EMAILS & COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS
June 9, 2025
TO: Mayor Read, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and Board of Architectural Review Members
SUBJECT: Paradigm Proposal for the Davies Property, 4131 Chain Bridge Road
Many citizens have expressed their concerns on this project, of which we agree completely. Therefore, we will not ask you to endure our long list of worries regarding this project. Although we will present, two major concerns:
Traffic: We join the community’s apprehension as to the size of this project and the impact on traffic. For those of us who live in the Route 123 and University Drive corridors area, we already experience horrific traffic problems resulting from other big projects and GMU that impact these traffic lanes. You have heard these concerns before, they are real and we ask you to consider the negative impact that already impacts our communities.
Architectural Design: We bring to your attention concerns regarding the design of this project. It is imperative that we maintain the architectural design of our historical City especially for this project that will be surrounded by the federalist style of our City Hall, and townhouse communities. Many have purchased their homes deliberately, to be surrounded by a sense of history and the style of Federalist architecture that reflects our past.
On this project, the developer did a good job designing the east side of the project. It blends in with nearby townhomes and City Hall. However, the west side of the building is industrial, stark and harsh. It is not harmonious with the nearby buildings, townhomes and City Hall. This does not compliment the City’s history which we should protect.
What you approve will have an impact on our City for years to come. We must be certain that we do not become another jurisdiction with ugly, incompatible, and hodgepodge buildings. Mirroring the east side of the building on the west side will help to deter this from happening.
Please be sensitive to this issue and require continuity in the design of these buildings. Many citizens live on the west side of this project. Once the developer is finished and gone, we will be stuck with what they leave behind.
Let’s make it architecturally compatible before this occurs and preserve the beauty of the City of Fairfax.
[Original Signed by two Chancery Square Residents]
25 May 2025
Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Board of Architectural Review,
By way of introduction, we are [names], 28 year residents of Fairfax City, and we have resided on Breckinridge Lane for that entire time. Since 2016, we’ve witnessed multiple proposals for development of the Davies property at 4131 Chain Bridge Road, from apartments and townhomes to senior living facilities, all of which have ultimately been either disapproved or withdrawn from consideration. We commend the City planners, the BAR and the Council for exercising the due diligence necessary to ensure a positive end state for this property, and while we have supported development of the property in general, there remain aspects of the current Paradigm proposal that continue to give us pause. We have four primary concerns:
1. The many zoning ordinance exceptions and/or changes required to approve Paradigm’s current plan;
2. The lack of holistic integration of Paradigm’s proposal with development of the Mega-Block writ large extending from the Davies property to Sager Avenue and bounded by Chain Bridge Road and University Drive;
3. The amount of traffic congestion this and other proposed Mega-Block developments will cause; and
4. Paradigm’s construction plan.
Before writing this email, I went back and reviewed the Small Area Plan (SAP) for Old Town. It’s a good plan! That said, I’m reminded of a military saying about plans: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Granted, Paradigm is not the enemy here, but they do constitute “first contact” with the Old Town SAP. So the obvious question is, to what extent has the SAP “survived?” Again, offering credit where it’s due, the fact that the initial 8 story, 375 unit Perseus complex of 2016 has now been reduced to Paradigm’s 276 units held to the 4 and 5 stories as articulated in the SAP, is a major win, along with myriad other changes made along the way to adhere more closely to the SAP. As you know, the Breckinridge HOA was very active in expressing our opposition to much of what Paradigm first proposed, and looking at where their proposal stands today, we feel that the City - and Paradigm - listened and responded in a positive way. 1
Concern #1: Regarding Paradigm’s requested zoning ordinance exemptions, we realize that many ordinances currently on the books do not align with the SAPs, thus requiring updates. We would ask only that, as you consider these changes, you focus on the long view; on what is required to bring the SAP(s) to life writ large, and not, specifically, what is required to accommodate any one developer’s proposal. Since the zoning ordinances comprise your greatest strength in pushing back and/or holding the line on developers’ druthers, and since you stand on the cusp of the most comprehensive period of development in the City’s history, and also because what you approve we all will have to live with for the next half century or more, ensuring zoning ordinance changes align as closely as possible with the SAPs, and then holding developers’ feet to the fire in adhering to them, is of paramount importance. Precedent in this area will also play an important role. It should be anticipated that any exceptions/exemptions granted to Paradigm that aren’t ultimately embodied in zoning ordinance updates will be interpreted as “givens” by all those developers who follow. Thus, we would encourage you to enact these SAP-aligned ordinance changes sooner than later, to let developers know what to expect before putting mechanical pencil to paper, which will ultimately save them time and money.
