Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
offer a few comments on key topics in its most recent draft report. My comments touch
only on what I consider to be the most important issues and are not comprehensive.
Residential:Office space ratio. First, after rationalizing for pages why a 1:1 res:off
space ratio is appropriate, you mis-characterize—if not mis-state—Joe Stowers’ and my
proposals for a higher ratio to help bring the residential and workforce in your study area
more in to balance. Here’s what the draft says: “The essential theory animating these
proposals is that if the amount of jobs in the immediate area is matched by the amount of
workers available to fill those jobs there will be little or no traffic impacts whereas if
there are not enough workers in the immediate area to fill available jobs there must
inevitably be traffic impacts.” Two points:
• Neither Joe nor I expect a one-for-one match “fill those jobs.” We are looking
for balance in the use of Metrorail and the DTR, that is, the number coming
and going are roughly equal and, moreover, spread over the entirety of the
day. To the extent that these residents actually work in TC, great, that will
reduce traffic if they bike or walk. But we have no substantial expectations of
that. I expect many will work in Tysons (because who will want to live
there?) or points farther east.
• Neither of us expect “little or no traffic impacts” from the proposed doubling
(or more) of the workforce and a large growth in residents in TC under any
scenario the TC committee has proposed nor our own ideas. What we expect
is that the larger traffic flows will be more balanced and less severe rather
than the steeply one-sided TC proposal would create on the DTR, Reston
streets, and Metrorail if the workforce and residential populations are roughly
equal.
Your characterization of our positions is inaccurate, simplistic, and prejudicial.
I for one will accept (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that Ballston is
the best existing example of TOD balance in the United States at this moment. That does
not mean it is ideal—or even good—just the best so far. In fact, communities across the
country have had tremendous difficulty in advancing to a true TOD resident:workforce
population balance in the face of extreme pressures from developers/landowners to build
less demanding and more profitable commercial office space. I commend Arlington for
what has accomplished so far and welcome its ongoing efforts to boost retroactively the
residential presence and open space in its TOD areas.
Like the “residential collar” concept, you have slipped some other new “features”
(not unlike many of Microsoft’s “undocumented features” in its software that are almost
always flaws) that are unsupportable, but consistent with developer interests.
• For the first time, the notional future TC household size has swollen from 2.0 to
2.6 people per DU (see p. 7)—a 30% increase that is not explained, and not
justifiable. In the latter regard, I would note that the latest MWCOG
transportation forecast shows TC area households now at 1.94 people per DU and
“swelling” to 1.99 people per DU in 2040. How can you justify 2.6 people per
DU? The obvious impact from this is that developers/landowners can show a
prospective 30% larger residential HH size, which simply will not occur, to justify
building relative more office space. In the meantime, they can argue that the
res:off ratio shouldn’t be increased because so much more population is
anticipated.
• Somewhere along the line, the committee moved the assumptions about DU and
workspace space allocation to a 1,200 GSF number (…per DU, …per 4 workers)
vs. 1,000 GSF. I have read the elaborate footnote on this, but fail to see an
adequate justification for the shift in GSF base. The fact of the matter is that, on
the DU side, every APR that has been submitted in the latest round bases its DU
estimate on 1,000GSF per DU. Are they all wrong? What basis do you have
for changing this assumption? If accepted, this assumption would allow
developers/landowners to build 20% more office space in a parcel while
sustaining their res:off GFA balance. (And lessees can always squeeze 4 workers
into 1,000GSF—or less—as most planners anticipate.)
As in the past, you appear to have accepted uncritically the most developer-friendly
assumptions available in your draft report, starting with the 1:1 space ratio. If
accepted, just these two changes alone would allow increase the imbalance between
worker and residential population by more than 50% at the 1:1 space ratio proposed.
There are other such examples sprinkled throughout this developer-driven draft, but I will
leave it to committee members and, if they remain, the Task Force to sort those out in the
interest of time and space now. And I’ll be back.
Open Space: This draft paper argues almost violently against being subjected to the
County’s urban open space standards. I strongly endorse the Reston 2020 position that
the TOD areas should have 25% functional open space and see absolutely no reason why
the County should relax its urban parks standard (I would increase it, given the option.) to
meet the demands of a few property owners. This can be accomplished in a number of
ways:
• Adopt the Montgomery County approach that every parcel owner must devote
25% (20% in MC) to useable open space.
• Build/preserve large open spaces and complement them with a smaller
percentage functional open space.
o Build the town green and small southside green mall you suggest while
preserving the USGS natural areas as open space. (You see the last as an
alternative. It should be a key goal given its existing natural state. I
propose that you recommend that discussions with GAO begin now with
a view to the preservation of these natural areas under Reston
governance, possibly involving a County purchase and transfer of the
land to Reston.)
o Require landowners who have not contributed proportionally to the large
open spaces to make up the difference in onsite useable open space. My
guess is that would be on the order of 10-15% of their space.
• Build/preserve large central open space areas (“greens” or parks) in southside,
RTC core, and NTC comprising 25% of each of these areas, less the small areas
contributed by existing useable open space. This would be the most difficult
option to execute.
Infrastructure Requirements. The draft argues early on that the report requires an
infrastructure impact/needs assessment (despite “a number of infrastructure
improvements” listed in Exhibit A) that “could significantly impact the feasibility of our
recommendations.” Why would you propose a set of recommendations that may not be
feasible? Why don’t you more systematically address the infrastructure needs of the TC
area—north to south—in this report? Certainly a doubling (under your 1:1 res:off space
ratio formula) or more of population (under Maynard & Stowers) there will have some
impact on schools, connectivity, parking, and recreational requirements.
Your proposal generally is to throw this burden on the rest of Reston. On parks,
“We don’t think those (parks and recreation) are appropriate open space uses in a dense,
TOD area of the kind we are outlining for Town Center and TC Metro South. That does
not eliminate the need for new ball fields, but those spaces should be located outside the
TOD areas.” Might I suggest that the rest of Reston would like to throw that challenge
back to TC: If you are creating a problem, you need to solve it.
On schools, my preliminary estimate is that your proposal will require 2-3 more
elementary schools (no new middle or high schools) of average FC size to meet TC
needs. Where, why, and how can you justify placing that burden on the rest of Reston.
I have a number of other specific concerns as well, but these are at the top of my
list at this time. As soon as I have the time, I will show you the workforce and
population density impacts of your proposal versus a more reasonable and balance
proposal. But I’ve given you enough to think about and work on tomorrow morning. I
hope these ideas help inform those discussions.