Development
Sometimes, it's okay for progressives to embrace progress
Takoma Park has long been known for civic activism, dating back to the freeway fighters who stopped I-95 and I-270 from cutting through the area 40 years ago. But that culture of resistance to change could prevent the community from allowing positive improvements to take place.
Old Town Takoma Park. Photo by the author.
Writing in Utne Reader, the same publication that once called Montgomery County the "Most Enlightened Suburb," Alex Steffen notes that Takoma Park's progressive politics prevent it from being truly progressive:
One of the most unfortunate side effects of the urban activism of the '60s and '70s is the belief that development is wrong and that fighting it makes you an environmentalist.
We know that dense cities are both environmentally better and dramatically more equitable places. Walkable neighborhoods are better than the suburbs for people with a wide range of incomes, and what happens in cities that don't grow is that they gentrify and poor people are pushed out. Trying to fight change makes you less sustainable and more unfair.Sometimes, standing in front of bulldozers is the right thing to do. It's likely that Takoma Park wouldn't have become a sought-after place to live if it were carved up by highways. And sometimes it's harmful, like the efforts of some residents to block a housing development adjacent to the Takoma Metro station back in 2007.
Well-designed urban infill development in places like Old Town Takoma can get people out of their cars and bring customers to the area's struggling local businesses, which presumably are progressive ideals. Not allowing development to happen effectively enables all of the things progressives say they don't want, such as more driving, more gentrification, more suburban sprawl, and more destruction of farmland.
Greater density would in fact support progressive causes, according to Takoma Park resident Victor Reinoso. He says that there would be more progressive businesses, such as the TPSS Grocery Coop, and the ones that exist would get more business, if his neighbors didn't oppose greater density at every juncture.
Not all progress is bad. It's the mark of a true progressive when they can tell the difference.
 | 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
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html
by Douglas Willinger on Feb 21, 2012 12:37 pm
People still rail against the glass boxes being passed off as cutting edge, while average people continue to dispise them. Takoma park recently had a very nice infill apartment building (The Gables) go up on Blair road, and I'd venture to guess if more infill tried to be as pleasant and sympathetic to it's surroundings, there's be a lot less nimbys. For that to happen though you'd have to once and for all move beyone the modernist paradigm that still dominates our archtiecture schools, but for obvious reasons, this evolution will continue to be slow and painfull. Too bad architects give themselves these self inflicted wounds, when if they'd just listen to the people they build for, we might actually build neighborhoods and buildings worth preserving 100 years from now.
by Thayer-D on Feb 21, 2012 1:17 pm
by grumpy on Feb 21, 2012 1:33 pm
I would really like to see a small grocery store, maybe a Yes Market, be located somewhere in the near vicinity of the Takoma Metro station. Maybe in one of the new buildings under development (which are also in DC, not Takoma Park). The Takoma Metro station has a HUGE pedestrian modal share and there isn't a single grocery store within reasonable walking distance, in either DC or Maryland.
The Takoma Park/Takoma, DC area is a great area to live in except that for a walkable community, useful retail is fairly lacking.
by godzilladc on Feb 21, 2012 1:53 pm
by Crickey7 on Feb 21, 2012 2:43 pm
Conversely, there has been support in the neighborhood for the new building on the corner of Carroll and Maple Streets. The plans for that building show an underground garage, with fewer spaces than there are apartment units, and street-facing retail. That corner used to have a 'mechanic' (chop shop) and a truck rental outlet, but it's been vacant since 2005 and it's been a hole in the ground since mid-summer. Also, while many people opposed the CVS when it was proposed, others simply wanted a more urban design, with parking in the rear, rather than facing Carroll.
by stitchbones on Feb 21, 2012 2:51 pm
The one-size fits all approach is being slapped on and made to fit what appears to be another neighborhood dispute. That size is GGW's knee jerk reaction against opposition to overscaling.
Thank you Thayer D for being the voice of reason.
I'm so tired of this blog going on about anti-neighborism...
