Development
Toronto's "tower renewal" could point the way for East County high rises
During the 1960s and '70s, eastern Montgomery County experienced a high-rise building boom, with apartment towers sprouting up as far north as Burtonsville. A rough count shows there are over forty apartment buildings with more than eight stories in East County outside of Downtown Silver Spring, many of which are clustered in White Oak, Leisure World and along University Boulevard.
New townhouses surround a high-rise in Briggs Chaney. Photo by Dan Reed.
Today, these buildings designed for young professionals and small families fleeing the city are showing their age at a time when everyone's moving back downtown. Not only that, but forty-year-old high-rises aren't very energy-efficient. In Toronto, Canada, which has over a thousand such buildings, Mayor David Miller has launched a project to bring them into the twenty-first century.
Dense but often surrounded by generous lawns, these "towers in the park" can be isolating for their residents. Entire neighborhoods filled with these buildings and lower-density garden-style apartments are too diffuse (and often too poorly connected) to provide easy access to shopping and transit.
The Mayor's Tower Renewal initiative has two goals. First, make the buildings "green" with extra insulation and replacing obsolete materials. And second, to find new uses for the land around the buildings, whether it's as public parkland, vegetable gardens, or for amenities like rec centers, shops and restaurants, or even offices. This is how architect Graeme Stewart, who began developing this concept as a grad student at the University of Toronto, describes it:
Right now neighborhoods offer residential density, but they're employment and service deserts. The idea that to solve it, you would add more density seems sort of strangeThis seems like a proposal ready-made for East County's apartment towers. "Filling in the gaps" between high-rises would provide extra income for landlords and developers; reduce car trips by locating amenities where people already live; offer places for kids to hang out; and provide space for small businesses to locate (not unlike my "shop-house" proposal last year), generating jobs in a community that definitely needs them.— and I think that's going to be the biggest point of contention to the neighboring areas — but at the same time, during early engagement with the communities, people are saying, "I'd like a grocery store," "I'd like to be able to open up a small business." It almost seems like a no-brainer. The fact that these neighborhoods have been ignored and stayed the same for so long is actually what's weird about them.
The above Census map depicts the average household income in White Oak by color, with darker green representing wealthier areas. It shows that residents of the Enclave and White Oak Towers, two 1960's-era high-rise buildings, are poorer than their counterparts in surrounding single-family neighborhoods. They are wealthier than people living in White Oak's more affordable garden-style buildings, but this may be because high-rise apartments are more expensive to maintain and thus charge higher rents.
Places like White Oak and Briggs Chaney have been maligned for creating congestion and "demographic shifts" in East County, while their residents are isolated from the larger community and even from people living in the next apartment complex. Tower Renewal, or whatever you'd like to call it, could transform areas like White Oak and Briggs Chaney into vibrant neighborhoods and "town centers."
We're already seeing elements of Tower Renewal in this area. Lofts 590, a new building in Crystal City, returned low-rise scale to a '60s-era complex of apartment towers in a park. And in Briggs Chaney, townhouses were built around the Waterford Tower on Castle Boulevard, giving existing residents an opportunity to "move up" into larger housing without leaving the neighborhood.
Neither of these projects go quite far as what's being proposed in Toronto. They're still isolated from the community and do nothing to address the issues of accessibility and energy use. Still, they show that developers and neighborhoods alike are open to the possibilities of recycling the "tower in the park."
 | A planner and architect by training, Dan Reed is interested in suburban retrofits. Dan works for the Friends of White Flint, writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. Dan lives in Silver Spring.    |
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
When I read the first paragraph, I The Enclave came to mind immediately.
by цarьchitect on Apr 29, 2009 9:40 am • link • report
by Vik on Apr 29, 2009 9:58 am • link • report
by rockville on Apr 29, 2009 10:10 am • link • report
by RichardatCourthouse on Apr 29, 2009 10:53 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 29, 2009 10:57 am • link • report
>> Seriously, are you advocating here that nice green landscaping be changed into buildings? Sigh.
For someone who comments on this blog as often as you it's astonishing that you're missing the point. Dan doesn't merely want to change nice green landscaping into buildings. However to revitalize the area into mixed-income walkable urbanism the towers in the park land use needs to change. The current land use is autocentric. Short of leveling everything and starting over, which is not feasible, repurposing some under utilized green space can be the fastest path to changing land use. Hopefully with some of these projects the parking lots can also be developed.
by Paul S on Apr 29, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 29, 2009 12:35 pm • link • report
First thing: Narrow the roads, make space for continuous bike lanes, and widen sidewalks.
