1) How much CO2 will be generated by the concrete in the building vs. saved by the desnity?
2) Dacralia and the Arlinton waste water treatement plant are over capcity.  What provisioning is in place to reduce wastewater outflow?  Where will the drinking water for these buildings come from?
3) This will be built next to a major evacuation route from the city.  What is the security plan?
4) The power grid is at or over capacity?  Where is the power comming from and will this be used by Domnion to push those power lines through Nova.
5) These buildings are in the flight path for National.  Will planes be routed away from the Potomic to fly over residential areas as a result of construction?
6) Arlinton County is already one of the most densly populated places in the country.  Is there such a thing as too much density.
7) This is right on the banks of the Potomic.  How will pollution from these buildings be contained during construction.  How will stormwater runnoff be handled from the completed building.

by making the buildings as "green" as possible.  That will minimize power and water usage, runoff, etc., etc.

Regarding your question about density, Arlington's is about 7,323 per square mile.  Chicago's is 12,604 per square mile.  And Manhattan's is 66,940 per square mile. I don't think Arlington has much to worry about for a loooong while.  Quite the contrary, I would advocate MUCH higher density for Arlington, Alexandria, and really all the "inner suburbs," plus DC itself.  We've got to build "up not out" unless we want sprawl forever, with all of its adverse consequences for oil consumption, environmental degradation, etc., etc.

you would appreciate an article from NC on the subject.  They are about to build the largest building in Chapel Hill by a large margin, and its gonna be greeen.  It has fun things like geothermal heating, 90% of the rooms can be lit by natural light etc etc.

from march

As far as I'm concerned, EVERY new building in the United States should be "green."  And every existing building, both commercial and residential, should be retrofitted to achieve higher energy efficiency.  This is a perfect example of where government can make a huge difference, jump starting an energy efficiency revolution through the use of tax credits and other incentives.  This is critically important for both "green" and "geostrategic" regions, as Tom Friedman explained so well recently in the NY Times Sunday Magazine.

More density in Rosslyn means less need for sprawling office parks in Loudoun County.  I agree that the Arlington County Board needs to do everything it can to make sure these towers meet the highest LEED standards possible.

From an aesthetic standpoint, I'm not concerned at all with the height issue.  We need more density close to Metro stops.  If DC hadn't stubbornly held to its rigid height standards (even far away from the Mall), we might not have as much sprawl as we do today, with so many homes and offices located so far from DC's urban centers.

Arlington's architectural creativity (or lack thereof) continues to be a major concern, however.  When is Rosslyn going to get a signature building, one that distinguishes it from all other skylines?  Can we only build gray, rectangular structures?

Given that Virginia is a "Dillon's Rule" state, is Arlington constrained in any way from MANDATING that all new buildings in the county achieve platinum LEED ratings?  If so, what is required to permit Arlington and other counties to do that?  And frankly, why hasn't it been done already?

On aesthetics, I agree, and would add Ballston to the list as well.  What is it with architecture in this area, anyway?  Overall, it's godawful, which is really a shame.  And what's with the idiotic, antiquted limits on height, when everyone knows we need to build UP not OUT?  Is this as much of a no-brainer as it seems, or am I missing something here?

We need a special green building district created for the whole Potomac watershed.  Any building over 10 thousand square feet should have to meet escalating LEED ratings.

Congressman Moran, Senator Webb, are you reading this? :)

I've been living in Arlington since 1997, back then, the  Rosslyn-Courthouse 7-11 was in business. If you walked to it, you would go past some car lots and the Clarendon area was parking lots. This is where the Barnes &Noble is and other stores. While I like the new look, I'm concerned that revamping Rosslyn will skyrocket my rent in Courthouse. I think that issue needs addressing. I also am concerned about the flight path.  Another issue is that Rosslyn is developed. It was done real stupid, but its developed.  The bike trail runs through that area. What's going to become of that? What's going to become of the bridge overhead that you can walk safely across without getting hit by cars? If they tear down Rosslyn Park what's going to become of the Rosslyn Jazz Festival?  It just seems that there are really big questions that need to be addressed here, and I don't think people are going to give a shit.  Well, at least the politicians.

Several concerns:

1. The first part of my concern centers around the flight path into National Airport.  Pretty much since it's creation DCA has been considered one of the most challenging airports for pilots.  It's a challenging approach, and a challenge to leave from.  This 300 foot plus monolith on the Potomac would seem to present a nice obstacle for pilots large and small to have to negotiate--especially in bad weather. 

2. Is in reference to traffic.  OK, so you plop two huge buildings into an area where smaller boxy ones with less capacity were before.  And that equals "less traffic"?

3. There is the aesthetic.  This is one that probably ranks lower on the list.  Still, one of the reasons that the Orange line corridor has attracted some quality development is because residents have been fairly selective.  When Home Depot wanted to plop a store into the heart of Ballston, the locals pushed back; it helped preserve some of the character (smaller individually owned businesses), and it pushed the traffic out to 7 Corners, which has better a better road infrastructure to handle the flow from a Mega Store.

