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.
Im sorry but I am gonna have to drop some knowledge in this thread because its being portrayed as democrats and infill projects are the same as mcmansions which couldnt be further from the truth, if you really are interested please read this. I used to be a civil engineer in land development (before I grew a soul and moved to doing something better with my time) and have a deep knowledge in the land development process so please read through and try to understand my view comes from 12 years in the NOVA land development field.
1) In-fill projects typically go into areas which are under utilized in the heart of already zoned high density and remove for instance a gas station, to put in a better project. Examples of these are in the hearts of Clarendon, Rosslyn, central DC. It has nothing to do with mcmansions which do not have anything to do with increasing the zoning requirements. Re-zoning of a property is a very extensive process which requires a massive approval process and the consent of neighboring properties in every case. If a project goes through rezoning next to you or frankly anywhere near you, they are require to send out a public notice that tells you when and where to go to argue your cases to the Board against it. Most infill projects either are already in the heart of an urban area (ie nowhere near a single family detached) or are at the fringes of a city and would be going through this process which typically takes 3 to 4 years and has extensive public input.
2)The reason why mcmansions are called mcmansions is because they are template projects, ie they dont need any approval from the county except for architectural review board and permits. They hold the same site plans that were originally established, ie the same setbacks, utilities, and floor area ratio maximum but tear down the entire house and rebuild as big as possible. The reason why the original house was not built as big as possible goes back to the original developers idea about the most marketable type of residence at that time. This has nothing to do with Democrats, there is nothing in the law that can stop this from happening as it is the right of the land owner to do this as long as they obey all the laws in the book and do not effect any of the zoning requirements. Typically the developers who do this by the way (and I do know because in my previous career I was the one helping them through the permit project, I apologize for my sins right now) are as RED as they get and come from the good ole boy field of developers (yes republicans)
3) Arlington County fights with everything it has against mcmansion projects, you can see this in almost every case in which a person comes in with something that requires an exception of zoning requirements. They are almost always shut down. As far as this particular case, the requirement is correctly stated (it is the zoning law) that the height restriction applies from the average of the exposed walls base to the roof. What does this really mean? Lets say you had a house that natural fell on a hill, the county can't legally tell you YOU MUST BE a rambler or 1story because your roof top is higher than your adjacent neighbors roof top. How has this been perverted by shady mcmansion developers? They build artificial hills in order to get their houses as high up as possible there by skirting this requirement. Again because of the good intended zoning requirement, the county has no say on whether it is allowed. Who are the people who do this? Housing developers who in the past 4 years have found it is easier to build mcmansions in this area than get zoning approvals from the counties. Again if you dont believe that this is not a democrat issue, that it is a republican issue, just look at who Newt Gingrich met up with a month ago National Home Builders Association which is the most powerful single family detached building association in this area.
Again, Arlington is very much against urban creep, this is evident by the past 10 years of zoning approvals in the county which has incentivized developers to instead look at densifying the hearts of arlington (Rosslyn Clarendon etc) before looking to expand the region into (north adams, Lyons village, route 29). To typify them as being the complete opposite of what their public and actionable platform is, really is quite unfair.
As proof, if you look at the number of mcmansions built in Fairfax ( which is much more leanient to Northern Virginia Home Builders Association, and generally more conservative than Arlington) you will see that it is a much bigger problem in Fairfax than Arlington. South Jersey Styx, I'm not saying that you are purposely misleading, but the development field just isnt how you said it is and it is a big misconception of the public. People can't just go around gobbling up properties and then building whatever they want, in fact the only places where that is allowed are heavily red state regions of the country such as Jersey Shore, Texas, and the Carolinas. Outside of the non-zoned regions of the country the zoning ordinances pretty much make it very difficult without a long process of public consent, discussion, and compromise to do anything like this.
The urbanist stance on these topics is lets stop this kind of unfair construction by forcing developers to building density inside of already dense neighborhoods, ie Downtown arlington not route 29. Suburban sprawl, something that by platform is generally more of a conservative view, believes that developers should be free to build as they like where they like, and site capitalism as the reason why this should be allowed.
Forcing developers to do this has the added bonus that they will not will-nilly build a monstrosity on a property in the heart of a region that cost dozens of millions of dollars and instead they will invest in truly nice buildings. Not forcing developers to do this will continue the process of taking whatever cheaper lands in most residential areas they can find with existing laws/zoning on the books that they can squeeze money through shabby construction and materials.
People can't just go around gobbling up properties and then building whatever they want, in fact the only places where that is allowed are heavily red state regions of the country such as Jersey Shore, Texas, and the Carolinas
The Jersey Shore is a red state region? LOL. Guessing you've never been there?
