Connecting a Divided Downtown by Chris Edmonston

Connec ng a Divided Downtown By Christopher Edmonston

A Masters Research Project into the impact of the widening of Interstate 4 between the Parramore Heritage district and the Central Business District in Downtown Orlando, FL with a proposed method of mi ga ng its nega ve eďŹ&#x20AC;ects.

Connec•ng a Divided Downtown Masters Research Project Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Architecture In par•al fulﬁllment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Architecture

By Christopher Edmonston

Commi•ee Chair Dr. Frank Bosworth Co-Chair Nancy Clark

University of Florida April 27, 2016

Dedica•on I would like to dedicate this book to my Mother and Father who have always encouraged me to pursue what I love and taught me to do my best in everything I do. To my beau•ful wife, this couldn’t have happened without you. Thank you for the sacriﬁce, support and love you have shown me since we began this journey.

Acknowledgments I have been blessed to been given the opportunity to learn from thought provoking and extremely talented professors through out my educaâ&#x20AC;˘on. I would like to thank all those that have contributed to my academic success, you have played a key role in the designer I am today giving me the foundaâ&#x20AC;˘on to be successful into my future.

Table of Contents Abstract

Chapter 1

Project Framework & Introduc!on Framework of the Problem Brief History of the Orlando Scope References

4 6 8 10

Chapter 2

Introduc!on to the Highway Overview of Highway Development Typical Types and Eﬀects of Highway Construc!on within Downtown Orlando At-Grade Highway Elevated on Embankments Side-by-Side Elevated Highway History of Interstate Beau!ﬁca!on and Available Federal Funding

12 13 14 14 14 14

Chapter 3

Precedent Case Studies Freeway Park Precedent Study: A8ernA Precedent Study: The Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Plantee Bridge Market NY, Queensboro Bridge, New York, New York Precedent Conclusions References

17 18 19 20 20 22 22

Chapter 4

Spacial Suitability Framework & Site Analysis Spa•al Suitability Framework Site Analysis Site Analysis Diagrams Sec•onal Analysis Program Recommenda•ons References

23 24 27 29 30 32

Chapter 5

Interven•on and Conclusions Site Plan Structural Concept The Highway The City of Orlando Case Studies Spa•al Framework Structural Possibili•es Project Conclusions Where this research should go Introduc•on to design interven•on

34 35 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 48

Reference Summary Recommended Readings List of Figures

49 50 51

Figure 1-1 Photos below Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando. Currently the Interstate is undergoing a full overhaul to widen it by over 100â&#x20AC;&#x2122; as it passing between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District in Downtown Orlando.

Connec•ng a Divided Downtown Abstract

A Masters Research Project into the impact of the widening of Interstate 4 between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District in Downtown Orlando, FL with a proposed method of mi•ga•ng its nega•ve effects. With the construc!on of highways through urban areas, empty spaces were formed. These spaces, along and beneath elevated highways affect the way a city is experienced. They disconnect neighborhoods visually and act as a physical and physiological barrier (Trancik, 1986). In addi!on to this, the undefined territory of these spaces leads to misuse, such as dumping and illegal ac!vi!es. The inappropriate use of the vacant spaces underneath elevated highways can lead to social and economic dispari!es in addi!on to their una$rac!ve visual and physical presence (Halprin, 1966). Jane Jacobs refers to a street as an “intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and Figure 1-2 View of the Interstate from the Parramore Heritage looking standards among the people themselves, and enforced by the people themselves.” No!ng toward the District Central Business District. that a well-used street is apt to be rela!vely safe from crime, while a deserted street is apt to be unsafe (Jacobs, 1961). Upon its comple!on in 1965, Interstate 4 solidified the city of Orlando’s standing as a major metropolitan area in Florida, with the highway carrying an es!mated 200,000 vehicles a day. However, it also created a 35 %. by 160 %. wide overpass through the downtown district between East Washington Street and Church Street. This divided the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District leaving a 285 %. by 1300 %. swath of land that was in-filled with a parking lot. In 2015 a ceremony, a$ended by Florida Governor Rick Sco$, broke ground for a 21 mile overhaul of the I4 corridor from west of Kirkman Road in Orange County to east of State Road 434 in Seminole County, reworking the major interchanges and adding two toll express lanes to I4 (Orlando Sen!nel, 2015). This will widen the overpass that cuts through the city to 292% further impac!ng the connec!on between the two districts by reducing pedestrian space and the visual progression of the urban scale. In effect it creates a visual barrier within the city grid. Upon further examina!on, the year 2000 census tracts of educa!on a$ainment level, per capita income and race, which are in the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District, the social impact of the highway becomes clear as it has resulted in severe economic disparity. The area beneath overpass between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District was of noted importance to the city as stated in the districts comprehensive plan “Project DTO” (DTO 2015) due to its central loca!on in Downtown Figure 1-3 Figure ground of Downtown Orlando between the Orlando. The site yields many nega!ve characteris!cs associated with elevated highways, Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. The site yet it has the poten!al to be a crucial linkage in the city with the current and upcoming is highlighted in yellow. ameni!es in downtown. However, effects of the Interstate on the area are not unique to Orlando. Now, with calls for improved infrastructure and a demand for increased capacity, the federal highway system con!nues to expand. Highways have been shown to have an impact on urban environments, a problem that effects ci!es throughout America and Europe. While individually catered solu!ons are necessary, precedents establish a framework to create an environment that will s!mulate pedestrian ac!vity. The study of precedents revealed that a commercial element is crucial in genera!ng pedestrian ac!vity and demonstrates that these spaces can become ac!ve connec!ons within urban centers. Once the framework is established, the current condi!ons of the study site were analyzed in order to develop a comprehensive plan to implement a kit of parts to the exis!ng infrastructure of the highway overpass in downtown Orlando. The kit of parts demonstrates a method to infill spaces beneath elevated highways, replacing these underu!lized, yet crucial spaces, with leasable space for the ci!es to use to s!mulate a zone of commercial ac!vity. The terms “braced”, “suspended” and “independent” are applied to produce a method to create commercial infill. This master’s research project proposes that the spaces can be infilled with a pedestrian friendly environment that creates a node which links the spaces beneath elevated highways through urban city centers. Figure 1-4 View of the Interstate from the Central Business District looking toward the Parramore Heritage District .

Figure 1-5 Ariel photograph of Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando. With the site highlighted in yellow.

Figure 1-6 Photo beneath Interstate 4 as it passes over Pine Street in Downtown Orlando.

Chapter 1

Project Framework & Introduc•on Framework of the Problem With the approval of the Federal-Aid Highway act of 1956, the country began the process of connec•ng the United States with thousands of miles of high speed road. The purpose for this act was put forth by President Dwight D. Eisenhower sta•ng problems of safety, conges•on, courts, economy and defense.14 However, the process of implemen•ng the largest publics work project in the na•on took place over a short period of •me, resul•ng in unexpected nega•ve consequences throughout urban areas.11 These nega•ve eﬀects include excessive noise, reloca•on of residents, unwanted views that dras•cally changed the urban landscape, and divisions of established communi•es.

Figure 1-7 Photographs and diagram showing 5 blocks removed, for the construc•on of Interstate 4, from Downtown Orlando spli$ng the fabric of the city between the Parramore Heritage District and The Central Business District.

dŚĞ ŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǀĂĐĂŶƚ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ƵŶĚĞƌŶĞĂƚŚ ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚ ŚŝŐŚǁĂǇƐ ĐĂŶ ůĞĂĚ ƚŽ ƐŽĐŝĂů ĂŶĚ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ ŝŶ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞŝƌ ƵŶĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞ ǀŝƐƵĂů ĂŶĚ ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂů ƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ͘ >ĂǁƌĞŶĐĞ ,ĂůƉƌŝŶ

Figure 1-8 Photograph of Landscape Architect Lawrence Halprin in front of Freeway Park, Sea#le, Washington. (Photo by Katy Muldoon)

With the construc•on of highways through urban areas, more empty spaces were formed. The spaces along and beneath elevated highways aﬀect the way the city is experienced. They disconnect neighborhoods visually and act as a physical and physiological barrier.12 In addi•on to this, the undeﬁned territory of these spaces leads to misuse, such as dumping and illegal ac•vi•es. The inappropriate use of the vacant spaces underneath elevated highways can lead to social and economic dispari•es in addi•on to their una#rac•ve visual and physical presence (See Figure 1-8).3 Jane Jacobs refers to a street as “intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves, and enforced by the people themselves.” no•ng that a well-used street is apt to be rela•vely safe from crime, while a deserted street is apt to be unsafe.6 “Undeveloped areas beneath elevated highways have the poten•al to be made into key connec•ons within the city when used as recrea•onal and gathering spaces that integrate the elevated highway with the ci•es surrounding environment”.5 Examples of this can be seen in New York’s Bridgemarket beneath Queensboro Bridge in Manha#an, Zaanstadt’s A8erna Market and Recrea•on Park beneath highway A8 in the Netherlands and the Viaduct des Arts in Paris, France. These designs, among others, demonstrate the ability of these residual spaces beneath elevated highways to reac•vate the surrounding area and internally connect the city.

Figure 1-9 Photographs of Interstate 4 as it passes through Downtown Orlando.

Figure 1-10 Diagram show Interstate as it exist per-overhaul (le•) and how much it will increase by a•er the Ul•mate I4 overhaul is complete (right). Note that it will grow by over 100 feet in width upon its comple•on.

Figure 1-11 Ariel Photograph of the Interstate per-overhaul (le•) and a rendering of what it will look like upon comple•on. (Right)

1913

1954

A traffic study iden•fied nearly 195,000 vehicle trips per day in and out of the metro Orlando/Winter Park area in 1954. Local officials knew a major upgrade would be required to greatly improve the infrastructure. In 1958 the first of six projects began in the construc•on of interstate 4 and in 1959 the first sec•on was opened connec•ng Plant City to Lakeland, Florida. The Interstate connected Tampa to Downtown Orlando up to Robinson St. By 1965 it accommodated 70,000 vehicles per day.2 While this further solidified the city’s standing as a major metropolitan in Florida, with the highway carrying an es•mated 200,000 vehicles a day, it also ran a 40-foot-high by 160’ wide overpass directly through the center of the downtown district (See Figure 1-7). The Orlando Interna•onal Airport is currently connected to Interstate 4 through the toll road 528 and Semoran Blvd. to toll road 408 or State Road 50. Those connec•ons are the primary methods of transpor•ng travelers throughout Metro Orlando. In 2015 a ceremony a•ended by state Governor Rick Sco• broke ground in what will be a 21 mile overhaul of the I4 corridor through Orlando, reworking the major interchange and adding two toll express lanes to I4.2 This will widen the overpass that cuts through the city to 292• with the area underneath currently used as a parking lot, crea•ng a dead zone of ac•vity in the center of the city (See Figure 1-10). Currently project DTO has released a plan to convert the area into a “Bridge District” with ac•ve open space, urban ameni•es and recrea•on areas (See Figure 1-3 &).9 Upon further examina•on, the year 2000 census tracts that are in the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District (See Fig. 1.2), the social effects of the highway become prevalent. When comparing the popula•ons the two districts are very close. But when examining the educa•on level obtained, income and race it is clear that severe inequali•es exist between the East and West sides of Interstate 4 (See Figure 1-6). The most significant sta•s•cs are in per capita, educa•on obtained,income, and Race. Their sub-categories of obtained bachelors degrees, income below $30,000 annually, and diversity. Of the popula•on over 25, in the Central Business District, 31% obtain bachelors, 31% made less than $30,000 and 80% of the popula•on is White. Versus the popula•on over 25, in the Parramore Heritage District where 7% obtain bachelors, 71% made less than $30,000 and 66% of the popula•on is African American (See Figure 1-20 for a summary chart of all the 2000 Census categories surveyed). These effects can be seen architecturally as well when examining a figure ground of the city star•ng in 1913 and no•ng the difference in density between the Central Business District and the Paramore Heritage District. The figure grounds show how there is consistent growth in both districts up un•l 1954, two years before the construc•on of Interstate 4, but from post construc•on onward the Parramore Heritage District decreases in density, while the Central Business district increases, to the present day, 50 years a•er the construc•on of

1969

the highway, the area has yet to recover from the impact (See Figure 1-13). Orlando has stated in its Project DTO plan that it wants to create a highly connected city, ci•ng specifically pedestrian friendly streets.9 It has also been shown that improved walking condi•ons have intangible benefits to the quality of life in ci•es and towns. In a growing number of communi•es, the level of walking is considered an indicator of a community’s livability, a factor that has a profound impact on a"rac•ng businesses and professionals as well as tourism. In ci•es and towns where people can regularly be seen out walking, there is a palpable sense that these are safe and friendly places to live and visit. The social interac•on possible when the walkability of ci•es increases is a major factor for improving quality of life. Comfortable and accessible pedestrian environments offer alterna•ves to personal vehicles, which limit opportuni•es for social contact with others. By providing appropriate pedestrian facili•es and ameni•es, communi•es enable the interac•on between neighborhoods and other ci•zens that can strengthen rela•onships and contribute to a healthy sense of iden•ty and place.10 Brief History of the Orlando Orlando was incorporated in 1875 and its economy was agricultural based, with a focus on the citrus industry. This economy brought numerous new residents eager to get started in the citrus-growing industry and rapid growth spread throughout the region. Then in 1894 a great freeze came through the state of Florida and nearly crippled the industry. By 1910 the economic condi•on of the region was recovering through the tourism industry and conven•ons. The region prospered under a land boom un•l 1929 when the stock market crashed, marking the start of the Great Depression. It wasn’t un•l President Roosevelt’s New Deal that Orlando began to recover with public projects including a crucial resurfacing of the current Orlando Execu•ve Airport. This laid the founda•on for the establishment of American Military bases during World War I, Orlando Army Air Base, and McCoy Air Force Base in World War II. By 1944 the city constructed a new airport making it “Florida’s Air Capitol” and brought major aircra# and avia•on parts manufacturers such as Mar•n Mariota Company, the Boeing Co. and Harris Corpora•on. Florida had a massive popula•on boom in the 1950s with air-condi•oning regularly available and the burgeoning space industry in Cape Canaveral. More than 60 new industries came to Central Florida by the end of the decade, promp•ng the Census Bureau to declare Orlando’s growth at the •me as the “Na•on’s Greatest.”.4

Figure 1-12 When comparing the popula•ons the two districts are very close. But when examining the educa•on level obtained, income and race the social eﬀects of the highway become prevalent.

“By providing appropriate pedestrian facili•es and ameni•es, communi•es enable the interac•on between neighborhoods and other ci•zens that can strengthen rela•onships and contribute to a healthy sense of iden•ty and place” (Renne Puncher).

The city prospered through the 1950s and in 1964 Walt Disney began buying up large tracts of land and in 1965, announced its plans to build Walt Disney

1995

2015

Figure 1-13 Figure grounds (le#) show the consistent growth in both districts up un•l 1954, two years before the construc•on of Interstate 4, but from post construc•on onward the Parramore Heritage District decreases in density, while the Central Business district increases, to the present day, 50 years a#er the construc•on of the highway, the area has yet to recover from the impact

World. The project employed nearly 9,000 people in what was supposed to be a two year construc•on eﬀort leading to the opening of the theme park in 1971. This set oﬀ a tourism boom in the Orlando area a•rac•ng tourist based developments, such as Universal Studios in 1990 and more recently LEGO-LAND, 2013.4 The city has since grown in most part thanks to the establishment of these theme park a•rac•ons to present day. This has prospered from this boom as can be seen by comparing a popula•on of 51,826 in 1950, to the present day 2.3 million. Orlando is also now ranked as the most visited tourist des•na•on in the United States with nearly 60 million visitors per year, most of which are patrons of the theme parks.7

Figure 1-14 Map of Downtown Orlando with the Parramore Heritage District shown in orange and the Central Business District shown in blue. The green area is the loca•on of the Bridge District and the major city a•rac•ons are keyed on the map.

