Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Development that Really Rocks

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

There aren’t many developers with “rock star” status in Virginia, but the backers of the “Coal Tower” project in downtown Charlottesville are a genuine exception. The owner of the 10.7-acre, by-right development is the Dave Matthews Band. The band plans 315 residential units, offices, retail and several restaurants, according to the Daily Progress.

City officials approve:

The Coal Tower project, as it has been dubbed, fulfills the city’s goal of clustering high-density, mixed-use development near downtown. The result, city planners and the developer say, will be hundreds more residents who can get to the Downtown Mall for work and recreational purposes without having to use a car.

“We said we wanted to put more people into the core of the city and that’s what this does,” said Jim Tolbert, director of the city’s Neighborhood Development Services.

Of course, there’s always someone with a beef. Some neighbors are concerned that the eight- and nine-story buildings will be out of scale, and others fret about local traffic congestion. I haven’t seen the plans so I can’t speak to the specifics. But from a high-altitude perspective, urban infill and redevelopment is the very best kind of development that can take place. It takes advantage of existing infrastructure, pumps up the city tax base and generates less traffic per resident than greenfield development.

The Dave Matthews Band rocks in more ways than one.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

7 responses to “Development that Really Rocks”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    one small quibble with respect to the claim that such development are good because they use existing infrastructure.

    Unless one believes that the existing roads have an unlimited capacity – then there is a limit and the surrounding roads may not have been sized to handle increased traffic loads.

    The key – as per the Tysons proposal as well as just about any TND development is the claimed PREMISE that such developments – because of their easier walking access to shopping and amenities will, in fact, result in less auto traffic.

    How do you validate such claims?

    How do you limit traffic to what was claimed would be generated?

    I think a key aspect is the amount of parking that will be provided – or is available nearby.

    For instance, even if the development itself only allows one parking spot per unit -if 3 blocks away – additional parking spots are available .. then the bottom line with respect to a much more dense redevelopment of a given parcel is.. going to be a LOT more traffic on existing roads that cannot be easily expanded and perhaps were originally sized for much lower (the previous settlement configuration) demand.

    I’d make the same point with regard to exurban greenfield TNDs.

    They are promoted as not generating as much traffic as more traditional developments but the proof is in the pudding – and that is – for a given exurban TND proposal – what is the parking situation?

    Think about this – because the developers have a conflict of interest on this issue.

    If they limit parking to say – one car per unit -then many prospective buyers – especially a husband/wife combo – both with commuting jobs – are not going to buy unless there is some way to shoehorn the second car in.

    Whereas the local government is accepting the proposal ON THE PREMISE that the development, will, in fact, generate less traffic.

    This is critical for the roads surrounding any such development because TND developments with typical 10 trip per day traffic generation with their much higher density levels are .. going to overwhelm the existing transportation infrastructure if it is not improved as part of the proposal.

    I’m not talking about the entrance – but rather all the connecting arterials within a few miles of the development – to include the nearest interstate interchanges – which themselves were sized for lower traffic demands – i.e. a diamond-interchange with traffic signals vs a full cloverleaf.

    so.. with ANY of these proposals – it is absolutely critical that the surrounding road network be examined to see how much excess capacity does exist – and if it does not exist – then the project is not going to “fit in” by utilizing the existing infrastructure.

    This is what upsets people and especially existing residents.

    They have got to trust the process for approving such developent – to trust that the local governmnent is not going to do something – stupid and that they ARE going to be carefully looking at impacts.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Studies I have read claim that such neighborhoods generate walking trips in addition to and not instead of auto trips.

    On the other hand, by insisting that a development create no impact to any arterial within a few miles of a development, existing residents are setting an impossibly high bar. In effect they are claiming their rights to existing level of service are sacrosanct, and trump the developers rights, merely because they got there first.

    I agree with Larry that it is absolutely critical that the surrounding road network be examined to see how much excess capacity does exist. If it doesn’t then some work is going to have to be done, and the costs should be shared by all those that benefit.

    But, even when it does exist, existing residents will claim that it does not, or that it will be degraded. Even when a developer offers to bend over backwards, the existing residents will still object, or use it as an excuse to raise the bar still further.

    Until we have real standards and accepted ways to measure them impartially, we are tilting at windmills.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”In effect they are claiming their rights to existing level of service are sacrosanct, and trump the developers rights, merely because they got there first.”

    Well.. as you touched on…

    If the LOS is current A or B then degrading it to B or C is probably acceptable.

    But if the LOS is D or F and the development will add to that – then you’ve got a problem.

    There ARE standards – LOSS – Level of Service Standards. Several counties are using them now including Prince William and others.

