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

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "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

2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE 2

3 3

4 4

5 Building tops tour: what we observed 5

6 Building height/form and urban design: interrelated elements 6

7 WORK SEQUENCE 7

8 Building height/form and urban design can make or break progress toward all the vision principles 8

9 What we heard at the workshops: views 9

10 What we heard at the workshops: height/form 10

11 What we heard at the workshops: street network 11

12 What we heard at the workshops: street activity 12

13 Draft framework: what we heard from you 13

14 Draft framework: what we heard from you 14

15 Translating vision principles into urban design qualities 15

16 Competitive: buildings that create value 16

17 Good neighbor: sensitive transitions 17

18 Accessible: leveraging transit, walking, biking 18

19 Walkable: safe, welcoming walking routes 19

20 Connected to nature: permeated by green systems 20

21 Dynamic: inviting 24/7 activity, diversity 2010 Base Plus Turnberry Tower 5% 1% 7% 6% 81% 7% 4% 1% 2040 current forecast New: 22% housing, 68% office 11% 77% Office Retail Other Hotel Residential 2040 potential target? New: 36% housing, 54% office 1% 4% 7% 18% 70% 21

22 ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS/POLICY CONTEXT 22

23 Building Form and Height Analyses: Starting Points 23

24 Building Form and Height Analyses: Starting Points 24

25 Building Form and Height Analyses: Starting Points 25

26 Building Form and Height Analyses: Starting Points 26

27 C-O Rosslyn Summary Points 27

28 Community Benefits: Examples from approved site plans Central Place (2007) 1812 North Moore (2007) Rosslyn Gateway (2012) Benefits beyond standard site plan conditions 28

29 Overall Approach to Modeling of Scenarios 29

30 Block pattern & redevelopment site assumptions 70 N/A 30

31 Intensity translates differently on each site 31

32 Street width assumptions 32

33 How does this affect public deck view corridors? 33

34 here does height fit best? 34

35 Building form analysis performance criteria 35

36 General Transition variations Core Building form analysis scenarios Approach G1. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR varies: Distinct taper effect imposed regardless of site elevation or development potential. Less than 10 FAR applied to some sites to preserve taper, views, passages G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10: Building heights greatest at Central Place, taper down to all edges as possible T1. 1:1 Taper: Taper up to 300 1:1 from building heights adjacent to RCRD T2. Enhanced taper: Long, stepped forms facing context, with courtyards/atriums T3. Open space transition: Terraced open space between context/new devt. T4. Peaks and valleys: Slender, tall forms facing context, spaced out C1. Framed public views: Priority public deck views preserved; taller buildings rise between views (reflected in certain Transition variations) Effects Public deck views and ground level open space increased, but development value constrained. Consider transfer of development rights (TDR) if height/form diversity can be maintained (unlike recent projects with more uniform height) Heights minimized, maximizing observation deck views, but building widths maximized, posing scale, connectivity and marketability challenges Effective scale transitions, but building widths pose view/scale/market challenges unless heights can impede certain public deck view directions More sun/sky access, but increased height along context Public and/or private open space increased, but scale transitions abrupt More sun/sky access, but increased height along context Core sites retain full development capacity, add skyline variation, and create ground level open space, but public deck views constrained. Peaks can heighten as valleys deepen at neighborhood and park edges 36

37 Existing conditions from high above 37

38 Existing conditions Bird s eye view 38

39 Existing conditions section view 39

40 General scenarios: G1. Existing policy/taper from Metro, FAR varies 40

41 General scenarios: G1. Existing policy/taper from Metro, FAR varies 41

42 General scenarios: G1. Existing policy/taper from Metro, FAR varies 42

43 General scenarios: G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10 43

44 General scenarios: G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10 44

45 General scenarios: G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10 45

46 General scenarios: G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10 46

47 General scenarios: G2. Existing policy/taper from Metro FAR 10 47

48 Taper scenario challenges 48

49 Transition scenarios: T1. 1:1 Taper 49

50 Transition scenarios: T1. 1:1 Taper 50

51 Transition scenarios: T1. 1:1 Taper 51

52 Transition scenarios: T2. Enhanced taper 52

53 Transition scenarios: T2. Enhanced taper 53

54 Transition scenarios: T2. Enhanced taper 54

55 Transition scenarios: T3. Open space transition 55

56 Transition scenarios: T3. Open space transition 56

57 Transition scenarios: T3. Open space transition 57

58 Transition scenarios: T4. Peaks and valleys 58

59 Transition scenarios: T4. Peaks and valleys 59

60 Transition scenarios: T4. Peaks and valleys 60

61 Transition scenario trade-offs: Lower height means greater width 61

62 Transition scenario trade-offs: Tapering improves scale transitions 62

63 Transition scenario trade-offs: Greater height could bring more sky, sun, variety 63

64 Transition scenario trade-offs: Adding park transition increases height contrast 64

65 Transition scenario trade-offs: and can obstruct deck view corridors 65

66 Transition scenario trade-offs: Shifting height to view shadows could help 66

67 Core scenario trade-offs: Shifting height to view shadows could help 67

68 Core scenario trade-offs: Heights, view corridors, open space and variety 68

69 Core scenario trade-offs: Heights, view corridors, open space and variety 69

70 Core scenario trade-offs: Heights, view corridors, open space and variety 70

71 Core scenario trade-offs: Heights, view corridors, open space and variety 71

72 The skyline from afar: Limiting height and width diversity limits identity 72

73 The skyline from afar: Limiting height and width diversity limits identity 73

74 The skyline from afar: Rosslyn Plaza important to form variety 74

75 The skyline from afar: Wilson corridor height/form options are limited 75

76 Discussion questions 76