Different housing types can mix if designed propertly

Development

Different housing types can mix if designed propertly

by Dan Reed • November 7, 2011 11:25 am

Neighbors of Chelsea Court, a proposed townhouse development at the site of the former Chelsea School outside downtown Silver Spring complain it's too dense for a neighborhood of single-family homes, and last month, the County Council agreed. But why can't different housing types coexist?

Photo by thecourtyard on Flickr.

Local developer EYA bought the Chelsea School's campus in May 2010 after the private academy announced they were closing. EYA, which has built dozens of townhome and condominium projects around Greater Washington over the past twenty years, wants to build 76 townhomes on the site, located in the Seven Oaks neighborhood less than a block from downtown Silver Spring.

To do so, they need the County Council to change the property's zoning, which right now only allows single-family homes.

There's a group of neighbors who say they'd prefer detached houses, while county planners and blogger Silver Spring, Singular, who also lives in the neighborhood, point out that there's already high-rise buildings in the area.

Neighbors will always complain that a development is "too dense" on the basis of overcrowded schools or congested roads, though that isn't really an issue with two-bedroom townhouses within walking distance of a large urban center. So let's talk about the other issue: is it a foregone conclusion that you can't have single-family homes, townhomes and apartments in the same neighborhood? Not at all, especially if they're designed to get along with each other.

Image from Google Street View.

This is the corner of 47th Street and Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia, about three blocks from my house here. The specific neighborhood is called Garden Court, and it was built in the 1920's as a "streetcar suburb" for middle- and upper-middle-class families. Even as much of West Philadelphia fell into disinvestment and poverty, this neighborhood has been relatively stable. Today, it's home to many students and faculty at Penn, Drexel and other universities in the area. Even a rowhouse here will easily run above $500,000, a bargain by D.C.-area standards but expensive for here.

Take a look at this intersection. On three corners are large, single-family homes. Next to them are duplexes, maybe a little smaller but still more than enough room for a family. Go west on Osage about a hundred feet, or east one block, and you'll find rowhouses. See that big building poking through the trees? That's a high-rise condominium, just a block north.

Different types of houses mix well in my West Philadelphia
neighborhood, so why can't they in Silver Spring?

This neighborhood's not a bad comparison to, say, Woodside Park or Seven Oaks, neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Silver Spring. Woodside Park and Seven Oaks were built around the same time. Though those neighborhoods have bigger lots and lack sidewalks, they were intended for the same, well-heeled clientele. And both have a mix of different house types, sizes and heights.

Nonetheless, Garden Court has the benefit of being built all at once, so the high-rise building has similar details and materials as the single-family houses. In the neighborhoods around downtown Silver Spring, you might have single-family homes built before World War II, apartment buildings built in the 1960's, and townhouses built more recently.

Certainly, living next to a genteel 1920's apartment house might be nicer than living next to a 1960's Modernist apartment tower. It's not surprising that some people living in neighborhoods like Seven Oaks are uncomfortable with new development when they have to contend with buildings that aren't so sensitive to their context.

Townhomes in Chelsea Court will look at Colesville Towers,
a 1960's-era apartment tower. Image from Google Street View.

Yet my example shows that single-family houses and townhouses and apartments can play together if done right. Like the different housing types in my West Philadelphia neighborhood, the proposed Chelsea Court houses use similar materials and detailing as existing homes nearby, while providing a opportunity for families who can't afford or don't want a detached house to live there. What makes Silver Spring a great place to live is that it attracts a mix of people, and that comes from having a mix of housing styles, types and prices. And like I wrote last week, those qualities are threatened when we try to push out anyone or anything that seems "different" than what's already there.

Like any development in an existing neighborhood, Chelsea Court needs to fit in with its context. But that doesn't have anything to do with how dense it is. In fact, an urban center like Silver Spring needs new residents within walking distance of its shops, restaurants, and extensive public transit. What we can do is ensure that these new townhouses are designed to complement their single-family neighbors. It's been done before, and we can do it again.

