Thursday, April 23, 2015

Residents not convinced on Westbard Sector Plan preliminary draft (Photos)

"Still too dense"
[Updated at 9:30 AM with correct River Road building heights] Last night's presentation of the Westbard Sector Plan preliminary recommendations was perhaps most notable for what was not shown. At the top of the list would be street level renderings of how the proposed density and structures would appear to someone walking or driving down Westbard Avenue, Ridgefield Road, or River Road. While specific heights and density were clearly communicated through the presentation, it is hard to get a sense of what character those streets would have under the latest draft. Also missing, was any specific plan to add additional vehicle capacity to current roads, and River Road in particular. Still missing, is a full service gas station on Westbard Avenue. What might have been missing the most, in my opinion, was enough amenities and benefits for existing residents, who are being asked to accept many negatives in this draft.

First, I'd like to talk about the positives of the updated plan.
Comparing the previous
draft to the new one
Where the previously-listed historical consultant never appeared at any of the Westbard Sector Plan meetings last year, there now is a staff member working on the historic past of the area. Sandra Youla has already compiled records and information on the African-American community that existed along River Road between Ridgefield Road and Little Falls Parkway. That community, started by slaves freed from the adjacent Loughborough plantation, largely existed from around 1864 to the 1960s. Some descendants are still in the immediate area. Youla has also uncovered more information about some of the specific industrial businesses that sprung up with the arrival of the Georgetown Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (now known as the Capital Crescent Trail). After the meeting, I and several other attendees added some other topics to the list. One I mentioned was Petey Greene, the pioneering African-American broadcaster, whose Emmy Award-winning programs originated from the Channel 20 studios behind today's McDonald's, near the CCT.

This work is important to provide some long-overdue recognition of African-American history in the plan area, but also to establish that this community does have a history and an identity. We don't need to have a developer manufacture one - we need to reclaim the genuine and fascinating one we have. Agricultural, railroad, African-American, Native American, and broadcasting history are just some of the many strands that make up "Westbard" history.

Secondly, anytime any heights are reduced in suburbia, it is a positive. The new River Road building heights are a mixed-bag for Kenwood. One building close to homes on the current Whole Foods site is shown as 50'. But the rest on River Road are shown as 75' - too tall, in my opinion, that close to homes. I think they should be 45', or 50' at most. The odd idea of putting 80' buildings on the sites of Westwood Center II and the Westwood Shopping Center's parking area between the "Bowlmor entrance" and Westland MS has been cut back to 50' and 75', respectively.

Now let's get to what still needs work - a lot.
New building heights
75' is still too high for the site near Westland, and the height of the Ridgefield WCII development should depend on the type of structure and landscaping. In entering a purely-suburban residential area, driving or walking up Ridgefield (or whatever it will be renamed when reconfigured), one should be confronted with abundant green space and architecture that meshes more with suburban, green settings. What little has been shown of the Equity One plan buildings that are not on the Westwood Shopping Center site, have a downtown, urban quality. The Westbard plan does not have to conform with non-conforming high-rises that already exist in a few spots.

In my personal opinion, we would do better to have structures along Ridgefield, and the side of Westbard across from the shopping center, be suburban/garden-oriented in character, with lower density and plenty of publicly-accessible green space.

About that green space.
There just isn't enough of it yet in the plan. Last night, we heard about a skate park, a dog park, small green patches on the Equity One site (Equity One actually showed a [relatively] larger park on their own proposal than what the planning draft offers), and a daylighting of the Willett Branch stream. The daylighting of the stream is a popular and good idea. But it is purely pie-in-the-sky right now, and would likely take over a decade or two to achieve. Skateboarders were few and far between in last night's audience, making Skate or Die! a not-so-winning lure to get them to buy into Bethesda Row Junior.
"Total chaos"
Transportation remains a stumbling block, as well. I think the plan first needs to take into account the character of the area. It is nothing like even the lowest density examples shown last night - Alexandria and Georgetown. Westbard is actually analogous to Spring Valley, the Palisades and Potomac Village. One has to ask, why does Westbard need to radically change, when those 3 communities haven't changed at all for decades?
The future Westbard Avenue?
The transportation presentation was off-base regarding transit. It highlighted 3 "improvements" that the plan would advocate for: building bus shelters on Westbard, displaying real-time bus schedules, and giving buses signal priority. All of that missed the point.

