 |
| Does this look like the suburbs to you? This image appears on the cover of the Westbard Sector Plan draft |
As of this point, the plan remains unconvincing in its arguments. While it has solid environmental recommendations, a very good and comprehensive bike facility plan, and many people would like to have Willett Branch daylighted as a stream park centerpiece, the scale of development remains out of sync with the character of the neighborhoods around it. And of what few rewards for the community there are in the plan, they are mostly pie-in-the-sky, down-the-road promises. The traffic, overcrowded schools, urban character, disruptive construction - not to mention the rat invasion that will occur when these sites are dug up - and other negatives are coming within the next five years, not in the plan's mythical 2035 A.D.
Examine the details closely, and you'll find things aren't quite as they're being presented to you:
Phantom parks, real development
For example, what passes for parks and green space in the current draft are things like a cocktail napkin-sized 1/2-acre square on Westbard Avenue. Notice we're promised not that much more even in the long term. Maybe a skate park, which I don't think many homeowners are clamoring for. Notice also that public facilities such as a recreation center are filed under long-term, and vaguely defined.
Right now, there are no county facility buildings at all in the Westbard plan area. The area has been grossly underserved in that respect, among others, for decades. When you consider the Bethesda Pool reached capacity on Memorial Day weekend - and additional swimmers were turned away, and that thousands of more residents being added under this plan, it's clear that aquatic facilities are lacking in this part of Bethesda. A pool is just one element that could be incorporated into a recreation center, along with a fitness center, weight room, basketball courts, etc. There's nothing like that explicitly mandated in this plan. Just a lot of residential housing units.
Similarly, there's no guarantee that the bike facilities as shown will happen on River Road in our lifetimes - if ever. It would require the redevelopment of all properties on River Road.
Explain it any way you like, but the loophole is there to allow developers to get away with giving nothing of significance once again, just like the 1982 plan.
Deceptive density
One of the promises being given inappropriately-exceptional weight is private shuttles, to be ostensibly operated by the property owners, to take people between the Westbard developments and Metro stations. Forget that there's no study given to show how many cars such a service would remove from roads. Notice that there is also nothing to prevent developers from canceling the service once their sites are built out.
However, temporarily adding the shuttle service is listed under ways developers can achieve additional density, beyond what's allowed in the plan. So now you're talking about adding even more people and cars, which could end up on the roads, rather than even just mitigating the standard density allowed.
But wait, there's more density trickery.
The plan clearly states that planners are seeking affordable housing at a rate higher than the required 12.5%. That's great from an affordable housing standpoint. But I asked Equity One's Michael Berfield about that very question in February. He said that the number of units Equity One is tentatively seeking to construct on its 22 acres could change if more affordable units were required. So if planners were to require Equity One to exceed 12.5%, they would have to add more density to achieve the same rate of return. The same would go for every other property owner that plans to redevelop.
In short, we need to have more accurate numbers in the plan on just what its recommendations will end up allowing in total.
Retaining small businesses
Is it viable for developers to construct 500 SF spaces for lower-rent retail to retain the popular small businesses that currently exist on Westbard Avenue, Ridgefield Road and River Road? Is there anything that will actually require this to happen? How do those compare in size to the spaces in the Westwood Shopping Center today? For example, isn't Anglo Dutch Pools and Toys larger than 500 SF? I don't see anything tangible or assured for these business owners in the current text.
Aging in place
The plan cites a substantial number of senior citizens wanting to age-in-place. But it still shows the full-service Citgo station many of them rely on to fill their cars with gas being replaced. How does that facilitate aging-in-place, if your basic automotive care and fueling services are eliminated?
Heights are still too high
75' is too tall where it's being proposed near single-family home neighborhoods like Kenwood and Springfield. 50' is too high for Ridgefield Road, where single-family homes are adjacent to the plan area. Particularly with insufficient benefits being promised for existing residents, no improvements for vehicle commuter routes outlined, and no promise of exceptional or distinctive architecture to this point. When some of the optional methods of attaining greater density are added to projects, how much higher than 75' will those structures be? Even at 75', the map above clearly shows the concrete canyon effect that will result along Westbard, Ridgefield and River.
2096 rental units - and that doesn't include townhomes, condos, or additional density allowed - mean about 3144 people (1.5 persons per unit is the standard estimate for planning), and 4087 cars (1.9 vehicles per household under the latest Census number-study) being dropped into an area that comprises 2 city blocks. That is sprawl by any definition, and density totally out of character with the current suburban, residential character of the area.
It's also important to note that the student generation numbers are not only greater in the Westbard-area apartments and condos today (already acknowledged by Bruce Crispell of MCPS in November 2014), and that affordable units will generate students at an even-higher rate.