25 comments

Tags: density, development, Maryland, Montgomery, Silver Spring, townhouses

Silver Spring school leaving, could become 75 homes (May 3, 2010)
Toronto's "tower renewal" could point the way for East County high rises (Apr 29, 2009)
Anything but townhouses, say Ravenwood Park activists (Feb 28, 2011)
Burtonsville residents protest affordable housing (May 18, 2009)
Accessory dwelling debate comes to MoCo (Sep 3, 2008)

Dan Reed writes about planning issues in eastern Montgomery County and is interested in how people, especially young people, experience the urban realm. He grew up in Silver Spring and earned a double degree in Architecture and English at the University of Maryland. Dan is currently studying city planning at the University of Pennsylvania and lives in West Philadelphia. Since 2006, Dan has written his own blog, Just Up the Pike, about eastern Montgomery County.

Comments
Add a comment »

Heck you can look closer at arlington where on one side of the street are sfh's and on the other side are the towers that are sandwiched between Wilson and Washington blvd (between ballston and Va. Square).

In Suburban Nation (the book that got me into urban issues) there is a picture of how georgetown can fit all sorts of housing types into an area, from sub-let basements, to apartments to mansions.

by Canaan on Nov 7, 2011 11:45 am

This is almost a straw man argument. In the 1920s, that's how inner core neighborhoods were developed in DC, with a mix of single family houses, albeit attached, plus apartment buildings of various sizes. In outer core neighborhoods, typically "large" apartment buildings were built at streetcar junctions, while the neighborhoods were a mix of single family attached and detached housing. (In the 1920s, the National Capital Planning Commission banned attached rowhouses greater than 3 units.)

by Richard Layman on Nov 7, 2011 11:47 am

Totally agree. I live about 2 blocks from this proposed development (in one of the 60's "Modernist" apartment towers). This site is extremely well-suited for higher-density development. It is a stone's throw from downtown Silver Spring, and in addition to the neighborhing high-rise apartment buildings, there is a mid-rise apartment complex currently being constructed on the corner of Ellsworth and Cedar Streets, half a block from this proposed townhome development. Also, this site is very close to the current DTSS library, which will close once the new one is completed in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if that site became a high-rise apartment building.

If we want Silver Spring to continue to attract new employers, retail, and restaurants, we must have the density to support it. I understand the neighbors' concerns, but if I were them, I'd much rather have a well-designed high-density development that fits into the neighborhood than a few tacky McMansions. But that's just me.

by Rebecca on Nov 7, 2011 11:49 am

The two can co-exist, but what they should *not* do is mix the two together into one governance structure (co-op or condo). That was tried here in SW, and frankly it doesn't work well. The interests of folks who live in the varying forms are too different to make for good cooperation. Keep 'em separate unless you want to deal with acrimonious board meetings for the next 50 years.

by Moose on Nov 7, 2011 12:09 pm

Just saying, you'd be nuts to oppose an EYA development in your neighborhood.

There's not even really much of a contest to say that they're far and away the best townhouse developer in the DC area. Their projects are consistently well-designed and sensitive to the context of the surrounding neighborhoods.

They're pretty much the only developer that bothers doing this at all.

by andrew on Nov 7, 2011 12:13 pm

The real question isn't 'can they exist side by side?' but rather 'what needs to be done for them to exist side by side'.

When people buy into a neighborhood they buy into it with the assurances that the zoning gives them. If one of those assurances is that new developments within the neighborhood will be single family, well then that's what they bought. And no one has the right to take that away from them without the consent. That's just how contracts work.

Saying 'Neighbors will always complain that a development is "too dense" on the basis of overcrowded schools or congested roads,' misses the point that they will only say that if they haven't been compesated in some way for their allowing the contract they signed on to to be changed. Developers will have you think the neighbors are being NIMBYs (and some people will easily fall for that) because of course the developer wants to pay as little as possible for the land they're buying. And in a case like this they're buying land that is zoned for single family homes. That land is infinitely cheaper than were that land zoned for the multi-family housing they want to put in there. But that's what's attractive to them that they can buy it for cheaper if they can take the neighbors rights away without paying for them. I.e., they 'want their cake and eat it too'. It's good business and you can't blame the developers for trying. Though we can and should blame the so-called urbanists out there who fall for this and helpd enable this action ... when another for easier AND FAIRER option is out there.

