well, I have been to this area many many times. I have seen the many teenagers but I have not had the same bad impression or experience as Casey Anderson. I LIKE seeing the teenagers. I interpreted the scene as very positive - a sign of a society showing acceptance of teenagers and providing a place for them to gather. They NEED some place to go. Teenagers NEED a "third" place. This complaint sounds fuddy-duddy even though CA is making a point not to sound that way. If anything this complaint underscores the need for more gathering places for teenagers. Furthermore on hot summer evenings teenagers are not the predominant demographic hanging about as they are in colder months. All those 12 and under playing in the fountain are going to be teenagers very soon.

by Bianchi on May 27, 2009 1:29 pm  

Interesting and well written article.

Why doesn't Silver Spring hire cops or rent-a-cops to hang out and keep these thuggy kids from misbehaving? And before anyone cries "racism," I support the same treatment for the (white) belligerent fratboy punks who overrun Adams-Morgan on weekend nights.

I live near the Ballston Mall; it's not as bad as Silver Spring but does have a high scuzz factor--people selling all manner of junk on the sidewalk, some loitering and littering. I can walk there in 10 minutes but never, ever shop there or eat there. We'll drive to Shirlington or Friendship Heights first.

There have, sadly, been a couple of rapes in the nearby townhouses in the last few years.

Love transit; hate Transitional-adult OverDevelopment.

by JB on May 27, 2009 1:31 pm  

Few people in Silver Spring want to see the area become another Bethesda

-What's wrong with Bethesda? Isn't that the Ideal TOD?

by Local on May 27, 2009 1:59 pm  

For what it is worth, it is this activity that helped tip the balance against Silver Spring when my fiance and I were recently house shopping. We are moving to Arlington.

by Eric H. on May 27, 2009 2:08 pm  

Very slightly off-topic, but can we admit how horrific American parenting is? It's bad, and getting worse. And regular citizens are literally scared to do or say anything to punk teens. Worse yet, many of there kids are from middle class families but have no respect for anyone and craze street cred by acting "tough" and even mean. Yes, kids will be kids, but confronting and intimidating random strangers is more prevalent than ever...

by SG on May 27, 2009 2:20 pm  

wait, whats wrong with turning silver spring into another bethesda?

by skinsfan on May 27, 2009 2:51 pm  

@ JB

You live by Ballston and drive to Friendship Heights to shop? Because Ballston is too scuzzy? That seems crazy to me. What am I missing?

by Eric H. on May 27, 2009 3:01 pm  

Eric, that's only part of it. It's also because F. Heights has a Borders, a Filene's, and a Loehmann's. Ballston just has that full-retail Macy's and no bookstore. Going the back way (Glebe/Chain Bridge/Western Ave), F. Heights is about 15 minutes. If Ballston had all those things and wasn't indoors, in a hideous beige indoor mall, we'd probably go there despite a few skeevy loiterers.

by JB on May 27, 2009 3:07 pm  

The kids congregate there because there are too few places like this to go to. It's similar to suburban car-dependent malls back in the 1980's and the modern day in car-dependent environments. No different.

It is good to hear that local security is identifying troublemakers and asking them to stay away.

The differences are between adults and kids. It's not too dissimilar from other generational conflicts.

I wrote a post about this in the past. The large population of teenagers congregating there tells me that there needs to be more real towns with things to do that don't involve drinking and/or driving.

@skinsfan, I think the author was talking about super-local culture. Those of us who live on the eastern Red Line enjoy the subtle differences in social atmosphere on our side of the park. With respect to urban form and infrastructure, Silver Spring is comparably well laid out as Bethesda. It's just older and was built around a streetcar terminus rather than a Metro station. Its streetgrid and connectivity is every bit as walkable as Bethesda.

by Cavan on May 27, 2009 3:37 pm  

Maybe Montgomery County could hire this guy for the summer and see if he and his colleagues can help:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=taming-the-madness-of-crowds

And if it works with the teens, maybe it could be used during next year's Law Enforcement week downtown.

