Northern Virginia has gone downhill in the last 20 years (Arlington: sale, homes)

[tsuric]

Then start building DOWN, as in underground.

A completely underground home will really save on energy costs since the earth has a stable temperature. Oh yeah and it's really quiet too since the earth will absorb all of the sound of traffic.

That way you won't need to tear down houses, trees, or any of that crap while at the same time provide everyone housing. The NoVA landscape can stay the same AND add more people.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

...Arlington has NO monopoly on NIMBYISM in the region - can anyone recall the debate about TOD near the Vienna metro?

Sure, but it should be expected and welcomed in some degree. Transit-oriented development is a big chunk of what NoVa is trying to do these days and whatever we do will be with us for the next 50 years and more. Bring in all the viewpoints. Bring in all the interests. Bring in all the ideas. Steel-cage match time. In the end, we get to see what should work the best in reasonable per-dollar terms. Metro West at the moment is a god-awful eyesore, but it's like plastic surgery for the landscape. We''l have to give it some time to heal up before we can see how it really turned out, but a lot of the ways that it could have turned out were really bad, and this one isn't so likely to be.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by saganista

Sure, but it should be expected and welcomed in some degree. Transit-oriented development is a big chunk of what NoVa is trying to do these days and whatever we do will be with us for the next 50 years and more. Bring in all the viewpoints. Bring in all the interests. Bring in all the ideas. Steel-cage match time. In the end, we get to see what should work the best in reasonable per-dollar terms. Metro West at the moment is a god-awful eyesore, but it's like plastic surgery for the landscape. We''l have to give it some time to heal up before we can see how it really turned out, but a lot of the ways that it could have turned out were really bad, and this one isn't so likely to be.

Steal cage match including bringing in a congressman to challenge WMATA's funding? I thought that was kind of over the top. You fight at the zoning board, and in the county board, and even in court, but when you lose you lose.

Maybe it worked out well - I dont even recall all the details. My point is that to accuse Arlington of NIMBYISM in a region where there is focus on local needs over regional needs in just about every jurisdiction, seems unfair.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by saganista

Sure, but it should be expected and welcomed in some degree. Transit-oriented development is a big chunk of what NoVa is trying to do these days and whatever we do will be with us for the next 50 years and more. Bring in all the viewpoints. Bring in all the interests. Bring in all the ideas. Steel-cage match time. In the end, we get to see what should work the best in reasonable per-dollar terms. Metro West at the moment is a god-awful eyesore, but it's like plastic surgery for the landscape. We''l have to give it some time to heal up before we can see how it really turned out, but a lot of the ways that it could have turned out were really bad, and this one isn't so likely to be.

Agree - why shouldn't people kick the tires very hard to make sure that transit-oriented development is just that? Otherwise, it just becomes a moniker for developers and politicians to do whatever they please, without regard to whether the net impact actually drives up the congestion in this area that people purport to dislike even further?

If the end result is a development that is truly more transit-oriented, and more attractive to boot, I can personally live with being called a NIMBY in the interim.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Agree - why shouldn't people kick the tires very hard to make sure that transit-oriented development is just that? Otherwise, it just becomes a moniker for developers and politicians to do whatever they please, without regard to whether the net impact actually drives up the congestion in this area that people purport to dislike even further?

If the end result is a development that is truly more transit-oriented, and more attractive to boot, I can personally live with being called a NIMBY in the interim.

I want to clarify. I beleive in the right of people to petition their representatives, as a democratic right. I also beleive that having professionals justify their plans to stakeholders, bring stakeholders into the conversation, etc, improves development.
That was NOT my perception of what happened at metrowest. A group of folks who were as dead set against ANY TOD (not just the height of the towers) as arlingtonians are against hiway expansion, decided to oppose the project. They fought in all the usual venues, and lost. They took the extraordinary step of getting Tom Davis to propose specific FEDERAL legislation that would have prevented WMATA from working with it.

Do you think EVERY TOD in the UNITED STATES should have congressional approval?

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Otherwise, it just becomes a moniker for developers and politicians to do whatever they please,

Metrowest was supported by the Sierra Club, for crying out loud. Im not saying any private organization enviro or otherwise, should get a free pass. But the rhetoric that placed TOD in GENERAL in the same category as the usual pol-developer sprawl axis, was, IMO, disingenous, and WAS part of NIMBYISM.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by saganista

Metro West at the moment is a god-awful eyesore, but it's like plastic surgery for the landscape. We''l have to give it some time to heal up before we can see how it really turned out, but a lot of the ways that it could have turned out were really bad, and this one isn't so likely to be.

is that not in large measure because the "steel cage match" so delayed the project, as to prevent it getting underway before the housing/financial crisis hit? (not that a global financial meltdown was part of the strategy of the project opponents to be sure, but had we had a more reasonable process, one that did not include local zoning by the US congress, perhaps the result would have been better?)

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Metrowest was supported by the Sierra Club, for crying out loud. Im not saying any private organization enviro or otherwise, should get a free pass. But the rhetoric that placed TOD in GENERAL in the same category as the usual pol-developer sprawl axis, was, IMO, disingenous, and WAS part of NIMBYISM.

I was agreeing with Saganista as a general principle, not taking a position with respect to Metro West in particular. Chill out.

Projects like that do, however, certainly deserve close scrutiny. For example, FCPS asked Pulte to make a contribution in anticipation of new students living in the development. Pulte pats itself on the back by noting that the contribution that it made was somewhat higher than the historical yield (to FCPS) of students from townhouses and multi-unit buildings would have suggested. But a major point of the development is to capitalize on the purported increase in the popularity of TOD among younger generations, and the City of Falls Church recently reported that it had failed to anticipate the number of students now living in some of the new apartments along Broad Street, so clearly nothing less should have been demanded.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I was agreeing with Saganista as a general principle, not taking a position with respect to Metro West in particular. Chill out.
.

Kewl dude. I misunderstood, as I had introduced the subject by saying that Arlington is far from alone in NIMBYISM, and that MetroWest was an egregious example, and Saganista did speak to Metrowest, so I thought you were, at least implicitly accusing me of using the term "nimbyism" as a way to silence legitimate conversation and debate.

I simply wanted to clarify that I meant no such thing.

I do think that some opposition to some projects CAN be "nimbyism" - opposition that is directed at the very things (in this case density) that make the project beneficial to the region - and opposition that sometimes uses grossly over the top methods (such as bringing the US congress in). In that sense I think NIMBYISM is still a useful term, that can be wielded fairly.

And I would suggest that the entire process of stakeholder involvement, community involvement, does present an intrinsic bias - the folks NOT represented in the process include both the folks who live elsewhere and will move into the new development, and the folks elsewhere who will see relief of congestion due to concentration of development in a few places. In general we expect the political clout of developers to more than offset such bias - I can accept that expectation for standard developments, but I am skeptical the tradeoff works as well for TOD, where the difficulties for developers are already great, and where social benefits not internalizable by the developers are a more important part of the project. Does that mean TOD should not be discussed? No. Does it lead me to particular scrutiny of opponents of a particular project? Yes.

[brooklynborndad]

"Projects like that do, however, certainly deserve close scrutiny. For example, FCPS asked Pulte to make a contribution in anticipation of new students living in the development. "

are all new developments in the region required to make such contributions? SFH home developments, or TH developments in more peripheral areas? How about tear downs where a SFH is replaced by a much larger SFH?

All development deserves scrutiny. I am very unconvinced that TOD deserves CLOSER scrutiny than other forms of development.