This is an excellent post--we all want to revitalize stressed communities--the issue is how we preserve their character, diversity and economic vitality in the process. The issues surrounding development around rail lines of preserving/creating affordable housing and decent jobs are often ignored in the rush by local/state government to attract development.

by kreeggo on Jul 22, 2009 12:36 pm  

if access to transit and walkable communities were the norm rather then the "new and improved" exception this wouldn't be an issue. That this issues arises underscores the desireability of these types of land use and transportation infrastructure plans. How much more evidence is needed before this type of plan is embraced as the default -western MoCo I'm looking at you...

by Bianchi on Jul 22, 2009 12:54 pm  

Great post. It's always important to ensure continuity of community. Otherwise, no matter how well-designed a neighborhood is, it's worthless if the process is as devastating as "urban renewal."

by цarьchitect on Jul 22, 2009 1:09 pm  

Well there have to be guidelines created that preserve income and household diversity.

The biggest thing is portfolio investment of apartment complexes on the part of community development corporations/housing organizations is likely required in order to keep a certain amount of the housing permanently affordable. In other words, without permanently taking some of the housing inventory outside of normal market conditions and forces, displacement is a certainty. Co-operatives and land trusts are another method.

Jubilee Housing in DC does this. And in NYC, the Abyssinian Development Corporation in Harlem acts similarly: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/nyregion/18abyssinian.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=abyssinian%20community%20development%20corporation&st=cse

Sadly, generally in DC, we do not have a comprehensive policy for dealing with affordable housing issues. Most activists focus on inclusionary zoning, which addresses but a sliver of the overall problem.

Other processes have to be in place to protect against small business displacement, although some of this is natural anyway.

This paper was done by a student class at the UMD planning program: http://www.arch.umd.edu/student_work/app.cfm?id=282

on Silver Spring, but the same forces are in play in Langley Park.

by Richard Layman on Jul 22, 2009 2:24 pm  

I guess I'm ignorant of the real estate business and all that, but I've had a thought here.

The high-end gentrified stuff always comes in the form of large-scale block developments, maybe because the only people who can put those up are national corporations who to make up their investment only do luxury office parks and yuppie condos.

Instead if planners broke up the plats or found a way to get megalots redone into smaller pieces of land, local money and businesspeople could get in the game. This might result in more neighborhood-ly developments. For instance a highly-sucessful store chain owner could afford to redevelop his own property with a little apartment with ground floor shop space.

It'd be a throwback to the old days, pretty much.

by Not From MD on Jul 22, 2009 2:31 pm  

We can sit there and talk about "preserving affordability" all we want but the truth is that there is a premium for housing in a transit-oriented human scale walkable urban place. The only way to keep from pricing out the working-class is to build more and more housing stock within walkable urban places. We also need more walkable urban places, period.

The increase in prices is not something that just happens on its own, contrary to what Mr. O'Toole might say. I'm actually surprised that you even linked to him, given that he's just a hired sprawl apologist. The increase in prices has to do with the fact that the real estate is converted from an arrangement with a glut of supply (car-dependent places) to a configuration in which there is scarce supply (walkable urban places). The only way to make walkable urban real estate less expensive (less scarce) is to increase its availability.

I am concerned that the Montgomery and Prince George's planning boards won't get this and will try to limit the walkable urban development there. That would work against keeping affordable housing. While it's important to try to consider social justice, we can't wave our magic wand and just make it so. The only way to achieve this goal is to make similar suburban-to-urban retrofit plans all along every piece of rail infrastructure we've got. That includes further intensity (not height necessarily. There are plenty of empty lots in places like Shaw and Brookland that could easily be used for new housing without any need for new infrastructure) in already functioning walkable urbanism in the District and inner suburbs.

by Cavan on Jul 22, 2009 2:36 pm  

Not from MD, you are on to something with the smaller lots.

by Cavan on Jul 22, 2009 2:38 pm  

It's great to see so much support for this issue in the excellent comments. Even if you don't live in Prince George's Coutny,it's important that the decision-makers hear from you. If you feel strongly about these issues, help us keep the pressure on by sending an automatic e-letter to the Prince George's County Council and Planning Commission here

If you'd like to get involved in our campaign, let us know at julie@jufj.org.