I go over to SS a couple of times a month -- usually daytime or early evening on the weekend -- and my experience personally is that drivers are a much bigger threat than the average teenager there. Simply getting from the Metro up to "Downtown Silver Spring" is a challenge; if I were older, had small kids with me, or had a disability, I would probably not go at all, because the crossing at Georgia and Colesville takes only the needs of drivers into account.

by Eileen on May 27, 2009 3:39 pm  

You'll need to find a better source to highlight critics who say new urbanism doesn't offer an appealing or realistic opportunity for families. First of all, Greenhut is just wrong when he says new urbanists are opposed to single family homes with garages. Where's the evidence? The point is that we need a full diversity of housing types to create complete neighborhoods -- single family homes should not be isolated in vast monocultures -- and there are many excellent examples in the DC area, old and new. There are dozens of new urban developments in DC region that families are delighted to locate in. In fact, the most common criticism is that new urbanism is not gritty and edgy and urban enough to attract people in their twenties without kids.

Second, most of the examples Greenhut gives of successful suburban development in Orange County, like East Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo, have been spectacular failures in the collapsing housing bubble. Greenhut quotes Jim Kunstler to demonstrate what a kook Kunstler is, but Kunstler's prediction looks downright conservative from today's perspective.

As for teens behaving badly, that happens in lots of places whenever there's a lack of age diversity. Out on the suburban arterials teens drag race and die in fiery crashes. Near college campuses there's public drunkenness and vandalism. As someone once said, misbehaving is a teen's job description. Urban places have the advantage of being able to attract a more diverse population of families, children, seniors -- with the help of good management, knowledgeable security staff, and the right mix of goods and attractions. On warm sunny days, Silver Spring is packed with families and children playing in the fountain.

by Laurence Aurbach on May 27, 2009 5:25 pm  

Casey - very nice post.

I lived in SS in the early 90s, about a ten-minute walk from what's now the CBD. It's nearly unrecognizable to me, and mostly in a good way. One of the things I always loved about SS was the diversity - income, age, and ethnicity - and I'm glad to see that despite the redevelopment and encroaching Bethesdification, it's retained much of its former character.

That said, the few times I've been back in the evenings, I've felt less than comfortable. Part of it is that I'm no longer at ease around crowds of rowdy teenagers (oh, the horror of getting older), and part of it is that it's now overly commercial. It is great, though, to see the families and children interacting in an urban environment. It seems to me that good policing, especially in areas where teenagers gather to drink and fight, should take care of many of the behavioral concerns.

by AJ on May 27, 2009 5:30 pm  

The full age spectrum sounds sensible and should go both ways. We likely wouldn't have so many teens congregating in any given spot if there were more youth friendly places to gather around the county.

Even Silver Spring has a rather mixed record on this. As the article notes, the turf has been displaced but hasn't yet been replaced with anything. Prior to that there was actually a skate park but that was also displaced by development. With the completion of the community center there should be amenities once again, but until that point there's teens gathered but not that much to do.

Basically, I support Bianchi's idea that teens do need a third place and hope that wider adoption of full age spectrum amenities could help with that.

by Greg Sanders on May 27, 2009 5:45 pm  

I'm glad to see this post, as it's an issue I've written about a lot on Just Up The Pike over the past few years. To me, the issue comes down to diversity of age. If adults are around to set the example and make it clear (simply by their being there) that bad behavior is not tolerated, kids will act out less. Otherwise, it's just going to be the high school cafeteria, and no one wants to go back there.

Silver Spring is a place that provides families an urban (or semi-urban, depending on how you look at it) environment with the added upside of good schools and a healthy dose of culture and diversity that you won't find in a Bethesda or Clarendon. You might have to get your hands a little dirtier, but I think it's worth it.

by dan reed on May 27, 2009 5:45 pm  

Yeah, that Greenhut article is seriously ignorant and otherwise full of vague, inane arguments that don't actually reflect practice. Moreover, one doesn't have to be New Urbanist to support the principles of good urban design, considering that the Congress for New Urbanism has dues and a board and a charter.

