"Colossal pent-up demand for TOD"

Development

by David Alpert • December 3, 2008 4:42 pm

The New Republic's Bradford Plumer attended this morning's Brookings Panel on the Purple Line. According to Plumer, MoCo Councilmember Mark Elrich is still unsure whether to spend more on the better light rail or save money with the bus, but Christopher Leinberger says Elrich is thinking about it all wrong: better transit creates more and better development, and more tax revenue.

This is not green space. From Live Maps.

Ryan Avent rightly points out that the belief that transit drives development shouldn't be controversial at all. Most of New York City's growth happened around, and thanks to, its transit lines, for instance.

Here's the most interesting part of Plumer's recap:

By [Leinberger's] count, 30 to 50 percent of residents in most U.S. metropolitan areas want to live in a walkable urban environment—a trend that's, in part, fueled by the growing prevalence of single and childless couples, who will constitute a whopping 88 percent of household growth through 2040. Trouble is, he estimates that there are only enough walkable areas to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of residents, which is why transit-oriented areas are so exorbitantly expensive.

Plumer goes on to identify the second, and perhaps greater, obstacle to more walkable areas: suburban zoning. The mindset we saw in Kensington sees new walkable, urban places as a direct threat to their way of life. BeyondDC covered a TOD proposal in Chevy Chase Lake, which is quite modest in size, yet opponents claim it will "destroy the community."

BeyondDC notes the irony in one opponent's argument that the area has "good green space" when the project would replace a parking lot and a lumber yard. Sounds familiar.

7 comments — Share	— tags: Christopher Leinberger, Purple Line, Smart Growth, TOD

Sprawl is the only option at the Planning Board (May 27, 2009)
All you can eat (Dec 8, 2008)
MoCo "transit-oriented" zoning would encourage non-transit-oriented sprawl (Jul 18, 2008)
Consensus and controversy in Rockville's Pike (Feb 27, 2008)
NIMBYism strong on Upper Wisconsin (Feb 22, 2008)

Comments

Another aspect is the synergy of walkable areas growing into each other, like the Orange Line corridor. Development in Langley Park will also positively impact MoCo for this reason. Transit combined with a robust street network will make small walkable nodes into huge walkable regions.

by Dave Murphy on Dec 3, 2008 5:08 pm

I'm sure there's one overarching reason why there's a shortage of TOD housing: zoning. I know I've been repeating this theme ad naueseum, but the more I read up on it, the more I realize how much stuff it screws up. Relax the laws and I bet the shortage would be diminished.

Rather than have local planning boards micromanage where TOD would go with a whole new layer of zoning, relax the laws! After all, even despite all our brilliant and benevolent planners and politicians got their rules passed, we still have sprawl, congestion and housing shortages. Give freedom a chance!

by Tim on Dec 3, 2008 10:38 pm

I agree the numbers are around one-third of the market. As things like retiring Boomers, rising gas prices, and changing cultural attitudes towards urban living affect the market, that percentage is likely to rise. Here's a post that reviews some of the surveys and other literature that support that view: The Market for Mixed Use & Walkability

by Laurence Aurbach on Dec 4, 2008 9:26 am

I think that BeyondDC has an excellent point with his proposal for form-based zoning. He posted a link to them on his blog. The link it www.formbasedcodes.org

by Cavan on Dec 4, 2008 10:13 am

If I can expand on Laurence's numbers just a bit, the rule of thumb that I use is

~ 33% want to move to a Smart Growth-New Urbanist-type neighborhood. ~50-66% total want to move to a neighborhood that has some of the elements of a SG/NU neighborhood (depending upon the survey), but maybe the density is a bit much.

I am a form-based code advocate and IMHO implementing such codes will go a long way toward providing decent density and attractive built environments.

by Dan Staley on Dec 4, 2008 10:44 am

I just want to say that high density residential like the above-mentioned Kensington Heights plan goes directly against the point that Plumer is trying to make. High density is fine, but without retail mixed in, the neighborhood becomes sterile after dark, not walkable. Mixed use is *the* key, as it creates walkability.

by Aaron on Dec 4, 2008 1:37 pm

Aaron, the proposal is to put 36 (now 27) townhouses right on the edge of Wheaton Plaza. You're adding a little residential to an area dominated by retail.

What, in the long run, ought to and will become of Wheaton Plaza is another question entirely, but that's not what's in front of the Planning Board right now.

by Ben Ross on Dec 4, 2008 10:36 pm