Development
YIMBYism in Wheaton
I'm pleased to welcome Cavan to the ranks of GGW contributors! Cavan will occasionally be reporting on exciting developments in suburban Maryland and any other topics that strike his fancy.
University Blvd in Wheaton. Image from Just Up the Pike.
The Post's headline reads, "Residents Envision a Denser Wheaton"; the Gazette says residents are "warming up to increased density." As a Wheaton resident, the most positive surprise about the outcome of the recent community meeting was neighbors' acceptance of greater residential density.
Most zoning/land use meetings I've ever attended have gone along okay until planners broach the subject of increasing residential density by building townhouses and condos/apartments. As many of you know, this subject tends to raise the hackles of the NIMBY faction like no other. To increase the density and diversity of commercial activity, Wheaton needs more residences in the walkable town grid.
Currently, restaurants are by far the most common type of small business. There are few places that sell durable goods and few offices. Admittedly, the thriving of the Westfield Wheaton suburban mall in the walkable downtown area has something to do with this.
A big real benefit of more density will be "eyes on the street". While I am often confused when people tell me they feel uncomfortable walking around downtown Wheaton, a place where I walk to and from transit, grocery stores, the mall, and other locations, I embrace the fact that more street life will contribute positively to alleviating such concerns.
Finally, the big piece of the meeting was agreement about a town square, like the now extinct "turf" (except hopefully prettier) in neighboring Silver Spring. Actually, we already have one. The problem is that it is currently Lot 13: much like 1985 Hill Valley in the movie "Back to the Future", the space that feels like it should be a town square is currently a parking lot. Thankfully, I'm hardly alone in my sentiment.
To me, it is quite noteworthy that the tone of the meeting went differently that those in neighboring Brookland and Takoma Park. While I don't live in those communities, I don't quite understand why they haven't seen the success in Bethesda, Silver Spring, downtown Rockville, Friendship Heights, Arlington and so on and said, "I want some of that."
Wheaton's tone was not always so good. The old 1990 Sector Plan didn't allow for anything beyond the existing (and still current) single story commercial development, and allowed no new housing. It was quite NIMBY and confined most everything to CBD-2 zoning. (In Montgomery County, CBD-2 means single use single story commercial. The only thing urban about it is the lack of parking minimums, so storefronts open to the sidewalk.) Since then, there have been new townhouses built on University Boulevard and on Grandview Avenue. More recently, a new apartment building was built above the Metro on the eastern side of Georgia Avenue. All this happened and the sky did not fall.
I like to think that the big news here is that the times are a-changing with respect to public views on walkability and urbanism. Rather than trying to make an urban place more suburban, as was the unfortunate trend since about 1946, more of the general public is looking at existing urbanism and wanting to see it work better.
Thank you to David for letting me write this guest post. I look forward to reading the comments, rather than just commenting myself.
 | Cavan Wilk became interested in the physical layout and economic systems of modern human settlements while working on his Master's in Financial Economics. His writing often focuses on the interactions between a place's form, its economic systems, and the experiences of those who live in them. He lives in downtown Silver Spring.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
i'm still pretty new to this game, but it seems like NIMBY means 'anyone who is against any development proposal'. and the proposal, of course, is perfect and makes perfect sense for everyone involved because it has, in fact, been proposed, and therefore it must make perfect sense.
i don't buy it.
the 'NIMBY' term never needs qualification. the human entities and their ideas being described by the term aren't deserving of actual attention - they're just NIMBYs, after all. dead-enders. 30%ers. haters. whatever.
the specifics of this particular situation - i have no idea about, but generally speaking, my experience with neighborhood groups is that they have something important to say. they have an expertise that outsiders lack. sure, they may be scared, and/or ignorant, and/or racists, but maybe they have valid concerns, too.
take a cruise around the urban design blogs and you'll see the acronym/slander 'NIMBY' employed several times in a single article. you might end up with the impression that the entire world is filled with self-centered, ignorant people who are unable to read or comprehend the course that their more intelligent urban planner masters have set out for them. the do-gooder capitalist developers are constantly thwarted by those scrappy, degenerate, lawsuit-filing NIMBYs, dagnabbit. why won't they just mind their own business and stop meddling?
not to pick on your first post - it's just something i've been thinking about for a while, now, and your post finally made me want to address it. the term seems unnecessarily confrontational and disrespectful, and just plain tawdry. are we trying to make enemies with people or do we want more and better good urban design advocates out there - whether they have a piece of paper or not?
and maybe i take it all a bit personally because i'm a NIMBY - just in my own neighborhood, though, which is all of planet earth.
