Exploring Freedom Commerce Center
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2909573756_MLTk7Jc-M.jpg)
Metro Jacksonville's Kara Holmes dives deep into the heart of Baymeadows, where investors have rediscovered a collection of forgotten possibilities.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-nov-exploring-freedom-commerce-center
We can talk about the nature preserve and land swaps and all that but this "husk of opportunity" was built in an extremely sensitive ecosystem and now sits with a ridiculous vacancy rate. I guess we're just going to pave everything in the name of "progress".
I think the opportunity at this point is primarily filling the existing developed space. The majority of the property is now conservation.
Glad to see the wetlands were saved.
Side Q: What is the source of the map at the end of the article?
It's not Google or Apple Maps and I quite like it..
Cushman & Wakefield
http://www.cushwakelandfl.com/media/downloads/pdf/75/1346.pdf
Quote from: thelakelander on November 20, 2013, 08:41:30 AM
I think the opportunity at this point is primarily filling the existing developed space. The majority of the property is now conservation.
I guess. Looks to me like most of the opportunity is moving to the Gate Parkway/JTB area and leaving Baymeadows behind. Although they do have the opportunity to get a newly renovated bikini bar almost across the street from FCC if the owners can push it through Council. Progress baby!
My guess is they'll pull from each other as time goes on....until most of the companies move on to Bartram Park and St. Johns County. ;). This seems to be the case with the recent company that's leaving Gate Parkway area for more space at FCC. In the long run, adaptive reuse will become more popular. This is already the case in the office park across the street. It now features two colleges most wanted downtown and a charter school. I wouldn't be surprised to see more residential infill.
Nice summary of the history of Freedom Commerce. The challenge with FCC isn't the quality of the buildings or the infrastructure. A few of the buildings even have nice I-95 visibility. The challenge is its location. The Baymeadows/I-95 interchange is woefully inadequate for the volume of traffic that would be generated by FCC and Deerwood Center if those business parks were at healthy occupancy levels. When you couple the history of crime in the area (particularly the adjacent hotels), the cons of the location exceed the pros. Even so, Crocker is in at approx $35 per building SF after renovations. Add $25 per SF for tenant improvements, and the total investment is $60 per SF. At that number Crocker can undercut the market and do deals at low rents and still make a very nice return. Good for Crocker, but not good for the Jacksonville office market overall as that will add more pressure to market rates. Lower rental rates in the market lowers property values, which in turn lower property taxes. It's the kind of downward spiral that we have been experiencing for the past 5 years. We need job expansion in the city to begin climbing out.
^Sounds like we have a lot more office space than needed in our market. What's the chances of finding new uses for much of the vacant space citywide?
I worked their for about 6 years when I was with blue cross blue shield. Once bcbs finished their additional building at their gate parkway campus, FCC was toast. They occupied alot of space out there for decades. To lose a long time teanet was a huge blow.
thelakelander, IMO best hope for reducing office vacancy is job growth not reuse. Much of the vacancy is in larger buildings in declining submarkets (Arlington, Baymeadows and Downtown). There's a big push to do something about Downtown's vacancy, but not the other submarkets. Jacksonville has been an overbuilt market for all of my time in the business (since late '90s). It's one of the unintended consequences of consolidation, which made greenfield development much more economical than infill or dense, high rise urban development. When "healthy," the Jacksonville office market historically has been around an 88% occupancy rate. In a 25 million SF market (more or less) that's 3.0-3.5 million SF of vacancy at any given time. I suppose some of those buildings could be repurposed, but into what use? And as soon as the market gets a little healthier, suburban development will return adding more space onto the market. I'm afraid we're caught in a vicious circle. And that's one reason why Jax doesn't have many institutional investors buying into the office sector.
QuoteAnd as soon as the market gets a little healthier, suburban development will return adding more space onto the market. I'm afraid we're caught in a vicious circle. And that's one reason why Jax doesn't have many institutional investors buying into the office sector.
If our City Council would actually grow a pair and say no to developers or ask developers for certain concessions instead of bending over for them- we could get out of the "vicious cycle" and we could promote adaptive reuse rather than greenfield development. It takes leadership to buck the trend.
