Working Paper VII

8/7/2019 Working Paper VII

1/53

Working Paper 7

BioDistrict New Orleans

Ref ned Alternative PlansFebruary 2011


2/53

2 February 2011Working Paper 7 Table o Contents

01 02

Task 7 Overview

07

Format o the Public

Meeting

Refi ned Alternative

Plans

12

Alternative A:

Civic/Institutional

Development Focus

16

Alternative B:

NeighborhoodDevelopment Focus

19

Alternative C:

Strategic Node

Development Focus

23

Alternative D:

Baseline Development

Focus

26

Plan Comparison

Section:

Table o Contents

03

Public Comments

29

General Comments

30

Alternative A Comments

32

Alternative B Comments

35

Alternative C Comments

37

Alternative D Comments

39

Previous Public

Comments


3/53

3

Acknowledgement

The AECOM team would like to acknowledge

the GNOBEDD Board and sta or their input and

engagement during this Task. This report has also been

developed in coordination with the entire AECOM

team. The team includes: EDAW / AECOM, AECOM

Economics, AECOM Transportation, Bright Moments,

Cannon Design, CBRE, Chester Engineers and The

Ehrhardt Group.

04

Appendices

43

Appendix A:

Stakeholder Sign-In

Sheets

45

Appendix B:

Maps: StakeholderMark-ups

49

Appendix C:

Technical Comments:

Consultant Team


4/53

4 February 2011Working Paper 7 Table o Contents

This page intentionally let blank.


5/53

5

Section 01:

Task 7 Overview


6/53

6 Working Paper 7 Task 7 Overview February 2011

BioDistrict New Orleans. The Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans Arena and key existing and proposed

institutional developments are shown in blue.


7/53

7

Task 7 Overview: Ref ned Alternative PlansThe purpose o Task 7, Ref ned Alternative Plans, was to

evaluate and ref ne the alternate plan concepts created

during the Task 6 physical planning workshops. The

elements identif ed in these 10 plans were aggregated

into our alternatives, each with a di erent development

ocus. These plans were presented or public comment at

an open community meeting on Saturday, January 15, 2011.

The meeting was held rom 9 a.m. - 12 noon at Jesuit High

School on Carrollton Avenue, and was attended by almost

40 people. Stakeholder sign-in sheets can be ound in

Appendix A.

The our alternatives were also subject to a multi-disciplinary

technical review by the AECOM Team; these comments

regarding transportation, utility inrastructure, and market

economics can be ound in Appendix C.

.

Format of the Public MeetingThe public meeting used a combined presentation/small

group eedback ormat. James McNamara, President and

CEO o the BioDistrict New Orleans, began the meeting with

an overview o the BioDistricts history, responsibilities and

goals. Bill Vitek o AECOM ollowed this introduction with a

presentation o the our alternatives, which are detailed in

Section 2 o this working paper.

Following this presentation, the public was invited to

discuss each plan in small groups; plans o each alternativewere put on our tables, with a acilitator at each table.

The public was asked to draw directly on the plans and /

or discuss their ideas and concerns with the acilitator.

Comments rom these discussions are contained in

Section 3.


8/53

8 February 2011Working Paper 7 Task 7 Overview



9/53

9

Section 02:

Ref ned Alternative

Plans


10/53

10 February 2011Working Paper 7 Alternative Plan Concepts



11/53

11

Alternative Plan ConceptsThe ollowing pages show the our alternative plans that emerged rom conceptual plans produced in the Task 6 physical

planning workshops. Each alternative explores a di erent development ocus, and the our plans together o er a spectrum o

development densities. The our plan oci are: civic/institutional, neighborhood, strategic node, and baseline. All alternatives

look to the uture land use plan adopted in the city s 2030 Master Plan to guide development options.

The our alternative plans explore varying levels o civic, retail, park and residential uses.


12/53


Summary:

Alternative A ocuses development energy in the riversideportion o the BioDistrict, emphasizing civic and institutional

expansion as a catalyst to revitalize this area and the central

business district and to bring additional employment into

the area. A new allied Health Sciences Campus located in

the ormer Charity Hospital complex is a key driver o the

redevelopment in this area. The shared campus would be

used by UNO, SUNO, Dillard, Xavier, LSU, Tulane and other

institutions related to biotechnology/biomedical f elds o

study. A new civic center with a renovated and expanded

City Hall, redesigned Duncan Plaza and new municipal

courts is also proposed in this area. The resulting increase

in daytime activity rom both o these two signaturedevelopments will promote additional complementary retail

and commercial development to serve this expanding pool

o consumers.

Future expansion is shown or LSU and Tulane Medical

School. A redesigned Phase II o the University Medical

Alternative A: Civic/Institutional Development Focus

Center is shown lakeside o Claiborne between Tulane Avenue

and Canal Street. The redesign maintains the existing street

grid, ocuses development on Tulane Avenue and Canal

Street to reinorce an urban eel and includes a central park

space that aligns with the central greenway/pedestrian mall

proposed by Tulanes master plan.

A conceptual plan or a neuroscience / sports medicine center

is located on the corner o Claiborne Avenue and Poydras

Street. This use and associated plaza creates a gateway to the

redesigned Claiborne Avenue. A large park with a recreation

center is adjacent to this research complex and along I-10.

In addition to serving as a recreational amenity or theneighborhoods in and around the BioDistrict, the park would

also help manage stormwater runo rom rainstorms and

ood events.

