Westfield unveils new urban-style development plan for Montgomery Mall (Photos)

The "Winter Garden" indoor promenade proposed
for Westfield Montgomery Mall's new urban
development addition

Westfield unveiled its proposal for a new, urban-style development addition at Montgomery Mall at a public meeting in Bethesda last night. Featuring new high-end retail and restaurants, a hotel, and 682 apartments, the addition will replace the existing Sears store and surface parking on that side of the mall property. Throwing out phrases like "iconic destination," and featuring a Swedish "woonerf" as a design centerpiece, the plan appears to set the stage for a future transformation of the mall property in the coming decades.

Heritage Court area

The rollout got off to a bumpy start when someone at Westfield decided to leak the plans and renderings to a local media outlet several hours before the 7:00 PM meeting, perhaps seeking a favorable report. A Westfield representative who led the meeting then appeared to refer to that outlet's report, as if it had been widely read, causing confused looks among a crowd that obviously had no clue what he was referring to. Favoring one media outlet over others is not a smart PR strategy, to say the least.

The "Woonerf," a Swedish-conceived
"calming street" that will bisect the new
urban area at Montgomery Mall

Westfield is comparing the new development to Federal Realty's Pike & Rose. The architecture will "reflect the seasonal, wooded quality of the community, combined with a modern, urbane feel." It will be anchored by three main design elements - the Winter Garden, Heritage Court, and the aforementioned woonerf. The woonerf is a Swedish concept for a "calming" street, designed to be used simultaneously by pedestrians, cyclists and automobiles, and equipped with "traffic calming features."

The first two phases of the project are
the Winter Garden/Apartment building 1, and
apartment building 2

None of the buildings are supposed to be taller than the new ArcLight Cinemas nearby on the mall property. Parking will be handled by new garages under the residential and retail, as well as a new garage behind a new retail building, that will be constructed where the current ring road meets the edge of the current Sears parking lot.

Two renderings of the site plan

Westfield acknowledges that Ashburton Elementary School is overcrowded, and says it will be unable to move forward with any residential portion of the development until there is capacity. How that is possible when Phase 1A includes an apartment building is unclear. Construction of the Winter Garden is anticipated to begin next year, after Sears closes on March 31 and is demolished. The Winter Garden is designed to function as the transition zone between the indoor mall and the new development, as an indoor promenade for year-round use.

Partners for the project

Heritage Court, by contrast, will emphasize open space and the outdoors. It will cross the Woonerf, and connect the two separate apartment buildings, and another building with retail and "creative office" space. Renderings give it a Bethesda Row-esque appearance. The hotel and yet another retail structure will be located at the other end of the Woonerf. Westfield is promising one parking space per apartment, and four spaces for every 1000 SF of retail.

Heritage Court and Paseos; an
ice rink is shown a possible winter feature

Construction of the new development is anticipated to be completed by 2022. Westfield will file its preliminary and site plans in late June or early July (MCPS paper schools, er, "placeholders" take effect July 1, so watch that date). The plans require an amendment to the existing plan it received approval for in 2015.

A display of transportation modes for the
new development, and arrival patterns

The rest of the existing mall, minus Sears, will remain intact for this project. Last night's meeting was set up as an open house; one-on-one conversations at the displays were designed to answer questions.

The mall's 2015 approved site plan

Design concepts

The existing retail center

Many questions

Stormwater management plan

Woonerf design concepts

PLANNING BLUNDER: BETHESDA GAS STATION SITE CLEARED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BANK (PHOTO)

The site of one of downtown Bethesda's last gas stations on Wisconsin Avenue has been cleared. There had been concrete and plant overgrowth on the site, as it waited dormant for redevelopment to begin. It once was known as Bethesda's "last gas" before the Beltway.

Replacing it is a small bank building, one of the more bizarre land use decisions by the Montgomery County Planning Board in recent years (although the Hoyt property decision is still at the top of the bizarro list). Allowing a bank branch on an urban main street near Metro, while plotting to jam high-density urban growth into suburban residential areas like Westbard and Chevy Chase Lake, is simply indefensible. Yet it is happening again with the TD Bank approval - just steps away from Metro - on the Shell station site on Old Georgetown Road. At worst, give us some additional retail and restaurant space along with the banks!