Westbard's lack of transit use comes from a lack of direct bus access to downtown Bethesda, and limited hours and days of service on the Ride On 23 and Metrobus T2. As of about 7 years ago, a community survey of the neighborhoods around the Westbard commercial center revealed that about 92% of residents drive to work. They don't drive because there's no bus shelter. They have smartphones that already tell them when the next bus is coming. They drive because it is the most convenient way to go when you are not right on a Metro line. Period. Transit is never going to be the main mode by which Westbard-area residents travel.
River Road would have
a cycle track and new
sidewalks
The plan needs to have specific projects suggested by the MD State Highway Administration for River Road. There are zero at this stage. A point was clearly made last night by planners that River Road is not going be widened for cars. At all. Yet, we're told traffic speeds will also be slowed down, and traffic signals added. The County traffic studies paint a rosy picture of the congestion situation on River Road today. Anyone who drove to last night's meeting knows that doesn't match reality. As a Kenwood resident dryly and correctly noted, either drivers are simply imagining the traffic jams, or "the other possibility is that the data are flawed."

Adding 1516 more housing units above what is currently allowed now will bring 2880 new cars (based on the latest 1.9 cars-per-household Census data) to what is essentially a two-block area. And no new vehicle capacity will be added to River Road? That is a recipe for Carmageddon.

Schools? That topic is not going to go away, either. There is no community support for moving Little Falls Library, and the library site is too small for a new school. So why is a potential library move still shown in last night's plan draft? It should be removed. I'm suspicious of a bait-and-switch: The library moving to fit the Equity One timetable, and then MCPS later saying they're not going to build a school on the old library site. Presto, change-o, and you've got a private developer coming in to build an apartment building on the library site.

Redistricting just the new households into the Bethesda-Chevy Chase cluster was another option mentioned. But it's important to remember that MCPS is the one that will decide who gets redistricted, regardless of the good intentions of the planners in specifying anything in the plan.

The other primary option has much more support. That is to reopen Clara Barton Elementary, the Goddard School and/or take back Brookmont ES from the Washington Waldorf School. WWS recently signed a new 30 year lease, with 5 year renewal options. I've heard that the options are at the discretion of WWS, not MCPS. But I haven't confirmed that yet.

Still, that won't address the problems of kids taking gym class in the hallways at Pyle MS, or overcrowding at Whitman. Residents already in the BCC cluster probably don't like the sound of getting all the new students dumped into their schools, either.

The bicycle planning certainly makes it sound like it will make getting around by bike easier. But a cycle track on River Road is largely dependent upon redevelopment along there. That could take 20 years. You can't have a bike lane that stops and restarts along the road.
Proposed connector road
along CCT between River Road
and Westbard Avenue
Finally, the controversial "connector road" has reappeared in the latest draft. This is designed to provide a bypass for rush hour traffic to avoid the future traffic snarl along Westbard at the eventual "town center" there. It was strongly opposed by residents of Westbard Mews, who are near where the road would connect River to Westbard, around today's Crown Street or Park Bethesda parking lot. It has potential to help, but the negatives for adjacent residents will have to be weighed in that decision.

Ultimately, there was very little to offer residents in exchange for the pain urbanization would inflict. And providing amenities isn't just the burden of the developers. The County Council, who receive those fat developer checks, need to put some skin in the game as well. They and the developers will only benefit from a major redevelopment and urbanization. What about the taxpayers?

