Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Reston Station Area Athletic Fields Situation Gets Worse

The Reston Station Area Athletic Fields Situation Gets Worse

Ratings: (0)|Views: 103|Likes:
Published by Terry Maynard
This article by Terry Maynard, RCA's representative to the Reston Task Force, was posted on the local online newspaper, Reston Patch on October 28, 2013. It highlights how poorly served the residents of the planned urbanizing areas of Reston will be in terms of parks and athletic fields.
This article by Terry Maynard, RCA's representative to the Reston Task Force, was posted on the local online newspaper, Reston Patch on October 28, 2013. It highlights how poorly served the residents of the planned urbanizing areas of Reston will be in terms of parks and athletic fields.

More info:

Published by: Terry Maynard on Oct 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
The RestonStation AreaAthletic Field Situation Gets Worse
The County Parks staff is making up “standards” that cut the need for athletic fieldsin Reston’surbanizing areasby more than 90 percent.
Terry Maynard, RCA Representative to the Reston TaskForce
The County Parks staff is making up “standards” that cut the need for athletic fields in Reston’surbanizing areas by more than 90 percent.
A month ago, I wrote apost hereon the urban parks wasteland envisioned for Restonas developers aregiven the go ahead to more than double building density around Reston’s Metrorail stations.Part of that development envisions adding up to 44,000 new residents, including some 4,000 to 6,000 kids.Thelatest draft Plan—
the final draft before this Plan goes to the County Planning Commission for a hearingand its endorsement 
calls for adding as few as
three athletic fields
of any type for those residents.If you share my concern that this proposal is unacceptable for Reston,this Tuesday evening’s meeting of the Reston Task Forcewill be the last time you will have to tell the task force you believe Restondeserves better.The task force intends to endorse the draft Plan at that meeting.Anyone may speakfor a few minutes in the public input portion of the meeting at its outset.The meeting is at
RAHeadquarters Conference Center, 7PM, Tuesday, October 29, 2013
.Worse,new languagecalls for, “Enhancements to and redesign of nearby . . . Reston Association fieldsto increase capacity. . . for serving the increased athletic field needs in Reston.(See p.78 of Version10 of the draft plan.) That means the 60,000 of us who live in Reston are being asked to provide ourprivately-owned and annually paid for athletic fields to serve the needs of 44,000 new residents.
Do you think that will lead to further overcrowding of Reston’s existing athletic fields? Do you suspect that may not be consistent with what the County provides elsewhere? Do you think Restonians will pay for the bulk of these enhancements and redesigns? Do you think that isfair
The math behind this limited addition to Reston’s parks and athletic fields is twisted.It undercutsReston’s commitment to extensive open space and recreational facilities.In particular, it makesReston’s urban dwellers—like their counterparts inTysons—second-class citizens.And Restonians willprobably pay for the privilege of reducing their park and recreation access.Warning:The rest of this post looks at the details and gets a bit wonkish.First, a look at park space.The County’s UrbanParks Framework, an appendix in theCounty’s policyplan for parks and recreation,makes a point of justifying about one-third as much overall park space forthe County’s urban residents as its suburban residents, includingReston.The suburban standard is fiveacres of parkland for every 1,000 residents; the urban one is 1.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000
 
2residents topped with a one-acre dollop of space for every 10,000 employees.In Reston, the Countysuburban standardwould lead to about 270 acres of parkland in the station areas.The urban standardleads to 95 acres in Reston’s station areas.The result is that less than six percent of the total Reston station area space will be devoted to parks.Bycomparison, NewYork City’s Manhattan Borough, the most densely populated, most densely employed,and most valuable piece of urbanreal estatein the United States, has more than 19% of its land devotedto parks and recreation.Now for a look at athletic fields.The same County policy plan for parks and recreation, updated just fivemonths ago with the Urban Parks Framework, sustains a “Population-based Countywide Service LevelStandard” (pp. 21-22) for all types of park-based facilities from playgrounds to athletic fields toequestrian parks.It does not distinguish between urban and suburban standards.Applyingthatstandard to the population being projected for Reston’s station areas for impact analysis purposes—anumber about ten percent less than permitted under the proposed plan--dictates a requirement for35athletic fieldsin Reston’s station areas—
more than ten times the number that the County’s draft plansees as adequate.
Four weeks ago,a Park Authority memorandum provided guidance to the Planning staff noted thatReston’s station areas have a25 athletic field“net need using
suburban
service level standards.(Emphasis added)”So there it is:A unilateral Park Planning Staff decisionthat countywide standardsapply only to suburban areas.This distinction has not been approved by the Park Authority Board, theCounty Planning Commission, or the Board of Supervisors.Moreover, I don’t know where the other 10athletic fields are in thestation areas (I am aware of none) that would meet cover the differencebetween the 25 identified here and the 35 “gross” athletic field official countywide—or newlycharacterized “suburban”—standard.The memorandum goes on to state that Reston’s “adjusted urban need” is for onlytwelve athleticfields.That’s half the “net” need and one-third the “countywide” standard.So, the latest draft plan says “A goal of adding capacity equivalent to twelve athletic fields servingReston should be achieved . . . In general, 4.5 million square feet of mixed use development generatesthe need for one athletic field.”One has to turn to Tysons planning to find out where that 4.5 million SF standard came from.It turnsout that, in the Tysons planning process, the developer-dominated task force
agreed to allow 
25 athleticfields to be built there with a planned total mixed use development of 113 million SF by 2050.Thenthey created a “standard”
ex post facto
by dividing the latter by the former.
Voila!One athletic field pe4.5 million total SF 
.”It is not based on residential population needs; it’s based on square footage of profitmaking, tax-generating development.The Plan reduces that number of athletic fields by 20% toaccount for more limitedpopulation projections (80,000 residents) than the Plan permits(100,000).Nonetheless, using that bewildering “standard,” Tysons will have one athletic field for every4,000 residents while Reston will have one field for as many as 16,000 residents in its station areas
.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->