4. Why would we want to have a Manhattan on the Potomac?  Based solely on housing prices, I don't think there's any question that Arlington is ALREADY a destination.  And the Board wants to throw tourism into the mix?

Seriously?

5. Finally, at what point does the County Board become more responsive to the interests of developers, than to its constituents?

What was/were the good reason(s) for wanting to throw these buildings down onto the Potomac again? 

1. That one definitely needs to be addressed beyond a shadow of a doubt.  If there's any serious safety issue here with regard to National Airport, the project won't "fly," so to speak. :)

2. I don't believe that two new buildings necessarily equals more traffic.  It depends what else is done in terms of sidewalks, bike trails, mass transit and road infrastructure. But the general concept is "smart growth," building where the infrastructure is already there as opposed to sprawling out.  I don't think that's particularly controversial at this point.

3. If the buildings are designed properly, they should be attractive and fit into the natural and urban setting.  That should go without saying for all proposed new construction.

4. Personally, I think Manhattan is one of the most amazing places on earth.  Why WOULDN'T we want to have that in Rosslyn, as opposed to its current semi-sorry state of affairs?

5. Sounds to me like numerous residents came out and spoke up IN FAVOR of this development.  I haven't heard of any conflict here between developers and constitutents, have you?

1. In response to the safety issue, from the Washington Post:

They gave the project a unanimous nod in defiance of the Federal Aviation Administration, which called it a possible threat to air safety for jets flying in and out of Reagan National Airport. The FAA could still block the project.

2. I don't know what kind of numbers we're looking at here either, but presumably if you increase the capacity by 2,000 to 4,000 people, you'll have another 2,000 to 4,000 people in an already densely populated 6 block area.  Unless we cut into Fort Meyer or Arlington Cemetary and expand Route 50, which would be bad ideas for obvious reasons, there isn't much room to expand capacity on one side; on the other, presumably you could add more landfill into the Potomac and expand the G.W. Parkway; however, I think this would be an equally ill-advised approach.  Blow up Wilson Blvd?  I doubt many of the new condo owners would like that one.  Expand nearby Route 66?  Both you and I are opposed to this idea--it would certainly screw a lot of homeowners along that stretch of Rte. 66.  I remember that happening to a number of homeowners when the final stretch of 66 was put into place in the 1980s--in place of a nice expansive backyards and a green fields for kids; they lose an acre of public land behind their private lots; get a highway, and are compensated only marginally for the value in real terms along with a promise that there won't be a future expansion. 

This is definitely a question that should be resolved if the first hurdle is cleared.

3. Agreed.

4. I agree that Manhattan is an impressive place . . . to visit.  I don't know if I would be so cool with the idea of Manhattan-lite in my own backyard. 

What are the trade offs here? 

Extra tax revenue?  Probably.  An additional strain on already overtaxed local resources?  Yeah, that too.  Will ordinary residents have less leverage over the County board than business interests?  Yeah to the extent that money tilts local elections, I think there's a decent chance that the net result of this increased development is that the local government will be less responsive to the needs of residents.  That's certainly a concern. 

5. Undoubtedly there are some residents who behind this project.  But, this is the first that I am hearing about it.

At the end of the day, I am always open to persuasion, and I'll admit that this isn't an issue that I have looked at especially close.  Still this is definitely one of those items that at least on it's face, I have some concerns about.

the new buildings are mixed use.  It might not apply in this case, but for the future, mixed use buildings would seem to be the wave of the future.  If you can provide as much housing for the increase in office space over what was there in the past then it is a neutral building.  If you could provide extra mixed use buildings around metro stops in addition to it then you will see more people, but they will be closer to public transit capable of handling that extra traffic.

It sounds like one building is supposed to be made up of about 400 residential units.  While the other will be office space.  You will also have support staff (cleaning, deliveries, etc) who will be going in and out of the area. 

It is reasonable to assume that some of the people living in the building would also be working in the building, or nearby as well.  Although it's doubtful that a majority of the people working in the buildings could afford, what I would assume will be condos in the $800,000 to $1.5 million range. 

It sounds like the buildings would generate a great deal of extra revenue for the county; it would be a win-win for the developers if the housing and commercial real estate markets continues to hold up; but there are always trade-offs.

or anywhere else.  As a New Yorker who lived in Manhattan, I still miss it every day.  And smart growth, up not out, and accessible to public transportation is the way we need to go in the future. The biggest hurdle is the airport safety issue.  If it's not safe and presents too great a hurdle for pilots taking off and landing, it won't be built. 

But the idea of developing and building up the inner suburbs in close proximity to the Metro, along with mixed use - residential and office space - and green standards is the way to protect the environment, cut road congestion and even promote a healthier lifestyle.

I've heard several health experts say that part of the reason for the epidemic of obesity in America is that we no longer live in communities that encourage people to walk.  We have to drive to work, to stores, to entertainment.  When I lived in New York, I walked all over.  And I was a lot thinner and healthier.

Imagine, smart growth, healthier cities and a healthier lifestyle for the humans who live there.

...and state it more eloquently than I could ever do!  Thanks.  :)