I grew up in the Westbard area, and can attest to the total lack of public facilities in the neighborhood other than Little Falls Library. Where is the Recreation Center in this plan? When you hear about the Wheaton Youth Center in its prime, when kids could go there after school or on summer vacation, and shoot hoops, act in a play or take advantage of numerous other activities and programs, you have to ask - why wasn't there a facility like that in the "Westbard" area? It's so often said that Wheaton is an afterthought compared to Bethesda. But they're getting a second rec center, while West Bethesda hasn't had its first yet. I don't want to limit potential ideas to a rec center. But personally, I'd like to see at least one world-class facility for people of all ages, and a lot more green space - just for starters - in this plan.
"It's almost obscene"
Residents were still overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. One lifelong resident said, "I'd like to keep suburban Montgomery County traditionally suburban." He implored planners not to buy "into the trend of 'modernizing' the suburbs. Please do not sacrifice the character of Bethesda for the sake of making money." Resident Leanne Tobias said the plan was "still too dense."
"We deserve better"
Kenwood resident Shep Burr made clear he was "unpersuaded by your presentation." Burr said he had "never seen anything like this, where a government body comes in and essentially makes an argument for a developer." He argued (correctly) that the county has been derelict in maintaining and updating what it could control in the Westbard area for decades. "Where have you been for the last 15 years?" he asked. Burr said "we're gonna work this out" wasn't a sufficient strategy to deal with complicated issues like traffic and overcrowded schools. "I haven't heard one word about how it would effect my neighborhood. We deserve better," he concluded to applause.
"all of this is bunk"
Another resident questioned planners' characterizations of what residents had asked for, and who could be official spokespeople for residents. "You've got to poll us in a formal way," she said, "otherwise, all of this is bunk, and you can't figure out what's what."
"incredible job"
Of the handful of plan supporters, only one identified as living in a neighborhood actually adjacent to the Westbard plan area. That 30-year Kenwood resident told planners, "you've done an incredible job."

A different Kenwood resident seemed to agree with my argument above, concluding that what's being offered was "no justification for the changes you propose."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

75 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Lots of grey heads.

Reminds me of the episode of South Park where the old folks escaped from the nursing home.

Anonymous said...

@ 5:27 AM (first) - I guess that's why he doesn't do restaurant reviews, only packaged foods.

Anonymous said...

Who else will rally behind me to get remove Robert Dyer, this scourge upon all our houses, from Bethesda?~!

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine the uproar if someone suggested redeveloping Westbard's grand parking lot to make a recreation center. All the same grey heads would show up and make the same tired arguments against any change for the good of the next generation.

Robert Dyer said...

5:59: It wouldn't have to be on the shopping center site. It might be more appropriate on the nursing home site, as it wouldn't be that tall, and is more compatible with the single-family homes next to it. As I mentioned, it's only one example of a more-substantive amenity that could be delivered quickly.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Dyer,

Thank you for posting the minutes for us. It is not clear to me how tall the buildings on River Road will be. Except for the structure near Kenwood will other buildings be 75' tall?

Do you know how many 75' tall buildings the planners are now proposing?

Robert Dyer said...

5:29: It's a shame you missed my recent, extensive review of the new Summer House Santa Monica at Pike & Rose.

Anonymous said...

anon @ 5:39

I think what many citizens are now realizing is that they should have voted in the last election for Robert Dyer rather than R. Berliner. They would not have to fight this battle now.

Robert Dyer said...

6:02: From what they said, the 75' buildings will be the ones on the Bowlmor/Citgo side of Westbard. As I mentioned in my post, I would like to have seen more detailed renderings, and different perspectives. These tiny overhead maps are not sufficient.

Robert Dyer said...

5:39: *crickets* *pin drops*

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

5:27 - Many of those grey heads are not realizing that the planners are also proposing closing the Clara Barton community center to make room for a new school. That community center is invaluable for the community and is used primarily by senior citizens.

This is the trend supported by our County Council, push out the old folks to make room for the millennials.

Robert Dyer said...

5:27: You've discovered the fountain of youth? You'll never get old yourself? And if you do, you'll give up your rights to express your opinion about issues that affect you as a property owner?

Anonymous said...

6:02 It was very strange that John Marcolin failed to mention the new buildings proposed for the South side of River Road which makes me think that those will be 75' tall.

Anonymous said...

The highlight of the meeting occurred when Dyer asked his greybearded peasants carrying pitchforks to join him in singing "an old Bavarian folk tune" - which turned out to be the Horst-Wessel-Lied.

Robert Dyer said...

6:02: Yes, you are correct that all other buildings shown on River are 75'.

Robert Dyer said...

6:15: You're right - from what was said verbally, the impression was given that River Road was all 50', but looking at the map later, it turns out they're all 75' but the one next to the houses on Brookside. So it's not as good news for Kenwood as I thought.

Anonymous said...

"what was said verbally"

LOL, what does this mean? How else does one say something?

Robert Dyer said...

6:29: It means what was said verbally was not reflective of the actual heights on the map.

