俞稚玉工作室

俞稚玉

公告

  俞稚玉,上海购物中心协会副秘书长兼研究发展中心主任。

统计

今日访问:187

总访问量:2144792

混合用途开发的概念和驱动力

The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-Use Development
混合用途开发的概念和驱动力
Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey
来自于交叉机构调查 认识
Michael P. Niemira*
迈克尔 P.尼米拉

  Abstract: Mixed-use development is quickly establishing itself as a distinct product type and a growing trend that is transforming the real estate landscape. To assess a broad spectrum of problems and opportunities for mixed-use, BOMA(Building Owners and Managers Association International), ICSC (International Council of Shopping Centers), NAIOP (National Association of Industrial and Office Properties) and the NMHC (National Multi Housing Council) developed a ross organizational membership survey. The results of this landmark co-sponsored survey—which established a new working definition for mixed use—are discussed along with some background on the history of this product type—which today accounts for about 20% of all new space built in the United States.

  摘要:“混合用途开发”很快确立了自己作为一个独特的产品类型和日益增长的趋势,正在改变房地产
业的状况。为了评价混合用途开发普遍存在的问题和机遇国际建筑业主和经理协会(BOMA)、国际购
物中心协会(ICSC)、全国工业及写字楼物业协会(NAIOP)和全国多元房屋协会(NMHC)人员交叉
组织的调查,在这次具有里程碑意义的共同发起的调查结果,是随同讨论这个产品类型的一些历史背景,
为混合用途确立了一个新的工作定义,今天在美国所有新的建筑空间中就占了约20 % 。

  The recent real-estate industry interest and the exploding growth in mixed-use development is a counter trend to zoned single-use—which has been a planners’ preion sewn into the fabric of U.S. society since the 1920s. However, pushed conceptually by Jane Jacobs’ influential 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the impetus for mixing uses to create more vitality in a community has been very slowly (until now) percolating through society. The mixed-use concept was not new even when Jacobs wrote of its virtue. Indeed, mixed-use development was traced “back to ancient times; the Athenian agora is an ancestor of such projects. Rockefeller Center, whose first phase was carried out between 1931 and 1940, was an early [modern] prototype in the United States.”1 In spring 2003, an American Planning Association survey of 1,000 public agency planners found that “since 1993, 81% [of local governments] have enacted a mixed-use ordinance, 72% require or recommend that bicycle and pedestrian trials be incorporated into new developments, 68% require open space to be preserved in new developments, and 62% have revised ordinances or plans to increase development densities to support public transit.” But what is really meant by mixed-use and what are the driving forces behind it? To look at those questions, four real-estate trade associations—BOMA International, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) and the National Multi Housing Council (NMHC)— jointly surveyed their respective memberships to understand what mixed-use means today and to explore what might be the factors for success with those projects. The survey2 was conducted from July 11 through August 3, 2006 and included 1,004 respondents.

  近期房地产行业对混合用途开发的关注和爆炸性增长,是单一用途开发的一种反潮流趋势。自1920
年以来已被规划者正式融入美国社会结构。然而概念性的推动是由简·雅各布斯1961年一本有影响的书《伟大的美国城市生与死》, 直到现在通过社会渗滤,推进混合用途创造更多社区活力一直进展得很慢,.
甚至在雅各布斯写它的功效时,“混合使用”概念并不新鲜。事实上,混合用途开发可“追溯到古代;雅典
集市是此类项目的祖先。洛克菲勒中心,其第一阶段是在1931年到1940年之间进行的, 在美国是现代一个
早期的原型。”在2003年春天,美国规划协会调查的1000个公营机构的规划者认为, “ 1993年以来, 81 %
的地方政府已制定了混合用途条例, 72 %要求或建议开展将自行车和行人统一被纳入新的发展规划的试
验。 68 %需要在新的开发中保存开放空间,62 % 已修改了条例或计划增加开发密度,以支持公共交通。”

  但是什么是真正意义上的“混合用途”?背后的动力是什么?为了寻找这些问题的答案,四个房地产行业协会:BOMA、ICSC、NAIOP和NMHC联合调查了其所属成员,了解今天“混合用途”的含义是什么?并探讨这些项目可能成功的因素是什么?该项包括1004名受访者的调查从2006年7月11日到8月3日进行。

  Mixed-Use in History
  “混合用途”的历史

  Long before mixed-use was in vogue in the United States, the concept was embodied in the company town—which first appeared in the United States in 1645 with the Braintree Iron Works. In Margaret Crawford’s book, Building the Workingman’s Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns, she documented how some of the first “model towns” blended industry and housing. Indeed, one of America’s founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, developed a 700-acre model town in 1792. Designed by Pierre L’Enfant—who had just finished his work on Washington, D.C.—Hamilton’s new industrial town, built along the Passaic River in northern New Jersey, was named Paterson after New Jersey Governor William Paterson. Crawford observed that: “In 1930 the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that more than two million people were living in company towns. But shortly after, the effects of the Depression and changes in labor laws decreased their number, and the company town gradually disappeared from the American landscape.”

