Comments on Mission Meridian Village shows suburban density done right - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Payton

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:00:21 EDT

Regarding the parking, yes, there are layers of underground parking underneath much of the site. Excavation is comparatively easier/cheaper to do in the West, where land prices are high and the soil is dry.

Comment by Payton

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:55:03 EDT

Interestingly, when the actual Congress for the New Urbanism visited the site for a reception, we were greeted with some unusual signs -- "New Urbanism is Urban Terrorism!!!" was my favorite.

If you get a chance to (many are closed to the public), look up some of the courtyard apartment houses that Polyzoides has designed and/or referenced in his lovingly photographed book. He has a masterful attention to detail and proportion, which is unfortunately missing in 99% of market architecture today.

Oh, fun fact: his own house includes George Hale's personal solar observatory. Hale also, as foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, led the effort to build NAS's beautiful Constitution Avenue headquarters.

Comment by selxic

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:57:08 EDT

Alai, the real estate link that Dan Reed includes in the article says "about 325" and that it's a 2-level underground garage. Other sites say 324, but I suppose that's "about 325." As was mentioned in the post, there is parking for residents, commuters and retail. At least one entrance appears to be gated.

Comment by Thayer-D

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:45:24 EDT

Respectful and beautiful. That's the highest compliment you can get as an architect.

Comment by Alai

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:24:22 EDT

324 vehicles? A parking lot for 324 vehicles would require 2.4 acres, so if that's true the underground garage would be at least two stories. Not to mention that it's almost five cars per unit. That can't be right.

Comment by selxic

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:19:21 EDT

I was a bit overzealous in my last post and probably should have stuck with well over 100 years instead of 200 years.

Comment by selxic

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:16:21 EDT

@beegirl, some of the plans say the underground parking garage holds 324 vehicles.

I wish we could define "suburban" especially when talking about "right" and "wrong." As has been noted here several times, there are different takes on what suburbs are and what they should look like. South Pasadena gets lumped in with LA, but the take on suburbs there is often different than what is in the DC area. The area in this article has a relatively urban form with a street grid that has probably been around for 200 years. The development is a single, 1.66 acre block with 67 units. The condos vary in size and look, but I'm not sure I would consider a door "private outdoor space."

Comment by jon

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:51:12 EDT

Where can I buy a book on this firms work? I know they did write THE book on courtyard housing but their architectual and urban design work is impressive.

Comment by OctaviusIII

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:36:30 EDT

Every time someone in the 'burbs paints 40 units per acre as "stack and pack" housing, I'm going to show them this. (I use Swan Lane, NW, for 45 units per acre.)

Thanks for profiling such a wonderful neighborhood.

Comment by William Furr

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:16:44 EDT

Can I live there? That's a beautiful neighborhood.

Comment by beegirl

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:01:58 EDT

It would be useful to know how many parking spaces are actually provided underground, including how many per unit.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:56:18 EDT

The point of smart growth was to show that not every trip needs to be made in a car and that neighborhoods should encourage walking over biking. I have a car (between my wife and I) and I still choose to walk or bike more places because the environment I live in encourages it, through both punitive (hard to park someplaces) and beneficial (wider sidewalks and bike lanes) means. To wit, the built environment matters, whether you're downtown or in the burbs.

/I don't think a lack of parking is innately punitive but I don't know a better word for it at the moment.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:19:07 EDT

it also redefines the entire Car Lite movement.

We live in FFX county and my wife and I have one car, which means reliance on metrorail and express metrobus and walking, and even occassional use of local buses and of bikes for transportation (or at least when using a bike for recreation, passing on the "put the bike on the car's bike rack" thing) and quite frankly we stand out from our friends and neighbors - who typically not only have a car for each licensed driver in the household, but often have a backup car "in case one is in the shop".

Car lite - IE less than one car per licensed driver/adult i the household, is a very good goal (individually, and societally) in suburbs and some other places where car free is not possible. To define car lite as owning no car would be to miss the point of much suburban change.