It's so...over. FIND ANOTHER APPROACH.
by Jazzy on Feb 21, 2012 6:52 pm
by Miles Grant on Feb 21, 2012 8:21 pm
I would also suggest that "the razing of the community" at Metrowest was not the negative thing it sounds like, but thats off topic to TP.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 21, 2012 10:30 pm
I loved the charm of ignorant NIMBYism, the housing stock, and the trees. But, I feel like I'm living in a more unified community now, and that's just strange.
by contemna on Feb 21, 2012 11:28 pm
Hey, a quick Google on "Takoma" shows that I'm not alone in this!
by davidj on Feb 22, 2012 12:56 am
davidj is correct. The community is spit by the DC border. Takoma Park is an independent municipality in the state of Maryland, and Takoma is the neighborhood on the DC side.
http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/
http://takomadc.info/
by contemna on Feb 22, 2012 12:55 pm
by godzilladc on Feb 22, 2012 1:28 pm
Seth Grimes
by Seth Grimes on Feb 23, 2012 1:39 pm
Of course, the folks who opposed the townhouses at Chelsea Court in Silver Spring complained that they had two-car garages and extra streets as well, thus undermining the "pedestrian-friendly" aspect of the development. I'm not sure if that's true. Plenty of rowhouses in DC have parking spaces or even garages, but as David wrote the other day, there's a high proportion of people who don't drive.
While I agree that it's important to build things that discourage auto use, building a dense development next to a Metro station is the best way to do that, even if the residents have garages. All of the recently-built buildings around the Takoma Metro have some parking. Some residents want to bring a car, especially because there are relatively few amenities within walking distance in Takoma Park. Or even if they don't have a car, they might want a garage for storage.
And besides, new houses are required by MoCo (and in the Takoma section of DC, if I'm not mistaken) to have parking, so the issue is really with the zoning code.
I don't think my post was misleading at all. The group of residents who opposed the development at the Metro because there was parking, though it was required by zoning and one could argue that at least some residents would want it. So they got nothing instead.
by dan reed! on Feb 23, 2012 2:08 pm
Seth
by Seth Grimes on Feb 23, 2012 2:25 pm
The examples and arguments applied here are just as valid in any number of metro stops in the region so why pick on TP? It reads more like a grudge than an argument.
Also, I want to second (third?) the comments above by readers that want to know why cookie cutter mixed use luxury apartments at every metro stop is the only way to promote livability. As and example: Why do we need a Yes! market at the Takoma metro stop? why? The TPSS co-op is less than a mile from the station. It's even on the same road. For people concerned about walkability I was...bemused by the unwillingness to leave the immediate area of the station.
by Alger on Feb 24, 2012 12:27 pm
The point of putting a Yes! or other retail near the Metro station is that it's in the dead center of everyone's walk home, thus making this retail most convenient for the most amount of people.
by godzilladc on Feb 24, 2012 12:36 pm
Seth
by Seth Grimes on Feb 24, 2012 12:40 pm
a. for someone carrying groceries, a 1 mile walk can be quite significant.
b. you can't build old units, only new ones. The market isnt there for new units that dont come with amenities - the costs of the amenities are small versus the incremental rent, so thats what the market delivers. Apts give you more units close to the metro than townhouses, and townhouses than SFHs. Multiuse means more things within walking distance of residences, and make the residences more attractive. if cookie cutter means the architectural style, there are only a few areas where local govts have legal authority over architecture.
As for the pooled parking - does the zoning code allow for that, wrt townhouses?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 24, 2012 12:41 pm
a. I walk everywhere in Takoma Park. I walk to the station, I walk to the TPSS, I walk to the farmers market, I walk to the Shoppers, I walk to the Rite Aid, and I walk to the library (DC and the city's). None of these destinations are less than a mile from my home, and I am usually carrying significant weight during those walks. I can accept that I am not the normal, but no one will walk more than a mile? Isn't the whole point of this brave new world to get people out on the streets?
I say it again; I am bemused by people who claim to be encouraging walkability but are daunted by perfectly walkable distances (40 minutes ~ 3 miles in this case). I expect better of the readers of this blog. This objection replicates a key component of the thinking driving automobile centered development for 60 years now.
I am not opposed to a Yes! market near the station, I would just hate to see the TPSS disappear because Yes! has deeper pockets and a lazy (but progressive!) clientele.
And since you seem fond of market-driven answers, maybe Takoma Park is the way it is because there are enough of us live there who don't mind walking more than 1000 ft. to buy soy milk and organic eggs. THIS is what I mean by cookie cutter development. It's this lowest-common-denominator chain-store group-think that has taken over planning that I dislike. Not everyone want the same things out of their neighborhood. Which leads me to...
b. You misread my objection. Let them build all the mixed use development the market will bear around the metro. I agree it would lead to a healthier neighborhood overall in an unexciting area right by the metro, especially south of the station. My objection to the cookie cutter junk is that it replicates a debased version of mixed use. This development isn't doing what it's supposed to do.