Anonymous said...

Some of our County Council members live in Tacoma Park. I hope they will consider a similar manufactured development with 75' tall buildings in their backyard.

Robert Dyer said...

6:39: That's the beauty of it: Like the developers and new urbanists who tell the rest of us to go urban from the safety of their McMansions in Potomac, Burning Tree and the Palisades, many councilmembers live in Takoma Park, where the are shielded from the same urban development they preach for their constituents. They've taken the hypocritical oath.

Anonymous said...

@ 6:39 AM - Ta[k]oma Park isn't comprised mainly of huge empty parking lots and decaying industrial areas, as Westbard is at the present.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Clara Barton is closing. What school will they put there? I was unaware of plans for another elementary school in the Whitman cluster over there.

Robert Dyer said...

6:52: Those parking lots are packed during business hours. The Whole Foods one is a nightmare to maneuver in.Stop by Westbard sometime to learn what you're saying is false. No one is asking for Rodeo Drive when they want to fill their gas tank or get a hamburger. It's a commercial/industrial area that serves the residents well as-is.

Robert Dyer said...

6:54: Clara Barton is just one of 3 former ES buildings that could be reopened as an ES by MCPS as needed in the future.

Anonymous said...

This is so interesting because yesterday they did not mention the Clara Barton site because that site is in the Whitman cluster so they only talked about the Little Falls library as the potential ES site.

They recommended that Westbard be part of the BCC cluster.

Anonymous said...

sorry I think they did mention clara Barton. How would that work with the school boundary then.

Anonymous said...

I couldnt help but notice that dispite the important historic African American roots that define this community's identity, there is not a single African American in any of your pictures.

Anonymous said...

Whole Foods lot is always a nightmare because it's too small. I've never seen the Westbard lot more than 50% full. That back corner by Rite Aid is a wasteland.

Anonymous said...

People concerned about the results of the traffic study should request the specific dates observed and compare them to the MCPS calendar, federal holidays, snow days, etc. I once caught a traffic study (to evaluate the need for a school crossing guard) being conducted on an MCPS holiday.

I agree that the developer needs to give the community a lot more than additional students and traffic.

Anonymous said...

@6:12 "This is the trend supported by our County Council, push out the old folks to make room for the millennials."

It's not about "pushing out" the old folks. It's just fact that the vast majority of these old folks are going to be dead by the time redevelopment actually finishes and we need the redevelopment to be something that's actually attractive to people who are, you know, alive.

Anonymous said...

Yet another article from Robert Dyer that distorts and misinterprets things and throws gasoline on the flames.

Anonymous said...

11:35 any specific "distortions" or will you just stick to ad hominem attacks on Robert? Let's have a conversation.

Folks appreciate Robert's reporting, now more than ever.

Steve D. said...

"Anonymous said...
It's not about "pushing out" the old folks. It's just fact that the vast majority of these old folks are going to be dead by the time redevelopment actually finishes and we need the redevelopment to be something that's actually attractive to people who are, you know, alive.

11:14 AM"

Funny how not many of those people you speak of were interested enough to show up at the meeting.

Anonymous said...

I recommend that you not allow anonymous comments. It would be better for people to be required to list their name to comment.

As for the fact that the people at the meeting had grey hair, I appreciate that they have the time to attend! Those of us with kids in elementary and middle school are jammed with work and childcare. I appreciate that they have the time to advocate. My view (as a 45-year-old Gen X-er) is that it would be nice to give the Westbard area a facelift, but that the Developer needs to set aside land in that development for an elementary school. Another idea is to put a 9th grade academy there, which is a concept used in some public school districts in the Midwest. That would ease congestion at the high schools, although not at the lower levels (although perhaps they could re-open the school near Sangamore used by the Washington Waldorf School.) So in a nutshell, I like the idea of improvements to that area, but the developer must set aside land for a school(s) it if plans to bring all of those additional students to an already-developed area.

Anonymous said...

"Funny how not many of those people you speak of were interested enough to show up at the meeting."

That's just the natural order of things. Of course retirees always make up the vast majority of these crowds as they're the ones with time to burn. Add in the advent of the digital age and now even fewer young people show up to these things. We just simply tweet or email our councilmembers instead.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I recommend that you not allow anonymous comments. It would be better for people to be required to list their name to comment."

