Realizing Rosslyn: a new era of opportunity GOODY CLANCY WITH KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES RHODESIDE & HARWELL FARR ASSOCIATES W-ZHA

Transcription

1 Realizing Rosslyn: a new era of opportunity 1

2 AGENDA 2

3 Building Heights and Massing Subcommittee Approach and General Work Plan Confirm assumptions, goals, and performance criteria Determine 3 alternative scenarios to explore for analysis Model 3 scenarios for review, discussion Continue review of 3 scenarios, with expanded analysis Meeting 1 Seek input to narrow 3 scenarios down to 1 (or towards a hybrid) Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Present 1 preferred scenario for review, discussion (and refinement) Draft design guidelines, regulatory strategies Meeting 4 3

4 2. Land use mix goals, targets, implications 4

5 5

6 1% 7% 6% 5% 6% 13% 4% 1% 28% 3% 1% 81% 76% 4% 64% 6

7 1% 7% 6% 5% 6% 13% 4% 1% 28% 3% 1% 81% 76% 4% 64% 7

8 Residential density (gross): 55 units/acre (2,353 units, 43 acres) 8

9 Residential density (gross): 71 units/acre (4,418 units, 62 acres) 9

10 Residential density (gross): 62 units/acre (4,311 units, 69 acres) 10

11 Suitable land use per building footprint Office Housing Hotel No change anticipated Scenario B shown 11

12 Arlington Metro Station Area Resident and Employee Estimates Round 8.2 Forecast AREA 2010 Residents 2010 Employees 2010 Resident: 2040 Residents 2040 Employees 2040 Resident: # # Employee # # Employee Ballston 12,600 28, ,800 36, Clarendon 4,900 7, ,400 12, Courthouse 12,500 15, ,600 17, Virginia Square 6,100 8, ,200 13, Pentagon City 6,800 10, ,300 24, Crystal City 10,600 44, ,600 66, Rosslyn (Round 8.2) 10,800 34, ,300 58, REALIZE ROSSLYN PLANNING POTENTIAL RCRD only , ,615 50, This reflects Scenario C as currently modeled This is based on 8.2 forecast; subject to change based on Realize Rosslyn outcome 12

13 3. Analysis of scenarios A, B and C = Scenario A = Scenario B 13

14 Building form scenarios A New Heights Plan for Rosslyn: starting points 14

15 Building form scenarios A New Heights Plan for Rosslyn: starting points 15

16 Building form scenarios Strict Taper Policy 10 FAR on all sites 16

17 Building form scenarios New Varied Heights policy for a better Rosslyn 17

18 Building form scenarios Varied Heights Policy can achieve more building 18

19 Building form scenarios The scenarios: peaks and tapers 19

20 Building form scenarios The scenarios: building layout *Note: Scenario parameters for modeling apply broadly across the study area, yet in select instances sites may depart slightly to reach at least 8 FAR 20

21 Building form scenarios SITE ID PROPERTY NAME B8 RCA Building (Rosslyn East) A Wilson Blvd B4 Holiday Inn B13-14 Ames Center + ATUMC D1 Architects Building (1400 Wilson) B23 Pomponio Plaza East A Wilson Blvd D18-19 Key and Berkeley Bldgs A Wilson Blvd (Art Associates) B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza I B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza II B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza III B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza IV A Wilson Blvd A Wilson Blvd A Wilson Blvd D3 Commonwealth Tower D4 Noland Building ( th St) D5 Xerox Building (1616 Fort Myer Dr) D20 Park Place B15 Hyatt Hotel B17 Rosslyn Center B22 International Place B Wilson Blvd B5 Turnberry Tower B6-7 Rosslyn Gateway B9 Waterview B10 Potomac Tower B Wilson Blvd 1400 Key Blvd B N Moore B18 Central Place Residential B20 Central Place Office B N Lynn St D Wilson Blvd D Wilson Blvd WRAPS 21

22 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) WRAPS 22

23 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) WRAPS 23

24 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) WRAPS 24

25 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) WRAPS 25

26 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) WRAPS 26

27 Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) WRAPS 27

28 4. Scenario analysis How do the scenarios compare? Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Ground level view corridors Observation deck priority views Good views from all buildings Good daylight access to buildings Sensitive edge transitions (neighborhood, park, river) Sun/shade opportunities Varied building heights / skyline Great open space and additional circulation opportunities Marketable sites, multiple-use options Land use mix Composite 28

29 Building form scenarios Goals for tonight s review of scenarios 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 = Scenario A = Scenario B 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 Observation deck view corridors Scenario A - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 41

