Osman Dadi Portfolio 2014 by Osman Dadi

urban planning • architecture • 2014

OSMAN DADI

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Contents 05

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP.

06 16 20 24 30

Reston Executive Center Major Goverment Agency Westphalia Proposal Major Goverment Agency Downtown Redevelopment “La Central” Mixed Use Development Base Maps for Interviews and RFP Packages

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

34 42 46 48 50

Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan Bridgeport Corridor and Waterfront Design Guidelines Orange County Greenway Marketing and Presentations Writing Samples and Insight

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS, LLP.

56 62 64

University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Santa Clara Family Justice Center

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

72 78 82 84

Menil Museum Cafe Interpretive Music Center - Houston Slab Space Wetlands Research Center and Pavilion

PERSONAL WORK

88 92 96 98

TAKScopes Vision for Houston Rail 2050 Denver RTD Map 2014 Urban Art

FRANKLIN SQUARE

CITY HALL

INDEPEND HISTO

WASHINGTON SQUARE

LEGEND

I-95 Southbound

I-95 Northbound

Views to/from Ben Franklin Bridge

Distant views to/from Walt Whitman Bridge

Water views across Delaware River View corridors to Center City Development Site Redevelopment Site

* 4

Existing Building Active Water Engagement Architectural Feature (Master Plan)

DENCE NATIONAL ORICAL PARK

BENJAMIN FRANKL

IN BRIDGE

1 3

FRONT ST

MARKET ST

* CHESTNUT ST

* BOND HOUSE OPEN SPACE

WALNUT ST

6 SPRUCE ST

OPEN SPACE

FXFOWLE Architects * COLUMBUS BLVD I-95

SOUTH ST

Reston Executive Center Client: The JBG Companies 02.2013 - 09.2013 Reston, Virginia

an internal road network. The presence of utility corridors, a new tunnel easement under the Toll Road, inflexibility of moving site entries, and power lines along a regional rail trail on the north side dramatically limited the scope of development. Accommodating required parking per county ratios required serious consideration with the diversity of new development being proposed. Our solution came after numerous explorations of schemes and their variations, and meetings and conversations with the client. The development ultimately creates one large new, signature office building on site on the southeast corner of the lot, a prominent location facing the metro station, Toll Road, and downtown Washington. Three new residential towers are added to increase the site FAR to 3, or 1.8 million square feet. Two residential buildings are to be placed in the location of a to-be-demolished parking garage. The project includes ground level retail in addition to a pedestrianized road network. Parking garages are integrated into the buildings, while including ground level retail space. I contributed to the development of site wide planning, schemes, transportation, and parking integration strategies. Within a team, I advanced dozens of schemes with the project managers, lead designers, and clients to determine the best approachs to the goals.

The Reston Executive Center converts a 1980’s suburban office park into a mixed use retail center; it is situated near the Dulles Toll Road in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area, adjacent to the future Washington Metro Silver Line. The new line is supported by dense transit oriented development policies; as the property lies within the catchment area of the future Reston Town Center station, owners JBG Companies tasked the FXFOWLE team to create a phased mixed use center supporting up to 2.4 million square feet in development, a fourfold increase from the existing 600,000 square feet.

PROCESS Resolving the planning of this project was extremely challenging due to a number of constraints. Notably, the client desired to maintain the existing buildings on site, which were designed in a suburban, inefficient manner in the middle of the property. Preserving these buildings require adding the additional development density on the outskirts of the property while simultaneously developing

POWERLINE EASEMENT

NORTHEAST SURFACE ZONE 47 spaces

NORTHWEST SURFACE ZONE 100 spaces

CENTRAL SURFACE ZONE 63 spaces

WEST PARKING GARAGE 746 spaces

EAST PARKING GARAGE 601 spaces

OPPORTUNITIES 3 6

COURTYARD SURFACE ZONE 29 spaces

OSMAN DADI • 2014

SOUTHEAST SURFACE ZONE 88 spaces

2 7

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AND METRO POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO TRAIL AND RESTON TOWN CENTER

POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO EXISTING PARK

CONNECTION TO DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST

FUTURE VEHICULAR TUNNEL TO SOUTH OF DULLES TOLL ROAD

POTENTIAL NEW STREET TO BE SHARED WITH WEST PROPERTY

FOCAL POINT OF ACTIVITY AND VISIBILITY

PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED

OFFICE TO BE REPLACED IN FUTURE PHASE

CONSTRAINTS

SEWER EASEMENT

SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

1 2

LIMITED EXISTING ACCESS AND RELOCATION OPPORTUNITY

FUTURE RETAINING WALLS AND DEPRESSED TUNNEL ROADWAY

CURRENT PARKING RATIO 3.24/1000 SF

PROXIMITY TO HIGH TENSION POWERLINE 15 MAY 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

CONTRIBUTIONS

PREFERRED SCHEME

• Many iterations of phased schematic master plans and strategies for a new mixed use center in a 1980’s era suburban office complex, including plans and 3D. • Management of all area, parking, and zoning tabulations with proposed design. • Raise development square footage from 600,000 sf to 1.8 million SF for an initial target FAR increase of 3, and eventually FAR 4 (2.4 million SF) in a later phase. • Project design succesfully achieves goal to preserve three existing buildings and one parking garage, while developing four new mixed use towers on a very difficult and highly constrained site. • Create a retail and building configuration to build an urban node in the new phased development. • Management of weekly client presentations, including plans, 3D views, graphics, and area tabulations for constantly changing client goals and desires. • Develop parking strategies, internal road and garage configurations integrated within proposed buildings. • Configure project to Metrorail Silver Line station.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 PREFERRED SCHEME

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL

1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

75’ 150’

300’

SCALE 1”=300’

PREFERRED SCHEME - CONTEXT PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Context plan.

13008.000

PREFERRED SCHEME BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL

1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED SCHEME - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Ground Floor Plan.

13008.000

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED - GARAGE FLOOR PLAN PREFERRED SCHEME - VIEW FROM METRO STATION

View NW from Dulles Toll Road

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 13008.000

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Garage Plan (Upper levels).

PREFERRED SCHEME BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

UNITS

350 252 356

853,260

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCALE 1”=100’

PREFERRED SCHEME - AERIAL VIEW TO SOUTHWEST

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Aerial view to the SW. 13008.000

PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

Roof Plan. 13008.000

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 13,430 11,930 25,300 145,630

0 0 0 0 423,637 198,480 396,440

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 RESIDENTIAL 2-2

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 408,640 401,290 213,900

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 359,540 457,940 267,860

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 384,940 471,430 274,660

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1-1 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 RESIDENTIAL 2

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

TOTAL : 1,018,557 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, TWO RESIDENTIAL PADS PREFERRED SCHEME

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 421,740

1,866,072

SCHEME 1B

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

RESIDENTIAL

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

350 252 356

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

853,260

UNITS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

TOTAL : 1,023,830 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

1,866,375

SCHEME 1C

TOTAL : 1,085,340 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1B - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

1,927,885

SCALE 1”=100’

10 MAY 2013 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

13008.000

OSMAN DADI • 2014

SCHEME 1B -1B PERSPECTIVE SCHEME - PERSPECTIVE

10 MAY 102013 MAY 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000 11016.000

The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 408,640 401,290 213,900

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 25,400 13,490 6,800 140,660

0 0 0 0 359,540 457,940 267,860

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 384,940 471,430 274,660

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 RESIDENTIAL 2-2

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

TOTAL : 1,023,830 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

MAY 10, 2013 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - 3.0 FAR, THREE RESIDENTIAL PADS PREFERRED SCHEME

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

1,866,375

SCHEME 1C

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,090 8,600 25,920 3400** 0 14,400 32000**

RESIDENTIAL

358,080 255,362 358,000

TOTAL :

87,010

971,442

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,200 114,550 458,300

201,300 125,800 140,470 461,700 358,080 269,762 390,000

350 252 356

1,947,112

602

DEMAND

CAPACITY

1,487 1,207

1,465 1,227

853,260

UNITS

**Area may be reduced for ground level parking

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, NORTH (REDUCED 30%): APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING, SOUTH (REDUCED 30%):

SCHEME 1C - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER PREFERRED SCHEME - ROOF PLAN

TOTAL : 1,085,340 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

1,927,885

SCALE 1”=100’

10 MAY 2013 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

SCHEME SCHEME 1C - 1C PERSPECTIVE - PERSPECTIVE

10 MAY 102013 MAY 2013

RESTON RESTON EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE CENTER CENTER 11016.000 11016.000

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

11016.000

13008.000

The Roof Plan and several views are conveyed (clockwise): View from Toll Road, view in main courtyard, NW Aerial view, NE Aerial view.

MARCH 19, 2013

Left to Right: Ground Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Aerial from SE, SE view from Toll Road. RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY

DRAFT

SCHEME 1 - AREA SUMMARY BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

27,866 12,500 27,070 0 4,200 4,200 20,200 14,000 110,036

0 0 0 0 287,000 287,000 286,950 286,950

172,750 117,075 112,075 745,000 0 0 0 0 1,146,900

200,616 129,575 139,145 745,000 291,200 291,200 307,150 300,950

TOTAL :

1,147,900

2,404,836

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MINIMUM MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCHEME 2 - AREA SUMMARY BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL

35,280 16,200 17,900 9,740 9,900 9,720 8,740 32,300 0 139,780

0 0 0 0 0 328,500 458,260 340,240 70,000

162,900 115,600 111,800 353,100 389,300 0 0 0 0 1,132,700

198,180 131,800 129,700 362,840 399,200 338,220 467,000 372,540 70,000

1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

TOTAL :

1,197,000

REQUIRED PARKING: TOWN CENTER PKWY LOOKING SOUTH MINIMUM: 4100 CARS

2,469,480

MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCHEME 3 - AREA SUMMARY BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

35,410 11,500 27,650 11,230 24,110 17,100 0 0 7,330 134,330

0 0 0 0 0 298,200 258,351 326,075 307,000

162,200 117,075 112,075 374,000 383,450 0 0 0 0 1,148,800

197,610 128,575 139,725 385,230 407,560 315,300 258,351 326,075 314,330

AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST

TOTAL :

1,189,626

2,472,756

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCHEME 1 - THE EDGE : GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 1 - THE EDGE : ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 1 - The Edge

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY

SCALE 1”=100’ 19 MARCH 2013

DRAFT

SCHEME 1 - AREA SUMMARY

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

27,866 12,500 27,070 0 4,200 4,200 20,200 14,000 110,036

0 0 0 0 287,000 287,000 286,950 286,950

172,750 117,075 112,075 745,000 0 0 0 0 1,146,900

200,616 129,575 139,145 745,000 291,200 291,200 307,150 300,950

1 2 3 4

TOTAL :

1,147,900

REQUIRED PARKING: VIEW FROM FUTURE METRO STATION MINIMUM 4100 CARS MINIMUM:

2,404,836

MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCHEME 2 - AREA SUMMARY

SCHEME 1 - THE EDGE RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

35,280 16,200 17,900 9,740 9,900 9,720 8,740 32,300 0 139,780

0 0 0 0 0 328,500 458,260 340,240 70,000

162,900 115,600 111,800 353,100 389,300 0 0 0 0 1,132,700

198,180 131,800 129,700 362,840 399,200 338,220 467,000 372,540 70,000

TOTAL :

1,197,000

2,469,480

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST

SCHEME 1 - THE EDGE SCHEME 3 - AREA SUMMARY BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

35,410 11,500 27,650 11,230 24,110 17,100 0 0 7,330 134,330

0 0 0 0 0 298,200 258,351 326,075 307,000

162,200 117,075 112,075 374,000 383,450 0 0 0 0 1,148,800

197,610 128,575 139,725 385,230 407,560 315,300 258,351 326,075 314,330

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER OFFICE 1 11016.000

TOTAL :

1,189,626

2,472,756

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

TOWN CENTER PKWY LOOKING SOUTH RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SUMMARY DRAFT AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST SCHEME 1 - AREA SUMMARY

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

27,866 12,500 27,070 0 4,200 4,200 20,200 14,000 110,036

0 0 0 0 287,000 287,000 286,950 286,950

172,750 117,075 112,075 745,000 0 0 0 0 1,146,900

200,616 129,575 139,145 745,000 291,200 291,200 307,150 300,950

1 2 3 4

TOTAL :

SCHEME 2 - THE SPIRAL : GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 2 - THE SPIRAL : ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 2 - The Spiral

1,147,900

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MINIMUM MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCALE 1”=100’ 19 MARCH 2013

2,404,836

SCALE 1”=100’ 19 MARCH 2013

SCHEME 2 - AREA SUMMARY

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

35,280 16,200 17,900 9,740 9,900 9,720 8,740 32,300 0 139,780

0 0 0 0 0 328,500 458,260 340,240 70,000

162,900 115,600 111,800 353,100 389,300 0 0 0 0 1,132,700

198,180 131,800 129,700 362,840 399,200 338,220 467,000 372,540 70,000

TOTAL :

1,197,000

2,469,480

REQUIRED PARKING:

VIEW FROM FUTURE METRO STATION MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

SCHEME 3 - AREA SUMMARY

SCHEME 2 - THE SPIRAL RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

35,410 11,500 27,650 11,230 24,110 17,100 0 0 7,330 134,330

0 0 0 0 0 298,200 258,351 326,075 307,000

162,200 117,075 112,075 374,000 383,450 0 0 0 0 1,148,800

197,610 128,575 139,725 385,230 407,560 315,300 258,351 326,075 314,330

TOTAL :

1,189,626

2,472,756

REQUIRED PARKING: MINIMUM: 4100 CARS MAXIMUM: 4950 CARS

AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 11016.000

SCHEME 2 - THE SPIRAL RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

TOWN CENTER PKWY LOOKING SOUTH

AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST OA

OSMAN DADI • 2014

SCHEME 3 - MULTI-COURTS : GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 3 - MULTI-COURTS : ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 3 - Multi Courts

SCALE 1”=100’

19 MARCH 2013

VIEW FROM FUTURE METRO STATION

APRIL 16, 2013

Left to Right: Ground Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Aerial from SE, SE view from Toll Road. SCHEME A - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2A RESIDENTIAL 2B RESIDENTIAL 2C

33,540 8,870 20,380 19,860 0 11,180 10,800 0 0 104,630

0 0 0 0 0 257,600 200,100 340,120 184,300

162,200 117,075 112,075 319,540 0 0 0 0 0 710,890

195,740 125,945 132,455 339,400 0 268,780 210,900 340,120 184,300

TOTAL : 1,797,640 982,120 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME A - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2A RESIDENTIAL 2B RESIDENTIAL 2C

33,540 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 11,180 10,800 0 0 104,630

0 0 0 0 0 257,600 200,100 340,120 184,300

162,200 117,075 0 319,540 305,000 0 0 0 0 903,815

195,740 125,945 0 339,400 325,380 268,780 210,900 340,120 184,300

TOTAL : 1,990,565 982,120 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME A - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME A

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME A - PERSPECTIVES

SCHEME E - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3A RESIDENTIAL 3B

38,650 8,870 20,380 19,860 0 13,600 10,690 0 0 112,050

0 0 0 0 0 405,400 181,870 151,500 225,400

162,200 117,075 112,075 319,540 0 0 0 0 0 710,890

200,850 125,945 132,455 339,400 0 419,000 192,560 151,500 225,400

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

TOTAL : 1,787,110 964,170 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME E - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

38,650 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 13,600 10,690 0 0 112,050

0 0 0 0 0 405,400 181,870 151,500 225,400

OFFICE

TOTAL

162,200 200,850 117,075 125,945 0 0 319,540 339,400 305,000 325,380 0 419,000 0 192,560 0 151,500 0 225,400 903,815 1,980,035 964,170 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction)

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3A RESIDENTIAL 3B

TOTAL :

FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME E - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME E - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME B

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME A - PERSPECTIVES SCHEME F - AREA SUMMARY

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

38,650 8,870 20,380 23,200 0 13,600 17,100 0 0 121,800

0 0 0 0 0 376,800 382,550 0 0

162,200 117,075 112,075 305,050 0 0 0 0 0 696,400

200,850 125,945 132,455 328,250 0 390,400 399,650 0 0

TOTAL :