Practice what you preach.

Anonymous said...

12:51 - The Waldorf school is located in the Whitman cluster and the planners don't want to antagonize the residents there. The kids would have to go to Pyle/Whitman.

Robert Dyer said...

12:51: You are correct. The library site, which is actually owned by us, the resident taxpayers, is too small for a school. I think reclaiming the Sangamore site or another former ES is probably the most affordable and environmentally-friendly option.

Robert Dyer said...

11:35: The slides from the presentation are right here. Readers can easily verify what I've written using those slides. Bethesda residents are highly educated, and can quickly judge what is fact. That's why they read this blog for the real story.

Anonymous said...

The library site isn't owned by Westbard residents. It's owned by all Montgomery County residents.

It's funny how NIMBYs use the lack of school capacity as a reason to block development, yet they even more furiously oppose new schools in their own backyards.

Robert Dyer said...

5:14: I clearly said resident taxpayers, not "Westbard residents". No one is blocking a school. We're pointing out the library site is too small for a school. The ultimate problem is that the sprawl of infill development seems to bank on the idea that infinite growth is possible. It's not.

Anonymous said...

"the sprawl of infill development"

haha, I couldn't help but laugh at that Dyer-ism.

Anonymous said...

He repeatedly confuses "sprawl" and "density", but that one is a gem.

Dyer - Can't lift a barrel. Can't cite a source. Can't figure out what words actually mean.

Anonymous said...

"infinite growth"

And yet another addition to his army of straw men.

Robert Dyer said...

6:00: More cars, more people, more buildings in suburban, low-density area is sprawl as much as Clarksburg and Frederick are.

Robert Dyer said...

6:21: If you're referring to the 7770 article, I broke that story. I am the source. It's the later articles that haven't cited a source. That's because there was no source. No press release. No sign. What's the source?

Robert Dyer said...

6:22: You really need to educate yourself with some reading on the myth and fallacy of infinite growth. I recommend it for the County Council and Planning Board, as well. I realize it's harder than just firing up a bulldozer and smashing stuff, but give it a try.

Anonymous said...

"I am the source."

The only way that could be true would be if you worked for JBG. And you don't.

Anonymous said...

Dyer: "More cars, more people, more buildings in suburban, low-density area is sprawl as much as Clarksburg and Frederick are."

Not really. Unless you have a growth/population moratorium across the region, those cars and people are going to have to go somewhere. Either we put these households close-in or we push them out to the third ring. There's no magic that makes them disappear. Do you honestly think the region's traffic and infrastructure burden will be better off if people have to commute 30 miles to work instead of 3?

People aren't in favor of infill because we're developers or lobbyist; we're in favor of the infill because there are real benefits to it, e.g. more vibrant communities and more (economically, environmentally, etc.) sustainable infrastructure. I hope I didn't waste my time in replying; I promise I'm not part of the "MoCo Machine" or whatever you call people you disagree with on this issue.

Robert Dyer said...

7:26: Nobody at the outlet that published the later article works for JBG, either. What was their source? I broke the story. What was their source? It's a simple question.

Robert Dyer said...

8:44: I assume, therefore, that as a genuine and sincere advocate of smart growth, you surely subscribe to two of its primary tenets: placing jobs within the same area as the housing (and not just baristas), and placing higher-density development around Metro stations.

Can you buy into the plan put forth last night, when the presentation made a straight-faced pronouncement that you reduce traffic by eliminating jobs and office space. And a plan that - so far - includes not a single square foot of new office space around Westbard? And places urban density beyond walking range of a Metro stop?

Smart growth advocates worldwide should be following the Westbard plan closely - we could be witnessing an abandonment of the fundamental principles of smart growth right here in MoCo. I find this turn of events absolutely fascinating, because it would mean they've been lying to us for the last decade.

Anonymous said...

County planners seem to have it backwards. High density at Westbard but condo buildings with 4 luxury units (one per floor with private automobile garages) next to the Bethesda Metro station.

Makes no sense.

Will Planners and the Council defy the overwhelming majority of Westbard residents and push the plan through?

Anonymous said...

8:44pm: The brilliant thing about Robert's site is that you're allowed to disagree!..what a concept! Just keep it civil. We're all seeking the same thing.

