Urban Planning Discussion: "Fixing" NoVA (Outside the Beltway) (Arlington: best city, real estate)

[DCguy03]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

I personally just don't see how any of this is supposed to be sustainable in the long-term, especially if fuel prices rise again.

Bingo!

I think that rising fuel prices will help to limit sprawl outside of the beltway.

Sure, there is a smaller portion of the population that will live more sustainably (read: less square footage, more density) just on their own accord...but when gas is $5.00/gal, it'll be much easier to convince the masses to live closer to where their workplaces, schools, shopping, etc.

[Tone509]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Essentially though the article just praises Mr. Hazel for the "growth" of NoVA being more profound than Maryland or DC during this era. Nowhere does it make reference to good growth though. The NoVA of today with its sprawling nature might have been fine if we had 1/3 of the population using our existing infrastructure, but with rapid population growth still projected (Virginia has grown by about 10% since 2000 and believe it or not DC has led the nation since 2000 in population growth) with very few infrastructural improvements planned I just don't see how this is going to be a "desirable" place to live in another decade. There are far too few commuting routes across the area, and mass transit doesn't reach the bulk of the population.

I didn't present that link to say that what the developer did was good or bad, only to help provide some insight into the development of this area. It seems that Mr. Hazel presented a concept that Virginia lawmakers, if not also their constitutents, accepted. As you undoubtedly know, your adopted hometown of Reston is one of the original master planned communities. Apparently that plan did not call for a Main Street of sorts until the relatively recent Town Center.

Most of the ideas I would have not be popular. The first two I believe I mentioned in another thread.

1. Spread the plurality of Federal Government jobs here more evenly around the US, especially to lower-cost metros in the interior part of the country. There has to be a certain number of jobs that don't require regular face-time at all levels.

2. Promote vertical housing, whether it be lofts for families or flats for singles and couples. Of course, that would require a dramatic change in mindset in the definition of the Northern Virginia lifestyle.

3. Encourage more telecommuting for office workers who work mostly independently. This is actually happening to a small degree although, just like #1, it may be hard to determine who is "essential" to be in the office.

4. Enact eminent domain to widen roads like I-66 and move along the Dulles Rail project. Needless to say, this will be least popular with those whose property is re-possessed.

5. Enact eminent domain/provide incentives to private development to re-purpose under-utilized land or downward spiraling properties like the Landmark and Springfield Malls into mixed-use Town Centers. The former would require a series of consensus in various parts of the area. The latter would merely be an expedition of the market forces already in progress.

[athousandlogins]

How many years of life do people waste commuting just to sit in an office and do things they could do perfectly well from home, given high speed internet, email, chat clients, videoconferencing, etc.? It's such a shame. But it seems like overall, most companies are clinging to this outdated model; it's still very common for corporate culture to cast doubt on people who work from home. There are still way too many micromanagers out there who think that if they don't see your butt in a cubicle all day, then you can't possibly be working hard enough and are "getting away" with something.

In this area, people are also sometimes hampered by the nature of their work, too (you can't always work on classified stuff at home).

I don't know if you'll ever get most families on board with vertical housing, unless it is offered at a steep discount. The SFH model is so deeply ingrained in American culture.

[pcity]

I think vertical housing for families will make a bit of a comeback in the next 10-15 years. There are a lot of adults out there who were raised in the suburbs, went to the city for or right after college, and would have to be literally dragged to the suburbs to ever move back. There are space and schools concerns of course, but people will be more willing to compromise on those for a greater quality of life in general. Then, of course, you'll see the schools improve as more kids from middle and upper-middle class families move in.

I also think the inside-the-Beltway suburbs that haven't yet been revamped will be, if they're not already in that process, and will enjoy a renaissance.

[athousandlogins]

But they are moving back to the suburbs, as soon as they have more than one child or their children start reaching school age. If they're lucky and affluent and smart, those suburbs are Arlington instead of Gainseville, but they're still suburbs full of SFHs. Take the very popular "DC Urban Moms" email list and forum. Most of the parents on there actually live in Virgina or Maryland, and the ones that remain in DC are usually those with still very young kids. These people (myself included, to be honest) want to still think of themselves as urbanites, but when push came to shove they mostly moved out to the 'burbs instead of hunkering down in the city. Post-college idealism often gets tossed quickly aside when you have to store 8 tons of baby gear and want to put a kiddie pool in the back yard.

I think you would have to offer huge incentives to get families to embrace vertical living. Which I'd 100% support, by the way. But a lot of people live in the suburbs because they like that lifestyle, and it's not going to be easy to talk them out of it. It's a major paradigm shift.

[irvine]

Originally Posted by athousandlogins

But they are moving back to the suburbs, as soon as they have more than one child or their children start reaching school age. If they're lucky and affluent and smart, those suburbs are Arlington instead of Gainseville, but they're still suburbs full of SFHs.

