In Japan, citizens apparently have a legal right to sunlight (1972 Supreme Court decision). The first bullet trains in Japan were built a few years earlier.

Sunlight is even seen as a human right in some circles like the UN, where human rights activists are often pressuring governments to make sunlight available to jailed persons (including children).

Limiting building heights is a very good idea. There is no reason to build towering unsustainable monstrosities that destroy the landscape and the relationship of everything around them. Humans deserve better.

Building towering monstrosities that block the sun effectively casts all of us into jail, just for the egos of a few megalomaniacal architects, investors, and town planners who, by definition, KNOW BETTER THAN THE REST OF US.

It's time to pull back the curtain on towering high-rises, Towers In The Park, and other failures of urban design -- no matter how sacred.

by Peter on Jan 27, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report

That much density out there is a pretty great thing, it would seem. That area, Shady Grove-Kentlands-Gaithersburg has the potential to really become an totally new urban center, rather than merely a commuter city of DC. Of course, it would never be totally separate, but merely a satellite.

I wonder if the CCT shouldn't be treated as the beginning of another, independent transit system that would link up that area with its surroundings, as growth happens. Does the MNC-PPC have any views to this effect?

by цarьchitect on Jan 27, 2009 2:22 pm • link • report

Tsarchitect, the Maryland MTA is not allowed to consider an entire transit system, officially. FTA metrics only allow study and design of one line at a time.

Peter, the building heights proposed are similar to what is found in downtown DC. No one claims that it's impossible to see the sky in downtown DC. As for your other claim about towers in the park... that's what currently exists on the site. The plan is to turn the place into a mixed-use walkable town. There will be some medium-rise buildings in a town environment. There will also be a mixture of building heights. Not like Le Corbusier's artwork.

by Cavan on Jan 27, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report

Before we go limiting heights, can we confirm that Minoru Yamasaki is the project architect? Because I'm pretty sure he's not.

Where would you draw the line for absolute height? Khruschev said 5, Krier says 7, my mom seems to think 3 is too tall. Skyscrapers, with few exceptions are only really built in very particular situations of extreme economic consolidation, since they cost a ton of money, but in return, bring in a ton of money.

I personally think that a tower can be quite beautiful an exhilarating, but where one tower is profitable, many others will surely follow.

by цarьchitect on Jan 27, 2009 2:35 pm • link • report

Cavan, I'm just responding to what you wrote, which is a bit confusing, I think:

The neighbors around Belward Farm site are pushing for a more "reasonable" approach. While they echo the usual concerns about reducing density, lowering building heights, and reducing cars and traffic

Whatever this statement was supposed to mean, I took from it that you are being critical of reduced density and lowering building heights, and in spite of what is written, I'm guessing you are actually supportive of reducing cars and traffic.

However you feel about height limits, the current plan wants ten to twelve-storey buildings. Neighbors say they want something more "reasonable" - which you, presumably, object to - thus the quotes. The neighbors want five- or six-storey buildings. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Don't steal my sunshine!

by Peter on Jan 27, 2009 3:09 pm • link • report

In this case the word "reasonable" was a quote from the Gazette article. I don't really pass judgement on whether their demands are reasonable or not. I have actually spoken in real life to one person involved in the group mentioned in the article. She has very well reasoned views and offers alternatives and solutions. Her biggest concern is building that much space in a walkable format before or without the transit.

I tried to convey a similar concern in the post. I didn't mean to critique the nuts and bolts of the building codes. I tend to see things as how the interact within a system. In this case, whether or not the JHU Life Sciences Center is hooked up to rail transit completely changes things.

by Cavan on Jan 27, 2009 3:16 pm • link • report

I would be interested in understanding how having one station on a 14 mile extension of the Red Line will have such a dramatic effect on the ability of people who live throught the Washington region to reach this site, such that with this extension and station, 22 million square feet of space would be reasonable, while absent that station on an extension from the outermost Red Line station, only 6 million square feet of space would be reasonable.

When thinking about transit oriented development, it is seems many assume that any transit station can replace a substantial amount of travel by private vehicles, without any consideration as to the transportation needs, the capacity of the line, its reach and the time required using public transportation to reach travel between that station and other destinations. This isn't true for many residents near urban stations, nor is it true for residents and employees near suburban stations.

by Andy on Jan 27, 2009 4:01 pm • link • report

While this project and the others you mention (Reston Town Center, Kentlands, etc) would certainly be much better with transit, it's better to build them in dense, walkable, mixed-use "transit-ready" formats than to build standard sprawl or even nothing at all. Once built, these places only strengthen the argument for transit with a ready-to-go critical mass of development. When transit does arrive, they'll make it more effective from Day 1. And in the meantime, they still provide many of the benefits of TOD: they can better support interim low-capacity bus service, and even if people drive to get there, they can then walk around between uses within the development itself.

