Urban Planning Discussion: "Fixing" NoVA (Outside the Beltway) (Arlington: daycare, townhouse)

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by lchoro

They should have built in parking garages in the high-rise structures.

Makes sense to me, I like the idea of adding parking wherever you can. Of course, maybe there's an engineering reason they didn't do it.

According to the Reston Historic Trust the surface parkings lots are slated for future building projects. For now, they are temporarily serving as parking lots. That's why parking structures were not built on those lots. I don't know who the owners of the lots are, so you might be right that BP owns them. I don't know--although I've always heard that the lots were rented to RTC (and therefore to BP). I should have written that more clearly; the important point was not who owns the site but that they are not intended as permanent parking sites. That's why they are surface parking only.

[Caladium]

By the way, another interesting thing I learned from Reston Historic Trust is that before Reston was created, there was an earlier development known as the Town of Wiehle. It was right about where RTC and Lake Anne Plaza are today.

If you go to the Reston Museum be sure to check out the map of Wiehle. The street design was one giant grid.

Unfortunately, very few people bought homes in Wiehle, and the development failed. Eventually Bob Simon bought the property and completely reworked the design. His city design has been very successful. Wiehle's grid street design didn't attract buyers.

Just something interesting to ponder.

[pcity]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Do you have any evidence that this is an actual problem?

The state of Virginia thinks it is... they've mandated through streets in new development for exactly this reason.:

New Virginia Rules Target Cul-de-Sacs - washingtonpost.com

[normie]

Originally Posted by pcity

The state of Virginia thinks it is... they've mandated through streets in new development for exactly this reason.:

New Virginia Rules Target Cul-de-Sacs - washingtonpost.com

Allright, I'm all for this. It's a win-win situation for everyone!

The biggest winners are the people who already have homes built on cul de sacs. Their property becomes more desireable. Which means the biggest winner is me... I love seeing my property value go up. I'm always in favor of creating reasons for buyers to seek out existing homes rather than building new ones.

Meanwhile, those who like grid streets will have the option of buying a suburban house with a design they like. Everyone wins. Cool!

Now Caladium.... you know how much I love ya and all, but you've been spending a little too much time on this thread. City data's fun, but get back to work.

[Caladium]

Uh oh guess I have been getting a little carried away. Sorry, boss. You're right, I've got a deadline so I'm signing off for the rest of the week. See the rest of you guys Monday.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by Caladium

In your opinion.

My opinion is valid and shared by others. In your opinion the opposite is evident. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Caladium

The surface lots are not actually part of RTC. They're owned by private companies who are renting out the space until they decide what they want to build there.

How long are they going to sit around on their laurels and wait? It's not too complicated to decide what to build---mixed-use buildings with elements of retail/office/residential space are always a good bet if you're a very large suburb trying to become a city.

Originally Posted by Caladium

Because people shop in those places. Also, Reston is in transition. Eventually the smaller structures will be replaced, but it would have been foolish to build larger structures 20 years ago, before there was a need for them. Would you really want large buildings sitting empty for years, waiting for the day they'll be needed?

Reston now has 65,000 people. Herndon is approaching 20,000. Other nearby towns like Ashburn, Sterling, Great Falls, Vienna, and Chantilly are also growing rapidly. How long is Reston going to be in "transition?" When can we expect it to finally figure out what it wants to be besides a suburb "posing" as a city?

Originally Posted by Caladium

Gee, just yesterday you were saying you lived in a low rise apartment building because people like you need a place to live, too. If the whole area was nothing but expensive high rises, where would you live? If your apartment building was turned into a high rise, it would make traffic on North Shore Road and Temporary Road "more than you could bear."

It's the law of supply and demand. If there were an abundance of high-rises in Reston, then rent prices would come down to the point of affordability for many more people. As of right now what is my "incentive" to pay $500/month more (that I can't afford) to live in a high-rise just a stone's throw away? If the area around North Shore Drive and Temporary Road was planned more efficiently to begin with (i.e. less random curves just for the hell of it on North Shore and a PARALLEL road built somewhere to ease rush hour congestion on Temporary) then we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems we're having today.