Images via Montgomery County Planning Department
123 comments:
/rant
By 2035 mass transit will be eliminated by self-driving smart cars. Those exiting a building will just say "ok google send me a car" and it will drive up. Plus the self-driving cars will be so safe you can head out on the road on your bike no problem. That is why more transit spending would be silly like the purple line and additional metro. If you share you trip with others you will be able to get on the HOT lanes across the Potomac to your Fortune 500 employer in Fairfax even quicker.
I don't see the metro shuttle as an issue. Some of the apartments at Westbard already offer such a shuttle and there is no move to stop it. The buildings can simply ban together and run a shared shuttle service.
Good point about county facilities. Add more parks and related facilities.
I agree about that lack of county facilities but "concrete canyon?" Seriously?
75 feet is hardly tall, and in fact may be too short to spur development. This isn't Damascus or Poolesville. This is a relatively dense, commercial area along a major thoroughfare just over a mile from the DC line. Buildings in Bethesda and Friendship Heights go up to 200-250 ft. How is 75 ft (5/6 stories) too tall? There are at least three existing buildings that are twice as tall in Westbard already.
Also, gas station/industrial/strip mall/small business owners have a right to close and redevelop their properties as they please, the county shouldn't force them to stay open.
It's interesting that Mr. Dyer claims to be conservative, but when it comes to development he's pro-big government/regulation and anti-private sector.
@ 6:09 AM - This is called "magical thinking".
@ 6:09 AM - By 2035 we'll all have been murdered by sentient swarms of weaponized drones. But those drones will be able to use Google cars, so you're basically right.
6:50AM: I must have missed the part of the article where you claim Dyer touts himself as a "conservative". You're making stuff up again.
The Palisades is a relatively dense, commercial area right over the DC line. Presumably, we'll see major re-development of the Palisades soon? High rises, with water views.
6:09 AM Car sharing, taxis, etc. have their place. But those are private services. Strong, public transit is essential.
@ 7:31 AM - You must have missed the part where Dyer ran as a Republican. In 2014. But he certainly has a lot of ridiculous contradictions in his talking points.
@ G. Money 7:27 AM - I read that as "we'll all be murdered by sentient swans".
7:48 AM Universal pre-K, affordable housing, etc...are hardly hard core "conservative" issues that Dyer ran on. Turn your brain on.
Hopefully when the creek is daylighted, it will be populated with some of those murderous sentient swans, lying in wait for Dyer.
lol, that's hilarious, G. Money. I wish you'd blog about Bethesda so I could read you stuff instead of this Dyer hack.
*your
@ 7:31am
"I must have missed the part of the article where you claim Dyer touts himself as a "conservative". You're making stuff up again."
Uhmm, yyeeaahhhh. You must be new here... "Again???"
"The Palisades is a relatively dense, commercial area right over the DC line. Presumably, we'll see major re-development of the Palisades soon?"
Whoa. Unless they bulldozed and replaced all of the residential homes and tiny Mom & Pops lining MacArthur overnight (which I'm pretty sure didn't happen) I definitely wouldn't call it "relatively dense, commercial."
You do realize you're comparing this with this
"High rises, with water views."
Seriously, does anyone here actually know what a high-rise is???
Palisades has a commercial strip with old buildings, Safeway,ancient apartment buildings, etc.
Why not redevelop? It's a great location, close in. Lots of people would live to live there.
"By 2035 mass transit will be eliminated by magic carpets. Those exiting a building will just say "ok sesame send me a carpet" and it will fly up."
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Low-rise: Up to 3 stories.
Mid-rise: 4 to 7 (or 9) stories.
High-rise: 8 (or 10) stories and up.
"Low-rise: Up to 3 stories.
Mid-rise: 4 to 7 (or 9) stories.
High-rise: 8 (or 10) stories and up."
Yeah, that's the generally accepted definition. However, here in NIMBYland it seems that 'high-rise/tower/skyscraper' is routinely used to describe anything taller than a townhouse (3 stories). You also have hyperbolic phrases thrown around like "concrete canyon,""can't see the sky," etc.
"Excessive density" means that there is not a large parking lot between a building and the street.
Remember, this thing had no community support. They're gonna do it anyway.
"The plan cites a substantial number of senior citizens wanting to age-in-place. But it still shows the full-service Citgo station many of them rely on to fill their cars with gas being replaced. How does that facilitate aging-in-place, if your basic automotive care and fueling services are eliminated?"
I think that nearly all of us would like to see our seniors able to live in their current residences as long as they would like. That doesn't mean that we want them behind the wheel all that time.
