"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.
-01.jpeg)
