The randomly-placed NoVa high-rise apartments (Arlington, Alexandria: sales, lease, condo)

[Curbed Enthusiasm]

As I was driving down Route 1 past I-495 into Alexandria, I immediately noticed all the large high-rise apartments perched high on the hills, yet oddly not along the main thoroughfare. Such is similar in Four Corners and Bailey's Crossroads. How did these otherwise suburban areas become dotted with these massive high-rise apartments?

I've never been to another suburban area where there's such an odd contrast between low density retail and business and high density housing in the same area. Plus, it seems so weird for all these high rises to have been built where they are, so far away from the District or any other major employment center. Is there any history and/or logic why all these high-rise apartments were built where they are?

[tysonsengineer]

So land use in this area isnt like your typical city/suburb. It actually matches historical form land use, ie Paris/Rome style construction because DC is a federal city with mandated height limits. Due to this constraint, much of the high rise development shift across the river to Virginia and to areas in Maryland as well.

Then there is alexandria and Arlington. Alexandria also has height limits due to its own historic nature, so around old town you see very low density only. When you get beyond that region towards Huntington, telegraph, baileys cross roads you start seeing the removal of those restrictions and high rises.

Arlington is actually the only area (along with the infancy of Tysons and Reston) which shows typical city landuse where the center of the city is the densest areas.

Soooo now why is it so patchwork. Well this is what happens when poor land use policy creates a complete lack of centralization. In Alexandria there is a criss cross of major freeways/highways which force massive gashes in the city regions. It should be noted that people who live in high rises and in cities DO NOT want to be anywhere near arterial roads. They are dangerous, congested, detour nice retail and restaurants, and end up with ugly strip malls. Thats why in Arlington you don't see the nice developments along Route 50 or 66, you see them along Fairfax dr, Wilson dr, etc all roads that are smaller than your typical thoroughfare and provide very wide pedestrian areas as well.

Well in the case of Alexandria, current Tysons, and areas around Landmark/Baileys you see why this is bad for creating real tax revenue and benefits. When the highway exists there, there is no reason a developer will come in and build right next to it, its tough to sell a place marred by that look. So only the couple of small outcrops of the area away from those highways get developed.

[CAVA1990]

You'd never know from our public spaces that this is one of the most affluent counties in the country. I guess we're suffering from the fact that we were developed in a very uncooridinated manner before we became that affluent with no critical mass that would attract development. All the money seems like it's tucked away in the SFH residential neighorhoods.

[tysonsengineer]

When it comes to square footage of residential, this area has a false representation of its worth being created out of manipulation of supply demand. We have an area in NOVA that by most measures from economists could support 20 to 30% more jobs than are currently filled. We all have seen this through the ease of employment and the continued record low unemployment rates. It's not just that the federal government is here, there are a dozen fortune 500s, and hundreds of individual market fortune 500 companies headquartered in this area, only half of which have primary or secondary association with Federal work.

So this area has a lot of jobs, but development in this area has been forced to be single family style for decades with only a handful of speckled high rises. High rises provide housing on a scale that 1 building replaces 400 single family units... and if we were more like real cities that number would approach closer to 1000. This is far more efficient, allows homes to all shift closer to the city where people dont want to live in high density regions. When you tighten the inside ring where people live, then the farther suburbs start coming closer too.

The other effect of this is that housing prices, because of this alternate and often more reasonably priced option becomes a viable option for people who have no stigmas against high rise living. Therefore these same people are removed from the demand on single family homes, therefore the demand and supply finds a better stability and equilibrium.

Why is this important to do? From the sound of it we should keep things inflated. Its important because its not sustainable to keep building in this way, we already have people who commute 50 to 60 miles a day... I would venture to say this is almost becoming the norm for some. On top of the actual commute costs for these people, there is the maintenance and capital costs for the jurisdictions to provide for these households, something that in the 1950s only accounted for 5% of state budgets, and is now approaching +30% of state budgets. That means we are all losing out on other benefits that the states could be providing us, but are instead continuing this trend.

Additionally, this form of construction spurs low density commercial, big box stores, etc which does not keep the money that is made in this area, it sends it to the multi-national corporations that opened the store with only minimal sales taxes remaining. By providing higher density residential next to commercial retail, you now create retail spaces that have traffic of +50k people in a one block area, and you exponentially increase retail space in the region... which makes the lease prices affordable (and more variable in size) for mom and pop/start up companies. These people live, pay full taxes, and create a community presence all of which are much healthier forms of commerce.

So money being tucked in SFH... well... if its the price of the construction you are talking about, I can assure you that the price to build even a 4 or 5 br place is negligibly larger than a 3br place or townhouse. They are all between 100k to 200k in sticks and bricks. The real cost of residence is land cost and location.

[marie5v]

A lot of those tall buildings on the hill have awesome views of the monuments in DC. Perhaps that was the thought.

[ICS67]

Originally Posted by Curbed Enthusiasm

As I was driving down Route 1 past I-495 into Alexandria, I immediately noticed all the large high-rise apartments perched high on the hills, yet oddly not along the main thoroughfare. Such is similar in Four Corners and Bailey's Crossroads. How did these otherwise suburban areas become dotted with these massive high-rise apartments?

I've never been to another suburban area where there's such an odd contrast between low density retail and business and high density housing in the same area. Plus, it seems so weird for all these high rises to have been built where they are, so far away from the District or any other major employment center. Is there any history and/or logic why all these high-rise apartments were built where they are?

Did we lose three of our corners somewhere?

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by ICS67

Did we lose three of our corners somewhere?

HHAHAHAHA I didnt even see that one, good catch

I'll let Route 7 and Route 50 know that parts of their corners are missing. I would send out an all point bulletin, but 3 of those points are also now missing :P

[brooklynborndad]

way back in the 1960s 1970s there was, as always, demand by the single and the childless and so forth for apartment living. Due to high crime rates and related social problems in DC many folks wanted that in the suburbs. Suburban jurisdictions were eager to provide that, as getting property taxes from places sending few kids to public schools is a net revenue plus. There was little or no transit in the suburbs (well other than the shirley busway) of a type that might have created "nonrandom" hirises. And the tower in the park things was fitting with architectural fashion at the time.


The Future that was Part 2: Hi rise residential far from high frequency transit

[CAVA1990]

It seems the most destructive force preventing sensible metropolitan development is small children or at least our philosophy concerning the environment in which they should live (wide open spaces, "safe", etc.). Our society pays a high price in terms of land use and transportation costs for raising rugrats. Perhaps we need to start rethinking this. Why can't kids do just as well in a denser more urban setting?

[tysonsengineer]

They do, in arlington and eastern fairfax not to mention all sorts of other cities that are well run. The stigma given to cities is the same as the stigma applied to HOAs. If you dont watch a city and be an active participant and citizen, then it will begin becoming corrupt and mal-constructed. When a city is well run it can very much be a safe, affordable, fun, and economic location. Children don't need a lawn to play on when they have a park within 3 minutes walk. Children care about time with their parents as their number 1 priority not how many bedrooms they can have. Last I checked most of us were raised in shared bedrooms, its only this generation of parents that believe that 3 children requires 4 bedrooms.

A nicely laid out 2br condo that is not confined, ie 1400 to 1500 sf, is plenty of space fo a 2 child family. Especially when you consider there are gyms, pools, etc all in the building not to mention 24 hour security and all sorts of other features.