What if... a Fortune 500 company wanted to put their 100 ft tall headquarters in Westbard?
2:14PM Doubt folks are going to be lured to "Westbard" for an HQ. We can't get one in downtown Bethesda or White Flint.
Speaking of White Flint, what ever happened to the the unfulfilled promises that it was going to be MoCo's Tysons Corner? The downtown of the county. Our economic engine. Awfully quiet on that front. Well, there was that dust up when a county employee claimed that he was annexing City of Rockville neighborhoods (Twinbrook) into White Flint.
Wegmans will be nice, but Tysons is getting one before us AND they already have the jobs.
"Well, there was that dust up when a county employee claimed that he was annexing City of Rockville neighborhoods (Twinbrook) into White Flint."
LOLwut??
@2:59pm
The White Flint sector plan was approved 5 years ago. It will be decades before the approved development reaches full build-out. Marriott moving to LCOR's property would definitely help. Also Tysons is like 4 or 5 times the size of White Flint, and is directly accessible by the Beltway and the Dulles Toll Road.
Very good analysis, Bob. Thanks.
I appreciate Robert Dyer's blogs on the subject of the Westbard redevelopment. Dyer's summaries are more accurate and honest than those provided by the Montgomery County Planning Department.
As to the latest iteration of the plan: While recommendations for greenways and the daylighting of the Willett Branch stream remain welcome, the current plan does little to address the concerns of current residents. Here are some of the difficulties:
1)Still too DENSE.
*2096 new housing units are proposed (BEFORE potential density bonuses linked to affordable housing construction). BEFORE density bonuses, this would approximately TREBLE the number of housing units in the area.
*No plan has yet been prepared to mitigate resulting traffic and school overcrowding. While the use of shuttle buses to connect new residential buildings with the Metro has been proposed, it is still unclear to what extent these services will be implemented and to what extent, if implemented, they will ease congestion.
*If the Planning Department's recommendation to allow on-street parking on both sides of Westbard Avenue is implemented, it is possible that Westbard Avenue will become a choke point, rather than an efficient route for traffic ingress and egress from the area.
*A new, low-speed connector road is proposed between Westbard Avenue and River Road near the route of the Capitol Crescent Trail. It is unclear whether this will alleviate or increase congestion.
2)Still too HIGH.
*Notice the proposal for 75 foot heights at the southeast portion of the Giant site, intended to accommodate a new grocery store *and structured parking*. Do most "urban villages" (the Planning Department's language) contain structured parking, the classic eyesore, at 75 foot heights?
*Notice the proposal for 80 foot heights at the back side of the Giant site (the side furthest south of Westbard Avenue), adjacent to the residential neighborhood that includes Albia and Jordan Roads. Residents will want to determine whether 80 foot mixed use construction will impinge on these quiet, single family areas.
*Much of Westbard Avenue and a segment of River Road would be zoned for 75 feet, on both sides of the street.
*Quite a bit of the area designated for 50 foot heights is zoned industrial. South of River Road (the Giant side of River Road), a substantial share of the new mixed use space would be zoned for 75-80 foot heights.
*Notice that most of the renderings in the proposed plan feature structures in the 50 foot height range, *NOT* in the 75-80 foot height range recommended for a significant portion of the area by the Planning Department. Residents should demand to see additional renderings depicting construction at 75-80 foot heights.
The Planning Department characterizes its plan for the Westbard sector as an "urban village." I would dispute that characterization. While I applaud the inclusion of green space and the daylighting of the Willett Branch stream in the plan, the bulk of the area will be built to heights typically seen in portions of downtown Bethesda (think of the buildings housing Barnes and Noble and the Landmark Cinema). That's not a village, that's a downtown. And that's too dense for an already congested suburban area that is not Metro served.
Right, so why were folks saying White Flint would be our Tysons?
Simply google those three words and you'll see it was rampant.
Any way, Fairfax isn't waiting decades. Tysons is booming now.
Marriott has Hogan and Leggett by the nuts
They're going to offer the world to keep Marriott.
RE: The Palisades
MacArthur Boulevard is a 4 lane road that carries significant rush hour traffic into DC, just like River. If Montgomery County Planning had jurisdiction, MacArthur Boulevard would no doubt permit 75-foot heights. As a land use attorney who lives near Westbard remarked last summer: Montgomery County does concrete well. (No, that's not a compliment.)
I love how Dyer and his flunky whine that
1) That White Flint Mall was closed
And 2) That White Flint has not yet become "Tysons Corner".
