Am I supposed to know what a FAR is? I mean, I can guess, but no way I can get from the text what this lingo means...

by Jasper on Jul 15, 2009 3:06 pm • link • report

Oops, it's good to get the occasional reminder not to slip into industry jargon. I've fixed this. (It's Floor-Area Ratio).

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 3:11 pm • link • report

Jasper here is the definition of FAR.

by Cavan on Jul 15, 2009 3:13 pm • link • report

If FARs over 3 and transit access created great cities, Rosslyn would be the second coming of Paris.

by David on Jul 15, 2009 3:35 pm • link • report

What's that supposed to mean? Rosslyn was Arlington's first stab at a suburban-to-urban retrofit. You can see their lessons learned in Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston.

And yes, both transit and sections with FAR's over 3 are essential to great cities. Just look at Washington.

While Rosslyn isn't Paris, it is sure as heck is a lot more environmentally and economically sustainable than Olney. Even if it's not a "great city," it is sure better for the environment than a car-dependent office park.

The problem with this West Gaithersburg Sector Plan is that it threatens to seed more car-dependent office parks, rather than places you can walk and take transit to like Rosslyn.

by Cavan on Jul 15, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

David, I don't see your point. A FAR greater than 1 is a very critical part of any well-developed city. It's not the only part, but that doesn't invalidate Alpert's point.

by цarьchitect on Jul 15, 2009 3:55 pm • link • report

Wait, why do they have a maximum Floor-Area Ratio? If you're trying to create a city, aren't you supposed to have a minimum Floor-Area Ratio?

by tom veil on Jul 15, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report

So what is the next move for citizens who want to comment on the stance that the Planning Department has taken? When are the Planning Department's next meetings? Who do people contact? I mean, this is not a forgone conclusion, is it? When does the county have to act on the Planning Department's recommendations?

by Biv on Jul 15, 2009 4:06 pm • link • report

"What's that supposed to mean?"

Adams-Morgan, Georgetown, Old Town - low FARs, limited rail access. Rosslyn, Pentagon City, K Street - high FARs, great rail access. Which do you prefer?

Even in Paris, don't see many people getting excited about the high density and transit accessible office towers of La Defense.

Now look at Clarendon, which most people favor over Rosslyn and Ballston, which is not surprising seeing that it's got just 2 million feet of office space, 1/4 what Rosslyn has and 1/3 of what Ballston has.

Point is best neighborhoods are dual-use, or dual-use with office taking lower priority than residences and shops, but not mixed-use. Moreover, the tenants at Gburg West might want to offer free parking, which I can tell you is essential when you're recruiting a lot of $50-100k a year second earners, many of whom are working moms. Many can't afford full-time nannys and will quit if you move them from Fair Oaks to Ballston, or ask them to start paying for parking. The DC law firms don't have this problem because they pay employees enough for private school, nannys, subsidized parking, etc, but a lot of suburban gov't contractors are hitting a very different part of the labor pool.

If a higher density plan is economically viable for Gburg West, then I think we'd all agree that it would be better than what's proposed. But in these exceptionally well researched articles on the development, no one has looked at how higher density would impact tenant demand and the economic viability of the project.

by David on Jul 15, 2009 5:50 pm • link • report

You're confusing FARs with high densities. Adams Morgan's FAR is not that low, because most buildings take up much of their lots. If half of every lot has a building that's 4 stories, that's 2 FAR right there entirely from low buildings.

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 5:53 pm • link • report

Oops, I meant to write "confusing FARs with tall buildings."

by David Alpert on Jul 15, 2009 5:57 pm • link • report

Cavan- The problem with this West Gaithersburg Sector Plan is that it threatens to seed more car-dependent office parks, rather than places you can walk and take transit to like Rosslyn.

me- Car Dependent? Isn't the CCT supposed to run through that area where the planned Science city is being built?

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 6:10 pm • link • report

I'm still not understanding that if sciance city is supposed to be filled with car-dependent Office Buildings then what is all thew talk about the county building the CCT through the planned Science City.

Unless the plans have changed the proposed Development will be served with a Transit Line.

From looking at the planning map it I don't see the problem with locating OFFice Buildings in that Location because it will hopefully take away the need to make long commuting drive/transit to DC/Virginia. The Population in Western Montgomery County and Frederick County can definately benefit from adding more High Tech Professional Jobs to the Bethesda-Frederick Corridor.