I guess I don't really see the problem with infill McMansions. While there are some places that should be preserved, I don't think we need to treat all of Arlington County as if it were a museum. Places change, housing styles change. If it's up-to-code and within the existing zoning laws, for the most part, the Arlington County government shouldn't be able to stop it. That's what zoning laws are for, right? I'm not really comfortable with pushing my ideas of building aesthetics on someone else's property. I'd also rather see McMansions built where there's transit and a street grid rather than somewhere out in the boonies where they would be using more resources.
I guess I don't really see the problem with infill McMansions. While there are some places that should be preserved, I don't think we need to treat all of Arlington County as if it were a museum.
I'd also rather see McMansions built where there's transit and a street grid rather than somewhere out in the boonies where they would be using more resources.
Sure, not all of Arlington is preservation worthy, but the neighborhoods where most of the tear downs are taking place (Lyon Vill, Lyon Park, and Ashton Hts) are three of the most beautiful early 20th century neighborhoods in the DC area. The homes that are demolished are already quite large by Arlington standards, and they are an integral part of the overall character of the neighborhoods. I've seen substantial pre-ww2 tudor revivals, craftsmans, and colonials bite the dust over the past few months only to be replaced by 5,000+ sq ft oversize "bungalows" or "farmhouse style homes" with two car garages, the current fad in local luxury home construction.
At the current rate of tear downs, Arlington's oldest neighborhoods will cease to be historic in a few short years. They will become communities of haphazardly designed and situated houses. Arlington's oldest subdivisions were planned communities, and families that bought lots had to build according to certain standards (height, setback, style, sq ft, etc.).
The newest homes are completely out of scale and ignore lot setbacks. One house "on steroids" can destroy an entire street. Like I said in a previous post, the local home builders are becoming much more brazen, and the only solution is for a neighborhood to become a local historic district.
Sure, not all of Arlington is preservation worthy, but the neighborhoods where most of the tear downs are taking place (Lyon Vill, Lyon Park, and Ashton Hts) are three of the most beautiful early 20th century neighborhoods in the DC area. The homes that are demolished are already quite large by Arlington standards, and they are an integral part of the overall character of the neighborhoods. I've seen substantial pre-ww2 tudor revivals, craftsmans, and colonials bite the dust over the past few months only to be replaced by 5,000+ sq ft oversize "bungalows" or "farmhouse style homes" with two car garages, the current fad in local luxury home construction.
At the current rate of tear downs, Arlington's oldest neighborhoods will cease to be historic in a few short years. They will become communities of haphazardly designed and situated houses. Arlington's oldest subdivisions were planned communities, and families that bought lots had to build according to certain standards (height, setback, style, sq ft, etc.).
The newest homes are completely out of scale and ignore lot setbacks. One house "on steroids" can destroy an entire street. Like I said in a previous post, the local home builders are becoming much more brazen, and the only solution is for a neighborhood to become a local historic district.
It is ironic that the developers who build these McMansions want to build them in places like Lyon Park partly because they are charming neighborhoods filled with older homes. I presume that buyers like the idea of living in an established neighborhood but having the size and convenience of a modern home (and maybe they like the idea of having a larger home than their neighbors). They are destroying the experience they want to join.
In principle, I believe in the right of a property owner to build what he wants and likes. In practice, I think that neighbors need to be more considerate of each other as lot sizes get smaller and neighbors get closer. If you live in the middle of a 20-acre wooded lot, I really don't care what you build or do because it won't much affect me. If we live on 1/10 of an acre lots, with ten feet between our houses, bagpipe lessons or a smelly compost heap become noise pollution and air pollution issues. If our homes are so close that neighbors can't see my house without seeing yours, or your house is so out of scale that it throws my house into shade or ruins my curb appeal, your tasteless McMansion might constitute visual pollution.
Let me "drop a little knowledge" on you now, since so much of what you have written is inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
In-fill projects typically go into areas which are under utilized in the heart of already zoned high density and remove for instance a gas station, to put in a better project.
No. There are plenty of "infill" projects--two houses where formerly there was one, or one giant house filling up 80% of what used to be a shaded lot. One example that will always gall me: 510 N. Monroe. I remember that address because back before 2006 or so, I used to drive by and see this beautiful 1920s fieldstone bungalow, surrounded by trees. Now? It's three tall, narrow McMegaShacks.
