As a fellow E Falls Churchian, I agree with you 100%, Mr. Perkins. I would love to see our neighborhood transition to smarter growth, and indeed slow down the crazies that come down Wash Blvd Eastbound after the 66 cross-over bridge. Let's make our own flyers!

by Matt Glazewski on Jun 10, 2010 12:50 pm  

I just talked to county board staff. Other than signing the petition, emails to countyboard@arlingtonva.us are a good way of showing support. I was surprised to hear that they actually prefer this to phone calls.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 10, 2010 12:59 pm  

Yes. Yes I do want a 9 story neighbor. And a 30 story neighbor. Because it would mean lower prices per square foot for the condo I'm looking for.

Stupid NIMBY's.

by Redline SOS on Jun 10, 2010 1:39 pm  

Maybe cause they're easier to ignore?

All cynicism aside, thanks for the continuing efforts to keep us informed about how to participate.

The flyer folks were out at the Overlee community yard sale last weekend and seemed surprised when met with reasoned arguments (such as provided here) in favor of the development. Not to mention unprepared to respond. I think they just assume that all you have to do is shout "traffic" and people will be opposed. What is unfortunate is that these folks tend to be the same ones with a victim mentality and will blame the county government and accuse them of not listening to the neighborhood if and when the plan is approved and development actually comes to EFC.

by Josh S on Jun 10, 2010 1:43 pm  

I can't figure out why Redline SOS continues to read this blog.

by Josh S on Jun 10, 2010 1:44 pm  

@ Josh S: I think it makes them easier for them to put them into FOR and AGAINST folders for the board to peruse.

If you call them, then they have to write it down in a document, whereas with an email they already have the document in your own words.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 10, 2010 1:55 pm  

Before 66 was built Sycamore was a dead end, and Roosevelt off of Lee Highway was the preferred way to get from the Williamsburg area to Seven Corners. Can't say I ever remember any commercial district around there other than what you now have in Falls Church. How tall were the buildings?

It's hard to imagine if you drive down Roosevelt now north of 66 that it was once the best way to get to Wilson Blvd.

by Lou on Jun 10, 2010 2:42 pm  

Good to point out that the residential permit program keeps commuters from using local streets for Metro parking. I live two blocks from the Ballston Metro and rarely have problems parking, as Arlington enforces parking very tightly. Far from being a "war on drivers" it helps me to have parking available for guests. Rather than increasing traffic, the Metro nearby encourages people to walk, even from as far away as 10 blocks I'd say.

I drive, metro and bike through the area a lot and would love to see something more than just a bare lots and bike and pedestrian hostile streets.

by Boots on Jun 10, 2010 3:25 pm  

@Boots

Indeed, the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor shows that with good TOD, substantial density, and demand management, you can add a great deal of jobs and residences to an area without actually increasing traffic.

by Alex B. on Jun 10, 2010 3:33 pm  

"The truth is that the plan would allow one building of up to 9 stories, but only far from houses and in exchange for a significant community benefit."

Michael, you accuse the opponents of using misleading language, but this statement of yours is way beyond misleading, straying into outright prevarication. The "one building" would be huge, taking up a large portion of the current metro parking lot, and the proposed 9 story tower could be 50 to 100 feet (or less) from Sycamore Street, beyond which the neighborhood consists exclusively of single family homes of one or two stories. A 9 story tower is way out of scale for the community, and that's why there's so much much grass-roots opposition.

Instead of carrying water for the developers who seek to make millions from this project, why don't you try to understand the legitimate concerns of your neighbors? What kind of retail do you think is actually going to be built here, besides yet another Starbucks, a dry cleaner, a nail salon, and an overpriced bodega? If you're hoping for another branch of Busboys and Poets, forget it. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this project will include a grocery store or other type of retail that would be of actual benefit to the surrounding community. Moreover, can you name any other project in Arlington where an additional 600,000 square feet of development resulted in no additional traffic?

Most of the members of the task force representing the two civic associations closest to the project voted against the plan, but they were outvoted by members who live far from the neighborhood and who will never bear the burdens of this project. Another way to look at this plan is to see it as an opening bid in a long negotiation between the community, WMATA, VDOT, and the developers. Why give up on density and building heights before we even know what the other side is demanding? If WMATA and VDOT think that we have to have 9 stories and 600,000 feet, let them say so in response to a plan that actually takes neighborhood concerns into account.

by OC on Jun 10, 2010 4:15 pm  

What you fail to mention is the future opening of the BJ's on Wilson. We didn't have much say about it because it's considered in Falls Church, but combine that with the EFC redevelopment, I see a major disruption to the lovely, quiet neighborhood that I moved into. Also, the transportation study was done prior to the BJ's construction. I don't know about you, but have you ever tried to go to the Costco in Pentagon City? Big. Pain.

I don't think that those "opposed" are necessarily opposed to improvement or development. I think we're asking for a reasonable plan that can be developed in phases. Why so much all at once?

Read Pat T's comments at your own posting here: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=5676#comments. He brings up many good points that haven't been thoroughly addressed.

by Connie on Jun 10, 2010 4:24 pm  

I don't see how more starbucks, bodegas, and dry cleaners are inherently a bad thing b/c they aren't cool or hip. Having those means people won't have to go as far and are more likely to walk or bike rather than drive just to pick up their shirts or go and grab a coffee. The type of retail that the project will attract isn't necessarily pertinent to the discussion about the form of the development that is being proposed.

Besides I think Michael has clearly stated that he has noted the concerns of people in the neighborhood and has outline in this post and others why he disagrees. That is the whole purpose of this post.

by Canaan on Jun 10, 2010 4:28 pm  

@Canaan: More Starbucks, bodegas, and dry cleaners are not inherently bad things! It's just that Michael seems to be saying that community opposition is due to people underestimating the benefits of this type of retail being nearby. But maybe people fully understand the benefits, and they just don't think that they are worth all the burdens imposed by this project -- the extra traffic, a 9 story tower looming over their homes, extra kids for already-overcrowded schools, loss of weekend parking at the metro, etc. The scale of this project is out of whack, and that's what's igniting the grass-roots opposition. Many of the people opposing this would actually be in favor if the project were scaled back to more reasonable limits.

So, why not scale it back to 4 stories, tapering to 6 stories, and limiting it to 450,000 square feet? If someone thinks that's too small to interest any developer, let's see the report that demonstrates that fact. So far, neither the county nor the task force has shown that, and all we have instead are speculation and supposition. Otherwise, you're only going to be able to enact this plan by bulldozing straight over significant community opposition.

by OC on Jun 10, 2010 4:56 pm  

But thats exactly what the very article your commenting on addresses. He addresses the burdens and the article shows the address to each concern raised and why the alternatives you are proposing won't work for the developer, they won't justify the cost of the investment the developer makes to build a second entrance. The very article is meant to demonstrate that the scale is not off and is what is needed in order to ensure success.

by Canaan on Jun 10, 2010 5:30 pm  

I'm still concerned about cutting back the number of parking space at the EFC metro. IT is already one of the most used lots, and cutting the spaces by half isn't going to help matters. I argued with Michael about the cost of putting more underground spots. We didn't come to a conclusion except that underground is clearly more expensive than above ground lots.

