Realizing Rosslyn: a new era of opportunity 1
AGENDA 2
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
2. Land use mix goals, targets, implications 4
5
1% 7% 6% 5% 6% 13% 4% 1% 28% 3% 1% 81% 76% 4% 64% 6
1% 7% 6% 5% 6% 13% 4% 1% 28% 3% 1% 81% 76% 4% 64% 7
Residential density (gross): 55 units/acre (2,353 units, 43 acres) 8
Residential density (gross): 71 units/acre (4,418 units, 62 acres) 9
Residential density (gross): 62 units/acre (4,311 units, 69 acres) 10
Suitable land use per building footprint Office Housing Hotel No change anticipated Scenario B shown 11
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 28,600 0.44 15,800 36,600 0.43 Clarendon 4,900 7,300 0.67 8,400 12,600 0.67 Courthouse 12,500 15,300 0.82 15,600 17,900 0.87 Virginia Square 6,100 8,900 0.69 8,200 13,000 0.63 Pentagon City 6,800 10,500 0.65 11,300 24,000 0.47 Crystal City 10,600 44,200 0.24 14,600 66,100 0.22 Rosslyn (Round 8.2) 10,800 34,200 0.32 15,300 58,600 0.26 REALIZE ROSSLYN PLANNING POTENTIAL RCRD only 666 29,754 0.02 6,615 50,982 0.13 This reflects Scenario C as currently modeled This is based on 8.2 forecast; subject to change based on Realize Rosslyn outcome 12
3. Analysis of scenarios A, B and C = Scenario A = Scenario B 13
Building form scenarios A New Heights Plan for Rosslyn: starting points 14
Building form scenarios A New Heights Plan for Rosslyn: starting points 15
Building form scenarios Strict Taper Policy 10 FAR on all sites 16
Building form scenarios New Varied Heights policy for a better Rosslyn 17
Building form scenarios Varied Heights Policy can achieve more building 18
Building form scenarios The scenarios: peaks and tapers 19
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
Building form scenarios SITE ID PROPERTY NAME B8 RCA Building (Rosslyn East) A19 1555 Wilson Blvd B4 Holiday Inn B13-14 Ames Center + ATUMC D1 Architects Building (1400 Wilson) B23 Pomponio Plaza East A29 1500 Wilson Blvd D18-19 Key and Berkeley Bldgs A21 1515 Wilson Blvd (Art Associates) B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza I B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza II B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza III B25-31 Rosslyn Plaza IV A20 1525 Wilson Blvd A25-26-27 1550 Wilson Blvd A28 1530 Wilson Blvd D3 Commonwealth Tower D4 Noland Building (1300 17th St) D5 Xerox Building (1616 Fort Myer Dr) D20 Park Place B15 Hyatt Hotel B17 Rosslyn Center B22 International Place B24 1101 Wilson Blvd B5 Turnberry Tower B6-7 Rosslyn Gateway B9 Waterview B10 Potomac Tower B11-12 1400 Wilson Blvd 1400 Key Blvd B16 1812 N Moore B18 Central Place Residential B20 Central Place Office B21 1801 N Lynn St D21 1100 Wilson Blvd D22 1000 Wilson Blvd WRAPS 21
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) 208-234 235-274 275-299 300-339 340-388 WRAPS 22
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) 1-349 350-399 400-449 450-470 WRAPS 23
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) 208-235 236-274 275-299 300-339 340-388 WRAPS 24
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) 1-349 350-399 400-449 450-470 WRAPS 25
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above average site elevation) 208-235 236-274 275-299 300-339 340-388 WRAPS 26
Building form scenarios Building Heights (above mean sea level) 1-349 350-399 400-449 450-470 WRAPS 27
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
Building form scenarios Goals for tonight s review of scenarios 29
30
31
32
33
= Scenario A = Scenario B 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Observation deck view corridors Scenario A - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 41
Observation deck view corridors Scenario B - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 42
Observation deck view corridors Scenario C - view to southeast/monumental Core Rosslyn Plaza Old Post Office Capitol Washington Monument Lincoln Memorial International Place 43
Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 44
Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 45
Observation deck view corridors View to northwest: Potomac Gorge 46
Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 47
Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 48
Observation deck view corridors View to south: Iwo Jima and Pentagon 49
Figure-Ground Ground level (elevation varies) 50
Figure-Ground Mid-level (~300 AMSL) 51
Figure-Ground Mid-level (~390 AMSL) 52
Figure-Ground Upper-level (~430 AMSL) 53
TOWER SEPARATION ~50 to 55 ~55 to 65 54
Total façade plane Façade plane obstruction 55
56
57
58
59
60
61
= Scenario A = Scenario B 62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
= Scenario A = Scenario B 70
71
72
73
74
75
76
= Scenario A = Scenario B 77
Shadow studies March 21, 9 am: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 78
Shadow studies March 21, 12 pm: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 79
Shadow studies March 21, 3 pm: potential Gateway Park Gateway Park Gateway Park 80
81
82
83
= Scenario A = Scenario B 84
85
86
87
= Scenario A = Scenario B 88
89
90
91
= Scenario A = Scenario B 92
Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (62%) Housing (32%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated WRAPS 93
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 9.4 267 WRAPS ASE 462 ASL 9.4 262 ASE 456 ASL 9.3 268 ASE 460 ASL 9.5 354 ASE 467 ASL 8.5 295 ASE 466 ASL 9.9 234 ASE 422 ASL 10 300 ASE 448 ASL 8.1 299 ASE 467 ASL 8.2 336 ASE 463 ASL 10 229 ASE 319 ASL 9.5 333 ASE 461 ASL 10 293 ASE 438 ASL 10 345 ASE 461 ASL 8.2 331 ASE 470 ASL 10 300 ASE 450 ASL 10 195 ASE 291 ASL 8.5 306 ASE 402 ASL 9.9 355 ASE 470 ASL 8.7 330 ASE 454 ASL 10 207 ASE 326 ASL 9.8 286-332 ASE 376-422 ASL 9.7 221 ASE 310 ASL 94
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 9.4 267 WRAPS ASE 462 ASL 9.4 262 ASE 456 ASL 9.3 268 ASE 460 ASL 9.5 354 ASE 467 ASL 8.5 295 ASE 466 ASL 9.9 234 ASE 422 ASL 10 300 ASE 448 ASL 8.1 299 ASE 467 ASL 8.2 336 ASE 463 ASL 13.1 339 ASE 429 ASL 9.5 333 ASE 461 ASL 10 293 ASE 438 ASL 10 345 ASE 461 ASL 8.2 331 ASE 470 ASL 10 300 ASE 450 ASL 17.8 364 ASE 460 ASL 8.5 306 ASE 402 ASL 9.9 355 ASE 470 ASL 8.7 330 ASE 454 ASL 14.8 350 ASE 470 ASL 9.8 286-332 ASE 376-422 ASL 11.9 273 ASE 362 ASL 95
Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (67%) Housing (27%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated WRAPS 96
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 9.4 267 WRAPS ASE 462 ASL 9.8 267 ASE 461 ASL 10 279 ASE 470 ASL 10 345 ASE 458 ASL 10 288 ASE 459 ASL 9.9 234 ASE 422 ASL 10 300 ASE 448 ASL 8.1 299 ASE 467 ASL 10 229 ASE 319 ASL 8.1 336 ASE 463 ASL 9.5 333 ASE 461 ASL 10 293 ASE 438 ASL 10 345 ASE 461 ASL 8.2 331 ASE 470 ASL 9.8 286 ASE 437 ASL 10 195 ASE 291 ASL 8.5 306 ASE 402 ASL 9.8 319 ASE 434 ASL 8.1 286 ASE 410 ASL 10 207 ASE 326 ASL 9.4 267-332 ASE 357-422 ASL 10 234 ASE 323 ASL 97
Suitable land use per building footprint (share of new development) Office (63%) Housing (31%) Hotel (4%) No change anticipated 98
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 8.6 228 WRAPS ASE 423 ASL 8.3 266 ASE 460 ASL 8.3 266 ASE 460 ASL 8.1 262 ASE 375 ASL 8.8 288 ASE 459 ASL 9.9 234 ASE 422 ASL 10 300 ASE 448 ASL 9.2 299 ASE 467 ASL 8.1 281 ASE 410 ASL 9.8 273 ASE 363 ASL 8.1 278 ASE 406 ASL 10 228 ASE 373 ASL 10 345 ASE 462 ASL 8.1 273 ASE 412 ASL 8.7 228 ASE 379 ASL 9.9 334 ASE 430 ASL 8.2 286 ASE 383 ASL 8.1 286 ASE 401 ASL 8.1 286 ASE 410 ASL 9.9 218 ASE 337 ASL 8.7 215-358 ASE 305-448 ASL 9.8 264 ASE 353 ASL 99
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
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
103
104
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
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
4. Next steps 107