Home | Learn More | Where Is This Happening? | Press Release & Media | Other Concerned Groups

Thirty-five years ago, Arlington began attempting a seemingly unthinkable feat: planting a true city in the midst of long-standing suburban neighborhoods. Contrary to conventional wisdom, those neighborhoods did not explode in NIMBY rejectionism. Residents’ fears and desires for their communities were heard and accounted for. Many overcame their suspicions to help shape the new vision. And with their support, the high-rises flourished, becoming a vital city that is a source of civic pride.

Today, Fairfax is at a similar historic cross-road. Population and job numbers are rising relentlessly, and some degree of urbanization is inevitable. But Fairfax is struggling with its challenge. Its existing Metro stations are poorly designed to be urban districts, and neighbors largely feel excluded from a deeply threatening process—an alienation worsened by the many unanswered questions surrounding the Metro West proposal. The rejectionism that Arlington avoided is fast rising in Dunn Loring and Vienna, and spreading to communities from McLean to Reston.

It seems clear to us that the biggest missing ingredient here is broad community support. According to TOD literature, the community’s blessing of, and full participation in pioneering projects such as Metro West is nothing short of vital. To paraphrase from pages 52 and 53 of The New Transit Town (2004), a community’s blessing can bring success to projects that otherwise might fail, while lingering suspicion and hostility are lead weights that can drag down projects that otherwise might have succeeded. (See Attachment A for other citations from book.)

Arlington took the gamble that its public might actually support reasonable transit-oriented development, and its faith was richly rewarded through a crucial period. By taking a fresh approach, we believe Fairfax can enter the next phase of its history united as Arlington once was. The alternative is lasting community division and a potential civic disaster.

The following is a series of suggestions, questions and likely benefits that all are framed in the context of building a new community dialogue, a new trust, and a vision that can inspire shared excitement even among Metro West’s current doubters. We believe this can be achieved by addressing the deepest doubts and concerns about this proposal, not just talking them down, and by inviting surrounding communities to be full stakeholders in the Vienna station’s future. As an added benefit, we believe that by listening to the doubters, county leaders will surface serious shortcomings in the current plan that can be rectified far more easily now than in the future.

1) The Uncertain and Pioneering Nature of This Project.

Question: Which project, if any, in the United States, does the county staff consider most comparable to this proposal?

Unless any county official can point to a similar suburban project, anywhere in the United States, where a transit station is being used to spawn a mixed-use project of this scale out of nothing, the county should present this plan as an experiment without any clear models for success.

Benefits: By acknowledging this fact, supporters can become more open to true community dialogue, where everyone’s opinions can be valued and all can learn from one another. Skeptics can begin to lower their guard, knowing they are not being told debatable claims. At the same time, there is a two-way street here. Many critics of the current Metro West plan acknowledge the serious growth issues Fairfax is facing, and that some form of intensive development is appropriate and inevitable near the Metro, and this dialogue would help that recognition take further root.

Question: Why does the county think office space has never succeeded at this site? Why does it feel confident of success now? Likewise, why does it feel confident retail will be attracted to this site?

Has the county talked with any experts outside Pulte’s orbit to get its own sense of the feasibility of this site concept?

Unlike Arlington’s redevelopment corridor, this Metro is located in the middle of I-66, substantially removed from where any stores would operate. Moreover, office proposals in this area have consistently failed, and the site is very different from where retail stores have flourished. It’s important, for the sake of sound decision-making and public trust, that project advocates acknowledge that there is limited evidence that retail and commercial—which the plan calls crucial to the overall project—will succeed here.

Benefits: This would lead to a more realistic dialogue, and, most importantly, it would encourage county leaders not to lock themselves into one potentially unfeasible vision.