I think Cavan's also on it it, and it picks up an error in Greenhut's argument. There need to be more centers for people to hang out. Automobile development encourages bigger clusters, and bigger clusters drive up prices in those areas. Consequently, developers only rent to high-paying tenants like banks and Starbucks(es?) or simply put offices in the first floor.

by цarьchitect on May 27, 2009 5:48 pm  

They need to get Time-Out back in City Place. Seriously. That's where a bunch of teens used to hang out - separate from where adults congregated.

Get Time-Out back in City Place, stick a bowling alley or a mini-golf course somewhere, or find another business that has figured out how to monetize loitering teens, and the problem is solved.

There have to be a bunch of businesses that have figured this out, since the loitering-teen population is so vast.

FWIW, I have never seen actual rowdiness in beautiful Downtown Silver Spring, just teens being idiots, as they are wont to do. It's better than in '96 when every fifth person down there seemed to be dealing.

by Lindemann on May 27, 2009 9:29 pm  

Laurence wrote: "You'll need to find a better source to highlight critics who say new urbanism doesn't offer an appealing or realistic opportunity for families."

Well, I'm one. The "new urbanism" I see along the Orange Line means townhouses and condos--not single-family homes, and never in a quiet neighborhood but among a lot of businesses. Most families want at least a couple of bedrooms; condos offering this are either pushing $1 million or far from transit--and of course offer little privacy, a lot of noise, no yard, and no storage space. (Someone else here had a really great post about this last week or so.)

Maybe some new urbanists aren't opposed to SFHs with garages--but the housing policies they're promoting end up reducing the stock of such homes anywhere near a Metro. I think and hope that the pendulum will swing back once the general public realizes that new urbanism really just means lining the pockets of fat-cat developers while the rest of us watch our trains get more crowded.

Someone here recently made the case that SFHs take up land that could house more people who would otherwise live outside the Beltway. True. But where does that end? If the goal is maximum density (because that's the greenest), then we should have only very tall skyscraper apartments.

"There are dozens of new urban developments in DC region that families are delighted to locate in." Well, sure--if the families are lower-income. I don't think you mean that middle- and upper-income families are delighted to live in TOD. Maybe a young couple with a baby as a stepping stone to the SFH they *really* want. But you don't see many parents in their late 30s or older with more than one kid living in condos/townhouses as their first choice.

As to gathering places for kids: I think it's the kids who are the problem. When I grew up, we hung out at each other's houses or at the mall. We didn't try to pick fights with anyone. A separate place for troublemakers to hang out will just mean more violence among themselves. Which I suppose is some improvement.

by JB on May 27, 2009 9:54 pm  

SS is in "no danger" of becoming another Bethesda. Downtown Bethesda followed a different path--it was never dead, it developed a large store of restaurants, but only gained life after it drew more residents. Bethesda's recent development has been chain heavy, but the downtown has many local stores and restaurants and a number of relatively "one of a kind" stores like the Apple store. SS has followed a more generic path with more chain merchants and less variation in the income levels they attract. This kind of development isn't very imaginative and it has diluted the variety that once existed in a downtown that was underutilized, but also quiet. A place that's a bit more funky and also one which draws people to something more than a chain store or a chain restaurant would build more diverse pedestrian traffic.

The "rowdy teenager" problem has several dimensions. The kids are largely African-American. The people who are put-off are largely White. It's much like the phenomenon around Gallery place at night. The model for kids with nothing to do being annoying to adults predates carbound suburbia. It goes back to the inner city neighborhoods depicted in ethnographies like "Street Corner Society". The kids were White, although in ethnicity they often represented an older version of "the other". The prescriptions are pretty well known--providing meaningful activities for youth, although the remedy is often diluted by lack of funds or lack of imagination. By itself, law enforcement will make little difference--seeing a lot of cops patrolling (as I have in SS in the evening) may reassure some, but it signals a lack of safety to others. Young people need things to do and places to go.

by Rich on May 27, 2009 10:46 pm  

I appreciate all of the comments. Maybe it is asking too much for new urbanism/smart growth to solve every problem. Or to put it another way, good transportation infrastructure and land use planning decisions are necessary but not sufficient to make a community or neighborhood livable.

Still, advocates of walkable urbanism are asking people to take a leap of faith in embracing higher density, more limited accommodation of automobile travel, and other aspects of walkable urbanism that seem counterintuitive. In effect, we say, "Trust us, this will improve your quality of life, even though it runs counter to many of your assumptions about what makes an appealing place to live."

