McDonnell Solicits Ideas for “Air Rights” Development

Rosslyn Metro station
Rosslyn Metro station

The McDonnell administration is soliciting “innovative ideas” from the private sector to develop air rights at the Rosslyn Metro station in Arlington and the East Falls Church Metro station on Interstate 66. In administrative parlance, this solicitation is a “request for information,” which will gather feedback on the feasibility and types of development that could occur in the two locations. After an evaluation phase, it could be followed by a formal “request for proposal” this fall.

“As governor, one of my primary goals has been to ensure that our transportation agencies utilize every innovative method to better leverage and maximize our existing resources,” said Governor Bob McDonnell in a press release today. “By leasing airspace above certain transportation facilities owned by the Commonwealth, we can better utilize our existing infrastructure to generate additional revenues to fund future transportation improvements, while at the same time attracting new jobs and economic development. ”

Added Secretary of Transportation Sean T. Connaughton: “The potential development of these air rights presents a unique opportunity to attract additional private sector investment to the Commonwealth and better utilize our existing assets to fund future transportation projects.”

The administration pointed to the granting of air rights in Massachusetts, which generated $40 million in FY 2011 through leases, with long-term income projected at $868 million.

McDonnell noted another advantage of air rights that can’t be readily measured by dollars and cents. “By co-locating these potential developments around existing Metro stations and other major transportation facilities, we can reduce congestion and create more livable communities.”

Bacon’s bottom line: McDonnell’s statement represents a dramatic leap for the governor, whose entire administration has been defined by the search for more money to pay for transportation projects with little consideration to the interaction between transportation and land use. Indeed, it seems to represent a conceptual breakthrough — at least as manifested by his public statements. Let’s hope he continues to follow that line of thinking.

The Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships (OTP3) has been giving serious consideration to selling or leasing air rights since last year. (See “Conjuring Wealth out of Thin Air.”) Two days ago the administration included the air rights project in a list of 20 potential projects that may be suitable to pursue through public-private partnerships. The projects ranged from converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes (tolled express lanes) on Interstate 64 in Hampton Roads to enhancing rest areas with electric charging stations.

The most innovative thinking in Virginia state government today is coming out of the OTP3. The problem is that there is an inherent conflict between the need for confidentiality in OTP3’s negotiations with private-sector players and the need to disclose terms and conditions in a timely enough manner to permit meaningful public input. The McDonnell administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation have made efforts to keep the process transparent but not enough to satisfy citizen and public-interest groups. If this tension can be resolved, we could see some great projects coming out of the OTP3 pipeline.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

10 responses to “McDonnell Solicits Ideas for “Air Rights” Development”

  1. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    My Congratulations to the Governor. It’s a good start toward more innovative thinking in the pursuit of real estate development that enhances, rather than detracts from, the lives of citizens who live, work, and play in Virginia places.

  2. This could be an interesting concept along the DTR outside Tysons, most especially by the Reston stations and those to the west. There is no way Fairfax County and the many stakeholders would want to reopen the 2010 Comp Plan. I would argue that adding development over the DTR at Tysons would unfairly change the deal for Tysons landowners and would be strongly opposed by nearby homeowners.

    But the rest of the Silver Line route is still pretty much open from a land use perspective such that development rights over the DTR could be fairly considered.

  3. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Got no idea on politics, and local situation there in Tysons Corner.

    So I am not commenting on that, but folks should work hard at trying to understand that density done right is very often a good and very positive thing.

    And quite often it is not only a very good and positive thing in terms of what happens in the places where it occurs and also importantly what as to what happens (or does not happen) as a result in the other places at a distance from where it occurs.

  4. larryg Avatar

    re: ” “As governor, one of my primary goals has been to ensure that

    if there are surplus Roylex Watches and other goodies available for the taking that I will certainly do my part.” said Governor Bob McDonnell

  5. bosun Avatar

    I am sure that the local governments affected by the state’s development proposal will be overjoyed. Hopefully, their comprehensive plans allow for the development that may ultimately come. If not, I guess the state, as it usually does, ride roughshod over local authority. Bosun

    1. larryg Avatar

      Bosun has a point. it seems a bit weird for the State to decide that out of all local land-use issues, that the state needs to “help” with air rights.

      I’d give a plug nickel to hear how out of all the issues that McD could deal with that he chose air rights.

  6. Fairfax County gave landowners within the immediate TOD district unlimited density (subject to limits on the overall size of commercial development and total development). These developments border the station entrances, so we will eventually see relatively high density right where it should be. So I’m not sure Tysons will lack density.

    The 2010 Comp Plan is based on a grand compromise negotiated with all the stakeholders. Everyone gave, and everyone got. I don’t think it would be fair to those landowners in the TOD to give them new competitors built in the air rights to Routes 7 and 123. And reopening the process is something no one wants to undertake.

    But if one looks at Weihle Avenue and the stations west of there, no final Comp Plan amendments have been adopted for those locations. Hence, considering development over the DTR would not be unfair to anyone. It’s worthy of consideration by both Fairfax and Loudoun Counties.

  7. It is strange that there is SUCH a rush to jump on this ‘air rights’ afterthought, when commercial development is flagging badly.