There are numerous factors that contribute to the success of metropolitan areas and the city of Orlando succeeded by adap•ng from various industries to its present day tourist based economy. However, of the millions of visitors to the Orlando area, few tourists venture from the theme parks to downtown Orlando, because the downtown area of Orlando is not in close proximity to the parks. Universal Studios is the closest at 8.7 miles and Disney is 25 miles away from the city center, and although it is connected by Interstate 4 there has been limited success in ge"ng the tourists that visit the parks to also enjoy the ameni•es of downtown. The downtown district is making moves to break into this market with the recent and coming construc•ons of the Amway Center, Citrus Bowl, Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center and the Orlando City soccer stadium. But also a•emp•ng to set themselves apart from the theme parks to create an iden•ty unique to Orlando. Business owners and city oﬃcials have also organized the community in a comprehensive plan referred to as Project DTO.9 The plan is an urban focused approach that uses three primary elements: a DTO Vision, DTO Marke•ng Strategy, and a new Downtown Orlando Community Redevelopment Area Plan which they feel is a road map to achieving the envisioned Downtown. The outcome goals of this plan are “To connect people to place emo•onally and diﬀeren•ate Downtown Orlando as a vibrant place for people to live, work, grow a business and visit; a comprehensive rewrite of the Downtown CRA Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Outlook, to guide future projects and ac•vi•es in implemen•ng the Project DTO Vision; a focused marke•ng and brand iden•ty strategy to ac•vate the DTO vision through mul•ple communica•on channels.”.9

Figure 1-15 Conceptual rendering of the Bridge District. The city of Orlando has recognized its poten•al for growth and pu"ng livability within downtown as a high priority. The area beneath the overpass was of noted importance to the city as stated in the districts comprehensive plan “Project DTO” due to its central loca•on in Downtown Orlando. The Orlando development board has referred to this area as the Bridge District.9

Figure 1-16 Photo of Interstate 4 looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District. Figure 1-17 Conceptual map of the proposed park to go under Interstate 4 (DTO)

Figure 1-18 Rendering of the future space beneath Interstate 4 in Downtown Orlando once the overhaul construc•on is completed.

This demonstrates the willingness of the city to adapt to the changing market and a drive to ensure that the theme parks are not the only a•rac•on in the area, but that the downtown district and its ameni•es can provide the city with its next economic adapta•on. The success of the city of Orlando is its ability to consistently transform itself to adapt and tap into emerging resources, such as avia•on manufacturing and tourism that have market demand. Problem Statement The focus of this study takes place below the Interstate 4 overpass between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District within downtown Orlando. Through visual analysis of the surrounding environment and a socio-cultural analysis of the region, it explores the possibility of incorpora•ng the spaces into a node within city through a comprehensive design that maximizes func•onality while improving the aesthe•cs and safety of the area. The spaces beneath I4 between Church St. and Central Blvd were selected for the purpose of this master’s research project. This area was chosen because of its noted importance in the districts comprehensive plan “Project DTO”9 and it’s proximity to Church St., a major corridor in Downtown Orlando. The site also yields many nega•ve characteris•cs associated with elevated highways yet it has the poten•al to be a crucial linkage in the city with the current and upcoming ameni•es in downtown.

Figure 1-19 Rendering of the view looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District beneath Interstate 4 in Downtown Orlando once the overhaul construc•on is completed.

Scope • In order to establish a framework for the design of the spaces below the overpass I4 between Church St. and Central Blvd. this master’s research project entails • A discussion of the development of highways in the United States and the federal programs aimed to improve the highways and the areas around them. An inves•ga•on of the projects developed under elevated highways in urban areas. • An examina•on of the socio-cultural and economic drivers of Orlando’s developments. • Establish a framework to adapt to the current condi•ons will be analyzed to in order to develop a comprehensive design. • Create a commercial and pedestrian friendly environment that will create a node to link the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. Project Goals • Develop a master plan that will improve the current condi•ons of the spaces below the Interstate 4 between Church Street and Pine Street. • Enhance the aesthe•c quality of the study area. • Create an a•rac•on that ﬁts the context for the city and its ameni•es that draws people into and through the space below Interstate 4 • Maximize the use of the space below the Interstate 4 overpass through pedestrian focused ac•vity and connec•on. • Minimize the impact of the elevated highway in its surroundings. • Improve the connec•ons between the Central Business District and Parramore Heritage District

ϮϬϬϬ ĞŶƐƵƐ ĂƚĂ

ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ фϮϱ

ĞŶƚƌĂů ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ

WĂƌƌĂŵŽƌĞ

WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ DĂƐƚĞƌƐ ĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐ ,ŝŐŚ ƐĐŚŽŽů ϮϬϬŬ Θ hƉ

/ŶĐŽŵĞ

ϭϱϬŬͲϭϵϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϭϬϬŬͲϭϰϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϳϱŬͲϵϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϱϬŬͲϳϰ͘ϵϵŬ ϯϬŬͲϰϵ͘ϵϵŬ hŶĚĞƌ ϯϬŬ ZĂĐĞ

KƚŚĞƌ ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐ ĨƌŝĐĂŶ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ tŚŝƚĞ Ϭ

ϭϬϬϬ tŚŝƚĞ

ĞŶƚƌĂů ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ WĂƌƌĂŵŽƌĞ

ϰϴϳϱ ϭϲϰϴ

ϮϬϬϬ

ZĂĐĞ ĨƌŝĐĂŶ ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ ϰϵϰ ϰϲϴ ϯϵϰϯ ϭϵϵ

ϯϬϬϬ

ϰϬϬϬ /ŶĐŽŵĞ

KƚŚĞƌ Ϯϰϯ ϭϵϬ

hŶĚĞƌ ϯϬŬϯϬŬͲϰϵ͘ϵϵŬϱϬŬͲϳϰ͘ϵϵŬϳϱŬͲϵϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϭϮϭϰ ϭϯϯϮ

ϲϲϰ ϭϵϵ

ϳϳϬ ϮϬϴ

ϯϯϱ ϳϰ

ϱϬϬϬ

ϲϬϬϬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

ϭϬϬŬͲ ϭϰϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϱϳϲ ϯϲ

ϳϬϬϬ фϮϱ

ϭϱϬŬͲ ϮϬϬŬ Θ hƉ,ŝŐŚ ƐĐŚŽŽů ĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐ DĂƐƚĞƌƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ϭϵϵ͘ϵϵŬ ϭϲϬ ϭϯϱ ϰϳϯϭ Ϯϱϳϯ ϵϮϰ ϲϬϴϬ Ϭ ϭ ϯϭϵϭ ϮϮϰ ϰϲ ϱϵϴϬ

Figure 1-20 Chart shows the break down of the Educa•on, Income and Race based on the data obtained from the 2000 census tracts in the Parramore Heritage District ( Tracts CT105 AND CT106) and the Central Business District ( Tracts CT101 and CT102). See

Figure 1-21 Year 2000 U.S. Census Tracts, Parramore Heritage District ( Tracts CT105 AND CT106) and the Central Business District ( Tracts CT101 and CT102).

References 1. AlSayyad, N. (2003). The end of tradi•on? (1st ed. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF030522791 2. Florida Department of Transporta•on. (2015). Ul•mate I4. Retrieved 9/1, 2015, from h•p://i4ul•mate.com/project-info/overview/ 3. Halprin, L. (1966). Freeways. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20FL020856455 4. Hissom, P. K. (2013). Thriving ci•es: City profile of orlando. University of Virginia: University of Virginia’s Instute for Advance Studies of Culture. (City Profile of Orlando) 5. Izzary, R. (2003). Restructuring the spaces under elevated expressways: A case study of the spaces below the interstate-10 overpass at perkins road in baton rouge, louisiana. Unpublished Masters of Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University 6. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american ci•es. New York: Random House. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF020648221 7. Johanson, M. (2014). Orlando surpasses new york as most-visited US city. Retrieved 9/15, 2015, from h•p://www.ib•mes.com/ orlando-surpasses-new-york-most-visited-us-city-1574621 8. Maki, F. (1964). Inves•ga•ons in collec•ve form. The School of Architecture Washington University, 2 9. Orlando, C. o. (2015). DTO vision. Retrieved 9/1, 2015, from h•p://fliphtml5.com/gydm/ojoc 10. Puncher, R. (2013). Pedestrian safety concerns in the u.s.. Retrieved 10/9, 2015, from h•p://safety.•wa.dot.gov/ped_bike/pssp/ background/psafety.cfm 11. Sco•, M. (1969). American city planning since 1890; a history commemora•ng the fi•ieth anniversary of the american ins•tute of planners. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog. fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20FL020063396 12. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space : Theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF025393379 13. Waldheim, C. (2006). The landscape urbanism reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF021531328 14. Weingroff, R. F. (2015). Original intent: Purpose of the interstate system 1954-1956. Retrieved December/9, 2015, from h•ps:// www.•wa.dot.gov/infrastructure/originalintent.cfm

This page was intenâ&#x20AC;˘onally leâ&#x20AC;˘ blank

Chapter 2

Introduc!on to the Highway

Figure 2-22 Construc!on photo of Interstate 4 though downtown Orlando, 1965, (Ul!mate I4, 2015) One year before comple!on note the density of the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District.

The goal of this chapter is to familiarize the reader with the development of the highway system in the United States, the different types of highway structures and their impact on the urban environment, and discussion of the various urban design theories used to study the site. These topics were selected as a guide to establish the framework for the development of the spaces beneath Interstate 4 between Church St. and Central Blvd. in Orlando, Florida. Overview of Highway Development By the late 1930s, the pressure for construc!on of transcon!nental superhighways was building (See Figure 2-23). Reaching the White House, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt con!nually expressed interest in the construc!on of a network of toll superhighways as a way of providing more jobs for people out of work through proposing three East to West and three North to South routes.10 This s!mulated the crea!on of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1938. The outcome of this act was a two-part report that proposed toll roads and free roads across the na!on. However the first of the two reports stated that transcon!nental traffic was insufficient to support a network of toll superhighways. The second part produced a master plan for the highway development, which called for roughly 28,000 miles of a no-toll interregional highway. Preserving the investment in earlier stages of improvement, the report called for the new highways to follow exis!ng routes. It also states that more than two lanes of traffic would be provided where traffic exceeded 2,000 vehicles per day. Within large ci!es, the routes could be depressed or elevated and limited-access belt lines would be needed for traffic wishing to bypass the city and to link radial expressways directed toward the center of the city. Inner belts surrounding the central business district would link the radial expressways while providing a way around the district for vehicles not des!ned for it.10

Figure 2-23 Peak traﬃc diagram from the Na!onal Highway Administra!on, (Wiengroﬀ, 1996)

On April 27, 1939, Roosevelt produced a report, pressing Congress to consider a special system of interregional highways. Through this report the President stated that the system of highways would provide all necessary connec!ons through and around ci!es, and should be designed to meet the requirements of the na!onal defense and the needs of growing traﬃc on a longer range. Fearing a lack of jobs for troops returning home from World War II the president formed a Na!onal Interregional Highway Commi$ee, in 1941, to inves!gate the need for a limited system of na!onal highways. This commi$ee provided

a report that recommended 40,000 miles of interregional highway. Detailing concerns for urban freeways sta•ng that these freeways would employ a powerful force on the shape of the future city. Therefore, it was important for the network to be located so as to advance desirable urban development.10

economic ambi•ons and at the state and federal level, and rarely from local planning or ci•zen demand. “They divide and marginalize neighborhoods their physical bulk con•nues to expand in response to rising automobile use and produce an increasingly distressing sensory assault on everyday life.”4

As a result of this report, Congress established the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. This Act, while similar to the previous, departed in Sec•on seven. This sec•on authorized designa•on of 40,000 miles towards the establishment the Interstate Highway System. This change divided the highway supporters between urban and rural interests and in turn increased the involvement of the federal government. The disagreement between these two groups resulted in the inability to consent on the major changes needed to address accumulated highway needs.7 Sec•on Seven of the Federal-Aid highway Act of 1944 was primarily concerned with connec•ng the principal metropolitan areas, ci•es, and industrial centers in order to serve the na•onal defense. While it authorized the interstate system it did not include special requirements to give the interstate highways a priority based on their na•onal importance. However it did not authorized a federal commitment to construct the system. As a consequence of the authoriza•on of the interstate system the Public Roads Administra•on as well as the Bureau of Public Roads were called to move quickly to implement Sec•on Seven of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944.10

According to the U.S. Department of Transporta•on and the Federal Highway Administra•on, the different types of impacts that might be produced by the development of a highway can be classified as:1 • Physical: includes wall or barrier effects produced by highways, increase in noise or vibra•ons, and shadowing effect. • Social and psychological: this category includes changes in popula•on (i.e., such as redistribu•on of popula•on and loss or increase in popula•on), changes in the interac•ons of persons or groups, isola•on or separa•on of certain people, changes in social values, and perceived impact on the quality of life. • Visual and Environment: this category includes changes in the aesthe•c character of communi•es. • Land Use: includes the crea•on or loss of land as the result of the development of a highway, and changes in land use and density. • Economic Condi•ons: the introduc•on of a highway in an urban area may encourage new businesses to establish in the area or cause the reloca•on of exis•ng ones. It also may affect the local economy in a short-term during the construc•on ac•vi•es or produce a long-term impact by blocking the access to businesses. Other introduced changes could be the increase or reduc•on of visibility to the commercial area, and changes in property value. • Displacements: this category includes the number residences, businesses or any ins•tu•on displaced within the same neighborhood and the changes produced in the neighborhood’s character due to the displacements.

With the United States in the Korean War, military needs again became the focus and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952 authorized $25 million for the further implementa•on of the interstate system. This was the first •me that funds were authorized for the construc•on of the interstate. In January of 1953, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the states had completed 6400 miles of the interstate system improvements at a cost of $955 million and half of which came from the federal government (Federal Highway Administra•on 1976). Then Congress, having held extensive hearings passed the FederalAid Highway Act of 1954, authorizing an addi•onal $175 million dollars for the interstate highway system.10 On April 27 of 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was created to provide for the development of 40,000 miles of highways for the Na•onal Interstate System. It was built over a period of 13 years with the federal government covering 90% of the cost roughly $28.4 billion base on the recommenda•ons of the clay commi•ee (See Figure 2-24). Funds were awarded on a cost-to-complete basis. That is, the funds were distributed in such a ra•o that considered each state’s es•mated cost of comple•ng the system in comparison to the total cost of comple•ng the system in all states. The FederalAid Highway Act of 1956 also established uniform interstate design standards to ensure uniformity of design, full control of access, eliminate railroad highway crossings at-grade, and ground level intersec•ons.7 Up to 1957 the interstate system had expanded only by 1000 miles. That same year and addi•onal $25 billion was approved through the Fiscal Year 1969 to complete the construc•on of the interstate network. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 helped to link the na•on, boosted produc•vity and sustained a more than tenfold increase in the gross na•onal product since the start of the program.10 Typical Types and Effects of Highway Construc•on within Downtown Orlando This sec•on of Chapter Two briefly discusses the various types of highway structures that exist within a five mile radius of downtown Orlando and compares them in terms of the require space, and the typical impacts produced on their surroundings. Figure 2-25 illustrates all the different types of highways in a cross sec•on and compares them in terms of required space. It is also of note that projects are dictated by poli•cal and

Figure 2-24 The Clay Commi•ee presents its report with recommenda•ons concerning the ﬁnancing of a na•onal interstate highway network to President Eisenhower on Jan. 11, 1955. Standing behind the president are (from le#) Gen. Lucius Clay, Frank Turner, Steve Betchel, Sloan Colt, William Roberts, and Dave Beck.10

Lawrence Halprin on Freeways

“Massive and complex roadways being developed in that “age of mo•on” where they are o•en oppressive and destruc•ve to the city fabric and its pedestrian scale”. • Safety: this category is includes the posi!ve or nega!ve changes in crime levels, accidents and emergency response in the area where the highway is located.