:)
by Peter on Oct 13, 2008 6:41 pm • link • report
by Cavan on Oct 13, 2008 7:04 pm • link • report
by dan reed on Oct 13, 2008 7:28 pm • link • report
I also think you're going to find that, almost by definition, if an urban design blog is discussing some project, it's a project that the author approves of. Therefore obviously in his or her opinion those who oppose it are misguided. There's a certain selection bias at work -- if the author thinks that opposing the development is a good idea, the development (and its opponents) is less likely to be discussed.
by jfruh on Oct 13, 2008 7:29 pm • link • report
People who, say, want to keep DC car-oriented and somewhat suburban, and believe in other areas being suburban too, aren't NIMBYs, nor are people who like highways everywhere, because they are not advocating for something different for their own area versus other areas.
by David Alpert on Oct 13, 2008 7:33 pm • link • report
It's not so much that we have a higher tolerance for traffic. After all, no one like having someone else's commuters on a six lane road in your backyard every day. It's more that people saw that Silver Spring (and Bethesda) were developed/redeveloped in a walkable manner and traffic really didn't increase. Another big kicker is that a lot of people who go to Silver Spring use the Metro. Finally, one thing that Wheaton has is plenty of empty garages. There is actually too much parking currently.
The final factor, in my opinion, is that people are now seeing Metro stations as centers. The success across the region of having Metro stations as centers of (walkable) activity has gone from being a novel idea to being something closer to an expectation.
by Cavan on Oct 13, 2008 8:05 pm • link • report
We've all seen them! (they're oftentimes are best friends, neighbors, and relatives!)
by Lance on Oct 13, 2008 11:13 pm • link • report
In
My
Back
Yard
i
s
m
by Lance on Oct 13, 2008 11:15 pm • link • report
However, What I find to be the biggest deterrant to real walkability is a problem also faced in Silver Spring: 6 lane high traffic roads bisecting the city. I know some improvements have been made in the last 10 years, but risking my life crossing University Boulevard, Georgia Avenue, and Viers Mill Road is one of my most vivid memories of high school.
Of course, traffic may be too high in the town to call for removal of a lane in each direction on those roads. Perhaps more street parking during non-rush hour along with some median trees (So long as Leggett doesn't block them). But improving those streetscapes would be my #1 issue for increasing density in Wheaton.
Also, are there any plans to turn the mall into a mixed use set-up like they're (allegedly) trying to do in Laurel and a couple other places? That might improve density and walkability as well as connectivity to Kensington and other neighboring towns.
by Dave Murphy on Oct 14, 2008 3:07 am • link • report
I completely agree with you about the big roads. I don't think they kill walkability, though. Drivers slow down when the buildings come up to the sidewalk rather than being set back behind parking. The activity tells them they need to be cautious. The new buildings, specifically on University between Georgia and Viers Mill come up to the sidewalk in an urban manner. To me, that's the low hanging fruit of the pedestrian safety issue. We need to get urban forms into the Sector Plan so there is more activity on the sidewalk. Drivers will then slow down. Also, once there is more activity, it will be easier to argue in the future for further traffic/pedestrian safety measures.
by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 10:04 am • link • report
I read through that last post, and immediately latched onto Kim's first comment - which made perfect sense to me. I was actually surprised to see you, David, so dismissive of it. But, that's up to you. If you've always used the term NIMBY in exactly and only those cases that deserved it (and none of us commenters would know your project details, of course - an impossible request of Kim on your part), then I don't have a problem with it. I might disagree on whether that was appropriate strategy, but that's about it.
I also figured out why NIMBY has a negative connotation - why it could even be used as a pejorative term. There is, of course, all the surrounding negative implications of that term - backwardness, provincialism, etc. - but the key is 'hypocrisy'. If you label someone NIMBY, you are calling them a hypocrite. If it's true, and you want that battle, go for it - do your thing, and have fun fighting it out in front of your town council.
But if it's not true, then you shouldn't go for it - it's not fair, and it makes my life more difficult as I try to convince people that smart development is the path to all that is good.
More notes:
* Huge developments are not necessary. Build smaller, high-density developments. Lower profits? Too bad.
* If developers actually cared about good community relations, they would practice them by going to neighborhood groups first. They should even sign legally-binding MoUs.