@ 5:32 PM - I'd rather have a 7-story building on a nice tree-lined street like MacArthur Boulevard, than crappy 1- and 2-story buildings in the middle of huge asphalt parking lots, as in Westbard now.
The shopping center needs upgrades, everyone agrees on that. Residents pushed back on the developer's vision.
On the so-called NIMBYs who live in the neighborhoods adjacent to Westbard:
They're not against all development, they're just against grafting an urban setting onto a suburban one. The residents have supported redevelopment at 50 foot heights, especially for parcels adjacent to single-family housing, like the Giant site. That's not backward, it's sensible.
To put this in perspective: compare Westbard to the recently-constructed Cathedral Commons on Wisconsin Avenue between the National Cathedral and Tenleytown. The maximum height at Cathedral Commons is 5 stories, about 50 feet. And Cathedral Commons abuts high rise and townhouse development, not single-family neighborhoods.
Westbard area residents are asking for development on the scale of Cathedral Commons. That is hardly unreasonable-- especially when you consider the character of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods.
Not one mention by ANYONE about the 100-foot height by WES's "Planned Development". Everyone is focused on Equity One, complaining about 50-75 foot heights, but not ONE person is complaining about WES's "Planned Development".
@5.40 pm: No one is arguing against streetscaping and green space, nor is anyone arguing against the redevelopment of Westbard. Everyone agrees that the area requires updating.
What the community is saying-- accurately-- is that the current plan overbuilds the site. Community groups have advocated 45-50 foot heights and somewhat lower densities than proposed. That's reasonable for an area that borders single-family neighborhoods and has limited mass transit.
6:29: I think the main concerns about the shuttle are 1) What is the guarantee the free shuttles will continue to operate? and 2) They've now snuck a density bonus for shuttles in there, likely negating all of whatever traffic relief the shuttle would provide, and 3) What *is* the specific number of cars a shuttle would take off the road? We don't know, because they haven't provided any data for that yet.
One important thing to remember re: the one current shuttle I'm aware of, for Park Bethesda - that's run by Capital Properties, who want to build 2 more tall towers there. So, while they're joyfully running the shuttle now, will they continue to do so in 2022 or 2030, once they've gotten all the approvals they want and need from the Planning Board?
6:50: The concrete canyon effect can be seen in the image posted at the top of this article. If you look at the height map I posted lower down, note the 75'/75' parallel sections on Westbard Avenue and River Road. Those would indeed be 75' canyons. Then add in the likely bonus density, and the effect increases. Same with the double 50' on Ridgefield. Certainly better than 75', but a canyon effect nonetheless. There has to be a way to break up the massing for a suburban setting.
River Road is indeed a jammed, major thoroughfare - although far lower in capacity than Wisconsin Avenue. What's missing here, is a Metro station, such as those in Friendship Heights or Bethesda.
The handful of high-rises in the Westbard area are non-conforming properties that have been grandfathered in. They could not be built today under the current zoning, and therefore do not justify additional inappropriate heights.
Citgo wants to stay open - they don't own their stations, Equity One does.
You're saying I'm a conservative, but The Seventh State said I was running to the left of the liberal County Council. Interesting.
9:32: Palisades is a great example. That neighborhood, Spring Valley and Potomac Village have remained virtually unchanged for decades. Tiny homes also line River Road between the "Westbard" commercial/industrial area and the DC line. All of the above have exactly the same strip retail centers, grocery stores, etc. All of the above do not have a Metro station.
So why would you apply urban character to just Westbard, and not Potomac Village, the Palisades and Spring Valley? The fact is, urban infill development is inappropriate for all 4 of these areas.
12:23: Your ageism is showing. Can't wait to hear your opinion on this when you are a senior citizen who can still operate a car just fine, but maybe prone to falling and just need some help pumping gas or filling your brake fluid. Do life and independence end at that point, in your opinion? Maybe in planners' opinion...
5:40: So why doesn't Palisades have it? What's the hold-up? They seem to be well-protected there. Why aren't our elected officials protecting Westbard-area residents in that way?
5:51: I actually did an article on that a few weeks back, and pointed out the height was out of character with the area.
Dyer: "Your ageism is showing."
Say that to the dead mother who was just run over while standing on a sidewalk in Wheaton by an 83 year old, asshole.
" That is sprawl by any definition, and density totally out of character with the current suburban, residential character of the area"
You sir do not know the definition of SPRAWL. This is the exact opposite of sprawl, which is low density development, placed far away from other density, usually paired as "suburban sprawl", a constant expansion away from the urban core, causing increasing development of the road and support network, and diminishing the quality of the center. You might disagree with the proposed density, or charachter of the plan, but you are very wrong to call this SPRAWL.