I'm all for TOD but there is a reason that lot is full: a lot of people come in from a non-walkable distance and park there to metro into work. More TOD will increase station traffic, but those cars aren't going away.

by charlie on Jun 10, 2010 5:49 pm  

Support or opposition to the proposed development will surely be influenced by your relationship to the project. I doubt that very many ordinary residents of the neighboring areas are going to spend their energy raising concerns just because they have no other summer plans. Presumably people are really concerned and feel they have reason to be.

On the other hand, there are financial reasons for the county board and developers to downplay legitimate concerns. If you live far enough away from the proposed development, this may be of minor concern in comparison to all the perceived benefits. Living right next to it means that you are likely to be more cautious.

by MC on Jun 10, 2010 6:19 pm  

Can some of these advocates of the EFC task force plan explain to me why, considering the vote is in July, there has been NO mention of these plans in the newsletter that Arlington County sends periodically to all Arlington households? WHY would that be?

by Barbara on Jun 10, 2010 6:43 pm  

@Charlie

The parking lot is only 400 spaces. By comparison, Vienna has nearly 6,000 spaces. Dunn Loring - 1,300. West Falls Church - 2,000.

Losing 200 spaces is nothing.

The East Falls Church lot is only one of the more used lots on a percentage basis, and that's because of high turnover. Of course, that kind of turnover isn't anywhere near as much as a station with actual development and useful retail around it - and as Michael Perkins noted, the new on-street parking spaces will ensure that the parking that is on site is more useful to the area in general.

by Alex B. on Jun 10, 2010 7:52 pm  

200 out of 400 spaces is nothing? To me, that's 50%, or the equivalent of losing 3000 spaces at Vienna. I'm not sure what your point is.

by Barbara on Jun 10, 2010 8:07 pm  

So, you're arguing that taking away 200 parking spaces will have the same traffic impact as taking away 3,000 spaces?

If the concern about the spaces is that people will park in the neighborhoods, I don't think that's the case - park and ride spaces can easily shift to other modes or other WMATA parking lots along the corridor. If people know that they won't be able to park, then they won't drive looking for parking.

If the concern is that this means 200 more cars on the road, I don't think that's the case either - people will switch modes and routes. Even if it does mean 200 more cars, that's hardly a traffic calamity.

My point is that 200 spaces is nothing relative to the 4,200 average daily boardings at the station. Park and ride should not be a priority at this station - it isn't a priority now, even with the surface parking lot.

by Alex B. on Jun 10, 2010 8:34 pm  

The problem with most urban planners is that they are basically land use engineers and are left brain centered. As such, they are almost completely lacking in any sense of beauty and proportion and are more suited to be operating a bulldozer than they are to be creating art.

by John Zeger on Jun 10, 2010 8:35 pm  

Is the reason that they want to do this because they assume that many of the people who park there are driving in on the toll road, and that those people could park further out once the Silver line is complete?

by Jack Russell on Jun 10, 2010 9:31 pm  

"In exchange for the added height, the developer would construct a second Metro entrance on the west side of the station, estimated to cost $50-60 million. Without this increase in height, a developer could not afford such a project."

Michael, who is the developer that you are referring to here? Isn't this some hypothetical developer dreamed up by someone, rather than an actual developer? Can you prove that a developer would need 600,000 square feet and 9 stories in order to make this work? Let's have some facts, not just bald speculation. Heck, I can dream up a different developer, who would be happy to make this work with far less floorspace or building heights.

by Pete on Jun 10, 2010 9:41 pm  

@AlexB; I don't know where you pulled that 4200 daiyl boardings figure from; but given that the parking lot is being used at something like 150% capacity it is more like 500 cars using it daily. Not all cars have one driver, so lets say 600 people. That, according to your figures, is well more than 10% of the daily boardings at the station. Losing half of them is a big a deal.

And given the distance and fares into DC, those are very profitable riders for WMATA. Not to mention the lost revenue from losing 200 parking spaces. (4.50 * 200 * 5 *52) about $230,000 a year. It is going to take a lot of riders -- 50 or 60 thousand -- to make up that revenue.

by charlie on Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm  

As someone who is in interested in both planning and architecture (and I'm making an assumption that many urban planners do as well) I really dispute that urban planners have no concern for aesthetics. I would move that many urban planning professionals got into the profession to make cities more beautiful.

Second, architecture isn't purely art. A building needs to be functional as well as beautiful and while architects are artisans much like a silver smith or furniture maker but they aren't artists like a painter or sculptor.

by Canaan on Jun 10, 2010 10:07 pm  

@charlie

WMATA's average weekday boardings by station, 2009:

http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/2009%20Metrorail%20boarding%20by%20station.pdf

As far as fiscal impact to WMATA, they'll be selling the land and removing the maintenance costs of parking from their balance sheet. As far as riders go, they'll likely be gaining many riders from this development itself, not to mention the additional station entrance that the developer will pay for in exchange for some density - an entrance that won't exist otherwise and will create a substantially shorter walk for potential patrons south of I-66, toward Lee Highway.

by Alex B. on Jun 10, 2010 10:08 pm  

@Pete, you raise a good point. To my knowledge and from reading the records that are public there is no developer signed up for this. As an architect, I know it is extremely unlikely there is any agreement in place to build to the limit of the study. All this is just speculative argumenting at this point.

It is worth pointing out though, for the folks talking about the density in the report, that there were recommendations from the Task Force to remove the sketches that showed the site specific massing studies, and replace them with pictures of buildings from other cites that they would like to emulate. I really think the issue of size is in play here, and it is totally appropriate to express those concerns to the county as this process moves along.

by Lou on Jun 10, 2010 10:56 pm  

Alex, is that additional entrance at EFC similar to the one JBG was going to build at Arlington Gateway? Have you ever used that entrance? The one that doesn't exist?

by Lou on Jun 10, 2010 11:00 pm  

@OC you said, "Most of the members of the task force representing the two civic associations closest to the project voted against the plan..."

Looks like you got it backwards, most of the members voted FOR the plan:

"The citizen Task Force, which has been meeting for three years, voted 14 to 4 to adopt their final plan and forward it to the County Board."
It wasn't even close!

by RS on Jun 10, 2010 11:12 pm  

@Lou

Was that other Ballston entrance going to be built by virtue of the sale of WMATA land? Was it going to be the much less expensive above-ground construction that would be required here?

by Alex B. on Jun 10, 2010 11:19 pm  

You're missing the point RS - Most of the members representing the Civic Associations - which are hugely out numbered by the developers and county at large folks like planning commission, transportation commission etc.

by Ken on Jun 10, 2010 11:34 pm  

The crux of the issue here is why do we need another Ballston or Clarendon? We've already got them- if you want to live there go live there. I thought Arlington was all about Diversity.

The main issue with the defined size is that this is only the baseline. As everybody knows that every project in Arlington is done with bonus density, which means when the plan says 9 floor you end up with 12 floor.

by Ken on Jun 10, 2010 11:40 pm  

@ken: the base plan is written for 6 stories, and the 9 is written in as the bonus density in exchange for community benefit.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 10, 2010 11:54 pm  

Ken: oh, no, not 12 floors!

