It reminds us, first, that the only thing approximating community input is in the hands of the so-called Reston Planning and Zoning Committee, a volunteer, self-appointed group organized by Reston Association.
Second, the article makes clear that, under current planning and zoning ordinance and procedures, many properties, including the Fairway apartments, are zoned for much higher densities than their current development. When Fairfax County first raised the issue of revising the planning and zoning ordinance, staff suggested that a reasonable revision would include freezing zoning at the current level of development rather than whatever density was considered when the property was first developed. When Supervisor Hudgins seized control of the revision process, that notion disappeared, never to be seen or heard of again.
Third, the story also makes clear that the current planning process deals with properties on a piecemeal basis, without considering the wider impacts that higher densities might bring. A member of the Planning and Zoning committee commented that "from a planning standpoint" the higher density project looked "pretty good." He didn't explain what "pretty good" meant, but the context suggests that he was talking about the building design and so on. Certainly reviewers need to consider such things, but, if they are to serve the community, they need also to consider the project's potential impact on surrounding properties and on the community as a whole. Higher densities mean more cars on Reston's roads, for example; roads that, according to the County's own studies, are already over-crowded. If the planning and zoning process, in the Planning and Zoning Committee or elsewhere, can not and does not consider such wider impacts, it's of little use. It need not be this way. In Montgomery County, for example, a project's impact on traffic and school populations, for example, play large roles in the planning process.
Finally, the story demonstrates that some of the concepts casually tossed around by developers and planners have little real meaning. Apparently, one of the justifications for higher densities at the Fairway apartments is that the site is near Lake Anne and the Reston Town Center and business owners in those areas are looking for more foot traffic. I was not aware, first, that it is now the community's responsibility to rebuild itself to meet business owners' needs. More important, the notion that people are going to walk to stories is overblown. My own experience is that folks in Northern Virginia rarely walk to the stores, almost never to the grocery store, for example. For all the hoopla about the Town Center being walkable, I would venture to say that less than five percent of Harris Teeter's, Best Buy's, or Office Depot's business comes from foot traffic, perhaps much less than five percent.
An article by Ruth Steiner, a planning expert from academia, describes the limited role foot traffic plays in shopping center business, even around BART stations in the San Francisco area. Steiner also makes the argument that stores can not survive on foot traffic alone. Since they need the customers that come by car, their stores need parking spaces. Once parking spaces are available, everyone will drive to the stores, even people who could walk. If the stores prosper, they will attract business from even wider areas, drawing still more traffic. In the end, locating stores near dense developments and rail stations may indeed increase traffic and congestion, rather than reduce it, as our developers are wont to argue. You don't have to buy all of Steiner's argument to recognize that merely including the word "walkability" does not make a development proposal more attractive.
