• Hispanoamérica
  • Work at ArchDaily
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • mixed-use development

mixed-use development: The Latest Architecture and News

Big designs cantilevered towers surrounding the freedom plaza on manhattan’s waterfront.

BIG Designs Cantilevered Towers Surrounding the Freedom Plaza on Manhattan’s Waterfront - Featured Image

Located along Manhattan ’s East River waterfront , the Freedom Plaza sets out to create a new civic and cultural hub, introducing a new open and green space in the crowded area , with plans to add an in-park Museum of Freedom and Democracy. Additionally, the scheme designed by BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group includes affordable housing units, two hotels, retail, and restaurants. Developed by Soloviev Group and Mohegan , the Freedom Plaza development reimagines one of the largest undeveloped plots in Manhattan, measuring 6.7 acres located south of the United Nations headquarters in the Midtown East neighborhood.

BIG Designs Cantilevered Towers Surrounding the Freedom Plaza on Manhattan’s Waterfront - Image 1 of 4

  • Read more »

Transforming Vacant Offices Into Dynamic Mixed-Use Hubs: Solutions for Unoccupied Buildings in U.S. Downtowns

Transforming Vacant Offices Into Dynamic Mixed-Use Hubs: Solutions for Unoccupied Buildings in U.S. Downtowns - Featured Image

Unoccupied office buildings in major US cities are sending their downtowns into a so-called “urban doom loop .” With the widespread adoption of hybrid work, the influx of office-goers to central business districts has drastically dwindled. As a result, retail and restaurant businesses in these areas are struggling, urban transit systems are losing ridership, and city governments are grappling with the loss of tax revenue necessary to maintain public safety and sanitation. So, how can cities bring people back into their central business districts? While discussions on transforming offices into housing have given fruition significant city and federal incentives across the United States , what solutions exist for offices that aren't viable for such conversions?

Transforming Vacant Offices Into Dynamic Mixed-Use Hubs: Solutions for Unoccupied Buildings in U.S. Downtowns - Imagem 1 de 4

Rafael Viñoly’s Amaris Condos in Washington DC, Captured by Paul Clemence

Rafael Viñoly’s Amaris Condos in Washington DC, Captured by Paul Clemence - Featured Image

On March 2, 2023, Rafael Viñoly passed away at the age of 78 , leaving behind a legacy of bold and imposing designs that shaped the skyline of cities across the globe. He is internationally recognized for works such as the Boston Convention Center , which redefined urban space in the American city, the new Carrasco Airport in Montevideo , and the controversial 20 Fenchurch Tower in London.

Paul Clemence has released images of the Amaris mixed-use development in Washington D.C., one of the latest works completed by renowned Uruguayan American architect, Rafael Viñoly . The photographic series reveals a distinctively shaped curvilinear building opening towards public spaces along the Potomac River. The volume is created to accommodate residential units with generous views toward the surrounding landscape, marking the terminus point to a row of new buildings in The Wharf development.

Rafael Viñoly’s Amaris Condos in Washington DC, Captured by Paul Clemence - Image 1 of 4

RSHP Wins Competition to Transform Jean Moulin Site into Low-Carbon Mixed-Use Development in La Défense, Paris

RSHP Wins Competition to Transform Jean Moulin Site into Low-Carbon Mixed-Use Development in La Défense, Paris - Featured Image

RSHP has just won the Jean Moulin competition held in La Défense , Paris, to design a low-carbon mixed-use development. The competition is a part of the Paris business district initiative to become the world's first post-carbon business neighborhood, launching “Empreintes,” aiming to revolutionize five urban sites at the district’s periphery. Through collaboration with neighboring city centers, the scheme hopes to create various sustainable mixed-use properties.

RSHP Wins Competition to Transform Jean Moulin Site into Low-Carbon Mixed-Use Development in La Défense, Paris - Image 1 of 4

Heatherwick Studio Unveils Design for New Shopping District in the Ancient City of Xi’an, China

Heatherwick Studio Unveils Design for New Shopping District in the Ancient City of Xi’an, China - Featured Image

Heatherwick Studio has revealed the design of a new shopping district in the historic city of Xi’an in Shaanxi, China . The proposal aims to highlight the city’s rich heritage of ceramic-making and, through this, to create a sensory experience for visitors in opposition to the restricted act of online shopping. Spanning over 1115,000 square meters, the development features a mixture of functions, from offices, apartments, and a hotel, to a variety of green spaces, rooftop terraces, gardens, and a sunken terrace, all doubling as social spaces. The project is under construction and scheduled for completion in 2024.

Heatherwick Studio Unveils Design for New Shopping District in the Ancient City of Xi’an, China - Image 1 of 4

Our Cities Aren’t Dead Yet!

Our Cities Aren’t Dead Yet! - Featured Image

This article was originally published on Common Edge .

It has been a bull market for downbeat urban reporting since the pandemic arrived in town. And it isn’t hard to see why. In 2020, central U.S. cities went from “comeback” success stories to ghost towns; transit lost nearly all ridership; tens of thousands of stores and restaurants shuttered; and many of the affluent decamped to the suburbs and distant Zoom towns. 

mixed use development case study

UNStudio Unveils Design for Mixed-Use Complex in the Hangzhou Olympic Sports Centre Area in China

UNStudio Unveils Design for Mixed-Use Complex in the Hangzhou Olympic Sports Centre Area in China - Featured Image

On a site that also hosts the Olympic Sports Centre , the 2023 Asian Games complex , UNStudio has unveiled the design of the new Hiwell Amber Centre, a complex of four high-rise towers planned to add a mic of offices, apartments, hotels, art spaces and retail to the city center of Hangzhou , China . Responding to the area’s rapid economic and cultural growth, the new development aims to provide a wide range of services to residents and visitors alike. To open up towards the city, the smooth glass curtain wall of the towers peels apart to reveal a tapestry-like facade that envelops the main plazas and civic spaces, creating an ‘urban living room.’

UNStudio Unveils Design for Mixed-Use Complex in the Hangzhou Olympic Sports Centre Area in China - Image 1 of 4

BIG Unveils Design for New Residential Development in Ellinikon, Europe’s Largest Urban Regeneration Project

BIG Unveils Design for New Residential Development in Ellinikon, Europe’s Largest Urban Regeneration Project - Featured Image

Bjarke Ingels Group has revealed the design of Park Rise residences, a new development the Little Athens neighborhood of Ellinikon, featuring modern homes, greenspace, retail, office, and hospitality. The Ellinikon is an ambitious urban regeneration project that reimagines the grounds of Athens’ old international airport and transforms it into a 6.2 million-square meter smart city. Within this development, the Little Athens neighborhood aims to become an integrated part of Ellinikon’s smart urban ecosystem and bring over 1100 new residences to the northwestern coastline of the development.

BIG Unveils Design for New Residential Development in Ellinikon, Europe’s Largest Urban Regeneration Project - Image 1 of 4

Foster + Partners Reveals First Project in Qingdao, China

Foster + Partners Reveals First Project in Qingdao, China - Featured Image

Foster + Partners has just revealed their first project in Qingdao , a major seaport and financial hub in the Shandong Province of China . 1 Nanjing Road is a mixed-use development in the city’s southern district. From office space to luxury apartments, the studio’s mixed-use design integrates into the existing urban fabric.

Foster + Partners Reveals First Project in Qingdao, China - Image 1 of 4

UNStudio Wins Competition for a Lively and Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Düsseldorf

UNStudio Wins Competition for a Lively and Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Düsseldorf - Featured Image

UNStudio has been selected as the winner of the international competition for the design of a mixed-use development in Düsseldorf, Germany , surpassing other internationally recognized participant offices, including 3XN , BIG , David Chipperfield Architect , and finalists Hadi Teherani Architects , HPP Architekten , and Ingenhoven . UNStudio’s proposal features two mixed-use towers measuring up to 120 meters, surrounded by a low-rise community pavilion. In addition to the office and residential spaces, the scheme also includes multifunctional uses and services such as sports, fitness, medical facilities, gastronomy spaces, a mobility hub, a daycare center, and opportunities for cultural events.

UNStudio Wins Competition for a Lively and Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Düsseldorf - Image 1 of 4

Space&Matter and Common City Win Tender to Develop Community-Centric Housing in Delft

Space&Matter and Common City Win Tender to Develop Community-Centric Housing in Delft - Featured Image

In Nieuw Delft , a newly developed city area next to the historic city center of Delft and in close proximity to the central train station, Common City is developing the winning LeeuwenPart plan in collaboration with Space&Matter . The project includes a residential building located on the edge of the future Van Leeuwenhoek Park. The project is developed as a co-commissioning, a process where the future residents are included in the design process, resulting in a well-adapted building and a close-knit community.

Space&Matter and Common City Win Tender to Develop Community-Centric Housing in Delft - Image 1 of 4

KCAP and V2S Win Competition to Design a Mixed-Use Sustainable Living complex in Toulouse, France

KCAP and V2S Win Competition to Design a Mixed-Use Sustainable Living complex in Toulouse, France - Featured Image

The team composed of KCAP and V2S has been announced the winner of the international competition for the design of Altiplano, a new complex for living and working in the new neighborhood of ZAC Aerospace in Toulouse , France . The proposal includes a high-rise featuring co-living apartments and a lower volume with offices and co-working spaces. Between the two volumes, a 25-meter wide arch visually connects the ensemble to former runway, the Piste des Géants, which will be transformed into a linear urban forest, as part of the master plan for the new neighborhood designed by David Mangin from Agence Seura .

KCAP and V2S Win Competition to Design a Mixed-Use Sustainable Living complex in Toulouse, France - Image 1 of 4

Mecanoo, Meng, and LOLA Landscape Architects Win Competition for the Design of the Guangming Scientist Valley in Shenzhen

Mecanoo, Meng, and LOLA Landscape Architects Win Competition for the Design of the Guangming Scientist Valley in Shenzhen - Featured Image

Mecanoo , in collaboration with Meng Architects and LOLA Landscape Architects , has been selected as the winner of the international design competition for the design of the Shenzhen Guangming Scientist Valley. The aim of the project is to create a facility for research and innovation that is also engaging for a larger public while also being integrated and coexisting with the surrounding natural environment. The project includes an area of approximately 1.2 square kilometers located in a strategic place to serve the larger scientific community, from Guangdong, to Hong Kong, and Macao.

Mecanoo, Meng, and LOLA Landscape Architects Win Competition for the Design of the Guangming Scientist Valley in Shenzhen - Image 2 of 4

MVRDV Breaks Ground on New Mixed-Use Complex in Chengdu, China

MVRDV Breaks Ground on New Mixed-Use Complex in Chengdu, China - Featured Image

Construction has begun at the last remaining empty sites in Chengdu ’s Jiaozi Park Financial and Business District, where MVRDV has designed a complex comprised of three mixed-use office towers and a conference center united by a ring-shaped plinth. The building shape and functional structure are informed by its surrounding context, with a retail village that references the traditional structures that were once located on the site.

MVRDV Breaks Ground on New Mixed-Use Complex in Chengdu, China - Image 1 of 4

Henning Larsen Wins Competition for a New Urban Center for West Berlin

Henning Larsen Wins Competition for a New Urban Center for West Berlin - Featured Image

Henning Larsen has been selected as the winner of an international competition for the design of Kurfürstendamm 231, a new mixed-use urban development in western Berlin , Germany . Other finalists in the competition included Cobe , David Chipperfield , and Mäckler Architekten. The winning concept centers the neighborhood around an urban courtyard which acts as a large-scale meeting place for the local community. Nine buildings define the courtyard, including the existing Agrippina House, which is set to be rehabilitated through the project.

Henning Larsen Wins Competition for a New Urban Center for West Berlin - Image 1 of 4

UNStudio Unveils the Design of a Human-Centric Mixed-Use Development in Nanjing, China

UNStudio Unveils the Design of a Human-Centric Mixed-Use Development in Nanjing, China - Featured Image

UNStudio has been commissioned to create a human-centric mixed-use destination on the waterfront of Nanjing , China . Developed by K.Wah Group, the new complex aims to enhance the working-living environment for the local community while contributing as a hub for culture and finance. The project, set along the central axis of the Hexi New District, introduces high-rise office towers, commercial and cultural functions, two serviced apartment buildings, a headquarters tower, a hotel, and various public amenities.

