Beacon Hill on Lake Audobon

Beacon Hill on Lake Audobon
Beacon Hill on Lake Audobon

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Commentary: For the Reston P&Z Committee--Planning Development in Reston TOD Areas, Bill Penniman, February 27, 2012

February 27, 2012


To: Reston Planning & Zoning Committee
From: William Penniman
Re: Planning & Zoning Principles in an Era of TOD

As many of you know, for the past two years, I have been actively engaged in the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force, including co-chairing the Wiehle (Reston East) Subcommittee and serving on the Steering and Vision Committees.

By this memorandum, I offer my views on several key issues which your committee should consider whenever it assesses proposals for major new buildings in Reston. It is an expression of my personal views as a Reston resident, but my views are the product of more than two years of discussion and analysis as part of the Task Force process. It is not a comment on a specific project, but on a host of proposals you are likely to see in the future.

Regardless of how the P&Z Committee may have reviewed proposals in the past, it is important that, going forward, all proposals be viewed within a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning framework to the maximum extent possible. Successful TOD is critical to the future of Reston and to the community’s investment in the transit system. Absent very special benefits or other unique considerations, proposals for large commercial or residential developments that detract or diverge from TOD should be rejected or delayed to the extent permitted by law.
Briefly summarized, the guiding principles for new building projects in Reston should include:

Major development should be concentrated close to the new transit stations with height and density generally tapering off as one moves away from the station. The greatest densities should be within ¼ mile and next greatest within ½ mile. Concentrating new development within the TOD areas is important to mitigating traffic, to encouraging pedestrian activity, and to creating centers of commercial, cultural and social activities which will make each of the station areas attractive to prospective employers and residents, as well as to other Reston residents.

Residential development should be mixed with other uses throughout the new transit station areas. The Wiehle Subcommittee recommended that development closest to the station and north of Sunrise Valley Drive be permitted (broadly speaking) to reach 60:40 office:residential closest to the station, transitioning to 40:60 outside ¼ mile, with 25:75 office:residential in the Isaac Newton Square area. The Town Center Subcommittee recommended that there be a 50:50 split of residential and commercial development on a square-footage basis throughout the ½ mile TOD area. Proposals with higher percentages of residential would be welcome by both committees.

It is important to focus large-scale development within a half mile from the Metro stations at least until the stations have been open for a reasonable period of time (perhaps until 2030 or beyond). Allowing large developments outside the TOD areas before the TOD areas have developed could sap commercial and residential demand, thereby delaying TOD development. That would hurt Reston. Thus, outside the TOD areas, large-scale development should be restrained. However, if exceptions are made due to special circumstances, even those projects should be expected to support TOD and community goals with proffers such as linked streetscapes, bus service to the stations, community amenities (e.g., publicly-accessible recreation), traffic-mitigation plans, etc.

Developers should be required to achieve the minimum residential goals either by themselves or by coordinating their plans with other developers within the TOD area. If a builder cannot achieve a balanced mix of residential/nonresidential by itself or with others, then the default should be to build residential.

Only high-quality, high-density projects should be approved within the TOD areas. Effective TOD and maximum transit usage will not be achieved if land near the stations is tied up with low-density projects, which will occupy the space for 50 years or more. A tall, “urban” profile with commercial and cultural attractions is highly desired near the stations. Weak projects or even the perception that weak projects will be approved will discourage investment in high-quality projects. Town Center has been successful in part because high quality was required and that, in turn, attracted more high-quality projects.

TOD project proponents should be required to contribute to a unified streetscape with wide sidewalks and “complete” streets. Coherent and attractive streetscapes, sidewalks and trails cannot be achieved unless all builders contribute. Builders should also contribute to meeting the public open-space and recreational needs of the community, including parks and trails, as well as to meeting the community’s cultural, educational and affordable-housing needs. Diverse restaurants and retail are needed near each station. The Task Force’s Vision, Wiehle and Town Center Subcommittees have recommended guidance on the types of architecture, open spaces and streetscapes that are needed in the TOD areas. The three reports (available online) contain similar themes, and their recommendations largely overlap.

Except for Lake Anne Village Center, which has a unique importance to Reston and has already gotten approval for new development, increased density at the village centers should have a lower priority than development near the station areas at least until the station areas have had an ample opportunity to develop effective TOD.