At-Grade Highway When viewed in a cross sec!on Highways at-grade require the widest right-of way of all the other types of highways. Typically this highway requires the space to accommodate four lanes of traffic, the respec!ve shoulders, and the median. In addi!on to the space occupied by the highway and its right-of-way more land at the sides is required to buffer from sight and noise from adjacent area, par!cularly when these are residen!al areas.2 Further, this type of highway will require addi!onal space to build ramps and bridges to permit free circula!on and access to adjacent roads. At-grade highways can also have an adverse effect on communi!es, especially if there is not enough space allowed for buffering. The ra!onale is that the less visible the freeway and the less noise, emissions, and other nega!ve effects are experienced the higher the land value to residen!al owners.8 In urban environments at grade highways cut the exis!ng grid, disrupt the pa$ern of neighborhoods, and o%en they need to be blocked from pedestrian access due to the dangerous condi!ons created by the high-speed roadway.2 Elevated on Embankments The construc!on of highways on embankments requires the same amount of right-of way as the depressed highways. This type of highway requires large extensions of land to slope down the embankments and minimize the effect on surrounding areas.2The access to and from to exis!ng streets is rela!vely easy and comparable to those of the depressed highway. Tunnels through the embankment allow vehicular and pedestrian crossovers atgrade level. The impact produced by embanked highways to surrounding communi!es can be the worst of all the types of highways.2 The embanked highways produce a wall effect, which works as a dividing element and visual barrier among sectors of the city. On the other hand this quality of the em banked highway can be used as a form giving element or as a subdivision of housing units.5

Figure 2-25 Types of Elevated Highways: This image illustrates all the diﬀerent types of highways in a cross sec!on. Note the space they occupy. (Halprin, 1966. Freeways, p. 81).

Side-by-Side Elevated Highway This type of highway requires less right-of-way space than at grade and elevated embankments highways. It requires the space to accommodate the traffic lane, median and respec!ve shoulders. The structure is exposed and is generally low in height. The nega!ve impact produced by elevated side-by-side highways to a community can be worse than the one produced by the elevated stacked highway since the width of this structure is double. Other nega!ve effects of this structure, such as shadowing, noise, disconnec!on of neighborhoods, and undesirable views are comparable to those of the elevated stacked highway. However, the nega!ve effects produced by elevated highways can be reduced through careful design and more important the incorpora!on of the spaces below into their surrounding urban environment.5 There are some common effects produced by the introduc!on of a highway into urban environments. Landscape architect Laurence Halprin describes Freeways as a massive and complex roadways being developed in that “age of mo!on” where they o%en oppressive and destruc!ve to the city fabric and its pedestrian scale”. But instead of surrendering to the nega!ve effect of the infrastructure, Halprin view them as “form-giving poten!als and their inherent quali!es as works of art in the city.”. In referencing his Sea$le Park Project he wrote “the trick is to perceive the freeway as part of the cityscape and tame it, rather than complain about it.”.2 History of Interstate Beau!fica!on and Available Federal Funding In 1958 a Voluntary Bonus Program was established through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958. This program controlled the outdoor adver!sing signs adjacent to the Interstate System and it was the first a$empt of the Federal government to control

outdoor adver•sing signs within the highway system. This act offered to set aside 0.5% of the construc•on cost of the highway system as a monetary incen•ve to those states that met the Na•onal Standards for highway construc•on and controlled adver•sement along the interstate and Na•onal Highway System. Building on the Bonus Program, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Highway Beau•fica•on Act on October 22, 1965. This increased the scope of controlling signs, outdoor adver•sing, junkyards and enhancement of the landscape included in the primary system of transporta•on. Then in November of the same year the federal government appor•oned the first $6 million to the states under the Highway Beau•fica•on Program primarily to control junk yard and adver•sing signs. It also dispersed and equal amount to Highway Landscaping for beau•fica•on. As part of the Highway Beau•fica•on Act of 1965 reimbursements were provided for of 75% of the costs of controlling outdoor adver•sing and junkyards, and a 100% of the cost of landscaping work for those States which decided to take on and supervised the work. 3 The last sec•on of the Highway Beau•fica•on Act of 1965 authorized the appropriate development of the landscape on roadside and medians of the interstate and main road system. This was a popular part of the overall highway beau•fica•on program because it provided 100% of federal funding. These amendments also allowed States to remain eligible for bonus payments if they complied with the Voluntary Bonus Program of 1958, and limited the removal of nonconforming signs to availability of federal funds.6 In 1970, a Highway Beau•fica•on Commission was created by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 with the purpose of analyzing the problems associated to the aesthe•c enhancement of highways. The result of this was the crea•on of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1974 was created with to place further restric•ons of the use of signage along highways. In 1976, an amendment help to further improve the aesthe•cs of highway signage but unfortunately, this bill de-emphasized landscaping and scenic enhancement by elimina•ng the availability of federal funding for the program.7 The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 early comple•on of the Interstate system was established as top priority of the federal highway program. Among other things enacted in this bill, there were a series of environmental requirements for the construc•on of highways. This act led to the establishment of the Surface Transporta•on Assistance Act of 1982 extending the comple•on of the interstate system un•l September of 1991. Safety and transporta•on enhancements were also addressed through this act. The next reforms to federal highway policy accompanied the reauthoriza•on of highway funding with the Surface Transporta•on Act of 1987. This act changed the authority over appor•oning funds for interstate projects from Congress to the Secretary of Transporta•on and updated the rules of federal funding to compensate the persons and businesses displaced by highway developments.8 December of 1991, President Bush signed the Intermodal Surface Transporta•on Efficiency Act of 1991 or ISTEA, establishing a new vision for surface transporta•on in America. This act formed by 28 major categories was the authorizing legisla•on providing for the development of new highways, highway safety, and mass transporta•on for the Fiscal Years 1992-1997 with a total funding of $155 billion.8 The ISTEA is summarized into the following objec•ves: • To establish a Na•onal Highway System consis•ng of exis•ng Interstate routes, part of the Primary System of transporta•on, and focus Federal resources on roads. • Provide more flexibility for local and State governments in determining transporta•on solu•ons and the tools of enhanced planning and management systems. • Promote new technologies to push the Na•on forward into 21st Century transporta•on. • Allow the use of the private sector as a source for funding transporta•on improvements, reduced the restric•ons on the use of Federal funds for toll roads, and permi•ed private en••es to own such facili•es.

Among the programs introduced by the ISTEA the most significant to the development of this masters research project is the Transporta•on Enhancement Program. This new program offered broad opportuni•es and federal money to take unique and crea•ve ac•ons to integrate transporta•on systems into communi•es and the natural environment (Intermodal Efficiency Act, 1991) • Make highway funds available for ac•vi•es that enhance the environment. • Establish a new program to enhanced safety on highways. • Create State uniformity in vehicle registra•on and fuel tax repor•ng. Among the programs introduced by the ISTEA the most significant to the development of this masters research project is the Transporta•on Enhancement Program. This new program offered broad opportuni•es and federal money to take unique and crea•ve ac•ons to integrate transporta•on systems into communi•es and the natural environment Efficiency. Through this program the Federal government invested over $24 billion around the country in facili•es for walking and bicycling, historic preserva•on, scenic beau•fica•on, land acquisi•on, and environmental mi•ga•on.8 In 1998 President Clinton signed into law the Transporta•on Equity Act for the 21st Century or TEA-21, which reauthorized the Transporta•on Enhancement Program un•l 2003. The extension of this program assured $620 million annually to transporta•on agencies in all states through 2003. To be eligible for the Transporta•on Enhancement Program, projects must be transporta•on related; have a sponsor that complies with the Transporta•on Enhancement Program guidelines; and be developed as a joint effort between the Department of Transporta•on of the given State, the Federal Highway Administra•on and the sponsor.9 Besides these basic criteria, established by the Federal government the project must fit into one of the following enhancement categories: • Provide facili•es for pedestrians and bicycles • Provide safety and educa•onal ac•vi•es for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Acquisi•on of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facili•es). • Landscaping and other scenic beau•fica•on. • Historic preserva•on, rehabilita•on and opera•on of historic transporta•on buildings, structures, or facili•es including historic railroad facili•es and canals. • Preserva•on of abandoned railway corridors including the conversion and uses them for pedestrian or bicycle trails. • Control and removal of outdoor adver•sing, archaeological planning, and research. • Environmental mi•ga•on to address water pollu•on due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connec•vity. • Establish of transporta•on museums.

Figure 2-26 Ariel shot of Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando, note the diﬀerence in density from Figure 1-1 in the Parramore Heritage District

The TEA-21 Century was established to build on the ini•a•ves established by the ISTEA. This act was created with the purpose of mee•ng the challenges of improving safety, protec•ng and enhancing communi•es and the natural environment by establishing new programs and reauthorizing programs exis•ng ones, such as the Transporta•on Enhancement Program (Transporta•on Efficiency Act, 1998). TEA- 21 incorporates the following features: • The assurance of a guaranteed level of Federal funds for surface transporta•on through fiscal year 2003 provides an extension of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program. • Strengthens the safety programs across the Department of Transporta•on. • Establishes new incen•ve programs with the purpose of savings life and property. • Promotes more flexibility in the use of funds, emphasizes on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the founda•on of good transporta•on decisions. • Establishes new programs, such as Border Infrastructure, Transporta•on Infrastructure Finance and Innova•on. • Promotes research and its applica•on to maximize the performance of the transporta•on system, and emphasizes the use of Intelligent Transporta•on Systems. Through the TEA-21, the Federal government reaffirmed its commitment to enhance communi•es, and improve transporta•on systems by providing an addi•onal $3.8 billion fund for the Surface Transporta•on Program (Transporta•on Efficiency Act, 1998). This

represented a 40% increase from the ISTEA in funding through the year 2003, averaging about $630 million per year. As part of this program the Transporta•on Enhancement Program is funded through a 10% seaside from the Surface Transporta•on Program.9

References 1. Federal mass transit program and the reauthoriza•on of the intermodal surface transporta•on efficiency act (ISTEA) hearing before the commi"ee on banking, housing, and urban affairs, united states senate, one hundred fi#h congress, first session ...(1998). . S.l: s.n. Retrieved from h"p://UH7QF6FD4H.search.serialssolu•ons.com/?V=1.0&L=UH7QF6FD4H&S=JCs&C=TC_020160681&T=marc&tab=BOOKS 2. Halprin, L. (1966). Freeways. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20FL020856455 3. Sco", M. (1969). American city planning since 1890; a history commemora•ng the fi#ieth anniversary of the american ins•tute of planners. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog. fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20FL020063396 4. Swagger, D. C. (1997). Consequences of the development of the interstate highway system for transit. Transit Coopera•ve Research Program, 5. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space : Theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF025393379 6. Transit Coopera•ve, R. P., & United States Federal, T. A. (1997). Consequences of the development of the interstate highway system for transit. Washington, D.C: Transporta•on Research Board. Retrieved from h"p://UH7QF6FD4H.search.serialssolu•ons. com/?V=1.0&L=UH7QF6FD4H&S=JCs&C=TC0000939044&T=marc&tab=BOOKS 7. United States Federal, H. A. (1977). America’s highways, 1776-1976 : A history of the federal-aid program. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Transporta•on, Federal Highway Administra•on : for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF024154976 8. United States, e. j., & Arnold, &. P. c. (1991). Intermodal surface transporta•on efficiency act of 1991 : P.L. 102-240, 105 stat 1915, december 18, 1991. Getzville, NY; Washington, D.C: William S. Hein & Company; Arnold & Porter. Retrieved from h"p://www.heinonline. org/HOL/Index?index=leghis/intmstea&collec•on=leghis 9. Waldheim, C. (2006). The landscape urbanism reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF021531328 10. Weingroff, R. F. (2015). Original intent: Purpose of the interstate system 1954-1956. Retrieved December/9, 2015, from h"ps:// www.%wa.dot.gov/infrastructure/originalintent.cfm

Chapter 3

Precedent Case Studies By examining the precedents and seeing the success and failures of them an ini•al framework can be established to re-connect the urban fabric that has been cut through by an elevated highway. Because this is a problem that is being addressed as we adapt to highways, the solu•ons tested are limited. However, the precedents listed have made a signiﬁcant impact in the places they are implemented and provide a framework. This framework will then be adapted to the case site in downtown Orlando. With programming and ac•vity recommenda•ons based on the research from these precedent case studies and the conclusions drawn at the end of this chapter. Freeway Park

Figure 3-27 View of Freeway Park designed by landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. (Photo by Joe Mabel)

Located in Sea!le, Washington between 6th and 9th Avenues, Freeway Park is bounded on the north by Union and on the south by Spring Street. To the east is First Hill, and to the west the park overlooks Sea!le’s financial center. Lifelong civic leader Jim Ellis led the effort to create Freeway Park in 1976. Freeway Park was advocated by Jim Ellis and built with funds from the Forward Thrust in 1976. The idea for a downtown park over the freeway is as old as the Sea!le segment of Interstate 5 itself. By the •me the last leg through the city was completed in 1966, publicspirited individuals and the city, county and state officials were already talking about construc•ng a lid over the below-grade por•on separa•ng first hill from downtown.7 With Forward Thrust bond money, as well as county, state and federal funding, the five acre park became a reality in 1976. When Freeway Park was built, it was hailed as a major architectural and engineering accomplishment. Designed by the world-renowned firm of Lawrence Halprin & Associates, it was the first park to be constructed over a freeway, thereby “healing the scar” that I-5 created in downtown Sea!le. Over the years, however, the park has fallen into disuse. As the vegeta•on matured, it cut off sight-lines, making the park darker and difficult to navigate. Sea!le’s growing drug use popula•on, as well as its homeless popula•on, found a home in Freeway Park. The murder of a blind and deaf homeless woman in broad daylight in 2002 spurred a city-wide effort to reac•vate Freeway Park.6 The city partnered with Project for Public Spaces Incorporated and has since held public workshops to gain a be!er balance of tranquility and ac•vi•es. Mul•ple objec•ves have been put forward in effort to make the park a viable connec•on within the city. The planning process has come up with a number of recommenda•ons including targe•ng opportuni•es for future development around the park. The sites at the outskirts of the park could be developed with posi•ve ground-level connec•ons into the park. Development could also take place above the freeway. Such a development could manage and maintain parts of the park.7

Figure 3-28 Rendered site plan of Sea!le Freeway Park (Halprin)3

The research in the case of Freeway Park shows that simply adding civic park space to the areas around highways does not lead to a sustainable connec•on. The •mes where there is a lack of ac•vity lead to a misuse of the park, ul•mately resul•ng in a nega•ve social impact. The recommenda•ons by the project for public spaces and the public workshops caused the implementa•on of changes and has since vastly improved the condi•ons of the park, rejuvena•ng the connec•on.