These decisions are contrary to all of the claims about smart growth we hear on a daily basis in the county.

Photo: Jason Yang

RUSH TO JUDGEMENT ON WESTBARD SECTOR PLAN

The developer-supplied renderings remain on the official Westbard Sector Plan website, sending the wrong message about the planning process before it has even begun. As I reported last week, Montgomery County planners have placed luxury townhome renderings created by developer EYA on the Plan Westbard website and social media accounts. The problem? EYA is one of the development firms seeking to redevelop multiple properties along Westbard Avenue and Ridgefield Road, and its fortunes will be greatly determined by what the finished plan recommends. Furthermore, single-family homes - not townhomes - are the prevailing dwelling type in the neighborhoods surrounding the Westbard commercial/industrial area. No single-family home is pictured in the marketing outreach by the planning department. Yes, images and the messages they convey matter, as they are critical tools in shaping public opinion.

One message given is a sense of approval of this particular developer, and of this particular style of housing, by planners. Another is that the developer has an inside track with planners that actual residents do not enjoy. Accurate or not, those are impressions given by the online platforms.

This isn't the first "rush to judgement" in official public dialogue on the Westbard plan. The evening of a meeting held this spring by EYA development partner Equity One, a County Council staff member tweeted a favorable response to the announcement of the partnership:

Cindy Gibson, District 1 Councilmember Roger Berliner's chief of staff, wrote: "EYA will be partnering with Equity One on the Westbard Plan in Bethesda. Seems like a good choice for this project."

I don't believe that those tasked with representing the interests of residents - the Council has final say on both the sector plan, and any specific development projects - should be passing judgment, or expressing opinions, on what is a good or bad choice at this stage. In my opinion, EYA does a great job of matching townhome designs to their environment, and in not providing the same cookie-cutter results on every project. But the citizens had not, and still haven't - as of today - concluded that high-density multi-family housing developments are the right fit for the Westbard area. That is yet to be determined in the planning process.

High-density development is probably not going to be "a good choice" for a neighborhood whose elementary school is maxed out with students. Even after the new addition to Wood Acres ES next year, the school will still be slightly over capacity, and the building cannot be expanded any further on the site. High-density doesn't fit for an area not in walking distance to Metro, with limited bus service to boot. Then there is the traffic situation on River Road and Massachusetts Avenue, which are already overwhelmed by the existing population. Beyond that, the overwhelming character of the area is that of single-family, residential suburban neighborhoods. Westbard is not an urban area; it is a commercial/industrial center that serves the residential neighborhoods around it.

The messages sent by government officials should be emphasizing inclusion and fairness, and - barring some future decision by citizens - not bending the representative character of a neighborhood to fit a particular message, or designate a predetermined goal. First we have to set the goals.

WESTBARD SECTOR PLAN LAUNCHES - FIRST MEETING SEPTEMBER 23 - WESTBARD REDEVELOPMENT

The Westbard Sector Plan process has officially launched, as the Montgomery County Planning Department welcomed the public to a new website with an overview of the process schedule. Residents, business owners and other interested parties can sign up for newsletters and RSVP for the first public meeting, which will be September 23, 7-9 PM at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda.

There are a couple of minor issues on the website and Twitter account. First, the images used could be refined to be more indicative of the true character of the west Bethesda area. Currently, the pictures include a Cherry Blossom-season photo from Kenwood (with homes cropped out) and a nature scene. Those are  accurate. The Capital Bikeshare photo suggests the goal of getting more people to ride bikes to or from downtown Bethesda, Friendship Heights, or into the District. Fair enough, and a laudable goal.

But the second photo isn't a photo at all - its an artist rendering taken directly from promotional materials for developer EYA's Little Falls Place townhomes. This seems inappropriate for several reasons.

Townhome image (R) is taken directly
from developer EYA's promotional
materials 

First and foremost, EYA is one of the developers whose fortunes will depend upon the outcome of this Westbard Sector Plan. It has partnered with Equity One to redevelop the Westwood Complex. For the planning department to utilize a developer's promotional material for a process in which that developer stands to profit is unwise. It could - wrongly, I would hope - suggest that planners are showing favor to that developer, and to a particular land use with which it is associated - namely, high-density, multi-family housing.