I see it as if the state of Maryland is not going to build a second potomac crossing then they should atleast attract more High Tech Professional Businesses to Montgomery County, PG County, and Frederick County to curb the MASS Number of people Over-Crowding the existing Roadways and Transit Rail Lines in the Mornings heading to DC/Virginia.

by mike on Jul 15, 2009 6:24 pm • link • report

Since you mentioned it, most of Haussmann-era Paris has a FAR of 4-8, more or less. A typical New Law (1901) tenement in New York has around a 3 FAR at only four stories. FAR is simply one design technique, part of a host of ones that a planner needs to make good decisions.

Adding parking may improve hiring rates, if it is necessary, can be done with underground garages. The flip side of your issue with the working mothers (why call them second earners?) is that neighborhoods should be walkable to the point that the mother or father can pick up the children on foot.

by цarьchitect on Jul 15, 2009 6:39 pm • link • report

2 FAR is fairly low for an urban area. Adams-Morgan's FAR is way below the typical 10-11 you see for K Street projects. If the city ever tried to up-zone Adams-Morgan like that there'd be a neighborhood uprising.

by David on Jul 15, 2009 6:45 pm • link • report

"neighborhoods should be walkable to the point that the mother or father can pick up the children on foot"

Absolutely. In an ideal world that would be the case. But in the real world companies who lease buildings from REITs that pay significant amounts of property tax are hiring parents who can't afford nannies, live in subdivisions, and must drive their kids to day cares, doctors offices, and to play dates most of which are not in their neighborhood. This means the car is coming to work. Underground garages look better, but are about 4x as expensive to build.

I've done many pre-school drop-offs, and have never seen so many idling minivans lined up one by one. Yes, it's disturbing that so many kids have to travel in massive cars with DVD screens. But that won't stop people from choosing that lifestyle. And the same is true about the economic viability of the office parks of where many of the drop-off parents work. Their Windstars aren't going to be bumping into posts in some L Street garage.

As far as up-zoning Gburg West, that's likely to increase the cost of the project. If it doesn't impact the tenants, great, we've got enough off-ramp junk outside the Beltway. But the county has to have some evidence that such a plan won't impact the economic viability of the deal before doing that. Plus, this isn't Prince William, Montgy County pols are not usually big opponents to transit-oriented, dense developments.

by David on Jul 15, 2009 7:05 pm • link • report

Every week brings two new newsbits: Marion Barry did something, and the CCT's alignment is changing again... both for the worse.

In the end, I'd hedge my bets on the CCT being a local bus line... maybe with some different livery, but still a local bus line; probably run by Ride-On and not MTA. In my opinion: good riddance. The CCT has been meddled with by political forces so thoroughly (in my opinion) that it's become a ruin of a transitway. LRT or BRT: both have regrettably become rather lacking options.

by Bossi on Jul 15, 2009 8:06 pm • link • report

@ David Alpert (and others): Thanks

@ Cavan: The comparison with Paris is not good here. Parisians live way smaller than Americans. A friend of mine lived in an old maiden's room of 170 square feet. That was all she had. Including mini-kitchen and shower. Bathroom was shared outside. And she was a PhD working for an international charity (type Red Cross, UNICEF). It was within visible reach of the Seine though. Another friend lived next to the Centre Pompidou, and had actually a separate bed- and bathroom, but it was still barely 400-500 square feet. And mind you, that was considered a place suitable for couples. He was in academia. Neither could (or had a desire to) afford more.

@ David (not A): You raise an interesting point that I have been wondering about. What part of the new urbanism movement is young couples with (plans for) kids? The reason I raise this, is because it seems to me that new urbanism is not very friendly to their needs.

Or at least, there is no talk about it here on GGW. We never talk about schools, for instance. Some in the area are great, some are terrible. We never talk about the notion that it is very hard to have two jobs close to each other, even in an area as diverse as DC. We never talk about the need for having some safe space for (young) kids to play in (thank you cul-de-sac).

PS: I am not trying to start a flame war here. This is a serious concern.

by Jasper on Jul 15, 2009 9:19 pm • link • report

Absolutely. In an ideal world that would be the case. But in the real world companies who lease buildings from REITs that pay significant amounts of property tax are hiring parents who can't afford nannies, live in subdivisions, and must drive their kids to day cares, doctors offices, and to play dates most of which are not in their neighborhood. This means the car is coming to work.

In the real world today, I agree. it's a fact of life. However, this plan is not for today; it's for 20, 50 years from now. If we meet the needs of today, of the committed status quo, then that ideal world will never become real. The point of planning is to effect better development, so that the desired world is possible at all.