You need to get your terms straight if you are going to critisize a plan.
11:52: So all 83 year olds lose their license because of one driver? Please. Ridiculous. Any other ageist and wannabe dictator suggestions?
3:40: Not only is sardine-canning thousands more people into an already fully-developed area away from Metro a form of overlay sprawl.
But your own words brilliantly describe the draft Westbard plan:
It is indeed "placed far away from other density", the growth will be in a truly "suburban", not urban, area, and it is absolutely "a constant expansion away from the urban core", whether that be downtown Bethesda or downtown DC.
A major problem with the draft, however, is that it doesn't provide a single "increase in development of the road network," nor major transit initiative, to support the sprawl growth away from the urban core it will facilitate.
This is not TOD.
Robert, I read your site pretty frequently, but why are you such a dick to your readers?
"Your ageism is showing"? Really?
Not one comment or story on WES's 100-foot "planned development".
I live at Kenwood Place and often take the RideOn bus to the Friendship Heights Metro Station. I am usually the only resident at the stop. The buses have lots of empty seats, even in "rush hour". The overwhelming majority of residents in all the condos and rentals drive their cars to get to work. Not everyone works near a Metro stop. The use of cars won't go away for a long time in this neighborhood. I predict that the introduction of so many new housing units will bring far more cars than the developers want us to believe. Their formulas don't apply everywhere.
Good point Dyer. Affordable housing brings more poor children to the Whitman cluster.
"Sardine-canning thousands more people into an already fully-developed area"
"Overlay sprawl"
LOL, what an insane drama queen. No "sardine cans", the area is not "fully developed", and denser development in a close-in area is not "sprawl".
"Anonymous said...
You sir do not know the definition of SPRAWL. This is the exact opposite of sprawl, which is low density development, placed far away from other density, usually paired as "suburban sprawl"
3:40 AM"
Suburban sprawl is the spread of the suburbs outward into rural areas. What Dyer is talking about is urban sprawl, the spread of the city outward into suburban areas. If you really want density, why not keep it in the city, instead of spreading it around the suburbs?
5:30: That's not a "reader", but a troll. You support his idea to confine senior citizens to nursing homes and take away their independence at some arbitrary age he pulls out of a hat? Ageism in a nutshell.
6:00: Clearly false - I reported on the WES building many weeks ago.
6:39: Seats are seats, regardless of income level. The fact is that affordable units in 20816 will understandably bring a higher rate of student generation.
They won't get Whitman, though, as planners have claimed all new units will magically go into the also-crowded BCC cluster.
Of course, we all know that Parks and Planning actually has zero authority to assure that, nor any power to control any future redistricting lines. #Oops
7:45: Show me a greenfield development site in the Westbard sector plan area, and your "insane drama queen" claim it's not fully developed might gain a shred of credibility. #Oops
"Close-in"? Close-in to what? Fort Bayard? Spring Valley? Those aren't urban cores. #Oops
Dyer broke the story on the WES building. Strange that someone would bring that up that old news.
"Close in" as in less than 6 miles from the center of downtown Washington DC. Closer than downtown Bethesda or downtown Silver Spring.
"Not fully developed" does not mean "greenfield", that no one has ever built anything on it. Greenfield development is sprawl. Westbard is greyfield. The current use is not the best use.
4:04: You're struggling, man. Under your definition, New York City would qualify as "not fully developed." You may not like single-family homes and gas stations, but the land area in question is indeed fully developed.
Westbard is not closer to DC than downtown Silver Spring. Moreover, Spring Valley and Palisades are *in* DC, but neither is being redeveloped as urban.
You're struggling.
No, I mean no mention from anyone (on this story) mentioning WES's 100 foot, high density project.
It is very hard to believe such a project would be allowed, right next to the public CCT, without any concern for public parking. It's absurd.
EYA's PR team and their surrogates weighing in.
@ 7:17 PM - Because what our bike trails really need is MORE PARKING!
And the picture at the top of the page looks just like the apartment buildings on Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase, DC. There is no Metro station there, yet things are just fine. Why is Dyer such a hysterical drama queen?
"You support his idea to confine senior citizens to nursing homes and take away their independence at some arbitrary age he pulls out of a hat?"
Dyer, again, proves the only arguments he can win are against strawmen.
"Moreover, Spring Valley and Palisades are *in* DC, but neither is being redeveloped as urban."
Because Spring Valley and Palisades are nice neighborhoods, not a sea of gas stations and storage buildings, like Westbard. Westbard is being redeveloped for good reason.