Precedent Study: A8ernA In 2003 the City Council of Zaanstadt, a small suburb 10 miles north of Amsterdam, took the ini•a•ve to create a new town square beneath the space of the A8 elevated highway that runs through the middle of the city. The projects goals were to reac•vate the space under the 22 •. tall overpass that formed a harsh physical barrier dividing the town’s civic ac•vity centers, the church and town hall. Titled A8ernA the project entails the development of the spaces beneath the overpass into retail center containing a supermarket, pet store, and flower shop. As well as including a skateboarding park, basketball and soccer courts alongside a graffi• park that acts as a public art ins•lla•on. For this reason the project a•racts residents of all ages.4 Constructed in the 1970s, A8 enters the town from the east and spans the River Zaan. This blocked views and cut off access to the river from the exis•ng residents of the lowslung apartments and townhouses. Before the redesign of the area beneath the overpass it was primarily used for parking and aesthe•cally it detracted from the surrounding architecture and landscape. Lastly it diminished the use of the public spaces next to the church and town hall. The combina•on of all these factors prompted the residents and private business owners to advocate for a design that would serve the community rather than hinder it.6

Figure 3-29 Program diagram of A8erna showing the public square, grocer and retail in orange and the skate park in gray. (NL Architects)

The towns design consultant, NL Architects, conceptualized the 130•. by 1300•. space as a long “civic arcade”. Stakeholder input established the key project objec•ve to create an open and simple mee•ng place and public face for the town. A variety of uses were proposed for the site, appealing to a range local residents needs and interest. To achieve a program the project was coordinated with a larger, city-wide planning effort to iden•fy 10 redevelopment sites for new squares in Zaanstadt. Mul•ple groups invited to be involved in the planning process including the Mayor, City Council, local business owners, church and residents. The objec•ves of these stakeholders were nearly all incorporated into the final design. The retail program includes an Albert Heijn supermarket, a pet shop, and flower shop as well as 120 parking spaces. Albert Heijn, in par•cular, was a•racted to the site because it offered highway accessibility and a rare opportunity for a large floor plate in town.4 A skateboarding park, basketball courts, and ping pong tables provide youth with recrea•on ameni•es. A graffi• gallery serves as a public art component. A small marina with public sea•ng was constructed where A8 li•s over the Zaan, opening up river views. Material selec•on and surface treatment makes A8’s under-story invi•ng and a•rac•ve. Structural columns were clad in a variety of materials, including herringbone-pa•erned •mber and reflec•ve steel, into which back-lit le•ering is dye-cut. Similarly, ground treatments – from •mber decking to orange surface paint – differen•ate program spaces.6

Figure 3-30 Photograph of wrapped column in front of Albert Heins market beneath the A8 freeway in the Netherlands. (Photograph by Luke Kramer)

The business in A8ernA have been very successful promp•ng the project primary tenant Albert Heijn to express an interest in expanding and bringing in addi•onal lines of retail. The project shows that it is possible to live with elevated highways in urban environments while mi•ga•ng the nega•ve eﬀects caused by it. Through taking a visually repe••ve space consis•ng of concrete overhead and evenly spaced piers and adap•ng it with programma•c and visual diversity, the unappealing environment can be made a•rac•ve. The project was driven by a highly par•cipatory public planning process and private market interest demonstra•ng how public interest can be met though well thought design and implementa•on of public and private needs.

Figure 3-31 Photograph of graﬃ• park below A8 freeway, includes a skate park, soccer and basket ball courts. (Photograph by Luke Kramer)

Precedent Study: The Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Plantee The Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Plantee is a 1.25-mile elevated railway structure in the 12th Arrondissment of Paris, France. The viaduct runs parallel to Avenue Daumesnil within a dense residen•al neighborhood of ﬁve- to six-story buildings. Constructed in the 19th century the brick and masonry acted as an ac•ve railway un•l 1969 when the railway closed. In 1980 the Atelier Parisien d’ Urbanisme (APUR), the city’s urban design agency, developed a historic restora•on strategy for the viaduct. The plan proposed re-tenan•ng the 64 archways with ar•sts, cra•speople, and restaurants. In addi•on, it included a new linear park and gardens overhead, which were designed by Philippe Mathieu and Jacques Vergely. APUR partnered with a local development corpora•on to iden•fy and manage new tenants. Whereas there were studios and workshops in the viaduct prior to renova•on, the APUR project represented signiﬁcant public based improvement of both the viaduct and Avenue Daumesnil.2 A•er the closure of the railway in 1969, the spaces beneath the viaducts archways were occupied intermi•ently by assortments of an•que shops, auto garages, and used bookstores, amongst other uses. However the shops did not contribute to the neighborhoods iden•ty and by the 1980’s it was considered an eyesore. In addi•on to this the city had invested in the Opera Bas•lle, bringing addi•onal opportuni•es for public ameni•es and redevelopment. The Viaducts eventual restora•on was done with the intent of enhancing the neighborhood retail while crea•ng a contemporary Paris look. 6 The viaduct and promenade design emphasize the structures character and visual connec•on to the city. Archway restora•on, designed by Patrick Berger, is intended to minimally distract from the historic character of the structure. The storefront inserted into the archways is inset so as to accentuate the masonry work. The upper level of the viaduct is converted into a promenade of gardens surrounding the occupants at some point and framing views to the city at others. At street level a 20•. wide walkway lines the edge of the three lane one way street.

Figure 3-32 Photograph of the wide pedestrian streets and commercial inﬁll in the Viaduct des Arts, Paris France . (Patrick Berger)

The decision to retain the Viaduct was guided by careful design considera•on and strategic coordina•on with other planning ini•a•ves. APUR studied two alterna•ves in the 1980s for the structure; demolish it and redevelop the land or create an elevated park. Due to the opportuni•es created by the Opera Bas•lle and the diﬃcul•es of incorpora•ng the backs of exis•ng building into a new street-scape the park op•on was chosen to build upon the APUR’s goals of “greening the city”. The Viaduct des Arts and Promenade Plantee were advanced as two separate, but interconnected projects. The Paris parks department manages the Promenade. A local development corpora•on manages the archway spaces and adjacent developments under an 18-year lease. The dual-management structure is faulted for the viaduct’s limited economic impact. Because two organiza•ons manage the structure, a clear strategy has not been deﬁned for coordina•ng viaduct ac•vi•es with neighborhood development and promo•ng it throughout the city.1’ The Viaduct des Arts / Promenade Plantee demonstrates that the partnership of government agencies with private market en••es to enhance the residen•al development as well as strengthen the neighborhood Iden•ty. It also demonstrates how poten•ally incompa•ble programs when distributed correctly can co-exist in the same place. The tranquil park is elevated and separated from the bustle of the retail streets below. It also demonstrates how public ameni•es can be incorporated into exis•ng infrastructure to new connec•ons within the city.

Figure 3-33 Photograph shows the use of exis•ng railway infrastructure being to create commercial inﬁll space ac•va•ng the corridor. (Patrick Berger)

Bridge Market NY, Queensboro Bridge, New York, New York Located at 409 East 59th Street between 1st Avenue and York Avenue the Queensboro Bridge opened to traffic on March 30, 1909. Architect Henry Hornbostel and engineer Gustav Lindenthal designed the Queensboro Bridge originally called the Blackwell’s Island Bridge. The main sec•on underneath the bridge consisted of a buff colored canopy of •le vaults designed by Rafael Guastavino, an architect from Barcelona. Rafael Guastavino and his son worked together and adapted a centuries-old vernacular technology called the “Boveda Catalan” or Catalan vault. This beau•ful arcade underneath the Bridge served as a year-round marketplace where vendors sold fruits and vegetables and quickly became to be known as the Bridgemarket . With the onset of the depression, the market closed during the 1930’s and was later used by the New York City Department of Transporta•on. On November 23, 1973, the New York City Landmarks Preserva•on Commission designated the Queensboro Bridge a landmark.5 Over the next 20 years, several different entrepreneurs a•empted to develop space below the Queensboro Bridge but community groups were opposed against the rehabilita•on of the area fearing an increase in traffic. This situa•on deferred any ideas for a restora•on of the spaces below the bridge. It was not un•l July of 1995 that all par•es agreed on a design concept and The Landmarks Preserva•on Commission unanimously approved all revisions for the future development of 98,000 square feet under the Queensboro Bridge. In 1997, London based company Conran Holdings signed a lease for 42,000 square feet for a furniture and house wares store “The Terence Conran Shop”, and 25,000 square feet for two restaurants named Gustavino’s and Club Gustavino’s. The Conran shop was the first tenant under the Queensboro Bridge opening on December 8, 1999. On February 14, 2000, Guastavino’s restaurant opened. Named for Rafael Guastavino, and located on the ground floor, the restaurant has sea•ng accommoda•ons for 300 people. On March 16, 2000, Club Guastavino’s opened on the second floor, serving up to 100 people.6

Figure 3-34 Photograph of the Food Emporiums vaulted ceiling (Photo by Miguel Tuscon)

Program Elements the design program for the spaces below the Queensboro Bridge included a new plaza fully landscape with street trees, and architectural furnishings, a market, two restaurant and a furniture/house ware store. Through careful planning the designers were able to reincorporate the original historic market fountain at the eastern end of the plaza. The design by the architectural firm Hardy, Holzman, and Pfeiffer incorporated the program elements men•oned before while preserving the original vaulted ceilings crea•ng a unique space that displays the unique architecture of the spaces below the Queensboro Bridge. The restaurant and the market are independently managed and maintained however the maintenance of the plaza in front these places is responsibility of the city. The developments below the Queensboro Bridge have been successful despite the changing trends in the commercial markets in New York City. It is unclear if the early success enjoyed by establishments below the Queensboro Bridge will be sustained over a long period of •me. Other no•ceable limita•ons of the spaces below the Queensboro Bridge are the lack of parking spaces, the complex spaces surrounding the bridge which conceal the commercial establishments below the bridge, and the highly transited streets surround the site which creates difficul•es to access the commercial establishments.6 The successful rehabilita•on of the once exis•ng bridge market and the ability of the designers to incorporate new and exis•ng elements of the Queensboro Bridge are the unique features of this place. The main a•rac•on of the spaces below the Queensboro Bridge are the vaulted ceiling and columns designed by Rafael Gustavino which has been successfully showcased with the renova•on of the bridge. Its use as a local food market has kept it vibrant however the current tenant is going through bankruptcy and the space will be redeveloped by a new investment group when a se•lement is reached.5

Figure 3-35 Photo of the entrance to the Bridge Market in Queensboro, New York. (Photo by Miguel Tuscon)

3UHFHGHQW &RPSDULVRQ 3UHFHGHQW

)HDWXUH $ HUQD 1/ $UFKLWHFWV

3DUN

6SRUWV )XQFWLRQ

5HWDLO 3ULYDWH 3XEOLF 3DUWQHUVKLS

3XEOLF ,QSXW

3DUNLQJ

2XWFRPH

4XHHQVERUR %ULGJHPDUNHW

3XEOLF 6TXDUH 6PDOO 0DULQD

9LDGXFW 'H $UWV 3DWULFN %HUJHU

)UHHZD\ 3DUN /DZUHQFH +DOSULQ

5RRI 7RS 3DUN

2YHU +LJKZD\ 3DUN

6NDWH 3DUN 6RFFHU )LHOG %DVNHWEDOO &RXUW 3LQJ 3RQJ 7DEOHV

%DVHEDOO )LHOG

*URFHU\ 6WRUH 3HW 6WRUH )ORZHU 6KRS

*URFHU\ 6WRUH 5HWDLO &ORWKLQJ

9DULHW\ RI 6PDOO 6KRSV

$OEHUW +HLMQ

*UHDW $WODQWLF 3DFLILF 7HD &RPSDQ\

0DQDJHG E\ D 3ULYDWH &RUSRUDWLRQ DQG $385

3XEOLF 0HHWLQJV DQG :RUNVKRSV KHOG IRU WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

6SDFHV 7KH EXVLQHVV LQ $ HUQ$ KDYH EHHQ YHU\ VXFFHVVIXO SURPSWLQJ WKH SURMHFW SULPDU\ WHQDQW $OEHUW +HLMQ WR H[SUHVV DQ LQWHUHVW LQ H[SDQGLQJ DQG EULQJLQJ LQ DGGLWLRQDO OLQHV RI UHWDLO

7KH SULPDU\ JURFHU\ WHQDQW DQG ODQG PDQDJHPHQW FRPSDQ\ DUH LQ EDQNUXSWF\ GXH WR FRPSHWLWLRQ IURP RWKHU JURFHUV

%HFDXVH WZR RUJDQL]DWLRQV PDQDJH 3RRU VLJKW OLQHV DQG D ODFN RI DFWLYLW\ WKH VWUXFWXUH D FOHDU VWUDWHJ\ KDV QRW KDV OHG WKH SDUN WR EHFRPH D KDYHQ EHHQ GHILQHG IRU FRRUGLQDWLQJ YLDGXFW IRU GUXJ XVH DQG YDJUDQWV 7KH FLW\ RI DFWLYLWLHV ZLWK QHLJKERUKRRG 6HDWWOH LV FXUUHQWO\ UH SODQQLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG SURPRWLQJ LW SDUN WR LQFRUSRUDWH UHWDLO DQG EHWWHU WKURXJKRXW WKH FLW\ FRQQHFW WKH VXUURXQGLQJ DPHQLWLHV

Figure 3-36 The above chart is a summary of the precedent case studies. The areas highlighted in green were successful porâ&#x20AC;¢ons of the project. Areas highlighted in yellow were relaâ&#x20AC;¢vely successful with minor setbacks. Areas highlighted in red have fell into a state of disrepair and/or are undergoing a renovaâ&#x20AC;¢on to rejuvenate the area.

Precedent Conclusions Through an examina•on of the precedents it can be reasonably deduced that successful projects have iden•fiable characteris•cs in common. As can be seen from the precedent summary chart (see Figure 3-36), there are certain planning characteris•cs that the successful precedents have had in common. In the case of Lawrence Halprin’s Freeway Park, while it was at first well used by the community, the poor sight lines and lack of consistent pedestrian ac•vity lead it to be overrun by Sea•le’s drug culture. In the other case studies there was a local government recogni•on of the nega•ve effects caused by the exis•ng infrastructure as well as a desire to improve the condi•ons surrounding them. The research also indicates that an assortment of retail is needed and an essen•als store, such as a grocer, gives residents a reason to travel though the area to get every day needs, again encouraging increased pedestrian ac•vity beneath the elevated infrastructure. It is also notable that the successful projects included public input, par•cularly in the case of A8erna, giving residents a direct connec•on to the project and its success. In all the case studies they are implemented in ci•es where there is a high density providing the poten•al foot traffic for the area. The factors of density government recogni•on, public par•cipa•on, and a public private partnership must work in tandem with each other to bring about a successful development beneath an interstate (see Figure 3-37). By doing this it creates more livable communi•es improving the quality of life and therefore making it more a•rac•ve and convenient.

ͻ ĞŶƐŝƚǇ ŶĞĂƌ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚǁĂǇ ŶĞĞĚƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞĚ ĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ

ͻ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ĨƌŽŵ ůŽĐĂů ŐŽǀĞƌŵĞŶƚ͘ ͻ ŽƌĂƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ Kd

ĞŶƐŝƚǇ

ͻ >ŽĐĂů ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ ƚǇƉĞ ŽĨ ƌĞƚĂŝů͕ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ŐŽĂů ŽĨ ϮϰŚƌƐ ŽĨ ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͘

'ŽǀĞƌŵĞŶƚ WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ

ZĞƚĂŝů

WƵďůŝĐ

&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ ͻ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐ ͻ ^ƵƌǀĞǇƐ ͻ ŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐ

Figure 3-37 Flow diagram illustrates the key elements for a successful development based on the research of the precedent case studies.

References 1. Bordas, D. “A8ernA.” Joint winner, European prize for urban public space, Centre for cultural contemporania de barcelona. 2006, 2. Cambell, R. (2002). A paris match? Boston can learn something about crea•ng new civic space from the city of light. Boston Globe, 3. Halprin, L. (1966). Freeways. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h•p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/ permalink.jsp?20FL020856455 4. Kramer, L. (2003). a8erna. Retrieved 10/2, 2015, from h•ps://www.architonic.com/en/project/nl-architects-a8erna/5100103 5. Levi•, D. M. (2015, November, 20). Manha•an’s most beau•ful supermarkets is closing. Bloomberg, 6. Perkins and Will. (2014). Case studies for the city of Toronto Gardiner expressway / lake shore boulevard EA. Case Study, 7. Project for Public Spaces. (2005). A new vision for freeway park. Retrieved 9/30, 2015, from h•p://www.sea•le.gov/parks/parkspaces/freewaypark/ Ac•va•onPlan.pdf

Density

Chapter 4

Spacial Suitability Framework & Site Analysis Figure 4-38 To create a successful interven!on density near the highway needs to be signiﬁcant enough to support the programmed ameni!es.