In sum, the P&Z Committee should adhere to a big-picture plan for Reston. It should be firm and patient in insisting that, for the foreseeable future, major new development must be high-quality, mixed-use TOD, with a coherent form, unified streetscape, and ample proffers to meet Reston’s evolving needs. The Committee will inevitably get many requests for exceptions (“this project is different or special”), but the P&Z Committee should do what it can to focus major development near the stations and to resist inconsistent proposals, at least absent exceptional circumstances and benefits.

Corporate Cramming Bedevils Office Recovery, Wall Street Journal, February 29, 2012

Trend of Companies Packing More People Into Less Space Picks Up Pace; A 'Tiny Library' at One Law Firm

As the office-space market slogs along in a slow recovery, landlords face another hurdle: shrinking tenants.

Companies looking for cost savings are increasingly packing more employees into less space, a trend that is helping cause U.S. vacancy rates to linger at high levels even as employers add jobs in the slowly expanding economy.

Panasonic Corp., for example, is planning to move into a new 280,000-square-foot U.S. headquarters in Newark, N.J., next year. But it is taking significantly less than the approximately 575,000 square feet of office and labs at its current campus in Secaucus, N.J., . . .
Full access to this article requires a paid subscription.   A Reston 2020 member highlighted the article this way: 
Those who think that the departure of Accenture from Town Center to much smaller space in Arlington is a straw in the wind might want to look at today's Property Report in the WSJ (p c8) "Corporate Cramming Bedevils Office Recovery."
Among other things it notes:
  • for cost saving reasons more companies are packing more employees into less space.
  • workstations are shrinking and private offices disappearing.
  • companies are looking for 200 sq ft per employee (not the 300 frequently cited as the marker).
The CEO of Brookfield, a major landowner in south Reston Town Center, says "the way that people are using space is changing."
The article notes this trend is apparent from users as disparate as elite law firms and the GSA.
However, no mention is made of an apparent driving force in the Accenture departure, get employees out closer to customers and let them use home offices more.
The WSJ article echoes a post on this blog concerning Accenture's planned departure from Reston Town Center to smaller space in Arlington.  That post concluded:
The core lesson from the Accenture headquarters departure experience appears to be that we need to re-think the mix of uses (and maybe the high densities) currently planned or being considered for the Dulles Corridor.  If Accenture is a harbinger of things to come,

  • We will need to see greater growth in residential space and less growth in  office space than currently envisioned at both Tysons and Reston and maybe points farther west. 
  • Moreover, we will have to re-think the needs of the many new residents in these areas, including the nature of the local retail shopping experience (relatively fewer business-oriented restaurants, more pharmacies and supermarkets, for example), their access to cultural and recreational facilities, and (especially in Reston) the availability of public open space—largely parks and natural areas—to sustain and enhance the quality of life experience in this premier planned community. 

In short, we must learn from the experiences of others and adapt our planning to the future as it is more likely to be rather than the one we are familiar with and, in some corners, hold dear.  Only in this way will Fairfax County be able to make the Dulles Corridor the economic powerhouse its leaders envision and its developers, employees, and residents will find worth investing in. 

ARCH: Constituting Phase II of the Reston Master Plan Special Study, Issue Bulletin 2012-1, February 29, 2012


Alliance of Reston Clusters and Homeowners
Supporting Homeowner Groups in All of Reston’s Neighborhoods

 ISSUES BULLETIN 2012-1  
2/29/2012

 

ARCH Input to Supervisor Hudgins:
Constituting Phase II of the Reston Master Plan Special Study


A number of ARCH representatives attended the November 2011 community forum outlining the likely course for Phase II of the Reston Master Plan Special Study.  The conduct of a charette to augment or possibly supplant the Task Force as a means of generating community input on Phase II development goals/plans was considered.

A charette may be one way to help streamline Phase II, and streamlining the Study’s future is something we definitely support.  We think most of our members are disappointed that nearly two years into this process we have yet to see draft text of proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan.  A charrette, however, in our view should not supplant citizen review and vote on specific draft recommendations that are to be sent to the County for consideration.  We believe the existing Task Force, or some similarly constituted group with broad-based citizen representation, must remain part of the process with the ability to review, opine upon, and vote on draft text recommendations before they are sent to the County for action.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.  ARCH stands ready to continue to assist in Phase II as it has in the first phase of the Special Study.