UNStudio Unveils the Design of a Human-Centric Mixed-Use Development in Nanjing, China - Image 1 of 4

What Would Jane Jacobs Do? Toward a New Model for Houses of Worship

What Would Jane Jacobs Do? Toward a New Model for Houses of Worship - Featured Image

Cities need to prepare for a wave of declining houses of worship. While faith institutions, at least the Christian ones, have been asking WWJD (What would Jesus do?), municipalities need to get them to ask another question: WWJJD (What would Jane Jacobs do?). Doing so might lead to a new model for true community houses of worship.

Mecanoo Unveils the Design of the Future-Oriented Amstel Design District in Amsterdam

Mecanoo Unveils the Design of the Future-Oriented Amstel Design District in Amsterdam - Featured Image

Designed by Mecanoo , Amstel Design District is a mixed-use development that includes social housing, mid-rent residential spaces, private sector homes, and collective facilities. The 80,000 square meters master plan also provides spaces for creative offices and retail, along with cultural institutions such as the 800 square meters design museum. Located between the highway and the metro line, the project responds to site constraints and concerns about noise pollution by creating a composition of stacked volumes with setbacks. This allows for the creation of comfortable public spaces in between the buildings as pocket parks and plazas.

Mecanoo Unveils the Design of the Future-Oriented Amstel Design District in Amsterdam - Image 1 of 4

Health and Social Equity in Real Estate — Schuylkill Yards

Community-Serving Park and Comprehensive Neighborhood Investment at the Schuylkill Yards Development At Schuylkill Yards, Brandywine Realty Trust—a national, fully integrated REIT—went beyond bricks and mortar to respond to the needs of the West Philadelphia community in the long-term master plan for the 14-acre site. The team has prioritized health and social equity with a $16.4 […]

Menomonee Valley Industrial Center (MVIC) and Three Bridges Park

[Quick Facts] [Project Summary] [Introduction] [The Valley] [The Site] [Background] [How it Came Together] [Health and the Environment] [The Developer and the Idea] [Menomonee Valley Industrial Center] [The Stormwater Park] [Job Creation Requirements] [The First Buyer] [Recreation and Entertainment Developments] [Three Bridges Park] [Sales Procedures and Principles] [Design and Development Guidelines] [Development Finance] [Results] [Observations […]

105 Victoria Street

Conceived as a new destination for the West End, 105 Victoria Street is a mixed-use development that will pioneer innovations in sustainability, provide spaces that enhance wellbeing and reinstate a sense of community in London’s Victoria. This development’s world-class office accommodation has been designed to be flexible and long-life to accommodate rapidly evolving ways of […]

Net Zero Deal Profile: HopeWorks Station North

Executive Summary HopeWorks Station North is a net zero–ready development at which affordable housing, workforce development, and job training combine with innovative sustainability elements to improve the life of residents and help the planet. Owned by HopeWorks and Housing Hope, the mixed-use retail and multifamily housing development provides comprehensive housing, social services, and job reentry […]

ULI Greenprint Annual Performance Report Vol 9 – LaSalle’s Holistic Energy Retrofits

LaSalle Investments’ 2020 K Street in Washington, D.C., is an 11-story multitenant structure built in 1974 with a fitness center, parking garage, and rooftop terrace. Since acquisition in 2010, LaSalle has been continually upgrading the building to achieve a holistic retrofit as part of its investment strategy. Initiatives include the following: variable frequency drives (VFDs) […]

Nature Positive and Net Zero – Howard Hughes Corporation Systematically Preserves Open Space

The Howard Hughes Corporation (HHC) is the owner, developer, and manager of commercial, residential, and mixed-use real estate across the United States, including a portfolio of master -communities (MPCs). HHC’s legacy is built on the stewardship and long-term success of its communities though profound respect for nature, community, connectivity, and passion for innovation. Preserving and […]

Nature Positive and Net Zero – Green Cities Company and Salmon Safe Certification

The Green Cities Company is a real estate investor and developer that pursues green certifications for each asset in its portfolio. At 5 MLK, a 17-story mixed-use building with 220 apartment units, 120,000 square feet of office space, and 15,000 square feet of retail space in Portland, Oregon, a Salmon Safe certification label was achieved […]

Deal Profile: Entegrity Energy Partners’ NetWork Building

The Site and Neighborhood  Entegrity Energy Partners—an energy services, sustainability, and solar development company—developed a net zero commercial office space for company use, along with 28 market-rate apartments in downtown Fayetteville, Arkansas. This structure combines Entegrity’s new office building with 28 market-rate apartments to form a three-story mixed-use development. The decision to include apartments along […]

Health and Social Equity in Real Estate — theMART (Vornado Realty Trust)

Healthy Living and Community Showcases at theMART Vornado Realty Trust, a fully integrated real estate investment trust (REIT) focused primarily on office and retail properties, undertook the redevelopment of theMART, an iconic Chicago Riverwalk property. The project demonstrates how an existing building can become a community hub that also promotes health and well-being. theMART, located […]

Electrify — 30 Van Ness, San Francisco, California (Lendlease)

Lendlease’s 30 Van Ness is its first all-electric mixed-used development in the United States, and the decision to be all electric was made long before San Francisco passed a citywide no-gas policy for new construction. With 250,000 square feet of commercial office space, 330 condominiums (of which 25 percent will be affordable housing), 4,000 square […]

Sign in with your ULI account to get started

Don’t have an account? Sign up for a ULI guest account.

  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, differences in experiences with the development of mixed-use projects from 2004 and 2017.

www.frontiersin.org

  • Indiana State University, Construction Management, Terre Haute, IN, United States

Mixed-use developments, having three or more uses within one development, have several benefits for communities, however due to the complexity of these developments, several challenges arise in the planning and development phases. The main challenges are local regulations, neighborhood opposition, financing, and insufficient market interest. A 2004 survey of these challenges was repeated in 2017 and the differences between the two are compared in this paper. Significant differences were found in the frequencies of the challenges, mainly that the proportion has dropped in 2017. However, local regulations remained the most significant challenge encountered. The decrease in frequencies is conceivably a sign that regulators, financers, and members of the community are becoming more familiar with mixed-use developments.

Introduction

Mixed-use development, multiple uses within a project, although not a new concept, is continuing to grow in popularity. Mixed-use development has several benefits for communities and is a key strategy in achieving sustainable environments ( Woo and Cho, 2018 ). It has been utilized as a popular method for community revitalization, helping to increase density which helps grow communities with limited land space or empty city centers and create a vibrant space for people to enjoy. Additionally, the developments provide benefits to the environment, retailers, residents, and municipalities. Increasing the walkability of an area can reduce commuting distance and auto mode share ( Lee, 2020 ) and thus reduces pollution. Offices and retailers within a mixed-use development become immersed in potential customers from the diverse residents and other businesses ( Chinburg Properies, n.d ; Slowly, 2016 ). Because amenities are closer to home, mixed-use developments promote walking, which provides health benefits for residents (University of Delaware De). Further, it is estimated that nearly 33% of people would prefer to live in a diverse, walkable community ( Slowly, 2016 ). Municipalities see a tax revenue in-crease from mixed-use versus single use and are able to save on infrastructure construction, such as roads and water supply, because of the shared land use (University of Delaware De; Newcomb, 2015 ; Lamb, 2012 ; Useful Community Developm, 2017 ). Any one of these assets would be a reason to promote mixed-use development, to say nothing of simply overcoming obstacles to its provision. In combination, they form a compelling case for mixed use as an element of a more inclusive and prosperous society.

Levine and Inman used the Urban Land Institute definition of mixed-use developments as having three or more uses in one project ( Urban Land Institute, 2011 ; Levine and Inam, 2004 ) as this very premise makes mixed-use developments popular, it also creates challenges. Zoning, building codes, and appropriate uses are some of the prominent challenges developers face when planning this type of project. Transferring one development’s successful practices to another development rarely result in the same outcomes. For this reason, it has proven difficult to determine best practices for these types of projects.

In 2004, Levine and Inam (2004) from the University of Michigan performed a nation-wide survey of developers to determine the highest impact challenges to mixed-use developments. The present study has recreated the survey to determine if there are significant changes in challenges to the use of mixed-use developments in 2017. Further, the current survey also collected the opinions of planners, architects and construction managers as they are the stakeholders most involved with the upfront planning processes involved for mixed-use development and represent their own aspects, opinions, and goals for the success of the project. This study aims to answer the following questions:

• What are the current factors affecting mixed-use development as perceived by developers, planners, architects, and construction managers?

• What are the differences in the factors of local regulation, market interest, financing, local opposition, in a survey of developers in 2004 ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ) and 2017?

Methods and Materials

Literature review.

Mixed use development has become a popular tool to revitalize communities, increase sustainability, and develop a stronger sense of community. The exact definition of mixed-use development is relative from country to country ( Lau et al., 2005 ). In the United States, the Urban Land Institute ( Urban Land Institute, 2011 ) defines mixed-use as “three or more significant revenue-producing uses (that have a) functional and physical integration of project components” (p. 2). Additionally Lau et al. (2005) suggest that no single-use should utilize more than two-thirds of the usable floor plan of the project. The potential uses for the project include “real estate with retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation, or other functions that are pedestrian-oriented” ( Rabianski et al., 2009 ) (p. 206). These uses encompass the popular live-work-play environment for people where everything needed is comparatively close. However, despite these definitions, one mixed-use development approach and plan rarely results in the same success amongst various projects; this is due to the various ways in which mixing uses may be applied.

According to Grant (2002) , there are three main ways that a community may apply mixed-use: increasing the intensity of land uses, increasing the diversity of uses, and integrating segregated uses. Intensity of land use is known as the variety of choices of a specific type of use; multiple types of retail or housing choices to accommodate all levels of income ( Niemira, 2007 ). Projects may be as large as entire neighborhoods, an entire street or block, or as small as an individual building; located in inner city or city centers, brownfield or greenfield sites, or city edges such as suburbs ( Rowley, 1996 ). These projects are typically implemented as an attempt to promote mixed use developments through “1) conservation of established mixed-use settings; 2) gradual revitalize and incremental restructure of existing parts of towns, such as infill development and reuse, conversion and refurbishment; and 3) comprehensive development or redevelopment of larger areas and sites” ( Rowley, 1996 ) (p. 87). Table 1 summarizes the variables of these factors.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 . Factors and variables for the application of mixed-use development.

These various factors and their options of mixed-use give more credence to the idea that the same urban form may not be successful in another development; yet can be adaptable as needed, provided the proper planning is performed. This also shows that mixed-use development can occur on several different scales and can intertwine together in various environments; thus, a critical analysis should be performed to determine the best approach to incorporate the proper setting, location, and timing.

As mixed-use developments have evolved, so has their popularity. Rowley (1996 ) points out that due to the diversity of the urban setting, experiences are different than in suburban or rural settings, such as “people, activities, uses, architecture; the amenities, open spaces and other visual stimuli that cities can offer; and a rich public life” (p. 89). Further, many of these services, including retail and public transit, rely on a higher density in or-der to function ( Brewer and Grant, 2015 ). In a survey from four real-estate associations, the top three reasons cited for the popularity in 2006 were: “the live-work-play environment as a single location is convenient; rising land prices are making more density necessary; and the format is being encouraged by local public agencies” ( Niemira, 2007 ) (p. 54). While there are individual benefits to mixed-use development, there are community-wide benefits as well. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) report that the most significant advantages of mixed-use development are a reduction in travel needs, followed by increased urban diversity, and vitality.

Mixed-use developments generate economic vitality ( MahmoudiFarahani et al., 2018 ) benefits for businesses. Job creation is a strong sign of vitality and a main goal of mixed-use development is mixing residences and offices to provide easy access to employment and clients ( Grant, 2002 ; Hoppenbrouwer and Louw, 2005 ; Grant and Perrott, 2011 ; Kong et al., 2015 ). Businesses actually prefer to be in mixed-use as some of their client-base is already created just by proximity ( Chinburg Properies, n.d ; Slowly, 2016 ); for example when stadiums or arenas are in the community, there are “50,000 people will want to have something to do before and after the game other than hangout in the parking lot” ( Slowly, 2016 ) (para 9). Even on a smaller scale, a community with a theater or playhouse has the same need, employees have a place for lunch, entertainment, and so on ( Efficient Gov, 2015 ). Diverse uses attract more and diverse people, providing an increased potential for the business to be seen rather than with an isolated location ( Chinburg Properies, n.d ; Slowly, 2016 ; University of Delaware De). Further, property managers tend to provide better service as they have more clients within a building, resulting in quicker response to issues, preventative maintenance, and lower costs from sharing the building with other inhabitants ( Chinburg Properies, n.d ; Buildings, 2009 ). If successful, profits for businesses in mixed-use communities can exceed traditional locations by three times, sometimes more ( Leonard and Cumbelich, 2014 ).