Put shortly, the original ideal of mixed use was a mixture of housing types and living environments that would appeal to all types and residents while encouraging long residential tenure and vital streetscapes. This ideal long ago devolved into high density development with a CVS and a Chipotle on the ground floor. This appeals to some, but not all of the city's residents. I have lived in this cookie cutter development at another location, and I have lived in Takoma Park; of the two Takoma Park as it is comes much closer to achieving the mixed use ideal. This shouldn't be read to mean I am opposed to change in TP (as this posting suggests I am inherently since I live in TP and like it as it is). It does mean that I haven't drunk the New Urbanism koolade to the point that I think U Street is a model for regional development.
Funny how these are the points that got called out for comment.
by Alger on Feb 24, 2012 3:11 pm
1. people differ in how far they will walk, and their willingness to walk depends on purpose. I will walk farther for my commute, with little weight, than I will without. groceries are not only about weight, but about perishability (yes, I know some would say carry a cooler to the grocery store - not everyone chooses to) I dont think its reasonable to expect everyone who values walkability to be the same as you, nor does it make sense for people here advocating policies to ignore what people actually do. It SOUNDS like you are mostly concerned with the possibility that a chain will out compete your TPSS. I sympathize, but I think invoking the power of the capitalist state to defend your preferences introduces some contradictions. By all means do what you can with your neighbors to supoort TPSS if you like.
2. U street, last time I was there, was far more than a hirise with a chipotle. It was a vibrant place, and it does have a variety of housing styles. However its very difficult for new development to have the same variety of housing prices, esp, as on old town. Age of housing impacts variety, as does what was economical to build at a particular point in time
3, with regard to places where it really is just a hi rise with a chipotles - there are policy constraints, budget constraints, and site constraints of all kinds - and right now many of us are concerned to get as many people as possible out of their cars, as soon as possible. That they eat at a chain restaurant or live mostly with folks of their own age or income level is a secondary consideration. I dont consider that "new urbanism koolade" but realism.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 24, 2012 4:06 pm
actually last time I was in TP, there were quite a lot of cars parked on the main drag. My sense is that TP has been driven by interests and concerns that only occasionally overlap with the focus here on walkability. In fact google street view, suggests that not only does TPSS have a parking lot, its well utilized, including by SUVs. Maybe they all come from more than a mile away, I don't know. Now I am NOT one of those will criticize someone for driving an SUV to a food coop - the issues involved are different, and one who believes in one thing may not believe in another, or may simply choose to express their beleifs one way and not another.
Similarly it would be nice if folks who choose to live adjacent to a metro station, and walk a very short distance to a Yes organic market, are not attacked for their willingness to shop at a chain.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 24, 2012 4:15 pm
Firstly, I just want to say that I am possibly coming across as more invested in the status quo than I am. I can think of many ways TP could be better and I do not dread the coming of the highrises at all.
What I did say is that I would hate to see TPSS go out of business because of a new metro friendly Yes! market, but not for the reasons you cite. If a Yes! did open and TPSS closed as a result, that would not stop me from shopping there. But I would be sad because of the loss of a vital community institution with deep root and a history in the community. As in the loss of something that you seem to advocate. Yes, I would hate that.
And again, you have begged the central question of my comments. Here it is in clearer form with even more clarifications. Please forgive the length. It's an academic affectation to forget that people like reading even less than needing to walk to get groceries.
My central question is:
Why does the article target Takoma Park?
As in, you have a happy little town that is already far more committed to walkability and mixed use than the any of its surrounding communities, and it gets called out because there is a historic preservation district near the metro and few tall buildings?
Worse the whole argument for the city's failings in the article are built upon examples from the DC side of Eastern Avenue.
Let me be very clear why this post is frustrating to me, aside from the fact that this has become a discussion so far off of the actual point of my initial comment.
Point one:
Using your own guidelines for walking distance none of this criticism actually applies to the City of Takoma Park, since the downtown is more than a 1/3 mile from the metro station. Most of the area within the city limits is over a mile from the metro stop. So why target the City of Takoma Park?
Points two through four point five:
I am really really tired of market solutions in planning policy always standing in for replicating the same architectural motif/store combination/floor layout in multiple locations until it is no longer profitable or a new buzzword comes along. What really grinds my gears is that this is presented as a matter of expanding market 'choices'. It's not, it's lazy pre-fab development no different than the old Levittowns. It will age just as badly as Levittown in most locations because it isn't a real community, it isn't organic to the location.
