What Forestry Can Teach Us About The Fairfax County Addition Controversy

Context

Over the weekend a minor brouhaha erupted over a Northern Virginia homeowner’s controversial three-story addition. Spotlighted by a local television station and subsequently going viral on Twitter/X, the debate revolved around the half-completed project that neighbors claim is out of character for the residential Fairfax County neighborhood. The commentary online predictably devolved into a polarized debate over development and housing policy with pro and anti development factions battling it out online. As a residential architect practicing in this region I would like to suggest a new, more nuanced way of considering this issue.

Although much could be said about the relative merits or demerits of this particular home, the controversy extends far beyond this individual instance. Indeed, this is simply another front in the increasingly hostile public battle over housing policy and development which pits proponents of new construction against neighborhood advocates who aim to preserve the neighborhood's existing character.

Seeing Both Sides

Broadly speaking I, like many architects I know, generally support increasing the housing supply through new construction, densification, or redevelopment. With housing affordability being a serious challenge, it is understandable that the Fairfax County residents would wish to make their existing home fit for multi-generational living by building this addition.

Moreover, on a personal level, I have great sympathy for homeowners who have to deal with (often quite nasty) public backlash while attempting to navigate the challenges of a construction project. A number of years ago I was on the receiving end of a similar controversy while attempting to build a small duplex on a previously vacant residential lot. From this and many similar professional experiences, I am well aware of the sometimes irrational public backlash that accompanies attempts at new construction.

This being said, housing advocates can often be short-sighted in their reflexive advocacy of every new project, no matter the design merits or lack thereof. The architectural principles of scale, proportion, massing, context, and yes, even beauty all deserve consideration. Everyone deserves to live in a place that feels coherent and thoughtfully designed. The concept of neighborhood character is frequently weaponized, but that does not make it irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the reason this particular project went viral in the first place is because so many people instinctively recognize the discordant nature of its design.

What to do about the Housing Crisis?

As mentioned before, it is clear that our region faces a genuine housing crisis. The prevailing urban growth model of sprawling single-family developments built increasingly further away from the city center has significant environmental (and frankly aesthetic) costs. Finding an appropriate balance between neighborhood context and broader development needs is critically important.

Neighborhoods are by their very nature living ecosystems in which change is inevitable. Historic photos of cities very clearly reveal this reality; what is now a dense downtown center was once a small village of scattered homes; what is now a residential suburb was once farmland. Today’s homeowners don’t have a right to freeze their neighborhood in amber, thereby prohibiting future growth. But, just like natural ecosystems, cities and neighborhoods are distinct, and not every species of flora and fauna is appropriate everywhere.  

Thinking Like a Forest

Consider a mature forest. Large trees and multiple levels of developed canopy predominate. Even this seemingly “complete” forest is constantly changing through a dynamic process known as succession. This process has four stages, (stand re-initiation, stem exclusion, understory re-initiation, and old-growth) and each of these describes the type of tree species and other lifeforms that are appropriate to that stage. In the first phase “pioneer” tree species are dominant. As these grow and their canopies thicken, new shade-tolerant species sprout, grow, and eventually take over. All the while, the forest composition is constantly changing.

It strikes me that this process is remarkably similar to the growth of neighborhoods. Virgin farmland is slowly developed into scattered single family homes. As more families move in, these give way to small, multifamily typologies, then larger multistory developments. Finally, dense multistory apartment and commercial buildings prevail and we can say that the neighborhood has reached “old-growth” status. All the while density slowly increases as the neighborhood ecosystem matures.

Moving Forward

This ecological metaphor provides a helpful heuristic for evaluating development proposals. The question is not whether change is permissible, but rather what kinds of typologies, forms, and scales are appropriate at the current stage of growth. We can ask nuanced, thoughtful questions about scale and context rather than polarizing into reflexive pro or anti development factions. More importantly, this framework firmly establishes neighborhoods as living, growing, and changing ecosystems, not static dioramas.  

We can likely expect similar controversies in the future as our region continues to grow and undergo “succession”. However, we can move beyond the binaries if we remember that growth and good design are both essential to flourishing neighborhoods. As an architect it is my role to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the public and of the public realm. This cannot be accomplished by simply making binary choices but by acting in a thoughtful manner for the benefit of both current and future generations.