  很早以前在美国“混合用途”就是时尚的。这一概念最早出现在美国1645 年的“集合镇”(company town)——Braintree 铁工厂所在的市镇.在玛格丽特·克劳福德的书《建设劳动者的天堂:美国公司镇的设计》,她记载了一些首次出现的混合几种产业和住房的“示范镇”。事实上,一位美国的开国元勋,亚历山大汉密尔顿,1792 年开发一个700 英亩的示范镇,由刚完成华府工作的皮埃尔(Pierre L’Enfant)设计,汉密尔顿公司新的工业城沿着新泽西州北部Passaic 河建设,后来被美国新泽西州州长威廉·帕特森命名为帕特森。克劳福德指出: "在1930 年美国劳动统计局估计,超过200 万人生活在“集合镇”.但不久后,受经济不景气和劳动法规变化的影响,数量减少,“集合镇”逐渐从美国消失。

  Helping to spur its demise was that the “availability of inexpensive automobiles greatly reduced the workers’ dependence on their employer. Used cars or Model T and A Fords bought on credit freed workers from the need to shop at the company store, worship at the company church, and, finally, to live in company houses.”

  促使其死亡的是廉价汽车的实用性大大降低了工人对雇主的依赖。.旧车或Model T 车和 A Fords车买来自由工人的信用,可以在公司商店购物,在公司教堂做礼拜,最后是住在公司的房子。

  Today, the development cycle is swinging back to urban living and the availability of mixed-use
developments is an integral part of that process. Professors William Lucy and David Philips in their 2006 book, Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomorrow’s Suburbs, for example, argue that already there is clear evidence of the resurgence of the city and the decline of many suburbs (which itself was spurred about 50 years ago by the rise in the use of the automobile). The company town of yesteryear is, in many ways, the basis for the evolution of the mixed-use development of today.

  今天,发展之轮又转回多姿多彩的城市生活空间,混合用途开发是这一过程的主要部分,William Lucy 和 David Philips 教授在2006年《明天的城市,明天的郊区》的书中例举:城市的苏醒和许多郊区(那里在50年前因汽车的使用得刺激而得到提升)衰败的迹象已经明显,今天混合用途开发是以前集合镇的许多方面的演化。

  Definition By Consensus
  公认的定义

  In her article on the theory of mixed-use development, Jill Grant boils down the concept for mixing land uses to three decisions on intensity, diversity and density.5 The intensity of land use is about the broad range of choices within a specific type of use. For example, it is argued that there could be a range of housing to meet various socio-economic classes, or there could be a range of retail types to increase the intensity. Diversity covers, as the word implies, the “compatible mix” of uses (housing, retail, restaurants,office, hotel, etc.). Finally, density is the compactness of the project (a vertical versus horizontal structure,for example).

  在Jill Grant文章中关于混合用途开发的理论概括混合土地利用的概念为三个决定因数:强度、多
样性和密度。土地的利用强度是关于利用类型选择广泛的范围。如:列出适合各种经济社会等级的住房
的排行,或可能是增高强度的零售类型的排行。多样性这个词暗示涵盖用途(住房、零售、餐饮、办公
楼、宾馆等)的混合兼容。最后密度就是项目安排紧密。(如:纵向的与水平的结构)。

  Consistent with Grant’s theory, the cross organizational mixed-use survey derived a consensus definition based on a range of possible characteristics for mixed use. That consensus definition, endorsed by a plurality or majority of members from BOMA, ICSC, NAIOP and NMHC, is: “A mixed-use development is a real estate project with planned integration of some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel,recreation or other s.6 It is pedestrian-oriented and contains elements of a live-work-play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression, and tends to mitigate traffic and sprawl.” In essence, this new working definition addresses the diversity and density issues, but leaves aside direct reference to the intensity of uses.

