Posts about Alexandria

Redevelopment proposal compared to the original Arlandria vision plan.

Details of the proposal

The proposal, by Arlandria Center, LLC, is for a mixed-use development consisting of 450 multifamily residential units and 50,000 square feet of retail. The retail will face Mount Vernon Avenue and will replace the existing strip mall retail.

The plan includes streetscape improvements to Mt. Vernon Avenue and Bruce Street, including street trees, new bus shelters, and widening of the sidewalk.

The high-quality, contemporary architecture is in compliance with new green building standards and incorporates affordable housing units for households earning less than 60% of the area's median income.

The property also improves access and visibility to Four Mile Run Park, and will add eyes and activity to the street, thus deterring and reducing the perception of crime.

Parking is proposed to be underground. According to city code, 940 spaces were required and will be built. If the parking turns out to be in surplus, subsequent developments may have the opportunity to use some of these spaces rather than build their own.

If approved, the development will be built using a phased approach that retains as much existing retail as possible. Stores on the northern portion of the site could choose to remain in operation while the southern portion is under construction.

Community Benefits

The plan fulfills the Arlandria plan requirement for 10-15% open space: 10% of the property would be reserved for public open space and another 5% would be for resident use. The building would be set back back 40 feet from Mt. Vernon Avenue. The building will be pulled back 5 additional feet on Bruce Street to create better access to Four Mile Run Park and better vehicular access to stores and residences.

The project would also fund up to $200,000 for new tennis/basketball courts, which would be relocated per the Four Mile Run Park master plan. Another 7,000 square feet of the property along the park would be reserved for a pedestrian promenade with the potential for a future road. The development would also improve the site's facilities for stormwater runoff.

The development conforms to all of the standards set out in terms of bulk, setback and open space, but extends 7 feet above the height limit at the property's center in order to accommodate 28 units of affordable housing.

Both the residential and commercial portions of the property would be built to LEED green building standards.

The project also includes more than $51,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars annually for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to keep single occupant vehicle trips from the development to less than 40% of total trips. Additionally, the project will provide new bus shelters with real-time bus arrival data, on-site bicycle amenities, and a Capital Bikeshare station. The developer would also provide a 20% employee transit subsidy.

As other redevelopments come online, this property will also be required to partner with others to create a Transportation Management District charged with further improvements to transit.

The proposal also meets the design guidelines from the Four Mile Run Restoration Plan, which calls for buildings to activate the stream and be visually interesting.

Challenges and Opportunities

Right now, the area is awash in a sea of empty parking lots and people-second design. The vision and proposed redevelopment will change all that.

Mt. Vernon Avenue in Arlandria is not a highway, nor even a high capacity road. At its best, it could be an urban boulevard with wide sidewalks, easy pedestrian crossings, and slow moving traffic.

The Arlandria vision of pedestrian-and-transit-oriented development is the antidote to the problems created by sprawl-induced cut-through traffic. This development proposal will help achieve that vision. It will help the neighborhood achieve its long-time goals of becoming and sustaining a safe, walkable, and inclusive community.

We feel this is a great opportunity to make Arlandria one of Alexandria's greatest success stories. We strongly support the proposed development, and encourage the city to approve it.

Kevin Beekman, Melissa Garcia and Nick Partee contributed to this article.

In the decade since the plan, shops have closed and turned over at an alarming rate. Others have barely been able to hold on. Absent a large outside investment, the community pursued modest improvements on its own. But without a developer to put buildings in the ground, the opportunities to make significant impacts were limited.

A marketing strategy was adopted to advertise Arlandria businesses, and guidelines for storefront facade improvement were established. Despite these efforts, many businesses were barely breaking even.

A 2008 follow-up feasibility study determined that conditions in Arlandria made development unfeasible. The study pointed to an on-going perception of crime, a poorly built environment, and lack of economic diversity as the three major impediments to economic development.

Study inspires grassroots efforts

The city attributed the stagnation to a lack of community involvement. That comment combined with the negativity of the feasibility study inspired a community led, grassroots economic development effort.

