Development
Beauregard plan brings better buses, affordable housing
The city of Alexandria is in a period of transition. As older suburban strips come under increasing pressure to redevelop, the city is working hard on solutions to transportation issues and increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Beauregard area plan is a key example of these challenges and potential solutions.
Image from the City of Alexandria.
"We're growing as a city and as a region, so how do we manage that growth?" This was the focus of Alexandria Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Jeff Farner as he presented the draft Beauregard Small Area Plan at a recent press conference.
Beauregard, which lies northwest of I-395 between the Landmark area and King St, is currently comprised of low density garden style apartments. But with the addition of Bus Rapid Transit, additional density, and the preservation of 703 units of affordable housing, the area is primed for change.
Alexandria is in a period of urbanization, a transformation from largely suburban apartment housing, strip mall shopping centers, and industrial brownfield areas to a series of walkable, mixed-use, transit oriented places. At the same time, the housing stock in much of Alexandria is aging and reaching the end of its useful life.
Now the city is working feverishly, using a rare opportunity when so many developments need to be replaced within a few decades to undo mistakes of the past 40 to 50 years. Simultaneously, the city is riding the Transit Oriented Development wave and filling in formerly industrial brownfield sites while trying to keep traffic impacts to a minimum.
Not everyone welcomes all these changes. Real estate values in walkable neighborhoods are on the rise, a sure sign that demand for such units outstrips supply. Unfortunately, that also means creating new walkable places will often drive housing prices out of the affordable range, even for those making 70 or 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).
But what can be done when a building reaches the end of its useful life? With today's construction costs, even renovating or rebuilding an old building will drive rent prices out of reach for many existing residents.
Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks highlighted one example of this in the Beauregard corridor, where the Encore building saw rent increases of 90% after renovation. Jinks warned that without proper planning, this pattern will be repeated as developers update and replace their aging buildings and look to recoup costs.
With the Beauregard Small Area Plan, Alexandria may have partially solved that problem. Under the proposed plan, as the corridor rebuilds, the 5 developers involved will fund the majority of the creation of 703 dedicated affordable and workforce housing units. The development footprint currently contains over 5,500 total units of housing.
According to the plan, "approximately 44% of the existing units [in the plan area] are market rate affordable units, which constitutes more than 25% of the City's total market affordable housing inventory." Of the current 2515 units of market rate affordable housing, the plan as drafted would ensure that 28% of the existing affordable housing units are retained as dedicated affordable and workforce housing units. Depending on future market rates, additional housing may stay in the affordable range.
The units will be broken down into three levels of affordability, with those making a maximum of 55%, 65%, and 80% of AMI eligible to rent the various units. As is the standard, rents of affordable housing units will be set to a maximum 30% of the AMI tier.
For example from the following chart, 60% of AMI is currently about $58,050 for a three-person household, and rent for a two bedroom apartment is set to a maximum of $1,432 per month and a three bedroom comes in at no more than $1,655. The two bedroom rate is below 30% of their earnings, while the three bedroom comes in slightly above. Of course, those making less than 55% of of AMI are still eligible to rent the units as long as they are tenants in good standing. In some cases, housing vouchers could help lower earning tenants make rent.
Each affordable housing unit will cost the City somewhere in the ballpark of $47,000. Montgomery County recently posed as much as $90,000 per affordable housing unit in a similarly sized affordable housing push. Alexandria's lower share per unit in this plan appears due to the developer picking up a substantial chunk of the cost in exchange for upzoning.
The Beauregard Small Area Plan covers 220 acres, more than three times the 70 acres of the North Potomac Yard Small Area Plan. The planning process was led by a developer-funded consultant working closely with the City and the community over a 2-year planning period.
The study area currently contains development totaling about 6 million square feet. Current zoning allows up to about 10 million square feet, but the plan calls for upzoning to allow 12-million square feet of development. This would include a minimum of 250,000 square feet of retail between a town center area and around a traffic oval dubbed "the ellipse".