Underground garages look better, but are about 4x as expensive to build.

They don't just look better, they don't make areas unwalkable, they don't take up valuable land near transit, they don't overheat or pour hot, greasy water into the watershed, they allow the architecture to make a meaningful impact on the form of the area, and lastly, they don't act as an incentive for driving.

I've done many pre-school drop-offs, and have never seen so many idling minivans lined up one by one. Yes, it's disturbing that so many kids have to travel in massive cars with DVD screens. But that won't stop people from choosing that lifestyle.

But there are various reasons people choose that way of life. Often it's because they're forced by laws restricting density and government subsidies of homeownership and freeways. The socio-cultural force that embraced suburban life is definitely there, but townhouses are illegal in most of Maryland. Often times this consequence of stupid regulation is the only kind of house people can afford because of artificial scarcity closer in.

And the same is true about the economic viability of the office parks of where many of the drop-off parents work. Their Windstars aren't going to be bumping into posts in some L Street garage.

Viability is a long term gamble as well. By the time these plans come to fruition, those kids will be in high school at the least, and new families will be buying new homes and looking for convenient jobs. If we plan to encourage, not forbid, urban development, then those parents can have the option of walkable neighborhoods and access to transit. If we don't then we'll get stuck in the cycle.

I'm not sure of this assumption about where employees work. For example, most government employees, who have good maternity leave, flex-time, and part-time options that are great for parents, do not work in office parks and indeed have to use garages. Of course the GSA's office acquisition is totally FUBAR, but whatever.

As far as up-zoning Gburg West, that's likely to increase the cost of the project. If it doesn't impact the tenants, great, we've got enough off-ramp junk outside the Beltway. But the county has to have some evidence that such a plan won't impact the economic viability of the deal before doing that.

It will increase the cost of land value, due to higher possible ROI. But not prohibitively so, and that would simply slow development, not kill it. The effect on land value is reduced in this case by developers already owning much of the land. If tenants truly do not want to move there, then the prices will go down. If the land is so valuable, that only proves that more density is right here, or that other sites are unreasonably restricted. Allowing a higher FAR will not, however, cause McDonald's franchises to pop up; in fact, most places I see that is in large, parking-lot-caked office parks.

Plus, this isn't Prince William, Montgy County pols are not usually big opponents to transit-oriented, dense developments.

But they oppose them here. Why do you think that is?

by цarьchitect on Jul 16, 2009 12:27 am • link • report

Jasper to add on to our concern. I've always wondered why the areas that is suppsed to be "New Urbanism" tend to have Very High Price(non-Affordable) Apartments and Single Homes.

Take DC for example the new Urbanism along the 14th Street and U Street Corridor is historically a Middle to Lower Class African American Community. As of the last 10 years of Transformation I am always hear longtime residence complaining about being forced out of their homes due to rising property/rental rates and transfering affordable appartments to Condos.

If this new Urbanism is supposed to be in relations to smart growth then why are the powers that be won't allow the older homes/apartments remain affordable so that the long time residence can continue to live in their homes without worrying about being pushed out.

by mike on Jul 16, 2009 12:37 am • link • report

"But they oppose them here. Why do you think that is?"

Because they must realize the plan is not economically viable otherwise. Let's remember this is supposed to be a biotech park. Biotech companies need on average 15 feet floor-to-floor, compared to 12 feet in standard offices, to accommodate lab equipment. Moreover, they need to allocate anywhere from 10 to 25% of their floor space to such equipment. This is why urban biotech neighborhoods, like Kendall Square - near MIT and on the Boston T, and Seattle South Lake Union - zone at FARs of 3 and below, and both are adjacent to high FAR CBDs. Trying to direct these companies to a high rise will only send them elsewhere.

Additionally, many of the Kendall Square outfits, most notably Biogen, still end up leasing a lot of lab space out in suburbia along 128 and 495.

"and lastly, they don't act as an incentive for driving."

If you get 7% of the workers riding the train when its built in 10 years, that would be remarkable. A biotech office park in Gaithersburg is going to bring in drivers and must offer free parking to be competitive.

Also, in terms of subsidies. taxpayers and drivers will be subsidizing Dulles metro, and the CCT light rail is supposed to cost 800 million and carry 30k pax a day, so taxpayers will have to subsidize both its operating and capital costs.

"However, this plan is not for today; it's for 20, 50 years from now"

Yes, but the loans that finance it will need to be paid off soon. They can't send the bank a "long-term vision" in lieu of a mortgage payment. And tell the bank you expect most workers to ride a train to a high-rise in Gaithersburg, and they will ask you not to call back.