Concern #2: Regarding a holistic vision for development of the MegaBlock, finding the right balance between developers’ natural quest for profit, always manifested in “bigger and more,” with creation of an environment that embodies the positive attributes articulated in the Old Town South SAP, is a challenge, to say the least. We would suggest, based on the successes realized in changes to the Paradigm proposal to date, that an effective antidote to “bigger and more,” generally speaking, is “lower and less,” - if the SAP vision for Old Town is to be realized, noting that the operative word in “Small Area Plan” is “Small.” The current 254 unit, seven story Christopher proposal, for example, offers the opportunity to leverage your experience with Paradigm to insist, at the outset, on those parameters that will enhance integration, e.g., adherence to like height, size, density and setback limitations, historic architectural continuity, and alignment with the placement of Paradigm’s greenway, thus setting this precedent and laying the groundwork (no pun intended) for a pedestrian friendly walkway that runs from the Davies property straight through the Mega-Block up to the hotel on Sager, assuming that’s still in the mix. Keeping this walkway straight through the block will make it safer and more inviting to pedestrian traffic. As a result, whenever the BB&T 2 property is developed, alignment with the two adjacent greenways should be a foregone conclusion. Being proactive where development of the BB&T property is concerned can also work to the City’s advantage. City planners should proactively brainstorm what they consider to be the best use of this property in tandem with the review process for the Christopher proposal, to ensure that whenever the BB&T property does get developed, the developer would have an idea at the outset what the City’s idea of integration looks like. And we submit that yet another massive apartment complex is not it. Rather, a development that markedly breaks with the apartment complex construct - townhomes perhaps with an abundance of green space - would help preclude the presence of 3 tightly packed podium buildings in a row.
Concern #3. This brings us to the discussion of traffic congestion. We can’t conceive of a scenario in which the traffic generated by 533 apartments (Paradigm’s 276 + Christopher’s 254), along with Ox Hill’s proposed 4,000 seat concert hall and 170 room hotel, won’t result in gridlock on University Drive and Chain Bridge Road. Traffic studies done by developers are always compromised and therefore of little real value. Considering the scope of development proposed for the Mega-Block, as well as the myriad other proposals pending for developments across the City, a City-sponsored, independent traffic study would seem a prudent endeavor and money very well spent. On a related subject, realization of the pedestrian and bicycle friendly “Spine” running from GMU to Eaton Place, as described and depicted in the SAP, by definition requires safe and comfortable passage. This wonderful concept is simply incompatible with the volume of vehicular traffic that will be generated by development of the Mega-Block, as currently proposed. As an avid walker, I routinely encounter residents on bicycles and scooters using sidewalks rather than the currently designated bicycle lanes along University Drive, because they don’t feel safe sharing the road with cars and trucks in such close proximity. Without widening University Drive from Armstrong Street to Sager Ave. (and ultimately on through to Eaton Place), the “Spine,” as envisioned in the Old Town SAP, will remain a planner’s pipe dream. It’s too late to impact the Paradigm proposal, but there’s still time to convince developers of the rest of the block to cede the real estate necessary for the City to bring this excellent idea to fruition. And widening of University Drive would have the potential secondary benefit of further easing traffic congestion if it includes restoring the fourth traffic lane.
Concern #4: Paradigm’s Construction Plan. Considering the build time, the size of the workforce required, and the volume of materials and equipment involved, the potential for disruption to the surrounding communities over an extended period of time is significant. Insisting that Paradigm present their construction plan prior to final approval of the proposal will go far in minimizing surprises and will set a positive precedent for all developers who follow. Additionally, requiring Paradigm to work with representatives from the surrounding communities on this plan will help to ensure buy-in up front, thus mitigating complaints along the way to completion. What the City has done to refurbish and revitalize the downtown area, the Old Town Hall and the adjacent park area stands as a shining example of development that infuses our beloved City with the “Old Town” character we’ve come to know and love - and that visitors take note of. Since development of the Mega-Block will have a significant and lasting impact on our community and the City writ large, we’re relying on you to ensure a similar outcome.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
[Original Signed by two Breckinridge Lane Residents]
28 January 2025
If these development proposals are not bound in any way by the harmonious integration envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, the Old Town SAP, the applicable Zoning Ordinances, and the guidance regarding the Transition Overlay District, the whole TOD, bordering on historic Old Town, and the gateways between GMU, City Hall, and the rest of the City, they will just become another sad, ugly, and unsustainable example of uncontrolled development and uncommitted, uncaring City leadership.
Examples of this are rampant throughout Northern Virginia today. Just take a drive on Route 29 toward DC to experience this.
Of many questions to ponder: 1) What is the need for these high-density developments?; 2) How do they impact existing infrastructure (roads, sewer, runoff, air, noise, schools, fire and rescue, police, hospitals, etc.)?; 3) How do they contribute to the vision of our City as documented in the Comprehensive Plan, Old Town SAP, and other forward-looking policies?; 4) How sustainable are these projects once they are constructed and for how long before they outlive the materials with which they are built?; and, 5) What is the true fiscal impact to the City? (I believe that our City will not net any appreciable revenue from these developments and may actually incur losses.)
