Greater Greater Washington

See White Flint's Pike + Rose development under construction

Today, the Montgomery County Planning Board reviews plans for a second phase of Pike + Rose. Meanwhile, the first phase of the new urban neighborhood at Rockville Pike and Montrose Road inches closer to opening next year.


Grand Park Avenue, one of several new streets in Pike + Rose. All photos by the author.

When finished, Pike + Rose will have housing, offices, shops and restaurants, a high-end movie theatre, and a hotel, along with several public open spaces. A redevelopment of a 1960's-era strip mall, it'll be multiple times the size of developer Federal Realty's other projects in the area, Bethesda Row and Rockville Town Square.

According to Evan Goldman, Federal Realty's vice president of development, the first phase will start opening next year. In the meantime, let's visit the construction site.


Bricks going in at PerSei.

Back in July, the first of three buildings in the first phase, a 174-unit, five-story apartment building called PerSei, topped out. Units here will start renting late next spring, Goldman says. You can see cream-colored brick going in on one side.

Like many new apartment buildings, PerSei has been designed to look like a block of smaller buildings. The windows on Old Georgetown Road and Grand Park Avenue, one of several new streets, are more modern, with large panes and less ornamentation. But around the corner, the windows have smaller panes and more detail, almost like those on a warehouse.


11800 Grand Park Avenue. The movie theatre and music venue will be on the right-hand side.

Across the street, 11800 Grand Park Avenue, an office building, has topped out as well. It'll open in fall 2014, along with 150,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space in both buildings. 75% of the retail is already leased and will include a high-end iPic movie theatre, a music venue operated by Strathmore, several restaurants, and a Sport & Health Club.

Read on and see additional photos at the Friends of White Flint.

Dan Reed is an urban planner at Nelson\Nygaard. He writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. He lives in downtown Silver Spring. All opinions are his own. 

Comments

Add a comment »

From the looks at the pictures, it appears that all of the buildings will be short and stumpy, all the same height, and will look alike.

Just like all the new buildings going up in DC :(

by ceefer66 on Oct 10, 2013 10:38 am • linkreport

Still beats acres of asphalt parking surrounding 30' tall boxes set way back.

There is something seriously wrong with a design/build philosophy where it is nearly impossible to shop for two different things in a commercial district without getting into a car.

by Crickey7 on Oct 10, 2013 11:23 am • linkreport

Well, just about everyone can walk...

Duh.

by ceefer66 on Oct 10, 2013 11:40 am • linkreport

The mall being replaced didn't have "acres of asphalt" - at least not much, since the complex had garages.

And yes, the complex was set back. At the time it was built, that's how it was done. Once inside, people could walk from store to store, just like they will be able do in the new complex.

Pretty much makes the assertion of "having to drive all over to shop for two different things" a canard.

Then again...

by ceefer66 on Oct 10, 2013 11:44 am • linkreport

"Pretty much makes the assertion of "having to drive all over to shop for two different things" a canard."

You can certainly walk within a mall. The problem typically comes when you want to walk FROM a mall or shopping center to another location nearby, since historically there is not good ped connectivity between. Thats not intrinsic to enclosed malls necessarily, but to the street design.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 10, 2013 11:55 am • linkreport

On da Pike, you run into the same problem they have in Tysons. When you cannot buy lunch or a bottle of aspirin without getting into a car. The system of roads feeds from local to collector to a handful of arterials, so becomes impossible to avoid congestion at least 3 times a day. People spend their lunch hour in their car, out of necessity.

by Crickey7 on Oct 10, 2013 12:03 pm • linkreport

What about the Lord & Taylor lawsuit - is it holding up progress?

by McNickyPicky on Oct 10, 2013 12:22 pm • linkreport

Maybe, just maybe people like their cars instead of walking especially when it is 25 degrees or 105 degrees outside. There is no way possible to convince the mass American majority to abandon their cars to walk, bike, ride bus, or trains especially of they have multiple places to travel that requires driving.