SCHEME E - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

1,577,550 759,350 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2265 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME F - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

38,650 8,870 0 23,200 20,380 13,600 17,100 0 0 121,800

0 0 0 0 0 376,800 382,550 0 0

162,200 117,075 0 305,050 305,000 0 0 0 0 889,325

200,850 125,945 0 328,250 325,380 390,400 399,650 0 0

TOTAL : 1,770,475 759,350 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2570 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME F - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME F - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME C

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME E - PERSPECTIVES SCHEME D - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

33,540 8,870 20,380 19,860 0 13,800 10,380 0 0 106,830

0 0 0 0 0 398,790 591,395 0 0

162,200 117,075 112,075 319,540 0 0 0 0 0 710,890

195,740 125,945 132,455 339,400 0 412,590 601,775 0 0

SCHEME F - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

TOTAL : 1,807,905 990,185 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME D - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

33,540 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 13,800 10,380 0 0 106,830

0 0 0 0 0 398,790 591,395 0 0

162,200 117,075 0 319,540 305,000 0 0 0 0 903,815

195,740 125,945 0 339,400 325,380 412,590 601,775 0 0

TOTAL : 2,000,830 990,185 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME D - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME D - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME D

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME F - PERSPECTIVES SCHEME C - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

33,540 8,870 20,380 28,700 0 12,270 17,730 0 6,300 127,790

0 0 0 0 0 332,658 146,700 164,800 347,631

162,200 117,075 112,075 310,350 0 0 0 0 0 701,700

195,740 125,945 132,455 339,050 0 344,928 164,430 164,800 353,931

SCHEME D - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

TOTAL : 1,821,279 991,789 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME C - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL 4

33,540 8,870 0 28,700 20,380 12,270 17,730 0 6,300 127,790

0 0 0 0 0 332,658 146,700 164,800 347,631

162,200 117,075 0 310,350 305,000 0 0 0 0 894,625

195,740 125,945 0 339,050 325,380 344,928 164,430 164,800 353,931

TOTAL : 2,014,204 991,789 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME C - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME C - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME E

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME D - PERSPECTIVES SCHEME B - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL BR

33,540 8,870 20,380 28,700 0 18,560 7,480 0 0 117,530

0 0 0 0 0 303,800 270,760 312,000 82,200

162,200 117,075 112,075 310,350 0 0 0 0 0 701,700

195,740 125,945 132,455 339,050 0 322,360 278,240 312,000 82,200

SCHEME C - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

TOTAL : 1,787,990 968,760 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME B - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL BR

33,540 8,870 0 28,700 20,380 18,560 7,480 0 0 117,530

0 0 0 0 0 303,800 270,760 312,000 82,200

162,200 117,075 0 310,350 305,000 0 0 0 0 894,625

195,740 125,945 0 339,050 325,380 322,360 278,240 312,000 82,200

TOTAL : 1,980,915 968,760 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME B - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME B - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME F

12 APRIL 2013

SCHEME C - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SCHEME B - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

APRIL 23, 2013

Left to Right: Ground Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Aerial from SE, SE view from Toll Road. SCHEME 1 - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

33,540 8,870 20,380 28,225 0 18,599 9,431 11,988 131,033

0 0 0 0 0 341,923 184,131 447,498

162,200 117,075 112,075 307,725 0 0 0 0 699,075

195,740 125,945 132,455 335,950 0 360,522 193,562 459,486

TOTAL : 1,803,660 973,552 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1 - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

33,540 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 18,599 9,431 11,988 122,668

0 0 0 0 0 341,923 184,131 447,498

162,200 117,075 0 319,540 305,000 0 0 0 903,815

195,740 125,945 0 339,400 325,380 360,522 193,562 459,486

TOTAL : 2,000,035 973,552 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME 1 - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 1 - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 1 - The Edge

SCALE 1”=100’

23 APRIL 2013

SCHEME 1 - PERSPECTIVES

SCHEME 2A - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2

33,540 8,870 20,380 27,422 0 20,392 19,885 130,489

0 0 0 0 0 430,839 538,494

162,200 117,075 112,075 307,725 0 0 0 699,075

195,740 125,945 132,455 335,147 0 451,231 558,379

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

TOTAL : 1,798,897 969,333 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 2A - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

33,540 0 162,200 195,740 8,870 0 117,075 125,945 0 0 0 0 28,700 0 310,350 339,050 20,380 0 305,000 325,380 20,392 430,839 0 451,231 19,885 538,494 0 558,379 TOTAL : 131,767 894,625 1,995,725 969,333 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction)

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2

FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME 2A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 2A - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 2A - Point Towers

SCALE 1”=100’

23 APRIL 2013

SCHEME 1 - PERSPECTIVES

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SCHEME 2A - PERSPECTIVES

SCHEME 2B - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

33,540 8,870 20,380 27,422 0 20,392 9,027 7,450 127,081

0 0 0 0 0 430,839 165,581 375,350

162,200 117,075 112,075 307,725 0 0 0 0 699,075

195,740 125,945 132,455 335,147 0 451,231 174,608 382,800

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

TOTAL : 1,797,926 971,770 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 2B - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

33,540 8,870 0 28,700 20,380 20,392 9,027 7,450 128,359

0 0 0 0 0 430,839 165,581 375,350

OFFICE

TOTAL

162,200 195,740 117,075 125,945 0 0 310,350 339,050 305,000 325,380 0 451,231 0 174,608 0 382,800 894,625 1,994,754 971,770 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction)

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

TOTAL :

FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME 2B - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 2B - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCALE 1”=100’

SCHEME 2B - Point Towers (Three Pads)

SCALE 1”=100’

23 APRIL 2013

SCHEME 2A - PERSPECTIVES

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SCHEME 2B - PERSPECTIVES

SCHEME 3A - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2

33,540 8,870 20,380 27,422 0 18,000 15,400 123,612

0 0 0 0 0 464,347 508,075

162,200 117,075 112,075 307,725 0 0 0 699,075

195,740 125,945 132,455 335,147 0 482,347 523,475

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

TOTAL : 1,795,109 972,422 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 3A - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

the facebook invite?

SCHEME 3A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 3A - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 3A - Corners

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

33,540 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 18,000 15,400 116,050

0 0 0 0 0 464,347 508,075

OFFICE

TOTAL :

FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCALE 1”=100’

SCALE 1”=100’ 23 APRIL 2013

TOTAL

162,200 195,740 117,075 125,945 0 0 319,540 339,400 305,000 325,380 0 482,347 0 523,475 903,815 1,992,287 972,422 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction)

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2

23 APRIL 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SCHEME 3A - PERSPECTIVES

SCHEME 3B - AREA SUMMARY FAR 3.0 11016.000

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 (fut) RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,650 8,870 20,380 27,422 0 15,672 0 15,400 126,394

0 0 0 0 0 284,437 160,000 508,075

162,200 117,075 112,075 307,725 0 0 0 0 699,075

200,850 125,945 132,455 335,147 0 300,109 160,000 523,475

TOTAL :

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

1,777,981 952,512 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 3B - AREA SUMMARY OFC 5 BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 (demo) OFFICE 4 OFFICE 5 RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 RESIDENTIAL 3

38,650 8,870 0 19,860 20,380 15,672 0 15,400 118,832

0 0 0 0 0 284,437 160,000 508,075

162,200 117,075 0 319,540 305,000 0 0 0 903,815

200,850 125,945 0 339,400 325,380 300,109 160,000 523,475

TOTAL : 1,975,159 952,512 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2765 spaces (with 30% reduction) FAR 4.0 adds 600,000sf of Residential square footage

SCHEME 3B - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 3B - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 3B - Corner (Three Pads)

SCALE 1”=100’ 23 APRIL 2013

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER PARKING PARKING GOAL: GOAL: FAR FAR 3.0:3.0: 2465 2465 spaces spaces PARKING GOAL: 11016.000 PHASED PHASED OFFICE OFFICE 5: 5: 2765 2765 spaces spaces FAR 3.0: 2465 spaces PHASED OFFICE 5: 2765 spaces

SCHEME 3B - PERSPECTIVES RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

PARKING PARKING SCENARIO SCENARIO 1: 1:

OSMAN DADI • 2014

PARKING SCENARIO 1: BELOW BELOW GRADE: GRADE: 1 level 1 level - 600 600 spaces spaces BELOW GRADE: 1 level 600 spaces ABOVE ABOVE GRADE: GRADE: Garage Garage 1-1925925 spaces spaces ABOVE GRADE: Garage Garage 2 (up 2 (up to 7 tolv.) 7 lv.) - 840 - 840 spaces spaces Garage 1 925 spaces Surface Surface - 160160 spaces spaces Garage 2 (up to 7 lv.) - 840 spaces NET NET ABOVE: ABOVE: 1925 1925 spaces spaces Surface 160 spaces NET ABOVE: 1925 spaces TOTAL TOTAL SPACES: SPACES: 2525 2525 spaces spaces TOTAL SPACES:

2525 spaces

PARKING PARKING SCENARIO SCENARIO 2: 2:

Above and Below Grade Preliminary Parking Plans ABOVE ABOVE GRADE GRADE PARKING PARKING PLAN PLAN

BELOW BELOW GRADE GRADE PARKING PARKING PLAN PLAN

ABOVE GRADE PARKING PLAN

BELOW GRADE PARKING PLAN

SCHEME

PARKING SCENARIO 2: BELOW BELOW GRADE: GRADE: 2 levels 2 levels - 1200 1200 spaces spaces BELOW GRADE: 2 levels 1200 spaces ABOVE ABOVE GRADE: GRADE: Garage Garage 1-1925925 spaces spaces ABOVE GRADE: Garage Garage 2 (4 2 (4 levels) levels) - - 480 480 spaces spaces Garage 1 925 spaces Surface Surface - 160160 spaces spaces Garage 2 (4 levels) 480 spaces NET NET ABOVE: ABOVE: 1445 1445 spaces spaces Surface 160 spaces NET ABOVE: 1445 spaces TOTAL TOTAL SPACES: SPACES: 2765 2765 spaces spaces 3B - PERSPECTIVES

TOTAL SPACES: RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

2765 spaces

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY

DRAFT RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY

MAY 10, 2013

Left to Right: Ground Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Area Summary, Aerial from SE. DRAFT

SCHEME 1A

SCHEME 1A BUILDINGS

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

38,090 163,210 117,075 8,700 114,550 25,920 307,050 0 22,260 0 13,430 1-1 0 701,885 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 1,018,557 11,930 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction) 25,300 RESIDENTIAL 2 TOTAL : 145,630

OFFICE 38,090 1 OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 8,700 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 3 OFFICE 22,260 OFFICE 4 RESIDENTIAL 1-1 4 OFFICE 13,430 11,930 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 RESIDENTIAL 25,300 RESIDENTIAL 2 TOTAL : 145,630

0 0 0 0 423,637 198,480 396,440

RESIDENTIAL

TOTAL

201,300 0 125,775 0 140,470 0 329,310 437,067 0 210,410 423,637 421,740

1,866,072 198,480

396,440 1,018,557

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 421,740

SCHEMEAPPROX. 1B REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

38,090 OFFICE 1 8,700 OFFICE 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 22,260 OFFICE 4 25,400 RESIDENTIAL 1 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 BUILDINGS 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 2-2 TOTAL : 1 OFFICE140,660

OFFICE

0 0 0 0 408,640 401,290 213,900

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 RETAIL 0 701,885 1,023,830 38,090 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1B

8,700 OFFICE 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 SCHEMEOFFICE 1C 22,260 4 BUILDINGS RETAIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 25,400 RESIDENTIAL 1 38,090 2-1 0 163,210 OFFICE 1 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 8,700 0 117,075 OFFICE 2 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 25,920 2-2 0 114,550 OFFICE 3 0 307,050 OFFICE 4 TOTAL22,260 : 140,660

1,866,072

TOTAL 201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 RESIDENTIAL 220,700

0 0 0 0 TOTAL 408,640 201,300 401,290 125,775 213,900 140,470

1,866,375

329,310 1,023,830 25,400 359,540 0 384,940 RESIDENTIAL 1 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING:0 2465 spaces 13,490 457,940 471,430 (with 30% RESIDENTIAL 2 6,800 267,860 0 274,660 RESIDENTIAL 3 TOTAL : 140,660 701,885 1,927,885 1,085,340

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY SCHEME 1C

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

1,866,375

reduction)

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

DRAFT

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

OFFICE 1 OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 OFFICE 1 RESIDENTIAL 3 OFFICE 2

38,090 8,700 25,920 22,260 RETAIL 25,400 13,490 38,090 6,800 8,700 140,660 25,920

0 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL 359,540 457,940 0 10 MAY 2013 267,860 0

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 OFFICE 0 0 163,210 0 117,075 701,885 114,550

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 TOTAL 384,940

SCHEME 1A RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY

SCHEME 1A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 1A - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 1A - 600 Unit Res 1, 400 unit Res 2

DRAFT 10 MAY 2013

TOTAL3: 1,085,340 0 OFFICE APPROX. 30% reduction) SCHEMEOFFICE 1A 22,2602465 spaces (with 0 307,050 4 REQUIRED PARKING: BUILDINGS RETAIL 1-1RESIDENTIAL 13,430 OFFICE TOTAL 423,637 0 RESIDENTIAL 38,090 0 163,210 201,300 OFFICE 1 11,930 198,480 0 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 8,700 0 117,075 125,775 OFFICE 2 25,300 396,440 0 RESIDENTIAL 25,920 2 0 114,550 140,470 OFFICE 3 0 307,050 329,310 OFFICE 4 TOTAL22,260 : 145,630 701,885 1,018,557 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

13,430 423,637 0 437,067 RESIDENTIAL 1-1 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING:0 2465 spaces 11,930 198,480 210,410 (with RESIDENTIAL 1-2 25,300 396,440 0 421,740 RESIDENTIAL 2 TOTAL : 145,630 701,885 1,866,072 1,018,557

471,430 201,300 274,660 125,775

1,927,885 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 421,740

1,866,072

30% reduction)

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1B

SCHEME 1B BUILDINGS

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

SCHEME 1A 0 163,210 38,090 OFFICE 38,090 1 - PERSPECTIVE

OFFICE 1 8,700 CENTER 0 OFFICE 2 RESTON EXECUTIVE OFFICE 25,920 2 0 OFFICE 3 0 OFFICE 4 11016.000 3 OFFICE 22,260 408,640 RESIDENTIAL 1 4 OFFICE 25,400 13,490 401,290 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 6,800 213,900 RESIDENTIAL 2-2 RESIDENTIAL 1 TOTAL : 140,660 1,023,830

117,075 8,700 114,550 307,050 25,920 0 22,260 0 0 25,400 701,885 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction) 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 2-2 TOTAL : 140,660

SCHEME 1A - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

RESIDENTIAL

TOTAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

201,300 0 125,775 0 140,470 329,310 0 434,040 0 414,780 220,700 408,640

163,210 201,300 117,075 125,775 114,550 140,470 307,050 329,310 10 MAY 2013 0 434,040 1,866,375 401,290 0 414,780 213,900 0 220,700 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 21 701,885 1,866,375 1,023,830

SCHEMEAPPROX. 1C REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER SUMMARY SCHEME 1C BUILDINGS

DRAFT

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

38,090 OFFICE 1 8,700 OFFICE 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 22,260 OFFICE 4 25,400 RESIDENTIAL 1 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 2 BUILDINGS 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 3 TOTAL : OFFICE140,660 1

OFFICE

0 0 0 0 359,540 457,940 267,860

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 RETAIL 0 701,885 1,085,340 38,090 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4 BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL 1 RESIDENTIAL 2 OFFICE 1 3 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 2

8,700 25,920 22,260 RETAIL 25,400 13,490 38,090 6,800 8,700 140,660 25,920

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 RESIDENTIAL 2

11,930 25,300 145,630

SCHEME 1A

TOTAL

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 384,940 471,430 RESIDENTIAL 274,660

OFFICE

TOTAL

0 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL 359,540 457,940 0 267,860 0

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 OFFICE 0 0 163,210 0 117,075 701,885 114,550