Julie Farb Blain
JUFJ Staff

by Jews United for Justice on Jul 22, 2009 2:55 pm  

DC has a Comprehensive Housing Strategy (2006) that includes a full range of policies and programs. Inclusionary Zoning is part of the solution, but so is tenants right to purchase, consistent funding for a housing trust fund to support all the work of non-profit housing development. Most DC housing advocates are focused on securing funding and tenants rights - these are also needed for this part of Prince George's. Unfortunately the Comp Housing Plan, though originated by by Councilmember Fenty, has largely lost its status as the guiding document for DC housing policy under the Fenty administration.

Montgomery County has a good set of these policies. Their plan for their side of Langley Park takes a different approach and offers specific policies for redevelopment that retains & increases affordable housing and small businesses. Arlington County has also instituted policies that we can learn from to have redevelopment and preserve/create affordable housing and local businesses.

by ccort on Jul 22, 2009 4:34 pm  

In regards to affordability and retaining existing residents in smart growth, the Winter 2008 issue of On Common Ground magazine gives a good introduction to the many strategies that have been successful.

In the Takoma/Langley Concept plan, the "jug handle" concept for the University/New Hampshire intersection is interesting. The plan proposes to create a cloverleaf in a functional sense, with existing commercial blocks located inside the lobes of the cloverleaf. Has that concept been tried in any similar suburban context? I'd be interested to see examples.

In regards to the University Blvd cross-section, I have doubts that the proposed design will make the road be "transformed to attractive and walkable six-lane major urban boulevards that support a diverse mix of pedestrian-oriented development" as promised. Sixty-six feet of motor vehicle lanes plus 50 feet of rail track -- that's 116 feet of high-volume traffic. That's a lot of noise and pollution, and it's a lot of safety hazard crossing the long distance to the other side of the street. Where are the existing examples of that pattern where it truly supports an "attractive and walkable" pedestrian district? I'd be interested to see those.

And the slightly raised bike lanes are an interesting idea too. On a major arterial with a posted speed of 35 mph, is that going to be safe for child riders and other non-daredevils? I know traffic commonly gets up to 45 or 50 mph on University Blvd as drivers race from stoplight to stoplight. Again, has the concept been tried in any similar suburban context?

by Laurence Aurbach on Jul 22, 2009 7:30 pm  

That general area has a lot of vitality because of the multi-family housing and because the commercial development is concentrated and managed to attract a mix of local and regional/national businesses. The single family housing in the area seems to be a mixed bag. It and the multifamily date to the development of NH Ave as a limited access road in the late 40s. A lot of the housing is ripe for redevelopment. It would make more sense to conserve housing and , if anything increase density, using this as a way to clear out some of the blighted single family stock. Another consideration is to let the market do a lot of the redevelopment. This area will become attractive to renovators once the Purple Line actually looks like a real possibility. Areas with large scale redevelopment or that attract large scale flippers usually don't develop the character that areas gentrified on a small scale do. Conservation should not lead to large concentrations of poverty. In that case, the area would resemble Columbia Heights, where income disparity is probably one barrier to building real community.

Neither county is going to be flush with money for the foreseeable future and the underlying fundamentals of the area don't argue for a lot of tax abatements or other incentives. Whatever the counties do, it will have to be minimalistic and that may help prevent some idiotic overplanned development making the area a less attractive place to live.

by Rich on Jul 22, 2009 9:26 pm  

Laurence, Berkeley has some raised bike lanes, as does Copenhagen. Berkeley is pretty suburban, but the trails aren't exactly in metropolitan boulevards.

by цarьchitect on Jul 22, 2009 9:26 pm  

I think I'm missing something here. Looking both at the site plans and the accompanying narrative, I see lots of mixed use and multifamily, and significant concern about displacement and strategies to minimize it. Isn't that what we want? I agree with all the principles expressed in the post and in the comments, but I think some of you must know something that isn't written in the blog post or in the plan that makes you alarmed. On its face, I don't see that.