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 12:35 pm • linkreport

Circular logic. We need cars because you can only get places in cars so only build places that are well suited to getting around in cars. If you can't walk a mile in 25 degree weather, while properly dressed, you should probably reassess your health and exercise priorities, because our ancestors did much more for tens of thousands of years just fine.

by BTA on Oct 10, 2013 12:46 pm • linkreport

That and lots of people choose to walk when it's the best option. But that doesn't happen out if nowhere. You have to plan for an accommodate it.

by Drumz on Oct 10, 2013 12:58 pm • linkreport

We are in the 21st Century and no matter how hard its been tried there is no way we are going to retro back to the 19th Century....

It is not going to happen....

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 1:03 pm • linkreport

no of course not - our 21st century walkable urban places will be very different from 19th century ones - they will have WiFi, electric car charging stations, carbon fiber bikes, etc, etc.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 10, 2013 1:05 pm • linkreport

"Maybe, just maybe people like their cars instead of walking"

Many do. They will still be able to drive.

"especially when it is 25 degrees or 105 degrees outside."

There are very few such days. But there are still going to indoor malls for those who prefer to avoid the elements entirely.

" There is no way possible to convince the mass American majority to abandon their cars to walk, bike, ride bus, or trains especially of they have multiple places to travel that requires driving. "

well first, you dont need to abandon your car. My household has a car, and we do use it - but also transit, walking and biking. Second, the issue in this thread is not the mass of Americans, but people living, working, and shopping in one part of central MoCo.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 10, 2013 1:08 pm • linkreport

The issue is choice. Now, people in non-walkable communities lack choice.

Personal mobility options are evolving--it's not just walking. Citibikes, electric bikes, walking, car sharing, transit and cars--the redeveloped areas will emphasize flexibility, rather than a design/build philosophy that represent an investment in one mode only.

by Crickey7 on Oct 10, 2013 1:15 pm • linkreport

"We are in the 21st Century and no matter how hard its been tried there is no way we are going to retro back to the 19th Century...."

You don't have to try, it's happening by itself.

by Thayer-D on Oct 10, 2013 1:22 pm • linkreport

@McNickyPicky

That's a roadblock for White Flint mall redevelopment, not Pike & Rose.

by Rob K on Oct 10, 2013 1:31 pm • linkreport

We've had cities and transportation long before the 19th century anyway.

But as AWITC points out, this isn't about America at large but the particular facts at this part of MoCo. Lots more people will be walking around than there were before because it's designed for that. We have examples of doing this locally (Clarendon being the biggest one, a lot of Silver Spring being a closer one) and in the 20th/21st century.

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 1:33 pm • linkreport

I'm continually amazed by how offended some people get when they see development that doesn't appeal to them.

There are plenty of places you can drive to that aren't walkable at all. There will continue to be many of them in the area. But what we have consistently seen in the past decade or so is that, holding other factors constant, the more walkable a new development is, the more successful it is.

by Gray on Oct 10, 2013 2:03 pm • linkreport

We are in the 21st Century and no matter how hard its been tried there is no way we are going to retro back to the 19th Century

Ask anyone in the real estate business and they will tell you the 21st century is all about developing walkable projects. Pike & Rose, the Mosaic District, the new Tysons Corner, etc. all represent the 21st century.

Sounds like you'd prefer that we go back to the 20th century -- the dated developments from the 1950s to 70s that include the old White Flint mall. There's no way we're going retro back to that.

If you want to know what the 21st century will be all about, listen to someone who's building it:

'End of suburbia' may nearly be upon us: Sam Zell
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101095397

by Falls Church on Oct 10, 2013 2:07 pm • linkreport

"The mall being replaced didn't have "acres of asphalt" - at least not much, since the complex had garages."

You're thinking of some other place. Mid Pike Plaza certainly did have acres of parking and no parking garages.

by ayjayy on Oct 10, 2013 2:07 pm • linkreport

@ AWalkerInTheCity, electric cars are the way of the future....

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 2:50 pm • linkreport

@Thayer, you can wish until the last star burns out and the mass American majority will not abandon their cars to walk, ride bike, or ride trains/buses when most people travel to more than one place. You keep dreaming of America retroing back to the 19th century but that's what it will only be just a dream and nothing more.