Anonymous said...

@ 9:13 PM -

"Nobody at the outlet that published the later article works for JBG, either. What was their source? I broke the story. What was their source? It's a simple question."

LOL, keep dancing. You're not "the source".

@ 9:23 PM -

You'd be complaining if the plan included more offices. Just as you complain about the crowding of our local schools, and then you turn around and complain about proposals to build new schools.

Keep dancing. LOL

Robert Dyer said...

10:02: If I'm not the source, who is?

You just made up more lies about Westbard. I believe there has to be office space in order to claim smart growth. But of course, thanks to the County Council's humiliating record on creation of high-wage jobs, and failure to attract a single large corporation to relocate here in over a decade, there's no demand for office space. So you can't blame the developer for not wanting to build any.

Secondly, the County hasn't made a single viable school construction proposal so far. It has only shown the Little Falls Library as a potential site. Problem - an elementary school requires 7.5 acres. That site is only 4 acres. They can probably solve the ES problem simply by taking back one of the 3 former ES buildings. That would still leave the problems of Pyle and Whitman.

Anonymous said...

So tell us how the notion that 7770 was changing to condo magically appeared in your head.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure the Washington Waldorf School/old Brookmont ES is off the table. WWS recently signed a decades-long lease with the county and is undergoing a major renovation. If I recall correctly, many years ago, the property was deemed unsuitable and was no longer considered part of MCPS; its lease is managed by another county agency. Before proposing options, the developer should do its homework on what sites are actually available and MCPS necessities for a site.

Anonymous said...

The Waldorf school is in the Whitman cluster so it cannot be considered.

We now need a community meeting with the B-CC cluster, since the planners recommended that Westbard be re-zoned for the BCC cluster.

Anonymous said...

"I assume, therefore, that as a genuine and sincere advocate of smart growth, you surely subscribe to two of its primary tenets: placing jobs within the same area as the housing (and not just baristas), and placing higher-density development around Metro stations."

We're talking about upzoning commercial and light-industrial parcels that are about a mile away from the metro. I think that's a reasonable distance for moderate density.

While plenty of people will walk/bike/bus that mile to the metro on their own, I do think it's important we make it as easy as possible for people to do so. The county and/or developers need to clearly outline transportation upgrades, such as having a direct shuttle continuously run between the metro and a couple key dropoff/pickup locations in Westbard (as opposed to a regular bus coming through every 20 minutes and stopping a dozen times before reaching the metro station). Bikeshare stations should also be a requirement placed on developers of key parcels. There are other ideas out there, I'm sure, and it'd be nice to explore those options as well.

G. Money said...

Dyer, I am sure that were you into citing sources, you could cite something showing that most Americans do not consider a mile to be walkable. Americans are fat and lazy, so that would be no surprise.

I will, however, contend that the distance between Westbard and downtown Bethesda is walkable, as I have walked that distance many hundreds of times (and that's a very short walk). I even walked that route when I worked in Westbard. I've been walking that route since I was a kid and there were train tracks there.

Walking aside though - as 9:45AM points out, transit options can be adjusted based on density needs, in order to provide direct shuttles or increased bus frequency to metro stops.

Robert Dyer said...

7:01: I don't have to - I broke the story. The question is, what was the source for articles published by others later in the day?

Robert Dyer said...

9:27: That is true - the answer of just dumping the problem onto parents and students in the BCC cluster isn't as simple as they made it sound. Pyle & Whitman are overcrowded, as well.

Robert Dyer said...

9:45: I'm all for better bus service, and a free shuttle at developer expense. But it's important to note that smart growth has not been based upon the idea of people walking a mile to Metro. A quarter mile has been acknowledged as acceptable, and a half mile is about the outer limits. So allowing urban density would be an abandonment of smart growth principles here.

It's also notable that the poll of residents indicated 92% drive to work. So there is definitive evidence that "plenty of people" won't walk - otherwise, they'd be walking now.

I do think the bike system outlined sounds very well thought-out, and should encourage a modest increase in bicycle commuting (but more effective for errands and recreational/exercise). But we need to prepare for the reality of X-thousand cars dropped into a 2-block area a mile from Metro.

Robert Dyer said...

