Op-Ed: Who Will Pay for Reston’s Infrastructure Development? Terry Maynard, RestonNow,, February 8, 2016

The following is a re-post of the subject op-ed in RestonNow written by Terry Maynard.

This is an op-ed submitted by Terry Maynard, co-chair of Reston 2o20. It does not reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

On Thursday, Feb. 11, the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a seminar called, “The Changing Future of Reston, ” but — as the agenda shows — it’s really about who will pay for the added public infrastructure the intense private development of Reston’s urbanizing corridor will require.

Noting that Fairfax County has identified $2.63 billion in needed transportation improvements because of the expected Metro-related development, the Chamber agenda includes:

During the first half of 2016, the County expects to settle on a plan:

• Who should build the new transportation improvements; and
• Who should pay for them; and
• What revenue sources should be used to pay for it (sic). Potential revenue sources include federal, state and/or county taxes, new or expanded tax districts on existing businesses and residents, proffers or other vehicles, with collections commencing as early as 2017.”

And the panelists? Two developers, the chief of the county transportation staff, and RA’s Chief Executive Officer, all led in their discussion by a developer-paid Reston land use attorney.

It doesn’t take much thought to figure out where this discussion is headed: Developers are looking for ways and rationalizations to shift the infrastructure cost burden to others. And the only significant option within the County’s control is shifting the cost burden to us, its residents.

The Reston 20/20 Committee has stated since its creation seven years ago that those who stand to benefit financially from development should be the ones who pay the costs of making it work. At the same time, Reston 20/20 has regularly encouraged appropriate high-density transit-oriented mixed-use development in our station areas with the necessities and amenities expected in our special planned residential community as a means to facilitate our community’s continued economic, cultural,  intellectual, and recreational growth. We believe it is important to sustain, if not improve, our quality of life.

We stand by that thinking as the county — and the Chamber of Commerce — moves forward in looking at who should pay for the infrastructure required to support the doubling of Reston’s population and jobs (most of it along the Dulles Corridor) over the next 30-40 years.

That said, virtually no Reston resident will accrue any financial benefit — even an appreciation in home value — by the building of an office or residential building, say, near the Wiehle Metro station. Yet that construction will generate more traffic (the apparent focus of the Chamber’s discussion), more children needing schools, more workers and residents needing parks and recreation, more families and employees seeking library resources, and more pollution requiring better environmental management, among other costly consequences.

So why should the residents of Reston or anywhere else in the county even be in the discussion as a source of funding for an infrastructure requirement in Reston generated by the profit-driven activities of private developers? It doesn’t matter whether that discussion is about additions to property tax rates (which must be the same on all property by state law), new or expanded special tax districts (like Reston Tax District #5) and rates, meals taxes on restaurant goers, added occupancy taxes on local hotel visitors, higher sales taxes, etc.

But here’s the ugly twist: The county government’s financial interests are more aligned with the developers than the residents it was elected to represent. The County, which is seemingly always desperate for new tax revenues, stands to receive large new revenue streams from development as the greater value of the new high-density properties generates more property taxes.

At the same time, the development will also force the County to invest billions of dollars to build the needed supporting public infrastructure. The consequence is that the County doesn’t want to impose costs on developers that might discourage their tax-revenue generating construction although a wide variety of mechanisms are available, including proffers, impact fees, in-kind contributions, tax increment financing, etc. (See chart for a high-level summary.)

So residents, especially property owners, end up becoming the county’s cash cow. In fact, Fairfax County homeowners have already become the primary source of County property tax revenues since the slump in commercial property values seven years ago.

We challenge the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce, its panelists, and its membership to look closely at itself and not others–not residents, not retailers, not diners, not non-voting visitors, etc.–to contribute what is needed to sustain, if not improve, our Reston community. Private developers who will profit should pay for the public facilities that will be required to make their development and our community succeed.

Reston 20/20 will be looking to see whether there are any signs of that corporate social responsibility to the community coming out of this Thursday’s Chamber seminar. And, in the near future, we will look to the County to offer a free community seminar — or several — on what public infrastructure needs to be built with the coming development and solicit the public’s input on who should pay for it.

The seminar is at Hidden Creek Country Club from 4:00-6:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 11. Anyone may attend, but non-members must pay $50 admission and an extra $10 at the door.

