com/about/history

FTA. (2006). Building Livable Communities with Transit: Planning, Developing, and Implementing Community-Sensitive Transit. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Association.

Garcia, T. (2011, October 29). Tri-Rail to Run FEC service by 2015. Transit Miami. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.transitmiami.com/sfrta/tri-rail-to-run-fec-service-by-2015-fdot-district-6-secretary-lone-no-vote

Google Maps. (2012). [Street view]. Retrieved from https://maps.google.com/

North Star. (2013). Downtown Branding Study. Retrieved from North Star: http://www.northstarideas.com/community/CommunityBrandingDowntownNewOrleans.htm

Smit, A. J. (2011). The Influence of District Visual Quality on Location Decisions of Creative Entrepreneurs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 167-184.

Speck, Jeff. (2013). Fort Lauderdale Downtown Walkability Analysis. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Speck & Associates

ULI. (2004). Developing Around Transit: Streategues and Solutions that Work. Washington, DC: ULI - the Urban Land Institute.

University of Florida GeoPlan Center. (2012, December 10). Generalized Land Use Derived from 2012 Parcels - FDOT District 4. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from Florida GeoDatabase Library: http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 - 2011, Detailed Tables; generated by Chris Romano; using American FactFinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/home; January 20, 2013

U.S. Census Bureau; Longitudinal Employer Housing Dynamics Program; generated by Chris Romano; using Census OnTheMap; http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/; January 20, 2013

Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom in downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-construction.html


08Appendix


Appendix 1: Building Area and Construction Cost Calculations

North BuildinFootprint 26,700 sq. ft. Notes Funding

Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Developer's equity $40,000,000

Residential 8 213,600 171,000

assumed 80% to exclude halls, walls, maintenance Land value 8,919,300$

Office 5 133,500 107,000 assumed 80% Total equity $48,919,300

Retail 2 53,400 48,000 assumed 90%Gross area: 15 400,500 326,000 FTA Grant (for sta 30,000,000$

Bank Loan $120,507,200

South BuildinFootprint 55,700 sq. ft. from site plan Interest rate 7%

Use Floors sq. ft. Rentable area Term 20 yrs.Residential 7 389,900 312,000 assumed 80% Points 0

Office 3 167,100 134,000

assumed 80%

Parking 2 111,400 Lease rates $/sq.ft./yr. Rentable sq. ft. Gross rent/yr.

Retail/Transit 3 167,100 100,000 assumed 60% due to transit station Residential $16 483000 $7,728,000

Gross Area: 15 835,500 546,000 Office $18 241000 $4,338,000Retail $20 148000 $2,960,000

Totals sq. ft.Construction cost / sq.ft. Total cost Check to ensure RAC zoning code is met

Residential 603,500 $165 $99,577,500 Units (avg. 1000 sOpen space requAt grade open spaceOffice 300,600 $165 $49,599,000 483 48,300 19,320.0 Retail 220,500 $190 $41,895,000 Rental rates based on current market values. Sources:Parking 111,400 $75 $8,355,000Total 1,236,000 $199,426,500Construction cost sources:

Source: Parrish, L. (2013). Broward County Property Appraiser. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://199.27.243.5/

DCD Building Cost Guides | The DCD Building Square Foot Cost Guide. (2012, November). Design Cost Data. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.dcd.com/guides/1211guide.htmlRSMeans Square Foot Cost Estimates. (2013). Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/

Fort Lauderdale, FL Market Trends. (2012, September). Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/HttpHandlers/Chart/MarketTrends.ashx?city=Fort‐Lauderdale&state=Florida&#

Zalewski, P. (2012, August 26). Signs point to residential construction boom in downtown Fort Lauderdale - Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/26/2968035/signs-point-to-residential-


Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Estimated gross rent $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000Estimated vacancy 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15%Net rent 11,720,280$ 11,870,540$ 12,020,800$ 12,171,060$ 12,321,320$ 12,471,580$ 12,621,840$ 12,772,100$ 12,772,100$ 12,772,100$ Other income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Effective Gross Income 11,720,280$ 11,870,540$ 12,020,800$ 12,171,060$ 12,321,320$ 12,471,580$ 12,621,840$ 12,772,100$ 12,772,100$ 12,772,100$

Operating expenses 200,000$

Assumed at 0.1% of construction costs, going up by 0.01% each year 250,000$ 260,000$ 280,000$ 300,000$ 320,000$ 340,000$ 360,000$ 380,000$ 400,000$

