Why more and more families in Tysons are calling high-rises home

High-rise housing is often portrayed as places for the young and childless. Housing for transient young adults before they move out to the suburbs to start families. But Tysons shows that this stereotype leaves out a large number of families who live in high-rises.

Where many new high-rises might have a lounge with a pool table, amenities in buildings like the Kingston include a playroom. Tysons shows that high-rise housing can be an appealing home for all ages.

In Tysons, 21.4% of residents are under 20 years old, an increase of about 20% since Tysons’ redevelopment plan for more housing was implemented in 2010. The majority of Tysons’ housing stock consists of mid- to high-rise, elevator buildings.

Detached one-unit zoning, called “single-family zoning,” has long been wrapped up in the US law and perception of what makes a neighborhood a good place to raise children. In Euclid v. Ambler, the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld municipal authority to zone, the decision describes apartments as “parasites” that “[deprive] children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities.”

In the 1974 Supreme Court case Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion in favor of permitting localities to exclude both noxious uses and multi-unit housing from their jurisdictions. He echoed the Euclid decision, claiming that localities should have the authority to enforce single-family zoning for the sake of their children.

Ironically, however, by driving up housing costs, single-family zoning and other land use restrictions that limit housing supply likely reduce fertility. Research on the relationship between land use restrictions and fertility finds that women in more regulated regions — where housing supply is constrained and therefore expensive — have fewer children, with the largest effect among younger women.

It’s increasingly common that neighborhoods that meet Justice Douglas’ standards for child-friendly housing are missing the most important ingredient: children.

Samantha Moskol has studied housing for families in Austin, Texas. She describes Brentwood and Crestview, two expensive neighborhoods governed by primarily single-family zoning:

Brentwood and Crestview have family-friendly qualities that are difficult to quantify…. The streets are relatively quiet, and tree-lined. Lots are spacious, and the public schools are highly rated. One would associate these characteristics with places one would raise children…. While Brentwood and Crestview might be family-friendly in appearances, they are not so in function. According to ACS 2015 (5-year) estimates, only 17% of households in the three Census tracts that make up the neighborhoods (2.05, 15.04, 15.05) include children (Table 18). This is sharply lower than the Austin average, at 28%.

Advocates for more affordable, family-friendly housing often focus on missing middle housing, in part because this is where so many children who don’t live in detached single-family houses live. Moskol writes, “Missing Middle and family-friendly housing go hand-in-hand, and are in a way, one and the same.”

Nationally, about one-quarter of children live in multi-unit buildings, ranging from duplexes to high-rises. However, as Moskol points out, the vast majority of children in multi-unit buildings live in buildings with between two and 19 units. These are generally walk-up, missing middle housing typologies. Fewer than 5% of children live in buildings with 20 or more units, like much of Tysons’ stock of high-rise housing.

Those who support missing middle as the housing solution that is both lower cost than detached single-unit housing and suitable for families argue that high-rise buildings don’t work well for families because they generally don’t offer direct outdoor access. Local officials from San Francisco to Charlotte have studied the role of missing middle housing in improving options available to families, although neither city is permitting widespread missing middle development.

The focus on direct access to outdoor space may miss the key ingredients for what makes neighborhoods work well for children, including safe streets, safe play spaces, and most importantly, kids. Urban historian Kenneth Jackson has explained “humans are social animals. I think the biggest fake ever perpetrated is that children like, and need, big yards. What children like are other children. If they can have space, well, that’s fine. But most of all, they want to be around other kids. I think we move children to the suburbs to control the children, not to respond to something the children want.”

Missing middle neighborhoods can be an excellent housing solution for families, and in some cases at a lower cost than either neighborhoods with detached houses or high-rise housing. They can provide the yards of the stereotypical suburban neighborhood, with cost savings because those yards are smaller and/or shared by multiple households.

But high-rise neighborhoods can also be great places for kids to play with other kids if they have indoor play spaces and, more importantly, safe streets that offer access to outdoor play spaces.

For example, Lenore Skenazy, the author of Free-Range Kids, raised her own kids in Jackson Heights in Queens. The neighborhood is full of large apartment buildings without direct access to the outdoors. And yet the neighborhood provided opportunities for Skenazy to let her kids play and travel independently because its streets are relatively safe and provide plenty of informal supervision with residents of all ages out and about.

What dense, walkable neighborhoods may lack in private outdoor space, they can make up for in opportunities for children to walk to shared play spaces, friends’ houses, and restaurants at younger ages than in neighborhoods that aren’t walkable.

Families in the Kingston, with its playroom, are paying from $2,200 to more than $4,000 per month for two- to three-bedroom units. At this price point, many housing options are open to them in Fairfax County and the region. Their choice demonstrates that some families value the amenities high-rise, transit-accessible living offers rather than the type of housing the Supreme Court has said is best for families.

Tysons has a long way to go in terms of creating a street network that provides a safe way for its children to navigate their neighborhoods. But already, some of the area’s public spaces are succeeding as lively spaces for all ages. The Plaza, for example, offers outdoor restaurant space targeted primarily to adults, alongside child-friendly play spaces and programming.

High-rise living can be an important part of the solution that works well for families and children, offering different benefits that neither detached housing or missing middle can provide.