Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Learning to Love Mixed Use

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Fredericksburg Economic Development Authority hosted its first-ever developers’ forum under the banner of JumpStart! Fredericksburg. Speakers from around the state told of their successes in redeveloping historic properties into mixed use properties that add to the vitality of their urban communities. Some examples:

  • In a $5 million project, Fairfax Hall, a former girls’ school in Waynesboro, was converted into 50 apartments with a large space for commercial use for social functions, weddings and the like.
  • The 1907 Railway Express Building in downtown Fredericksburg was refurbished into offices and a restaurant.
  • The old John Marshall Hotel in Richmond was converted into 175 residential units, with conference space in the lower level.

JumpStart has hired an Annapolis consultant to develop drawings of 14 areas of Fredericksburg to visualize what smart development could look like. According to the Free Lance-Star: “About 50 local developers turned out for sessions on historic rehabilitation tax credits, mixed-use development, and incentives that have fueled dozens of projects around the state.”

(Photo credit for Fairfax Hall photo: Waynesboro Redevelopment & Housing Authority)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Learning to Love Mixed Use”

  1. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    were you refering to learningtoloveyoumore.com with your title?
    just curious if my favorite art site has gone totally mainstream..

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’d be curious to know how much “mixed use” is a part of the bigger issue that Mr. Risse espouses “fundamentally change settlement patterns”.

    I think mixed-use can capture some auto trips… it’s a good thing… but unless you’re going to have one of everything that folks needs in that mixed-use… including jobs… there still going to be many auto trips – and, in the case of Fburg… many commuters to NoVa.

    I “thought” that Reston was supposed to be mixed-use. What have we learned from Reston? Is the current mixed-use approach different from Reston’s concept?

  3. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Reston would be a good subject for which to gather and analyze data. Where do people residing in Reston Town Center work? Where do people working at Reston Town Center Live?

    The Census Bureau gathers and publishes this type of data by county, but it would be needed by census block or at least zip code. What would it take to gather these data on a protected basis? Those organizations that strongly support smart growth and mixed use should fund a project to obtain these data. We don’t want anyone’s thumb on the scale, but does this “stuff” really work and to what extent?

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    TMT, I support the fine-grained data-collection project whole-heartedly. That is, in fact, what people in the Smart Growth community would like to see. Combine the census-level data with DMV info on Vehicle Miles Driven for each resident. Find out if households in certain settlement patterns own fewer cars and/or driver fewer miles than in other settlement patterns.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Households in certain settlement patterns may own fewer cars and/or driver fewer miles than in other settlement patterns, but that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the settlement pattern. The people who live there may self select.

    If you could magically replace all the residents with new residents, then you could find out how much is due to one settlement pattern over another. Still, it might also be true that more people would self selct for that option if more of it was available at the right price. We don’t have very much evidence to support that idea, since today almost 90% of the population lives in suburbs.

    The best information I can find suggests that those who live in suburbs drive slightly more, but most of the difference in their driving costs comes from driving larger vehicles. Also, for those that live in areas with walkable destinations, visits to those places are in addition to and not instead of their vehicle trips.

    “Unless you’re going to have one of everything that folks needs in that mixed-use… including jobs… there still going to be many auto trips . ” pretty much hits the problem on the head. A walkable area is about a half mile in any direction. You will never have averything you want or need in that space, and there will laways be a larger world outside of that space.

    All of that said, I’m all in favor of mixed use, which is exactly what I would like the farm to have (a lttle) more of. Unfortunately, the same people who are promoting mixed use are also promoting “saving” the farm in such a way that I don’t have that option. It isn’t as if I wanted to plunk down a subdivision in the middle of nowhere, but as it stands now, I have no options. None. (Well, OK, I can sell out to someone who thinks he won’t mind having no options, at least for a while.) I am a virtual slave to other people’s ideas.

    If Bacon’s idea that people should be allowed but not encouraged to conduct business in the countryside ever come to fruition, then I’ll be the first to be in favor. For one thing, more “mixed use” in the countryside could potentially eliminate a lot of travel to ther places that are already congested.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Households in certain settlement patterns may own fewer cars and/or driver fewer miles than in other settlement patterns, but that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the settlement pattern. The people who live there may self select.

    If you could magically replace all the residents with new residents, then you could find out how much is due to one settlement pattern over another. Does anyone think the travel patterns would be the same with different residents? Still, it might also be true that more people would self selct for that option if more of it was available at the right price. We don’t have very much evidence to support that idea, since today almost 90% of the population lives in suburbs.

    The best information I can find suggests that those who live in suburbs drive slightly more, but most of the difference in their driving costs comes from driving larger vehicles. Also, for those that live in areas with walkable destinations, visits to those places are in addition to and not instead of their vehicle trips.