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 10:17:22 AM
thelakelander, IMO best hope for reducing office vacancy is job growth not reuse. Much of the vacancy is in larger buildings in declining submarkets (Arlington, Baymeadows and Downtown). There's a big push to do something about Downtown's vacancy, but not the other submarkets. Jacksonville has been an overbuilt market for all of my time in the business (since late '90s). It's one of the unintended consequences of consolidation, which made greenfield development much more economical than infill or dense, high rise urban development. When "healthy," the Jacksonville office market historically has been around an 88% occupancy rate. In a 25 million SF market (more or less) that's 3.0-3.5 million SF of vacancy at any given time. I suppose some of those buildings could be repurposed, but into what use? And as soon as the market gets a little healthier, suburban development will return adding more space onto the market. I'm afraid we're caught in a vicious circle. And that's one reason why Jax doesn't have many institutional investors buying into the office sector.
Fantastic post. Think we have some of the same issues in the residential sector as well.
It's easy to say that in a vacuum, but often the proposed developments are consistent with the comp plan. So why should they be denied if they are consistent with the laws & regulations in place? As a developer, I will say that I have yet to have government bend over backwards for any project that I've been involved in and there are almost always concessions made by the developer to get project approval. In my experience the pendulum more often swings toward the other end of the spectrum out of concern for political backlash from constituents. As for adaptive reuse projects, I'm looking for those opportunities constantly but finding one that is economically attractive to investors is very difficult in Jacksonville. It takes property owners being willing to accept lower sales prices for their buildings to make that happen, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of that.
^That's my point. Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke. They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed. Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.
Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry. And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue. But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience. Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt. A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 10:42:54 AM
^That's my point. Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke. They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed. Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry. And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue. But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience. Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt. A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.
Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions. But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field. Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects. Got it. Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now. It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth. Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it.
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 10:42:54 AM
^That's my point. Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke. They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed. Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
Interesting points, but it really is not very easy to get land entitled for residential development in SJC and there is currently market demand there for more housing. So who should be the arbiter of when there is adequate demand for more product, whether it's residential or commercial?
And when you say that the development industry goes nuts, what that really means is that people or companies see an opportunity to invest. Just as many people start plowing more money into the stock market when the Dow starts ticking up. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. Putting NIMBYism aside as a reason for opposing development since we're looking at this rationally, is the question whether development should be permitted or what conditions should come along with it?
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now. It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth. Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it.
I'm sure you are aware that mobility fees are being charged for new developments now.
One of the major problems with the comp plan is the ease of getting exceptions. I would guess that very few are denied.
I too, used to work at Blue Cross. It was really nice with all of the trees, something you don't see at the southside campus.
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 11:07:09 AM
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry. And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue. But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience. Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt. A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.
Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions. But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field. Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects. Got it. Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.
You're probably right. I bet it is a giant conspiracy to stick it to John Q. Public.
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:20:18 AM
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now. It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth. Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it.
I'm sure you are aware that mobility fees are being charged for new developments now.
I am aware- and pleased. Should have never been put on hold in the first place. Although I would eventually like to see the Mobility Plan revisited and the VMT increased for the Suburban and Rural development areas that were watered down during the Plan development due to "pressure".
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 11:07:09 AM
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry. And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue. But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience. Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt. A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.
Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions. But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field. Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects. Got it. Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.
You're probably right. I bet it is a giant conspiracy to stick it to John Q. Public.
Not so much to stick it John Q. Public but to allow developers to get rich on the back of John Q. who will ultimately be the one paying for infrastructure improvements to support this new development. But I guess that actually is "sticking it" to John Q. so, in essence, you're right.
Quote from: kbhanson3 on November 20, 2013, 11:17:52 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: cline on November 20, 2013, 10:42:54 AM
^That's my point. Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke. They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed. Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.
The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.
Just have to look at SJC to see this.
Interesting points, but it really is not very easy to get land entitled for residential development in SJC and there is currently market demand there for more housing. So who should be the arbiter of when there is adequate demand for more product, whether it's residential or commercial?
And when you say that the development industry goes nuts, what that really means is that people or companies see an opportunity to invest. Just as many people start plowing more money into the stock market when the Dow starts ticking up. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. Putting NIMBYism aside as a reason for opposing development since we're looking at this rationally, is the question whether development should be permitted or what conditions should come along with it?
Its actually pretty darn easy to get land entitled in SJC. I would know first hand. If you are below the max density allowed by the Comp Plan, you're pretty much good to go. That's not to say there isn't a cost to go through the process and that there aren't concessions for open space, wetlands, etc...but they rarely, if ever deny anything there. The arbiter would be the planning boards and city/county commissions who make decisions on PUD's and Comp Plan Amendments. Not saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered. For instance, just last year in SJC a small PUD was approved right next to an unfinished development that was full of foreclosed homes. That wasn't even taken into account. What are the long term consequences of that approval? Who knows, but imo, it would be worth discussion in the public hearing process.