Why is what we heard about traffic & congestion last night so different that what the Reston Task Force heard before?

   Of Reston Road Networks and Congestion by Terry Maynard

To Reverse Ridership Declines, Metro Pins Hopes On Development Around Stations, WAMU, January 19, 2016

Martin DiCaro, WAMU's transportation reporter, wrote an excellent article on Metrorail's hopes that development around its stations will increase ridership, citing Reston's Wiehle Station area as an example.  The "hope" is based on a transportation study done by the University of Maryland showing that jobs and residences near Metro contribute to its ridership base.  We would put two caveats on that result:

• Jobs and new residences must be created.  In the current national political climate of reduced federal spending, it is not at all clear when (or if) the Washington area's growth--well behind national averages--will increase.
• Metro must be safe and reliable.  We hope the new general manager can make that happen, but we don't expect any significant improvements in the near term with rail car deliveries slow and the need to improve the safety of railway's infrastructure.  

Here is how DiCaro's article begins:

Will future real estate development guarantee a return of Metro’s lost riders?

The problems plaguing the second-busiest subway system in America are well-documented: an economic downturn and federal budget sequestration led to fewer rides; the reduction of a pre-tax transit benefit, provided by more than 5,000 employers, from $255 to $130 per month also contributed to the decline; and for the first time last year the transit authority admitted that consistently unreliable service — some could describe it as terrible — has alienated commuters.

Since its peak in 2008, when Metrorail recorded 750,000 trips on the average weekday, ridership is down 5 percent.
But Metro’s leaders believe riders will return, pointing to development either underway or planned within close proximity — defined as a half-mile walking distance — of rail stations across the region. Moreover, while overall ridership is down, more people are using the core stations in downtown D.C., as any regular rider can attest during a typical rush hour of packed platforms and crowded trains.

To help Metro determine how to set fares, researchers at the University of Maryland developed a new ridership model that analyzes how the location of jobs and homes will impact the system’s already strained capacity.

Click here for the rest of this article.  

Office Market Assessment: Montgomery County, Maryland, by Partners for Economic Solutions, June 18, 2015

Below we offer the subject study in its entirety.    Although the report was prepared for the Montgomery County Planning Department, its lessons are equally valid for Fairfax County (which has the highest level of office market vacancies in the region).  Every major point made in this report is consistent with what Reston 20/20 has told the Reston Master Plan Task Force, the County's Department of Planning & Zoning, and the Board of Supervisors (including specifically Chairman Bulova) since September 2011 when we commented on the then peculiar seeming case of Accenture leaving Reston for Ballston.

Here are the report's key findings and a few comments on them.

Findings

• Most jobs created during the economic recovery have been in restaurants, retailers and health care facilities, rather than in office-based sectors such as professional and technical services.

This is consistent with a recent report from GMU's Center for Regional Analysis.  It not only makes the same point, but adds the corollary that a key result has been a lowering of Gross Regional Product as a result of the lower incomes earned in these newer jobs.

• Telecommuting, technological advances, more efficient work spaces and practices such as hoteling have enabled office tenants to reduce their square footage even as they expand their workforce.

This is a point Reston 20/20 has made repeatedly, including four letters to the Board of Supervisors Chairman (here, here, here, and here) to no discernible effect.  The County continues to insist on planning for 300 GSF per employee, an amount that could see twice as many employees in a building as are expected, including all the ramifications of that growth.  

• The most successful office clusters in Montgomery County are part of mixed-use developments with a strong sense of place and a quality environment. Transit connectivity is increasingly important to office tenants. This trend is consistent with recommended land use strategies in recent County plans for White Flint, Bethesda, White Oak and other communities.

Reston and Tysons have the advantage of the arrival of the Silver Line as a focal point for mixed-use development, but in both cases the balance in square footage strongly favors office space increases--at the 300 GSF per office worker level discussed above.  Moreover, the "quality" of these areas is seriously undermined by the absence of concrete goals for open space and the County Park Authority's refusal to adhere to its own "Urban Parks Guidelines" in the development of these areas.  The result could easily be crammed office, residential, and retail development that is unattractive to employers, employees, residents, and shoppers. 

• Single-use office developments without convenient transit or highway access are having difficulty in attracting tenants.