Space Required

Figure 4-39 Using a 35’-0”x25’-0” a basic retail unit can be established to evaluate the suitability of the space for a retail interven!on. A 20’- Buﬀer should also be taken into account to provide a comfortable walking space around the interven!on to establish the minimum footprint.

Sec!on Quality

Figure 4-40 If enough area is available for the footprint of the interven!on then the sec!on quality of the highway is examined to determine the spacial quali!es beneath and what volumes will inﬁll the space to meet the program needs.

Maximize Natural Light

Figure 4-41 Using the sec!onal study, as well as natural light study, methods to provide the most natural light to the primary pedestrian walking paths are examined.

Spa!al Suitability Framework In order to quickly assess the suitability of the spaces beneath elevated highways for an architectural interven!on that would accommodate retail use, a spa!al suitability framework was formulated. This framework examines the density, space required, sec!onal quality, and natural light quality of the site. There must be a high level of density surrounding the highway in order to support a retail establishment. Of par!cular importance is the number of residen!al units nearby, because this will provide the traffic to ac!vate the space both day and night. If the density requirement is met, then it needs to be determined whether there is enough space beneath the elevated highway to accommodate back-toback retail that can ac!vate both sides of the interstate. A 25 feet wide by 35 feet deep module was established for a single retail unit. When these are placed back-to-back, it yields a depth of 70 feet which can be varied from slightly, but is a good general rule (W. Weeks, personal communica!on, March, 11, 2015). Next, in order to create a comfortable environment for pedestrians to walk along, a 20 foot buffer is needed between the face of any building and the edge of the surrounding streets. These wide sidewalks will encourage higher pedestrian traffic and accommodate retail needs. Therefore, with the 70 foot depth of the backto-back retail, and the 20 foot buffer, the minimum width required for such an interven!on is 110 feet. A$er determining the possible footprint of the building, the sec!onal quality of the highway must be examined to determine if the space is available to accommodate a reasonable ceiling height and u!li!es. The sec!onal study also shows the availability of natural light. Since it is o$en dark beneath elevated highways it is important to take full advantage of any natural light entering the space and priori!ze those areas for pedestrian pathways. By applying this spa!al framework, it can be concluded whether the minimum space required is met and what type of development can be accommodated beneath elevated highways.

Site Analysis To fully evaluate the condi•ons of the site and what type of program is suitable, an inventory of the surrounding urban fabric and an analysis of the physical condi•ons beneath the highway was conducted. This chapter will cover the method and results used to determine the architectural plan for the site and implementa•on of a rough program drawn from the conclusions obtained from the precedent study. Orlando is a city that has shown its ability to adapt to changing economic condi•ons. The city was incorporated in 1875 and its economy was agricultural based, with a focus on the citrus industry. It came out of the great depression through the President Roosevelt’s New Deal which brought the establishment of American Military bases during World War I, Orlando Army Air Base, and McCoy Air Force Base in World War II. The region had also become a major tourist a•rac•on when in 1964 Walt Disney began buying up large tracts of land and in 1965, announced its plans to build Walt Disney World, a project that would change the tourism industry the world over. This set oﬀ a leisure industry boom in the Orlando area a•rac•ng tourist-based developments, such as Universal Studios in 1990 and more recently LEGOLAND, 2011.2 The city has since grown in most part thanks to the establishment of these theme park a•rac•ons. This region has prospered from this boom, as can be seen by comparing a popula•on of 51,826 in 1950, to the present day 2.3 million. Orlando is now ranked as the most visited tourist des•na•on in the United States with nearly 60 million visitors per year, most of which are patrons of the theme parks.1 The city has prospered under exposure brought to it by the theme parks. Shortly a•er the comple•on of Disney World, downtown Orlando saw the opportunity to increase its ability to a•ract the patrons of the new form of tourism, and entrepreneur Bob Snow developed Church Street Sta•on. This investment in the Downtown District gave the area a huge economic boost, a•rac•ng 1.7 million tourists in 1985 and driving downtown Orlando to 4th on the list of most visited a•rac•ons in Florida. Even though now the number of tourist visi•ng has decreased the Church Street corridor is s•ll a major connec•on within downtown Orlando.2

Figure 4-42 Site inventory map shows the current and proposed developments around the site. The areas highlighted in red are the proposed program for this masters research project.

There are numerous factors that contribute to the success of metropolitan areas and the city of Orlando succeeded by adap•ng from various industries to its present day tourist

based economy. However, of the millions of visitors to the Orlando area, few tourists venture from the theme parks to downtown Orlando, because the downtown area of Orlando is not in close proximity to the parks. Universal Studios is the closest at 8.7 miles and Disney is 25 miles away from the city center, and although it is connected by Interstate 4, there has been limited success in ge•ng the tourists that visit the parks to also enjoy the ameni•es of downtown. The downtown district is making moves to break into this market with the recent and coming construc•ons of the Amway Center, Citrus Bowl, Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center and the Orlando City soccer stadium. There are also several projects proposed within a one block radius surrounding the interstate on both the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. Business owners and city oﬃcials have also organized the community in a comprehensive plan referred to as Project DTO. The plan is an urban focused approach that uses three primary elements: a DTO Vision, DTO Marke•ng Strategy, and a new Downtown Orlando Community Redevelopment Area Plan which they feel is a road map to achieving the envisioned Downtown. The outcome goals of this plan are “To connect people to place emo•onally and diﬀeren•ate Downtown Orlando as a vibrant place for people to live, work, grow a business and visit; a comprehensive rewrite of the Downtown CRA Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Outlook, to guide future projects and ac•vi•es in implemen•ng the Project DTO Vision; a focused marke•ng and brand iden•ty strategy to ac•vate the DTO vision through mul•ple communica•on channels.”3. This demonstrates the willingness of the city to adapt to the changing market and drive to insure that the theme parks are not the only a•rac•on in the area but the downtown district and its ameni•es providing the city with its next economic adapta•on. This push is a•rac•ng new proposals. In the case of Downtown Orlando, there is the Magic Entertainment Complex, a mixed use complex that will include a hotel, housing, and retail. The Central is a 450 unit residen•al tower proposed next to the interstate, within walking distance to the bridge district. These are listed in the site inventory map (See Figure 4-42). The major connec•ons that run through the site are Central Boulevard, Pine Figure 4-43 Map shows the dimensions of the space beneath the Interstate 4 overpass. In total this space is approximately 8.2 acres. The site chosen for the masters research project, Zone 3 ( See Figure 4-42 ), is approximately 168,000 square feet.

Street, and Church Street. Orlando’s free bus-service, Lymmo, runs along Central Blvd. Pine Street currently dead ends into Hughey Boulevard, and because the por•on of Hughey that runs beneath the Interstate 4 is not used heavily, I propose closing it down to increase the available area for the site. Church St is a major corridor within the city, o•en closed down for special events, it is a key connec•ons between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District. The area beneath the interstate in between Central Blvd and Church St will be the primary site due to its close proximity to Orlando’s major civic venues (See Figure 4-47-Figure 4-49). To determine the build-able area of the site, the general rules that were established from the precedent case studies and the spa•al studies are applied, with a 20• buﬀer around the site to separate pedestrians from faster moving traﬃc. A•er determining the space available, and then examining how light comes through the highway, pedestrian walking paths can be priori•zed. The remaining volumes are then programmed to determine the approximate square footage needed to accommodate it. Figure 4-44 Rendering shows the renovated interstate through Downtown Orlando with the proposed developments highlighted in green ( See Figure 4-42 for details)

AVE

FERRIS

NEW YORK AVE

ASHER ! LN

ALDEN RD GE AVE

! ! !! ALD !N!R E !D! ! !

N ORAN

N SUMMERLIN AVE

N EOLA DR

KENILWORTH TER

CATHCART TER

PARK LAKE CT

!! !! !! ! ! ! !

AVE ! ! !BROADWAY

!! !!

S.14.4

AVE

!!!

AVE

!!!!!!

HIGHLAND AVE ! ! !! !

!! !!

! !

AVE

IRMA

!!!!

N EOLA DR

!!!

CATHCART

BROADWAY

N EOLA DR

N MAGNOLIA AVE

!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

AVE

!!!

!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !DR ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !N ! EOLA

N SUMMERLIN AVE

!!!!!!

N-AC

N OSCEOLA ! ! AVE

!! !! !! !! !!AVE !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! LAKE ! !!

S OSCEOLA AVE

S.7.1

KE !! ! !! ! L!A!! AVE

! ! ! AVE S SUMMERLIN

LIBERTY AVE

S.7.4

!! !! !!

!!!

S COURT AVE

S ROSALIND AVE

!!!!!

S OSCEOLA AVE

AVE

S EOLA DR

LAKE

AVE EUCLID

BRADSHAW TER

S OSCEOLA AVE

PL ! !

S.18.4

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

S OSCEOLA AVE

S SUMMERLIN AVE

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

2.1 Orlando Orange County

Growth Management Plan Subarea Policy (See Future Land Use Element)

Jurisdiction Boundary

RAEHN

WOODLAND

S SUMMERLIN AVE

S EOLA DR

M ILLER

Lake Lurna

S OSCEOLA AVE

S ORANGE AVE

! ! !! !!

!! ! !!

! !! !! !!

S.12.9SILV

S.12.7

!!!!!!!!

MARGARET CT

DELANEY AVE

DA VE IN

S AL RO S

E R CI

S.12.7

S.18.6

MAIN LN

KUHL AVE AVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KUHL

S.12.9

S.12.7

HOWELL PL

S ORANGE AVE

TER ! LUCERNE

TER

SLIGH BLVD

LUCERNE

SLIGH BLVD

!! !

S.12.9

!!!

N ROSALIND AVE

N COURT AVE

S GARLAND AVE SYL LN V IA

TER

S.12.4

MENENDEZ CT

LUCERNE

S.12.9

S.12.9.1

!!!!!!!

C S X RR

!!!!

HILLMAN

!!!!!!

N MAGNOLIA AVE

AVE PALMETTO

! ! ! AVE !!!!! ROSALIND

GERTRUDE

STATE LN

N ORANGE AVE

S GERTRUDE AVE

S ORANGE AVE

BOONE AVE

HUGHEY S

D-AC

S.6.3

S .6

S ! HUGHEY

! ! ! AVE ATLANTA

14 ! ! .5 ! !

! !! ! !

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

S.7.1

N MAGNOLIA AVE

IRMA AVE

!!!!!!!!

N ORANGE AVE

AVE

S.6.3

S.6.4

N GARLAND AVE

S.6.3

N HUGHEY AVE

S.6.4 S.6.9

AVE

S BRYAN AVE

S.6.10

S.6.9

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !AVE S DIVISION

!!!

CHAPMAN CT

! ! ! ! ! ! S.6.1 ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !S! DIVISION AVE !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S.12.4 !!!!! !! !! !! S. !!!! 12 ! .7 ! ! ! !

S.6.1

S.7.3

S.6.9

S.6.4

N HUGHEY AVE

RONALD BLOCKER AVE

BEGGS AVE

AVE

ON N DIV ISI

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ERESKEN AVE

DUNBAR CT

AVE

! ! ! AVE ! ! ! ! !S!TERRY

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AVONDALE

S.6. ! 9

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLENN LN

S PARRAMORE AVE

LIME AVE

BUCK ALY

HICKS AVE

GLENN ALY

S TERRY AVE !

S.6.1

N GARLAND AVE

LEXINGTON AVE

T CI R

PUTNAM AVE

N TERRY AVE

S.6.1

AVE CHATHAM

AVE

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N PARRAMORE AVE

PARRAMORE

AVE

!!!!!!

S.6.1

S.6.12

C-AC

!!!!!!!!!!!!

AVE

X RR

AND N GARL

S.4.3

PUTNAM SEMINOLE AVE

!!!

! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

AVE

MCFALL

!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

AVE

POINSETTIA

EASTIN AVE

GUNNIS O N

LATTA LN

EDWARDS LN

AVE CLOUSER

DR RD CO DR CORDOVA !!!

!!!!!

AVE

!!!!!!

PURDUE

OSCEOLA CT

!!!!!!!

S.4.6

!!!!!!!

AVE

GARDEN

S.6.9 S.6.3

! ! ! ! ! MCQUIGG

U-AC D-AC

!!!!!! ! ! !

CIR

UNNAMED STREET 11

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!

Resource Protection Overlay PARK

BAKER ST

!!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

ATLANTA AVE !

!! !

ALHAMBRA CT

OV A

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

S !DIVISION ! ! ! ! AVE !!!!!

Max.: 1 DU/10 Acres; 0.05 FAR Min.: None

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!! !

Max.: 1 DU/5 Acres; 0.05 FAR Min.: None

Urban Reserve

FLORIDA ST

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !

!!!!!!

!! !! !!

!!!!

!!!

! !!

Max.: 1 DU/5 Acres; 0.05 FAR Min.: None

Conservation

Transitional Wildlife Habitat Overlay

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! M ! S.6.1 !!!!!! ! PHAR R ! AVE

Max.: None Min.: None

Lake / Conservation

AVONDALE AVE CONROY PL AVE AVO N DALE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! S.12.7 S.12.9 S.12.7 !! !!

!!!

HANTON AVE

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!

S.6.5

!!!!!!!!!!

CHEVRON LN

! ! !

! !!! !!! !!! !! !!

SHORT AVE

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

MCFALL AVE

!!!!!!

S PARRAMORE AVE

! !!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

S PARRAMORE AVE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! ! !!

! ! !! !!

!!!!!

DR ND LA PE E

Orlando

!!!!!!

!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

CHARLES CT

!!!!!!!!

! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Public/Recreational & Institutional

S.18.2

See Goal 4 and Associated Objectives and Policies

Urban Village

!!!!!! ! !

Orange County

PUTNAM AVE

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!

!!!

HAYDEN

! !!

! ! !N! WESTMORELAND DR

HAYDEN LN

!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !DR N WESTMORELAND

!!!

N LEE AVE

BEECH AVE

AVE

N WESTMORELAND DR

LEE

CORDOVA DR

HILLS PL

!!! !!

S LEE AVE

!!!!!!

E PL

PARISIAN ALY

!!!!!!

!!!!!

See Goal 4 and Associated Objectives and Policies

Airport Support District High Intensity

Determined by Adopted GMP Subarea Policy, consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.4.4

BOURN

S LEE AVE

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Max.: 40 DU/Acre (1) and/or 0.7 FAR Min.: 12 DU/Acre (1)

Airport Support District Med. Intensity

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

BRIERCLIFF !!!!!

S.1!! !! 8. !! ! 5

Max.: 200 DU/Acre and/or 4.0 FAR Min.: 75 DU/Acre and/or 0.75 FAR

Industrial

CIR

!! !

FERNWOOD ST E AV W A HIT RI T IE R ! TE IS W

Max.: 200 DU/Acre and/or 3.0 FAR Min.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.75 FAR

Downtown Activity Center D-AC

Lake Davis

DELANEY

Max.: 100 DU/Acre and/or 1.0 FAR Min.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.5 FAR

Metropolitan Activity Center M-AC

EROKEE CH

Lake Copeland

!!!!

Lake

LA Beauty DR KE BE A U TY

U-AC

!!!

!! !

Max.: 40 DU/Acre and/or 0.7 FAR Min.: 20 DU/Acre and/or 0.35 FAR

Urban Activity Center U-AC

E GORE ST

!! !! !! !! !! PH

!! ! ! ! !ST !! MILLER ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !W

!! IE

!! !

U-AC

La ke ok ee Ch er

ANN

DEN GOL CT OAK ! !! S.18.1

S LEE AVE

!! !!!!

!!!!!!!!