Originally Posted by Caladium

Because money doesn't grow on trees. Pedestrian overpasses are on Reston's wish list, but unless you're willing to donate the money they're going to have to wait until the economy improves.

Is that the typical NoVA answer? "Money doesn't grow on trees." I've said repeatedly I'm willing to PAY higher taxes in exchange for better services and amenities. I'd rather take a hit in the wallet than to take a hit to the soul for living in a community that is lacking necessary improvements. Why wasn't the Silver Line (and for Maryland's purposes the Purple Line) funded until now, when traffic is already a nightmare? Why are we just NOW thinking about reconfiguring the armpit they call Tyson's? Why are there so few sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, etc.? Why does it seem like the answer around here always seems to be "act first; plan later?" Why is it that people will whine about our problems but refuse to pony up any cash to help finance corrective actions? Do you seriously want me to start having bake sales and car washes to fund a pedestrian overpass because by golly I will!

Originally Posted by Caladium

RTC originally had a mix of stores, including a few mom-and-pop stores. You would have loved the ice cream parlor they once had. Great ice cream, but like most of the other mom-and-pop stores it didn't get enough customers and it went out of business. That's not a city planning problem, that has to do with customer preference.

Good. We can now establish that Reston has a consumer preference problem when they'd prefer Williams-Sonoma, McCormick & Schmick's, Best Buy, Sephora, Apple, Starbuck's, etc. over independent retailers and restaurants. What's next? Hard Rock Cafe?

Originally Posted by Caladium

Because RTC services more than just people who live within walking distance. RTC is a gathering place that attracts people from the nearby burbs. Do you really expect people to walk there from Sterling? Or Ashburn? FWIW, the people I know who do live within walking distance tend to walk to it. After all, you're going to do quite a bit of walking from the parking structure, so if you live nearby it's easier to just walk from your house. Maybe you drive there but I don't think you represent everyone who lives in Reston. On Saturday nights when they hold the free concerts you'll see people walking from every direction. And the bicycle racks are always filled.

I DO walk to the town center unless the weather is very inclement. It is quite unpleasant having to cross so many wide roadways though, especially with a lot of people too busy texting to notice you in the crosswalk as they make a right-hand turn on red. As long as this community continues widening roads and otherwise making conditions more favorable for cars then pedestrians and cyclists will be on the flip side suffering.

Originally Posted by Caladium

Again, Reston is growing. The original center of town was Lake Anne Plaza. That was all Bob Simon could afford to build at the time, and it was more than enough to service the residents for the first few decades. As time passed, needs changed. So RTC was built. As needs change again, another site may become the future "downtown." Who cares? The important thing is that people have a place to gather, it doesn't matter if the site changes.

What is the answer to the run-down condition of Lake Anne then? Just abandon it fully in favor of the town center? Who cares, you may ask? I do. I don't like seeing buildings and land go to waste when they can very easily be rejuvenated and revitalized to save MORE open space from being lost. Other than the weekly farmers' markets I usually wander over to Lake Anne and feel depressed by how quiet it is.

Originally Posted by Caladium

Think of it this way. If you had a son, you would only buy baby clothes for him at first. There would be no point in buying a man's suit for him on the day he was born, in fact it would be foolish because the suit would be out of style by the time your son reach adulthood. The best plan is to let children (and towns) grow and build things over time, as they become big enough to need them.

The best plan for Reston would have been to have had different long-range plans in place for different anticipated growth stages. The plan of the 1960s-era Reston is NOT applicable to the Reston of 2009. The new town plan is being discussed as we speak, but will it even have any sort of levity or just get tossed by the wayside in favor of short-sighted development interests? Can we really reclaim all of the land wasted for the massive surface parking lots on all of the "office campuses" along Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills?

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by guyincognito

I don't understand why people get so indignant when the topic of increasing density or Smart Growth comes up. It's as if they think the bulldozers are coming after their house in South Riding to make way for a skyscraper. These discussions are mostly focused on directing future growth in smart ways, not uprooting everybody and forcing them into flats.

