Development
Strip malls won't help Wheaton redevelopment
In February 2008, El Pollo Rico burned down, taking half a block of downtown Wheaton with it. Over two years later, the site at Ennalls Avenue and Veirs Mill Road is filled once again. But the new shopping center, called Triangle Park, may not an improvement on what was there before.
Triangle Park was developed by Greenhill Capital and designed by Steven J. Karr. Together, they've built dozens of buildings in Montgomery County over the past thirty years, including sixteen in downtown Wheaton.
Almost all of Greenhill's properties in Wheaton are small retail strips like Triangle Park and Georgia Crossing, located at Georgia Avenue and University Boulevard and where El Pollo Rico relocated after the fire. That three-building, twenty-five space complex has four occupied stores.
Meanwhile, Triangle Park has nine spaces, five of which are also vacant. Many former Greenhill tenants There's a serious lack of vision on the part of Greenhill, who had architect Karr design a mixed-use complex for the Georgia Crossing site, then built a strip mall instead, all the while blaming the county and the community for dropping the ball on necessary zoning changes. The economic downturn killed any potential for a more ambitious project, Karr complained.
Regardless of the economy, it seems like Greenhill wouldn't have had twenty-six vacancies in their new shopping centers if there were people living and working on top of them, providing business for stores who otherwise wouldn't have enough customers. And when the market does improve, Wheaton will have lost several prime development sites.
Triangle Park and Georgia Crossing are centrally located at the intersection of three major state highways, dozens of bus routes, and a Metro station. Young, affluent singles and families are moving in - the target audience for the kind of urban center planners are trying to create here. A little foresight could've gone a long way to making these projects an asset to the community, rather than more of what we've had in the past.
Greenhill holds 41 of 150 properties in downtown Wheaton, according to this Gazette article. With Westfield, who owns Wheaton Plaza, and B.F. Saul, who was given 8.2 acres around the Metro to rebuild, they are one of just three major developers in the area.
That may make redevelopment easier. After all, the land is already assembled. But when that land is tied up by risk-averse owners who'd rather build to make a quick buck than consider the long-term possibilities, a bright future for Wheaton seems more elusive than ever.
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center











Dealing with property owners and dealing with merchants is the absolute most difficult aspect of "Main Street" type revitalization.
I am a big fan of changes in zoning to "force" (using the "nudge" concepts of behavior changes) the more frequent execution of the right type of decision making and project development.
But most zoning codes don't have the necessary provisions. And that's even in progressive places, like Montgomery County. And that is likely to be true even after the zoning rewrite.
As you say, multistory redevelopment has to be built into the requirements, otherwise it doesn't happen.
by Richard Layman on Aug 5, 2010 4:41 pm • link • report
- http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Creating_Alter_806.pdf
- http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Explaining_Res_803.pdf
do so.
by Richard Layman on Aug 5, 2010 4:50 pm • link • report
On the other hand, MoCo is the one who is supposed to make big picture decisions. MoCo controls the zoning, and could make it easier to zone for higher density (or harder to get another strip mall in Wheaton).
by SJE on Aug 5, 2010 5:18 pm • link • report
by MJ on Aug 5, 2010 10:03 pm • link • report
While I agree that some mixed-use application could have significantly improved the results, but mixed-use aside this looks like it was a missed opportunity just from a pure retail perspective.
Creative application of some basic features such as landscaping, varying facade heights, signage and awnings, focal points, public spaces (integrated with appropriate tenant uses)could have gone a long way here. This could have added value (like real tangible retail sales and rent) exceeding any additional costs in addition to creating a more vibrant addition to the community.
by Seth Parker on Aug 6, 2010 4:55 pm • link • report
Add a Comment