Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[url=http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8992/tysons-highlighted-as-global-example-for-smart-growth/]Tysons highlighted as global example for smart growth - Greater Greater
Lol, larger than Seattle? Tyson is a suburban office park. It's great that it's growing to be more walkable, but the article's projections are a bit radical.
Here are some comments direct from the article:
"The story is very optimistic that Tyson's can be transformed.
At the moment, having attempted to be a pedestrian in the area, it's hard to be so optimistic. Vast areas are more unwalkable than ever before. Few intersections have any sort of allowance for pedestrians and those that do are miles apart. Many very large and recent buildings HAVE NO PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE (aka "front door") and the only access is through a parking garage. It's great that heavy rail is being put through... but to believe that heavy rail can truly transform the area? Optimistic."
And another:
"Count me as a doubter on Tysons.
A couple fact points: I can see why Lance would think Tysons has more jobs than DC -- the Fairfax promoters like to pump their numbers up a bit. And I'm pretty sure I read about 10 years ago that Tysons was already larger than downtown Seattle office space.
But what makes Tysons and Dulles nice for companies is CHEAP office space and free parking. Raise the costs for either, and you're wrecking a nice balance. Plus, the model for Tysons seems explicitly to be Ballston -- which is not a nice place to live, although a decent place to work."
One more:
"Tyson's Corner still has a l--o--n--g way to go to be walkable."
Lol, larger than Seattle? Tyson is a suburban office park. It's great that it's growing to be more walkable, but the article's projections are a bit radical.
Here are some comments direct from the article:
"The story is very optimistic that Tyson's can be transformed.
At the moment, having attempted to be a pedestrian in the area, it's hard to be so optimistic. Vast areas are more unwalkable than ever before. Few intersections have any sort of allowance for pedestrians and those that do are miles apart. Many very large and recent buildings HAVE NO PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE (aka "front door") and the only access is through a parking garage. It's great that heavy rail is being put through... but to believe that heavy rail can truly transform the area? Optimistic."
And another:
"Count me as a doubter on Tysons.
A couple fact points: I can see why Lance would think Tysons has more jobs than DC -- the Fairfax promoters like to pump their numbers up a bit. And I'm pretty sure I read about 10 years ago that Tysons was already larger than downtown Seattle office space.
But what makes Tysons and Dulles nice for companies is CHEAP office space and free parking. Raise the costs for either, and you're wrecking a nice balance. Plus, the model for Tysons seems explicitly to be Ballston -- which is not a nice place to live, although a decent place to work."
One more:
"Tyson's Corner still has a l--o--n--g way to go to be walkable."
No one said it would be bigger than Seattle, what I and others said is it would be bigger than Seattles CBD(central business district). I don't see why that's radical given the number of companies that are going to setting up shop in that area over the next 20 years, the amount of construction set to go on in that area, and with the extension of the silver line that will lead to more TOD.
We can't say for certain if Tysons will be like some of the other edge cities in that DC metro that are walkable, but it will look like the downtowns that you see in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas meaning they'll be destinations people go to work.
No one said it would be bigger than Seattle, what I and others said is it would be bigger than Seattles CBD(central business district). I don't see why that's radical given the number of companies that are going to setting up shop in that area over the next 20 years, the amount of construction set to go on in that area, and with the extension of the silver line that will lead to more TOD.
We can't say for certain if Tysons will be like some of the other edge cities in that DC metro that are walkable, but it will look like the downtowns that you see in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas meaning they'll be destinations people go to work.
In the end, is this really a contest about which city has the most skyscrapers added or is this a thread about which city will see the most downtown transformation? For me, these are really two very different discussions.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
A city that is reinventing itself with new parks,transit,buisness and other things are much more transformative than another Highrise in an already densely populated city.
Seattle has so many new skyscrapers being built this year alone. I'm sure we will see a dramatic change in Seattle's highrise density by 2020. Along with so many other projects
Austin. If I'm picking from the list...Houston. It doesn't take much to see that.
No. Just. No.
Austin is doing a lot for a downtown of it's size, but some of these other cities are doing so much more. Really take the time to do a little research on what these other places are developing. People put too much weight into high-rise development.
Austin is doing a lot for a downtown of it's size, but some of these other cities are doing so much more. Really take the time to do a little research on what these other places are developing. People put too much weight into high-rise development.[/QUOTE]
I agree. What makes DC an interesting city is how it has a height restriction yet it virtually beats every city in the country outside of a handful when it comes to ground level activity.
Austin is doing a lot for a downtown of it's size, but some of these other cities are doing so much more. Really take the time to do a little research on what these other places are developing. People put too much weight into high-rise development.[/QUOTE]
I agree. What makes DC an interesting city is how it has a height restriction yet it virtually beats every city in the country outside of a handful when it comes to ground level activity.
Not sure why tall buildings make a difference for ground level activity though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