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 3:07 pm • linkreport

Even in the walkable communities, peopel will use their cars for lots of things, including shopping, commuting and going to social events. The difference is that they don't have to get in their car for every single one of those activities every single time. And that difference is huge.

by Crickey7 on Oct 10, 2013 3:17 pm • linkreport

Rob K. - thanks!

by McNickyPicky on Oct 10, 2013 3:20 pm • linkreport

Rick,
I have said time and time again that I don't care what Americans do with their car and I suspect you don't care about what I do with my two cars. But just imagine how much more faster that person who travels to more than one place could move without every Tom Dick and Harrietta driving to get milk, see a movie, or 101 other mundane tasks that we have to use the car for. Your presenting a false argument that no one here is having to create an us vs. them scenario.

Take one example. I want my kids to be healthy, self reliant, and socially adjusted becasue I think this will lead them to the happiest life possible. Would they be better off achieving this outcome in an ex-urb where they must be driven around or in a Street car suburb with mixed use and sidewalks?

Science has brought immesurable benefits to modern life. But the same scientific (empirically based) method that evolved many of these advances also shows that simply "up-grading" to the latest gadget isn't always the panecea business would like us to believe it is.

It's not about cars, it's about quality of life.

by Thayer-D on Oct 10, 2013 3:21 pm • linkreport

You keep dreaming of America retroing back to the 19th century but that's what it will only be just a dream and nothing more.

My friend, you're dreaming that America will not spring forward into the 21st century. The 21st century is not going to look like the 1970s. It's going to look like Pike & Rose and those areas not able to follow will unfortunately be left behind.

Most Americans want multiple transportation options because if there's anything Americans like, it's being in control and having choices. Of course, there will always be people who can't afford having choices and will be stuck with a single transportation option.

by Falls Church on Oct 10, 2013 4:26 pm • linkreport

Falls Chuch, didn't you know the ability to walk was unamurican?

by BTA on Oct 10, 2013 4:34 pm • linkreport

@ Thayer-D, whether you want to accept it or not people are going to use their cars and traffic on the streets will still exist. Removing lanes for bikes and brt will not attract car owners to use alternatives modes of transportation.

The wisest option is to expand lanes on bottleneck roads and expand rapid transit options that will operate 24/7.

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 4:56 pm • linkreport

Removing lanes for bikes and brt will not attract car owners to use alternatives modes of transportation.

Yes it does. It happens all the time.

And what happens when you expand the number of lanes on a bottleneck road and it bottlenecks again?

And what does the fact that some people like to drive have to do with the way these buildings are designed? What's it to you if some choose to walk?

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 5:06 pm • linkreport

"Removing lanes for bikes and brt will not attract car owners to use alternatives modes of transportation. "

do you beleive that no car owner rides the bus - ever? Because I own a car, and ride an express bus. Lots of people in households with cars ride buses, particularly where the bus is not slowed down by operating in mixed traffic.

and of course lots of people who ride bikes own cars as well.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 10, 2013 5:21 pm • linkreport

Rockville Pike is six lanes, eight in some places. You cannot make it any wider without making it even grimmer and more hostile to anyone NOT in a car. Further, that is investing in mode to the exclusion of all others, at a time when the trend away from driving is clear.

by Crickey7 on Oct 10, 2013 5:25 pm • linkreport

@drumz, it does not happen all the time, nice try though... In America, most major American streets have cap up to 6 lanes but no more than 8 lanes and that's if it is a partially limited acces highway like US Highway 74 E Independence Boulevard in Charlotte, NC. I don't care if some people chose to walk, run, bike, or ride buses as their primary choice of transportation that should not ever be an excuse to cut travel lanes to accommodate bike riders and brt when they can build infrastructure segregated from the main roads...

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 6:38 pm • linkreport

@ AWalkerInTheCity, yep and I ride subways too but I am not going around preaching that building new highways is the worst thing since white lightning...

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 6:45 pm • linkreport

So, there are no lanes that have ever been re-purposed and seen increases in the mode that took over? That's a bold claim.

