Innsbrook: The Future Urban Face of Henrico County

Innsbrook today

Will Henrico County embrace its inner urbanity?

Highwoods Properties, owner of roughly one-third of the Innsbrook Corporate Center, has asked the county to rezone 188 acres to allow intensive, mixed-use development, including office towers up to 16 stories tall. If approved by the county, the project would commence the transformation of the second largest employment center in the Richmond region from a meandering 80s-era campus of two- to three-story offices surrounded by parking lots and tree groves into an urban oasis. (Click on photos to view more legible images.)

Innsbrook in 20 to 40 years?

The Highwoods plan calls for an additional 3.5 million square feet of office space, 415,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, 1,000 hotel rooms and 6,000 residential units to be redeveloped over 20 years, reports the Times-Dispatch. “We have come as far as we can as a suburban office park,” said Paul W. Kreckman, Highwoods vice president. “We are very proud of it, it is beautiful, it is great. But you can’t stay here, you got to move on.”

The Henrico Board of Supervisors must approve the request but it  laid the groundwork in September 2010 by adopting the Innsbrook Area Study study, which designated a 1,351-acre tract in the western county as an Urban Development Area (UDA). The study articulated a set of guiding principles for the area, including the need for (a) greater density, (2) a balance of jobs, housing, retail, entertainment and other amenities, and (3) urban design that encourages walking and mass transit as an alternative to the automobile.

The study critiques the current design, which separates buildings by large areas of surfacing parking, places services and amenities on the periphery, and banishes all housing, thus forcing people to use automobiles for nearly every trip. Henrico planners recognize that traditional “suburban” development (low densities, separated land uses, cul de sac subdivisions, massed concentrations of retail) will not be able to economically  accommodate anticipated residential growth of 50,000 new housing units by 2026.

The county’s goal is to maintain a ratio of 65% residential to 35% nonresidential development, not just countywide but within the Innsbrook development area. It makes sense to locate a portion of that residential growth close to the county’s largest employment center on the grounds that it “could reduce workforce dependency on the automobile.”

The need for balance goes beyond housing and jobs. It extends to daily services such as grocery stores, banks and childcare. Re-development also should support mass transit and, above all, walkability. The study aims to create a comprehensive “pedestrian circulation system” by means of grid or modified-grid streets, individual blocks, alleyways, sidewalks and streetscapes, paths, trails and links to adjacent neighborhoods. Cul de sacs and other dead-end streets should be avoided unless necessitated by the presence of natural features or other site constraints.

The big question is whether existing connectors, such as the congested Broad Street Corridor and the under-utilized Nuckols Road can handle the increased traffic. In theory, if enough people can accomplish most of their trips on foot, in trams or in short car trips within the re-development area, the densification of jobs and residents will have only a modest impact on connector roads and Interstates. Henrico County undoubtedly will have to spend to upgrade its connector streets, but it will arguably spend less than it would if the construction were all green-field development.

Henrico botched the planning in the nearby Short Pump area, a horrendous mass of strip and mall commercial development where the traffic bogs down in the worst congestion in the Richmond region. As a Henrico resident, I hope that the planners and supervisors get Innsbrook right. Early indications are that they will.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

26 responses to “Innsbrook: The Future Urban Face of Henrico County”

  1. LarryG Avatar

    what things are Henrico doing …. DIFFERENT from what Tysons is doing to deal with the anticipated increase in auto traffic?

    that seems to be the bottom line on these projects. When VDOT does the 527 review.. it’s usually bad news from a transportation infrastructure point of view.

  2. What Henrico is doing sounds suspiciously like an urban development area which, as we all know, is implementing the UN’s Agenda 21 in order to take people’s property rights away. Except for impact on interstate or primary roads, not sure what role VDOT’s 527 review will play since Henrico, not the state, maintains its local roads.