The overarching goal of the new effort was to achieve economic sustainability, while maintaining the ethnic and economic diversity that define Arlandria. Without outside investment, a group of volunteers took on this challenge.

Working hand-in-hand with neighbors and social service providers, residents created the Four Mile Run Farmers and Artisans Market, which works as a small business incubator and is the only market in Northern Virginia to accept food stamps.

The community improved streetscapes and parks, and participated in service provider and quality of life meetings.

Working in coordination with the city, Arlandria established relationship with third party organizations to preserve and enhance conditions in the neighborhood. These included Community Oriented Police (COPS), ARHA, Community Lodgings, Wesley Housing, the Community Services Board, the Chirilagua Coop, and most recently Arlington Housing Corporation.

According to Census figures, Arlandria's population is highly transient. It has a 30% turnover annually, and 90% rate for every 5 years. A big reason is the limited diversity of housing in Arlandria, which results in residents leaving the neighborhood whenever they move into a different type of home.

The city and grassroots organizations have aimed to provide a wider range of housing. To do so will require something more than very low rent and very high cost properties. Broad economic diversity and livability are key to a sustainable community.

In part 2, we will look at the realization of the plan.

Kevin Beekman, Melissa Garcia and Nick Partee contributed to this article.

In addition to increasing park space and including a new museum, the proposal approved by the planning commission addresses flooding problems and allows for better pedestrian access, and it does all of this within the current low-building heights and architectural care that characterize Old Town. Further, it uses a public-private financing approach that takes much of the economic burden off of taxpayers.

There are ideas in the alternative concept that merit consideration. For example, council should evaluate the appropriate number of hotels allowed along the waterfront, as well as work to prevent privatization of the remaining waterfront with more townhomes.

Encouraging adaptive re-use of historic spaces is important. And the idea of a waterfront not-for-profit that raises funds to improve and take care of the waterfront is a good one. But the sheer audacity of spending proposed in the alternative concept makes this a budget issue.

In addition to land purchases, the alternative would use funds to build and operate a maritime museum, which would allegedly attract thousands of people a day paying up to $5 per person.

This idea fails any basic test of reasonableness as evidenced by the failed maritime museum in New York, our fiscally challenged Carlyle House and Torpedo Factory, and the reality that no city museum has been able to pay for itself with an admission charge. To speak nothing of the impact of thousands of daily visitors attempting to park around Union Street.

Proponents of the alternative say that their plan will attract people and tax dollars to Old Town. It likely would. But the planning commission proposal would as well.

In fact, opponents once criticized the commission recommendation by saying more visitors to Old Town was a bad idea, raising concerns about traffic. They also once professed concerns about costs in the planning commission plan. Now they want to spend millions more and need a higher number of visitors to make up lost tax revenues and pay for their enormous borrowing binge. Their proposal contradicts their own arguments.

After 5 years of budget cuts, with our nation's lackluster economy, the council has to carefully manage city resources. The city manager recently asked departments to suggest up to 6 percent cuts in their budgets. Staff reductions and cuts over the years have already strained city services.

New city open space funding was killed by the recession. Our combined sewer system in Old Town needs hundreds of millions to fix. Library services have been reduced. Parks like Ft. Ward, Windmill Hill, and Four Mile Run, city pools and other public infrastructure have unfunded maintenance needs. We must improve fire and emergency services so residents on the west-end are treated as quickly as those on the east. And our police department can't sustain more cuts without diminishing services.

"Just borrow the money," some say. But they fail to consider the significant new taxes required for the bond payments or the impact of borrowing on our city's AAA credit rating. Or the risk that new borrowing undermines school and transportation needs.

We have a multi-year plan to add classrooms for our growing student population; it requires new funds each year. We will likely need even more to address continued crowding. And transportation and Metro costs continue to burden our city as state and federal funds vanish.

In short, we can't put basic needs on hold in exchange for a Quixotic quest for a few acres of land on the waterfront.

"Just get a grant," some say. There is no easy money from foundations and conservation organizations. I've talked to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. Funds for land conservation are scarce, and existing funds are prioritized for less expensive and much larger swaths of land outside the Beltway.