Regulations are required for infrastructure maintenance and economic support. Roads, water supply, drainage, etc. are built to a specific capacity and if these capacities are exceeded they can break down faster, require more maintenance, or may not work at all; thus planners are often unable to accommodate all development requests of higher density. Additionally, uses are regulated by zoning in order to not saturate the market, preserve history, or not disturb residents. One jurisdiction may have different objectives and purposes or different views how to reach them in another district. Besides counties, jurisdictions could also be cities. Each jurisdiction has a committee of people from the community that approves regulations, zoning changes, land use, and construction. These planning committees are led by planners who are professionals that are employed by the city or county in order guide the committee that make decisions on these regulations ( City planning, 2016 ).

Planning staffs and commissions do not always support the mixed-use concept. In interviews performed by Grant (2002) , the researcher found that planners of smaller communities hesitate to utilize mixed-use as they doubt the benefits. Instead, they believe that existing neighborhoods need support and that people choose the suburbs for, among other benefits, the separation from other uses. Rowley (1996) suggests that some planners make uninformed assumptions about the community’s wants and needs. Further, they underestimate the implications of these assumptions. On the other hand, Brewer and Grant (2015) suggest some planners promote density as a way to increase services within the community; however, their execution is lacking. The thought is that increased density leads to lower housing costs and better support of mixed-use; however, actual the actual populations do not meet expectations. Therefore, services do not have the expected support, resulting in the loss of the anticipated benefits associated with mixed-use development.

Another hurdle in successful mixed-use is identifying proper compatibility of uses. This includes compatibility for community and other uses in the area; Rabianski et al. 2009 describes this as creating a synergy in the community. For proper integration and increased vitality, a market analysis for each use is needed to ensure relevant uses, scale, and location ( Anders, 2004 ; Rabianski et al., 2009 ). Taleai et al. (2007) found that uses and land types can actually “repel” other uses. For example, although highways provide accessibility, they also create noise which can be problematic for residences ( Taleai et al., 2007 ). Similarly, other competing or over-saturated businesses and uses should be avoided, instead uses should be complementary. Rowley (1996) describes other factors that affect people using mixed-use developments such as having accommodations for the disabled and elderly, various levels of income, and convenience of use. In order to maximize infrastructure savings, space should be designed to be used as often as possible, including outside of normal business hours ( Rabianski et al., 2009 ). In a diverse area, individual schedules can vary greatly resulting in varying times of usage needs. Rowley (1996) suggests sharing spaces, especially for uses that may not otherwise be able to afford the space on their own; for example a building room may host an aerobics class in the morning, a book club in the afternoon, and a card club in the evening. This type of space sharing helps to further maximize available uses and amenities for the community.

Although many people prefer mixed-use city life, there are as many others who do not wish to live in the city. And, while people enjoy the conveniences that mixed-use development offer, some are very cautious about what uses should be mixed. For example, uses such as “group homes, day care centers, waste management facilities, high-density housing, halfway houses, or prisons typically encounter resistance from residents. Even parks and playgrounds sometimes met opposition” ( Grant, 2002 ) (p.73). Brewer and Grant (2015) point out that attempts to increase population densities and mix are affected by household dynamics. For instance, families prefer homes with gardens, that allow privacy for peace and quiet, offer some separation, and provide community-focused amenities ( Rowley, 1996 ). For a long time, the American dream included a home in the suburbs with a white picket fence and living among people who are nearly the exact same, which goes against urban mixed-used development. However, even in 1996, Rowley notes that social networks are only partly shaped by the home locality, mostly dependent on personal mobility, “convenience, choice, and price” are the main factors of determining shopping. Technology since then, such as the internet, hand-held devices, and social media, has developed strong social networks that are not even in the same state. At the same time, mobile applications such as Uber rideshares have made it easier to live without a car, making urban living even more accessible. These cultural variables can differ in intensity from area to area, making research even more indispensable for planning. Determining the best use of space to attract the most people is integral to mixed-use development.

In addition to the comprehensive pre-construction planning process and challenges, there are challenges during design phases as well. All construction must comply with local building codes, however with mixed-use development, each use may be subject to a different code which can slow production and add cost. Additionally, each use requires its own support system; for example, it is necessary for a restaurant to have an isolated exhaust system from the rest of the building, and retailers do not want apartment plumbing pipes visible in their space ( Koch, 2004 ). For each use, building codes require different fire suppression methods, and in a mixed-use these can become even more stringent ( Rowley, 1996 ) due to the mixture and higher density. Furthermore, structural safety can become challenging as well. Retail space is more open and expansive than residential or office spaces. Typically retail is on the ground floor for easy access to shoppers, thus the ceiling of this space must be designed to support the above load. As retailers prefer to have minimal columns in or-der to maximize space and have unobstructed views, a support beam must be utilized. This is very expensive as is requires engineered support beams and more material for construction ( Koch, 2004 ).

Although mixed-use development can help to diffuse economic risk across the variation of uses, there are several economic risks which can detract developers from attempting innovative mixed-use projects ( Grant, 2002 ). As Grant and Perrott (2011 ) point out, construction costs for these projects are higher than single-use construction, however they do not always generate a sales premium ( Rowley, 1996 ; Koch, 2004 ; Niemira, 2007 ). Unfortunately, people outside of the construction process do not always understand what adds costs to projects and therefore do not prefer the premium sales price. During an interview, a principal from Elkus/Manfredi Architects, LTD. stated that mixed-use projects can cost as much as 70% more than in an average suburb ( Koch, 2004 ) where most uses are separated by building. Furthermore, a survey by Niemira (2007 ) revealed that almost 2/3 of respondents agreed that mixed-use projects have a longer construction time than that of separate components. The longer a construction project lasts, the more expensive it becomes as day to day overhead expenses accrue and cannot be re-covered. Furthermore, investors see mixed-use projects as less prosperous than single-use ones that consequently have a lower exchange value ( Rowley, 1996 ).

However, there are variables which, when present, further increase the chance of success, specifically economic success. Financial returns have the capability to be higher in more dense neighborhoods as they provide more opportunities to accept a mixed-use project. However, smaller cities can lack these drivers of change created from high levels of population influx. Thus, in these cities, more research should be performed to determine the proper economic, market, and political conditions to accept a mixed-use development ( Brewer and Grant, 2015 ). Niemira (2007 ) survey results, suggests that there are three major factors for financial success: “1) having a major draw–employers, an academic institution, an entertainment facility; 2) developing the project as part of a master-planned site; and 3) having an urban location” (pp. 55–56). Being aware of the unique economic environment in which the project will be constructed will only help to increase the chances of making the development more profitable and attract more investors.

Although there is a consensus on various factors that affect success, previous attempts to utilize explicitly defined best practices have regularly not resulted in the same levels of success from project to project. Further adding to the difficulty of administering best practices, it is difficult to quantify them for a specific area until perceived differences are identified ( Hoppenbrouwer and Louw, 2005 ). Rowley (1996 ) states that mixed-use development “cannot be divorced from cultural priorities and lifestyles” (p. 85). Moore ( Koch, 2004 ) explains that, especially with mixed-use development, implementation depends on culture, context, etc., therefore best practices are not necessarily transferrable. According to Kong et al. (2015 ), this means that “different urban forms generally lead to different urban performance” (p. 95). Each project should be guided by the community’s social make-up and not assumed that it will revitalize the community as it did in another community ( Anders, 2004 ) nor that all residents within the community will benefit from the project ( Grant, 2002 ).

Although significant challenges in planning and completing mixed-use developments exist, there are several instances of successful projects. Taleai et al. (2007 ) state the im-portance of planning, which includes analyzing the current market and defining any potential problems. Extensively engaging the community as early as possible ( Anders, 2004 ) also helps to determine market conditions and overcome problems more efficiently. Market analysis includes identifying both successful and competing uses ( Taleai et al., 2007 ). Many agree that location is important as mixed-use performs better when there is more traffic ( Grant and Perrott, 2011 ) and public transportation is within walking distance ( Niemira, 2007 ). Timing is also important as there needs to be enough people to support retail, yet enough businesses to attract people; thus phasing based on community needs is vital to success ( Grant and Perrott, 2011 ).

In an interview by Koch (2004 ), a president and managing partner of a real estate developer in North Carolina said that to draw people towards the development, he reserves the most visible, ground level portion of buildings for most attractive retailers. Similarly, Niemira (2007 ) survey showed that including a major draw, such as employers, an academic institution, entertainment, etc., is the number one factor in achieving financial success. The second and third results from the same survey were being part of a master plan and being in an urban location, respectively. Niemira (2007 ) also found that “almost 60% of industry players and observers who participated in the survey felt that having public-sector involvement in a mixed-use project would help to make it more financially viable” (p. 55).

Levine and Inam 2004 Results

In Levine and Inam (2004) mailed 2,000 surveys to members of the Urban Land Institute. Of the 2,000 surveys, 706 were returned completed and 693 were qualified providing a 36.5% response rate.

The next four tables summarize the main results obtained by Levine and Inam (2004) , related to the use of mixed-use development in 2004. Table 2 summarizes the challenges encountered by the respondents in 2004 and respondents were able to select more than one challenge and write in a challenge that was not listed. The next table, Table 3 summarizes the designation of “Other” written in. Instead of asking to rank all challenges, the 2004 survey asked two separate questions, the first asking to provide the single most significant challenge, the next question asking to provide the second most significant challenge ( Tables 4, 5 ). Local regulations was the most significant challenge with the highest frequency, followed by neighborhood opposition, “other”, insufficient market interest, and secure financing. Neighborhood opposition was the second most significant challenge with the highest frequency, followed by local regulations, secure financing, in-sufficient market interest, and “other”.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 2 . Challenges encountered to mixed-use development 2004 ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ).

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 3 . Challenges encountered described as “other” ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ).

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 4 . Frequency of most significant challenge 2004 ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ).

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 5 . Frequency of second most significant challenge 2004 ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ).

This research used a quantitative approach through the use of a survey instrument. The population for this study was United States organizations involved in the preplanning process of mixed-use projects, these include architects, city planners, developers, and construction managers.

The survey instrument developed for this survey is greatly inspired by Levine and Inam (2004) instrument. Demographic questions were added to the current survey:

• Please tell us about the industry function you are involved with.

• A map was added to determine geographic region.

• How many years of experience does your organization have dealing with mixed-use projects?

The main questions that remained the same between the two surveys:

• What, if anything, do you think are significant barriers to the further development of these alternatives?

• Which of the barriers above what is the most significant and second most significant single obstacle to further development of these alternatives.

Questions were then added about the change of the challenge, if its significance had increased, decreased, or remained the same.

The survey questions were included in an online surveying platform (Qualtrics) and distributed to U.S. based organizations. Organizations were asked to send the survey out to their members, including American Institute of Contractors, American Planning Association, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Next City, United States Green Building Council; the members of the Purdue University School of Construction Management contact list were emailed directly. Additionally, in the invitation email, participants were asked if they could forward the invitation to other stakeholders, there-fore snowball sampling was also used. Additionally, the survey was also publicly posted in LinkedIn via personal profiles.

The research questions to be answered by the survey are:

• What are the current factors affecting mixed-use development as described by developers, planners, architects, and construction managers?

• What are the differences in the factors of local regulation, market interest, financing, local opposition, in a survey of developers in 2004 (Levine and Inam) and 2017?

Responses to the encounters and significance of the challenges were coded either yes or no. If the respondents had encountered the challenge, yes was coded, or no if not. Chi square tests were completed to test the proportional frequencies from the 2004 answers compared to the 2017 answers. However, the ranking of first and second most significant challenge was not tested individually, but as the overall ranking of all challenges.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 6 shows the distribution of the roles of the 107 respondents. Both Construction Managers ( n = 64) and Architects ( n = 34) had a higher response rate than other stakeholders. Unfortunately, the reach to Developers ( n = 6) and Planners ( n = 3) was lower than expected. Because it is unknown which organizations actually distributed the email, it is impossible to know the response rate, however, based on responses, it is assumed low.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 6 . Frequency of role of respondents.