The exasperation that people show about mid-rise developments is always hilarious and aggravating to me. I'm reminded of the woman who stood up at the Vancouver talk to complain about a 12-story "high-rise" (in what universe does 12 floors constitute a high-rise?) being built in Dupont in the 1970s.

In the 1970s! And who can afford to live in Dupont now...?

by J.D. Hammond on Jun 11, 2010 12:01 am  

I've noticed some of the unkind words from pro development people toward those who are opposed. Be careful. Those who are opposed might assert that we don't appreciate it when others try to impose their radical green views on others by narrowing streets. One could say that another person is selfish, thoughtless, and a petty tyrant when they force other people to sit in traffic and add to pollution more than would be the case if we had an adequate road infrastructure. People who force the handicapped to make the choice of walking (some literally CANNOT walk) or to sit in their cars, motionless in traffic are really selfish. Would you set up an anti-car pedestrian and metro utopia where your parents live, and force them to walk? What about the Moms with a few kids going to doctor appointments in the morning? What about basic freedom? Why force others to make the same life choices as you? I find some of the pro-development people are control freaks. If you want to never use a car, that is your choice, but don't impose your choice on me. I guess the only slices of the diverse spectrum of humanity who are unwelcome around here are people who need to drive, like the handicapped, the elderly, and large families.

by Bill on Jun 11, 2010 7:03 am  

Interesting.

How would they acquire the land for the new developments, specifically the Petro Oil Company/Car Repair/Used Car Lot site, the BB&T site, the Exxon Mobil Site, the commercial areas along Jefferson Street with printing shops, contractors, home improvement, etc.?

Eminent domain should not be an option, unless the end result is a park or other public use, if its turned over to a developer then that's inappropriate use of the statute.

Additionally, while Kelo v. City of New London said that municipalities can use their authority under eminent domain to take land, assuming just compensation, and provide that land to a developer, I think that states and the Federal government should seek to change that. First and foremost, the first mention of the use of or potential use of eminent domain, be it publicly or privately by any person with official capacity, should be treated as the first instance of the use of or potential use of eminent domain. Property values should be assessed from that point using ONLY assessments prior to that date, why? Because the mere mention of eminent domain causes a corresponding drop in property values, governments have used this tactic. Before offering residents or businesses an opportunity to sell, they publicly declare that they will offer compensation to property owners and immediately follow that up with a threat, however vague or nebulous, of eminent domain. What this does is drive down prices in that area, so that the municipality only has to pay the current market value of the parcel, that is unfair because the government has disseminated information in such a way as to reduce property values in the affected area, intentional or not, govenrment should be allowed to use this tactic. Which is why I say that all assessments for eminent domain purposes should be based on the values immediately prior to any announcement by any official publicly or privately about the potential use of eminent domain. That's the only way to ensure "just compensation" requirement under the Constitution is satisifed.

Lastly, I think this plan is suffering from some serious delusions of grandeur. East Falls Church Metro Station is a major communter destination for those heading into the city from points further west, elimination of parking facilities might encourage many of these commuters who use metro to stay on 66 and drive in to DC depriving metro of much needed fares, which over time reduces East Falls Church as a transportation hub. Another point to consider is that the next exit from 66 is Fairfax Drive in Ballston with a massive parking facility for use by commuters (part of the original selling point for a Ballston metro station I might add), limited parking options might make East Falls Church a less desirable destination. With a large interchange like that at East Falls Church encouraging more bicycle traffic could be very dangerous as many bicyclists do not know or do not care about following the rules of the road like they must do under Virginia motor vehicle laws.

Finally, East Falls Church has not been a major destination for retail, only residential/suburbia for several decades. There is retail in Falls Church, but its very limited in the area of the metro station. Turning this area in a local retail section will be very difficult, especially with the size considered. The other local examples were already established retail areas like Shirlington and Pentagon Row, others were located on major thoroughfares with metro access like the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, the Carlyle development here in Old Town was next to the King Street Metro station and had a committment from the USPTO to move its 5,000+ workforce to the new development (that's a big boon to develop and add mixed use features). Starting from scratch is not easy, and success is not guarenteed even with the best conditions...many retail/commercial space in the Carlyle development is still empty and its been like that for 2 years or more.

by Lawrence Q. Wilson on Jun 11, 2010 7:10 am  

It's pretty funny that people whine about "loss of freedom" when we are talking about building communities that make it possible to carry out one's daily tasks without owning a $15,000, two-ton machine - which is pretty much mandatory in most places in this country.

by Phil on Jun 11, 2010 7:18 am  

@bill
Isn't it pretty tyranical to make people rely on cars that are expensive to buy and maintain? If you want to drive your car, why would you live that close to the metro? I think your libertarian viewpoint is pretty shortsighted. It's a fact that no matter how wide you make streets, they will fill up with traffic anyway. If you are worried about sitting in a car all day, then walk and take the train. Don't equate people who are looking out for your and your childrens future to tyrants. Where I live handicap people, the elderly and large families all take the trains and buses. My mother is froma family of 15 and they never owned a car! One more thing, what about the rights of the people who want safe and walkable communities, you are so worried about the rigths of car owners, but I think it should be a right to be able to walk around your community without having to cross a 6 lane highway to get to the store.

by Stevemason on Jun 11, 2010 7:29 am  

We have speeding cars by our elementary school from all the drivers going into DC and Rosslyn. We have deadly pollution that gives my son asthma from the cars on 66. This is supposed to be a liveable community. Instead it is a bunch of money-hungry whore who continue to build and seek tax money for their programs. It's time for the county-elected representatives to support the residents of this neighborhood, not developers, and county programs seeking more tax revenue. I'm so sorry we moved here but we can't afford to leave just now. With the pollution and taxes soon we won't be able to afford to stay, either.

by taxpayerandvoter on Jun 11, 2010 7:40 am  

Check out this twitter message from the author of this post:
"Is it ethical to go around and 'disappear' the Nimby flyers opposing the EFC area plan?"
(http://twitter.com/perkinsms/status/15582893230)

Uh, Michael, no, it isn't ethical, and it may be illegal, if you trespass or destroy private property. But your twitter message is very revealing. When you're faced with community opposition, one of your first thoughts is to consider vigilante censorship. That doesn't say a whole lot about the strength of your argument, much less your motives.

by Pete on Jun 11, 2010 7:46 am  

Last I checked littering, or posting things in a public right of way, is illegal. If these flyers are on cars or posted on public property it's 100% ethical to remove them.

by Phil on Jun 11, 2010 7:58 am  

@Phil, you are correct. Posting the flyers in the first place is illegal, @Pete. Arlington County Code, Chapter 10 §10-5. Nothing unethical removing them whatsoever.

by Matt Glazewski on Jun 11, 2010 8:12 am  

As Chair of the East Falls Church Task Force, I'm not going to argue the merits of the Plan but I would like to point out four facts.