The area bounded by Tulane Avenue and Galvez, Broad, and

Poydras streets is redeveloped with multiamily residential,

Alternative A Illustrative


13/53

13

mixed use, and research and development acilities to

complement adjacent institutional land uses. Research and

development uses are adjacent to LSU to enhance potential

synergies between the two uses. Multi-story higher density

residential is adjacent to the existing multi-amily residential

along Broad Street. Retail and mixed use buildings ront

Tulane Avenue with retail on the ground oor with either

residential or o ce above.

Neighborhood redevelopment in Mid-City is limited, with

a modest amount o attached single amily units ronting

on and east o Broad Street. A new public space, sized to

accommodate community gatherings and events, ronts

a combined library and community center to act as both

a visual terminus to Banks Street and to provide a bu er

on the existing neighborhood and VA Hospital. A series

o recreational f elds and associated park space is also

proposed across the street rom Warren Easton High School.

Neighborhood redevelopment is also limited in Gert Town.

Key elements include the reopening o the Gert Town

Alternative A Key Development Areas

elementary school, replacement o the existing cement actory

with park space, and the creation o a mixed use village

across rom the Xavier campus. The uture buildout o Xavier

University is also shown on the plan.

A bioscience manuacturing business park is located in the

existing light industrial area uptown o I-10 and riverside o

Je Davis Parkway. Both new buildings and reuse o existing

buildings are proposed in this area and are arranged around

a new central park that connects into the greater greenway

system proposed in the plan.

New parkspace and enhancements o existing parkspace

are a key element o this plan. In addition to the new parks

mentioned above a new Rails to Trails multiuse trail links

Xavier and Gert Town with the other institutions in the

BioDistrict.


14/53


Street Connectivity & Enhancements

The roadway ramework is similar in all our alternative

concept plans. All major arterial roadways receive enhanced

streetscapes, with an emphasis on sidewalk continuity and

regular street trees.

A signif cant component o this plan is the redesign o

Claiborne Avenue. The intersection with I-10 has been

reconf gured to limit the number o on/o ramps and the

elevated portion o I-10 over Claiborne Avenue has been

removed. This allows Claiborne Avenue to become a signature

street knitting together the riverside and lakeside ends o the

BioDistrict. It also allows or the assembly and development

o currently underutilized lands that are located under the

network o on/o ramps. Finally, the lakeside o Poydras is

redesigned into a street similar in character to the segment

riverside o Claiborne Avenue in ront o the Superdome.

Tulane Avenue transitions to a Smart Street, with both

above-and below-ground improvements. At the street level,

the street section will change rom three vehicular lanes ineach direction, to two lanes and a bike lane separated by a

median. Complementary behind-the-curb improvements

will establish an attractive, sae, inviting pedestrian realm.

These enhancements align with those recommended by the

Street Connectivity and Enhancements

Key Elements:

City Hall Revitalization and associated

redevelopment o Duncan Plaza.

A new Allied Health Sciences Campus in the

ormer Charity complex.

A new design or Phase II o the University

Medical Center Campus.

Expansion o Tulane Medical School.

Neuroscience / Sports Medicine Center.

Civic Center node with library and community

center at Broad Street and Tulane Avenue.

New Gert Town / Xavier Village development.

Reconf guration o I-10/Claiborne Avenue

interchange.

Claiborne Avenue at grade.

Rails to Trails multiuse trail between Xavier/Gert

Town and LSU and the other institutions in the

BioDistrict

Large park between I-10 and Poydras Street with

a recreation center and playing f elds


15/53

15

Pedestrian Connectivity

Regional Planning Commissions studies or the redesign

o the corridor. Below-ground upgrades will allow remote

monitoring and real-time assessments o underground utilities

such as sewer, water, electric and f ber optic.

Unique to this plan is the roundabout at the new eastern

terminus o Banks Street, creating a ocal point and entry

eature or the new library and community center. In tandem

with this modif ed intersection, two blocks o Banks Street

is removed to allow parcel aggregation or the library and

community center.

Pedestrian Connections

The enhancement o streets throughout the BioDistrict

with improved sidewalks allows or improved pedestrian

connectivity throughout the area. The large network o

greenspace and the creation o a new Rails to Trails multiuse

trail between Xavier and Gert Town with the other institutions

in the BioDistrict also creates new primary and secondary

linkages or pedestrian movement that currently do not exist.


16/53


Alternative B: Neighborhood Development Focus

Summary:

Alternative B seeks to leverage public investment in the ormo neighborhood-scale amenities as a means to community

revitalization. LSU, Tulane, UMC and other area institutions

are let to develop on their own. The main development

shown on the riverside portion o the BioDistrict is the

renovation o City Hall and Duncan Plaza, similar to

Alternative A. A large plaza is located across rom the

Superdome to help create a gateway to Claiborne Avenue.

The plaza can to be used or pre-game and other events

throughout the year. The plaza connects to a regional park

along I-10 that o ers both active and passive recreational

uses. The Times-Picayune building is proposed to eventually

redevelopment into a community recreation center.Stormwater management eatures are incorporated into the

park as well.

Alternative B Illustrative

Within Mid-City, a small pocket o existing retail and

commercial is enhanced to create two blocks o Main Street

character, as a place or residents to meet and socialize.

A new park and townhomes and duplexes are proposed

between Rocheblave and Broad streets to serve as a

transition rom the VA to the rest o Mid-City. Nearby and

across Je Davis Parkway, an active-use park with athletic

f elds is created to serve the adjacent re-opened elementary

school, Warren Easton High School, and the community at

large.

