When critics of Tysons discuss the problems with the planning that occurred during the last construction boom of the 90s, they often cite the lack of “walkability”. The first thing you should ask is, what is walkability? Do you know it when you see it, or are there fairly set rules like a golden rectangle of geometry, that creates more human scale design?
To start, walkability is really two varying concepts. There is the physical action of walking, which is dependent on facilities like crosswalks, proper lighting, wide paths, and short blocks that don’t cause huge detours. Then there is the purpose action of walking, ie what is the point of the walk? For the vast majority of two legged movements people make in a day, the idea is to attain something via an errand. Very few people just go for a stroll, and even these people often take far more errand trips that stroll trips per day. So in this respect walkability is also a matter of what is near you, groceries, stores, services like dry cleaning, your office, your medical provider, etc.
Basic definitions aside, the main point here is that in a good walkable environment you have varying uses (office, residential, other) as well as a conveyance to go from point A to B safely and pleasantly. So the fact that there are massive office buildings, sitting in vast fields of asphalt parking lots, creating 1/4 mile long blocks and having little in terms of destinations other than endless cubicles is indicative of poor walkability in Tysons.
So what can be done? Some of the buildings are less than a decade old, have limited market incentive for some management companies to redevelop, and would result in a tear down and redo scenario.
Well there are ways to integrate old form and site selection with new walkability concepts without having to destroy a building or displace existing tenants. I saw a great example of this in the Mediterranean town of St. Tropez, where the existing street layout of the ancient harbor is incongruent to the pedestrian demands. Over time the town has adapted by creating pedestrian tunnels through existing, often centuries old, buildings.
When you have a 300 ft by 300 ft building, sitting in an awkward location of a site it forces the pedestrian to go all the way around the perimeter. It would be optimal if the buildings were smaller, there by making the blocks smaller, but if it is an existing condition one could provide a public access through the building as was done in the St Tropez example. This can be accomplished by gutting elevator lobbies and providing weather resident materials. Ground level office isn’t something that can be sold at a premium, but ground level retail is a great way to help reduce office lease vacancy, provide incentive for renovation, and find a new market. For that reason this new pedestrian path can often be profitable for the property manager if it means better foot traffic. This method has the added benefit for the pedestrian user of being on completely split infrastructure, reducing conflicts and interference with automobiles
Additional measures include;
- Removal of unnecessary perimeter fencing or walls, that force people around a large block
- Additional density for mixed use (non-office) around the newly opened pedestrian corridor to provide trip purpose
- Interface improvements between the property pathway through the old elevator lobby, and public street/walkways. Create a more pedestrian friendly and aesthetic plaza or entrance to the parcel.
How can municipalities encourage these forms of corrections? Consider this. If the jurisdiction were to create a new public walkway or trail, it would pay for the project in total unless it found an interested private partner. Often the costs would then be split. The county should consider paying for half of the cost of any component for a pedestrian building improvement. This would include elements of the lobby gutting, exterior walkways (not representation plazas), and yes the weather proofing of the newly created entries for first floor retail. It can start at this point, and then negotiate to allow additional density on the parcel in order to reduce the public cost.
Perhaps an infill of four story apartments along what used to be a 50′ road setback could encourage additional improvements. Especially interested land developers may be willing to trade reformatting of surface parking lots to structural garages via negotiating for additional mixed use density.
This isn’t about building high-rises everywhere, it is about consolidating wasteful space management being thrown away for antiquated notions of setbacks and surface parking (detrimental in urban areas) with good infill projects all the while gaining better walkability and cohesiveness. All it takes is the willingness of a jurisdiction to innovate, not a massive scale but instead on a parcel by parcel basis.