Second, and not far behind, is the fact that townhomes and apartments are not the predominant land use in the neighborhoods served by the commercial-industrial area termed the "Westbard Sector." There should be a photo of a single-family home up there. The handful of high-rise buildings that exist in the Westbard area are not compliant with the new zoning that will be applied; they are grandfathered in. Single-family homes are the dominant land use, and should not be entirely missing from any promotion imagery used by the County in the planning process.

Finally - and most obviously - it's just a drawing! If you want to show a townhome, show one that already exists. As is, the image favors a developer directly involved in the Westbard process, and absolutely is not representative of the area as a whole.

The other minor issue was an inaccurate statement about the history of the Westbard area, and the residential neighborhoods around it. It reads:

"Over a period of years, the residential uses were built around the commercial/industrial areas which extend along River Road and Westbard Avenue."

In reality, several residential neighborhoods predate the commercial/industrial areas. The commercial-industrial zone itself was actually an African-American residential community, dating back to Maryland Emancipation through the 1950s. Kenwood was founded prior to World War II. Many homes and neighborhoods existed before the Westwood Shopping Center was opened in 1959. The history of the area is tremendous, and should be respected in the planning process going forward.

Going forward...

Have concerns about the outcome of the Westbard Sector Plan process? For news and analysis going forward, continue to follow this blog, and @BethesdaRow on Twitter.

If you're really interested in the Westbard process, you'll also want to follow this special @Westbard account on Twitter, as well.

OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK ON BETHESDA PLANNING RADIO

Yesterday there was an interesting discussion of the Bethesda Downtown Plan on the Kojo Nnamdi Show, and you can read an entire transcript here.

But I wanted to respond to a couple of misleading statements made during the broadcast by Washington Post columnist Roger Lewis, and Montgomery County Planning Director Gwen Wright.

I found Roger Lewis' comments offensive and troubling. Regarding "urbanization" (which is nonsensical, because downtown Bethesda is thoroughly urban already! We're not "urbanizing" Bethesda - we already did that), Lewis made the following statement:

Roger Lewis: "I think loading the dice against urbanism is usually motivated by either resistance to change, as we talk about all the time, or concern that I'm not going to find a parking space and I'm going to sit through four cycles of this signal at this intersection.

"I mean, I think traffic congestion -- I think a lot of what we hear are essentially code words, if you will, for what people directly experience and perceive and worry about urbanism, which is both -- well, it's traffic congestion. It's also the arrival of people who maybe are different. I mean there's a sociological dimension to this. I mean, that's my interpretation. Whenever I hear, if you will, the nimbi (sic) argument, it's almost always based on that."

This is complete hogwash. Along with Planning Director Gwen Wright's assertions that affordable housing will be magically-increased in the Bethesda Downtown Plan, and that millennials will be able to afford Bethesda, this was a truly 1984-esque moment in yesterday's broadcast. What is happening now, and unless there is a policy change that accompanies the passage of the new downtown plan, is the exact opposite.

We just witnessed - especially readers of this blog - the demolition of The Hampden apartments on Hampden Lane. Those are being replaced by The Lauren, an ultra-luxury condo building with units "from the several millions." The end result is a net loss of affordable units on that site (not to mention several mature trees).

Battery Lane will soon have several demolitions, again with a net loss of affordable units. The same is coming for a building on MacArthur Boulevard, and - potentially - along Bradley Boulevard.

All of those threatened buildings had, or have, something in common. They were, and are, among the last buildings that an actual millennial could afford to rent in.

Much as in similar demolitions across the county, such as in Wheaton, Glenmont and at Halpine View, they will be replaced with luxury housing, not equal or greater racial and economic diversity. The "arrival of people" resulting from this will be a group very much like the one that dominates Bethesda today - rich, white people. Roger Lewis himself admitted long ago that the DC area building boom is not going to generate the adequate amount of affordable housing it promised. Instead, we are getting luxury buildings, with a handful of MPDUs in each. At the same time, we are demolishing more affordable units than we are building.