As a comparison, the Potomac Yard plan allows up to 7.5 million square feet in approximately one third of the acreage, making the Beauregard plan almost exactly half as dense as the Potomac Yard plan. However, even at half the density of the Potomac Yard plan, this upzoning would bring a very large development proffer.
The developer contribution of $187 million will be augmented by $33 million from tax revenues for an extensive list of community benefits.
The most dramatic changes will be Bus Rapid Transit along the entire corridor, the dedicated affordable housing units, the creation of the "ellipse" traffic oval at the intersection of Seminary and Beauregard Roads, a new fire station, and an expanded street-grid with smaller block sizes. These specific contributions will be in addition to typical developer public benefits such as streetscape enhancement, sewer and utility upgrades, public art, etc.
Breakdown of public benefits.
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route will run the length of the corridor and connect to the Landmark area and Van Dorn Metro. The plan calls for the BRT route to run in a separate right-of-way where possible and includes the possibility of future conversion to streetcars. This BRT line would likely connect to the City's other BRT corridors at Landmark and the Pentagon.
The BRT corridor will connect to both Landmark and the Pentagon.
A selling point of the draft plan is that many of the community benefits would be in place by 2020. Alexandria plans to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to fund the BRT corridor, the "ellipse" improvements, initial street grid improvements, and Beauregard landscaping.
One common concern with TIF is that if too much of the incremental tax value is obligated to repay the debt service, the area benefited by the TIF ends up without enough tax revenue to cover general city services, which are then essentially paid for by tax revenue from the rest of the City.
Mark Jinks ensured this would not be the case, as the projected demographics of the plan area include fewer school aged kids than in more suburban portions of the City. Since schools are the main cost driver on the list of general City services, the plan area will be relatively low cost.
Despite an additional 2,800 units of housing, additional retail and office space, Alexandria Division Chief of Transportation Planning Sandra Marks stated traffic conditions are expected to improve as the plan area is built out.
The introduction of mixed-use development, a more connected street grid that applies complete streets principles, the BRT corridor, and parking maximums are primary factors that are expected to lead to fewer traffic delays. Parking maximums will be 1.75 spaces per multi-family unit (and 2 spaces per townhouse) before transit is built out, and 1.33 spaces per unit afterwards.
Marks pointed out how little the existing streets and bike and pedestrian facilities connect to those of surrounding neighborhoods. The Beauregard Small Area Plan seeks to remedy that problem, which should distribute traffic more evenly throughout the neighborhood. It also helps that all residential units within the plan area will be within a 5-7 minute walk to a transit stop.
Alexandria will hold a community meeting about the plan on Tuesday, Feb. 21 from 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM at John Adams Elementary School. Alexandria is currently accepting comments on the plan through the City website. There is room for revision as the plan is in a draft stage.
One thing is clear. The City of Alexandria plans to gradually increase density into a more urban development pattern over the next few decades. Arguments for and against this change are sure to rage for years to come, but as Jeff Farner said, people are coming, so the City and other regional municipalities must absorb this demand and grow responsibly.
Do we want urban, transit oriented development close to and within the District, or additional exurban sprawl? Alexandria is making it clear that while it plans to manage that growth, it definitely plans to grow.
Nick Partee writes for The Arlandrian about neighborhoods on the north end of Alexandria. He helped start up and still helps run the weekly Four Mile Run Farmers and Artisans Market. His primary interest is making Arlandria and surrounding neighborhoods greater by applying successful urban principles to build a sustainable community. He can be seen spending far too much of his free time running the farmers market, "geurrilla gardening", or coordinating other volunteer efforts to eek out every ounce of potential he can in Arlandria.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
by LHB Communications on Feb 9, 2012 4:10 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Feb 9, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report
The housing affordability situation doesn't sound good. Preserving 28% of 44% means that when all is said and done, less than 10% of the housing will be guaranteed affordable. Is this what the city decided was required to get developer buy-in?
by Paul on Feb 9, 2012 6:24 pm • link • report
@Paul, I think what you have to bear in mind here is without this effort, the city could lose 100% of the affordable housing in this area. You are looking at about 700 out of around 8000 total units that will be guaranteed, but as I mentioned in the article, additional units may be affordable at market rates, especially with housing vouchers. There's no way to know for sure right now.
