|
Fairfax County conducted a public hearing for the controversial Metro West project.
The speakers challenged the legitimacy of the assumptions on the performance of the various smart-growth transit-oriented development techniques. These assumptions included:
· People who work in the center will choose the center’s housing and thus walk to work which eliminates the need for a car or parking.
· Daycare centers will service primarily center residents, again reducing parking needs.
· Center residents in urbane high-density units will have few children and minimal impact on schools.
· Center recreation facilities will be adequate to serve center residents.
· Retail uses will meet residents’ day-to-day needs and eliminate trips to convenience stores, again reducing traffic.
· The users within the center will create enough of a market to support a sufficient critical mass of retail uses, augmented by the transit riders who may shop here.
These assumptions are based on planners’ anecdotes with very few confirming data points. Seldom will anyone invest in post-development analysis to determine the accuracy of these types of assumptions.
In other mixed-use projects, the County has been willing to allow a 25 percent reduction in parking that would otherwise be required by the combination of the individual uses. This reduction is agreed to very tentatively because of the County’s experience in the citizens’ outcry when spillover parking occurs, such as near a high school. In an urbane, mixed-use environment, there are few adjoining streets that allow parking to accommodate any spillover.
The proponents proudly state that the concepts they are counting on are consistent with smart-growth concepts and practices. The opponents, on the other hand, state the concern that if the smart-growth techniques don’t work as anticipated, what are the safety valves? There are no expansion joints or safety valves built into the equations.
The proffers include some financial incentives to insure the objectives are met as well as penalties if they are not. The adjoining residents have stated that an assessment of a penalty does them no good if their neighborhood is destroyed. Who gets the proceeds from the penalties?
Notwithstanding the lack of data points to prove the efficacy of the jargon-based defense of the project, the field has only vague definitions of the terms. Mixed-use is described by the author of the best practices-section of Greater Washington Report as two different uses on the same parcel. Fairfax County’s Glossary of Terms in the Zoning Ordinance uses mixed-use in several different ways--mixed-use projects, mixed-use areas--further describing these as typically involving residential, office, and retail.
Neither of these sources quantifies the size of the individual uses needed to qualify as mixed use. Could it be one house and three shops with an office above? In humor, I have often asked if a house of ill repute and a funeral parlor would constitute a mixed-use project. Fellow professionals say, probably not. If not, what would?
The response received from many professionals has been a description of various performance criteria they think would qualify as mixed use. This suggests that mixed use cannot be used as a noun. There are too many subjective characteristics that come to play in the efforts to define mixed use.
When the term first came to my attention, it described buildings that would have parking that could be shared by other users such as a movie theater or supermarket. This worked well for many years when mom could drop the children off at the matinee and go shopping. When the theaters began showing first-run movie matinees during the day and stores were open later in the evening, conflicts arose. In these neighborhoods, people migrated to the nearby neighborhoods to find a parking place. Smart theater goers left earlier to park on the street near the theater. Late arrivals found their parking several blocks away.
In newer developments, the rights-of-way have no on-street parking, and there is no opportunity to park further away either. When these situations arise, disgruntled citizens want to find someone to blame for their inconvenience, and those in the neighborhoods dealing with the overflow parking voice their complaints to their elected officials. These elected officials are, therefore, uncomfortable supporting projects that have reduced parking requirements, the benefit of mixed use. As stated above, Fairfax County puts a threshold of maximum 25 percent as reduction they would allow in a mixed-use project. Logical relationships that should support shared parking would be an office building and a housing complex, with a theater and restaurants.
As more and more projects need to build structures to accommodate parking needs, the days of free parking will be short lived. A technique that provides a safety valve is valet parking; Northern Virginia hospitals are using it while their parking structures are under construction. In situ, rental cars such as a Zip Car can be used to reduce parking demand. A shopping area in Pasadena has a street front valet parking operation where vendors will take over the car regardless of the owner’s destination. When parking becomes enough of a problem, people will begin looking for alternatives such as mass transit and pedestrian-oriented developments, cornerstones of the vocabulary of smart growth.
