New Construction? Palatium Plans Revealed
Even with all the economic doom-and-gloom in the news, Falls Church City seems to be chugging along. Mike provides a bunch of good examples here.
There is an article in the FCNP about the proposed Palatium Building at 120 N. Lee Street, which was discussed at last week’s Planning Commission meeting. Builder Pirouz Khanmalek says he’s been working on the plans for 3 years and that “it is my passionate desire to create a lasting tribute to the City of Falls Church.” Members of City Council and the Planning Commission were all complimentary of the aesthetics of the design, and I have to agree. It looks great.
120 N. Lee - The Palatium Building
Visit the official Falls Church City page about the project, or download the PDF of the elevation here. To get a sense for what’s there now, look at this “bird’s eye” photo of the intersection between Park and N. Lee.
I know style is personal — many opinions were shared about our new purple flower building — but in my opinion, the style above is what Falls Church City should be going for. A classic style that includes quality details so as not to appear cheap, cookie-cutter, or boring, but with a consistency that can be executed across all new construction. This building wouldn’t “match” Pearson Square, for example, but it fits.
I do have some concerns, though:
- Parking — The plans don’t include enough parking according to city standards, though the commission seemed confident that could be addressed. To me, a good parking plan is essential to any of this kind of construction. This includes little details like spaces being wide enough — have you ever tried to park in the Spectrum garage? It’s as if they just took 2 car spaces and marked them for 3.
- Outdoor Seating — They plan on a 3,500 square foot restaurant being on the ground floor. It’s hard to tell from the rendering above, but they don’t seem to be planning on sidewalk seating. I think that’s a mistake — I’d love to see more local restaurants with outdoor seating options. Not only do they make for enjoyable dining, but I think they add to a strong community feel.
- Green Roof – I’ve been encouraged by the number of new buildings in the area being planned with environmental considerations. According to the FCNP article, Khanmalek isn’t planning for a green roof because it would ”contribute to mosquito problems” and “add to the risk of spreading the West Nile virus.” I’d like to see the research on this, because, frankly, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.
This project is just in the early stages, but I’m looking forward to hearing more about it. If you can’t tell, I’m pro-development if it’s done the right way. I really hope that our little City can make some smart decisions over the next decade and develop our center into a vibrant mixed-use area that great to live in (or near) and visit often.
This building came up in casual conversation at the last EDA meeting. It sounds like the parking issue might not be an easy one to solve. Well, there might be an easy solution (more underground parking) but the cost would be prohibitive.
The other main complaint I heard was the fact that there are steps up to the “ground” floor. While Mr. Khanmalek suggested this design had benefits (it might), many feel that the most inviting solution would be to have sidewalk level retail. And to Brian’s point, I think having outdoor seating at this location would be great since it’s not right on a busy street. I suspect the slight rise to the ground level has more to do with drainage and/or minimizing the amount he would have to dig down for a level of underground parking than with design.
I also think the West Nile excuse for not doing a green roof is bogus - but I have no data to back up my opinion. It sounds like Mr. Khanmalek intends to incorporate other LEED features into the building - hopefully he’ll reconsider the green roof option.
Until we tackle the problem of transportation in our city, we will continue to have “parking issues” in our city, for both new and existing development. Because of the expense of digging underground parking and the presence of the water table, developers will resist going below one level of underground parking. We need to evolve to a more urban transportation system throughout our city. What does that mean:
1. The availability of centralized parking without the fear of being towed when walking to other sites
2. Increasing the “walkability” of our city street, including the crossing of Broad Street, and
3. The use of bike lanes and paths with adequate bicycle parking
so that shoppers, workers and citizens can park once (bike or car), or take inexpensive public transportation.
I hope that we can recognize these steps as we continue our budget deliberations. Many in the city consider these as infrastructure improvements. Maybe our federal government can help here.
@Gary - thanks for the comment. I agree with you.
What’s interesting about all of these questions is that these aren’t new problems we’re trying to solve. There are examples of success and failure all around the region and the country. I know very little about all the issues and how they tie together, but other people do. I hope that those shaping the decisions (I’m just trying to join / foster the discussion) are studying what has been done elsewhere. I’ve heard good things about the new members of the planning commission, so I’m optimistic.