Reston is blessed that its existing single-use office development is almost exclusively located in the former Reston Center for Industry and Government (RCIG) that, except for the far east end, is within conventional transit-oriented development distance of a 1/2 mile of Reston's three Metrorail stations.  This fact could mean that these office spaces will remain well occupied and, therefore, have less near-term motivation for redevelopment, especially in the slower office market development climate discussed below.  

• Future office development is likely to occur at a much slower pace and be concentrated in prime locations. Not every location will be able to attract new office development or maintain former occupancy levels.

One consideration we believe that PES may have overlooked is the prospect of long-term federal austerity, meaning fewer employees and contracts in the metropolitan area for some time as reflected in several Reston 20/20 postings.  It appears to be a concern also shared by GMU CRA in its thinking about regional employment.  This goes beyond GSA's deliberate efforts to shrink office space per worker, do more work in government office buildings, etc.  It is basically an extension of the sequestration mentality of the last few years (not to mention the occasional Congressional budgetary dysfunction resulting in total government shutdowns). 

We encourage readers to review the entire PES report below:

   Montgomery County office market

While the people of the County weren't looking . . .

. . . The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors yesterday approved a "strategic plan" that quadruples the area now intended for high-density commercial and residential "transit-oriented development" by doubling the radius of high-density development around key transportation nodes, such as Metrorail stations.  

Specifically, under the section outrageously and incongruously titled, "Create Places Where People Want to Be," the plan establishes the following goals:

• Section 2.2a:  "Explore creation of 20 Minute Neighborhoods where a variety of housing options and jobs are linked by high capacity transit to support clusters of opportunity and innovation."

• Section 2.3:  "Support higher density mixed use development in the designated revitalization  areas, as a way to attract new businesses and residential growth.  . .

• 2.3b:  "Include the concept of expanded Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in future planning efforts by increasing the radius distance recommended for higher densities from ¼ mile to at least ½ mile around mass transit stations, such as Metrorail, light/ heavy rail, or other rapid transit stations." 

At present,  the totality of a TOD area is called the "half-mile circle" around a Metrorail or other transportation hub under the County's Comprehensive Plan and is the foundation of transit-oriented development analyses and recommendations expressed by every smart growth group in the world.   The reason for the "half-mile circle" is pretty simple:  People won't walk more than a half mile (or ten minutes) to or from transportation hubs.  Indeed, inbound workers are generally reluctant to walk more than 1/4-mile while outbound residents will walk up to 1/2 mile to a rail station; hence, "the half-mile circle."  This fact was well-documented by the County's own TOD committee that led to the County's TOD plan more than a decade ago and was reinforced in a WMATA study of Metrorail usage in 2006.

But the County's Economic Advisory Commission (EAC), comprising only 12 citizen representatives--one for each supervisorial district (appointed by guess who)--out of the 40 member commission, doesn't care about the reality of human behavior, only the opportunity to increase development, profits, and maybe tax revenues.   So rather than acknowledge the limits of human willingness to walk to mass transit rather than drive, they simply doubled the radius of the proposed boundaries for high-density development.  The notion that people will walk 20 minutes--a mile--is utterly ridiculous, and doubling the internal ring from a 1/4 to 1/2 mile of predominantly commercial (office) development is equally fallacious in terms of the reality of "walkable neighborhoods" and even "places where people want to be."

The critical implication of these changes (and the others in this strategic plan) is that they lay the foundation for developers to advance changes for high-density development in the Comprehensive Plan in Reston, Tysons, and elsewhere across the County that have major transportation nodes.  As developers move forward with the changes in the Comprehensive Plan, they can then build up to four times as much office space, retail, housing, and more--all with limited parking because of alleged "walkability"!--and quadruple their revenues and profits as well as increase the property taxes paid to the County.  And the plan ignores totally the fact that office workers are now using about 1/2 the space per worker that they have historically--meaning that office jobs could expand eight-fold!   Of course, all those taxes and profits will, in fact, be paid by residents, consumers, and other tenants of the high-density developments. 

And, oh yes, people will drive to work, to shop, and to other places they need to go because their "walkable neighborhood" will be at least twice the size they are willing to walk.  Expect greater congestion, not better roads.

How any of this will "Create Places Where People Want to Be" defies logic, analysis, and history.  It certainly will not improve living, working, shopping, or playing in Fairfax County.  The only people who appear to benefit from these changes are developers and maybe County tax troves.