Many families are wisely choosing to settle in Arlington (and similar suburbs) over the outer suburbs. In fact, as I posted in a another thread, the two North Arlington high schools are projected to have enrollments well over 2000 each in a couple of years. Arlington high schools haven't seen enrollment figures that high since the 1970s. The elementary and middle schools in North Arlington are similarly overcrowded, and formerly closed schools will likely have to be reopened to accommodate the additional students.

[JEB77]

Originally Posted by irvine

Many families are wisely choosing to settle in Arlington (and similar suburbs) over the outer suburbs. In fact, as I posted in a another thread, the two North Arlington high schools are projected to have enrollments well over 2000 each in a couple of years. Arlington high schools haven't seen enrollment figures that high since the 1970s. The elementary and middle schools in North Arlington are similarly overcrowded, and formerly closed schools will likely have to be reopened to accommodate the additional students.

Arlington is very well-situated right now. In the 70s and early 80s, much of it was, depending on your vantage point, comfy or somewhat dumpy. The "urban" parts of Arlington were Crystal City and Rosslyn, which people viewed in much the same way that ScranBarre now demonizes Tysons. The retail corredor along Lee Highway was nice, but those along Wilson Boulevard and Columbia Pike were not particularly attractive. With smart planning along these arteries in later years, and the traffic congestion further out, Arlington is more appealing now to most than it was 25 years ago, although Quiet Walker recently had a very interesting post that offered a different perspective.

Even so, there are also plenty of families for whom a 1940s or 1950s house on a .2 acre lot in Arlington just isn't as appealing as a larger property in Fairfax or Loudoun, and the fact that Arlington has a hipper vibe won't change that. There are certainly plenty of schools further west that are experiencing significant increases in enrollment as well.

[irvine]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Arlington is well-situated right now. In the 70s and early 80s, much of it was, depending on your vantage point, comfy or dumpy. The "urban" parts of Arlington were Crystal City and Rosslyn, which people viewed in much the same way that ScranBarre now demonizes Tysons. The retail corredor along Lee Highway was nice, but those along Wilson Boulevard and Columbia Pike were not particularly attractive. With smart planning along these arteries in later years, and the traffic congestion further out, Arlington is more appealing now to most than it was 25 years ago, although Quiet Walker recently had a very interesting post that offered a different perspective.

Even so, there are also plenty of families for whom a 1940s or 1950s house on a .2 acre lot in Arlington just isn't as appealing as a larger property in Fairfax or Loudoun, and the fact that Arlington has a hipper vibe won't change that. There are certainly plenty of schools further west that are experiencing significant increases in enrollment as well.

My point of view is a bit more nuanced than yours and I disagree with a couple of your points.

Rosslyn and Crystal City in the 70s-80s were criticized for the lack of any nightlife and the lack of sufficient housing, retail, and the anonymous rows of office towers that did not engage the street. Some people likened Rosslyn to Houston. BUT, unlike Tyson's, Rosslyn and Crystal City were always walkable, urban areas--i.e. they were dense urban neighborhoods with sidewalks and underground parking. There were grocery stores and pharmacies as well as a few restaurants for those that lived or work in the area. It was not particularly exciting then, but ScranBarre's criticism of the sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly Tysons is a different criticism altogether.

Some of the commercial areas along Wilson Boulevard were "worn with age" in the 80s, but still useful. Metrorail construction ironically killed Clarendon in the mid-70s, as the southern portion of Wilson boulevard was demolished--JC Pennys moved to Parkington (Ballston), CG Murphy's and Lerners closed in the early 80s, and the other stores closed or moved to Fairfax Cnty. There were many vacant storefronts, and some were rented to Vietnamese immigrants, who opened the region's first vietnamese restaurants. But well into the 90s Calerndon still had a Sears & Roebuck, and Ballston Commons was a new, and briefly, moderately-upscale mall (Benetton, Britches, etc).

As a kid in the late 80s through the 90s, I don't recall seeing Arlington as worn or dumpy at all. New buildings were coming up everywhere, adjacent to older but useful strip centers like Virginia Square. There were restaurants and businesses that catered to families--putt-putt, a number of ice cream shops, etc... Arlington was primarily a quiet, family friendly suburb of Volvos.

But more to my point, the residential areas were never simply "comfy or dumpy" --your assessment of Arlington in the 70s and 80s. Arlington has always had some of the most desirable neighborhoods in metro DC: Lyon Village, an area of large Colonial Revival homes just north of Clarendon has always been one of Arlington's most expensive and desirable areas. Country Club Hills, like its cousin Spring Valley in DC, has always been one of the premier neighborhoods in the region. Arlington's neighborhoods have been defined by a variety of housing styles for many years. Not every neighborhood is limited to 1,200 sq ft colonials. on .2 acre lots.

[JEB77]

Originally Posted by irvine

My point of view is a bit more nuanced than yours and I disagree with a couple of your points.