One of the biggest fears is that the mixed use is just an empty vision being sold to justify 2,300-plus housing units, but that in the end, because of market forces, we’ll really be left with an all-residential monolith. Even if the county chooses this vision, it should commit to allowing this plan to go forward only if the developer demonstrates up front that it has obtained the retail tenants needed to make it work. The plan should incorporate a Plan B and even a Plan C that can kick in if market forces don’t yield the desired retail and commercial presence.

Questions: In the absence of community surveys, how have the county and developer determined that a grocery store should be the central retail focus? How was the amount of retail footage determined? What is the justification for the project’s proposed density? What other kinds of stores does the developer consider the best fit, and why?

Benefits: Nothing would turn opposition to support faster than asking the community what it actually wants here, in terms of density, building heights, whether it prefers public or private amenities (or a mix), and what types of stores or other amenities they would use. At the same time, project developers would gain invaluable knowledge in knowing how to market the site’s retail, and in attracting retail operators. (Please read Attachment A, from The New Transit Town, on the powerful benefits of active community support.)

Suggestion: It might lengthen the process, but we suggest a series of neighborhood surveys and charette-style meetings. We would be happy to help craft neutral surveys to gauge community sentiment. Any cost in delays would be vastly outweighed by gains in having a community that welcomes and embraces the final plan. A supportive and enthusiastic community could assist the county and developer to successfully attract desired services.

Questions: Can the staff point to comparable projects in a true suburban setting where residential TDMs have been established on this scale? How did their success rate compare with what is being proposed here? How would the county’s proposed measurement system work, and why is it superior to actual surveys of residents’ behavior as they move in?

The plan rightly says traffic reduction measures are crucial to the project’s success, and yet it only asks the developer to produce a study—in advance of construction—showing that proposed TDM measures are "feasible." We have strongly urged this plan to require building this project in phases, proceeding at full density only if the developer can demonstrate actual TDM compliance in the earlier phases.

Benefits: Requiring actual trip reductions, and not just a theoretical feasibility, will benefit everyone, by keeping the traffic burden to a minimum and forcing the developer to work through what are obviously some very complex issues. It also will demonstrate good faith with the community, and relax some of the tension that has arisen over traffic.

Question: Is the staff aware of any TOD project anywhere that has a successful program to reduce weekend and evening traffic?

TOD literature advises that most trips from a site are done in off-hours, and we expect a major local impact outside the rush hour. The plan is silent on this issue, except for the notion that local retail will keep people off the roads.

We envision this as being similar in concept to the Fairlee Work Group, although including representatives of all affected neighborhoods. This group could advise the board on all major implementation issues throughout the zoning application and beyond, including TDM and retail compliance. It also would be advised of any requests to modify the plan or zoning agreement.

Question: Why is relocating the community center not being considered to save two acres of trees?

Supposedly one benefit of TOD is consolidating growth to allow some land preservation, but this plan is almost devoid of community green space. We strongly urge relocating the proposed county center to save two full acres of trees and green space.

Benefits: This is good for residents, would extend naturally from East Blake Lane Park and provide a better buffer to Circle Woods, while also moving the community center closer to the residential community.

Supervisor Smyth has agreed to put a plain-English cap on the number of residential units in the plan, but another source of grave concern is that the plan is almost impossible to interpret. Writing this plan more intelligibly would reduce fears that unwanted features have been slipped into it.

If the county means what it says about preserving neighborhoods, it should not handle Metro station areas piecemeal and it should declare a permanent ¼-mile radius where all transit development must be confined. If a different distance is appropriate in Tysons, that should be declared and debated as a Tysons-wide policy, with clear and defensible justifications for any increase in the development area there.

Benefits: Arlington’s clear designation of a ¼ -mile urban density zone was the greatest key to its success. In Fairfax, fears of developers allowing "transit" projects to spread further and further from stations is stoking fears of urban development run amok. Declaring a clear boundary on transit development would ease community fears about "smart growth" and warn developers in advance not to try to break up stable neighborhoods.