-end-

 

Editorial: Debunking the 'walkable' Tysons Corner myth, Barbara Hollingsworth, Washington Examiner, February 29, 2012

One of the region's most persistent urban legends is that Dulles Rail will magically transform sprawling Tysons Corner into a walkable downtown where people can live, work and play without a car.
This myth been repeated so often that some Fairfax County residents regard it as incontrovertible fact. It is also part and parcel of the "Smart Growth" conventional wisdom among urban planners.
However, it's much more likely that after spending billions of tax dollars redeveloping Northern Virginia's top employment center, Tysons Corner will remain more suburban office park than pedestrian paradise.
The very concept of a walkable Tysons Corner is a conceit used by planners and politicians to sell the public on higher densities. But it is not a realistic outcome -- no matter how much proponents of Transit Oriented Development wish it to be so. . . .
Actually, the effectiveness of "smart growth" in within a half-mile of transit stations in which residential and non-residential populations have been balanced--called "Transit-Oriented Development" or TOD--has proven effective in reducing traffic and environmental impact while improving quality of life where it is in place.  And people do walk more when the conditions are appropriate, including robust local retail, open space, and other amenities.  On the other hand, few would call the plan for Tysons real TOD planning either within the half-mile circle or beyond.  All it really does is constrain (if that word can be used here) office growth to 100% over the next 20 years--41MM to 81MM GSF with a 14% vacancy rate--at a time when the region's growth is likely to be less than half that.

Moreover, the failure in Tysons planning to include phasing and implementation considerations (such as transportation) as an integral part of the planning process, including costing needed infrastructure improvement, adds to the certainty that Tysons will be less smart and more office park than it could have been.    Now it has become a post hoc exercise in trying to figure out how to retrofit the fantasy plan to reality.

Commentary: State Shirks Transportation Responsibility, Reston Connection, February 29, 2012

By Sharon Bulova, Chairman of the Board, and
 Jeff McKay, Lee District Supervisor and
Transportation Committee Chairman

Maybe we should rename our County The Bank of Last Resort.  At our Board of Supervisors
retreat in early February, board members and staff discussed the tools available to local government to narrow the chasm between growing needs and shrinking resources. As the state and federal governments continue to slash programs and funds to localities, the needs in areas like human services, education, public safety, and transportation continue to grow.
Fairfax County is at ground zero in all these areas. We’re home to a growing population of
seniors in need of basic services; our top notch schools are growing fast; and our first responders keep our community safe despite being asked to do more with less.

The current debate over transportation responsibilities is instructive. The Commonwealth
of Virginia has primary transportation responsibilities that go back to the years of the Great
Depression when the state took on all public road maintenance and construction for all counties except for Arlington and Henrico. In recent years, we’ve seen the fraying of this traditional responsibility and core function of state government as the state’s failure to act has left many of our most well-traveled roads in deplorable condition. Saying, “Can’t afford it anymore, it’s your problem” seems to be the General Assembly’s solution. That’s not reasonable and it’s certainly not responsible governance. 

The current proposals in the General Assembly are either devolution-lite or the camel’s nose under the tent.  Either way, they amount to an abdication of the state’s moral and legal responsibility to maintain our roads.  Any effort by the state that does not result in a longterm dedicated revenue stream is a decision to sidestep our transportation challenges.  Fairfax County should not be forced to choose between its citizens’ important needs simply because the state government is looking to take the easy way out.  And keep in mind — as Fairfax County’s fortunes go, so goes the Commonwealth.  Our economic vitality supports and funds the rest of the state.  A crumbling transportation infrastructure here will ultimately show up on the wrong side of the ledger downstate.

As elected leaders, we have the responsibility to listen and respond to the needs of our
constituents.  Time after time we hear that transportation is one of our residents’ top concerns
and key to our economic fortunes.  Fairfax County has a creative and solutions-oriented
local government.  We believe that our transportation problems can be solved.  Identifying
a dedicated transportation revenue stream is the first and most important step in finding
that solution and we ask that the Governor and the General Assembly meet their responsibility
and identify that stream.