This video is incorrect on a number of points.

1. The political will to hold the line against the encroachment of density into single family. (In Clarendon the county funding the rebuilding of the church and in East Falls Church the current plan to add density in what is essentially a single family neighborhood are just two examples.) In the case of Clarendon Jay Fissette promised the neighborhood that he would hold the line, but the density continues to encroach.
2. The use of smart growth to impose unreasonable restrictions on local businesses to ensure no political opposition to the current elected offices, such as sidewalk policies, sign policies and all of the policies associated with growing and expanding businesses.
3. Redevelopment of Crystal City. The current redevelopment plan of Crystal City is not Smart Growth because it trades the features current residents love in a single purpose search of tax dollars> (which is the opposite of all the principle of smart growth talked about here)

by Arlsolutions on Sep 12, 2010 10:47 am  

It's important to remember that government intervention to preserve low-density neighborhoods is a matter of politics, not necessarily the ideal scenario. Of course there are benefits to preservation, to having a diversity of residential options, and to managing the impacts of change. But those don't necessarily outweigh the opportunity cost of allowing development there. It's a matter of compromise, not an end in itself.

by Gavin on Sep 12, 2010 11:30 am  

Thanks for sharing the video. The efforts to think carefully about these issues and do the planning work are much appreciated. It was also great to see a County official acknowledge the problem in the R-B Corridor with a lack of open space and recreation space. The first comment is also spot-on in terms of the County failing to protect single family neighborhoods, which add tremendous, stabilizing benefits to a community.

The three seconds in the video on Rosslyn were also spot-on in terms of how the County treats that area. ("And by the way, yes, we have this big urban area perfectly located next to DC, at the convergence of metro lines. It is terribly developed. We'll get to it--one of these decades. There are more important areas to focus on for now, though, like further out areas where it is cheaper to tear up less-developed land and fill it up.") I really did like the video though. It is just hard to understand the lack of serious focus on Rosslyn.

A lot of good work has been done in bringing economic development to the R-B Corridor. One significant challenge for the R-B Corridor, however, is finding a way to move past the one-size-fits-all, curb-to-curb beige box that seems to be so popular as a current development trend in Arlington. Much of what is being built along the R-B Corridor does not look like it will stand the test of time; people don't deride the buildings yet and are neutral toward their blandness, as the buildings are new. But a lot of what is being built looks like a River Place-esque mistake. Just about all of "Condo Canyon" in Courthouse falls into that category, minus The Odyssey. (Waterview, Abdo, Turnberry, and Clarendon Park townhouses, although not in Courthouse, get a pass as well. The Bromptons in Rosslyn/Corthouse -- what were they thinking with that design? The Park at Courthouse? The older condo buildings in Courthouse? Let's not go there.) To sum up the current R-B Corridor in one word: uninspiring.

It is good that there is competent economic development in the area, but maybe the next thirty years could focus on quality of life, including: (1) planning for buildings with distinct architectural features that do not always consist of a giant beige box; (2) providing for larger open spaces that have room for outdoor sports activities, like a bigger version of the Lyon Village playground, and locating these throughout the R-B Corridor; and (3) more street trees / classic sidewalks, and less 1980s suburban mall, octagonal orange brick lining the sidewalks.

by john on Sep 12, 2010 12:24 pm  

@john

I guess I don't see why you're focusing on 'distinct' details. Much of the commercial architecture that provides the fabric for older cities is quite nondescript, really. It usually has quality construction and nice details, but when it was built it would have been subject to the exact same criticism you're leveling at this commercial architecture today.

In short, I don't see what the problem is. The more important items are making sure that new buildings follow the basic urban principles that make for good cities, good urban design, and good streetscapes. The specifics of the architecture that follows are less important.

by Alex B. on Sep 12, 2010 2:20 pm  

@AlexB; the problem, in short, is Arlington = boring. Building for the short terms means in 10 or 020 years the place will be even more dated and boring, and w/o the amenities to attract young people.

I think that is the general american trend after WW2; build cheap and move on.

by charlie on Sep 12, 2010 3:50 pm  

The thing is - even if you think Arlington is boring, that doesn't change the dynamics of how to make a good place. The dynamics of places that you might think are interesting in DC can't just be replicated as a function of good design, there's far more going on there in terms of density, diversity of housing stock and commercial space, various price points, etc. This kind of stuff is at the core of Jane Jacob's less noted observations in her various books. Point being - ensuring "distinct architectural features" won't change that economic dynamic at all.

by Alex B. on Sep 12, 2010 6:24 pm  

Charlie, not that it changes your point, but building for the short term is an American habit that goes back to the frontier. Wood has been so cheap in America, and expansion so fast, that people really didn't care about durability (other than in specific religious or memorial contexts) until the latter half of the 19th century, and even then people disposed of buildings regularly in the pursuit of a buck.

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 12, 2010 6:27 pm  

Is that the Jane Jacobs who so successfully talked about the wonders of diversity in New York that it turned into a yuppie paradise? Urban planning seems to attract very weak-minded followers.

@Neil; Funny. The Empire State Building, Congress, the Old Post Office -- they all seem pretty sturdy to me Frontier building is cheap --- but Arlington isn't the frontier.

Larger point: SmartGrowth is a fad. In 20 years all fads run out. Kids who grew up in condos will rediscover the joys of cul-de-sacs. But something remains, and like the grid plans of Georgetown, or and avenues of Washington, or the solid pre-war Apartments, will form the basis of a renewal. I'm pretty sure most of the R-B corridor won't, and GGW 7.0 will be talking about how to remove these ugly early 21st century buildings, and bring some humanity back into the picture.

by charlie on Sep 12, 2010 6:41 pm  

Charlie, it's funny that you talk about grids and avenues for DC examples, but don't mention the streets or the Metro stations for Arlington - instead choosing to focus on a kind of design that you don't seem to like.

I find this interesting, because there are also great swaths of DC with architecture from the same era and is similarly bland. Point being, the architecture is but one element of the city.

Smart Growth may fade out as a brand, but putting it in that box doesn't actually address the underlying principles we're talking about here with Arlington.

And as far as Jane Jacobs goes, perhaps you should give a read to some of her other books - Cities and the Wealth of Naitons, or The Economy of Cities for example - and get back to me about the underlying dynamics of that yuppie paradise - and whether New York today is actually a case of following her recommendations...

by Alex B. on Sep 12, 2010 6:52 pm  

Those who believe Arlington has not "protected" single-family homes, should first look at a map. Draw the famous "bulls-eye" with circles 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 mile radius around each metro station. Take a look at how much of that land area today remains completely devoted to single-family homes. There is no justification for that from a smart-growth perspective. That's entirely a political decision to protect a lifestyle of a few existing residents, or, if you want to be as charitable as possible, a historic resource. In Clarendon and East Falls Church it is the single-family zones that "encroach" into the center of the station area (in Clarendon it's a block away, and in EFC it's right on the WMATA property line), not the other way around. Almost without exception, the only "encroachment" of density beyond the development boundaries set 30 years ago (and there has been plenty) has been upward, not out over single-family zones.

Single family homes are a vital and valued part of Arlington. Political tension has sometimes arisen from residents who misunderstood that "preservation" somehow meant "no changes anywhere I can see or hear" as well as developers who misunderstood "smart growth" to mean "I can build whatever I want because it's near Metro" Over time, Arlington's planning documents have gotten much more specific, and this has reduced the tension on both sides dramatically because their expectations are better informed.

by Off the Mark on Sep 13, 2010 2:24 pm