Development in the area bounded by Broad, Poydras and

Galvez streets and Tulane Avenue, as well as Gert Town/Xavier, and the existing light industrial zone are similar

to what is proposed in Alternative A. Please reer to that

concept or details.


17/53

17

Key Elements:

City Hall Revitalization.

A large central park with recreational acilities and

civic gathering space adjacent to Superdome.

New recreation f elds adjacent to existing schools.

Strategic inf ll o small-scale neighborhood

commercial uses.


interchange.


Multimodal connector between Xavier/Gert Town and

other institutions in the BioDistrict.

Alternative B Key Development Areas


18/53



The roadway ramework is similar in all our plans; please

see the description o streetscape enhancements and

Tulane Avenue Smart Street upgrades in the Alternative A

description.

Unique to this plan is a raising o I-10, in order to allow more

visual and physical connectivity and permeability between

the uptown and downtown portions o the BioDistrict.

Raising I-10 would also allow or parking underneath

or the Justice Center and Research and Development

Manuacturing business park. Similar to Alternative A, theportion o I-10 above Claiborne Avenue is dropped to grade.

The I-10/Claiborne Avenue intersection (and associated

highway ramps) is redesigned to an at-grade roundabout.

Another key connection is the creation o a multimodal

connector which would link Xavier and Gert Town with other

institutions in the BioDistrict. The corridor would include a

dedicated bioscience shuttle, multiuse bike and pedestrian

trail.


Similar to Alternative A, the enhancement o streets

throughout the BioDistrict with improved sidewalks allows

or improved pedestrian connectivity throughout the area.

The creation o a new multimodal connector between Xavier

and Gert Town with the other institutions in the BioDistrict

also creates new primary and secondary linkages or

pedestrian movement that currently do not exist.




19/53

19

Summary:

Alternative C directs redevelopment to a number o highly

active, pedestrian-oriented nodes. These nodes have

been located at key intersections within the BioDistrict

and are def ned by a f ve-minute walking radius. This

system o nodes o ers the opportunity to create distinct

character areas within the larger BioDistrict, and to create

gateways and identity eatures specif c to these new micro-

neighborhoods.

Similar with the previous alternatives, the I-10 Claiborne

Avenue intersection has been redesigned and the overhead

I-10 connection along Claiborne Avenue removed. Claiborne

Avenue is now a signature street with new roundabouts/gateway eatures located at the intersections with Poydras

Street and Canal Street. These roundabouts are the center

o two new nodes in the BioDistrict. The node at Canal Street

and Claiborne Avenue emphasizes an institutional/civic

character. Phase II o UMC has been redesigned to maintain

the existing street grid and enhance pedestrian connectivity.

The node at Poydras Street/Claiborne Avenue ocuses energy

on the Superdome and proposed neuroscience sports center

as anchors. A new civic center is proposed riverside o these

two nodes. The City Hall has been moved into the block that

is currently Duncan Plaza. This creates three new blocks o

potential downtown commercial development along Poydras

Street. A smaller Duncan Plaza is redesigned to f t the new

design o City Hall.

Two nodes are located along Tulane Avenue at Broad Street

and Je Davis Parkway. The node at Broad Street is anchored

Alternative C: Strategic Node Development Focus

Alternative C Illustrative


20/53


by a new commercial retail on two corners, the existing

courthouse and a renovated school. A small roundabout islocated at Broad and Banks street to serve as a gateway to

both the Mid-City neighborhood and the revitalized retail

along Broad Street towards Canal Street. The node at Je

Davis Parkway is anchored by a new grocery store located

riverside o Tulane Avenue at Je Davis Parkway. Retail and

multi-amily residential is also located within this node.

No new development is shown within the historic core o

the Mid-City neighborhood. Another node is located at

the redesigned intersection o Carrollton and Washington

avenues. This node acts as gateway to both Gert Town and

Xavier University.

Another key element o the plan is the transormation o the

rail yard associated with the Union Passenger Terminal into

a signature park or the community. Single-amily housing

anchors the uptown end o the park providing eyes on

Alternative C Key Development Areas

the park or increased security and saety. The park will be a

large amenity or the entire BioDistrict as well as the ormerBW Cooper housing development which is currently being

redeveloped.

Similar to Alternative B, a multimodal connector corridor with

a bioscience shuttle and multiuse trail or both bikes and

pedestrians links Xavier University and Gert Town with the

other institutions in the BioDistrict.

Beyond the nodes identif ed, much o the proposed

development is similar to the alternative concepts previously

described. It should be noted that this scheme

also identifi es numerous areas of potential futuredevelopment, well beyond the 20 year program

currently foreseen for the BioDistrict. As such, this

scheme can be viewed more as a capacity study for

the BioDistrict.


21/53

21


The roadway ramework is similar in all our plans; please see

the description o streetscape enhancements and Tulane

Avenue Smart Street upgrades in the preceding Alternative

A description.

Unique to this plan is a town-green type treatment o theBanks Street/Broad Street intersection, creating a ocal point

or the node development in this area.

Two new streetcar alignments are proposed to link the

di erent areas within the BioDistrict. One line has the

ollowing alignment: Tulane Avenue, Claiborne Avenue,

MLK Boulevard, Washington Avenue and Carrollton Avenue.

