The main difference between an accredited program v. an unaccredited program has to to with meeting the educational requirements for architectural licensure.

From the National Architectural Accrediting Board's FAQ:

Q: Why should I choose an accredited architecture program?

A: Most state registration boards in the United States require an applicant for licensure to have graduated from a NAAB-accredited program, obtaining such a degree is an essential aspect of preparing for the professional practice of architecture. While graduation from a NAAB-accredited program does not assure registration, the accrediting process is intended to verify that each accredited program substantially meets those standards that, as a whole, comprise an appropriate education for an architect.

You might want to read the rest of the FAQ for more info:
http://www.naab.org/faq/results.aspx#ans8

UVA and UDC offer two different types of programs. Typically a 5 year B.Arch like that offered at UDC would be the only degree that you would need to become a licensed architect, but if it is unaccredited then you would still need to get an accredited degree from somewhere else (like an MArch Master's degree) in order to become licensed. UVA on the other hand would offer you a 4yr degree which on its own wouldn't be sufficient to become licensed, but (as with UDC's degree) the amount of architecture that you studied there would likely give you advanced standing in at least some MArch programs. I would go with UVA since you would likely be spending less time to get the same result that you would from UDC's unaccredited BArch, and you'd be at a school with a better reputation.

just making sure you are doing your research. there are many schools in the DC area.

catholic's arch is 4/2 -four UG, 2 Grad
howard is 5
maryland is a 2/2/2
morgan state is 4/2

and i won't even go into the penn schools.

thank you for the help guys
i have a reasearch foundation now, I might have more questions
soon