The developers need to compensate the adjoining landowners for the taking of the rights they were guaranteed by the zoning. You wouldn't expect a developer to have the right to come in and take over a neighborhood to build on it without their compensating the owners in some way, yet giving them to right to come in and add to its congestion and otherwise totally changed the neighborhood is no different. And why shouldn't the neighbors be compensated for their losses here? Oh, because it maybe it now makes the land as expensive as it would be were it already zoned for multi-family? Yeah, well someone's got to pay when you take something that isn't yours. And this blog does residents a great disservice when it condones and encourages this taking without compensation. But I suspect many on here don't understand that something is being taken. And that's the fundamental problem.

by Lance on Nov 7, 2011 12:24 pm

except legally a master plan does NOT create property rights. Its not like theres an easement the neighbors own, that they can hold off for sale even IF the new development doesnt harm them in the least.

At most they rely on the master plan to create a generally desirable way of life. IF a change in the master plan assures them the same thing, in comparison to what could be built as of right under the plan (in this case McMansions of a type that were perhaps not envisioned when the master plan was written?) then to give them an automatic right to keep the master plan (or to be more precise, to give the vocal people who actually speak out, themselves a minority of the whole nabe apparently) would seem to be assigning a property right that isnt given out in the law of most jurisdictions.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 12:39 pm

"yet giving them to right to come in and add to its congestion and otherwise totally changed the neighborhood is no different. "

the developer already has that right. This is zoned for SFHs and building new, large SFHs would add to the congestion of the neighborhoods, and change its character. And under the master plan, no one could do a thing about it.

As it happens, the market prefers more THs to fewer mcmansions. IF the community can get the county to listen, the community can extract some surplus value in exchange for their consent. IF the county determines that too few people have spoken up against the development to bother to listen to, esp given that of those who did speak up, about one quarter supported EYA, than that chance to extract surplus value will disappear.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 12:44 pm

I'm with @Lance on this one: they don't have a right to do this without the consent of existing neighbors. That's because the neighbors have a legally binding contract.

(And of course, by that I mean, the developers *can* do it without the express consent of the existing neighbors, because there is no contract.)

by oboe on Nov 7, 2011 1:25 pm

@oboe, Please explain why you don't think the zoning rules are a contract of sorts?

by Lance on Nov 7, 2011 1:48 pm

This article presents a shallow and simplistic view of the situation. There were five public hearings on this matter. The Hearing Examiner heard from numerous residents, the developer, traffic experts, and land use experts, and after a great deal of testimony and legal briefs from both sides, concluded that this project was not compatible with the neighborhood. The County Council took all of this into consideration, in addition to further testimony, when voting to remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner.

by Nick on Nov 7, 2011 2:03 pm

Because there's no framework establishing them as a contract?

Also, almost every contract in the real world has an expiration date and/or escape clause. In fact, you'd be nuts to write a perpetual non-negotiable contract. None of that legal framework exists in the zoning code, because the zoning code is not, and was never intended to be any kind of legally-binding contract.

by andrew on Nov 7, 2011 2:09 pm

@lance

because a contract is a formal exchange of promises. The master plan does not represent a promise, nor was there value given in exchange for it.

If it IS a contract, who are the parties. The county and A. the immediate neighbors? B. The more distant neighbors? C. Anyone who lives anywhere in the county.

ANYONE could have made decisions reliant on the plan. Therefor anyone in the county, at least, could claim a property right. You can see why thats not workable. In REAL contract law, the parties to the contract are specified in the contract itself - the people who are exchanging promises of value.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 2:21 pm

Dan said in the article: "So let's talk about the other issue: is it a foregone conclusion that you can't have single-family homes, townhomes and apartments in the same neighborhood?"

Although the SOECA position was to oppose townhouses on the Chelsea School site, the Woodside Park Civic Association's position was different. [Woodside Park is across Colesville Road from SOECA's area; Woodside Park has three townhouse developments within its area]. WPCA did not oppose townhouses; WPCA's objection was to townhouses at the maximum possible townhouse density under Montgomery County zoning. WPCA said lower density townhouses, like those in Woodside Park, would be more in keeping with the density of the surrounding neighborhood. That is essentially the position that was adopted, along with concerns about the adequacy of the site to be preserved with the historic structure, etc.

by Bob on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 pm

Dan Reed asks, "why can't different housing types coexist? Well, in the abstract they can. But Chelsea Court wouldn't exist in the abstract, it would be built in a single family-zoned neighborhood, hop scotching the CBD (Central Business District's) Cedar Street boundary. "You'd be nuts to oppose an EYA development in your neighborhood.... Their projects are consistently well-designed and sensitive to the context of the surrounding neighborhoods," andrew writes. Perhaps. But an EYA project too doesn't exist in the abstract; it would exist (in this case) in a neighborhood bordering the CBD, as attractive to profit-minded developers as to EYA and, once EYA rezoning is granted, would be vulnerable to non-EYA developers eager to take advantage of the precedent.