Unfortunately, until the systems mature, many customers may choose alternative locations and businesses will suffer. When the government wants this kind of development to succeed, it should consider becoming a participant in the economics of the process, abating taxes on the finished development until the supporting systems are operational. Live, work, and play in the same environment is a common objective of mixed-use projects. To encourage this, a system of discounts could be created for businesses within a development where residents or employees could receive discount prices in the stores, restaurants, etc. These discounts could then become a tax deduction to the businesses. Employers could offer financial tax-free incentives to employees who choose to live in a mixed-use development.
These are just a few ideas to make mixed-use and/or transit-oriented development achieve their objectives. Other smart growth concepts that require discussion include: transit-oriented development, pedestrian-friendly, floor-area ratio (FAR), air-rights, and sustainable development. As these terms are used in public debate, most of the speakers have their own definitions for them. Just as these thoughts are relevant to the debate now under way for Metro West, it is probable they will also find their way into discussions about rail in the Dulles Corridor. Advocates of enlightened development need to invest in public information programs in order to establish a common vocabulary.
Floor-area ratio is known as FAR. The FAR of a project is a subject of considerable attention when promoting or objecting to a development project. It is a technical term that describes the relationship of the amount of development and the size of the parcel. A one-story building of 100,000 square feet on a parcel of the same size would have a FAR of 1. A two-story building on the same parcel would have a FAR of 2. A 50,000 square foot building on this parcel would have a FAR of 0.5. Although many understand the mathematics, I suspect few understand the impact of an FAR, as in what kind of FAR would people want to live in when they grow up.
The term is widely used in the real estate industry to establish value. People negotiate on the basis of dollars per FAR foot. When these debates occur, the attention isn’t given to the character of the proposed buildings; rather, the FAR is the focus. The revitalization of the Reston Sheraton was approved at 1.25 FAR, one of the highest densities approved in Fairfax County up to that point. The Reston Town Center has an FAR of approximately 1. The FAR values in the Ballston Corridor are in the 1.4 to 1.6 range. Highly organized areas have FARs in excess of 10. It is nothing more than a mathematical formula, not a quotient indicating quality of life opportunities. The nature of activities that make up the project has even more significant impact. For example, a project with a modest FAR composed only of doctors’ offices would require a large amount of parking and generate significant off-site traffic. It is not the FAR, it’s what makes up the FAR number that should be considered.
The dictionary describes density as the quantity of something per unit measure. The term is used in describing real estate development projects, and people are often asked if they favor density when in reality, it is probably meant to find out if they favor high density. An opponent of the Metro West project made the comment that she wasn’t totally against the project, but did it have to be “soooo dense?” I did not find any further comment to define her definition of soooo. A resident asked me if I would be pleased to see an ugly building outside my window because I had proposed a high-density development. I reflected that I did not remember having described the building as ugly. “Aren’t all high-density buildings ugly,” she asked. My reply to her was that only ugly buildings are ugly. Density onto itself has very little to do with visual appearance. High density is also a surrogate for increased traffic. Many assume that higher density means higher traffic. Again, it depends upon the activity that makes up the density. A high-density doctor’s office does generate considerable traffic, as noted above.
The overarching terms used to describe growth as being “smart” or “sustainable” also lack quantifiable definitions. These terms are debated at great length and typically the only agreement can be reached is that smart growth is the opposite of dumb growth, and same for sustainable and unsustainable. I have actually heard people comment, when asked for their definitions for these words, that they cannot define them but will recognize them when they see them.
The term “air rights” is receiving considerable attention. It typically means constructing one use over another, such as Grand Central Station in New York built over rail lines. It can also be applied to the development over the top of a thoroughfare. The development of the air rights above the Dulles Toll Road has been part of the discussions relating to the expansion of Metro to the airport. Air rights over the Dulles Toll Road could be used to accommodate the Metro stations and related transit-oriented development. Frequently, the air rights above the major roadways are the subject of discussions. In fact, air rights could also be used over the connecting or adjoining thoroughfares and parking lots, to increase the amount of available space to build activity that can support and be supporting the transit-oriented development.
|