The second line connects to the unded streetcar line that

will soon be running down Loyola Avenue. From there it

runs down MLK Boulevard, Washington Avenue, Carrollton

Avenue, and Canal Street. These streetcar lines would bring

reliable, accessible transit opportunities to the BioDistrict.

Like Alternative B, this plan raises I-10 to promote BioDistrict

connectivity at grade. I-10 structure over Claiborne

Avenue is also dropped to grade, with a streamlined I-10/


Key Elements

City Hall Redevelopment.

Institutional gateway at Canal Street and Claiborne

Avenue.

Poydras Street gateway anchoring the Superdome

and neuroscience sports center.

Redevelopment at Broad Street and Tulane Avenue.

Neighborhood commercial redevelopment at Je

Davis Parkway and Tulane Avenue.

New gateway to Xavier University and Gert Town.


interchange.



22/53

Claiborne Avenue intersection to allow greater parcel area

or a regional park at the southwestern quadrant o this

intersection.

Also consistent with Alternative B, this plan proposes the

creation o a multimodal connector which would link Xavier

and Gert Town with other institutions in the BioDistrict. The

corridor would include a dedicated bioscience shuttle,

multiuse bike and pedestrian trail.


Similar to the previous alternative concepts, theenhancement o streets throughout the BioDistrict with

improved sidewalks allows or improved pedestrian

connectivity throughout the area. The creation o a new

multimodal connector between Xavier and Gert Town with

the other institutions in the BioDistrict also creates new

primary and secondary linkages or pedestrian movement

that currently do not exist.




23/53

23

Alternative D: Baseline Development Focus

Summary:

Alternative D o ers a conservative development approach,with limited redevelopment in the riverside and uptown

portions o the BioDistrict. This alternative is also distinct in

that it does not propose the redesign o I-10 and Claiborne

Avenue.

Institutional expansion at Tulane Medical School and LSU

arranges itsel around urban green spaces, in order to

provide increased amenity to the public realm as well as the

institutions themselves. As in Alternative A and B, City Hall

is redesigned and revitalized, with additions to the existing

building creating an urban street edge along Poydras Street.

Duncan Plaza is also redesigned in this option.

By maintaining the existing I-10 ramp conf guration, land

assembly or new research and development related

buildings is limited to between Broad and Galvez streets

just downriver o I-10. Poydras Street has limited street

enhancements in this area. Development opportunities in

the area bounded by Tulane Avenue and Broad, Galvez, and

Poydras streets is similar to that shown in the other alternative

concepts with a mixture o higher density multi-amily

housing, mixed-use and research and development buildings.

Improved existing and new park spaces are proposed in this

area to serve as an amenity or area residents.

Much o the remaining development in this scheme is limited

to strategic inf ll parcels along key arterials. Expansion o

Xavier University is limited to the area bounded by I-10,

Je Davis Parkway, Carrollton and Washington avenues.

Development within Gert Town seeks to create a mixed-useedge joining Xavier University and the community, providing

exible spaces that may be used by both. Development in the

manuacturing business park is similar to that proposed in the

previous concepts.

Alternative D Illustrative


24/53


Alternative D Key Development Areas

Key Elements:

City Hall Redevelopment.

Institutional expansion centered around urban

greens.

Enhanced open space along Washington Avenue

Canal and old rail spur in Gert Town.



25/53

25


The roadway ramework is similar in all our

plans; please see the description o streetscape

enhancements and Tulane Avenue Smart

Street upgrades in the preceding Alternative A

description.

No changes to I-10 or Claiborne Avenue are

included in this alternative. However, the

overpasses or Je Davis Parkway and Broad Street

are signif cantly enhanced through widening to

increase saety and riendliness or pedestrian and

bicyclists and help knit together both the uptown

and downtown portions o the BioDistrict. Similar

to Alternative A, a new Rails to Trails multiuse trail

is also proposed that links Xavier and Gert Town

with the other institutions in the BioDistrict.


Similar to the previous alternative concepts, the

enhancement o streets throughout the BioDistrict

with improved sidewalks allows or improved

pedestrian connectivity throughout the area. The

creation o a new Rails to Trails multiuse trail

creates a strong pedestrian/bicycle connection

between Xavier and Gert Town with the other

institutions in the BioDistrict.




26/53

AltA AltB AltC AltD

Civic/Institutional Neighborhood Node Baseline

Residential 2,116,000 1,809,000 2,272,500 2,209,500 963,000

1763 1508 1894 1841 803

155,000 314,000 320,500 626,500 447,000

Office,R&D,Mfct 1,600,000 3,544,500 1,730,500 5,240,000 3,601,000

Office 1,417,500 408,000 1,573,500 1,156,000

academic 1,180,500 327,000 904,500 939,000

other 237,000 81,000 669,000 217,000

R&D 1,687,500 901,500 3,126,000 1,990,000

Office&Lab 1,260,000 2,721,000

SportsRehab 427500 405,000

Manufacturing 439,500 421,000 540,500 455,000

55,000 0 0 126,000 0

TOTAL 3,926,000 5,667,500 4,323,500 8,202,000 5,011,000

AdditionalElements

Civic n/a 250,000 86,000 247,500 40,000

Park,acres 20 76 122 64 55

Notes

1.Includesrecreationcenters(allAlts)andnewtownhall(AltC)

2.ResidentialSFdoesnotincludetownhomes.

3.ResidentialnumbersincludeGertTown/Xaviervillage.

4.AltB:Alternateresidentialproductmixof1,215,000SF(1012DU)and132townhomes.