Res ipsa loquitur. But don't come on the radio and mislead people about affordable housing. And absolutely don't come on and accuse the people trying to maintain diversity and affordable housing in Montgomery County of using "code words," or having a fear of people who are "different." That is Orwellian doublespeak at its worst (or, best?). Mr. Lewis should be embarrassed about that, given his previous admission that the building boom indeed will not provide the affordable housing he claims Bethesda fears.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE DOWNTOWN BETHESDA PLAN DOCUMENT RELEASE

The "scope of work" downtown Bethesda plan document released yesterday by the Montgomery County Planning Department contained no surprises, primarily restating familiar Census data and geographical boundaries. We're great, we're smart, we're rich, etc.

Here are my thoughts thus far:

1. Why did I not receive any emails regarding the document release, and related public meeting? I filled out a form when I attended the "kickoff" meeting a few months ago, including an email address. Of course, I knew about the document and meeting because I am actively following the process. But had I been a citizen not doing so, I would have had no idea - as of this hour - that these two items had been announced.

2. The document refers to 26 approved development projects in downtown Bethesda. What are those projects? Is there a list they can link to, and what is the criteria for terming something a "project?" I know a lot of projects are left over from the real estate bubble. But 26? 26 new residential or office buildings? That sounds a bit exaggerated. Where are they?

3. The scope of work document also provides no evidence that the Post-It notes filled out by attendees of the kickoff meeting were thus far taken into account. What I see listed under "The Plan Process" are the same things that were "allowed" to be verbally announced at the meeting, and then were parroted in most local media reports in the days afterward. If a Post-It note falls in the middle of the forest... At some point, other issues have to be addressed, such as the vanishing gas stations of downtown Bethesda.

4. I think when we are talking about public space, the number of public plazas under development has been left out of the discussion. There are several pedestrian plazas on the boards, including the just-opened plaza at the Gallery Bethesda apartments, the Bainbridge Bethesda plaza between St. Elmo and Fairmont Avenues, the Westin Bethesda hotel complex and the JBG project between Wisconsin and Woodmont Avenues. In my opinion, we need a greater focus on how the plaza at the Bethesda Metro Center was unceremoniously stripped of its use as a gathering space - including the embarrassing shutdown of the ice rink. And how that is going to be corrected. The lapse of the Metro Center plaza is one of several ways downtown Bethesda has shifted off course since the turn of the century.

Public parks, and making sure any redevelopment of the Apex Building site retains or expands the quasi-public space at the corner of Wisconsin and Elm Street outside the Regal Cinemas, and the Woodmont plaza at Bethesda Row are other major public space issues to be discussed in detail.


The schedule laid out suggests formal public input will be limited to none, before a set of recommendations are presented for public comment in the Spring. Hence my concern about the Post It notes and gas stations, among other things. The next formal opportunity for official public comment, according to the document, is the public hearing on the plan draft before the Planning Board in October 2014.

Based on the schedule, the plan will be approved or denied by the next County Council in 2015.

PRE-SUBMITTAL COMMUNITY MEETING FOR WEST LANE DEVELOPMENT IN BETHESDA (PHOTOS)

A pre-submittal community meeting will be held for a planned, multi-family residential project on West Lane in Bethesda. The meeting will be on Wednesday, January 22, at 7:00 PM, at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, located at 4805 Edgemoor Lane. There has been much concern among nearby neighbors about development planned for West Lane. A house at 4831 West Lane is already planned to be demolished for new development. The Preliminary Plan and the site plan amendments will be discussed.

YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T DRIVE ANYMORE? YEAH, RIGHT!

One of my favorite urban legends is, "Kids/teenagers/millenials don't drive anymore." By itself, the Young People Don't Drive canard would merely be humorous and harmless. Unfortunately, the anecdotal "evidence" behind this claim is now being used by urban planners to reduce parking spaces, and cheat on transportation capacity standards.

Certainly, many young people do walk, bike or use transit. It's a commendable choice. When it makes sense to do so, why wouldn't you? Where the problem comes in, is when planning changes are made based on a myth, and then you have a transportation system that can't handle the volumes that exist in reality.