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 TOTAL 384,940

198,480 396,440

0 0 701,885

1,927,885

TOTAL3: 1,085,340 0 OFFICE RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER APPROX. 30% reduction) 22,2602465 spaces (with 0 307,050 4 REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE SUMMARY 13,430 423,637 0 RESIDENTIAL 1-1

DRAFT

TOTAL : 1,018,557 SCHEMEAPPROX. 1A REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction) BUILDINGS

RETAIL

38,090 OFFICE 1 8,700 OFFICE 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 22,260 OFFICE 4 13,430 RESIDENTIAL 1-1 11,930 RESIDENTIAL 1-2 BUILDINGS 25,300 RESIDENTIAL 2 TOTAL : 1 OFFICE145,630

RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 423,637 198,480 396,440

SCHEME 1B

SCHEME 1B - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 1B - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 1B - 400 Unit Res 1, 600 unit Res 2

10 MAY 2013

OFFICE

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 RETAIL 0 701,885 38,090

1,018,557 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

8,700 OFFICE 2 25,920 OFFICE 3 SCHEMEOFFICE 1B 22,260 4 BUILDINGS RETAIL 1 RESIDENTIAL 25,400 OFFICE RESIDENTIAL 38,090 0 163,210 OFFICE 1 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 2-1 8,700 0 117,075 OFFICE 2 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 25,920 2-2 0 114,550 OFFICE 3 0 307,050 OFFICE 4 TOTAL22,260 : 140,660

471,430 201,300 274,660 125,775

1,927,885 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 421,740

1,866,072

TOTAL 201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 437,067 210,410 RESIDENTIAL 421,740

0 0 0 0 TOTAL 408,640 201,300 401,290 125,775 213,900 140,470

1,866,072

10 MAY 2013

329,310 1,023,830 25,400 408,640 0 434,040 RESIDENTIAL 1 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING:0 2465 spaces 13,490 401,290 414,780 (with 30% RESIDENTIAL 2-1 6,800 213,900 0 220,700 RESIDENTIAL 2-2 TOTAL : 140,660 701,885 1,866,375 1,023,830

OFFICE

TOTAL

163,210 117,075 114,550 307,050 0 0 0 701,885

201,300 125,775 140,470 329,310 434,040 414,780 220,700

1,866,375

reduction)

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

SCHEME 1C

SCHEME 1C BUILDINGS

BUILDINGS

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE

SCHEME 1B - PERSPECTIVE 163,210 38,090

0 OFFICE 1 OFFICE 38,090 1 8,700 0 OFFICE 2 RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER OFFICE 2 25,920 0 OFFICE 3 0 OFFICE 4 OFFICE 22,260 3 11016.000 25,400 359,540 RESIDENTIAL 1 4 OFFICE 13,490 457,940 RESIDENTIAL 2 6,800 267,860 RESIDENTIAL 3 1 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL : 140,660 1,085,340

117,075 8,700 114,550 307,050 25,920 0 22,260 0 0 25,400 701,885 13,490 RESIDENTIAL 2 APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction) 6,800 RESIDENTIAL 3 TOTAL : 140,660

SCHEME 1B - ROOF PLAN RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER 11016.000

RESIDENTIAL

TOTAL

OFFICE

TOTAL

201,300 0 125,775 0 140,470 329,310 0 384,940 0 471,430 274,660 359,540

163,210 201,300 117,075 125,775 114,550 140,470 307,050 329,310 10 MAY 2013 0 384,940 1,927,885 457,940 0 471,430 267,860 0 274,660 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 25 701,885 1,927,885 1,085,340

SCHEME 1C - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

SCHEME 1C - ROOF PLAN

RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

11016.000

SCHEME 1C - 400 Unit Res 1, 400 unit Res 2, 200 unit Res 3

10 MAY 2013

SCHEME 1C - PERSPECTIVE RESTON EXECUTIVE CENTER

SCHEME 1C - ROOF PLAN

11016.000

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

APPROX. REQUIRED PARKING: 2465 spaces (with 30% reduction)

AUGUST 22, 2013

SCHEME 1A

SCHEME 1B

SCHEME 2

OSMAN DADI • 2014

SCHEME 3

Context Plan.

3D Model View from Metro Station.

3D Model View to Southwest.

Typical Plan.

Roof Plan.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

Ground Floor Plan.

Major Government Agency Westphalia Development CONTRIBUTIONS

Client: The Walton Group 02.2013 – 09.2013 Prince George’s County, MD This project handled two separate issues concurrently: the relocation of a major government agency from downtown headquarters to a new site in the Westphalia community in Prince George’s County, MD, as well as a subsequent redevelopment of the original site in downtown Washington, DC. Our client on this project, Walton, has proposed the relocation of a Major Government Agency on a 45+ acre site on the outskirts of Washington, DC, as part of the redevelopment of a major plot of land termed Westphalia. Though this city has yet to be built, the Agency is being lured as an anchor of the proposed development.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

M metro

SE JOINT BA

S ANDREW

PEN NSYL VANIA AV E

SUIT

D LAN

Y PKW

WESTPHALIA

AERIAL VIEW

The Westphalia development is located on a greenfield site near Andrews Air Force Base southeast of Washington, DC.

F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

• Initial four site strategies and corresponding rendered plans and 3D models. • Refine site context and diagrams • Application of schemes to updated client desires. • Revision of rendered plans and corresponding renderings for final site. • Security diagrams and program review. • Development and management of client presentations.

PROCESS The FXFOWLE team presents a series of proposals to demonstrate what such a relocation would look like and how it might be situated, initially beginning with an assessment of four general building typologies and then reducing these to two based on client input - the preferred Linear Landscape, and an alternative Linked Compound. These schemes and their materials were adjusted to a site that changed to better fit the nature of the anchor role in the development. The Linear Landscape is most ideal for its style of building, being best situated to the final layout of the site, and having the best security arrangements. Security concerns were of utmost importance with determining the viability of this project. The Linked Compound scheme has one major advantage over it’s counterpart: an ability to be phased into the development building by building. 3

and

Suitl

and

Suitl

and

Suitl

y Pkw

WETLANDS

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE 51 ACRES

OSMAN DADI • 2014

MARCH 4, 2013

MAY 22, 2013

JULY 23, 2013

This series of diagrams summarizes site changes through the course of designing the project, as specified by client The Walton Group. The development site is shifted to be anchored with the remaining walkable commercial sector in the community.

16 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SITE LOCATION

LINKED COMPOUND

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I.

300’

F.B.I.

220’

300’

220’

The May 22 linked compound scheme includes two security access points and an internal road into major facilities. Buildings can be built in phases.

VISITOR CENTER

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

LINEAR LANDSCAPE

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

SECURED PERIMETER

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

013 SCHEMES

RECREATION GREEN

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I.

300’

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

220’

80’

F.B.I. SITE

F.B.I.

300’

The May 22 linear landscape scheme comprises of two main buildings and a parking garage connected via an access spine. This scheme was preferred by the client. PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

PROGRAM LEGEND P

STRUCTURED PARKING

VISITOR CENTER

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERYSURFACE

PARKING

300’

PSECURED STRUCTURED PERIMETER PARKING

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

F.B.I. VISITOR CENTER

F.B,I. HQ

GREEN

MECHANICAL ROOF PLANT

CAMPUS RECREATION GREEN GREEN LOADING/REMOTE

DELIVERY

300’ N

LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

200 feet

SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

400

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

TURED NG

LINEAR LANDSCAPE

SECURED PERIMETE

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER 80’

F.B.I. SITE

80’

F.B.I.

F.B.I. SITE

300’

F.B.I.

300’

Final Linear Landscape program and security diagram (below). PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTURED PARKING

VISITOR CENTER

1 1 SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) an pedestrian fence 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) anintegrated integrated pedestrian fenceand and LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLAN includes an integrated pedestrian fence and anti-ram barrier system. includes an integrated anti-ram barrier system. pedestrian fence and F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA PROGRAM LEGEND anti-ram barrier system. anti-ram barrier system. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 22 ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY 20 AUGUST 2013 2must P from VISITOR ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY SURFACE STRUCTURED be 2must ZONE FOR feet MAIN FBI the FACILITY be300+ 300+ feet from thesecured securedperimeter perimeter CENTER PARKING PARKING must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should 30’ clear zone building mustinclude be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building should include 30’ clear zone around building should include 30’ clear zone around building FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 33 ZONE ZONE FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS ZONE FOR feet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 3must be from and ZONE FORfeet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS be80+ 80+ fromthe theproperty propertyline line and 3must must be 80+ perimeter. feet from the property and within secured LINEAR LANDSCAPE - SITE PLANline must be 80+perimeter. feet from the property line and within secured within secured perimeter. F.B.I. WESTPHALIA within secured perimeter. 44AT PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 4 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 20 AUGUST 4 2013 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 55 MECHANICAL MECHANICALPLANT PLANTZONE ZONE 5should MECHANICAL PLANT ZONE be close the 5should MECHANICAL ZONE belocated locatedPLANT closeto to themain mainFBI FBIfacility facility should be located close to the main FBI facility should be located close to the main FBI facility 66 LOADING LOADINGAND ANDREMOTE REMOTEDELIVERY DELIVERYZONE ZONE 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE be the perimeter line 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE belocated located thesecured secured perimeter line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCENTER located at theCHECKPOINT secured perimeter line 77 VISITOR’S AND VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT 7the VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’s and 7theVISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’scheckpoint checkpoint andscreening screeningarea area the be visitor’s checkpoint and screening area must located at perimeter line thebe visitor’s checkpoint and screening must located atthe thesecured secured perimeterarea line must be located at the secured perimeter line must bePARKING located atAREA the secured perimeter line 88 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S PARKING AREA 8must VISITOR’S PARKING AREA be outside the 8must VISITOR’S PARKING belocated located outsideAREA thesecured securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 99 VEHICLE SCREENING AREA VEHICLE SCREENING AREA 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA be outside secured 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA belocated located outsidethe the securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 10 10 SECURITY SECURITYCHECKPOINT CHECKPOINT 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT be at 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT belocated located atthe thesecured securedperimeter perimeterline line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCHECKPOINT located at theREJECTION secured perimeter line 1111 SECURITY SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTIONLANE LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 12 PROPERTYLINE LINE 12 PROPERTY 12 PROPERTY LINE 12 PROPERTY LINE

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

200

400

feet

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

6 6

5 5

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

F.B.I.

44 4 4

22 1

GREEN ROOF

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

F.B,I. HQ

2 2

200

400

feet

11111 1 11 11 99 9 9 10 10 10 10

3 3

88 77 8 7 8 7

99 10 10 9 10 1111 9 10 11 11

12 12 12 12

LINEAR LANDSCAPE --SECURITY LINEAR LANDSCAPE SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS LINEAR LANDSCAPE F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA LINEAR LANDSCAPE--SECURITY SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA

WALTON II LLC F.B.I. ATMARYLAND WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013

OSMAN DADI • 2014

©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 ©2013 FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS, LLP | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12

Rendering of the preferred Linear Landscape concept.

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER

WESTPHALIA TOWN CENTER 80’

F.B.I. SITE 80’

F.B.I.

F.B.I. SITE

300’

F.B.I.

300’

Final Linked Compound program and security diagram (below). PROGRAM LEGEND

SURFACE PARKING

STRUCTURED PARKING

VISITOR CENTER

1 1 SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) an pedestrian fence 1includes SECURED PERIMETER (APPROXIMATE) anintegrated integrated pedestrian fenceand and LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN includes an integrated pedestrian fence and anti-ram barrier system. includes an integrated anti-ram barrier system. pedestrian fence and PROGRAM LEGEND F.B.I.barrier AT WESTPHALIA anti-ram system. anti-ram barrier system. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 22 ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY 2must 20 AUGUST 2013 P from VISITOR ZONE FOR MAIN FBI FACILITY SURFACE STRUCTURED be 2must ZONE FOR feet MAIN FBI the FACILITY be300+ 300+ feet from thesecured securedperimeter perimeter CENTER PARKING PARKING must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building must be 300+ feet from thearound secured perimeter should include 30’ clear zone building should include 30’ clear zone around building should include 30’ clear zone around building FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 33 ZONE ZONE FOR AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS ZONE FOR feet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS 3must be from and ZONE FORfeet AUXILIARY/SUPPORT BUILDINGS be80+ 80+ fromthe theproperty propertyline line and 3must must be 80+ perimeter. feet from the property and within secured LINEAR COMPOUND - SITE PLAN line must be 80+perimeter. feet from the property line and within secured within secured perimeter. within secured perimeter. F.B.I. WESTPHALIA 44AT PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 4 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 20 AUGUST 4 2013 PARKING STRUCTURE ZONE 55 MECHANICAL MECHANICALPLANT PLANTZONE ZONE 5should MECHANICAL PLANT ZONE be located close to the 5should MECHANICAL ZONE be locatedPLANT close to themain mainFBI FBIfacility facility should be located close to the main FBI facility should be located close to the main FBI facility 66 LOADING LOADINGAND ANDREMOTE REMOTEDELIVERY DELIVERYZONE ZONE 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE be the perimeter line 6must LOADING ANDatREMOTE DELIVERY ZONE belocated located thesecured secured perimeter line must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCENTER located AND at theCHECKPOINT secured perimeter line 77 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT 7the VISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’s and 7theVISITOR’S CENTER AND CHECKPOINT visitor’scheckpoint checkpoint andscreening screeningarea area the be visitor’s checkpoint and screening area must located at perimeter line thebe visitor’s checkpoint and screening must located atthe thesecured secured perimeterarea line must be located at the secured perimeter line must bePARKING located atAREA the secured perimeter line 88 VISITOR’S VISITOR’S PARKING AREA 8must VISITOR’S PARKING AREA be outside the 8must VISITOR’S PARKING belocated located outsideAREA thesecured securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 99 VEHICLE SCREENING AREA VEHICLE SCREENING AREA 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA be outside secured 9must VEHICLE SCREENING AREA belocated located outsidethe the securedperimeter perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter must be located outside the secured perimeter 10 10 SECURITY SECURITYCHECKPOINT CHECKPOINT 10must SECURITY CHECKPOINT be at 10 must belocated located atthe thesecured securedperimeter perimeterline line SECURITY CHECKPOINT must be located at the secured perimeter line must beCHECKPOINT located at theREJECTION secured perimeter line 1111 SECURITY SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTIONLANE LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 11 SECURITY CHECKPOINT REJECTION LANE 12 PROPERTYLINE LINE 12 PROPERTY 12 PROPERTY LINE 12 PROPERTY LINE

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

GREEN ROOF

F.B,I. HQ

F.B.I.

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

200

400

feet

MECHANICAL PLANT

LOADING/REMOTE DELIVERY

55 6

300’

SECURED PERIMETER

SECURITY CHECKPOINT

F.B.I.

44 4 4

22 1

GREEN ROOF

CAMPUS GREEN

RECREATION GREEN

N 0

F.B,I. HQ

333 3

200

400

feet

11111 1111 99 99 10 10 1010

88 77 8 7 11 9

99 10 10 9 10 1111 7 11

12 12 12 12

LINEAR LANDSCAPE --SECURITY LINEAR LANDSCAPE SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS LINEAR LANDSCAPE F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA LINEAR COMPOUND--SECURITY SECURITYNOTES NOTESAND ANDDESIGN DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA

20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013

Rendering of the Linked Compound alternative.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

WALTON II LLC F.B.I. ATMARYLAND WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC F.B.I. AT WESTPHALIA WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013 20 AUGUST 2013 WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

Major Government Agency Downtown Redevelopment CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS

D STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

LIGHT GRAD ACCE FUNC E RETASS TO BE IL/ TIO NS LE HOTE LOW VELS L

E STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W. 8th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

2 FLOORS

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

Walton has asked FXFOWLE to study the best means with which to redevelop the existing downtown site of the Major Government Agency. Our team used the opportunities in the area—a highly visible and prominent location with a broad mix of uses nearby—to create a series of several alternative types of development. The client desired a target of approximately 2.4 million square feet of rentable space through a broad range of uses— office, retail, residential, and hotel functions, as well as public outdoor space.