    Cases in point:

    Vienna Metro town center (Fairfax County)
    Gee, there was supposed to be ALL KINDS of commercial development here, for JOBS, and of course MIXED USE, with residential properties already built nearby. But somehow, the plan has devolved into something with very much less commercial development than was originally depicted.

    Vienna Metro town center won’t have a town center
    Greater Greater Washington, June 14, 2013
    http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19182/vienna-metro-town-center-wont-have-a-town-center/

    Dulles World (Loudoun County)
    The mixed-use narrative here claimed that commercial development was supposed to come with the residential. But then the story suddenly changed, so the developer got approval to build the residential first. Will another shoe drop, and will we hear “Oh, there isn’t enough profit for us in commercial part we promised; can we just put in a strip mal, and build more of this lucrative housing instead?”

    Dulles World Phasing Changes Clear Committee
    Leesburg Today, May 13, 2013
    http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/dulles-world-phasing-changes-clear-committee/article_f490514e-bc03-11e2-b272-001a4bcf887a.html

    Kinkora (Loudoun County)
    The mixed-use narrative here also claimed that commercial development was supposed to come with the residential. But then the story also suddenly changed, and the developer also got approval to build the residential first. Will another shoe drop, and will we hear “Oh, there isn’t enough profit for us in the commercial part we promised; can we just put in a strip mall, and build more of this lucrative housing instead?”

    Loudoun Supervisors Approve Kincora Proffer Changes To Get Roadwork Under Way
    Leesburg Today, June 13, 2013
    http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/loudoun-supervisors-approve-kincora-proffer-changes-to-get-roadwork-under/article_bc254e20-d43d-11e2-b061-0019bb2963f4.html

    Am I the only one who is sensing a pattern here?

    Is the business demand there to support these developments? What will happen if it is not? Will the stories suddenly change? And is that actually the plan?

    Also, Governor McDonnell is suggesting that this afterthought plan will bring in nearly a Billion dollars of revenues – so I expect that initial estimates will probably claim that this will cost the Commonwealth much less than that, so that the ball starts rolling.

    But then, of course, the usual auction-like price estimate increases should double or quadruple that estimate – so the project will be another money-loser, just in time for the usual push by hordes of mysterious pen name posters in every public media, to approve the project. Maybe a developer will even pay a university to trot out a professor to make a glowing economic forecast, to prevent a public uprising against the ripoff until it is too late. Of course, people will show up in color-coordinated clothes, carrying color-coordinated signs, in suppport of the project. And our so-called ‘leaders’ will wring their hands and wonder where the money might come from – but some big rush-rush circus will have been arranged to create another artificial emergency, to force an immediate decision, and our ‘leaders’ will follow suit and approve the project without resolving financing. The project will then be built at ridiculous cost, and the usual suspects will trot out and take a bow for coming in ‘on budget’. And then… we, and all of our progeny, can start paying for it.

    Air Rights are not some brand new invention. I even saw Dulles Rail air rights being discussed right here on Bacons Rebellion, back in 2004. Several specific plans were named. This issue was well known. So why are air rights now a sudden afterthought in 2013? Did somebody think that ‘air rights’ only applied to Metro stations west of East Falls Church, or something?

    Rail-to-Dulles Realities
    Bacons Rebellion, January 5, 2004
    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues04/01-05/Rail_realities.htm

    From that article:

    “A number of plans for air-rights development illustrate the future development: The Davis and Carter plan for air rights at Reston Avenue, The Kane/Rando plan for air rights at four Reston stations, The Kane/Tytran plan for a Tysons Corner Central station, the plans for Tysons stations prepared for The Blueprint for a Better Region PowerPoint program, etc.”

  8. Yes, I know – the three Metrorail-related projects that I cited were not air rights developments. I assert that they are related to the air rights issue because they illustrate that the business demand is simply not as great as had been thought.

    So why should that be a problem? Well, if the mixed-use narrative is a pack of lies, then I suppose it really does not matter after all. So – is that the case?

    And if we stick to the plan and build the business space, and it turns out to be too much business space for too little business – what will that do to expected financial returns? Will we be paying extra tax to mess up the whole construction economy for ourselves?

    I suggest that any deals be made very carefully. We want and need a match of serious business, along with serious residential. Pure residential is not the answer, and developments of just a lot of retail and convenience stores are not the answer. And the public should not be handed the bills.

    If this air-rights stuff is such a good idea – but gee, it was somehow overlooked in all of the decades of planning up until now – then sell the rights developers with appropriate proffers and with the proviso that a proper mix of serious commercial and residential shall be built, and that THEY will build the places, and THEY will take the risks.

    I don’t want to be hearing about more government backed loans for this, but I am convinced that such is the plan here.

  9. larryg Avatar

    re: “overlooked for decades”

    indeed. that’s like the developers missing opportunities and reminding the locality of even greater prosperity from TOD.

    remember the discussions over the years of tunnelling or “burying” Metro with cut/cover – and the angst over the additional costs – and “air rights” was never part of the discussion? (or maybe it was, I on’t know).

    why did they talk about going out 1/4 mile on density but not “up” on top of METRO?

    why is this a state-level discussion? Isn’t this something than ANY private entity could propose ? what does the State (or Fairfax or whoever) got to do to enable this other than wait for unsolicited proposals or put out an RFP?

Leave a Reply