For those who are interested in reviewing the "strategic plan" approved by the Board, here is a link to it.

New Life in the Dulles Corridor, BisNow, December 17, 2014

This article highlights the growing potential competitiveness of the area along the Silver Line in Fairfax and Loudoun counties to compete with DC for new jobs and residents.  We highlight "potential" because a lot of things that are currently going wrong have to go right for that to happen.

Here are some excerpt's from the article:

The road from Tysons to Loudoun once was the heart of the DC region’s tech community. But with tech startups migrating to DC and closer-in suburbs, and the government sector shrinking, it may be taking on a whole new identity.

Gurus tell us the Silver Line is poised to draw a wider mix of companies and bring back some of the tech. EDGE Commercial Real Estate regional manager Scott Rabin says not only are mixed-used TOD projects sprouting around new and future stations, but the whole Corridor has become more competitive for existing buildings. Many landlords are renovating common areas, beefing up amenities (like food trucks), and modernizing vacant spaces with fewer offices and more collaboration spaces. Office vacancy rates range from the low teens to low 20s depending on the asset class, but repositioned properties, new buildings, and those with good amenities and close to public transportation are outperforming others. . .

But with all the silvery hopes and dreams of Metro comes concern. Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh attorney Andrew Painter wonders how housing, retail and office in Loudoun and Fairfax will fit into the Silver Line picture long-term. Andrew says Metro will offer opportunities for both counties to compete with closer-in jurisdictions. But it will take more than rail to turn commercial corridors into dynamic economic development engines. NoVa's office market may struggle to bounce back with federal contractors diversifying away from government work. Plus, mixed-use development is becoming the new standard for office and retail, and most of Loudoun and Fairfax have traditional, single use. 

Andrew says both counties should focus on attracting new residents since housing has driven demand for retail and local-serving office uses in recent decades. They also need to figure out their brand identities and consumer marketing programs to address the needs of seniors and attract the creative class, which has traditionally flocked downtown hot spots like 1776, seen here. 

Mr. Painter appears to have a firm grasp on what it will take to make the potential of this corridor to become a reality.  As he suggests, we believe the key to success is attracting households to the transit station areas.  The fact of the matter is that the County has not made it easier in its planning for Tysons and Reston, having put their plan emphasis on locating and emphasizing space for workers rather than residents.  A couple of examples:

• A lack of balance in housing vs. employment that discourages new residents:  Both plans effectively call for a four-to-one ratio of jobs to residents, and most of the residential space is on the 1/2-mile periphery of the station area.  The huge focus on office space runs directly against the general business drive to shrink office space per worker into more collaborative, open work spaces as described in this article.  The bottom line is, under the new Tysons plan, the area has the potential for about 400,000 jobs instead of the plan's intended 200,000 jobs if the office space trend continues.  The potential number of residents is 100,000.  In Reston, the station areas will accommodate more than 200,000 office workers under the plan amendment approved last year while the number of new residents should peak at about 50,000, most of them more than a 1/4-mile for the Metro stations. 

• A lack of much needed public infrastructure (schools, libraries, open space) that new residents will require:  In this case, Reston fares worse.  In Reston's station areas, in particular, virtually no new open space is planned for the 50,000 new residents with the exception of development of 5 acres of existing park land in North Town Center.  The County is now looking at re-locating Reston Regional Library somewhere besides its current Town Center area location.  Moreover, it is not planning any new elementary (or other) schools north of the corridor where the bulk of the population will live.  Open space, good libraries, and great schools are vital features for attracting households to a mixed-use area, and the County has failed to make appropriate plans.  In Tysons, a few small new parks are planned, largely serving as links among Tysons sub-districts.  Two new elementary schools are called for in the plan.  A new library "may" be needed--and co-located with a community center or performing arts center. 

The day has long since passed when simply constructing an office building in Fairfax County will mean hundreds, if not thousands, of new jobs and added tax dollars for County coffers.  The County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission need to appreciate that the jobs won't come if people don't move here and have ready access to important public facilities.  New residents will lead to new jobs in the post-commute regional economy, not the other way around.  The County's plans for Tysons and Reston's station areas are good plans for the late 20th Century, not the 21st.  Until the County provides better public amenities and a more balanced approach to development around its station areas, it will continue to lag other counties in the region--and even Washington, DC.