C-AC

RICHMOND ST RICHMOND ST

! !

EE AVE

N WESTMORELAND DR

JAXSO PL

! ! !DR S WESTMORELAND

AVE

ALBANY

JERNIGAN

!!!

ALBANY AVE

ADAIR PARK PL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S WESTMORELAND DR

! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

QUILL AVE

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BAY ST

STURTEVANT ST

AGNES ST

Max.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.3 FAR Min.: 15 DU/Acre

Community Activity Center

S.15.1

S.7.4

CHEROKEE DR

!!!!

ALY

!!!

!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!

TAHOE

!! !!!!

!!!!!!!

MARIPOSA

E JACKSON ST

!!!

S WESTMORELAND DR

! ! !!! !

E CHURCH ST

N-AC

PALMER ST

E DE LEON

E GORE ST

!!!!

U-AC

!!!!!

W COPELAND DR

BONNIE LOCH CT

PONC !!!

Orlando

!! !! ! !

S.7.1

E SOUTH ST

Orange County

!!!!!!

E PINE ST

NIEUPORT LN

Max.: 200 DU/Acre and/or 1.0 FAR Min.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.4 FAR

Neighborhood Activity Center

E ANDERSON ST

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND DR

N WESTMORELAND DR

S.7.4

S.18.3

AGNES CT

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

18TH ST

!!! !!!!!! !!!!!

S.12.9

CONROY ST

CIR

!!!!!!!!

!!!

S.7.4 S.7.2

S.18.3

!!!

!!!!

S.7.1

!!!!!!!

CER NE

S LUC

UNDERWOOD ST

INDIANA ST

W MILLER ST

Lake Lucerne

!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!

!!!

W MILLER ST

18TH ST

Orlando

!!!!!!!!!

COLUMBIA

!!!!

CONROY

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lake Of The Woods

!!!!!!!!!!

INDIANA ST

Orange County

Figure 4-45 The current ﬁgure ground map also indicates the density of the immediate area surrounding the site and was used in evalua•ng the site for this project to determine density and desirable connec•ons.

Lake Lucerne

!!!!!!!!!!

INDIANA

D-AC

Max.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.5 FAR Min.: 15 DU/Acre

Mixed Use Corridor High Intensity

S.14.3

S.14.10 S.14.10

E ROBINSON ST

!!!!!!!

COLUMBIA ST

GRAND ST

Max.: 200 DU/Acre and/or 1.0 FAR Min.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.4 FAR

! !! ! ! ! BLVD CENTRAL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! E! !

527

Max.: 40 DU/Acre and/or 0.7 FAR Min.: 12 DU/Acre and/or 0.3 FAR

Lake Eola

!! ! !! !!

E CHURCH ST

LUC ! CIR ! ER ! W !NE !! !!

ERNESTINE ! !

!!!!! R A LEIGH ! !ST

Max.: 21 DU/Acre and/or 0.4 FAR Min.: None

Office High Intensity

!!!!!!!!!!

S.14.12

E RN CE N

!!!

MILLER AVE

RALEIGH

COLUMBIA ST

S.1 4.3

!!!!!!! ! ! ! RIDGEWOOD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ST

E ANDERSON ST

!! !! S !!

CITRUS ST ST

Office Low Intensity

Mixed Use Corridor Medium Intensity

S.12.9

PIEDMONT

Max.: 12 DU/Acre and/or 0.4 FAR Min.: None

E LIVINGSTON ST

E SOUTH ST

!!!!!!!!!

PIEDMONT ST

Max.: 200 DU/Acre and/or 0.35 FAR Min.: 30 DU/Acre

Mixed Use/Neighborhood Development

Office Medium Intensity

HARWOOD

S.14.9

E JACKSON ST

ALLEY 9 PIEDMONT ST

S.14.3

E AMELIA ST

EOLA PKWY

!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ST ! ! GORE !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !W ! ! ! ST W GORE ST! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !W!GORE

CITRUS S ST

D-AC

FRANKLIN

PIEDMONT ST

S.14.3

WALL ST

E PINE ST

!!!!! !!!!!!

S.6.3 S.6.4 S.6.4

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON ST

!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! S.12.7

AVE

MURPHY ST

S.6.1

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !

E CONCORD ST

HIBISCUS CT

E CENTRAL BLVD

50 DR ! ! ! E COLONIAL

.11 S.14 ! ! ! ! ! ! S.14.3

!!!!!

E JEFFERSON ST

WALL ST

BOB SNOW LN

S HUGHEY

S.6.3

E ROBINSON ST

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !AMERICA ST

CALLAHAN

Max.: 30 DU/Acre and/or 0.30 FAR Min.: 12 DU/Acre

Residential High Intensity

S.14.2

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!! !

S.6.1 S.6.4

S.6.6

S.6.5

CARTER

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !

CARVER PARK ST ST

! !!!

!!!!!!!!

CONLEY ST ST

!!!!

CONLEY ST

!!!

AMERICA ST

E AMELIA ST

Residential Medium Intensity

!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ST !!!!! WOODWARD

14 .1

E LIVINGSTON ST

!!! !

CARTER ST

W ANDERSON ST W AND !! !! ! !! !! ER SON !! !! ST ! S .6 ! ! ! ! ! ! .5 !!! !!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

E CONCORD ST

Max.: 12 DU/Acre and/or 0.30 FAR Min.: None

Park Lake

!!!!!!

W AMELIA ST

!!! !

S.6.5

ERICA ST

W SOUTH ST

!! !! !! !!! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!

S.6.5

D-AC

Residential Low Intensity

PARK LAKE ST

17 t u

CDEVITT ! ! ST

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !LONG ST

408

S.6.1

S.7.1

! !!

! !ST ! PARK LAKE

! ! ! ! !!

S.6.1

!!!!!!

RANDALL

!W ! ! ! ! !ST ! !JACKSON !!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

W SOUTH ST

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COLYER

U-AC C-AC

W CHURCH ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S.6.11

!!!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S.6.1

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!

!!!

W CHURCH ST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

E MARKS ST

! HILLCREST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !ST

W CONCORD ST

LEGEND

TERRACE BLVD

!!!

GRANADA CT

E COLONIAL DR

W PINE ST

W PINE ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S.6.11

Map 8 Effective Date: April 2, 2015 Updated Through 15-1ESR

U-AC

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PASADENA

D-AC

W CENTRAL BLVD

S.14.1 S.14.5

527

E MARKS ST

W MARKS ST

S.6.1

GROVE PARK DR

U-AC

!!!!!!!!

OSSIE ST

!!!!

!!!!!!!

W WASHINGTON ST

!!!!!

S.6.1

!!!!!!!!

S.6.1

! ! ST !!!! W JEFFERSON

!!!!!!

!!!

HIGHLAND DR

S.14.

14.7

S.6.1

W ROBINSON ST

!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!

HILLS ST

W JEFFERSON ST

PITTMAN ST

!!!

POLK

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

BENTLEY

! ! ! ! ! !ST !!! W ROBINSON

Economic Development Department City Planning Division

Future Land Use Map 8

! !!

OOD

!!!

BENTLEY ST

OAKW

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

BENTLEY ST

!!!

W LIVINGSTON ST ST Y LE BE

! ! !!

LEY ST

W ROBINSON ST

ALEXANDER PL

U-AC

L AK E

Lake Highland

!! !

BENTLEY ST

OTEY PL

W LIVINGSTON ST

S.6.13

LIA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

FEDE RAL ST

N ST

D-AC

W CONCORD ST

W AME

Future Land Use Map Series

! ST !!!!!!!!!

S.6.1

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

ZELMA ST

!!!!!

!! !

E! DO ! ! ! CIR T!

AMELIA ST

!! !K !! ! ! L!A

W CONCORD ST

S.6.1

Lake Dot

! !

!!!

D-AC

92 t u

S.6.4

S.6.9 S.6.4 S.6.3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !ST !! ARLINGTON

S.6.1

! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S.6.3 S.6.9

COLONIAL !!!!!!!!!!!DR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! COLONIAL W !!!!!!!!!!DR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!50 !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!W

S.6.4 S.6.9 S.6.4 S.6.3

AV AN

!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !RD ! ! ! ! PEACHTREE

OE BLVD

! !!

S IVANH

!! !! !

BOARDMAN

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!!!

!! !

!!!

TER DR WA GE

S.4.1

!!!

!!!!

BOARDMAN ST

!!!

!! ! ! ! !!

Lake Concord

BLV D

!! !! !! !! !! !!! !!!

LE PL

ALBA

S.4.3

R R D TE WA

VIL

ALAMEDA ST

City of Orlando

S.14.5

E !!! LIN ! ! ! Y INK ! -D ! ! AIL ! TR ! ! AN ! ! URB ! ! ! O ! ! LAND OR

C D-A

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! S.4.3 S IVAN HOE

CIR

!!!

S PL

!!!!!!!

IR BLV

Lake Ivanhoe

LUM BO CIR

OTO DES !!!!

LAKEVIEW

Lake Adair

E ADA

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

S.14.1

!!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !!

BLVD

S.14.13 S.14.13

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DR ! ! BROOKHAVEN !

SHERIDAN

S.13.1

VIRGINIA

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

LAK

H OE BLV D

GREELY ST

!!! !!

!!!!!!!!!!!

OAK ST

E02 N IVAN

IVANHOE PLZ

! !!! !

E01

!!!!!

SHADY LANE DR

MAXWELL

W02 SHADY LANE DR

GOLFVIEW ST

250

§ 500

1,000

Feet

Figure 4-46 Future Land Use zoning map shows the surrounding the bridge district ( Highlighted in yellow) as a Downtown Ac•vity Center (D-AC), 200 DU/AC 4.0 F.A.R within the Central Business District and a Urban Ac•vity Center (U-AC), 100 DU/AC 1.0 F.A.R within the Parramore Heritage District.

Site Analysis Diagrams

Figure 4-47 Diagram indicates the three roads that intersect the site. Central Blvd. (Shown in green) is a route for Lymmo, Orlando’s free bus service. Pine Street shown in blue currently dead ends into Hughey Ave. and Church St. shown in red.

Figure 4-50 Diagram indicates 20• buﬀer around the site is super imposed to separate pedestrians from faster moving traﬃc

Figure 4-48 Diagram indicates Pine Street currently dead ends into Hughey Boulevard, and because the por•on of Hughey that runs beneath the Interstate 4 is not used heavily, I propose closing it down to increase the available area for the site.

Figure 4-49 Diagram indicates the site (shown in green) is deﬁned by Central Blvd and Church St. which is a major corridor within the city, o•en closed down for special events, it is a key connec•ons between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District.

Figure 4-51 Diagram indicates the available natural light that passes into the site throughout the day. Pedestrian pathways will be priori•zed in these areas.

Figure 4-52 Diagram indicates the remaining space available to develop for retail inﬁll.

Figure 4-53 Diagram indicates the remaining volumes to be programmed and a new pedestrian plaza, Pine Plaza, in the center.

Sec•onal Analysis A•er the programmable space was laid out in plan, the sec•onal quality of the Interstate 4 was examined. The sec•on showed the unique split level design of the elevated highway as it passes through Downtown Orlando. The low side of the highway will be 26 feet high and the taller side will be 39 feet high at Church St. Sloping down just over 34 feet high at Central Blvd. The girder depth must also be taken into account and with an es•mated depth of 6 feet, it brings the ver•cal clearance to 28 feet at the high side and 20 feet on the low side of the highway (See Figure 4-54). The sec•onal study also provides how natural light enters the site allowing for methods of maximizing the amount in the space for pedestrian pathways to be formulated.

Figure 4-54 Sec•on of the renovated highway showing the split levels. On the low side the highway will be approximately 26 feet high and the taller side approximately 39 feet high.

Figure 4-55 Sec•onal light analysis indicates how light moves through the spaces beneath Interstate 4 and begin to formulate strategies to maximize it.

Figure 4-56 Sec•onal analysis of the site show space programming possibili•es.

Pros Program Recommendaâ&#x20AC;˘ons Based on the research results from the case studies, a recommended program was formulated. This program takes into account the need for sustained acâ&#x20AC;˘vity throughout all parts of the day providing a much safer environment. The proposed by this masters research project is diďŹ&#x20AC;erent from the current conceptual proposal put forth by the city (See Figure 4-58). The main diďŹ&#x20AC;erence between the two proposals is that this project proposes a large retail funcâ&#x20AC;˘on where the ciâ&#x20AC;˘es plan is focused on creaâ&#x20AC;˘ng a park. The research indicates that a park by itself will not be sustainable therefore Orlando should seek a private public partnership to create leas-able space beneath Interstate 4 in Downtown Orlando. By incorporaâ&#x20AC;˘ng the public ameniâ&#x20AC;˘es with retail inďŹ ll it gives people numerous reasons to go beneath Interstate 4 and keep it acâ&#x20AC;˘ve at all â&#x20AC;˘mes of day. Ulâ&#x20AC;˘mately this will create a strong connecâ&#x20AC;˘on between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District.

Cons

Bars & Restaurants Events & Activities Lake Eola Venues - Amway & DPAC Arts Scene Walkable Clean Evolving Accessible Beautiful SunRail Professional sports Parks Safe LYMMO Library Diverse Historical Trees & Green Spaces Community

Homeless population Unsafe Parking - too limited Dirty TrafďŹ c - congestion Retail - limited basic offerings Restaurants - not enough selection Bars - too loud Parking - too expensive Too busy Bars - too many Not family friendly Crowded Green spaces - limited TrafďŹ c - confusing one-ways Transit options Retail - limited variety Events - limited offering SunRail - limited service Disconnected

Figure 4-57 DTO Community workshop pros and cons survey results gives insight into the type of program that can be successful in creaâ&#x20AC;˘ng a strong connecâ&#x20AC;˘on.3

3URSRVDO &RPSDULVRQ

)HDWXUH

([LVWLQJ &RQGLWLRQV

'HYHORSPHQW 3URSRVDOV '72 3RS XS HYHQW VSDFH IRU PXVLF DUW DQG WKHDWHU OLIH VL]H FKHVV ERDUG VNDWHERDUG UDPSV GRJ UXQ SLFQLF WDEOHV DQG WDEOH JDPHV D PDVVLYH VDQGER[ WHQQLV FRXUWV ERFFH EDOO DQG VKXIIOHERDUG 6PDOO NLRVN DQG FDUWV )RRG 7UXFNV

3DUN

6SRUWV )XQFWLRQ 5HWDLO 3ULYDWH 3XEOLF 3DUWQHUVKLS 3XEOLF ,QSXW 3DUNLQJ

6SDFHV

053 ,QWHUDFWLYH 3OD\JURXQG DQG VSODVK SDG LQWHUDFWLYH OLJKW JDUGHQ UDOO\ VTXDUH

,QWHUDFWLYH JDPHV SDGV WKDW KDYH D YDULHW\ RI DWKOHWLF DQG PHQWDO JDPHV *URFHU\ 5HWDLO 5HVWDXUDQWV =LS &DU 3DUWQHULQJ ZLWK DQ DQFKRU JURFHU DQG UHWDLO 3XEOLF 0HHWLQJV DQG :RUNVKRSV KHOG IRU 8VH RI '72 3XEOLF 0HHWLQJV DQG WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV :RUNVKRSV 0LQXWHV =LS &DU 6SDFHV

Figure 4-58 Proposal comparison charts compares the current Downtown Orlando plan for the spaces beneath the Interstate to the plan proposed by this masters research project.

