Fairfax still suburbanizing Old Town

Development

Fairfax still suburbanizing Old Town

by Douglas Stewart • September 8, 2009 3:21 pm

Instead of condominiums, Fairfax City is poised to move forward with a suburban townhouse development in Old Town. Residential development on the lot formerly occupied by the city library has long been part of Fairfax's plans for a lively downtown with more feet on the street outside lunch hour. Walnut Street Development had received approval to build 80 condominium units, but then backed out as the condo market soured. In April 2009 the city issued a new Request for Proposals for the site. RFP guidelines included a minimum size of 2,500 square feet per residential unit and minimum parking of 2-2.33 spaces per unit.

Downtown Fairfax doesn't need more of this.

The winning development proposal did a good job of fitting within the framework of the RFP. "Madison Mews" will put 26 homes and 64 parking spaces on the lot, a major downscaling of the original plan. Instead of connecting pedestrians and bicyclists to downtown Fairfax, the development will dead-end and have only one entry and exit point on the opposite end. It's designed to make it easy for residents to drive out of downtown and get on I-66. It doesn't encourage residents to walk or bicycle to Old Town destinations, even though they will be a five-minute walk away.

Several people at the Tuesday meeting expressed dismay with the plan. "If you want to keep downtown sick, this is the way to kill it," one resident remarked. To survive and thrive, local businesses need more residents who are looking for a more urban environment, one local landowner observed. "The density is grossly inadequate to revitalize downtown."

Unfortunately, the proposal fits within current zoning. The next step is a site plan. The city could at least incrementally improve the project by requiring the developer to provide pedestrian and bicycle access on the southern edge of the development facing downtown.

16 comments

Tags: development, Fairfax, suburban sensibility, Virginia

For Old Town infill, more is better (Oct 29, 2009)
Fairfax needs a street grid, but more than an island (Aug 4, 2009)
Fairfax City needs inviting public spaces, not just pretty ones (Sep 18, 2009)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
Throwing the baby out with the 400-foot buffer (Apr 7, 2008)

Douglas Stewart is a nonprofit consultant and smart growth advocate in Fairfax County. He also writes about land use and transportation issues at Fairfax Suburbanista. Douglas has worked on land use and transportation reform since 1999, most recently as development and communications director with 1000 Friends of Maryland.

Comments
Add a comment »

*More* than 1 space per unit? I've never even heard of such a ludicrous parking requirement. Do they seriously expect most people to have more than one car?

by Mike on Sep 8, 2009 4:00 pm • link • report

can't tell if there's sarcasm there .. but yes, most households in suburbs have more than one car.

by DG-rad on Sep 8, 2009 4:15 pm • link • report

More than one is not uncommon. More than too is pretty horrible, though.

by цarьchitect on Sep 8, 2009 4:16 pm • link • report

I don't think 2 parking spaces for a townhome is unreasonable. If there are two working adults in the home, chances are they will have two cars. Congested parking and streets is the result of not having enough parking. And it doesn't cause most people to ditch their cars.

As for the poor planning with the lack of thru streets and pedestrian-friendly design: the people to blame here are the authors of the RFP. It should have been written to prevent the design that was presented. Any developer is going to present a design that maximizes their profits by reducing their costs and providing as many features as possible that will appeal to potential buyers--within the confines of the RFP. Most RFPs implement restrictions or requirements beyond what the zoning and building codes require. Alexandria had their chance and they blew it.

by ogden on Sep 8, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report

Two parking spaces per unit in the suburbs may not be unreasonable, but it is absolutely unreasonable for the city to REQUIRE that.

If the developer wants to build it, more power to them, but don't tell them they HAVE TO even if it's not needed.

by BeyondDC on Sep 8, 2009 5:17 pm • link • report

Very disappointing. We need density to drive business in that downtown area, and TH's won't do it. Not to mention additional auto traffic from all those new cars. OTOH - Fairfax could really stand to upgrade the transit options. The CUE buses only run about once a half hour, and the frequency drops off big time after evening rush (once per hour). Would love to one day see a streetcar from the metro to downtown and GMU.

by Glenn on Sep 8, 2009 5:24 pm • link • report

In a 2500 sq. ft. condo it's quite luxurious to have only a single person.

(BTW, I have to assume they don't want the residents, whom they know will have cars because how else can you get out of Fairfax to work, to park on the downtown streets instead, harming short-term shopper/diner parking)

by ah on Sep 8, 2009 7:38 pm • link • report

The RFP set a minimum of 2-2.33 spots per unit, and the developer has proposed 2.46 spots per unit. If the parking minimum were forcing the developer to build more parking than he wants, wouldn't he be building just the minimum?

I oppose parking minimums, but it seems to me the main factor here that drove the development's character was the 2,500 SF per unit minimum. As ah notes, those would be very large condo units.

by Josh B on Sep 8, 2009 8:01 pm • link • report

Good point, Josh, although the difference between 2.46/unit and 2.33/unit is 3 spaces, and 2/unit is 12 spaces. So it may be that they simply ended up with 3 extra spaces because of the configuration. Of course, the fact that they were building towards the high end still suggests they expected the market for these condos to demand at least two spaces (and it may be that it's 2 spaces per condo, plus 4-6 handicapped plus 6-8 guest spaces).

by ah on Sep 8, 2009 8:28 pm • link • report

It looks like the condos have garages. Under that scenario 2+ cars/unit doesn't really make sense.

by Rich on Sep 8, 2009 11:17 pm • link • report

I'm curious to hear the other side of the story. Who in the City of Fairfax government wrote that RFP? What benefits did that/those person(s) see in demanding this type of development?

by Scott on Sep 9, 2009 1:46 am • link • report

The economic development and planning agencies both worked on this project and wrote the RFP. Fairfax has an explicit "move up" housing policy, i.e. less affordable housing and more upscale housing, putatively to better meet the high median income of its residents. I don't know why they weren't willing to explore more flexible, urban-oriented parking standards beyond a lack of imagination and concern about ticking off nearby residents who would complain about guests parking offsite.

by Douglas Stewart on Sep 9, 2009 1:29 pm • link • report

Great post Doug.

there is room for on street parking, and a safeway shopping center a 2 minute walk away - as well as a 5 story PARKING GARAGE right behind the development!

It certainly does not need more than 2 spaces per unit. There is plenty...I repeat PLENTY of space nearbye for visitor parking. The owners of the garage, I am sure, would also be glad to rent out some residential space in the oversized behemoth adjacent to this lot.
You would think the owner would want to make more money as well... (more units!)

Not to mention, people are paying more for the "urban experience" nowaways...even if it is an abbreviated version of it here in Fairfax City.

by stevek_fairfax on Sep 9, 2009 5:32 pm • link • report

Rich -- I believe the picture is a generic suburban townhome development.

by ah on Sep 9, 2009 5:43 pm • link • report

Rich and ah -- apologies for the ambiguity. The picture is of a recent Fairfax City townhouse development. The proposed development has garages plus 12 driveway/on-street parking spaces.

by Douglas Stewart on Sep 10, 2009 9:57 am • link • report

I am very disappointed that Madison Homes was chosen to develop this space. I recently purchased a home from them and have had nothing but problems. They cut corners to reduce costs and it shows in the quality of my home. Their follow up on warranties is also questionable.

by W on Jan 5, 2010 11:30 am • link • report