In this regard, Bianchi is missing the point: the question is not whether it is good or bad for teens to congregate in the Silver Spring CBD. I, for one, am happy to have them there, and as others point out, they need a place to go. If we don't take the problem of disorderly behavior in public spaces seriously, though, the resulting backlash will come at the expense both of the kids and the progressive ideas about building more livable communities that most readers of this blog (even us fuddy duddys) support.

BTW, I agree completely with Dan Reed's observation that the presence of a significant number of adults is vital to creating a climate where kids learn the standards of behavior that the community expects while remaining free to enjoy themselves. Most of the kids who hang out around Fenton and Ellsworth are not looking for trouble, but the few who are can make things unpleasant for their peers as well as adults -- that's why the issue of civility in the CBD is not about kids vs. grown ups but about people of all ages who treat others with respect vs. a small group of people (mostly but not all teens) who do not.

by Casey on May 27, 2009 11:15 pm  

I wish there was a way to object to this:

does living in a vibrant urban area mean having to tolerate behavior that would be considered unacceptable west of Rock Creek Park?

without being accused of making it a black-white thing.

I'll try this: As a fuddy who is just as duddy as anyone else on this thread, and just as old, I can say that if I see something I don't like in the public space, I either give the jerk perpetrating the problem a wide berth and ignore them, or if there's no ignoring it, tell them, in a nice way that does not invite argument, that I don't like it.

That's right, if a group of teens stroll down the street in a way that seems like it's an intentional provocation, I'll say, "Awww, cut it out," and go on my way. Works for me. Works better than a crybaby culture that says, "I'm calling the cops" over every little thing.

Everybody's got equal claim on the public space. Saying, "We don't tolerate that on this side of Rock Creek Park" is offensive to me. Give everybody their space.

I'm not talking about tolerating illegal behavior--in that case, please do call the cops, pronto. I'm talking about live and let live when someone else hangs out in a different way than you like to see them hang out, without making a criminal case out of it.

by Trulee Pist on May 28, 2009 12:53 am  

The talk of getting many ages in downtown silver spring and the relationship between free standing houses vs condos misses a point. Families don't need free standing houses. They do need a bit more space and they value some nearby space, preferably with grass where they can let kids run without parents needing to worry about traffic.

The townhouses at Falkland Chase in Downtown Silver Spring fit this criteria and are much more dense than free standing houses, though not as dense as apartments. These were built in the 1930's. The new urban Blair townhouses have their front doors opening onto a huge parking lot. Every modern townhouse seems to be built to maximize the house size and number of houses per lot without any regard to places for children to play outside on the property. Many of the new condos in the area don't even have 3 bedroom units (or those are not designed with families in mind (i.e. huge master bedroom and two rooms that are more offices than bedrooms)

This isn't new urbanism vs suburban living. It's community planning while thinking about families or ignoring them.

by dd on May 28, 2009 9:09 am  

There's no leap of faith needed to convince families, including middle and upper income families, that walkable, mixed-use, mixed-housing-type neighborhoods are highly desirable. The D.C. area is fortunate to have many good examples with many satisfied residents. For instance, take a look at the WalkScore map of DC. Any neighborhood that scores above 50 is a decent example of walkable urbanism, in my opinion. There are numerous examples outside of the District's boundaries too, and they have generally been more financially successful than the unwalkable suburban competition.

But it is true that advocates of walkable urbanism need to make a better case to existing residents, the ones who fear that increased density, walkability and mixed use will degrade the quality of life for them and their families. Localities can't pitch dense districts that cater to young singles and retired seniors only, and not expect existing residents with families to ask, "What's in it for me?" Planners and developers must pay attention to that, even as households with children are shrinking as a percentage of the overall market.

by Laurence Aurbach on May 28, 2009 10:11 am  

@Rich -

if you think the apple store is "one of a kind," i've got a couple of bridges over the potomac to sell you. from a retail chain standpoint, bethesda's just as bad as downtown silver spring.