The City can only demand so much of a developer because it's all essentially economics. The developer has X amount that can afford to give back and still make a profit commiserate with their risk. The City and developer make an evaluation of what upzoning is worth, and the City demands a certain portion of that value back in exchange for the upzoning. If they take too much, the developer walks and no one wins.
If the City decides affordable housing is more valuable than reduced traffic through BRT, a better street grid, etc., that's their call, at least at the draft phase of the plan. It's our job as citizens to weigh in and say it's worth the additional traffic to guarantee more affordable housing, or some other similar argument. You're just squeezing the balloon, though. We could say we want more affordable housing but the cost is allowing upzoning to 14 million sqft, but otherwise, any additional dollars towards one line item reduces the budget for another.
by Nick P. on Feb 9, 2012 7:35 pm • link • report
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 9, 2012 7:47 pm • link • report
I don't understand these calculations at all or understand how anyone can think they can reflect reality.
by Melissa on Feb 9, 2012 8:54 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Feb 9, 2012 9:22 pm • link • report
Its interesting that you think there are few entry level professional jobs paying more than 30k, in other discussions here folks have implied there few that pay less than 50k.
In any case, clearly there are people paying more for new housing - those maximums will keep some units at less than market rate - in the absence of the changes, the area can be redeveloped and all the affordable units will be lost.
commentors on the city of alex site seem to not understand the nature of the current zoning or what the landowners can do as of right.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 9, 2012 9:48 pm • link • report
As an aside, I'm glad I'm not the only person that's ever called that side of Alexandria "Westside." (Disclaimer: I used to live in Foxchase.)
Lastly, I am excited at the future prospect of linking potential streetcars to what will by that point already be an established Pentagon City/Columbia Pike network in Arlington County.
by calitrappedindc on Feb 9, 2012 11:52 pm • link • report
People call out Mark Center BRAC as a huge error in judgement, but long term, I think it fits into many people's vision for Alexandria as a series of urban areas. Lots of people completely disagree with it and for good reasons, but after a few years of traffic pain, the area will be much more vibrant and sustainable if this plan's principles are carried out. Many that live south of on 95 may even move here to be close to work... sort of the ideal situation. Someone has to absorb the growth, right?
by Nick P. on Feb 10, 2012 3:23 am • link • report
If you look at the images, Town Square (Millbrook) is one of the only residential areas completely untouched. That says something about the message Alexandria is trying to accomplish. They like the look/feel of that area, and want the rest to fall in line, so to speak.
I am not happy that my rent will go up as a result of this, but if my life gets easier, if the crappy grocery store and shopping center gets a facelift, and better products as a result, I can fathom the increase.
just my $0.02
by BradK on Feb 10, 2012 8:56 am • link • report
I live in the neighborhood. If you care about families making less than 80% AMI ($80K/year) living in the inner suburbs you shouldn't be content with this outcome of this plan.
by BeauregardResident on Feb 10, 2012 10:21 am • link • report
Redevelopment can happen there anyway, without this plan. The current zoning, IIUC, gives the developers the right to build hirises. That would displace ALL the low income families. And probably result in much worse urban design. This proposal keeps 700 affordable units, and makes for much better urban design (and if read the doc correctly, the developers proffer $$ for infrastructure, in addition to the affordable units).
And while moving the poor to outer suburbs means higher transportation costs for them, I question whether it means worse schools. I am not negative on City of Alex public schools, but are they really better than even Prince William? And Fairfax or Loudoun?
On the City of Alex comment page, we get folks saying "this will drive out the poor, just like what happened in North Arlington" and at the same time "not that many folks will use transit/walk/bike so there will be gridlock" ignoring the success of N arlington in getting folks out of their cars. We also get folks suggesting that this development will make the area so desirable it will RAISE rents in Southern Towers (as if adding new units didnt raise supply and compete with existing units).
