1

Discussion of Draft Reston 2020

Alternative Vision for Reston Town Center

November 16, 2010

Terry Maynard
 2

Key Changes from AV First Draft

• More reality-based
▫ Acknowledges conditions on the ground
▫ Offers substantial opportunities & incentives
• Provides better explanation of need for AV
▫ Tries to be more constructive, less critical
• More clearly defines goal, strategic direction
• Plan recommendations are driven by population factors
• Some key specific changes
▫ Keeps civic functions in TCN, not at Fannie Mae
▫ Reductions in some large open space areas
 3

Goal and Strategic Direction Defined

• Goal: Make RTC a world-class model of urban TOD
development in a planned community
• Strategic Direction:
▫ Move toward balance in residential and non-
residential development
▫ Assure availability of open space for long term.
▫ Create an appropriate internal infrastructure.
▫ Diversify and enhance the mix of uses.
 4

Key Highlights
• Allows near doubling of GSF (86%)—not NIMBY!
▫ Nearly 4X increase in residential space
▫ Near 50% increase in office space
▫ Adds 15,000 residents, 20,000 jobs
• Requires 25% open space highlighted by
▫ Large park in TCN (15-20 acres)
▫ Incentivized large plaza/park in Metro South by arts center
• Requires building an elementary school
• Calls for incentivized major arts center in Metro South
• Requires numerous transportation improvements
▫ Tunnel under DTR
▫ Many ped/bike, transit, and a few road improvements
 5

New Foreword Explains AV Need

• More constructive approach than critiquing.
• Offers alternative that can be stand alone, melded,
or driver of new ideas.
• Explains committee report insufficient attention to:
▫ Infrastructure
▫ Amenities
▫ TOD principles
• Puts alternative in context of larger Reston 2020
effort.
 6

Analytical Approach Builds from Population

• Populations of all types are key to TOD success
▫ Non-Res:Res balance reduces congestion growth,
environmental impact.
▫ Identifies impacts of needed robust use mix.
▫ Points to sustainable levels of growth that won’t
outstrip needed infrastructure.
• Leads to well-reasoned FARs & allocations.
• Unique, suitable vision for each land sub-unit helps
qualitative as well as quantitative proposal.
 7

Report Provides Analytical Results

• The current CP looks good in both
quantity and mix.
▫ R2020 and current CP are nearly
identical.
• It meets every GMU CRA level of
population & build demand.
▫ Substantially exceeds residential
demand intentionally
• AV reduces residential gap by
more than half.
▫ Still more than 3:1.
• Highlights key impacts.
 8

Report Discusses Each LSU in Context

• Fits in TOD context
▫ Central within quarter-mile
▫ Peripheral within half-mile—TC Core a special case
▫ Non-TOD outside half-mile ring—includes TC North
• Describes “as is” condition
• Describes vision & changes needed to fulfill vision
• Provides FAR and allocation percentages
 9

Identifies Key Development Needs & Incentives

• Infrastructure
▫ Many transportation needs, led by tunnel, transit, ped/bike
needs
▫ Build an elementary school for RTC kids
• Amenities
▫ Open space – 25% requirement
▫ Environment – go for LEED gold
▫ Accessibility—visitability required, universal design encouraged
• World-class status
▫ Architecture—reward award winning design
▫ Housing diversity—workforce housing required
• Incentives
▫ Offers generous, additive incentives to achieve preceding
▫ Offers HUGE incentive for building arts center in Metro South
 10

Next steps:
• Reston 2020 approval of draft as amended tonight.
• Incorporate approved changes.
• Pass by Coordinating Committee for comment.
• Submit to Reston Task Force before their next
meeting.
 11

Questions?
Comments?
Concerns?
Ideas?