  与Grant理论一致,机构对混合用途交叉调查源于公认的基于混合用途可能的特征范围的定义。那
个公认的定义由BOMA,、ICSC,、NAIOP a和NMHC的大多数成员认可。这就是:“混合用途开发是一个综
合策划零售、办公楼、餐饮、宾馆、娱乐或其它功能联合体的房地产项目。这是步行导向的和包含生活
—工作—娱乐环境元素。它使空间利用最大化,使人赏心悦目和建筑学的表达,结果是缓解了交通和城
市的蔓延。

  This working definition is more encompassing than previous ones7 and does not set a minimum of three uses as a “precondition” for being a mixed-use project.8 This new working definition also does not limit the project to revenue-producing components only. Those two changes alone are a major deviation from what were viewed traditionally as mixed-use characteristics. The literature draws a line of distinction between “multi-use” and “mixed-use” projects—but this new definition seemingly side-steps that issue—possibly because it is too fine a distinction without significant difference. Multi-use is generally thought of as an additional real-estate property use which is small (in size or by revenue) relative to the entire project. But what is small and what is large?

  这个工作定义比先前哪个更加包罗万象,对混合用途项目并没有订出一个至少三个用途的“先决条
件”。这一新的工作定义也没有限制项目创收的内容,仅这两个变化就是对混合使用特点的传统看法的
一个重大背离。文字界定“多用途”和“混合用途”项目的区别,但这个新的定义似乎避开问题,可能是
因为它太精细,区别无显着差异。多用途普遍被视之为附加利用的物业,在面积和营收上与整个项目相
比是小的,但是,究竟什么是小,什么是大呢?

  Although it is clear that this new working definition has some unanswered questions associated with it, it is likely to evolve as the industry continually recreates an evolving image of mixed-use projects. For now, it serves today’s purpose as the best thinking by the industry on the main characteristics of that product type.

  虽然这个新的工作定义是清楚的,但还有些与它关联的问题尚未回答,它就有可能演变为持续不断
演进的混合用途项目的形象。现在作为最佳的思维方式是产业的产品类型的主要特征要适应今天的用
途。

  Why is it Popular?
  为什么它是受欢迎的?

  A second goal of the cross-organizational mixed-use survey was to assess why mixed use is so popular today. The assessment was for today and for looking ahead. The top three reasons cited for the popularity today were: (1) the live-work-play environment as a single location is convenient; (2) rising land prices are making more density necessary; and (3) the format is being encouraged by local public agencies(economic development, planning, zoning boards, etc.).

  交叉机构调查混合用途的第二个目的是评估今天为什么混合用途那么受到欢迎?

  Overwhelmingly, 93% of the respondents felt that the mixed-use concept would continue to grow as a share of future development over the next five years. The top reasons for that belief were the same as those for today, but with a different ordering. The No. 1 reason was the encouragement by public agencies,followed by rising land prices and then the convenience of the live-workplay environment.

  绝大多数中, 93%的受访者认为在未来五年内,混合用途概念开发项目的份额将继续增长。第一个
理由是鼓励公共机构,其次是土地涨价,再次是方便生活-工作-娱乐的环境。这些理由对于今天相信也是
相同的,但是排序不同。

  TOPS and Other Challenges for Mixed-Use
  混合用途的四个TOPS和其它的挑战

  In the first multi-organizational mixed-used conference, held in November 2006 (where that consensus definition was unveiled), it was suggested by developers, planners and architects that four key challenges face developers in putting together a mixeduse project: Trash, Odors, Parking and Security, or “TOPS” for short.

  多机构混合用途首次会议再2006年十一月举行。(那个公认的定义已经公布)。定义中暗示开
发商、策划人和建筑商整体开发混合项目有四个关键的挑战力量:垃圾、气味、泊车和安全。简称
为“TOPS”。

  But even ahead of that decision phase in the development process, the top three cited challenges from the survey for mixed-use development were: (1) assembling the land and parcels; (2) maneuvering through zoning regulations; and (3) managing the financial challenges of a sequenced roll-out of project parts. The importance of that third challenge is underscored by Kemper Freeman—a developer and owner of mixed-use projects. Freeman advises would-be mixed-use developers to “be prepared that getting all of the mixed-use parts to perform evenly and kick in simultaneously is like a miracle. Those uneven sequencing or ramp-up periods can financially damage a project” if a developer is not careful.9 As such, it was not surprising that 70% of the survey respondents also rated mixed-use projects as more financially risky than single-use ones. The good news is that lenders are savvier today than in the past about the viability of these projects. As a result, by a ratio of 4-1, developers see more lenders willing to finance the entire project today compared with recent years, which is attributed to a better understanding of the product potential by investors and lenders.