  3. Bosun, I’m disappointed that you’ve gotten sucked up into this Agenda 21 stuff. There may be superficial similarities between what Henrico County is doing and what the U.N. Agenda 21 calls for, but the idea that some are propagating — I’m not saying you are, but some people are — that a shadowy conspiracy is trying to implement an agenda to take away our property rights, is really, really misguided. I have been calling for reform of Virginia’s human settlement patterns for more than 20 years now, and I can assure you I am not trying to take away anyone’s property rights. Indeed, I have irritated a number of readers by my steadfast application of limited government/free market/property rights principles to land use issues.

  4. Larry, it would be interesting to see the 527 review on this proposal. Any ideas on how to get hold of these reviews?

  5. Let’s see … Robert E Simon bought the land that is now Reston in 1961. Fifty years later, Henrico County is embarking on a similar project.

    Only 50 years behind the times?

    Not bad for Richmond.

    More seriously, I think you have missed a connection between Boomergeddon and revised human settlement patterns. Namely, demographics. As I work in Reston I see more and more of my former bosses and customers walking around the town center. I know they have retired (most in their 50s and 60s) so I ask what brings them to Reston. The typical response is that 1) they retired, 2) the kids moved out 3) they sold their single family home in <>, 4) they moved to Reston where “everything is so convenient”.

    Maybe their is a silver lining to the demographic shift occurring right now.

  6. Groveton, your argument about the changing demographics of human settlement patterns is echoed by Christopher Leinberger at Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/11_real_estate_leinberger.aspx

  7. Bosun, I would note this is nothing like the Agenda 21 stuff you seem to be afraid of. If would be like Agenda 21 if Henrico restricted people from building new homes anaywhere else in the County, which they are definitely not doing. Instead if this were approved it would only provide another option for people. Not everyone wants to live in a suburban detached home or even a suburban garden style apartment/condo. They may also not want to live in the City of Richmond where the taxes are higher. So why shouldn’t they have an option like this? Isn’t that what the free market is all about?

  8. Bringing urban development to suburban areas provides people with more housing choices. That is a positive development for everyone. But it is not the only choice. Other options needs to be available also.
    TMT

  9. Urban Oasis? Urban development in suburban areas? Oxymorons anyone?

    The loss of property rights will tcome later. Or Has already started. Onc this expensive infrastructure has been Built we simply MUST have the poppulation To justify it. Thoere is no reason for such urban enclaves except to preserve more rural land, especially Considering their cost.

  10. We have come as far as we can as a suburban office park.

    I Like that argument.

    I have Come as Far as I can as a farm. Think it will work?

  11. This format is unusable on my android. Goodbye.

  12. larryg Avatar

    re: “shadowy conspiracy” I too am disappointed that Bosun has gotten sucked into this idiocy but it started some time ago and it seems to be spreading….

    re: VDOT 527 process. Jim, normally VDOT has to sign-off on development proposals and when they do they look at the traffic generation to determine if it meets the threshold. Henrico might be a special case since they do maintain their own local roads but VDOT still maintains the state level roads …. those like US 1 and other roads that are not in the 600 series.

    In our county, in the agenda packet for the hearing for a proposal there is usually an item of correspondence from VDOT that says what kind of review is needed
    http://www.leesburgva.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5703

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    In fairness to Bosun, I think agenda 21 is a real issue. There are those who believe in wealth redistribution at the global level. The United Nations has many advocates of this philosophy. Those advocates will use any smokescreen, any ruse to achieve their objective. To them, the ends fully justify the means. Those who subscribe to this belief system must be watched closely.

    However, having said all that, I just don’t think the Henrico situation is an agenda 21 matter. It’s an effort to institute better settlement patterns in a county that is well on the way to dysfunctional settlement patterns. Good for the people involved with this. The trick is attract a sufficient number of jobs and allow for different lifestyle choices at R=5 or so. Dense housing colocated with the offices, town homes beyond that and single family houses on the periphery. I see that as a sensible and gradual approach to reducing the auto-centric culture of America. Not eliminating but reducing.