Ever drive west down N. Carlin Springs near the intersection with N. George Mason and admire the spacious stone 1940 Colonial with the two-car garage on that huge lot? They tore it down about a year ago. I haven't driven past there in a while, but I recall the builder's sign touting the 10 new McSpansions on the way.
So don't tell me it's always a gas station or a bus lot. For huge condo buildings? Maybe. But not for Mcmegashacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
Examples of these are in the hearts of Clarendon, Rosslyn, central DC. It has nothing to do with mcmansions which do not have anything to do with increasing the zoning requirements..
Not true. Time and again in Arlington, one sees two houses built on lots that were zoned for one--R6, R8, etc. Evidently, the developers in such cases somehow get permission to violate that zoning. Did the zoning change from residential to commercial? Of course not, but that's a straw man. The lot restrictions that are part of the zoning for that neighborhood get thrown out the window all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
If a project goes through rezoning next to you or frankly anywhere near you, they are require to send out a public notice that tells you when and where to go to argue your cases to the Board against it. Most infill projects either are already in the heart of an urban area (ie nowhere near a single family detached) or are at the fringes of a city and would be going through this process which typically takes 3 to 4 years and has extensive public input.
Again, you are just plain wrong on this. We lived in Cherrydale, in a SFH neighborhood. The people around the corner supersized their house so that it towered over our yard. Did we get any notice from the County? Nope. Then again, with the house around the other corner--again, no notice. House down the street gets torn down and a big barn put up. Now if they'd tried to change from R zoning to commercial or apartment, then I hope we would have been notified. But on these things, we were not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
The reason why mcmansions are called mcmansions is because they are template projects, ie they dont need any approval from the county except for architectural review board and permits. They hold the same site plans that were originally established, ie the same setbacks, utilities, and floor area ratio maximum but tear down the entire house and rebuild as big as possible..
Dude, Irvine and I should take you on a driving tour of Arlington. If you drive around, you will see SO many houses that are on a much larger footprint than that of the neighoring homes. Do you know that huge gaudy Greco-Roman thing on N. Pershing, maybe a little west of Irving, in Ashton Heights? Tell me that's on the same sized lot.
They're called McMansions because they're often nearly identical (beige, yellow, or gray siding, gables everywhere, garage somewhere out front, no trees, and towering over the neighbors) and huge. I think it's kind of an insult to McDonald's, which at least doesn't try to pass its product off as anything other than what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
The reason why the original house was not built as big as possible goes back to the original developers idea about the most marketable type of residence at that time. This has nothing to do with Democrats, there is nothing in the law that can stop this from happening as it is the right of the land owner to do this as long as they obey all the laws in the book and do not effect any of the zoning requirements. Typically the developers who do this by the way (and I do know because in my previous career I was the one helping them through the permit project, I apologize for my sins right now) are as RED as they get and come from the good ole boy field of developers (yes republicans).
I don't doubt that Republicans love McMansions, in general. My point is that the all-Dem board is so focused on getting affordable housing for the super-impoverished, that they willingly allow developers to run all over the zoning requirements, like height and setback--and fail to do anything about the routine total deforestation of every lot they acquire. Soon, all we'll have will be housing for the lowest-income folks and for the highest-income folks. I'm at the point where I'm voting for Republicans for county board every chance I get, because I don't care if they disagree with me on hot-button social issues (which they would have no influence on), so long as they'll promise to do something about the destruction of our neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonsengineer
Arlington County fights with everything it has against mcmansion projects, you can see this in almost every case in which a person comes in with something that requires an exception of zoning requirements. They are almost always shut down.)
The County doesn't fight anything in any real way. Drive around, man. There are Mcmegashacks on nearly every block in 22207, 2005, and 2001.
In some cases (1950s ramblers--but that's my personal taste, so no offense to rambler lovers), I don't mind seeing the old house get torn down, but what replaces it shouldn't be something that, as Irvine and Styx described, totally changes the character of the street. Yes, developers game the system by piling up dirt and measuring from there to the roofline--but the county's job is to close that loophole.
I don't think anything short of historic designation and/or a wholesale change of County government structure will ever stop this trend.
Last edited by Carlingtonian; 01-29-2012 at 03:41 PM..
Thanks for the info, TysonsEngineer. People may not know about or may have forgotten the zoning changes in Arlington debated and ultimately enacted around 2005/6. Interested people can look up the history on the web, e.g., there were articles in the Post before the zoning changes. The link I posted to the current rules has a date of 2008. Here is more info:
At the time, there was a lot of controversy because not only were (red) developers resisting more restrictions that the County Board generally favored, some homeowners feared that they would not be able to add on to their properties or make other changes to make their small houses more livable, and wanted the right to make those choices even if the neighbors objected. IIRC, the final changes implemented represented a compromise between that position and other positions, such as the one Carlingtonian expressed. The point is that, as TE implied, the recent changes imposed more land use restrictions from what the previous zoning laws permitted, not the reverse.
