N. Washington Streetscape Plan Presented at Work Session
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
The highlight of the City Council and Planning Commission’s joint work session Monday night was a presentation on the proposed streetscape design for North Washington Street.
The extensive draft plan, in the works since May 2008, includes a number of sustainable technologies such as bioretention cells, permeable pavements, native vegetation and locally-available materials.
The plan proposes the use of bio-retention cells in the planting areas that will collect storm water, filter it, and allow it to infiltrate the ground. The cells will be terraced on the sloped portions of the street. Vegetation used in the planters would be appropriate for bio-retention areas and would not require additional irrigation.
The plan also calls for permeable pavement in certain areas along the street. Permeable pavement is designed to allow storm water to infiltrate into the ground. The design includes perforated pipes below the surface to drain stored water.
The plan specifies details for the street furnishings, which include the bus shelters, trash and recycling receptacles, benches, and light fixtures.
Final design guidelines will be prepared and then presented to the Council for formal adoption, though it is unclear how soon and how much of the streetscape plan actually will be adopted and subsequently implemented.
City Manager Wyatt Shields advised that $6 million in state and federal funds have been allocated for transportation improvements, some of which could be used to implement aspects of the plan.
Comments from commissioners and Council members generally were very favorable.
Councilman Dan Maller observed that such projects inevitably involve conflicting priorities, in this case the vibrancy of the streetscape versus environmental considerations. Most of those present seemed more concerned with the latter, though some also stressed the need to make the corridor more economically viable.
Planning Commission Chairman John Lawrence, who stated he’d liked the plan from the start, spoke for Commissioner Russ Wodiska, who was at home with H1NI. Mr. Wodiska regarded the plan as beautiful and appealing, but felt that it lacked consistency with Broad Street’s “look.”
Commissioner Lindy Hockenberrry noted that South Washington also needed a skeletal streetscape plan. City planner Wendy Block Sanford advised that a pedestrian plan for that stretch of the street could be ready in nine months.
Mr. Shields estimated that a draft implementation plan for North Washington could be ready for review at the Council’s December 14 meeting.
Video of the joint work session is available here.
By George Bromley
November 18, 2009
Many of the aspects of the plan described in George Bromley’s article are low impact development (LID) strategies, e.g. permeable pavement. LID is also being implemented by the City at various sites through the installation of rain gardens.
Improvement to this corridor is essential – it is not a comfortable place to walk or appealing to the eye currently, and not inviting to new development. To accomplish the improvements in a manner consistent with 21st century priorities which include water runoff mitigation is very important and forward thinking. The corridor doesn’t have to conform with the Broad St. corridor, it just has to transition well. That’s why we are paying these consultants the big bucks.
I generally support the streetscaping plans for North Washington and I think being very focused on the environmental impact of the proposed changes is a great thing. However, I would caution that we need to make sure that the changes provide significant benefits to pedestrians and hopefully bicyclists as well. Encouraging non-car transportation has a huge positive environmental impact, seems to reflect the general vibe we’re going for in Falls Church, and also has a positive impact on economic development.
From the plans I’ve seen, my main concern is that the sidewalks are not necessarily wide enough. I know that’s a really tricky issue (there’s limited space to work with) but I think it’s really important to build in enough space to make these streetscapes successful.
Andy:
I agree with you on non-car transport is important, but for through bicycles on Rt. 29 headed toward the WO&D, it is better to have them on a parallel road like Little Falls than sharing busy Rt. 29 with its curbs and narrow lanes. For the sidewalk space, there is the issue of existing structures (like State Theater), but also the unwritten (?) expectation in the planning department that buildings on our commercial corridors have 14′ sidewalks – no more, no less. This is what I was told was expected for the 800 W. Broad Flower building, and the yet to be built Hilton Garden Inn – they could not be further back than 14′. If wider sidewalks are desired, than there has to be flexibility here too.
Gordon,
Yeah, I think Little Falls might be a good route for bikes – I’d love to have the City focus on that street and designate bike lanes and/or improve the fairly lame sidewalk (I live on Little Falls!).
I don’t know about the sidewalk details – and I’m guessing it’s a bigger issue than just this streetscaping. The Flower Building is a great example of what I don’t want to replicate. Eating out front of Flippin’ Pizza is cramped and you’re right on top of the street and there’s hardly any room for pedestrians. Even in front of Pearson Square along South Maple, more generous sidewalks would help retail business (I think) – if we ever get any in there.
But I’m guessing there would be push back – wider sidewalks means less space for buildings. I’d rather see them go up a little higher and accommodate more sidewalk, but I know that’s controversial too.
And I really don’t know what to do about things like the State Theater – it’s hard to move a building! Of course, that’s why I think it’s important to think hard about this because if we eventually come to the conclusion that wider sidewalks would be better it’s already too late for the Flower Building.
Anyway, I don’t have much in the way of concrete suggestions, and this topic is pretty far outside of any experience or expertise I have, I mostly wanted to raise the idea that making the City more walkable (and bicycle friendly) can actually have a huge impact on the environment and be economically beneficial too. I’m sure the experts have been considering that but I’m a little worried that a special planter box that eats up several feet of sidewalk, discouraging pedestrians, could end up doing more harm than good in the long run (that’s not a specific suggestion to make the planter boxes smaller – I have no idea – just pointing out the potential for unintended consequences).
Hey guys, first I’ll say bravo to the City for hiring a consultant to put a sidewalk plan in place, we need to do a lot more of this for areas of the City that are redeveloping. Andy is right though, the primary focus should be on the pedestrian, one of the best things you can do for the environment is encourage non-car traffic.