 10) Will you support full written disclosure to prospective buyers/tenants both in terms of sales literature and in a "Truth in Lending" type of signed disclosure at settlement/lease signing that spells out the obligations of the buyer/tenant in complying with and financial supporting the TDM program. This might also extend to whatever type of storm water management program is developed, so that the buyer/tenant fully understands his future obligations – this would be especially important if a wet pond is developed.

11) Will you support a per-unit educational proffer to ensure that the schools are provided adequate resources to not only physically house the students but provide adequate core facilities?

a) Creating a more functional county-school planning process so that the schools can plan more meaningfully, and respond to community questions more effectively, regarding future development.

b) A radically revamped and more aggressive strategy for enlisting neighborhoods early in the process for any major development.

c) Renewing an explicit community dialogue to help it understand the growth and jobs pressure being faced by the county and to join in basic public debate over the county’s best choices for responding to this.

The following quotes all are taken from "The New Transit Town," a recent book assessing the state of transit-oriented development that was written by advocates of TOD.

Community involvement is essential to creating good projects.

In Atlanta … surrounding single-family neighborhoods said [there] was too much development and traffic, and when the project went forward anyway, they filed suit—chilling developer interest in projects at other transit stations.

The Arlington County case study, in contrast, illustrates the value of early, structured and continued public involvement. The county took the time to educate the public about TOD and to build consensus with all stakeholders about its plan to build high density mixed-use development around five rail stations in suburban Arlington County. For 30 years the community has been actively engaged in county planning initiatives and the site plan review process for new development, and the county continues to encourage developers to consult with civic and neighborhood associations. The result has been a stable and predictable environment for both developers and the community, and as a result, the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor has attracted a tremendous amount of development at the same time that surrounding single-family neighborhoods have been preserved.

• Community involvement enhances the mutual learning that can take place during the planning and design process. Community members should help developers and designers understand what will work best in terms of the design and mix of uses, as well as how to handle the frequently inflammatory issue of how best to integrate a project into an existing community. Because the community is the best and most important source of local knowledge, community members are the actors best equipped to help a project attain that intangible "sense of place" that will capture values for all partners. All partners will also benefit when the community is involved early enough that their concerns can be addressed up front instead of after a project has been designed. Good design does not have to be expensive if it is done right the first time.
• The community can serve as a politically powerful advocate for a project, especially if the project is pioneering some kind of development—like housing in a downtown, or multifamily housing in the suburbs—for which there is no proven market. Community support can also go a long way toward convincing lenders and retailers to become involved. It may be possible to attract an otherwise reluctant vendor, such as a grocery store, if community members are willing to come forward and say they will support the store.

Some examples of failed relations with the community:

Atlanta’s Lindbergh project: Community involvement is essential to creating good projects. The entry of BellSouth as a partner in the Lindbergh project effectively shifted the balance of power into BellSouth’s court, and the very magnitude of the corporation’s physical presence guaranteed the site would end up conforming to BellSouth’s needs. It was as if [the transit authority] was so eager to win and to accommodate this large corporate tenant that the opinion of the neighborhoods no longer mattered.

Given the project’s shortcomings, it is not hard to understand the objections of the surrounding neighborhoods, who saw Lindbergh as exacerbating the problem—traffic congestion—instead of offering a solution.

Many (neighbors) were disturbed by what they felt had been the unilateral nature of the (project) …. "They went out and hired a consultant-because they didn’t know anything about what they were doing-and put together something they called TOD when it’s just a BellSouth office park with a transit station stuck onto it," (one neighbor complained).

The resulting furor has put community groups on guard around other MARTA stations and has given pause to developers and lenders. Time is money when financing is on the line, and the delays created by lawsuits are a developer’s worst nightmare.

Include the community from the get-go. The success of all three projects was undermined by the lack of community participation in the initial joint development planning process.

Balance the needs of all users.

Locate retail to succeed. Isolating small increments of retail away from street traffic is not likely to work in a suburban area. … Retail may not have been appropriate for this site, given the proximity of a shopping center just a few blocks away. TOD does not have to include retail to be successful, especially if there is existing retail nearby.