From the plan:

• "Set aside housing along University Boulevard
between the two Purple Line station stops for
work-live units, housing made available to small
entrepreneurs. (See Map 12. Future Land Use)

• "Provide housing in the TLC sector plan for
populations with special needs, in particular
for seniors and the disabled. Much of this type
of housing should be integrated into mixeduse
developments so that residents of senior
housing have access to services . . .

• "Ensure that programs exist to provide
opportunities for appropriate workforce or
affordable housing for existing residents to
remain in the sector plan area . . .

"Given the concern that redevelopment might
lead to a decrease of workforce housing choices
in Takoma/Langley Crossroads, the allocation
process sought to limit most densities in the study
area to those whose construction techniques
(approximately four to five stories) are akin to
conventional “stick built” methods. Once above five
stories, construction costs rise sharply, making it
more difficult to set aside such units as workforce
housing. Consequently, a concerted effort was
made within the priority sequence of the allocation
process to spread out much of the residential
development so that buildings relying on more
expensive construction techniques were limited to
those areas where such costs might better succeed . . ."

While any plan will need to be filled out with appropriate details and implementation, these seem to me to be the right goals, properly articulated. Do you disagree?

by Kaid @ NRDC on Jul 22, 2009 11:27 pm  

Kaid, the issue here is classic gentrification. I really hate to use the G word, because I think that investment in urban neighborhoods and inner ring suburban communities is absolutely necessary.

But the introduction of the light rail to this corridor will lead to a significant revaluing of this and other locations, making it highly attractive for redevelopment, both displacing and pricing out current residents.

This area, at least on the Montgomery County side, is about the most affordable in the County, and has come to be the center for Latino life in that County. PG County has lots more affordable housing/land inventory than MoCo, but this area has also developed an agglomeration of Latinos/Hispanic character. I don't know on which side of the County line this process started, but in toto the area is relatively unique within the two counties.

The redevelopment that will occur is more what urban sociologists would call a direct "reproduction" of the space, from low value to high, through the introduction of improved transit, the change in zoning, and the likely rebuilding of many of the lower density apartment and commercial blocks into higher density mixed use facilities.

And rent in new buildings is always significantly higher than in old buildings that are paid off (cf. Jacobs).

The reality of affordable housing is that it has to be either or both subsidized or removed from typical market forces in order to remain permanently affordable, because in high demand areas, the input costs--land and construction*--are no different for affordable vs. market rate housing. Subsidies can include funding, land, tax abatements, special financing and/or tax credits, and density bonuses.

On one hand, you want to fully leverage the investment in transit. On the other hand, equity concerns mean that you don't want to dis-benefit those of lesser means as a direct result of your renewal strategy (i.e., Union Station was built also to eliminate what was considered slum housing between North Capitol and 2nd Street NE and back then there were no such things as relocation benefits and assistance; something similar happened as a result of the displacement that occurred due to the urban renewal program in SW DC).

* Construction costs for affordable housing are a little cheaper because the grade for finishings, appliances, etc., tend to be low to medium, rather than high.

by Richard Layman on Jul 23, 2009 7:37 am  

I totally get all that. I guess I'm just surprised that there apparently isn't any subsidized housing contemplated for the area. I didn't necessarily take that away from I read in the plan.

by Kaid @ NRDC on Jul 23, 2009 7:57 am  

Great Post! I sooooo want to see a safer, more walkable, small-business friendly Langley Park. There is so much great community there, but also terrible traffic and crime. I hope people go out in force to community meetings and let their voice be heard about this.

by Carmen on Jul 23, 2009 8:10 am  

While the Prince George's plan discusses some concerns about displacement, it aims to encourage the redevelopment of thousands of garden apartment units through rezoning. The plan never states that a goal is to preserve affordable housing. It does discuss integrating workforce units into new construction, but this is very different from preserving existing affordable housing. It's true that redevelopment of any of the housing is probably decades away, if at all, but the County should set policies to preserve & improve the rental housing in the area. The overall intention of the plan is clearly to encourage the replacement of a large share of the garden apartments. Some combination of preservation and redevelopment with replacement of affordable rental units is needed. The plan never gets specific about any policies until the Implementation section where it suggests an "affordability workgroup" and lists a number of policies we (Coalition for Smarter Growth & others) suggested. Certainly mixed income, mixed use development on the commercial properties is a good thing & should be the focus on this plan.

