615-foot Tysons skyscraper proposal, tallest in DC, MD and VA (Fairfax: rental, condo)

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

So as far as Clarendon, are you saying you believe the cause of the overly high commercial lease rates there is a lack of enough development?

Actually, Clarendon is a perfect example of filtering. Office, new atleast, is pushing the upper 40s lower 50s, but actually the offices built around 1980s, slightly off metro, are going for a reasonable low 30s and include tenant improvements of substantial worth.

Now ground floor retail, that's a whole other monster. That is so dependent on the intangibles on whether a place is worth x vs y. Successful prior businesses are part of that, colocation with other similar retail is part of that, the size of the space is part of the equation. For Fire and Wall for instance, in my opinion the size of that space was the problem, especially since Tim Ma was so successful in the intimate quick changing menu at Maple Ave. But again, retail is a beast of a whole other name, some places are just cursed. See the restaurant Oz and how many restaurants have had trouble at that spot, or the Ritz in Tysons which keeps having issues with marquee restaurants.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Hal Roach

Hey Tyson, do they use FAR, in zoning regulations (ratio of floor space to land space) in Tysons, or is it more height restriction oriented with a phone book full of specific details for buildings. I have been following the bidding process on the sale of an old building on 3.1 acres in Bangkok. It is the old Australian Embassy. They said since it has 220 feet of main road frontage, it can have a FAR of 10, or 1.3 million square feet. The Empire State building has a FAR of 25, but that is because they changed the laws in 1961. Looking like 200 million USD for the three acres.

The heights noted in the Comprehensive Plan for Tysons are solely for establishing the "basis" of the planning for the allowable densities. The planners imagined that given an FAR of say 10, and a typical two acre tower property, that developments would result in (in that particular case) 450k sf, which on two acres would typically be about a 24 to 30 story building. That being said the only hard set numbers are the FAR, which are established dependent on the distance from metro (1/8 mi, 1/4 mi, 1/2 mi, etc.). So one could theoretically attain the FAR of a building further from metro with a taller building if it was skinny, than a building closer to metro that was using more of the parcel.

There are other things in play too, build to lines, general goals of having the buildings integrated at a certain distance from the streetscape which would make proposing a very skin tower in the park look unlikely to get approved.

At the 1/8mi or closer mark, the Comp Plan specifically allows for unlimited density if residential. So in my opinion, there is no regulatory reason why such a tower could not be built, given the developer provides the required elements (work force housing of 20% of units, compensation to school and transpo fund, public space requirements, etc). I think this plan has those built in, and more, given the truly desperate lack of good public spaces in Tysons.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Old Guard

Well look who is finally reporting for duty.


I am sure tysonsengineer knows a lot more about this than I do but I have never understood the need to raise the rents so high that it drives out successful service industries. Especially unique or "historic" places. I would figure that having these kinds of mom and pop businesses would be appreciated as they make the area unique and give it history that separates it from the other sanitized, developed, areas.

Last year one of my friends sold their DC house and moved to Baltimore. So now I go up to Baltimore a couple of times a month. I really like Baltimore because of their unique eateries and neighborhoods. They have a lot of mom and pop places that add charm and history. I like that.

I am not against chains and large box stores. I like them. But they should be an option among many, not the only option. When I travel now it seems like most cities are the same and I have to look to find what makes the area unique.

Honestly, the problem in our region, and frankly in the US as a whole, is a lack of owner based mixed use. If you go to Europe, the owner of a shop in many cases is the operator of that shop. There are mixed use retail for purchase properties. Some even have a residence in the rear or on top. This is a huge deal because

1) It reduces the impact of what everyone needs, a place to live, so you split part of that cost with the business you operate

2) Its the equivalent of escaping the rental cycle for home owners. When you no longer are paying rent to a property owner, and own, yes the upfront cost is more, you have to save up more, but the business model (and your housing) is so much more sustainable. At 50psf a year, for a typically 2k business, you are looking at $100,000 PER YEAR, just to lease the space, let alone all the regular costs of running a business.

To buy a place like that in many ways is far more sustainable if the option is available. But the problem is, this country hasn't really considered that in zoning.

Actually, in general our country is too focused on "use" of a property, instead of format of ownership. We build too many apartments, and not enough to own. If the market alone would dictate, this trend will continue because financially for a developer it is much easier to profit from a rental format. I would rather loosen land "use" and density obstruction, and instead focus more on the form base of a building (ie how does the building, whatever it is, integrate into the public spaces) and to focus more on encouraging for owner development, in office, retail and residential. That's how we bring main street back, giving mom and pops the opportunity to set down firm roots.