I read through the plan, and think the county is doing a good job of being as urban as possible considering the low density requirements of the industry. They're clearly trying to avoid turning the thing into another Chantilly or Springfield. Moreover, this is a hugely important industry for Montgy County, where it has been slipping against metros like Seattle, Boston, and SF, none of which are known for being overly car friendly, and none of whom tells biotech companies they must locate in high-rises.

by David on Jul 16, 2009 7:43 am • link • report

@jasper, you raise good points. The goal should certainly be to accommodate all walks and phases of life, kids, young adults, professional & working class opportunities and the cycle to leisure and aging classes.

The individual developers should be allowing for amenities such as child care facilities and play spaces for young kids, for example. While it doesn't require that much space, it certainly makes the overall offer more attractive to potential tenants and institutions.

@mike, the Council enacted legislation which places a cap on the tax one pays from year to year so as to moderate the overall tax burden on property owners. It is an issue however. We certainly don't want reborn success of communities to displace those who have remained and fought to the improvements that, ironically, can displace them.

by Andrew on Jul 16, 2009 8:20 am • link • report

@David Good post, and I agree with the Shady Grove recommendations :-)

@Mike - I second your point about the benefits of maybe reducing commuting trips by expanding the jobs base in some of the suburbs. (The only issue then is how to encourage people to live near their jobs... Do you have suggestions?) As an example, I live and work in G'burg and I calculated one day that I would pollute less in my commute even if I drove a Hummer than if I commuted from Frederick to DC in a Prius, so I think this is a fair point.

@Jasper I'm glad you raised the point about families regarding new urbanism. I chose the Lakelands (it's phase 2 of the Kentlands) largely out of consideration for my own family. If I were single I would neither live nor work in G'burg. I'll make a list of things that, as a dad of young kids, appeal to me about Lakelands (but does not apply to all of Gaithersburg...):
- I can stroll my kid and walk my dog with my wife to Whole Foods, Starbucks, a dozen restaurants, Lowes, K-Mart, etc. Sidewalks are big, they connect (no dead-ends), and I see my neighbors doing the same. Then I grab a latte and hit up any of a dozen parks or trails.
- Elementary and middle school will be within walking or bicycling range for my kids when they start attending. I see lots of kids walk unaccompanied especially to the middle school.
- Low turn-over, so you do get to know the neighbors. That's extra important for kids...
- Nearly all the roads have slight bends   and are narrow enough so that the streets are naturally slow and friendly to pedestrians
- Lots of shade trees. They make the scorching summer sun tolerable on long walks. I have friends that take their kids to malls or stores to stroll their kids. I don't get it...
- Lots of owner-run shops, so I'm talking to an expert rather than a sales clerk (Chris is great at Fleet Feet)
- If I need to dash home in the middle of the day, I'm only 15 minutes away door-to-door.
- Christmas decorations. Maybe it's just me, but after Florida and California, Christmas feels really nice here :-)
- Perhaps most importantly, everybody here knows the community is family-focused, so we parents are slightly tribal and we patrol our streets like hawks. We gossip. We try to introduce ourselves to strangers. The neighborhood watch happens naturally.
Anyway, those are some of my reasons.  I'd be curious to hear why other parents picked the homes they did. 

by Ingemar on Jul 16, 2009 9:31 pm • link • report

Thanks Ingemar. I am happy to hear such areas exist. I don't see a lot of them in the R-B corridor and between the Pentagon and the airport.

by Jasper on Jul 17, 2009 9:16 am • link • report

Jasper, Ingemar, Actually, except for roads with slight bends, Ingemar has described precisely what residents of many of DC's low density neighborhoods value about their neighborhoods. Walk through the single family neighborhoods near the Red Line stops, north of Woodley and north of Brookland, as well as some gems in Wards 7 and 8, and you will find most of the desirable features Ingemar sought in Lakelands, along with Metro access to commute to work.

But, these are precisely the areas that are placed at risk by careless application of "smart growth" theories, where advocates haven't done the hard work of actually considering the impact of the proposals on each neighborhood, or asked the hard questions about what density is appropriate, how much open space should be available for the predicted population, and how can we can retain families and a wide range of age groups in the city. Instead they indict current residents and their homes by labeling them as car-centric, while they seek to destroy the fabric of the areas, not new urbanism, but real urbanism, and replace it with a bar-centric concept of urban living.

by Polly on Jul 25, 2009 1:57 pm • link • report