<ĞǇ

,ŽƵƌƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂǇ

Ϯϰ

,ŽƵƌƐ KƉĞŶ

ϭϰ

KƉĞŶ ϭϰŚƌƐ

KƉĞŶ ϮϰŚƌƐ 'ƌŽĐĞƌǇ ^ƚŽƌĞ

ŝŶĞƌ

&ŽŽĚ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

ZĞƚĂŝů

ŶƚĞƌƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ

^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚǇ

ŽŵŵĞƌĐĞ

WůĂǇŐƌŽƵŶĚ

Figure 4-59 Bubble diagram illustrates the prosed program for this masters research project based on the precedent case studies and the Project DTO workshop results. By incorpora!ng the public ameni!es with retail inﬁll gives people numerous reasons to go beneath Interstate 4 and keep it ac!ve at all !mes of day. Ul!mately this will create a strong connec!on between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District.

&ĂƐƚ ĂƐƵĂů

/ŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞ WƵďůŝĐ ŵĞŶƚŝĞƐ

'ĂŵĞƐ

^ƉůĂƐŚ WĂĚ

References 1. “Ge•ng Bigger: Metro Orlando Grows to 2.3 Million.” OrlandoSen•nel.com. June 8, 2014. Accessed July 24, 2015. h•p://www. orlandosen•nel.com/news/breaking-news/os-census-popula•on-central-ﬂorida-20150326-story.html. 2. “History.” In Orlando. Accessed July 20, 2015. h•p://www.frommers.com/des•na•ons/orlando/681710. 3. “Project DTO Vision Plan 2015.” Project DTO Vision Plan 2015. May 4, 2015. Accessed July 15, 2015. h•p://online.ﬂiphtml5.com/ gydm/hikd/#p=38.

Figure 5-60 Rendering looking north from Church St

Chapter 5

Interven•on and Conclusions

Figure 5-61 Rendering of proposal through the Sun Path looking north from Church St

Introduc!on to design interven!on The interven•on begins at Church st with an open special event gathering space that can be lit with interac•ve ligh•ng when there is no event taking place and from there people are guided into the Sun Path, a tunnel of natural light that is maximized through the use of reﬂec•ve mirrors making the new retail corridor bright and more comfortable. The 39 foot clearance beneath the north bound sec•on highway allows for two levels that can accomodate both oﬃce and retail func•ons. While the south bound sec•on of the Interstate 4 has a clearance of 25’ and is slightly wider allowing adequate space to house a downtown grocer to provide every day needs to local residents.

Site Plan Beginning at the North End of the interstate is Downtown Orlando’s proposed park. Once past Central Blvd you enter the Sunpath, a central pedestrian corridor, that receives natural light reﬂected in through the use of solar collectors. Flanked by retail path opens to Pine Plaza, a new interac•ve park beneath the interstate. With a splash pad accented with interac•ve light and walls that allow people to play games while there taking a break from shopping or work. Then back through into the la•er half of the Sun Path is addi•onal retail with the large space for a grocer programed on the west side of the site that can provide essen•als for the residents in Downtown Orlando. Finally the project opens to Church St. Square, an open gathering space for the ci•es special events that when not being used acts as a second interac•ve playground and a food truck court.

Structural Concept Tradi•onal construc•on methods are a valid op•on for developments beneath eleva•on highways. However, with the recent calls for improved highway infrastructure, there is opportunity to incorporate the structure of the interstate into architectural solu•ons for the city fabric. For the purposes of this project I used terms of suspended, braced and independent. Suspended refers to the use of cables that can be fasted to reinforced trusses within the structure of the highway which floor systems are then hung from . This can bring about economic benefits as well as allow for more flexibility in the architectural solu•ons. To overcome the vibra•ons caused by the vehicular traffic the use a mass tuned dampers can be placed beneath the slab to filter out the unwanted sounds and vibra•ons that may carry through the structure. The lateral bracing of the structure can also be achieved with cables that can be anchored to the highway columns , trusses and ground work. Walls can also be independently place on the ground floors to best suite the needs of the tenant.

Figure 5-62 Typical detail for a spring li• slab ﬂoor isola•on system. This system acts as a tuned mass damper minimizing vibra•on and sound transmission. (Kine•c Solu•ons)

Figure 5-63 Typical Sec•on through the two story por•on of the project. This concept works on the terms of Independent, suspended and braced. Shown above is the suspended system with a steel frame ﬂoor suspended by cables anchored to reinforced trusses in built into the over pass structure.

Figure 5-64 Sec•on showing independently placed wall that only supports itself as it does not have a rigid connec•on to the mega structure.

Figure 5-65 Sec•on showing cable bracing concept to counteract lateral forces and upli•.

To maximize the amount of natural light brought into the space, this project proposes the use of heliostats, a ﬂat mirror-like surface that is mounted on motorized swivels to reﬂect the sun’s light. This design is conceptual in nature but the science behind how it works can be seen in Jean Novel’s Central Park.

Figure 5-66 To maximize natural light a strategy was conceive to gather and reﬂect it through the site. A system of automated helio-stats gather light and adjust themselves throughout the day to reﬂect the most usable light possible into the dark space.

SECTION LOOKING SOUTH THROUGH PINE PLAZA Figure 5-67 Secâ&#x20AC;¢on rendering through the Sun Path and Pine Plaza the central gathering space.

PLAN WITH ELEVATION LOOKING EAST THROUGH SUN PATH

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Leve vel ve l Re Reta tail ta il B

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Leve vel ve l Re Reta tail ta il E

St.. ch St Churrch Chu

Centra Cen trall Blvd tra Blvd lvd..

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Leve vel ve l Re Reta tail ta il A

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Leve vel ve l Gr Groc ocer oc ery er yD

Figure 5-68 Eleva•on and plan looking east through the Sun Path showing the two levels of retail space and the wide pedestrian corridor that is created to maximize the natural light by taking the reﬂected light from the Sun Path to bounce of pools of water through the space.

PLAN WITH ELEVATION LOOKING WEST Central Blvd. Cen

St.. ch St Churrch Chu

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Level Building A

Lowe Lo wer we r Le Leve vel ve l Bu Buil ildi il ding di ng E

Ave. d Ave. Garland S. Gar

Figure 5-70 Eleva•on and plan of the project looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District. In eleva•on from right le!: Central Blvd, retail A, Pine Plaza, Retail E and Church St. In plan the wide sidewalls provide a comfortable space for pedestrians and by lining the outside with ride sharing ventures it further protects pedestrians and provides an addi•onal services to oﬀer in the development.

Conceptual Program MAP Gross Total - 64,200 Sq. Ft.

Figure 5-69 Program map shows the loca•on and gross square footage of the prosed project

A. B. C. D. E.

Retail, Two Levels - 12,500 Sq. Ft. Retail, One Level - 9,500 Sq. Ft. Pine Square, Interac•ve Park & Splash Pad Grocery Store, One Level - 21,700 Sq. Ft. Retail, Two Levels - 20,500 Sq. Ft.

Church St Square, Interac•ve Park

SECTION THROUGH BUILDINGS E + D LOOKING SOUTH Figure 5-71 Sec•on rendering through the south end of the interven•on ( Buildings E & D See ) through the two level retail, Sun path and market space

SECTION THROUGH BUILDINGS A + B LOOKING NORTH Figure 5-72 Sec•on rendering through the north end of the interven•on ( Buildings A & B See ) through the single story retail, Sun Path and two story retail.

PLAN WITH ELEVATION LOOKING EAST

Figure 5-73 Eleva•on and plan of the project looking east toward the Central Business District. In eleva•on from le• to right: Central Blvd, retail B, Pine Plaza, grocer market (Building D) and Church St. In plan the wide sidewalks provide a comfortable space for pedestrians and by lining the outside with ride sharing ventures it further protects pedestrians and provides an addi•onal services to oﬀer in the development.

Figure 5-74 Rendering of the overhauled por•on of Interstate 4 over Pine Street looking west toward the Parramore Heritage district

The Highway

The City of Orlando

While the highway has brought many benefits to the United States since its incep•on, there has also been numerous nega•ve side effects that have come along with it. These side effects are both visual and social in nature and affect ci•es throughout the United States. The social dispari•es caused by highways through urban centers are severe and while highways may not be the only factor, they are a major contributor. In addi•on to the social dispari•es the visual scale of the highway seems foreign at the pedestrian level and is therefore o•en seen as an undesirable connec•on within the city. These spaces are o•en also misused in manners such as dumping or other illegal ac•vity that creates an unsafe environment beneath elevated highways. These factors demonstrate a need for an inves•ga•on into solu•ons to heal the broken connec•ons within the ci•es caused by the construc•on of the highway system.

Orlando is a city that has shown its ability to adapt to changing economic condi•ons. From its early incep•on, The City has successfully transformed itself to support a large growth in popula•on. Now the city of Orlando has set forth goals to increase the livability of Downtown with the hopes of a!rac•ng young professionals and growing businesses. With the plans put forth in project DTO, the connec•on between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District is key to the plans success. Project DTO lays the founda•on for the city’s goals to create a connec•on beneath Interstate 4, calling it the Bridge District. While the city has said that their plans are conceptual in nature, they focus primarily on transforming the spaces beneath the interstate into an urban park. This approach, however, has not been shown to be sustainable as can be seen in the case studies referenced in this Masters Research Project. The City should consider a private-public partnership that incorporates retail alongside public ameni•es to create a zone of ac•vity throughout the day.

Figure 5-75 Rendering of the overhauled por•on of Interstate 4 over Pine Street looking west toward the Parramore Heritage district with this masters research project’s proposal.

Case Studies Spa!al Framework The case studies referenced in this document lay a ground work for how connec•ons broken by infrastructure can be s•tched back together through architectural interven•on. They also lay out programma•c elements that are key in crea•ng a sustainable connec•on. In the case of Lawrence Halprin’s Freeway Park, the theory of the nega•ve highway effects were correct, but the solu•on of transforming the unused space into a park proved to be suscep•ble to nega•ve societal trends. In the cases of the Queensboro bridge market, Viaduct des Arts, and A8erna it is demonstrated how a private-public partnership that incorporates retail into the space can create a sustainable connec•on that is beneficial to the people of the city. They also demonstrate that the successful projects included public input, par•cularly in the case of A8erna, giving residents a direct connec•on to the project and its success. In all the case studies they are implemented in ci•es where there is a high density providing the poten•al foot traffic for the area. The factors of density, government recogni•on, public par•cipa•on, and a public private partnership must work in tandem with each other to bring about a successful development beneath an interstate (see Figure 1-11). By doing this it creates more livable communi•es improving the quality of life and therefore making it more a•rac•ve and convenient.

In order to provide a basis for ci•es to quickly evaluate whether a space beneath an elevated highway is suitable for a development such as the one suggested by this project, a spa•al framework was established. By using the 110! wide space which includes the pedestrian buﬀer and back-to-back retail the suitability of the site can be quickly assessed. Then, by examining the sec•onal quality of the interstate, program possibili•es can be explored with a focus on maximizing the natural light. By applying the spa•al framework a founda•on is created for planning development beneath elevated highways. Structural Possibili!es While tradi•onal construc•on methods are acceptable beneath elevated highways, the large number of renova•ons being done on them allows for the possibility of using the infrastructure to support the architectural interven•on. This project suggests the use of cables, which can be an inexpensive alterna•ve to structural columns. Through upgrading certain trusses within the structure of the highway, the building can be suspended,

Figure 5-76 Rendering what the space beneath Interstate 4, between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District will look like once the overhaul of the highway is complete .

possibly reducing the overall cost of construc•on. Vibra•ons from the highway can be counteracted through the use of mass tuned dampers that filter out sound and vibra•ons that might carry through the structure. This project proposes that the use of this system can yield both economic and architectural benefits. Project Conclusions While the nega•ve effects of highways are substan•al, they can be counteracted through architectural infill that adapts the scale of the highway to the pedestrian level. Through government planning and public input, connec•ons can be reestablished and new urban centers can be formed in the once void spaces beneath elevated highways. There are methods to maximize natural light through gathering and reflec•ng it into the dark spaces beneath the highway. By maximizing this natural light, it creates a more comfortable environment and allows for unique ways of ligh•ng the space at night. By incorpora•ng the retail, ac•vity can be maintained throughout the day by giving people mul•ple reasons to visit the area. A#rac•ng people to the area by providing essen•als and ameni•es while encouraging social interac•on between the two districts will create a strong connec•on between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District.

Figure 5-77 Rendering what the space beneath Interstate 4, between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District will look like once the overhaul of the highway is complete with this masters research project’s proposal.

Where this research should go There are a number of places that this research should go, beginning with case studies across the na•on to truly assess the na•onal impact that the interstate system has had on urban city centers. By bringing more a•en•on to this subject, focus on its impact on livability will be increased throughout the na•on. With the dark nature of these spaces, I also feel it would be an ideal place to incorporate interac•ve games through the use of projec•on mapping. Please take a look at the recommended reading list to see research on how interac•ve games can create social interac•on. I also feel there are numerous possibili•es with incorpora•ng the structure of highways into the architectural fabric of the city. While only one has been suggested in this project, it is an area that I feel would be both interes•ng and beneﬁcial to explore. Finally with the recent push toward autonomous vehicles these spaces may become key nodes as mul•-model centers within ci•es and I feel this should be the focus of planning in future developments.

Reference Summary 1. AlSayyad, N. (2003). The end of tradi!on? (1st ed. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF030522791 2. Bordas, D. “A8ernA.” joint winner, european prize for urban public space, centre for cultura contemporania de barcelona. 2006, 3. Cambell, R. (2002). A paris match? boston can learn something about crea!ng new civic space from the city of light. Boston Globe, 4. Federal mass transit program and the reauthoriza!on of the intermodal surface transporta!on efficiency act (ISTEA) hearing before the commi"ee on banking, housing, and urban affairs, united states senate, one hundred fi&h congress, first session ...(1998). . S.l: s.n. Retrieved from h"p://UH7QF6FD4H.search.serialssolu!ons. com/?V=1.0&L=UH7QF6FD4H&S=JCs&C=TC_020160681&T=marc&tab=BOOKS 5. Florida Department of Transporta!on. (2015). Ul!mate I4. Retrieved 9/1, 2015, from h"p://i4ul!mate.com/project-info/overview/ 6. Halprin, L. (1966). Freeways. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/ permalink.jsp?20FL020856455 7. Hissom, P. K. (2013). Thriving ci!es: City profile of orlando. University of Virginia: University of Virginia’s Instute for Advance Studies of Culture. (City Profile of Orlando) 8. Izzary, R. (2003). Restructuring the spaces under elevated expressways: A case 9. study of the spaces below the interstate-10 overpass at perkins 10. road in baton rouge, louisiana. Unpublished Masters of Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University. 11. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american ci!es. New York: Random House. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF020648221 12. Johanson, M. (2014). Orlando surpasses new york as most-visited US city. Retrieved 9/15, 2015, from h"p://www.ib!mes.com/orlando-surpassesnew-york-most-visited-us-city-1574621 13. Kramer, L. (2003). a8erna. Retrieved 10/2, 2015, from h"ps://www. architonic.com/en/project/nl-architects-a8erna/5100103 14. Levi", D. M. (2015, November, 20). Manha"an’s most beau!ful supermarkets is closing. Bloomberg, 15. Lewis, C. A., Buffington, J. L., Vadali, S. R., & Goodwin, R. E. (1997). Land value and land use effects of elevated, depressed, and at-grade level, freeways in texas (State Sponsored No. FHWA/TX-98/1327-2). Texas A&M: Texas Transporta!on Ins!tute. 16. Meade, M. (1996). Parisian promenade – viaduct refurbishment in paris Architectural Review. 17. Orlando, C. o. (2015). DTO vision. Retrieved 9/1, 2015, from h"p:// fliphtml5.com/gydm/ojoc 18. Perkins and Will. (2014). Case studies for the city of toronto gardiner expressway / lake shore boulevard EA. Case Study, 19. Project for Public Spaces. (2005). A new vision for freeway park.