The rest of the BisNow article is available here. 

Walkable Urbanism on the Rise

Time for something a little different:  An "infographic" we thought might interest those living or thinking about living in Reston's Silver Line station areas.  

Click to Enlarge Image



Walkable Urbanism on the Rise
Infographic by CustomMade

Another way to provide needed schools for Reston's future station area kids.

What to do with dying suburban office buildings? Turn them into schools

By Jonathan O'Connell October 8, 2014, Washington Post

By some measures, the office market in Northern Virginia is as bad as it’s been in 25 years.

Few companies are expanding and those that are increasingly choose from a small pool of buildings that are within walking distance of public transit, restaurants and other amenities.

Other building owners are weighing whether they should lower rents, wait until demand picks up or — if things get really bad — consider futures for their office buildings other than as office buildings. Among the possible escape clauses one might consider: turning those old office buildings into schools.

About 700 students elementary students began classes last month at 6245 Leesburg Pike, a retrofitted office building in Falls Church. It’s a unique project in a lot of ways but it may not be for long. . . .

Students in a hybrid theater-library space at Baileys Crossroads Upper Elementary. (Courtesy Cooper Carry)

 

 

Click here for the rest of this Washington Post story.

Are suburbs regaining their appeal--or do we need to re-define "suburb"?

A Wall Street Journal article by Neil Shah today has made quite a splash across the media world.  The article, "Signs of a Suburban Comeback," argues:

The long tug of war between big cities and suburbs is tilting ever so slightly back to the land of lawns and malls. After two years of solid urban growth, more Americans are moving again to suburbs and beyond.

Fourteen of the nation's 20 biggest cities saw their growth slow or their populations fall outright in 2012-2013 compared with 2011-2012, led by cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. . . .

Overall, cities are still growing slightly faster than the suburbs—a historical anomaly after decades of American migration to the burbs. Some of the growth has been fueled by younger Americans and retirees preferring city life, either for life-style reasons or to downsize their living arrangements.

Anything resembling the post-World War II trend of Americans streaming to the suburbs appears unlikely given the difficulties many debt-strapped young Americans face in buying a home. Still, the Census numbers show a cooling off in the growth rate of urban dwellers.

 And offers this graphic to support the point:

BUT James Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion has a different take on the Census data that seems more on point:

. .  (T)he (WSJ) article touches not at all upon a trend that renders suspect any analysis based upon comparisons between population growth in “urban core,” “suburban” and “exurban” jurisdictions. That trend is densification and re-development. Some unknown percentage of “suburban” growth can be attributed to re-development initiatives occurring in places such as Tysons, in Fairfax County. That so-called “suburban” jurisdiction is fostering higher-density, transit-oriented development around five soon-to-open Metro stations. In effect, the dense, mixed-use land use patterns typical of the urban core, in Washington, D.C., are transforming the “suburbs.”

By proclaiming that “suburbs regain their appeal” and displaying a photograph of a low-density, cul de sac subdivision”outside of Chicago,” the headline suggests that the pattern of metropolitan growth that prevailed between 1945 and 2007, commonly called “suburban sprawl,” has reasserted itself. That’s just plain wrong. . .

Bacon’s bottom line: Measuring population growth in jurisdictions defined as “urban core,” “suburban” and “exurban” doesn’t tell us much at all about what is happening in America’s major metropolitan regions. The spread of walkable, mixed-use development into so-called “suburban” counties makes a hash of the traditional categories we use to analyze population trends.

Click here for the rest of the bacon.  (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

It makes one think a little differently about what may happen to our suburban Reston--in part through the Phase 2 exercise of the Reston Master Plan effort--in the decades ahead.

Boston Properties didn't get the word: They want to TAKE park space in Town Center.

Important Update:  The BP proposal will not be discussed at Monday's Reston P&Z Committee hearing as noted below.  The next opportunity for your public input will be at the County Planning Commission hearing on June 11 at 8:15PM.  The following from the Hunter Mill Highlights newsletter provides the relevant information:

Block 4 LLC and Reston Town Center Property LLC (Affiliates of Boston Properties) have filed development Plan Amendment (DPA 85-C-088-07), Proffered Condition Amendment (PCA 85-C-088-09), and Planned Residential Community (PRC 85-C-088-03) plan to develop what is currently a surface parking lot and redevelop a portion of the existing low-rise office and retail in the Town Center Urban Core with a mix of residential, office and retail/restaurant located at Fairfax County Tax Map as 17-1 ((16) Parcels 1 and 4, and 17-1 ((16)) Parcel 5A.  The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 11, 2014 at 8:15 p.m.