Comment by MLD

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:35:10 EDT

"Car-free" means you don't own a car. It doesn't mean you never use a car for anything ever. To redefine those who don't own a car but rent/use carsharing as "car-lite" is to redefine the entire car-free movement.

The point of "car-free" is to give up YOUR car in favor of shared cars because it can save you a ton of money if you use your car infrequently.

What's the difference between renting a zipcar and getting a ride from a friend, or taking a taxi?

Comment by charlie

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:07:38 EDT

Yep, Ms. D hit it. Car-lite, not car free.

Comment by dcseain

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:40:02 EDT

Very well said, Ms. D.

Comment by Ms. D

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:10:54 EDT

kk, I, too, know people who do "better" than me at living "car-free." The same type of people you know, who do not even have a driver's license. And that's all well and good, but I do feel like there's a little bit of judgement in your statement, like I don't get to call myself "car-free" because I drive occasionally (I'm on track to use Zipcar for about 60 hours this year - though that does include some long "emergencies" like the 5 hours I spent last month taking my dog to the far-flung emergency vet because he decided to EAT A SOCK WHOLE (at 8 PM, so my regular vet that I could have taken him to on the bus was already gone) - plus use a car when I visit my family since there's no other reasonable way to get around and occasionally rent cars when I take vacations that require such). The idea is not to completely eliminate automobiles. Particularly in the US, there are many places and circumstances where using a car is the most rational choice. But we can do a lot to reduce people's DEPENDENCE on cars for every little thing. Simple things like what is going on in this community, like adding density to transit-accessible neighborhoods (in quite the attractive way in this case), providing neighborhood-serving retail and services nearby or right in residential communities, improving pedestrian amenities, and providing even small-scale public transit so that basic needs can be met without ALWAYS using a car. Plus, those things benefit people who CANNOT drive. Like my grandmother, who developed sight problems late in life that precluded driving, and told me she really wished she could still walk to the corner store or take the bus somewhere so that she could get out and do SOMETHING (the corner store and buses were long gone by this point)...or my friend's mom who has a disability that means she has NEVER been able to drive, and since she lost her husband has experienced extreme difficulty in doing even basic tasks like grocery shopping or getting to doctor's appointments. The US is a big place, and we *do* like our space, but it's possible to make driving *less* important in every day life without having the density and transit of Manhattan *everywhere.*

Comment by kk`

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:48:44 EDT

@ Rich

I have a question do the people you know live 100% car free meaning they don't own nor rent cars.

I asked this because many people who speak of being car free still rent cars from time to time and the such. I know many people that are truly car free they no drivers license, can not drive, have never owned a vehicle or any type and rely 100% on public transit.

Comment by Rich

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:09:08 EDT

South Pasadena is a relatively affluent inner ring suburb and I would imagine that these places aren't cheap, even at 40 units/acre.

@MIke: LA and its inner suburbs are built on an old street car grid that extended a good dal further East than Pasadena and provides part of the template for the LA-area Metro. Particularly a long the ocean and in areas directly East, towns grew-up on railroad lines used by CalTran and Amtrak. The idea that one can't live carfree in LA is given lie by a lot of people who live in these old grid areas. Pasadena itself is very livable and I've known people w/o cars there and in various parts of West LA. I've even known people who lived in seemingly God forsaken places like Riverside who managed this.

Comment by Mike

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:52:29 EDT

Southern California is a difficult place to live completely car-free. I assume most residents of this development will still want to have a car for some tasks. The advantage of this development is, people may be able to ride the light rail to work in downtown LA, and take care of other daily activities within walking distance of their homes, using the car only on the weekends for things like visiting friends and family in other parts of the city, which you can't get to very easily on public transportation.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:43:32 EDT

" An underground parking garage, with spaces for residents and commuters, runs under the entire site."

Gosh, I don't understand. Don't we have to take away parking space from people?

Comment by Phil LaCombe

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:21:13 EDT

Not only is it respectful and efficient, it's also beautiful. I can see why it won the CNU Charter Award.