• In a team, handle the creation and development of proposals and initial strategies for the downtown site. • Modify context and base maps. • Create client and planning staff presentations. • Work through many planning studies of 1.8 to 2.2 million SF multi-building developments. • Adjust and refine schemes according to client desires, including rendered plans, sections, area calculations, and 3D models. • Develop the final Piazza proposal. 11th STREET N.W.

Client: The Walton Group 02.2013 – 09.2013 Washington, DC

The preferred scheme, dubbed the “Piazza,” combines all desired elements: eight buildings, with a two building residential and two hotel mix; a pedestrian D Street; a passageway from SW to NE, and strong square footage.

D STREET N.W.

60’ OFFSET FROM LIGHT ACCESS - EXTENT OF BELOW GRADE PROGRAM

PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

GALLERIA 2.18 MIL. SF 1.44 MIL. SF OFFICE 262,546 SF RESIDENTIAL 262,546 SF HOTEL 214,293 SF RETAIL

CENTRAL SQUARE 2.16 MIL. SF

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

D STREET N.W.

1.54 MIL. SF OFFICE 195,720 SF RESIDENTIAL 283,044 SF HOTEL 138,957 SF RETAIL

BUILDING 7 HOTEL 16 FLOORS

IA A VEN

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

BUILDING 5 OFFICE 13 FLOORS BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

ELLIPSE 2.17 MIL. SF

1.62 BUILDING MIL. SF7OFFICE 190,642 SF RESIDENTIAL HOTEL 16 FLOORS 207,990 SF HOTEL 161,277 SF RETAIL (127,755 SF BELOW GRADE)

SUMMARY OF MAY 22, 2013 SCHEMES

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 6 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

PIAZZA 2.18 MIL. SF

LVA N

N.W .

E STREET N.W.

8th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 3 RESID. 15 FLOORS

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

BUILDING 4 OFFICE 13 FLOORS

BUILDING 2 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

E STREET N.W.

BUILDING 1 OFFICE 12 FLOORS

PEN

NSY

LVA N

N.W .

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

IA A VEN

8th STREET N.W.

PEN

NSY

8th STREET N.W. 11th STREET N.W.

PEN

D STREET N.W.

1.62 MIL. SF OFFICE BUILDING 7 184,930 SF RESIDENTIAL HOTEL 16 FLOORS 209,856 SF HOTEL 153,788 SF RETAIL (112,875 SF BELOW GRADE)

N 100 FT

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE Summary of May 22, 2013 schemes, showing an array of strategies. WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

PEN

NN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIORPEWRITTEN CONSENT. S

NSY

IA A VEN

OSMAN DADI • 2014

NSY

YLV AN

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

GALLERIA - 1.98 MIL. SF

PIAZZA - 1.95 MIL. SF

CORRIDOR - 1.91 MIL. SF

1.16 MIL. SF OFFICE 242,957 SF RESIDENTIAL 299,790 SF HOTEL 281,694 SF RETAIL 15,742 SF GALLERIA**

1.23 MIL. SF OFFICE 198,607 SF RESIDENTIAL 322,360 SF HOTEL 232,039 SF RETAIL 28,813 SF GALLERIA**

1.22 MIL. SF OFFICE 187,447 SF RESIDENTIAL 288,075 SF HOTEL 218,706 SF RETAIL 15,742 SF GALLERIA**

SUMMARY OF JULY 23, 2013 SCHEMES Summary of July 23, 2013 schemes, implementing a “new” D street. F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE

N 100 FT

WALTON MARYLAND II LLC 20 AUGUST 2013

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

The following pages are a summary of the August 20, 2013 schemes, showcasing a complete D Street and engaging public spaces.

N.W .

8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

9th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

1.43 MIL. SF OFFICE 403,500 SF RESIDENTIAL 198,750 SF HOTEL 191,500 SF RETAIL

10th STREET N.W.

E STREET N.W.

PIAZZA (CONSENSUS) 2.22 MIL. SF

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT. 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

D STREET N.W.

NOTES: DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

PIAZZA CONSENSUS SCHEME F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC

N PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

20 AUGUST 2013

BUILDING 1

100 FT

BUILDING 4

BUILDING 3 BUILDING 5

BUILDING 6 BUILDING 7

The final Piazza includes five office and two residential buildings, places the hotel (7) at the prominent southwest corner of the site, and creates a complete street, courtyard and pedestrian passageway.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

BUILDING 8

1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF

8th STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

BUILDING 4

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

BUILDING 5 BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT. 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF 1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

LINEAR GALLERIA. PEN

NSY

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) N 2.01 MIL. SF 1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 1002013 FT E STREET N.W. PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL IA A VEN

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

11th STREET N.W.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

SYLVANIA AVE LAND II LLC

LVA N

8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

BUILDING 1

BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

ASSUMPTIONS: GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) 2.01 MIL. SF

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL

ANGLE GALLERIA. PEN

NSY

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) N 1.97 MIL. SF 1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 1002013 FT E STREET N.W. PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL IA A VEN

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

11th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

OSMAN DADI • 2014

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. BUILDING 4

BUILDING 5 BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1

ASSUMPTIONS:

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) 1.97 MIL. SF

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES:

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

323,,750 SF HOTEL 185,750 SF RETAIL

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

9th STREET N.W.

SYLVANIA AVE LAND II LLC

LVA N

8th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

ASSUMPTIONS: ED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

STREET N.W.

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

E STREET N.W.

ARC GALLERIA. PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

1002013 FT PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13,

1A. GALLERIA (LINEAR) 2.07 MIL. SF

2. PIAZZA 2.00 MIL. SF

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

8th STREET N.W.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1.31 MIL. SF OFFICE 169,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 338,250 SF HOTEL 175,520 SF RETAIL

E STREET N.W.

9th STREET N.W.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

1.29 MIL. SF OFFICE 243,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 330,500 SF HOTEL 203,500 SF RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2

ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 4 GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

BUILDING 3

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR BUILDING 5 HEIGHT. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

BUILDING 6

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

NOTES:

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

D STREET N.W.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

2. PIAZZA 2.00 MIL. SF

PIAZZA SCHEME.

1.31 MIL. SF OFFICE 169,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 338,250 SF HOTEL 175,520 SF RETAIL

1B. GALLERIA (ANGLE) PARKING: 2.01 MIL. SF 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE

PEN

NSY

3A. ELLIPSE (WITH D STREET) N 1.97 MIL. SF 1.27 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT E STREET N.W.TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST PRESENTED 13, 2013 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL

ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013 PENNSYLVANIA AVE GROUNDPARKING: FLOOR HEIGHT MARYLAND II LLC VARIES WITH GRADEBELOW CHANGE. 3 FLOORS GRADE

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT ASSUME 9’-8” FLOOR-TOVARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. FLOOR HEIGHT.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION FLOOR-TO-FLOOR APPLIES 11’-6” THROUGHOUT HEIGHT. ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

334,500 SF HOTEL 167,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE BUILDING 1 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

9th STREET N.W.

578,414 NET SF

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 1,653 CARS* 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT. ASSUMPTIONS:

N.W .

8th STREET N.W.

306,500 SF HOTEL 193,750 SF RETAIL ASSUMPTIONS:

LVA N

IA A VEN

1.29SF MIL. SF OFFICE 578,414 NET 217,750 SF RESIDENTIAL 1,653 CARS*

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS* BUILDING 2 ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 5

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FLOOR HEIGHT.

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. RESTRICTION SURVEY 160’ HEIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR MORE APPLIES THROUGHOUT ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE AND LOCATION. CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN 3B. ELLIPSE CALCULATION OF OVERALL (NO DAREA. STREET)

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

2.02 MIL. SF 1.32 MIL. SF OFFICE 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL N 317,250 SF HOTEL 100 FT 182,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE

ELLIPSE SCHEME WITH D STREET. PEN

NSY

IA A VEN

1.27SF MIL. SF OFFICE 578,414 NET 195,000 SF RESIDENTIAL 1,653 CARS*

323,,750 SF HOTEL ASSUMPTIONS: 185,750 SF RETAIL

ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013 FLOOR HEIGHT PENNSYLVANIA AVE GROUNDPARKING: MARYLAND II LLC VARIES WITH GRADEBELOW CHANGE. 3 FLOORS GRADE

th STREET N.W.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FLOOR HEIGHT ASSUME GROUND 9’-6” FLOOR-TOVARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. FLOOR HEIGHT.

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION FLOOR-TO-FLOOR APPLIES 11’-6” THROUGHOUT HEIGHT. ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

N.W .

F.B.I. 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WALTON MARYLAND II LLC PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 20 AUGUST 2013

317,250 SF HOTEL 182,250 SF RETAIL 25,500 SF BASEMENT OFFICE BUILDING 1 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

9th STREET N.W.

10th STREET N.W.

11th STREET N.W.

LVA N

3B. ELLIPSE (NO D STREET) N 2.02 MIL. SF 1.32 MIL. SF OFFICE 100 FT E STREET N.W.TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST PRESENTED 13, 2013 201,500 SF RESIDENTIAL

8th STREET N.W.

1C. GALLERIA (ARC) PARKING: 1.97 MIL. SF 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE

ASSUMPTIONS:

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS* ASSUMPTIONS:

BUILDING 5

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. RESTRICTION SURVEY 160’ HEIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR MORE APPLIES THROUGHOUT ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE AND LOCATION.

160’ HEIGHT RESTRICTION APPLIES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SITE IF BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE. NOTES:

D STREET N.W.

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION. *NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN 3A. ELLIPSE CALCULATION OF OVERALL (WITHAREA. D STREET)

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING AREA NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA.

ASSUMPTIONS: ENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

CONNECTED ABOVE GRADE.

PARKING: 3 FLOORS BELOW GRADE 578,414 NET SF 1,653 CARS*

BUILDING 4

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE.

FLOOR HEIGHT.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE NOTES: BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING DRAWING INFORMATION AREA NOT INCLUDED IN ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA. IS REQUIRED FOR MORE

BUILDING 3

BUILDING 2

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS NOTES: ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TO-

1.97 MIL. SF

BUILDING 7

DRAWING INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR MORE ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

ACCURATE LOT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATION.

578,414 NET SF

BUILDING 6

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TOFLOOR HEIGHT.

*NUMBER OF CARS ESTIMATE NOTES: BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF 350 SF/CAR. PARKING DRAWING INFORMATION AREA NOT INCLUDED IN ACQUIRED FROM GIS. SURVEY CALCULATION OF OVERALL AREA. IS REQUIRED FOR MORE

OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 1,653 CARS* 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

BUILDING 4

GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE CHANGE. OFFICE BUILDINGS ASSUME 11’-6” FLOOR-TO-FLOOR HEIGHT.

NOTES: ASSUME 9’-6” FLOOR-TO-

BUILDING 3

ELLIPSE SCHEME WITHOUT D STREET. PEN

NSY

LVA N

IA A VEN

N.W .

100 FT PRESENTED TO PLANNING STAFF AUGUST 13, 2013

“La Central” Mixed Use Development CONTRIBUTIONS

Client: Related Companies, Hudson Companies 05.2013 - 07.2013 Bronx, New York, NY

• Develop and present as a team a 1.2 million SF, five building proposal through developers Related and Hudson for mixed use affordable housing in the Bronx. • Maintain constantly changing plans and 3D models, and created presentations for client meetings. • All zoning plans and sections to address key issues such as setbacks, sky exposure planes, and frontage considerations. • Plans, sections, and layout studies of the YMCA, an anchor tenant of the proposed development, directly with a representative. • Final deliverables for architectural submission, including rendered elevations and base drawings.

La Central is a five building, 1.2 million square foot developer’s RFP through the New York Department of Housing and Public Development. Our proposal creates a sense of community within the development, and encompasses residential market rate and affordable housing, a YMCA gym, rooftop urban farming, a major internal public-private park, community centers, and a urban science telescope feature. The design encompasses a distinction between internal and external La CENTRAL architectural expressions, a blocking structure, and a tower feature with key massing strategies. 6/28/2013 NUMBER OF FLOORS

RETAIL sf/floor

RESIDENTIAL

total

sf/floor

SUPPORTIVE

total

sf/floor

PARKING/SERVICE

total

sf/floor

YMCA/COMMUNITY

total

sf/floor

total

BUILDING A Roof Level 11-12 Level 10 Level 9 Level 8 Level 3-7 Level 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 13

20,267

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,267 0 20,267

2,000 14,440 18,328 19,141 22,423 23,024 23,024 3,061 8,658

2,000 28,880 18,328 19,141 22,423 115,120 23,024 3,061 8,658 240,635

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,686

1,686 0 1,686

837 20,758 27,311

0 0 0 0 0 0 837 20,758 27,311 48,906

TOTAL

311,494

Parcel B total

311,494

BUILDING B Roof Level 12-13 Level 11 10 Level 9 Level 3-8 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

2 1 1 1 6 1 1

24,793

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,793 0 24,793

2,000 15,112 23,461 24,539 27,549 29,033 14,658 12,934 9,120

2,000 30,224 23,461 24,539 27,549 174,198 14,658 12,934 9,120 318,684

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,341 31,947

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,341 31,947 35,288

TOTAL

378,765

BUILDING C Roof Level 10-13 Level 2-9 Ground Cellar Subtotal

0 0 0 0 0 0

4 8 1 13

1,000 10,887 12,397 3,757 6,199

1,000 43,548 99,176 3,757 6,199 153,680

0 0 0 0 0 0

8,640 0 0

TOTAL

0 0 0 8,640 0 8,640

162,320

BUILDING D Roof 9 Level 3-8 2 Ground Cellar Subtotal

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 1 1 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,000 7,386 10,040 3,133 5,026

1,000 7,386 60,239 0 3,133 5,026 76,784

10,040 6,902 0 0

0 0 0 10,040 6,902 0 16,942

TOTAL

93,726

Parcel A1 Total

634,811

Building E

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Roof 20-25 Levels 15-19 Levels 13-14 Levels 11-12 Level 10 Levels 4-9 Levels 2-3 Ground Cellar Subtotal

6 5 2 2 1 6 2 1 25

2,003

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,003 0 2,003

1,000 4,790 6,946 9,452 8,970 8,880 11,277 11,159 3,438 7,667

1,000 28,740 34,730 18,904 17,940 8,880 67,662 22,318 3,438 7,667 211,279

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,893 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,893 0 9,893

TOTAL

223,171

Parcel A2 Total

223,171

TOTAL PROPOSED Subtotal

47,063

924,278

TOTAL

76,784

36,974

84,381

1,169,480

AREA SUMMARY

D B

The â&#x20AC;&#x153;La Centralâ&#x20AC;? affordable housing development consists of five buildings (A through E) with a mix of different uses.

The planned development summary (shown left) is strategized concurrent to the defining urban design strategies: creating a community node within the development similar to garden apartments in the Bronx, buildings that include inner and outer personalities wrapping over and around each building, and varied heights and setbacks to break down the streetscape to a human scale.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

This series of Building A plans shows (clockwise from top left): the basement, ground floor, penthouse, and typical residental level. BUILDING A - 2ND FLOOR PLAN

La CENTRAL

BUILDING A - 11TH-12TH FLOOR PLAN

1”=30’

LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

Zoning sections (left) show compliance with New York City laws.

La CENTRAL

1”=30’ LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

The zoning site plan conveys compliance with zoning regulations in this portion of New York City, including lot coverage and setbacks.

BERGEN AVENUE

BROOK AVENUE

BERGEN AVENUE BERGEN AVENUE

BROOK AVENUE BROOK AVENUE

Building B Westchester Avenue Elevation, with brick exterior.

La CENTRAL

RAL

BUILDING B - WESTCHESTER ELEVATION

1”=30

BUILDING B - WESTCHESTER ELEVATION BUILDING B - WESTCHESTER ELEVATION

1”=30’ LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

1”=30

LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013 LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

La CENTRAL

BROOK AVENUE

BERGEN AVENUE

Building B Private Street Elevation, showcasing panel exterior.

BUILDING B - COURTYARD ELEVATION

LA CENTRAL — BRONXCHESTER | 3 JULY 2013

La CENTRAL

OSMAN DADI • 2014

1”=30’

BERGEN AVE

E 152 ST

BERGEN AVE

E 152 ST

BERGEN AVE BERGEN AVE

Building C Elevations demonstrate the play of exterior planes.E 152 ST

E 152 ST

0’

This southwest view showcases the “La Central” Tower.