* People who live somewhere are concerned about their quality of life and the culture of their neighborhoods, and they have that right. Culture is important. If they don't care to participate in the 'economic development' of their neighborhood, then they should be able to object on any number of grounds, none, some, or all of which may be valid - and they may have nothing to do with our beloved 'density'. The NIMBYs in New London, Connecticut, for instance, didn't get the memo.
[It'd be helpful to have permalinks to comments. They're already there - you just need to drop in a character.]
That is all.
by Peter on Oct 14, 2008 11:03 am • link • report
Let’s see, GGW has advocated massive increases in heights and density in many neighborhoods throughout the Washington area, dismissing real concerns of residents of those neighborhoods as NIMBYism, but where did GGW buy a house? In a neighborhood that several has layers of protection against large increases in height and density: in a moderate density residential zone in a historic district with a zoning overlay that has a strict cap on the heights and densities allowed -- even with a planned unit development.
IMHO, these protections are very appropriate for GGW’s neighborhood, but are also very appropriate for the many other neighborhoods where GGW advocates massive increases in height and density, far beyond that which is appropriate to those areas.
Looking at the many, many times that the term NIMBY has been used in this blog, it seems that in nearly every instance it is used as a pejorative and to dismiss real concerns that GGW does not understand, or did not make the effort to even hear/read, and to stereotype anyone who does not agree with GGW’s vision of urban renewal, to replace the existing real urban neighborhoods that have developed over time with cookie-cutter mixed use developments following suburban-style form-based codes.
by Where are the NIMBYs? on Oct 14, 2008 2:12 pm • link • report
Peter: I wasn't, or at least didn't mean to be, dismissive of Kim's problems with the NIMBY term. However, Kim was claiming that I've been writing about projects I know nothing about, without ever saying how and why I was wrong.
I'm always happy to have people tell me why I'm wrong, and sometimes I change my mind. But just to say, I'm wrong because other people know better doesn't add anything to the debate. This seems like Nixon's secret plan to get out of Vietnam. I don't accept an argument that says, trust those who've lived here longer, they know what they're talking about and you don't, but we won't deign to say why.
Anyway, I've stopped using the NIMBY term, but didn't want to edit it out of this post. Though maybe I should have. I see that it raises a higher level of emotional reaction than the underlying point would warrant; it seems to lead to some people assuming that, because I called certain development NIMBYish, I must advocate for tearing everything down willy-nilly.
W.A.T.N.: Define "massive increases", please. At Takoma, for example, they want to build single-family townhouses. I've consistently advocated for more townhouse neighborhoods. Furthermore, it's never come up here, but I think there are definitely buildings on 17th Street that should be bigger. For example, the 3-story mid-century brick building at 17th and Q that holds Trio could be a taller building of comparable height to the apartment buildings across the street. A good neighborhood is a mix of densities.
And saying I want suburban-style form-based codes makes no sense, seeing as I keep railing against suburban-style form-based codes.
Anyway, I think this thread should end. I have come to agree with those that say the term NIMBY is too pejorative and should be avoided. (See? Disagreement is good.) Therefore, I'm not going to use it any more, whether to describe people who just oppose any development outright or to describe people who support development but only in other people's neighborhoods.
by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 2:30 pm • link • report
I wrote that piece. I don't throw out the word "NIMBY" for anyone who disagrees with me.
You can see my definition in my above comments on this thread.
This post was about a my town's enthusiasm for new walkable development. This was not meant to deride anyone. My post was meant to have a positive tone to it, not deride someone else. I don't live in a historical overlayed zone. I live in a slowly reviving old walkable town that has a Metro station. And, I'm in favor of all that development coming close to my house. I want to be able to walk to everything. The section about raising the hackles of a NIMBY faction is from my real life experience with planning meetings. Every one I've been to has had a majority who want to see the shiny new amenities that are in walking distance of the Metro with a sizable minority who hate everything and are constantly changing the reasons why.
There are concerns that I understand. However, when I have very calmly used real life examples of why that concern is unfounded the response I get is a different, often contradictory reply. That kind of made me wonder why someone would oppose something using contradictory reasons. I wanted to know what such a motivation is. I did not think I was talking to an unintelligent person. Then why? I use the term "NIMBY" as a description for that kind of behavior.
No one on this blog wants to ruin someone else's neighborhood. I think the lessons of the '50s and '60s have shown the overwhelming negatives of that kind of approach.
by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 2:40 pm • link • report
by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 2:42 pm • link • report
Add a Comment