Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Beltway's Tallest Building to Launch in October

Hoffman Management Inc. will soon build the tallest tower, within the capital beltway, in Alexandria's low-lying Eisenhower Valley East.

Hoffman recently awarded the general contractor position for its Hoffman Towers, a component of the expansive Hoffman Town Center, to Clark Construction Group. Clark is accepting bids from subcontractors through early September, and expects to begin construction on the residential towers in October.

The towers, designed by Davis Carter Scott, will consist of three high rise components - 33, 28 and 22 stories tall. The 33-story tower is 396' tall; a mere six feet taller than Monday Properties' 1812 North Moore St, which is currently under construction and set to deliver first quarter 2013. Yet the Hoffman Towers will rise up in a valley that is only 18' above sea level, whereas 1812 North Moore - a 390' tall, 35-story office building - might loom larger, as it sits on ground in Rosslyn that is near 100' above sea level.

When completed, the Hoffman Towers will contain 1,197 apartments (55 affordable) and offer 1,162 parking spaces, at block 11 and 12 of the Hoffman Town Center.

Block 11, closest to the beltway, will house a new 50,000-s.f. Harris Teeter; the grocer has a contract ensuring its occupancy in the building by December of 2013, when phase 1 of the project is set to deliver - a feasible timeline if construction is soon underway.

Construction of block 12, closest to Eisenhower Avenue, will coincide with the City's redevelopment of the Eisenhower Ave Metro station, and a new Metro Plaza - paid for by the development team - which will serve as a public gathering place of sorts, near 19,000 s.f. of new retail (in block 12) broken up into several spaces, including some 200-s.f. "retail pockets." The project is located across the street from AMC Hoffman cinemas, already the region's highest grossing theater.

The development site plan has not been approved or released by the City of Alexandria; the City is waiting on comments from one last reviewer, after which the plan - with notes of concerns to be addressed - will then go to the development team for agreement.

Alexandria, Virginia real estate development news


Anonymous said...

"will contain 1,197 apartments (55 affordable)"

Wow. So NoVa is going to get even whiter and monotonous? Pretty cool.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone present an after-dark building rendering.... hmmmm...yeah now it makes perfect sense. If only we could hide buildings like this from the light.

Anonymous said...

Looks great!

By the way there are plenty of daytime renderings available out there.

Anonymous said...

Will there by any opportunity for condo ownership, or is the development more geared towards rental?

Anonymous said...

ummm... have the geniuses thought about the fact that this area is not equipped to deal with high rise fires like NYC is?
sometimes people build without thinking.

Anonymous said...

Just as in the waterfront development that is pending The Most Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria fails once again to take into account the increased vehicle traffic that will be generated. For any planner or council member to think that shuttle busses and Metro will serve those that live and work in either area is ludicrous as Metro in Virginia is very limited in its coverage. You must have a car to live here unless you are such a hermit as to not go anywhere except to where Metro goes. It's fine if all of these new comers and come downers want to take the Metro to work in DC and points in between but we have no further to look than the new Brac building off Seminary Rd & Beauregard Street to realize that most of the planners and City Council members haven't a clue when it comes to necessary infrastructure to adequately serve the new residential development that is continously appproved regardless of the congestion that it creates. Planners and City Council fail to realize that the more they eliminate industrial uses the more everything will impact adversely the ability to move around in the City and the more we will have selfimportant and selfindulgent slobs demanding more recreational space of which we have little space to accomodate and and more dog parks because they wouldn't dare have their dogs dirty their back yards or dig holes in the ground. This is not the developer's fault, the fault rests in City Hall. Too many employees in City Hall that are new to the area and do not have a clue other than a bought and paid for degree in urban planning. A degree does not connote intelligence nor common sense. As for City Council they are only concerned with having more voters and will pander to every voting block they can. Commercial and industrial development will contribute more dollars to the tax base with less demands on the City to cater to them.

Anonymous said...

So 55 apartments will be "affordable." And the other 1,142 will then sit vacant, being "unaffordable?"

Enough of the term "affordable" as an intended means of distinction. If what you mean is "occupancy of 55 units will be restricted to lower-income households," then say so.

Ken on Aug 25, 2011, 9:57:00 PM said...

Editor's note: "Affordable" is a term very commonly used to mean capped and reserved for those making a maximum income. We sometimes use the term "subsidized" instead, since they are below market, but I see the terms as interchangeable. Granted that "affordable" is more of a PC term used by the government that promotes it, but I think the term is generally understood.

Anonymous said...

"Affordable" and "subsidized" are not equivalent; the latter term typically implies that the units are paid for with government subsidies (e.g., Section 8 vouchers), which is frequently not the case for privately built inclusionary housing units. In some sense, the apartments are "subsidized" by the developer, but that's an infrequent usage.

"Income restricted" might be the most precise term for inclusionary units.

As for the service demands placed by this development, do keep in mind that small apartments generally require fewer city services than houses (perhaps not as little as offices), and that the tower is located within a stone's throw of both Metro and the Beltway. I'm also sure that a great many people who live nearby would contest that "You must have a car to live here" -- over one in ten Alexandria households don't own cars, and I'm sure that proportion is higher in the Carlyle area.

Anonymous said...

It actually is not difficult to live in many places in Alexandria without a car, and bicycling is rather easy most of the time.

jhuenn said...

Dear editor, I propose that your website require each commentator to create a unique pseudonym, in order to facilitate conversation with specific persons, rather than a bevy of people called "Anonymous".

Anonymous said...

Typical uninformed "planning" critic. Higher density has proven to be a method to improve traffic not to increase traffic. By getting people to one centralized location you make the flood effect of a traffic rush attenuated. As far as no one can afford to live there portion, then you should support higher density developments because by the sheer number of new units the demand for closer living would be better met and the supply would increase. I have no idea what the mix of units is like in this building but I assume if they have been paying attention to the market they know that studios, 1br, and 2br are all doing well and would have put all 3 varieties in to address varying populations. This is a much better way of providing a diverse population as opposed to artificially reducing one persons rent through an income maximum.

Post a Comment

Commercial ads will be deleted, so don't even think about it.


DCmud - The Urban Real Estate Digest of Washington DC Copyright © 2008 Black Brown Pop Template by Ipiet's Blogger Template