Here is the first look at the new building that would replace the garden-style, naturally-occurring affordable housing property of the Strathmore Apartments at 7025-7039 Strathmore Street in downtown Bethesda. No fully-developed architectural renderings are shown in this slide presentation, which will be the basis of a required public meeting being held tonight, Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 7:00 PM (see sign pictured below for information on how to join the virtual meeting this evening). Instead, there are several top-down images of the layouts of the ground level, typical residential floor and rooftop level.
The proposed building would hold up to 180 rental apartments. If only the required 15% of apartments are set aside as affordable Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs), representing a net loss of 5 affordable units at the property. Renderings show a lobby facing the corner of Strathmore Street and Woodmont Avenue, a fitness room, a party room, a rooftop terrace, a green roof, and a pedestrian connection along the south side of the property, which would create a walking route between Strathmore Street and Wisconsin Avenue via the rear alley and The Camille development at 7000 Wisconsin.
12 comments:
That pedestrian walkway between the alley and Strathmore Street already exists. Since this building is proposing about 125 very compact studio units, it seems that they are targeting singles seeking inexpensive housing. I imagine that Mattress Firm won’t be selling many king sized beds to these sofa bed residents.
The real issue is that street has limited access to Leland and Wisconsin. And you can't turn into it or turn left when exiting. That means everyone is going to drive in using Bradley, or illegally entering from the alley.
The in this neighborhood sandwiched between Bradley and downtown Bethesda are designed for single family housing. But everything around it is urban. If you are now building apartments in the actual neighborhood, the roads have to be reopened or everything will be backed up.
Before we keep building apartments (and I am not against that per se) we need to redesign the current traffic patterns, shift from these 4 lane one way streets to two way streets, and put in traffic signals.
"redesign the current traffic patterns" Oh, they are. It's called Walking. See, how easy.
@6:25 AM I can guarantee you even if the new building includes only or primarily studio apartments, they *will not* be inexpensive and will likely have rents that are higher than the $1800 per month rent currently charged for a 1 BR plus den apartment in the community now at that location.
And as Robert noted, even if the developer includes 15% "affordable" units (i.e., with income restrictions), there will be a net loss of affordable units that don't have income limits. I believe the standing percentage for income-restricted units for new buildings is 12.5%, but developers can weasel their way out of that minimum pretty easily, thereby lowering the number of affordable units even further.
At the Zoom meeting tonight the developer indicated that a seven story building is proposed, wood frame over a poured concrete base, roughly 1 parking space per unit underground.
“redesign the current traffic patterns”. The County is doing this now - more bike lanes, reduced traffic lanes, but no cars.
"I believe the standing percentage for income-restricted units for new buildings is 12.5%, but developers can weasel their way out of that minimum pretty easily, thereby lowering the number of affordable units even further."
No, and it's 15% in downtown Bethesda. And the current units are marketed as "luxury" and the building as "boutique" - units start at $1,985 - so you didn't even get that part right.
Pretending this new building won't dramatically improve the availability and quality of units compared to the existing build is embarrassing.
there are already apartments on that block. It would not be replacing single-family homes.
@7:29 PM You are correct in that a good portion of downtown Bethesda has the 15% MPDU requirement, but not the entire downtown area if you look at the map provided by the county. (It's based on how the county has defined the "downtown Bethesda zone.")
And developers *can* get out of some of the requirements of the downtown Bethesda sector plan, such as the parking requirement for new builds. I'm in East Bethesda, and the developer planning a new apartment building across from the Acura dealer apparently has received preliminary approval for a 110-unit building (all small studios) with NO PARKING. The sector plan doesn't require a 1-1 ratio of units:parking spaces, but that new building meets the requirement for parking. All the developer has said is that it doesn't expect any renters to have a car (REALLY?) and that renters with cars can pay for a spot in a county lot or facility.
The residents in the neighborhood have formally presented written and verbal comments to the Planning Board and County Council asking how and why the developer is getting away without having to provide any parking, contrary to the sector plan. We're still waiting for answers. Maybe someone here can enlighten us!
(The prior developer for that site, who pulled out of the project, had planned a 65-unit building with a mix of studio, 1BR, and 2 BR units and about 50 underground parking spots for the residents.)
“redesign the current traffic patterns”. The County is doing this now - more bike lanes, reduced traffic lanes, but no cars.
I support more bike lanes and sidewalks. But the idea that there will be no cars is just silly. People leave in these neighborhoods and not all will walk, bike, or take mass transit. What I am suggesting is less of a super highway feeding into east west highway, and more two way streets that help to calm traffic.
But feel free to offer another snarky, anonymous response.
12:22 AM the county parking deck directly across the street from the 110 unit building has a large surplus of unused parking spaces, especially in the evening and weekend when residents would need to park their cars. Why force the developer to build more privately owned parking, when plenty is already available, not to mention all the folks who choose not to own a car in such a transit oriented area.
Not everyone in this area needs to live in a 3500 SF single family home on a large lot and own and park 3 or more cars.
@9:06 Thanks for your reply. It's not about SFH/McMansions.
My point is that this is a requirement per the approved downtown sector, and for an unknown reason, the developer is being allowed to get away with not following the rules that everyone else is required to.
Another concern is the additional traffic in the neighborhood with a large influx of vehicles with this project (and other new builds in the neighborhood, both large and small, that WILL have parking).
The garage across the street from that location is very full most days and often on the weekends. A lot of people telecommute or have hybrid schedules. A monthly parking pass is an additional $195; I don't know if that rate is going to increase with the new requirement of paid parking on Saturdays (starting next month).
I find the developer's reasons for not providing parking bogus and unsupportable.
@12:22 AM
Post a Comment