    “Unless you’re going to have one of everything that folks needs in that mixed-use… including jobs… there still going to be many auto trips . ” pretty much hits the problem on the head. A walkable area is about a half mile in any direction. You will never have averything you want or need in that space, and there will laways be a larger world outside of that space.

    All of that said, I’m all in favor of mixed use, which is exactly what I would like the farm to have (a lttle) more of. Unfortunately, the same people who are promoting mixed use are also promoting “saving” the farm in such a way that I don’t have that option. It isn’t as if I wanted to plunk down a subdivision in the middle of nowhere, but as it stands now, I have no options. None. (Well, OK, I can sell out to someone who thinks he won’t mind having no options, at least for a while.) I am a virtual slave to other people’s ideas.

    If Bacon’s idea that people should be allowed but not encouraged to conduct business in the countryside ever come to fruition, then I’ll be the first to be in favor. For one thing, more “mixed use” in the countryside could potentially eliminate a lot of travel to ther places that are already congested.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The folks I know in Fredericksburg – their unmarried sons and daughters with NoVa jobs often find an apartment to share or similiar.

    It would, however, be useful to know the demographs of those who do commute.

    I’m betting MOST commuters are NOT young singles but rather married with kids.

    Strong evidence in that regard as our school systems are growing as fast as our subdivisions are.

    There is by no means a slam dunk in Fredericksburg with regard to the appeal of mixed used development

    it’s a gamble being played out in the markeplace…

    The question at hand is will married with kids… buy homes in mixed-used developments…. IF they also have the choice of living in a more traditional SFH subdivision.

    Of course – I’m pretty sure that the folks who support mixed-use development are not thinking that folks who would live in them… would commute over 100 miles a day to their job…as many in Fredericksburg would do..regardless of whether they lived in a mixed-used development or not.

    So.. that’s why I asked the open question about whether or not mixed-use makes any difference in a long-distance commute scenario…. in the first place.

  8. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Ray and Larry, I suspect you are both generally right. That’s why I’d like to see data on Reston Town Center, for example. How many people live and work in the same general area?

    I also suspect that, in many instances, people who would live in a Tysons Corner would also continue to work and drive elsewhere. One factor leading me to believe this way is the number of parking spaces being planned for Tysons. As I recall, the county staff unsuccessfully opposed significant limits on parking spaces on the rezoned property owned by the Lerner Group.

    Then there is the Tysons Corner shopping center rezoning request that proposes to add more parking spaces for offices and condos than are at the world’s largest office building, the Pentagon. (Please note that these spaces are not for the shopping center or for day parking for Metro riders. The 9000+ new parking spaces are for people who will either live, work or visit the new high rises, along with the new hotel.)

    Unless the state or the county take aggressive steps to restrict parking and driving at Tysons (which the Lerner example suggests will not happen), we may have “mixed use” at Tysons, but we will have even more traffic.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Drawings to visualize what some Fredericksburg areas woul look like with smart growth?

    You have got to be kidding me.

    This is pure fantasy in action. Are we really going to make policy based on drawings? Have you actually looked at such drawings in the past and compared them to what developed?

    I would point to the one you previously published of the new proposed development in C’ville. the one with a parking elevator, of all things.

    Maybe I’m confusing it with some other fantasy rendering, but I rememer the before and after drawings as having much more density, but the same traffic.

    HAH!

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    TMT: You have made that comment about parking, and the associated auto travel about Tyson’s so many times, that I sure hope someone besides me is listening.

    I really hate to say it, but I’m afraid you are correct.

    Rail to Tyson’s is shaping up to be an octopus at an orgy when he thought he was going to be hanging wallpaper at Dulles.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Smart Growth in Fredericksburg

    Mixed-use and Smart Growth DOES have benefits for the Fburg Area and IS being embraced.

    In Fredericksburg city itself – with a VRE station – we’re seeing a vibrant re-development of the city for what is, in essence, TOD infill redevelopment.

    As the folks who move in absolutely love the idea of city living where they can walk or bike to local restaurants, libraries, etc.

    But out in the adjacent counties of Stafford (to the North) and Spotsylvania (to the South) – mixed use and smart growth with a significant number of long-distance NoVa commuters is, I’m quite sure, not what advocates of Smart Growth had in mind.

    There ARE VRE stations in Stafford and the land area around them ARE magnets for development but quite a bit of it is not true mixed-use but rather your standard 1/4 acre equal lot size subdivisions with cul-de-sacs.

    Spotsylvania currently does not have a VRE but almost all scenarios of a prospective future one ARE based on mixed-use, smart growth concepts.

    A VRE station was approved by voters in the last referenda but no decision (as far as I know) has been made to go forward.

    SIGNIFCANTLY – the most recent mixed-use proposal that is keyed to a future VRE station .. is TOD ..and very much Mixed Use with a significant commercial component that will be done with a CDA which is envisioned to add an interchange to I-95.