Retrieved 9/30, 2015, from h"p://www.sea"le.gov/parks/parkspaces/ freewaypark/Ac!va!onPlan.pdf 20. Puncher, R. (2013). Pedestrian safety concerns in the u.s.. Retrieved 10/9, 2015, from h"p://safety.+wa.dot.gov/ped_bike/pssp/background/psafety. cfm 21. Sco", M. (1969). American city planning since 1890; a history commemora!ng the fi&ieth anniversary of the american ins!tute of planners. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink. jsp?20FL020063396 22. Swagger, D. C. (1997). Consequences of the development of the interstate highway system for transit. Transit Coopera!ve Research Program, 23. The City of Sea"le, Washington. (2005). A new vision for freeway park (Civic Improvment. Sea"le Washington: Project for Public Spaces, Inc. 24. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space : Theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF025393379 25. Transit Coopera!ve, R. P., & United States Federal, T. A. (1997). Consequences of the development of the interstate highway system for transit. Washington, D.C: Transporta!on Research Board. Retrieved from h"p://UH7QF6FD4H.search.serialssolu!ons. com/?V=1.0&L=UH7QF6FD4H&S=JCs&C=TC0000939044&T=marc&tab=BOOKS 26. United States Federal, H. A. (1977). America’s highways, 1776-1976 : A history of the federal-aid program. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Transporta!on, Federal Highway Administra!on : for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink.jsp?20UF024154976 27. United States, e. j., & Arnold, &. P. c. (1991). Intermodal surface transporta!on efficiency act of 1991 : P.L. 102-240, 105 stat 1915, december 18, 1991. Getzville, NY; Washington, D.C: William S. Hein & Company; Arnold & Porter. Retrieved from h"p://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=leghis/ intmstea&collec!on=leghis 28. Waldheim, C. (2006). The landscape urbanism reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Retrieved from University of Florida Library Catalog; Mango Discovery; h"p://uf.catalog.fcla.edu/permalink. jsp?20UF021531328 29. Weingroff, R. F. (2015). Original intent: Purpose of the interstate system 1954-1956. Retrieved December/9, 2015, from h"ps://www.+wa.dot.gov/ infrastructure/originalintent.cfm

Recommended Readings 1. Alem, L. e., Huang, W. e., & Livingston, M. A. e. (2013). Human factors in augmented reality environments. New York: Springer. Retrieved from h!p:// www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=76621 2. Blow Factory. (2014). BMW interac"ve intalla"on. Retrieved November/17, 2015, from h!p://blowfactory.com/bmw-interac"ve-installa"on 3. Craig, A. B. (2013). Understanding augmented reality concepts and applica"ons. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann. Retrieved from h!p://lib. myilibrary.com?id=486567 4. de Valk, l., Bekker, T., & Eggen, B. (2015). Designing for social interac"on in open-ended play environments. Interna"onal Journal of Design, 9(1), 107. 5. Forlizzi, J., & Ba!arbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interac"ve system. Carnegie Mellon University. 6. Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M. (2012). Designing for collec"ve par"cipa"on with media installa"ons in public spaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference: Par"cipa"on, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 33-42. doi:10.1145/2421076.2421082 7. Maki, F. (1964). Inves"ga"ons in collec"ve form. The School of Architecture Washington University, 2 8. Maniello, D., & Console, L. (2014). Augmented reality in public spaces, basic techniques for video mapping [Realta aumentata in spazi pubblici] (J. Ryan Trans.). (1st ed.). Brienzia, Italy: Le Pendeur Publisher

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Photos below Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando. Currently the Interstate is undergoing a full overhall to widen it by over 100’ as it passing between the Parramore Her•age Distric and the Central Business District in Downtown Orlando. 1 Figure 1-2 View of the Interstate from the Parramore Heritage looking toward the District Central Business District. 2 Figure 1-3 Figure ground of Downtown Orlando between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. The site is highlighted in yellow. 2 Figure 1-4 View of the Interstate from the Central Business District looking toward the Parramore Heritage District . 2 Figure 1-5 Ariel photograph of Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando. With the site highlighted in yellow. 2 Figure 1-6 Photo beneath Interstate 4 as it passes over Pine Street in Downtown Orlando. 3 Figure 1-7 Photographs and diagram showing 5 blocks removed, for the construc•on of Interstate 4, from Downtown Orlando spli!ng the fabric of the city between the Parramore Heritage District and The Central Business District. 4 Figure 1-8 Photograph of Landscape Architect Lawrence Halprin in front of Freeway Park, Sea"le, Washington. (Photo by Katy Muldoon) 4 Figure 1-9 Photographs of Interstate 4 as it passes through Downtown Orlando. 4 Figure 1-10 Diagram show Interstate as it exist per-overhaul (le#) and how much it will increase by a#er the Ul•mate I4 overhaul is complete (right). Note that it will grow by over 100 feet in width upon its comple•on. 5 Figure 1-11 Ariel Photograph of the Interstate per-overhaul (le#) and a rendering of what it will look like upon comple•on. (Right) 5 Figure 1-12 When comparing the popula•ons the two districts are very close. But when examining the educa•on level obtained, income and race the social effects of the highway become prevalent. 6 Figure 1-13 Figure grounds (le#) show the consistent growth in both districts up un•l 1954, two years before the construc•on of Interstate 4, but from post construc•on onward the Parramore Heritage District decreases in density, while the Central Business district increases, to the present day, 50 years a#er the construc•on of the highway, the area has yet to recover from the impact 6 Figure 1-14 Map of Downtown Orlando with the Parramore Heritage District shown in orange and the Central Business District shown in blue. The green area is the loca•on of the Bridge District and the major city a"rac•ons are keyed on the map. 7 Figure 1-15 Conceptual rendering of the Bridge District. The city of Orlando has recognized its poten•al for growth and pu!ng livability within downtown as a high priority. The area beneath the overpass was of noted importance to the city as stated in the districts comprehensive plan “Project DTO” due to its central loca•on in Downtown Orlando. The Orlando development board has referred to this area as the 7 Bridge District.9 Figure 1-16 Photo of Interstate 4 looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District. 7 Figure 1-17 Conceptual map of the proposed park to go under Interstate 4 (DTO) 7 Figure 1-18 Rendering of the future space beneath Interstate 4 in Downtown Orlando once the overhaul construc•on is completed. 7 Figure 1-19 Rendering of the view looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District beneath Interstate 4 in Downtown Orlando once the overhaul construc•on is completed. 8 Figure 1-21 Year 2000 U.S. Census Tracts, Parramore Heritage District ( Tracts CT105 AND CT106) and the Central Business District ( Tracts CT101 and CT102). 9 Figure 1-20 Chart shows the break down of the Educa•on, Income and Race based on the data obtained from the 2000 census tracts in the Parramore Heritage District ( Tracts CT105 AND CT106) and the Central Business District ( Tracts CT101 and CT102). See 9 Figure 2-22 Construc•on photo of Interstate 4 though downtown Orlando, 1965, (Ul•mate I4, 2015) One year before comple•on note the density of the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. 12 Figure 2-23 Peak traffic diagram from the Na•onal Highway Administra•on, (Wiengroff, 1996) 12 Figure 2-24 The Clay Commi"ee presents its report with recommenda•ons concerning the financing of a na•onal interstate highway network to President Eisenhower on Jan. 11, 1955. Standing behind the 10 13 president are (from le#) Gen. Lucius Clay, Frank Turner, Steve Betchel, Sloan Colt, William Roberts, and Dave Beck. Figure 2-25 Types of Elevated Highways: This image illustrates all the different types of highways in a cross sec•on. Note the space they occupy. (Halprin, 1966. Freeways, p. 81). 14 Figure 2-26 Ariel shot of Interstate 4 through Downtown Orlando, note the difference in density from Figure 1-1 in the Parramore Heritage District 16 Figure 3-27 View of Freeway Park designed by landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. (Photo by Joe Mabel) 17 17 Figure 3-28 Rendered site plan of Sea"le Freeway Park (Halprin)3 Figure 3-31 Photograph of graffi• park below A8 freeway, includes a skate park, soccer and basket ball courts. (Photograph by Luke Kramer) 18 Figure 3-30 Photograph of wrapped column in front of Albert Heins market beneath the A8 freeway in the Netherlands. (Photograph by Luke Kramer) 18 Figure 3-29 Program diagram of A8erna showing the public square, grocer and retail in orange and the skate park in gray. (NL Architects) 18 Figure 3-32 Photograph of the wide pedestrian streets and commercial infill in the Viaduct des Arts, Paris France . (Patrick Berger) 19 Figure 3-33 Photograph shows the use of exis•ng railway infrastructure being to create commercial infill space ac•va•ng the corridor. (Patrick Berger) 19 Figure 3-34 Photograph of the Food Emporiums vaulted ceiling (Photo by Miguel Tuscon) 20 Figure 3-35 Photo of the entrance to the Bridge Market in Queensboro, New York. (Photo by Miguel Tuscon) 20 Figure 3-36 The above chart is a summary of the precedent case studies. The areas highlighted in green were successful por•ons of the project. Areas highlighted in yellow were rela•vely successful with minor setbacks. Areas highlighted in red have fell into a state of disrepair and/or are undergoing a renova•on to rejuvenate the area. 21 Figure 3-37 Flow diagram illustrates the key elements for a successful development based on the research of the precedent case studies. 22 Figure 4-38 To create a successful interven•on density near the highway needs to be significant enough to support the programmed ameni•es. 23 Figure 4-39 Using a 35’-0”x25’-0” a basic retail unit can be established to evaluate the suitability of the space for a retail interven•on. A 20’- Buffer should also be taken into account to provide a comfortable walking space around the interven•on to establish the minimum footprint. 23 Figure 4-40 If enough area is available for the footprint of the interven•on then the sec•on quality of the highway is examined to determine the spacial quali•es beneath and what volumes will infill the space to meet the program needs. 23 Figure 4-41 Using the sec•onal study, as well as natural light study, methods to provide the most natural light to the primary pedestrian walking paths are examined. 23 Figure 4-42 Site inventory map shows the current and proposed developments around the site. The areas highlighted in red are the proposed program for this masters research project. 24 Figure 4-43 Map shows the dimensions of the space beneath the Interstate 4 overpass. In total this space is approximately 8.2 acres. The site chosen for the masters research project, Zone 3 ( See Figure 4-40 ), is approximately 168,000 square feet. 25 Figure 4-45 The current figure ground map also indicates the density of the immediate area surrounding the site and was used in evalua•ng the site for this project to determine density and desirable connec•ons. 26 Figure 4-44 Rendering shows the renovated interstate through Downtown Orlando with the proposed developments highlighted in green ( See Figure 4-40 for details) 26 Figure 4-46 Future Land Use zoning map shows the surrounding the bridge district ( Highlighted in yellow) as a Downtown Ac•vity Center (D-AC), 200 DU/AC 4.0 F.A.R within the Central Business District and

a Urban Ac•vity Center (U-AC), 100 DU/AC 1.0 F.A.R within the Parramore Heritage District. 26 Figure 4-47 Diagram indicates the three roads that intersect the site. Central Blvd. (Shown in green) is a route for Lymmo, Orlando’s free bus service. Pine Street shown in blue currently dead ends into Hughey Ave. and Church St. shown in red. 27 Figure 4-50 Diagram indicates 20! buffer around the site is super imposed to separate pedestrians from faster moving traffic 27 Figure 4-48 Diagram indicates Pine Street currently dead ends into Hughey Boulevard, and because the por•on of Hughey that runs beneath the Interstate 4 is not used heavily, I propose closing it down to increase the available area for the site. 27 Figure 4-51 Diagram indicates the available natural light that passes into the site throughout the day. Pedestrian pathways will be priori•zed in these areas. 27 Figure 4-49 Diagram indicates the site (shown in green) is defined by Central Blvd and Church St. which is a major corridor within the city, o!en closed down for special events, it is a key connec•ons between the Central Business District and the Parramore Heritage District. 27 Figure 4-52 Diagram indicates the remaining space available to develop for retail infill. 27 Figure 4-53 Diagram indicates the remaining volumes to be programmed and a new pedestrian plaza, Pine Plaza, in the center. 28 Figure 4-56 Sec•onal analysis of the site show space programming possibili•es. 29 Figure 4-54 Sec•on of the renovated highway showing the split levels. On the low side the highway will be approximately 26 feet high and the taller side approximately 39 feet high. 29 Figure 4-55 Sec•onal light analysis indicates how light moves through the spaces beneath Interstate 4 and begin to formulate strategies to maximize it. 29 Figure 4-58 Proposal comparison charts compares the current Downtown Orlando plan for the spaces beneath the Interstate to the plan proposed by this masters research project. 30 Figure 4-57 DTO Community workshop pros and cons survey results gives insight into the type of program that can be successful in crea•ng a strong connec•on.3 30 Figure 4-59 Bubble diagram illustrates the prosed program for this masters research project based on the precedent case studies and the Project DTO workshop results. By incorpora•ng the public ameni•es with retail infill gives people numerous reasons to go beneath Interstate 4 and keep it ac•ve at all •mes of day. Ul•mately this will create a strong connec•on between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District. 31 Figure 5-60 Rendering looking north from Church St 33 Figure 5-61 Rendering of proposal through the Sun Path looking north from Church St 34 Figure 5-63 Typical Sec•on through the two story por•on of the project. This concept works on the terms of Independent, suspended and braced. Shown above is the suspended system with a steel frame floor suspended by cables anchored to reinforced trusses in built into the over pass structure. 37 Figure 5-62 Typical detail for a spring li! slab floor isola•on system. This system acts as a tuned mass damper minimizing vibra•on and sound transmission. (Kine•c Solu•ons) 37 Figure 5-64 Sec•on showing independently placed wall that only supports itself as it does not have a rigid connec•on to the mega structure. 38 Figure 5-65 Sec•on showing cable bracing concept to counteract lateral forces and upli!. 38 Figure 5-66 To maximize natural light a strategy was conceive to gather and reflect it through the site. A system of automated helio-stats gather light and adjust themselves throughout the day to reflect the most usable light possible into the dark space. 39 Figure 5-67 Sec•on rendering through the Sun Path and Pine Plaza the central gathering space. 40 Figure 5-68 Eleva•on and plan looking east through the Sun Path showing the two levels of retail space and the wide pedestrian corridor that is created to maximize the natural light by taking the reflected light from the Sun Path to bounce of pools of water through the space. 41 Figure 5-70 Eleva•on and plan of the project looking west toward the Parramore Heritage District. In eleva•on from right le!: Central Blvd, retail A, Pine Plaza, Retail E and Church St. In plan the wide sidewalls provide a comfortable space for pedestrians and by lining the outside with ride sharing ventures it further protects pedestrians and provides an addi•onal services to offer in the development. 42 Figure 5-69 Program map shows the loca•on and gross square footage of the prosed project 42 Figure 5-71 Sec•on rendering through the south end of the interven•on ( Buildings E & D See ) through the two level retail, Sun path and market space 43 Figure 5-72 Sec•on rendering through the north end of the interven•on ( Buildings A & B See ) through the single story retail, Sun Path and two story retail. 43 Figure 5-73 Eleva•on and plan of the project looking east toward the Central Business District. In eleva•on from le! to right: Central Blvd, retail B, Pine Plaza, grocer market (Building D) and Church St. In plan the wide sidewalks provide a comfortable space for pedestrians and by lining the outside with ride sharing ventures it further protects pedestrians and provides an addi•onal services to offer in the development. 44 Figure 5-74 Rendering of the overhauled por•on of Interstate 4 over Pine Street looking west toward the Parramore Heritage district 45 Figure 5-75 Rendering of the overhauled por•on of Interstate 4 over Pine Street looking west toward the Parramore Heritage district with this masters research project’s proposal. 46 Figure 5-76 Rendering what the space beneath Interstate 4, between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District will look like once the overhaul of the highway is complete . 47 Figure 5-77 Rendering what the space beneath Interstate 4, between the Parramore Heritage District and the Central Business District will look like once the overhaul of the highway is complete with this masters research project’s proposal. 48