Net Operating Income 11,520,280$ 11,620,540$ 11,760,800$ 11,891,060$ 12,021,320$ 12,151,580$ 12,281,840$ 12,412,100$ 12,392,100$ 12,372,100$ Debt service 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ Cash Flow Before Taxes (BTCF) 145,253$ 245,513$ 385,773$ 516,033$ 646,293$ 776,553$ 906,813$ 1,037,073$ 1,017,073$ 997,073$ Mortgage principal repaid 2,939,523$ 3,145,290$ 3,365,460$ 3,601,042$ 3,853,115$ 4,122,833$ 4,411,432$ 4,720,232$ 5,050,648$ 5,404,193$

Depreciation 5,113,500$

equal amounts / 39 yrs 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$

Amortization points -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Leasing Commissions 820,420$ 7%, for 3 years 830,938$ 841,456$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Tenant Improvements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Taxable Income (2,994,396)$ (2,799,148)$ (2,589,496)$ (1,512,458)$ (1,260,385)$ (990,667)$ (702,068)$ (393,268)$ (62,852)$ 290,693$

Taxes -$ Assumed 20% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 58,139$

After Tax Cash Flow (ATCF) 145,253$ 245,513$ 385,773$ 516,033$ 646,293$ 776,553$ 906,813$ 1,037,073$ 1,017,073$ 938,934$ Loan to Value Ratio 0.590 0.588 0.587 0.586 0.585 0.584 0.582 0.581 0.579 0.577Debt Coverage Ratio 1.013 1.022 1.034 1.045 1.057 1.068 1.080 1.091 1.089 1.088Breakeven Point 0.770 0.774 0.774 0.776 0.777 0.778 0.780 0.781 0.782 0.784Expense Ratio 0.017 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.030 0.031Cash Equity 81,858,823$ 85,004,113$ 88,369,573$ 91,970,615$ 95,823,731$ 99,946,564$ 104,357,996$ 109,078,227$ 114,128,876$ 119,533,069$ Cash on Cash 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.008After Tax Return on Equity 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.008Return on Asset 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062Value 164,575,428.57$ 166,007,714.29$ 168,011,428.57$ 169,872,285.71$ 171,733,142.86$ 173,594,000.00$ 175,454,857.14$ 177,315,714.29$ 177,030,000.00$ 176,744,285.71$

Appendix 2: 20 Year Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis


YearEstimated gross rentEstimated vacancyNet rentOther incomeEffective Gross Income

Operating expenses

Net Operating IncomeDebt serviceCash Flow Before Taxes (BTCF)Mortgage principal repaid

DepreciationAmortization points

Leasing CommissionsTenant ImprovementsTaxable Income

TaxesAfter Tax Cash Flow (ATCF)Loan to Value RatioDebt Coverage RatioBreakeven PointExpense RatioCash EquityCash on CashAfter Tax Return on EquityReturn on AssetValue

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20$15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000 $15,026,000

15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%12,772,100$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

12,772,100$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 12,922,360$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$ 13,072,620$

420,000$ 440,000$ 460,000$ 480,000$ 500,000$ 520,000$ 540,000$ 560,000$ 580,000$ 600,000$

12,352,100$ 12,482,360$ 12,462,360$ 12,442,360$ 12,422,360$ 12,552,620$ 12,532,620$ 12,512,620$ 12,492,620$ 12,472,620$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 11,375,027$ 10,630,867$

977,073$ 1,107,333$ 1,087,333$ 1,067,333$ 1,047,333$ 1,177,593$ 1,157,593$ 1,137,593$ 1,117,593$ 1,841,753$

5,782,487$ 6,187,261$ 6,620,369$ 7,083,795$ 7,579,661$ 8,110,237$ 8,677,954$ 9,285,411$ 9,935,389$ 9,886,706$

5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ 5,113,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

668,987$ 1,073,761$ 1,506,869$ 1,970,295$ 2,466,161$ 2,996,737$ 3,564,454$ 4,171,911$ 4,821,889$ 4,773,206$

133,797$ 214,752$ 301,374$ 394,059$ 493,232$ 599,347$ 712,891$ 834,382$ 964,378$ 954,641$

843,275$ 892,581$ 785,959$ 673,274$ 554,101$ 578,245$ 444,702$ 303,211$ 153,215$ 887,112$ 0.575 0.573 0.571 0.569 0.566 0.564 0.561 0.558 0.554 0.5551.086 1.097 1.096 1.094 1.092 1.104 1.102 1.100 1.098 1.1730.785 0.786 0.788 0.789 0.790 0.792 0.793 0.794 0.796 0.7470.033 0.034 0.036 0.037 0.039 0.040 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.046