’

A Bergen Avenue street view at Building A conveys an urban feel.

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

Interview/RFP Package Development FXFOWLE project flow included submissions for RFPs, in which I produced a variety of presentation materials.

SEAPORT CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY Client: ARCADIS 08.2013

WEST 29TH STREET STUDY Client: Douglaston Companies 09.2013 • Developed base maps and graphics for a Douglaston Companies development proposal near Hudson Yards.

• Developed presentation materials, including a detailed 48”x36” base map of lower Manhattan, case studies, and graphic materials for Arcadis-led interview with the New York Economic Development Corporation. 1,278’

377’

364’

9th AVENUE

10th AVENUE

11th AVENUE

12th AVENUE

305’

West-East section and height study for West 29th Street Study. 1,278’

515’

North-South section and height study for West 29th Street Study.

23rd STREET

24th STREET

25th STREET

26th STREET

27th STREET

28th STREET

29th STREET

30th STREET

31ST STREET

32nd STREET

33rd STREET

OSMAN DADI • 2014

34th STREET

210’

ST .J AM

PL AC E

n River H u dso

ST R C PE

IDG

IP SL

R O O YN KL

ET RE ST

E G

ET RE ST T H OR UT AP SO SE

N TTA HA

PE A

N MA

C A PL

EE T

ER N G A W

REET

T ER

IVE

FDR DR

R ST

ON LT FU

N MA

STREET

INE ST

ET RE ST

ET CLINTON STRE

RUTGERS STRE

PIKE STREET

ET MARKET STRE

ER CATH

CHERRY

A W R

R ST

PIE

T EE

11 TE RM

BROA

L A IN

D STRE

s Ea

ET STRE HALL WHITE

PIE

RE ST

R ST

M LIA

E AT W

ve Ri

AD LIP

NNE

TU RY

E ATT

OKLY

BRO

Base Map created for EDC Seaport City Feasibility Study, 48x36” W

CO L

(F U EX TU TE RE NS IO N)

AV E

10 N

DIU

W A LK

E UT IN M 5-

W W

W Base Map created for Douglaston West 29th 22 Street Study.

W W

W 21

24 ST

35 ST

PE ST NN AT IO N

B N 32

27 ST

3 N

A PIERS

W ST

41 ST

MA SQ DISO GA UAR N RD E EN

CHELSE

37 ST

EL PA SEA RK

6A VE

E LIN HI GH

TH E

C WA HELS TE EA PA RSID RK E

TE WA RMIN RE AL HO US E

E W

8A VE

ST A LE RRE HIG TT H

39 ST

ISO

9A VE

W ST

7A VE

7 7

YA RD S

AV E

DS ON

W DY E

RI VE

AV E

HU DS ON

LIN

CO N

ROADW AY

JA CO CO JAV B K NV ITS . CE ENT NT IO ER N

NW AY

dso

D R

FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS

ive

(P R ST OP AT OS IO N) ED

47 ST

Regional Plan Association

Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan 12.2011 - 03.2012 The Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan is a two year project that was finished during my term at Regional Plan Association. My primary task was designing and publishing the final master plan document, including creating maps from synthesized GIS data and developing the optimal presentation for the county and its constituents. The Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use study was implemented by the Orange County Planning Department to identify key priorities for creating integrated solutions for transportation and land use within the northeastern portion of Orange County. The multi-modal plan for transportation was intended to identify strategies for enhancing mobility while preserving quality of life.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS • Final document layout, editing, and design • Final map development • Graphic Design • Creating graphic renditions of the results of the project’s GIS analysis. In creating the final document, I utilized RPA’s report methodology. As the plan is rather lengthy, our team found it important to break the monotony of the text with frequent photographs that conveyed the context of the conditions described. Additionally, the flow of the text is highly important, and tables, charts, and maps were thus placed accordingly. As the study website was developed using black and orange as key colors, the report utilizes the same theme. The maps within the report were developed to tie together content in a graphic manifestation, and thus followed the same graphic language. I sought specifically to highlight relevant information by using bright, bold colors for the subject of the maps, while using soft, gray tones and transparencies to soften the context. Thus, roads networks are shown in gray throughout all maps; the study area and municipal boundaries are shown as well, though the coloring is muted such that the most important information stands out.

A typical page from the Greater Newburgh Area Transportation and Land Use Plan Report.

D. Evaluation of Travel Demand Model Results Intersection Analysis A set of 18 traffic analysis locations was selected for assessing the potential effects of the proposed development scenarios (see Figure 4-8). These locations were selected based upon input from Study Area stakeholders and the Study Team’s own observations and professional judgment. These 18 intersections represent key locations along important corridors and a select number of locations within the Villages. They are considered to be a representative set of locations at which the effects of the land use scenarios could be assessed, potential roadway improvement packages outlined, and broad findings generalized for the Study Area as a whole. They do not reflect the only locations that could be affected. The 18 intersections are: • Route 17K and Route 211/Union Street

Traffic Analysis Locations Figure 4-8: Traffic Analysis Locations in the Newburgh Study Area

Measuring Congestion

• Route 17K and Route 747 • Route 17K and Rock Cut Road • Route 17K and Route 300 • Route 17K/Broadway and Route 9W/ Robinson Avenue • Route 207 and Route 747 • Route 207 and Breunig Road • Route 207 and Route 300 • Route 208 and Route 52/Main Street • Route 208 and Neelytown Road/I-84 Ramps • Route 300 and Route 52 • Route 300 and Route 94 (Vails Gate) • Route 300 and Route 32 • Route 9W and Fostertown Road • Route 9W and Route 32 • Route 9W and Forge Hill Road • Route 94 and Jackson Avenue

The travel demand model produced outputs of volumes of new traffic and a “volume to capacity” (“v/c”) ratio at each of the 18 intersections. Net change

Table 4-7: 2010 Existing and 2035 Forecast Volumes and V/C Ratios Intersection Volumes Intersection Exist. BAU SGA SGB 1 NY 17K & Union St/Route 211 1,414 1,565 1,601 1,561 2 NY 17K & NY 208 2,260 2,762 2,788 2,765 3 NY 17K & NY 747 1,939 2,519 2,591 2,671 4 NY 17K & Rock Cut Rd 1,769 1,792 1,839 1,794 5 NY 17K & NY 300 3,668 4,062 4,125 3,956 6 NY 17K & Robinson/US 9W 2,235 2,445 2,324 2,439 7 NY 207 & NY 747 1,477 2,361 2,321 2,315 8 NY 207 & Breunig Rd 1,361 2,557 2,187 2,115 9 NY 207 & NY 300 3,025 3,137 3,172 3,196 10 NY 208 & Main St/NY 52 1,270 1,629 1,737 1,735 11A NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,587 2,253 2,213 2,214 11B NY 208 & I-84/Neeleytown 1,594 2,450 2,413 2,363 12 NY 300 & NY 52 2,522 2,756 2,738 2,703 13 NY 300 & NY 94 2,540 2,637 2,642 2,745 14 NY 32 & NY 300 1,793 2,565 2,483 2,340 15 US 9W & Fostertown Rd 2,012 2,264 2,285 2,192 16 US 9W & NY 32 2,719 3,047 3,043 3,003 17 US 9W & Forge Hill Rd 2,292 3,225 3,327 3,481 18 NY 94 & Jackson Ave 1,215 2,024 2,077 2,020 Notes:

in traffic volume is one indicator that improvements may be necessary at a location. The v/c ratio, as it is referred to, is another key metric for traffic engineers to identify locations where new volumes would cause additional congestion. The theoretical maximum capacity Volume-Capacity Ratio Exist. BAU SGA 0.87 0.97 0.99 0.57 0.70 0.71 0.48 0.62 0.64 0.97 0.98 1.01 0.88 0.98 0.99 0.75 0.82 0.78 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.46 0.86 0.73 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.64 0.82 0.88 0.59 0.83 0.82 0.52 0.80 0.79 0.96 1.05 1.05 0.98 1.02 1.02 0.63 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.99 1.00 0.67 0.76 0.76 0.58 0.81 0.84 0.51 0.85 0.87

BAU = Business as Usual; SGA = Smart Growth A; SGB = Smart Growth B.

Newburgh Area Transportation & Land Use Study

SGB 0.96 0.70 0.65 0.99 0.95 0.82 0.91 0.71 0.95 0.88 0.82 0.77 1.03 1.06 0.82 0.96 0.75 0.87 0.85

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

• Route 17K and Route 208 (Scotts Corner)

The Greater Newburgh Study Area.

Open Space Protected Land Agricultural Commercial Industrial Civic Uses Residential 1 unit/acre or less Residential 1 to 4 units/acre Residential 4+ units/acre Figure 4-2: Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

Land Use in the Greater Newburgh Study Area.

potential housing units or the amount of commercial square feet that can be built on it under current zoning, accounting for ecological constraints and parking needs. Depending on the commercial establishment type allowed in each zone (e.g. industrial, retail), the potential square footage of each commercially zoned prop-

It is important to note that the buildout methodology does not make any specific accommodation for provision of water supply or wastewater treatment infrastructure. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that adequate water supply and wastewater treatment is either available or would be made available to

essential pieces of infrastructure but could not address these challenges within the scope of this study. A build-out can be unconstrained by time or population and economic conditions (i.e. what amount of development would occur based simply on what the zoning permits) or constrained by a time factor or other socio-economic factor (i.e.

The Study Area boundary for the Newburgh cluster.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

The chart conveys different buildout scenarios all together, by municipality.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

Study Area Buildout Footprints by parcel showing Existing Developed, Smart Growth A, and Smart Growth B Buildouts.

Smart Growth B Buildout Smart Growth A Buildout Existing Developed

Figure 4-5: Study Area Buildout Footprints by parce

C. Existing Transportation Network Regional Roadway Elements

Two major interstate highways cross in the center of the Study Area, adjacent to Stewart Airport and the major commercial areas in the Towns of Newburgh and New Windsor. Interstate 87, the New York State Thruway, is a north-south roadway that links the New York City metropolitan area with upstate New York. Interstate 84 is an east-west roadway that links southern New England and the Boston metropolitan area with Scranton, PA Existing Northside Bus Route and points west. A third major highway Existing Southside Bus Route corridor, NY Route 17 (future I-86), is just south of the Study Area, but as it undergoes major investments to bring the Figure 3-1:in Existing Transit Routes in Area. the Newburgh Ar Existing transit routes the Newburgh Study roadway to Interstate Highway standards, transfer to PATH or ferries to Manhattan Ro it is becoming an increasingly important trade corridor linking Orange County and or to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail for hu connections to Jersey City. the New York City metropolitan area to ser A ferry and a shuttle bus from New York State’s Southern Tier. Newburgh to Beacon Station, across “pu the Hudson River in Dutchess County, of provide transit connections to Metroand North’s Hudson Line. The Hudson Line no provides direct service to Poughkeepsie ser and Grand Central Terminal. Additional service to the Port Two commuter rail services link the Authority Bus Terminal on Manhattan’s Study Area to the metropolitan core: west side is provided by Short Line Bus/ Metro-North’s Port Jervis Line and Coach USA. Short Line Bus and AdironMetro-North’s Hudson Line. The Port Ste dack Trailways also offer intercity bus Jervis Line is primarily a single-track rail by services throughout the Lower Hudson line that begins in the western portions Po Valley, notably to employment centers in of Orange County at the Pennsylvania Jer White Plains, and to destinations in Long Ro state line and makes a sweeping arc over Island, Connecticut, and upstate New the northern tier of the County, turning pri York. due south within the Study Area and and Local bus routes link the City of continuing across the State line (becoming pas the NJ Transit Main Line) to its terminus Newburgh to surrounding neighboran hoods but have more limited service in Hoboken. Port Jervis Line riders can bas in the Towns because of the difficulty transfer at Secaucus to other NJ Transit of in attracting sufficient riders from that rail services on the Northeast Corridor, air

Regional Transit Elements

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Northside Route Southside Route Mid-Valley Route Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle Figure 5-7: Proposed Mid-Valley Bus Route

current local bus service is operated by two vehicles each providing service every 120 minutes. The portion of the route covered by both vehicles (Broadway and the commercial corridor along Route 300) effectively provides service every 60 minutes. Service is offered Monday through Saturday with weekday service operating between 6:55 AM and 5:30 PM, while Saturday service operates between 8:30 AM and 5:30 PM. In the proposed short-term service recommendation, the portion of the

service indicated by the “red” and “blue” routes in Figures 5-5 and 5-6 would be operated by three vehicles instead of two, allowing for 90-minute headways on each route, or effectively 45 minutes on the overlapping portion of the routes on Broadway and in the Route 300 commercial corridor. A fourth vehicle would operate the “purple” route shown in Figure 5-7 on 90-minute headways. The service plan developed for the ShortTerm Transit Recommendations suggests increasing the span of service to the hours

of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on the weekdays and 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Saturdays. In the short term, operations of the Newburgh-Beacon Shuttle between Newburgh and the Beacon Metro-North Railroad station should be improved via discussions between regional stakeholders, Orange County, the service operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the New York State Department of Transportation. Changing traffic patterns at Stewart Airport, opportunities to provide better access to emerging

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

Proposed Mid-Valley bus route in the Newburgh Study Area.

Bridgeport Corridor and Waterfront Design Guidelines 05.2012 - 06.2012 The Bridgeport Corridor and Waterfront Design Guidelines aim to apply a uniform set of form based zoning policies to the North Main and State Street Corridors, and several vacant industrial sites along the Yellow Mill River, Pequonnock River, and Johnson’s Creek waterways. The goal is to redevelop these corridors and waterfront areas to become urban, walkable, and dense amenities to the City of Bridgeport.

CONTRIBUTIONS • Comparable guidelines and site analysis. • Design guidelines, including zoning and building codes. • Document layout, editing, and design

DESIGN GUIDELINES SUMMARY SHALLOW LOT WITH REAR OR SIDE PARKING

OSMAN DADI • 2014

The intent of the shallow lot guidelines is to provide the maximum building street frontage while accommodating parking in means that are attractive and conducive to walking and density. Many sites along Main Street and State Street are limited by a parcel depth of 100 feet or less. The guidelines recommend developers to seek creative ways to accommodate parking while making sidewalk space attractive for pedestrians. Rear parking lots are recommended; side parking is allowed up to a maximum of 64’ in width provided the lot is adequately screened with foliage 90% opaque year round at least four feet tall. Shared parking between properties is recommended where feasible. Sidewalk space is 16’ wide in addition to on-street parking 8’ wide; this zone accommodates creative streetscape with street trees at 25’ intervals. Buildings frontages must have an 80-90% transparency on the first floor, typically accommodating retail space. On property adjacency to residential zones, buildings must be setback from the property line at least 15’ and screened with the L3 landscape treatment of a 6’ foliage barrier with trees spaced at 30’ intervals.

SHALLOW LOT WITH REAR OR SIDE PARKING

15’ setback zone from nearest residential property, with L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing) Building height under 45 feet, setbacks at third level 8’ on street frontage. Street Parcel Line 16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided.

Street facing parking lots will be screened to the sidewalk by 4’ tall 90% opaque foliage and streetscaping. Building setback 8’ from sidewalk.

Typical axonometric, 100’ parcels.

Building height under 45 feet, setbacks at third level 8’ on street frontage.

16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided. Street Parcel Line 15’ setback zone from nearest residential property, with L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing)

Parking to the rear of the building, buffered from Residential zone by L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing)

Typical sections.

Typical Lot Depth 100’ Street Parcel Line

Building setback 8’ from sidewalk.

Street facing parking lots will be screened to the sidewalk by 4’ tall 90% opaque foliage and streetscaping.

15’ setback zone from nearest residential property, with L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing) 16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided.

Typical plan.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

Opportunities for shared parking between parcels are encouraged.