The initial question regarding challenges to mixed-use development asked for all challenges and barriers encountered, Table 7 summarizes the responses. For this question, respondents could select more than one answer and write in a response not provided. Local regulations is the most frequently selected challenge with 54 selections, followed by financing and neighborhood opposition, each selected 40 times. Insufficient market interest is the least frequently chosen with only 14 selections. The “other” option was selected 18 times with challenges written by respondents, Table 8 provides the designation for these selections.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 7 . Challenges encountered to mixed-use development.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 8 . Challenges encountered described as “other”.

When asked to rank the challenges in Table 7 from one to five with one being the most significant and five being the least significant, 64 of the respondents participated. The frequency of the ranking of each challenge can be seen in Table 9 .

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 9 . Current frequencies of challenges rankings.

Analytical Statistics

It is important to note that not only is there potential for change over time, but between the two populations. In 2004, Levine and Inam ( Levine and Inam, 2004 ) were able to reach developers, however in 2017 the same population was not able to be reached and resulted in mostly construction managers and architects.

The survey asked respondents to rank their first and second most frequent challenge; these responses can be seen in ( Tables 10 , 11 ). The survey question asking which challenges were encountered by respondents ( Table 7 ) was compared to the similar question from the survey in 2004 ( Table 12 ) to answer the second research question “What are the differences in the factors of local regulation, market interest, financing, local opposition, and possibly others to a survey of developers in 2004 and 2017?” Table 12 summarizes the data. Local regulations remains the most frequently encountered. However, results indicate that all challenges except financing were significantly different between 2004 and 2017 results. Interestingly, the four (local regulations, neighborhood opposition, insufficient market and other) are perceived as challenges by less respondents in 2017 than in 2004.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 10 . Current Frequency of most significant Challenge.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 11 . Frequency of second most significant Challenge.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 12 . Changes of percent of challenges encountered from 2004 to 2017.

Based on the survey question asking respondents to rank challenges, the first and second most significant challenge rankings were compared to the 2004 survey questions asking for respondents to select the most and second most significant challenge. Table 13 summarizes the responses of the most significant challenge from 2004 to 2017. Local regulations are the most frequently selected as the most significant challenge. Comparing the overall rankings from each year results in a X2 of 11.212 and a p value of 0.024 suggesting that the ranking of 2004 most significant challenge is significantly different than that of 2017. Again, respondents ranked local regulations the most significant, but less by less people in 2017. More people in 2017 perceived financing and insufficient market interest as the most significant challenge.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 13 . Changes of percent of most significant challenges encountered from 2004 to 2017.

Table 14 summarizes the responses of the second most significant challenge from 2004 to 2017. Again, regulations are still the most frequently selected as the second most significant challenge. Comparing the overall rankings from each year results in a X2 of 2.738 and a p value of 0.603 suggesting that the results from 2004 are not significantly different from 2017.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 14 . Changes of percent of second most significant challenges encountered from 2004 to 2017.

Although the intent was to compare the same population over time, due to access by the different researchers, the two time period’s populations were different: developers and planners versus construction managers and architects. Depending on the type of project contract, construction managers and architects can become involved in the project at different times. Typically, architects are engaged by developers before construction managers, but not always. Construction managers have been engaged earlier in planning phases resulting in more successful completion of projects ( Moore, 2013 ). These variations in project involvement could potentially affect the challenges that each population encounters. How-ever, it is still important to understand the frequency of these challenges, regardless of population, as they are still experienced around the same type of projects–mixed-use developments.

The initial research question regarding current challenges to mixed-use development asked for all challenges and barriers encountered, which was summarized in Table 7 .

The four provided challenges (insufficient market interest, local regulations, securing financing, and neighborhood opposition) were primarily selected as expected, however the most interesting findings came from respondent’s written submission for the “other” se-lection. While there are several challenges written in, three new challenges were discovered compared to the 2004 survey:

• keep up with demand and growth

• lack of implementation knowledge and development modeling

• these projects are becoming harder for smaller firms

Other challenges were also written in, but are expected from the literature review and 2004 survey; included financial risk is too high, market saturation, complexity of construction and design, no retail involvement, lack of land and land costs, insufficient developer interest, and these projects are not the norm in their NW market.

Local regulations is ranked the most significant and second most significant challenge. In order after regulations, the ranking of the most significant challenge are financing, in-sufficient market interest, neighborhood opposition, and the other category. In order after regulations, the ranking of the second most significant challenges are neighborhood op-position, financing, insufficient market interest, and the other category.

Difference From 2004 and 2017

In analyzing the differences from 2004 to 2017, the percent of the frequencies encountered for each of the years were compared, these are summarized in Table 12 . As mentioned above, there are three new challenges not mentioned in 2004. All of the challenges saw a significant decrease ( p ≤ 0.05) in the proportion of people who encountered these as challenges, except for the financing challenge. This may be for a few reasons: regulators and people in the local community are becoming more familiar with mixed-use developments. Regulators are understanding how to better accommodate these types of construction and are better prepared to handle them. The local community has changed their wants and enjoy the ease and convenience of a live-work-play environment. However, the other explanation for the significant change in encounters is simply the populations that were reached. The 2017 population was compromised of mainly general contractors and architects who may not be as involved in the early planning stages of mixed-use development and therefore may not encounter as many challenges.

When looking at the ranking of the challenges, both in 2004 and 2017 each year the first and second most significant rankings slightly change, Table 13 and 14 shows the differ-ences in percentage of ranking. However, only the most significant ranking saw a significant change with the overall p value under 0.05.

The analysis of the data from this research has provided several interesting results. First, the new challenges identified through the “other” designation provides insight into the current market within the last few years. Not being able to keep up with demand for construction can occur from a few possibilities. Lack of labor force is reasonably the most significant cause, both in manual and office labor. ( Baiden et al., 2006 ). The average labor participation rate in the United States for January through June of 2017 is 62.8%, a 5.4% decrease in the past 10 years, part of an ongoing trend of the past several decades. However, the construction industry perhaps has been hit the hardest; according to several news organizations such as Forbes ( Beyer, 2017 ), Fox Business ( Grant, 2017 ), CNBC ( Olick, 2017 ), Slate ( Gross, 2017 ), and the like have reported on the ongoing shortage of construction labor. This shortage has continued to decline, especially in the last year ( Valenti, 2021 ).

The difficulty of securing financing can also cause issue with supplying demand as does limited land availability. Requesting a development model solidifies one of the main is-sues with mixed-use development in that project planning best practices, unfortunately, do not always work with these projects ( City planning, 2016 ). Constructing an exact replica of a successful project in a different area can result in a drastically different outcome. The community and economic wants and needs must be identified in order to plan for the most successful uses within the development. The last new challenge identified was that it is harder for smaller firms to participate in these types of projects, which can be explained by the other new challenges. A smaller firm cannot always compete with larger firms ( Valenti, 2021 ). High hourly wages and complete benefits can be more arduous for a smaller firm to offer, especially in comparison to larger firms. Further, financing, insurance, and bonds for construction is based on firm experience and size, thus it is more difficult for a smaller firm to actively complete with a larger firm on these projects. While it may be easy for a small firm to complete a single use project, the combination and size of a mixed-use development can make it too difficult for these firms.

Local regulations have remained the most significant challenge, but its frequency has significantly decreased. Neighborhood opposition has also changed since 2004, decreasing in ranking as a challenge. The old fashion idea of the “American Dream” has changed from a suburban house with a white picket fence ( Govindarajan et al., 2016 ). This change could be driven by younger generations who either do not want or cannot afford their own transportation, more sustainable communities, be more mobile (not owning a house), have less maintenance association with a suburban home, and/or wish to support smaller, more local businesses. The appeal of a “live-work-play” community also attracts older generations whose children are now out of the house and may have the same wants that younger people have, as listed above. Also, those whose health may prevent them being able to drive and wish to avoid isolation are also attracted to mixed-use neighborhoods where amenities are more easily accessible. A 2020 survey by the National Association of Realtors ( National Association of Realtors, 2020 ) shows that all age groups, including older generations, show more interest in walkability near their home and less focused on access to highways. However, the survey does show that 60% of people surveyed want a larger yard with more outdoor space and less people around ( National Association of Realtors, 2020 ).

Recommendations

While this research identified new and changes of significance in challenges, there is further data that should be collected. First, more planners and developers need to be reached to survey so that there is sufficient data in order to statistically determine any differences in the view and experience of challenges. Further, interviews should be completed in order to better understand these challenges and what has been done to overcome them, specifically related to local regulations and securing financing as these are the top two most significant challenges.

More data is also needed to discover why demand cannot be met, if this is actually an emerging challenge that is widespread, and if this is an issue specifically related to mixed-use developments or all construction projects in general. The cause of this challenge, whether it is being able to secure financing, having proposals rejected, lack of labor force, or something completely different, will drastically affect the way in which it is over-come.

Local regulations have been an ongoing issue for mixed-use development. Two main actions should occur to help combat this issue: policy change and education. All roles should be provided more resources in order to better understand mixed-use development, their benefits, and how they can help streamline the implementation process, particularly where mixed-use is a new concept to a community. Educating each role of all perspectives and challenges is important for any interdisciplinary team, especially in this these types of projects. When all parties can understand each other better, issues can be more easily and quickly solved. With education, policy change should be encouraged as well. As presented in the literature review, other countrie’s zoning are much more mixed-use friendly, have less strict definitions of zoning/classes to allow for mixed-use without amendments or need for rezoning approval and there are often public/private partner-ships to aid in starting and completing a project. This type of partnership aids in the is-sue of securing financing for a project. Financial regulations have caused the approval process for all types of loans to be more difficult. Changes in financial regulations are more difficult to achieve, but public/private partnerships can help to alleviate some of the financial strain for these projects. Providing more educational information will also help banks make more educated decisions on lending and overall polices. However, before being able to provide a rich context-based resource to those participating in mixed-use development, more research must be completed, as described above.

Further, research should be conducted on the interconnectedness of the challenges. For example, the inability to secure financing, delays due to regulations, and lack of labor force may contribute to not being able to meet demand. Neighborhood opposition may affect the opinion of the city planners and how they enforce the local regulations. Local regulations may impact the availability to secure financing through a bank. Other relationships may exist such as these that are unknown. Understanding these connections will further lend itself to the understanding of the cause and more importantly, the solution of these challenges.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Purdue University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

JM researched and wrote the entire paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Anders, M. (2004). Understanding and Balancing Mixed-Use Schemes: The Key to Creating Successful Communities. J. Retail Leis. Property 3 (4), 353–364. doi:10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5090190

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baiden, B. K., Price, A. D. F., and Dainty, A. R. J. (2006). The Extent of Team Integration within Construction Projects. Int. J. Project Manag. 24, 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.001

Beyer, S. (2017). America’s Housing Construction Labor Shortage Continues. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/04/29/americas-housing-construction-labor-shortage-continues/#66de0314706c (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Google Scholar

Brewer, K., and Grant, J. L. (2015). Seeking Density and Mix in the Suburbs: Challenges for Mid-sized Cities. Plann. Theor. Pract. 16 (2), 151–168. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1011216

Buildings. (2009). Mixed-use Facilities Are a Productive Use of Space, and They Add viatality to Urban Areas – but Not without Challenges. Retrieved from: http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/9004/title/the-challenges-and-benefits-of-mixed-use-facilities

Chinburg Properies (). Commercial Rental Real Estate: The Top 5 Benefits to Locating Your Business in a Mixed-Use Com-Mercial/Residential Building. Retrieved from: https://chinburg.com/commercial-rental-real-estate-the-top-5-benefits-to-mixed-use-space-for-businesses/ (Accessed March 9, 2016).

City planning. (2016). Dictionary.Com Unabridged. Retrieved from: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-planning

Efficient Gov. (2015). Pros & Cons: Mixed-Use Developments. Retrieved from: https://efficientgov.com/blog/2015/06/24/pros-cons-mixed-use-developments/ (Accessed March 9, 2016).

Govindarajan, V., Lev, B., Srivastava, A., and Luminita, E. (2016). The Gap between Large and Small Companies Growing. Why? Harv. Business Rev.

Grant, J. (2002). Mixed Use in Theory and Practice:Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 68 (1), 71–84. doi:10.1080/01944360208977192

Grant, J., and Perrott, K. (2011). Where Is the Café? the Challenge of Making Retail Uses Viable in Mixed-Use Suburban Developments. Urban Stud. 48 (1), 177–195. doi:10.1177/0042098009360232

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Grant, P. (2017). Labor Shortage Squeezes Builders. CNBC. Retrieved from: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/06/labor-shortage-squeezes-builders.html (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Gross, D. (2017). There’s No Such Thing as Jobs Americans Won’t Do. Slate . New York, NY: Retrieved .