where silver spring is superior (to my way of thinking, anyway), is that it's retained its ethnic diversity. bethesda is, was, and will always be a white suburban enclave.

by AJ on May 28, 2009 11:22 am  

The 2 and three bedroom condo for families with more than one child is and will continue to be a hard sell. I suspect that women more than men would go for it. I do not know many men who will willingly pay condo fees (notoriously out of whack) and the whole financing/value angle is something American men are suspicious of. But that might be changing. What could be more attractive are large houses divided in two or three or four units, and from there forming their own condo association, being self-managed, and not reliant on a probably overcharging management company. That takes some amount of youth and vigor, not to mention commitment.

by KC on May 28, 2009 11:29 am  

KC,

Show me any data to support the point of view that men don't like condos for their families. If not we're just speaking in anecdotes and my anecdote, is I'm male and I'd buy into a family friendly condo in downtown Silver Spring if they made it. Condo fees are annoying in their regularity, but they're not very different from house maintenance costs, and hiring someone to mow a lawn.

by dd on May 28, 2009 11:46 am  

Casey: did I say the "problem of disorderly behavior in public spaces" should not be taken "seriously"? No I did not. i said i have not witnessed the bad behavior or felt the intimidation you speak of even though i have been there many many times and mingled among the teens. (Walked among them! Had pleasant street level interactions with them! NOT at all hesitant to bring my <12 y.o., let alone myself-). Is your point that the presence of teens is pointed to by some as a bad outcome of a walkable environment? You say yourself "Complaints about out-of-control teenagers in downtown Silver Spring may be overstated...". I agree! Is your point that there are some instances of violence and prevention needs to be addressed? I agree!

I didn't say so before but since Rich brought it up: i too think its white adults accustomed to being the majority race who feel intimidated by the mostly brown teens, not b/c of anything unusual most of the teens are doing -C.A. says in his article its a small fraction of trouble makers - but simply b/c those white folks aren't used to being the visual melanin minority. Of COURSE violence should not be tolerated. Of COURSE every adult has a place to speak to any teen anywhere, respectfully, to help educate the kid on what's acceptable and what's not.

See Truly Pists comment. Its common sensical advice i wholeheartedly agree with and which I have done myself. These are kids. They need a degree of freedom AND guidance and protection (a word from an adult they don't know as well as a watchful eye). They need a place to "Be". What if it was your kid acting badly? Wouldn't you want a stranger to respectfully tell your kid? I would.

I agree with what most of the commenters here have said (Laurence A, dd, Lindemann, etc.) Thoughtful planning, walkable environments, places for people of all ages are achievable and there are examples of success all over as real estate prices tell us those types of environments are highly valued.

by Bianchi on May 28, 2009 11:52 am  

dd,

Pure observation. No stats. Sorry.

Lived in DC going on 17 years, and in my current building of 80 plus unit - one child. I just do not see lots of kids pouring out of condo/apt buildings in my neighborhood. And no, there are not a lot of units that are more than 2 BR, but still.

by KC on May 28, 2009 2:01 pm  

I think the number of kids (<18) you see depends on where you live in DC. US Census 2000 data reported 39% of DC's kids lived in Wards 7 & 8.

Distribution of DC's kids:

Ward 1,11%; 2,5%; 3,8%; 4,13%; 5,13%; 6,10%; 7,17%; 8,22%. The proportion of kids in each Ward:

Ward 1,18%; 2,8%; 3,12%; 4,20%; 5,21%; 6,17%; 7,28%; 8,36%.

Anyone in wards 1,2 & 3 just aren't going to see many kids no matter what type of housing they're in. Even the Ward with highest proportion of kids has adults outnumbering kids ~2/1.

by Bianchi on May 28, 2009 2:59 pm  

Right. The locations where there are more houses, will likely have more children.

by KC on May 29, 2009 1:55 pm  

The data don't report type of housing kids live in. Just which part of the city kids are found in greatest proportion and density.

by Bianchi on May 29, 2009 2:21 pm  

I've always been disappointed that there aren't more 3 and 4 bedroom condos near transit in the area. They are almost impossible to find. I think there is a market for them.

by MatthewMc on May 31, 2009 11:47 pm