Remember, the American dream of suburbia has only been realistic in the past 60 years or so as more Americans have been able to afford automobiles. Prior to that you were either urban or rural. While a lot of people's lives got much more comfortable with the bigger yards and houses, it seems apparent to me that the good times aren't gonna last forever and we are victims to many unintended consequences of this sprawl.

- People are busier and more stressed than at any point in history. We spend ridiculous amounts of time alone in our cars commuting.

- Few people really know their neighbors or have a sense of community. People are too tired to socialize after spending so much time commuting, and their large well-appointed houses keep them entertained inside rather than in a public setting.

- We are fatter than we have ever been, partially contributed to by driving everywhere we go (either due to laziness, or unwalkable neighborhoods).

There is a practical limit to how much further we can go with this. The entire Interstate highway system was built for $114 billion dollars and essentially built out by the early 90s. The intercounty connector being built in Maryland is 14 miles long and costs $2.4 billion. Aside from being much more expensive, the government also has much less cash available to build new roads because of how much we pay to maintain them.

The biggest obstacle I think though is that suburbia's existence is entirely dependent upon the availability of cheap energy, and that unfortunately is not a variable within the United States control. It takes a lot of energy for everyone to propel themselves around in two tons of steel, and heat or cool their 3000 sq ft house. When we start to get squeezed, what are we going to do?

And that brings me to my final point. This is not about urban dwellers vs suburban dwellers. These decisions affect everybody, because inevitably social and economic changes occur, and somebody is going to try and lobby a politician somewhere to spread the increased burden onto everybody.

So instead of just driving this country over a cliff, why don't we try and create some options now while we have the economic choice? Lots of people would like affordable urban options and the ability to take mass transit to work, but those options don't really exist because we have focused new develop almost solely on sprawled out single family neighborhoods with no sidewalks, miles from the nearest job sites.

Yes. What he said!

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by dkf747

They say more than that. They say, "route the silver line a different way so that it doesn't steal space from the Orange line, and doesn't cause worse backups in the tunnel under the Potomac." You want Metro at any cost and they want wider roads. Neither cares about the impact on others.

Well then what would your solution be to the congestion issues in Northern Fairfax and Eastern Loudoun Counties if you're also opposed to the Silver Line? Don't say "widen the roads" either (i.e. L.A.'s roads are much wider and STILL congested).

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Somewhere in this thread was a suggestion of building a landscaped median down the center of Reston Parkway.

Sorry I don't have the time to go searching for it. Just wanted to point out that this idea deserves a giant

Medians are pretty, I sure do like the fact that the newer parkways incorporate them. But tearing up an older road for the purpose of adding a median is about the last thing we need to do. I mean, really. This idea is so bad it deserves another

Reston Parkways is already overloaded, I can't imagine anyone willing to sacrifice a lane of traffic to build a median. Just imagine the traffic nightmare you'd create by tearing up a major thoroughfare like that.

And do we really need to point out how expensive it would be? The same person who made this suggestion also gripes about wanting a pedestrian overpass. If you want a pedestrian overpass, you can't throw away money on ideas like building medians down Reston Parkway.

So your idea instead would be to further widen the roads, which has been proven to further increase the propensity for people to speed, which would further reduce the walkability and bikeability (not to mention attractiveness) of the area? There you go again whining about the "expense" factor. Infrastructural improvements cost money. That's why taxes ARE so high in areas with a better quality-of-life; people there are willing to PAY to make life better instead of just living with what bugs them. I still have yet to hear a solid "plan B" from the anti-Silver Line crowd.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by Yankeesfan

All very true, BorninDC and Caladium. You know, I carpool every day. My husband takes the Metro every day (driving there in his hybrid). My daughter picks up a friend (not a colleague) so they can ride the HOV-2, and the friend then walks several blocks from my daughter's parking lot to her office. My son rides with a carpool in the morning and then, due to different evening schedules, takes the Metro home, meeting up with my husband at the station. If I need to go into DC for anything, day or evening, I take the Metro. WE (of the "previous generation") are taking cars off the road. Scran-Barre isn't. Not because he can't, but because he simply doesn't want to. So no credibility there.

A take a jab at ScranBarre post from YankeesFan? No. Really? You could have knocked me over with a feather!