    One thing that Henrico should consider is the future location of trails, schools and parks. For example, a 5 mile bicycle ride from a single family home on the periphery of the Alpha community would be quite achievable for a number of purposes. It becomes even more useful if the community has biking / running trails which encourage entrepreneurs to locate gyms on the trails in the town center. Now, people can bike to work, work out, shower, change, go to work and then bike home. Kids can bike to athletic fields or to school for extracurricular activities. Yes, there will be times when the weather is too hot or too cold. But there will be other times when it will be fine. again, reduce the dependence on cars, not eliminate automobiles.

    As for property rights – I am lost by that complaint. If anything, I see the existing property owners potentially benefiting too much from the public infrastructure. Something of a TMT / Tyson’s issue.

  14. larryg Avatar

    we had folks show up at our UDA designation hearings also claiming Agenda 21 influences but those folks were ALLIED with the property rights folks who essentially we complaining that govt has no right to designate land-use in the first place. One of their (legitimate) complaints is that if an area is designated as a UDA and a person does not want to sell but just live in the home/neighborhood that they’ve lived in for years – that the increased taxes could drive them out – destroy their neighborhood.

  15. Excellent post by Groveton. there are things we can do, and do economically, that will reduce but not eliminate auto use. And if they are NOT done economically, they may do more harm than the autos will.

    As for property rights, it seems pretty clear what is going to happen here, those in the UDA will get more rights and more valuable property, and the opposite for everyone else. It is the perfect example of a time to think about Kaldor-Hicks efficiency: can the winners pay off the losers and still come out ahead?

    If this suits the goals of the agenda 21 folks, they will back it. No formal conspiracy has to be involved, if the end result is the same, or as groveton put it:

    “Those advocates will use any smokescreen, any ruse to achieve their objective. To them, the ends fully justify the means. Those who subscribe to this belief system must be watched closely.”

    Which is pretty much exactly how I feel about emr’s theories.

  16. “……a person does not want to sell but just live in the home/neighborhood that they’ve lived in for years – that the increased taxes could drive them out – destroy their neighborhood.”

    Well, you won’t hear him complaining about the taxes after he takes his profit. In fact, if yu find someone like that, I’ll pay the tax increases if I can have the profit when he sells or dies.

    I understand that people do not want change, but if everyone else sells out and moves on, that last peson won’t have the neighborhood he wanted anyway. Everyone else voted with their pocketbook.

    Certainly the government can legislate land use. But having done that, they must compensate owners if subsequent regulations take away some of the use value that was included in the ownership of the property.

    So, if you have a guy with a $350,000 property that becomes part of a UDA, suddenly he has ten nighbors whos property is potentially worth a million apiece. Do his property rights (to protect his value) extend to denying the value of all the others?

    I know of a home that is smack on the middle of a large commercial area: the owner never sold out, and he is surrounded on three sides by parking lots. But, he has got pretty good shopping.

  17. Who knew a Victory Garden could have you facing defeat? A Michigan woman is looking at the prospect of 93 days in jail because she planted vegetables in planters in her front yard and refused to abide by the town elders’ interpretation of the planning code, WJBX reports. The town ordinance says that front yards have to be planted with “suitable, live, plant material.” The woman feels it qualifies. “It’s definitely live. It’s definitely plant. It’s definitely material.

    Sounds like emr needs to define some core confusing words.

  18. Here is a case whre someone says they would rather have full value and pay the taxes……

    Don Layton and Karl Artmire Own High Noon Mercantile, a gunshop in Noonday.
    They also own the High Noon Gun Range, located about 300 yards off County Road 1108.
    About 900 yards to the east, is the upscale Summerhill subdivision.
    Johnnie Wanger lives there and like other residents, he is worried.
    “My wife and I built that house as an investment,” he told KETK, “but as long as that gun range is in operation, I doubt we’ll ever get full value out of it.”
    The range itself is an old quarry, and seems perfect for a range. But Wanger says, a rifle aimed just 3 degrees too high, sends its bullet out of the pit.
    “On that trajectory the bullet would start to tumble,” Artmire says, “it wouldn’t continue to spiral. Then it would be like a big raindrop or something. And they are complaining because they can cup their hand to their ears and barely hear a couple of gunshots.”
    “They need to come sit on my front porch to really hear the noise,” Wanger replies.
    And now, the Smith County Appraisal District has lowered property values more than 30%.
    “Anybody ought to be tickled to get their property taxes lowered,” Layton said.
    “Well I appreciate that,” Wanger laughed, “but I’d rather pay the proper amount and know that my home retains its real value.”