Hoppenbrouwer, E., and Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use Development: Theory and Practice in Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands. Eur. Plann. Stud. 13 (7), 967–983. doi:10.1080/09654310500242048

Koch, D. (2004). Looking up. Retail Traffic 33 (1238–40), 42–43.

Kong, H., Sui, D. Z., Tong, X., and Wang, X. (2015). Paths to Mixed-Use Development: A Case Study of Southern Changping in Beijing, China. Cities 44, 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.01.003

Lamb, I. (2012). Experts Discuss the Benefits of Mixed-Use Development. Retrieved from: http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/news/article/12796-mixed-use-development/ (Accessed March 9, 2016).

Lau, S. S. Y., Giridharan, R., and Ganesan, S. (2005). Multiple and Intensive Land Use: Case Studies in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 29 (3), 527–546. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.04.007

Lee, W. (2020). Major Issues in Commuting Efficiency: A Literature Review. Pa. Geographer 58 (1), 25–34.

Leonard, B., and Cumbelich, J. (2014). Mixed Use: A Mixed bag;Whysome Mixed-Use Projects Succeed and Other Fail – the Right Street-Level Retail Can Make All the Difference. Retrieved from: http://www.chainstoreage.com/article/mixed-use-mixed-bag (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Levine, J., and Inam, A. (2004). The Market for Transportation-Land Use Integration: Do Developers Want Smarter Growth Than Regulations Allow? Transportation 31 (4), 409–427. doi:10.1023/B:PORT.0000037086.33893.9f

Mahmoudi Farahani, L., Beynon, D., and Garduno Freeman, C. (2018). The Need for Diversity of Uses in Suburban Neighbourhood Centres. Urban Des. Int. 23 (2), 86–101. doi:10.1057/s41289-017-0052-x

Moore, S. (2013). What's Wrong with Best Practice? Questioning the Typification of New Urbanism. Urban Stud. 50 (11), 2371–2387. doi:10.1177/0042098013478231

National Association of Realtors (2020). Community and Transportation Preference Survey. Retrieved from: https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2020-transportation-survey-analysis-slides.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Newcomb, T. (2015). Mixed-Use, Multi-Family Projects See Uptick. ENR: Eng. News-Record 275 (13), 69.

Niemira, M. P. (2007). The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-Use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey. Res. Rev. 4 (1), 54. Retrieved from: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38713816/Features-The-Concept-and-Drivers-of-Mixed-Use-Development

Olick, D. (2017).Homebuilders Struggle to Fill Jobs 'Americans Don't Want'. Retrieved from: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/homebuilders-struggle-to-fill-jobs-americans-dont-want.html (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Rabianski, J., Gibler, K., Tidwell, O. A., and Clements III, J. S. (2009). Mixed-Use Development: A Call for Research. J. Real Estate Lit. 17 (2), 205–230. doi:10.1080/10835547.2009.12090251

Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: Ambiguous Concept, Simplistic Analysis and Wishful Thinking? Plann. Pract. Res. 11 (1), 85–98. doi:10.1080/02697459650036477

Slowly, K. (2016). Building a ‘sense of Community’: Why Mixed-Use Developments Are Sprouting up across the US. Retrieved from: http://www.constructiondive.com/news/building-a-sense-of-community-why-mixed-use-developments-are-sprouting-u/421386/ (Accessed March 9, 2016).

Taleai, M., Sharifi, A., Sliuzas, R., and Mesgari, M. (2007). Evaluating the Compatibility of Multi-Functional and Intensive Urban Land Uses. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observation Geoinformation 9 (4), 375–391. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2006.12.002

University of Delaware Delaware Complete Communities Toolbox (n.d.). Benefits of Mixed-Use Development. Retrieved fro: http://sites.udel.edu/completecommunities/planning/landuse/mixed-use-benefits/ (Accessed March 9, 2016).

Urban Land Institute. (2011). Mixed-use Development 101: The Design Mixed-Use Buildings [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from: http://triangle.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2013/01/Design-of-Mixed-Use-Buildings.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Useful Community Development (2017). Mixed-use Development Delivers Great Benefits. Retrieved from: http://www.useful-community-development.org/mixed-use-development.html (Accessed March 9, 2016)

Valenti, A. (2021). Price Hikes, Labor Shortages Slow Construction Industry’s Recovery . New Orleans: New Orleans CityBusiness .

Woo, Y.-E., and Cho, G.-H. (2018). Impact of the Surrounding Built Environment on Energy Consumption in Mixed-Use Building. Sustainability 10 (3), 832. doi:10.3390/su10030832

Keywords: mixed-use development, regulations, neighborhood opposition, market interest, financing

Citation: Metzinger J (2021) Differences in Experiences With the Development of Mixed-Use Projects From 2004 and 2017. Front. Built Environ. 7:734149. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2021.734149

Received: 30 June 2021; Accepted: 06 September 2021; Published: 23 September 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Metzinger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jamie Metzinger, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Doctoral Research in Construction Management

Live Oak Logo

  • June 11, 2015

Sustainable Mixed-Use Development: Designing Economically and Socially Healthy Communities

outside tropical resort

  • Posted in: Live Oak News

With the World Health Organization’s projection that 70 percent of the world’s people will live in cities by 2050, it is time that developers rethink how urban spaces are designed. Urban areas were historically comprised of tight-knit neighborhoods, corner stores, and family owned businesses all within walking distance. Modern zoning laws have created an urban landscape that is far different. Plots of land are separated by their distinct use: residential, retail, office, industrial, etc. Once-vibrant interconnected neighborhoods have become isolated and choked off by interstates and urban flight. Mixed-use development seeks to create an atmosphere where people are again connected to each other and the communities around them.

This is an area we’re passionate and excited about. We’d love to be a part of your sustainable mixed-use development, but first let’s dive deeper into the benefits and details of this kind of development.

What Is Sustainable Mixed-Use Development?

Mixed-use development is an emerging model of urban planning that seeks to incorporate a multitude of uses in a single urban development. Rather than creating segregated spaces, a mixed-use space includes residential, office, and retail space in the same environment. In true mixed-use developments, these areas blend together harmoniously rather than simply placing a retail strip mall next to a housing development. In the 2011 report, Delivering Mixed Use Development at Neighborhood and Street Block Scales, scholars and policymakers identified three important definitions of mixed-use development that included descriptions of land use, varied economic activities, integration of physical connections and a high-density, multifunctional environment that is physically attractive.

Best of all, mixed-use development promotes sustainability. The best neighborhoods in New York City, for example, have long housed a healthy mix of restaurants, shops, offices and residences. Residents in New York routinely walk, bike, or use public transportation to reach their destinations within these connected neighborhoods, vastly reducing the need for automobile usage and ownership. The density and interconnectedness of mixed-use neighborhoods promotes the feasibility of public transportation in areas where it wasn’t practical before, thus reducing the environmental impact of an automobile-based commuter culture.

Mixed-Use Developments Create Vibrant Neighborhoods

With beautiful sunny days and warm evenings, the Southeast is the perfect region for new mixed-use developments. Rather than a city center that shuts down at 5 p.m., mixed-use developments create vibrant neighborhoods that have life even after the workday is done. For example, Emory Point, near Emory University in Georgia, mixes multi-family units with a vast retail space. In Tampa, the redevelopment of Channelside Bay Complex with new entertainment and restaurant options is expected to bring additional multi-family housing growth to the area, thus creating a thriving mixed-use area.

As occupancy rates throughout the Southeast rise, new developments are becoming more viable. The entry of millennials into the real estate market is driving the market for new development toward urban mixed-use spaces. This group’s clear preference is to live, work, and play in the urban areas where public transportation or biking to work is viable and shopping, food and entertainment are easily accessible. The benefits of mixed-use developments aren’t limited to simple economics for city-dwellers; these shared spaces bring about feelings of belonging and neighborhood culture which are preferred by urban residents compared to the relative isolation of suburban areas.

Interested in creating a mixed-use development in the Southeast? Contact us today to see how our professionals at Live Oak Contracting can bring your plans to fruition. At Live Oak Contracting , we specialize in making sustainable mixed-use developments a reality.  We proudly serve the South and recognize the unique needs in our communities.

  • Tagged as: Development , live oak contracting , mixed-use , sustainability

Share this post

Related posts.

live oak team members posing

One Riverside Topping Out Recap

one riverside aerial view

One Riverside Case Study

mixed use development case study

Live Oak Named a Best Construction Company in Jacksonville

About live oak contracting.

Live Oak Contracting believes in building long term partnerships based on integrity. From our Clients to our team of professionals, we incorporate a collaborative approach to every project, ensuring the highest quality product delivered on time and in budget.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

MIXED LAND USE IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Profile image of roza pahuja

Mixed land use refers to co-existence of more than one land use on a common ground, be it a floor, building or street.

Related Papers

HiddenTruth ByPhotography

mixed use development case study

Sarika Bahadure

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

F. Bruinsma

mohammad karimi

urban Land use planning activities investigate how a land is allocated to a specific function. Over the past few decades, development of the Mixed Land Use (MLU) application has become an essential planning model in developed countries and has considered as a key component in Smart Growth and New Urbanism. MLU works perfect only when done under a carefully planned program. Geographic Information System due to its great analysis of spatial issues can help us have a better understanding of this new concept. In this study, a conceptual framework for analysis of urban MLU on the basis of the spatial indicators and analysis is introduced. Criteria of the interest are: Accessibility, Intensity, Land per Capita, Clustering and diversity. According to the conceptual model, the mentioned criteria are applied for evaluating MLU levels in horizontal dimension in the 7th regional municipality of Tehran city. Results, obtained from aggregation of various criteria, demonstrate that the model can ...

Meta Berghauser

–Mixed use development, one of the " mantras in contemporary planning " is a multi-criterion and multi-scalar concept which has various definitions. For this research mixed-use is defined as functional mixed-use and our main interest is to understand the spatial conditions needed to increase the diversity of uses (mix) by combining compatible functions. To analyse the compatibility of land uses and the importance of specific spatial conditions, the three most relevant factors of urban form are chosen: density, accessibility and mixed-use composition. The chosen factors are measured by methods of spacematrix, place syntax and MXI, using the city of Rotterdam (southern part) as case study. The three levels of analysis that are used are: (1) between all the urban blocks, (2) between mixed-use and mono-functional blocks, (3) within different types of mixed-use blocks. The results demonstrate interrelationships between the intensity of land uses on different scale levels. For example, residential density in a biking neighbourhood (radius 1.000) correlates to the density of commercial services in the same or a lower radius, but with of density of cultural and recreational services in a higher radius. In other words, cultural and recreational services need a larger catchment. Furthermore it is demonstrated that mixed-use blocks are denser and have higher accessibility to residential/work and commercial functions. Concerning mixed-use blocks, the results demonstrate a complementary behaviour between the existing functions within a mixed-use block and its surrounding. For instance, blocks with a bi-functional mix of housing and amenities are located in the vicinity of blocks with more work opportunities and blocks consisted of housing and working have a higher access to amenities in their surrounding. Identifying such spatial interrelations between land uses can be of great importance for urban planning and design. It can assist in the process of decision making by providing answers to the questions such as: If we want to create a city centre here, where should we improve accessibility then? Or, where should we, based on the existing distribution of shops, increase the residential density to use the existing potential best?

Shahnawaz Khan

Mixed use development (MUD) is not a new phenomenon and has existed in India traditionally where the streets were of neighbourhood style. The modern planning approach focused on the segregation of uses and now the policies are coming back to using the MUD. There are numerous benefits which include the economic upliftment of retail businesses, lesser dependency on vehicles for local needs and the vibrant nature of the place which allows for interaction. Despite strict land use regulations mixed use development happens to fulfill the needs of people in an area (Mahajan, 2018, Pg. 8). The previous studies have defined and worked on a wide range of parameters but have never defined exactly what a “Good mixed use” is. The gap is also seen in the policy and guidelines where the definition and regulation is limited to the type of uses, road width and certain regulations in terms of FAR and Ground coverage. (MPD 2021, 2007) As quoted by Joseph Rykwert “Cities area all about mixed use, you don’t have cities without mixed use.” Mixed use is still ambiguous and there not a particular definition that can describe it properly (Hoppenbrouwer and Louw, 2005.) This study in favour of mixed use has attempted to define the MUD and define measures of mixed use areas.