DEEP LOT WITH BUILDING OVERHANG Many sites along the corridors may be too small for shared parking while allowing for the maximum developable area. The guidelines encourage developers to seek creative means to accommodate parking requirements while maximizing density and walkability. This strategy introduces the concept of parking accommodated beneath the rear of a building in lots that are great than 100’ in depth or where feasible. The parking tucked under a building must be screened in an aesthetic manner, ideally behind the main buildings while serving as the primary buffer between the mixed use zone and residential neighborhoods. Sidewalk space is 16’ wide in addition to on-street parking 8’ wide; this zone accommodates creative streetscape with street trees at 25’ intervals. Buildings frontages must have an 80-90% transparency on the first floor, typically for retail space. The upper floors of a building can accommodate roof terraces for residential uses. Adjacent to residential zones, parking lots must be screened with the L3 landscape treatment of a 6’ foliage barrier with trees spaced at 30’ intervals.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

STATE STREET TRAFFIC AND PARKING STRATEGY

STATE STREET TRAFFIC AND PARKING STRATEGY State Street can be configured in a multitude of ways; however, the guidelines recommend that the focus stays on a narrow right of way for automobiles that maximized on-street parking, widens sidewalk/pedestrian/treescape space, and potentially provides for frequent crosswalks, builbouts, and protected bike lanes. The total sidewalk space is held at 16, accommodating street trees and landscaping, while retaining a 90% ground level transparency for retail and commercial space. Two lanes of traffic provide access to two lanes of on-street parking. Several parking spots can be occupied by landscaped bulb-outs for additional tree coverage.

DEEP LOT WITH BUILDING OVERHANG 15’ setback zone from nearest residential property, with L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing) Building height under 45 feet, setbacks at third level 10’ on main street frontage, 8’ on side street frontage Street Parcel Line 16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided. This strategy allows expanded parking by placing it beneath the building on the first floor at the rear, creating a buffer to residences.

Cosmetic breaks in facade at maximum 60’ intervals. Building setback 8’ from sidewalk.

Typical axonometric, deep parcels.

This strategy allows expanded parking by placing it beneath the building on the first floor at the rear, creating a buffer to residences. Building height under 45 feet, setbacks at third level 8’ on street frontage.

16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided. Street Parcel Line L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing)

Typical section.

Typical Lot Depth over 100’ Street Parcel Line Building setback 8’ from sidewalk.

Cosmetic breaks in facade at maximum 60’ intervals

L3 landscape treatment (6’ foliage boundary with 30’ tree spacing) 16’ Sidewalk Zone with street trees spaced at 25’ intervals. 90% transparency at first floor Street Frontage. On street parking provided.

Typical plan.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

Parking tucked under rear of building; Residential floors wrap around terrace courtyard area

Orange County Greenway 09.2011 - 05.2012

PROCESS

The Orange County Greenway Compact is an effort being led by Orange County and Regional Plan Association to absorb communities within Orange County into the Hudson Valley Greenway Compact. Regional Plan Association has been tasked with creating the supporting documents and mapping. The compact provides funding and resources for communities that follow sustainable smart growth.

The Comprehensive Plan analysis demonstrates Orange County’s sophistication in creating priority growth areas around major urban centers in the county. Several municipalities have successfully incorporated, independently, many of the provisions of the Greenway Compact, and can be brought into the program through adoption of the act. These maps convey potential greenway and trail connections intended to link urban areas identified by the priority growth areas. The key premise is to preserve agricultural and natural land while creating policies and identifying areas for sustainable smart growth.

CONTRIBUTIONS • Existing Comprehensive Plan research and analysis, including transportation plans, growth plans, community land use and zoning policies. • Priority Growth Areas assessment. • Policy Compilation and analysis • GIS Mapping assistance • Trail network development

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Municipal Comprehensive Plans were analyzed to determine each communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing compliance with the Greenway Pact, then mapped below. A land cover map (left) shows Orange Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Priority Growth Areas overlayed onto potential greenway and trail connections.

Crawford

Newburgh

Walden Montgomery Montgomery Village

Newburgh

Maybrook

City

Wallkill

New Windsor

Otisville

Cornwall-On-Hudson Hamptonburgh

Middletown

Washingtonville

Goshen Village

Port Jervis

Greenville

Goshen

South Blooming Grove

Chester Minisink

Monroe Chester

Florida

Highland Falls Kiryas Joel

Village

Woodbury

Warwick Warwick

Tuxedo

Village

Map Key: Community partially fits Greenway criteria Community does not fit Greenway criteria Community not reviewed; more information necessary

Greenwood Lake

Highlands

Harriman

Monroe

Unionville

Community generally fits Greenway criteria

Cornwall

Blooming Grove

Wawayanda

Tuxedo Park

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

Mount Hope

Deerpark

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

A planning framework diagram utilized in the Windsor, CT RFP.

Marketing and Presentations CONTRIBUTIONS

09.2011 - 05.2012 The Centers program at Regional Plan Association sought out urban design and placemaking projects within the Tristate region. My role lay in presentation strategy and graphic design, such as planning framework diagrams and mapping.

• Comparable guidelines and site analysis • Design guidelines, including zoning and building codes • Document layout, editing, and design • Planning framework diagrams • Additional graphics • Presentation materials We first identified sites and land most conducive to potential development, and categorized them by development type. I suggested a “rail station alternative” siting, as the current station location with its closer proximity to Windsor seemed a better suited to transit oriented development. The diagram is masked in grayscale, while utilizing bright colors to bring out information. Red and yellow tones represent development, while blue tones are conducive to transportation linkages and civic areas.

B. BUILD-OUT AS USUAL

C. SMART GROWTH BUILD-OUT

These series of images were used to convey the different buildout patterns and consequent land use stemming from growth policies that advocate controlled or uncontrolled growth. Increased connectivity and efficient land utilization occurs in the circumstance C.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Writing Samples and Insight Regional Plan Association, a not-for-profit non-governmental organization, allows its research staff many opportunities to contribute to ideas in transportation and urban policy, including spotlight articles and blog postings. I utilized the opportunity to present my thoughts regarding the funding decisions of Marylandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inter-County Connector (ICC), and design proposals for the future California High Speed Rail Corridor in the San Francisco peninsula.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

A google map was created with the article to help New York readers understand the geography of projects discussed in the article. The ICC is shown in purple, rail projects in green, HOT lanes as orange, and toll collection as a dollar sign.

By Osman Dadi, Research Associate, RPA December 21, 2011 On November 22, 2011, the InterCounty Connector opened in central Maryland, finishing a long-anticipated link between I-270 and I-95, two of state’s busiest thoroughfares and paralleling a third, I-495. The completed highway, hotly debated since the late 1960s, fulfills a campaign pledge of Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., the one-term Republican governor defeated in 2006. The new road showcases the very best (and most expensive) in highway design. The road, also known as the MD-200, is a wide six lanes with smooth curves, large medians and large buffer zones with tall, noise-attenuating walls. Electronic information panels and toll collection gantries occur frequently. Bridges across major streams are long, straight, and wide; road overpasses are similarly generous, appearing to be sized to accommodate 10 or more lanes with 25-foot clearances. Along a portion of the route, state engineers and consultants even added a wide, 500foot twin tunnel capable of accommodating four lanes plus shoulders in each direction to mitigate disruptions to a nearby residential suburb. Despite its size and expense, or in fact because of it, the project might end up causing more traffic problems than it solves. Its planning and construction highlight the risks of concentrating limited infrastructure funds on one form of transportation. These are challenges the tri-state region faces as well, as limited transportation dollars are doled out among road, bridge, maintenance and mass-transit projects, such as in the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement, where some have proposed cutting a long-planned transit component. In Maryland, the new road is without a doubt a quicker alternative for drivers who can afford to avoid the parallel, free route, I-495. Travel savings amount to roughly 15-20 minutes in each direction when traffic is light. The state aims to attract 30,000 daily commuters on average by June 2012. But these time savings will likely be short-lived, as development around the highway, as well as driver choices, fill the road with more cars. Powerful development interests have already begun transformational plans, such as the 2,200-acre Konterra project in Prince George’s County where the eastern end of the ICC meets I-95. This underscores what all major studies said about the ICC before it began construction: The new road won’t relieve congestion on I-495 as intended, and following the concept of induced demand, the ICC will actually increase traffic at several key points in the state highway network as it generates new automobile trips and, over time, sprawl.

Additionally, the ICC has already strained budgets, both private and public. The cost of the highway, with two short eastern segments still unfinished, is $2.56 billion for an 18mile route. It has some of the most expensive tolls per mile in the nation at $4 for the length of the route at peak hours and lower, variable rates at other times. Effectively, this translates into an $8 round trip per vehicle at the peak, on top of the high costs of driving and gasoline. Yet tolling doesn’t come close to covering the road’s cost, so the state has doubled tolls and lowered maintenance on all other statewide facilities, including toll bridges more than 100 miles away. Finally, there are the many opportunity costs. Gov. Ehrlich borrowed a decade’s worth of money from the state’s future federal transportation funds. Thus, the debt undertaken by the state of Maryland in building the highway effectively stalled three viable and long-planned statewide rail projects-- the Purple Line in lower Montgomery County, the Corridor Cities Transitway along the upper I-270 corridor in Montgomery County, and the Red Line subway in central Baltimore. The Purple Line is especially significant, as it is planned on a route between two of Montgomery County’s most important business and community centers, Bethesda and Silver Spring, and would directly provide a parallel alternative to congested I-495 and some ICC users. Additionally, the route connects two branches of the busiest subway line in Washington. The ICC, on the other hand, is routed through fringe suburbs, and doesn’t provide travel alternatives to congested urban areas in lower Montgomery County. The combined cost of those transit lines was in the range of $3 billion to $4 billion, or roughly the same as the cost of the ICC and new high-occupancy toll lanes on I-95 in Baltimore. The expected number of users, though, was very different. The three rail projects were expected to handle 105,000 to 155,000 passengers a day, compared with the ICC’s predicted 30,000 to 40,000 commuters. As seen on a map, it’s clear that the ICC is simply one segment of the long-discussed outer beltway around the greater Washington, D.C., area, a planning concept now generally discredited but still not discarded. Some say the ICC could have been built sooner and at lower cost. But looking forward, one thing is apparent: Drivers in Montgomery County and on I-495, commuters in Baltimore, and residents elsewhere in the state will be mired in congestion, traffic, and cost, with few alternatives, for potentially decades to come.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

ONE EXPENSIVE HIGHWAY CAN’T SOLVE A STATE’S WORTH OF TRAFFIC WOES

REMAKING THE SAN FRANCISCO PENNINSULA CORRIDOR WITH A BICYCLE EXPRESSWAY By Osman Dadi, Research Associate, RPA January 12, 2012

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Accommodating high-speed rail trains in the San Francisco peninsula has been a contentious topic because of potential noise and visual impacts on the surrounding communities. Recently, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced its support for a “blended approach” that would utilize the existing Caltrain corridor. But what if a solution could be found that ensures grade separation between trains and automobiles while also opening up dramatically enhanced commuting options for bicyclists? This proposition allows another incredible opportunity for the Peninsula that would benefit all communities: integrating a grade-separated bicycle expressway into that new infrastructure. The benefits of a separated cycle expressway are many: just as cars on interstate highways are able to travel faster, without stopping for traffic lights, and thus also in a safer means, an expressway for cyclists would allow bicyclists to do the same. The new route would pass over main roads, eliminating vehicular conflicts and allowing fast travel times. Exits spaced out at quarter or half mile intervals would connect into the existing on street bicycle corridors, creating a network between them. The route would allow bicyclists to bypass some of the busiest arterial roads, reducing conflicts with automobiles and hereby helping automobile traffic move faster, while making the experience safer for cyclists and drivers alike. Just as I-280 and US-101 act as the primary automobile highways along the Peninsula, and Caltrain the primary rail corridor, a bicycle expressway would fill a similar role for bicycles. It would provide a new, direct, and fast grade separated route for workers utilizing bicycling and transit as their primary means of commuting, as well as a dedicated route for recreational bicyclists. The San Francisco peninsula is known for many things, among them a workforce driven by innovative ideas (especially in Silicon Valley), great weather nearly all year round, a culture that largely embraces healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles, and strong support for biking. The bicycle network of the Bay Area, while quite extensive, is simultaneously also quite disconnected. Particularly in the central Peninsula, there are few dedicated off street bicycle corridors, and routes on streets are frequently disconnected to each other. Thus, there is presently no direct means for a bicyclist to traverse many portions of the Peninsula without mixing into automobile traffic, itself a dangerous proposition given the high speed nature of main routes like El Camino Real or the Expressways around San Jose.

Simultaneously, the existing peninsula Caltrain corridor is slated for a much needed change. The present line has not been significantly upgraded for several decades, but has been planned for large scale electrification for many years. When the California High Speed Rail plan was announced between San Francisco and Los Angeles, an opportunity arose to couple that electrification project with a broader reconstruction that also accommodates high speed rail service by expanding, electrifying, and grade separating the corridor. The configuration of the new route, though still undecided, will likely be elevated on an embankment, elevated on a structure, or (if communities along the route are willing to help fund it) trenched. The benefits of grade separation and electrification alone are enormous: eliminating grade crossings allow faster train speeds, eliminate noise pollution from train horns, and electrification removes diesel fumes and noise. Additionally, automobile conflicts with trains are eliminated, also making it safer and faster for drivers to cross the railway. Ideally, a new bicycle route would be directly integrated into the new Caltrain system, making it extremely easy and efficient to bring your bicycle onto a train, thus extending the reach of that transit system. As a hypothetical example, two cars on the north side of each train (the direction of travel is irrelevant) could be designated bicycle cars, and feature extra room for bicycle storage. Where on current trains bringing bicycles on board requires you to carry them up train stairs and through the carriage doors, this process would be dramatically simplified with level boarding. The northern part of each platform would be designated bicycle loading zones, similar to how we have zones for boarding people with wheelchairs; these would in turn connect directly into the expressway. Thus, a train rider could complete a journey to destinations that are beyond convenient walking and bus distances by connecting to the cycle expressway at the station and biking the remaining distance safely. A critic might ask: how much more would such an addition cost? Do we really need to add a bicycle expressway? Adding a new easement would cost more, yes, but the benefits would be equally numerous. Considering that a rebuilt corridor is already slated to cost several billion dollars (regardless of whether HSR is adopted), adding a bicycle route would add only a small fraction to the grand total, yet would provide a dramatically new and fast means to traverse the Peninsula. A new route would dramatically extend the reach of the Caltrain network, providing another means for transit riders to access locations out of walking distance from stations. Since the region is going to rebuild the Peninsula rail corridor anyway, it should be built completely and properly, with the greatest needs of the metropolis factored in. If a bike sharing network is ever introduced in the Bay Area, it would likely make extensive use of the new cycle expressway. The peninsula has unfortunately become the most

even for the next century. Adding a route would benefit the Peninsula tremendously, helping add to the vibrant discourse of ideas that frequently stem from this portion of the country.

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

contentious area for accommodating the planned California High Speed Rail line. The debate has largely failed to recognize the incredible potential of reconstruction to change mobility options in that entire region. Failure to integrate biking into this critical piece of infrastructure would mean that the entire Peninsula will miss an opportunity to add new travel means - or anything similar--to the region for decades, possibly

Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects

University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center 10.2009 03.2010 – 07.2010 The University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center, located in Honolulu, is approximately 149,000 SF and consists of two buildings, the Wet and Dry research facilities, connected by a breezeway and elevator tower. The project was undertaken with the local Hawaiian firm Shimokawa + Nakamura Architects; the Zimmer Gunsul Frasca team, as a subcontractor to the local firm, was in charge of core-and-shell drawings, exterior, and structure of the project. The existing Jabsom Campus is built around a circular green courtyard. The main entrance to the campus is off Ilalo Street, and parking is accessible primarily from adjacent properties to the west. A new fire lane and service road is developed in the ZGF design in order to facilitate loading access. Additionally, the building preserves as much of the courtyard as possible within the buildable area.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS COMPETITION AND PRE-DESIGN • 3D Existing Site and Context Modeling in Sketch-Up • Scheme C Preliminary Design and Sketch-Up Modeling During the competition phase of this project, I spent roughly one week in pre-design, where I created a Sketch-Up model of the existing buildings on the Jabsom Campus, and also created models of an alternative Scheme C.