I'd welcome any private citizens or groups that want to raise or donate funds to buy waterfront land. Anybody interested can contribute to the city open space account or can buy land themselves.

By working with the planning commission framework, we can have a waterfront that is a pleasure to walk along and visit without an extravagant waterfront spending spree. Opponents are entitled to hold the view that their proposed spending is a higher priority than education, public safety or transportation. Or that the city should do it all by raising taxes to be among the highest in the region. Or that the city should abandon its AAA credit rating to make the alternative work.

But they should be clear about what they want to give up and who it will impact. There are no free lunches. Not even on the waterfront.

With few exceptions, the survey's choices pit effective wayfinding against more colorful, albeit sometimes less useful, station names. For most stations, it presents a fairly descriptive choice, such as "27th and Crystal" and a more creative option like "Potomac Yard Gateway." The survey also asks whether to name the key transfer station at the Crystal City Metro station "Metro Gateway" or "Crystal City Metro."

As for Alexandria's portion, the City received an $8.5 million design/build grant for the CCPY Transitway. It is anticipated that a design/build firm will be selected and under contract later this month.

The project will begin this fall with construction to be completed in Winter 2013. It is anticipated that a the bulk of Alexandria's portion will run along a dedicated center lane on Highway 1.

The survey is short and simple. If you think you might be likely to use the CCPY Transitway, you should make sure your voice is heard. Please share your preferences (or any suggestions for alternatives) in the comments.

Station location alternatives.

Alternative C, meanwhile, proposed an underground station to the west of the CSX tracks under the existing shopping center. The station entrances would be between Potomac Avenue and Jefferson Davis Highway.

While this location would maximize projected ridership and effect on development, the underground station would be extremely expensive. Based on the EIS scoping document, they were ruled out as technically and financially unfeasible. The proximity to Four Mile Run and the CSX tracks appears to be to blame.

Finally, Alternative D proposed an aerial station where the tracks would rise over their current location, cross over to the west side of the the CSX tracks, then return to the east side after the station to rejoin the existing tracks. This alternative doesn't have the station as far west as the underground alternatives, instead leaving it just to the east of Potomac Avenue.

Like the underground options, the original two aerial alternatives, D1 and D2, had been deemed prohibitively expensive and/or technically unfeasible. But during the scoping phase of the EIS, a new D3 option arose that would place the station inside the Potomac Yard development footprint.

Though D3 was listed as financially feasible, at the meeting to review the report last night, it was revealed that an estimate for option D3 hasn't been nailed down yet. However, the implementation group must have a ballpark figure in mind to list D3 as financially feasible. An estimate will be revealed by a meeting on February 6.

While the A and all 3 B alternatives that remain also meet these four criteria, D3 has a benefit the others do not.

Alternative D3 is the last remaining alternative which places the station on the west side of the CSX right-of-way. This is important, because options the Route 1 side of the CSX tracks move the Metro closer to more potential riders and will therefore increase potential ridership. Proposed development will surely increase the number of trips to and from the area, so capturing the most possible trips via transit is essential for traffic mitigation.

With option D3 still on the table, the Potomac Yard Metro station could serve almost as many people as the underground and alternate aerial options for a much smaller cost.

The advisory group found that the D (aerial station) and C (underground station) alternatives significantly increase the amount of potential development, and therefore people, that fall within the ¼-mile and ½-mile walkshed. They move the station further into the eventual PY development area, and closer to the existing medium density neighborhoods to the west.

Alternative A would serve significantly fewer people without a lengthy walk. This will drive many away from Metro as a feasible transportation option. The new D3 option is closer to options B1, B2, and B3 than the other rejected aerial options, but will still save a lot of walking as well as stairs, escalators, and elevators required to go up, over the CSX tracks, and back down to a Metro platform.

Unfortunately, options D1 and D2 were rejected as they did not prove technically feasible. Both aerial options were farther north and so would have served the densest part of the planned development most conveniently. You can review the scoping presentation for more information about feasibility.

Other new alternatives that were considered during the scoping session and found incompatible with stated goals were a VRE station, parking garages, and additional stations developed in other parts of Alexandria. When a final alternative is chosen, it will be compared with the no-build scenario.