Journal of Engineering Research

Pratap Raval

Mixed land-use and higher population densities are endorsed in many urban planning concepts as crucial elements for urban vitality. They are said to make urban streets active due to the presence of people, leading to public vigilance and improved feeling of safety on streets. Moreover, higher densities and mixed land-uses are also said to promote social interactions and walkability. Indian cities are inherently mix and dense, and therefore, the noted benefits in the literature need to be verified in this local context. In this research, through the empiric al study of eight study areas of Pune, India, the efficacy of social benefits of mixed land-uses and population densities is established. A mixed land-use index for the selected study areas was computed to represent the mixed land-use intensities. Satisfaction levels of the residents regarding the presumed social benefits were surveyed and collated as urban vitality. The relationship between urban vitality and mixed land-uses and ...

Oluwafemi Muyideen O L A I Y A O . M Olaiya

Narvaez, L. and Penn, A. (2016), ‘The Architecture of Mixed Uses’. In Journal of Space Syntax, Vol. 7 (1), p.107-136.

Laura Narvaez , Alan Penn

Space syntax theory has extensively examined the role of socio-economic processes in cities, whereas in spatial economics, location and distribution of land uses are modelled to understand urban processes. It is suggested that neither field has been robustly based on a more fully conceived level of local city design, and often overlooking the morphological conditions in which space and economics intermix. This article explores the relationship between architecture and economy, and questions the extent to which they work together. In particular, the paper focuses on the concept of mixed use by considering urban and architec- tural conditions that relate to spatial and economic functions, namely in terms of location, use and form. It is found that these three interrelated factors indicate varying typologies of mixed uses depending on their urban location and, in turn, defining different forms of spatial adaptability when commercial and residential use are combined. The paper reflects on the implications of mixing uses and suggests the need for urban design and economic theories to consider the bottom-up processes of socio-economic conditions through architecture and in the overall urban configuration of the city.

RAJASHREE KOTHARKAR , Sarika Bahadure

Extremes of mixed-use architecture: a spatial analysis of vertical functional mix in Dhaka

  • Fatema Meher Khan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4761-7836 1 ,
  • Elek Pafka 2 &
  • Kim Dovey 2  

City, Territory and Architecture volume  9 , Article number:  31 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

7004 Accesses

Metrics details

The concept of mixed-use is now well-established as an urban design and planning principle that adds to the vitality, walkability and productivity of the city at neighbourhood scale. There is much less research on the dense and complex vertical mix of functions within buildings. This paper investigates the extremes of informal vertical mixing of functions within buildings in Dhaka, where commercial and retail functions often penetrate to upper floors and where access routes are often mixed with residential functions. A modified form of space syntax analysis is used to analyse and critique the mix of circulation patterns and functions in 15 complex mixed-use buildings. The plans and relational diagrams reveal how different functions are mixed or separated, and the relative spatial depth they penetrate from the street. Five primary circulation diagrams emerge with different degrees of informality in different districts of the city. Under conditions of informal adaptation, vertical functional mix produces benefits in the form of synergies but also problems of privacy and security. To engage effectively planners need a complex understanding of the interrelated spatial, social and economic logics involved.

Introduction

It is now sixty years since Jacobs ( 1961 ) transformed our conceptions of functional mix, suggesting that an understanding of co-functioning was a key to understanding how cities work. She railed against the modernist segregation of the city into mono-functional zones that prevented close connections of home to work, school, shopping and recreation. Functional mix was the antithesis of modernist development that stressed the spatial segregation of urban functions to avoid an undesirable juxtaposition of uses. For Jacobs mixed-use was necessary to the social and economic vitality and intensity of the city; this work has been increasingly embraced in urban planning and functional mix has become a key ingredient of walkability (Grant 2002 ; Hoppenbrouwer and Louw 2005 ; Rabianski et al. 2009 ; Frank et al. 2006 ; Dovey and Pafka 2020 ). While most of this research has focused on the neighbourhood scale, it has been understood that functional mix also operates at the building scale. Most notable here is the widespread historic type of shop-house with residential located above retail functions; this building type has long been a staple in South and Southeast Asian cities (Davis 2012 ; Han and Beisi 2016 ).

Modernist zoning was invented to solve real problems that can emerge from an unregulated mix of uses. In 2010 and again in 2019 fires have broken out in mixed-use buildings in Old Dhaka, killing a total of 205 people (Imam 2010 ; Molla 2019 ). Both fires involved flammable industrial materials stored on lower floors with housing and production work above. These fires were variously blamed on electrical transformers, gas cylinders, chemical storage, building regulators and owners, but also on a more general lack of urban planning controls (Tishi and Islam 2019 ). In Dhaka, functional mix is widely considered problematic; beyond issues of fire safety, there are perceived problems of visual disorder, privacy and social insecurity (Tishi and Islam 2019 ; Nahrin 2008 ). This paper analyses a range of mixed-use buildings in Dhaka to better understand the morphologies of informal mix.

While there is considerable scholarly work on the shop-houses of South and Southeast Asia (Imamuddin et al. 1989 ; Chun et al. 2005 ; Phuong and Groves 2010 ; Su-Jan et al. 2012 ; Davis 2012 ) the buildings under discussion here encompass a much denser range of building types. No survey or analysis has been conducted to understand the operation of dense informally mixed buildings such as these. This study explores four principal questions: How are different functions mixed and/or separated within circulation systems of mixed-use buildings? To what relative spatial depth do different functions penetrate from public space and to what height above street level? How are buildings adapted informally to multiple uses and what are the synergies and challenges of such mixing? This paper analyses the functional mix of some of the most extreme of vertically mixed buildings in Dhaka—those that test the limits of functional mixing. These analyses reveal typical circulation patterns and the spatial logic of interrelations between functions, based in the economic and social logic of the city. The paper concludes with a critique of the benefits and challenges of vertical functional mix.

Mixed-use buildings are common in cities of the global South, particularly South and Southeast Asia. The prevalence of functional mix has been noted in Indonesia (Susantono 1998 ), India (Verma 1993 ), Vietnam (Phuong and Groves 2010 ) and Pakistan (Haque 2015 , p. 7) where they generally feature high-levels of informal or unregulated mix. More contemporary mixed-use buildings demonstrate new forms of mix, spatial organisation and building morphology in high-density buildings with vertical stacking of wholesale, retail, restaurants, offices, storage, micro-industries and housing (Ujang and Shamsuddin 2008 ; Tipple et al. 1996 ).

While Dhaka was always mixed, as the urban density has intensified the mixed-use buildings have grown informally in both extent and functional complexity to meet local demand. Incremental conversion of residential buildings to accommodate workshops, storage, commercial and retail functions are common (Khan 2020 , 2021 ). Access routes into and through mixed-use buildings are adapted where it is possible to separate entrance and circulation for separate uses. However, a singular entrance for residential and non-residential functions is common and can result in privacy, security and safety issues.

Study area and methodology

Dhaka is dominated by informal economic activities and the current land-use of most districts is shown in planning documents as mixed-use (Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha [RAJUK] 2015 :38). However, there are also marked differences between the old city, those districts that have developed with a mix of formal and informal planning, and the modernist planned city. These three settlement patterns—historic core, semi-planned and planned—represent key historical phases of urban growth in Dhaka (Fig.  1 ) and are the most evident morphological patterns in contemporary Dhaka (Nilufar 2011 ). Figure  2 shows typical streetscapes from mainstreets of each of these three areas. While each is informalised they also represent increasing levels of formalisation. For this study, five mixed-use buildings have been chosen from each of these districts in order to show the range across the city, but also to better understand the extremes of mix within each district.

figure 1

Dhaka and the three sample districts (Map based on Nilufar 2011 ; Google Earth)

figure 2

Typical streetscapes from each district (Photos: Fatema Meher Khan & Kim Dovey)

Islampur in the Historic Core is located at the southern edge of Dhaka. This area has long been the centre for a wide range of wholesale and retail markets with different professional groups who used to live in the shop-houses (Mohsin 1991 ). A rich mix of uses has been embedded within the fabric of this area since its inception in 1600 and has increased and intensified over time informally into a mix of housing, retail, wholesale, offices, workshops, go-downs (warehouse/shop) and light industries. There were attempts to impose formal land-use planning codes in this district but the state lacked the power to enforce them (Jahan 2011 ). This zone is seen as most problematic and is the scene of the fires mentioned earlier. The second area, known as Green Road, is a semi-planned neighbourhood near the spatial centre of Dhaka that has developed since the 1960s with a combination of formal and informal street networks. While initially, it was a middle-income residential area, other uses such as shops, workshops and offices have spontaneously developed over time. After 2000, a part of this area was declared commercial, this effectively formalised the mix of functions in those areas, however, non-residential functions in residential areas remain informal. The third area, Uttara, is a planned neighbourhood located on the northern periphery of Dhaka, developed since the 1980s with a regular grid and plot size. Although initially planned as a residential neighbourhood, it has informally developed other functions including shops, cafes, restaurants, and offices over time. Again, mixed functions on the main roads have become authorised over time, while non-residential functions on other streets remain unauthorised. The 5 buildings selected from each of these sites represent a range of mixed-use buildings in each case, but with a focus on denser buildings which test the extremes of mixed-use, avoiding simple low-rise shop-houses.

The method of categorizing building functions deployed here has been adapted from the work of van Hoek ( 2008 ) who suggests that urban functions be divided into three primary categories that we call ‘live’, ‘work’, and ‘visit’, plus the various forms of mix that emerge between them (Fig.  3 ). This live/work/visit model (Dovey and Pafka 2017 ) is based primarily on the argument that the population in a building, street, or neighbourhood at any particular time can be understood as a mix of those who live there, work there, or visit the place. Most previous studies have considered urban functions in categories such as residential, industrial, commercial, retail, education, entertainment, recreation, health, transport, government, community, parking, vacant, hospitality, etc., which is a modernist way to segregate the city into different categories. Such categorisations are problematic for two major reasons. Firstly, with so many categories/sub-categories, it is difficult to measure and map complex cities with any coherence. Secondly, there is a problem of consistency since the boundaries of any of these categories overlap and can become subsets of another.

figure 3

The live/work/visit triangle (based on Dovey and Pafka 2017 )

This approach is based on a live/work/visit triangle utilizing the points of the triangle for living (red), working (blue) and visiting (green) with the interstitial colours to indicate the different forms of mix between them (Fig.  3 ). ‘Live’ incorporates places people sleep overnight. ‘Work’ denotes offices, factories and educational spaces. ‘Visit’ is an umbrella concept for places that are primarily used by visitors such as shops, restaurants, libraries, theatres, museums, parks and recreation (Dovey and Pafka 2017 ). A live/visit mix is represented as yellow; a live/work mix as magenta and a work/visit mix as cyan; a mix of all three will be white. Figure  3 also shows how this method of analysis can be used to show the vertical layering of primary functions of buildings in section and the ways this produces mixed colours when viewed in the plan.

In order to conduct a comparative analysis of the interrelations between functions within each building, we have conducted an adaptation of gamma analysis derived from space syntax analysis. A ‘justified gamma diagram’ is one of the analytical methods developed by Hillier and Hanson ( 1984 ) to study the ‘social logic’ of the relationships between spaces within buildings and the depth of those spaces from the street. In this process, architectural plans are translated into diagrams of topological segments (Ostwald 2011 : 445; Dovey 2008 ). Thus the circulation pattern of the building can be identified along with the ways in which the building plan produces separations and intersections between access routes. In the process of the structuring of gamma diagrams, every space in a building is allocated a depth value, according to the minimum number of spatial segments that one must pass through to arrive in that space from the street. These diagrams reduce the plan to a set of spatial segments represented by circles with permeable connections represented by lines. This method produces diagrams of spatial permeability with all spaces of the same depth lined up horizontally at each level away from the street (Hillier and Hanson 1984 : 147–149). Because they rely on passing trade, shops are typically one level deep from the street. A stairway between floors is diagrammed as one segment.

Syntactic analysis

This section presents the syntactic analyses of selected buildings from each from the Planned (PL), Semi-Planned (SP) and Historic Core (HC) districts - a sequence of increasing informality and complexity of functional mix. In each case, we show both gamma diagrams and floor plans, colour coded according to the live/work/visit triangle described above. The circles outlined with thick lines represent the main circulation routes of each building; these are also colour coded by the functions to which they give access. In order to make these diagrams readable, clusters of segments with similar functions are represented with elongated boxes to indicate a number of segments in a cluster. The circulation lines are also colour coded by the various uses to which they provide access. A comparative analysis of these gamma diagrams will follow.