  在发展过程中,即使前期决策阶段,从混合使用开发调查中得知前三位的挑战是: ( 1 )组配土地及
“打包” ; ( 2 )运用地方立法;(三)依次出现的项目部分对财务管理的挑战。混合用途项目的开发
商和业主凯泊·弗里曼(Kemper Freeman)强调那第三个挑战的重要性。弗里曼忠告混合用途开发商“"
要作好准备,让混合使用项目所有的部分都均匀地完成,同时结束可能是个奇迹。”如果开发商不小心,
这些前后不均匀或任意违反周期可能是一个导致财务损失的项目。”因此,七成以上的受访者认为混合用
途的项目比单一使用项目有更大的财务风险就并不令人吃惊。好消息是,放款人今天比过去更了解这些
项目的生存能力。结果是80%的开发商看到今天比近几年有更多的放款人愿意放款整个工程。其主要原
因是产品的潜能更加被投资者和贷款人理解。

  Nearly two-thirds of the respondents said that a mixed-use development will take longer (8.7%
considerably longer and 54.8% longer) to complete compared with the same number of separate
components. A like percentage said the costs of construction are also higher (8.9% considerably higher and 52.7% higher).

  将近三分之二的受访者表示,混合用途开发与等量的分离设施相比,将需要较长时间来完成( 8.7 %
表示“相当长”;54.8 %表示“更长”)。同样的比率表示,它的建造成本也更高( 8.9 %表示“相当高”;52.7 %表示“更高”) 。

  Success Factors for Mixed-Use
  混合用途的成功因素

  What makes a successful mixed-use development?
  使混合用途开发成功的是什么呢?

  As shown in Chart 11-1, 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. Access to walking-distance mass transit was important too, with almost one-fifth of the respondents saying that it was “crucial” to the project and about two-thirds reporting it was “helpful” (see Chart 11-2).

  如图11-1 所示,参加此次调查的有近六成的业主和观察员认为,有公共部门参与的混合使用项目将
有助于财务的可行性。步行距离公共交通的使用是相当重要的,几乎五分之一的受访者说这对项目是“至
关重要”的,还有大约三分之二人报告,这是“有益的”。 (见图11-2 ) .

  Exploring some of the “must-have” factors for financial success, as shown in Chart 11-3, factors were ranked on a five-point scale ranging from extremely unimportant to extremely important. The top three answers were (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.

  探索出一些财务成功的“必须有”的因素,如图11-3 ,从极不重要到极重要因素按五点排列,前
三位的答案分别为: ( 1 )有很吸引力的雇主:学术机构、娱乐设施; ( 2 )开发项目是总规划用地的一
部分; (三)市内位置。

  Lessons Shared
  共享课程

  The lessons from this multi-organizational survey of mixed-use are many. Key among them for the
Success of a project, as summarized in Table 11-1, are to get public sector involvement, locate near mass transit hubs, have a draw, locate in an urban setting, think vertically and have deep pockets.
  从这个多机构对混合用途调查中可知许多。如表11-1 概述,项目的成功要争取公共部门的参与,附近有公共交通枢纽,有吸引力,位置在市区,思维深邃,有资本势力。










  * Special thanks to Amita Juneja of BOMA, Sheila Vertino of NAIOP, Mark Obrinsky of NMHC and the members of a ixed-use committee—including its chair, Lee Wagman—who were instrumental in shaping the mixed-use survey.

  1 Gerald D. Schwartz, “Mixed-Use Developments,” in Market Research for Shopping Centers (Ruben A. Roca, ed.), International Council of Shopping Centers,1980, p. 153.

  2 Nearly four out of every five (77.8%) survey respondents were involved already with or were about to launch a mixed-use development at their company;44.5% were developers, 12.5% owners/investors, 10.3% building operations managers, 4.9% architects and 1.3% land planners. Of those responding, mixed-use business accounted for 32.9% (weighted average) of overall business.

  3 Crawford, p. 2.

  4 ibid., p 201.

  5 Jill Grant, “Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68 (No. 1), 2002, pp. 71-84.

  6 Although the most popular response (31.2%) endorsed mixed-use as a planned integration of some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel,recreation or ther s, the close “runner-up” with 29.9% approval was “some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation or other revenue-generating s.”

  7 In Gerald Schwartz’s 1980 article, for example, he sketched out a mixed-use definition, which was based on three core characteristics: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses; (2) significant al and physical integration; and (3) developed with a coherent plan.

  8 The Urban Land Institute, for example, continues to hold to the three or more uses as a key characteristic for mixed-use.

  9 “All in the Family: A Family-Owned Shopping Center Perspective,” Interview with Kemper Freeman, Jr., Research Review, International Council of Shopping

  Centers, Vol. 13 (No. 2), 2006, p. 4.

文章为作者独立观点,不代表联商专栏立场。

联商专栏原创文章由作者授权发表,转载须经作者同意,并同时注明来源:联商专栏+yuzhiyu。