I am getting frustrated with the arguments against this plan. It sounds to me like folks in the SFH areas near beauregard are fighting density cause they dont like density, and are using the low income folks as an excuse.
If they care so much about retaining affordable housing, why doesnt the city pay for more affordable units? If they think there is a need to preserve Southern Towers as affordable, why not buy Southern Towers? Oh, right, the City doesnt have the money. They can't afford it. But they CAN afford to turn down the tax revenues a denser, better, redevelopment would bring.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report
Actually, the people in the SFH homes are fighting FOR this plan because it will raise their property values and they want the immigrants OUT. The developers even took them on a tour (literally) of the R-B corridor to show them what they could have if they came along with their effort.
I realize that the developer has the right to redevelop regardless, however, I think there should be a stronger effort to preserve affordable housing overall in Alexandria and within this plan. The developer has been incredibly stingy with what they'll give in affordable housing (less than the 10% planned for). Arlington is setting a goal and has a strategy to preserve or replace all of the housing serving households with incomes up to 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and one-half of the housing serving households at 80 percent of AMI in the Columbia Pike Corridor. Alexandria needs a similar goal and strategy.
I have two children in one of the two Elem. schools on Beauregard. Both Elem. Schools impacted by the Beauregard Corridor Plan area are majority minority (one is 5% white, the other 15% white) and low-income. ACPS is far superior to Fairfax at meeting the needs of these children. ACPS arranges free English classes for parents, we have 4-5 langauges translated at every school meeting, and ACPS overall just has a better support system for these parents (see the ACPS website's ELL page for deets). Prince William schools are not well administred, not oriented towards meeting minority or immigrant needs. PW County is also blantantly anti-immigrant. From PW or Loudoun, and even much of Fairfax, it could take hours for these parents to get to their jobs via public transportation.
Adding more housing supply is needed, as is a more walkable, urban Beauregard. However, I think we should ask ourselves who these communities are for in general. Can we really not find a way to have mixed-income transit-oriented communities?
by BeauregardResident on Feb 10, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report
The reason the Town Square/Millbrook area is not touched is that these are much newer construction. Many of the other buildings along the corridor are nearing the end of their useful lifetime where it is more and more expensive to perform needed maintenance (according to the developers).
While I'm here, I haven't noticed any increase in traffic due to the BRAC opening. Maybe it's occurring after 0630 when I leave in the morning. I'm also not trying to exit from 395 to get here in the morning.
Transit improvements will be nice. I love the 7w/x route during rush hour. Most times I can set my watch by it. Lots of time is lost due to the Southern Towers loop, but there are a lot of transfers there so I'm not sure what can be done. 7a/f off peak routes could use some shorter headways. Better bike facilities are desperately needed especially up the hill north of sanger. The sidewalks are too narrow for bikes and I don't feel comfortable struggling up the hill at 8 mph when cars are rushing past at 40.
by ChrisB on Feb 10, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report
And out of curiousity, TysonsEngineer, can you explain why you like this plan but not the Waterfront plan which has much less of a change in density.
by Rob Krupicka on Feb 10, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report
Thats about services to parents. I doubt very much that it translates into better outcomes for students, vs FFXs better resourced system overall. And of course not all disadvantaged kids in the corridor are in non english speaking homes - there are many african americans there (not all poor of course, but my impression is at least a few are) and some immigrants who do speak english.
Similarly, I am pretty sure many immigrant childern to just as well in PWC schools despite PWC's politics.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 3:24 pm • link • report
Do you have any children? We do, and so we are friends with many families that live in the Hamlets. While I agree this plan presents many needed and nice improvements, since I am personally friends with many of those that would be impacted negatively I cannot help but feel that we should do better by them.
@Councilman Krupicka
Thanks for joining this discussion. Can you look at what Arlington is doing on Columbia Pike and start a new effort to see how we can apply the same strategies used to fund affordable housing (for low income and middle class families) there to the City as a whole? I think there should be a mix of rents for low income and lower middle class families, and I say that as a the head of household for a family that is at 80% AMI.
by Beauregard Resident on Feb 10, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report
Newly built housing is expensive by its nature. Affordable housing,delivered by the market, means older housing, and dense affordable housing won't come till dense housing is older - southern towers, though thats not very walkable for its density. You can either wait 30 years till the new buildings have aged, or you can use public subsidies of one kind or another. Either vouchers, public housing, or affordable unit set asides.