    Think about this. You have many of the elements of Smart Growth but you the reality is that most of the new residents will commute to NoVa and thus a new interchange is needed.

    Spotsylvania might actually make this concept “work” for itself – but one does have to wonder what will happen to I-95 and points north in NoVa.

    For the record, the Fredericksburg Area is completely on board with the concept of HOT (Congestion priced) lanes from NoVa to the Fredericksburg Area.

    Unfortunately VDOT has decide NOT to do the Hot Lanes for a long time, 10 or more years.. if at all.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against smart growth, provide that they have nothing against MY growth.

    I think samrt growth should be allowed to compete in a fair market, and I think I should be allowed to compete in a fair market.

    When smart growth depends on subsidies that consist of restricting my growth, then I have a problem. That problem is absolutely no different in any way, shape, manner, or form from the problem that smart growth advocates so often espouse concerning the subsidies to sprawl.

    All I want is a level playing field, same as the anti sprawl advoacates want.

    If you want to “win” this argument, then you need to come to the table with an argument you would accept if you were on the other side.

    What I hear you saying about people commuting to points North is that we have too many people trying to go to the same place.

    We need more places. I would love to supply one. It isn’t going to be SAIC or CACI, but it will be something. Right now, what is allowable is nothing. Forever.

    You will NEVER, convince me that this constiutes a workable plan for progress.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Note the term “Smart Growth” and “Sprawl” mean different things to different folks.

    Also note that some advocates of Smart Growth now prefer the term Smarter Growth.

    Don’t confuse me with an advocate per se of Smart Growth or necessarily an opponent of Sprawl per se.

    The problem, in my view, is taxpayer subsidization of infrastructure.

    In order to do that two things have to happen:

    1. – Property taxes have to go up

    2. – Aribtrary decisions that are certainly not equitable have to be made to limit the financial exposure of unlimited growth.

    There’s no better example of this than roads.

    If individuals had the pay the actual and true cost of the roads to serve their subdivisions – then the cost of owning a home in a tradtional subdivision would be much, much higher than in a more compact.. mixed-use, Smart Growth development.

    This practice is not only not sustainable but it is a fundamental cause behind the VDOT transportation crisis. 400 new lane miles a year whose maintenance costs rightly belonged to those who CHOSE to live in a way that was not efficient were passed on to VDOT and taxpayers and now everyone in the state is being told that they must pay more in taxes – no matter whether they themselves chose a less expensive home option.

    So I’m not in favor of restricting property rights per se but under the current regime – if we did remove all restrictions and at the same time continued to transfer all associated infrastructure costs to all taxpayers then we would, in essence, be subsidizing any kind of land development no matter how wasteful of resources and infrastructure it might be.

    This is not Dumb Growth – this is just plain DUMB and WRONG in my view.

    Folks need to be responsible for their own choices and directly bear the financial consequences of their decisions.

    Instead – we have system that can and is gamed by individuals and others don’t want the system fixed but rather they just want their fair and “equitable” share of the same dysfunctional system.

    So.. Smart Growth, Sprawl.. to me are not the issue. It’s more about irresponsible behavior on the part of individuals and public officials.

    The answer is to match infrastructure costs to those that need the infrastructure.

    If you want a big slug of infrastructure – fine – pay for it the same way you would a 6 bedroom home vice a 3 bedroom home.

    We went wrong when we decided it was in the public interest for all taxpayers to help individuals pay wasteful housing practices.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I grew up going to Fredericksburg and saw its transformation from having a Leggett’s and Woolworth’s downtown, when the “Young Men’s Shop” and “Nindes” and “Miller’s” were the best shops. Now, the young men’s shop is gone; Ninde’s houses an upscale restaurant, and Miller’s has transformed, I think, into an antique shop. While Fredericksburg is certain “re-vitalized” its essential usefulness to shoppers is now purely for entertainment. Central Park, a haven for retail and big boxes, now serves the functional needs of those in the ‘berg. This is not real “mixed use.”

    Mixed use land patterns that have succeeded have largely emerged because no one planned and there wasn’t much zoning control (think Houston.) Now we assume zoning control and planning as a given in the process, but what we’re being “given” is a set of concepts by planners fundamentally unschooled in classical planning concepts, but very well schooled in the DOT books.

    I don’t think there is any good answer to what has occurred in development patterns re mixed use; any change ultimately will be economically driven and there seems little economic incentive towards change.

    Footnote: Didn’t Rome (before the Germans arrived), have differentiated areas with large estates and walled dwellings on the outskirts of the city, large tenements and shops within, with markets in outlying areas for the convenience of citizens? Redevelopment occurred of course, when areas were razed by fire and conveniently left open. Land use policy was, however, driven more by ownership than imperial law. But the citizen owners seemed to buy voluntarily into precepts of design that we lack today. I have always found that ironic.

Leave a Reply

Read More