OC states that "Most of the members of the task force representing the two civic associations closest to the project voted against the plan." This is not the case. There were five residents of the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association on the Task Force. They voted 3-2 in favor of the Plan. There was also one resident on the Task Force from each of the four surrounding civic associations: Williamsburg, Leeway Overlee, Highland Park-Overlee Knolls, and Madison Manor. These four voted 3-1 in favor of the Plan. Finally, there was one resident from Falls Church who lives within a half-mile of the subway entrance who also voted in favor of the Plan. Thus, of the ten people on the Task Force who live the closest, they voted 7-3 in favor of the Plan.

Second, concern was raised about the use of eminent domain. The Task Force Report states that "the Task Force does not intend to force business and property owners to sell their property."

Third, Ken says that 12 stories are possible under the Plan because of bonus density. This is not the case. The Plan calls for six stories at the Park & Ride lot site and caps all "bonus densities" (for "compelling community benefits" only) to an additional three stories located in the back of the lot along I-66.

Finally, in just three years, you will be able to board a train at East Falls Church and get off at the next stop --- Tyson's Corner, the 12th largest employment center in the United States. As the transfer station to the Silver Line, East Falls Church will be but a five minute subway ride away from Tyson's. That fact cannot be ignored by all of us who call East Falls Church our home.

by Mike Nardolilli on Jun 11, 2010 8:14 am  

additionally, Arlington County Code §17-1. (Display of signs on County Property)

by Matt Glazewski on Jun 11, 2010 8:15 am  

@Pete: Like many things on twitter and my own twitter account, that message was intended as being sarcastic and not serious.

I have done quite a bit to publicise those flyers by posting images of them on twitter. If I wanted to supress the debate, I would not have done so.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 11, 2010 8:42 am  

I also posted a link to this article on the AEFCCA mailing list and invited everyone to comment. If I wasn't interested in having a debate, I would have just sent the link to people I had heard from that were already in support.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 11, 2010 8:44 am  

Mike Nardolilli, thanks for taking the time to contribute to this discussion.

Can you elaborate on your last point, about the proximity to Tysons and the Silver Line transfer. That's a condition that will occur whether this development goes forward or not. How does this plan factor into that? It seems to me one thing that will happen at EFC is more bus to rail transfers, and I can't really tell how this plan integrates the bus bays that occupy part of the park and ride area now.

by Lou on Jun 11, 2010 9:13 am  

@Mike Nardolilli: Most of the members of the task force representing the two civic associations closest to the project DID vote against the plan.

According to the current membership roster on the county's web page, there are four members representing the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association on the task force: John Wilson, Alan Parker, Jamie Gardner, and yourself. Wilson and you voted in favor, Parker and Gardner voted against. The next nearest civic association is Madison Manor, whose representative, Varun Nikore, also voted against it. So that's 3 to 2 AGAINST the plan.

The only other representative of a civic association was from the Williamsburg neighborhood, which is further away than Madison Manor and will be less affected by the project. The other task force members were designated as "at large" or represented the county, WMATA, VDOT, or Falls Church City. You seem to have private knowledge of the addresses of the membership, and you are now using this information to try to sway the public against those who question the plan. If the membership roster is incorrect, please update it, and add the addresses of all of the members.

Also, it's interesting that you've chosen to attempt to nitpick others' comments rather than defend your plan on the merits. Why not? You voted for it. If you weren't supposed to take a position on it, you shouldn't have cast a vote.

by OC on Jun 11, 2010 9:55 am  

@ Matt Glazewski, Phil: Looks like you rode to the defense of censorship a little early, just before Michael retracted his "sarcastic" remark about destroying opponents' fliers. Oops. (And Micheal's twitter message didn't say whether the fliers were posted on private property or not.) So, do you guys go around ripping down the fliers about lost dogs, yard sales, and nannies looking for work, or just the issue-oriented ones that you disagree with?

by Pete on Jun 11, 2010 10:30 am  

I live in Highland Park-Overlee Knolls, but my concern with the project goes the other way, to my values rather than to any sort of NIMBY concerns.

For two years the EFC Task Force ignored the concerns raised about the provision of affordable housing. Arlington had a member of the Housing Commission attend the EFC meetings, and her voice simply was not heard in the plan being set forth to the County.

There are a few lines about housing in the plan, but no specifics whatsoever. What's more, the limited building heights of 5 stories are insufficient to generate the bonus density you need to make a mixed-income development work. You need to start with eight, then go to ten to get the units for housing.

The EFC Task Force should expect mobilization from the Interfaith community and the affordable housing advocates once this plan is advertised. The County Board has claimed to be concerned about the "crisis" in affordable housing in Arlington County. They have a real opportunity to show their concern with this project. The same way the Board showed their commitment in the First Baptist saga, by battling through NIMBY lawsuit after NIMBY lawsuit lodged by the First Baptist neighbors in Lyon Village.

by Joe on Jun 11, 2010 10:42 am  

I grew up in Reston. I left VA for Oregon in 1987, and have only returned a few times to visit. If I were to move back, the first place I would look is Clarendon. If the EFCP helps create an area that is not just walkable, but actually has destinations I'd want to walk to, then I would consider looking there too. Many of the people opposed to this plan probably grew up in places where you could walk. Why are they so opposed to walking now?

by Evan MacKenzie on Jun 11, 2010 11:48 am  

@ Michael

You're doing a great job of presenting an adequately informed and balanced view of what is happening locally. I appreciate reading about what is going on in Arlington.

Thanks!

by James on Jun 11, 2010 12:08 pm  

OC --- I very much support the Plan and I will be testifying so on Tuesday night. It is not my place to argue the merits here, however, because everyone knows my position and I can claim no impartiality. I just want to set the record straight when I see a mistake of fact. And there is no such "secret knowledge," unless you call Yahoo People "secret." By the way, Mr. Parker was not in attendance during the vote so technically the vote was only 3 against. Nonetheless, because of my longstanding respect for Mr. Parker and his work on this matter, the Task Force agreed to waive our rule against proxy voting and recorded Mr. Parker's vote as against the Plan.
Joe --- Although the Task Force did have a representative from the Housing Commission, she did not come to many meetings. She resigned some time ago from the Housing Commission and the Commission never appointed a replacement. I am pleased that the Commission has submitted comments to the County Board for their consideration and hope that folks such as yourself express your views directly to the County Board.

by Mike Nardolilli on Jun 11, 2010 12:34 pm  

@Mike Nardolilli: You say that "It is not my place to argue the merits here, however, because everyone knows my position and I can claim no impartiality." Sorry, but I don't understand that. You can't defend your position because you have a position. Huh?

At least tell us this: what, exactly, are the benefits that this project will provide to those in the community who currently live nearby? If it's supposed to be the new retail stores, why do you think that these stores will consist of anything more useful to the community than small-scale shops such as dry cleaners, convenience stores, and coffee shops? If it's the pedestrian and steetscape improvements, why can't we do that as a separate, limited, and much less costly project? If it's the western entrance to the metro station, can you provide the data and analysis (rather than conjecture) to show that such an improvement can only be accomplished as part of a 600,000 square foot project with a 9 story tower? The task force plan does not answer any of these questions.