At that point, the PY Metro Station Implementation Work Group will send the EIS forward to WMATA. The public has opportunities for input throughout. Here is the high level project schedule, with the station projected to open in 2016.

The final decision on the station alternative is far from made. One of the reasons the 'D' series of alternatives was rejected earlier was the developer didn't want to deal with building out the PY development while working around Metro construction. This is still a possible concern, though the new alignment may have been devised to mitigate this impact.

It is also possible that option D3 is still more expensive than option 'A' and the various 'B' options. However the D3 option remains the last possibility to make the Potomac Yard metro station truly the center of a future transit oriented development node.

Cross-posted at The Arlandrian.

What riders want is shorter names. Assistant General Manager for Communications Barbara Richardson said, "Our customers want one name. They want one, common name. They want these to be short."

Few people refer to "West Falls Church Vee Tea You Vee Eh" or "Van Ness You Dee See." Instead, they say they're going to West Falls Church or Van Ness. With a few exceptions like "Franconia-Springfield" and "Stadium-Armory," which really are truly compound names, other station names have a main portion, like "U Street" or "Grosvenor," and then sometimes additional points of interest.

Metro staff got that from their focus groups, and our surveys backed it up. People told Metro that long station names was their biggest complaint about the map. It's annoying and confusing for riders.

Richardson presented the staff recommendations after playing an amusing song, "The Metro Song." It parodies Johnny Cash's "I've been everywhere" to name 46 of the stations in the Metro system:

The staff suggest:

• Navy Yard Ballpark
  
• New York Ave Florida Ave-Gallaudet U
  
• Smithsonian (no National Mall)
  
• Waterfront (no Arena Stage)
  
• Forest Glen (no Holy Cross Hospital, but with an H logo denoting a hospital)
  
• King Street Old Town

Montgomery County alternate member Kathy Porter defended the county's request to add Holy Cross Hospital, or at least "Holy Cross" along with an H symbol, to Forest Glen.

Porter lamented that the county hadn't pushed for the change earlier, since it would have qualified under the previous policy, and suggested the board let Montgomery "grandfather" in the name. However, Fairfax's Jeff McKay pointed out that the reason they're changing the policy is because there have been problems with overly long station names in the past.

Porter noted that the hospital runs a shuttle to the station and there is Ride On service to the station. But in WMATA's focus groups, many members expressed a feeling that anything attached to a station name ought to be within a short walk, not a bus or car ride away.

DC Councilmember Muriel Bowser also wanted to grandfather a non-subtitle, Georgia Ave-Petworth. On this one, there's some good argument either way. I've heard many people call this "Georgia Ave Petworth" or "Georgia Petworth." Several commenters recommended actually making it Petworth, since Georgia Avenue is very long and Forest Glen, Wheaton, and Glenmont are also on Georgia Avenue.

Or, perhaps it could follow the pattern WMATA recommends for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and make the station Georgia Ave Petworth?

Bowser also took the position held by Gallaudet management and students for keeping that university in the primary name instead of a subtitle, endorsing NoMa-Gallaudet U New York Avenue. She pointed out that no other DC university is slated to become part of a subtitle. We've advocated instead for actually putting all universities and other points of interest in subtitles, and 83% of you agreed.

There seemed to be some interest on the board for this option. Mary Hynes of Arlington noted that they have many universities around their Metro stations, and that perhaps it's not feasible to expect to put all universities in primary names or even station names in general. McKay recommended holding off on any change concerning Gallaudet until this broader question is resolved.

Artis Hampshire-Cowen, though, seemed to be wearing her hat as an executive for Howard University rather than necessarily representing riders of Prince George's County. She argued against moving universities into subtitles, using Howard as a specific example.

Bowser also asked for the ballpark to be part of a main station name, Navy Yard-Ballpark, instead of the staff-recommended Navy Yard Ballpark.

The curly W seems completely dead, though that may be a very recent change. Last week, I'd heard that the Nationals only wanted to pay if the station could be named Navy Yard-, not just for "Ballpark." Today, however, DDOT told WMATA that DC would pay for any change, and Bowser told the board that DC expects the Nationals would cover those costs.