125,315,556$ 131,502,817$ 138,123,187$ 145,206,982$ 152,786,643$ 160,896,880$ 169,574,834$ 178,860,244$ 188,795,633$ 198,682,339$ 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.009

0.007 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.0040.062 0.063 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063

176,458,571.43$ 178,319,428.57$ 178,033,714.29$ 177,748,000.00$ 177,462,285.71$ 179,323,142.86$ 179,037,428.57$ 178,751,714.29$ 178,466,000.00$ 178,180,285.71$


Appendix 3: 20 Year Amortization Plan

Loan Amortization Schedule

Loan amount $120,507,200 Scheduled payment 11,375,027.18$ Annual interest rate 7.00 % Scheduled number of payments 20

Loan period in years 20 Actual number of payments 20Number of payments per year 1 (see note below) Total early payments -$

Start date of loan 1/1/15 Total interest 106,993,343.62$ Optional extra payments

Lender name:

Pmt. No.

Payment Date Beginning BalanceScheduled Payment

Extra Payment Total Payment Principal Interest Ending Balance Cumulative Interest

1 1/1/16 120,507,200.00$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 2,939,523.18$ 8,435,504.00$ 117,567,676.82$ 8,435,504.00$ 2 1/1/17 117,567,676.82$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 3,145,289.80$ 8,229,737.38$ 114,422,387.02$ 16,665,241.38$ 3 1/1/18 114,422,387.02$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 3,365,460.09$ 8,009,567.09$ 111,056,926.92$ 24,674,808.47$ 4 1/1/19 111,056,926.92$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 3,601,042.30$ 7,773,984.88$ 107,455,884.63$ 32,448,793.35$ 5 1/1/20 107,455,884.63$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 3,853,115.26$ 7,521,911.92$ 103,602,769.37$ 39,970,705.28$ 6 1/1/21 103,602,769.37$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 4,122,833.33$ 7,252,193.86$ 99,479,936.05$ 47,222,899.13$ 7 1/1/22 99,479,936.05$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 4,411,431.66$ 6,963,595.52$ 95,068,504.39$ 54,186,494.66$ 8 1/1/23 95,068,504.39$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 4,720,231.87$ 6,654,795.31$ 90,348,272.51$ 60,841,289.96$ 9 1/1/24 90,348,272.51$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 5,050,648.11$ 6,324,379.08$ 85,297,624.41$ 67,165,669.04$ 10 1/1/25 85,297,624.41$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 5,404,193.47$ 5,970,833.71$ 79,893,430.94$ 73,136,502.75$ 11 1/1/26 79,893,430.94$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 5,782,487.02$ 5,592,540.17$ 74,110,943.92$ 78,729,042.91$ 12 1/1/27 74,110,943.92$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 6,187,261.11$ 5,187,766.07$ 67,923,682.81$ 83,916,808.99$ 13 1/1/28 67,923,682.81$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 6,620,369.38$ 4,754,657.80$ 61,303,313.43$ 88,671,466.79$ 14 1/1/29 61,303,313.43$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 7,083,795.24$ 4,291,231.94$ 54,219,518.19$ 92,962,698.73$ 15 1/1/30 54,219,518.19$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 7,579,660.91$ 3,795,366.27$ 46,639,857.28$ 96,758,065.00$ 16 1/1/31 46,639,857.28$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 8,110,237.17$ 3,264,790.01$ 38,529,620.11$ 100,022,855.01$ 17 1/1/32 38,529,620.11$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 8,677,953.77$ 2,697,073.41$ 29,851,666.34$ 102,719,928.42$ 18 1/1/33 29,851,666.34$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 9,285,410.54$ 2,089,616.64$ 20,566,255.80$ 104,809,545.06$ 19 1/1/34 20,566,255.80$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 11,375,027.18$ 9,935,389.28$ 1,439,637.91$ 10,630,866.52$ 106,249,182.97$ 20 1/1/35 10,630,866.52$ 11,375,027.18$ -$ 10,630,866.52$ 9,886,705.87$ 744,160.66$ -$ 106,993,343.62$

Enter values Loan summary

growing through transit: a plan for transit oriented development in downtown fort lauderdale

Government & Nonprofit

transit oriented development

future development

support transit

transit connection

multimodal city

future premium transit

new high intensity development

downtown fort lauderdale