We first consider examples from the more recently Planned areas on the urban periphery (Fig.  4 ) where all buildings were initially designed as mono-functional residential buildings. All 5 examples are 6 storeys high on similar plots; all except the final example have substantial parking at ground level and elevator access to upper floors. The key interest here is in the ways functions have been transformed. PL1 has a central circulation spine that begins with a triple mix (white) of live/work/visit, which gradually becomes live/work (magenta) and then residential (red), as it penetrates deeper into the building. PL2 mixes living, working and visiting on the 4 lower floors; separate shops have emerged on the street frontage of the ground floor which is otherwise devoted to parking. PL3 largely remains mono-functional with just a few shops with separate access at street level. In PL4 and PL5 large portions of ground floor parking have been converted to retail with housing above, but without mixing of entries. This part of Dhaka was planned as mono-functional residential but clearly needs retail to function effectively. Additional visit and work functions that have emerged on upper levels include a dental clinic, school and beauty parlour.

figure 4

Syntactic analysis of buildings from Planned Areas (PL)

figure 5

Syntactic analysis of buildings from Semi-Planned Areas (SP)

Considering examples from the Semi-Planned area (Fig.  5 ), SP1 is a 10 storey building that contains two quite separate circulation systems with a complex retail network on the ground floor and housing (with elevator) above. The functional mix is thus confined to the ground floor and basement. SP2 is a 6 storey residential building where office functions have replaced apartments on the 1st and 2nd floors, while retail has separate entries on the street. SP3 is a 4 storey building that is primarily occupied by offices, but mixed with residential on the two middle floors; the main access spine is mostly a live/work mix (magenta). SP4 is a 6 storey building on a street corner with 10 street entries for shops and offices plus a separate entry to the residential floors above. These floors have become mixed with offices up to the 2nd floor. SP5 is a 4 storey building with a mono-functional residential tree-like structure and separate entries for the ground floor shops.

Finally, we consider the more extreme examples from the Historic Core (Fig.  6 ). HC1 is a 5 storey building entered through a shopping arcade with warehouse/shops (go-downs) on the 1st and second floors and residential above. The circulation has a tree-like structure comprising visit, work, and living at progressive depths. The go-downs extend 5 segments deep while residences extend 7 segments deep. Shops are accessed both from the street and arcade. Mixed circulation is confined to the first three floors and becomes progressively less mixed as it penetrates deeper. HC2 is a 6 storey building with a network of shops on the ground floor, multiple street entries and interconnecting corridors that penetrate up to 6 segments deep. Residential apartments on the 3rd to 5th floors are accessed through a separate stair from the street and have an elevator from the 3rd floor. Here there is a notable contrast between the networked access structure for the shops (with 10 street entries) and a tree-like structure for the housing. HC3 is a 5 storey building with primarily work-related functions (printing) on the ground and first floors with residential above. HC4 is a 6 storey building that combines visit, work and living at progressive levels. It has shops and offices on the ground and first floors with residences above. The mixed circulation penetrates 2 segments deep, moving from a triple mix to live/work and then residential. HC5 is a 5 storey building that mixes retail with work on the first two floors and then work with residential on the three floors above. The single white and magenta access spine indicates that shoppers, workers and residents all use the same access route. Some of the shops (book-binding) are located up to 4 segments deep from the street. The work functions on the upper floors (go-downs) share a kitchen with residential functions. Hence, the combination of working (blue) and living (red) on the upper floors is represented by the mix of live/work access (magenta) on the diagram.

figure 6

Syntactic analysis of buildings from the Historic Core (HC)

Patterns of Mix

We can see in these examples what may seem a bewildering range of ways in which these buildings mix functions in different ways and to different degrees. While it is not our goal to reduce this field of differences to any kind of essential types, we want to find a way to understand spatial patterns that are evident in this production of vertical mixed-use in buildings. We now take one further step beyond the gamma diagrams to suggest that these mixed-use buildings can be broadly categorised into 5 diagrammatic types with different circulation systems. While the floor areas devoted to different functions are evident on the plans, our primary concern here is to understand the ways mixed-use buildings mix or separate access routes in everyday life. Figure  7 presents a typology of mixed-use buildings representing the typical patterns of vertical mix circulations that are identifiable within the 15 cases. Each of these types is identified first as a relational diagram, followed by a brief description and the examples listed in the final column. In the generic diagrams, the complexities of individual spaces are collapsed in order to reveal spatial clustering by function and connectivity, while also revealing the overall depth or shallowness from the street. In these diagrams, the representation of different functions and their mixes follows the live/work/visit triangular model used earlier in this study. The main circulation spines are represented by thick lines; those with mixed colours (magenta, cyan, white) indicate mixed access spaces.

Figure  7 shows that some types are more common than others, however, this is not a random sample and we are more interested in the range of types. Type A is the vertical mix of live and visit functions often known as ‘shop-top housing’; it is the only type where functions and entries are fully segregated. This is typical in more formal cities and it is not surprising to find it mostly in the Planned Areas. Type B incorporates a complex access network with multiple street entries and arcades giving access to both work and visit functions with separate access to a residential tower above. The mixing of access routes is confined to work/visit which again is typical in more formal cities. Type C is a stack of visiting, working and living functions in a vertical sequence with a single spine of mixed access. Thus all three functions are mixed at street level, but this mix is reduced to live/work and then to residential for the upper floors, as the circulation spine progresses deeper into the building. This type is mostly produced by the informal adaptation of residential buildings. Type D is similar but with retail and some work functions separated at street level - thus there is no mixing of retail and residential access. While there is only one example of type E in our study, this is the most mixed example and the only one without any mono-functional access—mixed access extends throughout the depth of the 5 storey building.

figure 7

 A typology of mixed-use buildings

These generic syntactic diagrams demonstrate that visiting, working and living functions generally remain in a consistent sequence of progressive depth in buildings. Shops typically remain at the shallowest position, as they depend on accessibility for their business. They often extend deep into ground floor plans and sometimes to the 1st and 2nd floors. Work functions are often mixed with shops on the ground floor but more commonly extend to intermediate floors as in types C and D. Residential functions always occupy the deepest and most private sector of the building. Figure  7 also shows the ways the different types are distributed across the three areas of the city from which examples were chosen. In general terms, the Historic Core has more complex and mixed examples while the Planned areas have more segregated functions. This reflects the fact that the Historic Core has always been mixed while buildings in the Planned and Semi-Planned areas were initially designed as mono-functional and have become informally mixed over time.

In this study, we have mapped and analysed functional mix within selected buildings of an extremely mixed informal city. These examples are not random nor typical, they have been chosen as the most mixed cases in each study area because they embody this extreme and test the limits of functional mixing within buildings. These buildings have been analysed through methods that reveal typical circulation patterns and the mixing of different functions within them. While the building plans and syntactic diagrams are empirically interesting (Figs.  4 , 5 and 6 ), the key findings of the paper lie in the generic diagrams that reveal broader patterns of vertical mix and circulation systems (Fig.  7 ). This work also enables further critique on the benefits and challenges of different forms of vertical functional mix. It is not our purpose here to make judgements about the effectiveness or otherwise of different kinds of functional mix based on this data, however, it is possible to discern a certain spatial logic, linked to the economic and social logic of the city.

While these mixed-use buildings involve challenges at the micro-scale of storage of noxious materials and social encounters, it also has significant benefits at the broader scale. Informal adaptation to a greater mix serves city dwellers by filling the gaps between demand and available services; in this way, the mix contributes to the local economy. The informal conversions are generating a more walkable and lively urban environment by integrating diverse functions, activities and people—a quality that is often missing in the modernist planned areas. While this city clearly needs greater regulation, these neighbourhoods are more walkable and efficient because of the mix and would be quite dysfunctional without it.

When we look at the circulation spaces of the syntactic diagrams we note a considerable amount of mixing of work/visit (cyan) and work/live (magenta), a few spaces that mix all three functions (white), but never live/visit (yellow). In other words, whenever residential access becomes mixed it is always mixed with production functions first and only occasionally with shopping as well. There are clear synergies in the mixing of work and visit functions that are not present when either of these functions is mixed with residential. These are not the kinds of synergy that originally drove the proliferation of the shophouse where one lived over the store and often entered the home through it (Davis 2012 ). Thus the synergy between residential and retail that produces shop-top housing—the form of functional mix that works so well in almost any highly urbanized city—depends on a separation of these functions within each building.

The issues of functional mix cannot be considered separately from the range of morphological factors that frame the ways it emerges; particularly in relation to street interface conditions and density. The capacity to design separate access routes into each building depends to a significant degree on the capacity for multiple street entries—the cases in our sample range from 3 to 11 street entries each with an average of 4–6. This capacity will depend in turn on plot size and block location—a larger plot size and corner location produce more capacity for multiple street entries. Figures  4 , 5 and 6 show that the more informal districts have a much less regular plot size and shape, with a greater average and range of street entries. By contrast, significant parts of the street frontage in the planned area are consumed by carpark entries. In general, the unplanned areas have a greater capacity to produce separated entries.

The issues and challenges that emerge in relation to an extreme functional mix cannot be extricated from questions of density. The buildings we have considered range from 4 to 10 storeys; plot coverage in most cases is close to 100% and net floor area ratios range from 2.8 to 6.0. While these building densities are not uncommon in Dhaka, they are very high by global standards (Dovey and Pafka 2014 ). Population densities are also extremely high, whether in terms of residential populations, jobs or streetlife—the same live/work/visit categories used for the functional analysis. Many of these internal spaces have very high population densities in terms of overcrowded housing, offices, workshops and shops. It is important to understand that a problem that may appear to be caused by the mix, may not be a problem at a lower density; it is not just the fact of mixing different populations within circulation spaces but the intensity of this mix.

Many of these buildings, especially in the Planned district, were originally designed as mono-functional but have been informally adapted to various forms of mixed-use. The key dynamic here has been one of residential space converted to workshops, offices, shops, schools and so on. While shops and offices may be interconvertible, there are no examples of them being converted into apartments. It is clear that economic forces are the key drivers—work and visit functions bring higher rents in those spaces closer to the street. Depending on the ways in which the building was initially designed, it will have varying levels of capacity to adapt. If there is a single circulation spine and no space for additional entries then such entry spaces will be mixed. This will reduce the amenity and security of all remaining residential apartments, also reducing the rental value and increasing affordability. Thus the functional mix within buildings is linked to the socio-economic profile of residents.

The two greatest challenges embodied in the extreme forms of vertical mix we have documented here are the risk of fire and the social difficulties of shared access. The deadly fires that have occurred in Dhaka are often seen as due to an incompatible mix of functions, where noxious or dangerous materials are stored in spaces where any resulting fire is difficult to control or escape from. However, this problem could be addressed through stricter control of storage, workplace safety and fire egress without changing the functional mix. The challenge here is partly local because there is such a strong tradition of the go-down—the small shop that is also a warehouse.

The social issues that mixed-use functions usually cause are privacy and security. The informal transformation of residential buildings from mono-functional to mixed-use often generates shared circulation spaces where public access penetrates deeply into the upper floors, compromising the privacy and security of residences. It is imperative that work and visit functions achieve this public access for their business. The gamma diagrams in Figs.  4 , 5 and 6 show these levels of penetration graphically; they also show that even the most dense and complex buildings can be designed with segregated access.

In as much as mono-functional planning has been damaging to the city, the adaptation of residential buildings to mixed-use functions is a benefit. The planning challenge lies not in micro-managing what the mix should be but in protecting citizens from negative outcomes. The formal controls of the state should focus on proscribing certain outcomes rather than prescribing particular functions. It is important to acknowledge the benefits of informal adaptation within a formal planning framework. It is also necessary to identify and address the key problems related to informal mix in buildings. The control of mixed entries is a complex issue that requires a better understanding of the relations between formal and informal processes in any city. While the separation of residential entries is generally preferable, there may be advantages in blurring the boundaries between home and work - as is happening in more formal cities. Housing that is entered through mixed entry spaces may have difficulties in terms of privacy and security that other housing does not, however, it will also be more affordable and adaptable. It is not the role of the state to enforce the segregation of entries. The broad challenge, both in Dhaka and other highly informalised cities of the global South, is to develop forms of urban planning that can address the challenges of a dysfunctional mix without destroying the vitality and productivity of the mixed-use district.