5.AltA:Alternateresidentialproductmixof1,431,000SF(1192DU)and96townhomes

6.Assumedheightsareasfollows:residential,3;retail,1;office,2;R&D,3;Manufacturing,1;Civic,1;Hotel,3

DU&1200SFgross

Retail

Hotel

DesiredProgram


Summary:

The table below shows the desired program, as established in Task 4 Programming. Numbers shown as desired programrepresent aggregated 5-, 10- and 20-year numbers, represented as square eet.

Plan Comparison


27/53

27

Section 03:

Public Comments


28/53

February 2011Working Paper 7 Public Comments28



29/53

29

Public CommentsDuring the public meeting, acilitators noted questions and

comments that arose during general project discussion, as

well as in regards to each alternative plan. These comments

are summarized below. For consistency with Working

Papers 5 and 6, these comments have been categorized

based on the ollowing eight themes: (1) Jobs; (2) Education;

(3) Housing & Neighborhoods; (4) Community Serving

Facilities; (5) Character & Identity; (6) Parks & Recreation;

(7) Tra c, Parking, Walking and Transit; and (8) Community

Engagement.

General Comments & QuestionsJobs

No comments or questions.

Education


Housing & Neighborhoods

A physical survey o vacant and abandoned

properties is needed; using the criteria o lack o

postal or utility service is not necessarily correct.

Do these plans align with the land use plans (zoning)

already approved by the City? The consultant team

conf rmed to the public that this was the case.

New development is shown where peoples houses

are; were concerned that people will be moved

against their will.

Community Serving Facilities


Character & Identity


Parks & Recreation


Traffic, Parking, Walking and Transit


Community Engagement

We would like to see community representatives on the

BioDistrict board.

We would like to be inormed o meetings through

non-web based means: radio, television, printed iers.

The consultant team stated that non-web based meansare used to communicate the meeting inormation

including yard signs and door hangers, newspaper

notices and yers.

Are these plans available on-line? When they are on-

line, wed like to be able to comment electronically.

Plans can be ound on the BioDistrict website.

It seems like my comments rom the previous

meeting have not been incorporated. On this

summary o the last meeting, you should be able to

list everyones comments individually.

Wed like you to attend our neighborhood meeting.

Other Why was the BioDistrict identif ed as 1,500 acres; isnt that

a lot?


30/53


Alternative A: Civic/Institutional Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

We like the idea o reopening the school in Gert Town.

Consider opening a Technology School in Gert Town

village.


No more our story housing.

Are the homes moved rom the VA site rental or

owner-occupied?

Put high-density housing, not a park, adjacent to I-10.

Rehab housing money is needed or Gert Town.

Review the 2008 Gert Town plan.

Want renovation/re-use like Dixie, Falsta , Blue Plate.

Walk the neighborhood block by block to create plan.

Will new plans result in a property tax increase?


We do not want the community center/library shown at

Broad and Banks Streets. Keep the existing community

as is and do not close the street.

Concern regarding blight at Charity Hospital site.

Strengthen existing commercial in the area o Broad and

Canal Streets.

Alternative A Illustrative with Public Comments


31/53

31


No comments.

Parks & Recreation

Connect Je Davis Parkway green spaces to Laf tte

Greenway.

Create pedestrian nodes along Je Davis Parkway.

Parks should be no bigger than one city block.


Maintain the street grid.

Need to maintain the Amtrak turnaround uptown o

I-10 (shown as bike path in this plan).

Concerns regarding increased tra c in relation to

the Xavier expansion into the community.


No comments.


32/53


Alternative B: Neighborhood Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.


Increase home ownership, not rental.

There is a new single-amily development on Bienville,

between Je Davis Parkway and Broad Street. The

homes are all shotgun, but new construction; wed

like to see that same type o thing to f ll in our

neighborhood.

No more high density, particularly between Carrollton

Avenue and Broad Street, and between Tulane Avenue

and I-10.

We dont want retail in the neighborhood, we dont

need it, (particularly as shown on Banks Street).

We want more single amily and double amily housing.

High density should only go on main roads, not within

neighborhoods.

Existing high density residential is su cient; its only

partially rented; the wait lists are or the subsidized

units, not the market rate units.

We really want to see architectural standards and

controls that will govern the quality o new buildings in

our neighborhoods.

Alternative B Illustrative with Public Comments


33/53

33

We dont want high density (4+ stories) residential.

High-density attracts a stressed population, and that

increases crime. High density should go in the Broad Street/Galvez

Street/Tulane Avenue/Poydras Street area f rst.

We dont like the redevelopment drawn between

Canal Street and Tulane Avenue, between Broad

Street and the VA property. We dont need a bu er;

were f ne with single amily abutting institutional

uses. There are historic homes there, and the VA just

moved our historic houses rom their property to one

o those blocks.

Nothing thats a house now should be anything else,

ever. Gert Town needs single amily housing.

Dont re-invent Gert Town; look at the 1997 and 2003

plans and just update them.


We want big box retail on Tulane Avenue. It can be

anywhere on Tulane, but since the institutions control

properties at the riverside end, its more likely to be

near Je Davis Parkway or Broad Street. We could

accommodate 5, even 10 big boxes; Wal-Mart, Target.

We need retail and commercial in Orleans Parish;big box would serve neighboring parishes, too, and

bring them into our neighborhood. The Mid-City

neighborhood organization has discussed big box,

and we all agree.

Where will parking or the courthouse complex go?

Direct retail to Carrollton Avenue.

