Work Sample Laura Rung-Er Jang
Master of City and Regional Planning, 2013 University of Pennsylvania
GIS Analysis Philadelphia Block Stabilization Program Philadelphia Commercial Corridor Enhancement Program
City Planning Planning for Rio Development After the 2016 Olympic game
Philadelphia Block Stabilization Program Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Internship | 2013 | Philadelphia
Vision
Identify tax delinquent properties in decent neighborhoods; obtain site control through conservatorship, rehabilitate, and sell the property – paying off municipal liens, cost of rehabilitation, and offering a profit to the owner of record.
Methodology
Identify tax delinquent properties with taxes<$10K located in TRF ranked C and D neighborhoods that have a vacancy violation on them by the License and Inspections.
Work Flow A. Data Acquisition
1. Market value analysis (MVA) data from The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) 2. Tax delinquent properties data 3. Vacancy violation by the License and Inspections 4. Zillow 5. Google map
B. Identify proper Property for fixing 1. Choose Properties within market value type = C or D or E 2. Choose Properties: Tax Delinquent < $10,000 Year >= 2
3. Choose vacant buildings from vacancy violation data 4. Take closer look at property from Google map
C. Economic analysis for targeted properties 1. Get property characteristics 2. Estimate build out fee 3. Calculate Profit fro PRA and the owner
Market Value Analysis
Target Properties
´
´
CDE_Properties
2010-2011 MVA MVA A B C D E F G H I Insufficient data
Target market types CDE for available properties Filter tax delinquent properties Then filter vacancy violation selection
42 vacant building in market type CDE
Build Out Profit
Positive Profit
Profit = Estimate Sale Price – Tax Delinquent – Last Sold Price – Build Out Fee
Cluster ´
1
id R ge e Av nu nu
e
e ge
dA ve
id R Fra
e
nk
nu
fo r
e Av
10
7
9
8 2
3 5
´
´
´ Properties_Possitive Profit Properties_Negative Profit
4
Properties_Possitive Profit
12
16 17
11
Washing to
n Avenu
e
19
21 18
14 15
Assume that Build Out Fee = $100 / SQFT PRA will get $20 per square foot
21 properties with positive profit
´
13
20
6
Summary
Property Detail TRF Market Value Type C
875 N STILLMAN ST
´
Sales Revenue
Delinquent Taxes
Cluster A
-$121,548
-$32,493
Cluster B
-$97,098
Other Total
Outstanding Debt
Build Out Fee($100/sqft)
Estimate sale price
Net to owner
PRA build out profit
-$29,600
-$1,013,500
$1,469,151
$272,010
$202,700
-$45,420
-$24,900
-$1,782,000
$2,826,747
$877,328
$356,400
-$157,450
-$10,439
-$3,740
-$353,000
$706,824
$182,195
$70,600
-$376,096
-$88,352
-$58,240
-$3,148,500
$5,002,722
$1,331,534
$629,700
1
id R ge e Av nu e
Zoning
630
Build out ($100)
Year built
9 $84,000 7
1920
Profit for owner
Building Type
Condo
$16,800
2 Bedrooms
1
Profit for PRA Build out ($125) 5
6 $105,000
Bathrooms Date of Last sold
3
Profit for PRA 4
$125,658
Price of last sold
$24,746
Build out ($150)
$126,000
Tax Del
$5,486 12
Profit for owner
$104,658
$0 11
Profit 17 for PRA
nu e
´
Mortgage
10/1/1967 Profit for owner
Washing to
16
n Avenue
21
19
nu
dA ve
fo r
e Av 3
$260,890 nk
ge
Lot
$146,658 8
$21,000
$25,200
20
18
TRF Market Value Type D
809 N TANEY ST 14 15
´ ´
´
10
Fra
id R
Area
1
e
$1,641
840
Estimate rent Estimate sale price
RSA-5
1
13
10 7
8
id R ge e Av nu
2
9
3
e
5
6
4
1512 1620
Build out ($100)
$151,200 10
1920 Single Family
Profit for owner
7 $3,777
nu e
Building Type
nu
dA ve
e Av
Year built
$291,731 fo r
ge
Lot
e
$1,685
nk
id R
Area
Estimate rent Estimate sale price
RSA-5
9
Fra
Zoning
$30,2408
2 Bedrooms
2
Profit for PRA Build out ($125)
Bathrooms Date of Last sold
1
Profit for PRA
-$34,023
4/3/2013 $132,704
Profit for owner Build out ($150)
$37,800
Price of last sold Tax Del
$4,050
Profit for owner
-$71,823
Mortgage
$011
Profit16for PRA
$45,360
3
´
5
12
Washing to
4
n Avenue
17 19
21
20
$189,000 6
12 11
16 1721 19 20 18
$226,800 14 15
Cluster B
Cluster A
Commercial Corridor Enhancement Program Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Internship | 2013 | Philadelphia
VISION
For the purpose of intensive investment by PRA owned development non- profit, identify the underperforming corridors and bring their performance to average. Build out critical mass, rent at market rate, the residential and rent the commercial at a subsidized rate.