@ 6:36 PM
"Westbard is not closer to DC than downtown Silver Spring."
Once again, your reading comprehension sucks.
I said "...to the center of downtown DC", not "to the DC/Maryland border."
Westbard is a full mile closer to the center of downtown DC (the Zero Milestone at 1600 E St NW) than downtown Silver Spring.
My God, you are dense.
11:22: You're either being facetious, or you've never been to Spring Valley and the Palisades. Both have gas stations, automobile oriented retail centers and parking lots, and primarily low-rise structures. They're both exactly like Westbard. So, get back to the question - why are they remaining that way, while Westbard is being told to change?
9:06: First of all, things are not "fine" in terms of traffic on Connecticut Avenue.
Second, the Connecticut Ave. buildings you refer to are only .7 miles from Friendship Heights Metro. They are also on a straight shot via Metrobus down Connecticut Avenue to Van Ness Metro.
"The New Westwood" on Westbard Ave., by contrast, will be 1.8 or 2.0 miles from Friendship Heights Metro, depending upon your method of travel.
5:33: No one made any such offensive statement as you claim. The numbers are right from MCPS in existing units. The whole point is, the affordable units over the standard 12.5% will require Equity One to increase heights and density. So everyone should stop lying about 75' being the max height. Other developers will get the same on River.
5:24: There's a whole lot of suburbs between "Westbard" and the downtown point you're referring to.
Based on your odd reasoning, we are then brought back to Spring Valley and the Palisades. Both closer to your magic point in DC, yet neither is facing a mandate from DC planners to urbanize. Pretty much destroys your whole proximity argument.
The only sure things in life? Death taxes, and the impossibility of a Metro station or TOD ever coming to Spring Valley, Georgetown, the Palisades, or Potomac Village. And those are the places most of the developers and smart growth advocates live - along with Takoma Park. Safely protected from the overdevelopment they are prescribing for the rest of us. Isn't that rich?
4:47: Sounds like desperation on your part in losing the debate on the facts of the plan. No one has made any such argument as you claim.
There is exactly ONE gas station on the entire length of MacArthur Boulevard between Foxhall Road and the District/Maryland Line. Along the entire length of MacArthur Boulevard, there is only one parking lot that is anywhere close to being "large", at the Safeway, and only three smaller parking lots near Arizona Avenue.
The buildings along MacArthur are built close to the road, and frame it well. It's not a sea of asphalt and a jumble of ugly buildings like Westbard.
Just admit it, you live in a dump.
"neither is facing a mandate from DC planners to urbanize"
And neither is Westbard.
No one is forcing you to tear down your house and build a high-rise there.
If you think there is no dense, "high-rise" development in Georgetown, then you've apparently never been south of M Street.
7:47: The Palisades commercial areas are single-use, low-density, auto oriented surface parking, exactly like "Westbard". The Westbard plan is all about converting to mixed-use, and structured parking, and high-density. And my question to you is, why isn't Palisades going to make that transition?
"Just admit it", Westbard is the same as Spring Valley, Palisades and Potomac Village. Only one is changing. Why is that?
Not just because of old buildings. The buildings in SV and Palisades are even older than Westbard!
7:52: I don't know what cave you've been in for the last year, but there's a plan being rammed through that shows only mixed-use high-rises over the entirety of currently low-density Westbard. Your comment makes no sense.
7:59: I very clearly was referring to 2 specific things about Georgetown - it doesn't have a Metro station, and doesn't have transit-oriented development for that reason. You're going into other topics I didn't talk about.
@ 3:01 PM - No one is forcing you tear down your own house and build a high-rise, mid-rise, or whatever on your property.
Nor are any other single-family homes being redeveloped, voluntarily or involuntarily. Just obsolete industrial and commercial areas, whose owners want to see the best use for their properties.
4:27: Who said single-family homes were being redeveloped at this point? The redevelopment of the industrial and commercial areas has to be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It has to reflect that there's no Metro station at the site, and the limitations of the infrastructure. It also has to provide the best setting to protect and improve the water quality of Little Falls stream and watershed. The latter involves more than daylighting and constructing buildings.
This is why we have a public process, even if it is a sham of a process that's already predetermined in outcome. For example, this plan was rejected by all resident speakers last November, and supported by only one resident speaker this spring out of all who spoke at both meetings. Yet it continues forward, despite overwhelming resident opposition. That's the very definition of a sham.
"Has to"?
I guess not as clearly as you thought if it was misinterpreted or misread by a reader.
7:10: It was very clear. Georgetown was only referred to once, in a sentence about places that don't have Metro stations, and weren't planned as transit-oriented development. There's no confusion there.