[Original signed by Breckinridge Lane Resident]
14 July 2025
I am a resident of the Chancery Square Townhome development and would like to provide my comments on the proposed Davies Project. I feel that the Davies have a right to sell their property for development but disagree with
the current proposal. My primary objections are the impacts caused by the number and types of residential units and retail space. As you are aware, development of the property should be harmonious with the existing neighborhood, which is residential single family homes, townhomes and office buildings. Apartments, condos and non-office retail space do not exist in the immediate vicinity. So, I would be receptive to homes, townhouses and single story office buildings that blend in with the existing neighborhood, with adequate space set aside for parking (i.e., no impact on street parking along Armstrong Street). Street entrances should be at Armstrong Street and George Mason Blvd to preclude avoidable traffic on Chain Bridge Road. The impacts of the development should be acceptable to people who will live with the consequences after those who have profited are no longer present.
[Original Signed by Chancery Square Resident]
July 17, 2025
Dear Mayor Read and City Council Members,
This is not the first time we have written to you regarding the Davies Property project. As your vote will be taken on 22 July 2025, we once again wish to express our strong objection to the project.
You know the issues so we won’t burden you with having to read another long list. Although a quick summary marking some of our objections include:
-
Architectural design clashing and in conflict with City Hall and neighboring federal style neighborhoods
-
Height of the two buildings
-
High density
-
Tremendous impact on traffic
We ask that our voices be heard. Once the developer is finished, we have to live with YOUR decision for years to come.
PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS PROJECT.
[Original Signed by Two Residents of Chancery Square]
July 17, 2025
Dear Fairfax City Council,
As long time residents of the Chancery Square community across from City Hall, we urge you to vote against the Davies Property Proposal, for all of the quality of life issues already well-delineated by so many other residents, with which I wholeheartedly concur.
Very respectfully and urgently,
[Original Signed by Chancery Square Resident]
July 17, 2025
Please vote against the Davis Property Project. The area surrounding it has maintained a beautiful historic setting despite an increase in traffic and expansion of George Mason. In the 23 years I have lived here, apartment complexes have sprung up all over Fairfax City without any regard to aesthetic appeal. It would be a real tragedy for the Davis property to follow suit.
[Original Signed by Chancery Square Resident]
July 20, 2025
Mayor Read & Fairfax City Council,
Many of my neighbors and I who live near the Davies home do NOT think it is a good decision for the Davies Project to move forward.
This high-density development impacts the neighboring communities negatively. With more than 250 rental units, two buildings of 4 & 5 stories high, and a lack of architecture designs which do not fit the current neighborhood's and City Hall's Old Town theme, we feel this is NOT a good idea.
Additionally, there will be an increase in traffic (which Ox Road already can't handle) and to add retail/delivery issues to the more than 250 rental units will cause even more issues. The area can't handle the current infrastructure and adding this major project to such a small area will be felt for years to come.
Fairfax City government will have turnover, but we, the citizens who live nearby are the ones that will be affected for years to come. What seems like a good idea today, when you are all gone, we will face the outcome of your decisions with no opportunity to these issues. We are also concerned with the possibility of increased crime in the area and with our homes nearby, how that will affect our properties.
I understand that this may be an opportunity for tax revenue, but the ramifications for the future on your constituents will be felt for years to come. I would support a 3 story Town Homes development or a park as some have previously discussed.
Please do the right thing for the people who elected you all and not base it on a financial decision.
[Original Signed by Two Chancery Square Residents]
July 20, 2025
To the Members of the City of Fairfax City Council:
In my view, if this project is approved in its current form, the City will effectively undermine the opportunity for a cohesive development on the block between Sager Avenue and Armstrong Street. I understand there are voices within the Council and the Mayor’s office urging a vote solely on the project immediately in front of you. However, such a piecemeal approach—subdividing the land without an integrated vision—destroys the continuity and long-term planning needed for meaningful development.
The current project includes ingress and egress points on both University Drive and Chain Bridge Road. It is likely that the next proposal to come before you - such as the Christopher development (https://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/community-development-planning/major-development-projects/christopher-at-fairfax-cityhttps://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/community-development-planning/major-development-projects/christopher-at-fairfax-city) - will also propose access from both of these roads. Similarly, any future development of the BB&T property will require its own access onto University and Chain Bridge. Without coordinated planning, this block will ultimately be fractured by multiple disconnected entrances and exits, each funneling traffic independently onto already congested roads, and none aligned with a comprehensive traffic strategy.
If the City believes that the hotel and concert hall are to serve as cornerstones and focal points for this district (https://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/community-development-planning/major-development-projects/the-ox-fairfax), then it must plan accordingly. At present, there is no unified infrastructure to support that vision.
The only plan that truly works is one that extends Judicial Drive across into the Davies Property, establishing a central spine—rather than a mere greenway—that supports coordinated traffic flow through the heart of the block. This would allow for better ingress and egress without burdening University Drive and Chain Bridge Road with multiple unsignaled intersections.
The City staff had an opportunity to manage this area as a single, integrated development, but declined, citing limitations in capacity. In my opinion, that decision represents the critical misstep in this process.
I urge the Council to consider the long-term consequences of approving this project in its current form. Fairfax deserves development that is thoughtfully designed, and the development of this block should be an integrated plan.
I encourage you to vote against this proposal.
[Original Signed by Breckinridge Resident]