Reality is the key word. You can conveniently forget the new driver's license hurdles created by many states in recent years, and then twist that data to extrapolate that those teens won't drive when they can later. And you can say teens would rather have an iPhone than a car, but only if you weren't out in the real world, where kids not old enough to drive already have the latest smartphones. There must be a special button in Photoshop that allows you to create fake travel photos. There isn't? Gosh, then how are young folks generating all these "road trip!" shots on social media?

Stop by the Rockville campus of Montgomery College around 11:00 AM, and try to convince yourself that young people are giving up the automobile. Google "the cars of GW." Or check out the car clubs of Penn State, the University of Maryland, or the University of Calgary.

My favorite recent story about young auto enthusiasts was in Bloomberg Businessweek. According to the article, Chinese high school and college students have spent $15.5 billion dollars purchasing cars in the United States between 2012-2013. "A little more than half the vehicles bought by Chinese students in the U.S. during the 22-month period [CNW Marketing Research] studied were new, with an average purchase price of $52,796; and 32 percent of buyers paid cash," Businessweek reported.

In Eugene, Oregon (the town supporters of Bus Rapid Transit in Montgomery County keep referring to us as a model), the University of Oregon has an International Student Auto Club. "While members throw barbecues and help new students navigate the car-buying process," the article notes, "their favorite thing to do is gather in parking lots with their rides." It sounds like California car culture is not only alive and well, but crossing international and political borders.

As top tech and automotive firms refine the technology that will eventually allow autonomous vehicles, the American automobile is far from extinction. That means adequate highway capacity remains a critical necessity in planning. A former DC transportation official was recently quoted saying that we are witnessing the last generation of private automobile ownership. But again, reality is quite different.

DO THE SUBURBS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY NEED A MAKEOVER?

I came across a curious invitation for speakers who would like to expound on a "makeover" of suburban Montgomery County. What makes it interesting, is that it is not an open forum to discuss the future direction of the county. Rather, it only invites speakers who subscribe to a particular view, with a preset list of acceptable topics. The language of the announcement is exclusive, rather than inclusive. And it starts what is ostensibly an academic exploration with rigid, ideological conclusions prepositioned firmly in place.

First and foremost among these "consensus" views, is that the suburbs were a 20th Century Mistake. In fact, the suburbs were part of a revolution that created the greatest period of economic mobility and convenience in American history.

But consider the prejudicial language employed by the announcement.

The event itself is called, "Makeover Montgomery." In reality, does a wealthy county, which nearly a million residents have proclaimed a great place to live, need a planning "makeover?"

"Transformation." This noun is defined by Google's dictionary as "a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance." We're not talking about spiffing up the place, then. What's advocated is an upheaval of the current dynamic. Montgomery County currently has two successful edge cities, Bethesda and Silver Spring. They always were downtowns, and have evolved into more densely-developed downtowns. This progress will and should continue. And the bedroom communities around them and north of them have desirable, single-family home neighborhoods, with commercial corridors and shopping centers that provide needed services. In regards to planning, other than the need to address our failure to complete our master plan highway system, and our affordable housing crisis, where is the demand or need to force a "thorough or dramatic change" in Montgomery County's "form or appearance?" From the legion of residents who testified against the radical county zoning rewrite, it's clearly not coming from a majority of the citizenry.

The announcement seeks ideas that will "continue to transform suburbs into exciting, attractive and sustainable communities." Again, this is biased language, suggesting that suburbs are currently not attractive. The population count and diversity of Montgomery County suggest otherwise.

"Taming suburban street design." It's a jungle out there, apparently.

Now, a lot of what's up for discussion at this event is actually worthy of discussion. Improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the relationship of land use and transportation, and affordable housing are important issues.

But referring to "commuting culture" and suburbs in a negative light is counterproductive. Criticizing people who can't afford to live in Bethesda - but want a nice neighborhood and a backyard for kids to play in - for buying homes further out, and driving in to work because it is convenient, is not academic. It's elitist. And the encroachment of urbanization into suburban neighborhoods - now codified in the pending zoning changes - suggests where that "dramatic change in form" is going. That's one extreme makeover Montgomery County doesn't need.