I don't care if some people chose to walk, run, bike, or ride buses as their primary choice of transportation

ok...

that should not ever be an excuse to cut travel lanes to accommodate bike riders and brt when they can build infrastructure segregated from the main roads...

a: so then you'd rather people stay driving, and keep transit options poor. It's hard to claim you don't care if people bike or use transit if you fight improvements to the modes.
b:...because it's not always possible or advisable to widen a thru way to accommodate the number of car lanes plus whatever else. Wider roads are harder to cross, you have to actually have the space for it or knock a bunch of stuff down, traffic may not improve anyway meaning money is wasted.

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 6:50 pm • linkreport

Crickey7, trending away from driving is about as clear as the water along the Anacostia River or the East River. New York City has the best transportation system in the US Nation but yet traffic still exist along most streets which means that people are still driving...

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 6:58 pm • linkreport

Having a good transportation system doesn't mean that traffic goes away. It can mean that traffic is mitigated though. Nor does the presence of traffic mean that the best solution is expanding or new roads.

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:03 pm • linkreport

@ drumz, other alternative transportation modes can be improved without reducing car lanes on heavy used road ways. Stop playing games. Reducing travel lanes to accommodate brt and bikes is never meant to reduce traffic but to irritate people that choose to drive which will force them not to utilize that area and if you think they will start to walk, run, bike, or ride brt as an alternative then you must definately have a nice beach front condo in Colorado.

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 7:14 pm • linkreport

that should not ever be an excuse to cut travel lanes to accommodate bike riders and brt when they can build infrastructure segregated from the main roads..

In cities and dense suburbs, there's often not enough available space for segregated infrastructure. But, I agree we should build more where possible. However, even where there is space, it's sometimes very expensive. There's a project to separate bike and and vehicle traffic at the intersection of the Custis trail and North Lynn ST in Rosslyn (a dangerous, jammed intersection if you know it). Just the cost for that one intersection is about $1M.

As another example of expensive separated infrastructure -- Silver Line Phase I & II costs a combined $6B. I think it's worth it but there are unfortunately many people who aren't willing to pay for your idea of segregated infrastructure.

by Falls Church on Oct 10, 2013 7:17 pm • linkreport

@ drumz, I know exactly what direction you want MoCo to head towards but it will not become an extended Takoma Park and if that's what you are thinking then keep on dreaming because it ain't gonna happen....

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 7:18 pm • linkreport

I'm not playing games I'm just trying to examine why things are so absolute. Sometimes you can build transit and keep car lanes, sometimes not. Sometimes you can speed up travel times for all modes and sometimes you simply have to choose who gets priority. That's why we have HOV lanes for example.

You're claiming that car is king therefore we should do whatever is possible to keep it that way. That's fine but it's not without costs. Nor is the current situation optimal for planning for the future.

by Drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:21 pm • linkreport

@Falls Church, if they are not willing to pay then they are not serious about alternative transportation options and definately does not support the argument for stealing existing travel lanes for alternative transportation.

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 7:22 pm • linkreport

stealing existing travel lanes

It's not stealing. It's re-allocating. That's not a euphemism considering the entity that "owns" the road remains the same. But buses and trains hold way more people than cars so you can get a huge capacity increase just by switching up who gets the use of the lane. That makes it easier for everyone to get around.

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:29 pm • linkreport

@ drumz, do you know anything about Howard Street in Downtown Baltimore???

by Rick on Oct 10, 2013 7:33 pm • linkreport

Yes, it's one street among many in Baltimore, do you have any data that traffic became worse overall due to the light rail operating on it?

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:37 pm • linkreport

Would 66 be much better off if they added two lanes for cars rather than letting metro run in the median? Should we scrap the silver line and replace it with auto lanes? Why not judge projects on the merits rather than dismissing projects outright that may take a lane?