According to Eden Housing’s Laura Mandolini, the fact that the storefronts were in the interior of the project made it difficult to lease the space. "We knew from the beginning it wouldn’t be easy to find (retail) tenants, so it wasn’t a surprise when high-profile tenants like Starbucks weren’t interested. Everyone wants mixed use, but it’s still quite hard to make it work."

The project should include community services, to the extent that demand exists.

The project should be designed as part of the larger urban fabric, not as a self-contained enclave.

The project should be designed in a scale and style compatible with the surrounding community.

The project should include community services, to the extent that demand exists.

Research shows that too much parking has a deleterious effect on transit ridership, aggravates traffic congestion, and drives up the cost of projects. Too much density is just as bad. … As long as parking is convenient, and taking transit and walking around Atlanta is not, Lindbergh residents with the means to choose are not likely to choose transit.

The amount of hype around TOD far exceeds the progress to date. … The result has been that transit opponents have begun to deride TOD as a failure.

As we have learned from TOD history, the movement has been built on a legacy of ambitious promises and naïve execution.

A closer look at TOD projects around the country shows that most still fall short. … TOD cannot be and should not be a utopian vision: It must operate within the constraints of the market and realistic expectations of behavior and lifestyle patterns.

Successful TOD … balances the need for sufficient density to support convenient transit service with the scale of the adjacent community.

There is no clear definition of TOD or agreement on desired outcomes, and hence no way of ensuring that a project delivers these outcomes.

There are no standards or systems to help the actors involved in the development process bring successful transit-orient development into existence. Without standards and systems, successful TOD is the result of clever exceptionalism, and beyond the reach of most communities or developers.

Transit-oriented development requires the participation of many actors and occurs in a fragmented regulatory environment, adding complexity, time, uncertainty, risk and cost to projects.

Although transit adds accessibility and value to a place, transit alone is insufficient to drive real estate markets. When other market forces are not present, special actions are needed to ensure that projects … go forward.

Without a concerted effort to develop standards and definitions, to create products and delivery systems, and to provide research support, technical assistance, and access to capital, TOD will remain just a promising idea.

Lessons from Dallas (Mockingbird Lane/Addison Circle)

Retail is the most difficult part.

Unless the TOD site is promising real estate, the public sector has to share the cost of building TOD by investing in infrastructure and other public improvements.

Lessons from Rosslyn-Ballston

A predictable development and review process is important for both developers and the community. Arlington County created clear boundaries and a consistent planning and policy framework … This has engendered trust, minimized controversy and risk.

Continued public involvement is critical.

According to developers and real estate attorneys who have worked here … it remains attractive for development because of its central location, excellent transportation access, good government services and predictable develop review and approval process. The fact that vacancy rates for all types of development (office, retail, apartments) tend to be lower in the corridor … even in recessions, also contributes to its attractiveness.

The corridor in 2002 was truly mixed-use, with 21.1 million square feet of office space, 3,200 hotel rooms, 3-4 million square feet of retail and, most remarkably, 24,400 housing units.

Rosslyn-Ballston History

The Arlington County Board and staff agreed early on that the Wilson Boulevard corridor, which runs the Arlington’s commercial center, was the preferred route for Metrorail, the alignment should be underground, and that stations should be closely spaced. … The (transit agency’s) preferred alignment followed the planned Interstate 66 corridor, north of Arlington’s commercial core, which would have been at-grade in existing public right-of-way, and therefore cheaper. This alignment ran through low-density residential neighborhoods that did not offer the same redevelopment potential as the Wilson Boulevard alignment.

Arlington TDMs.

Arlington’s Metro stations are spaced as close together as stations in more highly urbanized areas like the District of Columbia. The five stations are two-thirds of a mile to seven-eighths of a mile apart, which means that every point along the corridor is within a 10- or 15-minute walk of a station.