Under WMATA's policy, the jurisdiction has to pay for the station name itself. Another entity can reimburse the jurisdiction, but it has to guarantee the funding to WMATA. WMATA won't enter into a side agreement with a separate organization to collect the funds directly.

McKay asked what would happen if the ballpark gets a corporate name at some point. Would they want to, and would Metro feel any pressure to, rename the station? Members agreed that the staff should further flesh out the no corporate naming policy.

Alexandria mayor Bill Euille pushed for King Street-Old Town, their original request, instead of King Street Old Town, the staff recommendation (and one you overwhelmingly supported).

Marcel Acosta stood up for holding to the policy that the board had just adopted. He noted that the shorter names make things easier for customers, and "we need to temper" the impulse to accommodate local organization requests.

Alvin Nichols, alternate for Prince George's, asked about a request by Mount Rainier to add their name to West Hyattsville. However, Maryland has not officially requested this change, so it's not on the table at this time.

The board adjourned their discussion until next Thursday, November 3, where they will hold a public comment session followed immediately by a full board meeting to vote on changes. It's clear that some members are not paying much heed to rider concerns, or at least the comments of those who participated in the focus groups or filled out our survey (while others very much are).

Maybe if riders come to the public comment session, it will help those members start thinking about the interests of the riders instead of the interests of their universities, hospitals and sports teams.

This graphic, from the City Council meeting docket, shows the draft list of proposed stations. The white circles on the map identify the initial round of 6 stations, and black circles potential additional expansion locations. Green circles show stations that will likely come from developer funding, Alexandria's Transportation Management Program fund, or other grants.

Capital Bikeshare belongs in Alexandria

Alexandria is particularly well-suited for CaBi expansion. It has the second highest bicycle commuting share in the region, a dense core area with several destinations and nearby Metrorail stations, and a major bicycle route with several other nearby bicycle improvements. The city is also no stranger to bike sharing: Capital Bikeshare bicycles have been spotted as far south as the Fairfax County portion of the Mt. Vernon Trail.

Over 30 individuals and groups contacted the City Council or sent letters in support of Capital Bikeshare, including the city's Environmental Policy Commission, the Transportation Commission, and the Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

In addition, Mayor Euille and other councilmembers said they were flooded with emails supporting CaBi in the hours leading up to the Council meeting; Euille said he's never gotten so many emails in one hour on any other topic.

$400,000 of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding, was already approved last year for the initial round of 6 stations, to be located generally in Old Town. An additional $400,000 in FY 2013 CMAQ funding, approved by the council on September 27, will add another 6 stations for a total of 12 CMAQ-funded stations.

These funds will cover station purchase and installation, 108 bikes for the stations, and operating costs for the first year. Additional operating costs are proposed to be covered by existing Transportation Management Plan (TMP) funds that Alexandria has collected. The city currently has $400,000 in unused TMP funds available. This ensures that no general city funds will be needed for the program.

City staff estimate that Capital Bikeshare will generate 40,000 to 50,000 bike trips in the first year of operation. Experience in DC and elsewhere suggests this will drive additional general demand for bicycles and bicycle trips. They also estimate that the program will fully cover operating expenses via program revenue by the third year, a conservative estimate considering that DC fully met operating expenses in the first year and Arlington met 65% of their expenses in the first yer.

Joining Capital Bikeshare also opens the door for developers and the TMP to fund stations in addition to the CMAQ-funded ones. Several employers and developers have already approached the city with interested in adding bike sharing stations, and the upcoming Harris Teeter development in North Old Town had a station approved as part of the development and site layout.

Most councilmembers enthusiastic

When it came time for discussion, many councilmembers were clearly very eager. Rob Krupicka asked just how soon the city could construct stations. Vice-Mayor Kerry Donley went so far as to argue the pilot program "was meager," and advocated for a much larger expansion. Both went on record as supporting the use of city funds to support operating expenses as well if necessary. Councilmember Redella "Del" Pepper was enthusiastic in her comments in support.