And these aren't just rhetorical questions. Lots of people who live nearby really want to know what concrete benefits they can expect to see, in exchange for all the inevitable problems caused by a project like this. If you can make a convincing case, it could defuse much of the local opposition. Please try. Otherwise, you will only get this plan passed by forcing the board to override the passionate and legitimate objections from those in the neighborhood.

by OC on Jun 11, 2010 1:33 pm  

OC, if you used the phrase "9-story tower" in any real city, you'd be laughed out of the room. I mean, seriously.

I think I'm going to start calling my parents' storage shed a bungalow from now on.

by J.D. Hammond on Jun 11, 2010 1:39 pm  

You know what, OC? Sometimes it's not about local benefits to the immediate community. Sometimes it's about the greater good.

East Falls Church is going to be the transfer station between the Orange Line and the new Silver Line. It is a real opportunity to shape the next stage of development in this area, to ensure transit-oriented growth. The kind of development that made Arlington such a mecca for people moving into our county. The kind of development that provides a de-facto subsidy to all of us parents who send our kids to excellent schools for reasonable tax dollars.

You might not like having tall buildings with the threat of poor people moving into the bonus density. But if the County as a whole benefits, then you're going to have to live with that.

by Joe on Jun 11, 2010 1:51 pm  

JD, we're having a very site-specific discussion here. In the context of the area, 9 stories is significant. Have you any familiarity with the site?

by Lou on Jun 11, 2010 1:54 pm  

Yes, I do. Are you seriously suggesting that parking lots would be preferable to a mid-rise?

by J.D. Hammond on Jun 11, 2010 3:22 pm  

JD, No, I'm suggesting that 9 stories is bigger than any other building in the study area. But you know that already. At 9 stories, you're probably over the 75ft definition in IBC for a high-rise. It's something to consider from the developer's point of view; the cost of constructing that building goes up to meet code requirements for high rise. Burying it in the back part of the site is a consideration the fire department will have to look into, as to how access for a ladder truck is provided. I'm just talking about practical issues. Maybe these have already come up at the planning stage and if so, great.

Do you have a height limit in mind that you think is appropriate for that site?

by Lou on Jun 11, 2010 3:41 pm  

I think the argument by many opponents is not that they oppose all development, it's that they think the same community benefits can be had by developing the sites at 3-4 stories. From what I've read in the plan, there isn't enough money in such development to pay for all the extra things that the task force thought would be essential to the plan's success.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 11, 2010 3:42 pm  

Why would anyone even consider removing flyers from cars? Those of us who put them there are simply trying to inform the community of what's coming and give them a chance to have some input into County Board decisions that will affect their lives. If the County Board and the Task Force had done a better job of publicizing this plan BEFORE a vote on it was imminent, we wouldn't have to do that job for them. Someone at the Metro Station tonight said "It's a done deal", and that is exactly what we're trying to combat in our county. It's not my idea of fun to spend my evenings on this after working all day, but I feel that it's important to inform others in the community, and I'm disappointed in our County Board because they only seem to publicize such developments AFTER they're approved :(

by Barbara on Jun 11, 2010 5:50 pm  

I am John Wilson and I am a member of the East Falls Church Planning Study Task Force and I'm president of the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association. I'd like to add several points to the postings, mostly for clarification:

1. The County Staff explanation of "viable density" given inclusion of certain "community benefits" in the plan (the most expensive being the western entrance) is available on the website under the paper Park and Ride Evaluation. It is the fourth link from the bottom in the long list, located on the right side of the opening screen, of background studies available for public review. That is the argument presented to the Task Force by staff. Maybe that will help answer some of the questions I've seen in the postings.

2. I and Mike Nardolilli live closest to the Park and Ride than anyone on the Task Force. As you know we both voted for it, so I dont think proximity has anything to do with how people feel about the Plan. I think that people are legitimately concerned about how the "character" of their neighborhood would change with the imposition of a large development on the Metro site. We all are concerned about that and that is why the Task Force was formed, to try to establish some parameters for change, rather than leave it up to developers and WMATA and VDOT. I voted for the Plan because I believe it is a reasonable compromise between saying nothing about the future of the site ( thus allowing future developers to make the first move) and going for 12 stories or more as envisioned in the Virginia Tech Study (available on the website). Since we began the process of studying the Metro site in the year 2000, 10 years ago, I have been advocating for a planning process through which my community (AEFCCA) in collaboration with County Planners could establish realistic limits on development that ensured the inclusion of much needed neighborhood oriented retail that is lacking in our specific area. The Task Force became the option presented to us by the County Board to undertake that planning process ... and it opened up the planning process to the inclusion of Arlingtonians from throughout the County. It made the process less "local" but I sincerely believe that the input of citizens from outside our neighborhoods proved to be a good and valuable thing because the Task Force has benefitted from many years of planning experience (and planning mistakes) that these Task Force members brought to the lengthy discussions.

3. The Task Force members representing AEFCCA were split 2 to 2 on how they felt about the Plan and 3 of them live about the same distance from the Metro entrance. The Williamsburg and Madison representatives were also split, one for one against. There are several others on the Task Force who live nearby in Arlington and Falls Church, as Mike pointed out, and all of them voted in favor of the Task Force Plan. The four No votes came from Madison(1), AEFCCA(2) and VDOT (1). There were no abstentions. 14 voted for.

4. What is most important, however, is not who of the "locals" voted for or against, but that over the last 3 years about 20 individuals from varying backgrounds and neighborhoods who are all sincerely committed to improving the quality of life in our county and in our neighborhoods, managed to put together a Plan based on the best information at their disposal, with a great deal of help from the County's highly qualified professional planning staff. Now the citizens at large, local and otherwise, can and will have their say on the matters we have been wrestling with for 3 years. Then the County Board will decide where it stands on the merits or flaws of the Plan we are presenting to them. I think everyone on the Task Force did their best and whichever way they voted, they had a significant role is shaping the final product.

by John on Jun 11, 2010 6:49 pm  

I, too live near the proposed development ~1/2 a mile and I am for it.

All this clarendon/balston bashing talk is ridiculous, there really is no comparison between one 9 story high rise and the multitude of mega-buildings in those communities!

by RS on Jun 11, 2010 11:23 pm  

I guess I have a question here
John states
"rather than leave it up to developers and WMATA and VDOT."

I thought the existing zoning for all the parcels(and it's more than just 1 building) would not allow what is being proposed. Isn't it up to the county board whether to change the zoning to accomodate these folks? Or do they have some VA law based right to put up what ever they want?

I apologize for mischaracterizing using 9 and 12 instead of 6 and 9, but unless the constraint makes it into the GLUP, (And I don't think that there is any precedent for constraining the bonus in the GLUP) then what's in the plan is simply guidance for future negotiations.