Broad Street retail is blighted; we need

redevelopment there.

The commercial along Carrollton Avenue in Gert

Town wont change; you have it shown yellow, as

residential.

The concrete plant is willing to relocate, but we cant

get the job done.


A portion o Broad Street is designated a Cultural Arts

District; not sure how ar the designation goes, it mayextend the whole way to Tulane Avenue. Original art

can be bought tax ree, and the historic restoration tax

credit can extend to commercial properties. This would

be a good place or an arts district.

Parks & Recreation

We dont need any more parks; we have City Park and

Laf tte greenway.

Small pocket parks would be okay, but need to be

maintained.

Wed like to see more pedestrian amenities on Je Davis

greenway; multi-use trail, seating nodes, etc.

The park across rom the high school is too big, and

takes out street grid.

The park lakeside o the high school (and downtown o

Canal Street) is okay.

The park on Broad Street next to the Brewery (between

Gravier and Perdido Streets) is a nice idea.

Get rid o the park shown between I-10 and Earhart

Boulevard; introduce service and support uses in this

area. No one will use the park between I-10 and Earhart

Boulevard, except or drug dealers. It will be unsae.

Dont close any more streets.

We want you to coordinate with the VA and re-open the

segment o Banks Street thats been closed between

Rocheblave and Galvez Streets.

The tailgating plaza at I-10, Claiborne Avenue

and Poydras Street is a good idea---lots o people

tailgatebut it would need to be coordinated with the

Superdome management/owners. They like to keep

that kind o activity on their own property.


Keep the street grid.


34/53


Wed like to see improved streetscape on Pine and

Olive Streets in Gert Town; these two streets are the

center o the community. Tulane Avenue and Broad Street need improved

landscaping and sidewalks. Canal Street and Je

Davis Parkway are f ne.

Broad Street is a national designated Main Street

wed like to enhance it.


No comments.


35/53

35

Alternative C: Strategic Node Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.


Concern about environmental issue related to cement

actory in Gert Town. The plan shows it replaced with

a park which is a good idea.


No objection to large ormat retail along Tulane

Avenue between Tulane Avenue and I-10 and Justice

Center and Carrollton Avenue. The orm should be

walkable and not a typical strip center. This area could

also include low-to-mid density housing.

Existing buildings including the Justice Center and other

governmental buildings should be renovated instead o

building new. Work with what weve got!


Keep small scale retail character along Broad Street

between Banks and Canal Streets.

Large scale multi-amily apartments are not needed. Theydo not have the character o the existing abric.

Parks & Recreation

Like the idea o connected network o greenways/

Alternative C Illustrative with Public Comments


36/53


pocket parks throughout the area.

Concern about large park uptown between I-10 and

BW Cooper housing redevelopment. Many see this asa potential crime area especially with lack o ronting

uses.

Like the idea o smaller pocket parks verses large park.

This would help give ownership to the parks and help

maintain the parks.

A new park along Broad Street is a good idea.

Park adjacent to Warren Easton High School should

be some sort o public amenity but not necessarily a

park.

Community gardens should be developed at pocket

parks.


Reconnect street grid where possible, people

particularly sighted Banks Street between Broad and

Galvez Streets. Banks Street should reconnect with

Tulane Avenue and become a signalized intersection.

Round-a-bouts at Claiborne and Carrollton Avenues

will not work. However, the participants did like the

idea o round-a-bouts to calm tra c, acilitate bike/

pedestrian movements and as an entry eature within

neighborhoods.

Improve pedestrian connections across Je Davis

Parkway.


Facilitate dialogue between Xavier University

and Gert Town. There was concern about Xaviers

development within the Gert Town boundary.

Other

No more tax exemptions or large scale development.There needs to be help or the small owner to

renovate existing properties.

Encourage home ownership in area.

Use Tax Increment Financing to update blighted

properties within neighborhoods and not big

developers. Make sure existing Gert Town studies are

incorporated.

Make sure land uses adjacent to study area boundary

align.

There is concern about the economic vitality o all the

nodes identif ed in the plan.

Node #4 should be moved rom the intersection

o Broad Street and Tulane Avenue to Broad Street

between Tulane Avenue and Canal Street.


37/53

37

Alternative D: Baseline Focus

Jobs

No comments

Education

Develop a school at lakeside/downtown corner o

Tulane Avenue and Broad Street that has tech tie-in.


Research and development riverside o Claiborne

Avenue should be phase 1 and lakeside o Claiborne

Avenue should be phase 2.

Interesting alley that the community likes (Monassis

Place) running between Tulane Avenue and Banks

Street just riverside o Broad Street keep it and build

identity around it. Consider extending Monassis to the

blocks uptown o Tulane Avenue and build into new

development concepts.

Area uptown o Tulane Avenue between Broad and

Galvez Streets is the right place or higher density

(although some people think the historic neighborhood

character should be restored here instead), relocate

existing homes into vacant lots in Mid-City or lakeside o

corrections complex on same side o Tulane Avenue.

Include inf ll bonuses in Mid City, much like density

bonuses that developers get. Spread incentives that willbe given to high density developers uptown o Tulane

Avenue into Mid-City (i.e. use them to acilitate inf ll

compatible with historic district character)

Good that research and development is backed up onto

Alternative D Illustrative with Public Comments


38/53


I-10. Research and development architecture/use not

compatible with livable neighborhoods.

No high density in neighborhoods uptown o TulaneAvenue and lakeside o justice complex. High density

OK on Tulane Avenue and Je Davis Parkway, but not

interior blocks urther o o Tulane/Je Davis Parkway.