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:41 pm • linkreport

@Rick

"Crickey7, trending away from driving is about as clear as the water along the Anacostia River or the East River. New York City has the best transportation system in the US Nation but yet traffic still exist along most streets which means that people are still driving."
------

I honestly think that is just wishful thinking on the part of Crickey7 and the like-minded. The new trend in "walkable communities" is exactly that - a trend that exists to supply a niche market. A growing niche, most certainly, but a niche all the same. It's not a paradigm shift. There is no serious evidence of a substantial fundamental change in the housing and transportation preferences that Americans have exhibited over the past 70 years.

In fact, I don't think they believe it themselves. If they did, they wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to convince people to turn against driving and choosing to live in auto-centric communities by constantly harping on the subject, posting skewed statistics and links to biased articles, reciting slogans and talking points, and attacking anyone who dares to differ as "anti-neighbors" and "dinosaurs" who are "stuck in the 1960's".

by ceefer66 on Oct 10, 2013 7:43 pm • linkreport

How did we get here anyway, what does it have to do with Pike & Rose?

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:43 pm • linkreport

Ceefer,

I think it's the opposite. 70 years isn't anything in terms of human development. We tried seeing if we could try a different approach. It worked for a while but the upper limit of how much density could be accommodated has a much lower ceiling with an auto-focus. As the population is growing and economies are agglomerating density is naturally increasing. This means, going back to the old ways more or less.

And no one is arguing that people shouldn't drive when the conditions merit it. The argument is for changing the conditions themselves. These can't be decided unilaterally however. Inertia is a powerful thing to overcome however.

by drumz on Oct 10, 2013 7:54 pm • linkreport

In the end, these changes have nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the market, which isn't about to abandon the massive car infrastructure built by the US government (Socialism!).

"In fact, I don't think they believe it themselves. If they did, they wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to convince people to turn against driving and choosing to live in auto-centric communities by constantly harping on the subject"

I'm still trying to figure out this defensivness about people's preference to walking over driving is about, but if someone's harping, just walk away.

by Thayer-D on Oct 10, 2013 9:15 pm • linkreport

@ ceefer66

The buildings won't be short and stumpy at all. The buildings nearing completion now are only 5 and ~8 stories tall respectively, but currently being constructed adjacent to them is a 200-ft 18-story residential highrise (due to deliver early 2015).

In addition, the Phase 2 Site plan approved today includes a 165 ft residential building, a 150 ft office building, a 200 ft hotel, another 200 ft residential building, and a 288 ft office tower (which will be the tallest office building in MoCo).

Granted the last two will only be built "when market conditions are favorable" (so don't hold your breath on the 288ft office building). I'm sure you'll be happy to hear though that the development will include plenty of parking (in above-grade garages).

by King Terrapin on Oct 10, 2013 11:31 pm • linkreport

"...shouldn't any competent architect be able to design on interesting building at any height? Be better architects and design better buildings within the established context - it dosen't seem like to much to ask."

Rebecca Miller E.D. of the DC Preservation League in this week's Washington Business Journal.

by Thayer-D on Oct 11, 2013 6:56 am • linkreport

" AWalkerInTheCity, yep and I ride subways too but I am not going around preaching that building new highways is the worst thing since white lightning... "

May I suggest you discuss that in some thread where someone has actually said that? Or at least a thread that is debating a new highway? The OP seems to be about a new development. Its architecture, layout, etc. I really am befuddled what that has to do with the cost benefit of new highways. Is this new development getting in the way of a proposed new highway? Do tell. Someone DID mention that its an annoyance having to get back into your car to go from shopping center to shopping center on certain suburban strips. I personally find that to be true, and I find it to be true EVEN WHEN I've arrived by car.

Its one reason people who drive often prefer large malls to strips of multiple shopping centers.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2013 9:11 am • linkreport

"drumz, do you know anything about Howard Street in Downtown Baltimore??? "

I do.