G. Money, As someone who does walk long distances, I'll agree it's a manageable walk. But does the average commuter have the time or inclination to do that? As you mentioned, Americans are "lazy" or otherwise not inclined to take a frigid or sweaty mile walk twice a day. And that's before you even get to the Metro station. I don't think the developers would even make that claim. The walk option is available to the current home and high-rise residents, and 92% are rejecting it and driving. X-thousand more cars at 92% (or even 72%) useage in rush hour simply can't be handled by existing highway capacity. Thus Berliner is desperately seeking a new capacity test that will allow more congestion. Let's get the SHA in on this to find out just how many people can be added to this already-developed area.

Anonymous said...

First Dyer claimed that he opposed this development because the local roads had insufficient capacity. Now that improvements to the roads have been included, he's jumped on the "induced demand" bandwagon.

"the poll of residents indicated 92% drive to work."

Poll of "which" residents? Residents of Westbard? Of Bethesda? Of Montgomery County? Of the entire metro area? Of residents who actually live in an area that's convenient to Metro or bus? Or just single-family home residents? Without any context, that number is totally meaningless.

Robert Dyer said...

11:59: It was a poll of the neighborhoods surrounding the Westbard industrial-commercial area that are members of the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights. That includes both single-family home neighborhoods like Green Acres and Springfield, and buildings like The Kenwood and Kenwood Place. You can just use common sense to find it accurate - there are hardly ever many residents at the bus stops. And there is excellent sidewalk access all the way from Westbard Avenue to the Friendship Heights Metro - but you hardly ever see anybody making that walk during either rush hour. They can easily do it now, but they don't. So 92% auto use sounds like a very solid number. Definitely more solid than the fictional traffic studies referred to Wednesday night. Those are absolutely laughable to anyone who actually drives in that area.

Robert Dyer said...

11:59: By the way, what "improvements to the roads" are you talking about. Gwen Wright was absolutely clear that they are adding no vehicle capacity to River Road. Do you have a project the planners themselves aren't sharing with us for River Road?

Anonymous said...

"It was a poll of the neighborhoods surrounding the Westbard industrial-commercial area that are members of the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights. That includes both single-family home neighborhoods like Green Acres and Springfield, and buildings like The Kenwood and Kenwood Place."

So a poll that included mostly single-family home residents says that they prefer to drive everywhere? You don't think that the numbers will improve after more apartments are built? Seriously?

"CCC"? Sounds suspiciously like "KKK".

Anonymous said...

Dyer is citing data from a poll, and you have conjecture. I'll go with data...just sayin.

Kenwood Place is a huge sprawling condo complex that exists now right on Westbard Circle. There are townhomes there as well. So, I think this data is legit in regards to what to expect in auto and transit usage from similar new buildings.

Robert Dyer said...

6:52: I wouldn't call Friendship Heights "mostly single-family" homes. There were multiple high-rise buildings, and townhomes included in the poll. Style of home doesn't reduce the distance to Metro.

Anonymous said...

1. I attended the April 22 Westbard meeting. Robert Dyer's account is an accurate summary of what took place at the meeting.

2. I concur with Dyer's concerns about the Westbard sector plan. (No, I'm not grey-haired, but I am a veteran manager of commercial real estate investment funds and a LEED AP expert on sustainable real estate development and retrofit. I am in no way anti-development and I agree that Westbard is very much in need of an updating.)

3. With respect to smart growth and infill development: I support both, but the scale of development should be compatible with the surroundings. A corridor of 75' building heights along Westbard Avenue and the Giant site adds too much building height and density to an area that functions as a transitional zone from urban to suburban uses and single-family housing. As Dyer suggests, 45-50' building heights are more compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Keeping building heights at this level is good planning-- it increases density and is compatible with proposed transportation infrastructure.

Anonymous said...

The ability to e-mail and tweet does not preclude attending public meetings. I have attended most of the public meetings on Westbard, I'm not retired, and I both e-mail and tweet. (I blog, too.)

Don't whine about those who attend meetings on Westbard, don't assume that meeting attendees are out of touch, and don't assume that e-mailing and tweeting confers superior intelligence or acumen.

Anonymous said...

To those making snide comments about grey hair and retirees: Your ageism is showing.

Someday, too, (if you're lucky) you'll be on the receiving end of similar comments.

Think about it.