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

Honestly, the problem in our region, and frankly in the US as a whole, is a lack of owner based mixed use. If you go to Europe, the owner of a shop in many cases is the operator of that shop. There are mixed use retail for purchase properties. Some even have a residence in the rear or on top. This is a huge deal because

This is really something I would like to see more of.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Old Guard

This is really something I would like to see more of.

Go to Board of Supervisors meetings. Honestly, because so few people are involved in this process, the decisions get made by, sometimes, a hand full of people. 5 to 10 people showing up for a Board of Supervisors meeting can be the difference between Fairfax County, or whatever county, being innovative and on the forward edge of good land use policy, or maintaining the same status quo.

[Hal Roach]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

Honestly, the problem in our region, and frankly in the US as a whole, is a lack of owner based mixed use. If you go to Europe, the owner of a shop in many cases is the operator of that shop. There are mixed use retail for purchase properties. Some even have a residence in the rear or on top. This is a huge deal because

1) It reduces the impact of what everyone needs, a place to live, so you split part of that cost with the business you operate

2) Its the equivalent of escaping the rental cycle for home owners. When you no longer are paying rent to a property owner, and own, yes the upfront cost is more, you have to save up more, but the business model (and your housing) is so much more sustainable. At 50psf a year, for a typically 2k business, you are looking at $100,000 PER YEAR, just to lease the space, let alone all the regular costs of running a business.

To buy a place like that in many ways is far more sustainable if the option is available. But the problem is, this country hasn't really considered that in zoning.

Actually, in general our country is too focused on "use" of a property, instead of format of ownership. We build too many apartments, and not enough to own. If the market alone would dictate, this trend will continue because financially for a developer it is much easier to profit from a rental format. I would rather loosen land "use" and density obstruction, and instead focus more on the form base of a building (ie how does the building, whatever it is, integrate into the public spaces) and to focus more on encouraging for owner development, in office, retail and residential. That's how we bring main street back, giving mom and pops the opportunity to set down firm roots.

I watched an interesting program about Singapore real estate.....the classic "shop house" model is what made it boom. Owner occupied business on the ground floor, and the top two or three floors for residence. Would be something most Fairfax County residents could not imagine. It was the shop houses with the great food and drink that made this land worth 1500 PSF...but now the businesses are gone but the land is still worth a fortune.

As far as tall and thin...views still add value. In a place so flat, height is the way to achieve it. In Berkeley they sell "bridge views," and even "four bridge views.". How many bridges (over water) could you see from the fortieth floor at Tysons?

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Hal Roach

I watched an interesting program about Singapore real estate.....the classic "shop house" model is what made it boom. Owner occupied business on the ground floor, and the top two or three floors for residence. Would be something most Fairfax County residents could not imagine. It was the shop houses with the great food and drink that made this land worth 1500 PSF...but now the businesses are gone but the land is still worth a fortune.

As far as tall and thin...views still add value. In a place so flat, height is the way to achieve it. In Berkeley they sell "bridge views," and even "four bridge views.". How many bridges (over water) could you see from the fortieth floor at Tysons?

Fortune is relative. Consider this, 1500 psf to own is a lot. For a 2000 square foot retail ground level, 1000 sq ft 2br above, you are talking about 3 million dollars. That's alot. But I can assure you, that location, for leases is likely going for $70 to 80psf per year, which is about $150,000 per year, sunk cost, not going to equity, just to the owner. If you are in business for 20 years, you end up not only having no equity in the land, but also spending the same as owning it outright.

The above is an extreme case. In Berlin you can see pretty typical for own pricing, similar to what we see in central business areas, around 500psf to 700psf. So a similar 2000sf space would be about 1M to 1.4M. More approachable in financing when you consider this is both your business and your house.

[Hal Roach]

This tacky building is likely similar to the out of date buildings mentioned earlier. Almost looks like some kind of Frank Wright hangover, or a Mike Brady original. 200 million, going once....

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Hal Roach

This tacky building is likely similar to the out of date buildings mentioned earlier. Almost looks like some kind of Frank Wright hangover, or a Mike Brady original. 200 million, going once....

Hideous building, plus you can't see it for the trees.

[Hal Roach]

Originally Posted by goofy328

Hideous building, plus you can't see it for the trees.

Might have something to do with the need for shade with a ten month Summer. Building will be demolished, land is worth more without the building.