Second: Force complexes to create interconnections for bikers and pedestrians, but increase the private garden feel of the green areas. Place grills and benches.
Third: Get some quality transit in there. Once the transit is established, transfer excess parking into more green.
Fourth: Force the complexes to include some retail on their ground level. Get a small supermarket in one building, some restaurants in another, etc.
What I am rebelling against is this notion that the world will be perfect if we all live in "mixed used urban town insertyourownhipwordhere centers". The world does not need to be one big Rosslyn-to-Ballston or Pentagon-to-Crystal City. What those places lack more than anything is green quiet space.
I guess I have never understood there can't be mix of the good things of suburban life (space, green, quiet) with the good things of high rises (density, retail, transit). I figure that if you put two midrises on top of each other, you get a nice free garden on the place where one was standing. Better: put three on top of each other, and get an even bigger garden. If you want mixed income use, make larger and smaller apartments in those high rises.
My ideal living surrounding would be high rises with retail in the ground floor, with large garden like parks for inhabitants between them. It would even be better if you could get some office space in the high rises too.
However, I am allergic to anybody who wants to take a single blade of grass away from urban areas. You get density from building up, not from reducing the spacing between buildings. And nothing good comes from reducing green in cities.
by Jasper on Apr 29, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report
a) there's a relative proximity to shopping and jobs in Rockville or Bethesda, even if it's not walkable, because of the Red Line/270/355 - meaning residents here aren't as "isolated"
b) these buildings were built and marketed as luxury properties and have remained so. East County apartments may have been considered high-end at one time but cater to a significantly different demographic now
c) the Grosvenor buildings have a direct relationship to Rockville Pike, making it considerably easier to form an urban "spine" there. Route 29/Columbia Pike is basically a highway, so not only do buildings not orient themselves towards it, but any attempt at incorporating them into an urban fabric will be much more difficult.
This is as much a demographic issue as it is one of urbanism. The City of Toronto probably wouldn't be able to do what they're trying to do in wealthier neighborhoods because people there already have what they need and would resist any attempts to change that.
by dan reed on Apr 29, 2009 1:02 pm • link • report
How are you taking an existing 1960's residential building and forcing it to put a grocery store on the ground floor? Where will the residents and the grocery store patrons park? That approach for reuse is not going to happen.
For you to maintain all your green space and add density & retail everything would have to be leveled and rebuilt taller. That's something entirely different and drastically more costly than what I believe Dan is suggesting. It's also a model that sounds like old failed urban renewal strategies only taller.
by Paul S on Apr 29, 2009 1:22 pm • link • report
http://imaginedc.blogspot.com/2009/04/imagine-grosvenor.html
by Dave Murphy on Apr 29, 2009 3:24 pm • link • report
It might not end up looking like your average 28 register Giant in an autocentric ugly strip mall, but that's not the model we're looking for here anyway, is it?
People can park on the parking lot. Furthermore, supermarkets, I guess I should say grocery stores, have been surviving for centuries in Europe with little or no parking. Quite frankly, so do some supermarkets in DC.
I am surprised that you now are using an autocentric argument against me. Why would you need a car, if you live on top of, or next to a supermarket? If we want to live somewhere that's not autocentric, we're also gonna have to find retailers that don't want to be autocentric.
It's not impossible. It is happening right now. In Europe. In Asia. In South-America. All over the world. The US is the autocentric outlyer. Not the frontrunner in novel car-unfriendly design.
by Jasper on Apr 29, 2009 4:19 pm • link • report
I feel like your playing Sim City rather where extending transit or redeveloping a property happens instantaneously a click of the mouse rather than considering what realistically could be tenable financially and politically for these sites.
by Paul S on Apr 29, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 29, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report
People will not loose their carcentric lifestyle if nobody is willing to show them that you really can do without, and in a more pleasant way. Somebody has to invest in the first step. If nobody does, we can stop this discussion.
by Jasper on Apr 29, 2009 5:08 pm • link • report
by Bob Force on Apr 29, 2009 8:26 pm • link • report
by Rich on Apr 29, 2009 8:28 pm • link • report
Additionally, there are 2 Safeways, 2 Giants and a Superfresh within 2.5 miles.
by Desk Jockey on Apr 29, 2009 11:48 pm • link • report
Add a Comment