Terrific article. I hope many readers go to your link, as it is very useful in understanding possible alternative uses for the South Washington properties.

http://www.fallschurchinsider.com/2010/02/commercial-development-in-the-little-city-of-falls-church/

I’d welcome input from other residents either on that post or here on FCT. Thanks!

I also have a lot of respect for Bob Young and his experience, and I appreciate all he’s done for the City as well.

Ultimately, I agree with Ira’s comment: “I am not prepared to give up on the City and its ability to attract significant Commercial/Office space.”

Andy R. and I moved our now ~40-person consulting business to the Tax Analysts building in 2007. Why? Mostly location, (a lack of) congestion, and community. Our staff is spread out from Rockville to Alexandria, Ashburn to DC. Falls Church is central. Not too far into DC (like Arlington), not too far out (like Reston), and not a congested mess (like Tysons). We wanted to be closer to either EFC or WFC metro, but there wasn’t any Class A space available. We also liked the concept of having our business (and ourselves) be involved in the local community, as we have been. Now, the City’s financial future can’t rest entirely on small businesses like ours renting in 8,000 sq ft chunks, but it’s worth thinking about a real-world example.

I would love to see over the next 10 years the entire S. Washington Corridor redeveloped into a business district, predominantly with buildings comparable to what Mike outlines above (commercial with retail). Some mixed-use similar to Pearson Sq. would fit nicely as well.

I expect the N. Washington Corridor could see similar growth, especially if Arlington Co. follows through with a proposal to expand the EFC station such that passengers can enter/exit up on N. Washington. If that indeed happens, the entire north side of CoFC would become significantly more accessible via mass transit, and therefore would benefit from high-density commercial and residential (mixed-use) construction.

Where else? The eastern edge of the City (around Seven Corners) could undergo a comprehensive redevelopment at some point, resulting in high-density retail/residential/commercial, though that seems to be a fair way off. The western edge (along Broad) could also see an overhaul someday (at least the south side), but it seems like that will be more piecemeal, similar to what we’ve seen added along Broad thus far.

And that’s pretty much it. The rest of our City (happily enough) is quiet residential. There just aren’t many areas suitable for commercial development, so giving up on one pocket (like this area of S. Washington) has a big long-term impact on what we can do in the future.

I recognize that commercial building isn’t practical in this economy, but now is the time to position ourselves for the rebound. Again, I agree with Ira: “it will take a few years of hard work to make it happen. I am sure that it can be done.”

As regards Bob Young’s comment, it is understandable. Mr. Young is a developer of small to medium size projects. Let’s be clear, these types of projects will never generate sufficient revenue to sustain the City.

City Staff indicated that the City may need to lease/rent up to 50% of the 360 South Washington building in order that Mr. Young qualify for commercial financing. It is not surprising that he would support the project; he buys the property and the City guarantees its profitability.

Mr. Young has a great deal of experience in Falls Church; however, as an EDA member, I am not prepared to give up on the City and its ability to attract significant Commercial/Office space. Predicting failure before a new concerted effort has been made is not an approach that will lead to fiscal sustainability.

The mixed use development strategy followed by the City has produced additional revenue. However, even with the most optimistic assumptions regarding the potential revenue producing capabilities of all the proposed (but not yet initiated) mixed use projects still leave the City with permanent budget shortfalls.

Mike’s vision provides a viable path for the City to move forward, retain its independence, maintain quality schools and, if done as suggested, retain its character. As he states this is long term approach; it will take a few years of hard work to make it happen. I am sure that it can be done.

The proposed Wilden project will make achieving the goal of fiscal sustainability for Falls Church City even more difficult.

In the meantime, please note that The Wilden will not be heard in public session until March 1, most likely. We have requested a deferral and the Planning Director will be providing us with the revised work session and hearing schedule shortly. Carol J, FCHC

Thanks for your question. Some of the information is in FCHC’s application for low-income housing credits from the Virginia Housing Development Authority. We do not have permission to post the entire application, but one can get access to it by request at https://www.vhda.org/VHDA_Apps/TaxCreditApps/TCRegistration.asp.
It takes about 24 hours to get access. You ask for access to the City Center Senior South Apartment application, the pre-Wilden name for the project.

Stan Fendley

Thanks for keeping us straight! I’ve changed the last line accordingly. We will look forward to learning more when the City Council and Planning Commission schedule discussion of the project.

Stan Fendley

He says he doesn’t think the City can ever attract significant commercial development (at least not in the next 20 years) and he points to the past as the explanation for that. But what about Falls Church (now or in the past) makes it so unappealing? I’m not saying we shouldn’t acknowledge our history of poor performance in this area – but what do people think the reasons are?

Bob mentions two notable exceptions (Tax Analysts and Kaiser) – is there something about those two that we should look more carefully at and try to replicate?

I generally support mixed use development but I think we need to be careful. For example, the Pearson Square building would be a pretty big negative for the City if it didn’t come with the Tax Analyst building. I also think that the next round of mixed use development will need to come with a new school – so we have to figure out how to pay for that.

I’ll reiterate again, I really respect Bob’s thoughts on what can be done in the City but I’d love to hear more specifically why he thinks we have so much trouble attracting commercial development.