Are you talking about the light rail? they dedicated space to the LRT to connect the much longer places where LRT runs in ex- railroad ROW. I do not know if it gets enough ridership. Willie Don sort of pushed it through in a rush, IIRC. If you feel it was a mistake, you should find some blog about baltimore where people familiar with ridership figures can discuss it. I fail to see what it has to do with the Pike and Rose development.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2013 9:15 am • linkreport

@ drumz, I was not refering to traffic data I am referring to the lack of Business growth along the Howard Street corridor....

by Rick on Oct 11, 2013 10:54 am • linkreport

@ drumz, really you are asking about I-66 and silver lining, really, smdh.... I-66 will be adding an extra lane on each direction inside the beltway and the VA 267 is already 12 lanes and they just widen the VA Beltway to 12 lanes.

by Rick on Oct 11, 2013 11:02 am • linkreport

"drumz, I was not refering to traffic data I am referring to the lack of Business growth along the Howard Street corridor.... "

Howard street has been a problem child for downtown Baltimore since the mid 1980s. At worst you can say LRT hasnt revived it. And basically corp HQ have moved from baltimores traditional downtown to adjacent areas like harboreast. Meanwhile old downtown has shifted to become more residential.

Rick - I am confused by your discussion of highway projects in Va - what does that have to do with the Pike and Rose development? Someone who posted under the handle Steve had an obsessive belief that somehow NoVa was more autocentric than Md. Are you Steve? Is this like a meme somewhere?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2013 11:07 am • linkreport

also, I am not Drumz

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2013 11:07 am • linkreport

Rick: if they are not willing to pay then they are not serious about alternative transportation options and definately does not support the argument for stealing existing travel lanes for alternative transportation.

True, the people who are not willing to pay are not serious about alternative transportation. They just want to keep everything auto-centric. The people who want alt. transpo would be happy to increased taxes or re-allocate spending to pay for it.

Would you be okay increasing the sales tax by say 2% to pay for separated transit infrastructure?

by Falls Church on Oct 11, 2013 11:11 am • linkreport

@AWalkerInTheCity, your right most people prefer large upscale malls instead of strip malls which is why most tax payers in Montgomery County likes to shop at Tysons Corner Mall and/or Pentagon City Mall.

by Rick on Oct 11, 2013 11:21 am • linkreport

Steve popped into my head as well.

Anyway the goal posts are being moved faster than I can keep up. Are you concerned about traffic lanes or development or what? You're picking random projects demandin complete answers at every turn. All because they're building development in Maryland that was designed for people to walk around.

by Drumz on Oct 11, 2013 11:51 am • linkreport

"AWalkerInTheCity, your right most people prefer large upscale malls instead of strip malls which is why most tax payers in Montgomery County likes to shop at Tysons Corner Mall and/or Pentagon City Mall. "

If you are going to change your handle, you should try to vary your posting pattern a bit.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2013 12:00 pm • linkreport

I just don't get this view that any efforts to accomodate other modes--even if it may result in an improvement in traffic conditions for drivers--has to be opposed. Not everything is zero-sum.

There is no War on Cars, no shadowy cabal. Only people who see an area for improvement which happens to coincide with a gradual societal shift in modal choice.

by Crickey7 on Oct 11, 2013 1:01 pm • linkreport

@AWalkerInTheCity, can you not accept the fact that a lot of tax payers from suburban Maryland travel to Northern VA because Northern VA has the retail that Montgomery and PG County Fail to have....

by Rick on Oct 14, 2013 8:35 am • linkreport

@ Drumz, if it is built as an agenda to bottleneck traffic then its a failure because those people that utilize that corridor where will just go to different jurisdiction where they don't have to go through bottleneck traffic.

If it goes to that then business and economic growth will be lost.

by Rick on Oct 14, 2013 8:48 am • linkreport

Well that's never happened so I'm not worried about it.

by Drumz on Oct 14, 2013 9:30 am • linkreport

@ Drumz, no one says that it has or has not happened but what I can tell you is that there are no major businesses and upscale retail shopping in Takoma Park and along the Howard Street Corridor in downtown Baltimore and that's what you folx want Montgomery and PG County to idolize, SMDH.....

by Rick on Oct 14, 2013 12:47 pm • linkreport

I think you're probably better off ignoring posters that lack critical thinking skills, drumz. For your own sanity.

by BTA on Oct 14, 2013 12:54 pm • linkreport

ditto.

by Thayer-D on Oct 14, 2013 7:52 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or