Are the developers stingy vs arlington? Im not sure - are the density bonuses comparable? Are the markets for the market rate units combarable?
Personally I think its admirable of Alex to make this attempt to keep affordable housing (though I think the best way to deal with the needs of the poor for housing is to address their incomes, not their housing costs). I see too many comments that imply that absent this plan, all the existing affordable units would remain, which is certainly not the case.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 3:32 pm • link • report
A. I like the plan very much actually. My comments are aimed at some of its critics
B. I live in Fairfax County, though I am thinking of moving to Alexandria (where I used to live)
Mainly what I think you need to do is let people have more facts. Lots of people seem unware of the constraints that are faced with respect to creating affordable units. and of the financial constraints the city faces, and its need for tax revenues.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report
Parent involement is key to children's success in school. ACPS English Langauge Learners (ELL)for students programs ARE in fact more comprehensive than other systems. Many, if not the majority, of the African Americans in the corridor are actually immigrants from Africa. I disagree that other school systems are better resourced than ACPS. Nearly all ACPS schools are Title 1, and recieve extremely useful additional funds for supplies and afterschool programming.
ACPS also provides free universal breakfast at the most low income schools, and free breakfast for kindergarten students throughout the system. Many students do not have enought to eat at home. I know of no other school system in the DMV that does that. Do you?
ACPS subsidizes high quality after-care through the Campagana Center making it more affordable for parents and providing a safe, nuturing place for students afterschool and Alexandria Parks and Rec also offer after school care at a deeply discounted rate (something like $50 a month versus $500-600 a month for aftercare for in FFX or Arlington).
ACPS also provides free Saturday School for any parent that wants their child to recieve additional tutoring, and free tutoring afterschool. What other DMV school systems do that? I don't know for sure, but I don't think any(?) of the others do.
by Beauregard Resident on Feb 10, 2012 3:35 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report
Im not up on the bullet points of what FCPS provides. I know they provide after and and breakfasts to those who qualify - and AFAIK they have done well in improving the test scores of disadvantaged groups (for what thats worth). I have certainly never heard that the many low income or immigrant families in FCPS are inadequately served relative to ACPS. You are entitled to your pride in your schools, and to list the points ACPS does well, but to assert it as given, that going to FCPS or LCPS or PWC is a disadvantage, such that folks in Alex should consider themselves as doing harm to low income folks by sending them to those school systems, is, I think, unwarranted.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 10, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report
I'm not saying that APCS is the only one that is "good" at serving underserved groups. Arlington Public Schools is quite good too, and the others I'm sure not "bad" by any means. I just think, in general, ACPS is more focused on these groups than other systems since a) this is the majority of ACPS population unlike the other school districts 2)ACPS is much smaller than FFX, PWC and Loudoun, which I think is a real advantage in general and allows for more focus on each school and meeting those student needs individually by school.
When I was choosing where to live I decided on Alexandria b/c I realized sending my kids to ACPS would be better for us monthly budget wise than the other systems. My friends in FCPS spend a lot more on tutoring, aftercare,other afterschool activities, and I really don't think the quality of these types of things differs between FCPS and ACPS. All school systems offer free/reduced meals to those who qualify, but free breakfast helps those who don't qualify but still need it.
I agree with everything you've said about the difficulty in funding affordable housing with redevelopment/new development. That is the reality. I just really wish Alexandria could look at what Arlington is doing and try to find new, more innovative ways of creating mixed income communties so that everyone can enjoy walkable urbanism :).
by beauregardresident on Feb 10, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report
Southern Towers is not very walkable, true. We could always make it walkable with 2-3 levels of neighborhood office and retail where the parking lots are. Keep the buildings as they are but develop around them. I bet Southern Towers could sell their Seminary and Beauregard street frontage parking lots and use the money to develop a parking structure on site. Or a joint parking structure for Southern Towers residents and the future visitors to the commercial uses. It already has fabulous transit services, so much more parking won't be needed.