I didn't say anything about supporting anyone's ideas but my own. Just in general, your attitude towards the people that comment on your site makes you seem like a hostile person. You often report on good stuff, but it's cheapened by your replies.
11:53: A reasonable, civilized response to someone who is calling me highly-insulting names makes *me* "hostile"? Nothing is "cheapened" by civilized dialogue, nor by appropriate responses to vulgar trolls.
Well obviously someone was confusion.
Plenty of community support. I would love to see this. As wouldany others. Just NIMBYs holding up progress because of the opinions of a small affected few losing sight of (or perhaps never having seen) the greater good.
I agree. I read this site regularly and it has some good content. But Dyer responds like a child to those who disagree with him.
You responded and then deleted the comment you responded to. Who does that? Oh dyer does. Way to go - now it sounds like you are rambling to yourself.
Wow that was a rude response. 7:52's comment was very civil and you jumped right at it with bullying attack.
Why does it "have to" be compatible?
Your responses are often just as vulgar to comments that don't deserve it. So not appropriate. Certainly some of the vampire comments deserve it, but the appropriate thing probably would be to act as an adult and not stoop to that level of childlike behavior.
Same old talking points from the anonymous blogger commenting here: anonymous negative guy posts negative stuff so therefore Dyer is negative. Makes no sense..lol. You're just making yourself look bad. It's all from this same negative sour guy who posts anonymous. He has some obsession with Dyer.
Dyer is part of the community and actually interacts with readers. What a concept! Wish other news sites would do the same.
Really it's not the same anonymous negative guy. Just as we all understand the anonymous positive supporters aren't the same person either.
Love the blog, Dyer. Keep it up!
Reduce proposed heights to 45-50 feet and you'll see plenty of community support. Not until then. Community supports redevelopment-- but not at the current bloated scale.
WES at 100 feet is ludicrous. All heights over 50 feet are out of scale with the area.
WES at 100 feet is out of scale, too. The surrounding communities need to band together to protest all out-of-scale redevelopment.
10:30 AM That really is the bottom line. This thing has no community support, but they're gonna do it anyway.
I don't think the community in the area organized well against it. From Dyer's reporting, they all spoke out against it at the public meetings, but apparently not enough pressure has been put on our elected officials because the bulldozers are already warming up.
10:30 AM is on the money regarding redevelopment. Folks want a better center, but not what is being proposed. Another concern is that this particular developer doesn't have a track record of world class retail development.
4:37: I've never written a single vulgar response to anyone. You're flat out lying at this point.
11:09: Trolls posting offensive, insulting comments are not "readers". I've never insulted opinions of readers. Total hyperbole and defamation.
10:08: The comment was false and attempting to divert from the topic at hand. No typical reader is engaging in that type of "civility". There is no single-family home inside the lines of the sector plan.
It seems an opposing opinion counts as insulting to you perhaps?
Which comments here for example do you consider trolls?
1:51,1:53: You just embarrassed yourself again! Both comments were responding to troll comments. One said senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to drive - indeed, an ageist statement, as many seniors retain excellent driving skills.
Second comment had called me an "insane drama queen" . I was excessively civil in my response to that insane drama queen troll. Quit while you're behind.
None of the quotes you posted are vulgar in the least, and all were responding to trolls. You need a dictionary so you can learn the definition of vulgar.
I think that commentor's point was that it doesn't matter who started it. You still say rude things.
A few remarks I'd like to respond to:
1. "Why does it have to be compatible?" For the same reason that you're not putting up single-family homes on M Street in Georgetown or on Woodmont Avene in downtown Bethesda: it would disrupt the existing community and be an inappropriate use of land. DC protects neighborhoods in Spring Valley and Palisades because the District values attractive residential neighborhoods. Montgomery County should feel the same way about Springfield and Kenwood. Compatibility is the underpinning of planning and zoning practice in the U.S.
2. Urban sprawl and suburban sprawl.
A)Over-developing Westbard violates the principles of good urban planning, sustainability and transit-oriented development. These principles support mixed-use density *in areas proximate to significant mass transit*, especially rail-served areas (Metro, MARC. Amtrak) and commuter bus nodes. The usual metric for proximity to such mass transit nodes is .5 miles or less. As has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, Westbard is over a mile from Metro and the bus network is spotty. Developing Westbard to the heights and densities advocated by the Planning Department violates the principles of transit-oriented development and sustainable urbanism. Hence, use of the term urban sprawl could be justified in the context of Westbard: the urbanization of a suburban area that is ill-suited to such density.
