How do I choose between TOD‑centric mixed‑use zoning and traditional Euclidean grid for a new collectible‑store district?

I'm sketching a downtown block that will host a flagship collectible shop, a few specialty card‑shops, and a small museum space. The site sits at the intersection of a light‑rail stop and a historic pedestrian boulevard. I need a clear urban framework to guide the layout, density, and streetscape.

Poll – Which design paradigm would you prioritize for this kind of hub?

• Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with a high Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – concentrates density around the rail stop, encourages vertical mixed‑use towers, and relies on a strong Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) on the immediate corridor.
• Traditional Euclidean grid with uniform 100‑m blocks – spreads retail evenly, simplifies navigation, and keeps building heights modest (max 4‑storey).
• Form‑Based Code (FBC) emphasizing a pedestrian‑first streetscape – focuses on building placement, façade continuity, and active frontages, while allowing flexible FAR within a defined “public realm” envelope.
• Hybrid model: TOD spine plus pocket‑park nodes – merges high‑density transit corridors with low‑density “collectible‑culture” plazas that host pop‑up events and temporary exhibits.

A few concrete questions to steer the discussion:

1. What PLOS target (e.g., 85 % walkability) feels realistic given the existing transit frequency?
2. How much CPT (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) should dictate setbacks and lighting for high‑value merchandise displays?
3. Desired FAR range for the core block – 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0?
4. Preference for street hierarchy: a primary A‑street for vehicle access vs. a B‑street that remains car‑free.

Drop your vote, then expand on the numbers or case studies that have worked for similar niche‑retail districts. Looking forward to the data‑driven debate.