Perhaps the way to go is to cap the density available on the site without transit, but cluster it densely in a walkable format near the potential station. The plan could leave additional land near the station for potential future development. If the transit is built, additional density could be granted and the station area be completed.

From my very limited knowledge of the Gaithersburg area, it would seem another part of the problem is the lack of mixing between office and residential uses. TODs like Bethesda and Rosslyn-Ballston are successful in part because they include major office and residential uses in very close proximity, allowing a significant portion of the population to walk or bike to work. Kentlands is mostly residential and retail, while the JHU complex on its 100 acres would be an office/lab island (albeit internally walkable) if it doesn't have a residential component. This use separation is part of why transit here is desperately needed. But if JHU added residential and retail to create a truly walkable place, the area would be better off with or without transit.

by RichardatCourthouse on Jan 27, 2009 5:46 pm • link • report

There's no place to build next to NIH. OTOH, there is underutilized space close to White Flint. JHU could help Gaithersburg by providing transit from Shady Grove, something that is poorly advertised even on Ride-On's own website.

by Rich on Jan 27, 2009 8:32 pm • link • report

I agree with Peter about height limits. In some cities, tall office buildings are converting to condos. In places where people are unaccustomed to living in an apt to begin with, I would imagine living on the 20th floor would not be very appealing. BUILDING tall residential buildings seems even worse. It seems there is very little that has been thought all the way through on building tall buildings, including the fact that not many families will want to live in them.

Of course, your appeal to scale is spot on, too.

by Jazzy on Jan 27, 2009 8:36 pm • link • report

I don't understand what's wrong with building up. If we want denser urban living, we should accept higher buildings. One of the problems of sprawl is that it's low and therefor stretches forever.

On the transit: It would speak for JHU if they made quick expansion contingent on transit being available. Just tell the state that they want people to be able to move quickly between their Shady Grove and Baltimore campus. And the faster the state moves on transit, the faster they can expand. Doesn't have to be true. As long as they make a big public deal out of it, and put some pressure on the state. JHU's got nothing to loose. They should at least demand a quick bus connection to the nearest metro and MARC stations.

Transit can be built. The people just have to demand it. JHU is full of people. They can ask.

by Jasper on Jan 27, 2009 9:06 pm • link • report

The 'right to sunlight', whatever that actually is, reeks of 'positive rights', so loved by the UN. Positive rights by definition cannot be obtained without infringing on the Big 3 of Negative Rights (Life, Liberty and Property).

How do you define 'sunlight'? For example, I could live in an enclosed slum that doesn't get sunlight, but I have the right to leave the slum whenever I feel like, don't I? I don't see the need for government intervention.

The problem with positive rights, of course, is that once you get started, you run the risk of not prescribing the rights that people already had in the first place. The law, for example, never prevented me from getting sunlight. Why pass a law then?

by MPC on Jan 27, 2009 11:45 pm • link • report

MPC, you do realize that not everyone shares your beliefs about "positive" and "negative" rights, yes? And that you haven't really explained why "negative" rights are superior to "positive" rights without begging the question or resorting to tautologies?

In conclusion, oh hay sup Economic Geography.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 28, 2009 1:36 am • link • report

Furthermore, have you ever actually lived in a slum or experienced the various psychological effects of living in a slum?

I've lived in some slums, and I of course could leave for another neighborhood when I wanted sometimes, but just living in that area resulted in a "lost year" of productivity and mental health. And I had a car; I can't imagine what it would have been like if my transportation options were significantly more limited.

But then, you've previously argued that it's prima facie ridiculous to be concerned about what actually happens to minorities or the poor whatsoever, so I guess arguing this with you is beyond the point, because we come from completely different beliefs about what actually improves the human condition or whether anyone needs to be happier at all. So in short, oh hay sup Economic Geography.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 28, 2009 1:41 am • link • report

Where did I argue that the live of the poor is not worse than the lives of the not-poor?

I'd honestly like to know what unsolicited assistance taken by do-gooders on behalf of the poor has, in the long run, helped the poor without creating perverse unintended consequences.

I guess the liberalization of India's and China's economies and their recent rise in wealth has just been a terrific coincidence, right?

by MPC on Jan 28, 2009 2:28 am • link • report

As terrific a coincidence as the liberalization of Somalia's entire sociopolitical structure and its ever-further collapse as a society, yes.

There are rich and poor societies throughout the world, and while there is a correlation between exploitation and GDP, the most "liberalized" economy may not be the most healthy or sustainable way to structure a society. Healthier than Maoism, to be sure - anything is. But what of any incremental or even radical alternatives to either model?

Ultimately, tho - what in hell has any of this actually got to do with sunlight, density, and land use at a specific biotech facility? Why is it so important that you argue anarcho-capitalist ideology on a forum about public planning for a particular city?