100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN • Cartoon Set development • Elevations development and strategy • Programming Strategy • Structural Grid management I spent roughly two and a half months in the Schematic Design phase of the Cancer Research Center, working with the team to develop the cartoon set, finalize the program layout, and develop the elevations. My

3D Sketch-Up Model of the Cancer Research Center in Schematic Design. Elevations were my responsibility.

supervisor Hieu Phan and I worked closely. As the building footprint is extensive, including eleven exterior elevations, we divided the building into three sections to clarify drawing sets. I spent several days creating the Sketch-Up model of the building, used to create high quality renderings of the building’s future appearance. At the end of Schematic Design, I shifted to working with the structure.

floor plans as the structural grid continued to shift and finalize, and fire stair design to accommodate changes. Additionally, I worked through technical parts of the curtain walls and elevations, including enlarged plans and sections of the design of the curtain wall structure. My effort in this stage concluded with the development of the physical model, where I created the breezeway area.

50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT • Core and Shell Design and Drawing Management • Floor Plan management • Fire Stair Design management • Grand Staircase Design Management (including implementation in physical model) • Development of the physical building model • Curtain Wall and Roof Details, Enlarged Sections

The Cancer Research Center in the context of its site. The development of the 3D site model had been my responsibility.

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

Through 50% Design Development, I worked closely with the team on structure, core and shell drawings, and stair management. I continuously updated the cartoon set,

OSMAN DADI • 2014

ALL DRAWINGS

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

Various curtain wall enlarged plans and sections I created for the 50% Design Development package.

Enlarged Sheet A1.34, Third Floor, Stair 2, 1/8” = 1’-0”. Our team was tasked with creating core and shell drawings of the building. Configuration of this fire stair was my responsibility.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Sample Grand Staircase Elevator Elevation (scaled to half-size). These drawings were my responsibility.

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

Final Model of the University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center. I had been responsible for creating the staircase tower.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles 11.2009 – 03.2010 The Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Phase III expansion is a seven story, 480,000 SF facility located in Los Angeles, California. The construction administration team consisted of the Project Manager, Project Assessor, and coordination staff for document control, scope, M/E/P, interiors, medical equipment, and other management. As a member of ZGF’s CHLA construction administration team, I utilized the opportunity to provide general support.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

CONTRIBUTIONS • Construction Administration • CCD and RFI Responses • Drawing Database Management I managed a seven year drawing database in Microsoft Access, including updating all catalogs of RFIs, CCDs, ASIs, and documented changes to the permit drawing set. Additionally, I responded to several RFI, CCD, and OSHPD requests from the contractor, clarifying the procedures and details in constructing areas of the project. Construction Change Directive (CCD) 612 addresses details in the construction of a waterproof exterior entry area. Using plans from the drawing set and some axonometric sketches from the staff, I created enlarged sections showing the portion of the entry area in the context of a curb, a seismic joint, a threshold (doorway), a storefront, a drain channel, and at the base of the wall and mechanical fan enclosure.

Partial site plan and enlarged axonometric sketches (shown for reference only, scaled to a quarter the original size).

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

Enlarged sections at curb, seismic joint, storefront, and base of wall. These have been scaled to half the original size.

Santa Clara Family Justice Center 08.2009 - 09.2009 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects was chosen to take part in the design of four courthouses in the state of California, including a District Courthouse in San Jose. Scheme C, shown here and which I worked very closely with Braulio to develop, was selected, and is currently under construction. The 69,500 SF site owned by the county; an additional 10,600 SF owned by the Valley Transportation Authority allows for a combined parcel of 80,000 SF. Based on codes, the maximum allowable height is approximately 223-242 feet tall. Structures within 100 feet of historic landmarks cannot deviate by more than one story from immediately adjacent historic buildings. In no circumstance can they exceed 70 feet within this zone. In this scheme, courtrooms are arranged to be perpendicular to each other, and the judges chambers are organized in a suite. Thus, each courtroom will receive the maximum possible amount of glazing on at-least one face. The newly formed atrium then provides a dramatic presence on St. James Street. Court Administration can be stacked over the court rooms on a seventh level. If necessary in the future, this space can be converted into four additional court rooms, an additional judges chamber, and an additional jury room. This design also maintains a direct pedestrian connection to both the rose garden and to St. James Park.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

Courtrooms Jury Rooms and Court Support Secure Holding Areas Judges Facilities (private access only) Court Services and Staff Support (first level) Waiting Areas Dependency, Family, and Drug Justice Partners Administrative Facilities Dependency and Drug Clerks Probate and Civil Grand Jury Facilities Child Waiting Facility Sheriff Operations Office Self Help Center Mechanical Areas Circulation

SITE ANALYSIS PARCEL

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROCESS

Primar • Own • Appr

• SketchUp Modeling of all schemes (including shown) • Programming and Building Layout • Presentation Graphics and Materials Over a span of two weeks, I worked to develop one of the proposals for the Courthouse. Due to the L-shape of the site, ZGF proposed two linear schemes; however, I thought it wise to work on an alternative which configured courthouses at a right angle. In doing so, and by placing other required facilities on a third side, I discovered the potential for a multistory atrium for the building that would allow light into the waiting areas, create a grand presence on the primary access street, and also allow the maximum penetration of light into the courtrooms. Public circulation would best be suited where the atrium, public space, and mixed court facilities were situated closest to each other. Utilizing these ideas, I developed a strong proposal which moved forward as one of the alternatives in the final presentation bid for the project. I coordinated the program layout for this scheme to minimize height, and helped develop the final 3D model that was utilized in animations. Ultimately, ZGF won this competition and SITE ANALYSIS developed a variation LOCATION of my original concept.

City Limits

VTA 20’ setback

Expand • Addi • Own Auth • Com appr

SITE ANALYSIS PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

• Conn Dow and O • Majo car, w on N • Pede and t First

• San Jose is the third largest California city • The project parcels are part of the Downtown Core and subject to specific design guidelines and SITE ANALYSIS RELATIONSHIPS zoning ordinances

Site

• Xxxx Civic • St Xxxx Ja • Servi along Nort • Deta Hwy and e on D

Bus Service Zone

Downtown

Public Zone

Automobiles and other vehicles gain primary access to the site from CA Hwy 87 along St. James St. Pedestrians can access the site from the adjacent Downtown Superior Court and Old Courthouse. Most visitors arriving via automobile will park in and walk from a parking structure on North Market Street. Transit users and other pedestrians will access the site from the transit mall on North First Street. Service and loading zone areas will be designated along Devine Street and North Market Streets, away from pedestrian usage. Detainee Buses will arrive from Hwy 87 along St. James Street and enter a secure sallyport on Devine Street. As the new courthouse will be operating in tandem with existing civic buildings directly south, there is a civic building relationship along St. James St, as well as an urban park and plaza relationship along North First Street

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

Rose Garden

PROGRAM SYNTHESIS An early sketch conveys the layout of the ground floor, sallyport, public courtyard, and main entry area.

scan; original size || Osman Dadi || 2009-2010 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects || Los Angeles, California ||

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

Arranging the courtrooms perpendicular to each other and stacking them creates a dramatic presence on St. James Street.

PROGRAM SYNTHESIS A sketch showing the typical layout of upper floors.

scan; original size

An extra floor can be accommodated with court adminstration if necessary.

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

36 || Osman Dadi || 2009-2010 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects LLP || Los Angeles, California ||

PROGRAM SYNTHESIS

Duke

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

The layout of the courtrooms allows a south facing seven story public atrium consisting of circulation and waiting areas.

A grand entryway is developed to the southeast.

PROGRAM SYNTHESIS

ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA ARCHITECTS

This strategy creates judges suites, and allows maximum light penetration into the courtrooms.

Rice University School of Architecture

Menil Museum Cafe 01.2011 - 05.2011

PROCESS

The Menil Café was produced collaboratively within the Rice Building Workshop, a subset of the Rice School of Architecture led by Professors Nonya Grenader and Danny Samuels. Our RBW studio of ten graduate and fifth year students created three schemes for the museum proposal, of which two were advanced to a final design selection phase. The scheme below presents the second option, known as “Scheme C,” which I worked on for approximately three months. The renderings shown were developed as a team within the studio. This proposal was ultimately dropped in favor of the alternative, “Scheme A.”

This scheme occupies the open lot to the east of the bookstore. Visitors approach the café from the path connecting the West Alabama parking lot to Sul Ross Street or directly from the sidewalk on Sul Ross. A system of heavy walls supporting an expansive roof defines this scheme. The continuous wall on the building’s eastern edge forms the backdrop for activity in the café and outdoors. A linear skylight connecting the roof to this wall washes it in indirect sunlight, illuminating board-formed concrete texture. The other “heavy” north/south walls respond to the two ways of moving through the site: the faster axis parallel to the path and the slower east/west axis tying the bookstore to the café. A series of lighter walls perpendicular to the heavy walls reinforce the porosity of the north/south axis. Outdoors, the roof forms a deep overhang above seating areas, but allows indirect light through a steel shade trellis. While the walls and roof shelter protect occupants from harsh western sunlight, the openness of spaces between walls and through the shade trellis celebrates views of both the Menil Collection and the greenery of the open lawn behind the bookstore.

CONTRIBUTIONS • Schematic Design • Design Development • Site Programming • Interior Design and Lighting • Roof Design and Layout • Building Plans and Sections, including final drawings • Wall Sections and Details Development • Final Model

text used with permission from the Menil Cafe Booklet.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

A bove , Pe Scheme rspe ct i veCloviewed o king No rtheas from Sul Ros s Street from thet Menil Museum.

Ri c e B ui l d i ng Wor ks ho

4’

8’

16’

Scheme C Site Plan.

Si te Pl an: 1 ” =5 0 ’-0 ”

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Scheme C

0’

Ri ce B uil ding Works h o p

bookstore bookstore

Conc D ianize g rasm :apP im a r y wa lls o rg a nize s pa c e . DiD a giara m:mPri mC ary wal l sept p ce. pt g ra : Primary wal lorganize siagra orga arce. onc ept D m: P r sim r y wa lls o rg a nize s pa c e .

Views from Cafe Views from Cafe

Views from Cafe.

0’ 0’

4’ 4’

8’ 8’

0’ 16’16’ 0’ 4’

4’

8’

Scheme C

Entry sequence.

i c e Bui ldi ng Workshop pc eR Bu il d i ng Workshop

Adjacent green space.

16’

Scheme C

Entry Seq u ence Entry Seq u en ce

quenece Sequ nce

e n t Gre e n S pac e Adjac e netnGre e neS e Adjac Adjac t Gre n pac S pac e Adjac e n t Gre e n S pac e

Scheme C Scheme C

Primary walls organize space.

bookstore bookstore

16’

2727

West El evatio n: 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

North Elevation.

N orth El evatio n: 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

0’ 30

OSMAN DADI • 2014

8’

16’

Ri ce B ui l di ng Workshop

South Elevation.

S ou th Elevation : 3/ 32”= 1’-0”

Scheme C

4’

Floor Pl an: 3 /3 2”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

Scheme C Floor Plan.

0’

4’

8’

16’ Ri ce B ui l di ng Workshop

West Elevation.

West Eleva t io n: 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

N orth E leva t io n: 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ” 0’ 30

4’

8’

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

16’

Ri ce B ui l di ng Workshop

S ou th Elevation : 3/ 32”= 1’-0”

Scheme C

Section at kitchen. S e c tion A: 3/ 32”= 1’-0” 0’

4’

8’

16’

Ri ce B u il ding Works h o p

Section at serving counter.

Sec tion B : 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ” Sec tion B : 3 /3 2”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

Section at bathroom and entry corridor.

Sec tion C: 3/3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ”

0’

Sec tion C: 3 /3 2 ”= 1 ’ - 0 ” 32

0’

OSMAN DADI • 2014

8’

16’

Ri ce 8’ B ui l di ng Workshop 16’

Ri ce B ui l di ng Workshop

Section at Cafe seating area with skylight. S e c tion D: 3/ 32”= 1’-0”

Scheme C

4’ 4’

Model perspective looking north from Sul Ross Street.

Top , Mod e l Pe rsp c t i ve l o o k i ng N o r t h f ro m S ul Ro s s St re e t

A b ove , M o d e l Pe rs p e c t i ve l o o k i n g N o r t h e a s t

R i c e B u i l d i n g Wo r ks h o

Model perspective looking southeast. A b ove , M o d e l Pe rs p e c t i ve l o o k i n g S o u t h e a s t

Aerial perspective from Menil Collection, 1/8”=1’-0”.

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

i c e B u i l d i n g Wo r ks h o p

Interpretive Music Center - Houston 08.2008 - 12.2008

PROCESS

The Interpretive Music Center is situated on a north facing L-shaped infill site in Midtown Houston. The center’s purpose “revolves around the study, performance and promotion of the works of contemporary musical artists, works that remain relevant, influential and significant across generations of interpreters and listeners.” The 12,000 square foot program consists of an exhibition gallery, general multipurpose space, performance space, administrative office suite and supporting library, gift shop & bookstore, lobby, courtyard, and basement mechanical space.

The IMCH solution explores the flexibility of an infill site by creating a courtyard in the rear using an interior light well, thereby allowing light to enter into the main building from the front and rear. The scheme evolved as a cube over a void, the former containing the primary program. A core connects all levels while dividing the cube into primary and secondary spaces. The building language is repeated in the lateral direction, creating terraces overlooking the event spaces. As the site faces north, the primary source of light is from the back of the building, allowing the building to be lit from the interior and draw people in. The rear facade is open to the courtyard; the front facade contains a mechanical light filtration system that provides insulation from humidity. A spiral staircase ties the interior spaces together.

An early sketch of the main performance space.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

67 Osman Dadi 2009

Model detail showing primary event spaces and grand stair.

Transverse building section.

Sunlight filters into the light well from the rear of the project, creating a dramatic silhouette effect.

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

The principal facade of the IMCH, at 1/4”=1’-0”.

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown Basement

Floor Plan, 11 feet below ground level.

79 Osman Dadi 2009

Rice University School of Architecture 80

79 Osman Dadi 2009

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown 1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ 79 Osman Dadi 2009 scale shown

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Ground Floor Plan.

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown

1/16”:1’ original scale

79 Osman Dadi3/128”:1’ 2009 scale shown

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown

Third Floor Plan, 25 feet 4 inches.

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown 1/16”:1’ original scale

79 Osman Dadi3/128”:1’ 2009 scale shown 83 Osman 82 Dadi 2009 Rice University School of Architecture

Fourth Floor Plan, 32 feet.

A cross section of the model with light well and building program.

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown

Second Floor Plan, 14 feet.

1/16”:1’ original scale

79 Osman Dadi3/128”:1’ 2009 scale shown 81 Osman Dadi 2009

Primary building section.

75 Osman Dadi 2009

1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown

Fifth Floor Plan, 48 feet 8 inches.

1/16”:1’ original scale

79 Osman Dadi3/128”:1’ 2009 scale shown Rice University School of Architecture 84

An early light study.

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

shows light well/courtyard to right, main spaces center a spiral staircase connects all levels 1/16”:1’ original scale 3/128”:1’ scale shown

Slab Space 08.2007 - 12.2007 The Slab Space project, conducted during the Architecture 301 studio, aimed to “transform the “slab” into an affective surface for a medium-high density residential resort community on the edge of urban Houston,” by utilizing concepts of morphogenesis, computation, and modeling in digital format

PROCESS

Phase 1: The Spine and Rib system.

PHASE I A simple spine and rib system was created by first folding an 8” x 2” slip of paper to create a simple unit. Three or more of these units create a spine that can torque and bend in many different directions. Ribs are created by binding two spines with connectors. A stable superstructure evolves once three spines are built into a rib system.

PHASE 2 My partner and I merged our rib and spine systems and created two different superstructures: a lateral typology and a tower typology. In the lateral system, the units are versatile spaces, while the ribs provide all structure and circulation. The tower system utilizes the same concept, but vertically.

Phase 2: Lateral typology with circulation system deployment.

PHASE 3 The lateral proposal from Phase 2 was applied to develop an urban resort and retail community for young adults in Houston. The superstructure includes a diverse array of different retail and residential uses. Open spaces provide zones for public activity.

Phase 3: Habitable spaces are added to the rib and spine system.

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Phase 3: Final superstructure.

hs shown, respective to units dering

ign shown dering

Circulation network diagram.

NODES INTERIOR ARTERIALS

PARKING NODES PARKING ACCESS

LIGHT RAIL NODES LIGHT RAIL ACCESS

RAIL STATIONS LIGHT RAIL ACCESS

CONVENTION NODES EXTERIOR ARTERIALS

3D modeling of circulation system, facing north.