Maintain historic density there. Inf ll this area with

usable shotguns rom redevelopment area riverside o

Broad Street and south o Tulane Avenue.


New high tech community center in Gert Town

within proposed park (ormer cement plant) is part o

CBA.


Enhance existing mixed use along Je Davis Parkway

in Mid-City.

Example o what not to do architecturally is at the

lakeside/uptown corner o Canal and S. Clark Streets.

Intersection o Pine and Olive Streets is main corner o

Gert Town. Include Gert Town central park near that

intersection.

Olive Street and Je Davis Parkway is gateway to Gert

Town.

Parks & Recreation

Dont orient park in Research and Development area

along Claiborne Avenue toward Claiborne in this

scenario, back building onto Claiborne Avenue and

orient park to the lakeside. (but current orientation

could help put eyes on Claiborne Avenue underpass).

New park master plan or Je Davis Parkway is

needed.

Like the idea o connected network o greenways

through the BioDistrict and connected to Laf tte

Greenway/Bayou St. John.

Consider native plant/biodiversity/urban wildlie

network concept throughout the BioDistrict restore

the yway. Bayou Saint John and Je Davis Parkway

enhanced with native plants or urban wildlie corridor

balanced with other park uses. Include native plant nursery with tree nursery in the

BioDistrict.


Dont tear down the good parking structure that

currently exists at corner o Canal Street and Claiborne

Avenue.

Fix intersection at Banks Street and VA. Dump riverside-

bound Banks Street tra c onto Broad Street and make

Banks Street between Broad Street and the VA into

a green street. Interesting alley that the communitylike (Monassis Place) running between Tulane Avenue

and Banks Street just riverside o Broad Street. Tie in

greenstreet with this and create an interesting walkable

neighborhood character.

Consider transit connection rom Tulane Avenue to Je

Davis Parkway to Xavier.

Widen Je Davis Parkway overpass over I-10.


No comments.


39/53

39

Prior Public Comment

There are some discrepancies between the needs anddesires expressed at this public meeting, and those

expressed at prior public meetings. Approximately 36

people signed in at this public meeting; o this group,

slightly more than one-third o those present had attended

one o the previous public meetings held in September and

November o 2010.

Di erences in what we heard all into our broad

categories: parks, community acilities, retail and

housing.

ParksPrior public input emphasized the need to increase

access to public parks and open space, with 6 o the 10

alternatives produced in the November meetings specif cally

mentioning a need or more parks. Stakeholders also

commented that parks should be spread throughout the

neighborhoods, and should o er both active and passive

recreational opportunities.

Most recent comments expressed a reversal o this opinion,

noting that Mid-City has su cient access to open space

and does not need additional open space. City Park and

Laf tte Greenway were mentioned in particular as nearby,

accessible amenities. Commenters expressed a concern that

no one would maintain new parks, and that homes should

not be removed to create park spaces.

Community Facilities

Participants at prior public workshops identif ed a need

or more community acilities such as a library and a

community center. These amenities, shown in Plans A and

B, were rejected by stakeholders at the most recent public

meeting. Community members did not communicate

whether these acilities were still desired but the locations

shown were unacceptable, or i the acilities were altogether

unnecessary. Stakeholders did not identiy alternate

locations or these acilities.

Retail

Prior stakeholder input promoted the revitalization o existing

retail along Broad Street, near Canal Street. Less stronglysupported but also noted was a desire or neighborhood-

serving retail within the neighborhoods, revitalization o

historic retail on Galvez Street between Canal Street and

Tulane Avenue and even a desire or a mom and pop grocery

store every our blocks.

Most recent input o ers di erent opinions on both the

location and quantity o retail. Stakeholders very vocally

expressed that retail within the neighborhoods was

unacceptable, and that there was no need or additional retail.

Community members di ered on whether retail should be

directed to Broad Street, or i it should simply be concentratedon Carrollton Avenue, Tulane Avenue and Canal Street.

Housing

Prior public comments underlined the need or a ordable,

workorce and senior housing within the BioDistrict.

These types o housing are typically multi-amily, multi-story

dwellings, and although not explicitly identif ed as such in the

most recent alternatives, the multi-amily, medium-density

residential development shown in the current plans was not

supported by the community. Stakeholders expressed a ear

that more rental dwellings would bring more crime, and wouldalso discourage restoration o existing vacant and blighted

single-amily dwellings as potential home-owners would

choose to rent instead.


40/53




41/53

41

Section 04:

Appendices


42/53

42 February 2011Working Paper 7 Appendices42



43/53

43

Public MeetingSaturday, January 15, 2011

Addresses and contact inormation have been removed to protect privacy.

Appendix A

Stakeholder Sign-In Sheets


44/53



45/53

45

Appendix B

Maps:Stakeholder Mark-ups

Alternative A Illustrative with Public Comments


46/53


Alternative B Illustrative with Public Comments


47/53

47

Alternative C Illustrative with Public Comments


48/53


Alternative D Illustrative with Public Comments


49/53

49

Appendix C

Technical Comments: Consultant TeamGeneral Comments

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.


No comments.

The three plans are not distinctly di erent.

Need to discuss accurate assessment o recorded

property vacancy.

Retail/commercial nodes which are not on

major spines are di cult to tenant and unlikely

to be successul.


No comments.

Character & Identity No comments.

None o the three plans place su cient emphasis on

preservation o existing neighborhood abric.