Thanks for the info, TysonsEngineer. People may not know about or may have forgotten the zoning changes in Arlington debated and ultimately enacted around 2005/6. Interested people can look up the history on the web, e.g., there were articles in the Post before the zoning changes. The link I posted to the current rules has a date of 2008. Here is more info:
AC, that's true, they did put in some restrictions, but as TE pointed out (just about the only part of his post that was accurate, in my view), the developers find ways to circumvent the law, and when they can't, they "contribute" (pay a bribe) to the County's affordable-housing fund, in exchange for a "variance,"--a euphemism for "exemption."
Carlingtonian, I think one point TE is making, and you may want to investigate, is that many of the examples you are citing may not have required requests for zoning variances, because the new construction met the zoning rules, and these rules were more lenient in the past than they are today. Why didn't you see so many McMansions until recently? Because the economic and demographic conditions in Arlington were very different pre-1998.
For example, R-6 zoning requires only a very small lot, and you can put a pretty good sized house on that lot. See the link I provided earlier to circa 2006 rules. I have seen a lot of examples where a lot has been subdivided and still allows for two lots that meet the R-6 minimum.
None of my comments are intended to disagree with the concerns over the cramming of too-big or poorly designed or built houses on too-small lots.
AC, that's true, they did put in some restrictions, but as TE pointed out (just about the only part of his post that was accurate, in my view), the developers find ways to circumvent the law, and when they can't, they "contribute" (pay a bribe) to the County's affordable-housing fund, in exchange for a "variance,"--a euphemism for "exemption."
I'll take your and his/her word for it. I think many of the Board members believe that voters want them to be concerned about affordable housing.
Have you thought about getting involved in your neighborhood association? A friend of mine is involved in the leadership in ours, and it's a frustrating experience for him but often the Board or county mgt. listens only when groups of people act in concert.
Arlington really is not my forte so I will concede that to you. The term in-fill is simply being used incorrectly (in-fill really is more when you have a lot that is serving little purpose and which is rezoned to higher density). It's called an infill because you literally rezone just that parcel and that one alone, and come in destroy, digout, and fill back in with a new denser structure. If you are talking about subdividing or anything messing with lot parcels then this really isnt "infill". And to say that democrats are specifically to be blamed disregards the people who are building these are usually card carrying republicans from NVHBA. Saying that Democrats are the ones allowing McMansions to be built is like saying Democrats are the ones allowing golden umbrellas for CEOs, the developers have found loops holes, thats the real problem and anytime democrats try to reign in this kind of practice they are screamed at as being unconstitutional and it is turned into a political issue.
I have no idea how they can take 1 lot and subdivide into double the density without a rezoning. Did you verify this on Arlington's GIS tracker? Are you sure they didnt rezone and you just didnt notice until the construction happened? This used to happen all the time when we would go to a final construction plan approval meeting and community people would suddenly show up because they saw construction trucks getting ready and say "we want to argue this". At that point you are too late obviously because at final site plan approval you are way past the point of stopping the construction outside of things like SWM/ES issues.
I worked on Route 29 and drove through many parts of residential Arlington and I know exactly the structures you are talking about, but I didnt see anywhere where one house was turned into two lots, or two lots were turned into one massive building specifically. Again if this was the case you can't call it a mcmansion, mcmansion entails that the structure is simply being built on existing lot without need of a new subdivision plan. I'm not doubting their existence, but your vernacular is wrong based on industry terms.
The fact that the county said you need to turn it historic says to me that they are in favor of that action, the problem is the county can't do this on their own, they dont have the capability to do, it has to be brought up by the HOA/owners to request historical significance. Are they ignoring a problem? I dunno, I think more so they can't fight it because if they do the republican side, the guys with a lot of power in this area from the old days, will scream murder.
As far as New Jersey, Jerseys eastern shore (while it appears like its run by 21 year old dummys) is actually as red as it comes. 2008 Congressional Map2010 Election MapWhile the state overall is fairly democratic historically (although they voted in Chris Christie for Governor), the rural areas which includes the Jersey Shore is typically republican.
Guys, I'm not a political person, I'm just saying if your end goal is to create more regulations on private developers... your probably not gonna wanna vote in Republicans... they kinda say that they are against those things.
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.