Not all of the discussion was positive. Councilmember Frank Fannon wanted the program be entirely fiscally self-sustaining. Councilmember Alicia Hughes wanted to see the city plan out future phases and their potential impact on the city budget, and also argued that the council should be sure to understand the potential fiscal ramifications of joining Capital Bikeshare.

Several citizens, including two councilmembers, questioned why Del Ray was not included in the proposed station list, especially since there's a large level of support for bike sharing in that neighborhood. Staff explained three reasons for Old Town and Carlyle:

1. Bike sharing stations should be relatively close together (about ¼-mile apart) to work effectively.
   
2. The "Potential Bicycle Activity" map from the city's Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan clearly shows western Old Town as the area with the greatest potential for bicycle activity and, conversely, the areas with potentially the highest CaBi usage.
   
3. Old Town is the densest and most connected part of the city, with several bicycle routes, destinations, and 2 Metro stations to support Capital Bikeshare usage. While other areas of the city have higher population density, they don't have nearly the multimodal connections, destinations, and bicycle-supportive infrastructure that Old Town has.

That does not mean the city will stop at just Old Town and Carlyle, though. City staff have expressed interest in future expansion into Rosemont, Del Ray, Arlandria, and possibly even into the West End as the transit infrastructure (with the Beauregard/Van Dorn St corridor) is further developed.

Stations could come by spring

Now that City Council has given their blessing, city staff and the City Manager will work with Alta, DDOT, and Arlington County to finalize the agreement, select station locations, and begin ordering and installing stations. The city hopes to have the first six stations in by spring, though it may not happen until summer. This will be followed up by a second wave of six stations funded from the FY 2013 CMAQ money.

City staff have a draft list of proposed station locations, but will conduct site surveys and preliminary enginnering to finalize those locations. In the meantime, they plan to consult with citizen groups and roll out an interactive website to gather public input on station locations.

Building a successful Capital Bikeshare core in Old Town should easily build support for the program and enable the city to further expand CaBi into adjacent neighborhoods, eventually tying into Arlington's Bikeshare stations. Alexandria and its residents will see additional travel choices, fewer vehicle trips, and better health as a result.

The 9:30 Club in Shaw. Photo by the author.

Having blank, featureless façades discourage street life and can send the wrong message. Last year, the Black Cat, which anchors the shopping and entertainment district along 14th Street NW, painted a mural of a cat on their boarded-up second-floor windows.

The Black Cat in 2010. Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Nonetheless, it doesn't look much different from the outside than it did as an abandoned shell in 1988. Clubs like the Black Cat and the 9:30 Club a few blocks away have helped revitalize their neighborhoods, but by looking like abandoned bunkers, their aesthetics can perpetuate a run-down image.

Venues outside of the District are no better. While in Baltimore last weekend, I took my friends to The Ottobar, a tiny club in the emerging Station North neighborhood. Judging from its completely blacked-out storefront, they thought it was abandoned. I can imagine someone walking up North Howard Street, assuming there's nothing there, and turning around, missing out on a wonderful coffee shop just a block away.

Left: Baltimore's Ottobar. Right: The Birchmere in Alexandria.

In Alexandria, the venerable Birchmere Music Hall is largely invisible from the street, despite being in a fairly dense, urban neighborhood. If it weren't for the murals on the side, this club would just look like a warehouse behind a parking lot.

One exception would be the Recher Theatre, located in the center of downtown Towson. I drove through Towson last weekend and was impressed at how busy the downtown is, despite being home to one of Maryland's largest shopping malls. With a big marquee left over from the theatre's days as a movie palace and an adjacent bar that's open every day, the Recher keeps the streets active in a way that other area clubs don't.

The Recher Theatre. Image from Google Streetview.

Of course, rock clubs thrive on an aura of obscurity, while windows suggest openness and transparency. But perhaps venues can create window displays that affirm their image while creating a more interesting streetscape. For example, the Trocadero, a rock club in Philadelphia, has engaging, albeit suggestive, Barbie Doll dioramas in their windows.

Great streets require the participation of all the buildings that front them, even rock clubs. By creating storefronts that are visually interesting, or by providing uses like cafes or bars that are visibly open when shows aren't going on, clubs can create safer, more vibrant neighborhoods.