Market demand for more housing in SJC? You mean more than is currently built? Or more than is currently entitled?
My earlier point was that the amount of cheap, easily entitled land in SJC enables an oversaturation of the real estate market locally, much like you said earlier about the commercial market.
QuoteNot saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered.
I wouldn't be in favor of that at all. Rarely do you see a citizen planning board with the type of expertise to extrapilate short and long term housing trends into some kind of rational equilibrium, nonetheless consider buyer preferances for a particular housing stock. Government shouldn't be setting the market.
I apologize for my previous sloppy post. I'm not adept at posting on the go just yet. Will clean it up in a bit. Darn Newbies!
Quote from: fieldafm on November 20, 2013, 12:39:24 PM
QuoteNot saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered.
I wouldn't be in favor of that at all. Rarely do you see a citizen planning board with the type of expertise to extrapilate short and long term housing trends into some kind of rational equilibrium, nonetheless consider buyer preferances for a particular housing stock. Government shouldn't be setting the market.
SJC's has a real estate appraiser as chair, a banker, a research whiz, and others that are quite capable of understanding a basic real estate market analysis. I'm speaking more of a rudimentary analysis, not a thorough, in-depth look at the market. For instance, amount of land entitlements county wide and in a 5 mile radius; amount of foreclosures county wide and in a 5 mile radius. Simply looking at those things in the same way they do a traffic study or impact on schools. Does it really make sense to approve a PUD rezoning for 200 units on Rural zoned land if there are tons of foreclosed homes and unbuilt developments nearby?
I'm not extremely passionate about this or anything, but am really just playing devil's advocate to see what others think.
@kbhanson
Darn you newbie! Haha
I meant easy as in getting final approval. Rarely, if ever is anything turned down by the boards there...but you are right, the process itself is longer and staff review is more tedious than other places. That definitely puts a greater burden on the developers, but does ensure a much smoother hearing process. Other places definitely have quicker turnaround times, but not as smooth hearing processes.
Who said I distrust the political system? Perhaps you're confusing my posts with that of another posters. I trust the system. Just think that looking at inventory, foreclosures, outstanding entitlements, etc, would make the PUD process better serve the public interest by ensuring that developments in undesirable locations wouldn't be approved.
Perhaps then the buildable lots would be in locations that are more desirable than what is presently available, as you said.
FYI, there is actually a provision in the SJC comp plan that allows the county to request a real estate analysis, but its typically done for Comp Plan Amendments. I do recall it being used for a recent PUD though. Oakridge Landing, which is near Durbin Crossing. The study pretty clearly highlighted the demand in that area.
My apologies, CityLife. Clearly I should not attempt to post on the go. I misread your post as being from cline.
No worries at all. I appreciate your insight.
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 12:16:13 PMIts actually pretty darn easy to get land entitled in SJC. I would know first hand. If you are below the max density allowed by the Comp Plan, you're pretty much good to go. That's not to say there isn't a cost to go through the process and that there aren't concessions for open space, wetlands, etc...but they rarely, if ever deny anything there.
The entitlement & zoning process should be straightforward and predictable provided that the developer proposes a project that complies with the existing comp plan. My firsthand experience in SJC is that virtually every project must go through the PUD process, and that process is anything but predictable and often is rather political.
Quote from: CityLife on November 20, 2013, 12:16:13 PMMarket demand for more housing in SJC? You mean more than is currently built? Or more than is currently entitled?
Market demand for more buildable lots than currently exist. Number of lots currently entitled can be misleading since large scale projects such as Nocatee and other DRI's have many lots entitled but it will be years before the lots are actually buildable because of the time that it takes to actually design & construct the entitled subdivisions.
QuoteNumber of lots currently entitled can be misleading since large scale projects such as Nocatee and other DRI's have many lots entitled but it will be years before the lots are actually buildable because of the time that it takes to actually design & construct the entitled subdivisions.
Agreed.