I assure you the BRAC employees who feel trapped without lunch options or amenities within walking distance would be appreciative of commercial density as well. There certainly is a market for services here with 6,000 employees of which 3,000 are tired of bringing their lunch everyday.
It's a great plan.
by PM on Feb 10, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report
by Rob Krupicka on Feb 11, 2012 11:43 am • link • report
by Ed on Feb 11, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report
I suspected it was something like, thank you as that was illuminating. I think its worth presenting the choices to the people - most will want to limit the density below the Rosslyn-Ballston level (and the transit proposed for beauregard, like Columbia Pike is not heavy rail, so there may not be adequate infrastructure to support higher density) but folks like some here at GGW who want very high densities may make common cause with those most concerned about affordable housing to advocate for higher densities and higher levels of affordable housing.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 11, 2012 7:07 pm • link • report
Disappointing that we can't get more affordable housing out of JBG, though it's understandable why not...they're a business and looking at their bottom line.
by Froggie on Feb 11, 2012 11:29 pm • link • report
More to the point, Seminary Towers and Seminary Hill Apartments ("Seminary Overlook" "neighborhood", according to the plan) will go from 1100 parking spaces to 2,325 parking spaces. That's because the 296 units to be torn down now have 1.3 parking spaces each, and the 925 new units to be built will be allowed 1.75 parking spaces each.
by John Broughton on Feb 17, 2012 9:36 am • link • report
I love this quote from Mr. Partee: "At the same time, the housing stock in much of Alexandria is aging and reaching the end of its useful life." Rehab old structures? Heck no, tear them down and put up more expensive structures that cater to the more affluent. The end of their useful life for whom? Old like Old Town? Affordable like the Hamlets?
This plan is all about growth, even if the facts of the plan --minimal open space, loss of affordable housing, glitzy transit solutions -- don't amount to much that can be called improving an existing community. Sustainable for whom? Transit for whom? More open space -- greenways with no new parks for a kid with a ball and glove?
This plan is a fantasy village, like Reston Town Center. Yet there is an existing community there already. Oh, well that's progress. Guess that's the new urbanization we have all been waiting for that will transform an outdated Alexandria -- outdated like Del Ray? Like Old Town? -- into a modern high-priced (walkable I guess if you leave your BMW at home) urban village.
This is not a vision I support.
by Andrew Macdonald on Feb 20, 2012 4:24 pm • link • report
And what is so wrong with what is there now? Is there something so horrible that we need to eject people?
This is nothing more than a developer's dream, and big government run amok. Think Rosslyn with the Metro or roads or Manhattan with no subway.
by Haunches on Feb 20, 2012 5:23 pm • link • report
JBG proposes funding 865 affordable housing units. This is far fewer than there were just a couple of years ago, so there's no way the developers can claim to be increasing the number of affordable apartments.
The idea that a dedicated bus lane will provide as much access as the Metro is laughable. Express buses use the adjacent freeways right now, but the streets are still clogged. Adding 1000s more people with cars to this mix will make an already bad situation worse. This neighborhood will not be livable enough to attract affluent residents.
The 7500 people now living in the apartments will all be forced to leave. The affordable units promised by the developer will not be available right after demolition (if ever), so the plan will force 7500 people, most of whom are low-income, to find somewhere else to live.
The City of Alexandria should provide housing for its low-income residents. These are the people who work in restaurants and other tourist attractions. They also drive taxis. They are a valuable asset to the city. The City could use its power of eminent domain to buy the houses and fund the project through taxes on the businesses that currently benefit from paying low wages. The current structures in this area could be renovated at a cost of about $50,000 per unit. This could be done over a long period of time so that no one is forced from his or her home.
Poor people should not be made to suffer just so that rich people can make a larger profit.
by Allan Masri on Oct 17, 2012 7:41 pm • link • report
Add a Comment