So the plan is a good start, but there are some things that could make it better. First, the stormwater structures are 10 feet wide by 30 feet long. By making them so large, you eat up valuable sidewalk space for walkers, and also don’t leave room for benches, trash cans, bike racks, newspaper racks, etc in between…all the stuff you want in active space. Take a look at the sidewalks in downtown DC for an example of all the things that would go into active sidewalk space (albeit on a smaller scale).
Also these long stormwater structures create wall-like separations between pedestrians and car traffic, which in effect will encourage cars on Washington to speed up rather than slow down. Think about the long planters on Route 7, they’re about 20 feet long +/- and currently do the same thing…very car friendly. Now if you could imagine on-street parallel parking instead, that actually serves to slow traffic down while still providing a safety buffer between pedestrians and cars. Not to mention it really helps support retail along the street.
Second, as Andy points out the curbline remains the same in this plan and there’s no room for a bike lane. Big mistake. Bike lanes work in high traffic areas, and North Washington is the front door to the center of town. Why divert bikes to a secondary road? All the activity is on Washington and encouraging bikes there ought to be a goal. Washington shouldn’t be a car commuter route only. Check out Clarendon, people used to call that area Carlington, it was similar in many ways to North Washington. But Arlington has done a great job planning, and bikes are free to ride on the main roads.
Have you ever biked in Tucson? I have and it’s great for bikers! Almost every major road has bike lanes. And when I say major, I mean at three lanes in each direction plus turning lanes in the middle. But it works, bikers have the same privleges as car drivers and it’s awesome.
The last thing I’ll suggest is a plan like this needs to be for the next 30 years. Some properties are ready to redevelop soon, but others will take many years. But eventually most properties will redevelop if the right incentives are in place. So it’s really important to get your curbline right, and how far we’ll require buildings to setback from the curbline. If we want cafes with sidewalk seating for example, we need to make sure there’s enough room to accommodate.
Again, great job to the City for putting this together, it’s a very positive move. I think there are ways to improve it but we’re off to a good start.
I hope the plan can effectively address the more “portable” components like newspaper racks and sandwich signs that are typically placed randomly along the sidewalk. These definitely compete for sidewalk space and for the most part have limited visual appeal. Walk anywhere along streetscaped portions of Broad Street and you will see plenty of examples. Perhaps it is time to exert control over these items in some way so they do not encroach upon active sidewalk space.
VPIS studied this issue and prepared a report March 1993 which is in the library. It is an extension to the Hyatt-Palma report, also in the library, which everyone practically in the city attended meetings and inputed. Of course, in the FC way, the report was put on the shelve and forgotten. However, in response to the HP report, VPIS commissioned in 1991 the DC architectual firm Stokoe-Callison to help transform the consensus to reality. The VPIS report demonstrated that there are more wholesome alternatives to commercial sprawl in suburban areas and that architectural design can help preserve as well as improve our community. The report is entilted “The Future of the City: Genesis for Progress in Falls Church, North Washington Street”. It is worth the read.
I have to admit I don’t know, what got us working on these plans now, some 18 years after the Hyatt-Palma Report. It needs doing, no question. We have $6m which I thought was for city center improvements, so how did we finally look down the street? George, can you tell us?
I’m really surprised that this overview did not talk about plans for a city entrance at the Arlington/City border, plans for several points of interest located along the way, and plans for a better design for the Washington/Broad intersection. I think these components are really important to making the streetscape more interesting to walkers and safer.
Citizen input asked for trees,trees, trees, and the streetscape design did a nice job of including planting areas for trees while also retaining storm water. As the city increases impervious surface the effect of runoff has become more negative. The bioretention aspect of the design is an environmental feature, but it is also a positive for private property owners. Many properties in the city are affected negatively by storm water and the number is increasing.
Wherever possible the plan calls for 10 feet for the pedestrian walkway and 10 feet for the planting areas for a total of 20 feet. In some areas, like the State Theater this is not currently achievable. Planters for trees have to be 7 to 8 feet, so the bioretention feature only adds a few feet. Having the planters will create a vegetation barrier between the cars and the pedestrians. This will make walking along North Washington a much more pleasant experience.
The granite curbing around the planters will typically be about 4 inches tall. Only where the grade is steep will you see higher walls to deal with the change in grade. In those areas the wall may approach 1 1/2 to 2 feet, but the tops will be capped with a wider and rounded granite to provide seating on the pedestrian side. In some areas the planters will be fairly long, but they will not obstruct any legal crossing areas.
I am one of those who feels a bike path is better placed on Little Falls, but am open to one on Washington if it could be added safely. I think outside cafe seating would be negotiated case-by-case with developers. If a developer wants cafe seating then more than 20 feet may be necessary or a change in the planter may be needed. I would like to see on-street parking, but that would also have to be worked out with the developer. Additionally, Washington Street is a National Highway and changes have to be approved by VDOT.
While the Washington Streetscape plan should have plenty of tree space and water management, it should not try to produce yet another look in primary arteries of a City whose appearance is already far too fragmented. We are too small for four or five brands. Every study that we do (over and over) says that people are not sure of where the City of Falls Church is located. That is because of the lack of visble clues. When I hear of granite planter edges – it sounds like one more design to be unique in a specific area – without understanding the context of the whole. The general appearance of the Streetscape plan used on Broad Street should prevail. If we do something different in each quaderant of the City it all adds up to . . . nothing.