Rosslyn and Crystal City in the 70s-80s were criticized for the lack of any nightlife and the lack of sufficient housing, retail, and the anonymous rows of office towers that did not engage the street. Some people likened Rosslyn to Houston. BUT, unlike Tyson's, Rosslyn and Crystal City were always walkable, urban areas--i.e. they were dense urban neighborhoods with sidewalks and underground parking. There were grocery stores and pharmacies as well as a few restaurants for those that lived or work in the area. It was not particularly exciting then, but ScranBarre's criticism of the sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly Tysons is a different criticism altogether.

Some of the commercial areas along Wilson Boulevard were "worn with age" in the 80s, but still useful. Metrorail construction ironically killed Clarendon in the mid-70s, as the southern portion of Wilson boulevard was demolished--JC Pennys moved to Parkington (Ballston), CG Murphy's and Lerners closed in the early 80s, and the other stores closed or moved to Fairfax Cnty. There were many vacant storefronts, and some were rented to Vietnamese immigrants, who opened the region's first vietnamese restaurants. But well into the 90s Calerndon still had a Sears & Roebuck, and Ballston Commons was a new, and briefly, moderately-upscale mall (Benetton, Britches, etc).

As a kid in the late 80s through the 90s, I don't recall seeing Arlington as worn or dumpy at all. New buildings were coming up everywhere, adjacent to older but useful strip centers like Virginia Square. There were restaurants and businesses that catered to families--putt-putt, a number of ice cream shops, etc... Arlington was primarily a quiet, family friendly suburb of Volvos.

But more to my point, the residential areas were never simply "comfy or dumpy" --your assessment of Arlington in the 70s and 80s. Arlington has always had some of the most desirable neighborhoods in metro DC: Lyon Village, an area of large Colonial Revival homes just north of Clarendon has always been one of Arlington's most expensive and desirable areas. Country Club Hills, like its cousin Spring Valley in DC, has always been one of the premier neighborhoods in the region. Arlington's neighborhoods have been defined by a variety of housing styles for many years. Not every neighborhood is limited to 1,200 sq ft colonials. on .2 acre lots.

Jeez, you really sound like you're on the county payroll sometimes.

I was describing Arlington in the 70s and early 80s, not later, the point being that redevelopment efforts often are facilitated when people don't really expect to miss what's currently there all that much. I'm glad you have nice memories of your youth in a later time, but some of the county was showing its age in the period I mentioned, just as some inner-Fairfax areas are now.

And, yes, Arlington is very pleasant with many expensive and desirable areas, particular the more suburban neighborhoods toward McLean, but there are also areas that are a bit faded or, even if well-maintained, tend to appeal to a different segment of the market than crowd the Fairfax or Loudoun neighborhoods and schools. However nuanced you may consider your views, some families do hesitate a bit before buying in the W-L or Wakefield districts, even if some of those areas have seen quite a bit of redevelopment and have become increasingly desirable to singles or couples without children in the public schools.

[irvine]

Originally Posted by JEB77

And, yes, Arlington is very pleasant with many expensive and desirable areas, particular the more suburban neighborhoods toward McLean, but there are also areas that are a bit faded or, even if well-maintained, tend to appeal to a different segment of the market than tend to crowd the Fairfax or Loudoun neighborhoods and schools. Like it or not, that means that some families do tend to hesitate a bit before buying in the W-L or Wakefield districts, even if some of those areas have seen quite a bit of redevelopment and have become increasingly desirable to singles or couples without children in the public schools.

What you say is simply not true. The SFH neighborhoods that feed into W-L are roughly the same as those that feed into Yorktown, and the school board over the years has worked hard to maintain that, so as not to stir up any resentment. The neighborhoods that feed into W-L have little resemblance to those that primarily feed into Wakefield. Yorktown and W-L students mostly come from the 22201, 22207, and 22205 zips, and the SFH housing types in these areas are all comparable in terms of size and quality. Most neighborhoods are in fact split between the two schools, such as Tara-Leeway Heights or Dover Crystal/Donaldson Run, etc. There are no obvious, perceptible differences between the W-L and Yorktown neighborhoods. Both schools receive students from the wealthiest areas along the river as well as the many attractive neighborhoods of various housing types to the west of there. Through slightly gerrymandered school boundaries, however, the W-L district does receive students from apartment complexes along the eastern and western portions of Columbia Pike.

The median price for a Single Family Home in the southern portion of 22201 just over Rt 50 in North Arlington is in fact over 1 million. There is no SFH neighborhood dichotomy in North Arlington. The kids at W-L and Yorktown mostly come from the same neighborhoods and feeder schools which helps to explain the fierce rivalry between the schools.

Both Yorktown and W-L are also districted to very similar working & lower middle class and historically African American neighborhoods (Halls Hill and Arlington View).

I think you've inspired me to do an Arlington photo tour.