All three plans preserve (but do not enhance; see

previous comment) existing neighborhoods o Gert

Town and Mid-City.

Plans should emphasize historic structures.

o Dixie Brewery, Pan Am Building

o Falsta Brewery

o Churches: St. Marks Baptist; St. Joseph

Catholic; Society o Vincent de Paul

o Warren Easton High School

o Galvez Street between Tulane Avenue and

Canal Street---

shotgun vernacular buildings; not

remarkable individually but together a

consistent historic abric.

Re-use o buildings should be emphasized more.

Need a revised vacant/abandoned property plan, along

with a strategy to revitalize.

Parks & Recreation

Need to discuss replanting tree canopy.

Redeveloping concrete plant into park would bedi cult.


Existing Tulane Line (RTA) serves almost all o proposed

destinations in BioDistrict; problem is headways and

reliability. These should be improved to address transit

needs.

The private shuttle between Tulane University and LSU

exist because the public system is insu cient, thereore

it doesnt really connect with public system.

Lowering Claiborne is potentially unrealistic.

o Currently, only anticipated downriver o

Canal.

o Upriver o Canal only or transition.

o At-grade Claiborne Avenue would require

discontinuation o passenger rail

because at-grade crossing not possible.

Cannot eliminate or have negative impact on UPT

without a strategy.

Parking plan needed; draw parking structures on map.

Would be useul to show 15 minute walking boundary

o BioDistrict acilities on all plans.


No comments.


50/53


Alternative A: Civic/Institutional Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.


Increased density would require evaluation

to determine i power, water, sewer and

telecommunications upgrades would be needed.

Xavier expansion may require expansion o

Universitys central plant to include BioDistrict Energy.

New high density development (including Louisiana

State University, research and development, LSU

student housing, and neuroscience/sports medicine

center) proximate to Entergy Thermal (1661 Gravier,

just riverside o Claiborne Avenue) may make shared

power easible.

Broad is not the best place or a retail corridor.

Not sure that light manuacturing is in the mostappropriate location.

Mixed use, high-density redevelopment between

Tulane Avenue & Poydras Street, lakeside o Galvez

Street: not in ideal location.

Residential square oot looks achievable, but average

unit size too large. (currently, 1200 SF gross. 800-

1000 SF gross more likely).

O ce/R&D/Manuacturing square ootage is high and

may not be achievable.


Block (southeast quadrant o Poydras Street/Galvez

Street intersection) should be site or new coroners

o ce and crime lab. Could extend to Galvez

Street(City owns most o land between Broad Street,

Poydras Street, Galvez Street, I-10).

Church complex (ull block) on Canal Street between

Rendon & Lopez is closed; some buildings could be

re-used (library, etc).

Allied science complex reuse o Charity/Old VA seems

unlikely.

Retail corridor within University Medical Center

complex: retail is better on Canal Street or Tulane

Avenue. Retail SF is high and may not be achievable.


No comments.

Parks & Recreation

Good block or park & rec site: Cleveland/Palmyra/

Rendon/Lopez (block S o church block).

Good block or park (better than inserting in midst

o manuacturing): (bounded by) Canal, Earhart, Je

Davis Parkway, Calliope---only northwestern building

is occupied, all others vacant or abandoned.

Transorming existing concrete plant into park is

ambitious.

Traffic, Parking, Walking & Transit

No comments.


No comments.


51/53

51

Alternative B: Neighborhood Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.






Universitys central plant to include BioDistrict Energy.

New high density development proximate to Entergy

Thermal (1661 Gravier, just riverside o Claiborne

Avenue) may make shared power easible.

Broad Street is not the best place or a retail corridor.

Tulane Avenue and Broad Street are better options.

Retail within neighborhood (on Banks Street): not a

good place or retail.

Residential square oot looks achievable, but average

unit size too large. (currently, 1,200 gross SF. 800-

1,000 gross SF gross more likely).

O ce/R&D/Manuacturing square ootage seems

appropriate.


Retail SF is high and may not be achievable.


This plan is the most e ective o the three in

strengthening neighborhood identity (represented

in urban abric, edge boundaries and neighborhood

centers) through schools, neighborhood retail and

green space.

Parks & Recreation

Transorming existing concrete plant into park is

ambitious.


Would need to insert telecommunication duct bank or

Tulane to be a Smart Street.


No comments.


52/53


Parks & Recreation

No comments.


This plan is the best o the three in providing and

emphasizing connectivity, through the emphasis o

main bisecting streets and direction o retail to nodes

on these streets.

Would need to insert telecommunication duct bank or

Tulane Avenue to be a Smart Street.

.


No comments.

Alternative C: Strategic Nodes Focus

Jobs

No comments.

Education

No comments.


Real Mid-City town center is on Carrollton Avenue,

not on Broad Street as drawn.





Universitys central plant to include BioDistrict

Energy.

New high density development (including

Louisiana State University, research and

development, LSU student housing, and

neuroscience/sports medicine center proximate

to Entergy Thermal (1661 Gravier, just riverside

o Claiborne Avenue) may make shared power

easible.

Residential square oot looks achievable, but

average unit size too large. (currently, 1,200 gross

SF. 800-1,000 gross SF more likely).

O ce/R&D/Manuacturing square ootage may not

be achievable.


Retail SF is high and may not be achievable.


No comments.


53/53

53

Alternative D: Baseline Focus

The consultant team did not review this alternative.

Working Paper VII

Documents