APPROACH
Identify underperforming commercial corridor in transactional neighborhoods. Target pilot areas ,define opportunity (including economic impact analysis)
I. Data Collection
GOAL
- More business - More residents - Higher employment - Less Crime - Better Scholastic achievement
1. Commercial Corridor Analysis 2008 from Econsult solutions 2. Commercial data 20092012 from UPenn Wharton GIS Lab 3. Zoning data 4. Vacancy properties from Department of License and Inspections (L&I) 5. Market properties available for sell or lease
II. Identify Commercial Corridor need to be enhanced
Select the corridors below the average based on the following analysis - Commercial use percentage - Number of business - Number of business change - Business change percentage - Square foot per business
III. Target proper properties
- Vacant binding - Vacant lots - Properties available for sale - Properties available for lease
Total Sale Volume
Commercial Use Commercial Use in Corridor (sqft)
Commercial Use in Corridor (%)
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
Sum of Sales Value 2012 Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
³
³
³ 16 Commercial corridors are
below the average of economic impact analysis
Commercial Use (%)
Commercial Use (sqft)
0% - 13%
0 - 250,000
14% - 25%
250,001 - 300,000
26% - 33% (mean: 33%)
300,001 - 560,000 (mean: 554,041)
34% - 65%
560,001 - 2,000,000
66% - 100%
Sales Value $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $60,000
2,000,001 - 10,908,576
$60,000 - $150,000 $150,000 - $250,000 0
0
1.25
2.5
1.25
2.5
5 Miles
$250,000 - $357,000 (mean: $356,778)
5 Miles
$357,000 - $2,650,000 $2,650,000 - $53,978,328 0
1.25
2.5
1.Bustleton/Somerton Center
5 Miles
Business Scale Total Number of Business 2012
Square Feet per Business
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
³
³
6.Germantown Ave./ Gorgas-Upsal
3.Rising Sun Ave./ Crescentville 2.Frankford Ave./ Holmesburg 7.Germantown Ave./ High-Upsal 4.Frankford Ave./ Margaret-Orthodox
Square Feet 0 - 2,000 2,001 - 3,000
2012 Total Number of Business
3,001 - 5,500
0 - 50
5,501 - 10,000
8.East Falls
51 - 75
10,001 - 17,181 (mean: 18,171sf) 17,182 - 100,000
76 - 104 (mean: 104)
100,001 - 1,578,685
105 - 200
5.Frankford Ave./ Church St.
201 - 300 301 - 2000 2001 - 4835 0
1.25
2.5
5 Miles
0
1.25
2.5
5 Miles
12. 40th and Lancaster
Business Change 2009 - 2012
11.Girard Avenue 10.Broad and Ridge
Number of Business Change 2009-2012
Percentage of Business Change 2009-2012
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2009/2012
Source: Wharton GIS Lab Year: 2012
13. 36th and Lancaster
³
³
14. 54th and Woodland 16. Point Breeze Avenue 15. Woodland Avenue
Percentage of Business Change
Number of Business Change
26% - 1000%
14 - 162
17% - 25%
1 - 13
1% - 16% (mean:16%)
-5 - 0
-3% - 0%
-115 - -6 (mean: -6.3)
-9% - -4%
-275 - -116
-14% - -10%
-1,014 - -276
-71% - -15% 0
1.25
2.5
5 Miles
-1,015 0
1.25
9.Girard and Ridge
2.5
5 Miles
Reimage Rio: Planning for Development After the 2016 Olympic Game Urban Planning Studio at University of Pennsylvania | 2013 | Philadelphia & Rio de Janeira
EMERGENCE OF RIO Historical Timeline
first brazilian university built in rio in attempt to preserve memory and create an identity for the state first broad avenues and french “fin-de-siecle” style buildings constructed
EARLY 1900s first displacement of local residents with the arrival of the portuguese royal family
1920 empire is overthrown by military coup and rio becomes a federal state under marshal deodoro da fonseca
1889
1808 rio’s economy booms with the establishment of a port and sugarcane, gold, and coffee production. european migration increases dramatically
1500s-1700s portuguese discovery of rio de janeiro
JANUARY 1502 RE-IMAGINING RIO : INTRODUCTION : BARRA : OLYMPIC ARMATURE : MARACANA : CONCLUSION
colonial administration moves from northeast brazil to rio
1763 estacio de sa founs the municipality officially
1565
Olympic Investiment and Site Selection To understand how the Olympics could transform Rio, the studio first located where these investments occur throughout the city. The major investments include:
• • • •
It soon became apparent that these investments are happening in areas of Rio that also suffer from environmental, accessibility, and public realm problems. The question then becomes, how can these investments be pushed further to confront these challenges? Over the course of the semester, the studio identified several recommendations that build upon the Olympic investments to improve accessibility, the environment and the public realm in three specific sites.