Lastly Joe property issues are by definition local issues.
The "Sometimes it's not about local benefits to the immediate community. Sometimes it's about the greater good" ..."But if the County as a whole benefits, then you're going to have to live with that."
Why?
I pay my taxes. I bought my home when the neighborhood was as it is - isn't that a bit of an implied contract. Some of my neighbors have been living here since 1950, paying taxes and building a really nice neighborhood and now someone is going to come in and tear it all down for some broader benifit. How is this different than tearing up a signed contract and saying oh we'll pay you 1/2 what you thought you were going to get?

Ken

by Ken on Jun 12, 2010 1:18 am  

I am a newer resident in the East Falls Church area of Arlington and use the station to commute to work in DC every day. I support any effort to improve the walkability and green space in my area, and being able to do so while increasing my local government's tax base is certainly an added plus. The neighborhood will change significantly in the next decade with or without the current plan. I strongly support the current plan to manage and direct that change in a manner beneficial to the local, greater, and even greater greater, areas. I am also thankful for the efforts of those involved in the community planning efforts - it appears to be hard and often thankless job.

by Kevin on Jun 12, 2010 7:29 am  

I am also interested in knowing more information on the real timelines associated with implementing this plan - and community planning efforts in general.

by Kevin on Jun 12, 2010 7:31 am  

Another fact from the Chairman of the Task Force. In trying to ascertain the benefits desired by the residents of Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association (AEFCCA), the Task Force was directed by the County Board to review, among other things, the results of a Community Survey conducted by the AEFCCA Metro Study Committee (whose members included Mr. Parker and Mr. Shumate)concerning the two Metro Lots (Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride). The Community Survey Form was hand delivered to every household in the AEFCCA and the results were tabulated by the AEFCCA Metro Study Committee.

The Task Force Plan follows the Community Survey Results. The Park & Ride Lot is 250,000 square feet and the Kiss and Ride Lot is 58,000 square feet for a total of 308,000 square feet. Question Number 3 asked "What should be the development density on the Metro Lots?" The highest answer (30%) was "C. The same as that permitted in the neighborhood (1.5 FAR)." 308,000 times 1.5 equals 462,000 square feet. The base Task Force Plan calls for 450,000 square feet on the Park & Ride Lot and Zero development on the Kiss and Ride Lot. Therefore the Plan's density is actually below that called for in the Community Survey. The base Plan also follows the Community Survey answer as to heights. Question 4 asked the same question on heights and the highest answer (35%) was "C. The same height as that permitted in the neighborhood (5-6 stories)."

The Plan also follows the other Community Survey answers. The Plan "develop(s) a community vision prior to any development proposals" [Question 1 --- 87%]. The Plan also incorporates all the desired uses that garnered 50% or more on Question 2: Neighborhood-oriented retail [74%]; Restaurant [62%]; Short Term parking (Kiss and Ride/Bus/Taxi) [57%]; Residential [53%]; and Open Space [51%]. (Importantly, only 29% answered in favor of retaining any commuter parking). The Community Survey also indicated support for affordable housing [Question 5 --- 54%] and that is in the Plan too.

The Plan has a number of suggested improvements to make the area more pedestrian-friendly along the lines of the Community Survey [Question 6 --- 90%]. The Community Survey supported a new Metro Entrance to be located in the middle of the Park & Ride Lot [Question 7] and that too is in the Plan [part of the new western entrance].

While the Community Survey favored the relocation of the kiss and ride function to the park and ride lot [Question 8], the Task Force considered the location of a second Kiss & Ride area in one of the alternatives for the western entrance to be a better choice.

The Community Survey strongly supported a pedestrian bridge over I-66 [Question 9 --- 83%] and that too is in the Plan [the new western entrance options].

Although the Community Survey favored the construction of a large open space plaza over I-66 [Question 10 --- 65%], that is not in the Plan due to cost considerations. Nonetheless, a provision was made for bonus density (an additional 150,000 square feet) and bonus height (an additional three stories in the back of the site along I-66) on the Park and Ride site conditioned on "compelling community benefits" which could include consideration of the construction of the open space plaza over I-66 as desired by the neighborhood.

The Community Survey Results are posted on the website of the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association. See http://www.aefcca.org/metro%20survey%2005feb.pdf

by Mike Nardolilli on Jun 12, 2010 8:52 am  

Building more around metro stations in a no-brainer. I can certainly see the argument that 3-4 stories is more appropriate in that area. MPerkins point that developers need size is a bit disingenuous; they need size so local interests can extract other concessions out of them. In that context, I can see why he was so opposed to building underground lots for metro.

Again, we are taking about 200 spaces of the 422 of the most-used metro lot in the system. My estimated loss of parking revenue is $230,000 a year. In reality it will be much higher than that as parking fees are going up. Let's say an easy $300,000 a year.

In return, for a lightly used station, you are building a second entrance. Sounds great, but WMATA has to put somewhere there, and that costs money too. I don' have an estimate on that but somewhere I remember that closing second entrances at night save 250,000 a year. This is a made up number, but maybe staffing a second entrance would cost WMATA $1 million a year. Feel free to attack that number.

Yes, greater density will bring in some more users. Having the silver line will also bring in some more commuters. Will it be enough to offset those costs? Will the second entrance be closed 75% of the time (outside rush hour). How quickly would numbers grow? Virginia Square, which has had a lot more development around it, went from 2200 boarding in 1981 (very empty) to 4200 today (lots and lots and lots of development).

Putting in some underground lots for metro riders should be a no brainer. Otherwise WMATA is going to be losing money on this for a long time.

by charlie on Jun 12, 2010 9:58 am  

A general comment about "walkable" developments. Too often the number of people who will walk everywhere is drastically overestimated, as is the case with the Tysons conner/silver line boondoggle (I hope all the people in Tysons don't complain when the find only 6 trains an hour during morning rush, along with massive delays merging at Rosslyn). People tend to stick with their cars even if the traffic is terrible. Not to mention that any new development will draw form a wider area, and the people form more then half a mile out are not going to walk to these new shops and other development. Can anyone give the figures on what percentage of the new residents are likely to either walk, bike or metro to all their destinations? I would venture to say it's under 50% and possibly under 35%, and that's just for the new residents, let alone existing ones. Also, what happens when the silver line opens bringing even more people to the rails? The orange line is just about maxed out as it is. How much longer will people be willing to ride the Metro when it is under funded, has a questionable safety record, and is getting more overcrowded by the day?

by Mike Lester on Jun 12, 2010 10:34 am  

@Mike_Lester; while I agree the silver line is a boondoggle, I do see some people who will take the silver line from Ballston/EFC to Tysons, and also from Reston to Tysons. Plenty of DC people will take it to go to the Mall. Very few will ever take it to the airport.

I suppose one way to sum up the last two comments is it would be interesting to see what future projects of metro use are at EFC. Not sure how many housing units are being planned.

by charlie on Jun 12, 2010 11:13 am  

The problem with this plan is that it essentially steps away from smart growth and creates exurban sprawl far from D.C., with plenty of development still needed in urban areas of Arlington. (Has anyone ever tried to walk on the Skywalk by the metro elevator in Rosslyn, in order to get to the Chipotle across the street? You will be amazed at the County's abandonment of such a central, urban area. And why does Rosslyn, with its amazing location and significant population, have one restaurant and about five lunch places? Wouldn't that be a better place to concentrate growth?)