"There's already high-rise buildings in the area," Dan writes. Yes, there are such buildings on the fringe of the area -- that's "on the fringe" -- not "in the heart," as would be the inevitable development project requests flowing in EYA's wake. And who could bar such requests from being granted -- since EYA has no right to exclusivity in profiting from low priced residential land on the border of Silver Spring's higher priced commercial core.

by Jim on Nov 7, 2011 11:31 pm

This article's comments on zoning and contract law only dance around Dan's point, which was to pick at the logic for why density could and should be a consideration for opposing a development at all. In many cities, larger residential developments are opposed due to height, traffic (which is an outcome of parking provided), and a vague expectation that the new residents will change your neighborhood for the worse. These attributes are all related to density but planning is concerned with maintaining and enhancing quality of life and livability at both the neighborhood and the metropolitan scale. As it happens, the most livable and attractive communities that stand the test of time have a diversity of housing types and unit densities (eg. Takoma Park).

by eozberk on Nov 8, 2011 12:41 am

@Jim

So, things should never change? Neighborhoods should never grow?

This is antithetical to decades of human experience with urban growth patterns.

by Alex B. on Nov 8, 2011 9:14 am

some people just dont like to see things change they get use to a certain way of life and anything new is not a good idea and will harm the community

by Jerome on Nov 8, 2011 9:20 am

There is a large contingent of neighbors opposed to the 76 not the townhomes. The rumor is that some may be as narrow as 12-14 feet. That's not a townhome in fact nor a condo either. I have no opposition to new neighbors and in fact welcome them in that area in particular- its a spot for occasional night time crime. Their presence will help deter.

This piece seems to suggest a small vocal minority opposed this rezoning. That is not true- it is a large group. Again had EYA proposed lesser townhomes they would not have encountered as much opposition. They are thought to be a good builder. We will see.

by George on Nov 8, 2011 9:23 am

@George

View Larger Map

These houses are in Georgetown and look to be about 14-15 feet wide. They look like townhouses to me, what with their common walls and all, and they seem pretty big, too. And I'll bet they're worth more than even single-family homes in Seven Oaks.

by dan reed! on Nov 8, 2011 10:08 am

Alex B. asks: "So, things should never change? Neighborhoods should never grow?" Of course they should grow. Growth is a natural part of life. So is cancer, i.e., uncontrolled growth. The neighborghood growth we near Downtown Silver Spring need is orderly growth, growth that strengthens our community instead of opening the door to another Rosslyn. Non-EYA developers won't keep eyes wide shut to a successful EYA precedent (nor will campaigning politicians permanently ignore developer campaign contributions). That's why zoning regs and Master Plans are important and why our neighborhood keeps fighting to assure they're respected.

by Jim on Nov 8, 2011 12:11 pm

So growth is fine as long as it doesn't change anything. But what is un-orderly about the development in particular (apart that it simply doesn't fit into the current regulatory structure)

Plus, how do townhomes lead to a place turning into a place like rosslyn?

by x on Nov 8, 2011 12:28 pm

Transforming a neighborhood into something completely different may sometimes be desirable, but in that case the argument for compensation would seem to be stronger.

I dont see that what is happening here though - it will leave the area mostly SFH's and downtown SS is already high rises. Standard planning practice suggests that a transition zone is natural, and a good idea. Thats worked relatively well in orange line arlington. The as of right transition zone would, I take it, be McMansions on small lots. THs seems like a better idea all around. Its not surprising to me that the neighbors would rather have fewer,larger THs, while the market dictates more smaller ones.

by AWalkeInTheCity on Nov 8, 2011 12:55 pm

"These attributes are all related to density but planning is concerned with maintaining and enhancing quality of life and livability at both the neighborhood and the metropolitan scale."

Planning decisions can also be influenced by less noble considerations.

by Blue on Nov 8, 2011 1:31 pm

"x" asks, "how do townhomes lead to a place turning into a place like rosslyn?" It sounds like "x" has never heard of the "camel's nose in the tent" or, perhaps, the "foot in the door" technique. That's what the word "precedent" refers to.

by Jim on Nov 10, 2011 12:04 am