Transportation Water remediation Olympic facilities Port facilities
Site: Barra de Tijuca
Default Development
Land-Use
Barra de Tijuca, is one of Rio de Janeiro’s newest and fastestgrowing boroughs, located about 40 kilometers southwest of the center city.
A limited mix of land-use means that residents must travel further for all goods and services.
Parking
Surface parking lots take up a large amount of space and create a buffer around apartment buildings.
Isolation
Walls and fences limit accessibility and views to surrounding areas.
Key elements for a good street
PUBLIC REALM • • • • •
Variety of building heights Transparency (windows/gates) Mix of land uses Plazas Art
About 80% of the total Olympic budget will be spent in Barra. AECOM was awarded the bid to design the Olympic Park, while a Brazilian firm, Carvalho Hosken, will design the Olympic Village. Post-Olymopic, the Olympic Village will be transformed into condominiums for 18,000 residents.
ENVIRONMENT
Another key investment stemming is new transit connections for Barra. The regional will soon benefit from the construction of the city’s newest Metro line - the first to serve the city’s western zone. This new line 4 will connect the ten miles between Ipanema and Barra with six station.
ACCESSIBILITY
• Nearby open space • Shade
• • • •
Safe pedestrian environment Wide/pleasant sidewalks Walkable block sizes Streets with high connectivity
Site Organization
Jacarepagua Lagoon Pathway
Extensions and Connections
Existing Condition Analysis
mo u
Connect lagoon via pathway
s ain nt
Bring the edge in
Viewshed
ins nta ou m
moun tain s
Orient towards views
Grass
Wetland
Green Network Recreational Trail
Olympic Village Park Existing Roads
AECOM eco-zone
Future Development
Existing Development
Raised Observation Trail
Paddle Boating
Landscape
3m
Proposed Lagoon Network
Observation Plaza
Mixed-Use Mixed use promotes density and 24/7 activity Covered Walkway
For sunny locations with high density
Recreation Trail Raised Trail Bike Lane (Existing road) Connecting Point
Raised Trail
To protect sensitive wetland area
Design Guidelines for Post-Olympic Blocks
Block Design Inspiration
IPANEMA
NEW YORK CITY
BARCELONA
Upper East Side
Barceloneta
Land Use
Building Height
Commercial Mixed-Use Multi-Family Residential Institutional Parks/Open Space
LEBLON
PHILADELPHIA
TORONTO
Center City
Downtown
Pedestrian
Street Network
Midrise: 8-12 stories
Parking
Low Rise: 3-7 stories
Perspective from Ave. Emb. Abelardo Buneo
Recreational Median
Pedestrian-Only Pathway Support Street
Main Boulevard:
Recreational median Two-Lanes trafc in each direction 1 Lane of Parking
Neighborhood Street:
Support Street:
Two-Lanes trafc in each direction No Parking
Alley:
Single-lane trafc Single-land parking
Pedestrian-Only Pathway
Connection to high-performance athletic training facility
Main Pedestrian Pathway Commercial Pathway Neighborhood Sidewalks Recreational Median Pedestrian Only Pathway Trails/Nature Conservation
Perspective from lagoon
Lagoon Pathway
Open Space
1%: Institutional Retail 7% 47% Housing land use pie chart
Playgrounds Plazas Parks Recreational Median Nature Conservatory Area Landscaping
20% Office
26% Parking
High Rise: 13-19 stories
Nature Conservatory Area
Main Boulevard Neighborhood Street Alley
Landscaped median Two-Lanes in each direction 1 Lane of Parking
Tower: 20+ stories
7,690
housing units
15,380
residents
2.1 M sq.m.
total development
6.3
floor area ratio
10% more housing than AECOM’s plan = additional revenue