Chun HK, Hassan AS, Noordin NM (2005) An Influence of Colonial Architecture to Building Styles and Motifs in Colonial Cities in Malaysia. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the Asian Planning Schools Association, Penang, 12–14 September 2005

Davis H (2012) Living over the store. Routledge, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Dovey K (2008) Framing places. Routledge, London

Google Scholar  

Dovey K, Pafka E (2014) The urban density assemblage. Urban Des Int 19(1):66–76

Article   Google Scholar  

Dovey K, Pafka E (2017) What is functional mix? Plann Theory Pract 18(2):249–267

Dovey K, Pafka E (2020) What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Stud 57(1):93–108

Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL et al (2006) Many pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J Am Plann Assoc 72(1):75–87

Grant J (2002) Mixed use in theory and practice. J Am Plann Assoc 68(1):71–84

Han W, Beisi J (2016) Urban morphology of commercial port cities and shop-houses in Southeast Asia. Proc Eng 142:189–196

Haque NU (2015) Flawed urban development policies in Pakistan. PIDE working paper 119, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad

Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hoek JW van den (2008) The MXI (Mixed-use Index) as tool for urban planning and analysis. Corporations and Cities, Delft University of Technology 1–15

Hoppenbrouwer E, Louw E (2005) Mixed-use development. Eur Plan Stud 13(7):967–983

Imam H (2010) Nimtoli tragedy: the worst nightmare. In: The Daily Star, 12 June. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-142316 . Accessed 30 Apr 2021

Imamuddin AH, Hassan SA, Alam W (1989) Shakhari Patti: a unique old city settlement, Dhaka. Protibesh, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) lll(2)

Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New York

Jahan S (2011) Dhaka: an urban planning perspective. In: Ahmed S, Hafiz R, Rabbani A (eds) 400 years of capital Dhaka and beyond, vol 3: The Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka

Khan FM (2020) Functional mix and changing morphology of Dhaka. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne

Khan FM, Pafka E, Dovey K (2021) Understanding informal functional mix: morphogenic mapping of Old Dhaka. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1979085

Mohsin KM (1991) Commercial and industrial aspects of Dhaka in the eighteenth century. In: Ahmed SU (ed) Dhaka past present future. The Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka

Molla MAM (2019) Nimtoli to Chawkbazar. In: The Daily Star, 22 February. https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/news/dhaka-fire-nimtoli-chawkbazar-lesson-not-learnt-1705771 . Accessed 30 Apr 2021

Nahrin K (2008) Violation of land use plan and its impact on community life in Dhaka city. Jahangirnagar Plann Rev 6:39–47

Nilufar F (2011) Urban morphology of Dhaka city: spatial dynamics of growing city and the urban core. In: Ahmed S, Hafiz R, Rabbani A (eds) 400 years of capital Dhaka and beyond, vol 3: The Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka

Ostwald MJ (2011) The mathematics of spatial configuration. Nexus Netw J 13(2):445–470

Phuong DQ, Groves D (2010) Sense of place in Hanoi’s shop-house. J Interior Des 36(1):1–20

Rabianski JS, Gibler K, Tidwell OA, Clements JS (2009) Mixed-use development. J Real Estate Lit 17(2):205–230

Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha—RAJUK (2015) Dhaka Structure Plan: 2016–2035. Dhaka. ( http://www.rajukdhaka.gov.bd/rajuk/image/slideshow/5.Chapter%2002.pdf)

Su-Jan Y, Limin H, Kiang H (2012) Urban informality and everyday (night) life: a Field Study in Singapore. Int Dev Plann Rev 34(4):369–390

Susantono B (1998) Transportation land use dynamics in metropolitan Jakarta. Berkeley Plann J 12(1):126–144

Tipple AG, Kellett PW, Masters GA (1996) Mixed use in residential areas. Final report for ODA research project 6265, Centre for Architectural Research and Development Overseas. University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Tishi TR, Islam I (2019) Urban fire occurrences in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area. Geo J 84(3):1417–1427

Ujang N, Shamsuddin S (2008) Place attachment in relation to users’ roles in the main shopping streets of Kuala Lumpur. In: Bashri A, Mai MM (eds) Urban design issues in the developing world. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Verma DG (1993) Inner city renewal: lessons from the Indian experience. Habitat Int 17(1):117–132

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Fatema Meher Khan

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Elek Pafka & Kim Dovey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have taken part in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors information

Fatema Meher Khan is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Architecture at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). Her research interest lies in urban design and planning, morphological aspects, and informal urbanism. Some of her research papers are on mixed-use function, urban morphological transformation, and social equity. Elek Pafka is Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning and Urban Design at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne. His research focuses on the relationship between material density, urban form and the intensity of urban life, as well as methods of mapping the ‘pulse’ of the city. He has participated in research on transit oriented development, functional mix and walkability. He has co-edited the book Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities . Kim Dovey is Professor of Architecture and Urban Design at the University of Melbourne, where he is also Director of InfUr- the Informal Urbanism Research Hub. He has published and broadcast widely on social issues in architecture, urban design and planning. Books include 'Framing Places', 'Fluid City', ‘Becoming Places’, ‘Urban Design Thinking’ and ‘Mapping Urbanities'.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatema Meher Khan .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Khan, F.M., Pafka, E. & Dovey, K. Extremes of mixed-use architecture: a spatial analysis of vertical functional mix in Dhaka. City Territ Archit 9 , 31 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-022-00177-y

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2021

Accepted : 23 September 2022

Published : 14 October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-022-00177-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Mixed-use building
  • Informality
  • Urban morphology
  • Land use planning

mixed use development case study

IMAGES

  1. Mixed-Use Development Amid Coronavirus: Case Study

    mixed use development case study

  2. .: Case Study: Mixed-Use Development

    mixed use development case study

  3. Case study on Mixed use building

    mixed use development case study

  4. Architectural thesis on Mixed-use complex by adichinchkar

    mixed use development case study

  5. Case study on Mixed use building

    mixed use development case study

  6. Case Study: Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Historic Urban Areas

    mixed use development case study

VIDEO

  1. Project Development

  2. Product Development Case Study (ESP32 + ST7701s and George Hotz)

COMMENTS

  1. The Third Place » Analyzing the future of mixed-use development in

    A new study by Montgomery Planning's Research and Strategic Projects (RSP) Division has found that mixed-use development projects are likely to become even more common than single-use projects both locally and nationally.

  2. Mixed Use Architecture

    Campagne Innsbruck / bogenfeld Architektur Two Manhattan West / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill WAVE (dot wave) Mixed Use Building / SOSU ARCHITECTS SQUARES in Tianshui Library and Daycare / SAKO...

  3. PDF Mixed-Use Development: A Development Case Study

    Mixed-Use Development: A Development Case Study By Christian Gardner Submitted to the Center For Real Estate on August 5, 2004 in partial fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Of Master of Science in Real Estate Development At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract

  4. (Pdf) Sustainable Mixed-use Development: a Case Study of Life Hub

    This research paper presents a new model for the approach of mixed-used development. It reveals how a mixed-used development strategy can be used to reshape a city and attain sustainable...

  5. Understanding and Implementing Mixed-Use Development in the West: Case

    The Orchard Pines case study in this article illustrates a mixed-use development with no internal fences that is open to the surrounding neighborhood. A mixed-use zoning ordinance and development approval process should acknowledge and avoid regulatory barriers.

  6. Mixed Use Development

    The team has partnered with Edge, a sustainable real estate development company, to help bring the vision to life. Construction is set to start in 2025 and the building will be delivered in 2028 ...

  7. Mixed Use Archives

    The Green Cities Company is a real estate investor and developer that pursues green certifications for each asset in its portfolio. At 5 MLK, a 17-story mixed-use building with 220 apartment units, 120,000 square feet of office space, and 15,000 square feet of retail space in Portland, Oregon, a Salmon Safe certification label was achieved […]

  8. Mixed-use architecture

    British studio Foster + Partners has revealed its design for The Alton, a mixed-use development with a concrete structure that will draw on the surrounding architecture of Miami Beach, Florida....

  9. Paths to mixed-use development: A case study of Southern Changping in

    Using Southern Changping of Beijing as a case study, where the mixed-use development has been adopted in the past decade, we conduct a systematic evaluation of the three approaches and assess the impacts of mixed-use on urban development in Beijing.

  10. Paths to mixed-use development: A case study of Southern Changping in

    The definition developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) are consistently referenced in the literature (Herndon, 2011), which defines a mixed-use project as a coherent plan with three or more functionally and physically integrated revenue-producing uses (ULI, 1987). We follow this definition of mixed-use in this paper.

  11. Mixed-Use Development: Nine Case Studies of Complex Projects

    Mixed-Use Development: Nine Case Studies of Complex Projects Show full title By Dean Schwanke 3.5 / 5 ( 3 ratings ) About this ebook This publication provides a detailed look at nine leading examples of mixed-use projects from around the world that have been developed in recent years.

  12. Research on high‐rise mixed‐use developments: Case studies on mixed use

    A mixed -use tall building can be characterized as 1) a building with three or more significant revenueproducing uses, 2) Functional and Physical integration of project components. A mix of uses was once the norm in the major cities prior to the implementation of modern zoning and land‐use practices.

  13. Case Study: Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Historic Urban Areas

    Case Study: Sustainable Mixed-Use Development in Historic Urban Areas 1. 2. 3. Proximity to down town and major transportation nodes 4. 5. 6. Historic Approvals - Article 85, MHC, BLC 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Hybrid Concrete Core and Steel Frame Tower 12. 13. 14. 15.

  14. Mixed-Use Development: A Call for Research

    Despite the growth in mixed-use development, theoretically-based research on its success or failure has been limited. Descriptive articles, case studies, unsubstantiated claims by developers, and advocacy for community social and environmental objectives dominate the literature. These articles appear mostly in professional and

  15. (PDF) Paths to mixed-use development: A case study of Southern

    2018 • Rainer Wehrhahn This study takes an actor-oriented perspective and focuses on the role of urban planners in the production of gated communities in China. It probes their related values and the structural factors influencing their preferences and planning choices.

  16. Differences in Experiences With the Development of Mixed-Use Projects

    Introduction Mixed-use development, multiple uses within a project, although not a new concept, is continuing to grow in popularity. Mixed-use development has several benefits for communities and is a key strategy in achieving sustainable environments ( Woo and Cho, 2018 ).

  17. Sustainable Mixed-Use Development: Designing Economically and Socially

    Mixed-use development is an emerging model of urban planning that seeks to incorporate a multitude of uses in a single urban development. Rather than creating segregated spaces, a mixed-use space includes residential, office, and retail space in the same environment. In true mixed-use developments, these areas blend together harmoniously rather ...

  18. MIXED LAND USE IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    To thoroughly study whether mixed-use development may emerge as ideal solution to such long distance travelling issues and other related such kind of issues. ... or a road of prescribed minimum ROW (in the case of other mixed use activities), mixed use shall be permitted, subject to the following general terms and conditions: In residential ...

  19. Extremes of mixed-use architecture: a spatial analysis of vertical

    The concept of mixed-use is now well-established as an urban design and planning principle that adds to the vitality, walkability and productivity of the city at neighbourhood scale. There is much less research on the dense and complex vertical mix of functions within buildings. This paper investigates the extremes of informal vertical mixing of functions within buildings in Dhaka, where ...

  20. Mukeshwaran B_Thesis Design_Mixed Use Development in Rajarhat ...

    MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - LITERATURE STUDY Future Urbanization in the world to take place increase Design concepts in corporation Economic, Social, Climatic conditions of the environment GLOBAL...

  21. Case study on Mixed use building

    1. ''Mixed-use building development is a type of urban development that blends residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or entertainment uses, where those functions are physically and functionally integrated, and that provides pedestrian connections. '' TONMOY BARUA 132082001 DEPT. OF ARCHITECTURE CASE STUDY ON MIXED USE PROJECT

  22. Mixed use building case study

    Mixed use building case study. 1. CASE STUDY ON MIXED USE BUIILDINGS SIMI SAYED S6 SPIHER. 2. KOHINOOR SQUARE AT MUMBAI. 3. LOCATION • Kohinoor square located on the land previously owned by Kohinoor Mills in Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai, India It is situated at the junction of LJ Road and Gokhale Road.