Depends on your long and short term view of housing demand/supply. For a smaller development that probably needs to be turned over in 18-24 months, the relevance of supply/demand is different from that of a larger DRI (like Nocatee) that still has a pipeline that will last another 8-10 years. Additionally, perhaps buyers have a preference for certain neighborhood amenities or a particular type of housing stock that is not presently being met. Simply saying that there is enough building stock for an 14 month supply of housing is not indicative of a a variety of sub-market of buyers.. and these preferances shift all of the time (that drives price up or down-the ultimate indicator of a market's equilibrium). Maybe all of the foreclosed homes in the adjoining neighborhood are all uniform cheap builds and financing availability is difficult due to that sub-market's comps... while your 20 home subdivision is within the same desirable school district or proximity to shopping offers superior home design and features than the adjoining PUD with foreclosure problems. Perhaps buyers now want more townhomes or desire to live in a mixed use faciility... there may be x amount of housing units within a particular neighborhood, but perhaps buyers don't want a mcmansion with large upkeep costs and prefer a highly amenitized multi-family community.
Gov't shouldnt dictate to you the terms under which you can invest money nor should they have to agreet to your particular interpretation of the market. The market will decide if your product is viable, not a pencil pusher from a zoning commission.
BTW, this is why I firmly believe that concurrency/mobility fees are important.
A developer should be allowed to invest their money as they see fit (not to say design guidelines aren't important for instance-that's a seperate issue), but if a developer bets money on a particular project and it fails after they have received a waiver on impact fees... you are then transferring their costs to someone else. If I invest in a condo complex and I totally misjudge the market and completely mismanage my product, then I have to live with the results and the resulting financial misfortune.. but I have a real fundamental problem having to pay for somone else's mistakes.
Quote from: fieldafm on November 20, 2013, 04:24:21 PM
The market will decide if your product is viable, not a pencil pusher from a zoning commission.
Will "the market" restore wetlands to their former state after the development on them fails?
Fast Backward: Mayor Delaney,Freedom Commerce Centre & Better Jacksonville; An abbreviated Exploration through and around a Wet Land
First time I met Steve Diebenow was thanks to Freedom,Goodman and a Florida Wildlife Federation Vice Chair position.
Inevitable.
Steve and I ,our intitial meeting at the Regional Planning Council location,bright light streaming in just past the doorway,basking in The Light,Avondale/Ortega neighbors, we would certainly become chums...
And then,the light brightens,the door has opened....a certain glow.......the Federation attorney appears..........Steve's jaw drops.........dang!.....WTF,Tom Reese!........We got Trouble,Right Here In River City!.......(Oh!,we got trouble!!!)
never seen this before.....Tom Reese,Florida Wildlife Federation!.....
Million dollar Better Jax payment deal just another footnote,and the visit from the Jeb Bush office,RiverKeeper board cartwheels,meanwhile the Federation performs heavy lifting,"Mitigation" concepts include far south potatoe farms and end up on I-95 St Johns,Carlucci et al,(the "reasonable" narrative- what a loser,on the heels of Dad,Brannon Chaffee,Beltway...Matt,stop lurking,sit down please).
At this point,obviously lost details.
So- just how many of those current FC wetland acres could be converted?
Could this wetland acreage,vested,be further mitigated,traded?Demand?
Come on now,let's get down to "brass tacks" .
Sorry-hit "River Summit" tab in error
Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on November 20, 2013, 04:24:21 PM
The market will decide if your product is viable, not a pencil pusher from a zoning commission.
Will "the market" restore wetlands to their former state after the development on them fails?
There is a wetland mitigation and compensatory mitigation process, which is sort of similar to an impact fee.
Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
Will "the market" restore wetlands to their former state after the development on them fails?
...an adaptive re-use concept for sure!
When we were addressing Freedom Commerce Wetland Permit Application/Clean Water Act Alternative Sites, a couple were obviously apparent.
What development rights/mitigation was tossed on to Commerce wetlands might play strategic role, even if not clearly revealed here.
As for those basking in Freedom Commerce Wetland Wonderland,if even only an exercise,look in to future development status,mitigation and growth management aspects.
After all,such is a hint to where Growth might be headed.
Freedom Commerce Center has a new name......"Prominence."
QuoteThe South Florida real estate firm that acquired Freedom Commerce Centre in late 2012 has renamed the Baymeadows office park Prominence.
The renaming is part of a multimillion-dollar overhaul that Boca Raton-based Crocker Partners kicked off this summer, as the Business Journal first reported in June.
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/01/22/freedom-commerce-centre-renamed.html
Inspiring.
As anticipated.
More development made for cars not for people. If we can't get it returned to nature, why not rebuild it as a place for people? Just google "retrofitting suburbia" or "retrofitting office parks"- for example:
http://thetysonscorner.com/suburban-retrofit-office-sprawl-for-walkability/