Is it because this is the Internet and everything on the Internet ultimately devolves to Ron Paul, nuclear war and Godwin's Law?

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 28, 2009 2:40 am • link • report

@RichardatCourthouse,

I do agree that this proposal has many shades of gray. It is not wholly wise or unwise. I'm concerned that it would induce extra VMT without transit. There will also be more demand for parking without transit. As we know, more parking decreases walkablity and vitality.

I also have a little concern based on my knowledge of poorly planned attempts in TOD that never got transit in Olney and at U.S. 29 and Briggs-Chaney Rd. While I know those were projects at different times that were built in a car-dependent form, there is some residual vigilance based on those unideal experiences.

by Cavan on Jan 28, 2009 9:03 am • link • report

This discussion has trailed off the "Science City" topic but perhaps I should give you some information about this project for future discussions.

Johns Hopkins bought the 138 acre Belward Farm from Elizabeth Banks with deed restrictions for $5 million. Mrs. Banks passed away so they are now free to build on the land which is one of the most beautiful pieces of property in Montgomery County. Mrs. Banks spent her life pampering, maintaining and preserving this 100 year old farm, the Victorian home and the barns. She expected JHU to continue the legacy by making the farm something special. Instead, they have chosen to treat it as a vacant lot with a few buildings which they will work around.

Rather than using the farmstead as a focal point and designing the research campus in harmony with the contour of the land and the angles and curves of the farmstead, they hope to replicate the high rise buildings of the Biopolis in Singapore. The neighbors who have lived with the beauty of this farm are outraged because JHU will destroy the farm while packing 17,000 people on a 100 acre site.

Even with the CCT the area roads will be gridlocked. The CCT, if built, will run from the Shady Grove metro in a meandering path to Germantown and is only expected to carry 15% of the workforce.

The "Science City", which includes the Life Sciences Center and the Public Services Training Academy property as well as Belward Farm, is being proposed by the Planning Board to accommodate 60,000 new jobs and 5,000 high density housing units...on roads that are at present maxed out. The study area is less than one square mile in an area that is completely auto dependent because it is surrounded by established residential suburban communities...subdivisions with cul de sacs and limited entrances and exits.

by Donna Baron on Feb 9, 2009 11:54 am • link • report

The last response trailed off the “reality” topic just a bit. I don’t know where Donna is coming from, but here are some thoughts on this “Science City” to get back on track. First, the basic idea behind this project is a very cool one, to create a focal point for science and technology right where you already have many of the building blocks in place.

Second, with the economy on the skids, why are we not jumping at this chance to create science and tech jobs for the future right here in Montgomery County instead of in Singapore? This is not a bad place for our kids to live and work, and the Master Plan discussed above won’t be fully built out for 30 years anyway, so it is our kids we are talking about. By that time, if anyone thinks the Corridor Cities Transitway won’t be here, they are not being realistic (and I think it will be here much sooner than that).

Third, if you don’t want to allow future growth here, next to three new transit stations and immediately adjacent to I-270, where do you want it? In some cornfield in Pennsylvania? That’s the alternative. This property is in the heart of our smart-growth corridor, the existing Life Sciences Center at Shady Grove, and it is in keeping with all the local and regional plans that, rightfully, call for concentrating future development around I-270 and the Corridor Cities Transitway. This is exactly what we should be doing, and the focal point needs to be built around science, technology and research jobs, with a nicely designed, transit-oriented, town center at the core, not an old farm. Let’s start focusing on the 21st Century not the 18th.

by Ryan on Mar 6, 2009 3:31 pm • link • report

Ryan, clearly you do not live in the area of the "Science City" and do not see "the old farm" every day or you would probably have a different feeling about the destruction of the most valuable landmark in our community.

The people who live in this area have no problem with further development on the Life Sciences Center or Belward Farm. What we are asking for is sensible growth that takes into consideration that most of the subdivisions that were crammed into this area in order to create the Ag Reserve are built with very few through streets and lots of cul de sacs. That has created a car dependent area that is unlikely to change any time soon.

As I understand it the CCT has been on the books for 45 years and is trotted out to justify over-development and then put back on the shelf. Even if it were to be built it would carry a maximum of 15% of the workforce. When you're talking about adding 60,000 jobs and 5,000 multilevel housing units you're talking about a lot of cars...on already congested highways. There are only about five main roads around here and there is little being said about expanding them. I've heard no plans to do any more with 270.

One theory I've heard in regard to this project that you might not have thought about is that the density is intentionally high in order to create the type of gridlock that will force the second Potomac bridge. The community will rise up against it so the only place to put it will be the Ag Reserve. The county will then say that the only way to make the Techway economically viable would be to develop the Ag Reserve. At that point the whole argument for high density to preserve open space goes down the toilet. So, there may be some value in limiting density so this theory is not played out.

by Donna Baron on Mar 9, 2009 3:43 pm • link • report