Around the Corner today;
The Washington Post ran a story this week about Capital One’s plans for its headquarters in Tysons. The story notes that Capital One received rezoning approval only a few months ago, and is now asking to switch where their marquee headquarter building will go, and how tall it will be. It is a bit misleading though as the article says Capital One will scrap their old plans and go in for reapproval. That’s not quite accurate. “Capital One isn’t submitting a new rezoning… instead they are proposing changes to building sizes, location and phasing based on their [existing] rezoning that the County approved in September” says Brian Worthy Public Information Officer with Fairfax County. Therefore the changes being requested will go through a far simpler process in order to attain approval than a rezoning. (Washington Post)
— — — —
We observed the past week that Block E of Arbor Row, owned by Hanover Company, has been performing pile tests on the underlying soil to test construction conditions for building foundations. This could be a sign that construction on Block E, which includes mixed use residential high rises, is ready to begin. More to come.
— — — —
Marriott announced this week that they have crossed a major milestone in their hotel renovation on Leesburg Pike with the opening of the new restaurant/bar Shutters. The 146 seat restaurant was designed by CORE. The new menu by Executive Chef Jeff Murray features American and Virginia classics including meals cooked in local whiskeys and ciders, and of course Virginia ham and Chesapeake crab. We might just have to test it out.
— — — —
The Atlantic Cities ran a story about Public Housing and its role in the urban fabric. The article brings in important points such as the absurd cost of living in many cities where the employment is available, therefore making it difficult for service workers to live where the jobs are. The problem with the story is that it conflates two concepts; providing housing to those who truly are in need of it: special needs residents, victims of natural disasters, and disabled veterans and the overall rise of C.O.L in urban locations. These are simply not the same thing. By combining the two concepts we end up building tens of millions of dollars of public infrastructure and residence that don’t go towards the group that is indeed at danger.
The problem becomes that we restrain the growth of areas where jobs are with restrictive zoning requirements. When it comes to housing in locations where roads and transit are available, why should we have any limits? People who live along transit corridors do so in order to be able to use transit, and the problem has become that DOTs across the country continue to want to treat urban residents in the same way as suburban when it comes to trip generation counts, average road usage, and times of commute. By doing so it creates a false image that a 500-unit apartment directly adjacent to metro creates the same traffic as a Wal-Mart. That simply is not reality and, for whatever reason, over the past 20 years no one has gone back and reviewed the theory of trip generation with the reality of it with high rise developments.
Why does any of this matter? Because the best way to address the absurd rise in the cost of living in cities which impacts the lower income residents and elderly in our country (due to the cost of transportation and lack of access) is to provide the market the ability to make more housing, leaving more money in the budget to properly house those who are truly in need.
Unfortunately those who stand in the way often believe they are improving their city. They cite environmental concerns and things as nebulous and subjective as aesthetics to reduce the capacity of new residential projects. Tell me, how environmentally sensitive is it to continue to force outward expansion further from where jobs are, forcing people to driving hundreds of extra miles every month?
While the Atlantic Cities article has some legitimate debate points about the role of public housing in our society, it fails to address the real source of the problem which is a shame.