This plan takes a quaint, residential area and courthouses it, for no particular reason. Courthouse is fine, but is another one needed a few more miles out from DC? Falls Church was such a nice respite from some of the bland and boring, cookie-cutter development in Arlington. But apparently more beige boxes are needed by someone, at the expense of a town.

by Arlington on Jun 12, 2010 12:59 pm  

Please do explain how building a RE-development that's not just inside the Beltway, but is also closer to downtown than Silver Spring or Bethesda, is "creating exurban sprawl far from DC)".

by Froggie on Jun 12, 2010 1:14 pm  

"Exurban sprawl" is not just defined as "whatever development you don't like." Sprawl is specifically low density development that's highly auto oriented, and exurban is at the very edge of the metropolitan area in land that's being changed from farms or forests or something to settlements.

Saying this is exurban sprawl is like saying this project is bad because it contains a nuclear power plant. Both are untrue on their face.

by David Alpert on Jun 12, 2010 1:32 pm  

Froggie, in response to your question, the answer is context and history. Falls Church isn't across the border from D.C. like Bethesda or Silver Spring, but is instead a small town, with a long, long history as such, found outside D.C. after one travels through Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston, among others.

With so much development potential remaining in Rosslyn (Arlington's contextual and historical equivalent to Maryland's Silver Spring or Bethesda), it is sad to see a cheap, sprawling approach to development being used by killing off public, Metro-owned land in the Falls Church area. It is undoubtedly an easier and perhaps more profitable move for developers than dealing with what needs to be done in the close-in Orange Line corridor. But that doesn't mean the Falls Church community must support the proposal.

Understanding the history of Falls Church, and understanding the place it occupies outside of D.C., an attempt to turn it into another Courthouse does, sadly, represent an effort to create exurban sprawl at the expense of a small town.

by Arlington on Jun 13, 2010 12:01 pm  

@Arlington,

This plan might be many things, but 'sprawling' it is not.

Exurban sprawl? You've got to be kidding me.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2010 12:27 pm  

We have seen and heard many complaints about "poor advertising" of the Task Force. Perhaps that may be the case outside the AEFCCA area, but I know it is not the case within the AEFCCA area. For the record, almost every newsletter of the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association since the year 2000 (thats about 30 newsletters) has included some update on the work of the Metro Stucy Committee or, later (after 2007) on the EFC Study Task Force. The AEFCCA newsletters have always included the information needed to get the reader to the website where all the Task Forces background documentation has been available to the public. Other surrounding associations have contacted AEFCCA for updates on the Metro Study Committee and on the Task Force, especially in the last three years, and the Chairman and or County staff have spoken at meetings of those Associations.

by John on Jun 13, 2010 1:16 pm  

P.S. If you are reading this discussion and don't currently belong to your civic association, please join it! You can find out which one you live in via the Arlington County website. You can join the Arlington East Falls Church Civic Association, if you live or work within its boundaries, and you can get a membership form at aefcca.org (it only costs 5 bucks a year per person). Its the best way to stay informed of and engaged in whats happening in your neighborhood.

by John Wilson on Jun 13, 2010 1:24 pm  

I live in Tara-Leeway, and I do belong to that civic association. To date, we've had NO coverage of the Task Force although I've recently noticed some coverage in newsletters of other civic associations posted at the Westover Shopping Center. Bottom line is that I think that there has been little public notice outside of AEFCCA, and this development does affect those of us living outside that immediate area.

by Barbara on Jun 13, 2010 1:59 pm  

@Arlington
If you live in EFC area then you live in a county that used to be part of DC itself. The city of Falls Church is then exactly like silver spring or Bethesda contextually and historically. But the plan is in Arlington, and makes sense from an economic and smart planning perspective, will complement, not compete with what development still is being done further down the orange line.

by Canaan on Jun 13, 2010 3:28 pm  

@Barbara: If you're a resident of Tara-Leeway, that's two civic associations over from AEFCCA (Overlee Knolls is in between us). We don't really hear about news in Tara-Leeway in our AEFCCA mail. Is it really your expectation that your civic association would have all the news from every civic association in a two-association radius? I think that would be kind of overwhelming.

I don't recall reading about this kind of thing from most areas in Arlington in the Citizen. I'm not sure that the Citizen would be a good place to publish things that haven't at least been advertised by the Board, which hasn't happened yet. Until then, it's just the recommendation of a board-appointed task force, and not really official.

The Task Force has had meetings since 2007, and a web site since then. I remember going to the first meeting, and keeping tabs on their progress occasionally. I don't remember how I heard about the task force founding.

What is your big concern with the project? Feel free to email me offline if you like. I believe you already have but it might be a different Barbara.

Thanks!

by Michael Perkins on Jun 13, 2010 5:02 pm  

I live in Arlington-East Falls Church and support the plan. I have not been involved in the planning process at all, but have kept occasional tabs on it for the past several years. I have to admit that I am very surprised to see comments from the "against" side using the argument that this plan has come out of nowhere (I think a PP used the term "poorly advertised").

I am by no means a follower (avid or otherwise) of local planning and development issues, but the civic association newsletters have made it abundently clear that this planning process was ongoing. I have, in the past, easily found a dedicated area of the county website for the planning committee containing a wealth of information.

For anyone to say they didn't know about this plan or the planning process is fairly inconceivable, in my estimation, unless they have purposefully chosen to ignore the community newsletter and what is going on around them.

by James on Jun 15, 2010 12:18 pm  

I have never seen an area so blatantly and unabashedly hostile to commuters. If this plan goes through without providing an increase in Metro parking, I will actively boycott spending in Arlington County and in Falls Church City and will encourage others to do the same. I'll miss Lost Dog, Red-White and Blue, Hoang's, etc, but I'm not going to let my money subsidize the spending of taxpayer money to benefit a relatively small segment of taxpayers and real estate developers at the expense of many others. The lot is already full by 7:05 AM - where exactly do you expect commuters to park? Most residents of Falls Church city who use the metro do NOT walk/bike to the station. Why is the city being so hostile to taxpayers who live outside the pedestrian distance to the metro?

by Byron on Jun 15, 2010 1:40 pm  

Do some people just not read??? We all know that the AEFCCA has publicized this Task Force. It's outside your provincial little area that people have not been informed. MY civic association newsletter (a mile away) has not covered this topic at all!!!

by Barbara on Jun 15, 2010 4:38 pm  

Why is the city being so hostile to taxpayers who live outside the pedestrian distance to the metro?

hey! i'm with this analysis.

people who are pissed that EFC and WMATA don't allow people to walk/bike to the station have every right to be pissed, and they should demand to actually be able to walk and bike to the station in safety, comfort, and with dignity intact. any 'redo' of a station should mandate minimums of a two-mile walkshed and a five mile bikeshed -- otherwise, the station do-over is just a monument to foolishness and vanity. hopefully 'advocates' will eventually see it as their duty to advocate for walkers and bikers being allowed to walk and bike on the major corridors to and from Metro stations. i'm not holding my breath.