B)Suburban sprawl is the expansion of suburban areas into previously rural areas, typically through the development of suburban neighborhoods. A good example would be the suburbanization of formerly rural areas along the 270 corridor. The proposed Westbard development is *not* suburban sprawl, but that doesn't mean that the proposed plan is suitable for its site.
3.Is Westbard like the Palisades or Spring Valley? Yes, because it sits on a key commuter artery connecting single-family neighborhoods to the Disrrict and because it is surrounded by settled single-family communities that rely largely on the automobile. No, because Westbard's commercial areas have not been integrated with the residential character of the surrounding communities as have the smaller commercial strips serving Spring Valley and the Palisades. Westbard is a mess. If nothing else, this demonstrates the deficiencies in Montgomery County's planning and zoning activities. At the same time, the Westbard commercial/industrial area supports higher densities than the Palisades and Spring Valley. The question is: What are reasonable heights and densities? I'd argue that 3-5 stories fits well with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods and allows for attractive redevelopment at higher densities. The 75-100 foot heights proposed by the Planning Department are literally and figuratively 'over the top.'
If you're inclined to trust the Planning Department's proposal for Westbard, just remember that we're talking about the same entity that planned the existing Westbard-- yes,it's awful-- and then neglected it.
4:20: Telling a troll who says all senior citizens (which begins at age 55+ for age-restricted housing, or mid-60s elsewhere) should be barred from driving that his comment was ageist is "rude"?
Ridiculous.
I've never said anything that would be considered rude, and have been over diplomatic toward people who have said nasty things to me in their troll comments.
Any sensible person is laughing at your attempts to claim otherwise. Just saying something doesn't make it true (not that that's ever stopped the MoCo political machine from trying). Stop lying.
I agree the trollers are rude guy honestly you are more often than not just as rude - whether in response to an idiotic comment or simply an opposing comment.
You stoop to the level of the trolls. Stay above the fray. Otherwise you are just the same. You can do it, I believe in you.
I don't agree with blanket barring a group but we certainly should have more frequent and stringent testing to allow drivers to stay on the road.
Betsy you are so right! The troll(s) are annoying and have no place in the discussion, but Robert gets on some crazy defensive and attacks anyone with a differing opinion.
That comment up there at 5:30 said "why are you such a dick to your readers?" and Robert's response was "That's not a "reader", but a troll. You support his idea to confine senior citizens to nursing homes and take away their independence at some arbitrary age he pulls out of a hat?" - so his response to a legit comment was a textbook straw man fallacy.
What gives?
Yes I agree. Whether we agree or disagree, we should all engage in civil discussion. Insults, deserved or not, from readers or Robert, regardless of who wrote first, are just childish.
It seems Dyer categorizes anyone with an opposing opinion that expresses said opinion as a troll.
Betsy, where have I been rude? There's no evidence of this false claim, which is an ongoing talking point by the couple of trolls on here. Even when I have justifiably responded to a vulgar and/or obvious troll who has posted personal attacks or otherwise indicated they are not an actual reader, my response has been way more restrained than the troll deserved. Just repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Brian, is someone who claims all senior citizens should be barred from driving ageist or not? That's not a "straw man" any more than racism or any other discriminatory speech or behavior.
4:49: In the words of Justice Alito, "Not true."
By the way, "Brian", consider the word the guy called me in what you quoted there. The fact you have no problem with him calling me that doesn't give your argument much credibility. Incredibly, I didn't even remotely insult the guy who called me that word, even though he would have deserved it.
But many of us do think you are one. That's an opinion, and we are certainly allowed it, despite whether you believe it or not.
You do have good content though much of the time. Hence I come back to read your blog.
BTW why do you put Brian's name in quotation marks?
I am "one" what? And I am a "one" based on what actual statement? I put quotes around it because there is a whole string of comments with first names pushing the same talking points, whereas 99% of the time people post "Anonymous".
So if it's anonymous it's a coward and if it's a first name it's a fake and if it's an opposing view it's the same person and if it's an angry view it's a troll and if it's a view you find appalling it's a blogger or a politician and if it's a positive anonymous supporting view it's all ok for the all mighty untouchable beyond reproach always correct never wrong super nice guy Robert Dyer. Got it.
I concur with all of these sentiments. As much as I enjoy reading this blog, the attitudes on both sides are such a turn off. I can see why advertisers and marketers like iPic don't want to get involved.
@5:45 agreed. The trolls suck, but Robert should just ignore them, and engage in healthy debate with his loyal readers who don't troll.
Robert, you have multiple people here claiming to like reading your blog, but feel you can at times come off as rude. If everyone around you says maybe you should lighten up a bit don't you think that's a sign?
Post a Comment