But aside from my personal opinions I have to ask why, if market forces are so powerful and antithetical to Takoma Park;
a) You are asking us to worry since the current SFH fabric will disappear all on it's own.
b) You choose to ignore the city's history? It was founded as a commuter suburb at a time when people walked to the train or omnibus to get to work. That historical fabric you want to replace was designed to meet the very need you want to impose. You can't cop out with a 'but it's outdated' defense when you yourself made an appeal to the value of older housing in U Street. Try again.
c) Why does so much of DC have urban neighborhoods that look so much like TP? Especially in those neighborhoods built before car development. This is a mystery. I suppose you haven't seen it since it is too far a walk from the metro station.
c.5) As others have pointed out, the article is moot and out of date anyway since the DC section near the station already has, and is getting a lot more of, mixed use multi-story apartments. The market has triumphed already. So...why target Takoma Park?
Point five:
I have to ask. Are you really arguing that TP is an archetype of car-dependent development?
And now a response specific to your last posting.
I am amused/in love with/regret that your newly clarified position throws out exactly the parts of new urbanism specifically meant to address the issues of dead public space and car dependency, replacing it with exactly the corporate group-think that makes people fear developers while doing nothing to get people out of their cars. You then use this zombie to attack a city with a street culture, very few vacant store fronts, and high walkability (Again, Why is Takoma Park the target in this article? Really.).
You m'amigo have swilled the New Urbanism Koolade. That's when you throw out the purpose for the form of the development. In your case, and that of the article, it's koolade because it meets a market need rather than its stated purpose of building neighborhoods and community. I got enough of this when I worked in city planning and it doesn't get any easier to stomach now that I have escaped into a world of useful work.
Now a personal note; your closing appeal to realism? That, like a reference to Hitler in a conversation, argues strongly that you are not a serious person. I have chosen to ignore that fact and continue to address you as an intelligent person with opinions that respond to new information and perspectives. Please do me the favor of doing the same for me in any future reply. Just because I don't agree with you on all things does not mean that your reality trumps mine.
Hope this makes things clearer.
Best
by Alger on Feb 24, 2012 5:38 pm
Sorry, just read your last post.
Since it belongs to the "Al Gore rides in airplanes so he isn't a REAL environmentalist" variety of logic I retract my offer to take you seriously.
You are a troll of a very progressive stripe. Sorry I wasted my time.
Ciao
by Alger on Feb 24, 2012 5:42 pm
by Tom Coumaris on Feb 25, 2012 9:37 pm
and its perfectly valid to value form over use. For too long we've obsessed about the use of certain areas and look what its done to the form of our urban landscape. Valuing form enables creativity because it helps people work around things.
Also, the high rises in crystal city are not the problem. Again, you're confusing density with design.
by Canaan on Feb 26, 2012 1:07 am
Ah! The promised land is in sight at last! (That's a sunday morning joke for you heathens out there).
Although your post addresses some of the peripheral issues very well I am not not giving up on my primary question.
Why does an article naming and shaming a specific community for its antiprogressive stance on development not cite a single example from that community? [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
What I really like about your post Canaan is that it gives exactly the reason for encouraging interest and walkability around the metro that I was hoping would come up. Now I can ask the obvious question:
If the Takoma Park/DC boundary is 1/3 of a mile from the metro, and at that exact point you reach the heart of the downtown shopping district, then how exactly is Takoma Park failing? Does the city need to build a waterpark on the site of the Methodist church?
The most critical failings appear on the DC side of the boundary. Some of this will hopefully be addressed as the new development on the Carroll Street corridor matures.
May I suggest that demolition by neglect of the Takoma theater, and the dangerous state of Blair Road would be great topics for discussion instead of a principled stance against a paper tiger?
In that spirit I want to give a shout out to SiTea on 4th Street, right up against the metro station. It's the best thing by far in that sketchy commercial block.
by Alger on Feb 26, 2012 9:05 am
I did not write this post, and I would certainly not cite TP first among places where I have issues with the local views on these issues. I live in Fairfax, and I am much more concerned to change policies here (as long as I live here - it is my hope to move to DC (or maybe even to Crystal City). What got my goat was your reference to new urbanism koolade. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 26, 2012 10:06 am
by Canaan on Feb 26, 2012 2:24 pm
Click through to the supporting articles. None of them cite an example of the City of Takoma Park blocking development. That is an opinion of the author.
So now I am really curious; are there any recent examples of Takoma Park, MD, blocking multiuse development?
by Alger on Feb 27, 2012 7:42 am
Add a Comment