and, yes, it's a shame that we have to demand Safe Routes To Transit, but that's where we are at in America today. most transit advocates want to stick you on a bus, but i know we all deserve to hold onto our dignity, so the walk- and bike-sheds are a moral imperative. people who would never consider walking or biking to the station will consider it when it becomes possible for a normal human being to do so. walk, Xootr, bike, e-bike -- lots of options to get yourself to the station if they allow you to do so.

others may be forced to take a junky bus, and that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't force people onto buses, much less junky buses. and if we do force people onto buses, we should offer them luxurious buses, with wifi, touring-type buses that are comfortable, have a working suspension, are not loud, are fully electric or run as trolleybuses, the windows should open, they should not be wrapped in McDonald's ads, they should not stop on every block, etc -- in other words, basically not like regular city buses at all. again, not holding my breath expecting transit advocates to start working towards dignified transit for those who have to take the bus.

by Peter Smith on Jun 15, 2010 5:13 pm  

@Barbara,

You are right, my response was intended to refer to those within AEFCC who purport to being blindsided by the sudden appearance of this plan...including a couple who strolled down my street (whom I did not recognize) who seemed to be trying to drum up support to oppose the plan. I should have elaborated a bit more I suppose, although I did think a prior poster covered the whole "other civic association" newsletter issue well enough.

I'm sorry that little, provincial Arlington East Falls Church is such a bother to whatever metropolis it is that you reside in...one mile away.

by James on Jun 15, 2010 6:26 pm  

Those who have worked on this plan for years should be prepared for others to feel blindsided. I live a mile from EFC Metro and my husband commutes from that station. Our family drives or bikes through the proposed redevelopment area several times a week. Our neighborhood sends kids to Tuckahoe Elementary, which might absorb kids from new housing in the area. But I learned about the plan from an article in the Washington Post yesterday.

I'm not saying info about the plan should have been in the Tara-Leeway Heights newsletter or any other particular place. But the fact is that outside the most immediate neighborhood, it was very easy to miss the fact that a plan was being developed. This will affect reactions to it by people who are close enough to care a lot.

My incompletely-informed reactions:

-- Thank goodness somebody is planning to manage the changes that will result when the Silver Line opens.
-- Neighborhood retail, great!
-- Anything other than surface parking, great!
-- Sidewalks and bike lanes, terrific!
-- Affordable housing, necessary and good!
-- A tall building ... I'm not crazy about it, but it could be worthwhile in exchange for the other benefits of the project.
-- Another entrance to Metro, why is this worth the cost?
-- We'll be one stop from Tysons Corner, and they're proposing FEWER commuter parking spaces? Are they nuts? Where are the cars supposed to go? Metro should not be only for healthy people who live within walking distance of a station. For the record, my family drives to Metro only a couple of times a year -- mostly we walk, bike, or take the bus. The bus isn't that bad, by the way.

by Anna on Jun 16, 2010 10:24 am  

-- Sidewalks and bike lanes, terrific!

i finally managed to get my hands on the plan (it's almost impossible to download) -- there is no serious consideration of bikes. there is some talk of 'experimental' treatments like bike boxes and cycletracks, but ultimately it's going to do either a) nothing, or b) add sharrows (which are almost completely meaningless).

so it's going to be up to locals to make sure you get real bike facilities -- if you start begging and pleading right now, you might get something done -- probably not, but maybe. bike lanes are minimal bike facilities -- they'll allow up to 5% of folks to ride their bikes - the very brave/crazy/stupid/risk-taking/etc. if you actually want to allow normal people to ride their bikes, you'll need physically-separated bike lanes -- aka cycletracks -- with the required space buffer from fast-moving, smog-spewing, and often-deafening cars/trucks/buses. buffered bike lanes can be used on very low speed roads. all speed limits in the area should be maxed out at up to 10 MPH, which will keep most people at or below 20 MPH. don't allow any raised medians. and don't force walkers and bikers to climb up hills just to go over or under a highway or train crossing -- let motorized transport do that work instead.

it'd be a good idea to disallow four car lanes (two in either direction) at all -- give them one car lane in each direction, and you might throw in a suicide lane if they insist. no turn pockets. no pedestrian bulb-outs. and don't buy into the notion that pedestrians should become refugees just to cross the street -- aim to reduce motorized traffic in and through the area, not allow it to increase. if you allow motorized traffic to and through the area to increase, then you have failed, by definition, to become more sustainable.

this area is going to be completely transformed -- there's really no stopping it. the only question for people who care about their children's future is to make sure the area becomes more livable and sustainable in the process of the impending transformation. if you feel you need to give up the sun and sustainability for an incremental and temporary improvement in livability for that to happen, that's ultimately your prerogative, but i wouldn't buy into any of the hype of the Tall Buildings Brigade (many of whom overlook high-building Manhattan when they're complaining about the cost of real estate in low-building DC), the Big Bus Brigade (BRT for everyone!), or anyone else who claims that just because something can be done it should be done.

I'm with Prince Charles on this one: "Not just one carbuncle, ladies and gentlemen, on the face of a much loved old friend, but a positive rash of them that will disfigure precious views and disinherit future generations of Londoners."

And I agree with Adam Greenfield, too:

The bicycle is an incredibly supple and finely-grained way of using urban space. To be kind of wonky about it I don’t think that there is any finer tool in the psychogeographer’s toolkit than the bicycle. It allows you to traverse comparatively large stretches of ground in short order, and yet you still have something of the pedestrian’s ability to make instantaneous decisions about: I’m going to stop here, I’m going to turn down this corner. And yet as opposed to walking it lowers the opportunity cost of having made a bad decision.

...

The bicycle is just… It is hard for me to imagine a technology that has less downside and more upsides than the bicycle. It’s just an incredible thing, and the degree to which we could turn bicycles into network resources and ensure that everybody in the city can use them, and allow them to sort of insufflate the street network and the street grid, it’s tremendous.

So yes, absolutely one of the things Urbanscale is interested in doing is the next generation of network shared bicycle systems.

You just have to allow people to ride their bikes. I don't care how many bike sharing systems you plop down at a Metro station -- if you don't allow people to ride in comfort, they won't ride -- simple. Just ask Paris. Their bike mode share could be 50%, but they refuse to do anything to tame cars. Falls Church should be different.

by Peter Smith on Jun 16, 2010 5:59 pm  

I have a medical problem and can't walk a long distance. Therefore, I do have to drive sometimes. Especially when going to a grocery store. To say a pedestrian mall is going to make everyone wonderful in E. Falls Church metro area is ridiculous. Myself and others will continue to use cars. Many others. Witness the terrible traffic in Rosslyn and Clarendon. I hate going down there to shop or eat and now go to 7 corners or Fairfax where the traffic isn't so bad or there's parking.

All the emphasis is on affordeable housing - no one is subsidizing my housing, my taxes climb, and I have a hard time paying my bills. And it's on all these businesses making money.

It's time the board and all the "developers think about those of us who live here and enjoy a community with neighbors and houses - not another high rise development with no feeling and with tons of congestion.

I'm very disappointed with this plan.

by sammie on Jun 24, 2010 11:25 pm