To sign up to speak at this public hearing, please follow these instructions on the Fairfax County website.  

The minutes of the last Reston Planning and Zoning (RP&Z) Committee, March 31, 2014, describe a presentation by Boston Properties (BP) to the RP&Z to build a high-rise residential structure on the current surface parking lot in the northeast corner of Town Center.  As part of that development, BP wants to take 60' linear feet--one-third--of the adjoining President's Park, land it had previously committed to sustaining as park space.  And, oh yes, why not add 1,000 parking spaces in this so-called transit-oriented development. 

BP is making a fool of County decision makers who say they want transit-oriented development (TOD), but are unwilling to limit parking growth or ensure adequate park or other open space, and the community in which it operates by acting as if it answers to no one but its shareholders. 

Here is the area we're talking about:

Here are the minutes of the March 31, 2014, including the BP presentation discussion.  There were a number of questions by members of the RP&Z on the park taking and other development issues that are inconsistent with the plan for the development of Reston's station areas.  The section on pp. 2-4 highlighted by a box text include the BP discussion.

   Discussion of BP Residential Development Proposal Taking Park Land, RP&Z Minutes, 3/31/2014

The whole BP presentation and Q&A point out unequivocally that BP cares nothing about the community its properties are in; only about the profits those properties might make.  Moreover, it can not be trusted to keep its word about a matter as straightforward as setting aside land for parks in urbanizing areas.  

More generally, BP's actions raise a legitimate question about whether the County can trust developers to honor their commitments in proffers to preserve park land for public use.  From BP's example, it appears that we can not.  Moreover, it points strongly to the need of the County to use more stringent measures to acquire public ownership of needed park land, including the use of eminent domain, rather than trusting development companies to meet public needs.  

While no RP&Z recommendation has yet been made on this project, the Reston community must step up and express its concern, if not outrage, as this proposal.  The next opportunity to do so will be at next Monday's RP&Z meeting, 7:30PM, Monday, May 19, 2014, at the North County Government Center Community Room.

For earlier reporting on this proposal, please read these news articles presented in chronological order:

• Boston Properties acquires Reston Town Center site, Daniel J. Sernovitz, Washington Business Journal, April 25, 2013
• Will Reston Town Center Be Getting Two New High Rises?  Karen Goff, Reston Patch, August 21, 2013
• Reston Town Center build-out coming with new Boston Properties' proposal, Michael Neibauer, Washington Business Journal, September 12, 2013 
• Progress Report: Development of Reston Town Center’s ‘Block 4′, Karen Goff, RestonNow, April 15, 2014

Not surprisingly, none of these articles mention the taking of Reston urban park land to build high-rise buildings.  Do you suppose that BP really didn't want the public to know about their plan until they had to go through the re-zoning approval process???

Can Reston become the "Ideal Community?"

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has published the results of its latest national survey of community preferences.  Although NAR's press release highlights a preference for mixed-use communities (such as we may expect in the Dulles Corridor), the actual report highlights an ambivalence between higher density mixed-use use communities and retail-rich suburban single-family communities. 

With good planning and good luck, Reston could become the "Ideal Community" as the results of this survey suggest, offering both mixed-use and more traditional residential models.  Reston is a traditional suburban community (with all the bonuses of exceptional planning, including extensive open space and other amenities) with easy access to both day-to-day shopping at nearby village centers and a growing retail center in Reston Town Center. Now, a well-balanced and reasonable new Comprehensive Plan that is equally well implemented for the Dulles Corridor could provide the high-density mixed use that a newer generation is seeking.

Here is the key slide in this report on that conclusion:

 

To see the full presentation, click here.

For complete background, here is the link to the NAR webpage.

There are clearly a number of issues in getting the urban mixed-use portion of this planning right, including congestion, sustainability, the mix of uses, infrastructure and amenities, open space and recreation, etc.  But we have the opportunity if the County to make Reston an "Ideal Community" if the County will permit it.