Lastly, look at the future map - it shows new streets running through existing apartment buildings and parks where apartments now exist. Without a serious commitment to preserving affordable housing in the area, the current residents view their homes threatened by such a plan.

by Cheryl [at] smartergrowth [dot] net on Jul 23, 2009 8:45 am  

Hi Cheryl - I certainly trust you more than myself when it comes to things local. But my personal instinct is that what we need to preserve is the function, not the form, of older garden apartments currently surrounded by surface parking lots.

by Kaid @ NRDC on Jul 23, 2009 9:35 am  

Prince George's has a county-wide policy of preventing construction of affordable housing. This issue needs to be addressed head-on; connecting it to the Purple Line only gives the opponents of affordable housing an excuse to evade the real problem. Especially because they're often the same people who want to obstruct mass transit.

This policy is of course rarely stated forthrightly, but here's what the chief executive of the county economic redevelopment agency (not, of course, a Purple Line opponent himself) said in 2005:

The housing prices in P.G. are competitive with any in the region, so we're seeing that the county is actively encouraging developers to focus on the high-end market because we already have an adequate supply of housing for low and moderate income people.

by tt on Jul 23, 2009 9:50 am  

FYI, Kaid, I agree with you that the location needs to be optimized for the addition of transit, and that there needs to be a very specific housing program designed, through a variety of means, to ensure the maintenance of access to a significant inventory of affordable housing.

We learned in DC that the time horizon for neighborhood improvements on transit ranges from 20-40 years, but without the right policies in place at the outset, the displacement effects we've experienced in certain DC neighborhoods are more likely, not less likely to happen. Dealing with this now in Langley Park/Takoma Crossroads will help mitigate (but not eliminate) some of the worst effects.

by Richard Layman on Jul 23, 2009 10:08 am  

The housing prices in P.G. are competitive with any in the region, so we're seeing that the county is actively encouraging developers to focus on the high-end market because we already have an adequate supply of housing for low and moderate income people.

What.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 23, 2009 1:39 pm  

A well written article. The high density new residential construction proposed for Univ. Blvd. near the former Safeway would supposedly attract higher income renters/buyers. The immediate area could use a little more income diversification and stability to support retail and yes, gather political attention. This site is relatively small, a local investor/builder might participate. Maybe not a big national company. Or a nonprofit such as Manna Inc. or MHP if subsidies are deep. The economic downturn has hurt the garden apt. rentals in area: folks going home to native countries, or fewer replenishing new immigrants? NH Ave. is a raceway from 495 to Eastern Ave. One speed camera slows things down some. The NH Ave.-Piney Branch intersection a scene of many collisions. Hard to imagine NH Ave. as pedestrian enjoyable. But it could be more pedestrian accommodating. The local, mostly immigrant, residents will walk a lot. Langley Park is simply off the radar for many middle class homeowner residents south of area: many opt to avoid shopping there. It stuns me how many won't shop there, during daytime, don't know what even exists there. "A fabric shop? Indian restaurants? A Caribbean grocer? A post office? A farmers market? Who knew?"
I spoke 2 months ago with a store owner in L. Park intersection. He said he just renewed his lease for 2 years. What redevelopment he asked! I'm assuming eminent domain in redevelopment, when it does get approved, could invalidate that lease. A dilemma: the outlying burbs to the north keep expanding and NH Ave. remains one of only a few corridors in/out DC in this cone zone.

by Tim Siegel on Dec 11, 2009 10:09 am