    Basically – they establish level of service standards for not only roads, but schools, ems, libraries, etc…

    and then a proposed development whose impacts will degrade those levels below the standard – must mitigate –

    .. and a relevant point IS – and should be – that .. in some places – increased development may well be acceptable.. and in other places.. it will put even more strains on levels of service that are already degraded.

    A developer is free to propose whatever kind of development he/she feels would respond to the market need – but it is safe to say that most developers do not consider it their responsibility to insure the adequacy of the infrastructure.

    All this is goes back to citizens and their trust (or lack of) in the government and the developers to bring forth development that actually IMPROVES the community – as opposed to proposals that are parasitic.

    Most people are reasonable. They really don’t want to close the door behind them – but what they see is the camel nose under the tent and that if they accept one bad development with high impacts – that others will inevitably follow once the word gets out to other developers.

    People are not opposed to growth. They are not opposed to the simple fact that population and job growth requires more homes for people.

    What they are opposed to is abusive practices that seriously degrade levels of services …

    either by the wrong kind of development going into a inappropriate location and/or development – even “good” development that does not adequately mitigate it’s impacts.

    Like I implied earlier – the developer and the planners should ALWAYS meet with the neighbors – face them eye-to-eye – .. and, ask them what would make the development “better”.. and then listen and respond.

    You will find that people will respect the process and respect even developers who are straight-forward and honest about both the good parts .. and the warts…

    There will always be the bomb throwers but developers who show up at community meetings and respectfully deal with everyone including the bomb-throwers will get the respect of the others.

    Finally – everyone has to understand that the Dave Mathews band and any other developer is not putting up development, infill or otherwise so that the public will think they are “good guys”.

    They picked that parcel in Charlottesville (as opposed to 30 miles away in Nelson County) for a specific reason that benefited them and now the job is to ensure that there is equity with regard to those who will be affected by the development.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But if the LOS is D or F and the development will add to that – then you’ve got a problem.”

    Agreed. And if the service is already that bad, whose responsibility is it to fix it?

    I’m afraid my experience with public meetings is different from yours. I think many people are irrationally indisposed to growth or change of any kind, and that the bomb throwers carry way too much weight and not near enough responsibility for their actions: there is no cost associated with getting your way by screaming NO loud enough.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”And if the service is already that bad, whose responsibility is it to fix it?”

    This is the $64 question – and the stalemate that you get when citizens don’t want more degradation – and the developer is saying that it is not his/her fault.

    So.. if you say the citizens should pay for it, what they are going to hear, in effect, is that the residents should pay to bring it up to a better LOS so that the developer can then… degrade it.

    I don’t think the developer should have to pay either but what are the realistic options.

    If it is a Commercial or multi-use then a CDA can be set up.

    You can also have a brokered agreement between the developer and the county to develop an equitable sharing.. much like is often done when a developer needs water/sewer connections and the distribution line itself is maxed and needs to be replaced with a bigger capacity.

    re: public meetings.. they can be ugly especially if the proposal is controversial and the developer is uneasy and/or it’s his/her first attempt to meet with the public.

    A developer should:

    a – not bring “suits” to the meeting

    b. – not use lawyers to respond to questions

    c. – not wear jeans if they normally don’t wear jeans

    d. – start off with a less controversial project and establish a reputation of willing to meet with the public

    3. – always show the parts of the project that have been altered with respect to public input and name the folks who made the suggestion.

    4. – never, ever claim that your project will be better than some articulated worser options.

    5. – fully explain why some things could not be done – and the reasons why – including being honest about the economic fesibility

    6. – in general – focus and respond to to the folks who are not throwing bombs…

    7. – if something can be done that is of value to the existing community – try to do it if economically feasible.

    8. be patient

    9. meet with citizens during construction

    10. meet with citizens after construction

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And what if the government is deliberately allowing for or causing degraded conditions, as a ruse to prevent more development?

    It seems to me there should be standards: if you meet the standards or if you are willing to pay enough to raise/meet them, then you are in. Period.

    The bombthrowers can have their day in the sun when the standards are made.

    The public hearings are fine, the public has a right to know what is happening. But we have come to the point where these entirely subjective matters control the whole process at little cost to those that wish to endorse a NO.

    Set the rules to go forward and enforce them administratively, but don’t set rules that leave no way forward.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look at the situation in Montgomery county. Under proposed rules the next 80,000 homes built there will pay more nearly three times as much in infrastructure taxes as the last 10,000 paid, and probably ten times as much as earlier homes paid.

    Anyone who buys there, existing home or no will pay 45% more in relaestate fees, just for the privilege of buying existing stock.

    Yet, the use of infrastructure will be pretty uniform.

    How far can this go before the courts rule out jingoism as a basis for fair taxation?

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More