42 Observation deck view corridors Scenario B - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 42

43 Observation deck view corridors Scenario C - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 43

44 Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 44

45 Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 45

46 Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 46

47 Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 47

48 Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 48

49 Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 49

50 Figure-Ground Ground level (elevation varies) 50

51 Figure-Ground Mid-level (~300 AMSL) 51

52 Figure-Ground Mid-level (~390 AMSL) 52

53 Figure-Ground Upper-level (~430 AMSL) 53

54 TOWER SEPARATION ~50 to 55 ~55 to 65 54

55 Total façade plane Façade plane obstruction 55

56 56

57 57

58 58

59 59

60 60

61 61

62 = Scenario A = Scenario B 62

63 63

64 64

65 65

66 66

67 67

68 68

69 69

70 = Scenario A = Scenario B 70

71 71

72 72

73 73

74 74

75 75

76 76

77 = Scenario A = Scenario B 77

78 Shadow studies March 21, 9 am: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 78

79 Shadow studies March 21, 12 pm: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 79

80 Shadow studies March 21, 3 pm: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 80

81 81

82 82

83 83

84 = Scenario A = Scenario B 84

85 85

86 86

87 87

88 = Scenario A = Scenario B 88

89 89

90 90

91 91

92 = Scenario A = Scenario B 92

93 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (62%) Housing (32%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated WRAPS 93

94 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (64%) Housing (32%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated Average FAR 9.5 ASE = building height (in feet) above average site elevation ASL = building height (in feet) above mean sea level WRAPS ASE 462 ASL ASE 456 ASL ASE 460 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 466 ASL ASE 422 ASL ASE 448 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 463 ASL ASE 319 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 438 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 450 ASL ASE 291 ASL ASE 402 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 454 ASL ASE 326 ASL ASE ASL ASE 310 ASL 94

95 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (64%) Housing (32%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated Average FAR 10 ASE = building height (in feet) above average site elevation ASL = building height (in feet) above mean sea level WRAPS ASE 462 ASL ASE 456 ASL ASE 460 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 466 ASL ASE 422 ASL ASE 448 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 463 ASL ASE 429 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 438 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 450 ASL ASE 460 ASL ASE 402 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 454 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE ASL ASE 362 ASL 95

96 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (67%) Housing (27%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated WRAPS 96

97 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (70%) Housing (26%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated Average FAR 9.5 ASE = building height (in feet) above average site elevation ASL = building height (in feet) above mean sea level WRAPS ASE 462 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 458 ASL ASE 459 ASL ASE 422 ASL ASE 448 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 319 ASL ASE 463 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 438 ASL ASE 461 ASL ASE 470 ASL ASE 437 ASL ASE 291 ASL ASE 402 ASL ASE 434 ASL ASE 410 ASL ASE 326 ASL ASE ASL ASE 323 ASL 97

98 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (63%) Housing (31%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated 98

99 Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (58%) Housing (37%) Hotel (5%) No change anticipated Average FAR 8.8 ASE = building height (in feet) above average site elevation ASL = building height (in feet) above mean sea level WRAPS ASE 423 ASL ASE 460 ASL ASE 460 ASL ASE 375 ASL ASE 459 ASL ASE 422 ASL ASE 448 ASL ASE 467 ASL ASE 410 ASL ASE 363 ASL ASE 406 ASL ASE 373 ASL ASE 462 ASL ASE 412 ASL ASE 379 ASL ASE 430 ASL ASE 383 ASL ASE 401 ASL ASE 410 ASL ASE 337 ASL ASE ASL ASE 353 ASL 99

100 3% Existing + approved 1% 2% scenario A 1% 2% scenario B 1% scenario C 2% 1% 41% 46% 44% 46% 42% 48% 47% 42% 9% 7% 7% 8% 2% scenario A with TDR 1% 44% 46% 7% 100

101 Existing + approved 4% 1% 3% scenario A 1% 3% scenario B 1% scenario C 3% 1% 6% 13% 28% 24% 32% 76% 5% 63% 5% 67% 5% 59% 3% scenario A with TDR 1% 28% 63% 5% 101

102 102

103 103

104 104

105 4. Scenario analysis How do the scenarios compare? Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Ground level view corridors Observation deck priority views Good views from all buildings Good daylight access to buildings Sensitive edge transitions (neighborhood, park, river) Sun/shade opportunities Varied building heights / skyline Great open space and additional circulation opportunities Marketable sites, multiple-use options Land use mix Composite 105

106 4. Scenario analysis How do the scenarios compare? The differences: Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Observation deck priority views Good views from all buildings Good daylight access to buildings Sensitive edge transitions (neighborhood, park, river) Sun/shade opportunities Varied building heights / skyline Composite 106

107 4. Next steps 107