RICE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Rice University School of Architecture 42

Wetlands Research Center and Pavilion 08.2006 - 10.2006 The students in our Architecture 201 studio, with Professors Doug Oliver and Jim Ray, were to independently create a research and display pavilion intended for the study of wetlands ecosystems and the promotion of public awareness of environmental conservation.

PROCESS The Wetlands Research Center condenses a 200 square foot lab space, 300 square foot greenhouse with 20 foot high ceilings, and 300 square foot visitor’s area into a compact, space efficient layout utilizing two layered fields. The primary field is structural, consisting of castin-place concrete beams and columns that span the building exterior. A secondary, horizontal solar screening system provides shade to exposed areas of the building for passive climate control. The greenhouse exists as its own entity on one side of the building, whereas the visitor’s center and stacked over the research lab area on the other side of the building. Circulation is provided through a staircase at the center of the building, housing a cistern beneath it. The building uses a water cooling system that drains Front Elevation rain water from the roof into the cistern using the viewing into greenhouse sloped 1/4”:1’ scaleroof, then pumping water back over the building basswood and plastic during sunny daytime hours, thus absorbing heat while consequently cooling and dampening the interior of the greenhouse. This passive cooling system is aided by high Roof Detail performance glazingmodulating systems that provide additional water collection and temperature system 1/4”:1’ scale insulation. basswood and plastic

OSMAN DADI • 2014

Aerial model view showing glass roof structure over greenhouse.

View of model facing south, showing primary greenhouse facade.

19 Osman Dadi 2009 19 Osman Dadi 2009

Model view looking southeast, showing entryway and greenhouse.

View of model facing northeast and the main visitor area.

Rice University School of Architecture 20

17 Osman Osman Dadi Dadi 2009 2009 17

First Floor Plan, ink on vellum.

Typical Section, ink on vellum.

Model detail of layered roof structure and solar shades.

86 R

R CENM NT EN ER T

R C E CO OMD R LL M OC EG UN KS E IT Y

Golden W AR D

AR VA DA

PE CO

AL BL VD

BL VD ID AN SH ER

FE DE R

COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW

OX DE CA TU

RR PE

th /12 AN ID

25th/WELTON 20th/WELTON

Downtown

AR M LA

35th/DOWNING 33rd/DOWNING 30th/DOWNING

A NI OR IF IA AL RN /C O th IF 18 L / R A CT TE /C RI EN th ST C IA 16 DI N AR E IO R TR NT AU EA VE AT TH N X COLFA CO

AURARIA WEST CAMPUS

29th/WELTON 27th/WELTON

/ th T 16 OU ST

INVESCO FIELD AT MILE HIGH

/ th T 18 OU ST

PEPSI CENTER ETLICH CENTER

Five Points

DENVER UNION STATION

W AD

COLORADO BLVD

AV E

38th/BLAKE

ALAMEDA

I-25/BROADWAY

LOUISIANA/ PEARL

Personal Work UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

EVANS

COLORADO/BUCHTEL

BATES

YALE

ENGLEWOOD

SOUTHMOOR OXFORD/CITY OF SHERIDAN

TAKScopes 12.2010 - 04.2011 At the Rice University Center for Technology in Teaching and Learning, I created graphics for TAKScopes, an online educational learning platform for young students.

THE EARTH: These images depict geographical concepts to children. They were hand drawn and shaded digitally.

Glacier.

Stream.

Mountain.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

Groundwater.

Ocean.

Cloud.

Animal.

PERSONAL WORK

Plant.

MINISCOPES SNOWMAN Depict a snowman in the following conditions:

Control.

Temperature of the hot plate.

Placing the snowman in a pan.

Size of the hot plate.

Placement of the snowman.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

Size of the snowman.

MINISCOPES LEVER Depict a lever and alien in the following conditions:

Control.

Alien size.

Fulcrum location.

Board size.

Fulcrum size.

PERSONAL WORK

Weight.

Vision for Houston Rail 2050 04.2011 – 07.2011

it is sensible to connect them directly: the Blue, Purple, and Green lines from downtown to uptown, a modified rapid Red Line between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, and the belt Yellow line connection Uptown, Greenway Plaza, and the Galleria. These trunk routes are extended into the inner and outer suburbs while providing extensions to airports and other economic hubs. Light rail and streetcar networks complement the trunk routes by providing more localized service. The Houston regional rail system stems from a new High Speed Rail trunk route that extends northwest towards Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio; to the southeast to New Orleans and Galveston. Regional rail routes converge at a new central station in downtown. Frequent transfers between the different rail systems allow for maximum travel flexibility for a transit rider. The system is designed in a grid rather than hub-andspoke format due to the polycentric metropolitan area.

Houston was my home for five years while at Rice University. The sprawling nature of the metropolitan area is fueled largely by one of the largest, continually expanding highway networks in the nation. The city’s red line light rail corridor is nevertheless successful. I believe the current light rail extension plans are inadequate and inefficient for a city of this size. Thus, I sought to present a long term rapid transit vision for the metropolitan area that could comprehensively serve the city and provide viable alternatives to driving.

PROCESS The Houston rail system is envisioned as an extension of the current plans. Three major nodes exist at Market Square in downtown, the Galleria Center in Uptown, and the Texas Medical Center complex. As these districts are the triangulated hub of economic activity in the city, 

 

290





 









 



 





 

 





 

 















 

 







            



 290



 





 















  





610





 

  

 









  

610



145

 



  

















 



 

 







 

   

    









 

245



288



610



  



 





 



         



 

 610





      

610

 









 





 

 







 

     



225

 45



  



 



 



 



 





 

 



     

    

 



 

  

 

         

 







 







  45

 

 







 





 

 







 



 









 

         

















527





  

  



 









      













 





 







   



  

      





 



 















OSMAN DADI • 2014







 









  





    



 















  











        



 



 







 

          

  

 

 





 



  

















 

 



  







 

       





 



 





 





 





  



 



610

 



  

      

 



 

 

 













 









 

45 610



 







 





288



The final product is 24” x 17”.

 

A preliminary concept diagram.

PERSONAL WORK

Early network study.

290 8









 

 

  

  

  









 

 

 610













 







 







 

 

   

























 













       





 









 

 



 





 

      



 



 



 







  













   







 





  





    





 



610





 



      











  

 



 



610

  

 









610



145

 











 







    







 

 



 





 

  













  





   

      

















        



















  











 

   

 





 

 





245

288









527







 















 59

 









         









         











 

















  

      

 















 















 

















  

 

  

 











 

610





Federal Heights

Denver 2020

12.2011 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Present

Pecos Street

St ak e

St pa

ue zB lvd

East 1st Ave

H Broadway

ALAMEDA

Santa Fe Drive

I-25/BROADWAY

The RTD Map at scale; the full version is on the facing page.

Glendale

LOUISIANA/ PEARL UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

E F H

Eas

83 Lee t

Quebec Street

SA /O

10 th

Blv d

East 6th Ave

R TE

eer

287

Colorado Blvd

UR KN OX DE CA T

Y PE RR

th /12 AN ER ID SH

N A CE NI N OR LL IO IF HA IA N L NT AL TY /C CI OR AL VE IF Y H N th 18 AL CIT /CO /C T C th RI 16 ST A DI RI RA AU

West Jewell Ave

29th/WELTON 27th/WELTON 25th/WELTON 20th/WELTON

30th/DOWNING

E TR EA

CENT PARK

35th/DOWNING 33rd/DOWNING

Va sq

E NU

/ th 18 UT O ST AX LF

West Alameda Ave

Five Points

/ th 16 OUT ST

Sheridan

COLORADO BLVD

Downtown

AURARIA WEST CAMPUS

J 38th/BLAKE

DENVER UNION STATION

270

Quebec Street

S PE CO

287

INVESCO FIELD AT MILE HIGH

6th Ave

COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW

PEPSI CENTER ETLICH CENTER

West Colfax Ave

A L

AV E

West 32nd Ave

Commerce City

AL BL VD FE DE R

SH ER

ID AN

BL VD

Bri gh

ton

Blv d

of the system, the identifiable geographic assets of the Denver region such as the Front Range, and the sprawling nature of the city, I deemed it important to convey this information in a large and easily navigable 6 format. 85 Washington Street

Ralston Road

Federal Blvd

Sheridan Blvd

Denver is currently engaging in one of the fastest rail transit expansions in the United States. I am intrigued by the project, and desired to create an improved version of the current RTD map that encompasses new lines, extensions, and major destinations that would be useful to a rider.

South Colorado Blvd

The Denver RTD system encompasses eight light

36 rail routes and four regional rail routes within the 72ND AVENUE P 270 76the downtown metropolitan area. Due to centric nature

SOUTH WESTMINSTER

York Street

West 72nd Ave

Downing Street

Westminster

Guide to Denver RTD 2014 Rail and Rapid Bus Network

Main Street

North Foothills Hwy

287

North 95th St

wy al H Dia go n

Broadway

East Ken Pratt Blvd

119

th 107 rth

DOWNTOWN BOULDER

West Baseline Road

BOULDER TRANSIT VILLAGE

Boulder

119

Longmont

LONGMONT

GUNBARREL

119

East Baseline Road

162nd AVENUE

6 76

East 160th Ave

Brighton

K 470 LOUISVILLE

TABLE MESA

McCASLIN

144th AVENUE

124th AVENUE

112th AVENUE

Sable Blvd

FLATIRON

BroomямБeld

121

East 120th Ave

128

Hw Ca na m

Northglenn

Colorado Blvd

Washington Street

128

Huron Street

CHURCH RANCH 104th AVENUE

WALNUT CREEK

Sheridan Blvd

Wadsworth Pkwy

South Foothills Hwy

West 120th Ave

287

BROOMFIELD

North Federal Blvd

470

West 104th Ave

East 104th Ave

104th AVENUE

East 104th Ave

K Co al

Cre

WESTMINSTER CENTER

nyo n

Ro ad

West 88th Ave

Thornton

287

88th AVENUE

East 88th Ave

DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

2 Indiana Street

Westminster

Federal Heights

Blv d ton gh

Pena Blvd

Peoria Street

Quebec Street

lvd zB

North Airport Road

Havana Street

Peoria Street

25 87

DAYTON East Quincy Ave

lvd

South University Blvd

South Buckley Road

South Downing Street

South Broadway

SOUTHMOOR

CB DT

83 30

East Iliff Ave P

South Chambers Road

Quebec Street

Havana Street

York Street

Colorado Blvd

South Colorado Blvd

Santa Fe Drive South Federal Blvd

North Chambers Road

St pa am Ch

Broadway

South Wadsworth Blvd

South Sheridan Blvd

ILIFF

YALE

Cherry Hills Village

East Belleview Ave

BELLEVIEW

Greenwood Village

ORCHARD uth

177

West Bowles Ave

ARAPAHOE AT VILLAGE CENTER

S Yosemite Street

COUNTY LINE

E F G

470 LINCOLN

East Lincoln Ave

SKY RIDGE

Parker

LONE TREE CENTER Ridge Gate Pkwy

RIDGE GATE PARKWAY

San

South Quebec Street

Lucent Blvd

Highlands Ranch Pkwy

Highlands Ranch

a Ro

C-470/LUCENT

East Arapahoe Road

DRY CREEK

C D

121 470

Centennial

West Mineral Ave

East Dry Creek Road P

a Ro

LITTLETON MINERAL

East Arapahoe Road

r ke

West Ken Caryl Ave

r Pa

Columbine

South Wadsworth Blvd

G H

NINE MILE

West Littleton Blvd

285

a Ro

West Belleview Ave

391

East Mississippi Ave

East Hampden Ave

285

470

FLORIDA

r ke

South Kipling Pkwy

B ve

r Pa

E F H

Aurora

Dri

COLORADO/BUCHTEL

Littleton LITTLETON DOWNTOWN

225 ale

East Alameda Ave

83 tsd

40 287

East 6th Ave

2nd AVENUE - ABILENE

AURORA Lee

e Av

d Blv

OXFORD/CITY OF SHERIDAN

East Colfax Ave

40 287

East Alameda Ave

ry Low

East

Glendale

Cre

C D Englewood

COLFAX

13th AVENUE

East Evans Ave

BATES

285

MONTVIEW

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER P

ENGLEWOOD

285

ue Va sq

GE SA /O

R TE EN LC RA DE FE Av e da me Ala We st

Bri

Washington Street

E R

Y RR PE

/12 AN ID ER SH

W AD

M LA

RR GA

OX DE CA TU

TH OR

R C E CO OMD R LL M OC EG UN KS E IT Y

ER NT CE T EN

NT CE

NIA

CIT

T/C

Be o

rris

Bear Creek Road

225

East Colfax Ave

LOUISIANA/ PEARL

PEORIA

East 1st Ave

I-25/BROADWAY

EVANS

287

R AU

CIT

Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd

East 6th Ave

Blv d

ALAMEDA

40TH/AIRPORT

29th/WELTON 27th/WELTON 25th/WELTON 20th/WELTON

West Evans Ave

30th/DOWNING

AL IF

eer

West Jewell Ave

35th/DOWNING 33rd/DOWNING

/C AL

DIS

oa nR

CENTRAL PARK

18 /C

121

70 COLORADO BLVD

Downtown

Sheridan

470

West Alameda Ave

391

AX LF

Lakewood

6th Ave

NU st

TR EA

Five Points

/ th 16 OUT ST

e Av

e Av ax olf st C

/ th 18 UT O ST

6th South Golden Road

270

East 56th Ave

AURARIA WEST CAMPUS

West Colfax Ave

J 38th/BLAKE

DENVER UNION STATION

INVESCO FIELD AT MILE HIGH

COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW

AV E

287

PEPSI CENTER ETLICH CENTER

Wheat Ridge

Bla

A L

eet Str West 32nd Ave

Commerce City

6 19th

S CO

Ford e nd Av

DE FE

121

72ND AVENUE

t 32 Wes

Golden

Pecos Street

LV D LB RA

AN ID ER SH

391

BL VD

N DE OL

Kipling Street

VA D

RID

A P

D W AR

B A

Ralston Road

270

Downing Street

Ward Road

Arvada

Federal Blvd

West 64th Ave

Sheridan Blvd

Wadsworth Blvd

SOUTH WESTMINSTER

Pena Blvd

87 West 72nd Ave

Fe ve Dri

Services

Light Rail Services

Express Rail Services

WEST

JEFFCO GOVT. CENTER to UNION STATION

ARVADA

JEFFCO GOVT. CENTER to UNION STATION

SOUTHWEST

C-470/LUCENT to UNION STATION

AIRPORT

C-470/LUCENT to UNION STATION

SOUTHWEST

C-470/LUCENT to DOWNTOWN 18TH ST

NORTH

C-470/LUCENT to DOWNTOWN 18TH ST

SOUTHEAST

RIDGEGATE PARKWAY to UNION STATION

NORTHWEST

RIDGEGATE PARKWAY to UNION STATION

SOUTHEAST

RIDGEGATE PARKWAY to DOWNTOWN 18TH ST

I-225 CORRIDOR

RIDGEGATE PARKWAY to PEORIA

I-225 CORRIDOR

AURORA to DOWNTOWN 18TH ST

UPTOWN

DOWNTOWN 18TH ST to 38TH/BLAKE

DENVER - BOULDER US36 BRT

PARKING

PERSONAL WORK

Urban Art From an early age, I have been fascinated with transportation systems. Growing up in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, I spent considerable time studying maps of Montgomery County, Maryland, and the surrounding Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area. Recognizing patterns in urban infrastructure over time, from the growth of the railway and streetcar cities in the early 20th century, to the subsequent demise of the central city and growth of the suburbs through freeways and road networks, I sought to recreate fictitious cities following the same growth paradigm. Shown here are just a few of over one hundred of these drawings that model highways, railways, and general urban ideas.

OSMAN DADI â&#x20AC;˘ 2014

PERSONAL WORK

OSMAN DADI • 2014

100

101

PERSONAL WORK

OSMAN DADI • 2014

102

CONTACT OSMAN DADI Phone: (240) 449-9428 Email: osman.dadi@gmail.com

CURRENT ADDRESS 82 Farm Lake Crescent Road Chappaqua, NY 10514