As I live in DC (Georgetown) and work in Arlington (Rosslyn,) I think I can comment and provide insight regarding this quite interesting "Learning From..." article.
If we don't build these town centers today, in 100 years people will still be saying, oh, it's not 200 years old, so it can't be done? How to get off the treadmill turning out the Arlingtons of the world? By changing models now!
In the first place, what Arlington planners did was to
create town centers out of sprawl. Both the Orange and the Blue lines run through areas that were essentially automobile sewers. Now each stop is a center in its own right (including the wild, "TRON"-like Crystal City.) Moreover, Arlington effectively
splits the difference between the best of the 'burbs (safety, conformity, chain stores and malls) and the best of the city (transit, walk/bike/run, density) into it's current form. In the next place, if most metropolitan statistical areas got on the treadmill and turned out Arlingtons, the world would be a much better place, indeed.
People don't move to Arlington for its charm, they move there for its convenience. Fortunately, Georgetown and Alexandria aren't far away. Besides, if you want charm, walkability, AND safety in the DC area, you will pay through the nose for it.
Truer words were never written. However, the savings is relative. It's quite expensive to live in Arlington, especially along the Orange Line corridor, and at the Crystal City and Pentagon City stops (both feature dense mixed-use development; the latter features a multi-story enclosed mall as well.) Is it more expensive in the safe, walkable and charming areas of the District? Absolutely, but not by much. I'd spend about $2000 a month to live in Arlington. I spend about $2200 a month in Georgetown. Not much "savings" there. People pay to live in Arlington (and Bethesda, Silver Spring, Rockville Town Center, etc) because they are
desirable places to live.
Yes, its walkable - they have nice clean, well maintained sidewalks. But, where are they walking to? The Metro and nowhere else? And, what engagement do they experience during the walk? Brick walls and shiny glass windows reflecting like mirrors? It looks to me to be a half baked solution. I think I could do better. Put me in charge!
They walk to a variety of shops, restaurants, grocery stores, bars and parks. As well as the Metro. The sidewalks are a safe place to walk, with actual people using them
to walk. As for the architectural style of the place, in DC, where much of the building is in Roman-American drag, the modern sleekness of the Arlington neighborhoods is a nice change. The District only recently started to build postmodern buildings: a lot of it is columns and marble and "New England by the river."
Arlington's success has a great deal to do with the Metro, and in many ways, it's
not a model to be followed for that reason. It sounds counterintuitive, but hear me out. The Washington Metrorail is an expensive, vanity transit system. A lot of money was (and is) spent on making the subway appealing to the middle class. From the expansive, vaulted stations to the trains themselves, the Metro is the antithesis of the stereotype of a heavy-rail transit system. Indeed, it was designed to
not be like New York City's subway.
As a result, expanding and maintaining the Metro is costly, which is why, despite the Washington Metro being the 2nd most used heavy rail system in the country, there are gaps in the coverage. As an example, I either take the Georgetown Metro Connection bus or walk .75 miles to the Rosslyn Station, despite the fact that I live in a very dense neighborhood.
Metro succeeds because everyone takes it. Rich folks. Poor folks. People in between. Everyone takes it because it's a nice way to get around. It's not cheap to get this appeal, and that's why I don't think that the Arlington model is easily transferrable around the country, as most metro areas don't get the Tiffany of heavy rail transit funded. Even the buses here are generally nicer than those elsewhere.
You can see the effect that a jewel of a transit system has by comparing it to others. The Miami Metrofail, doesn't work for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's looks, smells, and drives cheap. Their "Arlingtons" around their stations feature massive parking decks, because even though people live near the Metrofail in a fake downtown, they (a) still have to drive and (b) probably would rather drive, considering the state of Miami's transit. Atlanta has a similar problem with the MARTA. If a transit system is viewed as third-class transit, and is built and funded as third-class transit, nobody will want to take it.
They take the Metro in DC because it's first-class transit, at least for an American subway system.
A great transit system to look at would be the DART light rail in Dallas. By not using heavy-rail, Dallas was able to spend more on the stations, the trains and the overall reach of the system. They have, in effect, a first-class light rail transportation network.
But Dallas, DC, Miami and Atlanta's metropolitan statistical areas differ hugely from Jacksonville's in one key difference: population. Each of them have at least
4 million more residents, which increases both the need for transit and the funding available.
I know it's a poisoned opinion here, but if I lived in Jacksonville, I'd embrace the BRT system that seems to be moving forward...but with the goal to make it a first-class transportation option. Use DART as a model here, rather than Miami, Atlanta and the unattainable goal of DC. Make those BRT stations as nice and clean as can possibly be. Make them architectural icons of design and consistency (a DC and DART trick.) Make the buses themselves be clean and comfortable. Part of the problem with any transit project in the States is woeful underfunding, which frequently results in cheap, unwanted transportation. Change the paradigm with your BRT. Create a top-drawer experience that people will want to use. If that means the best damned BRT the world has ever seen, so be it! Anyhoo...
Another reason why the DC region model isn't easily applied involves history. While 1960-70s white flight decimated the population of the District, following the trends of basically every city in the US, the city itself wasn't divided by highways, wasn't road raged with widening projects, and didn't lose their office business to the suburbs, thanks to the government not moving their offices. This effectively means that DC doesn't have much to undo, in terms of poor urban planning of the past. It also means that Arlington, located right across the river, had a desirable location, if not a desired set of buildings, when they were laying out the Metro.
Contrast that situation with the firebombed husk of downtown Jacksonville, the highways slicing through the city, the businesses entrenched in sprawl. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Jacksonville first has to undo the damage you can even hope to become another fruit, and complain about the blandness of your variants of Arlington. You are two steps behind the place where Arlington-clones can effectively exist.