  19. There is more to this: the shooters are firing north, and the subdivision is to the east, at a ninety degree angle from the line of fire.
    The odds of a stray round in that direction are extremely remote. The following is a comment to the paper on this story.

    “If the range was there before the house was built, then the protester should be protesting his own stupidity!!! Every investment carries risk and the greatest risk of all is a dumba**s investor!!”

    If the range was there before the house…..

    So here is another case where someone moves in and then wants to change the rules that preceded them, at the expense of someone else.

    What say you, Larry?

  20. The following is from the Canada Free Press and does not represent my opinion. I believe it is an issue in Canda because the Canadian government also has a bill that will seriously restrict property rights there.

    “On June 9, 2011, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13575 “…to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities…” In other words, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

    Sixteen percent of the American people live in our rural counties that supply food, fiber, and energy for our country and provides exports for the rest of the world. As this Executive Order affirms, these communities “face numerous challenges but have enormous economic potential.” However, the people in our rural communities, gifted with more common sense than those in Washington, have always managed their land and resources well, now suddenly, D.C. has decided they know how to do things better. ”

    “The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
    “To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.”
    This White House Rural Council has the Secretary of Agriculture as its Chair. Other members of the council will include the heads of the Departments of the Treasury, Defense, Treasury, the Interior, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Communications Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Nation Drug Control Policy, Council of Economic Advisors.
    The Council has as its mission, the job of making recommendations to the president to “coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.”

    In short, people in Washington, D.C., people who don’t know anything about agriculture or ranching except what they’ve read in books or seen in movies, will determine how well you steward your land and resources. Woe to you if you don’t meet their standards of compliance to “green” policy or other regulations. As this thing takes shape, you may find ownership of your land in jeopardy.
    The list of council members causes me to wonder why we need the head of the Department of Defense or of Homeland Security to take part. And of course, the head of the EPA also sits on this council. I have no need to wonder about her presence. Such things cause the little red flags in my head to fly as if in a stiff wind, and the sirens to blare to get my attention.

    This may all amount to nothing, but if this administration is true to itself, Executive Order 13575 is another power grabbing over-extension of federal power. The right to private property ownership and its disposition by the private owner is protected by the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Executive Order 13575 puts this in clear danger, and without the sanctity of private property ownership, all other rights are in serious jeopardy.
    Joan R. Neubauer

  21. On the other hand, some people seem to get it:

    “Kyrgyz state must and will defend private property rights,” Omurbek Babanov, the first Prime Minister of the Kyrgyz Republic, stated today at the committee meeting on civil monitoring of the government body activity in the sphere of property rights .

    Funny how the communist and former communist countries like Russia, Kygystan, Cuba, and China are acting (albeit slowly) to increase property rights. They have seen the other side of the coin.

  22. Before we had automobiles, we had horses and horses s*&% all over the streets, most of which were dirt roads. Can you imagine what the Beltway would look and smell like if we had horses and horse-drawn vehicles?

  23. That’s right. At the time, the auto was considered an environmental . It probably still is if you consider the concentration of toxic conditions that would exist without the space that the auto allows us to use.

  24. …Considered an environmental blessing. Sorry.

  25. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Jim,
    Try this link to the Landtrack submission for the Innsbrook area. Also note the county submitted for the developer. More comments to follow…I think

    http://landtrx.vdot.virginia.gov/page/SubmissionRead.aspx?MastId=727

  26. Andrea, Thanks for pointing me to the Landtrack database. If only VDOT linked to the traffic-import reports themselves — then the public would have a really useful tool!

Leave a Reply